This is especially true of motorcycles, where in Western countries they often go hand in hand with the time honored pastime of, “Let’s all ride our Harleys to the bar and get absolutely sideways, and then ride our Harleys to another bar.” I do know for sure that a large portion of motorcycle wrecks in general are single vehicle incidents, i.e. the rider ran out of skill and simply ate shit into a ditch, tree, guardrail, or the nearest Jersey wall.
I’d also be interested to see the source to determine what the geographical range of this is, i.e. whether or not it includes Southeast Asia where basically the entire population conducts all of its affairs from the back of a small motorbike.
At the end of the day, if you slam into something on your bike you’re pretty much guaranteed to be worse off than slamming into the same thing in a car or a bus. But you’re still not getting me off of mine.
It doesn’t change the stats in the slightest, you’re more likely to die on a bike, it doesn’t really make any difference who’s at fault if you’re dead. 90% of the accidents being caused by unobservant car drivers won’t save you.
You are more likely to die riding a bike than other forms of transportation but riding responsibly and defensively will absolutely change the severity of the stats.
A driver could still plow through you and you are still more likely to die - I’ll absolutely concede that. You are just way, way more likely to die if you don’t know how to ride (unlicensed), are impaired by alcohol or something, wear no helmet or other gear, and/or ride recklessly or carelessly.
The stats are the stats, driving a car everywhere at 15mph and covering it in airbags would probably change the car stats as well. If everyone drove perfectly and maintained their vehicles properly then we’d get a nice flat line.
You’re way more likely to die if you don’t know how to drive a car or do so drunk as well. The graph is showing the relative unsafeness of various vehicles as a whole, the fact being drunk or dumb on a bike has an outsize impact on killing bikers emphasises the fact it’s less safe.
I’ve absolutely nothing against bikes or bikers and I’d suspect that overall biker’s deaths are likely to be more self contained and have lesser impact on other road users.
It does because if you know you aren’t going to drive your bike when drunk (and other reckless driving factors) you will be safer than the numbers indicate.
90% of the accidents being caused by unobservant car drivers won’t save you.
You have a source for this or did you make up this 90% number on the spot? Would be nice to have actual numbers on this since elsewhere in the thread someone else is saying over half of motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle accidents, which means it’s biker could potentially have done something to avoid it.
Yeah that’s always key to these stats and it’s never reported. If you’re not drunk when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle the safety by a lot.
This is especially true of motorcycles, where in Western countries they often go hand in hand with the time honored pastime of, “Let’s all ride our Harleys to the bar and get absolutely sideways, and then ride our Harleys to another bar.” I do know for sure that a large portion of motorcycle wrecks in general are single vehicle incidents, i.e. the rider ran out of skill and simply ate shit into a ditch, tree, guardrail, or the nearest Jersey wall.
I’d also be interested to see the source to determine what the geographical range of this is, i.e. whether or not it includes Southeast Asia where basically the entire population conducts all of its affairs from the back of a small motorbike.
At the end of the day, if you slam into something on your bike you’re pretty much guaranteed to be worse off than slamming into the same thing in a car or a bus. But you’re still not getting me off of mine.
It doesn’t change the stats in the slightest, you’re more likely to die on a bike, it doesn’t really make any difference who’s at fault if you’re dead. 90% of the accidents being caused by unobservant car drivers won’t save you.
You are more likely to die riding a bike than other forms of transportation but riding responsibly and defensively will absolutely change the severity of the stats.
A driver could still plow through you and you are still more likely to die - I’ll absolutely concede that. You are just way, way more likely to die if you don’t know how to ride (unlicensed), are impaired by alcohol or something, wear no helmet or other gear, and/or ride recklessly or carelessly.
The stats are the stats, driving a car everywhere at 15mph and covering it in airbags would probably change the car stats as well. If everyone drove perfectly and maintained their vehicles properly then we’d get a nice flat line.
You’re way more likely to die if you don’t know how to drive a car or do so drunk as well. The graph is showing the relative unsafeness of various vehicles as a whole, the fact being drunk or dumb on a bike has an outsize impact on killing bikers emphasises the fact it’s less safe.
I’ve absolutely nothing against bikes or bikers and I’d suspect that overall biker’s deaths are likely to be more self contained and have lesser impact on other road users.
It does because if you know you aren’t going to drive your bike when drunk (and other reckless driving factors) you will be safer than the numbers indicate.
You have a source for this or did you make up this 90% number on the spot? Would be nice to have actual numbers on this since elsewhere in the thread someone else is saying over half of motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle accidents, which means it’s biker could potentially have done something to avoid it.