FEAR, SAFETY AND FREEDOM V BIKING IN THE REAL WORLD
It’s a jungle out there, some people will tell you, and they’re right. That’s because there are two sets of laws in the universe. The ones that people make; and the ones we learn to obey. People make up laws based on experience, among other things. But experience, for all its wisdom, is hindsight - not foresight. Made-up laws are asserted because unless obeyed, this or that will happen. But when certain of these laws are broken, unlike the irrefutable laws of nature, the negative result is not inevitable. Just probable.
By negative result, I don’t mean getting caught. I mean causing a situation that affects a victim. Be that person, animal or object. In the instance of traffic law, if for example, we don’t all drive on the same side of the road, there can be negative results. But there are times when we can break the laws of guidance without actually committing an offense. And there are times when we can become victims even whilst obeying human law. This is because another set of laws supersede human law. These are the natural laws.
Natural law tells us that certain people are inept at making law. Yet sod’s law allows them to do it. Natural law asserts probabilities and dictates certainties. It is the jungle to which we refer. In the real jungle, we have to know beyond all reasonable doubt about certain factors. For example, what we can and can’t eat. The laws of physics are part of jungle law. Physics govern our bodies, and the vehicles we use (among other things). They have limitations we shouldn’t exceed if we’re to avoid negative results. Occasionally, sod’s law becomes inverse and we get away with the improbable, but mostly, we get bitten.
Which is how some people come to blame fate. They might, for example, say they wouldn’t drive, as they would inevitably have an accident. But this actually means that they know they don’t have either the necessary skill, aptitude or attitude for driving. People’s law states that anyone who follows their laws can drive safely, but that is obviously irrational - against natural law. If you are unable to improvise - that is, live and learn by natural law, most things are going to be difficult.
Compare it to making music. Some cannot perform without a written score to follow. And even with a score, they still make mistakes - unless they can learn the part ‘off by heart’. Those who can improvise aren’t devoid of making mistakes. But it means they tend to keep to what they know - within their limitations. Riding a motorcycle in the real world is very much an improvised, jungle thing. If you do it by following people-made laws, because it’s ‘not really your thing’, then your attitude is wrong. If you’re enthusiastic, you make it your business - or rather pleasure, to get it right. You ride within the limitations imposed by natural law.
Jungle, or sod’s law, also governs people law. Whilst someone is getting hammered for a slight, even harmless indiscretion, someone else is getting away with murder (where are the coppers when you need them?). It makes a mockery of the people-made scales of justice. Any old paperback about the Tarot will tell you that the human mind is unable to evaluate the truth. So where does all of this leave fear, safety and freedom? We can only skim the surface.
*
Ancient Greek philosophers tried to find the opposite of fear. Was it bravery, courage, or even anger? The word eustress is used to describe a condition where we have overcome fear, and turned it into enjoyment. No matter how ‘dangerous’ others might regard certain activities to be, people can come to enjoy them, to the point that they love what they’re doing. This suggests that the opposite of fear might be love. Anyone who loves this perceived danger can seem perverse. But they don’t see the danger; just an engaging activity.
The rationalisation of enjoyment in the face of danger exists because activity only becomes harmful when outside forces are imposed. Fear is something that we should only feel when something painful seems inevitable. It is merely a response which should lead us out of danger. Anyone who is motophobic has probably allowed misconception to shape their idea of biking. So fear is an irrational thing, that can arise as a kind of mental scarring.
The kind of biking that stunt riders perform is dangerous. As the (calculated) risks get greater, the probability of successfully executing a stunt diminishes. Comparatively, racing a motorcycle is safer. It is a tried and tested formula. The wish to remain or get out in front can over-ride the need to stay on the bike, and keep the bike on the track. Yet even accidents are prepared for, as riders are taught how to fall off. The road is a far less predictable place, with any amount of likely (and unlikely) eventualities occurring. People who use common sense to guide them through this are much more likely to enjoy, and even succeed, than those who react out of fear. Bikers do have fears, but they are merely glitches of the mind that are insignificant in the face of biking enjoyment.
*
There is more to fear and safety than just the consequences of motorcycling. If you closely scrutinise where some of your spending goes and how your life is governed, you may discover that you are being regulated by fear. We are led to believe ideas founded in supposition, that may only have but few cases to qualify the legislation. It is an unfortunate truth that the aims of governments can be clouded by their attitudes towards certain vehicles; resulting in a distortion of the results of unbiased research. The concept of safety has snarled the ability of governments to legislate sensibly. What they have forgotten (or ignored) is that people want fewer accidents, not more safety. Until this is implemented, we are left at the mercies of flexible policing and poor driving. Individual plaintiffs, and groups like MAG and the BMF, are having to defend rather than develop the situation.
Fear equals safety; it is something we feel rather than see. Yet safety doesn’t really exist, because there is always danger. It is a contrivance of the thinking mind that says: Nothing untoward will happen provided that I do this, don’t do that. Accidents abide by no such rules. That’s why we call them accidents. Yet many so-called accidents are in reality incidents. These events are occasioned by some person’s inability to react accordingly, their neglect, or inexperience.
Because fear exists, people spend a lot of money on safety. Fear can become so fatuous, it can be used to sell us insurance to cover our insurance. But no matter how good your policy is, you are only covered for compensation in the event of an accident, not against having one.
Outside of rider error or mechanical failure, it is other vehicles that are responsible for a large percentage of bike accidents; by contravening the bike’s right of way. Some purport that aggressive riding is the only way to get noticed, and others live by the idea that loud pipes save lives. Either have been proven on many occasions, but disproved on others. It is purely circumstantial, as no matter what you do to announce your presence, even after eye-contact, the Biker can become a casualty. It is allegedly more balanced to be assertive. Confident drivers transfer their body language into their vehicle and present a positive attitude to other road users, creating a safer atmosphere. It is roadcraft; a balance between timidity and bloody-mindedness. That said, the most careless can survive ad infinitum, while conscientious types can be wiped out. There are no guarantees against accidents or incidents, just a multitude of ways to limit damage (like wearing protective clothing) should a mishap occur.
Everyone on the road is part of an empire, consisting mainly of pedestrians, heavy goods vehicles, public service vehicles, cyclists, car drivers, and motorcyclists. On a scale of invincibility, trucks come out tops, then buses, then cars, while bikes hover just above cyclists and equestrians. Pedestrians are prey to anything else that moves. In densely populated areas, congested traffic conditions have caused some motorists to become agitated and aggressive. Even among Bikers, who usually nod acknowledgment, the social niceties are pushed aside by the need for super-concentration. Common courtesy is masked by people behaving differently to their normal selves, because of their vehicular circumstance. Driver’s altered states and accentuated motives and needs combine, to create unnatural and unreasonable behaviour. Everyone using roads is susceptible to reacting emotionally rather than sensibly to idiotic or simply mean behaviour; but considerably more Bikers are subjected to road-rage than there are those who dish it out.
Outside of drink driving and similar laws, legislation and attacks on specific motoring offenses are merely skirting the issue we call safety. They are inappropriate measures which consistently fail to raise the standard of driving anywhere in the world. Out of fairness, driver examinations allow room for error. But many who pass their test feel as though they just got away with something, rather than any sense of achievement. Many will continue to drive that way. Whoever allows anyone onto the roads with anything less than 100% competence is giving away licenses to destroy, kill and maim. It is the lack of education, as much if not more than the increased volume of traffic, that causes incidents and accidents. There are some diligent riders who go to great pains to teach a friend or partner to survive, rather than just how to ride. The tutelage of all vehicle users should meet those parameters.
