Annual road toll up 44

[TheDemonLord]

Unfortunately bikes are different to cars, they don't have cages around the riders to absorb impact.

A fuck up at 80km/h, 100km/h or 110km/h it's extremely serious, when your dealing with accident at those speeds the risk of death is very high and you would be hard pressed to show a meaningful real world example of where you walk away from one and would not have walked away from the other. In some cases the higher speed may have changed the dynamics and become survivable.

Unlike cars, a riders ability to absorb impact is very limited, the 100km/h vrs 110km/h has no real world influence on that. If you end up sliding down the road your survival is not dependent on 100km/h vrs 110km/h. It's the interaction of you and the road surface and how that energy is distributed. I'm much more concerned about being run over or my bike catching up with me that an extra 10ft slide.

The problem with text books is that the real world is full of dynamics yet to be introduced into your 5th form physics class. You need to construct real world scenarios where a rider would have survived had they been traveling at 100km/h vrs 110km/h. For each one of those scenarios your could construct a scenario where had they been traveling at the higher 110km/h they would have survived - not been run over or hit the road at a different angle, or missed an object etc.

My original point was that for a rider 100km/h vrs 110km/hwould make little difference to a riders outcome. Unfortunately once you are traveling at speed survivability for a rider depends on factors that have a much greater influence than the speed does.

The golden rule of speed on a motorcycle is "Can you stop in the distance you see to be clear". Traveling at 100km/h on a bike carries the same risk as traveling 110km/h on a bike in terms of rider outcome. Once your dead your dead.

If this is too much to take in so be it.

Okay so you want examples:

a Rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a combination of cracking 3 ribs, shattered wrist and sliding along the road
Same scenario run at 110 kph, all other factors about the fall are the same, except now the 20% increase in energy causes a punctured lung, 4 cracked ribs, a shattered wrist and ruptured Ulnar artery and sliding along the road - the Rider bleeds to death before the ambulance could arrive.

A rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a slide of 50 m (from the ADAC leather slide test), Rider gets up, dusts himself off and walks away
A rider falls off at 110 kph - all other factors are the same, but the 20% increase in energy means he slides for an extra 10 meters - into the oncoming lane and underneath a truck - Dead.

I could keep going - but the stark reality is - at the start of the crash, Energy has to go somewhere, and an increase initially energy means more has to be done to dissipate it and all other factors being equal, that 20% increase in energy could be the difference between life and death.

[Tazz]

And more people means more accidents and Cheaper fuel means more people on the road to cause more accidents - its a flow on effect, the inverse is also true restricted availibility of fuel means less people on the road, less people means less accidents.

No it doesn't actually. There were more deaths with less populous on the road in the past...I even linked that.

[bogan]

Cars, Bikes, US spy drones - Energy does not care what you are on/in

An extra 10ft slide could easily make a difference, depending on the factors and environment



But as you attested earlier - its not just speed - Right? it depends on the angle of impact etc. etc. - you keep missing the wood for the trees that small changes in speed result in a bigger change in energy - energy which has to go somewhere - whether it is a slide down the road with little to no injuries, or straight into a brick wall for a fatal accident - All other factors being equal a higher speed means more energy



We'll keep going back to it until you can grasp the principles of speed and energy, how they are related and how they play a part in impacts, once done we can move onto 6th form Physics to start working out impulse and momentum (which also have a key part to play in accidents)

Not quite correct, energy in bike/car accident, goes aha, Imma get all up in this biker and wreck his shit.

Difference between wheeee, and wheeeeeeee?

Ah, but what are you going to hit? 10kmhr bike energy increase is about the same as a 1kmhr car increase init; there lies my justification for bikes being exempt from the plod's 1kmhr speed tolerance shit.

Yeh, 6th form time, your 10% increase in speed is easily negated (and then some) but finding some soft lardarse to crash into instead of tree.

[Tazz]

Your wasting your time on this one Tazz, it is another 5th form economics example. Last week it was a simplified 5th form physics model being used to explain road fatalities.

Yeah it's looking that way. I don't even really care that much about it all, but you know, teach a sheeple to fish and all that

Happy New Year anyway man! Hope you're out and about rocking the new gears as much as you can

[TheDemonLord]

No it doesn't actually. There were more deaths with less populous on the road in the past...I even linked that.

2 things with this - in the past, could it be that in the past there were less safety equipment fitted to cars which meant crashes which are now survivable were fatal in the passed (one of the points I also originally raised)?!?

Secondly: Hang on - you said and agreed:

If there are more people on the road then yes there is more of a chance of an accident but not because there is more people per se, it is because there are just more fuckups.

So now you are disagreeing with yourself?

[Tazz]

2 things with this - in the past, could it be that in the past there were less safety equipment fitted to cars which meant crashes which are now survivable were fatal in the passed (one of the points I also originally raised)?!?

Secondly: Hang on - you said and agreed:



So now you are disagreeing with yourself?

I'm saying fuckups (which is a very long list) cause accidents, not the amount of people. Pretty clear.

Wasn't the last death for the 'holiday season' a single car accident into a pole? Price of gas or 120 extra cars on the road in his district cut his brake lines or something?

[BlackSheepLogic]

Happy New Year anyway man! Hope you're out and about rocking the new gears as much as you can

Thanks Tazz, hope you are also out and about on the bike.

[haydes55]

Energy of a car at 100km/h is 10x higher than a motorbike at 100km/h. (Mass is 10x higher, just an easy number).



A moment of impact would be somewhere around about 0.4 seconds (guestimate). Any persons in the car will decelerate at the same speed.



A motorbike will decelerate in a shorter time (no crumple zones), however the rider will most often decelerate over a period of up to 10 seconds, the majority of bike Vs. Car accidents, the rider goes over the car or glances down the side of the car.



Going by physics, shouldn't the energy dissipated by a rider be at least 20x less than a driver of a car suffers in a same speed crash?



That would suggest, the best way to reduce motorbike fatalities would be to stop giving motorcyclists an abrupt stop? Less trees near corners, give drain pipes rounded covers, angle curbing etc.



EDIT: To further ad to this, as soon as an accident occurs, the only weight that matters is that of the rider, so do the mass X velocity squared of the rider and gear alone. Would you rather be 1,500kg going 100km/h or 90kg going 120km/h?

Physics can prove motorbikes are safer than cars too

[TheDemonLord]

I'm saying fuckups (which is a very long list) cause accidents, not the amount of people. Pretty clear.

Wasn't the last death for the 'holiday season' a single car accident into a pole? Price of gas or 120 extra cars on the road in his district cut his brake lines or something?

Not a long list at all:

3

Environmental
Mechanical
Human

if we increase the number of people on the road, we increase the likelyhood that someone will have an accident (the human factor) - as for the last comment: if there were a 120 extra cars on the road - he might have hit one of them instead of the pole and then it would be a double fatality, or if the price of fuel was too high, he wouldn't have gone for a drive.

[TheDemonLord]

Energy of a car at 100km/h is 10x higher than a motorbike at 100km/h. (Mass is 10x higher, just an easy number).

A moment of impact would be somewhere around about 0.4 seconds (guestimate). Any persons in the car will decelerate at the same speed.

A motorbike will decelerate in a shorter time (no crumple zones), however the rider will most often decelerate over a period of up to 10 seconds, the majority of bike Vs. Car accidents, the rider goes over the car or glances down the side of the car.

Going by physics, shouldn't the energy dissipated by a rider be at least 20x less than a driver of a car suffers in a same speed crash?

That would suggest, the best way to reduce motorbike fatalities would be to stop giving motorcyclists an abrupt stop? Less trees near corners, give drain pipes rounded covers, angle curbing etc.

That the best way to reduce all fatalities - lengthen the time period of the impulse - but yes better road design would go a long way.

for the physics side - I think the problem there is that the rider only had himself and his safety gear to dissipate the energy, whereas the car driver has things that will dissipate it for him (airbags for example)

There is also an equation for something to do with the distance over which an object accelerates that has something to do with it (so my armour in my leathers is about 10-20 mm thick, compared to an airbag which is about 400 mm deep when fully inflated) but I can't remember it.

[Tazz]

Not a long list at all:

3

Environmental
Mechanical
Human

if we increase the number of people on the road, we increase the likelyhood that someone will have an accident (the human factor) - as for the last comment: if there were a 120 extra cars on the road - he might have hit one of them instead of the pole and then it would be a double fatality, or if the price of fuel was too high, he wouldn't have gone for a drive.

With extra 120 cars he would have been stuck in traffic and there would have been no crash at all.

I can woulda, coulda, shoulda too, and it still don't mean jack

As for not many, we know you like to simplify things, but it is not one single thing that causes a accident and not a single thing you can graph saying that caused it.

Has kinda headed into 'guns kills people vs people kill people' territory.
I'm happy living without fear that low petrol prices are going to kill me anyway....

[TheDemonLord]

With extra 120 cars he would have been stuck in traffic and there would have been no crash at all.

True that.

I can woulda, coulda, shoulda too, and it still don't mean jack

It's fun isn't it

As for not many, we know you like to simplify things, but it is not one single thing that causes a accident and not a single thing you can graph saying that caused it.

That one I actually took from crash investigators - the 3 categories for any crash (Environment - weather, road, road surface etc. Mechanical - something breaking etc. Human - Us making poor decisions) pretty sure it is also used as the framework for Aircraft accident investigation - of course there are a myriad of sub factors, but all can be classed into one of the above catogaries

Has kinda headed into 'guns kills people vs people kill people' territory.

Agreed

I'm happy living without fear that low petrol prices are going to kill me anyway....

I will too

[Tazz]

True that.



It's fun isn't it



That one I actually took from crash investigators - the 3 categories for any crash (Environment - weather, road, road surface etc. Mechanical - something breaking etc. Human - Us making poor decisions) pretty sure it is also used as the framework for Aircraft accident investigation - of course there are a myriad of sub factors, but all can be classed into one of the above catogaries



Agreed



I will too

Well that's interesting. If you lost traction in the rain surely it would be environment, mechanical and human error, predominantly human and environment that cause the crash. Just say weather did it alone is quite a narrow view. I guess they say speed is always killing us nevermind any other factors so it kinda lines up with official logic.

Schweet!
For a bit of fun if I happen upon anyone electrocuted by getting bread out of the toaster with a knife, bread that they bought while on special, I'll make sure it ends up on the news regarding food prices and food safety in Clives honour

[BlackSheepLogic]

for the physics side - I think the problem there is that the rider only had himself and his safety gear to dissipate the energy, whereas the car driver has things that will dissipate it for him (airbags for example)

There is also an equation for something to do with the distance over which an object accelerates that has something to do with it (so my armour in my leathers is about 10-20 mm thick, compared to an airbag which is about 400 mm deep when fully inflated) but I can't remember it.

I think the problem here is that your confused about the differences between a motorcycle and a car.

Cars do quite a good job of containing there occupants and therefore have very sophisticated technology to try and protect those occupants. The design of riding gear is largely based on the assumption that the rider will be separated from the bike. In a motorcycle accident where the Bike & Rider remained one there is a very very poor outcome - Not survivable at speeds far less than 100Km/h.

[unstuck]

Electricity can cook a mans dinner, and it can also cook the man.