Speed limiters for powerful motorbikes?

[Cloud]

Perhaps I just don't get it as I've never been into motorbikes and never will be, seems far too much like playing Russian roulette.

Cycling is worse. I've had about four motorcycle crashes and two cycle crashes and I came off worse both times on the push bike.

 

[pogofish]

ICB.

You are probably quite wrong, unless there has been a total reversal in accident trends in the last couple of years.

Reality is that the vast majority of casualties happen in urban areas, below 40 mph & usually involve right-turning traffic. I've no way of checking the current figs ATM but in 2005, the sort of accident you describe accounted for well under 20% of the total. Although it is true that certain limited areas had a higher level of these accidents due to the popular roads/brain-out/born again factor.

Also, the media love their moral-panic type stories involving big bikes, horrible deaths & shattered families, much more than they like the more mundane casualty tles. Often to the point of complete misrepresentation - My local bike club & the publisher of both local papers have been at loggerheads over their long term crappy/sensationalist reporting of bike accidents & got pretty much nowhere with them.

 

[ICB]

ICB.

You are probably quite wrong, unless there has been a total reversal in accident trends in the last couple of years.

Reality is that the vast majority of casualties happen in urban areas, below 40 mph & usually involve right-turning traffic. I've no way of checking the current figs ATM but in 2005, the sort of accident you describe accounted for well under 20% of the total. Although it is true that certain limited areas had a higher level of these accidents due to the popular roads/brain-out/born again factor.

Also, the media love their moral-panic type stories involving big bikes, horrible deaths & shattered families, much more than they like the more mundane casualty tles. Often to the point of complete misrepresentation - My local bike club & the publisher of both local papers have been at loggerheads over their long term crappy/sensationalist reporting of bike accidents & got pretty much nowhere with them.

Possibly, but that's in no way contrary to what I said, in fact I said quite clearly

My experience is that ...., but then I live in ...and work with .....

You'd have to be a total mug to have a 40mph crash around here, but there a plenty of people dicing with a 100mph+ every weekend.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I can't say I care a great deal, but I can't really see why they shouldn't be fitted really.

Whether most accidents are caused by people riding too fast is totally irrelevant, if it's still the case that some are.

So if it's a case of benefits (some people might not get killed) versus cost (actual cost in terms of money, removal of people's ability to do something illegal anyway) I guess it comes down to whether the reduction in casualties is worth the money.

 

[pogofish]

ICB

Either way, that sort of generalised attitude & selective experience is what tends to get reported as fact & acted-on. Friends have even had to face such utterly implausable crap as "factual" evidence in court & had to work pretty hard to disprove it.

 

[detective-boy]

I can't say I care a great deal, but I can't really see why they shouldn't be fitted really.

So you'd ban cars going quicker than 70mph as well then?

And planes - they crash a bit and there's no real reason for anyone to go to Majorca.

And butter.

Smoking.

Beer.

Electricity ...

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

So you'd ban cars going quicker than 70mph as well then?

And planes - they crash a bit and there's no real reason for anyone to go to Majorca.

And butter.

Smoking.

Beer.

Electricity ...

Now, I looked at that, and thought about explaining why what you're saying doesn't follow on from my post.

But I've decided it's far too obvious too be worth the bother.

 

[Radar]

I can't say I care a great deal, but I can't really see why they shouldn't be fitted really.

OK, all vehicles bar emergency services then. 70 mph across the board. Or should we trot out the streering wheel spike again I'd be happy with that as a fair exchange, especially with the remote safety belt severing option

MGO, why should all bike riders be shoehorned into the speed demon category and singled out for "special treatment" ?? I doubt I've gone over 120 mph over here in donkeys years, and that was the odd suitable spot across the Snowdonia stretch of the A5 on a dry weekday when there's sod all traffic, no peds or gates where someone can pull out on you and you can see 2/3 miles ahead in places, including adjacent fields. The bottom line is that if I fuck up or are unlucky in those circumstances only I get killed. I may leave a bit of scarring on a dry stone wall, mind you

