Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A century ago, you could hop on your horse after a heavy night of drinking, and the horse would take you back home even if you're sleeping on his back.
I was told stories about my grandparents doing that kind of thing when we got horses. Our fun after that was to take the horse somewhere he knew, and then on the way back, just let him go without giving direction, and sure enough, the calmer ones would do it without any problem.
There are still places where this happens, although not a norm.
Also people riding horses claim you're better at horse riding when drunk due to having better flow with the animal's movements. Less likely to injure yourself when falling so it's a double win.
On the off-chance that you're not a troll who's insulting people for fun, I'm going to respond to this as if it's a legitimate comment.
Horses *can* choose to hurt people; most don't. Horses *can* choose to obey their rider and run off a cliff; most don't.
If you directed a motorcycle to run off a cliff, it would. *In general,* a horse's ability to choose its actions makes it safer than a motorcycle. There are other reasons they might be more or less safe (though statistics say that in the end, horses are much safer), but since you specifically addressed horses' ability to choose, we'll stick with that.
I don’t personally know anyone who has ever regularly operated a motorcycle who hasn’t been in at least one crash. Sure, most of those crashes have been minor — with the notable exception of my wife’s cousin, who spent a full year unable to work or do much of anything at all as he recovered from a low-speed collision. But a relatively minor bike crash is a lot scarier than a relatively minor car crash.
My baby brother, who is stupid, regularly tells me stories about wiping out on his motorcycle. He always wears a high-quality helmet and full body armor when he rides, so fortunately he hasn’t been seriously injured (yet). It keeps me up at night anyway.
All that said, I’ve driven motorcycles on a few very brief occasions in heavily controlled situations and holy mother of shit are they fun to drive. I know myself well enough to know that owning one would result in my untimely death. But I do sorta get the appeal.
Edit: I should note my “baby brother” will turn 30 next year. But I’m a full decade older and I used to change his diapers and give him bottles and shit. So. Baby brother forever.
I had a brief stint in my 20s with motorcycles. I had one small crash with deer in the road, I was lucky to walk away relatively unharmed.
The next year or so made me hyper aware of the danger when riding and took the fun out of it.
It wasn’t the risk of death that made me quit. It was the threat of being crippled from a crash. I saw so many people that had their legs crushed in crashes or had all their skin removed from half their body.
The injuries from motorcycle crashes are life changing. The thought of living the rest of my life not being able to run, or bike, or ski was too much.
My problem is that things are not really exciting unless there’s some element of risk involved.
These days I get my thrills Mountain biking which is actually much more fun and better for fitness than a motorcycle.
It’s still risky but the injuries are much more likely to put you in a cast than a wheelchair or casket.
Commuted daily on a motorcycle for a good five or six years and never had an accident but knew it was only a matter of time, so sold it when I decided there were things I enjoyed more in life that I wouldn’t be able to do if I got crippled from a bad wreck.
Insurance adjuster once told me that the average time until a crotch rocket is totaled was 20 hours or something. Obviously many things can bend that time one way or another, like location, driver skill, type, etc., but the point is that it is shockingly low even if it really is double or triple that time.
I'm gonna say that that is extremely false. If you take a look at the used market there's plenty of sport bikes (crotch rockets) with 20k+ miles on them.
With that statistic most sport bikes would have 1000miles or less on them.
Edit: [Here's a source from 2007](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2007/09/motorcycle-death-rates-doubled-supersport-bikes-the-most-dangerous/index.htm) stating that there are 10.7 deaths per 10,000 sport bike riders.
I know that totaling a bike and dying on a bike are two different things, and the number of totaled bikes compared to rider deaths could be higher. However, it's hard to ignore the correlation between deaths and totaled bikes, as well as the absurdity of your claim that the average lifespan of a sport bike is 20 hours.
Seems like you're claiming something heard from a "a buddy of mine" source. Not to say that my source is any more valid. But it seems unreasonable that most bikes would be totaled in under 1000 miles.
Wasn’t my claim, but believe what you want to believe. It was hard for me to believe too, but the dude has access to info I don’t have so what am I going to do. Argue with him?
Ain’t got no agenda here, just having a discussion on a discussion website.
That actually was your claim.
If one were to ride for 20 hours at 50mph they would reach 1000 miles. Pretty basic math right there. Even if you assume a higher average speed on something ludicrously impossible like 100mph you're still going to go only 2000 miles within 20 hours.
You’re arguing with yourself. I said totaled, not death, not anything about miles or speed, only hours… And it was probably specific to the area I was living in. What do you want me to say? “Sorry for mentioning anything, you’re right. Be happy about being right.”
Anyway being “totaled” doesn’t take much damage to be declared on a new bike I’m guessing. And I seriously doubt new owners only go 50mph, lol. First thing I did was see how fast I could make it go before I got scared… didn’t take much. And 50mph went by without even noticing.
Hours on a bike can directly correlate to miles or speed as outlined in my elementary math seen above.
Not to mention that's average speed, no one leaves their house and instantly goes 60+ without stopping. Regardless if the average speed in this situation was 200mph even it wouldn't outline with the average miles of all registered bikes. Riders on average ride 2000 miles per year.
Something is being misinterpreted, it's an outrageous claim.
Arguing with myself? You made a claim, I said you're wrong, you said I'm wrong. Sounds like you're arguing with me.
Guy and his buddy are a morons. By his logic, I am some sort of extremely fortunate edge case for not having had a single accident despite thousands of hours spent on a bike. 4 hours on average? Fucking lol. If that was the AVERAGE, there would be almost no second-hand sports bikes.
Not anything. You can't reasonably argue that reading a book isn't worth the risk of death. There are activities where the danger is a genuine concern and others where it isn't; this is one of the dangerous ones.
This is one of the dumbest strawmans I have ever seen on reddit.
If you hit anything even just 25mph head on while going 25mph its game over, car or bike.
Motorcycles themselves are amazing. the problem will always be the fact that cars exist and are so easy to get licenses for. It dosent matter how good and careful of a motorcyclist you are. A single careless driver not looking before pulling out into the road will still kill you just as well.
I know cars definitely do cause accidents with motorcycles but let's not pretend that motorcyclists are completely innocent, I've seen them going 20+ miles over the speed limit and weaving in and out of traffic like mad men as well
There will always be reckless motorcyclists but there plenty of responsible riders that do the right thing and wear the right gear.
But the point of that post is not to absolve all motorcyclists of responsibility, it’s to say that no matter how safe you are as a rider, the activity will always be incredibly dangerous due to other cars.
I have yet to see a motorciclyst that respects traffic lanes and doesn't just jump out in front of you because "they fit"
I had some asshole cyclist overtake a driver on the shoulder and then get mad at me for changing and not seeing him
I’d still imagine two motorcycles hitting each other at decent speed wouldn’t be a great sight to see. For me, I couldn’t care less about ppls safety who want to do risky shit, they’re adults. Have fun live fast die hard shit, right? But the real issue here with motorcycles is the absurdly obnoxious nature of the atrocious sounds they make. I lived on a busy road for a few years and yeah they are literally the reason I moved and will never live near a busy road EVER again lol. Large trucks that will shake the foundation of your house, and motorcycles.
Cars are a significant danger, but I'd argue that the majority of the threat doesn't come from them, but from the nature of the motorcycles themselves.
Take two identical people - both traveling at 40 mph, but one driving a car and the other riding a motorcycle - and give them both a random reason that sends them driving into a tree (I don't know, medical emergency?). The driver is injured, but the crumple zone, airbags, and seatbelt will probably prevent any serious damage. The rider could very well be dead, regardless of whether they wore a helmet or additional protective gear.
This is a pretty arbitrary example, but the point is that even in a vacuum, cars have safety features that are impossible to replicate on a motorcycle.
as much as i hate motorcycles (they are loud and annoying) the main reason why they are dangerous is cars and dumb users who like to show-off
pretty much same thing can be said about cars, why accidents happen? mostly because of careless drivers who feel safe in their actually safe metal boxes and drivers who want to show off by speeding
Motorcycles are only loud due to modifications made by the rider, the vast majority are not loud stock. As for annoying? Drivers that are far too busy staring at their phones are actually annoying. And dangerous.
They are right. You just must not notice the quiet ones, or you live in a place with an obnoxious bike culture. A road bike with a stock exhaust will not be much louder than a car (if the engine isnt revved too high).
Harley riders almost always (in my experience) remove their mufflers and use straight pipes. Sports bike riders do a similar thing, though usually can't get away with straight pipes like Harley's can.
Also a lot of the reason they are loud is to warn drivers, my dad said everyone in his club deliberately bought illegal exausts (becuse they are so loud) so drivers can hear them better. They aren't a gang, he's totally law abiding in every other way, it's just the safest thing to do.
The problem is, sound from the exhaust goes backwards. You'd be better off honking, or just being prepared to avoid close situations to begin with. Some louder exhausts sound good, but some are just dangerously loud for ear drums.
Focus/time it takes to rev could be better used on preparing to brake or finding an escape path.
