From: Deevo on
"Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)> wrote in message
> In on Sun, 11 Apr 2010 13:12:28 GMT
> Deevo <deevo37(a)> wrote:
>> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebeej(a)> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhs1pm0.2qp.zebeej(a)
>> Nothing official, no. Just my own observations on the proportional
>> representatioon of various bike types I have seen in wrecking yards. Add
>> to
>> that when I was working in the trade riding various bikes I found that
>> the
>> type of bike I was riding seemed to affect the perception of the drivers
>> around me.
> Was your riding exactly the same no matter the bike?

Given that the various bikes I rode during that period belonged to either my
employer or a customer I did tend to be somewhat more cautious on them than
I would have been on my own mount of the time (A VF750SD for the record).

> I know mine isn't....

Having said that I would agree with you to a certain extent. Riding an
RG250 required somewhat different riding to an R80 Bimmer or somesuch.

>>> THe only info I have on who gets hit more is by age. Younger riders
>>> have more multivehicle crashes, older riders have more solo crashes.
>>> Whether this is about experience or exposure is not known.
>> Sounds like a topic worth pursuing on a more official level. Of course I
>> very much doubt that the Petabees would be motivated to study such
>> figures
>> if there were a correlation.
> Data is the problem. THe MCC of NSW was finally able to get access to
> crash reports to try and get some idea of what kind of bike and rider
> was having what kind of crash, but the data itself is spotty.
> You have people who know nothing about bikes having to put make and
> model, and that isn't very reliable. If the make and model isn't clear
> on the bike, they'll guess or ignore. Sometimes you might get
> "dirt bike" but if it's a road bike they might just say "large bike"
> and that could be a Wing, an Electraglide, or a CB900RR. There's a
> lot of noise in the data. (And that's not even touching the whole
> "cause of crash" problem...)
> Then it's a matter of working out what the data might mean. You don't
> get young riders on cruisers, but do you get older riders using their
> bikes in the city as much? Is the reason most cruiser crashes seem to
> be single vehicle because older riders have more traffic smarts, or
> because most cruiser riders are using them as recreational vehicles
> and aren't riding in the city? Time of crash is an obvious help, but
> from what I recall of the quick (and early in the data collection)
> recap of the finds so far, most crashes were on the weekend so that
> doesn't help.
> Exposure is always the problem with things like this. You can match
> crash numbers against licences and registration data but you can't
> tell how many of those licenced riders actually ride and when and
> where, you can't tell how many of those bikes are ridden by the
> registered owner or where.
> Doing any kind of counting is an expensive business, and in a city the
> size of Sydney a very expensive one.
> We see stats all the time in the papers. What we dont' see is what
> they are based on, and how they've been derived. Start delving into
> data sets that aren't based on personal (and therefore inevitably
> flawed, read the literature on eye witnessses) observation, you
> realise how dodgy it all is.

Quite right, makes the old saying about lies, damn lies and statistics ring

I wouls like to see a way that genuinely representative data could be made
available, though I still believe that Perceived Threat Syndrome does work,
to a degree. :)
Geraldton Western Australia

From: Deevo on
<OzOne(a)> wrote in message
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:10:01 +1000, "Mr.T" <MrT(a)home> wrote:
>>" Scotty" <scoter1(a)> wrote in message
>>> Safe riding would fix 90% and safe car drivers the other 10%.
>>And an actual motorbike rider knows those figures are reversed. Even the
>>governments own statistics place 70% of car/bike accidents on car drivers.
> Yeah...and if riders woke up to the fact that they are smaller and
> more difficult to see particularly when they accelerate or change
> position quickly, then those numbers would change dramatically.
> Dead right is not a pleasant place!

Hey, I drive a car for the most part these days (courtesy of someone in an
old Corona who thought stop signs were optional when I was in the
intersection on my 125cc Scooter) and I can manage to see motorcycles on the
road. Why can't you?
Geraldton Western Australia

From: Lars Chance on
Milton wrote:
> It has always been my policy not to use right indicators on a bike but a
> hand signal instead for the reason, too many accidentally leave there
> right indicator on and when approaching an intersection with an oncoming
> right turning vehicle, of course they are assuming you are turning right
> as well and progress around the corner in front of you.
It's a good idea in principle but it must take a long time to train
yourself to stop indicating.
(I've been indicating on roads for 35 years and I reckon it'd be almost
impossible to stop, short of removing the right-hand bulbs!)

From: Neil Gerace on
Albm&ctd wrote:

> I don't lane split.. you stoopid old Sopwith camel driving crunt :-)

You'd be almost the only one :) I even see riders of 50cc scooters do it, and those things can't out-accelerate a car.
From: Neil Gerace on
OzOne(a) wrote:

> Wake up job is not to spend half my life looking out for
> you as you rip up the inside, squeeze between cars while straddling
> lanes or overtake without warning...It's your job to accept that your
> lack of consideration and forethought will bring you undone.
> I accept no responsibility for your actions.

I'd like a car big enough for that sticker, one day :)