Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[EU] 2besafe instrumented naturalisted motorcycle study for countermeasure development.

Discussion in 'Research, Studies, and Data' started by robsalvv, May 17, 2011.

  1. I literally stumbled on a consortium project who are analysing riders and riding presumably to output recommendations that are for our own good.

    Australia is involved in this study via MUARC (surprise surprise).

    The view that riders are over represented in fatality stats (as a percentage of total stats) is prevalent at the heart of what drives this study. I disagree with this mentality totally. It's a furphy but no one seems to be looking deeper than the bland headline.

    The consortium has 29 partners of which only two are specifically related to PTW's. On top of that, 2-BE-SAFE appears to be linked with the other key nanny projects that are developing rider assistance technologies.

    Those that are interested will find these two outputs interesting:
    Understanding risk taking behaviour within the context of PTW riders - pdf


    Using Cognitive Work Analysis to Derive Recommendations for Improving Motorcycle and Scooter Rider Safety - pdf

    Government and NGO's alike are seeing the writing on the wall - fuel prices are driving an explosion in riding - if they can't manage and control the riders, they want to manage and control the bikes. Ideally, they want to manage both.
  2. and
    on the face of it these two quotes imply they will be looking at measures imposed on drivers not riders.

    but I won't hold my breath
  3. They're studying RIDERS and to my mind, how RIDERS allow cars to crash into them.
  4. Maybe they'll recommend the removal of all cars from the road :D
  5. Don't hold your breath. They're more likely to recommend the removal of bikes. They may even be clever enough to suggest mechanisms, like charging $1,000 for license tests, forcing new riders to ride at 50 km/h on freeways while wearing clownsuits, giving them 3 demerit points to last 5 years, and dramatically increasing the demerit point cost of all offences for motorcyclists. They may add mandatory ABS, traction control, stability control, black box tracking, GPS reporting of infringements, blow through the tube to unlock the ignition, a few 'known' technical errors that may cause the bike to stop in the middle of nowhere late at night... A calibrated campaign of cost and humiliation and inconvenience, in other words.

    Oh, look - that's already started!
  6. While I understand that we as riders are often right in being nervous of research, let's not get too paranoid as it's only by understanding the background to things can we get the bigger picture. What's more, sometimes the recommendations aren't all bad.

    As an example if one reads the second of the docs mentioned by Rob "Using cognitive work analysis etc" once we get to the recommendations we find a lot of very good things:

    "Research the ability of vehicle drivers to notice motorcycle riders."
    "Research on how to senzitize the driving population at large to issues of fitness to drive (eg distraction) as it impacts on the situational awareness of other road users."
    " Consider legalising lane splitting, lane filtering and use by motorcycle riders of safety shoulders"
    "Consider more stringent Police enforcement of those regulations pertaining to road users that have safety critical implications for rider safety e.g following motorcycles too closely; failing to indicate"
    "Make drivers more aware that they are more responsible than riders for crashes with riders and why"
  7. Can you elaborate please Rob? Even ignoring the famous TAC "38 times" line, surely it's very hard to deny that riders form a much larger proportion of the road toll than they should, given their small numbers. As a rider I understand there are reasons for this that are not clear from the raw stats, but most of them are difficult or inadvisable to present to the safetycrats.
  8. Just from reading the conclusion they appear to be pushing for more/better training for motorcyclists.
  9. Pat, it's pretty much covered in this thread: https://netrider.net.au/forums/showthread.php?t=121295

    Authorities are concerned about riders representing a disproportionate percentage of the road toll. In Australia its 13 - 15% of fatalities. In the UK it's as high as 21% in places. The concern is that motorcyclists only represent single digit percentage of the total vehicle fleet, so clearly we're over represented and something has to be done about it.

    I'm not as familiar with the UK picture, but I know in Australia the gross annual motorcycle fatality number hasn't changed a lot in the last decade despite a boom in participation - so this is a real terms reduction - something in the order of 50% decrease based on registrations. However, car improvements and other factors have driven the overall road fatality number down while motorcycling's raw annual number has remained broadly static - this means that the motorcycling percentage has gone up.

    Think about it like a pie. The motorcycle slice of the pie has remained the same weight, but the pie has gotten smaller - hence we're now a bigger proportion. But that's only a one dimensional view of the situation. Politicians see an increasing motorcycle percentage as an increasing fatality rate and figure that things are out of control. It's simply not.

    Rider5 / Matlenon, I'm all for better skilled riders and training. If the study (which includes MUARC don't forget) concludes we need better skills to avoid dopey drivers (a view I'm partial too by the way), then my paranoia predicts that they'll recommend a suite of technical/technology solutions because training all riders will be impractical.

    The consortium are already connected with the saferider rider assistance technology project which are working on frontal, rear and merge collision avoidance systems, intersection assistance, cornering assistance and GPS throttle speed control. Add to that a TCAS type system (and idea borrowed from aviation) which warns drivers when a motorcyclist is near... and other technological solutions that make bikes more uncrashable... and you see where this is going.
  10. OK. I had all that. Just thought there may be something else that I'd missed. I agree that our casualty rate is decreasing and quite rapidly too, here in Australia. Duno whether that's a furphy for the rest of the world though.
  11. All this technology...when we already have one of the best technological marvels known to mankind, in place.!! Could we not just train people to open their fekking eyes!
  12. AMEN brother!
  13. My take on this (having read it some time ago, I must admit), is that ... initially ... we may find ourselves forced into wearing hi-vis vests/jackets, with a ban on the sale of black or dark coloured helmets, mandatory standards for "protective clothing" and the wearing thereof ... Later; who knows?
  14. I am going to hang out for hi-viz biege