1. When crossing a car that could potentially accelerate into your path, train yourself to keep a hand on your front brake.
2. Get better at emergency stops. Train your self to "wait for the weight", meaning progressively apply front brake so that the weight of the bike transfers to the front tire before full application. Practice emergency stops so you don't end up with a fist full of brake or over-hammer the rear. Try to train yourself to at least glance in the mirror when doing an emergency stop, to see if what is behind you could be more dangerous than what's in front.
3. Get your bike ready for emergency stops. Buy a bike with ABS, if possible. In the states, ABS is not yet the law for new bikes, but the decrease in insurance premiums usually means that ABS is practically free. Also, don't cheap out on tires - get high quality tires that match your riding (warm/cold, wet/dry, etc.)
4. Buy a tail light blinker - when your brakes are applied, it blinks the tail lights, and makes it much more obvious that you are stopping.
5. This may be a bit contriversial - I try to get near one side of the lane when I stop. My theory is that if a car is coming in "too hot", it gives them the chance to swerve and hit the car in front of you.
6. Be seen. I don't think that guy got the huge bike for visibilility like the caption said, I think he just likes Honda Goldwings. The real way to be seen is to wear neon (or at least loud colors) and add running lights to your bike.
7. After reading tons of accident reports in my area, I can say to be extremely careful when taking a passenger. There seems to be a lot of accidents on country roads with riders 2-up that get hit by cars or deer. My theory (also from taking on riders) is that the 2nd rider is a significant detriment to manuverability, and manuverability is the motorcycle rider's main positive safety attribute. Just take it slow when 2-up, and stay off the road when the deer are out.
8. This one I can't stress enough - don't become complacent. The majority of rider deaths are those over 50 in the U.S. Always look at cars like they are going to try to turn on you. Look at cars in the oncoming lane - are they slowing down? They could try to turn on you, cover the brake. I have found that this mindset gets pretty exhausting in urban traffic, and I have changed my riding habits to ride out in the country roads more than urban.
9. Wear a helmet and use the strap! I can't count how many YouTube videos of crashes that I have seen where the helmet ways lying 15 feet from the accident because the rider didn't strap it down.
10. Buy an appropriate bike. Smaller bikes are safer. It's in the U.S. safety statistics (DOT? can't remember which one) that the larger the bike, the more dangerous. My theory is that large bikes are less manuverable, which accounts for a lot of it. I'm not going to try to talk anyone of their liter bike, but please be realistic with your skills, and remember you can always trade up to more powerful as you gain skills. It took me 10 years of riding before I felt comfortable on my 125HP Kawi Z900. More a thing of maturity and restraint than the ability to control the bike (which has a great progressive powerband, easy to go slow).
One of my pet peeves is the proliferation of blue-white LEDs into areas where the previous generation of light technology was perfectly acceptable and safe. I think car owners trick up their cars with blue-white LEDs (as replacement headlights, or as "light bars" and floodlights) because they confuse blue-white LEDs with the spectrum emitted by the high intensity discharge headlights [0] that were formerly used on expensive cars.
Motorcycles have long had mandated daytime running lights, as it helps make them more visible. Do modern motorcyclists intentionally retrofit super-bright Blue-White LEDs thinking they help improve their visibility?
What would be a good way to reach motorcyclists to help them realize their blinding lights aren't actually as protective as they presumably think?
Good list. I haven't been riding for a few years, but I had boiled all of this down into one golden rule: Assume every car IS out to kill you. This is basically your rule #8, but a little more succinct.
Adding to your list, I'd also suggest rule #11: When riding on a multi-lane street or highway, never ride adjacent to another vehicle. Speed up to get ahead or slow down to fall behind. This helps to avoid the other vehicle making a lane change into your path. Keep out of the other vehicle's blind spot.
That is a good one. I should add to that, and this may be contriversal, that riding slightly faster than traffic is better than riding slightly slower. When I am approaching traffic, the ability to respond to traffic is in my attentive hands. When traffic is approaching me, I have to wonder if some texting teenager is going to ram into the back of me. Now, some might say that "speed kills", and that is true, so YMMV, that is my own personal take (and honestly it would take all the fun out of it going slower than traffic!).
here is a tip: just drive a car. I understand that there are things you can do to lower the chances of getting hit, but at the end of the day there is way more risk associated with this mode of transportation.
Only safer because of all the other motorists. So we're stuck in a transportation arms race now and the only way to win is to pilot larger and heavier hunks of steel. Ok I'll start driving an APC so I don't even notice my next high speed collision with a car, maybe then I'll drag the flaming wreck behind my war machine for a few miles without realizing it. The visibility out of this contraption just isn't that great. I trust you'll understand that I just didn't see you!
Btw sorry it takes up 4 parking spots and gets 2mpg. Y'see, we're also in a competition to use the greatest amount of shared resources possible before we die.
i don’t think like that. I am saying that pragmatically if you want to live longer you should not ride a bike.
we are all make mistakes on the road. small or big, the consequence of that mistakes are far greater when you are on 2 wheels. It’s not even about size or mass, it’s about the fact that your body is going to be projected into a tree/a car/sidewalk etc.
That is often (but not always, due to economics or parking that favor a scooter or motorcycle) possible for motorcyclists, but is often not possible for bicyclists to whom, as other commenters have pointed out, these suggestions also apply.
The article must be misleading. Android would never have the latency or reliability to run things like traction control and fuel management. The engineers at auto companies are well aware of this, but perhaps the author of the article is not.
Contrary to popular belief most managers in industry are not 100% clueless. No manager in a car company would be so incompetent that they would off-load time critical functions to a phone. My money would be on incompetence of the writer long before I'd suspect the people on the other side of the interview.
I've been through a couple of those myself, it is always very interesting to see how your words come out once they've been interpreted by someone who is essentially clueless but well-meaning and trying to understand something that goes above their normal day-to-day level of complexity. And that's the good case, the one where they don't have an agenda to push.
> Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
Well, you do know that the newspaper isn't written by a single person, but by a large team, so I guess the hope is that the journalists who wrote articles about far-off Palestine were more competent than the journalist trying to write an article about physics.
I wholeheartedly disagree that automotive progress, on the mechanical side, has slowed down. The ride quality, handling, fit and finish, noise & vibe, chassis rigidity, fuel economy, reliability, have all been improving. Go back 10 years, go back 10 years before that, etc., and you will see incremental improvements. Beyond that, look at how much more "stuff" comes in cars today, but for the same amount of money. That means, as we cram more and more tech in a car, the mechanical bits are getting cheaper. The same is true for motorcycles.
What is really going on, is the improvements in the mechanical design are just not as flashy.
There have been significant mechanical improvements under the hood. Dual clutch transmission enabling things like (very quick) paddle shifting has trickled into a lot of cars over the last decade. Gasoline Direct Injection has also seen rapid adoption. Hybrids were a small niche not too long ago, let alone EVs. Turbos seem a lot more common as well.
Dual-clutch transmissions have had a lot of reliability problems, and not many automakers actually use them. CVTs are probably used much more often.
GDI on the other hand has basically taken over; I doubt there's any new gasoline car sold without it now.
Hybrids haven't been doing well, outside of the Prius. EVs are getting more adoption now than hybrids. The problem with hybrids is the cost: you have a gas engine plus a big battery pack and motor, basically two powertrains in one vehicle.
Turbos however have become very, very common as everyone is downsizing engines and using turbos to get more power, while improving fuel economy.
Yeah, I cry every time I have to use some cheaper new rental car compared to my 15 year old bmw 3-series (not even m-series, just regular one with diesel engine on top of that).
Sluggish, puddy garbage of an experience compared to pure joy I can experience with my own.
I would say improvements were done to make things more cost-effective to increase margins, but not necessarily better cars per se.
Other things are with furniture I obtained with an older apartment - amazingly well built, can still hold together well after 50+ years. It was not luxurious back then, but would be definitely be luxurious now.
In a new 3-Series you can turn the steering wheel with your index finger, there is no manual transmission, you hear fake engine noise.
The 15 year old car offers a completely different driving experience and he might prefer it over the bland, comfortable new car.
I'd be curious to see the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the new one has more oomph than the old one. The comfortable aspect I get, but new BMWs have plenty of bite in them.
See those slim runflats? Runflats save space in the trunk for the spare, and them being slim means they are hard. So in order for the ride to be softer, the axle suspension changed, and much softer silentblocks are being used. The result is, that your drive doesn't feel like your car is sitting on rails, like E90 or E46 did, instead it is muddy and jelly.
Another disaster is the start-stop system. When warm, the needles in starter can break. Meaning, that you just went down from highway to the petrol station, refuelled, and you cannot start anymore. You are stuck there on the station.
