Comments on FIRE JOE MORGAN: Only Mildly Sports-Related

And we come full circle, with David chiming in aga...

2008-02-08T19:20:00.000-05:00

And we come full circle, with David chiming in again.

Mr. Jamison made a very good point that I failed to note, viz that motorcycles are inherently more dangerous to their riders than cars. This may have something to do with a motorcycle being able to travel every bit as fast as a car, but lacking in safety items like seatbelts, airbags, rollcages, and two additional wheels.

Mr. Jamison has provided a very good proof of this point with some statistics from the NHTSA. I fully agree, but my hypotheses was that motorcycles present an equal, if not lesser, threat to innocent bystanders (pedestrians, bicyclists, farmers' market patrons, or "nonmotorists," as the NHTSA likes to call them).

I've used the NHTSA's 2003 Traffic Safety Facts (being the easiest such report I could find online) for my stats. Here comes the science:

Collisions with nonmotorists, 2003:
Motorcycles: 19 of 3,751 (0.5%)
Passenger Cars: 2,512 of 26,169 (9.6%)

So by my count, although motorcyclists are more likely than passenger car drivers to hurt themselves in a crash, they are far more likely than passenger car drivers to hurt pedestrians. Granted, "collisions" is not the same thing as "fatalities." But I can assure you that when a pedestrian gets hit by a car or motorcycle, it is at least going to be pretty damn painful.

I took this a step further, to see how the motorcycle/car debate looks from a pedestrians point of view. I even made up a handy little spreadsheet to chart it out (attached) [Edit: no it isn't, in these comments, because I don't know how to do that. --ed.]. Essentially, motorcyclists crash at a higher rate than cars, but fewer of their crashes involve nonmotorists. However, if we look at nonmotorist crashes per total vehicle miles traveled, we find that a hypothetical motorcycle driving the same number of miles as a passenger car is actually slightly more likely to hit a pedestrian. Taking this even further, our hypothetical motorcycle and car would hit pedestrians every 502.1 and 661.2 million miles, respectively. To put that in perspective, if you put rockets on your car or bike and took a trip into space, those distances would put you somewhere in between Jupiter and Saturn. That's a lot of miles.

So, after a couple hours of following this diversion, what have I found?

1) In terms of actual accident rates, motorcycles are far more dangerous to their riders, and a tiny bit more dangerous to pedestrians, than passenger cars.

2) Therefore, my hypothesis and Mike Seate's ramblings are pretty much incorrect.

3) If you are a pedestrian, make sure to avoid the region between Jupiter and Saturn.

Finit. Good work, everyone.

Kevin points out:I love how Seate is writing about...

2008-02-08T18:10:00.000-05:00

Kevin points out:

I love how Seate is writing about a bill that isn't even going to see the State Senate floor anytime soon!

http://www.topix.com/motorcycles/2008/01/florida-reckless-motorcycle-bill-deferred

Timeline:

Bill Deferred: Jan 11
Seate Article: Jan 28

Hang on, you guys -- Zak has a good point. It's wo...

2008-02-08T16:35:00.000-05:00

Hang on, you guys -- Zak has a good point.

It's worth considering that, although motorcyclists put themselves in ridiculous danger (especially in speeding), people speeding in cars endanger all other road-users more.

Plus, cars clog up the roadpaths, and that's just shitty.

Mark sez, take that, people who think motorcycles ...

2008-02-08T16:33:00.000-05:00

Mark sez, take that, people who think motorcycles are dangerous:

One of the IIHS' favorite stats to report is that, "per mile traveled, motorcycle rider fatalities are 31 times greater than those in automobiles." Well, golly, since they bothered to factor in "per mile traveled," that sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? I suppose it does, but it leaves out a few mitigating factors. For example, a motorcycle will be carrying a single rider about 90% of the time. When you ride one mile without an accident on your bike, you are counted as one safe mile traveled. But the stats for automobiles includes not only cars with two or more passengers, but also vans, trucks and even buses. A bus with 40 passengers goes one mile without an accident, and it is counted as 40 safe miles traveled, compared to your one mile. Then, add in the fact that motorcycles simply aren't ridden the number of miles in a year that a car is used. In fact, we average only about 30% of automobile usage. Oh, and they count dirt bike miles, too, and ATVs, which obviously results in a lot more accidents "per mile traveled." Ever see someone go off-roading in the family sedan, or better yet, a fully-loaded school bus?

