3 ms·

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.

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.