Hacker News Reader

Comment by beloch | Hacker News Reader

Motorcycle fatality rates have been trending upwards, not downwards[1]. Brake lights on helmets may illuminate one of the culprits: An ever increasing number of American trucks with poor visibility. Sitting on a bike, you're even shorter than a pedestrian and more likely to be completely out of sight. Perhaps its time to start regulating for better visibility, as Europe has done.

[1]https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc...

View on HN

As an almost-daily motorcyclist with 15k miles on my current machine (Suzuki DL650), I absolutely agree that the increased proportion of pickup trucks on the road increases the risks for riders, however I suspect it is mainly because the larger, heavier vehicles aggravate the effects of a general deterioration in driving skills and attitudes. One thing about riding a motorcycle is that you are, unless you have a death wish, an active and observant participant in what you are doing, which alone separates you from a seeming majority of those driving cars and trucks. You become much more aware of what others on the road are doing, and what they are doing, in large numbers, is acting like twits.

Driving crazily fast in residential areas, rolling through stop signs, blowing off yellow and even red lights, ignoring turn signals, aggressively tailgating cars, trucks, even motorcyclists like myself, tapping away at their phones and steering with their knees. I think I see just about every variation of all of these things at least several times a week, to the extent that I have thought about the idea of creating some kind of org or foundation or even just a blog to advocate a return to taking driving seriously. I don't have a lot of confidence that I could make a difference though. I suspect a lot of the problem is simply many more cars on infrastructure that we haven't put enough money into for decades, but I'm no expert.

It's a really complicated issue, but you might find some of stuff related to Strong Towns, 15 minute cities, and sorta general modern urbanist things interesting. If we had better transit, more connected communities etc, people who are less interested in driving and driving well would have other options than hours long commutes.

[Answer scope limited to the US]

The problem is that these people want to drive, and don't care about it. They want to drive for sociological reasons - driving is seen as a symbol of American independence and financial stability. Look at the people who get weird reactions because they chose to walk to work, or schools that object on spurious grounds when they walk their kid to school.

The car is seen as an assumption, a bare minimum. And any attempt to replace it is taking away a personal right.

I think these are really the same thing looked at from opposite side of the circle. When all of your coworkers are driving 45 minutes in on the highway because nothing is local to good housing, public transit isn't available at all, or the public transit available is so bad (in multiple ways) as to beg questions why you'd use it, then it drives the sociological assumptions about other types of transport in the same way the mindset itself drives the conditions which lead to even more assumptions.

One could say it's that people need to want to see better public transit as a good idea for normal people or one could say it's that public transit needs to be made better so people see it that way. In both situations, it's when public transit actually gets improved anything will actually change.

I don't think this is limited to the US, I have exactly the same viewpoint as a Brit and so do many people I know.

People like walking to work and like taking the tube after a night out, but ultimately, the car is just vastly more convenient and comfortable for such a large amount of stuff.

You may as well ask me to give up running water because technically I could just carry it from the well.

Realistically if public transport advocates want progress they need to demonstrate that they also understand the utility of cars because otherwise they come across as simply being wilfully ignorant.

I think there are two different things though, and in the UK the bar is (mostly) just a practical one.

Lots of my colleagues cycle to work, because the cycling infrastructure is great (both from Cambridge City, and from my employer). For those along the Guided Busway corridor, quite a few get to work like that because it is convenient.

Step 1 is to make the public transport good enough so that it is at least as good as taking a car. But the US has Step 2 - convince people that they aren't looking poverty stricken if they take a bus.

I find those authoritarian "people should live their lives how we want them to" sites more annoying than anything. They also tend to be overly dismissive of residential solar, EVs, rural life and homesteading

> I don't have a lot of confidence that I could make a difference though.

My recent conclusion is that efforts are worth it even if we're pessimistic about outcome. Often times it is hard to get positive feedback from people you're helping to consider their own behavior even if they don't acknowledge you.

A friend of mine is a volunteer fireman. Since the fire engine sits higher than just about anything, he can see what people are doing behind the wheel in their SUVs. I’d be shocked, he reports, to know just how many of them are absorbed in their devices while driving.

And since using your device while driving can mean a hefty fine -at least where I live- most of them do it by lowering/turning their gaze from the road so that the device stays more hidden instead of lifting the device and keeping their eyes "mostly" ahead.

It's just so stupid...

I recognise this picture. For example I remember when I used to commute by motorcycle getting cut off by a guy driving a van who had his phone clamped in the crook of his neck and was writing something in a notepad with a pencil and steering with a combination of the notepad and his knees. This is turning at a really busy junction in London[1] during rush hour traffic.

[1] just south of the river at Vauxhall bridge

Vision Zero exists and its entire output, at least in the US, seems to be some somewhat clever yard signs and good vibes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

> its entire output, at least in the US, seems to be some somewhat clever yard signs and good vibes

That's confusing to me. Many cities have worldwide have implemented vision zero techniques and saved many lives, including in the US.

i agree with this esp. when the parent linked a wiki page that, if you go beyond the single photo on the page and read it, is completely counter to the comment.

i'm confused too, but ty parent for making me aware of vision zero.

And I also noticed it's impossible to chat on the phone while riding a motorcycle due to heavy gloves :)

The USA is an anomaly amongst developed countries:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-03/why-us-tr...

Live expectancy is also dropping in the US, it's notably different to other developed countries.

I think cars becoming safer has ironically driven a lot of this behaviour. People feel safe themselves and don't take care. It's called risk compensation.

I agree modern cars are much better engineered to increase passenger survivablity.

Can’t remember the program (it was a very long time ago) but the crash investigation expert said a 6 inch spike on the driver steering wheel would improve driver’s perception of risk as it would be a very pointed reminder of risk.

I don't think that's what's motivating people. Nobody was dying in droves before. The expected outcome of the mean and median example of distracted driving been purely financial ever since cars grew seatbelts and accidents are more expensive than ever. There's probably some other explanation, though I have no clue what.

> a general deterioration in driving skills

Is that a measured observation? Not trying to nitpick - genuinely curious if this is your observation from experience or there are some studies that you are referring to.

My gut feel is that people drove very badly in the before-times but often also very slowly and cautiously at the same time. Speed felt dangerous in old vehicles. Modern computers with wheels are like living rooms with great acceleration and decelaration. Maneuvers which would had taken great skill to perform with an old rear-wheel drive car with bad tires, are now executed routinely like it's nothing, thanks to antispin, traction control etc etc.

Cars are much safer now, especially on the inside, but when you get hit on the outside by a several tonne projectile, it's about the same as it ever were.

this is definitely a big part of it. in the past, cars were either small with tiny engines or big "boats" with massive engines and super soft suspension. those old suspensions weren't really about control - they were for comfort or just trying to deal with all that weight. now basically every car, no matter the size, comes with lighter parts, way smaller but way more powerful engines, smarter computers, better tires, and most importantly, way better suspension. all that means a lot more grip, way faster acceleration and braking, and a much bigger feeling of control - even for people who might not be paying full attention (or really know what they’re doing).

we've kind of made every car a sports car, and that means when people make mistakes, those mistakes get out of hand way quicker before physics wins.

then there’s the whole manufacturer's arms race - the classic prisoner's dilemma. trucks and suvs just keep getting bigger, faster, heavier, packed with screens and gadgets. all the old luxury stuff is standard everywhere now. so everyone is more and more isolated from the actual consequences of bad driving ... until they're not.

>> Is that a measured observation? Not trying to nitpick - genuinely curious if this is your observation from experience or there are some studies that you are referring to.

It is from my experience as a rider, as I said in my post, but there are also plenty of studies showing increased deaths and injuries among pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.

I am not a motorcyclist but I have to agree with your assessment based on my personal experience driving. The risks that morons take while driving is absurd, but I've seen how it affects motorcyclists more. I once saw a motorcyclist nearly get hit because they were being tailgated by a driver and another driver want to pass the tailgater, thinking they were just a slow driver. So the other driver speeds up and attempts to cut off the tailgater, only to realize at the last moment there was a motorcycle there.

After see that, I make sure to give any motorcycle I'm behind an extra buffer of space to make sure I'm not obstructing anyone's view of them.

