New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'VBoost Room' started by sdt354, Jun 24, 2019.
If you're gonna ride, just ride. Don't be stupid.
All this other crap here is just that.
I have stated:
"If I am riding a motorcycle and I get into a wreck... its MY FAULT! NO EXCUSES! NO ASSIGNATION OF BLAME TO SOMEONE ELSE!"
The car pulling out in front of your friend did NOT "[CAUSE]" him to run into the car!! His failure to recognize the impending danger BEFORE it happened (by scanning 12-14 seconds ahead) and his subsequent failure to prevent it, CAUSED him to hit the car.
HE "... [RAN] straight into the side of the front of the car"
HE... HIT the car!!
HE... CAUSED the accident!!
But, the automobile driver pulled out in front of him? SO WHAT!
HE... HIT the car!!
If he had died, what difference would it have made? "Well, true, he died... but it wasn't really his fault." Crazy!
HE... HIT the car!!
He had a "brain freeze." It "happened so fast, he didn't have time to react." "'Cagers' are out to kill motorcyclists and we are at their mercy." "My Chinese fortune cookie predicted this!" Bullshit!! HE WAS ENTERING THE INTERSECTION TOO FAST AND...
HE... HIT the car!!
there would have BEEN no accident if...
HE HADN'T... HIT the car!!
Bottom line!! No crying! No excuses! No justification! No assignation of blame to someone else!
HE... HIT the car!!
End of discussion!!
Really!? "Luckily." Man! with that kind of "luck," it's a good thing he quit riding.
I couldn't disagree more. Slowing down BEFORE entering the intersection and checking behind the driver to make sure there are no others "caravanning" behind him is an EASY plan.
Only "professional" stuntmen in sdt354's world, practice this stunt. But they do it in a highly controlled setting with medical "professionals" on the scene and an ambulance standing by.
your ignorance is staggering
Sticking to the topic of the thread....Seems the driver who killed the 7 bikers had 6 prior arrests in different states.
And here is my point I made earlier. There are exceptions to the rule on everything. In this particular case the high side wreck was the better choice than sliding out. There is never a guarantee that wrecking one way or another is better when the wreck is happening. We just need to hope for the best and break as little as possible.
In the riding course I took, they told us to lay it down and take the slide. Saying they all of the highly trained riders in military etc take that same approach. It allows use of a side arm, and can provide better control of the “accident”
To whom are you responding with this highly insightful post?
I rather think that slowing down before entering an intersection is the BEST choice! This rider did not CHOOSE to high side. The high side was solely a function of physics.
There can be NO DENYING that this motorcyclist hit the left-turning driver because he was entering the intersection too fast.
I'll grant that (given the choice) serious injury is less likely from a slide than from a high-side. My point has always been that NEITHER is the best choice of all.
I'm not even going to try and argue a case that is applicable only on the battlefield. Your example is for a maneuver designed to enable the rider/warrior to get in a position that enables him to return fire while he's under attack. It's a COMPLETELY different scenario.
For cases occurring in "The World" we are interested in PREVENTING an accident. That means, keeping the head of the motorcycle pointed in a straight-ahead direction while scrubbing off as much forward momentum as possible using the front brake and the superior friction of rubber against asphalt. Better yet, slow down to the point of stopping (and yes, you check to the rear and pull out of the lane if the driver behind you is closing too fast.) What? You don't check the rear-view mirror each and EVERY time you apply the brake?
We have been talking about a driver in the opposing lane making a left turn and CROSSING the motorcyclist’s path. Equally dangerous is the driver entering the motorcyclist’s path from a perpendicular lane to travel in the same direction as the motorcyclist.
As I have said; a high-side or a slide are not different ways of PREVENTING an accident. They are examples OF an accident!
I cant disagree with anything you said here. My post was meant to say dealing with the situation that was at hand. The guy did hit and had no choice to go up and over. If he had enough time to decide high or low, one could say he had enough time to avoid.
Every single one of us here can agree that preventing the wreck is the best case scenario. I do not think that is even debatable since we all unanimously agree on that sentiment.
