A recent survey carried out by motorbike insurer Carole Nash has found that the vast majority of motorcyclists who also own bicycles have not been involved in a road traffic collision.
As many as 92 per cent of the 2,183 motorcyclists questioned said that they also owned a bicycle and of these, 94 per cent said they’d never been involved in a collision.
Steve Kenward, CEO of The Motorcycle Industry Association (MCIA), said: “There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that there is ‘strength in numbers’ where the safety of motorcyclists and cyclists is concerned and we need to encourage an increase in both to tackle congestion. Would more motorcyclists and cyclists on the road mean drivers would be more used to seeing them and accidents would become less common?”
58 per cent of those polled said that being a motorcyclist helped them to be safer on a bicycle and Kenward said that more drivers needed to be encouraged to see the road from other perspectives.
“The safest road users are likely to be the ones who have experienced the road from a multi-user perspective, so it is no surprise that motorcyclists say they are better road users and that their riding skills translate to a bicycle and vice versa, as the Carole Nash research demonstrates.
“With ‘failure to see’ as the major cause of accidents, we need to encourage more drivers to experience the road on other modes of transport.”
The survey also found that 57 per cent of those questioned owned more than one bicycle with 27 per cent owning three or more.
Road bikes were the most popular with 54 per cent saying they owned one. The average value of a bike was £1,240.
When asked what benefits there were to cycling, the most common response (61 per cent) was simply “it’s an enjoyable way of getting around.”
Rebecca Donohue, Head of Marketing at Carole Nash, said: “There are so many benefits to travelling on two wheels; riding a motorcycle or bicycle is more time-efficient, more cost-effective and it makes for easier parking. The study has shown that two wheel riders feel they make safer drivers too and of course they are happier commuters.”
53 thoughts on “Do motorcyclists and cyclists make safer road users?”
I ride both. When on my m/c
I ride both. When on my m/c I am hyper alert all the time – you have to be. That definately carries over onto the pushbike. It’s a kind of 6th sense that switches on automatically. That said, “L Pate worriors” on Vespas are some of the worse road users in London for sure.
Now, I strongly suspect that
Now, I strongly suspect that cyclists make better drivers as they have a much better understanding of the dangers that motor vehicles pose to others and may therefore be less complacent and more careful.
However, a quick skim of the article suggests that there is no stronger evidence for this being an actual effect than “cyclists and motorcyclists think they are better drivers”.
Which is entirely meaningless without a comparison to how many non-bicycle owning motorcyclists have never been involved in a collision.
I think as far as evidence goes, this news basically boils down to “motorcyling insurer tries to gain favour with motorcyclists by flattering their driving ability”!
I don’t think their wrong, I just think that they haven’t proved it.
DaveE128 wrote:
I’ve also seen polls that show that ~90% of men think they are better than average drivers whether they ride bikes or not so no particular significance there.
Bolxs motorcycle commuters
Bolxs motorcycle commuters are generally the most impatient, aggressive and lawless lot I’ve come across.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
This, and far too often, sadly many cycle commuters are going the same way.
Some of problem with motorbikes is that their acceleration exceeds the processing ability of the user, then you add in the ease in which you can get up to speed and the freedom similar to a bicycle but with none of the effort.
Add on a lid (proven to cause more crashes from studies in the US post motorcycle helmet law), dozy drivers of cars/vans/lorries etc that endanger/antagonise motorcyclists and it ends up with motorcyclists in the highest danger catergory.
I didn’t start driving lessons until i was 23, never really had any real need to drive until that point, I’d had two run outs with the ex 2 years before, 1st lesson i was doing 55mph on a NSL road in our Austin Allegro 1100. took me 7 lessons to get to my test, my instructor couldn’t believe how good my hazard perception was (though they didn’t call it that then) and how good my speed/distance judgement was plus my visual checks and reactions. I put that down to have being a road rider/commuter for around 10 years by that point.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
So you don’t actually ride a motorcycle?
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
You should be road safety minister. New compulsory no helmet laws as clearly if adding a helmet causes accidents then taking away must reduce them.
No seat belts in cars either.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
In rural Thailand everyone ignores the motorcycle helmet law. It’s my view they ride recklessly and from what I read, the statistics indicate thousands die from head injuries, even though the bikes are small engine (<=150cc).
I had a Thai gf for some years, and witnessed her 18 year old son in a coma for 10 days, then fed by spoon/straw for 3 months, following a motorcycle accident while not wearing a helmet. He survived, and recovered, but his face still shows the scars.
It’s purely my anecdotal opinion, but Thai people don’t ride motorcycles any more recklessly they are wearing their helmet. Before I moved to Asia, I lived in Manhattan and most bikers I saw were weekend Hog riders, who weren’t reckless and wore helmets – and car drivers tended to give them a wide berth.
MandaiMetric wrote:
The Thais have an interesting approach to road safety. Someone explained it to me that it partly due to their Buddhist beliefs; when it’s their time to go, it’s their time to go and no precautions will prevent that. Riding motorbikes can be incredibly dangerous over there as you never know what the situation will be round the next corner.
Back in the UK, I’ve found that it’s the young, inexperienced riders that tend to act like assholes and the older riders have either learnt how to behave or we’re seeing evolution in action. I like to think of motorbikes as friendly cousins out on the road, especially when lane splitting down stationary cars.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s worth remembering that Thailand and the UK have roughly speaking, a similar population sizes. Yet Thailand has around 11 times the annual fatalities on its roads/year than that of the UK.
As regards young and inexperienced powered two wheeler users in the UK, I have a particular dislike of young riders on twist and go scooters, who seem to revel in being future organ donors. I’ve been clocking up big distance on two wheels for decades, both with and without an engine. I’ve been nearly taken out even on my sportsbike by nutcase yoofs on scoots trying to prove something and cutting me up on the inside. Speed limits are there for a reason. I resist the urge to burn rubber on the road and keep that for track days.
It’s worth noting that most of the yoofs on scoots and also the nutcase Rossi wannabees on sportsbikes have terrible riding skills and can rarely corner properly.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Drinking and driving is still ubiquitous in Thailand. It’s getting more expensive to pay your way out of though, so I’m told.
As an aside – went to the butcher one evening, which was a motorbike and sidecar parked in the streeet, where the meat was hung from a frame on the sidecar. Then ordered a charcoal bbq, which was delivered (already lit!!) to the house by a guy on a motorbike. The guy came back the next day to pick it up again.
hawkinspeter wrote:
There’s an element of truth in that, not to say they ignore danger though – they wear seatbelts in cars (not just to avoid police tickets). Also, they’re not squeamish about RTAs, the media there doesn’t filter images of accident victims. It’s usual to see someone’s mangled body next to their wrecked Honda Wave on the TV or front page of the newspaper.
I rode a motorbike in Isan. It was fun, the proportion of motorbikes is high enough that they still are tend to overwhelm cars/pickups – though that balance is shifting.
MandaiMetric wrote:
Maybe the car drivers gave them a wide berth because they couldn’t tell a weekend warrior from a patched member of a 5% MCC who may have been carrying a weapon?
That gives me an idea, maybe we need a few bad-ass cycling clubs in the UK that dole out street justice revenge for close passes. Make drivers scared to cut us up just in case we’re a member of Sons of Alpes d’Huez CC
CygnusX1 wrote:
I like the sound of that. I’m picturing some kind of Max Max style road warriors, but going around on Raleigh Choppers (maybe with some decorative skulls hanging from the handlebars to show how metal they are).
Alternatively, don’t we pay taxes for police to do that kind of thing for us?
CygnusX1 wrote:
I thought it was London which had the knife crime problem?
FWIW, Gun laws in NY are about as tough as you will find in the US. Only once in 15 years did I see anyone other than a uniformed law enforcement officer with a gun. That lady turned out to be an off duty FBI agent having a beer. I never saw anyone with their gun out of it’s holster.
One of the doorman in the apartment building where I lived, rode a Harley, he didn’t strike me as a gun toting redneck – just a laid back guy from Queens.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Well, since neither seat belts nor motorcycle helmets have been shown to reduce risk, and some research shows an increase in risk with both, BehindTheBikeSheds would appear to have a point. The case for both was exactly the same as is made regularly for cycle helmets i.e. “it’s common sense” “they are better than nothing” “they’ve saved thousands of lives somewhere else”. Certainly in the case of seat belts, the government commissioned a report, the Isles Report, before the debate in Parliament, but the report was never published because it showed that in places with seat belt laws, deaths and injuries increased. Of course they only increased for vulnerable road users, pedestrians and cyclists, so they didn’t matter.
Unfortunately, like most road safety initiatives, the actual data from real world use doesn’t support mandatory seat belts or motorcycle helmets, again, exactly like cycle helmets.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Err, you might want to check your facts. US states with no helmet laws or lax helmet enforcement have the highest death rates for motorcyclsits. Those with a helmet requirement for motorcyclsits have much lower fatality rates.
When the UK introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists in the 1970s, the death rate fell dramatically.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I’d treat any statistics quoted by Behindthebikesheds with a healthy amount of scepticism.
The UK introduced a mandatory helmet rule for motorcyclists in 1973.
The relative risk of dying in a motorcycle accident fell by a quarter in the following decade.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052259/pdf/jepicomh00246-0069.pdf
Rich_cb wrote:
Err, you might want to check your facts. US states with no helmet laws or lax helmet enforcement have the highest death rates for motorcyclsits. Those with a helmet requirement for motorcyclsits have much lower fatality rates.
When the UK introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists in the 1970s, the death rate fell dramatically.
— Rich_cb I’d treat any statistics quoted by Behindthebikesheds with a healthy amount of scepticism. The UK introduced a mandatory helmet rule for motorcyclists in 1973. The relative risk of dying in a motorcycle accident fell by a quarter in the following decade. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052259/pdf/jepicomh00246-0069.pdf— OldRidgeback
Yep – the NHTSA has extensive data on crashes in US states on its website, if anyone cares to look. This isn’t based on surveys but on analysis of police crash data. Florida and Montana both have lax laws on driving and road use, with motorbike riders not having to wear helmets. Guess what? They both have horrendous rates of crashes, amongst the worst in the US. They also score very poorly in terms of safety for cyclists and for high rates of drink driving.
OldRidgeback]
And you don’t think the high rates of drink driving are responsible for the death rate of motorcyclists, you think it’s the fact that they don’t wear helmets?
Rich_cb wrote:
Err, you might want to check your facts. US states with no helmet laws or lax helmet enforcement have the highest death rates for motorcyclsits. Those with a helmet requirement for motorcyclsits have much lower fatality rates.
When the UK introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists in the 1970s, the death rate fell dramatically.
— Rich_cb I’d treat any statistics quoted by Behindthebikesheds with a healthy amount of scepticism. The UK introduced a mandatory helmet rule for motorcyclists in 1973. The relative risk of dying in a motorcycle accident fell by a quarter in the following decade. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052259/pdf/jepicomh00246-0069.pdf— OldRidgeback
Correlation established.
Causation? Not so much.
All road deaths fell by a quarter in that period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#/media/File:Killed_on_British_Roads.png
davel wrote:
That’s a separate debate, FWIW I’m not in favour of compulsory helmet laws.
I was just pointing out that Behindthebikesheds was making stuff up, again.
Rich_cb wrote:
Correlation established.
Causation? Not so much.
All road deaths fell by a quarter in that period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#/media/File:Killed_on_British_Roads.png
— Rich_cb That’s a separate debate, FWIW I’m not in favour of compulsory helmet laws. I was just pointing out that Behindthebikesheds was making stuff up, again.— davel
You’re not in favour of compulsory helmet laws for motorcycles or bicycles? There is a massive difference between helmet wearing for motorcyclsits and cyclists.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I’m not in favour of compulsory helmet laws for either group.
As long as motorcyclists, as a group, contributed enough in taxation to offset any increased cost to the state then it should be up to them if they wear helmets or not.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’re not in favour of compulsory helmet laws for motorcycles or bicycles? There is a massive difference between helmet wearing for motorcyclsits and cyclists.
— Rich_cb I’m not in favour of compulsory helmet laws for either group. As long as motorcyclists, as a group, contributed enough in taxation to offset any increased cost to the state then it should be up to them if they wear helmets or not.— OldRidgeback
The US states without helmet laws do have much higher KSI stats for motorcyclists. Wisconsin recently dropped its requirement for helmet use amongst motorcyclists. Guess what? The death rate for rider increased.
There is a direct link between helmet use for motorcyclists and KSI rates for motorcyclists. It has been proven.
Riding a motorcycle is not the same as riding a bicycle. Motorbikes are bigger, heavier and faster. Anyone who doesn’t wear a lid when riding a motorbike can’t have anything in their skull worth saving.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Would you care to post some peer-reviewed, reliable scientific research?
OldRidgeback wrote:
The only difference between motorcycle and cycle helmet laws is that the cyclists are intelligent enough to have fought them off by using the data.
Rich_cb wrote:
Correlation established.
Causation? Not so much.
All road deaths fell by a quarter in that period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain#/media/File:Killed_on_British_Roads.png
— Rich_cb That’s a separate debate, FWIW I’m not in favour of compulsory helmet laws. I was just pointing out that Behindthebikesheds was making stuff up, again.— davel
I know – I don’t really want to go off on this tangent either.
But I don’t think it is a separate debate. Obviously ‘other stuff’ was happening in the decade following the introduction of the motorbike helmet laws, as all road deaths dropped by a quarter. Motorcyclists seemingly followed the same trend of the wider road-using public, and I doubt that drivers, pedestrians or cyclists used motorbike helmets in that decade.
I’d jump to the conclusion that motorbike helmets made sod-all difference, given that motorcyclist deaths decreased at the same rate as the general trend, rather than conclude that helmets were responsible for the 25% decrease in motorcyclist deaths.
But actually I wouldn’t jump to that either, without seeing, or being arsed to properly google, actual road use and motorbike numbers and proper crash statistics (which would be impossible to get hold of), and all of that ‘other stuff’. That ‘other stuff’ is complex and the reason that this debate is never properly resolved in internet comments. Maybe it is that motorbike use increased significantly and helmets worked wonders in preventing KSIs to cause that reduction.
davel wrote:
There is not enough data that far back to prove much but it’s fairly safe to conclude that, given the drop in fatalities, compulsory helmet legislation didn’t increase the number of accidents significantly.
Interestingly front seatbelts became mandatory on all new cars in 1972. That could possibly explain the concurrent drop in fatalities for car users.
Rich_cb wrote:
When the UK introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists in the 1970s, the death rate fell dramatically.
— Rich_cb I’d treat any statistics quoted by Behindthebikesheds with a healthy amount of scepticism. The UK introduced a mandatory helmet rule for motorcyclists in 1973. The relative risk of dying in a motorcycle accident fell by a quarter in the following decade. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052259/pdf/jepicomh00246-0069.pdf— OldRidgeback
True, but unlikely to be an effect of the helmet law and much more likely to be the result of the drink driving and breathalyser laws introduced at the same time.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Err, you might want to check your facts. US states with no helmet laws or lax helmet enforcement have the highest death rates for motorcyclsits. Those with a helmet requirement for motorcyclsits have much lower fatality rates.
When the UK introduced compulsory helmet use for motorcyclists in the 1970s, the death rate fell dramatically.
[/quote]
The data that I’ve seen does not agree with what you say about USA states with/without helmet laws, with those without laws having a lower death rate.
Certainly the death rate of motorcyclists in this country fell after the motorcycle helmet law was enacted, but it is not clear that this was the result of the law. Deaths and injuries to all road users fell at that time, not just motorcyclists, and pedestrians, drivers and cyclists weren’t wearing helmets. Somebody looked at the times of deaths and motorcyclists post law and discovered that they were dying a lot less between the hours of 2200-0200, and unless helmets became magically effective between those times, this was not a helmet effect.
So what happened at the same time that the motorcycle helmet law was passed? The breathalyser and drink driving laws, and it is vastly more likely that their introduction was responsible for the reduction in deaths to motorcyclists.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
When I used to motorbike to work, this bellend on a ratbike would regulary take to the pavement down this tight one way street just to gain a few metres. I was never that bothered as he was shit at riding and my VFR400 would murder him in the twisties a bit further down the road.
I must admit, if you’ve got a motorbike it can be hard to control yourself. People wank themselves silly that GTR can do 60 in 3s but you can do that £1000 on a bike and sometimes you can’t fight the urge to go to warp speed. Don’t have one anymore but I do miss the acceleration and ram air noise of my Kwak. With great power comes great responsiblity as someone once said to Spiderman.
