[Closed] Well it went a bit quiet in here when I watched this...

Phunkmaster I'm sorry for your accident but the fact was if you crashed on the ice that even though you were below the speed limit, you were almost certainly driving too fast, or not being observant enough for the conditions. Perhaps some extra training would have taught you to recognise during which conditions and where this type of ice frequently forms and enabled you to have driven accordingly?

Appreciate that what I've written may come across as patronising - it's really not meant to be though, that's not my intention. Just saying that extra training can benefit everyone and would hopefully mean that we can all drive at the most appropriate speed for the conditions, with consideration and posing little risk to others, whether that's well below the posted limit, or a little bit above this.

It's easy to focus on "irresponsible law breakers" as a target for road safety.
However, i would suggest for every "i was out for a hoon and crashed" type incident, there are >100 accidents involving normal, everyday people, going about their daily business and simply failing to read the road and drive appropriately?

While I agree with much of what you say, that's why the limit is just that, a limit. The idea of removing all speed limits I think is bonkers.

How do you measure who is suitable to drive in this increasingly assessed world you describe. We all see people drive in such a way as they would fail a driving test, but in honesty if they were made to sit a test they wouldn't drive like that. It's the difference between people being able to drive responsibly and choosing to. Yes it might be lowest denominator, but we live in a collective society, and that society has chosen (possibly not wisely) to let **** wits drive and set the rules sort of accordingly. Personally I would set the balance more in the direct you describe, maybe more like the Isle of Man.

Also I think we've ended up on speed limits when they weren't the issue, or raised by anyone directly unless I missed it. The main issue we started on was if 95+ was suitable there, or if at all. Personally I have no problem with people doing up to 70 on a wide straight A road, many motorbikes do, and over take me when I'm at my usual 55 - 65 depending on how much of a hurry I'm in. It's no biggy, I can see them coming, its an expected speed I can anticipate if they are approaching head on. I can't think of a time I've needed to judge a vehicle was going ~50% faster than I might expect, so I don't know how easy it would be. But if coming over the brow of a hill so you can't see the road I can imagine it could be quite difficult.

Speed cameras began being rolled out in 1991.

Figures for KSI for 1990 were 5217 killed and 60,000 seriously injured.

1998 - 3421 killed and 41,000 seriously injured.

Now I don't believe it's all to do with reducing speeds in accident blackspots but I reckon speed cameras will have contributed greatly.

However, i would suggest for every "i was out for a hoon and crashed" type incident, there are >100 accidents involving normal, everyday people, going about their daily business and simply failing to read the road and drive appropriately?

almost certainly true. But I think habit and self belief, rather than training is the main factor. Many of those could pass a test, and go back out and drive without due care and attention.

A personal bugbear of mine is people with a sloppy relationship to central lines. I don't mean people who will cut across to take a shallow line on an open road, or are driving a wide vehicle, but just people who either don't know where their wheels are, or don't care and are always drifting over the middle of the road on every corner (whether they can see or not). Never sure if they know they're on the wrong side of the road, are going to move back over, if they even give a flying **** because everyone else gets out of the way so it must be fine...

Figures for KSI for 1990 were 5217 killed and 60,000 seriously injured.

1998 - 3421 killed and 41,000 seriously injured.

Now I don't believe it's all to do with reducing speeds in accident blackspots but I reckon speed cameras will have contributed greatly.

If you look at the quantum leap in vehicle safety due to Euro NCAP that's happened during that time, the massive improvement in vehicle braking, tyres and road engineering etc. then I'd say that has far more to do with it to be honest. You'll notice that for other road users, particularly motorbikes that the casualty rates are still very high despite speed cameras.

I bet far bigger gains could have been made without the cameras focusing on speed, but having more police on the road prosecuting simple 'bad driving' - that and regular retesting or compulsory additional training for drivers throughout their driving lives.

Sorry DangerousBeans, but that's not how statistics works!

You can't just look at killed/injured data for 1990 and then 1998 and say "wow, those cameras have worked well".

Numerous studies have been done on the subject, and the majority have suggested (it's extremely complex to actually work out what the result of cameras has been) that they have had no major impact(sic) on the number of accidents that occur. They do however help to reduce the severity of crashes that occur at the camera sites, but on average, they have little or no effect (because people just slow down for them and then speed back up again on the other side)

Also, drivers have now become better at looking out for them, which is completely counter productive. Rather than "reading the road" and say spotting what could be a junction up ahead and therefore might have slow traffic and require them to slow down, they just look for a camera on a post. This works if every single dangerous junction has a speed camera, but doesn't actually help train drivers to identify the basic risk factors themselves!

Basically the human brain says "Camera = go slow" and not "Camera AND oh look a dangerous junction = go slow".....

Now I don't believe it's all to do with reducing speeds in accident blackspots but I reckon speed cameras will have contributed greatly.

That may be your opinion, but nothing you posted provides any evidence at all that is the case.

Basically the human brain says "Camera = go slow" and not "Camera AND oh look a dangerous junction = go slow".....

The other down side of the campaign making speeding 'public evil number 1' is that I now see so many drivers out there who simply sit at or quite a bit below the limit seemingly in a complete daze, plodding along and almost unaware of whats going on infront or behind them. Unfortunately like so many on here they seem to think that sticking to the speed limit is the primary way to keep safe on the road when it actually couldn't be further from the truth.

The other down side of the campaign making speeding 'public evil number 1' is that I now see so many drivers out there who simply sit at or quite a bit below the limit seemingly in a complete daze, plodding along and almost unaware of whats going on infront or behind them. Unfortunately like so many on here they seem to think that sticking to the speed limit is the primary way to keep safe on the road when it actually couldn't be further from the truth.

But if they have an accident the chances are all that will be hurt are there pride and their insurance premium.

I'd rather they didn't have an accident in the first place, TBH.

But if they have an accident the chances are all that will be hurt are there pride and their insurance premium.

Really, have you ever seen how much damage can be caused by a car traveling at just 40mph? Vehicle accident survivability decreases hugely at any speed past around 40mph, so when driving on NSL roads, whether a head on at say 50mph, or a head on at 70mph, the outcome is likely to be the exactly the same - people killed.

like so many on here they seem to think that sticking to the speed limit is the primary way to keep safe on the road

I don't think that's what people are saying, it's not what I've been saying.

I'm saying doing 60ish (or 50ish or 65ish) leaves you more room/time/distance for reaction, manoeuvre, braking, evaluation than nr 100 and that is the responsible action on shared roads which have numpties on (The one fact everyone seems to agree on).

I'd rather they didn't have an accident in the first place, TBH.

Right I am in. We will increase the difficulty of the driving test cutting the pass rate by 50% allowing only the people with the reactions of fighter pilots and driving skills of Ayrton senna, maybe a bit steep for arguments sake we will say David coultard to pass .

And we will let them drive as fast as they want and every one else can walk .

Why are you in a rush anyway , why can't you leave in plenty of time to make your journey like everyone else .
Is it your right as being the super gifted speedy driver you are to drive at small penis speeds and therefore everyone incapable of your driving prowess should be banned from the roads for holding you up.

That may be your opinion, but nothing you posted provides any evidence at all that is the case.

Numerous studies have been done on the subject, and the majority have suggested (it's extremely complex to actually work out what the result of cameras has been) that they have had no major impact(sic) on the number of accidents that occur

http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Evidence/Details/11121

Which concludes:

This review is confined to the British experience of speed camera enforcement,but a recently updated Cochrane Review of 35 speed camera studies worldwide concluded:

‘...the consistency of reported reductions in speed and crash
outcomes across all studies show that speed cameras are a
worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic
injuries and deaths.’

Institute of Advanced Motorists says:

The IAM supports the use of safety camera systems at collision hot spots, on roads with a bad crash record and at areas of proven risk, such as motorway road works
It is vital for their credibility and road safety policy, that their use is concentrated on these areas, directly linked to speed related crashes and casualties
Speed cameras should remain highly visible to provide a deterrent to drivers[/i]

Cochrane reviews are pretty credible as is the RAC Foundation and the IAM.

I couldn't find much about evidence showing they didn't work but I only had a few minutes.

"Phunkmaster I'm sorry for your accident but the fact was if you crashed on the ice that even though you were below the speed limit, you were almost certainly driving too fast, or not being observant enough for the conditions. Perhaps some extra training would have taught you to recognise during which conditions and where this type of ice frequently forms and enabled you to have driven accordingly?"

No, you're completely wrong and have totally misses the point. Blocked drain froze over and caught me out. Otherwise, conditions standard cold morning. Whilst they were dragging my car out the hedge, two other vehicles crashed at the same point, one was a motor bike. Several sped through, I there's slowed to film the chaos. We all had different ideas of what was appropriate and we were all caught out.

You realise that sometimes, accidents happen and no amount of training can prevent it? Which is kind of the point I am making.

This is exactly what I said would happen in my first post, semantics etc

OK. I entirely accept that some circumsatnces can lead to accidents that are almost impossible to guard against. But the problem with what you are saying is that it precludes travelling at any speed which risks injury in the event of an accident. If you had been travelling at 20mph the consequences would be even less. You cannot guard against the completey unexpected (by definition). I once came off on a pushbike on unsuspected and undetectable black ice and it really hurt. If a car had happened by at the time it would've been very nasty. The conclusion I should perhaps draw from this is that I shouldn't ride a bike in the winter time.

I spent the day out on my Aprilia Tuono, 1000cc Twin.

I'll accept 97mph was excessive. Not insanely but it was excessive.

I survived my day, as far as I'm aware, so did everyone else near me 🙂

I haven't watched this but have read the commentary and the views and arguments submitted so far. One point that I don't think has been mentioned, and may be irrelevant, is why there came to be video of this incident at all?

I'm presuming it was a gopro type of helmet camera but what would motivate anyone to record a commute yet I see plenty of motorcyclists with gopro cameras on their helmets as I make my way on my commute.

I can only think of two reasons why he would be taping his return journey on this occasion.

1. He was planning to, or normally rode, at high, exciting and interesting to watch back speeds. Perhaps a cheeky overtake here and there, or a means to record his speed on the dashboard or watch him get his knee down. If that, it would that suggest he had a propensity to be fast, exciting fast. That seems somewhat reckless on a public road. No one would surely be interested in watching a motorbike journey as it sits in the traffic line, driving at the flow of traffic.

2. He was running the camera as an insurance policy, to provide video evidence just in case some other road user did something daft, like pull out in front of him or cut him up. This is typical of car dash cams that are now increasing in popularity. Being mindful of that risk, of the chance of another road user doing something unexpected, to approach a junction with traffic at 97mph was reckless.

Very sad outcome and very brave of his family for what they are endeavouring to acheive.

That's a lot of opinion for someone who hasn't seen the video this topic is about. Check it out, maybe.

People driving for thrills on public roads is not due to poor driver training , in fact people taking advanced driving courses then given free reign of the roads without speed limits may even encourage thrill seeking drivers.

I watched the video he was riding like a cock , from the moment he set off.

My sister was in intensive care for months after she pulled out of a junction and got sideswiped from the right that hard that it moved the car that far sideways it made all the tyres bald and my sisters body broke the metal buckle of the passengers seatbelt.

Pulling out of junction and getting hammered fair enough her fault but.. at the road limit with the visibility of the road (bend/hill) she had enough time to pull out, but some muppet was doing a 100+ so was still the around the bend and other side of the hill when she pulled out. If he was travelling at double the speed limit there she would have seen him and he would have had time to brake as would he, but treble no chance.

What I regret was his rear seat passengers were not belted in and received worse injuries than him he walked away from it. So please don't be hasty to judge anyone without traversing that particular section of road and understanding what the visibility would be like at legal or beyond speeds.

So please don't be hasty to judge anyone without traversing that particular section of road and understanding what the visibility would be like at legal or beyond speeds.

Are you talking about some completely different road to the one in the video? Because that road is straight with very good sightlines, well beyond where the bike overtook the car.

97 mph, you are covering 43 meters a second.
The driver may not have seen him because when he first committed to pulling across the lane did not think to look a 150 meters up the road, maybe if he was going 60 the driver might have seen him, maybe he would have seen the driver and reacted .
We will never know as he was not doing 60 .

Video smooths out things and depending on the lens will compress/stretch things out, try recording a section of single track and then playing it back it looks super smooth when you know full well you were getting battered at the time, there is no way from a single viewpoint video that you can judge a road/track. Why do people walk drive a track prior to a race rather than just relying on Youtube videos, all it takes is a few dips compare the angle of view for a car driver to the motorcyclist with is camera a couple of feet higher.

What I'm saying is unless you have physically been along that road how can we judge?

Well, the police said the bike and the car he overtook would have been visible for seven seconds before the incident, and the driver said he didn't see either of them, but let's not let that stand in the way of some neat little pigeon-holing, shall we.

The driver may not have seen him because when he first committed to pulling across the lane did not think to look a 150 meters up the road,

Really? Do,you not need to look 150m then? Are you supposed to jut look over the edge of the car bonnet?
That's an appalling thing to say, but not a surprising one. I'll bet you never look any further than the car in front of you and that you have no idea about what's happening behind you, like a great many people. No spatial awareness, no clue what's happening around you, just plodding along in your own little world.
If you can see a mile, look a mile away. If there's a corner ahead, be aware of everything up to and including that corner. Vision is everything, but it's no good if a) you don't bother or b) you don't act upon what you see.

I couldn't find much about evidence showing they didn't work but I only had a few minutes.

I'm sure those that enjoy 'spirited' driving on public roads will be along with that evidence shortly. One thing I've learned on The Internet is that there is always 'evidence' that caters to one's preferences or prejudices - Driving is safer slow or fast? Are Palestinians a valid 'people' or not? Is Kool Aid the chosen drink of leftists, or rightists? &c.

I'd prefer to be in a lower speed collision if someone's going to hit me, or I them. I don't believe that driving faster magically transforms everyone into a more observant and cautious driver, and neither do I believe that driving slower achieves the opposite. I'm not anti-car per se, I drive to get from A to B, sometimes enjoy it - yet even as a kid I'd describe cars on roads as 'half ton half-guided missiles on an open range'. They are an old and dangerous transport technology too often mixed up with unfortunate issues such as identity, status, pride, sociopathy, adrenaline and testosterone. In other words sport and sex, the ad-mans dream. Google cars? Even that seems so shortsighted it beggars belief. Millions of single-passenger combustion engines jostling for ever-shrinking space on roads that seem always to need widening for ever more single-passenger combustion engines. Except they will never crash or go fast! Where's the fun and freedom in that? Google RR Evoque Hybrid vs Firefox F-Type, neck and neck at 55mph... but here comes a hacked Windows 10 Cocktavia blowing through to the exit at 58mph, taking home victory but can't find a parking space. Seriously, cars have a place and that's for going camping, short trips from the maglev (choose a futuristic mass transit system) station or emergency services. Rural connections can be made in electric vehicles of some type. Vote me for mayor.

The driver may not have seen him because when he first committed to pulling across the lane did not think to look a 150 meters up the road,

Out of interest. Do you really think this is 'normal' or even 'good' driving behaviour?

Do you think driving 97 mph on a 60 mph single carriage road is good driving .
In the cars position I would look up the road establishing it was clear then look towards the direction I was traveling in, across the junction towards the side road .

I am sure this was not the first time he had ridden in such a dangerous manor and quite frankly there is one less dickhead on the road. Darwin strikes again .

Video smooths out things and depending on the lens will compress/stretch things out, try recording a section of single track and then playing it back it looks super smooth when you know full well you were getting battered at the time, there is no way from a single viewpoint video that you can judge a road/track.

Eh? You're suggesting that there might be dips in the road not apparent from the video which would have prevented the driver seeing the bike? If it helps at all the biker is still behind the car at [url= http://goo.gl/maps/3TXSY ]this point[/url] and the lorry you can see up ahead is just about where the collision took place. In fact when the bike is at this point the car isn't even in the right turn lane - from what I can make out it is entering the lane just about 3s before the collision when the bike is less than 150m away.

The more I watch this, the more convinced I become that the biker's speed only affected the outcome of the collision (and suggestions above are that might not have made any difference). It would almost certainly still have happened had the bike been doing a legal speed.

*Edit: single user combustion engines carrying a ton of steel most of which sit unused for the greater part of a day.

It would almost certainly still have happened had the bike been doing a legal speed.

Is it because this gentleman was on a motorbike he is receiving so much sympathy . And for some reason motorcyclists believe it's ok to drive outside of the law .

If it was a **** in Audi rs8 driving at high speed in exactly the same fashion and met an identical end.
Would he be receiving the same sympathy .

Is it because this gentleman was on a motorbike he is receiving so much sympathy

No, it's because he's dead.

Have a word with yourself, hey? Yes, he was riding like a tool, we've established that. But a little empathy wouldn't go amiss. What if his mother were to read this thread?

And lots of people are killed each year by people who think it's ok to drive at speed how they like.
Have a word with yourself .

But a little empathy wouldn't go amiss.

Indeed.

A mother has lost a son, and friends have someone they care about. Some of the replies to this thread are utterly shameful.

Yeah that was his point chip.

Rather than troll chip perhaps your time might have been better spent considering that the whole purpose of this video was to make people consider their actions when driving (both car drivers and motorcyclists).

I'm sure his mother would be pleased that you think her son was a dickhead on the basis of travelling too fast, then being hit by a car and dying as a result of a car driver not seeing him.

Could it be he acted on that day in a stupid manner and paid the ultimate price? Perhaps you have never exceeded the speed limit, had a near miss or done something that you later considered stupid? If so keep polishing that halo.....

And lots of people are killed each year by people who think it's ok to drive at speed how they like.
Have a word with your self .

Lots of people killed each year by people not observing properly, which is what happened in this case. My sympathy is with the biker because (despite his speed) he didn't actually cause the collision. Yet a bit further up you appear to absolve the driver from blame because of the speed of the bike.

I doub't many on here would have expected / seen the bike coming ,{ way to fast for the road condition }.
What if there'd been kids in the car and the bike hit the pasanger side full on ? .
The lad was using the road as a race track .

Yeah we got that peepingtom but driving also pulled out in front of him, the car driver was probably looking at where he was going instead of checking for hazards coming from his near side.

I have sympathy for his family but none for him.
He was not only putting his own life at risk by riding the way he did.

People saying this would still have happened at 60.
If he had set off when he did and ridden sensibly with in the speed limits he would not have been in that crash, FACT .

People here are to quick to defend his actions and condemn the driver .
Because I can only imagine this is how they behave on the roads.

This man was very much responsible for his own demise and to claim otherwise is ridicules .

What if there'd been kids in the car and the bike hit the pasanger side full on ? .

It would still have been the driver's fault for driving into a space he hadn't checked was clear.