Riders Eye View

[mr jamez]

Also the small matter of you neck snapping very easily when you smash head first into something. There have even been freak accidents where people have fallen over with their bike while stationary, helmet hits kerb, neck snaps. They don't offer much protection when it involves mangling (impact ) your head into something.

 

[L Plate]

if it was a head into unmoveable object at 25mph treefrog is right, and i think thats what he means, the speed at which you hit the ground in a 25mph crash isn't 25mph vertically, but if you were to kit a kerb or wall at that speed your helmits not going to do much

I have to disagree here and have seen it first hand


Picture a kid on a GSX750F having hit a 90 degree bend at around 45, realised he was on the wrong line and too fast and then decided to grab a nice big handful of front brake.

loses front end as it tank slaps, catapults him off the bike and straight into the waiting metal (motorway type) crash barrier on the bend.

results

bike totalled, and i do mean totalled.

no movement from him for a while, but he is alive.

damage to him, well apart from a cracked helmet which took the full force(and it wasnt an expensive one) and a severely bruised spine and severe concussion where his body folded after his head came to a dead stop.

The Hertfordshire Police estimated that from the tyre marks and the distance travelled he would have hit the barrier at 37mph to a dead stop.

I saw it, and i have ridden with him since

 

[Treefrog]

bikes are more dangerous than cars on the road its that simple.

Rubbish. A bike is a collection of components just like a car - it is not more or less dangerous. How it is used determines safety or danger.

 

[Enfield]

Rubbish. A bike is a collection of components just like a car - it is not more or less dangerous. How it is used determines safety or danger.

Geeze, wake up?

Here's another example for you.

Your sitting on your bike waiting at some traffic lights and a van smashes into the back of you at 30mph.

Your sitting in your car waiting at some traffic lights and a van smashes into the back of you at 30mph.

What would you rather be in or on?

Bikes are way more dangerous! They don't have air bags and stuff not to mention that you can be thrown anywhere!

Old cars like an 80's pug 205 with tin doors and no air bags vs a car merc for example with the lot - side airbags, the lot. What would you rather be in?

Do you even ride a motorbike?!

EDIT: Motorcyclists are about 26 times more likely to die in a crash than someone riding in a passenger car, and are 5 times as likely to be injured.

 

[Treefrog]

The way me and possibly Malachy and Enfield and other people would normally view your head impacting on the road.

That's what I meant. Or kerb, etc. I didn't foresee any confusion over this.

I'll put it in steps for you.

You're too kind!

Fall of motor bike

Head slams down on the road (Ie:impact with road)

Helmet protects head against Impact

Person comes out of it better then they would with out a helmet because the impact was cushioned due to wearing a helmet.

Yes. Impact speed around 5-10mph, sliding-along-road speed usually higher.

Impact is many things you know.

But a verb is not one of them. Unless you're talking about a tooth or a fracture? Check your dictionary.

My fingers are impacting on the keys as I type this out.You should have explained what you meant when you first wrote it out and not have been so vague about it

What's vague about it? I've used the word correctly, you haven't. That's probably where the misunderstanding has come from.

 

[Treefrog]

Geeze, wake up?

Here's another example for you.

Your sitting on your bike waiting at some traffic lights and a van smashes into the back of you at 30mph.

Your sitting in your car waiting at some traffic lights and a van smashes into the back of you at 30mph.

What would you rather be in or on?

Bike. Because I'd end up sliding over the roof rather than being pushed into the oncoming traffic. I'm free to move away from the bike, when you're strapped into a car you can't do that. Or supposing I'd noticed it in the mirror, I'd have more time to get clear of the vehicle if I were on a bike, or to move to the side if noticed early enough.

Bikes are way more dangerous!

Now go back and look at what you've just written. A van drives up your arse, therefore the motorcycle becomes dangerous? Let's face it - if a pedestrian was walking across the road at that time then they'd be even worse off! But you won't hear anyone saying that walking is dangerous. This goes back to my earlier point - it's how something is used that's dangerous or safe, not the item in question. A spade can chop someones head off, but does that make it dangerous?

They don't have air bags and stuff not to mention that you can be thrown anywhere!

Old cars like an 80's pug 205 with tin doors and no air bags vs a car merc for example with the lot - side airbags, the lot. What would you rather be in?

Do you even ride a motorbike?!

Not since the thieving little illegitimates nicked it on Bonfire Night, no.

In happier times - Alton Towers meet last year.

Motorcyclists are about 26 times more likely to die in a crash than someone riding in a passenger car, and are 5 times as likely to be injured.

