369
Passenger deaths per 1 billion passenger miles (2000-2009) (media.piefed.world)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/dataisbeautiful@lemmy.world
176 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 72 points 11 months ago (20 children)

Not saying bikes aren't the most dangerous, but comparing against the distance skews this. A plane trip is usually quite a bit longer than any other.

Not sure how else to measure it though, maybe against number of trips traveled?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Go go gadget spitball math!

    Sources for average transit mode speed

    Source 1:

    https://www.gigacalculator.com/articles/what-is-the-average-speed-of-different-modes-of-transportation/

    These are the average speeds of some common modes of transportation:

    Commercial passenger aircraft: 547 to 575 miles per hour
Private jet: 400 to 711 miles per hour
Europe high-speed rail: 155 to 217 miles per hour
Shinkansen (Japanese bullet trains): 150 to 200 miles per hour
Modern cruise ship: 23 to 27 miles per hour
Bicycle: 10 to 24 miles per hour
Sailboat: 4.5 to 7 miles per hour
Walking: 3 miles per hour

    Source 2:

    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-travel-speeds-in-each-survey-year-and-standardized-mode-speed_tbl1_338604360

    Source 3:

    https://wonderlearning.blog/real-average-speed-us-train-facts

    When people think of passenger trains, they often envision swift, efficient travel. However, the operational reality for Amtrak, the primary passenger rail operator in the United States, is far more nuanced. While its locomotives are capable of impressive speeds, the average journey speed for most passengers is surprisingly modest, often hovering between 50 and 60 miles per hour, with long-distance routes averaging even less.

    Ok, I'm USAsian, gonna be US-centric, and I'm gonna make some spitball roundings for easier math:

    Average Actual Travel Speed:

    Motorcycle: 50 mph

    Car: 50 mph

    Ferry: 25 mph

    Train: 50 mph (long/medium distance)

    Bus: 25 mph

    Subway/Lightrail: 25 mph

    Aircraft: 550 mph

    Attempt at Conveying Math Proof

    So we have:

    D = deaths per billion miles. S = speed in miles per hour.

    If we first solve for and find the time taken to travel one billion miles at speed S, we would do:

    T = 1,000,000,000​ / S

    (T is time in hours)

    What we want is D / T

    D / T = D / ( 1,000,000,000 / S)

    ->

    D / T = (D * S) / 1,000,000,000

    So, that's our rough conversion.

    Using (D * S) / 1,000,000,000 , the OP graph becomes:

    Deaths per hour of transit, by transit mode, for every billion miles travelled:

    Motorcycles: 10,628.5

    Car: 364

    Ferry: 79.25

    Train: 21.5

    Subway/Lightrail: 6

    Bus: 2.75

    Aircraft: 38.5

    So... thats basically deaths per billion hours spent using said transit mode.

    Notes

    You may have noticed that Aircraft are now more dangerous than Buses, Subways, med/long distance Trains, and are only ~2x safer than Ferries, not ~45x times safer, as they are with the OP metric.

    One hour of Motorcycles transit, on the other hand, is now ~29x more deadly than an hour of car transit, ~276x more deadly than an hour of aircraft transit...

    ... as opposed to the OP metric, where a billion miles of motorcycle travel is again ~29x more deadly than a billion miles of car travel, but is ~3039x more deadly than a billion miles of aircraft travel.

    tl;dr:

    Basically, take travel speed into account, and aircraft become significantly more deadly per hour spent travelling in them, but the ratios between terrestrial and aquatic craft stay pretty similar, due to no one having yet proposed the ikranoplan as a mass transit solution.

    (Historically minded readers may note the absence from these numbers of the 'revolutionary' hyperloop, as well as monorail, due to basically not fucking existing in real life.)

    You may quibble about the actual average speeds of various transit modes as you please.

    More Notes

    Probably also worth noting that this is only deaths, not injuries, say, requiring hospitalization.

    I imagine doing deaths + serious injuries would also change this graph significantly.

    Also also, this doesn't take into account road rage that does not directly involve the vehicle, I don't think.

    It does not include injuries or deaths on some form of public or mass transit where say, you get assaulted by another passenger, or something like that.

    That could also tweak things, potentially, but I have no strong instinct about if it would really matter, or how... and, you could again do deaths vs deaths + serious injuries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    My thought exactly, walking per distance is probably the most deadly mode of transport

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    [X] Doubt

    Walking is what we evolved to do. While being a pedestrian in certain parts of cities is dangerous, tons of walking is done away from vehicles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Maybe depends on where you are living, but you quite probably have the wrong impression.

    In my country (Germany), less than 3000 people die each year in traffic overall, while already an estimated 4000 pedestrians die while simply using stairs.

    So, "Stairway to Heaven" gains a whole different layer of meaning, as it seems... :-)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I would expect that pedestrian walk far less distance than cars drive, so even a twofold difference in absolute numbers will disappear when normalised by distance. For instance there is a general advice of walking 10k paces every day which is about 7km, average car speed in the city should be around 30km/h, so even if we assume 30 minutes of commute every day (and this is too generous, I believe) it will be more than two times the distance people (should) walk

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I don't think people commonly refer to people using the stairs as being pedestrians.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Thread started from ‘walking’, not from being a pedestrian, and stairs usually require exactly walking

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    My guess would be parachuting/skydiving/wing-gliding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Parachuting/skydiving is incredibly low risk compared to the average person's perception. The us had 9 deaths last year in 3.8 million skydives.

    Wing suit usage has a similar number, IF you don't include base jumpers, which you shouldn't, because it's fundamentally a very, very different sport that happens to use (almost) the same equipment. You wouldn't include each bump in a nascar race as an accident and lump it into driving statistics, I would hope, nor do the same for people hiking in the woods and people fist fighting bears in the woods.

    Considering I travel a mile or two, give or take, on each canopy flight when I jump, that's 9 deaths in ~8 million miles. Wing suits have a much better glide ratio when flying, so that would change things up as well. I'm curious how that would hold up to walking. Using the other feller's number of 4000 pedestrian deaths (on stairs) in germany, and estimating they walk 3 miles a day in a country of ~83 million, that's 249 million miles, giving us 1.6x10^-5, while skydiving is 2.4x10^-6.

    But really... who would consider those activities as a mode of transport anyway?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Huh, well I am apparently wrong then.

    Thanks for the correction!

    As to who would consider them a mode of transportation... ... James Bond? Ethan Hunt?

    lol, it was meant as a joke.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Found some data on this. Certainly not a common way of measuring this. Looks like at least one of these is fatality by mode and doesn't take into account total percent of trips.

    Doesn't appear to change anything. Flying remains the safest. Motorcycles remain the most dangerous.

    Make sure to sign your donor cards!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 37 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    RIP my co worker and friend. It was 2001. You were the OG Bay Area techie. Empty pepsi cans and pizza delivery stacked sloppily on your desk. Smart AF and hard working, always laughing. Earning money loving living .

    Riding your slim machine between lanes of SF traffic. Someone opened his car door for Lord knows what reason.

    Your girlfriend was inconsolable at your funeral

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    There's a reason lane-splitting is illegal in many jurisdictions. It's still a tragic loss, but your friend made the active decision to operate a vehicle that was already more dangerous in an even more dangerous way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    No doubt it was reckless and close to suicide

    Only the young are immortal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Until we're not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Wondering what our dreams might be worth Learning that we're only immortal For a limited time

    Neil Peart, yet another RIP what is this with data visualization emotions and death

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtt0MUB93Ms

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Also, I gotta say: there are few usernames that, if one stumbled into a room where it was being chanted by a circle of schoolchildren, would be a good sign of cult activity in the area. Yours is one of them —to the tune of Duck, Duck, Goose, of course.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    There's a reason that drugs are illegal in many jurisdictions. It's still a tragic loss, but those junkies made the active decision to operate a needle that is already dangerous in an even more dangerous way.

    Dude, take a step back and look at data, not the crappy chain of thought you call logic. Accidents involving injuries go down when lane splitting is made legal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Oh, my bad. I wasn't aware that lane splitting was addictive, a symptom of depression, and a vector for the exploitation of vulnerable people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Exactly right. Lane splitting, when legalized and regulated, is safer, more efficient, and frowned at by the general populace because they refuse to listen to the experts on it. Sounds a lot like our regulations on 'illegal substances,' doesn't it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    “…lane splitting is made legal.”

    Your vehicle doesn’t make you special; follow the same rules as everyone else on the road.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    follow the same rules as everyone else on the road

    Yaaaaaawn. I suppose bicycles should have seat belts then, aye? California, montana, utah, and other places have made lane splitting legal. They are following the same rules.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    I suppose bicycles should have seat belts then, aye?

    Bicyclists are almost as bad as not following traffic laws; I watched a motorized one run a red light yesterday. When I hit that asshole, it’s my fault even though they ran the red.

    California, montana, utah, and other places have made lane splitting legal.

    Glad I don’t live there.

    This is why AMAB (All Motorcyclists Are Bastards)

    https://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/xa40c0/the_only_smart_one_in_the_group

    https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/zukndn/to_speed

    https://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/10in97i/idiot_on_a_bike_splitting_lanes_at_well_over

    https://old.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/10lc59r/to_lane_split

    https://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/1160bdm/bikers_close_the_highway_and_stop_traffic_flow_in

    https://old.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/11rglp1/really_tho_why_did_she_stop

    https://old.reddit.com/r/trashy/comments/12zzffh/asshats_ruining_morning_commute

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 48 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    I feel like measuring this data based on miles is bad. This data would be much more relevant if it was measured in passenger travel hours instead.

    A plane can travel like 500 miles in an hour. I feel that this skews the data significantly since its being compared to vehicles that should not typically be covering over 100 miles per hour.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I was thinking the same thing, but if the goal is to get from point a to point b then the real question is what gets you there the safest.

    For example, if you wanted to know what the safest way to get from Los Angeles to San Francisco was or what the relative danger of each travel method was, this would be the right way to frame the data. The fact that it takes longer to travel with a car than a plane doesn't factor into the safety of the travel. You still go the same distance.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This doesn't work to compare that either, because highway travel has less intersections, where I would think most accidents happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    TBF, surprise traffic congestion (ie. some more surprising than others) and similar situations wherein humans are likely to get agitated and thus make shitty, abrupt choices... Are right up there with intersections. 🤌🏼

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Given the difference between the first and other places, I don't believe that switching to time instead of length would actually change the significance of the top placement.

    Any other reorder on the list is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Didn't realise deaths were so frequent on ferries.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago*

    My guess is part of what’s throwing that statistic off is the relatively short journeys of most ferries.

    Maybe per hours of travel would be better? It would also make airplanes less of an outlier.

    Airplanes should then be split to “general aviation” and “commercial aviation” to assuage people’s fears. General aviation is a lot riskier than flying commercial.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    What country? Why is bicycle missing?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    America, because nobody else has nearly the fatality rate per mile. SEA has more fatalities per capita, but that's because they have 100x more bikes per capita.

    The average american motorcyclist only rides as a hobby, they drive a car the rest of the time, and they're either driving a racing bike or a 900 lb Harley. This isn't a recipe for competent riding.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [+] 12 points 11 months ago (12 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Interestly, its not really inattentive car drivers that make motorcycling so dangerous.

    Because of their small size, single headlight and rapidly changing speed, the human brain can't accurate identify, and track them. Especially at night or in adverse weather conditions. So drivers cut them off all the time because the brain does not process the information correctly.

    Combine that with the average aggressive driving, speeding, tailgating, and other dumbass dangerous behaviors that I see motorcyclist do daily and the death rate is shockingly low in my opinion.

    I spend a lot of time driving and have seen around 20 motorcycle accidents happen over the years. Only one was another drivers fault and not caused by the absolute stupidity of the motorcyclist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    In the Netherlands, bicyclists were always second place in deaths just behind people in cars. Most accidents which causes death are between a car and a bicycle. When the e-bike got trendy. We've seen a big spike in bicycle deaths in 2023 causing it to be the nr 1 cause of death in traffic. The Fat-bike is a big problem here. Its trendy among kids and realy easy to disable speed limiters. Percentage wise I couldn't find anything this fast but it does look like people in cars just don't see them or pay attention to them as the drive faster. I think cameras checking the surroundings is the best hope in getting those numbers down.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    This is really sad, I don't want to drive a tin can of death just so I am more protected from others driving tin cans of death :(

    At least I don't drive e-bike and use bike lanes ¯\⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)\⁠_⁠/⁠¯

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    the majority caused by inattentive drivers of cars and trucks.

    Are there statistics to back this up? Anecdotally, I see 10 motorcycles racing, illegally riding side-by-side in one lane, not signaling, speeding, and swerving around vehicles across multiple lanes for every 1 that I see driving safely.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Comparing US statistics to Dutch ones makes no sense. Their roads are several times more deadly than European ones regardless of vehicle.

    Furthermore not all of their states have mandatory helmets (!) whereas over here it's rare to see someone missing something other than pants. Except scooters, scooter riders are under the impression that they don't ride a motorcycle and that flip-flops are appropriate apparel.

    Then there's a lot you can do as a motorcyclist to mitigate risk. Riding safely is one (not everyone seems capable of that, there's quite a spread in riding behaviors, but also an obvious bias in which ones you'll remember seeing on your commute). A strict no-alcohol policy is another, and not riding at night on weekends. You can also wear extra safety gear such as a high-vis airbag.

    Also licensing requirements. Oh and American motorcycles don't have to be equipped with ABS. They be crazy over there.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Fairies are 3rd on the list.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    But how do they die? How many are killed by other drivers?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I've wanted a motorcycle for decades. NHTSA's stats on motorcycle accidents send very mixed signals:

    • Thirty-four percent of motorcycle riders in fatal crashes in 2023 had no valid motorcycle licenses. -In 2023 motorcycle riders in fatal crashes had higher percentages of alcohol impairment than drivers of any other motor vehicle type (26% for motorcycles, 24% for passenger cars, 20% for light trucks, and 4% for large trucks).
    • Forty-one percent of motorcycle riders who died in single-vehicle crashes in 2023 were alcohol-impaired
    • Motorcycle riders killed in traffic crashes at night were two and a half times more frequently alcohol-impaired than those killed during the day (38% and 15%) in 2023.
    • In States without universal helmet laws, based on known helmet use, 51 percent of motorcyclists killed in 2023 were not wearing helmets, as compared to 10 percent in States with universal helmet law

    So basically, have a license and training and don't drink. Helmets are good for your health.

    ...

    Twenty-four percent of motorcycles in fatal traffic crashes in 2023 collided with fixed objects, compared to 16 percent for passenger cars, 12 percent for light trucks, and 4 percent for large trucks.

    Don't ride with a loonitick.

    In 2023 there were 3,419 fatal two-vehicle crashes each involving a motorcycle and another type of vehicle. In 46 percent (1,588) of these crashes, the other vehicles were turning left while the motorcycles were going straight, passing, or overtaking other vehicles.

    Well, that sucks :(

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, speaking as a rider from the USA it's a mixed bag. If you ride safe (licensed and know what you are doing, not drunk, wear a helmet, and assume you are invisible) it's orders of magnitude more safe than the statistics say. Sadly, there are a lot of reckless riders dying on bikes.

    Still, a ton of drivers will absolutely drive like you are invisible and just plow into you. You also have to ride carefully and be constantly aware of your bike and your surroundings. Plan for bad situations as you see them forming even though most of the time nothing happens. Small mistakes can be negated by four wheels but won't be forgiven on two.

    I didn't start until the pandemic, which gave me an opportunity to work remotely for a time and save money. I have enjoyed riding. The motivation to be present in the moment for the sake of safety is a bit zen for me. In a car I feel like I can arrive at work deep in thought about the horrors of the world and not even remember how I got there. Admittedly, as I got more comfortable on the bike, my mind can still wander but it's easier to snap back and focus on not dying on the bike.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Still, a ton of drivers will absolutely drive like you are invisible and just plow into you.

    I've had this experience in a miata and Fiero. Low roofline + small car = invisibility cloke :(

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah that's always key to these stats and it's never reported. If you're not drunk when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle the safety by a lot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    This is especially true of motorcycles, where in Western countries they often go hand in hand with the time honored pastime of, "Let's all ride our Harleys to the bar and get absolutely sideways, and then ride our Harleys to another bar." I do know for sure that a large portion of motorcycle wrecks in general are single vehicle incidents, i.e. the rider ran out of skill and simply ate shit into a ditch, tree, guardrail, or the nearest Jersey wall.

    I'd also be interested to see the source to determine what the geographical range of this is, i.e. whether or not it includes Southeast Asia where basically the entire population conducts all of its affairs from the back of a small motorbike.

    At the end of the day, if you slam into something on your bike you're pretty much guaranteed to be worse off than slamming into the same thing in a car or a bus. But you're still not getting me off of mine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    It doesn't change the stats in the slightest, you're more likely to die on a bike, it doesn't really make any difference who's at fault if you're dead. 90% of the accidents being caused by unobservant car drivers won't save you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    It does because if you know you aren't going to drive your bike when drunk (and other reckless driving factors) you will be safer than the numbers indicate.

    90% of the accidents being caused by unobservant car drivers won’t save you.

    You have a source for this or did you make up this 90% number on the spot? Would be nice to have actual numbers on this since elsewhere in the thread someone else is saying over half of motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle accidents, which means it's biker could potentially have done something to avoid it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    You are more likely to die riding a bike than other forms of transportation but riding responsibly and defensively will absolutely change the severity of the stats.

    A driver could still plow through you and you are still more likely to die - I'll absolutely concede that. You are just way, way more likely to die if you don't know how to ride (unlicensed), are impaired by alcohol or something, wear no helmet or other gear, and/or ride recklessly or carelessly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The stats are the stats, driving a car everywhere at 15mph and covering it in airbags would probably change the car stats as well. If everyone drove perfectly and maintained their vehicles properly then we'd get a nice flat line.

    You're way more likely to die if you don't know how to drive a car or do so drunk as well. The graph is showing the relative unsafeness of various vehicles as a whole, the fact being drunk or dumb on a bike has an outsize impact on killing bikers emphasises the fact it's less safe.

    I've absolutely nothing against bikes or bikers and I'd suspect that overall biker's deaths are likely to be more self contained and have lesser impact on other road users.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    The stats are the stats

    ...

    The graph is showing the relative unsafeness of various vehicles as a whole

    Yes. As a whole. As an average of the entire population.

    the fact being drunk or dumb on a bike has an outsize impact on killing bikers emphasises the fact it's less safe.

    Which I acknowledge and don't dispute. Bikes are inherently less safe than cars.

    Cars have a lot of mandatory safety features like airbags, crumple zones, and seatbelts. They have four wheel stability and four points of contact on the road. They are relatively forgiving when it comes to mistakes and crashes.

    Bikes don't even have universal helmet laws in every state... and if they do mandate helmets, often a brain bucket is legally sufficient. However, with only two points of contact, and a potentially high rate of acceleration, it is much easier to lose control and crash, especially if you are riding recklessly or without experience.

    My point is that inexperience and recklessness can lead to a fatal crash much more easily on a motorcycle and likely contribute to the statistics for motorcycle fatalities more than it does for car fatalities.

    Basically, squids kind of juice the numbers and make them more scary. It's not just squids - riding is not as safe as driving. Still, if you plan to ride responsibly your odds will be better than the stats suggest. Yes, the same logic applies to anything, but I believe it applies to bikes more than it applies to cars.

    Doing hard things is harder to do. This doesn't mean you can't successfully do hard things it just means you have to try harder to do them. Taking a shortcut often ends in failure. In this case, failure can mean injured or dead.

    And no, I'm not trying to say I'm cool and skilled because I ride a bike. I'm not yet that experienced or skilled on a bike... but I ride responsibly. I take it slow. I wear protective gear. I'm aware of my limits and I push them carefully.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    What percentage of plane deaths are snake related?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    What about death of people other than passengers?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    I wonder how these stats would change if there weren’t cars on the road. I mean its pretty obvious if a car and a motorcycle crash the motorcycle’s gonna have it worst.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    motorcycle vs. motorcycle is gonna be like medieval jousting

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    Didn't you know? This is what me and my buddies get up to on Saturday nights.

    Motorcycle cops think they're hot shit because they can weave between a bunch of cones. Amateurs. Lets see you try to work the throttle, brake, and clutch on a dirtbike while also wielding a 10' long piece of PVC pipe with a boxing glove on the end of it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    The numbers would go down by half, which is meaningful, but also way less than you'd want it to. I can't be arsed to pull up the NHTSA data url right now, but I use the factoid all the time when I talk to people about my riding: give or take 54% of motorcycle deaths are single vehicle accidents. Of those, the vast majority involve alcohol or speeding. So if I avoid alcohol I cut my chances by a large factor.

    Speeding is slightly fuzzier, because the statistics are built from crash reports by police, and you can never know if they take the word of a witness that a motorcycle passed at a 4mph difference in speed, which, c'mon, is not the same as someone whizzing down a canyon road at 20mph or more over the limit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    but I use the factoid all the time

    My favorite "factoid" is that the -oid part originally means "resembling," like a humanoid is something that only looks human, so technically a factoid would be something that only resembles fact. However, I'm not a dirty prescriptivist and I understood perfectly what you meant, so please carry on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Presciptivism is where it's at, broseidon! I use factoid for when something seems like a fact, but you can't verify it right then. I know the internet often uses it for something quoted so much that people take it as fact even though it's false.

    Wikipedia just hates us all. I don't want it to be a brief truth, waaah!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    I hate the concept of "brief truth". The Germans probably have a word for it. things can stop being true. Everything is a brief truth on a long enough timeline. By this definition "the moon exists" is a factoid because very briefly from now (on a cosmological timeline) that's practically already false. Bah!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    I was in a bike accident once. I walked away with cartilage inflammation but the driver ended up breaking a different bone in 3 out of 4 limbs, he spent a month in the hospital. I told myself I was too old for that shit and definitely too young to die from it.

    Scariest moment of my life and I'm never ever getting on a motorcycle again. Fact is I got very very lucky. Wasn't even our fault, an other motorcycle came into our lane and hit us. They were drunk but if it would have been a car or if we were going faster, we would be dead.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments
    view more: next ›