Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 08:55

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Motorbike crash rates...
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 13:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
We all know that motobikes show high risk values for injury. But that's not in the least surprising due to two factors:

- Motorbikes can fall over
- riders are (close to) unprotected in crashes

But risk compensation theory should cause LOWER rates of crash involvement for bikers than for car drivers.

Is there any evidence anywhere for 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 Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 13:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
SafeSpeed wrote:
But risk compensation theory should cause LOWER rates of crash involvement for bikers than for car drivers.

I don't think so, as generally motorcyclists would like to think that they are 'safe' because of factors that are mostly not justifiable.

For instance wearing 'protective' clothing may raise the bar to getting gravel rash but will (probably) not stop you breaking your neck if you come to a sudden stop. But there is a belief that wearing such clothing 'helps', hence the numbers who will refuse to ride without such gear are already erroneously partaking in a form of risk compensation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 14:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 15:27
Posts: 683
Location: New Forest
SafeSpeed wrote:
But risk compensation theory should cause LOWER rates of crash involvement for bikers than for car drivers.


I don’t think it works like that, at least not in the long term.

When we first ride a bike, the perceived risk is high and we ride accordingly. After a period of accident-free riding, this perceived risk lessens and we compensate for that.

Quote:
Professor Gerald J. S. Wilde illustrates this by reference to the Swedish experience when they changed from right- to left-hand drive in 1967. This was followed by a marked reduction in the traffic fatality rate, but the trend returned to its previous values after about 18 months. Drivers had responded to increased perceived danger by taking more care; as they became accustomed to the new regime, the additional care evaporated.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 14:22 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
RoSPA did some research into motorcycle crash rates in the late 80s and concluded that motorcyclists were slightly less likely to cause a crash than car drivers. the conclusion was partly risk compensation, but also the better visual awareness that a rider has.

I also think that modern helmets, leathers gloves and of course fairings all damage the risk compensation factor. Secondly modern high powered bikes are increasingly coming with electronic steering dampening and launch control which takes us closer to fly-by-wire and the playstation generation of PTW's that will likely come in the next 10-20 years.

The key thing to remember is that the vast majority of crashes are not directly attributed to the actions of the rider (some est. as high as 82% SMIDSY). It is only fatalities that have a high degree of personal responsibility and these are attributed mostly to rural riding bends and overtaking.

Within the sports leisure riding group (which is probably the largest segment next to <125 scooters) we see low mileage and high risk riding (i.e. technical riding). In the main part these low mileage high risk groups individually still don't experience the results of their risk taking as well over 99/100 time they get away with that risky overtake or going in too hot for a bend. But their low exposure means they don't learn from these mistakes. Unfortunately the group is large and therefore 1 in 100 is statistically significant and almost always serious.

So I guess I'm saying for risk compensation to work positively, the rider needs to remember what its like to slide down the road on their arse.

A useful piece of research would be to see how many riders who were Killed due to their own actions had previously experience an significant personal injury accidents before hand. My experience suggest very few.

So we see track days (high risk of arse/tarmac interface) have a useful part to play in road safety.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 14:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
diy wrote:
RoSPA did some research into motorcycle crash rates in the late 80s and concluded that motorcyclists were slightly less likely to cause a crash than car drivers. the conclusion was partly risk compensation, but also the better visual awareness that a rider has.


Good. As I expected.

You can bet that the gap has widened since then and you can also bet that some of the motorbike crashes are 'loss of stability' crashes indicating that the skills gap is even wider than it looks.

I'm constantly impressed by the interest that bikers show in 'roadcraft' (small 'r'), and believe that interest to be one response to risk exposure. I further believe it to be mistaken to regard 'risk compensation' as existing in a bounded box - it changes everything.

So why has the gap widened? Because car drivers have got MUCH worse under the influence of modern policy, of course. Bikers are better 'protected' from policy by their own fear.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 14:55 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
But risk compensation theory should cause LOWER rates of crash involvement for bikers than for car drivers.


I don’t think it works like that, at least not in the long term.


Think bigger and broader. Why did you get involved in the IAM? Exactly?

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 15:18 
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:
But risk compensation theory should cause LOWER rates of crash involvement for bikers than for car drivers.


I don’t think it works like that, at least not in the long term.


Think bigger and broader. Why did you get involved in the IAM? Exactly?


Coz they gave me a free bottle of water on their bikeshow stand? :D

But seriously - I shall think on...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 16:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 00:30
Posts: 71
I recall reading that 73% of motorcycle crashes are right of way violations on behalf of the other party, the majority of all accidents being the other party's fault, but that the vast majority of fatal accidents are caused by the rider losing control on a bend or misjudging an overtake.
Sounds reasonable to me - might be worth you looking into. The dilemma with leisure riding is where you draw the line between safety and adrenaline - the red mist can really take hold of some people.

On the subject of gear and risk compensation, I find I ride so "carefully" when I'm not geared up properly-ish it actually impacts my riding negatively. Slightly tenser grip on the bars, being too conservative with the throttle (letting off the gas in a corner upsets the stability of the bike and can cause a rear wheel slide, as you may or may not know) and generally riding in a much less confident manner.
Not something I do often, but if I'm just popping down the shops (five minutes walk away - I know, I'm lazy) then it's usually just helmet and boots on. Maybe jacket.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 17:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
SafeSpeed wrote:
I'm constantly impressed by the interest that bikers show in 'roadcraft' (small 'r'), and believe that interest to be one response to risk exposure...
So why has the gap widened? Because car drivers have got MUCH worse under the influence of modern policy, of course. Bikers are better 'protected' from policy by their own fear.


Personally I don't think focusing on skill has much to do with road safety primarily. More to do with the fact that riding a bike is so much more complex than driving a car. Most riders realise that and seek to learn further skills. secondly the rewards are so much more amplified. Obviously many will seek out training for safety too.

Its much more common to get people on courses wanting to improve their skill at bends and overtaking rather than increasing their safety. Roadcraft (the police drivers theory) does not just focus on safety - it focuses on progress to.

If we were to focus on safety only then people would not show any interest at all.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 18:17 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
diy wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I'm constantly impressed by the interest that bikers show in 'roadcraft' (small 'r'), and believe that interest to be one response to risk exposure...
So why has the gap widened? Because car drivers have got MUCH worse under the influence of modern policy, of course. Bikers are better 'protected' from policy by their own fear.


Personally I don't think focusing on skill has much to do with road safety primarily. More to do with the fact that riding a bike is so much more complex than driving a car. Most riders realise that and seek to learn further skills. secondly the rewards are so much more amplified. Obviously many will seek out training for safety too.

Its much more common to get people on courses wanting to improve their skill at bends and overtaking rather than increasing their safety. Roadcraft (the police drivers theory) does not just focus on safety - it focuses on progress to.

If we were to focus on safety only then people would not show any interest at all.


I'll see all your points and raise you 'taming the beast'. :)

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 16:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 15:01
Posts: 99
diy wrote:
RoSPA did some research into motorcycle crash rates in the late 80s and concluded that motorcyclists were slightly less likely to cause a crash than car drivers. the conclusion was partly risk compensation, but also the better visual awareness that a rider has.


Dr Alf Minter researched car & bike accident rates, back in 1978.

He found that the actual rate per mile travelled is little different, 'just' that a rider will suffer injury while a driver will damage their vehicle.

He used insurance company records.

http://www.teamrc17.net/archive/2004/12/msg00555.html
~ The Minter Report (from the UK) showed the rate of casualties to exceed that of car drivers by a factor of under 4.0,

http://www.docsarah.demon.co.uk/QQNL25.htm
One report (Minter Report) accurately estimated motorcycle mileage, and adjusted journeys for age groups. This showed the rate of casualties to exceed that of car drivers by a factor of under 4.0, very much lower than the crude rates per passenger kilometre of over 20.

The only suitable comparisons come from the occupational field, where it can be shown that police motorcyclists (Class 1), when compared with a similar cohort of car drivers (Class 1) are less likely to be involved in any accident. This is a highly selected group who are at low accident risk anyway, but the point is demonstrated that if you compare like with like, motorcycles may be a less hazardous form of transport than either popular image or misleading crude statistics suggest.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:27 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
Are class 1s really at low accident risk. I accept they are highly trained, but the very nature of their job would probably compensate for that.

I've done a lot of training with police instructors recently and I have to say the standard is not as high as the reputation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:53 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
There seam to be three types of motorcyclist in my area, all contributing to crash stastics

1. Illegal teanagers on illegal bikes, drink etc (2 dead, 1 severly injured)
and a few of off road bike accidents
2. Young & inexperianced, low powered bikes all the right traiinng and kit
(1 badly injured after hitting parked car)
3. 25+ born again bikers either getting involved in smidsey crashes or failing to negotiate bends. (1 colleage killed hitting pole) (ironicly his job was a pole tester!)

The discussion above concentrates on group 3.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 21:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 18:13
Posts: 13
Location: London
I have a personal theory about a lot of the bike crashes that occur in rural areas, especially those put down to rider error.

Anyone who rides our country roads will have noticed the large increase of white paint on them - cross hatchings that separate lines of traffic, complicated junction layouts, mini roundabouts (where there used to be a simple junction), and most importantly the excessive use of double white centre lines where there used to be long 'hazard' centre lines.

What this does is to keep all the nice little metal boxes in a straight line, unable to pass each other.

All very well, but it causes frustration, especially if you are on a bike, most of which can accelerate quickly. (Applies to drivers of fast cars too).

So, imagine the scene, long line of traffic forced to travel at the pace of the caravan or tractor at the front! Motorcyclist comes up and he too is forced to obey the very long centre double white lines. Then, at the moment they stop he accelerates past the slow moving traffic. However, he allows the 'red mist' of frustration to overcome his natural caution and is traveling too fast for the road/conditions. A vehicle in front turns right, or he can not get back to the left before hitting an oncoming vehicle, or comes into a bend too fast.

Result - likely to be fatal and put down to rider error.

Another over zealous use of white paint, that I believe results in country road accidents, is at bends.

Most bends on A roads are now a blur of white with chevron markings and signs indicating how fast you can drive safely drive around them. All very well but very often a rider/driver will negotiate that bend and find it is not that sharp. This may happen on numerous occasions and then one day he/she will come to one that is very severe and is correctly marked.

But by now he/she is complacent, they have seen it all before, (like crying wolf) and they go in too fast.

Result - rider/driver error, although the driver will more likely walk away.

And if you are still reading this (!) I have noticed that on B roads do not have much in the way of signage at bends. The council have used all the white paint/budget unnecessarily on the A road!

Result - as above, as the driver/rider has come to expect all the warnings applied to A roads and goes in too fast, relying on the usual warnings instead of reading the road.

Bill

_________________
Less haste - more speed (in the right places!)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 15:01 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 19:04
Posts: 5
Bill, I agree with all your points raised, the white lining of roads is getting ridiculous, and all of the rules and regulations are causing frustration in drivers it amazes me that every time I go out for a ride I come across one person who is trying so desperately to get back the 3 minutes they have been held up in yet another queue by driving erraticly. In the case of all these silly one way systems with the lines painted in for multiple split lanes that merge then split it is no surprise that drivers are constantly on edge and making errors.

I have been opposite a junction at a roundabout where I was indicating for the exit horizontal with the oncoming cars and one bloke saw a gap opposite and just pulled out causing me to lock up and nearly drop my bike, he just about missed my front tyre (about an inch or 2 at most) then looked horrified at me when he realised I was there... The issue there is that had he hit me he would have thrown me into the other lanes which were moving - all created out of frustration because of the ever more extensive forced lanes and removal of the motorists choice and judgement.

cheers

leigh :D

_________________
http://www.bikechatter.co.uk
Motorcycling articles,reviews and bikers forum


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 20:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 16:30
Posts: 119
Interesting thread.

Suggestion to Safespeed Admin. Please contact MAG for most up to date accident figures ect.

I strongly believe that MAG and Safespeed could both benefit from regular contact. Details can be found on the MAG website.

MAG have seats on the several parliamentary commitees and are therefore in a good position to influence future road safety and transport policy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 00:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 15:50
Posts: 249
[

[*]
Quote:
On the subject of gear and risk compensation, I find I ride so "carefully" when I'm not geared up properly-ish it actually impacts my riding negatively. Slightly tenser grip on the bars, being too conservative with the throttle (letting off the gas in a corner upsets the stability of the bike and can cause a rear wheel slide, as you may or may not know) and generally riding in a much less confident manner.
Not something I do often, but if I'm just popping down the shops (five minutes walk away - I know, I'm lazy) then it's usually just helmet and boots on. Maybe jacket.
[/quote]


If you have a different frame of mind when you ride in different garb, you will always be , to a degree, a risk to yourself.Riding is a learned skill, knowledge and experience thing, the only reason I wear anything is IN CASE OF.......Puncture, pratt pulling out or cutting in,bird flying in my face, helecopter rotor flying off bouncing off a passing yak and slotting in my wheel, saturn having a fit and throwing its nut clusters off to earth just to the exact point I'm cranked over .........etc etc otherwise I wouldnt wear much at all and still ride the same..if you get the point.. :D
Quote:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 13:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 15:50
Posts: 249
Quote:
I have been opposite a junction at a roundabout where I was indicating for the exit horizontal with the oncoming cars and one bloke saw a gap
cheers

leigh :D[/quote]

Are you at a roundabout or are you at a junction near a roundabout and were you indicating right or left for a right or left turn or position change. See Im confused, maybe I'd have to see the ground to understand, Ive taught for many years on and off and cannot remember an occasion where I ever used the word 'Horizontal'. your description is confusing so there is little wonder you had a near miss by focus on the complex and ignoring common sense. i.e. Expect the unexpected and never expect others to follow the rules, know the rules or understand the rules. :D


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.023s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]