Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Do you have a plan to cope with High(er) gas prices?

Do you have a plan to cope with High(er) gas prices? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2008, 12:56 PM
 
$3000 per year in gas = 833 gallons at $3.60 per gallon. At 25 mpg, it is roughly 21000 miles. How many really would ride their motorbikes 21000 miles per year... if that's what they were driving in their car before?

And yes, many people who get into accidents on motorcycles are bad drivers or under the influence, but the same is true in cars. Nonetheless, one is 35X more likely to die on a motorcycle than in a car, per distance travelled.

Anyways, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. While there are many approaches to these problems, I think some people (not you) haven't really thought it through when they go out and buy that Harley. Or maybe they have... and are using the gas argument as an excuse to justify their purchases to their wives. "Honey, look at all that money we'll save on gas!"
     
maxintosh
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 01:26 PM
 
In the city:


In the 'burbs:


Away from transit (gas included):
     
design219
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 02:10 PM
 
( Last edited by design219; May 15, 2008 at 02:51 PM. )
__________________________________________________

My stupid iPhone game: Nesen Probe, it's rather old, annoying and pointless, but it's free.
Was free. Now it's gone. Never to be seen again.
Off to join its brother and sister apps that could not
keep up with the ever updating iOS. RIP Nesen Probe.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
And yes, many people who get into accidents on motorcycles are bad drivers or under the influence, but the same is true in cars.
It's not the same. The consequences of being a total idiot in a car vs doing that on a bike are worlds apart. If the risks involved in doing things right in a car or bike is A and B, and the risks for doing things wrong (speeding, eating, cell phone, etc) for a car or bike is X and Y, then the differential between A and B is negligible compared to the differential between X and Y. Or to put it another way, the window for killing yourself is far wider on a bike, but the difference is 99% on the jackass end, not on the sane-driving end. You simply can't act irresponsibly on a bike and expect to live; the same is not true in a car. If you're the type of driver that just plain can't drive responsibly, then a bike is not for you (and no solution is right for everyone). But for people who are going to drive responsibly, looking at the numbers for all combined is as meaningless as looking at the numbers of people eaten by lions worldwide and ignoring the fact that you live on a continent with no lions in it.

Nonetheless, one is 35X more likely to die on a motorcycle than in a car, per distance travelled.
III - Motorcycle Crashes

Anyways, I'm just playing the devil's advocate here. While there are many approaches to these problems, I think some people (not you) haven't really thought it through when they go out and buy that Harley. Or maybe they have... and are using the gas argument as an excuse to justify their purchases to their wives. "Honey, look at all that money we'll save on gas!"
You might notice that your link shows cruisers (like Harleys) have 1/4 the fatality rate of sport bikes. The risks also increase for speeding, riding without a helmet, riding without training, riding while drinking, and a laundry list of other things that --and this is the important part-- are not things you're likely to do if your motivation is to save gas. But these are activities that are over represented in motorcycling in general (compared to other vehicles). They totally skew the statistics.

I'd like to see statistics that only take into account drivers/riders who obey the laws, wear helmets, were properly trained, and weren't drinking. But I never have. I'd also like to see scooter-only stats, since that population doesn't have the jackass factor to skew the statistics.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
The advantage is decreasing:

Diesel is currently around €1.40 here, with regular/super at €1.44 a liter.

Seeing as Diesels are taxed so much higher, I'm beginning to reconsider - I'll have to figure in mileage, of course, and kilometers driven.
150.9 for a liter of Diesel today; 154.9 for regular/high octane.

That's US$ 8.81 per gallon of Diesel, and $9.05 for a gallon of regular.

****in' ouch.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's not the same. The consequences of being a total idiot in a car vs doing that on a bike are worlds apart. If the risks involved in doing things right in a car or bike is A and B, and the risks for doing things wrong (speeding, eating, cell phone, etc) for a car or bike is X and Y, then the differential between A and B is negligible compared to the differential between X and Y. Or to put it another way, the window for killing yourself is far wider on a bike, but the difference is 99% on the jackass end, not on the sane-driving end. You simply can't act irresponsibly on a bike and expect to live; the same is not true in a car. If you're the type of driver that just plain can't drive responsibly, then a bike is not for you (and no solution is right for everyone). But for people who are going to drive responsibly, looking at the numbers for all combined is as meaningless as looking at the numbers of people eaten by lions worldwide and ignoring the fact that you live on a continent with no lions in it.

You might notice that your link shows cruisers (like Harleys) have 1/4 the fatality rate of sport bikes. The risks also increase for speeding, riding without a helmet, riding without training, riding while drinking, and a laundry list of other things that --and this is the important part-- are not things you're likely to do if your motivation is to save gas. But these are activities that are over represented in motorcycling in general (compared to other vehicles). They totally skew the statistics.

I'd like to see statistics that only take into account drivers/riders who obey the laws, wear helmets, were properly trained, and weren't drinking. But I never have. I'd also like to see scooter-only stats, since that population doesn't have the jackass factor to skew the statistics.
So you agree that bikes are MUCH more dangerous than cars then.

Not that it's a big leap in logic. It's pretty easy to see how a vehicle with no roll cage and no seat belt just might be a little more dangerous...

P.S. If say the cruiser death rate is only 25% the overall motorcycle rate, that would mean it is still 9X the rate for cars.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
So you completely agree that bikes are MUCH more dangerous than cars then.
:: scratches head ::



(Edit: btw, some numbers here— Motorcycle death rates doubled; supersport bikes the most dangerous: Consumer Reports Cars Blog )
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by design219 View Post
Doesn't appear to be cost effective, yet.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2008, 11:31 PM
 
^^^ That is a going to be favourite for underaged moonshiners.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
So you agree that bikes are MUCH more dangerous than cars then.
I guess I wasn't clear enough for you. For the population of people who are going to drive badly, bikes are MUCH more dangerous than cars. For people who actually care about safety, bikes are NOT much more dangerous than cars. I'd better stop there, before you get confused again.

Not that it's a big leap in logic. It's pretty easy to see how a vehicle with no roll cage and no seat belt just might be a little more dangerous...
And there's the issue. How many times has your roll cage saved your life? For me, zero. It's great to have, but for some people it's overkill.

P.S. If say the cruiser death rate is only 25% the overall motorcycle rate, that would mean it is still 9X the rate for cars.
I'm glad you noticed that. Did you also notice that speeders account for 25% of crashes, unlicensed riders account for 37%, and riding after drinking for 34%? Factor those (ILLEGAL things) in and you're down to less than 3x (for people who choose to obey the law), assuming each of those are independent (and cruiser riders are certainly stereotyped doing most of those). Also, the latest statistic I've found on training (the Hurt report) showed that 92% of bike fatalities were of riders who weren't trained; in other words they were "taught" by either family members or self-taught. If you take that into account, then your risks are cut by 11x if you just take the MSF novice rider course. And we haven't even mentioned helmet use yet.

What I'm getting at is that if you obey the laws and get proper training, the risks are not much different for cars vs bikes. If you don't obey the laws, and don't get proper training, the risks go way up for bikes, but not so much for cars. So you have to ask yourself, are you responsible enough to actually obey the laws (it's not that difficult), or are you going to break them? If the former, you're generally going to be ok on a bike. Unfortunately for people who blindly bite at statistics, the people who don't tend to obey "the rules" are also drawn to motorcycles. I'd still like to see data on just scooter safety; I guess those stats don't make for a good attention-grabbing headline.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 12:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I guess I wasn't clear enough for you. For the population of people who are going to drive badly, bikes are MUCH more dangerous than cars. For people who actually care about safety, bikes are NOT much more dangerous than cars. I'd better stop there, before you get confused again.
See, I *thought* that's what you'd said.

There is another factor that you're omitting, though:

Accidents caused by OTHER drivers are still MUCH more likely to result in casualties among bikers than among car drivers, regardless of how safety-conscious you are. If somebody cuts you or doesn't respect right-of-way, it really doesn't matter that much whether you were sober or drunk.
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 03:52 AM
 
Gas prices bad, but hey.

As for motorcycles, I'd like to see them banned on public roads.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 04:10 AM
 
I am thinking about getting rid of my car and riding a bike.

Gas + Car Payment + Insurance + Registration + Parking Tickets *Student / Service Employee during economic slump = Unaffordable.

Quickly is the time coming that I must choose between school and a car. Sadly, I have a loan on my car, and may have to take the hit for it to my credit.
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 04:12 AM
 
d'oh… uble post
( Last edited by angelmb; May 16, 2008 at 09:20 AM. Reason: double post)
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 04:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
150.9 for a liter of Diesel today; 154.9 for regular/high octane.

That's US$ 8.81 per gallon of Diesel, and $9.05 for a gallon of regular.

****in' ouch.
Diesel is yet more expensive than unleaded regular here in Spain
 
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Accidents caused by OTHER drivers are still MUCH more likely to result in casualties among bikers than among car drivers, regardless of how safety-conscious you are. If somebody cuts you or doesn't respect right-of-way, it really doesn't matter that much whether you were sober or drunk.
Bingo.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
And there's the issue. How many times has your roll cage saved your life? For me, zero. It's great to have, but for some people it's overkill.
Heh.

Bike helmets are just an annoyance and aren't necessary for responsible riders.
That seat belt law should be struck down. It's just a cash grab by the governments.
Crumple zones are just a gimmick, and don't actually protect people in the car. If you need the crumple zones then you're not driving responsibly.
Air bags are a waste of money. Drive safely and you'll be fine.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
See, I *thought* that's what you'd said.
I'm glad someone is thinking

There is another factor that you're omitting, though:

Accidents caused by OTHER drivers are still MUCH more likely to result in casualties among bikers than among car drivers, regardless of how safety-conscious you are. If somebody cuts you or doesn't respect right-of-way, it really doesn't matter that much whether you were sober or drunk.
It's kind of a different topic. One can try to reason out and predict what will cause the most risk, or one can try to look at the statistics and see what's _actually_ causing the most risk. People tend to merge the two and assume that their seat-of-the-pants intuition that the 34x risk factor must be due to the reasons they think it is, which is totally bogus. It's due to riders not following the laws of the road.

As low as the incidence of collisions is, it could be lowered significantly if people watched out for other drivers driving recklessly. The variation in risks due to this type of preparedness is greater among car drivers than it is between car drivers and bike riders.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's kind of a different topic.
No it isn't. Deaths on bikes is higher, because bikes are inherently more dangerous. That is a simple fact. You don't get a pass in a collision just because you have taken a course.

You know, sometimes the KISS principle actually applies... A huge part of the reason that people die more on bikes... is cuz bikes are more dangerous. Go figure.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Heh.

Bike helmets are just an annoyance and aren't necessary for responsible riders.
That seat belt law should be struck down. It's just a cash grab by the governments.
Crumple zones are just a gimmick, and don't actually protect people in the car. If you need the crumple zones then you're not driving responsibly.
Air bags are a waste of money. Drive safely and you'll be fine.
Risk/reward. Everything we do carries some risk. If you're the type of person that's going to obsess about risk, you're the last person that should be ignoring what the statistics actually say. You're far better off knowing what your actual risks are, not some imaginary boogeyman. You tried to imply that switching to two wheels to save gas money was nearly an order of magnitude more risk. I'm merely showing you that it's not nearly that bad. It's only that bad if you switch to two wheels for thrill-seeking and risk-taking (duh), not for commuting.

I'll point out that every last thing on that list of yours is NOT mandatory for driving/riding in a good portion of the US. The reason they're required in NEW cars is the same reason I gave above: risk/reward. They're so trivial to implement that the very smallest risk makes them worthwhile; there's no downside of building them in. But if you drive an old car which predates those safety features, you're not facing a significantly increased risk of catastrophic injury.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 10:43 AM
 
Switching to a motorcycle to save gas money is nearly an order of magnitude more risk of death, on a per distance travelled basis.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
No it isn't. Deaths on bikes is higher, because bikes are inherently more dangerous. That is a simple fact. You don't get a pass in a collision just because you have taken a course.

You know, sometimes the KISS principle actually applies... A huge part of the reason that people die more on bikes... is cuz bikes are more dangerous. Go figure.
It's not a "huge part." The risk of crashing a bike is 10x higher due to improper training than it is from "inherent danger." All riders share the inherent danger, but people breaking the law and riding without training are over-represented in accidents more than 10:1. The only "huge part" that inherent danger plays is in your bias against them.

I'm not trying to convince you to ride, I'm only trying to reveal your misrepresentations about bike safety.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Switching to two wheels to save gas money is nearly an order of magnitude more risk.
And yet your own link refutes that statement (unless you tend to drive to work drunk). I wonder why you're so convinced.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 10:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
It's not a "huge part." The risk of crashing a bike is 10x higher due to improper training than it is from "inherent danger." All riders share the inherent danger, but people breaking the law and riding without training are over-represented in accidents more than 10:1. The only "huge part" that inherent danger plays is in your bias against them.

I'm not trying to convince you to ride, I'm only trying to reveal your misrepresentations about bike safety.
I owned a bike. I took a course. I always wore a helmet. I never drank before riding. I'd consider getting another bike, now that I have more space. (I got rid of the bike when I bought a townhouse with no space to store it.)

However, I'm not naive enough to think motorcycles are safe machines compared to cars, even with so-called "safe" drivers. Motorcycles are inherently unsafe vehicles. The misrepresentation here is your trying to call them safe compared to cars. Any self-respecting and realistic rider would simply call that poppycock, cuz it IS poppycock. Basically, if you're a rider, you have to ride as if the whole world is out to kill you. Riding that way will help minimize your risk of death on a bike, but regardless, the risk is still significantly much higher than in a car in a collision.

And yet your own link refutes that statement (unless you tend to drive to work drunk). I wonder why you're so convinced.
No it doesn't. What it suggests is that the BAC = 0% is 50% of car drivers, and 22% of motorcycle riders in fatal collisions.

So yes, motorcycle riders tend to die after drinking more often, but that nowhere near compensates for the hugely higher death rate on motorcycles.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I owned a bike. I took a course. I always wore a helmet. I never drank before riding. I'd consider getting another bike, now that I have more space. (I got rid of the bike when I bought a townhouse with no space to store it.)
Did you ever dump it? How many miles would you say you rode in total? Just curious.

The misrepresentation here is your trying to call them safe compared to cars.
That makes it sound like they're safER than cars. They're not, and I never said they were. But I would say they're 2-3 times as dangerous as cars (when following the rules), not 30-40 times like you're saying. For some context, 16-17 year old drivers are at about 4x higher risk than car drivers in general, but that didn't stop me from driving at that age.

No it doesn't. What it suggests is that the BAC = 0% is 50% of car drivers, and 22% of motorcycle riders in fatal collisions.

So yes, motorcycle riders tend to die after drinking more often, but that nowhere near compensates for the hugely higher death rate on motorcycles.
Drinking makes up a quarter, and speeding third, and licensing a third, and training 9/10ths, and pretty soon you're there. I should have said "unless you break the law in your daily commute," it just wasn't as cute a phrase. I'll try to be more precise for you in the future
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Did you ever dump it?
Never. It was only a 550 cc though, and not a harder to manage heavy 1100 cc monster.

How many miles would you say you rode in total? Just curious.
Not too far. Four digit km. I only rode it in perfect weather, and not for very long before I bought the house and had to get rid of the bike.

That makes it sound like they're safER than cars. They're not, and I never said they were. But I would say they're 2-3 times as dangerous as cars (when following the rules), not 30-40 times like you're saying.
2-3X for a "safe" motorbiker is likely a gross underestimate, when the overall risk is 35X. Even if you drop it by 3 quarters, that would still be 9X as risky - an order of magnitude greater than the risk in a car. And that's for ALL car drivers, not just the risky ones.

And even if it were as "low " as 3X, 3X as risky is still pretty substantial.

For some context, 16-17 year old drivers are at about 4x higher risk than car drivers in general, but that didn't stop me from driving at that age.
It didn't stop me from driving either. However, nowhere did I claim that 16-17 drivers are equally low risk, so why even mention it? You're just changing the subject.


Drinking makes up a quarter, and speeding third, and licensing a third, and training 9/10ths, and pretty soon you're there. I should have said "unless you break the law in your daily commute," it just wasn't as cute a phrase. I'll try to be more precise for you in the future
These are your facts? So, in other words, you're just wishing it were true, and telling everyone it's true as if it were gospel.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Never. It was only a 550 cc though, and not a harder to manage heavy 1100 cc monster.
We're talking about people who want to save gas. A 550 is exactly the bike they're going to want in order to do that.

2-3X for a "safe" motorbiker is likely a gross underestimate, when the overall risk is 35X. Even if you drop it by 3 quarters, that would still be 9X as risky - an order of magnitude greater than the risk in a car
If you exclude sport bikes and supersports that's another 75% off the risk, according to your link. If you are properly trained, that's another 92% off the risk, according to the Hurt report. Don't let the squids color your impression of "safe" motorbikers.


And even if it were as "low " as 3X, 3X as risky is still pretty substantial.
That depends entirely on what risk you're multiplying by 3. If it's 1/1000 -> 1/300, I'd agree. If it's more like 1/100,000 -> 1/30,000, I wouldn't, and apparently neither would you, since those are the risks for 16 yo drivers and you just said that didn't stop you from becoming one.


It didn't stop me from driving either. However, nowhere did I claim that 16-17 drivers are equally low risk
No, I did.



These are your facts? So, in other words, you're just wishing it were true, and telling everyone it's true as if it were gospel.
They're not "my facts," I got them directly from the link you posted in this thread, and from the Hurt report.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If you exclude sport bikes and supersports that's another 75% off the risk, according to your link. If you are properly trained, that's another 92% off the risk, according to the Hurt report. Don't let the squids color your impression of "safe" motorbikers.
Sorry, but these are not additive. You should know that.

Furthermore, arguing that suggests you're trying to compare the lowest risk motorcycle riders vs. the average car drive (which includes stupid drunk yahoo car drivers). Not exactly a direct comparison.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
the lowest risk motorcycle riders vs. the average car drive (which includes stupid drunk yahoo car drivers). Not exactly a direct comparison.
Commuters are not going to be stupid drunk yahoo car drivers.

Sorry, but these are not additive. You should know that.
They're not co-incident either. They're somewhere in between. I'm only illustrating how the statistic you chose to repeat is bogus.

If all the risk groups quantified in this thread overlap as much as possible (favoring your argument), then the highest risk you can claim for a safety conscious rider who chooses a standard or cruiser is 1/4 the overall risk, 8.5x that of cars (that's ignoring the Hurt report's finding about training, and only looking at speeding, licensing, alcohol and bike type, which are taken from your link). If they overlap only due to pure chance (favoring my side, and including the training stat from the Hurt report), then they add up to 0.22x that of cars (5 times LESS risky than cars). Obviously I never claimed that. The truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes, and the half-way point between those extremes is what I gave as my estimate: about 2-3x more risky for bikes. I already took into account that they're not additive when I gave that estimate.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2008, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Commuters are not going to be stupid drunk yahoo car drivers.



They're not co-incident either. They're somewhere in between. I'm only illustrating how the statistic you chose to repeat is bogus.

If all the risk groups quantified in this thread overlap as much as possible (favoring your argument), then the highest risk you can claim for a safety conscious rider who chooses a standard or cruiser is 1/4 the overall risk, 8.5x that of cars (that's ignoring the Hurt report's finding about training, and only looking at speeding, licensing, alcohol and bike type, which are taken from your link). If they overlap only due to pure chance (favoring my side, and including the training stat from the Hurt report), then they add up to 0.22x that of cars (5 times LESS risky than cars). Obviously I never claimed that. The truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes, and the half-way point between those extremes is what I gave as my estimate: about 2-3x more risky for bikes. I already took into account that they're not additive when I gave that estimate.
Again, you're assuming all of that, comparing the BEST bikers vs. ALL car drivers. ie. That's a totally bogus comparison.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:30 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,