[ehnto]

I don't remember the exact numbers anymore, but in Australia at least the statistics suggest that if you: Don't ride under the influence, Don't ride without a license, Ride with a helment, and Don't ride an unregistered bike,

Then you have decreased your risk by more than 50%. So using the articles methods, you will be exposed to less than 200 micromorts.

Servicing your motorcyle and having taken a motorcycle saftey course just once also increases your liklihood of survival.

Another key part of the dangers are where you ride, being more likely to die in the CBD than anywhere else, and likely related, just under 50% of accidents are caused by other motorists than the rider. Many riders seem to think it's skewed much more toward cars being at fault, it's useful to know that's not the case.

A final tidbit I recall is that the biggest risk group is 40-60 year old, returning riders. Not younger new riders as you might have expected.

The interesting part of all of that though is knowing such broad stats can not truly reveal your personal risk factor, and that there is a lot you can do to help your cause.

[obstinate]

There are other factors too. The less powerful your bike, the safer you are. That one is actually a pretty significant factor.

I was interested in riding a motorcycle once, but I found that even if I assumed I was at the safest end of the spectrum, my risk was still many times that of driving. And the comparison is not apt because many of the risk factors I mitigate on a motorcycle I also mitigate in a car, for e.g., by being a careful driver, minimizing the amount of driving I do, driving slowly, and never driving drunk. So it's not like the motorcycle has become safer relative to the car. It's just that both skew less risky for me.

So I decided I would not do it. Maybe when I'm older and other risk factors are more pressing.

[wapz]

I probably put in about 100k miles on motorcycles over the years and never had an accident/incident. I do not agree that a less powerful bike makes you safer (I only rode sports bikes btw). The slower bikes (250cc or so) generally had much worse brakes and couldn't accelerate if needed. I found 600cc bikes were the easiest to control and "safest." That of course is only true if you are going the same speed as the counterpart (which is difficult especially if you're riding a 1000cc).

[obstinate]

> I probably put in about 100k miles on motorcycles over the years and never had an accident/incident.

Cool!

> I do not agree that a less powerful bike makes you safer (I only rode sports bikes btw).

You don't need to agree. It's a statistical fact that power and danger are associated. May not be causal. Probably isn't, in fact.

[ehnto]

I had a similar experience. The impetus for me was always building bikes rather than actually riding them though, so the compromise was getting a project car instead! I haven't calculated the micromorts of circuit racing mind you..

[obstinate]

Probably depends way too much on personal factors like experience, speed, which course, what type of vehicle . . .

[ehnto]

Exactly, it would be nearly impossible to figure out. Unless you were in a particular long running event with hisotorical data.

[vonmoltke]

> I don't remember the exact numbers anymore, but in Australia at least the statistics suggest that if you: ..., Don't ride without a license, ..., and Don't ride an unregistered bike

How does lack of a piece of paper increase your chances of dying?

[betenoire]

It puts you in the category of people who don't follow basic instructions.

[vonmoltke]

I suppose there is some correlation there, but stating it like that makes it sound like causation since there is a causal relationship between deaths and the other two things presented in the same statement.

[komali2]

That's the important bit to remember for a lot of these motorcycle statistics - so a squid with no gear might think "whatever man, I took the motorcycle safety course and I wear a helmet! I can lane at a delta of 40mph no problem!" Rather, all of those things combined (helmet wearing certificate-bearing registered-bike-owning) are the traits of a safe rider anyway, not necessarily the things that cause them to be a safe rider.

[ehnto]

That was the understanding I had, that not being in the group of people who do those types of things is what lowers your risk. But all of this is inferred by "what we know about the people who died" which as the article alludes to, is not a perfect measure.

[ageofwant]

It does not, it tags you with attributes usually associated with the safer group. That's how statistical correlation works. It does not have any power, not in this sad amagic tyrannical causal universe we find ourselves in. Its a pity really, I'd sacrifice a horizontal vestal virgin for a piece of paper like that.