Interesting perspective on MC crashes.

[Pterodactyl_imp]

I have made my views on this subject well known. See the post below. Better still read the [url=http://cb1100forum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3758&highlight=Lemmings]Entire Thread. But there are a lot of opinions, some contrary, some not, in that thread. Personally, I have no reason to change my views expressed by the "shark" metaphor. Simply put, if you choose to swim with the Sharks, don't blame anyone else but yourself if you get bitten. The "sharks" in our case are normal human errors that are totally ineradicable. We are, after all, humans and are far from perfection.

It's human to look for "the solution," Ptero, but I'm afraid in some cases there isn't one. Guys are going to ride over their heads, ride too fast for conditions, or, on rare occasions, ride beyond the capabilities of their bikes.

We can't "fix" riders, but we can promote ATGATT and rider training, continue developing safety systems like ABS and TC , and improve the riding environment with better roads, signage, etc.

You're a good man to have spent the time helping that guy out.

Thanks, but I am certain that most members of this forum would do the same. The ferret would probably have produced a cup of tea as well .

Back to the point of my post. Let me look at some of ferret's points. Signage: it's a double edged sword that plays well in the the blame game. In some remote parts of our state where the roads are very twisty, narrow and dangerous there is very little signage. These roads have a sign at either end. This sign indicates, by a black circle with a diagonal line (similar to a banned sign), that the previous speed limit is removed. Under the circle is a simple notice: Drive Carefully to Suit Conditions. These roads compare very favourably for accident stats with very well signed roads. Nothing like not knowing what awaits you to make you work hard on what you can ACTUALLY SEE. Novel idea huh? Unlike a turn with a, say, 85kph advisory; for a slow coach like me about 120 is good and for the boy racers I couldn't really say 'cause I'm eating their dust. Sadly, sometimes ambition exceeds ability.

Next, risk taking. What has surprised me is the absence of challenges to my assertion that if a motorist knocks us off in an act of callous stupidity that it is OUR FAULT. Let me explain. It's our fault, on a tactical level, for maybe not scanning, anticipating or buffering. But if we have done all those things and the worst occurs how can it be possibly our fault? And this is where the lame duck "excuses" get rolled out. "He didn't indicate" etc, etc, etc.

Does anyone in their right mind blame the shark for taking a surfer who chooses to surf in a "toothy" location? No, of course they wouldn't. You might say "What in hell has that got to do with it?" Well, good folks, now is the time to take another look in that metaphorical mirror. You have chosen to ride a vehicle with limited self righting capability. You have chosen to ride a vehicle with no protective structure, no seat belt, no air bags, no side impact protection. A vehicle with a low visual impact (apart from my clown suit that is ). Look at the environment you choose to ride in. Humans will never ever stop making stupid decisions and errors of commission or omission. Humans will never be always able to apply themselves to the task in hand without their minds wandering to the mortgage, the family problems, the incoming SMS tone, the next fix or even the more pleasant aspects of our existence. We choose to ride in close proximity and often at high speed to humans in charge of, but often not in control of, lethal weapons. Like the surfer we choose to be vulnerable in a high risk environment. So if it all goes pear shaped we must accept responsibility for being there. Agreed?

Make roads perfect no risk structures, preferably straight. Ensure humans, both riders and drivers, make no errors (that's a hard one, but in the world of SF spookily doable). Limit speed to walking pace. Put trainer wheels on to prevent the low speed drop. Compulsory ABS, traction control, limit power, make bikes bland but very very safe. Remove all risk. Isn't that the ultimate goal?

How far do we want to go down that path? I suspect that not too many on this forum want all risk removed. My view is that if ALL risk is removed then I'd rather play lawn bowls, it's closer to the bar. Or the tea room.

Cheers

Thanks, but I am certain that most members of this forum would do the same. The ferret would probably have produced a cup of tea as well .

Back to the point of my post. Let me look at some of ferret's points. Signage: it's a double edged sword that plays well in the the blame game. In some remote parts of our state where the roads are very twisty, narrow and dangerous there is very little signage. These roads have a sign at either end. This sign indicates, by a black circle with a diagonal line (similar to a banned sign), that the previous speed limit is removed. Under the circle is a simple notice: Drive Carefully to Suit Conditions. These roads compare very favourably for accident stats with very well signed roads. Nothing like not knowing what awaits you to make you work hard on what you can ACTUALLY SEE. Novel idea huh? Unlike a turn with a, say, 85kph advisory; for a slow coach like me about 120 is good and for the boy racers I couldn't really say 'cause I'm eating their dust. Sadly, sometimes ambition exceeds ability.

Next, risk taking. What has surprised me is the absence of challenges to my assertion that if a motorist knocks us off in an act of callous stupidity that it is OUR FAULT. Let me explain. It's our fault, on a tactical level, for maybe not scanning, anticipating or buffering. But if we have done all those things and the worst occurs how can it be possibly our fault? And this is where the lame duck "excuses" get rolled out. "He didn't indicate" etc, etc, etc.

Does anyone in their right mind blame the shark for taking a surfer who chooses to surf in a "toothy" location? No, of course they wouldn't. You might say "What in hell has that got to do with it?" Well, good folks, now is the time to take another look in that metaphorical mirror. You have chosen to ride a vehicle with limited self righting capability. You have chosen to ride a vehicle with no protective structure, no seat belt, no air bags, no side impact protection. A vehicle with a low visual impact (apart from my clown suit that is ). Look at the environment you choose to ride in. Humans will never ever stop making stupid decisions and errors of commission or omission. Humans will never be always able to apply themselves to the task in hand without their minds wandering to the mortgage, the family problems, the incoming SMS tone, the next fix or even the more pleasant aspects of our existence. We choose to ride in close proximity and often at high speed to humans in charge of, but often not in control of, lethal weapons. Like the surfer we choose to be vulnerable in a high risk environment. So if it all goes pear shaped we must accept responsibility for being there. Agreed?

Make roads perfect no risk structures, preferably straight. Ensure humans, both riders and drivers, make no errors (that's a hard one, but in the world of SF spookily doable). Limit speed to walking pace. Put trainer wheels on to prevent the low speed drop. Compulsory ABS, traction control, limit power, make bikes bland but very very safe. Remove all risk. Isn't that the ultimate goal?

How far do we want to go down that path? I suspect that not too many on this forum want all risk removed. My view is that if ALL risk is removed then I'd rather play lawn bowls, it's closer to the bar. Or the tea room.

Cheers