Stagered riding while with other bikes

[MSTRS:Me]

Now someone remind me - is it safer to follow in the wheeltracks of the vehicle ahead, or not? I remember reading about this with respect to junk on the road, and avoiding said junk. I know that if potentially tyre-puncturing objects are flicked up they're more likely to puncture your tyres, but the discussion I read was about larger things on the road. In the wheeltracks, the road's drier in the rain, but objects flicked up by the rear tyres are more likely to hit you. On the other hand, if the vehicle ahead swerves to avoid summat on the road (which you probably won't be able to see), you can swerve too and miss it. Whereas if you're following say the centre of a car in front, and there's an object it passes over that's between its tyre tracks, you won't see it till it appears after its passed it.

Another thing - riding to 'protect' your space on the road. If you ride to the left, the psychology of driving is that this encourages people to pass you, whereas on the right of the lane, this discourages passing and also tends to make people in front of you let you past. Yes, I know the Road COde says to keep left, but (unless it's changed) the wording is "keep as close to the left as practicable", and this means keeping your safety paramount.

When first learning I was told to stay off the centre as that is where any oil etc dropped by cars would congregate (in order to leap out and mug an unsuspecting biker). Also to ride in the right wheeltrack to discourage crowding if I was overtaken. That advise has served me well a-l-l these years, and one of my maxims is 'If it aint broke, don't fix it'

[TonyB]

In a sudden stop situation, it is usually the guys at the back that get into trouble. If the sudden stop for the guy out front coincides with a catch-up spurt for the guys at the back, you've got a disaster on your hands.

It's the guys on the end of the whip who feel the crack.

True, even if everyones two seconds apart, if they can't see any further than the bike ahead of the (unlikely) then using the 1/2 second reaction time rule you'll only need 4 bikes in a line before rider number 4's 2 seconds has gone. 'Course this doesn't happen bikes as we can see past each other, but I've seen it happen to cages while standing at an intersection- guy in front stopped unexpectedly on a green, car 2 stops fine, car 3 has a bit of trouble, car 4 has tyres squeealing, car 5 has smoke as well and nearly hits car 4...there wasn't a car 6

[Virago]

True, even if everyones two seconds apart, if they can't see any further than the bike ahead of the (unlikely) then using the 1/2 second reaction time rule you'll only need 4 bikes in a line before rider number 4's 2 seconds has gone. 'Course this doesn't happen bikes as we can see past each other, but I've seen it happen to cages while standing at an intersection- guy in front stopped unexpectedly on a green, car 2 stops fine, car 3 has a bit of trouble, car 4 has tyres squeealing, car 5 has smoke as well and nearly hits car 4...there wasn't a car 6

I've seen car 6 too many times - and car 7, car 8.........

[TonyB]

I've seen car 6 too many times - and car 7, car 8.........

I can't understand why more cage drivers don't look through the windows of the car in front to watch the traffic as far ahead as they can. That's why I hate being behind trucks, 4WDs and vans- can't see far enough ahead.

[vifferman]

In any procession of vehicles, minor changes in speed at the front become major changes down the line. This is due to the compounding effect of everyone's reaction time.

Commonly observed in nose-to-tail heavy traffic, where those further down the line are frustrated by the "surging" speeds, with speeding up and slowing down happening without apparent reason.

Good analysis, VV.
I'd wondered about that, but never thought it through like this. It drives me nuts, every night when I travel over the Harbour Bridge. People accelerate up the bridge, then have to slow down at the top, due to buses, trucks etc. labouring their way to the top. Behind them, there's this 'rubber-band' thing going on, with the train of vehicles compressing / stretching / compressing. The only way to deal with it is - as TonyB said - to maintain the 'two second rule', but that's almost impossible in D'Auckland traffic. If you leave a sensible gap, some eejit will go, "Ooooh.. a gap.... that lane must be going faster - I'll nip into it!" and eliminate the safety buffer you'd left. So you drop back, and the same thing happens, again, and again...

[Virago]

Good analysis, VV.
I'd wondered about that, but never thought it through like this. It drives me nuts, every night when I travel over the Harbour Bridge. People accelerate up the bridge, then have to slow down at the top, due to buses, trucks etc. labouring their way to the top. Behind them, there's this 'rubber-band' thing going on, with the train of vehicles compressing / stretching / compressing. The only way to deal with it is - as TonyB said - to maintain the 'two second rule', but that's almost impossible in D'Auckland traffic. If you leave a sensible gap, some eejit will go, "Ooooh.. a gap.... that lane must be going faster - I'll nip into it!" and eliminate the safety buffer you'd left. So you drop back, and the same thing happens, again, and again...

I find the dynamics of traffic flow quite fascinating. I saw something on TV a few weeks ago, where they got some cars to slow down on a motorway, but not quite stop. Those further back ended up coming to a complete stop, and way back down the road about 3km, people ended up stopped for 2 or 3 minutes before things got moving again.

Ever been on a motorway and stuck in a traffic jam, and thought "must be an accident or something ahead"? Then when you get moving again, there is no sign on any cause for the snarl-up?

Fascinating, as well as blurdy infuriating.

[vifferman]

in a traffic jam, and thought "must be an accident or something ahead"? Then when you get moving again, there is no sign on any cause for the snarl-up?

Or something REALLY amazing, that no-one's never, ever seen before, and everyone has to slow down to gawp in astonishment at, like a ..


(wait.....)




broken down car!




Or....




Some flashing lights on the side of the road!

[FROSTY:Me]

Staggered riding--Why do we do it??
Once you understand the answers to that question then the critique will stop.
Stggered formation is for SAFETY for both riders

[Virago]

Or something REALLY amazing, that no-one's never, ever seen before, and everyone has to slow down to gawp in astonishment at, like a .
(wait.....)
broken down car!
Or....
Some flashing lights on the side of the road!

Or the ultimate cause of the nose-to-tail accident..............women pedestrians!!!!!!!!

[Sparky Bills]

Or the ultimate cause of the nose-to-tail accident..............women pedestrians!!!!!!!!

Hell yeah!

[MikeL]

On group rides there is only really a justification for staggered riding in built-up areas, where spreading out may result in problems getting through traffic lights etc. Why, on the open road at 100 km/h, would we need to be so close as to require staggered riding? As has been pointed out, an emergency could well involve a sudden swerve. I've seen riders bunched together at 120 - 140 km/h as if they're all desperate to keep up with each other.
Recipe for disaster.

[Drunken Monkey]

On group rides there is only really a justification for staggered riding in built-up areas, where spreading out may result in problems getting through traffic lights etc. Why, on the open road at 100 km/h, would we need to be so close as to require staggered riding? As has been pointed out, an emergency could well involve a sudden swerve. I've seen riders bunched together at 120 - 140 km/h as if they're all desperate to keep up with each other.
Recipe for disaster.

Bunching and staggered riding aren't necessarily the same thing. Riders should still stagger, even if spread out.

[MSTRS:Me]

On group rides there is only really a justification for staggered riding in built-up areas, where spreading out may result in problems getting through traffic lights etc. Why, on the open road at 100 km/h, would we need to be so close as to require staggered riding? As has been pointed out, an emergency could well involve a sudden swerve. I've seen riders bunched together at 120 - 140 km/h as if they're all desperate to keep up with each other.
Recipe for disaster.

Study how far you travel in 2 secs at 100kph. You will be looking at the reason why.

[TonyB]

Study how far you travel in 2 secs at 100kph. You will be looking at the reason why.

55.556m

[FROSTY:Me]

Study how far you travel in 2 secs at 100kph. You will be looking at the reason why.

I see mikes point -Out of town its gonna be different once you settle into a groove the bikes spread out by heaps.
In town the staggered formation is important to give everyone max chance to avoid collisions