Old Pacific Hwy - Party's over?

<shrug> reducto ad absurdum has it's place, so if you want to take it to
that level, then yes you could express it that way, however given
you're deliberately missing the point does it really matter what I say ?

To turn your point on it's head if there is only one person on the
entire continent of Australia does it matter whether that person stops
at a stop sign ?

JL

 

lights? stop signs?? Does she know what road the topic is about??

try and stay on topic people

ck

 

JL wrote:

OK, so what would _you_ set the speed limit at on the Old Road?
Remember sight-lines, other road users, who are entitled to be there, etc.

Again, what do _you_ think is the difference between defensive riding
and defensive driving?

IMHO, it is actually the same attitude towards driving/riding, and there
are very few differences between them.

Fairy 'nuff. But, there is a world of difference between exceeding
the speed limit and exceeding it excessively.

To explain for a moment, your average road user, faced with a 70 limit
has a reasonable expectation that other vehicles will be doing anything
upto, let's say 100.....they have no way of expecting 180+ oncoming
vehicles..... which _does_ happen on the Old Road.

We can agree on something them....

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Zebee Johnstone is of the opinion:

I dunno, causing someone to shit themselves is probably harming that person,
even if no crash results...

- Matt

 

But does Rod hang out on corners with a machinegun too?

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html

 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:20:55 +1100

The point I'm making is that you paint with too broad a brush.

You don't have a right to do anything you choose, you live in a society
of more than one.

I also think that talk of rights without talk of responsibilities is
foolish.

There are actions which are likely to cause problems, and actions which
are not as likely to.

A motorcycle doing 100 on a straight section of clear road isn't likely
to, no matter what the official limit is.

A motorcycle doing 100 on a section of road with poor sightlines and a
lot of pedestrians is much more likely to.

One doing 10kmh through a china shop isn't likley to kill someone but
will harm a lot of china.

So first, what's "harm"? Is the only harm to be considered fatalities?
(The way the RTA do...) Or injuries? Or damage to the fixtures? What
about "quality of life", how important is that? (has to be important to
the riders, else they wouldn't be making a fuss...)

Then there's what actions are likely to cause harm, and what to do about
them. I don't think I have a right to do an action very likely to cause harm
to someone else. More than that, I have a responsibility to avoid
causing harm.

So rather than "I can do anything I like unless it actively harms
someone when I do it", I'd rather say "I have a responsibility to avoid
inflicting serious harm on other people"

It's an active thing putting the onus where it belongs - on the doer.
It requires them to think about an action in the planning stage, rather
than a box tick "speed limit, tick".

And it also focuses on harm, which is the point really. I don't think
that I'm doing harm by going for a burn on the old road, but if others
do then it's my responsibility to listen to what they believe is the
harm I'm inflicting.

Still doesn't help a lot with actions likely to cause a problem as such,
as no one *plans* to crash. But I think it does change the mindset from
"I can to it if I want to, because I have a right" to "I am responsible
if I stuff up, no one but me"

Probably won't help with those who are sure they won't stuff up... But
I don't think they are a majority.

As making the old road one way and motorcycles only isn't going to
fly... What will?

I dunno, but I don't think talking about rights on either side helps,
because it inflames. Especially considering that you'd have a hard time
saying that not riding a bike on the old road harms anyone as much as
loud bikes and crashes (with concomitant fartarsings about by choppers
and cops and ambulances and road closures) harm the residents.

Riders can fo elsewhere, residents live there. If you are talking about
rights, theirs would seem to trump bikers all ways to Sunday when it
comes to harm.

Zebee

 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:29:46 +1100

yes, the topic is "do you have a right to break the law and/or indulge in
behaviour likely to lead to a crash".

Once you answer that, you can talk about whether it's only bikers, or
only on the twisties that it's allowed.

Zebee

 

Have you broken the law if you don't get caught?

"likely" to lead to a crash..............hmmmmmmmmm................. if I
stay in my lane I likely won't crash................it would appear that JL
is not the only one with a wide brush

you're the stats person - what are the stats of crashes vs usage/number of
bikes on that road? How do they compare to other "motorcycle attractive"
roads?

How do they compare to crashes of commuter motorcyclists? I hear them every
morning on the radio

what I was talking about was not being a pain in the arse to the locals
right in front of their houses. You don't actually come across that many
cars on the road.

For the past 6 months we have been stopping for a coffee/bite at the servo
at Mooney Mooney, having had enough of the interesting people populating the
cafe on weekends <shudder>.

What amazes me is the complete tools who come off the bridge, into a 60
zone, see our bikes at the servo and then do a mono past into residential
Mooney Mooney. If I was a resident I would have the right royal shits
too..................

