View Full Version : 130MPH+ on a public road!!!
If they choose to do the speed then they accept the risk, if they get banned or kill themselves then thats the risk they accepted :cry:
agreed but it's not them i'm worried about, it's the innocent sod they crash into...
I know the risks, i accept them, and i still ride fast. I ride fast cos i know my abilities and my limitations. I can read the road, know where and when to have a twist of the wrist moment.
this is the typical attitude of a rider who thinks they know everything :)
I've seen many older rider, inexperienced, born again, come a cropper. AGE has sod all to do with it, experience has everything to do with it. Ask any motorcycle instructor/examiner, they will tell you that there is no substitute for time spent in the saddle.
simple well known psychology states that young people are less mature, show less restraint, are generally risk-prone thrill seekers, and think they are better drivers/riders than they actually are. the highest death rate for motor vehicle users is in the 17-25 group, why do you think that is?
Rubbish again. There will always be legislation against minority groups.
130 on a public road where there is a time and a place consideration is NOT a problem. Remember that speed doesnt kill, INNAPPROPRIATE speed kills.
i'm afraid it's not that simple. it's a major problem.
what is the reasonable maximum stopping distance at 130mph? you don't know? can you judge this distance accurately at 130mph? no?
then you are a lethal danger on any road at that speed.
Gnan, As a matter of interest what speed do you normally ride at?
Be truthful
depends on the speed limit :D
Saint Matt
17-04-06, 09:44 AM
this is the typical attitude of a rider who thinks they know everything :)
Not wishing to start off another arguement, but your comments show the attitude of some noobish safety nazi who knows **** all.
GSXR Carlos
17-04-06, 09:45 AM
Maybe it's time for ths thread to be locked, we'll have to agree to disagree :?
kwak zzr
17-04-06, 10:02 AM
i love this post!! reminds me of homer simpson and ned flanders!!
this is the typical attitude of a rider who thinks they know everything :)
Not wishing to start off another arguement, but your comments show the attitude of some noobish safety nazi who knows f*ck all.
wrong
remind me how old you are and how many crashes you've had due to rider error?
mysteryjimbo
17-04-06, 10:08 AM
we'll have to agree to disagree :?
I said this 3 pages ago! :lol:
well for waht its worth (which isnt alot) i agree with Gnan :thumbsup:
Anonymous
17-04-06, 10:31 AM
this is the typical attitude of a rider who thinks they know everything :)
Not wishing to start off another arguement, but your comments show the attitude of some noobish safety nazi who knows f*ck all.
wrong
remind me how old you are and how many crashes you've had due to rider error?
23. Started riding when 21. Done 78,000 miles in 23 months.
Crashed: Once. Rider Error? No. Was forced off the road by a drunk driver 10 years my senior. Police investigated, completely exhonerated me from any portion of the blame, said there was nothing i could do.
So.. how old are you again? How many miles do you do per year? How many times have YOU crashed due to rider error?
Like i said earlier on.. AGE has sweet Fanny Adams to do with it. Its EXPERIENCE which counts. Ask a RoSPA examiner, or a Police Instructor.. They will tell you EXACTLY the same as im saying here.
Its time in the saddle, experience at reading the road, being able to know how far you can push your bike in any given situation... they are the real issues.
Me doing 78,000 miles in 23 months (thats 3391 a MONTH!!!!!) is way more than most older riders do in a lifetime. THe average for a UK Motorcyclist is 4000miles per annum (figures from Norwich Union General Insurance 2005).
So i am far more exerienced doing my 78k, than say Mr Smith whos been riding all his life, but only done a total of say 60,000miles.
Do you understand that? :roll:
Peter Henry
17-04-06, 10:32 AM
Akula...Good man,just the two of you with the right approach to this issue. The others are no more than reprobates that seem to enjoy flouting the law! :wink:
this is the typical attitude of a rider who thinks they know everything :)
Not wishing to start off another arguement, but your comments show the attitude of some noobish safety nazi who knows f*ck all.
wrong
remind me how old you are and how many crashes you've had due to rider error?
23. Started riding when 21. Done 78,000 miles in 23 months.
Crashed: Once. Rider Error? No. Was forced off the road by a drunk driver 10 years my senior. Police investigated, completely exhonerated me from any portion of the blame, said there was nothing i could do.
So.. how old are you again? How many miles do you do per year? How many times have YOU crashed due to rider error?
Like i said earlier on.. AGE has sweet Fanny Adams to do with it. Its EXPERIENCE which counts. Ask a RoSPA examiner, or a Police Instructor.. They will tell you EXACTLY the same as im saying here.
Its time in the saddle, experience at reading the road, being able to know how far you can push your bike in any given situation... they are the real issues.
Me doing 78,000 miles in 23 months (thats 3391 a MONTH!!!!!) is way more than most older riders do in a lifetime. THe average for a UK Motorcyclist is 4000miles per annum (figures from Norwich Union General Insurance 2005).
So i am far more exerienced doing my 78k, than say Mr Smith whos been riding all his life, but only done a total of say 60,000miles.
Do you understand that? :roll:
but Mr Smith isn't banned from driving, nor did he attempt to drive a motor vehicle while banned which means you learned nothing from your experiences.
Flamin_Squirrel
17-04-06, 10:38 AM
this is the typical attitude of a rider who thinks they know everything :)
Not wishing to start off another arguement, but your comments show the attitude of some noobish safety nazi who knows f*ck all.
wrong
remind me how old you are and how many crashes you've had due to rider error?
