Not a rant!
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:09 pm
I’m not addressing any post in particular here, but as I read along I’m reminded of countless articles I’ve read about riding vintage motorcycles. The gist of the articles is usually that if the rider takes into account the reduced acceleration and braking capabilities of old motorcycles (by going slower and paying more attention), then it’s quite safe to ride the old machines in modern traffic situations.
I don’t think so. The argument would seem to make a lot of sense. A Ducati Monster might be able to split lanes, dive into holes, and otherwise create a safety cushion through acceleration and braking which (for example) a R75/6 with it’s single front disk and mild acceleration couldn’t. Of course, according to the dictum, the diligent airhead rider would simply avoid getting into those situations in the first place.
But where the dictum falls apart is situations that surprise the rider. Cruising along through the woods at 50 mph and having a deer jump from the bushes into your path would sorely test the bike’s braking power. The modern bike, because of its awesome braking, might come out the winner where an airhead wouldn’t. Similarly, an oncoming car that suddenly starts to turn left in front of you might be handled by a blast of acceleration from a modern bike that an airhead might not be able to muster.
It’s a small point I’m making here, perhaps vanishingly small. But because of it’s limited performance, an airhead is going to be, by degrees, inherently less safe than a modern bike, no matter how diligent its rider may be.
For this reason I’m all for improving the braking on airheads rather than presuming that I’m just as safe because I’m being more careful. Is my point statistically significant, if we somehow could put numbers to it? Maybe not. Maybe so.
Ken
I don’t think so. The argument would seem to make a lot of sense. A Ducati Monster might be able to split lanes, dive into holes, and otherwise create a safety cushion through acceleration and braking which (for example) a R75/6 with it’s single front disk and mild acceleration couldn’t. Of course, according to the dictum, the diligent airhead rider would simply avoid getting into those situations in the first place.
But where the dictum falls apart is situations that surprise the rider. Cruising along through the woods at 50 mph and having a deer jump from the bushes into your path would sorely test the bike’s braking power. The modern bike, because of its awesome braking, might come out the winner where an airhead wouldn’t. Similarly, an oncoming car that suddenly starts to turn left in front of you might be handled by a blast of acceleration from a modern bike that an airhead might not be able to muster.
It’s a small point I’m making here, perhaps vanishingly small. But because of it’s limited performance, an airhead is going to be, by degrees, inherently less safe than a modern bike, no matter how diligent its rider may be.
For this reason I’m all for improving the braking on airheads rather than presuming that I’m just as safe because I’m being more careful. Is my point statistically significant, if we somehow could put numbers to it? Maybe not. Maybe so.
Ken
