Prison?

[FN2TypeR]

zippy3x said:

While 10PS was undoubtedly to blame for the incident, and he's never denied it, how much of the culpability for the victims injuries lies with the fact he decided to ride a motorcycle?

Are you having a fking laugh?

[fridaypassion]

Zippy does have a point. The motorcyle is a valid mode of transport of course it is but it's heyday was back when there was 5% of the traffic there is now. Modern cars you cant see bugger all out of. Its a recipe for disaster and if you climb onto a bike without acknowledging the vulnerability it places you in that's a mistake. If you ride with the mindset that you own the patch of road in front of you your days are numbered.

I'd love a bike I was never allowed one as a kid which really peed me off back in the day but it was right and I will be the same with my kids. Modern roads are simply just too dangerous. Its nobody's fault. Too crowded and the irony of pedestrian safety making car design change so you can't see bikers.

Motorcycling by definition is a selfish act and by that I mean you are solely responsible for climbing aboard and you must be prepared to take the consequences. The fact is that a lot can happen on a bike and the attitude that it's always someone else's fault doesn't help.

[kiethton]

fridaypassion said:

Zippy does have a point. The motorcyle is a valid mode of transport of course it is but it's heyday was back when there was 5% of the traffic there is now. Modern cars you cant see bugger all out of. Its a recipe for disaster and if you climb onto a bike without acknowledging the vulnerability it places you in that's a mistake. If you ride with the mindset that you own the patch of road in front of you your days are numbered.

I'd love a bike I was never allowed one as a kid which really peed me off back in the day but it was right and I will be the same with my kids. Modern roads are simply just too dangerous. Its nobody's fault. Too crowded and the irony of pedestrian safety making car design change so you can't see bikers.

Motorcycling by definition is a selfish act and by that I mean you are solely responsible for climbing aboard and you must be prepared to take the consequences. The fact is that a lot can happen on a bike and the attitude that it's always someone else's fault doesn't help.

So if somebody decides to punt me off on my way back from work it's my fault as I decide to ride a motorbike?!?!

No, somebody unable to stay in their lane or open their eyes takes me off because they didn't see me, I'll be suing them for every single penny theyll cough up

[anonymous-user]

Totally forgot about this thread until now.

[DuraAce]

fridaypassion said:

Zippy does have a point. The motorcyle is a valid mode of transport of course it is but it's heyday was back when there was 5% of the traffic there is now. Modern cars you cant see bugger all out of. Its a recipe for disaster and if you climb onto a bike without acknowledging the vulnerability it places you in that's a mistake. If you ride with the mindset that you own the patch of road in front of you your days are numbered.

I'd love a bike I was never allowed one as a kid which really peed me off back in the day but it was right and I will be the same with my kids. Modern roads are simply just too dangerous. Its nobody's fault. Too crowded and the irony of pedestrian safety making car design change so you can't see bikers.

Motorcycling by definition is a selfish act and by that I mean you are solely responsible for climbing aboard and you must be prepared to take the consequences. The fact is that a lot can happen on a bike and the attitude that it's always someone else's fault doesn't help.

He doesn't. He sounds as daft as you.

You can see more than enough out of a modern car. You should think about giving up your licence if you cannot see motorcycles. How I've managed not to kill anyone in 20 years of driving I've no idea!

I have no attitude that someone else is always to blame. In 10PS 's case he WAS to blame. His crap driving allowed his car to cross into the opposite carriageway. Had the biker crossed the white line and hit the oncoming car then I would apportion blame to him.

[fridaypassion]

Yes but the two most common bike accidents are SMIDSY and over cooking it. Now a SMIDSY I am saying is not always a driver's fault. As I say modern cars you can't see properly from A and C pillars. Also another factor is that they are insulated for noise better than ever so you can't hear. Most of the time the first time you are aware of a bike is when it's passing you. There are good and bad driver's and good and bad riders. A common accident up our way near the local cafe is bikers leaning onto a corner and getting decapitated by oncoming traffic forgetting that placing wheels on the centre line puts their head into the offside of oncoming traffic.

