Biker jailed for 157mph ride in U.K.

Ok, I had to be a total geek and do the math. Forgive me:

Assuming a 750lb bike going 150mph hits a 4500lb SUV going the other way at 70mph.

Momentum of bike: 112500

Momentum of SUV: -315000

Momentum of bike+SUV after big bang: -202500

Velocity of bike (& SUV) immediately after collision: -38.57 mph (probably a bit slower in real life)

Difference in velocity of bike: -188.57 mph

Difference in velocity of SUV: -31.42 mph

Relative amount of energy absorbed by occupant of bike (delta V, squared): 35559

Relative amount of energy absorbed by occupant of SUV (delta V, squared): 987

Thus, the rider of the bike had to absorb 36 times more energy from the impact than the driver of the SUV.

Enjoy!

The problem with using formulas is that they don't take into account practical considerations.



The energy from the impact of a bike against a car would not be distributed evenly throughout the car. The front wheel of the bike would strike the car at a relatively small point thus applying the energy developed by the differential velocity at that point. The fork would deform and the rest of the bike's mass would strike the rest of the car in some random fashion.



Someone (we'll call him AF) is going hell bent for leather down a city street at 100 mph. Some woman in a Honda Civic with the back seat full of kids makes a leftturn in front of him. AF then strikes the Civic on the right rear quarter where the children are sitting.



It wouldn't be pretty. The force could also force a small car into another lane of on comming traffic.



It gets worse when intead of AF on an F1 you have Buzglyd all tanked up testing out his new 95CI engine along LaJolla beach. Imagine the impact of that mass!!

Wild speculations

So, we've had threads on the Autobahn, on how speed limits are thoroughly useless, physics, overly centralized regulation here in the states, and a lack of respect for the rule of law.

Ok. So, to address Abe_Frohman's claim from the first story that the speed limit for a young man on a ZX12 and an Old Geezer (tm) in a generic Oldsmobuick shouldn't be the same, (presumeably) because the young man has better reaction times, vision, etc than the Old Guy.

In general, I agree. But I don't really think it should be based on age. I think it would be better to base "driver class" (a concept I'll get into more in a minute) on actual tested ability and skill. I mean, Mario Andretti is 63, but he'll probably still be capable of piloting a vehicle at high speeds in another 20 years. And there are almost certainly 20 year olds who are just too slow in the head to handle driving at such high rates of speed.

The contention that speed limits are totally useless is two pronged. First is the half that observes the 75 mph mandated limit no matter how flat, straight, and even the road is. On the other hand, there are spots in CA (I'm thinking of 46 and 58, here) where when the speed limit says 15, they really mean it. Once again, someone with a higher demonstrated skill level, and adequate equipment, (I can take those roads a lot faster even on my Warrior than I could in the pickup truck) should be allowed to go faster. But someone (such as our theoretical 85 year old) should be restricted to speeds that his aging brain can process information at.

Disrespect for the rule of law: It's not so much a disrepect for the general rule of law, as a disrespect for unreasonable rule of law. I-5 in CA, I-80 in NV, I-40 in AZ, for example, being limited to 75 mph for no good reason. (Hell, 70 in CA. I am somehow unconvinced that my car becomes 5 mph less safe to drive when I hit the CA border on I-40...) These are all roads which could safely handle much higher speeds. I consider a central imposition of a maximum speed limit irrespective of circumstance to be unreasonable rule of law. I mean, we'd all be *really* safe if the speed limit was 25 mph...

The Autobahn: the Autobahn has the advantage of having been designed specifically with the purpose of high speed driving in mind. It is well suited to high speed traffic, and moreover, everyone who drives on it is aware of the fact that some portion of the other traffic is likely to be going faster than they are, so (I expect) they pay a bit more attention. If you're doing 150 on a road where most people expect to see 75 mph (or so) traffic, you're a vastly unexpected anomaly that people aren't prepared to deal with.

I suggest a system of graduated licenses based on demonstrated ability. I don't think (and I'm sure if y'all disagree, you'll let me know...) that it is unreasonable to require race car (or bike) training for people who are looking to recieve an unrestricted license for the public roads. In fact, it might be easier to just accept AMA or FIA racing certification as the licensing process for your 150MPH rated super license. Conversely, if your demonstrated reflex timing and event processing abilities are really low, you might be limited to driving on city streets, with no freeway access at all. (Sorry Bobby, you just don't think fast enough to be in charge of 2 tons of steel at 75 mph...)

I'd also really like to see a highway (ideally a set of them) connecting LA and NYC which is forbidden to truck traffic, at least 3 lanes in each direction, with lane based speed limits. Say, 100 for the right lane, 125 for the middle lane, and unrestricted for the left lane.

Of course, the Libertarian in me quails at the thought of creating another centralized authority to oversee the whole thing. Anyway, it's just a thought.

-Kawazuki

Re: Bikers responsible for anti-moto laws.

Look at the increasing Chinese/Taiwan motorcycle manufacturers and you will see a plethora of 250-400cc bikes. They are still available in the numbers that they used to be, just not from the Japanese. Add to your list of Japanese small bikes the Kawasaki Ninja 250 the Suzuki GZ250 and you've got a pretty wide variety of bikes to choose from.

There are still a couple entry-level DP bikes available for short people- the TW200 comes to mind, and I am sure there are others.

I guess entry-level depends on how you define it. Unfortunately a 300-400cc motorcycle is nearly useless for any use other than in-town. Highway riding on one of these, especially in areas that have a 65mph speed limit, is sketchy at best. The rider who buys one of these smaller bikes ends up selling it in two months because he immediately outgrows it. Today's 600-750cc cruisers only make about 40-50 hp, which is about the same as a GS500 or Seca 2, which most people classify as entry-level, and offer much lower seat heights than either, considerably more comfort, and also highway riding capability.

I find it amusing how short sighted people can be when they talk about all the freedoms we give up because of our countries laws. How they are "out to get us" and "take our money", etc. There is a lot of common sense behind most of our laws that make your life better, even if you refuse to see it. In some cases, yes, lawmakers have ill motive for the laws they pass. And yes, you have lobbyist who know nothing about what they lobby against, whether it's guns, motorcycles, hunting, or chopping up monkeys to cure cancer influencing ridiculous laws to be passed that ban or limit our freedom and rights. But come on, traffic laws don't deserve to be lumped in with that kind of abuse of our rights. You think speed limits, helmet laws, and snapping pictures of speeders license plates is an abuse of your rights? You've lived a pretty comfortable life then.

What should we do? Get rid of all the stop signs and traffic lights? Erase all the painted lines on the streets and get rid of parking zones and no passing zones? Just have a big ol' free for all out there and damn the consequences. Let's just ignore the obvious and let the inevitable happen, do nothing about it, and then throw someone in jail after they mess up. Well a hell of a lot of good that does the dead person or the people whose lives get all f#$ked up after you wipe out a family member because "Hey dude, it's my right to top out my GSX"

You flatter yourself to think you can pilot a sport bike on public roads safely at 157 mph. I don't care if you’re Valentino Rossi it can't be done. What about all the unpredictable road hazards that are hard enough to avoid at 70 mph? Oh, that’s just us old people who don’t know how to drive, right? No problem for a young man on a sport bike? Well, look at the stats on who’s dying on motorcycles the most. Young men on sport bikes. What about the simple fact our highways were not engineered for vehicles to travel that fast on them (racetracks are by the way, you knew that right?)? I know you are not a professional caliber motorcycle rider and you are out of your mind if you think you're talented enough to ride one that fast on the streets and have it be safe.

Thank God we have these laws or you would very likely already be responsible for someone’s death. You think you and what you want are the only things that matter out there. "Damn old people in motor homes. Why don't they just stay home and watch Wheel of Fortune or play the frickin' lottery." It's immature thinking like yours and your actions that make these very types of freedom reducing laws get put into place. People who don't know good judgment from sticking their finger in a light socket.

Yes, you have to watch out for the ridiculous laws but you are just as ridiculous for knocking speed limits as a "limit of our freedom". Telling you that you can't even ride a motorcycle, own a gun, or have oral sex in your own damn bedroom is an infringement on your freedom. Taking a picture of someone’s license plate while doing 157 mph on public street is a pretty good idea. Then when you lie about it and waste our tax money by tying up police, courtroom employee, and other public officials time the picture can be produced to put and end to it. Or better yet, keep you from doing it in the first place.