Motorcyclists in dice with death

[Big Dave]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/motorcyclists-in-dice-with-death/2008/05/05/1209839518153.html
<headline>Motorcyclists in dice with death</headline> <!--articleTools Top--> <byline>Jano Gibson</byline>
<date>May 5, 2008 - 12:37PM</date>

<!--bylineDetails-->
<!--articleDetails--> <!--articleExtras-wrap--> <bod> </bod>Motorbikes might save time cutting through traffic and be inexpensive to run, but they are deadly machines, with a new report finding riders are 23 times more likely to be killed than people travelling in cars.
Motorbikes account for only 4.5 per cent of vehicle registrations in the country and less than 1 per cent of kilometres travelled.
But motorbike deaths make up almost 15 per cent of road fatalities, according to a new Federal Government report, Fatal And Serious Road Crashes Involving Motorcyclists.
Motorcyclists are also 40 times more likely to suffer serious injury than car occupants.
Last year 240 motorcycle riders were killed and 5000 admitted to hospital.
The report found many of the fatal accidents occurred on weekends and between the hours of 2pm and 6pm, indicating recreational riding, rather than commuting, was linked to the accidents.
Excessive speed and alcohol were the two biggest causes of fatal motorbike accidents and one in 10 involved a rider not wearing a helmet.
"My message to riders is simple: your first accident is likely to be your last so slow down, don't drink and ride, wear a helmet and, in the case of the weekend rider, acknowledge your inexperience and limits with the machine," the Minister for Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, said.
Since 2002, the number of motorcycles registered on Australian roads has grown an average of 6.8 per cent each year.
Jano Gibson is Urban Affairs Reporter for the Herald

[Katman]

Like I've said before, motorcycles aren't dangerous - motorcyclists are dangerous.

[Big Dave]

Like I've said before, motorcycles aren't dangerous - motorcyclists are dangerous.

Like I said before - I disagree.

[jrandom]

your first accident is likely to be your last

Can't say it worked that way for me.

:crazy:

[McJim]

This is foreign info innit? NZ doesn't have anything Federal that I've seen. And I suspect Jano Gibson writes for the Sydney Morning Herald rather then the New Zealand Herald.

Good job we're in NZ and these stats don't affect us :rofl:

[Big Dave]

Can't say it worked that way for me.

:crazy:

Close to double figures.

[Big Dave]

This is foreign info innit? NZ doesn't have anything Federal that I've seen. And I suspect Jano Gibson writes for the Sydney Morning Herald rather then the New Zealand Herald.

Good job we're in NZ and these stats don't affect us :rofl:

I did include the link thinking it wasn't necessary to index.

[jrandom]

motorcycles aren't dangerous

Purely hypothetical situation.

Late night. Dark. Raining. Deep in the boondocks of the west Waikato. A milk tanker goes around a back-road T-junction and slops diesel all over the road.

Over the following hour or so, before the diesel washes off the road, several vehicles turn through the same intersection, coming the other way. The rain and the darkness make the diesel invisible, and it's right on the braking and turning point of the intersection.

In that situation, is a two-wheeled vehicle any more inherently dangerous to its occupant(s) than a four-wheeled one?

[Big Dave]

Purely hypothetical situation.


Make a car fall over.

[Big Dave]

Thing is Katman, we both end up at the same conclusion.

Appropriate preparedness.

[MaxCannon]

Obviously there is more risk involved in riding a motorcycle than driving a car.

However - weighing up the option of driving, cycling, busing or riding to work the cheapest, most enjoyable, most efficient and quickest way of getting to work is on the GN express.

It's entirely possible I'll get run over by a car who's driver is reading the paper, talking on their phone and updating their facebook page rather than looking where they are going.
But - thats a risk I'll just have to take.
I feel a hell of a lot safer than when I cycled to school.
Over the course of 6 years of cycling I was hit by cars, buses and timber loads hanging over the edge of trucks.
I hit an open manhole cover at 40kph (couldn't avoid it between parked cars and the traffic flow) and was lucky to only break an arm.

At least on a bike I can move with the traffic flow, avoid obstacles (using the lightening quick GN acceleration) and have proper protection head to foot.

They should discount any death on a motorcycle where the rider isn't wearing a helmet. Kinda like counting suicides in murder statics. You've got to have a death wish riding on the road without a helmet.

[Big Dave]

Nobody rides on the road without a helmet any more than here - the stats would be off road/recreational.

[kevfromcoro]

Like I've said before, motorcycles aren't dangerous - motorcyclists are dangerous.

well have to agree there...get a bloke full of piss on a high powered bike..danger to everyone on the road.....
Remeber going to a party in my youthfull days,,,and a guy comes out and starts blowing holes in the ceiling with a 22.
cops turn up..and it ends up in the Hearald....Ban guns.Dangerous things.well at the time it was.....
also read where a shelia was ironing next to the bath ,,and fell in .and electrocuted herself...so we going to ban irons to..
comes down to responabilty..........
just my 2c

[Ixion]

Purely hypothetical situation.

Late night. Dark. Raining. Deep in the boondocks of the west Waikato. A milk tanker goes around a back-road T-junction and slops diesel all over the road.

Over the following hour or so, before the diesel washes off the road, several vehicles turn through the same intersection, coming the other way. The rain and the darkness make the diesel invisible, and it's right on the braking and turning point of the intersection.

In that situation, is a two-wheeled vehicle any more inherently dangerous to its occupant(s) than a four-wheeled one?

But - not undetectable. You will , if riding with all senses alert , smell diesel long before you can see it.

So, the alert biker smells diesel, slows down and take a straith line course , and motors off. The cagers,m sealed in their cagers know nothing and slide off

I have MANY times smelled diesel but never seen it.

You have FIVE senses. A wise man uses ALL of them

[Ixion]

Like I said before - I disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement.

[Big Dave]

I disagree with your disagreement.

Make a car fall over.

[McJim]

Make a car fall over.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HW0CnCFMw_8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HW0CnCFMw_8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:rofl: Muwahahahaha....there you go

[mowgli]

comes down to responabilty..........
That's blasphemy round here!!!

[Ixion]

Make a car fall over.

Show me the car driver with a spidey sense.

[Katman]

Make a car fall over.

Park a bike on it's centrestand in as big a puddle of diesel as you like and see how long it takes for it to fall over.

[Big Dave]

Park a bike on it's centrestand in as big a puddle of diesel as you like and see how long it takes for it to fall over.

You don't ride motorcycle with the stand down or when parked.

[swbarnett]

But - not undetectable. You will , if riding with all senses alert , smell diesel long before you can see it.
What if there's a strong enough wind blowing the fumes away from you?

Motorcycles aren't more dangerous than cars but they are less forgiving.

[mowgli]

Park a bike on it's centrestand in as big a puddle of diesel as you like and see how long it takes for it to fall over.
Big puddle huh? Cage approaches, fails to stop cos sum fooker spilled all this diesel, whammo! bike falls over.

So I guess it comes down to how busy is this hypothetical road is and how long until numb nuts cager turns up.

[Katman]

and how long until numb nuts cager turns up.

What about the numb nuts motorcyclist that parked the fucking thing in the middle of the road. :msn-wink:

[Ixion]

What if there's a strong enough wind blowing the fumes away from you?

Motorcycles aren't more dangerous than cars but they are less forgiving.

Then you still see the rainbow. And, in my experience, smell it anyway.

To be sure, bikes are less forgiving. So, don't fuck up.

Yep, I'll agree, if you need to fuck up, go drive a cage.

As Mr Katman says, diesel + motorbike does NOT equal crash. Diesel + motorbike + rider MAY = crash.

So, the variable is the rider. YOU. You are the factor that makes the differnce between crash and no crash.

[mowgli]

What about the numb nuts motorcyclist that parked the fucking thing in the middle of the road. :msn-wink:
Good point. But he'll just blame the government. Haven't you heard they've made personal responsibility a thing of the past.