Yes, driving has become a necessity for everyday life in most places, but we need to pump the brakes and remind everyone it is a privilege, not a right.

> Perhaps its time to start regulating for better visibility

I argue we should start with the A-pillar. It's not just the big fat American trucks. Every car that is allowed to roll onto the streets is required to have a certain amount of airbag and the push for this seems to have really bad side effects on aspects of safety for everyone not inside the vehicle.

Look at the visibility difference in a 1980s pickup truck and compare it to 2024 model year anything and you would likely feel claustrophobic pretty quickly.

> Perhaps its time to start regulating for better visibility

I wish my town in NY would ENFORCE laws for tinted windows. It’s epidemic. As a moto rider I rely on being able to see the driver, because if you can’t see their face, they can’t see you.

Of course you can’t see the driver’s face if their car windows are blacked out.

I recently had to frantically wave at a driver about to turn right over a child in the crosswalk. He literally could not see them from his vantage point in his giant SUV.

When I am sitting on my motorcycle I am taller than most people's sitting position in their trucks. While filtering I can look down into their vehicles and see what they're doing on their phones.

At first glance I want to strongly disagree, but who am I to argue with your experience.

What bike do you ride, and what vehicles are you calling trucks? Specifically.

An F750GS and a DRZ400SM are my main bikes (out of an entire garage full of stuff). For trucks I'm talking about F-150s and similar.

Do those two bikes have a higher / more upright riding position that a typical sportbike?

Sportbikes are lower, but they're not typical. Sportbikes sales trended way down over the past decade, with models being discontinued entirely in some regions. Current sporty-style bikes are generally more upright seating and share engines and platforms with non-sport models. Dual sport/off road bikes have trended upwards, even for riders who never go off pavement, because they're cheap to run and very practical as general purpose motorcycles. More recently, there's been a trend towards large touring bikes as well.

https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcycle-industry-q1...

I see, thanks for the info. I’m licensed but haven’t owned a bike in years.

Do we have stats on whether more sports bike riders are involved in crashes that bikes with better visibility?

Not really. Outside of a few groups at places like Virginia Tech, motorcycle safety studies don't get much funding. Too niche.

You can use insurance rates as a loose proxy- sportbikes are between one and three orders of magnitude more expensive to insure than adventure bikes, touring bikes or cruisers. But I suspect that has more to do with the average age of the riders.

And bike power. Sportsbikes are often road-legal versions of actual racing bikes, with all that it entails. If a third of cars on the road were tuned-down Ferraris and McLarens, you bet they'd crash left right and center.

Weirdly, an adventure bike with higher horsepower will have cheaper insurance than a race replica with less horsepower.

Kinda. Power delivery is wildly different between an ADV and a sports bike.

On a sorta dual sport like a Kawasaki KLR650 you get peak torque from the engine at around 2500 RPM, which is comfortably in school zone speed limit territory.

Something like the Yamaha R6 won't really start feel like it's pulling until you get the engine above 8000 RPM at least and then you getting peak torque until around 12,000 RPM. By then you're doing 70kph to 90kph in first gear.

Sports bikes are more comfortable ridden aggressively. Unfortunately that also gives a lot of riders a false sense of skill; right until they moment run into a situation above their skill level and they crash while panicking.

A 1300GS has significantly higher horsepower than an R6, variable valves so it pulls across the rev range, and yet still costs a fraction of an R6's insurance cost; it would appear that the riders have a much larger role in the premium than the engine.

Doesn't seem that weird to me. Having lots of horsepower available doesn't mean you have to use it. Conversely, having only modest horsepower is still more than enough to drive at a truly reckless speed on most if not all roads. The psychology of the biker, their inclination to go fast, plays a more important role than the raw horsepower statistic. It seems safe to assume that people who deliberately purchase a race replica, even one with only modest horsepower, are more likely to go way too fast.

In any case, insurance companies have a monetary incentive to go by the data. Whatever the cause, they evidently have data that says race replicas correlate with insurance claims.

