Well...gosh!

Alfa GTV mmmmmmmmmm....what year is that?

You could join us on Sunday http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.p...77#post1651377

[QUOTE=BigBaddad;1651384]Alfa GTV mmmmmmmmmm....what year is that?
/QUOTE]

my wife is after one of these, what have you got? v6? recommend?

anything with rear wheel drive

I'm baaaack!

That was bloody brilliant!

Up and out at 8am to meet my mate at Newark at 9. Directions written in big writing on paper selotaped to my tank (thank you to the person who gave me that tip - very helpful). Journey there was uneventful but slow.

An hour or so of discussion about why we were there, the new(ish) THINK! advert (which is cool and surprisingly unpatronising). CGI crashes, ugh, horrible even though it was just computer animation. This was to discuss the reasons behind the crashes and how the biker could have prevented them.

On thing that was said by the top bike copper there though was that filtering is completely at the bikers own risk due to precedent set by a specific case a few years ago. Filtering past junctions (right and left) is a no-no due to the likelyhood of the cage-numpty doing something daft.

Cornering and observation were the main topics though and helped me a lot. I know the theory but watching someone who actually knows what they are doing is a whole different thing. We followed the police biker (lovely chap) taking the lines he was setting for us and it just flowed! It made the ride so smooth. We then went down Caistor High St - What a road! And at the end he complimented me on how I rode that stretch - to say I am chuffed is an understatment!

Knackered, and going to get pizza - bye!

Trace

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Ace-T

On thing that was said by the top bike copper there though was that filtering is completely at the bikers own risk due to precedent set by a specific case a few years ago.

That's a shame that they are still spouting out of date/superseded case law I know it helps them to get the message across, but if it does happen I would rather know the latest beneficial case law.
I presume he was referring to Powell v Moody. You should now be referring to Davis v Schrogin

Mr Schrogin was stuck in a traffic jam in his car on a straight road. Mr Davis was riding a motorcycle along the same road in the same direction and was able to overtake the stationary queue as nothing was coming in the opposite direction. Mr Schrogin decided to leave the queue by executing a U-turn. Although Mr Davis' motorcycle was visible, Mr Schrogin did not see him until his car collided with the motorbike. Mr Schrogin accepted in evidence that he was looking the wrong way. Mr Davis first saw Mr Schrogin's car moving towards the kerb in preparation for the u-turn and was no more than five cars' length back from the point of impact.

The trial judge found Mr Schrogin negligent in making the u-turn without looking properly, and that Mr Davis was not to blame. Mr Schrogin argued that Mr Davis had accepted that he had paused to react and was contributory negligent. The Court of Appeal held that Mr Davis was so close to the point of impact that he could not have avoided the collision, so there was no basis for a finding of contributory negligence.

http://www.toppingpartnership.co.uk/...01&h=350&f=351

Filtering past junctions (right and left) is a no-no due to the likelyhood of the cage-numpty doing something daft.

Also I prefer to think for myself at every situation rather than just follow set rules. But it's not a bad rule to follow.