I’m Dave, I’m a speedaholic
Discussion
This is in today's Times here: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_styl...
The bit that leapt out at me was:
Note that the article doesn't say that 1/3 of KSIs are due to speeding motorcyclists. It would therefore be appropriate to use a range of techniques -- education, training, awareness, engineering improvements, improved signage for a start -- to help address this. I do hope the government sees fit to put significant effort into saving these motorcyclists from death and serious injury. It's a national disgrace. And I don't mean that sarcastically.
The bit that leapt out at me was:
Times said:
Motorcyclists make up just 1% of all road vehicles but a third of all deaths and serious injuries.
Is this correct? If so, that means that 33% of all KSIs are motorcyclists. If the government is prepared to invest huge forces against speeding motorists on the back of the now-discredited "one-third lie", I would hope that it would be prepared to the same for motorcyclists.Note that the article doesn't say that 1/3 of KSIs are due to speeding motorcyclists. It would therefore be appropriate to use a range of techniques -- education, training, awareness, engineering improvements, improved signage for a start -- to help address this. I do hope the government sees fit to put significant effort into saving these motorcyclists from death and serious injury. It's a national disgrace. And I don't mean that sarcastically.
Peter Ward said:
This is in today's Times here: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_styl...
The bit that leapt out at me was:
Note that the article doesn't say that 1/3 of KSIs are due to speeding motorcyclists. It would therefore be appropriate to use a range of techniques -- education, training, awareness, engineering improvements, improved signage for a start -- to help address this. I do hope the government sees fit to put significant effort into saving these motorcyclists from death and serious injury. It's a national disgrace. And I don't mean that sarcastically.
Why do you think we have think bike adverts & bikesafe initiatives ?The bit that leapt out at me was:
Times said:
Motorcyclists make up just 1% of all road vehicles but a third of all deaths and serious injuries.
Is this correct? If so, that means that 33% of all KSIs are motorcyclists. If the government is prepared to invest huge forces against speeding motorists on the back of the now-discredited "one-third lie", I would hope that it would be prepared to the same for motorcyclists.Note that the article doesn't say that 1/3 of KSIs are due to speeding motorcyclists. It would therefore be appropriate to use a range of techniques -- education, training, awareness, engineering improvements, improved signage for a start -- to help address this. I do hope the government sees fit to put significant effort into saving these motorcyclists from death and serious injury. It's a national disgrace. And I don't mean that sarcastically.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 24th June 16:31
Peter Ward said:
Von, I know about these and see them around. But are they working? Are the figures improving? I'm asking because I don't know, not for any ulterior motive.
Motorcycle use has been increasing & so were KSIs with it. 2003 was a turning point & despite continued growth in use, all death & injury types have been falling. Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 24th June 16:47
vonhosen said:
Peter Ward said:
Von, I know about these and see them around. But are they working? Are the figures improving? I'm asking because I don't know, not for any ulterior motive.
Motorcycle use has been increasing & so were KSIs with it. 2003 was a turning point & despite continued growth in use, all death & injury types have been falling. Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 24th June 16:47
esselte said:
vonhosen said:
Peter Ward said:
Von, I know about these and see them around. But are they working? Are the figures improving? I'm asking because I don't know, not for any ulterior motive.
Motorcycle use has been increasing & so were KSIs with it. 2003 was a turning point & despite continued growth in use, all death & injury types have been falling. Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 24th June 16:47
But prior to 2003 motorcycles were bucking overall trend. They were disproportionally increasing in number against the overall figures.
Nowhere in the article does it state a link between speed and accidents. The whole thing (i.e. the article and the brainwashing "awareness" courses) seem to be an excercise in creating an implied link. (Presumably because attempts to create such links have been exposed as incorrect.)
Lostusernamedamn said:
Nowhere in the article does it state a link between speed and accidents. The whole thing (i.e. the article and the brainwashing "awareness" courses) seem to be an excercise in creating an implied link. (Presumably because attempts to create such links have been exposed as incorrect.)
So let me get this right - you say the article states no link between speed and accidents - that seems right so far. Then you say it's an exercise in implying a link but apparently without mentioning one) how?
AFAIK the biker "Awareness" courses are not focussed on speed (although that's part of it) - they are also about making sure you are seen, not overtaking queues behind right turners, stuff that helps bikers stay alive, regardless of whether or not they were "at fault" - on a bike you must make more allowances for other people's stupidity and a lot of bikers don't seem to appreciate that. That is not a criticism of most (good) bikers, but of poor bikers who are far more exposed to being hurt than poor car drivers.
Still don't see the speed / accident link though (not even implied).
s2art said:
Not sure how much difference anything would make. Bikes are inherently more dangerous. Have a crash in a modern car and you have an excellent chance of walking away. With a bike the chances are you wont be even walking for some time.
Not true! Police motorcyclists are less likely to be involved in an accident than police car drivers. (And that's on a per mile basis.) That proves that bikes are not "inherently more dangerous" but do require a specific skill set to ride safely. The problem is that most motorcyclists are not particularly interested in acquiring the particular skill set that will keep them safe when there is the option of learning how to wheelie, stoppie, get knee down etc.black-k1 said:
s2art said:
Not sure how much difference anything would make. Bikes are inherently more dangerous. Have a crash in a modern car and you have an excellent chance of walking away. With a bike the chances are you wont be even walking for some time.
