The Virginia Tech report is a couple of years old. You may have already read it. Not sure why it just popped up in my news feed. Revzilla's review is pretty good.
"Here’s the surprise, however. What’s the most common scenario? Riders hitting (or nearly hitting) another vehicle from behind. ... We’re not keeping our eyes up and looking far down the road, to see the developing situation that is going to cause the driver in front of us to slam on his brakes, or to spot the hunk of exploded truck tire lying in our lane. Those things are taking us by surprise and we’re not giving ourselves enough time to react."
https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/wh...otorcycles
Interesting. Thanks, Roper.
One of the observations the reports made was that riders were unable to look far enough ahead and around to the sides. For so many years I rode bikes with clip-ons or lower bars that of course had me craning my neck looking up. I couldn't easily rotate my head to look to the sides. The plane of head rotation was not parallel to the ground, so what I viewed took a little longer to process.
With my first upright bike, a 1990 Transalp, I could not only see over traffic, but it was easy to rotate my head quickly, easily, and painlessly. What a revelation! Now I wouldn't want a bike with clip-ons or low bars in any traffic, especially in L.A.
It makes me wonder if the generation of younger riders starting out on Ninja 300s or R3s are unwittingly starting with a severe disadvantage.
(10-22-2018, 06:21 PM)pekingduck_imp Wrote: [ -> ]One of the observations the reports made was that riders were unable to look far enough ahead and around to the sides. For so many years I rode bikes with clip-ons or lower bars that of course had me craning my neck looking up. I couldn't easily rotate my head to look to the sides. The plane of head rotation was not parallel to the ground, so what I viewed took a little longer to process.
With my first upright bike, a 1990 Transalp, I could not only see over traffic, but it was easy to rotate my head quickly, easily, and painlessly. What a revelation! Now I wouldn't want a bike with clip-ons or low bars in any traffic, especially in L.A.
It makes me wonder if the generation of younger riders starting out on Ninja 300s or R3s are unwittingly starting with a severe disadvantage.
they most definitely are. they're starting on those bikes because they "look cool" and because they wanna be loud and fast, even though they're not going to be fast on a 300 no matter how bad they want it. whenever i encounter somebody who's thinking about getting a first bike I always tell them to look for a standard. don't buy an overweight cruiser, don't buy a sportbike, buy a standard. you sit up, your position is neutral, your body is relaxed and you can focus on riding with agility. but i guess standards are nerd bikes because nobody ever listens.
(10-22-2018, 09:19 PM)misterprofessionality_imp Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2018, 06:21 PM)pekingduck_imp Wrote: [ -> ]One of the observations the reports made was that riders were unable to look far enough ahead and around to the sides. For so many years I rode bikes with clip-ons or lower bars that of course had me craning my neck looking up. I couldn't easily rotate my head to look to the sides. The plane of head rotation was not parallel to the ground, so what I viewed took a little longer to process.
With my first upright bike, a 1990 Transalp, I could not only see over traffic, but it was easy to rotate my head quickly, easily, and painlessly. What a revelation! Now I wouldn't want a bike with clip-ons or low bars in any traffic, especially in L.A.
It makes me wonder if the generation of younger riders starting out on Ninja 300s or R3s are unwittingly starting with a severe disadvantage.
they most definitely are. they're starting on those bikes because they "look cool" and because they wanna be loud and fast, even though they're not going to be fast on a 300 no matter how bad they want it. whenever i encounter somebody who's thinking about getting a first bike I always tell them to look for a standard. don't buy an overweight cruiser, don't buy a sportbike, buy a standard. you sit up, your position is neutral, your body is relaxed and you can focus on riding with agility. but i guess standards are nerd bikes because nobody ever listens.
they most definitely are. they're starting on those bikes because they "look cool" and because they wanna be loud and fast, even though they're not going to be fast on a 300 no matter how bad they want it. whenever i encounter somebody who's thinking about getting a first bike I always tell them to look for a standard. don't buy an overweight cruiser, don't buy a sportbike, buy a standard. you sit up, your position is neutral, your body is relaxed and you can focus on riding with agility. but i guess standards are nerd bikes because nobody ever listens.
I couldn't agree more with that
I've always been a "sit up" rider and constantly scanning in traffic situations.
We don't have the intense rat race traffic here that many of you have to contend with, but you still have to pay attention. We have our share of idiots behind the wheel.
There is encouragement in the marketplace that more standard-type bikes are gaining some prominence. Bikes like the CB300F and CB500F have become more desirable than their full-faired brethern. And smaller Adventure bikes are an emerging category that may re-envigorate interest in motorcycling, and image is a huge part of that.
I've seen parallels among other transport modes. In the '70s, most bicycles sold were either "racer"-types with uncomfortable drop bars, or heavy-duty beach cruiser types (mostly Schwinns), with a few European tourist-type.
Bicycling was dying, until the advent of a new type of "standard", the mountain bike, with a more upright riding position, that hinted that you the rider were an adventurous sort, even if you never wandered off the bike path.
Similarly, the popular and practical station wagons of the '60s and '70s was declining as it became known as a dull and boring transport. Whoever came up with the SUV name was a genius, so now tall station wagons say you are the adventurous sort, even though most never go off road.
I apologize for the long digression, but just hope that the Adventure-bike will re-envigorate motorcycle interest, especially with newer riders, with a safer, more useful style, that allows all kinds of modifications, including safety bars, windshields, hand guards, etc., that can protect a rider better. And provide that all-important ability to look around and see traffic and road hazards. And to look cool, even if most won't be used off-road.
And what a dreadful invention was the 'tall station wagon'? Now the rest of us who ride bikes or don't want or need such a large vehicle are rendered more vulnerable on the road because we can't see past the wretched things and look further up the road where we need to see.
(10-23-2018, 11:15 AM)Cormanus_imp Wrote: [ -> ]And what a dreadful invention was the 'tall station wagon'? Now the rest of us who ride bikes or don't want or need such a large vehicle are rendered more vulnerable on the road because we can't see past the wretched things and look further up the road where we need to see.
I too hate trucks and tall vehicles. Not only because I can't see ahead, but also the annoying wind wash they create behind them.
I want to see as far ahead as I can and either drop back or blast past as soon as I can.
If at all possible I never ride behind a truck or van. It breaks the old rule I was taught in 1966 when I started riding, "SEE AND BE SEEN".
If I can't pass I drop way back. An impatient car driver or two will usually fill the gap in front of me. Now I am not in the truck wash and can see and be seen.
When there is no traffic in front of me I ride in the left half of my lane. That forces people behind me who want to pass to move out over the center line and not brush by me in my lane.
When there is oncoming traffic and no traffic in front of me, I move to the right half of my lane. I want to see the impatient driver behind the oncoming car waiting to pass, and I want him to see me. Once they move out to pass they are always reluctant to brake and move back in.
(10-24-2018, 03:44 AM)Nortoon_imp Wrote: [ -> ]If at all possible I never ride behind a truck or van. It breaks the old rule I was taught in 1966 when I started riding, "SEE AND BE SEEN".
If I can't pass I drop way back. An impatient car driver or two will usually fill the gap in front of me. Now I am not in the truck wash and can see and be seen.
When there is no traffic in front of me I ride in the left half of my lane. That forces people behind me who want to pass to move out over the center line and not brush by me in my lane.
When there is oncoming traffic and no traffic in front of me, I move to the right half of my lane. I want to see the impatient driver behind the oncoming car waiting to pass, and I want him to see me. Once they move out to pass they are always reluctant to brake and move back in.
That's exactly what I do. But sadly never was taught by the driving school.
Had to find it out by myself.
Drive safe and EVER expect, that the car/truck/whatever-driver in front of you didn't see you and crosses your way.
Not only have a "Plan B" but also have a "Plan C". This could and will safe
your live!
Markus