| Author | Message | ||
     Brucelee |
Spike, Good points! Keep taking the example out. In your example, you were riding at a very prudent speed THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO REACT TO, AND STOP VERY QUICKLY. You were also riding within the legal, posted limit. Both these factors give you both moral and legal protection in my opinion. At 128 none of the above were true. One of the more interesting pieces of info here is the studies done on stopping distances with MC. The data we often see on how long it takes to stop a bike is a bit misleading for most of us. The way these data are produced is to: Take a professional rider to a closed track Have the rider attain a certain set speed Flash a red light so that he can execute his best stop. However, what critics of this method point out is: In the real world, the inputs to stopping are often less clear; that is, it often takes the rider a bit of time to ascertain that a stop is necessary and The rider often slows the bike at a less than optimal rate until later in the braking. Then he realizes that the stop requires more power. Often it is too late and the total stopping distance is way over what the tests often indicate. Then most of us don't possess the skills of the test riders although some do. These factors add up to make the REAL stopping distance much greater than the track test in MOST CASE, on the street. Now, at 25 MPH, the bike is travelling at 36.6 ft per second. At 128 the bike is traveling at 188 ft per second. And so on. The braking distance at 128 is not five times the rate of 25 , but as I understand it, is about 10 times. To me, this does not add up to being responsible at 128 but again, it is presented as food for though. Aside from the law, the rest of this is subjective indeed. However, I would posit that if you were involved in a civil case and your lawyer was trying to point out that 128 was not reckless and irresponsible, I would posit that he would lose. Not so with the 25 example you cite. I think you would win that case. What do you think? | ||
| Light_keeper |
I guess I am safe because my Blast won't do 128. Not even close.  I do wish all of you a very Merry Christmas Happy New year and a happy holiday as well. ( I know I lost sight of PC )  I do not wish harm on anyone and Let us remember those that have past on from this board for what ever reason MC related or illness.  | ||
| Buelluk |
Carman didn't get off entirely. He was fined $300 for expired tags and other violations Boohoo for him ...I just got fined $145 in NYS for 70 in a 55 , with no other violations.... the fine was actually $90 plus $55 surcharge , does anyone know what this 'surcharge' bullshiat in NYS is ? (Message edited by buelluk on December 13, 2005) | ||
| Thunderbox |
I don't really know about NY but here in Saskatchewan it covers court costs and the rest goes to a fund for victims of crime. Go figure the traffic violators have to pay for crime victims. Why not levy heavy fines to the criminals and make them pay for there own victims. | ||
| Oldog |
Spike are you being sited for reckless? | ||
| Spike |
No, but it appeared that the potential for injury was the factor that made speed reckless. I wanted to point out that the injury was possible without high speed. For what it's worth- the pedestrian (who was cited for jaywalking) has called the offices of James Scott Farrin (no joke, the corny guy from TV) and is seeking compensation from my insurance company. | ||
| Ryker77 |
rocketmanWhat you seem to be missing is 'that' bike traveling at 128 mph is only doing so until the brakes are applied. You can't simply say stopping from 128 mph takes so many feet per second - based on what formula? After the first second has passed you are not doing 128 mph any longer. That means you are now slowing from a figure 1 second slower than 128 mph. You can't say it takes so many feet per second because with every moment in time the distance is getting shorter and the speed slower. Sure you can attempt to put in an average stopping distance but that can only be based on research from testing the motorcycle or you're just guessing. I never once posted about the rate of braking in FPS. I simply show that at 128mph you are moving at 187 feet per second. So in the time it takes for you to notice a possible dangerous sitution and then to BEGIN to apply the brakes you will have covered 90-180 feet at which point your still moving at 128mph and the stopping begins. If you apply 100% braking effort and all goes perfect you will still need 200+ feet to stop plus the 90-180 feet you traveled before you even began to use the brakes. My point is that with higher speeds takes greater distances to stop. If you don't have the distance between you and the object then you crash. | ||
| Oldog |
Are you serious?, did you fall in the incedent? that is kinda sick..... yes If you or your loved ones have been exposed to ....... ..... Call the law offices of J SucksALott You may be entitled to ........... after we get a nice wad! pay attention to events there spike, Oh and MerryChristmas ..... | ||
| Spike |
It was quite sick, I felt like I could have thrown up. This is the first accident I've ever been in where an ambulance was needed. I stayed on the bike, it really wasn't that hard of an impact. I stoppied right into him, I think he would have been fine if he hadn't hit his head on the ground. I'm still frustrated by it. I've yet to be in an accident with another person/vehicle that I considered to be avoidable. It's always been me getting rear ended with no escape route or getting hit when the other driver runs a red light at an intersection with limited visibility. I reacted as quickly as I could in this case. | ||
| Ryker77 |
