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

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 f**ked 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 he’s the other driver f**ked up the other driver himself as well, who’ll never feel quite the same again. What if he’d killed or injured himself?

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.

I don’think of it as risk taking, more a tragic failure to perceive. Given the driver’s failure to see the bike or car approaching him, what would we be hanging the hat of blame on if he’d crashed into the slower car, instead of the bike?