cycling is a very dangerous sport...



B

Bleve

Guest
EuanB wrote:

> The Real Andy Wrote:
> >
> > My opinion, let the flames begin.
> >

> Nah, you haven't brought up helmets.
>
>
> > Scooters use the road and are hated by car drivers.
> > Bike riders use the road and are hated by car drivers.

> I'm a car driver. I don't hate anyone.
>
> I'm a cyclist. I share the road.
>
> Can't comment on scooters, never needed one.


10 points for a razor scooter, double if it's not a kid
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:02:51 GMT
> Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > What makes a motorcycle more dangerous than a bicycle is the speed at
> > which everything happens. Where motorcycle fatalities are concerned the
> > most common factor is speed.

>
> Single user can be, although there's a lot of argument about the way
> the numbers are tallied. For example in NSW there's no way to say
> "road surface" and if there's no other vehicle or witness they tick
> the speed box.


When I was learning to ride a motorcycle, my instructor taught me that
'road surface' was never a cause of a crash. It was failure to ride to
the conditions that caused that class of crash, and that if I wanted to
make excuses for crashes, rather than taking responsibility for my
riding, I'd end up dead or worse.

I kinda go along with that ... there are 'hit by lightening' crashes,
but they're (IMO) extremely rare, and almost every crash involves some
failure of the (motor/bicyclist) to ride appropriately. This is not to
say that the rider is 'at fault', but that we can ride in such a way as
to very significantly reduce the chances we have of being involved in
crashes. The lipservice paid to defensive road skills by car drivers
(generally) is not good enough to keep us out of hospitals and morgues,
we need to be a lot more careful, as we're not armour plated. This
isn't news to anyone who's ridden for a few months (regularly) but
knowing good road sense/defensive tactics is all too rare, even amongst
those of us who are most vulnerable and have the most to lose if we get
it wrong.

> multi vehicle crashes in urban areas, no. What kills motorcycle riders
> in those is the same as kills cyclists - being hit by a car and either
> crush from that, or hitting road/kerb/furniture.


Or hitting a car. Sometimes, we (motor/bicyclists) are not perfectly
defensive road users.
 
B

Bleve

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> On Nov 29, 3:17 pm, "Bugbear.1973" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Whenever I see a motorcyclist (and from my experience, about 75% are
> > guilty of this) wearing thongs, sandals, sneakers, shorts, t-shirts or
> > no gloves (basically getting about without adequate safety gear on) I
> > think "there goes someone with a death wish".

>
> When in fact you should think "There goes someone who is prepared to
> accept the consequences of their actions."


In some cases, in other cases, there goes an idiot. It's not always
possible to tell the difference until it's too late. The clowns doing
wheelies through city intersections at 80km/h+ in shorts, thongs and
singlets on 900cc+ sports bikes possibly fall into the second category
:) I remember spending a Friday night in A&E and being told by one of
these (presumably) fools that he was never riding a motorbike again,
they're far too dangerous. The dangerous thing was not the bike, it
was the nut connecting the seat to the handlebars.

I ride my motorcycle and
> scooter in shorts, t-shirt and sneakers from time to time in summer,
> it's my choice. I know I'm in for a serious dose of road rash if I
> come off, but that's my problem. Denim lasts aproximately 1/2 a second
> on bitumen anyway and I don't own leather pants, nor would I wear them
> for around town trips in summer time if I did.


Kevlar lined jeans are a good compromise. I have a pair and have
tested them, they work.


>
> I feel safer on my motorcycle/scooter at 50kph wearing a full face
> helmet and leather gloves than I do on my bicycle at the same speed
> wearing a glorified styrofoam esky on my head and no gloves (all other
> clothing being equal). No amount of saftey equipment will compensate
> for an absence of situational awareness while riding in any case.


That's very true.
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-11-29, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> EuanB wrote:
>
>> The Real Andy Wrote:
>> >
>> > My opinion, let the flames begin.
>> >

>> Nah, you haven't brought up helmets.
>>
>>
>> > Scooters use the road and are hated by car drivers.
>> > Bike riders use the road and are hated by car drivers.

>> I'm a car driver. I don't hate anyone.
>>
>> I'm a cyclist. I share the road.
>>
>> Can't comment on scooters, never needed one.

>
> 10 points for a razor scooter, double if it's not a kid


Times 10 if it's a pregnant lesbian nun.


I remember this game! Arrr, brings back good memories of long
Mildura->Mannum drives.

--
TimC
It's written GNU/Linux, and pronounced "Linux". Or, "Linux, with a
silent GNU/" -- Kubric on /.
 
P

PHATRS

Guest
PiledHigher wrote:
> Absent Husband wrote:
>> Dude, I get that all the time.
>>
>> At a bbq the other weekend, I was encouraging a mate of mine to cycle
>> to work (he's a nurse at a major hospital).
>>
>> His wife piped in and said that it would be irresponsible to do
>> something so dangerous, when he could be leaving behind a wife and 3
>> kids. Then she pointedly looked at my two daughters......
>>
>> Anyway - they're the ones that miss out on the joys of bike riding.
>> Doesn't bother me if they miss out..... *grins*
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Abby

>
> Of course a wife like that is likely to get left behind deliberately!
>


Yeah, wife's that love and care for their husbands should be dumped at
the earliest opportunity.


--
Ben
Car related lyric of the week: "Rollin', in my 5.0, with my ragtop down
so my hair can blow"
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
EuanB wrote:
> Aeek Wrote:


>> an awful lot of sports are dangerous, all footballs, skiing, ...

>
> Your point?


That to be safe you should stay at home, under the doona. Ah, hang on, most
people die in bed.

Every has to die sometime, enjoy life whilst you can.

Theo
 
B

BT Humble

Guest
PiledHigher wrote:
> Absent Husband wrote:
> > At a bbq the other weekend, I was encouraging a mate of mine to cycle
> > to work (he's a nurse at a major hospital).
> >
> > His wife piped in and said that it would be irresponsible to do
> > something so dangerous, when he could be leaving behind a wife and 3
> > kids. Then she pointedly looked at my two daughters......

>
> Of course a wife like that is likely to get left behind deliberately!


What are the odds that she's a smoker? ;-)


BTH
 
B

BT Humble

Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> The Real Andy Wrote:
> > I am aware that i have to share the raod with cars. I dont think I own
> > the road.

>
> No one "owns" the road, it's placed there by governments and maintained
> by consolidated revenue. All road users share it via their comprehension
> of the road rules and varying degrees of commonsense.


Nope, it's mine. By the way, I don't recall receiving your annual
usage fee this year...?


BTH
 
On Nov 29, 4:14 pm, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 28 Nov 2006 20:37:23 -0800
>
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > That ***** me, and if he really is a rider not just a mechanic he
> > should have known better. Probably should know better anyway, tossers

>
>Maybe he just rides small scooters and thinks the riders of big bad
> motorcycles are the suicidal ones?
>
> People have the strangest blind spots. One of those irregular verbs,
> My two wheeled transport is sensible, yours is dangerous, his is
> suicidal?


True, I'm a complete motorcycle ***** (recovering slowly[1]) so I like
them all. I've always considered the rider and riding style to be the
defining safe/dangerous/mental/suicidal factor rather than the two
wheeled conveynace.

[1] I swapped my Dad two RZ500's for an XS400 basket case and since
that's a net loss of 1 bike I consider that to be recovering...
 
V

Vincent Patrick

Guest
cfsmtb wrote:

>
> Brett Martin Wrote:
>>
>> To be pedantic thats not true. Roads are "crown land" which means
>> ultimately that Bessy owns them.

>
> Hrrrrmm, does that include those pesky public private partnerships such
> as CityLink, EastLink, Eastern Distributor and the apparently vacant
> Cross City Tunnel?
>


I think they're under some sort of lease, rather than ownership.

Cheers,

Vince
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 07:12:55 -0800
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> When I was learning to ride a motorcycle, my instructor taught me that
> 'road surface' was never a cause of a crash. It was failure to ride to
> the conditions that caused that class of crash, and that if I wanted to
> make excuses for crashes, rather than taking responsibility for my
> riding, I'd end up dead or worse.


