Who should all those motorcycle safety signs be aimed at ?

[peak4]

Take the following example. I was driving along Pensitone Rd, I was just about to pass the left turn for Bradfield Rd when a motorcyclist (and not a learner) overtook me on the inside (at some speed I have to add) in the cycle lane ! What if I was turning left but forgot to indicate ? To be frank if I had turned left and hit him it really would have been his own fault, what was he thinking ?

 

I'm absolutely flabbergasted that any experienced driver could post that comment.

OK on this occasion you saw him/her, as I would hope that any observant driver would.

Are you complaining that he was a motorbike in a cycle lane filtering past?

A cyclist in a cycle lane is likely to be quieter, smaller and even harder to see, so are you also suggesting that cycles shouldn't pass other traffic whilst they are in a cycle lane. I'm dumbfounded.

 

Whilst the majority of multi vehicle accidents involving motorcyclists seem to be the car driver's fault, I would accept that many of them could have been avoided if the biker had used a bit more common sense, but in no way should it excuse the blame to the person legally at fault.

 

By the way, I have motorbikes, a couple of 4x4s and a car; I cycle occasionally as well; when I'm using any of them, and even on foot, I minimise the time I spend in someone else's blind spot, but even that doesn't help if some fool can't be bothered to look properly whether they are indicating or not.

Edited November 19, 2015 by peak4

[*_ash_*]

Does it matter who they are aimed at?

If one person be it a car driver, motorcyclist, bus driver, lorry driver takes notice and it prevents some one getting hurt then it's job is done.

 

Rubbish.

 

You sound like you work for the council or the government.

[monkey104]

Rubbish.

 

You sound like you work for the council or the government.

 

Thanks for that well informed insight to your thought process in reaching the decision to post that comment.

So you do not agree that if at least one person is prevented from becoming a casualty the signs have not had any effect?

Clown.

[*_ash_*]

I try to, but, like everyone else, I`m not perfect. As it happens I didn`t turn left into him, and I try to remember to indicate at all times, but many people don`t, as I`m sure you`re aware if you drive.

 

 

I`m sure you know as well as I do that if there`d been as accident the motorcyclist (overtaking someone in a cycle lane at, I estimate, 30mph+) would have been at fault. He would be trying to prove that someone hadn`t indicated, which I don`t actually see how he could. But, as far as I`m aware, I may be wrong, indicating, or not indicating, does not actually mean that much in terms of whose fault an accident would be. The most classic case being on roundabouts.

 

aha!! This is why you are writing ridiculous posts, you're trying to piece together real-life fault (i.e we all know who fault lies with)/ road-laws fault/ AND 'insurance companies fault'...

 

Forget trying to compare these and get any sense , especially the last one into the other two

 

---------- Post added 19-11-2015 at 23:29 ----------

 

Thanks for that well informed insight to your thought process in reaching the decision to post that comment.

So you do not agree that if at least one person is prevented from becoming a casualty the signs have not had any effect?

Clown.

 

That isn't what you wrote.

Edited November 19, 2015 by *_ash_*

[Obelix]

I`m sure you know as well as I do that if there`d been as accident the motorcyclist (overtaking someone in a cycle lane at, I estimate, 30mph+) would have been at fault.

 

I suspect a court would take a different view and you could be looking at some substandard accommodation whilst you think on causing death by careless driving....

[Justin Smith]

Does it matter who they are aimed at?

If one person, be it a car driver, motorcyclist, bus driver, lorry driver takes notice and it prevents some one getting hurt then it's job is done.

 

The problem I have with that is these signs may well encourage motorcyclists to think it`s fine to filter (through moving traffic) and it`s the car drivers who are in the wrong if they don't see them and end up hitting them. Worse, if they start thinking that all the car drivers will have watching out for filtering motorcycles as there number one priority. They haven`t and won`t, and, arguably, shouldn`t, certainly not as their number one priority. Thus, ironically, these road safety signs may be having the opposite effect to that intended.

I had bikes for years, I never filtered through moving traffic, only stationary traffic. And, if motorcyclists want to keep the same number of limbs they were born with, they should adopt the same policy.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 09:23 ----------

 

So if there's a car in the right hand lane stopped waiting for an opportunity to turn right, you don't overtake in the left hand lane?

 

If the car is stopped, or slowing right down and indicating to turn right, then obviously I`d overtake them on the left. If I was on a bike I`d be right over on eth left of the lane and keeping a wary eye on them, I certainly wouldn`t go tearing past them. After all, in a car all you`d get is a dent in your vehicle, a motorcyclist could lose a limb or his life.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 09:27 ----------

 

It would be much easier to "beware of motorcyclists" if they were travelling at a speed that didn't mean you'd miss them if you blinked. Unless it's a learner on an underpowered lawnmower engine, it's very rare a motorbike is travelling even close to the speed limit.

 

Unfortunately you`re right in a great many cases. Not all by any means, there are loads of safe motorcyclists out there.

Interestingly, as many will know, I have a thing about noisy motorbikes, but it`s the ones who tend to ride in the safest manner who tend to have the quietest exhausts. Thus proving once again that "loud pipes save lives" really is absolute b******s.

[monkey104]

As Tesco would say ' every little helps'.

So if we have roadside signs, rider/ driver education, bright lights and dare I say it? Yes.. Loud exhausts then if just one of those prevents an accident then that is prevention.

[Justin Smith]

 

 

 

aha!! This is why you are writing ridiculous posts, you're trying to piece together real-life fault (i.e we all know who fault lies with)/ road-laws fault/ AND 'insurance companies fault'...

 

Forget trying to compare these and get any sense , especially the last one into the other two .

 

I don`t understand what you`re saying.

 

I`ll assume you`re not just arguing for the sake of it and answer you.

 

1 If there had been an accident it would have been the motorcyclists fault, and you know that, or should do if you`ve passed your driving test.

 

2 Are you saying that just because there wasn`t an accident there`s no problem and his riding was fine ? If that`s what you are saying that`s the most dangerous attitude of all, if you drive I hope you don`t drive using that theory.

[Cyclone]

It IS fine for motorcyclists to filter.

And it is the car driver who is in the wrong if they don't see them and run into them.

You shouldn't be changing lanes or performing maneuvers without looking where you're going.

Every post you ever make about driving paints a picture of you being a terrible driver. Perhaps that's why you didn't feel safe filtering through moving traffic.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 09:45 ----------

 

I don`t understand what you`re saying.

 

I`ll assume you`re not just arguing for the sake of it and answer you.

 

1 If there had been an accident it would have been the motorcyclists fault, and you know that, or should do if you`ve passed your driving test.

This is not true. It would have been your fault. Morally, legally and in every other way, for failing to look before moving left.

 

---------- Post added 20-11-2015 at 09:46 ----------

 

So somehow you not checking your mirror has become someone else's fault.

 

You are still defending this behaviour. YOU didn't look.

[Guest]

Who has put up all those "beware of motorcycles" signs on Pensitone Rd (and others I assume) ? And who are they aimed at ? Are they aimed at motorcyclists urging them to ride more safely ? Or are they aimed at car drivers telling them to concentrate on the possibility a motorcyclist could be filtering through or overtaking them on the inside ? I have to say, speaking as an ex motorcyclist, if the aim of those signs is to reduce motorcyclist accidents they`d be better off aiming them at the former rather than the latter.

Take the following example. I was driving along Pensitone Rd, I was just about to pass the left turn for Bradfield Rd when a motorcyclist (and not a learner) overtook me on the inside (at some speed I have to add) in the cycle lane ! What if I was turning left but forgot to indicate ? To be frank if I had turned left and hit him it really would have been his own fault, what was he thinking ?

Filtering is a risky business, it should be done only with the greatest of care. Remember, you`re not supposed to make three lanes of traffic when there`s only two lanes, car drivers will always have that in their sub conscious, those signs should be aimed at motorcyclists reminding them to filter slowly (or not at all in moving traffic), and they should be more straightforward about it.

 

Personally, I don't see what entitles motor cyclists to pass on the left and filter in between the traffic. It's about time it was abolished. Why can't they just stay in file like car drivers.