Bad Press on Sportbikes

[NC_Yank]

Nothing new here........

The 200 mph was bs......maybe kph...

:dirol:

 

[FJRMGM]

---> "I pay use taxes as part of my registration and the bicyclist does not ."

You know ANY bicyclist who does not own a car and pay gasoline taxes or registration fees - ANY???

Your argument is so lame.

Someone want to explain to me why it is that some people get on a motorcycle and think they can do any damned thing they want on the road and it's OK?

 

[bramfrank]

Yes, I do. There are a fair number of non-motorists in my circle of aquaintances.

And use taxes may be paid BY the owner, but FOR the vehicle.

Like I said. I'm not defending the yahoos, but the bicyclist was a ticking time bomb.

I'm guessing you NEVER exceed the speed limits and have never crossed a double-yellow, either?

I always try to drive wrecklessly (sp) - it's a noble goal.

 

[Fencer]

Uh Oh,

I smell a pissin match comming. h34r:

Quick - make sure R Kelly ain't around or he'll win fo sho!

 

[UweRoss]

I don't agree with that statement. I pay use taxes as part of my registration and the bicyclist does not - depending on where you are, the horse drawn carriage might, or might not.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not. Please check the traffic laws in your jurisdiction. Bicycles do have as much right to use the road as you and I do -- again, excepting freeways which are marked "motor vehicles only".

If you don't like this, petition your legislators to get the law changed.

People driving on public highways have a right to expect traffic in their lane to be moving at a reasonable rate

No, they do not. People driving on public highways should expect stationary obstacles at any time. Rockslides, cars which were already involved in an accident, a cow standing in the road. There's no excuse to hit any of these things. If you do, you're going too fast for conditions.

cyclists often are barely in motion and in an environment where there is no shoulder, that makes them fodder for an accident.

Only if the motorist is driving / riding to fast for conditions. A reasonable and prudent speed is one that allows you to avoid hitting obstacles and is determined (among other things) by sightlines.

In this case it is on a very winding road and on right hand turns (assuming she was riding on the right) she'd be invisible to overtaking traffic and would be fully in it's lane.
Unfortunately, a driver's recourse would only be to swerve OUT of his lane to avoid a collision with her, significantly increasing the odds of running into oncoming traffic.

Again, only if the driver's speed is too fast for conditions. If his speed is reasonable and prudent, he will be able to slow and follow the cyclist until it is safe to overtake.

Ban the cyclist.

Won't -- and IMO shouldn't -- happen.

I remember being taught that I should walk facing traffic - cyclists don't, all we see is their fannies sticking up as they work to get up to 15 mph.

Walking is not the same as cycling. The laws in most jurisdictions are clear, they require a bicycle to ride with traffic, not against it. Furthermore cycling against traffic is extremely dangerous at intersections and driveways because drivers turning right are not expecting or looking for a vehicle to be coming in the wrong direction. And yes, a bicycle is a vehicle.

The cyclist wasn't clear on which of the vehicles was in the wrong lane

Agreed, but I'll bet you $1000 that it wasn't the bicyclist who was in the wrong lane.

and I'm in no way defending the biker, but she was extremely lucky to have been hit by a biker and not by a car or 18 wheeler, 'cause she'd have fared a lot worse than to have the frame on her bike and her arm broken.

Sshe has as much right to risk her life and limb pursuing her two-wheeled sport on a road full of cages as you and I do pursuing ours.

Look, I have an 06 FJR and an 04 DL1000. I rode over 10,000 miles this summer. I'll happily do well over 100 mph on roads where I have adequate sight lines. I'll even pass on a double yellow where I have adequate sight lines. But public roads are not a racetrack. You must expect to share public roads with bicycles, horse-drawn wagons, farm tractors, motor homes, and all other manner of slow moving or even stationary obstacles. If you hit one of them in your lane, or go head on with one in the opposite lane, I will have no sympathy for you.

-Uwe-

 

[bramfrank]

Well, the shots of the cyclist clearly show her occupying the entire lane - and indeed, coming around a right hand turn.

Yes, we should expect issues (deer, rocks, stalled vehicles, accidents), but she constituted a hazard - an invisible (wearing a black vest), slow moving vehicle coming around a right handed curve in the middle of the lane without any markings.

I don't cross double yellows where I can't see the end of the pass and then quite a bit more, and I don't recommend that others do.

But I'll wager that those 100 mph runs were solely on straightaways and they slow for the corners.

Speed bumps (well marked and well in advance) and loose aggregate will resolve the problem.

 

[extrememarine]

I have been up to N. GA and WNC quite a few times. Each time, without fail, I/we were witness to some knucklehead riding above his / her skill level. In just about every incident that I can remember, excessive speed for conditions and a lack of skill / experience were factors. IMO, this story is a product of a few idiots given the entire community (motorcyclist) a bad name, and it’s “news”.

It is sad that the 22year old died, but nobody made him do what he did. The rider of the motorcycle is the only one that assumes responsibility for his or her actions on that motorcycle. Young, inexperienced riders walk into a dealership and roll out with a 600cc or 1000cc sport bike because it’s what his/her buddy has. They can get a permit in most states with little more than a written test. So who’s fault is it when they get on the bike and go screaming down the street? I see it allot here; I teach MSF for the Marine Corps. Young troops returning from overseas with a pocket full of cash, buy the fastest thing they can afford, and are trying to do wheelies and stoppies before they know how to stop or turn (what’s counter steering??). I listen to them in the classroom on break talking about “I got a 2nd gear wheelie last night”, but when we hit the range, they have none of the basic control skills (starting, stopping, turning).

Unfortunately, until there are more stringent licensing regulations (which probably won’t happen in the U.S.), we will continue to have that 10% out there doing things that cast a dark shadow on us. What can we do? Every chance I, as an experienced rider, has an opportunity to influence or teach a new rider something, I make the attempt to. Sometimes you get the F.U.; sometimes I get the rare chance to help somebody become a better rider. And there are times when I learn something new.

Just my two cents…

-wr

 

[bramfrank]

Agree 100 percent with the sentiment. I mentioned graduated licensing and other factors to control the problem as much as it can be.

But the story was extremely sensationalised. I had an issue with the cyclist in particular - because if that's the way she rides and if that's the way she dresses, then I certainly cannot vouch for the fact that the motorcyclist was at fault.

He may have been at fault, but she was just as likely (if not moreso) to have been run up the rear.

 

[cougar8000]

- The bicyclist, who really had no right to be pedaling on a public highway with no shoulders in the first place.

Have you got your head stuck up in the thin air? How did you figured that the bicyclist has no right to be there? I guess that is what driver will say after hitting the motorcyclist?

I would recommend rereading rules of the road and think about your statement next time you will get pushed by the car.

Good and very correct story. I am guilty to pulling some of that stuff my self once or twice. Lucky for me I got smarter before I hurt my self or others and now doing my part to educate those who haven't gotten over this madness.

 

[extrememarine]

bramfrank;

I agree; because the story had a "those darn motorcycle" slant, it's impossible to know exactly how the accident happened. The bicyclist could have been out in the middle of the lane on an uphill climb barely moving, or not. The motorcyclies could have been moving at twice the posted speed, or not; The motorcyclist could have been surprised by the bicycliest and jumped on the brakes and lowsided. We'll never know.

I don't remember there being a big issue with bicycliest in or around the WNC area (seen alot of them on deals gap & the Cherohala skyway); maybe this was just a freak one time accident. If the bicyclist would have been hit by a SUV, then the story would have been "those darned SUV's". That accident fit with the story, so they used it.

-wr

Agree 100 percent with the sentiment. I mentioned graduated licensing and other factors to control the problem as much as it can be.
But the story was extremely sensationalised. I had an issue with the cyclist in particular - because if thatès the way she rides and if thatès the way she dresses, then I certainly cannot vouch for the fact that the motorcyclist was at fault.

He may have been at fault, but she was just as likely (if not moreso) to have been run up the rear.

 

[cougar8000]

If you re view the story again. I think it was clear that the motorcyclist crossed the double yellow into the cyclist.

And regardless of that cyclist has all of the rights to be there just as you and me. And I hope that when you ride you do give adequate space to the cyclist. I used to race professionally and train and ride to the stadium on the bicycle. I guess I should be glad that I was not training in Canada where you live. :angry2:

 

[killers88gt]

Here's a novelle thought. A promotion to the problem, in essence becoming the better solution. Instead of sensationalizing, promote the hell out of it, organize T-Th "Ride Like Hell Daze". Entrants could pay 350 smackers to ride as fast as they want(not including accomodations). Space them out by 20 minutes (most like to ride in groups, right?). Think of your favorite theme park. How long have you waited in line for the "Woooooohooooo" feeling.

1. 20 min should be enough space/time distance.

2. Make it a one way loop. (alternate direction on Wed)

3. Entrants must stay in local accomodations or campgrounds nearby

4. Must eat and drink at local establishments or supply stores for campgrounds

5. Must arrive on motorcycle, sorry no trailers, takes up too much camp/hotel parking space

This would piss off RV'ers, but put some construction signs up or similar stating the purpose, or make up some bullshit. The locals could split the money 50/50 with the state. The state money could pay for high quality asphalt doing this twice a month every month. The locals would shit and call it a year. RV sites could invite RV'ers to arrive by 8pm Mon nites and provide transportation (ATV or something)to watch the mayhem each day.

Some other rules

1. You wreck(requiring assistance-say smashed guardrails), you're banned for life by DL#

2. You die, well......gene pool gets a little clearer, and that's what the waiver would be for

If 100 people register, that's 35K. In 3 days. 1000 people, 350K. You get the idea. Hell, I'd jump all over it at 500/person.

Rules/Restrictions don't solve anything(except for those above . It's gonna happen, so why not make some money off of it.

 

[Rickster]

one of the LEO's in the video said you can be

sited for WATCHING motorcycling antics -- given a wreckless driving charge for just watching....

is that right? would that hold up? just seems wrong -- how do you get a "wreckless driving" citation, when you're a pedestrian?

 

[L8RG8R]

https://www.myfoxatlanta.com/myfox/pages/Ho...mp;pageId=1.1.1

Don't forget to check out Part 2

The sad truth of it all is that for the most part, they are correct.

I said that on another forum and got totally blasted.

You must have been on the wrong forum. Well, at least a different demographic.

 

[extrememarine]

Must be different rules for bicycles north of the border; Here, they do have just as much "use" rights as we do(except for expressways), as the SUV does, as the 15mph RV does, as the repli-racer who is counter wieghting through the corners, etc, etc. Public roads are what they are, each user chooses to accept the risk of being there.

Here's an idea; Want to go fast with no on-coming traffic? Take it to the track

wr

 

[cougar8000]

Must be different rules for bicycles north of the border; Here, they do have just as much "use" rights as we do(except for expressways), as the SUV does, as the 15mph RV does, as the repli-racer who is counter wieghting through the corners, etc, etc. Public roads are what they are, each user chooses to accept the risk of being there.
Here's an idea; Want to go fast with no on-coming traffic? Take it to the track

wr

AMEN to this. Track is the only viable and safe environment out there. AND, it is cheaper then a ticket

 

[UweRoss]

Well, the shots of the cyclist clearly show her occupying the entire lane - and indeed, coming around a right hand turn.

In a blind right-hand turn, with no traffic immediately behind her, she's actually safer in the middle of the lane than on the right-hand edge because this gives traffic coming up behind a longer sight-line to see her -- and her a longer sight line to see that traffic in her mirror.

But this seems fairly irrelevant since the moto didn't hit her from behind, he hit her head on. Now which one of them do you think was more likely to have crossed the centerline into the other's lane?

she constituted a hazard, an invisible (wearing a black vest)

First we don't know what she was wearing the day of the accident because that footage certainly wasn't filmed the day of the crash.

But even if she was wearing black that day, does that make all of us motorcyclists who wear black or gray or anything that's not "safety yellow" or "signal orange" a hazard to the cages wanting to turning left in front of us? Would you accept: "But he was invisible in that black jacket and I didn't see him!" when a cage ruins your day by turning left in front of you?

slow moving vehicle

I see no evidence that there's minimum speed posted on those roads.

-Uwe-

Must be different rules for bicycles north of the border

Nope. I can't find the actual Quebec statutes on line, but this is from an official government site:

In Québec, cyclists have the right to ride on most roads, with the exception of autoroutes.

Source: https://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/en/reseau/velo/index.asp

Here, they do have just as much "use" rights as we do(except for expressways), as the SUV does, as the 15mph RV does, as the repli-racer who is counter wieghting through the corners, etc, etc. Public roads are what they are, each user chooses to accept the risk of being there.
Here's an idea; Want to go fast with no on-coming traffic? Take it to the track

+1

-Uwe-

 

[HaulinAshe]

Well, I'm in the media business. And while the coverage was mostly accurate, the editorializing comments made by the anchors were out of line. But sensationalism is the TV way nowadays.

I'm very guilty of passing slow vehicles on a double, running close to 100 approaching sharp curves, and pushing myself and the machine to about 90% of both limits. (The machine because it has to pay for my mistakes and inabilities, not because of its own limitations.) But I can truly say that I never intentionally or knowingly place anyone else in danger. Translated, this means I ride within the limits of my sight.

This type of coverage leaves out a very critical factor to be considered. And that is the capability of the combination of modern motorcycle with experienced rider. Posted speed limits, double yellow lines etc. are standards for the average vehicle, which nowadays is a huge freakin SUV loaded with hundreds of pounds of loose crap, operated by someone with a cell phone stuck to their ear.

I rate the coverage as good, but it could have been much better. Certainly a Part-2 that gave equal time/consideration to the bikers' viewpoint would have made GOOD journalism, just not good TV!

 

[killers88gt]

Dude-WTF?!?!?!

Not even ONE person liked my idea??? (scroll up in case you missed it) It's as good as, no, wait, better than the track! Man, I thought everybody would jump on this. One way, only bike traffic, camping, shit, I thought ya'll had vision! Ahhhhh, who cares anyway, like your asshole, there's my opinion, completely full of shit....

 

[bramfrank]

Nah - but my bike pays for the road. Her bicycle doesn't.

I've seen some very serious issues with cyclists riding 2 and three abreast, virtually blocking 2 lane highways in one direction. Why don't THEY take it to the reserved bicycle paths and lanes?

I wear a gray reflective textile armored riding jacket when I ride and my dual headlights are on high beam modulating away while I am riding - so few can say they 'didn't see me'. They may not have 'noticed' me, but I am more than visible. Yet I get cut off fairly regularly. So a cyclist wearing black slowly pedaling up the middle a 2 lane highway crowded with sportbikes and SUVs isn't doing herself a favor.

I don't think that crossing a double-yellow on a long straight where there's no oncoming traffic is necessarily a deadly manouever (in fact crossing double-yellows in Vermont, for example is perfectly legal).

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If they want to end the carnage, they can. The solutions are fairly simple to implement. A bunch of signage and a few dozen carefully placed speed bumps is all it takes.

Until then, inexperienced riders and riders who just get too 'enthusiastic' will continue to enter corners way too hot and will wind up on the wrong side of the road or worse.

That's where mandatory training, progressive licensing and zero tolerance for inexperienced riders comes in.

There is a part two. Unfortunately, it is just more of part 1.