what are my chances? [Archive] - BARF

Daredevil

08-27-2006, 06:57 AM

11:30 on a sunday night im goin over to my g/f's house. im at a red light behind a car, across the intersection in a 7-11 parking lot is an officer outside his car talking to a homeless person.

the light turns green and i proceed to follow the car in front of me. i was a car length behind the vehicle doin 20 mph when he turns on his blinker a makes a left hand turn.

coming to a stop sign i see blue and red lights behiond me, agitated i pull over. the officer writes me up for following too closely, and even though and i quote "motorcycles have an ability to stop and maneuver much more quickly than cars i still should have been at Least 3 car lenggths behind at 20 mph..."

he says on the ticket i was doin 20 mph and 1 car length behind, wtf is that. the car even had its brake lights on because it was about to turn. btw this was in a 25 about to be a 35 mph zone. ridiculous?

what are my odds of winning this, cause im fighting for sure

Butch

08-27-2006, 07:16 AM

wow. why don't the chippies do this on the freeway when people follow at one car length at 60 ro 70?

this one sounds like bullshit. tho the officer is ther professional. My math says 20 mph = 2 car lengths tho...

antarius

08-27-2006, 09:16 AM

It all depends on the other side of the story, specifically the Officer's testimony. Another determining factor is going to be which judge you get and what kind of mood their in.

Basically... who knows on your odds. In general, I see more cases go *for* the courts, rather than against, but who knows...

Steve Stansb

08-27-2006, 10:54 AM

First, how far after the intersection did the cage give a turn signal, brake and turn?
Second, How fast were you going?
Third, can you support a statement like, "the officer had NO chance of clocking me, for speed, or to really observe my driveing", since he was preoccupied with a homeless person.
Do NOT use the defense of, Motorcylces stop faster then cars do, you will not win on that.
Good luck!

Originally posted by Daredevil
11:30 on a sunday night im goin over to my g/f's house. im at a red light behind a car, across the intersection in a 7-11 parking lot is an officer outside his car talking to a homeless person.

the light turns green and i proceed to follow the car in front of me. i was a car length behind the vehicle doin 20 mph when he turns on his blinker a makes a left hand turn.

coming to a stop sign i see blue and red lights behiond me, agitated i pull over. the officer writes me up for following too closely, and even though and i quote "motorcycles have an ability to stop and maneuver much more quickly than cars i still should have been at Least 3 car lenggths behind at 20 mph..."

he says on the ticket i was doin 20 mph and 1 car length behind, wtf is that. the car even had its brake lights on because it was about to turn. btw this was in a 25 about to be a 35 mph zone. ridiculous?

what are my odds of winning this, cause im fighting for sure

motorman4life

08-27-2006, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Daredevil
[B]11:30 on a sunday night im goin over to my g/f's house. im at a red light...
Dude, I was at your g/f house and I had him stop you so I would have time to get dressed and get out before you arrived! :laughing

Okay, seriously. There is no set distance in the law, it is a subjective thing. The rule of thumb is 1 vehicle length (12'-15') for each 10 MPH. So, at 20 MPH, you should be following at 24 to 30' If you were more than 30', I'd say you have a pretty good case. If you were less than 24', I'd say you have a weak case.

Were you following in the path of the lead vehicle or offset in the lane? My concern is, if you were offset (like you were getting prepared to laneshare), then you really were not really following. The exact proximity of your bike in relation to the other vehicle may have been difficult (or impossible) to determine from where the officer was standing.

That may be your best argument, if it was the case. Be ready to present information on the legality of lanesharing (see the lanesharing thread and print the blurb from the CHP/DMV websites too).

Arguing stopping distances of m/c's vs. cars will not get you very far in court unless your judge is a rider. ;)

jake28

08-27-2006, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by motorman4life
The rule of thumb is 1 vehicle length (12'-15') for each 10 MPH.

Despite the growing number of Yukons, Denalis, and Hummers on the roads these days, how in the hell is twelve to fifteen feet considered one car length?

Jake

motorman4life

08-27-2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by jake28
Despite the growing number of Yukons, Denalis, and Hummers on the roads these days, how in the hell is twelve to fifteen feet considered one car length?
I'll stand corrected. 7'-10' would likely be a better range. Again, it is a subjective thing as there is no distance stated for one car length in the law. FWIW, a Honda VTX motorcycle is 8.75' long.

In searching for a definition of "one car length" I did find these:
[STUDY] (http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/modules/driving/parts/investigation6.pdf)
[ARTICLE] (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_151746.html)

OldMadBrit

08-27-2006, 09:51 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daredevil
[B]1"motorcycles have an ability to stop ....... more quickly than cars....."

Not meaning to hijack your thread mate.... But your going to end up plastered all over the back of something if you keep believing this BS. Some, no actually pretty much MOST warmed over econoboxes (EVO, STi, blah blah) and EVERY serious sports car can easily outbrake a bike. :nerd Where have you been :hand

Now jinking round something is a totally different matter. :teeth

JPM

08-27-2006, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by motorman4life
Dude, I was at your g/f house and I had him stop you so I would have time to get dressed and get out before you arrived! :laughing

Damm MM4L... I was wondering why you came home so early. You almost caught me and you wife that time. J/K :laughing

This is actually one of the sections that don’t get cited as much as they should. Partly (In my opinion) because it takes a lot of preparation to show how dangerous it is and to win in court; so a lot of officers don’t cite for it. I seem to issue a lot of them and its one of the citations I got to court on almost all the time. However when I present the speeds, distances, and equations, I have never lost one. I notice that officers that have had more than basic accident investigation training are more likely to issue them because they are taught the speed conversions and other formulas.

First off to get speed to FPS (Feet Per Second) you multiply the speed x 1.467. So at 20 MPH you are traveling 29 FPS (29.34 actually).

The scientifically recognized average perception time (To recognize there is a problem or hazard) is 3/4 of a second. The scientifically recognized average reaction time (The time to actually do something such as swerve or hit the brakes) is also ¾ of a second. (Yes I know this can very by age, amount of sleep, alcohol or drug use, ect. Which is why the court will usually accept the average unless you can show some evidence to show different). So a total average perception and reaction time of 1 1/2 seconds.

At 20 MPH (29 FPS) you would travel 58 feet (Actually 58.68) before the average person would even start to brake (29.34 x 1.5 seconds= 58.68 Feet). As for you argument about being able to brake faster, it’s really not true to make a significant difference. The amount of braking has to do with mass (Weight of the vehicle), velocity (Speed of the vehicle) and friction (Roadway and contact of the tires with the roadway). While a M/C has less mass, it also has only 2 contact points (tires) on the ground while a car has 4 contact points (again, tires) so it will have more friction to assist in stopping. At 20 MPH both vehicles will basically stop in the same distance.

It would be interesting to know how long he observed you, your speed, and the distance you and the car traveled. If it was just for a second as you left, you may have an argument. If it was the whole distance until the car turned, no so much of one.

Good luck.

OldMadBrit

08-27-2006, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by JPM
The scientifically recognized average perception time (To recognize there is a problem or hazard) is 3/4 of a second. The scientifically recognized average reactions time (The time to actually do something such as swerve or hit the brakes) is also ¾ of a second.

In the interests of being even handed in my potential thread hijacks, this is also complete bollocks. :cool

The "science" behind the separation of perception time and reaction time is about as solid as "bikes stop faster than cars". There are abundant data from motorspots to show without doubt that a trained/competant operator is easily able to percieve and action a threat in 750 milli-seconds or less. :nerd

COME ON, use the grey matter - if the 1.5 sec perception + reaction rule was real, Infineon and just about every other race track would be unrideable. :p

OK rants over :teeth

JPM

08-27-2006, 11:46 PM

rritterson

08-27-2006, 11:55 PM

Could he use the argument that he successfully stopped and there was no collision to argue that the distance he was following was indeed safe?

OldMadBrit

08-28-2006, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by JPM
(Yes I know this can very by age, amount of sleep, alcohol or drug use, ect. Which is why the court will usually accept the average unless you can show some evidence to show different).

I guess you missed this part.

And the track is totally different from the street.

Nope, I saw that. My point is that the whole notion that perception is followed by reaction is bogus and that we are leaving court decisions to poor or discredited science, in this particular case the 1.5 sec rule. As per an earlier post, the fact that Daredevil did not hit the car, pretty much proves that point.

More recent research into human cognition has proved beyond doubt that the human brain is equipped to allow us to "react" before we have "perceived". Two completely different brain centers perform each function.

We see this all the time in diverse fast moving situations. The military, racers, martial arts and LEO Tactical Support Units (to give a few examples) know this and base their training around it with drills to build the right instinctive reactions or "muscle memory".

The goal is to build the desired reflex action. For example, in our sport we are trying to unwire the instinctive arm-stiffening that stands bikes up in a panic, and rewire the reflex into counter-steering more + gas.

This BTW is not an argument for following to close. Its more about junking discredited science and focusing on what's replaced it to everyone's advantage.

Enchanter

08-28-2006, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by OldMadBrit
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daredevil
[B]1"motorcycles have an ability to stop ....... more quickly than cars....."

Not meaning to hijack your thread mate.... But your going to end up plastered all over the back of something if you keep believing this BS. Some, no actually pretty much MOST warmed over econoboxes (EVO, STi, blah blah) and EVERY serious sports car can easily outbrake a bike. :nerd Where have you been :hand

Now jinking round something is a totally different matter. :teeth

After a quick online look at the stats that motorcycle magazines and car magazines post, it indicates bikes still stop in shorter distances than cars. It's not by much, but it is shorter.

motorman4life

08-28-2006, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by OldMadBrit
In the interests of being even handed in my potential thread hijacks, this is also complete bollocks. :cool

The "science" behind the separation of perception time and reaction time is about as solid as "bikes stop faster than cars". There are abundant data from motorspots to show without doubt that a trained/competant operator is easily able to percieve and action a threat in 750 milli-seconds or less. :nerd

COME ON, use the grey matter - if the 1.5 sec perception + reaction rule was real, Infineon and just about every other race track would be unrideable. :p

OK rants over :teeth
Am I wrong or is 750 milliseconds 3/4 of a second?
Does it surprise you that professional and semi-professional powersports competitors have preception and reaction times that are twice as fast as the average motorist on the street?

How do you think it would look at Laguna Seca if you took 40 people off the street and ran them through a few laps at the track?

Also, the vehicles being operated on the track have superior handling, acceleration and braking. The street is not the track and the average person driving on the freeway is not qualified to be a racer either.

Next time you are at an intersection, watch how long it takes for a car to start from the green. Actually measure or count it off. You will be shocked. I found the average motorist takes 3-full seconds to roll forward under power (even slightly) after the green is tripped. I'm not saying that is bad or good. I'm just saying it shows you the 3/4s. perception time and 3/4s. reaction time numbers may be a bit generous. From a stop, most motorists take twice that time to initiate acceleration.

NVR FNSH

08-28-2006, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by motorman4life
...Next time you are at an intersection, watch how long it takes for a car to start from the green. Actually measure or count it off. You will be shocked. I found the average motorist takes 3-full seconds to roll forward under power (even slightly) after the green is tripped. I'm not saying that is bad or good. I'm just saying it shows you the 3/4s. perception time and 3/4s. reaction time numbers may be a bit generous. From a stop, most motorists take twice that time to initiate acceleration.

I for one tend to wait at a green light to make sure that I'm not going to get clobbered by somebody running the red. Granted, I'm NOT saying the average joe/jane is making a conscious decision when they don't react immediately to a green light....

Brian

motorman4life

08-28-2006, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by NVR FNSH
I for one tend to wait at a green light to make sure that I'm not going to get clobbered
I'm with you on that one Brian. You'll notice, these people generally are NOT looking left and right before they proceed unless they are on a motorcycle. :)

I had an auto-ped case that really opened my eyes to the slow reactions of most drivers, particularly when starting on a fresh green. Next time you are stuck at a light, watch the cross traffic and see how slow they are to start... and that they don't look either! ;)

OldMadBrit

08-28-2006, 04:18 PM

OK one last attempt to make my points:

1. Don't assume that you can outbrake a car especially a modern sports car or rice rocket;

2. Do assume that the driver of the car ahead has slow reactions and/or is distracted and focus on what's going on ahead of them and anticipate what they will do next - assume a worst case scenarion and more space is a good thing;

THEN

3. Regardless of 1 & 2 above an alert and competant biker does not need 1.5 seconds to first percieve and then react.

OldMadBrit

08-28-2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Enchanter
After a quick online look at the stats that motorcycle magazines and car magazines post, it indicates bikes still stop in shorter distances than cars. It's not by much, but it is shorter.

In ideal test conditions, on a test track and using OEM tires - I'll buy that. In the real world, 4 contact patches will generally out perform 1.

If you add in tires of equivalent Mu (as can happen with track day cars running DOT legal track tires on the street) - then you would pretty much have to re-write the laws of physics for the bike to overcome its higher pitch center and shorter wheel base. The limit for a bike is that it will stoppie before it hits the limit of Mu on the front tire.

Where bikes really win is in repeated hard breaking. :shhh

Enchanter

08-28-2006, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by OldMadBrit
In ideal test conditions, on a test track and using OEM tires - I'll buy that. In the real world, 4 contact patches will generally out perform 1.

We may as well keep the thread hi-jack going eh? I don't think that it's the number or size of the cars contact patch that gives the car it's (theoretical advantage) over a motorcycle.

I think that it's we as motorcyclists need to be more careful and skilled because of how much more quickly a car can attain maximum braking vs a motorcycle. The average car driver can get within 80-90% of maximum available braking almost instantly. In today's world of computers, a car driver requires almost no training or skill to do this. (I said almost)

Most motorcyclists are unable to attain maximum braking until the last 40-50% of brake application. In large part I think this is because car drivers don't have a fear of flipping the car over from too much front brake. This lack of fear and 'stomp on the brakes' ability will severly reduce the distance between a car and the motorcyclist following it. This in turn can distract the motorcyclist and take their focus away from braking properly.

What does this mean to us? Well, we need to practice, practice, practice maximum braking. We need to concentrate on riding within the limitations of our skill level instead of the limitations/capabilities of our motorcycle. It's been my experience that most riders think that they are better than they really are.

You never know if that car ahead is operated by someone more willing and more capable of exploiting their vehicles capabilities than you are able with your vehicle.

In the end, it's better to underestimate our skills than to overestimate them.

Daredevil

08-28-2006, 05:29 PM

no no no you guys

the OFFICER said that bikes can brake faster/quicker and manuever around more quickly...... then saying its ok i was that close but was still writing me up

i do believe that motorcycles are able to maneuver around more quickly simply because of the amount of area they have to move compared to a car. its easier to get around a truck riding a motorcycle than it is with my wrx

he's an idiot

Daredevil

08-28-2006, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by JPM

It would be interesting to know how long he observed you, your speed, and the distance you and the car traveled. If it was just for a second as you left, you may have an argument. If it was the whole distance until the car turned, no so much of one.

Good luck.

he could only see me for a quick second because and from an angle, so what may have looked like a car length could easily have been 2 or more.

the thing is.... this happened back in JANUARY!!! buahhaha, and every chance i have i've post poned my court date, this week i have to go in and say im going to fight it, so even another month before im supposed to show up at court. buahhahah with any luck the officer A) won't remember this or B) won't wanna bother with something 7 months ago that is so ridiculous

and im going to tell the judge this is my first citation ever. i've never recieved a moving violation before.

dogcatfud

08-28-2006, 07:12 PM

Daredevil,

Please share your strategies for postponing your court date as long as possible, assuming they are legal.

Your reasons for doing so sound interesting.

motorman4life

08-28-2006, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Daredevil
and im going to tell the judge this is my first citation ever. i've never recieved a moving violation before.
Not only will the judge not care... he is legally prohibited from considering your driving record before he determines guilt or innocence. He can consider your driving record for sentencing and he will have a fresh copy to review when he needs it. If your case hinges upon your previously clean driving record, you are screwed.

}Dragon{

08-28-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by motorman4life
Dude, I was at your g/f house and I had him stop you so I would have time to get dressed and get out before you arrived! :laughing

How many "beat wives" do you have?:wow :twofinger

motorman4life

08-29-2006, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by }Dragon{
How many "beat wives" do you have?:wow :twofinger
Well, if you ask my Wife... or my Sergeant... too many!

mlm

08-29-2006, 12:24 AM

Don't follow so close.

But, since we're talking numbers. Say you were running (15mph) behind somebody and they fell down. According to the officer you'd trip over them if you were any closer than 22 feet behind them. That assumes it took you 3/4 second (750ms). I don't buy that it would take 1.5 seconds to fully react...that someone would run for 40 feet into an obstacle.

Don't think the lane splitting defense is going to fly when the car turned left...SPLAT

I also think you're going to get the ticket, but good luck...and don't follow so close

Daredevil

08-29-2006, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by dogcatfud
Daredevil,

Please share your strategies for postponing your court date as long as possible, assuming they are legal.

Your reasons for doing so sound interesting.

can't tell if you are sarcastic or not, and i will assume you are until you state otherwise, at which junction i will let you know how i post poned my date by 7 months completely legally

Daredevil

08-29-2006, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by motorman4life
Not only will the judge not care... he is legally prohibited from considering your driving record before he determines guilt or innocence. He can consider your driving record for sentencing and he will have a fresh copy to review when he needs it. If your case hinges upon your previously clean driving record, you are screwed.

i didn't think the judge will care or not, he can't give that horrible of a sentence can he? if i do lose im simply going to ask him to review my driving record and allow me to go to traffic school.

Daredevil

08-29-2006, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by mlm
Don't follow so close.

But, since we're talking numbers. Say you were running (15mph) behind somebody and they fell down. According to the officer you'd trip over them if you were any closer than 22 feet behind them. That assumes it took you 3/4 second (750ms). I don't buy that it would take 1.5 seconds to fully react...that someone would run for 40 feet into an obstacle.

Don't think the lane splitting defense is going to fly when the car turned left...SPLAT

I also think you're going to get the ticket, but good luck...and don't follow so close

i do understand that i was probably following to closely and it sucks i was caught doing it when the VERY large majority of the public follow less than a car length behind the person in front of them while leavin a just-turned-green light. oh wells

but my argument is going to be that he was un able to tell how close i really was to the car in front of me, from his angle. he says i spotted him in the intersection, which was a pretty far angle, and my argument will be i was in safe distance, and he even addressed the fact i needed less distance than normal (which is apparently not true but he said it not me)

hopefully it works

OldMadBrit

08-29-2006, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Enchanter
....The average car driver can get within 80-90% of maximum available braking almost instantly. In today's world of computers, a car driver requires almost no training or skill to do this. (I said almost)

Most motorcyclists are unable to attain maximum braking until the last 40-50% of brake application.....

+1000 on that point.

Some of the newer MB's, BMW's and Caddy's even have brake assist algorithms built into the ABS that detects a panic stop and go to instantaneous full on :wow

- you know, like when the driver pours coffe in her ear while trying to drink the phone :wow :mad

OK I guess this is the end of the hijack.

And yes it does suck getting singled out for something that is endemic.

dogcatfud

08-29-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Daredevil
can't tell if you are sarcastic or not, and i will assume you are until you state otherwise, at which junction i will let you know how i post poned my date by 7 months completely legally
I'm not being sarcastic at all. I asked you to share your methods as they may be helpful to someone else who is looking to fight a ticket.

Joebar4000

08-29-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Daredevil
i do understand that i was probably following to closely and it sucks i was caught doing it when the VERY large majority of the public follow less than a car length behind the person in front of them while leavin a just-turned-green light. oh wells

but my argument is going to be that he was un able to tell how close i really was to the car in front of me, from his angle. he says i spotted him in the intersection, which was a pretty far angle, and my argument will be i was in safe distance, and he even addressed the fact i needed less distance than normal (which is apparently not true but he said it not me)

hopefully it works

I feel your pain and have followed a similar distance behind at low-speed, with the caveat that I'm going to get past ASAP, but the argument that everyone does it actualy lends more explanation to the 44,000 annual fatalities and 6 MILLION reported accidents - that won't fly in court and I'd recommend staying WELL clear of that. It's the 'if everyone jumped off a cliff would you?' argument - which I've heard a judge use on someone, and yes, they were pissed when they said it.

A few things tho - Tim - I've seen those tests, a lot were in PB. But even they said, these are top of the line sport bikes, with people who ride for a living, on track-tires, in a straight line, in the dry, after practicing.

Throw in dodgy surface, turning, less than perfect tires, no practice, panic, adrenaline and suddenly the advantage of the bikes brakes are rendered useless by, as you point out, the ability and lack of 'fear' in just stomping on the brakes and letting ABS figure everything out.

You don't want to see how Cruisers did in the braking test, you really don't. More than DOUBLE the braking distance for the sport bikes, most of them.

I also don't buy the 750 milliseconds - human reaction time, limited by nerve transmission, is about 200ms, up to 400ms (depending on genetics). I'll buy, however, that for a non-anticipated stimulas, it could take up to a second or more to be fully aware of the urgency of the situation. I'm just being pedantic - there's a difference between reaction time and interpretation time.

Enchanter

08-29-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Joebar4000
Tim - I've seen those tests, a lot were in PB. But even they said, these are top of the line sport bikes, with people who ride for a living, on track-tires, in a straight line, in the dry, after practicing.

I was just comparing the distances that Road & Track, Car and Driver, CycleWorld, Motorcyclist, and Motorcycle Consumer News publish on their websites. I'm assuming that the cars and motorcycles were tested by 'professionals' in 'ideal' conditions.

