4 ms·
> chronically adverse culture That's the thing. On a bike you can do everything right and still lose. California is one of the safer places to ride given how
by qmr 4mo ago
> chronically adverse culture
That's the thing. On a bike you can do everything right and still lose.
California is one of the safer places to ride given how many bikes are here and I've still had too many near misses as a trained, experienced, and conservative rider.
Most people put 1-2k miles a year on their bikes, when I was riding often I put on 2-3k/ month.
- embedding-shape 4mo ago> That's the thing. On a bike you can do everything right and still lose. Same with a car, or anything really. The point of parent stands, globally there are billions of people going through their lives with motorcycles as their main vehicles, yet aren't involved in any life-changing accidents. Some places are more dangerous than others, probably places that doesn't have this already motorcycle-heavy culture, like other countries in the world, has a higher incident rate and more severe accidents, as drivers aren't aware of how motorcycles usually operate.
- robobro 4mo agoI live in Indonesia. We have the highest per-capita rate of bike ownership in the world. I have seen what happens to motorcycle riders when there are accidents and I have seen what happens to car drivers when there are accidents. I won't get into the gory details but I avoid using bikes as much as possible.
- embedding-shape 4mo agoAnd I've seen what happens when pedestrians get hit by a car going way too fast, it sucks, and is horrible, but also besides the point. Not to say one has worse/better accidents, motorcycles accidents obviously has a much higher fatality and serious injuries risk, hard to deny.
- ProllyInfamous 4mo ago>but also besides the point. Hard disagree. Both pedestrians and motorcyclists are raw to the elements, entirely. At least when on roadways an automobile provides a chassis/rollcage.
- embedding-shape 4mo agoYou disagree with me agreeing with what you just wrote about it being more dangerous to go with motorcycles? The "besides the point" is that the point I was raising was how common motorcycles are, globally. Is that what you're disagreeing with?
- ProllyInfamous 4mo agoLet me read both these comments some more, because after this one (above): I'm even more confused. Quickly: we seem to agree that motorcycles are dangerous and worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). I had associated your beside the point with a biker being more-safe than a pedestrian -- is that what you meant? ---- I have done 120mph in both vehicles, car and motorcycle – and won't ever go over 55mph on a dirtbike (only, offroad); never again on-road riding.
- embedding-shape 4mo ago> worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). Huh? No, it's mostly correlated with working class and below, hardly "correlated with poverty", at least the places I'm familiar with. I do agree they're dangerous. I don't agree that everyone should always avoid everything dangerous simply because it's dangerous.
- qmr 4mo agoWhen vulnerable road users are killed in other countries there is strict liability. That is, the driver is assumed at fault unless proven otherwise. In America it's the perfect crime. "I'm so sorry officer I never saw them." Case closed Lou.
- qmr 4mo agoCrashes. Not accidents.
- coldtea 4mo agoAccidents. Not everything is under the driver's control, nor does it happen due to their intention (or even necessarily due to their lack of attention or whatever). There's a reason the term accident is used (I know at least 10 countries where the meaning is the same).
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- qmr 4mo agoCrash. Google crash not accident will give many resources. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash-not-accident https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash... > there's a reason Yes, the auto lobby. Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving. That's just not true.
- embedding-shape 4mo ago> Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving. What? Where is that conclusion coming from? There can be thousands of "accidents" and they can all be preventable, calling it "crash" or "accident" doesn't imply if it's preventable or not. Talk about arbitrary hill to die on, very inconsequential. Why is this somehow so important? FWIW, countries like Sweden call them "accidents" yet treat them as preventable and something to aim to minimize, not sure why it'd matter so much if someone call it accident or not.
- qmr 4mo agoPlease don't say accident when you really mean crash. Promote language of responsibility and accountability.
- embedding-shape 4mo agoMost crashes, but not all, are accidents. I think I'm talking about accidents, not crashes.
- qmr 4mo agoSomeone is always at fault. Look into auto lobby and this "accident" term history. Use the language of accountability.
- coldtea 4mo ago>Someone is always at fault. Only by a very lose definition of "fault", chosen for moralistic purposes. Of course people saying what you say, if it happens to them, they'll suddenly swear theirs was a real accident.
- embedding-shape 4mo ago"Crash" sounds like it just happened by chance or for whatever reason. "Accident" makes it sound like something went wrong, maybe someone did something wrong, and then something happened because of that, maybe a crash, maybe something else. I still think "accident" is more accurate, so I'll continue to use that. Thanks for explaining though!
- ProllyInfamous 4mo agoMy vehicle has collision insurance – is this an intermediary term (or something more specific)?
- qmr 4mo agoIt's fine. Certainly far preferable to accident.
- stickfigure 4mo agoGet a dirt bike. 10X more fun than street riding and much safer.
- coldtea 4mo ago>That's the thing. On a bike you can do everything right and still lose. Same with anything in life. Same with a car, just less so. Of course you could also stay at home, wearing protective bumper suit 24/7 (and can still die from any number of things anyway). At some point there's a tradeoff people make. Some people make it where the tradeoff slider says "motorcycle", rather than stop at "car". And I'm not talking a tiny niche, but about 1-1.2 billion people globally.
- Falimonda 4mo agoThe risk is much much much higher with a motorcycle - especially in the US where most car drivers have next to zero experience sharing the road with motorcycles let alone driving a motorcycle. Saying it's the same thing is absurd here. - Licensed motorcycle driver
- mothballed 4mo agoVs what though? We're talking about a felon and addict channeling their risk-taking energy. I rode motorcycles exclusively as my transport in my 20s and it was one of the main things that checked use of intoxicants. You need your balance for a motorcycle and it uses the same risk-taking energy that many people would otherwise channel into drugs and destruction. That is to say, those comparing car v motorcycle are doing the wrong comparison here. You'd be evaluating (car + substitute activity of drugs/crime/etc) vs. motorcycle -- rather than merely car v motorcycles.
- Falimonda 4mo agoMotorcycles are not sobriety tests...
- estearum 4mo agoYeah exactly, same with BASE jumping or wingsuiting. It's the same risk dynamic as driving a car to work, just more so. Of course you could also stay at home, wearing protective bumper suit 24/7 (and can still die from any number of things anyway).