Ahh the real joy of speed (Bikes)

[Butuz]

Actually butuz, hitting the motorway from the slip road at any speed in anything you are normally invisible as most of the other drivers are probably having a sandwich/shave/doing makeup/on the phone or just got their heads so far up their ar*es they can't see anything anyway.

You see, thats exactly the attitude that I am on about. Car drivers cant be bothered to see me, so ill just ride like a complete loon regardless.



Moby at least thats one (probably the only) reason to use a wing mounted intercooler - at least i won't have to clean bits of loony-biker out of mine.



Butuz

[Big RICHARD]

You see, thats exactly the attitude that I am on about. Car drivers cant be bothered to see me, so ill just ride like a complete loon regardless.



Moby at least thats one (probably the only) reason to use a wing mounted intercooler - at least i won't have to clean bits of loony-biker out of mine.



Butuz

I have to say something to this.....

I am not a motorcycle rider, but I know that at the height you are on a motorbike you get a better view. (No pillars in the way!)

If you are joining a motorway at 112 mph there is not a very high chance of a car doing over 112 in the inside lane in the first place and even less of a chance of one appearing in the inside lane doing OVER 112 towards an on-slip road without looking WELL up the slip road to look for police and anything else that might be appearing unexpectedly.

Also, joining the motorway at 112 is gonna mean that you won't get shunted up the arse by a granny or anyone else who isn't paying enough attention whilst doing 56 on the inside lane of the motorway. You might give them a sodding big fright as you appear up their inside doing a silly speed (yes I do agree that over 100 mph CAN be daft!) but they certainly won't be swerving towards you when they do fill their trousers!

I drive cars. Lots of different ones. I try to join the motorway at 70 or more. It is easier to be doing 75 on the slip road and have to adjust speed DOWN to 60 to prevent running into that arse of a lorry that joining at 50 or 60 and having to speed UP to 70 to prevent being shunted by aforementioned old dear, who is oblivious to anything more than 5 feet in front of her car, even though she's being 'safe' by sticking to the 70 mph speed limit and, whilst watching the speedo PERMANENTLY in order to do so.

[Allen]

my god I went from 55mph to 112mph by the time I came off the slip road onto the motorway, I'd say less than 1.5/2 secs tops

a fist full of throttle, slip the clutch, catch him within 3 car lengths of the lights, hit 11,500rpm, snick into 2nd gear lift the front wheel with a fist full of throttle, and he's a little dot in my rear view....

Nice to see we are again promoting a responsible driving attitude amongst the forums.....

[Big RICHARD]

Nice to see we are again promoting a responsible driving attitude amongst the forums.....

Let's not get into the rights and wrongs and morality tales of speed on the road.


Remember:
Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.

[Allen]

Let's not get into the rights and wrongs and morality tales of speed on the road.


Remember:
Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.

Yeah, yeah... Let's all shut Allen up and tell him not to read the Cars and Bikes forum anymore.....

So, are you saying that a car (or bike) going over 100mph wouldn't kill someone if it hit them then? Hmm... What about a car or bike crashing at over 100mph? Would the drivers/passengers/pillions live?

[Big RICHARD]

Look, we've all seen the 'speeding is bad' posts on these and other forums. It seems that every time someone posts about going fast there is a post about how dangerous speeding is.

The chances of a vehicle doing 100 mph or more crashing into something depends on various factors, which I can not be arsed to go into right now, but it is not inevitable that EVERY driver doing 100+ is going to crash.

[Butuz]

no, but it is inevitable that if they do crash due to either an error on their or someone elses part they are very much more likeley to kill themselves or someone else.

There is no denying that each MPH faster you go increases the risks to you and others.

You may be hailing it up the sliproad on your ducatti at 120 thinking that you know whats going on but the person that was in the midle lane having overtaken a slow lorry, and having looked in his mirror and a quick look over the shoulder decides theres nothing coming up the sliproad so pulls into the inside lane once more as all responsible non middle lane hoggers should do is gonna have a nasty suprise when he pulls into your bike killing you instantly causing him to swerve and slam the brakes on causing the lorry behind to break hard and crash causing a 3 lane pile up.

Sound familiar? Happens every day.

I'm dissapointed with some of the attitudes here i have to admit, Allans right in his own way and you cant deny the trith in what he says can you?

Butuz

[Big RICHARD]

But if you come hooning down the slip road at 120 surely you should be looking for the 'just finished overtaking' car driver?

Also, if this were to happen (unlikely as it may be!) there is also the hard shoulder to use?

BTW, I am NOT condoning the use of outrageous speeds on public roads, it's just that some people take calculated risks on the road every day and one of these choices relates to speed and the appropriate use of it on our roads.

[Big RICHARD]

And yes, I agree. The driver doing 100 or more is going to make a MUCH bigger hole in the scenery than the one who loses it at 70. But a car hitting anything solid at over 60 mph is going to result in a dead or at least a seriously maimed driver and anyone else that he hits at that speed.

Does that mean that our motorways should be 45 mph speed limited and 6 foot walls of cotton wool erected at either side of the carriageway?

Also, please bear in mind that there are less fatal accidents on the motorway than any other road and the speed limit on the motorway is higher that other roads, so the speed kills argument is a load of old arse.

[Butuz]

Ok - look i am not one of the we should all do 20mph and have cotton wool motorways and foam cars type people, i dont drive a foam car myself, and it can hit 160 if you provoke it. That doesnt mean i drive everywhere at 160.

All i am saying is that people that use excessive speed in situations where everyone else is not expecting that sort of speed, are the most dangerous ones out there, the people that think 40 in a 20 past a school is cool, the people who think 70 in a 40 is fine, the people that think 120 in a 70 is ok. 90% of the time, its not fine, its not ok, they just got lucky.

And as for motorways, theyre one way with no oncoming traffic (i hope!), they tend not to have pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, mini roundabouts, cyclists, schools, or anything else that tends to cause accidents, thats why theyre safe, nothing to do with the speed at all. If motorways had all of the ^^^above^^^, and still had the speed limit of 70, they'd have the highest accident/death rate compared to any other road i recon.

Butuz

[Big RICHARD]

So, we agree that excessive (or inappropriate, as I put it) speed is the danger on the road.

The second part of your post agrees with me further, it is NOT speed that causes accidents, but it is the pedestrian crossings, traffic lights, mini roundabouts, cyclists, and schools that cause accidents.

[BioHAZARD]

ok all this talk about car drivers unable to see bikers due to car pillars being to wide is a load of b**llox, the latest statisics show thats its because car owners/drivers have a lack of being able to observe or react quick enuff as they feel safe in their little bubble of steel/ali, if it was a case of pillar problems or lack of rear view...answer this WHY DON'T LORRIES AND BIKE COLLIDE AS MUCH AS CARS AND BIKES...AFTERALL THEY HAVE THE LEAST VIEW ????????????? (ANSWER) BECAUSE THEY ARE CURTEOUS AND AWARE THAT BIKES USE THE SAME ROADS AS THEY DO!!!!!!!

98% of drivers turning right from a junction do NOT look right (FACT!)
94.3% drivers on motorway pay less attention to what they are doing than a 4 yr old does (FACT!)
94.1% of bike/car collisions are caused by car drivers (mirror signal manouver) (too busy with hair or makeup) (tuning radio in)(mobile phones)(stereo up too loud didn't hear the bike CHAVS) etc ctc.... (FACT!)

total percentage of bike accidents caused by speeding on a bike 4.9% (FACT!)
total percentage of car accidents caused by speeding in a car 87.3% (FACT!)

now go on about how stupid it is to speed on a bike

also please remeber to ALWAYS LOOK OVER YOUR SHOULDER WHENEVER MANOUVERING like you was taught to do when taking driving lessons,
ALWAYS USE THE mirror...signal...manouver routine and not the b@@locks to the mirror...b@@locks to the signal....just manouver that so many people do........

ok ive had my little rant just pees me off when us bikers get the blame for near on everything....as to the guy who started this thread GO-ON MY SON!!!!!!!!