In dodgy conditions like mist or heavy wind/rain, I'm regularly overtaken by drivers who are perfectly willing to barrel along at the 'legal' speed limit, yet there's no way that they travelling at a speed suitable for the conditions. When its really bad I've had to take to the hard shoulder and just get off the motorway before some tosspot ran over me. We've all seen the depressing sequence of winter fog and ice smashups on our motorways. However I doubt you see many bikers involved in them, we tend to be a lot more aware of conditions IMO that is the sort of behaviour that needs to be urgently addressed as it has the greater potential for public harm, and its going on all the time.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

MGO, why should all bike riders be shoehorned into the speed demon category and singled out for "special treatment" ??

Another thing I never said being read into that post.

As it goes I'd have no problem with a law putting limiters on cars either, there's no reason why what goes for one shouldn't go for the other. Maybe not at 70, but in principle.

It's not like it's something that I think is vital, or that I'd campaign in favour of. I just can't see any good reason to be against them in principle. And I thought given that nobody has actually tried to come up with one yet I might try to provoke one.

 

[pembrokestephen]

With motorbike deaths being the only form of road death rising rapidly, some MPs are saying that super powerful bikes should be fitted with speed limiters for safety reasons?

What do you reckon, folks?

There's about as much sense to it as speed cameras.

If they have a problem with Great Big Bikes, they should grasp the nettle and legislate for them. Sticking-plaster solutions like speed limiters are just stupid.

I can think of one or two things, off the top of my head, that they could do that'd probably help improve casualty rates amongst bikers, but speed limiters isn't one of them.

 

[detective-boy]

But I've decided it's far too obvious too be worth the bother.

But it isn't though.

YOU have chosen to support something ("I can't really see why they shouldn't") because YOU are not affected.

I was simply pointing out that on that basis pretty much everything could be banned, because SOMEONE, somewhere, would be saying "I can't really see what they shouldn't".

You are either (a) entirely self-centred or (b) stupid if you do not see that.

 

[detective-boy]

MGO, why should all bike riders be shoehorned into the speed demon category and singled out for "special treatment" ??

Because we're biker scum. Surely you've realised that by now ...

 

[detective-boy]

I can think of one or two things, off the top of my head, that they could do that'd probably help improve casualty rates amongst bikers, but speed limiters isn't one of them.

Were any of the following?:

1. Eyesight tests for car drivers
2. Banning car drivers from ever doing anything other than going in a straight line
3. Banning people over 70 years old from the road
4. Making higways authorities fix road surfaces (especially manhole covers on the bend apex)
5. Making spilling diesel a capital offence
6. Replacing all crash barriers with biker-friendly ones (i.e. ones which are not specifically designed to rip a person limb-from-limb) ...

 

[ICB]

ICB

Either way, that sort of generalised attitude & selective experience is what tends to get reported as fact & acted-on. Friends have even had to face such utterly implausable crap as "factual" evidence in court & had to work pretty hard to disprove it.

Well that's silly, courts should be about matters of fact and law.

It's a matter of fact that I live somewhere where of a weekend many motorcyclists can be seen riding like complete idiots and that it affects many people's lives, not just their families, when they kill themselves, as many of them do every year. It's not generalised, it's particular, to me and around here and places like here, as I've made clear from the start, nor is it selective, this is the riding that's on display and the sort of crashes that are had.

Seems to me you've got some rather blinkered rose-tinted specs on.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

But it isn't though.

YOU have chosen to support something ("I can't really see why they shouldn't") because YOU are not affected.

I was simply pointing out that on that basis pretty much everything could be banned, because SOMEONE, somewhere, would be saying "I can't really see what they shouldn't".

You are either (a) entirely self-centred or (b) stupid if you do not see that.

OK, because apparently you really are that fucking thick. Here is the difference:

Driving or riding at very high speeds is ALREADY banned.

I'd have thought you of all people could see the difference. It's not an argument about whether something should be banned or not.

