emergency braking

21 to 40 of 47 messages
14/09/2007 at 19:02
Foxy wrote
Where ever you are you'd have to induce the skid, they don't just happen because the day has a T in it. Only skid pan I've driven on would have meant 4mph in a straight line if you didn't want a skid on at least one section. Far more useful than trying not to skid is time spent learning to recover from a skid.


I used to do skid training with a Cedergrens 'skidcar'. The person with the control box decides when you skid. Although we taught how to control skids the important lessons are always what causes a skid and therefore how not to get into one. If you skid you have effectively lost control so it is better not to skid in the first place IMHO

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
14/09/2007 at 19:47
Appendix 1
COMPARATIVE BRAKING DISTANCESCONDITIONS - METALED RUNWAY SLIGHT INCLINE. GOOD REPAIRFINE AND DRY - 19°C
VEHICLE WEIGHT BRAKING DISTANCE (m)
30 MPH 45 MPH
DAF Crew Cab (Laden) 11.6 Tonnes 15.09 34.62
Picasso 1.3 Tonnes (ABS) 7.26 18.00
Mondeo 1.4 tonnes (no ABS) 7.14 25.36 (19.7 Skid)
Bomb Disposal DAF 10.9 tonnes 11.07 26.19
Leyland Drops (¼ Laden)32 tonnes ABS 14.15 32.18
Leyland Drops (Unladen) 10.90 22.80
Foden (Laden) 36 tonnes ABS 20.68 31.30
Foden (Unladen) 14.50 23.80
Tavern (Armoured Personnel Carrier) 6.7 Tonnes ABS 16.92 33.30
Saxon Armoured Personnel Carrier 6.9 tonnes ABS 16.79 28.14
Volvo Self Loader FL12 14.53 31.95
IVECO Dump 15 Tonnes 18.90 23.11
PINZ 3.85 Tonnes 10.36 20.85
Military Land Rover (TUM - LWB) 7.31 13.37
ATMP Super Cat 11.05 22.50
Honda Pan European Solo M/C 7.69 Brakes: Cold 14.1
Brakes: Warm 13.58
Brakes: Warm + 12.47
Iveco tractor and trailer Unladen* 17.70
Iveco tractor and trailer Laden* 42 tonnes (ABS) 27.00
Seat medium family saloon* 8.50

* MIRA - slight down slope, warm and dry good surface



Makes you hope you dont have them behind you when you have to brake

done it dont want to do it again
COG#4 TIT120 SG82

Training in and around Oxfordshire


14/09/2007 at 19:56
www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/truck_braking.htm

have a look at Figure 1, would you want any of them behind you when you're braking

done it dont want to do it again
COG#4 TIT120 SG82

Training in and around Oxfordshire


14/09/2007 at 20:07
elldrivers wrote
www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/driving/truck_braking.htm

have a look at Figure 1, would you want any of them behind you when you're braking



mental note - must ride faster....

Noted the comment -
'In tailgating collisions the offending driver could be prosecuted for dangerous or careless driving'

Does this actually happen much, given I havn't seen a traffic cop who isnt' holding a frikkin radar gun in several years?
15/09/2007 at 00:34
as stated by kev earlier..

the back brake is small and underpowered, and in an emergency..
it may not even be touching the floor.

i had this the other week , whilst hooning the pirbright bends with a couple of wey valley chaps on the 675..

i have been using the front and rear to get the 955 to squat, and not pitch,
but it doesnt work well with the 675.

the 675 just leaps around the road if i touch the rear brake on a bumpy surface.
not very settled, i must say.

if u have the time and inclination, get your bike to snetterton,
hit 155 down the back straight,
then watch as someone outbrakes you under the bridge into the left hander,
get drawn into his manouver,
then realise you are going about 20mph too fast to make the corner at all,

its amazing what modern tyres/brakes/panic can do.:smoke:
15/09/2007 at 10:23
wasabi wrote
mental note - must ride faster....

Noted the comment -
'In tailgating collisions the offending driver could be prosecuted for dangerous or careless driving'

Does this actually happen much, given I havn't seen a traffic cop who isnt' holding a frikkin radar gun in several years?


I report drivers that rear end others for Careless everytime.

the only time i don't is if the rear ended driver is reluctant to support a prosecution then i usually won't otherwise i will.

This,of course, is in between the laser pointing...

:smoke:

XBox Live Gamertag: PorkscratchinUK

'You ain't seen me, right?'
15/09/2007 at 10:32
Porkscratchin wrote
This,of course, is in between the laser pointing...



lazer pointing? wow.

i just use a trowel and cement myself.
lazer eh? want one, want one.
15/09/2007 at 14:14
toolie wrote
lazer pointing? wow.

i just use a trowel and cement myself.
lazer eh? want one, want one.


they let you play with one last year in Slough outside George Whites....should have buggered off with it instead of helping the public..


that'll learn ya..

:smoke:

XBox Live Gamertag: PorkscratchinUK

'You ain't seen me, right?'
15/09/2007 at 15:09
Porkscratchin wrote
I report drivers that rear end others for Careless everytime.

the only time i don't is if the rear ended driver is reluctant to support a prosecution then i usually won't otherwise i will.

This,of course, is in between the laser pointing...

:smoke:


You (collective you as in your force) ever 'pulled' anyone for tailgating though before the 'accident' occurs? Or for not indicating on roundabouts? Do police actually stop people for shit driving, or just speeding / govt. campaign of the month?
15/09/2007 at 16:46
wasabi wrote
You (collective you as in your force) ever 'pulled' anyone for tailgating though before the 'accident' occurs? Or for not indicating on roundabouts? Do police actually stop people for shit driving, or just speeding / govt. campaign of the month?


Absolutely, especially in the unmarked car.

In the marked car people drive ever so well...

but revert back to the usual standard when there not aware we're there...

and the on-board video is usually quite damning....few argue.

tailgaters, especially LGV's slipstreaming each other, get stuck on as well if deemed an offence committed..

bread & butter offences for a TrafPol tbh...

:smoke:

XBox Live Gamertag: PorkscratchinUK

'You ain't seen me, right?'
16/09/2007 at 18:44
This is one of my favourite topics.

No one would argue you couldn't lift the rear on steady, applied application of the front..., but e-stops very rarely occur, if ever, in perfect-world straightline stuations where you can successfully apply such a technique. They occur suddenly, in an instant, often with milliseconds of reaction time at hand... and its this that causes the front brake grab reflex that results in so many washout front loses – possibly the highest rider induced crash there is.

The only way I know of to avoid this is to actively channel that reflex down your right foot and apply the rear brake at the same time as the front. This can be done with practise, but takes a certain amount of self-discipline as the instinctual response is to grab.
16/09/2007 at 18:51
tenbears wrote
– possibly the highest rider induced crash there is..



add in.. in a bend.. and thats about the size of it.

from an earlier post..
the 675 just leaps around the road if i touch the rear brake on a bumpy surface.

the 955 is different.. much heavier. it responds, not reacts, to a rear brake.

different strokes.. different spokes.*

both have about 3, but u get the picture.

***************
edit. thinkin about it then.. why do bikes with abs crash? if that is the case.
take out the 'highest causes af crashes', and what are you left with?
16/09/2007 at 19:55
toolie wrote
add in.. in a bend.. and thats about the size of it.


sure...

Quote
... but e-stops very rarely occur, if ever, in perfect-world straightline stuations...


... misjudging corners/corner speed is on a different page entirely, I think.
17/09/2007 at 20:23
toolie wrote

edit. thinkin about it then.. why do bikes with abs crash?


Isn't it that in a bend the ability to avoid locking the wheel that ABS gives isn't sufficient to prevent a sideways slide?

It's a motorcycle, Jim, but not as we know it
TIT#212AA
18/09/2007 at 11:44
I think the important thing to grasp here are the reaction times involved in most emergencies, which through their very nature promote the instinctual grab response. I don't believe, certainly through my own experiences, there's enough time to consciously apply the full-on front brake stoppie approach... and in any case, in many scenarios the road surface simply wont cater for it.

RE: ABS. Don't folk opt for this in an effort to avoid such scenarios? I thought that was the whole point of ABS. It'd be interesting to know just how many do end up on the floor in emergencies, but I have a feeling this is presicely where ABS holds its own... but then again, in a TWO article some months back, Jamie did show he could brake faster without it... so I guess its all rider dependent.
18/09/2007 at 11:59
toolie wrote
edit. thinkin about it then.. why do bikes with abs crash? if that is the case.
take out the 'highest causes af crashes', and what are you left with?


Do ABS bikes 'crash' at the same rate as others?

Given those figures for sports bikes I posted recently, perhaps not. Although that could, of course, be as much down to the rider's choice of machine than the bike itself.


Cut, from: From Bike October 06


If we're talking danger, it doesn't get more dangerous than death. Sussex Police inspector Simon Labbett has spent many years trying to understand the reasons why bikers die.

'A lot of people have jumped on bandwagons and said, for example, that it's junctions. Well actually, for fatal crashes junctions aren't the problem,' he explains. 'To reduce the fatalities you have to focus on the riders. Because they often don't require anyone else to intervene - they're quite capable of doing it themselves.'

Strong stuff? His research tracked down what kinds of bike were involved in all 55 fatal accidents in Sussex between 2000 and 2003 - something not recorded in the standard police process. The results were staggering. Of the 55 fatalities, 37 occurred on sportsbikes '96 Blades, RIs, GSX-Rs and the like. Another 11 were on sports tourers - Blackbirds, VFRs and Fazers. Just two commuter riders died, with one fatal crash on a tourer and one on a retro. And in more than nine out of ten of all these deaths, rider error - usually excessive speed - was the main cause of the crash.

Even taking into account the popularity of sportsbikes in the UK, their depressingly strong showing was hugely disproportionate. 'The main time is July to September,' notes Simon drily. 'Male, 25-44, sportsbike, good weather, weekend, dry country road, 60mph limit, rider error, speed a factor. That's the hallmark of who is likely to die.'


'Overwhelmingly, sports riders said it was the car drivers' fault,' reports Simon. 'Very rarely did they say it's the riders' fault. The other riders blamed car drivers too, but they also said it could be them - the sportsbike guys. So there's a division among motorcyclists themselves.'

The reasons why car drivers take the rap are easy enough to understand - even if, as Simon explains, they're flawed. 'Most bike collisions happen in built-up areas and those are indeed someone else's fault - a driver emerging from a side road and the familiar, "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" story.

'However, most fatal accidents happen in 60mph limits on rural roads. Failure to see the bike goes down dramatically and rider error becomes much more significant.'

Riders - and sportsbike riders in particular - were applying what they knew about urban areas to rural roads. But it's wrong.

'Understanding potential variances in attitude, risk and behaviour of motorcyclists that may lead to fatal collisions'

Simon Labatt November 2003

Training info is (C) Malcolm Palmer. He asserts his right to be identified as author under the Copyright Design Patents Act 1988 & may be quoted only as part of a post in the Visordown bb by another board member. Author should be contacted for written permission before any other use, storage, transmission or recording, by any means.

Read my mutterings:

http://the-ride-info.blogspot.com/

18/09/2007 at 12:05
toolie wrote

edit. thinkin about it then.. why do bikes with abs crash? if that is the case.
take out the 'highest causes af crashes', and what are you left with?


Most probably because the rider didn't apply the brakes hard enough, not seen the stats for a long time (last set I saw was from North Yorks Police), but most corner accidents were at speeds the bike could have made very easily, quite often from an original speed that the bike could have handled the corner at if the rider had used the brakes effectively.

Murphy's 6th Law 'if every thing appears to be going fine, you missed something'

One day my fingers will type the letters teh in the correct order..... one day.....

Want a holiday in France?

TiT #38D
18/09/2007 at 17:46
The Spin Doctor wrote
Even without slowing down, you can massively reduce the reaction time by eliminating the surprise factor...
I like the way you provaricate on the minutae. We're talking about emergencies, with fractions of seconds to react. In my mind anything like a 5 second reaction time doesn't qualify as an emergencey. Yes, there are ways to reduce even these fractional time spans: covering both brakes in hazard rich environments for one.

Quote
This is the key point an Australian safety vid I have tried to get over. Many riders are caught absolutely cold by situations that are 100% predictable...
I flatly don't agree with your stance here... nothing is ever 100%... but I'm not going to argue the case.

Quote
the car that DOES pull out (I DID see the junction 10 seconds ago)... the decreasing radius bend (so THAT'S why there was a sign)... the sudden bunching on the motorway (well, that truck WAS catching the one in front). It can take 2 seconds for the brain to recognise what's happening if you aren't anticipating it... that's a bloody long way at 60mph.
Even 2 seconds is a luxury in my book and doesn't really constitute 'an emergencey'. Ten seconds is a holiday.

Quote
Then add in small reductions of speed and you further reduce stopping distances - remember double the speed/quadruple the stopping distance. It works the other way too...
Yes, but also don't forget the relative speeds of the other vehicles involved, and their reaction times. It's all relative.

Quote
It's a matter of pulling the clues together. Assume things will go wrong rather than right and it's relatively easy to deal with with straightforward techniques... assume things will go right rather than go wrong and you're surprised and now into disaster management and damage limitation.
Of course, but we are attempting to realise a solution to what I assumed was the primary cause of most rider induced crashes, which is this initial, and very instinctual grab reflex in emergencey situations. I've seen too many, and its my own experiences which prompted a studied review, and solution.
18/09/2007 at 18:55
I've said this before but I think it's worth repeating. When you're on the road, what are you thinking?

If you are always thinking go, you have to change your mind to think stop.

If you ride/drive around thinking stop you have a head start. I'm not advocating riding around at 20mph either. All I'm suggesting that your mental attitude is "If the situation changes I'm going to stop." Nor am I suggesting that for every situation you have to come to a stop, maybe you'll have to just lose some speed, but if you are thinking stop rather than go you'll be in a better position mentally - perhaps shaving off those fractions of a second.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
18/09/2007 at 22:00
I've watched a police "advanced driving" video. One of the things I remember from it, when approaching a hazard (rbt, junction, etc) was to have the mindset of "I'm planning to stop, but looking to go".

That about sums it up for me

One day the quote function will work for me again - and todays the day!!!!!
21 to 40 of 47 messages
Forum Jump  

COMPETITIONS