Attitude problems
Who is responsibile for biking's image. Do you have the biggest part to play?
Posted: 9 November 2004
by TRDman
Attitude Problems
Over the last couple of issues, I have been discussing the whys and wherefores of biking accidents and deaths and what could be done to reverse the trend. As noted, the government is getting decidedly worried about the ever increasing numbers of bikers involved in incidents and is threatening the industry with a big stick if we don't do something about it.
So whose responsibility is it? The motorcycle industry is a very diverse one but made up of a few key sectors: the bike and accessories manufacturers, distributors for the same, the insurance brokers and underwriters, service and repair centres, the media and, of course, the bikers themselves. Who, of these, can we point the finger at and say, "YOU must do something about this. It's all down to YOU."
To my mind, the last two in the list, the bikers and the media, are responsible for the government' attention.
So what's the problem with bikers? It's partly one of perception - how the non-biking community relate to us. Interlinked with, and reinforcing the negative aspects, are the bikers who are doing their level best to see that we all get tarred with the same brush. We also have a high-exposure motorcycle media seemingly intent on massaging an unachievable, never-ending desire for the ultimate bike that directly or indirectly (however you want to read it) encourages riders to push themselves beyond their own, or the roads, capabilities.
Attitude plays a big part in all this and there seems to be a general increase in anti-social behaviour in all walks of life, including biking. But it's a personal choice to be anti-social and while it's not always possible to know when you're being annoying while you're having fun, speeding through a country village, race cans blaring, well, if you think that isn't anti-social, you probably shouldn't be reading TRD. If you think it is anti-social but would go ahead and do it anyway, you're the type of biker who will be responsible for any new draconian legislation the government decides to bring in.
It's difficult to do but try and step outside your bikerhood for a moment. Try and imagine you've never ridden a bike and have no desire to do so. You're quite happy in your four-door saloon and your only contacts with bikes are the ones that pass too close to your wing mirror during the daily commute. You don't read the motorcycle magazines but occasionally glance at the front cover when you're in the newsagent. Your perception is defined by what you see around you. Bikes being ridden fast.
Perhaps an experience of a group of bikes screaming past you on a country road one Sunday morning. Bikes filtering fast through heavy traffic. Despatch riders hacking through the City. Images of bikes with their front wheels up in the air. Images of knees scraping the tarmac. Images of semi-naked women draped over the latest model (not that you'd know it was the latest model - they all look the same to you). News reports of speeding bikers caught doing 143mph. Local press stories about another dead teenager, hit by a car while riding a scooter. What is your opinion of bikes now? It seems to me that there needs to be a wholesale shift in attitude among bikers. The industry lobby groups succeed only when the public perception of bikers shows them in a positive light.
Let me paint a picture: two bikes, 400cc race reps, riding down Wandsworth Road, lunchtime. At the traffic lights: Red - 5,000 revs. Amber - 9,000 revs. Green - RED LINE! Clouds of black smoke and off they scream reaching probably 50mph before having to decelerate for the next set of traffic lights where they do it all over again.
Ignoring the fact that they are breaking the speed limit of 30mph I check out the potential hazards they face as they race each other down the road. The side road, the car parked on double yellow lines, the petrol station entry and exit, the other side road, the cyclist... I don't care how big their balls are, if they did it deliberately knowing the risks then they are idiots. If they didn't understand the risks then they need more training otherwise they will not only take themselves out but an unfortunate passer-by who happens to be in the way.
Most bikers are aware of the 'red mist' situation. I have been a victim of it more than once, culminating in an almost fatal crash while riding in Scotland last year. I understand what it feels like to ride fast and smooth, cranking over for another corner, keeping the revs in the sweet spot and all that stuff. I also believe that I have limited my fast riding (in the main) to appropriate times and places. The road on which I had my accident, the A837, was sparsely populated with traffic and was, for the most part, open, offering good forward vision. The accident occurred due to my lack of appropriate riding skills.
Unfortunately, there are far too many riders who seem to think that it is acceptable to ride at licence losing speeds on roads that just weren't designed for it. Either they annoy the local inhabitants with illegal stunt riding or racing or wrap themselves around a lamp-post or other piece of street furniture and become another headline in the local press.
One rider I spoke to recently offered the argument that bikers are rebels and are expected to be a little outside the law. After all, for many of us, the freedoms offered us by biking are the strongest reason we do it. The point he is missing is that times and people move on. It's all very well being eighteen and tearing around like a tearaway (sorry) but what excuse does a forty year-old have for doing 90mph in a 30 zone?
The media aren't helping the biker's cause either. Please don't get me wrong, there are plenty of excellently written and well presented motorcycle magazines (TRD, I hope, among them) that focus on motorcycling in general. Alongside them, however, are those that become the reference material for anyone in power who hates bikes.
Typically, they will have a loud, colourful cover (the magazine, not the people in power), usually with a bike pulling a wheelie or showing a rider getting his knee down. Inside they will focus their editorial on the latest model of bike that has to be able to do at least 160mph, handle like it's on rails or be better than the rest at one thing or another. If it can't do any of these, it's either a 'good try' or 'piece of crap'. The problem these magazines face is that there aren't really any 'bad' bikes around anymore. Sure, some of the Chinese and Southeast Asian offerings leave a little to be desired in the finish and durability stakes but, for what they are, they're functional bikes.
So how do you spice up a review of a bike? You accent features such as weight, power, top speed, looks, handling, making sure you push all the right buttons in your typically 30-50 year old male reader. You want him to desire this bike, to aspire to being a better, faster rider. Ultimately, you want him to buy the bike so the manufacturer will place more advertising with your magazine and you can keep your job.
I agree that a reference point is required when reviewing anything and that the bike journalists provide a necessary link between the manufacturers and the customers. Where I differ from other editors is that I don't believe you need a picture of two bikes on a public road, both approximately two feet off the ground, side by side as they ride over a hump-back bridge, to illustrate their potential.
Yes, the image is exciting and impressive. Yes, it gets the adrenalin pumping and makes the reader go, "Cor! Look at that!" What it will also do is encourage some numpty to go out and do the same. The constant series of sensationalist headlines and extreme photography causes a kind of sense of inadequacy in the reader.
What? You can't pull a wheelie? Never had your knee down? Never been over 100mph? Can't be much of a rider then. Readers are lead to believe that because their bikes are capable of such feats, so are they. Or they should be. So the rider goes out and tries to get his knee down, or pull a wheelie, or break his personal speed barrier. If he's not doing it on a track or private land, he's on public roads risking himself and others. Who is responsible? The rider? Or the magazine for inciting him to do it?
I have spoken to a couple of editors of these magazines and they both argued that all they are doing is reflecting the readership. I say that this state of affairs has been going on so long now that there is a state of positive feedback where the magazines are creating the readership. One feeds on the other and on it goes.
The circle has to be broken and it will take changes on both sides to make it happen. The big boys of the motorcycle media should take a good hard look at their editorial policies because they have the influence. If MCN can persuade a manufacturer to import a particular model just because their readers said they wanted it, surely they can do more within their editorial to encourage riders to either slow down or take it on a track or off-road, at least before bikes are banned totally from the countryside.
I don't want to stop bikers from enjoying their bikes. For heaven's sake, I've been biking since I was twelve and I certainly ain't going to give it up. I like riding fast, I love the freedom, the sheer exhilaration you get from a good ride-out. But I want to be able to do it for as long as I can and unless the nutters and numptys out there are put on a leash, my biking future and yours is threatened.
We all have a part to play in changing the way we ride, changing our attitudes to other road users, letting our more exuberant riding friends know that even we find their riding style unacceptable and letting the non-biking public see that we can respect the freedom that we have been given. If we don't, and the government decides to legislate us off the road, we'll only have ourselves to blame.
Rog
My ever-loving other half, Kat, says she has the perfect solution for dealing with these problems. As 95% of riders are male, and there's all this testosterone washing around causing riders to exceed their limits, all we need to do is: when a male reaches the age of sixteen, cut his balls off! Problem solved.
At the time of writing this article, Rog was the Editor of The Rider's Digest. You can find out more at www.theridersdigest.co.uk
Discuss this story
Good article, I expect most of it to be ignored, belittled, and forgotton though.  Which is a great shame.
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 15:59
Good article BUT I think a lot of the negative points you pulled out are there exactly the same for cars, boy racers, max power etc etc its not just bikes that have it as I am very sure you know anyway but I wanted to point it out  There is no BUT. The same can't be done for cars because of the numbers of vehicles involved. No government will tangle with a majority of people. A minority, like bikers, they will. You may be right in your assertion, BUT that fact doesn't matter. Anyway, it still doesn't stop us getting our (generic) house in order. What they do is neither here nor there.
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 16:21
Ah, but if, as Kat suggested, he lost his remaining jewel, then he'd buy a GS, pipe and slippers!  So you think if he had both testicles intact, he'd be the biggest twat on two wheels? I think it works the other way - he's compensating for his lack of manhood by popping huge tail-scraping wheelies through the girls' school changing rooms and collecting police car wing mirrors... So if the remaining nugget was removed, he'd be driven to compensate even further and become a Dr Evil-style megalomaniac... IMO, of course
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 16:28
So if the remaining nugget was removed, he'd be driven to compensate even further and become a Dr Evil-style megalomaniac...
But then he would need a volcano to connect his super computer and death ray to. And where's he going to find one of them in essex, so that arguments fucked too
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 16:32
In the gents at the Raj Indian restaurant in Billericay  That wasnt a volcano......................just felt like sitting on one Should have had the korma instead
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 16:38
Hmm. Boils down to 3rd lesson Media Studies, does the media reflect society, or does society reflect the media. Don't discuss! Good point re the max power market. Good point made back. What's the realistic WCS legislation wise? C90s all around? Zero tolerence. Even cleverer speed cameras? Oh, that's just made me think-you see the lines on the road too late. No chance of scrubbing it off. Hmm, if one pulled a big wheelie camera not going to see the plate... That attitude too!
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 18:29
Biker persecution? Bikers as a persecuted minority? I've read the article, and re-read it, and still I wonder what point you're trying to make?
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 18:57
They've been forecasting doom for bikers since I started in 1972,the end of this and the end of that Sub divisions and persecution complexes,everyone needs someone to hate and be paranoid about,or something. I use the bike for the same things today as I did 34 years ago and nobody gives me anymore grief than they ever did
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 19:15
To be fair, the article was written a couple of years ago when the 'Motorcycle Industry' had been told by the Transport department to put their house in order regarding the major increase in killed and seriously injured (KSI) bikers. The stats at the time were something like 27% of ALL adult road KSIs being motorcyclists in spite of the fact that they accounted for only 5% of all road-going transport. As stated in the article, a metaphorical 'big stick' was being waved in their faces, threatening major power and licence restrictions. "3rd lesson Media Studies" ( whatever that is ) it may be but I think that the issues I raised in the article are still relevant to today's bikers as the threat to biking in this country is just as real as it was a few years ago. I don't think that the majority of bikers truly appreciate just how much work gets done behind the scenes to stop government legislating us off the road. The danger to our chosen mode of transport/lifestyle, whatever it means to you, is still there and only held of by the work of people like the BMF, MAG and the MCIA (amongst others).
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 19:37
They've been forecasting doom for bikers since I started in 1972,the end of this and the end of that Sub divisions and persecution complexes,everyone needs someone to hate and be paranoid about,or something. I use the bike for the same things today as I did 34 years ago and nobody gives me anymore grief than they ever did I take the point, but I don't think it's really just paranoia. The current government has some specific ideas about community that make it behave in an unusually patriarchal/nannying way sometimes. I doubt that the preceding Tory governments would have looked at a smoking ban, for example, or rules about parents smacking their children. When the government attacks something like smoking, the majority of people can see the point, even if they don't agree with it. But to many people, high road death rates among motorcyclists may have a similarly obvious solution. I don't know the stats but I imagine that in proportional terms, there are actually fewer deaths than there used to be. But given the improvements over the last 30 years in brakes, suspension, tyres, personal safety gear etc., you'd surely expect that. Possibly, some of the improvements have been counteracted by more powerful engines, different traffic conditions, and, as the article was pointing out, rider attitudes that haven't kept up with the changes
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 19:39
I take the point, but I don't think it's really just paranoia.
And other good stuff
People's perceptions of us have altered Now I can get served in a pub, and it's been years since I had a police escort out of an entire country (Wales) Now they see us as a danger to ourselves and (most importantly) them and theirs by the speeds we travel at, not because they think we're latter day vikings intent on rape and pillage Society's evolved, the 1972 analogy doesn't work now - I know, I was there too
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 19:54
Thanks, where do I send the cheque? You wear it well  Rod Stewart and the Faces, charted in 1972
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 20:03
People's perceptions of us have altered Can you expand on that? Now I can get served in a pub, and it's been years since I had a police escort out of an entire country (Wales)
I might be a yank, but even I know Wales doesn't count as a country.
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 20:03
Can you expand on that?
I might be a yank, but even I know Wales doesn't count as a country. I thought I had, read the drivel below it It does if you're Welsh
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 20:04
It does if you're Welsh 
Oh, sorry - you're right. They're up for a seat on the UN insecurity council. Must keep up with the BBC's RSS feed.
Posted: 18/01/2006 at 20:09
Even though it is said this article was written a couple of years ago, it is still incredibly thoughtful and well written. I agree with the point regarding magazines etc., but we're also not helped as a group by the deliberate(?) ignorance of some of the media. After all, why should they let the truth get in the way of a story. Ancientd makes a good point in that regard, as does banana boy. This (negative) image then leads to a kind of moral panic that allows politicians suggest limits on biking. Very regrettable. As the articles says though, it is also in our hands.
Posted: 01/02/2006 at 16:47
You're right we should all clean up our act and ride 50cc scooters. Jesus, you blokes sound like someone's grandad.
Posted: 25/02/2006 at 12:11
It's an interesting article that makes some good points. I think the main issue is human nature, especially that of the testosterone riddled youth who has just passed his DAS and wants to be faster, cooler, more skillful than his mates... but without the 'common sense' granted in later life. I started biking in my mid-twenties and nearly killed myself on several occasions, due to hearing other bikers brag about getting knees down and pulling 90mph wheelies. I still want to do that, but my Brother in Law (who has been riding for 30 years) pointed out that it's much more fun to do that on the track, where you can go faster, lower and safer than on any road you care to find. Basically, when you're on the road you're utilising an age old form of transport, so the objective should be getting from 'A' to 'B' as safely as possible, whilst still feeling the wind in your hair. However, on the track you have completely different priorities - i.e. getting from 'A' to 'B' as quickly as possible, preferably without falling off... but if you do at least you were trying hard! You also have the perceived image, attitude and coolness that comes with being a 'racer', which is what many magazines push as the standard that you should aim to achieve. The problem is that when you put a race rep on the road the lines of distinction become very blurred. I had a ZX6R and when your head is down, your arse is up and you've just been watching World Superbikes it's very easy to forget the objective you started with, so you treat the road like a track and start to forget the hazards... even though you're fully aware of them if you were watching it on a video and were asked to highlight them. Bin it at speed on a track and you've got the kitty litter, plus immediate medical assistance, although you may well pick up an injury. Bin it at speed on the road and it's s different story! I think the issue is that we don't like to think the worst, as that would stop many of us from getting on a bike at all. Once we've overcome this, put thoughts of death at the back of the mind and climbed aboard we're in a different zone, where the worst is so unlikely to happen that it's not worth thinking about, so we blast around with knees down in our false sense of security. However... Most of you will remember the moments where you're snapped out of this security, where something goes wrong, the adrenalin kicks in and your own mortality becomes very apparent, very quickly. It's these moments that gradually slow us down and make us safer riders, but no kid ever listens to advice or the voice of experience, instead waiting for these moments to happen to them before they see the light. They have no worries, no responsibilities and are largely immortal, or at least that's how I remember my early 20's. Unfortunately, because you can buy a 170mph bike for Ford Fiesta money, immediately after your DAS test, the first experience of a 'moment' can easily result in death or serious injury. My view is to train riders thoroughly, using a track as well as the road. Start DAS by giving everyone an R6 on a track and let them go mad... getting it out of their system before they try it outside your house, bin it and end up as a corpse on your lawn.
Posted: 06/03/2006 at 13:42
I cant believe some of the other comments that have been posted about this well written and argued article, which raises some very valid points. Personally I think the greatest part of the problem lies with the motoring press, who all seem to be facinated with how fast and how long you can wheelie on a particular bike, rather than concentrating on what the bike can do for you under normal circumstances. Ok so im a 49 yr old guy who has recently stept back on a bike after a 17 year gap. TO be honest its the best thing ive ever done,i re took my test and took my advanced riders test in stage 1 & 2, I learnt more in those two days than i have in the last 30 yrs... maybe a lesson for us all learn to ride more sensible and within the boundaries of our skills. I still love to ride as fast as i can and I stil lvoe gettin my knee down but only under circumstances i can control. spike
Posted: 20/07/2006 at 13:00
|
|