The question...... (How to decrease motorcycle fatalities)

[ThermalStone]

OP started a good thought provoking thread. Absent evidence that shows me that motorcyclists speed and drive drunk more often than other motorists, I'm not willing to support any crackdowns targeted specifically at motorcycles, even if it means a few more deaths a year.

 

[Rel]

This thread is dedicated to specifically lowering the number of fatal motorcycle collisions. If one new law, whatever it may be saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?

 

[Cycle61]

This thread is dedicated to specifically lowering the number of fatal motorcycle collisions. If one new law, whatever it may be saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?

I understand your sentiment, but that can be taken too far. It's a delicate balance. Liberty and security. Ben Franklin.

 

[Rel]

Indeed.

Just like those people I've stopped over and over and over who dont wear helmets, or seatbelts.

I understand your sentiment, but that can be taken too far. It's a delicate balance. Liberty and security. Ben Franklin.

 

[Cycle61]

Indeed.

Just like those people I've stopped over and over and over who dont wear helmets, or seatbelts.

Delicate balance. I don't feel that laws requiring helmets or seatbelts are too much of an imposition on personal liberty. Banning motorcycles (an extreme example) would save lives. Where do you draw the line?

 

[Map8]

This thread is dedicated to specifically lowering the number of fatal motorcycle collisions. If one new law, whatever it may be saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?

IMO, no. There is no guarantee that any law will save a life. That is a convoluted line of reasoning.

 

[Rel]

Thats true.....

Therefore we should have no laws, and hope for the best.

IMO, no. There is no guarantee that any law will save a life. That is a convoluted line of reasoning.

 

[Blacknblue]

This thread is dedicated to specifically lowering the number of fatal motorcycle collisions. If one new law, whatever it may be saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?

Example:
Henceforth all motorcyclists must have modulating headlights.

IMHO
Depends on the law, and how strictly it's enforced.

 

[Rel]

See this is a good example.

I hate, severely dislike modulating headlights. I dont think they look good and I just dont like them. HOWEVER, every motorcycle that has one, I see. When they are lane splitting I see them, when they are changing lanes, I've seen them, and I've yet to take a collision on a bike that has one.

If that were the law, I may not like it, but if it saves somones life, I can live with it.

Example:
Henceforth all motorcyclists must have modulating headlights.

IMHO
Depends on the law, and how strictly it's enforced.

 

[Map8]

Thats true.....

Therefore we should have no laws, and hope for the best.

You asked if a new law "saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?"

I answered your question and you come back with a smartass reply. Apparently I'm supposed to know that when you ask a question, you don't really want an answer.

 

[Blacknblue]

Must be Rel's "convoluted reasoning" at work, again!

 

[Rel]

Ummmm, that wasnt a smart ass reply.

I was just pointing out the fact that a lot of our laws are designed to save lives, and without them, many people would die.

Perhaps you don't understand what a "smart ass" reply really is.

You asked if a new law "saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?"

I answered your question and you come back with a smartass reply. Apparently I'm supposed to know that when you ask a question, you don't really want an answer.

 

[Map8]

Ummmm, that wasnt a smart ass reply.

I was just pointing out the fact that a lot of our laws are designed to save lives, and without them, many people would die.

Perhaps you don't understand what a "smart ass" reply really is.

Yes many laws are written in the hopes of saving many lives and some have been successful. How many laws save just one life?

 

[masameet]

Well, a couple items really jump out:

1. Departmental motorcycle safety checkpoints.

2. Increase point values for motorcycle hazard citations (i.e., commercial vehicles).


Looks more like an attempt to generate more revenue to me, but nicely shrouded by the facade of "safety". Imo, they were on the right track with rider education, but then had to give themselves more power.
Imo, they have plenty of power already to site dangerous/unsafe riders under one of any of the multitude of current laws. I couldn't support anything like that around here. But there are some good points.

I guess I don't see where the revenue generation is coming from. As the safety event is free to the motorcyclists. Where on that North Carolina page regarding Bike Safe is there mention about commercial vehicles and checkpoints?

Interestingly in the photo page riders even learn about safe helmet removal.

