Re: If you participated in this ride smarten up!!!!!
In many cases those articles are published after investigation and after charges are laid. In other cases initial articles are followed up afterwards with updates that include police statements on their investigation results and charges, if any, laid.
LMAO! I used to be one of those newspaper article writers. I can tell you they are far from being scientific at any newspaper because reporters don't have the time to double check facts. They merely forward a story and quote sources. A lot of what makes it into a newspaper comes through a FAX machine and reporters and editors sift through it. Every week I got a fax from the police (they appointed an officer to compile information) on what activity there was in their region. Police are not scientists, or statisticians, or medical experts. They do a cursory course in accident investigation.
The articles as a collective whole provide a reasonable barometer of what is happening with respect to rider fatalities out on the roads.
Noooooo. If you were to compile a group of peer reviewed studies (such as the Hurt Report) you could come to a conclusion about what causes motorcycle accidents. That's how helmet laws got passed, that's how seatbelt laws came about and...that's how it became common knowledge that cars turning into the path of a motorcycle are the most common collision for bikers. This isn't something that is up for discussion, it's an established scientific fact.
Besides, you and others seem to have no problem relying on media articles about left-turn collisions to decry cagers for not paying attention. Why would you not also give similar weight to articles about other types of rider-involved collisions?
If a media article were to source the Hurt study, or any of the other studies or verified statistics to talk about the conclusion that left turn accidents were the most common, that is okay because it's a thoroughly established fact. On the other hand, if an article simply quotes police statistics, which are not peer-reviewed studies and therefore have sustained no serious scrutiny, then that article must be dismissed. Often police and politicians have an agenda when releasing statistics to get more legislation passed, or to get budget money.
Find me a peer-reviewed study showing that motorcyclists are at fault in most accidents. That is what you are implying in your posts here. While admittedly in the Provincial statistics we as a group are at fault in a large number of single vehicle accidents, they are still not the majority of accidents, and there is no proof that in all of those accidents the rider was at fault. Spilled diesel fuel, slippery manhole covers, front tires blowing out, animals crossing roads, tank slappers, debris left on roads are all possible contributors even if speed is a factor. I have experienced all of them. It is simplistic to think the rider is automatically at fault in all of these situations without a peer reviewed scientific body of work to back up your claims. In other words, you're totally unbelievable.
nevermind
