Motorbikes and fatal accidents

[EmmaDilemma5]

The vast majority of fatal accidents I read about involve a motorbike (and often a lorry).

Motorcyclists seem so vulnerable on the roads. AIBU to think something should be done about this?

I'm not trying to victim blame, but I often see motorcyclists weaving around the queues, speeding ridiculous speeds on motorways and generally not abiding by the usual rules of the road.

It's a bit like XL bullies. When you hear of a fatal dog attack, you can almost guarantee it includes a Bully. Same with fatal road accidents, it seems nearly each time it involves a motorbike.

AIBU to think, for their sakes, those of their families and for those traumatised by killing cyclists, that something needs to be addressed?

All that needs to happen is that riders who behave inappropriately get properly sanctioned. It's already illegal to do 150mph on the motorway, the riders that do this just need to be caught.

I think it's the same with cyclists, they need to be made responsible for their actions. Obviously a speeding motorcyclist is most likely to harm themselves more than other road users, but cyclists are more likely to harm pedestrians more than themselves.

The thing that needs to happen is prosecution, banning from riding, and jail for those who flout the law by speeding through red lights.

They’re more vulnerable, but the victim blaming is misplaced. They are usually not the ‘at fault’ party in the accident, just most affected.

Motorcyclists (and cyclists) need to make sure they’re visible, predictable and wearing the right kit, but those in cars need to remember to look out for them - it’s easy to just look for cars when pulling out of a junction for example.

Motorcyclists are certainly vulnerable on roads.
But the vast majority?
Confirmation bias on your part. Motorcyclists are not the majority group of reported RTA fatalities. Nowhere near.
Given the sheer number of car drivers, it’s unsurprising they are the ones most often fatally injured.
That said, the risk of dying from a RTA is something like 50x higher on a bike. There’s only so much you can do about that difference, given the physical difference.

As to “something needs to be addressed” - it already is being addressed. See graph.

I think it is victim blaming to talk about bikes weaving around, unless you’ve already looked at the statistics on what accidents for bikes are fatal, and the circumstance?

@evilkitten I'm not so sure. They whizz around bends and I rarely see any motorcyclist keeping to the speed limits on any type of road.

Speeding and weaving makes it very difficult for motorists to actually see them with enough time to change their driving. One nearly went into the side of my car the other day as they weaved between traffic to get to the front of the queue. I mean, do you ever see a motorcyclist waiting in line at lights?

BUT that's not to say they're always at fault. There are definitely some shocking car drivers on the road too!

“I rarely see any motorcyclist keeping to the speed limits on any type of road.”

This seems unlikely.

Remember that you are most likely to notice a motorcycle when it is overtaking you. Therefore, you are going to see the small % that are speeding, but you’ll also misjudge the illusion that they’re breaking the limit just because they’re faster than you. The noise of them contributes to an incorrect perception of relative speed. Plus your obvious confirmation bias.

You just don’t see the motorcyclist who set off 6 mins after you, on your route, doing the same speed as you.

The graphic you posted is numbers, not rate, so it's possible that just reflects a decreasing number of motorcyclists on the road, rather than an improvement on them being involved in RTA.

If motorcyclists are 50x more likely to die on the roads that car drivers, something needs to be done?

I hear of loads of accidents involving cars. But the vast majority with fatalities seem to involve bikes, which is what your 50x stat would support too.

I didn't write the post to bash motorbike drivers, but to ask if something needs to be done to reduce the fatal accidents.

That doesn't make sense to me. I look out of the front windscreen 98% of my driving time. Therefore I can see all vehicles in front of me. So I can see what speed they're driving at.

For the other 2% of my time, I'm checking my side and rear mirrors, and I can see them there too.

If someone can only notice other drivers by seeing them overtake, that's rather worrying!

In our area there are several motorcycle deaths a year. Unfortunately in a collision cyclists have zero protection. We do see many motorcyclists driving too fast and overtaking when it is not safe. There are several long straight country roads that bring out weekend riders. There have been loads of complaints from residents as they feel unsafe and from the constant noise. However, at least four of the fatal accidents involving motorcycles over the past couple of years were not the cyclists fault - these are just the ones I am aware of, there may have been more.

A massive clamp down on speeding would help and maybe some education, but I don't see an outright ban ever happening.

“If motorcyclists are 50x more likely to die on the roads that car drivers, something needs to be done? “

That’s not what I said. I said that they’re 50x more likely to die from an RTA, not 50x more likely to die on the roads. When they have an RTA, they come off more badly than car drivers (just as do pedestrians and cyclists). They are not 50x more likely to die than car drivers in overall fatalities.

A lot of accidents when it comes it is because cars don't look out properly for them!

My partner got in an accident years ago and the car was at fault

“The graphic you posted is numbers, not rate”

It’s not numbers. It’s an index, relative to 2004.

