Should motorbikes be banned?

jimbis

Should we just ban cyclists while we're at it aswell. Those pesky buggers filter threw traffic like motorbikes too, however red lights seem like decoration for most.

Pedro K

freshpopcorn wrote: »

No, they shouldn't be banned.
I'd however like to see a law that banned them from weaving in between queuing traffic in order for them to skip the que!

You know that by skipping the queue, as you put it, motorcyclists reduce overall congestion for car drivers? I bet you wouldn't want them to queue in a line if you were behind 15 of them. You'd probably be complaining to the contrary. That they should all push up.

Pedro K

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Do any motorcyclists EVER obey speed limits?

I know car drivers break limits too, but not by as much as motorcyclists. The roads will never be totally safe for any of us, but given the choice, I'd much rather be involved in an accident while driving a car than a motorbike. There are plenty of terrible car drivers around, so really the motorcyclist should always drive with even more care and attention than the average car driver, instead of weaving in and out of traffic and breaking speed limits by ridiculous amounts.

I think you'll find that they do, actually.


http://www.visordown.com/news/general/motorcyclists-23-better-behind-the-wheel-of-a-car

punk_one82

Speaking as someone who's been knocked down by a motorbike I'm all for them. I'm dead against dangerous driving by both car and motorbike drivers though.

ScouseMouse

TallGlass wrote: »

If you think motorcyclists in IRL/UK are bad, you sir need to get yourself over to the Canary Islands. Now as a car driver/motorcyclist, both full licences, I wouldn't rent either on that island for risk of not coming back alive.

You do see odd god****e behaviour on motorcycles but not near as much as I see car drivers do. Only difference is car drivers usually walk away from most accidents.

What island is the Canary Islands? I have driven several times on tenerife in a car and am just back from Lanzarote. While there I drove a Harley D for half a day and a car for the rest. I saw nothing wrong on either island.

Dublin is worse

Muahahaha

rjpf1980 wrote: »

I think I've explained that already but I'll elaborate.
Motorcycles by their very design allow riders to weave in and out of traffic which is by its very nature extremely hazardous the cause of a whole range of accidents because rider do precisely that creating a danger that drivers in cars and other vehicles moving in lanes cannot safely avoid.

You see now you are showing us that you are a poor driver yourself. Because the only danger from motorbikes filtering comes from cars moving lane without checking their wing mirrors first. If you cannot drive in a straight line then youve no business being on the road in the first place. It is nothing to do with "creating a danger that drivers in cars and other vehicles moving in lanes cannot safely avoid", if a car moves lane without checking their wing mirror first then it is the car that is the danger that the biker cannot avoid, not the other way around.

The size of these vehicles and their speed mean drivers of large vehicles cannot see them in time when there are head on collisions in moving traffic
or side on collisions at junctions when drivers of cars and other vehicles pull out into the path of a motorcycle which results in the bike plowing into the side with the driver going under the wheels or being launched into the air for sometimes hundreds of yards and dismembered after their body tumbles and rubs along the roadway.
This is why motorcycle deaths are dis-proportionally high compared to other road users including cyclists and pedestrians.

A motorcycle Garda once told me that the most popular driver excuse when a car coming out of a junction hits a bike is that the bike "came out of no-where". As the Garda pointed out that excuse and language is code for "I didnt look properly". Unless the laws of physics got suspended momentarily the biker came out of somewhere, not "no-where". Stats have shown that a huge amount of bikers are killed by motorists who exit a junction without looking properly, hence the need for a TV ad to explain this. You are rubbishing those ads which tells me the message hasnt sunk in to your head. Instead you blame the biker when clearly the ad is naming the motorist as the person who is at fault in this instance.

So yet again youve shown us that youre a poor driver, first youve tried to lay the blame of cars knocking bikers off as the biker creating a danger and now youre trying to justify cars not looking properly when exiting a junction.

I really think you need to take more driving lessons, people like you are hazardous not just to bikers, but to all road users.

Fr_Dougal

Deedsie wrote: »

Why do the engines have to be so loud on some motorbikes? It's noise pollution. I'd have no issue if they could just reduce the roar a little.

That's the nature of a good v-twin!

Mint Aero

But where will all the hairy middle aged men in leather go?

D3V!L

Deedsie wrote: »

Why do the engines have to be so loud on some motorbikes? It's noise pollution. I'd have no issue if they could just reduce the roar a little.

Its so we know they're on. Usually at the lights I'll rev my engine a couple of times just to make sure. :pac:

bladespin

Deedsie wrote:

Why do the engines have to be so loud on some motorbikes? It's noise pollution. I'd have no issue if they could just reduce the roar a little.

There are plenty of loud cars too, there'll always be those who like the noise.
Also, judging from the 'didn't see you'/ didn' t look crowd, a loud pipe might be the difference between a frown and a crash.

Shenshen

rjpf1980 wrote: »

I'll say it again.

If motorcycles had not existed for the past century or so and someone invented them today they would not be allowed on the road.

If alcohol hadn't been around for millenia and was invented today, it would not be freely available for consumption as it's far too dangerous. Same goes for tobacco products.

Any plans on banning these as well? Overall, they account for far more deaths than motorbikes, after all.

old_aussie

rjpf1980 wrote: »

There are numerous ads on TV asking us to be careful about motorcyclists.

I've had enough of this nonsense.

What ever you do, DON'T visit Bali.

rjpf1980

Slanty wrote: »

I have to agree OP. I drive the m1 most days which is two lanes. Bikers weaving up through the middle of the lanes doing 120 is asking for trouble and then when accidents happen it's the car drivers fault.

I wouldn't ban bikes but this weaving in and out of the middle lanes is the problem. Just stay in the lane and overtake correctly

High powered motorbikes by their very nature allow motorcyclists to perform these lethally dangerous moves. They can't be seen in vehicle blindspots because a roof pillar can conceal a motorcyclist from view unlike a car or truck or other wide vehicle. At junctions a speeding biker is notoriously hard to see hence the high incidents of collisions when motorists pull out into their path.

rjpf1980

Shenshen wrote: »

If alcohol hadn't been around for millenia and was invented today, it would not be freely available for consumption as it's far too dangerous. Same goes for tobacco products.

Any plans on banning these as well? Overall, they account for far more deaths than motorbikes, after all.

Alcohol and drugs are too ubiquitous to be banned. The sale and consumption would conducted secretly.

Obviously you cannot conceal a motorcycle since you must be licenced and insured and you would be visible on the road.

If motorcycles were banned it would be relatively easy to prohibit their use.

rjpf1980

K.Flyer wrote: »

I think what you meant to say was "..don't look out for them"

What do expect?
These would be the same type of car drivers who would pull out in front of other cars, vans, trucks and trams?
These type of drivers are incompetent and unfortunately are the cause misery to other road users, especially bike riders.
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you"
Translates into "I didn't bother taking the time to have a good look up and down the road"

It is easier to see a car van or truck which is why there are less collisions of this type at junctions. You can see a vehicle approaching from much far away. This is not true of motorbikes.

rjpf1980

jimbis wrote: »

Should we just ban cyclists while we're at it aswell. Those pesky buggers filter threw traffic like motorbikes too, however red lights seem like decoration for most.

Cyclists should pass tests pay tax and have licences. That's an issue for another thread.

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Cyclists should pass tests pay tax and have licences.

They do pay tax, the vast majority of cyclists also own cars so therefore they also pay road tax, so they would also have to pass a test and also own a driving license.

Your arguments are all ridiculous and incredibly uninformed btw, did you have a bit of a scare on the way home from the shopping yesterday or something?

rjpf1980

Muahahaha wrote: »

You see now you are showing us that you are a poor driver yourself. Because the only danger from motorbikes filtering comes from cars moving lane without checking their wing mirrors first. If you cannot drive in a straight line then youve no business being on the road in the first place. It is nothing to do with "creating a danger that drivers in cars and other vehicles moving in lanes cannot safely avoid", if a car moves lane without checking their wing mirror first then it is the car that is the danger that the biker cannot avoid, not the other way around.



A motorcycle Garda once told me that the most popular driver excuse when a car coming out of a junction hits a bike is that the bike "came out of no-where". As the Garda pointed out that excuse and language is code for "I didnt look properly". Unless the laws of physics got suspended momentarily the biker came out of somewhere, not "no-where". Stats have shown that a huge amount of bikers are killed by motorists who exit a junction without looking properly, hence the need for a TV ad to explain this. You are rubbishing those ads which tells me the message hasnt sunk in to your head. Instead you blame the biker when clearly the ad is naming the motorist as the person who is at fault in this instance.

So yet again youve shown us that youre a poor driver, first youve tried to lay the blame of cars knocking bikers off as the biker creating a danger and now youre trying to justify cars not looking properly when exiting a junction.

I really think you need to take more driving lessons, people like you are hazardous not just to bikers, but to all road users.

I'm not a poor driver. I look and I drive safely and I avoid accidents.

However a significant minority of drivers will always be reckless and incompetent.

This thread is simply about recognising that fact.

My focus on motorbikes is because these vehicles by their very nature are more lethally dangerous that any other vehicle on the road.

Motorcyclists die or are injured than any other road users.

As I said in the OP if an inventer created the motorcycle today rather than more than a century ago it would not be allowed on the road.

It is a fact that if motorbikes were off the road tomorrow a significant minority of road deaths would be straight away eliminated. People would not be coming off bikes and cut to bits by vehicles or in contact with the road.

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

As I said in the OP if an inventer created the motorcycle today rather than more than a century ago it would not be allowed on the road.

Please back this claim of a "fact" up with evidence

MonkeyTennis

If Im being totally honest, I drive more carefully on my motorbike than I do in a car.

rjpf1980

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

If Im being totally honest, I drive more carefully on my motorbike than I do in a car.

Motorcyclists die disproportionally to their numbers on the road. They die because of the design of motorcycles which afford no protection to a rider in the event of a crash. Ban these unsafe vehicles and automatically a significant minority of roads are eliminated.
Anecdotal stories are not useful.

Anesthetize

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Obviously you cannot conceal a motorcycle since you must be licenced and insured and you would be visible on the road.

If motorcycles were banned it would be relatively easy to prohibit their use.

You can easily conceal a motorbike as a horse.

K.Flyer

rjpf1980 wrote: »

...
Motorcyclists die or are injured than any other road users

2015 Irish Road Statistics

There was an overall 19% reduction among vulnerable road users (pedestrians, motorcyclists, and pedal cyclists) 2015 with the most notable decrease evident among pedestrians. 

Of the 166 fatalities, there were 76 Drivers killed, 27 Passengers, 32 Pedestrians, 22 Motorcyclists and 9 Pedal Cyclists.

What I would like to see are the figures showing of the 22 Motorcycle deaths, how many were found to have been the fault of other road users.

rjpf1980

VinLieger wrote: »

Please back this claim of a "fact" up with evidence

It's very simple. A two wheeled vehicle which even at low speeds and legal speeds can be lethally dangerous because the rider has no protection from collision with other vehicles or structures or from contact with the road surface.

rjpf1980

K.Flyer wrote: »

2015 Irish Road Statistics


What I would like to see are the figures showing of the 22 Motorcycle deaths, how many were found to have been the fault of other road users.

I should have written proportionally. Proportional to their numbers on the road more of them die or are injured.

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Motorcyclists die disproportionally to their numbers on the road. They die because of the design of motorcycles which afford no protection to a rider in the event of a crash. Ban these unsafe vehicles and automatically a significant minority of roads are eliminated.
Anecdotal stories are not useful.

there were 22 motorcycles deatsh last year out of a total of 166 fatalities in total. Thats is 13 percent of all road deaths last year. Now find me the figure proving that is disproportional to the amount using the road?

32 of the deaths were pedestrians should we not just ban walking near roads or cars altogether using your logic too?

K.Flyer

rjpf1980 wrote: »

It's simple. A two wheeled vehicle which even at low speeds and legal speeds can be lethally dangerous because the rider has no protection from collision with other vehicles or structures or from contact with the road surface.

Thats just your opinion, not a statistic.

rjpf1980

K.Flyer wrote: »

2015 Irish Road Statistics


What I would like to see are the figures showing of the 22 Motorcycle deaths, how many were found to have been the fault of other road users.

The 22 motorcyclists who died were not protected by air bags or seat belts or body work designed to crumple or any other safety feature which saves hundreds of lives every year. Their bodies were fully exposed to injury or dismemberment.

LordSutch

So few motorcycles on the roads here anyway, its always obvious when you return from abroad and notice the absence of bikes (specially top end ones). Yes of course they exist here, but its just that there's not many on our roads compared to other countries IMO.

Maybe thats a blessing?

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

It's very simple. A two wheeled vehicle which even at low speeds and legal speeds can be lethally dangerous because the rider has no protection from collision with other vehicles or structures or from contact with the road surface.

That proves nothing to do with your claim that if it was invented today it would not be legal.

You cannot claim something like that as a "fact" and then not back it up with verifiable evidence to prove it.

It is your opinion, nothing more.