Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   MO Reader Feedback (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/mo-reader-feedback/)
-   -   Sad News: Single-Vehicle Motorcycle Deaths Rise (Again!) (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/mo-reader-feedback/904-sad-news-single-vehicle-motorcycle-deaths-rise-again.html)

starvingstudent 10-24-2001 01:32 PM

Re: And another rant
 
Yeah, but since their are far more bikes on the roads on saturdays and sundays than the rest of the week, the 45% figure doesn't mean much. If you increase the number of people riding, you're going to proportionately increase the number who crash.

Poser 10-24-2001 01:37 PM

Packed Snow!
 
Ice and packed snow are about the only things that keep me off the bike. I was thinking about a sidecar rig with a ski rack (another risk taking, speed thrill), but decided that a warm cage was sometimes a good idea.



As far as the skill of laying down the bike is concerned, that is a skill I would like to avoid! You get good at something by doing it, and I don't intend to practice laying down the bike. I have never driven a car with ABS, so I don't know what they are like. I have driven cars, trucks, and ridden the bike in snow (I was already out on it), and agree that you can feel what is going on pretty well if you know what you are doing.



I had a partial share in an R1100RT with ABS and linked brakes for a while. It was an attempted moneymakeing scheme, but the short conclusion is that I didn't really notice the ABS the two times that I rode it. So I cannot really say that I have experienced it in operation. I sure wouldn't want the rear brake linked to the front in an all out panic stop on a wet road, though.

Poser 10-24-2001 01:43 PM

Loud pipes and lanesplitting
 
Maybe he should try lanesplitting with loud pipes. That really pisses off the general populace. Of course the lane splitter is gone by the time the guy in the SUV that he just blasted looses it. So the angry cager squeezes the next lane splitter.



Maybe he should follow a lanesplitter with loud pipes. Then he could think about loud pipes saving lives!

Poser 10-24-2001 01:52 PM

Perfect Safety
 
OK, tank tops and flip flops are the real cause, not lack of helmets.



Let's take risk taking and think about it logically.



1. Your risk is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend exposed to that risk.



2. Corners (single vehicle accidents) and intersections (multiple vehicle accidents) are the most dangerous places to be on any ride.



3. In order to minimize your risk of problems, you should spend a little time in corners and intersections as possible.



4. If you are in a corner or intersection, HAULL A$$ out of there.



5. If you work on it enough, you can mathematically prove that if everyone went 240 MPH, we would all be perfectly safe, because our window of risk would be minimized.



6. I conclude, based upon the above, that our speed limits are WAY TOO LOW.



I will be starting a campaign immediately to convince the government and all law enforcement agencies of the error in their ways. I will be asking them to require a minimum horesepower rating for all vehicles licensed on the road. If they are incapable of 240 MPH, the must be banned.



Perfect safety and blue skies ahead are within our reach if only we can proceed bravely into the future at 240 MPH!

CarsSuck 10-24-2001 02:29 PM

Don't practice it.
 
Just be prepared to do it if you really have to. You can stop faster without the bike, so if you have to do it just stomp the back and kick it out, and lay it down.

CarsSuck 10-24-2001 02:33 PM

Uh yeah, but...
 
why are there so many more people riding? Where are they the rest of the week? And on saturday or sunday, is it the ones that didn't ride the rest of the week that are crashing, or the ones that have been riding all week? Guess which one I'd bet on. I know it wasn't me.

luvmyvfr 10-24-2001 02:43 PM

Taken from James Davis of the Master Strategy group
 
<blockquote>I had to take a plane from Houston to New York City today and while I was waiting for my flight to depart I struck up a conversation with another passenger who happened to be interested in motorcycles.



The man confessed to having had three motorcycle accidents in the past - though "I almost avoided one of them", he said. "I dumped my bike in what turned out to be an unsuccessful attempt to avoid hitting a truck."



That sounded like three crashes to me, no matter how you slice it.



With the sole exception of electing to do a 'lowside' rather than allow a 'highside' to occur, I can think of no good reason to cause an accident in order to avoid an accident. I mean, if a CRASH is virtually certain to happen then it seems to me that one should do everything possible to minimize the severity of that event rather than abandoning the effort and settling for a different form of crash.



This man told me that he and his wife hit the ground at 45 MPH about 1 second before they 'T-boned' the pickup truck that had stopped in the intersection ahead of them. He was convinced that the road rash and a couple of 'minor broken bones' they got from the impact with the street was far less than what would have happened to them had they hit the truck first. (I'm convinced the man didn't have a clue.)



That makes no sense to me at all! If they had been able to stay on their brakes for a full second before impact they could have, at a stopping rate of 1 g (32.1 ft/sec^2), scrubbed off almost 22 MPH before the impact. In other words, they would have hit the car moving at a speed of about 23 MPH instead of hitting the street at 45 MPH.



When I asked him HOW he dumped his bike his answer sounded a little less than likely: "I stood on the rear brake and slid the tire out from under me." While I don't doubt that this is exactly what happened, I do doubt that it was deliberate - and, more to the point, I think that action was as far from reasonable as it was less than deliberate.



One more time: Locking your rear wheel is an invitation to highside your bike - it NEVER makes sense to aggressively use your rear brake - NEVER!



Dumping a bike is a CRASH. Staying on your brakes until you actually impact something will reduce your speed at the point of impact far more than will sliding on the pavement before you hit an object - and there is no pain or damage done to you or the bike until you do impact. Finally, it should be clear that hitting something at 23 MPH is more survivable than hitting the asphalt at 45 MPH before you then hit that something at a speed still greater than 23 MPH.</blockquote>



I think unless you're trying to go under something (a jack-knifed truck for example) it's much safer to stay on the brakes, because you can't stop faster without the bike (I've read that the coefficient of friction of flesh/leather on the road is about the same as that of rubber on the road, and the coefficient of friction of bone is about the same as the frame of a motorcycle. I'd rather use the bike to slow me). I guess the exception would be going off the road into a field or some clear area, then it would be safe to dump the bike, but in that scenario, why not just ride it out?




CarsSuck 10-24-2001 03:14 PM

That is simply wrong.
 
"Hitting" the ground at 45 mph would mean that you fell from a height that allowed you to accelerate to 45mph before impact. Sliding at 45 mph is a completely different thing, and the impact resulting from dropping to the pavement is not equal to the speed you are traveling forward. That said, you are probably correct that he didn't lay it down on purpose, as 45mph seems a bit excessive. Watch a guy lay a bike down, he can slide behind it but one he lets go the bike leaves him, and of course this depends on the surface. Like you just said yourself, if a crash is inevitable, you want to minimize the effects. You never lay it down because you choose to crash, you lay it down to better control a crash that's inevitable. Have you seen what happens when a bike hits a car while upright? Cartwheels over, rider goes flying. Have you seen racers crash? Over 100 mph, they go sliding down the track. Now, did they "hit" the track at 100 mph? Well they certainly didn't have a 100 mph impact. Using the rear brake to slide would only invite high side if you tried to hook up again after the slide, which has nothing to do with laying it down. The US Army used to train mc infantry to lay it down, it was something they practiced over and over. They would ride and upon a signal would have to lay the bike down and end up behind it with rifle drawn within 10 seconds. Of course this had more to do with using it as a shield, but the point is they practiced this repeatedly. There aren't many real life situations you'd want to lay it down in, but there only has to be one. I want the ability to do anything that I could possibly want to do with my machine. The one scenario of the jack knifed semi alone is a good enough reason to have the skill and control necessary to use independent brakes. Besides that, lots of people learn to slide corners by using the rear brake agressively. I wonder if you say this just because you haven't tried it. The word never is certainly not appropriate.

mj 10-24-2001 03:29 PM

Re: the stats actually do not say that.
 
I don't know where you live, but here in wi.helmet use is rare. Helmets save lives, period. Reckless riding without protective gear is probably a contributing factor to the total number of fatalities regardless of what the statistics say.

After all sweethart there's a slight possibility that the government has it's "facts" wrong. Or maybe all the things I've read on motorcycle safety were just a bunch of jibberish


luvmyvfr 10-24-2001 03:38 PM

Re: That is simply wrong.
 
Falling off the bike traveling 45 mph you would roughly be sliding (along the ground) at 45 mph at the instant of hitting the ground,wouldn't you? I don't think there's much of an opposing force (newtons laws) from the air as you fall of the bike to hit the ground to slow you down. He is talking about hitting the pickup laterally at 45 mph, not the ground vertically.



So you hit the pickup at 45 mph, sliding along the ground. I agree with him that it would be better to stay mounted and hit at 23 mph (1.0 g braking force is pretty conservative, some tires can grip up to 2.0 g's under certain ).



It is true, as you pointed out that one will slide slower than the bike, because the operator is flesh and leathers (hopefully) and that COF is higher than the COF of the frame of the bike.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:25 AM.