How dangerous is motorcycling?

[Dan5620]

Is attending an air show, as a spectator, more dangerous than motorcycling?

 

If you’re referring to this year’s event in Reno, I would say no. Been there, done that, including last year (my first) and will do it this year if it’s held again.

 

According to last year's show, it was more dangerous to be a spectator in Reno, than to have ridden a motorcycle there and back home.

 

Just trying to help with research on the original OP's question. How's that research coming along? I need to know before next riding season!

[Kitsap]

Is attending an air show, as a spectator, more dangerous than motorcycling?

 

If you’re referring to this year’s event in Reno, I would say no. Been there, done that, including last year (my first) and will do it this year if it’s held again.

 

According to last year's show, it was more dangerous to be a spectator in Reno, than to have ridden a motorcycle there and back home.

 

Just trying to help with research on the original OP's question. How's that research coming along? I need to know before next riding season!

 

A buddy and I rode there from Washington State. In route there dealt with one idiot in a beige Toyota Camry that didn't believe in mirrors. In route home we had a black bear outside of Weed cross our path at speed. At the race an airplane hit the ground approx. 300 feet from us, the air race was safer.

[Dan5620]

Remain me never to group ride with you....LOL!

[Peter Parts]

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

 

Sure it is. The statistics are out there in terms of fatalities or injuries per mile traveled, weighted by the impact of alcohol, location, training and so on. In some places, you can even get local data and you can take actions that put you in lower-risk categories. All of these things quantify our risk at a population level.

 

And yet, population-level risk calculations are inadequate when what matters is our own, personal experience. The bottom line is that risk doesn't exist on an individual level and nobody experiences life on a population level. What that means is that the objective answer is largely post-hoc and irrelevant to our experience of riding.

 

Whatever risk mitigation measures you take, they aren't predictive of your own survival.

 

Really brilliant summary of the issues, perhaps last sentence excepted. Thanks.

 

It is true you can "drill down" into stats and learn a lot about causes (OK... I know the "correlation" fallacy) but that is still a creative task and not all stats and not all analyses are out there to contemplate.

 

A stat that needs more attention is mortality versus experience. Long ago, an insurance company found that biker mortality asymtotes right down to "normal people" mortality after 5 years of riding. Darwinian selection with the careless dropping out of the sample (by dying) or the effects of experience?

 

BTW, you men out there who have been reading that the PSA test isn't helpful should re-read leikam's post.

 

Ben

never skipping my PSA testing

[awagnon]

BTW, you men out there who have been reading that the PSA test isn't helpful should re-read leikam's post.

 

The US Preventive Services task force recommendation about whether to do PSA testing was based on data over 10 hears old and only applied to normal and low risk individuals. As an oncologist, I believe the data supports PSA screening on men with family history of prostate cancer, suspicious digital exams, or certain high risk ethnic groups who are more prone to prostate cancer. For everyone else, they should be told the facts about false positives and false negative test results and make their own decision. I have seen quite a number of prostate cancers detected by only an elevated PSA. Whether it changed their survival is more complicated. Boy, did this stray off topic.

[leikam]

That last sentence is integral to the point I was making. The risk mitigation strategies you adopt can skew the distribution of outcomes but not eliminate the worst entirely.

[Peter Parts]

That last sentence is integral to the point I was making. The risk mitigation strategies you adopt can skew the distribution of outcomes but not eliminate the worst entirely.

 

The last sentence of your otherwise very insightful post was, "Whatever risk mitigation measures you take, they aren't predictive of your own survival."

 

At least to my ears, it (1) doesn't sound much like what your quoted post says it says and (2) just isn't correct. There're lotsa things you do that matter a whole lot.

 

My favorite life-prolonging technique: before you roll down the driveway, ask yourself, "Is there anything going on in my life this morning that might lead me to behave unsafely????" Like being late, angry about something, over-joyed, deep in thought, hormonal...

 

While out of modesty I rarely claim expertise, I think I have some boasting rights when it comes to biking longevity (not to mention being a human-factors professional who's written a driving textbook).

 

Ben

[doc47]

Here's a paragraph from What the Dog Saw, Malcolm Gladwell's latest book of his articles from New Yorker.

