What do you want a cager to know about riding?

[mysho22]

One of my classes is require a personal presentation for our final, so I'm doing mine on riding (big shocker, I know). It's titled, "Don't Drive Like an A**hole" and needs to be about 15 minutes in length, but I'm struggling with filling it so its not too short nor way too long. So far I'm discussing why I ride, the gear I wear/your 1 ton+ car can kill me no matter what gear I wear, the recent Texas motorcyclist who was hit on purpose by an angry driver, using your blinker, and lane splitting (Now legal in California!). I have a few minutes of time lined up, but want to fill more. So, what would you want a group of 18-30 year olds to know about riding/keeping riders safe when driving?

[ShowBizWolf]

Very interesting! You've already got some great points there.

Something I'd talk about and stress to everyone is how important it is to look for and actually "see" motorcycles. I read this article not that long ago (or one very similar to it) http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28306/why-you-dont-see-motorcycles-on-the-road/ and it talks not only about how humans a lot of times don't take the time to look both ways and then both ways again at intersections etc but also the science behind why we NEED to look and then look again and again for our eyes and brains to actually interpret and register a motorcycle (or bicyclist or pedestrian or even cars and the like).

When I'm driving, I probably make some people a bit frustrated or whatever because I make SURE at an intersection or parking lot I take the time to look and look again and then one more time for good measure... not just left and right but all around me.

[mysho22]

Awesome, thank you! I will definitely include this!

[Watcher]

As a coach I could literally talk all day about stuff like this, but if I could pick one topic to talk to cagers about it would be the concept of stolen right-of-way.

The #1 cause of motorcyclist fatality is drivers turning in front of the rider, both from a parking lot onto the roadway, and from oncoming traffic turning across the lanes to exit the roadway.
Part of this is because drivers misjudge rider speed, but most can be attributed to what they call "inattentional blindness".  It doesn't mean the driver wasn't paying attention, it's this concept of "your eyes don't tell your brain what you see, your brain tells your eyes what to look for."
Your eyes are just sensors, they see everything, but your brain is very good at filtering out what is important from what is not.  Most people who hit motorcyclist "didn't see them."  It might not be that they didn't look, it's that their brain didn't see a motorcycle as important...

If you're capable of playing a video in the presentation play this one.
This will be fun for anyone reading this, too.

When drivers make motorcycles a priority to identify, there will be a dramatic decrease in motorcycle fatalities.

[mysho22]

Thank you! I'll definitely include that. Thats a great video as well

[qcbaker]

Something else you could touch on is lane splitting and filtering. A lot of drivers don't like the practice because they feel like riders are getting to "cut the line" and so it's not fair. Or, they believe its unsafe. But, studies have shown that reasonable lane splitting (flow of traffic is <50mph and the rider is traveling no more than 15mph faster than that) is actually safer for riders. And lane splitting in stop-and-go traffic and filtering at stop lights reduces overall congestion for everyone.

http://www.ots.ca.gov/pdf/Publications/Motorcycle-Lane-Splitting-and-Safety-2015.pdf

[dominickbuff]

try this article ...
http://driving-tests.org/beginner-drivers/how-to-share-the-road-with-motorcycles-10-things-every-driver-should-know/
also talk about how in other countries motorcycles r seen more therefore cagers (also known as f**k tards) are more apt to look for them

[cbrfxr67]

what qcb said.  That just because you are stuck in a line and I can safely and slowly filter through, doesn't mean you should try to ram me with your tahoe!  Some lady tried to get me awhile back.  Why people feel like they can ram you or hurt you because you're passing them is fd up.

[pliskin]

Something else you could touch on is lane splitting and filtering. A lot of drivers don't like the practice because they feel like riders are getting to "cut the line" and so it's not fair. Or, they believe its unsafe. But, studies have shown that reasonable lane splitting (flow of traffic is <50mph and the rider is traveling no more than 15mph faster than that) is actually safer for riders. And lane splitting in stop-and-go traffic and filtering at stop lights reduces overall congestion for everyone.

http://www.ots.ca.gov/pdf/Publications/Motorcycle-Lane-Splitting-and-Safety-2015.pdf

Not to derail the thread but I'd like to comment on lane-splitting. This paper makes a good case for pro lane-splitting but fails to site how many of those incidents (%) where directly related to lane splitting.  IMO there is no doubt splitting puts you at higher risk. I would venture to say of the 17% below most where directly related to splitting. I might ride a little crazy sometimes but I don't split lanes. I just don't trust cage drivers not to swerve.

"Of the 5,969 collision -involved motorcyclists we studied, 997 were lane-splitting at the time of their collision (17%). Motorcyclists who were lane-splitting were notably different from those that were not lane-splitting. Compared with other motorcyclists, lane-splitting motorcyclists were more often riding on weekdays and during commute hours, were using better helmets, and were traveling at lower speeds. Lane-splitting riders were also less likely to have been using alcohol and less likely to have been carrying a passenger. Lane-splitting motorcyclists were also injured much less frequently during their collisions. Lane-splitting riders were less likely to suffer head injury (9% vs 17%), torso injury (19% vs 29%), extremity injury (60% vs 66%),  and fatal injury (1.2% vs 3.0%). Lane-splitting motorcyclists were equally likely to suffer neck injury, compared with non-lane-splitting motorcyclists."

[qcbaker]

Not to derail the thread but I'd like to comment on lane-splitting. This paper makes a good case for pro lane-splitting but fails to site how many of those incidents (%) where directly related to lane splitting.
...
I would venture to say of the 17% below most where directly related to splitting.

While it's true they don't directly state that, you can make a deduction yourself given some of the data in the study:

In LA in 2011, at any given time or speed under 70 mph, the average percentage of motorcyclists on the road that are lane splitting is 48% (average taken from Figure 1 "Percentage of motorcycles splitting lanes as a function of average traffic speed"). Realistically, the number is much higher when traffic is slow (90+% at 10mph), and much lower when traffic is fast (11% above 50mph). But, 48% is the average across all traffic conditions. If lane splitting itself were a major cause of accidents, you would expect that of the nearly 6000 motorcycle collisions, the percent of collisions that occurred while lane splitting to be closer to 48%. But, it is not. Only 17% of collisions occurred while lane splitting. Given that almost half of all motorcyclists in CA are lanesplitting at any given time, but only 17% of all crashes occur while lane splitting, you can easily see that lane splitting does not cause collisions.

IMO there is no doubt splitting puts you at higher risk.

See above. Also, read the quote you posted again: "Lane-splitting motorcyclists were also injured much less frequently during their collisions. Lane-splitting riders were less likely to suffer head injury (9% vs 17%), torso injury (19% vs 29%), extremity injury (60% vs 66%),  and fatal injury (1.2% vs 3.0%). Lane-splitting motorcyclists were equally likely to suffer neck injury, compared with non-lane-splitting motorcyclists."

So, what does this data tell us? Well consider this: "Compared with other motorcyclists, lane-splitting motorcyclists ... were using better helmets, and were traveling at lower speeds" The helmets certainly factor in here with regards to incidence of head injury, but the more important factor is that most lane splitting happens at lower speeds. The lower your speed, the less likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash, especially if you are wearing a good helmet and other gear.

Consider what the study is advocating: when done below 50mph and at no more than 15mph greater than the flow of traffic, lane splitting is as safe or safer than not splitting lanes. And I don't mean this to sound snarky but I can't think of any other way to say it: I know you said that "in your opinion" lane splitting puts you at higher risk, so you may want to just kind of wave away anything I say, but if your "opinion" is contradictory to empirical data, you "opinion" is probably wrong. A lot of people say "Well, I'm entitled to my own opinion" as if opinions can't be wrong. But what if it was my "opinion" that the sky was not blue, but that it was bright orange with green polka dots? Clearly, my "opinion" would be wrong. Again, I'm not trying to insult you or start a fight or anything, I'm just responding to your post as it was written.

I might ride a little crazy sometimes but I don't split lanes. I just don't trust cage drivers not to swerve.

I'm not trying to encourage you to split lanes if you aren't comfortable with it. I totally get (and at times, share) your mistrust of drivers. I don't lane split either. But not because lane splitting itself is unsafe, but because it isn't legal where I am. And because it isn't legal, no driver would expect me to do it. And being unpredictable in traffic IS unsafe. If lane splitting becomes legal in PA and enough drivers are aware of it being legal, I would probably start, since it has many benefits for riders and drivers alike.

[mysho22]

Thanks for the responses! In California, where I'm from, lane splitting has been officially legal since AB51 was signed on August 19, 2016, but previous to this it has just been "not illegal" - meaning riders could get a ticket for reckless driving if the cops really cared, but it didn't happen often. Whatever side you are on in the lane splitting debate, and I am very for as it is safer than sitting in traffic often, cagers need to be more aware and watchful of it in general, especially in high traffic. I lane split almost any day that I'm on my bike, as do many other riders in my area, so I'm definitely including this in my presentation to help ensure my own safety as well as the safety of other riders in my community.

[Big Rich]

QC, let's hope that traffic in PA is never congested enough that lane splitting becomes an option.....

Mysho, there are so many things that people on 4 wheels could learn. Like how riding a motorcycle takes 100% of your mental & physical effort, and failing to do so can (and does too often) result in a rider meeting the pavement. And how being in a 4 wheeled vehicle should demand the same respect. Cell phones, in dash video screens, sound damping so the outside world is muted, eating / drinking, playing the saxophone, applying makeup, shaving your face, etc, etc, etc all have real life consequences when piloting a 2 ton missile.

[ShowBizWolf]

Very well said, Rich!

[mysho22]

Great point! I will include that!

[qcbaker]

QC, let's hope that traffic in PA is never congested enough that lane splitting becomes an option.....

I don't know where in PA you are, but on my commute its already congested enough to warrant lane splitting almost every day lol.

...
Cell phones, in dash video screens, sound damping so the outside world is muted, eating / drinking, playing the saxophone, applying makeup, shaving your face, etc, etc, etc all have real life consequences when piloting a 2 ton missile.

Agreed. Distracted driving is a major problem for all motorists, but the consequences of a minor "fender bender" type collision can be much worse for motorcyclists than for drivers. In a situation where a car rear ends another car at 10mph, both drivers will probably be completely unhurt. Their cars may not even get noticeably damaged. But if a car rear ends a motorcycle at 10mph? The rider could easily be severely injured.

[pliskin]

Not to derail the thread but I'd like to comment on lane-splitting. This paper makes a good case for pro lane-splitting but fails to site how many of those incidents (%) where directly related to lane splitting.
...
I would venture to say of the 17% below most where directly related to splitting.

While it's true they don't directly state that, you can make a deduction yourself given some of the data in the study:

In LA in 2011, at any given time or speed under 70 mph, the average percentage of motorcyclists on the road that are lane splitting is 48% (average taken from Figure 1 "Percentage of motorcycles splitting lanes as a function of average traffic speed"). Realistically, the number is much higher when traffic is slow (90+% at 10mph), and much lower when traffic is fast (11% above 50mph). But, 48% is the average across all traffic conditions. If lane splitting itself were a major cause of accidents, you would expect that of the nearly 6000 motorcycle collisions, the percent of collisions that occurred while lane splitting to be closer to 48%. But, it is not. Only 17% of collisions occurred while lane splitting. Given that almost half of all motorcyclists in CA are lanesplitting at any given time, but only 17% of all crashes occur while lane splitting, you can easily see that lane splitting does not cause collisions.

IMO there is no doubt splitting puts you at higher risk.

See above. Also, read the quote you posted again: "Lane-splitting motorcyclists were also injured much less frequently during their collisions. Lane-splitting riders were less likely to suffer head injury (9% vs 17%), torso injury (19% vs 29%), extremity injury (60% vs 66%),  and fatal injury (1.2% vs 3.0%). Lane-splitting motorcyclists were equally likely to suffer neck injury, compared with non-lane-splitting motorcyclists."

So, what does this data tell us? Well consider this: "Compared with other motorcyclists, lane-splitting motorcyclists ... were using better helmets, and were traveling at lower speeds" The helmets certainly factor in here with regards to incidence of head injury, but the more important factor is that most lane splitting happens at lower speeds. The lower your speed, the less likely to be seriously injured or killed in a crash, especially if you are wearing a good helmet and other gear.

Consider what the study is advocating: when done below 50mph and at no more than 15mph greater than the flow of traffic, lane splitting is as safe or safer than not splitting lanes. And I don't mean this to sound snarky but I can't think of any other way to say it: I know you said that "in your opinion" lane splitting puts you at higher risk, so you may want to just kind of wave away anything I say, but if your "opinion" is contradictory to empirical data, you "opinion" is probably wrong. A lot of people say "Well, I'm entitled to my own opinion" as if opinions can't be wrong. But what if it was my "opinion" that the sky was not blue, but that it was bright orange with green polka dots? Clearly, my "opinion" would be wrong. Again, I'm not trying to insult you or start a fight or anything, I'm just responding to your post as it was written.

I might ride a little crazy sometimes but I don't split lanes. I just don't trust cage drivers not to swerve.

I'm not trying to encourage you to split lanes if you aren't comfortable with it. I totally get (and at times, share) your mistrust of drivers. I don't lane split either. But not because lane splitting itself is unsafe, but because it isn't legal where I am. And because it isn't legal, no driver would expect me to do it. And being unpredictable in traffic IS unsafe. If lane splitting becomes legal in PA and enough drivers are aware of it being legal, I would probably start, since it has many benefits for riders and drivers alike.

I don't think you are quite getting what I'm saying. Leave the type of or severity of the injuries/accidents, helmet, equipment, alcohol, etc out of the equation. What I'm saying is if you choose to squeeze between cars you are at higher risk of something happening than not squeezing between cars.  Simply put, of the total # of incidents a % of those (17% from the article) occurred while lane splitting. Would anything have happened to the 17% had they not been splitting?

[mysho22]

I don't think you are quite getting what I'm saying. Leave the type of or severity of the injuries/accidents, helmet, equipment, alcohol, etc out of the equation. What I'm saying is if you choose to squeeze between cars you are at higher risk of something happening than not squeezing between cars.  Simply put, of the total # of incidents a % of those (17% from the article) occurred while lane splitting. Would anything have happened to the 17% had they not been splitting?

Rear ending bikes isn't uncommon and can cause severe injuries. Also, some bikes overheat sitting in traffic forever (shout out to my supermoto friends). Lane splitting can be the safer option, especially if you know how to do it and are safe about it. It really falls to a preference and legality where you live. I lane split all the time, and its legal in CA. You may not, and that is totally fine too.

[barry905]

Another thing you could mention is that riding a bike makes you (or at least me) a better driver of cages. I found that when I restarted riding bikes my all round awareness when driving increased noticeably. Suddenly I seemed to drop all the sloppy driving habits tha I had got into over a number of years only driving cars. Another thought is that riding a bike makes you much more aware of road conditions - for example, wet roads or leaves on the road, or gravel.

[rscottlow]

Another thing you could mention is that riding a bike makes you (or at least me) a better driver of cages. I found that when I restarted riding bikes my all round awareness when driving increased noticeably. Suddenly I seemed to drop all the sloppy driving habits tha I had got into over a number of years only driving cars. Another thought is that riding a bike makes you much more aware of road conditions - for example, wet roads or leaves on the road, or gravel.

This is a really good point. If nothing else, riding a bike definitely makes you more aware of other bikes on the road when you get back into a car. If everyone had the experience of riding a motorcycle on public roadways, I think they would be more considerate of us...

[qcbaker]

I don't think you are quite getting what I'm saying. Leave the type of or severity of the injuries/accidents, helmet, equipment, alcohol, etc out of the equation.

For the rate of collision, I did.

Again: in California, lane splitting riders account for 48% of riders on the road at any given time. If lane splitting were more dangerous than riding normally, the percentage of riders involved in collisions while lane splitting would account for more than 48% of all collisions.  But, lane splitting riders account for only 17% of all collisions. This data suggests that lane splitting significantly reduces the chance of a collision occurring.

So, riders who were lane splitting got into collisions at a lower rate than those who were not lane splitting. This is not in any way controlling for equipment, alcohol involvement, or severity of injury sustained. The only data I used was the percentage of riders on the road lane splitting at any given time, and the percentage of collisions that occurred while lane splitting.

But leaving out injury severity leaves out an important fact: the riders who were involved in a collision while lane splitting were injured less severely than non-lane splitting riders. So, not only were lane splitting riders less likely to have a collision occur at all, when they did have a collision they were injured less severely. Conclusion: lane splitting is safer than not lane splitting.

What I'm saying is if you choose to squeeze between cars you are at higher risk of something happening than not squeezing between cars.

I realize that sounds like something that should be obviously true. But again, it is demonstrably false. Riders who were lane splitting are significantly underrepresented in collisions. This suggests that lane splitting reduces the chance of the occurrence of an collision. See above. I know it's a bit counter-intuitive, but the stats are the stats. Don't know what else to tell you here .

Simply put, of the total # of incidents a % of those (17% from the article) occurred while lane splitting. Would anything have happened to the 17% had they not been splitting?

That isn't really relevant at all, honestly. For the sake of argument lets assume that of the 17% of collisions that were related to lane splitting, 100% of them were caused by a car "not seeing" the rider and changing lanes into them while the rider was splitting lanes. Even if that were true, the fact is that riders who lane split were less likely to be involved in a collision in the first place, and when they were involved in a collision, they were less severely injured. This suggests that lane splitting is safer for riders than not doing so.

Remember, no one is suggesting that flying by traffic at 60mph when everyone else is at a standstill is safe practice. Responsible, safe lane splitting occurs at low speeds, and at a low speed differential to the surrounding traffic.

And mysho makes a very good point: car drivers rear-ending a bike in traffic is a very common occurrence. Splitting lanes (again, in low speed conditions, and no more than 15 mph faster than surrounding traffic) mitigates the threat of a driver not registering that there is a bike between them and the next car and failing to brake on time.

Another thing you could mention is that riding a bike makes you (or at least me) a better driver of cages. I found that when I restarted riding bikes my all round awareness when driving increased noticeably. Suddenly I seemed to drop all the sloppy driving habits tha I had got into over a number of years only driving cars. Another thought is that riding a bike makes you much more aware of road conditions - for example, wet roads or leaves on the road, or gravel.

Anecdotally, I have also found this to be true. I wonder if anyone has compiled any kind of statistics regarding the accident rates of drivers who also ride vs drivers who don't ride. That would be interesting data to look over lol.