Cycle V motorcycle comparative risks

[andys]

Great video

https://youtu.be/wM8Xli2KTzI

[windmill john]

I do like his videos.

[John Marshall]

I heard somewhere that riding a motorcycle was 15 times more dangerous than being in a car, whilst cycling was 16 times more dangerous .
So ride your motorcycle for 14 times, then ride your pushbike for 15 times. Then repeat.This should work...shouldn’t it?
I knew all that time learning about probabilities would come in useful.

I cycled to work for 43 years in various locations and fell of 3 times. The last time I changed gear and the mech went into the spokes, right on the road into the hospital. An elderly lady passing said “Ah the perils of derailleur gears.” l leapt up pretty quickly before I got run over by an ambulance, which would have been inconvenient.
I only fell off twice when riding a motorcycle home. The first was in 1976 on my A65 after getting to a junction at an improbable speed with great glee and went straight across and into the hedge. No damage though.
The last time I was hit by a car turning across me about 50 yards from my drive. Broke one exhaust nut, and smashed a “S” fairing. No damage to self apart from bruised palms and soles where I sprang from the bike.
I had better touch wood.

[keiththeoutfitter1]

I’ve always wondered about the figures for motorcycle accident rates. I don’t know how the statisticians assess mileage but if they look at the average number of miles done by a motorcycle based on mot certificates, then this does not take into account the fact that a lot of motorcyclists own more than one machine and so the number of miles covered per rider is actually more than it may seem.

[Rob Frankhamr]

I’ve always wondered about the figures for motorcycle accident rates. I don’t know how the statisticians assess mileage but if they look at the average number of miles done by a motorcycle based on mot certificates, then this does not take into account the fact that a lot of motorcyclists own more than one machine and so the number of miles covered per rider is actually more than it may seem.

In principle, it is based on motorcycle/miles... so it doesn't matter which bike you ride of how many you own... or even if you don't own a bike and ride someone elses.

Rob

[keiththeoutfitter1]

As the figure is based on motorcycle-miles, then surely it must matter if an individual has more than one bike.
If, for example, a motorcyclist had two bikes and did 4,000 miles a year in total, then based on those figures, the statistics would show that motorcycles covered 2000 miles per year as they only look at the mileage on the bikes, not linked to the number of riders.
If the rider had an accident during the year, then it would show as his having an accident in 2000 miles, not the 4000 he has actually travelled.
This would show up in the statistics as the motorcyclist being twice as much at risk per mile than he actually is.

[Rob Frankhamr]

The figures are normally quoted in 'accidents per vehicle mile'. It's the only type of figure that makes any sense at all (and not much at that). It, therefore, doesn't matter which vehicle is being ridden or who's riding it.

As usual, figures like this, stated without qualification are only helpful to people trying to make a point (and they can often be manipulated to make whatever point the person concerned wants to make). Unfortunately, the true picture involves a vast number of if's, but's, why's and wherefore's and is so complicated that it's impossible to state in less than a small book. Sadly, the 'peeple' (and especially journalists, influencers, politicians and activists) demand 'simple, easy to understand facts' (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) preferably that support their arguments (or in the case of journalists, the argument they're putting forward this half hour).

Rob