Allan Kirk's at it again, this time its the older rider's fault!

[chubby]

Just to add content to this discussion here is a rather wordy and lengthy commentary on mototbike accidents as represented in overseas studies:

The summary of this (if you can't be bothered reading the whole thing) is not that reaction time is not there, not that anyone is mentally ill but speed in the wrong place, speed without judgement, speed without skill can and does (note this is not reaction but getting into the wrong position at the wrong speed). In the studies 40.2% of all serious accidents happened as bikers tried to negotiate corners.


There are a number of myths about motorcycle accidents. Some are used by safety authorities to justify more legislation. Others are used by riders to excuse their actions.



Power Output

If you are a member of either the BMF or MAG, or just interested in motorcycle politics, you'll know that the EC and various member governments have had serious concerns about power and motorcycle accidents.

Motorcycle manufacturers are slowly waking up to the fact that there has been a change of approach by road safety campaigners, and that vehicles capable of such high speeds are being targeted as socially unacceptable, and possible solutions include compulsory bhp limits and speed restrictors.

Limiting speed of traffic has been on the agenda in the UK for months, and Dutch and German governments have shown concern over recent high performance models. Euro-wide plans for a power limit have been around in one form or another for ten years. Some countries have had power restrictions in place for years. Since 1984 French bikes have been restricted to 98 bhp and Swiss riders have to make do with 85 bhp.

A 125 bhp "gentleman's agreement" in the UK was scuppered, ironically enough, by Triumph when they released their 143 bhp Daytona 1200, and since then the power race has been on, and speeds have climbed to match, to the point where the Hayabusa and ZX12-R are nudging the 200 mph barrier. The result of concerns in the UK is that the Big Four Japanese manufacturers have put in place a voluntary speed limit of 186mph on their most powerful models.

Power limits are generally justified on the grounds that power equates directly to speed, and that speed causes accidents. The mid 90s Martin Bangemann-inspired 100 hp limit was only ditched by the EC when the research on which it was based was shown to be flawed. More recently a Dutch safety study into motorcycle accidents found no link between accidents and bikes of 100 hp or more and clearly showed that power is not an issue in motorcycle accidents. The study, which was carried out by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, included a survey of existing reports, as well as evidence from the Dutch police.

Existing reports clearly showed that the major factors in accident risk were not engine power, but the motorcyclists themselves

age
experience
attitude
alcohol
and the accident circumstances

type and condition of the road
location
weather etc.
Evidence from the Dutch police accident investigators showed that high speed and taking risks was also a significant factor :

losing control on a bend
other road users wrongly estimating speed
reckless riding
Even there though, there was no evidence that more than 100bhp was being used at the time.

Part 2 to follow

[chubby]

Part 2

Accident Statistics

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) figures published in February 1999 show that in 1998 there were:

24,969 Injury Accidents Involving Motorcycles
498 Motorcyclist Deaths
5,944 Serious Injuries
18,168 Slight Injuries
Motorcycle riders and passengers accounted for 15% of those killed or seriously injured in 1998, but powered two wheeler traffic represented less than 1% of all road traffic.

There were 17,422 two vehicle accidents involving motorcycles in 1998 and 5,529 single vehicle accidents. Of the single vehicle accidents, 1,446 involved one or more pedestrians; in these accidents there were 1,490 pedestrians hit, of whom 29 were killed and 344 seriously injured.

On built-up roads, over three quarters of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and almost a half at T or Y junctions. By comparison, on non built-up roads, less than a half of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and just under a fifth at T or Y junctions.

The motorcyclist casualty rate was higher on built-up than non built-up roads. Less than half of motorcycle traffic was on built-up roads, which accounted for 72% of casualties. The lowest casualty rate was on motorways. However, the proportion of accidents involving serious injury was higher on non-built up roads and motorways, reflecting the higher speeds on these roads.

London had the highest rate of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured in road accidents but was only slightly higher than that for Scotland as a whole, but twice that of the South West region which had the lowest rate. London had the highest rate and the North East had the lowest rate for all severities of casualty.

