[Sawyer]

By the way, I have no argument against someone that says that I know that motorcycling is not as safe as driving a car but I still choose to ride one:
1. Because I can't afford a car
2. For kicks

I am however reluctant to accept a reason on the lines that says - because I am a great rider - without seeing ostriches with their heads in the sand.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I know a lot of riders who have ridden for thousands of kms

Originally Posted by Sawyer

That's as flawed as saying I know lots of smokers that have lived into their nineties, if any valid conclusion is being drawn from the statement.

No it isn't. You took a few words out of a whole post. apachelongbow talks about why those people are safe: they drive well, they drive carefully, they drive defensively --- and I hope they drive with some care and courtesy for others too. That is part of being a good driver, so, probably they do.

There is no bias in describing bikes as inherently dangerous. As far as I know, it remains, as I said before, an international statistical fact.

[Sawyer]

I am sorry, logically it is just as flawed, to look only at the ones that survive an activity to conclude that the activity isn't unsafe. Such a conclusion isn't logically valid.

Those that survive smoking may also do so because of valid reasons - answers to why they do - some of which may not be known yet or not researched, starting from genetics. And seen from just a logical lens, the fact that some of these reasons are not due to any actions taken by the smoker, isn't relevant. The fact that many survive isn't ground to conclude that smoking is not dangerous, although still often used to justify it. Ask our parliamentarians.

[jagzrk]

Since we are discussing about Riding vs Driving on the accidents thread, I think riding is not as risky as driving if the rider is ATGATT (All The Gear All The Time). The chances are as fair as the physics of the crash. This comes from someone who has been in a fairly high speed motorcycle crash with gear and could escape with few bruises.

A bike crash at say 80-100 kph can throw off the rider and if he lands correctly or you can also say luckily, he will almost always escape with bruises if geared up. I say luckily because the rider (with the gear) should be able to scrape the ground and come to stop instead of crashing into an obstacle or another vehicle at that speed. The chance of this happening is very high and surely the gear does its job well. I cannot say the same for someone in a car though for sure. Well, my point is a geared up biker has fair chance equal to a belted-up driver in an average car during an accident. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

I am sorry, logically it is just as flawed, to look only at the ones that survive an activity to conclude that the activity isn't unsafe. Such a conclusion isn't logically valid.

Those that survive smoking may also do so because of valid reasons ...

It's a bad analogy, and you are digging yourself into a hole trying to support it. It's also an argument going to nowhere. We know that smoking has major health risks associated with it. We know that driving anything has its dangers to us and others, and, I believe (I have not looked for a while) that, statistically, driving two-wheelers is more dangerous than driving four-wheelers --- at least to the drivers.

All this has been known for a long time. It is not up for argument.

[VW2010]

All this has been known for a long time. It is not up for argument.

Would be a futile argument. Motorcycle are far more fatal than car just by design. They offer hardly any protection and every bad car driver will get away from a crash and if that crash involves a motorcycle, you know the end result.

Riding motorcycle in a controlled environment itself is dangerous let alone in our highways.

Well, my point is a geared up biker has fair chance equal to a belted-up driver in an average car during an accident. Nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree. No amount of gear can save when you go down under the wheels. In a car you will almost always avoid getting under the wheels unless its a really unlucky day.

At max a well geared up rider reduces his risk of being killed from a simple fall but never makes it anywhere close to safety a car offers. (except if the car is an OMNI which is disaster on wheels)

[schakravarthy]

Meanwhile, somewhere in Kerala, a car went knock knock knock..!






(Got this pic on WhatsApp. Wonder what went wrong..)

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

It's a bad analogy, and you are digging yourself into a hole trying to support it.

I don't think so, but this isn't the place to discuss what is a logically flawed statement and what isn't.

On the subject of protective gear mentioned in another recent post, I agree that it makes eminent sense and will almost always prevent a minor accident from causing major injury. How well it will address rider survival in a major high speed highway crash is a question and I can't see it being a magic bullet. Neither are cars of course, but a belted in driver in a airbag equipped car has a much better chance.

I often see riders on city roads now wearing helmets - finally - but few wearing all the necessary protective gear. Understandable from how much time it will take to wear it and remove it, and how hot it will get in it, but it seems to me that based on the argument in the preceding paragraph, it is on such rides where it may offer the most protection. Which isn't to say that it ought not to be worn on highways.

[Night Raven]

Originally Posted by schakravarthy

Meanwhile, somewhere in Kerala, a car went knock knock knock..!

Attachment 1498428


Attachment 1498427

(Got this pic on WhatsApp. Wonder what went wrong..)

Saw the same pic in facebook. Someone had mentioned it to be the work of an elephant.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by Sawyer

I don't think so, but this isn't the place to discuss what is a logically flawed statement and what isn't.

At the risk of going OT, I can't help but notice you have a Maruti Gypsy in your list of cars owned. Now driving one of the most unsafe contraptions on the road, with no roll cage, no airbags, no abs, no stability program, high gc, narrow track, tendency to roll over, slide and topple on wet roads, its ironic that you are calling all bikes and riders unsafe.... A car such as this is almost a bike on 4 wheels, may be the only safety feature is a seat belt, yet is it so much safer than a bike?
A bike may be less safe compared to a car, but a car is less safe than an airplane by extension of your logic, and a plane is more dangerous than sitting at home. May be we should all sit at home, no risk at all?

[Gansan]

I have been a motorcycle rider for over three decades, and have driven cars for about half that duration. Must have covered over 250k KM on two wheels. Had may be five or six spills during the entire period, suffered a few bruises and contusions, nothing serious. Always wore a helmet and shoes only, not counting a jacket and gloves for cold weather.

I think I managed that BECAUSE I know a bike is inherently unsafe and always ride defensively, never taking chances. I don't think the safety gear will help much on the road, in traffic. Wearing them should not lull us in to a sense of false security. They will help on the MotoGP race circuit, where the riders also PRACTICE falling, I believe.

A car is inherently safer in the sense we will not fall on the road, whatever happens. I know my Alto is unsafe in a crash, so I carry over my defensive driving to it too.

[Thad E Ginathom]

I'm not even sure who is saying what any longer. There was a point, some time back.

[kiku007]

For some of us, DENIAL is a river somewhere in North Africa

Any outdoor activity (yes even crossing the road) has a risk associated with it. It's just the degree that varies.

An object that fully covers the driver from head to toe (a car that is) is RELATIVELY more safer than an object (a bike that is) which doesn't offer such protection, keeping ALL other factors (Driver skill, road conditions, fellow motorist skills etc.) same. If one can't accept this, then good luck and ride safe.

[maddy42]

This logic that cars are so safe is one which helps people think that texting while driving is ok and cool. I go on evening rides just for coffee and the number of folks who text is ridiculously high. NYC is planning on having a law which will permit the Cops to check if either vehicles involved in an accident was texting.

I agree with shubodeep that pushing your car to the limit is wrong as well as driving at 50 on the passing lane. Both morons must be fined

Maddy

Maddy

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I'm not even sure who is saying what any longer. There was a point, some time back.

Lol. Neither am I.

I took this thread OT to discuss the quoted statement below, that did not make much sense to me:
"But the question was for those people who think motorcycling is unsafe only because of the vulnerability of the vehicle. No. It's not just that."

I thought and still think that this is precisely why motorcycling is unsafe, with the statement leaving open the answer to the: what are the things to which it is vulnerable, thereby also covering reasons such as actions of other users of the road, from bullock cart to trucks and buses. Unsaid here is the implicit assumption that "unsafe" as a relative and not absolute term, as in unsafe compared to driving a car. Perhaps having the statement say "because of the vulnerability of the rider" would strictly be more accurate.

Let me clarify for a smidgeon of credibility that I stopped riding my Bullet just a year ago, having started riding bikes in India in 1976, facing up to the reality that it would now take any injury like a fracture much too long to heal, a price too high to pay for what had become just a hobby.

I agree it is time to go back to gory pictures. My apologies for the digression.