Forum menu
I don't think the speed was too fast
really?
I think 100mph is too fast to approach that (any?) junction, in any vehicle, where there are obviously other people present or possibly about to be present.
They might not have seen you, they might do something stupid, they might make a mistake. None of these things would be your fault, but it means that 100mph is an inappropriate speed for the circumstances*.
*circumstances being the presence of other people at a place where they all meet travelling in differing directions and speeds.
both of them screwed up
That really is the point, and what we should be taking away from this and thinking about, how can I adjust my behaviour to mitigate for other peoples mistakes as well as my own.
I don't think the speed was too fast
His speed was a factor
Which one?
I don't think the speed was too fast
He was doing 97mph on a road where the [u]maximum[/u] is 60mph, and at a junction where the safe speed is probably quite a bit less.
If it was a closed road or in a race, that would have been a reasonable speed, but it wasn't. He only killed himself, which is very sad for him and his family, but he could very, very easily have killed other people.
Until people get out of this blinkered mindset that speed is not a primary contributing factor, sad accidents like this will continue to happen.
Yes.
Here's an analogy. If you keep petrol in buckets in your garage, they won't catch fire on their own, and your house won't burn down. So is it safe? Petrol is not a cause of fires, after all.
FWIW I'm definitely a less skilled rider than Weeksy. But I do think it was too fast. And it had the look of being habitually that fast too. I was no law abiding rider, tbf I'm a habitual speeder but I'm confident I wouldn't have put myself in that position. Still, I wouldn't have liked to be dealing with that at 60 either.
OTOH I'm also confident I wouldn't have pulled out and killed him. So it's swings and roundabouts.
Non bikers don't often realise that 100mph on a bike is SO SO different to 100mph in a car. Getting to 100mph on a Superbike is a mere fraction from 60mph in 3rd gear, it's the blink of an eye almost. Getting back down from 100mph is not far off that too. The handling of a bike at 100mph is also very different to a car (most cars anyway), the bike can turn, handle, steer and manouver, the cars are less able to do so.The only thing that doesn't change of course is the human factor, seeing, spotting and reacting.
Are you sure you're a motorbiker? You do know that most superbikes have a longer braking distance than an average family car right?
I'm sitting here with blokes who selfishly throw themselves down mountains, through trees, over jumps etc and yet somehow I'm the one who's selfishly having fun and putting myself at risk LOL. I
Mountain bikes don't tend to weigh 170kg. Speed increases the energy of a crash which means if you hit a car, you're more likely to kill the occupants.
I'm never speeding again or buying a motorbike after watching that video.
He was going too fast and driver is Stevie Wonder didn't look hard enough.
Easily could happen to anyone.
R.I.P. David.
if the rider had been riding at an appropriate speed the car driver would have seen him approaching.
That's demonstrably not true, as the driver admitted to not seeing either the motorcyclist or the car he'd overtaken. How fast was the car going, an appropriate speed?
Until people get out of this blinkered mindset that speed is not a primary contributing factor, sad accidents like this will continue to happen.
The issue here isn't whether people think that speed was or wasn't a contributing factor, rather that going "wah wah speed wah wah" is a gross oversimplification and unhelpful. It's interesting that you use the word 'blinkered' because if all you're doing is focusing on one factor (speed) then you run the risk of not seeing the bigger picture.
The biker was undoubtedly going too fast, IMHO, for that road and those conditions. He also failed to react to the conditions ahead of him; as I said earlier, you can see the car in the video from quite a long way away, he either didn't see it or didn't anticipate its actions.
I'm not convinced that speed was a primary [i]cause [/i]of the accident in this case. Rather, observation failure by both parties was the primary cause. However, I think speed is very definitely the primary factor in his death.
Ie, if he'd been in the same place doing *handwave* 50mph when the car turned across him, the collision would almost certainly still have occurred, but his survival chance would have been significantly greater.
Speed might or might not have caused the accident, but speed is definitely what made it fatal. If he'd been doing 50mph the impact energy would have been 1/4 of what it was - that would have had a massive effect on survivability.
Plus doing 50 would have given him some time to scrub off a little more speed.
Ok Weeksy. I really wish you well mate but make sure you have an organ donor card please?
If he wanted to pootle at 50mph, he'd have bought a scooter. Selfish as it is, people (we) buy big fast bikes to go fast on.
Ok Weeksy. I really wish you well mate but make sure you have an organ donor card please?
Thank you. TBH fella, if you'd seen my riding 10 years ago I think you'd not have much left to take... these days, I'm a pussycat (IMHO, not in the STW opinion i'll admit)
Tomorrow i'll be doing 4-5 hours on the roads on my 1000cc sportsbike, with luck, I may even make it to Sunday.
If he wanted to pootle at 50mph, he'd have bought a scooter. Selfish as it is, people (we) buy big fast bikes to go fast on.
And that's fine if you want to take risks - go to a racetrack or something. I've done some very, very risky and daft things too. But none of them would have killed someone other than me if they went wrong.
That's where speeding on the roads is different to other thrill-seeking sports. It kills innocent bystanders.
If he wanted to pootle at 50mph, he'd have bought a scooter. Selfish as it is, people (we) buy big fast bikes to go fast on.
HAHA. All of the fast riders I know will roll off massively into junctions.
If close to 100 isn't fast Weeksy, what speed would you consider to be too fast on a public road past a junction?
He paid the ulitimate price for relying 100% on some random person to know what they were doing and not having an off day. His risk analysis was fatally poor. I knew someone who crashed and died on the A9 nr Auchterarder because a pheasant flew out in front of his motorbike, Police reckoned he was doing around 100mph+ at the time, no other traffic nearby.
If he wanted to pootle at 50mph, he'd have bought a scooter. Selfish as it is, people (we) buy big fast bikes to go fast on.
That's why I've got a big fast bike mate, I agree, but I go fast on it when it's more appropriate, not at junctions where there's a high risk of ending up as toast.
T666DOM - MemberIf close to 100 isn't fast Weeksy, what speed would you consider to be too fast on a public road past a junction?
That depends hugely on the conditions, traffic, circumstances and the bike. However, based upon the rest of the thread I think it's wise for me to stop typing in this one.
Anything above the speed limit is too fast. How is this even debateable? Technically anything above appropriate speed for the road conditions is too fast. Anyone who thinks differently is unsafe and unfit to be on the public roads.
Selfish as it is, people (we) buy big fast bikes to [s]go fast on[/s] break the law and recklessly put other peoples lives at risk.
Why don't you buy a smaller bike which gives you as much adrenaline rush whilst traveling at road legal speeds?
Well on that day it looked dry & clear so for 1 more post from you what would you consider excessive speed passing that junction on that day Weeksy?
Well on that day it looked dry & clear so for 1 more post from you what would you consider excessive speed passing that junction on that day Weeksy?
. sorry, not worth it.
For those who missed the quick edit, Weeksy would be happy at 120
lol cheers.
The issue i have with "speed limits" is this:
The posted limit is entirely arbitrary, it only bares the slightest connection to the actual "safe speed" (there is of course, no such thing as a totally safe speed, as we are talking about balancing speed with risk and probability). The limits were set over 60 years ago, by civil servants sat behind desks, since then, the world and our roads have changed out of all recognition.
However, the greatest effect of excessive reliance on speed limits is that it removes from the driver responsibility and crucially, an important action/process than also increases situation awareness. My next door neighbour is a traffic officer, and the stories he tells are frankly frightening, but what is interesting is that he says these days, almost without fail the first thing drivers say to him at the scene of an accident is "but i wasn't speeding" as if that makes it all fine then.
IE, the point i am trying to make, is that evidence suggests that reliance on arbitrary speed limits results in drivers that just check they are not speeding and that's it, back to sleep they go. They never start the "how fast is appropriate at this time, on this piece of road, in these conditions" mental process that is so critical to the velocity/risk analysis process. (it also leads to mono-speeding and things like bunching, tailgating and the "follow my leader" type driving we see all too much of in this country, where drivers simply switch off and just follow the car ahead (usually far too closely!)
The second issue is one of "normality" and "familiarity". We all drive thousands of miles each year WITHOUT incident. We get used to traveling at a certain speed ie "i've driven down this road at 50mph for the last 5 years and not crashed, so that must be ok then" mentality, so 50mph becomes "normal".
Unfortunately, by "driving by numbers" in this fashion, the driver once again forgets to account for probability (ie, say 999 out of 1000 times that car WON'T pull across your path, so the speed i choose last time to pass them at must be fine.)
As our roads get more crowded, distractions for drivers get ever greater (phones, nav, internet etc) and cars get easier to drive faster (modern cars now accel/cruise easily and quietly at 100mph, so it is easy for non skilled drivers to travel at those sorts of speeds), so accidents result in more severe impacts. And whilst modern car design has gone to amazing lengths to mitigate this, certain road users (pedestrians/ cyclists etc) don't have that safety net to fall back on.
