Jump to content
IGNORED

How dangerous is motorcycling?


beemerman2k

Recommended Posts

Hi, it's me, "Mr Controversy" (that was what folks called me in my college days, go figure :Cool:). I have engaged in several debates over the years on this forum that all seem to center around a difference of opinion as to just how dangerous it is to be a motorcyclist. Helmet debates, ATGATT debates, cruiser debates, oil debates, Civil War debates, and the latest: smoking debates(!) -- all seem to center around a disagreement as to the amount of risk we take whenever we hit the road on two wheels.

 

In my opinion, what we do is very dangerous. So much so, that I don't feel that any motorcyclist is in any position to scold, admonish, judge, comment on, or otherwise see as being different from others who risk their lives through their own activities of choice. For instance, in my view:

 

- ATGATT makes you marginally safer than no-ATGATT, but no where near safe enough. If given the choice of crashing on a motorcycle wearing ATGATT versus crashing while driving a "Smart" brand automobile wearing a seat belt, I would choose the Smart car every time. I cannot imagine a vehicle more dangerous to drive than a Smart car, yet those occupants are worlds safer than the rider on two wheels. So why do ATGATT riders feel so free to judge helmetless riders, as though ATGATT makes you as safe as if you were in a 4 wheeled vehicle? And if you're not as safe as you would be in a 4 wheeled vehicle, then why do you judge others for taking risks like riding helmetless or in jeans when you very well could be driving a car rather than riding a motorcycle, and thus practicing what you preach by putting safety above passion? First park your own passions, then you can speak freely against others who do not park their passions! Right?

 

- Motorcycling is far more dangerous an activity than smoking, drinking, drug usage, and just about any other activity humans engage in. Why do I say this? Because as we all know intuitively and as we see in our daily lives, anyone at any time, regardless of how well they ride, how ATGATT they live, how long they've been riding, can get killed in an instant by that random woman talking on her cell phone not paying attention to her surroundings. Gone. In an instant. Just like that. I am reminded of what those mutual fund commercials say, "past performance is no guarantee of future results". Just because you have managed to stay alive and in one piece over 30 years of riding means nothing today as you suit up today and head out. If that guy, "Mayhem", from those All-State commercials crosses your path, then I hope your family as you signed up with the "good hands people" :smirk:

 

This is how I see what we do. When people ask me about motorcycling, I always discourage them from partaking in the activity. If they insist upon doing so, then I encourage them to get educated, take safety courses, and wear ATGATT. But I never encourage anyone to engage in this activity, it is only for those of us who are addicted to this highly, extremely, critically dangerous activity. Road debris, animals (insects, deer, birds, cats & dogs), distracted drivers, impaired drivers, fleeing drivers, motorcycle malfunctions, medical issues, air born projectiles, falling objects (tree branches for instance) -- all these things can befall a rider in an instant and terminate that person's life.

 

How can we quantify just how dangerous this sport really is? Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we can objectively see where we stand on the ladder of risky behavior? Is motorcycling even more dangerous than I think it is, or is it in reality, when the data is examined, more safe than even driving a Smart car?

 

And what about air pollution? Is there any evidence that riding in an environment like Los Angeles or New York City leads to respiratory ailments over time?

 

Is it possible for us to quantify the risks we take as motorcycle riders?

Link to comment

James.

I'm sure I'll have more later...

:/

but, IMO, comparing the risk of ridin,g where the actions of another

(outside our control) can significantly alter the outcome, to the risk of smoking/drinking/using drugs/sniffing glue/etc, where we control the activity, is pointless.

Two different rubrics.

 

All risk, by definition, is risky.

:rofl:

Not all risk is comparable wrt immediate consequences.

 

Don't smoke around your pets.

Seriously puts them at risk.

 

Riding a mc may be comparable to driving a car, using certain statistics/per mile/per registered operator etc.

The risk of smoking 3 cigars a year can't be compared to riding 25,000 miles/year.

Now smoking 25,000 cigarettes and riding 3 miles/day might be different.

 

Link to comment

You might be right.

 

But what if we could take 1000 16 year old kids who have decided to take up motorcycling. Each of them rides, say, 6000 miles/year.

 

Our other group consists of 1000 16 year old kids who decide to take up (pick one) smoking, drinking, drugs, bungee jumping, suit and tie office job, NYC public school teacher, enlisted military, or whatever.

 

Which group will likely see most of it's members reach 60 years of age (or whatever age you care to use)?

 

Which group will lose the most members to their particular activity of choice before they reach 60?

 

This is just a suggestion of one measure of risk. Any others?

Link to comment

Oh, and Keith Richards doesn't count.

 

Nor can we use Evil Knievel.

 

Some people just flaunt the statistics :smirk:

Link to comment
- Motorcycling is far more dangerous an activity than smoking, drinking, drug usage

 

 

 

No it's not. Crashing is. It's an odds game. The others take life away from you a little at a time, all the time, until no more life is left. The only thing maybe is the recent research that says one glass of wine a day is actually good for you.

Link to comment
No it's not. Crashing is. It's an odds game.

 

All this stuff is an "odds game". There are many people who have lived long lives smoking, drinking, doing drugs (Keith Richards :smirk:), and riding motorcycles. Some who begin, however, don't make it to the end (60 years old in this case). They die as a direct result of their activity.

 

Which segment of the population loses the most before 60? That's the question.

Link to comment

All this stuff is an "odds game".

 

Again no. Smoking and drugs, each and every time destroy you little by little. That is not odds, that is a given. You can ride a motorcycle for 40 years and that will not rob you of your health as someone who has smoked for 40 years. Put me beside any one of you that has smoked for most of your life and I garrentee I am healthier.

Link to comment

I'm sure an actuarial somewhere has quantified the risk of motorcycle riding, but who really cares what the exact risk factor is other than insurance companies? I doubt it will change anyone's decision about riding. Is riding dangerous...yes. Does it matter to me whether it is more dangerous than smoking or any other chosen activity...no. Should motorcycle riders judge others..no, but what are you going to do.

Link to comment

Does the non-smoking motorcyclist who rides in Los Angeles on a daily basis have equally healthy lungs as you do as well?

 

The non-smoking person often does contract cancers of various forms anyhow. Even the person who rides a motorcycle has to be wary of cancer. Tobacco might "kill" a person little by little, but maybe a diet free of processed foods are reviving that same person little by little?

 

Our society has yet to shine the big giant scrutinizing light on processed foods, and how those are killing people as well. We don't like to talk about that because too much of our economy is tied up in it. Plus, 7 billion people can't all eat natural, organically grown food. Yet we have Big Mac munching, Coca Cola drinking, blubber bellied people wagging their fingers at smokers. Right. :smirk:

 

How come no one ever says, "Processed food and High Fructose Corn Syrup killed my loved one"? Yet, I'll bet food kills more people in this country than tobacco when measured by health conditions associated with being overweight such as cardiovascular, cancers, and/or conditions such as diabetes.

 

But none of this is the question. The question is not "who is healthier", the question is "who is alive"?

Link to comment
Should motorcycle riders judge others..no, but what are you going to do.

 

This is exactly, 100%, entirely my point! If you read my opening post on this thread, this is precisely why I raised this question: I see motorcyclists judging others for their risky behavior all the time on this forum. So I am seeking to set the record straight on just how much, or how little, our activity of choice truly is to determine if we are in any sort of position to judge another.

Link to comment

Our lives can end at any time in many different ways with no notice. I ride because it allows me to enjoy this time of life that I have more thoroughly. I have also worked with alcoholics and drug addicts and assure you that the lives that many, if not all of them have to endure are dark indeed. Drug and alcohol use is not a recreational activity. Those things may start that way but freedom gives way to bondage and joy to sadness.

Link to comment

I don't think anyone with even half a brain would ever suggest that riding a motorcycle is not a very dangerous activity.

We all do things on a daily basis that any number of other people might consider unsafe. The very act of getting behind the wheel of a car is even dangerous to a certain degree.

Having said that, if the unimaginable should happen and we die doing something that we have to do as a daily occurance in our lives, such as commuting to work, then our friends and family will feel the pain of our passing and probably chalk it up to just bad luck or some such thing. If on the other hand, we should die while riding our motorcycle, while their reaction might be similar, in the backs of their minds, will they be thinking "I/we told you so".

THIS, for me, is what is hard to deal with.

Link to comment

B2K....Getting cold in MA? :D Well no doubt transportation in general has the potential to shorten your life..

 

Train, plane, automobile, motorcycle, roller blades..

 

I live in a high stress job..very high stress...riding my bike on the weekends takes away a good bit of that stress for a few hours...or at least makes me think it does. I worry more, as does the wife unit, of me falling over dead from a heart attack related to business stress than getting squashed on the road.

 

The one thing I share a different opinion on is ATGATT. I think (or at least hope) it makes survival much better than without. At least a whole lot less road rash and head trauma...I hope!

 

Hope it warms up in MA soon before you ask us another thought provoking question :D

 

 

Link to comment

Well, I ride in groups a lot, but I'll go home before I'll ride in one that includes a helmetless rider--that increases my risk. It's nothing to do with me judging the other guy stupid but it remains he can be taken out in front of me by a ladybug. And, if he's behind me when he's taken out that's a bummer for me, too.

 

The largest criminal element in the USA and the largest threat on USA highways is drivers of 18-wheelers. You can make your Smart be a Humvee and it won't make any difference. But we live with it, don't we, and our law enforcement does nothing.

 

I don't commute and only ride the back roads as much as I can. I live in a state that has few if any earthquakes or tornadoes or hurricanes. But, last Friday I rode right by the recently deceased "mad scientist's" explosives lab about a half day before it was discovered and the road was closed and EOD called. Sh*t happens.

Link to comment

I see risky behavior as a balance scale. Does the fun of riding a motorcycle outweigh the odds of having an accident? Does the pleasure (?) of smoking outweigh the health risks? Eating cheesecake vs obesity? Dipping your wick vs. VD?

 

Maybe the difference with motorcycling is that it's all good until it isn't. You don't have to die of lung cancer; you can just get emphysema (sp), COPD, etc. on the way to dying. Same with PAD, you can just blow out your knees carrying extra weight around or diabetes on your way. But biking doesn't take a toll until the final bell rings. Other behaviors tip the scales slowly, but biking can go bad quickly.

 

----

 

 

 

 

Link to comment

It's extremely dangerous, given that the #1 cause of accidental death and injury in the US is vehicular accidents, and getting in them on a bike is almost always worse for the rider than a driver or passenger in a car...

Link to comment

Of course it's dangerous. I accept that danger ... do all I can to mitigate it, but accept it. I will encourage ANYONE who wishes to ride ... as long as they also understand and accept that risk. If not, they have no place on the road anyway. The fewer knobjockeys on motorbikes I have to share the road with on mine, the better as far as I'm concerned. ATGATT? I wear it. My choice.

Link to comment

ATGATT is an absolute must in our family.

But it's hard to encourage others to the same behavior when our Police Officer on motorbikes, who should lead by example, ride round in short sleeve shirt and no gloves.

 

 

Link to comment

Can you quantify the risk?

 

In my field Risk is determined by two factors:

 

How often might a particular hazard arise?

How much harm is likely to result?

 

It's complex process even in a well understood system, with known variables. Given enough $$'s, data and time it might be possible to come up with a first order risk assessment for motorcycling. But, to what end?

Link to comment

It's bloody dangerous, that's the long and short of it really.

 

Naturally, most attempt to mitigate this somewhat by gaining skill, wearing protective clothing, avoiding Camrys and so on; but at the end of the day it's still a highly dangerous pursuit, there is no evading that.

 

I find it very difficult to compare the risks with something such as smoking, they are very different types of risks: immediate vs long term, and something such as smoking has associated drivers such as mental and chemical dependency, which certainly must cloud the risk assessment of any user.

 

I would propose that it really comes down to the risk appetite of the individual and how that individual perceives risk. I'm quite happy at times to exceed 200km/h on my commute and many would see this as unacceptable risk. I see a deserted road with ample fields of vision, combine that with a day like today with 35C temps and excellent tyre adhesion and I'm likely away. But that's my appetite, which changes with conditions; others will have more or less dependent upon theirs.

 

Others are happy to smoke 5 packs a day, live seemingly on lard and follow each meal with half a dozen beers. I see that as patently unacceptable risk, while they no doubt would not dream of getting on my motorcycle (not that I'd let them, you seen the price of ESA shocks?). This all boils down to perception of risk.

 

No matter what you do in life, there will always be somebody somewhere willing to tell you "that's dangerous, you shouldn't/can't/are crazy/will die" based upon their different assessment of risk than yours; but let’s face it, life is 100% fatal and therefore highly risky in and of itself.

 

Nobody gets out alive, but I'm not about to give up living life just to mitigate the risk.

 

Link to comment
Paul Mihalka

Somewhat separate from the danger comparison of smoking vs. motorcycle riding, is addiction. Smoking becomes a physical addiction, riding is a passion. I mentioned this in my very first post on the smoking = cool thread. A addiction becomes part of your body, you almost cannot live without it. It is a sad sight seeing workers outside their workplace leaning against a wall, smoking. Some places they have to punch out (loose money) just for a smoke. Even if your mind tells you to stop, you can't. With a passion you can stop if the circumstances require it, and restart when it's OK again. For me possibly the worst part of smoking might not be the health damage but the tremendous power and domination it would have over me.

Link to comment
Motorcycling is far more dangerous an activity than smoking, drinking, drug usage

 

Certainly riding a motorcycle MAY be dangerous. But smoking, drinking and drug usage are ABSOLUTELY dangerous. At my age, I know many, many riders who have given up the activity because they are old. I do no know directly anyone who has died due to his motorcycle riding. Injured yes, dead no. But I know many, many people who are now dead due to their use of cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs...including my father, an aunt, an uncle, four friends, and some of my students.

As an edit...I do know a young motorcyclist, a neighbor, who died on his bike a few years ago. He was riding home from a party and post-mortem testing revealed that he was drunk when he hit the curb and veered into an on-coming car.

Link to comment
I will encourage ANYONE who wishes to ride ... as long as they also understand and accept that risk.

 

The posts here have been very interesting to read, with lots of good perspectives being offered, but I must conclude up to this point that we don't even understand the risks! Let's be honest here, we have no idea how dangerous motorcycling is, on a quantifiable level, with respect to other activities, do we? No idea!

 

Yet this is the question that I am seeking an answer to, so that at least we can say we understand the risks involved.

 

Link to comment

James,

Again you make a statement (no one has shone alight on) about other

things like processed foods.

This is absolutely not true.

There are countless studies out there.

Example.

Sugar.

Now linked to depression, cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, and other negative consequences.

Now the naysayers will jump in and challenge the results saying the study is flawed, but let us disregard those POV for now.

Studies about driving while distracted are out there. Flaws may exist but message is accurate.

Same with processed food.

Message is out there. Just look.

 

For example, married men live longer/happier .

Wait until the anecdotal replies fly in on this one.

 

My suggestion is to do some google/research if you're serious (I think you are).

The risk for mc riding compared to driving is out there.

Easy to compare outcomes based on accident data.

 

Comparison to smoking risks isn't easy to do.

One might say not even possible due to all the variables.

For instance, "smoking". One inhales deeply and often, another barely and infrequently holding the cig

at arm's length (thanks, not).

Same with drinking. You can break down pos/neg based on frequency/quantity/diet.

But, there are always outliers and those are often presented as anecdotal proofs rather than the anomalies they are.

 

So, the real issue is assumption of the risk and risk mitigation of each risk taker.

Riders with training/practice/ATGATTconspicuous clothing/well maintained bikes/abstaining from alcohol/drugs while riding/riding smart etc.

will reduce risks (studies show this) compare to riders who drink/ride/speed/don't wear conspicuous gear etc.

 

20,000 people in India die each year from snake bites. 4 to 5 times as many as die riding over here.

So which is the riskier behaviour?

Their population is 3 to 4 times ours.

Is it riskier to walk around India or ride a mc here?

 

Some questions can't be answered.

Link to comment

Motorcycling is far more dangerous an activity than smoking, drinking, drug usage, and just about any other activity humans engage in

 

Statistics don't support your point of view.

Link to comment
Motorcycling is far more dangerous an activity than smoking, drinking, drug usage, and just about any other activity humans engage in

 

Statistics don't support your point of view.

 

OK, and I am doIng some of my own research as Tim suggests, but what exactly do the statistics have to say about comparative risks?

 

Keep in mind the hypothetical: 1000 16 year olds from each category will engage in an activity, which group will have the least casualties from their respective behaviors by 60?

Link to comment

comparative risk of various activities

:lurk:

 

 

Granted, older data, but his cited source is available for updating.

Check out smoking (#1) and this is data with fewer deaths than today.

 

WHAT DO WE FEAR?

Research on how people interpret risk has reported some interesting findings.

For example, it has been found that:

 

•People tend to overestimate the danger of rare events yet underestimate dangers of more common events like driving a car.

•People tend to assume that if they can control a situation they are safer. The high number of traffic accident fatalities shows this is an erroneous assumption.

•People are less likely to fear the risk of an unhealthy lifestyle than levels of pesticides in foods. Yet the statistics show that people are far more likely to die from lifestyle-related diseases such as coronary heart disease and cancers.

•People tend to be less likely to fear natural disasters - typhoons, earthquakes, floods - than man-made disasters.

•People are more worried by dramatic but infrequent events than by "boring" risks like slipping on a wet floor.

H.A Cohl, "Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?" St Martins Griffin, 1997

 

 

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
Can you quantify the risk?

 

In my field Risk is determined by two factors:

 

How often might a particular hazard arise?

How much harm is likely to result?

 

It's complex process even in a well understood system, with known variables. Given enough $$'s, data and time it might be possible to come up with a first order risk assessment for motorcycling. But, to what end?

 

Probability is a whole field of study unto itself. Quite obviously we can quantify risks of motorcycling, just as surely as we can quantify the risks of a coin toss or a roll of a die. We can even account for things that increase or decrease your risk relative to the average risk for all riders (ride at night? ride drunk? under 25? etc.) But whereas the financial risks of vehicular damage can be shared via insurance programs, the physical risks of death and dismemberment can't: they belong solely, and forever, to the individuals who experience those outcomes. I think the inability to disperse those physical risks is what makes many people deal with them in a very irrational way: some become painfully phobic (e.g. a pathological fear of flying), while some people seem to disregard those physical risks altogether (e.g. riding home drunk from the bar at 2AM during deer rut with no helmet or gear of any kind), saying fatalistically "hey, if it's my time, then it's my time."

 

You can of course take steps to manage your risk of death/dismemberment; we all know that. But you still won't be able to share/disperse your risk with other folks in the pool in the same way that you do with car/home/health insurance.

 

Re: pollution, highways definitely are polluted. My wife drove home from Detroit a year or two ago with an aethalometer measuring air quality along the way. I don't have the numbers right now, but I recall from that (and other work that she's done) that the air quality near/on highways is pretty bad. As to whether being on a motorcycle is worse than being in a car, it's worth noting that it's only within the past ten years or so that cars have started to include microfilters for HVAC air coming into the cabin. Prior to that - or if you currently own a car that's not equipped with an HVAC microfilter - I'm pretty sure the air you breathed in your car was the same pollluted stuff you were breathing on your bike. Even now, I don't believe there's a federal standard for cabin air filter performance, so the amount of particulate matter that they block is questionable. And even if they filter out most of the particulate matter, gaseous pollutants like NOx and CO will pass right through. Breathe deep the gathering gloom...:grin:

Link to comment
Nice n Easy Rider

Tim, you had to post that table. Now I'm going to develop an unhealthy aversion to walking under coconut palms. :D

Link to comment

 

Our society has yet to shine the big giant scrutinizing light on processed foods, and how those are killing people as well.

 

 

We don't know that yet. You have to eat to stay alive, you do not have to smoke, drink, or take recreational drugs to do so. Since modern society refuses to keep our world population at a sane level, we have to produce processed foods to feed the masses. Safe or not, I do not know.

Link to comment
comparative risk of various activities

:lurk:

Granted, older data, but his cited source is available for updating.

Check out smoking (#1) and this is data with fewer deaths than today.

The fact that the list shows eating meat as having the most life-shortening effect calls this entire article into question. This must certainly be based on the popular diet and health notions that were made mainstream by George McGovern's Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs in 1977, which is probably the worst public-policy support of junk or no science, causing the most harm, in the history of man.

 

But interesting, nonetheless.

 

As far as "certainty" goes, per earlier responses, note that many people smoke through long lives while others develop cancers quickly; some not at all. The only certainty is that there are other factors involved other than one's actions or habits, such as genetic predisposition, or other actions or habits that contribute to the risk.

 

Link to comment
So What?

 

If you can't accept the risk, then don't take the risk.

 

 

What's the risk?! That's what this thread is trying to figure out! How great a risk are we talking about here?

Link to comment

Just before Christmas, my 80 year old aunt was driving her Honda Fit in Springfield, MA when she was hit by a truck carrying lumber. Car not totalled, but damaged enough to be taken off the road for a few weeks for repair. She is fine and showing no signs of injury whatsoever.

 

Automobile safety is a whole world away from that of motorcycles, even for Honda Fit drivers.

Link to comment

It doesn't matter whether the risk can be quantified. It's more dangerous than many other things you could do with your time. Fact is, EVERYTHING carries a certain risk. Another fact is that we will all die. Many of us will die for a reason not related to risky behaviors; those things, as with many things in life, are beyond our control.

 

I prefer to manage the risk by riding only when sober and properly attired. Some do less, some avoid riding because of the danger. I can live with the risk.

Link to comment

Riding motorcycles is very dangerous. Some of the dangers are beyond the control of the rider, and are in the hands of others on the road. It may be an order of magnitude more dangerous than driving a newish compact car. Still safer than freehand rock climbing, rodeo or jumping horses, but plenty dangerous.

The most important safety item we can bring to the ride is between our ears. Attitude and judgement will keep you safer than any amount of ATGATT. That, and the understanding that you are invisible and they are trying to kill you.

That said, I do ATGATT, though I often ride in jeans, and I will continue to ride in my advanced age until I feel that I am no longer fully competent to avoid that which it is possible to avoid.

 

Simply avoiding dying ain't living.

Link to comment

If there was a positive reward from contributing to this thread it might be worthwhile, but I don't see one. Since it started on a "big football day", I'll assume the author has an aversion to the sport.

 

Actuarially speaking, we can, within a given "pricing margin" determine mortality for a group of like risks, inclusive of individul or multiple related or unrelated factors. The key word here is 'group'. Groups, where the Law of Large Numbers can be expressed and assumed to a profitable conclusion. However, any attempt to apply the results of said mortality assumptions, based on group studies and pricing, is more an exercise in art, than in science.

 

You name the risk and the life insurance industry has data available to make the best available assumptions on what that risk represents in mortality for product pricing and eventual claims. However, applying that pricing model, to individual risk, becomes more of a challenge, perhaps 'guess' is a better word - otherwise an art form. And for all the reasons and more as mentioned above.

 

Is smoking more dangerous than motorcycling? Is stage IV carcinoma of the bladder more dangerous than highsiding at 101mph on a elevated 30 degree track into a bail of hay? Is breathing air in LA in 2011 more dangerous than breathing air in Pittsburgh in 1957 or living in and among houses with coal fed furnaces for 40 years? As groups, mortality statistics can be provided, as individuals...its a one time happening, just like when we entered this world. There is no definite answer for any of us.

 

Which takes me back to my opening comment...I'll leave it at that, because this isn't an exercise in determining an answer to a question, it's just passing time till the next thread.

Link to comment

I've often wondered that question, especially as I get older. In my own opinion the level of risk is very dependent on the rider. I see wild irresponsible behavior sometimes on the part of motorcycle riders. Motorcycling is very dangerous for them. At nearly 73 years old I'm an especially conservative rider and probably safer as a result, but my reactions, etc, are less. A guy on a big Harley went roaring by me the other day, passing everything in his way on a 2 lane road. I knew my RT could take him, but it would be hard to beat a crazy rider who takes awful risks. The other danger is cagers. I've learned to just assume they are all dangerous and ride accordingly. I'll give up the RT one of these days and get a Vespa, but till then it's ride very, very conservative to keep the risks down.

Link to comment

The risks are not so difficult to get a rough quantitative handle- both are well studied.

 

For example,

On the order of 1500 people a year get killed on bikes and it approaches a 20X as many killed per mile as cars.

Its been estimated that at peak usage smoking caused approx 600,000 premature deaths each year from all causes- a number that is perhaps less absolutely accurate than the precise measurement of those dead in vehicle wrecks but is nonetheless astonishingly high.

 

Problem is stats mean nothing with certainty for any one individual. I've known folks who smoked a lot, drank and ate a high cholesterol diet who played sports well into their 70s. And if you avoid high risk habits for riding your chance of being one of the 1500 goes down, of course.

 

One thing is certain- intelligent choices and application of recognized good practices can substantially reduce (but not eliminate) your chance of dying if you ride. If you smoke, your risk is related to how much and to your genetics and there in nothing you can do about risk reduction except quit.

Link to comment

I compare motorcycling in some ways to flying. Flying is, at least statistically, safer than driving. But it's much less forgiving of sloppyness and poor preparation and planning. Basically, I can fly down the State much more safely than I can drive down the State, but I have to work harder and prepare more to make that the case.

 

Motorcycles give you more exposure on the road in terms of less protection, but they have offsetting advantages. They are smaller, more narrow, and can move and stop more quickly than cars. You can use those advantages somewhat to offset the other risks of increased exposure.

 

I think you can be as safe on a motorcycle as you can be in a car. But not automatically - you have to exercise better judgement, and look further down the road for hazards than you do in a car. That sometimes means taking another route around a dangerous section of road, or sitting at the gas station an extra half hour to allow a torrential downpour to pass. Or in some cases, making the judgement not to ride at all if the conditions are too hazardous (e.g. black ice on the road.)

 

I was at one point in my life in a bad motorcycle accident. It was a single vehicle accident where I was ejected off the motorcycle, a great distance. That same accident, had I been in a car, probably would have killed me. What saved me was my gear. Now I'm not trying to make the argument that it's safer to be on a motorcycle in an accident than it is to be in a car in an accident, that's ridiculous. I'm only saying there are some occasions, and types of accidents where that can be true even if it's otherwise generally not.

Link to comment

How risky motorcycling is entirely within the decision making and judgment ability of the rider. Experience, maturity and training reduce the risk.

This example is not the way to reduce risk.

motorcyclerollcage.jpg

Link to comment

That's the craziest set of crash bars I've ever seen! However, it will certainly interfere with them getting off the bike in a crash, which could seriously compound their injuries.

Link to comment

OK. I don't know how valid these stats are, but this might provide kind of an overview.

 

According to the World Health Organization: "Cigarettes kill half of all lifetime

users. Half die in middle age – between 35 and 69 years old." Of everyone alive today, 500,000,000 will eventually die due to tobacco use.

 

So, if we take the U.S. population of 300M, of whom 78% are over age 18 (legal age to smoke, we get 234M. Of that, about 1 in 5 smokes, so 47M. Statistically, half of them will die from tobacco use between ages 35 and 69. That's 23.5M.

 

- - -

 

There are 6.6M motorcycles registered in the U.S (this assumes one rider for every registered bike, which we know to be overestimating that particular population). Of that, between 3,500 and 4,000 die each year on the highway. In its simplest form, calculating from age 18 (when you can ride in most states) to age 69, that's 51 years at an avg of 3,750/yr or 191,250. That's 3%. A whole lot less than the 50% who will die from tobacco use.

 

Yes, these numbers are so simplistic as to invite scorn. But at least they're something in the way of figures. And if the real numbers, with all the factors, are anywhere close to the same, it's no contest.

Link to comment
OK. I don't know how valid these stats are, but this might provide kind of an overview.

 

According to the World Health Organization: "Cigarettes kill half of all lifetime

users. Half die in middle age – between 35 and 69 years old." Of everyone alive today, 500,000,000 will eventually die due to tobacco use.

 

So, if we take the U.S. population of 300M, of whom 78% are over age 18 (legal age to smoke, we get 234M. Of that, about 1 in 5 smokes, so 47M. Statistically, half of them will die from tobacco use between ages 35 and 69. That's 23.5M.

 

- - -

 

There are 6.6M motorcycles registered in the U.S (this assumes one rider for every registered bike, which we know to be overestimating that particular population). Of that, between 3,500 and 4,000 die each year on the highway. In its simplest form, calculating from age 18 (when you can ride in most states) to age 69, that's 51 years at an avg of 3,750/yr or 191,250. That's 3%. A whole lot less than the 50% who will die from tobacco use.

 

Yes, these numbers are so simplistic as to invite scorn. But at least they're something in the way of figures. And if the real numbers, with all the factors, are anywhere close to the same, it's no contest.

 

From the CDC.

 

On average, smokers die 13 to 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.

 

 

 

Apples and oranges kinda....

Link to comment
CoarsegoldKid

Life is risky. Death is without risk. Only parents need care how risky an activity is over the other? To your point, "How dangerous is motorcycling"? More dangerous that watching TV and less dangerous than climbing Mt. Everest I would suspect.

Link to comment

Some might argue watching TV is more dangerous. A lifestyle, as such, could/ would lead to less exercise, higher overweight population and its associated risks of heart disease, diabetes and by some accounts seizures. No doubt, it is tough figuring out a pleasing manner by which to enjoy life, but balance the risks associated with what we like to do. Me thinks perhaps running alcohol, smokes, guns and whores from Mexican to Canadian borders on a Ural hack, might be worth the risk...IF...one was allowed to take a break while in route and partake of the products. It would beat the heck out of following this thread.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...