Safe Speed Forums

I was a biker once (Kawasaki triples (250,350,400), BMW 100RS, Suzuki 250), and I suggest that bikers respect SMIDSY by keeping to less than or equal the speed limit (but no faster), because SMIDSY could happen randomly at any junction.

_________________
I stole this .sig

[emphasis added]

You're at it again, basingberk. Your obsession with speed clouds your vision so you don't see the fragility and shallowness of your own arguments. Let's try a little 'joined up thinking'.

1. The 'SafeSpeed rule' is not, actually, SafeSpeed's (and I don't think Paul claims credit for it - but that's another matter). It is taken from "Roadcraft - the essential police driver's handbook". I think Paul adds "and will remain clear" at the end of the Roadcraft rule NOT to allow for random events but for driving on single track roads where it is sometimes necessary to be able to stop in HALF the distance (or less) you can see to be clear.

2. The safe speed rule is not intended to be and can not be an infallible guide to avoiding the consequences of "random events or stupid behaviour". For example, I don't know, as I approach a tree at the side of the road, that it won't fall down as I pass. Should I stop in case it does? I might be waiting a long time. I don't know, as I drive down a single carriageway road, that the car approaching from the other direction won't swerve onto my side of the road as it passes and collide with me. Should I stop and wait for it to pass in case it does? Even if I do, there's no guarantee of safety - the car may still swerve and hit me while I'm stationary. So, there is no point in adjusting speed for totally random and unpredictable events.

There is of course a huge area of uncertainty between total unpredictability and absolute certainty and drivers will generally modify their driving pattern (including speed) according to the extent of perceived risk - but that's the hazard perception side of driving of which speed adjustment in accordance with the safe speed rule is only one element. The others include (as mentioned) road positioning, covering the brake, etc.

I'm not sure how adhering to the speed limit protects a biker against a SMIDSY.

The problem is not really proportional to speed.

Would it not be better to encourage an official understanding of SMIDSY and consequent official guidance vai the Think! campaign ? [/quote]

Good - we share some common point of view at last.

I agree with you that 2 original sects forming the dualled up road in the Mold-Wrexham direction require more care than the average might exercise I still cannot agree that this road is a death trap per se



Well the roads have been there passing the pub for several hundred years. It was on my 1921 OS map for starters. The 'space' is communal - it does not belong to the residents on route any more than it belongs to a single road user. But as Gatsobait eloquently puts it the new culture allows politicians to selfishly upset the mutual respect that existed.

And the damage allows new forms of parasitism to move in to exploit the situation.



Incorrect on both counts I'm afraid. Like many others using the road and living in the village I had no problem with the status quo. We all have problems when one person, a politician who believed her own needs more important than those of the road users as well as some of the people who live near the road. But thats politicians isn't it ! And thats why they instead of the judgement of qualified people.

Secondly the road system is part of a national infrastructure save maybe for a small percentage of residential driveways. No I am not happy for groups of local influential/politically inspired NIMBYs to be allowed to dictate these spreading restrictions simply because of emotive perception.

I can't really recall seeing any speed limit that has been set years ago being INCREASED ...can you ?

And to me basically you are saying that you are happy for more and more speed restrictions to be imposed all over the country ?[/quote]

Indeed

Roadcraft states

Never drive so fast that you cannot stop comfortably on your own side of the road within the distance you can see to be clear

It also emphasises that you should know your vehicle's controls, braking system (and they are all different - HC is good guide - but onus is on you to know your car!),

that you should be aware of road surface (wet/slippery conditions)

that you should be aware of cornering, braking, and vehicle balance on tyre grip

On single track -as Observer states - you need to allow twice the distance you can see to be clear - so that the oncoming vehicle also has time to react and brake.

The A&E is full of people who did not read the instructions on the Black & Decker ..



It is zest for life - part of mastering the environment, ensuring progeny continues .... and it is fun ensuring progeny continues



Call it the red signal - sixth sense - but that zest of life and survival instinct is what stops most of us from doing summat stupid

Most of us learn this in the cradle - instinct or genetic programming.



The 4 year old foster kid has road sense. He knows cars can hurt. He even tells me to stop at the kerb. My own were the same too.

But basingwerk - none of my younger kids (11 year old foster child, above four year old and my own clued up six year old) are allowed out unsupervised. We all have responsibility to behave and take care of our own safety.

I am also a "good catholic boy" - but being responsible for my own moral standards, christian values and decency was drummed into me as a boy.

There is chance in it. Aged 17, I came off at 90 and walked away from it. Other blokes were killed at much lower speed. But according to Newton, F=MA, so the force of the impact is precisely proportional to speed. Safespeed has another equation that is derived from this (and some other thing related to thermo-dynamcis which I forget about), but it especially true for bikers that lower speed impacts with cars and trcuks and other hard things are not as bad high speed ones. I know something about this because a few of my old biker chums are 6 feet under now, or crippled.

SMIDSY often means hitting the side of a car. If you have to slam into a ton of steel, its better to be going slower than faster, IMHO.

_________________
I stole this .sig

thanksforshowingmetheerrorofmywayswithrespecttomyjoinedupthinking!

Joking aside, I couldn't agree more, safe speed rule is very fallible indeed, and that is why we need a extra level of margin, the top limit.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Wow

20 Pages of argument on tailgating thats been just about as far around the houses as its possible to go.

And you are all ultimately agreeing with one another or repeating the same points in subtly different ways

Are we sure we aren't all just trying to get the last word in here?

(I'm not BTW)

Yes, but you're referring to the consequences of the SMIDSY event, Richard C was, I believe, referring to the chance of the event occurring in the first place. So, how does riding at or below some numerical figure of speed make a SMIDSY less likely? It doesn't. Indeed, in some cases, riding more slowly may actually increase the risk, by keeping the biker in the blind spot for longer...




Me neither

The consequences of a SMIDSY event are likely to be worse at higher speeds
than lower ones, so that is one reason to keep the speed down. I think
anybody would agree on that.

You also suggest that safty is best served by riding faster
in order to get out of a blind spot sooner. I suppse I could
think up some technical reasons, but instead, I refer you to
Google to find "Pascal's insane ride through la periferique".
The video has been mentioned before on this very site. Pascal also
believed this, but he is no longer around to explain why!
Many years ago I also (along with a good number of biker chums) believed
this. Quite a few were squashed before reality dawned.




I'm determined to get the last word in here! [/quote]

_________________
I stole this .sig

I certainly wouldn't argue against the idea that having a crash at a higher speed will hurt more than one at a lower speed. However, I WOULD argue that the speed at which the vehicle is travelling prior to the accident does not have a direct relationship to the speed at which the accident occurs. Driver reactions and the capabilities of the vehicle play as much of a role here - assuming the accident is inevitable, would you rather be hit by someone who, as a result of having spent the last few hours being mesmerised by the effects of a long 40MPH cruise, doesn't react quickly enough to hit the brakes and so slams into you doing the full 40MPH, OR would you rather be hit by someone who's been doing 70MPH and therefore is still alert enough to scrub off at least half of their speed before the collision...




Well yes, I did suggest that riding faster COULD result in improved safety in CERTAIN conditions. However, I don't appreciate the way you manage to strip out the conditionals in my suggestion to make it sound as if I'm ALWAYS suggesting higher speeds=reduced SMIDSY risk. If you come up with a convincing argument against something I've said, chances are I'll respect your opinion. But if you have to change the meaning of what I say in order to make your point, then respect is the last thing you'll get from me.

According to you, a biker may be less likely by riding fast to suffer SMIDSY in some circumstances, and more likely to suffer SMIDSY in other circumstances. If this were true, then there is (on the face of it) no general advantage or disadvantge to riding fast or slow (although I have to say that this does not provide very clear guidance to bikers).

In that case, the general advantage when SMIDSY actually occurs at low speed rather than high speed
makes it wise to ride more slowly. On that, we can surely agree, although I actually believe there is a general advantage to riding more slowly in most if not all circumstances because of increased time allowance. In any case, riding faster in order to get out of a blind spot sooner may put you in another person's blind spot more quickly, so I don't even admit your original premise.



That's big of you. Thanks Twister.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Basingwerk's logic seems to reduce to,
driving is unsafe,
people are incompetient
this situation cannot be improved
if a direct impact occurs the damage and risk increases with speed
Speed must be savagely limited
possibly only permanentlystopped is acceptable

Brake and Slower Speeds is similar

Interested that you epecrienced a bike accident at 90 and survived to develop this philosophy Basingwork At 24 I had as similar experience - by myself-not involving anyone else. I resolved to learn how to drive fast, very fast in some cases, safely. It has worked for me for over 500,000 miles .

That's one spin on it. Another is -

driving is unsafe,
SOME people are incompetent
(this situation CAN be improved)
if a direct impact occurs the damage and risk increases with speed
speed must be rationally limited, because BW is selfish and
wants to maximise HIS chances

[/quote]



500,000 miles doesn't seem a huge amount, spread over decades. Perhaps you are a good driver (although I don't KNOW that, nor do you), or you may have been lucky. It's a good sign, though, so good luck to you.

_________________
I stole this .sig

OK basingwerk we agree again. Nearly. Speed may need to be rationally limited and enforced but that is absolutely not what is happening now.



Sorry, imprecise figure of speech. To be as precise as possible somewhere between 673,000 and 698,000 behind the wheel in 33 years. Yes I have been lucky on several occasions. But like you, I too am selfish and want to maximise MY chances. Had I spent ALL of those miles religiously observing the speed limit A) I would have spent another 120 days of my life behind the wheel and B) at much greater risk of a crash through fatigue.

I think this forum (this thread in particular) saved me from a collision this morning.

I was on the York Outer Ring Road (usually very congested) this morning. Typical speed was about 20mph, and I had some numpty behind me literally 2ft off my bumper. I held back from the car in front, effectively driving for him and allowing 2 gaps from the car in front. I also kept my eyes very focussed on what he was doing.

I’m not sure if this actually annoyed him more, but I digress.

Anyway, we came up to a roundabout where the traffic slowed. I saw the car in front stop, checked my mirror and muppet was looking down at his passenger seat (paper? map?) I closed the gap to the car in front of me, stopped, checked behind and saw him look up just in time to slam on.

I’m sure if I hadn’t maintained the gap, there would have been a collision.

Thanks SafeSpeed. You saved me a whole heap of hassle. I’ll also thank you by proxy for the muppet behind.

Brilliant. That's great to hear. Thanks.

I'm very pleased to have been of service!

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

Sadly, that muppet is almost certainly oblivious to the part you played in him avoiding a collision
So he'll have learned nothing at all and will probably be seen exhibiting exactly the same behaviour tomorrow and the next day

That's why I help muppets by giving them a visually significant hand signal. However, I've been told off for that now.

_________________
I stole this .sig