[Closed] Cat & Fiddle "The most dangerours road in the UK" - Really?

Clubber, yes, I see your point, sorry I had a different type of corner in mind.

[i]Nickc - its too fast only for their skill.[/i]

I wasn't aware the road death statistics took into account how good or bad a driver/rider was...*

*Being sarcastic, sorry...

From the report ( http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.com/downloads/RSFreportweb.pdf)

Motorcyclists accounted for just 4% of the traffic on the
motorway and A road network surveyed, but were overrepresented
in high severity crashes, accounting for 26% of all
fatal and serious collisions reported. Of these, 50% occurred
at junctions, 10% were head-ons, 6% rear end shunts and 5%
single vehicles running off the road.

So nationwide (and I know that this has been about a specific road), just running off the road is pretty uncommon (1 in 20)

Nickc - its too fast only for their skill. Not for the radius of the bend or the abilities of the bike.

Too fast for skill = too fast. Therefore, speed is a factor. We agree.

More accurately the specific speed that rider is doing in that specific type of situation (tightening bend, rider goes straight on) is a factor. For a different rider it may be perfectly safe.

Many of the other accidents include the running wide on bends - they run wide and hit another vehicle.

Most of the accidents on junctions are smidseys ( Sorry mate I didn't see you)

But as you say this was in the context off the A537 and similar roads. No junctions and thus no smidseys. I have also seen stats that show a far larger % of single vehicle accidents.

Nickc - they manage to still do this at relativly low speeds

Further, looking at that report, page 15, I think that the table at the bottom of the page refers to the 10 black/red spots at the bottom of page 14. As such for the Cat % Fiddle, the accident breakdown is:

36% at Junctions
5% run offs
18% head ons
41% 'other'

I'm not really certain what run offs are (though suspect they're the type of accident TJ is talking about) and head ons could well be caused by run offs as could some of the 'other' but it certainly suggests that there are a significant number of accidents at junctions which skill will only partly mitigate.

EDIT - TJ, you say "No junctions and thus no smidseys" but I just checked on google maps and there seem to be a good few junctions.

Its a good few years since I rode but but I don't remember many junctions. However you are right there are more than I remember.

I can't open that PDF - its keeps crashing my steam drive puter with too much stuff running on it 🙂

at a guess - run offs are the classic accident I talk about. A fair amount of the head ons will be the same cause - running wide on bends and some of the others as well.

I am sure I read an interpretation of the stats were they had looked at the blame - and in accidents where the rider was to blame the type I talk about was a majority. Junctions being normally the rider not to blame.

Still 36+% (and I'd expect that means we're talking of numbers of at least 50% just on the basis that I don't believe that the remaining 64% are all due to a rider's lack of skill) of accidents are accidents where higher speed will increase the chance of them happening pretty much regardless of skill...

seems to me riding a motorbike on the ragged edge on a public road is just selfish antisocial behavior

it may be fun and look really cool but its just the same as tearing down a footpath on a dh bike

thats why bridelways and trailcentres and dh tracks are so great coz we can indulge in our childish pastimes without causing other people grief

likewise bikers and drivers should book a track day or do the TT

I would dearly love to drive really fast, it's definitely a part of my psyche.. but I'll save it for when I end up on track. Or when I'm on my mtb 🙂

The argument that driving fast is ok if you have the skills reminds me of the fate of Mike Hailwood and also of Mike Hawthorne. They are as dead as that proposition.

The argument is ok for a one way system with restricted access, but simply does not hold water on public roads with traffic coming the other way or with slow moving bags of blood and bone on bicycles in front of you round the blind corner.

One of the consequences of a minority driving their cars/bikes/whatever fast is that it means that everyone else speed up and becomes more aggressive. Where I live is fairly urban, the speed limit is 30mph but people regularly drive along the road at 40-50mph. This means that when turning out of a side road you have to floor it because you have no idea whether someone driving 20mph over the limit is going to come round the corner, same as pulling out from parked, or attempting to pull in to stop. Everyone drives foot to the floor because a small minority of people did so. This means that it becomes difficult to cross the road on foot -because you don't know if someone is going to hoon round the corner, its difficult to turn right on a bike because the motoristas are driving too fast and a lot of them don't think that cyclists should be on the road. Speeding affects everyone be it through death/injury, property damage beacuse they pile into a narrow section with parked cars and can't stop, its dangerous crossing the road, its dangerous cycling, actually it can be dangerous walking on the pavement because sometimes they run out of road and end up on it.
But then again because they're London drivers they don't know how to drive in anything other than straight lines so have to slow down really hard to get round corners.

kimbers - Member

seems to me riding a motorbike on the ragged edge on a public road is just selfish antisocial behaviour

#agreed. I never have done nor have I suggested it was reasonable.

epicyclo - Member

The argument that driving fast is ok if you have the skills

Again - not what I have said.

No, not what you've said but you still say that driving fast is fine so long as you're a skilled rider (EDIT - and within your limits). You may not be on the ragged edge but you may well still be significantly increasing the risk of having a serious accident or worse causing one that affects other peopler.

Your original premise was that most accidents on the cat&fiddle were the fault of unskilled riders. The numbers seem to suggest that while they do probably cause quite a lot of them, there are plenty of accidents where skill of the rider will be very little mitigation and as such, riding slower will give a greater chance of avoiding them or making them less severe.

I think TJs points ring true that, if you are a more experienced/skilled biker you can go round a corner quicker and safer than a weekend born again warrior and that a fair proportion of accidents that are caused in that very manner.

The exception i take is the assumption that skilled bikers can ride round corners faster and be safe. Its just not true when you have so many other hazards to consider.

18 years of road and race-track taught me that and I have a sizeable part of my calf and a rebuilt knee to show for it.

clubber - Member

No, not what you've said but you still say that driving fast is fine so long as you're a skilled rider

Not what I have said at all. Point out where I said that?

Your original premise was that most accidents on the cat&fiddle were the fault of unskilled riders. The numbers seem to suggest that while they do probably cause quite a lot of them, there are plenty of accidents where skill of the rider will be very little mitigation and as such, riding slower will give a greater chance of avoiding them or making them less severe.

You are making assumptions there. Recessive speed does play a small role in the accidents yes. However that stats suggest it is in a minority of cases. How many % from the date you read was excessive speed a major part?

However lack of skill - the ego writing cheques the body can't cash on behalf of the bikers - is far greater as is car drivers not seeing the bikes. These are the two largest categories of fatal bike accidents. Absolute or excessive speed has a very small role in these two categories

focussing on speed is the wrong place. focussing on addressing the skills gap is a far more effective way of reducing fatalities.

A skilled experienced rider t the speed limit will be safer than the newb at 45 mph.

Stop riding bikes altoghether there will be no bike accidents.

LHS - Member

I think TJs points ring true that, if you are a more experienced/skilled biker you can go round a corner quicker and safer than a weekend born again warrior and that a fair proportion of accidents that are caused in that very manner.

The exception i take is the assumption that skilled bikers can ride round corners faster and be safe. Its just not true when you have so many other hazards to consider.

focussing on speed is the wrong place

Not necessarily, because however good or bad you are, slowing down will make you safer. It's an easy win.

Training may be more effective ultimately, but really - slow the F down first to within your limits, THEN gain some skills.

Surely the first part of riding skill is knowing your limits in the first place?

Not necessarily, because however good or bad you are, slowing down will make you safer. It's an easy win.

No it doesn't thats the bit you fail to understand.

I don't agree. Surely, if you are an inept rider, then going nice and slowly through a bend will be safer than if you pin it?

I live just off another motorcyclist honey-pot / death trap road (the A6 into Matlock Bath). A few things about the type of person who rides a motorbike there, which may possibly be different from the average motorcyclist (although maybe not given their general statistical tendency to get themselves killed).

All of them drive fast, it may be sometimes within the limits, but typically a lot faster than the prevailing traffic, and with complete disregard for pedal cyclists when overtaking them, and not much for cars, oncoming traffic, no overtaking lines etc.

There may be some sorry mate I didn't see you incidents, but to be honest I bet most of these are 'sorry mate I didn't see you because you were doing some crazy 50mph overtake in 20mph prevailing traffic speeds without looking out for anyone coming from the side roads. Which while the driver is 'to blame', are still a situation where the motorcyclist could have driven sensibly and defensively and avoided it. Same goes for bikes overtaking traffic jams - it might not be your fault if someone comes in from the side, but fault makes bugger all difference if you're knocked off, better to keep an eye out for it and slow down sometimes.

They have trouble going round corners without going onto the other side of the road, that is certainly true. There is one bridge on a sharp s bend that is famous for people crashing motorbikes into it. Oops.

The majority of them seem to have stupid loud exhausts. Are these actually legal? They sound so stupid, and you can hear them from right up the top of the valley sides. ****ers.

It is however quite funny going to Matlock Bath, always makes me think of the Village People, I always imagine they're all about to break out into the YMCA dance.

Joe

"speed kills" is an over simplification of the problem to which the over simplified answer is to restrict ALL motor vehicles to 20mph.
Better training & driver testing is part of the solution as are stiffer penalties for those that continue to drive like pricks on public roads.

OK, TJ, I'm not going to argue over what fast means because clearly we won't agree. In the past you've talked about overtaking and going over the speed limit which can be safe in the right circumstances including the skill of the rider.

I never said excessive speed since I'm talking about the unexpected type of accidents where it's impossible to say what excessive is.

My point is that in the 'junction' type accidents for example, if you're going slower then you will typically/often/sometimes be more likely to be able to avoid it by swerving/stopping/whatever - that's just common sense. I'm not suggesting that it will always work.

A skilled experienced rider t the speed limit will be safer than the newb at 45 mph.

I'm suprised that you're making such an absolute statement there but it does demonstrate nicely the blindspot you have for motorbikes. It may well be true that a skilled rider is safer at the speed limit than a newb at 45mph in some accidents but it's just as likely be true that the skilled rider is less safe at the higher speed in accidents where the unexpected happens (a car pulls out) where the difference in speed may well be the difference between having the accident or not.

Better driver training is definitely a good thing. Would you not agree though that there's a significant number of accidents where it'll make no/very littel difference though and where speed will be an important factor?

mostly "sorry mate I didn't see you" is a preferential statement to make than - "sorry mate I didn't actually look" or "sorry mate I saw you but still pulled out because I knew I was only risking damage to you & not me"

Sorry mate I didn't see you*

* you came ramming around that corner so damn quickly I didn't even have half a second in which to clock you.

Quicker to walk.

[img] [/img]

both feet of the ground so technically he is running 😀

World's fastest runner! Top pic - Vale is it?

running away from the undeniable evidence of having exceeded his skills level no doubt (rossi?)

I think there are a few roads in North Yorkshire and Cumbria in the hunt for that dubious title.
IME backing off mid bend tightens the line, accelerating too soon makes the bike run wide. You should enter a bend on a trailing throttle and start accelerating and standing the bike up when you see the exit, surely?
Do we really want bikes (or cars) to be restricted in any way at all? Life is dangerous, people will only find another way to injure themselves. I'm sure that, statistically, the roads are massively safer than 30 - 40 years ago and some of the sfaest in the world. But I ride bikes, so I'm biased. However, a lot of people post on here about their superfast German cars - I wonder how many can honestly say that they haven't strayed over the centre line on a bend? Could have killed a biker obeying the speed limit, that.

failedengineer - Member

IME backing off mid bend tightens the line,

Nope - deffo makes the bike run wider. More obviuous on big bikes with wide tyres or non paralellogram shafties You can back off and go tighter but it needs a hefty does of countersteering to make it do so. You may be doing this unconsciously

Do we really want bikes (or cars) to be restricted in any way at all?

The difference between people driving like dicks and going say rock climbing or DH mtbing is that on the roads, there are completely innocent parties coming the other way.

So it is not just about you.

My wife and daughter could be driving along tonight quite carefully and someone could come round a corner out of control and kill them both*. You have the right to endanger your own life, but not those of others.

* before you scoff this happens a lot, and to people I've known too.

#

clubber - Member

OK, TJ, I'm not going to argue over what fast means because clearly we won't agree. In the past you've talked about overtaking and going over the speed limit which can be safe in the right circumstances including the skill of the rider.

Again - not what I said and a different debate.

Would you not agree though that there's a significant number of accidents where it'll ( training ) make no/very littel difference though and where speed will be an important factor?

Nope - cos thats not what the research suggests. In fact its the other way round - in a small number of accidents reducing speed would make a difference a large number extra training will make a difference.

as I said right at the beginning a major issue is that in your training and testing you are not taught to swerve or brake at high speed. learning these things makes much more difference that reducing speed by a few MPH Skill in braking will make more difference to stopping distances than a small reduction in speed.

iterestingly one of the magazines has been lbbying hard and campaigning for the test and training to be made harder and to incorporate these two things.

TJ is this like lifting off in a RWD car?

Al - nope. its because of the rounded tyres, the distance from the centre line to the contact patch because of the wide tyres, camber thrust and a whole load of complicated things that are hard for me to understand and even harder to explain. it does not involved loss of grip at all. its a geometric effect. Castor angle is involved as well.

I'll see if I can find an explanation.

Links to the research please TJ. You started this thread saying there were no junctions and that the high number of accidents on the Cat&Fiddle was due to unskilled riders with no other factors and I reckon that both have been shown to be inaccurate.

As above its people riding to fast for their skill levels and they pay the ultimate price.

I don't know what the answer is. Teh demographic is middle class middle aged men. They usually they had bikes in their youth and now they have some time and money they buy themselves sportsbikes that are far beyond their capabilities to ride.

Easily spotted but really hard to know what to do with them to stop them killing themselves

And average age was 35 which in my book isn't middle aged (well not quite... 😉 )

Having the skills does make it safer to go fast, but it doesn't make it right.

molgrips - Member
The difference between people driving like dicks and going say rock climbing or DH mtbing is that on the roads, there are completely innocent parties coming the other way...

Thanks TJ - don't worry about detail.

Would a quick bit of front-wheel lock not sort out the situation?

a small reduction in speed

Who's arguing for a small reduction? All I am saying is that reduce your speed to the point where you're not going to crash. Hardly controversial, is it?

That may mean a BIG reduction in speed.

You are arguing for more skill training - well surely one of the main skills of any rider or driver is knowing how fast is too fast. So we therefore agree...

Interesting read:

Rutter and Quine (1996) looked at age and experience in motorcycling safety, and
from a national prospective survey of over 4,000 riders in the UK found that age
played a much greater role than inexperience in explaining why young age groups
are over-represented in casualty statistics. Rutter and Quine explain that more
emphasis should be given to the consequences of dangerous riding and why training
is so important: ‘Only when a proper set of underpinning beliefs and perceptions is
provided for behaviour will skills be turned into safety’.

The motorcycle accident database has shown that the most common cause of single
vehicle accidents is a result of riders misjudging the appropriate speed to negotiate a
bend in the road. A question was therefore included on the questionnaire asking the
respondents how often, if ever, they have misjudged the speed required to negotiate
a bend. Even though 69% of respondents appeared to be very experienced, they
admitted to occasionally miscalculating bends. There were over 200 accidents on the
motorcycle accident database that were a direct result of a rider losing control on a
bend and, although the reasons for losing control were often unknown or not
recorded, it is known that inappropriate speed was the main cause of 27.5% of the
accidents.

The over-riding message to motorcyclists is that they must slow down, not merely in
relation to mandatory limits but also in consideration of various normal road
hazards, particularly bends. In addition, they must avoid overtaking slower moving
vehicles in the vicinity of junctions, even if the traffic is stationary and they are
‘filtering’ past it.

Riders’ attitudes
There were many causes of motorcycle accidents given on the motorcycle accident
database that involved an element of risk taking. The questionnaire respondents,
however, mentioned just four broad categories and it was risk taking on the part of
the riders rather than the other road users that was seen to be a problem by the
questionnaire respondents.
The most interesting finding was that a quarter of the respondents (25.5%, n ¼ 141)
thought a major cause of motorcycle accidents was riders riding too fast for
conditions. Despite this, however, 58% (n ¼ 143) of the respondents admitted to
always or frequently breaking the speed limit, with the remaining occasionally doing
so. The riders therefore made a clear distinction between breaking the speed limit
and driving at inappropriate speeds that are too fast for conditions (but not
necessarily breaking the speed limit). One of the respondents to the questionnaire
who wished to remain anonymous attached a letter to their questionnaire that
summarised the feelings of many of riders:
‘I find that the speed limits set are often completely inappropriate
depending on the circumstances. . . I would consider riding at 30 mph past
a school when the children are leaving as being far too fast but on the
other hand what possible danger could result from travelling along an
open stretch of motorway at 11pm at night without another vehicle in sight
at 80 or even 90mph?’
An examination of the causes on the motorcycle accident database would seem to
indicate that the respondents may have a point, as travelling in excess of the speed
limit was only a causation factor in a minority of accidents on the accident database,
though travelling at inappropriate speeds too fast for conditions accounted for a
greater number of accidents. The figures would suggest therefore that the riders are
correct in making this distinction. The lack of importance the riders gave to
observing the speed limit was also shown by the safety measures given by the
respondents to the questionnaire. A total of 117 respondents to the questionnaire
(79.6%, n ¼ 147) considered observing the speed limit as being one of the least
important safety measures a motorcyclist can take.

Training initiatives, such as ‘Bikesafe’ in Scotland, described by Ormston et al.
(2003), have reportedly had some success in using ‘assessed ride’ techniques to
teach vulnerable motorcyclist groups more defensive riding techniques.
However, while this leads to an apparently favourable adoption of lower speeds
in built-up areas, it can increase motorcyclists’ confidence and thus their
likelihood of adopting faster speeds in rural areas. As a large proportion of
serious and fatal accidents happen in rural areas, it is far from clear that
increasing motorcyclists’ confidence in this area would be productive.

Unashamedly selective quoting I'll admit but it's nothing like the clearcut case that TJ seems to suggest IMO.

(In the interest of fairness it does agree with TJ's points but they're just some of the factors rather than the only/main/key ones that he seems to be suggesting)

TJ seems to be making facile points. That is, teaching riders to ride safely is better than saying slow down slightly.

Well dur.

Clubber - interesting stuff indeed. the first quote is 14 years old This demographic thing is something that has been changing a lot over recent years. I thought I had said there were other causes and so on.

Also that sort of thing relies both on extrapolating and also is a nationwide statistic., I believe on the honeypot roads the overcooking the corner by born agains is overrepresented compared to nationwide. I can't find the recent bit of data on this.

All I want to try to show was the reasons why the A537 has such an huge number of dead motorcyclists.

Finally - an anecdote that hopefully shows a part of my point

Me and a couple of mates were out for a ride. Nice dry sunny day. Up in the highlands. We were riding " making good progress" - Certainly breaking the 60 mph limit at times but only at 70% effort or so - no where near our limits on a road we knew well. All in our late 30s / 40s with around 100 yrs experience and a a million miles or so between us. Bikes a firestorm, a BMW R1100, a bandit 12 and a ZZR1100. None bar the ZZR over 100 bhp and none supersports bikes.

We overtook a small group of power rangers on sportsbikes. One tried to follow us ( GSXR 600) and on a sequences of open bends at around 50 mph did exactly what I have described and put his bike thru a hedge, Fortunately he was not hurt. Now we were all doing the same speed. He crashed, we were not even near the limit. His bike was far more capable than ours, he crashed because he did not have the skills to ride a medium speed corner at a relativity modest speed. Seriously if we had been going for it we could have gone round that corner at 70+ mph. Wanting to keep reasonable safety margins on the public road we aere around 50 mph. he was still over his limit.

focussing on speed is unhelpful. wer were not riding oo fast by any definition. But at the same speed he was riding beyond his capabilities and thus crashed.

Addressing the skills gap is a far more useful thing that saying " slow down"

How slow do you want us to ride molgrips?

TJ all that shows is that some riders are more skilled than others.

How slow do you want us to ride molgrips?

Not too much to ask is it?

Me and a couple of mates were out for a ride. Nice dry sunny day. Up in the highlands. We were riding " making good progress" - Certainly breaking the 60 mph limit at times but only at 70% effort or so - no where near our limits on a road we knew well. All in our late 30s / 40s with around 100 yrs experience and a a million miles or so between us. Bikes a firestorm, a BMW R1100, a bandit 12 and a ZZR1100. None bar the ZZR over 100 bhp and none supersports bikes.

You're my hero! 🙄

This could so easily read:

We overtook a small group of power rangers on sportsbikes going slower than us and around the next corner there was mud all over the road from a muck spreader coming out of the field and we all piled into a hedge! The power rangers were able to stop because they were riding within the speed limit.