[bumble blade]

setanta you've obviously got that mad scotts mans disease.or the altitude is very thin were you live. if you think everyone with a litre bike rides around in excess of 100mph. i just dont think you get it at all (inappropriate speed kills)
if not your self other people.we dont need anymore selfish riders on the road the worlds full of them.
oh and by the way if i rearly feel the need to thrash my bike at such speeds i book a track day.not the local stretch of motor way.
this is not a personal attack but just an oppinion. sorry

[setanta]

Originally Posted by bumble blade

setanta you've obviously got that mad scotts mans disease.or the altitude is very thin were you live. if you think everyone with a litre bike rides around in excess of 100mph. i just dont think you get it at all (inappropriate speed kills)
if not your self other people.we dont need anymore selfish riders on the road the worlds full of them.
oh and by the way if i rearly feel the need to thrash my bike at such speeds i book a track day.not the local stretch of motor way.
this is not a personal attack but just an oppinion. sorry

No offence taken what I said still stands I have never known a litre sport bike owner who never had his/her bike over the ton. We have also share a different attitude as to what the word "speed"entails, thus the spice of life

[Sideshow bob]

.... I hate threads like this....

hate to see a fellow rider meet his demise....

But IMO... he was at fault..

we all know about using mirrors, but to me You use them to keep yourself out of danger.. ... you drive and react for whats in front of you.. and so should the people behind you. you only use the mirrors to check your not putting yourself in danger doing your manouver and in a car a bike does not = danger...
a bloody great lorry yes.. a bike no!..
that said, I doubt the car driver even registered the bike, if he even saw it.. but even if he didn't the bike should have been at a speed that ment he could have reacted safely to whatever the car did.

We need to remember, unfortunatly...
On a bike everythings a threat.. WE ARE the lowest form of life on the road! small unprotected and squidgy ... cars are slightly more evolved with there hard shells but no match for the heavyweight monsters the lorry....... WE have to allow for them to survive, they can happily ignore us as the're unlikely to be phisicaly hurt by our actions

[WyoJames]

Originally Posted by setanta

Two wrongs dont make a right

but 3 rights make a left

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by setanta

No offence taken what I said still stands I have never known a litre sport bike owner who never had his/her bike over the ton. We have also share a different attitude as to what the word "speed"entails, thus the spice of life

Totally agree that speed by itself is not a problem.
But this was speed caused by inappropriate speed (or speed differential)

100mph on an empty road or even in an empty lane on a freeway is not the same as 60mph in the same lane as another car!

I think his speed was then the cause of a bunch of other mistakes. I guess I see it as major problem and sort of root problem.

While its not a nice thing to discuss for those directly involved, I do think its healthy to look at these and think "what should he do"
The problem with these cases is that it so bloody obvious that the guy was a risk that you end up arguing over which of a dozen thing he did wrong was the worse!
Too fast, not looking ahead, relying on other vehicles, insufficent buffer space, race my mate attitude etc. Which was worse, was one or more the cause of others...

I also think its important to distinguish between "safer" and "luckier" - saying more speed may have avoided the problem is true. But it would be purely due to luck and timing, not due to it being inherently safer.
Its also sad to see people making these sorts of videos (not death videos, but the go-fast video) as in most the people dont crash. It gives the idea that you can do this and not crash/die.
But again - that is mostly luck. Doing something risky and getting away with it doesnt mean its safe or that you are capable of doing it safely - it generally means you are just lucky. You probably dont even need anything too unusual to happen for your luck to run out.
Sure we can be riding "safely" and still get hurt with some bad luck (my only on road accident was a car driving onto the wrong side of the road and taking me and 2 other cars out). But generally "safe" riding is when you arent using luck to avoid 99% of problems and certainly 99.9999% of problems by chances of them happening!
These guys were really playing 50/50 type odds and unfortunately for them (and more so their family and other drivers involved) they werent lucky.

Anyway - safe riding!

[Twincam]

Originally Posted by WyoJames

but 3 rights make a left

Originally Posted by LoopyLee

I think I read somewhere today that the stopping distance at 100mph is over 800 feet..

High Way Code states that;

By travelling at 50MPH there would be a stopping distance of 53 Metres/175 Feet (15 Thinking, 38 Braking) which is about 13 car lengths.

At 70MPH, the stopping distance increases up to 96Metres/315 Feet (21 Thinking and 75 Braking)... Thats 24 car lengths!

I wouldn't be surprised if it rose sharply again up to about the figure you stated.

[setanta]

Originally Posted by WyoJames

but 3 rights make a left

No it dosnt

[setanta]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Totally agree that speed by itself is not a problem.
But this was speed caused by inappropriate speed (or speed differential)
I think his speed was then the cause of a bunch of other mistakes. I guess I see it as major problem and sort of root problem.

While its not a nice thing to discuss for those directly involved, I do think its healthy to look at these and think "what should he do"
The problem with these cases is that it so bloody obvious that the guy was a risk that you end up arguing over which of a dozen thing he did wrong was the worse!
Too fast, not looking ahead, relying on other vehicles, insufficent buffer space, race my mate attitude etc. Which was worse, was one or more the cause of others...

I also think its important to distinguish between "safer" and "luckier" - saying more speed may have avoided the problem is true. But it would be purely due to luck and timing, not due to it being inherently safer.


These guys were really playing 50/50 type odds and unfortunately for them (and more so their family and other drivers involved) they werent lucky.

Anyway - safe riding!

I see a pattern being set up between our post and its a case of each of us flogging our horses to death, probably until we forget what we were on about or it gets so repetitive that they (you know who) ban us
I really cant argure with your above post it clearly states the point for safe riding.
The luck aspect I have a little problem with but then we make our own "luck". Hopefully its an element of most peoples riding that is kept to the very very minimum. Its not something we should be hoping for in our daily rides.

TBH Ive had enough of this because we could do this for ages, a rider made a mistake and died, left family behind (not on purpose) and its very very sad. Debating in a nice way what was the cause of the accident should be beneficial to other riders that may make the same mistake and hopefully they learn not to repeat the incident.
All the name calling of the rider is quite upsetting because (we must remember he made a mistake) he didnt set out to achieve this goal, nor did he want to cause his family or friends the pain that his death has.
If his family or friends read this thread I would hope that they discovered what has hppened to him and the reason for his mistake. They dont need to hear his riding and personality being lambasted here by folks that are such great "sensible perfect" riders (not personally direct at you).
So in regards this particular incident Im finished.

Having said that Im very much quite willing to continue this debate in a generalised term. So maybe we should start a thread?

[jdugen]

If those speedo readings are to be believed, thats MPH youre looking at, 130 and above.... yee gods, on a British A road! Thats almost asking to be snuffed.

[bumble blade]

on a lighter note a friend of mine (i hav'nt got many) was out for a ride in chelmsford,( for anyone who knows the area) down some very nice country roads. when swerving towards him a car in the middle of the road forced him to take evassive maneuvers into the verge to avoid being torpedode.
the car then proceeded on its journey without stopping. he then turned round and gave chase. when he caught up to the car the driver (a woman)looked sheepish as she wound down the window. "what the f..k was that about back there "he asked calmly.( he said) "sorry" she said "but a rabbit shot out across the road so i had to swerve" I never saw you coming".
my friend said he could'nt stop laughing in his helmet all the way home untill he got home and notice that one of his hero blobs on his footrest had disappeard.

so side showbob your right when you say were the lowest road user (form of life) if she could see a rabbit in the road. why on earth coud'nt she notice a blue and white suzuki coming towards her.

lets be careful out there.

[Twincam]

Originally Posted by bumble blade

On a lighter note, a friend of mine (I haven't got many) was out for a ride in Chelmsford (for anyone who knows the area) down some very nice country roads.

Agreed.

Shame the roads around here aren't the same

[setanta]

Bunny 1 bike 0

[WyoJames]

Originally Posted by setanta

No it dosnt

Yes it does...if you're going in a straight line and make 3 rights, you would end up going in the same direction as if you had originally made a left...so take that

[setanta]

Originally Posted by WyoJames

Yes it does...if you're going in a straight line and make 3 rights, you would end up going in the same direction as if you had originally made a left...so take that

That means you have to cross over the raod again, ok you win

[Twincam]

Originally Posted by setanta

That means you have to cross over the raod again, ok you win

Do you have to remain in a straight line once you have turned? The road could bend...

What happens if there isnt a road going left?! Maybe its a cul-de-sac?!

[setanta]

Originally Posted by Twincam

Do you have to remain in a straight line once you have turned? The road could bend...

What happens if there isnt a road going left?! Maybe its a cul-de-sac?!

That was my problem when I ran through it in my vision I got back to the road I had turned off, so I was approaching the road on the right hand side and I stopped, wonder wether to turn right or left Didnt imagine crossing over and as I never had imagined a left hand turn to start with *



*dont worry I get more tablets tomorrow

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Twincam

High Way Code states that;

By travelling at 50MPH there would be a stopping distance of 53 Metres/175 Feet (15 Thinking, 38 Braking) which is about 13 car lengths.

At 70MPH, the stopping distance increases up to 96Metres/315 Feet (21 Thinking and 75 Braking)... Thats 24 car lengths!

I wouldn't be surprised if it rose sharply again up to about the figure you stated.

stopping distance is roughly proportional to square of speed.
So from 50mph to 100mph takes about 4 times as long
Double the thinking distance, 4 times the braking
15*2 + 38*4=182m (600 feet)

SO maybe not the 800 figure. But still pretty bloody big.