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.

N/A | National Wiping off 5 - actually increases risk?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by ajrider, Sep 28, 2016.

  1. So the other day whilst flicking through you tube I found a video (lost the link now grrrr) that was all about keeping right unless overtaking. (USA made flick, so equivalent of us keeping left).

    Was done by someone who always used to be the equivalent of a right lane hoger who ended up learning the effects of what he was doing and was humble enough not only to change his driving habit, but also to put out a video about it.

    The interesting part of the video was, that whilst explaining the whole keep in the slow lane unless overtaking - he mentioned the increased dangers of not doing so - and as well mentioned that independent research showed that cars doing 5mph over the average speed of other cards were causing far less risk than a car travelling at 5mph slower than the rest of the cars.

    He didn't go much further into it - but I was wondering - has anyone else heard about this independent research?

    I'm interested in seeing more of this - especially since our own government believes it's safer to "wipe off 5" and go slower than the rest of the cars around us.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Interesting, certainly goes against the states view and is more inline what most of the motorcycling community agrees with.
    Frustration of siting behind slow drivers definitely leads to people taking unneeded risks.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Certainly doing 5 under in the right lane will increase your risk because it will increase my inclination to shoot you in the face.
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. surely if everyone was wiping off 5 to go slower than cars around them. everyone would be stopped.:unsure:
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. how do you get from the gumbyments message of
    "go 5 k's under the limit when it is wet"
    "always go 5km slower than the cars around you"?
  6. When we had the 'Drop 5, save lives.' campaign, I tried it but after a fortnight I had to drive everywhere in reverse.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  7. We as motorcyclists are often expected to speed ahead of traffic and I can understand this kind of rationale with bikes. However the "wipe off 5" campaign was aimed at everyone and my theory is it was to prepare road users for lower limits overall. The safetycrats who come up with these garbage initiatives have zero idea of the real world and won't be happy til we're walking everywhere in spacesuits for our safety.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. but.. spacesuits aren't very safe at all? or is that the point? :p
  9. It is rather the point. Going slowly isn't safe either, not hitting things is safe.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. #10 oldcorollas, Sep 29, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2016
    that's the conundrum for the group of people that pay for medical costs from collisions (ie, US the taxpayers)...

    option 1 : just stop freekin hitting things
    option 2: hit things just a bit slower so it costs us all less :p

    surely option one is easier.. right?.... right? :)
    why isn't it easy?

    edit: i'm just stirring :p
    without a reasonable chance of death on the roads, riding just wouldn't be as fun :)
    we can't let the guv'mint take away our fun can we?
  11. The issue is you can fall over at 0kph and still cause serious damage or die. Speed increases the chances of injury but not by factors of ten like the advertising would have you believe. Just because the safetycrats say it doesn't make it true.
  12. interesting proposition.

    i reckon you could identify two different speeds, where for the first speed you have a statistical average of 10% chance of injury, and for the second speed a 100% chance of injury, which would thus be a 10 fold increase in the chance of injury. (or alternatively, a 1% and 10% chance, or a 3% and 30% chance)

    just falling over under the force of gravity could cause your head to impact the ground at 10-20km/hr, which is certainly fast enough to cause fatal head injuries.

    what % of all falls at 0km/hr would you say result in a 100% chance of death? coward punches not included..
  13. MotoGP riders come off at 200kmph+ with little to no injury. The amount of injury is not linked to travel speed it is linked to impact speed.Injury or death percentages can't really be linked to travel speeds as the impact speed is what matters. I can come off the bike at almost any speed and walk away if there is suitable run off area or kinetic cushioning. That said, if the right part of the skull impacts the right part of a head, the body will lose the impact lottery. Safetycrats like to believe everything is in control at all times as it simplifies their calculations.

    All that said I don't think your theory of calculation there is possible. There are too many variables, As I have mentioned, it is not just how fast you hit, but how you hit. The safetycrat however has to legislate for both the lowest common denominator and the worst case scenario, which ends with policies like wipe off 5 and towards 0.
  14. so on the road, for cars (the focus of most road safety campaigns) the worst case scenario is hitting a vehicle coming the other way at the same speed.
    in cars of similar weight and construction, that is similar to hitting a solid stationary object (but not quite as bad). ie, a collision

    the second worst case is hitting a solid stationary object with no give. ie a collision

    i think you'd be safe to say that the "safetycrats" are concerned 100% with "collisions" with solid or moving obkects, as opposed to situations were a car spins down the road and doesn't hit anything, or a rider comes off and slides down the road and doesn't hit anything, or hits a big bunch of cushions.
    as you suggest, non-collisions probably result in death at a much lower rate than collisions do.
    most people get that. all safetycrats get that.

    the point is that a "collision" at a higher speed has a statistically higher chance of injury and death than a lower speed.

    yes there are many variables, hence the use of the term/idea "statistical average chance of injury".

    calculation that takes into account those variables is certainly possible, but as with all statistics, may seem waftyto those that don't fully comprehend it (and that's ok.. same with vaccinations).
    take all real accidents at a given speed, and plot severity of injury vs number of accidents resulting in that injury severity.
    you'll end up with a probability curve, which moves with speed
    something like the below... sure it's generalised, but if "low enough" is 5km/hr, and "high enough" is 300km/hr, can you say that generalisation would not be true?
    the same curves would describe your "chance of avoiding a collision" vs speed.. harder to avoid at higher speed

    what the safetycrats wanna do is shift the curve a bit toward less injury..
    what people are really arguing is that a collision speed difference of 5km/hr doesn't shift the curve "enough".
    or more usually, that a difference of 5km/hr does not reduce the number of collisions. both are true though..

    they can't possibly want everyone to stay at home... otherwise we wouldn't be building a 12meg/s NBN :p


    btw, statistics is not calculation, it's a description of what already happens, which may allow reasonable prediction of future events.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. hmm.... a theoretical question, which situation is more "dangerous"? (in terms of overtaking, and generally)

    speed limit of 100, with 20% of people doing 100, and 80% doing 110
    speed limit of 100, with 20% of people doing 90, and 80% doing 100
    speed limit of 90, with 20% of people doing 90, and 80% doing 100?
  16. as for your original question..

    1 car on a 100km/hr highway doing 90, in a sea of cars doing 100 and having to get around them, will become dangerous due to impatient dickheads.

    1 car on a 100km/hr highway doing 100, in a sea of cars doing 110 and having to get around them, will become dangerous due to impatient dickheads.

    a sea of cars on a 100km/hr highway doing 100, with 1 car doing 110 and having to get around them, will become dangerous due to 1 impatient dickhead.

    and finally a sea of cars on a 110km/hr highway doing 100, with 1 car doing 120 and having to get around them, will become dangerous due to 1 impatient dickhead.

    there is a common theme :p

    ie, speed differential can be dangerous due to impatient dickheads.
    everyone doing the same speed flows sooo much better.

    logically, it's the minority that are doing the different speed (regardless if it is faster or slower, above or below limit) that are causing the danger, due to impatient dickheads who want to go faster, no matter the reason
    • Like Like x 2
  17. German Autobahns - slow moving vehicles use right hand lanes (trucks and buses restricted to right hand lanes only), left hand lanes drive to conditions - speeds not limited unless road conditions dicate - i.e. max 150kph. On roads with posted limits, generally a 20kmh leeway is observed by police unless driving recklessly. Loved it
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. They don't always work so well, especially with tourists :)

    But, Germans love rules and systems, whereas Aussies hate rules and systems.
    If everyone drove at speed limit rather than trying to do 5-15 over, and on multilane road slower cars stayed left...and people stopped running in to each other.. There would be no guvmint intervention :)

    If we had 200km speed.limits, or NO limits anywhere in Aus, and no-one crashed or died or was maimed.... There would be no safetycrats trying to reduce speeds to reduce the road toll :p
  19. yes there would when there's money to be had
  20. #20 ajrider, Sep 30, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2016
    The only wipe off 5 campaigns that I've seen or read about had nothing to do with it being wet. Just either "Wipe off 5" by itself, or video's of a car breaking & hitting a person at a speed, and then wiping off 5kph and breaking under the same situations. The message I got from it was if it's a 100kph zone, do 95. If it's a 60kph do 55, etc. If theres another campaign that is saying wipe off 5 only when wet, it's one that hasn't reached me yet. :)

    My original post was about hearing about a study that showed that a car doing 5mph slower than the rest of the cars around was actually creating more risk than if they were doing 5mph above. I found this interesting and would be interested in seeing the case study.

    I'm not saying that's the case - I'm saying that I found it interesting that there is apparently a study that shows this, and was asking if anyone has heard of this before and knows where I can get more information about it as I'd like to find out more information as to whether the study is credible or not.

    But I'm guessing from the replies so far no one here has heard this before?