Motorcyclists make better car drivers

[trashbat]

Purely anecdotally, I would suggest that motorcyclists might make safer car drivers because cars are comparatively very dull and boring, and therefore exuberant efforts on four wheels aren't particularly rewarding.

[waremark]

It is true that motorcyclists have quite a bit more serious collisions than cars do when adjusted for the relative miles they do, but the vast majority of motorcyclists manage to do many thousands of miles without incident, and I would argue that motorcycling is, on the whole a safe activity in the grand scheme of things. It may be a little less safe than driving a car but not to the extent of justifying comments such as "organ donors".

I seem to remember that the bike fatality rate is order of magnitude 20 times that of car drivers. (If anyone remembers better or can be bothered to check please correct me).

Interesting to call that 'on the whole a safe activity'. You support my belief that there is a complete disconnect between officialdom which cannot accept any risk and individuals who are far more tolerant of risk.

How much pain should be inflicted on us in terms of lower speed limits and traffic calming to make our already superbly safe driving even safer?

[TripleS]

It is true that motorcyclists have quite a bit more serious collisions than cars do when adjusted for the relative miles they do, but the vast majority of motorcyclists manage to do many thousands of miles without incident, and I would argue that motorcycling is, on the whole a safe activity in the grand scheme of things. It may be a little less safe than driving a car but not to the extent of justifying comments such as "organ donors".

I seem to remember that the bike fatality rate is order of magnitude 20 times that of car drivers. (If anyone remembers better or can be bothered to check please correct me).

Interesting to call that 'on the whole a safe activity'. You support my belief that there is a complete disconnect between officialdom which cannot accept any risk and individuals who are far more tolerant of risk.

How much pain should be inflicted on us in terms of lower speed limits and traffic calming to make our already superbly safe driving even safer?

Even if no more pain (as you put it), were to be inflicted, that would not be much consolation; there has already been far too much of it. It all seems to have been based on a policy of seeking to dictate in ever more detail how we should live our lives, and I consider this degree of interference to be wholly unacceptable, and not in our best interest as a species. We were blessed with intelligent capability. Is it to be only the chosen few who are empowered to exercise that capability?

Having the freedom to make our own judgements, and make mistakes, is part of living a worthwhile life, and quite frankly I do not wish to live in an environment where that freedom is taken away from us, and increasingly taken over by politicians and a multitude of officials.

On a day-to-day basis we may not notice much change: it was only a bit of new regulation yesterday, and a bit more today, so most people will say it's nothing to make a fuss about, but it doesn't stop there. Tomorrow it will be a bit more constraint and restriction, or some other stuff to comply with, and so it will go on unless people wake up and tell the politicians and their army of officials to get stuffed; and it is high time we did that.

Salami tactics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE

[martine]

Purely anecdotally, I would suggest that motorcyclists might make safer car drivers because cars are comparatively very dull and boring, and therefore exuberant efforts on four wheels aren't particularly rewarding.

I'd agree in general terms - a bike is probably more difficult to ride really, really well but there are some cars which are definitely entertaining to in much the same way.

[exportmanuk]

a bike is probably more difficult to ride really, really well but there are some cars which are definitely entertaining to in much the same way.

On a bike you have to be so much more aware of your environment. You are exposed but that has advantages too you know when it icy you don't need a display to warn you. You can smell a diesel spill on the road. You don't have massive A pillars blocking your view. But you are also a lot more vulnerable. Other road users not seeing you or worse still seeing you and deliberately obstructing you. Poor road surfaces, inconsistent road surfaces. How many bends have shell grip up to the apex of the bend then standard surface after. To a car this means maybe a little under-steer on the exit to a motorcycle the sudden change in grip level can loose you the front wheel and cause crash. I drove up the A49 at the weekend and found many bends like this. Most motorcyclists will be more observant than car drivers simply because you have to be to survive.

[michael769]

I seem to remember that the bike fatality rate is order of magnitude 20 times that of car drivers. (If anyone remembers better or can be bothered to check please correct me).

That may be the case (to lazy to check the exact figures), but we need to bear in mind that there are relatively few motorcyclists on the road, so statistics (and I mean that word in the sense of the science of statistics) tells us that it is very likely that measurements will be highly sensitive to outlier effects and random variation will appear to be magnified.

In terms of outlier effects one must also accept that extreme risk taking behavior is more prevalent amongst a minority of riders and due to the overall small population these individuals will have a disproportionately high impact on the overall stats. And thus the stats may not accurately represent the level of risk that a more responsible rider might be exposed to.

Interesting to call that 'on the whole a safe activity'. You support my belief that there is a complete disconnect between officialdom which cannot accept any risk and individuals who are far more tolerant of risk.

Officialdom really only reflects the views of wider society. Most people have no more a decent understanding of risk than they do of probability (both are highly unintuitive and applying "common sense" will usually produce the wrong answer), and thus tend to exaggerate the risks of some activities whilst ignoring others.

As an example the oft made claim that the road transport cause more accidental deaths than any other activity is entirely wrong - more than twice as many people die from falls than do on the road, and 2 years ago poisoning beat road transport into 3rd place.

Reality is that motorcyclists are far more likely to die of an accident in the "safety" of their own home than on their bike. That does not mean riding is less risky, of course they will spend more time in their home than on their bike, and thus exposure is a factor, but it does hopefully show that the difference in risk may not be a great as the stats might make you think.

Officialdom's focus on the roads is merely a reflection of public demands for "something to be done", which itself stems from poor education and understanding of risk, abetted by biased and or overblown media reporting. And sadly there are those both in officialdom and in the lobbying field whom it suits to big up the safety aspect as part of an overall anti-car agenda (for example some elements of the environmental lobby).

(As a source for some of my claims about non vehicle accidents - here is a nice graphic that I think has been posted here before.)

How much pain should be inflicted on us in terms of lower speed limits and traffic calming to make our already superbly safe driving even safer?

It should not be about the pain. It should be about making a rational and proportionate balance between the benefits (economic, social inclusion, quality of life) against the costs (casualties, environment, quality of life). And not just in motoring but in all aspects of life (there is nothing we do - not even lying in bed that is risk free).

If we applied the same criteria to our homes that we do to motoring, staircases, ladders and smoking (due to the fire risk) would be banned, as would medicines and cleaning fluids in homes occupied by under 18s. Campaigners would be seeking bans of domestic gas and authorities would be progressively cutting electrical voltages.

As a final aside, the other often made claim that cars are the biggest killer of young men - that's not true either. The biggest killer of young men is themselves (ie suicide).

[Horse]

extreme risk taking behavior is more prevalent amongst a minority of riders

From 'Bike' October 06

Are car drivers the problem?

If we're talking danger, it doesn't get more dangerous than death. Sussex Police inspector Simon Labbett has spent many years trying to understand the reasons why bikers die.

'A lot of people have jumped on bandwagons and said, for example, that it's junctions. Well actually, for fatal crashes junctions aren't the problem,' he explains. 'To reduce the fatalities you have to focus on the riders. Because they often don't require anyone else to intervene - they're quite capable of doing it themselves.'

Strong stuff? His research tracked down what kinds of bike were involved in all 55 fatal accidents in Sussex between 2000 and 2003 - something not recorded in the standard police process. The results were staggering. Of the 55 fatalities, 37 occurred on sportsbikes. Another 11 were on sports tourers. Just two commuter riders died, with one fatal crash on a tourer and one on a retro. And in more than nine out of ten of all these deaths, rider error - usually excessive speed - was the main cause of the crash.

Even taking into account the popularity of sportsbikes in the UK, their depressingly strong showing was hugely disproportionate. 'The main time is July to September,' notes Simon drily. 'Male, 25-44, sportsbike, good weather, weekend, dry country road, 60mph limit, rider error, speed a factor. That's the hallmark of who is likely to die.'

But the question Simon asked was: why? 'I decided to look at the psychological profile of the different groups,' he explains. 'We spent an entire summer at bike meets, asking all kinds of riders to fill in a questionnaire originally developed to profile adrenaline sport enthusiasts. The result showed the sensation-seeking desires of sportsbike riders were significantly higher than other groups of riders. It wasn't surprising that the guys who ride the real mean machines want the thrills out of life. What was surprising was that these riders alone seemed to deny their part in what was going on.' This attitude emerged from a question that asked riders who was to blame for the county's recent fatal accidents. The choices were mechanical failure, the road environment, car drivers, or motorcyclists themselves.

'Overwhelmingly, sports riders said it was the car drivers' fault,' reports Simon. 'Very rarely did they say it's the riders' fault. The other riders blamed car drivers too, but they also said it could be them - the sportsbike guys. So there's a division among motorcyclists themselves.'


The reasons why car drivers take the rap are easy enough to understand - even if, as Simon explains, they're flawed. 'Most bike collisions happen in built-up areas and those are indeed someone else's fault - a driver emerging from a side road and the familiar, "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" story.

'However, most fatal accidents happen in 60mph limits on rural roads. Failure to see the bike goes down dramatically and rider error becomes much more significant.' Riders - and sportsbike riders in particular - were applying what they knew about urban areas to rural roads. But it's wrong.

Simon is convinced that training on its own won't achieve much. 'If you're dealing with control, not the rider's mindset, you could make the problem worse. If you take somebody, and say, "Look, you prat - if you take these lines it's far safer," the guy suddenly realises that instead of going round at 50 he can go round at 60. Nobody's dialled into his brain that the safe speed was 40. It's so important to address the mindset.

[exportmanuk]

Simon is convinced that training on its own won't achieve much. 'If you're dealing with control, not the rider's mindset, you could make the problem worse. If you take somebody, and say, "Look, you prat - if you take these lines it's far safer," the guy suddenly realises that instead of going round at 50 he can go round at 60. Nobody's dialled into his brain that the safe speed was 40. It's so important to address the mindset.

I totally agree with this, there is an element that feel things track day riding equips them for faster road riding. Road riding needs a totally different mindset. On a track things have an element of predictability you can practice and repeat building up your speed,skills and confidence in" relative safety" But these should be used to increase the safety margin when out on the road not go faster. Public roads are unpredictable. You don't know whats around the corner, what the road surface is like is there a diesel spill does the shell grip run out at the apex etc etc.
Many sports bike riders will have put their bike away for the winter now and will get them out again in spring, still expecting to ride well having had 4 to 6 months without riding. I think this is probably why motorcyclist who commute don't feature so much in the stats. They will ride all year round and keep their skills.

I also worry about Bike safe. It is full of good intention but really showing someone advanced skills for a couple of hours is not going to change their riding. The next day most will be riding the same old way, but trying to use things they saw demonstrated without having a proper understanding of how to use these appropriately.

[Ancient]

The same is true surely for car driver training? Courses aimed primarily at skill improvement rather than attitude will potentially have adverse effects over a population?

Are there not some statistics somewhere suggesting this?

[akirk]

Simon is convinced that training on its own won't achieve much. 'If you're dealing with control, not the rider's mindset, you could make the problem worse. If you take somebody, and say, "Look, you prat - if you take these lines it's far safer," the guy suddenly realises that instead of going round at 50 he can go round at 60. Nobody's dialled into his brain that the safe speed was 40. It's so important to address the mindset.

mmm, not sure that I completely agree with this...

okay - correct not to deal with control in the absence of mindset - but surely training should include the mindset...
so the training would have twin approaches:
- teach the mindset of reading speed / conditions better - i.e. more likely to reduce speed
- teach the control, so that when speed is exceeded, the control is better and therefore % risk is lower

i.e. deal with the full aspects of riding - to see training as just control is to misunderstand training

Alasdair

[Horse]

The same is true surely for car driver training? Courses aimed primarily at skill improvement rather than attitude will potentially have adverse effects over a population?

There's very little good-quality research which shows training in a good light (ie safety-wise, reducing accidents).

'Skills' training comes out badly.

[Horse]

okay - correct not to deal with control in the absence of mindset - but surely training should include the mindset...
so the training would have twin approaches:
- teach the mindset of reading speed / conditions better - i.e. more likely to reduce speed
- teach the control, so that when speed is exceeded, the control is better and therefore % risk is lower

i.e. deal with the full aspects of riding - to see training as just control is to misunderstand training

If we accept that current training can't be shown to improve safety, then perhaps we should also accept that training 'now' is below acceptable standard, not fit for purpose (insert your favourite buzz phrase)?

Have a browse here:
http://nosurprise.org.uk/

[akirk]

If we accept that current training can't be shown to improve safety, then perhaps we should also accept that training 'now' is below acceptable standard, not fit for purpose (insert your favourite buzz phrase)?

Have a browse here:
http://nosurprise.org.uk/

maybe I misunderstand - but is training shown to have no effect on improving safety? - why are any of us on here doing advanced driving and in particular talking about how the training improves our driving...

do you mean that absolutely no training provides a positive influence - or just simply the training to pass the standard test...? I think that there is lots of training which clearly improves safety...

Alasdair

[Horse]

do you mean that absolutely no training provides a positive influence - or just simply the training to pass the standard test...? I think that there is lots of training which clearly improves safety...

In which case ('lots') there should be plenty of evidence to show that, shouldn't there?

I look forward to reading what you find, specifically something which shows a proven safety benefit. You choose, but try finding a range from pre-licence, 'L' and post-test (eg advanced improver).

[revian]

My nephew generally thinks the road is too dangerous for motorbikes. He prefers breaking his neck (no metaphor intended) on the track...

http://www.ducatiukracing.com/pages/racing/ducati-racing-news/dennis-hobbs-wins-the-2014-ducati-trioptions-cup.htm

Ian