Safe Speed Forums

There's a bit of a discussion raging in a mailing list based around the statistic that motorbikes are 30 times more dangerous than cars. In particular the risk per mile is about 30 times greater for motorbikes than for cars.

Some might say: Ban motorbikes it's the only safe thing to do. Everyone should go by car because it is safer.

Some might say: Policy should shift the balance towards safer modes.

Some might say: It's everyone's right to choose.

I say the comparison is meaningless for policymakers, but potentially important to those choosing to travel.

As a teenager in London I chose not to take up motorbikes because I personally thought that the risk of injury was too high.

For me, this example helps me to see it in perspective:



But I think we'd better be well prepared with the right arguments, because I see storm clouds ahead.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Pedal cycling is also considerably more dangerous than travelling by car. I wonder if the same people want to ban that.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Yes, it was an interesting discussion

I note you have quoted the KSI figure from our Australian friend from his study in Victoria. As we have not seen this published it is difficult to be cetain as to its accuracy. The DfT in its report (and let's face it they are not likely to be biased in favour of motorbikes) gives the figure of 16x based on DETR 2000 http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/page/dft_rdsafety_035422.pdf. For 1999 the figure is 28x and for 1990 it was 35x.

Obviously the odds for the biker are getting better!

Why?

1. It would be easy to say its because the bikers are getting better.

Undoubtedly there is an element of truth in that statement. The bike test has changed for starters and there is a much greater element to training with the direct access schemes and with the large number of private advanced motorcycle training bodies that have sprung up. Bikers have seen that the odds are stacked against them and there is a demand for these motorcycle courses, often run by ex-police bikers and/or under the auspices of RoSPA and the IAM.

But other factors need to be considered.

2. Improvement in vehicle design to protect pedestrians may well lessen the damage to a biker colliding with the vehicle bodywork.

3. Road engineering improvements may have reduced the possibility of ROW violations or rider anticipation of the severity of a bend.

4. Rider clothing has improved as has the awareness of the need to wear protective clothing and be visible.

and

5. The training and resources of the emgergency services (especially paramedics) has improved tremendously thus improving the outcome for any injured rider.

As the figure for KSI is improving (relative to cars) I believe we need to look at the above and see how this can improved further.

2, 3 & 5 should continue to improve regardless of any special demand for bikers.

4 is likely to improve steadily based on the demands of the bikers themselves and as better protective materials are developed.

That leaves 1, rider training, as the single most important factor that can continue to reduce the relative KSI.

To me it seems obvious that I need to pay someone to teach me how to ride properly. However, only 17.5% of riders who took part in the DfT study had undergone advanced training, 60% had done the old style test, which leaves a *minimum* of 42.5% out there with nothing but that as the basis for their rider skills.

Many of the riders probably cannot affort the £100+ a day it costs to get good one-to-one training.

Now it seems to me, that if you reduce the number of KSI there is a cost-benefit, as (plucking a figure wildly out of the air) it must cost the NHS at least £20,000 to keep someone in ITU for a week and the following weeks occupying a bed in a hospital. Or if they are killed, the benefits for their spouse and offspring will greatly exceed that amount as will supporting a paraplegic ex-rider.

Surely then there is an incentive for HMG to put its hand in its pocket and set up training centres across the country where course can be had free or heavily subsidised in order to take advantage of this cost-benefit and very likely see a decrease in the KSI figures as a result.

Furthermore, motorcycle traffic violations, speeding, white line transgression, due care etc should not be rewarded with points and a fine. If the training centres are there then enforced attendance at cost would be a fitting solution.

If the DfT took this up public opinion would turn around overnight!

That's my opinion FWIW, very simplified, I know, but all I'm prepared to write at this time of night

_________________
Mike

With a motorbike, the risks posed to OTHERS are very low. The only person in any real danger is the person riding the motorbike. Most bikers are aware of the risks involved, and choose to take them anyway for whatever reason.

To use a cliched example, if a motorbike runs into the back of a busload of schoolchildren, no-one apart from the biker is going to be injured. If a car or another bus runs into the back of it, there is a greater chance of injuring the occupants of the first bus.

Since they are not endangering outher people, what's the point in telling them to stop?

Peter

Good to see you are aware that on a cost of trauma per kilometre of travel basis bicycle travel is more dangerous than car travel.

In my extensive research in preparing the original Victorian Bicycle Strategy in 1990-1 I was able to show that for the 2.2 million persons in Victoria who rode bicycles at least once a year there were around 70000 injuries that required medical attention. And at that time there were around 20-25 deaths.

Based on annual travel the death and injury figures converted to a cost of around 20 cents per kilometre at that time.

Motorcycle travel had a different spectrum of trauma with very high levels of serious trauma compared to other modes of travel and those converted to a cost of around 50 cents per km.

For heavy trucks the costs were 6 cents per km because of severity.

And for cars around 3 cents per km.

Note that I have never advocated the banning of any mode of travel, only that the users of each mode be required to contribute their fair share of the costs of that mode of travel.

For bicycles that is premarily done through individuals or their family paying for the medical costs of minor injuries.

For motorcycle travel because of the severity of injury it needs to be through a third party insurance arrangement.

_________________
John Lambert

All very interesting John.

BUT

1. Vehicle insurance in Victoria is different to the way insurance is funded in this country so your current hobby-horse has little relevance in the UK. Here the insurance companies do adjust their premiums according to risk without the cross-subsidy that exists in Victoria.

2. The idea that you propose does not address the fudamental issue of preventing KSI. And as stated in my earlier posting there may be significant cost-benefit implications for doing so by rider training as this *seems* to be one factor that has historically caused a fall in KSI and that is the most easily addressed.

_________________
Mike

I guess the "Devil's Advocate" counter argument is that when the presence of "high risk" motorcyclists leads to a road having a greater number of injuries than would otherwise have been the case, this in turn gives our misguided authorities the excuse they need to impose rigorous speed enforcement, which everyone then has to suffer from.

My personal feeling is that this argument doesn't hold water, because it doesn't matter how low the crash rate it will still be high enough that speeding can be blamed and camera enforcement inflicted upon us.

Perhaps a more pertinent worry is that bikers tend to give the speed camera companies the illusion of success that they crave. When they "target" popular biker routes, as they do here, a fair percentage of motorcyclists must surely just switch to going and having their crashes elsewhere, giving the illusion that the camera is saving lives.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Should the same apply to:

- people who participate in dangerous sports?
- people who do home improvements?
- people who smoke?
- people who are obese?

Or where do you draw the line?

(Can we please try to avoid discussing each of those issues individually in this thread? They work 'as a set' in the context.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The way things are going I can certainly see it coming that the NHS will limit, or perhaps charge for treatment of injury or illness arising from certain activities. This in turn will lead to private health insurance becoming a necessity for those in the sort of risk groups you mention, so in time the process of insurance premium assessment will in effect put a price on each such activity.

I'd expect that political correctness would creep into it too, eg cycling would not be penalised as it is considered "green", even though high risk, whereas (say) powerboating would be penalised heavily as it is non-green and non PC (even though probably substantially safer than cycling).

DIY is a great example, look at the new electricity regs that came into effect last year. A whole bunch of complex restrictions that require an army of inspectors, create lucrative "jobs for the boys" and grossly inconvenience Joe Public, all to tackle a risk that is vanishingly small.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Two of your examples are already paid for by the participant, namely high taxes on fags and the new plans to stop treating fat people, so unfortunately there is a precident for this.

I was under the impression that this was already the case for motorised tranport as in the event of an RTA the NHS are entitled to claim of the losing party's insurance, and therefore all our premiums have gone up.


It is a very fine line, on the one hand I am all for, I guess you can call it punishing, gross stupidity (eg. motorbike doing wheelies in a built up area with no helmet) instead of just putting the people back together and letting them go on their way but at the same time I'm against restricting people's ability to participate in various leisure activities, and I'm against hugely comlicated over zealous health & safety legislation.

How to resolve it in an age where common sense no longer exists. If it were me then I'd go for a fairly low common denominator such as if a random person with one O level in a non related area (eg. woodwork) thinks that what you did was obviously stupid then you get the bill.

So in the car case:

Momentarily lapse of attention has you hit a lamp post: Don't pay
Ghost Ridin' tha whip: You pay for being a moron.

Whilst you all debate what would be best for motorcycling don't forget all those dozy car drivers who fail to see motorcycles when they pull out of side roads, switch lanes without looking etc.. yes we do make mistakes, we take chances and we go too fast sometimes ermm ring any bells, well car drivers do the same thing also. I take issue with the comment above "that motorbikes are 30 times more dangerous than cars" motorbikes are not dangerous in themselves but in the hands of some people they are but then so are white vans, taxis, buses, lorries etc.. What it should say is "motorcyclists are 35 times (not 30) more likely to be killed or seriously injured than a car driver" and someone has already said why, because we
usually come off worse and that even includes if it's the fault of someone else. Motorcycling could indeed be banned one day, it's happened to fox hunting, the smoker is being persecuted at present (I'm a non smoker) so after the bikes have gone what next ermm horse riding, rock climbing, football, rugby, line dancing perhaps, well it looks dangerous to me I have to say, at the end of the day how sanitised do you want the world you live in to be.

Again it's down to how much risk your activity imposes on other people.

Smoking is argued to be harmful, as someone who has eczema flare ups on too much exposure to cigarette smoke (and thus I can't visit my own father!) then I have some support for banning smoking in the workplace but still disagree with a total ban.

The rest of the activities you list, with the possible exception of horse riding (Which we have a separate thread about) do not carry any notable risk of harming unrelated third parties, only other people who have consented to take part in the activity. Therefore they should not be banned under any circumstances IMO. The question is still up in the air as to who should pay when such an activity results in an expensive injury, however.

BAN MOTORBIKES? NO! THEY SHOULD BE MADE COMPULSORY

OK - a flippant remark maybe, but I offer that, if one only drives a car (for instance) this can potentially remove a complete catagory of hazards from the drivers awareness. That of the variables - such as the weather.

Particularly at this time of year, the driver is cocooned in his own little, comfortable micro-climate and can so easily dismiss many of these hazards as not relevant, and therefore, not modify his driving to take account of them.


On a bike - boy do you get feedback from that wet road, and it makes you wonder "Why are all these cars still driving so close to each other? Don't they realise?"

Perhaps it would make drivers more aware of motorbikes too. A bikers biggest threat by miles is the SMIDSY.

Sorry to resurrect this thread - just needed to get that off my chest.

[quote="Grumpy Old Biker"
Perhaps it would make drivers more aware of motorbikes too. A bikers biggest threat by miles is the SMIDSY.[/quote]

I try to keep in mind those stickers on the backs of LGV's about not seeing the mirrors when I'm on my bike. I do get people pulling out in front of me all the time, I guess because my bike is small, old and slow they assume they can just nip in front of me, it gets on my nerves but I just have to deal with it. My collegue got knocked off by an old dear after 50 years without an off. I think that it's my resonsibilty to either make myself seen or have a good margin for avoiding the blind. However, I realise that it migth happen.

It's perfectly possible for that to happen in a car too, though seems less likely in modern cars. In fact that was one of my major complaints when I "upgraded" from my crappy old 1.6 Escort to a company car. That and the addition of power steering.

I have grudgingly gotten used to PAS and learned to take the feel that is still there, but on may cars the feel of the road through the wheels is completely gone. Not on all cars though. It's still there on the Legacy even without being annoyingly harsh. It's gone on most of the hire cars I've had.

Perhaps car manufacturers could be encouraged or forced to make suspension setups that allow a certain amount of the road texture to be felt.

That said, I have seen people who seem completely oblivious to their car aquaplaning, so maybe there's no point?

I was taken off my shiny VFR VTEC last winter by a woman in her cozy BMW on the M6, who was perfectly happy to jump into her snug metal cage without clearing the snow from her rear windscreen (and presumably wing-mirrors) and swung straight in front of me on the off-ramp. Of course I shouldn't be held to blame for the collision, but as a biker you must be prepared and aware that some drivers will do these things, since the one who's life you'll be saving, as you ride safely away shaking your head at the stupidity, is your own!

I can't help wondering whether the statistics regarding biker safety are significantly skewed by the endless stream of youngsters I see riding 'L' plated moped/scooters with little or no protection below the neck, and an old battered helmet that often looks like its had several drops already!

AND ANOTHER THING..................

OK, we can pobably agree that being knocked off by someone who didn't see us is a HUGE risk and that might be lessened if everyone had riden a bike - BIG assumption there!

But what about this.........

Motorcyclists are the fastest growing category attaining Advanced Qualifications. Think about it. Given the ratio of cars to bikes, thats pretty staggering eh?

For instance, bikers make up about 1/5 of the members of RoADAR (RoSPA).

Not only that, since most bikers are drivers also, they are also improving the driving standards of the Motorist group. How altruistic is that!?!

So how can bikes be banned? They are the biggest group of road users who are actively doing something to improve their own safety.

QED I think you'll find.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

I went round that loop myself and ended up here:

Bikes are so dangerous that bikers are absolutely desperate to do anything that might lessen the risk.

So I reckon it's a losing argument. Unless you can find a way out. (I'm all ears!)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think you've only gone part way around the loop. To continue the argument from the point where G.O.B. states that advanced motorists are boosted approximately 20% by bikers.

Can we further assume that most bikers drift towards car ownership with advancing years, I know I did (and fairly quickly too), so the nett result is that a short exposure to the high risk of motorcycling leaves behind a legacy of improved skills and heightened awareness of risk for the remainder of ones driving career.

So what is the typical span of a driving career? I'd say 5-10 years on bikes, and 40-50 years in cars; as such it may well be that the practicalities actually do bear out the old adage that "everyone should spend a year or two riding bikes" - I guess some do, and they tend to go on to form 20% of advanced drivers...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Yeah, well, my rant was obviously a bit tongue-in-cheek and there is absolutely no getting away from the fact that riding a bike is more of a risk than driving a car. Just one mistake and you're probably gonna hurt yourself.

I do what I can to help riders attain their IAM test, but "desperate" is not a word I'd use to describe their attitude. We all do things everyday that involve risk and we generally put that thought out of our minds.

Bikers love bikes! It's nothing you can ever explain to a non-biker. My Associates all have a desire to do what they do - but better. And they end up loving biking even more.

I can't defend the inherent risk with bikes - I can defend the joy of biking.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished