140mph biker

[10 Pence Short]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Speed is a crash factor.

In about 14% of accidents according to DfT data from 2008.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

10 Pence Short said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Speed is a crash factor.

In about 14% of accidents according to DfT data from 2008.

Sorry speed is always a factor in the outcome of the crash and the cause in as you say 14% (although I thought it was less).

Limits are purely to try to limit possible outcomes.

[10 Pence Short]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

10 Pence Short said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Speed is a crash factor.

In about 14% of accidents according to DfT data from 2008.

Sorry speed is always a factor in the outcome of the crash and the cause in as you say 14% (although I thought it was less).

Limits are purely to try to limit possible outcomes.

In fatals, exceeding the speed limit is a contributary factor in 14% and travelling too fast for the conditions is 14%, therefore 28% of fatals involve injudicious use of speed. In Serious accidents that drops to 17% combined and overall, including minor accidents, it's 14% (Exceeding speed limit 5%, inappropriate speed 9%).

Interestingly speed is a bigger contributary factor than all the impairment and distraction items put together (contributary in 14% of all accident Vs 12%)

[Dr Jekyll]

10 Pence Short said:

In fatals, exceeding the speed limit is a contributary factor in 14% and travelling too fast for the conditions is 14%, therefore 28% of fatals involve injudicious use of speed.

If someone is travelling faster than the limit but not too fast for the conditions then I don't see how speed can be a contributory factor. It's probably listed as a contributory factor simply because they were over the limit.

Like the old US figure of 30% of accidents being 'speed related'. They got this by including all accidents involving vehicles exceeding the maximum speed limit irrespective of the cause of the accident, plus all those involving vehicles going below minimum speed limits.

[rsv gone!]

10 Pence Short said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

10 Pence Short said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Speed is a crash factor.

In about 14% of accidents according to DfT data from 2008.

Sorry speed is always a factor in the outcome of the crash and the cause in as you say 14% (although I thought it was less).

Limits are purely to try to limit possible outcomes.

In fatals, exceeding the speed limit is a contributary factor in 14% and travelling too fast for the conditions is 14%, therefore 28% of fatals involve injudicious use of speed. In Serious accidents that drops to 17% combined and overall, including minor accidents, it's 14% (Exceeding speed limit 5%, inappropriate speed 9%).

Interestingly speed is a bigger contributary factor than all the impairment and distraction items put together (contributary in 14% of all accident Vs 12%)

Mr VXR is making no link between likelihood of an accident and speed. He's only linked speed with outcome; ie the severity of the crash.

[10 Pence Short]

Dr Jekyll said:

10 Pence Short said:

In fatals, exceeding the speed limit is a contributary factor in 14% and travelling too fast for the conditions is 14%, therefore 28% of fatals involve injudicious use of speed.

If someone is travelling faster than the limit but not too fast for the conditions then I don't see how speed can be a contributory factor. It's probably listed as a contributory factor simply because they were over the limit.

Like the old US figure of 30% of accidents being 'speed related'. They got this by including all accidents involving vehicles exceeding the maximum speed limit irrespective of the cause of the accident, plus all those involving vehicles going below minimum speed limits.

I would imagine 'Exceeding the speed limit' is only listed as a contributary factor where the investigators think it is relavant (from memory they can choose up to 6 factors from a long exaustive list). Where they think speed is a contributary factor but being over the speed limit is not applicable, they then choose 'Inappropriate speed' as 'Exceeding the speed limit' is not available.

[10 Pence Short]

rsv gone! said:

Mr VXR is making no link between likelihood of an accident and speed. He's only linked speed with outcome; ie the severity of the crash.

I appreciate that, I just thought people might appreciate a look at recent statistics to get a feel for it.

[saaby93]

Isn't exceeding the speed limit a different factor to driving too fast for conditions? Inappropriate speed can be too low or too high, it's surprising how many parked cars figure in the stats.
Wasn't 'not looking properly' the greatest factor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/527795...

Has anyone found the real transcript to this story - was it a straightforward 'speeding' rather than 'dangerous' in the other thread

[10 Pence Short]

saaby93 said:

Isn't exceeding the speed limit a different factor to driving too fast for conditions? Inappropriate speed can be too low or too high, it's surprising how many parked cars figure in the stats.
Wasn't 'not looking properly' the greatest factor
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/527795...

Has anyone found the real transcript to this story - was it a straightforward 'speeding' rather than 'dangerous' in the other thread

Defective eyesight is a contributary factor in less than 1% of accidents.

[cs02rm0]

singlecoil said:

The speed limits have not been revised upwards to take account of the better dynamic capabilities of newer motor vehicles because the roads have been getting a lot more crowded.

I don't believe that for a second.

IMO speed limits haven't been revised upwards because a vocal minority spreading FUD have made it a political hot potato.

[Mr GrimNasty]

"Apart from a few dodgy undertakes there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with his riding apart from the speed."

Why should this one bloke and a motorbike be in any way exempt from, or find consideration in, the law?
'only speed' - it was crazy riding for a public road. If he wants to turn his body into corn-beef hash, fine, do it on a race track, not where you might mangle an innocent person in the process. Speed limits are arbitrary, like most people I have been known to exceed them, but clearly his speed was completely inappropriate, lacking in any judgement of risk whatsoever. I could blindly shoot a loaded pistol into a disperse crowd of people, just because 99 times out of 100 no one was hit, is that OK? If 100 people were firing into that crowd - someone would die every time. A large proportion of modern cars and bikes 'could' drive at that speed (albeit not with the acceleration) - could you imagine the carnage that would result if everyone did? The guy is lucky to ever get to ride again IMO. (And don't even bother with the Autobahn blah blah, it is a completely different situation.)

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Thursday 27th May 10:05

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Thursday 27th May 10:06

[Dr Jekyll]

Mr GrimNasty said:

"Apart from a few dodgy undertakes there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with his riding apart from the speed."

Why should this one bloke and a motorbike be in any way exempt from, or find consideration in, the law?
'only speed' - it was crazy riding for a public road. If he wants to turn his body into corn-beef hash, fine, do it on a race track, not where you might mangle an innocent person in the process. Speed limits are arbitrary, like most people I have been known to exceed them, but clearly his speed was completely inappropriate, lacking in any judgement of risk whatsoever. I could blindly shoot a loaded pistol into a disperse crowd of people, just because 99 times out of 100 no one was hit, is that OK? If 100 people were firing into that crowd - someone would die every time. A large proportion of modern cars and bikes 'could' drive at that speed (albeit not with the acceleration) - could you imagine the carnage that would result if everyone did? The guy is lucky to ever get to ride again IMO.

Edited by Mr GrimNasty on Thursday 27th May 10:05

You are assuming what you are trying to prove. If doing 140 was automatically as dangerous as firing a gun into a crowd then we would all demand anyone doing it was locked up, the point in dispute is WHETHER it is always equivalent to firing a gun into a crowd, or whether sometimes it might be more analogous to firing a gun into a few thousand yards of open country.

[cs02rm0]

Mr GrimNasty said:

stuff

I really don't think it was crazy riding and I bet he could do it 100 times out of 100 without any trouble.

[saaby93]

Theres a difference between factor and contributory factor
Loss of control is the greatest rural factor while failing to look properly is the greatest urban factor
Travelling too fast for conditions (Factor 307) and exceeding speed limit (Factor 306) are contributory factors
Google found this for scotland
http://www.culturalcommission.co.uk/Publications/2...

[Mr GrimNasty]

Don't play stooopid, my gun example was about probability, obviously, not a like for like example.

At 140mph you are seriously decreasing your odds of being able to react safely, and more importantly driving outside the experience and judgement capabilities and expectations and reaction abilities of a lot of other innocent road users just trying to get home alive. One day, one of those cars will pull over as he undertakes, and only the nutter on the bike will be to blame for the ensuing carnage.

In answer to the point about the police bike - obviously he has the training and lawful dispensation to drive like that. It is only necessary to ensure that the moron in front doesn't do it any more.

[rsv gone!]

Mr GrimNasty said:

At 140mph you are seriously decreasing your odds of being able to react safely, and more importantly driving outside the experience and judgement capabilities and expectations and reaction abilities of a lot of other innocent road users just trying to get home alive. One day, one of those cars will pull over as he undertakes, and only the nutter on the bike will be to blame for the ensuing carnage.

In answer to the point about the police bike - obviously he has the training and lawful dispensation to drive like that. It is only necessary to ensure that the moron in front doesn't do it any more.

The cars in the RH lane could just as easily moved left on the police biker.

[mybrainhurts]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Speed is a crash factor. By limiting speeds you reduce the levels of force in any crashes. You may or may not impact on the likelihood of a crash but you will manage the outcome.

As such it's now the case limits exist.

Limits are outcome controllers. Nothing more.

How does that sit with low limits causing fatigue...?

And fatigue causing 20% of all injury accidents..? (TRL)

Sounds to me that limits are causing some accidents.

[cs02rm0]

And increased time on the roads.

[10 Pence Short]

mybrainhurts said:

And fatigue causing 20% of all injury accidents..? (TRL)

Nearer 1% according to DfT figures.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

mybrainhurts said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Speed is a crash factor. By limiting speeds you reduce the levels of force in any crashes. You may or may not impact on the likelihood of a crash but you will manage the outcome.

As such it's now the case limits exist.

Limits are outcome controllers. Nothing more.

How does that sit with low limits causing fatigue...?

And fatigue causing 20% of all injury accidents..? (TRL)

Sounds to me that limits are causing some accidents.

You get tired driving around your town.... ?

So your answer would be to raise all town limits to 90? Thus increasing speed about the towns and therefore no one is tired?


If your tired slow down. Last thing you should do is speed up.

70 does not cause fatigue for me, lack of sleep or a long shift does that.