RubyRS4

Condolences also. I've lost a few too. I believe most of us would have. When I've read those numbers, I'm aware some of them are good friends/family. RIP Actually had a memorial ride for a fallen rider (close friend) last night. Killed 2 years ago. A big loss to the biker community that one.

... oh hang on, wait for it ...

Alot of good valid points here. Good to see a debate without childish interventions All valid points. But it does all come down to how the information is filtered thru to us (media/stats/word of mouth ... or even forum arguments)

I'm getting a headache from all the posts

+1 I could present a summary to show you're safer on a bike if I wanted to. Its how the author wants to the summary to be presented.

You can't seriously compare data from decades ago to current data. Reporting methods have changed. Total deaths in (say) 1974 were actually that ... total deaths. Pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, drivers, passengers etc. Now days they break up the reporting into different categories. So you could potentially be comparing data from driver deaths only today, compared with total (all categories) deaths 30 odd years ago. 30 years ago they didn't have sub-categories. I've been on a Govt assisted panel and have been over these so called stats. What you need to do is read the 'raw data'. Not summaries. Study some Statistical Analysis at uni and you'll learn any stat summary can say what you want it to say. Govts need to justify big spending on traffic equipment and need to "prove" on paper its working. Data can be presented to represent a wanted answer. The classic has always been that motorcyclists are 20 times more likely to die in a road crash than a car driver. Truth is (when you read the raw data) motorcyclists are 4 times more likely to be injured in a crash than a car driver would be to be killed. Read it more closely and you'll also understand 84% of multi-vehicle accidents involving a motorcycle death/injury are caused by the car driver at fault. This was of course interpreted as being you've an 84% chance to be injured on a bike than in a car in a multi vehcile crash. Word craft at its best. You can take data today and omit one sub-category or present a particular query with the data to make it read what you want it to read. If you believe what you see in summaries or new reports you're silly.

I know I didn't contradict myself. I know what I wrote and what was meant by it. I can talk slower for those who want it I agree with Sled. 30 years ago the driving conditions/safety were basic. Today we have state or art cars and added safety features, but that should mean no one is dying or crashing? No. Why? What is the one thing that is getting worse as the cars are getting better? Answer: driver attitude. IBTL

Amen. Teenage/young drivers just do not know what they are doing. Period. Don't go judging all drivers in one paragraph. I was brought up around racers and fast cars and bikes. My father raced in speedway (bikes) and rallys in the 70's and 80's. He was also the mechanic for the Datsun Rally team then. My uncle drag raced. I naturally got involved in that environment and I've been racing for years on bikes, and I've had my fair share of fast cars and bikes. I was taught from an early age about skill, experience and attitude. Lack of any will get you killed. My first car was my uncle's old drag/street car ... heavily worked motor and all. But I never had any hair raising moment in it at all on the streets. I've travelled at some ridiculous speeds but its always been in a controlled environment. I know I'm more skilled and experienced than most drivers/riders out there, but I don't consider myself invincible. Yet teens believe they are invincible because they have a fast car and some mates to show off to. When I was 16/17, me and my mates would take our fun to the track or a private property for a bash around or race. We always used protective gear and never put anyone at risk. But thats just too hard for most to understand.

As Pete said, the "safer" design of the WRX didn't save the driver from losing it and crashing and killing. What you're all overlooking is "risk compensation". This means that as cars get "safer" (open for debate) the driver will compensate by driving more dangerous, taking more risks ... thinking his hooning will balance out with the safety feature of his car. Wrong. WRX driver for one proved that. You can stick a teen/hoon into an NA 4 cylinder car or a turboed V8 ... either way they'll find a new way to kill themselves. But the NA 4 cyl car will be harder for them to end up in trouble, it will take them longer to reach a high speed, and it will deter them from drag racing in the suburbs if they know the car is gutless anyway. Limiting them to an underpowered car will not give them more skill (that was a dumb statement), but the underpowered car will not require them to have more skill than they can offer, than a car like a WRX or Skyline. Inexperience and lack of skill is a big killer. Thinking otherwise is just stupid. So 'yes'. Give them 2-4 cylinders less (a 4 cyl car) and take away the option for forced induction/cams etc, and limit them to a 100kw car and their parents can rest easy they'll be better off and will come home at night in one piece.

The look of the new Kwaks just look silly ... Pete riding it just enforces that opinion

It certainly does change you. I've seen enough. Yet there are so many "indestructable" teens who firmly believe it will never happen to them, so people will continue to die, thats just how it is. I just feel sorry for those who get woken up in the middle of the night to discover the scene Cars are getting more powerful, and its just too easy for a teen to show off. We should be limiting what young drivers can drive. Motorcyclists are limited under the LAMS program, so why can't L and P platers be subject to naturally aspirated 4 cylinder cars with under 100kw?

Another perfectly good 31 wasted

Well the missus and I are off to a BBQ with Nene and Ben and a few other mates. Drinking time!

I got the 101 a few times in a gift pack with glass and carry bag (I think from memory) and that was about $67 a year ago.

3 glasses for me then ... what are you waiting for? Gimme your addy

Anyone wanna see if they have a Dayz front bumper there for a S2 Stagea?

... and your address again is? ...

Sex enuf said

If thats Wild the sphincter of the universe 101 proof, I'm coming over

Debt collection agencies ... when you've paid for the original invoice but they won't listen. I got a bill from video/dvd hire shop for some overdue movies. Came to about $21. I paid the said bill on the due date, its come out of my bank account. Yet the tools instructed the collectors.

I've spent the day clearing the site for the pool, tearing down an old chicken coop, and assembling the wall frames for my pool. I'm hot, tired and brown from the sun. Time for booze I've got a mate's house warming to go to tonite. All the biker boys will be there, drinking, insulting and bullshitting the night away

Not necessarily. Just because you paid for a service, does not mean you are happy with it. Take pics in the event you need to send them to Consumer Affairs.

East 50s on Payneham Road. Tell Brian that Reuben sent ya. Or try see what the boys at Pooraka track has on their wall.

Well Nene, you are your own kidn of crazy ... so thats weird

Riding my bikes thru the hills. Nothing but me, the bike and some windy roads.