4 ms·

For those in that area that can't afford a safe, reliable car, perhaps it's a step up from a motorbike though. Not to mention, it allows for more passengers in

For those in that area that can't afford a safe, reliable car, perhaps it's a step up from a motorbike though. Not to mention, it allows for more passengers in the death trap.

Retric 9y ago
Depends on top speed. If you moped never breaks 25mph then a car doing 50mph could easily be less safe. It's also much more dangerous to people around you.
- NoPiece 9y ago
  The most reliable mopeds still crash and get hit. Fatalities per mile are greater bicycles and motorcycles than cars.
  - gorkonsine 9y ago
    Where? If you're in a place where everyone drives a moped or bicycle and cars are rare, then mopeds are a lot safer. Stick the moped in traffic surrounded by clueless SUV drivers and now the moped is a death-trap. Go to a place where everyone rides a bicycle and there's no cars and I guarantee the fatality-per-mile rate is ridiculously low. See downtown Copenhagen for example.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Depends if you limit it to moped - moped collision then the numbers are different. But a car - moped collision is arguably a car fatality not a moped fatality. That said walking is very dangerous per mile, but cars get a lot more miles on them.
  - apendleton 9y ago
    Fatalities per mile is a tricky metric for comparing across modes, though. At least in the US, people getting cars often comes with adopting a car-centric lifestyle: you move to the suburbs, your commute and trips to the grocery store get significantly longer, etc. This is why fatalities per mile are higher on a bike, but fatalities per trip are actually slightly lower than a car: people with cars take longer trips.
    - mastazi 9y ago
      > This is why fatalities per mile are higher on a bike, but fatalities per trip are actually slightly lower than a car: people with cars take longer trips. Maybe I'm just dense but how does that invalidate parent's point? Based on what you are saying (difference in trip length), it appears that fatalities per mile actually does a better job (than fatalities per trip) at representing the relative safety of different classes of vehicles...
      - lmm 9y ago
        The question most people care about is something like "would buying a car make me more or less likely to die". If buying a car means you're safer per-mile but leads you to take longer trips, then not buying a car is safer.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    I'd be very curious about the stats. Above 35-40 you quickly notice a change in momentum. At least a car might have better brakes and stability.
- tinus_hn 9y ago
  In the Netherlands you are about 4 times more likely to be seriously injured or killed due to an accident by distance driven on a moped compared to in a car. This is due to the safety features of cars and to a lesser extent the fact that young people, who end up in a lot of accidents are allowed to ride a moped but not a car.
  - Retric 9y ago
    How many of those collisions are with cars? Because cars kill a lot of pedestrians, but those count more vs people walking than vs people driving due to the relative distances involved.

For those in that area that can't afford a safe, reliable car, perhaps it's a step up from a motorbike though. Not to mention, it allows for more passengers in the death trap.

Retric 9y ago

Depends on top speed. If you moped never breaks 25mph then a car doing 50mph could easily be less safe. It's also much more dangerous to people around you.

NoPiece 9y ago
The most reliable mopeds still crash and get hit. Fatalities per mile are greater bicycles and motorcycles than cars.
- gorkonsine 9y ago
  Where? If you're in a place where everyone drives a moped or bicycle and cars are rare, then mopeds are a lot safer. Stick the moped in traffic surrounded by clueless SUV drivers and now the moped is a death-trap. Go to a place where everyone rides a bicycle and there's no cars and I guarantee the fatality-per-mile rate is ridiculously low. See downtown Copenhagen for example.
- Retric 9y ago
  Depends if you limit it to moped - moped collision then the numbers are different. But a car - moped collision is arguably a car fatality not a moped fatality. That said walking is very dangerous per mile, but cars get a lot more miles on them.
- apendleton 9y ago
  Fatalities per mile is a tricky metric for comparing across modes, though. At least in the US, people getting cars often comes with adopting a car-centric lifestyle: you move to the suburbs, your commute and trips to the grocery store get significantly longer, etc. This is why fatalities per mile are higher on a bike, but fatalities per trip are actually slightly lower than a car: people with cars take longer trips.
  - mastazi 9y ago
    > This is why fatalities per mile are higher on a bike, but fatalities per trip are actually slightly lower than a car: people with cars take longer trips. Maybe I'm just dense but how does that invalidate parent's point? Based on what you are saying (difference in trip length), it appears that fatalities per mile actually does a better job (than fatalities per trip) at representing the relative safety of different classes of vehicles...
    - lmm 9y ago
      The question most people care about is something like "would buying a car make me more or less likely to die". If buying a car means you're safer per-mile but leads you to take longer trips, then not buying a car is safer.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  I'd be very curious about the stats. Above 35-40 you quickly notice a change in momentum. At least a car might have better brakes and stability.
tinus_hn 9y ago
In the Netherlands you are about 4 times more likely to be seriously injured or killed due to an accident by distance driven on a moped compared to in a car. This is due to the safety features of cars and to a lesser extent the fact that young people, who end up in a lot of accidents are allowed to ride a moped but not a car.
- Retric 9y ago
  How many of those collisions are with cars? Because cars kill a lot of pedestrians, but those count more vs people walking than vs people driving due to the relative distances involved.