Another motorcyclist bites the dust

[c2c]

Leicester Thumper,

I have no wish to inflame the conversation, this thread seems to be progressing in avery balanced manner, but, when I used to be a motorcycle instructor, a fellow instructor came up with two sayings that will stick with me for life.

 

1. Right of way is a given thing, if you ain't given it, you ain't got it. (Apologies for bad grammer)

 

2. You may be in the right as right can be, but you'll be as dead as if you was dead wrong.

 

In my view, both apply to all road users.

 

Hmm now there's a misconception that pretty much all drivers seem to make "Right of Way" the fact is no road user except a pedestrian has right of way! 

 

Road users can only exercise priorities. 

[Mod6]

 why didn't he see you? As you say "I have had several near misses" and

you say your bike is day glow and with lights. So why did he not see you?

 

It's not good enough to "laugh all the way to the Magistrates court" because there is somthing about you that is causing it.

 

I assume you are not in full possession of the facts here, so that is just gratuitous speculation.  Gentlemen, whilst the majority have kept this topic on track very nicely, we are in danger of slipping into the familiar territory of bickering between different types of road user.  I suspect this topic is nearing it's sell-by date.

[Kenton]

 

If you think it's bad in this country you should try Russia (well mostly anyway).

 

Given that the number of motorists who have a camera on their dashboard (must be a very small minority) it is a wonder there are any cars left on the road. Some really stupid events but just goes to show that there are plenty of folk out there who simply shouldn't be placed in charge of such a deadly weapon.

[30801]

 Given that the number of motorists who have a camera on their dashboard (must be a very small minority)

Dashcams are very popular in Russia. I suspect they're going for YouTube revenue in lieu of insurance.

 

I've got one in my car but over here they really are a rarity, although becoming more popular with commercial drivers.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

 

Bianchi 75 673 CFK

 

 

I haven't read the whole thread about motorists 'not seeing' motor (and pedal) cyclists but twice I have been forced off the road on a pedal cycle by a motorist overtaking me and turning left at the same time. One was a Swedish driver who was so insistent on turning left even though I was riding across the road end that when I didn't miraculously disappear into thin air he still kept trying to force his way past until we ended up with me in the side road and him nose in to the grass bank beyond the junction. He still wouldn't give up even when he could no longer make the turning. The second one had his right hand indicator flashing as he overtook me before spotting the entrance to the car park on his left and diving into it, taking me in there with him. Both must have seen me but my presence, and safety, just did not feature in their thinking once they spotted where they wanted to turn off.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

 Lets not forget also that you calculate the distance you are traveling at by x1.5 so 70mph = 105 feet per second.

I wonder just how accurate that multiplier still is. I think the same stopping distances have been in the HIghway Code for decades while the braking capabilities of most cars have improved no end. I recall the original Top Gear programme that moved to Chanel 5 (and left the BBC with the idiot Clarkson and his pals) had a feature on the Volvo P1800, one of the top performance cars of its day and of the era when the stopping distances were put in the Highway Code. They compared its performance with one of those Citroens that look like a bread van with windows. The P1800 stopped exactly at the braking distance predicted by the multiplier while the Citroen bread van came to a standstill in less than half the distance. (Not advocating traveling too close to other vehicles just wondering about the relevance of the speed x 1.5 multiplier to modern vehicles)

[Adrian Wintle]

I wonder just how accurate that multiplier still is. I think the same stopping distances have been in the HIghway Code for decades while the braking capabilities of most cars have improved no end. I recall the original Top Gear programme that moved to Chanel 5 (and left the BBC with the idiot Clarkson and his pals) had a feature on the Volvo P1800, one of the top performance cars of its day and of the era when the stopping distances were put in the Highway Code. They compared its performance with one of those Citroens that look like a bread van with windows. The P1800 stopped exactly at the braking distance predicted by the multiplier while the Citroen bread van came to a standstill in less than half the distance. (Not advocating traveling too close to other vehicles just wondering about the relevance of the speed x 1.5 multiplier to modern vehicles)

 

The 1.5x multiplier is just a very rough conversion from mph to ft/s,

 

The reccomended time gap has much more to do with reaction times than stopping distances. All other things being equal, if two identical cars start braking with the same force at the same time they will stop the same distance apart that they started. The two seconds (or three or whatever) is to allow the following driver time to recognize that the car ahead has started braking, evaluate the situation, and then start braking themselves if required. Increasing the recommended gap is probably a realization that drivers tend to be more distracted these days.

 

However, over here, leaving a two second gap that is an invitation for at least two other cars to move over into it...

 

Adrian

[meil]

Hmm, a police officer on a marked police motorcycle....I really think you may have missed the point?

No I have not missed the point. If this was an isolated incident then yes I agree he should have seen it but on admission there have been "several" occasions. So why is a day-glow police cycle not being seen? It is simply not good enough to say he should have.

 

It's similar to why do motorists speed into fog? One reason is because of the incompetant use of warning signs on motorways. They are not switched off when the hazard no longer exists and this brings about a "cry wolf" attitude in the mortorists mind.

 

 

The police have an easy cop-out, they just prosecute people. If they were required to understand the reasons for accidents then perhaps there would be less of them.

 

[Thos]

Over here we have the rule on three-lane motorways that as soon as traffic is in lanes and slow-moving, bikes may go between lanes two and three, passing at 20kph.  This follows government policy to encourage bikes, and seems to work quite well, with all cars leaving space.  Emergency vehicles also go between 2 and 3, which means that lane 2 pulls right in to let them pass.  The real danger is when traffic starts to open up and cars need to move to the centre of the lane, when the bikes weave between the traffic. 

 

In addition, bikers seem to forget that cars need to change lanes.  The only way to do this is to edge out while indicating and waiting for a gap.  This invites horns and screams of abuse from passing bikers.

[30801]

No I have not missed the point. If this was an isolated incident then yes I agree he should have seen it but on admission there have been "several" occasions. So why is a day-glow police cycle not being seen? It is simply not good enough to say he should have.

I imagine if your day job is riding a day-glow police cycle then you spend all day driving a day-glow police cycle and you see more idiots.

 

I see tons of idiots and I only spend 80 minutes a day driving.

 

Here's a SMIDSY I had and that was in a car with lights on.

 

Here's another. In broad daylight in a lurid yellow car.

 

Both these were on 60mph roads.

[BlackRat]

No I have not missed the point.

 

You have indeed, the point being no matter how high viz and well ridden the motorcycle is (I am a Police Advanced rider), people will still pull out in front of you, from a junction having failed to observe, or failed to see.

 

I am sure you remember the think once, think twice think bike adverts?

 

If they were required to understand the reasons for accidents then perhaps there would be less of them.

If only, as a qualified and serving Collision Investigator perhaps you could enlighten me?

 

There are as many reasons for collisions (no such thing as an accident) as there are collisions and I tend not to generalise, as having attended and dealt with several hundred, if not more each one is different, dependent on circumstances.

 

We are always open to the views of others, and work as a team with partners including VOSA, Highways and sadly HM Coroner.

 

These days we prefer education and enlightenment over enforcement, which is why there are now many diversionary and educational driver awareness progs out there, as an alternative to prosecution.

 

The one over riding factor tho, in my limited experience is of course human error.

 

Which takes me back to my original post, as to why someone would pull out of a clearly marked give way junction, into the pathway of a motorcyle, liveried in Dayglo, with riding lights on, but as you clearly infer, it seems to be the fault of the rider!

 

ps ask any motorcyclist how many times someone has pulled out of a junction into their path...............

 

I wonder if it has happened to any RMWeb bikers out there...............

[PhilH]

One thing which mystifies me is why, whether on 2 or 4 wheels, 150 mph plus machines are licenced for use on 70 mph limited roads. I once was a pc click away from buying a CB600 upon which I certainly could do 140mph - and, undoubtedly, a few weeks after I had purchased it, I would probably have had a bit of a go. The same goes for now, if I won the lottery tomorrow I would like an Aston Martin DBS, in which I probably could not put my hand on my heart and say that I would not try and rag it acceleration wise or stick to 70mph.

 

My (convoluted)  point is that things, for instance said acceleration, can happen much, much faster - if you're used to poodling around in a Yaris then it can take you by surprise how quickly a motorcycle, for instance, can be upon you. 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

... If this was an isolated incident then yes I agree he should have seen it but on admission there have been "several" occasions. So why is a day-glow police cycle not being seen? It is simply not good enough to say he should have...

 This applies universally to all motorcyclists and cyclists - sub car size vehicles on the roads - not just police. It has nothing to do with what lights or high-vis the sub-car size vehicle has on it, these simply do not help that much.

 

Hopefully you have already read the post on saccadic vision, which in part helps to make other road users more visible. But it doesn't completely solve the problem, because our vision system is not a camera. What the brain does is take the input from the eyes, and then synthesises the 'picture'. The information from the eye is far from complete, we have a very limited sharp field of view; yet we are convinced that we have a continuous high res picture for the whole of our visual field. That's where overcoming the saccadic problem is some help, because by keeping the eye moving we spread the area of high resolution to more of the field of view.

 

BUT, here's the thing: the brain is unconciously selective, and does all sorts of stuff we are unaware of, and have no real control over. Presented with a problem - and that may be what we are seeing on the road, or something else that is bothering us - it will temporarily shut down some of its visual processing in order to devote more processing power to 'the main problem', whatever it may be. When the pressure is on - busy traffic situation, lots of other motions to look at - the brain will dump 'irrelevant' stuff: and one decision it may make is to ignore everything smaller than a certain size, on the basis that these are not the major risk factor. Literally, the motorcycle isn't seen: the brain simply doesn't process it into the image, it discards that input as lower priority. The eye and brain is not a camera, it sees what it chooses to see by an unconcious mechanism. Sorry folks, this is the best computer in the world buit it has real limitations in processing capacity. 

 

The only solutions I can suggest are for the smaller vehicle user to adopt a highly defensive riding style - or give up.

[Giles]

Mr. Black Rat, I would actually very much like to do a day's course with the Police to improve my riding....... Do I have to whizz up and down our local stretch of the A40 at excessive speed until I get an invite?

 

(I once rode 70 miles with Police Escort - 5 bikes and a car - through London, and out to Bury St Edmonds - and it was a real eye-opener. Like everyone else, I thought I new my stuff - but this lot left professionals standing.....)

[New Haven Neil]

I think Blackrat said it all really.  As it happens I am also involved in the criminal justice system professionally, and am not going to ruin this thread by responding to the gent who feels we are at fault for others poor observation.

 

Yes, I have had uncountable vehicles pull out on me, on a motorcycle as well as a cycle, even in the large-ish camper van. Never in the works car though......

[BlackRat]

 Do I have to whizz up and down our local stretch of the A40 at excessive speed until I get an invite?

 

Hi Giles, no you do not.

 

Get hold of your local force, either through the website or local bike wing and get your name down for a 'Bikesafe' course.

 

Well worth doing, I haven't had anyone say they haven't benefited from one, and best of all they are free!

 

You may even get a reduction on your insurance, but they get booked up very quickly.

[shortliner]

As an ex- airtrafficker, I know that the biggest problem, which is common in "Airmiss" situations between aircraft, is that it is MOVEMENT that attracts the attention of the eye,(a hang-over from the time when we were hunters, but also prey animals!) A vehicle (plane) at 90 degrees (or there abouts) actually has very little relative movement - until it is VERY close - and because the angle doesn't change until it is awfully close, the brain "sees" it as a non-moving object, and simply cancels it. This is another reason why - if you are waiting to pull out - you should not only look both ways, but ALSO move your head forwards and back, to change your viewing angle. It comes under the heading of "situational awareness" - one reason why the military patrols are taught to not only look all around, but up and down as well (not a natural thing to do when walking down the street - if you don't believe me, walk down your local High Street normally and then tell me what type of roof the newsagent you passed two shops back has, and how many storeys high is the building.

[BlackRat]

Here we go....................

 

http://www.bikesafe-london.co.uk/

 

and.....

 

http://www.bikesafe.co.uk/

 

Enjoy the course!

[Giles]

Thank you for that! I think I'll book both myself and Di on one as soon as we can!

[newbryford]

[i probably believe in continuous training for all categories of licence..........seems to produce a more conscious driver....? Far better than the odd lesson here and there?}

 

Which begs the question - how many drivers are continuously training? Most likely to be those involved in "professional" driving - bus, truck, driver training providers and a few other road users, such as those doing IAM courses. In a number of cases, continual training is compulsory. 

 

I wonder when many "normal" road users out there last looked at the Highway Code as a starting point? To prove a point, my usual question to 17/18 year old drivers is to get them to ask their parents what a Puffin or Toucan Crossing is......

Then again, many of the new drivers can soon forget what they knew to pass the theory test, simply because the learning process was flawed (for example - learning by rote alone).

 

Cheers,

Mick

[BlackRat]

Mick, you're quite right in many ways, you would be surprised at how many people dont know the speed limits( or class of vehicle re speed limits), vans being a good example.

 

Very few van drivers seem to be aware that they are limited to 60mph on a dual carriageway/motorway .

 

I used to carry a set of road sign cards, and it was somewhat concerning, the amount people who just didn't know or understand some signs.

 

Priority ones for instance, and of course they can be safety critical .............if you dont know if its you that have to give way or have the right of way!

[newbryford]

Mick, you're quite right in many ways, you would be surprised at how many people dont know the speed limits( or class of vehicle re speed limits), vans being a good example.

 

Very few van drivers seem to be aware that they are limited to 60mph on a dual carriageway/motorway .

 

Errrr - speed limit for a van is 70 on a motorway. (EDIT: Looking for suitable smiley..........)

 

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

 

Cheers,

Mick

[meil]

Which takes me back to my original post, as to why someone would pull out of a clearly marked give way junction, into the pathway of a motorcyle, liveried in Dayglo, with riding lights on, but as you clearly infer, it seems to be the fault of the rider

No it was a genuine question as to why is the Dayglo motorcyclist not seen.

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly, when sailing a boat, you know you are on a collision course when the background with respect to the other boat is not moving ie the other boat appears stationary.

 

 

 

 

 

The unintended consequences of legislation related to structural safety making corner post much bigger and therefore capable of hiding other traffic is probably a factor.

 

 

 

 

 

This type of incident is too frequent to say it's the motorists "fault" there is some deeper psychological reason behind this that needs identifying and correcting.

 

 

 

 

I was involved in looking into numerous falls that were occurring at a particular railway station connecting foot bridge. All the right things were done: new handrails, dayglo edges to steps, steps repaired etc etc. So what or who was to blame for the falls?

 

 

 

The signalman/men. Yes you all cry how could the signalman be to blame? By last minute changes to platform allocation causing people to rush from platform to platform via the footbridge and in their rush they slipped on the stairs. Even when there was no need to rush its human nature to rush in those circumstances.

 

[Neil]

You have indeed, the point being no matter how high viz and well ridden the motorcycle is (I am a Police Advanced rider), people will still pull out in front of you, from a junction having failed to observe, or failed to see. ....

 

Though we often think of the 'failure to see' as being a bit of an excuse for being distracted/careless/driving with head up ar*e I do wonder if poor sight does come into the equation more often than we might realise. I wear specs and thanks to my dad's glaucoma I've had my eyes tested yearly since I was forty, but before that I'd only go when I was having a problem or I'd noticed my vision deteriorating, which is arguably too late. I've recently heard that only a small part of ones field of view is in sharp focus at any one time (fifteen percent if I remember correctly) which may compound any problem.

[BlackRat]

Sorry, I should have said.........including car derived vans up to 2 tonnes max laden!

 

Sooooo to clarify, if its over 2t laden!

 

Or the big trannies etc etc etc

 

this might surprise some.........https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

 

ps one of the most common overweighters used to be/still is sand or top soil, driven in the rain with no cover on!

 

Amazing how much water can be soaked up!!!!!

 

Even when there was no need to rush its human nature to rush

 

And it does account for an awful lot of misery I can tell you!