"Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby zero » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:31 pm

Percrime wrote:
zero wrote:The largest category of rear enders for motorcycles, is motorcyclists rear ending other vehicles.

I have never seen that statistic.. never actually seen a motorcycle rear end anything.. tho I have seen video.. but er.. so?


So it means that any rearender statistic concerning motorcycles, and parroted by motorcyclists usually turns up to be half the size it actually is because half the time its the motorcycle running up the rear of the other vehicle.

I have never rearended anyone on a motorcycle (touch wood) I dont see what the hell one type of accident has to do with another at all


Its because the justification for filtering is rear end accidents, but when you pare down all of the rear end accident types to the type that are protected against by filtering, they are rare.

zero wrote:
Ignoring the type of vehicle performing the rear ender - the largest category of rear enders is on vehicles turning right. Second largest is turning left. Next is the vehicle trapped directly behind those. None of those are solvable by filtering (ie you can't reliably filter to escape from being behind a stationary vehicle with 60km/hr traffic in the other lane).


Sure you can. You know..you look ahead ... judge the flow of traffic and move appropriately. Its easy enough on a pushy.. its way easier when I can twitch my right wrist and be doing 60



Your observation of forward traffic or of rearward traffic is a trade off, and in my state, indicators are optional, so the first warning you often get that someone directly in front of you wants to turn is the late braking.

zero wrote: Being rear ended behind common garden variety filterable stopped traffic is a relatively minor risk, and the conditions of the traffic someone might filter through has extremely variable safety concerns, as does the issue of having to enter (and thus obstruct) the pedestrian crossing to regain a lane controlling position afterwards.

Are you sure you ride... anything?

Yamaha R1, mtb, roadbike. I don't, and have never had a car drivers licence.
zero
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

by BNA » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:35 pm

BNA
 

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby zero » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:35 pm

Percrime wrote:
zero wrote:The largest category of rear enders for motorcycles, is motorcyclists rear ending other vehicles.

I have never seen that statistic.. never actually seen a motorcycle rear end anything.. tho I have seen video.. but er.. so?
I have never rearended anyone on a motorcycle (touch wood) I dont see what the hell one type of accident has to do with another at all


PTW impacting rear of other vehicle (from the maids report) : 24/35 - 6.5% of total accidents.
zero
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby zero » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:59 pm

wellington_street wrote:
Ta.

Tables 5.7 and 5.12 are of particular interest.

Table 5.7 covers the precipitating event - it says that 26/2.8% of crashes happened when the motorcyclists was stopped in traffic with a speed of zero (it makes no reference as to whether this is at the rear of a queue, the middle or the front).

Table 5.12 covers post-precipitating event but still pre-crash. it says that only 6 / 0.7% of crashes then occured when the motorcyclist was stopped in traffic. This is compared to 5 / 0.5% for filtering.

Can anyone clarify this?

It says to me that the only 0.7% of crashes actually occurred when the motorcyclist was stopped in traffic. Another 2.1% of crashes occurred after the motorcyclists was stopped in traffic but then made another movement - i.e. these crashes are not rear-enders where the motorcyclist is actually stopped.

Have I interpreted that right?


Pretty much. You have to be aware that all "filtering" accidents are not coded as such, as a range of other accidents become more likely if you are filtering or (europe) right passing.

- PTW and OV travelling in opposite directions, OV turns in front of PTW is a category containing filtering accidents
- OV turning left in front of PTW, PTW perpendicular to OV path is a category containing filtering accidents
- PTW overtaking OV while OV turning right (europe!) is a category containing filtering accidents
- Sideswipe, OV and PTW travelling in same directions is a category containing filtering accidents

That said, I don't deeply care if filtering is made legal, as its an obvious method of reprioritising efficient road space users against space inefficient road space users, I just do not believe that its net positive for safety, and should never be justified as such.
zero
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby Percrime » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:50 pm

zero wrote:So it means that any rearender statistic concerning motorcycles, and parroted by motorcyclists usually turns up to be half the size it actually is because half the time its the motorcycle running up the rear of the other vehicle.


Ummmm.. no.. no it does not. How on earth does that follow? No one as far as I know asserts half of all rear enders involving motorcycles are the motorcyclists fault. And since you probably only get to do it once it makes no sense that it would be.

zero wrote:Its because the justification for filtering is rear end accidents, but when you pare down all of the rear end accident types to the type that are protected against by filtering, they are rare.


