This is an old article, but still fairly relevant, I think. Bikes now compared to what alot of us rode back in the 70s/80s are alot more powerful and in most cases lighter as well. I'm sure this doesn't just apply to men . If you fit into this category, take heed.
Police have warned men in their 30s and 40s often with limited experience of more powerful bikes to be more cautious
Mark Macaskill
Children of the motorcycle-loving 1970s are responsible for a significant rise
in road accidents as they relive their youth on high-powered machines.
Police and road safety campaigners say born-again bikers are largely to blame
for a 30% rise in motorcycle accidents among men in their 30s and 40s in the
past decade.
They grew up when the motorbike was king, with stunt rider Evel Knievel at the
height of his fame and British motorcyclist Barry Sheene the world 500cc
champion.
Ageing bikers have traded up from the relatively modest motorcycles they owned
as teenagers to powerful superbikes, which are far more difficult to handle.
They also tend to use their bikes for leisure trips, which means they only
clock up about 3,000 miles a year, usually during the day and in good
weather. As a result, they are ill-equipped to deal with more hazardous
situations.
In 1997, about 380 bikers aged between 30 and 49 were involved in crashes,
compared with 506 in 2007. Overall, the number of motorcyclists killed or
injured in Scotland rose 10% from about 950 to 1,050.
While the number of people killed on Scotland’s roads fell to an all-time low
of 281 in 2007 — the latest year for which figures are available — 40
motorcyclists lost their lives, an increase of 11% since 1997.
The issue has provoked concern among ministers, who will launch a 10-year road
safety strategy tomorrow.
“Motorcycle casualties are a significant concern,” said Brian Anderson, chief
superintendent, Dumfries and Galloway constabulary, and spokesman on road
policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
“Police forces closely analyse road crash statistics and we know that the
majority of people involved in motorcycle accidents are in their 30s and 40s.
“We don’t want to be killjoys but the message is about safety. Of course,
middle-aged men should go out on a motorcycle if they wish, but if they were
last on one in their late teens, they need to be aware that modern bikes are
different, they are more powerful and there are more vehicles on the roads.
It is a fact that motorcyclists are more likely to be killed or seriously
injured than a car driver.”
Michael McDonnell, director of Road Safety Scotland, said: “Motorcycle
casualties remain a significant issue in Scotland, particularly on country
roads where poor speed choice often leads to loss of control, with
disastrous consequences.”
This month, David Weir, 43, a hotelier from Bishopbriggs near Glasgow, was
killed on the A830 Fort William to Mallaig road in an accident involving his
bike and two other cars.
In May, a 50-year-old motorcyclist died after a collision with a car on the
A835 near the Letters junction, south of Ullapool. In March, a man, 41, was
killed after he lost control of his Triumph Tiger on the A82 Drymen to
Glasgow road, a famous routes for bikers, and collided with a car.
Motorcyclists account for one per cent of traffic but almost a fifth of all
deaths on British roads.
Dyna, it automatically shows as white, if you copy it from another site, all you need do, before you hit 'post message', is to highlight the text and change it to black (I know it already LOOKS black) and it will show as black.
HTH
Doesn't the fact that there is much more than a 30% increase in road users, since then, and the fact that the car test has got easier, whilst the bike test has got harder, get taken into account ? Some may have passed their bike test in the 70's and returned to bikes later on, but I reckon the price of insuring a large bike, without a no claims bonus, would put many off. I see this as spin, another report designed to blame motorcyclists, regardless of the fact that most bike accidents involve other vehicles.
I think the most recent figures show that over 45% of motorcycle fatalities are actually single vehicle accidents.
It is true that the majority of urban accidents involve other vehicles, but rural accidents, which tend to have a larger percentage of serious and fatal injuries, involve a greater proportion of single vehicle accidents.
As such, although there may well be a greater number of bike accidents that involve another vehicle, those that result in serious or fatal injuries tend towards not doing so.
However, from what I can tell, "born again" bikers, along with female bikers, appear to be far more likely to undertake further training after passing their test. Whereas most male bikers that have ridden for ten years or more are more reluctant to do so, many even believing that it simply will not help them. An opinion I don't agree with it. An opinion I do however hold as a result of this, is that the problem of the "born again" bikers is one that does seem to be diminishing.
It has to be remembered when these things are read, that statistics can always be "utilised" to produce the results required if someone wants to do that.
I for one always chuckle slightly when I hear that more people in their 30s and 40s are involved in accidents whilst riding modern superbikes than any other age group. When you think about it, this stands to reason; people under the age of 30 are less likely to be able to afford modern superbikes and those aged 50 and above tend to move to "softer" types of bikes.
This is no different really than the "evidence" produced by Brussels in the 80s suggesting that more bike accidents involved large more powerful bikes. Those that can remember that time will also remember that the evidence was eventually ridiculed when it was discovered that the lengths of road examined were in the majority autobahns and other high speed european motorways. And that more accidents involved large bikes on these roads than 125s and scooters. No sh*t sherlock lol!
So although I do feel we need to ensure that any "evidence" produced like this is argued with if possible, I for one don't panic when I read it.
I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that most bike accidents are CAUSED by other vehicles..............after being on the recieving end of an accident caused by a car driver not looking before she turned right at a junction i'm fully in agreement with this statement!!!
I have to agree with Geoff on this one, every `reliable` set of statistics I have ever read points to the majority of motorcycle accidents being the result of an inexperienced rider mis judging a bend, another reason in my eyes to bring back a probation period on a relatively small bike for everyone who passes there test.
Do away with direct access and hold all riders to 35hp when they pass test for 2 years to gain experience. The knock on from that would be better insurance rates for us all.
Agree (pretty much) entirely. Never been a fan of direct access, seems to defeat the object of creating a period of learning on a bigger bike to me.
For me the answer is a two part test with a pass resulting in a reasonable period, say two years, on a bigger bike that is restricted and that everyone should do this regardless of age.
I do think that the current restriction limit is too low and should be raised to 45bhp, but otherwise agree with WJ. Direct access should be scrapped.
I also think that the government should actively encourage additional training .. perhaps by forcing insurance companies to offer good discounts for people with RoSPA and IAM test passes.
there is no direct access in N ireland - if you pass your test you are restricted to 33bhp for 2 years (i think).
Fatalities stats for year apr 09- apr 2010 are: total fatalities on NI roads 101 - of that 16 were motorcyclists. of those 16 only 6 were single vehicle accidents the rest involved collisions with other vehicles. My own opinion is that driving standards here are lower than the UK.
I dont know whether this supports the above theory about direct access. I did direct access in England before i moved here, and i have no complaints about it. I went to a ZX9r the day i passed my test but then ive never felt the need to keep up with mates and ive always been aware of my own limitations.
The argument about lower insurance...sorry but thats bollox - if you dont do extra training because you want to do it you wont benefit from it...you learn more when youre interested in what youre doing!
Oh Kwak, you are sooo masterful. While I agree training does not necessessarily make better riders, It does show them how to be better. If all bikers are limited for 2 years to 33horse, it gives them more time to properly learn to ride to their limitations. The natural assumption is that if young riders take longer to learn on limited bikes, they should be better riders and have less avoidable accidents. I follows that premiums would fall as a result.
" For me the answer is a
two part test with a pass resulting in a reasonable period, say two
years, on a bigger bike that is restricted and that everyone should do
this regardless of age. "
![Born-again bikers blamed for dramatic rise in road accidents - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Born-again bikers blamed for dramatic rise in road accidents - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
