Well it went a bit quiet in here when I watched this…

Yes, but what about an observant conscientious driver at 60mph?

However observant you are, you’ll be safer at 60 than 90.

No-one’s arguing in favour of not observing, but people are arguing in favour of driving like a bellend.

Some people are arguing that the driver is not at fault for not observing because the biker was going fast. Nobody apart from weeksy is arguing in favour of riding like a fin de cloche.

Well, it’s at least the second time I’ve said it.

Sorry, must have missed that amongst all the people going on about the speed – your first post on this thread it seems
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/well-it-went-a-bit-quiet-in-here-when-i-watched-this/page/3#post-6288331

Yes, but what about an observant conscientious driver at 60mph?

What about a unicorn?

Some people are arguing that the driver is not at fault for not observing because the biker was going fast

Which is irrelevant because (what’s this now, 11?) the driver admitted to not seeing either the bike or the much larger, slower moving, presumably obeying the speed limit, car which the biker had just overtaken.

He didn’t look properly before he turned. The end. The rider’s speed is utterly unrelated to the driver’s observation in this case. The bike could’ve been doing 20mph, painted pink and on fire, the driver still didn’t pay attention to the road before he turned.

What about a unicorn?

What’s that supposed to mean?

You think it’s not possible to be observant at 60?

Yes, but what about an observant conscientious driver at 60mph?

However observant you are, you’ll be safer at 60 than 90.

What do you mean by “safer”? The severity of any accident will be higher, sure, but whether or not 90, 60 or 20 is “unsafe” is dependent on a large number of factors. It’s a “lies to children” gross oversimplification to presume that 60 is inherently “safe” and 90 is “dangerous.”

We’re back to the question I asked of you a little while ago:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/well-it-went-a-bit-quiet-in-here-when-i-watched-this/page/8#post-6290437

What’s that supposed to mean?

It’s a mythical beast 😉

What do you mean by “safer”? The severity of any accident will be higher, sure, but whether or not 90, 60 or 20 is “unsafe” is dependent on a large number of factors.

Safe is a relative term, because you can never be absolutely safe from a road accident unless you live on Sark.

It’s a “lies to children” gross oversimplification to presume that 60 is inherently “safe” and 90 is “dangerous.”

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying 60 is safER than 90, which it is. As to your question – there is nothing special about 60, it’s simply considered reasonable by the majority. There’s no reason to go any faster except your own gratification.

As to your question – there is nothing special about 60, it’s simply considered reasonable by the majority. There’s no reason to go any faster except your own gratification.

Reasonable by an unthinking majority. No real reason to go faster than 50 is there?

I’m saying 60 is safER than 90, which it is.

… in a given set of circumstances. In the conditions in the video, certainly; I’d argue that the 60 limit (assuming that’s what it is) is probably too fast for that road.

Say I’m driving down the motorway. The weather is dry and clear, it’s 3am and there’s no other traffic as far as the eye can see. My tyres are in good condition, as is the rest of the car. I’m not fatigued, and nowhere near a junction. Why is 60mph safER than 90mph?

Say I’m driving down the motorway. The weather is dry and clear, it’s 3am and there’s no other traffic as far as the eye can see. My tyres are in good condition, as is the rest of the car. I’m not fatigued, and nowhere near a junction. Why is 60mph safER than 90mph?

Because if you have a tyre blow out you would be less likely to lose control.

Because if a car joins the motorway and doesn’t see you and veers across the lanes you would be more able to take evasive action.

Because if there were animals / debris on the road, you would have more chance to see them and take evasive actions / slow down

Because if there was a car broken down in one of the lanes you would have time to slow down and stop or take evasive action

Because if there were workmen in the road setting up overnight roadworks and setting out cones, you would be more likely to see them and slow down to an appropriate speed.

Shall i go on…

Frankly a little worried that you have to ask that question!

Because if you have a tyre blow out you would be less likely to lose control.

Yeah, I’d considered that. But as I said, the increased speed would mean that the severity of an incident would go up. It’s not inherently more likely to happen, is it.

Plus, I’ve stated, my tyres are in good condition. A blowout is possible but highly unlikely (I don’t recall ever having one in twentymumble years of driving, and only one in an ill-maintained van as a passenger).

Because if a car joins the motorway

From where? I’m nowhere near a junction.

Because if there were animals / debris on the road, you would have more chance to see them

Visibility is good and I’m awake. Let’s say for the sake of argument I can reliably stop in the distance I can see. I don’t need more time beyond “sufficient.”

Because if there was a car broken down in one of the lanes

That’s the same point as the one you just made.

Because if there were workmen in the road setting up overnight roadworks

So is that, only less relevant as they’d have matrix signs set.

Shall i go on…

Only if you’ve got a valid argument.

hahahaha.

You asked the question why is 60mph safer than 90mph, and i gave you a number of scenarios and your response is, yeah, but its not that likely heh? Still likely, so it has answered your question. 60mph is safer than 90mph. There is no argument about that.

There is no argument about that.

Not if you’re going to cherry-pick a secondary part of one of my responses, no. There’s certainly no arguing with that logic.

You asked the question why is 60mph safer than 90mph, and i gave you a number of scenarios and your response is, yeah, but its not that likely heh? Still likely, so it has answered your question. 60mph is safer than 90mph. There is no argument about that.

When I was younger I used to drive like a total bell end. I believed that as long as the conditions were clear and I knew what I was doing then I could drive at whatever speed I felt comfortable with, even if that speed was in excess of the limit.

Over the years I’ve slowed down a lot. I find the pursuit of higher MPG more interesting than MPH and you know what? I’ve found that by travelling at the speed limit I’m less stressed, I have more time to observe what is going on around me, changing road and weather conditions are easier to compensate for and, crucially, I have more time to take avoiding action when faced with people driving like idiots. So yes, 60 is safer than 90.

Sadly some people haven’t heeded the warning of that terrible and haunting road safety video:

BBC Story

Visibility is good and I’m awake. Let’s say for the sake of argument I can reliably stop in the distance I can see. I don’t need more time beyond “sufficient.”

Ok well even if visibility is good and you’re awake, you still have a fixed chance of not spotting a hazard. If this hazard appears, you’re better off if you are going slower for a number of reasons.

Also – if you get used to driving fast, then your perception of speed becomes distorted and you’ll be wanting to go faster at all times, even when there are hazards. Well – as a driving god you might be exempt, but for all mortals this applies. Perception of speed is relative.

Why is 60mph safER than 90mph?

I think you are being facetious now. We’ve already established that given enough visbility that speed in itself is not a hazard (it just uses more of a precious resource and creates more pollution but of course those things are for tree hugging losers to worry about). This is acknowledged over and over and OVER again on these threads.

However, I always make the same argument, which seems to be ignored just as often. That ALMOST all the time there are hazards, and there is the possibility of there being a hazard you don’t notice, so in ALMOST all practical situations, 60 is safer than 90.

That is my point.

I’m really not sure what yours is beyond what’s already been established. Are you arguing for invididual discretion in speed limits?

^ is that not an arguement for lack of awareness as opposed to speed?

Bike Safer’s comparative braking times (ABS equipped)
Speed (mph) 60.00
Braking time (secs) 3.53
Braking and reaction time (secs) 4.15
Stopping distance (feet) 210.05

Speed (mph) 90.00
Braking time (secs) 4.72
Braking and reaction time (secs) 5.34
Stopping distance (feet) 393.44

(Assuming same rider/skill at each speed) Surely an extra 200ft of braking space settles the honorable gents’s safety argument?

is that not an arguement for lack of awareness as opposed to speed?

The two things are linked. The faster you go, the harder awareness becomes.

Not that you’re less aware, but that you have less time to react then?

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 for 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 twattery, but people’s differing attitudes to speed(ing) and 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…