Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[05omegav6]

Not having ever ridden a motorbike, and never intending to do so, forgive me if I am wrong in my numbers, but the thought process should be clear...

At 40 you can probably swerve around an unexpected road user in a car length without falling off or hitting anything. At 60, that is probably the length of an artic and at 100+ you're looking at possibly the length of three artics just to change lanes

Not sure if you've read it, but alot of the content in Road Craft applies as much now as it did when it was first written. One key point being that at 30 mph 90% of your effort is focused on your surroundings and 10% on your driving. At higher speeds this reverses, and after a point, 100% of your concentration is focused entirely on controlling the vehicle. Add other road users into the mix, and it's no wonder so many bikers die each year

On a track, this isn't an issue as the straights/flat out parts are relatively short, but on a road that isn't the case, hence the challenge of road races such as the TT, where the fatality rate is far higher than on track.

[chrisgixer]

Not having ever ridden a motorbike, and never intending to do so, forgive me if I am wrong in my numbers, but the thought process should be clear...

At 40 you can probably swerve around an unexpected road user in a car length without falling off or hitting anything. At 60, that is probably the length of an artic and at 100+ you're looking at possibly the length of three artics just to change lanes

Not sure if you've read it, but alot of the content in Road Craft applies as much now as it did when it was first written. One key point being that at 30 mph 90% of your effort is focused on your surroundings and 10% on your driving. At higher speeds this reverses, and after a point, 100% of your concentration is focused entirely on controlling the vehicle. Add other road users into the mix, and it's no wonder so many bikers die each year

On a track, this isn't an issue as the straights/flat out parts are relatively short, but on a road that isn't the case, hence the challenge of road races such as the TT, where the fatality rate is far higher than on track.

Nout t do with bikers. Or old ladies with dogs. In response to the last sentence of your/that particular post.

I'm merely asking acceptance of the fact that sticking any given speed limit does not mean zero risk. Less yes, zero no.


Slightly pedantic given the subject, so apologies there.

[Kevin Wood]

That I don't accept. Lesser risk yes, of course. But zero, no.

The woman accepts much greater risk by crossing that particular road, that goes without saying. But what's reasonable to expect on that road. NSL plus 10 or 20mph would be far from unusual. She accepts that risk by crossing. There is always a risk. Always. The only way to lessen the risk is a speed limit, as that's cheaper. But a fatality is a fatality regardless of the speed limit.

Tell me there's no chance if death at the speed limit. Clearly that's not the case. Lessened yes, but if the timing is such, the vehicle simply won't stop in time regardless.

Lesser is an understatement! I'm talking here about the risk of not making it across the road where bikers are approaching at 40 MPH, not risk of death once hit!

I'd say you could spend your entire life repeatedly crossing that road with bikes using it at 40 MPH and you'd still be unlucky to get killed, so the risk is infinitesimally small. Still there, of course, but insignificant.

At 160 MPH, on the other hand, the biker is not in a position to take any avoiding action if the woman steps out. He's on the ragged edge before the crossing appears on the horizon, and the thinking distance alone will probably be far enough to prevent him taking any avoiding action before he's through the crossing. The woman won't see the bike approaching because he won't even be in view as she starts to cross. The risk is, therefore, complete pot luck. What are her chances? 50%? 90%? I don't know, but they will be thousands of times higher than the 40 MPH case. The problem is that the biker is probably unable to understand those odds.

[chrisgixer]

That I don't accept. Lesser risk yes, of course. But zero, no.

The woman accepts much greater risk by crossing that particular road, that goes without saying. But what's reasonable to expect on that road. NSL plus 10 or 20mph would be far from unusual. She accepts that risk by crossing. There is always a risk. Always. The only way to lessen the risk is a speed limit, as that's cheaper. But a fatality is a fatality regardless of the speed limit.

Tell me there's no chance if death at the speed limit. Clearly that's not the case. Lessened yes, but if the timing is such, the vehicle simply won't stop in time regardless.

Lesser is an understatement! I'm talking here about the risk of not making it across the road where bikers are approaching at 40 MPH, not risk of death once hit!

I'd say you could spend your entire life repeatedly crossing that road with bikes using it at 40 MPH and you'd still be unlucky to get killed, so the risk is infinitesimally small. Still there, of course, but insignificant.

