Wow! Speed does kill.

jackal

prospect wrote:

Then we have no quibble sir.
I was referring to the person who originally implied that the case in the OP could have been the car drivers fault, for not seeing a motorbike travelling at 250KMh.
There seems to be a common trend among some bikers, and some car drivers, but particularly bikers, to blame everything on the car driver not seeing them.
My point is, if someone is going to travel on a less visable, less safe vehicle, the onus is on that person to take the extra precautions necessary to ensure their safety, and not to expect every other road user to do same.

Whoever is trying to bring up the whole issue of car drivers pulling out on bikes, cop on! This is not the kind of thing that would support the argument. Bikes driving at racing speeds on public roads is a totally different issue, and having been to some road races in ireland where bikes hit speeds of up to and above 300km/h, a car would have absolutely no chance of seeing a bike travelling at that speed. "look right, look left, look right again, pull out... squeal, screech, Bam!" All the campaign is trying to get across is that alot of bikers go fast and feel like, well Im only putting myself in danger, which is not true at those kind of speeds. Also consider the guy who overtook the bus and killed the girl recently. Bikers (I am one) are not blame-free, and because its a relatively cheap way to go stupidly fast, there is a huge idiot/hero element to biking.

Unfortunately, because it isnt high-profile enough, you probably wont see the swedish government with a picture of a 4x4 with a tiny dent in the wing, and the text "The biker, travelling below the speed limit of 30mph almost managed to avoid this car after it failed to see him due to the driver being distracted by the kids/radio etc, unfortuately the bike clipped the wing, the biker slid off the bike and into a pole, dying instantly".

Two seperate issues boys, one sensational and rare, the other mundane and all too common.

prospect

jackal wrote:

Whoever is trying to bring ...
... rare, the other mundane and all too common.

At last, someone talking sense.

Blitzkrieger

Gurgle wrote:

Whos got a golf ?

I'll borrow my friend's and park it up. you're riding the bike, right?

saobh_ie

prospect wrote:

Then we have no quibble sir.
I was referring to the person who originally implied that the case in the OP could have been the car drivers fault, for not seeing a motorbike travelling at 250KMh.

Not sure if your refering to me but I think you need to read it again if you are, I said picture of a bike inside a car could be used as part of a general campaign to promote road safety. I also condemned idiots doing 250km/h on the roads.

Something you couldn't do in this country anyway because the poor state of repair of the roads would very quickly see you and your bike getting launched upside down through the air, into a street sign, under a truck and into a wall before you knew what had happened.

Jackal > Two seperate issues boys, one sensational and rare, the other mundane and all too common.

Prospect > At last, someone talking sense.

That 250km/h through a car is sensational and 50km/h dent in jeep is common.

causal

lomb

lomb wrote:

u guys have a deathwish and i wouldnt spill my milk if i creamed u thru no fault of my own.

prospect

prospect wrote:

If a motorbiker is going to weave etc, and I hit him cause he/she is somewhere they shouldn't be, than you are dead right, I dont give a fup. Stay in lane like everyone else and you'll be allright.

I was reminded of Ezekiel 25:17

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish, and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is The Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

causal

saobh_ie

Note to self... follow casual through traffic. lol

Hotblack Desiato

prospect wrote:

I am not denying that at all. But if they are in the wrong place, tough luck.

Unfortunately the 'wrong place' often happens to be wherever some car driver wants to be and thinks he can grab it because he's bigger and 'it's only a bike', or just didn't bother to look properly.

Riders always have to be aware of this and ride accordingly, if they want to live - as I said in my earlier post:

ninja900 wrote:

This happens all the time and a motorcyclist always has to be alert for morons pulling out.

prospect wrote:

If they are in the centre of the appropriate lane, with the other motorists, then it is undeniable that alot of these accidents wouldn't occur.

True, in some cases - and only a moron (whether on car or bike) would overtake through a junction.

But the fact remains, and you haven't contradicted it, that the insurers state that 75% of car-bike accidents are the fault of the car driver - 25% are partially or fully the fault of the rider. Passing through junctions, filtering on the wrong side of the road, etc. would (rightly) be regarded as putting part of the blame onto the rider.

We're still left with 75% of car-bike accidents caused by car drivers.

Over the years I have encountered a lot of aggressive tailgating from cars for the "crime" of obeying the speed limit, a couple of times I've nearly been run off the road. People in large metal boxes just don't realise (or don't care) how inimidating they are to more vulnerable road users.

Some of these bikers need to accept the fact that they are less visable. That is the laws of physics, and they should drive more carefully accordingly.

I would say that ALL bikers need to accept that - if they want to live.

But the problem here is that, some bikers are aware of this, but they want to use their smaller (and hence less visable) vehicle to their advantage

Of course I want to use my smaller vehicle to my advantage. If I have to sit in traffic, and need a full car space in work to park in (strictly rationed where I work, and I'm not eligible) then I might as well be in a sodding car!
The fact is - I don't need to take risks or break any laws to get to work in half the time a car would take.

And, they then expect the car drivers to be extra, extra careful to not to hit them!!??!!

Old people and kids are more vulnerable too - and sometimes take risks others wouldn't. I hope you give them a bit of consideration...

DubTony

I find it hard to believe that there are motorists out there who would be of the attitude that "it's only a bike". Whenever I'm entering a main road I always give a second or third look to ensure he's not trying to break land speed records so I can pull out safely. And anyway, those things make an awful mess of the car ..... and people wearing helmets flying across my windscreen really messes up my day.

Hotblack Desiato

DubTony wrote:

I find it hard to believe that there are motorists out there who would be of the attitude that "it's only a bike".

What other explanation is there when they see you, they look you right in the eye and STILL bloody pull out? I honestly think that some people firmly believe that any vehicle smaller than theirs must yield to them at all times!

AMurphy

This happened yesterday to a friend. (drives a 600cc Honda something on occasions, I've ridden it around the block only, I've no lisc, etc)
He is stopped in 2 way traffic waiting for a clearing to turn Left across the oncoming lane into a sidestreet. they guy behind in a car decided he was overdoing it and when the clearing came, he pulled left inside/beside him, also into the wrong lane in the side street. also into the path on another oncoming bike, who managed to pull out of the way and gave the idiot a shouting to.
few hundred yards down a red light, so the idiot is now a few cars back from the light. bike passes him to the head of the que, light goes green and the biker takes off leading the pack, whereupon the idiot insists on pulling out, passing all 3 cars against oncoming traffic, getting up on the tail of the bike and honking.
makes one wonder what is going on in some peoples minds.

RicardoSmith

There are bad bikers and drivers. Theres also an awful lot more cars than anything else on the roads. So the odds are if you in a traffic accident its with a car. No one has 100% awareness on the road 100% of the time. The majority of accidents are simply accidents.

So making sweeping generalisations that one group is better or worse than other is simply daft.

causal

RicardoSmith wrote:

There are bad bikers and drivers. Theres also an awful lot more cars than anything else on the roads. So the odds are if you in a traffic accident its with a car.

But let's look at the fault allocation in the subset of those incidents that are car/bike. The fault is approx 75:25 i.e. 3:1 the fault is allocated to the car driver. So while it's true that there are bad bikers and drivers - based on this subset of incidents we find that drivers are 3 times more likely to cause an accident than bikers.

The majority of accidents are simply accidents.

Actually the vast majority of RTAs are not accidents. "I didn't see you", "I lost control" is not an accident. Crashing on black ice, or on diesel at night in the wet is an accident - but most (above 90%) 'incidents' are the fault of people.

So making sweeping generalisations that one group is better or worse than other is simply daft.

Perhaps, but in the case of car/bike incidents it is quite clear that drivers are 3 times worse than bikers


causal

RicardoSmith

causal wrote:

But let's look at the fault allocation in the subset of those incidents that are car/bike. The fault is approx 75:25 i.e. 3:1 the fault is allocated to the car driver. So while it's true that there are bad bikers and drivers - based on this subset of incidents we find that drivers are 3 times more likely to cause an accident than bikers.

