It's all our fault, apparently

Message

Firestarter · #1 Post by **Firestarter** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:57 am

The A537 "Cat and Fiddle" is the UK's most dangerous road - but if you remove motorcycle incidents, it's one of the safest (apparently)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7480693.stm

D-Rider · #2 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:43 pm

Since 2001, it has seen 43 fatal or serious collisions, nearly three-quarters involving motorcyclists.

The position comes despite the introduction of crash barriers along the road by the county council

.... so their figures show 3/4 of the serious accidents "involve" motorcycles .... and they erect those lovely motorcycle-friendly (not) crash barriers!

Well that's really going to help! - muppets!

Without trying to underplay people getting hurt, I seem to remember that a "serious" accident is where someone is referred to casualty .... which, I understand, is routine for all bike accidents.

Tweaker · #3 Post by **Tweaker** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:21 pm

The problem with statistics of this nature is that they are a very blunt tool. I'll accept there is a large proportion of m/c accidents, but that is because the Cat & Fiddle is a VERY popular road for motorcyclists - I ride it fairly often - and, any weekend, the Cat & Fiddle car park is packed with bikes. So it follows that, just by the law of averages, the more bikes use it, the more accidents there will be.
The stats also don't differentiate between who was at fault. The road is also very popular with the boy racer fraternity in their Lotus's and Saxo's et al and it only takes one of them to be on your side of a bend and it's the motorcyclist who ends up as the statistic!! And that doesn't include the Sunday tourists who drift accross the road while looking at the scenery (I've seen them doing it!).
Still, it makes for another bit of sensational (If worthless) piece of news for the anti motorcycle Hyenas to scavenge upon!

Samray · #4 Post by **Samray** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:03 pm

RELATED INTERNET LINKS
EuroCRAP

Says it all really.

lazarus · #5 Post by **lazarus** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:34 pm

so even though the figures clearly show that its a very dangerous road in terms of deaths per mile, and that the large majority of these accidents involve bikes, somehow its all anti bikes and nothing to do with the bike riders.

what planet are you lot from? if you were saying "I know its dangerous, and that fast riding is part of the problem but I chose to take that risk" I could understand and agree with you. but simply to be in denial is stupidity IMHO.

Samray · #6 Post by **Samray** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:40 pm

Even if 75% involve bikes and 95% involve cars?
Figures show fa.

Samray · #7 Post by **Samray** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:52 pm

Just been watching a programme about EuroCRAP which was upholding the Swedish example of zero tolerance to road deaths as a good example to follow.
Their zero tolerance measures featured (quite strongly) cheese-cutter median barriers.

http://www.eurorap.org/campaigns
Note the "Did you know" banner which says "Almost 20% of fatal road accidents involve a motorcycle or moped"
Then note the "Purpose of the Campaign" includes "so that they can promote the role of safer roads alongside safer drivers and safer cars,"

D-Rider · #8 Post by **D-Rider** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:02 pm

lazarus wrote:so even though the figures clearly show that its a very dangerous road in terms of deaths per mile, and that the large majority of these accidents involve bikes, somehow its all anti bikes and nothing to do with the bike riders.

what planet are you lot from? if you were saying "I know its dangerous, and that fast riding is part of the problem but I chose to take that risk" I could understand and agree with you. but simply to be in denial is stupidity IMHO.

I'm not aware that anyone has suggested otherwise.

I pointed out that the measures they've taken in erecting crash barriers almost certainly won't be an effective measure to protect those that the stats suggest are most at risk and that the way that stats are obtained may inflate biker figures.

However, it's obvious that riding inappropriately will also be a factor and I can't see that anyone has attempted to deny that.

Firestarter · #9 Post by **Firestarter** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:08 am

D-Rider wrote:
lazarus wrote:so even though the figures clearly show that its a very dangerous road in terms of deaths per mile, and that the large majority of these accidents involve bikes, somehow its all anti bikes and nothing to do with the bike riders.

what planet are you lot from? if you were saying "I know its dangerous, and that fast riding is part of the problem but I chose to take that risk" I could understand and agree with you. but simply to be in denial is stupidity IMHO.
I'm not aware that anyone has suggested otherwise.

Me neither - idiotic riding is a problem, but the stats don't state whether it was a bike-only incident, or whether a car was involved, as Sam says above, the figures only factor on bikes, and don't show anything else. They simply state that 75% of of the fatalities are bikers, but no reason why that's the case.

The fact that the A537 tops the list of Britain's most dangerous roads highlights the fundamental issue of road-user behaviour when it comes to safety

So someone else has already made their mind up that it's not the road that's dangerous, but the people on it, elsewhere in the statement is says that the road is not dangerous when bike accidents are removed - implication is that bikers are dangerous on this road, which IMHO is crap. Not saying bikers are blameless, but this, to me at least, seems like another case of putting incomplete stats on the news to bash bikers with

Tweaker · #10 Post by **Tweaker** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:15 am

lazarus wrote:...........what planet are you lot from? if you were saying "I know its dangerous, and that fast riding is part of the problem but I chose to take that risk" I could understand and agree with you. but simply to be in denial is stupidity IMHO.

Well, from what I've read - and written, we all seem to be people firmly on planet earth who have actually read the previous posts

No one, I believe, is denial. I don't know if you've ridden the road but it is, unquestionably, potentially dangerous - as are most roads if ridden / driven without some consideration - but the Cat & Fiddle is particulalry unforgiving. My beef is with the way the article is presented. The numbers are quoted as bald facts with no account of how they were distilled and the bike related figures are singled out - which can (and will) lead the uninformed to conclude that bikes are the problem. You assert that the road is '..dangerous in terms of deaths per mile' - yet nowhere does it say that is the basis for the figures - so even you have been taken in by headline!
The road is a Mecca for bikers and, inevitably, there will be more bike related accidents. If the number of bike / car accidents was divided into the number of bikes / cars that used the road over the given period, I would bet large amounts that the figures would be far less skewed - but then that wouldn't make a headline either.
We are all road users and there can't be anyone who doesn't accept that biking carries a higher risk of injury. What isn't needed is more stats from the School of the Blindingly Obvious to re-inforce non-bikers prejudices.

lazarus · #11 Post by **lazarus** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 6:43 pm

What prejudices? Its a fact , not a prejudice, that bike riding is dangerous. Its a fact not a prejudice, that much bike riding ( particularly at weekends and on these popular biker roads) is done at illegal speeds. But so what? I do it myself and I see other daft buggers doing it too. Facts never hurt anyone. Hitting hard objects at speed does - I can vouch for it.

If you look at the pdf of the research results, you see the statistical basis of the comments and it does suggest that its bike riders who make the road quoted one of the statistically most dangerous. (see http://www.eurorap.org/library/pdfs/200 ... h_Risk.pdf ). It does not say why that is and does not suggest a cure.

Seems to me that there is a culture amongst bikers that goes something like " they are prejudiced against us, the statistics are all fiddled, all accidents are the fault of car drivers, they are out to ban us etc". Paranoia fed by More Cr*p than News

Either way, I cant see any harm in reporting the facts and I cant see any other way of interpreting them.

BikerGran · #12 Post by **BikerGran** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:19 pm

I rode the Cat n Fiddle on the trike last year, it was bloody hard work! I would say that you don't have to be doing illegal speeds to get into trouble but if a bike gets round one bend going too fast for the road (which we've all done at some time) there's no time to get sorted before you're into the next bend! And that way disaster lies!

D-Rider · #13 Post by **D-Rider** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:22 pm

Dr Joanne Hill ... in a call-out box in the original BBC report wrote:Poor road design and inadequate safety measures on the majority of the roads in the list are responsible for a high proportion of the fatal or serious collisions each year

Ah - another one clearly in denial, then

OK so let's go back to the figures in the pdf then.
They do not give a clear and consistent picture and the article has clearly been written to "spice things up".

If you look at the most dangerous roads, removing bikes does not always reduce the ranking.
For example, take the 3rd most dangerous - the A61. Removing bikes removes just 5 of the 22 accidents and it becomes the most dangerous to non-motorcyclists.
Now, of course, one example doesn't say that things are safe for bikes and bikers but the picture is not clear ... yet the article sensationalises one road's stats. and implies that bikes and bikers are the problem on our roads.
Also, of the 3 most dangerous roads for bikers, there is no mention of the fact that the safety record is a dramatically improving one .... drops of 25%, 20% and 38% in bike accidents respectively compared with the previous period. OK, too many injuries but you might have thought an unbiased report might just have picked up on this dramatic improvement.

Additionally, especially when the authorities generally find it so hard to find accurate bike stats does the presented data single out only motorcycles in it's presentation of data. Again, you would have hoped to have seen a less targeted presentation unless it is aimed at establishing a specific viewpoint.

.... and again I comment that what constitutes an 'accident involving serious injury' statistic for a biker is not necessarily the same as for other road users.

Yes people do ride like twats and people do get hurt - no argument - but that doesn't meant that statistics are not presented in a way to make particular capital from them and certainly they are often presented in a spiced-up way to sell papers or improve viewing figures.

BikerGran · #14 Post by **BikerGran** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 7:57 pm

Can't disagree with that.

lazarus · #15 Post by **lazarus** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 5:42 pm

of course they are presented in a way that sells paper and attracts viewers - you're not going to present them in a way that does the opposite, are you? and dont kid yourself that joe public is interested in a dispassionate academic analysis explaining all the details - he isnt. so you get the classic "man bites dog" article both on the beeb and also in all the biking mags.

but that doesnt mean that there is a media conspiracy against bikers. it doesnt mean that the stats are lies and that all accidents are caused by "cagers" etc etc.

biking is dangerous. always will be with no metal to protect you in the inevtiable accident. so you either accept it and try to minimise personal risk or you give up and get a volvo.

this thread is all about blaming the messanger when you dont like the message.