Safe Speed Forums

From a moral perspective, the answer is "No, you do not risk others by never exceeding the speed limit" although that's subject to qualification. Therefore the second question needs no answer.

If you're looking for an all-encompassing guide, I'll have a stab at it, although it's clearly fraught with difficulty (this includes the qualification mentioned above).

Any driver has the right to drive at whatever speed meets his own needs provided that he duly discharges the simultaneous duty to ensure, in his reasonably careful and competent judgment, that he does not, by reason of his choice of speed, appreciably increase the risk to others road users that is inherent in his presence on the road.

If that speed, in any given circumstances, is significantly less than the speed which other vehicles using the road are likely to choose, and who are or would be obstructed from doing so by his choice of speed, he should be aware that the proviso may not be satisfied and should correct for that by increasing speed and/or by facilitating the progress of drivers who may wish to drive faster.

You're trying to wind me up, surely?

Speed limits (yes limits) served us very well until the silly season.

Good service from the speed limits requires that they "know their place" in the list of road safety priorities.

We just need to restore earlier levels of importance and emphasis.

And yes, it bloody well is dangerous to obsess about speed limits.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

As long as you are not self righteous about it and deliberately block drivers trying to overtake or tailgate car in front to remove space for overtaking drivers then no, i don't think you any risk to others.

I too stick to limits unless in a NSL and only exceed limit there if i consider it safe to do so - no pedestrians, cyclists, animals, usually no other drivers, and no places to hide speed cameras. But i have virtually no problem with tailgaters, other drivers normally catch me up and overtake ( i move over slightly where safe to let them have better view, and always have plenty of room in front of me ), or they sit safe distance behind when they realise that although i sticking to limit that i am not driving too slowly for conditions either.

There is that aspect of it, but the questions are fair ones, I think.



Despite what you say, there has been a shift in meaning. Essentially, the type of the limit has changed, hasn’t it? In the old days, the limits were soft. There was more margin and less chance of being caught. Now the limits are harder.

I take it that we should explain to new drivers that the speed limit in place X is Y mph, and you must obey it? Then for ourselves, we should use the “rule that dare not speak it’s name”. The limit would become the kind of thing which is wrong to exceed, but OK if you are grown up about it, like having a little too much wine at dinner, talking about your friends, or smoking a joint.

But does this mean that it is not grown up to obey the limit? Should one pay it scant regard in the full circle of things, or obey it if that is what you like to do?

_________________
I stole this .sig

No. "Diff'rent strokes..."



You should pay it "due regard" and yes, obey it if that is what you like to do.

The wine analogy isn't a bad one actually.

I choose to enjoy one or two glasses of wine. On occasions, I might have a bit more and perhaps even get mildly drunk, but I strive to do so in a way that doesn't impact negatively on anyone else, nor to such a degree that it has any disproportionately adverse effect on my own health.

Others choose not to drink at all, and that's just fine.

But others might choose to drink to excess, ie to a stage where they are posing a severe hazard to their own health, to the well being of those immediately around them, and by knock on effects caused by their behaviour, quite probably have a bad effect on complete strangers unfortunate enough to cross their paths.

Now it is perfectly reasonable for the non-drinker to object to the effects of the "extreme" drinker, as his habit is clearly anti-social and affects other innocent victims. But to clump the reasonable "sociable" drinker in with him is unreasonable, as his behaviour is not the same at all.

And similarly, there is no hypocrisy whatsover in the moderate drinker joining in to call for action to be taken against the extreme, anti-social drinker, indeed his own experiences may even make him better placed to judge what constitutes the dividing line between reasonable and extreme, something a non-drinker might find difficult.

So what of the law?

A good law might define drunkenness in terms of the effects it has, especially on others. Meanwhile a bad law might just ban drinking all together, penalising the harmless 90% in order to try and control the 10% actually causing a problem, even though they are the very ones most likely to disregard the law...

Yes, it's quite a good analogy I think.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I agree. I'm certain that this has been bad for road safety.



I don't understand why you think it should be "difficult" to return to the priorities that served us so well in the past. The balance used to be good, and now it's bad. It's easy - we know the right balance - all we have to do is restore it.



One should drive at a safe and appropriate speed at all times - that's the primary duty to safety (as far as speed is concerned, I mean). Obeying the speed limit doesn't even make it onto the top ten list of basic safety responsibilities. (Please don't ask me to work out the top ten list right now - I've got FAR too much to do in the next 48 hours!)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

"Did it today and I was reminded how easy it is to fluff a quick 2nd to 3rd gear change in my Alfa if you don't place it carefully. No danger to anyone because I chose the spot carefully but a good opportunity to make a couple of mental notes."

Most honest piece of writing I've seen in a while.

Mojo.

Another long-ish thread I;'ve not read through fully but here's my opinions
I'll state now that i do like driving quickly and, like every man, like to regard myself as safe, albeit not perfect.

If I'm 'making progress' along single carriageway roads, i have 2 rules of thumb to determine how fast i'm prepared to drive.
a) What would happen if someone came the other way driving in the same manner and speed that i am?
b) If i had an accident now and someone was killed as a direct result, would i be able to live with my conscience afterwards?

The 'look for an escape route' has also previously worked for me, and helped me develop my 'rules'. I made a mistake a few years ago, had make an emergency brake, and this scrubbed enough speed to allow a swerve that avoided any accident. In motorway bunching queues i try to move to lane 1 to give that extra safety zone; plus the tvr tends to warm up in v slow traffic and in the off chance it overheats i'd rather be in lane 1 than 3.

From real-life experience of an impending-death (or serious harm) situation:

http://www.cooperbiketraining.org.uk/ne ... crash.html


I'll take issue with this, tho':



Depends on whether you mean position on approach to the hazard before the hazard (to use the DSA's wonderful phrase) 'develops' in to a life-threatening situation.

Particulalrly for motorcyclists, moving away from potential danger achieves two things - it can attract a drivers attention to you as you move through their field of view, and it means they have to go further to get you should they decide to do so.

However, speed is also important on the approach - ensure that you're at (or below) a speed that drivers will expect traffic on that road to be at, and by reducing speed slightly you reduce your braking disatance dramatically (as per your diagram).

As far as 'escape' goes, any escape route has to be planned in advance, and with things like the 'jump', mentally 'rehearsed' regularly.

That is assuming the driver at fault has supplied you with a stopping distance.



Your planning really needs to be revised

_________________
Steve

The writer of this article wants locking up, a complete prat

Never at any time should you jump off a m/cycle during emergency braking. You are jumping out of the fire into what ever else happens to be coming your way.

Landing will not be just a thud on the ground, you are more than likely to roll or slide / bounce in any direction, which may have other traffic ready go over the top of you.

Planning to hit a particular point of a car is without doubt stupid, your mind is full of rather alot, at the time, and the 1st priority is to stop the bike. You do not have time to aim at a soft point, if that time is available, it would be spent aiming the bike away from the car altogether.

If you jumped off the bike in an emergency stop, under test conditions, you would be failed on the spot.

_________________
Steve

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and my opinion is that the advice is extremely sound.

I have had two motorcycle crashes, both my fault, and in the first one I stepped off the bike prior to leaving the road and slid along the road to a stop with no injuries. Had I stayed on the bike I would NOT have been so lucky.

I know this is a different situation but I think the advice offered is superb.


Did you even read the article? In a situation where a crash is definitely going to happen, you may still have time to alter your direction slightly, enough to aim at a softer point of impact.


A damn site better than being squashed like a bug on the side of the car!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Since I'm new here, and don't know you from Adam, I'll remain polite. I trust you'll do me the same degree of politeness and go back and read it properly.

It's not something to be done in every emergency stop, only when there is no alternative available.

And taking tests? If in a test situation a car was obstructing my line, with no chance of stopping before impact, then I'd jump. Would I have passed the test if I'd remained on the bike? You might care - I wouldn't!




I guess from your login that you're a rider too. Ever seen, or seen pictures of, what happens when a rider impacts the roof line of a car?

Given a choice, I'd probably go over the top of the car.

Don't be a nit wit. Too many of your posts show a lack of careful consideration. I know 'Horse' and he's anything but a 'prat'.

I'm also concerned that you found it appropriate to respond in such a manner to a new user here. New users need to be welcomed, and given an opportunity take make mistakes and find their feet - that's the purpose of the L plate. Please respect it.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

OK, I'm prepared to listen and learn.

The time when I used the 'Jump' I was negotiating a double min-roundabout. I'll try to describe it for you:
Imagine the '8' leaning at 45 degrees left. I was entering the junction from the bottom of the lowest circle, heading for the right-hand exit from the bottom circle. (There are two other exits, top & left of 'top' circle)

I was actually on the roundabout, at 12-15mph (and remember this is a mini-roundabut with a small painted mound), when I saw the car start to pull away (yes, it had stopped) from the 'join' between the two islands.

I had - at most - a second before impact. So let's investigate the options:
- Accelerate? In a second, leant slightly over, towards an encroaching car . . .
- Brake? Take away half a second reaction time, plus bringing the bike upright? Would have stopped me about at impact point - and I was going to stop there anyway . . .
- Swerve? Oncoming car in the 'exit' road. Where else? Wouldn't have got behind the encroaching car.

You tell me what I should have done. I await your answer with eager anticipation . . .




Quite true, I tried, briefly, in that first post to cover both 'high risk' and 'impending doom' situations. What do you suggest for when the rider has no stopping distance available?



Oh, did I mention I was taught this by the police officer who used to train all the Hampshire police patrol motorcyclists? I guess you're suggesting his planning wasn't up to scratch either. What level of planning do you suggest he should consider?

Thanks, Paul.

I look forward to learning from K12, if he has something useful to add.

K12 - Up to you matey. Let me (as a Newbie who doesn't know your history here) know your experience, knowledge, skill, etc.

Welcome to SafeSpeed, Horse.

Your 'jump' requires (and required) tremendous presence of mind (or had you rehearsed it so often that it became instinct). Is it feasible to expect 'ordinary' riders to develop that ability/instinct?

Cheers.

I'd been mentally rehearsing it for 23 years, including teaching other people.

It has to be thought about before it's needed - which is only an extension of other planning we do anyway, such as easing off the throttle and covering the brakes etc.

'Ordinary' riders? Of course, but like any skill it has to be practised, mentally or physically.

And you can physically practice the 'jump'! Ar e you sat at a desk? Push the chair back away from the desk, now STAND UP!

OK, sit back down again, and stand up again - but this time swing your left leg back up on to the seat, and your left arm across in front of your body - you've just saved yourself from the front of an encraoching car.

Now, every time you approach a junction with a high-risk vehicle, think "If he pulls out I just . . . "

Or you could just sit there on the bike if you prefer.

I'm dealing with one just now, rider had no time to jump. He did not even get to the 'Sh' of 'Oh Shit!' before impacting with a vehicle which came out of a junction. He collided with the side 'roof line' which had angled up slightly on impact to exacerbate the injuries.

The only good thing was that his death was immediate.





On a happier note, welcome 'Horse'. I hoped that we had not lost your wisdom and experience after the 'seeming' closure of CSC forum.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian