read the article below then watch the video. the lat 20 seconds show the crash. Once you have been to a fatal bike crash and plaid guess the body part or in my case hunt the head you do get bragging rights over the the idiots who say that it is the car drivers responsibility to watch out for bikes.
http://www . dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192344/Man-catches-best-friends-horror-road-death-camera-race-motorbikes-170mph.html
http://www . realitatea.net/video_818497_un-barbat-din-anglia-si-a-filmat-prietenul-motociclist-in-timp-ce-a-fost-decapitat-intr-un-accident--atentie-imagini-socante_538197.html
By the "nanny state" telling poeple what to do all the time people get so used to having desisions taken for them that they stop thinking for themselves and stop taking reasonable steps to ensure their own safety and that of others and just do what their told like sheep.
Its no use hamering down the road early in the morning with the sun at your back, because hi-viz or not any other road user won't see you, so slow down and give yourself chance to stop, likewise don't overtake if the sun is in your eyes. This applys to cars and bikes.
paganprince and geoffb2005 i will be glad to give you both a intellectual discussion, but it would be over a pint or a bacon butty at a rally or ride out, more fun that way. BTW lads if something was being implemented that you did not agree with would you take it lying down, or would you make a stand for what you believe is right ?
I'll always stand up for what I feel is right and the offer of a chat over a buttie is one I may take you up on Marsey lol.
However, I'll ask a question if I may for anyone to answer as they please.
In highway design, the design engineer has the right to place manhole covers wherever he wishes as part of his design submission. It is my job as a safety auditor to then assess his design, at which point I may chose to tell him to relocate some covers to positions that would not endanger powered two wheelers.
Similarly, he has the right to use whatever form of safety barrier (armco etc) he wishes and so because of costs he decides on tensioned steel wire. I may then chose to tell him to replace this within his design with a form of barrier more friendly towards powered two wheelers.
Now it is his right, as an individual, to either accept my recommendations or to stand up and argue for his rights to do as he pleases within the realms of design standards.
My question is, what do people on this forum think he should do?
Pagan Prince, you're getting off topic. Having seen the video, the bike and rider should have been quite visible since they both had bright colours showing although we didn't see the rider from the front and the bike being a recent model would have had its headlight on - a conspicuity measure of dubious effectiveness in itself. At the time of the accident he was clearly accelerating hard and was probably at just under 100mph from the following bike's speedometer reading. Hence it would not be entirely reasonable to expect the car driver to see him approaching at that speed especially so soon after leaving a roundabout. The earlier part of the film showed that they were consistently travelling at high speeds but this has little relevance to the accident. However, to return to the topic, would a high viz vest have made any difference? I doubt it so what's the point you're making?
As for Geoff's point, I see a trick question here although you're comparing apples with oranges. My answer is that the design engineer should be taking recommendations and judging them on their merits. You will have raised his awareness of how the road design can have a bearing on motorcyclists. Motorcyclists should make similar value judgements with regard to their riding behaviour in the face of recommendations. This is different from legislation requiring riders to adopt measures whose effectiveness have not been proven.
You're absolutely right Cat but do you see my point?
Do I feel that we should be made to wear high vis as a matter of legislation? No, I don't. I think this is taking safety legislation a too far.
But there can be a general attitude amongst bikers to oppose any and every legislative change regardless and this I don't agree with.
So, would I oppose legislation to make us wear high vis in this country. Yes, my main reason being that it creates a precedent that could result in bikers being found at fault in accidents where they clearly should have been seen with high vis or not.
But would I oppose legislation to make us wear "protective" clothing? I guess that would depend on what is classified as "protective", but I certainly wouldn't have an issue if the wearing of shorts and t-shirts was made illegal for example, or the wearing of gloves was to become a legal requirement.
My point therefore is that to oppose simply because we have the right to do so does nothing other than slow down the implementation of measures that are genuinely in our benefit.
And I'm not the only one comparing "apples with oranges" lol! You were the one who compared the constantly differing backgrounds of our roads with the far more plain and constant background of the sky!
You are of course correct regarding your references to the experimental use of bright colours in wartime, but your examples referred to the breaking up of a silhouette of a boat or plane against what is a plain background.
A motorcyclist is a very different beast. As well as their obvious size difference, cars are generally easier to see because they form a single, large clearly defined shape. The undefined silhouette of a bike and rider however, tends to blend in with the myriad of shapes and colours often behind them. A large expanse of a single bright colour therefore creates a defined shape which, hopefully, is a lot easier to make out.
I admit i tend to oppose most 'safety' measure foisted upon us. This is not entirely limited to biking, but to life in general as most of these measures are ill thought out and innappropriate. Rarely do these points address the root cause of any given problem & instead take the form of a plaster to cover a little of the damage & therefore give the appearance of having addressed an issue rather than dig deeper at the expense of time, manpower & understanding that simply isn't available - if the necessary resources can't be thrown at an issue it should be left alone until such time that it can be addressed properly rather than the usual half-arsed manner. this would give less 'solutions' but at least the ones managed would be done properly rather than two or three times the amount hashed up quickly at the expense of many purely to provide some aspiring politician with a pat on the back for affecting statistics in what may be seen by some people as a positive manner.
With regard to the posted accident video, i fail to see the relevance to the issue? Both the car & the bike were at the time making illegal overtaking manouvres, so would be outside of any data gathered to provide safety measures for those using the roads within the parameters used to provide laws or even reccomendations for such.
It's Ok saying Nanny state, but really how many of us don't want to do it just because we're being told we must, and how many don't want it because it's just 'not cool'?
I had this conversation the other day funnily enough with my bloke, he said the good old biking days have gone, and that him and his mates didn't wear helmets, even now he won't don any protective clothing, I think he's a complete Prat. Ok so it was cool back then, but given that some of his mates have missed out on the past 40 years there's no question in my mind, and my bloke suffers everyday from a bad back from a driver who didn't see him. The problem is that if it's left up to us to decide, people will feel 'uncool' doing it, so won't.
If you're doing something that could kill you, and it doesn't really matter whether it's another car or self, because the outcome is the same, then why not do everything in your power to try and stay alive.
I consider myself bike aware, but have been almost rammed by an Idiot biker going way too fast, if one like him hits me is that my fault?
I live in France and the biking roads are great, And people are very considerate of bikers, moving over when they can etc.
I wonder how many riders ride with their lights on ? Is this because they 'Haven't' been told they must so it's ok, Really what's the difference if it saves your life
So ; Is the problem the wearing of one ? OR; Being told to wear one?
I too have never had a real problem with french drivers either Mickey.
I'm pretty sure, you can probably clarify, that solid white lines mean no overtaking, rather than no straddling?? In which case, I could understand drivers getting a little frustrated if bikes were filtering in between them and a solid white.
I like your thinking with the protective gear as well. I've always liked the saying "It doesn't matter how much you're in the right and how much the car driver is in the wrong ... you're the one that ends up in hospital!"
There are some interesting points on here, all of which are valid.
I do not wear hi-vis but I do ride my bike with the lights on. Not wearing a hi-vis is my choice and if forced to wear one then I would.
Regarding the video....whilst speed was a factor, a car did pull out into the path of the biker. Did the driver of the car use his mirrors? And whilst any loss is tragic you have to look at the actions of the biker that was killed prior to the accident... he undertook his mate and closely overtook a car in one move just after exiting a roundabout! Regarding the speed of the camera bike... how many of us have rode at illegal speeds playing 'catch-up' to those that have sped off?
Personally...and I reiterate that this is my own personal opinion, but hi-vis is not relevant especially to the video. Perhaps car drivers should do their CBT in addition to an hour on a bike as part of their test to make them more aware of motorcyclists. As a car driver also, I always double check mirrors and look again at junctions for bikers. I even do life savers before over taking as there are 'blind spots' in a car. Being as the licence for car drivers is being looked at then perhaps this should be considered.
So what do we think people? Compulsory High visibility clothing for Motorcyclists?
My opinion :
Well hey why stop at Motorcyclists , lets insist paint on all cars,vans n lorry's is Dayglo and make pedestrians also wear a High vis bib in case they want to cross the road at a non designated crossing area , what works for one works for another ........
Me , yeah ,my opinion seems extreme , but if you know me you will know I'm Pro Choice, choice in life,control over your own life that is and the way you live it ,I'm passionate about that ,there are far too many rules already. Me , sod high vis vests for motorcyclists.Make other road users be more aware and accountable ,dish out heavy fines/penalties for hitting motorcyclists b it pulling out on us or similar "Oh I did'nt see him/her" should'nt cut it , thats undue care n attention at a minimum..................
Well I ride with my Headlight on.Low beam as so I have read high beam can cause problems be it through dazzling people or (so I read ) on sunny days it can interfere with peoples judgement of your speed. My point anyway is : If my headlight does'nt make people aware of my presence the few inches of a high viz vest along my shoulders that will only show over my screen from the front is not going to make a jot of difference. Educate other road users to be more aware of Motorcyclist,Deny them the "sorry I did'nt see you" defence and impose stiff fines and points for people pulling out on Bikes through not paying attention.If it's gonna impact on peoples pockets (fines/points/higher insurance premiums) other drivers will become more vigilant. Pressure should be put on people by making hitting a bike as anti social as Drink Driving . If I really thought it would make my rides safer I would wear one of my own volition,I don't need or want to be told I have to .
This vid has been doing the rounds on Facebook as well justme.
My opinion? The copper should never have put himself there.
Yes, the cars behind the truck were a bit dozy and clearly far too close to each other, but if you park your bike across a lane in the dual carriageway then you're asking for trouble.
Incidentally, from the point where the car behind the truck moves out of the way, the car that hit the copper had around four seconds and about 40-60m to deal with the situation. He would have needed about 100m to stop (presuming he was travelling at around 56mph given he was following a truck).
With another car coming up on the outside he wouldn't have wanted to move out as he had nowhere to go. He should have aimed for the hard shoulder, but that could have put him in conflict with the other bikes and the ambulance!
My gut feeling is he/she saw the bike, but given the limited time he/she had and the fact there was another car coming up in the next lane and two cars right behind, he/she panicked.
Ok, if he/she had been travelling with a good distance between themselves and the car in front they'd have more time to see the copper and react.
But as I said above, the copper shouldn't have been there. He should have moved into the lane and ridden up it, albeit slowly.
![French riders to be forced to wear dayglo vests (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![French riders to be forced to wear dayglo vests (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
