• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

The question...... (How to decrease motorcycle fatalities)

Rel said:
If one new law, whatever it may be saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?
Click to expand...

I come down on the side of "not necessarily." It depends on the side effects of said law.

Apart from increased costs and less personal freedom, both debatable points, you might see other unintended consequences of some laws that go undetected for some time because nobody is evaluating data about those trends.

Let's take the modulating headlight as an example. You point out that you always see them and they're annoying, but have never taken an accident report on somebody who had one. Fair enough. Let's legislate that every bike has to have a modulator on during daylight hours.

This might have the effect of reducing collisions with bikes that have modulators. It might also increase distractions in other ways. A motorist has a bike coming up from behind with an obnoxious modulator going and adjusts his mirror because the thing is driving him crazy. While he's momentarily distracted with that, the vehicle ahead of him stops abruptly and he rear-ends the guy. Maybe the vehicle ahead is another motorcyclist.

Now, the fact of being distracted by a modulator *might* come up in the accident report, but there's probably no way that it would find its way into stats evaluating the effectiveness of the new modulator law, because nobody will even know to look for things like that for a long time. It wouldn't be until years after such stories circulate that anyone would even think twice.

Interestingly, the requirement that all motorcyclists' headlights be on during the daytime was originally a measure taken to improve visibility. It has probably worked, but not that many years ago, suddenly all new trucks (and for a time other vehicles) had to be manufactured with headlights that came on during the day. Suddenly, a higher percentage of vehicles have their headlights on all the time and motorcycles are hard to distinguish again. This comparatively new law may have diluted the benefit motorcyclists got from running their lights all the time.

So, no, I don't always feel that a law that saves one life is a good law. It depends on how it fits into the big picture.
 
Last edited:
Rel said:
This thread is dedicated to specifically lowering the number of fatal motorcycle collisions. If one new law, whatever it may be saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?
Click to expand...

I have to agree with the masses here. If we have to make a law just to save one idiot, it ain't worth it.
 
If we limit the top speed of all motorcycles to 20MPH, it will undoubtedly save hundreds of lives. But I doubt many people would be willing to make that sacrifice.
 
I do not believe that laws are the answer. I believe that educating riders is the answer. The first thing we have to make riders understand is that all fatalities are OUR fault. Yeah, that's right people. There is virtually no fatal accident that could not have been avoided if the motorcycle rider had not done something differently. I am not saying that every victim in a fatal accident was doing anything illegal, (although statistically most are, and 2/3's are found to be at fault) but there is almost always something they could have done to avoid the accident, and saved themselves. Most times those things that need to be done long before the accident. Things like slowing down, maintaining the bike, being more attentive etc.

The first thing we have to do is quit blaming others for the accidents, and look at what WE can do to save ourselves. We all know there are idiot cage drivers out there. Knowing that, we have to take measures to try make sure they don't kill us. Same thing with unmaintained roads, spilled oil and anti-freeze etc. We have to learn to assume that those threats are out there, and be ready to deal with them when they happen.
 
OldFatGuy said:
If we limit the top speed of all motorcycles to 20MPH, it will undoubtedly save hundreds of lives. But I doubt many people would be willing to make that sacrifice.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll consider that law...

Sorry, it failed my consideration. :laughing
 
Rel said:
If one new law, whatever it may be saves a single life, then isnt it worth it?
Click to expand...

Short answer. No.

This is the same phrase used by the advocates of gun control/confiscation.

I am sure there are laws that can be passed that might save a life or two.

If there were, let's say, a law that required every single person in the United States to report once a week for blood testing to make sure no one was drinking or taking drugs, I am sure there would be lives saved.

I do neither, and I am not willing to submit to search and testing because others do.

There are plenty of laws on the books now to do the job. A lot of people just think the laws apply to everyone but them. (Just look at the questions asked in the LEO forum.)


After reading more about the modulating headlight, I may install one of those.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this thread, and the modulating headlight comment, save one life.
 
Twisted said:
Being the analyst I am, I would like to see what the breakdown is of those deaths. Age, gender we know, how long riding, what type/size of bike, gear worn (did it contribute or help?), who was at fault? Also, while it would be great to have no deaths, I am wondering if the number of deaths is proportional to those who are licensed given the perceived sharp increase in riders.

I think it is important to understand what is the cause to understand how to help. While some aren't big fans of MSF, I am a huge fan of it and would support it being required.

Another thing that I think helps keep me out of trouble is being a cager for a few years before I got on a bike. It helped me understand how traffic flows, things to watch for, and how invisible bikes are.
Click to expand...

This information is a little old 1990-1999 But still very useful. nation-wide stats...

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2001/809-360.pdf
 
My fixes would be:

Tiered licensing system
Mandatory safety courses for M1 license. The DMV test is not sufficient preparation.

Beyond that, I honestly don't know what could make much of a difference. I know for a fact if my current bike (an R1) had been my first bike, I'd be dead. I know even after riding for 16+ years, I learned quite a bit from the two days I spent at an MSF course when I let my M1 slip off for a few years.
 
The problem with creating new laws to solve a problem like this is making the statute match the underlying intent.

For example, I think most of us would agree that it would be a good idea to prevent reckless young n00bs from hopping on Gixxers as their first bikes. So how do you write a law that will enforce that intent? You can make sure the buyer is trained and licensed, require extra training and experience for the most potent motorcycles, and so on. But no such law can be both effective at achieving the desired purpose and fair to those who don't need the law to tell them what's best for them.

The deeper legislation tries to reach into the pathological depths of rider behavior, the more restrictive the law must be. For many people, an MSF basic course is perfectly adequate to get them started in street riding. Though they completed the course, they recognize their limitations and progress at a rate that keeps them in a comfort zone. Others lack that discipline--and even the recognition of danger--and go out and do the stupidest shit imaginable with their fresh M1. For the law to reach the undisciplined group, the simple requirement of MSF for an M1 won't cut it. So maybe we need an M0.5 that keeps them on a smaller bike for a year before they can step up to an M1. But that can't eliminate the problem because some riders are going to kill themselves on 500s and others will still lack the discipline even after a year on probationary status with the M0.5. So maybe what's needed is advanced training. And more advanced training. Every stiffening of the requirements tries to capture a smaller and more deviant segment of the riding population.

Meanwhile, the sensible majority is having ever greater--and unnecessary--burdens placed on them. The laws that started out with the admirable intent of keeping dipshits off Gixxers is now keeping everyone off nearly everything.
 
Rel, do you think there will ever be any chance of a tiered licensing system in CA?
 
First, we need moto classes based upon the Euro system; second, we need to re-do basic speed laws that are now based upon antiquated cager technology when road machines handled poorly; next we need laws that allow high tech motos to safely pass over the dy, itself a archaic engineering feat based upon low tech/low power cages; finally, we need to have laws giving priority to riders over cagers.

Everyone who rides on the peninsula/bay area knows that cagers are excellent drivers and tend to flow with rides. These solid people are an excellent model for all cagers elsewhere.

With an advanced MSF system, we can then introduce a German style autobahn system for both bikes and high tech cages.

It's ridiculous that solid pilots and drivers can not properly use their machines in a country that prides itself upon 'freedom.'
 
cycle61 said:
1) Will this law help the problem?

2) Does it avoid excessive imposition on personal liberty and freedom?

3) Can it, realistically, be implemented and enforced?
Click to expand...

That's a very good test for all these proposals we're talking about. The only thing that I would add is some sort of balancing between #1 and #2. Helmets laws are a good example.

#1. Mandatory helmet laws certainly helped the problem of motorcycle fatalities in a quantifiable fashion.

#2. Mandatory helmets imposed on motorcyclists freedom to ride without a helmet.

#1/#2 balancing: The amount of lives saved was very great. The freedom impinged on was not insignificant, but fairly small. People can still enjoy the full riding experience, only slightly diminished for some. (No one has ever given up riding just because they don't want to wear a helmet.)

#3: This law was fairly easy to implement and enforce. If police see a rider without a DOT helmet, pull them over and give them a ticket.

Because this law passed the balancing test, it has gained general acceptance (at least in CA.) I can't remember the last time I saw a rider without a helmet. Even for this law, the balancing between lives saved vs. freedoms lost is still debatable, as some other states are still fighting over the balancing between questions 1 and 2.

Let's apply this test to the new ideas in this thread.
 
tavin said:
we can then introduce a German style autobahn system for both bikes and high tech cages.

It's ridiculous that solid pilots and drivers can not properly use their machines in a country that prides itself upon 'freedom.'
Click to expand...

Where are the pilots?

You do know the differences between the Autobahn and what we have here, correct? And the cost differencees that would be involved?

Also, that whole "freedom" thing would be what prevents special roads for special drivers.
 
Rel,

This won't help you with your presentation / ideas needed for your superior... but really, one thing will help lower motorcycle fatalities without creating more of a nanny state or requiring the legislation to change the licensing requirements (which we know will never happen)....

More speed enforcement.

I really think a CHP-sponsored "Slow Down or Die" (or something like that) campaign, much like click it or ticket, would help. It would work much like the seatbelt program. The State gives local departments funds to do the week long "Slow Down or Die" program, and during that period of time local departments focus heavily on speed violations -- specifically for motorcycles.

Statistics would be kept the same way Click it or Ticket is. Observing how many people are violating that particular law PRIOR to the week long program, compared to how many are violating that particular law AFTER the week long program.

Or it could be a month long, who knows...

Anyway, you get the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top