With regards to motorcycling, does LAW = Safety?

Forum Sponsor
Brian P said:
Safety is not the only consideration here.

If it were, there is only one solution ... ban all road traffic. ALL of it. Sneakers for all.
Click to expand...

We will never agree. There are those that do not need the government to run their lives for them... other do. Some want no risk in live, others don't mind it.
 
KrazyBones said:
We will never agree. There are those that do not need the government to run their lives for them... other do. Some want no risk in live, others don't mind it.
Click to expand...
Right! NOW! ha ha ha ha ha

I am an anti-christ
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy the passer by cos I

I wanna BE anarchy!
No dogs body!

Anarchy for the U.K it's coming sometime and maybe
I give a wrong time stop a traffic line
your future dream is a shopping scheme

cos I, I wanna BE anarchy!
In the city

How many ways to get what you want
I use the best I use the rest
I use the enemy
I use anarchy cos I

I wanna BE anarchy!
THE ONLY WAY TO BE!

Is this the M.P.L.A
Or is this the U.D.A
Or is this the I.R.A
I thought it was the U.K or just
another country
another council tenancy

I wanna be anarchy
and I wanna be anarchy
Know what I mean
And I wanna be anarchist!
Get ****** DESTROY !
 
Brian P said:
Safety is not the only consideration here.

If it were, there is only one solution ... ban all road traffic. ALL of it. Sneakers for all.
Click to expand...

And that's the reality of it. People want to get places in a reasonable time. It's a balancing act..speed, safety, utility. There are certain design things you can do to mitigate damage in a collision, but at the end of the day, if you're going faster, there's more damage in the collision. So we trade-off perceived and/or actual risk for the convenience of generally getting some place sooner. People are pretty well resigned when it comes to collision injuries and death..there are a staggering number of people killed in car accidents..but we accept it for the most part.
 
Holmes said:
Again, another invalid arguement... you have to take into account population. What do you have to say to that TURBOTARD???
Click to expand...

Totally uncalled for, whether I agree with Turbodish or not he did provide DATA, you in return provided insults!
 
elnady said:
Totally uncalled for, whether I agree with Turbodish or not he did provide DATA, you in return provided insults!
Click to expand...

Agreed. Typical immature behavior of someone who knows he has lost the argument. Why can't anyone here just accept it when they are wrong and say "I stand corrected". Is it really that hard?!
 
To me right now LAW = Stupidity.

If the vast majority believes that doing something is stupid, and a minority continue to do it anyway in a blatant fashion. Then there will most likely be a law made to say that doing it is illegal and punishable.

As far as the two posts mentioned, I believe that trucks probably shouldn't be on the tail, but that they most likely save lives by being there. The BC speeders, should not be doing 200+ kph, but the speed limits should be raised on some sections of the road, if it can be maintained well enough to allow the speed, and has good visibility.
 
My guess would be that our 400 series are congested to the point that many of those billion KM are traveled at parking lot speeds, a byproduct of congestion is low speed collisions and a masking of poor highway driving ability.
 
Let's be honest though, it takes some skill to drive most of the 400 series highways during rush hour, esp at interchanges, even though you're doing sub parking lot speeds! Hah
 
OpenGambit said:
You know, no one here drives the speed limit ( safe assumption no).. so duh. legal and safety don't necessarily have a strong correlation all the time. but trying to suggest that 200kmph on the sea to sky which happens to be one of the most deadly highways in Canada is safe... thats completely different.
Click to expand...

ITS 200km/h not kmph GOD DAMMIT!
 
turbodish said:
The bikes doing 200+ kmph are coming up BEHIND other traffic doing closer to 100 kmph. That's a 100+ kmph closing speed from behind.
At that 200+ speed, if something should go wrong, you're going to be a LOT longer trying to stop than a 10 kmph truck or an under-50 kmph bike at the Gap. There's a whole lot more chance for recovery or at least minimization of harm due to rider error or parts breakage at under-50 kmph speeds than there is at 200+ kmph. Now you're looking at closing speeds of 200+ kmph on them.
Click to expand...
HA3AP said:
ITS 200km/h not kmph GOD DAMMIT!
Click to expand...
'GOD DAMMIT'....hey, if it is good enough for the court system and our government, then I think GOD should accept it too. I agree with you though, it would be nice if the people who are supposed to know this stuff actually did know it. I would have thought there would have been some sort of schooling involved.
 
Last edited:
Baggsy said:
To me right now LAW = Stupidity.

If the vast majority believes that doing something is stupid, and a minority continue to do it anyway in a blatant fashion. Then there will most likely be a law made to say that doing it is illegal and punishable.

As far as the two posts mentioned, I believe that trucks probably shouldn't be on the tail, but that they most likely save lives by being there. The BC speeders, should not be doing 200+ kph, but the speed limits should be raised on some sections of the road, if it can be maintained well enough to allow the speed, and has good visibility.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly the problem on the sea to sky actually, its the fact that there are rock slides and stuff. This is also like the most ideal weather conditions you will see (it is BC after all) But I am not sure if raising the speed limit would really do anything in this example. I mean. lets just say they raise it by 30 % to 130k. Those guys are subject to the exact same offence.
 
Baggsy said:
To me right now LAW = Stupidity.

If the vast majority believes that doing something is stupid, and a minority continue to do it anyway in a blatant fashion. Then there will most likely be a law made to say that doing it is illegal and punishable.

As far as the two posts mentioned, I believe that trucks probably shouldn't be on the tail, but that they most likely save lives by being there. The BC speeders, should not be doing 200+ kph, but the speed limits should be raised on some sections of the road, if it can be maintained well enough to allow the speed, and has good visibility.
Click to expand...

These days it's far more likely that something, that is already illegal, will have additional laws and penalties added to it because it becomes a political hot-button topic, or a special interest group becomes involved. Words are redefined (speeding is "racing"), so that the legal definition no longer reflects the dictionary definition ("a contest"). Lesser behaviours will be criminalized (having any blood alcohol level at all, if under 21), because a gross breaking of law makes people think it's necessary (kid gets plastered and drives his car into a river).
 
Rob MacLennan said:
These days it's far more likely that something, that is already illegal, will have additional laws and penalties added to it because it becomes a political hot-button topic, or a special interest group becomes involved. Words are redefined (speeding is "racing"), so that the legal definition no longer reflects the dictionary definition ("a contest"). Lesser behaviours will be criminalized (having any blood alcohol level at all, if under 21), because a gross breaking of law makes people think it's necessary (kid gets plastered and drives his car into a river).
Click to expand...

Agreed, I would add to that mandatory minimums.
It doesn't make it any tougher for the people on the serious end of the spectrum. It just forces judges to impose harsher penalties than deserved on the low end of the spectrum.
 
turbodish said:
Depends on your definition of "safer". Leaving aside crashes in which only property damage occurred, let's look at it on the basis of casualty count per vehicle class as a result of at-fault crash. Of the total number of truck passages in the last 10 years, how many truck drivers have killed themselves or others in at-fault crashes there? What is the corresponding count for cars? SUVs? Cars or SUVs pulling trailers? Motorcycles?

On that basis of that comparison, if you're looking to reduce casualty counts, the safest course of action would probably be to ban motorcycles.
Click to expand...

I can't say I disagree..........if you think about it, motorcycles are inherently dangerous and require much more skill to operate safely than any other vehicle. They're also most profoundly affected by external factors/conditions and offer the least protection in the even of a crash. Laws may only help guide the new and inexperienced riders and keep them safe only to an extent if they obey them or to the extent they are enforced, but it's only the very tip of the iceberg, if even that. Education, knowledge, experience and self- discipline keep you safe, but you can't eliminate the inherent risk of riding motorcycles unless you stop it altogether.
 
OpenGambit said:
Agreed, I would add to that mandatory minimums.
It doesn't make it any tougher for the people on the serious end of the spectrum. It just forces judges to impose harsher penalties than deserved on the low end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

Had a nice discussion with a criminal lawyer, over the mandatory minimums issue, and had my butt neatly handed to me on a platter. Apparently mandatory minimums can largely be blamed for the old issue of counting multiples of time served, prior to trial, as a method of being equitable in sentencing.

We've got to stop rewarding politicians for hitting the moral outrage button. Far too often the question that gets asked is, "Why shouldn't we do this?", rather than "Do we really need to do this?" In most cases if the question asked is the second, then the answer is no.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Had a nice discussion with a criminal lawyer, over the mandatory minimums issue, and had my butt neatly handed to me on a platter. Apparently mandatory minimums can largely be blamed for the old issue of counting multiples of time served, prior to trial, as a method of being equitable in sentencing.

We've got to stop rewarding politicians for hitting the moral outrage button. Far too often the question that gets asked is, "Why shouldn't we do this?", rather than "Do we really need to do this?" In most cases if the question asked is the second, then the answer is no.
Click to expand...

You are talking about essentially the 3 to 1 rule for time served?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom