michael769 wrote: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".
waremark wrote:michael769 wrote: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?
trashbat wrote: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.
martine wrote: 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.
waremark wrote: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?
michael769 wrote: extreme risk taking behavior is more prevalent amongst a minority of riders
Horse wrote: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.
Horse wrote: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.
Ancient wrote: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?
akirk wrote:
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
Horse wrote: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 wrote: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...
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests