Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Garage' started by JulesMaximus, Jan 18, 2013.
You might be amazed at how many people might agree with him ... but I doubt it.
And who is in the wrong there each time? Honestly I don't think it matters if your on a bike or not. Most people will claim "I didn't see them" whether it was the bike messenger or a Sherman tank.
Hell there are people here that were claiming they a) didn't see the gates b) didn't see the express Metra train when it slammed in to them at 79 mph. Driver survived, all the passengers died. He claimed he "didn't see it."
I personally am not interested in living in a small plastic bubble just increase the odds I won't be hurt.
There are a lot more cars than motorcycles. Cars are generally driven year round in all kinds of weather. To be meaningful the the numbers need to be adjusted by miles driven at a minimum. That still wouldn't account for the generally better weather conditions motorcycles are driven in.
True, a highly skilled and safe driver is going to be less likely to have an accident. Just as are those who travel in off peak hours. Rush hour is CRAZY! Glad I work weird hours and don't get stuck in that mess everyday. My insurance should be way lower because I drive safe and in off peak hours but they don't account for that in their pricing, and how could they really?
You are a poster child of someone who needs to be crabbed to. Unlike some of the others you have not yet fully accepted that riding a motorcycle is dangerous. You and WM2 could use a little friendly advice.
I knew my wife was the one for me when she told me I couldn't have a motorcycle. Which she did because she cares about me and did not want to see me hurt...
I really have no idea. Does that really matter?
The story of Jonathan Day:
Here lies the body of Jonathan Day,
Who died disputing the right of way,
He was right, dead right, as he drove along,
But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
You are entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree.
Nor am I interested in living in a bubble as well.
I prefer to have my fun on the water in large part because water is softer than concrete. True you are less likely to drown on a motorcycle but as you say we need not live in a bubble.
My wife cares about me and does not want to see me hurt but she doesn't forbid me from doing things that I love either. I used to surf almost daily, I did this for years, still have a few boards in fact, and she never discouraged that either. People drown all the time, there are shark attacks, I've been smacked in the mouth with my surfboard and had to get stitches as a result. I used to commute by bicycle 2-3 days a week, did this for almost 3 years and people are killed all the time on bicycles because they get hit by distracted motorists. She never discouraged it.
Honestly, I'd feel completely smothered by someone who told me what I can and cannot do. We've been married for 20 years and I can assure you that we wouldn't have made it to 5 if she did to me what your wife does to you.
She actually rides with me on the back of my bike from time to time. She loves it.
That would only be the case if you engaged in all those activities in equal amounts.
The vegas-style odds only apply to the population as a whole when nothing at all is known about them. All those numbers do is divide the total number of deaths by the total US population. Effectively, they're including people who have never, and will never, ride a motorcycle in the calculations for how likely you are to die in a motorcycle accident. That's not a statistically valid method for comparing the riskiness of different behaviors.
Never seen so many pussies in a thread before. All you worry worst should take a cooking class together. ;-)
Bikes > any other vehicle
Yeah it can end badly. But so can so many other things.
OP, ignore it. Haters gonna hate.
My ex told me what lakedude's woman told him - hint, she is my ex.
"Save me lakedude, you are my only hope." Right. I shoot guns also, are you going to tell me about how many people get hurt / shot by their own equipment?
Meanwhile the girls asked me for a better seat so obliged. I guess the Fatboy passenger pillion just isn't that comfortable when going on 3 hour rides.
Guess what lakedude. Driving a car is dangerous also. So is mowing the lawn and walking to the grocery store. Feel free to stay inside where the carbon monoxide from the furnace can get you or the radon will give you cancer. IE if you haven't gotten the point, everything has a dangerous element to it, but for some reason you are fixated on motorcycles when just getting in the shower can injure and kill you also.
Also. It doesn't affect you. Why do you care again? I am not interested in your nannying.
PS: Got CO detectors in the bedrooms so the furnace doesn't get us.
Not sure what you mean about the better seat...
From (a good read): http://www.iii.org/issues_updates/motorcycle-crashes.html
My issue with your comment is more of an "you can convert those numbers." Like I said there is no logical way to convert to "number of hours Intentionally self-poisoning" or "number of hours spent Assaulted by firearms."
A table like that you simply have to accept that they took the entire number of deaths and did an odds break out. Those numbers really don't correlate at all to hours of activity. All it really shows (ignoring 'how good the numbers are') is that if I walked out and died right now, these are the "chances" this is the cause compared to all the other people they scrapped up that year.
So after proving your point I went out to our friends at U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (via a website that built a rather nice compilation of stats) and found:
When extrapolated to 100 million vehicle miles traveled 24.39 motorcycle fatalities, .83 light truck and .86 passenger deaths occurred. So you can scream "really dangerous" but if you break it out more, this is all motorcycles. They further break it out in to Cruisers, super sports etc, proper gear etc.
Super Sports are about 4 x more likely to be fatal. They state "due to speed" which I can see because those bikes can hit 190mph without much issue.
They also mention that helmets (only) seem to reduce fatalities by 40%
So the result of my babbling is:
Yes, extrapolated out a bike is more dangerous but when you look at the scale (100 million vehicle miles) the .86 < 24.39 is not as drastic as it seems. Statistic with really small number like this result in "30 time more" comments that make sense in stats but don't make as much sense day to day. Further more I personally ride a cruiser in full gear, so I am really pulling myself out of the "24 fatalities."
Here is another break down:
Fatalities per 10k vehicles:
They also note that supersport / sport are predominately 30 and younger.
Motorcyclists were about 30 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash per vehicle mile traveled in 2010 and five times more likely to be injured, according to NHTSA.
The fatality rate per registered vehicle for motorcyclists in 2010 was six times the fatality rate for passenger car occupants, according to NHTSA.
So my opinion has been, yeah it is a bit more dangerous than driving a car. However the stats generally indicate that since I a) ride a cruiser b) use full gear I am far less likely to die. I look at the numbers and think: fair trade off. Some risk for something I like to do. I could go repelling or skydiving also so whatever.
I am a bit interested to see the long term things like ABS and motorcycle airbag in the future also.
I hope you guys don't have kids or a wife. "Sorry honey can you hold my colonoscopy bag and roll me closer to the TV? You have to admit I looked so cool on my hardley."
Yes there's risk in anything. Risk of me being a vegetable that my wife has to change shit bags for or her seeing me scooped off the road with a shovel seems like more risk than I'm willing to accept.
Same thing can happen in a car accident, just falling down the stairs, being over weight and getting type 2 diabetes so take that as what you will.
Nope. Not the same thing. You are at 30x the risk of dying on your commute than I am. Probably 2000x more likely to be crippled in an accident. I walk carefully on stairs and eat healthy so no diabetes either. If you want an analogy that works consider a set of stairs we both walk on everyday. Yes it's dangerous for both of us. The big difference is you are drunk and I am sober. Yes I have a risk of falling down the stairs. You though being drunk are 30x more likely to fall than I am since you are impaired. But YOLO dawg.
So, basically, you spent a whole bunch of time only to agree completely with everything I've already said in this thread. /slow clap
The difference between riding a motorcycle and something like being assaulted by firearms is that assault by firearms is much more random. There's really no possible way for any individual to reduce the risk of an assault to zero.
Death while riding a motorcycle, however, truly can be avoided entirely. All you have to do is not get on one. For example, my father has a 0% chance of being killed in a motorcycle accident because he has never, and will never, ride one.
As far as "hours spent intentionally self-poisoning" that's a method, not an underlying cause. It would be more accurate to reduce it to something like "hours spend suffering from depressive episodes or other psychological trauma."
Aren't you the one who constantly suggested that new riders should just buy a 600 supersport since everything else is slow as balls???
I'm guessing you must've gotten into an accident that woke you up a bit?
Yes, just like I said I did in my post. There is no need to rub it my face, but go ahead if it makes you feel better.
However, you did completely ignore the break down and likely didn't read the article because while as an entire category the motorcycles are 30x more likely to be fatal, when you remove the supersport, sport, riding in a tank top and shorts, and the no helmet people it drops to around "4x as likely."
I am personally fine with that.
Actually it is 30x and 5x as a category as a whole. Less if you drop out the risk takers. Source is the article I linked to.
Also the 30x is based on 100 million vehicle miles traveled. With that I need to travel 4.1 million miles on my bike to approach a statistical 100% chance. Considering that my entire lifetime mileage is only approaching 300,000 miles, I am fine with my odds here.
Statistically, I like riding my motorcycle.
It's because driving a motorcyle on a public street is really fucking ignorant.
I'll ride the shit out of a bike offroad. I love it. I won't take one on the street. Ever. Stupid.
I didn't ignore it. It's just another one of the things I've already said earlier in this thread.