Unfortunately, the basic issue is one of insufficient training and knowledge. Considering that driving a car or riding a m/bike is the MOST dangerous thing we do in modern life, you can get a driving licence incredibly easily. Unfortunately, there simply isn't the political or social will to implement stricter licence requirements or penalties, as this would seriously limit who could drive a car (and our society is all about freedom, and mobility for the masses).
For the vast majority of drivers going about their daily business, driving is not an activity in itself, it is just something they have to do to get to the thing they really want to do! (ie, shopping, or work or whatever). Because of that, their concentration and observance are low. We need to make driving a specific activity or task in it's own right. When you are driving a car, or riding a bike, that should be the focus of 100% of your attention. For most people i'm going to suggest that driving the car sit somewhere at around 30%!
Unfortunately, we also can't use individual events (such as this bike death) to shape our "average" policy. For most people in the uk, who drive billions of miles annually without incident, even with at best "average skills" our roads are largely safe enough.
What this video should highlight is that it is up to the individual to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions. And whilst a few people who viewed this video might drive/ride slightly differently for the next day or so, unfortunately normality will play it's part again, and this will be forgotten...........
Very well put Maxtorque
Pulling upto where the car is, I'd have looked up the road, seen the car doing probably the speed limit, judged that there was a good 7-10 seconds before the car got to the junction, and turned. A bike overtaking into a junction at 100mph, yes you'd see it if you looked for it, but having looked up the road, seen it clear upto the next car doing the speed limit, I think I'd have turned on auto-pilot. Maybe I'm doing myself a discredit and I would look up the road again, but it's very hard to say that and not have the feeling I'd be relying on 20/20 hindsight.
I think you're doing yourself a discredit, tinas. There is a good 4s between the bike having gone past the car and the car starting the turn. Hard to tell from the video, but it looks like the car was still moving into the turn lane at the point the bike had completed its overtake. Given the bike is dead in front of the car in the natural direction the driver is looking, you have to wonder where else he was looking in all that time. I'm also unconvinced it was a saccade issue, as that tends to occur when you're scanning to one side - in this case the driver just needed to look straight up the road in front of him.
I'm certainly not suggesting the bike speed wasn't a factor - I tend to agree with others that he might have survived if going slower - but I see nothing to suggest the court was incorrect in assigning primary fault on the driver, in the sense that he did something that even the majority of incompetent drivers don't do.
Anything above the speed limit is too fast. How is this even debateable? Technically anything above appropriate speed for the road conditions is too fast.
You've got that back to front.
"[b]Technically[/b] Anything above the speed limit is too fast. How is this even debateable? [s]Technically[/s] anything above appropriate speed for the road conditions is too fast."
Inappropriate speed is dangerous. Breaking the speed limit is illegal, but not necessarily unsafe. The speed limit is a 'best-guess' one size fits all solution.
"wah wah speed wah wah" is a gross oversimplification and unhelpful
That's not what we are saying.
The posted limit is entirely arbitrary
It is, yes*, but there is a key point that you are missing.
As you say, when people become familiar with a road, or with driving in general, they tend to speed up. When you've done something ten times before and not crashed, your speed will creep up and up over time. If we leave people's judgement on speed up to them, then speeds will just get higher and higher until simply controlling the car and avoiding NORMAL becomes challenging enough. The problem is when something ABNORMAL happens, people are not ready for it.
Absolutely NO-ONE is saying that a speed limit is all you need to be safe. Of course they aren't. But they have two main benefits.
1) If people were to stick to them, it would prevent speed creep.
2) It should ensure that people are roughly travelling at the same speed, and that makes it a lot easier for everyone to drive safely.
Above all, there is one massive point that no-one seems to have mentioned yet.
Sticking to the speed limit (as long as you are paying due attention to everything) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGES. The only reasons for exceeding it are because you want to have some fun, or because you are impatient.
Well, if you want fun, do it somewhere else. If you are impatient, then tough shit. Man the **** up and deal with it.
* actually it's not. It's always a safe speed for the environment, outside of any other hazards like junctions, blind bends, etc.
Studies i have seen suggest that "speed creep" doesn't really occur. People tend to drive at a speed they feel is "safe" instinctively, and that speed is pretty much the speed they keep driving at. In most studies where speed limits have been relaxed, after a "settling in" period most people have continued to drive at very close to the speed they were previously doing.
