Is biking too dangerous?

Originally Posted by thulfi

<Any Road User's Nightmare>

Yes a car is better as a way of keeping you intact, but the scenario you outline above is pretty much end of story unless what you hit is made of paper and weighs nothing.

I've had a bus drift over to my side of the road whilst in my little Pug 106 Rallye early one Saturday morning on a country road. I'm sure the driver was dozing. It was one of those "slow down and the gap closes, speed up and it would be even worse if we collide" moments. Closing speed probably into 3 figures. I was clipping the hedge with my foot to the floor. Too busy to beep the horn, I saw the driver swerve sharply back to his side of the road in my mirror, he was no more than a couple of feet from the opposite side hedge. Talk about shaken up, I've never had a moment so scary on my bike, touch wood.

If we worry about that we'd never drive a car either. Maybe some people are put off by such thoughts, and that's fine. Most people in cars are just on ignorant auto-pilot and perhaps it's for the best, the thought that one crazed or drunk driver could wipe out the occupants of your car in the blink of an eye is harrowing to say the least. A car may be safer most of the time, but you'd still be waking up in agony with your knees round your ears if the event you describe occurred, assuming you woke up at all.

Nobody would claim a bike is simply safer though.

Still, I'd rather be filtering through a jam on a foggy motorway on a bike than sat at the back of it in my "safer" car hoping the next middle-lane big rig driver is not fast asleep.

Wouldn't go down well to respond to a "Some lad was killed on one of those round our way last week" with a similarly sensitive "A family of 5 were killed in one of those on the M6 the other day".

Originally Posted by sinbad

Still, I'd rather be filtering through a jam on a foggy motorway on a bike than sat at the back of it in my "safer" car hoping the next middle-lane big rig driver is not fast asleep.

undoubtedly mate...

unless its ****ing it down or freezing cold, the cars always second choice!

Originally Posted by thulfi

I don't really think a valid conlcusion can be reached simply by looking at 55 fatal accidents over 3years in one specific area.

Riders are accountable for 42% of the accidents, and the drivers 44%

Maybe, maybe not, not. The key difference between that study (which looks interesting BTW, I'll print out and read later) and the one I quoted is that mine only looked at FATAL accidents. We all know how often stupid cagers knock us off, but very few of these accidents are fatal, or very serious injuries and hence in my book anyway, not that dangerous. Most of these accidents also happen in town and there are just as many involving pedestrians and cyclists. I accept a few trips to hospital in a lifetime as being part of riding a bike, what I need to avoid is widowing my wife, orphaning my son and upsetting my mother.

55 bikes when you are talking fatal accidents only is nearly 10% of the annual total for motorbikes, so it's a relatively sizeable sample, much more than would be called "conclusive" for many other studies and hence the 92% figure won't be that far from the truth.

Originally Posted by thulfi

I think by dangerous, most people aren't talking about 'likelihood of an accident' but more the 'danger to one-self should an accident arise'. This IS much higher on 2 wheels than in a cage wether we like it or not.

I think we already agree about this...

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

Obviously once the accident happens you may be hurt more badly than in a car

But that's only true for slower speed accidents. At 30-40mph you may get a grazed nose off an airbag as opposed to a few broken bones on the bike, by the time you get to 60-70mph or more, crashing a car, especially if you hit something solid or something coming the other way, can just as easily be fatal.

You're riding on a country road at night. Lights on. No bends or anything. Just straight open road. A car with lights on is coming down the opposite lane. Everything looks ok - last minute - literally just as you're about to pass the car, it swerves into your lane - no time to dodge it - you come off and get paralysed or die. Police find out later the driver was drunk of his face.

Now suppose you were in your car. The likeliness of this happening is EXACTLY the same, wether in a car or on a bike. The likeliness of getting seriously injured or hurt however is much more significant - and this is where the danger lies.

I don't agree with this though. I'm guessing you don't have that much 1st hand experience of bike accidents? I don't think it's that simple, if you have a head-on collision at 60mph (120mph closing speed) you are pretty much dead in a car.

It's not crashing on a bike that kills you, it's what you hit after you've crashed. It short it's not the speed, it's the stopping quickly that kills you. Racers come off at 100+mph and slide on their backside for 200yds, before jumping up and running away.

I've experienced a couple of high(ish) speed bike accidents (50-70mph), and I think I'd actually rather be on the bike in the scenario you describe. On a bike you have a much smaller profile and so have a much better chance of avoiding the car coming into your path, then some chance of landing in a nice muddy field. I was doing 55 when I came off in November, landed in a muddy field and got away with a couple of broken ribs and internal and external bruising.

OK, your body might hit a tree and you die, but I'd rather take that chance than be strapped into a car, with nowhere to go, about to stop instantly following a 120mph closing speed impact.

My Dad always used to tell me that on a bike, if you are going to have a high speed accident, you probably won't stop, so leave you brakes alone and concentrate on avoiding the other traffic, then get hard on the brakes and start choosing the softest thing to crash into.

[yorkie_chris]

A friend of mine had a similar accident to that, he broke both his ankles as his feet hit the bars, but flew right over the car.
Luck of the draw!

biking can be as dangerous as other sports, parachuting, water skiing, skiing, mountain biking. I agree with YC, its the luck of the draw. I believe in fate to a certain degree. I think if my time is up, then its up. I do not ride recklessly though. Im a mum with a young baby. Id prefer to be around to see her grow up. I will not give up biking though. I did my IAM test to help improve my riding. I feel I have done all I can. If a drunk driver wants to come round a blind bend and take me out, I will die knowing there was nothing else I could have done. My feelings may be different if I ever have an off but 8 years with none (touch wood) I hopefully never find out what its like

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

It's not crashing on a bike that kills you, it's what you hit after you've crashed. It short it's not the speed, it's the stopping quickly that kills you. Racers come off at 100+mph and slide on their backside for 200yds, before jumping up and running away.

I've experienced a couple of high(ish) speed bike accidents (50-70mph), and I think I'd actually rather be on the bike in the scenario you describe. On a bike you have a much smaller profile and so have a much better chance of avoiding the car coming into your path, then some chance of landing in a nice muddy field. I was doing 55 when I came off in November, landed in a muddy field and got away with a couple of broken ribs and internal and external bruising..

yeeh totally get what you're saying here, and you make a fair point, and its good to hear you came off at 50-70mph and landed in a nice muddy field - result, lol!...

I see how a bike is undoubtedly easier to weave out of the way than a car, and obviously head on in a car at 60 aint gonna be pretty. You mention racers however - there main real concerns are landing correctly, and not getting track rash - they don't really have deadly street furniture to avoid as we do.

If you come of at 60 on a bike, and don't hit a tree/lamp post/sign/metal divide/another car then yeeh, I'd rather be on a bike than in a car I guess. But there's no guarantee of that, so I'd probably stick it out with an airbag, and not face the chance of breaking my neck.

I recently came off at 30 in a tunnel (posted a thread about my accident here recently). My body did a full 270 degrees in the air, and landed with the 30mph force right on my back (WWF style). Didn't really roll much after that - I was wearing a forcefield back protector which shock absorbed the impact and probably saved my spine. If I did a 180 in the air however, would prob have landed on my head/neck which would have been a completely different story.

I guess with high speed collisions on the open road, it wouldn't make that much difference wether on a bike or a car. Perhaps even a bike might be advantageous. Most my riding however is done in central London - rarely go more than 30 tbh, but with just the sheer amount of potential hazards around me, sometimes I do think the protection of a cage in these situations would be better for me.

But then I just rev the crap out of my SV, and forget all about it. In fact, when riding, I feel sorry for people in cars - how bored they must be!

[yorkie_chris]

There is a serious difference between accepting the level of risk, and inviting disaster.

P.s I have seen some very slow people inviting disaster through general incompetence, some very fast people being very safe. And some total f**king lunatics showing general incompetence while trying very hard to go quickly (some still very s slow!)

bikings only dangerous if you make it dangerous !

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

There is a serious difference between accepting the level of risk, and inviting disaster.

If I said that to my dad, he'd say I'm both accepting the risk and inviting a disaster, lol!..

I wouldn't quite say biking invites disaster. But there's certainly some people out there doing various activities wherby they are probably accepting the risks, but also inviting disaster...('cough cough smoking cigarettes')!

Originally Posted by jacksuzukisv650

bikings only dangerous if you make it dangerous !

what if you make it safe, and some drunk loon in a cage makes it dangerous?