Kitchener man charged with racing – 177 km/h in 80 zone on motorcycle

[Tornique]

Forum Sponsor

Putting around at the limit and doing more than double the speed limit has one significant difference - kinetic energy. Doubling your speed quadruples your kinetic energy. When you crash, that kinetic energy is a big determiner of how much damage and injury/death will come out of that crash.

I'd rather be hit by a putter than by a moron doing over twice the limit. That's not being self-righteous or up on a high moral ground - that's a simple matter of putting my well-being and the well-being of others on the road above some idiot's grossly juvenile wish to play boy racer on a public road.

So I'm just doing some very quick math here but isn't the putter still more dangerous?

2005 Zx6r 600 ~450lb wet x4 = 1800
Average car ~3000lb x 1 = 3000

The kid crossing the road and not looking is in danger of any vehicle no matter the speed.


Official Math results:
Bike needs to go 205kmph to equal the same joules as a 3000lb car going 80

Even then the car has a much better chance of hitting as its 4x as wide as the bike.

I'm not defending him, I'm just more concerned with concentrating effort on items that actually make our roads safer. A motorcyclist that hits a wall at 200 will most definately be dead and removed from terrorizing the streets. The same cant be said from other really bad drivers.

 

[jc100]

Not sure how anyone here can actually defend this knob. I think people really need to revisit some basic definitions of privilege vs right. I like how the fact that going fast = automatic skill too, funny that...strap a chimp on a bike, put it on a straight road and sooner or later bubbles is going to get up into triple digits...that's one skilled primate.

As Bandit Bill said it's all a metter of degrees....this tosser was going more than 100% above the posted limit, I wouldn't be surprised if his defence was "sorry officer, I was going too fast to read the speed signs".

 

[Shaman]

177 is a bit much for a long-term cruising speed... But don't knock it 'til you try it... Lol

 

[turbodish]

So I'm just doing some very quick math here but isn't the putter still more dangerous?

2005 Zx6r 600 ~450lb wet x4 = 1800
Average car ~3000lb x 1 = 3000

The kid crossing the road and not looking is in danger of any vehicle no matter the speed.

Your Zx6r 600 is not 450 pounds wet. It is that plus the weight of the occupant and gear load. Calling it 650 pounds or more would be more accurate in most cases. Try multiply that 650 by 4 and tell me where you are now.

However, that's only part of the equation. The increased speed means that your vision takes in a LOT more information that you then have to process. Assuming you are even able to take note of a potential hazard among all that fast-arriving visual information, you will go a hell of a lot farther before you can definitively identify what you see as being a hazard, devise an avoidance strategy, and then even begin the physical process of implementing that avoidance strategy.

Even if you've managed to begin braking before you managed to hit the kid, that quadrupled kinetic energy translates into quadrupled braking distances. Where the Buick may have managed to stop before running into the kid, or slowed enough to be able to maneuver around the kid, or at least have been able to slow enough to minimize damage at the instant of impact, the bike will probably still be up around warp 5, capable of inflicting serious harm on anything in its path, and be probably less agreeable to drastic changes in direction to avoid the kid in front. I think we all know that the faster you're travelling, the harder it is to change trajectory and still be able to keep things on the road.

So yes, I'd rather take my chance with a putter than a wannabe boy racer.

 

[backmarkerducati]

Not sure how anyone here can actually defend this knob. I think people really need to revisit some basic definitions of privilege vs right. I like how the fact that going fast = automatic skill too, funny that...strap a chimp on a bike, put it on a straight road and sooner or later bubbles is going to get up into triple digits...that's one skilled primate.

As Bandit Bill said it's all a metter of degrees....this tosser was going more than 100% above the posted limit, I wouldn't be surprised if his defence was "sorry officer, I was going too fast to read the speed signs".

An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of motorcycles = one will APPEAR to have mad skills in a straight line...

 

[turbodish]

2005 Zx6r 600 ~450lb wet x4 = 1800
Average car ~3000lb x 1 = 3000

Official Math results:
Bike needs to go 205kmph to equal the same joules as a 3000lb car going 80

Redo the math allowing for the additional weight of a driver or rider at, say, 200 pounds each.

Now allow for reaction time (and distance travelled at each speed during that time) and braking distances for each at their respective speeds.

 

[Tornique]

Your Zx6r 600 is not 450 pounds wet. It is that plus the weight of the occupant and gear load. Calling it 650 pounds or more would be more accurate in most cases. Try multiply that 650 by 4 and tell me where you are now.

However, that's only part of the equation. The increased speed means that your vision takes in a LOT more information that you then have to process. Assuming you are even able to take note of a potential hazard among all that fast-arriving visual information, you will go a hell of a lot farther before you can definitively identify what you see as being a hazard, devise an avoidance strategy, and then even begin the physical process of implementing that avoidance strategy.

Even if you've managed to begin braking before you managed to hit the kid, that quadrupled kinetic energy translates into quadrupled braking distances. Where the Buick may have managed to stop before running into the kid, or slowed enough to be able to maneuver around the kid, or at least have been able to slow enough to minimize damage at the instant of impact, the bike will probably still be up around warp 5, capable of inflicting serious harm on anything in its path, and be probably less agreeable to drastic changes in direction to avoid the kid in front. I think we all know that the faster you're travelling, the harder it is to change trajectory and still be able to keep things on the road.

So yes, I'd rather take my chance with a putter than a wannabe boy racer.

I removed the rider/driver from both equations. So i haven't inflated the car weight either, which could have more occupants. I think I've been fair.

As for the kid. You gave the car the chance to maneuver over the bike? Not to mention the car has 40% of the lane and the bike takes up... 10%

I'm guessing you haven't been to the track, yes a bike is harder to push over at high speed. But I've dodged debri on a couple of occasions. I think your stacking odds a bit.

 

[Tornique]

Redo the math allowing for the additional weight of a driver or rider at, say, 200 pounds each.

Now allow for reaction time (and distance travelled at each speed during that time) and braking distances for each at their respective speeds.

Ok, I've redone it so that the rider is taken into account and the car is empty. The bike needs to go 170kph to equal a small car at 3000lb going 80.

Bike needs to go 178 if car has a driver.

 

[turbodish]

I removed the rider/driver from both equations. So i haven't inflated the car weight either, which could have more occupants. I think I've been fair.

As for the kid. You gave the car the change to maneuver over the bike? Not to mention the car has 40% of the lane and the bike takes up... 10%

I'm guessing you haven't been to the track, yes a bike is harder to push over at high speed. But I've dodged debri on a couple of occasions. I think your stacking odds a bit.

You have to allow for the weight of the vehicle rider and driver because the respective vehicles cannot operate without them. A moving vehicle must have a curb weight of at least the vehicle and the operator.

I'll give a much slower moving vehicle better odds at being able to stop or at least change trajectory to avoid the kid. That's just simple physics at work regardless of the width of the vehicle.

Yes I've been to the track. Dodging debris is well and good. However, I've also seen riders who haven't able to change their line enough to dodge debris on the track, even when that "debris" is another rider or their downed bike laying on the track.

As for stacking odds, that too is simple physics - the faster you are travelling on the road (or racetrack), the lower the odds are that you will be able to successfully deal with the unexpected when it happens in front of you.

 

[Tornique]

Your favoring the cars maneuverability... I'm really not sure why, considering size. *shrugs* I'll even add that the driver going 80 is relaxing and not paying attention where as the biker is on Red alert level attentiveness.

But i'm sure its allot more likely that cars kill more kids than a motorcycles. Even if you decide to use a per capita format for your stat.

 

[Venom01]

let it go people. When we speed we take the risk of getting caught. This man got caught and that's all that there is to it. Do yourselves a favor and worry about what YOU do and HOW/WHEN your doing it. It's all anyone can do.

 

[Freestyle72]

You have to allow for the weight of the vehicle rider and driver because the respective vehicles cannot operate without them. A moving vehicle must have a curb weight of at least the vehicle and the operator.

I'll give a much slower moving vehicle better odds at being able to stop or at least change trajectory to avoid the kid. That's just simple physics at work regardless of the width of the vehicle.

Yes I've been to the track. Dodging debris is well and good. However, I've also seen riders who haven't able to change their line enough to dodge debris on the track, even when that "debris" is another rider or their downed bike laying on the track.

As for stacking odds, that too is simple physics - the faster you are travelling on the road (or racetrack), the lower the odds are that you will be able to successfully deal with the unexpected when it happens in front of you.

 

[Don.]

I rode through where they caught him an hour later. The opp had a ride program set up.

 

[Bandit Bill]

I haven't been able to track this photo down further, to confirm on that forum. Note that on the right hand side of the bike, is a sidecar, meaning that this tire is being used for the correct (non-cornering) application. He's got it at least 50% right. However, if he's still using a motorcycle rim, and not an automotive rim (IE an aftermarket MGA car rim) he's an idiot perpetuating an unsafe practice.

It comes down to the differences in Automotive, and Motorcycle rims. There is differences in circumferences for the range of 15-18" between the two applications, as well as differences in the bead curvature - never mind that when automotive tires are aired-down to provide enough grip when a motorcycle is leaned, simply don't have enough sidewall strength to keep it from being damaged over time/potentially rolling right off of the bead.

Classic recent accident with a CT equipped Yamaha Warrior at the Gap..

http://www.photoreflect.com/store/ThumbPage.aspx?e=8043621&g=0QAK00YD03

Yes, my own sidecar rig uses car tires - and no, I'm not using motorcycle rims to do so. The initial costs involved is hella expensive to do it right.

Helluva thread-jack, this is.

 

[skitta]

good that he got nailed and i hope he gets everything the courts can throw at him.

Ditto! And, it's got nothing to do with "hate".

 

[Scuba Steve]

Is this you Turbo? pretty impressive with a car tire.

 

[murf]

So instead of just risking the loss of a bike in the controlled environment of a race track, they choose to entertain even greater risk of crash in a public space, and in doing so also impose risk of injury and even death to others who didn't sign up for that public road track day? What kind of logic is that?

their logic is that the chances of that happening are remote, and at least if they crash by themselves things are covered. In the USA my insurance seemed to cover trackdays as long as it wasn't racing......I never needed to make that kind of claim but I was much less worried about crashing the bike. Expecting a rider that is making payments on his bike go to the track instead of simply letting her rip on the street from time to time is unreasonable......the govt knows this, they are happy collecting speeding fines, they don't care about the one person a year that is killed by a speeding motorcycle.

 

[torontoZX6R]

Please provide the name of the street where you live together with your signed open invitation for all to come and enjoy their high speed riding there. After all, if it's good enough that you think it's acceptable to inflict it on others, then you should be quite happy to experience it in front of your own home, family and neighbours as well.

Please show me where I said That I think his behavior was acceptable or condoned it in any way.

I was simply hoping that just once I could read a thread where you didn't chime in with your long winded responses for the sole reason of hearing yourself speak. Correlation this, apex that, trajectories and equations.

You don't need to resort to f***ing equations to know that this guy was stupid. People do this kinda stuff every day. It's dumb. Go have a beer and chill out. It's nice out, go for a ride for gods sake

 

[thowe]

Not to condone 97 over...but 80 to 170...you could be up to that and back down to 80 in like 10 seconds. Nice little straight stretch...and outside of the city its only 80 zones.

That said, if you want to play you have to pay...I personally am trying to save up for a track bike, to avoid such urges. His fines should almost cover a decent 03 600.

feel free to bash lol

 

[promac]

If I'm lucky enough to get hit by a motorcycle instead of a car, I hope I get the benefit of 450lb x 1 rather than 450lb x 4.

Forum Sponsor