No hes right, and you validated his comment with your reply. You ride long enough and you'll make a mistake and fall off. If you've never come off then you've been extremely lucky, havnt ridden enough or both.
Moreover, you go on about safety with no real grasp of relative risk or accident causation.
To think that if you ever cause an accident and hurt someone that you're somehow absolved of any blame because you stick to the speed limits and that you've stayed upright so far makes you come kind of riding god is extremely arrogant.
right, and you validated his comment with your reply. You ride long enough and you'll make a mistake and fall off. If you've never come off then you've been extremely lucky, havnt ridden enough or both. [/qupte
Moreover, you go on about safety with no real grasp of relative risk or accident causation.
haha, i have studied risk management for 5 years so i'd like to think i have reasonable authority on it. i know the majority of accidents are not caused primarily by speed, however i also know that speed is a contributory factor in 100% of road crashes and that at 130mph, the VAST majority of people have not got the skills to cope should an emergency situation arise, even though they think they have. it's alright when you're not crashing.
To think that if you ever cause an accident and hurt someone that you're somehow absolved of any blame because you stick to the speed limits and that you've stayed upright so far makes you come kind of riding god is extremely arrogant.
correct, and the reason that has come about is because of the 'speed kills' policy (which i happen to disagree with in principle) - however, regardless of this - people who know a lot more than you do about road safety have assessed the risks on our roads and have decided that X mph is the maximum speed which allows tradeoff between maximum safety, environmental impact and vehicle flow rates with safety being the #1 priority of any traffic system engineer.
Jelster
17-04-06, 11:04 AM
No hes right, and you validated his comment with your reply. You ride long enough and you'll make a mistake and fall off. If you've never come off then you've been extremely lucky, havnt ridden enough or both.
Moreover, you go on about safety with no real grasp of relative risk or accident causation.
To think that if you ever cause an accident and hurt someone that you're somehow absolved of any blame because you stick to the speed limits and that you've stayed upright so far makes you come kind of riding god is extremely arrogant.
Well said Jordan...
Speed is not an issue, apropriate speed is. On a clear empty road, and if you're prepared to risk you licence, the only person you are putting in danger is yourself.
People driving at over 60mph in 30 limits and sitting a couple of feet off of my rear on the motorway does endanger other people, and, in my opinion, is far more dangerous... That happens every day, but I don't see a big commotion about it on here.
If speed alone killed you, I'm sure those very effecient Germans wouldn't have open limits on the Auto Bahn.....
.
Akula...Good man,just the two of you with the right approach to this issue. The others are no more than reprobates that seem to enjoy flouting the law! :wink: :P
All i am concerned about is the safety factor for possible innocents, riding at 130mph is blatantly unsafe, for the rider or innocents, and if you think that your 1,000,000,000 experiance is going to count for you when a car pulls out and you kill the passengers and yourself, you are sadly mistaken.. If you are travelling way above the speed limit on an A road how much warning has a vehicle pulling out got at your approaching speed...Sod all, obviuosly you get the ****s that pull out anyway and yes they deserve to get something in return....... Experience is obviously a factor and yes GYKD is right in that fact. Forgetting the law for the time being If you think that riding that riding above the posted speed limits is ok then fine, but dont forget as was pointed out earlier alot of people are anti bikers because those of you/us/me included that twist the throttle a tad too much mebbe in the wrong area, are we to blame, alot of the time yes. If you want totravel and those speeds go on the track ffs.
Flamin_Squirrel
17-04-06, 11:28 AM
correct, and the reason that has come about is because of the 'speed kills' policy (which i happen to disagree with in principle) - however, regardless of this - people who know a lot more than you do about road safety have assessed the risks on our roads and have decided that X mph is the maximum speed which allows tradeoff between maximum safety, environmental impact and vehicle flow rates with safety being the #1 priority of any traffic system engineer.
I think that may have been the way it used to be done. Now I feel the governments road transport policy involves ****ing motorists off as much as possible.
All i am concerned about is the safety factor for possible innocents, riding at 130mph is blatantly unsafe, for the rider or innocents, and if you think that your 1,000,000,000 experiance is going to count for you when a car pulls out and you kill the passengers and yourself, you are sadly mistaken.. If you are travelling way above the speed limit on an A road how much warning has a vehicle pulling out got at your approaching speed...
Which is why you dont do 130mph past junctions :roll:
Saint Matt
17-04-06, 11:43 AM
I'm 18, and have crashed 3 times, once due to rider error, which I might add was when the bike was restricted.
Filipe M.
17-04-06, 12:43 PM
I'm 18, and have crashed 3 times, once due to rider error, which I might add was when the bike was restricted.
You're not helping yourself... :roll:
northwind
17-04-06, 12:46 PM
however i also know that speed is a contributory factor in 100% of road crashes
This really is just not the case, at least, not by any meaningful assessment of the facts. The only way you can arrive at 100% is by saying "if all cars were stationary there would be no crashes, ergo, speed contributes to all crashes"
From the UK DoT, excess speed contributes to (but is not neccesarily the primary cause of) 1000 deaths and 38,000 injuries on teh roads per year. It's not clear if that figure is from 2003 or 2004, but in either case it's less than a third of all road fatalaities, not 100%.
And there are 240,000 road accidents involving personal injury per year- compare that with 38,000 with speed as a contributory factor and your argument's falling flatter.
Peter Henry
17-04-06, 12:50 PM
Gnan...The very fact that you used the term "100%" when stating that speed was a contributory factor to road crashes,renders your argument as worth less I am afraid. No way on this earth is that statement correct. :?
Gnan...The very fact that you used the term "100%" when stating that speed was a contributory factor to road crashes,renders your argument as worth less I am afraid. No way on this earth is that statement correct. :?
Agreed!!!! (with that part)
My view is that the more experienced you are, the better rider you think you are and the more likely you are to take risks and hence increase the chance of an accident....that is aimed at GYKD who loves to boast of his 78000 miles in 2 years on a bike.
Peter Henry
17-04-06, 02:42 PM
TC·..I disagree to a large extent with you there. I personally believe that the more experienced you are,(as in hours riding as opposed to just miles) the more aware of potential dangers you become. You are also hopefully better equipped to do the mental "trade off" calculation as to the risk or reward.
GYKD can quote reasonable mileage but what he has learnt in all of that time would it appears be open to question.
*Awaits incoming fire from GYKD* :P
Anonymous
17-04-06, 02:45 PM
My view is that the more experienced you are, the better rider you think you are and the more likely you are to take risks and hence increase the chance of an accident....that is aimed at GYKD who loves to boast of his 78000 miles in 2 years on a bike.
Thats utter rubbish fella.
Its only true if you get complacent. Which i did not. Like i have said on many occasions.. speak to your local RoSPA (http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/index.htm) examiner, they will confirm what i am saying.
The people who are more likely to become a cropper on the roads are the born again bikers - people who had a 600cc bike in their youth, then settled down to have a family etc, then when the kids have flown the coup, they get a modern 600cc bike.. of course, technology has developed massively in recent years, and 600's are now much more powerful and agile than they were say 20 or 30 years ago.
Also, the person who has a bike, but only gets it out in dry clear weather. The formally called "weekend warriors". THey get their bikes out, do about 4000miles a year only in good weather. If they get caught out in the rain, they have no experience of riding in it, and run a higher risk of becoming an injury statistic.
Or the people who ride relatively low milage all year around, they dont get the experience at reading the road, or learning their boundries in all weather types.. they are much more likely to become a statistic than the person who rides all year around, come rain, sun, sleet or snow, and does thousands of miles more. If you get the experience, and do not become complacent in your abilities - THEN your statement has a thread of truth in it.
Where as i rode 78k in 2 years, had 1 accident which was not my fault. Then look at other stats of people who ride say 8000 miles in 2 years.. who have many more accidents. The stats speak for themselves, RoSPA preach and teach what im talking about, as will your local Rider Training School. Enroll on AIMS.. they will tell you exactly what i am saying.
Im not saying beleive me, im saying that what i am telling you all is fact.
Peter:- No incoming fire mate. I know what i learnt.. i did lots of stupid things.. through choice. But i do know how to ride sensibly, and have demonstrated it by doing my AIMS trainining 3 months after passing my bike test.
All i got done for in all my many miles... was speeding. And the only times i was caught, was in the middle of no-where - each time by traffic units hidden from all view. Never gone through a camera too quick (unlike people on here), never over cooked it into corners (unlike people on here), never lost control of my bike through rider error (unlike people on here).
Im not trying to prove anything, i just dont like it when people get all righteous than thou on my ass, just cos i got stopped speeding many many times, does not make me an inexperienced rider or a more dangerous rider. My crash record speaks volumes for that.
:wink:
TC·..I disagree to a large extent with you there. I personally believe that the more experienced you are,(as in hours riding as opposed to just miles) the more aware of potential dangers you become. You are also hopefully better equipped to do the mental "trade off" calculation as to the risk or reward.
GYKD can quote reasonable mileage but what he has learnt in all of that time would it appears be open to question.
*Awaits incoming fire from GYKD* :P
Well most will probably disagree with me on that one but i still say there is some truth to what i said....though of course it wont apply to everyone.
I too am waiting for the GYKD assault :help:
Flamin_Squirrel
17-04-06, 02:56 PM
My view is that the more experienced you are, the better rider you think you are and the more likely you are to take risks and hence increase the chance of an accident....that is aimed at GYKD who loves to boast of his 78000 miles in 2 years on a bike.
********! Facts say otherwise.
As for GYKD, he may be banned for speeding and you say he's dangerous, but again the facts say otherwise - no accidents worth mentioning.
Carsick
17-04-06, 03:02 PM
Or the people who ride relatively low milage all year around, they dont get the experience at reading the road, or learning their boundries in all weather types.. they are much more likely to become a statistic than the person who rides all year around, come rain, sun, sleet or snow, and does thousands of miles more.
I agree in general with what you said, with just the minor addendum that yes, experience counts for alot, but I personally believe it only reduces your odds of an accident per mile, not necessarily your overall risk.
My view is that the more experienced you are, the better rider you think you are and the more likely you are to take risks and hence increase the chance of an accident....that is aimed at GYKD who loves to boast of his 78000 miles in 2 years on a bike.
********! Facts say otherwise.
As for GYKD, he may be banned for speeding and you say he's dangerous, but again the facts say otherwise - no accidents worth mentioning.
No i did not say he is dangerous...he is more than likely a better rider than myself
[quote=getyerkneedown]I personally believe it only reduces your odds of an accident per mile, not necessarily your overall risk.
Thats kinds what i wanted to say :D
Carsick
17-04-06, 03:16 PM
I personally believe it only reduces your odds of an accident per mile, not necessarily your overall risk.
Thats kinds what i wanted to say :D
I think mine sounds better, don't you? :wink:
I personally believe it only reduces your odds of an accident per mile, not necessarily your overall risk.
Thats kinds what i wanted to say :D
I think mine sounds better, don't you? :wink:
By far....i have never had a way with words......... :lol:
yes, speed is 100% contributory, indeed you can't crash if you are not moving. it's not an invalid argument as the road death rate would be 0 if nothing was moving.
increasing the speed of the system increases the risk. the curve (the joksch curve, which was a study into the probability of a fatality at certain impact speed) is relatively flat until about 30-40mph (if i remember correctly) then it increases exponentially until it reaches almost 1.0 at 70mph. this is the impact speed, so you have a chance to brake before the hazard. at 130mph the braking distance assuming a good car with good brakes is about 700 feet in dry conditions, which is a ridiculous distance. by the time you have even thought about braking you will have travelled approximately 200 feet.
so, it is inappropriate to travel at 130mph on a public road, as you are almost 100% likely to kill yourself and/or whoever else you take with you as a result of any accident.
keep it to the track
Peter:- No incoming fire mate. I know what i learnt.. i did lots of stupid things.. through choice. But i do know how to ride sensibly, and have demonstrated it by doing my AIMS trainining 3 months after passing my bike test.
Im not trying to prove anything, i just dont like it when people get all righteous than thou on my ass, just cos i got stopped speeding many many times, does not make me an inexperienced rider or a more dangerous rider. My crash record speaks volumes for that.
doesn't add up i'm afraid, you obviously didn't learn anything from the training if you then proceeded to speed regularly later!?!
Saint Matt
17-04-06, 07:13 PM
If you go over 70mph you melt. Idiots!
If you go over 70mph you melt. Idiots!
Quite literally laughed out loud! :lol: :lol:
The Basket
17-04-06, 07:26 PM
Speeding...Mmmm...difficult one.
The fastest I've had out of my SV is 126mph...so not 130.
Therefore I cannot discuss the dangers of speeding at 130mph.
valleyboy
17-04-06, 07:40 PM
If you go over 70mph you melt. Idiots!
I melt if I go 0 mph... my engine will try and cook me at that speed ;) :lol:
Anyway, what is the point of owning a motorcycle if all you are going to do due to safety reasons is sit on the drive making vrrooooommmm noises... you might not crash, but it aint going to be fun for long either... somebody might walk into you
Anonymous
17-04-06, 07:41 PM
Errr.. is this a bad time to brag about doing an indicated 180mph down the M1 near wetherby on a mates ZZR1100?? 8-[
yes, speed is 100% contributory, indeed you can't crash if you are not moving.
Yes you can.
Say you are turning right at a junction (or as happened to me, stopped at a roundabout). You are stoped, the person behind you slams into you.
Result: 1x accident at 0mph.
Anonymous
17-04-06, 08:02 PM
yes, speed is 100% contributory, indeed you can't crash if you are not moving.
Yes you can.
Say you are turning right at a junction (or as happened to me, stopped at a roundabout). You are stoped, the person behind you slams into you.
Result: 1x accident at 0mph.
PMSL :lol: :lol: :lol: :winner:
yes, speed is 100% contributory, indeed you can't crash if you are not moving.
Yes you can.
Say you are turning right at a junction (or as happened to me, stopped at a roundabout). You are stoped, the person behind you slams into you.
Result: 1x accident at 0mph.
Sudoxe 1 Gnan 0. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lynw - having admitted to 155 mph on the M25.
Was it extremely dangerous? Of course it wasnt, not like I did it at rush hour :roll: .
I was on an empty M25 late at night on a weekday evening [ie me and the Porsche were the only vehicles for a 5 mile stretch]. Yes it would be dangerous if you factor in every possible thing that could go wrong. But a mechanically sound bike, no traffic and no hazzards on the road, it was no more dangerous than doing 70 in rush hour. In fact probably safer because there are no idiots about to be a hazzard in actual fact. :?
I would say in my case filtering on the A2 at 20mph in rush hour outweighs the dangers of high speeds in circumstances where its possible to do them.
I did the above because it was ONLY me and the Porsche on the road. Would I do it again? If the circumstances were the same probably. If they weren't I wouldnt do it.
But Gnan, you insult people with your attitude a little. We all make our own judgements based on the circumstances and perspective available to us. From anyone elses perspective it will always look different.
So what may have been safe and feasible to do in Joes eyes shouldnt warrant a judgemental attitude from someone who doesnt have the same skill level, experience or was there at the time. :D
*puts spoon down
Flamin_Squirrel
17-04-06, 08:13 PM
yes, speed is 100% contributory, indeed you can't crash if you are not moving. it's not an invalid argument as the road death rate would be 0 if nothing was moving.
increasing the speed of the system increases the risk. the curve (the joksch curve, which was a study into the probability of a fatality at certain impact speed) is relatively flat until about 30-40mph (if i remember correctly) then it increases exponentially until it reaches almost 1.0 at 70mph. this is the impact speed, so you have a chance to brake before the hazard. at 130mph the braking distance assuming a good car with good brakes is about 700 feet in dry conditions, which is a ridiculous distance. by the time you have even thought about braking you will have travelled approximately 200 feet.
so, it is inappropriate to travel at 130mph on a public road, as you are almost 100% likely to kill yourself and/or whoever else you take with you as a result of any accident.
keep it to the track
That's all pretty irrelivent rubbish. Motorways are the safest roads there are yet they're the fastest.
As for stopping distances, well next time I decide to do 130mph I'll have to make sure no walls spontaniously appear 699 feet away.
Gnan, I find you insulting and offensive. How dare you spout such crap?
Speed is a contributing factor in 100% of all accidents? Just get off the road if thats your view, and keep out of my way. How dare you? I have been rear ended twice and both times I was stationery. The second time I had to watch as the car went into me as I had nowhere to go. Then lets talk about my recent accident where the case is still ongoing. I was going along at the speed limit and so was the guy who was asleep at the wheel. I assume thats ok then, as he wasn't speeding? oh please, just get rid of your bike, you don't deserve to ride one.
Carsick
17-04-06, 08:34 PM
I'm not sure if the point has already been made, but we seem to have arrived at it.
Yes, going fast can be dangerous. If you crash you will probably die and if you hit somebody else, you will probably kill them.
The point some have been making is that when they choose to go fast, they do it when they believe that a situation to cause an accident won't occur.
Ok, it might still occur, but such is life.
busasean
17-04-06, 08:34 PM
Gnan, I find you insulting and offensive. How dare you spout such crap?
Speed is a contributing factor in 100% of all accidents? Just get off the road if thats your view, and keep out of my way. How dare you? I have been rear ended twice and both times I was stationery. The second time I had to watch as the car went into me as I had nowhere to go. Then lets talk about my recent accident where the case is still ongoing. I was going along at the speed limit and so was the guy who was asleep at the wheel. I assume thats ok then, as he wasn't speeding? oh please, just get rid of your bike, you don't deserve to ride one.
:stupid:
busasean
17-04-06, 08:36 PM
:winner: ..... is what i meant!!!! sorry Kate :oops:
kwak zzr
17-04-06, 08:36 PM
I'm not sure if the point has already been made, but we seem to have arrived at it.
Yes, going fast can be dangerous. If you crash you will probably die and if you hit somebody else, you will probably kill them.
The point some have been making is that when they choose to go fast, they do it when they believe that a situation to cause an accident won't occur.
Ok, it might still occur, but such is life.
=D> =D> =D>
21QUEST
17-04-06, 08:37 PM
It's All Bollox Innit :P
Sorry carry on now
Cheers
Ben
The Basket
17-04-06, 08:38 PM
I agree with Carsick.
It doesn't matter who or how good you are...there is always bad luck.
I thought that if I improved my riding then I could avoid accidents. The point is that the other driver has to improve his driving too.
Gnan, I find you insulting and offensive. How dare you spout such crap?
As someone did to me once:
[Michael Winner]Calm down its only the internet.[/Michael Winner] :P :wink: :D
Sorry it needs to be pointed out as opinionated and insulting as Gnan comes across, it being a public forum he does have the right to post his opinion.
In fact it wouldnt be this forum if everyone agreed or didnt post thinks making people think a little bit. Lets face it its very easy to come across like that on a forum without meaning it, which is why taking things so seriously is never good.
I disagree with him on this - there are several riders on visordown that are safer at speeds over a ton than most other riders that I know at speeds under it. But he still has his opinion and the right to post it.
this thread is getting boring now.
SVTONYB
17-04-06, 08:48 PM
round and round
this thread is getting boring now.
Thanks for that interesting contribution. :P :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol:
yes, speed is 100% contributory, indeed you can't crash if you are not moving.
Yes you can.
Say you are turning right at a junction (or as happened to me, stopped at a roundabout). You are stoped, the person behind you slams into you.
Result: 1x accident at 0mph.
Sudoxe 1 Gnan 0. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Lynw - having admitted to 155 mph on the M25.
Was it extremely dangerous? Of course it wasnt, not like I did it at rush hour :roll: .
I was on an empty M25 late at night on a weekday evening [ie me and the Porsche were the only vehicles for a 5 mile stretch]. Yes it would be dangerous if you factor in every possible thing that could go wrong. But a mechanically sound bike, no traffic and no hazzards on the road, it was no more dangerous than doing 70 in rush hour. In fact probably safer because there are no idiots about to be a hazzard in actual fact. :?
I would say in my case filtering on the A2 at 20mph in rush hour outweighs the dangers of high speeds in circumstances where its possible to do them.
I did the above because it was ONLY me and the Porsche on the road. Would I do it again? If the circumstances were the same probably. If they weren't I wouldnt do it.
*puts spoon down
What about traffic arriving at the scene after you might have crashed? Chance it could lead to a further crash causing death and injury due to the fact you felt the need to hit 150 on a 70 mph road. Now i really think that it is pointless going on about how safe you may think it is to speed at that sort of speed when you have not given any thought to other road users.....those who are way behind you....see what i am getting at?
Sorry it needs to be pointed out as opinionated and insulting as Gnan comes across, it being a public forum he does have the right to post his opinion.
In fact it wouldnt be this forum if everyone agreed or didnt post thinks making people think a little bit. Lets face it its very easy to come across like that on a forum without meaning it, which is why taking things so seriously is never good.
Indeed, it is a public forum and everyone can post their opinions. But he isn't stating his opinion, he is stating something as fact and imho he is talking crap.
If people didnt have opinions, the world would be a boring place..
The pro and anti speed groups will never reach a compromise im afraid.
Just in response to one of the earlier posters about riding a pushbike at 50mph - I once did this on my old racing bike, and all i was wearing was shorts and a jersey! I was about 16 at the time and remember going down the hill looking at the clock and sh*tting myself! Bars were vibing, and to think i had a contact patch of about 1cm on the road. I wouldnt dream of doing that now!
Flamin_Squirrel
17-04-06, 09:05 PM
What about traffic arriving at the scene after you might have crashed? Chance it could lead to a further crash causing death and injury due to the fact you felt the need to hit 150 on a 70 mph road. Now i really think that it is pointless going on about how safe you may think it is to speed at that sort of speed when you have not given any thought to other road users.....those who are way behind you....see what i am getting at?
No.
Gnan, I find you insulting and offensive. How dare you spout such crap?
As someone did to me once:
[Michael Winner]Calm down its only the internet.[/Michael Winner] :P :wink: :D
Sorry it needs to be pointed out as opinionated and insulting as Gnan comes across, it being a public forum he does have the right to post his opinion.
In fact it wouldnt be this forum if everyone agreed or didnt post thinks making people think a little bit. Lets face it its very easy to come across like that on a forum without meaning it, which is why taking things so seriously is never good.
I disagree with him on this - there are several riders on visordown that are safer at speeds over a ton than most other riders that I know at speeds under it. But he still has his opinion and the right to post it.
Im sorry but i really dont think he has come accross in that way, although alot of the other regular members have without a doubt, surely they should be checking what has been written???
Again i think this should be locked now as it isnt getting anywhere and peeps are just gettin peeved!!!
What about traffic arriving at the scene after you might have crashed? Chance it could lead to a further crash causing death and injury due to the fact you felt the need to hit 150 on a 70 mph road. Now i really think that it is pointless going on about how safe you may think it is to speed at that sort of speed when you have not given any thought to other road users.....those who are way behind you....see what i am getting at?
But the point YOU are missing is there was NO accident. And I did give a thought to other road users - the fact there wasnt any was behind my reasoning to do what I did.
ffs it was a practically empty track at that point. There were no hazzards and the bike was sound. I made the risk assessment and did it. You have no right to criticise when you werent there, werent on that bike, werent making the decision and aware the road was empty.
But I guess its so easy to be smug and judgemental when its not you and you have no idea of the circumstances. I mean if youre going to have further traffic in mind should you have an accident, I suggest you sell the bike now.
Because youre going to be as much a cause of another accident/scenario you propose at 70 coming off as you are at higher speed. Or is that too hard a concept to grasp? :roll: :twisted:
*sod it, picks up spoon again :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol:
northwind
17-04-06, 09:23 PM
yes, speed is 100% contributory, indeed you can't crash if you are not moving. it's not an invalid argument as the road death rate would be 0 if nothing was moving.
Er, yes, in fact I said that. But by your abuse of statistics, moving at even 1mph is inappropriate as that's likely to cause an accident.
Also, crashing from 130mph is by no means 100% likely to cause a fatality.
Jelster
17-04-06, 09:27 PM
Also, crashing from 130mph is by no means 100% likely to cause a fatality.
This is true, you slide a long way at that speed, at slower speeds you may come to a standstill on the tarmac....
As a copper once said to me "Motorcycles don't kill people. you can have one in your garage for 10 years and it won't kill anybody."
But this thread is getting a bit worn out now........ :roll:
.
But this thread is getting a bit worn out now........ :roll:
.
:(
And I was so waiting for TC3 to bite :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol:
End of day, people speed, others dont. People use inappropriate speeds at under a ton as much as they do over, then and people use speeds which are safe to do [hence no accident] at speeds above/below the ton.
People getting judgemental about it is a bit daft. You cant ride someone elses ride, see their perspective or understand their reasoning so standing there holier than thou is just going to get the responses it has.
Anonymous
17-04-06, 09:44 PM
As always Lynw is the voice of reason...
:grouphug: :drink: :thumbsup:
Also, crashing from 130mph is by no means 100% likely to cause a fatality.
This is true, you slide a long way at that speed, at slower speeds you may come to a standstill on the tarmac....
As a copper once said to me "Motorcycles don't kill people. you can have one in your garage for 10 years and it won't kill anybody."
But this thread is getting a bit worn out now........ :roll:
.
absolute rubbish. if you come off at 130mph you are highly likely to slide into an immovable object and then it's good night vienna.
i still stand by my speed = 100% contributory factor. all these standstill accidents wouldn't have occured if the person hitting you was travelling at an appropriate speed prior to the crash - granted it may not have been the primary cause (not looking, asleep, whatever) but if the primary factor had been taken care of, the secondary factor would be annulled.
one thing that may or may not be true, the people who are so vehemently disagreeing with me seem to be habitual speeders who try to justify themselves..
If I don't move, I'll loose my job, my home and starve to death so lack of speed kills also. Thats not including the cat so that two deaths :shock:
Oh and I'm really slow on my bike on the count of running it in.... for the next five miles :twisted:
Peter Henry
17-04-06, 10:40 PM
At 130mph when wearing an open face lid,do your lips go all quivery and odd a bit like Wallace from Wallace and Grommet fame? :P
amarko5
17-04-06, 10:49 PM
yawn yawn at Gnan #-o
this sounds ohh so familiar :roll: anyone remember mr (holier than thou) IAM :P :lol: i believe M patton was the name.
socommk23
18-04-06, 03:15 AM
some one wants to celebrate a cool moment in their riding career and there will allways be someone there to stamp his oh so moral foot all over it!
[quote="lynw"]
And I was so waiting for TC3 to bite :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol:
quote]
Glad i did not disappoint you. :wink:
:lol:
Flamin_Squirrel
18-04-06, 06:51 AM
absolute rubbish. if you come off at 130mph you are highly likely to slide into an immovable object and then it's good night vienna.
State your source. Theres only one incident I've read about where someone came off at 130mph. It was on here recently, and they barely got a scratch.
one thing that may or may not be true, the people who are so vehemently disagreeing with me seem to be habitual speeders who try to justify themselves..
Not really. We're just trying to illustrate the fact that you're completely ignorant. You're simply flying the anti-speed flag because of your own personal prejudice against it, not from any basis of logic.
mysteryjimbo
18-04-06, 07:17 AM
I like the speed is a contributing factor to all accidents argument.
Reminds me of a popular comic character! :lol: All crime is commited by the living, lets outlaw life :lol: Foolish argument. I can think of so many other foolish examples.
All dogs are a contributing factor to dog bites. Lets put a limit on how many teeth they are allowed and make people have a licence to own one.
All diy enthusiasts are a contributing factor to diy accidents. The more powerful the tool used the more chance of a fatal accident. Possibly even multiple injuries. People move on leaving there DIY behind.
I for one am fed up of being knee capped in the January sales. I think there should be a limit to the number of bags of shopping people should be allowed!
These are silly examples I know. In much the same way as speed contributes to all accidents. People have accidents at slow speeds, how many people have you seen walk into a lamppost? :lol:
Jelster
18-04-06, 07:23 AM
absolute rubbish. if you come off at 130mph you are highly likely to slide into an immovable object and then it's good night vienna.
i still stand by my speed = 100% contributory factor. all these standstill accidents wouldn't have occured if the person hitting you was travelling at an appropriate speed prior to the crash - granted it may not have been the primary cause (not looking, asleep, whatever) but if the primary factor had been taken care of, the secondary factor would be annulled.
one thing that may or may not be true, the people who are so vehemently disagreeing with me seem to be habitual speeders who try to justify themselves..
Granted you may slide over a kerb or such like, but the chances are, if you bin it at high speed, on a CLEAR road, you'll slide. If you're unlucky you'll hit something, but 100% of people I know that have come off in these conditions haven't. You tend NOT to ride fast in urban areas or when traffic is present, a spill at 40mph in these conditions can get you killed.
Speed does not kill people, it's riding in an inappropriate manner for your surroundings that will.
I'm an habitual speeder, I hardly ever keep to 70 in a NSL, either in the car or on the bike. I doubt very much whether anyone on here (other than yourself of course) does either.
.
Peter Henry
18-04-06, 07:59 AM
Speed never killed anyone,it's the things that get in the way of speed that are the problem. :wink: 8)
Joe, when can I get a go on the TL then?
Anonymous
18-04-06, 08:22 AM
Joe, when can I get a go on the TL then?
Some sense at last :lol:
Anonymous
18-04-06, 08:23 AM
If Gnan is such a great rider who NEVER speeds... id love to hear why exactly he bought himself a bike as opposed to a clapped out Lada?
Why do you ride Gnan?
If you never speed, are you willing to place a wager on it?
Ill wage £1000 that at somepoint in your riding/driving career, you will pick up some points for speeding, more than likely in an area which is a limited speed area, as opposed to NSL.
:roll:
Joe, when can I get a go on the TL then?
geez, you are greedy! One minute you want a go on my CBR and now you want Joe's TL too? :lol:
Peter Henry
18-04-06, 09:14 AM
All this fencing going on. Gnan like everyone else is actually entitled to his opinion folks. There are a variety of factors that attract the individual to bike ownership,not everyone is a speed junkie.
As oft is the case no-one is going to be swayed off their original thinking no matter how long this thread goes on. At the end of the day the individual has their own acceptable parameters that they are willing to ride within and no more.
Me? I am as slow as foook! :P
don't need any proof, it's not particularly scientific.. you are travelling at around 60m/s at 130, if you lowside you will be maintaining that speed off the bike for quite a while. if you are fortunate enough to come off absolutely straight, and the road is straight.. then you are likely to be ok, any deviation from straight will see you into the sides of the road - i don't know about you but i wouldn't like to hit a kerb straight on at 30mph never mind say 70 (after friction has done its work in reducing your speed)
Not really. We're just trying to illustrate the fact that you're completely ignorant. You're simply flying the anti-speed flag because of your own personal prejudice against it, not from any basis of logic.
completely wrong, and the logic is sound. i think you're the ignorant one by trying to justify it as somehow safe.
Flamin_Squirrel
18-04-06, 09:26 AM
All this fencing going on. Gnan like everyone else is actually entitled to his opinion folks. There are a variety of factors that attract the individual to bike ownership,not everyone is a speed junkie.
As oft is the case no-one is going to be swayed off their original thinking no matter how long this thread goes on. At the end of the day the individual has their own acceptable parameters that they are willing to ride within and no more.
Me? I am as slow as foook! :P
Difference is, I dont think it's my position to tell Gnan how to ride, Gnan thinks it's his position to tell others how to ride. Wouldnt be so bad if he could actualy come up with something to validate his views - as it stands, so far is argument's weaker than american beer!
Flamin_Squirrel
18-04-06, 09:30 AM
Not really. We're just trying to illustrate the fact that you're completely ignorant. You're simply flying the anti-speed flag because of your own personal prejudice against it, not from any basis of logic.
completely wrong, and the logic is sound. i think you're the ignorant one by trying to justify it as somehow safe.
No, I'm not saying its safe, motorcycling isnt, I'm saying that speeding makes far less impact on relative risk that you make out.
21QUEST
18-04-06, 09:43 AM
'This' still going on , is it?
We all make our own judgements based on the circumstances and perspective available to us. From anyone elses perspective it will always look different.
:thumbsup:
At the end of the day the individual has their own acceptable parameters that they are willing to ride within and no more.
:thumbsup:
Me? I am as slow as foook! :P
I thought that was a prerequisite for owing a Ducati :? :lol: :wink:
Cheers
Ben
Joe, when can I get a go on the TL then?
geez, you are greedy! One minute you want a go on my CBR and now you want Joe's TL too? :lol:
Of course! I want a go on Jordan's ninja too! :lol:
Flamin_Squirrel
18-04-06, 10:07 AM
Joe, when can I get a go on the TL then?
geez, you are greedy! One minute you want a go on my CBR and now you want Joe's TL too? :lol:
Of course! I want a go on Jordan's ninja too! :lol:
Will Hannah let you off your leash though?! :wink:
Leash? The poor girl was pretty ill mate :( but better now 8)
So do I get a go then or not? :lol:
Flamin_Squirrel
18-04-06, 10:12 AM
If you promise to be careful. It bites :shock: :lol:
in conclusion to this, it has not been my intention to tell people how to ride, indeed i would expect the majority of you are better road riders than myself, however i stand by my logic that regardless of how well you know a road, you never really know what's coming and that you are taking a major risk by travelling at speeds far in excess of the posted limit, and that a crash at these sorts of speeds on a public road is highly likely to result in a fatality.
Don't worry, I'm always careful. :wink:
If you promise to be careful. It bites :shock: :lol:
Can I have a go as well :lol: :lol: pleeeeseeeeeee
Anonymous
18-04-06, 10:19 AM
in conclusion to this, it has not been my intention to tell people how to ride, indeed i would expect the majority of you are better road riders than myself, however i stand by my logic that regardless of how well you know a road, you never really know what's coming and that you are taking a major risk by travelling at speeds far in excess of the posted limit, and that a crash at these sorts of speeds on a public road is highly likely to result in a fatality.
When put like that i agree.
However for many riders, that is the thrill of riding motorcycles.
If motorcycling was for arguments sake 100% safe regardless of speed.. i for one wouldnt partake in it.
Flamin_Squirrel
18-04-06, 10:21 AM
If you promise to be careful. It bites :shock: :lol:
Can I have a go as well :lol: :lol: pleeeeseeeeeee
No! You'll kill the engine!
Peter Henry
18-04-06, 10:23 AM
Ben...Sorry to be Mr.Obvious! :P Don't want to be having bits falling off at a speed that sees us forgetting where they fell now do we? :P :P
If you promise to be careful. It bites :shock: :lol:
Can I have a go as well :lol: :lol: pleeeeseeeeeee
No! You'll kill the engine! I'm very sad now.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
northwind
18-04-06, 11:44 AM
absolute rubbish. if you come off at 130mph you are highly likely to slide into an immovable object and then it's good night vienna...
Yes, that's correct, but it's not what you said at all. You said it's almost 100% certain that you'll be killed at that speed, which is not the case.
i still stand by my speed = 100% contributory factor. all these standstill accidents wouldn't have occured if the person hitting you was travelling at an appropriate speed prior to the crash - granted it may not have been the primary cause (not looking, asleep, whatever) but if the primary factor had been taken care of, the secondary factor would be annulled....
Half right. You are, of course, correct that if someone hits you when you're stationary, that doesn't mean there's no speed involvement, as the other vehicle is obviously moving. Some people have misunderstood that I think.
But you're still clinging to the 100% claim, which while being factually accurate is also clearly meaningless, simply because of your incorrect definition of contributory blame. While speed is conditional to an accident it doesn't automatically contribute to the accident.
A comparison- one of the most popular examples of this sort of statistical abuse. Beign born, in 100% of cases, causes death. It's perfectly factual, and utterly meaningless. But when you ask why someone died, you say "heart attack", "gunshot wound", or "motorbike crash while moving at more than 0mph". You don't say "Because they were born".
Likewise, when you establish the cause of a crash you only look at things which caused the crash, not the things which made it possible. "Well, y'r'onor, this motorcycle crash was caused by the invention of fire, tools, the wheel, metalworking, steel, the pneumatic tyre, the internal combusion engine, and refining. * Also by the evolution of land mammals from invertebrates, and the decay and fossilisation of other animals under certain geological conditions thus creating oil deposits."
You could say that this takes things to a ridiculous extent, and you'd be right. But that's exactly my position regarding your speed claim.
(* sounds like a game of civilisation)
highly likely usually is 90% < x < 100% probability (at least it used to be)
is this thread still going...? :shock:
northwind
18-04-06, 01:15 PM
highly likely usually is 90% < x < 100% probability (at least it used to be)
Er, yes. But this isn't:
"so, it is inappropriate to travel at 130mph on a public road, as you are almost 100% likely to kill yourself and/or whoever else you take with you as a result of any accident. "
And you've still failed to back up even your softened "highly likely" premise in the slightest, let alone your original claim. You obviously know and understand statistics, probably better than me, so I doubt you're unaware of just how badly you're using them...
83.657% of statistics are made up anyway.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.