At 160 MPH, on the other hand, the biker is not in a position to take any avoiding action if the woman steps out. He's on the ragged edge before the crossing appears on the horizon, and the thinking distance alone will probably be far enough to prevent him taking any avoiding action before he's through the crossing. The woman won't see the bike approaching because he won't even be in view as she starts to cross. The risk is, therefore, complete pot luck. What are her chances? 50%? 90%? I don't know, but they will be thousands of times higher than the 40 MPH case. The problem is that the biker is probably unable to understand those odds.

In that specific instance yes, but thats "not necessarily the case" in every instance. As I think was clear in my post. As I've had pedestrians wobble out in front of me thinking themselves perfectly safe in a 20mph zone. As I'm sure most people have.
 The odd bonker chonker round here sees no issue in mounting their previously pushed bicycle on the path and dropping off the kerb into the left side of the road regardless off what's coming up behind them and not even looking, presumably assuming there is always room for a cyclist between the car and the kerb at all times. If he does that at the right time it won't matter what speed the vehicle approaches, there will be an accident. The fact hes still alive means he's hasn't yet got the timing quite right, ESP on a bus route. (Wince)


Depending on the road, and the bike, a bike at 160 is not necessarily "at the limit" either btw. Nearer yes agreed. Not for one moment trying to justify 140mph in that example of course.

An appropriate bike will cope with .... Ok that's a pointless argument

[chrisgixer]

Further, if applying to the op, a further 10mph over the limit will make equally little difference to any accidental situation either.

[Bigron]

Returning to the original issue of automated revenue collection, back in more civilised and less greedy days a real live policeman would have pulled you over, told you that you were a naughty boy and not to do it again. Nowadays the money collected, like most motoring taxes, goes to fund pointless military action overseas and to bolster NHS and education budgets.
I wonder if it will ever be politically expedient to be honest about taxation?

Ron.

[05omegav6]

My last poist might have been a touch terse as I was on my way out for a job... the particular issue with motorbicyclists is that they really do need incredible ability to ride to anywhere near the bikes limit, and alot of riders fall way short for treating open highways as private race tracks, hence the high number of biker fatalities, probably 2/3 a month round here in the summer The few that are capable race professionally.

But back to Shackengs' predicament... driving at 60-70 on an urban dual carriageway is most likely to lead to little more than increased wear and tear on suspension, brakes and tyres... as TB will surely testify

But, and it's a biggy, the point I suspect Kevin was trying to make... How would TB be feeling if the Passat? that hit his Rover had been travelling 10mph faster?

Try and answer that question honestly the scale of stopping distance versus impact speed is about the most important/informative thing that might be learnt from a speed awareness course...

[Taxi_Driver]

My last poist might have been a touch terse as I was on my way out for a job... the particular issue with motorbicyclists is that they really do need incredible ability to ride to anywhere near the bikes limit, and alot of riders fall way short for treating open highways as private race tracks, hence the high number of biker fatalities, probably 2/3 a month round here in the summer The few that are capable race professionally.

But back to Shackengs' predicament... driving at 60-70 on an urban dual carriageway is most likely to lead to little more than increased wear and tear on suspension, brakes and tyres... as TB will surely testify

But, and it's a biggy, the point I suspect Kevin was trying to make... How would TB be feeling if the Passat? that hit his Rover had been travelling 10mph faster?

Try and answer that question honestly the scale of stopping distance versus impact speed is about the most important/informative thing that might be learnt from a speed awareness course...

I havent been a speed awareness course, but i remember reading somewhere, that stopping/braking is an exponential curve.

To show this a car was driven at 70mph and at a line in the road, the driver did an emergency stop.
Where the car had stopped a few inches further on a polystyrene wall was built.
The car was then driven at 70mph at the wall, at the line the driver did another emergency stop.
The car stopped again an inch or two before the wall.
The car was then driven at 100mph at the wall, same as before, driver did an emergency stop at the line......question was, how fast was the car travelling when it hit the wall.

30mph, perhaps? wrong it was 70mph! 

[05omegav6]

That's the scary bit

[chrisgixer]

My last poist might have been a touch terse as I was on my way out for a job... the particular issue with motorbicyclists is that they really do need incredible ability to ride to anywhere near the bikes limit, and alot of riders fall way short for treating open highways as private race tracks, hence the high number of biker fatalities, probably 2/3 a month round here in the summer The few that are capable race professionally.

