Stats Stats and More Stats

**wkid_one** · 6th August 2004, 11:55

Originally Posted by scumdog

Wellll, sure they PROBABLY weren't doing over a 100k but it is still speed related, to put in the proviso "inappropriate" is splitting hairs a bit, the crash still involved excess speed (as the corner had a real big 45k advisory sign).

Maybe the statistic guys should have a section labelled "Speed in excess of the legal limit on that section of road" - that would make it a bit clearer.

Here is where you are wrong - that big 45kph sign is NOT a legal limit for that corner. It is an advised speed based on the safest speed for ANY vehicle to negotiate the corner - it therefore caters to the lowest common denominator of vehicle expected to take the corner.

**riffer** · 6th August 2004, 12:08

Originally Posted by wkid_one

What we also have to put in to perspective is that there are only somewhere between 3600-4000 registered bikes out there. This figure hasn't been growing too rapidly either.

Originally Posted by Hitcher

So this auspicious web site represents the views of between one-third or one-quarter of the registered bikers in New Zealand? Woo hoo!

You need to also take into account that some of the members on this site have more than one motorcycle. Could be representative of even more than a third!

**jrandom** · 6th August 2004, 12:18

Are you sure about that number? It seems ridiculously low. I would have thought the number of bikes on the road in NZ was at least ten times that.

**scumdog** · 6th August 2004, 12:19

Originally Posted by wkid_one

Here is where you are wrong - that big 45kph sign is NOT a legal limit for that corner. It is an advised speed based on the safest speed for ANY vehicle to negotiate the corner - it therefore caters to the lowest common denominator of vehicle expected to take the corner.

I (of all people) am quite aware the 45k sign was not a speed restriction sign but it is a bloody good hint that the corner is a tad more than a slight deviation in an otherwise straight road and as such maybe speed should be reduced a little - in this case it was not, whether the two were playing "catch-up" to the rest, racing or whatever, their speed was too much for the corner.

Actually the pair had already negotiated a couple of equally tight corners within 150 metres or so of the crash so it is not like they had just run off a long straight into the bend, (they were right hand bends so maybe they "straightened" them a bit? :sly

**James Deuce** · 6th August 2004, 12:29

Originally Posted by scumdog

I (of all people) am quite aware the 45k sign was not a speed restriction sign but it is a bloody good hint that the corner is a tad more than a slight deviation in an otherwise straight road and as such maybe speed should be reduced a little - in this case it was not, whether the two were playing "catch-up" to the rest, racing or whatever, their speed was too much for the corner.

Actually the pair had already negotiated a couple of equally tight corners within 15 metres or so of the crash, they were right hand bends so maybe they "straightened" them a bit? :sly:

You have a good point, and the other cornering methodology that gives me the "proverbials" is people that take right hand corners with their wheels on the centre line.

I use the right hand side of the lane for lefties, and the left hand side for righties and apex late, as this gives me better sightlines through corners, and somewhere to go when someone coming the other way stuffs up. A case in point last week was the rider of the yellow Ducati last weekend on the 'takas who was riding by centre line braille and missed me by inches, only because I had room to adjust my line. If I'd been a truck, his head and upper body would have disintegrated like a rotten watermelon against my grill.

**spudchucka** · 6th August 2004, 12:33

Originally Posted by wkid_one

Is that speed - or poor cornering/skill?

The report is labelled Speed deemed 'inappropriate' for the situation - not excess speed.

Why did they lose control? Would they have maintained control had they been going a little slower?

If the answer is yes then speed in the circumstances was a contributing factor.

**Hitcher** · 6th August 2004, 12:34

Originally Posted by Jim2

I use the right hand side of the lane for lefties, and the left hand side for righties and apex late.

Textbook, mate. And pretty to watch.

**scumdog** · 6th August 2004, 12:47

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Why did they lose control? Would they have maintained control had they been going a little slower?

If the answer is yes then speed in the circumstances was a contributing factor.

Yep S.C., if the truck hadn't been there these guys MIGHT have made it with less body damage, (they were down before hitting the truck), if the truck was not there they would have hit the armco on the wrong side of the road anyway.

If they had been going a bit slower they most likely would still be around - although i have reservations on that as the surviving rider had already had an "off" a couple of hours earlier on an even windier road.

MD · 6th August 2004, 13:15

Originally Posted by scumdog

Funny that one about speed not being a factor in m'bike crashes...Bend had 45k advisory sign, 6 other bikes had just got around it ok but these two were prety much on the centre line when they went down, second guy had tons of time to react too. (his bike hit the bumper)
No oil./rain/ice in the factor either.

As much as I hate to admit it Scumdog's shot us all down in flames. There are only 2 reasons for a crash in a corner; lost traction- oil/shingle..or too fast to turn e.g. corner tightens up more than expected. I'm as guilty as sin. Love cornering just like most riders. Straight line speed hasn't caused crashes because we have our eyes peeled ahead for the slightest risk and slow at the first sign of another car miles ahead or so much as a mouse at the roadside.
Haven't got that luxury of seeing ahead when cornering. We can't hide from the truth, corners are dangerous for all vehicles, its just that they are fun on a bike.

**wkid_one** · 6th August 2004, 13:21

Originally Posted by Mark Dunn

As much as I hate to admit it Scumdog's shot us all down in flames. There are only 2 reasons for a crash in a corner; lost traction- oil/shingle..or too fast to turn e.g. corner tightens up more than expected. I'm as guilty as sin. Love cornering just like most riders. Straight line speed hasn't caused crashes because we have our eyes peeled ahead for the slightest risk and slow at the first sign of another car miles ahead or so much as a mouse at the roadside.
Haven't got that luxury of seeing ahead when cornering. We can't hide from the truth, corners are dangerous for all vehicles, its just that they are fun on a bike.

Extremely arguable point here. Did they lose crash because they were going too fast - or didn't have the correct skills? They are only looking at whether the speed was fitting to the conditions. NOT the riders skill level etc.

Re the tightening up - is that the riders fault - or the LTSA's fault for not correctly sign posting the corner? Is it speeds fault?

The report is basically saying - speed is involved where it is deemed to be excessive/unsafe for the situation/conditions.

You could then argue any accident is due to speed, unless something hits it, as a stationary object hits nothing.

We have had this discussion before - at the end of the day - these are the reports the the governing bodies legislate by

**Lou Girardin** · 8th August 2004, 16:27

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Why did they lose control? Would they have maintained control had they been going a little slower?

If the answer is yes then speed in the circumstances was a contributing factor.

Using that reasoning, which the LTSA do, speed is a factor in damn near every accident.

The latest Bike magazine has a good article on exactly this tactic being used in the UK. If you're going to blame speed as a killer it is necessary to have a higher percentage than the correct 7.3%. So they include other factors; such as, aggressive driving, interaction or competition with other road users, inexperience of the vehicle. Then voila, you have 33% of accidents caused by excessive speed.

**KATWYN** · 8th August 2004, 16:32

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Using that reasoning, which the LTSA do, speed is a factor in damn near every accident.

.

80% attitude 20% skill - To mention the source -I learnt this at a "street talk" workshop. (the LTSA workshop that cuts 6 months off your restricted
licence so you can get your full)

Its attitude behind the wheel that seems to determine a heck of a lot.

Agro

Calm

**spudchucka** · 8th August 2004, 21:07

Originally Posted by wkid_one

Extremely arguable point here. Did they lose crash because they were going too fast - or didn't have the correct skills? They are only looking at whether the speed was fitting to the conditions. NOT the riders skill level etc.

I'm hesitating before posting much in this thread because I don't want to be accused of starting another bloody speed, bikers versus the police / LTSA etc thread - BUT is not the drivers / riders skills part of the "conditions". Are the riders skills not relevant to the road conditions and vice versa. If they did not have the skills to go THAT fast in THAT corner under THOSE conditions and they subsequently lost control, crashed and killed themselves or another person then can you not reasonably say that speed, relevant to all the conditions, (including the riders skill level) was a contributing factor?? Bearing in mind that skill level is a subjective element that cannot really be measured especially if the rider has snuffed it as a consequence of the crash!!!!!

**spudchucka** · 8th August 2004, 21:14

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Using that reasoning, which the LTSA do, speed is a factor in damn near every accident.

The latest Bike magazine has a good article on exactly this tactic being used in the UK. If you're going to blame speed as a killer it is necessary to have a higher percentage than the correct 7.3%. So they include other factors; such as, aggressive driving, interaction or competition with other road users, inexperience of the vehicle. Then voila, you have 33% of accidents caused by excessive speed.

I don't really give a stuff about numbers supplied by the LTSA or any overseas agency. As I see it motorists sometimes lose control of their vehicles. They do so for a large number of reasons, one of which is speed, regardless of whether it is above or below the posted speed limit or if it results in a fatality or not it is still a contributing factor in many crashes. If those motorists who have lost control were driving slower then they probably would have maintained control and the crash would not have happened or the consequences may not have been as severe.