I don't know the figures but I'm happy to accept yours. I do feel however, that because of a motorcycles size, both length and width, it's a lot easier to take avoiding action where you wouldn't have the opportunity to do so in a car. In the video you'll notice her position on the road leading up to the crash. If the car had stopped before swinging fully across her path, or if the car to her right had seen the danger earlier or moved over further, or if the Civic(?) had swung round a little quicker, there would have been a gap she could get through. But all these things went wrong at the same time.

Yes, riding a bike is a chance you take. We all choose what risks we'll take in our lives, from unprotected sex to free climbing and everything in between. We balance out the enjoyment vs risk equation and decide whether or not we're going to do it. And for me, riding a bike wins.

 

[Enfield]

Bike. Because I'd end up sliding over the roof rather than being pushed into the oncoming traffic. I'm free to move away from the bike, when you're strapped into a car you can't do that. Or supposing I'd noticed it in the mirror, I'd have more time to get clear of the vehicle if I were on a bike, or to move to the side if noticed early enough.

I was hit from behind recently by van whilst sitting in my car, I sustained no serious injuries. If you where on a bike and a van hit you there is a good chance that you'll be seriously injured there's no denying that.

I see you're point about getting away from the situation but im saying what if you can't. You really wouldn't want to be on the bike.

Now go back and look at what you've just written. A van drives up your arse, therefore the motorcycle becomes dangerous? Let's face it - if a pedestrian was walking across the road at that time then they'd be even worse off!

A pedestrian doesn't have a cage built around them, where as a person in a car does. A motorbike is almost the same as a pedestrian in some respects.

Do you still not accept that a bike is more dangerous than a car? Tbh I think you do but for some reason not accepting it. Bad day perhaps?

Sorry to hear about your bike

 

[bingham67]

Cant let a crash put you off from riding the fault wasnt herself it was the guys who went into a spin she hardly had time to get out the way.

She was lucky she survived you just got to go out their be safe and enjoy yourself riding a motorbike is great fun and much better then a car apart from bad weather.

 

[ShakenNstirred]

I remember crashing my Gilera Runner SP 50 Last year lol, a bit different i know, but i was down a back lane and put the bike into a hedge...

The only thing i remember was seeing the verge and hedge, and thinking S***, Then opening my eyes to find myself lying in the middle of the road with a broken ankle and my hands bleeding.

I wasnt wearing Gloves, cause i was an ideot., and i was wearing trainers. Im not a chav either, i live on a farm and it was either the trainers, or the wellies

Next time i buy a bike, im gonna get all the propper gear, but at the end of the day, it doesnt stop someone pulling out infront of you from breaking ya neck when you hit em.

you have learned the hard way.
even on very hot days , always wear gloves and the rest.
i see guys wearing just shorts and trainers riding round here in summer, total idiots.
i have been riding bikes for over 30 years and have had very few accidents but i still wear all the gear.

 

[Treefrog]

I was hit from behind recently by van whilst sitting in my car, I sustained no serious injuries. If you were on a bike and a van hit you there is a good chance that you'll be seriously injured there's no denying that.

I see you're point about getting away from the situation but I'm saying what if you can't. You really wouldn't want to be on the bike.

Glad to hear you came out of it okay. Yes, there is a good chance of injury, there's no denying it. Although having said that I wouldn't like to be there in a car either.

A pedestrian doesn't have a cage built around them, where as a person in a car does. A motorbike is almost the same as a pedestrian in some respects.

Again, it's the lack of protection from external danger you're mentioning here, not the form of transport being a danger.

Do you still not accept that a bike is more dangerous than a car? Tbh I think you do but for some reason not accepting it. Bad day perhaps?

All your arguments and examples point to being more vulnerable on a bike than in a car, with which I agree, not to the motorcycle itself being dangerous. I argued that the size and manoeuvrability make it better able to avoid accidents, plus being able to see from any point across the lane means you can see past obstacles that you couldn't from in a car. My most recent example was seeing a car pull out from the left in front of a lorry and stop across "our" lane. I was near the kerb and could see past the lorry, the car between us couldn't. The lorry had to stand on his brakes and the car had to do the same but with less warning, whereas I'd already started braking and gently rolled up behind them. Every vehicle has its advantages - it's up to the driver to use them.

Sorry to hear about your bike

Thanks, appreciated. The insurance are now adding insult to injury in what they offered me as well.

 

[Matteh]

Treefrog - It appears that you and Enfield are not entirely on the same page - He is not suggesting that bikes are by definition more dangerous than cars, but he IS suggesting that on a bike you are far more vulnerable to injury than you would be in a car in a given situation (such as his rear ending situation).

In a car you are granted a certain degree of protection due to the fact you are surrounded by a cage that is designed to an extent to withstand impact. Riding a bike you don't have this luxury. It's this that makes bikes more 'dangerous' than a car. Take another example - I recently got T-boned by someone on a junction, they were doing about 35. After swapping details and having a ciggy I was merrily on my way to my destination with nothing more than a bit of nerves. If I had been on a bike it would have been a very different story. That is pretty much undeniable.

Also, I'm sorry to hear about the theiving little turds stealing your bike, that must suck I hope you get it sorted and back on the road soon!

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Treefrog - It appears that you and Enfield are not entirely on the same page...

Agreed, apologies for sticking my oar in but I also dont think you're grasping what Treefrog is trying to say either.

Nobody can argue against the fact that you are more vulnerable to injury on a bike, but in no way does that make a bike dangerous.

A vehicle can only be as dangerous as the person operating it. If you still insist that certain vehicles are dangerous then that would make the car the most dangerous vehicle available, purely because more people are killed by cars each year than any other vehicle.......Ban them all I say


Fog

 

[Draeger]

Treefrog - It appears that you and Enfield are not entirely on the same page - He is not suggesting that bikes are by definition more dangerous than cars, but he IS suggesting that on a bike you are far more vulnerable to injury than you would be in a car in a given situation (such as his rear ending situation).

In a car you are granted a certain degree of protection due to the fact you are surrounded by a cage that is designed to an extent to withstand impact. Riding a bike you don't have this luxury. It's this that makes bikes more 'dangerous' than a car.

Agree in priciple.

Like you say, its entirely dependant on the situation at the time as far as any RTA goes.

I came off my Kwacker 600 in 1990 and was nearly killed. I was off work for almost a year with my recovery for injuries, because some OAP that was blind in one eye pulled out in front of me at point blank range at a junction, whilst I was tootling along, under the posted speed limit minding my own business.

However, I've attended a shedload of serious RTA's in my line of work over the years, where I've thought that if I was the casualty that was trapped, I'd have maybe been better off being thrown clear from a bike instead.

All depends on the individual incident, like I said.

Bikes are always going to be more inherently dangerous than cars, stands to reason, and anyone who argues against that has no clue what they are talking about to be quite honest.

 

[Treefrog]

Nobody can argue against the fact that you are more vulnerable to injury on a bike, but in no way does that make a bike dangerous.

A vehicle can only be as dangerous as the person operating it.

Fog

That's exactly my point, thanks Foggy.

I came off my Kwacker 600 in 1990 and was nearly killed. I was off work for almost a year with my recovery for injuries, because some OAP that was blind in one eye pulled out in front of me at point blank range at a junction, whilst I was tootling along, under the posted speed limit minding my own business.

In what way does tootling along at an appropriate speed turn a bike into a danger? The half-blind driver was the danger in that situation IMO. Who got charged with what as a result of him pulling out btw?

And in Enfield's example of a van rear-ending you while stationary at the lights. In what way does the bike - or any other stationary vehicle for that matter - constitute a danger? Again, the danger is from the van not stopping, not from the stationary vehicle no matter how many or how few wheels it has.

If a vehicle is defective then it could be dangerous - but that's due to the person whose responsibility it is to look after it, not what type it is.
If it's being driven carelessly or recklessly or dangerously - again, that's not because of how many wheels it has, it's because of the person controlling it.
If a car does a U turn in front of you on a freeway, you're in danger. Because of their actions in their vehicle, not because a bike is "dangerous."

Bikes are always going to be more inherently dangerous than cars, stands to reason, and anyone who argues against that has no clue what they are talking about to be quite honest.

Rather than just saying "stands to reason", let's hear your reasons why a bike is a danger rather than claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't got a clue.

 

[Zip]

This doesnt happen very often but ill put it in just to show another place were a car would be safter.

Your driving along in a car, you start to smell smoke then all of a sudden you get flames coming out of the grill and the engine bay had a fire in it. You have a small amout of time to pull of get out and run with out being burnt.

On a bike your driving along and you dont smell the smoke, then all of sudden your legs and testicles are being BBQed and you have to get off but you still have to slow down first while your getting cooked. This will most likely result in a crash.

It doesnt happen very often but it can always happen atleast once

 

[sniper007]

Interesting thread...but I need to book my CBT up and getting put off! lol

 

[Malachy]

Rather than just saying "stands to reason", let's hear your reasons why a bike is a danger rather than claiming that anyone who disagrees with you hasn't got a clue.

uhm all the reasons your ignoring in this post and the hard facts, like if you are in any accident on a bike regardless of fault, you are more likely to die by a substatially large margin than if you were in the same accident in a car.
your whole the bikes arent dangerous idioligy is kinda stupid and you almost sound like my safety officer from work who is known to be a bit of a window licker.
he's like a toaster is safe when its plugged in.
water is safe on its own but if you sit in the bath with your toaster plugged in its not safe.the equipment used in a certain situation makes it dangerous or not.Well no **** sherlock.
so from my safety officer at work if i decide to not wear my ppe at work i am being dangerous? yet your theory is that no i am not being dangerous its just everything else around me that is........................

Main Entry: dan·ger·ous
Function: adjective
1 : creating a risk of bodily injury <a dangerous condition of a public building>


well you are creating that risk because you are increasing the chance of bodily injury in the event of an accident by riding a motorcycle on the public highway. Thus proving Motorcycles are dangerous to the user on the public highway, Granted usually they do not involve other people too much, but tbh i value my life pretty highly therefore choose not to ride one on the road even if it is someone elses dfault why i get knocked off and killed i cant argue about it after can i?

 

[Matteh]

Bikes are always going to be more inherently dangerous than cars, stands to reason, and anyone who argues against that has no clue what they are talking about to be quite honest.

Thats really what I'm getting at - A bike is isnt always a safe place to be due to how exposed the rider is, but equally I do agree with you about accidents where people get trapped in cars whereas on a bike they would have been thrown clear. There have been incidents involving cars where the only reason drivers/passengers have survived is due to being thrown clear because they werent wearing a seatbelt, so sometimes that exposure pays off. Personally, I wish I had then nuts to ride a bike, they look like fantastic fun. I can just see myself running out of talent at the wrong time due to confidence

I don't for a minute want anyone to thing that I'm taking the view that a lot of other car drivers have - I don't feel that all bikers are a danger to themselves and others, I know a lot of bikers who are some of the most sensible, road aware people I've met.

 

[Malachy]

I know a lot of bikers who are some of the most sensible, road aware people I've met.

and i agree but it still does not make there flesh win the flesh&bones vs Metal/concrete/tarmac/anything war if they crash.
and also you do not often see newspaper artciles of car drivers crashing at 120+mph however its quite often in my local paper @father of 2 dies in motorbike accident' you read later on in the article that he was doing 120+mph when he crashed........................ happens a lot around here in the summer but ofc bikers are the best motorists and dont make mistakes its always someone elses fault...............
imo they take the risk to ride a bike in the first place knowing they are putting themselves at more risk due to being more vulnerable in accident, what other risks will they take?

 

[Treefrog]

uhm all the reasons your ignoring in this post and the hard facts, like if you are in any accident on a bike regardless of fault, you are more likely to die by a substantially large margin than if you were in the same accident in a car.
your whole the bikes aren't dangerous ideology is kinda stupid and you almost sound like my safety officer from work who is known to be a bit of a window licker.
he's like a toaster is safe when its plugged in.
water is safe on its own but if you sit in the bath with your toaster plugged in its not safe. the equipment used in a certain situation makes it dangerous or not.Well no **** sherlock.
so from my safety officer at work if i decide to not wear my ppe at work i am being dangerous? yet your theory is that no i am not being dangerous its just everything else around me that is........................

Main Entry: dan·ger·ous
Function: adjective
1 : creating a risk of bodily injury <a dangerous condition of a public building>


well you are creating that risk because you are increasing the chance of bodily injury in the event of an accident by riding a motorcycle on the public highway. Thus proving Motorcycles are dangerous to the user on the public highway, Granted usually they do not involve other people too much, but tbh i value my life pretty highly therefore choose not to ride one on the road even if it is someone elses fault why i get knocked off and killed i cant argue about it after can i?

All you have said is that you are more at risk in the event of an accident, not that the bike is dangerous. Which is my point, not yours

In your toaster analogy, it's using it stupidly that creates the danger, not the fact that it's a toaster. Again, my point. Maybe you should listen to what your safety officer is trying to tell you?

Anything can be dangerous if misused.
Is a brick dangerous because it could smash someone's head open?
Is a pencil dangerous because it could put someone's eye out?
Is a spade dangerous because it could chop someone's head off?

Presenting me with a decent well-thought out argument will go a lot further towards changing my opinion than calling me stupid and comparing me to a "window licker" (whatever that is, I assume it's not a compliment?)