Forum menu
I think the "skilled drivers/riders can go faster more safely" argument is a bit of a red herring TBH. They can go fast off the public roads and pay for the privilege if that's what they want to do. If the overall speed of roads is reduced (good drivers/ riders included) than the accident rate will come down.
In overall road safety terms is pointless trying to discriminate, a good driver will be just as good at 50 as at 70 or 80
[s]Motor[/s][i]Donor[/i]bikes
LHS - however you are simply wrong.
Try this comparison that yo might be able to understand
Steve Peat having a gentle practise run down a DH track he knows well. He will be both faster and less likely to crash than I would be attempting the same run at the same speed. Why? he has better skills.
I'd probably not even make it to the bottom
In the example I gave of the tightening bend ( which is a common cause) the rider has plenty of time to take the correct action. What they don't have is the skill.
of course your skill levels make a huge difference to the amount of crashes you have
John McGuinesss can do 130mph laps of the TT course. I'd be lucky to get round safely at a 70 mph lap
[i]LHS - however yo are simply wrong. [/i]
TJ, as an aside, this kind of thing doesn't help. Try to find a different way of saying this, or better still stop saying it. It just winds folk up needlessly. OK?
Sorry, gets on my goat, on you go...
TJ, the second the discussion gets round to donorbikes, you appear to lose all sense of perspective...because, guess what, you once rode one, or maybe still do. If it's cars, you're all about everybody slow the **** down.
If all the power rangers rode more slowly and stopped treating bendy roads roads like they're a challenge rather than a route, then there'd be less deaths. Do you agree or disagree with this? Never mind all your skillz-pay-de-billz bollocks for once.
I'm with TJ really as whenever I scare myself on tight corners when descending on a road bike I know a pro would be going around it so much faster than me.
TJ a little lesson for you which I understand in advance you won't take on board.
You have a [u]different opinion[/u] than me.
Neither of us are right or wrong, its a different opinion. 🙄
Don't kid yourself tiger_roach, part of the reason they hammer down those bends is that know nothing's coming the other way, and they've got the whole road to play with...Hang on that almost like a race track...Hmmmmm if we could get cars and motorbikes to do that....
LHS what is your argument? Genuinely interested.
A road that tempts people to drive too fast and then has severe consequences for any mistakes is indeed dangerous. You might as well claim that solo rock climbing isn't dangerous, as long as you don't let go of the rock. Something with a high degree of risk is dangerous.
On the subject of why we should care if incompetent drivers/riders kill themselves - imagine if it was your son or daughter. It's NOT just the driver's problem.
Oh and re the speed issue - any rider is less safe at higher speeds because margins for error are slashed, and the consequences are worse if you do have an accident. I'd have thought this was glaringly obvious. Another glaringly obvious thing is that not everything on the road is under your control.
For example the bend that tightens. You need to countersteer and apply a little throttle to tighten the line. The crasher panics and backs off the throttle - this makes the bike run wide so they crash - at a speed far below that which it is possible to ride around that corner.
totally agree - it's just overcoming your natural instinct to back off that's bloody tricky!
It doesn't matter whether you are a learner or John McGuiness, go round a corner and find an unexpected road condition/obstruction and you will have a far better chance of stopping / avoiding if you are going slower.
DD Of course thats right. Limit all vehicles to 20 mph and there would be few crashes. However it does not get to the root of the problem which is overshooting corners at moderate speeds due to a lack of skills.
NickC - I just get so frustrated. There is a proven reason why these crashes occur - its people riding too fast for their skill levels - not at speeds that are too fast for the road. its often under the speed limit.
I just get frustrated that all motorcyclist get tarred with the crasher tag and that people don't grasp the basic reasons why the crashes occur. its not the same as cars.
While there are many reasons for crashing the majority of crashes on roads such as the A537 are not due to fast riding - they are due to people riding beyond their skill levels. This is not the same thing.
There is a huge amount of research that backs this up.
AS I said above the classic crash ( and the research backs this up) is a rider who does not make it round the corner at a speed that is not excessive.
