ABS or Not

[dcstrng]

Seems to me if one even thinks about ABS, they probably should get it if ABS comes on a scoot they’re considering… Over the years I’ve locked up one wheel or the other, and had a git-off or two because of ham-fisted braking, but despite the figures that seem to indicate that 99% of the time an ABS bike will beat all but the most skilled rider, I’m not enamored… The question isn’t whether it works in the showroom, but will it work (in a confidence inspiring manner) on a dark rainy night, out in the middle of nowhere after the scoot had 60K on it…

Not all ABS is created equal, but one thing that is equal is the complexity they add… simple is good, very simple is very good – and what’s not there can’t break, short out, fall off or cost upkeep money… on cars/pickups in my experience, the ABS will become an unplanned maintenance issue after 75K miles about two thirds of the time, and by 125K about 90% of the time… and so far in cages, I’m not aware that the ABS ever saved me from anything; however, like some have said when it decided to kick in, it can be a real heart-stopper for a moment or two… My F150 seems to have the best of the lot and my previous Audi and Mercedes were not impressive (of course that was ten years ago…) at all, but maybe I was stopping faster than I realized.

[Uncle Bob]

Important thing is, you may not be stopping faster but you will be stopping in a safer more controlled fashion adding the ability to veer at the same time. This should cut the number of injuries caused by rider error in emergency braking rather than by actually hitting something.

By rider error, I mean that for example if in ideal conditions you could stop your bike in 100ft but you panic or screw up your braking when a truck 110 ft away blocks your path and you hit it, is it then the truck that blocked the road or your inability to stop quickly enough that caused the crash ?

NHTSA results from 2006 show that in 74% of fatal accidents involving collisions between motorcycles and other vehicles, it's the bike that struck the other vehicle.

This shows that people don't know how to stop their bikes in a panic situation.

[themeatmanlandry]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

NHTSA results from 2006 show that in 74% of fatal accidents involving collisions between motorcycles and other vehicles, it's the bike that struck the other vehicle.

This shows that people don't know how to stop their bikes in a panic situation.

Not necessarily. Without further information, one could reasonably assume that nearly every one of those wrecks could have involved an "unstoppable" (pun intended ) situation, which is to say, one where the distance to the stricken object exceeds the bike's stopping distance at that speed.

[Clint]

I'd say Bob's right based on personal experience alone. Very few riders are what I consider proficient in avoidance maneuvers. Your example probably represents a fairly small section of that number.

[themeatmanlandry]

According to the Hurt Report, the most frequent accident involves the motorcycle going straight as a car turns left in front of them, which would imply that the car didn't see the bike. From this I inferred that many accidents are unavoidable from the rider's standpoint, as he is forced to either lay it down, or hit the car. Just my take.

FWIW, I haven't seen enough people use their evasion tactics to make a call based on personal experience.

[Jimmydee]

Originally Posted by themeatmanlandry

According to the Hurt Report, the most frequent accident involves the motorcycle going straight as a car turns left in front of them, which would imply that the car didn't see the bike. From this I inferred that many accidents are unavoidable from the rider's standpoint, as he is forced to either lay it down, or hit the car. Just my take.

Watching the on coming cars is usually enough of a reading to anticipate what the driver is going to do. Turn signal, slow down, moving toward the left. I would say defensive driving should prevent most of that type of accident.
Drunks at 50 mph coming into your lane, now that one would be unavoidable.
Jim

[Clint]

Originally Posted by themeatmanlandry

From this I inferred that many accidents are unavoidable from the rider's standpoint, as he is forced to either lay it down, or hit the car. Just my take.

I think you give most riders too much credit. There are very few "unavoidable" accidents, IMO. Nowhere near the actual multi-vehicle collision count.

[Rickster]

Originally Posted by RowdyRed94

I think you give most riders too much credit. There are very few "unavoidable" accidents, IMO. Nowhere near the actual multi-vehicle collision count.

Most accidents happen because both drivers/riders did something wrong.

[themeatmanlandry]

Originally Posted by Jimmydee

Watching the on coming cars is usually enough of a reading to anticipate what the driver is going to do. Turn signal, slow down, moving toward the left. I would say defensive driving should prevent most of that type of accident.
Drunks at 50 mph coming into your lane, now that one would be unavoidable.
Jim

Question: Do you slow down enough to assure a stop every time you see a car hit hte turn lane as you make an intersection? I'm guessing not. So, if one of those cars pulled out as you entered the intersection, all the warning signs in the world won't save you from a spill. Again, just my take.

[themeatmanlandry]

Originally Posted by Rickster

Most accidents happen because both drivers/riders did something wrong.

I disagree. I would agree that 99% of all accidents are avoidable, but I would disagree that "most" involve mistakes on the parts of both drivers.

[Clint]

Stop smiling all the damn time. Is your face stuck?

F'n happy-ass lunatic.

If a car pulls out in front of me, the driver did something wrong. If I hit the car, chances are I made several mistakes, too. That's the standard viewpoint of most analysts. I tend to concur.

[Jimmydee]

Originally Posted by themeatmanlandry

Question: Do you slow down enough to assure a stop every time you see a car hit the turn lane as you make an intersection? I'm guessing not. So, if one of those cars pulled out as you entered the intersection, all the warning signs in the world won't save you from a spill. Again, just my take.

No but I'm aware of what is behind me and hand and foot are on the brakes ready to go. Always looking for a place to abort. I drive like everyone is out to get me. You may ask, how can that be any fun. Like the dog that has always been on the leash, its all I know so I'm used to it.
Jim

[Uncle Bob]

Originally Posted by themeatmanlandry

Not necessarily. Without further information, one could reasonably assume that nearly every one of those wrecks could have involved an "unstoppable" (pun intended ) situation, which is to say, one where the distance to the stricken object exceeds the bike's stopping distance at that speed.

Panic situations create panicked riders. According to the NHTSA 2006 numbers, 44% of riders killed initiated NO avoidance manoeuver at all and another 33% are classified as unknown as too what manoeuver they tried.

The old car turning left in front of a rider accounts for 40% of fatalities, question is how far ahead of the rider did they block their route ? Far enough away to safely stop and or veer out of the way ? Or so close that it was indeed unavoidable ?

I'll stick my neck out and say that maybe 50% of those types of accidents could have been avoided if the rider was comfortable with his braking ability and certainly less deaths if speed was reduced before impact.

[Rickster]

Originally Posted by themeatmanlandry

I disagree. I would agree that 99% of all accidents are avoidable, but I would disagree that "most" involve mistakes on the parts of both drivers.

In "most" two vehicle accidents, insurance companies assign a percent of blame to to each vehicle.

Even if you are stopped & out of your car, you still could be at fault. Did you get all the way off the road, did you put your flashers on, did you stop at the top of a hill, of in a turn, did you put out flairs.

Insurance companies do studies on this, and the studies arn't for the news media to sensationalize it, they are studies to help the insurance companies save money. This is one case where I believe the numbers.

Think of your own driving history, how many times has someone else done something stupid that if you had not been paying attention would have caused an accident.

One person messing up usually doesn't cause an accident, two people, in the same place, at the same time both messing up, now you got an accident.

[themeatmanlandry]

FWIW, in ALL of the accidents I have had (I've had many . . . more than 15; four were my fault), only one car was assigned blame by the cops and insurance people.

If we start nitpicking dicisions leading up to events, then everyone's partially to blame for everything. The US was asking for Pearl Harbor, it's someone's fault that their kid didn't get a Wii this year for Xmas, it's my fault that the restaurant gave me diarrhea, it's the dead store clerk's fault that they got shot, etc.

Whatever floats your boat. I just don't agree. No sweat!

Xtra for Clint:

[Clint]

I smell a new title.

[themeatmanlandry]

Originally Posted by RowdyRed94

I smell a new title.

-Crash Test Dumb Ass
-At Fault More Than 25% of the Time
-Lucky
-Evel Knievel's Quality Control

I was tired of Yogurt Savior anyway.

[Clint]

Oh, I was thinking of something much more elegant (that I thought of).

[palanon]

Bwaahahahaha!!!

[themeatmanlandry]

Originally Posted by RowdyRed94

Oh, I was thinking of something much more elegant (that I thought of).

Nice!

My wife's favorite word for morons seems to be "idiots," whereas mine has always been "lunatics." Seems fitting.

If you wonder why I put a smilie after many things that I type in a serious tone, it's because I've lost the miniscule amount of tact that I once possessed when Mama died. Not sure what it is, but every serious thing I say (or type) seems to come across with a barb. I don't mean to, I just lack the motivation to come up with something sanitized.




[EDIT] See . . . did it again!