Bike casualty rates & danger levels etc (misleading?)

[loply]

Hi folks,

Something that I've been running through my mind for a few years and wanted to get some oppinions on.

We've all heard the stats about bikers being 25-30x more likely to die than car drivers.

My big gripe with this statistic though goes as follows.

A large number of bikers, and doubltess a disproportionate number of fatalities, are riding a hobby/toy bike which is extremely fast in a spirited fashion, often with no particular destination or going faster than required (ie having fun).

Car drivers generally drive every day, for a specific purpose, definately aren't trying to have fun, and are driving very slow cars.

Consider if everybody rode a CB250, only ever commuted, didn't try to go as fast as possible around corners, and never went out riding for the hell of it.

Then consider if everybody had a Ferrari/Kit Car capable of superbike performance, and they drove them around for a few hours every weekend for 6 months of the year, trying to go as fast as possible, often just driving until they were satisfied with their performance.

Personally, I think bikes themselves are barely any more dangerous than cars.

I wish I could find a statistic which illustrates this, but clearly it's the intention/attitude which is dangerous, not the physical nature of the vehicle.

As such, if you ride a bike and don't want to die, it's perfectly possible to make yourself as safe as a car driver (almost).

I therefore hate it on TV programs when they say (que dramatic voice) "bikers only make up 0.001% of road users, but account for 105% of all fatalities!" - because it's just B/S.

Hell raising, fun loving lunatics pushing their luck are what those statements refer to, and motorcycles just happen to be their tool of choice.

Anybody see what I mean? or am I just imagining things?
____________________
Yamaha SZR660 Caution to the wind, the throttle pinned!

[pinkyfloyd]

[Ingah]

I understand entirely.

Also amusing how the less trained L-platers are included in the stats. Yep, those people who have merely gone through the CBT (which we all gripe about as being not sufficient), rather than the more in-depth full license (which up until recently was the equivalent of a car test - and is now way harder). I suspect they more than their fair share, anyway.

And what about the 16 year old ped bois, in their jazzy helmet and traccy bottoms?
vs the 30 year old commuter on his CB250?

The figures could make amusing reading. If anyone has a link, i'd be interested in a good giggle.
____________________
-- Ingah

[loply]

Actually, I have a feeling that ped boys make up a very small percentage of fatalities.

I don't know for sure, but I think that's why they get away with it (it'd be banned otherwise)

They're basically not fast enough, or on the right kind of roads, to get killed
____________________
Yamaha SZR660 Caution to the wind, the throttle pinned!

[Ingah]

I guess i meant KSI (killed or seriously injured), which is likely in any motorcycle collision without PPE.
____________________
-- Ingah

[dodsi]

I understand where your going with this Rich - definalty an interesting thought.

The stats you would look at are commuters on motorcycles deaths vs car fatalities.

Though there are inexperienced young lads driving around wrecklessly in super mini's creating new roadside memorials taken into the overall stats. Plus there are plenty of sensible riders who come a cropper through sometimes no fault of their own.

I still believe that taking out of the equasion weekend warriors motorcycles would still come out more deaths as a percentage than equiv cars as most car accidents are fender benders... on a bike it's usually a little worse than that.

[c_dug]

Usually they split mopeds from motorcycles in the statistics.

Anyway, suggesting a bike can be as safe as a car is like suggesting playing russian roulette with a loaded pistol can be as safe as playing it with a nerf gun it can be if you don't get shot, but sooner or later you will, and it will be worse.

Bikes are more dangerous, if we were to stage 50 different realistic crash scenarios twice, once with a car and once with a bike I bet almost every the time the car driver would fair better than the biker.
____________________
I am a bellend, I am a man of constant sorrow, I am a gummy bear, I am a rock.

[Ingah]

[loply]

If most people rode their bikes the way they drive cars, you would crash bikes far less often.

On a bike you take up less space, observation is easier, and the sense of vulnerability and lack of distractions keeps you concentrating.

In a car it's easy to not spot things and hit another vehicle with your rear quarter, or to be fiddling with the radio etc.

On a bike you just look ahead and so you are less likely to be in a crash.

This counteracts the lack of a safety cage and therefore in my opinion makes bikes about as safe as cars, and less likely to have a crash.

Ofcourse, as per the OP, this is then counteracted by the fact that we don't ride our bikes like that, we push our luck and have fun, but the point was that if we didn't we'd be pretty safe.
____________________
Yamaha SZR660 Caution to the wind, the throttle pinned!

[SamJL]

The thing is, even if there was the same amount of bike accident's as car accidents, the bikers will always be worse off. If someone crashes in to the back of you on the motorway in a car, you might get whiplash. If some one crashes in to back of you on a motorway and your on a bike, you might die. If there was the same amount of bikes on the roads as cars, and all bikes commuted, and all car drivers commuted, there would still be more deaths on motorbikes, and most likely more bike accidents still. If you loose all the grip on your front wheel on a bike, you fall off (90% of the time), if you loose grip in a car, you understeer a little bit then carry on driving. A car is a lot easier to drive and a lot easier to control when something does go wrong, even when just commuting.
____________________
2009 CBR1000RR
2004 KTM 200SX
2004 KTM 65SX

[Kickstart]

[c_dug]

I do get what you are saying about if bikers didn't take any risks specific to bikes but still payed all the extra attention that we do then there would be less accidents.

But like fuck am I going to sit in 2 hours worth of traffic, or avoid leaning in corners, or not do the traffic light GP in the morning, or not squeeze between the two cars on the motorway even though everybody is already doing 70+mph just because I may get hurt. I am young therefore I am invincible!!!!!

Death and injury are one of the risks of motorcycling, its the risks : benefit/fun ratio that effects how we ride as individuals. To me occasionally riding like a bit of a tit is worth the risk.
____________________
I am a bellend, I am a man of constant sorrow, I am a gummy bear, I am a rock.

[Ingah]

[c_dug]

____________________
I am a bellend, I am a man of constant sorrow, I am a gummy bear, I am a rock.

[neil.]

Also consider how various hazards stack the odds against riders - stuff like diesel spills, rain on painted road markings, wet autumn leaves, and so on... Would have little effect on a car, but can quite easily cause a bike to lose balance and greatly injure the rider or worse.

Mechanical failure could potentially have more disastrous results on a bike than in a car - a tyre blow-out, or chain snapping for example. Although I don't know how many rider deaths or injuries are attributed to this, I would have thought it upped the risk though.
____________________
CBT February 2008 | A2 June 2008 | Yamaha YBR125 (written off) | Honda CBF125 (current)

[Kris]

The fatality figure I can understand, seeing as we would generally expect to come off worse in an accident.

What I view with sceptisism is the high figures sometimes quoted blaming rider error. I recall reading a BIKE mag article not that long ago where they set up a camera on a country road tight right hand corner (no visibilty through bend) and captured stills of the cars travelling round the corner, showing their road positioning.

Some of the cars were almost completely on the wrong side of the road, some whilst on the phone etc.

Then there's the A-pillars of modern cars which render motorcycles completely invisible for a moment as you pass them. DAMHIKT

Finding a lone biker dead in a bush doesn't necessarily mean they were hooning along and lost it pushing the limits. It could mean they were faced with a car on their side of the road seconds before; it's not like car drivers will definately stop is it!

Lots of factors which statistics fail to handle well IMO.
____________________
NSR125RR - ZXR750H1 - ZX9R E1 - GSF600S - GSF600SK3 - VFR400-NC30 - SV1000N - ST1100-R - CBR900RR-R - GSF1200SK5 - GSF600SK1 - VFR1200FA - GSXR1000K2 - ZZR1400 D8F
www.prisonplanet.com

[Wafer_Thin_Ham]

[colin1]

Generally, motorbikes bring out the devil in you. I'm a mild mannered James May type chap, yet I got 6 points for doing 100 in a 60, and it didnt even feel that fast, as its just so easy to accelerate on a sports 600. There is no way I would have done that in a car I could afford, as it just wouldnt be able to get up to 100 so quick for an overtake.

For more reckless people than me, the surprise is that they don't all ride at 140mph everywhere.

To do that sort of thing in a car, you would need a very expensive car, which most people cant afford, so they don't get so tempted to go fast.

A minor accident in a car can be a fatal accident on a bike.

Two friends of mine overcooked it on a bend on different occasions, and went head on into a tree.

One was in a car, so was fine, although the car wasn't. The other was on a bike wearing a flip up lid helmet, and is consequently dead.

Riding a motorbike is dangerous, but you can seriously reduce the risks by avoiding dangers. If you never ride on unlit roads at night, never ride in the rain, never overtake, never filter, never speed etc your chances of death by bike are vastly reduced.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[defblade]