I dropped my motorcycle endorsement when I had kids. There were too many death notices in the newspaper where a guy about my age was killed because a car "didn't see them" and turned right in front of them.
In most cases there wasn't an indication that they were speeding or drunk or on drugs, just that other people weren't paying attention. And maybe that the rider didn't allow for that.
It's not actually the people riding like lunatics that manage to kill themselves on motorcycles at high rates. It's the old guys, riding back from "biker nights" at the bar, in full branded gear to include the do-rag and t-shirt. Lots of single rider, single bike accident with substantial alcohol in the blood.
I've ridden for many years, and I also fly small planes, so I'm quite aware of my higher-than-average risk profile, and have gone through a lot of studies and reading to determine how I can, as much as possible, mitigate the risks while still enjoying the activities.
For motorcycles, riding regularly, in full gear, while sober, gains you an awful lot. Riding infrequently is hard because you don't maintain the muscle memory, full gear turns most crashes into a "Invent new cusswords to remove the paint from your helmet, get up, and walk away" event (not all, obviously, but if you crash without gear, it's going to either suck a lot or end your life, and if you crash in gear it's a lot less likely to suck or kill you), and "bike nights at the bar" are just dumb.
Knowing the limits of your bike is also helpful. I did a few track days, decided I didn't want to go down this route, but very much appreciated the chance to learn (in a safe environment) how much further than my normal limits I could ride on the bike. I couldn't ride anywhere near the limits of my bike, and knew it, but I expanded the envelope of "I know I can make this bike do that," and it was occasionally useful. The guys riding wheelies down the highway, against what most people believe, actually don't kill themselves terribly often. They know the limits of their bike, they know what they can make it do, and if there's something that requires a rapid response, they can make the bike do it on demand. One of those guys has a car pull out in front of them, they're either able to stop competently, or aim for the new gap, lean the bike over, cut through the gap, and flip off the car. The guy who rides a big cruiser 300 miles a year to the bar is more likely to mentally lock up, lock the brakes (before antilocks were standard), and slam into the side of said vehicle. Often while sliding on the ground first, having locked the rear tire.
You also, if you're riding regularly, learn in a hurry how to identify the cars to watch out for. Maybe the slammed Honda with a fart can, park bench, and body damage is being driven by someone's mom, who is the most respectful person on the road. Don't care, I'm going to assume it's likely to do something very abrupt and stupid. And, often enough, they do.
But if you wear gear, ride a lot, and understand the limits of your bike, you can manage a lot of riding miles, very safely. As much as people make fun of the old couples on Goldwings in the glow-stick yellow riding gear, a lot of those people ride 30k+ miles/yr, for many, many years, entirely safely.
This is getting long, but general aviation accident records contain a lot of the same sort of thing - "Here's a short list of quick ways to die in an airplane. Don't do these and your life expectancy will increase dramatically."
And nothing here means that you can control all the risk. Sometimes, shit happens and there's nothing you can do about it, despite all your preparations (Gann's Fate is the Hunter is a great read on the subject). But you can radically balance the scales in your direction with the right planning.
In the United States, cops pull over most bikes, especially after 10 pm. It's almost like they just hate bikers?
The bikers I know are not getting buzzed at the local watering hole, and aiming the bike home. It's not the 70's.
In my county, the fatal bike crashes are usually new high end high performance bikes, on country roads. They are experienced, but pushing it. They are cold sober.
The days of having a few beers, and driving home on the bike, or even an old car, must be down across the county?
Cops realized a while ago that most Americans have no qualms over arresting a guy over a DUI, and they are villigant.
To vigilant in my opinion. (I heard in Texas if a dui defendant can prove they were not physically, or mentally impaired, while doing a computer simulation, they might get out of a dui? This might be just a rumor? I feel it's more fair, especially when a marginal dui can significantly impair your economic viability for years, especially for the poor.)
In upper class neighborhoods, it's usually the only crime they can solve, after pulling over 50 sober drivers?
My brother got a DUI over .04 BAC. He also had weed in his system from the day before, and clumsily told the cop the truth when asked. Bored officer, "Did you take any drugs?". My naieve brother, "well yesterday I smoked some weed.". Arrested, and lost the case.
My point is the DUI scare is real among everyone, but the naieve.
When I had my motorcycle, I was pulled over so many times for no reason it was maddening. It's the main reason I don't ride anymore.
