That's a lot of copy/paste to sift through.

Let's cut right through the biggest fallacy..... the "accidents" are caused by "the other guy".

Most fatal motorcycle "accidents" are single-vehicle.

Motorcyclists have the highest rate of dying by hitting fixed objects over any other wheeled transport. This means leaving the road and hitting something all by yourself.

Most motorcycle deaths involve failure to negotiate a completely safe and properly marked curve or turn.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812384


In short... motorcyclists kill themselves, for the most part. Heck, 3% of all multi-vehicle motorcycle deaths involve collisions between two motorcyclists.



If you ride a motorcycle, you are between 6 and 29 times more likely to die while on the road as you are in a car (depending on how you work the stats).

If you can do math, and have a regard for your safety, you don't ride. Period.

 

hmm, good stats, 1/1000 is desireable so i should wear a helmet and drive 83 mph

 

Thanks for compiling all that. I have mixed opinions on the stats.

From 1982 till 2015 I have had 4 crashes. But during that time I also have about 500,000 miles of riding with 1,000's of near crashes. Three of those crashed were from other "Drivers" not seeing me and my last one was flying debris causing me to swerve into a concrete wall.

 

I stand corrected. My stats were old, even though I posted a link with updated stats.

It turns out that most motorscycle deaths DO involve multiple vehicles (51%).


Still, let's not kid ourselves, the majority of THOSE accidents we avoidable by the m/c rider.**

That still leaves the responsibility of 75%+ of all fatal m/c incidents with the person behind the handlebars.



This topic gets my goat, when it comes up in conversation. Guys are always blaming cars or trucks (I only hear them called "cagers" on the Internet). Yet the ones causing the deaths are the ones riding the bikes.


I tend to start with this premise. I'll even be so bold as to call it a "fact".

ALL MOTORCYCLIST DEATHS ARE AVOIDABLE, AND THE FAULT OF THE MOTORCYCLIST


People get in a huff when you say that, but here's the reasoning.... no non-motorcycle-rider will ever die on a motorcycle.

It's akin to a person who never enter the ocean will never be killed by a shark. No one who stays in Hawaii is getting killed by a polar bear.

If you go into the place where sharks do their dining.... getting killed by a shark is your fault. The shark was just being a shark. You have complete control over whether you are on the menu.


If you ride a motorcycle and die... IT IS YOUR FAULT. ALWAYS. Because it is avoidable. Always.

No one rides a motorcycle (in the US) due to lack-of-no-safer-option.

When you saddle-up, you choose to take on all the stats that @Dan711 posted. On the upside, if you play by the stats, you can significantly increase your odds.

- Don't drink alcohol (30% savings)
- Start your motorcycle years on a dirt bike (I've said this for years, I'm glad the stats prove it)
- Be a woman (96% savings)
- Get a better job
- Ride on the highway (no intersections or left-turns).


In fact, if you twist the stats.. a woman professional, who rode dirt, took the MSA course, has ridden for over 5 years, doesn't drink, and goes 86mph will actually live forever.






**This is a guess.

 

It's akin to a person who never enter the ocean will never be killed by a shark. No one who stays in Hawaii is getting killed by a polar bear.

If you go into the place where sharks do their dining.... getting killed by a shark is your fault. The shark was just being a shark. You have complete control over whether you are on the menu.

If you ride a motorcycle and die... IT IS YOUR FAULT. ALWAYS. Because it is avoidable. Always.

I understand the logic, but the unavoidable conclusion to it is that we should never do anything... ever.

A woman should never go on a date, lest she gets raped. We should never eat out at a restaurant in case of food poisoning. One can die in car accidents too, so no driving. Heck, walking can get you killed, perhaps by that car accident that just happened. My sister was hit legally crossing at a signal. Is that her responsibility because she chose to cross a street?

You can die or be injured in virtually ANY activity. And quite often the responsibility IS someone else’s.

Saying all consequences of an activity are the victim’s fault simply because they chose to participate in it is disturbing at the very least. I see why people get in a huff about your statement.

 

but if i was a woman, i'd never leave my bedroom again!

 

I saw that most accidents happen within one mile of your home.

That's why I live many miles away from the rest of you.

 

@Liamjs, I agree with you in the inherent flaw of my logic. Everything has risk.


But riding a motorcycle is a completely avoidable act. You have to actually go out of your way to be a rider.

Walking across the street, driving a car... these are features of modern life. Motorcycling is like bungee-jumping or scuba diving. There is no need for it. And it's more dangerous than the alternatives.


The point that I never do a good job of explaining is.... when we get hurt or die pursuing our hobby, it is our fault for being out there.


Tens of thousands of Americans WILL DIE on roads this year. We're choosing to share pavement in a kill-zone with little protection.


If you had to travel across a shooting zone every day, and could choose a tank or an open-top Jeep, only the insane would choose the Jeep. Are we insane? Probably not.



Today, I was 100% sure I would not be hurt or killed on a motorcycle. Tomorrow, the odds will drop drastically. It's that simple. I have complete control over whether I am exposed to motorcycle-related danger.



All the other things we fret over... clothing, lighting, hi-viz, helmets, gloves, MSA classes.... these are little things that help slightly. Maybe. We focus on something as silly as the color of our vest, all the while turning a blind eye to the idea that the risk is a choice we make. No "cager" is putting us in danger. We are.

 

^ Your logic is akin to the old thought that a woman wearing a mini skirt is “asking for it”. A logic that will get you a sound tongue lashing should you ever mention it to a woman, not to mention HR.

And yes, cagers put us in danger whenever they make dumb choices, like making a left turn in front us at an intersection. Culpability is not limited to those simply choosing an activity to participate in.

 

I work the grave yard shift. Two things that concern me are animals (especially deer) and derbies in the road.
I use a two lane road. Speed limit is 65mph so everyone does 70+. At night the oncoming headlights cut down on my ability to see the road in front of me. If there is derbies in the road or a deer that are on me before I could see them, it probably causes me to go down. I don't see this as being the fault of the rider. Life happens.

 

You know the deer are there.
You know visibility is poor.
If you make that commute in something that doesn't protect you from deer-strikes....yup, your responsibility.

If I rode at night through a swampy road with no windscreen, no goggles or glasses, and no visor..... then got a bug in my eye, would you say "what are ya gonna do, life happens"? No, you'd say "why didn't you have eye protection? You know there's bugs out there."


I say "why don't you commute with deer protection?".


It's OK to answer "I love to ride, and I'm willing to take the additional risk to do it". It's not OK (in my book) to think that all motorcyle deaths aren't avoidable, through the choice of the rider.



As for the "she was asking for it" analogy, that is silly. That involves someone being attacked by a criminal, intent on the harm. No one says the m/c rider (or driver of the car) intended to do harm.


Here's a better analogy... if a man wears just a Speedo outdoors in the winter, it's his fault that he's cold. He had suitable options that would not leave him cold, but he chose the Speedo. The weather didn't make him cold. He made him cold.


You all can read the info in the first post, and figure out that people driving cars will kill 2,000+ motorcyclists this year in America. But we ride anyway. In cases of collisions with other vehicles where the other driver is at fault, the other driver will usually say "I never saw him". But we ride anyway.


You might dig wearing a Speedo in the winter, but don't be surprised (or think it's someone else's fault) when you're cold.

 

As for the "she was asking for it" analogy, that is silly. That involves someone being attacked by a criminal, intent on the harm. No one says the m/c rider (or driver of the car) intended to do harm.

Here's a better analogy... if a man wears just a Speedo outdoors in the winter, it's his fault that he's cold. He had suitable options that would not leave him cold, but he chose the Speedo. The weather didn't make him cold. He made him cold.

But when riding, it is not JUST you against nature. There are drivers out there with negligence, if not right out intent, to harm. There are drunks, and speeders, unlicensed drivers, all sort of folks out there that DO criminal harm. Riders cannot be held responsible for other people’s misdeeds. Sorry, I just don’t buy the argument that we are always responsible, no matter what, just because we decide to participate in an activity with above average danger to it.

I see your point, but we will have to agree to disagree. However don’t be surprised when people are in a huff about POV. Most laws and insurance companies back up what I’m saying. They do assign responsibility to those at fault and those that break the law.

 

As I wrote in another thread, when I approach a stop signed intersection on my regular run route that I know has a lot of left turns, a T intersection, most of the time I put my emergency flashers on to at least give me a bit more visibility. My 2017 650 Executive along with always wearing a high vis. yellow jacket and white full face helmet sitting on a white cycle does make me look a little like a cop going to an emergency.

 

I’m in a quandary. Anon has me thinking that we can prevent anything bad happening to us by simply not doing that act. Thus was planning on spending the rest of my life in bed. But, expect eventually I would pee the bed and then my wife would kill me. Might as well just forget all about this thread and live my life to the fullest.

 

I grew up with my fathers saying, "There is no such thing as an accident. Accidents are caused by being careless." This screwed with me for most of my life, There is a certain amount of truth to this and if we were prefect beings I could buy it. No matter how much perfection one strives for there will be mistakes and accidents. The best we will ever achieve is to be a human beining and everything that will be. This is why I ride ATGATT. I read articles on motorcycle safety. Pay as much attention to everyone around me. Don't ride overly tired or sick. Take advance riders training. Today someone almost took me out. Yesterday I almost took myself out. I started riding at 15 and am 60 now I have somehow made it home everyday, within luck this streak will keep going.

 

Using a very similar calculation based on the number of bicycle deaths per hour of riding, you're 6 times less likely to die riding your bicycle than you are by *just living*. One bicycle death per 4 million hours of cycling (or something like that). So if I can just stay on my bicycle, I'll live to be 450 years old.

 

Cerritos CA plane crash 30 years ago: ‘You either died or you didn’t’

Almost 32 years ago.... It took 82 lives in this mid-air collision between a Aeromexico DC-9 and a Piper personal plane. Yes 82 dead. But 15 of the 82 were sitting inside their homes and had nothing to do with the 2 air planes.
https://www.presstelegram.com/2016/....com/2016/08/30/cerritos-plane-crash-30-years-ago-you-either-died-or-you-didnt/


So just be an Ostrich with your head buried in the sand.

 

Much of this "no such thing as an accident" has more to do with the "lets sue someone times" we now live in.

I'm not talking about people deliberately breaking the rules and getting hurt, I'm talking about when "life just happens." Accidents happen because humans aren't perfect. The best we can realistically do is minimize the outcomes when someone does make a mistake and have an accident. For example, wearing a helmet, or not tailgating.

It doesn't really benefit anyone to play "Monday Morning Quarterback" and look back with perfect 20/20 hindsight and and say "Well it wouldn't have happened if you didn't do so-and-so...so why didn't you do it like that and you wouldn't have got hurt?" "There's no such thing as an accident"

I've seen this at work...someone will have an accident, and will face disciplinary action for an "unsafe act"

A co-worker broke her leg as she slip on a wet floor. She had to battle for quite a while before they accepted her workers comp claim because supervisors kept the paperwork held up as they tried to place most of the blame on her for an "Unsafe act"

 

A mix of interesting data and questionable inferences

Happy 4th of July Everyone!
I came across a very informative site regarding motorcycle fatalities.
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcycle-crashes

It's pretty consistent, each year there will be approximately 5,000 riders killed on their bikes and another 90,000 injuries.

By analyzing these stats, many of the causes of these fatalities can be avoided.

Motorcyclist killed per time of day
12 noon - 12 midnight...73%
12 midnight - 12 noon...27%

42% occur between the hours of 3-9pm. (When most cages are out)

If you're a commuter on your Burgman, there's little you can do to change the hours of your commute, but if there is a way to get to and from work on less traveled roads, consider taking it.
.
.
.
{Remainder of post omitted for brevity}
.

The signature for this post is: "There used to be a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. In the past, many scientists, including Darwin believed that blacks were inferior to whites. Back in the 1970's scientists were getting us ready for the next ice age. Al Gore told us in 2009 that most all of the ice would be gone from the polar ice caps by 2014."
None of these claims is true. Greeks used observational evidence to deduce that the Earth is round more than 2000 years ago (https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html). Darwin did not try to use his science to justify his social prejudices. And he was, in any case, an abolitionist. Gore's statements in 2009 absolutely did not represent the scientific consensus, and in any case were very heavily hedged He spoke of "the POSSIBILITY of a complete lack of SUMMER sea ice by AS EARLY AS 2013" (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/).
Many of the inferences about motorcycle safety that Dan711 draws in "Facts + Statistics: Motorcycle crashes" are also shaky. I'll offer just one example, to urge readers to take everything he says with a large grain of salt:
Dan711 says "Motorcyclist killed per time of day... 42% occur between the hours of 3-9pm. (When most cages are out)". He draws two inferences: 1) that a motorcyclist has a higher risk of fatal injury between 3 and 9 pm, and 2) that this increase in risk is caused by a higher number of cars on the road. Suppose, though, that 42% of all motorcycle riding occurs between the hours of 3 and 9 pm; then we would surely expect that 42% of the fatalities would occur during those hours! The paper Dan711 cites offers no data to contradict this. Nor does the paper Dan711 cites offer any direct support for his suggestion that you will be safer traveling between two given points by using less traveled roads.

 

The signature for this post is: "There used to be a scientific consensus that the earth was flat. In the past, many scientists, including Darwin believed that blacks were inferior to whites. Back in the 1970's scientists were getting us ready for the next ice age. Al Gore told us in 2009 that most all of the ice would be gone from the polar ice caps by 2014."
None of these claims is true. Greeks used observational evidence to deduce that the Earth is round more than 2000 years ago (https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html). Darwin did not try to use his science to justify his social prejudices. And he was, in any case, an abolitionist. Gore's statements in 2009 absolutely did not represent the scientific consensus, and in any case were very heavily hedged He spoke of "the POSSIBILITY of a complete lack of SUMMER sea ice by AS EARLY AS 2013" (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/).
Many of the inferences about motorcycle safety that Dan711 draws in "Facts + Statistics: Motorcycle crashes" are also shaky. I'll offer just one example, to urge readers to take everything he says with a large grain of salt:
Dan711 says "Motorcyclist killed per time of day... 42% occur between the hours of 3-9pm. (When most cages are out)". He draws two inferences: 1) that a motorcyclist has a higher risk of fatal injury between 3 and 9 pm, and 2) that this increase in risk is caused by a higher number of cars on the road. Suppose, though, that 42% of all motorcycle riding occurs between the hours of 3 and 9 pm; then we would surely expect that 42% of the fatalities would occur during those hours! The paper Dan711 cites offers no data to contradict this. Nor does the paper Dan711 cites offer any direct support for his suggestion that you will be safer traveling between two given points by using less traveled roads.

Almost every paper published with Stats, are one sided and do not provide all the information to come to an non-objectionable conclusion. Its true that if the amount of motorcycle riders were 200% higher during that 3pm to 9pm time frame and "ONLY" 42% were killed it seems the total ratio would be much lower. So say for example, if outside of the 3-9 PM time frame 10 riders are on the road and then the rush hour(s) traffic starts at 3 PM and now there are 30 riders on the road (+ 200%), 12.6 of then are going to DIE. I just do not see that many deaths in the many years I have been riding. There would be "Stacks" of bodies in our morgues everyday. On any given nice day up here in Washington State we have over 500 motorcycles on the commute and I am sure the news would be reporting 210 Motorcyclist were killed today. But in a weeks time we do get maybe 1 or 2 deaths in the whole state.

 

I can't believe that more cars on a motorway is better- I would think motorways are better with fewer cars than with more cars, but rural roads are worse even than crowded motorways due to the limited access and physical separation from cars running in the opposite direction. The most deadly accidents happen in a fashion that is hard to achieve on a motorway- left turns in front of a motorcycle and head-ons.

 

I agree Bluebottle. Speed doesn't kill. Differential in speed kills.

Not drinking alcohol and sticking to limited access highways puts your "statistical probability" of survival at almost double everyone else on bikes.


But if you really want to increase your odds... store your bike 5 miles from home, and drive your car to it.

Because you know these stats always say something silly like "most accidents within x miles of home".



Back when you could make jokes about bombs on planes, my father would say:

"The odds of there being a bomb on this plane is a million to one.
The odds that there are TWO bombs on a plane are a trillion to one.
That's why when I fly, I always bring my own bomb."

 

"The odds of there being a bomb on this plane is a million to one.
The odds that there are TWO bombs on a plane are a trillion to one.
That's why when I fly, I always bring my own bomb."

You could also just get bombed BEFORE you get on the plane. That way, you're less likely to be bombed once you're ON the plane.

 

It shows strength of character to take on new information and say “oops” - I salute that.

Stats are great tools and generally accurate in what they say, but only in what they specifically say and we have to be careful that our minds don’t embellish things. That is what scientific method is about.

To break down why rural roads are more dangerous is harder than expected.
Obviously speeds are higher and junctions irregular - but there are lots of other factors.
France had something like 1/3 of the traffic the U.K. had on its rural roads and they were usually better surfaced and straight - yet when I used to get stats France had far more fatalities.
Frances roads are different to ours, they are often tree lined, rright at the edge of the road, for shade. Trees are very unforgiving lane partners.


Somewhere I have a survey of motorists who were stopped and asked about their journey. One of the questions was “reason for journe”. In urban areas there was a general mix of answers. In rural areas there was a striking contrast between “pleasure - out for a drive/ride” and “pleasure - sightseeing”.
People riding for fun could well be deriving fun from speed itself, while sightseers could well be using low speed to make the most of the scenery, and most farm machinery doesn’t have the choice - so there is a whole area for possible conflict there too.

 

Zoom. Right over his head.

 

Agreed.

Dave, people who ride in cars and other "normal" transport are not included in my statements.

The stats in this thread are specific to motorcycles. My statements are specific to motorcyclists. Motorcyclists choose to be on motorcycles, instead of the statistically-safer alternatives. In the modern world, people pretty much need to use cars.** Nobody NEEDS to ride a motorcycle.


Motorcycling for transportation is like parachuting for flying. It's less safe, and completely avoidable. If someone chooses to jump out of a plane over Cincinnati, instead of taking a direct flight... it's on them if things go poorly.







**Although the Amish don't.







I realize I'm defending an indefensible position, and sounding argumentative. Let me try to wrap up the point I've tried to make.



We CHOOSE to ride. All the stats are meaningless, once you are out on the road. But we chose to saddle up. Once that's happened, we've chosen whether we want to participate in the motorcycle statistics of this year.

 

"All motorcyclist deaths are avoidable, and the fault of the motorcyclist

Of course we riders take extra risks when riding. My issue is with the word "ALL" in the above statement. If it had been a motorcycle rider that was hit and killed by the vehicle that crossed the center line, instead of the family in the van, it would be no more the motorcycle riders fault than it was the driver of the van fault.

 

..... If it had been a motorcycle rider that was hit and killed by the vehicle that crossed the center line, instead of the family in the van, it would be no more the motorcycle riders fault than it was the driver of the van fault.

My problem is that I used the word "fault" when describing my idea. I should not have done that.

Let's focus on the other word: "avoidable". This statement is true:

"All motorcyclist deaths are avoidable......

We can add "All motorcyclists deaths are avoidable by a decision of the potential motorcycle rider. A completely avoidable choice on the part of the m/c owner/rider can stop every single death of a motorcyclist".


I'm skipping using the words 'fault' or "responsibility".



In societies where people hang out on the Burgman forum, all motorcycle rides are completely optional and avoidable. Most every person you will ever meet is at zero risk of dying while riding on a motorcycle. 100% avoidance on their part. The definition of "ALL".

@feman43 summed it better than I have: "Like flying. Take offs are optional, landings are mandatory."


You cannot be the passenger of a crashed plane, if you never board a plane. I will never be the victim of a sunken cruise ship, for example, as I will never step foot on a cruise ship.

 

These type of posts can get blown to HeII quickly. Some will hear what they want to hear, see what they want to see and say what they want to say. In doing so they may not want to see or hear what another person is saying.

Are ALL motorcycle death avoidable, YES 100%. Don't ride one and you will NEVER die as a rider, but maybe a motorcycle will kill you when you get hit by one. But that does not mean when you decide to ride a Motorcycle that you are 100% responsible for an accident in ALL cases. If you are doing 140 MPH in a 30 MPH zone and a car pulls out in front of you then you are 100% responsible.

It is also true that if you never get on a jet that you will NEVER die as a passenger if that plane crashes. But you may get killed when that plane crashes on top of your head. You are still a victim of the crash due to no part of your own.

 

All motorized travel is optional and avoidable. Continuing to access this thread is also optional and avoidable.

 

So my plans, as a retired body and paint man, to paint my AN400 hunter safety orange might actually be a GREAT idea ?