[Closed] Well it went a bit quiet in here when I watched this...

If close to 100 isn't fast Weeksy, what speed would you consider to be too fast on a public road past a junction?

He paid the ulitimate price for relying 100% on some random person to know what they were doing and not having an off day. His risk analysis was fatally poor. I knew someone who crashed and died on the A9 nr Auchterarder because a pheasant flew out in front of his motorbike, Police reckoned he was doing around 100mph+ at the time, no other traffic nearby.

If he wanted to pootle at 50mph, he'd have bought a scooter. Selfish as it is, people (we) buy big fast bikes to go fast on.

That's why I've got a big fast bike mate, I agree, but I go fast on it when it's more appropriate, not at junctions where there's a high risk of ending up as toast.

T666DOM - Member

If close to 100 isn't fast Weeksy, what speed would you consider to be too fast on a public road past a junction?

That depends hugely on the conditions, traffic, circumstances and the bike. However, based upon the rest of the thread I think it's wise for me to stop typing in this one.

Anything above the speed limit is too fast. How is this even debateable? Technically anything above appropriate speed for the road conditions is too fast. Anyone who thinks differently is unsafe and unfit to be on the public roads.

Selfish as it is, people (we) buy big fast bikes to [s]go fast on[/s] break the law and recklessly put other peoples lives at risk.

Why don't you buy a smaller bike which gives you as much adrenaline rush whilst traveling at road legal speeds?

Well on that day it looked dry & clear so for 1 more post from you what would you consider excessive speed passing that junction on that day Weeksy?

Well on that day it looked dry & clear so for 1 more post from you what would you consider excessive speed passing that junction on that day Weeksy?

. sorry, not worth it.

For those who missed the quick edit, Weeksy would be happy at 120

lol cheers.

The issue i have with "speed limits" is this:

The posted limit is entirely arbitrary, it only bares the slightest connection to the actual "safe speed" (there is of course, no such thing as a totally safe speed, as we are talking about balancing speed with risk and probability). The limits were set over 60 years ago, by civil servants sat behind desks, since then, the world and our roads have changed out of all recognition.

However, the greatest effect of excessive reliance on speed limits is that it removes from the driver responsibility and crucially, an important action/process than also increases situation awareness. My next door neighbour is a traffic officer, and the stories he tells are frankly frightening, but what is interesting is that he says these days, almost without fail the first thing drivers say to him at the scene of an accident is "but i wasn't speeding" as if that makes it all fine then.

IE, the point i am trying to make, is that evidence suggests that reliance on arbitrary speed limits results in drivers that just check they are not speeding and that's it, back to sleep they go. They never start the "how fast is appropriate at this time, on this piece of road, in these conditions" mental process that is so critical to the velocity/risk analysis process. (it also leads to mono-speeding and things like bunching, tailgating and the "follow my leader" type driving we see all too much of in this country, where drivers simply switch off and just follow the car ahead (usually far too closely!)

The second issue is one of "normality" and "familiarity". We all drive thousands of miles each year WITHOUT incident. We get used to traveling at a certain speed ie "i've driven down this road at 50mph for the last 5 years and not crashed, so that must be ok then" mentality, so 50mph becomes "normal".

Unfortunately, by "driving by numbers" in this fashion, the driver once again forgets to account for probability (ie, say 999 out of 1000 times that car WON'T pull across your path, so the speed i choose last time to pass them at must be fine.)

As our roads get more crowded, distractions for drivers get ever greater (phones, nav, internet etc) and cars get easier to drive faster (modern cars now accel/cruise easily and quietly at 100mph, so it is easy for non skilled drivers to travel at those sorts of speeds), so accidents result in more severe impacts. And whilst modern car design has gone to amazing lengths to mitigate this, certain road users (pedestrians/ cyclists etc) don't have that safety net to fall back on.

Unfortunately, the basic issue is one of insufficient training and knowledge. Considering that driving a car or riding a m/bike is the MOST dangerous thing we do in modern life, you can get a driving licence incredibly easily. Unfortunately, there simply isn't the political or social will to implement stricter licence requirements or penalties, as this would seriously limit who could drive a car (and our society is all about freedom, and mobility for the masses).

For the vast majority of drivers going about their daily business, driving is not an activity in itself, it is just something they have to do to get to the thing they really want to do! (ie, shopping, or work or whatever). Because of that, their concentration and observance are low. We need to make driving a specific activity or task in it's own right. When you are driving a car, or riding a bike, that should be the focus of 100% of your attention. For most people i'm going to suggest that driving the car sit somewhere at around 30%!

Unfortunately, we also can't use individual events (such as this bike death) to shape our "average" policy. For most people in the uk, who drive billions of miles annually without incident, even with at best "average skills" our roads are largely safe enough.

