Swarm of motorcyclezw spotted in gta

[clyder]

Forum Sponsor

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Really now?? Someone in the Ride/Hook-ups section is going on plenty of dates from what I hear.

Lol might as well change Ride/ Hook-ups section for Bikers Dating section and embrace the fact that this forum can be use for dating purposes. Why fighting the inevitable?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

[Baggsy]

Not sure about fatalities, but many riders may miss a curve and limp home, never to tell the tale.
After all it would be a careless charge if the police showed up.

Here's some older data from the newspapers, saying that 30% of the fatalities were driving properly at the time:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/21/motorcycle_deaths_near_sevenyearhigh_opp_says.html

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...vinces-motorcycle-deaths-near-seven-year-high

 

[Baggsy]

Found table 6.2 in the Ontario Road Safety Report for 2013:

Not mutually exclusive:

Unlicensed 2.3%
Under 25 12%
Impaired 10%
Been drinking 10%
No helmet 2.1%
Speed Too Fast/Lost Control 36.7%
Other Error 24.5%
Single Vehicle Collisions 38%
Day/Night 66/44%
Weekend 36%

 

[griff2]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Again, as usual, you are totally wrong. Sad sad person.

Am I wrong? MTO stats show an average of around 40% (some years a bit more, some years a bit less) of rider fatalities being single vehicle crashes, no left-turner involved at all, just a motorcycle running off the road all by itself. Are you suggesting that more than 40% of rider fatalities involve left-turner crashes?

 

[backmarkerducati]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Am I wrong? MTO stats show an average of around 40% (some years a bit more, some years a bit less) of rider fatalities being single vehicle crashes, no left-turner involved at all, just a motorcycle running off the road all by itself. Are you suggesting that more than 40% of rider fatalities involve left-turner crashes?

Single vehicle may just mean no other vehicle was hit. Not sure how they collect the stats but lets say a car runs you off the road, you hit the ditch but not the car, they carry one their way... Is that a SVA, do they collect the stat as a SVA?

 

[griff2]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Single vehicle may just mean no other vehicle was hit. Not sure how they collect the stats but lets say a car runs you off the road, you hit the ditch but not the car, they carry one their way... Is that a SVA, do they collect the stat as a SVA?

SVA is no other known vehicle involved, whether by hit or by causation.

 

[kwtoxman]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Am I wrong? MTO stats show an average of around 40% (some years a bit more, some years a bit less) of rider fatalities being single vehicle crashes, no left-turner involved at all, just a motorcycle running off the road all by itself. Are you suggesting that more than 40% of rider fatalities involve left-turner crashes?

Of course you are wrong. You are the king of selection bias and cherrypicking stats without even thinking. Look at the title of the table from which you and Baggsy note the statistic. Hint, it is a completely arbitrary and limited selection of a few factors put into a table. Reading does not seem to be a strong point. Neither is basic common sense it seems. Simple stuff here.. So, if 38% of motorcycle collisions are single vehicle collisions, hmmm what do the other 62 per cent of collisions involve? Crazy this stuff has to be spelled out.

SVA is no other known vehicle involved, whether by hit or by causation.

One could think so, but technically since the ORSAR reports do not define "single vehicle collision" one actually has no idea how ORSAR is defining it.

These reports are not very well written and gaps abound. It's easy to pick out numbers and twist their meanings. That's your shtick.



It's hilariously sad that single vehicle collisions are only given as a factor for fatalities in motorcycles in the ORSAR report, and nothing else. News flash, it is likely even worse for passenger cars. Niagara police found from 1999 to 2013 that 72% of fatalities involved single vehicle collisions. Way more than the motorcycle subset. Again, we see motorcycles as significantly underrepresented in single vehicle fatalities. http://www.niagarapolice.ca/en/community/resources/Fatal_Injury_Collisions_in_Niagara_1999-2013.pdf

 

[griff2]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Of course you are wrong. You are the king of selection bias and cherrypicking stats without even thinking. Look at the title of the table from which you and Baggsy note the statistic. Hint, it is a completely arbitrary and limited selection of a few factors put into a table. Reading does not seem to be a strong point. Neither is basic common sense it seems. Simple stuff here.. So, if 38% of motorcycle collisions are single vehicle collisions, hmmm what do the other 62 per cent of collisions involve? Crazy this stuff has to be spelled out.

Go through the fallen riders section and read the crash reports. Left turners/u-turner/RoW-violations by cars and trucks are in the minority.

On the other hand you have several bikes going down by themselves. You also have many bikes going down and crashing into other vehicles, and surprisingly, many head-ons involving bikes crossing the centerlines whether on going wide on curves or deliberately moving out to pass traffic, and bikes.

What the stats are for cars isn't the point. The point is that too many here point to cars as being the cause of most rider fatalities when in fact it is riders themselves that are killing themselves, and sometimes other riders too as this year's crashes show, and they are doing so in far greater numbers than any left-turning cars or trucks have been able to achieve.

 

[kwtoxman]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Go through the fallen riders section and read the crash reports. Left turners/u-turner/RoW-violations by cars and trucks are in the minority.

On the other hand you have several bikes going down by themselves. You also have many bikes going down and crashing into other vehicles, and surprisingly, many head-ons involving bikes crossing the centerlines whether on going wide on curves or deliberately moving out to pass traffic, and bikes.

Sad. Sad. Wrong in so many ways. You go and combine a bunch of different types of single vehicles collision factors together while simultaneously breaking apart a bunch of different types of multi-vehicle collision factors to justify yourself. Zero logic, makes no sense and is very poorly done. Be consistent one way or the other. For example, if single vehicle motorcycle collisions account for 38% of motorcycle deaths, which you so love to say, then 62% of multi-vehicle collisions with motorcycles account for the rest, aka 62% of motorcycle deaths.

What the stats are for cars isn't the point. The point is that too many here point to cars as being the cause of most rider fatalities when in fact it is riders themselves that are killing themselves, and sometimes other riders too as this year's crashes show, and they are doing so in far greater numbers than any left-turning cars or trucks have been able to achieve.

You have literally posted zero information here supporting the fact that most rider fatalities are because they are at fault/responsible. Your 38% number of motorcycle deaths from SVCs has nothing to do with fault/responsibility and even more, 62%, come from multi-vehicle accidents. You are now literally making things up with stats, drawing inferences that have zero relation to the numbers. Sad sad sad. People shouldn't trust a word.

 

[griff2]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Sad. Sad. Wrong in so many ways. You go and combine a bunch of different types of single vehicles collision factors together while simultaneously breaking apart a bunch of different types of multi-vehicle collision factors to justify yourself. Zero logic, makes no sense and is very poorly done. Be consistent one way or the other. For example, if single vehicle motorcycle collisions account for 38% of motorcycle deaths, which you so love to say, then 62% of multi-vehicle collisions with motorcycles account for the rest, aka 62% of motorcycle deaths.

You have literally posted zero information here supporting the fact that most rider fatalities are because they are at fault. Your 38% number of motorcycle deaths from SVCs has nothing to do with fault and even more, 62%, come from multi-vehicle accidents. You are now literally making things up with stats, drawing inferences that have zero relation to the numbers. Sad sad sad.

Aside from a minuscule a number of fatal crashes attributable to mechanical failure, who is at fault for a single vehicle crash other than that single vehicle operator?

As for fatal multi-vehicle crashes, there is a good sampling a fatal crashes in the fallen riders section. Go through them. There are as many fatal instances of riders crossing the centerline on their way to a head-on collision as there are left-turn RoW violations-by-4-wheelers, never mind other kinds of rider-at-fault crashes.

As for the rest you keep wailing "ain't so ain't so!" Fine, if so then present something other than "ain't so ain't so" that pertains to Ontario, if you can. Otherwise you're akin to an ostrich with its head deep in the sand of denial.

 

[Baggsy]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Of course you are wrong. You are the king of selection bias and cherrypicking stats without even thinking. Look at the title of the table from which you and Baggsy note the statistic. Hint, it is a completely arbitrary and limited selection of a few factors put into a table. Reading does not seem to be a strong point. Neither is basic common sense it seems. Simple stuff here.. So, if 38% of motorcycle collisions are single vehicle collisions, hmmm what do the other 62 per cent of collisions involve? Crazy this stuff has to be spelled out.


One could think so, but technically since the ORSAR reports do not define "single vehicle collision" one actually has no idea how ORSAR is defining it.

These reports are not very well written and gaps abound. It's easy to pick out numbers and twist their meanings. That's your shtick.



It's hilariously sad that single vehicle collisions are only given as a factor for fatalities in motorcycles in the ORSAR report, and nothing else. News flash, it is likely even worse for passenger cars. Niagara police found from 1999 to 2013 that 72% of fatalities involved single vehicle collisions. Way more than the motorcycle subset. Again, we see motorcycles as significantly underrepresented in single vehicle fatalities. http://www.niagarapolice.ca/en/community/resources/Fatal_Injury_Collisions_in_Niagara_1999-2013.pdf

Liberal party was overwhelming elected with 39.5% of the vote. Tell me again how 38% is insignificant. Anyway, someone was trying to say that most accidents were left turn related, based upon a misinterpretation of the summary from a 1970's survey, within a 12 mile radius of downtown L.A.

Anyways, you seem to like to jump around and cherry pick numbers as much as the other guy (Niagara?, why Niagara?).

The main point to be had, is that this type of ride, doesn't benefit most riders.

As a group we need to respect other road users.

 

[Brian P]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Wandering back to the topic at hand ... This type of ride not only doesn't benefit most riders, it does us a dis-service by getting the general public riled up against motorcyclists in general.

If people want to go ride in a big group ... fine. But ... behave.

 

[IXFe]

Re: Swarm of motorcycles spotted in gta

I for one will be buying a hi viz vest and putting a top box on my bike. So I don't get mistaken for a douchbro while commuting.

done. and done. . LOL.

