Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Sep 21, 2019 06:59

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 20:06
Posts: 77
I was having a clear out and reading through old magazines from when I started riding and bikers were up arms about proposals for leg protectors.

Are we still wasting tax payers money testing them or have they just faded away like most stupid ideas ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:43 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 09:16
Posts: 3655
Died a death...thank goodness.

Quote:
7.6.4 However, crash tests conducted by the International Motorcycle Manufacturers Association produced very different results, in which leg protection was found to be beneficial in three out of eight pairs of tests, but detrimental in five pairs of the eight tests. Overall, this study concluded that leg protectors increased the net risk of head and leg injuries.



Source...The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA)
Motorcycling Safety Position Paper - February 2001

Another "good idea" where the facts proved the theory to be complete cobblers.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 22:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
Let's hope that air bags on bikes will go the same way

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 23:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 02:25
Posts: 331
Biker gets away with it. No crash helmet.

A few more of these will be used to justify more models with airbags


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 09:03 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Quote:
Mr. O’Connell said. “The American dream is to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.”


Now I know they're all mad...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 09:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Was there no merit at all in the 'leg protector' idea?

Did it fail in principle or in practice?

The amazing quirky BMW C1 (with seatbelts!) is claimed to have equivalent crash safety to a small car. Can't any of the technology be usefully applied to proper motorbikes?

Is there any good reason why we can't build proper motorbikes with safety cages?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:15 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
SafeSpeed wrote:
Is there any good reason why we can't build proper motorbikes with safety cages?

Probably not. It has been tried before but I expect there would be market resistance and a distinct lack of sales.

However I recall reading that the C1 sold pretty well so you have to wonder why it was pulled.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:23 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
Is there any good reason why we can't build proper motorbikes with safety cages?


That’s dangerously close to being an oxymoron.

On a motorcycle, the benefits of primary safety protection must massively outweigh those of secondary protection, arguably more so than any other form of transport.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:48 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Is there any good reason why we can't build proper motorbikes with safety cages?


That’s dangerously close to being an oxymoron.


I don't see why. Is it just because of what we're used to?

Don't try to picture a sports bike with giant incongruous hoops. Think instead of some big touring bike (Harley?) with bodywork.

Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
On a motorcycle, the benefits of primary safety protection must massively outweigh those of secondary protection, arguably more so than any other form of transport.


Primary safety protection? The ability not to crash in the first place? I ask because I wouldn't normally call that 'protection'.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
SafeSpeed wrote:
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
On a motorcycle, the benefits of primary safety protection must massively outweigh those of secondary protection, arguably more so than any other form of transport.

Primary safety protection? The ability not to crash in the first place? I ask because I wouldn't normally call that 'protection'.

If 'primary safety' is really the ability to avoid crashing then motorcyclists seem to be pretty poor at achieving it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 13:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Icandoit wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
On a motorcycle, the benefits of primary safety protection must massively outweigh those of secondary protection, arguably more so than any other form of transport.

Primary safety protection? The ability not to crash in the first place? I ask because I wouldn't normally call that 'protection'.

If 'primary safety' is really the ability to avoid crashing then motorcyclists seem to be pretty poor at achieving it.


Oooo, that's made me ask a very interesting question. See new thread 'motorbike crash rates'.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 13:52 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Icandoit wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
On a motorcycle, the benefits of primary safety protection must massively outweigh those of secondary protection, arguably more so than any other form of transport.

Primary safety protection? The ability not to crash in the first place? I ask because I wouldn't normally call that 'protection'.

If 'primary safety' is really the ability to avoid crashing then motorcyclists seem to be pretty poor at achieving it.
Yeah, courtesy of bloody car drivers...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 15:25 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Is there any good reason why we can't build proper motorbikes with safety cages?


That’s dangerously close to being an oxymoron.


I don't see why. Is it just because of what we're used to?

Don't try to picture a sports bike with giant incongruous hoops. Think instead of some big touring bike (Harley?) with bodywork.


Some might say that a Harley isn’t a ‘proper’ motorbike – let alone one with bodywork.

Motorcycle Roadcraft lists 3 things that make a motorcycle more vulnerable than a car:

Not stable – bikes will fall over
No protection provided by a steel cage
Not easily visible

Anything that significantly addresses the first two (and possibly the third) would be a compromise, and the result would probably exhibit all the disadvantages of both bikes and cars and lose the advantages of each.


SafeSpeed wrote:
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
On a motorcycle, the benefits of primary safety protection must massively outweigh those of secondary protection, arguably more so than any other form of transport.


Primary safety protection? The ability not to crash in the first place? I ask because I wouldn't normally call that 'protection'.


Nah, neither would I – it was written in haste, but you knew what I meant.

The fact remains that we have only limited protection offered by secondary safety features, and motorcyclists have to rely almost entirely on "primary safety" - using their skills and experience to safeguard themselves by avoiding a collision in the first place.

As I said, I can think of no other form of transport where this gulf is so great.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 15:43 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
The fact remains that we have only limited protection offered by secondary safety features, and motorcyclists have to rely almost entirely on "primary safety" - using their skills and experience to safeguard themselves by avoiding a collision in the first place.
Whilst I can't see it ever happening, I'd love it to be compulsory that all car drivers had to ride a bike for a month or so, just to experience what it's like as a biker.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 22:39 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
BottyBurp wrote:
Whilst I can't see it ever happening, I'd love it to be compulsory that all car drivers had to ride a bike for a month or so, just to experience what it's like as a biker.


[tongue in cheek mode]

If it was pushed as a congestion reduction proposal it might get somewhere.

1. Some drivers would be too scared and would have to give up their licenses.

2. Some will try but be too scared to finish - bye bye license.

3. Of the ones who took up the challenge many would not survive. :evil:

4. A few may actually enjoy the experience and keep the bike.

[/tic mode]

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 16:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 15:01
Posts: 99
Hello! :D

Just taking a break from supporting Paul in another forum . . . so thought I'd have a stroll around here :)


Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
Motorcycle Roadcraft lists 3 things that make a motorcycle more vulnerable than a car:

Not stable – bikes will fall over
No protection provided by a steel cage
Not easily visible


Which just goes to show you can't believe everything you read . . .

A stationary bike, will usually fall over.

A bike relies on its wheels for stability, they act as gyroscopes and keep it upright. A bike is actually incredibly stable as long as a rider doesn't do anything to upset it. You only have to watch stunt riders, or the racing gods driving hard out of a bend with the rear wheel spinning and the front wheel off the road . . .

No protection? Can't argue with that. Apart from keeping abrasion injuries to a minimum, and keeping wounds clean, motorcycle gear doesn't do too much to protect riders against major trauma.

Not easily visible. That's a good one. I can see bikes about two miles away. I know this because I can - just - see moving bikes on a major road, and I measured on Google Maps how far it is from my house 8-)

Now, even at 60mph that's a couple of minutes 'warning' ;) But the real 'danger zone' for someone clobbering a bike is just 3 -4 seconds from impact; longer than that there's plenty of time for the rider to react.

So that leaves two aspects:
1. Who can't see a bike 3 seconds away (if they look)?
2. Is the rider commiting themself to a situation where they are totally reliant upon the other driver seeing them?


bottyburp wrote:
Yeah, courtesy of bloody car drivers...


Sadly, not the case. Most bike fatals are self-inflicted. I'll post up an article separately.


Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
Anything that significantly addresses the first two (and possibly the third) would be a compromise, and the result would probably exhibit all the disadvantages of both bikes and cars and lose the advantages of each.


I'll grant you the C1 wasn't 'ideal', but I was able to filter through traffic on/in one :)

There are bikes built with survivability in mind, from shaped fairing inners (like some BMWs) to the more unusual machines like the Voyager

http://www.voyager03.co.uk/

http://www.hightech.clara.net/pearly.htm#early

In 1988 however a Fiat 132 driver didn't see us coming and the wreckage was parked in a corner while the production project proceeded. This picture was taken by me at the accident site, it's been digitally enhanced to show details more clearly. This was a high-speed accident, on an open road, which I didn't expect to walk away from. It provided a spectaculer demonstration of the safety advantages of this layout. It was rebuilt as the yellow 002, seen in the later years below.

Here's 002 after recovery from the crash site. You can see how the front structure has crumpled very progressively and the foot plate has come back while still providing foot protection. More interestingly the 'conning tower' front mount, innediately below the indicator lens, has just started to collapse under the ompact of my body hitting the steering control. You can see also how the engine cover, a foam/GRP structure has been driven into the back of the conning tower by my body.

From the other side the most interesting feature is the hand control, folded up almost 90 degrees by the rider impact, the foam pad can clearly be seen in it's 'protective' position. The seat back has been bent forward by the impact from the content of the boot, chiefly a full pretrol can and a skateboard, this gives a good idea of the impact energy.

The bent lower fork is also clearly visible. This arm was folded right down under the vehucle in the crash, cutting through the 14 guage (2mm) steel sheet in the way and ripping the suspension struts apart. This feature is an essential component in this exceptional crash performance. Apart from transferring a huge amount of energy into the rear axle of the car, buckling it and tearing it out of it's mountings, it also levered the front of the bike upwards, placing the crash padding on the hand control and engine cover in front of the riders body. This was intentional. More unexpected however was that this upward movement of the front of 002 occurred when it's nose was buried in the rear wing of the car, the rear of which was also levered upwards and the entire car rotated about its front wheels out of the way of 002.



What it doesn't say there is that the rider walked away, but IIRC the car driver was hospitalised, and the car was written off but the bike rebuilt!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 16:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 15:01
Posts: 99
From Bike October 06

Are car drivers the problem?

Dopey motorists killing innocent bikers is a nice idea. Trouble is, it's a myth

If we're talking danger, it doesn't get more dangerous than death. Sussex Police inspector Simon Labbett has spent many years trying to understand the reasons why bikers die.

'A lot of people have jumped on bandwagons and said, for example, that it's junctions. Well actually, for fatal crashes junctions aren't the problem,' he explains. 'To reduce the fatalities you have to focus on the riders. Because they often don't require anyone else to intervene - they're quite capable of doing it themselves.'

Strong stuff? His research tracked down what kinds of bike were involved in all 55 fatal accidents in Sussex between 2000 and 2003 - something not recorded in the standard police process. The results were staggering. Of the 55 fatalities, 37 occurred on sportsbikes '96 Blades, RIs, GSX-Rs and the like. Another 11 were on sports tourers - Blackbirds, VFRs and Fazers. Just two commuter riders died, with one fatal crash on a tourer and one on a retro. And in more than nine out of ten of all these deaths, rider error - usually excessive speed - was the main cause of the crash.

Even taking into account the popularity of sportsbikes in the UK, their depressingly strong showing was hugely disproportionate. 'The main time is July to September,' notes Simon drily. 'Male, 25-44, sportsbike, good weather, weekend, dry country road, 60mph limit, rider error, speed a factor. That's the hallmark of who is likely to die.'

In other words, someone like me, and maybe you. But the question Simon asked was: why? 'I decided to look at the psychological profile of the different groups,' he explains. 'We spent an entire summer at bike meets, asking all kinds of riders to fill in a
questionnaire originally developed to profile adrenaline sport enthusiasts. The result showed the sensation-seeking desires of sportsbike riders were significantly higher than other groups of riders. It wasn't surprising that the guys who ride the real mean machines want the thrills out of life. What was surprising was that these riders alone seemed to deny their part in what was going on.' This attitude emerged from a question that asked riders who was to blame for the county's recent fatal accidents. The choices were mechanical failure, the road environment, car drivers, or motorcyclists themselves.

'Overwhelmingly, sports riders said it was the car drivers' fault,' reports Simon. 'Very rarely did they say it's the riders' fault. The other riders blamed car drivers too, but they also said it could be them - the sportsbike guys. So there's a division among motorcyclists themselves.'

The reasons why car drivers take the rap are easy enough to understand - even if, as Simon explains, they're flawed. 'Most bike collisions happen in built-up areas and those are indeed someone else's fault - a driver emerging from a side road and the familiar, "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" story.

'However, most fatal accidents happen in 60mph limits on rural roads. Failure to see the bike goes down dramatically and rider error becomes much more significant.'

Riders - and sportsbike riders in particular - were applying what they knew about urban areas to rural roads. But it's wrong.

What to do? Simon, who has his eye on a new Honda CBF1000, is convinced that training on its own won't achieve much. 'If you're dealing with control, not the rider's mindset, you could make the problem worse. If you take somebody, and say, "Look, you prat - if you take these lines it's far safer," the guy suddenly realises that instead of going round at 50 he can go round at 60. Nobody's dialled into his brain that the safe speed was 40. It's so important to address the mindset.

'Manufacturers agree with what I'm saying. They actually say, "We don't want to sell these bikes - it creates a bad image. We'd rather be selling cruisers".'

'Understanding potential variances in attitude, risk and behaviour of motorcyclists that may lead to fatal collisions'

Simon Labatt November 2003


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 17:02 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Horse wrote:
Hello! :D

Just taking a break from supporting Paul in another forum . . . so thought I'd have a stroll around here :)


Hello to you too. :D

You go missing for months and then open the flood-gates.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 17:25 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
Horse wrote:
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
Motorcycle Roadcraft lists 3 things that make a motorcycle more vulnerable than a car:

Not stable – bikes will fall over
No protection provided by a steel cage
Not easily visible


Which just goes to show you can't believe everything you read . . .

A bike is actually incredibly stable as long as a rider doesn't do anything to upset it.


Yep! Clip the kerb in a car and you might scratch the wheel covers. Do it on a bike and you're likely to be off.

Horse wrote:
No protection? Can't argue with that.


Phew!

Horse wrote:
Not easily visible. That's a good one. I can see bikes about two miles away.


Well, I wish it was you waiting at every junction I approach. :)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 14:06 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Horse wrote:
bottyburp wrote:
Yeah, courtesy of bloody car drivers...


Sadly, not the case. Most bike fatals are self-inflicted. I'll post up an article separately.

Now I don't dispute fatalities (cos I don't know) but I'm sure I read somewhere that most accidents (fatal or not) were caused by car drivers? I stand to be corrected...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.350s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]