6 ms·

I live in Indonesia. We have the highest per-capita rate of bike ownership in the world. I have seen what happens to motorcycle riders when there are accidents

by robobro 3mo ago

I live in Indonesia. We have the highest per-capita rate of bike ownership in the world. I have seen what happens to motorcycle riders when there are accidents and I have seen what happens to car drivers when there are accidents. I won't get into the gory details but I avoid using bikes as much as possible.

embedding-shape 3mo ago
And I've seen what happens when pedestrians get hit by a car going way too fast, it sucks, and is horrible, but also besides the point. Not to say one has worse/better accidents, motorcycles accidents obviously has a much higher fatality and serious injuries risk, hard to deny.
- ProllyInfamous 3mo ago
  >but also besides the point. Hard disagree. Both pedestrians and motorcyclists are raw to the elements, entirely. At least when on roadways an automobile provides a chassis/rollcage.
  - embedding-shape 3mo ago
    You disagree with me agreeing with what you just wrote about it being more dangerous to go with motorcycles? The "besides the point" is that the point I was raising was how common motorcycles are, globally. Is that what you're disagreeing with?
    - ProllyInfamous 3mo ago
      Let me read both these comments some more, because after this one (above): I'm even more confused. Quickly: we seem to agree that motorcycles are dangerous and worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). I had associated your beside the point with a biker being more-safe than a pedestrian -- is that what you meant? ---- I have done 120mph in both vehicles, car and motorcycle – and won't ever go over 55mph on a dirtbike (only, offroad); never again on-road riding.
      - embedding-shape 3mo ago
        > worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). Huh? No, it's mostly correlated with working class and below, hardly "correlated with poverty", at least the places I'm familiar with. I do agree they're dangerous. I don't agree that everyone should always avoid everything dangerous simply because it's dangerous.
  - qmr 3mo ago
    When vulnerable road users are killed in other countries there is strict liability. That is, the driver is assumed at fault unless proven otherwise. In America it's the perfect crime. "I'm so sorry officer I never saw them." Case closed Lou.
    - ProllyInfamous 3mo ago
      ~>here in America Which is why yesterday, in my mid-sized Southern City: after a motorcyclist hit&ran off the Interstate (dead, into a guardrail; 35, helmet'd/licensed, obeying traffic laws), the local biker clubs put down their swords and rallied in the median well after the accident occurred (as my local newspaper noted). With all these millions already-spent on Flock cameræ, and T-DOT having dozens more (of their own)... you'd think we'd'a'already caught these guys.!? ---- It's so sad that lack of accountability results in fleeing manslaughterers... but here we are.
qmr 3mo ago
Crashes. Not accidents.
- coldtea 3mo ago
  Accidents. Not everything is under the driver's control, nor does it happen due to their intention (or even necessarily due to their lack of attention or whatever). There's a reason the term accident is used (I know at least 10 countries where the meaning is the same).
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - qmr 3mo ago
    Crash. Google crash not accident will give many resources. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash-not-accident https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash... > there's a reason Yes, the auto lobby. Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving. That's just not true.
    - embedding-shape 3mo ago
      > Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving. What? Where is that conclusion coming from? There can be thousands of "accidents" and they can all be preventable, calling it "crash" or "accident" doesn't imply if it's preventable or not. Talk about arbitrary hill to die on, very inconsequential. Why is this somehow so important? FWIW, countries like Sweden call them "accidents" yet treat them as preventable and something to aim to minimize, not sure why it'd matter so much if someone call it accident or not.

by robobro 3mo ago

embedding-shape 3mo ago

And I've seen what happens when pedestrians get hit by a car going way too fast, it sucks, and is horrible, but also besides the point. Not to say one has worse/better accidents, motorcycles accidents obviously has a much higher fatality and serious injuries risk, hard to deny.

ProllyInfamous 3mo ago
>but also besides the point. Hard disagree. Both pedestrians and motorcyclists are raw to the elements, entirely. At least when on roadways an automobile provides a chassis/rollcage.
- embedding-shape 3mo ago
  You disagree with me agreeing with what you just wrote about it being more dangerous to go with motorcycles? The "besides the point" is that the point I was raising was how common motorcycles are, globally. Is that what you're disagreeing with?
  - ProllyInfamous 3mo ago
    Let me read both these comments some more, because after this one (above): I'm even more confused. Quickly: we seem to agree that motorcycles are dangerous and worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). I had associated your beside the point with a biker being more-safe than a pedestrian -- is that what you meant? ---- I have done 120mph in both vehicles, car and motorcycle – and won't ever go over 55mph on a dirtbike (only, offroad); never again on-road riding.
    - embedding-shape 3mo ago
      > worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). Huh? No, it's mostly correlated with working class and below, hardly "correlated with poverty", at least the places I'm familiar with. I do agree they're dangerous. I don't agree that everyone should always avoid everything dangerous simply because it's dangerous.
- qmr 3mo ago
  When vulnerable road users are killed in other countries there is strict liability. That is, the driver is assumed at fault unless proven otherwise. In America it's the perfect crime. "I'm so sorry officer I never saw them." Case closed Lou.
  - ProllyInfamous 3mo ago
    ~>here in America Which is why yesterday, in my mid-sized Southern City: after a motorcyclist hit&ran off the Interstate (dead, into a guardrail; 35, helmet'd/licensed, obeying traffic laws), the local biker clubs put down their swords and rallied in the median well after the accident occurred (as my local newspaper noted). With all these millions already-spent on Flock cameræ, and T-DOT having dozens more (of their own)... you'd think we'd'a'already caught these guys.!? ---- It's so sad that lack of accountability results in fleeing manslaughterers... but here we are.

qmr 3mo ago

Crashes. Not accidents.

coldtea 3mo ago
Accidents. Not everything is under the driver's control, nor does it happen due to their intention (or even necessarily due to their lack of attention or whatever). There's a reason the term accident is used (I know at least 10 countries where the meaning is the same).
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- qmr 3mo ago
  Crash. Google crash not accident will give many resources. https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash-not-accident https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash... > there's a reason Yes, the auto lobby. Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving. That's just not true.
  - embedding-shape 3mo ago
    > Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving. What? Where is that conclusion coming from? There can be thousands of "accidents" and they can all be preventable, calling it "crash" or "accident" doesn't imply if it's preventable or not. Talk about arbitrary hill to die on, very inconsequential. Why is this somehow so important? FWIW, countries like Sweden call them "accidents" yet treat them as preventable and something to aim to minimize, not sure why it'd matter so much if someone call it accident or not.