Lets ignore that theres probably 10x the number of cars than bikes on the road. (Where would you get stats on that?) or that there's less visibility from a car than a bike and a bike is harder to see than a car. Or that a biker has less ability to avoid an accident than in a car, worse braking for example. Or that a bikes usually approach a driver faster than other road vehicles giving them less time to react. All these things are not factors at all. :rolleyes:

causal wrote:

Actually the vast majority of RTAs are not accidents. "I didn't see you", "I lost control" is not an accident.

Fault and accident are two different things. Accident is an unexpected and undesirable event, unforeseen incident, Lack of intent. Whereas Fault is culpability, blame. Are you suggesting these are intentional?

causal wrote:

Perhaps, but in the case of car/bike incidents it is quite clear that drivers are 3 times worse than bikers

Of course if the stats (which I don't have) say something along the lines of 5% of the total number of cars but 30% of all bikers are involved in car/bike accidents, that would put a different slant on it, wouldn't it.


For example I could say that 100% of German tanks were destroyed during the war, but only 20% of the Allied. Makes it sound like the German tanks were rubbish. But then if I said it took 4 allied tanks to destroy one German tank, and one German tank could destroy 10 Allied tanks. Its obvious that the sheer number of Allied tanks vs German tanks is completely distorting the stats.

Thats what you are doing.

Next it will be trees and lamposts, leaping in front of unexpecting bikers...

causal

RicardoSmith wrote:

Lets ignore that theres probably 10x the number of cars than bikes on the road.

The proportion of cars:bikes is totally irrelevant when the only figure we're considering is the percentage fault allocation within the car:bike collisions.

or that there's less visibility from a car than a bike

An inherent danger in cars - ooh they're such nasty vehicles.

Or that a biker has less ability to avoid an accident than in a car, worse braking for example.

I disagree. Bikes are smaller and need less room to escape, bikes have better acceleration to move out of danger, and many bikes have brakes equal to and better than some cars (except in the wet).
Add to that bikers better visibility and concentration on the road and hazzards in the first place.

Or that a bikes usually approach a driver faster than other road vehicles giving them less time to react.

Have you got stats to back that up? Percentage of drivers and bikers with speeding offences or something? Or are you just fabricating it?

All these things are not factors at all. :rolleyes:

Some of them aren't.
And you haven't contradicted the fact that the ratio is 3:1 against car drivers.
In the final analysis the insurance companies pay out to bikers 3 times more often than drivers because in the opinion of the insurance company, or the court, the driver was at fault.

Fault and accident are two different things. Accident is an unexpected and undesirable event, unforeseen incident, Lack of intent. Whereas Fault is culpability, blame. Are you suggesting these are intentional?

No I'm not. And you logic is bizarre - just because you assert that an accident has "lack of intent", it does not logically follow that fault implies intention.

Now, what I was saying is that Accident and Incident are very different.
An incident implies an error - and for the purposes of the law and insurance companies - that error implies fault.
Now re-read what I said in the first place:
"Actually the vast majority of RTAs are not accidents. "I didn't see you", "I lost control" is not an accident. Crashing on black ice, or on diesel at night in the wet is an accident - but most (above 90%) 'incidents' are the fault of people."

Of course if the stats (which I don't have) say something along the lines of 5% of the total number of cars but 30% of all bikers are involved in car/bike accidents, that would put a different slant on it, wouldn't it.

You're fabricating stats and then commenting on them - that is pathetic.

For example I could say that 100% of German tanks were destroyed during the war, but only 20% of the Allied. Makes it sound like the German tanks were rubbish. But then if I said it took 4 allied tanks to destroy one German tank, and one German tank could destroy 10 Allied tanks. Its obvious that the sheer number of Allied tanks vs German tanks is completely distorting the stats.

Thats what you are doing.

No it is not what I am doing. Ironically, it is precisely what you are trying to do.
You are trying to use the total number of vehicles to distort the individual vehicle interaction figures.

You're saying that the percentage of drivers involved in car:bike collisions is less that the percentage of riders involved in car:bike collisions which is obviously the case, and it is the case only because - and I quote you - "theres probably 10x the number of cars than bikes on the road"
(This is the equivalent from your example of saying 20% of allied tanks were destroyed - but 100% of german tanks were destroyed.)

What these figures hide is the fact that in the collisions - the fault is that of the driver in 75% of the time.
(This is the equivalent from your example of saying 4 allied tanks could destroy one german one; or one german one could destroy 10 allied)

Next it will be trees and lamposts, leaping in front of unexpecting bikers...

You're fabricating again - stick to the facts.

And I repeat the facts are that: In the final analysis the insurance companies pay out to bikers 3 times more often than drivers because in the opinion of the insurance company, or the court, the driver was at fault.

causal

RicardoSmith

You mean you are choosing to look at that figure in isolation, as the sole criteria for the causality of biker/car accidents. Quite often the determination of fault, is a matter of financial and legal convience. Not a comprehensive picture of the causes of accidents.

causal

RicardoSmith wrote:

You mean you are choosing to look at that figure in isolation, as the sole criteria for the causality of biker/car accidents. Quite often the determination of fault, is a matter of financial and legal convience. Not a comprehensive picture of the causes of accidents.

Even using your logic, in 75% of incidents the insurer of the driver decided it's more 'convenient' to pay up damages to the biker - by the same token - in 75% if incidents the insurer of the biker decided it was more 'convenient' NOT to pay damages to the driver.

But insurance payouts isn't the only source of data on the causal reasons for car:bike incidents. Another source is The Hurt Report, whose findings support those of the insurance companies figures:

"The Hurt Report"
(AKA "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures")
<snip>
6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.
<snip>

Note that 2/3 of the car:bike incidents were caused soley by the other vehicle violating the bikers right-of-way. All the other causal reasons can be added to that figure of 2/3 to get the final percentage that are caused by the driver.

The statement that car drivers are responsible for 75% of car:bike incidents is supported by the facts, from at least two independant sources.

causal

prospect

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

11. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents.

26. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

28. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.

35. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

43. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

55. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.


Your bigoted attempt to portray all bikers as innocent victims of car drivers has failed miserably.

krinDar

prospect wrote:

Your bigoted attempt to portray all bikers as innocent victims of car drivers has failed miserably.

That is an ... unusual way to read it, I read it as:

casual wrote:

car drivers are responsible for 75% of car:bike incidents

edmund_f

make this point and then go and run and hide..

prospect wrote:

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

Your bigoted attempt to portray all bikers as innocent victims of car drivers has failed miserably.

causal wrote:

The statement that car drivers are responsible for 75% of car:bike incidents is supported by the facts, from at least two independant sources.

forgive me, but are you not agreeing with each other?.

These 'speed kill' argument really annoy me, not knowing how to drive kills, which inappropriate speed is a part of. Sort of like having an open wound and only giving the person painkillers. Speed is an easy thing to hide behind. you are right the person DOES have a headache

From looking at it, if every bike driver was perfect (which Prospect's stats show are not true) the best they could hope for is a 25% reduction in accidents?.. if every car driver was perfect the percentage would be?

my personal, stat free, opinion is that most bikers are excellent, far superior drivers than car drivers.

prospect

edmund_f, No need to run LOL,

As I said before, I am not getting involved in a 'we are better than you, blah blah' 'discussion'!

All the stats are from the same report, I didn't write it.
Quite frankly the whole report has feck all to do with this thread. It was done in america, so has absoloutly no bearing here. The road rules are different, the weather is different, driver training is different, vehicle numbers are different, car/bike ratios are probably different, etc.

So 'The Hurt Report' means nothing IMO, but if you are going to quote it, don't cherry pick the stats that suit you.

RicardoSmith

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

8. Deliberate hostile action by a motorist against a motorcycle rider is a rare accident cause. The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

13. The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

14. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

23. Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data.

24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.

26. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

29. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

34. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders.

The point being, that even the car is at fault. Theres a lot a bikers can do to avoid accidents. Get some training, increasing visibility, maintain good seperation, especially from potential threats. They also need to have better awareness that drivers simply can't see them. You can lose a truck in the blind spots of some cars, and that before you take into account people can be distracted by a whole range of things. Bikers need to take that into consideration. No point being right if your dead.

Fixating on the one statistic and denying all responsibility is a really mature way to tackle the problem. Car drivers can't make bikers more visible can they?

Chalk

god here we go again,
you all left the other thread to hide in this one?

prospect the figures your quoteing are for single bike accidents.
in most cases a loss of concentration for a biker WILL result in an accident,
its not a case of "maybe i can get away with answering the phone"
either your "on" or your "off"

i dont see you quoting there that carbike accidents are not the fault of car drivers?
where are the causes of car accidents?
sleep at the wheel
drunk at the wheel
reading at the wheel
etc
etc

human error causes acidents

human error casues more cars to hit bikes than bikes to hut cars.

ipso facto

cars are more responsible for hitting bikes than vice versa.

prospect

edmund_f wrote:

From looking at it, if every bike driver was perfect (which Prospect's stats show are not true) the best they could hope for is a 25% reduction in accidents?.. if every car driver was perfect the percentage would be?

Perfectly true,
if every car driver was perfect the percentage reduction in accidents would be?
75%

So 3 in every 4 accidents can be 100% blamed on a poor car driver (we are ignoring bus/trucks etc as these stats are car/bike only).

So lets assume for every 15 cars there is a bike.
That means that 94% of vehicles are cars, who cause 75% of accidents.
Also, 6% of vehicles are bikes, who cause 25% of accidents.

This is not considering that motorbikes are quicker, and can avoid traffic easier, so if someone could quote the amount of time each category spent commuting I am sure those statistics speak for themselves.

causal

prospect wrote:

Your bigoted attempt to portray all bikers as innocent victims of car drivers has failed miserably.

Firstly, I'm not a bigot. I'm a driver and a biker; If anything, you are the bigot who is intolerant of bikers.
Secondly, I never attempted to portray "all bikers as inncoent victims of car drivers" - I pointed out that 75% (not 100%) of the bikers in collision with cars (not all collisions) is due to the driver - as per the facts I mentioned earlier.

So 'The Hurt Report' means nothing IMO, but if you are going to quote it, don't cherry pick the stats that suit you.

You may recall that RicardoSmith asked if the insurance stats were the sole source of data - I presented the parts of the Hurt Report which showed similar findings (the full reports are hundreds of pages).
So the Hurt Report is relevant to this thread; furthermore the findings of the Hurt report are also relevant to Ireland - as per the fact that the figures from the Hurt Report agree with Irish insurance payouts on drivers being responsbile for 75% of car:bike incidents.

causal

RicardoSmith

causal wrote:

....as per the fact that the figures from the Hurt Report agree with Irish insurance payouts on drivers being responsbile for 75% of car:bike incidents.

It also shows that bikers could reduce this by being more visible. If they were visible to that 75% of drivers, the majority of those accidents wouldn't happen. Again drivers can't make bikers more visible, or have better training to avoid accidents.

You're dealing with blame, not causality. Blaming people never solves anything. Fix the problem. Making 100% of drivers "perfect" isn't realistic. Making bikers more visible, and better trained is.

Chalk

RicardoSmith wrote:

If they were visible to that 75% of drivers, the majority of those accidents wouldn't happen.

youve got the figures backwards,
in 75% the biker was not at fault,
ie, he did nothing wrong and could have done nothing to prevent said collision

its the smaller 25% figure that the biker had a hand in that could do with the reflective vest / better brikes / louder exhaust

prospect

causal wrote:

Firstly, I'm not a bigot.

So the Hurt Report is relevant to this thread; furthermore the findings of the Hurt report are also relevant to Ireland - as per the fact that the figures from the Hurt Report agree with Irish insurance payouts on drivers being responsbile for 75% of car:bike incidents.

So why did you post only 2 of 55 findings?

Just in case you don't understand :
Bigot = One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Also, as I bow out, happy that I have shown that a mere 6% of the car/bike driving public are responsible for 25% of the car/bike related accidents (ableit partially based on guesstimate), I would like to state that I have no gripe with bikers in general.
I applaude their speed and superior mobility in a ever worsening traffic enviornment.
But, the choice to use a bike has side effects, less visable, poor road surfaces, cross winds, traffic weaving etc, and when your are in an accident you have to accept that it is due to your choice. And a broad generalisation that car drivers are crap, and its his/her fault that they hit me as i speed between two lanes of fast moving traffic, at 180Kmh, dressed all in black, during heavy rain, is ignorant and bigotted (se above definition).

Kazujo

Firstly "bikes" aren't dangerous it's the people that ride without respect for their machine, weather, road conditions and other road users.

There are car drivers equally if not more dangerous than most bikers.

As I mentioned in the other thread it's all a question of mass. If that accident had involved a sports car instead of a sports bike the devistation would have been much worse, but we wouldn't be hear talking about it then. It would just be another accident. Beacuse it is a quite rare and spectacular accident it has genertaed the bike vs car driver arguement all over again.

There is no winner to this arguement only the news paper articles about the colective deaths on the raod. I would agree that cars are much more likely to take a chance pulling out infront of a bike than a car. It's not that they don't see the bike it's a case they figure I'll make it, the average width of a bike is less than 1 metre, I can move out quicker than that. BOOM

We are not defending the biker doing that speed on a public road, as I'm sure no reasonalbe cager would defend a car doing that speed.

In terms of single vehicle accidents, it's relatively easy to loose control of a bike if there is a bit of gravel,deisel or oil on the road or a loss in concentration. What is the excuse for all of the car drivers that "loose control" every weekend.

As mentioned a number of times already, there are good and bad in both groups. People who speed and don't pay enought attention in both groups.

The main difference is the difference in mind set between a car and a bike.

Car: if I crash I'll have to get my car fixed maybe some whip lash
Bike: if I crash I might be lucky enough to live / not receive a serious injury

This is what it comes down to. Bikers accept this fact everytime they throw their leg over the machine. Car drivers just hop in turn on the radio, put their phone somewhere they can reach it and off they go.

Again I'm not saying that ALL car drivers do not give due care and attention to the roads but I've seen too many people text, talk, drink coffee, read newspapers and put on make up at 120km/h + on the motorway. Whatever chances a biker takes are car driver is likely to take a bigger one.

Kazujo

prospect wrote:

its his/her fault that they hit me as i speed between two lanes of fast moving traffic, at 180Kmh, dressed all in black, during heavy rain, is ignorant and bigotted (se above definition).

In fairness most of the bike/car accidents don't happen at this speed, they are lower speed accidents mainly at traffic ligths, junctions and side roads/ drive ways. Involving one party puling out infront of the other.

AFAIK there are very few accidents caused by bikes filtering. Bikers don't rely on cars to see us or make room for us as if we did we'd probably have been hit already.

On the subject of vivibility how many cars are driving around at night with only one headlight?

causal

RicardoSmith wrote:

It also shows that bikers could reduce this by being more visible.

True. And drivers could reduce it by being more observant and generally better drivers.

If they were visible to that 75% of drivers, the majority of those accidents wouldn't happen.

Hopefully. But you have to look to see. Lack of observation is one of the biggest causes of driving test failures.

Again drivers can't make bikers more visible, or have better training to avoid accidents.

True. But drivers can improve their own standard of driving. How many have IAM advanced qualifications for driving.

You're dealing with blame, not causality. Blaming people never solves anything. Fix the problem. Making 100% of drivers "perfect" isn't realistic. Making bikers more visible, and better trained is.

I'm not interested in blaming, I'm trying to raise awareness - education.
It's important to me as a driver to know that I'm 3 times more likely to hit a bike than a bike to hit me. But it seems some ppl on this board don't want to acknowledge the 75:25 fact and try to twist and contort all the figures.

All road users need to improve - but most especailly car drivers.

causal