140mph biker

[vonhosen]

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.

Because someone may have misjudged their speed above the limit. We don't expect all road users to be able to accurately judge speed from 0 to 'c'.

[Dr Jekyll]

vonhosen said:

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.

Because someone may have misjudged their speed above the limit. We don't expect all road users to be able to accurately judge speed from 0 to 'c'.

MAY have misjudged it, it's only one possibility. In any case road users do not say to themselves "It will take me 5 seconds to cross the junction, the speed limit is 30 MPH so that approaching vehicle cannot possibly be going faster than that. 5 seconds at 45 feet per second is 225 feet, and he is 240 feet away, so I'm safe to go." They (we) judge speed and distance together, if the approaching vehicle get's significantly closer while we watch it, we wait for it to pass.

Going faster than other road users you encounter are likely to expect is obviously unwise, but that is not the same thing as breaking the limit. Nobody is advocating doing 50 down 30 limited high streets. What causes the frustration is being told that 80 down a motorway is in the same category, even if there is half a mile of clear road ahead, or the only other road users anywhere in the vicinity are going faster still.

[vonhosen]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Because someone may have misjudged their speed above the limit. We don't expect all road users to be able to accurately judge speed from 0 to 'c'.

MAY have misjudged it, it's only one possibility. In any case road users do not say to themselves "It will take me 5 seconds to cross the junction, the speed limit is 30 MPH so that approaching vehicle cannot possibly be going faster than that. 5 seconds at 45 feet per second is 225 feet, and he is 240 feet away, so I'm safe to go." They (we) judge speed and distance together, if the approaching vehicle get's significantly closer while we watch it, we wait for it to pass.

Going faster than other road users you encounter are likely to expect is obviously unwise, but that is not the same thing as breaking the limit. Nobody is advocating doing 50 down 30 limited high streets. What causes the frustration is being told that 80 down a motorway is in the same category, even if there is half a mile of clear road ahead, or the only other road users anywhere in the vicinity are going faster still.

The STATS19 doesn't require the box for exceeding the limit to be ticked just because a vehicle was speeding. It's ticked where the investigating officer is stating that exceeding the limit was a 'contributory factor'

[mybrainhurts]

10 Pence Short said:

mybrainhurts said:

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

Nearer 1% according to DfT figures.

Government told TRL to investigate. TRL concluded 20%. Government went quiet and buried report.

[mybrainhurts]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

I thought it went without saying I meant NSL. Sorry, I will scrutinise all future posts for ambiguity before posting.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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.

Thank you, but I wasn't looking for advice.

I was making the point that Mr Average is less alert at an unnaturally low speed, which can have a soporific effect on long journeys.

Cue you saying take a break, blah, etc

Yes, but we have your advice and we have the real world, in which 99.9999% of drivers will not read this, thereby missing your advice.

So we have a problem with low speeds.

I recognised the problem when the NSL was introduced. I used to cruise between 80 and 120. When I first cruised at 70, I immediately noticed my concentration was wandering and soon became tired. Same amount of rest beforehand in both cases.

Of course, I might be unusual (yes, I know, bad choice of words). If not, there is a problem.

[Tiggsy]

Took me 55 secs to see he deserves to be off the road...wheelies at 90mph before the undertake - tt.

T (trackday'd all over Europe so I'm not some box driver with no idea what a bike can do)

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

I thought it went without saying I meant NSL. Sorry, I will scrutinise all future posts for ambiguity before posting.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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.

Thank you, but I wasn't looking for advice.

I was making the point that Mr Average is less alert at an unnaturally low speed, which can have a soporific effect on long journeys.

Cue you saying take a break, blah, etc

Yes, but we have your advice and we have the real world, in which 99.9999% of drivers will not read this, thereby missing your advice.

Luckily the Highways Agency regularly plaster it all over their matrix boards.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

I thought it went without saying I meant NSL. Sorry, I will scrutinise all future posts for ambiguity before posting.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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.

Thank you, but I wasn't looking for advice.

I was making the point that Mr Average is less alert at an unnaturally low speed, which can have a soporific effect on long journeys.

Cue you saying take a break, blah, etc

Yes, but we have your advice and we have the real world, in which 99.9999% of drivers will not read this, thereby missing your advice.

Luckily the Highways Agency regularly plaster it all over their matrix boards.

Oh, really...?

I've done 260,000 miles in five years...and never seen it once.

[singlecoil]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

I thought it went without saying I meant NSL. Sorry, I will scrutinise all future posts for ambiguity before posting.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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.

Thank you, but I wasn't looking for advice.

I was making the point that Mr Average is less alert at an unnaturally low speed, which can have a soporific effect on long journeys.

Cue you saying take a break, blah, etc

Yes, but we have your advice and we have the real world, in which 99.9999% of drivers will not read this, thereby missing your advice.

Luckily the Highways Agency regularly plaster it all over their matrix boards.

Oh, really...?

I've done 260,000 miles in five years...and never seen it once.

Seen it plenty of times. Also on conventional signs at the side of the road

[mybrainhurts]

singlecoil said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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?

I thought it went without saying I meant NSL. Sorry, I will scrutinise all future posts for ambiguity before posting.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

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.

Thank you, but I wasn't looking for advice.

I was making the point that Mr Average is less alert at an unnaturally low speed, which can have a soporific effect on long journeys.

Cue you saying take a break, blah, etc

Yes, but we have your advice and we have the real world, in which 99.9999% of drivers will not read this, thereby missing your advice.

Luckily the Highways Agency regularly plaster it all over their matrix boards.

Oh, really...?

I've done 260,000 miles in five years...and never seen it once.

Seen it plenty of times. Also on conventional signs at the side of the road

I'll give you the latter. Where has it been on the matrix signs?