Perth: Four Wheels Safe. Two Wheels Dangerous.

[Tequestra]

Just a point that you all may or may not relate to cyclists, whether motorised or not. Especially if you commute in Perth like me. I don't expect this thread to become a major discussion, but I feel that considering the proportion of cars to motorbikes in Perth, this 25% figure is some kind of social wind vane that anyone on two wheels might consider worthy of consideration.

Watch your back, my friends.

The police spokesman said this year more than 25 per cent of all fatal crashes in WA had involved motorcycles, which was an increase on previous years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-07/p ... ap/9845200

[human909]

Just a point that you all may or may not relate to cyclists, whether motorised or not. Especially if you commute in Perth like me. I don't expect this thread to become a major discussion, but I feel that considering the proportion of cars to motorbikes in Perth, this 25% figure is some kind of social wind vane that anyone on two wheels might consider worthy of consideration.

Watch your back, my friends.

The police spokesman said this year more than 25 per cent of all fatal crashes in WA had involved motorcycles, which was an increase on previous years.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-07/p ... ap/9845200

I think there is plenty of comparisons to be made and shared concerns. In fact the most common causes of two vehicle accidents for both are SMIDSY accidents. And in the case of motorcycling the consequences are often be much worse. A car failing to give way when you are travelling at 80-100kph is much worse than 25-35kph.

Likewise there is similar blame the victim mentality regarding motorcycling.

There is also a big gender divide based on risk. In fact the risk perception factor has meant that the majority of motor cyclists do have a greater appetite for risk. All or which skews the statistics in the same way the prevalence of lycra roadies do. Compare this to 2 wheel use in south east asia, europe, or countless other places.

In Australia we have been blessed with plenty of space that has allowed the motorcar to flourish. Might is right has lead to other more efficient forms of transport suffering. That won't change without significant government action and/or congestion being simply too great for practical car use.

Where I live everybody from all walks of life ride including primary school students, mums, dads. It just makes sense and critical mass has been hit. Key factors:
-congestion
-flat terrain
-councils supportive of cycling
-critical mass reached which then encourages more cycling

[human909]

Oh and need I point out that notice how they target the victims and not the perpetrators. Just like operation Pedro in NSW.

"WA Police Force take seriously the safety of all road users, particularly motorcycle riders and other vulnerable road users," he said.

"WA Police Force regularly run operations targeting unsafe motorcycle rider behaviours, including (not just) speeding, drink/drug-impaired driving, but also riders not wearing or incorrectly wearing helmets."

He said helmet checks were regularly undertaken on motorcycle riders due to their link to fatal crashes.

"Helmet use is a major factor in the outcome of a fatal or serious crash — either from not being worn or being worn incorrectly," he said.

How about targeting the number one thing that is killing motorcyclists on the roads? Bad driving from four (or motor) wheeled vehicles.

[Jmuzz]

How about targeting the number one thing that is killing motorcyclists on the roads? Bad driving from four (or motor) wheeled vehicles.

Motorcycle statistics do tend to lean heavily towards single vehicle though.

[Thoglette]

the majority of motor cyclists do have a greater appetite for risk. All or which skews the statistics

Yup. There's two stereotypical demographics: the "I'm immortal and !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! hot" late teens/twenties riders and that certain percentage (about 1%) of the m'cycle population who simply DGAF about road rules (or ADRs around mufflers, for that matter).

It will not surprise you that they are massively over represented in the crash statistics.

Motorcycle statistics do tend to lean heavily towards single vehicle though.

Yup.

Meanwhile the rest of the m'cycle population has to deal with the same problems as unmotorised two-wheelers - SMIDSY and Mr Gettacaryabastard (apologies to Fred Gassit).

[Mububban]

Motorcycle statistics do tend to lean heavily towards single vehicle though.

I always pay attention whenever I hear that one of our two-wheeled brethren has been killed, and commonly/sadly hear the term "the rider lost control" regularly

That said, a workmate from the UK was learning to ride motorbikes since moving to Perth. Her hubby, who has ridden in the UK for years, has now effectively banned them both from riding in Perth as he reckons it's too dangerous.

[human909]

Motorcycle statistics do tend to lean heavily towards single vehicle though.

Yep and that was my implied point. We have scared many of the more cautious motorcyclists off the roads by our hostile environment.

A similar but not quite as severe tendency can be seen with cyclists too. Australian cyclists have a pretty high rate of individual accidents. Again our statistics are skewed by a faster and more risk taking demographic.

[Tequestra]

Thank you all for your considerate replies to news story I was worried maybe a little beyond our topical range. I just dropped in to post another ABC story about a cyclist killed by a garbage truck in Moorooduc, Victoria, but Mainar already posted the link to the story in The Age. The ABC story had a photo which seemed peculiar to me, so I have added the link there, even though the image has failed to render. No worries. You can still fidn the photo through the link to the story.

Motorcycle statistics do tend to lean heavily towards single vehicle though.

I am interested in these statistics because they never fail to bring to my mind the old adage that dead men tell no tales. No doubt there are cases of motorcyclists overestimating the traction around corners on wet roads etc., but I can't help but wondering how many of these 'single vehicle' statistics result from a clip on the handlebars from someone's side-mirror; someone who just kept on driving after the contact equals single-vehicle statistic.

Motorcycles are probably less prone to these kinds of catastrophes in Australia where the traditional fashion is that the motorbikes are usually the ones passing the cars. In other countries where cars drive faster than motorbikes in general, then there is probably more probability of a single-vehicle motorcycle fatality being the result of a knock from a car hard enough to upset the gyroscopics.

It is good news to hear about the resumption of the cycling trend for primary school students in some parts of Australia. It reminds me of the way it was forty years ago when riding a bike to school was quite the norm for my fellow students and I. There must be some good levels of trust in such a community, not so common in a big city it seems.

[Jmuzz]

I am interested in these statistics because they never fail to bring to my mind the old adage that dead men tell no tales. No doubt there are cases of motorcyclists overestimating the traction around corners on wet roads etc., but I can't help but wondering how many of these 'single vehicle' statistics result from a clip on the handlebars from someone's side-mirror; someone who just kept on driving after the contact equals single-vehicle statistic.

I've had a lot to do with motorbike riding and groups and live in weekend motorbike territory.
It's mostly the bikes themselves, or their own mates.

A motorbike goes down so easy on things which wouldn't even unsettle a car, or just result in a bit of skid.
A bike gets some slip on front wheel and it's gone. Most riders don't cope with rear wheel stepping out under power, chop the throttle and it will buck you off. Deciding to slow down mid corner makes bike stand up and run wide.
Often riding faster than you would drive a car.
Then add lack of crash protection.

City is more likely to be clipped by a car, but that's not where the majority of serious accidents happen.

Motorbike has a very different road presence than bicycle due to being faster than the cars, and mostly more intimidating to the bullys who seek a weaker target rather than someone who seems a bit menacing.
I wouldn't ride a cute little scooter because that will get picked on, got to look a bit road warrior it makes a difference.

[human909]

I've had a lot to do with motorbike riding and groups and live in weekend motorbike territory.
It's mostly the bikes themselves, or their own mates.

A motorbike goes down so easy on things which wouldn't even unsettle a car, or just result in a bit of skid.
A bike gets some slip on front wheel and it's gone. Most riders don't cope with rear wheel stepping out under power, chop the throttle and it will buck you off. Deciding to slow down mid corner makes bike stand up and run wide.
Often riding faster than you would drive a car.

That all sounds like aggressive and fast riding and the consequences resulting from it. Compare that with your typical motorcyclist or scooter rider in Europe, Asia or many other places. I don't agree with the concept that a motorcycle goes down easily, cars also fly off the track easily if pushed to their limits too.

And that is half the problem with Australia's two wheel culture. Not too much difference between a road cyclist and a mother on he bicycle. I'm not trying to cast aspersions on motorcyclist and road cyclist. Just pointing out the differences, and the risks.

I wouldn't ride a cute little scooter because that will get picked on, got to look a bit road warrior it makes a difference.

Makes plenty of sense. But that aspect is part of the problem. (Again meaning to shoot the messenger.)

The ABC story had a photo which seemed peculiar to me, so I have added the link there, even though the image has failed to render.

Very peculiar. I though the same too.

[Tequestra]

I've had a lot to do with motorbike riding and groups and live in weekend motorbike territory.
It's mostly the bikes themselves, or their own mates.

I conceed to your superior experience with road motorcycling, Jmuzz. I've been riding motorbikes since I was five but only offroad. I do not have a motorcycle license in Australia because I refuse to conceed to what I believe is the ridiculous new ruling that the rider must stop with only their left foot on the ground to steady the lopsided apparatus without the gyroscopics.

At the age of five, my legs were long enough to reach the footpegs of the Honda QA-50 but not long enough to reach the ground, so my Dad had to grab the back of the seat whenever I wanted to stop, or else if the phone rang and he went away to answer it, I'd have to aim for the least fragile bit of garden and jump off leaving the Honda to find its own resting place amongst the shrubs.

Since I got the MR-50 2-stroke and my legs grew long enough, (6yo) I have always braked with the rear and then when almost stopped, I put both feet on the ground to keep the apparatus upright.

Now as a grownup riding in South-East Asia, (legally but sans travel insurance for obvious reasons), I still maintain the same stopping method with both feet on the ground, using the front brake to keep still if on a hill, and that is not good enough for the totalitarians in Australia anymore, so all my lived-experience on the roads has been in Asia.

Motorbike has a very different road presence than bicycle due to being faster than the cars, and mostly more intimidating to the bullys who seek a weaker target rather than someone who seems a bit menacing.
I wouldn't ride a cute little scooter because that will get picked on, got to look a bit road warrior it makes a difference.

I agree that the attitude of most car drivers in Australia is twenty times more respectful of motorcyclists than the attitude of car drivers in some Asian countries. I have overstressed the Asian situation without doubt, however I would still imagine that quite a few of those 25% fatality statistics may have been recorded as single-vehicle deaths according to the law, when the laws of physics suggest that a mystery second party may have contributed in some way.

Considering that rider error is likely to remain unchanged through the years, apart from the fallout from the mining boom perhaps (cashed up inexperience), I do feel concerned that some of these additional fatalities maybe possibly perhaps by chance be caused by the common knowledge that if one is in a car and knocks someone vulnerable off the road, it is more financially viable if no one was watching to keep on truckin'.

One good thing about CCTV in the city, I guess.


Thanks also Mr Human for noticing the peculiarity on that garbage truck who at least had the decency to stop and admit it after the car-nage. How that truck ended up going bush is beyond me, but truth is stranger than fiction. Maybe he was trying to avoid a crazy cyclist. I do not mean to speak ill of the dead, but just iterate that I was not there at the scene so I can only guess.

[Thoglette]

what I believe is the ridiculous new ruling that the rider must stop with only their left foot on the ground to steady the lopsided apparatus without the gyroscopics.

<curmudgeon>
It's not new. It's been the standard technique for (well-trained) road m'cyclists for many decades. The old guy who taught me (and that was some decades ago) taught the plod and the Honda rider training people. Stop with both brakes then put your left foot down.

None of this dragging both feet crap like you see in SEAsia, either. Both feet up as the clutch is released. You can't control the bike properly if your feet aren't on the pegs.
</curmudgeon>

[Tequestra]

[curmudgeon]
It's not new. It's been the standard technique for (well-trained) road m'cyclists for many decades. The old guy who taught me (and that was some decades ago) taught the plod and the Honda rider training people. Stop with both brakes then put your left foot down.

None of this dragging both feet crap like you see in SEAsia, either. Both feet up as the clutch is released. You can't control the bike properly if your feet aren't on the pegs.
[/curmudgeon]

Thanks mate. Could you please explain to me the reason why it is better to stop in a lopsided position than maintain the motorbike in the upright position, allowing gravity to do the work rather than the left leg muscles? All I can think of is that it allows a car that stops too close on the right to knock off the rider's kneecap instead of running over their foot. I really cannot fathom any reason for such a lopsided posture. What do you do if the crosswind blows and knocks you over in front of a truck pulling up in the right lane?

What happens if the motorbike stops in the right lane and the car in the left lane runs over their left foot?

[human909]

My experience riding motorcycles is minimal but I do concur with Tequestra and am puzzled by any need for laws governing how one needs to balance a stopped two wheeled vehicle. Nor the need to keep your feet on the pegs for control at low speed. (Where are the pegs on a scooter?) Nor this even the notion of needing the rear brake to stop at low speed.

Sound like too many rules. Imagine if they had that sort of stuff for people in cars! But hey this is Australia, we hand out licences for cars in cereal packets but the less damaging transport we try to regulate and discourage as much as possible.

[Thoglette]

Could you please explain to me the reason why it is better to stop in a lopsided position than maintain the motorbike in the upright position, allowing gravity to do the work rather than the left leg muscles?

There is no 'lopsidedness' required. The bike is still almost entirely supported by it's wheels - there's just enough imbalance to keep it from blowing over.

The underlying idea is that the rear brake is critical to really good low speed control.

I was extremely fortunate to have this chap teaching me when I moved from 250cc to open licence (I told you it was a long time ago). As I could pass the practical test before I engaged him*, he instead fixed some bad habits and also taught me the fundamentals of low speed control. Which, despite riding since single-digit age, I'd never learnt.

* At that time, you never passed the riding test unless you turned up at the cop shop accompanied by a professional tutor.

I didn't know that it had entered the rule books. Which regulation is that under? Certainly a case of over regulation.

[Tequestra]

Sound like too many rules.

It's okay. I just looked up 'curmudgeon' in the dictionary. He was just bored and trolling I suppose. There is no valid reason why it is necessary to stop your motorbike in the lopsided position leaning leftward. It is obviously some official doctrine from the so-called 'well-trained' plod to screw over the real riders.

[Tequestra]

I didn't know that it had entered the rule books. Which regulation is that under? Certainly a case of over regulation.

Okay I forgive you. I will add to this in a sec, but I shouldn't have used that word in that way, so I best get in quick.

Firstly, there is no need to use the front brake at all unless at speed or else completely stopped. The rear brake is the one to use most of the time to slow down and stop. The front brake is a tender thing which deserves some respect on a two-wheeled vehicle. This is because the front wheel is for steering, not for braking. You can be a lot harsher on the rear brake than the front, and this applies in a straight line to some extent too, but especially around corners.

Timing is quite an issue with moving vehicles. I know the right way to use both brakes to stop at the lights, but mainly the rear, and then put both feet on the ground and use the front brake to hold that stationary position, because the right foot is holding the bike upright, like nature intended. The bike stays perfectly balanced, and the chiropractor loses some business because the rider's back does not suffer the pain from the lopsided muscular position.

There is no 'lopsidedness' required. The bike is still almost entirely supported by it's wheels - there's just enough imbalance to keep it from blowing over.

Is that not a contradiction? What about a gust? Why not put both feet on the ground the moment the bike comes to a halt so that you do not get blown over by such a common natural event?

Anyway, this is not a motorcycling forum, and you have no reasonable answer, so let's get back to the bicycles, eh? I took a chance today and opened the front door in case I had to urgently throw my flaming 36V battery out in the garden, then I fixed the broken fuse holder in a most bodgy manner so my comuter bike is now running again and I will hopefully be able to retreat to the 'How was your commute' thread on Friday, just like before. Let those 'well-trained' bullies smoke up the air in our world all by themselves. They can take their motoebike licences and stick them wherever they feel the most pleasure from it for all I care. Back to the Bicycles!

[human909]

I didn't know that it had entered the rule books. Which regulation is that under?

I honestly know very little about specific rules regarding motorcycles. But what I do know and is quickly confirmed by a quick review of the local road authority website is that the rules for motorcycle license are more comprehensive/stringent/thorough than driving.

IMO it is all topsy-turvey.

[Scott_C]

I didn't know that it had entered the rule books. Which regulation is that under? Certainly a case of over regulation.

In WA it is 245(1)(c)

Code: Select all

(1)   The rider of a motor cycle that is moving, or the rider of a motor cycle that is stationary but not parked, shall — 
   (a)   sit astride the rider’s seat facing forwards; and 
   (b)   ride with at least one hand on the handlebars; and 
   (c)   if the motor cycle is moving — keep both feet on the footrests designed for use by the rider of the motor cycle, 
      while the motor cycle is on a road. 

The penalty for breaking 245(1) is 3 demerits and a $100 fine.

[Tequestra]

I didn't know that it had entered the rule books. Which regulation is that under? Certainly a case of over regulation.

In WA it is 245(1)(c)

Code: Select all

(1)   The rider of a motor cycle that is moving, or the rider of a motor cycle that is stationary but not parked, shall — 
   (a)   sit astride the rider’s seat facing forwards; and 
   (b)   ride with at least one hand on the handlebars; and 
   (c)   if the motor cycle is moving — keep both feet on the footrests designed for use by the rider of the motor cycle, 
      while the motor cycle is on a road. 

The penalty for breaking 245(1) is 3 demerits and a $100 fine.

So much for that Back to the Bicycles' business. It doesn't say anything in the rules about the need to keep the right foot on the footpeg when stationary, which is the one and only reason why I refuse to condone these bullies' penchant for such a stupid unwritten rule.

Thank you for showing me that I am legally right to maintain my upstanding principles. Electric bikes are fine with me for the moment anyway.

[Thoglette]

There is no 'lopsidedness' required. The bike is still almost entirely supported by it's wheels - there's just enough imbalance to keep it from blowing over.

Is that not a contradiction? What about a gust? Why not put both feet on the ground the moment the bike comes to a halt so that you do not get blown over by such a common natural event?

As you pointed out, the rear brake is multo importanto at low speed, especially if you're stopped on a slope. I can't use it if both feet are on the ground.

The only time I'll have both feet on the ground is if I need to swap feet (because I forgot to change into first before stopping ) .

But then I'm old fashioned.

[Tequestra]

As you pointed out, the rear brake is multo importanto at low speed, especially if you're stopped pointing up hill.

The only time I'll have both feet on the ground is if I need to swap feet (because I forgot to change into first before stopping ) .

But then I'm old fashioned.

Let's be friend, Mr Thoglette. I would agree that if it is a very steep up-hill then it would be natural for a properly experienced 'well-trained' motorcyclist to lean the bike, to the left, and use the back brake with the right foot, which is quite an exceptional situation - too steep for a front wheel to hold traction.

Most of the time, the front brake is sufficient to keep the bike in one place on the road when stationary. The reason that I consider this apparently 'unofficial' rule, (as told to me by the instructor I initially meant to use for my licence application, and then confirmed by a cop at the office who I asked a week later when I happened to be there to pay my car drivers' licence), ridiculous, is that the best way to stand a motorbike stationary at a set of lights or a stop sign is to use both feet on the road, as close as possible, (most always inside the lateral span of the mirrors), for good reasons:

1. When you have a bad back or perhaps Ross River Virus, the strain of being lopsided enough to counter a strong gust of wind is significant. I have had RRV and unfortunately those mosquitoes do not come with free helicopters to get around town. When one not young and fit, that lean hurts more than when one is. Either way one still has to do the business; still has to ride. Hence, two legs on the ground the moment the wheels stop turning.

2. Motorbikes are by design meant to be vertical to the ground by nature. Two legs work best.

3. When the light goes green, a courteous motorcyclist does not want to delay the traffic behind by first having to put the bike back to perpendicular with the planet to resume motivation. It is courtesy to see the light change to green, and then look right, left, right for late cross traffic, and then get going ASAP, for the ones behind.

4. There is no real problem at all with using the back brake until the moment the wheels stop, and then drop both legs in the second or so before the bike would otherwise start to fall sideways.

Maybe there are some more reasons too, but I do believe that it is extremely pedantic to expect a motorcyclist with 45 years experience to suddenly adopt the one-legged style for no good reason at all. Bear in mind that not all motorcyclists have cyclist legs. I was not as strong in the legs as you when I sat for my learners' permit, but I still think that it makes no sense to put a vertical motorcycle lopsided when it is stopped and there is no need for the right foot on the rear brake.

Please forgive me for writing that you were playing the curmudgeon earlier. I am only just beginning to admire your sense of humour, and I will remember to check my dictionary before posting replies on Friday morning. Goodnight, Mr Thoglette.

Ed: I enboldened the text about cyclists/motorcyclists making sure to look right, left, right, after the light turns green because I have read of more than one motorcycle death due to the rider watching the green, and then taking off without observing the truck still coming through the lights, and I have come close myself when I was young, once. at the intersection where Great Eastern Hwy meets Albany Hwy just before The Causeway.
DO NOT TAKE OFF ON THE GREEN WITHOUT CHECKING FOR LATE PASSING CROSS TRAFFIC, PLEASE!