In the last two decades of the 20th century it was popular policy among some authorities to encourage a better degree of training among new riders. Provided that they continue to practice what they’re taught, this should put better riders on the road. This training is common sense, and some is lateral thinking. Sensible riding is performed in a relaxed state, and one of the first things a riding instructor will tell you to do is relax. In a real world, defensive riding is all that Bikers have, and is part of that code of the road they learnt for themselves from the earliest years: if you aren’t in control of the bike, you’re not in control of the situation. The trouble is, that logic is not applied to the education of many other road users.
David Chesham is a Biker, who, along with other academics, produced a book on health, including biking. The work he produced looks closely at issues regarding safety, that initially arose out of statistics based on the incidence of accidents. Drink driving on motorcycles has been studied, however there were problems with acquiring statistics, as not all riders who drink have accidents, nor does every rider killed get tested for alcohol. It is also asserted that riding badly is not always a result of drink - underlying attitudes can be responsible.
Part of a rider’s attitude involves perceived risk. In Chesham’s book, this is modified, proposing that Bikers have an objective risk mentality; a view of actual probabilities rather than perceived possibilities. This means that risk compensation is related to behaviour. Drivers cocooned in a cage, like a car or truck, feel safer, even invincible, which can lead to neglectful driving. Because the motorcyclist is more exposed, they are more acutely aware and err towards self-preservation. This eventually becomes habitual; that state of mind where you cannot recall having done something, when you definitely just did it. Habitually sensible riding can become part of the subconscious. It can be scary, when you’ve just ridden through busy traffic, yet only became aware of yourself as you parked up. But you did it without incident.
Attitudes and beliefs caused researchers to painstakingly assess demographics - putting people into income and other brackets. They offered lengthy questionnaires with multi-answer sheets. There were options like: Breaking the speed limit: Is fun/Risks having an accident. And: Following the Highway Code: Makes you feel safe/Means others take advantage of you. They also looked for Biker reactions to ideas like: If I get into a dangerous situation on my bike I have the skill to get out of it safely. And: Other road users play a big part in whether I have accidents or not.
The responses of both sexes over the age spectrum were all analyzed, and they produced conclusions concerning education and engine size. Big bikes seemed to be associated with craziness, but the outcome concluded that the people who rode them were the unreliable factor. The new training was also affecting the data. There had to be a more accurate way of defining accident-prone Bikers, if such people exist. A system called psychographics was developed. This defines more about character; it can discern between a rebel and a rector, which is more likely to determine behaviour - but still not guaranteed to establish sensibility or the lack of it.
This is why, to some degree, studying accidents is an anomaly. Each one may have characteristics, like damage to a specific area of the person or machine, but just like people, no two accidents are ever the same. Safety theories are statistical guesstimations that can reduce accidents. However, they only provide clues to what may happen, not conclusive evidence for what will happen. The best safety measure is to make an individual aware of themselves. Good riding schools are doing this, but even then, it is down to the individual to accept or even understand such subtleties.
*
Transport and safety are popular themes among local authorities. Rather than resolve existing problems, their inventiveness and desire for funding - even presumed kudos, create new horrors. Some even re-create old ones. Sheffield in its wisdom built a tram system in the 1990s. One of the difficulties they had laying the tracks arose from having to dig out old ones buried in the road. These were relics from a mere thirty years previous, when Sheffield had declared trams out-moded and dangerous. In a leaflet called Safety First, published by Super Tram, it is stated that cyclists and motorcyclists should: “Always pay attention to traffic signs and signals. And you and your bike will be safe.” Fatal and other accidents involving tram lines have been talked down and blamed on individuals loosing control of their machines.
*
Aspects of fear and safety, have lead to legislation. This in turn can be seen as an infringement on personal liberty. Freedom cannot exist for a minority group within a democracy; because the minority is always going to be out-voted. Clauses exist within most democracies that are meant to exercise human rights, but the remoteness of governments and compulsions behind consumerism create a greater number of human wrongs. Freedom is something that individuals have to create for themselves. The freedom to sustain that freedom then has to be fought for.
While many accept the benefits of crash helmets, the compulsory helmet laws (UK and US) brought reactions concerning the infringement of personal liberty. In the UK, the government had said that if riders wore helmets voluntarily, the law would not be instigated. That is tantamount to compulsion - if you don’t do what we tell you, we’ll make you do what you’re told. If an infringement of liberty can be enforced once, it opens the floodgates for other anti-motorcycling legislation.
This is the motivation behind many of the pro-biking groups, however, there are those among them whose attitude has become tainted. They either alienate themselves from riders - or riders become alienated by their militancy or even bloody-mindedness. For example, the use of an unhelpful green ideology has affected MAG in the UK. They do much to help fight against bike theft. Yet they arrogantly state that: ‘Unless you’re part of the solution (I.E. a MAG member) you’re part of the problem. They associate this in particular with riders’ complaints concerning poor police response to motorcycle theft, and the costly insurance, which is a result of the ongoing rash of bike theft. But it’s not a rider’s fault if their machine is stolen, when they’ve paid their taxes (police funds), insurance, and taken other precautions, like using alarms and locks. These are issues that should be addressed, but it’s unlikely the biking public will respond favourably to cajoling.
It’s not just vehicular legislation or bad public attitudes that attack the freedom of the biking community. The UK’s Criminal Justice Bill included a clause that gave Job Centre officials the right to refuse benefits to the unemployed unless they adjusted their appearance to fit in with certain standards: despite the fact that many people can perform excellently no matter what they’re wearing. Some Job Centres assumed that biking gear was outside of employable parameters. Would that include bike-cops and paramedics?
Another example of socially anti-biking effort occurred in 1998, at the Bulldog rally. The police tried to get the rally canceled, claiming that the Hell’s Angels were going to be seeking vengeance on someone at that event. On similar grounds, the Magna Carta rally, organised by MAG, was actually canceled 24 hours before it was due to begin. On both occasions, police action was taken on the basis of anonymous tip-offs. Rumours, no matter how they get started, are not reason enough to cancel. The law states that it requires evidence. Subsequent to the Bulldog and Magna Carta cancellations, MAG had called for the Hell’s Angels to be outlawed. The biking media posed the question: How do you outlaw an Outlaw? More importantly, this reneged on MAG’s affiliation with ideals concerning the right of people to gather in numbers in public places - which is under threat. As part of the Criminal Justice Bill, the enforcement of this clause is discretionary. It means that local authorities may or may not permit gatherings as they see fit.
Part of the rally cancellation fiasco lies in a response from the Hell’s Angels, stating that they had no intention of converging on any rally with malicious intent. They added that had there been any malice, they would not be silly enough to execute such an intention at a place sniding with police. The nub of the matter lies in the fact that the police action taken did not represent a sympathetic (and legally expected) protective attitude towards the biking events. If some religious group were holding a rally and a threat arose, the event would not be canceled. Instead, there would be a police presence to deter any wrong-doing. Police presence at bike events does exist, but rather than being empathetic, the stop-and-search routine is often foremost. The culmination of such wranglings, added to the negative legislature down the years, has lead to apathy among some riders. Bikers who wish to ride tomorrow and the day after that, need to show an interest. Otherwise in future, it could be the act of riding that gets you nicked.
The over-all problems between police, governments and the public are conceptual. Seeing clearly into each other’s worlds is difficult and problematic. Punishment for driver’s misdemeanours sometimes seems more harsh than for worse crimes committed against any motorist. Governmental and legislative over-views often miss the mark, because poor relationships and attitudes at roots levels obscure vital information. When such information enters the public domain, it often shocks and rankles. Like the fact that the greater proportion of the cost of petrol in the UK arises from tax - which would be presumably spent on roads, safety and related needs. Yet the UK government has tried to blackmail those who protest fuel tax, stating that a reduction will take funding away from education and health.
There are positive moves toward cooperation. Bike Safe is an initiative run by various Traffic Police forces. It is aimed at improving rider and other road-user relationships. Such input could make a brighter future than we expect, if only the public and the authorities take note.