Total Motorcycle Community Forums

isnowbrd wrote:I didn't intend to speed and until that cop nailed me with his radar gun, I had actually been riding within 5 mph of the limit all day. But all it took is one nice corner that I entered legally at 55 mph but ended up with a mid corner speed of 83 mph. During which time I was looking through the corner and not at my speedometer. At no time was I being reckless or endangering anyone's life, including my own.

The speed can sneak up on you and it's easy to end up 20 mph over the limit if you don't pay attention, especially on a bike that is well suited for those speeds. It's happened to me a few times. But that doesn't make it excusable. Getting on a bike doesn't release you from the rules that, like it or not, we have to follow. We can't make the personal decision that because it won't be reckless for me to go over the speed limit then it's ok.

One or two motorcycles speeding is an annoyance. It becomes a problem when there are not one or two speeding bikes, but dozens and dozens in an afternoon.

Try to gain access to the 'favorite routes' section of any sportbike forum and chances are you'll be blocked until you've proven yourself to be a trusted forum member.

And saying that the news segment is biased against sportbikers begs the question: Why do people choose a sportbike over a cruiser in the first place? Duh! To go fast!

P

Lion_Lady wrote:Why do people choose a sportbike over a cruiser in the first place? Duh! To go fast!

P

I dunno... a lot of people around here in florida just extend the swingarm, go to hooters on thursday nights, and go "look ladies!! isn't my bike pretty!! It is so unique with my chrome handles and extended swingarm!! durrrr".

And then they just drink beer and look at their own bike, and everyone's bike who is just like theirs (read: broken due to function-impairing modification).

Sevulturus wrote:Oh an Verm, Zoo seems to subscribe to the Ad Hominem school of debate. It can be remarkably effective, especially in front of crowds, but is generally looked down upon.

Sure thing, Sev, except I wasn't trying to disprove the video clip by attacking Pam. If you had read my actual thoughts concerning the video you would know that. The Pam issue is separate and is currently being discussed. That video is no different than a negative campaign ad. Take some footage of beautiful scenery and little kids splashing in a trickling stream, then throw in some menacing noises and some dark music to add drama to your lame a$$ argument. IF it were as bad as the news made it out to be, local LEO's WOULD be cracking down. But, like I said, you can't cash in on tourist dollars by pissing off the tourists. There's no doubt in my mind that some committee in Georgia decided that a certain number of single-vehicle fatalities are an even trade for the boost they bring to the economy.

ZooTech wrote:

Sevulturus wrote:Oh an Verm, Zoo seems to subscribe to the Ad Hominem school of debate. It can be remarkably effective, especially in front of crowds, but is generally looked down upon.

Sure thing, Sev, except I wasn't trying to disprove the video clip by attacking Pam. If you had read my actual thoughts concerning the video you would know that. The Pam issue is separate and is currently being discussed. That video is no different than a negative campaign ad. Take some footage of beautiful scenery and little kids splashing in a trickling stream, then throw in some menacing noises and some dark music to add drama to your lame a$$ argument. IF it were as bad as the news made it out to be, local LEO's WOULD be cracking down. But, like I said, you can't cash in on tourist dollars by pissing off the tourists. There's no doubt in my mind that some committee in Georgia decided that a certain number of single-vehicle fatalities are an even trade for the boost they bring to the economy.

YOU SMELL BAD SO YOU'RE WRONG!!!

DivideOverflow Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lion_Lady wrote:
Why do people choose a sportbike over a cruiser in the first place? Duh! To go fast!

P


I dunno... a lot of people around here in florida just extend the swingarm, go to hooters on thursday nights, and go "look ladies!! isn't my bike pretty!! It is so unique with my chrome handles and extended swingarm!! durrrr".

And then they just drink beer and look at their own bike, and everyone's bike who is just like theirs (read: broken due to function-impairing modification).

Extended swingarms aren't impairing to all functions.

Andrew wrote:But that doesn't make it excusable. Getting on a bike doesn't release you from the rules that, like it or not, we have to follow. We can't make the personal decision that because it won't be reckless for me to go over the speed limit then it's ok.

Believe me, I didn't make any excuses for my speeding when I was standing before the judge. And I paid the ~$200 ticket. My point is, that unlike speeding, being reckless is not a black and white issue. There are other things to consider. The judge did not consider my action to be reckless. But had I been driving my full size van, I would have considered it reckless driving and endangering other people's lives.

isnowbrd wrote:

Andrew wrote:But that doesn't make it excusable. Getting on a bike doesn't release you from the rules that, like it or not, we have to follow. We can't make the personal decision that because it won't be reckless for me to go over the speed limit then it's ok.

Believe me, I didn't make any excuses for my speeding when I was standing before the judge. And I paid the ~$200 ticket. My point is, that unlike speeding, being reckless is not a black and white issue. There are other things to consider. The judge did not consider my action to be reckless. But had I been driving my full size van, I would have considered it reckless driving and endangering other people's lives.

Why does it make a difference if you are driving a van compared to a bike? Because the possibility of doing serious harm is greater in a van?

If you consider it dangerous in your full size van...oops! You were being wreckless no matter what you were driving/riding. I am certain you will see it differently because that would put you in the wrong

PS I'm coming to MN end of November...any chance of snow??

isnowbrd wrote: I think you might have a different opinion if you rode a sport bike. I totally agree that anyone driving a cage at 20+ over the limit is being reckless. And someone riding a cruiser at 20+ over the limit is just asking for something bad to happen. (However, the performance of some cruisers makes this untrue)

Doesn't really matter what you're driving. On of the main reasons that going 20+ is dangerous is because other traffic will not be expecting you to be going that fast. Cars will turn in front of you. Traffic will pull out of side roads. Other drivers will make decisions based on your estimated speed.

Some of the worse bike related wrecks I've seen were exactly for this reason. You can't really blame the cage driver for not realizing the the bike 1/4 mile away was doing 95 mph.

Did anyone notice in that video that one bike actually did make a LEGAL pass in a passing zone ?

Regardless, I think it was biased despite them saying its a small number of bikes causing all the problems.

If they wanted to present a balanced report they should've.

1. Spent time on bikers obeying the laws and not causing trouble.
2. They should've showed car accident stats as well.

I will guarantee roads like that will attract sports cars too.