Category: Speed

Posted on

32. When the Two Second Rule is not enough

Were I to start this article again (and I may at some point do that), the following observations would call for some revision:

  1. Two Second Rule: The explanation is accurate as a minimum safe distance, but it’s worth noting explicitly that it assumes a fully alert rider on a dry surface, nor does it scale well at speeds over 45 mph – that needs to be crystal-clear.

  2. Stopping distance calculations: The math is correct but actual deceleration is rarely as high as 0.9G for most street riders. 0.6–0.7G is more realistic, as I noted later. Also, poor surface conditions can reduce effective deceleration to 0.3–0.5G and whilst modern ABS helps a rider make the most of available grip, they cannot compensate for poor spacing or delayed reaction, or – and this is crucial – a rider who is not confident / competent to engage the ABS in an emergency.

  3. Reaction times: Updating from 0.5–1 second to 0.7–1.5 seconds for typical riders (and 2–3 seconds for surprise events) is consistent with modern human factors research.

  4. Motorcycle vs. car braking: while a sportbike may match braking distances achieved by cars, that’s under ideal conditions and the skill required to consistently achieve this is significant, and errors are common in real-world scenarios.

A very useful comment was added to a previous version of this particular item; “Whilst the ‘dead stop in the road’ scenario would initially seem to be somewhat rare, in actuality it is very common. Of course, what I am referring to the moment a vehicle turns across our path. I realize that the two-second rule has no bearing on the above situations. Just thought I’d point out that one shouldn’t get so involved with counting seconds that they don’t see the car about to transform itself into that dreaded ‘brick wall'”.

When the Two Second Rule is not enough

The original version of this particular article almost dates to the earliest days of the internet, because I wrote it following a discussion on the Go Ride Forum on CompuServe – that should serve to date it accurately enough. But well over twenty years later, whenever I’m out driving a car, running training courses or simply watching other riders, one recurring error is following the vehicle ahead far too close. And whilst motorcyclists worry about being tailgated themselves, a surprising number of collisions happen when it’s the rider running into the back of the vehicle ahead. It seems some rider errors never change.

The Highway Code says sensibly enough that we “should ride at a speed that allows us to stop in the distance we can see to be clear, and at a distance that will allow us to stop if the vehicle in front stops suddenly”. It then goes onto quote some following distances and braking distances.

The trouble is that it doesn’t really matter whether those distances are in feet, metres or car lengths, our biggest problem is trying to visualise these distances. It’s tough to think just how far 75 feet or 23 metres or 6 car lengths at a standstill, let alone on the move at 30 mph. This is clear when performing demonstration emergency stops. I’ll often get the trainee to make where they THINK I’ll stop if I hit the brakes at 30 mph. That usually puts them on the back foot, and it’s rare to find anyone who moves confidently to mark their chosen spot.

Not uncommonly, I have to remind them of the 23 metre stopping distance. And then they often stand about half that distance away.

And that may be a clue as to why riders follow too close on the road. If we can’t judge a short distance like 23 metres to within 50% at a standstill, what chance to they have on the road? (The way I judge it is that it’s just over the length of a cricket pitch.

But there’s a solution, also in the Highway Code. It’s the Two Second Rule. We watch the vehicle in front as it passes a fixed object (a lamppost, a tree, a shadow or even a seam in the road) and start talking: “only a fool breaks the Two Second Rule”. In theory, that takes about two seconds to say, so if we have passed this point before we’ve finished talking, we’re too close. If we get it all out without gabbling, we’re far enough back. And in the wet, we double the Two Second Rule to four seconds.

So does it work? Whilst it’s likely to be adequate around town, there’s also some bad news that neither the Highway Code nor any of the other manuals or riding tips has made clear.

the Two Second Rule is not a target – it’s a MINIMUM safe distance and should be extended at all times whenever traffic conditions allow

the stopping distances are based on a rider braking AS SOON AS the vehicle ahead slows – even an alert rider can be caught by SURPRISE! and that is well-known to delay our response

stopping distance does not increase in a straight line with speed – if we double our speed, we QUADRUPLE stopping distance

It’s the last point I want to focus on because it means there is a cross-over point beyond which we cannot stop even with a two second gap. My old buddy Steve Kelly got his trusty calculator out and we fed some data in. We travel 13 metres or 44 feet each sec at 30mph. Stopping (reaction and braking) distance at 30mph is quoted in the Highway Code as 23 metres or 75 feet. A modern motorcycle on decent tyres can brake much harder than the Highway Code allows. So we made two initial assumptions:

