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

Discussion in 'Australian Motorcycles' started by Dr.Shifty, Jun 8, 2006.

  1. But they are _not_ entitled to run down motorcyclists.

    I bet a few more newspapers running stories about "weekend warriors and
    little old ladies" permanently losing driving entitlements due to _major
    fuckups_ on their parts would be _massively_ more effective than
    headlights or dayglo vests for motorcyclists.

    If people didn't think that coppers would automatically assume the bike
    rider was at fault in every car/bike crash (even when they _know_ cars
    at at fault two thirds of the time), and that the consequence might be
    never being allowed to drive again, then they'd damn well _see_ bikes.

    When they know damn well that the first question experience coppers ask
    is "did he have his headlight on?" with the implied "poor car driver, it
    wasn't _your_ fault you didn't see the evil bikie - he should have made
    himself more conspicuous!" behind it, they'll keep on driving like they
    do (and you'll keep on saying we can't blame them for it - maybe you're
    right, its at least partly the fault of the police force not enforcing
    the laws, right?)

    big
     
    Iain Chalmers, Jun 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yeah, but I've noticed IK's *plonk* kinda missed... Shanes replied to IK
    a few times since then... I suspect your *plonk* is probably equally
    faulty...

    big
     
    Iain Chalmers, Jun 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dr.Shifty

    Knobdoodle Guest

    That's why I keep 'em coming, Iain!
     
    Knobdoodle, Jun 12, 2006
  4. Dr.Shifty

    sharkey Guest

    Nyer, I plonked you ages ago Postman. Twice.

    -----sharks
     
    sharkey, Jun 12, 2006
  5. Dr.Shifty

    Smee Guest


    Shit i haven't been following this thread either!
     
    Smee, Jun 12, 2006
  6. Dr.Shifty

    sharkey Guest

    Shit, I reckon you'd look more of a threat sitting on a 250.
    "If he'll be so mean to that poor little bike what'll he do to me?"

    -----sharks
     
    sharkey, Jun 12, 2006
  7. Dr.Shifty

    F Murtz Guest

    Quoting shane. -Studies have shown.- etc

    JOURNAL ARTICLE
    An evaluation of the effectiveness of motor cycle daytime headlight laws

    A Muller

    Currently, 17 states mandate the daytime use of motorcycle headlights.
    The purpose of these laws is to make the motorcyclists more conspicuous
    and reduce the number of daytime multi-vehicle collisions. The
    effectiveness of the laws is examined by comparing the proportion of
    daytime fatal, front, and side-angle collisions between states with and
    without such laws. The comparison is based on all motorcycle fatalities
    recorded by NHTSA for the years 1975-80. The analysis shows no
    statistically significant difference between states with and without
    such laws, suggesting that daytime headlight laws are ineffective.
    Several explanations of this negative finding are explored.
     
    F Murtz, Jun 12, 2006
  8. Dr.Shifty

    CrazyCam Guest

    But you'd have had the big stick and the pistol...

    That makes you a bit more..err..."noticeable".

    regards,
    CrazyCam
     
    CrazyCam, Jun 12, 2006
  9. Dr.Shifty

    JL Guest

    Well... when it's all you have...

    JL
     
    JL, Jun 12, 2006
  10. Dr.Shifty

    JL Guest

    No, it's because we don't like morons much around here Shane

    JL
     
    JL, Jun 12, 2006
  11. Dr.Shifty

    CrazyCam Guest

    Shane wrote:

    That reminds me, what has happened to Spooky?

    Did he really exist?

    regards,
    CrazyCam
     
    CrazyCam, Jun 12, 2006
  12. Dr.Shifty

    JL Guest

    His stats are muddled because he's not distinguishing between urban and
    rural crashes. In urban areas around 2/3rds of multi vehicle crashes
    involving a motorcycle (it varies between 60 and 75% depending on the
    report and the time interval) are the fault of the other driver.

    I forget the exact figure but around 75% of single vehicle crashes in
    rural areas are the fault of the rider.

    Basically to do useful analysis, you have to pull apart single vs multi
    and rural vs urban. Noting however that using percentages within the 4
    categories then fails to convey the quantities (75% of 3 crashes is a
    statistically insignificant for example)

    The reality is that when a bike and another vehicle collide in a built
    up area, the other vehicle is usually in the wrong, anecodotes suggest
    that the percentage other vehicle legally at fault is under reported,
    and that often however the bike rider *could* have avoided it (being
    legally right is different to being able to avoid).

