Should I buy my daughter a scooter / moped?

peachyprice

tbourner wrote: »

Because you position yourself in such a way as to account for those eventualities, as I said before. If you do a BikeSafe course they teach you that kind of thing, and when you pass your test if you do a RoSPA course or similar they teach you a whole new way of riding including positioning for maximum visiblity. Without that knowledge you are literally riding into danger as you see it coming too late and aren't positioned to avoid it.

Sorry, I have to disagree, there is nothing that you can train a scooter rider to do that will stop idiot drivers pulling out them/cutting them up/jumling lights. Yes you can teach them how to try to make themselves more visible, but that WILL NOT make other motorists who are looking in the other direction, on the phone, eating, lighting a cigarette, drinking, see them. It may reduce the risk to some degree but will certainly not eliminate it.

tbourner

peachyprice wrote: »

Sorry, I have to disagree, there is nothing that you can train a scooter rider to do that will stop idiot drivers pulling out them/cutting them up/jumling lights. Yes you can teach them how to try to make themselves more visible, but that WILL NOT make other motorists who are looking in the other direction, on the phone, eating, lighting a cigarette, drinking, see them. It may reduce the risk to some degree but will certainly not eliminate it.

You don't understand what I'm saying, it's not about being seen (although that's part of it), you could be invisible and still mitigate your risks in fact you should assume you're invisible when on a bike/scooter. You're much narrower than a car so you can use the width of the lane in such a way that even if the car pulls out right in front of you you're in a position to move out the way. There will obviously be an exeption circumstance where there's nothing you can do, but people bring up all these facts and figures about bikers being hit and the fact is 99% of them could have been avoided by the biker.

The above assumes you're riding to survive, it means riding slower, not filtering through traffic in rush hour (I don't BTW), not ar5ing about. MOST riders ride for fun and thrills, they take risks because it's exciting, they filter between cars who can't see them and don't indicate because it gets them to work quicker. The facts and figures will state the biker was knocked off through the fault of the driver but at the end of the day the biker could easily have prevented it happening.

pigpen

tbourner wrote: »

You don't understand what I'm saying, it's not about being seen (although that's part of it), you could be invisible and still mitigate your risks in fact you should assume you're invisible when on a bike/scooter. You're much narrower than a car so you can use the width of the lane in such a way that even if the car pulls out right in front of you you're in a position to move out the way. There will obviously be an exeption circumstance where there's nothing you can do, but people bring up all these facts and figures about bikers being hit and the fact is 99% of them could have been avoided by the biker.

The above assumes you're riding to survive, it means riding slower, not filtering through traffic in rush hour (I don't BTW), not ar5ing about. MOST riders ride for fun and thrills, they take risks because it's exciting, they filter between cars who can't see them and don't indicate because it gets them to work quicker. The facts and figures will state the biker was knocked off through the fault of the driver but at the end of the day the biker could easily have prevented it happening.

Unless of course you are riding merrily along at between 30-35 MPH on a straight road in broad daylight and some to$$pot of a driver pulls out 6ft in front of you without even slowing for a junction..

Exactly how could a bike rider prevent that???

If drivers paid more attention to what they were doing many accidents wouldn't happen it is hardly fair to insinuate it is the riders fault for not responding fast enough, they don't have ESP!

(said driver is up on manslaughter charges.)

gratefulforhelp_2

tbourner wrote: »

You usually get shown some 'nasty' pictures before your CBT, and they won't let you out unless you're in minimum jeans and jacket.

DH wasn't...and jeans will not protect in the way leathers will.

peachyprice

pigpen wrote: »

Unless of course you are riding merrily along at between 30-35 MPH on a straight road in broad daylight and some to$$pot of a driver pulls out 6ft in front of you without even slowing for a junction..

Exactly how could a bike rider prevent that???

If drivers paid more attention to what they were doing many accidents wouldn't happen it is hardly fair to insinuate it is the riders fault for not responding fast enough, they don't have ESP!

(said driver is up on manslaughter charges.)

Thanks pigpen, seems you can understand exactly what I am saying!

pigpen

I lost my uncle and nephew in the space of a few months to m-bike accidents... though my uncle it was his own fault.. he misjudged a corner and went headlong into a concrete gate post.. his internal organs mashed themselves on his ribs cage and his insides were soup.. thankfully.. yes there is a plus point.. he died in less than seconds and his several hundred pound helmet protected his face from any damage so his relatives could see his body if they chose to.

My nephew was road jam and died in agony in hospital about 2 hour later.. thankfully his mum got to see him briefly before he died. He was wearing full racing leathers like he always did and a good expensive helmet.. they don't do much against an Asda delivery lorry! He was little more than a child (days off his 21st birthday) and didn't have time to even think about braking.

onlyroz

The fact is that if you have the same accident in a car and on a motorbike, you're going to get worse injuries on the bike. That's as simple as it gets - if you're an adult then make up your own mind, weighing the risks. But there's no way I'd let a child of mine (i.e. under 18) ride a motorbike/moped.

If they were an adult then I couldn't stop them, but I wouldn't be forthcoming with loans to help pass the test or buy a bike - whereas I might do with a car.

MERFE

unlike most on here all the motorbike users I know have not been involved in anything more than tiny bumps whereas a friend at school was killed crossing the road, another wheelchair bound and deaf from brain damage for crossing another road, my cousin who had been driving for over a year flipped her car and broke her neck, was in hospital for over 3 months and is lucky to be alive.

I will never stop any of my kids doing anything that they want to just because it has risks - that's life. There would however be rules. Like proper equipment, only for use round town, only weather permitting etc

gratefulforhelp_2

pigpen wrote: »

He was wearing full racing leathers like he always did and a good expensive helmet.. they don't do much against an Asda delivery lorry!

Is a fair point...

tbourner

pigpen wrote: »

Unless of course you are riding merrily along at between 30-35 MPH on a straight road in broad daylight and some to$$pot of a driver pulls out 6ft in front of you without even slowing for a junction..

Exactly how could a bike rider prevent that???

As I said, there are exceptions to everything, there are exceptions to being safe in a car/plane/train/in bed. The thing I worry about most is people stuffing into my rear wheel when I'm stopped - not much I can do about that other than pulling forward into a busy junction!! I'm just arguing that everyone sees the figures and thinks bike=death, it's simply not true. What about if DD wanted to go skydiving? you'd ask about the safety gear involved, training etc.? It's still a risk, there's always something that can go wrong and the same with a bike; IF something goes wrong the risk of death is higher than most pursuits - why would that stop you doing it? You mitigate the higher risks in whatever way you can - don't go skydiving with a home made parachute for example.

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

DH wasn't...and jeans will not protect in the way leathers will.

Really? Odd. Obviously jeans are least protective, that's why it's the minimum. Leathers offer the most abbrasion resistance but cheap leathers tend to split seams if you're sliding for more than a second, textiles offer better seams usually even cheap ones, and are much better in rain than leathers, for impact protection you need CE armour preferably on knees, hips, back, shoulders and elbows.