Are you beginning to see how this works? If not, I'll make it even simpler: Per mile traveled, a pedestrian is 18 times more likely to be injured or killed in an accident than a motorcyclist. We need to get those crazed, daredevil walkers and joggers off our sidewalks! But wait --there's something worse: Per mile traveled, equestrians (horseback riders) are 25 times more likely to be killed or injured in an accident than a motorcyclist! Sure, I'll admit that motorcycle riding can be dangerous but I don't hear anyone talking about how dangerous it is to ride a horse, or about regulating them more, or even banning them outright.

Keep 'em coming, people.

And now Ed takes S. Jamison to task!S. Jamison quo...

2008-02-08T16:29:00.000-05:00

And now Ed takes S. Jamison to task!

S. Jamison quotes fatality rates per mile traveled, and then concludes that "if some nut in a car travels 50 over, he's far less likely to get killed...".

This conclusion does not necessarily follow from the data. I think it is reasonable to assume that motorcyclists are far more likely to be traveling 50 over than auto drivers, and thus the fatality rates per-mile-traveled-at-50-over may very well be comparable between cars and motorcycles.

This is the most fun I have ever had writing for this blog. I swear to God.

Patrick raises what for Mr. Seate must be an epist...

2008-02-08T16:28:00.000-05:00

Patrick raises what for Mr. Seate must be an epistemological nightmare:

[O]ne has to wonder if he would be for or against motorcycles going 50+ MPH over the speed limit while doing dangerous stunts while on the Seventh Street Bridge.

But, you're asking, how do people in Illinois feel...

2008-02-08T16:27:00.000-05:00

But, you're asking, how do people in Illinois feel about this Florida law? Stan?

I'm an attorney in Illinois, and if you speed 40 MPH over the speed limit in IL it's a Class A Misdemeanor, the same level as a DUI!!! Plus, in IL you don't have to do fancy stunts to fall under the law. So his article is just odd and really unnecessary.

As most of you know, my greatest dream is that thi...

2008-02-08T14:50:00.000-05:00

As most of you know, my greatest dream is that this blog turn into a state-law-based debate over vehicular safety. To that end, Mr. S. jamison weighs in with a comment about the previous comment:

In response to the comment from the recent post "Only Mildly Sports-Related", there is a perfectly good reason that motorcycle laws are discriminatory. This is because motorcycles themselves are discriminatory.

Since we need to check the statistics instead of rely[ing] on "common knowledge", the NHTSA released the following traffic safety facts (check http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809908.PDF for more information):

Occupant Fatality Rate 2003

(per 100 million vehicle miles traveled):

Motorcycle: 38.93
Passenger Car: 1.23
Light Truck: 1.19

The Florida law is extremely well-considered... if some nut in a car travels 50 over, he's still far less likely to get killed (along with others in the car) as some guy on a motorcycle.

Your move, pro-motorcycle-speeders.

David raises some interesting points:I've done som...

2008-02-08T13:30:00.000-05:00

David raises some interesting points:

I've done some cursory research, and it looks like Mike Seate is justified in his opposition to Florida's HB 137, though I don't like the way he presents his argument. Florida already has plenty of laws on the books that punish all drivers (car and motorcycle) for reckless or high-speed driving; HB 137 singles out motorcyclists in particular by impounding the bike of any rider "charged with reckless driving or exceeding the speed limit by 30 miles per hour." (looks like the actual law is 30-over, not 50). Here is a summary of the proposed law.

I wholeheartedly endorse laws that take dangerous drivers off the road, but this law seems downright discriminatory. To summarize:

Drive a four-wheeled car more than 30mph over the limit: get a ticket and a "mandatory hearing before a designated official."

Drive a two-wheeled motorcycle more than 30mph over the limit: your vehicle is automatically impounded.

I have to agree with Mike that a high-speed car or truck is at least as dangerous as an equally high-speed motorcycle, and so should be subject to the same laws.

To summarize:

HB 137: unfair law.

Mike Seate: motorcycle-obsessed journalist with a great picture

Pitchers and Catchers report: can't come soon enough.