motorcycle vs car safety

"Knobdoodle" wrote

My last two, and worst two, crashes were 2000 kms from anywhere.

Theo

 

What is the postcode of "anywhere"?

--
James Mayfield
"Insert witty comment here."

 

Yep. As a rider I have been hit twice as many times on a bike than in a car

If you think that a collision is going to be safer at speed "x" cos its
slower, then bikes aren't for you. I've been hit while I was travelling at
0 km/h and it still hurt.

You may never be hit, you may get hit tomorrow.

Hammo

 

Wow! Autoeroticism in the spray booth!

We all would have said you were copying Hutchance anyway.

Hammo

 

Heatshrink will be slippery. The cricket bat stuff is grippy.

Kim

 

Hang on, nev! Are you really suggesting that someone who rides 1,000km a
year is 40 times more likely to die riding it than someone who does 40,000km
a year? You reckon the death risk is 1,600 times as great?
(Is that right paulh?)

You mention the skills involved in riding a motorbike, nev.

From where I sit (in the middle of the bike), the most highly-skilled of the
regular riders I see are also those who put themselves in the most
precarious positions. I suppose their skill gets them through, most of the
time, but when circumstances turn against them they are also the most likely
to be too far in to get out. Added to that, they are also more likely to
have a couple of other highly-skilled riders in the mix, since highly
skilled riders seem to revel in the chase.

Sometimes I'm glad I ride a girls bike at sedate velocity, times like when
my back aches, my knees ache, and my wrists ache. At least I don't have
highly-skilled riders fucking around near me.

--
Conehead
"Besides, I have vehicle(s), which is/(are) not used me so much of the above
is something I need to abide to in order for things to get done."

Hammo, in aus.motorcycles

 

bit hard to pin that one down methinks. A shitload more injuries occur,
no doubt about it, but lots of them are minor. I'd be quite surprised
if as many deaths occured... you can choose your level of risk better on
a traily too methinks. It's generally only your own fault if you end up
headfirst in a tree...

Charlie

 

how many 'injuries' resulted in death though?

Charlie

 

I'm sorry.. that makes no sense what so ever and I must've read it at least
15 times..

 

try reading the screen then

 

s'not that hard to decipher. try for 16.

Charlie

 

I see literal week is still in full swing. I was just making an
exaggerated point and I couldn't be bothered changing the numbers to reflect
real life accurately because i have no idea what those numbers would be. i
was pointing out that risk is a function of many more variables than just
kilometres travelled and that those variables themselves are are affected by
kilometres travelled.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R
'02 CBR1100XX

 

The statistics don't always reflect accurately the outcome of accidents. In
Victoria for example, any person involved in an accident who is taken by
ambulance to hospital is counted in the statistics as a "serious injury", any
people treated at the scene by the ambos but not taken to hospital is counted
as an "injury". Twice after motorcycle accidents I've been taken to hospital
by ambulance. I would not regard either of those as being "serious" injuries,
I just used the ambulance because it was the quickest means of getting what
further medical assistance I needed for the injuries I sustained.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R
'02 CBR1100XX

 

I think it would be more 'real life' if you ran as fast as you possibly could,
and, without slacking your pace, threw yourself at the ground, say a strip of
asphalt with a light covering of gravel about 5 metres before the brick wall,
and slid/tumbled into the wall.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R
'02 CBR1100XX

 

You all would never have known me!


BTH

 

I'm not analysing their reasoning, that's just what they wanted me to
do at the time.


BTH

 

dunno, but it must be near Deviot.

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s
'87 BMW K100RT

www.dmcsc.org.au

 

I think Charlie was referring to the likelihood that, even though there
is twice the chance that a motorcyclist will be injured (in comparison
with a car driver), the car driver may well be less likely to die as
they do have a fair bit of protection from the crumple zone around them.
Bike's don't have that.

However, as Doug pointed out, once an accident HAS occurred, the car
driver has more potential injury causing artifacts to deal with.

What Charlie has inadvertently highlighted is that the road toll refers
to death, whereas the true impact on people is a combination of death
AND non-fatal (but nevertheless serious) injuries

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s
'87 BMW K100RT

www.dmcsc.org.au

 

They should make them alcohol free zones I reckon.

 

That didn't read right. Let me reword.

I think that Charlie is saying that, due to the fact that car drivers
have a crumple zone around them, they are more likely than riders to NOT
die when in an accident. Therefore, while the chance of injury to riders
is twice as high as to drivers, the chance of death will be MORE than
twice as high for riders.

I think, though, that there probably is a correlation between injury and
death. That is, the crumple zone is giving drivers twice the chance
(when compared to riders) of not being injured in an accident. I'd say
that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that could be inferred
as indicating that drivers have also twice the chance of not being
killed.

Therefore the original statistic still stands - chances of an accident
are the same. Chances of injury (and therefore death) are about twice as
high for riders as for drivers.

Therefore riding is twice as dangerous as driving. No ifs or buts.

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
'81 Suzuki GS450-s
'87 BMW K100RT

www.dmcsc.org.au