Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Slowing down won't kill you

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by Heli, Aug 10, 2013.

  1. #1 Heli, Aug 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2013
    Who else finds the TAC mantra so offensive to see? I thought about the campaign (still running in Victoria) when the woman driver was killed after her VW slowed and was hit by a truck, now we have a UK rider who was killed when a cager decided to take an off ramp. At least justice appears to have been served in the UK:

    Motorist who slowed to just 10mph killed motorcyclist
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Both these unfortunate accidents had nothing to do riding slow.
    The VW incident was due to mechanical failure in the car.
    The motorcycle incident was due to the rider having to brake suddenly when a car braked to use an exit ramp.
    FFS, enough of this inaccurate grandstanding.
  3. #3 TonyE, Aug 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2013
    What part of

    Preston Crown Court today heard how father of two Walsh’s low speed at the time of the impact was 'an accident waiting to happen,' and 'inviting catastrophe'.

    can't you understand. FFS learn to read.
  4. #4 mpcasey, Aug 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2013
    Engineer Mark Walsh, 43, was traveling to work on the M65 with other commuters when he suddenly slowed down to less than 10mph to take a slip road.

    The guy slowed down to a ridiculously slow speed, ridiculously quick. It's true that the VW did have a fault and that her engine siezed up which resulted in a crash. I believe the "Slowing down won't kill you" campaign to have a poor choice of words but same message.

    For anyone who has ever wondered why they push the "wipe off five" slogan so hard is because slowing down isn't 'linear' like acceleration. If you are traveling at 50km/h you don't stop in half the time as somebody traveling at 100km/h. In the equation used to calculate the time it takes to stop, your speed is squared! So 50km/h x 50km/h = 2,500 but 100km/h x 100km/h = 10,00. This is then divided by other number/vectors. So it COULD/MIGHT take 4 times longer (under all the same condition.....roughly)
  5. Wiping off 5 if you're already travelling the speed limit is actually more dangerous due to speed differentials.
  6. #6 2up, Aug 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2013
    Perhaps you should read this ...

    Motorist who slowed to just 10mph on motorway in bid to make slip road killed motorcyclist behind who lost control of his bike as he tried to brake

    This has nothing to do with the TAC mantra, the op mentions, wipe off 5 campaign.
    It was an unfortunate accident.
    More freakin' hysterical banter.
  7. If it was an unfortunate accident then why was he convicted?
  8. It comes down to what you're expecting. While on a freeway you might expect someone driving 10-20kms below the limit, driving at 10-20kms total while still on the road is dangerous. Hence the conviction. While I'm not in VIC, it seems the slowing down won't kill you slogan is focused on making people stick to the limit. Not driving like you're a snail.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Saw today on eastlink something among "Speeding drivers are the biggest killers on our roads".
  10. The way the statistics on accidents are gathered perpetuates this idea. If you are doing 50km/h in a 60 zone and you hit wildlife startled from the side of the road, the report will say speed was a factor. True if you were doing 20k you may have stopped in time.

    The problem with the TAC view that speed is the only matter to be addressed on our roads is dangerous in its own sake. It means no other problems, attention, lane changing, training, situational awareness are addressed.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. What (I think) you're not seeing is that the driver's action in slowing suddenly to a near-stop on a road with high speed traffic was thoughtless and selfish. He didn't need to do it for any emergency reason and he didn't take into account the road users around him. Nothing unfortunate about it, it could so easily have been avoided. I believe that is why he was jailed.
    The point Heli is making is that behaviour of this kind has consequences every bit as serious (or more) as going 5-10kmh over the arbitrary limits on our roads. But our policy makers don't want to acknowledge it.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Any simplistic slogan is likely to be wrong most of the time. You can't make generalisations and expect them to be universally true.
  13. Speed kills--read that as speed pays.
  14. This was an early 'Wipe off 5" campaign advert that I shot; flying at zot feet over the roofs of houses in Werribee (avoiding TV antennae became an issue!).

    However, the original message was to reduce from 5kph over the posted limit down to the posted limit which has now morphed into just reducing speed by 5kph, and another 5kph and another and another resulting in nongs doing 80kph in all lanes of a 100kph freeway "because it's safer" :arghh:

    Look at the speedo in these images, reducing from 5 over:


    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. It's been a while since 2up has come in and stirred the pot.
    Guys he was a troll in the past and is no better now.
    Just ignore him as he is "unique"
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. Now the mantra about for every 5kph increase in speed above 60kph doubling the risk of a crash comes from the University of Adelaide Accident Research Unit: the MUARC of South Australia. A 1996 study is still relied upon, even though it purports two totally conflicting claims, one for 60kph roads:


    and one for rural highways:


    So, why is there a doubling of risk on slower roads? All based upon driver reaction times plus braking distances using the lowest common denominator and poor braking distances created back in the 1960s with old technology vehicles.

    A modern vehicle (car or bike) with ABS and collision avoidance systems would significantly reduce these braking times plus give a quantum improvement in the ability of a driver or rider to avoid a collision. I strongly believe that we are now so indoctrinated by the likes of the TAC to believe the mantra that there is little chance of the UoA study ever being properly challenged, or brought into the 21st Century with proper statistics based on current vehicle capabilities.

    In fact, just checking further on the related study that justifies the claim that 5kph over 60kph doubles the risk of a collision: the formulae involved relies upon locked wheel braking with no consideration of ABS.

    Which is hardly surprising for a paper relying on studies going back as far as 1971 :(
  17. Bloody Troll,and I thought he had something to add.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. LOL.
    It always amazes me that if anyone dares to offer a different school of thought or tries to restore some balance to a debate they are immediately labelled as a troll.
    I seriously recommend that you watch the documentary "Catfish". It's a real eye opener into the world of the internet forum.
  19. The hat fits mate your history precedes you.