To some extent, but that is also requiring the road user to be always
perfect.

Crashes are seldom one mistake. They usuall take at least 2.

The mistake of the council/highways dept leaving difficult-to-see poor
surface and the mistake of the rider not perfectly compensating for
same mean rubber side up.

The mistake of the car driver not paying enough attention and the
mistake of the cyclist not perfectly compensating for same, same
deal....

Sometimes the not perfectly compensating is going too fast, even
though that might be "not doing 60 in a 100 zone". Sometimes it's not
realising shadows can hide things. Sometimes it's being too close to
the mossy shaded bit. Lots of reasons. But if the highways dept had
not made *their* mistake, then the less than perfect skill of the
rider isn't such an issue.

And their mistake can mean hurt for many less than perfect riders.

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:10:38 +1100
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Brett Martin Wrote:
>>
>> To be pedantic thats not true. Roads are "crown land" which means
>> ultimately that Bessy owns them.

>
> Hrrrrmm, does that include those pesky public private partnerships such
> as CityLink, EastLink, Eastern Distributor and the apparently vacant
> Cross City Tunnel?


Someone did once wonder just what the legal status of those was. Are
they NSW owned, what laws do apply?

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:05:02 GMT
PHATRS <[email protected]> wrote:
> PiledHigher wrote:
>>
>> Of course a wife like that is likely to get left behind deliberately!
>>

>
> Yeah, wife's that love and care for their husbands should be dumped at
> the earliest opportunity.


No, wives that think of themselves and are unwilling to find a
sensible compromise.

If she loved and cared the first thought wouldn't be "but I will be
hurt" it would be "how can we sort this so he is happy because his
happiness means a lot to me".

And of course he should be thinking the same thing. "How can we
sort this so she'll be happy".

Relationships that last are built on each thinking "I want them to be
happy" not "how can they do something I don't want!"

Zebee
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 07:12:55 -0800
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > When I was learning to ride a motorcycle, my instructor taught me that
> > 'road surface' was never a cause of a crash. It was failure to ride to
> > the conditions that caused that class of crash, and that if I wanted to
> > make excuses for crashes, rather than taking responsibility for my
> > riding, I'd end up dead or worse.

>
> To some extent, but that is also requiring the road user to be always
> perfect.


If you're not in the mood to concentrate, stay home.

> Crashes are seldom one mistake. They usuall take at least 2.
>
> The mistake of the council/highways dept leaving difficult-to-see poor
> surface and the mistake of the rider not perfectly compensating for
> same mean rubber side up.
>
> The mistake of the car driver not paying enough attention and the
> mistake of the cyclist not perfectly compensating for same, same
> deal....



All is essentially true, but when I ride, I'm not interested in if the
council's made a mistake, or a car driver's shot a red light, I'm
interested in staying alive, which means riding to the conditions as
they are.

> Sometimes the not perfectly compensating is going too fast, even
> though that might be "not doing 60 in a 100 zone". Sometimes it's not
> realising shadows can hide things. Sometimes it's being too close to
> the mossy shaded bit. Lots of reasons. But if the highways dept had
> not made *their* mistake, then the less than perfect skill of the
> rider isn't such an issue


Assuming that (within reasonable limits) the road is safe when you
can't see it, gets you dead.

> And their mistake can mean hurt for many less than perfect riders.


That's how it is. If riders ride with care (ie: take responsibility
for their riding, rather that buck-passing) then it's less of an issue.
Ever notice how there's riders (bike and motor) who crash a lot, and
those that don't? It's *not* luck in the vast majority of cases. We
don't, and never will, have perfectly maintained roads, other road
users doing everything right etc. Riding with that in mind keeps you
alive and intact. Fact is, we're vulnerable on bikes, if we forget
that *we* are responsible for how we ride and our own safety, we end up
busted.

Here's an anecdote, based on very recent experience :

Last w'end I was in a car coming down Mt Hotham, just after a blind
corner, a tree had fallen, and by the time we got to it, someone had
cleared it part-way off the road. If we'd been driving around the
corner (or riding a bike, of any sort) assuming that what was around
the corner was safe, and out-driving our ability to brake, then we'd
have, at least sustained panel damage. It would come as no surprise
if one of the hoons on GSXR1000's or driving falcadores at their limits
who were fanging down the hill ended up hitting the tree before it got
cleared.
 
D

DaveB

Guest
Bleve wrote:
> Ever notice how there's riders (bike and motor) who crash a lot, and
> those that don't?


.... cough ... TimC .... cough.

the real reason Tim left Melbourne was the tram tracks. ;)

DaveB
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 17:54:47 -0800
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> To some extent, but that is also requiring the road user to be always
>> perfect.

>
> If you're not in the mood to concentrate, stay home.


Not the same thing.

THere's a contiuum between getting it perfect every single time, and I
mean *perfect* and being stupid or utterly careless.

THe idea is, because people are human, to try and move the requirement
away from having to be perfectly skilled and perfectly capable.

>
> All is essentially true, but when I ride, I'm not interested in if the
> council's made a mistake, or a car driver's shot a red light, I'm
> interested in staying alive, which means riding to the conditions as
> they are.



As you think they are. Because you can't ride to them as they are,
only to your belief as to what's going to be there in the next few
seconds or if you are lucky, minutes.

YOu ride to what you think will be happening by what happened a bit
ago, and by your experience of what that means. And by your experience
of what has happened before on other rides.

> Assuming that (within reasonable limits) the road is safe when you
> can't see it, gets you dead.


Then you can't ride at all. Or you have to ride at walking pace in
the dark.

You don't really get enough time to have perfect knowledge, YOu can
usually get good enough knowledge. It's when things add up that the
good enough knowledge isn't good enough that problems occur.

You can ride slowly enough that the knowledge is good enough. You can
never have perfect knowledge and to think you can is foolish.

All you can do is to try and raise the 'enough'. The roadbuilders
have a responsibility to help. They can't make it foolproof, they can
do a hell of a lot.

Many years ago I was riding home from Sydney to Lismore. IN the dark,
I came across a serious pile of loose bluemetal just *after* the apex
of the corner near my home. Roadwork that had not been there the
previous day, that was not marked or signposted in any way, and was
veyr hard to see on a moonless night due to the way that light doesn't
easily go around corners.

I was doing a reasonable speed for normal road conditions. Not for
stupidly handled roadworks.

It was not normal, it was not forseeable, and it was dangerous. I was
not perfect so I did not anticipate such a thing on every corner in my
760km ride. I did manage to avoid a crash, but that was luck not
skill.



>
>> And their mistake can mean hurt for many less than perfect riders.

>
> That's how it is. If riders ride with care (ie: take responsibility
> for their riding, rather that buck-passing) then it's less of an issue.


I said "less than perfect". You keep reading "stupid" or "risk
taking" or some other blame-worthy conduct.

Why?

Zebee
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 17:54:47 -0800
> Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >>
> >> To some extent, but that is also requiring the road user to be always
> >> perfect.

> >
> > If you're not in the mood to concentrate, stay home.

>
> Not the same thing.


Respectfully, I don't agree with you, in this context.


>
> THere's a contiuum between getting it perfect every single time, and I
> mean *perfect* and being stupid or utterly careless.


Of course.

> The idea is, because people are human, to try and move the requirement
> away from having to be perfectly skilled and perfectly capable.


And then, there's the real world. Where things will always be more
hazardous than we would like.

> > All is essentially true, but when I ride, I'm not interested in if the
> > council's made a mistake, or a car driver's shot a red light, I'm
> > interested in staying alive, which means riding to the conditions as
> > they are.

>
>
> As you think they are. Because you can't ride to them as they are,
> only to your belief as to what's going to be there in the next few
> seconds or if you are lucky, minutes.
>
> YOu ride to what you think will be happening by what happened a bit
> ago, and by your experience of what that means. And by your experience
> of what has happened before on other rides.
>
> > Assuming that (within reasonable limits) the road is safe when you
> > can't see it, gets you dead.

>
> Then you can't ride at all. Or you have to ride at walking pace in
> the dark.


"within reasonable limits".

I've ridden at walking pace in fog, and very slowly through areas known
to have wildlife etc, and I've chosen when and where I've ridden to
minimise risk.

It's not just how you ride, but when and where. that's why on wet,
nasty nights in Melbourne I'll ride the pushbike down bike paths rather
than the road, for example.

> You don't really get enough time to have perfect knowledge, YOu can
> usually get good enough knowledge. It's when things add up that the
> good enough knowledge isn't good enough that problems occur.
>
> You can ride slowly enough that the knowledge is good enough. You can
> never have perfect knowledge and to think you can is foolish.
>
> All you can do is to try and raise the 'enough'. The roadbuilders
> have a responsibility to help. They can't make it foolproof, they can
> do a hell of a lot.


We have a responsibility to ourselves to ride according to how it is,
not how we'd like it to be.

> Many years ago I was riding home from Sydney to Lismore. IN the dark,
> I came across a serious pile of loose bluemetal just *after* the apex
> of the corner near my home. Roadwork that had not been there the
> previous day, that was not marked or signposted in any way, and was
> veyr hard to see on a moonless night due to the way that light doesn't
> easily go around corners.


Sure, and many years ago my first binning of a motorbike happened in
similar circumstance, wet road, late at night, sand washed over the
road after the apex, I didn't see it and I was going too fast for the
conditions. Lesson learnt. Don't outride your vision, pick safer
routes, or defer the trip. I often decide on bad weather nights to not
travel, simply because I judge the conditions to be too risky for my
destination.

> I was doing a reasonable speed for normal road conditions. Not for
> stupidly handled roadworks.


Except you weren't, because you outrode what you could see.

> It was not normal, it was not forseeable, and it was dangerous. I was
> not perfect so I did not anticipate such a thing on every corner in my
> 760km ride. I did manage to avoid a crash, but that was luck not
> skill.
>
>
>
> >
> >> And their mistake can mean hurt for many less than perfect riders.

> >
> > That's how it is. If riders ride with care (ie: take responsibility
> > for their riding, rather that buck-passing) then it's less of an issue.

>
> I said "less than perfect". You keep reading "stupid" or "risk
> taking" or some other blame-worthy conduct.


I'm talking about taking responsibility for our behaviour on the road,
not palming it off to fate or bad roadwork signs. The fact is, the
roads *aren't* going to get significantly better, car drivers *aren't*
going to stop being careless, tired, yapping/sms'ing on phones etc, and
we, if we want to stay alive, have to ride in risk-minimising ways in
order to survive in the jungle. Every single crash I've been involved
in I could have avoided by smarter route selection and/or less
'enthusiasm' to go faster than the conditions warranted. This thread
started about perceptions of risk taking, and that's what I'm
discussing.

It's not nice, but it's how it is.
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 29 Nov 2006 23:03:36 -0800
Bleve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Not the same thing.

>
> Respectfully, I don't agree with you, in this context.


I think we are definitely not going to agree on this.

>
>> The idea is, because people are human, to try and move the requirement
>> away from having to be perfectly skilled and perfectly capable.

>
> And then, there's the real world. Where things will always be more
> hazardous than we would like.


Yes. But there's this continuum. Meaning that there will always be
crashes no matter how skilled you are.

But there's also the chance to decrease the number of them.

If you want to "punish" people for not being perfect and say "the
world is a bad place, you ahve to cope always" then there's no reason
to build good roads.

Think, for example, of bad road design for pushbikes. Is it important
to make the road design as good as it can be, or is it up to the rider
only?

Could it be sensible for there to be both? That is make the road the
best you can, and for riders to do the best they can?

Why all one way, why all on the rider?

>> > Assuming that (within reasonable limits) the road is safe when you
>> > can't see it, gets you dead.

>>
>> Then you can't ride at all. Or you have to ride at walking pace in
>> the dark.

>
> "within reasonable limits".


>
> I've ridden at walking pace in fog, and very slowly through areas known
> to have wildlife etc, and I've chosen when and where I've ridden to
> minimise risk.