Getting pulled over for no reason other than a cop hoping to nab a marginal dui is really irritating.
I've gotten to the point where I have two dash cameras always activated, and I try to not go out past 10 pm in an old car.
(I can offer this, if you are ever in Marin County CA, expect to be pulled over if driving a motorcycle at night. Also expect to be pulled over if you look ethnic, or drive an older vechicle. We have a bunch of bored cops, and they look for anything they can to fill up that duty sheet. Oh yea, they peer into bars, and follow patrons home.)
Marin County will also pull you over on a bicycle because they don't like cyclists. And issue several hundred dollar tickets for going too fast, passing cars while they are stopped in a turn lane, riding over a crosswalk with small children... https://twitter.com/WarrenJWells/status/1386328677378494468?...
Thanks for this thread. A weird experience makes sense now: I met this man when he was on a bike. I figured it was a local asshole trying to be aggressive to a stranger in front of the woman he was riding with, with maybe 20% odds of also being an off duty cop.
Either that, or the Sausalito community just really shares a passionate opposition to cyclists rolling along the uncontested sides of quiet T intersections.
One part of being human is the ability to rationalize situations rather then be rational about the situation. Two very different things.
Our biases prevent us from recognizing this in ourselves ever.
Not saying you're rationalizing your behavior, but I'm saying it's a possibility. The only way to know for sure is to provide data to back up what you're saying.
What is your statistical risk profile based off of the conditions your provided?
It's certainly a possibility, and I've not sat down with a spreadsheet to optimize my risk profiles.
I like riding motorcycles, so I try to do it in as safe a way as reasonably possible. Right now, given that I'm typically on ill-handling sidecar rigs, that involves gear and no longer riding two wheels frequently.
I like small planes. Again, I try to find safer ways to do it.
But I recognize that these are still riskier activities, and I do them because I enjoy them, entirely aware of the risks involved.
"Trying to do the research to be able to quantify my risks and mitigations in a spreadsheet" doesn't sound terribly enjoyable to me, so I've no intensions of doing it.
The median age of riders is ~50 while the average age of fatalities is 42. People over 50 make up significantly less than half of fatalities.
However, you are still kind of correct- the number of fatalities picks up strongly at 50+. People 35-45 tend to be the safest. People 50+ are still on average significantly safer than <30, even those who are first riding late in life.
Motorcycle fatalities are heavily associated with risk-taking more than anything else. There are more people like that <30, but there are plenty of Boomers riding recklessly as well. 27% of motorcycle riders in fatal accidents are alcohol-impaired, by far the highest of any vehicle category. Passenger cars and light trucks are 21% and 20%.
> motorcycle riders in fatal accidents are alcohol-impaired,by far the highest of any vehicle category.
I think this is attributable mostly to the fact that fatality rate on any motorcycle accident is higher (for obvious reasons) and that alcohol is especially a contributing factor to single vehicle accidents.
If you are tipsy and go into a corner a bit fast in a car you can usually react in a way that will save it; many "gut" level reactions on a motorcycle will cause bad things to happen (e.g. most braking while already in a corner). Touching a soft shoulder is much, much easier to recover, etc.
> The median age of riders is ~50 while the average age of fatalities is 42. People over 50 make up significantly less than half of fatalities.
I'm not sure if you were trying to imply there was some connection between those sentences? You could easily have more than 50% of fatalities over 50, and still get an average of 42 (for example, deaths clustered mostly in either twenties or fifties).
Are they? Cause motocycle incidents I knew of were all young overconfident guys. No alcohol was involved and it was during the day. The traffic rules were broken tho (speed and aggressive riding).
> It's not actually the people riding like lunatics that manage to kill themselves on motorcycles at high rates.
There are a couple of high risk groups. One is young guys with a combination of inexperience and a desire to go fast(er than conditions/skills allow). Another is older guys, often who haven't ridden for years if ever, who get into trouble. Again inexperience is a big factor in both.
Last time I looked at the numbers, the peaks were at 6 months to a year of experience riding, and the second at 3 to 4 years. The first peak being generally due to inexperience, the second to overconfidence.
Lack of regular experience is definitely a contributing factor. Muscle memory has a half life.
Indeed. This is part of why I sold one of my motorcycles - a powerful, fairly aggressive sport touring bike. It was my daily driver for about 2.5 years, and I rode it typically 7 days a week, around 1300-1500 miles a month. I knew the bike, and I had the "edge" - there was no question about what the bike was going to do. I knew it, I knew how it responded, I knew what I could ask of it. If I didn't ride for a few days, I could feel that the edge was dull when I got back on - there was just a little something missing, corners were a smidge sloppier, etc.
And I was no longer riding enough miles on that bike to keep that. I knew I was ham fisted when riding it compared to what I used to be, and I just don't put enough miles on anymore that I was able to keep it up.
I now ride the motorcycle version of a Russian tractor (one of a few Urals - sidecar rigs), and they're both entirely different from two wheels and demanding in different ways. But they don't have the sort of instant response of a sportbike either. A good sportbike does what you asked, right now. Capable of it or not, it does what you told it to do, and if that includes an unintentional wheelie, well, you did ask for it with your throttle inputs. The Urals have their own nasty handling corner cases, but are a lot more forgiving in many ways, and you really have to muscle them around at times. A subtle input gets entirely ignored.
For broadly similar reasons I have a 650cc twin sports tourer. It is docile, mild mannered, and has enough reserve power at the speed limit should I need it.
The older guys scare me more, especially on scenic drives like Blue Ridge. They can outright bully normal drivers (surrounding them to force them to go faster). Of course, these are the vast minority of motorcyclists, but it's still a recurrent issue.
One thing about places like the Blue Ridge is they are popular enough for tourism that they draw people from all over the country - including those who have never or rarely driven similar roads. That plus being crowded can be a perfect storm for stupid accidents.
Interesting. I'd be curious to read your thoughts on mitigating risk with general aviation. Is there a checklist somewhere of "always do these 20 things" or do you have to comb the NTSB accident records yourself?
You don't have to comb the NTSB records - they're aggregated by various groups.
A lot of them involve loss of control of some form or another - typically in instrument flight conditions, often enough by someone who either doesn't have an instrument rating or is badly out of practice. A VFR only pilot in the clouds has a lifespan measured in minutes.
Running out of fuel for some reason is depressingly common - and while an off-airport landing isn't automatically fatal, "pilot failed to monitor fuel in flight" is a pretty stupid reason to crash.
And avoid light twins. They're a lot more demanding when an engine fails, and typically don't handle off airport landings very well. There don't tend to be many injuries with twins - either you handle everything properly and land safely, or the aircraft leaves a small smoking crater in the ground.
A lot of it is simply looking at the sky, forecast, and deciding "You know, this just isn't a good day to put a small airplane in the sky." I consider night VFR to be fairly risky too. Clouds are invisible, visual illusions in sparsely populated areas are common, and it's hard to find a nice flat area to land if your engine quits at night.
Sometimes this just makes me think that every pilot needs some IRF experience and a fuel gauge that has an alarm that says 'land now, you moron' or such.
Small airfcraft fuel gauges are notoriously unreliable. If it's reading low, yes, be alarmed. But sometimes the float gets stuck, so if your estimate for how much fuel you should have burned puts your fuel lower, trust that.
At least in the UK, getting a private pilot's licence did involve a couple of hours of simulated IFR. Not enough to do anything complex. But enough to turn 180, and be able to follow detailed controller instructions.
In the US, you need a couple hours of simulated instrument time as well. One difference in the US is that you can legally fly VFR at night - even if it may be unwise in a lot of areas. A lot of countries (I believe the UK is one of them?) require an instrument ticket for flying at night.
If you're up over, say, Iowa at night? Tons of farms, flat, lights everywhere? It's fine. Pretty, you can still see stuff, and short of an invisible power line for an off airport landing, it's almost like flying during the day.
Out in Idaho, in the mountains? You're pretty dumb to fly VFR at night. There's no light anywhere, lots of hard rock, and plenty of clouds that like to appear with no warning.
But, yes, fuel gauges suck. The problem is that even if you put something like a fuel totalizer in, you still only know how much has gone into the engine, not how much is left in the wings. I understand a loose or missing fuel cap will drain a Cessna's wing tank in about 10-15 minutes.
Huh. Wait, aircraft use float based fuel gauges still? I thought everything had gone electro-resistive since you'll get the same measurement regardless of orientation of the tank if you place your sensors right.
I remember coming across that as a specific design challenge to overcome. Floats don't read the same when flying upside-down.
In most cases there wasn't an indication that they were speeding or drunk or on drugs, just that other people weren't paying attention. And maybe that the rider didn't allow for that.