"Don't the fatality statistics say something about the speed that bikers travel at? It is many times in excess of that for car drivers."
Thats pretty obvious really. If i drive into another car at 30mph in my car, i'll probably live. If i ride into it on a bike, i probably won't.
The interesting data would be the number of accidents, full stop, involving motorbikes (per bike per year) compared to the number of accidents involving cars (per car per year). Possibly some consideration would have to be taken for the miles ridden/driven etc, but that would be by far the fairest end result of this debate as to whether bikers are more 'dangerous'.
Anyone got that info?
|
Don't think you could statistically prove anything here without a massive amount of work. You'd need to know how many cars/bikes on the road, distance travelled, number of accidents and type... if anyone wants to do it I'd be more than interested in the results.
I started this topic as I was more interested in the bikers view of how fast they travel. The one thing that seems to stand out to me (time to generalise here - my apologies) is that bikers seem to think they are better road users than car drivers, not saying they are, not saying they aren't.
|
|
But i bet the insurance companies could come up with that info, as Admiral did the other day with geographical variations in claims
|
|
|
>>...seem to think they are better road users than car drivers..>>
Well just for a start they will have a much greater awareness and appreciation of road surface conditions - it's also a reason why so many who start off on two wheels make the switch to four successfully.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
It is well known that a lot of bikers treat the roads in north Derbyshire as a kind of race track. There are lots dangerous bends, lots of walls to hit, steep drops to go over, etc. It certainly doesn't need another vehicle coming along in the other direction to create plenty of hazards. I fail to see how hurtling along that kind of road at high speeds shows a sense of greater awareness and appreciation of conditions.
|
There was a recent report on BBC News about accidents on the A537 Macclesfield to Buxton road (the country's most high risk road). Between 2001 and 2003 there were 22 fatal or serious accidents and 20 of these involved motorcyles.
The A54, also into Buxton, was the second worst road for bike accidents.
|
Oh come on. You don't by a bike to ride around everywhere like you're dead. Don't for one minute take that to mean they should ride around like loons but live a little!
20 of those accidents involved motorcycles. Were those 20 the motorcyclists fault? I bet if you compensate for ownership numbers, bike accidents are a hell of a lot less then car accidents. They have to be else my mate with 3 points and no no claims whatsoever wouldn't be able to insure a 600 'Blade for under a grand fully comp.
--
Adam
|
Oh come on. You don't by a bike to ride around everywhere like you're dead. Don't for one minute take that to mean they should ride around like loons but live a little! 20 of those accidents involved motorcycles. Were those 20 the motorcyclists fault? I bet if you compensate for ownership numbers, bike accidents are a hell of a lot less then car accidents. They have to be else my mate with 3 points and no no claims whatsoever wouldn't be able to insure a 600 'Blade for under a grand fully comp. -- Adam
>>
Per capita, I think you will find that there are lot more accidents involving bikes.
Treating a public road as a race track is riding around like a loon.
|
How many of those bike accidents are caused by the rider?
--
Adam
|
How many of those bike accidents are caused by the rider? -- Adam
I have no idea, perhaps you would like to find out? If they are riding like loons, then I would think they would be fairly culpable.
For information only, in 1998 motorcycle riders and their passengers accounted for 15% of those killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain. At that time motorcylces, of one kind or another, accounted for less than 1% of all road traffic.
|
I'm not having a go at you Machika. I'm just surprised that everyone sees bikers as the crazy maniacs that the vast majority of them aren't.
I see bikers every day and every single one has been good as gold through town and urban areas and when I pull over to let them past on the quick roads, they always acknowledge me.
I will concede that there are a few idiots who grace The Cat and Fiddle but you get that with any large group gathering.
I won't be finding out any figures. Partly because I'm not really that fussed and partly because I don't think even then anyone's opinion would change either way.
--
Adam
|
|
You, of course, when a newish driver never used to put your foot down or take the occasional risk? ...:-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
You, of course, when a newish driver never used to put your foot down or take the occasional risk? ...:-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
Of course I did, but I am talking of bike riders that do it habitually and drive at speeds that I never dream of doing (and never did).
|
"an in-depth analysis of accidents in Cheshire between 1 April 1998 and 31 October 1998 reported in Street Biker (Feb-Mar 2000), the MAG newspaper. John Moss MBE, Chief Road Safety Officer for Cheshire (and MAG member) revealed that fully 67% of all the crashes studied were due to rider error and that the traditional view that most motorcycle accidents are down to blind Volvo drivers is badly flawed.
Let's look at the bald statistics:
lost control on right hand bend - 16.7%
lost control on left hand bend - 13.7%
right turning vehicle hit by overtaking motorcycle - 12.7%
motorcycle hit by emerging vehicle at junction - 9.8%
motorcycle collides with rear of stationary vehicle at junction - 7.8%
fell off - 6.9%
collisions on roundabouts - 6.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on l/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 5.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on r/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 3.9%
motorcycle collides with vehicle turning right across its path - 7.8%
stationary motorcycle hit from behind - 5.9%
others - 2.0%
Sports bikes were involved in 43% of these accidents and the 26-40 age group in an overwhelming 55.3%. The supposedly high risk group of under 25's accounted for 23.6%. Not unexpectedly in a survey area which includes the infamous "Cat & Fiddle" over 50% of riders lived outside the survey area. "
tinyurl.com/bxt37
madf
|
I don't think 55% is a particularly overwhelming percentage for such a large age group.
Interesting how it doesn't say how many accidents were caused from diesel on the road.
Congratulations on having the determination and patience to find those figures out though ;-)
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
I think a serious difference in attitudes is the problem.
I can see 6 different types of people emerging, lets have a look at those splits then...
CAR DRIVERS:
car drivers who do not take risks - very few
car drivers who take risks and understand the risks - a few
car drivers who take risks and don't realise the dangers - a LOT
BIKE RIDERS:
bike riders who do not take risks - almost none
bike riders who take risks and understand the risks - most
bike riders who take risks and don't realise the dangers - a few who don't last long
I understand that bike riders do tend to take more "voluntary" risks than car drivers, they do this while understanding the danger they are putting themselves in and most are willing to put themselves in this risk for the sheer thrill of it, that's why they bought the bike in the first place. Car drivers on the other hand, oooh dear! A fair few driver around fast and know they are risking themselves and others and are willing to take those risks for the same reason many bike riders are. The problem occurs in the VERY LARGE proportion of car drivers who actually drive around at 30mph and think they are being safe...
They think that because they are driving within the speed limit they have permission to sit with thier mobile glued to thier ear, lane switch on roundabouts, "forget" to indicate, break sharply when they see a dog on a lead 300 yards ahead, swerve around on the road when they are fiddling with the radio, CD player, glove box, or putting thier makeup on, the list is as long as my arm.
The worst bit... you know what it is? The fact that the majority of the car drivers who do all these things DONT REALISE ITS WRONG. They are just fundamentally ignorant of the safety aspects of using a public road and it disgusts me that these people actually passed thier test then just threw everything they were taught out the window.
Yes I, and many bikers, do drive faster than the speed limit on many occasions, and I do undertake regularly. But in comparison to just a small fraction of the rediculous things I've seen so many car drivers do, I don't think anyone has any right to have a go at me for what I do...
|
"Yes I, and many bikers, do drive faster than the speed limit on many occasions, and I do undertake regularly. But in comparison to just a small fraction of the rediculous things I've seen so many car drivers do, I don't think anyone has any right to have a go at me for what I do..."
Breaking the law is breaking the law. Full stop.
And a refusal to recognise the reality that most bike accidents are caused by biker error is the major reason why bikers continue to have such terrible accident statistics.
If you don't recognise a problem how can you solve it?
madf
|
"Breaking the law is breaking the law. Full stop."
Yes, and car drivers are forever reminding me of this. If I stopped to tell a car driver every time I saw one breaking the law I'd never get anywhere. Maybe your time would be better spent campaigning for more police or something.
"And a refusal to recognise the reality that most bike accidents are caused by biker error is the major reason why bikers continue to have such terrible accident statistics.
If you don't recognise a problem how can you solve it?"
I completely recognise that I am taking risks, that gives me an advantage, because I can choose when I want to take a risk and when I don't. The only thing on the road that scares me is the sheer number of car drivers who go around on the road with thier eyes shut thinking they are perfectly safe drivers and perfectly within the law, when in fact they couldn't be further from the truth.
At least when I'm on my bike I am actually looking where I'm going 100% of the time. If you say you are paying 100% attention to the road and nothing else when you are in your car then you are 1 in a million, literally.
|
|
If you are regularly taking risks, then you are not just regularly putting your own welfare at risk. If you are riding a bendy road, you cannot know what is coming around the bend the other way, or whether there are any pedestrians around. Using a public road, any public road, as a race track is not acceptable behaviour.
|
Serious question now not meant in a confrontational manner at all but what exactly would you define as race track behaviour?
--
Adam
|
Serious question now not meant in a confrontational manner at all but what exactly would you define as race track behaviour? -- Adam
Have you never had a motorcyclist overtake you as though you were standing still, when you have been driving at 60 mph? I don't think speeds well in excess of 100 mph are safe on any road in the UK, let alone the kind of roads that you find in Derbyshire. Bikers riding at excessive speeds are not hard to find around here.
Now I have a car that will top 120 mph but I have no intention of taking it up to that kind of speed. Some road bikes go way beyond 150 mph and I imagine there are more than a few bikers, with bikes like that, who will see how near to the top speed they can get.
|
>> Serious question now not meant in a confrontational manner at all >> but what exactly would you define as race track behaviour? >> -- >> Adam >> Have you never had a motorcyclist overtake you as though you were standing still, when you have been driving at 60 mph? I don't think speeds well in excess of 100 mph are safe on any road in the UK, let alone the kind of roads that you find in Derbyshire. Bikers riding at excessive speeds are not hard to find around here. Now I have a car that will top 120 mph but I have no intention of taking it up to that kind of speed. Some road bikes go way beyond 150 mph and I imagine there are more than a few bikers, with bikes like that, who will see how near to the top speed they can get.
My bike is capable of 145mph and I have had it at that on public roads in the north of Scotland. My neighbour's bike is capable of 185mph and he has had his at 160 in the UK and takes it to Germany to go faster, since he considers our roads arent suitable for going "proper speeds"
|
>> My bike is capable of 145mph and I have had it at that on public roads in the north of Scotland. My neighbour's bike is capable of 185mph and he has had his at 160 in the UK and takes it to Germany to go faster, since he considers our roads arent suitable for going "proper speeds"
It wouldn't be difficult to find more who drive at speeds like that, I'm sure.
|
If you are regularly taking risks, then you are not just regularly putting your own welfare at risk. If you are riding a bendy road, you cannot know what is coming around the bend the other way, or whether there are any pedestrians around. Using a public road, any public road, as a race track is not acceptable behaviour.
In the kinds of areas I ride then if there are any pedestrians around they must have been walking for a few days, and as for bends, I don't go any faster than a car would, unless I have a clear view of what's in front of me.
|
|
I break the limit on a bike or in a car, the mode of transportation has no bearing on the matter.
|
I break the limit on a bike or in a car, the mode of transportation has no bearing on the matter.
>>
Do you regularly drive well in excess of 100 mph?
|
"Do you regularly drive well in excess of 100 mph?"
No, not regularly, do you?
|
Well frankly, I always thought many bikers were plain stoopid before I read this thread.
Now I know better. Many are very stoopid.
madf
|
On my Hornet 600 earlier this evening.
A413 Buckingham bound from Aylesbury through open countryside.
Nobody else in my carriageway.
Cruising smoothly at almost exactly the legal limit (with a precious case load of Staropramen La?ek chink-chinking away on the back fresh from my drive in the V70 to the Czech Republic last week!)
Perfect weather with the the sun still high, but riding with my headlight on as always.
Coming the other way, a truck doing I guess about forty, with a long convoy of cars behind. Halfway along the convoy, businesswoman in Silver A4 with cell phone clamped to her ear pulls out to overtake. Seeing me *after* she pulled out, and now committed alongside another car and about 30 yards from me, what did she do? Drop the telephone and freeze, mouth wide open.
Thankfully she passed down my right hand side whilst I squeezed down the edge of the road.
Last seen, no doubt frightened, trying to barge her way back in to the convoy despite the fact that the road was then perfectly clear to perform a safe overtake even if driving a Morris Minor.
Tango Whisky Alpha Tango.
|
"Do you regularly drive well in excess of 100 mph?" No, not regularly, do you?
>>
Never.
|
Interesting comment by SJB, "I had my headlight on as always".
There is an increasing body of opinion, to which I now subscribe after some very convincing arguments by certain advanced trainers whose views I respect, that the use of headlights in good visibility increases your risk of an accident.
I have not time to go into detail, but to give some food for thought;
Lights are more visible in darkness than in daylight. Therefore it would follow that riding and driving at night is safer than during the day because there is less chance of people emerging into your path as you are more visible. That however, is not the case. The accident rate increases dramatically after dark, particularly at junctions when one vehicle turns across the path of another or pulls out on it.
All to do with the blinding effect of a bright light making approach speeds difficult to judge. Recent reserch suggests riders who use daytime lights have more accidents than those who don't, although the study carried out was not thorough enough to give a definitive answer.
|
That's an interesting point Tom. I've always found lights handy to see bikers but I could imagine seeing a single light hurtling towards you could distract you I suppose.
However, my Dad's got a Suzuki GSX-R and I'm not entirely sure you can turn the lights off. Don't quote me though.
--
Adam
|
Quite right, Adski. Many manufacturers have begun hardwiring the lights now to save the cost of the switchgear. Apparantly, they are having second thoughts about it because in a couple of court cases in Europe motorists have successfully argued that the use of a headlight on motorcycle was a contributary factor in an accident, for the reasons I have given.
The manufacturers are now said to be becoming worried about the possiblility of legal action against them in such a case.
|
|
One of the main reasons I ride with my headlight on is to catch attention as I come up behind other vehicles. I have found that it makes a dramatic difference to awareness of my presence. Without the headlight on, and with many cars having dangly objects hanging from their rear view mirrors (which have the effect of desensitising the eye to movement such as a vehicle approaching behind) I find many drivers have not a clue that I'm there.
|
With one proviso.
Said idiot biker, having killed himself on my car through his own stupidity, doesn't have to live with it.
I do.
Horror, guilt and memory are not rational.
He doesn't have the right to impose that on me.
|
& the other thing, Duchess, is you will have his 40 closest biker friends and mummy & daddy and girlfriend all railing against you. You might end up in court; on the front page of the papers, and with a lot of hatred of you. Even when you're acquitted.
He doesn't have the right to impose that on you either.
|
& the other thing, Duchess, is you will have his 40 closest biker friends and mummy & daddy and girlfriend all railing against you. You might end up in court; on the front page of the papers, and with a lot of hatred of you. Even when you're acquitted. He doesn't have the right to impose that on you either.
Is all this hand-wringing for real or are you making it up? I seem to have walked into the "considerably more morally outraged than you" thread.
Was the accident only his fault or could it have been avoided by you too? If not, feel no guilt. Whatever, I suggest you talk this over with real people who can help.
As for the angry mob on your doorstep, I think some of us believe too much of what we read in some of the more hysterical tabloid reports.
|
In the US it is illegal to ride a bike without the headlights on, in fact you cannot buy a bike in the US with headlights that can be switched off. Right or wrong, considerable money was spent of safety reports, surveys etc and it was decided that having the headlight on increases visibility...of the motorcyclist to other road users. Motorcyling organizations go one further by recommending that the main beam be used during daylight hours.
If Duchess cannot handle the possibility that she may be involved in a fatal road accident, I would respectfully suggest that she leave the driving to someone else.
We are all in control on potentially lethal machinery when we get behind the wheel of a car and regardless of fault or blame, that machinery may bring about the death of another. Thems the facts, if you can't handle it, admit it to yourself, and relieve yourself of any responsibility that comes with driving. Please.
|
>>If Duchess cannot handle the possibility..........
Who raised that question ? Duchess was talking of what someone else is entitled to impose on her - quite a different matter.
|
"Motorcycling organisations go one further by recommending that main beam be used during daylight hours".
Anyone using main beam during daylight hours should be made to sit for an hour with a spotlight shining directly into their eyes, and see how they like it.
Irrisponsible advice from any organisation who suggests it, along the lines of "Long as I'm alright, stuff everyone else".
|
Which is illegal - could you post a link to this statement?
|
Effectiveness of daytime motorcycle headlights in the European Union
Motorcyclists are road users with a particularly high accident risk. In particular, motorcycle accidents are severe in nature, due to the relative lack of protection of motorcyclists once an accident takes place. Furthermore, given the young age of many victims, these accidents often result in a high loss of life expectancy for fatalities and high social-economic costs for severely injured motorcyclists. Therefore, even a moderate reduction in the number of accidents will result in relatively large benefits for the potential victims, and social-economic savings for society.
DRL for motorcyclists
It is sometimes stated that the main reason for the high risk potential is the active risk taking of motorcyclists, but research has shown that a considerable number of motorcycle accidents is due to the fact that car drivers failed to detect their presence.
Because of their inconspicuousness, motorcyclists themselves often use headlights during daytime. There is strong evidence for the effectiveness of this measure. Therefore, in a number of countries (e.g. Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain and Portugal) daytime running lights (DRL) for motorcyclists are compulsory. Because of the positive effect on detection by other road users, the daytime running light measure is even made compulsory for car drivers as well in a number of countries.
However, although a large majority of motorcyclists already use their headlight in daytime in countries where the measure is not compulsory, (about 90% in the early nineties in the Netherlands), there is still potential for improvement of the effect, by raising the use up to 100%.
Arguments against an obligatory use of daytime running lights are often a mix of factors such as the feeling that motorcycle accidents are primarily caused by the risk seeking behaviour of the motorcyclists and economic or environmental arguments, related to extra battery usage, extra fuel costs or costs for light bulbs. Furthermore, it is argued that such measures should be taken at an European level.
Overview
In order to prepare legislation on a national as well as European level, it is important to describe the state of the art with regard to practice, effects on accidents and of the legislation in various European countries.
The aim of this study (R-97-9) is to give a synthesis of the state of the art of the (obligatory) use of running lights for motorcyclists during daytime. This synthesis gives an overview for various European countries of the following issues:
statistics on motorcycle accidents during day and night, and their severity;
practice of headlight usage during daytime and the existing legislation;
estimated effects of this use in reducing accident risk and the potential to improve this effect;
a short discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of a general legislation on motorcycle daytime running lights and implementation aspects of such a (safety) measure.
The conclusion is that it is assumed that the conspicuousness of the motorcycle is improved by the use of daytime running lights of motorcyclists themselves although such improvement maybe less if accompanied by the use of daytime running lights by cars.
Mandatory behavioural requirement is probably insufficient to raise the DRL-use for motorcyclists in the European Union in a substantial way. Since motorcyclists by far have the highest risk of all road users, a European vehicle standard of DRL for motorcycles is recommended, in order to decrease the approximately 4,000 fatalities and 99,000 injured every year.
Positive effects
In summary, a technical measure that would increase the use of daytime running lights by motorcyclists would have several positive effects:
From the point of view of the individual motorcyclist, there is less chance being involved in an accident and as a result of that, a smaller chance of being injured or killed in traffic.
From the viewpoint of society, a reduction in the number of accidents involving motorcycles and consequent on that a reduction in the number of victims and substantial socio-economic savings are to be expected. Additionally, those countries that have mandatory use of daytime running lights bear the cost of maintaining their use at a high level. From experience, it is known that police enforcement will be necessary and a vehicle standard is likely to be the best option to minimise such costs.
It is sometimes argued that motorcyclists using daytime running lights may assume other road users to see them and as a result ride less defensively and there is some indication that the speed of motorcycles using daytime running lights is estimated lower than the speed of motorcycles without their lights on. There will also be a slight increase in the fuel consumption and wear of bulbs together with the environmental consideration of the visual effect of headlights moving in the scenery. However, these adverse effects seem to be well compensated by the fact that in many other cases, daytime running lights would have helped and thus that the net result is beneficial, significantly reducing the number of fatalities and serious injuries from accidents involving motorcycles.
tinyurl.com/a5l4a
madf
|
Here is a piece written by a guy called Tony Carter, who is an experienced accident investigator and a respected motorcycle trainer. He often writs for the motorcycle press, including Bike magazine.
The following is re-printed with his permission.
Firstly, used main beam in the face of approaching traffic, even in daylight and you are looking at a court appearance for driving without reasonable consideration for other road users. In simple terms Careless driving.
Secondly, many riders choose to display headlights 24/7, but have you ever thought about the fact that you could actually be reducing your safety margin? There have been a number of studies in other parts of the world where the displaying of headlights is compulsory for both bikes and cars, and the accident rate has actually increased for a number of reasons, and some of the reasons I can testify to as a result of a number of crashes I have dealt with over the years.
In the first instance, many drivers have a depth and speed perception problem when they see a motorcycle approaching with its headlight displayed. Many think (and this is only an example) that the bike is doing say 30 MPH and is half a mile away when in fact it is doing 60 and is only a quarter of a mile away, so in the case of a car emerging from a junction the tendancy is for the driver to think that they have more time than they actually have. The reason? Well next time you are out and about, look at an approaching bike and see if you can actually see the bike clearly behind the aura of the headlight (made even worse if its on full beam veryangry.gif ). Now put the same bike on headlights with the sun behind it and it becomes even worse, in many cases the bike disappears altogether.
Now get the same bike approaching a junction, and it hits a pothole or undulation in the road surface. the number of times a driver has pulled out because they believed they were being flashed out! Now I appreciate that they shouldn't pull out just on a headlight flash, but they do. In most cases they go down as a sorry didn't see you type of crash. The truth is they were seen, the drivers simply could not determine accurately speed and distance.
The third aspect, which I have had some direct dealings with recently is that if the use of the headlight caused a depth perception problem, and in particular if you are on main beam headlight, you could be held partially liable in a crash as being contributory to the cause. I have had a number of cases recently where I had to show the court the sort of problems using dipped beam can cause, (bear in mind my duty is to the court) and the court has held that the rider was partially responsible.
Before long, now that many of the manufacturers are hard wiring their headlights to save money, I believe that one of them will be held liable for a crash, and I know of one instance where this is under consideration at the moment.
By all means use headlights in poor visibility or at night, but when visibility is good, then why not consider (for those of you who are not hard wired) just using the sidelight as it is bright enough to draw attention but not bright enough to dazzle. Coupled with using bright colours, paricularly loud coloured helmets you will make yourself far more visible and actually increase the bubble of safety around you.
I should add that I never use headlights during the day unless visibility is seriously reduced, but i do use sidelights, and 2 million miles on I am still here to tell the tale.
--------------------
|
"..but I do use sidelights, and 2 million miles on I am still here to tell the tale."
That's encouraging. I've always thought the use of headlights a bit anti-social (as well as projecting an unintentionally aggressive image) and thus ride on sidelights myself. I hope I last as long as the author!
|
What do people like my Dad do then who can't turn the lights off?
--
Adam
|
To echo my post in the other biking thread I'd say that any biker who has been to North wales has always driven above the limits & certainly most not within what I'd call "safe parameters". Don't have anything against bikers just those who ride like they want to die (same goes for car drivers !!).
All I ask of the bikers out there when riding in North wales is try staying on your own side of the road when there are clearly cars coming the other way & solid double lines are clearly visible. The way I often see bikers in North wales ride certainly doesn't convince me that accidents are always the fault of the car driver - quite the opposite.
|
This thread is getting close to 100 posts. I don't think it would be an altogether bad thing if a volume 2 wasn't started.
--
Adam
|
|
If someone does, I'll simply merge it into this one.
|
To echo my post in the other biking thread I'd say that any biker who has been to North wales has always driven above the limits & certainly most not within what I'd call "safe parameters". Don't have anything against bikers just those who ride like they want to die (same goes for car drivers !!). All I ask of the bikers out there when riding in North wales is try staying on your own side of the road when there are clearly cars coming the other way & solid double lines are clearly visible. The way I often see bikers in North wales ride certainly doesn't convince me that accidents are always the fault of the car driver - quite the opposite.
It is much the same around Derbyshire.
|
They risk their own lives and they risk their licences. But they aren't much risk to anyone else. So we should appreciate that, watch for them in our mirrors, and help them get past us safely as possible and on their way. HJ
I would question whether they aren't much risk to anyone else, as a motorcyle travelling at speed carries a lot of energy along with it and it would do a lot of damage to a small car and probably its occupants.
It is also stated that bikers tend to keep to urban limits but I have seen an awful lot that don't and then they are a great risk to pedestrians.
|
"It is also stated that bikers tend to keep to urban limits but I have seen an awful lot that don't and then they are a great risk to pedestrians."
But as stated earlier, only 1% of road-users are bikers.
That means that if you see more than 1 in 100 car drivers that drive irresponsibly fast, that car drivers overall pose more of a risk to pedestrians. Also the car driver may well be on the phone/adjusting radio at the same time, whereas as stated earlier, the biker will be giving 100% of their attention.
There was a point made earlier about bikers doing 100mph also - and i'm sure that there is a number of car drivers who also do that when they can.
I intend to get a bike if/when i graduate and get a job involving a conjested commute to work. However i doubt that the speeds i drive at will change, except perhaps lessen on motorways due to uncomfortable wind buffeting at high speeds. The only difference would be filtering between traffic in urban areas and on motorways at less than 50mph. Above this speed, motorway traffic is often looking to change lanes more often, thus creating more danger of being sideswiped whilst undertaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