Absolutely. I have a meagre Honda ADV 350 with some 28 HP (can't start biking on higher models in Europe, first 2 years its this or lower level), and hell 0-50kmh is blisteringly fast, 50-90kmh still much faster than our BMW with 245HP in sports mode. Sure above 100kmh it gets slower but I use it for non-highway commute, winding roads through vineyards and such so I don't even ride it that way. It makes bike much lighter while its pretty big for a big guy like me, and being nimble is priceless for enjoyment and safety too.

I literally don't need more, it becomes just an ego or emotions game. Faster only gets you to places way sooner than other drivers expect you to, massively increasing risk exposure.

Yeah, bike power has increased significantly. Iirc the age distribution of fatal crashes is double peaked, with one peak in the 20s from young riders who don’t know what they’re doing yet, and another in the late 40s or so from older riders who haven’t ridden in 20 years but still think they know what they’re doing. The skills needed to handle a modern 600cc sports bike with 160+ hp are on another level compared to the skills needed for a 600cc sports bike from the 90s with 110hp.

Also slower reaction times (and less testicular fortitude!) in someone older, along with the lack of practice.

There are some situations you can get yourself out of (and many more you can get into!) as a 20 something that will just outright result in death when you’re older.

Source: rode a 1400cc bike for almost a decade, awhile ago. Never went above 140mph on it though.

I think you mean one and three times more expensive. 3 orders of magnitude is 1000 times more expensive!

Yeah... I've gotten quotes with that kind of spread between "old man" bikes and very fast sport bikes. IIRC if you buy a cruiser or certain ADVs the insurance company expects to never hear from you with a claim, while certain sport bikes, the insurance expects you to total it within 18 months.

Yes your enduros and such are taller than sport bikes, but a Harley would be much lower, yes?

Somewhat yeah, the GS is a tall bike for sure. I have a zrx1200 and I'm still a ton taller than when I am in the miata. Miata is probably one of the lowest riding vehicles you can get and headlights are a problem at night shining in my eyes, where on the motorcycle it is not an issue.

I don't have a brake light on my helmet on motorcycle but I added DOT-C2 tape to the back and sides of it, stuff like this: https://www.amazon.com/THKULKME-Reflective-Reflector-Waterpr...

Yes. The DRZ especially is a dirt bike which is noticeably higher set than a supersports. You pay for it a bit in on-road manoeuvrability though.

Mine is the SM, which is a little shorter, but is ultra-maneuverable, far more so than a normal street bike.

"sumo is love, sumo is life"

Hello fellow dizzer enjoyer

Kind of meta, but you deserve recognition for this demonstration of self-awareness. You expressed skepticism politely, then asked specific questions instead of making assumptions. Sometimes HN gives me hope for the rest of the internet.

You either don't live in the US/Canada or you don't ride in areas where people drive full-size and "heavy duty" pickup trucks. The Ford F250 for example has a roof that's 7 feet high.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Trucks/comments/10vb432/f250s_just_...

The roof on the old F150 is barely above the door sill on the new truck.

...and then people go and put bigger rims and lift kits on them.

I wish the USA had similar regulations to Australia where modifications require engineering signoff - typically these lifted trucks would fail a rollover test amongst other broken standards (wheelbase wider than the vehicle, for example).

Australia where there's no enforcement of that engineering signoff if it's done after the initial sale.

or where ADR non compliant vehicles are fine because they're imported under the low volume\non manufacturer paths. (there's more than a few tosser owned gmc denali with lifts that bring the bonnet up to 1.7ish metres)

>Sitting on a bike, you're even shorter than a pedestrian and more likely to be completely out of sight.

Not true at all except for the lowest-sitting cruisers. Most bikes put you eye level with an SUV driver and taller bikes above.

Can you explain why?

I see other people saying the same thing, but it totally defies my intuition.

Isn't the seat in an SUV objectively much higher up than the seat of a bike? Aren't your feet much higher on the floor of an SUV, than on a bike?

What am I missing here?

They are not. You step up over the sill to get into an SUV, then your feet go down into the footwell. Your eyes end up slightly lower than a person standing (and much lower in a sedan), while a motorcycle is very close to exactly standing (they have to be able to put their feet down when stopped).

Thank you!

Very much depends on the style of motorcycle. Sitting on my dual-sport BMW F650GS[1] I can see well over sedans on the road and this is with a slightly lowered version of it.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_G650GS

The vast majority of motorcycle crashes are due to excessive speed and inexperience of the rider. Also a car turning into the lane and failing to see the oncoming bike causes many, many accidents.

I ride in Spain, and I don’t know anything about “better visibility” requirements” compared to the U.S. — out here there are giant trucks everywhere: delivery vehicles, industrial trucks, and even Ford Raptors. My close calls have almost always been exclusively with small VW Golf and the SEAT equivalents — distracted, young drivers are (anecdotally) the biggest culprits.

Also in the U.S., you’ll have some 18 year old kid on an R1 that has no business being on an R1, often killing themselves because they think they are Fabio Quateraro at 2am.

I could be wrong, but I’m not seeing data suggesting that “big trucks” in the U.S. are causing more motorcycle deaths. When I drove a Suburban in the U.S., my visibility was far better than when I had a Maserati car. Being able to see over cars allowed me to see more easily when a moto was approaching from the front or rear.

If you want to improve moto safety in the U.S., you need harsher laws against distracted driving, you also need potentially a graduated motorcycle license system like they do in Europe so you don’t have rookies running 1000cc bikes when ten minutes of riding experience.

Trucks are not really the problem.

I think distraction and lack of experience is the main issue regardless of the vehicle.

Also there is a big difference I think with proper motorcyclists who actually get teached how to ride a bike, anticipate drivers behavior and act as if you were invisible at all time, with people riding <125cc motorcycles and moped with a car driving license who just don't take proper safety measures. I see so many 125cc riders overtaking on the right side, splitting lanes at excessive speed without anticipating a driver deciding to switch lanes, etc. Whenever I see a motorcycle rider down in an urban area it is usually on a 125cc or lower scooter.

Exception being the Yamaha T-Max users. They are supposed to have a motorcycle license but they all ride like complete retards with no exception. I think there is something in the nature of that bike, noise combined to instant throttle response and userfriendlyness of the clutchless/gear variator system that attract only the most stupid people of this planet. Yamaha should be ashamed of this.

In Ireland, you can't ride a motorcycle above 125cc unless you've held your license for four years. It forces people to get genuine experience before hopping on a litrebike and sending it.

> Motorcycle fatality rates have been trending upwards, not downwards

Doesn't seem to be the case in the UK [1], but I don't think we have nearly as many large vehicles as in the US.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casua...

Fatality rates for all vulnerable road users have skyrocketed in the US. You're three times more likely to die if you're a pedestrian and struck by an SUV than a passenger car. They're also horrifically bad for congestion and pollution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

And trucks and SUVs continue to further dominate the marketplace with some automakers no longer selling sedans at all, making it increasingly difficult to not buy an SUV or "crossover."

Those trucks and SUVs, particularly those made by American and Japanese companies, are focused on "aggressive" looks, which means a giant, angry looking, flat-face nose which is incredibly lethal when hitting a person.

https://www.indieauto.org/2022/11/28/designer-of-2020-gmc-si...

"The front end was always the focal point. The rest of the truck is supporting what the rest of the truck is communicating… we spent a lot of time making sure that when you stand in front of this thing it looks like it’s going to come get you. It’s got that pissed-off feel, but not in a boyish way, still looking mature. It just had to have that imposing look."

And of course who do these vehicles appeal to? What kind of behavior do they encourage? Every time I'm tailgated it's some dickhead in one of these giant angry-faced trucks.

It's taken the auto "journalists" a while to catch up but they're finally pointing it out:

https://tech.yahoo.com/transportation/articles/mean-machines...

What's interesting is fatality rates are increasing but injury rates are decreasing.

Seems like something else might be at play. If it is more SUVs and Pickups then I think a brake light helmet would do a lot considering the danger those cars present is being harder to see those below them. But if it is something else, then maybe not as good of a solution.

Vehicles with a tall, flat face are more likely to kill instead of injure, from my recall of previous discussions on HN. That's been a trend in vehicle design for a few years now.