(MY RIDE) 2004 MILLE FACTORY R twin hi-level renegades, renegade air kit and full race tuned engine.....mgrt220 (mine goes round to 220)

[headbrace]

WHY DON'T LORRIES AND BIKE COLLIDE AS MUCH AS CARS AND BIKES...AFTERALL THEY HAVE THE LEAST VIEW ????????????? (ANSWER) BECAUSE THEY ARE CURTEOUS AND AWARE THAT BIKES USE THE SAME ROADS AS THEY DO!!!!!!!

98% of drivers turning right from a junction do NOT look right (FACT!)
94.3% drivers on motorway pay less attention to what they are doing than a 4 yr old does (FACT!)
94.1% of bike/car collisions are caused by car drivers (mirror signal manouver) (too busy with hair or makeup) (tuning radio in)(mobile phones)(stereo up too loud didn't hear the bike CHAVS) etc ctc.... (FACT!)

total percentage of bike accidents caused by speeding on a bike 4.9% (FACT!)
total percentage of car accidents caused by speeding in a car 87.3% (FACT!)

Gotany sources for these statistics?

[Moby-Dick]

BioHazard.... I'd like you to quote your sources if you use the word fact , or you just end up sounding like a reporter from the Sun.

[Romanov]

I agree with Big Richard - its inappropriate speed that kills, one thing Americans find fascinating (eck spelling) is that their ratio of car deaths is much higher than ours yet their posted limit is 55mph.

I don't agree with people making comments over "promoting responsible driving" nearly all the threads here are about high performance cars and how to go faster and where would most people be doing that? - Santa Pod? - I dont think so.

Oh and bikes weigh 170kgs cars weigh nearly 2 tons guess which one kills when driven badly?

This all goes back to my days of transport studies where we looked into the "safety" debate and speed, some simple facts gleaned (from Lancaster Uni Transport studies)

- In the US some states have helmet laws (ie wear them) some dont, fatalties were higher in the states that had compulsory helmet wearing laws.
[conclusion : was that when people wore helmets they felt safer and were more prone to taking risks]

- The accident rate significantly increased when air bags were introduced - again people felt more likely to survive a crash with the new safety features

- Accident rates were higher in states that had compulaory seat belts that did not - again people felt more safe with seat belts and so took more risks

So what I am saying - the more "safety" features we have the more likely we are to go faster and take more risks , we are also less likely to concentrate as our perception of safety grows, so in fact the roads are getting more dangerous than they were before because more people feel they can take more risk.

this is really where most accidents are occurring because people feel less risk of death due to bad driving, thats the same for bikers (with helmets) as it is in cars where you have roll cages, air bags and seat belts.

Speed it turned out had little to do with accident rates and far more to do with the perception of safety in a vehicle and the chances of surviving a crash, the more safety the more crashes and fatalities occurred. We did look at increased road usuage as well and this seemed to have little bearing on the accident rate - bizarre I know, the accident rate obviously grew due to the number of cars on the road but the real indicator of increases in fatalties was the introduction of laws for compulsory seat belts/helmets etc.

The more "safety" features introduced (lane buzzers) the more drivers are likely to feel safer and the less likey they are to concentrate on what they are doing.

oh and btw before the anti biker lobby get in here I drive a car too, an example would be that I was listening to music the other day, the heater was on full blast, it was damn cold and Id been working all day (Xmas eve) it was dark, raining and I basically was thinking about an incident at work - I then snapped back to realise I wasnt concentrating at all on where I was going..........the message is on a bike you just cant do that you have to concentrate all the time, in a car it is possible to lose concentration and thus this is why bikers go on about mobile phones/sandwich eaters etc, they cannot afford to go to sleep when riding not even for a second whereas this is possible in a car. (Im an example of that which Im willing to admit)

[jon bda]

Yeah, yeah... Let's all shut Allen up and tell him not to read the Cars and Bikes forum anymore.....

Its not that mate, its just the fact that you only ever come in here to moan about something...