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

Well partly but your brain requires a certain amount of time to process what it's seeing. So the chances of something being missed increase, so I would say yes you are still less aware.

You know how they say you see so much more when you cycle a route than when you drive it?

you're better off if you are going slower for a number of reasons.

What reasons are those?

If I've seen the hazard and have sufficient time to avoid it comfortably, what do I gain by having more time?

We've already established that given enough visbility that speed in itself is not a hazard

Have we? Good, that's pretty much what I was trying to get across.

Are you arguing for invididual discretion in speed limits?

I'm not arguing [i]for [/i]anything, I'm just having a discussion.

If I've seen the hazard and have sufficient time to avoid it comfortably, what do I gain by having more time?

IF yes, but I'm saying that not seeing and avoiding it is more likely.

You're saying 'if I don't fall off, then why is free climbing more dangerous than roped up?'

Good, that's pretty much what I was trying to get across.

Not sure why, it's not in the least bit useful!

IF yes, but I'm saying that not seeing and avoiding it is more likely.

Don't judge everyone by your own standards. (-:

Again, we're back to what I've been trying to say; that's not a speed issue, it's an observation issue. If I'm driving so fast that I can't reliably spot and anticipate a hazard, I'm driving too fast for the conditions, pretty much by definition.

that's not a speed issue, it's an observation issue.

The two things are linked though. Surely you can see that, or are you driving too fast?

If I'm driving so fast that I can't reliably spot and anticipate a hazard

But how will you know until it's too late? I'm sure 97mph biker was confident he could deal with all the hazards.

You're saying 'if I don't fall off, then why is free climbing more dangerous than roped up?'

No, I'm saying it's not that simple. Free climbing is more dangerous than roped climbing in a given set of circumstances; it would be inappropriate to free climb beyond a certain height, or given a certain level of exposure, but I'm not about to reach for a harness every time I wear thick socks. And at low heights such as found when bouldering, the risk of injury from is potentially greater if you're roped in.

But how will you know until it's too late?

Are you seriously telling me you're driving on the roads with no concept of how much thinking / braking time you'll require to avoid a hazard?

No.

There you go, then.

But I'm not the one driving around at 90.

I'm talking about recognising a hazard, as well as avoiding it.

I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about now, if I'm honest. The danger of unrecognisable hazards on an empty motorway? Are you concerned that the TARDIS is going to land in front of me?

(FWIW, I'm not driving at 90 either; it was a hypothetical example.)

The faster you go, the less time you have to see, process and deal with any hazards. potential or real.

I'd hope mostriders would have seen that car and would have assumed it could pull out, so should have slowed down, moved to the left to give the car driver the best view of the bike, and kept an eye on the car.

I know to some that seems silly and over the top to do at every junction, but there's a reason advanced riding techneques teach us to expect the worst case scenario at every junction. As bikers, we have to keep ourselves safe, and not rely on other road users to do it for us.

At 100mph he may not have even seen the car's indicator flashing, or realised it was moving towards the junction's lane, before it was too late to change the course of events.

Watching that clip again though, I'm not sure the colision would have been prevented even if he braked as soon as the car moved over to the filter lane...

You're saying 'if I don't fall off, then why is free climbing more dangerous than roped up?'

Interesting analogy. Below a certain grade of climb the chance of me falling off is so small as to make the effective difference in risk negligible. It's certainly something where the perception of risk changes though - there are climbs I've done dozens of times and never got close to falling I don't think I'd want to do unroped.

The danger of unrecognisable hazards on an empty motorway?

Ever seen a piece of debris on a dark unlit motorway? Your lights don't go that far, especially since they aren't on full beam even at 3am.

FWIW, I'm not driving at 90 either

Why not? It's safe isn't it?

My hypothetical motorway is well lit. Sorry, should've mentioned that.

On your unlit motorway, I would then be driving too fast for the conditions as I couldn't see far enough, and would thus reduce my speed to a point where I could once again comfortably detect and avoid a hazard.

Why not? It's safe isn't it?

It depends on the conditions. Am I typing too quickly or something?

Am I typing too quickly or something?

SLOW DOWN

Cougar -

remember 80's computer games? Basically the same old process repeated dodge/shoot/chase whatever. Get to next level. Dodge/shoot/chase/whatever a bit faster. Repeat

It got harder cos it got faster because you had less time to process and react, this is how likelihood increases with speed.

HTH.

It depends on the conditions.

So what's your point again?

Slower is safer. You're agreeing.

Your original question was is driving at 60mph safer than driving at 90mph.

Under all circumstances, the answer is yes. Even if you come up with the most perfect hypothetical scenario ever, there is still a risk that something can go wrong, and at high speed something going wrong is less safe than at slower speed.

It really is the most simple concept.

I find this whole thread quite interesting, not the semantics based, knit picking, bickering ****tery, but people's differing attitudes to speed(ing) [b]and[/b] paying proper attention when using the roads, I guess that sort of thought and debate was what the family were hoping to initiate, and I applaud their choice, it must have been an extremely hard one...

The truth is that this video illustrates several things, just how much more potentially dangerous excessive speed can be, as well as how inattention and/or impatience can lead to horrible unintended consequences.

