| Author |
Message |
    
Blublak
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 04:12 pm: | 
|
OK.. Let me see if I can mediate some of this..
Having never ridden with either gentleman I'll ask if we can all agree on a few basic ideas..
Rocket, will you agree to never ride 128 mph through an elementary school (even while class is not in session?)
Bruce, will you agree that with skill comes a tendency to allow more aggression in ones riding and that people with greater self-control (like yourself) will always strive to control those impulses?
Rocket, will you promise to never intentionally crash your motorcycle at any speed, just to prove a point?
Bruce, will you promise to not be overly judgmental of others, so long as what they are doing does no harm to others?
Lastly, since you've both admitted to exceeding posted speed limits on occasion. (I doubt any of us here can truthfully claim that we've never done that) will you both agree to pay any and all fines you garner from such behavior?
Thank you.. Now please... Get on your bad motor scooters... and ride... |
Thunderbox
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 05:16 pm: |
|
Rocketman said "A good attitude is a great thing to have but experience will ALWAYS serve a motorcyclist better. What gives you the call on me having a dangerous attitude? I'd rather be taught by the most experienced rider rather than the safety conscious one."
This is exactly the problem we are addressing. The attitude that experience is more important than attitude is a bad attitude. Experience makes you a capable rider technically, a proper attitude gives you so much more than technical ability. I will always chose to ride with a rider who displays a good attitude than one who is technically effective. The attitude is so much harder to influence than technic. Always has been always will be.
Rocketman said. Oh hold on there, one thing at a time please. True, true, true, true, true, true and true. I do know, as it happens, a little about some of the BadWeB riders skills actually. I've ridden with plenty of them through six countries, over two continents and one world record salt flat. Taken in the Rocky Mountains and the Alps too, all in the company of BadWeBers and Buells. And you?
I am 50 years old and I have been riding bikes for better than 37 years. I lived in Europe for 10 of those and had several bikes during that time and many since. Many trips all over Europe and the last time I was down on a bike was in the parking lot of the 7 eleven in Edmonton Alberta. Not an experience based mishap but an attitude based mishap.
Riding fast is a lot of fun there is no doubt of that. But originally we were discussing some dummy who was going 128 mph in the city. I find it hard to believe any responsible rider would defend a position like that. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 05:18 pm: |
|
"Lastly, since you've both admitted to exceeding posted speed limits on occasion. (I doubt any of us here can truthfully claim that we've never done that) will you both agree to pay any and all fines you garner from such behavior? "
Absolutely! |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 05:51 pm: |
|
This is exactly the problem we are addressing. The attitude that experience is more important than attitude is a bad attitude. Experience makes you a capable rider technically, a proper attitude gives you so much more than technical ability. I will always chose to ride with a rider who displays a good attitude than one who is technically effective. The attitude is so much harder to influence than technic. Always has been always will be.
Let's be real man. What you're saying now is an effort to make out I HAVE A BAD ATTITUDE, and not only in this thread because of my opinions you don't agree with, BUT AS A RIDER TOO! It's simply to ridicule me. I got up your nose that bad did I? I'm just honest about the facts. 128 mph is small potatoes on certain roads in the UK. Any superbike will hit 128 mph from 40 mph in less than several seconds. These speeds are NOT the killers you think they are. Nor doing these speeds is a reckless as you seem to make out. THAT I BELIEVE IS WHAT THE JUDGE THIS THREAD IS BASED ON THOUGHT AND MY HAT'S OFF TO HIM FOR HAVING THE TEMERITY TO JUDGE ACCORDINGLY. I'd hate to think of the consequences if you were the judge. Your mind is already made up when it should be more open. And to think you ride a motorcycle. God help us.
Rocket |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 05:59 pm: |
|
I am wondering, what is the probability that if I go off my bike at 128 I can survive?
That's what you asked. I merely pointed out two famous racers that had got off their bikes at more than 128 mph. No one knows what will happen to you if you get off your bike at 128 mph. Nor do they know what will happen to you if you get off your bike at 28 mph. Either could quite easily kill you though - or not.
What was your point? Racers often get off at high speeds. Even 128 mph, but seldom are they killed.
Rocket |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 06:38 pm: |
|
TB, you said I certainly know nothing about my riding experience and the experience of many others here on the BWB.
I told you exactly where my experiences had taken me in the company of BadWeBers whilst riding, which is more than you did. I believe your point was to show that I had no experience of riding in the company of BadWeBers? You were wrong if that was the case. Now you offer a comparison of your experiences riding in Europe et al, for what purpose? The point is, are you experienced riding at 128 mph, and often? If not then you have nothing to offer from that level of experience.
Excuse me for saying so but your reading skills need honing too. Where in this thread is there reference to some dummy who was going 128 mph in the city? All we know is a Nebraska City judge said "If you had had a passenger, there would be no question of conviction. If there had been other cars on the roadway, if you would've went into the wrong lane or anything, I would have convicted you." Is there a clue in the judge's words that offers us an insight into where the 20 year old motorcyclist made the policeman see 128 mph indicated on HIS speedometer?
Incidentally, if that policeman's speedo hadn't been calibrated in the last 7 days before an alleged offense (of speeding), a speeding conviction wouldn't have stood up in court in the UK. Nor would using a speedo for conviction unless there were at least two policemen in that vehicle used for the speed 'recording'. Maybe that's why in the Nebraska case the police went for the 'reckless' conviction?
Rocket |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 07:52 pm: |
|
I think Rocket accused me of being opinionated
Aha! |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 07:54 pm: |
|
Just for the record, Rocket, I think we are all very clear that you ride very very fast and you are very very very good at it. Certainly better than we slow pokes out there ruining motorcycling.
Counsel will so stipulate to the Court, your honor. |
Thunderbox
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 08:09 pm: |
|
Rocketman wrote. "Excuse me for saying so but your reading skills need honing too. Where in this thread is there reference to some dummy who was going 128 mph in the city?"
Hey man you are right I went back and looked at every post and I can't see where it said it was in the city. My apologies there. I thought it was but no sirree.
You also said. I believe your point was to show that I had no experience of riding in the company of BadWeBers?
No such case there that was not the intention.
Incidently here in Saskatoon Saskatchewan the speedometer needs calibration within 30 days of the offense and one officer is quite capable of doing a speedo related charge all by himself. LOL I know this as fact as I do the speedo calibrations on the cruisers here. There really is no calibration, the speedo is only certified to be accurate. If it is out too far a new speedometer has to be installed and checked or in some cases a speed adjustment module can be installed.
Am I experienced at riding at 128 mph yes but not like I do it all the time or often. Not on my Uly as it won't do 128mph. I really don't want to or need to be riding at those speeds on the public highways to enjoy the sport of motorcycling. Those speeds are really in the sport of motor racing and that, I am now happy to watch. Have I raced yes NHRA sanctioned drag racing. Now you see what I mean about attitude. There is a place for anything.
I hope you have a long and successful motorcycling life. Enjoy. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 09:08 pm: |
|
I hope you have a long and successful motorcycling life. Enjoy.
Now we're talking. Thank you TB. I hope you, and cool and the gang, do too.
Rocket |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 09:30 pm: |
|
Just for the record, Rocket, I think we are all very clear that you ride very very fast and you are very very very good at it. Certainly better than we slow pokes out there ruining motorcycling.
That's what I've been trying to tell ya.
Now why can't you be nice like TB instead of being a regular pain in the arse?
You've chased me all along this thread from the moment I pulled you up about your 'killing people' and 'school children' comments. Those comments are conjecture you based upon a motorcycle rider traveling at 128 mph. There's no evidence to suggest motorcyclists that travel at high speeds kill anybody anymore likely than they would traveling at low speeds, save for themselves. It's entirely possible statistics might show that more motorcycles are involved in low speed accidents, like in populated areas, than high speed motorcycles are involved in accidents in rural areas. One could speculate then that pedestrians and other road users are more likely, because of the environment, be at more risk of being involved in an accident with a motorcycle traveling at lower speeds. Either way, your comments, over reactionary I'd call them, were fueling the fire of the anti-biker fraternity in my opinion.
Rocket |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:28 pm: |
|
"I'd call them, were fueling the fire of the anti-biker fraternity in my opinion"
What is this "anti-biker fraternity" that you speak of? I must have missed that one in college!
And yes, it is ALL about your opinion. |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
"Just for the record, Rocket, I think we are all very clear that you ride very very fast and you are very very very good at it. Certainly better than we slow pokes out there ruining motorcycling.
That's what I've been trying to tell ya."
Man, it is tough to do sarcasm when the target is thick as a brick! |
Loki
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 11:00 pm: |
|
Cruisin'
As per the statute in nebraska, the judge made a correct ruling.
Nebraska - Section 60-6,213
Reckless driving, defined.
Any person who drives any motor vehicle in such a manner as to indicate an indifferent or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property shall be guilty of reckless driving.
Nebraska -pt2 - Annotations:
Speed alone does not support a conviction for reckless driving, but it does have a bearing on whether one was driving dangerously under the surroundings and attendant circumstances of the particular case. |
M2nc
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 01:30 am: |
|
If I am going down a straight road at 128mph with clear fields deer are hard to see in a field ---and for sure those little north Carolina deer are even harder to see on each side, then I can see anything that I will have to stop it might not be a stop but something to avoid for long before I get there. A small rabbit or cat I may miss, but I will not stop for that. A deer will be spotted a mile away, literally. I've seen too many deer dead on the side of the road to believe that. Those crazy deer will even run into the side of a car!
According to the Nebraska law, I would not be reckless. I have started running the bike down this stretch to see a car coming the other way, or farmers in the field and have back off more than a mile away just to make sure that when I get to them that I can stop. If I read the law and judgment right, if I am by myself on a road with no passenger and stay in my lane then according to Nebraska I would not be reckless. That's great! The only problem is that I'm in North Carolina.
On the subject of experience, I have used this same stretch to see how long it takes me to stop from 100mph. It is quite an eye opening experience, but like out running your head lights at night, as long as you do not out run your line of sight, you can, and I have, run over 100mph without incident. So many people on the highway do the Nascar train at 60mph and they can not see ten feet in front of them. Now that is reckless.
I have had several run-ins with NC deer. My favorite was the night I was riding home from Dave's house and came across three deer by the road, but on the wrong side because the woods were on the other side. You know if you want to, you can heard dear with a Nighthawk! I had about five minutes of fun preventing these deer from crossing the road. I kept doing 180s (See MSF was good for something!) and if they tried to go around me I would just speed up and pull along side. After about five minutes they decided to make a break for it and I stopped. I could have slapped the last one on the butt as she crossed the road. Okay, it was a slow night.
Those crazy deer will even run into the side of a car!)
Yeup, happen to the wife on the same stretch of road. How can an animal miss, or should I say hit a big white Suburban? Talk about target fixation. "Don't hit the Truck! Don't hit the Truck!" Blam! The deer hit dead smack center of the side of the truck. The charge? $800 dollars and glass all over three little ones in the back. Now Kristi was running 10mph because she saw them in advance, if she would have continued at 55mph she would have, or should I say, the deer would have missed her. See how dangerous going slow is!!!
That last part was a joke. |
Rocketman
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 05:20 am: |
|
Man, it is tough to do sarcasm when the target is thick as a brick!
You're the one doing sarcasm, which is par for the course in any thread with you if one happens not to see it your way. Me? I just give back as good as I get, when I can be bothered. Apart from offering humour sometimes, it's a futile exercise.
Incidentally, your last four posts directed toward me, their content has included nothing but sarcasm. What's the point? Either debate the thread or go to work or something. You're boring me otherwise.
Pro (prefix) in favour of.
Anti (prefix) against, opposed to.
Source, Collins Gem English Dictionary.
They didn't teach you that, not even before college? Wow! (more sarcasm......yawn)
Rocket |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 09:58 am: |
|
Debate with Rocket.
You offer facts, he calls you names and screams about how smart, fast and tough he is.
Pass the beer nuts.
(Message edited by brucelee on December 15, 2005) |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
"They didn't teach you that, not even before college"
College, even seen one? |
Brucelee
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
BTW-I never contended the judge made an incorrect legal decision. That is a judicial ruling and I am fine with it.
I still think doing 128 on a public highway is reckless as the dictionary defines it. However, I am clear that is simply my opinion.
Outside of the legal system and the science lab, that is all we have. |
Light_keeper
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
The picture I have in my head is that of two mountain goats facing off then butting heads. Facing off again and again. Always back to the same thing butting heads.
Rocket- Ever get down to the Manchester area?
 |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, December 15, 2005 - 01:14 pm: |
|
You! No you... But you... No you... Then you... Youyouyouyouyou!
Good grief.
Thread closed. |
|