 

Part of a fleet of taxicabs in Munich was equipped with antilock brake systems (ABS), a technological innovation that vastly improves braking, particularly on slippery surfaces. The rest of the fleet was left alone, and the two groups - which were otherwise perfectly matched -- were placed under careful and secret observation for three years. You would expect the better brakes to make for safer driving. But that is exactly the opposite of what happened. Giving some drivers ABS made no difference at all in their accident rate; in fact, it turned them into markedly inferior drivers. They drove faster. They made sharper turns. They showed poorer lane discipline. They braked harder. They were more likely to tailgate. They didn't merge as well, and they were involved in more near misses. In other words, the ABS systems were not used to reduce accidents; instead, the drivers used the additional element of safety to enable them to drive faster and more recklessly without increasing their risk of getting into an accident. As economists would say, they consumed the risk reduction, they didn't save it.

 

I wonder how much this applies to ATTGATT, our own ABS, etc.

[Peter Parts]

Good point to introduce. But not the right interpretation - again group versus individual issue.

 

Yes, as a group, people show what is properly called "conservation of risk". They "accept" or "tolerate" a certain risk level and drive accordingly under varying condition. Or better to say, they drive as best as they understand the risk. (For example, some folks with all-wheel-drive cars mistakenly act as if their brakes were special as much as their drive grip.)

 

But an individual can choose or change his/her risk tolerance and drive or otherwise behave differently.

 

Ben

[doc47]

Absolutely! Statistics don't apply to single cases.

 

BTW, "My favorite life-prolonging technique: before you roll down the driveway, ask yourself, "Is there anything going on in my life this morning that might lead me to behave unsafely????" Like being late, angry about something, over-joyed, deep in thought, hormonal..."

 

Should be pasted on the dash of every bike! We can't control the actions of others on the road. All we can control is what we do.

 

[Peter Parts]

Absolutely! Statistics don't apply to single cases.snip

Nice thoughts. Thanks.

 

Sorry to be argumentative here but the word "statistics" can mean different things.

 

Statistics - in the sense of correlational research - shows a connection between talking on a cellphone and accidents while driving and the direction of causality seems clear enough. Yes, an individual who talks on a cellphone has a higher chance of injury.

 

But statistics - in the sense of probabilities - can't definitively predict just when you will have an accident, conditional on speaking on a cellphone. But no question that it is increasing your risk every single minute you are talking. And if you stop talking on your cellphone, you are increasing the odds of living long.

 

Ben

[Quinn]

But statistics - in the sense of probabilities - can't definitively predict just when you will have an accident, conditional on speaking on a cellphone. But no question that it is increasing your risk every single minute you are talking. And if you stop talking on your cellphone, you are increasing the odds of living long.

 

Ben

 

Since most accidents happen within ten miles of your home, you need to drive as quickly as possible to get away from this danger zone. Or maybe just not go home as often.

 

----

 

 

[doc47]

Most excellently put, Quinn. I'll be right over.

[ka5ysy]

Since most accidents happen within ten miles of your home, you need to drive as quickly as possible to get away from this danger zone. Or maybe just not go home as often.

 

Best excuse for a Road Trip I have seen in a long time

[Peter Parts]

Since most accidents happen within ten miles of your home, you need to drive as quickly as possible to get away from this danger zone. Or maybe just not go home as often.

 

Best excuse for a Road Trip I have seen in a long time

Good joke but bad logic.

First, you need to correct for exposure by converting the hazard to per minute or per mile basis. If it still looks like driving near home is riskier per mile, then you have to ask why.

 

If it still looks risky because maybe you are less defensive near home, you need to address that. Or if you just can't separate less-defensive and near to home, you need to spend as little time near home as you can.

 

Or maybe you are just not a good prospect for the Golden Age Biker Motorcycle Club. Paul and I will truly miss ya.

 

Gosh, I hate being fussy about logic but I can't tell apart the jokers from those who are just naive and innocent.

 

Ben

[leikam]

That last sentence is integral to the point I was making. The risk mitigation strategies you adopt can skew the distribution of outcomes but not eliminate the worst entirely.

 

The last sentence of your otherwise very insightful post was, "Whatever risk mitigation measures you take, they aren't predictive of your own survival."

 

At least to my ears, it (1) doesn't sound much like what your quoted post says it says and (2) just isn't correct. There're lotsa things you do that matter a whole lot.

 

My favorite life-prolonging technique: before you roll down the driveway, ask yourself, "Is there anything going on in my life this morning that might lead me to behave unsafely????" Like being late, angry about something, over-joyed, deep in thought, hormonal...

 

Perhaps you're interpreting "predictive" differently than I'd meant it: binary rather than heuristic. Your technique may well be helpful for you and shift risks in your favor. I'm all in favor of that and certainly some measures -- like good gear -- are effective. But I think we both agree that there are no magic bullets. Personal survival is a binary state. I have yet to hear of any risk-mitigation technique that will ensure it.

[Miriam]

Hi Beemerman2k – Still going strong I see! About your query or should I say quest? You want to somehow get an reasonably accurate percentage of the risk you run of having a serious accident on your motorcycle during your (riding) lifetime. Not a bad idea as many of us would probably stop riding if we knew the answer to this for ourselves. Problem is you will not be able to get within a reasonably accurate percentage because of too many factors involved that simply cannot be quantified as they are unpredictable and you need a certain amount of predictability make a risk assessment.

 

Motorcycle accidents are largely determined by human error. The condition of your bike and also of the roads you ride, play but a wee part in any accident. So human error is the one you want to harness into hard figures. Such figures exist in the form of the Hurt Report and the MAIDS Study, but how likely are they to apply to you? Of course you can heavily influence at least one human error: You. If you get proper training, do the ATTGATT and don’t drink and ride, you’ve already lowered your risk below that of most riders in the US.

 

But then there is all the other humans who err and drink and are tired or pissed off or just stupid or unlucky. How to quantify them? Still you can improve your risk here by not riding between certain hours and certain days (see David Hough’s books) when traffic is dense and or drivers are more likely to be tired or drunk. You can also lower your risk by practicing SIPDE or SEE as the MSF calls it. Be a prepared and aware rider who assumes nothing. Ride defensively. Chose your speed and position wisely and don’t let your emotions take over no matter how much you feel provoked.

 

Motorcycle riders who do not ride with protective gear, have had no training, drink and ride and so on, I would say they are close to 100% likely to get into a serious accident if they ride long enough. The riders who do everything they can to be ‘safe’ I can’t say because like you said yourself, it only takes one distracted driver or rider who happens to overtake in a blind corner. Now here’s where it becomes interesting: How do you deal with that every time you swing a leg over? That’s the real question I think everyone should answer for themselves.

 

BTW have you read The Upper Half of the Motorcycle by Bernt Spiegel? Fascinating. For instance. You know why so many riders will follow a car on the highway within just a few meters? Because after 4 million years of being pedestrians we can at the most ‘feel’ what it would feel like to run into a tree while jogging, but our brains have no reference what so ever for the pain we will suffer when the car in front of us suddenly brakes and we have run out of braking distance.

 

[ragtoplvr]

I resumed riding after my daughter was born about 5 years ago.

 

That first year, I had lots of cars pull out, turn, perform lots of acts that were unsafe to me.

 

Now with experience I ride different and much much less of this happens.

 

I came to realize I was not as visible as I could be. Now wear the fluorescent green. White Helmet, reflective stuff on bike.

 

I also realized I was putting my self in risky situations. Stopped that.

 

I adopted the attitude if it does not look right to turn I can go around.

 

I still ride fast, but I pick the place carefully, blind drives, lots of houses, etc and I ride slower everywhere else.

 

Still aggressive clueless drivers put me at risk, and this happens in my car too. Just not as often. I know the bike defensive riding skills have saved me from one accident in the car.

 

Rod

[Peter Parts]

Yes, funny how other drivers get better as we get more experience as bikers. I feel safer biking than driving my otherwise really safe Subaru, even in city traffic.

 

Always seems daft to me to go ATGATT because there are trade-offs (like with almost any safety strategy).

 

First of all, it has the scent of unachievable New Years resolutions and we we all know what they are worth. Second, lotsa gear may tire you and dehydrate and otherwise be a bummer to wear on a sunny day.

 

Ben

[beemerman2k]

Miriam: great thoughts for sure.

 

Thanks.

[Tool Man]

Hey James... remember this day when Jay Leno showed up with his jet bike. We know that ain't safe in the wrong hands.

 

[beemerman2k]

Mike! How've you been? Yes, I remember this day alright. What a bike Jay showed up on at the Rock Store. You can tell by the look on my face that I really wanted to take it out for a spin, although if I had I doubt I would have returned in one piece.

 

The other thing I remember about that day, however, is how you rode the wheels off that R1200GS through the canyons of Malibu! I just remember trying to follow you thinking to myself, "You could give me a Suzuki GSXR and I wouldn't do any better trying to keep up with this guy!"

 

Folks, Tool Man does nothing less than all out 100%. Ride with him and you'll see what I mean. After the ride, check out his garage; BMWNA could have a "tech day" at his house!

 

Mike, great to hear from you, and please give my warmest regards to your wife

[Indy Dave]

B2K –

 

You bring up some interesting questions and point out some risks/hazards that many of us may lose sight of the longer we ride. I don’t think there’s any question that in the minds of riders, the longer you or riders you know have been riding, the greater the sense that because of their experiences they become more and more almost ‘above the risks’. There’s an increasing amount subtle confidence that MUST be kept in check as the miles and years mount. That’s not to say that experience is worthless or plays no role – most certainly it does! And the things we learn from those riders who’ve logged many years and miles most certainly helps us to raise our game and improve our own riding skills and mental awareness. No doubt, we look to these veterans as examples of sorts. But it seems at some undefined point, there is an unsaid assumption that nothing tragic will likely ever happen to certain riders. Kind of like a law of averages has been trumped and they’ve passed a magical threshold of risk. I don’t know if it’s a subtle letting down of the guard or just unintentional minimizing of possible random risks occurring due to many years/miles of riding. I know that the more I ride, the greater my tendency is to become less sobering about riding. The more you ‘get away’ with something , the easier it is to repeat the activity and rationalize/minimize the risk. Doesn’t this apply to riding in general as well?

 

To the point of risk and random risks – it seems that each time one rides, he would start off with the same odds of random events occurring – regardless of experience – for each ride. I’m not saying that experience doesn’t impact or help minimize some risk by using that experience to better choose when, where, a particular route or how one rides.

 

I’m told that each ticket you buy for the lottery has the exact same odds of winning, so no matter how many tickets you purchase, the odds remain the same. 100 tickets vs 1 ticket same odds, but more chances to win (or lose). That being the case, wouldn’t that same probability apply to Motorcycling? In fact, it would seem to suggest that the more miles you ride, the better the chances of the odds catching up to you? If this is true, I think knowing the ‘odds’ of various events and get offs might be quite relevant to riders and family.

 

“She died doing something she loved.” We’ve all heard that. And perhaps many of us could hope for no better way to go. But if we knew we were going to die that day doing something we loved, would we still have chosen to do that activity that day?

 

Riders exposure and vulnerability to events and objects beyond their control is undeniable. Experience only goes so far towards reducing these risks. Rounding a curve or taking a corner and encountering diesel fuel on the road is still going to take you down. What happens next is not so certain, and more often than not, beyond our control.

 

To B2K’s question. There are ‘risky’ behaviors that all of us do not engage in – whether due to the level of risk or lack of appeal. There are other activities that we’ve assessed the risk and decided that the activity was worth the risk. We’ve all heard riders say- and most of us have probably defended our riding this way to well-meaning folks – that they’re very careful or always wear a helmet, etc. Thereby suggesting that they have assessed the risks and found them to be acceptable as long as they do (or don’t do) certain things. I think B2K is suggesting that they (we) probably have not accurately accessed all the risks (many beyond our control or even imagination), and that if we were able to do so, perhaps many of us would reconsider our hobby.

 

Without a concerted effort at considerably more detailed accident reporting, it seems making generalizations from spot studies and actuarial tables will continue to be the basis of risk analysis, despite their obvious shortcomings.

 

[beemerman2k]

I think B2K is suggesting that they (we) probably have not accurately accessed all the risks (many beyond our control or even imagination), and that if we were able to do so, perhaps many of us would reconsider our hobby.

 

Actually, what I'm really suggesting is that if we truly appreciated just how nuts it is to get on one of these 2 wheeled machines and propel ourselves in the midst of cars and trucks, there is one thing none of us would ever ever do: judge someone else for the risks they choose to take. That right there is my point.

 

Each of us has chosen to indulge in a passion that is highly dangerous. Sure, most of us have refined our skills over the years (decades, really) such that we have greatly reduced the chances of something going wrong out there. BUT, if something does go wrong, the costs will almost always be high.

 

Therefore, let's leave smokers alone, as though we ourselves live such safety conscious lives. Same with helmetless riders, too. Just as we appreciate the freedom to put our own lives at risk for the sake of our passion, let's not judge others for doing the same thing just because their measure of risk differs from our own.

 

That's all I'm trying to say here

[Indy Dave]

That's easy enough. . .

[ka5ysy]

Yes, funny how other drivers get better as we get more experience as bikers. I feel safer biking than driving my otherwise really safe Subaru, even in city traffic.

 

Always seems daft to me to go ATGATT because there are trade-offs (like with almost any safety strategy).

 

First of all, it has the scent of unachievable New Years resolutions and we we all know what they are worth. Second, lotsa gear may tire you and dehydrate and otherwise be a bummer to wear on a sunny day.

 

Ben

 

 

Ben, maybe you have the wrong gear. I use the Motoport air mesh Kevlar stuff and it is very comfortable in the high temperatures and humidity of south Louisiana summers. Many times I take long rides with my Harley friends in their usual T-shirts etc. and at the end of the ride they are exhausted and look like boiled lobsters. We ATGATT folks are fine, not dehydrated and able to participate in nightlife activities. Ever notice how folks in the desert countries are covered up with loose flowing robes? They are carrying their shade with them. Proper gear works the same way and definitely will save your skin when you have a get-off. Having crash tested my Motoport stuff I can definitely say it works and saved a lot of skin. I also use a modular helmet all the time too. That saved my face on the crash test!

[tallman]

Sorry James, not on board with that.

Big dif on "passion" and addiction.

Big dif on societal costs.

The effect of loud pipes diminishes to a bystander, the effects of second/third hand smoke do not.

You asked a question about motorcycling.

Keeping it to that is fine.

But I think that saying X is dangerous so if you do X you can't say Y is dangerous doesn't fly.

 

[dhanson]

Sorry James, not on board with that.

Big dif on "passion" and addiction.

Big dif on societal costs.

The effect of loud pipes diminishes to a bystander, the effects of second/third hand smoke do not.

You asked a question about motorcycling.

Keeping it to that is fine.

But I think that saying X is dangerous so if you do X you can't say Y is dangerous doesn't fly.

 

I'll second that!

[Peter Parts]

I am alarmed to learn there are bikers out there who believe all accidents are initiated by car drivers and that we learn nothing from experience... just like a lottery, eh.

 

Ben

[Quinn]

I'm sure we could do a graph with accident likelyhood on the y and preventive measures on the x. Then you could watch the risk climb ever higher as you away from good street strategy toward one more beer. Although it would never be at 0,0, it would surely be better for those with countermeasures in place.

 

 

-----

 

 

[Peter Parts]

I'm sure we could do a graph with accident likelyhood on the y and preventive measures on the x. Then you could watch the risk climb ever higher as you away from good street strategy toward one more beer. Although it would never be at 0,0, it would surely be better for those with countermeasures in place.

-----

 

 

For a number of good reasons, you can't meaningfully interpret stats like that. The Hurt methods (accident site visits) comes closest to being helpful for a few issues and particularly for dress, albeit a bit old.

 

As I barely recall, Hurt found a lot of benefit from helmets, jackets, and gloves and in some minority of spills for full-face. By and large, I think it is fair to say most of the other protective gear seemed a pretty modest benefit.

 

I use the word "modest" to mean benefits at the level of which you'd hardly fuss over to reduce other remote risks in life.

 

Yes, I know a dozen people will post now that keeping gravel out of their elbows is absolutely vital to their well-being forever. I agree; and I rarely take longer scoots without that kind of protection. But the issue is how much risk of that and how much you can prevent it by what means and at what costs VERSUS putting some anti-slip treatment in your shower stall*.

 

Ben

*I sometimes testify in court about slips-and-falls. Never the less, I encourage you to check out falling risks at home.

[tallman]

Peter, I would suggest the MAIDS report and the New Zealand study provide some more recent data.

Pretty sure you're familiar with these.

[Peter Parts]

Peter, I would suggest the MAIDS report and the New Zealand study provide some more recent data.

Pretty sure you're familiar with these.

 

Tallman -

 

I appreciate your courtesy in assuming I was familiar with these studies, let alone understood and remembered them. I need to blush only 50% - very grateful to have that New Zealand study for bedtime reading, thanks.

 

About the MAIDS work, I find the various pieces of that undertaking to be too different from North American experience to leave me cold (mostly scooters and mopeds, European city speeds, low speed spills....). And I am somewhat suspicious of Big Committee research.

 

Do you have the time to provide a leg-up into the New Zealand study and to stick your neck out about what we'd find most important there?

 

Ben

[Indy Dave]

I am alarmed to learn there are bikers out there who believe all accidents are initiated by car drivers and that we learn nothing from experience... just like a lottery, eh.

 

Ben

 

I didn't see anyone state this?

[Peter Parts]

I am alarmed to learn there are bikers out there who believe all accidents are initiated by car drivers and that we learn nothing from experience... just like a lottery, eh.

 

Ben

 

I didn't see anyone state this?

 

"To the point of risk and random risks – it seems that each time one rides, he would start off with the same odds of random events occurring – regardless of experience – for each ride. I’m not saying that experience doesn’t impact or help minimize some risk by using that experience to better choose when, where, a particular route or how one rides."

 

I think you really need to understand just what you think you are saying. Or perhaps stop using words whose meaning among informed people is different than the way you use those words. Or maybe decide which side of the street you are walking on. Or....

 

Spills are random events. But experience sure changes the odds you will have one.

 

Ben

[texasaggie97]

I know that as I became a better rider and I rode with responsible riders my risk of having an accident was reduced significantly. I became aware of my surroundings and rode with confidence but still feared the bike enough to know not to drop my guard. Yes I know that riding is dangerous but the quote on my signature is get busy living or get busy dying. When I am on the bike the pressures of the world just fade away. One of the worst things I ever did was selling my bike. I am back in the market and ready to start living.

[Redbrick]

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.

 

James....You lived in Southern California and know how dangerous it is to ride, particularly in the L.A. area....I, very briefly, listen to an L.A. station each morining on my way to coffee with the "boys"....Eight minutes or so i'd guess....Going or coming, and sometimes both, all to often I hear on the traffic report of a "motorcycle down" on one of the freeways....A lot of folks live down there but the percentage of riders to drivers and the percentage of "motorcycles down" are way out of balance....This is a gut deduction I know, but it is sobering to me........

Yet, we ride because the pleasure it gives us outweights the negatives....Once I get on the bike, start riding and get in that zone, feel the oneness with the bike and the road it's all worth it....You all know what I'm trying to describe and I guess that's why we ride; worriers and the squids alike....We're all the same.......

[RT66Rider]

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

 

NO;

 

At least not to any extent that is comprehensible.

 

Every time you ride, the risks vary with the existing conditions, and the conditions are always different.

In my opinion, being well prepared plays a major role in determining your ability to survive, whether on 4 wheels, or 2.

 

Riding on 2 wheels obviously requires a different skill set than driving on 4.

And my advice to new riders is to develop those skills by beginning in the dirt, and then gradually working their way to the street.

But that advice is rarely taken, most likely because the new riders are usually young, impatient, and accustom to instant gratification.

 

And I think it goes without saying that ATGATT can reduce the risk of injury, along with keeping distractions to an absolute minimum.

 

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

Is it possible for us to quantify the risks we take when we get out of bed?

 

GOTO NO;

[beemerman2k]

Phil, as an east coast guy, let me say this with all certainty and clarity: LA is far far easier to ride in than either Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Washington, DC. Far far easier!

