Whaddya mean, no argument? People are arguing Option A is more dangerous than Option B - true. However, there ain’t no way to get from there to “…therefore, option A is too dangerous to be acceptable” unless you’re willing to be consistent. All I’m doing is highlighting that simple fact.
You have not put forth an argument. What you have put forth is the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum (by your equating avoidance of high risk with avoidance of any risk), compounded with the fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum / poisoning the well subset of argumentum ad hominem (by your equating avoidance of high risk with hatred).
Why not simply say that in your opinion, a teenager should not be restricted from motorcycle riding despite motor vehicle crashes being the leading cause of teen fatalities in America, despite teenagers being involved in three times as many fatal crashes as all other drivers, and despite motorcyclists being about 37 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a motor vehicle traffic crash and 8 times more likely to be injured.
to me it’s straightforward. watermelon vs baseball bat. when you get into an accident, and you will, do you want to be the watermelon or the bat?
Well, you know that well-poisoning thing you were complaining about? :dubious:
What you should be doing is this, I argue. Don’t just compare the risk of motorcycling to that of not motorcycling - when I agree, the figures may not look so good. You could make that argument for just about anything. Obviously the risk of being mauled by a dog is higher if you keep a large dog in the house, but that’s not to say that the risk inherent in dog ownership is excessive, even though you could just keep a nice goldfish instead and be less at risk.
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy - it’s a legitimate philosophical tool, and it’s of much use in mathematical proofs, for instance in demonstrating that the square root of two is irrational (since any rational square root of two would be infinitely reducible by two). And that being so, I believe it’s reasonable to ask what level of risk motorcycling’s detractors do consider acceptable, and why they would arbitrarily deem one risk tolerable and another intolerable. You know, just in the interests of intellectual honesty, and to demonstrate that they are not taking the dubious position of deciding at the outset that motorcycling is a big no-no and that they are going to reach for any and every crutch they can find to support the conclusion they have already decided on.
It is not enough to say “Motor vehicle crashes are the leading causes of teen death”, nor yet “Motorcycling is 37 times more dangerous per passenger-mile”. Let us talk of more useful numbers - such as the proportion of motorcyclists who live long, happy and uninjured lives - and of a willingness to accept a little risk for the sake of not living your entire life in a cottonwool-lined pocket of your mom’s apron. As I said above, it is not good enough merely to say “X is safer than Y, therefore no sane person would do Y”. By that argument, no-one would play baseball or football - both are far more dangerous than tiddleywinks.
A little risk would be loosing $1 to the lottery. A big risk would be to bet the equity in your house.
A 400% increase in mortality is not a little risk, it’s a big honking look before you leap risk. Comparing a low risk sport to a no risk game of tiddleywinks is not a good argument. NOBODY is attempting to imply that life should be lived risk-free.
And for the record, nobody has added the difference in casualty figures between people who use seat belts and those who don’t. If you factor out the Darwin award winners who don’t wear seat belts then the survivability gap becomes even greater between cars and motorcycles.
Pick an example of any accident you’ve ever had and apply it to a motorcycle.
I’ll start. As a teenager I once skidded on a wet surface and hit a stop sign hard enough to bend a bumper. In a motorcycle I would have been lacerated by the sign.
Also as a teenager I was hit broadside by a car when the driver couldn’t see a 1972 Olds 88 in the sun. Ignoring the fact that the car was many times larger than a cycle and hard to visually miss, the damage was 2 crushed doors. I walked away unscratched but a motorcyclist would have died.
As an Adult I was in a parking lot and someone backed into my car crushing the rear quarter fender. I was unhurt but if I was on a motorcycle I would have had a leg crushed.
As an adult I was looking in my rear view mirror on a highway to see where traffic was and the car in front of me came to a complete stop. I struck it with almost no braking at 65 mph. Without airbags in either car there were no injuries. NONE. 65 mph collision and no injuries. A cyclist would be unidentifiable.
The probability of getting into an accident as a teenager is pretty high. The odds of survival go way down if that accident is with a motorcycle.
With your prescience, I don’t see how you could have been involved in so many accidents or does your ability to see what “would have” happened only work after the fact?
I’m certainly open for debate. If you think I’m off on my predictions then post what you think would happen.
FYI, I saw the Olds 88 accident coming and couldn’t do a damn thing about it. The guy was looking right through me. I was able to shift the accident from the front of the car to the side of the car. The stop sign accident was traditional inexperienced driving that teenagers go through. The highway accident was an eye opener considering I was looking in the rear view mirror and did not see the brake lights in front of me. I saw the parking lot collision coming and there wasn’t anything I could do about that either. I was pulling out (first) and the guy opposite me pulled out and I was in his blind spot. All I could do was honk and brake.
Also, I left out the times I came across deer on the road at night. I’ve missed over 50 and tagged 1 with the side marker light. I’ve been driving for over 30 years and night crossings by deer are a regular occurrence in my area.
Aren’t they? Then suppose for the sake of the argument that your chance of dying at age 17 is one in ten million, and this goes roaring up all the way to one in two million if you’re a motorcyclist. There’s your 400% increase in mortality - but should figures like that keep you awake at night? How does it differ if the odds are one in a thousand and one in two hundred? Do you agree that we ought to consider which of those two models is nearer the truth?
It’s a bit like the inane argument to justify circumcision, that it halved your chance of dying from penile cancer… all the way from one in five million to one in ten million, or something like that.
And of course all those adolescents who can’t be trusted with a two-wheeler will be sure to buckle up religiously. :dubious:
All the accidents I’ve had have been on motorcycles, and they haven’t spilled a teaspoonful of blood or broken a fingernail between them. (Actually, I once had a pretty sore elbow, and I wonder if I hurt the bone - but the arm wasn’t non-functional for even a minute.)
Don’t give me “pretty high” handwavery. Quote me some numbers.
I once hit a Toyota Corolla in the middle of her radiator at about a p/4 angle. I cleared her bonnet, landed many yards up the road, counted my arms and legs in some surprise, and stood up to see her getting out of her car bawling her eyes out. You’d be surprised what you can walk away from. The mere fact that you figure this, that or the other incident in your youth would have killed you had you been on a bike doesn’t make it so, nor prove that the risk is so high that all young men should be kept off bikes.
Age 16, 6% chance of accident involving injury or death (1 in 16 chance). It gets better with age but it is relevant to this discussion. I think that’s appreciably more than your scenario of 17 in a million.
So what’s that, 5% (to one s.f.) of 17-year-old car drivers will be involved in a fatal/injury crash? Okay, get 'em all off the roads. I’m serious. That’s grossly excessive. The bikes too, but really, I wouldn’t think a 5% risk would be acceptable for my own son, if we were talking about him.
I’m not even all that sanguine about the figure for all drivers - assuming by “fatal/injury” we’re talking about an injury more serious than a hangnail. One in sixty is nothing to cheer the heart.
If you’ve read through the entire thread you’ll understand that this is a specific question about a teenager who wants a motorcycle as his first and primary vehicle. I’ve pointed out that even the smallest motorcycle has the 0-60 performance of a sports car. If you combine the high rate of accidents for new drivers with the danger a motorcycle that increases the odds tremendously of serious injury or death. If this is the PRIMARY vehicle then it will be used all the time. Most people with motorcycles have them as a secondary vehicle and ride them for fun.
I think the case has been made that a new driver should not start out with a motorcycle as a primary vehicle. I would recommend that this kid start out learning to drive a car. He can transition to dirt bikes in his teens and when he’s older and more experienced, he can upgrade to a street machine to ride when weather and road conditions permit.
Is a motorcycle unsafer than a car? Of course. Ought this increased risk bar the youngster from drivine one? Maybe. Some smart dude once said you can’t derive an ought from an is. Study the facts, there’s been a lot in this thread, and decide if the increased risk is acceptable for you and your son.
Oh dear, and just when I thought we were getting somewhere, we’re back to “Motorcycles are more dangerous than cars, therefore they’re too dangerous”.
It’s sure news to me that my old Honda 125 had the 0-60 performance of a sports car, I mean, that thing pretty much needed a stiff breeze behind it to get up to 60 in the first place. Btw that was my primary vehicle - I didn’t have a car until I was rising 30.
Dear Princhester : Many thanks for your sympathies. My apologies; you are right and I am wrong. I have looked at the intersection on Google Maps, and the entire block is about 110 yards. I should not be quoting statistics that I heard once 27 years ago. I should have just stated the following and left it at that.
- that both the police report and the insurance report concluded that the driver of the car was at fault,
- that neither speed nor alcohol were contributing factors to the collision, as my brother had not had a drink at all that evening,
- that the site showed no evidence of speeding.
The reason I was mis-quoting those statistics, (my post #16 ) and the reason I cited the accident of G. and J. was to make the point that there are situations where the motorcycle rider is not at fault, the rider is in fact following the rules and yet is unable to respond to the situation. In the case of my brother and of J., it is unlikely that they would have died or suffered a debilitating injury from their accidents if they had been in cars rather than on bikes. In the case of G., it is admittedly possible he could well have died in a car - broadsiding a stationary cow is a serious accident.
Malacandra If I may state my impression of your point of view - for you, the risk vs. benefit analysis of motorcycle riding comes out in favour of riding. Your personal experience coupled with your view of the statistics leads you to say that it is an acceptable risk. Would you consider that a fair summation, I hope?
I don’t wish to provoke you, and I hope I can state my idea properly so that it doesn’t provoke you. You, also, have an emotional basis for your analysis of the statistics and that is your enjoyment of riding. For you, I think, the joy of the open road more than makes up for any increased risk. I understand this point of view, both from going through my brother’s effects (reading his diaries, notes and seeing the pictures that he took throughout his travels.) and from my own personal experience. It was 13 years after my brother’s fatal accident that I took up riding, and despite the danger of it, I came to understand the euphoric state in which he rode. It led him to his lifestyle of taking a crappy job for the winter months and then quitting by mid-May every year to throw everything he needed into a milk-crate bungee’d to the back of the bike and taking off.
I, unlike Bill (what the hell, I’m tired of referring to him as if he needs to remain anonymous), got tired of the danger, and sold my bike after 4 years. But it was important for me to come to terms with that side of his life - yes, it was how he died, but it was also how he had lived.
So, now, finally, to this thread - in my opinion, the risk vs. benefit analysis leads me to conclude against motorcycle riding. Marlitharn asked our collective opinions about her son riding a motorbike, and we have responded. Like some others in this thread, I find the statistical arguments against riding a motorbike compelling, and my personal experiences confirm those statistical arguments. I don’t recommend that anyone take up motorcycle riding. You have a passionately held opinion which differs from mine, and that’s fine - I don’t think any worse of you for it, and I hope you don’t think any worse of me for mine.
Wishing you happy trails, long life and thrilling, fulfilling rides,
Le Ministre
I posted a comparison of a 250 CC bike versus a sports car. 250CC is considered entry level by today’s standards. Also, there is no disputing that motorcycles are more dangerous than cars. However, your “therefore” statement is bull and I’m calling you on it. I never said that. I pointed out, in very clear, concise language, that the combination of factors would indicate this would be a bad idea. A young driver is far more likely to get into an accident. This is not disputable. A motorcycle accident IS more likely to cause serious injury than a car accident. This is not disputable. Using a bike as a primary source of transportation is going to increase the odds that the child in question will ride in poor conditions. When you combine these factors the likelihood of something bad happening statistically goes up. I made a specific recommendation that he drive a car for regular transportation and start out with a dirt bike as a learning tool. This gives the child a safer mode of transportation and also a method of learning a skill that gets him through the early years of driving.
All your statistical combination of factors does is provide a basis for reasoning, as I have been stating, “X is safer than Y, therefore don’t do Y”. Your recommendation is perfectly sound on that basis, and I endorse it for any who reason as you do. I merely state that most of us do not in fact apply that X-Y comparison to everything we do, or even a large proportion of things we do, and many of us make life choices that may well be more life-expectancy-reducing on a national basis than motorcycling.
What would make sense, in my view, would be if you determined what risk/reward factor was acceptable for any proposed course of action, whether it be choosing to eat red meat, get circumcised, or ride a motorbike. And if then you find that biking is the wrong side of that line, but there is another alternative (car driving) that lies the right side of the line, then go for it. It does not therefore follow that the line *necessarily * falls between the two.
Le Ministre de l’au-delà understands this. For me it’s not so much “the joy of the open road” as that, when I was a young man, I needed affordable available transport, and it suited my needs well enough that it was eleven years before I passed a car test. During that time I had an assortment of minor spills, none of which even in retrospect look like they could have been life-threatening - but then, I’ve never had a car accident that would have been life-threatening had I been on a bike, either. My two-wheeled experience teaches me to watch the road in front when checking my mirror, as well I should because if I rear-end someone at 65mph I’ll have nothing but dumb luck to thank if I don’t injure them for life, even if the metal frame I’m sat inside sees me alive and well.
I use the bike less than the car now, although I used the bike as regular go-to-work transport until recently (I used the car throughout last winter because I was dismayed at what road salt had done to the previous bike). Times and needs change. But I’ve found it an enjoyable and practical means of getting about the place, if you don’t need too much luggage and find the rewards of sheer mobility and ease of parking outweigh the nuisance of the cold and wet; and I think it has improved my roadcraft no end as it has taught me to be extremely aware of what is going on around me.
As I say, it’s about where you draw the risk/reward line. But if you’re honest, you don’t decide in advance that you’re going to draw it between “car” and “bike”, and then set about justifying it. There are good reasons to be taken into consideration. “A car is safer” is not necessarily one of them.
Most of the arguments given suggest that all of us should drive loaded cement trucks, wear Nomex suits and helmets in the truck and use 4-point safety harnesses. Some things are more dangerous than others. So fucking what?
That said, I think no one should be allowed to drive - anything - until about 21 or so. And then only after extensive training, like pilots get.
You draw the risk line where it becomes a statistical problem. I’ve laid out a clear case that a motorcycle should not be considered as a singular method of transportation for a person learning to drive. Going to and from work on a bike means that a new driver would be exposed to night driving, driving in rain, driving in snow etc… A primary vehicle for an inexperienced driver should never be a motorcycle. It should be a car with a good safety record and of low performance. As I’ve repeatedly stated before, a child should be trained on a dirtbike prior to getting a motor vehicle license and then allowed to have a small motorcycle as a second mode of transportation when he/she reaches the driving age.
And you have not made out any case at all why here and not here is a statistical problem, and I’m betting your next post will do nothing to change matters.