Bike crash causes
Discussion
Bizarre spat on Twitter last night
A poster was claiming that 99% of bike crashes are the bikers fault, and that 'forensic' tests show that whenever a car pulls out on a bike the bike was going too fast to be seen.
The really odd thing is that the poster, @NewtownRPUSGT, is a sgt in Dyfed police traffic division, and runs Bikesafe courses.
He seems to have pulled the more extreme tweets, but is this typical for Welsh police? I've heard they tend to be anti bike.
A poster was claiming that 99% of bike crashes are the bikers fault, and that 'forensic' tests show that whenever a car pulls out on a bike the bike was going too fast to be seen.
The really odd thing is that the poster, @NewtownRPUSGT, is a sgt in Dyfed police traffic division, and runs Bikesafe courses.
He seems to have pulled the more extreme tweets, but is this typical for Welsh police? I've heard they tend to be anti bike.
I think it’s true bikes have proportionally more single viehicle crashes than cars but anywhere near 99% is ridiculous.
Equally the pulling out thing.
North wales police are massively anti motorists not sure about the rest of them but for essentially a police spokesman to be on Twitter doing that is massively unprofessional.
Equally the pulling out thing.
North wales police are massively anti motorists not sure about the rest of them but for essentially a police spokesman to be on Twitter doing that is massively unprofessional.
A bit out of date but the official figures disagree with him
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
Not seen the feed or the claim direct, but I suppose the first thing to consider is - if the guy is right, then what? If he's wrong, then what?
My input to this (because I think it's an important discussion and in fact I was on half a mind putting up a thread asking why we don't talk about death more) is based on 1 - being a new rider and undergoing IAM Roadsmart training, and 2 - the almost literally daily death of bikers up here in Scotland - I'm sure the rest of the country has seen it too.
If the guy is wrong and the implication is that drivers are to blame in more circumstances, then surely that tells us we all as riders need to do even more to rider safely and anticipate hazards better than we do today? My feeling is that even if the 99% is 70% or 50%, it's actually neither here nor there. We can all still improve. I say that without knowing each individual rider but based on my observations on the road where countless times I wince at the actions of bikers
Even if the guy is right, the outcomes or consideration is therefore still the same.
I have no doubt that driving standards for cars and vans, and in particular observation is horrendous and that one day we'll all get caught out. But I think looking at my riding critically, I've been lucky to have had very few near misses but where I have, the question is always 'What could I have done to reduce the chances of that happening?'. Whether it's going slower, anticipating a hazard, moving my position to be more visible, or even not going out on the bike, thus far there have always been things I could have done better or differently that I can apply to my next ride.
I know I'm being a bit long winded and evangelising a bit on rider safety, but at the end of the day, the alternative is dying. Take no action on that stats that has been presented and your chances of dying or being seriously injured will remain the same. If every biker does one single thing differently, whether that's slower round corners, slower on blind summits, better position round bends, a bit more restraint on overtakes or just using mirrors more to check what's going on, it'll be better for us all.
At the end of the day, it's neither here nor there if he's technically or statistically right - our fellow bikers are dying in their droves every day and every single one of us can help reduce our own chances of that happening.
My input to this (because I think it's an important discussion and in fact I was on half a mind putting up a thread asking why we don't talk about death more) is based on 1 - being a new rider and undergoing IAM Roadsmart training, and 2 - the almost literally daily death of bikers up here in Scotland - I'm sure the rest of the country has seen it too.
If the guy is wrong and the implication is that drivers are to blame in more circumstances, then surely that tells us we all as riders need to do even more to rider safely and anticipate hazards better than we do today? My feeling is that even if the 99% is 70% or 50%, it's actually neither here nor there. We can all still improve. I say that without knowing each individual rider but based on my observations on the road where countless times I wince at the actions of bikers
Even if the guy is right, the outcomes or consideration is therefore still the same.
I have no doubt that driving standards for cars and vans, and in particular observation is horrendous and that one day we'll all get caught out. But I think looking at my riding critically, I've been lucky to have had very few near misses but where I have, the question is always 'What could I have done to reduce the chances of that happening?'. Whether it's going slower, anticipating a hazard, moving my position to be more visible, or even not going out on the bike, thus far there have always been things I could have done better or differently that I can apply to my next ride.
I know I'm being a bit long winded and evangelising a bit on rider safety, but at the end of the day, the alternative is dying. Take no action on that stats that has been presented and your chances of dying or being seriously injured will remain the same. If every biker does one single thing differently, whether that's slower round corners, slower on blind summits, better position round bends, a bit more restraint on overtakes or just using mirrors more to check what's going on, it'll be better for us all.
