You say it’s bad because it normalizes by distance traveled, but you don’t say why normalizing by distance is bad. It makes perfect sense to me as it treats all modes of transportation equally. It allows you to approximate the answer to, “if I have to travel a set distance to my destination then which mode of transportation is safest?”
It projects that motorcycles are dangerous by distance driven, however you drive a moyoorycle way less than a car, so I would like to compare to actually death numbers. Because I might do 1000 miles in my car in a week, but only 20 on my motorcycle. So am I more at risk? Or no, because I’m traveling 100x less miles. That’s what I mean.
But that’s the whole point of normalizing by distance traveled. If you drive your motorcycle 100x less and it still kills you, then that’s evidence that driving motorcycles is more dangerous than cars.
I’d need to correlated with amount of deaths per vehicle and actual stats of real motorcycle distances.
I understand there is no safety cage and inherently less protection. But there is a skew here.
Like if we add deaths by riding a shopping cart and it happens once in one mile, then you have a billion deaths by this charts logic; The stats get skewed in small sample sizes.
There is not an evident skew, and you haven’t been able to articulate the source of one.
The number of miles motorcycles are ridden and the number of motorcycle deaths is unfortunately not a small sample size, so your shopping cart example isn’t really a great analogy.
2022 study, motorcycles accounted for 3.7% of all vehicles sold but only 0.7% of all miles travelled. It is too small a samples size to be a good comparison.
0.7% of all miles travelled is still a pretty fucking large number, infact, according to these numbers
0.7% off all vehicle miles in 2022 was still was 224 Billion miles
Because people don’t take an airplane when traveling 3 miles. It’s really not fair to compare a device designed to haul hundreds of people thousands of miles across oceans with something designed to carry a single person a few blocks. Airplanes and bikes aren’t substitutes for each other.
It’s like comparing my garden trowel with a commercial excavator. Yeah, thr excavator moves more dirt more quickly, but you don’t use one to weed a garden or use a trowel to grade a building site.
I’d still measure both by ability to move dirt if my objective is to move dirt. This chart compares modes of transport; if your purpose for riding a bicycle is pleasure or cost or whatever then you can make your own personal adjustments, but if you want to decide what’s the safest way to do a daily 10 mile commute then this chart will give you that.
They literally are substitutes. If planes didn’t exist then more people would ride motorcycles for very long distances. They may even take their motorcycles on ferries to make their trips possible if they have to.
No, clearly not. But I’ve already explained how they are substitutes and you just ignored my point.
Not that they need to be substitutes in the first place. Any mode of transportation is going to be more or less dangerous than any other mode of transportation, and that alone is enough to compare them. You don’t need to be able to literally substitute a plane for a motorcycle in every situation to analyze the differences in the danger between them.
You say it’s bad because it normalizes by distance traveled, but you don’t say why normalizing by distance is bad. It makes perfect sense to me as it treats all modes of transportation equally. It allows you to approximate the answer to, “if I have to travel a set distance to my destination then which mode of transportation is safest?”
It projects that motorcycles are dangerous by distance driven, however you drive a moyoorycle way less than a car, so I would like to compare to actually death numbers. Because I might do 1000 miles in my car in a week, but only 20 on my motorcycle. So am I more at risk? Or no, because I’m traveling 100x less miles. That’s what I mean.
But that’s the whole point of normalizing by distance traveled. If you drive your motorcycle 100x less and it still kills you, then that’s evidence that driving motorcycles is more dangerous than cars.
I’d need to correlated with amount of deaths per vehicle and actual stats of real motorcycle distances.
I understand there is no safety cage and inherently less protection. But there is a skew here.
Like if we add deaths by riding a shopping cart and it happens once in one mile, then you have a billion deaths by this charts logic; The stats get skewed in small sample sizes.
There is not an evident skew, and you haven’t been able to articulate the source of one.
The number of miles motorcycles are ridden and the number of motorcycle deaths is unfortunately not a small sample size, so your shopping cart example isn’t really a great analogy.
2022 study, motorcycles accounted for 3.7% of all vehicles sold but only 0.7% of all miles travelled. It is too small a samples size to be a good comparison.
0.7% of all miles travelled is still a pretty fucking large number, infact, according to these numbers 0.7% off all vehicle miles in 2022 was still was 224 Billion miles
OK , that is a lot then. Which makes sense for USA - being so stretched out compared to other countries.
Because people don’t take an airplane when traveling 3 miles. It’s really not fair to compare a device designed to haul hundreds of people thousands of miles across oceans with something designed to carry a single person a few blocks. Airplanes and bikes aren’t substitutes for each other.
It’s like comparing my garden trowel with a commercial excavator. Yeah, thr excavator moves more dirt more quickly, but you don’t use one to weed a garden or use a trowel to grade a building site.
I’d still measure both by ability to move dirt if my objective is to move dirt. This chart compares modes of transport; if your purpose for riding a bicycle is pleasure or cost or whatever then you can make your own personal adjustments, but if you want to decide what’s the safest way to do a daily 10 mile commute then this chart will give you that.
You gonna do a 10-mile commute on an airplane?
You use the lines of the chart that are relevant to the kind of journey you want to make. This should not need explaining.
You’re just being argumentative for its own sake.
They literally are substitutes. If planes didn’t exist then more people would ride motorcycles for very long distances. They may even take their motorcycles on ferries to make their trips possible if they have to.
You gonna bike across an ocean? You gonna take an airplane to the grocery store?
None of the other listed modes of transportation would be used to cross the ocean (depending on how generous you want to be with “ferry”).
But for domestic travel, no planes would mean more trips by automobile. And inevitably, some of this would translate to more motorcycles.
No, clearly not. But I’ve already explained how they are substitutes and you just ignored my point.
Not that they need to be substitutes in the first place. Any mode of transportation is going to be more or less dangerous than any other mode of transportation, and that alone is enough to compare them. You don’t need to be able to literally substitute a plane for a motorcycle in every situation to analyze the differences in the danger between them.
Pick your destination, now ignore all forms of transport that are obviously unsuitable. Now off you go.
Should include walking/cycling but health benefits are harder to factor in as I am pretty sure the risk of death is lower than the health benefits.
plenty of people use planes to travel to nearby destinations that just don’t have road or waterway access