    When a bike crashes by itself then legally they are almost always in the
    wrong, however that doesn't mean they necessarily could have done
    something about it (unless you can show there's a hazardous object on
    the road that you couldn't reasonably have avoided then you're legally
    in the wrong, that includes crashing because you've just avoided a
    vehicle that turned right across you and you've dodged out of its way).

    JL
     
    JL, Jun 12, 2006
  13. Dr.Shifty

    JL Guest

    You are. You failed to control your vehicle in a circumstance that could
    reasonably be foreseen.

    JL
    (give me a break, you fell off because you hit a banana peel ? What sort
    of cockamamie story is that ? You either have a tyre problem, a
    suspension problem, or a truthfulness problem)
     
    JL, Jun 12, 2006
  14. The coloured helmet thing conflicts with another study I read
    somewhere a while back that said that those who wore plain white
    helmets (and light coloured clothing generally) were slightly
    better off in the crash stats as compared to others.

    It might well be that since no-one (except CrazyCam!!) wears a
    white helmet any more, they simply weren't sampled in statistically
    significant numbers for the Victorian report. Do they give a breakdown
    of the different numbers/colours? Did anyone bother to ask you
    CrazyCam? :)


    As for the flouro jacket thing; that agrees with my direct recent
    experience: On two days in the past week-before-last I forgot to
    wear my flouro green vest (one weekday commute, one weekend in city
    traffic). I noticed a *substantial* increase in the number of SMIDSYs
    and general incidence of fackwits taking last minute decisions to
    dive into my path even though they clearly *had* seen me there (you
    can tell by the "dive, pause-oh-shit-there's-a-bike-there, oh-fack-
    it-I'm-going-anyway" action - when I'm wearing dayglo, it's "dive,
    pause-oh-shit-there's-a-bike-there, back-to-whence-I-came-from") on
    both days.

    I felt like a big black Maori guy who'd been forced to wear a
    skinny white guy suit and go back to his job as a pub bouncer - the
    world *isn't* a polite happy place after all!


    I also notice an increase in the general fackwittedness of drivers
    when I'm carrying a pillion who doesn't want to wear flouro because
    it doesn't look cool.


    (The added bonus of having a flouro night vest with "SYDNEY BUSES"
    plastered across the back in big letters is that the bus drivers give
    you heaps of space, don't tailgate, back off when you indicate a
    desire to pull into their lane, and even smile and wave some times
    <grin>)



    Of course, if the dayglo flouro shit ultimately doesn't work, then
    there's always plan 'B': air horns. They're *very* effective against
    the stupid ones that didn't bother to look and reasonably effective
    against the timid ones that saw and reckon they'll have a go anyway.
    Air horns are of course completely ineffective against tradies and
    soccer 'moms' in 'prestige' four-wheel-drives with the bike-filtering
    windows - that's survival plan 'C': "the wisdom to know the
    difference" and just let the truly mad fackers go!



    GB
     
    yzf.thunderace, Jun 13, 2006
  15. Dr.Shifty

    JL Guest

    <bites tongue firmly>

    JL
    Oh the innuendo opportunities sailing by :)
     
    JL, Jun 13, 2006
  16. Dr.Shifty

    JL Guest

    Ahhh good, so you've come to understand that the problem isn't lack of
    lights on then ? It's a lack of driver attention and due care.

    Well done Zebee I think you've achieved what I thought to be the impossible.


    JL
     
    JL, Jun 13, 2006
  17. Shane wrote:
    [...]
    Cite your source please.


    GB
     
    yzf.thunderace, Jun 13, 2006
  18. Dr.Shifty

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    18W park lamps are illegal.

    Theo
     
    Theo Bekkers, Jun 13, 2006
  19. Dr.Shifty

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    When I got my first Cali it was almost identical to the ones the cops were
    riding in Perth. Every time I came up behind some-one they slowed down to
    less than the speed limit. Was a bloody pain.

    Theo
     
    Theo Bekkers, Jun 13, 2006
  20. Dr.Shifty

    Theo Bekkers Guest

    Looks on shelf in shed where bikes are parked. Hmmm, three white helmets.
    They make other colours too?

    Theo
     
    Theo Bekkers, Jun 13, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.