The only time I laid a street bike down, it was my fault. But I also had help in it. A Dodge pickup truck lost its transmission fluid. The trail was the width of the inside tire track of the truck, went 5 cars back from the light, actually made it all the way across the intersection, started petering out while turning into the dealership that was on the corner. The left turn lane light turned green, traffic started moving. The light turned yellow, the car ahead of me stopped on the other side of the crosswalk. While this was just a mere irritation to me that I was prepared for cause I was nowhere near close to him, even 4 wheels on transmission fluid would slide. Cause the guy ahead of me stopped, I was preparing go stop too. I was more on the front brake than the rear. Front tire went out from under me. Put the bike into a slide. In that instant, I brought back my motocross training and got away from the bike.
I say this is my fault cause I was eager to get across the intersection too. I was not speeding though. The lay down was under 20. However, I can look back and see that this was preventable. I could have waited a second or two more and got a better view of the road obstructions. I didnt. Mistakes happen. But when we are unable to prevent something due to a mistake, gotta ride it out best we can.
I am twitchy on my bikes. Everything is always moving. Head, eyes, arms, legs and body. Sometimes you can see an obstruction up ahead. You can prepare and adjust for it. But in the end since an obstruction can also be moving as well, your anticipation and prediction fails due to anothers bad mistake. Like me decapitating a hare cause it actually ran back across the road into the bike. I saw it, anticipated and adjusted so it wouldnt freak out. It freaked out anyway. Too many drivers are like hares. They think they are in danger when they really arent and they head right into the path of danger.
Yo, I’m not reading all that garbage you just responded back with. I just replied to a question I found interesting and conflicted with what I was told in my riding course. Take that bs attitude n back the fuck off
It's not "garbage" to encourage motorcyclists following this thread, to develop the attitude... and BELIEVE...their safety is 100% within THEIR power to control! 100%!
The rest of this is off topic and I'm sorry for responding but... it's just too easy!
If you're NOT reading “...all that ‘garbage’…,” why did you bother "responding back."
Judging by the number of reads this topic is getting, it would seem there are quite a few who DO NOT think what I am writing is "garbage."
What you're writing however...? Hmmm. Let's see:
Read your thoughtful and eminently astute response. "...responded back..." That's redundant. You don't need to append the word "back." You see "responded" implies a reply. One does not "respond back;" he simply "responds."
I can state this with a great deal of authority, since I closely follow the work of the United States Federal Department of Redundancy Department of the Federal Government of the United States.
..."with." Most of the time, it's a violation of English grammar rules to end a sentence with a preposition. "With" is a preposition. And your usage in this case is a VIOLATION! Call the language police!
"Your use of the word "all" is unnecessary. Why would you read PART of "that garbage just responded back with?" You could have written simply:
"I'm not reading your response."
Or, "I'm not reading that garbage."
Or, "I'm not reading [your]garbage.
Also your inclusion of the word "just" is unnecessary and superfluous. You used it AGAIN (unnecessarily) in the very next sentence.
I have to tell you, your post was so poorly worded that I had a difficult time trying to decipher it. I did my best.
WHAT... Does that even MEAN?!
Or what? You'll assault my sensibilities with more of your abominable use of the English language?
Wow, I had no clue you’re so awesome! The fact that you had to fire back shows you’re not as smart as you think you are. By the way, is everything here typed correctly and the right words used in their correct manor ?
You’re awesome, can’t deny it! If you need more fuel for that ego, let me know.
I liked it because It appeared to be you, Ed, John,or whatever.
"Manor" is an estate or large house. I think you mean "manner."
You're killing me!
Steve-o you don't mean...J...Jo...
But wasn't he kicked off here years ago....and all the other 'little people' along with him?
You’re slow, and blinded by your ego. You bit the bait so to speak. I did ask if you wanted more fuel for your ego, and spelled manor wrong intentionally after asking.....
I’m done, you win, you’re awesome, no one else can compare, you set the bar, mr.perfect.
The moderators used to remove trolled threads at one time when Gary owned the forum. But we still have an ignore feature which is very helpful when a DB like Ed appears. Ignoring him makes for a much nicer experience here. By Mr. Ed-DB.
Separate names with a comma.