You do seem equally invisible to car drivers though on 2 wheels, regardless of size of bike, speed or whether you’ve got lights on. I think I actually got pulled out on more on the motorbike and most people seem unable to judge your speed even if perfectly legal.
Yorkshie Whippet wrote:
The KSI stats would tend to bear that out, as motorbikers although just 1% of road traffic account for 17% of RTCs – some self-inflicted at speeds that people on bikes could never achieve.
But the article is about motorcyclists who *also own one or more bicycles*. Though a more pertinent measure would be how often they ride their bicycle and how far they travel on it (or even whether they actually ride it at all).
No, but we are way cooler.
No, but we are way cooler.
Motorcyclists are all very
Motorcyclists are all very skilled I’m sure but why do they think they’re half the width they are and insist on plugging any gaps in traffic that bikes could otherwise fit through. Maybe just a London thing.
londoncommute wrote:
Nope; definitely not just a London thing. I get it in Bristol all the time.
brooksby wrote:
Many is the altercation I’ve had with motorcyclists illegally using the ASLs in Bristol, usually with the foulmouthed verbal response and threats, but on one occasion by having the motocycle ridden at me. Myself and the other cyclist involved reported it to the police: fake plates.
I would have to say from my
I would have to say from my ownership of a Ducati 748, a Dartmoor bridge, and the titanium in my legs that this is Bullshit.
Mortor-byke, is that like an
Mortor-byke, is that like an e-bike? Will it’s batteries explode?
Im not suggesting we all do
Im not suggesting we all do this, but having fallen off a cycle a few times, it bloody hurts. Riding a motorcycle from time to time, I always have in the back of my mind the pain. Motorcyclists probably on the whole are better road users, except those who have never come off and think they are riding gods( which there are a few too many)
I ride in South Wales a lot
I ride in South Wales a lot and it does massively affect my opinion of motorcyclists as people to be honest. The amount of close passes, deliberate close passes (distinguished from the former as they often come with a gesture) and high speed riding is just ridiculous there. They seem to treat that area as their own racetrack.
I know not-all-motorcyclists etc but the Rossi-wannabes on a sunday afternoon there can really ruin a good ride with their behaviour. Can’t stand feeling on edge when you can hear them a mile or two away giving it max revs wondering how close they’re going to fly past at >100 and if they’re going to judge it properly. The margin of error is tiny. They must be in the CXR94Di2’s grouping of “never come off” or else they’re just thick as mince.
That said the ones on my commute are normally really good and I once had someone slow down to pace me on a scooter at 30 which was great.
turboprannet wrote:
They may soon be mince
I ride a motorbike and it’s
I ride a motorbike and it’s definitely improved my cycling road positioning at times. My instructor was brilliant (he’s one of my cycling buddies now, too) and spent quite a bit of time breaking some long-formed cycling habits when an engine is involved.
That said, at the time he didn’t drive a car and I’ve seen him ride like a knob when he wasn’t instructing.
Most of the motorcyclists I see when I’m cycling around here are pretty good and I’ve had chat with a fair few at lights. Of course there are the idiots, same as cars, vans, etc. I got rather close-passed by someone on a scooter this morning and then again in a bus lane by someone on a bigger bike, but those are rather the exception than the rule.
“Making progress” is one thing, riding like a knob is another.
I have to agree with Yorkshire Wallet that being on a motorbike makes you no more visible to other road users, despite having full headlights, hi-viz jacket and a barely-legal exhaust!
Does this mean they are going
Does this mean they are going to have a question on their insurance quotation application asking if you are a cyclist, and then giving you a reduced insurance price if you are?
I insure my motorbikes
I insure my motorbikes through Carole Nash and got reduced insurance premiums for the car too by going through the same firm. Carole Nash is not run as a charity and does this because it has evaluated crash data and come up with some interesting conclusions. One of these is that yes, people with motorbikes have fewer crashes when driving cars. There are exceptions to this and the firm probably monitors the number of years someone has had a motorcycle and also the type of motorcycle owned, so the inexperienced rider with a deathwish on a twist and go scoot or the Sunday afternoon only rider pretending to be Rossi on a high performance sportsbike he/she doesn’t have the skills to control will not be offered cheaper car insurance.
Car insurance firms do indeed crunch numbers and for a good reason. It’s why for example young drivers now have to pay such massive premiums, because insurance companies evaluated DfT crash data and realised that drivers aged 17-24 have a crash risk eight times higher than that of the average driver.
So yes, an experienced motorcyclist or cyclist will actually be more alert and less likely to crash than the average driver. Working out how experienced someone is on a bicycle is hard to determine though as there is no compulsory insurance and no MOT to be crosschecked that would show distance covered/year.
Being a vulnerable road user on a regular basis does heighten your awareness. I passed my car test as a teenager but then got my motorbike licence a few years later. I was acutely aware at the time how much my car driving improved after I took the motorbike test.
My feeling is that the car test should add a compulsory portion on cycling, including riding on busy roads. Only disabled people would be exempt. Anyone unable to ride a bicycle could I suppose take that portion on a tricycle.
94% of surveys are cobbled
94% of surveys are cobbled together using incomplete information and published for marketing purposes.
In the USA (surprise!) you
In the USA (surprise!) you can buy cycling jerseys with built in gun holsters. Mostly marketed at women, I think.
The only time I’ve ever
The only time I’ve ever ridden a motorbike without a helmet or any PPE was in Cambodia, when I nicked our guide’s Honda 250 and went joyriding round Siem Reap with my wife 😀
On Koh Samui, the local rep panicked when I asked about hiring a scooter – tourist KSIs are pretty common and she’d earlier seen a lass scraped up in a pretty sorry state after stacking it at a junction wearing little more than a bikini. I realise that’s pretty similar to coming off a bike in a thin sheet of lycra, but at least then you don’t have to worry about the weight of the bike landing on top of you. Too many people seem to think you can rock up, rent a scooter and ride off with a passenger with no training whatsoever and you’ll be fine because you’re on holiday and that’s what all the locals are doing.
Regarding the UK statistics, the introduction of a mandatory helmet law came at a time when there was a bigger clampdown on motorcycles generally, due to the rise of the café racer scene and associated high KSI rate and, later, the mods, so saying helmets alone caused the drop in KSIs is rather bending the facts.
These days, you’re pretty restricted on what power bike you can ride if <21, but over that you can pass your test on a 500cc and go out the next day and buy an R1. If you’re going to ride a motorbike, at least wear the proper gear.
Passed a group of lads all trying to out-do each other on mopeds yesterday – they’ll be statistics soon enough, just hope they don’t take anyone else out with them.
LastBoyScout wrote:
We might have more test restrictions but the relative cost of motorbikes means that an A2 bike is probably faster than what a youth would have been able to afford back in the day.
Helmet regs are difficult to filter out because:
1: Most riders wore them before they became compulsary.
2: Other road transport became safer due to safety improvements.
However I think its a total no brainer that helmet regs saved lives given the virtual certainty of sustaining a serious head injury after falling off a bike a high speed.
massive4x4 wrote:
Motorcycle helmets are effective up to about 16mph, which most people don’t consider “high speed” even on a proper bicycle.
No. Simple.
No. Simple.
There are some truly awful motorcyclists and cyclists.
Using two wheels rather than four isn’t synonymous with being a safer road user.
That said, generally, I find motorbikers are much more aware of cyclists. There’s been a fair few times when I’ve been on a good descent and been chased (or chasing) a motorbike and we have a chat at the bottom.
Motorbikers seem to always take the best lines round corners, so they are great to descend behind!
It’s funny someone already
It’s funny someone already mentioned the Sunday Rossi wannabees, as it was a guy in replica Rossi helmet on a fully stickered up bike who decided to overtake me on a Sunday ride leant fully knee slider on ground over so his crash helmet was about an inch from my knee and then front wheel when he passed me at some speed on the apex of a corner because he was taking a near racing line through the corners whether I was there or not.
My impression of motorcyclists that I encounter on roads is they are far more likely to take risks around me than cars.it’s just that I meet less motorcyclists it’s less of an issue.
In terms of my driving,the only change is I think I’m far more aware of what cyclists are doing or likely to do, so I can anticipate better and give them more space where they absolutely need it. It only makes me a ‘better driver’ in so far as the vast majority who arent cyclists don’t do that.
Surely there’s room in the
Surely there’s room in the garage and it wouldn’t really count as n+1.