[Big Dave]

Diesel + motorbike + velocity MAY = crash.

Irrespective of who is riding. The likelihood diminishes with experience, training etc - but it never disappears.

[Forest]

So, the variable is the rider. YOU. You are the factor that makes the differnce between crash and no crash.

I disagree.

There are plenty of situations and factors which can never be anticipated.

[Katman]

There are plenty of situations and factors which can never be anticipated.

Name some.

[mowgli]

There are plenty of situations and factors which can never be anticipated.
Just because you can't anticipate an event doesn't mean you can't mitigate or even negate its potential effect.

[Ixion]

Diesel + motorbike + velocity MAY = crash.

Irrespective of who is riding. The likelihood diminishes with experience, training etc - but it never disappears.


Well, yes.

But, ROAD + motorbike + velocity MAY = crash. Irrespective of who is riding. The likelihood diminishes with experience, training etc - but it never disappears.

Diesel is just another factor that a biker needs to take into account. It will be there sooner or later, Assume it IS there. Like Enid.

Diesel isn't some 'get out of gaol free' card. "Oh, yeah I crashed. But there was DIESEL". As if "Diesel" was a magical incantation that excused all. It's just like saying " Oh yeah, I crashed. But there was a CORNER".

Just as the wise rider allows for the fact that a corner may turn out to be one of those blasted decreasing radius off camber bumpy bastards, and makes appropriate allowance for it, so the wise rider allows for the fact that a given road surface may have less than optimum adhesion. Won't work every time, to be sure. But diesel isn't an excuse. Just means that you missed a cue. Understandable, we will all sympathise, no one can pick it 100% of the time. But no different to any other crash cause. You, the rider, fucked up. End of story.

[Katman]

Diesel + motorbike + velocity MAY = crash.



And what is the one factor responsible for the velocity of a motorcycle?

(Clue; I don't mean the motor.) :msn-wink:

[Big Dave]

Name some.

If the military wanted examples of how to fell motorcyclists they should study some of New Zealand's road works.

Chris from Wellington - who won damages for improper signposting causing him to crash - Court said so - that would be a good example.

They decided that the fault was not with him and that there was nothing reasonable that he could have done.


The reason I posted this and continue the debate is that for all the spanking on I do about how cool motorcycles are - every now and then I just like to step back and say - motorcycles are dangerous stuff.

Be aware - stop and think about it - every time you put the keys in the ignition.

And then let's go and chuck some wheelies.

[Katman]

every now and then I just like to step back and say this is dangerous stuff.

And then let's go and chuck some wheelies.

Says it all really.

[Big Dave]

And what is the one factor responsible for the velocity of a motorcycle?


You don't need to give me clues.

The answer, however is still that without locomotion of any sort, and regardless of who/m is in control, there is no equation.

[swbarnett]

Name some.
Sniper?

But that's being silly. Although it did happen to a cyclist on the Coatesville-Riverhead road a few years back. Thankfully only hit their upper arm.

Seriously though, I both agree and disagree that motorcycles aren't inherently more dangerous than cars. I think the point is that it is possible to create a set of circumstances that would cause even the safest, most experienced motorcyclist to be killed where a car driver would likely survive. However, the probability of those circumstances occurring is so infinitesimally minute that, to all practical purposes it is the rider that is the determining factor.

So, while it's fun to do thought experiments about artificial situations, in the real world I agree with you.

[Katman]

The answer, however is still that without locomotion of any sort, and regardless of who/m is in control, there is no equation.

If there is no rider on the bike there is no locomotion therefore no equation. The equation arises as soon as the rider is added.

[Katman]

So, while it's fun to do thought experiments about artificial situations, in the real world I agree with you.

Not just fun - it will help keep you alive. I have 'what if' scenarios playing in my head all the time when I'm on the bike.

[Ixion]

The reason I posted this and continue the debate is that for all the spanking on I do about how cool motorcycles are - every now and then I just like to step back and say - (regardless of what katman says) - this is dangerous stuff.

Be aware - stop and think about it - every time you put the keys in the ignition.

.

Oh, aye , to be sure it is. Nobody ever disputed that what we do is dangerous. Bloody lunacy, in fact. That's why we do it, cos we're lunatics.

And proud of it.

Yes. It is dangerous. And some of that danger can never be mitigated or removed. But, a lot of it can. And it's ALL down to the dude who puts the key in the ignition. All Mr Katman is saying is that the person responsible for how dangerous it is, isn't some cager, isn't some council dude. It's the guy who puts the key in the ignition. The only person who gives a crap whether you live or die is YOU. And whether you live or die is up to YOU.

Even if you make every right choice there is , do everything absolutely right you may still die. Cos that's what we do, it IS dangerous. But if you DON'T make the right choices , you have a SHIT load greater chance that you'll die.

End of the day, it's down to YOU. Live or die, I don't care. Mr Katman doesn't care. The cager who runs over your head and smears it in a red pulp over the road doesn't care. The cops don't care. LTSA doesn't care. It's down to YOU. Noone else.

[swbarnett]

They decided that the fault was not with him and that there was nothing reasonable that he could have done.
Being reasonable is not the be all and end all of accident avoidance. While I agree that the placement of the signs was probably (as I don't know the details) an issue and the rider was not legally culpable, this does not mean that there was nothing they could've done to avoid the accident.

It's about taking responsibility for your own safety. If I come off I ask two questions - the first is "What could I have done to avoid the accident - reasonable or not?" and later, usually when making an insurance claim, "Who was legally culpable?". The two are completely separate.

[Big Dave]

If there is no rider on the bike there is no locomotion therefore no equation. The equation arises as soon as the rider is added.

The rider is only the catalyst.

[swbarnett]

Not just fun - it will help keep you alive. I have 'what if' scenarios playing in my head all the time when I'm on the bike.
Likewise (and not just on the bike).

[Katman]

The rider is only the catalyst.

And a catayst is something that causes a reaction to happen.

[Big Dave]

Being reasonable is not the be all and end all of accident avoidance. While I agree that the placement of the signs was probably (as I don't know the details) an issue and the rider was not legally culpable, this does not mean that there was nothing they could've done to avoid the accident.

It's about taking responsibility for your own safety. If I come off I ask two questions - the first is "What could I have done to avoid the accident - reasonable or not?" and later, usually when making an insurance claim, "Who was legally culpable?". The two are completely separate.

Short story is the guy got ambushed by roadworks - sued Daniverke council and won.

You reckon the courts judge agin the Govt instruments often?

[Ixion]

Being reasonable is not the be all and end all of accident avoidance. While I agree that the placement of the signs was probably (as I don't know the details) an issue and the rider was not legally culpable, this does not mean that there was nothing they could've done to avoid the accident.

It's about taking responsibility for your own safety. If I come off I ask two questions - the first is "What could I have done to avoid the accident - reasonable or not?" and later, usually when making an insurance claim, "Who was legally culpable?". The two are completely separate.
Reply With Quote

Exactly so. You have hit the nub of the matter.

if I am put into danger because of your actions, I am not going to say "Oh, well, it is your fault not mine, so I will crash , and then sue you". I will do whatever it takes to avoid crashing. If that means letting you get away with what you are not actually entitled to , so be it. Many motorcyclists seem to regard their entitlements as motre important than their lives.

But, if , despite my best endeavours, I do crash, then I will look at who was to blame. YOU were. It is YOUR fault. And I will sue you for every penny you have. But I would much rather not crash in the first place.

[Big Dave]

And a catayst is something that causes a reaction to happen.

No - my chemistry says just faster. The reaction happens anyway.

Edit:
a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.

[Katman]

just faster.

Yes, that's usually the case. :msn-wink:

[swbarnett]

Short story is the guy got ambushed by roadworks - sued Daniverke council and won.