Not true! Police motorcyclists are less likely to be involved in an accident than police car drivers. (And that's on a per mile basis.) That proves that bikes are not "inherently more dangerous" but do require a specific skill set to ride safely. The problem is that most motorcyclists are not particularly interested in acquiring the particular skill set that will keep them safe when there is the option of learning how to wheelie, stoppie, get knee down etc.s2art said:
black-k1 said:
s2art said:
Not sure how much difference anything would make. Bikes are inherently more dangerous. Have a crash in a modern car and you have an excellent chance of walking away. With a bike the chances are you wont be even walking for some time.
Not true! Police motorcyclists are less likely to be involved in an accident than police car drivers. (And that's on a per mile basis.) That proves that bikes are not "inherently more dangerous" but do require a specific skill set to ride safely. The problem is that most motorcyclists are not particularly interested in acquiring the particular skill set that will keep them safe when there is the option of learning how to wheelie, stoppie, get knee down etc.This means that the higher accident rates for non-police motorcyclists are not specifically caused by the type of vehicle but are more (everything?) to do with the rider.
Edited by black-k1 on Sunday 24th June 20:59
Peter Ward said:
Note that the article doesn't say that 1/3 of KSIs are due to speeding motorcyclists.
Glad it doesn't as the Government have used simlar reasoning to stop any idea of speed-limiting motorcycles.In their explanation, they say:
"....efforts to reduce accidents ‘should focus on the major contributory factors’ whereas research identified exceeding the speed limit ‘as a contributory factor in only four per cent of motorcycle accidents’."
"‘A speed limiter would address a proportion of those accidents, but wouldn't necessarily impact on instances of inappropriate speed or “going too fast for the conditions”, a contributory factor in nine per cent of motorcycle accidents.’
Lets hope they start to use the same logic when it comes to speed cameras. Yeah, right....
(Article from MCN)
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults...
Alice Cupra said:
Peter Ward said:
Note that the article doesn't say that 1/3 of KSIs are due to speeding motorcyclists.
Glad it doesn't as the Government have used simlar reasoning to stop any idea of speed-limiting motorcycles.In their explanation, they say:
"....efforts to reduce accidents ‘should focus on the major contributory factors’ whereas research identified exceeding the speed limit ‘as a contributory factor in only four per cent of motorcycle accidents’."
"‘A speed limiter would address a proportion of those accidents, but wouldn't necessarily impact on instances of inappropriate speed or “going too fast for the conditions”, a contributory factor in nine per cent of motorcycle accidents.’
Lets hope they start to use the same logic when it comes to speed cameras. Yeah, right....
(Article from MCN)
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults...
I hope Paul Smith is aware of this article. It's a superb rebuttal to the stupidity of focusing on speed to exclusion of everything else. How can get we the government to acknowledge that the same argument applies to cars as well?
black-k1 said:
s2art said:
black-k1 said:
s2art said:
Not sure how much difference anything would make. Bikes are inherently more dangerous. Have a crash in a modern car and you have an excellent chance of walking away. With a bike the chances are you wont be even walking for some time.
Not true! Police motorcyclists are less likely to be involved in an accident than police car drivers. (And that's on a per mile basis.) That proves that bikes are not "inherently more dangerous" but do require a specific skill set to ride safely. The problem is that most motorcyclists are not particularly interested in acquiring the particular skill set that will keep them safe when there is the option of learning how to wheelie, stoppie, get knee down etc.This means that the higher accident rates for non-police motorcyclists are not specifically caused by the type of vehicle but are more (everything?) to do with the rider.
Edited by black-k1 on Sunday 24th June 20:59
tvrgit said:
Still don't see the speed / accident link though (not even implied).
People who are caught speeding are sent on a course and lectured about road safety and the dangers of speeding. This implies that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous, and this is further implied by the article suggesting that people drive fast *because* they think it's dangerous. Actually I don't think that many people do exceed the limit because they think it's dangerous, I think that most people exceeding the limit think they are driving safely and the accident statistics seem to suggest that they are generally right. s2art said:
You cannot seperate out the riders actions from the inherent vulnerability of motorcycles. A simple driver error in a car will have a lower probability of a KSI than that of a rider. No escaping that.
That just means that the skill set that will keep a biker safe on the road is more physically and mentally demanding that that which will keep a car driver safe.So the training and test should be more demanding, which it is.
Likewise, I drive my 20-year-old Lotus with greater respect than a modern car because the inherent safety of the vehicle is less. (A mental attitude/skill since it feels very much the same in the diver's seat; you just know for a fact you'll come off worse in a prang.)
s2art said:
You cannot seperate out the riders actions from the inherent vulnerability of motorcycles. A simple driver error in a car will have a lower probability of a KSI than that of a rider. No escaping that.
I don’t agree. Where is this “inherent vulnerability”?The “probability of a KSI” is arrived at via statistical analysis and the research undertaken with regard to accident rates for police drivers/motorcyclists showed that the risks per mile were no greater (actually less!) for the motorcyclist than the car driver. I’m quite sure that there were proportionally just as many “driver errors” for police car drivers as there were for police motorcyclists yet the results actually indicated a lower risk for the motorcyclists.
black-k1 said:
s2art said:
You cannot seperate out the riders actions from the inherent vulnerability of motorcycles. A simple driver error in a car will have a lower probability of a KSI than that of a rider. No escaping that.
I don’t agree. Where is this “inherent vulnerability”?The “probability of a KSI” is arrived at via statistical analysis and the research undertaken with regard to accident rates for police drivers/motorcyclists showed that the risks per mile were no greater (actually less!) for the motorcyclist than the car driver. I’m quite sure that there were proportionally just as many “driver errors” for police car drivers as there were for police motorcyclists yet the results actually indicated a lower risk for the motorcyclists.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff