71–80 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bikes are perfectly safe. It's car drivers who aren't.
most motorcycle accidents involve only the motorcycle and no other vehicle and motorcycles have a considerably higher rate of fatal crashes due to things like hitting fixed barriers.
Anecdotally, anyone who rides will you tell you this. It doesn’t matter how high your high viz vest is, or how loudly you rev your bike, someone will blindly cut you off and not realise you’re there until it’s way too late. I’m glad to see the data to back that up. Maybe now my fellow riders can agree that their motorbikes are a bit too damn loud, and tone it down.
>Maybe now my fellow riders can agree that their motorbikes are a bit too damn loud, and tone it down. It would be awesome if the rest of us didn't have to rely on the possible good sense of a motorcyclist and, instead, noise pollution laws were strictly enforced. I highly doubt any Harley out there is even capable of operating below the legal limit in CA of 80dbA.
Anecdotally, anyone who rides will you tell you this. It doesn’t matter how high your high viz vest is, or how loudly you rev your bike, someone will blindly cut you off and not realise you’re there until it’s way too late. I’m glad to see the data to back that up. Maybe now my fellow riders can agree that their motorbikes are a bit too damn loud, and tone it down.
Not really? Most folks in, e.g., /r/motorcycles think it is a bunk claim.
The stereotype is that it is mostly Harley riders who say it.
Anecdotally, anyone who rides will you tell you this. It doesn’t matter how high your high viz vest is, or how loudly you rev your bike, someone will blindly cut you off and not realise you’re there until it’s way too late. I’m glad to see the data to back that up. Maybe now my fellow riders can agree that their motorbikes are a bit too damn loud, and tone it down.
>Maybe now my fellow riders can agree that their motorbikes are a bit too damn loud, and tone it down. It would be awesome if the rest of us didn't have to rely on the possible good sense of a motorcyclist and, instead, noise pollution laws were strictly enforced. I highly doubt any Harley out there is even capable of operating below the legal limit in CA of 80dbA.
All Harleys that are sold comply with the legal limit. It's the owners that put on third-party exhausts that cause the noise.
In the hierarchy of road hatred, loud motorcycles are by far the most hated by all others (cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc). Happy to hear there's no science/safety reason to encourage loud motorcycles.
I don’t know, drivers really really hate bicyclists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
most motorcycle accidents involve only the motorcycle and no other vehicle and motorcycles have a considerably higher rate of fatal crashes due to things like hitting fixed barriers.
What that stat doesn't tell you is the rate of near misses. It's anecdotal I know, but as someone who commutes on a bike, the number of times I almost crash by myself per journey is near zero, yet the number of times a car tries to inadvertently occupy the same piece of road as me is multiple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By car: 30 mins. Public transport: 1 hour 30 mins. I'm not wasting 2 extra hours each day.
It's not like society without cars would be the exact same just without cars. People would live closer to where they need to be. It would be more public transport. More 15-minute cities etc. It's a bit dishonest to argue for continued car dominance just because it's already status quo.
If motorcycles require loud pipes to be safe, they should probably be banned altogether - but I don't really think it is necessary to have loud pipes.
Bikes are perfectly safe. It's car drivers who aren't.
I like riding motorcycles, but I don't fool myself into thinking that they're anywhere near as safe as a modern car.
In fact, they are responsible for more than 28 times the fatalities per mile traveled than cars.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like society without cars would be the exact same just without cars. People would live closer to where they need to be. It would be more public transport. More 15-minute cities etc. It's a bit dishonest to argue for continued car dominance just because it's already status quo.
People aren't obligated to live where you think they ought to live, and no one put you in charge of using social control mechanisms to force them to conform to your opinions.
If better options were available, people would choose those. When we don't make better options because people are stuck in a local optima of car culture, there is no change. My point was what I wrote: you can't make a comparison with less cars as if everything else in society would have remained equal. Of course there would be secondary effects to handle the fact that people would have to live and travel differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not like society without cars would be the exact same just without cars. People would live closer to where they need to be. It would be more public transport. More 15-minute cities etc. It's a bit dishonest to argue for continued car dominance just because it's already status quo.
> People would live closer to where they need to be. And work the first 25 days out of each month month to pay for it, LOL.