"Matt Whiting" wrote in message

Hit anything hard above 40 MPH and you are in a world of hurt. Sure, if
you hit a large marshmallow, then you'll be in good shape.

Took you six posts to get to this bit of backpeddling. *Most* collisions do
not involve hitting an oak tree. Most collisions at 40 MPH are survivable.
And that's contrary to what you originally asserted. If you really meant to
say that most collisions that involve a 40 MPH side impact with a cement
mixer are unsurvivable, then, OK.

Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes
very little to put you over the edge.

Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of
driving. And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race
speeds.

I've never raced (well not on a track anyway and I ain't talking about
anything else!), but I trust it would hone one's skills. However,
accident avoidance is about a whole lot more than raw driving skills. It
is about attitude, anticipation, alertness, situation awareness, etc.

And you think this isn't a crucial part of racing? Qualifying laps are,
mostly, pushing the limits. But a race involves more than just getting
around an empty track as fast as you can. And many of those things
translate directly into accident avoidance maneuvers.

A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical
failures.
It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.

Yes, but a lot more training goes into learning how to fly, flight plan
and exercise judgement to avoid pilot errors. I don't think more than 10%
of my flight training has been invested in procedures to handle mechanical
failures.

Even that's pretty significant. And the forced approach has the highest
failure rate of any flight test item.

And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to
get the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or
using your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You
drive a bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety
measure?

The luck factor is always there. I've never said it wasn't. The reason
is most drivers can't keep their feet from getting confused if they brake
with their left foot, which is why in the US most states teach against
that. I personally brake with my left foot when driving my AT equipped
vehicles and find it works great, but most driving schools teach against
it.

They get confused for a bit if they've always used their right foot. But,
covering the brake with either foot reduces the stopping distance in an
emergency. There's also a bunch you can do with almost simultaneous use of
both power and brakes. But, it's not really applicable to street driving.

Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times,
somebody made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is
about average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people
who are apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical
reality and believeing too much in your own prowess.

Two accidents in how many years of driving?

More than two. A few very minor ones as well. And about 34 years.

I'm not disregarding reality at all. I'm just focusing on what I can
control. I can control my driving and the selection of vehicle I drive. I
can't control fate or luck or whatever you wish to call it, so I don't
fret it.

Then you accept that you could make different choices that would raise your
chance of survival. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Just like flying
in an airliner is safer than flying yourself.

moo