At the end of the day, it's neither here nor there if he's technically or statistically right - our fellow bikers are dying in their droves every day and every single one of us can help reduce our own chances of that happening.
jamiehamy said:
If the guy is wrong and the implication is that drivers are to blame in more circumstances, then surely that tells us we all as riders need to do even more to rider safely and anticipate hazards better than we do today? My feeling is that even if the 99% is 70% or 50%, it's actually neither here nor there. We can all still improve. I say that without knowing each individual rider but based on my observations on the road where countless times I wince at the actions of bikers
Even if the guy is right, the outcomes or consideration is therefore still the same.
No it isn't.Even if the guy is right, the outcomes or consideration is therefore still the same.
If 99% of bike accidents are caused by the biker going too fast, then all we have to do is ride slowly and nothing can happen to us. No need to worry about whether the driver waiting to pull out has seen us because sticking to the speed limit means he is bound to.
If on the other hand the causes are more complicated than that, we need to be a whole lot more careful.
If we want to prevent accidents, surely finding out the causes is fundamental.
I didn't see the original post. It seems common sense that if a car pulled out on a motorcycle doesn't automatically make it the car driver's fault though. It's harder to judge the speed of motorcycles, and as motorcyclists we're supposed to be aware of this fact and reducing our speed accordingly.
I haven't looked at the breakdown. But if you sort your data in such crude terms, i.e. car pulled out = "driver's fault", then it could easily get skewed, so what he said seems feasible. It certainly becomes a lot less useful. As for he truth, who knows?
We all hear regularly of drivers pulling out in front of motorcyclists, so it's easy to understand how someone would object to saying it's the biker's fault. But anecdotes don't necessarily tell us about the real picture.
That said. Whether or not what Sgt Plod says is true, he is challenging perceptions of accidents based on his own experience, starting debate, and advising us to take greater control of our own risks. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
I haven't looked at the breakdown. But if you sort your data in such crude terms, i.e. car pulled out = "driver's fault", then it could easily get skewed, so what he said seems feasible. It certainly becomes a lot less useful. As for he truth, who knows?
We all hear regularly of drivers pulling out in front of motorcyclists, so it's easy to understand how someone would object to saying it's the biker's fault. But anecdotes don't necessarily tell us about the real picture.
That said. Whether or not what Sgt Plod says is true, he is challenging perceptions of accidents based on his own experience, starting debate, and advising us to take greater control of our own risks. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
cmaguire said:
A lot of bikers don't go fast enough to crash on bends these days.
This.A few times now I've been overtaken on the straights doing well over the limit only for them to hold me up when the roads get twisty. Fair enough I only ride a 750 v-twin naked which restricts me doing stupid speeds for a sustained period but still it's a pain in the arse as the corners are where the fun is for me.
But having said that on Saturday just gone I went in too hot, well I say too hot but it was more of the case where the corner really tightens up so I ended up grabbing a handful of front brake making me drift into opposite lane. Luckily I got away with it, but that could have been the end for me very easily. Normally I would tip the bike over more, look where I want to go and add more throttle etc, but I didn't this time and panicked by grabbing the front brake. I was massively pissed off with myself, but I'll learn from it 100% make no mistake.
I can bet the above happens to many riders, some will learn from it and some won't but it's a mistake that could easily spell the end.
Prof Prolapse said:
I didn't see the original post. It seems common sense that if a car pulled out on a motorcycle doesn't automatically make it the car driver's fault though. It's harder to judge the speed of motorcycles, and as motorcyclists we're supposed to be aware of this fact and reducing our speed accordingly.
I haven't looked at the breakdown. But if you sort your data in such crude terms, i.e. car pulled out = "driver's fault", then it could easily get skewed, so what he said seems feasible. It certainly becomes a lot less useful. As for he truth, who knows?
We all hear regularly of drivers pulling out in front of motorcyclists, so it's easy to understand how someone would object to saying it's the biker's fault. But anecdotes don't necessarily tell us about the real picture.
That said. Whether or not what Sgt Plod says is true, he is challenging perceptions of accidents based on his own experience, starting debate, and advising us to take greater control of our own risks. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
The problem was that he was saying it was necessarily the bikers fault. Your last paragraph sounds like a justification for lying in a good cause. Why should anyone take any notice of what they say if it's propaganda rather than fact?I haven't looked at the breakdown. But if you sort your data in such crude terms, i.e. car pulled out = "driver's fault", then it could easily get skewed, so what he said seems feasible. It certainly becomes a lot less useful. As for he truth, who knows?
We all hear regularly of drivers pulling out in front of motorcyclists, so it's easy to understand how someone would object to saying it's the biker's fault. But anecdotes don't necessarily tell us about the real picture.
That said. Whether or not what Sgt Plod says is true, he is challenging perceptions of accidents based on his own experience, starting debate, and advising us to take greater control of our own risks. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
Prof Prolapse said:
I didn't see the original post. It seems common sense that if a car pulled out on a motorcycle doesn't automatically make it the car driver's fault though. It's harder to judge the speed of motorcycles, and as motorcyclists we're supposed to be aware of this fact and reducing our speed accordingly.
Reduce speed and move to the middle of the road away from the junction. How many do this to help avoid a vehicle if it pulls out on them ? jamiehamy said:
cmaguire said:
Motorcycle riders aren't dying in droves every day.
10th July - 2 bikers dies in Hawick and Jedburgh9th July Biker DIed Loch Lomondside
5th July biker died Loch Lomond side
1st July - Biker died near Braemar
Okay. Maybe I exagerrate. You decide? That's Scotland only.
In simple terms , single vehicle accidents the rider is pretty much going to be at fault.
In multiple vehicle accidents then generally there is some degree of fault in all parties (varying degrees though). To what degree for each participant will depend on the particular circumstances.
If you are on a bike & you are only 20% to blame that is of little consequence if you are dead due to your higher degree of physical vulnerability.
In multiple vehicle accidents then generally there is some degree of fault in all parties (varying degrees though). To what degree for each participant will depend on the particular circumstances.
If you are on a bike & you are only 20% to blame that is of little consequence if you are dead due to your higher degree of physical vulnerability.
Dr Jekyll said:
jamiehamy said:
cmaguire said:
Motorcycle riders aren't dying in droves every day.
10th July - 2 bikers dies in Hawick and Jedburgh9th July Biker DIed Loch Lomondside
5th July biker died Loch Lomond side
1st July - Biker died near Braemar
Okay. Maybe I exagerrate. You decide? That's Scotland only.
What were the figures for the same period last year?
Right now I expect masses of bikes out, riders with less protection due to the heat, possibly dehydrated so poorer concentration, and hooning around more than normal too.
Holiday season too, and Scotland is a biking destination for many that won't necessarily be familiar with the roads (were the riders local?).
Dr Jekyll said:
No it isn't.
If 99% of bike accidents are caused by the biker going too fast, then all we have to do is ride slowly and nothing can happen to us. No need to worry about whether the driver waiting to pull out has seen us because sticking to the speed limit means he is bound to.
If on the other hand the causes are more complicated than that, we need to be a whole lot more careful.
If we want to prevent accidents, surely finding out the causes is fundamental.
I agree - I'd like to have all accident investigation reports available in the wau RAIB and MAIB reports are. I think that would be very helpful. If 99% of bike accidents are caused by the biker going too fast, then all we have to do is ride slowly and nothing can happen to us. No need to worry about whether the driver waiting to pull out has seen us because sticking to the speed limit means he is bound to.
If on the other hand the causes are more complicated than that, we need to be a whole lot more careful.
If we want to prevent accidents, surely finding out the causes is fundamental.
In terms of your comment on speed, I would say this - sticking to the speed limit doesn't mean you are safe - I'm not being flippant in saying that. For example blind summits on a NSL A-road - would you really plough on at 60mph? The statement around 99% of accidents being due to speed is not what was claimed (although I've not seen the exact post) however, regardless, there is far more you can do other than just slow down to be safer.
Dr Jekyll said:
jamiehamy said:
cmaguire said:
Motorcycle riders aren't dying in droves every day.
10th July - 2 bikers dies in Hawick and Jedburgh9th July Biker DIed Loch Lomondside
5th July biker died Loch Lomond side
1st July - Biker died near Braemar
Okay. Maybe I exagerrate. You decide? That's Scotland only.
That's a poor ratio for motorcyclists given how few they are in number compared to other vehicle forms but then motorcyclists are very vulnerable physically. If motorcycles were invented today they'd probably be outlawed.
WarnieV6GT said:
This.
A few times now I've been overtaken on the straights doing well over the limit only for them to hold me up when the roads get twisty.
Happened to me on Saturday morning - his & hers Ducatis overtook me on a straight, 30mph limit. They mast have been doing close to 60. At the end of the straight there is a double S bend which is NSL. They slowed down to 30-odd on corners that are easily doable at 60+. They braked round one of the corners & wobbled like fA few times now I've been overtaken on the straights doing well over the limit only for them to hold me up when the roads get twisty.
k!Dr Jekyll said:
The problem was that he was saying it was necessarily the bikers fault. Your last paragraph sounds like a justification for lying in a good cause. Why should anyone take any notice of what they say if it's propaganda rather than fact?
If it's true that the data is so flawed, then we're not taking about facts, and his opinion is as valid as anyones. But opinions can be right or wrong. He's certainly not lying if its viewpoint, similarly I'm not sure an opinion equates to propaganda either. Again, forgive me I haven't read it, whilst he may be an authority himself, he's not representing the official state position is he? The party line remains the "Think biker" campaign, doesn't it?
The idea that a government lying to it's populace is somehow healthy, I agree entirely, isn't. It is however very healthy to be critical of your own idea of what is "true", even it it makes you uncomfortable.
What he has said is feasible if the data is flawed, and debate is important. That is my only point.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff