Pushbike helmets Part II

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Well said.

You also have to remember that in the NT during those great days, the works dept knew that cars were doing that sort of speed and they maintained the road accordingly. If there was any road damage there was a caution sign a couple of km's ahead. I saw a few of these and when I did I washed speed off until I could see what the caution was for and the safest way around it. On the odd occasion it was a pot hole and by the time I got to it I was doing an appropriate speed. Maybe one of the reasons the NT introduced the lower speed limit was so they could save money on road maintenance. Others that have been there since have stated the roads are not as good now.

As for foxes and rabbits, highly unlikely during day time hours (it was 40 plus degrees, animals rest during heat), once the sun was getting low and dusk was approaching I slowed down and sat at a comfortable and safe speed for the conditions. The only animals I saw when the speed was up were some eagles that I could see far enough ahead to slow down for and a sparrow that hit my bonnet protector and cracked it (I found it caught under the bonnet protector above the headlight).

As for the puncture that deflates rapidly, normally this will not occur unless there is a road defect that slashes it (see my previous point). In the speed rating of tyres they have to be tested to withstand normal road debris without exploding into a million pieces, I had the appropriate tyres for my vehicle which are Y rated (300 km/h, 100 km/h fudge factor), they were less than 1000 km old.



Or how many of them spend so much time, money and effort ensuring their car is prepared (the car had been serviced 3 days prior to the trip plus I got one of the work mechanics to check it over on the hoist just to be sure). All their brake pads, tyres, oils and fluids are rated for the task. Or have as many advanced driving courses under their belt as I have. Now that would be an interesting poll.

I would go as far as to say that with the road conditions that were in the NT at the time and with an appropriate car, traveling at that speed is actually safer than trudging along dead straight roads at 110 km/h. Let me ask you this, on a predominately straight road with only gentle bends, do you drive looking ahead to the limit of vision and think about appropriate speed for bends and braking distance within your current visual distance? At the speeds I was traveling that is exactly what I was doing, slowing down when bends were approaching and also when my visual distance was reduced to a point that hazards may be obscured until they were well within the required braking distance of my vehicle. My awareness was at a point that even a small hill would prompt me to slow down as I could not see what was on the other side of the crest. How many people at 110 km/h go over the crest at 110 km/h without knowing what is on the other side? The average road user at 110 km/h in those conditions is lucky enough to be awake, never mind concentrating like that. I have to say the reduction in driver fatigue (drive for 1 hr, rest for 1/2 hour and still make good time) made safe driving so much easier and concentrating a cinch.

The risk of crashes on a bike in an urban environment are much higher and less easily controlled, pedestrians on the path, cars on the road, cats, dogs, kids running out etc, etc, etc, make it very likely to crash at some stage and all you have protecting your skull is a layer of skin and hair. That is why I wear a helmet and always will.

One last thought on this OT line of conversation. Just because I am a road safety advocate does not mean I am an advocate of low speeds, I am an advocate of appropriate speeds for road, car, driver and environmental conditions. Improve those conditions and you can raise the speed safely.

Ah geckoGT, I am glad you are defending this as I actually agree with you. I just wish that you could stop for a moment and apply the same rational to the casual pushy bike rider too. I for one is carrying 10 k too much and I would benefit greatly from the occasional ride, and according to those stats (I know you can read anything into them) I might even save myself from an early heart attack, which is probably more likely!

Note, it also seems that others have picked up the fact that when you think it is safe then it should be ok but if others think it is safe then it may not be, but really there is no right or wrong to either cause.

Bud Bud

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Ah geckoGT, I am glad you are defending this as I actually agree with you. I just wish that you could stop for a moment and apply the same rational to the casual pushy bike rider too. I for one is carrying 10 k too much and I would benefit greatly from the occasional ride, and according to those stats (I know you can read anything into them) I might even save myself from an early heart attack, which is probably more likely!

Note, it also seems that others have picked up the fact that when you think it is safe then it should be ok but if others think it is safe then it may not be, but really there is no right or wrong to either cause.

Bud Bud

The point is a car has safety devices, some of them are compulsory. You have to wear a seat belt regardless of your speed and conditions, its not a case of wear your seat belt only if you are traveling over 100 km/h.

MY previous post does not apply to the choice of helmets in any way, it was just to answer the person that believes I am so much of a safety nut that I should wear a helmet in my car, if I don't I am a hypocrite.