Var

08-29-2006, 01:57 PM

did the situation u were in allow for lane-sharing? if so that should b ur argument. from a side view nobody can tell if u were beside that car or behind it.

OldMadBrit

08-29-2006, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Enchanter
I was just comparing the distances that Road & Track, Car and Driver, CycleWorld, Motorcyclist, and Motorcycle Consumer News publish on their websites. I'm assuming that the cars and motorcycles were tested by 'professionals' in 'ideal' conditions.

But we have already areed that cars are far more tolerant of driver error/lake of training. Put simply even a trained monkey can get an ABS equipped car to stop in its minimum distance.

On point that really wories me is the widespread and general belief that bikes can easily out stop cars. :wow

OldMadBrit

08-29-2006, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Joebar4000
.............I also don't buy the 750 milliseconds - human reaction time, limited by nerve transmission, is about 200ms, up to 400ms (depending on genetics). I'll buy, however, that for a non-anticipated stimulas, it could take up to a second or more to be fully aware of the urgency of the situation. I'm just being pedantic - there's a difference between reaction time and interpretation time.

You are right on the money. Recent research on human cognition proves this point. Perception and reaction are in fact parallel activities. :nerd

Kieth Code devotes much of his writing to the consequences of this key point. Modern sports training and pshchology is based on it. Police and Military tactical training is also based on this point - yet CHP, MSF, the courts and others stick doggedly to the discredited sequential processing model. :x

Enchanter

08-29-2006, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by OldMadBrit
But we have already areed that cars are far more tolerant of driver error/lake of training. Put simply even a trained monkey can get an ABS equipped car to stop in its minimum distance.

On point that really wories me is the widespread and general belief that bikes can easily out stop cars. :wow

One point that really worries me is the widespread belief that motorcyclists think they have the skill to easily out stop cars.

A motorcycle can stop in a shorter distance than a car if the rider is skilled. Skill is the factor.

It's just a word game now.....

}Dragon{

08-29-2006, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Enchanter

A motorcycle can stop in a shorter distance than a car if the rider is skilled. Skill is the factor.

Skill and muscle memory retention ;)

I find myself reacting to most situations before "thinking" about them.

I remember someone's sig line saying "A superior rider uses superior judgment to avoid problems that would demand superior skill."

:thumbup

JPM

08-30-2006, 12:11 AM

The ability to stop faster and actually stopping faster are two different things. Ask anyone who investigates accidents or look closely at the pictures when you see pics of a MC collision. Most cars have ABS; most MC do not. Probably 80% of the motorcycle collisions I have investigated have the tell-tale long wavy single skid mark. A sure sign of a rear wheel lock-up and probably no front brake. And it takes a lot longer to stop a vehicle on a locked, skidding tire.

Joebar4000

08-30-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by JPM
The ability to stop faster and actually stopping faster are two different things. Ask anyone who investigates accidents or look closely at the pictures when you see pics of a MC collision. Most cars have ABS; most MC do not. Probably 80% of the motorcycle collisions I have investigated have the tell-tale long wavy single skid mark. A sure sign of a rear wheel lock-up and probably no front brake. And it takes a lot longer to stop a vehicle on a locked, skidding tire.

:thumbup

I have it somewhere, if I ever get the time I'll scan it, but it's a braking test of an (listening Tim?) STi versus a host of bikes.

They did test with front only, rear only, both together.

The sport bikes didn't vary much from front-only and front and rear together - indeed, some had slightly longer stopping distances with both, than with just the front. Riders complained that it was hard to modulate both individually.

Sport bikes, using the rear brake only, was more than TWICE as long as front-only...

With cruisers, the difference wasn't as great due to longer wheelbase and less weight transfer to the front, keeping more weight on the rear. They did best with both brakes.

But note - this is in the DRY, in a straight line. The ability to brake using BOTH brakes is essential, because in the rain, in a curve, on a bad surface, with a passenger - all mean the rear brake becomes a crucial secondary stopper.

Oh and by the way...the car stopped within a couple of percent of the best bikes. But he did that first time out, every time out. The variance on the bikes was much greater, and only beat the car after PRACTICE - bringing us back to 'can stop quicker with correct application of skill'.

And another way to think of it is, if I can't stop in time, is it going to hurt me more or the car more? My money is on the car...then of course, there's the cars BEHIND you to worry about as you're skidding along the tarmac...