Motorbike Accident

FX Meister

Witnessed a motor bike accident while travelling through Wales yesterday. Five people out on a cruise on four bikes. The first rounded a sharp enough corner then the second came around too straight, leaned in too far to compensate and went right down. The first car slammed on the brakes and so did we and them jumped out to try and assist. The bike, a Suzuki GSX R 600, went straight into the crash barrier and totally mangled the front. The rider smashed his leg off the barrier post, breaking it and then slid under the barrier, luckily landed pretty close to the barrier and not further down what was a steep hill. The first thing his mates went to do was lift him over the barrier, didn't even ask him if he was feeling any pain of numbness. We protested and said not to move him but they wouldn't listen so we just helped lift him over the barrier and laid him down on the road. After this we asked if he had any pain in his back or neck or if anything felt wrong but he said it was just his leg. I pitied the guy but couldn't get over his mates insistance on moving him. To make matters worse the week before another of their riders came off his bike only a mile away from this spot. Surely they would have learnt from that time not to move an injured person. We left just as the ambulance crew arrived to do their work. Hopefully just a broken leg and a smashed up bike but it could have been a lot worse. A few seconds later and he would have slid right into the on coming car. And hopefully he had no damage to his neck or back which could have been made worse by his mates moving him.

Alfasudcrazy

Yes that was madness - moving him before the medical services arrived. There was another fatal motor cycle accident in Kerry yesterday.
Motorbikes (even though I love them) are just not worth the risk IMO anymore.
Wales is a tricky place to drive a car let alone a bike. :rolleyes:

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/05/02/story200711.asp

lomb

Alfasudcrazy wrote:

Yes that was madness - moving him before the medical services arrived. There was another fatal motor cycle accident in Kerry yesterday.
Motorbikes (even though I love them) are just not worth the risk IMO anymore.
Wales is a tricky place to drive a car let alone a bike. :rolleyes:

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2005/05/02/story200711.asp

yes u are 17 times more likely to die on a bike

Seth Brundle

interesting stat lomb.
I wonder what proportion is caused by motorcyclist error and how much by car driver error?

Fabritzo

Sounds like he got away with a banged up leg, cos he hit the barrier. If it happened here, his leg, torso and head might have ended up in 3 separate places. I know MAG Ireland have issues with the cheap stringie barriers they're putting on motorways here, has anyone else?

Seth Brundle

Fabritzo wrote:

Sounds like he got away with a banged up leg, cos he hit the barrier. If it happened here, his leg, torso and head might have ended up in 3 separate places. I know MAG Ireland have issues with the cheap stringie barriers they're putting on motorways here, has anyone else?

you mean the 'cheese wire'?

FX Meister

Without the barrier though he would have gone off the side of a fairly steep hillside and probably would have been in a worse state in the end. It didn't even look like he was going that fast but the damage to his bike was huge, the whole front of the fairings was completely smashed, the wheel was smashed and the forks section rammed right into the front of the bike. It came to a stop in the middle of the road so obviously it bounced off the barrier post.

smois

i know two ppl related too me that have both been in motorbike crashes one broke his neck

lomb

kbannon wrote:

interesting stat lomb.
I wonder what proportion is caused by motorcyclist error and how much by car driver error?

cant say, i heard it on radio the other day but id say its accurate mile for mile u probably are 17 times more likely to die on a bike. however it wouldnt stop me buying a bike for the odd days pleasure cruising. the v rod is the dream and i will get it some day.

FX Meister

I have a friend who has come off his three times, and crashed his dads month old CBR Fireblade. Another mate hit a tree on his 1100 Bandit avoiding a female motorist that pulled out in front of him. Ans my sisters boyfriend came off his GSX R 750 on a roundabout. But then I do know more people who have had car accidents. I was considering getting a bike soon. I already drive so the bike would be just for fun, but seeing what happened has put me off some what.

Hotblack Desiato

lomb wrote:

yes u are 17 times more likely to die on a bike

So what? :rolleyes: It's at least 100 times more rewarding than driving any car.
My attitude is that I will make myself as safe as I can, but I will not stop doing things I enjoy because others consider them dangerous, everything in life is a risk.

Bikes certainly aren't for everyone - a lot of self discipline is (or should be) required.
If we had proper training in this country - of cagers as well as bikers - then motorcycling would be far safer.
The accident described sounds like a classic weekend warrior / born again biker mid-corner panic - entirely avoidable with training.
Scary that they would move an injured person before medical help arrives :eek:

lomb

ninja900 wrote:

So what? :rolleyes: It's at least 100 times more rewarding than driving any car.

well everything is a choice and people should know the facts ,whatever about dying, we are all going to die anyway but i wouldnt want to spend 30 years in a wheelchair without having bladder control or being able to move my hands.

at the recent bikeshow in the rds i noted how many visitors there were in wheelchairs.

i wouldnt be as worried about the 17 times stat of death but the risk of being paraplegic or quadraplegic for life.

as i say it wouldnt stop me from careful weekend use in dry weather but NO WAY would i commute on one or put any mileage on one. u are only asking for trouble if u do this especially on fast country roads.

FX Meister

He was 26, his mates looked in their thirties. Serious bikes too, not your bog standard straight from the shop job. But moving the guy after the same group having had an accident the week before is what I couldn't understand. I know you can be in shock but you shouldn't let that over rule common judgement.

Hotblack Desiato

kbannon wrote:

interesting stat lomb.
I wonder what proportion is caused by motorcyclist error and how much by car driver error?

MAG Ireland got figures a couple of years ago from both Hibernian and Carole Nash based on their bike claims data, both said that in approx. 75% of car-bike accidents the bike was not to blame.
Vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists) are very much at risk from others behaviour as well as their own - improving the average standard of driving would benefit everyone but would have a disproportionate benefit for the more vulnerable road users.

lomb wrote:

but the risk of being paraplegic or quadraplegic for life. as i say it wouldnt stop me from careful weekend use in dry weather but NO WAY would i commute on one or put any mileage on one. u are only asking for trouble if u do this especially on fast country roads.

That's your choice, fine, but the stat you quoted hides as much as it reveals (like most stats...)
It's an average for all riders in all situations - including stolen bikes, unroadworthy machines, very inexperienced riders, disqualified/drunk/no licence, etc.
E.g. last year some muppet on a stolen bike with his prison-escapee mate on the back slammed into an empty bus in Wicklow. The stats just record that as 2 more bike deaths and ignores the circumstances. 2 deaths isn't statistically significant in terms of total road deaths, but it's a significant percentage of bike deaths in a year.

What would be an interesting statistic would be this: Experienced, highly trained mature rider vs. experienced, trained, mature car driver.
I don't know what the figure would be, but it certainly wouldn't be 17 to 1.

Also - plenty of car occupants and pedestrians end up paralysed as well. The risk may be less but it's still there.

Elfish

Sad to hear another person coming off the bike, even if it sounds as if he might have had it coming to him sooner or later (weekend rider trying to keep up with his mate in front and losing it on a corner).

In any event, it is good to see that people seem to have an awareness of what to do at the scene of a bike accident (ie LEAVE MOVING INJURED PERSON TO PARAMEDICS UNLESS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY).

One other thing I would like to add if you come on the scene of a bike accident:
NEVER ATTEMPT TO REMOVE VICTIM'S HELMET
(you might unwittingly paralyse the victim if there is a neck injury)

Hope no one has to use the guidelines!
Ride safely

Alfasudcrazy

Well I had a Bandit 600 for a few years and was a Garda biker for 10 years. Its fine to say that well trained bikers who ride their bikes responsibly should be OK but that ignores the physics involved.
In an emergency the options of the biker V the motorist are very limited.
On a motorbike severe braking is not always possible (going around a bend / wet roads etrc) and at speed it is difficult to alter course quickly and safely in the same way a car can at the same speed.
It was for safety reasons that I sold my Bandit - the thought was again not of being killed (at least that is final) it is the thought of permanent injury that put me off it. The increasing insurance costs were also a significant factor. :rolleyes:

causal

lomb wrote:

at the recent bikeshow in the rds i noted how many visitors there were in wheelchairs.

By the same token, I've stopped shopping in supermarkets because of the inherent dangers - highlighted by the high number of invalid parking spaces outside :rolleyes:

Returning to the point, afaik the only time you must move an injured person is if: they are unconcious AND lying on their back

The reason is that after roughly 3 minutes an unconcious person lying on their back will have their tongue slip back into their throat blocking their airway and causing suffocation. In this case the risk of spinal injury is considered preferable to death. Of course properly rolling the person into the recovery position will reduce the chance of a spinal injury - as opposed to just flipping them over like a burger.

If anyone with medical training can contribute to this please do

causal

edmund_f

suppose i will draw the first line in the sand here,

from my 4 weeks in first aid training, which would make me probably the most inexperienced first aider in Ireland, we we shown a neck brace roll, basically where it requires two people, one to roll and one to imoblise the neck. Then that person holding the neck stays there until the EMT arrives and can immoblise the neck. There are situations where paralysis is better than death, but the only one that i know of which involves lifting a person is where they are in immenent danger (e.g. beside a burst gas main or suchlike).

Again talking from a very inexperienced view point the basic way a accident scene goes is that there is a hirearchy or knowledge, i.e. the person who is most qualified runs the show. Thus if you have first aid training, and are the most qualified at the time part of your responsibility is not only to ensure that you are treating the injurues to the best of your ability but to ensure no one else may injure that person further.. perserve protect promote..

Hotblack Desiato

Alfasudcrazy wrote:

In an emergency the options of the biker V the motorist are very limited.
On a motorbike severe braking is not always possible (going around a bend / wet roads etrc)

True, but the first thing my instructor would say here is - why is this rider having to brake hard unexpectedly on a bend or wet road? This indicates a failure to properly apply 'the system'.

Cars may have more braking capability in a curve or in the wet (especially with ABS) but that's only of benefit if the driver doesn't negate that benefit by going faster, tailgating etc. thinking the gizmos will save them no matter what. Few drivers in Ireland seem to have any idea what a safe following distance is, if you have no time to react even an ex-F1 set of carbon brakes won't save you.

It's how much safety margin you have left that matters.

jackal

FX Meister wrote:

He was 26, his mates looked in their thirties. Serious bikes too, not your bog standard straight from the shop job. But moving the guy after the same group having had an accident the week before is what I couldn't understand. I know you can be in shock but you shouldn't let that over rule common judgement.

The old "never judge a book by its cover" rule comes into play here. A weekend warrior is just as likely, if not more likely to have modified their bikes. The bike will sit in a garage for most of the year, so they have to do something to occupy the wet/cold/week days. Most make them into a total tarts handbag, but taste is individual.

Point is, anybody can own a serious bike, especially in england, where insurance costs are not as prohibitive as Ireland.

I remember a pretty experienced rider on the cbr forum, talking about riding round cork during a rally. He rides a sports bike, cbr400 or something. He mentioned getting his ass handed to him on a plate round the country roads by an old rider on an old moto-guzzi. He just tried to keep up and learn something.

Balfa

ninja900 wrote:

that's only of benefit if the driver doesn't negate that benefit by going faster, tailgating etc.

So you're saying no motorcyclists go fast, or tailgate, or anything? You think
motorcyclists are just intrinsically smarter road users?

the stat you quoted hides as much as it reveals (like most stats...) It's an average for all riders in all situations - including stolen bikes, unroadworthy machines, very inexperienced riders, disqualified/drunk/no licence, etc.

Oh. Then I guess you're not saying they're just smarter road users at all. Do you think car crash stats don't include any of the above??? Your point seems to be, regardless of vehichle, people who drive badly cause accidents. This, we already know.

smois

my dad desroyed his honda cbr 600..and broke his wrist..

causal

jackal wrote:

He mentioned getting his ass handed to him on a plate round the country roads by an old rider on an old moto-guzzi. He just tried to keep up and learn something.

If it was the old(er) rider on an old moto-guzzi that I'm thinking of, then mr cbr never had a chance

causal

Hotblack Desiato

Balfa wrote:

So you're saying no motorcyclists go fast, or tailgate, or anything? You think motorcyclists are just intrinsically smarter road users?

No. I didn't say that. There are some right muppets out there driving any type of vehicle and even none at all (kamikaze pedestrians).
I was responding to another poster who said that bikes have less ability to brake in the wet or in a corner than cars. This is true. What I was saying is that having a vehicle with theoretically better safety is all very well but the driver still needs to respect its limits.

Oh. Then I guess you're not saying they're just smarter road users at all. Do you think car crash stats don't include any of the above??? Your point seems to be, regardless of vehichle, people who drive badly cause accidents. This, we already know.

The point was that two muppets in a stolen car offing themselves isn't going to make a big dent (no pun intended) in the annual casualty figures for car occupants. One incident on one stolen motorbike did make a significant difference to the bike figures for that year. It doesn't help that there is a huge problem with bike theft which the Gardai are failing to address, and that high powered motorcycles are now the criminals getaway vehicle of choice.

Hotblack Desiato

jackal wrote:

The old "never judge a book by its cover" rule comes into play here. A weekend warrior is just as likely, if not more likely to have modified their bikes.

That's part of the problem. Riding the bike every day - especially to work so you have to ride it even if the weather isn't perfect - is the best way to get experience.
If you can ride the bike safely and confidently in adverse weather on adverse roads then you should be able to cope with most of what comes your way.
Good training helps a LOT but you need practice and experience too.

I remember a pretty experienced rider on the cbr forum, talking about riding round cork during a rally. He rides a sports bike, cbr400 or something. He mentioned getting his ass handed to him on a plate round the country roads by an old rider on an old moto-guzzi. He just tried to keep up and learn something.

Wonder if it was the Riders' Rally ? Lots of old gets on ancient looking BMs and the like do that rally, who are well capable of showing a young lad on a sportsbike a thing or two! Great fun (an 800 mile mystery tour around Ireland over the August bank holiday weekend)

seamus

Balfa wrote:

Oh. Then I guess you're not saying they're just smarter road users at all. Do you think car crash stats don't include any of the above??? Your point seems to be, regardless of vehichle, people who drive badly cause accidents. This, we already know.

Actually, it doesn't properly cover it. You're x times more likely to die (and here's the key part) *in the event of an accident*.

This is true, it's bound to be, but I would argue that this figure is slightly offset and a little higher than the actual stat. My logic is that if a motorcyclist has a minor accident, without hitting another vehicle, he's likely (so long as he's not hurt) to get up, dust himself off, and drive the bike home, then pay for any repairs himself. Certainly the only time I came off was when I first started biking, and I braked to heavily on a wet roundabout to avoid a collision. I got up (shaken, obviously) and drove on.
If the same type of minor accident occurs in a car, then it's more likely that people would get police or insurance involved, and so get added into the stats.

Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of my tendency to break in two if I crash, I just think the figures are a little wrong.

lomb

seamus wrote:

Actually, it doesn't properly cover it. You're x times more likely to die (and here's the key part) *in the event of an accident*.

This is true, it's bound to be,

that stat probably would be true but i thought it would have been mile for mile travelled? thats why air travel is the safest form of transport mile for mile there is nothing safer simply because an aircraft can eat 5000 miles for breakfast.

jackal

ninja900 wrote:

That's part of the problem. Riding the bike every day - especially to work so you have to ride it even if the weather isn't perfect - is the best way to get experience.
If you can ride the bike safely and confidently in adverse weather on adverse roads then you should be able to cope with most of what comes your way.
Good training helps a LOT but you need practice and experience too.


Wonder if it was the Riders' Rally ? Lots of old gets on ancient looking BMs and the like do that rally, who are well capable of showing a young lad on a sportsbike a thing or two! Great fun (an 800 mile mystery tour around Ireland over the August bank holiday weekend)

Yup, thats the rally alright. And I think we might know the rider too..

RicardoSmith

lomb wrote:

yes u are 17 times more likely to die on a bike

No matter how you try to qualify that statistic, whos fault, how stats are twisted, safe riding etc. The basic fact is that you are more exposed on a bike in an accident. An accident can happen to everyone, no matter how good, experienced or disciplined you are.