I'll admit I'm not a perfect driver, I have made mistakes when driving, I've driven too fast in the past, I've probably miss-judged other vehicles closing speeds or their driver/rider's intentions.
I've been lucky enough not to have an accident like the one shown in that video. "There but for the grace of God" sort of thing you might say...

The point is that everyone should perhaps simply view that footage and take stock of how they use the roads, the primary function of which is transport, getting safely from A to B, the roads are busier than they used to be. But many seem to put speed and "making progress" ahead of safety, both parties involved in that incident played their part in bringing it about, and one of them died, it succinctly illustrates how a bit too much speed, and a bit too little attention can lead to the very worst outcome...

Under all circumstances, the answer is yes. Even if you come up with the most perfect hypothetical scenario ever, there is still a risk that something can go wrong, and at high speed something going wrong is less safe than at slower speed.

Yet everybody seems to have missed molgrips' freeclimbing analogy. As I explained, it illustrates that whilst there might be an increase in risk, if the risk is sufficiently small, the increase in risk may be neglible.

I'm not entirely sure that was his purpose for posting the analogy 😉

+1 cookeaa

remember 80's computer games? Basically the same old process repeated dodge/shoot/chase whatever. Get to next level. Dodge/shoot/chase/whatever a bit faster. Repeat

It got harder cos it got faster because you had less time to process and react, this is how likelihood increases with speed.

Yes. But if I can play comfortably, indefinitely, on level 5 (say), it starts to get very hard on level 6, and I start losing lives on level 7, what am I gaining by playing on level 4 all the time?

This is what I'm getting at. If I'm already driving safely, then going slower doesn't make me magically more safe. If I'm driving too fast for the conditions then I'm not driving safely.

On my empty motorway, should I drive at 20mph? Ignoring the increasing likelihood of getting taken roughly from behind by other vehicles for a moment, is that any safer than driving down the same road at 30? We're told that "under all circumstances, the answer is yes" after all. I'd hazard that any change to risk there is as close to "none at all" as to be immeasurable beyond statistical error.

Everything we do carries a risk, whether that's driving down a motorway or getting out of bed in a morning. We do what we can to mitigate that risk to a sensible degree, to what we call "acceptable risk." I don't wear a crash helmet and full body armour when crossing the road just in case there's an undetectable hazard about to mow me down, and I don't mince down the motorway at 40mph just in case someone throws an angry badger out of their window at me or something. Conversely, I don't whack down the motorway at escape velocity either.

On my hypothetical motorway, what am I gaining by doing 60 rather than 90? How can it be safe to do 70 in poor conditions, yet dangerous to do 71 in perfect ones?

On my empty motorway, should I drive at 20mph? Ignoring the increasing likelihood of getting taken roughly from behind by other vehicles for a moment, is that any safer than driving down the same road at 30? We're told that "under all circumstances, the answer is yes" after all. I'd hazard that any change to risk there is as close to "none at all" as to be immeasurable beyond statistical error.

Technically it is safer. The question is really, is my risk sufficiently low at 30 that it's worth the benefit of travelling at 30 compared to travelling at 20? Compared to ever leaving the house again and staying wrapped in cotton wool.

Nothing's risk free. Everyone has to make their own judgement of what the risk is and whether they're prepared to take that risk on. If the biker had been travelling at 60, or even slower given the upcoming junction, instead of 97, his risk would have been lower. What speed would he have needed to travel at to reduce his risk sufficiently that he could have dealt with some dozy motorist rolling out into his path - sadly we'll never know.

For me the bigger issue is the impact that people have when they don't manage the risk on behalf of others. I suspect he's ****ed up the other driver as well, who'll never feel quite the same again. What if he'd killed or injured him?

If you want to drive a motorbike or car at those speeds, go on a track day with other likeminded folks who are prepared to accept those risks. Don't share the roads with me - you owe it to my wife and children to play your part in making sure that it's me that walks through my front door tonight, not some police officer.

This is what I'm getting at. If I'm already driving safely, then going slower doesn't make me magically more safe.

Yes it does, actually. However, there's a reasonable speed that our major roads are designed around, above which it would start to get significantly harder. Which is why we have a speed limit.

I honestly have no idea what you are arguing about. This argument should be summed up:

Speed on its own is not dangerous
More speed on a public road is more dangerous due to things you don't see or forsee
A sensible middle ground should be stuck to, and this should be standardised to help everyone's expectations
Sticking to this middle ground does not automatically safe, and you still have to pay attention a lot.

Can we move on now please?

Can we move on now please?

Make progress? 😯 😀

Make progress?

I'm not sure he can - he's waiting his turn in the queue. 😉

For me the bigger issue is the impact that people have when they don't manage the risk on behalf of others. I suspect [s]he's[/s] the other driver ****ed up [s]the other driver[/s] himself as well, who'll never feel quite the same again. What if he'd killed or injured him[b]self[/b]?

FTFY

Point taken. I shouldn't have personalised to this issue, when it's more aimed at those whose risk taking compromises other's safety.

molgrips - Member

Yes, but we know this already. No-one's arguing in favour of not observing,

But several people in this thread have made excuses for it, or pinned all blame on the motorcyclist.

Point taken. I shouldn't have personalised to this issue, when it's more aimed at those whose risk taking compromises other's safety.