John McGuinnes could get round that corner at 100 mph. A decent road rider easily at 50 mph with plenty of safety margin. The crasher crashes at a lower speed because they don't know how to corner. They panic and shut the throttle / brake which cause them to run wide and crash.
LHS - it is not a matter of opinion. It is proven fact There is significant research that supports my position.
LHS - MemberIt doesn't matter whether you are a learner or John McGuiness, go round a corner and find an unexpected road condition/obstruction and you will have a far better chance of stopping / avoiding if you are going slower.
You miss the point. at 50 mph McGuiness would not crash and at 50 mph the unskilled would.
its not the speed that is the issue - its the skill levels. Teh skill levels are a far greater influence on crashing rates than the speed is.
McGuineess would be safe at a higher speed than the unskilled.
TJ, no YOU miss the point, or doing a good job of just avoiding it.
No one is saying that weekend warrior lack of skill contributes to accidents. The issue i have is your view that because you are more skilled than the rest you can go round corners quicker and safer.
That is when that "experienced" motorcyclist becomes another statistic because they hadn't known there was oil / water / mud /stopped traffic / turning tractor / badger / sheep / car wrong side of road / I could keep going.... around the next corner.
That is where a vast proportion of deaths occur.
John McGuinnes could get round that corner at 100 mph
And when a car comes the other way on the wrong side of the road, does John McGuinnes phase to a different dimension temporarily and just pass through it?
LHS - good luck. Just remember, if you don't get your point across to TJ you haven't lost.. it's just not possible.
You can't teach someone who will not listen.
LHS - MemberThat is where a vast proportion of deaths occur.
Hmmm. Got any evidence for that?
I don't know how explain it any better LHS. Of course the skilled rider is quicker [i]and[/i] safer.
The situation you describe is not where the deaths occur. its as I describe - it single vehicle accidents at relatively low speeds on bends.
LHS
No one is saying that weekend warrior lack of skill contributes to accidents. The issue i have is your view that because you are more skilled than the rest you can go round corners quicker and safer.
Do you not see the lack of logic in that statement? You accept the lack of skill on behalf of some riders means they crash - the corollory is that the more skilled are less likely to crash - therefore thay can be both quicker and safer.
On fort William DH run Steve Peat does it in 5 mins without crashing. I' be lucky to do in 10 and it would be likely I would crash. So Peaty would be both quicker and safe than me because the gulf in skill is so large
Al - its out there - recent ROSPA research IIRC - might be TRL..
Its pointless trying to convince people with closed minds tho so i shall drop it.
Its pointless trying to convince people with closed minds tho so i shall drop it.
Lol, that is rich mate. You're just about THE most closed minded person on STW!
What I think LHS is trying to say is that no matter how good you are, more speed = more risk.
Molgrips
The point I am making is the skilled rider is less likely to crash at a high speed than the unskilled on is at low speed.
The gulf in skill is so large here.
The skilled rider riding to 70% of their ability is still faster than the uskilled one at 100% of their ability.
so the skilled rider is both faster and safer down the same stretch of road.
TJ, up to you. Genuinely please slow down. No one on here wants anyone else to become another statistic but over-confidence in ones ability and blind faith in other road users and conditions will spell disaster for you as it has done for thousands others including good friends.
Stay safe.
you might as well claim that solo rock climbing isn't dangerous, as long as you don't let go of the rock. Something with a high degree of risk is dangerous.
Hazard= something that can cause an adverse effect
Risk = likelihood that a hazard will actually cause it's effects and the severity of those effects.
so if we look at soloing a rock climb, a hazard will be the rocks/ground at the bottom of the climb. This will not change. The risk is variable dependent upon the skill and experience of the climber, the grade of the climb the height of the potential fall etc..
it can easily be argued that solo climbing is a low risk activity because although the severity is high should a fall happen the likelihood and hence the risk is low due to the fact that folks that solo know the routes well, choose climbs well within their capability and can assess the conditions of the friction and rock etc..
something with a high degree of risk is not inherently dangerous, it can be managed to reduce the likelihood and severity to an acceptable level.
That's why the "speed kills" sound bite annoys me.
The speed a driver/rider may increase the severity and possible likelihood of hazard fulfilling it's inherent ability to cause an effect but this is also dependent upon other factors such as road conditions, driver experience, skill etc..
Steve Peat does it in 5 mins without crashing. I' be lucky to do in 10 and it would be likely I would crash. So Peaty would be both quicker and safe than me because the gulf in skill is so large
a) thats probably because you're a bit sh*t 😉
b) Peaty also probably doesn't have to worry about tractors turning across the track, or a sheep standing in his way....
That's obvious, TJ, and to assume that we don't understand this is a gross underestimation of our intelligence.
LHS's point still stands tho - more speed = more risk. That is also obvious, is it not?
People crash when they're not as good as they think they are OR the road catches them out. That can still happen if you are a noob or a pro, can it not? If you push your own envelope then you are taking a risk, regardless of the actual skill level. But ultimately, if you are a brilliant rider then the edge of your envelope and the point where you crash could be 100mph instead of 50mph, and you're more likley to DIE.
@tazzy - thankyou for the intelligent reasoned response. However, there are always factors outside your control when rock climbing and when driving/riding motorbikes. One very famous climber, the chap who wrote the classic North Wales guidebook, Paul somebody, died soloing on a VS (vastly below his skill level) I think because a piece of rock came off in his hands.
TJ - could Peaty's injuries 'if' he crashed be expected to be greater than yours due to his greater speed?
LHS - don't be so patronising.
I am sorry that you cannot understand the basic point about the risks involved. I am not overconfident in my own abilities. I do not ride beyond my skills.
of course the unexpected can happen anytime.
Having not ridden for a couple of years I know it would take me a good few thousand miles to get back up to speed. This understanding of the limits of my skills is why I am safer than some. I would even attempt to get on a modern sports bike and ride it hard without tens of thousands of miles of acclimatisation. I know where my limits are and I know how to ride within them.
molgrips- yep I've injured myself soloing as well, but that was down to my poor risk assessment 😀
Accidents will still occur even when something has been fully risk managed. You can never fully make any thing or activity safe you can just reduce the risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. Sometimes S**t just happens
*bangs head on wall*
LHS's point still stands tho - more speed = more risk. That is also obvious, is it not?
You may think so but the skill levels are far more significant.
That can still happen if you are a noob or a pro, can it not? If you push your own envelope then you are taking a risk, regardless of the actual skill level. But ultimately, if you are a brilliant rider then the edge of your envelope and the point where you crash could be 100mph instead of 50mph, and you're more likley to DIE.
But this is not what I am argueing. The newb might be pushing the envelope at 50 mph, the skilled well within their envelope at 70mph
so the newb is still far more likely to crash despite the slower speeds. Even if a tractor turns across you the skilled has seen tha hazard earlier and can take avoiding action more quickly.
Apologies if someone has pointed this out already. Forget the safety angle, those cameras on the Cat and Fiddle and Congleton road and just damn ugly and ruin a beautiful area of countryside. I can't believe they were approved.
Your points are valid, no need to bang your head anywhere. Apart from this one:
Even if a tractor turns across you the skilled has seen tha hazard earlier
Skilled riders see round bends?
Do me a favour.
Listen, the bottom line is this: If you kid yourself into thinking you're a great driver because you can handle a car/bike/whatever, then the unexpected will probably catch you out at some point. The speed at which this happens will determine how likely you are to die.
Ayrton Senna was a fine driver, he was killed by a mechanical.
Skilled riders see round bends?Do me a favour.
😆
molgrips - Member
Even if a tractor turns across you the skilled has seen tha hazard earlierSkilled riders see round bends?
yes - they see further round the bend because of a different road positioning. The correct line on a motorcycle places you in a different place in the road so you can see further. One of the common newb mistakes is to use the same lines as a car.
Its not just seeing further anyway - its seeing better. Looking for the field entry, looking for the mud on the road, all these little clues.
the chap who wrote the classic North Wales guidebook, Paul somebody, died soloing on a VS
Paul Williams, at Froggatt.
I find these "speed kills. Discuss" threads fascinating (even tho' I can't be bothered to read all of this one). I don't think anyone could disagree with observations on skill level v likelihood of crashing, but how anyone can argue that reducing speed limits [i]won't [/i]reduce {EDIT} the severity of {EDIT} accidents is beyond me.
Either way, if they raise a bit of revenue for whoever then fine with me also. My objection to them - as pointed out above - is the impact they have on the landscape.
I drive fairly fast on the open road BTW
To go back to the OP - I don't know how to stop the carnage. Its clear analysis of why the crash rates are so high is important and people riding beyond their skills make up the vast majority of those killed according to the analysis I have seen.
Because infact many of the fatal accidents are not at speeds significantly higher than the speed limits speed cameras won't do much. Education must be the key - and perhaps have some mechanism for bike license to lapse after a certain time they are not used?
I would like to see mandatory retesting for all classes of driver every few years and make testing much much harder.
Did you realise you can get a unlimited bike licence even now at over 21 and have never learnt to corner at speed or brake from speed? its not a part of the training or testing to learn to brake hard from 70 mph or to countersteer in fast corners.
I would like to see mandatory retesting for all classes of driver every few years and make testing much much harder.
Now I do agree with that
TJ those things are all part of good driving. But you can still go too fast.. and reduced speed makes everything safer.
Quite obviously.
This is a non-argument now, it's pointless. We are actually all agreed except that TJ thinks we aren't.
I understand the point TJ makes. Skill obviously plays a part, it's just that in the grand scheme of things, not enough of a difference overall. Make driving on public roads as utilitarian as you can, and make driving/riding on closed roads, tracks as attractive as you can. You'd soon reduce the deaths on roads.
stilltortoise - Member...............but how anyone can argue that reducing speed limits won't reduce {EDIT} the severity of {EDIT} accidents is beyond me.
Because reducing speed limits has been tried and make little difference to the type of crashes that are so overpresented on roads like the A537.
Two reasons - one is that the guys who ride stupidly fast will still do so despite the speed limits and the other is that a great many of the fatal accidents are at speeds under 50 mph.
nickc - MemberI understand the point TJ makes. Skill obviously plays a part, it's just that in the grand scheme of things, not enough of a difference overall. Make driving on public roads as utilitarian as you can, and make driving/riding on closed roads, tracks as attractive as you can. You'd soon reduce the deaths on roads.
I tend to agree - a part of the reason I got rid of my bike.
Skill makes far more difference to crashing rate on motorcycles than people seem to give credit to however. Its a huge part of the issue. it is not insignificant.
track days are increasingly popular as is advanced training. This can only be good
I don't care either way really as:
1) I won't be going to that area
2) My council tax doesn't pay to wipe the road clear of the blood and bones like the local people's does although unfortunately some of my taxes do.
3) I don't care 'cos its in the north
4) the local businesses won't be getting my money because all of the ignorant motoristas who drive too fast mean that I won't go there to start with
Sorted.
According to MCN, the cameras aren't working properly yet. There is also a detour on the route that has no cameras so will screw up the average speed calcs. Possibly.
the guys who ride stupidly fast will still do so despite the speed limits
...and if they keep getting caught by cameras and fined maybe they would slow down. Isn't that the point? I got caught by an unmarked car some years ago on the M74. I was doing an [i]average [/i]of 92mph on a clear road in good conditions. Even the copper acknowledged the good conditions, but "had to" fine me.
Regardless of my skill level and assessment of road conditions, I have not driven like that since for fear of more points and more fines. Maybe one day I would have been in a nasty accident had I continued
Speed Kills.
No it doesn't. Inappropriate speed can but doesn't always kill. Stll that makes a sightly less Daily Mail-esque soundbite so has no place on STW