For example, our motorway speed limit is 70mph. This is exceeded by most passenger car users, and the Police generally don't now prosecute until people exceed 85mph. If you removed the limit(not that we should!) i would suggest most people would still do around the speed they currently are doing. This is because modern cars cruise quietly and efficiently at about 85mph, but as you increase above this, noise and fuel consumption increase significantly, and you start to "catch" other motorists more quickly, requiring more driving "effort" etc
For the record, i am not suggesting we remove speed limits, just that we focus on driver training, education and bring back real police officers onto our roads, rather than continue this one tracked "speed kills" mantra enforced simply by machine justice!
To be fair, in this case, the lack of "OMG he was doing 97nph!!" from the police etc is to be credited!
I think impatience is a BIG part of modern driving behaviour, and I suspect plays a part in most silly moves I've seen.
If I'm honest it's also the cause of a couple things I've been embarrassed at doing myself, and given myself a mental ticking off over.
I'm quite self critical of my driving. But I wonder how many others are out there. *
*Yes Mrs Black golf in in Ripley this morning, I'm talking about you!
That's not what we are saying.
It might not be what you're saying, but it seems to be what some are saying.
1) If people were to stick to them, it would prevent speed creep.
So would paying attention to what you're doing, and that would be exponentially safer all round to boot.
Sticking to the speed limit (as long as you are paying due attention to everything) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGES. The only reasons for exceeding it are because you want to have some fun, or because you are impatient.
Well, it'll take longer to get somewhere. But that's besides the point; the question isn't "does it have any disadvantages" (or DISADVANTAGES) but rather, does it have any advantages? Do I gain anything by travelling at a posted speed limit rather than at an appropriate speed to the conditions?
Let me give you an example. Say a road has a 30 limit near a school. Is it safe to travel at 30 down there at 3:30pm? Almost certainly not, there are likely to be kids all over the place, the limit is too high. How about at 3:30am? Am I gaining anything by driving at 30 rather than 40? The limit could easily be inappropriately low.
Reducto ad absurdum, we're back to having little men with red flags walking in front of cars; there's no disadvantage to that, right?
The only reasons for exceeding it are because you want to have some fun, or because you are impatient.
There was a documentary on TV a little while ago about habitual speeders. They forced them to drive at the limits and filmed the results. In many cases, they were actually worse drivers; they were bored, disengaged, frustrated and impatient, and their attention wandered.
Now, I'm not suggesting that this is justification of habitual speeding, there's clearly a training issue there; rather, that it's not as simple as looking at a number on a pole and blindly thinking "I'm all right, Jack."
People tend to drive at a speed they feel is "safe" instinctively
Agreed. And it's safe based on their usual everyday experience. But the point is that it's the unusual that causes the problem. I had this conversation with a mate who ignored the 50mph speed limit on the A48 into Cardiff (along with everyone else) because it feels slow.
However, he doesn't know any of the gotchas along it, like when you come around the left hander and find queueing traffic for a sliproad etc. But more importantly, he GAINED NOTHING worthwhile by ignoring it. So why bother? Just relax.
The limit could easily be inappropriately low.
Of course - but variable speed limits are costly to implement on a large scale. However they often do reduce the limits at school times.
So would paying attention to what you're doing,
Of bloody course it would. But the two aren't exclusive!
Let me give you an example. Say a road has a 30 limit near a school. Is it safe to travel at 30 down there at 3:30pm?
Limits are Limits though, not advisories. That 30 sign means, even when school is out, there is no traffic, it's a clear day, and your are a super awesome driver with mad skills, 30 is the max.
Not 30 is mandatory.
Do I gain anything by travelling at a posted speed limit rather than at an appropriate speed to the conditions?
Yes. You save fuel (which is no bad thing) and you are safer JUST IN CASE the unexpected happens.
For the record, i am not suggesting we remove speed limits, just that we focus on driver training, education and bring back real police officers onto our roads,
Of course - and we do (although not enough). That's why they have speed awareness courses, and why they don't book you for 80 on the motorway.
But really. Not exceeding the limit is never going to hurt you.
rather than continue this one tracked "speed kills" mantra enforced simply by machine justice!
It's not one-track. We have lots of campaigns: keep your distance, buckle up, don't drink and drive, think bike, don't drive on drugs, don't drive tired, don't be an amber gambler, don't use your phone...
molgripsSticking to the speed limit (as long as you are paying due attention to everything) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGES.
So why don't we just set all speed limits to 10mph and there, bingo, 100% safe roads??
The issue, of course, is one of relative speed and not absolute speed. As modern cars get easier to drive and quieter, if we reduce speed limits, all we will get is more "inattentive" accidents and less "driving error due to excessive speed" ones. In the USA, in states where limits were increased from the blanket 55mph, as far as i am aware, no extra crashes occurred statistically speaking. (this is because the difference in absolute risk between 55mph and say 65mph is too small to measure, and is offset by less "falling asleep" type crashes)
Everyone has a natural "speed". Take the speed you walk at. Ever been behind someone walking down a pavement or in a supermarket that is walking just slightly slower than your usual "gait"? Annoying isn't it. I bet you just walk past them, rather than sit behind them?
Generally, as most people drive "to get somewhere", once there speed falls below there natural "we are getting somewhere" speed, frustration and anger tends to set in. Unfortunately, that is the way we are wired, and we can't change it. Add in peoples ever busier lives and people hate to "waste time" (regardless of the fact they probably "waste" tens of hrs a week on pointless stuff like Angry birds or whatever!!).
So why don't we just set all speed limits to 10mph and there, bingo, 100% safe roads??
Because 10mph isn't fast enough. 70/60/30 is.
But you are again arguing about personal car control. That's a small part of it. It's about how you interact with other people.
frustration and anger tends to set in. Unfortunately, that is the way we are wired, and we can't change it
You absolutely can. Perception of speed is very relative. Most people on this thread have talked about how they've slowed down from previous driving habits - something I've done too.
I used to drive at 80 on motorways, since having a car with an MPG readout I now drive at 70. This feels entirely normal to me, but if I start driving at 80 then 70 soon feels slow.
The posted limit is entirely arbitrary
One last thing before I back off this thread.
The above is sort of true, but not really - at all. they aren't random, you can pretty much expect where 60s will be, and where 30s will be.
They are a measure of best fit as per a set of guidelines. Its the best we can realistically have. Without measuring the nature of every stretch of road to test different limits, angles, cambers, inclines (many times a year as conditions and road surface change), and then posting speed limit changes every ten meters to ensure total accuracy for the length of the road net work.
There are patterns and guidelines and they are actually there for a reason. You don't get 30 zones in the middle of the M1, and you don't get 60s next to the primary school.
I obey speed limits (bit heavy footed leaving them on occasion), but I don't think they make me immune from error, and I doubt others do either.
Because 10mph isn't fast enough. 70/60/30 is.
Now we're getting somewhere. Why isn't 10mph fast enough? What DISADVANTAGES are there?
What makes 70/60/30 so special?
They are a measure of best fit as per a set of guidelines. Its the best we can realistically have.
Are they?
A bunch of numbers made up in the 60s (or in the case of the 30 limit, 1930) is absolutely the best we can have in 2014?
Really?
molgrips
I had this conversation with a mate who ignored the 50mph speed limit on the A48 into Cardiff (along with everyone else) because it feels slow.However, he doesn't know any of the gotchas along it, like when you come around the left hander and find queueing traffic for a sliproad etc.
This^^^ is exactly my point. Your mates "failing" is not exceeding the arbitrary 50mph limit, it is failing to "Read the road" ahead and modify his speed to take account of that! In this case, a blind bend, where a reduction in speed to that at which you are able stop in a distance you can see, is sensible. And, as a result of "reading the road" correctly, on the empty bits where you can see, you can go 100mph quite safely!
In this case, slapping an arbitrary "50mph" limit on a road that for a lot of it's length doesn't need to be 50mph simply makes the average driver (who is not very good at reading the road) ignore the speed limit, only to find that suddenly they are going too fast!!
So, two options become suitable:
1) Post a different speed limit sign for every single obstacle or hazard on every road in the country (those would need to be inteligent signs that modify there signage to suit the current local conditions)
or
2) Teach drivers proper roadcraft, so they can make their own decisions about their speed.
Yes.
Reasons they have stayed the same:
1) Whilst cars are much better, roads are much busier.
2) People are used to it and are expecing 60mph traffic
3) It saves fuel
4) In the event of an accident, lower speeds are ALWAYS less damaging, regardless of how good your car's protection is. People still die out there. It might be fewer than in the 60s but one death is still one too many.
Would you prefer 33.3 recurring, 58.7 & 69.2?
FWIW I agree, I think 25 is actually a better, and easier (in my Mondeo) to stick to than 30.
You can easily in your car measure numbers to the nearest 10, there are little marks on the dial, to the 5 at a push.
Ah, "we've always done it this way." Always the best reason to do anything.
Wait.
Whilst cars are much better, roads are much busier.
I'll grant you, that's a very good point.