Hardcore Biker
On some bikes, but not a R1. The rear was off the ground for the last part.Originally Posted by Banditbandit
I could have used it when I started braking, but would need to practice as it's too easy to lock the rear as the weight transfers to the front wheel.
Anarchic Wild Child
Yeah .. I've had the rear wheel off the ground under extreme braking ... gives you no stopping power at all.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Best Frenemy you could have!
Don't fall into the trap of focussing on the car in front as this is exactly how nose to tails occur. People are only watching the car in front, often following too close, so when the one in front stops hard, they have to as well. Usually results in either them hitting the one in front, or being rammed up the rear (Ok, or both... Aucklanders). Neither situation is good for you.
While paying attention to the cars in front, look as far ahead as possible, 12 seconds up the road or more. What is the traffic doing? Can you see it slowing down (brake lights or cars close together, or worse, smoke from locked brakes)? Start braking early, which will increase your following distance and warn the car behind you that something is happening. Having done this, you're managing your space. If you have to stop, you a, have more distance, and b, hopefully the car behind is now paying attention. Additionally, you can manage the car behind because you have space to work with.
There are a few spots on the motorway system with blind rises (another often with stopped traffic is northbound approaching Mt Wellington, or southbound, Manurewa hill). Pay attention to the reduced visibility, and increase your following distance. Give yourself more time to react.
Kruger-Dunning Parts n Service
Well done, this thought process is what keeps you alive.
One thing I was taught years ago by a veteran trucker, you always have an option, even if its only choosing what part of the offending car you are going to collide with if that will mitigate injury potential.
I had similar when a ute I was overtaking at night did last minute brake and turn into driveway. I immediately emergency braked and turned, was still going to hit him so better option was to release brakes, turn more and try to pass in front of him. It worked! I did jump across the hump of his driveway at about 80ish, by some miracle the GSXR front end didn't washout on bumpy rural grass verge, ,missed a lamp post style letter box and tracked back on to highway. I could have ended up tumbling in ditch or fence but it was far better prospect than slamming into his front right quarter panel and maybe door pillar.
Govt gives you nothing because it creates nothing - Javier Milei
Hardcore Biker
Stop. You're trying way too hard now.
Coal Burning XV Rider!
Trying? Ha. It's fucked in the head, locking up a rear in a 50K zone, really, what was it a bloody Dasch'nhound!???????????????????
Every day above ground is a good day!:
Hardcore Biker
No, but there are ways to make it much more interesting.
Sent from somewhere using Tapatalk
KB's Chief Cats
rbgiafp.
well i hate to be pedantic.
especially if it would mean i appear to favour cassina, more than, say, having my nuts stapled to a cat.
but he said "in a 50 zone" not "at less than 50km/h"
you are quite correct in your observation of him being a spectacular douchebag, though.
plus at less than fifty he he would have probably had his foot out and been riidng in the drain, just incase it looked like someone might want a head-on with him.
KB's Chief Cats
oh wait. so did you
too many beersies.
Whisky Tango Foxtrot?
It sounds like the main improvement would be to react a bit quicker. When the car in front of you starts to brake then you should be on your brakes pronto.
Also - fix your mirrors, while braking hard I've often checked my mirrors in case I need to move out of the path of a following vehicle that is failing to stop in time. I don't think being rear ended is much fun while riding a motorcycle.
----------------------------------------------------
"If the cops didn't see it, I didn't do it!"
- George Carlin (RIP)
Hardcore Biker
It's easy to say that I should have reacted quicker, but that wasn't the issue. I did not, and could not, see the stationary vehicles because the vehicle in front was blocking my line of sight as I reached the crest of the hill. I was at least 2 seconds behind him which did give me time, but compounded the lack of visibility. And I started braking as soon as his brake lights came on.
That's why I posted this, because I just wasn't sure how I'd ended up in the situation.
My principal conclusion is that I should have dropped back approaching the top of the hill because I didn't have good visibility ahead. Moving to one side of the lane to help see past the car in front would have also been useful. My main mistake was to assume that I had enough time and space to stop if he did.
Yeah, I must improve the mirrors. I had checked behind coming up the hill and there was no one in sight.
KB's Chief Cats
é voila, as the franch would say in france.
Forum whore
I'm in the process of renewing my licence and (apparently) have to sit a written test. Fortunately the questions are available online so I've had a preview. Man, they have some stupid rules here...
One of the questions was on the minimum following distance, a multichoice and the options of 1, 2, or 3 full vehicle lengths. I tried converting the 2 second rule and finally decided on 2. Wrong! 1 full vehicle length!
Okay in a snarl up, but on the open road or expressway?
No wonder so many die on the roads here.
"Statistics are used as a drunk uses lampposts - for support, not illumination."
Hardcore Biker
The 2 second rule isn't actually a rule.
Just drive around Auckland if you want to see what a joke our driver licencing is.
Sent from somewhere using Tapatalk
Best Frenemy you could have!
It's a simplification of this: http://legislation.govt.nz/regulatio...resel_25_a&p=1
If you run the conversion, 2 sec is actually over the legal requirement, but easier to spread and works at variable speeds, and an increased following distance is obviously safer than less...
Realistically, I'd say you can ignore (4) as there is no way you're satisfying (1) - (3) with short following distances.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks