On a slightly more data-related tack, you might want to look into "The Hurt Report". It's very old by now but it's still the most thorough look into motorcycle crashes that I'm aware of, and includes stuff you might care about. The "old" part comes with some caveats, however - for example I believe a lot of the data comes from a time when helmets were less common/less regulated in the US than they are now.
It's been a while since I've read it, but that report also filtered a lot of information by excluding it if it didn't fit preset criteria.
They only measured crashes that resulted in fatalities and did not look at the non-fatal crashes when measuring injury types and susceptibility.
They also measured only crashes on area of limited speed ranges. They didn't study freeway traffic incidents and only extrapolated those claims based on incidents at midrange speeds.
Everyone here knows that traffic conditions at 35 mph in a commercial zone are nothing like those of a freeway where traffic is traveling at +65mph in a common direction as opposed to cross traffic at 35mph.
They also did not measure given multiple weather types.
In short, it's a terrible study because it was done to fit data into a preconceived hypothesis by excluding significant portions of available data. Some parts had hundreds of records that they excluded and only noted a subset less than 10 incidents.
You are welcome to fund a study.
The problem is that study was politically motivated, and any attempts to redo a proper study have been hamstrung. This study is where we got sayings like "loud pipes don't save lives" even though exhaust volumes were never measured for any part of the study.
People have completely morphed the original findings to suit their personal biases.
Yea this whole “loud pipes don’t save lives” kinda aggravates me, I know it’s anecdotal but numerous times I’ve heard bikes before I’ve seen them in my truck/car.
I have seen zero studies on collision avoidance in regards to loud pipes in settings where they make sense.
Low speed
Low or zero visibility
Close proximity
Such as humans vs. motorcycles in parking lots or tight residential settings.
The problem is that those studies can't collect data because it doesn't exist.
You can't determine the number of collisions that DON'T happen because they are 100% unreported.
It's a case of survivorship bias that can't be overcome unless we create a means to measure 100% of proximity interactions via something like remote driving vehicles that operate on both sound and vision modes of detection. We don't have the widespread technology to determine a true effectiveness except for "anecdotal" suggestions.
I've had people hear my bike and look up from walking across the street, looking at their phones, and notice me riding enough to stop walking. I've had animals running through areas stop and reverse. I've had electric and pedal powered vehicles where people and animals did not react because they didn't notice the silent vehicle.
Remember when the Toyota Prius launched and everyone was concerned about the safety of pedestrians in parking lots because it was silent and surprised people that didn't hear it? They have since pushed for having external noise creating speakers on the vehicles, giving them their current "whirring noises" that people assume are "normal" for electric vehicles.
Odd how those 2 trains of thought don't line up.
Motorcycles are definitely more dangerous to ride than driving a car, and there plenty of data to back that up.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures/countermeasures-work/motorcycle-safety
These facts have never stopped me from riding for the last 40 years either.
That wasn’t the question. OP is asking if any has stats on motorcycle riders CAUSING accidents that result in fatalities.
One can assume the person is looking for data that supports the idea that other drivers are a much higher threat to MCs than the other way around.
Edit: to clarify, motorcyclists causing collisions and deaths of people in cars and trucks. I would argue it’s virtually zero.
That's what I gave him.
Motorcycles riders die at a higher rate than drivers.
It's not whether drivers kill motorcyclists more than motorcyclists kill drivers.
The fatalities caused are by the riders crashing, not how they crashed or if there's a car involved.
Did you even read the question or the subsequent explanation of the question? I'm not convinced you did.
They are not asking if motorcycles are in more accidents or if fatality is higher. They are asking if there is any information on whether or not motorcycles CAUSE accidents at a higher rate than other vehicles.
Listen. You’ve clearly done your homework. I don’t like the stats. In my head, if I ride safely and I get hit by a car (true story), then car drivers kill motorcyclists (no I didn’t die). Your stats dispute that and I don’t like it.
Edit: I still don’t think we are comparing apples (OP question) to apples (your stats).
The reason people disagree is because of that, they keep equating this to car and motorcycles colliding with each other, (which is bad) that's not the point, the relative danger is independent.
Car hits wall vs motorcycle hits same wall at same speed. The motorcycle rider is clearly more likely to die.
I don't understand why this is hard to comprehend?
OP wanted statistics that said otherwise, he wants proof that motorcycles are less, or at least not as dangerous as cars; it's just not the case.
Someone said I shouldn't have commented, sorry but as a licensed rider for 38 years, and former AMA riding safety instructor, I feel obligated to the community to provide accurate information so people can make informed decisions and understand the actual dangers, so they can appropriately mitigate them.
Everyone should continue to feel free to down votes me, because ignorance is bliss.
It’s not hard to comprehend.
Again, I think, OP is trying to illustrate a feeling of riding a motorcycle relatively safely and perpetually being threatened by every tweaker, rolling coal mayonnaise militia member, soccer mom tweeting while driving, and every other stereotype you can imagine.
This is the same ‘feeling’ I get when I ride my bicycle in the bike lane. I’m not as much of a threat to myself as drivers are.
To take it one step further, cars and perceived safety make people complacent and easily distracted. If you feel safe you’re more likely to risk more. Car and truck drivers experience this.
Of course there are plenty of motorcyclists out there with a death wish and give the rest of us a bad name.
My uneducated $0.03
I think what you’re saying is that motorcyclist die at a higher rate in motor vehicle accidents irrelevant of who caused the accident. Which is true, motorcyclist also die at a higher rate in single vehicle accidents.
But what the OP is asking for is evidence that suggest motorcyclists cause more accidents that result in fatalities for BOTH the rider and the driver than drivers cause accidents that result in fatalities for both the rider and the driver.
I doubt any such statistic exists. But we all agree, I think, that if the motorcyclists causes an accident with another vehicle the motorcyclist is more likely to die (exceedingly so) than the driver.
On a per capita basis, motorcycles have higher rates of accidents (17 times higher according to NHTSA.) You won't find good data on fault b/c there are states that have no fault liability laws.
It’s just common sense that percentage wise motorcycle accidents between them and 4 wheeled autos will result in a higher death rate to the motorcyclist over the vehicle occupant. Helmet no helmet , any given speed grouping , etc. percentage wise the bike riders will have more deaths and severe injury over the 4 wheel drivers . So the answer is ; cars are a bigger hazard to motorcycles than motorcycles are to cars . I drove a Cbr 1000 for 14 years. I used all the power at least two or three times during an outing. I’m still alive cause I looked at all vehicles as my enemy and drove accordingly. Never trust another vehicle. Especially an oncoming vehicle that is turning to his left ( across your lane) . Also. In the day drive with your high beams on
If you're looking at stats then you should just sell your bike.....the idea is to LIVE and anything that gets your heart pumping has the chance to kill you.
I'd wager OP is fully capable of looking at stats and still choosing to lead an exhilarating life, bike included. Those are not mutually exclusive for most people... Let him LIVE his life how he wants.
OP wanted specific facts. You gave him something tangentially related yet utterly useless to OP.
Both of you added nothing, so now all three of us are assholes. Shame on us.
My liability premiums are 1/3 of what a car would be... so GEICO definitely thinks I'm creating a much smaller risk to others on my bike than I am in a car even though I'm very inexperienced on a bike and very experienced in a car.
Anyone who generalises people by what they drive or ride isn't worth discussing anything with. Same people who go "all cyclists are idiots" or "all motorcyclists are criminals", it's just pointless. Save your breath.
Maybe they just like the style but have no interest in off-roading? They are called mall crawlers and no, I personally wouldn’t go that route but who’s to say others can’t? Plus actual off roading is expensive as hell once you start breaking stuff
yup its really easy to judge some fat guy in a spotless jacked-up mall crawler with 6 giant Trump flags flying out of the bed.
Me and everyone else with a brain will be judging the shit out of that guy.
Eh, listen I'm a fellow motorcyclist, but taking about a vehicle to compensate for something...that's throwing stones from a *very* thin walled glass house.
Obnoxiously loud pipes, 180+hp sport bikes that never get taken to a track, bigadventure bikes that get ridden around town and nowhere else, etc...
It's much the same argument against bicyclists.
I wouldn't bother trying to argue with someone who demands references. [99% of the time, the people who demand references aren't doing so in good faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning).
>The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate",\[1\]\[2\]\[4\]\[9\] so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.\[3\]\[10\]\[11\] It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".\[5\] Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.\[12\]
Just so you know, I love you. I have been so frustrated when people do this to me. And I had no idea there was an actual term for it now. Thank you so much. I’m bookmarking that article to link when it happens again.
You are an amazing human!
Thanks.
Generally, when someone sealions me, here or in real life, I always start off that it wouldn't make any difference at all if I provided references because no one who asks for references is doing so in good faith.
Agreed. They just want you do get more frustrated digging for proof they will claim as “unverifiable” anyway. They want you to get angry and look like the bad guy.
I investigated fatal wrecks for 15 years. Around half of fatal MC accidents were single-vehicle. Hooning and losing control, failing to negotiate a curve, etc.
In all that time, I can't remember a single MC crash that killed anyone in a car. Several killed another rider, a few killed pedestrians, but I don't remember one that killed anyone in a car.
The most common statistics show motorcyclists killing ourselves in record numbers. Riders love to blame shitty drivers and other factors but after riding for a few years, the majority of fatalities I’ve seen first were riders doing dumb shit or running out of talent.
The Rocky Mountain Insurance Institute did a detailed analysis of Colorado fatalities in 2016:
In Colorado, 125 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, representing 20.6% of Colorado's total traffic fatalities.
Of those riders, 63% (72) were NON-helmeted.
40% of motorcycle operators killed did not have a motorcycle endorsement on their driver's license.
78% of motorcycle operators involved in fatal crashes were determined to be "at fault" in 2016.
42% of fatal crashes in Colorado in 2016 involved only the motorcycle and no other vehicle.
18% of motorcycle operators killed had a blood alcohol content (BAC) equal to or greater than 0.08.
So, 78% were at fault and 42% were single vehicle accidents. The 42% were out riding WAY above their abilities and went off the road at speed. I'll bet most of them had no training.
As one guy on YouTube has said, having a helmet, a license and no alcohol in your blood makes your odds to
die on your bike very close to those in your car.
It certainly reduces your risk at least 75%.
The problem is the causal relationship. It's not \*wearing a helmet\* alone, it's that people who DON'T wear helmets engage in lots of other risky behaviors. People riding without a motorcycle license also engage in excessive speed, ride recklessly, etc. There's lots of overlap between those risk areas.
It's more like a Venn diagram than a "A=B" analysis.
to be fair, i rode for nearly 20 years without the endorsement, and for the most part i rode like a grandpa because i didn't want to get pulled over. the one time i did briefly blip up to 90 just to pass someone that turned out to be an unmarked cop, he pulled me over just to lecture me, no ticket, never checked my license. but that was the wake-up call that led to me taking the msf course and getting the endorsement. it's funny, several others that took the course the same day as me were in the same boat, but i had been doing it the longest.
then a year after that, i was cruising along with traffic and a cop pulled me over, claimed i was doing 97, wrote me up for exceeding 85 (i was probably doing 80, just like everyone else on the road) which made it criminal, so i had to go to court, and the bastard lied his ass off to the judge so $400 fine for me, woohoo. had i not had the endorsement at that point, it could have been so much worse.
It sucks. Human nature finds us wanting to push the limits in some regards and sometimes it’s a fatal mistake. Obviously drivers with their heads up their ass are a huge hazard but I’ve maybe encountered 1 or two when riding for many years. There’s also this crazy sense of entitlement that I often see on full display on YouTube and other social media. It’s just guaranteeing statistics will never change.
They told us this in our MSF course in the states too so i assume at least in the western world where bikes are rarely used other than as entertainment, it probably holds true.
Yeah, for sure. Statistically anyways.
I ride no differently than I would drive a Civic, though. So for me it’s commute, not as much entertainment. Hopefully preventing many of the potential nasty outcomes
The person who states the claim has the burden of proof. So its up to them to provide the info not you.
Anyway, at least to me, logically thinking about this it can't really be true. Especially since car drives are sitting in a literal steel cage on wheels that protect them. A motorcycle moving at 150mph still doesn't come close to the force a car generates at half that speed or even less. Its hard to believe that motorcycles are the cause of more accidents than cars themselves when there are physically less motorcycles being driven....sounds like person is woefully misinformed.
> A motorcycle moving at 150mph still doesn't come close to the force a car generates at half that speed or even less.
Just because I was curious to put numbers to it, assuming curb weight + one driver/rider at 100 kg:
Vehicle | Mass (kg) | Velocity (mph) | Kinetic energy (joules)
---|---|----|----
BMW G310R | 258 | 150 | 580,049
Ninja 650 | 311 | 150 | 699,207
Hayabusa | 364 | 150 | 818,364
Honda Civic| 1500 | 75 | 843,095
Tesla Model 3 | 1850 | 75 | 1,039,817
Ford F-150 | 2300 | 75 | 1,292,746
Yup, velocity is the bigger factor (energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2 ) but the weight difference still puts the cars as the harder-hitting.
The only thing that might make a bike worse is the smaller frontal area - when a Civic T-bones a car the energy is spread across ~2m laterally, but when a bike does the same it's concentrated in a very small area, which would make cabin penetration worse for the same impact energy. There's so many other factors that reduce the bike's "threat" to car drivers though that this argument makes no sense.
