Getting a motorcycle license was a very good thing I've done for my life. Cruising on long roads, beautiful views, wild camping and meeting other people in a like-minded community. It really heals your mind and body.
But obviously it comes with higher risk as you are more exposed and higher demands on your abilities.
And good gear can help, but if it is not combined with training and of course a sound attitude, you may sooner or later find yourself in an undesirable situation.
Go to refresher courses. I do it every year to update myself and get an idea of my current limits. It really helps.
To see what I meant about attitude, just go on Instagram and check for motorcycle reels, you'll see soo many examples of how to not act in traffic or what to do on a motorcycle.
Probably the single most important thing is learning good defensive driving. Which is different than "good driving".
Lots of "good drivers" T-bone the guy who ran a red light. Defensive drivers see him barreling towards the intersection, as they check both ways despite it being green.
On a motorcycle, even if a crash is not your fault, you're still dead.
Bicycling communities suck for learning safety. The correct thing to do is take the full lane and take dutch lefts (turning right into perpendicular traffic then going straight to avoid changing to a left hand turn lane). People should be preaching it from the rooftops to save lives. Wouldn’t need to have bike lanes everywhere if people were fully taking lanes, forcing a merge to pass them, and being far more visible to traffic vs riding along the shoulder and getting doored and right and left hooked. The current bike lane gold standard of buffering traffic with parked cars means bikes are invisible at intersections and driveways to cars which is where many accidents tend to happen.
> but if it is not combined with training and of course a sound attitude, you may sooner or later find yourself in an undesirable situation.
I ride motorcycles, so this is not a argument against it, but even with all the best safety gear and perfect habits you’re still significantly more likely to die in an accident compared to a motorcycle per mile driven.
Motorcycle fatality and injury statistics don't control for a rider's skills, experience, or attitude. Add to that the fact that motorcycles tend to attract a large number of young thrill seekers on crotch rockets and counter-culture types on choppers--neither of which put much, if any, level of effort into safety--and you get studies and statistics saying that motorcycles are basically two-wheeled insta-death machines.
Yes, a motorcycle rider will never be as protected as a person in a car surrounded by a steel frame and airbags. That should go without saying. But it would be nice if we can acknowledge that people who actually make an effort to wear their gear and maintain situational awareness generally aren't well represented in the statistics.
> But it would be nice if we can acknowledge that people who actually make an effort to wear their gear and maintain situational awareness generally aren't well represented in the statistics.
The data says you are 25 times more likely to die per mile driven versus a car. If we were talking about personal experience, my motorcycle training instructor with 3 decades of experience was killed a few years ago by someone in an SUV making a left turn. It was broad daylight, they had all the gear, they were doing everything right, the person in the car was not paying attention and made a last second left with no time to react.
Even doing everything right you are still significantly more likely to die on a motorcycle in a car per mile driven. again, I ride motorcycles and I accept that risk.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend but an anecdote is not data. And my WHOLE position is that skill and experience and not represented in motorcycle fatality data.
I rode motorcycles most of my life. I stopped during the pandemic and I'm sort of thinking of maybe getting another bike. Trying to balance the fun with the realities of riding.
Anecdotally, I've been to the funeral of a fighter jet pilot years ago who died on a motorcycle after a bus cut him off, in the city. This would be someone at the top 1% of skill, attitude and experience. The reality of riding a motorcycle is that you are completely exposed/unprotected (leather vs. a metal box) and there are many situations you can't predict/control.
I've had a few crashes myself, including a high speed one, possibly some I could have avoided but for whatever reason didn't. People make mistakes, have poor judgement, and can't always be 100%. My worst crash was when someone T-boned me in the city doing an illegal left turn across three lanes. If I had been paying more attention I could have predicted/avoided/seen it but I didn't. I even had my visor open and got the handlebar in my face. I walked/drove away from that one just like all my other crashes with some minor injuries.
It's been probably over a decade since I dug into this, but IIRC, if you have a motorcycle license, insurance, a registered bike, and wear a helmet, your fatal accident chances drop by 70%.
Simply not drinking and riding wildly improves your odds. ~20 years ago, MCN published that 70% of single-vehicle motorcyclist fatalities involved alcohol.
That’s equivalent to saying that if you don’t have a motorcycle license, don’t register your bike, don’t have insurance, and don’t wear your helmet, your fatal accident risk increases by over 3x. Put that way, it’s not surprising, nor does it actually tell you anything about the base rate safety of lawful motorcycling. By way of analogy, you could just as easily say “not dousing yourself in gasoline reduces the risk of death by smoking by 98%”, which is both true and useless.
> That’s equivalent to saying that if you don’t have a motorcycle license, don’t register your bike, don’t have insurance, and don’t wear your helmet, your fatal accident risk increases by over 3x.
That's not really how statistics work. Since the reduction was probably calculated against the population average you need to know the relative size of the groups to calculate the risk increase for the inverse group. Additionaly, the group you specified is not the inverse group since you exclude those who have some, but not all, of the safety signals.
Your calculation would be accurate if almost nobody took all safety precautions (that would mean the average risk rate would be affected much by that group) and everbody else took no safety precautions.
What you have calculated is a rough lower bound for the risk increase given unknown population behavior ratios.
> nor does it actually tell you anything about the base rate safety
It doesn't by itself. What it tells you is given a base of rate of 3x more deadly per mile, those who follow all the rules are as likely to die as an average driver (which still isn't an fair comparison.) To be fair, you'd beed to compare agaisnt driver who have a license, registration, insurance and are wear a seatbelt. (Or maybe helmet..)
My interpretation of the original claim was that, on a per capita basis, the rate of fatal accidents among motorcyclists with license, registration, insurance, and helmets is 30% that of motorcyclists who have none of those things, with no particular claim implied about motorcyclists who fulfill between 1-3 of those four criteria. I know that wasn't necessarily the only possible interpretation but I think it's a reasonable one.
> on a per capita basis, the rate of fatal accidents among motorcyclists with license, registration, insurance, and helmets is 30% that of motorcyclists who have none of those things
When presented with unsourced statistics on the web, probably best to assume the weakest interpretation.
Maybe, but I was also assuming good faith, which entails assuming that Workaccount2 is neither dishonest enough to intentionally share misleading statistics nor completely ignorant about the more basic and obvious ways that statistics can be misleading. If you always assume the weakest interpretation you spend a lot of time quibbling over basic points.
I totally get what you are saying, but if you ride motorcycles and have been around motorcycle groups, the stat is clearly saying "as expected, it's the dumb kids doing the dieing".
The comment is written for other riders, I left out a lot of detail for it to be a general comment.
There are safe (and unsafe) drivers contributing to both car and motorcycle statistics. Is this an argument that the skill curve for motorcycle driving is skewed towards highly unskilled drivers but cars are more evenly distributed?
I don't remember much about my statistics classes but even if you're a 99th percentile driver can't you still say there will be a large increase in your own personal probability of a fatality if you jump from the car curve to the motorcycle one?
> Is this an argument that the skill curve for motorcycle driving is skewed towards highly unskilled drivers but cars are more evenly distributed?
Yes! Cars and motorcycles share the same roads but in North America at least, nearly everyone is a car driver and most people drive at _roughly_ the same skill level because we all drive for mostly the same reasons and have all had lots of time behind the wheel. (Of course there are outliers for all of these.) The vast majority of us wear our seatbelts, buy cars with good safety systems, and drive safely because even though it happens occasionally, none of us want to die at all, let alone due to something as mundane as a traffic accident.
But motorcycles are entirely recreational. People buy bikes for different reasons but the most popular ones are seeking thrills, looking cool, and trying to fit into a certain peer group. Safety is not a top concern for most motorcyclists, and is often something that even scoffed at. I personally know guys who refuse to wear a helmet because (to paraphrase their words), "I'd rather die as I am than end up half-alive as a paraplegic or vegetable." Nevermind that wearing a helmet makes the latter MORE likely, not less, but saying so would not have changed their minds anyway.
Those of us who DO take safety seriously are out there, wearing full-face helmets, armored jackets, pants, and boots. We practice our low-speed maneuvers and focus on situational awareness. We NEVER ride drunk or tired. We know we are not invincible. We acknowledge the risks but we try to push the odds more in our favor as much as we can. But we are a small minority and are severely underrepresented in injury statistics that non-riders like to tout on the Internet.
* Have a license
* Wear appropriate gear
* Follow speed limits
* Don't drink and ride
* Aged somewhere 30-50
* Have more than a few months experience on your bike
* etc.
You are statistically "one of the safer ones". Not safe, you are never truly safe when in traffic.
Kind of a strange reply. I would suggest reading my comment again because I think you missed the point of it.
I do not believe I am "safe." If I wanted to be safe, I would spend my weekends sitting around the house instead of getting out and seeing some of the world in a way that I find interesting and fun to me.
I think that motorcycle and e-bike safety can be greatly enhanced by never doing things a car couldn't do.
Always stay in the middle of the lane (unless you need to avoid a pothole), never overtake unless a car would have space to overtake, never enter an intersection alongside a car in the same lane.
On a bike, you also have the option of behaving like a pedestrian (cycle on the sidewalk slowly) occasionally.
If you don't do this, it's only a matter of time before a car hits you because it didn't expect a vehicle or pedestrian doing what you are doing.
Also you can see much farther between cars.
I usually ride switching left of the lane to right of the lane occasionally, to create lateral movement so car drivers will notice more (one hopes).
I was coming home from work on my bike very late a few years ago, and I was on the side of the lane where your car tire would be -- not in the center. It was a good thing, too, because there was a full size ladder in the road, lined up exactly in the direction of traffic. Cars could safely drive 'over' it. I missed it by maybe a foot. If I were in middle of the lane, I would have taken a serious spill.
I love the idea but our roads almost worldwide are cursed with ever-present cars which do not cars about anything else. I've heard lots of and lots of near-misses, accidents and bullshit interactions between bikes/motorbikes and cars.
I just finished reading a travelogue about the dude who cycled around the world in 1800s. Sure, one could do it today but the roads he was riding on were almost empty, now you would have to be cautious every time, since 1 asshole and you're out.
> our roads almost worldwide are cursed with ever-present cars which do not cars about anything else
Kind of feel like you're over-generalizing here. Where I live, there is almost more motorbikes than cars a lot of the time, which considering the rush hour traffic, kind of makes sense as most people don't wanna get stuck in those queues. Of course, there are accidents and near-misses (almost by definition, since those on motorbikes tend to go between car lanes), but it's not like there is a 99% chance of you dying every time you use a motorbike.
I think it depends a lot on how used to motorbikes the car drivers are. Since I live in a place where there is a bunch of them always (and cyclists!), I feel like most of us pay attention to where they could show up. Compare that to countries where motorbiking isn't as popular, I could understand how it's more risky to go with the motorbike as the car-ists aren't as used to them appearing wherever.
My doctor buddy told of a room in the hospital called the Cabbage Patch, full of braindead people who absolutely will die but can’t be let to die yet. Who is that room full of?
Consider that the fatality rate is roughly 30 times higher per mile for motorcycles vs cars.
I fully understand the freedom of the open road riding on a metal stallion - I’ve genuinely never felt anything else like it.
But it’s really god damn dangerous. Let’s not kid ourselves.
> Consider that the fatality rate is roughly 30 times higher per mile for motorcycles vs cars.
I guess it's worth asking, what country? In Spain, I think it's closer to ~10x, probably because we're very used to motorcycles driving all around us all the time. But still, riskier, no doubt.
I'm guessing that numbers come from the US in some way or similar? Watching dashcam footage sometimes, I keep seeing people riding motorbikes in the US without helmets, something I almost never seen in Spanish traffic, I can only recall seeing that once in my life, and it's really uncommon to ride a bike without a helmet here.
> But it’s really god damn dangerous. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Agree, I'm not trying to convince anyone of otherwise. But lets have nuance as well, riding a motorcycle isn't the same everywhere, especially where motorcycles are really, really commonplace in daily traffic.
"I keep seeing people riding motorbikes in the US without helmets, something I almost never seen in Spanish traffic, <…>, it's really uncommon to ride a bike without a helmet here."
In many countries it's illegal to ride without a helmet, where I am the cops would catch you in an instant.
I love motorcycles and it's years since I've been on one. Despite their convience and other virtues I won't own one as I reckon I'm not competent enough to drive one safety—despite having an excellent safety record with four-wheeled vehicles.
Agreed, they're 'god damn dangerous' but where does that '30 times' figure come from? Where I am the generally accepted figure is seven times (or it was when I heard the figure a while ago).
Edit: for years I've thought that if motorcycles were a new invention they'd never be licensed these days. That they still are is historical legacy upheld by riders and the industry that makes the machines.
Underestimating your abilities in any vehicle is a good way to stay safe. In my encounters with motorcycles in traffic, as pedestrian, cyclist, or driver, even in those short few seconds while our paths cross, the motorcyclists almost always put themselves in some dangerous situation (cyclists do it even more often I'd say, but at lower speeds).
Every time I talk about this to acquaintances who ride they explain that "I do this all the time but it's fine because I know what I'm doing". Everyone is an above average driver or rider but drivers have a metal box filled with airbags. Motorcycle riders often play Russian roulette with 5 bullets in. Blaming another for when your luck finally runs out in on par with the belief most hold that they are above average.
"(cyclists do it even more often I'd say, but at lower speeds)."
The behavior of cyclists where I am is a particular problem. Unlike motorcyclists, they're unlicensed and don't even have to know the rules of the road, and it shows.
Trouble is, during an incident between a cyclist and a car driver the sympathy vote is in the cyclist's favor. Especially so in recent times where cycling is seen as 'green' and environmentally friendly and with many cities making car drivers feel as if they're guilty pariahs.
To give you some idea how bad this problem has become where I am (Sydney, Australia) is to consider the street where I live.
It's a one-way street (as it's narrow) but recently the Council has made it two-way for cyclists and painted bicycles on the street to indicate thus—for motorists it's still one-way.
The lunacy of this decision is obvious even to those with a room-temperature IQ. For starters, drivers (usually visitors) often mistakenly drive the wrong way down this street and it's been the situation for years (from street arrangements and local geography it seems the logical way to go, and the sineage is poor and hard to see).
It gets worse, there's a sharp bend in the road so two vehicles approaching from either side cannot see each other and there's nowhere to pull off in an emergency!
Oh, I also must point out that when the Council painted bicycles on the street to indicate their right to two-way usage it also upgraded the far-from-obvious street sign indicating one-way by adding "bicycles excepted" but did nothing to make the sign more obvious. (Words fail me!)
Lunacy has no limits, now consider the same head-on situation between a cyclist and a vehicle, it's a miracle no one has been killed to date (but the change is recent—there's much time to go).
Right, the trendy and electorally savvy, many-term Council has the ear of cyclists and no doubt this dangerous change was the result of cyclists' lobbying.
Not if but when someone is killed then who's to blame? Even if a motorist is found not to be at fault (i.e. driving in the right direction) and is completely exonerated then he/she will have to live with the knowledge that he/she was the driver of a vehicle that killed a cyclist.
What amazes me is that cyclists want this dangerous situation to continue to exist, it seems that sheer convenience takes precedence over their safety in both their minds and that of the Council. More to the point, cyclists seem to have overwhelming confidence in their ability to avoid an accident.
Even more amazing is that this situation can exist in this overly safety conscious, horribly risk averse society.
From my perspective it's high time this nonsense stopped. The first thing would be license cyclists—if nothing else, they'd at least know the road rules.
To verify any of the words of your long comment, one would simply need to compare deaths caused to others by cars vs deaths caused to others by bicycles (could even add in motorised bikes) and see how many order of magnitude of difference we would find.
Once we have established the danger level of each vehicle then we can go into detail on how to decrease the fatalities of the most deadly one. I'm pretty sure, requiring a license for bicycles is not going to change a thing.
By simply doing that you'd just fuel the belief in the saying "there are damned lies and statistics". It does not make sense to compare the killing potential of a motor powered vehicle with one powered by a human.
The issue is simple and straightforward. As I've mentioned elsewhere, many cyclists have unpredictable riding habits and a high propensity to violate traffic law at the drop of a hat—which, on a per capita basis, is much more frequent than that of licenced drivers. There's no disputing the accuracy of that statement although there's argument over the actual numbers.
By their unpredictable riding habits and regular violations of the road rules, cyclists put motorists into invidious situations where they are more likely to have an accident with a cyclist (or pedestrian, or other vehicle or thing whilst desperately trying to avoid the cyclist).
Licensing cyclists won't solve everything but it'd sure improve their safety. If cyclists knew they could lose their license thus not be allowed to drive on public roads then their riding behavior would be more predictable and we would see many fewer traffic violations (such as running red lights which I see happen regularly). Moreover, motorists' behavior would be more predictable with licenced cyclists on the road because their behavior has become more predictable through them being licensed. All up, licensing cyclists would mean fewer accidents.
> compare deaths caused to others by cars vs deaths caused to others by bicycles (could even add in motorised bikes)
Not the commenter you were answering to, but this is exactly the kind of thinking I was highlighting earlier myself. People constantly put themselves in dangerous situations that they rationalize to be fine just because the law doesn't explicitly incriminate that behavior. So being the ones who planted the seeds of that dangerous situation just doesn't register. Not trying to generalize but there are many, many situations where disaster could have been avoided if either side bothered to do better.
Too many people live as if the epitaph "but I was technically correct" will keep someone warm. Let me put it another way, if one of these "above average" people chooses to always floor it on the Autobahn at 300+km/h because it's technically legal, when they eventually crash and die even because someone else made a mistake you know you'll think "well, he had it coming". Same if a cyclist crashes due to someone else's mistake while riding a barely road-worthy bike or because they banged their head and weren't wearing a helmet. Sure, it wasn't legally their fault but welcome to the statistic. It's like dying from the perfectly legal smoking.
Everybody should try to do their best in potentially dangerous situations. But too many people on the road expect only others have to do it because [insert rationalization here]. And people without an airbag filled metal cage around them are the ones least able to justify the relaxed "it's their responsibility" attitude. Nobody else on the road will care about your life more than you. If even you keep putting yourself in situations where any minor mistake from anyone has no chance to be corrected, you're writing your place in a statistic. But of course, if you know what you're doing that will never happen...
I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic and making a distinction between having to know the rules vs having to follow them. Every road user in every country I know of has to follow the rules of the road, no matter if they're a cyclist or a pedestrian or anyone else.
> Trouble is, during an incident between a cyclist and a car driver the sympathy vote is in the cyclist's favor.
What do you mean by "trouble"? This is perfectly logical. The cyclist presents precisely zero danger to the car driver, but the car presents deadly danger to the cyclist.
> It's a one-way street (as it's narrow) but recently the Council has made it two-way for cyclists
Yeah, all one-way streets should be like that. Streets are designated to be one-way for a reason. Either they're too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other safely or making them two way would increase traffic too much. None of this applies to bicycles.
> drivers (usually visitors) often mistakenly drive the wrong way down this street and it's been the situation for years (from street arrangements and local geography it seems the logical way to go, and the sineage is poor and hard to see)
Go ahead and complain about the poor signage then? What's this have to do with cyclists?
> From my perspective it's high time this nonsense stopped.
You haven't really provided any arguments here besides the rather incoherent example.
> The first thing would be license cyclists
Sigh. How many times are we going to have to listen to such poorly thought-out suggestions? Do you know just how many bicycles there are out there? Do you understand the risk a driver poses to others? Do you understand the risk a cyclist poses?
I am pretty sure in most countries riding a bike on a normal street requires absolutely no license, verification or anything. Even a 5 year old could and would be able to ride there (if their parents permitted or for whatever reason).
So this means that bike riders do not need to know exactly what all signs mean, what are the rules of giving way (or receiving it), etc.
So, that point is absolutely valid.
I have a friend who doesn't have a car licence and cannot distinguish many signs (for instance the circular one with red border and full white inside) or when to expect to have the priority.
Not supporting the rest of the comment, just that specific statement which is a valid one.
Thanks, you've just clearly illustrated the unresolved (and seemingly unresolvable) dichotomy between cyclists and four-wheel vehicle drivers.
It's unresolvable because of political ideology, like the chasm between right-wing conservatives and liberals, views seem almost genetic and immutable (it's been so ever since bicycles took to the roads—even in the days of horse drawn vehicles).
"I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic"
Pedantic? Rubbish, unless cyclists are licensed by way of a thorough examination of the road rules, etc. then there's no way to know if a cyclist knows the rules or not. Going on the many violations I see cyclists commit every day it's clear many do not. Licensing cyclists would bring them into line with other road users, for starters, they'd also be vulnerable to losing their licenses for violations.
Fact is, as a motor vehicle driver I do not feel safe on the roads with unpredictable unlicensed cyclists about. If you do not believe cyclists are an undisciplined and unpredictable lot that worry the shit out of many licenced drivers because of the way they ride and regularly violate traffic rules (like jumping red lights at intersections) then you live in fantasyland.
For every violation I witness car drivers make I reckon I see about a dozen from cyclists. By your views you'd have to condone this alacrity or they'd be contradiction with each other. Alternatively, it's cognitive dissonance so you've not noticed the fact.
If you factor in rider error and rider behaviour the rates are much closer.
It's just that most riders can't ride worth a damn, 95% of the riding information on the internet is dangerously wrong, and most of us also often ride recklessly because we're on a motorcycle to have fun in the first place.
Let's get our assumptions straight. Are you talking about riding or "riding"? What's "the freedom of the open road" an euphemism for? Doing 100 mph? Lane splitting? Racing on public roads? Yeah, that is dangerous.
There was literally 1/5th as many people on earth in 1900 as there were today. Of course the roads were empty. Even if you compare to 75yr ago there's been a doubling of population in many countries.
"There was literally 1/5th as many people on earth in 1900 as there were today. Of course the roads were empty."
We're there 1/5 the number of roads back then? Number of people might not be the best measure of density. Number of people in a specific walkable/short horse rideable location, such as a city would.
I think the bigger thing is that trains were the main mode of distance travel on land and very few people traveled more than 50 miles from home in their life.
Probably more like 1/2 or 3/4 depending on how you want to count dead end office park and residential subdivision roads of which there are many.
Pretty much every road in the US and Europe that isn't in the above category or a purpose built highway existed in 1900, and likely 1850 if you're looking at europe or the american northeast.
Obviously size and quality was lesser, many times they weren't even paved. But they existed because they were the roads between towns and points of interest.
I doubt this. The interstate project in US added a massive number of roads. Not just the interstate, but new tributaries. Those office parks and subdivisions have to hook up to stuff too.
Yeah my mindset was "Everything that happens is my fault" when riding - obviously false, but it was a good way to approach defensive riding.
That car that changed lanes into me? My fault for being in its blind spot and assuming they'd actually check it. So make sure to never linger in blind spots.
The car that did a u-turn in front of me that I nearly hit - my fault for not interpreting the car's body language. Make sure to note the angle of the front wheels of cars pulled to the side of the road in my scans in future.
That time I low sided because I was thinking about work not my ride and then hit a corner slightly too fast right as my front wheel hit a pile of small gravel from a road resurfacing - that was entirely my fault for not focusing on the ride.
As a motorcyclist myself, I always felt drivers should be forced to do a certain number of hours on a motorcycle to make them more aware. But, those atrocious drivers would probably get injured so quickly that the idea would never fly. Now they are just driving.
"Go to refresher courses. I do it every year to update myself and get an idea of my current limits. It really helps."
I'll preface this by saying I love motorcycles but haven't been on one for decades.
As a driver of four-wheeled vehicles, the biggest problem I have with motorcycles is seeing them. Fortunately, I've never had an accident with a motorcycle but have had some near misses. All of those were because (a) I did not see the rider and (b) they were in positions where I did not expect them to be—on my wrong side, quickly switching lanes seemingly appearing out of nowhere, etc.
Whilst hardly in that league, I experienced an incident only three days ago that illustrates the point. At a shopping centre on a busy road I found a parking spot tight enough to require multiple maneuvers to park. When about to leave a motorcyclist pulled in behind me without me being aware of it (I was arranging shopping stuff so it wouldn't go everywhere when vehicle was in motion and there was no noise to indicate his presence).