Even on your figures half of 6* the number o flanesplitting accidents. So just that poor sod whose boot I picked up (with the foot in it) . my mate who I dragged out from under the hyundai.. the time I sat in my cab in Chapel street thinking 'this sod is gunna hit me.. I could go down the middle on a bike and the time I went down the middle on my bike and heard a 'crump' behind me huh?

zero wrote:\ervation of forward traffic or of rearward traffic is a trade off, and in my state, indicators are optional, so the first warning you often get that someone directly in front of you wants to turn is the late braking.


You think? I see more clues than that.
Percrime
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby zero » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:28 pm

Percrime wrote:
zero wrote:So it means that any rearender statistic concerning motorcycles, and parroted by motorcyclists usually turns up to be half the size it actually is because half the time its the motorcycle running up the rear of the other vehicle.


Ummmm.. no.. no it does not. How on earth does that follow? No one as far as I know asserts half of all rear enders involving motorcycles are the motorcyclists fault. And since you probably only get to do it once it makes no sense that it would be.


You are being obtuse, and you are typing replies to things that are not posted. I did not ever assert that half the motorcycle rear enders were the motorcyclists fault, I asserted, with backing from the stats that you happen to like to quote that on more than half the occasions for collisons classified as "rear end accident", the motorcycle strikes the rear of the other vehicle.

zero wrote:Its because the justification for filtering is rear end accidents, but when you pare down all of the rear end accident types to the type that are protected against by filtering, they are rare.


Even on your figures half of 6* the number o flanesplitting accidents. So just that poor sod whose boot I picked up (with the foot in it) . my mate who I dragged out from under the hyundai.. the time I sat in my cab in Chapel street thinking 'this sod is gunna hit me.. I could go down the middle on a bike and the time I went down the middle on my bike and heard a 'crump' behind me huh?


Nothing stopping you aiming your bike at the gap and waiting in gear. Its not like you have to just sit there and take it. Same way I get out of an intersection if the traffic tailbacks as I enter. ie you can have your safety cake and eat it.

zero wrote:\ervation of forward traffic or of rearward traffic is a trade off, and in my state, indicators are optional, so the first warning you often get that someone directly in front of you wants to turn is the late braking.


You think? I see more clues than that.


aye but clues are not consistent, surfaces are not consistent, other motorcycles around you are not consistent, and general traffic around you is not consistent, and most importantly skills of motorcyclists are not consistent, some have no planning skills whatsoever. Again like I said, I do not deeply care if the rules are changed, but trying to justify it on safety is hilarious.
zero
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby il padrone » Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:15 pm

zero wrote:
Percrime wrote:
zero wrote:So it means that any rearender statistic concerning motorcycles, and parroted by motorcyclists usually turns up to be half the size it actually is because half the time its the motorcycle running up the rear of the other vehicle.


Ummmm.. no.. no it does not. How on earth does that follow? No one as far as I know asserts half of all rear enders involving motorcycles are the motorcyclists fault. And since you probably only get to do it once it makes no sense that it would be.


You are being obtuse, and you are typing replies to things that are not posted. I did not ever assert that half the motorcycle rear enders were the motorcyclists fault, I asserted, with backing from the stats that you happen to like to quote that on more than half the occasions for collisons classified as "rear end accident", the motorcycle strikes the rear of the other vehicle.


Bejeebus, now who's being obtuse?? :shock: :roll:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18781
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby Percrime » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:31 pm

Yep... straightforward translation problem. I,m talking english and he is talking zero. I shall not bother further. And maybe that means I will
Percrime
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: "Call to allow motorcyclists to weave at lights"

Postby Percrime » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:33 pm

zero wrote:[
Nothing stopping you aiming your bike at the gap and waiting in gear. Its not like you have to just sit there and take it. Same way I get out of an intersection if the traffic tailbacks as I enter. ie you can have your safety cake and eat it.



Yah. But I was in a cab. I was wishing I was on a bike. Oh both cars written off btw. I won the punch up afterwards. And he also lost big time in court. .025.
[quote="zero"]
Percrime
 
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Previous

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit