Scenarios + Riding Strategies

[SAFE-T]

Furthermore, let's consider the following possibilities:

1) Rider either did or did not know there was a T-intersection ahead.

Route planning and knowing the potential hazards along your route can help you to avoid or at least be a little better prepared.

If you knew there was a T-intersection ahead and passed the car anyway, you are exposing yourself to unneccessary risk. The way I read it, the motorcyclist did not know the intersection was ahead and had poor visibility of the road ahead and should have waited to pass like the OP said.

I have been fortunate to have ridden the DH-1 in British Columbia a number of times, and it's a great road. It also has dozens of driveways directly onto the road, which makes it a very dangerous place to go extremely fast and/or pass traffic.

2) Rider either did or did not see a car waiting to turn left onto the roadway.

If you saw the car waiting to turn left, the last thing you should do is pass the vehicle in front of you which increases your closing speed and puts you closer to and directly in the path of the waiting vehicle if it turns left.

If you did not see the car you have to ask why ? If there was a visibility issue, you shouldn't be passing other vehicles in the first place. If you looked but just didn't see the other vehicle you have to question your observation skills. 

A friend of mine got to watch another rider embed himself in the front end of an approaching car making an unsafe pass on a corner with a double-yellow in Ontario. I can't and really don't want to imagine what that must have been like, but I'm so glad Rob did not get caught up in the wreckage.

[xunedeinx]

This threads bugging me, im out.

[SAFE-T]

I think this is an excellent thread and worthy of anyone's careful consideration.

[SAFE-T]

The most frequently reported cause of accident between a passenger vehicle and a 75 foot Edmonton Public Transit Bus is "I didn't see him."

You can be as hi-viz as you like but if you don't do anything else other than that you are still going to be lunchmeat.

[SAFE-T]

Like it or not, some form of driver error is almost always the primary or contributing factor in collisions, and where motorcyclists are concerned there is a lot that can be done to reduce the risks. The truly unfortunate part is that even in the best of times we remain susceptible to lapses of self-discipline and concentration, so our risk of injury or mortality will be always be higher on motorcycles.

[Phil B]

maybe in Europe high-visibility works, but all it does here is piss people off, or make you a target, or have no effect.

Unless you have specific statistics to back this up, I'm interpreting this as more of you transfering a "YOU dont like it" feeling, into an "everyone doesnt like it" assumption.  One that is incorrect.

Where I live in Florida, and You can ask toogoofy, there's reports everyday of people, ON PURPOSE, trying to run bikes off the roads/interstates.

Numbers are numbers, reality is different, ask anyone who actually lives and rides here how it really is, and you'll get similar responses.

Even if your comments about florida are correct, that does not automaticaly extend to the entire united states. So comparing "europe vs here" is misleading.

There's nothing like that in california, for example.

I think no-one bothers to deliberately target bikes in california, because the squid ratio is so high, they figure bikers will off themselves soon enough without any help     

[SAFE-T]

If you run a bike off the road on purpose, by logic you must have been able to see them. The problem is not that you are invisible ~ they just don't like you. But without some actual data to back it up, I'm not believing it.

[ohgood]

Getting back to riding strategies instead of .....


I ran wide in a decreasing radius turn. First time I've made that mistake in 6 years and 45000 miles or so. The road was constant turns, hills, of varying degree. Clear day, excellent visability, except for the sun and an astigmatism. I was speeding, maybe 35 on a posted 25 turn. On a dualsport. With worn (good for roads, not good for dirt) knobbies.

Thankfully there was a wide shoulder of grass and I stayed upright and managed to miss a few debris in my line (ha, line!) Of travel.

Looking back, I believe it was not the speed, road surface, or traction that made me lose control and exit. I think it was a vision wash out, a panic brake of the rear, instead of just leaning with constant throttle. After that episode I took the turn 2-3 more times to test, and there were no events worth noting.

Ok safety gurus...

Target fixation ?
Astigmatism + sun = vision loss at the worst time ?
Speed ?
Just the fact of having ridden many years and momnetary lapse of judgment ?
All of the above ?

My skin is thick, have at it.

[SAFE-T]

Sounds like you know exactly what went wrong ~ weren't looking where you were supposed to be because of the glaring sun, then (you say 'panic') some braking at the wrong moment, followed by some weed whacking.

I'd say one miffed corner in 45000 miles is....acceptable LOL

[Toogoofy317]

well, here is an interesting article. That states that Hi-viz works.
There are a few others out there actually one from 1969 I'm waiting to get it from Illiad. For me the best protection I ever got on Flick was 139db horn. They may not see me but they will hear me!
Sorry, had to cut out some of the SPS stuff to get the paper to fit in the post. If anyone wants the thing in it's entirety let me know.

Motorcycle rider conspicuity and crash related injury: case-control study
Susan Wells, senior lecturer in epidemiology,1 Bernadette Mullin, public health physician,1 Robyn Norton, professor of public health,3 John Langley, director of injury prevention research unit,4 Jennie Connor, senior lecturer in epidemiology,1 Roy Lay-Yee, assistant research fellow,2 and Rod Jackson, professor of epidemiology1
Abstract
Objective To investigate whether the risk of motorcycle crash related injuries is associated with the conspicuity of the driver or vehicle.
Design Population based case-control study.
Setting Auckland region of New Zealand from February 1993 to February 1996.
Participants 463 motorcycle drivers (cases) involved in crashes leading to hospital treatment or death; 1233 motorcycle drivers (controls) recruited from randomly selected roadside survey sites.
Main outcome measures Estimates of relative risk of motorcycle crash related injury and population attributable risk associated with conspicuity measures, including the use of reflective or fluorescent clothing, headlight operation, and colour of helmet, clothing, and motorcycle.
Results Crash related injuries occurred mainly in urban zones with 50 km/h speed limit (66%), during the day (63%), and in fine weather (72%). After adjustment for potential confounders, drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.94) than other drivers. Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). Self reported light coloured helmet versus dark coloured helmet was associated with a 19% lower risk. Three quarters of motorcycle riders had their headlight turned on during the day, and this was associated with a 27% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.73, 0.53 to 1.00). No association occurred between risk and the frontal colour of drivers' clothing or motorcycle. If these odds ratios are unconfounded, the population attributable risks are 33% for wearing no reflective or fluorescent clothing, 18% for a non-white helmet, 11% for a dark coloured helmet, and 7% for no daytime headlight operation.
Conclusions Low conspicuity may increase the risk of motorcycle crash related injury. Increasing the use of reflective or fluorescent clothing, white or light coloured helmets, and daytime headlights are simple, cheap interventions that could considerably reduce motorcycle crash related injury and death.
Other Sections▼
Introduction
Every day about 3000 people die and 30 000 people are seriously injured on the world's roads.1 A disproportionate burden is borne by low to middle income countries and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists, and riders of motorcycles and scooters.2 By 2020, road traffic crashes are projected to be the third leading cause of death and disability worldwide.3 Low motorcycle conspicuity, or the inability of the motorcyclist to be seen by other road users, is thought to be an important factor associated with risk of motorcycle crashes.4 This may result from several factors, including size of motorcycle, irregular outline, low luminance or contrast with the background environment, and the ability to travel in unexpected places in the traffic stream. Inexpensive measures can potentially enhance conspicuity—for example, adding a light source and the use of light, bright, reflective, or fluorescent colours.
Much of the epidemiological literature on motorcycle conspicuity comprises historical cohort analyses investigating daytime use of headlights and motorcycle crash rates before and after legislation or ecological studies investigating regions with or without "lights on" laws.5-12 We are aware of only four previous aetiological studies investigating the association between motorcycle conspicuity and risk of crash related injury.13-16 All were case-control studies conducted more than 20 years ago, and none used a population based sampling frame.13-18 In three of these studies, daytime use of headlights was investigated and found to be associated with reduced risk.13,15,16 Hurt et al found that wearing a high visibility upper torso garment was associated with lower involvement in crashes; however, control data were collected two years after the crash data.13 No other case-control study has evaluated the effects of colour of helmet or clothing. Despite the limited evidence base, several countries—for example, Malaysia, the United States, and Austria—have made daytime use of headlights mandatory, and riders in other countries have voluntarily adopted this and other strategies.
We investigated the association between a range of conspicuity measures and the risk of motorcycle crash related injury in a country without mandatory daytime headlight laws.
Other Sections▼
Methods
Study population and setting
We conducted a population based case-control study in Auckland, New Zealand, between February 1993 and February 1996. The study methods and the sociodemographic, behavioural, and vehicle related factors have been described elsewhere.19,20 At the time of the study, the Auckland region had a population of approximately 950 000, of whom more than 90% lived in urban districts (1991 census). The source population was all motorcycle drivers riding on motorways and principal or arterial roads between 6 am and midnight in the Auckland region. We excluded motorcycle drivers riding on residential roads and riding between midnight and 6 am, as less than 2% of riding occurs in these situations.21 We defined a motorcycle by using the ICD-9.CM (international classification of diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification) definition of a two wheeled vehicle.22 We applied the definitions of geographical boundaries, time period, eligible vehicles, and eligible roads in an identical manner to cases and controls. We obtained informed consent from all participants.
Case selection
We included in the study all motorcycle drivers or pillion passengers who were killed, admitted to hospital, or treated in a public hospital emergency department in the Auckland region, and who had an injury severity score of > 5 within 24 hours of a motorcycle crash. We conducted case finding prospectively through daily surveillance of the region's four trauma hospitals and single coroner's office. All injured people needing admission to hospital in the Auckland region are admitted to one of these hospitals. We conducted interviews face to face in hospital or by telephone if the participant had already been sent home. For people who died as a result of the crash, we asked next of kin to nominate a proxy respondent who could be interviewed.
Control selection
We obtained a random sample of motorcycle riding by identifying motorcycle drivers from 150 roadside survey sites in the study region and time period. We randomly selected these sites from a list of all non-residential roads in the region, in proportion to their total length. We also randomly assigned time of day, day of week, and direction of travel for each survey site. We photographed motorcyclists as they approached the survey site, stopped them, and invited them to participate in the study. We obtained a name, a telephone number, and a suitable time for a follow up telephone interview. Where survey sites or conditions were too dangerous for motorcyclists to be stopped (for example, motorways, bad weather), we photographed the vehicles and followed them up through their registration plate details. We administered identical questionnaires to both cases and controls, covering circumstances of the crash or current trip and sociodemographic, personal, motorcycle related, and environmental characteristics.
Conspicuity measures
We asked participants if their headlight had been off or on and, if on, whether it had been set to high or low beam. We divided the self identified main colour of clothing worn into two categories: frontal colour from waist up and frontal colour from waist down. We defined motorcycle colour as the main colour of the motorcycle from the front. As well as describing the main colour of their clothing, motorcycle, and helmet, participants nominated the colour as either light or dark. We asked participants if they were wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing or other articles such as a jacket, vest, apron, sash, ankle or wrist band, or back pack including stripes, decals, or strips.
Potential confounding variables
We considered the following potential confounders suggested by the literature and used in previous analyses of this study19,20: age, sex, ethnicity, income, education, motorcycle licence and insurance status, self reported alcohol consumption in the previous 12 hours, years on-road riding experience, kilometres travelled on the specific motorcycle at interview, posted speed limit, ambient illumination, and weather conditions. All data were self reported except for road type and traffic speed zones, which were ascertained by environmental surveys. New Zealand has three main speed limit zones: 50 km/h in most urban areas, 70-80 km/h in restricted speed zones principally on main highways, and 100 km/h on motorways and the open road.
Statistical analysis

Results
The cases were 490 motorcycle drivers (including 32 deaths), and interviews were completed for 463 (95%). Thirteen drivers refused to participate, and 14 could not be contacted. Of the interviews with case drivers, we conducted 293 (63%) by telephone, 164 (35%) face to face, and 6 (1%) by self completed questionnaire.
The controls were 1518 motorcycle drivers: 931 (61%) were identified at sites where motorcyclists were stopped and 587 (39%) from photograph only sites. Interviews were completed with 1233 (81%) drivers, of which 1189 (96%) were conducted by telephone. Most of the drivers not interviewed could not be contacted; only 42 (3%) drivers refused to participate.
Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the study participants and the distribution of potential confounding variables. Men accounted for 94% of the motorcycle riding population in Auckland during the study period; most crashes occurred in urban 50 km/h speed limit zones (66%), during the day (64%), and in fine weather (72%).

Table 1
Sociodemographic, personal, and environmental characteristics of motorcycle crash related injury cases and population controls. Values are numbers (percentages)
Young motorcyclists, especially those under 20 years, are at increased risk of injury compared with older riders.13,14,16,25 Table 2 shows age adjusted and multivariate odds ratios of crash related injury risk associated with conspicuity measures.

Table 2
Adjusted odds ratios of risk of crash related injury associated with potential conspicuity enhancing measures. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
Use of reflective or fluorescent clothing
Nearly 20% of control drivers were wearing some type of reflective or fluorescent clothing. Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.94). When stratified by ambient illumination (table 3), the protective association seemed to increase with falling light levels, although numbers were small at twilight, reducing the precision of the effect estimate.

Table 3
Use of high visibility clothing stratified by ambient illumination. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise
Helmet colour
The main colours of helmet reported by control drivers were black (39.8%), white (30.6%), and red (13.8%). Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). We found similar associations for red and a combined group of yellow and orange helmets, although these did not achieve standard levels of statistical significance. Self nominated description of "light coloured" helmet compared with "dark coloured" helmet was associated with a 19% lower risk.
Headlight operation
Of the 175 control drivers randomly surveyed at night, 100% were using their headlight. At twilight, 91 (88%) of the 104 control drivers reported having their headlight turned on. Of the 954 control drivers randomly surveyed during the day, 719 (75%) had their headlight turned on—609 (64%) on low beam setting and 92 (10%) on high beam, with 18 (2%) unsure whether high or low beam was used. Overall, voluntary use of headlight in daytime was associated with a 27% lower risk of crash related injury (multivariate odds ratio 0.73, 0.53 to 1.00).
Frontal colour of clothing and motorcycle
Approximately 80% of 1233 control drivers wore either black, blue, or brown clothing on the upper body (955) and black or blue clothing on the lower body (988). Of the main frontal motorcycle colours, 299 (24%) motorcycles were black, 282 were (23%) red, 188 (15%) were white, 183 (15%) were chrome or silver, and 148 (12%) were blue. We observed no association between risk of crash related injury and the frontal colour of drivers' clothing or motorcycle. Similarly, no difference in risk occurred for self nominated light versus dark coloured clothing or motorcycle.
Population attributable risk
The population attributable risk is the estimated proportion by which the incidence of crash related injuries could potentially be averted if a specific risk factor was eliminated from the population. In this population, assuming that the associations described are causal and unconfounded, the population attributable risk associated with not wearing fluorescent or reflective clothing was approximately 33%. Other population attributable risks were 18% for wearing a non-white helmet, 11% for wearing a dark coloured helmet, and 7% for not using headlights during the day.
Other Sections▼
Discussion
In this large population based case-control study we observed that fluorescent or reflective clothing, wearing a white or light coloured helmet, and voluntary daytime use of headlight were associated with reduced risks of motorcycle crashes resulting in severe injury or death. The protective association for high visibility clothing strengthened with falling light conditions, providing additional support for the validity of the findings. No significant differences in risk occurred with the frontal colour of drivers' clothing or motorcycle.
Strengths and weaknesses of the study
We were able to identify all motorcyclists involved in a crash resulting in moderate to severe injury or death from a large geographically defined base population. The controls were a random sample of motorcyclists from the same study population over the same study period. In this study the prevalence of each characteristic in controls is an estimate of its prevalence in all motorcyclists in the study region.
Most variables investigated were self reported, and recall bias may be a problem. However, exposures such as colour of helmet, colour of clothing, use of high visibility clothing, and operation of headlight are less likely to be influenced by recall bias than other behaviours such as alcohol consumption or speeding. Furthermore, cases may be more inclined than controls to over-report having used conspicuity enhancing measures as they analyse and apportion fault in a multi-vehicle crash. The net effect would be an underestimate of the effects.
The validity of our findings depends on the ability to control for confounding. In this study a wide range of potential confounders were measured and modelled in the multivariate analyses. Riders wearing high visibility clothing and white helmets are likely to be more safety conscious than other riders. However, we were able to adjust for sociodemographic variables, the propensity for risk taking behaviour (such as younger age, alcohol consumption, licence status, and motorcycle riding experience) and environmental characteristics (such as light conditions, weather, and speed limit zones).
Comparison with previous research
Bright colours worn during the day, daytime use of headlight, and reflective or fluorescent clothing are thought to enhance conspicuity by increasing the brightness contrast between the surface or object it is on and the background environment. The finding that helmet colour was associated with injury crash risk whereas frontal colour of clothing was not was unexpected. Hurt et al contended that the principal coloured surfaces with any real potential for contribution to conspicuity are the fairing shield and the rider's upper torso garment.13 They considered that the surface presented by even a full face helmet was no more than 20% of that of an upper torso garment and therefore the contribution to conspicuity would be expected to be low. A possible explanation for our findings is that 80% of the controls wore black, blue, or brown top clothing and black or blue clothing from the waist down. Owing to the small numbers wearing light coloured clothing, our study may not have had the power to detect an effect of brightly coloured clothing if it existed. Our study was also limited by the one "catch-all" category for reflective and or fluorescent clothing. These materials offer maximum conspicuity advantage in differing ambient light conditions—fluorescence at twilight and reflective material at night, and we were unable to determine the individual contributions.
Implications for prevention of injuries
This study took place in a predominantly urban area and in a country where motorcycles make up a small percentage of all registered motor vehicles. Factors contributing to poor conspicuity, such as contrast from the background environment and ambient illumination, may differ between settings. The population attributable risks are not generalisable as they depend on the background prevalence of the risk factors in specific populations. However, there is no reason to believe that the relative risk estimates for the conspicuity measures investigated would not be generalisable to other settings.
This seems to be the first population based aetiological study investigating motorcycle conspicuity and risk of crash related injury and death. The study suggests that low physical conspicuity is a contributing factor in a significant proportion of road traffic crashes causing injury. The social costs of motorcycling deaths and disability are high, not only through premature deaths and hospital admissions but also through costs of rehabilitation, lost income, sickness benefits, insurance, property, and legal expenses as well as personal costs of grief and suffering. This study supports the introduction of both active and passive injury prevention strategies through laws requiring daytime use of headlights and measures encouraging greater visibility of motorcycle riders on the roads.

[Hawke301]

Regarding visibility / conspicuity...sometimes it just doesn't make a difference.  The situation from the OP where the rider was rear-ended at night, could just as easily have happened during the day.

Example:  A couple of years ago, somewhere in the Northeast part of Phoenix, AZ (Greetings from the Southwestern U.S., by the way), a group of motorcyclists were stopped at an intersection, and a city employee in a dumptruck ran over the entire group from behind during the day.  It was later discovered that he was under the influence of illegal narcotics (I think it might've been meth, but I don't remember that specific detail).

The point of the example being, if you're going to ride, you need to pay attention and be ready to get the hell out of the way at all times...even if you think they see you.

I've got a friend in the Portland, OR area that swears that everyone is out to kill him, so he applies the "invisibility" strategy that Mary has pointed out as an innately flawed strategy (kudos, you get a cookie).  He's been riding quite a bit longer than I have, and still insists it's safer to be invisible.  I will continue to respectfully disagree.

[Twisted]

I've got a friend in the Portland, OR area that swears that everyone is out to kill him, so he applies the "invisibility" strategy that Mary has pointed out as an innately flawed strategy (kudos, you get a cookie).  He's been riding quite a bit longer than I have, and still insists it's safer to be invisible.  I will continue to respectfully disagree.

Riding like you are invisible is a strategy to reduce the risk. It is not going to make you invincible or 100% not have an accident, their are always going to be idiots out there, but hell, if it is going to reduce my chances of getting hurt I will continue to use the "Ride like you are invisible" strategy.

[xunedeinx]

Last night, I was going 95mph down I4, I duct taped the throttle open, and stood on my tank like Indian Larry.

I feel its safer this was, I have a better point of view, and its impossible to get read ended when your doing 35 over the speed limit.

[yamahonkawazuki]

Yes, Twisted you are absolutely right trucks scare the bejesus out of me. When I see one with stuff I get in another lane and ahead as fast as I safely can. The other day I'm riding on the 417 to work and the truck in front of me about 2 seconds after changing lanes a 5gal paint bucket came flying out  . Another time on the 408 I was riding and my IPOD was dead so I was listening to the radio on my phone and the road report said debris in the road so I start extra scanning it was a set of box springs! Could you imagine hitting that at speed! A car did and it wasn't pretty!

Mary

honey you got hit by an alligator.  , a piece of tire. referred to an alligator cause alot of times still has the wiring from the steel belts contained within. youre damned lucky. DAMNED lucky. those things have been known to cut oil pans. 

[Twisted]

Last night, I was going 95mph down I4, I duct taped the throttle open, and stood on my tank like Indian Larry.

I feel its safer this was, I have a better point of view, and its impossible to get read ended when your doing 35 over the speed limit.

I hope you were standing on one leg for aerodynamics