What's more dangerous?????

Originally Posted by Lozzo

I turn the mirrors so I'm not blinded

You missed the point, I'm talking about folk that don't use high beam, therefore when you are behind them, you can't see far enough into the distance to overtake them. Of course if they were using high beam, they'd probably be driving faster anyway because they could see, and there would be no need to overtake them.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by littleperson

Someone over taking you at 70 in a 60 or coming across some numpty travellling at 40(if your lucky!) in a 60 zone?

I don't think that overtaking at 70 in a 60 is necessarily dangerous, and travelling at less than the limit is similarly not by necessity dangerous.

Both may or may not be perfectly safe dependant on circumstance.

Originally Posted by littleperson

What's more dangerous?

Ummmmm... Is it you?

[Bri w]

You have no control over anyone else so why get chewed about it?

Just be sensible, and you'll live to enjoy riding longer

The dangerous one is the one you haven't allowed for in your riding - doesn't matter what speed its doing

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

You missed the point, I'm talking about folk that don't use high beam, therefore when you are behind them, you can't see far enough into the distance to overtake them. Of course if they were using high beam, they'd probably be driving faster anyway because they could see, and there would be no need to overtake them.

I misread your post, sorry. I never rely on anyone else's lights to guide my route for me. I'd just up my game, get alongside and flick to high beam when it's not going to dazzle the driver I'm overtaking, or flick to high beam beforehand so I can dazzle him, and wait for him to slow down and make it easier for me to overtake.

I've read a study done in the 90s about speed limits. They were trying to justify the speed enforcement game and all that. Big surprise, they found that when they set the legal speed higher, fewer accidents would occur. In fact, it's the speed difference between normal traffic and your own that matters.

As it stands, 20 mph beneath the normal driving speed increases the risk of accident ~400%, whereas 20 over increases it ~300%.

So, theoreticaly speaking, driving 40 in a 60 is far more risky than 70..

That being said, although speed is not a major factor in accidents (studies say in actuallity, speed is a factor in 7% of accidents), the consequences of them is speed dependent.

And yeah, slow drivers pi*s me off as well, it's not bad enough that the roads are clogged and traffic around here is down the drain, but when you get to some open road there's always that odd driver that keeps everyone else stuck

[yorkie_chris]

Tossers over here say "speed was a factor in this accident" when someone crashes doing 40mph in a 60 limit and use that as an excuse to lower speed limit! What will that achieve, people still do same speed in same place and still crash!

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by ThEGr33k

I do hate people who go 40 no matter the limit. I particularly hate it when you are on a nice open 60 road where its easy to do the limit but they dont then they speed off into the distance in 30's. WTF!?

Anyway, as said, try to keep calm and just enjoy it. You can over take them pretty easy later on.

Agreed. What really annoys me is knobs on bikes who do 50 through 30s and then hold me up in the twisties, like Mr GSX-R 1000 and Mr 675 on Sunday. Learn to ride properly and then no need to speed through built up areas to keep up.