View Full Version : Overtaking in the blackwall tunnel.
I reckon if you're not endangering others but only yourself, Why can't some people get it into their head that it can be done without it being endangering to even yourself? :???:
Why can't some people get it into their head that it can be done without it being endangering to even yourself? :???:
eh? Of course it (I assume you mean overtake/filter) can be dont without endangering yourself. I do both when its safe to do so.
Read what I was quoting in the post you quoted me on.
Originally Posted by Red Herring http://forums.sv650.org/images/ca_morpheus_gray/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?p=2294599#post2294599)
We all know when we are taking risks, and if you do so then you deserve the consequence of it.
Not sure if you mean risks on the road or risks in general. I think accepting the outcomes of your risk is different to deserving them. Do you really deserve to not walk for life if you took a risk squeezing in behind a couple of cars when say filtering?
yup, I'm pretty happy with cause and effect. If you do something yourself that results it not walking again, then fair enough.
I don't see why you equate filtering with not being able to walk though as I've done it a few times & can still walk too.
eh? Of course it (I assume you mean overtake/filter) can be dont without endangering yourself. I do both when its safe to do so.
Read what I was quoting in the post you quoted me on.
I tried, but I couldn't understand it. Lots of words written in English, but not making much sense so I just dealt with the first sentence.
Like I said accepting an outcome is different to deserving it.
I don't equate filtering with not being able to walk. My point is that if a rider went for a 'risky' filter (ie only person at risk is him and him alone) and botched it up do you really believe they deserve to never be able to walk again, should it go tits up?
If you do something yourself that results it not walking again, then fair enough.
So Christopher Reeve deserves to never walk again because he rode a horse (risky) and fell off?
Surely you don't think that.
That theory of yours can be applied from a non bikers point of view. ie, 'any biker who comes off or is killed deserves to because they knew riding a bike is a risky thing to do'.
That theory of yours can be applied from a non bikers point of view. ie, 'any biker who comes off or is killed deserves to because they knew riding a bike is a risky thing to do'.
No-one deserves to die because they knew it was risky, but we should all accept that one day we might die because we are on a bike, and bikes are inherently more risky to travel on than cars, for example
All this is academic in my case, because I am going to live forever, despite riding like a tw4t and having more medical problems than a series of Holby
No-one deserves to die because they knew it was risky,
exactly
but we should all accept that one day we might die because we are on a bike, and bikes are inherently more risky to travel on than cars, for example
yep, and I don't think anyone should get on a motorcycle in the first place unless they're willing to accept the risks involved (which is different to deserving it should the worst befall you, which is the point I'm trying to get across).
All this is academic in my case, because I am going to live forever, despite riding like a tw4t and having more medical problems than a series of Holby
ahh if only everyone had this outlook:D
Owenski
14-06-10, 08:20 AM
cant we all just get along?
yorkie_chris
14-06-10, 08:21 AM
cant we all just get along?
Where is fun in that?
Yarrrrrr (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-8Uo1j0AiA&feature=related)
Owenski
14-06-10, 09:35 AM
i jus like to see everyone happy, it upsets me when you all get shouty.:smt060
Here, everyone have a flower...:flower:
Red Herring
14-06-10, 10:01 AM
I think there is a difference between getting shouty (as per overlord) and our heated discussion. We at least appear (mostly) to have some respect for the others point of view....
I don't think someone "deserves" to die if they make a mistake, however if they deliberately take an obviously increased risk then they "deserve" the consequence of it.
I know we all think we're really good at filtering and of course we always believe we are in complete control all the time, but sometimes even we can get get it wrong. I personally think that if someone rides with no margin for error it's only a matter of when, not if, they get hurt. The problem is of course that good judgement comes from experience, and experience often involves poor judgement, and the school of hard knocks can be a painful and expensive route to take. Personally I believe that if you want to ride a motorcycle on our roads then you should make the effort to do it properly. By properly I don't mean all daglo, IAM and legal Lozzo, I mean with a degree of knowledge and understanding about what you are doing. Riding a bike on the roads safely has very little to do with turning the handlebars and twisting the throttle, it has everything to do with being in complete control of your surroundings, and that includes leaving room for not just your mistakes but for those of others as well. Filtering through moving traffic in a tight environment leaves very little margin for either, you either need to be very confident in what you are doing, or very ignorant to the risks you are taking.
rictus01
14-06-10, 10:26 AM
you either need to be very confident in what you are doing, or very ignorant to the risks you are taking.
sorry to truncate your post, but this did remind me of a ride I did with a fairly new ride (won't mention names) but we were on his local roads, that I knew somewhat as well, I lead for the first bit, and he lead on the return leg, when we got back, I was surprisingly impressed with his roadcraft and pace, right up until I mentioned the car pulling out of the side road without stopping could have been nasty, and he answered what car, as he hadn't seen it ....:o
Anyway, back to the plot.....
Owenski
14-06-10, 10:47 AM
Did I miss the bit where anyone pointed out how dumb the car driver must have been to hit the kerb in the first place? Moving to avoid a bike or not, you've gotta be a pretty 5hit driver to hit the kerb in such a way. What if there was no kerb and is was just the tunnel wall, would he have done the same an just slammed into the tunnel wall instead?- Also would this have still been the bikers fault, car drivers got to be taking some responsibilty here.
Red Herring
14-06-10, 10:55 AM
Half the threads on topics like this are all about how stupid some car drivers are, you can hardly be surprised if one does something irrational and daft in front of you now can you?
If a car driver has a crash whilst taking avoiding action rightly or wrongly, whether you like it or not, you're involved. You may have known they didn't have to move, but you need to look at it from their point of view even if that is one of ignorance, and try and allow for it. I'm not saying you are to blame, just that you are involved.
Owenski
14-06-10, 10:57 AM
Agreed mate, but involved doesnt mean at fault as you say.
The original post seemed intent on blaming the rider, and even praised the car driver.
You know from my other posts, Im not one for jumping on a bandwaggon. Ill post MY thoughts and my oppinion and if that agrees with someone elses then Ill either see no need to comment or put a +1. Im just shocked no one else posted about the car drivers actions/reactions before page 12.
Did I miss the bit where anyone pointed out how dumb the car driver must have been to hit the kerb in the first place?
You can't really appreciate how tight this tunnel is unless you drive through it. There is very little margin for error and trying to squeeze a bike between two already packed cars is seriously risky business.
Owenski
14-06-10, 11:20 AM
You can't really appreciate how tight this tunnel is unless you drive through it. There is very little margin for error and trying to squeeze a bike between two already packed cars is seriously risky business.
Understood :) and I dont disagree, from the vid posted earier its clearly really narrow.
In honesty, I dont think I'd be filtering it at 30mph the whole way, not everyday, not with those turns and at the bends vehicles practically riding the white lines.
I think though I can relate it to at the moment because on the M62 where roadworks have reduced the lane width turning 2 lanes into 3 (which I'm sure you can all apprechiate makes it quite tight, It leaves literally less than a foot between 2 lorries if side by side in any of the lanes).
On that section, I dont filter the whole thing because of vans/lorries/trucks etc but I will between it if its 2 cars, they generally dont drive so close togther that you cant safely fit between them and I apply the same logic to the tunnel.
I imagine (total speculation admitantly) that the tunnel cant be any narrower than those lanes currently are or nothing bigger than a car would be able to go through. Thats why I agree with Bears initial post that if its car-car then its safe to filter through, if people move over to make it even easier then great (they'd be thanked). If someone is suprised to see a bike in thier mirror and reacts by moving over with enthusiasm an in the process hits the kerb, then again they'd be thanked for moving over but at no point would I feel they were forced/bullied into it, they chose to move.
Looking at it from the other side, when I'm in the car I always move over for bikes simply cos I like it when people do it for me. If I were to move over and hit the kerb, I'd not be cursing the biker I'd be too busy hiding my head in shame at my own poor driving. Perhaps that better explains my ealier point.
I guess I was trying to say that special circumstances (poor lighting, narrow space, fast moving objects in your peripheral vision (tunnel walls) can easily make you loose focus and misjudge your reaction. Adding an extra factor into the mix (filtering biker) could only make it worse.
You don't have to be dumb. It is just an unfortunate set of factors and events waiting to develop into an accident.
Owenski
14-06-10, 11:47 AM
Admit i never thought about the lighting aspect, is it pretty poor in there?
yorkie_chris
14-06-10, 01:10 PM
I guess I was trying to say that special circumstances (poor lighting, narrow space, fast moving objects in your peripheral vision (tunnel walls) can easily make you loose focus and misjudge your reaction. Adding an extra factor into the mix (filtering biker) could only make it worse.
It's perfectly safe and legal to go down an unlit country road at 60mph with a hedge 6" from your window in a car, I don't see difference. Still just a slip of concentration that can happen anyway.
Plus (under) 30mph in a well lit tunnel is hardly fast moving.
You can't really appreciate how tight this tunnel is unless you drive through it. There is very little margin for error and trying to squeeze a bike between two already packed cars is seriously risky business.
If the traffic is so packed in, then they can't be moving very fast, which makes it quite safe so long as you mind the gaps.
I admit I have not seen this tunnel, but the M62 as Owenski describes is perfectly safe to filter down where there is a gap.
It's filtering, you can't expect a wide open lane for you, gaps will come and go... the nature of the beast, surely?
I wasn't saying that is impossible to filter. Just that clipping the kerb under these circumstances could happen to anyone.
Since the driver tried to make room, I was led to believe that wasn't enough space for the rider to get through.
Here's another perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZSZad2UoA
At some point, there' s a bike catching up in the queue (2:10) so you can better judge the size of vehicles.
So Christopher Reeve deserves to never walk again because he rode a horse (risky) and fell off?
Yes, he deserved to not to walk again. I had as much sympathy for him as the next man and thought it was a great shame at the time but he should have rode the horse better or worn better protective equipment. It was the consequence of his free right to ride a horse and I would defend his free right to ride a horse to the end.
You can't separate consequences from effect and you can't wrap everyone in cotton wool.
Yes, he deserved to not to walk again. I had as much sympathy for him as the next man and thought it was a great shame at the time but he should have rode the horse better or worn better protective equipment. It was the consequence of his free right to ride a horse and I would defend his free right to ride a horse to the end.
You can't separate consequences from effect and you can't wrap everyone in cotton wool.
Don't agree.
He doesn't deserve to never walk again purely because he rode a horse with the wrong protective equipment - he doesn't deserve to walk again because he made a load of crap Superman films and never actually gave Lois Lane the benefit of his experience and a stick of Kryptonite where it's gonna make her happy
Don't agree.
That should be your sig Lozzo
He doesn't deserve to never walk again purely because he rode a horse with the wrong protective equipment - he doesn't deserve to walk again because he made a load of crap Superman films and never actually gave Lois Lane the benefit of his experience and a stick of Kryptonite where it's gonna make her happy
:lol:
Yes, he deserved to not to walk again. I had as much sympathy for him as the next man and thought it was a great shame at the time but he should have rode the horse better or worn better protective equipment. It was the consequence of his free right to ride a horse and I would defend his free right to ride a horse to the end.
You can't separate consequences from effect and you can't wrap everyone in cotton wool.
Nobodies trying to seperate the consequence from the cause . That is an obvious fact of life. But your logic of deserving what befalls you is the same as:
If you get stabbed/raped when walking back home late from a night club you deserve it as you know its riskier than waking up a mate to come get you.
If you die because a drunk driver takes you out on your bike you deserve it because you know riding a bike is risky.
If you rupture a blood vessel inside your brain when coming off you bike you deserve it because...well do you? Helmet aint gonna do anything to stop that.
Come on, you can't seriously believe that. I'm talking about deserving the consequences, not facing/accepting/acknowledging the consequences of your actions - unless you have a different definition of the word deserve.
To put it another way, some take risky actions on a bike, botch it and die. Others take risky actions, botch it and survive. Do they not all deserve the same outcome?
If not, why do you think the ones that died deserved to and the ones that survivied didn't?
he doesn't deserve to walk again because he made a load of crap Superman films and never actually gave Lois Lane the benefit of his experience and a stick of Kryptonite where it's gonna make her happy
:smt046.
(although come on, the first two aint so bad) + would rather have seen lana lang have a happy time with the krypto than lois!
Red Herring
14-06-10, 04:51 PM
OK, look at it this way then. If you cross the road outside your house and do so without looking properly then that is careless and there is a good chance you could get seriously hurt, however you were going about something that we all do and know is potentially dangerous, but we normally manage the risk by looking properly....
If on the other hand you decide to cross four lanes of busy traffic on a dual carriageway when there is a perfectly good footbridge right next to you then you are substantially increasing the risk for a minor gain in terms of your time... and quite frankly in my view you "deserve" everything you get.
Edit to add that I have made the assumption you haven't got four lanes of busy dual carriageway outside your house....but you hopefully see what I mean!
How many posts I have made in this thread has absolutely no bearing, you've made plenty, and I guarantee I hold your opinion in an even lower regard than you hold mine.
The statement I commented on has everything to do with the thread in that it was a condemnation of a foolish point of view.
From what part of that do you deduce that I haven't read the entire discussion?
I have not ridden through this tunnel, though I would like to think myself capable of deciding when to filter and when not to myself.
Was my comment as pointless as, for example, somebody casting a broad assertion that people deserve some great misfortune for doing something they do not agree with?
Please explain how my view is pointless? I fail to see how it is. Oh and I can GUARANTEE you that I hold your opinion in a much lower regard than you hold mine, its a public discussion forum, get used to it.
Red Herring
14-06-10, 05:46 PM
Your view is not pointless Stuuk1, just contentious. I think the issue here is that some people feel they are capable of making their own mind up if they can filter safely in a particular location and take offence at your suggestion they shouldn't, or deserve to be hurt if they do.
-Ralph-
14-06-10, 05:57 PM
I personally think that if someone rides with no margin for error it's only a matter of when, not if, they get hurt.
Sigh, I know, and I've got the aches to prove it!
How about if you take the word "deserve" out of it, and use an expression my old man used to use.
"Well, Son, you had it coming! One day you'll learn your lesson"
When my old man used to say that everytime I came hobbling home covered in blood, did he mean I'd deserved it? Or did he just mean it was bound to happen eventually?
I can completely understand that. I also did explain that I didnt mean that they deserved to get hurt but instead if they came off due to their actions then I wouldn't have any sympathy (I didnt change the thread topic because everyone had read it by then, so wouldnt change anything).
I would never regard someone's view as pointless, if that's their view, then that's their view. This thread is about my view and I posted it to see what the response would be. Its proved pretty much 50/60 against my view and I haven't disputed that, nor do I care.
Unfortunately there were a few users that sabotaged the thread with posts that weren't necessary e.g. Overlord. And another thread was made in retaliation to this thread which was obviously done to prove a point, which wasn't really made...
OK, look at it this way then. If you cross the road outside your house and do so without looking properly then that is careless and there is a good chance you could get seriously hurt, however you were going about something that we all do and know is potentially dangerous, but we normally manage the risk by looking properly....
If on the other hand you decide to cross four lanes of busy traffic on a dual carriageway when there is a perfectly good footbridge right next to you then you are substantially increasing the risk for a minor gain in terms of your time... and quite frankly in my view you "deserve" everything you get.
Yeh I see the point you're making RH, but for me it comes back down to wether or not your risky behaviour is endangering others or not. I would say crossing a dual carriageway is putting other road users at risk, so its a selfish act, and sympathy for such a person would be very little.
Some people get away with offs after riding like tools, others are not so lucky. Surely some are getting more (or less) than they deserve? Why does one deserve to get road rash and the other a wheelchair?
The word deserve is starting to lose meaning now, lol
Unfortunately there were a few users that sabotaged the thread with posts that weren't necessary e.g. Overlord.
ya, but it was hilarious though, especially as a first time post.
Unless bear, who started the filter thread just couldn't resist...hmmm?:)
Haha yes, it did go through my head that it could be!
No, if I'm gonna respond I'll do it straight out. Stuuk1: sorry bud, only just noticed your renunciation of the deserves to get hurt thing. Cheers for that. Thulfi: I think you and Stu are arguing from the same pov buddy, Overlord: come back mate, it'd be lovely to hear more from you!
I think you and Stu are arguing from the same pov buddy
not sure we are mate.
Overlord: come back mate, it'd be lovely to hear more from you!
+1:D. I'm all about the entertainment.
Overlord: come back mate, it'd be lovely to hear more from you!
I just read that post again and I'm convinced it's been written by the barsteward love child of BBC and Dave Preston.
Overlord
14-06-10, 10:41 PM
I just read that post again and I'm convinced it's been written by the barsteward love child of BBC and Dave Preston.
but laddy you are most certainly wrong :p who are they anyway, weird names BBC and Dave Preston, sounds like a farmer name
Overlord
14-06-10, 10:46 PM
Overlord: come back mate, it'd be lovely to hear more from you!
would you, why, apparently others think that i was wrong to say what i did, ahh well, Viva La Revolución :p
Owenski
15-06-10, 07:45 AM
Cant be preston - he wouldnt know where to find the "ó" key
I may offend people here or p1ss them off but Blackwall tunnel or no Blackwall tunnel, part of my riding is filtering and I love it. I like being close to danger within a certain degree and I accept that if I come off because of it I may be to blame. I see my ride into Soho on a Friday night as my chance to let loose and yet I'm nowhere near as quick/wreckless/skilled as some of my fellow organs.
My name's Darren and I like filtering.
In addition I like trackdays, country rides and even motorway stints. I also like bungee jumping and adrenaline sports when I can. I'd do a base jump if it were legal and available in more places. I like cheap thrills. I like to live a life involving more than just living.
I can't recall filtering or overtaking in the Blackwall tunnel but when I get the chance I'm going down there to have a bash.
My name's Darren and I like filtering.
Can I hear a "hell yeah"?
yorkie_chris
19-06-10, 08:16 AM
quick/wreckless/skilled
Reckless is probably a bad thing, wreckless is probably a good thing.
punyXpress
19-06-10, 09:43 AM
Hey, monkey!
You Say: " I'd do a base jump if it were legal" so presumably you never ride illegally?
Why not try doing say 35 in the tunnel and to really pi$$ on all & sundry do a backfire!
You know you want to! ;)
He he. I was drunk last night. I never ride ilegally and am so not reckless I can't even spell it.
I can't do backfires :(
Fizzy Fish
20-06-10, 07:24 PM
My name's Darren and I like filtering.
Sod the filtering - WTF are they doing letting a flippin' monkey ride a bike?? :shock:
jacksuzukisv650
20-06-10, 08:38 PM
it does sound nice in there if u got a pipe on and u drop a gear haha go through it at 3 in the morning sunday night its dead as a door nail ..
yorkie_chris
20-06-10, 10:22 PM
Sod the filtering - WTF are they doing letting a flippin' monkey ride a bike?? :shock:
Ask here (http://www.harley-davidson.com/wcm/Content/Pages/HOG/HOG.jsp?locale=en_GB)
Ask here (http://www.harley-davidson.com/wcm/Content/Pages/HOG/HOG.jsp?locale=en_GB)
benders
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.