To Ride Fast or Not To Ride Fast, That is the Question?

[ogden]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Lets not forget that it's legal to cross a DWL if the vehicle in front is doing less than 10mph. As the speed of the car in front reduces, the safer crossing the DWL becomes. So in a 60 mph limit you may have quite a long DWL before a bend, but if you catch the back of a car doing 35mph right at the start of that line, you've got bags of time to pass, even in a powerful car (I still wouldn't in the car because mine is not powerful at all).

It's just not possible to paint a DWL that fits all situations for all vehicles and all drivers.

What a load of rubbish.

It's legal to cross a DWL if the vehicle in front is doing less than 10mph because the vehicle you're passing is practically stationary. 35mph isn't 10mph, however you want to bend it.

DWLs are, generally, there for a reason. They don't need to "fit all situations for all vehicles and all drivers", they're lowest common denominator markings and, as I said above, if overtaking is so easy then you'll find it a doddle to do after the DWLs have ended.

Overtaking on DWLs, like zig-zag lines at pedestrian crossings, is illegal and arguably increases risk. The same applies to exceeding the speed limit. The only reason to do it is because you think the markings (or limits, or whatever) are impinging on your fun and you're too impatient to wait. In which case fill your boots, but don't try and rationalise it.

Originally Posted by ogden

What a load of rubbish.

In which case fill your boots, but don't try and rationalise it!

Was such an outburst warranted?

If it makes rational sense in my head I'll rationalise whatever the hell I want. The 10mph thing was purely to illustrate that at some point the law has allow for the fact that once you reach a certain speed, it's deemed safe to cross any DWL. I didn't say that 35mph was as safe as 10mph did I?

Originally Posted by ogden

DWLs are, generally, there for a reason. They don't need to "fit all situations for all vehicles and all drivers

I believe passing a car doing 35 mph is less risky than passing a car doing 60 mph, as you need spend less time and distance on the opposite side of the road. I didn't say DWL needed to fit all situations, I just commented on the fact that they can't and dont. The line has to be of an appropriate length to accomodate the car in front doing 60, and the vehicle wanting to overtake being as powerful as your normal family car. Or in your words, lowest common denominator markings.

Maybe you should read peoples posts before you start flaming them...

[ogden]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Was such an outburst warranted?

If it makes rational sense in my head I'll rationalise whatever the hell I want. The 10mph thing was purely to illustrate that at some point the law has allow for the fact that once you reach a certain speed, it's deemed safe to cross any DWL. I didn't say that 35mph was as safe as 10mph did I?

I believe passing a car doing 35 mph is less risky than passing a car doing 60 mph, as you need spend less time and distance on the opposite side of the road. I didn't say they needed to fit all situations, I just commented on the fact that they can't and dont. The line has to be of an appropriate length to accomodate the car in front doing 60, and the vehicle wanting to overtake being as powerful as your normal family car. Or in your words, lowest common denominator markings.

Maybe you should read peoples posts before you start flaming them...

That was neither a flame nor an outburst. It was a contradictory opinion about the complete cobblers you posted.

Passing a car doing 35mph is probably less risky than passing a car doing 60mph in most situations but if it means crossing a double white line to do so then you're taking a risk which is almost certainly unnecessary.

The 10mph loophole is there to prevent people sitting behind near-stationary vehicles (such as hedge-trimmers and cyclists). It's not there to provide a crutch for you to support a point about overtaking people doing 35mph.

I'll say it again - if overtaking in small gaps is so easy, why not do it after the double white lines have ended? Anything else is just symptomatic of your own impatience whether you rationalise it or not.

Lets try again shall we?

Originally Posted by ogden

What a load of rubbish.

Flame

It's legal to cross a DWL if the vehicle in front is doing less than 10mph because the vehicle you're passing is practically stationary. 35mph isn't 10mph, however you want to bend it.

I never said it was

DWLs are, generally, there for a reason. They don't need to "fit all situations for all vehicles and all drivers",

I didn't say they needed to

they're lowest common denominator markings

we agree on this anyway

and, as I said above, if overtaking is so easy then you'll find it a doddle to do after the DWLs have ended.

Overtaking on DWLs, like zig-zag lines at pedestrian crossings, is illegal and arguably increases risk.

The same applies to exceeding the speed limit. The only reason to do it is because you think the markings (or limits, or whatever) are impinging on your fun and you're too impatient to wait. In which case fill your boots, but don't try and rationalise it.

It was a contradictory opinion

Where? Contradictory to what?

Complete cobblers

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Lets not forget that it's legal to cross a DWL if the vehicle in front is doing less than 10mph.

As the speed of the car in front reduces, the safer crossing the DWL becomes. So in a 60 mph limit you may have quite a long DWL before a bend, but if you catch the back of a car doing 35mph right at the start of that line, you've got bags of time to pass, even in a powerful car (I still wouldn't in the car because mine is not powerful at all).

It's just not possible to paint a DWL that fits all situations for all vehicles and all drivers.

We agree that 10mph law exists (cos I simply made a statement of fact on it).
We agree that 35mph is safer that 60mph in most situations.
And we agree that a DWL is a lowest common denominator and doesn't, nor does it have to, fit all situations.

So what part of of my very short post was complete cobblers?

[ogden]

*sigh*

A flame (and I'm using the weakest definition of flame ever) would be me saying "What a load of rubbish", possibly calling you the son of a camel, and leaving it at that. My post was not a flame, you son of a camel.

You're trying to justify crossing double white lines to overtake because you're too impatient to wait til the DWLs have ended. Your justification is cobblers. You son of a camel.

Originally Posted by ogden

You're trying to justify crossing double white lines to overtake because you're too impatient to wait til the DWLs have ended.

No I'm not.

You really are good at making things up aren't you. I don't think anyone has tried to justify overtaking on a DWL vs impatientence. We know it's impatience, but we just don't enjoy sitting behind granny at 35mph for mile on mile.

The entire discussion has been one of justifying overtaking on a DWL vs safety.

Which is exactly why I have ignored your previous comments on impatience.

You can't justify which bit of my post is cobblers and until you can go jump in a lake....

A favourite police prosecution - crossing double white lines. Now we all know that double white lines are placed on roads to prevent drivers trying to overtake each other in their cars. So the markings reflect their likely level of performance (or lack of it), width of vehicle, ability of driver, etc. - in short, they are painted on the road because the highway authority assesses that a car of modest performance will not be able to complete the overtake in the distance he can see to be clear, especially if the driver is arguing with his wife or dialling his mobile phone at the time.

Motorcycles of course have far greater acceleration and are much narrower than cars. In the picture above the bikes represent no danger, either to themselves or anyone else. They can see the road is clear and they are afforded ample time to overtake, bearing in mind their rate of acceleration. In the picture on the right the second bike is holding back as he can not see round the bend. Notice that the police driver is overtaking anyway! He poses a danger to any oncoming vehicle and threatens the car he is overtaking.

Here the bike is again crossing the white line - there is no oncoming traffic and his manoeuvre is perfectly safe. The police car is not going to have time to complete his overtake before the intersection ahead and will force the vehicle on the left to brake to allow him in.
In this short chase the only vehicle which presented a danger to anyone was the police pursuit vehicle. The bikes were not speeding, were ridden well within their riders' capability and were a danger to no-one.
The second bike stopped when he realised the police were chasing him. They cautioned him for crossing white lines, which he accepted. At court they changed their prosecution to dangerous driving (******s). The motorcyclist defended this and the jury found him not guilty - quite logical as nothing he did was dangerous. So the police wasted a huge amount of time and (your) money.


Just a wee article found while we're on the subject (well I suppose its a bit of an insult to journalism to call it an article, but hey....)

[ogden]

Bored now.

Guys, guys, guys. Easy now.

This is supposed to be a constructive forum and a chance for people to voice opinions on the original thread, not a place to sling mud at each other. If you feel you have a grievance then please PM each other, but please keep it to yourself. No-one wants to read about the pair of you bickering all day.

The original thread was about riding fast, trying to keep up with more experienced riders on bigger bikes and about knowing your own limits. Since then we have had posts on tyres, stopping distances, lights and whether they should be fitted high or low, God knows how many posts about DWLs and several derogatory and personal posts.

If you have a point to make about DWLs, then please start your own thread, and I have no doubt that there are people all over the forum who would love to comment. However, this is not the thread.

I am happy that so many people have responded in the way they have to my original thread, but I would like it to stay focussed on that. Not run off at a tangent which then ends up being a slanging match. Anyone reading the thread for the first time will have no idea what the thread is about and that is not right.

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

I haven't read the 17 pages so

Re: To Ride Fast or Not To Ride Fast, That is the Question?

In summary. Yes