 

[LeMec]

Of the 8 deaths in San Jose.....

4 were cruisers
4 were sportbikes

Of the 4 cruisers, three had alcohol in their system.
Of the 4 sportbikes, all were moving violations.

Of the 4 cruisers, all were middle aged men.
Of the 4 sportbikes, all were in their twenties.

The solution is obvious: if you are in your twenties buy a Harley; if you are not in your twenties, buy a Speed Triple. Problem solved.

The fact is that motos are dangerous. If you are not comfortable with that, don't ride. But in any case spare the rest of us the hand wringing.

 

[Cycle61]

Example:
Henceforth all motorcyclists must have modulating headlights.

IMHO
Depends on the law, and how strictly it's enforced.

Perfect example indeed. We look at this, and ask the questions

1) Will this law help the problem?

2) Does it avoid excessive imposition on personal liberty and freedom?

3) Can it, realistically, be implemented and enforced?

I think you have three yeses here. It will help, it may run counter to some peoples' personal taste, but it certainly doesn't limit freedoms. Seems like a great idea.

My next bike, BTW, will have modulating lights. I think they may have prevented my lane-sharing accident a few months ago.

 

[DataDan]

Rel, I don't know what department you are with but the CHP had a Motorcycle Safety Summit earlier this year. They produced this "compendium of ideas". I don't agree with some of the ideas presented but it might be useful.

Link downloads or opens a PDF depending on your browser settings.
http://www.chp.ca.gov/programs/pdf/MotorcycleReport2008.pdf

Thanks for posting that. I just got around to printing and reading it today. The first thing I noticed was a glaring error in the first paragraph:

Purpose: The overall purpose of the first-ever California Motorcycle Safety Summit (CMSS) was to allow motorcycle safety stakeholders to have an active voice in the ongoing effort to reduce the number of motorcyclist collisions, injuries, and fatalities experienced in California. To illustrate the problem, statistics indicate the number of motorcyclists killed in collisions statewide has increased more than 132 percent in the past ten years. In terms of numbers, there were 433 motorcycle fatalities in 2006 compared to 235 motorcycle fatalities in 1996. Motorcycle fatality data for 2007 are provisional but indicate 461 motorcycle fatalities occurred in 2007, 128 more than occurred in 2006.​

The 461 deaths in 2007 are 28 more than 2006 (see preceding sentence) not 128.

It's obviously an innocent typo, but if you were just skimming the document, the final sentence in the first paragraph defining the Summit's purpose could really jump out at you.

 

[zrex]

Indeed.

Just like those people I've stopped over and over and over who dont wear helmets, or seatbelts.

Do people STILL not wear helmets!?!

 

[Rel]

Yep.

How dare the government create a law like that!

I've issued one person close to a dozen seatbelt citations, and he still wont wear it.

Do people STILL not wear helmets!?!

 

[moto-rama]

I've yet to take a collision on a bike that has one.

that's a strong endorsement of a relatively easy addition to any bike.
I, too find them somewhat unsettling ( I guess that's how I feel), as they are an unexpected sight, and so get our attention.

Whenever I share lanes on my BMW, I use the emergency flashers, and occasionally flip my high beams off and on to enhance my chances of being acknowledged.

I can't tell you how well it works, because I have never been touched by a car in 40 years of lane sharing. (except a couple of times when I ticked someone's mirror...my fault entirely, by the way).

I once followed a CHP bike from Rocklin to Sacramento in stopped traffic, and when I deployed my flashers after falling in behind him, he gave me a quick thumbs up in his mirror, so I will take that as a sign that it was a good thing to do.
It's a shame that all bikes don't at least have emergency flashers that could be used in this fashion, or better yet, a special Hi-Viz lens that would alert car drivers to a sharing rider in the lane.

I have often thought the ultimate commute bike would be a retired CHP BMW RTP. It would be like Moses parting the Red Sea with a 4X4.

Even the meanies who think it's funny to crowd the lane so that bikes can't pass in the shared lane will give way on the off chance that it might be a CHP.

Still on that subject, I did see a pickup truck deliberately try to block a lane sharing LEO over on 101 last year. He got exactly what he asked for.....stopped immediately.