Yorkshire Dales ruined by motorcyclists
Comments
-
Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
I wonder how many of those fatalities were the outcome of being hit by cars? Or how many fatalities were the result of excessive speed?“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Slowmart wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
I wonder how many of those fatalities were the outcome of being hit by cars? Or how many fatalities were the result of excessive speed?
Also, you need to look at the number of accidents in proportion to the number of trips made by mode of transport. When you do that, then it soon becomes clear that the probabilities of having a serious accident on a PTW are much higher than for other modes. Conclusion: using a motorcycle is dangerous. And not just in England. In Barcelona where I live, trips by motorbike are among the highest in Europe at 6 per cent of modal share, and yet they are involved in 40 per cent of accidents. Some might be their fault, some might not. But it remains the case that, other things being equal, if you travel by motorbike, you put yourself and others in more danger than is the case for other modes of transport.
But going back to the OP, if you go to the area on a Sunday, it soon becomes apparent that the huge presence of motorcyclists, many of which do timed circuits up to Hawes and back, is dangerous, and more so for vulnerable road users. Even some car drivers are afraid to go out on a Sunday for fear of coming across a motorbike coming at them at speed in the wrong lane.0 -
cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
I wonder how many of those fatalities were the outcome of being hit by cars? Or how many fatalities were the result of excessive speed?
Also, you need to look at the number of accidents in proportion to the number of trips made by mode of transport. When you do that, then it soon becomes clear that the probabilities of having a serious accident on a PTW are much higher than for other modes. Conclusion: using a motorcycle is dangerous. And not just in England. In Barcelona where I live, trips by motorbike are among the highest in Europe at 6 per cent of modal share, and yet they are involved in 40 per cent of accidents. Some might be their fault, some might not. But it remains the case that, other things being equal, if you travel by motorbike, you put yourself and others in more danger than is the case for other modes of transport.
But going back to the OP, if you go to the area on a Sunday, it soon becomes apparent that the huge presence of motorcyclists, many of which do timed circuits up to Hawes and back, is dangerous, and more so for vulnerable road users. Even some car drivers are afraid to go out on a Sunday for fear of coming across a motorbike coming at them at speed in the wrong lane.
So are motorcyclists dangerous or vulnerable?“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
It would be interesting to know what the minimum legal time for that circuit is, and then compare with whatever the idiots who (allegedly) race on open roads are getting. If they are sharing these times online, the plod should be taking a peek...cerutticolumn wrote:But going back to the OP, if you go to the area on a Sunday, it soon becomes apparent that the huge presence of motorcyclists, many of which do timed circuits up to Hawes and back, is dangerous, and more so for vulnerable road users.
I was rather amused one day cycling with three friends across Exmoor - we heard a motorbike or two coming up behind, so we kept nice and tidy on the left ... quick backward glance ... a couple more coming .... then another few ... anyway about 100 bikers later (of the Hell's Angels fashion-follower type), all very stately and respectful of us, the road behind was clear. Fortunately we don't (yet) have the type of riders described by the OP in these parts. And Dartmoor has a blanket 40mph speed limit, mostly because of the risk of encroachment by livestock ... and even if there are not lots of speed traps, anyone who races across the moor runs a high risk of being taken out by a sheep, cow or pony in the road.0 -
Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
I wonder how many of those fatalities were the outcome of being hit by cars? Or how many fatalities were the result of excessive speed?
Also, you need to look at the number of accidents in proportion to the number of trips made by mode of transport. When you do that, then it soon becomes clear that the probabilities of having a serious accident on a PTW are much higher than for other modes. Conclusion: using a motorcycle is dangerous. And not just in England. In Barcelona where I live, trips by motorbike are among the highest in Europe at 6 per cent of modal share, and yet they are involved in 40 per cent of accidents. Some might be their fault, some might not. But it remains the case that, other things being equal, if you travel by motorbike, you put yourself and others in more danger than is the case for other modes of transport.
But going back to the OP, if you go to the area on a Sunday, it soon becomes apparent that the huge presence of motorcyclists, many of which do timed circuits up to Hawes and back, is dangerous, and more so for vulnerable road users. Even some car drivers are afraid to go out on a Sunday for fear of coming across a motorbike coming at them at speed in the wrong lane.
So are motorcyclists dangerous or vulnerable?
Vulnerable which is why I stopped and sold the bike.0 -
I joined the army at a very young age before I had a driving licence however ended up getting mine through the army, now I can drive a four ton truck, a tank and fly a helicopter but my licence has a restriction on any motorbike, seems the army considers motorbikes more dangerous.
Until I started cycling I agreed with them but now I tend to believe that good road sense overrides most of the risks of two wheels, motorised or otherwise.
Something else new to me is video footage of my rides, looking back at some of my rides made me realise that actually they didn't pass me as closely as I thought, still too fast mind you and I think that plays a large part in my impression of a near miss.
The noise is inexcusable, how can that be pleasant for the rider, hour after hour of mechinal roaring?Rule #5 // Harden The Feck Up.
Rule #9 // If you are out riding in bad weather, it means you are a badass. Period.
Rule #12 // The correct number of bikes to own is n+1.
Rule #42 // A bike race shall never be preceded with a swim and/or followed by a run.0 -
Vulnerable but capable of a lot more harm than cyclists I think. It certainly feels like that when one is coming straight at you when you're driving around devil's bridge area at the weekend. BTW 100 bikes? Some days I'm sure it's more. They even open up a field for them.
Interesting fact, the main hospital on the isle of man is a centre of excellence for road traffic accidents. Apparently due to the number of motorcycle accidents. That's one thing I once read. That's down to the TT and bikers wanting to race the circuit I guess. Part of my issue is when you get groups together riding a popular route. You get the problem behaviour. It's partly about the route, the speed and the way they ride these routes. Since I live near such a route I see more of this problem attitude. All with noisy exhausts.0 -
itboffin wrote:The noise is inexcusable, how can that be pleasant for the rider, hour after hour of mechinal roaring?
Ironically many wear ear plugs and hence don't get the full effect of a straight thru' exhaust. The ear plugs are to protect from damage cause by the wind in the helmet (ooer missus) and not the noise of the engine.
There is one school of thought which speculates that a noisy exhaust gets drivers' attention and reduces accidents.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Vulnerable but capable of a lot more harm than cyclists I think. It certainly feels like that when one is coming straight at you when you're driving around devil's bridge area at the weekend. BTW 100 bikes? Some days I'm sure it's more. They even open up a field for them.
Interesting fact, the main hospital on the isle of man is a centre of excellence for road traffic accidents. Apparently due to the number of motorcycle accidents. That's one thing I once read. That's down to the TT and bikers wanting to race the circuit I guess. Part of my issue is when you get groups together riding a popular route. You get the problem behaviour. It's partly about the route, the speed and the way they ride these routes. Since I live near such a route I see more of this problem attitude. All with noisy exhausts.
well people who are into their motorbikes will go see stuff like this roadside at the North West 200,
https://twitter.com/dmac011188/status/7 ... 9718577152
ignore that its a really really dangerous sport they are watching,seems number of crashes have left riders in hospital and another fatality this year,and then theyll want to go emulate it on the open roads for themselves.
which you can do, you can go kit yourself out with a motorbike thats capable of nearly those same top end speeds, or can easily be made to, looks the same, even sounds the sound with the right aftermarket exhausts, get all the proper gear to go with it, and then go and find the twistiest up and down road with a nice straight they can find, which tends to be the Yorkshire Dales/Peak district.
at least when cyclists go all "pro" they just wear lycra more often and buy silly expensive bikes, but its the same kind of obsessive bug ultimately.
so there are certainly some routes I avoid in the summer because I know they become popular motorbike run roads, and you will get the occasional idiot. its not necessarily the mode of transport at all its just there are idiots, like the one I encountered must have been two summers ago now on one of those routes. it was a descending left radius corner,which I was comfortably doing 20-25mph through gravity assist, and this motorcyclist overtook me with a full racing style lean turn with knee down, his Valentino Rossi replica (im pretty sure it wasnt Vale so definitely a replica) helmet ended up less than half a foot away from my knee/pedal motion, and he took a racing line so made an apex to the corner, which was basically the space I was riding into, so block passed me to boot as well, which seemed crazy as it wasnt like I was ever going to keep up.
and I was just left thinking, Im sure mr motorbiker thought that looked really impressive and maybe even felt impressive, but I was a bump,a gust of wind,an understeer, even just losing control through the shock of having a bike rider that close and loud, away from having an accident that I doubt would have ended well for me at all, and I cant believe other people who ride two wheels and deal pretty much with the same "everyones out to get us" approach to riding dont appreciate that point more often when dealing with cyclists, car drivers I get dont understand as they are insulated from all that, but surely most motorbike riders should get it0 -
ugo.santalucia wrote:No, it's not just you. I rode the EDD last year and had the same experience. They treat the roads as a racetrack and the local police seems rather complacent about it... it is a shame because the event, as well as the National Park deserves better!
Over reaction re police response. Just about every force has a non-pursuit policy for motorcycles. I'd be surprised if a force doesn't have one. The police have responsibility for the public in general, the suspect and themselves. The risk of a RTC during a motorcycle pursuit is too great and as a consequence you're unlikely to see one being followed. If you do, it's likely to be aborted once the mobile unit calls in to say they're initiating a follow. If there are problems, report the issue to the police who can look at sticking a mobile camera on the route to catch a few of them providing they haven't used a cloned plate.
As an ex motorcyclist, I'll admit the modern day jockeys seem to have a large number of cox in their number who treat the public roads as their playground to the detriment of others. Ironically, when they venture onto the track, they're usually the slowest and least skilled out there.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
I wonder how many of those fatalities were the outcome of being hit by cars? Or how many fatalities were the result of excessive speed?
Also, you need to look at the number of accidents in proportion to the number of trips made by mode of transport. When you do that, then it soon becomes clear that the probabilities of having a serious accident on a PTW are much higher than for other modes. Conclusion: using a motorcycle is dangerous. And not just in England. In Barcelona where I live, trips by motorbike are among the highest in Europe at 6 per cent of modal share, and yet they are involved in 40 per cent of accidents. Some might be their fault, some might not. But it remains the case that, other things being equal, if you travel by motorbike, you put yourself and others in more danger than is the case for other modes of transport.
But going back to the OP, if you go to the area on a Sunday, it soon becomes apparent that the huge presence of motorcyclists, many of which do timed circuits up to Hawes and back, is dangerous, and more so for vulnerable road users. Even some car drivers are afraid to go out on a Sunday for fear of coming across a motorbike coming at them at speed in the wrong lane.
Would you prefer a JCB for the hole you're digging yourself in to? You're sounding like the tree hugging brigade on here wanting to ban SUVs arguing nobody that doesn't venture off road needs them.
Motorcycles are not dangerous. Why I see some virtually everyday sitting in showrooms or parked at the side of the road and not once have they leapt out and harmed anyone. Now occasionally a bell end will sit on one and use it inappropriately and cause problems, but that isn't the motorcycle causing the problem; it's the rider. Substitute the rider's mode of transport for a cycle being ridden inappropriately through a shared cycle/pedestrian area full of OAPs and children, and you have risk factors. Its individual circumstances that make an activity dangerous, not the mode of transport.
Your suggestion (despite the evidence produced above) that motorcycles are more dangerous because the ratio of RTCs to journeys will be greater is an opinion only. Being an ex motorcyclist (Yamaha R1s mostly) I'd suggest that journeys by cycle are likely to be rarer than journeys by motorcycle making the ratio of RTCs to journeys for cycles greater.
Accept that we all have idiots in our midst and Darwin Awards are not restricted to any category of us.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
philthy3 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
I wonder how many of those fatalities were the outcome of being hit by cars? Or how many fatalities were the result of excessive speed?
Also, you need to look at the number of accidents in proportion to the number of trips made by mode of transport. When you do that, then it soon becomes clear that the probabilities of having a serious accident on a PTW are much higher than for other modes. Conclusion: using a motorcycle is dangerous. And not just in England. In Barcelona where I live, trips by motorbike are among the highest in Europe at 6 per cent of modal share, and yet they are involved in 40 per cent of accidents. Some might be their fault, some might not. But it remains the case that, other things being equal, if you travel by motorbike, you put yourself and others in more danger than is the case for other modes of transport.
But going back to the OP, if you go to the area on a Sunday, it soon becomes apparent that the huge presence of motorcyclists, many of which do timed circuits up to Hawes and back, is dangerous, and more so for vulnerable road users. Even some car drivers are afraid to go out on a Sunday for fear of coming across a motorbike coming at them at speed in the wrong lane.
Would you prefer a JCB for the hole you're digging yourself in to? You're sounding like the tree hugging brigade on here wanting to ban SUVs arguing nobody that doesn't venture off road needs them.
Motorcycles are not dangerous. Why I see some virtually everyday sitting in showrooms or parked at the side of the road and not once have they leapt out and harmed anyone. Now occasionally a bell end will sit on one and use it inappropriately and cause problems, but that isn't the motorcycle causing the problem; it's the rider. Substitute the rider's mode of transport for a cycle being ridden inappropriately through a shared cycle/pedestrian area full of OAPs and children, and you have risk factors. Its individual circumstances that make an activity dangerous, not the mode of transport.
Your suggestion (despite the evidence produced above) that motorcycles are more dangerous because the ratio of RTCs to journeys will be greater is an opinion only. Being an ex motorcyclist (Yamaha R1s mostly) I'd suggest that journeys by cycle are likely to be rarer than journeys by motorcycle making the ratio of RTCs to journeys for cycles greater.
Accept that we all have idiots in our midst and Darwin Awards are not restricted to any category of us.
Of course I accept that there are idiots using all forms of transport. What I have said is that when you control for the idiot factor, motorbikes produce a disproportionate number of accidents, more than virtually all other forms of transport. That is what the statistics say in the UK, Spain and I am sure in any country in the world.
Is that so difficult to accept? Or does your motorbike helmet stop you from seeing it?0 -
cerutticolumn wrote:What I have said is that when you control for the idiot factor, motorbikes produce a disproportionate number of accidents, more than virtually all other forms of transport.
Not quitecerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.0 -
Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:What I have said is that when you control for the idiot factor, motorbikes produce a disproportionate number of accidents, more than virtually all other forms of transport.
Not quitecerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
Not sure where the problem is. There seems to me to be no contradiction between those two statements that you quote.
Maybe the second one is not well expressed.
How about: "Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly, for other road users, particularly more vulnerable ones like cyclists"?0 -
cerutticolumn wrote:philthy3 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
I wonder how many of those fatalities were the outcome of being hit by cars? Or how many fatalities were the result of excessive speed?
Also, you need to look at the number of accidents in proportion to the number of trips made by mode of transport. When you do that, then it soon becomes clear that the probabilities of having a serious accident on a PTW are much higher than for other modes. Conclusion: using a motorcycle is dangerous. And not just in England. In Barcelona where I live, trips by motorbike are among the highest in Europe at 6 per cent of modal share, and yet they are involved in 40 per cent of accidents. Some might be their fault, some might not. But it remains the case that, other things being equal, if you travel by motorbike, you put yourself and others in more danger than is the case for other modes of transport.
But going back to the OP, if you go to the area on a Sunday, it soon becomes apparent that the huge presence of motorcyclists, many of which do timed circuits up to Hawes and back, is dangerous, and more so for vulnerable road users. Even some car drivers are afraid to go out on a Sunday for fear of coming across a motorbike coming at them at speed in the wrong lane.
Would you prefer a JCB for the hole you're digging yourself in to? You're sounding like the tree hugging brigade on here wanting to ban SUVs arguing nobody that doesn't venture off road needs them.
Motorcycles are not dangerous. Why I see some virtually everyday sitting in showrooms or parked at the side of the road and not once have they leapt out and harmed anyone. Now occasionally a bell end will sit on one and use it inappropriately and cause problems, but that isn't the motorcycle causing the problem; it's the rider. Substitute the rider's mode of transport for a cycle being ridden inappropriately through a shared cycle/pedestrian area full of OAPs and children, and you have risk factors. Its individual circumstances that make an activity dangerous, not the mode of transport.
Your suggestion (despite the evidence produced above) that motorcycles are more dangerous because the ratio of RTCs to journeys will be greater is an opinion only. Being an ex motorcyclist (Yamaha R1s mostly) I'd suggest that journeys by cycle are likely to be rarer than journeys by motorcycle making the ratio of RTCs to journeys for cycles greater.
Accept that we all have idiots in our midst and Darwin Awards are not restricted to any category of us.
Of course I accept that there are idiots using all forms of transport. What I have said is that when you control for the idiot factor, motorbikes produce a disproportionate number of accidents, more than virtually all other forms of transport. That is what the statistics say in the UK, Spain and I am sure in any country in the world.
Is that so difficult to accept? Or does your motorbike helmet stop you from seeing it?
If you do some research, the number of RTCs involving motorcycles do and don't involve other vehicles. Blame for RTCs is not necessarily the fault of the rider. To claim that they are involved in more RTCs is spurious and nothing but conjecture. I've been retired from the police for 3 years now and in all my time the vast majority of RTCs involved cars, purely because they are more widely used than other forms of transport. High powered motorcycles are almost as much as and in some cases more expensive than cars. They are impractical as everyday modes of transport for most people so largely tend to be secondary vehicles much like cycles. In those RTCs involving motorcycles or powered 2 wheeled transport to include scooters and mopeds, the reports of those involved will reveal some common denominators, from age, experience, intoxicants, weather, road conditions etc etc. That data will give a risk factor for certain groups resulting in insurance premium hikes for riders falling into that category, potentially putting motorcycling out of their reach.
I packed in motorcycles in 2009 as I couldn't stand mixing with the low life in the paddock anymore. In all the time I've been cycling (since 2009) my near misses have all but in about 2 cases involved 4 wheel motorised transport be it a van, lorry, bus, horse box, taxi, agricultural vehicle or car. 2 incidents with motorcycles in an area with 4 race circuits close by and some very good B roads tell me they aren't the cause of most problems on the road.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
If you do some research, the number of RTCs involving motorcycles do and don't involve other vehicles. Blame for RTCs is not necessarily the fault of the rider. To claim that they are involved in more RTCs is spurious and nothing but conjecture. I've been retired from the police for 3 years now and in all my time the vast majority of RTCs involved cars, purely because they are more widely used than other forms of transport. High powered motorcycles are almost as much as and in some cases more expensive than cars. They are impractical as everyday modes of transport for most people so largely tend to be secondary vehicles much like cycles. In those RTCs involving motorcycles or powered 2 wheeled transport to include scooters and mopeds, the reports of those involved will reveal some common denominators, from age, experience, intoxicants, weather, road conditions etc etc. That data will give a risk factor for certain groups resulting in insurance premium hikes for riders falling into that category, potentially putting motorcycling out of their reach.
I packed in motorcycles in 2009 as I couldn't stand mixing with the low life in the paddock anymore. In all the time I've been cycling (since 2009) my near misses have all but in about 2 cases involved 4 wheel motorised transport be it a van, lorry, bus, horse box, taxi, agricultural vehicle or car. 2 incidents with motorcycles in an area with 4 race circuits close by and some very good B roads tell me they aren't the cause of most problems on the road.[/quote]
I didn't claim that they are involved in more 'RTCs' (is that police speak for accidents?). I said that they were involved in a disproportionately higher number of accidents. That means that for any given motorbike, there is more chance of it being involved in an accident. As you say, this fact is reflected in insurance premiums.
The same point applies to your point about the number of near misses as a cyclist. Of course you will have had less with motorbikes than with cars, because there are many times more cars on the roads than there are motorbikes.
But that means - and going back to the OP, if you remember what it was about - that where there are large concentrations of large, fast motorbikes, like in the Dales, then you will get lots of accidents - some the fault of the motorbikes, others not - and this is dangerous, off-putting etc for cyclists.
If you still have any douts, go to the area on a Sunday, Bank holiday etc. and see for yourself.0 -
Another ex biker (motorised
) here. Stopped just after my son was born as not prepared to take the risk any more. Bike, Fireblade, far outweighed my ability, particularly on the road and can say that most scares I had were nearly always of my own doing. Absolutely loved track days and may do one again this year as you can hire the bikes these days.
I do still love bikes and all their noise and as they fly past me on a Sunday morning and will spend a couple of minutes happily reminiscing - that was me ten years ago, now I'm doing something much safer and better for my health.
p.s. Yes had a loud exhaust that used to get taken off for the MOT - how many of us still have all the required reflectors and bell on their bikes? We all do what we believe to be acceptable at the time rightly or wrongly in the eyes of the law.0 -
Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Slowmart wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:Motorbikes are dangerous for those that ride them and, more importantly to other road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
That's the equivalent of suggesting a piece of tarmac represents a dangerous bend? There is no such thing as a dangerous inanimate object. Only humans can add the stupidity to hit the threshold of dangerous.
Put a stupid person on a motorbike, and then on a bicycle. On which is that person more of a danger to him/herself and those around him/her?
That depends on several things.
Stupid and headstrong enough to ride it faster than their ability or cautious enough to be careful. Stupid doesn't equate to dangerous and, as previously been stated, inanimate objects cannot be dangerous.
You are too sweeping in your statements and are tarring all bikers with the wrong brush.
If you chose your search phrase carefully in YouTube you will find many "stupid" cyclist and biker videos.
I am not tarring all bikers with the same brush, merely stating something obvious: all things being equal, motorbikes are potentially much more dangerous to all road users than bicycles.
Rather than consult that oracle of empirical evidence, Youtube, why don't you look at the figures from the local constabularies (N. Yorks, Lancs and Cumbria) and ask about road casualties in the area? The wreaths that unfortunately decorate the roadsides aren't for cyclists.
I must did.
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.
if those stats are correct, using the % of total journeys from:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/ar ... +Yorkshire
makes cyclists by far the worst per journey.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) stats for N Yorks 2014 are:
Car occupants: 42%
PTW (Powered 2 Wheelers) 27%
Cyclists 16%
Pedestrians 10%
Other 5%
So perhaps you need to be harder on car drivers.
The stats for cyclists are closer to PTWs than PTWs are to Cars.
Still too many.[/quote]
if those stats are correct, using the % of total journeys from:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-counts/ar ... +Yorkshire
makes cyclists by far the worst per journey.[/quote]
Nope. The stats are for "Total traffic on major roads, in thousand vehicle miles", not number of trips.0 -
cerutticolumn wrote:As you say, this fact is reflected in insurance premiums.
Not really as a generality. Insurance premiums for bikes vary massively with age just as they do with cars but probably to a greater extent. A mature rider with a licence for 10 years or more will pay very little for a powerful bike. My last 12 month fully comp premium was £65 for an 800cc 140mph+ bike. That's about a quarter of what I was paying for my Turbo Diesel Family Estate at that time.
Insurance was a relatively low running cost, in fact running a bike is not expensive once you have the bike/gear and the licence for 10 years+.0 -
Navrig2 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:As you say, this fact is reflected in insurance premiums.
Not really as a generality. Insurance premiums for bikes vary massively with age just as they do with cars but probably to a greater extent. A mature rider with a licence for 10 years or more will pay very little for a powerful bike. My last 12 month fully comp premium was £65 for an 800cc 140mph+ bike. That's about a quarter of what I was paying for my Turbo Diesel Family Estate at that time.
Insurance was a relatively low running cost, in fact running a bike is not expensive once you have the bike/gear and the licence for 10 years+.
I'd disagree there. Having held full licences for motorcycles, cars, tracked vehicles and class 1 artics since I was 18 (Army permitted 18 year olds to hold HGV1) my motorcycle insurance was always more than my car insurance despite full NCB for both cars and motorcycles. I pay less FC for a new Tuoareg worth £50k with a second named driver than I did for a new R1 worth a 5th of that that was doing almost zero miles on the road. Both kept in secure and alarmed garages. I remember one insurer quoting me more than the bike cost new and I don't live in a high theft area or have any endorsements/convictions. Insurers see motorcyclists as a cash cow in my experience and those of the people I know still riding them.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
cerutticolumn wrote:I didn't claim that they are involved in more 'RTCs' (is that police speak for accidents?). I said that they were involved in a disproportionately higher number of accidents. That means that for any given motorbike, there is more chance of it being involved in an accident. As you say, this fact is reflected in insurance premiums.
The same point applies to your point about the number of near misses as a cyclist. Of course you will have had less with motorbikes than with cars, because there are many times more cars on the roads than there are motorbikes.
But that means - and going back to the OP, if you remember what it was about - that where there are large concentrations of large, fast motorbikes, like in the Dales, then you will get lots of accidents - some the fault of the motorbikes, others not - and this is dangerous, off-putting etc for cyclists.
If you still have any douts, go to the area on a Sunday, Bank holiday etc. and see for yourself.
Your claim is that motorcycles are a danger to everyone when the reality is they are no more dangerous than any other mode of transport. Your anti-motorcycle bias is distorting your "facts". What you allude to is individual perception only.
I live in close proximity to 4 race circuits that hold race meetings and trackdays for motorcycles. The roads I cycle are ideal for motorcycling having sweeping bends and good road surfaces. I can hear the wannabe Casey Stoner's and Marc Marquez's from miles away as they try and look the part on the local roads roundabout surfing. But two of them are all that has caused me any semblance of danger. 4 wheel transport on the other hand with drivers of all sexes, shapes, sizes, ethnicities and I dare say sexual orientation have caused me to come out with more expletives than my wife thinks I know.
By your final paragraph, because there's been a RTC involving a motorcycle, you're once again casting the blame for such a RTC on the motorcyclist for simply being there. This perfectly examples your individual perception and not fact. Go to a car rally and witness countless RTCs involving morons trying to do burnouts and doughnuts. Go to a sportive and witness the hapless ability of some riders that endanger others. Go to a large crowd gathering and witness assaults on others. What you get is a selection of individuals within the groups who don't conform to safe or normal behaviour. There is no hard fact that any one of them is more likely to break the law or cause danger to others than the other groups, but in my experience, it is the large crowd of people that will cause the most dangers. That, is my perception of crowds and not fact.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Gimpl wrote:p.s. Yes had a loud exhaust that used to get taken off for the MOT - how many of us still have all the required reflectors and bell on their bikes? We all do what we believe to be acceptable at the time rightly or wrongly in the eyes of the law.
Are you really suggesting that a motorbike that's been modified to get though an MOT is the equivalent to me not having reflectors on my bike? If you modify your bike such that it's not roadworthy I hope you end up in a load of trouble with the law and the insurance when you plant it in a hedge.
And that's just the legal view. When I get cyclists coming past my house without reflectors it doesn't really stop me in my tracks. When the motorbikes start coming past you can't have a conversation in the front garden. That does affect my quality of life.
Otherwise you're right, it's the same thing.0 -
craker wrote:Gimpl wrote:p.s. Yes had a loud exhaust that used to get taken off for the MOT - how many of us still have all the required reflectors and bell on their bikes? We all do what we believe to be acceptable at the time rightly or wrongly in the eyes of the law.
Are you really suggesting that a motorbike that's been modified to get though an MOT is the equivalent to me not having reflectors on my bike? If you modify your bike such that it's not roadworthy I hope you end up in a load of trouble with the law and the insurance when you plant it in a hedge.
And that's just the legal view. When I get cyclists coming past my house without reflectors it doesn't really stop me in my tracks. When the motorbikes start coming past you can't have a conversation in the front garden. That does affect my quality of life.
Otherwise you're right, it's the same thing.
I'm afraid you're just really showing your ignorance with this post. An after market exhaust is in no way going to make the motorcycle more dangerous, just louder. However a cyclist with no reflectors etc is potentially putting themselves in more danger by being less noticeable - but hey, what the hell, it doesn't affect you in your front garden so that's ok :roll:
Thank you for your comments about hoping I end up in a hedge even though I mentioned I stopped motorcycling over ten years ago - really very humane of you.
You really just confirmed what I previously wrote though - for you it's acceptable to remove reflectors even though technically it's breaking the law. The same for a motorcyclist removing their standard exhaust and replacing it.0 -
awavey wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:Vulnerable but capable of a lot more harm than cyclists I think. It certainly feels like that when one is coming straight at you when you're driving around devil's bridge area at the weekend. BTW 100 bikes? Some days I'm sure it's more. They even open up a field for them.
Interesting fact, the main hospital on the isle of man is a centre of excellence for road traffic accidents. Apparently due to the number of motorcycle accidents. That's one thing I once read. That's down to the TT and bikers wanting to race the circuit I guess. Part of my issue is when you get groups together riding a popular route. You get the problem behaviour. It's partly about the route, the speed and the way they ride these routes. Since I live near such a route I see more of this problem attitude. All with noisy exhausts.
well people who are into their motorbikes will go see stuff like this roadside at the North West 200,
https://twitter.com/dmac011188/status/7 ... 9718577152
ignore that its a really really dangerous sport they are watching,seems number of crashes have left riders in hospital and another fatality this year,and then theyll want to go emulate it on the open roads for themselves.
but surely most motorbike riders should get it
Lets hope most bikers have a more informed view of other road users then yourself as I don't see people watching formala one jumping in their cars thrashing around the lanes after a race.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
craker wrote:Gimpl wrote:p.s. Yes had a loud exhaust that used to get taken off for the MOT - how many of us still have all the required reflectors and bell on their bikes? We all do what we believe to be acceptable at the time rightly or wrongly in the eyes of the law.
Are you really suggesting that a motorbike that's been modified to get though an MOT is the equivalent to me not having reflectors on my bike? If you modify your bike such that it's not roadworthy I hope you end up in a load of trouble with the law and the insurance when you plant it in a hedge.
And that's just the legal view. When I get cyclists coming past my house without reflectors it doesn't really stop me in my tracks. When the motorbikes start coming past you can't have a conversation in the front garden. That does affect my quality of life.
Otherwise you're right, it's the same thing.
jeez you sound like a right Mr Intolerant.... MC's are great fun and a nice loud pipe is even better, coupled with the air intake at 140mph plus and yep its loud but tbh in the grand scheme of things? so what.
i remember going across a Spanish plain, with GF on the bike at about 150mph trying to out run a rain storm, went through a police speed trap and the 2 policeman running it waved me through... these euro's have a more live and let live attitude to life, you d have gunned me down with your anti fun machine gun
i ride 1000's of miles per year and M/C are zero problem, vans cars lorries etc all routinely try to kill me, a few m/c speeding across Dartmoor dont even figure on my Radar.
as for cyclists? look at the amount of gel wrappers they leave across Dartmoor after the DC or the wrappers dumped around Mallorca and no doubt these Dales your on about.0 -
philthy3 wrote:cerutticolumn wrote:I didn't claim that they are involved in more 'RTCs' (is that police speak for accidents?). I said that they were involved in a disproportionately higher number of accidents. That means that for any given motorbike, there is more chance of it being involved in an accident. As you say, this fact is reflected in insurance premiums.
The same point applies to your point about the number of near misses as a cyclist. Of course you will have had less with motorbikes than with cars, because there are many times more cars on the roads than there are motorbikes.
But that means - and going back to the OP, if you remember what it was about - that where there are large concentrations of large, fast motorbikes, like in the Dales, then you will get lots of accidents - some the fault of the motorbikes, others not - and this is dangerous, off-putting etc for cyclists.
If you still have any douts, go to the area on a Sunday, Bank holiday etc. and see for yourself.
Your claim is that motorcycles are a danger to everyone when the reality is they are no more dangerous than any other mode of transport. Your anti-motorcycle bias is distorting your "facts". What you allude to is individual perception only.
I live in close proximity to 4 race circuits that hold race meetings and trackdays for motorcycles. The roads I cycle are ideal for motorcycling having sweeping bends and good road surfaces. I can hear the wannabe Casey Stoner's and Marc Marquez's from miles away as they try and look the part on the local roads roundabout surfing. But two of them are all that has caused me any semblance of danger. 4 wheel transport on the other hand with drivers of all sexes, shapes, sizes, ethnicities and I dare say sexual orientation have caused me to come out with more expletives than my wife thinks I know.
By your final paragraph, because there's been a RTC involving a motorcycle, you're once again casting the blame for such a RTC on the motorcyclist for simply being there. This perfectly examples your individual perception and not fact. Go to a car rally and witness countless RTCs involving morons trying to do burnouts and doughnuts. Go to a sportive and witness the hapless ability of some riders that endanger others. Go to a large crowd gathering and witness assaults on others. What you get is a selection of individuals within the groups who don't conform to safe or normal behaviour. There is no hard fact that any one of them is more likely to break the law or cause danger to others than the other groups, but in my experience, it is the large crowd of people that will cause the most dangers. That, is my perception of crowds and not fact.
Statistics really aren't your forte, are they? Mine neither, but I''ll try and explain.
Using the data quoted above on accidents in N. Yorks and the data on modal share of trips, we find the following: that the modal share of cycling and P2W is roughly equal (around 2%), yet the latter are involved in many more accidents (27% of the total) than the former (16% IIRC). So you tell me which is more dangerous, cycling or motorcycling? (I'll give you a clue, divide the big number by the little number for each mode).
This isn't distorting facts, it's called basic maths.0 -
Keep it up chaps, the popcorn is on the cooker.
What have we got so far?
'Motorbikes are a menace'...
'No they are not'...
'Yes they are'...
'Here's the stats'...
'They're wrong'...
I live in the 'flight path' of those attending the TT and the Northwest 200. The bike riders are nutters. I have had too many near misses to count as I drive up and down the A75/A77. What I tend to do is avoid the roads where there are going to be many Motorbikes if I go cycling. I'd say 10% of them do silly moves and silly speeds. I cannot say that the same percentage of car drivers do the same - perhaps 1 in 25.
It only takes 1 nutter...
However, I see many incidents involving cars, what I tend to do...
I knew a guy who filmed a run from Girvan to Stranraer at silly speeds. He got done, they threw the book at him. Bikes can easily do 140+. They easily outrun most supercars. They are lethal in the wrong hands.
Just recently, I was driving along at 55 and I looked in my rear view mirror and there was a dot of a bike in the distance behind me. I glanced not 2 seconds later and the dot was just about to plough through my rear window. It gave me such a fright I swerved right (unfortunately). He passed on the right hand side with an inch of spare tarmac missing me by a hair breadth. I got out of my car 1 mile later and I could hear the noise off at a popular turning point (which was 6 miles from me) and he was already making the turn back.
I honestly do not care about the life of that rider, only that if he does come unstuck, he doesn't kill someone, a child or even a cat.
I don't think that the cross section of motorcyclists reflect the same cross section of car drivers in terms of idiot percentiles.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
NikProwse wrote:I rode in the Dales yesterday (Sedburgh/Ingleton/Hawes) for the first time and I have to say that a very pleasant ride was almost ruined by the motorbikes. They ride too close, they don't slow down or give way, their overtaking is often very dangerous. I hated their presence, the ever-constant noise of them along the valleys and how downright inconsiderate many of them were. I won't be riding in this area again at the weekend. Rant over, but is it just me?
Nik
Yeah, the BoBs are out of their winter hibernation, a bit groggy, slow reactions and overestimating their skillz.BASI Nordic Ski Instructor
Instagramme0 -
Although there are warnings on the Col de Rousset for/about motorcyclists (it's one that is fairly popular with motorcyclists because of the longish straights and sweeping curves in between the eight hairpins), I've yet to see any bonkers riding - most of it is relatively sedate, which is just as well given their cornering skills: https://youtu.be/DfTi9184DmU?t=5m0
