Of course, Andy will be the first to point out that generally speaking, your reaction time should not be relevant as you should be anticipating emerging situations long before your 0.4 second reaction time reflexes become necessary. :Cigar:
I have to agree with andyb here. Fact of the matter is we're now riding bikes with more power than even fairly recent gp bikes, but they're being ridden by arthritic old codgers with too much spare cash. And if they're anything like me they probably don't have much in the way of self-control. I'd reserve anyones' right to buy the best, fastest, sharpest, but I'm no longer in that game, I can't see the point any more, too many electronic eyes. At least with a proper copper you stand a chance of talking your way out of trouble. But no-one should go to prison for speeding, no matter how fast, unless it was instrumental in an accident. If you get ticketed by post just say that it couldn't possibly have been you, cos you were down Elm guest house buggering an orphan at the time, and you should be fine...
It's been said before but ... the whole idea of speeding tickets, and jail time for extreme examples of speeding, is largely based upon prosecution for hypothetical outcomes. If you exceed the speed limit without endangering anyone else and no one has witnessed the act except for an electronic surveillance device, no harm has been done. No one has suffered, there has been no victim. And yet you are prosecuted, because of a hypothetical proposition that you were travelling "too fast" and creating a hazard thereby. The logical extension of this principle leads us to some fun territory: 1. You are angry because you have received an unexpectedly high Income Tax bill. You are sent to prison for six months because someone that angry is likely to lash out and hurt someone. 2. Your gorgeous next door neighbour is wearing a skimpy outfit in readiness for a nightclub outing - you are imprisoned for an offence because, damn, that girl is hot and it is likely you'll become her stalker. 3. You purchase a new Ducati - bang, 12 months because, at some point, you are bound to go through your neighbour's front room on the back wheel, running over their beloved West Highland White terrier in the process. All very logical. Be safe, people. Or else.
it is funny, that the law assumes speed is a killer, punished accordingly, but does not assume that 3 hooded men outside your house waiting to break the door down, and steal everything, but the police cannot do anything until after they have broken the door down and stole everything, tbh even then they do nothing
You can measure speed, quite accurately. Having defined arbitrary limits for what a "safe speed" might be, you can apply the limits and there is no grey area - you either exceeded the speed limit or you didn't. This makes for very tidy and simple law enforcement. In the example of three hooded figures outside your house, there can be no measurement of intent, or anything else, not until they have actually broken in, or not. The illusion that because you can measure the speed of a vehicle therefore you can measure the danger it represents is very attractive to people with a limited grasp of hypothetical outcomes. Politicians (legislators) love simple answers so those are the only ones that tend to come up with.
my brother in law ha been jailed twice for speeding on his blade on the skye road 2nd time by an unmarked car,HE SAYS he was goaded on by the golf as it kept pulling up to his no plate then back then up to his number plate, back an forth he pulled away and the golf would be sitting there 10ft of his rear wheel, the dumb ass should off pulled over and let them go or at least punch there teeth out (well within his ability) had they followed him to a stop. but no not yer man, he guns it lights didn't come on till he was well over the ton. another 3months in jail.
I have started to allow cars (bikes too, sometimes) to overtake me if I get "a feeling" about them. I have a good look at who is driving the vehicle as they pass and then decide how to proceed from there. It's paid off once already
It's possible to argue that the Authorities desire to apply a,"one size fits all",philosophy is one of the reasons why life appears so unfair. And it diminishes the role of the copper,who has less latitude to give you a scolding instead of the automatic ticket. Strangely,while the offence is the same for everyone,the punishment is rarely equal: a bloke earning £350 quid a week may well get an £800 fine,but you rarely hear of the man on £100k getting a £4000+ fine for a similar offence....
I hate to admit it but I'm finding myself agreeing with andyb here! You cannot compare 1960s to the 2010s - there are all sorts points why things have got better in some respects and worse in others. Traffic density is constantly increasing, the economic thresholds for being able to drive means we have a lot more younger/inexperienced drivers as well as the older/"awarenessally-challenged" drivers to contend with. Some of these give us a false sense of security too! That's it, I'm off for a lay down.
Good point. You should always be willing to let somebody overtake you, if they want to go faster than you are going. If you start to feel unwilling to let anybody past, and speed up to prevent them passing, then you need to review your own motivations carefully.
I think the Highway code advises just that, no matter the speed of the vehicle, let it pass when you can, you are not there to enforce the limit. As I ride around the speed limit or just a tad above it normally I'm regularly overtaken by both cars and bikes. Doesn't bother me in the least and as some of my normal run roads are almost exclusively policed by unmarked cars and bikes I reckon its a wise policy. I'm also well aware I'm in charge of a modern(ish) missile which is being controlled by a control system well by its "use by" date
balls, everyone knows you should let no one overtake you...pussys :Finger: unless its your guardian angel, in which case move aside :Angelic:
That's not the point I was making and it is important to clarify what I mean. In the past, if I noticed someone making ground on me, I would be tempted (and in my younger days, I invariably gave in to temptation) to increase my speed, up to a maximum of what I felt was safe and comfortable. To illustrate, when I am puttering along at, say, 70mph on the dual carriageway, I may notice someone in my mirror who is catching me up. I used to speed up just on general principle to stay ahead, unless it was obvious that the person behind me was capable of faster speeds, perhaps through superior talent, or greater foolhardiness, or both. It was an informal game for me to play. Obviously, conditions relating to weather, visibility, traffic levels, etc, were all a factor in the decision-making process. These days, I will very often "allow" the person behind me to overtake - i.e. I do not speed up - to enable me to have a good look at him as he passes. I can then decide whether I wish to "make better progress" or just continue puttering along. This is nothing to do with the idea of preventing other road users from overtaking. I find that behaviour reprehensible and, frankly, loathsome.
its when you are cruising at 90 in the car and being caught, shouts slow down and move over to me, so I do...then normally find its some know in an A3 or A4 on his phone while smoking one of those god-awful pipe things
