Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Compliance and the motorcyclist

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by Pterodactyl, Apr 23, 2013.

  1. Quote:
    “ Compliance can become a vehicle for bullying where the threat is out of all proportion to the transgression. Compliance is thuggery, pure and simple.
    Compliance is effective because it requires simple uni-directional communication of the type: ‘do it or else’. Compliance is attractive to the dimwitted because it spares them having to do anything more imaginative than threatening people to get an outcome. Compliance is neat, tidy and risk free because it does not require the messiness of trust.”
    (Acknowledgement and thanks to Jim Bright – opinion@jimbright.com. My italics)
    I read this on the weekend. It was not directed, specifically, to the motorcycle environment. Funnily enough, or maybe not so funny, it came back to me while I was riding one of our more popular motorcycle roads where I had reduced speed to the somewhat unrealistic limit and then became all too aware of the enforcers of compliance watching carefully.
    Realistic speed limits based on real conditions (and trust?) must surely be better than the above. A cynic might say: “Sure, but not as lucrative to the state’s income stream”. Do we agree with the cynic? Some of the more spectacular motorcycle accidents occur in just those areas where compliance is most sought. In most cases the rider couldn’t give a proverbial for compliance.
    Would most riders respond positively to a rethink of the current compliance based road speed limits and advisories? The focus then becomes riding skills rather than the rather the more tricky balancing of ride enjoyment against preserving points and cash. As The Doors nearly said it: "I got ma (one) eye on the road and ma hands upon the wheoo".

    Bullying? Thuggery? Uni-directional? Dimwitted? Threatening? Some morsels to feed your thoughts.

  2. There is now no chance of realistic speed limits in pretty well any part of Oz.

    The authorities have spent so much time and money on the selling of the "safety" of speed limits that most drivers have the notion that, provided they are at or under the speed limit, they can do any dopey thing they fancy and are still safe.

    So, if "realistic" speed limits were to happen, all those drivers would just go up to the new speed limit, and continue doing their dopey stuff. :(
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Get a bit further out of Sydney and you will find twisty roads with 80 and 100km/h speed limits. The oxley is one example but there are many more.
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  4. I have been working on the theory that speed limits dont apply to motorcycles for the past 40 yrs.

    So far it is working, but I have had some explaining to do over the years, and my negotiating position is very weak when talking to plod.
    Have had to change bikes sometimes when I end up in too many officers notebooks.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. You are on to something mate.

    Yeh! You have hit the nail a glancing blow. How on city (or near-city and “bike popular roads”) are limits determined? The word “Dimwitted” does come to mind. But then,with the clarity bestowed by natures mood enhancing substances, I realize that l am being kind. In reality, political good-think and correct-speak of the Orwellian kind, and beloved of the Daily Terrorgraph, is certainly the major determinant. Easy, risk-free and lucrative. Behavior modifying? No.

    Then here comes the drive to obtain compliance. Bullying? Thuggery? Uni-directional? Threatening? Yes, or at least often enough to tar all enforcers with the same brush whether they be human or mechanical. This perception, my perception anyway, is that this is the only way to drive compliance when, or at least where, the rules are nonsense. 1984 here we come. Talk about back to the future.

    I am not arguing for a host of well thought out speed limits on every straight and corner. The end result would certainly be an Anzac Pde/South Dowling like maze, fully equipped with some of the most lucrative speed cameras in the Commonwealth. Nor do I argue for a carte blanche for every lunatic to kill themselves and anybody else in their trajectory.

    What I am arguing for is a FAIR GO FOR MOTORCYCLISTS on their favorite roads
  6. Lowest common denominator (both drivers and riders)
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. iClint - wrong mate, wrong,wrong.
    Read my lips:

  8. Absolutely correct. The limits would not be as low as they are if people drove to the conditions. Instead they see the limit as a guarantee and externalise their thinking at every opportunity in order to shift the blame. Of course if there's no one else to blame the "revenue raising" card is pulled from the bottom of the deck.
  9. Mate, even further out from Sydney, there are non freeways with 110 kph speed limits.