As a driver nobody gets up and thinks I know I'll go out today and kill someone's dad/friend/Son just because he's dressed ss a power ranger. The fact is that road conditions are dangerous for bikes. When you get on s bike you are by definition signing up for more danger than if you got in a car or on a bus. That is just reality and if you get on a bike thinking anything else you are a fool.

[The Mad Monk]

kiethton said:

No, somebody unable to stay in their lane or open their eyes takes me off because they didn't see me, I'll be suing them for every single penny theyll cough up

That won't do you much good if you are dead, or too crippled to spend the money. Sorry, but that is just a fact of life.

I think both parties were wrong in not using defensive driving techniques.

Motorcycling is a very dangerous business. If you are not sure about that, watch a couple of episodes of 24 Hours In A & E, that should clarify things.

You must get the law of averages on your side. Don't drive/ride like an idiot. Do drive/ride at such a speed that you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear.

[Kermit power]

Marcellus said:

Dave - imo that post is worthy of a topic in it's own right!!

I guess we've all done the same (leafing through the CD wallet) and not had the wake up call (yet)!!

This makes for quite an interesting flashback on such an old thread! When was the last time anyone used a wallet full of CDs as their main source of in car music?

[Ari]

Dr Jekyll said:

I think I've made this point before on another thread but anyway:

In theory he should have been able to stop. But for one thing the car was reported as still moving at the time of the impact, albeit quite slowly.

I do wonder how slowly - given that he says he punted a heavy motorbike a full 14 metres back the way it came!

10 Pence Short said:

The impact launched him over my (destroyed) car and dumped him on the middle of the road, unconcious. His bike had been thrown some 14 metres back the way it came. My car dangled precariously over the edge of a drop past the verge.

[Speed addicted]

fridaypassion said:

Also another factor is that they are insulated for noise better than ever so you can't hear. Most of the time the first time you are aware of a bike is when it's passing you.

Then you should really up your observation skills. If you find that you're unaware of other traffic (whatever that may be) you should be compensating for this by looking more instead of complaining that the traffic is hard to spot.

You can't ride a bike for any length of time without being aware that the general population puts almost no thought or planning into driving. People don't look ahead, don't anticipate and don't ever check behind them when going for overtakes.
After years on the bikes I do anticipate what other drivers may do, probably more so than people with less severe consequences for getting it wrong.

The bike is more dangerous than the car, but it's also hugely more enjoyable.

[fridaypassion]

It's not as much to do with observation though. I used to drive a van and no amount of observation can help you if a bike is on you out of nowhere. I'm lucky that I haven't been involved in an accident but I lost count of the amount of times I almost pulled out into the path of a bike on motorways. I even fitted additional blind spot mirrors. Unfortunately a lot of bikers so way too quick for the traffic situation. You may have developed your 6th sense of anticipation of drivers you sound like you have the right attitude in terms of assuming all drivers can't see you. If it helps to assume that everyone is driving along not paying attention that's fine if it gets you more aware.

[Pothole]

theguvernor15 said:

Not meaning to thread hijack, but i had a 'similar' incident last night, all be it reversed.

I came around a corner (almost blind) doing the speed limit,as i emerged the corner, saw a biker pull out to over-take a car coming towards me, he sees me, grabs the front brake (whilst over the double whites), loses the front end, (low-side) i put my brakes on & come to a halt, he carries on sliding down the road attached to his bike & into the front of the car.

He was very, very lucky, even more so, considering he had no gloves on, just a pair of slip on trainers, normal jeans and a short sleeve shirt, he barely had a cut on him.

My girlfriend in the passenger seat screamed & was very shakey afterwards, i was (surprisingly calm) & just went through the motions of taking photo's, details, etc etc.
The chap admitted liability, i also had the witness from the car he tried to overtake saying i didn't do anything wrong, if i'm honest & it may sound harsh i wasn't really phases (admittedly because he wasn't injured), however a few hours later on reflection it did make me a bit angry thinking back on it & how much worse it could have been!

The only "similar" bit is the modes of transport. The rider involved was making a stupid manoeuvre and you were both lucky the outcome was not worse. In 10pence's scenario the rider was riding normally, within the speed limit as far as we know.

[Speed addicted]

Again, if you find that you're consistently doing something and find that bikes appear out of no-where you need to have a look at what you're doing too.
It's quite possible that the bikes are all traveling at extremely high speed, but it's unlikely.

Vans typically have large mirrors, look more than once. That's all it takes.

I notice than a lot of bikers (particularly new ones) wear a lot of high vis. I used to think the same way, make yourself more visible and people will stop pulling out in front of you.
Then I got a lurid green Triumph Speed Triple and it made no difference at all. People don't see you because they're not looking, not because you're hard to see.

A lot of riding motorbikes safely in traffic involves looking for other people's reactions and anticipating what they might possibly do next. A huge amount of people drive around in their own little bubble, unaware and uninterested in the world outside. You don't have that option on two wheels, and it's made me a far better car driver.

What you can't anticipate is coming round a blind corner to find a car mid crash coming towards you. If you think that way for every corner you will have a very slow journey indeed.
I don't go melting through blind corners, I always keep some margin for the unexpected. However my margins wouldn't allow for the one in a million (or more) chance of this accident.

Edited by Speed addicted on Wednesday 12th July 08:04

[anonymous-user]

I'm still shocked that many drivers even fail to see emergency vehicles with sirens and flashing lights approaching from the rear.

Observation standards are very poor amongst some drivers.

If you can't see an ambulance what chance a bike?

[Zetec-S]

fridaypassion said:

Zippy does have a point. The motorcyle is a valid mode of transport of course it is but it's heyday was back when there was 5% of the traffic there is now. Modern cars you cant see bugger all out of. Its a recipe for disaster and if you climb onto a bike without acknowledging the vulnerability it places you in that's a mistake. If you ride with the mindset that you own the patch of road in front of you your days are numbered.

I'd love a bike I was never allowed one as a kid which really peed me off back in the day but it was right and I will be the same with my kids. Modern roads are simply just too dangerous. Its nobody's fault. Too crowded and the irony of pedestrian safety making car design change so you can't see bikers.

Motorcycling by definition is a selfish act and by that I mean you are solely responsible for climbing aboard and you must be prepared to take the consequences. The fact is that a lot can happen on a bike and the attitude that it's always someone else's fault doesn't help.

Taking it to an extreme, if you were seriously injured driving something like a Peugeot 106, would some of the blame for your injuries lie with you for not choosing to drive a brand new Volvo?

[Ceeejay]

fridaypassion said:

Zippy does have a point. The motorcyle is a valid mode of transport of course it is but it's heyday was back when there was 5% of the traffic there is now. Modern cars you cant see bugger all out of. Its a recipe for disaster and if you climb onto a bike without acknowledging the vulnerability it places you in that's a mistake. If you ride with the mindset that you own the patch of road in front of you your days are numbered.

The majority of bikers do acknowledge their inherent vulnerability. They cover themselves in hundreds of pounds worth of safety gear, abrasive resistant if they end up on the tarmac, armour shielding on extremities, kevlar strengthend joints, rigid plates on points of flexion, let alone the legal requirement of a helmet.

The attitude of owning the patch of road in front of you is just as transferable to car drivers its just they have had the risk reduced.

fridaypassion said:

I'd love a bike I was never allowed one as a kid which really peed me off back in the day but it was right and I will be the same with my kids. Modern roads are simply just too dangerous.

Do you do anything risky ? Parachute, skiing mountain biking, fly in an aeroplane ??

Its all about your personal risk assessment. Personally flying in a light aircraft is not an issue for me, however i know the consequences are fatal if something goes wrong. You woudnt get me jumping out of a plane though... My risk level is not up to that. Motorcyling I do seem as risky, and I have seen some very nasty accidents, but most of the time through a bit of analysis you can see where it went wrong and can adjust your own behaviours to reduce the probability of something occuring.

I am not a fast rider on the roads, not because of skill, but because of my attitude. I often get overtaken by packs of bikes with little regard for the rules of the road, or seem to care for their own existence, but you cant tar every biker with this brush.

Modern roads arent any more dangerous than many years ago, in fact with better surfaces and improved road markings I would suggest they are actually safer. Modern motorbikes are also safer, with advanced traction control, lean angle dependant ABS, dynamic suspension etc... and most importantly tyre technoolgy is leaping forward increasing stability and grip levels.

fridaypassion said:

Its nobody's fault. Too crowded and the irony of pedestrian safety making car design change so you can't see bikers.

Motorcycling by definition is a selfish act and by that I mean you are solely responsible for climbing aboard and you must be prepared to take the consequences. The fact is that a lot can happen on a bike and the attitude that it's always someone else's fault doesn't help.

In an argument with a car and a motorbike the bike will come off worse... simple physics.. The same with a truck vs a car, or a car vs a pedestrian.

Your argument could also be spun that crossing a road as a pedestrian is a selfish act, mixing yourself in with huge lumps of metal travelling at 30mph... you must be prepared take the consequences of a vehicle hitting you...

Riding a bike is enjoyable, not purely for the adenraline factor of having a vehicle with a huge power to weight ratio unreachable to the average car driver.., which is what may have been protrayed to you by the average leather clad power ranger.

[zippy3x]

Speed addicted said:

I've had motorbikes for the last 17 years, I know the risks. Some of my mates have been killed or injured in ways that have completely changed their lives.
I've considered selling the bikes on occasion, usually after another friend has had something awful happen or I've had a near miss.

If you go through life trying to avoid all risk you might as well be dead now. For me the rewards allow the risk to be acceptable.

This was really the point I was initially trying to make.
Bikers know the risks, we all do.
Bikers make a choice, we all do.

I have no problem with your choice, but it is your choice.

As you nicely put it, it's a question of risk vs reward.
But I would also put another "R" in there - responsibility.

In hindsight, responsibility might have been a better word than culpability, but it seems quite simple to me.

You choose the reward and acknowledge the risk - embrace the responsibility and accept the consequences of your decision.

10PS was wholly to blame (which I made clear in my original post), any talk of stopping distances is moot. 10PS was found guilty in a court of law. It was his fault.

However, in my opinion, the biker must, accept some responsibility for his injuries, due to his choice of mode of transport and implicit acknowledgement of the danger so well explained by Speed addicted above.

[Speed addicted]

zippy3x said:

Speed addicted said:

I've had motorbikes for the last 17 years, I know the risks. Some of my mates have been killed or injured in ways that have completely changed their lives.
I've considered selling the bikes on occasion, usually after another friend has had something awful happen or I've had a near miss.

If you go through life trying to avoid all risk you might as well be dead now. For me the rewards allow the risk to be acceptable.

This was really the point I was initially trying to make.
Bikers know the risks, we all do.
Bikers make a choice, we all do.

I have no problem with your choice, but it is your choice.

As you nicely put it, it's a question of risk vs reward.
But I would also put another "R" in there - responsibility.

In hindsight, responsibility might have been a better word than culpability, but it seems quite simple to me.

You choose the reward and acknowledge the risk - embrace the responsibility and accept the consequences of your decision.

10PS was wholly to blame (which I made clear in my original post), any talk of stopping distances is moot. 10PS was found guilty in a court of law. It was his fault.

However, in my opinion, the biker must, accept some responsibility for his injuries, due to his choice of mode of transport and implicit acknowledgement of the danger so well explained by Speed addicted above.