If you want to compare it to the things you're talking about you should be arguing for the removal of speed limits. That would be an argument with some degree of equivalence.

 

[Roadkill]

3. Why is there a presumption that "something must be done"? Why not try to educate people, point out the risks, and so on? Why is there always a tendency to demand a neat, legislative "solution" to every problem, in spite of the hundreds of such "solutions" to different types of bad behaviour that have totally failed to actually solve the problems that they were supposed to address?

Giles..

Good point.

 

[aqua]

for what its worth, I agree with roadie. Whats this actually going to solve? The fucking idiot MCists that swerve in and out of traffic dangerously? The idiots that in the rain, the kind you can hardly see, decide that flying around corners is a good idea?

If one of the issues is born again cyclists then all I think is that it supports my view that anyone on the road should have frequent testing to be able to ride/drive anything with an engine

 

[pembrokestephen]

Now, I looked at that, and thought about explaining why what you're saying doesn't follow on from my post.

But I've decided it's far too obvious too be worth the bother.

I think D_B's point is that not seeing a reason not to do something isn't, in itself, a reason to do it.

And I entirely agree with him on that. It's a pretty well-founded principle, albeit one observed in the breach rather a lot by this government, that to take action, you need some kind of reason why it is necessary, and some kind of demonstrable benefit. "Not seeing any reason why not" doesn't qualify, and is the thin end of a potentially very unpleasant wedge.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I think D_B's point is that not seeing a reason not to do something isn't, in itself, a reason to do it.

It wasn't actually.

That would be a reasonable point. There is a benefit, in that less people would be speeding, and there would be less accidents. Whether the benefit is sufficient to make the action worthwhile is a point that I might have debated.

His post was just ridiculous though, and he decided to follow it up by calling me stupid. So given that I don't care enough to bother, I'll leave this thread alone. I just have a much lower opinion of someone who I previously thought was a decent poster.

 

[Pingu]

well fuck it


this weekend I am going to go out and pull 50mph wheelies followed by fork popping stoppies. then i think i will just draw a few doughnuts and zoom up and down the high street at 100mph plus

remind me to lob a race can on and to wear only jeans and a T shirt.

hell if we are all going to be treated like the muppet element then I may as well get some of the fun of that element too.

taking the analogy a step further...

some people use the internet for doing nefaious stuff.. some are kiddie fiddlers.. best ban the internet then or at least make it illegal to have any images or videos on it as some of its users break the law in this way and hurt others as a result.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Were any of the following?:

1. Eyesight tests for car drivers
2. Banning car drivers from ever doing anything other than going in a straight line
3. Banning people over 70 years old from the road
4. Making higways authorities fix road surfaces (especially manhole covers on the bend apex)
5. Making spilling diesel a capital offence
6. Replacing all crash barriers with biker-friendly ones (i.e. ones which are not specifically designed to rip a person limb-from-limb) ...

Nah. I was thinking more along the lines of mandatory training if you've not driven (bike, car, HGV, whatever...) a particular class of vehicle for a while, mandatory protective clothing for motorcyclists, stuff like that.

In my utopia, though, a LOT more people would be taking a MUCH harder driving test a LOT more often. Those 70 year olds would be required to demonstrate competence, for example, but the 40 year old returning to bikes after 20 years would be, too. And, in my view, people should "lose" their licence for a whole range of offences, but rather than banning them, I'd make them resit a test. Banning someone for driving badly, thereby ensuring that when they get their licence back, they've not driven AT ALL for months seems counter-intuitive. I'd rather have a lot of those banned types lose their licence in court but be able to be back on the road in a week, PROVIDED they passed a stricter-than-usual driving test. Let's make our regular offenders the best drivers on the road!

 

[pogofish]

Anything but. In fact I live on one of those roads myself. However, for the last few years, more boy racers in cars have been killing themselves, their passengers & innocent bystanders than riders. Guess who gets all the worst press tho? Indeed, several friends, occasional riding chums & professional riders/mechanics here have died or been seriously injured in the last couple of years. Some were their own fault certainly but the majority were as a result of the incompetence/actions of other road users. Only one got anything like fair coverage of his accident & that was because it was unusual to begin with - some cunt stretched wire fencing across a road.

I've also been riding & involved with motorbike riders & training groups for a very long time so I'm pretty familiar with the overall picture for casualties & am rather tired of seeing the same-old thing happening over & over again, namely taking a fairly exceptional situation like yours & promoting it as "the problem" whilst the realities get fully ignored

As for courts, bikes & factuality, IME, they seldom coexist & I've got years worth of stories about that too!

 

[djbombscare]

This all cropped up a couple of years ago.

Honda had the blackbird and that was the fastest product bike.

Then Suzuki brought out the Hayabusa which was named after a Japanese bird of prey that eats blackbirds, which in turn did 203 mph out the box.

Kawasaki then designed and brought out the ZX12 which according to all the pre release press reports was gonna kick the Suzi's arse. BUT there was a load of warnings that if they did then this could lead to regulations being imposed which restricted the top end speed of all bikes. SO Kawasaki turned the top end down and the war over the fastest production bikes sort of came to a halt. Next release of the Hayabusa saw Suzuki turning top end down as well.

Not that it mattered much as to get 200+ out of a bike you really really need a bit of road thats dead staright and abotu 3 miles long. even then to hit it you better be coming onto it at a ton 40 plus. Or nitros.

The top end speed of a bike really means fuck all cos TBH you'd never ever get to it.

If it was down to the bike it would be more about torque and the acceleration of the bike. Thats when it squirrels up and fire the rider off even at a low end speeds around 30 and TBH the best round that would an EM system that would control the release of power to the back wheel and graduate it.

I would suspect, from looking at any stats in the past when I've had dialogues on these boards with Tobyjug. That any stats for bikes with regards to RTA's usually include figures that involve other vehicles, 125cc and below vehicles as well as people returning to riding and just jumping on a bike without any new training

Now much as these figures are still involve bikes. On order for the figures to be correct and relative to the the power of bikes you could have to firstly exclude them from the figures. As they could be related to factors other than the power of the bike. IE rider error or driver of another vehicle error.

Then you can get a true figure. Which in turn should then be calculated as a percentage in relationship with the number of motorcycle riders. And then compared with exactly the same figures from years ago.


Anything other than claims based solely on those comparative figures, really aren't viable as a source to claim that bikes should be restricted.

 

[ICB]

Several of the riders seem to be overreacting in a very defensive way and not reading what other people have said.

Most of the responses on here have pointed out that trying to ban or restrict them is futile and counter-productive and that better training, education, enforcement of existing laws, etc. would be a much better way to go.

In spite of that there's an interpretation of people pointing out that some riders use them in an irresponsible and dangerous fashion as a claim that everyone who rides one does, which is plainly stupid and not what anyone has said.

 

[Pingu]

.... Or nitros.

...

ooh forgot about lobbing some nox into the equation.. 70mph wheelies ahoy

*books place in detol and wire brush ward*

 

[pogofish]

However right you are about everything else, that sort of interpretation has been fully capitalised-on as justification for just about all the restrictive bike legislation for the last 40-odd years. So yes, you do tend to get a bit narked about it. Especially on a site that usually sees beyond such things.

 

[djbombscare]

70 mph nitro wheelies. . .

You'd be lucky by the time you get the front end back to Terra Firma you be up round 170.

 

[Pingu]

70 mph nitro wheelies. . .

You'd be lucky by the time you get the front end back to Terra Firma you be up round 170.

you reckon i should fit some wheelie bars then?

 

[djbombscare]

I would, and extend the rear swing arm


You'll never be able to unwind the throttle.


There's as reason they put kill switches right by the thumb on drag bikes

 

[Pingu]

I would, and extend the rear swing arm


You'll never be able to unwind the throttle.


There's as reason they put kill switches right by the thumb on drag bikes

check

hmm there is a bit of a roundabout at the end of the high street... wont the extended swing arm etc make it harder to get my knee down?