Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10
A couple things:
I don't doubt that riding a motorcycle can be done safely if properly trained. And I don't doubt that most motorbike accidents are the result of the rider doing something wrong.
But at the same time, it's still riskier than a car. If you drive a car safely and properly, and you drive a motorcycle safely and properly, the chances of you being in an accident are both about the same. You keep the probability of an accident nice and low by driving safely and defensively, whether you're on a bike or in a car. But the difference is with accidents caused by some other moron driver. You can't stop other people from driving drunk, running red lights, or looking back to scold little Johnny for punching little Mikey. If you're in a car, and you get in an accident at 25 MPH, you get out of the car and you exchange insurance information, and go on your merry way. On a motorbike at 25 MPH, you're thrown from the bike and seriously hurt (possibly killed depending on how you land). That's the difference. The margin for error is smaller on a bike, because ANY accident can severely eff you up.
But I generally agree that the main reason Lavar is a retard for this one is because he depends on his body for his livelihood, and he didn't have a license.
As for the sensitivity stuff, I think it's nice that some of you guys are sensitive to Lavar and touchy feely about not discussing motorcycle safety until a grace period goes by. But I'm not sensitive and I'm not sorry about it. I'd like to discuss motorcycle safety, if you'd like to be sensitive you don't have to discuss it with me. I just hope the board doesn't go all censorship on these types of discussions just to be sensitive.
|
Schneed,
Since Lavar is likely going to be fine, I don't have a problem with this debate right now. Your point that riding a bike is inherently more dangerous due to the higher likelihood of injury is well taken and I don't dispute you, but the same arguement could be applied to cars too. Convertibles, small cars, sports cars, pickups for example all represent much higher injury/fatality rates than minivans. Does that mean we all should drive minivans, or that it is "dumb" to drive a smaller car? How about riding a bicycle or walking? More pedestrians are killed per mile traveled than any other mode of transportation in this country...should we label walking as "dumb?"
Motorvehicle transportation has inherent risks no matter what you drive/ride/fly. Just ask the families of the roughly 50,000 people a year who die in auto accidents each year, or of the 3500 who die on motorcycles. My point is that proper training and discipline can mitigate the lion share of those risks. You will never eliminate the risk of a freak accident, but you can put the odds in your favor.
My point is that your choice of transportation has less do with that risk than your behavior while operating your vehicle of choice. Hence I take issue with your labeling motorcycles as "dumb."