Spike, I assume that since the guy was cited for jaywalking then the law is sorta on your side. As long as you don't admit to speeding, if you were. Then the guy chose to step out into traffic. Thats the purpose of cross walks and the jay walking laws. So that car/bikes can travel down the road at the speed limit without worring so much about foot traffic. I doubt any lawyers would take the case. Unless you have a very large insurance policy or $$$$$. | ||
| Oldog |
Responsibility is a 2 way thing spike, I gather that he "Jwalked" and might have had his back to you. Odd that "he" did not hear the drummer on your sled. | ||
| Rocketman |
What pisses me off about the ones who want to ride slower than the fast guys is, they always want to brand speeding as reckless. Those that do speed are irresponsible, or squids or whatever in their eyes, and they always need to let us that ride fast know that. Oh yeah, and apparently it's only a matter of time before the fast guys check out. Truth is, no make that fact is, if you don't ride a motorcycle fast YOU are the riders more at risk of injury or death. Yeah go on, have a good laugh. Now listen up and learn. Ride a bike often and fast and fast and often and you will be a better rider for it. If you don't ever ride fast you'll never be in control of the bike you're riding, nor will your mind be tuned in. Likewise your actions / reactions to your riding environment will be lacking accordingly. As for those of us that ride fast. We don't go around preaching to those that don't. So listen preachers. Go put another nail in the coffin of motorcycling with your big mouths and your lack of riding experience. That way we're all sure to put ourselves at more risk. If I die riding and riding fast, if anyone dare say 'I told you so' or 'it was only a matter of time', I'll come back and f**king haunt you.  Rocket | ||
| Brucelee |
Spike. It sounds to me like you were riding very responsibly. If I were you, I would console myself with that fact. Your conscience should be clear. The legal issues are of course, in the hands of the lawyers. Good luck bro! | ||
| Brucelee |
"The NHTSA study found that 41% of motorcyclists in fatal crashes were speeding, that almost half who died in single vehicle crashes were driving under the influence of alcohol, and that almost one in six motorcycle riders were driving without a valid license" | ||
| Kdan |
But how many of them were red? | ||
| M2nc |
I never said that 128mph was responsible, just not necessarily reckless. If I am going down a straight road at 128mph with clear fields on each side, then I can see anything that I will have to stop for long before I get there. A small rabbit or cat I may miss, but I will not stop for that. A deer will be spotted a mile away, literally. Now in city central, I have to agree it would be reckless. I've been 120+ on four bikes, three Buells and a Honda. My vision was never blurred by a shaking head. The bikes have never swerved or wondered off point, I've even taken curves at that speed and the bikes were always well behaved. I do not know everyone's experience for these speeds, but Brucelee's description of riding at 120+ does not match my experience. One thing for sure though, if you do not feel comfortable at speed in a cage or scooter, don't do it. Always ride your own ride. Though I did make a couple of quarter mile passes on my favorite back road drag strip with the Uly which topped 120mph, I have not come close to those speeds since. I really ride at speeds of 80mph or less. I agree with Rocket on the point that riding fast does give the experience needed to do it. Also riding faster than traffic around you (5-10mph) is the safest speed to be traveling in traffic. I regularly use the throttle to find the biggest hole in traffic. On the flip side, if cars are piled up behind a 55mph driver in the left lane and I have no one behind me, I actually fall back and let the cages work it out. Spike, Dave has two neighbors that found each other one night a few months back. One was drunk and "walking", more like staggering, the other in a Ford F150 running 55mph. The drunk neighbor live, the alcohol probably saved him, though he earned a helicopter ride to the hospital. It took several days before the driver of the truck would drive again. It mentally messed him up. The drunk neighbor was sited for jay walking and could be held liable for the damage to the truck. Neither neighbor is interested in legal action and both are glad that everyone lived and will recover fully. It is normal to feel guilty when someone else gets hurt. It just shows that you are a good person. But in the state on NC, unless you are in a cross walk with the light (if one is there), the car has the right a way. Its like aircrafts and ships, the least maneuverable vehicle has right a way. The person can actually out maneuver the car because he is traveling at a slower speed and can stop and change directions faster than a car. Don't blame yourself. | ||
| Thunderbox |
Rocketman said "if you don't ride a motorcycle fast YOU are the riders more at risk of injury or death." What a bunch of hogwash. I have never heard such jibberish as this. I was trying to understand your reasoning until you came up with this little ditty. So the only way to become a proficient rider is to drive fast, period. Hmmmmm I'll have to keep that in mind. Wow. In reference to slower riders "Go put another nail in the coffin of motorcycling with your big mouths and your lack of riding experience." You may well be an excellent rider with great skill, acute vision, quick reflexes, superior balance, unsurpassed gut intuition and nerves of steel but you have demonstrated no superiority in the mental department and you certainly know nothing about my riding experience and the experience of many others here on the BWB. I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with the coaching or instruction of any new rider who may wish to join the sport. You have a dangerous attitude. That is sad because a good attitude is the most important quality a rider can have. Nothing will serve a motorcyclist better than a good attitude. The haunting threat demonstrates the maturity level we are dealing with. It is not what one expects from an responsible adult. I know I will take flack for this post but I will not stand pat and listen to total junk without making commentary. | ||
| Brucelee |
Nicely said TB. To me, it is simply a matter of physics when one rides a MC. SOMETHING will stop you, your brakes, the road, another car. If I am going 28, physics are on my side. If I am doing 128, well, I better have a will made out. As the speed goes up, the price to pay goes up. I certainly speed (legal def., exceeding the speed limit). Normally, this is about 10 over but of course I do go higher. I simply think anyone who does not acknowledge the danger of doing a speed such as 128 ANYWHERE is fooling themselves. But, as I said, I think the rider should free to take this risk as long as he has the responsibilities handled, ie, willing to pay ticket, do jail time, loss of bike, compensate his victims (if there are any), face the victims families, pay for medical costs, face your family, etc. Hopefully, this thread has outlived its usefullness, if it ever had any. Thanks | ||
| Ryker77 |
If I am going down a straight road at 128mph with clear fields deer are hard to see in a field ---and for sure those little north Carolina deer are even harder to see on each side, then I can see anything that I will have to stop it might not be a stop but something to avoidfor long before I get there. A small rabbit or cat I may miss, but I will not stop for that. A deer will be spotted a mile away, literally. I've seen too many deer dead on the side of the road to believe that. Those crazy deer will even run into the side of a car! You know what I am done preaching about tripple digits speeds on a road. If people can't understand how fast 180 feet per second is. They should measure it. Then if in real life you see how far your 128mph bike will travel before you even notice or begin to respond to an possible sitution. I spent many months in rehab and had two surgeries, plate in my arm, and daily back pain and sure wish I had just a few more feet when I needed to avoid that car. --- 99% of what rocketman said is bull. But I do agree fully that if you just put around then you don't know the limits of yourself or the bike. Now I don't suggest tripple digit speeding. But when I ride my bike I'll pick out a power pole or sign and try and stop before I reach it. I've got to learn how to ride err brake my x1. I was able to stop my BMW super quick -- but ABS is sorta cheating.} | ||
| Spike |
I don't think anyone is arguing that 128mph isn't fast. The argument is that the speed alone does not constitute recklessness. Plenty of lethal crashes happen at speeds as slow as 50fps, yet society has decided that it's perfectly safe and responsible for my 80 year old grandmother to operate her 10 year old Dodge at well over 100fps. In the right surroundings we've licensed certain vehicles to carry passengers at over 800fps. We also deem it safe to put passengers in vehicles that travel over 100fps and take more than a mile to make a complete stop. How then can we say with certainty that 180fps is too fast regardless of the conditions or surroundings? | ||
| Ryker77 |
society has decided that it's perfectly safe and responsible for my 80 year old grandmother to operate her 10 year old Dodge at well over 100fps. on the interstate with all other cars doing around the same speed and with limited access-- ie no driveways just on ramps In the right surroundings we've licensed certain vehicles to carry passengers at over 800fps. planes that use thousands of feet of runway that has been fenced offWe also deem it safe to put passengers in vehicles that travel over 100fps and take more than a mile to make a complete stop. but each train crossing has lights and crossings. also trains aren't effected by road hazards How then can we say with certainty that 180fps is too fast regardless of the conditions or surroundings? 180 feet per second is real easy. dogs, cats, snakes, racoons, deer, kids, cars, driveways, postman, school bus, dirt, oil, sand, blown tires, trash, birds.. you see on the road there are many hazards that a track doesn't have. But I do see where you are getting at. I've driven a car in AZ and southern cali. And those roads are straight for miles. But you know at the end of one of those roads it came to a T intersection. You'd be suprised at how many skid marks there were and how beat up that section of the bank was. even of a dead straight road people failed to see that it came to an END. Just ride safe and enjoy life and may the good Lord be on your shoulder when that deer pops out of the field at 130mph. | ||
| Thunderbox |
I didn't know deer could run that fast. LMAO | ||
| Brucelee |
" How then can we say with certainty that 180fps is too fast regardless of the conditions or surroundings?" There are no certainties in life, only dying. However, there are probabilities. I am wondering, what is the probability that if I go off my bike at 128 I can survive? I think the chance of that is zero but I am not willing to be the data point in the study! | ||
| Loki |
Can we put this to bed and let it go. | ||
| Buellfighter |
Now hold on Loki, this thread has come to be a great source of amusement for me. We should probably not interfere...now where were we? | ||
| Cruisin |
I don't think a single person has said that 128mph isn't dangerous or that nothing can happen at that speed. It's just being pointed out that the police did not provide enough data to prove that 128mph in that location was RECKLESS. I know the highway near me has six foot fencing to prevent animals of problematic size from getting on the road. How do we know this wasn't a straight stretch of fenced off road? Is the person a local? They probably know the road pretty well and are comfortable with its layout (and are well aware of any ramps/turns/etc) to be comfortable at that speed. There may be several favorable conditions that make it acceptable to go that speed at that location. Safe - probably not - but when is motorcycling ever really SAFE! | ||
| Rocketman |
So the only way to become a proficient rider is to drive fast, period. Just so's you're not mistaken again I said Ride a bike often and fast and fast and often and you will be a better rider for it. If you don't ever ride fast you'll never be in control of the bike you're riding, nor will your mind be tuned in. Likewise your actions / reactions to your riding environment will be lacking accordingly. The basis of such a comment is simple. Which is the rider I'd consider overall more capable of controlling their (powerful) machine in a more able manner? That in my book would be the rider who's more experienced at ALL levels of riding proficiency. If a rider seldom speeds they quite simply aren't experience enough to do so. As such their riding skills are not in tune with their ability to open the throttle wide nor their capability of what to do when having done so they find themselves out of their depth and not knowing how, because of lack of experience, what to do next to get them out of danger (for example). So you'd have been better saying So the only way to become a totally proficient rider is to sometimes drive fast. I note with interest that Bruce is quick to point out that speeding is a major factor amongst motorcycle deaths. That statistic is also a little misleading. We can break that statistic down further to gain more accurate information from it by determining the age of the speeding riders killed. The majority will be the young and the older 'born again' bikers. THOSE LACKING EXPERIENCE. You may well be an excellent rider with great skill, acute vision, quick reflexes, superior balance, unsurpassed gut intuition and nerves of steel but you have demonstrated no superiority in the mental department and you certainly know nothing about my riding experience and the experience of many others here on the BWB. Oh hold on there, one thing at a time please. True, true, true, true, true, true and true. I do know, as it happens, a little about some of the BadWeB riders skills actually. I've ridden with plenty of them through six countries, over two continents and one world record salt flat. Taken in the Rocky Mountains and the Alps too, all in the company of BadWeBers and Buells. And you? I sincerely hope you have nothing to do with the coaching or instruction of any new rider who may wish to join the sport. You have a dangerous attitude. That is sad because a good attitude is the most important quality a rider can have. Nothing will serve a motorcyclist better than a good attitude. A good attitude is a great thing to have but experience will ALWAYS serve a motorcyclist better. What gives you the call on me having a dangerous attitude? I'd rather be taught by the most experienced rider rather than the safety conscious one. The haunting threat demonstrates the maturity level we are dealing with. It is not what one expects from an responsible adult. Ah come on. I just don't want people saying 'I told you so'. The point is, even the most experienced and responsible can 'shake a seven' - even when going slow. I know I will take flack for this post but I will not stand pat and listen to total junk without making commentary. No flack, but I'll argue my point, more so if I believe I can get something across to you. Come to Yorkshire and I guarantee you'll enjoy the fast ride. Rocket | ||
| Rocketman |
However, there are probabilities. I am wondering, what is the probability that if I go off my bike at 128 I can survive? Barry Sheene did twice, and at much faster than 128mph. More recently, June 2004, Shinya Nakano crashed at the Italian MotoGP doing 200 mph down the main straight. He was bruised only! Rocket | ||
| Brucelee |
One of the problems with this dialog is that we fail to define terms or we use them interchangeably. For example: Fast=what speed? Speed=how fast? To me, speeding is a legally derived word. If the posted limit is 60 and I do 61, I am speeding from a legal point of view. Thus the 128 is clearly speeding. In my book, it is also "fast" but then again there is no precise definition for fast. I guess my position would be that if Rocket asserts that one must ride at speeds in the area of 128 in order to perfect his riding skills, then I think that statement is dead wrong as far as it goes. It would be correct to state that to ride WELL at 128, one must practice at 128. However, that is circular logic and has no end. To ride at 150 etc. To wit, if I never ride above say 85, I would like to see the references that indicated that I need to ride at say 128 to make me a better rider at that 85 max I ride. Make sense? | ||
| Brucelee |
"Barry Sheene did twice, and at much faster than 128mph. More recently, June 2004, Shinya Nakano crashed at the Italian MotoGP doing 200 mph down the main straight. He was bruised only! " Two points. Citing two examples does not explain the probabilities. There have been a few skydivers who survive a chute not opening but the vast majority of them don't. Moreover, citing professional riders on a race circuit is not what we discussing. We are discussing street riding at 128. I have NO issue at all with pro racers doing these speeds as their occupation. The risks are known and contained. |