What this video should highlight is that it is up to the individual to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions. And whilst a few people who viewed this video might drive/ride slightly differently for the next day or so, unfortunately normality will play it's part again, and this will be forgotten...........

Very well put Maxtorque

Pulling upto where the car is, I'd have looked up the road, seen the car doing probably the speed limit, judged that there was a good 7-10 seconds before the car got to the junction, and turned. A bike overtaking into a junction at 100mph, yes you'd see it if you looked for it, but having looked up the road, seen it clear upto the next car doing the speed limit, I think I'd have turned on auto-pilot. Maybe I'm doing myself a discredit and I would look up the road again, but it's very hard to say that and not have the feeling I'd be relying on 20/20 hindsight.

I think you're doing yourself a discredit, tinas. There is a good 4s between the bike having gone past the car and the car starting the turn. Hard to tell from the video, but it looks like the car was still moving into the turn lane at the point the bike had completed its overtake. Given the bike is dead in front of the car in the natural direction the driver is looking, you have to wonder where else he was looking in all that time. I'm also unconvinced it was a saccade issue, as that tends to occur when you're scanning to one side - in this case the driver just needed to look straight up the road in front of him.

I'm certainly not suggesting the bike speed wasn't a factor - I tend to agree with others that he might have survived if going slower - but I see nothing to suggest the court was incorrect in assigning primary fault on the driver, in the sense that he did something that even the majority of incompetent drivers don't do.

Anything above the speed limit is too fast. How is this even debateable? Technically anything above appropriate speed for the road conditions is too fast.

You've got that back to front.

"[b]Technically[/b] Anything above the speed limit is too fast. How is this even debateable? [s]Technically[/s] anything above appropriate speed for the road conditions is too fast."

Inappropriate speed is dangerous. Breaking the speed limit is illegal, but not necessarily unsafe. The speed limit is a 'best-guess' one size fits all solution.

"wah wah speed wah wah" is a gross oversimplification and unhelpful

That's not what we are saying.

The posted limit is entirely arbitrary

It is, yes*, but there is a key point that you are missing.

As you say, when people become familiar with a road, or with driving in general, they tend to speed up. When you've done something ten times before and not crashed, your speed will creep up and up over time. If we leave people's judgement on speed up to them, then speeds will just get higher and higher until simply controlling the car and avoiding NORMAL becomes challenging enough. The problem is when something ABNORMAL happens, people are not ready for it.

Absolutely NO-ONE is saying that a speed limit is all you need to be safe. Of course they aren't. But they have two main benefits.

1) If people were to stick to them, it would prevent speed creep.
2) It should ensure that people are roughly travelling at the same speed, and that makes it a lot easier for everyone to drive safely.

Above all, there is one massive point that no-one seems to have mentioned yet.

Sticking to the speed limit (as long as you are paying due attention to everything) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGES. The only reasons for exceeding it are because you want to have some fun, or because you are impatient.

Well, if you want fun, do it somewhere else. If you are impatient, then tough shit. Man the **** up and deal with it.

* actually it's not. It's always a safe speed for the environment, outside of any other hazards like junctions, blind bends, etc.

Studies i have seen suggest that "speed creep" doesn't really occur. People tend to drive at a speed they feel is "safe" instinctively, and that speed is pretty much the speed they keep driving at. In most studies where speed limits have been relaxed, after a "settling in" period most people have continued to drive at very close to the speed they were previously doing.

For example, our motorway speed limit is 70mph. This is exceeded by most passenger car users, and the Police generally don't now prosecute until people exceed 85mph. If you removed the limit(not that we should!) i would suggest most people would still do around the speed they currently are doing. This is because modern cars cruise quietly and efficiently at about 85mph, but as you increase above this, noise and fuel consumption increase significantly, and you start to "catch" other motorists more quickly, requiring more driving "effort" etc

For the record, i am not suggesting we remove speed limits, just that we focus on driver training, education and bring back real police officers onto our roads, rather than continue this one tracked "speed kills" mantra enforced simply by machine justice!

To be fair, in this case, the lack of "OMG he was doing 97nph!!" from the police etc is to be credited!

I think impatience is a BIG part of modern driving behaviour, and I suspect plays a part in most silly moves I've seen.

If I'm honest it's also the cause of a couple things I've been embarrassed at doing myself, and given myself a mental ticking off over.

I'm quite self critical of my driving. But I wonder how many others are out there. *

*Yes Mrs Black golf in in Ripley this morning, I'm talking about you!

That's not what we are saying.

It might not be what you're saying, but it seems to be what some are saying.

1) If people were to stick to them, it would prevent speed creep.

So would paying attention to what you're doing, and that would be exponentially safer all round to boot.

Sticking to the speed limit (as long as you are paying due attention to everything) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGES. The only reasons for exceeding it are because you want to have some fun, or because you are impatient.

Well, it'll take longer to get somewhere. But that's besides the point; the question isn't "does it have any disadvantages" (or DISADVANTAGES) but rather, does it have any advantages? Do I gain anything by travelling at a posted speed limit rather than at an appropriate speed to the conditions?

Let me give you an example. Say a road has a 30 limit near a school. Is it safe to travel at 30 down there at 3:30pm? Almost certainly not, there are likely to be kids all over the place, the limit is too high. How about at 3:30am? Am I gaining anything by driving at 30 rather than 40? The limit could easily be inappropriately low.

Reducto ad absurdum, we're back to having little men with red flags walking in front of cars; there's no disadvantage to that, right?

The only reasons for exceeding it are because you want to have some fun, or because you are impatient.

There was a documentary on TV a little while ago about habitual speeders. They forced them to drive at the limits and filmed the results. In many cases, they were actually worse drivers; they were bored, disengaged, frustrated and impatient, and their attention wandered.

Now, I'm not suggesting that this is justification of habitual speeding, there's clearly a training issue there; rather, that it's not as simple as looking at a number on a pole and blindly thinking "I'm all right, Jack."

People tend to drive at a speed they feel is "safe" instinctively

Agreed. And it's safe based on their usual everyday experience. But the point is that it's the unusual that causes the problem. I had this conversation with a mate who ignored the 50mph speed limit on the A48 into Cardiff (along with everyone else) because it feels slow.

However, he doesn't know any of the gotchas along it, like when you come around the left hander and find queueing traffic for a sliproad etc. But more importantly, he GAINED NOTHING worthwhile by ignoring it. So why bother? Just relax.

The limit could easily be inappropriately low.

Of course - but variable speed limits are costly to implement on a large scale. However they often do reduce the limits at school times.

So would paying attention to what you're doing,

Of bloody course it would. But the two aren't exclusive!

Let me give you an example. Say a road has a 30 limit near a school. Is it safe to travel at 30 down there at 3:30pm?

Limits are Limits though, not advisories. That 30 sign means, even when school is out, there is no traffic, it's a clear day, and your are a super awesome driver with mad skills, 30 is the max.

Not 30 is mandatory.

Do I gain anything by travelling at a posted speed limit rather than at an appropriate speed to the conditions?

Yes. You save fuel (which is no bad thing) and you are safer JUST IN CASE the unexpected happens.

For the record, i am not suggesting we remove speed limits, just that we focus on driver training, education and bring back real police officers onto our roads,

Of course - and we do (although not enough). That's why they have speed awareness courses, and why they don't book you for 80 on the motorway.

But really. Not exceeding the limit is never going to hurt you.

rather than continue this one tracked "speed kills" mantra enforced simply by machine justice!

It's not one-track. We have lots of campaigns: keep your distance, buckle up, don't drink and drive, think bike, don't drive on drugs, don't drive tired, don't be an amber gambler, don't use your phone...

molgrips

Sticking to the speed limit (as long as you are paying due attention to everything) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGES.

So why don't we just set all speed limits to 10mph and there, bingo, 100% safe roads??

The issue, of course, is one of relative speed and not absolute speed. As modern cars get easier to drive and quieter, if we reduce speed limits, all we will get is more "inattentive" accidents and less "driving error due to excessive speed" ones. In the USA, in states where limits were increased from the blanket 55mph, as far as i am aware, no extra crashes occurred statistically speaking. (this is because the difference in absolute risk between 55mph and say 65mph is too small to measure, and is offset by less "falling asleep" type crashes)

Everyone has a natural "speed". Take the speed you walk at. Ever been behind someone walking down a pavement or in a supermarket that is walking just slightly slower than your usual "gait"? Annoying isn't it. I bet you just walk past them, rather than sit behind them?

Generally, as most people drive "to get somewhere", once there speed falls below there natural "we are getting somewhere" speed, frustration and anger tends to set in. Unfortunately, that is the way we are wired, and we can't change it. Add in peoples ever busier lives and people hate to "waste time" (regardless of the fact they probably "waste" tens of hrs a week on pointless stuff like Angry birds or whatever!!).

So why don't we just set all speed limits to 10mph and there, bingo, 100% safe roads??

Because 10mph isn't fast enough. 70/60/30 is.

But you are again arguing about personal car control. That's a small part of it. It's about how you interact with other people.

frustration and anger tends to set in. Unfortunately, that is the way we are wired, and we can't change it

You absolutely can. Perception of speed is very relative. Most people on this thread have talked about how they've slowed down from previous driving habits - something I've done too.

I used to drive at 80 on motorways, since having a car with an MPG readout I now drive at 70. This feels entirely normal to me, but if I start driving at 80 then 70 soon feels slow.

The posted limit is entirely arbitrary

One last thing before I back off this thread.

The above is sort of true, but not really - at all. they aren't random, you can pretty much expect where 60s will be, and where 30s will be.

They are a measure of best fit as per a set of guidelines. Its the best we can realistically have. Without measuring the nature of every stretch of road to test different limits, angles, cambers, inclines (many times a year as conditions and road surface change), and then posting speed limit changes every ten meters to ensure total accuracy for the length of the road net work.

There are patterns and guidelines and they are actually there for a reason. You don't get 30 zones in the middle of the M1, and you don't get 60s next to the primary school.

I obey speed limits (bit heavy footed leaving them on occasion), but I don't think they make me immune from error, and I doubt others do either.

Because 10mph isn't fast enough. 70/60/30 is.

Now we're getting somewhere. Why isn't 10mph fast enough? What DISADVANTAGES are there?

What makes 70/60/30 so special?

They are a measure of best fit as per a set of guidelines. Its the best we can realistically have.

Are they?

A bunch of numbers made up in the 60s (or in the case of the 30 limit, 1930) is absolutely the best we can have in 2014?

Really?

molgrips
I had this conversation with a mate who ignored the 50mph speed limit on the A48 into Cardiff (along with everyone else) because it feels slow.

However, he doesn't know any of the gotchas along it, like when you come around the left hander and find queueing traffic for a sliproad etc.

This^^^ is exactly my point. Your mates "failing" is not exceeding the arbitrary 50mph limit, it is failing to "Read the road" ahead and modify his speed to take account of that! In this case, a blind bend, where a reduction in speed to that at which you are able stop in a distance you can see, is sensible. And, as a result of "reading the road" correctly, on the empty bits where you can see, you can go 100mph quite safely!

In this case, slapping an arbitrary "50mph" limit on a road that for a lot of it's length doesn't need to be 50mph simply makes the average driver (who is not very good at reading the road) ignore the speed limit, only to find that suddenly they are going too fast!!

So, two options become suitable:

1) Post a different speed limit sign for every single obstacle or hazard on every road in the country (those would need to be inteligent signs that modify there signage to suit the current local conditions)

or

2) Teach drivers proper roadcraft, so they can make their own decisions about their speed.

Yes.

Reasons they have stayed the same:

1) Whilst cars are much better, roads are much busier.
2) People are used to it and are expecing 60mph traffic
3) It saves fuel
4) In the event of an accident, lower speeds are ALWAYS less damaging, regardless of how good your car's protection is. People still die out there. It might be fewer than in the 60s but one death is still one too many.

Would you prefer 33.3 recurring, 58.7 & 69.2?

FWIW I agree, I think 25 is actually a better, and easier (in my Mondeo) to stick to than 30.

You can easily in your car measure numbers to the nearest 10, there are little marks on the dial, to the 5 at a push.

Ah, "we've always done it this way." Always the best reason to do anything.

Wait.

Whilst cars are much better, roads are much busier.

I'll grant you, that's a very good point.

Teach drivers proper roadcraft, so they can make their own decisions about their speed.

This isn't possible.

Personally, I'd put GPS speed limit awareness technology on every car, so they don't need to watch the speedo it just bongs annoyingly when they exceed it wherever they are. Ignore the bongs for too long and your ticket's in the post. In addition, I'd put dashboard cams in every car, or give you insurance/tax discounts.

There may be a danger in exceeding the 50 limit, but there is definitely not a danger in sticking to it.

Ah, "we've always done it this way." Always the best reason to do anything.

No, not always - don't be facetious - but it's often a good reason. People's familiarity is a significant factor in many cases.

This isn't possible.

Why not? If people can't learn proper roadcraft, perhaps driving isn't for them? At the risk of trotting out a cliché of my own in a thread containing phrases like "Limits are Limits though, not advisories", driving is a privilege not a right.

Personally, I'd put GPS speed limit awareness technology on every car,

Problem with that is that the people who most need limiting are also the ones most likely to knobble it and go "oh, it broke, officer."

But familiarity with driving is one of the causes of this video. The big killer on the road is that people treat driving with complete complacency. For some people you might as well be sitting in your armchair at home rather than steering a ton or so of steel at speeds which kill. It is a massively prevalent attitude which I can never understand.

Interesting and it probably took a lot for the family to put the video on Youtube...

A lot of the debate here is covered in a Speed Awareness Course, curiously....

If people can't learn proper roadcraft, perhaps driving isn't for them?

Unfortunately, there are many drivers who don't meet what I'd call a sufficient standard.

Perhaps it could be possible - I don't know. It'd be difficult and would require a lot of effort in the planning. Maybe not just re-tests but retraining. People are saying the speed awareness courses are good - maybe they could be part of a compulsory retest, with the retest based on a proper driving awareness assessment rather than simply reversing round a corner.

Problem with that is that the people who most need limiting are also the ones most likely to knobble it and go "oh, it broke, officer."

If the servers don't get a handshake every so often, you get a warning in the post. If you ignore it, you get a fine like for not displaying a tax disk.

I'd also GPS track every vehicle in real time, and use analytics techniques to send out warnings - 'you overtook too close to that car, you lose one point from your license' 'You overtook through a junction, you lose one point from your license' etc.

If you don't like it, tough shit, take the bus.

(I may not be entirely serious in this post, but I am only half joking)

Google self driving cars will hopefully make all of this irrelevant.

Unfortunately, there are many drivers who don't meet what I'd call a sufficient standard.

No arguments here.

It'd be difficult and would require a lot of effort in the planning. Maybe not just re-tests but retraining.

Sure. Which is why we have such a froth on about speed limits instead. They're [i]easy.[/i]

I'm all in favour of the GPS monitoring of speed as long as it goes both ways. ie "It's 2am in the morning, you're in a modern well maintained car with no faults, there's no other cars on this motorway right now, so feel free to do 150!! "

😉

molgrips
so they don't need to watch the speedo

The only reason i pay any attention to the speedo in my car is so i can stay in (or around) the arbitrary limits required by our authorities. There is no need to look at your speedo to determine the "safe speed" for any particular driving scenario!

That speed on that on road with the amount of traffic was just idiotic, his whole riding was to be honest, then he overtook a car on a box junction that was in use by another car. This car then foolishly pulled out in front of him and because of the speed the outcome wasn't good for the motorcyclist.

As someone who drives at high speeds for a living I'd not even considered driving anywhere near that speed on that road even with the light and sirens going full tilt. A very sad and hard lesson has been learnt by all involved, which is what his mother is trying to point out.

Sticking to the speed limit (as long as you are paying due attention to everything) HAS ABSOLUTELY NO DISADVANTAGES.

People will naturally adjust their speed up and down as the demands of the road change, if the road opens up you might well adjust to over 60 by accident - unless you keep looking at the speedo. But that famous article by the air force guy tells me that comes with significant disadvantages. Looking down, acquiring the speedo, then looking up and reacquiring the picture in front takes a lot of road. (And you might think you've acquired the view ahead again and be unaware that most of what you see is entirely made up by your 'software'.)

(None of that excuses 97mph through a busy junction. Or even 57mph.)

There is no need to look at your speedo to determine the "safe speed" for any particular driving scenario!

If we were all perfectly trained, perhaps not.

But then again - I'd rather everyone was going the same speed than having to deal with people with too much self confidence deciding 100mph is ok.

Let's face it, people flout the law often enough as it is, and they still make shit decisions.

Very poor driving really – despite the ludicrous speed the biker was doing, it was terribly poor judgement from the driver. Surely they saw the bike coming towards them - on a straight road with good visibility.

retraining would be fine, professional drivers have to do it.
granted, its not a lot, 35 hours every 5 years, still it would be a start.
have a google for driver cpc, every bus and truck driver has to do it, if you dont you cant drive a bus or truck, even if you have passed the practical/theory/hazard awareness test.

I would say both the car and bike equally at fault here. It's pretty clear that 97mph was a risky proposition on this road given how much traffic was around and the number of junctions. That said, car driver clearly was not paying attention. 50/50 I'd say.

There was a documentary on TV a little while ago about habitual speeders. They forced them to drive at the limits and filmed the results. In many cases, they were actually worse drivers; they were bored, disengaged, frustrated and impatient, and their attention wandered.

I'm a habitual fast driver, I freely admit it. I don't drive fast in build up areas I might add, but on an open road in light traffic, with the right conditions then yes I'll put my foot down.

I drive fast because I enjoy driving and I enjoy the sensation of speed. Because I drive fast I bought a vehicle that accelerates, brakes, corners far better than the average so this does give an increased margin of safety when pressing on. I've also taken extra driver training to improve observation and car handling skills.

I notice that when I'm driving fast all senses are heightened, my observation improves, I'm planning ahead far more, I'm more alert and far more ready to react to things happening around me.

When I drive at or below the limit, just plodding along, I find my concentration decreases significantly and I'm easily distracted. I've had a few near misses over the years, all when driving slowly and all due to lapses in concentration or by being distracted.

