3 ms·

Just a comment on the "27 times more likely to die" figure. I haven't followed up the stats quoted, but the equivalent in my country (where I have read up in so

Just a comment on the "27 times more likely to die" figure. I haven't followed up the stats quoted, but the equivalent in my country (where I have read up in some detail) generally quoted is 40x. This drops dramatically when you cut out those who are unlicensed (bearing in mind this is illegal here), drunk, or in their 1st year of riding. Which is not to say that motorcycling isn't far more dangerous than driving a car. Bikes are my sole source of transport, on poor potholed rural windy roads in an area with truly terrible standards of driving, and I'm extremely aware of the dangers every day. But the figures are hugely elevated by a few factors, all of which are trivial to eliminate (for an individual, less so for society at large).

notch656a 4y ago
Wouldn't surprise me if equipment failures of even well maintained vehicles can get you to 10x. Just random failure on a motorcycle and you go splat. I was riding during daytime, with many years experience, safely while going in a precisely straight line and not changing speed. Nice, 90% tires with rain tolerant tread and perfectly maintained vehicle. All drivers around me driving safely, me driving safely, rainy but good conditions. Hit a slippery patch on the road, that was somehow angled such that my rear tire slipped at an angle and I was almost instantaneously thrown high-side from the bike, at 70mph from an interstate. Full body suit, helmet, gloves. I walked away without even a scratch (I still can't believe how). But almost died; only survived by the fact I was thrown towards the curb instead of towards the fast lane of traffic. I'd been in lots of crashes before, but usually because I did dumb shit. This time really shocked my conscious because there was just no explanation, no bad drivers, no bad vehicles, no dumb shit, nothing remarkably bad with the road, nothing I can assign fault to anyone or anything. It was a solid week before I got back on the bike after that; usually after a crash I'm back on within minutes if it's still rideable. Impossible to prevent, and no way something like that can happen in a car.
- mod 4y ago
  Fellow rider, that's terrifying. I'm trying to even imagine what could happen. I guess at an angle means your rear wheel was coming around, slipping? Maybe the slickness and even your "maintaining speed" amount of throttle was enough to get the rear wheel spinning. That's just especially scary for me, because I really like the--illusion?--that I'm in control. I want a say-so in what happens, especially in risky situations. I've totaled out a bike myself and gotten back on, but more and more I think maybe it's time to give it up. Especially because I think there's a non-zero (but small) chance we solve aging/death in my lifetime.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    I'm thinking something like half the tread hit slippery surface, and the other half didn't, torqueing the rear wheel in one direction and throwing it to the side. The throttle to maintain speed as you say must have been enough to throw it. Happened very quickly, and as soon as the slick patch went away and the wheel gained purchase I was thrown off the bike as obviously there was misalignment between front and back wheel and the momentum of forward motion. I don't think something like that can happen on an typical uniform slippery surface. I rode motorcycles exclusively for some time in seattle (rain capital of the US) and never had that happen. Rode motorcycles year round off and on for ~10 years before this happened, it was a freak occurrence. I think it requires a particularly nasty freak occurrence of the shape of a wet patch and the angle and entry point at which you hit it.
    - dizhn 4y ago
      Unless you have a rear tyre profile like that of a regular car tyre this is very unlikely. (People who ride long distances on the highway do use car tyres) The contact patch width is TINY.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Well it took me a good 10 years with most of that exclusively on motorcycle before I crashed like that in the rain. I do agree it's unlikely, almost a freak accident to have that happen while going in a straight line at constant speed on good terrain. I truly have no good explanation.
        dizhn 4y ago
        I am no expert but if the whole contact patch hit something slick (oil patch from someone leaking in stop and go traffic) the tyre would first lose grip then immediately gain traction. This is like the definition of a high side anyway. Though I am not sure how rain effects things.
- baybal2 4y ago
- wwkeyboard 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, did the bike have traction control or stability control? I'm curious why it let you apply enough force to break the wheel loose.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    nah
akira2501 4y ago
It's about 40 to 50% on any given year. Fatal accidents very often involve alcohol and speeding and only a single vehicle. When it's not alcohol, it's usually youth, and as you point out that's reflected as the general inexperience of any driver with a new vehicle type.
- mod 4y ago
  What is about 40 to 50% on any given year? It's unclear to me after reading both the GP and your comment.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    40 to 50% of all fatalities involve the circumstances I've described. The last year I checked was about 36k fatalities, and a little more than 16k of them matched that pattern. Another confounding, but obvious point, is that alcohol and risky driving is also more of a factor at night than it is during the day. People also might assume that a motorcycle rider is _less_ likely to commit a DUI, when it's actually the opposite. Once you take risky single vehicle accidents out of the picture, the statistic that really starts to stand out is pedestrians. They go from 16% of all deaths to around 30% of the remaining deaths. These are also most likely to happen at night, and a surprising number happen outside of urban areas; and it wasn't clear from NHTSA data alone whether that was due to speed of the vehicle being higher or the distance to a hospital being greater. One odd point that I didn't have time to chase down is it seems that elderly drivers and passengers are much safer in the front seat. There was a strong skew for their fatalities to be found in the rear seats of vehicles. The profile was something like 80 year olds in the rear, and 40 year olds in the front. This seemed like a particularly dangerous configuration for elderly passengers. The other interesting data point I gathered is that Texas had a higher number of fatalities over California, even though it has a smaller population. It suggests that state laws and road design are also a large factor in fatalities. Anyways.. NHTSA publishes the FARS database. Every fatality is recorded, and if it was investigated all of the data is reported in a standardized format. They even have a "sequence of events leading up to the fatality" coded in there. It's an amazing resource.
blehn 4y ago
> This drops dramatically when you cut out those who are unlicensed (bearing in mind this is illegal here), drunk, or in their 1st year of riding. That's misleading. You can't cut those out and not also cut them out for car drivers. ~30% of US car crash fatalities involve drunk drivers, which is roughly the same as the motorcycle rate
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  Depends whether you're applying the multiplier to the population fatality rate vs your individual chance. It was the former that I was thinking of, but either is possible. On your specific claim, I don't know about US statistics, but when I looked in Aus (about 5 years ago), the proportion of deaths involving drunk/inexperience/unlicensed riders was much greater than for drivers. Individual choices and skill had a much bigger effect for motorcyclists. Nonetheless I'm not remotely claiming that death rates are not greatly higher than for drivers. They absolutely are, in all categories. But the headline multiplier may not apply to any given individual.
  - mgfist 4y ago
    This is purely anecdotal, but it feels much easier to stay safe in a car than it does on a bike. Crashing on a bike is inherently super dangerous regardless of speeds, whereas crashing in a car is only really dangerous at high speeds (and even then crumple zones are really really effective). The lack of a crumple zone for motorcycles makes it really hard to not judge them as more dangerous. Put this way, to my judgement a skilled driver should be much safer than an equally skilled motorcycle rider.
    - aussiesnack 4y ago
      Equally anecdotal is that it feels much easier to avoid crashes on a bike. They're nimbler and have access to much more road (and off it, for that matter). Yes, very obviously if you do crash, you're much worse off on the bike. In the end though, you're right, and we don't even need anecdotes to prove it - the stats are voluminous and clear. Yes, you can reduce your risk somewhat with good bike and skills maintenance, but even with that, motorcycling is much more risky to life and limb than driving a car. If safety is higher in your valuation than whatever your reasons for riding (there are many possible), riding is never rational. Safety is fairly low in my evaluative framework, and my reasons for riding persuasive, so it's not a hard choice in my personal case.

