From: Diogenes on 11 Apr 2010 06:34
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:09:48 +1000, Albm&ctd
>In article <3i7ur5dknegi4kn8v2u9r6lsdd03egq9bb(a)4ax.com>, cynic(a)society.sux.ok
>> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:18:27 +1000, Albm&ctd
>> <alb_mandctdNOWMD(a)connexus.net.au> wrote:
>> >The ultimate aim is not just to ban load pipes...
>> I'm all for banning load pipes...
>What about lewd ones?
Are you referring to blow pipes?
From: theo on 11 Apr 2010 09:17
On Apr 11, 2:29 pm, atec7 7 <""atec77 \"@ hotmail.com"> wrote:
> Nothing like a Velocette 500 cc at full roar out the fishtale at 1oomph
A fish story?
From: atec7 7 ""atec77 " on 11 Apr 2010 09:41
> On Apr 11, 2:29 pm, atec7 7 <""atec77 \"@ hotmail.com"> wrote:
>> Nothing like a Velocette 500 cc at full roar out the fishtale at 1oomph
> A fish story?
that would be "A fish tail"
From: Zebee Johnstone on 11 Apr 2010 15:55
In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:12:28 GMT
Deevo <deevo37(a)NOSPAMbigpond.com> wrote:
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> Nothing official, no. Just my own observations on the proportional
> representatioon of various bike types I have seen in wrecking yards. Add to
> that when I was working in the trade riding various bikes I found that the
> type of bike I was riding seemed to affect the perception of the drivers
> around me.
Was your riding exactly the same no matter the bike?
I know mine isn't....
>> THe only info I have on who gets hit more is by age. Younger riders
>> have more multivehicle crashes, older riders have more solo crashes.
>> Whether this is about experience or exposure is not known.
> Sounds like a topic worth pursuing on a more official level. Of course I
> very much doubt that the Petabees would be motivated to study such figures
> if there were a correlation.
Data is the problem. THe MCC of NSW was finally able to get access to
crash reports to try and get some idea of what kind of bike and rider
was having what kind of crash, but the data itself is spotty.
You have people who know nothing about bikes having to put make and
model, and that isn't very reliable. If the make and model isn't clear
on the bike, they'll guess or ignore. Sometimes you might get
"dirt bike" but if it's a road bike they might just say "large bike"
and that could be a Wing, an Electraglide, or a CB900RR. There's a
lot of noise in the data. (And that's not even touching the whole
"cause of crash" problem...)
Then it's a matter of working out what the data might mean. You don't
get young riders on cruisers, but do you get older riders using their
bikes in the city as much? Is the reason most cruiser crashes seem to
be single vehicle because older riders have more traffic smarts, or
because most cruiser riders are using them as recreational vehicles
and aren't riding in the city? Time of crash is an obvious help, but
from what I recall of the quick (and early in the data collection)
recap of the finds so far, most crashes were on the weekend so that
Exposure is always the problem with things like this. You can match
crash numbers against licences and registration data but you can't
tell how many of those licenced riders actually ride and when and
where, you can't tell how many of those bikes are ridden by the
registered owner or where.
Doing any kind of counting is an expensive business, and in a city the
size of Sydney a very expensive one.
We see stats all the time in the papers. What we dont' see is what
they are based on, and how they've been derived. Start delving into
data sets that aren't based on personal (and therefore inevitably
flawed, read the literature on eye witnessses) observation, you
realise how dodgy it all is.
From: VTR250 on 11 Apr 2010 19:38
On Apr 9, 7:36 am, Zebee Johnstone <zeb...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:13:35 GMT
> Kevin Gleeson <kevinglee...(a)imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
> > The only thing I'd add is that; think of Doppler effect as well, you
> > only really hear that noisy bike as it passes you, ie by the time it
> > is way too late. As a safety factor it is total bollocks.
> Same same properly adjusted headlight in daylight conditions in the
> city. You can see them far away, but when it's close enough to
> matter they make no difference, catch no attention, give no
> If someone turning across you worries you, then use the design of the
> human visual system: jink in your lane so you change from a small
> oncoming that doesn't change size much and so looks still to a
> laterally moving item that the visual system is designed to notice.
> Of course that means you have to be paying attention to the car in
> question to realise it is there and might do the wrong thing. It's
> way easier to deafen yourself with loud pipes and then say it is all
> someone else's fault.
I do this when I see a car waiting in that position, and I call it