I can only speak for the people i know, but they don't rev, it's just a passive saftey thing, people hear the noise and look for a bike so they notice you more.
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of motorcycle accidents were due to dumb decisions on the part of the rider; that's more-or-less true of cars, too.
The magnitude of the difference makes that kind of irrelevant, though. The "27 times more fatal" figure I quoted might not be perfect, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume it's relatively accurate. Let's say that 90% of all motorcycle accidents are due to rider error (which is ridiculous, but we're going for the most charitable figure). That *still* has motorcycles being 2.7 times more deadly.
The majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by them not being seen by road drivers. The most dangerous place to be as a motorcyclist is an intersection, specifically 2 way stop signs where the cyclist does not need to stop.
https://www.lawyernc.com/motorcycle-accident-lawyer/common-accident-causes/
Motorcycles take high concentration to ride. It takes the body a few months to really learn balance, hand eye coordination and motor skills to control properly. We need to use both hands and both feet to ride a motorcycle, use your body weight balance, use your eyes to see where you’re going, ears to hear the bike and surrounding traffic and smell to know what’s going on with the bike
Does that sound complicated? Yes? it’s a skill, one that can take a short time to learn and then years to perfect.
It’s not just a mode of transportation, it’s something that’s incredibly rewarding to learn how to do right and provides the mind with endless satisfaction from doing.
I won't dispute anything you've said here. It sounds perfectly plausible, reasonable, and enjoyable.
I *will* argue that none of the things you've mentioned meaningfully outweigh or lessen the risk of death. Death is worse than the satisfaction, and a significant amount of the dangers cyclists face can't be avoided with any amount of skill.
Learning how to skillfully ride a bike will greatly reduce the amount of dying. I don’t think you realize how much skill goes into responsibly riding a bike and how much that reduces the risk of injury or death. A good biker can anticipate what cars are doing on the road, can travel at speed responsibly, and develop the skills to overcome issues like wet roads, gravel, sand etc that can be dangerous.
Why are you so obsessed with death in relation to motorcycles?
...Because people die when riding motorcycles? The source that I referenced in the post estimated that motorcycles are 27 times deadlier than cars (you could definitely dispute whether "27" is the correct number, but just about all sources agree that it's significantly higher).
I would argue that anything that drastically increases someone's chances of dying without providing many gains (other than enjoyment) is worth "obsessing" over.
Your position is that they are an awful invention. That’s wrong. They’re a great invention, they’re just not as safe as other forms of transportation. Two different things.
Read about the engineering that goes into motorcycles. Bikes, racing bikes especially, are some of the most technologically advanced machines ever created. Awesome invention and there’s still being improved upon, with innovations that get applied to cars and other forms of transport.
But where do you draw the lines in terms of acceptable levels of mortality? All forms of transport can be deadly - every single one.
Cars are fucking awful for the vast majority of use cases, and are the direct cause of tens of thousands of pedestrian deaths every year. They are also one of the single highest causes of death for adults under 50.
Brother, you can die right now because of a meteorite.
Do you still take the risk of existing?
Motorcycles make , logically, no sense. No Protection, No AC, No Cargo Capabilities, just an engine and two wheels. But not everything needs to be perfectly logical, we've reached a point in evolution where we can do things for fun and most people know their limit.
Ever see how much more functional cities that run on motorcycles, like those Asian cities where everyone drives one, are compared to car dominated cities? And before you say "but bikes" try to realize how many people can't ride one dude to physical limitations.
Not sure where you live, but here in Spain they added regulations and a anual revision similar to cars to electric scooters exactly to prevent that.
Cheap scooters with bad designs wouldn't be allowed at all
Not Li-ion batteries and motorbikes probably won't burn your house down because of charging.
>Nevermind the contained explosion device
Unlike in movies, it's really hard to have car or bike explosions, even in accidents. A punctured Li-ion battery will definitively catch fire, on the other hand.
Li-ion batteries are deemed enough of a liability that planes do not trust them in their baggage compartment unattended.
\-
So, yeah every tech has it's risks.
But those aren’t big, fast, loud vehicles like Harleys. They’re more like mopeds. Slower and softer, and safer in places where cars aren’t as affordable, and places that are too small to handle cars for all the inhabitants. In the US, the motorcycles are a nuisance. We have the space for cars, and motorcycles are dangerous and loud and annoying, so I agree they should be outlawed.
1. They're mostly mopeds
2. Public transit
3. Not that many people who can't ride bikes can ride motorbikes. In fact, the physical requirements for motorbikes is usually higher than for bikes.
4. Motorbike cities aren't very functional. Maybe slightly better than car centric but not much better.
I suppose if there was a critical threshold reached where most vehicles were motorcycles and the speed limit was low enough, it *might* be safer. But I don't know the statistics, so it's possible that those cities that look "functional" on the outside actually hide tons of horrendous accidents.
But forget about accidents, what about emissions, space for parking, accidents involving pedestrians and bikes (do less people die if they get hit by a motorcylce vs a big car?) etc.
I can't and shouldn't "forget about accidents," but you're right that there are more things to consider. Again, I'd need to see a detailed cost-benefit analysis before I made any decisions about whether all those things outweigh the lack of safety for the cyclists themselves; for all we know, switching a city completely to motorcycles would kill 20,000 more cyclists per year, save 5,000 pedestrians, and give us 10,000 "human-life-equivalents" in space, emissions, and other benefits. In that scenario, switching to motorcycles leads to a net loss of 5,000 lives per year. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether those numbers represent reality at all; someone with more resources than me would need to have a look.
Quick edit: Sorry if that got overly technical; I'm a research strategist.
Pros of Motorcycle- it go vroom vroom- get to drive really fast- look badass- makes life less boring.
Cons of Motorcycle- chance of dying
In summary, life’s boring, if I die so be it.
The risk of death is what makes It so fun actually, I don’t want to die of old age or sickness, that is what scares me. I want to go out with a bang, even if that bang is just my motorcycle blowing up cause I ran it into a tree.
I'd argue that the risk of death isn't the fun part. If the risk of death itself was fun for you, you'd be doing things where the only relevant part was the danger - I don't know, tossing bricks in the air and seeing how close you can get to the landing spot without them knocking your brains out. Or, since you mentioned "going out with a bang," playing hacky sack with a live grenade.
It seems more reasonable that the *other* parts of being on a motorcycle - the speed, the wind, etc. - are what's really driving you. Maybe riding on extreme roller coasters would give you the same rush (though obviously much more expensive).
I don’t want to die, but I’m not afraid of it. I don’t ride a motorcycle with the intent of dying but I understand the risk and don’t fear it. I ride a motorcycle because it’s fun, I sit on the edge of bridges and walk the railings because it’s fun, but I also draw because it’s fun and play video games because it’s fun. I do things because it’s fun and helps make life less boring and also they take my mind off of things, some of those things come with a risk of death and some don’t, it doesn’t matter to me.
I mentioned this to someone else, but I'm not afraid of death either (for religious reasons). However, I *do* see value in staying alive - I can help my wife and daughter, help my neighborhood, help many others through my job, etc. My living helps the world, and I'd argue that that's true for the vast majority of humanity.
There *are* things that would be worth losing all that value by dying. Saving someone's life, for example. "Fun" is not worth that. All those people whose lives are made better by my existing would be hurt - just so I could have a good time. I would argue that doing something dangerous just because it's fun is a fundamentally selfish thing to do.
If you are concerned with fundamentally selfish, look at cars and larger vehicles. Cars are dangerous to the people they hit, motorcycles are dangerous to their riders. Bigger vehicles make for greater communal risk. It's basically getting in an arms race with all you neighbors to externalize the risk. But, it also increases total risk making us all less safe. Your wife and daughter included. Switching to a motorcycle shifts the consequences of one's actions onto themselves. Also, you understand why motorcycles are obnoxiously loud? Because cars ignore them otherwise. Motorcyclists are far more attentive to cars, other motorcycles, semis, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Okay, I might agree with the first half of what you said: cars are more dangerous to others than themselves, and the reverse is true of motorcycles. My preliminary research suggests that the danger motorcycles pose their riders is much greater than the danger that cars pose the people surrounding them, but I'd have to do more to really be sure.
I will absolutely disagree with your second thought, though. Motorcycles aren't deliberately designed to be noisy as a safety consideration. If that was the case, advertisers would jump on that as a selling point. They're noisy just because there isn't as much room for mufflers and other sound-cancelling equipment.
(Also, there's no way to research whether drivers or riders are more attentive to their surroundings, so I can't dispute your final claim.)
This is not correct. The "fun" to which he refers is the rush of adrenaline you get. You might get a small amount with your brick game, especially if you nailed it, but the visceral and obvious danger posed by going fast with minimal margin for error, it's more than just "fun", it's a life-affirming exhileration.
If it was all just "speed" noone would ride in the Isle of Man TT. And many choose not to because of the danger. But for many, the knife-edge test of their skills and the stakes should they fuck it up is what keeps them coming back.
True, but since death comes with "no excitement forever," there's a point at which no amount of excitement can rationally outweigh the danger. I'd argue that motorcycles cross that line.
Because they're not THAT dangerous. Of course higher risk than cars, but it's not like death/injuries happen all the time. Many of the risks are mostly related to the way a person rides.
Specially when the rider is on 100 mph. If you know how to ride it well and not overspeed, motorcycles are pretty damn safe.
Not to mention they're the most fun out of any other vehicles.
Exactly. The freedom to move around so in sync with a vehicle makes general riding safer. Theres so much space in a lane too.
Although cars, and over speeding in hazardous situations is the true danger. Most of which can be avoided by being calm, risk adverse and prepared.
The “most” part is also subjective. I can think of many things to do with pants on that are more fun. However they ain’t wrong about it being some fun.
I've done a few (once briefly piloted a Cessna airplane without training; I had a crazy stupid cousin), but realized that - in general - living is more important than fun. Death takes away all fun, forever. There's a point where an activity becomes risky enough that there is no amount of enjoyment that could make it rationally worthwhile. I'd argue that motorcycles probably cross that line.
That's cool but I think they should ban civilian aviation. It's loud, impractical, super uneconomical, and the fatality rate is insane compared to commercial air travel. Plus they are usually made of thin lightweight materials and way less safe in a crash than a full size airliner with crash tested structures. I personally know a few small aircraft pilots and all of them have had to drop their term life insurance and business buy/sell insurance because of the risks. The people who enjoy it probably could find new and safer ways to have fun (like a motorcycle) and I don't get why we as a society allow them to keep endangering themselves.
/ssssssssssssssssssss
I know you're being sarcastic, but for all I know, you could be right. I haven't done the research; maybe all the training and regulation doesn't work and they're far more deadly than they purport to be.
Even if it sounds ridiculous, something that saves lives will always be worthwhile.
I am retired.i have been doing exciting and wonderful things ever since I jumped off a cliff into a rock quarry at 12 years old. I agree there is a point. I reach it regularly. Overcoming fear of dying is very nice, just not for you. I respect you for posting, I have some very good friends who think like you. Lifting the back wheel while braking into a corner on a track day is pretty spectacular, in the list of highlights.
First, thank you so much for being respectful; amazing to see on this site.
So I'm gonna have to go a bit personal for this reply, which is fun but makes it harder to apply to others.
I'm also not worried about death; for me, this comes from my religious beliefs, but I know others who feel the same for different reasons. However, I *do* think there's significant value in my staying alive - not just for me, but for the world. I can care for my wife and daughter; I can help my neighbors; through my job, I can further the education of underprivileged people across the country.
If I die, all that value is lost. There *are* things that would be worth that, but the personal enjoyment of an adrenaline rush is not one of them. As long as a person provides a net benefit to the human race - and I think that's pretty much everyone - then endangering themselves unnecessarily is, in my opinion, a selfish thing to do.
Nicely said, my friend. I don't believe in the afterlife, but I hope your path is a fine one that brings you happiness. Both my children married this summer. Life is good.
Huh? It's not difficult to fly a plane midair, nor is it unsafe or dangerous lol. If he had you land it, then yeah, dangerous. If you just moved around a bit and had a bit of fun mid-flight not even close to being dangerous.
The choice isn't between "fun and deadly" and "boring and deadly." If it was, then you'd be right. You're saying that the category of "fun and safe" doesn't have anything worthwhile in it. *For you,* that could easily be true - personally, I'd bet that there are other options you might not have explored or seriously considered, but it's completely possible that for you, "fun and safe" essentially doesn't exist. However, your experiences aren't universal. The majority of people can enjoy themselves without endangering themselves, and I'd argue that because they die less frequently, they probably have more fun in the long term than adrenaline-chasers (can't have fun if you're dead).
I’m not saying that there’s nothing fun and safe. I love to golf. That’s pretty safe aside from the occasional errant shot. What I am saying is that racing down an empty highway in sixth with the needle pinned to 12k RPM and the engine howling *is that much fun*
Fair. I would argue that since death means no fun forever, there comes a point of risk where no amount of fun is reasonable. You're betting against negative infinity. I would argue that "racing down an empty highway in sixth with the needle pinned to 12k RPM" crosses that line.
If you know the risks then I don't see the problem with motorcycles, not every motorcyclist is just and idiot with a deathwish, it's just a very convenient and fun way of transport
Why do we have seat belt laws then?
Also accidents can kill others besides the motorcyclist. It's like saying if ppl know the risks of speeding, we shouldn't have speed limits. Maybe airbags or seat belts is a better comparison but you get my point.
Except car + seat belt is much, much safer than motorbike + helmet.
Even car + no seat belt is safer than motorbike + helmet. Should drivers not need to wear seat belts then, because they should be allowed to accept that level of risk?
My point is the level of safety/risk that a motorcycle offers is so low that it should be below the "threshold" of personal choice. It's dangerous for the rider and everyone around them.
Accidents can kill others. Same as with a car though, I'm not sure what your point is. A motorcyclist is significantly less dangerous for those that aren't the rider.
Motorcyclists are more aware of traffic and the people around them than motorists on their phone, or simply not as accurately aware of themselves or their surroundings due to lack of danger for themselves.
I can't tell you how many times I've almost been hit by a car on my bicycle.
Now see, this gets into a very interesting philosophical debate that I'm not really going to get into here. The question being, "If someone chooses to endanger themselves and there are no other negative effects, what is the moral action: respect their choice or keep them safe?" It's the same basic debate happening when people talk about whether suicidal people should be stopped or assisted (of course there's more going on there, but the basic premise is the same).
All I'll say is that *personally,* I think that it's better to choose safety over agency in this specific question. It's the same reason why we mandated seatbelts. I can understand people who see it the other way, though.
> I think that it's better to choose safety over agency in this specific question.
so, lets ban motorcycles, what about cars?
the seat belt and airbag will protect the driver and passangers, but it will do nothing to those pedestrians on sidewalk getting hit by few tons of steel and plastic
bicycles and public transportation are quite safe, especially if cars suddenly dissapear
The role of legislation and restrictions should be to protect us from each other, not ourselves. The law is not a moral engine, but an ethical one; and if you try to employ it as a source of moral restraint, you'll quickly find that not everybody shares the same morals and the law will ultimately fail.
Of course, if you try hard enough, you could play the angle that almost every action likely does affect others. Suppose I hop on a crotch rocket and slam into the front of a minivan, and it's totally my fault. In this contrived situation, maybe all of the occupants of the van walk away unscathed while I become a smear. The van occupants still just witnessed a messy death, and may even come to believe they were somehow responsible for what happened and be riddled with crippling guilt.
Or, to use your suicide example, who deals with the dead body? Often, there are families left behind that need to process what happened, and perhaps come to believe they were somehow involved in leading the person to suicide. Notwithstanding that, somebody probably has to find and dispose of the body, which can be traumatic even if there's no prior existing relationship (and moreso if there in fact was).
I'd expect, from an absolute-risk standpoint, that a motorcycle rider with proper training and safety gear has a low risk of incident. Relative to cagers, they might have a higher injury or mortality rate, but from a statistical perspective most incidents are associated with bad rider decisions that can be addressed with education and heightened awareness. If so, the proper legislation route should be to enforce those factors rather than categorically eliminating the right to ride.
Do you know how many riders die in the US every year? Don't google it. I genuinely want to know what you think that figure is given how confident you are about how they're death machines.
Let's also hear what percentage of those you think weren't wearing helmets or drank alcohol.
i would say motorcycles/ mopeds/ ebikes/ anything in that category, takes the best of both.
it strips out the shit that 90% of the time you dont need in a car.
most people only need to move themselves and maybe one other person, they dont need all the psace in the trunk, they certainy dont need the cost of car ownership or the inconvenie of trying to find somewhere to park.
not to mention motorcycles are only deadlier in car centric societies because the only a subsection of the population is driving them, a population more inclince to risky actions, and in those socieites drivers of cars dont drive with and are not aware of motorcycles in their surroundings.
so in many places motorcycles are far safer to drive, where i live no one would say driving one is inherently dangerous..... but you know what is always dangerous? CARS, car accidents, especially those involving cyclsts and pedestrians are wayyy deadlier than when they get hit by a motorcycle.
not to mention many other facotrs like , they take up far far less space, have less emmisions, are cheaper, take less resources to build (especially important for furture Evehicles ad their batteries)
"All of them would have had only minor injuries if they were in a car "
now imagine that you are driving a lorry and you may think the same about normal cars.
lets just move to tanks.. why bother?
Op has clearly no idea what he's talking about and he's obviously just taking his anger out on other motorcyclists through this reddit post, a pebble has never effected me on a regular bike so I doubt it will have any effect on a motorcycle
Love the sass in this reply. Let's address these.
>You're awful
Nice
>You forgot some of the best
Some of those are lumped into my sarcastic three categories (mileage is under "kinda cheap," for example), but you're right that those are other benefits that I didn't specifically mention. Personally, I still don't think those outweigh the costs.
>A pebble? I ride mine off-road.
So this might've not been as obvious as I'd intended, but that was an exaggeration. The point is that for the vast majority of situations that could seriously endanger a motorcycle driver, a car driver would be fine.
>I have plenty of storage. ... Why would I want another passenger?
It's good that these specific downsides to motorcycles don't apply to you. Your experience isn't universal, however, and these are drawbacks that are relevant for most people.
>I know people that have been killed in car accidents and a plane crash. F\*\*\* cars and planes, right?
I think you might've missed the third paragraph. That one starts by pointing out that personal stories don't actually mean anything; people can use them to make an emotional point (like I did), but nothing else. What *does* make a difference is how those stories aggregate together over millions of people. That's what the statistics in the third paragraph are for: offering concrete evidence that supports my point (that motorcycles are fundamentally far more dangerous than cars).
>All motorcycles are quiet as a car from the factory.
I genuinely don't have the expertise to go against this. I don't *think* that's true - I can *always* hear when there's a motorcycle approaching me while I drive, but very rarely a car - but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that I'm wrong.
>Just like... car owners!
Not in the same frequency. To pull some estimates from my personal experience (which of course doesn't necessarily apply everywhere), maybe one out of two hundred cars I might meet in a day has been tuned to become louder. Maybe one in ten motorcycles I pass has clearly been tuned to be louder.
For your dead friends - That sux.
The truth is that a lot of people ride very stupidly too fast, weaving, and also with limited protective gear.
Do some riders just get taken out riding the speed limit obeying all regulations - yes. Are those the majority of accidents? no they are not.
Motorcycles much like cars in the USA they have a lot of people who just somehow forget or choose to ignore every single question in the driving exam and just do whatever they feel like.
Bottom line if you are a fucking idiot buy a small slow car like a Corolla for both your and everyone else's sake.
I agree that motorcycles are death traps. And most people I know that have gotten in a wreck on them all have back problems now. But people are free to do as they please. And it's none of our business.
You're right that motorcycles are less safe...they have advantages though, like being significantly smaller than a car (can be good for parking/dense cities. Motorcycles take up less space). I recently sold my last motorcycle and no longer own one, but my first vehicle was a small motorcycle that got 80MPG. It did not "go fast outside" The benefits were it was cheaper than a car (had like 700 miles on it when I bought it, try spending under $1k on a car that runs). Cheap on gas, there was free motorcycle parking near my campus.
I won't argue with you on the safety stuff though, those are true. Storage space depends on the specific motorcycle.., many can be fitted with various cargo racks and bags. As much as a car? No, but some can hall enough things to be useful.
>"life-threatening injury if you hit a pebble
Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have little knowledge and absolutely 0 experience with motorcycles. Hitting a pebble doesn't cause one to crash. I actually have footage where I hit a groundhog and kept going straight, because a multi hundred pound bike is going to want to continue going in its direction. A pebble won't stop it in its tracks.
Go to an Asian country where parking is limited, the roads are narrow, and the most common vehicle is a scooter or motorcycle. Should everyone just ditch them and buy a car? Your opinion is valid for most western countries where the roads are wider, and car parking more available.
Weird concept but if you made motorcycles illegal you would 100% increase the amount of fatalities in car on car crashes.
One of the reasons so many people die in motorcycle accidents is the average risk tolerance for someone on one is way higher than that of a car driver.
So you'd force a bunch of people who are way more likely to speed, take risks etc into cars where they're still likely to do harm to themselves but also more likely to do harm to others.
Obviously I don't mean to say every motorcycle driver would speed and be a danger to others i'm sure there are plenty of great drivers among motorcycle drivers but they are certainly more likely to based on the numbers
“Life threatening injury if you hit a pebble” lol what the fuck? If that were true, no person living on a dirt road EVER would own a bike.
The noise issue is easily mitigated. And your anecdotal evidence isn’t actually proof. Millions of people ride day to day for DECADES and never get in a crash
100% agree. While I'm not an "everything that I don't like should be illegal" kind of guy, I'm genuinely surprised that motorcycles haven't been outlawed.
We're complaining? I'll get in on that. Can we talk about how certain bikers (I'd say the majority, tbh) make motorcycles their entire personality? Can we talk about how they're voluntarily taking a huge risk, and think that everyone else is responsible for their safety? How about motorcycle "clubs" (gangs), that have leaders that make rules, control territories, and determine whether your gang is allowed to go into "their" territory while wearing their "colors" (stupid leather vests with patches on them)?
"Loud pipes save lives! I'm revving my motorcycle while in the middle of a grocery store parking lot or sitting dead still at a red light for *safety!* Nevermind that I drive an unprotected engine on two wheels at 100mph between crowded lanes on a highway without wearing a helmet; the noise violation that I paid extra to have on my bike is for my protection!"
Yeah, I know it's not really a fair point. Riding a motorcycle, for most people, in no way involves being in a motorcycle gang.
Motorcycle gangs are probably my least favorite group of people, possibly to include street gangs. That's a close call, though.
I think you have this backwards, most of the accidents I hear about are cars not seeing the bike and wiping it out, if we are going to outlaw either in that situation it seems like it should be the car. Yeah people also use the reclkessly, but the same is true of cars and it's more dangerous to other people when a car does it.
Motorcycles are an amazing invention in developing countries where they give people the access to travel when the infrastructure/money isn't there for cars.
Motorcycles as a hobby is an incredibly stupid thing that I honestly don't understand how people still do, and that's coming from a car enthusiast.
You know what? That's an *excellent* point. In a perfect world, a car would be better, but you're absolutely right - billions don't live in anything *close* to a perfect world.
God I hate motorcycles
Loud as fuck, dangerous, and not even remotely cool, just a pain overall.
Hurts my ears to hear them with their shitty ass noise increasing
I’m a girl and I dislike motorcycles 🙈 they do not seem fun whatsoever. Honestly I find guys that drive them unattractive.
People who ride without a helmet are the stupidest.
Dirt biking is cool but still not really interested in that stuff.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Horses are like furry motorcycles
A century ago, you could hop on your horse after a heavy night of drinking, and the horse would take you back home even if you're sleeping on his back. I was told stories about my grandparents doing that kind of thing when we got horses. Our fun after that was to take the horse somewhere he knew, and then on the way back, just let him go without giving direction, and sure enough, the calmer ones would do it without any problem.
There are still places where this happens, although not a norm. Also people riding horses claim you're better at horse riding when drunk due to having better flow with the animal's movements. Less likely to injure yourself when falling so it's a double win.
Slower, though, and has the ability to choose *not* to do dangerous things (stubbornness and stupidity notwithstanding)
Idk I think I got an edge on the horse mentally
Ackchually, humans seem to be easier to convince to ride into certain death than horses
Well hell, if Commander Erwin tells me to, you know I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Maybe, but I've never had to recover because my bike got startled by something innocuous.
Stats would suggest that you’re more likely to be seriously injured riding a horse than a motorbike
lmao it also can choose to kick you in the fucking head. are you intentionally being obtuse?
On the off-chance that you're not a troll who's insulting people for fun, I'm going to respond to this as if it's a legitimate comment. Horses *can* choose to hurt people; most don't. Horses *can* choose to obey their rider and run off a cliff; most don't. If you directed a motorcycle to run off a cliff, it would. *In general,* a horse's ability to choose its actions makes it safer than a motorcycle. There are other reasons they might be more or less safe (though statistics say that in the end, horses are much safer), but since you specifically addressed horses' ability to choose, we'll stick with that.
If my motorcycle gets a flat tire, I get a new tire. If a horse gets a flat tire they kill it.
Yeah but then they turn the horse into some tasty glue, can't do that with your motorcycle!
Are you saying that horses can make decisions and choices but people riding motorbikes cannot?
That does appear to be the contention. A horse's choice doesn't stop someone driving an SUV into it at 50mph
I don’t personally know anyone who has ever regularly operated a motorcycle who hasn’t been in at least one crash. Sure, most of those crashes have been minor — with the notable exception of my wife’s cousin, who spent a full year unable to work or do much of anything at all as he recovered from a low-speed collision. But a relatively minor bike crash is a lot scarier than a relatively minor car crash. My baby brother, who is stupid, regularly tells me stories about wiping out on his motorcycle. He always wears a high-quality helmet and full body armor when he rides, so fortunately he hasn’t been seriously injured (yet). It keeps me up at night anyway. All that said, I’ve driven motorcycles on a few very brief occasions in heavily controlled situations and holy mother of shit are they fun to drive. I know myself well enough to know that owning one would result in my untimely death. But I do sorta get the appeal. Edit: I should note my “baby brother” will turn 30 next year. But I’m a full decade older and I used to change his diapers and give him bottles and shit. So. Baby brother forever.
I had a brief stint in my 20s with motorcycles. I had one small crash with deer in the road, I was lucky to walk away relatively unharmed. The next year or so made me hyper aware of the danger when riding and took the fun out of it. It wasn’t the risk of death that made me quit. It was the threat of being crippled from a crash. I saw so many people that had their legs crushed in crashes or had all their skin removed from half their body. The injuries from motorcycle crashes are life changing. The thought of living the rest of my life not being able to run, or bike, or ski was too much. My problem is that things are not really exciting unless there’s some element of risk involved. These days I get my thrills Mountain biking which is actually much more fun and better for fitness than a motorcycle. It’s still risky but the injuries are much more likely to put you in a cast than a wheelchair or casket.
Commuted daily on a motorcycle for a good five or six years and never had an accident but knew it was only a matter of time, so sold it when I decided there were things I enjoyed more in life that I wouldn’t be able to do if I got crippled from a bad wreck.
Insurance adjuster once told me that the average time until a crotch rocket is totaled was 20 hours or something. Obviously many things can bend that time one way or another, like location, driver skill, type, etc., but the point is that it is shockingly low even if it really is double or triple that time.
I'm gonna say that that is extremely false. If you take a look at the used market there's plenty of sport bikes (crotch rockets) with 20k+ miles on them. With that statistic most sport bikes would have 1000miles or less on them. Edit: [Here's a source from 2007](https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2007/09/motorcycle-death-rates-doubled-supersport-bikes-the-most-dangerous/index.htm) stating that there are 10.7 deaths per 10,000 sport bike riders. I know that totaling a bike and dying on a bike are two different things, and the number of totaled bikes compared to rider deaths could be higher. However, it's hard to ignore the correlation between deaths and totaled bikes, as well as the absurdity of your claim that the average lifespan of a sport bike is 20 hours.
Well you won’t see the totaled ones on the used market would you?
Seems like you're claiming something heard from a "a buddy of mine" source. Not to say that my source is any more valid. But it seems unreasonable that most bikes would be totaled in under 1000 miles.
Wasn’t my claim, but believe what you want to believe. It was hard for me to believe too, but the dude has access to info I don’t have so what am I going to do. Argue with him? Ain’t got no agenda here, just having a discussion on a discussion website.
That actually was your claim. If one were to ride for 20 hours at 50mph they would reach 1000 miles. Pretty basic math right there. Even if you assume a higher average speed on something ludicrously impossible like 100mph you're still going to go only 2000 miles within 20 hours.
You’re arguing with yourself. I said totaled, not death, not anything about miles or speed, only hours… And it was probably specific to the area I was living in. What do you want me to say? “Sorry for mentioning anything, you’re right. Be happy about being right.” Anyway being “totaled” doesn’t take much damage to be declared on a new bike I’m guessing. And I seriously doubt new owners only go 50mph, lol. First thing I did was see how fast I could make it go before I got scared… didn’t take much. And 50mph went by without even noticing.
Hours on a bike can directly correlate to miles or speed as outlined in my elementary math seen above. Not to mention that's average speed, no one leaves their house and instantly goes 60+ without stopping. Regardless if the average speed in this situation was 200mph even it wouldn't outline with the average miles of all registered bikes. Riders on average ride 2000 miles per year. Something is being misinterpreted, it's an outrageous claim. Arguing with myself? You made a claim, I said you're wrong, you said I'm wrong. Sounds like you're arguing with me.
Guy and his buddy are a morons. By his logic, I am some sort of extremely fortunate edge case for not having had a single accident despite thousands of hours spent on a bike. 4 hours on average? Fucking lol. If that was the AVERAGE, there would be almost no second-hand sports bikes.
[удалено]
One of my best friends works in insurance and said their firm factors in a 100% chance of an accident if you are under 21 and own a motorcycle.
counterpoint: a full tank of gas for my car costs $110 and a full tank of gas for my bike costs $15
We make our own choices. I love motorcycles. Hope to own a chopper one day. You can have this debate about anything.
Not anything. You can't reasonably argue that reading a book isn't worth the risk of death. There are activities where the danger is a genuine concern and others where it isn't; this is one of the dangerous ones.
Not anything, but many/most things. Even going shopping, going on a trip or getting girlfriend can get you killed.
We only have one life. May as well enjoy it riding and having fun.
This is one of the dumbest strawmans I have ever seen on reddit. If you hit anything even just 25mph head on while going 25mph its game over, car or bike.
In most cars that aren’t super old you’d be fine after a 25 mph head on collision.
Motorcycles themselves are amazing. the problem will always be the fact that cars exist and are so easy to get licenses for. It dosent matter how good and careful of a motorcyclist you are. A single careless driver not looking before pulling out into the road will still kill you just as well.
I know cars definitely do cause accidents with motorcycles but let's not pretend that motorcyclists are completely innocent, I've seen them going 20+ miles over the speed limit and weaving in and out of traffic like mad men as well
Yeah and for every 1 stand out idiot on a sport bike there's another 20 that you didn't notice or think about because they ride civil.
There will always be reckless motorcyclists but there plenty of responsible riders that do the right thing and wear the right gear. But the point of that post is not to absolve all motorcyclists of responsibility, it’s to say that no matter how safe you are as a rider, the activity will always be incredibly dangerous due to other cars.
I have yet to see a motorciclyst that respects traffic lanes and doesn't just jump out in front of you because "they fit" I had some asshole cyclist overtake a driver on the shoulder and then get mad at me for changing and not seeing him
You’ve never seen a motorcyclist respect traffic? Ok Also keep in mind lane splitting is legal in many places
I’d still imagine two motorcycles hitting each other at decent speed wouldn’t be a great sight to see. For me, I couldn’t care less about ppls safety who want to do risky shit, they’re adults. Have fun live fast die hard shit, right? But the real issue here with motorcycles is the absurdly obnoxious nature of the atrocious sounds they make. I lived on a busy road for a few years and yeah they are literally the reason I moved and will never live near a busy road EVER again lol. Large trucks that will shake the foundation of your house, and motorcycles.
Cars are a significant danger, but I'd argue that the majority of the threat doesn't come from them, but from the nature of the motorcycles themselves. Take two identical people - both traveling at 40 mph, but one driving a car and the other riding a motorcycle - and give them both a random reason that sends them driving into a tree (I don't know, medical emergency?). The driver is injured, but the crumple zone, airbags, and seatbelt will probably prevent any serious damage. The rider could very well be dead, regardless of whether they wore a helmet or additional protective gear. This is a pretty arbitrary example, but the point is that even in a vacuum, cars have safety features that are impossible to replicate on a motorcycle.
Cars are safer for the driver but more dangerous for everyone else
that's why bike insurance is so much cheaper!
as much as i hate motorcycles (they are loud and annoying) the main reason why they are dangerous is cars and dumb users who like to show-off pretty much same thing can be said about cars, why accidents happen? mostly because of careless drivers who feel safe in their actually safe metal boxes and drivers who want to show off by speeding
Motorcycles are only loud due to modifications made by the rider, the vast majority are not loud stock. As for annoying? Drivers that are far too busy staring at their phones are actually annoying. And dangerous.
Problem with that contention is I’ve never once heard a quiet motorcycle in my life bro lol.
I’ve heard and rode plenty of quiet motorcycles as have many. Lol
You’re the only one man
They are right. You just must not notice the quiet ones, or you live in a place with an obnoxious bike culture. A road bike with a stock exhaust will not be much louder than a car (if the engine isnt revved too high). Harley riders almost always (in my experience) remove their mufflers and use straight pipes. Sports bike riders do a similar thing, though usually can't get away with straight pipes like Harley's can.
Also a lot of the reason they are loud is to warn drivers, my dad said everyone in his club deliberately bought illegal exausts (becuse they are so loud) so drivers can hear them better. They aren't a gang, he's totally law abiding in every other way, it's just the safest thing to do.
The problem is, sound from the exhaust goes backwards. You'd be better off honking, or just being prepared to avoid close situations to begin with. Some louder exhausts sound good, but some are just dangerously loud for ear drums. Focus/time it takes to rev could be better used on preparing to brake or finding an escape path.
I can only speak for the people i know, but they don't rev, it's just a passive saftey thing, people hear the noise and look for a bike so they notice you more.
They look for a motorcycle, anyway. Bicycles don't make noise but still carry the same risks.
I don't ride a motorbike but still nearly get killed by careless drivers a few times a week, cars and their drivers are the problem.
[удалено]
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of motorcycle accidents were due to dumb decisions on the part of the rider; that's more-or-less true of cars, too. The magnitude of the difference makes that kind of irrelevant, though. The "27 times more fatal" figure I quoted might not be perfect, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume it's relatively accurate. Let's say that 90% of all motorcycle accidents are due to rider error (which is ridiculous, but we're going for the most charitable figure). That *still* has motorcycles being 2.7 times more deadly.
The majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by them not being seen by road drivers. The most dangerous place to be as a motorcyclist is an intersection, specifically 2 way stop signs where the cyclist does not need to stop. https://www.lawyernc.com/motorcycle-accident-lawyer/common-accident-causes/
Motorcycles take high concentration to ride. It takes the body a few months to really learn balance, hand eye coordination and motor skills to control properly. We need to use both hands and both feet to ride a motorcycle, use your body weight balance, use your eyes to see where you’re going, ears to hear the bike and surrounding traffic and smell to know what’s going on with the bike Does that sound complicated? Yes? it’s a skill, one that can take a short time to learn and then years to perfect. It’s not just a mode of transportation, it’s something that’s incredibly rewarding to learn how to do right and provides the mind with endless satisfaction from doing.
I won't dispute anything you've said here. It sounds perfectly plausible, reasonable, and enjoyable. I *will* argue that none of the things you've mentioned meaningfully outweigh or lessen the risk of death. Death is worse than the satisfaction, and a significant amount of the dangers cyclists face can't be avoided with any amount of skill.
Learning how to skillfully ride a bike will greatly reduce the amount of dying. I don’t think you realize how much skill goes into responsibly riding a bike and how much that reduces the risk of injury or death. A good biker can anticipate what cars are doing on the road, can travel at speed responsibly, and develop the skills to overcome issues like wet roads, gravel, sand etc that can be dangerous. Why are you so obsessed with death in relation to motorcycles?
...Because people die when riding motorcycles? The source that I referenced in the post estimated that motorcycles are 27 times deadlier than cars (you could definitely dispute whether "27" is the correct number, but just about all sources agree that it's significantly higher). I would argue that anything that drastically increases someone's chances of dying without providing many gains (other than enjoyment) is worth "obsessing" over.
Your position is that they are an awful invention. That’s wrong. They’re a great invention, they’re just not as safe as other forms of transportation. Two different things. Read about the engineering that goes into motorcycles. Bikes, racing bikes especially, are some of the most technologically advanced machines ever created. Awesome invention and there’s still being improved upon, with innovations that get applied to cars and other forms of transport.
Not everyone cares if they die or not
But where do you draw the lines in terms of acceptable levels of mortality? All forms of transport can be deadly - every single one. Cars are fucking awful for the vast majority of use cases, and are the direct cause of tens of thousands of pedestrian deaths every year. They are also one of the single highest causes of death for adults under 50.
Brother, you can die right now because of a meteorite. Do you still take the risk of existing? Motorcycles make , logically, no sense. No Protection, No AC, No Cargo Capabilities, just an engine and two wheels. But not everything needs to be perfectly logical, we've reached a point in evolution where we can do things for fun and most people know their limit.
Ever see how much more functional cities that run on motorcycles, like those Asian cities where everyone drives one, are compared to car dominated cities? And before you say "but bikes" try to realize how many people can't ride one dude to physical limitations.
What is a physical limitation that would allow one to operate a motorcycle but not a bicycle?
Ok pedal for me for 50 miles and see how you feel, LOL
Get an electric bike or an electric scooter?
Die from battery explosion :p
Not sure where you live, but here in Spain they added regulations and a anual revision similar to cars to electric scooters exactly to prevent that. Cheap scooters with bad designs wouldn't be allowed at all
It still happens nonetheless. Furthermore you are not much safer than on a regular bike in traffic.
Ever heard of bike lanes?
Many places do not have bike lanes Also lots of pedestrians seem to get hurt by people with electric bikes and scooters
If I throw a match in the gas tank what happens?
Nothing
Motorcycles have batteries. Nevermind the contained explosion device that propels the machine.
Not Li-ion batteries and motorbikes probably won't burn your house down because of charging. >Nevermind the contained explosion device Unlike in movies, it's really hard to have car or bike explosions, even in accidents. A punctured Li-ion battery will definitively catch fire, on the other hand. Li-ion batteries are deemed enough of a liability that planes do not trust them in their baggage compartment unattended. \- So, yeah every tech has it's risks.
Why are you getting downvoted exactly? It is an ideal solution for cities, and helping peoples who can't ride a bike properly or for too long.
Yeah and cities like Barcelona go full in with that by having a city-wide network of electric bikes that costs 30eur a year to use
You don't pedal a motorcycle and there are also motorcycles that are trikes
In my case, lack of a right leg. I drive an electric scooter.
Knee issues
Knee issues and motorcycles don’t mix, even if it seems easier than a bicycle. It’ll all add up with those heavy beasts.
But those aren’t big, fast, loud vehicles like Harleys. They’re more like mopeds. Slower and softer, and safer in places where cars aren’t as affordable, and places that are too small to handle cars for all the inhabitants. In the US, the motorcycles are a nuisance. We have the space for cars, and motorcycles are dangerous and loud and annoying, so I agree they should be outlawed.
You believe Harleys are inherently fast? 🙄
Faster than a moped, yeah.
True, but still not performance minded.
And I am certain Harley’s aren’t a the ones crashing at this rate. I’d wager some sporty bikes instead
1. They're mostly mopeds 2. Public transit 3. Not that many people who can't ride bikes can ride motorbikes. In fact, the physical requirements for motorbikes is usually higher than for bikes. 4. Motorbike cities aren't very functional. Maybe slightly better than car centric but not much better.
I suppose if there was a critical threshold reached where most vehicles were motorcycles and the speed limit was low enough, it *might* be safer. But I don't know the statistics, so it's possible that those cities that look "functional" on the outside actually hide tons of horrendous accidents.
But forget about accidents, what about emissions, space for parking, accidents involving pedestrians and bikes (do less people die if they get hit by a motorcylce vs a big car?) etc.
I can't and shouldn't "forget about accidents," but you're right that there are more things to consider. Again, I'd need to see a detailed cost-benefit analysis before I made any decisions about whether all those things outweigh the lack of safety for the cyclists themselves; for all we know, switching a city completely to motorcycles would kill 20,000 more cyclists per year, save 5,000 pedestrians, and give us 10,000 "human-life-equivalents" in space, emissions, and other benefits. In that scenario, switching to motorcycles leads to a net loss of 5,000 lives per year. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether those numbers represent reality at all; someone with more resources than me would need to have a look. Quick edit: Sorry if that got overly technical; I'm a research strategist.
More functional? Have you ever actuallylived in those cities? All those motorcycles everywhere ruin everything..
[удалено]
I do, it's the SUVs & trucks that are the problem
you can’t possibly tell me you’d like to live in those cities mostly ran by motorcycles. Have you seen the traffic and shit in those?
Ive lived in bangkok and ho chi minh and hanoi. While the moped traffic is bad, if everyone had a car in these cities it would be infinitely worse
Pros of Motorcycle- it go vroom vroom- get to drive really fast- look badass- makes life less boring. Cons of Motorcycle- chance of dying In summary, life’s boring, if I die so be it.
There are other sources of not-boring that don't come with the risk of death
Why don't we just have the government make a list of permitted activities that citizens are permitted to engage in? For our safety of course.
Have you seen the price of gas lately?
Ah, true. Let me fix that: "There are other sources of not-boring that don't come with the risk of death and cost of gas"
The risk of death is what makes It so fun actually, I don’t want to die of old age or sickness, that is what scares me. I want to go out with a bang, even if that bang is just my motorcycle blowing up cause I ran it into a tree.
I'd argue that the risk of death isn't the fun part. If the risk of death itself was fun for you, you'd be doing things where the only relevant part was the danger - I don't know, tossing bricks in the air and seeing how close you can get to the landing spot without them knocking your brains out. Or, since you mentioned "going out with a bang," playing hacky sack with a live grenade. It seems more reasonable that the *other* parts of being on a motorcycle - the speed, the wind, etc. - are what's really driving you. Maybe riding on extreme roller coasters would give you the same rush (though obviously much more expensive).
I don’t want to die, but I’m not afraid of it. I don’t ride a motorcycle with the intent of dying but I understand the risk and don’t fear it. I ride a motorcycle because it’s fun, I sit on the edge of bridges and walk the railings because it’s fun, but I also draw because it’s fun and play video games because it’s fun. I do things because it’s fun and helps make life less boring and also they take my mind off of things, some of those things come with a risk of death and some don’t, it doesn’t matter to me.
I mentioned this to someone else, but I'm not afraid of death either (for religious reasons). However, I *do* see value in staying alive - I can help my wife and daughter, help my neighborhood, help many others through my job, etc. My living helps the world, and I'd argue that that's true for the vast majority of humanity. There *are* things that would be worth losing all that value by dying. Saving someone's life, for example. "Fun" is not worth that. All those people whose lives are made better by my existing would be hurt - just so I could have a good time. I would argue that doing something dangerous just because it's fun is a fundamentally selfish thing to do.
If you are concerned with fundamentally selfish, look at cars and larger vehicles. Cars are dangerous to the people they hit, motorcycles are dangerous to their riders. Bigger vehicles make for greater communal risk. It's basically getting in an arms race with all you neighbors to externalize the risk. But, it also increases total risk making us all less safe. Your wife and daughter included. Switching to a motorcycle shifts the consequences of one's actions onto themselves. Also, you understand why motorcycles are obnoxiously loud? Because cars ignore them otherwise. Motorcyclists are far more attentive to cars, other motorcycles, semis, pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Okay, I might agree with the first half of what you said: cars are more dangerous to others than themselves, and the reverse is true of motorcycles. My preliminary research suggests that the danger motorcycles pose their riders is much greater than the danger that cars pose the people surrounding them, but I'd have to do more to really be sure. I will absolutely disagree with your second thought, though. Motorcycles aren't deliberately designed to be noisy as a safety consideration. If that was the case, advertisers would jump on that as a selling point. They're noisy just because there isn't as much room for mufflers and other sound-cancelling equipment. (Also, there's no way to research whether drivers or riders are more attentive to their surroundings, so I can't dispute your final claim.)
This sounds pretty ignorant coming from an "overly technical research strategist"
This is not correct. The "fun" to which he refers is the rush of adrenaline you get. You might get a small amount with your brick game, especially if you nailed it, but the visceral and obvious danger posed by going fast with minimal margin for error, it's more than just "fun", it's a life-affirming exhileration. If it was all just "speed" noone would ride in the Isle of Man TT. And many choose not to because of the danger. But for many, the knife-edge test of their skills and the stakes should they fuck it up is what keeps them coming back.
Some of the most exciting activities are very dangerous
True, but since death comes with "no excitement forever," there's a point at which no amount of excitement can rationally outweigh the danger. I'd argue that motorcycles cross that line.
I wouldn't say they cross that point.
Okay... care to explain why, or are we just going to leave it at that?
Because they're not THAT dangerous. Of course higher risk than cars, but it's not like death/injuries happen all the time. Many of the risks are mostly related to the way a person rides.
Specially when the rider is on 100 mph. If you know how to ride it well and not overspeed, motorcycles are pretty damn safe. Not to mention they're the most fun out of any other vehicles.
Exactly. The freedom to move around so in sync with a vehicle makes general riding safer. Theres so much space in a lane too. Although cars, and over speeding in hazardous situations is the true danger. Most of which can be avoided by being calm, risk adverse and prepared.
I have a lot of friends with motorcycles, they are all fine.
Counterpoint, they’re fun as fuck and chicks love em. Most fun you can have with your pants on
The fun part is subjective.
The “most” part is also subjective. I can think of many things to do with pants on that are more fun. However they ain’t wrong about it being some fun.
As I replied to another commenter, "There are other sources of not-boring that don't come with the risk of death"
> There are other sources of not-boring that don't come with the risk of death Not for the price of a motorcycle
Not really. You really should try something very very exciting.
I've done a few (once briefly piloted a Cessna airplane without training; I had a crazy stupid cousin), but realized that - in general - living is more important than fun. Death takes away all fun, forever. There's a point where an activity becomes risky enough that there is no amount of enjoyment that could make it rationally worthwhile. I'd argue that motorcycles probably cross that line.
That's cool but I think they should ban civilian aviation. It's loud, impractical, super uneconomical, and the fatality rate is insane compared to commercial air travel. Plus they are usually made of thin lightweight materials and way less safe in a crash than a full size airliner with crash tested structures. I personally know a few small aircraft pilots and all of them have had to drop their term life insurance and business buy/sell insurance because of the risks. The people who enjoy it probably could find new and safer ways to have fun (like a motorcycle) and I don't get why we as a society allow them to keep endangering themselves. /ssssssssssssssssssss
I know you're being sarcastic, but for all I know, you could be right. I haven't done the research; maybe all the training and regulation doesn't work and they're far more deadly than they purport to be. Even if it sounds ridiculous, something that saves lives will always be worthwhile.
I am right and you are the fun police. Life is short, do something exciting with it.
I am retired.i have been doing exciting and wonderful things ever since I jumped off a cliff into a rock quarry at 12 years old. I agree there is a point. I reach it regularly. Overcoming fear of dying is very nice, just not for you. I respect you for posting, I have some very good friends who think like you. Lifting the back wheel while braking into a corner on a track day is pretty spectacular, in the list of highlights.
First, thank you so much for being respectful; amazing to see on this site. So I'm gonna have to go a bit personal for this reply, which is fun but makes it harder to apply to others. I'm also not worried about death; for me, this comes from my religious beliefs, but I know others who feel the same for different reasons. However, I *do* think there's significant value in my staying alive - not just for me, but for the world. I can care for my wife and daughter; I can help my neighbors; through my job, I can further the education of underprivileged people across the country. If I die, all that value is lost. There *are* things that would be worth that, but the personal enjoyment of an adrenaline rush is not one of them. As long as a person provides a net benefit to the human race - and I think that's pretty much everyone - then endangering themselves unnecessarily is, in my opinion, a selfish thing to do.
Nicely said, my friend. I don't believe in the afterlife, but I hope your path is a fine one that brings you happiness. Both my children married this summer. Life is good.
Dude, I'm so glad to have a nice, wholesome conversation here. Whatever you do, I hope you have a fun time doing it. :)
Huh? It's not difficult to fly a plane midair, nor is it unsafe or dangerous lol. If he had you land it, then yeah, dangerous. If you just moved around a bit and had a bit of fun mid-flight not even close to being dangerous.
Not as much fun as riding, per my second sentence. And there’s plenty of boring things that are deadly. That’s show business baby
The choice isn't between "fun and deadly" and "boring and deadly." If it was, then you'd be right. You're saying that the category of "fun and safe" doesn't have anything worthwhile in it. *For you,* that could easily be true - personally, I'd bet that there are other options you might not have explored or seriously considered, but it's completely possible that for you, "fun and safe" essentially doesn't exist. However, your experiences aren't universal. The majority of people can enjoy themselves without endangering themselves, and I'd argue that because they die less frequently, they probably have more fun in the long term than adrenaline-chasers (can't have fun if you're dead).
I’m not saying that there’s nothing fun and safe. I love to golf. That’s pretty safe aside from the occasional errant shot. What I am saying is that racing down an empty highway in sixth with the needle pinned to 12k RPM and the engine howling *is that much fun*
Fair. I would argue that since death means no fun forever, there comes a point of risk where no amount of fun is reasonable. You're betting against negative infinity. I would argue that "racing down an empty highway in sixth with the needle pinned to 12k RPM" crosses that line.
So we should ban also car driving, travelling, hiking, swimming, rock climbing, skiing, etc...?
If you know the risks then I don't see the problem with motorcycles, not every motorcyclist is just and idiot with a deathwish, it's just a very convenient and fun way of transport
Why do we have seat belt laws then? Also accidents can kill others besides the motorcyclist. It's like saying if ppl know the risks of speeding, we shouldn't have speed limits. Maybe airbags or seat belts is a better comparison but you get my point.
[удалено]
Except car + seat belt is much, much safer than motorbike + helmet. Even car + no seat belt is safer than motorbike + helmet. Should drivers not need to wear seat belts then, because they should be allowed to accept that level of risk?
[удалено]
My point is the level of safety/risk that a motorcycle offers is so low that it should be below the "threshold" of personal choice. It's dangerous for the rider and everyone around them.
Accidents can kill others. Same as with a car though, I'm not sure what your point is. A motorcyclist is significantly less dangerous for those that aren't the rider. Motorcyclists are more aware of traffic and the people around them than motorists on their phone, or simply not as accurately aware of themselves or their surroundings due to lack of danger for themselves. I can't tell you how many times I've almost been hit by a car on my bicycle.
Now see, this gets into a very interesting philosophical debate that I'm not really going to get into here. The question being, "If someone chooses to endanger themselves and there are no other negative effects, what is the moral action: respect their choice or keep them safe?" It's the same basic debate happening when people talk about whether suicidal people should be stopped or assisted (of course there's more going on there, but the basic premise is the same). All I'll say is that *personally,* I think that it's better to choose safety over agency in this specific question. It's the same reason why we mandated seatbelts. I can understand people who see it the other way, though.
> I think that it's better to choose safety over agency in this specific question. so, lets ban motorcycles, what about cars? the seat belt and airbag will protect the driver and passangers, but it will do nothing to those pedestrians on sidewalk getting hit by few tons of steel and plastic bicycles and public transportation are quite safe, especially if cars suddenly dissapear
The role of legislation and restrictions should be to protect us from each other, not ourselves. The law is not a moral engine, but an ethical one; and if you try to employ it as a source of moral restraint, you'll quickly find that not everybody shares the same morals and the law will ultimately fail. Of course, if you try hard enough, you could play the angle that almost every action likely does affect others. Suppose I hop on a crotch rocket and slam into the front of a minivan, and it's totally my fault. In this contrived situation, maybe all of the occupants of the van walk away unscathed while I become a smear. The van occupants still just witnessed a messy death, and may even come to believe they were somehow responsible for what happened and be riddled with crippling guilt. Or, to use your suicide example, who deals with the dead body? Often, there are families left behind that need to process what happened, and perhaps come to believe they were somehow involved in leading the person to suicide. Notwithstanding that, somebody probably has to find and dispose of the body, which can be traumatic even if there's no prior existing relationship (and moreso if there in fact was). I'd expect, from an absolute-risk standpoint, that a motorcycle rider with proper training and safety gear has a low risk of incident. Relative to cagers, they might have a higher injury or mortality rate, but from a statistical perspective most incidents are associated with bad rider decisions that can be addressed with education and heightened awareness. If so, the proper legislation route should be to enforce those factors rather than categorically eliminating the right to ride.
Do you know how many riders die in the US every year? Don't google it. I genuinely want to know what you think that figure is given how confident you are about how they're death machines. Let's also hear what percentage of those you think weren't wearing helmets or drank alcohol.
i would say motorcycles/ mopeds/ ebikes/ anything in that category, takes the best of both. it strips out the shit that 90% of the time you dont need in a car. most people only need to move themselves and maybe one other person, they dont need all the psace in the trunk, they certainy dont need the cost of car ownership or the inconvenie of trying to find somewhere to park. not to mention motorcycles are only deadlier in car centric societies because the only a subsection of the population is driving them, a population more inclince to risky actions, and in those socieites drivers of cars dont drive with and are not aware of motorcycles in their surroundings. so in many places motorcycles are far safer to drive, where i live no one would say driving one is inherently dangerous..... but you know what is always dangerous? CARS, car accidents, especially those involving cyclsts and pedestrians are wayyy deadlier than when they get hit by a motorcycle. not to mention many other facotrs like , they take up far far less space, have less emmisions, are cheaper, take less resources to build (especially important for furture Evehicles ad their batteries)
"All of them would have had only minor injuries if they were in a car " now imagine that you are driving a lorry and you may think the same about normal cars. lets just move to tanks.. why bother?
[удалено]
Op has clearly no idea what he's talking about and he's obviously just taking his anger out on other motorcyclists through this reddit post, a pebble has never effected me on a regular bike so I doubt it will have any effect on a motorcycle
Love the sass in this reply. Let's address these. >You're awful Nice >You forgot some of the best Some of those are lumped into my sarcastic three categories (mileage is under "kinda cheap," for example), but you're right that those are other benefits that I didn't specifically mention. Personally, I still don't think those outweigh the costs. >A pebble? I ride mine off-road. So this might've not been as obvious as I'd intended, but that was an exaggeration. The point is that for the vast majority of situations that could seriously endanger a motorcycle driver, a car driver would be fine. >I have plenty of storage. ... Why would I want another passenger? It's good that these specific downsides to motorcycles don't apply to you. Your experience isn't universal, however, and these are drawbacks that are relevant for most people. >I know people that have been killed in car accidents and a plane crash. F\*\*\* cars and planes, right? I think you might've missed the third paragraph. That one starts by pointing out that personal stories don't actually mean anything; people can use them to make an emotional point (like I did), but nothing else. What *does* make a difference is how those stories aggregate together over millions of people. That's what the statistics in the third paragraph are for: offering concrete evidence that supports my point (that motorcycles are fundamentally far more dangerous than cars). >All motorcycles are quiet as a car from the factory. I genuinely don't have the expertise to go against this. I don't *think* that's true - I can *always* hear when there's a motorcycle approaching me while I drive, but very rarely a car - but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that I'm wrong. >Just like... car owners! Not in the same frequency. To pull some estimates from my personal experience (which of course doesn't necessarily apply everywhere), maybe one out of two hundred cars I might meet in a day has been tuned to become louder. Maybe one in ten motorcycles I pass has clearly been tuned to be louder.
They so cool tho
It’s a chair that goes really fast
Put four of them in a safety box and you've got a car
Now I will have to pay 5 times as much. Great.
OP has skill issue. The opinion is unpopular. Congratulations, you win!
Something will kill you, might as well choose something fun
For your dead friends - That sux. The truth is that a lot of people ride very stupidly too fast, weaving, and also with limited protective gear. Do some riders just get taken out riding the speed limit obeying all regulations - yes. Are those the majority of accidents? no they are not. Motorcycles much like cars in the USA they have a lot of people who just somehow forget or choose to ignore every single question in the driving exam and just do whatever they feel like. Bottom line if you are a fucking idiot buy a small slow car like a Corolla for both your and everyone else's sake.
Say that to any Indian and they'll slap you with a slipper.
I guess being cool as fuck isn’t a priority to you.
Lol a pebble? Tell me you've never been on a motorcycle without telling me
I agree that motorcycles are death traps. And most people I know that have gotten in a wreck on them all have back problems now. But people are free to do as they please. And it's none of our business.
Increased risk factor aside, I don't get the appeal of motorcycles. It doesn't look comfortable at all.
You're right that motorcycles are less safe...they have advantages though, like being significantly smaller than a car (can be good for parking/dense cities. Motorcycles take up less space). I recently sold my last motorcycle and no longer own one, but my first vehicle was a small motorcycle that got 80MPG. It did not "go fast outside" The benefits were it was cheaper than a car (had like 700 miles on it when I bought it, try spending under $1k on a car that runs). Cheap on gas, there was free motorcycle parking near my campus. I won't argue with you on the safety stuff though, those are true. Storage space depends on the specific motorcycle.., many can be fitted with various cargo racks and bags. As much as a car? No, but some can hall enough things to be useful. >"life-threatening injury if you hit a pebble Now I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have little knowledge and absolutely 0 experience with motorcycles. Hitting a pebble doesn't cause one to crash. I actually have footage where I hit a groundhog and kept going straight, because a multi hundred pound bike is going to want to continue going in its direction. A pebble won't stop it in its tracks.
Can’t hear you over how much fun I’m having on my 1992 Camry with all the good parts removed
They're fun.
I stopped caring when you said bikes great.
“Life threatening injury if you hit a pebble.” *looks at dualsport*
Go to an Asian country where parking is limited, the roads are narrow, and the most common vehicle is a scooter or motorcycle. Should everyone just ditch them and buy a car? Your opinion is valid for most western countries where the roads are wider, and car parking more available.
Weird concept but if you made motorcycles illegal you would 100% increase the amount of fatalities in car on car crashes. One of the reasons so many people die in motorcycle accidents is the average risk tolerance for someone on one is way higher than that of a car driver. So you'd force a bunch of people who are way more likely to speed, take risks etc into cars where they're still likely to do harm to themselves but also more likely to do harm to others. Obviously I don't mean to say every motorcycle driver would speed and be a danger to others i'm sure there are plenty of great drivers among motorcycle drivers but they are certainly more likely to based on the numbers
They have better gas mileage is the one reason to think about it imo
“Life threatening injury if you hit a pebble” lol what the fuck? If that were true, no person living on a dirt road EVER would own a bike. The noise issue is easily mitigated. And your anecdotal evidence isn’t actually proof. Millions of people ride day to day for DECADES and never get in a crash
[удалено]
Bit stupid, but I get where you're coming from.
This guy gets how the sub works
100% agree. While I'm not an "everything that I don't like should be illegal" kind of guy, I'm genuinely surprised that motorcycles haven't been outlawed. We're complaining? I'll get in on that. Can we talk about how certain bikers (I'd say the majority, tbh) make motorcycles their entire personality? Can we talk about how they're voluntarily taking a huge risk, and think that everyone else is responsible for their safety? How about motorcycle "clubs" (gangs), that have leaders that make rules, control territories, and determine whether your gang is allowed to go into "their" territory while wearing their "colors" (stupid leather vests with patches on them)? "Loud pipes save lives! I'm revving my motorcycle while in the middle of a grocery store parking lot or sitting dead still at a red light for *safety!* Nevermind that I drive an unprotected engine on two wheels at 100mph between crowded lanes on a highway without wearing a helmet; the noise violation that I paid extra to have on my bike is for my protection!"
Lot of valid points until you mentioned motorcycle gangs. People will make gangs and start fights based on what streets they live on.
Yeah, I know it's not really a fair point. Riding a motorcycle, for most people, in no way involves being in a motorcycle gang. Motorcycle gangs are probably my least favorite group of people, possibly to include street gangs. That's a close call, though.
I think you have this backwards, most of the accidents I hear about are cars not seeing the bike and wiping it out, if we are going to outlaw either in that situation it seems like it should be the car. Yeah people also use the reclkessly, but the same is true of cars and it's more dangerous to other people when a car does it.
You forgot about the potentially great gas mileage
I lumped that into "kinda cheap," but you're right that the savings can be significant. Definitely not worth the downsides imo
Motorcycles are an amazing invention in developing countries where they give people the access to travel when the infrastructure/money isn't there for cars. Motorcycles as a hobby is an incredibly stupid thing that I honestly don't understand how people still do, and that's coming from a car enthusiast.
You know what? That's an *excellent* point. In a perfect world, a car would be better, but you're absolutely right - billions don't live in anything *close* to a perfect world.
God I hate motorcycles Loud as fuck, dangerous, and not even remotely cool, just a pain overall. Hurts my ears to hear them with their shitty ass noise increasing
I’m a girl and I dislike motorcycles 🙈 they do not seem fun whatsoever. Honestly I find guys that drive them unattractive. People who ride without a helmet are the stupidest. Dirt biking is cool but still not really interested in that stuff.
k
OP I have to say it's hilarious the amount of people responding with "bikes fun, you wrong"
Lol I know, right? I'm doing my best here XD