What's the BR view on this, lifted from my local biker forum?
Those guys rather uncharitably think it's time the cagers got some of their own medicine after all these years.....
"Next time you pull behind a car, spare a thought for the poor driver. According to a new nationwide survey conducted by Bennetts the insurers, a third of all motorists are intimidated by riders.
Respondents cited the anonymity afforded by leathers and lids as the biggest cause for their upset.
Pensioners are the social group most likely to be put unnerved by a biker when they?re behind the wheel, 40 percent of the over-65s admitting they feel menaced.
Women are slightly more worried than men, with 32 per cent of respondents confessing to alarm when they see a bike in their mirrors.
There are regional differences, too. Drivers in the East Midlands are the least concerned 17 per cent of them recording some unease, while their counterparts in the North West go down as Britain?s wimps with 37 per cent.
And a whopping 69 per cent of drivers surveyed confessed it adversely affected their normal driving habits when a bike is behind or beside them".
|
|
They only feel menaced cos you're wearing big black leathers and they can't see your eyes-anyway,if it stops them pulling out in front of you,it must be a good thing.
|
I just admire the freedom bikers have to overtake either side of vehicle and ignore traffic holdups. Of course in winter I sympathise from a warm dry seat.
It is worrying to see so many bikers buying these scooter like things with small wheels. Must be much less stable than a proper motorcycle.
|
|
|
|
The reason I think drivers feel menaced by bikers is that they invariably ride far too close (often inches rather than feet/yards) hence putting any responsible driver under great pressure. The effect is compounded by their obssession with erratic, last minute and usually unsignalled manoeurvres such as overtaking. As regards biker 'fashion' I have no problem with the Barry Sheene leathers (boys will be boys !) but do wonder about those who insist on wearing dark tinted visors when its dull, foggy, raining and/or the middle of the night. Why do people do that ?
|
|
Dark/tinted visors are actually illegal, don't ask me why, the racing boys use them.
|
|
|
|
In the small hours when lying awake occasionally, I find the sound of a bike at full throttle two miles away nt at all unpleasant.
However, driving my family car, when a big two-stroke opens right up to pass me four feet from my open window....
Not menaced, but uncomfortable.
|
|
|
|
As a biker myself, I must admit to feeling uncomfortable when I have a group of bikes behind me. Riders at the back of the string often put themselves under pressure to keep up with their colleagues, and what is a safe overtake for the lead bike often becomes a suicide mission for the last rider in the line who doesn't want to get left behind by his mates. I've seen many overtakes in those circumstances where disaster was only averted by the actions of oncoming car drivers.
|
As a biker (HD cruisers only) I would agree with Tom. The multicolored gnomes crouched over rice-rockets brigade do give me the willies as described, both when I'm riding and driving.
They have track days for that stuff.
|
Well said, Growler. Love your description of these pratts! We get a few round here in the summer, doing 70+ through villages, wheelies, suicidal overtaking etc. The Americans call them 'organ donours' for good reason!
Pat
|
Is this why many riders are knocked off their mounts by drivers ???
A sort of pre-emptive strike ??
|
The reason so many riders are 'knocked off' by drivers is because they tend to ride too close, weave in/out of traffic and go too fast (no matter what speed you're doing a bike always overtakes !!). This behaviour not only puts them directly at risk but makes them far more susceptible to any mistake/error of judgement a car driver might. Before I get slammed by the 'Bike Brigade' I put my hand up to being a reformed biker and speak from a little experience - in fact I might have become a maniac myself had my best friend not been killed being stupid on his Kawasaki 900.
|
|
|
|
Funny how the Hells Angels genre, scraped leathers, chains, skulls, SoCal paint jobs, open pipes, ZZ Top (i.e. my lot) used to be the villains. Now we're the ones who raise money for street kids, renovate orphanages, promote ride to work/save gas moves, i.e. the good guys. We have very strict rules re membership and our ride-outs are models of road discipline. The baddies (where I live at least) are the death-wish crazies who wear suits to work and ride Yamazuki look-alikes. Plus ca change, etc.
|
Re
"The reason so many riders are 'knocked off' by drivers is because they tend to ride too close, weave in/out of traffic and go too fast (no matter what speed you're doing a bike always overtakes !!). This behaviour not only puts them directly at risk but makes them far more susceptible to any mistake/error of judgement a car driver might. Before I get slammed by the 'Bike Brigade' I put my hand up to being a reformed biker and speak from a little experience - in fact I might have become a maniac myself had my best friend not been killed being stupid on his Kawasaki 900."
I'm sorry but I must comment
I have seen the very aftermath of a "little old lady" in her Fiesta/Eurobox pull out of her work car park into a biker who had been doing sub 30 in great clear conditions, with no reason to suspect anyone would be silly enough to literally drive straight into him
biker took to hospital in a very very bad way
bike written off almost certainly
little old lady says "sorry i didnt see him"
and i passed by regularly for months and months afterwards, and she clearly didnt get banned
now tell me is doing 35 is a 30 a few times worthy of a ban when almost killing someone seems not to be ?
of course if she had not been a "little old lady" but a young lad in a Civic Type R no doubt the book would have been thrown at them
the system stinks
|
|
was witness to a very similar accident about 18 mths ago. The lad in the Astra is probably still recovering from the bruises where "the book" hit him. There is some justice - not enough, but some.
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 per cent of road accidents involving bikers are the fault of the other driver. This number drops where the biker is killed - 'cos the survivor gets to tell the only version of the story.
That figure ought to give some idea of where the real irresponsible drivers are.
Where a bike is near a car the best action for the car driver is to drive steadily and predicatbly - and for extra popularity points move to the left of the carriageway to give extra overtaking space.
HJ's points ae excellent.
As for car drivers being intimidated by bikes. Given the relative weights of metal it sounds a bit like the toddlers at the local Montssori hanging about outside the Secondary school threatening the Upper 6th Formers.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
Don't know where those figures came from but if they're true then surely they're the best possible reason for bikers to observe the speed limit, avoid erratic manoeuvres and stop 'hovering' just a few feet behind those 'irresponsible' drivers. Bikers don't have the monopoly on idiots pulling out on them - it happened to me a couple of years ago when a guy pulled out from a side turning into the main road on which I was driving. He claimed he didn't see me (big, white Volvo estate, ermm a likely story !) but whereas his car was written off by mine we both got out and walked away to have a friendly 'chat'. Bikers need to be more aware just how vulnerable they are - isn't that vulnerability part of the excitement/buzz bikers crave ? Driving along constantly looking in the mirror to see where that biker is/where he's gone/how close he' getting is not conducive to relaxed motoring and if they pulled bake just a few yards everyone would be a lot happier and hence safer.
|
|
ps My mate Pete was killed pulling away from a set of light on the Old Kent Road (speed limit 30mph). He slammed straight into the side of a van which was turning right from the opposite direction and was going so fast he didn't have time to brake. Whose fault was it ? I suggest it was Pete's fault for screeching away from the light just like he/we always did only this time there was something in front of him and he was going far too fast to stop. How many occasions are there when these sort of actions by bikers (especially very rapid acceleration which is very hard to judge in a car) turn a minor error of judgement by a car driver into a tragedy in which the bikers tend to suffer worst ? I'd be interested to know how Toady's figures allow for this.
|
|
|
Bikers don't have themonopoly on idiots pulling out on them - it happened to me a couple of years ago when a guy pulled out from a side turning into the main road on which I was driving.
- Yes but it's not often fatal or even painful in a car. It *is* on a bike.
Bikers need to be more aware just how vulnerable they are - isn't that vulnerability part of the excitement/buzz bikers crave ?
- Bikers are *painfully* aware of how vulnerable they are. How many othe rroad users use their light in daylight in a desperate effort to be seen. (Except Volvo drivers of course)
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
Good bikers may be aware of how vulnerable they are but many are not and these are the sort who roar about at 60,70,80 mph down residential streets for no apparent reason. Do they really know how vulnerable they are ? Also it may be true that bikers come of worst when involved in accident with cars but I have read of several cases where pedestrians have been killed by maniac bikers being 'aware of just how vulnerable they are'.
Car v. bike - no contest. Bike v. toddler in road - no contest.
|
Good bikers may be aware of how vulnerable they are but many are not and these are the sort who roar about at 60,70,80 mph down residential streets for no apparent reason.
That's not bikers that's just maniacs. THere ar emaniacs in cars too.
Bike v. toddler in road - no contest.
But the biker will still have selfish reasons to avoid the toddler 'cos any impact will hurt.
I agree about your earilier comment re samll mistakes by drivers being compounded by bad riding.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
Absolutely right, there are plenty of maniacs in cars but in towns especially they are restricted to some degree by the size of their vehicles and comparitively slow speed/acceleration. If someone developed a device which could effectively 'shrink' a car and give it the same performance as even a modest road bike these 'maniacs' would certainly buy it and make an even greater contribution to the carnage on our roads. I really don't have a problem with bikers per say - it's really those idiots who want to recreate the race track on the roads I detest.
re. driving with lights on - I'm not sure all bikers do this out of responsibility, I think some do it to intimidate other road users (including bikers) in just the same way as car drivers doing 100mph in the overtaking lane tend to do. Perhaps they think doing so excuses their bad behaviour like those car drivers who double park etc. but put their hazard lights on to absolve themselves of any blame.
|
re. driving with lights on - I'm not sure all bikers do this out of responsibility, I think some do it to intimidate other road users
The highway code recomends bikers have lights on.
You can't intimidate someone cocuned in a 2 ton metal cage when you're exposed on a 190kg bike.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
You can if that car driver is concerned (quite rightly) about being involved in an incident with a 40 tonne metal cage as a result of having to swerve, brake etc. due to something you've just done ! Surely the point is that drivers and bikers need to be more aware of and considerate to eachother and hose poor pedestrians!
|
|
|
I've seen a motorbike innocently hit the side of an ambulance in wet weather as it didn't spot it running a red light. I have to say that motorbikes are very vunerable these days on our roads, and it should be compulsory for them to have their headlights in the daytime. Motorcyclists often take risks and assume that all drivers are aware of their actions, the most popular example being driving down the white line on dual carriageways and A roads when the traffic is busy. I also notice that almost all bikers accelerate off at green lights excessively, generating enormous noise pollution and incurring danger.
I do however believe that bikers have the same rights to motorists, there are relatively few bikers on our roads today and in general those who are riding motorbikes are probably a lot more alert than the drivers in cars.
However back to the subject of this discussion, I certainly do feel a change in myself, perhaps alertness or increasing my concentration if I see I motorcyclist behind me. I find myself spending more time looking in my mirrors, checking its movements and actions and ensuring I give it any opportunity to manoeuvre should it wish to. I dont feel intimidated by motorcyclists, as I know that any motorbike would out perform my car and that bikers have more freedom to get through traffic than I do. Whilst I feel it would be great to be on a bike in the fine weather, I wouldnt want to have to ride one in the wet and would feel extremely nervous doing so!
S.
_____________________________________
SVPworld (incorporating PSRworld)
www.svpworld.com
|
all drivers are aware of their actions, the most popular example being driving down the white line on dual carriageways and A roads when the traffic is busy.
It's fair cop. We do all do that. BUt people should use mirrors in traffic. I do.
I also notice that almost all bikers accelerate off at green lights excessively,
Wrong! They do not accelerate hard. It's just gentle acceleration on a bike is v.v.v. fast. Also they will rev much higer that a car at modest throttle openings and merely sound louder. Trust me. If you thrashed it off the lights you'd wheelie yourself of the back.
in general those who are riding motorbikes are probably a lot more alert than the drivers in cars.
You better belive it, baby.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
Just having made a 200 mile cross country journey last sunday, some observations about biker behaviour.
I would agree with almost all of the comment above. I do not find a couple of bikes on my tail particularly threatening, but a minority of bikers do cause some problems which other road users need to be aware of (an RTA usually involves two drivers....either one should avoid it if possible even if the other is a complete prat).
Bad habits:
1. tail gating in the cars blind spot....if the driver didnt see the bike rapidly approach from behind on a twisty road he may not even know the bike is there. I had one bike do this to me when joining a very busy section of the M5......not very easy to join when the behaviour of the bike cannot be predicted.
2. multiple bikes 'slipstreaming' or 'drafting', the car driver
may think he has one bike on his tail but really can have several
waiting in line.
3. large groups of bikes racing at speed....on one Shropshire A road at the weekend I was passed by over 100 bikes in a few minutes on a twisty section of road where the slow moving (40mph) traffic was caused by harvesting machinery and tractors which are liable to turn into fields unexpectedly.
regards
Ian L.
|
Let me state my credentials to comment: I was a despatch rider for over two years (covered around 150K miles in the time). My comments are on the culpability of bike riders.
I understand why people are intimidated by bikes and bikers. Partly it's because everyone above the age of about 40 associates bikes with raw behaviour thanks to innumerable films reinforcing an image of the rebel on a bike. Partly it's because of the riding style of a reasonably large number of riders today.
For example, I drive up the M3 regularly. On nearly every trip, I get undertaken by a bike. Not because I'm lane-hogging (which i consider should be a capital offence), but because I'm likely to be in their way for at least five or six seconds, so they go though the gap.
Now, having ridden one or two miles on a bike, I know they are going to do it, so I give plenty of warning if I'm planning to move over at the point they might choose to storm up the inside. Hence, it doesn't intimidate me and isn't all that dangerous. Unfortunately, not all cars are driven by someone looking out for bikes, so the same can't be said for every car that they do this to. That's the reason why, even when I was being paid for it, I didn't undertake, and even in slow moving queues I trickled though the traffic rather than belting through.
A second example: I live in a 30mph straight road that people hammer along, despite cars parked its full negth on both sides. If a bike comes down it at 50-60mph and someone pulls out in front of the bike, can that accident truly be classed solely as the car's fault? I wonderif that'd fit into the 25% or the 75%?
V
|
My final example. One Friday afternoon, I was pootling down the outside of a traffic queue. A bloke in a Golf decided he'd been waiting long enough and did a U turn in front of me. Using a mixture of lightning quick reactions and finely honed machine control, I drove straight into the side of his car.
Was this collision:
a. The car driver's fault for not looking?
b. My fault for not being on the ball?
I've always thought (b) to be the correct answer.
|
Ian you're so right - it's the bikers' unpredictability which can cause problems. As a car driver you are much more aware of what the car(s) behind you can/can't or are/aren't going to do. It's much easier for a biker to spot a small gap he know he can get through, surge past (frequently on the inside) and catch you by complete surprise. He knew what he was doing but you didn't !! Make no mistake though, if car drivers could do the things bikers do they probably would ! uses a lot of problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