So I'd argue that for me, I'm a safer driver when I'm driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions (possibly involving speeding) than when I'm sticking at or below the given speed limit. Sorry, that might not be a very PC thing to say on here but it's just the truth.

^ you paying more attention with your heightened awareness and such is all very well and good, but that wont stop [i]someone else[/i] doing something stupid, and if you happen to hit them because of their mistake the outcome [i]for both of you[/i] will be a lot worse due to you 'pressing on'.

In my experience people who think they have superior skills are either deluding themselves, or in the rare cases when they do have the skills, forget that those around them do not.

Throw in a bit of your version of appropriate (because you have superior skills of course ;-)) being different to someone elses and it's a recipe for trouble.

I'm all for appropriate speed for conditions and not just blindly following limits, but you need to remember that the 'appropriate' bit isn't just about [i]your [/i]skills, [i]your[/i] vehicle, and the road/weather/visibility, it's about the [i]other people[/i] you are sharing that road with, the least predictable and most variable element of the whole thing.

The sad truth is: Driving Licenses are given out and retained far too easily.

Because I drive fast I bought a vehicle that accelerates, brakes, corners far better than the average so this does give an increased margin of safety when pressing on. I've also taken extra driver training to improve observation and car handling skills

I too have had extra training and experience, including track days, 1-2-1 tuition from Police drivers, and I've done a fair amount of off-road trialling and rallying and have experience of more varied terrain and traction conditions than most, but at best that hopefully gives me an increased margin of safety in normal circumstances, it doesn't mean those around me do, and it doesn't mean that I should erode that margin by driving faster or like and idiot.

If you want to push yourself and your vehicle then the public road is not the place for it, keep it on the track or off-road where it belongs.

I am not perfect, and I don't want my mistakes to end up harming someone else any more than I want to be harmed by someone elses.

I drive fast because I enjoy driving and I enjoy the sensation of speed. Because I drive fast I bought a vehicle that accelerates, brakes, corners far better than the average so this does give an increased margin of safety when pressing on.

Whatever advantage it gives is easily offset by the higher speed. If you STILL don't know why more speed is worse than less speed you've really not got a clue, I'm not sure you should be in charge of any car never mind a fast one.

That guy in the video - how good was his bike? How well did it accelerate and corner? Did he have confidence in his hazard perception abilities? Did it make any difference?

I find my concentration decreases significantly and I'm easily distracted.

This is a really stupid argument. If you can't concentrate whilst driving then you really need to work on that, not simply drive faster. Christ.

unklehomered - Member
Google self driving cars will hopefully make all of this irrelevant.

Given the bike came from behind a slower vehicle it would be an interesting test scenario to establish the capability of self-driving vehicles (which I'm all for btw)

Modern cars make the drivers feel so safe and are so isolated from the outside world and therefore other road users I think this screws most people's judgements of what's risky and what isn't... plus we drive much more frequently than we used to... so the chances of a collision are higher...

Worth remembering this when you're out on the road whether walking, cycling or driving (whether speeding or not). The risk of a collision is largely outside your control

unless you keep looking at the speedo. But that famous article by the air force guy tells me that comes with significant disadvantages

I don't think that's anyhting like what the article says.

It's basic message is "look two or three times and look 'around' don't just glance at the space down the road once".

How you turn that into "I'm better off just staring down the road rather than occasionally glancing at my speedo ([b]which will give the eye movements neccesary to AVOID saccadic masking[/b])" I don't know!

The risk of a collision is largely outside your control

Well - the risk of a collision comes from other people, but you can do something about it - drive defensively. This means taking it easy and concentrating a lot.

I drive fast because I enjoy driving and I enjoy the sensation of speed. Because I drive fast I bought a vehicle that accelerates, brakes, corners far better than the average so this does give an increased margin of safety when pressing on.

Only in terms of you being able to corner faster without siding off the road. It has no effect on your reaction times if something unexpected happens.

If Mr Average in his car that "[i]accelerates, brakes, corners [s]far better than [/s]the average [/i]" is waiting to pull out and clocks you a few hundred meters away and his brian tells you you're doing the speed limit or thereabouts, no ammount of tuned suspension or driver training is going to stop you pileing into him becasue you were going a ****load faster than he gave your awesome skilz/motor credit for.

As I said before, if everyone stuck to the letter of the highway code it'd be nearly impossible to have an accident. As soon as people start believeing that they're above it all then accidents start occouring just as they do when people are just rubbish drivers and deviate from it.