  1. an alert rider can react in around 0.5 second

  2. braking hard, a rider can achieve around 0.9G of braking force (more on that in a moment)

And we ignored wind resistance, poor road surfaces and all rolling friction. So here are the braking figures:

At 15mph

In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 44.0ft
Your stopping and reaction distance is 19.4ft
Your margin for error is 24.6ft
Your impact speed is n/a

At 30 mph

In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 88.0ft
Your stopping and reaction distance is 55.4ft
Your margin for error is 32.6ft
Your impact speed is n/a

At 45 mph

In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 132.0ft
Your stopping and reaction distance is 108.0ft
Your margin for error is 23.8ft
Your impact speed is n/a

At 60 mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 176ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 178ft

  • Your margin for error is -2.0ft

  • Your impact speed is 0.6mph

At 75mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 220ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 264ft

  • Your margin for error is -43.9ft

  • Your impact speed is 12.5mph

At 90mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 264ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 367ft

  • Your margin for error is -103ft

  • Your impact speed is 25.2mph

At 105mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 308ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 486ft

  • Your margin for error is -178ft

  • Your impact speed is 38.5mph

I think you can see what is happening – at 60mph, maintaining a 2 second gap, you will crash at walking pace even if you are wide awake and brake as quickly as possible. At 90 (not an unusual motorway speed, you will have a serious accident with a big impact. (And at 150mph, you would hit the brickwall at a frightening and almost certainly fatal 80.2mph!)

What if we’re caught by SURPRISE! and our reactions are a bit slow? If we double the reaction time to a not-unlikely one second (more on that in a moment too), here are the figures.

At 15mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 44.0ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 30.4ft

  • Your margin for error is 13.6ft

  • Your impact speed is n/a

At 30 mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 88.0ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 77.4ft

  • Your margin for error is 10.6ft

  • Your impact speed is n/a

At 45 mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 132.0ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 141.0ft

  • Your margin for error is -9.2ft

  • Your impact speed is 2.9mph

At 60 mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 176ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 222ft

  • Your margin for error is -45.7ft

  • Your impact speed is 12.4mph

At 75mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 220ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 319ft

  • Your margin for error is -98.9ft

  • Your impact speed is 23.3mph

At 90mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 264ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 367ft

  • Your margin for error is -169ft

  • Your impact speed is 35.1mph

At 105mph

  • In 2 seconds at constant speed you will travel 308ft

  • Your stopping and reaction distance is 563ft

  • Your margin for error is -255ft

  • Your impact speed is 47.6mph

The important point is that now the crossover point is now 45mph.

Not surprisingly some objections were raised during discussions.

“Rider over-reaction to a perceived emergency is a greater hazard in many situations than the actual emergency itself”. I can’t argue with this having done that myself and fallen off on several occasions, and it’s why ABS is compulsory on new bikes in the EU.

“It is well known that a modern motorcycle with good tyres can stop from 60 mph in under 110 feet; this is comparable to only a few automobiles such as Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari, etc. In the vast majority of situations where maximum braking is needed, the bike will be able to come to an absolute stop, well before the standard car or truck.” A biking myth. It may just possibly have been true in the past, but with four wheels on the ground and ABS to boot (literally), I’m far from convinced that even a well-handled bike will out-stop a car. Few riders practice emergency stops and even with ABS too, braking a motorcycle at the absolute limit requires a degree of skill and machine control that a car driver simply doesn’t need.

All this, of course, assumes good traction. Our friend stated: “When the surface is less than optimal, it affects other vehicles as well. If the rider is a capable bike-handler, he/she should still be able to outbrake and/or steer past a standard car or truck, as the mass of the vehicle determines its kinetic energy when speed is equal”.

“I don’t think the Two Second Rule results in such dire consequences as the calculations imply. One is assuming a fixed object towards which one is braking. In reality, emergency braking is initiated in response to a vehicle ahead, also braking. That vehicle must decelerate from its velocity just as you do, so the Two Second Rule simply provides adequate reaction time to initiate your braking in response to the emergency ahead.” It’s another fine theory that as speeds rise and traffic spreads out, we can see and react to vehicles braking further ahead, but theory isn’t always right. I can think of three incidents in front of me:

  1. on a motorway, the car ahead of me drifted to the right, dipped its right front wheel in the gravel drain at the edge of the outside lane and was swung straight into the Armco barrier in the centre of the motorway. It immediately rolled over a couple of times and slid to a halt on the roof in front of me. That stopped pretty quick

  2. my brother was driving with me in the passenger seat when the car in front of us colliding head-on with a vehicle coming the opposite way that had drifted into our lane. That blocked the road ahead as the cars both stopped almost instantly.

