Modern Vespa

Thought I'd offer some food for thought on the issue of scooter "safety", which is often confused with "survivability". To do so, I will draw on what we preached and practiced in Army Aviation.

"Safety" are the practices we followed to prevent mishaps. This not only included extensive training, by-the-book operations, extensive education and the like, but the thorough investigation of every mishap to gain lessons that could prevent future mishaps.

"Survivability" refers to the steps we took to make a mishap as survivable as possible. For many years, we simply lumped "survivability" in with aviation safety, but by the 80's we began to realize that while "survivability" was a critical issue, it was a discrete subset of concerns from "Safety" itself. For example, a protective helmet does not increase "Safety", but it does increase, within limits, "Survivability".

"Safety" consists of the operating and maintenance practices you follow. All the protective gear in the world does not make speeding or riding with improper tire inflation or bad brakes "safe". That is simply inherently unsafe operation, made somewhat more survivable.

The Army stopped referring to protective equipment as "Safety Gear" and now calls it "Survivability Equipment". It is something you never want to have to rely upon, and the only way to minimize this reliance is by safe operating and maintenance practices. "Survivability Equipment" plays no role until a mishap has actually occurred. It is like airbags in a car, which deploy only after the fact to minimize injuries.

Why do I post these blinding flashes of the obvious? Because I think it is worthwhile for enthusiasts as ourselves to regularly and routinely discuss "Safety" and "Survivability" in their most basic terms. If it is possible to "prioritize" these two subjects, then "Safety" is first. If absolute safety was possible (which it isn't), then "Survivability" would not be an issue. On the other hand, there is virtually no equipment available to make a patently unsafe rider "Survivable".

As I have posted before, a detailed study by the Washington State DOT found that less than 20% of the fatal motorcycle accidents on their roads did not involve cycle driver error as a significant contributing factor. Four out of five fatalities were thus a result of factors that were within the cycle driver's control, and the driver opted to do otherwise. That is a "Safety" issue that we all can learn from. Speeding, alcohol, improper lane position and improper passing where the major factors.

ATGATT is a great "Survivability" practice, but it contributes nothing to "Safety", as it does not prevent accidents. Further, an armored jacket provides little or no protection to internal organs from rapid deceleration g forces, so don't forget gear limitations. Yes, it is worth wearing, but from a "Survivability" standpoint only. The question we must always ask ourselves is whether our own actions make the need for ATGATT more necessary or not. If the answer is "yes" then we are a safety hazard, not only to ourselves, but to anyone else we involve in our own accidents.

During my military flying career, on more occasions than I care to remember, I had to weight risk acceptance to perform a mission that involved saving the lives of others. I am not risk averse, and sometimes the rules had to be "stretched", at least in my judgment. Fortunately, I was successful in these instances, even though the odds were less favorable. The chances I took in these instances, however, were not chances I would take during routine flying. And, never during my 50+ years of PTW driving was there an instance when the "rules needed to be stretched". Ain't saying I never broke the speed limit or the like, but never justifiably so. For example, finding the true maximum speed of a vehicle is a lot of fun (been there, done that and have several mugs), but if it exceeds the speed limit, it is not truly "safe" not matter how we slice it. And I am not going to entertain any argument to the contrary. I am guilty and so are some of you. Walking away without incident from an unsafe act is nothing other than luck. The act is still unsafe.

Sorry if I am being a bit too philosophical for some folks tastes. I have stood at the rim of too many "smoking craters" caused by operator error, and wish that this could be prevented more often. I wish you all safe and enjoyable riding, an experience which is primarily our own doing. And, if you are unfortunate enough to have a mishap, I hope it will be of as little consequence to your well being as is humanly possible, something that your protective gear can influence quite a bit.

A bit more than 2 cents worth from a fun loving old codger. Just had to mount that soapbox while I had some time on my hands.

Next to flying, scootin' is the most fun you can have with your pants on! In that spirit, gonna hop on the Vespa and go get a bit of lunch. My buddy's taverna is now open.

Filakia

Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood

Howdy

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’d like to put a different spin on it.

“safety” is “freedom from risk”.

If we all wanted to be safe, we would not take a risk, like riding a scooter in traffic with big stinking four wheel drives. But, we choose to ride because the pleasure is greater than the thought of ending up a carrot, potatoe, or cauliflower in the local hospital. The Benefit (thrill) outwieghs the risk (pick a vegetable).

Thus, we manage the risk, albeit in an informal way.