He wasn't there when I got in the vehicle and I couldn't see his motorcycle both from my rear vision and side mirrors. I reversed slowly and felt a resistance and stopped immediately (I touched so gently there was no noise—and not even a scratch to show). (He wasn't on the motorcycle or I definitely would have seen him.)
What this motorcyclist did was to sneak into an illegal parking space so small that he effectively blocked my exit, I could not leave before he did. Sure, I wasn't really inconvenienced as he was delivering something to one of the businesses so he wasn't long.
Motorcycles offer conviences other vehicles do not, here being able to park in a small space. Motorcyclists get used to such conviences without realizing that other motorists might not be aware of them. For example, motorcycles allow for easy maneuverability which tempts riders to make illegal maneuvers that car drivers wouldn't even consider doing in the same circumstance. If the last thing on a car driver's mind is an unexpected maneuver by a motorcycle then it doesn't bode well for its rider.
From my experience, many motorcyclists drive from their perspective and not that of four-wheeled driver's. It's why I don't own a motorcycle, if I did then before long I'd be in motorcyclist thinking mode, and that'd be damned dangerous for my health.
I couldn't see his motorcycle both from my rear vision and side mirrors.
You seem inattentive. The motorcyclist didn't "sneak" into a spot, he simply minded his own business and parked. You didn't even notice a motorcycle park behind you while you were moving things around inside your car? I'm sorry, but you're simply inattentive.
many motorcyclists drive from their perspective and not that of four-wheeled driver's
And so it's OK for motorcyclists to disobey road rules on a public street and be inconsiderate to others? Why would a car driver expect to find a motorcycle illegally parked between two legally parked cars with only several inches between the car and the motorcycle?
If you drive a car, I'll bet London to a brick you don't get out and back into your vehicle just the moment before you drive off. Show me someone who does and I'll retort "by golly you've found the mystical unicorn".
BTW, being in a safely parked car with the ignition switched off and doing something doesn't count or constitute as being inattentive as it would after the ignition is switched on and the motor running. Despite what you say I'm particularly attentive at what's at my rear (even after checking it's why I always back up at a snail's pace). The street in question is very noisy and pedestrians regularly flit between parked cars—it's all the more reason. Motorcycles can't be heard above the street noise, and when riders park tightly between two cars they'll wheel them in with motor off (but you'd already know that).
It's your comment that's ironic. I'd also maintain that road statistics support the notion that such attitudes have to change before they'll improve for the better.
And so it's OK for motorcyclists to disobey road rules on a public street and be inconsiderate to others?
How about you answer the question that I asked instead of whatever this nonsense is?
being in a safely parked car with the ignition switched off and doing something doesn't count or constitute as being inattentive
You ran into a motorcycle because you weren't paying attention. You're in control of your vehicle and you're responsible for being aware of your surroundings. I use many types of vehicles and I have never, ever run into one.
It's your comment that's ironic
Nope, you're just so unaware that it doesn't even occur to you that you're failing in your responsibility as the operator of a vehicle. Also, you still haven't explained what a "wrong side" is.
I'll chime in here and note that, until very recently, there wasn't an airbag system that really appealed enough to ME.
The affordable ones, now long in the tooth, required a tether. The nicer ones were built into vests that weighted more, were hotter, and sometimes required a subscription, meaning a billing error could result in a nonfunctional safety device. Um, no.
AlpineStars released one that was ALMOST right a year or two ago called the Techair 5. It was (is) accelerometer driven, so no tether, and while it has an app it doesn't require a subscription. However, it IS heavy, and it IS hot, and it DOES require that you mail it in to be serviced after a deployment, so that was still a no-go for me.
However, last year AStars released the updated TechAir 5 Plasma, which has all the goodness of the original TechAir 5 while also being materially lighter and cooler -- plus, the canister can be replaced by the end user. It's spendy ($800 or so), but I bought one immediately. I wear it more or less every time I get on the bike. I live in the American South, so when I say I'm not any hotter wearing it than I would be without it, you know it's vented well.
(In fact, I wore it on a 4-day road trip between where I used to live (Houston) and where I live now (Durham) 2 weeks ago. Was it a hot trip? Absolutely; I was riding a motorcycle in TX, LA, MS, TN, and NC in the summer. Did the airbag make me less comfortable? No.)
Hopefully these go from being expensive pieces of gear that only few have to being completely normal/common-place. They are a great technological improvement but right now they are out of the budget of most of the motorcycling world (which outside of the West skews heavily towards lower incomes).
I've done MX (Yamaha YZ 250 two strokes: a monster), enduro (big mono-cylinder) and road driving on a variety of motorbikes. Road driving is by very far the most dangerous of them all.
I just quit about 15 years ago.
Now I'm a petrolhead at heart so I still enjoy scenic roads but with a car. It's much safer.
I tell people worried about motorcycles (I've had motorcycles around more or less since I was 12) — if safety is the most important thing for you, skip motorcycles (and bicycling, etc.).
I'm surprised how often people project their own fears on me with comments like, "Aren't you afraid you'll get killed?" As though that never occurred to me, ha ha.
Obviously I choose to do some things in life that are not the safest — but I do them because they make life more worth living. (Sound like a bumper sticker? Hopefully you get the point though.)
Likely there are things others do that add a degree of risk to their life but they feel are worth it.
> Now I'm a petrolhead at heart so I still enjoy scenic roads but with a car. It's much safer.
I've tried it in a car, but it's not the same. For me, it's not even 1/10th of the experience of being on a bike. It's like all the soul has been sucked out of it. I might as well be in a minivan on the freeway for all the joy it gives me.
I'm not riding at the moment due to an unrelated (incomplete) spinal cord injury and some long term issues relating to that, and so i've been trying it in a car, and I even bought a "fun" car thinking it would help. But it just feels so...meh that i've largely just given it up full stop and am going to just sell the car.
I'd been riding since I was five years old, I dont think anything will ever touch it for me honestly. It was my zen place, the place I was truely happiest and at peace. It's been the biggest loss for me since my injury.
There is still a chance I could one day return to riding, so i've kept the bike (a 2012 BMW F800GS) out of sheer hope, but I must admit that it's likely by the time I can physically, I may no longer be mentally capable of the return.
You're probably on the wrong side of history. As society gets wealthier fancy toys like motorcycles proliferate and more people have a stake in being able to use them.
I think the way the flood of Side by Sides onto the market gave enough of the public an interest in off road motoring to overwhelm the "hikers only" advocates decades old tactic of variously allying with different groups to get the others kicked out is highly illustrative here.
When motorcycles are commonly electric and require basically no maintenance and can simply be turned on in the spring year after year the barrier to entry is gonna drop even further and you're really gonna be up shit creek.
When motorcycles are electric, my personal objections to many motorcycles will become moot: they will stop being obnoxiously loud and they will stop being highly polluting. (Yes, I realize that this isn’t all motorcycles, and I also realize that there are cars with exactly the same problem.)
Seriously, many motorcycles are louder and stinkier than an entire block full of cars.
“Fancy toys like motorcycles” - looks like you’ve never been to less developed countries where motorcycles swarm not because they are fancy but because they are cheap. Also tend to be driven by people with no training or concept of safety (whole families on a tiny scooter). Truly a sight to behold.
It's not. Source: I actually own it rather than having to rely on making broad generalisations.
> I live in a city
I also live in a city, many of us do. You are not unique. Many of us in my street have had to file numerous noise complaints against various cars in the street, yet i've never received a single complaint about my bike.
> I see that 99% of bikes are fucking twice louder as any car
Sounds like an issue specific to were you live. I couldnt tell you the last time I heard a bike around here, but the peace is disturbed here by a car almost every other minute of the day.
In fact, we have to pack up and move house because our neighbours car and his friends cars are so absurdly loud and they will sit there and just rev the shit out of them for 20-30 minutes at a time multiple times a day.
But obviously it comes with higher risk as you are more exposed and higher demands on your abilities. And good gear can help, but if it is not combined with training and of course a sound attitude, you may sooner or later find yourself in an undesirable situation.
Go to refresher courses. I do it every year to update myself and get an idea of my current limits. It really helps.
To see what I meant about attitude, just go on Instagram and check for motorcycle reels, you'll see soo many examples of how to not act in traffic or what to do on a motorcycle.