  3. I was following a car when its offside suspension collapsed, and it spun 180 degrees and stopped dead in the road facing me

THESE are the situations the Two Second Rule is designed to rescue us from.

And here’s something else to think about. A study of emergency braking revealed that instead of our assumed 0.9G of deceleration, a typical rider is more likely to generate 0.6G. I’ve haven’t repeated the calculations but I’m sure you realise that wil add SIGNIFICANTLY to all the stopping distances.

We also originally banked on a reaction time of an alert rider of 0.5 of a second and double that for a rider caught by surprise. In fact, 0.5s is right at the top limit for reaction time. A more typical figure is around 0.7 sec for an alert driver. But even our 1s reaction time turns out to be much to optimistic in a real emergency. When we’re taken by SURPRISE! our reaction time can become even longer. Two, even three seconds is common. It’s almost certainly this delayed response that explains why many urban riders don’t avoid junction collisions even when the accident investigation says they should. It wasn’t that they were speeding (the more usual conclusion) but that they simply failed to react to the emergency because they were taken by SURPRISE!

As I’ve said before when discussing my advanced motorcycle training courses, that brings me to the need to PLAN for things to GO WRONG. We must be pragmatic if we are to have genuine Survival Skills.

So if you’ve religiously adhered to the Two Second Rule till now, you may be a bit concerned to find it doesn’t work as we go faster. Even though I knew stopping distances quadruple as speed doubles, I was a bit startled to discover the crossover point was so low. As Steve said: “I’ll think about this a lot more when I’m next travelling along a motorway”.

Thanks to Steve Kelly for doing the mathematics.

Posted on

06. Where riders crash – dispelling some myths

LATEST UPDATE JANUARY 2025

SUMMARY

Updating this article with the latest UK motorcycle crash statistics show that the fundamental patterns of motorcycle collisions have remained consistent over the past two decades — even as total numbers have moved mostly down. These figures come from the 2023–2024 “Reported Road Casualties Great Britain” factsheets published by the Department for Transport (DfT), which are the latest comprehensive government data available.

Overall Casualty Numbers (Trend vs 1998)

Then (1998):

  • ~24,969 injury accidents involving motorcycles

  • 498 rider deaths

  • 5,944 serious injuries

  • 18,168 slight injuries

Now (2024):

  • 340 motorcyclists killed in reported collisions

  • 5,468 seriously injured (adjusted)

  • 10,152 slightly injured (adjusted)

  • On average (2020–2024) about 6 riders are killed and 101 seriously injured per week in GB reported road casualty data.

Interpretation:
While the exact numbers have shifted due to changes in traffic levels, exposure, reporting and other factors, the pattern remains: motorcycles are still involved in disproportionately high numbers of serious and fatal collisions relative to their traffic share (under 1% of traffic).

Collision Type: Rural vs Junctions

Junction Incidence (2019–2023):

  • A majority of motorcycle fatalities (≈59–63%) occur not at or within 20m of a junction.

  • Only around 27–32% of fatalities occur at T/Y or other junction types.

  • Junction collisions remain a noticeable but not dominant proportion.

  • Majority of fatalities are not at junctions; many occur on rural roads.

Rural Roads:

  • ~69% of motorcycle fatalities occur on rural roads (where speed and cornering challenges are greater), even though rural traffic is a much smaller proportion of total vehicle miles travelled.

Interpretation:
This echoes my original point that high-speed rural road accidents and loss-of-control incidents continue to be very significant, rather than urban/driver-at-junction scenarios being the overwhelming cause.

Involvement of Other Vehicles

Recent breakdown (2019–2024):

  • A significant portion of fatalities still involves other traffic—fatal accidents involving two vehicles including a car ≈38%

  • These include overtaking crashes, not just collisions at junctions.

  • Many fatalities occur without any other vehicle involved, underscoring the role of single-vehicle incidents.

Interpretation:
This supports the earlier narrative that not all crashes are “car vs bike”, and that single-vehicle crashes are a significant part of the overall picture. While total fatal and serious injury numbers have decreased compared to the late 1990s, the distribution of crash types is little changed.

Back to the Future: the original article

Starting work as a courier in late 70s London made me very aware of the consequences of crashing – after all, if I couldn’t ride, I couldn’t eat. So not only did I do my very best to avoid crashing out on the roads, I also researched the topic as I tried to find out as much as possible about where, how and why motorcycle riders crash. The result was that I survived sixteen years and around half a million miles as a courier. Not surprisingly, once I became a motorcycle trainer, it became a self-appointed goal to educate other riders about why we crash.

Naturally, avoiding crashing has been a feature of my Survival Skills advanced rider training courses but I’ve also been writing on the topic for well over twenty years. My very first column for the Motorcycle Action Group’s magazine back in 2002 addressed crashing, but unfortunately it seems the topic needs revisiting on a regular basis.

Let’s start with a fact. There are a lot of urban collisions between bikes and cars. In 2019, just before re-publishing this article, MAG launched a new safety intiative online and one of the very first comments was along the lines of “it’s time we stopped drivers killing bikers”. It’s an attractive belief – after all, we hear a lot about bikes colliding with cars and now we have YouTube as an easy means of posting up the ‘evidence’.

Unfortunately, it’s largely a myth. Whilst there are fatal collisions at junctions, the fact is that far more riders kill themselves running wide in corners or through a badly-judged overtake.

But so is the idea that it’s power which is the problem. Here’s the text of an article that went up on my website in the early 2000s as I researched my first MAG articles in response to threats of a power restriction on bikes.

Since then, I’ve kept an eye on each new report or study into motorcycle crashes. And here’s the bad news. If you care to dig out the latest stats on motorcycle accidents, you’ll find nothing’s changed. We’re still having the same crashes in the same places. Some elements have changed since I wrote the article below – the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ on power went out of the window – but the essential analysis of crashes is still entirely relevant two decades on.

Power Output

If you are a member of either the BMF or MAG, or just interested in motorcycle politics, you’ll know that the EC and various member governments have had serious concerns about power and motorcycle accidents.

Motorcycle manufacturers are slowly waking up to the fact that there has been a change of approach by road safety campaigners, and that vehicles capable of such high speeds are being targeted as socially unacceptable, and possible solutions include compulsory bhp limits and speed restrictors.

Limiting speed of traffic has been on the agenda in the UK for months, and Dutch and German governments have shown concern over recent high performance models. Euro-wide plans for a power limit have been around in one form or another for ten years. Some countries have had power restrictions in place for years. Since 1984 French bikes have been restricted to 98 bhp and Swiss riders have to make do with 85 bhp.

A 125 bhp “gentleman’s agreement” in the UK was scuppered, ironically enough, by Triumph when they released their 143 bhp Daytona 1200, and since then the power race has been on, and speeds have climbed to match, to the point where the Hayabusa and ZX12-R are nudging the 200 mph barrier. The result of concerns in the UK is that the Big Four Japanese manufacturers have put in place a voluntary speed limit of 186mph on their most powerful models.

Power limits are generally justified on the grounds that power equates directly to speed, and that speed causes accidents. The mid 90s Martin Bangemann-inspired 100 hp limit was only ditched by the EC when the research on which it was based was shown to be flawed. More recently a Dutch safety study into motorcycle accidents found no link between accidents and bikes of 100 hp or more and clearly showed that power is not an issue in motorcycle accidents. The study, which was carried out by the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research, included a survey of existing reports, as well as evidence from the Dutch police.

Existing reports clearly showed that the major factors in accident risk were not engine power, but the motorcyclists themselves

age
experience
attitude
alcohol

and the accident circumstances

type and condition of the road
location
weather etc.

Evidence from the Dutch police accident investigators showed that high speed and taking risks was also a significant factor :

losing control on a bend
other road users wrongly estimating speed
reckless riding

Even there though, there was no evidence that more than 100bhp was being used at the time.

Accident Statistics

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) figures published in February 1999 show that in 1998 there were:

24,969 Injury Accidents Involving Motorcycles
498 Motorcyclist Deaths
5,944 Serious Injuries
18,168 Slight Injuries

Motorcycle riders and passengers accounted for 15% of those killed or seriously injured in 1998, but powered two wheeler traffic represented less than 1% of all road traffic.

There were 17,422 two vehicle accidents involving motorcycles in 1998 and 5,529 single vehicle accidents. Of the single vehicle accidents, 1,446 involved one or more pedestrians; in these accidents there were 1,490 pedestrians hit, of whom 29 were killed and 344 seriously injured.