I don’t see training as a “survivability” tool, as it has given me the skill to be able to pick out likely scenarios where I may end up in trouble, and to avoid them, and where I do end up in trouble, to hopefully come out in one piece. So it is a key plank in preventing an accident – a risk control. PPE is merely a way of reducing the consequences of failure.

“by the book” operations are also inherently unsafe. Skilled operators, who are trained to assess and manage a situation by managing considered risks are far more safer than blind rule followers (See Resiliance Engineering by Holnagel). From your comments, you have made judgements that you know were unsafe and “bent the rules a little” – and got away with it – sounds like you have highly developed flying skills, and along with it, know what the “edge” of your safety envelope is?

Its this skill that is important to share- and it can only be done through training.

A well maintained bike is likewise, a risk management strategy. Good tyres, correctly inflated, with good brakes, a responsive throttle, are all armoury in preventing landing in the shit, as well as getting out of it.

Error is another issue – to blame an incident on error is simply a falacy, and is suggestive of a rules based system (you violated the rule, therefore you are wrong). Error is complex, and before an incident is simply written off as such, should be considered in great detail. To simply blame 80% of accidents on error suggests that they have not investigated the accident properly. It may have contributed, but what lead the rider to draw the wrong conclusion? Why did they “opt otherwise” ? sounds like they need a course in investigation!

Exceding the speed limit is not “unsafe” it is illegal. Likewise I slow in heavy traffic and wet weather becuase the “speed limit is “unsafe”. I also slow at dusk when I am in the country because the risk of hitting Skippy or an emu (“eeemyou”) is much higher. I travel at a speed that is safe for the conditions, even if I “violate” the rule that is the speed limit.

Sometimes it is the rule that is there to protect us that may actually be the problem!
_________________
Twin01

Adelaide SA

It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures,
but the foolish to be a slave to them.
-- Epictetus

I always thought it was Eemoo

Scooterrific wrote:

I always thought it was Eemoo

I'll cook some up for you, and then you will know it is eeemyou!
_________________
Twin01

Adelaide SA

It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures,
but the foolish to be a slave to them.
-- Epictetus

Twin01 wrote:

Howdy Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’d like to put a different spin on it. “safety” is “freedom from risk”. If we all wanted to be safe, we would not take a risk, like riding a scooter in traffic with big stinking four wheel drives. But, we choose to ride because the pleasure is greater than the thought of ending up a carrot, potatoe, or cauliflower in the local hospital. The Benefit (thrill) outweighs the risk (pick a vegetable). Thus, we manage the risk, albeit in an informal way. I don’t see training as a “survivability” tool, as it has given me the skill to be able to pick out likely scenarios where I may end up in trouble, and to avoid them, and where I do end up in trouble, to hopefully come out in one piece. So it is a key plank in preventing an accident – a risk control. PPE is merely a way of reducing the consequences of failure. “by the book” operations are also inherently unsafe. Skilled operators, who are trained to assess and manage a situation by managing considered risks are far more safer than blind rule followers (See Resiliance Engineering by Holnagel). From your comments, you have made judgements that you know were unsafe and “bent the rules a little” – and got away with it – sounds like you have highly developed flying skills, and along with it, know what the “edge” of your safety envelope is? Its this skill that is important to share- and it can only be done through training. A well maintained bike is likewise, a risk management strategy. Good tyres, correctly inflated, with good brakes, a responsive throttle, are all armoury in preventing landing in the shit, as well as getting out of it. Error is another issue – to blame an incident on error is simply a falacy, and is suggestive of a rules based system (you violated the rule, therefore you are wrong). Error is complex, and before an incident is simply written off as such, should be considered in great detail. To simply blame 80% of accidents on error suggests that they have not investigated the accident properly. It may have contributed, but what lead the rider to draw the wrong conclusion? Why did they “opt otherwise” ? sounds like they need a course in investigation! Exceding the speed limit is not “unsafe” it is illegal. Likewise I slow in heavy traffic and wet weather becuase the “speed limit is “unsafe”. I also slow at dusk when I am in the country because the risk of hitting Skippy or an emu (“eeemyou”) is much higher. I travel at a speed that is safe for the conditions, even if I “violate” the rule that is the speed limit. Sometimes it is the rule that is there to protect us that may actually be the problem!

Allow me to expand on what I wrote -

In order to establish a semantic base, I spoke in terms of two concerns:

1. Safety - the minimizing of risk of causing or having an accident.
2. Survivability - the minimizing of injury as a result of an accident having occurred.

