Another bike down - "I didn't see him"

For insurance companies, mandatory headlights-on means that in every
claim in which one of their insured is involved in an accident with a
motorcycle, claiming the motorcycle's headlight was out would lead to a
more-or-less automatic approportion of blame away from their client;
instead of paying 100% of the accident costs, they pay 50%. Instead of
50%, they pay nothing.

They try it on for size even now.

Researchers in the field have a conflict of interest. Their funding
comes from the government, and their stature in their discipline (which
governs how much they can charge in consultancy fees) comes from the
number of government policies they can point to and say, "See? The
results of *my* research brought about the implementation of that policy".

Governments, further, like easy answers and red (or, in this case,
dayglo) herrings; "Worry not about motorcycle fatalities. We have
commissioned extensive, expensive research and we bring you... bright
red flags on a tall, flexible pole!". They're not going to react
positively to research which indicates that to reduce the rate of road
trauma, we need massively more stringent license testing and training
and huge expenditure on road improvements, nor research that might
indicate that, on balance, things are about as good as you can expect
them to be. They want research the results of which recommend an easy
answer.

That's what researchers in the field provide. Government gets its easy
answers to point to as evidence of their doing something, the academics
get paid and their cred goes up.

Simple, really.

 

I have never mentioned the government or insurance in any of my posts. I'm
just asking you questions about what you claim.

seeing that you were a cop, what is the offence for wearing a non adr
helmet?
what did you fine them for when they were not wearing an adr helmet?

Smiley.

 

since when?

since the speed limit has been lowered in residential streets why have there
been more acceadents with perdestrans?

Smiley

 

For a study of colour impact, you'd look into whether it hurts more to
beat one's head against a dark grey wall or a red wall.

How big's a helmet compared to a whole bike with a rider on top of it,
and how much of a contribution to the visibility of the whole shebang is
the helmet going to make?

But, then again, I note that Shane's talking about bicycles again...

 

And the other 2/3 are all the car drivers fault? Yeah right.

Theo

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:20:25 +1000

I note that a study in Scotland showed that drivers who held a
motorcycle licence as well as a car licence were massively
under-represented in SMIDSY crashes with motorcycles.

So same roads, same conditions, drivers who also rode bikes didn't
hit bikes.

SO it isn't about "conspicuity" at all. It's about the mental
processing drivers do. About them being *willing* to see bikes.

Zebee

 

Hi Zebee

I was wondering if there was a study like that. I think all car drivers
should be made to ride a bike for two years before they can get
a car licence.

Smiley

 

Were your sirens on?

Not enough evidence is a counter agument. lights on or lights off? no
differance.

Anyway, most

For me to go to lights off I need to change my ignition switch and my
stater as it is a high power one to supply the lights as they are always on
if I just changed the switch it will over charge the battery. to much
trouble to
do so.

Smiley.

 

Not in my case. I take issue both with his simplistic, inflexible views
and the arrogant, instanstly hostile way in which he presents them.

He's not funny, he's not witty, his personal philosophy of trusting and
respecting authority isn't worth a toss, and his put-down technique
belongs in a primary school playground...

Going on all the available evidence, the guy's a waste of space. Instead
of coaching him how to fit into a place the nature of which he
fundamentally midundersants despite his *years* of exposure to it, I
find it much more efficient to tell him to **** off back to whatever
real-world misery he's trying to hide out from by spending time online.

 

Someone answered this in another reply. good answer.

I was booked for not wearing a helmet. others i know were booked for
unroad worthey. which is it. maybe someone ealse may be able to answer it?

Smiley

 

a good comparison would be, how many drivers/riders are in car
accidents with other cars where they are at fault?

Smiley

 

Erm that is what I was saying, I wasn't referring to you.

 

Yeah I've heard some of them "professional instructors" have some really
stupid pig-headed ideas that they try and bully people with....

 

But Clem didn't say anything to you it was another poster.
*scratches head*

 

...like the one that (now repealed) suggests breaking the law for NOT
having it on? That was ALL based on SOUND evidence that was supposed to
make us safe!

Hammo (lining up for more cotton wool)

 

Cool, I'd be happy to meet up.

Hammo (TTR600)

 

OK, so car drivers are at fault in 47% of motorcycle accidents then. The
other 53% is the riders fault.

Theo

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:13:11 +1000

Is it? Why?


If motorcycles are hard to see, then everyone should have trouble
seeing them. There shouldn't be that kind of discrepancy.

See above. If the rider/drivers and nonrider/drivers are on the same
roads in the same weather and sharing them with the same bikers, then
if motorcycles were "hard to see", so they needed "conspicuity
measures" then both rider/drivers and nonrider/drivers would have the
same problem - seeing bikes.

That they don't means that the problem isn't about seeing at all, it's
about processing.

The nonrider/drivers aren't processing. Dressing the riders up in
dayglo or headlights is relying on exception processing and there's a
raft of solid information that shows that's very unreliable.

They were perfectly conspicuous to the rider/drivers. So they can be
perfectly conspicuous to the nonrider/drivers. IF the
nonrider/drivers need lights or dayglo to see the riders, then they
are clearly not skilled enough to be on the road.

Zebee

 

Funny. I could've sworn you announced to the world how you killfiled me
a couple of hours ago...

 

So take that off the 47% of drivers fault. Have you got any left from that
2/3?

I think my safety is my responsibility. Lights and bright clothing has
little to do with it. As Zebee says, it's mostly in rider attitude.

Theo