compulsory insurance for cyclists in the media

[Mike Causer]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:54:40 +0000, Tim Woodall wrote:

> I've never riden a motorbike but I think "lay the bike down" is something
> that is done when a collision is inevitable.

There is a nasty period in getting a motorbike up to speed where if you
change your mind about what you need to do you can very easily "drop it".
It exists for bicycles too because the geometric/dynamic considerations of
steering are the same, but the mass of a bicycle is so much lower it's
easier to deal with.

The result is that if you get "wrong-footed" on a motorbike just as you
move off you'll have a low-speed tumble. Rather like the dreaded
"clipless moment". Every fall I've had on a motorbike, with one exception
on ice, has been at low speed due to changing my mind. I suspect this is
what happened here. For the record, I currently own motorbikes of
nominally 500cc, 660cc, and 750cc, the last of which is of similar
performance to a 995cc Triumph.



> I think the idea is to try to put the motorbike (and your legs) between
> you and whatever you are going to hit.

Hmmm, I'd put this as serendipity, or wishful thinking. When you go down
on a two-wheel vehicle there really isn't enough time, unless you're
Valentino Rossi, Mike Hailwood, etc. In a 4 wheeler there's more of a
chance, unless you hit an oil-patch.



Mike

 

[Tim Woodall]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:10:21 +0100,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tim Woodall wrote on 24/10/2006 22:54 +0100:
>> On 24 Oct 2006 07:49:44 -0700,
>> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The accident sounds highly dubious to me, he "lay the bike down" to
>>> avoid a collsion? Yeah, right!
>>>
>> I've never riden a motorbike but I think "lay the bike down" is
>> something that is done when a collision is inevitable.
>>
>
> But usually when a collision cannot be avoided with something that will
> hurt. Since he didn't hit the pedestrian with the bike laid down he
> would have fared much much better using the bike's brakes to stop even
> quicker. And if you can stop before you hit something you brake, not
> lay the bike down as it takes much longer to stop on its side than on
> its tyres.
>
Yes. I've reread spindrifts post and I may have misunderstood his
thinking.

I read it as "lay it down" was something that motorcyclists didn't try
to do when it all goes horribly wrong while I think now he was saying
that no motorcyclist would "lay it down" when they were about to hit a
bicycle or pedestrian.

Also, my little knowledge of motorcycles has come about from living next
door to some motorbike racers (on a track I hasten to add). As one of
them said to me once, "nothing else really hurts once you've crashed at
180mph[1]" and I would assume they are much more skilled, knowledgeable and
able than the average motorcyclist on the road.

Tim.

[1] This was a long time ago and I might be misremembering. It was a lot
more than 100mph though and less than 200mph

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Tim Woodall wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:10:21 +0100,
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Tim Woodall wrote on 24/10/2006 22:54 +0100:
>>> On 24 Oct 2006 07:49:44 -0700,
>>> spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> The accident sounds highly dubious to me, he "lay the bike down" to
>>>> avoid a collsion? Yeah, right!
>>>>
>>> I've never riden a motorbike but I think "lay the bike down" is
>>> something that is done when a collision is inevitable.
>>>
>>
>> But usually when a collision cannot be avoided with something that
>> will hurt. Since he didn't hit the pedestrian with the bike laid
>> down he would have fared much much better using the bike's brakes to
>> stop even quicker. And if you can stop before you hit something you
>> brake, not lay the bike down as it takes much longer to stop on its
>> side than on its tyres.

Agreed. You stop motorcycles by keeping the tyres on the road, and the bike
vertically above. Anything else gives longer stopping distances.


>>
> Yes. I've reread spindrifts post and I may have misunderstood his
> thinking.

I can give a possible explanation to the events reported. Doesn't resolve
who was to blame (inattention vs. jaywalker?), but makes some sense of what
was said.

If the motorcycle was going round a corner (accident at junction), then
applying the front brake hard (the one which stops a motorcycle quickly),
combined with trying to change direction, could easily result in dropping
the bike.



- Nigel (passed the current "tough" DAS motorcycle test)


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Mike Causer]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 22:47:44 +0000, Tim Woodall wrote:

> Also, my little knowledge of motorcycles has come about from living next
> door to some motorbike racers (on a track I hasten to add). As one of them
> said to me once, "nothing else really hurts once you've crashed at
> 180mph[1]"

I have a friend who's done that. I've visited him in hospital, seen his
X-rays, and looked at the remains of the bike wondering "how did you get
your foot into /there/ to grind it down into the bone?"


> and I would assume they are much more skilled, knowledgeable
> and able than the average motorcyclist on the road.

Maybe, but travelling a /lot/ faster. My aforementioned friend
doesn't ride on the road any longer. He thinks it's "dangerous".


Mike

 

[Tony Raven]

Nigel Cliffe wrote on 25/10/2006 00:23 +0100:
>
> Agreed. You stop motorcycles by keeping the tyres on the road, and the bike
> vertically above. Anything else gives longer stopping distances.
>

ITYM tyre. As with bicycles, the rear wheel does very little if you are
braking very hard

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[lardyninja]

Tim Woodall wrote:
> nice letter but a couple of points.
>
> Firstly you have a lot of break/brake errors. I think that every time
> you've used break you mean brake. (you do get it right some of the time
> as well.)
>


Nah Sniper's spelling is just fine. When he uses 'break' to mean
'brake' he's quoting from the article itself which was published with
this smelling pistake.

LN

 

[David Lloyd]

"Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If the motorcycle was going round a corner (accident at junction), then
> applying the front brake hard (the one which stops a motorcycle quickly),
> combined with trying to change direction, could easily result in dropping
> the bike.
>
It also consitutes not being able to stop in the distance that you can see
to be clear, ie if this was the case then the motorcyclist was going too
fast for the conditions anyway.

--
David Lloyd,
The pub is responsible for my opinions.

 

[Jan Wysocki]

On 2006-10-25, David Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Nigel Cliffe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If the motorcycle was going round a corner (accident at junction), then
>> applying the front brake hard (the one which stops a motorcycle quickly),
>> combined with trying to change direction, could easily result in dropping
>> the bike.
>>
> It also consitutes not being able to stop in the distance that you can see
> to be clear, ie if this was the case then the motorcyclist was going too
> fast for the conditions anyway.
>

Well, since I commute to the Cambridge area, mostly by motorcycle because
"One" railways can't get me and my bike there fast or reliably enough,
I've written to the paper:

======================================================================
I'm a motorcyclist who averages in excess of 10,000 miles per year.
As a vehicle user I have a duty to avoid pedestrians. This pedestrian
would have been visible approaching the kerb and it's hardly unusual
for pedestrians to make a last moment rush across. The only way to
ride safely is by assuming that every other road user may be about to
do something hazardous. By his own admission, Mr Relph wasn't "knocked
off his machine". It appears that he failed to observe the potential
for collision and fell off by inappropriate use of his brakes.

I'm also a keen cyclist and pedestrian. Like many I already have third
party cover through my household insurance. I buy extra cover and legal
services by belonging to the CTC as well. Since Mr. Relph is unable to
identify the cyclist, it's hard to see what relevance taxing, training
or testing would have. Insurance wouldn't prevent his injuries and
passing a driving test doesn't stop motorists from contravening many laws.

In over 40 years of motorcycling, I've fallen off and hurt myself once and
freely admit that that was entirely my own fault. At the time I probably
had a little rant about the state of the road. I hope that Mr. Relph's
injuries heal swiftly and that he'll reconsider when his anger subsides.
======================================================================

It will be intersting to see how the cycle tolerant citizens of Cambridge react
through the letters page.

ObCycle: well at least I can say that I rode my bicycle today, even though
I had to be at Norwich station by 6:25, to get to work at 8:35!

--
Jan

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Alan Braggins wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Tony Raven wrote:
>>
>>As the rider here described his bike as "careering along the road" do
>>you think he fits that description?
>
>No, and given that he dropped it, the "careering" description seems more
>likely than his "I set off slowly" description.

Actually having seen MikeC's comments on low speed stability, I'm having
second thoughts about that. Maybe he really was setting off slowly, but
thought "I was going really slowly and dropped it when I had to brake
suddenly" sounded more embarrassing than "I had to put it down to stop
it careering along the road".

 

[Just Visiting]

"Anthony Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf
>
> Summary:
>
> Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be pushing a
> bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise care in the
> presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance for cyclists,
> because after all "They don't pay road tax or insurance, need an MOT, or
> even have to pass a test".
>
> They are asking for feedback to [email protected], and there's
> an "online poll" on the page.
>
> Anthony

Oh dear. I don't The Cambridge Evening News likes cyclists all that much.
Not only do they not post any of the letters responding to the lunatic
biker's fiction, but they also post the "Beyond the Law" thing, of which the
best thing I can say is that it's a little exaggerated.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/letters/home.lpf

Possible that a cyclist ran over the editor's puppy when he, the editor that
is, was at a formative age?

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
Just Visiting <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Anthony Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf
> >
> > Summary:
> >
> > Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be pushing a
> > bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise care in the
> > presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance for cyclists,
> > because after all "They don't pay road tax or insurance, need an MOT, or
> > even have to pass a test".
> >
> > They are asking for feedback to [email protected], and there's
> > an "online poll" on the page.
> >
> > Anthony
>
> Oh dear. I don't The Cambridge Evening News likes cyclists all that much.
> Not only do they not post any of the letters responding to the lunatic
> biker's fiction, but they also post the "Beyond the Law" thing, of which the
> best thing I can say is that it's a little exaggerated.
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/letters/home.lpf
>
> Possible that a cyclist ran over the editor's puppy when he, the editor that
> is, was at a formative age?
>
>
That might not be the only unfortunate experience he had:

Online Poll

Would you let your child learn the recorder from a book written by a
convicted paedophile?

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Just Visiting wrote:
> "Anthony Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/10/24/274af226-86f8-4659-8ae2-987d504858d9.lpf
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> Motorcyclist is "knocked off" by a pedestrian who happens to be
>> pushing a bike. Obviously the solution to this is not to exercise
>> care in the presence of pedestrians, but rather compulsory insurance
>> for cyclists, because after all "They don't pay road tax or
>> insurance, need an MOT, or even have to pass a test".
>>
>> They are asking for feedback to [email protected], and
>> there's an "online poll" on the page.
>>
>> Anthony
>
> Oh dear. I don't The Cambridge Evening News likes cyclists all that
> much. Not only do they not post any of the letters responding to the
> lunatic biker's fiction, but they also post the "Beyond the Law"
> thing, of which the best thing I can say is that it's a little
> exaggerated.
>
> http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/letters/home.lpf
>
> Possible that a cyclist ran over the editor's puppy when he, the
> editor that is, was at a formative age?

Cambridge has for years had issues over cyclists. Its part of the town-gown
issue which goes back a few hundred years. Whether or not the cyclists are
students is not the issue, they can be characterised as students causing
problems for the residents.

The parking of bikes near the station was a problem when I was a student,
over 20 years ago. As were the complaints of cyclists running red lights,
wrong way along one-way streets, ignoring pedestrian areas, etc.


- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/