When there is no accident, "survivability" is not an issue.

I am quite familiar with accident investigation, having trained and served as an accident investigator for a considerable number mishaps. In the case of a fatal mishap, one cannot determine the driver's motives or thought processes. One can, however, recreate the factors present and contributing to the accident. What the WADOT study found was that in less than 20% of the fatal accidents was there no evidence of the cycle driver contributing any actions which resulted in the mishap. Not so in the other 80+%.



In 2004, 94% of the fatalities in WA were on dry pavement, and 71% were during daylight hours. These fatalities were in prime weather and lighting conditions. The factors that lead to these fatalities were entirely within the control of the drivers and they chose to "do it their own way".

The study's methodology was quite proper.

"By the book" does not mean blind adherence to rules. What it does mean is variation only when necessary to handle a situation that is out of the ordinary. The example I gave about "bending the rules" pertained to the rescue of wounded or the delivery of ammunition to a unit in a heavy engagement with the opposing forces. Not to get home in time for dinner. I accepted higher risk only because of the urgency of the mission. I was not and did not train anyone to perform under these conditions, as they are extreme cases for which one can only make a judgment call during that specific moment and circumstance. Nor would I ever order a subordinate to do what I did. Extraordinary circumstances called for exceptional action. I was fortunate enough to have not suffered a mishap, but many others were not. But we all took the same increased risk. I was not safer, just more fortunate, and was thankful for that fortune. But I have tried since day one never to confuse fortune with safety or see it as an absence of risk.

Again, when I speak of safety, I speak of action taken before the fact and during the normal operation of the vehicle. We make a hard swerve to avoid sudden hazards, as the swerve is less hazardous than the impact. Swerving for fun is not what I would call "an inherently safe operation", as you raise the risk of a fall significantly. But then, if fun is what you are looking for, that's your call. Make high speed swerves to your heart's content.

As to speeding, at least where I have lived, other than the fuel saving 55 mph limits, speed limits are in place as a result of a variety of factors that attempt to ensure safe and orderly flow of traffic consistent with the road conditions. Every other driver on the road should have a reasonable expectation of his fellow driver operating in accordance with the posted limit, and should be able to make his driving decisions based on this. Yes, we have to drive defensively. But all the theory in the world does not negate the fact that investigators identified speeding as a contributing factor on over 50% of the fatalities in the WADOT study, and the vast majority of these fatalities occurred on dry pavement during the day - the optimal conditions for which the speed limit was established. Feel free to speed, but you cannot convince me that you do not increase your risk of a mishap when you do so. I have also elected to exceed the speed limit, but I am not about to say it didn't put me at greater risk, nor would I say it is easily defensible.

There are a variety of factors that cause accidents, and errors are amongst them. The WADOT study concluded, as I stated above, that "Four out of five fatalities were a result of factors that were within the cycle driver's control". Since the deceased drivers were not able to offer their reasons for speeding, drinking and driving, occupying the wrong lane, etc, the only lesson to be learned is it might be prudent to avoid such behaviors. I would personally be hard pressed to find a compelling reason for most drivers executing the behaviors identified as the major causative factors for the fatal accidents these drivers suffered. That's food for thought.

I would posit that "Safety is the management and minimizing of risk to acceptable levels." "Safety = Freedom from risk" is an absurdity. Life itself involves risk. Operating a vehicle involves risk. One can say that since it is inherently risky, no further thought need be involved. That is fatalism. As I wrote, I offered food for thought. Each of us is free to do what he or she pleases to place the risk they accept at an acceptable level in return for the "thrill" or other benefit they experience. Willingness to accept risk does not minimize nor negate the risk, and because of my experience, I would feel derelict or irresponsible to say otherwise.

An accident investigator searches diligently for cause and effect relationships, not to place blame, but to make causes known and thus as avoidable as possible. Very often, a chain of events leads to the mishap, and also very often, prevention of one item in this chain could have prevented the mishap itself. Very often, "The Devil is in the details". Extinguish one risky behavior, and a significant reduction in mishaps can result.

Whether you drive cautiously or for "thrills", I wish you a lifetime of pleasurable, mishap free experiences.

Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood

Thanks (both of you) for the insights.
_________________
"We're so far behind, we think we're first."

Smart apparel for those who ride...

My thanks as well. I really appreciate the clear distinction drawn between safety and survivability. It makes sense.
_________________
Michael

All the turmoil, all the agitation, was my necessary path to where I've arrived.

I like the distinction between safety and survivability, good stuff. I've often thought of it in terms of failure mode effect analysis (FMEA) where you take the probability of the failure occurring along with the effect of that failure. Safety plays a roll in the first part and survivability in the second. By this method given the same equipment in the same condition you can adjust your riding to match the conditions on both sides.

If you are on a track and you go down the effect is many times lower than going down on an identical curve in the mountains. So you can push it a lot more on the track and have the same over all score. Beyond that the road has many other unknowable and uncontrollable factors (traffic, road conditions...) that add to the failure mode side of things. Should also note that generally in business when the effect is injury or death a lot of effort and money is spent on the failure mode side to assure it (almost) never happens.
_________________
Patrick Owens
www.OopsClunkThud.com

All my cred are belong to Stefan

Al, thanks for this informative post. I do have a question about (surprise) the speeding aspect.
Was speeding defined as 'over the legal speed limit' or faster than average vehicle speed?
The point being that average traffic speeds are often in excess of the legal limit, so logically if 50% of riders
are over the speed limit in 'normal' conditions and 50% of riders in fatalities are over the speed limit then speeding
is not really a contributing factor.

Regards
Harvey
_________________
The sweet embrace of summer

Harvey wrote:

Was speeding defined as 'over the legal speed limit' or faster than average vehicle speed? Regards Harvey

Exceeding the posted sped limit was the definition used.

EDIT: I might add (just got home from dinner) that more than one the factors shown as contributing to the fatalities were at times present in a given accident. Thus, an alcohol impaired driver might have also been speeding or in the wrong lane. Unfortunately, the stats weren't broken down to that level. About 1/3 of the drivers did not have a motorcycle endorsement.

One conclusion was that more aggressive education was imperative. One of the recommendations was to expand the opportunity for the MSF Basic Course by allowing riders to use their own bikes, for example.

Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood

This is a valuable discussion. Thanks to Al for starting it.

Perhaps a real-world illustration will be of some benefit.

A number of years ago I was on scene when a motorcycle went down. There was an interesting play of safety and survivability factors involved, and while the direct "cause" of the accident was not the motorcyclist's "fault" he may well have been able to avoid the accident and could certainly have walked away with fewer or no injuries.

The setup:

I was in my car in the number three lane of a four lane freeway with heavy, slow traffic. In the rearview mirror I spotted a jerk in one of those jacked-up pickup trucks with monster tires making crazy lane changes to move through the traffic more quickly, gaining a car-length at a time. He passed our position on the highway shoulder then lurched back into a lane.

No sooner did the words "there's an accident in the making" leave my lips then all brake lights went on and cars began to (slowly) swerve. The pickup truck was already disappearing into traffic up ahead, but the next thing I saw was a downed motorcycle in the number two lane. I immediately saw a clearing to my right and pulled over onto the shoulder. I realized the cyclist was not visible enough and could potentially be hit while down, so I waded into traffic to get to get over to him, figuring I could direct the traffic around him.

(Note: a bit of acceptable risk taking here on my part. The traffic was slow enough - and getting slower - that I processed the risk, decided I could safely reach him and stop traffic, so I acted accordingly.)

So the first thought you may have is: damned pickup truck! Irresponsible driver!

And you'd be right. This is the chance you take in life: go out your door and things happen.

But let's now look at safety and survivability.

Safety factors:

1) The motorcyclist has consumed a pint of alcohol before setting out on his ride. He had the almost empty bottle in his pocket (and admitted he'd consumed it that morning once the CHP arrived).

2) He was going with the flow of traffic, slower than the speed limit, and was in lane.

Survivability factors:

1) The motorcyclist was wearing a thin T-shirt, thin sweatpants, and sneakers.

2) His helmet was bungeed to the rear seat of the bike rather than being on his head.

So while the partial - perhaps even major - cause of the accident was absolutely the irresponsible truck driver, if the motorcyclist had been sober there's a reasonable chance he would have been aware of the traffic around him, would have seen the truck, and would have been able to avoid the accident. I suspect he was startled and went down without the truck ever having touched him, but don't know that for certain.

The rest of the story:
A tanker truck came up on the scene and blocked oncoming traffic by angling his rig across three of the four lanes. A police helicopter appear overhead shortly after and dispatched the highway patrol. Before the CHP arrived an off-duty EMT traveling in the opposite direction stopped in the center divide and hopped the fence to render assistance. And one other driver in our direction of traffic stopped as well.

The rider was not badly injured but the bike was in pretty sad shape. The monster truck driver got away clean. Traffic was tied up for hours.

To sum up the obvious points, it's never "safe" to drive drunk, and an accident is less "survivable" if you are on the freeway with no safety gear.
_________________
What to do in case of an alien attack:
1. Hide beneath the seat of your plane and look away.
2. Avoid eye contact.
3. If there are no eyes, avoid all contact.

Continuing along these lines, I would also offer that if scooter driving is going to become more common, folks in the US are going to find two factors to contend with:

1. More and more inexperienced scooter drivers will be on the road.

2. More and more car drivers will be sharing the road with two wheel vehicles on a regular basis for the first time.

#1 means that the prudent measure is to begin to expand the education resources so that PTW drivers get their training as early in the game as possible. If the slots in the MSF courses remain at current levels and the number of new riders grows, long wait times will be a disincentive for taking the course. Once a person is licensed, it's a bit more difficult to get them into training. HUMAN NATURE.

#2 means that car drivers, who currently are not familiar with having PTWs share the roads in significant numbers will need to be educated to the safety aspects of this new environment. The only way to do this by by public service spots in the media, and incorporating it in new driver training. Here in Europe, the drivers grew up surrounded by PTWs on the roads. Not so in the US.

So, a rapid growth in scooter and/or motorcycle driving as a result of fuel prices might put a large number of inexperienced PTW drivers on the roads along side a large number of car drivers who have not built driving habits that are alert for PTWs. Not a good mix, from either side of the aisle.

SOOOO - while it's great that the media are giving scooters coverage, it would be even greater if they also pimped safety and awareness for two and four wheel drivers as well. I doubt that the average journalist sees this coming issue, however. Thus, if you, your club, or your dealership is approached for a "Wow, scooters are starting to sell like hot potatoes" story, why not try to get them to include "the rest of the story"?

Just some more food for thought.

Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood

QuipMC

Excellent example of impaired driving contributing to the "Chain of causation" and the need for "survival equipment".

Thanks,

Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood

Hi, great post, great thread. Lots of food for thought. Good timing too - I just blogged about body armor (in Estonian, so won't link), safety gear on scooters etc. And at the same time discussion popped up in our local biker's forum that Estonian law makers are thinking of making more safety gear mandatory (so far only helmet is). Thanks again.

Aviator47 wrote:

... #2 means that car drivers, who currently are not familiar with having PTWs share the roads in significant numbers will need to be educated to the safety aspects of this new environment. The only way to do this by by public service spots in the media, and incorporating it in new driver training. Here in Europe, the drivers grew up surrounded by PTWs on the roads. Not so in the US. .... So, a rapid growth in scooter and/or motorcycle driving as a result of fuel prices might put a large number of inexperienced PTW drivers on the roads along side a large number of car drivers who have not built driving habits that are alert for PTWs. Not a good mix, from either side of the aisle. [Edited from original post]

This is a great point. We often talk about training and experience from the rider end of the equation and it's something I truly believe in, whether that means taking a class like the MSF, reading books on bettering one's motorcycle skills or safe riding techniques. But you bring up an equally important and essential challenge, specifically here in N. America, where car drivers as a majority aren't accustomed to greater numbers of bikes sharing the road with their cars & trucks.

Even though the traffic laws provide basic protections and guidelines for both drivers and riders, it can't make up for the lack of experience or "real world" interaction between the two camps that have developed over decades in places like Europe and Asia. This is exactly why riding defensively, and per you first post, riding safely while geared up to better ensure "survivability" makes sense—especially so in regions like the U.S where motorcycles/scooters are a minority.

Again, thanks for starting this great discussion.
_________________
"We're so far behind, we think we're first."

Smart apparel for those who ride...

thanks to everyone for some great, thought provoking posts. i'm particularly interested in Al's observation about the differences in road use culture between the U.S. and Europe. This plays strongly into the definition of what's regarded as 'safe' or 'unsafe' behaviour on the part of motorcycles and scooters.

I know that filtering/lanesplitting (particularly in the face of oncoming traffic) is regarded by many of our US and Canadian members as insanely dangerous. If it's carried out recklessly, or in the presence of other road users who are hostile towards this sort of behaviour, not expecting it, or unaware of how to deal with it when it does occur, then yes, it's dangerous.

On the other hand, awareness of other road users, especially 2-wheelers, is part of driver training over here. Hostility from 4-wheeled vehicles is pretty rare, unless the motorcyclist or scooterist is behaving rashly. And filtering in a responsible manner is positively encouraged on scootersafe and bikesafe courses, on the logic that it's safer to have potential hazards (i.e. cars and lorries) behind you than in front of you.

i guess what i'm trying to point out here is that for a very limited number of factors (which don't include alcohol consumption, excessive speeding, or driving without due caution and awareness), 'safe' riding practice may be something of a relative issue. I was surprised to see 'lane errors' as the major causitive factor in the WADOT study, and I'd be interested to see a comparable set of statistics on road fatalities here in the UK.
_________________
"It is the triumph of reason to get on well with those who possess none." Voltaire

So am I safe to survive the safety of survival safely?

i think now we've gone through an anecdote -- and have a tangible example to aid discussion -- we can begin to reintroduce error.
yes driving is not really rules-based in the binary sense, but there are several examples of error here -- on both sides -- that make error a useful part of the discussion.

1) bad truck driving
2) drinking and riving
3) failure to wear "survivability gear."

so, here's where driving becomes "rules-based":
swerving thru traffic is not a normal driving activity, neither is speeding, nor drinking, nor wearing a t-shirt and no helmet. all of these errors contributed to the accident (or to its effects).
if you eliminate these "errors" from the road that day, would there still have been an accident? would the consequences have been as severe?
although i get the point: The road is literally filled with moving pieces (and there are a huge number of variables at play at any one time) safe or survivable driving is about trying to eliminate those errors and mitigate their consequences.
this is really where predictability becomes a factor -- and it works on two parts, in my view.
1) a motorcyclist driving in a predictable fashion reduces the risk of unforced car-driver error (don't swerve, speed, or ride in blind spots)
2) being aware of what are common or predictable driver errors enhances driver safety (make yourself visible, block your lanes, make eye contact with left-turning drivers, etc.)

So we really have a few simple rules:

- ride a "safe" bike
- wear "survivability" gear
- reduce your own error
- predict cagers' errors.

The cops in my town say there are no accidents, only collisions. it's an interesting point.
the other day i parked my scoot in a parking lot at the back end of a space, and sideways. i was trying to leave room for other scooters to park beside me (i'd already paid for the spot, why not share?).
at some point during the day, a diver used the extra space in my spot to turn around. (s)He knocked my scoot over, scratching it up.
There were several errors here:
obviously the other driver misjudged the space between his car and my scoot. But i also failed to predict the possibility of this error.
If i had parked lengthwise in the lane, filling up as much of the space as possible, the driver might not have taken the chance of turning around in my spot.
Although it was clearly the OTHER driver's fault. i could have predicted this error and prevented the collision. But who's vehicle do you think suffered the greater damage? i doubt his bumper has a scratch on it. My scoot is all scratched up.

Ottawa

In many mishaps, as you offer, there are more than one contributing factor. Each factor increases the risk level, and thus increases the probability of a mishap actually happening. Thus, if we, as drivers eliminate as many factors as we can control from our own driving (Speeding, alcohol, lane errors) we reduce the probability of a mishap occurring. Reduced probability means fewer mishaps.

Some causative factors are not within the control of the PTW driver. But, some of these factors are such that we can compensate for them, such as wet pavement. Others may not be easily compensated for, such as a driver suddenly swerving into your path.

A lot of emphasis is placed on anticipating the actions of other drivers. That's good driving, and reduces risk. It's also as sort of "attractive subject" as it places "blame" on the other guy for the potential for causing a mishap, making "us" look better. Studies like the one from WADOT are valuable, if we take them to heart, as they show that we tend to kill ourselves more often than any other driver kills us. At least in WA State.

genie-

Of course there is no way to tell how many of the "lane errors" in WA where influenced by alcohol diminished judgment. What is important, however, is that lane errors are deadly, and should thus be avoided. Obviously, we should not ride when alcohol impaired. And when we are in full control of ourselves, we should, indeed, avoid making lane errors. This is a factor that is normally within the driver's control. Similarly, some lane errors could have been due to excessive speed, such as entering the oncoming lane in a tight turn. But then, our speed is within our control.