100mph here: [URL= http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/A82a_zpsde9b7001.jp g" target="_blank">http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad88/RichMTB77/A82a_zpsde9b7001.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

fill your boots

100mph towards a junction on a busy single carriageway, not a great idea and it contributed to the outcome of the accident even though ultimately it wasn't the riders fault.

Speed doesn't kill, inappropriate speed kills, the riders speed was inappropriate.

So I'd argue that for me, I'm a safer driver when I'm driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions (possibly involving speeding) than when I'm sticking at or below the given speed limit. Sorry, that might not be a very PC thing to say on here but it's just the truth.

I'd argue you're talking out of your arse. Sorry that might not be very PC but it's the truth.

I passed the junction this afternoon. Had a good look at where it happened and the rider was a complete plonker for riding at 97mph at that point.

For the vast majority of drivers going about their daily business, driving is not an activity in itself, it is just something they have to do to get to the thing they really want to do! (ie, shopping, or work or whatever). Because of that, their concentration and observance are low. We need to make driving a specific activity or task in it's own right. When you are driving a car, or riding a bike, that should be the focus of 100% of your attention. For most people i'm going to suggest that driving the car sit somewhere at around 30%!

The problem with this is that most fighter pilots will tell you that they can only concentrate at 100 percent for short amounts of time. Considering these men and women are in the top 99 percentile for reaction times and IQ then think what it's like for your average road users.

The human brain isn't designed to operate at the level of concentration needed to drive at reasonable speeds for extended periods of time. So unless you think trying to train all road users like fighter pilots, where they train situational awareness methods routinely until they become habitual then I would much prefer peoples speeds to be limited. As I will never trust your average member of the public to drive a car with the same mentality as combat pilots.

2) Teach drivers proper roadcraft, so they can make their own decisions about their speed.

The problem with this is that most people are average iq idiots who have massive cognitive distortions in regards to their ability and the reaction times of donkeys.

I passed the junction this afternoon. Had a good look at where it happened and the rider was a complete plonker for riding at 97mph at that point

Surely you meant a plonker for riding at97mph. Full stop.

Really don't know some are making this the car drivers fault.

On the footage you can hardly see the car pulling across the road.

Put a camera on the inside the car .... do you really think you'd see that bike which is considerably smaller?

As I said before, if everyone stuck to the letter of the highway code it'd be nearly impossible to have an accident.

On a thread full of wild statements, that's the daftest thing anyone's said here. Well done.

If everyone stuck to the letter of THC, the roads would still be full of dangerous halfwits who are more than capable of looking you right in the eyes as they pull out on you. If you really want to improve road safety, replace all the speed cameras with notpayingattention cameras.

Put a camera on the inside the car .... do you really think you'd see that bike which is considerably smaller?

The driver fully admitted that he didn't see the bike [i]or the slower-moving and much larger car[/i] it was overtaking.

Technology exists to check if a person is looking at a camera or not. If my insurance offered me a discount to fit a machine to measure how long I spent not looking at the road, I'd do it.

I don't get this...
The boy in the video was clearly riding like an utter bender, and the car driver judged the situation badly.

What's to discuss?

Well, if you read the thread, you might find out.

Also,

Are homosexual people known for their substandard motorcycling abilities?

Yunki some peope are saying it's fine to ride like [s]a bender[/s] a pillock, because if someone turns in front of you it's THEIR fault you're dead, not yours.

What a witty retort cougar.. I am undone

Who mentioned homosexuals?

Technology exists to check if a person is looking at a camera or not. If my insurance offered me a discount to fit a machine to measure how long I spent not looking at the road, I'd do it.

If we don't move to self driving cars, I'd at least like to see LIDAR on all new cars and bikes that

1) Automatically applies brakes. You could design the software to only apply them under certain situations, so as not to stand bikes up at the wrong time.

2) Stops you from pulling out in front of other vehicles.

you paying more attention with your heightened awareness and such is all very well and good, but that wont stop someone else doing something stupid

No it doesn't stop other people doing stupid things, but because I'm more aware of other road users when driving quickly then I'm going to react faster and have a greater perception of what others are likely to be doing - helping to avoid an accident in the first place.

it's about the other people you are sharing that road with, the least predictable and most variable element of the whole thing.

I think you'll find that if you observe other motorists well there's very little on the road that is truly 'a surprise'. Normally it's possible to second guess what another motorist is about to do. When you approach a situation where there's likely to be someone doing something silly (like the junction in the video), then I'll slow down to allow for that.

Only in terms of you being able to corner faster without siding off the road. It has no effect on your reaction times if something unexpected happens

Yes it does, as I've just explained, reaction times are vastly improved when you're more aware and can almost second guess what other motorists are about to do.

I'd argue you're talking out of your arse. Sorry that might not be very PC but it's the truth.

