Simple poll: MSC vs. Motorcycle

[Raza]

Bikes have the name "donorcycles" for a reason. Girlfriend works in a hospital and won't get near the things.

And I don't know about you guys but with my state being so poor the roads are shit right now. I'm on the look out for pot holes every time I roll out in the RX-8. Don't want any bent rims.
I can't think of what would happen if you hit these things in a bike.

I'm pretty much suicidal anyway.  But right now I'm leaning car first.

[MX793]

Bikes have the name "donorcycles" for a reason. Girlfriend works in a hospital and won't get near the things.

And I don't know about you guys but with my state being so poor the roads are shit right now. I'm on the look out for pot holes every time I roll out in the RX-8. Don't want any bent rims.
I can't think of what would happen if you hit these things in a bike.

Potholes are a little easier to dodge on a bike.  If there's a hole in one of the tire tracks that takes up 1/3 or even 1/2 of the width of the lane, in a car you'll have to either move into the lane next to you or onto the shoulder to miss it.  On a bike, you can miss it without ever leaving the lane.  Of course, if you do hit one you risk more than a bent rim or flat tire.

And the potholes down there can't be as bad as they are up in snow country.  It's amazing how badly the constant freeze-thaw cycles of early spring will tear a road up.

[SVT666]

Knowing my personality and my addiction to speed, I would probably kill myself in about 5.3 seconds.  Knowing that, I would probably buy a cruiser just to prevent myself from driving it too fast.

[Cookie Monster]

I also did some research about bikes and learned that many, many accidents were single vehicle accidents on rural two lane roads. Which means idiots being idiots and killing themselves. Also, many deaths were from people not wearing protective clothing or not having a license. Not that many were from multi vehicle crashes, IIRC.

I still believe motorcycles aren't as dangerous as people make them out to be. It's just that you get so much power for so cheap, you see everyone doing stupid shit on them. I've seen way too many bikers going 120+ mph on the highway whereas I don't see that many cars doing that.

[TBR]

So this is really the crux of the poll.  It's a which first, not a lifestyle choice.  I'm leaning MSC.  I've chosen the model, I just have to find the car.  Searching for a 2002 or newer at 10,500 or less.

So it's a MR2 then?

[68_427]

So this is really the crux of the poll.  It's a which first, not a lifestyle choice.  I'm leaning MSC.  I've chosen the model, I just have to find the car.  Searching for a 2002 or newer at 10,500 or less.

You should make a guess the car thread.  lol

[Onslaught]

I also did some research about bikes and learned that many, many accidents were single vehicle accidents on rural two lane roads. Which means idiots being idiots and killing themselves. Also, many deaths were from people not wearing protective clothing or not having a license. Not that many were from multi vehicle crashes, IIRC.

I still believe motorcycles aren't as dangerous as people make them out to be. It's just that you get so much power for so cheap, you see everyone doing stupid shit on them. I've seen way too many bikers going 120+ mph on the highway whereas I don't see that many cars doing that.

I can't agree. You're on a two wheel bike with a motor one it. Get hit, fall or run over something and it's you're ass on the ground going who knows how fast.  No thank you.

[565]

I also did some research about bikes and learned that many, many accidents were single vehicle accidents on rural two lane roads. Which means idiots being idiots and killing themselves. Also, many deaths were from people not wearing protective clothing or not having a license. Not that many were from multi vehicle crashes, IIRC.

That's simply not true.  The most reliable report on motorcycle safety was from the Hurt report, the most comprehensive motorcycle safety study ever conducted.

They found that:

Approximately 75% of  motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most usually a passenger automobile.

Only 25%of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in 66% of the cases.

The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in very short time close to the trip origin.

The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, but rarely prevent severe injuries.


Here is the report itself.

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf



So basically it says that the majority of bikers get hurt/killed during a slow 20-30mph stroll to the shops or around their neighborhood and some other car that didn't see the motorcycle didn't see them and made a left turn, violates the motorcycle's right of way and basically just kills them.  This is exactly the same pattern we see in the ER every day.

The idea that only idiots doing 120 on the freeway get killed on motorcycles is a delusional fantasy held by riders who think driving safely and slowly will save them.  The majority of bikers I see getting hurt aren't riding some fast sporty liter bike, most are riding cruisers of some sort, doing a leisurely ride through town when someone else makes a mistake and royally fucks them up.  The most dangerous thing you can do on a motorcycle is spend significant time on it.

[Raza]

So it's a MR2 then?

Don't know about that.  I'm looking for a 1976 or newer with four speed.  Or possibly 1997 as long as it has a glass rear window.  Oh, also, I'm having a hard time finding one in the rare three seat configuration. 

[sportyaccordy]

2002 or newer for <10.5? U can't even get an RSX-S for that much.

I would keep saving man.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I changed your mind. Neither one. Now you must get a luxury land barge.

[Raza]

2002 or newer for <10.5? U can't even get an RSX-S for that much.

I would keep saving man.

As long as it has ten fingers and ten toes and is healthy, I'm happy. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

As long as it has ten fingers and ten toes and is healthy, I'm happy. 

According to all the anti-motorcyclists here, you will lose all of your toes and both arms if you ever throw a leg over one of those death machines. Play it safe. Get a Volvo.

[68_427]

According to all the anti-motorcyclists here, you will lose all of your toes and both arms if you ever throw a leg over one of those death machines. Play it safe. Get a Volvo.

Vulvuuu

[Eye of the Tiger]

That looks like a nice sleeper. I'm driving some Peterbilt thing right now. It rides a bit better and is quieter, but it's gutless as hell. Cannot even maintain speed on inclines where the Volvo would just keep pulling in top gear. Also, the graphics on the side of this thing are splashes of water with jumping dolphins. wtf

[68_427]

That looks like a nice sleeper. I'm driving some Peterbilt thing right now. It rides a bit better and is quieter, but it's gutless as hell. Cannot even maintain speed on inclines where the Volvo would just keep pulling in top gear. Also, the graphics on the side of this thing are splashes of water with jumping dolphins. wtf

Dude pics.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Dude pics.

Dood, they are lame, I'm too lazy to put my shoes on and get out of the truck, and uploading from my phone is a pita.

[S204STi]

I like 565's perspective.  I would just offer that having taken an MSF course makes me statistically far less likely to become part of his statistics.   Actually, I could be wrong about that:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_training , see paragraph under Research

Here's a nice excerpt from that: "... and that when interviewed, riders frequently failed to take responsibility for their errors, or even perceive that accident avoidance had been possible. Hurt noted they held such misconceptions as the belief that deliberately falling down and sliding was a more effective accident avoidance strategy than strong, controlled application of the front brake.

That said, while I love the acceleration of a bike, I am quite a bit more careful on mountain roads, since as many have pointed out, there is a lot that can go wrong to put you down.  But in traffic it's a matter of believing with all your heart that the cars around you really will do the dumbest thing possible, and/or are intent on killing you.  Once you get that mindset down you'll find that even the worst choice a cager can make won't surprise you in the least, and you'll already have been prepared for it.  That's not to say that nothing can ever happen... but for now at least I'm prepared to take the risk.

Here's some more reading on the subject:  http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/motorcycle-accident-statistics.htm

[BimmerM3]

The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

I've seen this a few times between this thread and that Cracked article that someone posted, and it completely boggles my mind. I know when you're riding you have to be prepared for ANYTHING, but who the hell turns left if they're not in the left lane?  

[Cookie Monster]

I've seen this a few times between this thread and that Cracked article that someone posted, and it completely boggles my mind. I know when you're riding you have to be prepared for ANYTHING, but who the hell turns left if they're not in the left lane?  

I thought they meant the car makes a left turn across the road from a perpendicular side street.

[Rupert]

They mean, e.g., the car is going south, the bike north, and the car turn across the northbound lane to turn L onto another, east bound, street.

[MX793]

In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in 66% of the cases.

The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

It is important to note that the Hurt report was conducted over 30 years ago.  It was based on accident data in Los Angeles, California that was collected during 1976 and 1977.  California did not have a daytime headlight use law for motorcycles until 1978.  Daytime headlight use improves motorcycle visibility considerably.  A 1971 study comparing 4 states that had DRL laws vs 4 states that did not found that accident rates were reduced by 1/3 in states that required daytime headlight use.  The Hurt report found something similar in that in 70% of the accidents studied, the motorcyclist was not using their headlight during the daytime while 60% of motorcycles observed in the exposure study were using their headlight in the daytime.  Practically all motorcycles sold in the US in the past 20+ years are configured such that the headlight is on whenever the vehicle is running and cannot be shut off.

That said, lack of visibility is still a major issue with car drivers pulling out in front of motorcycles and is something that DRLs have not solved entirely.

Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in very short time close to the trip origin.

That's because that is where most motorcyclist spend the bulk of their riding time.  The same applies to cars.  The majority of car accidents occur within 5 miles of their point of origin, and over 3/4 of car accidents occur within 15 miles of their trip origin.  This one is simply common sense.

The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

Again, a situation greatly improved by the use of DRLs which were not as widespread at the time of the study as they are today.

The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

Definitely a misconception that you are at lower risk of an accident just puttering around town, and you certainly can be hurt very badly even at such "safe" speeds.  However, you are also at lower risk of severe injury at lower speeds, as supported by the findings of the report.  I'd also note that the injury frequency results in the Hurt Report was skewed by the fact that a call for an ambulance was a pre-requisite for the accident to show up in the report (hence some form of injury was recorded in 98% of the data sample).  Even still, the majority of accidents in the report resulted in nothing more than "minor" injuries.  Point is, an accident on a motorcycle is not a guarantee of a seriously life-altering/debilitating (or fatal) injury, although the odds of such are significantly higher than if you are involved in an accident as the occupant of a car.

The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, but rarely prevent severe injuries.

I'd be curious if and how this might have changed with the advent of more modern riding gear.  I suspect some of the "moderate" injuries may have been reduced to "minor" and a lot of the "minor" ones may have ended up prevented entirely.  Of course, safety equipment isn't of much use if it's not worn.  I went for a short ride yesterday and saw way too many people riding without gloves or a jacket, several wearing shorts.

Here is the report itself.

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf



So basically it says that the majority of bikers get hurt/killed during a slow 20-30mph stroll to the shops or around their neighborhood and some other car that didn't see the motorcycle didn't see them and made a left turn, violates the motorcycle's right of way and basically just kills them.  This is exactly the same pattern we see in the ER every day.

The idea that only idiots doing 120 on the freeway get killed on motorcycles is a delusional fantasy held by riders who think driving safely and slowly will save them.  The majority of bikers I see getting hurt aren't riding some fast sporty liter bike, most are riding cruisers of some sort, doing a leisurely ride through town when someone else makes a mistake and royally fucks them up.  The most dangerous thing you can do on a motorcycle is spend significant time on it.

Not trying to say the Hurt report isn't a valuable and still largely accurate/pertinent source of information, but I do believe that it's time that somebody perform a new, similarly comprehensive study.  More recent studies I've read indicate that alcohol is a very large factor, but the Hurt report was, IMO, unable to sufficiently quantify it due to the unavailability of BAC data at the time.  Safety equipment has changed considerably since the 1970s (full-face helmets tested to more stringent standards, jackets with competition-grade armor are widely available and pretty common...).  Motorcycles themselves have also changed, what with the advent of ABS, better tires and brakes, DRLs becoming practically universally used...  Not to mention that bikes are much more powerful than they were before, which may or may not play a role.  There were no "sportbikes" as we think of them at the time of the Hurt Report.  Most bikes struggled to hit 100 mph (although I suspect the speed findings would be similar to the Hurt Report in that the majority of accidents occur at sane, "around town" speeds rather than at 100+).  I'd be curious as to how things may have changed in the past 30+ years and what affect, both positive or negative, newer factors such as modern full-face helmets (I'm not sure a helmet with a chin-bar even really existed or was available to the public yet at the time of the Hurt Report), armored jackets, faster bikes, and ABS have on accidents and injuries.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

As a rider I hate when the first thing out of a non riders mouth is some horror story about a friend of a friends cousins brother that was killed/disfigured in some horrid motorcycle crash! That being said I've been down 3 times (only once on my own) and I'm fine. I'm a firm believer that speed and lack of safety gear plays a big part of deadly crashes. I've been hit twice at low speed (stopped once when I was hit from behind and a head on crash at about 30mph) and I didn't have any serious injuries. Now I know guys that have gone to meet their maker from simply losing control at extremely high rates of speed. (losing limbs in the process) Another factor is the lack of safety gear! The Harley guy (sport bike rider do this too but I see waaay more unprotected riders on cruisers) in a T Shirt and shorts will take a hell of a beating if he goes down while the protected rider my only walk away with bumps and bruises.

So I vote Motorcycle with protective gear,training course and a level head. Save the knee dragging and high speed antics for those track days and always ride like you're invisible to EVERY car on the road and you'll be fine for the most part.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The only motorcycle "crash" I've been in was when a truck pulled out in front of me when I was crusing through town at the 25 mph speed limit. I had to dump my bike and landed hard on my side. I broke/bruised a coupoe of ribs, not sure because I didn't go to the doctor. It just hurt to breathe for about a month. My armored jacket protected my shoulder, but my khaki pants got all tore up. If I didn't have a full face helmet, I wouldn't have a face.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

They mean, e.g., the car is going south, the bike north, and the car turn across the northbound lane to turn L onto another, east bound, street.

This is exactly what happened to me in 2005.

[Eye of the Tiger]

As a rider I hate when the first thing out of a non riders mouth is some horror story about a friend of a friends cousins brother that was killed/disfigured in some horrid motorcycle crash! That being said I've been down 3 times (only once on my own) and I'm fine. I'm a firm believer that speed and lack of safety gear plays a big part of deadly crashes. I've been hit twice at low speed (stopped once when I was hit from behind and a head on crash at about 30mph) and I didn't have any serious injuries. Now I know guys that have gone to meet their maker from simply losing control at extremely high rates of speed. (losing limbs in the process) Another factor is the lack of safety gear! The Harley guy (sport bike rider do this too but I see waaay more unprotected riders on cruisers) in a T Shirt and shorts will take a hell of a beating if he goes down while the protected rider my only walk away with bumps and bruises.

So I vote Motorcycle with protective gear,training course and a level head. Save the knee dragging and high speed antics for those track days and always ride like you're invisible to EVERY car on the road and you'll be fine for the most part.

Ignorance leads to fear. Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to the dark side.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I think anger goes in there somewhere, too.

[Cookie Monster]

The only reason I don't want a bike is the sweaty smelly issue.

That and the weather.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The only reason I don't want a bike is the sweaty smelly issue.

That and the weather.

And you have a Miata, the enthusiast dream car, so why would you want anything else? Seriously, stop complaining about that car or I'll drive to California and slap you.

[Rupert]

This is exactly what happened to me in 2005.

It's a common bicycle accident, too. IMO, if you can ride a bicycle safely on busy streets, you can probably ride a motorcycle safely, too.