Up in the twisties, no houses, very few cars, different atmosphere. But
maybe said tools can't go round corners. Unfortunately their actions may
well stop my enjoyment of the twisties, not annoying the locals.

With regard to the locals, I agree with the other dude who said that they
bought the program. I wouldn't buy a house up there for the very reason of
the motorcycle noise from aforementioned tools.

ck

 

So Gerry, when was your last speeding fine ya hoon?

How many points left on your licence?

alx

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html

 

Well I can well remember the speed limit through there being 100Km/hr
and the road toll has gone *UP* since the speed limit was lowered, so I
would suggest that raising or lowering the speed limit has limited
(probably nil) efficiency at managing the crash rate.

You've misunderstood my post to Gerry totally here. What *Gerry* calls
defensive riding differs utterly to what *EVERYONE* else I've heard /
read / talked to, describes as defensive riding/driving (and no I
wouldn't particularly distinguish much between defensive riding and
driving - there's going to be differences peculiar to the vehicle
attributes but the fundamental principles are consistent.

Indeed, no argument. You're not riding defensively if you're travelling
at an inappropriate speed for the conditions, my point was there is
often little correlation between the *speed limit* and *appropriate speed*.

And agree on more than just that - as above

JL

 

I think it was our turf long before those joe citizens moved in
They got no respect
For us knee scraping wanna be's

 

Not so... I have had this small toy with a key in the back since I was a
kid... I wind it up and it makes noise... doesn't matter to it in the
least that you are a humourless git


G-S

 

Damn, spoke too soon.

2 reports gotten from riders up there today. RTA are in the process of
changing signs from Brooklyn to Somersby to 60km/h.

Said some signs already done, more being changed.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:11:32 +1100

Of course, but you knew that.

If you stay in your lane then you likely won't cause a head on crash,
no.

You might run up the back of a legally ridden bicycle or legally
driven car, you might come a cropper on leaves, moss, water, deisel,
road banding.

I don't know what usage stats are available for bikes. The only info I
have is that bike crashes are "over-represented" but using what as the
baseline I don't know.

TO know that, you'd have to have a baseline for bikes on other roads.

Both hoon roads and other roads.

I believe that there are more motorcycle crashes requiring ambulance
transport on that road than on any other road in the Greater Sydney area
including the nasho and possibly Macquarie Pass, but I'm not sure about
the latter.

Zebee

 

Yes!

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s (gone on to better and brighter things - I hope)
'87 BMW K100RT (write-off)
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

I love it when you talk legal Zeeb!!. Have you been on the piss?

 

<insert pious voice> And how shall I **** off oh lord ?

JL
(or did you mean non biblical chapter and verse)

 

Gerry ya hoon. Didnt you get one up Putty road?

Makes you quite a hoon so why cast your unfounded assertions re: hooning
about me!

Is that the best strategy for an argument that your clubport sozzled
intellect can muster?

Gerry, please explain yourself.

Why have you, on numerous occasions, branded me a hoon or defenders of
hoons?

1) You have never ridden with me (at least you never left an impression on
me that I can recall your persona)
2) You have no idea how many years I've been riding
3) You have no idea how many accidents I have had
4) You have no idea when my last speeding fine was
5) You have no idea how many demerit points I have left
6) You have no idea....

....you have no idea about much it seems...not much going for you now is
there.

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html

 

Gerry doesnt sit on a soapbox.

Same shape, different contents (brown in colour and rather smelly)

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html

 

If I may do a Kerry O'Brien, the question was.......what would _you_ set
the speed limit to?

Eh? Perhap, giving you the benefit of the doubt, you did answer my
question.

As I thought I had explained, there is a co-relationship between the
speed limit and what may be an inappropriate speed. This comes from the
expectations of road users on the orders of magnitude of the likely
speeds of other users of the road.

Not too sure about some of the above.

The Old Road _has_ become a fairly serious problem.... agreed?

The problem is based on motorcyclists riding at _totally_ inappropriate
speeds..... agreed?

Now, we get to the bits we could have problems with......... ;-)

Where and how is the line drawn about the inappropriateness or otherwise?

You are (as you keep reminding me) younger than I am.

You ride faster than I do.
(You are still not in the league of the complete looneys, but still,
faster than I.)

So! Can we agree that 30 over the limit, folk deserve to be
walking/catching buses?

Is it possible we could agree that they are acting irresponsibly?

(Thirty over, equates to 110 down the hill, and 100 on up again towards
Gosford.)

Could we also agree that there are certain folk, with whom we may, at
some time in the past, have had a beer or a pie, who habitually do more
than twice the limit?

Can you, in all honesty, defend this as some God-given right?

regards,
CrazyCam