You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
At the weekend we were on our way to the Peak District in the car to ride our bikes. We got just past Dove Holes and the road was blocked . When I got home I looked on BBc news to find out why the road was blocked and it appeared that sadly, 5 motorcycle riders had been killed within 5 mile of Buxton.Two at Dove Holes and three in another incident elsewhere.
This got a very small mention on the BBC website but when some rich persons yacht sinks its headlines for days.
Both death tolls were similar.
Have we just normalized road deaths as inevitable consquences of using the roads?
Something about this situation just seems wrong.
It's absolutely normalised.
If you want to eradicate someone from the gene pool, use a car to do it.
Motornormativity.
Have we just normalized road deaths as inevitable consquences of using the roads?
Well, it's not "news". Much like school shootings etc in the US, they've become so common that they don't always make the news reports.
I hate to break it to you - but there are too many tragic deaths each day to fit them all on the news. If you gave them all equal 'billing' there wouldn't be any other news.
Beyond things that are noteworthy becuase of freakish weather (the yacht deaths were news before anyone was aware who was on board) what tend to make the difference between road deaths that do get reported and road deaths that don't is whether there is something to be resolved that publiciity can assist with. If theres nothing controversial and unsolved about the circumstances of an accident then putting it on the news doesn't do much to help any of the people impacted by the tragedy. I've been first of the scene of what was to become a fatal accident, it was a life equal in value to any other, but 'publicity' isn't one of the things I or anyone else involved would have sought or welcomed afterwards. Nothing about the circumstances required it, there was nothing the public needed to do, or act on, or learn.
But where these things do make the news its often the case that its paired with an appeal for witnesses, or something to be learned or where theres a warning to be heeded.
I think that at least part of the problem is that the measures that would be required to reduce road deaths would be very unpopular amongst the most enthusiastic road users, including recreational motorcyclists.
This got a very small mention on the BBC website but when some rich persons yacht sinks its headlines for days.
Watching the news last night, I commented to my wife that BBC led with 'Sicily Yacht Disaster'. It's a tragedy for the families involved, obviously, but not even vaguely a disaster.
Have we just normalized road deaths as inevitable consquences of using the roads?
Sadly, men dying on motorcycles is not unusual. However, recall the family killed by impact with a motorcycle that also killed the two riders recently. That is still news and someone driving a Porsche 911 has been arrested in connection with the accident. A large yacht sinking in unusual adverse weather is likewise, very newsworthy. That it involved one of the richest UK entrepreneurs Mike Lynch, who has been in the news for many years, makes it even more newsworthy (not to mention Christopher Morvillo of Clifford Chance and Jonathan Bloomer, chair of insurance group Hiscox and Morgan Stanley International - which is newsworthy to the FT). Some road deaths, but not all boating deaths are newsworthy. It's the nature of the news cycle, not the sad news itself.
I agree but something has too be done when you see five people dying like that and 4 seventeen year old kids being killed in one, one vehicle RTC. It starts getting hard to accept.
The roads are busy with too many cars and some peoples impatience or desire to drive enthusiastically should not be allowe to put other people at risk.
There are 4 or 5 deaths on UK roads every day.
133,443 casualties of all severities last year.
A substantial amount of that harm will be avoidable.
4 seventeen year old kids being killed in one, one vehicle RTC
BBC Wales started to report on these sort of death last winter, because there were quite a few, but without ever getting the obvious message across - young men are tits behind the wheel of a car and extremely dangerous.
I can't remember if it was from the BBC website but I definitely read about the death of those 5 motorcyclists soon after it occurred. It was given a fair amount of prominence when I read it which is why I saw and clicked on the story.
When new stories emerge the old ones drop very quickly.
I think all deaths are treated seriously it is just that there has to be a particular angle to the death to make it newsworthy. Otherwise people won't feel there is any point reading about it.
I think you could extend that to lots on men and some women.
I looked at the ONS road deaths stats and 30ish to 50 ish are just as dangerous as 18 to 30ish.
So quite a lot of the forum drivers are quite dangerous.
Not also to forget, there were two other motorcyclists killed at the same time on the Snake Pass the week before. That's seven in three crashes. Terrible
We have a huge cultural blind-spot when it comes to anything related to road safety - if anything else was killing 4 or 5 people per day in the UK there would be public outrage and something would need to be done about it, but because its cars we just accept it as part of life.
Approximately 3 people per YEAR are killed by cyclists, yet the mainstream media are trying to rile everyone up about it and there have been changes to the law, yet the death toll caused by driving is ignored and often excused as people don't want to accept that in order to reduce it we all need to change our habits! The 20mph speed limit has been proven, multiple times, to reduce deaths, yet look at how much pushback there's been about that.
The whole thing is bonkers!
What about a speeding vaccine?
I am sick of being overtaken dangerously when I am driving at the speed limit.
The extraordinary trumps the mundane for headlines. Twas ever thus.
"What about a speeding vaccine?"
Good idea! Imagine if a new disease appeared which started killing 5 people a day and injuring many more - there'd be uproar and millions would be spent on finding a solution.
Some deaths are ordinary, some are extraordinary. Obviously no difference if its you or your loved ones, but for the population as a whole...
We've collectively accepted an amount of road (car and motorbike) deaths as the price paid for our current lifestyles and freedoms. (Even if you yourself dont drive you get the benefits of a country where fast and easy motorised personal transport is the norm). Yes it has issues and yes governments and car manufacturers are trying to address it.
50 years ago construction workers dying and being maimed was considered the norm.
75 years ago infant mortality was shockingly high.
100 years ago adults dying of any random unidentifyable cause was just seen as part of life.
Those with the knowledge and power are working to reduce it. Eventually with some success. But your average man in the street accepts these things as a sad part of reality.
Just four years ago this forum was analysing and arguing over hundreds and thousands of Covid death graphs with the same detached statistical approach.
Now 180ft yachts do not normally sink at anchor in the Med in the summer. Cyclists do not often kill people by crashing into them. Fatal allergic reactions and associated legal battles regarding streaming subscriptions are also uncommon and conversation-worthy.
I think that at least part of the problem is that the measures that would be required to reduce road deaths would be very unpopular amongst the most enthusiastic road users, including recreational motorcyclists
... but if, say, the 9 o'clock news every night stated the number of road/"vehicular" casualties and deaths (and followed that with the number of drivers convicted of offences each day) then the same drip-drip-drip effect that made everyone hate europe and darkies would maybe lead to all of Wales clamouring for 20mph and death for using your phone
I agree but something has too be done when you see five people dying like that and 4 seventeen year old kids being killed in one, one vehicle RTC. It starts getting hard to accept.
The roads are busy with too many cars and some peoples impatience or desire to drive enthusiastically should not be allowe to put other people at risk.
Here in Scotland it's just been announced that theres roughly 10 times as many drug deaths as road deaths each day. Pretty much non of them get reported. We just get the tally once a year. We're vary partial about what tragedies we want to read about
But plenty has been done about road deaths. In 1966 they were almost 8000 a year. Despite the volume of traffic being far greater they are less than a quarter now.
Not that there isn't more easy wins to reduce them a bit further. Automatic ban if caught using a phone at the wheel. We know it is dangerous and there is no excuse for it.
No hardship exceptions for getting banned after 12pts. If your licence is so important don't drive like an arse.
What about a speeding vaccine?
I'll add that to the list, along with 1 in 100 GATSOs being randomly swapped for a laser guided missile launcher. I'll have to figure out some ornate back-romym that yields 'BLAMO' or something - do you feel lucky punk?
I think half the perceptual battle with road safety is we can see and read about the tragedies either as individual stories or complied statistics but the successes are imperceptible. An average speed camera enforcement thingy was set up on a stretch of road near me. Prior to its implementation over (I forget what timeframe) there were 22 fatalities on that stretch of road. Afterwards there were 7 in the same time period. That suggests 14 people had their lives saved. But those 14 people don't know that. 14 fewer widowed and orphaned families. Fewer people involved in those tragedies who'll probably not have a day go by where they don't think about it. I travel along that road quite regularly so it could just as well be me whose life has been saved as anyone else I pass on each journey. I don't think anyone drives along that stretch of road feeling protected, being grateful.
We have some of the safest roads in the world.
But plenty has been done about road deaths. In 1966 they were almost 8000 a year. Despite the volume of traffic being far greater they are less than a quarter now.
Brakes that actually work and cars not weighing a ton probably helps.
There was a time when cars had stickers to warn the vehicles behind that they had disc brakes.
And the police could calculate the speed a car was travelling before a collision by length of the skid mark.
I have a bugbear about our sneering at the USA and their gun laws in the name of "freedom" coupled with very tenuous mumbling about being occasionally useful for safety. We scoff at the huge number of pointless deaths over there resulting directly to availability of guns.
The usual arguments in favour of not having mandatory speed limiters for cars are "freedom" and very tenuous mumbling about being occasionally useful for safety. We seem to accept road deaths as just one of those things that happen.
(I realise that plenty of car accidents are caused by reasons other than speeding, and that in good conditions, motorway speed limits should be increased)
Between February 2023 and April 2024 out of 5,285 deaths:
3,907 (73.9%) were in males and 1,378 (26.1%) in females suspected or confirmed suicide
According to provisional statistics published by the Department for Transport (DfT) on May 30, 2023, there were an estimated 1,645 road fatalities in Great Britain
Exactly what deaths are not being taken seriously?
And the police could calculate the speed a car was travelling before a collision by length of the skid mark.
They still can: ABS leaves an initial skidmark before the system modulates the brakes. They can also use the distance a pedestrian was thrown to calculate an approximate speed
In the first half of my adult life I was a road accident investigator, I worked all over the UK and several hundred fatal road accidents* passed over my desk. From those 20 years I can still remember many of the individuals involved, the circumstances of their deaths, and the seconds leading up to their demise.
Some were utterly tragic, some mundane, some just an awful waste of life in situations so farcical you wouldn't believe them if you read it in a book.
For the Government agencies I worked for, and the emergency services, they were all treated with the utmost seriousness. The societal cost of each incident is enormous, both financially and emotionally.
However, outside of those professional circles, no, road deaths are not in my opinion considered as seriously. A fatality occurs, it makes the local news, world moves on. The general public do not get to hear the circumstances, the how and the why, and there is then a disconnect between the death and the thought that, "shit, that could have been me - I drive that route everyday, on an icy morning, maybe running late, after a late night, trying to catch my mate etc etc etc".
On the positive side as irc mentioned, road deaths have reduced massively over the years. In my 20 years investigating, we went from 4000 to 2000 a year. There are lots of factors in that reduction but probably the most important is the seriousness in which the subject was taken by Government and its agencies, and the measures they introduced on the road networks to design out risk, or to mitigate the effects of a collision. There is also the huge increase in vehicular safety on the part of manufacturers of course, and the unnoticed back room development of systems to record and analyse RTA data.
Could we reduce fatalities further? Yes of course. I remember a seminar many years ago where the net zero target was first mentioned, there was a lot of scoffing at the chances, yet here we are with numbers way way lower than back then, and net zero an actual aim. But as numbers reduce, we find the low hanging fruit has all gone. It gets harder to reduce deaths further. Bigger, more expensive decisions need to be taken, perhaps unpopular changes implemented.
*RTA/Rtc, collision. Call it what you like, I 100% understand the implication
They can also use the distance a pedestrian was thrown to calculate an approximate speed
Eyewitnesses too presumably.
Police investigations were developed to follow national standards about 20 years ago https://www.college.police.uk/app/roads-policing/investigation-fatal-and-serious-injury-road-collisions
Eyewitnesses too presumably.
If they're a bystander they probably wouldn't be as accurate as someone following/overtaken in another vehicle, but yes, anyone who can help determine the truth.
Distant CCTV has been used because you get a reasonable field of view to give a measurable distance/time
Worth seeking out "The Crash Detectives" on iPlayer for a good insight into this stuff - I think it should be filmed nationwide as a regular program, there is so much learning in most episodes.
Police have put this out ahead of the bank holiday up here
BBC News - Police urge bikers to take care after fatal crashes
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpdl9l2jd13o
Worth seeking out “The Crash Detectives” on iPlayer for a good insight into this stuff
One small part of the whole investigation. The Accident Investigators (AI) as shown there analyse marks and other evidence from the scene, do the calculations, plans, give their evidence in Court, etc
There's a whole load of other specialisms in managing the scene, preserving it until the AIs get to you, finding CCTV, witnesses, dealing with media, liaising with families, strategies, interviewing witnesses and suspects, etc., etc. That's the bit that I did for fifteen years, until the one. It wouldn't make good TV 🙂
As well as the obvious affects of having people who are killed or seriously injured on the road and thier relatives, I also worry about the trauma that dealing with the the situation has on emergency workers. I would imagine that things people see at "accident" scenes stay with them for a very long time.
As a "recreational biker", I tend to avoid riding on weekends and bank holidays because of sharing the roads with lunatics. I'm retired, so I have that luxury. Living in an area surrounded by superb biking roads, the biggest danger when I do have to ride at the weekend is mostly other motorcyclists.
A regular occurrence is meeting an oncoming weekend warrior struggling to stay on his own side of the road coming too fast round a bend. Overtaking at junctions, groups of riders blindly following each other into dodgy overtakes on blind bends, hill crests, speeding through villages etc. I do think it's improved a little in recent years, as the riding demographic has increased in age and has largely swapped sports bikes for 'adventure bikes' and tourers. But the general standard of riding is shocking and becomes way, way worse when they ride in groups. In the past I have ridden in a few large groups, but refuse to do it now.
A lot of motorcyclists convince themselves that it's careless car drivers who cause most of their issues - the 'SMIDSY' accident. That is a factor (although one that can be mitigated significantly with advanced riding techniques) but in reality they are their own worse enemy. And I say that as a long time biker who is still in love with motorcycling.
I just read through the thread this morning and realized I had typed net zero in my post when referring to future accident numbers. This should have been vision zero, net zero deaths would be rather difficult to achieve!
I don't think I can blame autocorrect but it was late
I used to have a bike. I only really rode it on very early on sunny Saturdays to avoid other bikers and have quiet roads.
When the brother of the guy I used to mountain bike with, was killed just outside Hebden Bridge, I sold my bike and gave up. I used to enjoy a sedate potter but I didn't have the heart to continue after that.
The news* isn't an arbiter of the worth of the events it's reporting. More people die in events all of the world than in the stories that make the news on any given day.
Statistically there will be 2 murders in the UK today, neither will make the news.
Tens / hundreds will die in Palestine, Yemen, Sudan, peace talks might make the news but the death toll won't.
People will die of cancer, dementia, Parkinson's, but only new treatments ever make the news.
Motorcyclists dying in the Peak or people dying in warzones isn't newsworthy because you already know it happens, there's nothing new to report and you don't learn any new information.
*on the TV or the BBC in particular. Newspapers are different, they can have a bias, and need to generate sales immediately so will promote stories that their readership deems worthy. So MCN will probably have this in the front few pages, The Daily Mail will probably have a running total of migrant crossings because despite being not-novel it's newsworthy to it's bigoted readership.
"A lot of motorcyclists convince themselves that it’s careless car drivers who cause most of their issues"
I had bikes for a few years in my 20s. I gave it up partly for the cost. I couldn't run a car and a bike and a car was more useful. Partly also that I thought sooner or later I would have a big crash. Not necessarily caused by someone else. I had two low speed offs. One my fault. The other a careless driver SMIDSY.
Was just reading new cars will be fitted with intelligent speed limiters. Yes I know speed isn’t the only reason for crashes and deaths, but it often is part. Apparently people will be able to switch it off, which makes it a bit pointless but still it is a big step forward.
I see no logical reason to allow a normal civilian car to go faster than the speed limiter on public roads. Sooner the tech comes in to remove the choice to speed the better
My current car has a speed limiter but I have not activated it. I don't really know why as I don't exceed the speed limit.
I hate it when I stick to the speed limit and then get overtaken.
“A lot of motorcyclists convince themselves that it’s careless car drivers who cause most of their issues”
And a lot of non-motorcyclists think they're some homogenous group that're all the same (like Daily Mail readers and cyclists).
In reality you've got everyone from boy-racers on Fireblades (or CBR125's imagining they're on Fireblades) to my dad pottering about the dales on a 1940's Matchless hardtail.
Some collisions are caused by car drivers or just plain bad luck, a bit like car* on car crashes.
Some collisions are caused by the bike riders inexperience / stupidity or what gets called "lack of skill" but I don't like that because it implies that at some point you have enough skill to do something stupid and get away with it. Skill doesn't get you round a corner on the road any quicker than is sensible, good luck that there wasn't a slow tractor cutting the hedge just out of sight got your round it.
So if you ride motorbikes, and ride them sensibly, the odds of being in an accident are probably only slightly higher than those for a car driver.
So is every accident the fault of a car driver, nope. Are enough accidents caused by idiots to their own detriment that statistically I'm far more worried about being hit by a car than any other cause of accident because I don't ride like an idiot, yes.
To quote Arthur Ransome on the idea of letting kids go sailing:
“Better drowned than duffers, if not duffers won't drown.”
*for brevity I'm saying cars / bikes crashing, obviously these aren't sentient and it's the driver / rider that caused the majority of incidents.
Have we just normalized road deaths as inevitable consquences of using the roads?
Something about this situation just seems wrong.
Try to accept the fact that every day, people will die from a very wide range of causes. Some will be easily preventable, some will be as a result of stupidity on the part of other individuals, some will be as a result of stupidly on the part of the individual/s involved.
Brakes that actually work and cars not weighing a ton probably helps.
Are you still driving a 60’s car with drum brakes all round and cross-ply tyres, no seat-belts, air-bags and crumple zones, by any chance?
Because it seems like you haven’t been paying attention to vehicle development for the last thirty years. Cars have multiple air-bags, disc-brakes with anti-lock sensors, vastly superior tyres, much better crash protection, all of which adds a significant amount of extra weight to a modern car - try comparing an original Mini to a modern BMW Mini, or a Mk1 Golf to the latest version. The batteries in an EV add probably half a ton to the weight.
The obsession vehicle manufacturers have with introducing flat-screen technology to modern vehicles is, in my opinion, almost insanely dangerous, it’s illegal to drive using a hand-held mobile phone, but I’ve personally driven many modern vehicles with touchscreen technology that actually requires the driver to take their eyes off the road to operate them, having to swap screens and scroll through sub-menus to de-mist the screen, to increase or decrease the cabin temperature, to operate the satnav, to operate an infotainment system; I chose my current car specifically because all the instruments are analogue, the controls are knobs I can touch and operate by touch, it has an actual handbrake, and other controls or proper buttons on the steering wheel. It has an infotainment screen to show things like the radio or satnav but interactions are not required most of the time - once the satnav is set up, there’s little else needs doing once under way.
I’m sure someone will say ‘well, get the passenger to operate things’; possibly, if there’s another person in the car to do it. I rarely have any passengers, so where does that help me? Other than pulling over and changing settings, which, oddly enough I actually do, or wait until the situation presents itself to do so.
I honestly don’t think road deaths are treated less seriously than others, my local BBC Points West news covers lots of RTA’s, and treats them just as seriously as any other, even if there were no fatalities.
My partners death from a stroke a week after her first Covid vaccine never got a mention on the news, however, despite the fact that she was only one of 65 out of 3.5 million deaths from Covid itself. Was her loss to me and her family any less significant than any of the road fatalities?
Someone needs to take a reality check and go and have a quiet conversation with themselves.
So if you ride motorbikes, and ride them sensibly, the odds of being in an accident are probably only slightly higher than those for a car driver.
The odds are 50 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured. You can ride as sensibly as you like but you can’t control other road users.
I gave up riding as the standards of drivers is so poor these days you become an accident waiting to happen.
I agree with Count Zero to a point about infotainment systems in cars. My current car has a modest screen compared with some and I have chosen to limit phone integration with the car to make less intrusive and turned off all the distracting beeps.
Car company need to remove anything that takes driver attention from the road.
I had a Citroen C5 which was pre infotainment but had so many buttons on the steering wheel that setting the cruise control was difficult without looking at the steering wheel.
So it's not just tec related.
So it’s not just tec related.
Interesting point about the tech because - rather like climate change - that's the route that we, as a society, have gone down to avoid actually addressing the issues.
Oh we can all keep driving, we'll soon have autonomous vehicles so no-one will ever have accidents again.
Our car is super safe*, we've built in an extra 20 airbags.
*to you, the driver - to any pedestrians, cyclists etc you happen to hit, it's going to be way worse.
There's a societal blindness to it. If there were 5 deaths a day on trains or planes or in supermarkets, there would be national outcry. Literally the entire industry shut down. Money no object safety measures installed.
Cars? Very much an "oh it won't happen to me" attitude. And even if/when it does happen and you cause someone else's death, chances are you'll get off pretty lightly anyway. Which then breeds more of the complacency and "it doesn't really matter" attitude. After all, how can a death matter if the person who caused that death gets a suspended sentence and 6 points on their licence?
Most of the people on the road try and behave responsibly, but there are a significant number who choose to drive dangerously, carelessly or impatiently who cause the problems.
These people are not going to change there behaviour without a step change in societal attitudes and strong enforcement of traffic laws and speed limits.
Look at some of the what car for threads on here, someone who want a car with 180 bhp per ton is not looking to behave nicely on the road.
I think speed limits need to be lower particularly on narrow rural roads.
Roads are for safe use by everybody not to show how fast you are.
A lot of motorcyclists convince themselves that it’s careless car drivers who cause most of their issues – the ‘SMIDSY’ accident. That is a factor (although one that can be mitigated significantly with advanced riding techniques) but in reality they are their own worse enemy. And I say that as a long time biker who is still in love with motorcycling.
Some of the worst passes I've had when on my road bike have been from motorbike riders. I've no doubt they drive in the same way when in a car.
I'm sure that negligent and careless driving of cars is responsible for the bulk of motorcycle deaths, but only because they lined up every hole in the block of cheese first through their own decisions.
Some of the worst passes I’ve had when on my road bike have been from motorbike riders. I’ve no doubt they drive in the same way when in a car.
I altered my route last Sunday (ironically the day that the 5 motorcyclists were killed in the Peak District) because of the sheer number of dickhead motorcyclists. This was in the Yorkshire Wolds, normally an amazingly tolerant and considerate area for drivers but the guys out on bikes were insane.
I got passed by an MX5 club day out too. Every one of the drivers gave me a huge wide berth (easily 1.5m at a minimum!) and a wave out of the open roof, their speed difference to me was no more than about 20mph. Motorbikes were doing 80mph plus and barely moving to the centreline to pass.
In the USA I've had a motorbike deliberately enter an 8 foot wide hard shoulder to buzz me. Saw him coming in my mirror though so just waited until he was too close to change direction and swerved 3ft to the right.
I hate it when I stick to the speed limit and then get overtaken.
Preferable to what often happens - getting tailgated. Then I drop below the speed limit. Anything to get rid of the klingon. Sometimes you cannot even see the four warning circles on their car.
In the USA I’ve had a motorbike deliberately enter an 8 foot wide hard shoulder to buzz me. Saw him coming in my mirror though so just waited until he was too close to change direction and swerved 3ft to the right.
The motorcyclist sounds like a dick, but deliberately swerving into his path sounds even worse.
In the US, a swerve to the right is an avoidance measure, surely?
The fact that fatal road accidents are rarely reported unless en masse suggests that society "accepts" that level of attrition with regards to roads. It's tragic for those involved and their families but it would seem there is an implicit price we collectively are prepared to pay because if we were not it would be a matter for demonstrations and questions in parliament. And that level of attrition varies over time and with regards to different matters; I was recently reading about the Farnborough airshow crash of 1952 when a prototype Sea Vixen broke up mid air and killed both crewe members and 29 spectators. After clearing the debris the show continued its flying programme. Can you imagine that today? But I guess that in 1952, just seven years after the end of WW II, flying military aircraft was acknowledged as a dangerous activity and society at large was more inured to mass casualties.
In the US, a swerve to the right is an avoidance measure, surely?
Not if you can see a vehicle in your mirrors undertaking you to your right.
I read it as the motorcyclist was on the hard shoulder, i.e. on the right of the traffic lanes approaching from the rear. So swerving to the right at the last minute would put you in his path, not avoid him. Apologies if I've misunderstood, perhaps irc can clarify?
When the horse was used as the primary means of transport, the numbers killed in equine related incidents was terrible. If people and freight are going to be moved long distances then there are sadly going to be casualties. It doesn’t mean these things are not taken seriously, but they are inevitable. As people have said above, the UK has some of the safest roads in the world and the casualty figures have been on a consistent decline.
No. I was in the center of an 8ft wide hard shoulder. Several motorbikes approached from behind in main lane. 50m back one moves from main lane to just onto shoulder intending (at best) to buzz me with inches to spare. I swerved right at the last moment to the outside of the hard shoulder. Mirrors are handy. Also in the USA I once had to ride off the road to avoid an RV hitting me.