 

Why?

 

1) The streets are for the most part, smooth, well paved, and the lanes are clearly marked. Not so on the east coast. The streets back here are more like paths, traverse at your own risk. Every Spring you will read about BMW riders complaining about the busted rims on their bikes from hitting one of the many potholes created by the plow trucks over the winter (although not likely to happen this spring because of the global warming we're experiencing )

 

2) The drivers use their signals when turning or changing lanes! Forget about it in Boston or New York. Forget about it. You must develop and rely on ESP or you're dead over here.

 

3) The drivers stay in their lane. Back east we have the general notion of a lane, but even if you can see the dotted lines, they're simply taken as a suggestion to the drivers, and not much else.

 

4) Traffic cops. In LA I find they are far more active in managing drivers than they are back east. I often joke that the only way you'll EVER get a ticket in the city of Boston is to park in a "no parking" zone (and good luck determining that because you'll see on the same street signs that both allow and forbid parking! Do ya feel lucky? Well do ya punk? ).

 

I think those LA (and SF) crashes we both hear about on the radio are mostly newly minted motorcyclists riding over their heads. Occasionally I'll hear about a seasoned rider going down, but I'd say that I hear about it less than once per year.

 

But I enjoyed LA riding. In the 60K miles I put on my bike in LA, I never had any incidents with other vehicles, and I lane split every chance I got

[Huzband]

Motorcycling is dangerous? It's not limited to motorcycles.

 

I got pushed over to the emergency lane twice on the way home from work in The Wifes Mini Cooper this afternoon because people don't know how to use mirrors or check blind spots. Repeated horn didn't help much, either. Music, ipod, texting...I don't know. All I got was the ole "what the hell?" look when I finally got their attention.

 

Stupidity, that's it!!!

[4wheeldog]

In my admittedly subjective opinion, the most hazardous cities I have ridden in are (In no particular order) San Francisco and Philadelphia. Both have drivers that are clearly pre-occupied with something other than driving, and have "Challenging" street conditions, to put it politely. SF has very steep hills w/narrow streets, trolley tracks with the attending poor traction, and culturally diverse drivers (Read, use wildly different criteria for who has the right-of-way and what constitutes a "Hazard". Philly has streets designed for horses, with cobbles, and folks that have only driven within 10 miles of home their entire lives.

 

Washington DC has the most difficult freeway traffic. Makes LA look extremely sane by comparison. I95 tired me out more in a couple of hours than 900 mile days do normally. LA drivers are good at freeway. East coast, not so much.

 

Slowest drivers in the U.S. are in Washington state. I haven't been there for a few years, so maybe some of them have made it home by now.

[Indy Dave]

I am alarmed to learn there are bikers out there who believe all accidents are initiated by car drivers and that we learn nothing from experience... just like a lottery, eh.

 

Ben

 

I didn't see anyone state this?

 

"To the point of risk and random risks – it seems that each time one rides, he would start off with the same odds of random events occurring – regardless of experience – for each ride. I’m not saying that experience doesn’t impact or help minimize some risk by using that experience to better choose when, where, a particular route or how one rides."

 

I think you really need to understand just what you think you are saying. Or perhaps stop using words whose meaning among informed people is different than the way you use those words. Or maybe decide which side of the street you are walking on. Or....

 

Spills are random events. But experience sure changes the odds you will have one.

 

Ben

 

I never dismissed the fact that experience DOES make a difference - in fact i say it does have an impact. But experience cannot negate the dangers of unavoidable road hazards, cars veering into you etc. This is where it would seem that the more you ride, the greater the odds of coming across that unavoidable happenstance - but that perhaps the odds on each ride are the same, thus the lottery reference.

 

The well seasoned and very high millage rider who was killed last year in Atlanta on 485 by a car that stopped in the far left lane with a flat time. The well known motorcycle safety writer who hit a deer and was killed. The list could go on. My point was that at some point, regardless of experience, there is risk percentage on every ride of encountering an unavoidable hazard, and that a (probably greater) percentage of those will result in impaired or loss of life.

 

At some point, James I thought had digressed from his keep your mouth shut stance about other riders without ATGATT to searching for a risk ratio that expressed the risk of riding in general.

[Peter Parts]

Hate to sound didactic, but here goes.

 

There are different components to the risk of riding. Some you have some control over (that is, you can change the probabilities) and some you can't. As far as I can tell, all, except for putting Amourall on your tires, are "stochastic" events which most people call "random" events. But "random" is a term that is hard to pin down.

 

Of those you can control, some are sort of favorable to your control or causal, sort of - like the relationship of tire wear and getting flats. Others, less so, like conspicuous clothing and being left-turned by a drunk on Saturday night.

 

For any given scoot, you can sort of conceptualize what statisticians refer to as the "expectation" of various mishaps (others say "probability" of harm). If the expectation is high - stay home.

 

Ben

[CVA-42]

This has been an absorbing subject and I've read every post. I probably don't have anything new to add to the safety comments. One of the most salient and chilling observations, and one that I think about a lot, is that despite all that we do to stay safe, it can all be changed in the blink of an eye by some left turning sixteen-year-old, driving his/her daddy's SUV and gabbing on the cell phone despite the lectures he/she has undoubtedly received. Risk determination, assessment, and quantification are relative things and hard to put numbers on. The day before I had open heart surgery eleven years ago, the surgeon came to see me. I asked him what my chances of walking out of that hospital were going to be. He said "probably about 98 percent". A pretty good number to be sure, but I then said that I was "hoping for a hundred". He replied, rightly so, that "no one in this life gets a hundred on their best day". So true. I saw some of the most graphic juxtapositions of relative risk during my career at EPA, the last twenty years of which were in the area of hazardous and toxic waste cleanup. At large Superfund sites, we would stabilize conditions with emergency measures and then begin the long-term evaluation and cleanup. Many of the sites contained carcinogens and, in order to arrive at a cleanup number, we would perform a risk assessment. This assessment would give us the cleanup level that would cause a cancer risk of no more than one in a million to people exposed to the site over their lifetime. Risk assessment at these sites is often called the "soft science" because of the variables involved but it was/is all that's available. In any case, the risk-based cleanup number is extremely low when compared to one's liklihood of otherwise contracting some kind of cancer in the U.S. today (as high as 3 in 5 according to some studies). When we would have public meetings to explain the cancer risk "one in a million" cleanup goal, people would often turn red, stand up, yell and scream that the risk was too high. I was called a "baby killer" more times than I care to remember. Many of these people were obese and went outside to smoke during the breaks. Talk about relative risk.

[beemerman2k]

I was called a "baby killer" more times than I care to remember. Many of these people were obese and went outside to smoke during the breaks. Talk about relative risk.

 

That sounds about right. Our problem is that we place the responsibility of our safety into the hands of others, and then complain when things don't work out the way we want them to. I assume motorcyclists take total responsibility for their own safety. Not always the safest assumption.

[awagnon]

Many of these people were obese and went outside to smoke during the breaks. Talk about relative risk.

 

As an oncologist treating patients with lung cancer, I was often asked to write a letter for their attorney stating that their working around carcinogens at the local military facility caused their lung cancer. Virtually every one of them smoked and I declined to write the letters.

[4wheeldog]

A friend of ours is a nurse whose specialty is working with "At risk pregnant women". This is a euphemism for drug addicted women that find themselves pregnant. Some of them refuse sonograms and/or xrays, because they are "Concerned about the risk to the baby." They often express this concern while on a smoke break, with current dirty drug tests. Rationality is not a long suite in our culture.

[notacop]

How did whacked out preggers get confused with the question of How dangerous in Motorcycling?

Simple answer is only as dangerous as you limited ability to operate one.

That would include the ability to be aware of your surroundings, negating the other folks on the road.

[4wheeldog]

Risk assessment is done subjectively by each individual. There is seldom a rational component in the decision map.

 

How dangerous is motorcycling? Damn dangerous. But, but, but.....I really, really want to do it, so I will rationalize it however I can, so I don't have to stop.

 

Wacked out pregnant women were just an extreme example of that mental process.

[notacop]

Gotta admit, if any group can palaver a subject to death, it's this one!