And yes, those of us who drive cars in Europe have a totally different experience level in sharing the road with PTWs. The density PTWs on the road is radically different here. The latest industry stats for the UK shows 1.3 million PTWs registered for your population of 60 million souls and 93,000 square miles. The US has some 5 million PTWs registered for a population of 300 million and a land area of 3.6 MILLION sq miles. The UK has 14 PTWs per square mile, and the US has a little more than one. Also, keep in mind that most PTWs in the US are not usually the owner's primary transport, and are on the road much less frequently than in Europe. In the US, scooters and cycles are still a relative novelty.

If you really want wild figures look at Italy, with 10 million PTWs registered.

More food for thought.

Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood

Great discussion. Thank you. Several of us at work read, discuss, and practice motorcycle safety several times a week. That includes panic stop practice, tiny figure 8's in the parking lot, dirt biking, and a bit of track time.

I felt that the MSF course was very thin by comparison. I hope the general public isn't counting on an MSF course plus trial-and-error to guide them safely ( in the general meaning ) through their two-wheeled ventures.

Aviator... Can you point me to the WADOT report? Is it the next HURT report or is that never going to happen again?

Thanks again

pointpergame wrote:

Great discussion. Thank you. Several of us at work read, discuss, and practice motorcycle safety several times a week. That includes panic stop practice, tiny figure 8's in the parking lot, dirt biking, and a bit of track time. I felt that the MSF course was very thin by comparison. I hope the general public isn't counting on an MSF course plus trial-and-error to guide them safely ( in the general meaning ) through their two-wheeled ventures.

That is an excellent point. Not only is it "thin", but it can be seen as an cure all, one time "inoculation". The end result can be a false sense of security. The "booster shots" you guys are giving yourselves are a great enhancement. But how many riders receive these "booster shots"?

As a retired military aviator, I come from a different environment. We were required to demonstrate full proficiency to a certified check pilot annually in every aircraft we flew. Even more frequently in some circumstances. There were both written and hands on exams, to exacting standards. In addition, commanders would fly with all their subordinates regularly for an informal view of their attitudes and behavior while at the controls, and check pilots would randomly fly with all of us on an unannounced basis. Formal safety training was a minimum of monthly - for EVERYBODY. And technical info pertaining to safety lessons learned from mishaps and other sources was constantly placed in our hands.

Am I advocating the above for civilian vehicle operators? Of course not, as it is out of the question. But those of us who care, can and should do all we can to promote and learn about safe operations. In comparison to my flying experience, consider my personal driver license:-- I first received it in 1958 by taking driver training in high school. I have not been required to take anything other than an eye exam to renew it in the subsequent 50 years. My motorcycle endorsement was added in 1962, when they first came into existence in my home state. Again, no subsequent retesting. I took the MSF Basic Course a few years ago when the local military base required it to drive on the base. Glad I did, as I learned from it - even after nearly 40 years of riding.

Of course, aviation is much more highly regulated than ground vehicle operation. But more Americans die in vehicle accidents involving driver error than they do in all aviation mishaps combined. It's just the nature of the culture that we allow much more freedom to those who drive.

Quote:

Aviator... Can you point me to the WADOT report? Is it the next HURT report or is that never going to happen again? Thanks again

Sorry I didn't point to it previously. Was using the copy that I downloaded a year ago. http://www.dol.wa.gov/about/reports/mototaskforce.pdf
I erred in refering to DOT. It was an inter-agency task force report under DOL (Dept of Licensing).

The conclusion stated in the opening summary bears repeating:

The Task Force concluded that, while there are multiple contributions to motorcycle crashes that result in fatalities or serious injuries, it appears that the most important factors are within the control of the rider. Efforts to reduce fatalities and serious injuries should focus on rider skill and behavior.

Were I still living in the US, I would encourage the MSF to prepare safety materials to distribute to media outlets to educate EVERYONE on the roads to driving safety, especially the new factors that can arise as PTW operations become more common in the US. And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I made a suggestion on this thread that I feel would also help:
http://www.modernvespa.com/forum/topic25388.html


Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood

Aviator47 wrote:

Am I advocating the above for civilian vehicle operators? Of course not, as it is out of the question. But those of us who care, can and should do all we can to promote and learn about safe operations. [snip] Of course, aviation is much more highly regulated than ground vehicle operation. But more Americans die in vehicle accidents involving driver error than they do in all aviation mishaps combined. It's just the nature of the culture that we allow much more freedom to those who drive. Al

Society has accepted the risks of owning vehicles, a trade off of the likely consquences over the percieved benefits - basic risk management theory. (and every policitician who has done a risk assessment on the consequences of requiring more skill building in the general population knows the consequences).

Aviation has invested heavily into risk management strategies because Governments (for military) and the public (for general aviation) are not happy to accept the risk of a plane falling out the sky, and the likely consequences, either socially, financially or politically.

Regulation does not mean safe - is it a self regulating industry, a co-regulatory industry or a compliancing regulatory environment? - each has its inherent risks and problems. Aviation has much to share with other industries, but it also has much to learn.

The definition of safety I referred earlier is a commonly used definition, both in general literature and by safety professionals - I do not agree with it myself, but use it to differentiate. Suggest old Jimmy Reason is a worthwhile read on the issue.

Risk management is the process of managing likelihood and consequences to a level that is acceptable. "Safety" has become a generic term to describe the overall process of managing risk in its varying forms.

We need to be careful not to confuse the terms.

I think there is agreement that training (or skill building) is an important element of any activity (a pre-the "oh shit point" in a bow tie), and that PPE is merely a way of minimising consequences post incident (a post- the"oh-shit" point in a Bow Tie analysis).
_________________
Twin01

Adelaide SA

It is the nature of the wise to resist pleasures,
but the foolish to be a slave to them.
-- Epictetus

OK, so a lot of accidents are in some way due to rider error.
The better protected we are, the less we are worried about having a crash.

Shorts and tee shirt, no helmet = good safety // bad survivability.
Helmet, full leathers = not so good safety //excellent survivability.

Is there some happy middle ground?

znomit wrote:

OK, so a lot of accidents are in some way due to rider error. The better protected we are, the less we are worried about having a crash. Shorts and tee shirt, no helmet = good safety // bad survivability. Helmet, full leathers = not so good safety //excellent survivability. Is there some happy middle ground?

That's a decision only you can make, and as far as protective gear, I will not even begin to preach on something that pertains to you alone, other than offer the facts that "survivability" is for your benefit and encourage you to use good judgment.

As to worrying about a crash, please remember that you are not alone on the roads. You share them with others, and that, at times, may include me. So, from my point of view:

1. You decide to suit up in full protective gear. You pass on the right at an intersection. A car making a left turn sees you suddenly appear and jams on the brakes, but still hits you. Your gear protects you, but passengers in the car suffer injuries from the sudden stop.

2. You are riding at higher than posted speed on a highway. That causes you to wander slightly into the oncoming lane on a turn. A car coming the other way sees you in his lane and swerves to avoid you, losing control and suffering a fatal accident. You swerve and suffer minor injuries because you are wearing $1,000 worth of "neat protective stuff".

3. You decide to "lane split" at high speed where it is prohibited. As you pass a car, he moves slightly in your direction (he is, after all, rightfully expecting full access to his lane), forcing you to swerve left and hit the car on that side. The result is that none of your protective gear is sufficient to save your life. The driver of the car that you illegally passed carries that burden on his shoulders for the rest of his life, wondering what he might have done to prevent the accident that you really caused.

All these hypothetical accidents were caused by factors within your control. In these examples, the initiating factor was your behavior, and these behaviors were not safe, and, in fact illegal. So, do you expect me to find your willingness to operate in a less than "safe" manner acceptable because you wore protective gear? What did you do to protect the other guy on the road who was operating his vehicle in the prescribed manner?

Thus, there is no simple answer to your question. If you are only concerned with your own life and limb, then act accordingly.

Training is not the answer all to safety on the road. Behavior is. Training that is inappropriate, inaccurate, insufficient or ignored does not result in safe behavior.

In the course of a mishap investigation caused totally by pilot error, I had to transport a quarter body bag load of human fragments to the morgue for separation into two sets of remains for delivery to the grieving families. I would never wish that task on anyone. Thus, indirectly, I do care if you crash or cause a crash. It is just such a waste.

Lastly, ATGATT will not protect you from every mishap you can cause. One thought I would offer is that those nifty armored outfits do not provide a lot of protection to internal organs from high g impact, nor will they protect you from the weight of a car driving over you. But they might allow an open coffin at your wake.

But, again, it's up to you. Just try to keep the other guy on the road in mind, and not only in terms of the threat they might pose. We can be a threat as well - to others as well as ourselves. A significant factor in safe riding is ATTITUDE, as attitude effects behavior.

BTW- I use the pronoun "you" simply in an illustrative manner and for the sake of brevity. No accusation is being made.

Al
_________________
It's never too late to have a happy childhood