 

[kwtoxman]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

I'm all for being on topic, but I see much merit in correcting ridiculous OT statements using wild extrapolations. My posts aren't about the ride, they are about correcting totally misleading statements and incorrect #'s griff2 loves to use to make points, points which are not supported in any manner by the numbers he uses. By all means, I'd love to see such OT posts punted by the mods.

I know a guy who died a few years back in a motorcycle/deer collision. SVC, yet I doubt anyone but perhaps griff2 would consider it his fault. SVCs are often rider fault, but not always. This one is even crazier. http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/rcmp-inv...etween-motorcycle-moose-and-mountie-1.2970657. And I prefer getting real stats, not reading accident posts on a subforum and posting wild extrapolations as fact, which, again, is your shtick.

Baggsy, I only used the Niagara numbers because they actually had them, they are in ON, they are an apples-to-apples comparison for once here, and google found them. And I never said 38% was insignificant. Have another read. Simply put, there is no factual basis for motorcycle riders in ON causing most of their deaths from the numbers griff2 puts out there from the ORSAR reports. ZERO.

I've had my fill. Too much rinse repeat as well. Back on topic.

 

[griff2]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

I know a guy who died a few years back in a motorcycle/deer collision. SVC, yet I doubt anyone but perhaps griff2 would consider it his fault. SVCs are often rider fault, but not always. This one is even crazier. http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/rcmp-inv...etween-motorcycle-moose-and-mountie-1.2970657. And I prefer getting real stats, not reading accident posts on a subforum and posting wild extrapolations as fact, which, again, is your shtick.

I wouldn't consider that ride fault. Now, how many of those have there been in Ontario over the past few years? Enough to make any noticeable difference in trend lines as compared to rider runs off road alone, rider goes wide on corner and heads-on with other traffic, rider rear-ends truck, rider runs stop sign in city at 140 kmph?

As you say SVCs are often rider fault, and are in fact usually rider fault. The number thata re not are negligible in the greater scheme of things. I'm amazed that you would embarrass yourself by arguing that.

 

[Flywheel]

Re: Swarm of motorcycles spotted in gta

done. and done. . LOL.

I smell a new group ride coming to the streets of TOE-Ronno! The Hi-Vizzers. A long fluorescent parade of motorcycles riding quietly and observing all traffic regulations while Griff rides in a hearse waving a large flag printed with fatality stats.

 

[Brian P]

Re: Swarm of motorcycles spotted in gta

Without disagreeing that "most" SVC involving motorcyclists are the rider's own fault, I wouldn't consider the number of animal-strike and similar situations to be negligible, either. I'm in a group of owners of a rather rare bike, and the number of owners is small enough that we know about more-or-less all of the serious collisions. There's been one car-turned-in-front situation in Australia, there's been one odd situation involving the rider and a bicyclist in Europe (the facts of that one were never made public but it's suspected that the bicyclist made an erratic turn in front of the motorcyclist leading to the motorcyclist going down and off the road), and there was one in the USA in which the rider hit a large bird that flew up from the roadside (the impact was with the rider's head). Those are the fatalities that we know about; there are likely a couple others that we don't.

I know personally one person who survived a motorcycle-vs-moose collision ... and I had to slow down in a hurry yesterday because of a deer standing in the road.

Still, your chances when wildlife are involved are better if you have some room to maneuver first, but it's not ALL about just puttering along slowly. Best one I saw, years ago, involved a car and a moose. I saw the moose next to the road well up ahead and slowed down, knowing that its actions could be unpredictable. The car driver behind me passed me when I slowed down and then panic-braked when the moose started walking onto the road! No collision, but it was close ... for the inattentive car driver. I didn't have to panic-brake ...

 

[Neil_V]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

Aside from a minuscule a number of fatal crashes attributable to mechanical failure, who is at fault for a single vehicle crash other than that single vehicle operator?

As for fatal multi-vehicle crashes, there is a good sampling a fatal crashes in the fallen riders section. Go through them. There are as many fatal instances of riders crossing the centerline on their way to a head-on collision as there are left-turn RoW violations-by-4-wheelers, never mind other kinds of rider-at-fault crashes.

As for the rest you keep wailing "ain't so ain't so!" Fine, if so then present something other than "ain't so ain't so" that pertains to Ontario, if you can. Otherwise you're akin to an ostrich with its head deep in the sand of denial.

So in response to @kwtoxman's points about the actual data, which are quite valid, you suggest a sub forum consisting of articles posted by news outlets, which are written and published before any investigation is completed... Then you have the gull to question others about what they present? *tisk tisk*

 

[yodude]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

The main point to be had, is that this type of ride, doesn't benefit most riders.

As a group we need to respect other road users.

actually, the main point is

As a group we need to respect other road users.

also wouldn't say "need", i'd argue should

mess with routine public traffic flow on a dinky bike & YOU are asking for consequences

mass mostly trumps that game, regardless of fault

 

[yodude]

Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!

as for the rest you keep wailing "ain't so ain't so!" fine, if so then present something other than "ain't so ain't so" that pertains to ontario, if you can. Otherwise you're akin to an ostrich with its head deep in the sand of denial.

+1..

Forum Sponsor