Fortnine did a video on Grilles That Kill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuX-5E7xoU

They're hideous too.

We desperately need vehicle safety regulations which consider pedestrians and cyclists.

Trucks in particular are apparently being purposed built to kill.

It's more complex than that.

The bulbous styling on your average "we would have called this a station wagon 40yr ago but now we call it an compact SUV because stupid laws" vehicle is driven in large part by a need to have big floofy plastic moldings full of airspace for a "soft" place for a pedestrian to land.

On the other hand you've got stuff like the Chvey 2500HD trucks that everyone screeches about that aren't designed that way and will propel a pedestrian back onto the pavement.

That seems unfortunately unsurprising. With shorter vehicles (sedans), when you get hit (as a pedestrian, bicyclist, motorcyclist), you are more likely to be pushed over the hood of the car. But with a taller vehicle (truck, SUV), you're more likely to either be propelled forward after hitting the high, flat face of the grille, or get pulled and dragged under the vehicle.

While going over the hood is going to hurt, and can kill you, the other options are much more likely to kill you.

There was a news story this week in my area about a car driver who intentionally side-swiped a motorcyclist. The police said what normally kills motorcyclists is that they get thrown and then they hit something solid like a barrier or another car. This guy got lucky that there was an exit nearby and he just slid down the exit lane with minor injuries.

Fatality rates are actually pretty flat I would say if you look at the relative numbers.

Some “militant” urban cycling commuters do things like attach a pool noodle horizontally and vertically to create space and visibility. I’d probably hazard a guess that avoiding highway miles also lowers your risk profile substantially.

Freeway driving tends to be the safest driving, in any vehicle. This is because speed deltas are typically low, and there are no cross-streets or stopping.

https://safetrec.berkeley.edu/2023-safetrec-traffic-safety-f... (Ctrl+F "Crash Location of Motorcycle Fatal Crashes")

Complex thing to analyze, no?

Most Americans use freeways, and most do not use motorcycles. It's always hard to compare a rare thing to a common thing, it always has surprising problems. It's like when people on Reddit worry about radon in their basement, but the incidence rate of whatever cancer it was associated with is so low anyway.

What about agency? "Don't worry about kids choking on Legos, kids don't die from choking on Legos" - but that's because parents well informed and really vigilant about it, compared to say batteries. Motor riders avoid freeways.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. There are plenty of statistics available showing that freeway driving is the safest driving vehicles do. There's not as much available for motorcycles specifically, which is why I dug up a relevant link and shared it. It seems to hold true for MCs too (and I have no reason to suspect it wouldn't.)

I think the confusion may be that you commented on freeway safety, whereas the comment you replied to discussed highway safety. Freeways are limited access highways; not all highways are freeways.

That's a regional difference in terms. I would generally call a limited access highway, a "highway".

https://brilliantmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/big-fast-road.j...

'Freeway' is a regional term, but the Federal Highway Administration describes them as limited-access with directions of travel separated by a barrier.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/relate...

The Federal definition of highway is basically any public road.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/chapter-I/subchapter-D...

Yes and I believe when OP said highway they meant it colloquially, as in a freeway, hence using that term in my reply. A highway wouldn't really make sense since it encompasses just about every road, as you say.

Limited vs controlled access.

Nobody is cycling on either unless there's dedicated infra anywhere even the slightest bit urban. In rural areas cycling on a limited access road is generally "fine"

I had not heard of/seen the pool noodle idea - looks like a simple and effective way to draw attention to cycling safety.

Here's a video of the NYC Pool Noodle Bike Ride: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97YJOQRQ4Ds&ab_channel=Stree...

The fact that people describe someone on a bicycle placing less than a pound of foam sticking out from their bicycle, usually shorter than the legally mandated passing distance, as "militant" when trucks and SUVs are purposefully designed by car companies to look as aggressive and angry as possible, really tells why US vulnerable road user safety is plunging while European vulnerable road user safety is going up.

It was tongue in cheek

“Looking” aggressive is irrelevant.

Sitting on my bike, I am taller than any pedestrian. I have visibility and I am visible over most European cars. Just saying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com