Per registered motorcycle, Great Britain had a high death rate in comparison with other countries. Ireland had the highest and Japan the lowest. Britain's death rate of 6.8 per 10,000 licensed motorcycles is about eight times that of the Czech Republic, with the lowest rate.



When accidents occur

The average daily casualty count was higher during the week than at the weekend, with Fridays having the most casualties in 1998. However, the proportion of casualties killed or seriously injured was higher at the weekend, at 32% compared with 24% during the week.

There is a marked difference between the proportion of motorcyclist casualties injured during summer and winter, whilst there is much less seasonal variation in all road user casualties. The highest percentage of casualties occurred in August for motorcyclists and in November for all road users.



Who causes accidents?

Riders have long taken (cold) comfort in the findings of the Booth Report (1987) which, looking at accidents in urban areas, concluded that car drivers were at fault in two thirds of accidents involving motorcycles. Equally, high casualty rates amongst the under 25's were often put down to youth and lack of experience.

The DETR figures show that accidents involving a motorcycle and another vehicle still account for 2/3rds of all motorcycle accidents. However, they also show that single vehicle accidents with no pedestrians or other road users involved accounted for 18% of all motorcycle accidents resulting in injury. This compares with 14% for cars and 7% for goods vehicles.

However, an in-depth analysis of accidents in Cheshire between 1 April 1998 and 31 October 1998 reported in Street Biker (Feb-Mar 2000), the MAG newspaper. John Moss MBE, Chief Road Safety Officer for Cheshire (and MAG member) revealed that fully 67% of all the crashes studied were due to rider error and that the traditional view that most motorcycle accidents are down to blind Volvo drivers is badly flawed.

Let's look at the bald statistics:

lost control on right hand bend - 16.7%
lost control on left hand bend - 13.7%
right turning vehicle hit by overtaking motorcycle - 12.7%
motorcycle hit by emerging vehicle at junction - 9.8%
motorcycle collides with rear of stationary vehicle at junction - 7.8%
fell off - 6.9%
collisions on roundabouts - 6.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on l/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 5.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on r/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 3.9%
motorcycle collides with vehicle turning right across its path - 7.8%
stationary motorcycle hit from behind - 5.9%
others - 2.0%
Sports bikes were involved in 43% of these accidents and the 26-40 age group in an overwhelming 55.3%. The supposedly high risk group of under 25's accounted for 23.6%. Not unexpectedly in a survey area which includes the infamous "Cat & Fiddle" over 50% of riders lived outside the survey area.



How can we interpret these figures?

The fact that London dominates the casualty list is hardly surprising. The population of London is something like 6 million, around 10% of the entire population of the UK. In addition, several million drivers and riders more commute into and out of London. Traffic density is high over a very large area. What is rather more of a surprise is that Scotland was only slightly lower. What is not clear is whether the casualties are concentrated in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas or whether rural accidents make a significant contribution.

Neither is it surprising that over three quarter of motorcycle accidents and just under three quarters of injuries occurred at junctions. If you hit a car, even at twenty miles per hour speed you are likely to be injured.

What is not so clear until you look at the figures more closely is that the DETR figures show that accidents out of town occur at higher speeds and result in more serious injury, even though the figures for in-town accidents appear to dominate the statistics. The problem is one of interpretation. Lumping together serious and fatal injuries is misleading and many serious injuries are not necessarily life threatening. As I understand it a broken finger requiring medical treatment would be considered a serious injury and relatively minor injuries of this kind are much more likely to occur when you ride a bike and are involved in a minor accident than if you drive a car.

The way the figures for serious injury and fatalities are taken together tends to disguise the consequences of rural accidents. Earlier statistics from 1994 show that 50% of all fatalities occur out of town.

Although single vehicle accidents account for slightly less than 1/5th of all motorcycle accidents according to DETR figures, these accidents usually occur outside town and at higher speeds and lead to more serious injury. This is borne out by the higher proportion of serious injuries and fatalities occurring at weekends and in the middle of the summer, which implicates recreational riders rather than workday commuters.

So who is at fault for rural accidents? A common factor between Californian, Dutch and UK research into motorcycle accidents is that many could have been avoided it the motorcyclist had the rider shown more awareness of potential danger, been more visible or had been capable of braking, steering or cornering properly. Alcohol, experience, attitude, high speed and risk taking were other contributory factors, as were the type and state of the road and weather conditions.

The Dutch study in particular showed that losing control in bends was a significant factor. The Cheshire figures show that accidents involving misjudging bends make up 40% of accidents in rural areas. The fatality rate for these kind of accidents is high. This was made clear in our local IAM magazine a couple of years ago when a serving police officer revealed that out of twelve riders killed in Kent in a year, eleven lost control on bends. The Dutch study also found that many of the accidents investigated would have been less serious, or avoided altogether, if the rider had been able to make an emergency stop.

Other more recent statistics than the DETR report showed that there has been a shift in location of accidents from urban to rural environments and that the peak age for accidents has moved away from young to "born again" riders.

[chubby]

Ok even a part 3

The Cheshire report should shake the traditionally-held view that bikers are usually the innocent victims of car drivers, which the DETR figures appear at first glance to support, or that only young riders are at risk. The reduction in accident rates amongst youngsters resulting from Compulsory Basic Training is well documented, and these figures highlight that the 25-40 age group of riders who largely predate the widespread emergence of training schools and would have been mostly self-taught are very much at risk too.

Mr. Moss goes on to consider what conclusions can be drawn from the research. He says:

"Consideration of the various factors relating to rural motorcycle crashes leads unerringly to the conclusion that riders are failing to ride their machines within their personal capabilities even though the bike itself may have been well within its performance envelope at the time of the crash. The vast majority of the "bend" crashes had clues which indicated that the riders had either braked or shut their throttles mid-bend, resulting in understeer crashes. In the crashes where right turning vehicles were hit by overtaking motorcyclists, it seemed that the rider should have foreseen the likelihood of the turning movement e.g. garage forecourt, side road etc.."

Look at the figures. 20.5% of the accidents, the total of bikes hitting cars turning right or hitting them from behind, can be largely attributed to poor observation and anticipation, probably made worse by excess speed, and in my opinion this is not entirely unexpected.

However, the fact that 40.2% of the accidents occurred when riders either lost control in, or ran wide in bends is chilling and far worse than I thought. Bend-swinging is so fundamental to our enjoyment of the sport that we take it for granted. Now it seems that we have to think again. As well as a lack of the observation and judgement skills we need to ride safely, it also betrays that most riders lack a fundamental lack of understanding of the way a motorcycle steers and behaves in a corner.

Mr. Moss recognises that whilst police enforcement of existing traffic laws is important in restricting the activities of a "lunatic fringe" of riders who flout deliberately regulations, it cannot by itself tackle the underlying problem of lack of skill, and cites the North Yorkshire BikeSafe 2000 initiative as kind of mix of enforcement, education and encouragement that police forces across the country should be pursuing. However, he rightly points out that it places heavy demand on police manpower so that its impact is not as widespread as would be desirable, and indicated that some forces have declined to join the scheme as they "do not have a problem", even though their riders may be crashing on another county's roads.

He goes on to say "there is a countywide need to equip riders with the skills needed for them to avoid or minimise crashes caused by their shortcomings in machine control, otherwise increased machine sales will be reflected in a parallel increase in casualties" and points out the valuable role that the IAM, RoSPA and commercial advanced riding schools have to play in rider training.



Conclusion

So, research shows that claims that power causes accidents is flawed. But so is the traditional motorcyclist's view that it is blind Volvo drivers that kill motorcyclists.

Riding experts like the IAM agree that speed and power alone don't kill. Speed in the wrong place, speed without judgement, speed without skill can and does.

The evidence also pinpoints the sad fact that a lot of us can't manage to negotiate corners without falling off or hitting oncoming vehicles, and when we get it wrong, the result is often very bad indeed. The message John Moss is giving is that it is down to us as riders to put our house in order. As a member of MAG, he can hardly be classed as a killjoy or a scaremongerer. "Get trained and improve your riding skills" he says. With the proper skills you can have fun, but be safe at the same time.

[chubby]

Sorry that was so long and I realise that this study was put out some 8 years ago even if the facts were of a few years earlier.

As i see it, its our own abilities and judgements that put us in danger most of the time. Older people are getting involved in more crashes because there are more older riders returning to bikes and their training is largely by the seat of their pants and not by experianced trainers. It's not their reaction timing that is causing accidents but their skill level. ACC have recognised this and are getting ready to pump money into rider education and the costs of training should drop very soon.

[Katman]

I can't believe there's so many on here who can't comprehend what the article is trying to say.

It is not aimed at the Ixions and the Motus etc. who have been riding all the time. It is suggesting that many older riders are jumping on a bike, after a 30 years absence, that bears little resemblance to the dinosaurs they were used to riding. It is these riders that need to take the time and effort to retrain themselves.

Too many just have the attitude "well I rode when I was a teenager and you never forget how to ride a bike".

(Thanks to riffer, chubby, and the others who have managed to show some degree of comprehension.)

[Waxxa]

The article does have some merit, though I dont totally agree with it. If you havent been riding for a long time or only ride occassionally then surely this equates to a rider with 'limited' or at least an uncomfortable riding ability.

Being an older person may mean your reflexes are slower than that of a younger person. Does the maturity, attitude of the older person and learned road skills (either bike, car, truck driving experience) cancel out slightly slower reflexes (like how much slower are we talking about here)?

[Katman]

The problem is with the ones who are lulled into a 'false sense of security' due to the fact that they "already know how to ride". Speedy reflexes can be regained if sufficient attention is paid to retraining oneself.

[Motu]

Are you saying that even the most experienced and restrained also suffer from the same lapses of red-bloodedness?

I was thinking it would be something I'd eventually grow out of. Or is it that some bikes are just too much for nearly any rider?

I think my age and experience would preclude any testosterone episodes,but I think if I pushed the envelope ''because I can'',then if a random incident occurred I'd be going just a bit too fast to make a good save.I've always been one to push a slow bike fast,than to deal with something faster than I am.I think the riders we are talking about feel a bit euphoric,the bike just feels so damn fast,handles so well,that....y'know.....

I remember in my dim and distant past coming off on a corner,and my mate who was behind saying - ''WTF were you thinking? There was no way you could of taken that corner so fast!'' I just shrugged my shoulders and said ''It felt pretty good to me....'' I think that's why young and old crash.....they think they are better riders than they are.

[Sanx]

The time for the actual reflex action (the "snatch hand away when it meets something sharp" action) is very small indeed compared with the "process inputs and figure out appropriate reaction " time.

It's reaction time that counts, not reflex time. As as Mr Motu says, that is probably faster in older riders , simply because experiences burns in the neural pathways.

At the risk of insulting the older riders in this forum, Ixion's statement above is patently false. An experienced rider may well have better anticipation and judgement than a younger less-experienced rider, but both relfexes and reactions will be slower. The best way to avoid being injured in a situation where reflexes and reactions are vital is simply to avoid being in such situations altogether.

Quite a few years ago, Jeremy Clarkson made a comment, whilst talking about older motorists, that an average 70 year-old would have worse reactions than an 18 year-old after three pints. He had absolutely no scientific proof behind this statement; he was just shooting off as usual. MaxPower magazine in the UK (kinda like Performance Car magazine, but with more breasts) seized upon this and set up a test, with the help of some professional researcher who specialised in this area, to see if it was true. So they got three 18 year-old lads and three 70-olds and measured their anticipation and reactions in a driving scenario. They then fed the 18 year-olds 6 standard drinks (a pint being two), waited an hour for the effets to kick in properly and re-ran the test. And yes, the 18 year-olds' reactions were still better, but their anticipation and judgement suffered.

[awayatc]

I've noticed, BTW , that my riding is noticable detrimentally affected by as little as a week not riding. Not anything an outsider would notice , but after a week either caging (as in on holiday) or not out at all (as in sick), when I return the fine edge is slightly dulled. I notice hazards a fraction more slowly , my concentration is just slightly down , fine for a a cage, but as we all know, what's adequate for a cage will have you sliding down the road on a bike.

So, agreed, coming back after years would require a lengthy rebraining process.

By the same token, I wonder if those who only ride once a week ever get out of the trough ? Can you really be a safe rider if you only ride once in a while?

But Mr Kirk is still a Jerk.

Thanks for that Ixion.....I was blaming a few things on " growing old" alone.....but after reading this post I feel rejuvinated: Not only have I been away from bikes for quite a while, I am also still away from terra firma at least half off my life.....(no bike, no car,not even a road...)

So I have been given some valid explanations (read excuses) for being " slightly dulled".

Being aware of ones limitations however should be of great help in growing even older on the road....And to me it sounds like that is all that's being said.

The only alternative to growing old is dying young.....

[JMemonic]

To me it sounds like this guy is paraphrasing the recent transport ministers announcement to the same effect and promoting his business which if I read the article correctly is motorcycle training. Simply he is touting for business, someone needs to inform the said paper, perhaps several someone's, that whilst he is indeed a training provider he is in no way original in his thinking and that is typically reactionary to others information. Also add that he is not thought highly off in the motorcycling community if that is the case.

Now to the valid points 10 years plus off a bike and I still hold a full licence, yep it was a bit of re learning those old skills but they were there just needed to be remembered, yes my reactions are a bit slower than they used to be but I think I am wiser now so that is not so much of a factor. The first bike I jumped on was a GS 500 not exactly a rocket ship and I ride every opportunity I get, perhaps that is the difference some of these guys only did ride that 50cc scooter to and from work and are now getting that Harley (I know one who bought the bike then got the licence, fast tracked at that), perhaps there is a need for folks to have a bit of retraining but would the same not apply to cars? Perhaps someone living overseas who has not driven in 5-10 years would need the same retraining or a politician who has been chaffered everywhere and not driven.

Where does one draw the line at how long a person has not been using a particular class of vehicle before they need retraining in its usage? And how do you decide that figure? After all we are all different in our mental capability's and learning speeds.

In short if this Kirk fellow reads this, instead of coming up with others ideas, already in the public domain, (perhaps you advised the transport minister and this is your idea, I shudder if that is the case), come up with some original ideas then practical solutions, if your cant solve the problem then well you are just part of the problem. I guess seeing your name in print gives you pleasure but its there for the wrong reasons.

[Katman]

If he's touting for business - good on him.

There's certainly a need for an improvement in our riding skills, our situational awareness and our attitudes.

[Skyryder]

I have not read much on this thread and even less on the reports posted.

Would be interesting to know if the 'older' riders came to greif on group rides or riding solo.

I have a gut feeling that ego and riding above your comfort level just to keep up with the bunch may have more to do with the higher stats for older riders than anything else.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The problem is with the ones who are lulled into a 'false sense of security' due to the fact that they "already know how to ride". Speedy reflexes can be regained if sufficient attention is paid to retraining oneself.

They will never be the same as in their youth.

The main issue as I see it is not riding skill or lack of it. They are still reading the road as they do in a cage. It takes time to make the adjustments necessary to read the road from a bike.

Skyryder

[JMemonic]

If he's touting for business - good on him.

There's certainly a need for an improvement in our riding skills, our situational awareness and our attitudes.

Well perhaps you might want to go and attend one of his courses then, you can write up a report on whether you felt it was of benefit or would be to the returning rider.

Using the national media and jumping on the back of what is already out in the public domain from the transport minister makes him nether original or necessarily competent to give advise. And to do so in a manner that promotes your business interests is whilst maintaining you are some super expert well...

I think you have missed the point of my post, you appear to be all for taking personal responsibility for ones own actions, as to the need for an improvement in riding skills well that is a learning curve or were you absolutely perfect the first day you hoped on a bike, a rare if not imposable event, and I guess you have never done anything that you thought whoops that was a bit silly (or words to that effect), if you have not then I guess you must ride at minimum speeds everywhere you go what 10 Km/h ?

As to the responsibility for our own actions, yep true but not everything that happens out in the big wide world that affects us is because of our own actions, that crazy drunk driver that pulled out of the pub car park and killed folks was what the dead folks own actions, the tourists getting stabbed in Christchurch was what their own actions for being out after 23:00.

As to attitudes well some need theirs adjusted, but you or I are not the ones to do it, only they can and well some wont cause the don't give a stuff, some might say you need your attitude adjusted hell folks say I need mine adjusted.