Should motorbikes be banned?

K.Flyer

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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

So how many of those deaths are a direct fault of other road users.

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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.

A choice they made. While we are at it lets force everyone into padded rooms so nobody can even look at anything dangerous ever again to complete your draconian nanny state utopia

Akrasia

Cycling is dangerous, ban it
Horse riding is dangerous, ban it
Being a pedestrian is dangerous, ban it
Being on a boat is dangerous, ban it
Mountaineering is dangerous, ban it
Sitting down too much is unhealthy, ban it

rjpf1980

K.Flyer wrote: »

Thats just your opinion, not a statistic.

You will concede that if a motorcyclist hits a pole or a wall or another vehicle he/she has much less survivability than a driver inside a car or van or truck. This is because you are fully exposed when sitting on a bike. You fall from a bike going at high speed you will be badly hurt or killed.

rjpf1980

K.Flyer wrote: »

So how many of those deaths are a direct fault of other road users.

That is beside the point. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. The motorcycle by its very nature means collisions and accidents are more likely to be fatal.

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

You will concede that if a motorcyclist hits a pole or a wall or another vehicle he/she has much less survivability than a driver inside a car or van or truck. This is because you are fully exposed when sitting on a bike. You fall from a bike going at high speed you will be badly hurt or killed.

So?

Still doesnt change the fact that all your arguments are based on an opinion and youve backed nothing up with any proof

sonofenoch

This thread was brought to you by the Green party....banning bikes is just the beginning

Ragnar Lothbrok

Ianasauras wrote: »

Its very simple. As a car driver all you need to do is:
1. Use your indicators
2. Maintain Road position
3. Check your mirrors when changing lanes.
4. Avoid distractions like phones, earphones shouting into the back seat etc.

You have a responsibility to make sure that you don't cause an incident. Car drivers cause far more incidents with motorcyclists than the other way around (at least in my 10 years biking experience).

As for motorcyclists. Yes, in many cases we probably should slow down and be less aggresive in passing. But most motorcyclists are safe drivers. Years of dealing with ignorant, aggresive and incompetent car drivers makes it difficult to not treat all car drivers the same and as though they're trying to kill you.

But if car drivers could follow the 4 points above, you dont need to worry. We can all get along on the road. Even the cyclists

I'm a car driver who would avoid getting on a bike like the plague, but it's very hard to disagree with anything Ianasaurus has written above.

I'm in shock that such a well thought out, balanced and intelligent post was allowed into this thread

Trebob

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!

It's not skipping the que, its a known fact that its safer for bikes to filter as there's less chance of being rear ended by a car that is probably looking at the brake lights of the car in front not the bikes breaklight. That why I do it not to "skip the que" it's called progression.

faceman

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!

There was a case in the Irish courts some years back that was in the media. Car driver hit a motorcyclist but the driver claimed the motorcyclist was weaving at the time therefore the motorcyclists fault. The driver didn't want his insurance to settle so the case went to court.

The judge ruled in favour of the motorcyclist. Filtering isn't illegal and to paraphrase what the judge said, the motorcyclist "didn't buy a bike to sit in traffic."

skinner75

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Thoughts?

You are a ****?

skinner75

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Thoughts?

You are a c'u'n't?

Slanty

My argument is simple, I would class myself as a safe driver, yet in most of my close calls its being because the lack of visual I have of a bike.

I glance in my mirror, see nothing, go to pull out and take another quick glance then suddenly there's a bike right up my inside who came up fast through the middle row of cars.

Bikers tell me, if a road has two lanes (m1) why do you insist on making three lanes and more importantly between vehicles that do be passing from lane to lane?

Shenshen

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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.

So you're only in favour of laws if they can't be easily broken?
Interesting.

skinner75

My idea to help car drivers concentrate on the road ahead would be to install a 12" spike in the centre of the steering wheel, and the removal of the drivers seatbelt

bladespin

rjpf1980 wrote:

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.

I had one of those type of 'accidents' school runner mum pulled out of a junction right in front of me, no chance if avoiding her, wrote both cars off and I ended up in casualty, if she couldn't a full size car with it's lights on then that argument is completely null, the onus is always on the driver entering a lane to make sure it's safe to do so. If you struggle to see bikes then it's either tome for an eye test or tome to hand back the licence.

bladespin

Slanty wrote:

My argument is simple, I would class myself as a safe driver, yet in most of my close calls its being because the lack of visual I have of a bike.

Slanty wrote:

I glance in my mirror, see nothing, go to pull out and take another quick glance then suddenly there's a bike right up my inside who came up fast through the middle row of cars.

That's not safe driving.

Hughsie75

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.

According to the RSA Road Death Statistics for 2015:
- 22 Motorcyclists were killed
- 14 of those were involving another vehicle

- 76 Car drivers were killed
How many of these were caused by another vehicle??

Now, who do you reckon needs more education when it comes to Roadcraft?

KwackerJack

Ban cyclists........ever see a motorbike run red lights at a busy junction??

Ever see 20 motorbikes riding side by side blocking the entire road.

You need a license for a motorbike yet the Lycra bandits hit the road with nothing but a chip on their shoulder and 'I'm right' ego

Is the OP a cyclist or a failed biker who couldn't hold a moped up right or just annoyed a biker gets thru traffic quicker

rjpf1980

Hughsie75 wrote: »

According to the RSA Road Death Statistics for 2015:
- 22 Motorcyclists were killed
- 14 of those were involving another vehicle

- 76 Car drivers were killed
How many of these were caused by another vehicle??

Now, who do you reckon needs more education when it comes to Roadcraft?

I'm not talking about road craft as such although motorcycles by their sheer design encourage recklessness such as weaving through traffic.

I'm talking about the very nature of motorcycles a two wheel machine with the rider straddling the fuel tank with flimsy protection like helmet and pads during collision or contact with the road which can dismember a rider.

If motorbikes were off the road tomorrow straight away there would be a significant reduction in road deaths.

The survivability of riding a motorcycle in a road traffic accident are significantly less than all other road users

rjpf1980

KwackerJack wrote: »

Ban cyclists........ever see a motorbike run red lights at a busy junction??

Ever see 20 motorbikes riding side by side blocking the entire road.

You need a license for a motorbike yet the Lycra bandits hit the road with nothing but a chip on their shoulder and 'I'm right' ego

Is the OP a cyclist or a failed biker who couldn't hold a moped up right or just annoyed a biker gets thru traffic quicker

Did you read the OP? I think I have clearly stated why.

I said if a motorbike was invented today it would not be allowed on the road.

I think I have already explained the danger of motorcycles compared to other vehicles.

A number of posters on this thread have simply resorted to abuse rather than present an argument.

Very telling.

Renegade Mechanic

rjpf1980 wrote: »

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

I've had enough of this nonsense.

Motorcyclists are the most reckless and dangerous road users. In cities and towns and on motorways and rural roads they speed and weave through traffic and are a hazard to themselves other drivers and pedestrians.

Disproportionately motorcyclists die or are victims of accidents.

The reason is obvious. The motorcycle if it were invented today would not be allowed on the road. There is no protection for a driver whatsoever even at low speeds or legal speeds. A helmet or padded jacket or jumpsuit is rather flimsy when it comes in contact to the road or a collision with another vehicle. I have relatives who work with the emergency services and the stories they have told me would horrify. Motorcyclists literally get dismembered in high speed accidents.

Cars and other vehicles with the introduction of crumple zones protective structures within the car body and frontal and side air bags and of course seat belts have made crashes much more survivable.

There is literally no way to make lethal motorcycles safer.

Ban them and ban them now.

If people want to commit suicide that's fine. But motorcyclists endanger themselves and society.

Thoughts?

You realise the car wouldn't be allowed today either, right? For precisely the same red-tape health and safety reason.

'Hey, here's an idea.. Let's build metal boxes that move people with a combined speed of 160kph towards each other, but they'll pass within feet of each other all the time.
Yeah we'll bump that speed to 240kph in some places but don't worry, we'll put three feet walls between them.

Oh, and they should contain around 50+ litres of extremely flammable liquids on them at most times.

Oh! And the ignition system should be capable of killing a man, while in the case of diesels, the fuel system should render PPE clothing a mere formality, because the pressures involved will cut steel.

Let's see.. What? Oh, yeah, for safety well place an explosive charge in the steering wheel - oh, more safety? Ok then, more explosive charges, we'll even put them in the seat belts. And we'll make the brakes worse with an anti-locking system because who's going to bother practicing braking...
Now then... Ah! Yes built up areas full of people, we'll limit the singular speed to 50kph but a lot of the accidents that happen there will be by drivers braking those limits and for the people hit by drivers that don't, paralysis and various life changing/threatening injuries are still incredibly likely, regardless of things like energy dispersal development, because you're still going from 0-50kph in the blink of an eye at the hands of 1000kgs of steel...

So, 2016, i think we're ready for this!

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

I'm not talking about road craft as such although motorcycles by their sheer design encourage recklessness such as weaving through traffic.

I'm talking about the very nature of motorcycles a two wheel machine with the rider straddling the fuel tank with flimsy protection like helmet and pads during collision or contact with the road which can dismember a rider.

If motorbikes were off the road tomorrow straight away there would be a significant reduction in road deaths.

The survivability of riding a motorcycle in a road traffic accident are significantly less than all other road users

If cars were off the road tomorrow there would be even larger reduction in road deaths.

So lets see your evidence to back these claims up please? So far you have done nothing but post your quite obviously bias and bizarrely ignorant opinion.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Did you read the OP? I think I have clearly stated why.

I said if a motorbike was invented today it would not be allowed on the road.

I think I have already explained the danger of motorcycles compared to other vehicles.

A number of posters on this thread have simply resorted to abuse rather than present an argument.

Very telling.

Again you have explained the danger in your opinion and provided zero evidence to back up your claims of "facts" especially in the case of motorbikes being invented today would not be allowed on the roads

Slanty

bladespin wrote: »

That's not safe driving.

So looking in my mirrors TWICE is classed as unsafe yet driving up the white stripe in the middle of the road which is to divide two lanes is safe??

Baffling

sonofenoch

KwackerJack wrote: »

Ban cyclists........ever see a motorbike run red lights at a busy junction??

Ever see 20 motorbikes riding side by side blocking the entire road.

You need a license for a motorbike yet the Lycra bandits hit the road with nothing but a chip on their shoulder and 'I'm right' ego

Is the OP a cyclist or a failed biker who couldn't hold a moped up right or just annoyed a biker gets thru traffic quicker

Funny you say that, was stopped at the lights outside the coombe hospital yesterday 2 women half way across with kids and not 1 but 2 by-cycles coming zooming by on the inside without so much as a shoulder check....kunts I thought

bladespin

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The survivability of riding a motorcycle in a road traffic accident are significantly less than all other road users

Pedestrians too, they tend not to come off too well when they interact with motor vehicles, should they be banned from the road too?

bladespin

Slanty wrote: »

So looking in my mirrors TWICE is classed as unsafe yet driving up the white stripe in the middle of the road which is to divide two lanes is safe??

Baffling

Yup. By your own words you 'glance' in your mirror, simply not good enough, baffling it is.

tu2j2

rjpf1980 wrote: »

You fall from a bike going at high speed you will be badly hurt or killed.

Lies!!!!

I've fallen off a bike at speed and suffered no injuries what so ever. Helmet jacket and pants ruined though.

bladespin

tu2j2 wrote:

I've fallen off a bike at speed and suffered no injuries what so ever. Helmet jacket and pants ruined though.

Try to avoid it though.

Slanty

bladespin wrote: »

Yup. By your own words you 'glance' in your mirror, simply not good enough, baffling it is.

My glance has gotten me accident free all my life, why won't you stop worrying about my driving ability and answer my question?

You agree it's safe to drive down the white stripe of a motorway under and over taking cars?