Safe Speed Forums

I've been saying this for years on here, difference is when I say it it's followed by pages of nit picking and ad hominin, when you say it, nothing, figure that!

See what he did there, with the HGV/car swap? You crafty old thing you.

To be fair to me I said “car” and not all transport because I know about the HGV thing. But you raise an important distinction and perhaps further discussion as to why it’s disproportionally worse for HGV’s. (I think I have many answers). I’ve never once seen car tyre remnants on a motorway but lots of HGV ones with 500ft long skid marks veering off towards the hard shoulder.

Sorry, but I don’t think it is clear weepej. The speed you go around a corner or island should be based on good judgment based on known limitations of your car, your experience and the conditions. - not “I don’t know what happened, I was only doing 25mph around the island and a car should be able to do that”.

As a two wheel user you, of all people, should know that.

So I’m holding on to my statement that “there’s rarely such thing as a dangerous car these days”.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Not sure about that. Bikes only have half as many wheels as most cars. Anything 2 wheeled is inherently unstable. If you're cycling around at 20-30 MPH (or however fast you go on a pushbike) and pop a tyre, you're almost certainly off (possibly under a truck). If you have various drivers swerving, trying to avoid you, that could lead to additional carnage. If you're in a typical modern car at the same speed and a tyre pops, it's far less dramatic - you usually just stop and get out and bemoan the fact that you've got a burst tyre. I know what you mean, of course, and a higher speed blow-out in a car is not a pleasant experience, but that's why car tyres need to meet very onerous standards of manufacture AND get their condition checked anually by a government inspector, and have various legal requirements relating to tread depth and carcass construction imposed on them. A cyclist doesn't have to go through any of that. I am, of course, happy to believe that there are far more unroadworthy pushbikes out there than cars...

I'd be inclined to agree with you Tone. HGVs (because (a) of their huge mileages, (b) commercial pressures on the operators, and (c) the fact that VOSA tend to target them for spot checks), are much more likely to be caught at any point in time with a safety defect. It must also be remembered that a fair number of safety defects do not necessarily render the vehicle unsafe, but "unsafe if a further failure were to occur". There are often multiple degrees of redundancy in safety systems nowadays so, for example, an ABS defect would be (quite rightly) be regarded as a safety defect, but would not actually mean that the vehicle was unsafe under normal operating conditions. It would POTENTIALLY become unsafe during emergency braking (depending on load and road conditions) but would still be no less safe than a (perfectly legal) older truck which was not thus equipped.

The 500' skid marks are not usually as a result of emergency braking but due to a failure in one or more brake lines. Apologies if this is teaching granny all about egg-sucking, but in many big trucks, the air in the air braking system holds the brake shoes OFF the drums. They're pulled on to the drums by big springs so that if an air line bursts or becomes uncoupled, the brakes are APPLIED. If one actuator looses its air pressure, the brake on that wheel tends to lock on and the truck driver (depending on how many other wheels he has, and what sort of load etc) may not notice immediately.

I really ought to try and find a sarcastic smilie ! or perhaps even a quote facility !

He was saying that it is always the responsibility of the driver / rider to chose to travel safely or not. You appear to have mis-understood his point. With regard to the potential slight ad hominem I posted that it was unacceptable and there are no further cases. I always try to be fair and reasonable, if you have a problem let me know.

As far as I think I can tell, no one here approves of anyone texting while in control of any vehicle of any kind.
It requires concentration to focus and text which is taking a big risk with safety.
With it being so easy to stop with a bicycle it seems highly lazy to not stop, then text then cycle on.

With regards to the satnav on a bike, I want to experiment with that. Interesting that it has been raised. It is of course easy to check when stopped at lights and so on, or to stop and to check at almost any time. I would have thought an occasional glance is not too much of an issue, but I expect to try this for myself and report back. (In another thread).

Always being in control requires concentration and thinking time and potential hazard can be missed if too greater attention is paid to other thought processes. When focus is also diverted away from the road ahead, it can be a problem as potential or developing hazards might be missed.
However if it is carried out at 'good moments' identified by the driver/rider, and only brief moments, it is usually perfectly acceptable.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.