You reckon the courts judge agin the Govt instruments often?
No, and good on them.

I agree that sign posting around road works is sometimes just asking for an accident. I've had it myself where I came around a tight blind corner onto unexpected road works gravel. I managed to stay upright with the rear nearly overtaking the front. Had I come off I would've taken the roading contractor to court for the placement of signs because I believe that they would've been legally culpable. However, that incident taught me to slow my entry into blind corners.

[Big Dave]

Yes, that's usually the case. :msn-wink:

But not the necessarily cause.

Biaggi crashed on a warm up lap.

[Ixion]

No - my chemistry says just faster. The reaction happens anyway.

Edit:
a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.

So, like, a match maker? One of those chicks who introduces dude A to chick B, whereupon A and B spend the next week shagging their eyeballs out, but the matchmaker chick never actually gets laid (ever) .

Known a few of those.

[swbarnett]

No - my chemistry says just faster. The reaction happens anyway.

Edit:
a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
Yes, but the rate without the catalyst can also be zero.

[Big Dave]

All good - I've had enough - be careful out there.

[swbarnett]

- be careful out there.
Nice summation, I think we can all agree on that one.

[jrandom]

Good points made by all in this thread.

My 'hypothetical' situation was, of course, not hypothetical; I binned in precisely that way last Friday night, heading toward Mangakino on Waipapa Road. (Poor Betty didn't come off too well; she's laid up at Chris Mitchell's awaiting the insurance assessor.)

I've been scratching my head ever since, feeling quite ill-at-ease, because at the time it very much felt like there wasn't anything I could have done. The diesel ambushed me and whisked the bike out from under my arse, et cetera.

I don't like feeling like that. Feeling like that means I'm not in control.

Upon reflection, the following points become clear:

- Every bin can and should be a learning experience. I'm not a particularly experienced rider, so learning experiences are to be expected.

- Last year, I highsided in the wet and broke my thumb. Easy lesson to learn - stay on the gas. I made a basic error and chopped the throttle. I spent my recovery time reiterating throttle control mantras to myself, and I've successfully ridden out a number of rear slides since then without any issues.

- When I binned on Friday night, I was riding with care in the wet; I know the limits of my bike's traction on wet roads. I was not expecting a sudden transition on the road to zero traction, though. It took me by surprise, and I simply didn't respond. I just spent the crucial few hundred milliseconds after the bike started to misbehave just continuing my course of braking. I didn't even work out what had happened until I stood up on the road and nearly slipped back onto my arse.

- New lesson: always bear in mind the possibility of zero-traction patches on the road. If you expect to ride over them, when you do, you'll probably handle it. If I'd been thinking 'there could be diesel on the road here', I strongly suspect that I would not have fallen off.

Eleven months since I got my full bike licence, and two important lessons learned (stay on the gas, and always expect sudden zero-traction conditions, particularly at intersections) at the cost of one broken thumb and a few hundred dollars of insurance excess.

Probably about par for the course...

:crazy:

[pritch]

But - not undetectable. You will , if riding with all senses alert , smell diesel long before you can see it.

On my daily commute there is one corner I assume there *will* be diesel. Other places if its dark I'm sniffing the air. In the example given though, open road speed and all, you'd need a nose like a blood hound to pick it up before you hit it.

[jrandom]

In the example given though, open road speed and all, you'd need a nose like a blood hound to pick it up before you hit it.

Actually, if I'd blown straight through the intersection at open road speed, I doubt I'd have fallen off; I'd have had a bit of a wiggle and a slap and been back on a clean surface before I knew it.

I binned because I'd slowed to about 40kph and was trying to turn a right-angle corner on top of the diesel.

It'd have to be a pretty big diesel spill to have the same effect on someone riding at 100kph.

[ManDownUnder]

Can't say it worked that way for me.

:crazy:

I think it should read "your first fatal accident is likely to be your last". ...bringing that journalistic standard back up to where it belongs...

[jrandom]

I think it should read "your first fatal accident is likely to be your last". ...bringing that journalistic standard back up to where it belongs...

Well, I guess that if the majority of motorcyclists who have crashed have only had one crash, that statement is, strictly speaking, correct.

Spin doctors, eh? They'll be first against the wall...

[ManDownUnder]

Well, I guess that if the majority of motorcyclists who have crashed have only had one crash, that statement is, strictly speaking, correct.
I always lived by the rule a motorcyclist will crash 3 times... and THEN be ok on the roads. It seems to hold true although women don't live up to those numbers - they're more like 1 or possibly two.

Mind you - I was 16 at the time...


Spin doctors, eh? They'll be first against the wall... I thought that was the telephone sanitisers...

[nodrog]

Name some.

earthquake ;)

[swbarnett]

I thought that was the telephone sanitisers...
Actually, it was the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.

[avgas]

Ironically enough dead people don't ride motorbikes. So all your arguments are flawed.
Now go outside and run with scissors

[blueblade]

Purely hypothetical situation.

Late night. Dark. Raining. Deep in the boondocks of the west Waikato. A milk tanker goes around a back-road T-junction and slops diesel all over the road.

Over the following hour or so, before the diesel washes off the road, several vehicles turn through the same intersection, coming the other way. The rain and the darkness make the diesel invisible, and it's right on the braking and turning point of the intersection.

In that situation, is a two-wheeled vehicle any more inherently dangerous to its occupant(s) than a four-wheeled one?

Riding at night in the rain has got to be one of the most dangerous situations you can put yourself in as a motorcyclist. I'm not going to say your asking for trouble, sometimes it becomes necessary, but I try to avoid it like the plague.

[jrandom]

Riding at night in the rain has got to be one of the most dangerous situations you can put yourself in as a motorcyclist. I'm not going to say your asking for trouble, sometimes it becomes necessary, but I try to avoid it like the plague.

Personally, I prefer to surmount obstacles rather than just avoid them.

Hence travelling from Auckland to Taupo via back roads in the rain late on a Friday night. Fuck taking SH1. I'd rather ride at full alert, alone in the countryside, than choke on bus and truck fumes for hours in a straight line while religiously keeping my speed under 110.

Of course, sometimes one falls short of the challenge and that philosophy results in a few scrapes and bruises, but on the whole, I think it builds character.

:niceone:

Thank goodness for long-suffering mates with trailers, though, aye?

[blueblade]

I certainly understand where your coming from. Got my own fair share of scars from trying to surmount motorcycling challenges. Just becoming more of a pussy as I get older and the war wounds start hurting as winter comes on

[koba]

If there is no rider on the bike there is no locomotion therefore no equation. The equation arises as soon as the rider is added.

So, to stay safe when riding your bike simply don't move.
The faster you go the bigger the risk and all - perhaps you should just go riding without getting the bike off its stand.
That will drastically reduce the inherent danger of motorcycle transport.

[Edbear]

Then you still see the rainbow. And, in my experience, smell it anyway.

To be sure, bikes are less forgiving. So, don't fuck up.

Yep, I'll agree, if you need to fuck up, go drive a cage.

As Mr Katman says, diesel + motorbike does NOT equal crash. Diesel + motorbike + rider MAY = crash.

So, the variable is the rider. YOU. You are the factor that makes the differnce between crash and no crash.


Diesel + motorbike + velocity MAY = crash.

Irrespective of who is riding. The likelihood diminishes with experience, training etc - but it never disappears.


I disagree.

There are plenty of situations and factors which can never be anticipated.


Well, yes.

But, ROAD + motorbike + velocity MAY = crash. Irrespective of who is riding. The likelihood diminishes with experience, training etc - but it never disappears.

Diesel is just another factor that a biker needs to take into account. It will be there sooner or later, Assume it IS there. Like Enid.

Diesel isn't some 'get out of gaol free' card. "Oh, yeah I crashed. But there was DIESEL". As if "Diesel" was a magical incantation that excused all. It's just like saying " Oh yeah, I crashed. But there was a CORNER".