“If someone can only notice other drivers by seeing them overtake, that's rather worrying!”

Where did I say ONLY?
I said “most likely”.

You seem to have a lot of bias of both the ordinary and confirmation type!

Incidentally, I bloody hate motorbikes - but I love statistics.

Regardless of fault, doesn't something need to be done to make them less likely to be in an accident and die?

@Testina I'm not sure what the relevance is. If they're 50x more likely to die from an RTA, then surely something needs to happen to address that?

And that's either;

1. reducing the risk of RTA
2. reducing the risk of dying once in an RTA

Or...do we just accept that theyre more likely to die?

I still stand by my concern that many drive like racing bikes and don't abide by the rules of the road. That's not all, of course.

“The graphic you posted is numbers, not rate, so it's possible that just reflects a decreasing number of motorcyclists on the road, rather than an improvement on them being involved in RTA”

I don’t think you understood the graph I shared. The top line is the rate of traffic, so it allows for your point. It shows that there was a reduction in motorcycle traffic, but that the reduction in fatalities was larger than that effect alone.

It might be the 'vast majority' that you bother reading about but the reality is that motorcyclists make up only about 7.5% of total road fatalities. The numbers are easily obtainable here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2021

Your post was insinuating that I've misjudged the frequency in which I've seen speeding motorcycles, because I'm noticing them when they overtake.

I was saying, no. I DO notice when they speed to overtake but I also notice when they speed in front of me, behind me, in the distance. You may like statistics, but I know what I experience having driven for over 15 years.

Those of us who take motorbike safety very seriously wear expensive protective clothing, high quality helmets and often take extra training to protect ourselves.

The problems remain with idiot vehicle drivers who don't look around themselves properly and that's out of our control.

There are also the idiot motorcyclists who wear shorts and tshirts, no protective gear and ride like absolute see you next Tuesdays - that's Darwinism in action. Especially the teenage / 20 somethings riding out with their mates, popping wheelies on their derestricted 50cc mopeds on dual carriageways. Fortunately the vast majority of riders are nothing like this.

If you're not familiar with the Highway Code, please check it as motorcyclists are permitted to filter in slow or static traffic. You should be aware of this as a possibility as a driver and drive accordingly.

Bother to read about? I don't "bother" to read just about motorcycle deaths. I just generally read the news and local SM and hear disproportionate reports of motorcyclist deaths.

They are more likely to die in an accident because unlike a car, they do no have seatbelts and are not surrounded by several tonnes of metal designed to protect the people inside the car. There are obviously exceptions but most of the accidents I see tend to be the fault of car/van/lorry drivers not looking properly, in fact I had a friend that was killed on his bike due to the inattentive driving of a car coming the other way.

Also when you say weaving, are you perhaps referring to filtering which is entirely legal (and acceptable) on motorbikes (and bicycles!)

Look, I’m not having a go at you here!
Your 15 years of driving is as biased as my 35. That’s why we need statistics in order to guide policy exactly to achieve your aim of less deaths. I’m never going to disagree with you that that’s needed!

Your perception seems to be that “often” a lorry is involved. So maybe if you were trying to decide what must be done, you’d focus on a campaign around lorries, or some legislation. But the statistics don’t show lorries as being involved in the main circumstance of fatalities. That’s with just one other car. In fact, a motorcyclist is 4x as likely to die with no other vehicle involved, than with a lorry involved.

That’s why I’m questioning your perception. The statistics are the way to determine policy, not your or my biased experience.

Me and my husband were bikers before kids. We were knocked off a few times and had so many very close calls. We werent speeding or riding dangerously. Car drivers simply didn't see us. In many cases the drivers actually looked at us, any carried on pulling out/moving into our lane. I think its because a motor bike doesn't fully register in the moment (and it only takes a moment for a collision to occur) because we're more used to seeing cars rather than bikes on the roads.

A good friend of mine was killed on his bike when doing 30 on a 30... the car pulled out on him and he was catapulted over the car. It was all caught on camera. He died at the scene.

We stopped riding after that.

Well, good to hear that you realise they are disproportionately reported. Motorcyclists are the highest risk group of all road users (followed by pedestrians and cyclists) in terms of KSA per road user miles but the overall numbers are very low as there are simply not very many motorcyclists compared to other road users.

I didn't mean a motorbike and a lorry. I meant motorbike or a lorry. Can see that wasn't clear.

Do you usually fact check every thread? It's fine you've done that here, I've learned something new to know that there are more fatalities from car driver than motorcycles (assuming the stats don't include passengers?). But it does seem a bit arsy, given this is Mumsnet, not a peer reviewed article. I'm just a normal person, who's heard of a few recent motorbike deaths and wondering if there's anything that can be done to reduce the deaths.