And so do most people. But I understood you to say that there's no
way that *any* crash due to conditions isn't the rider's fault.

If, for example, you had been slow for wildlife, and you still came
unstuck because of something, then your fault? Must be... but
supposing that something was someone else's careless roadworks that
you had not been able to forsee. Still your fault? You weren't going
"too fast" for the conditions as you understood them.


>> All you can do is to try and raise the 'enough'. The roadbuilders
>> have a responsibility to help. They can't make it foolproof, they can
>> do a hell of a lot.

>
> We have a responsibility to ourselves to ride according to how it is,
> not how we'd like it to be.


And you keep missing the point I'm making, so I can't be being clear
enough.

Do the roadbuilders have *any* responsibility at all in your view?


>> I was doing a reasonable speed for normal road conditions. Not for
>> stupidly handled roadworks.

>
> Except you weren't, because you outrode what you could see.


I can see why you say that, but I think it's not a real world answer.

Because you can never ever see around a blind corner. It's not
possible.

This is the point I'm making - it took two mistakes. I was not
perfect, but nor was I reckless. What I was was less than perfect,
but if the road menders had done the job I could reasonably expect
then there wouldn't have been a problem.

>
> I'm talking about taking responsibility for our behaviour on the road,
> not palming it off to fate or bad roadwork signs. The fact is, the


I'm saying that both have to be responsible.

Do you believe that all fault has to lie with the rider? Or that
others have some responsibility?


> roads *aren't* going to get significantly better, car drivers *aren't*


No? The ATSB has finally decided that road design matters, the latest
report includes what is going to be done.

In NSW they have finally mandated that all metal plates over roadworks
must be non-slip. This time last year I saw no non-silp coatings, in
the last couple of weeks every plate I've seen has been coated.



> going to stop being careless, tired, yapping/sms'ing on phones etc, and
> we, if we want to stay alive, have to ride in risk-minimising ways in
> order to survive in the jungle. Every single crash I've been involved
> in I could have avoided by smarter route selection and/or less
> 'enthusiasm' to go faster than the conditions warranted. This thread
> started about perceptions of risk taking, and that's what I'm
> discussing.


I think you are wanting perfection. I'm wanting what can be
minimised to be minimised, which isn't about absolving riders from
blame, it's about trying to reduce the crash problem.

Mandating proper cleanup of roadworks won't stop people splatting
themselves. It will reduce the number who do.

Make survival easier, more will survive.

Zebee
 
B

Brett Martin

Guest
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Brett Martin Wrote:
>>
>> To be pedantic thats not true. Roads are "crown land" which means
>> ultimately that Bessy owns them.

>
> Hrrrrmm, does that include those pesky public private partnerships such
> as CityLink, EastLink, Eastern Distributor and the apparently vacant
> Cross City Tunnel?
>
>


Leased to the funding consortium but owned by Bessy (remains Crown Land).
Similar to airports (the sale of airports was actually the sale of a 30 to
90 year lease etc some of the land was converted to freehold though).

Cheers

BrettM
 
B

Brett Martin

Guest
Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:02:51 GMT
> Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> What makes a motorcycle more dangerous than a bicycle is the speed at
>> which everything happens. Where motorcycle fatalities are concerned
>> the most common factor is speed.

>
> Single user can be, although there's a lot of argument about the way
> the numbers are tallied. For example in NSW there's no way to say
> "road surface" and if there's no other vehicle or witness they tick
> the speed box.


This would be because there would be very few police officers who are
qualified or capable of making such a finding, at least on sealed roads.
Gravel; different story. Sealed surfaces almost invariably provide
adequate traction but if tyres are bald or the road structure out of
shape or too much torque is applied or.... you may break traction.


>
> multi vehicle crashes in urban areas, no. What kills motorcycle
> riders in those is the same as kills cyclists - being hit by a car and
> either crush from that, or hitting road/kerb/furniture.
>
> But motorcycles are usually in different places - middle of
> intersections, not near the kerbing for example.
>
> Zebee
>
 

Similar threads