Really, so you've been in a car with me then? Sorry I don't recall that.

no ammount of tuned suspension or driver training is going to stop you pileing into him becasue you were going a ****load faster than he gave your awesome skilz/motor credit for.

Sorry but you must be a complete bellend if you believe that additional driver training doesn't improve your safety. You may as well come on here and say that going to French evening class won't help you to speak French any better 🙄

The driver fully admitted that he didn't see the bike or the slower-moving and much larger car it was overtaking.

I'm not surprised he didnt see the the car either... it was probably 1/2 a mile away !!

because I'm more aware of other road users when driving quickly

If you can't concentrate when you slow down then you have a MAJOR problem with your driving. You are not a good driver. You need to face up to that.

Normally it's possible to second guess what another motorist is about to do.

Yes, normally it is (I do it, even though I'm not speeding) but it only takes one abnormal situation and you're toast. This is what happened in the video.

Sorry but you must be a complete bellend if you believe that additional driver training doesn't improve your safety

It would, if you didn't then go and cancel it out by driving too fast.

Really, so you've been in a car with me then? Sorry I don't recall that.

I drive at high speeds for a living, yes you can pay more attention but it is not safer by a very long way.

So I really don't need to be in the car with you to know that.

I'm not surprised he didnt see the the car either... it was probably 1/2 a mile away !!

In any case. A car is perfectly visible at half a mile... should you choose to look.

Just watched this, without reading pages of bickering, did anyone work out if the car would have been out the way onto the side road if the motorbike had been sticking to the speed limit? Gotta say I feel more sorry for the car driver than the motorcyclist, he was doing a crazy speed.

In any case. A car is perfectly visible at half a mile... should you choose to look

Of course you are right

But then then you'd see it's half a mile away or indeed a few hundred yards and know that you'd be able to make your move across the road without it coming anywhere near you.... Because it not moving at 100 mile an hour

If you can't concentrate when you slow down then you have a MAJOR problem with your driving. You are not a good driver. You need to face up to that.

I didn't say I can't concentrate, I said that you're more aware and concentrate better, with heightened senses when driving quickly and that it's far easier to get distracted when you're just trundling along. That's human nature Molgrips, or are you trying to argue against a few million years of human evolution?

I drive at high speeds for a living, yes you can pay more attention but it is not safer by a very long way.

Well Jenson Button, I disagree totally with you there. I've had most of my near misses at or well below the speed limit, partly because as mentioned above, it's far easier (for anyone - not just me) to get distracted at lower speed, when you're not quite as focused.

Sure there's always the odd idiot who drives too fast for the conditions but by far the worst drivers I see on the road on a daily basis are the ones actually driving slowly. Often they're the ones distracted by phone calls, texting, erratic, unconfident, indecisive, in the wrong lane, unaware of whats around them, etc.

I think you'll find that those people who like driving fast are also normally interested in improving their driving skills, maintaining their vehicle to high standards, and normally genuinely care about the standard of their driving. A completely different mentality to the deluded 'I don't break the speed limit so by default I must be a safer driver' lot on here.

"Weeksy:
That speed was IMO well within 'cruising' speed for an experienced biker on a big Japanese sports tourer."

I haven't got past page two of this thread (i will read the rest when i get home) but must comment on that. As an ex-biker and self confessed speed freak, i'd not be going [i]that[/i] speed on [i]that[/i] road. It's not the traffic, which is simple enough to weave in and out of, it's the junctions. Junctions = danger and if you speed on a section of road that has them then you are on a hiding to nothing.

Very sad for the guy, his family and the driver (even if he did see the biker, it's very hard to judge speed when something is small and coming directly towards you).

I think you'll find that those people who like driving fast are also normally interested in improving their driving skills, maintaining their vehicle to high standards, and normally genuinely care about the standard of their driving.

You keep telling yourself that I'll keep clearing the mess up that people driving at high speed leave behind.

You keep telling yourself that I'll keep clearing the mess up that people driving at high speed leave behind.

Really, well I'm sorry if that's your experience, guessing you must work for one of the emergency services? I'd far rather the police concentrate on catching people driving badly than those who speed. I think you'll find that lack of concentration or observation is a far bigger cause of accidents than speed. Yet the constant demon-isation of speed deludes people that they are a good, safe, drivers provided they don't break the limit. Lazy, lazy policing.

I don't work for the Police so poor troll.

If you enjoy driving ar high speeds, and you're not intelligent enough to acknowledge that the public highway is not the place to play out your childish fantasies, I think you have a quite serious mental health problem..

A danger to yourself and others, delusional?
That's grounds to be sectioned under the mental health act innit? This plonker needs shipping off to the big house for a serious course of Largactyl