notch656a 4y ago

Wouldn't surprise me if equipment failures of even well maintained vehicles can get you to 10x. Just random failure on a motorcycle and you go splat. I was riding during daytime, with many years experience, safely while going in a precisely straight line and not changing speed. Nice, 90% tires with rain tolerant tread and perfectly maintained vehicle. All drivers around me driving safely, me driving safely, rainy but good conditions. Hit a slippery patch on the road, that was somehow angled such that my rear tire slipped at an angle and I was almost instantaneously thrown high-side from the bike, at 70mph from an interstate. Full body suit, helmet, gloves. I walked away without even a scratch (I still can't believe how). But almost died; only survived by the fact I was thrown towards the curb instead of towards the fast lane of traffic. I'd been in lots of crashes before, but usually because I did dumb shit. This time really shocked my conscious because there was just no explanation, no bad drivers, no bad vehicles, no dumb shit, nothing remarkably bad with the road, nothing I can assign fault to anyone or anything. It was a solid week before I got back on the bike after that; usually after a crash I'm back on within minutes if it's still rideable. Impossible to prevent, and no way something like that can happen in a car.

mod 4y ago
Fellow rider, that's terrifying. I'm trying to even imagine what could happen. I guess at an angle means your rear wheel was coming around, slipping? Maybe the slickness and even your "maintaining speed" amount of throttle was enough to get the rear wheel spinning. That's just especially scary for me, because I really like the--illusion?--that I'm in control. I want a say-so in what happens, especially in risky situations. I've totaled out a bike myself and gotten back on, but more and more I think maybe it's time to give it up. Especially because I think there's a non-zero (but small) chance we solve aging/death in my lifetime.
- notch656a 4y ago
  I'm thinking something like half the tread hit slippery surface, and the other half didn't, torqueing the rear wheel in one direction and throwing it to the side. The throttle to maintain speed as you say must have been enough to throw it. Happened very quickly, and as soon as the slick patch went away and the wheel gained purchase I was thrown off the bike as obviously there was misalignment between front and back wheel and the momentum of forward motion. I don't think something like that can happen on an typical uniform slippery surface. I rode motorcycles exclusively for some time in seattle (rain capital of the US) and never had that happen. Rode motorcycles year round off and on for ~10 years before this happened, it was a freak occurrence. I think it requires a particularly nasty freak occurrence of the shape of a wet patch and the angle and entry point at which you hit it.
  - dizhn 4y ago
    Unless you have a rear tyre profile like that of a regular car tyre this is very unlikely. (People who ride long distances on the highway do use car tyres) The contact patch width is TINY.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Well it took me a good 10 years with most of that exclusively on motorcycle before I crashed like that in the rain. I do agree it's unlikely, almost a freak accident to have that happen while going in a straight line at constant speed on good terrain. I truly have no good explanation.
      - dizhn 4y ago
        I am no expert but if the whole contact patch hit something slick (oil patch from someone leaking in stop and go traffic) the tyre would first lose grip then immediately gain traction. This is like the definition of a high side anyway. Though I am not sure how rain effects things.
baybal2 4y ago
wwkeyboard 4y ago
Out of curiosity, did the bike have traction control or stability control? I'm curious why it let you apply enough force to break the wheel loose.
- notch656a 4y ago
  nah

akira2501 4y ago

It's about 40 to 50% on any given year. Fatal accidents very often involve alcohol and speeding and only a single vehicle. When it's not alcohol, it's usually youth, and as you point out that's reflected as the general inexperience of any driver with a new vehicle type.

mod 4y ago
What is about 40 to 50% on any given year? It's unclear to me after reading both the GP and your comment.
- akira2501 4y ago
  40 to 50% of all fatalities involve the circumstances I've described. The last year I checked was about 36k fatalities, and a little more than 16k of them matched that pattern. Another confounding, but obvious point, is that alcohol and risky driving is also more of a factor at night than it is during the day. People also might assume that a motorcycle rider is _less_ likely to commit a DUI, when it's actually the opposite. Once you take risky single vehicle accidents out of the picture, the statistic that really starts to stand out is pedestrians. They go from 16% of all deaths to around 30% of the remaining deaths. These are also most likely to happen at night, and a surprising number happen outside of urban areas; and it wasn't clear from NHTSA data alone whether that was due to speed of the vehicle being higher or the distance to a hospital being greater. One odd point that I didn't have time to chase down is it seems that elderly drivers and passengers are much safer in the front seat. There was a strong skew for their fatalities to be found in the rear seats of vehicles. The profile was something like 80 year olds in the rear, and 40 year olds in the front. This seemed like a particularly dangerous configuration for elderly passengers. The other interesting data point I gathered is that Texas had a higher number of fatalities over California, even though it has a smaller population. It suggests that state laws and road design are also a large factor in fatalities. Anyways.. NHTSA publishes the FARS database. Every fatality is recorded, and if it was investigated all of the data is reported in a standardized format. They even have a "sequence of events leading up to the fatality" coded in there. It's an amazing resource.

blehn 4y ago

> This drops dramatically when you cut out those who are unlicensed (bearing in mind this is illegal here), drunk, or in their 1st year of riding. That's misleading. You can't cut those out and not also cut them out for car drivers. ~30% of US car crash fatalities involve drunk drivers, which is roughly the same as the motorcycle rate

aussiesnack 4y ago
Depends whether you're applying the multiplier to the population fatality rate vs your individual chance. It was the former that I was thinking of, but either is possible. On your specific claim, I don't know about US statistics, but when I looked in Aus (about 5 years ago), the proportion of deaths involving drunk/inexperience/unlicensed riders was much greater than for drivers. Individual choices and skill had a much bigger effect for motorcyclists. Nonetheless I'm not remotely claiming that death rates are not greatly higher than for drivers. They absolutely are, in all categories. But the headline multiplier may not apply to any given individual.
- mgfist 4y ago
  This is purely anecdotal, but it feels much easier to stay safe in a car than it does on a bike. Crashing on a bike is inherently super dangerous regardless of speeds, whereas crashing in a car is only really dangerous at high speeds (and even then crumple zones are really really effective). The lack of a crumple zone for motorcycles makes it really hard to not judge them as more dangerous. Put this way, to my judgement a skilled driver should be much safer than an equally skilled motorcycle rider.
  - aussiesnack 4y ago
    Equally anecdotal is that it feels much easier to avoid crashes on a bike. They're nimbler and have access to much more road (and off it, for that matter). Yes, very obviously if you do crash, you're much worse off on the bike. In the end though, you're right, and we don't even need anecdotes to prove it - the stats are voluminous and clear. Yes, you can reduce your risk somewhat with good bike and skills maintenance, but even with that, motorcycling is much more risky to life and limb than driving a car. If safety is higher in your valuation than whatever your reasons for riding (there are many possible), riding is never rational. Safety is fairly low in my evaluative framework, and my reasons for riding persuasive, so it's not a hard choice in my personal case.