- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Bike park (CC licensed by Gordon Joly via Flickr).jpgDo motorcyclists and cyclists make safer road users?
A recent survey carried out by motorbike insurer Carole Nash has found that the vast majority of motorcyclists who also own bicycles have not been involved in a road traffic collision.
As many as 92 per cent of the 2,183 motorcyclists questioned said that they also owned a bicycle and of these, 94 per cent said they’d never been involved in a collision.
Steve Kenward, CEO of The Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA), said: “There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that there is ‘strength in numbers’ where the safety of motorcyclists and cyclists is concerned and we need to encourage an increase in both to tackle congestion. Would more motorcyclists and cyclists on the road mean drivers would be more used to seeing them and accidents would become less common?”
58 per cent of those polled said that being a motorcyclist helped them to be safer on a bicycle and Kenward said that more drivers needed to be encouraged to see the road from other perspectives.
“The safest road users are likely to be the ones who have experienced the road from a multi-user perspective, so it is no surprise that motorcyclists say they are better road users and that their riding skills translate to a bicycle and vice versa, as the Carole Nash research demonstrates.
“With ‘failure to see' as the major cause of accidents, we need to encourage more drivers to experience the road on other modes of transport.”
The survey also found that 57 per cent of those questioned owned more than one bicycle with 27 per cent owning three or more.
Road bikes were the most popular with 54 per cent saying they owned one. The average value of a bike was £1,240.
When asked what benefits there were to cycling, the most common response (61 per cent) was simply “it’s an enjoyable way of getting around.”
Rebecca Donohue, Head of Marketing at Carole Nash, said: “There are so many benefits to travelling on two wheels; riding a motorcycle or bicycle is more time-efficient, more cost-effective and it makes for easier parking. The study has shown that two wheel riders feel they make safer drivers too and of course they are happier commuters.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 5 sec ago
I was thinking of taking up water-skiing, but I couldn't find a lake with a hill.
- mdavidford 10 min 36 sec ago
You've definitely gone too far now. I'm not having this steak and kidney pie-shaming (or port and stilton-shaming for that matter).
- chrisonabike 20 min 58 sec ago
If you'll allow stretching the definition of "bicycle" (or maybe not?) I have you covered for "hot cycles" (literally). (Also here)
- chrisonabike 27 min 33 sec ago
Awaiting the next feckless driver asking the judge to delay the start of the sentence because "they owe a few more cyclists a proper goodbye"....
- Hirsute 1 hour 45 min ago
All in the article - road tax.
- chrisonabike 2 hours 59 min ago
Ah, but: in UK, if a motorist drives into you (or simply parks in a cycle lane, forcing you out into the path of another motorist) then the council...
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 1 min ago
You're right. I just use the main Long Ashton Rd to get between the A370 and Ashton Court/B3128. Looking at a map, Festival Way doesn't go far...
- hand0j1n 18 hours 19 min ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 17 hours 9 min ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 18 hours 54 min ago
Have added some clarification....
Add new comment
53 comments
I like the sound of that. I'm picturing some kind of Max Max style road warriors, but going around on Raleigh Choppers (maybe with some decorative skulls hanging from the handlebars to show how metal they are).
Alternatively, don't we pay taxes for police to do that kind of thing for us?
I thought it was London which had the knife crime problem?
FWIW, Gun laws in NY are about as tough as you will find in the US. Only once in 15 years did I see anyone other than a uniformed law enforcement officer with a gun. That lady turned out to be an off duty FBI agent having a beer. I never saw anyone with their gun out of it's holster.
One of the doorman in the apartment building where I lived, rode a Harley, he didn't strike me as a gun toting redneck - just a laid back guy from Queens.
Well, since neither seat belts nor motorcycle helmets have been shown to reduce risk, and some research shows an increase in risk with both, BehindTheBikeSheds would appear to have a point. The case for both was exactly the same as is made regularly for cycle helmets i.e. "it's common sense" "they are better than nothing" "they've saved thousands of lives somewhere else". Certainly in the case of seat belts, the government commissioned a report, the Isles Report, before the debate in Parliament, but the report was never published because it showed that in places with seat belt laws, deaths and injuries increased. Of course they only increased for vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists, so they didn't matter.
Unfortunately, like most road safety initiatives, the actual data from real world use doesn't support mandatory seat belts or motorcycle helmets, again, exactly like cycle helmets.
Err, you might want to check your facts. US states with no helmet laws or lax helmet enforcement have the highest death rates for motorcyclsits. Those with a helmet requirement for motorcyclsits have much lower fatality rates.
When the UK introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists in the 1970s, the death rate fell dramatically.
I'd treat any statistics quoted by Behindthebikesheds with a healthy amount of scepticism.
The UK introduced a mandatory helmet rule for motorcyclists in 1973.
The relative risk of dying in a motorcycle accident fell by a quarter in the following decade.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052259/pdf/jepicomh00246-0069.pdf
Yep - the NHTSA has extensive data on crashes in US states on its website, if anyone cares to look. This isn't based on surveys but on analysis of police crash data. Florida and Montana both have lax laws on driving and road use, with motorbike riders not having to wear helmets. Guess what? They both have horrendous rates of crashes, amongst the worst in the US. They also score very poorly in terms of safety for cyclists and for high rates of drink driving.
And you don't think the high rates of drink driving are responsible for the death rate of motorcyclists, you think it's the fact that they don't wear helmets?
Correlation established.
Causation? Not so much.
All road deaths fell by a quarter in that period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#/me...
That's a separate debate, FWIW I'm not in favour of compulsory helmet laws.
I was just pointing out that Behindthebikesheds was making stuff up, again.
You're not in favour of compulsory helmet laws for motorcycles or bicycles? There is a massive difference between helmet wearing for motorcyclsits and cyclists.
I'm not in favour of compulsory helmet laws for either group.
As long as motorcyclists, as a group, contributed enough in taxation to offset any increased cost to the state then it should be up to them if they wear helmets or not.
The US states without helmet laws do have much higher KSI stats for motorcyclists. Wisconsin recently dropped its requirement for helmet use amongst motorcyclists. Guess what? The death rate for rider increased.
There is a direct link between helmet use for motorcyclists and KSI rates for motorcyclists. It has been proven.
Riding a motorcycle is not the same as riding a bicycle. Motorbikes are bigger, heavier and faster. Anyone who doesn't wear a lid when riding a motorbike can't have anything in their skull worth saving.
Would you care to post some peer-reviewed, reliable scientific research?
The only difference between motorcycle and cycle helmet laws is that the cyclists are intelligent enough to have fought them off by using the data.
I know - I don't really want to go off on this tangent either.
But I don't think it is a separate debate. Obviously 'other stuff' was happening in the decade following the introduction of the motorbike helmet laws, as all road deaths dropped by a quarter. Motorcyclists seemingly followed the same trend of the wider road-using public, and I doubt that drivers, pedestrians or cyclists used motorbike helmets in that decade.
I'd jump to the conclusion that motorbike helmets made sod-all difference, given that motorcyclist deaths decreased at the same rate as the general trend, rather than conclude that helmets were responsible for the 25% decrease in motorcyclist deaths.
But actually I wouldn't jump to that either, without seeing, or being arsed to properly google, actual road use and motorbike numbers and proper crash statistics (which would be impossible to get hold of), and all of that 'other stuff'. That 'other stuff' is complex and the reason that this debate is never properly resolved in internet comments. Maybe it is that motorbike use increased significantly and helmets worked wonders in preventing KSIs to cause that reduction.
There is not enough data that far back to prove much but it's fairly safe to conclude that, given the drop in fatalities, compulsory helmet legislation didn't increase the number of accidents significantly.
Interestingly front seatbelts became mandatory on all new cars in 1972. That could possibly explain the concurrent drop in fatalities for car users.
True, but unlikely to be an effect of the helmet law and much more likely to be the result of the drink driving and breathalyser laws introduced at the same time.
Err, you might want to check your facts. US states with no helmet laws or lax helmet enforcement have the highest death rates for motorcyclsits. Those with a helmet requirement for motorcyclsits have much lower fatality rates.
When the UK introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists in the 1970s, the death rate fell dramatically.
[/quote]
The data that I've seen does not agree with what you say about USA states with/without helmet laws, with those without laws having a lower death rate.
Certainly the death rate of motorcyclists in this country fell after the motorcycle helmet law was enacted, but it is not clear that this was the result of the law. Deaths and injuries to all road users fell at that time, not just motorcyclists, and pedestrians, drivers and cyclists weren't wearing helmets. Somebody looked at the times of deaths and motorcyclists post law and discovered that they were dying a lot less between the hours of 2200-0200, and unless helmets became magically effective between those times, this was not a helmet effect.
So what happened at the same time that the motorcycle helmet law was passed? The breathalyser and drink driving laws, and it is vastly more likely that their introduction was responsible for the reduction in deaths to motorcyclists.
When I used to motorbike to work, this bellend on a ratbike would regulary take to the pavement down this tight one way street just to gain a few metres. I was never that bothered as he was shit at riding and my VFR400 would murder him in the twisties a bit further down the road.
I must admit, if you've got a motorbike it can be hard to control yourself. People wank themselves silly that GTR can do 60 in 3s but you can do that £1000 on a bike and sometimes you can't fight the urge to go to warp speed. Don't have one anymore but I do miss the acceleration and ram air noise of my Kwak. With great power comes great responsiblity as someone once said to Spiderman.
You do seem equally invisible to car drivers though on 2 wheels, regardless of size of bike, speed or whether you've got lights on. I think I actually got pulled out on more on the motorbike and most people seem unable to judge your speed even if perfectly legal.
The KSI stats would tend to bear that out, as motorbikers although just 1% of road traffic account for 17% of RTCs - some self-inflicted at speeds that people on bikes could never achieve.
But the article is about motorcyclists who *also own one or more bicycles*. Though a more pertinent measure would be how often they ride their bicycle and how far they travel on it (or even whether they actually ride it at all).
Now, I strongly suspect that cyclists make better drivers as they have a much better understanding of the dangers that motor vehicles pose to others and may therefore be less complacent and more careful.
However, a quick skim of the article suggests that there is no stronger evidence for this being an actual effect than "cyclists and motorcyclists think they are better drivers".
Which is entirely meaningless without a comparison to how many non-bicycle owning motorcyclists have never been involved in a collision.
I think as far as evidence goes, this news basically boils down to "motorcyling insurer tries to gain favour with motorcyclists by flattering their driving ability"!
I don't think their wrong, I just think that they haven't proved it.
I've also seen polls that show that ~90% of men think they are better than average drivers whether they ride bikes or not so no particular significance there.
I ride both. When on my m/c I am hyper alert all the time - you have to be. That definately carries over onto the pushbike. It's a kind of 6th sense that switches on automatically. That said, "L Pate worriors" on Vespas are some of the worse road users in London for sure.
Pages