I do see where you're coming from, and I agree to a point. If the biker had come off on his own through misjudging a corner for instance then yes of course it was his choice and his failing that lead to injury.
I agree that just going out on a motorbike is a dangerous activity, something like 4 times more dangerous per mile traveled than cars are (possibly more or less depending on how you measure danger).

However the biker in this case wasn't doing anything other than riding his bike when he was collected by the oncoming car that was mid-crash at the time.
In this instance I think he was as responsible as anyone else be it cyclist/pedestrian whatever.

Yes you increase the risk of serious injury or death by riding motorbikes, but some things are completely out of your control no matter what you do.
It's quite possible that the biker could have been just as badly injured while driving an original mini.

I do think there tends to be a culture of passing the responsibility for our own safety onto others, Oh it wasn't my fault because person X was in the wrong. As I've said before that's all fine but on a motorbike you have to watch out more as even if you're right it's likely to hurt a lot.
The extreme example of this being the dashcam warriors, willing to get into car crashes to prove they're right and it's all recorded.

Edited by Speed addicted on Wednesday 12th July 11:06

[Pothole]

Just for interest and statistical purposes, according to DfT figures, between 1979 and 2013 the number of Motorcyclist KSIs fell 76% from 21,277 to 5,179

Since recording began in
the 1920s motorcycle
fatalities have fallen over the
long term, albeit with a number
of peak and troughs throughout
the years.
• The highest annual number
of motorcyclist fatalities was
1,832 in 1930. The lowest year
was 2012, which had 328
deaths. The figure has been
relatively stable since around
2010.

[fridaypassion]

Speed addicted said:

Again, if you find that you're consistently doing something and find that bikes appear out of no-where you need to have a look at what you're doing too.
It's quite possible that the bikes are all traveling at extremely high speed, but it's unlikely.

Vans typically have large mirrors, look more than once. That's all it takes.

I notice than a lot of bikers (particularly new ones) wear a lot of high vis. I used to think the same way, make yourself more visible and people will stop pulling out in front of you.
Then I got a lurid green Triumph Speed Triple and it made no difference at all. People don't see you because they're not looking, not because you're hard to see.

A lot of riding motorbikes safely in traffic involves looking for other people's reactions and anticipating what they might possibly do next. A huge amount of people drive around in their own little bubble, unaware and uninterested in the world outside. You don't have that option on two wheels, and it's made me a far better car driver.

What you can't anticipate is coming round a blind corner to find a car mid crash coming towards you. If you think that way for every corner you will have a very slow journey indeed.
I don't go melting through blind corners, I always keep some margin for the unexpected. However my margins wouldn't allow for the one in a million (or more) chance of this accident.

Edited by Speed addicted on Wednesday 12th July 08:04

I do worry for you. You have the totally wrong approach. If you think you can always be seen on a bike you are wrong for the reasons I have already stated. I happen to be a pretty experienced driver and at the time I was driving a van I would do 40k per year for about 11 years and I never had an accident. Youtube is littered with videos where a typical scenario is that a biker is either trying to filter past a junction and gets knocked off or is filtering down a lane too quick and gets pulled out on.

I live near Leeds and we have a section of the M621 that bends round to the right as you go from a 50 to 70. This is the worst section for bikes coming up on you. You can check your mirror and you just cant see fully a section behind you with the bend in the road. Also if you check your mirror twice and in that split second after a biker races into your blind spot thats another one thats all too common.

Some people may not see you because they werent diligent enough of course (see my earlier point regarding a certain level of risk you sign up for) but generally the standard of driving in this country is pretty good and a well ridden bike travelling at an appropriate speed in the correct bit of the road has a fighting change of being seen.

Born agains account apparently a lot of accidents. They have the big stuff on their licence from the get go. I would have to do CBT and a proper bike test. Maybe everyone should.

Thinking of the poor unfortunates that I know that have been killed on bikes and there are a few. The fact is that unfortunately they were riding way to quick and lost control. I would imagine thats the biggest single cause of bike accidents.