E90 came with RFT tires and at least E92/E93 lack spare wheel well in the trunk. I dunno about E90, it might be an option there like it was in E60s (but it's very rare).
They didn't use electric steering thankfully. It went downhill starting E9x though, the materials used inside wear much quicker, the suspension and road feel is somehow less than E46 and the chasing of weight savings but increasing comfort through electronics and servos means the car is heavy still but you no longer get that satisfying door or bonnet thump like you did in E39/E38/E46, which were pinnacle of BMWs engineering IMO. Cabin noise insulation is also less than pre 2005, I assume because of weight savings. The post 2005 cars are so complicated that non-enthusiast ownership is most likely a bad experience.
Don't forget the styling. Every car looks like the exact same boring "bar of soap with wheels" today. There's a little variation in terms of grill and light clusters, but from a distance I can no longer tell the difference between any of the top 10 sedan or coupe models.
The new cars have electronic steering, electronic gearboxes, electronic everything. That much tech essentially eliminates "road feel". Some older cars are actually much more interesting to drive, despite their flaws.
Go back to a BMW of 1990, and it's not that much different from a new car today. Fuel injection, air bags, ABS. Internal combustion engine, exhaust, radiator, transmission. etc. etc.
Heck, even back then it was perfectly normal for a car to get better than 10L/100km (23.5mpg)
There have been incremental improvements for sure, but in all honesty it's the same thing, just tweaked a little.
A 1990 BMW 3 Series got 18 miles a gallon and a 2019 BMW 3 series gets 30 combined. 1990 had a 5 speed and the new one has an 8 speed.[1] The power and efficiency of ICEs are night and day vs the 90s.
You could literally same the same thing about anything and it would be a huge generalization.
“It’s just a CPU/RAM/Disk/Nic with a monitor and keyboard. We had those in 1980s and it’s only incremental every since.”
This is like saying if you go back 10 years, computers still had RAM, hard drives, CPUs, and GPUs so they're basically the same as today while neglecting the fact that there have been significant improvements in all of those and a modern computer would run circles around one from 2009.
There aren't many noticeable improvements in cars from one year to the next, but over the span of a full model change, you usually get fairly significant improvements in safety, fuel efficiency per horsepower, and in-cabin features.
Also note that we haven't reached maximum ICE performance yet, either. For example, Mazda is soon to release their Skyactiv-X engine, which is a sort of hybrid spark and compression ignition system with a large fuel efficiency increase over traditional engines.
Try driving one of the latest cars with all modern driver aids etc. for a few hundred miles: lane departure, blind spot warning, parking sensors, automated parking assist, distance sensors etc. Include routing around traffic congestion and a requirement to stop halfway for some unexpected reason, necessitating use of in-car navigation system.
Then try doing the same with a 1990 BMW. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse you will miss the driver aids etc., as they make the whole experience so much easier. Old cars are simply nowhere near the latest cars for safety, comfort, ease of use etc.
Anecdotally I would argue that the last 10 years have seen a more significant improvement in car technology and capability than the prior 10 years.
If we look at power alone even though EPA regulations have only gotten stricter during the same time frame if we look at the same model of car (Ford Mustang GT) we see that it has gone from 310 HP [1] to 460 HP [2] in 10 years. The same power that was delivered by the V8 which powered the Mustangs that my friends and I pined over in High School (ca. 2004) is now delivered by a compact I4 turbocharged engine which also delivers 25 MPG [3].
This article makes me feel a little better about my life decisions. I started programming at age 12, but as my major I chose mechanical engineering because at the time, there was a lot of talk about the US software industry crashing and it all going to India.
I'm not going to try to portray mechanical engineering as all roses - the pay is a bit lower, and the chances of becoming a break-out rock start are much lower (think of the capital investment needed to build your own business). But the work weeks are a true 40 hours for at least 90% of weeks in most places, the work is much more varied (office, shop, lab, travel), and mechanical engineers with grey hair don't seem to have problems finding a job.
but as my major I chose mechanical engineering because at the time, there was a lot of talk about the US software industry crashing and it all going to India.
I was in college 07-11. When I later asked my dad "WTF why did I not study CS?" he told me pretty much verbatim what you said... we thought it was going to India. I wonder if you were a student around the same time period? In retrospect, things quickly changed around 2012 coming out of the recession, and I suspect the industry had been picking up steam for a while after a few generations of iPhones and mobile gaining early traction.
I don't understand this argument. What does the population of the country have to do with anything? Shouldn't a country with a larger population have more power to make competitive advantages, and larger economies of scale, and therefore have an easier time?
More people to manage, more local governments with more layers of hierarchies and more bureaucracy overall and I've never heard of bureaucracies scaling well
First of all, their point doesn't depend on Switzerland being in bad shape or not. They're not saying a country's situation solely depends on this, but that it's a factor. There are lots of other factors at play in Switzerland and most any other country.
Second, there usually is another layer in most of the US (and Canada, for that matter) which doesn't exist in Switzerland: the county. I think that's more likely to cause inefficiencies than federalism alone.
Also, I'm not actually sure Switzerland has more bureaucracy. It mostly seems comparable in my experience having lived in both countries. Are there any metrics on this?
If everyone agrees with each other, then yeah, a large population is better. But when you've got a ton of people it's harder to find a solution that everyone likes. It's like the difference between two people trying to decide where to get lunch, and 30 people trying to decide. It also doesn't help that the West and East coast are culturally different, even among people of the same political party.
Isn't it more like 30 people vs 300 people? The proportions of differing opinions are are still the same in that case.
Your East vs West coast comment also confused me. I'd argue Canada has the same (or more) regional differences in politics.
There's the East Region (Ontario + Maritimes), Quebec (featuring a different language, heritage, culture and legal system), The Central region, and the West Coast.
Oh, and of course First Nations throughout (which of course the US has as well).
Wow, Chrysler has made quite the turn-around, I just noticed from that chart. 10 years ago, I expected them to be out of business by now with their low reliability (which I believe is still one of the lowest). Chrysler has a pretty terrible reputation, but their minivans have a good reputation (I know, I own one with 90k miles, and it's an amazing value and has been very reliable). The Jeep brand is killing it, lots of die hard fans of the nameplate. They also made a good move rebranding Dodge Rams to just Ram.
I bought a 90's car a few months ago - low mileage dependable Japanese car, nearly bare bones except for air conditioning and airbags (which were both optional equipment). In average condition, they go about $2k, mine was immaculate, so it was $6k. Truly like driving a brand new car from the mid 90's.
If you are sick of the electronics, just get a "new" old car. You won't regret it. You can even easily replace the tape deck with a high quality head unit to get all the features you need, but done right because car audio companies are just better at doing infotainment type stuff, and you can get something unobtrusive.
Everything that I thought I would miss, or have a hard time adjusting to be without, ABS, power windows, power locks, traction control, remote start, etc., turns out, I didn't really need it. Yes, there is the safety aspect of it, but I guess that depends on what kind of a drive you are, and what type of area that you live in.
When I got my 2001 Xterra it had one of those hideous neon double-din monstrosities of an aftermarket stereo in it. I ripped the entire thing out and replaced it with a cheap amp and bluetooth receiver. Now it's just a blank panel with some USB ports for charging. And judging by the reports in this thread, it's more reliable than a BMW system.
As others say, society does to some degree, but isn't the real compensation for such things living in a society where people help each other in these circumstances? Not everything has to be a financial transaction.
Last time I got called for jury duty (but didn't get chosen), I forget what the per diem rate was but basically it wouldn't have covered parking (or at least not by much).
Imagine if it was you or a loved one that was murdered and a neighbor's camera caught the suspect breaking into the house.
>You could testify once that this is your camera and here are the mp4 files (and their sha sum). And that would be it.
This is just how the rules of evidence work (also equal protection and due process), you can't just submit video, there needs to be testimony to introduce the video into evidence. Further, the defendant has a constitutional right to cross examine the person who introduces the video into evidence.
>Equally, technically they didn't see anything as the video caught by the camera could actually be made up.
Yes, and the Defense will hammer this point home. You didn't see the murder right? If the video actually shows what it alleges to show, the defendant breaking into the home, you have no evidence the defendant actually killed the homeowner right? You have no evidence the defendant even confronted the deceased correct? Of course there are other questions about handling the video and chain of custody, but the obvious being was the video edited (by you or the police after turning it over to them)? Do you have a copy of the original video you turned over to police (is there a difference between the copies, etc...).
As another commented said there is no difference between the video and if you eye-witnessed the suspect entering the home, you would still testify one way or the other (including acknowledging you didn't see the suspect commit the murder and have no knowledge if the suspect committed the murder, its possible someone else could have broke in when you weren't watching, or around back, etc...)
The idea of cross-examining the person who introduces security camera video doesn't really make much sense. If the camera actually witnessed the crime what could the installation possibly have to do with it? The only time it could be relevant is if the camera simply showed when/where the suspect was.
I would like to see the system modified somewhat--in criminal trials everyone has to disclose what they are going to present anyway. The other side should be required to indicate if and in what way they are going to challenge the evidence. If there's no dispute about where the camera is then nobody need be available to testify to where it is. (As it's cloud there's no issue of when.)
>The idea of cross-examining the person who introduces security camera video doesn't really make much sense.
Well interestingly this is a major issue in red light camera cases. Initially as cities were implementing red light cameras, the ticket and court case were all essentially automated.
In many jurisdictions this was challenged on multiple grounds, but one of the biggest issues (which most courts tending to agree with) is violation of the defendants rights to cross examine the State's witness and improperly introducing the video into evidence (generally it was introduced by affidavit from some record keeper in the camera company).
That's basically a technicality. If the video clearly shows the entire offense (to me that would include showing the entire yellow so it can be measured against what it should have been) nothing else should matter.
On the other hand, if the camera doesn't show everything the camera software is in effect testifying--and it comes down to if there are any flaws in the software. The government does not have a good track record on this--breathalyzers inherently are relying on the software and the manufacturers won't permit examination (discovery refused, there goes the DUI case)--so in some places it's been declared unquestionable.
(Never mind that the breathalyzer inherently has a considerable error margin due to biology--the ratio between blood alcohol and breath alcohol varies from person to person. Quick screening test, fine, evidence for conviction--not in my book.)
In some societies, you are rewarded, or at least supported, in doing your civic duty. That's often not the case in other places. There can be a high cost.
Just as we shouldn't make the assumption that fat people are lazy and gluttonous, we shouldn't make the assumption that skinny people have an eating disorder.
I didn’t say he was sick. I was just recounting my observation. Was literally taken aback by how thin he was.
It’s different when you go on record as a public person in multiple interviews talking about extended fasting. People want to emulate influential people, whether it’s actually a healthy or unhealthy behavior for that individual.
Also, maybe Steve Jobs would still be alive today if we didn’t have this strange learned behavior to not say anything about someone’s health if we think something could be wrong? Something to think about.
Steve Jobs was diagnosed, by his doctor, relatively early, as pancreatic cancer diagnoses go (many people only discover it when they have weeks or months to live, and there are no effective treatment options...five year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is something like 1 in 5). Jobs opted to use alternative treatments rather than treatments that (might) work.
That's a wholly different conversation...nobody diagnosed his condition, or could have helped his outcome, by looking at him and talking about his health on the internet. And, nobody could have diagnosed his condition by looking at him. By the time you have visible symptoms of pancreatic cancer, you've already likely been experiencing pain and other related symptoms, and treatment options are practically nil.
How about we just leave people's health between them and their healthcare providers and optionally their family? It's none of our business, unless they specifically ask us for advice or tell us about it.
>How about we just leave people's health between them and their healthcare providers and optionally their family? It's none of our business, unless they specifically ask us for advice or tell us about it.
Users who block ads often justify their "free lunch" because of the nefarious things that advertisers do - namely tracking and being a resource hog in their device. Sponsored segments on YouTube do neither of these. Also, YouTube creators who rely on sponsorships are often de-funded due to some pretty sketchy YouTube decisions, or just plain underpaid.
"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you're not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It's yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don't owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don't even start asking for theirs."
I get it, but I do think there's a difference between a billboard outside, or bright flashing adverts plastered over a city, vs a sponsor segment from a creator whose content I regularly consume in a video I explicitly choose to watch.
My reason is the ethics of deceptiveness. I prefer clearly labeled ads over sponsorships any day.
I hope the whitelisting feature allows people to whitelist those who have ethical sponsors, to encourage them.
Also, other than the vessel sponsorship, I've never clicked on a sponsored video's referral link. So, they won't be losing out on any money from me.
Here is my message from a previous comment:
The reason why I made this extension was because I was sick of the deceptiveness some channels used. Some channels don't even mention they are sponsored, but just talk as if they are recommending the product.
Yes, you could say it's obvious they are sponsored, but that is only true to a regular YouTube viewer. To many outsiders, they get tricked into thinking these are actual recommendations and not ads.
I think saying that something is sponsored, then talking about it is perfectly acceptable. Trying to dodge that you are sponsored or being supported by them is very sketchy. And I especially don't like the new common practice of making hard to distinguish segues into sponsorships.
At their core, ads are a form of psychological manipulation. Subjecting yourself to this manipulation just because you feel guilty about getting a "free lunch" is absurd. Tracking and resource usage are also bad, but they're not the root of the problem.
Pick a less harmful way of funding content creators, like direct donation.
Time is the most precious resource. Don't let it get taken away from you.
You conveniently forgot to mention advertising such as [1]. This crap is even done to children. Today I wanted to let my daughter view a YouTube vid, and she got a commercial first. Children are not allowed to be targeted to see commercials in my jurisdiction.
IP legalities notwithstanding, the moral defense in my mind is when creators don't have any mechanism for a direct revenue stream. It's one thing to not pay and skip ads; but if ads are the only way to support the creator, I hate being forced to "pay" with time (and poisoning my brain with faux-enthused marketing copy). In some cases, creators have a Patreon/etc, but supporters are still forced to see the same ads as everyone else.
In my mind, ad blocking tools should be using a revenue-sharing model (in the range of 90/10), that gives creators with an existing ad-supported model a low-effort secondary income stream. Even if entirely voluntary/opt-in, it seems like a win-win.
Also worth noting: one of the most successful podcasters/YouTubers, Joe Rogan, has a unique ad model: sponsor reads are front-loaded and designed to be easy to skip, with a short sponsor recap at the end. Perhaps that only works when you have millions of followers, but it demonstrates that sponsors aren't necessarily turned off by some percentage of listeners/viewers skipping ads.
I think you're going to discover something very quickly: it was never about any of that stuff. Everyone who believed that has trouble running companies that sell solutions to that.
1. When crossing a car that could potentially accelerate into your path, train yourself to keep a hand on your front brake.
2. Get better at emergency stops. Train your self to "wait for the weight", meaning progressively apply front brake so that the weight of the bike transfers to the front tire before full application. Practice emergency stops so you don't end up with a fist full of brake or over-hammer the rear. Try to train yourself to at least glance in the mirror when doing an emergency stop, to see if what is behind you could be more dangerous than what's in front.
3. Get your bike ready for emergency stops. Buy a bike with ABS, if possible. In the states, ABS is not yet the law for new bikes, but the decrease in insurance premiums usually means that ABS is practically free. Also, don't cheap out on tires - get high quality tires that match your riding (warm/cold, wet/dry, etc.)
4. Buy a tail light blinker - when your brakes are applied, it blinks the tail lights, and makes it much more obvious that you are stopping.
5. This may be a bit contriversial - I try to get near one side of the lane when I stop. My theory is that if a car is coming in "too hot", it gives them the chance to swerve and hit the car in front of you.
6. Be seen. I don't think that guy got the huge bike for visibilility like the caption said, I think he just likes Honda Goldwings. The real way to be seen is to wear neon (or at least loud colors) and add running lights to your bike.
7. After reading tons of accident reports in my area, I can say to be extremely careful when taking a passenger. There seems to be a lot of accidents on country roads with riders 2-up that get hit by cars or deer. My theory (also from taking on riders) is that the 2nd rider is a significant detriment to manuverability, and manuverability is the motorcycle rider's main positive safety attribute. Just take it slow when 2-up, and stay off the road when the deer are out.
8. This one I can't stress enough - don't become complacent. The majority of rider deaths are those over 50 in the U.S. Always look at cars like they are going to try to turn on you. Look at cars in the oncoming lane - are they slowing down? They could try to turn on you, cover the brake. I have found that this mindset gets pretty exhausting in urban traffic, and I have changed my riding habits to ride out in the country roads more than urban.
9. Wear a helmet and use the strap! I can't count how many YouTube videos of crashes that I have seen where the helmet ways lying 15 feet from the accident because the rider didn't strap it down.
10. Buy an appropriate bike. Smaller bikes are safer. It's in the U.S. safety statistics (DOT? can't remember which one) that the larger the bike, the more dangerous. My theory is that large bikes are less manuverable, which accounts for a lot of it. I'm not going to try to talk anyone of their liter bike, but please be realistic with your skills, and remember you can always trade up to more powerful as you gain skills. It took me 10 years of riding before I felt comfortable on my 125HP Kawi Z900. More a thing of maturity and restraint than the ability to control the bike (which has a great progressive powerband, easy to go slow).