    So what?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. It seems quite simple to me, you get further out of Sydney you get less and less muppets on the road.

    putty road, old road, RNP, Mac Pass, Kangeroo valley bells line, jenolan caves etc. etc. more muppets than you can poke a stick at, L's and P plates, weekend warriors with more dollars than sense, sunday drivers tweeting what they just saw out the car window while driving, people who have never driven on a road that wasn't either 80km/h or less or a dead straight motorway... and even then they can't do it without running up the arse of the car in front.

    if the speed on these roads was 100km/h you can guarantee some muppet will charge the 35km/h corner at 100km/h at that speed by time the muppet realises their mistake it is too late.

    the 60km/h limit significantly increases the chances of the lowest common denominator to live to see another day.

    the solution as unpopular as it may be, is to protect the stupid, and a lot of stupid people live near major cities, get further out into the country and there is less need to protect the stupid.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Ah, right, OK, I wasn't sure of what you were getting at.

    I must admit that I, for one, would rather let the stupid take their chances.

    After all, isn't Darwin's Theory something about survival of the fittest?

    Do we really need to protect the stupid?

    We seem to have plenty of those and to spare.

    Twenty three million people in Oz, as of yesterday, so letting a few really dim buggas trash themselves, so long as they don't take out too many others, seems like good policy to me.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. The stupid are the ones who are most likely to take out a rider when they realise that they can't make the corner at 100 when the advisory sign says 35. In one way the limits protect us, in another they limit the people who actually know how to ride/drive properly.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. #13 mattb, Apr 24, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
    I don't know who the author is, but they sound like a crank. Compliance can be thuggery, but it is also a natural exercise of power in any group, a condition of the existence of groups and the benefits that come with groups (such as roads). Accepting this is a condition of being called 'reasonable-minded' and even 'a grown up'.

    That includes with regard to speed limits on the roads that the group makes. That means managing competing wants and needs in the use of those roads, such as lowering speeds in ways that diminish harm but which contradict the kinds of use that others make of the roads. It means that within a plurality of desires and practices there will always be groups who are infringed and unhappy. It doesn't follow thereby that, in principle, the unhappy are being bullied when they are forced to comply. They are right of course to complain if actual bullying occurs, or if a simplistic attitudes is taken, but that's different and the rise in crankishness among a portion of riders is helping nothing.
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Dumb Dumb x 1
  14. #14 Pterodactyl, Apr 24, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
    There is an acknowledgement to the author and a link. "sound like a crank" - I just thought it was someone else's opinion.
  15. #15 mattb, Apr 24, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
    I'm aware of that, I'm not interested in looking, just stating that what I read shows crankishness - maybe it's normal for them, maybe not.

    Be aware I'm not going to get in to some silly pages and pages debate on this. I'm just sick of the increasing crankishness and one-eyedness on NR. But I'm not genuinely interested in engaging with the noise. I usually refrain from even commenting in any of these threads these days, but I must say that the paranoid and incessant bleat-fest about our apparent oppression is making the place a bit boring.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Hallebloodylujah
  17. There's muppets in the country too mate. Keeping to your own lane going around blind corners is thought to be optional by a way too large percentage of drivers.
  18. really speed limits would not required at all if people had common sense, but it turns out that common sense is not very common, it is only due to the stupidity of the majority that speed limits are there. (those cagers we are all very fond of avoiding)

    the law is obviously stupid, you can get locked up with criminals for growing herb in your garden FFS
  19. true, but it is the frequency.
  20. "Compliance can become a vehicle for bullying where the threat is out of all proportion to the transgression" I couldn't agree more. I was recently pulled over for speeding and lane splitting. The officer decided to then accuse me of having tinted blinkers on my bike. Straight away I felt I was guilty and had to prove my innocence. To the quote above I felt I was being bullied on a topic the office had no expertise to justify his claim (BTW My bike is factory standard Honda CBR600RR). He was already booking me for 3 infringements(speeding, lane splitting and not using a blinker) he obviously wasn't satisfied with that quota and thought he would threaten me with more.

    Compliance should be used on the principals of safety and not used as a threat or to bully especially when the system is configured that we have to prove our innocent rather than men in blue to prove we are guilty.
    • Agree Agree x 1