My Crash, limited time viewing now

[aschendel]

No the camera doesnt pic up led brake lights well, has something to do with the frequency of the leds and the frame rate of the camera. They were solid to the human eye.

ah, that's good to know, i was trying to figure out what was the deal with the light and with the talk of slowing down as i couldn't tell when it was on (assumed it was a modulated tail light).  i agree with matt, and the video shows it to be true, hardly any speed was reduced by either rider, and ge didn't move right at all like i'd expect if a non-expert was really were dropping anchor mid-turn.

a.s.

[carlson_mn]

thanks for the info on the brake light/camera misfit, figured something was up after seeing the same spotty light on the 2nd vid. 

but anyways, leave your 5/15 watt tail bulbs in people, those pinkish LED bulbs don't work as well, despite what the Ebay listing tells you.

[flyinlow]

In my opinion, the rider in front can not cause an accident except in a few situations. If the rider in front crosses the center line, gets hit by an oncoming car and gets flung back into the following rider or causes the car to cross the center line into the following rider, or the rider in front suffers a catastrophic failure which dumps anti-freeze or oil on the road surface which the following rider can not avoid then the rider in front is at fault.

Agreed, any one else that disagrees, well all I can say is.........

Laughing dog

[Chris]

A safe following distance has to account for an unexpected slow down.

Here's a story to illustrate, it happened in Arkansas, but it could easily have happened in the areas we ride in.

I was on 16 in AR, a great road which runs from east to west about 80 miles long. Fairly tight and twisty on the east end and open sweepers on the west end. I picked up a tail of two locals. They weren't too tight on my tail, but they weren't 2 seconds back either. I came over a hill and saw deer and broke hard. One rider came by me on the right and the other on the left. Needless to say, after this incident they increased their following distance significantly.

I hope that everyone who reads this doesn't need to come by me on the brakes to figure out that their following distance needs to accommodate the unexpected.

Of course, we all sometimes ride behind people and think "why the hell are they slowing down" or "why the hell are they on the brakes". Even though 9 times out of 10 or even 999 times out of 1000 they might be on the brakes needlessly in our opinion that's twenty twenty hind sight. It is pretty much impossible to tell why someone is on the brakes until after the fact, and after the fact is generally too late when there is a real reason for someone to be on the brakes.

Following distance is for the unexpected. If we knew what to expect we wouldn't need any following distance.

My questions is this, how far is a safe distance? my definition of a safe distance would be enough room to avoid hitting the bike in front of you, by going around them and or braking.  Using my logic (which may or may not be right) I would say the guys in AR were "safe", now if you logic is they should stop behind you then they were unsafe.

My thought is this if the definition of safe is stopping behind somebody that has stopped, the gap "should" be about 4 to 5 seconds for most riders (some it should be more), under most riding conditions, 1 second to realize the bike in front is stopping and 3 to 4 to get the bike to stop safely.

He (Gely) was NOT hard on the brakes.  He only slowed from about 80 to 65 before the crash and the guy in front was pulling away already at 65.  That's only a decrease of 15mph over the course of two long turns on highway 95.  Take any modern sportbike and get hard on the brakes and you will watch the speedo RAPIDLY decrease from 70mph.... I can probably scrub off from 80-40 in 2 seconds on my 660lb bike.

looking at the video at the 9:15 mark Gely's brake light comes on and is still on at 12:13. At the start of the corner Ultra_Magnus' bike was going 69 at the point of the crash his bike was going 54 and still gaining on the bike in front of him. when the two are entering the corner (using the road sign) the two bikes are about less than 1 sec apart (too close, but that horse has been kicked), then Gely hits the brakes (9:15), the gap starts to close up very fast, you can watch Ultra_Magnus get right up on him at 10:21, you can see the bars shake (as Vince pointed out) Ultra_Magnus was probably hard on the brakes at this time but still gaining ground on Gely at this point they were about .06 sec apart, this is also when Ultra_Magnus went down (12:13).  so that is why I say Gely was hard on the brakes, yes it was only 15mph on Ultra_Maguns' bike but Gely was able to scrub off more (18mph is my guess). I still don't blame Gely for the crash or braking to hard, I am just pointing out one more factor that helped the crash happen.

Were Gely or Ultra pushing the edge of what the bike can do for braking? No
Were Gely or Ultra on to much brake for road riding? probably not, I say this because I try to ride the pace and doing so I tend not to use much brake, but instead set my speed coming into the corner. This does cause problems for me "running" up on bikes in front of me, I do need to work on that more.

[Ray916MN]

My questions is this, how far is a safe distance? my definition of a safe distance would be enough room to avoid hitting the bike in front of you, by going around them and or braking.  Using my logic (which may or may not be right) I would say the guys in AR were "safe", now if you logic is they should stop behind you then they were unsafe.

My thought is this if the definition of safe is stopping behind somebody that has stopped, the gap "should" be about 4 to 5 seconds for most riders (some it should be more), under most riding conditions, 1 second to realize the bike in front is stopping and 3 to 4 to get the bike to stop safely.

A safe distance is being able to stop behind the rider in front of you. Anything short of being able to stop behind the rider in front of you means your counting on being able to avoid the rider in front of you. If I'm the rider in front of you, this means I have to worry about getting ass packed from behind if somehow you aren't able to avoid, It also means that I have to think twice about trying a last minute swerve around, as my swerve could be the open hole you are aiming for because you can't stop behind me.

Average reaction times are ~400ms. Anyone paying attention should have no problems achieving a 1 second response time. If you've got 2 seconds following distance, you've still got a 1 second gap. The next question you've got to consider is whether the guy in front of you can out stop you.

If you're riding a Goldwing and they're riding a sportbike, they can probably out stop you. If they cover their front brake and you don't, they can probably out stop you. If they do allot of track days and/or race and you don't, they can probably out stop you. Adjust your following distance accordingly.

The preceding is about being able to stop before hitting or coming abreast of a stopping bike in front of you.  This does not cover you for cresting a hill and finding a tractor trailer blocking the road. Piling into someone who hits a stopped vehicle after cresting a hill, is a matter for over driving your field of vision, not following distance.

Typically I find a full 2 second following time works, but the higher the speeds, the more following time I try to maintain.

[Deplorable, thank you!]

"Average reaction times are ~400ms. Anyone paying attention should have no problems achieving a 1 second response time. If you've got 2 seconds following distance, you've still got a 1 second gap. The next question you've got to consider is whether the guy in front of you can out stop you"


You still have to consider that if you were both traveling at the same rate of speed, and that lead bike got a second on the brakes jump on you (likely it would be more) that lead bikes rate of speed even after the following bike is on them (brakes) for all they are worth is still lower than the following bike........Thus the trailing bike is still closing the gap on the lead bike all the way til it stops--which could easily be in excess of 165' at just 60 mph ( given a 1 second head start on the brakes for the lead bike)

So at 70 mph, it is over 200'
and at 90 mph it is over 300'

Some magazine took their testers out and did this exact test in the 90's....They had collisions (ass packing) in their first location--they then went to a drag strip where there was room to go side by side

So I would call 200' a bare minimum at anything over 50 mph.
Do I ever see this, nope. Will I ever see this, probably not-some putz further back sees a 200+' opening and they feel the need to pass you (like they somehow will be going any faster by following the bike in front of you at a closer distance....) I have heard numerous times of people actually trying to tell me 50' is more than enough.

Following too close has many other ramifications as well-for one it severly limits your line of sight-which in turn lengthens your reaction time by making you not see it as soon as you could

[Ray916MN]

...

You still have to consider that if you were both traveling at the same rate of speed, and that lead bike got a second on the brakes jump on you (likely it would be more) that lead bikes rate of speed even after the following bike is on them (brakes) for all they are worth is still lower than the following bike........Thus the trailing bike is still closing the gap on the lead bike all the way til it stops--which could easily be in excess of 165' at just 60 mph ( given a 1 second head start on the brakes for the lead bike)

....

I don't think the closing rate is a material consideration until you get to higher speeds.

At 60 mph a 2 second gap is 176 ft. Assuming both bikes stop in the same distance, if the second bike starts braking 1 second later than the first bike it stops 88 ft behind the first bike.

There is still a potential for ass packing based on differences in the rate of stopping at different speeds. If one bike achieves 90% of its stopping in the first second of braking while the other achieves 10%, even though their total stopping distances are the same, a collision during stopping becomes much more likely.  At 60 mph though, the test panel data for most bikes show stopping distances in the 100-125ft.range ('98 VFR 108ft, 2003 ST1300ABS 124ft). 88ft is a significant gap relative to these stopping distances. 88 feet is 88% of the shortest stopping distance. As stopping distances increases disproportionately with speed, I'd think more like 180-200 ft stopping distance @80 mph and a 1 second gap yields 117 ft  the likelihood of collisions due to differences in stopping rates increases. 117 feet is 65% of the shortest stopping distance. So as speed increases and stopping distances increase disproportionately the percent extra stopping distance you get for a given time gap gets smaller. Which is why it makes sense to increase following distances as speed increases. You need to maintain your stopping cushion as a percentage of total stopping distance to guard against collisions due to differences in rates of deceleration at different speeds.

[gely]

.......it appears that you were barely speeding and barely slowing down.  again, pure speculation on my part.  perhaps the decrease in speed from 70 (tops, maybe more like 65) to 59 when you stopped (*ouch!*) was more influential than i think it was, but like a lot of crashes

I saw 82 on the speedo as he was exiting the first mild curve.  The point I made (earlier) was that sort of speed on Wis 95 is begging for all sorts of things to go wrong.  Not to mention, Joe Law comes around the corner and you're going to be making a donation to the county.
[/quote]

.......it appears that you were barely speeding and barely slowing down.  again, pure speculation on my part.  perhaps the decrease in speed from 70 (tops, maybe more like 65) to 59 when you stopped (*ouch!*) was more influential than i think it was, but like a lot of crashes

I saw 82 on the speedo as he was exiting the first mild curve.  The point I made (earlier) was that sort of speed on Wis 95 is begging for all sorts of things to go wrong.  Not to mention, Joe Law comes around the corner and you're going to be making a donation to the county.

pkpk-  If you think 82mph is too fast for Wis 95, I can only conclude that you have not ridden with people here much. 

  Also, before we got to this point, you almost crash once already.

Dont worry Gely, i dont blame you for the crash. Were u a factor? of course. But thats my fault, not yours.

Mike I appreciate that you cleared that up.  If you didn't remember, I stood in the way to block the sun from your face while you were being help, until I was told to go away by the Medics.  Also, turned off your camera and removed it from your bike in case the cops wanted to look at the video clip.

[quot

 Finally if you are all butt hurt about some criticism for something you openly share on a forum--you better get off the forums. There is always going to be someone you don't like, someone who doesn't like you, people who think differently.  Perhaps it isn't even that they don't like you, perhaps they are just using an opportunity to make a point?
 If you are set on sticking around, you have 2 choices--grow some thick skin and take it (hopefully learn and grow so your butt sore will go away) or continue whining like a little baby and continue to blame everyone else with your woe is me song....
 This isn't aimed at any one person in particular-----so read into it whatever you desire.

When I direct it at someone in particular, believe me you will know it !

e author=pkpk link=topic=861.msg8740#msg8740 date=1320627800]

Objurgate- I'm not sure why you think ^^^.  The only thing/person I'm pissed at is Mark.  He made a remark that he would never ride with someone like me, but he does and has ridden with me more than a few times.

===========================

Mike-  Thanks for putting this up for discussions. You got people talking and actually giving good advice here. Were all learning something from your unfortunate accident.

[Elk]

Nothing like a broken femur to put thing is perspective.

I look at this is my first and final lesson. If i break this femur again im gonna be in alot of trouble with the metal rod in my leg.

Pain does have a way of focusing the mind.  

While not always easy to do, it is always worthwhile thinking through what happened.  Great attitude.

[Aprilian]

  Also, turned off your camera and removed it from your bike in case the cops wanted to look at the video clip.
Mike-  Were all learning something from your unfortunate accident.

Can't resist quoting this for prosperity.   
Gely, what you are saying doesn't make sense to me.  You say you braked hard for a McDonalds container in the road and that that is what caused Mike to go down, yet you didn't want an officer to see confirmation?

[carlson_mn]

I think he didn't want them to see 80mph, which could give them a case to add insult to injury with careless or reckless driving tickets, if not speeding at a minimum.

[aschendel]

i think that using 82mph as a starting point is very generous.  from what i could see the speed when he started leaning into the left turn was closer to 70.

a.s.

[pkpk]

pkpk-  If you think 82mph is too fast for Wis 95, I can only conclude that you have not ridden with people here much. 

I've ridden with Ray, Tony, Vince, etc for over 10 years now.  Ridden with Tony longer than that.  I've done over 80 on that road myself.  There are reasons why I stopped doing so.  Just because you wind up doing 80 with other riders only means you haven't had the pleasure of learning my lessons.  State highways and busy roads are not good places to do 80+.  Coming down the hill into the twisities outside Arcadia at 80+ leads me to believe you were doing faster speeds prior to this.  The fact that you are having to ride the brakes through the first hard corner leads me to believe you were caught off guard and probably lulled to some extent by the speed.  Go ahead and rationalize all you want.  But you might not get away with that corner braking next time and wind up lowsiding into Joe Public on a right hander. 

[Deplorable, thank you!]

...

You still have to consider that if you were both traveling at the same rate of speed, and that lead bike got a second on the brakes jump on you (likely it would be more) that lead bikes rate of speed even after the following bike is on them (brakes) for all they are worth is still lower than the following bike........Thus the trailing bike is still closing the gap on the lead bike all the way til it stops--which could easily be in excess of 165' at just 60 mph ( given a 1 second head start on the brakes for the lead bike)

....

I don't think the closing rate is a material consideration until you get to higher speeds.

At 60 mph a 2 second gap is 176 ft. Assuming both bikes stop in the same distance, if the second bike starts braking 1 second later than the first bike it stops 88 ft behind the first bike.

There is still a potential for ass packing based on differences in the rate of stopping at different speeds. If one bike achieves 90% of its stopping in the first second of braking while the other achieves 10%, even though their total stopping distances are the same, a collision during stopping becomes much more likely.  At 60 mph though, the test panel data for most bikes show stopping distances in the 100-125ft.range ('98 VFR 108ft, 2003 ST1300ABS 124ft). 88ft is a significant gap relative to these stopping distances. 88 feet is 88% of the shortest stopping distance. As stopping distances increases disproportionately with speed, I'd think more like 180-200 ft stopping distance @80 mph and a 1 second gap yields 117 ft  the likelihood of collisions due to differences in stopping rates increases. 117 feet is 65% of the shortest stopping distance. So as speed increases and stopping distances increase disproportionately the percent extra stopping distance you get for a given time gap gets smaller. Which is why it makes sense to increase following distances as speed increases. You need to maintain your stopping cushion as a percentage of total stopping distance to guard against collisions due to differences in rates of deceleration at different speeds.

Even the most skilled and prepared riders take over .6 seconds to get the brakes applied and over 1.1 seconds to have them at their fulll potential (some magazine testers stats from the 90's)--these guys knew what was coming and ride allot, on alot of different bikes and likely have better skills than your "average" motorcyclist
 So if the bike/car truck whatever in front of you is already at their maximum braking potential when you realize it and it takes you another 1.1 seconds to get to yours (mind you, you will still be closing on them if both braking vehicles and riders abilities are somewhat equal......forever-til you both stop or the lead bike gets off the brakes---they scrubbed lots of speed before the following bike even got to maximum decelleration due to braking)
 If you consider the average sportbike stops from 60 in under 120 feet (60 mph is at 88 feet per second?)
So the following bike closed up 88+ feet on the lead bike and would still be traveling at a speed of atleast 30 mph faster than the lead bike-simply based on that 1.1 second delay in the follower getting to maximum braking potential ( this is a rough estimate for simplicity, simply based off 88 feet second at 60 mph--it actually would be slightly less based on decreasing speed)
Then you are both equally at 100% of the braking abilities, yet the lead bike is traveling about 30 mph slower than the following bike---so another 44+ feet would be ate up by the time the lead bike stopped--( again rough estimate based on the 30 mph and 44 feet per second....the actual distance would be slightly less based on the decreasing speed)
Now you have the lead bike already stopped and the following bike still traveling at something less than 30 mph.......so another 30 feet before the following bike stopped.......

88' + 44' + 30'= 162'

 So that is atleast 160 feet @ 60 mph--provided the following bike and rider are on top of their game and use the full potential of the bikes brakes and are alert and aware to spot the lead bike slowing almost immediately------------When does that ever happen, never !

****--it isn't just the 1+ second delay in the follower getting on the brakes to maximum potential.......if you look at it that way only---okay 1 second delay= 88'......followers stopping distance at 60 mph= 120', leaders stopping distance at then 30mph = 30' (his speed after 1 second of braking)...........88'+ (120'-30') =88' + 90' = 178', both bikes and riders being equal****

So use the numbers any way you want, 162' or 178'----in either scenario a 2 second gap at 60 mph is only 176'--it is a near miss or you hit...

 Since a 2 second following distance doesn't happen by the vast majority of riders (what I see regularly is that most (80%+) think 50' is more than adequate--I actually had one argue that point on a ride a few weeks ago).....You clearly know what this outcome would be.

This scenario only gets worse (in a hurry) as speeds increase, and considering a typical ride is 70+, well you get the idea.......minimum "safe" distance should be 200'+ @ 60........300'+ for the riding we really do and that is nearly never given, some putz further back sees that and they think you are too slow and somehow passing you and riding on someones ass at 50' is going to have them going "faster" or having more "fun"........sure if you can't ride your own ride, or need that lead bike close enough to you to cue off of them for your entry speed, corner speed, exit speed exit.........basically for the under skilled, under knowledged riders. Those are the riders who would actually have even worse reaction times and longer braking distances to boot-so they are in even more jeopardy than two highly skilled riders riding far too close together.

So I don't care if you are a professional road racer, taken 3 dozen world championships and have 10 bazillion miles under your belt---at 50' you will pass the lead bike (or hit it), at anything under say 150' following distance it is a given you will pass the lead bike (and that is at 60 mph, when do we ride 60?) --I could complicate this with further scenarios (lead bike rarely brakes all the way to a stop etc...), but why??? 200' should be a bare minimum, 300' should be the practiced following distance on these rides-since speeds are higher than 60.


Does anyone want to follow me at 50' while traveling at 60 mph and I'll slam on the brakes (as if a child ran out in front of me) and see if you can stop short of me? (I'll drive my 4.5 ton truck for my safety, you pay for my bumper and tailgate damage, deal?.... and you know that truck will take about 200' to stop, so you should have plenty of room , right? Are you willing to risk bodily injury to find out?)





Ge, "When I direct it at someone in particular, believe me you will know it !"
      " This isn't aimed at any one person in particular-----so read into it whatever you desire."
 Could I have spelled it out any clearer?


PKPK---yep I agree...Just because you "can" run at 80+ through a turn (or in this case to a turn) doesn't mean you should.....

[gely]

pkpk-  If you think 82mph is too fast for Wis 95, I can only conclude that you have not ridden with people here much. 

I've ridden with Ray, Tony, Vince, etc for over 10 years now.  Ridden with Tony longer than that.  I've done over 80 on that road myself.  There are reasons why I stopped doing so.  Just because you wind up doing 80 with other riders only means you haven't had the pleasure of learning my lessons.  State highways and busy roads are not good places to do 80+.  Coming down the hill into the twisities outside Arcadia at 80+ leads me to believe you were doing faster speeds prior to this.  The fact that you are having to ride the brakes through the first hard corner leads me to believe you were caught off guard and probably lulled to some extent by the speed.  Go ahead and rationalize all you want.  But you might not get away with that corner braking next time and wind up lowsiding into Joe Public on a right hander. 

Speed was not excessive prior to this turn, as we were stopped on E.  There was some confusion at the corner of E and 95, some people wanted to go left at 95 and do the short loop and others wanted to go right on 95.

Here's a link to the crash spot(B)
http://g.co/maps/k3hux

Well then you know Vince, Ray and tk better than I.  So, your comment about 82mph being too fast wast meant for everyone.  I thought that was direct at me specifically, because Vince, Ray, and tk have taken that 95 way faster than I.