Just as the wise rider allows for the fact that a corner may turn out to be one of those blasted decreasing radius off camber bumpy bastards, and makes appropriate allowance for it, so the wise rider allows for the fact that a given road surface may have less than optimum adhesion. Won't work every time, to be sure. But diesel isn't an excuse. Just means that you missed a cue. Understandable, we will all sympathise, no one can pick it 100% of the time. But no different to any other crash cause. You, the rider, fucked up. End of story.

Interesting comments! My mate in Whangarei had a low speed spill a month or so ago, came around a corner past a Service Station and low-sided on a diesel spill! He's 52, been riding most of his life and rides about 25,000km per year, (current ride is a C90T), in all weathers. Very experienced, very careful, doesn't take needless risks! Didn't see it!

[Big Dave]

So, to stay safe when riding your bike simply don't move.
That will drastically reduce the inherent danger of motorcycle transport.

Till you get hit by a bus.

[avgas]

Riding at night in the rain has got to be one of the most dangerous situations you can put yourself in as a motorcyclist.
Haha, i actually think the opposite.
But thankfully its thoughts like yours that make thoughts like mine a reality.
F'all people on the roads, all you have to worry about is yourself. Why? because they think "Its too late".
I personally hope it stays that way, as i find the ride nice and calm at night.
Dealing with daytime traffic however is deadly.
I have never crashed in the 7pm - 7am bracket, yet i would say 80% of my riding is then.

[blueblade]

I love riding at night too. Sometimes its almost a spiritual experience. The calm, quiet and no outside distractions but the road directly in front of you. Done the back roads from Taupo to Auckland several times late at night and loved it. Just dont like it in the rain. i struggle with the reduced visibility

[Ryan432]

no matter what they try they will never get the motorcycle statistics to match the car statistics, its just not possible. Its like if I was to try and play rugby for the All Blacks, I would get f*cked up wayy more than the other guys because they are bigger and stronger than me, same goes on the road, the cars are bigger and stronger than us so we get dominated by them. Also the kind of people who ride motorbikes are generally of a more "adventurous" type then normal people so are willing to take a few more risks. As motorcycle riders we are aware of this and instead of telling us how dangerous it is and trying to make us stop they should put their efforts into bringing down the figures in a way that is actually possible, better roads and barriers for instance...

[Str8 Jacket]

Over the last week there has been almost a person killed a day on the road while driving a cage. Anyone else notice this too???

[koba]

Till you get hit by a bus.

Good point but not if you don't venture out of your own garage, but gotta have the motor off to stop "emisions" from killing you and can't do it for too long because of the danger of deep vein thrombosis! And lets not even joke about the very real threat of diabetes and heart disease occuring thru lack of exercise while living in a cottonwool castle....

[clint640]

The fact that motorcycles are 23 times more dangerous than a car on a kilometres travelled basis seems bad until you see the other statistics which say that riding a horse, walking or riding a pushbike is about 10 times (or more) worse than motorbikes by the same measure.

Clint

[scumdog]

Over the last week there has been almost a person killed a day on the road while driving a cage. Anyone else notice this too???

Yeah but there's a lot more cages out there - carrying a lot more passengers than motorbikes do.

[MIXONE]

Fishing is the most dangerous pastime of them all.

[WelshWizard]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/motorcyclists-in-dice-with-death/2008/05/05/1209839518153.html
Motorcyclists are also 40 times more likely to suffer serious injury than car occupants.
Last year 240 motorcycle riders were killed and 5000 admitted to hospital.
The report found many of the fatal accidents occurred on weekends and between the hours of 2pm and 6pm, indicating recreational riding, rather than commuting, was linked to the accidents.
Excessive speed and alcohol were the two biggest causes of fatal motorbike accidents and one in 10 involved a rider not wearing a helmet.


only stat whith any figure is the statement 1 in 10 or 10% where are the full details
and what were the actual fact about the crashes, who caused them were all crashes the fault of the motorcyclist if not what % were?