So it's the road that's dangerous, not the users ?!!

[kwackers]

The next thing you know is the Motorcycle manufacturer will be sued for negligence for not applying a big yellow sticker saying "Do not ride this motorcycle fast."

I'm pretty sure my ZX12 has words to that effect in the manual... No yellow sticker though.

It's easy to single out this chap but imo he's done nothing that I don't see countless motorists of all types doing, the only difference is he's been taught a lesson that hopefully will sink in.

People take risks and when there's no consequence it reinforces the risk taking behaviour and the level of risk they're prepared to take creeps up until either a little voice in their head puts a stop to it or something bad happens.

At least with motorcycles there's a tiered licensing system - something that imo is well overdue for most car drivers.

[Ayesha]

In motoring, there are insurance restrictions.

My 22 year old son CANNOT get insurance to drive my Jensen Interceptor or Maserati Merak.
Both cars require a driver of over 25 with five years experience, a clean license and no previous insurance claims.

[kwackers]

In motoring, there are insurance restrictions.

My 22 year old son CANNOT get insurance to drive my Jensen Interceptor or Maserati Merak.
Both cars require a driver of over 25 with five years experience, a clean license and no previous insurance claims.

That's also true(ish) of large sports bikes, you still have to 'work your way up'. It's difficult to see why such restrictions should apply to bikes and not to cars - unless you're cynical and think the car lobby is powerful and the motorcycle lobby less so...

[Mike Sales]

At least with motorcycles there's a tiered licensing system - something that imo is well overdue for most car drivers.

I'm sympathetic to this idea but also sceptical. After all, cyclists are much less likely to be at fault in an accident with a car than the licenced driver, and motorcyclists have a rather higher accident rate than drivers or cyclists. It might be interesting to know whether motorcyclists who passed the new test have a better accident rate than those like me, who passed the easier old test. I don't suppose its possible to find out, and there are obvious confounders.

[[XAP]Bob]

In motoring, there are insurance restrictions.

My 22 year old son CANNOT get insurance to drive my Jensen Interceptor or Maserati Merak.
Both cars require a driver of over 25 with five years experience, a clean license and no previous insurance claims.

He *could*, he'd just need a few million quid to put down and register as an insurance company...

[meic]

In motoring, there are insurance restrictions.

My 22 year old son CANNOT get insurance to drive my Jensen Interceptor or Maserati Merak.
Both cars require a driver of over 25 with five years experience, a clean license and no previous insurance claims.

That's also true(ish) of large sports bikes, you still have to 'work your way up'. It's difficult to see why such restrictions should apply to bikes and not to cars - unless you're cynical and think the car lobby is powerful and the motorcycle lobby less so...

However even back in the eighties when you could ride ANY motorcycle at 17 with a NU rider policy for less than £100 and a test riding around the block waving at the kerbside examiner. The vast majority of us still worked our way up the bikes gaining competency at 125, 250, 400, 800 before getting the ultimate monster.

Even with the tiered system you can still kill yourself on the lesser bikes no problem at all, you just ride on the sort of roads that the 1200 is "wasted on".
Just as it isnt the road to blame, it isnt entirely the machine to blame. Sure it is far easier to get in trouble on a motorcycle than a car, even at the same speed. Yet a bigger problem is motorcycles attract a certain sort of person and to be brutally frank the rest of us are SO, SO much safer if they are killing themselves on motorcycles rather than us while driving cars. The tightening of motorcycle (and more importantly moped) regulations just made the problem worse and camouflaged it in the cloud of car related deaths which is more acceptable.

This guy hurt himself a little in this crash, if somebody has a knee jerk reaction of banning bikes, then think instead you would then have this guy on the road in a Subaru instead. No, people killing themselves on motorcycles is for the common good, so long as personal motor transport is allowed.

I speak as a motorcyclist with a history that I think would have been horrific (for others) if I was in a car instead.

[MikeF]

There is a difference between hazardous and dangerous. Potholes are hazardous. They can cause accidents, and unfortunately, the condition of the road may be one (or many) hazard too much.

1) the authorities have a responsibility & a legal obligation to maintain the roads.
2) when they have neglected this responsibility it is reasonable to ask for compensation
3) some of the roads are in such a state that potholes can't be avoided

None of that makes them dangerous, but hazards plus motor vehicles can be.

Unfortunately a large percentage of ruts and potholes are caused by utility services digging up the roads, and not making an effective and long lasting repair. If the repair is good for 6 months, I think from memory, but I could be wrong, then the work can be "signed off". After that councils are then lumbered with repair (and blamed) when really the utility companies should be expected to make good. Where a road hasn't been dug up it's condition often remains good for a long time.

[rfryer]

+1

Utility companies should be held responsible for their "repairs" until the road is next resurfaced.

[661-Pete]

There's a follow-up to this story. At least the biker got his come-uppance.

One has to be bemused over this statement, from the article:

The Road Safety Foundation charity has called on the government to spend more money on the Cat and Fiddle to improve safety on the roads but said the attitude of motorists also needed to change to make it safer.

To my mind, having looked at the video, there's nothing wrong with the road whatsoever (I'm not familiar with it, but I think I may have cycled along it many summers ago). Why should it be fixed if it ain't broke? As the RSF finally admit, it's all about the people who use it...

[freeflow]

Utility companies should be held responsible for their "repairs" until the road is next resurfaced.

+1

[squeaker]

He told Macclesfield Magistrates' Court: "I was in full control until I hit the fence. I drove into the fence to avoid a collision."

Er, that's why you were on the wrong side of the road was it?
You couldn't make it up....

[Phil Fouracre]

Scary! Always wondered about these 'dangerous' roads, where are they exactly? Nothing to do with the crap levels of driving ability then!