BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?

Subject: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:52 AM

While I don't think we have lots of bikers here, we probably have enough riders to be interested in the latest hype.

This article appeared in my local newsrag, and so far as I know they have no accessible posting place, so I'll omit searching for a link. It's attributed to the Washington Post, so it may pop up on other news sites, as the WP is fequently plagiarized on the web.

Wichita Eagle 08 May 2010

Safer brakes sought for cycles
By Ashley Halsey III
Washington Post

Citing research showing that fatal motorcycle accidents could be reduced by more than a third, an insurance industry group has asked for a federal mandate to require anti-lock brakes on all new motorcycles.

Until last year, the number of motorcycle fatalities had steadily increased, reaching a record 5,290 two years ago. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which can draw on accident reports from the insurance companies that support it, asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration this week to require that new motorbikes be equipped with the brakes.

"Traveling on two wheels instead of four is always riskier, but our new research shows that anti-lock brake technology can make motorcycle riding a much safer way to get around," Adrian Lund, president of the institute, said.

Concern about the added cost, estimated by motorcycle industry sources at more than $1,000 a bike, and other issues made motorcycle groups reluctant to embrace a mandate. In a statement, the American Motorcyclist Association endorsed making the brakes an available option on more models than manufacturers offer but said they are "not a panacea."

"There are situations when (anti-lock brakes) can increase the risk of a crash, such as when riding an off-highway motorcycle on a trail, or when riding an on-highway or dual-sport motorcycle on a dirt or gravel road," the group said.

Unlike automobile brakes, which respond to a single pedal, a motorcycle has independently controlled front and rear brakes. In some off-road situations, a rider might intentionally clamp down on the rear brake to correct direction if the bike swerves in deep mud or gravel.

With anti-lock brakes, pressure is evaluated several times a second so that the motorcycle avoids stopping so abruptly that the rider loses control.

Insurance institute researchers found that motorcycles with anti-lock brakes were 37 percent less likely to be in fatal crashes. Another study analyzing insurance claims determined that motorcycles with anti-lock brakes had 22 percent fewer claims for crash damage per insured vehicle year than the same models without them.

[End Quote]

So far as I've heard, ABS is available only on "hog" class road-only bikes. Anyone who can afford it is likely to be a "weekend road warrior" who rides fairly conservatively, so lower accident rates (for the rich playtoy riders?) probably are easily found. This doesn't prove that ABS has anything to do with the difference.

To propose this as a requirement for all cycles seems to me like a result of an inbred result of lunacy incestuously breeding with idiocy; but maybe I'm missing something.

Anybody else have any thoughts?

(about this)

John

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: mousethief
Date: 09 May 10 - 02:45 AM

Just about the rhetoric. "It's not a panacea" is such a lame thing to say about a proposed safety regulation. Nobody said it would fix EVERYTHING you moron. If we only implemented safety laws that were panaceas we wouldn't have any safety laws at all. That's called "making the perfect the enemy of the good." If something saves lives, it is a good thing.* It doesn't cease being a good thing just because it's not a perfect thing.

Inanity bugs me.

*That doesn't mean it should automatically be implemented of course -- there are costs and benefits to be weighed. It's safest not to let anybody ride motorcycles at all (we know exactly how many lives that would have saved last year), but that's absurd. The balance between costs and benefits has to be determined for any proposed action.

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: Darowyn
Date: 09 May 10 - 04:42 AM

"ABS is available only on "hog" class road-only bikes."
Definitely not the case.
The most advanced and effective ABS systems are on the fastest and most powerful sports racer bikes, such as the Honda Fireblade and The BMW R1000.
There is a strong luddite tendency among many bikers, and many dislike any increase in technology (Maybe that's why Harleys are still fitted with such a big, ugly lump of agricultural machinery where the engine ought to go!)
Others welcome anything that makes riding easier, safer and more comfortable. They will choose ABS where it is an option- but they are probably more safety conscious anyway.
Safer riders on safer bikes- It's hardly surprising they have fewer accidents!
Incidentally, it is the weekend road warriors who are most likely to crash. They simply do not practice riding skills enough to actually master them. 365 day per year riders learn survival on the road, and will choose ABS if possible because they know it increases their chances of avoiding trouble. They will also be able to cope without it!
Cheers
Dave

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 May 10 - 07:08 AM

I'll readily admit that I don't know much about what's current state of the art for motorcycles; but having experience with four wheels on the ground with ABS on a couple of trucks (one also AWD), I've experienced a couple of incidents where the ABS actually forced me to make corrections - including releasing the brake and applying lots of steering action - in situations where that wouldn't have happened without it. And for 4-wheelers, it's generally accepted that ABS can increase stopping distance by up to 20 - 30%, which isn't always a good thing.

The conditions where my incidents happened were "off road" in vehicles not designed for that kind of use; but it seems that they were significant enough to suggest that maybe ABS (of the kinds I had) isn't necessarily the best thing to have for ALL VEHICLES in ALL USAGES.

I'll have to wait for some of my biker buddies to bring me up to date a bit before I can offer much of an opinion; but my inclination is to suspect that while some classes of bikes could probably benefit; but there are probably others with specific intended uses where it might not be helpful.

I'll wait to be better informed before deciding.

John

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 May 10 - 10:03 AM

It's safest not to let anybody ride motorcycles at all (we know exactly how many lives that would have saved last year)

Strictly speaking you can't - no way of knowing precisely how many of the people who crashed their bikes might have otherwise crashed their cars.

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 10 - 11:36 AM

It's probably safer still to have all horseless carriages (and the equivalent with two wheels) preceded by a man on foot with a red flag.

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:36 PM

RB -

There you go slammin' Wichita again.

John

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: catspaw49
Date: 09 May 10 - 01:49 PM

Aw Dave, don't be so hard on Harley. They are infinitely improved over the past 20 years. I wouldn't go near one of the pieces of shit on a bet, but they have improved.

Dave's right overall and were it me (half a million miles on road bikes and a lot of dirt riding in my younger days) I would be more interested in any form of training and licensing that addressed the problem of inexperienced riders. I would have said "younger" inexperienced riders many years ago, but the huge number of midlife-yuppie type assholes who have bought the damn Harleys and others are really piss poor riders with inflated ideas of their own abilities.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: New Regs for Cycle Brakes - Needed?
From: GUEST,jonm at work
Date: 10 May 10 - 05:31 AM

ABS is generally fitted to high-end sports and touring machinery, especially BMWs. The people who ride these tend to be more mature, affluent and experienced - although the "weekend warrior" issue with high accident rates among middle-aged returnees has to be acknowledged. I think it's safe to say that you would expect the accident rate to be lower in this demographic.

There was also a link established in research when both seat belts and ABS first came out and in each case it was established that a significant proportion of early adopters were drivers who recognised the limitations of their abilities. I bet this is also true of ABS on bikes.

In normal road riding conditions, ABS can pull you up shorter and safer on a bike, although many riders take longer to stop because the juddering through the bars encourages you to back off the brakes. It prevents some of the recognised off-roading techniques and also prevents the classic "get-off" approach of standing on the back brake pedal and laying the machine down.

I cannot see any reason whatsoever why fitting ABS to the front brake alone on any bike would not be a universally-acknowledged safety measure. Halves the cost penalty, too.