On built-up roads, over three quarters of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and almost a half at T or Y junctions. By comparison, on non built-up roads, less than a half of motorcycle accidents occurred at junctions, and just under a fifth at T or Y junctions.

The motorcyclist casualty rate was higher on built-up than non built-up roads. Less than half of motorcycle traffic was on built-up roads, which accounted for 72% of casualties. The lowest casualty rate was on motorways. However, the proportion of accidents involving serious injury was higher on non-built up roads and motorways, reflecting the higher speeds on these roads.

London had the highest rate of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured in road accidents but was only slightly higher than that for Scotland as a whole, but twice that of the South West region which had the lowest rate. London had the highest rate and the North East had the lowest rate for all severities of casualty.

Per registered motorcycle, Great Britain had a high death rate in comparison with other countries. Ireland had the highest and Japan the lowest. Britain’s death rate of 6.8 per 10,000 licensed motorcycles is about eight times that of the Czech Republic, with the lowest rate.

When accidents occur

The average daily casualty count was higher during the week than at the weekend, with Fridays having the most casualties in 1998. However, the proportion of casualties killed or seriously injured was higher at the weekend, at 32% compared with 24% during the week.

There is a marked difference between the proportion of motorcyclist casualties injured during summer and winter, whilst there is much less seasonal variation in all road user casualties. The highest percentage of casualties occurred in August for motorcyclists and in November for all road users.

Who causes accidents?

Riders have long taken (cold) comfort in the findings of the Booth Report (1987) which, looking at accidents in urban areas, concluded that car drivers were at fault in two thirds of accidents involving motorcycles. Equally, high casualty rates amongst the under 25’s were often put down to youth and lack of experience.

The DETR figures show that accidents involving a motorcycle and another vehicle still account for 2/3rds of all motorcycle accidents. However, they also show that single vehicle accidents with no pedestrians or other road users involved accounted for 18% of all motorcycle accidents resulting in injury. This compares with 14% for cars and 7% for goods vehicles.

However, an in-depth analysis of accidents in Cheshire between 1 April 1998 and 31 October 1998 reported in Street Biker (Feb-Mar 2000), the MAG newspaper. John Moss MBE, Chief Road Safety Officer for Cheshire (and MAG member) revealed that fully 67% of all the crashes studied were due to rider error and that the traditional view that most motorcycle accidents are down to blind Volvo drivers is badly flawed.

Let’s look at the bald statistics:

lost control on right hand bend - 16.7%
lost control on left hand bend - 13.7%
right turning vehicle hit by overtaking motorcycle - 12.7%
motorcycle hit by emerging vehicle at junction - 9.8%
motorcycle collides with rear of stationary vehicle at junction - 7.8%
fell off - 6.9%
collisions on roundabouts - 6.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on l/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 5.9%
motorcycle crosses carriageway on r/h bend
and collides with oncoming vehicle - 3.9%
motorcycle collides with vehicle turning right across its path - 7.8%
stationary motorcycle hit from behind - 5.9%
others - 2.0%

Sports bikes were involved in 43% of these accidents and the 26-40 age group in an overwhelming 55.3%. The supposedly high risk group of under 25’s accounted for 23.6%. Not unexpectedly in a survey area which includes the infamous “Cat & Fiddle” over 50% of riders lived outside the survey area.

How can we interpret these figures?

The fact that London dominates the casualty list is hardly surprising. The population of London is something like 6 million, around 10% of the entire population of the UK. In addition, several million drivers and riders more commute into and out of London. Traffic density is high over a very large area. What is rather more of a surprise is that Scotland was only slightly lower. What is not clear is whether the casualties are concentrated in the Glasgow and Edinburgh areas or whether rural accidents make a significant contribution.

Neither is it surprising that over three quarter of motorcycle accidents and just under three quarters of injuries occurred at junctions. If you hit a car, even at twenty miles per hour speed you are likely to be injured.

What is not so clear until you look at the figures more closely is that the DETR figures show that accidents out of town occur at higher speeds and result in more serious injury, even though the figures for in-town accidents appear to dominate the statistics. The problem is one of interpretation. Lumping together serious and fatal injuries is misleading and many serious injuries are not necessarily life threatening. As I understand it a broken finger requiring medical treatment would be considered a serious injury and relatively minor injuries of this kind are much more likely to occur when you ride a bike and are involved in a minor accident than if you drive a car.

The way the figures for serious injury and fatalities are taken together tends to disguise the consequences of rural accidents. Earlier statistics from 1994 show that 50% of all fatalities occur out of town.

Although single vehicle accidents account for slightly less than 1/5th of all motorcycle accidents according to DETR figures, these accidents usually occur outside town and at higher speeds and lead to more serious injury. This is borne out by the higher proportion of serious injuries and fatalities occurring at weekends and in the middle of the summer, which implicates recreational riders rather than workday commuters.

So who is at fault for rural accidents? A common factor between Californian, Dutch and UK research into motorcycle accidents is that many could have been avoided it the motorcyclist had the rider shown more awareness of potential danger, been more visible or had been capable of braking, steering or cornering properly. Alcohol, experience, attitude, high speed and risk taking were other contributory factors, as were the type and state of the road and weather conditions.

The Dutch study in particular showed that losing control in bends was a significant factor. The Cheshire figures show that accidents involving misjudging bends make up 40% of accidents in rural areas. The fatality rate for these kind of accidents is high. This was made clear in our local IAM magazine a couple of years ago when a serving police officer revealed that out of twelve riders killed in Kent in a year, eleven lost control on bends. The Dutch study also found that many of the accidents investigated would have been less serious, or avoided altogether, if the rider had been able to make an emergency stop.

Other more recent statistics than the DETR report showed that there has been a shift in location of accidents from urban to rural environments and that the peak age for accidents has moved away from young to “born again” riders.

The Cheshire report should shake the traditionally-held view that bikers are usually the innocent victims of car drivers, which the DETR figures appear at first glance to support, or that only young riders are at risk. The reduction in accident rates amongst youngsters resulting from Compulsory Basic Training is well documented, and these figures highlight that the 25-40 age group of riders who largely predate the widespread emergence of training schools and would have been mostly self-taught are very much at risk too.

Mr. Moss goes on to consider what conclusions can be drawn from the research. He says:

“Consideration of the various factors relating to rural motorcycle crashes leads unerringly to the conclusion that riders are failing to ride their machines within their personal capabilities even though the bike itself may have been well within its performance envelope at the time of the crash. The vast majority of the “bend” crashes had clues which indicated that the riders had either braked or shut their throttles mid-bend, resulting in understeer crashes. In the crashes where right turning vehicles were hit by overtaking motorcyclists, it seemed that the rider should have foreseen the likelihood of the turning movement e.g. garage forecourt, side road etc..”

Look at the figures. 20.5% of the accidents, the total of bikes hitting cars turning right or hitting them from behind, can be largely attributed to poor observation and anticipation, probably made worse by excess speed, and in my opinion this is not entirely unexpected.

However, the fact that 40.2% of the accidents occurred when riders either lost control in, or ran wide in bends is chilling and far worse than I thought. Bend-swinging is so fundamental to our enjoyment of the sport that we take it for granted. Now it seems that we have to think again. As well as a lack of the observation and judgement skills we need to ride safely, it also betrays that most riders lack a fundamental lack of understanding of the way a motorcycle steers and behaves in a corner.

Mr. Moss recognises that whilst police enforcement of existing traffic laws is important in restricting the activities of a “lunatic fringe” of riders who flout deliberately regulations, it cannot by itself tackle the underlying problem of lack of skill, and cites the North Yorkshire BikeSafe 2000 initiative as kind of mix of enforcement, education and encouragement that police forces across the country should be pursuing. However, he rightly points out that it places heavy demand on police manpower so that its impact is not as widespread as would be desirable, and indicated that some forces have declined to join the scheme as they “do not have a problem”, even though their riders may be crashing on another county’s roads.

He goes on to say “there is a countywide need to equip riders with the skills needed for them to avoid or minimise crashes caused by their shortcomings in machine control, otherwise increased machine sales will be reflected in a parallel increase in casualties” and points out the valuable role that the IAM, RoSPA and commercial advanced riding schools have to play in rider training.

Conclusion

So, research shows that claims that power causes accidents is flawed. But so is the traditional motorcyclist’s view that it is blind Volvo drivers that kill motorcyclists.

Riding experts like the IAM agree that speed and power alone don’t kill. Speed in the wrong place, speed without judgement, speed without skill can and does.

The evidence also pinpoints the sad fact that a lot of us can’t manage to negotiate corners without falling off or hitting oncoming vehicles, and when we get it wrong, the result is often very bad indeed. The message John Moss is giving is that it is down to us as riders to put our house in order. As a member of MAG, he can hardly be classed as a killjoy or a scaremongerer. “Get trained and improve your riding skills” he says. With the proper skills you can have fun, but be safe at the same time.