What worse??

[Viney]

*PUts on high vis, and flat cap*

The second one me lad, now come and have a chat in the back of my car

Both irresposible so both bad as each other. However, the second one is the obvious answer

[Richie]

pains me to say but the same as above.. Viney

[mister c]

Originally Posted by Viney

*PUts on high vis, and flat cap*

The second one me lad, now come and have a chat in the back of my car

Both irresposible so both bad as each other. However, the second one is the obvious answer

Originally Posted by Richie

pains me to say but the same as above.. Viney

+1

first is worse, it seems easier not to concentrate wen u r in a car, or get bored etc where as on the bike even wen slow u r concentrating more; think every one should do the cbt made me more aware! even tho i spot a bike/r from miles off lol

Sorry, I meant the 2nd example on the same road as the first example.

No, i've not been caught, just a discussion I had today, wondering what others thought.

Neither, it's the circumstance that crosses their path that could be better or worse.

Doesn't matter how much the guy is concentrating, at 90mph he probably ain't stoppin' that car in time if he comes across that circumstance.

On the flip side the driver who isn't concentrating could cause a circumstance that should never have happened.

Most car accidents are not the result of an individuals behaviour, it's that behaviour combined with an unfortunate sequence of other events.

So who's more dangerous? You can't answer that question.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

So who's more dangerous? You can't answer that question.

Captain Danger?

Usually the latter. Ironically, even if you're going a bit quicker than you can see to be clear you'll probably hit whatever it is at slower than the first driver, as you will at least commence braking before hitting it, whereas he may well plow into the back of it without taking his foot off the accelerator at all. A mate who was stopped at lights on a 40mph road got rear ended at 40 by a type 1 driver. I regularly do 70 along there and even if I misjudged how far I could see to be clear, or hit some mud/whatever on the road that increased my stopping distance, there's no way I'd hit stopped traffic there at 40.

Sadly, in enforcement terms, it's hard to prove that you're not just a type 1 driver doing 100 (which really is dangerous, even if it's much less common). Much easier to deal with indisputable (legally, if not scientifically) speed gun readings which are absolutes and don't have to take the driver's attention into consideration.

On a related note, I think the type of vehicle has a lot to do with it. Maxxed out, doing 100 in my battered old 106 was reckless, because it pulled to the right under braking and the brakes were shoddy. Doing it on a well maintained bike capable of going significantly quicker that can stop much quicker is much less morally questionable. Thats before you start factoring in that it's the mass of your vehicle and the speed it's travelling at that determines how hard you hit something. All this 80% chance of killing people at >30 stuff is wild generalisation, based on average weights of a vehicle; I'd much rather be hit by a car (or better still a bike) at 35 than I would a lorry at 30.

To further this....

SPeeding accounts for only 4% of serious accidents.

Lack of attention is around 75% cause of accidents.

Me personnally, i consider the first example to be far more dangerous, plod around or not. Not paying attention means you won't see something usually till you hit it.

If your travelling faster, but paying attention, chances are you can scrub off speed and avoid the issue, or even stop in time.

first one is worse obviously.