is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.)

"Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname RemoveThis @bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:609h07F1qa1h0U2@mid.individual.net...
> Knobdoodle wrote:
>
>> Fairings and panniers are usually voluntary and generally include all
>> sorts of disclaimers and limitations as to their use. It's a different
>> matter with "compulsory"!
>
> You mean like Honda's 'we do not recommend exceeding 130 kph with
> panniers' limitation?
>
> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do? Argue that
> they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be scrapped? I can hear
> the incredulous laughter already.
>
Track days, Northern Territory riding, private roads....
Remember; you have to cover ALL legal uses of a bike.
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Johno wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:03:30 +1100, G-S <geoff.RemoveThis@castbus.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Peter Cremasco wrote:
>>> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
>>> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do? Argue that
>>> they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be scrapped? I can hear
>>> the incredulous laughter already.
>>>
>> No I'm going to point out that my road legal bike which I ride on the
>> road at road legal speeds is also used for track days and that if I
>> crash going down the main straight of Phillip Island at 250kph due to
>> steering instabilities caused by a compulsory front number plate then
>> I'm certainly going to pursue legal avenues (assuming I'm still alive).
>>
>>
>> G-S
>
> Hate to tell you this Geoff - front number plate has to come off for
> track work [1]
>

Actually I knew that

> Johno
>
> [1] yeh, yeh... I know I am going back a *few* years
>

True, but the reasons they had to come off for track work are the same
reasons they are dangerous on the road

> Coopers mate?
>
Sure

> Pie floater?
>
Pass


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>
>> No I'm going to point out that my road legal bike which I ride on the
>> road at road legal speeds is also used for track days and that if I
>> crash going down the main straight of Phillip Island at 250kph due to
>> steering instabilities caused by a compulsory front number plate then
>> I'm certainly going to pursue legal avenues (assuming I'm still alive).
>
> So you'd take your bike out onto the track with a front number plate
> fitted and do 250kph even though you thought it was likely to cause you
> to crash... That's an interesting approach you have to personal safety.
>

There are 2 alternatives here.

Either it's dangerous and no one should be riding with a front number
plate fitted... or it's not dangerous and it's safe for me to ride with
a front number plate fitted.

If they legislate them as required by law then I damn well expect the
final form of the bloody things to be safe.

But if they aren't safe then I'd honestly rather find out on a race
track with run off area than on a public road (with trees and other hard
objects).

And furthermore if they turn out to be dangerous then the idiots that
said they weren't deserve to be not only sued but also charged with
reckless endangerment.


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Peter Cremasco wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Peter Cremasco wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
>>> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do? Argue
>>> that they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be scrapped? I
>>> can hear the incredulous laughter already.
>>>
>>
>> No I'm going to point out that my road legal bike which I ride on the
>> road at road legal speeds is also used for track days and that if I
>> crash going down the main straight of Phillip Island at 250kph due to
>> steering instabilities caused by a compulsory front number plate then
>> I'm certainly going to pursue legal avenues (assuming I'm still alive).
>
> So? You remove the offending plate and brackets for the race day, just
> as some tracks require you to remove or tape up indicators and glass, or
> other such requirements before you participate in said event.

I've never been to a ride day that required that...
although I understand race practice days do.


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>
>>> No I'm going to point out that my road legal bike which I ride on the
>>> road at road legal speeds is also used for track days and that if I
>>> crash going down the main straight of Phillip Island at 250kph due to
>>> steering instabilities caused by a compulsory front number plate then
>>> I'm certainly going to pursue legal avenues (assuming I'm still alive).
>>
>> So you'd take your bike out onto the track with a front number plate
>> fitted and do 250kph even though you thought it was likely to cause
>> you to crash... That's an interesting approach you have to personal
>> safety.
>>
>
> There are 2 alternatives here.
>
> Either it's dangerous and no one should be riding with a front number
> plate fitted... or it's not dangerous and it's safe for me to ride with
> a front number plate fitted.

There you go again. Everything has to be mutually exclusive, doesn't
it. Last time I did a track day I taped up my headlight & removed my
mirrors. When I rode my bike home I used my dangerous headlight and the
dangerous mirrors and I liked it.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname.DeleteThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:609h07F1qa1h0U2@mid.individual.net...
>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>
>>> Fairings and panniers are usually voluntary and generally include all
>>> sorts of disclaimers and limitations as to their use. It's a different
>>> matter with "compulsory"!
>> You mean like Honda's 'we do not recommend exceeding 130 kph with
>> panniers' limitation?
>>
>> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
>> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do? Argue that
>> they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be scrapped? I can hear
>> the incredulous laughter already.
>>
> Track days, Northern Territory riding, private roads....
> Remember; you have to cover ALL legal uses of a bike.

Fastest legal speed in NT nowadays is 130kph and there is no reason why
the regulators should take into account any off-road use when deciding
what regulations they should enforce for on-road registration.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Knobdoodle wrote:
> "Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname.TakeThisOut@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> The closest I've got is a Suzuki GS450 with bikini fairing (handlebar
>> mounts). Rode that for about 5 years. Was my daily commuter and my
>> interstate tourer(1)
>>
> [sings] Mild Thing... you make my heart ... err.... do nothing much.

[Kamahl] why are people so unkind [/kamahl]
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> G-S wrote:
>>>
>>>> No I'm going to point out that my road legal bike which I ride on
>>>> the road at road legal speeds is also used for track days and that
>>>> if I crash going down the main straight of Phillip Island at 250kph
>>>> due to steering instabilities caused by a compulsory front number
>>>> plate then I'm certainly going to pursue legal avenues (assuming I'm
>>>> still alive).
>>>
>>> So you'd take your bike out onto the track with a front number plate
>>> fitted and do 250kph even though you thought it was likely to cause
>>> you to crash... That's an interesting approach you have to personal
>>> safety.
>>>
>>
>> There are 2 alternatives here.
>>
>> Either it's dangerous and no one should be riding with a front number
>> plate fitted... or it's not dangerous and it's safe for me to ride
>> with a front number plate fitted.
>
> There you go again. Everything has to be mutually exclusive, doesn't
> it. Last time I did a track day I taped up my headlight & removed my
> mirrors. When I rode my bike home I used my dangerous headlight and the
> dangerous mirrors and I liked it.
>

Last time I did a ride day I didn't have to tape my headlight up or
remove my mirrors. Why do you use a provider who requires this extra
annoying work?

Those objects don't present me a problem at 250kph.


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Nev.. wrote:
> Knobdoodle wrote:
>> "Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname RemoveThis @bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> news:609h07F1qa1h0U2@mid.individual.net...
>>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fairings and panniers are usually voluntary and generally include
>>>> all sorts of disclaimers and limitations as to their use. It's a
>>>> different matter with "compulsory"!
>>> You mean like Honda's 'we do not recommend exceeding 130 kph with
>>> panniers' limitation?
>>>
>>> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
>>> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do? Argue
>>> that they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be scrapped? I
>>> can hear the incredulous laughter already.
>>>
>> Track days, Northern Territory riding, private roads....
>> Remember; you have to cover ALL legal uses of a bike.
>
> Fastest legal speed in NT nowadays is 130kph and there is no reason why
> the regulators should take into account any off-road use when deciding
> what regulations they should enforce for on-road registration.
>

What most people call off-road use is actually dirt-road use. And legal
dirt road use (say the NT on a dirt track at 130kph) *is* legal use.


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>> "Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>> news:609h07F1qa1h0U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Fairings and panniers are usually voluntary and generally include
>>>>> all sorts of disclaimers and limitations as to their use. It's a
>>>>> different matter with "compulsory"!
>>>> You mean like Honda's 'we do not recommend exceeding 130 kph with
>>>> panniers' limitation?
>>>>
>>>> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
>>>> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do? Argue
>>>> that they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be scrapped? I
>>>> can hear the incredulous laughter already.
>>>>
>>> Track days, Northern Territory riding, private roads....
>>> Remember; you have to cover ALL legal uses of a bike.
>>
>> Fastest legal speed in NT nowadays is 130kph and there is no reason
>> why the regulators should take into account any off-road use when
>> deciding what regulations they should enforce for on-road registration.
>
> What most people call off-road use is actually dirt-road use. And legal
> dirt road use (say the NT on a dirt track at 130kph) *is* legal use.

Now you're just playing stupid word games and arguing silly points which
don't exist. Obviously in the context of my sentence and the context of
Clem's, to which I was replying, off-road means anything which is not a
road for the purposes of registration and regulation.

There are no dirt roads in the NT with a legal speed limit of 130kph either.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

On Jan 30, 12:39 pm, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Biggus " <fu_kew___MYKNICK... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7b9up3t0q8fjr11886aq7ahmoht79vvl5s@4ax.com...>>  not far removed from the cries of the motoring masses that bicycles
> >> should be egistered.
> > any reason they shouldnt be?
>
> Because there's no reason they SHOULD be, of course!
> --
> Clem
> (Same reason fish shouldn't be registered.)

We have to register our boats,and yet all those bloody fish are using
our waterways for FREE!!!

Pat (Free Hat! Free Hat!)
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

Nev.. wrote:
> G-S wrote:
>> Nev.. wrote:
>>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>>> "Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname.RemoveThis@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:609h07F1qa1h0U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Fairings and panniers are usually voluntary and generally include
>>>>>> all sorts of disclaimers and limitations as to their use. It's a
>>>>>> different matter with "compulsory"!
>>>>> You mean like Honda's 'we do not recommend exceeding 130 kph with
>>>>> panniers' limitation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
>>>>> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do? Argue
>>>>> that they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be scrapped? I
>>>>> can hear the incredulous laughter already.
>>>>>
>>>> Track days, Northern Territory riding, private roads....
>>>> Remember; you have to cover ALL legal uses of a bike.
>>>
>>> Fastest legal speed in NT nowadays is 130kph and there is no reason
>>> why the regulators should take into account any off-road use when
>>> deciding what regulations they should enforce for on-road registration.
>>
>> What most people call off-road use is actually dirt-road use. And
>> legal dirt road use (say the NT on a dirt track at 130kph) *is* legal
>> use.
>
> Now you're just playing stupid word games and arguing silly points which
> don't exist. Obviously in the context of my sentence and the context of
> Clem's, to which I was replying, off-road means anything which is not a
> road for the purposes of registration and regulation.
>
> There are no dirt roads in the NT with a legal speed limit of 130kph
> either.
>
> Nev..
> '07 XB12X

OK.... so just to be sure...

You're saying you're 100% certain the proposed designs are 100% safe on
gazetted roads (dirt, tar or otherwise) across Australia at the
applicable legal maximum speed under all possible situations.

That is what you are arguing right?


G-S
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.) 

PostmanPat wrote:
> On Jan 30, 12:39 pm, "Knobdoodle" <knobdoo....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Biggus " <fu_kew___MYKNICK....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7b9up3t0q8fjr11886aq7ahmoht79vvl5s@4ax.com...>> not far removed from the cries of the motoring masses that bicycles
>>>> should be egistered.
>>> any reason they shouldnt be?
>> Because there's no reason they SHOULD be, of course!
>> --
>> Clem
>> (Same reason fish shouldn't be registered.)
>
> We have to register our boats,and yet all those bloody fish are using
> our waterways for FREE!!!
>
> Pat (Free Hat! Free Hat!)
The things they dare to do in our drinking water .
 >> Stay informed about: is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.)