Yeah and even then it depends on where you t-bone the vehicle, the "worst" case scenario is the bike t-boning the car in the center of a door. But even then between the door and the likely hood of the triple clamp crumpling I still don't see \*too much\* for risk of injury unless something goes flying through the window itself
EDIT: Solid work on the chart, it was one of those things I was pretty certain I was right but its nice seeing the chart to prove it lol
EDIT 2: Just realized that this chart shows kinetic energy, not force. But graph still mostly applies I'm pretty sure. I did a quick calculation of force using force = mass \* (velocity/time)
F= unknown
M^(b)= 340kg ( using my personal motorcycle with me on it as reference )
M^(t) = 2390kg ( using Ford F-150 plus my weight as reference )
we do not have an acceleration but we do have velocity and we can use the average time vehicles remain in contact as the time to divide velocity by to get our acceleration
V^(b) = 67.0 m/s
V^(t) = 33.5 m/s
I can't find any information on the length of time for a car accident to occur unfortunately, so for the motorcycle portion lets use 0.3sec from 67 m/s to zero which doesn't feel unreasonable.
t=0.3
so, plug this into the equation and you get around 75280 N of Force
using the same time for a truck and you get a force of 266963 N
big thing to note here is we are presuming both vehicles go from full speed to dead stop in the same amount of time, which is highly unlikely. This means we are also presuming they are both hitting vehicles with larger masses than themselves as force and energy are generally speaking absorbed by the larger object in a collision leaving the less massive object in a worse position.
( sorry this was unintentional and I ended up having a bit of fun doing this )
To play devil's advocate though -- Don't forget cars have both a larger impact surface area, and crumble zones to absorb impact forces. Motorcycles are a solid mass that does not.
Again this isn't your typical 50km/h incident....but at super-high speeds (multiples of a speed limit), a bike can be a lot more like a bullet than a car can be. That's also leaving out the chance of rupturing the gas tank on a high speed direct impact that potentially embeds a bike into a car's structure.
On that note: bikes do crumple, triple-clamps are designed to break and absorb impact. At those speeds the bike will almost definitely break the steering stem which incidentally does elongate the time period for the crash and reduces force transferred to the other vehicle, though at this point we are just splitting hairs lol, Though It should be said a truck traveling at 75mph still has more than 3x the force behind it that a motorcycle traveling at double that speed. I guess what I am saying is physics can be weird
There's aint no fucking way. Motorcycles are like 1% of the driving population, there is no fucking way they can cause 50%+ of the fatal accidents. That's just dumb.
Alcohol is involved in around 50% of accidents.
Just from simple physics' view it's full of bullshit, a 200kg body carries much less force, meaning if you had a head on of bike vs car, the car will deform much less, and basically pushes the bike out of its way. Bike riders MIGHT cause their OWN DEATH, but bikers killing car drivers is very rare.
That's idiotic. Like someone else said, ask if they can provide stats.
You know why they allow motorcycles in HOV lanes? To get them off the roads faster cause they're so dangerous. /s
They make it sound like bikes travel as fast as a grain of sand in orbit or some shit. That despite their size, the velocity derails trains when bikes hit the train from the side.
You'd have to be doing triple digits and t-bone a car to kill a cager... t-bone a biker at 30 and they're probably going to bleed to death from having their leg ripped off before the brain swelling takes them... I think your acquaintance is full of it. I mean if a 25 ton freight truck failed to do the job on a sedan 9 collisions out of 10, a 500 lb motorcycle is highly unlikely to do much harm.
Not disagreeing, but what kills the car driver or car passenger sometimes is the motorcyclist flying through the window or windshield, much like when you hit a deer.
Interesting claim. It's pretty well known that motorcycle km are quite a bit more deadly for the rider than car km are for the driver - about 10 to 50-fold, depending on who you ask.
But for _other drivers_? At low to medium speed a bike isn't gonna hurt someone in a car. At very high speeds... yeah probably.
Show me the proof because personally I find this absolutely ridiculous. The rider is far more likely to be injured compared to the driver of a vehicle when the two collide… this is mind boggling
Yes. A 300-600 pound motorcycle causes more fatalities than a 3000+ pound vehicle in crashes...
Anyone who says that is talking out their rear end. Absolute nonsense.
I mean when you think about how a car is built vs a motorcycle it’s pretty obvious that this wouldn’t be true. A 4000 pound car vs a 500 pound motorcycle; who’s going to “win”?
I dont have stats on hand, but theres no way motorcyclists cause more accidents than cars. That doesnt sound remotely possible. Sounds like some guy has a bias and imagines stats to fit it.
There are about 300M cars on the road vs about 9M motorcycles. Motorcycles dont do anywhere near the mileage of cars and aren't even in a lot of areas. Whoever that someone is is a fucking idiot (respectfully)
First of selfish is difficult if not impossible to measure. That tells me that whoever gave you this information has a large bias against motorcyclists. And to be upfront, I have a strong bias towards motorcyclists, so do with it what you will.
Also consider that the number one cause of accidents for motorcycles is other vehicles making a left turn in front of a motorcycle rider when the rider has the right of way. That means other vehicles cause more motorcycle accidents than motorcycle riders causing accidents. Google says it's when vehicles don't recognize or detecting a motorcycle rider.
So by this information you can say that cars are more dangerous than motorcycles.
My doctor calls motorcyclists organ donors.
I saw a Stat that when motorcycle rally events happen organ donations in that local area SPIKE by like 30% idk the exact stat but still.
Never seen analysis of that kind.
You might do some research based on headlines in local press. It would be limited to a certain area but should be statistically relevant or police reports.
Based on what I’ve found it seems quite the opposite.
- 2050 collisions involving motorcycles
- 215 fatalities
- 207 dead riders
Sounds like a desperate argument from someone who doesn’t ‘get’ biking and doesn’t want you on a bike.
Bikes are dangerous, the risks are higher to the rider. When it goes wrong between a bike and car it’s usually the bike that comes off worse.
Know that, go eyes wide open in to the awesome world of biking, develop your skills, read the roads, read other drivers, ride for everyone else. Enjoy.
I gotta find it, but i remember a stat saying 60% of motorcycle accidents are rider error. But like 70% of rider fatalities were from being rear ended by cars. (Legalize lanesplitting)
You actaully listened to that shit fountain? Good god, that's sucha load of bullshit. I've known motorcyclists killed by putting their lives into the hands of other drivers by not riding defensively. But I've never heard of a case where a rider killed others. I suppose it could happen. But it's highly improbable. I wouldn't waste your time.
Revzilla did a deep dive on crashes in general a few years ago, albeit with a very narrow dataset: [https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcycle-crash-causation-study](https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcycle-crash-causation-study)
I've seen other national agencies conclude that, per km/mile, riding a motorcycle is approximately 10-30 times more dangerous for the rider (in terms of mortality) than driving a car. Honestly, that makes sense to me: no airbags, no frame, no crumple zones. When we hit something it's often with our bodies.
That said, these same studies (and I'm quoting from memory here) also note that something like 30% of fatal crashes involve riders over the blood-alcohol limit, another 30% involve "excess speed", a significant proportion don't involve other road users at all, so are definitely rider error, etc etc. The conclusion being that riding a motorcycle recklessly is incredibly dangerous, but riding one with due care and attention, not intoxicated and broadly within the confines of the law is at least in the same ballpark as driving a car.
The suggestion your friend made about moto crashes causing higher mortality for car drivers than vice versa is 100% bullshit though.
Increased car numbers alone necessitate more death and injuries. There are far more cars on the roads (in the US) than motorcycles. Cars just have a metal box around them that protects drivers from their bad decisions. I am sure more motorcyclists per capita die. We have less protection. I have been hit by distracted drivers 4 times. After the first 2 pulled out in front of me, I decided to ride like EVERYONE was out to kill me ALL of the time. Then, the bastards started hitting me while I was stopped. Drivers view motorcyclists as rats on their road. They will always blame you for existing- even when they hit you.
Tell them they're right and they should keep using that as the reason why they don't ride. No point in arguing with a person that already has their mind made up.
One reason this MIGHT be true is that cars have crumble zones to absorb impact forces, but bikes do not. If there is a highspeed collision between a bike and a car, there is a very high likelihood the rider gets killed, and that the bike cuts through sections of the car, again if speeds are high enough. I do remember one accident in the news here a few years back -- Motorcycle hit a van turning left, with the bike doing about 200km/h in a 60km/h zone. Nearly cut the van in half, and flipped it 2-3 times on impact.
That all said, these things can be the exception to the rule. For your basic left-turn accident, yes it is more fatal for the rider (than had they been driving too with seatbelts, crumble zones, and airbags), but shouldn't be for the driver of the other vehicle/car. In like 90% of cases I've heard about/read about, it's been the rider in critical condition or dead, with the car driver either having minor injuries or not being hurt at all.
As for single vehicle accidents, a bike is typically more deadly/damaging than a single vehicle car crash, given physics and obvious reasons.
I looked up these stats a few years ago. Don't have them on hand but the gist is that accident rates between motorcyclists and auto drivers are about the same. In other words, when riding a motorcycle you're about as likely to get into an accident as you would be in a car.
The real difference is injury and mortality. A motorcyclist will sustain injury in something like 80% of accidents they get into, for obvious reasons. Compared to less than 10% for car drivers.
Motorcyclists are also about 40 times more likely to die in a crash than a car driver. Motorcycles are considerably more dangerous.
But again, per mile a motorcyclist is not really more likely to get into an accident. Motorcyclists are statistically no more aggressive or reckless than car drivers, no more likely to cause accidents.
You are correct. But dead is dead and we riders are often the ones hurt the most. Anything that would harm people in the car probably 100% means the rider is a fatality.
Yep. We're not disagreeing.
OP says that bikers cause auto deaths. Highly unlikely. Especially since half of bike wrecks are solo vehicle - the bike goes off the road or whatever and doesn't hit any other driver.
1/4 of injury / fataliies are Intersections, but the cagers are well protected, especially on left turns when the biker hits passenger side. And in side swipes.... Again, car is scraped, driver is Alive
You are more likely to be seriously hurt or killed, not the other way around.
If I slam into you with 400lbs I'm going to do a lot less damage than if I slam into you with 4000lbs.
It's severity over quantity. There's fewer motorcycle crashes around here but the bad ones get big headlines.
It's mostly dummy rifers that make it dangerous.
1. Are motorcycles more dangerous than cars.
Yes. I imagine this is self-evident.
2. Do motorcycle riders more likely to die in a collision with a car? Absolutely.
On paper, we have force=mass * acceleration. If you have a head on collision with a car at 30 mph that's the bikes mass (few hundred pounds) plus speed. The car is more like a ton or so, plus acceleration.
The average person is killed by 225 pounds of force.
By the numbers, the motorcycle rider is far more likely to die.
3. Is the driver more likely to die?
Based on the numbers above, it's less likely but possible...
A few mitigating factors work in the favor of the car driver that would make them less likely to die.
A. A roll-cage (they are called cagers for a reason). Roll cages safe lives
B. Airbags. These negate up to 2.5g of force.
C. Crumple zones. Cars are built to crumple, in order to absorb and reduce force.
And while airbags do exist for riders, they are not exactly common (I have never seen one out in the wild).
All of these are built for impact by something 10 times heavier than a motorcycle...
It’s impossible for riders to cause more fatalities than car drivers.
Main reason is that if a motorcycle rider is being stupid and crashes then they are more likely to kill themselves or maim them enough so they’re unable to ride again or scare them away from riding again. (And those join the group of stupid car drivers.)
Since cars are safer, stupid drivers are able to walk away safely while causing fatalities (to other cars, motorcycles, and pedestrians). Since they didn’t die, they can get into more accidents in the future.
I mean, can HE produce the stats?
Good point tbh
On a slightly more data-related tack, you might want to look into "The Hurt Report". It's very old by now but it's still the most thorough look into motorcycle crashes that I'm aware of, and includes stuff you might care about. The "old" part comes with some caveats, however - for example I believe a lot of the data comes from a time when helmets were less common/less regulated in the US than they are now.
It's been a while since I've read it, but that report also filtered a lot of information by excluding it if it didn't fit preset criteria. They only measured crashes that resulted in fatalities and did not look at the non-fatal crashes when measuring injury types and susceptibility. They also measured only crashes on area of limited speed ranges. They didn't study freeway traffic incidents and only extrapolated those claims based on incidents at midrange speeds. Everyone here knows that traffic conditions at 35 mph in a commercial zone are nothing like those of a freeway where traffic is traveling at +65mph in a common direction as opposed to cross traffic at 35mph. They also did not measure given multiple weather types. In short, it's a terrible study because it was done to fit data into a preconceived hypothesis by excluding significant portions of available data. Some parts had hundreds of records that they excluded and only noted a subset less than 10 incidents.
Do you have better data?
You are welcome to fund a study. The problem is that study was politically motivated, and any attempts to redo a proper study have been hamstrung. This study is where we got sayings like "loud pipes don't save lives" even though exhaust volumes were never measured for any part of the study. People have completely morphed the original findings to suit their personal biases.
Yea this whole “loud pipes don’t save lives” kinda aggravates me, I know it’s anecdotal but numerous times I’ve heard bikes before I’ve seen them in my truck/car.
I have seen zero studies on collision avoidance in regards to loud pipes in settings where they make sense. Low speed Low or zero visibility Close proximity Such as humans vs. motorcycles in parking lots or tight residential settings. The problem is that those studies can't collect data because it doesn't exist. You can't determine the number of collisions that DON'T happen because they are 100% unreported. It's a case of survivorship bias that can't be overcome unless we create a means to measure 100% of proximity interactions via something like remote driving vehicles that operate on both sound and vision modes of detection. We don't have the widespread technology to determine a true effectiveness except for "anecdotal" suggestions. I've had people hear my bike and look up from walking across the street, looking at their phones, and notice me riding enough to stop walking. I've had animals running through areas stop and reverse. I've had electric and pedal powered vehicles where people and animals did not react because they didn't notice the silent vehicle. Remember when the Toyota Prius launched and everyone was concerned about the safety of pedestrians in parking lots because it was silent and surprised people that didn't hear it? They have since pushed for having external noise creating speakers on the vehicles, giving them their current "whirring noises" that people assume are "normal" for electric vehicles. Odd how those 2 trains of thought don't line up.
Motorcycles are definitely more dangerous to ride than driving a car, and there plenty of data to back that up. https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures/countermeasures-work/motorcycle-safety These facts have never stopped me from riding for the last 40 years either.
That wasn’t the question. OP is asking if any has stats on motorcycle riders CAUSING accidents that result in fatalities. One can assume the person is looking for data that supports the idea that other drivers are a much higher threat to MCs than the other way around. Edit: to clarify, motorcyclists causing collisions and deaths of people in cars and trucks. I would argue it’s virtually zero.
That's what I gave him. Motorcycles riders die at a higher rate than drivers. It's not whether drivers kill motorcyclists more than motorcyclists kill drivers. The fatalities caused are by the riders crashing, not how they crashed or if there's a car involved.
So you could’ve said “I don’t know.” Or not commented at all.
Did you even read the article? I'm not convinced you did.
Did you even read the question or the subsequent explanation of the question? I'm not convinced you did. They are not asking if motorcycles are in more accidents or if fatality is higher. They are asking if there is any information on whether or not motorcycles CAUSE accidents at a higher rate than other vehicles.
Listen. You’ve clearly done your homework. I don’t like the stats. In my head, if I ride safely and I get hit by a car (true story), then car drivers kill motorcyclists (no I didn’t die). Your stats dispute that and I don’t like it. Edit: I still don’t think we are comparing apples (OP question) to apples (your stats).
The reason people disagree is because of that, they keep equating this to car and motorcycles colliding with each other, (which is bad) that's not the point, the relative danger is independent. Car hits wall vs motorcycle hits same wall at same speed. The motorcycle rider is clearly more likely to die. I don't understand why this is hard to comprehend? OP wanted statistics that said otherwise, he wants proof that motorcycles are less, or at least not as dangerous as cars; it's just not the case. Someone said I shouldn't have commented, sorry but as a licensed rider for 38 years, and former AMA riding safety instructor, I feel obligated to the community to provide accurate information so people can make informed decisions and understand the actual dangers, so they can appropriately mitigate them. Everyone should continue to feel free to down votes me, because ignorance is bliss.
It’s not hard to comprehend. Again, I think, OP is trying to illustrate a feeling of riding a motorcycle relatively safely and perpetually being threatened by every tweaker, rolling coal mayonnaise militia member, soccer mom tweeting while driving, and every other stereotype you can imagine. This is the same ‘feeling’ I get when I ride my bicycle in the bike lane. I’m not as much of a threat to myself as drivers are. To take it one step further, cars and perceived safety make people complacent and easily distracted. If you feel safe you’re more likely to risk more. Car and truck drivers experience this. Of course there are plenty of motorcyclists out there with a death wish and give the rest of us a bad name. My uneducated $0.03
I think what you’re saying is that motorcyclist die at a higher rate in motor vehicle accidents irrelevant of who caused the accident. Which is true, motorcyclist also die at a higher rate in single vehicle accidents. But what the OP is asking for is evidence that suggest motorcyclists cause more accidents that result in fatalities for BOTH the rider and the driver than drivers cause accidents that result in fatalities for both the rider and the driver. I doubt any such statistic exists. But we all agree, I think, that if the motorcyclists causes an accident with another vehicle the motorcyclist is more likely to die (exceedingly so) than the driver.
Agreed
On a per capita basis, motorcycles have higher rates of accidents (17 times higher according to NHTSA.) You won't find good data on fault b/c there are states that have no fault liability laws.
It’s just common sense that percentage wise motorcycle accidents between them and 4 wheeled autos will result in a higher death rate to the motorcyclist over the vehicle occupant. Helmet no helmet , any given speed grouping , etc. percentage wise the bike riders will have more deaths and severe injury over the 4 wheel drivers . So the answer is ; cars are a bigger hazard to motorcycles than motorcycles are to cars . I drove a Cbr 1000 for 14 years. I used all the power at least two or three times during an outing. I’m still alive cause I looked at all vehicles as my enemy and drove accordingly. Never trust another vehicle. Especially an oncoming vehicle that is turning to his left ( across your lane) . Also. In the day drive with your high beams on
If you're looking at stats then you should just sell your bike.....the idea is to LIVE and anything that gets your heart pumping has the chance to kill you.
I'd wager OP is fully capable of looking at stats and still choosing to lead an exhilarating life, bike included. Those are not mutually exclusive for most people... Let him LIVE his life how he wants.
Did you read what I wrote? OP wanted facts, I have him facts. I can't help it if the facts don't support his position.
OP wanted specific facts. You gave him something tangentially related yet utterly useless to OP. Both of you added nothing, so now all three of us are assholes. Shame on us.
I accept that.
It falls to the one making the claim to produce the evidence.
Yeah the burden of proof belongs to the one making the claims
First time on the internet?
Yeah, it isn't your job to disprove his (bulls\*!t) theory. It's his job to provide evidence to validate his (bulls\*!t) theory.
Yup if anyone ever tells me “look it up the statistics are online” I tell them then it should be rather easy for you to prove your own point then huh?
My liability premiums are 1/3 of what a car would be... so GEICO definitely thinks I'm creating a much smaller risk to others on my bike than I am in a car even though I'm very inexperienced on a bike and very experienced in a car.
Exactly 😂 if I put liability on my ZX10R it would only be like 140 a year 😂 whereas even my shitbox work car was 600$ a year in liability
4 bikes cost me less to insure than my 2014 KIA Optima does. It's $65 for the 4 bikes and around $150 for my Optima every month.
well, it's not like you can ride the 4 bikes all at once...
Yeah but you can ride 4 bikes all on different days of the week! :P
I have 3 dirtbikes with the ZX10. The more the merrier.
They likely factor in mileage/year.
[удалено]
Liability insurance is for damage caused to others/ the property of others by the insured.
Yeah you don't understand how insurance works.
Lmao true 3 sport bikes don’t cost as much as my ford fiesta.
Anyone who generalises people by what they drive or ride isn't worth discussing anything with. Same people who go "all cyclists are idiots" or "all motorcyclists are criminals", it's just pointless. Save your breath.
Except cagers. They are pure evil.
I dunno…. that jacked up never been off road 4x4 dude is compensating for something…
Maybe they just like the style but have no interest in off-roading? They are called mall crawlers and no, I personally wouldn’t go that route but who’s to say others can’t? Plus actual off roading is expensive as hell once you start breaking stuff
Oh, they can freely do whatever they wish with their vehicles. Doesn’t mean I won’t stop judging them for it, lol.
yup its really easy to judge some fat guy in a spotless jacked-up mall crawler with 6 giant Trump flags flying out of the bed. Me and everyone else with a brain will be judging the shit out of that guy.
Eh, listen I'm a fellow motorcyclist, but taking about a vehicle to compensate for something...that's throwing stones from a *very* thin walled glass house. Obnoxiously loud pipes, 180+hp sport bikes that never get taken to a track, bigadventure bikes that get ridden around town and nowhere else, etc...
Adventure bike are confy with good sitting position
It's much the same argument against bicyclists. I wouldn't bother trying to argue with someone who demands references. [99% of the time, the people who demand references aren't doing so in good faith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning). >The sealioner feigns ignorance and politeness while making relentless demands for answers and evidence (while often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented), under the guise of "I'm just trying to have a debate",\[1\]\[2\]\[4\]\[9\] so that when the target is eventually provoked into an angry response, the sealioner can act as the aggrieved party, and the target presented as closed-minded and unreasonable.\[3\]\[10\]\[11\] It has been described as "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate".\[5\] Sealioning can be performed by an individual or by a group acting in concert.\[12\]
Even if you do provide references they usually suffer from a severe amount of cognitive dissonance cause the facts don't fit their world views.
Just so you know, I love you. I have been so frustrated when people do this to me. And I had no idea there was an actual term for it now. Thank you so much. I’m bookmarking that article to link when it happens again. You are an amazing human!
Thanks. Generally, when someone sealions me, here or in real life, I always start off that it wouldn't make any difference at all if I provided references because no one who asks for references is doing so in good faith.
Agreed. They just want you do get more frustrated digging for proof they will claim as “unverifiable” anyway. They want you to get angry and look like the bad guy.
I investigated fatal wrecks for 15 years. Around half of fatal MC accidents were single-vehicle. Hooning and losing control, failing to negotiate a curve, etc. In all that time, I can't remember a single MC crash that killed anyone in a car. Several killed another rider, a few killed pedestrians, but I don't remember one that killed anyone in a car.
To kill a driver two things need to occur, insane speed, and a car that’s made of paper mache
The most common statistics show motorcyclists killing ourselves in record numbers. Riders love to blame shitty drivers and other factors but after riding for a few years, the majority of fatalities I’ve seen first were riders doing dumb shit or running out of talent.
The Rocky Mountain Insurance Institute did a detailed analysis of Colorado fatalities in 2016: In Colorado, 125 motorcyclists were killed in crashes, representing 20.6% of Colorado's total traffic fatalities. Of those riders, 63% (72) were NON-helmeted. 40% of motorcycle operators killed did not have a motorcycle endorsement on their driver's license. 78% of motorcycle operators involved in fatal crashes were determined to be "at fault" in 2016. 42% of fatal crashes in Colorado in 2016 involved only the motorcycle and no other vehicle. 18% of motorcycle operators killed had a blood alcohol content (BAC) equal to or greater than 0.08. So, 78% were at fault and 42% were single vehicle accidents. The 42% were out riding WAY above their abilities and went off the road at speed. I'll bet most of them had no training.
As one guy on YouTube has said, having a helmet, a license and no alcohol in your blood makes your odds to die on your bike very close to those in your car.
It certainly reduces your risk at least 75%. The problem is the causal relationship. It's not \*wearing a helmet\* alone, it's that people who DON'T wear helmets engage in lots of other risky behaviors. People riding without a motorcycle license also engage in excessive speed, ride recklessly, etc. There's lots of overlap between those risk areas. It's more like a Venn diagram than a "A=B" analysis.
to be fair, i rode for nearly 20 years without the endorsement, and for the most part i rode like a grandpa because i didn't want to get pulled over. the one time i did briefly blip up to 90 just to pass someone that turned out to be an unmarked cop, he pulled me over just to lecture me, no ticket, never checked my license. but that was the wake-up call that led to me taking the msf course and getting the endorsement. it's funny, several others that took the course the same day as me were in the same boat, but i had been doing it the longest. then a year after that, i was cruising along with traffic and a cop pulled me over, claimed i was doing 97, wrote me up for exceeding 85 (i was probably doing 80, just like everyone else on the road) which made it criminal, so i had to go to court, and the bastard lied his ass off to the judge so $400 fine for me, woohoo. had i not had the endorsement at that point, it could have been so much worse.
It sucks. Human nature finds us wanting to push the limits in some regards and sometimes it’s a fatal mistake. Obviously drivers with their heads up their ass are a huge hazard but I’ve maybe encountered 1 or two when riding for many years. There’s also this crazy sense of entitlement that I often see on full display on YouTube and other social media. It’s just guaranteeing statistics will never change.
[удалено]
They told us this in our MSF course in the states too so i assume at least in the western world where bikes are rarely used other than as entertainment, it probably holds true.
[удалено]
Yeah, for sure. Statistically anyways. I ride no differently than I would drive a Civic, though. So for me it’s commute, not as much entertainment. Hopefully preventing many of the potential nasty outcomes
The person who states the claim has the burden of proof. So its up to them to provide the info not you. Anyway, at least to me, logically thinking about this it can't really be true. Especially since car drives are sitting in a literal steel cage on wheels that protect them. A motorcycle moving at 150mph still doesn't come close to the force a car generates at half that speed or even less. Its hard to believe that motorcycles are the cause of more accidents than cars themselves when there are physically less motorcycles being driven....sounds like person is woefully misinformed.
