ADUK Archive

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:56 pm**

martine wrote:
StressedDave wrote:...I dealt with very few motorcycles driving dangerously accidents in my decade of doing the job.

Isn't that counter to the RTC stats? Actual numbers are low but as a proportion to the mileage m/c have a hugely increased risk.

I may be making this up, but isn't it something like you're 70 times more likely to die in a motorcycle crash compared to a car per mile driven?

Dave's experience is probably down to there being far fewer motorcycles on the road than cars.

All I can say is, motorcyclists must have a seriously good PR machine. If the KSI figures for cars were at the same level as motorcycles, we'd be comparing ourselves to a third world dictatorship rather than having one of the very best road safety records in the world.

Would I like to ban them? Difficult one. In the name of civil liberties, probably no. Would I prefer it if there were no motorcycles and would I do everything in my powers to deter anyone in my family from getting one? Yes, no question.

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:06 pm**

StressedDave wrote:Could we extend the argument to banning cyclists and pedestrians as well? Y'know, let the car drivers in their relatively safe boxes have a bit more freedom to drive dangerously without wiping out the vulnerable...

Perhaps the onus is on the vulnerable to make themselves, uh, less vulnerable. If everyone were to take more responsibility for their own safety instead of relying on others, then perhaps we could live in a world with unrestricted roads. As this is unlikely to happen, I don't see how it could work with an acceptable level of safety.

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:03 pm**

Silk wrote:
StressedDave wrote:Could we extend the argument to banning cyclists and pedestrians as well? Y'know, let the car drivers in their relatively safe boxes have a bit more freedom to drive dangerously without wiping out the vulnerable...

Perhaps the onus is on the vulnerable to make themselves, uh, less vulnerable. If everyone were to take more responsibility for their own safety instead of relying on others, then perhaps we could live in a world with unrestricted roads. As this is unlikely to happen, I don't see how it could work with an acceptable level of safety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:20 pm**

StressedDave wrote:The majority of those KSIs are not down to dangerous driving on the part of the motorcyclists (these tending to be a very short-lived Darwinistic selection group) but down to the inattention of other road users. The same argument applies to cyclists in the main as well.

That was my understanding of RTCs in town where another vehicle was involved: it's more likely to be the other road user's fault but what about the 'classic' biker RTC on a rural road on a sunny Sunday? I'm not sure of the respective proportions of all KSIs these represent though.

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:41 pm**

StressedDave wrote:
martine wrote:
StressedDave wrote:...I dealt with very few motorcycles driving dangerously accidents in my decade of doing the job.

Isn't that counter to the RTC stats? Actual numbers are low but as a proportion to the mileage m/c have a hugely increased risk.

The majority of those KSIs are not down to dangerous driving on the part of the motorcyclists (these tending to be a very short-lived Darwinistic selection group) but down to the inattention of other road users. The same argument applies to cyclists in the main as well.

All I'll say, for now, is that there's a big difference between "fault" from the point of view of an insurance claim and "fault" as in made a mistake that, if not made, could have prevented the collision even if not "technically" a "fault".

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:44 pm**

To answer the OP, I'd be very happy.
With one caveat, that penalties for those causing RTCs would be greatly increased.

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:01 pm**

Silk wrote:Perhaps the onus is on the vulnerable to make themselves, uh, less vulnerable. If everyone were to take more responsibility for their own safety instead of relying on others, then perhaps we could live in a world with unrestricted roads. As this is unlikely to happen, I don't see how it could work with an acceptable level of safety.

I agree there. Obviously there will be exceptions, but last week I had two lycra clad cyclists following me downhill in a 30 limit, one to all intents and purposes glued to my rear bumper. If i'd had to brake sharply he would have quite likely have been thrown over my car. Given my experience of incidents with cyclists, I bet it would be put down as an at fault accident. :roll:

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:14 pm**

fungus wrote:I agree there. Obviously there will be exceptions, but last week I had two lycra clad cyclists following me downhill in a 30 limit, one to all intents and purposes glued to my rear bumper. If i'd had to brake sharply he would have quite likely have been thrown over my car. Given my experience of incidents with cyclists, I bet it would be put down as an at fault accident.

But, but, cyclists are "green", motorists are not. That's part of the problem.

Posted: **Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:00 am**

WhoseGeneration wrote:
fungus wrote:I agree there. Obviously there will be exceptions, but last week I had two lycra clad cyclists following me downhill in a 30 limit, one to all intents and purposes glued to my rear bumper. If i'd had to brake sharply he would have quite likely have been thrown over my car. Given my experience of incidents with cyclists, I bet it would be put down as an at fault accident.

But, but, cyclists are "green", motorists are not. That's part of the problem.

I think motorcyclists also try to jump on the green bandwagon, even though many bikes have lower mpg than my car and can only carry a maximum of two people, in relative discomfort.

Posted: **Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:30 pm**

I should know better too, but is this really how we want to present the AD community?

Posted: **Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:49 pm**

trashbat wrote:I should know better too, but is this really how we want to present the AD community?

Explain?

Posted: **Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:12 pm**

Silk wrote:
trashbat wrote:I should know better too, but is this really how we want to present the AD community?

Explain?

Perhaps I'm being unduly critical, but to me this thread portrays AD as intolerant of other road users - all cyclists are this, it'd be better if motorbikes were banned, cars are the way etc

To my mind, any AD proponent should able to participate safely and silently in the environments that an average driver might complain about. I'd also argue that we ought to be ambassadors to those who favour something other than the car - including when their competence is lacking.

Posted: **Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:35 pm**

trashbat wrote:
Silk wrote:
trashbat wrote:I should know better too, but is this really how we want to present the AD community?

Explain?

Perhaps I'm being unduly critical, but to me this thread portrays AD as intolerant of other road users - all cyclists are this, it'd be better if motorbikes were banned, cars are the way etc

To my mind, any AD proponent should able to participate safely and silently in the environments that an average driver might complain about. I'd also argue that we ought to be ambassadors to those who favour something other than the car - including when their competence is lacking.

What's wrong with suggesting that vulnerable road users take some responsibility for their own safety, instead of quoting SMIDSY or whatever the bicycle equivalent is?

How about, "Sorry Mate, You Didn't See Me Because I Was Riding Like An Arse"? (SMYDSMBIWRLAA - that probably needs some work. ;-)

)

As I see it, it's like this: if everyone did their best to make themselves safe, then the chances of two road users driving/riding like an are meeting each other are reduced.

Posted: **Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:52 pm**

And holding the view that all classes of adult road user need to accept at least some responsibility for their own safety, and none should be put on a legal or moral pedestal, dosn't mean that in practice you don't behave with caution and consideration towards those who are acting irresponsibly or foolishly.

Posted: **Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:57 pm**

Nothing's wrong with that - to me at least, it's the main point of AD, and also reflects the attitude I used to take when I primarily cycled (which ultimately led me here).

However, we should be able to work around those who unfortunately don't adopt that practice, and not dismiss those who do based on the former.

It grates for me because coming from a cycling perspective, many other cyclists regularly infuriated me by demonstrating disregard for their safety. However I paid great attention to my own riding, and it would be discouraging in that sense if I'd been treated based on their behaviour and the lowest common denominator.

ADUK Archive

If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...

Re: If all speed limits were abolished tomorrow...