Ride Safe!

ncpbmw1953 · Aug 4, 2017

This is an interesting study done by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Motorcycle Research Group/Center for Automated Vehicle Systems, for the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. It was done w/ 100 riders equipped w/ a set of 5 cameras, and covered 366,000 video monitored composite miles:

https://www.msf-usa.org/downloads/msf100_2016/Risk_Factors_From_MSF_100_Study_Paper.pdf

There are a couple of somewhat counter-intuitive findings, for example the locality that increases crash risk was 'Open Country/Open Residential". They offered various rationale for this and all could be summed up as: drop in rider vigilance from believing they are in a more relaxed environment, versus riding thru areas w/ more building and traffic density where the rider knows they need to be hyper-vigilant. It was more common to strike into another vehicle that has stopped, versus being struck from behind. Once again, rider inattentiveness seems to be a big factor. I guess the moral to the study is pretty clear: you're fully 'on-duty' from the moment you get on the until after the side stand is confirmed down! Ride Safe!

Friedle · Aug 4, 2017

Ride Safe

Study had good intentions, but sample size is way too small to make any valid conclusions regarding all types of riders all across the country. That being said, I have spent the past 20 years helping raise situational awareness and perception amongst the riding community. I can give you lots of information, but ultimately you are the one holding the handlebar. Wake up and smell the motor oil all around you.

Friedle
MSF 27713

ncpbmw1953 · Aug 4, 2017

Friedle said:
Study had good intentions, but sample size is way too small to make any valid conclusions

Friedle
MSF 27713

I agree it was more of a test of a model which was quite sophisticated if only it had involved 1000 riders and 3.3 million miles or what have you. Most if not all of the tentative conclusions one could have predicted, and in the end it only supports the notion that the onus is on the rider according to their personal risk tolerance or ignorance as the case may be. Simple take home messages: aim for 100% attentive 100% of the time including even the most mundane parts of your ride, low speed management etc; keep your target vision as far out as possible as conditions warrant; take routes associated w/ lower risk where possible; understand the higher the speed the greater the statistical crash risk and severity of injuries associated.

lmo1131 · Aug 5, 2017

keep your target vision as far out as possible as conditions warrant; take routes associated w/ lower risk where possible

Corporate just put us all through Smith Systems Driver Training; 2 hours of class work, and 6 hours of one-on-one, hands-on-behind-the-wheel driving. I'm Class A with all endorsements ("M" for 50 years) and kind of poo-poo'd the idea of having to participate in a "driving course"... boy, did I get an education; it should be required of ALL drivers. "Aim High" is the first tenet of the Smith's course, letting the peripheral vision of the lower portion of the eye fill in the view of what is immediately in front of us. Most of us only think of "peripheral" vision as what is on either side of us, but it does include what is in front of us as well. Try it... look far down the road; without shifting your vision you can "see" what is in front of you.; far too many drivers (2 and 4 wheel) drive only a few car lengths ahead of themselves.

The son of an acquaintance just sustained major head injuries as a result of a car making a "California Stop" in a residential neighborhood. On a through street, riding at only 20 mph, with the right-of-way, he assumed that the car would stop.

The young man said, "Dad I did everything I could to avoid being hit". Unfortunately, at the age of 23 the most important piece of ATGATT that a motorcyclist possesses has neither developed completely, nor experienced enough to anticipate scenarios. He will recover fully, and has learned a life-saving lesson, the hard way.

pauls1150 · Aug 5, 2017

I live at the second house in from a four-way stop, and I've told the local Sheriffs and CHP motors (my area has both) that they can feel free to use my driveway as an observation point - and they do, it's got partial shade for much of the day (and they might score a cold Vitamin Water or Body Armor if it's hot). Cars will not just roll right on through, literally 24/7, but some will actually see that there is an officer actively watching - and they roll through anyway. Geeze... if the cars don't see them, we surely cannot expect them to perceive us.

And yes, they catch folks talking on phones and texting, and some without the seat belt.

ncpbmw1953 · Aug 5, 2017

Rolling Stops

I'm actually an advocate for bikes being able to do rolling stops when conditions warrant, and there are many scenarios where there really is no risk incurred in a rolling stop done on a bike. I know there are ample situations where that's not the case and for those I do a full stop. One of the justifications that legislator's used in California to push thru lane splitting was risk for being rear-ended on a bike are greater than risks incurred from lane splitting, provided the lane splitting is done as safely as possible. I will absolutely do rolling stops if it appears I can see for sure there is no risk from pedestrians, dogs, bicycles, cars etc at the stop threshold and there is someone close to my six and take my chances on a citation. My practice when approaching a stop of any kind is to slow well before the stop while monitoring rear traffic to see if they are slowing as well. Once it's clear they're slowing well I will stop several feet before the actual stop threshold to give myself extra room in case the traffic behind me isn't continuing to slow.

pkpilot · Aug 5, 2017

ncpbmw1953 said:
I'm actually an advocate for bikes being able to do rolling stops when conditions warrant, and there are many scenarios where there really is no risk incurred in a rolling stop done on a bike. I know there are ample situations where that's not the case and for those I do a full stop. One of the justifications that legislator's used in California to push thru lane splitting was risk for being rear-ended on a bike are greater than risks incurred from lane splitting, provided the lane splitting is done as safely as possible. I will absolutely do rolling stops if it appears I can see for sure there is no risk from pedestrians, dogs, bicycles, cars etc at the stop threshold and there is someone close to my six and take my chances on a citation. My practice when approaching a stop of any kind is to slow well before the stop while monitoring rear traffic to see if they are slowing as well. Once it's clear they're slowing well I will stop several feet before the actual stop threshold to give myself extra room in case the traffic behind me isn't continuing to slow.

The problem is that you cannot define "when conditions warrant." That kind of phrase goes no where in court (traffic, criminal, or civil) because everyone will have a different definition or idea of what that phrase means. Learn to do a "trial stop" and you meet the legal requirements (i.e. a full stop). There may be a state that requires you to put a foot down, but I have not heard of one where that is stated in their traffic regulations.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

pauls1150 · Aug 5, 2017

I'm pretty sure that South Dakota requires a foot down.

dbrick · Aug 5, 2017

lmo1131 said:
Corporate just put us all through Smith Systems Driver Training; 2 hours of class work, and 6 hours of one-on-one, hands-on-behind-the-wheel driving. I'm Class A with all endorsements ("M" for 50 years) and kind of poo-poo'd the idea of having to participate in a "driving course"... boy, did I get an education; it should be required of ALL drivers. "Aim High" is the first tenet of the Smith's course, letting the peripheral vision of the lower portion of the eye fill in the view of what is immediately in front of us. Most of us only think of "peripheral" vision as what is on either side of us, but it does include what is in front of us as well. Try it... look far down the road; without shifting your vision you can "see" what is in front of you.; far too many drivers (2 and 4 wheel) drive only a few car lengths ahead of themselves.

I agree. While in high school and college in the 60s, I worked summers for Pacific Telephone in southern California. Ma Bell made me take a two-day Smith System class before they'd give me a truck. My father said my driving immediately improved significantly.

greenwald · Aug 5, 2017

Rolling stops on motorcycles as some sort of perceived option?

What a role model for all motorcyclists, as if our reputation with the voting public is not already teetering. :banghead

ncpbmw1953 · Aug 6, 2017

greenwald said:
Rolling stops on motorcycles as some sort of perceived option?

Absolutely. I'd love it, and so would you, to be able to legally do a rolling stop. There are intersections where it is safer than stopping fully, and many that aren't of course. You would know that not all traffic laws are black and white. For example tailgating is very illegal but rarely to never cited because it's too hard to call. A simple way to craft a rolling stop law were to base it on whether or not the encroaching from behind vehicle is less than 1 car length away from the motorcycle the rider can proceed cautiously provided there is no ingress from another other traffic, pedistrian, bicycle or motorized. Of course, liability goes to the motorcyclist who proceeds thru an stop and runs into anything along the way as it would be if the motorcycle stopped fully before proceeding.

If you're concerned about our reputation then you should be staunchly against lane-splitting--it's far less safe for the motorcycles, and massively more irritating to other traffic than a nice slow controlled rolling stop in the right place. If you want to see all kinds of road rage incidents stemming from motorcycles lane splitting, cutting in front of other traffic, youtube abounds. You won't see those w/ controlled rolling stops in part because everyone does them! Rear-end collisions into bikes has become much more common recently with the advent of more and more distracted driving. Some comments from Eric Trow, owner and instructor of Stayin’ Safe Advanced Rider Training and the Riding Well columnist for Rider magazine:

"[while] You still have the left-turning vehicle coming from the other direction and you still have vehicles pulling out from the sides, but now a big factor is what’s behind you. You have people who are beyond distracted, they’re just completely disengaged, so they’re not seeing things developing in front of them."

I'll continue to do rolling stops where it's safer to do so than not.

pauls1150 · Aug 6, 2017

Interesting that some comments about lane splitting come from people who don't do it every day, and/or who have never been rear-ended.
Yes I fit both categories.

ncpbmw1953 · Aug 6, 2017

Pauls1150 said:
Interesting that some comments about lane splitting come from people who don't do it every day, and/or who have never been rear-ended.
Yes I fit both categories.

You're an 'n of 1', whoopdeedoo. I see it all the time, I see the substantial risks involved, I see it out of control in the bay area when folks split lanes on the freeway going 30+mph faster than ambient. It's nuts. One of the main reasons the lane splitting law passed in CA had to do w/ higher risk of being rear ended when in line w/ traffic--fair enough--and that is why smart rolling stops could be legalized as well. Good luck with it at some point someone will open their car door to throw out a cup of coffee, or do the distracted swerve and drift into your lane right about the same time the car on the other side does the same thing in the opposite direction. This being said, I'm not against lane splitting if it conforms to legal requirements, but won't take the risk on myself. If it's stop and go which it was for a 14m on my last trip to So Cal on I-5 at the Tracy cutoff near Stockton I will do the illegal maneuver which is advance on either fairly wide paved shoulder--it was maybe 5-6' wide with level dirt on the outside of that. That eliminates one whole lane of potential problems, plus I can easily slip back into to slow traffic if needed. As for keeping the shoulder open for emergency vehicles it's once again simple to get back into traffic.

California has allowed the practice for decades without knowing how often people are injured or even killed. In an effort to study the issue, the state requested that law enforcement temporarily track that information during a 14-month period: June 2012 to August 2013. The California Office of Traffic Safety commissioned the study, which was done by the University of California, Berkeley.
Of the 5,969 motorcycle accidents recorded by law enforcement, the study found 997 involved lane-splitting – that’s 17 percent.

Source: California is Only State to Allow Lane-Splitting, But Doesn’t Track Related Accidents - NBC Bay Area http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/loca...elated-Accidents-390651971.html#ixzz4ozeQTCyd
Follow us: @NBCBayArea on Twitter | NBCBayArea on Facebook

pauls1150 · Aug 6, 2017

One of N = 983,107 registered m/c's as of December 2016; source CA DMV Statistics for Publication.

Every one of us takes risks every day, and every time we ride, we are continuously deciding "is this particular risk ok to assume for this condition?".

So your trips to SoCal - is that 14 miles or 14 months? - give you sufficient perspective to paint with that broad brush... Yes I've seen every hazard you describe, and more - it's called "situational awareness". I've only lived here for about 40 years (the prior 23 years were in another huge and densely-populated metro area in the northeast U.S.), and I'm no expert. But if you choose to avoid some risk, that's fine, don't... Maybe don't ride in a place (like the shoulder) which has a huge collection of broken glass, broken parts, gravel, furniture and appliances, and where any LEO would just love to ticket you for doing just that.

For information's sake: my being rear-ended while slowing for a red light, and two cases of people turning left in front of me - None of those were in California. (Pretty surprising, considering some of the flaming idiots here.)

So, ride safe. "How" you do it is always up to you.

greenwald · Aug 6, 2017

ncpbmw1953 said:
Absolutely. I'd love it, and so would you, to be able to legally do a rolling stop. There are intersections where it is safer than stopping fully, and many that aren't of course. You would know that not all traffic laws are black and white. For example tailgating is very illegal but rarely to never cited because it's too hard to call. A simple way to craft a rolling stop law were to base it on whether or not the encroaching from behind vehicle is less than 1 car length away from the motorcycle the rider can proceed cautiously provided there is no ingress from another other traffic, pedistrian, bicycle or motorized. Of course, liability goes to the motorcyclist who proceeds thru an stop and runs into anything along the way as it would be if the motorcycle stopped fully before proceeding.

If you're concerned about our reputation then you should be staunchly against lane-splitting--it's far less safe for the motorcycles, and massively more irritating to other traffic than a nice slow controlled rolling stop in the right place. If you want to see all kinds of road rage incidents stemming from motorcycles lane splitting, cutting in front of other traffic, youtube abounds. You won't see those w/ controlled rolling stops in part because everyone does them! Rear-end collisions into bikes has become much more common recently with the advent of more and more distracted driving. Some comments from Eric Trow, owner and instructor of Stayin’ Safe Advanced Rider Training and the Riding Well columnist for Rider magazine:

"[while] You still have the left-turning vehicle coming from the other direction and you still have vehicles pulling out from the sides, but now a big factor is what’s behind you. You have people who are beyond distracted, they’re just completely disengaged, so they’re not seeing things developing in front of them."

I'll continue to do rolling stops where it's safer to do so than not.

A. You're obviously interested in motorcycle traffic safety. That's good. Kudos.

B. Your plan to accomplish this thru illegal maneuvers, regardless of who's watching? Sorry - no rousing endorsement from me (not that you needed or wanted it).

C. I was and still am against lane splitting. I don't live in CA, though I visit frequently because of relation (Berkeley, Torrance, Mira Mesa). My brother-in-law and wife have lived in the San Diego area 36 years - hate it. Object (along with many friends and neighbors) to AB 51. I sit on some influential committees and will not be recommending it any time soon here in the Midwest (yeah - we have BIG cities too - just not Des Moines :dance

).

D. Eric Trow, Kevin Rhea (former founder of OLYMPIA) and I sat down and chatted at AIMExpo in Orlando a couple of years back. Eric and I expressed mutual respect for each of us being involved in teaching motorcycle safety in our respective regions. Based on knowing him personally (and our discussions), I wouldn't at all use that snipped quote to justify your 'rolling stops.' :nono

Riding is about choices - conservative vs risky. daytime vs nighttime, good weather vs rain, high volume vs light traffic, legal vs illegal. Ride whatever way you want and bear the consequences.

ncpbmw1953 · Aug 6, 2017

greenwald said:
I wouldn't at all use that snipped quote to justify your 'rolling stops.' Ride whatever way you want and bear the consequences.

I'm not using it to justify my rolling stops, I don't need that to justify them, it just points to the reality that traffic dynamics have changed over the last many years. It's obvious to me there are scenarios where a CAREFUL, VISUALLY CLEAR, rolling stop IS SAFER than stopping when a distracted driver happens to be approaching from behind.

As for debris on the shoulder, I'm well aware and avoid those types of spots. These shoulders were super clean likely because it was immediately adjacent to right and left lanes and sees traffic flying by at 75mph all day long when the traffic jam isn't happening.

Yes, you do what you think you need to do diminish risk where you can. I am maximally committed to risk reduction while at the same time committed to continue to ride. Rolling stops DO NOT equate to being ALWAYS the safest approach. I understand the law is unable to differentiate something like this and it becomes a nice and tidy justification to cite someone even if there was zero safety concern. I'll take my chances happily. SAFETY first, legal next. But you know this already, since even though California has legalized lane-splitting, you don't personally do it. Good for you!

greenwald · Aug 6, 2017

kioolt · Aug 6, 2017

I can think of a situation where if rolling stops where legalized it could cause more accidents. For example, a motorcyclist comes to a complete stop because he feels it is safest. The car behind him thinks he's going to do a rolling stop since they are now legal and rear ends him.

ncpbmw1953 · Aug 6, 2017

kioolt said:
I can think of a situation where if rolling stops where legalized it could cause more accidents. For example, a motorcyclist comes to a complete stop because he feels it is safest. The car behind him thinks he's going to do a rolling stop since they are now legal and rear ends him.

Yes, there will be exceptions, but your point seems valid. It would be a difficult law to draft, but I don't think impossible. I suggested it might only apply when the encroaching vehicle was within 1 or maybe 2 car lengths. That does not address your valid concern I know. It would mainly apply at the discretion of the police entity to determine if your getting out of the way of an encroaching vehicle was justified. A law would mainly instruct enforcement that judgement is required--you can't just apply the blanket law and have it always stand.

Here's one that's a constant source of confusion: what to do when the traffic signal doesn't detect your presence? The MSF course here told us that you 'should wait thru one full cycle, then if it appears the light still will not change for you when it's supposed to, proceed ahead w/ caution'. I stopped by the local CHP office and asked about this and got this response from the on duty at the desk officer: 'it's up to the discretion of the officer....some will choose to cite you anyway because you broke the law'. He also suggested cutting thru private parking lots to avoid a light I know will not detect me. I said, 'isn't that illegal too?', whereupon he said, 'yes, but likely no one will cite you for it'. This only points to the reality that applying traffic laws are not always black and white.

pkpilot · Aug 6, 2017

ncpbmw1953 said:
Yes, there will be exceptions, but your point seems valid. It would be a difficult law to draft, but I don't think impossible. I suggested it might only apply when the encroaching vehicle was within 1 or maybe 2 car lengths. That does not address your valid concern I know. It would mainly apply at the discretion of the police entity to determine if your getting out of the way of an encroaching vehicle was justified. A law would mainly instruct enforcement that judgement is required--you can't just apply the blanket law and have it always stand.

Here's one that's a constant source of confusion: what to do when the traffic signal doesn't detect your presence? The MSF course here told us that you 'should wait thru one full cycle, then if it appears the light still will not change for you when it's supposed to, proceed ahead w/ caution'. I stopped by the local CHP office and asked about this and got this response from the on duty at the desk officer: 'it's up to the discretion of the officer....some will choose to cite you anyway because you broke the law'. He also suggested cutting thru private parking lots to avoid a light I know will not detect me. I said, 'isn't that illegal too?', whereupon he said, 'yes, but likely no one will cite you for it'. This only points to the reality that applying traffic laws are not always black and white.

Interesting perspective from the CHP officer, but not one shared by all LEOs, myself included. States have different laws on when a motorcycle can proceed if the signal does not detect them. Know the law in your jurisdiction. They are all on the internet and easily searched.

I will not hesitate to stop anyone who cuts through private property to avoid a signal/stop sign. If a motorcyclist stated your rationale, I might consider it, but the burden would be on him to prove it. Most of the traffic signals in our area have been converted from the unground magnetic detectors to a camera based system that does detect motorcycles (overall lower cost of installation and maintenance). If the intersection was equipped with the video system, the person who cut through would definitely get a ticket from me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ride Safe!

Member

'99 '03 '06 National Co-Rally Chair

Member

New member

MOA #24991, south of Los Angeles

Member

New member

MOA #24991, south of Los Angeles

rabid reader

New member

Member

MOA #24991, south of Los Angeles

Member

MOA #24991, south of Los Angeles

New member

Member

New member

New member

Member

New member

Similar threads