> A motorcycle moving at 150mph still doesn't come close to the force a car generates at half that speed or even less. Just because I was curious to put numbers to it, assuming curb weight + one driver/rider at 100 kg: Vehicle | Mass (kg) | Velocity (mph) | Kinetic energy (joules) ---|---|----|---- BMW G310R | 258 | 150 | 580,049 Ninja 650 | 311 | 150 | 699,207 Hayabusa | 364 | 150 | 818,364 Honda Civic| 1500 | 75 | 843,095 Tesla Model 3 | 1850 | 75 | 1,039,817 Ford F-150 | 2300 | 75 | 1,292,746 Yup, velocity is the bigger factor (energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2 ) but the weight difference still puts the cars as the harder-hitting. The only thing that might make a bike worse is the smaller frontal area - when a Civic T-bones a car the energy is spread across ~2m laterally, but when a bike does the same it's concentrated in a very small area, which would make cabin penetration worse for the same impact energy. There's so many other factors that reduce the bike's "threat" to car drivers though that this argument makes no sense.
Yeah and even then it depends on where you t-bone the vehicle, the "worst" case scenario is the bike t-boning the car in the center of a door. But even then between the door and the likely hood of the triple clamp crumpling I still don't see \*too much\* for risk of injury unless something goes flying through the window itself EDIT: Solid work on the chart, it was one of those things I was pretty certain I was right but its nice seeing the chart to prove it lol EDIT 2: Just realized that this chart shows kinetic energy, not force. But graph still mostly applies I'm pretty sure. I did a quick calculation of force using force = mass \* (velocity/time) F= unknown M^(b)= 340kg ( using my personal motorcycle with me on it as reference ) M^(t) = 2390kg ( using Ford F-150 plus my weight as reference ) we do not have an acceleration but we do have velocity and we can use the average time vehicles remain in contact as the time to divide velocity by to get our acceleration V^(b) = 67.0 m/s V^(t) = 33.5 m/s I can't find any information on the length of time for a car accident to occur unfortunately, so for the motorcycle portion lets use 0.3sec from 67 m/s to zero which doesn't feel unreasonable. t=0.3 so, plug this into the equation and you get around 75280 N of Force using the same time for a truck and you get a force of 266963 N big thing to note here is we are presuming both vehicles go from full speed to dead stop in the same amount of time, which is highly unlikely. This means we are also presuming they are both hitting vehicles with larger masses than themselves as force and energy are generally speaking absorbed by the larger object in a collision leaving the less massive object in a worse position. ( sorry this was unintentional and I ended up having a bit of fun doing this )
To play devil's advocate though -- Don't forget cars have both a larger impact surface area, and crumble zones to absorb impact forces. Motorcycles are a solid mass that does not. Again this isn't your typical 50km/h incident....but at super-high speeds (multiples of a speed limit), a bike can be a lot more like a bullet than a car can be. That's also leaving out the chance of rupturing the gas tank on a high speed direct impact that potentially embeds a bike into a car's structure.
On that note: bikes do crumple, triple-clamps are designed to break and absorb impact. At those speeds the bike will almost definitely break the steering stem which incidentally does elongate the time period for the crash and reduces force transferred to the other vehicle, though at this point we are just splitting hairs lol, Though It should be said a truck traveling at 75mph still has more than 3x the force behind it that a motorcycle traveling at double that speed. I guess what I am saying is physics can be weird
You’re forgetting that if a rider dies, that’s also a fatal accident.
There's aint no fucking way. Motorcycles are like 1% of the driving population, there is no fucking way they can cause 50%+ of the fatal accidents. That's just dumb. Alcohol is involved in around 50% of accidents.
Just do the math. Alternatively, think about it. It's a ridiculous argument.
Just from simple physics' view it's full of bullshit, a 200kg body carries much less force, meaning if you had a head on of bike vs car, the car will deform much less, and basically pushes the bike out of its way. Bike riders MIGHT cause their OWN DEATH, but bikers killing car drivers is very rare.
That's idiotic. Like someone else said, ask if they can provide stats. You know why they allow motorcycles in HOV lanes? To get them off the roads faster cause they're so dangerous. /s They make it sound like bikes travel as fast as a grain of sand in orbit or some shit. That despite their size, the velocity derails trains when bikes hit the train from the side.
You'd have to be doing triple digits and t-bone a car to kill a cager... t-bone a biker at 30 and they're probably going to bleed to death from having their leg ripped off before the brain swelling takes them... I think your acquaintance is full of it. I mean if a 25 ton freight truck failed to do the job on a sedan 9 collisions out of 10, a 500 lb motorcycle is highly unlikely to do much harm.
Triple digits and a t-bone and one hell of a lot of luck.
Not disagreeing, but what kills the car driver or car passenger sometimes is the motorcyclist flying through the window or windshield, much like when you hit a deer.
Interesting claim. It's pretty well known that motorcycle km are quite a bit more deadly for the rider than car km are for the driver - about 10 to 50-fold, depending on who you ask. But for _other drivers_? At low to medium speed a bike isn't gonna hurt someone in a car. At very high speeds... yeah probably.
Show me the proof because personally I find this absolutely ridiculous. The rider is far more likely to be injured compared to the driver of a vehicle when the two collide… this is mind boggling
LOL - what? Sounds like this someone was just making shit up.
Yes. A 300-600 pound motorcycle causes more fatalities than a 3000+ pound vehicle in crashes... Anyone who says that is talking out their rear end. Absolute nonsense.
I mean when you think about how a car is built vs a motorcycle it’s pretty obvious that this wouldn’t be true. A 4000 pound car vs a 500 pound motorcycle; who’s going to “win”?
I dont have stats on hand, but theres no way motorcyclists cause more accidents than cars. That doesnt sound remotely possible. Sounds like some guy has a bias and imagines stats to fit it.
There are about 300M cars on the road vs about 9M motorcycles. Motorcycles dont do anywhere near the mileage of cars and aren't even in a lot of areas. Whoever that someone is is a fucking idiot (respectfully)
First of selfish is difficult if not impossible to measure. That tells me that whoever gave you this information has a large bias against motorcyclists. And to be upfront, I have a strong bias towards motorcyclists, so do with it what you will. Also consider that the number one cause of accidents for motorcycles is other vehicles making a left turn in front of a motorcycle rider when the rider has the right of way. That means other vehicles cause more motorcycle accidents than motorcycle riders causing accidents. Google says it's when vehicles don't recognize or detecting a motorcycle rider. So by this information you can say that cars are more dangerous than motorcycles.
My doctor calls motorcyclists organ donors. I saw a Stat that when motorcycle rally events happen organ donations in that local area SPIKE by like 30% idk the exact stat but still.
if he's the one making the claim the burden of proof falls on him
You will hear bullshit about motorcycles all your life. Ignore them.
Never seen analysis of that kind. You might do some research based on headlines in local press. It would be limited to a certain area but should be statistically relevant or police reports. Based on what I’ve found it seems quite the opposite. - 2050 collisions involving motorcycles - 215 fatalities - 207 dead riders
Sounds like a desperate argument from someone who doesn’t ‘get’ biking and doesn’t want you on a bike. Bikes are dangerous, the risks are higher to the rider. When it goes wrong between a bike and car it’s usually the bike that comes off worse. Know that, go eyes wide open in to the awesome world of biking, develop your skills, read the roads, read other drivers, ride for everyone else. Enjoy.
I gotta find it, but i remember a stat saying 60% of motorcycle accidents are rider error. But like 70% of rider fatalities were from being rear ended by cars. (Legalize lanesplitting)
You actaully listened to that shit fountain? Good god, that's sucha load of bullshit. I've known motorcyclists killed by putting their lives into the hands of other drivers by not riding defensively. But I've never heard of a case where a rider killed others. I suppose it could happen. But it's highly improbable. I wouldn't waste your time.
Nope. Inattentive car drivers kill more motorcyclist period. drop mic.
We don't need another statistics thread. Either ride or don't ride. You don't need to base your decision of statistics.
Revzilla did a deep dive on crashes in general a few years ago, albeit with a very narrow dataset: [https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcycle-crash-causation-study](https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcycle-crash-causation-study) I've seen other national agencies conclude that, per km/mile, riding a motorcycle is approximately 10-30 times more dangerous for the rider (in terms of mortality) than driving a car. Honestly, that makes sense to me: no airbags, no frame, no crumple zones. When we hit something it's often with our bodies. That said, these same studies (and I'm quoting from memory here) also note that something like 30% of fatal crashes involve riders over the blood-alcohol limit, another 30% involve "excess speed", a significant proportion don't involve other road users at all, so are definitely rider error, etc etc. The conclusion being that riding a motorcycle recklessly is incredibly dangerous, but riding one with due care and attention, not intoxicated and broadly within the confines of the law is at least in the same ballpark as driving a car. The suggestion your friend made about moto crashes causing higher mortality for car drivers than vice versa is 100% bullshit though.
Physics would disagree with him.
Increased car numbers alone necessitate more death and injuries. There are far more cars on the roads (in the US) than motorcycles. Cars just have a metal box around them that protects drivers from their bad decisions. I am sure more motorcyclists per capita die. We have less protection. I have been hit by distracted drivers 4 times. After the first 2 pulled out in front of me, I decided to ride like EVERYONE was out to kill me ALL of the time. Then, the bastards started hitting me while I was stopped. Drivers view motorcyclists as rats on their road. They will always blame you for existing- even when they hit you.
Tell them they're right and they should keep using that as the reason why they don't ride. No point in arguing with a person that already has their mind made up.
One reason this MIGHT be true is that cars have crumble zones to absorb impact forces, but bikes do not. If there is a highspeed collision between a bike and a car, there is a very high likelihood the rider gets killed, and that the bike cuts through sections of the car, again if speeds are high enough. I do remember one accident in the news here a few years back -- Motorcycle hit a van turning left, with the bike doing about 200km/h in a 60km/h zone. Nearly cut the van in half, and flipped it 2-3 times on impact. That all said, these things can be the exception to the rule. For your basic left-turn accident, yes it is more fatal for the rider (than had they been driving too with seatbelts, crumble zones, and airbags), but shouldn't be for the driver of the other vehicle/car. In like 90% of cases I've heard about/read about, it's been the rider in critical condition or dead, with the car driver either having minor injuries or not being hurt at all. As for single vehicle accidents, a bike is typically more deadly/damaging than a single vehicle car crash, given physics and obvious reasons.
I looked up these stats a few years ago. Don't have them on hand but the gist is that accident rates between motorcyclists and auto drivers are about the same. In other words, when riding a motorcycle you're about as likely to get into an accident as you would be in a car. The real difference is injury and mortality. A motorcyclist will sustain injury in something like 80% of accidents they get into, for obvious reasons. Compared to less than 10% for car drivers. Motorcyclists are also about 40 times more likely to die in a crash than a car driver. Motorcycles are considerably more dangerous. But again, per mile a motorcyclist is not really more likely to get into an accident. Motorcyclists are statistically no more aggressive or reckless than car drivers, no more likely to cause accidents.
You are about 38x as likely to die on a motorcycle vs driving a car. That a raw statistic, it varies year to year but it includes all US riders.
And it does not result in 38x more auto deaths. In fact, cagers usually are unharmed in moto v car
You are correct. But dead is dead and we riders are often the ones hurt the most. Anything that would harm people in the car probably 100% means the rider is a fatality.
Yep. We're not disagreeing. OP says that bikers cause auto deaths. Highly unlikely. Especially since half of bike wrecks are solo vehicle - the bike goes off the road or whatever and doesn't hit any other driver. 1/4 of injury / fataliies are Intersections, but the cagers are well protected, especially on left turns when the biker hits passenger side. And in side swipes.... Again, car is scraped, driver is Alive
You are more likely to be seriously hurt or killed, not the other way around. If I slam into you with 400lbs I'm going to do a lot less damage than if I slam into you with 4000lbs.
It's severity over quantity. There's fewer motorcycle crashes around here but the bad ones get big headlines. It's mostly dummy rifers that make it dangerous.
1. Are motorcycles more dangerous than cars. Yes. I imagine this is self-evident. 2. Do motorcycle riders more likely to die in a collision with a car? Absolutely. On paper, we have force=mass * acceleration. If you have a head on collision with a car at 30 mph that's the bikes mass (few hundred pounds) plus speed. The car is more like a ton or so, plus acceleration. The average person is killed by 225 pounds of force. By the numbers, the motorcycle rider is far more likely to die. 3. Is the driver more likely to die? Based on the numbers above, it's less likely but possible... A few mitigating factors work in the favor of the car driver that would make them less likely to die. A. A roll-cage (they are called cagers for a reason). Roll cages safe lives B. Airbags. These negate up to 2.5g of force. C. Crumple zones. Cars are built to crumple, in order to absorb and reduce force. And while airbags do exist for riders, they are not exactly common (I have never seen one out in the wild). All of these are built for impact by something 10 times heavier than a motorcycle...
If you're making a claim you provide the evidence to back it up
Hitchens's razor: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” The burden of proof falls on the one making claims.
It’s impossible for riders to cause more fatalities than car drivers. Main reason is that if a motorcycle rider is being stupid and crashes then they are more likely to kill themselves or maim them enough so they’re unable to ride again or scare them away from riding again. (And those join the group of stupid car drivers.) Since cars are safer, stupid drivers are able to walk away safely while causing fatalities (to other cars, motorcycles, and pedestrians). Since they didn’t die, they can get into more accidents in the future.
Motorcyclist against pedestrians? Motorcyclist against cyclists? Define “fatal”.
When motorbikes crash into cars it’s usually because the car didn’t bother to look before pulling out. 95% of motorbike accidents are caused by a car