View Full Version : Are motorcycles dangerous?
curvy custard
11-07-10, 07:46 AM
Just read this answer to someone that asked the above question on yahoo answers :
In a serious bike accident you will be thrown from the bike and end up lying on the road where you can be picked up, put in an ambulance and taken to hospital. In a serious car accident the engine will be pushed backwards through the bulkhead, crushing and trapping your legs. You will be thrown against the steering wheel which will also have been pushed backwards. This will crush and break your ribs. Your unprotected head will smash against the door pillar leaving you with concussion. The door frame will be bent and twisted so the door will not open so you will have to be cut out of the car by the fire brigade. This could take an hour or more.
Bike rider to hospital - 20 minutes?
Car driver to hospital - 2hours, maybe more
I think I'll stick to the bike.
Electro
11-07-10, 07:51 AM
Haha, love the logic. The landing or initial impact is obviously completely painless then, not to mention any other what if`s and maybe`s on the way to coming to a complete stop on the road lol.
yorkie_chris
11-07-10, 07:57 AM
Ok so you hit a solid object in a car, you have a 3 foot crumple zone. Slide into the same object on the bike... you've got your face!
Some very sideways logic going on there. Bikes are perfectly safe, crashing is dangerous.
looks like complete cobblers to me. That may all be true for the car accident, and there's no guarantee of survival in either case, but being thrown from a bike can be a lot more serious than the implicated landing in a nice soft hedge. On any normal road you're gonna either hit the car in front or end up lobbed in front of oncoming traffic - and all this with a few millimetres of protection around you instead of a big metal cage with designed in crumple zones.
There's also a high incidence of bikers coming off with no other vehicle involved, heading for that nice soft hedge but it ain't so soft when you hit it. Harder branches can either impale or, if you hit it with your shoulder, tear all the nerves down one side of your body, leaving you half paralysed.
This is borne out by accident statistics.
husky03
11-07-10, 08:00 AM
Think your kidding yourself mate-:???:
as for being thrown from the bike and picked up, same chance to be thrown from the bike into oncoming traffic.
i'd rather have an accident in a car than on the bike-i've had a major off on both the bike and in a car, in the car off, if it had been a bike i'd be dead, improvements in car design in recent years are such that at certain speeds your reasonably well protected, but hitting a tree at 90 in a car is gonna have the same outcome as hitting it on a bike.
You just a youngster yeh?
the_lone_wolf
11-07-10, 08:05 AM
LMAO
Some people are too deluded or stupid to be allowed out on a bike!!!:mrgreen:
There's pretty much NO accident situation where you're going to fair better on a bike than in a car
Any impact energetic enough to push an engine into the passenger safety cell of a modern car would probably not only kill you instantly on a bike, but remove limbs/head
Carry on riding and accept the danger exists, do what you can to minimise it but don't ever kid yourself it'll never happen to you...
yorkie_chris
11-07-10, 08:08 AM
I do know a lad who survived a crash which would have been bloody serious in a car... he got highsided clean over a drystone wall.
Dumb luck.
There are some f*ckin mongs out there. Like the retarded americans who assure us that helmets are MORE dangerous than headbutting the floor at 100mph with your unprotected head. Or the retarded americans who surmise from their vast experience of motorcycle chassis design that front brakes are dangerous. Or the retarded americans wh...
Or the retarded americans who surmise from their vast experience of motorcycle chassis design that front brakes are dangerous.
The front brake on gfs cruiser is bloomin' dangerous! It don't do owt...
Bluefish
11-07-10, 10:25 AM
http://i637.photobucket.com/albums/uu94/andysv/orgers/IMG_0657.jpg
What this one, :D
You've been dying to post that pic haven't you? :p
thedonal
11-07-10, 10:39 AM
I have started wondering how Harleys etc, which are very heavy and more than capable of getting over the speed limit only have single brakes at the front.
But yes. Motorbikes are reeeeeally dangerous. I worry about you so much- why can't you get a car instead?
I have started wondering how Harleys etc, which are very heavy and more than capable of getting over the speed limit only have single brakes at the front.
Simple answer is, the weight is much more rearward than on a sportsbike. The rear brake more than makes up for the lack of front.
The other answer is, the front does actually work - you've just really gotta haul on the lever. And the first thing it does is compress the raked out forks.
Supervox
11-07-10, 10:43 AM
Let's get one thing straight here - MOTORCYCLES ARE NOT DANGEROUS !!
If you sit and stare at one it's not going to leap up and beat you about the head, or spontaneously decide to run you over.
Motorcycles - like most other things only become dangerous when in use & interacting with other people or things.
As for the OP's 'logic' - not quite in the same class as Aristotle, Plato or Socrates is it ?
yorkie_chris
11-07-10, 10:50 AM
Simple answer is, the weight is much more rearward than on a sportsbike. The rear brake more than makes up for the lack of front.
Weight transfer means that can't be true. A bike is always controlled by rear axle lock.
Thing is a cruiser could actually stop really well, since such a long wheelbase means no stoppie-limited deceleration.
Crap setup designed by some redneck stylist rather than for effectiveness.
You know what, I will keep my GSXR forks with big f*** off prolite discs, 8 pistons and working compression damping! :smt040
Weight transfer means that can't be true. A bike is always controlled by rear axle lock.
Thing is a cruiser could actually stop really well, since such a long wheelbase means no stoppie-limited deceleration.
Crap setup designed by some redneck stylist rather than for effectiveness.
Ok "more than makes up for" is an exaggeration. What I meant was, the rear brake is really good and much more effective than it would be on a sportsbike. The other problem is the forks - raked out and soft - a decent front brake might ping you off with the rebound once you'd stopped.
Design certainly isn't effectiveness. It almost seems designed to be safe in a "can't hurt yourself by being stupid" kind of way. This doesn't help much when you need to stop quickly tho.
yorkie_chris
11-07-10, 11:07 AM
You know what, I would rather hurt myself by grabbing too much brake than tw*t the side of a car going 20mph faster than you would otherwise be.
Or is the idea to just let the excessive weight punt any right-of-way-violating car out of the way? :-P
beabert
11-07-10, 11:08 AM
Its the riders
Weirdfish
11-07-10, 11:20 AM
Its the riders
Sums it up really,
I quite regularly cut people out of cars and it certainly doesn't take two hours to get them out, generally they're in hospital in under an hour, that's the target.
Recently had to remove a crash barrier from around a motorcyclist took longer than getting someone out of a car and I'm sure he would have rather have hit it in a car than his anorak, jogging bottoms and trainers! What a mess!
You know what, I would rather hurt myself by grabbing too much brake than tw*t the side of a car going 20mph faster than you would otherwise be.
Or is the idea to just let the excessive weight punt any right-of-way-violating car out of the way? :-P
You know what, I totally agree with you. I'd say UK traffic isn't where it's designed to be ridden, and it certainly ain't a high speed machine. You have to be aware of its limitations and ride accordingly.
But on the US open roads, riders making daft mistakes might be a more common occurrence than other vehicles on the road :p
Just read this answer to someone that asked the above question on yahoo answers :
In a serious bike accident you will be thrown from the bike and end up lying on the road where you can be picked up, put in an ambulance and taken to hospital. In a serious car accident the engine will be pushed backwards through the bulkhead, crushing and trapping your legs. You will be thrown against the steering wheel which will also have been pushed backwards. This will crush and break your ribs. Your unprotected head will smash against the door pillar leaving you with concussion. The door frame will be bent and twisted so the door will not open so you will have to be cut out of the car by the fire brigade. This could take an hour or more.
Bike rider to hospital - 20 minutes?
Car driver to hospital - 2hours, maybe more
I think I'll stick to the bike.
Obviously written by a yank who's never heard of crumple zones in cars... or drives a '72 Fairmont.
Utter buIIsh1t
tinpants
11-07-10, 12:26 PM
Don't sit on the fence Loz, say what you really think!! lol
As it goes, I happen to agree with you.
Jayneflakes
11-07-10, 12:54 PM
I had an accident in a car once, but it went away with a little pill and a glass of water! :-$
Would be a lot harder on a bike, you would probably fall off... :twisted:
dizzyblonde
11-07-10, 01:25 PM
hmmmmmm let me see now.
BOLllox.!
I am less likely to injure/cause injury on my bikes than I am in this humongous damn truck I've started driving. Its bloody lethal, I really wouldn't like to be squished under it.
Fact - the chances of surviving a 40mph bike accident without some kind of injury are slim. In a car you'd be much better off. At much higher speeds it becomes a different matter - in a car you'll be injured, on a bike you'd be so battered you wouldn't really give a toss as long as someone turned the pain off or ended it all for you... if you were still concious.
Cars are safer in crashes, which is great because it means I can get my danger and adrenaline fix on my bikes. I don't want biking made any safer than it already is tbh, it'd take half the fun out of it. By safer I mean gadgets that stop a bike sliding and throwing you off, traction control, and anything that takes the skill needed to survive out of riding. But... I do like having ABS on a bike for those "Oh Christ, he's pulled out on me" moments
xXBADGERXx
11-07-10, 02:03 PM
Motorcycles are 100% safe in their own right , it`s the moment you put a key in the ignition where the safety aspect gets a bit blurry .
BanannaMan
11-07-10, 04:44 PM
There are some f*ckin mongs out there. Like the retarded americans who assure us that helmets are MORE dangerous than headbutting the floor at 100mph with your unprotected head. Or the retarded americans who surmise from their vast experience of motorcycle chassis design that front brakes are dangerous. Or the retarded americans wh...
Have you been here???
Sadly all of that is true.
Had a bloke tell me the other day that full faced helmets were much more dangerous than his 'brain bucket' lid because they would break your neck in a crash. :rolleyes:
I asked him if he ever watched WSB racing on TV.
He didn't get the connection though.
And yes most Harley riders claim to never, ever use the front brakes.
robh539
11-07-10, 05:06 PM
Let's get one thing straight here - MOTORCYCLES ARE NOT DANGEROUS !!
If you sit and stare at one it's not going to leap up and beat you about the head, or spontaneously decide to run you over.
Motorcycles - like most other things only become dangerous when in use & interacting with other people or things.
As for the OP's 'logic' - not quite in the same class as Aristotle, Plato or Socrates is it ?
Spot on, my thoughts exactly
lmao
some people are too deluded or stupid to be allowed out on the internets!!!:mrgreen:
efa
;)
BanannaMan
12-07-10, 03:41 AM
efa
;)
Just say it. :rolleyes:
curvy custard
12-07-10, 04:26 PM
Think your kidding yourself mate-:???:
as for being thrown from the bike and picked up, same chance to be thrown from the bike into oncoming traffic.
i'd rather have an accident in a car than on the bike-i've had a major off on both the bike and in a car, in the car off, if it had been a bike i'd be dead, improvements in car design in recent years are such that at certain speeds your reasonably well protected, but hitting a tree at 90 in a car is gonna have the same outcome as hitting it on a bike.
You just a youngster yeh?
Not my views, i just copied and pasted from yahoo answers.
and nope, unfortunately im not that young anymore and have twice been very lucky myself when coming off a bike not to off hit something
Of course motorcycles are dangerous. If you picked one up and swung it round your head, then slipped, you could have someone's eye out!!!
Be careful out there!
Wild animals are dangerous, mountains are hazardous, bikes are a convenient means of transporting yourself directly to the scene of the accident while having fun all the way.
If cars are safer than bikes, because of the level of protection, and you wear helmet and leathers on a bike etc, being a pedestrian must be a horrendously dangerous method of transport.
Scotsbikerchick
14-07-10, 10:42 AM
Yeh, in general I think I'd prefer to have a car accident (if I had to choose of course) than a similar bike accident. I have front and side air bags in my car and unfortunately haven't got one in my leather suit, yet ;0)! Try not to think about it too much or I wouldn't get on the bike!
If cars are safer than bikes, because of the level of protection, and you wear helmet and leathers on a bike etc, being a pedestrian must be a horrendously dangerous method of transport.
This is true. I think timwilky demonstrated this last year sometime ;)
the_lone_wolf
14-07-10, 01:14 PM
If cars are safer than bikes, because of the level of protection, and you wear helmet and leathers on a bike etc, being a pedestrian must be a horrendously dangerous method of transport.
I've yet to see a pedestrian who can have a 100mph accident all by themselves...;)
I've yet to see a pedestrian who can have a 100mph accident all by themselves...;)
fall off a bridge/cliff/tall building?
Just read this answer to someone that asked the above question on yahoo answers :
In a serious bike accident you will be thrown from the bike and end up lying on the road where you can be picked up, put in an ambulance and taken to hospital. In a serious car accident the engine will be pushed backwards through the bulkhead, crushing and trapping your legs. You will be thrown against the steering wheel which will also have been pushed backwards. This will crush and break your ribs. Your unprotected head will smash against the door pillar leaving you with concussion. The door frame will be bent and twisted so the door will not open so you will have to be cut out of the car by the fire brigade. This could take an hour or more.
Bike rider to hospital - 20 minutes?
Car driver to hospital - 2hours, maybe more
I think I'll stick to the bike.
Follow the link in my signature :wink:
Sums it up really,
Recently had to remove a crash barrier from around a motorcyclist took longer than getting someone out of a car and I'm sure he would have rather have hit it in a car. What a mess!
Wasn't me was it? See my signature. :wink:
Follow the link in my signature :wink:
Wasn't me was it? See my signature. :wink:
always looking for an opportunity to flash your *rse off....:D
always looking for an opportunity to flash your *rse off....:D
'They' love it. :lol:
Bikes are perfectly safe, crashing is dangerous.
+1, I think this sums it up nicely
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.