But back to Shackengs' predicament... driving at 60-70 on an urban dual carriageway is most likely to lead to little more than increased wear and tear on suspension, brakes and tyres... as TB will surely testify

But, and it's a biggy, the point I suspect Kevin was trying to make... How would TB be feeling if the Passat? that hit his Rover had been travelling 10mph faster?

Try and answer that question honestly the scale of stopping distance versus impact speed is about the most important/informative thing that might be learnt from a speed awareness course...

Kev posted on the back mine re timing. That being, if somebody trips onto the road within my stopping distance at WHATEVER speed there will STILL be an accident. Unless I divert course, which happened not half an hour ago, with two blokes side by side on a narrow path. One foot slipped off the kerb. Believe it or not.

I'd given them a wide berth, as there was nothing coming the other way.


I think that's fairly easy to understand. Tbh.

[Kevin Wood]

My last poist might have been a touch terse as I was on my way out for a job... the particular issue with motorbicyclists is that they really do need incredible ability to ride to anywhere near the bikes limit, and alot of riders fall way short for treating open highways as private race tracks, hence the high number of biker fatalities, probably 2/3 a month round here in the summer The few that are capable race professionally.

But back to Shackengs' predicament... driving at 60-70 on an urban dual carriageway is most likely to lead to little more than increased wear and tear on suspension, brakes and tyres... as TB will surely testify

But, and it's a biggy, the point I suspect Kevin was trying to make... How would TB be feeling if the Passat? that hit his Rover had been travelling 10mph faster?

Try and answer that question honestly the scale of stopping distance versus impact speed is about the most important/informative thing that might be learnt from a speed awareness course...

Kev posted on the back mine re timing. That being, if somebody trips onto the road within my stopping distance at WHATEVER speed there will STILL be an accident. Unless I divert course, which happened not half an hour ago, with two blokes side by side on a narrow path. One foot slipped off the kerb. Believe it or not.

I'd given them a wide berth, as there was nothing coming the other way.


I think that's fairly easy to understand. Tbh.

Yes, but we now seem to be talking about people who step out at random. The original subject matter is about people who look look right, look left, look right, step out and then get mown down by someone whose stopping distance started in the previous county.

[chrisgixer]

My last poist might have been a touch terse as I was on my way out for a job... the particular issue with motorbicyclists is that they really do need incredible ability to ride to anywhere near the bikes limit, and alot of riders fall way short for treating open highways as private race tracks, hence the high number of biker fatalities, probably 2/3 a month round here in the summer The few that are capable race professionally.

But back to Shackengs' predicament... driving at 60-70 on an urban dual carriageway is most likely to lead to little more than increased wear and tear on suspension, brakes and tyres... as TB will surely testify

But, and it's a biggy, the point I suspect Kevin was trying to make... How would TB be feeling if the Passat? that hit his Rover had been travelling 10mph faster?

Try and answer that question honestly the scale of stopping distance versus impact speed is about the most important/informative thing that might be learnt from a speed awareness course...

Kev posted on the back mine re timing. That being, if somebody trips onto the road within my stopping distance at WHATEVER speed there will STILL be an accident. Unless I divert course, which happened not half an hour ago, with two blokes side by side on a narrow path. One foot slipped off the kerb. Believe it or not.

I'd given them a wide berth, as there was nothing coming the other way.


I think that's fairly easy to understand. Tbh.

Yes, but we now seem to be talking about people who step out at random. The original subject matter is about people who look look right, look left, look right, step out and then get mown down by someone whose stopping distance started in the previous county.

The original, original subject has long since been lost

[05omegav6]

Might I refer the honourable quack to reply #36, paragraphs 2,3 and 4

And perhaps a little less sun tomorrow   

[chrisgixer]

Might I refer the honourable quack to reply #36, paragraphs 2,3 and 4

And perhaps a little less sun tomorrow   

Why? I've accepted that several pages ago....? Yet an admittedly minor point on incidents WITHIN any stopping distance is incomprehensible.

Where is that head banging wall smiley...?

[05omegav6]

 

Point is, if Shackeng is offered a speed awareness course, he should take it