Safety: Planes vs Bikes

[Charles Talleyrand]

I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.

I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
inattention.

I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
Can anyone provide some statistics on this?

-Thanks
-Charles Talleyrand

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On 24 Aug 2006 16:52:30 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:

>I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
>over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
>fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
>deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
>I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
>speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
>biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
>road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
>inattention.
>
>I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
>-Thanks
>-Charles Talleyrand

I don't have the URL, but I just recently read an article on
this.

I recall that it said that flying a plane, especially a small
private one, definitely places you at greater risk of landing on the
top of a large tree in the middle of a forest, and riding a motorcycle
puts you in greater danger of sliding on dirt or getting in a car
accident.

HTH.


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

[BryanUT]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> inattention.
>
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> -Thanks
> -Charles Talleyrand
>

Sorry, I don't have any stats. But when I started a new job and applied for
life insurance the form specifically asked if I flew in private airplanes,
raced motorcycles and a variety of other "dangerous" activities. I think
scuba diving was on the list also. The application did not ask about street
riding a motorcycle.

That tells me those activities will affect your life insurance premium.
Therefore I deduce that flying is more dangerous than riding.

Bryan

[Jose[_1_]]

> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?

You can get any answer you want, and it will be correct, depending on
how you define "risk" and "danger" and "use" and such. Generally,
flying an airplane and riding a motorcycle have some different purposes
and some similar ones. That's the key. Let's say (for example) that
you do both for pure entertainment, and the benefit is x hours of joy.
Then you are interested in risk of {whatever} per hour. But if you do
both purely for transportation, then the benefit is "getting there".
The risk is per mile (since "there" doesn't move), but for flying, you
need to add the risk of {whatever} during your trip to the airport.

There are other reasons to engage in activities, and the key to getting
the right answer is to ask the right question - to actually identify the
issue in question. That is often harder than finding the answer.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[vincent p. norris]

>>I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150.....
>>
>> I drive a moderate motorcycle ......
>> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>>
>> -Thanks
>> -Charles Talleyrand
>>>
>Sorry, I don't have any stats. But when I started a new job and applied for
>life insurance the form specifically asked if I flew in private airplanes..... The application did not ask about street
>riding a motorcycle.
>
>That tells me those activities will affect your life insurance premium.
>Therefore I deduce that flying is more dangerous than riding.
>
>Bryan

Reasonable deduction. But way back in the late 1940s, when I began
taking fly lessons, I was advised it would increase my life insurance
premiums.

Some time later, but still way back in the '40s, I was advised that
the company would no longer increase the premium for pilots.

My premium was not affected when I went to Navy flight training in
1949 or flew in the Marines for several years.

Half a century has passed since then, and I have never again been
asked if I fly, when taking out insurance.

Don't know about bike riding, I'm not brave enough to try that.

vince norris

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:

[snip]
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.

Another way to approach the question/answer is to consider the residual
risk after taking appropriate steps to mitigate the risk. The hazards
associated with an engine failure in flight can be mitigated by several
steps - flying a twin, or doing the best available maintenance, etc. etc.
The hazards associated with taking a left turn on a bike can be mitigated
as well - even going so far as to only take right turns.

In the end, the most dangerous activity is the one with the most residual
risk. Although it might take considerably more effort, you can make flying
safer than other activities.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Don Tuite]

On 24 Aug 2006 16:52:30 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:

>I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
>over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
>fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
>deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
>I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
>speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
>biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
>road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
>inattention.
>
>I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>Can anyone provide some statistics on this?

Per mile, per hour, per year? What kind of gear do you wear? We know
you do a BFR every other year; when was the last time you took the MSF
experienced rider course? How old are you?

Here's the NHTSA's "Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes: An
Update," from June of this year:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/810606.pdf

And here's the 2005 Nall Report on General Aviation accidents.:

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf

My guess is that personal factors even out and the risk for any one of
us is about the same.

And an awful lot of GA ;pilots are/have been bikers. I wish there
were statistics on how many.

Don

[Jose[_1_]]

> Another way to approach the question/answer is to consider the residual
> risk after taking appropriate steps to mitigate the risk. The hazards
> associated with an engine failure in flight can be mitigated by several
> steps - flying a twin...

Careful, mitigating one risk breeds another. Sometimes the new risk is
easy to spot, sometimes not. But this is one of those things that makes
statistics like this very difficult to make meaningful.

Jos
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter R.]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote:

> Half a century has passed since then, and I have never again been
> asked if I fly, when taking out insurance.

Oh, they still ask.

--
Peter

[BrianNZ]

Peter R. wrote:
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote:
>
>> Half a century has passed since then, and I have never again been
>> asked if I fly, when taking out insurance.
>
> Oh, they still ask.
>

I dread the day when insurance becomes compulsory.

[CaptnDan]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> inattention.
>
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> -Thanks
> -Charles Talleyrand

I called a friend who is in the insurance biz, and he said that he
doesn't know of any company that asks about street riding, though most
if not all ask about motorcycle racing - actually, any type or motor
racing.

He said that the only common questions regarding flying have to do with
piloting a private plane, and of course, jumping out of a plane.

Somebody mentioned that SCUBA diving is listed? Odd... That's actually
a very safe sport activity, unless you go into a cave. Then you turn
one of the safest activities into one of the most dangerous.

[Judah]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in
ups.com:

> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> inattention.
>
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> -Thanks
> -Charles Talleyrand
>

Sometimes I walk across a street. My biggest fear is either that I will trip
and crack my head on the asphalt, or that I will be mowed over by an
innatentive driver of a car or moderate motorcycle.

Other times I move my bowels. My biggest fear is that if I strain too hard, I
will suffer a heart attack and die, much like famed musician Elvis Presley.

Can you tell me which activity is more dangerous? My insurance forms don't
seem to care how frequently I cross streets (even though I do live in New
York), nor how frequently I take dumps. Yet somehow, I believe I will extend
my lifespan by refraining from one or both of these activities.

[BrianNZ]

Judah wrote:
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
>> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
>> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
>> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>>
>> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
>> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
>> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
>> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
>> inattention.
>>
>> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>>
>> -Thanks
>> -Charles Talleyrand
>>
>
> Sometimes I walk across a street. My biggest fear is either that I will trip
> and crack my head on the asphalt, or that I will be mowed over by an
> innatentive driver of a car or moderate motorcycle.
>
> Other times I move my bowels. My biggest fear is that if I strain too hard, I
> will suffer a heart attack and die, much like famed musician Elvis Presley.
>
> Can you tell me which activity is more dangerous? My insurance forms don't
> seem to care how frequently I cross streets (even though I do live in New
> York), nor how frequently I take dumps. Yet somehow, I believe I will extend
> my lifespan by refraining from one or both of these activities.


If you don't eat, you don't ****....... you don't ****, you die!

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 24 Aug 2006 16:52:30 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?

Personal experience is that I've broken more bones on motorcycles than
I have in aircraft... So far, 5 bones on motorcycles, only 2 in an
aircraft... Most of the motorcycle incidents required me to be carried
away from the accident... I walked / hobbled away from the aircraft
incidents... As a side note, in both the motorcycle and the aircraft
incidents, I was wearing a full coverage helmets that sustained quite
noticeable damage... The damage to the motorcycle incident helmets
were considerably more severe though...

Given the choice between landing a Cessna 150/152 in the top of some
trees and having another motorcycle incident like some of my previous
ones, I would probably choose the Cessna 150/152... The crash speed is
quite a bit slower than any of the motorcycle incidents that I have
had over the years...

Regardless though, the one thing that I have learned is that GRAVITY
SUCKS...

[NrDg[_1_]]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> inattention.
>
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?

What I have heard and believe myself is that the risk of death is similar
for both activities on average. Hazards are different. Private pilots tend
to do themselve in with their own mistakes. Riders get got by others a lot
more.

[Charles Talleyrand]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> inattention.
>
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> -Thanks
> -Charles Talleyrand

>From Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/810606.pdf

There were 10 billion vehicle miles traveled on motorcycles in the US
(Table 5). There were 4,000 fatalities (page 10). Therefore there is
an average of one fatality per 2,500,000 miles driven on a motorcycle.

BTW, motorcycles registered in the US has gone from 3.6 million in 1990
to 6.4 million in 2003.

>From the Nall Report at http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
There was 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. (page 5)

Therefore if you assume the average motorcycle travels an average of 30
mph, the accident rates are equal. (2,500,000/(100,000/1.2))

[Charles Talleyrand]

Don Tuite wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 16:52:30 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand"
> > wrote:
>
> >I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> >over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> >fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> >deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
> >
> >I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> >speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> >biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> >road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> >inattention.
> >
> >I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> >Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> Per mile, per hour, per year? What kind of gear do you wear? We know
> you do a BFR every other year; when was the last time you took the MSF
> experienced rider course? How old are you?
>
> Here's the NHTSA's "Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes: An
> Update," from June of this year:
>
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/810606.pdf
>
> And here's the 2005 Nall Report on General Aviation accidents.:
>
> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
>
> My guess is that personal factors even out and the risk for any one of
> us is about the same.
>
> And an awful lot of GA ;pilots are/have been bikers. I wish there
> were statistics on how many.
>
> Don

Excellent post. Much Thanks

-Charles Talleyrand

[Magnulus]

Motorcycling is safer than spelunking or sky diving, from what I remember
reading. The risks between flying and riding a motorcyle I'd imagine are
relatively equal. Per trip a airline airplane ride is much more dangerous
than riding a car but safer than a motorcycle. I'd imagine a private plane
is somewhat less safe, on average. They are less forgiving of mistakes.

[James Prine]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.

Charles, I used to ride my motorcycle to the Elmdale Airpark in
Abilene, Texas many years ago, so I could make sport parachute jumps.
It was rather convenient, because my helmet, jumpsuit, boots, goggles,
gloves, etc., were interchangeable for both riding the bike and jumping
(and no, I didn't wear the parachutes to the DZ; I kept my Para-
Commander and my cheapo T-10 rig in a locker).

I also earned my PP/SEL and later became a cave diver (mostly in
Florida); I earned my living as a law enforcement officer most of the
time.

An insurance salesman offered the guys in my platoon life insurance
packages, and when I filled out the forms and listed the activities I
engaged in, the salesman just laughed and tore up the forms right in
front of me. He explained that sure, his company would be glad to take
the premiums, but it'd be theft because there was NO WAY they'd pay off
if my luck ran out.

I don't think that's changed much over the years.

YMMV, of course.

Happy landings, regardless!

Best,

James

[High Plains Thumper]

BrianNZ wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
>> "vincent p. norris" > wrote:
>>
>>> Half a century has passed since then, and I have never
>>> again been asked if I fly, when taking out insurance.
>>
>> Oh, they still ask.
>
> I dread the day when insurance becomes compulsory.

Like in US or Japan?

--
HPT

[alank[_1_]]

On page 12 of 72 of the below listed Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle
Crashes -

"In 2004, motorcycles made up nearly 2.4 percent of all registered vehicles
in the United States and accounted for only 0.3 percent of all vehicle miles
traveled. In comparison, motorcycle riders accounted for 5.3 percent of
total traffic fatalities in 1995 and have increased to 9.4 percent of the
total traffic fatalities in 2004. Per 100,000 registered vehicles, the
fatality rate for motorcycle riders (69.33) in 2004 was 4.6 times the
fatality rate for passenger car occupants (15.05). Per vehicle mile traveled
in 2004, motorcycle riders (39.89) were about 34 times more likely than
passenger car occupants (1.18) to die in a motor vehicle traffic crash."

So, motorcycle riders are 34 times more likely to die per mile then in a
car. I believe the analysis on GA to cars is about 6 to 8 times more
likely. Looks like there is your answer.

Also, have you noticed how the general public freaks out over GA, however
they don't seem even seem to worry to much if at all when they go bicycle
riding or boating, which combined has about 3 times the fatalities as GA
does.

Alan.



>>From Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle Crashes:
> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/810606.pdf
>
> There were 10 billion vehicle miles traveled on motorcycles in the US
> (Table 5). There were 4,000 fatalities (page 10). Therefore there is
> an average of one fatality per 2,500,000 miles driven on a motorcycle.
>
> BTW, motorcycles registered in the US has gone from 3.6 million in 1990
> to 6.4 million in 2003.
>
>>From the Nall Report at http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
> There was 1.2 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. (page 5)
>
> Therefore if you assume the average motorcycle travels an average of 30
> mph, the accident rates are equal. (2,500,000/(100,000/1.2))
>

[High Plains Thumper]

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote:
> Don Tuite wrote:
>> "Charles Talleyrand" wrote:
>>
>>> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well
>>> maintained. I fly over forests in good weather and
>>> typically during the day. My biggest fear is the engine
>>> quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
>>> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>>>
>>> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at
>>> moderate speeds through my small town and through the
>>> surrounding forests. My biggest fears are either that I
>>> will slide on a patch of dirt on the road and crash or
>>> someone will hit me with their car through inattention.
>>>
>>> I've been asked several times which of these things is
>>> more dangerous. Can anyone provide some statistics on
>>> this?
>>
>> Per mile, per hour, per year? What kind of gear do you
>> wear? We know you do a BFR every other year; when was the
>> last time you took the MSF experienced rider course? How
>> old are you?
>>
>> Here's the NHTSA's "Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle
>> Crashes: An Update," from June of this year:
>>
>> http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2006/8106
>> 06.pdf
>>
>> And here's the 2005 Nall Report on General Aviation
>> accidents.:
>>
>> http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/05nall.pdf
>>
>> My guess is that personal factors even out and the risk
>> for any one of us is about the same.
>>
>> And an awful lot of GA ;pilots are/have been bikers. I
>> wish there were statistics on how many.
>
> Excellent post. Much Thanks

Here is another interesting article. Data is a little older,
but the factors contributing to accidents and death are
interesting.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/millennium/00075.pdf

or user friendly http://tinyurl.com/sydlc

| IMPAIRED RIDER, Recent Findings. Motorcycle operators
| involved in fatal crashes have higher intoxication rates
| than operators of all other motor vehicles. In 1997 almost
| 30 percent of all fatally injured motorcycle operators were
| intoxicated, with a blood alcohol concentration of > .10.
| An additional 11 percent had lower alcohol levels. Almost
| half of the motorcycle operators who died in single-vehicle
| crashes were intoxicated (1). These data have changed very
| little during the past 10 years.

| LICENSING, Key Issues. Most states require riders to obtain
| a special operator’s license before driving a motorcycle on
| public streets and highways. There is, however, ample
| evidence that many motorcyclists ignore these requirements.
| NHTSA statistics show that, during a 10-year period ending
| in the mid-1990s, 42 percent of the motorcyclists involved
| in fatal accidents in the United States were either
| unlicensed or improperly licensed.

IMHO, these 2 items can be mitigated by the rider, decreasing
statistical likelihood of becoming a motorcycle fatality or
gaining serious injury.

There are always risks to any activity. An appropriate risk
assessment will help mitigate the risk and gain greater
likelihood of success.

One cannot avoid all accidents, but there are many that can be
avoided. It is best to avoid those that are caused by one's
own foolishness and be on the lookout for those caused by
others.

--
HPT

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > Another way to approach the question/answer is to consider the residual
> > risk after taking appropriate steps to mitigate the risk. The hazards
> > associated with an engine failure in flight can be mitigated by several
> > steps - flying a twin...
>
> Careful, mitigating one risk breeds another.

By definition, residual risk includes new risks created by mitigation steps.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 16:52:30 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand"
> > wrote:
>
>>I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>>Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
>
> Personal experience is that I've broken more bones on motorcycles than
> I have in aircraft... So far, 5 bones on motorcycles, only 2 in an
> aircraft... Most of the motorcycle incidents required me to be carried
> away from the accident... I walked / hobbled away from the aircraft
> incidents... As a side note, in both the motorcycle and the aircraft
> incidents, I was wearing a full coverage helmets that sustained quite
> noticeable damage... The damage to the motorcycle incident helmets
> were considerably more severe though...

So you've established that you are a better pilot than you are a
motorcyclist, but you aren't very good at either. :-)

Matt (no broken bones from either riding or flying)

[Matt Whiting]

NrDg wrote:

> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
>>I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
>>over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
>>fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
>>deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>>
>>I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
>>speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
>>biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
>>road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
>>inattention.
>>
>>I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>>Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
>
> What I have heard and believe myself is that the risk of death is similar
> for both activities on average. Hazards are different. Private pilots tend
> to do themselve in with their own mistakes. Riders get got by others a lot
> more.

It has been a while, but my recollection is that the Hurt report doesn't
bear out the claim that motorcycles are more often done in by others. I
believe more than 50% of the motorcycle fatalities involved only the
motorcyclist.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

> By definition, residual risk includes new risks created by mitigation steps.

Yes, but it is easy to omit the new risks when considering the alternatives.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Stubby]

BrianNZ wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
>> "vincent p. norris" > wrote:
>>
>>> Half a century has passed since then, and I have never again been
>>> asked if I fly, when taking out insurance.
>>
>> Oh, they still ask.
>>
>
> I dread the day when insurance becomes compulsory.

Same here. I don't have any life insurance and don't need any.

[Beav]

"High Plains Thumper" > wrote in message
...
> BrianNZ wrote:
>> Peter R. wrote:
>>> "vincent p. norris" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Half a century has passed since then, and I have never
>>>> again been asked if I fly, when taking out insurance.
>>>
>>> Oh, they still ask.
>>
>> I dread the day when insurance becomes compulsory.
>
> Like in US or Japan?

Or the UK. In fact, Europe as a whole (as opposed to a hole).


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

[Gene Seibel]

I have no statistics but you couldn't get me on a bike.
--
Gene Seibel
Tales of Flight - http://pad39a.com/gene/tales.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> -Thanks
> -Charles Talleyrand

[Michael[_1_]]

alank wrote:
> So, motorcycle riders are 34 times more likely to die per mile then in a
> car.

So far, so good.'

> I believe the analysis on GA to cars is about 6 to 8 times more
> likely. Looks like there is your answer.

Yes, but that is ALL of GA. It includes instruction, corporate, and
self-flown business travel, all of which are much safer than personal
flying. In fact, EVERY part of GA is safer than personal flying,
including cropdusting.

Once you compare motorcycle riding to personal flying, they're about
the same in terms of fatalities. Motorcycles do cause more injuries.

Michael

[Robert M. Gary]

I'd put my kinds in an airplane with a safe pilot long before I'd put
them on the back of a motorcycle with a crazy rider. It all depends on
the person at the controls.

-Robert


Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> inattention.
>
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> -Thanks
> -Charles Talleyrand

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:37:51 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:
> So you've established that you are a better pilot than you are a
> motorcyclist, but you aren't very good at either. :-)

Not sure if that is the case... There might be an issue with regards
to acceptance of certain levels of risk that is not exactly prudent,
especially in my younger days... But then again, I rode bikes for many
years before being able to fly aircraft... More hours in a particular
type of vehicle might entail a higher probability of having an
incident... The aircraft broken bones were from an engine out incident
in a gyrocopter... The W&B was off and it wouldn't flare into the
landing without the engine running... Broke a rib and a bone in my
foot... No big deal compared to the bones and other injuries that I've
encountered while riding motorcycles...

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/injuries

[alank[_1_]]

My math does not agree with personal flying to motorcycle fatalities are
about the same.

Personal GA makes up 50% of all GA flying, and accounts for 74% of the fatal
accidents. If you doubled personal flights, and did away with the rest,
fatal accidents would rise about 48%.

So - if you just looked at personal flying, and agreed that GA (as a whole)
is 6 to 8 times more likely to generate a fatality per mile, then the
personal flying comparison would make it 9 to 12 times more likely. Still
better then the 34 on a cycle.

Feel free to correct me if my math is wrong, but statistics aside, I would
rather load up my wife (and kids, but they would not fit on a bike) and fly
500 miles in a plane rather then on a cycle.

Alan.


"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> alank wrote:
>> So, motorcycle riders are 34 times more likely to die per mile then in a
>> car.
>
> So far, so good.'
>
>> I believe the analysis on GA to cars is about 6 to 8 times more
>> likely. Looks like there is your answer.
>
> Yes, but that is ALL of GA. It includes instruction, corporate, and
> self-flown business travel, all of which are much safer than personal
> flying. In fact, EVERY part of GA is safer than personal flying,
> including cropdusting.
>
> Once you compare motorcycle riding to personal flying, they're about
> the same in terms of fatalities. Motorcycles do cause more injuries.
>
> Michael
>

[Andrew[_1_]]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:
> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
> inattention.
>
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> -Thanks
> -Charles Talleyrand
>

Do you carry liquids or gels in the cessna? I hear that increases the
danger factor.

--
Andrew
00 Daytona
00 Speed Triple
71 Kawi H1
05 Toddler

[Turby]

On 24 Aug 2006 16:52:30 -0700, "Charles Talleyrand"
> wrote:

>I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>Can anyone provide some statistics on this?

I'm trying to think why it might matter. It would seem the only time
is if you're planning a trip and could fly or ride. But then so many
other factors come into it, such as transportation when you're at your
destination, time it takes to get there, things to do along the way,
etc.

Otherwise it's a moot point, akin to wondering about how many Ducatis
will fit on the head of an elephant.

What's more dangerous, chopping onions or hammering nails?

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

[BryanUT]

"Stubby" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>>
>> I dread the day when insurance becomes compulsory.
>
> Same here. I don't have any life insurance and don't need any.

Who the **** has ever heard of compulsory life insurance? What are you
people talking about?

Bryan

[timeOday]

Don Tuite wrote:

>
> Per mile, per hour, per year?

According to the (very informative) links you posted, I think the
motorcycle will lose whether you measure per mile or per hour.

Private aviation has 1.2 deaths per 100,000 flight hours
Motorcycles have 40 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled.

In order for the per-hour death rate of motorcyclists to be lower than
the planes, the average motorcycle speed would have to be under 30 mph.

1.2/1e5 = 40/(1e8/X)
X = 30

Assuming the average motorcycle speed is over 30 mph, the motorcycle is
more dangerous per hour. And since the average plane speed is easily
over 30 mph, the plane is far safer than the motorcycle if you measure
by mile.

Then there's personal variation, as you say. This is just a hunch, but
I would think there's much more variation among motorcyclists than
pilots, simply because there's so much more regulation of pilots.

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:02:31 -0600, timeOday
> wrote:

>Don Tuite wrote:
>
>>
>> Per mile, per hour, per year?
>
>According to the (very informative) links you posted, I think the
>motorcycle will lose whether you measure per mile or per hour.
>
>Private aviation has 1.2 deaths per 100,000 flight hours
>Motorcycles have 40 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled.
>
>In order for the per-hour death rate of motorcyclists to be lower than
>the planes, the average motorcycle speed would have to be under 30 mph.
>
>1.2/1e5 = 40/(1e8/X)
>X = 30
>
>Assuming the average motorcycle speed is over 30 mph, the motorcycle is
>more dangerous per hour. And since the average plane speed is easily
>over 30 mph, the plane is far safer than the motorcycle if you measure
>by mile.
>
>Then there's personal variation, as you say. This is just a hunch, but
>I would think there's much more variation among motorcyclists than
>pilots, simply because there's so much more regulation of pilots.

And recurring training. And then factor out the contributions from
the drunks and squids from the m'cycle population. (They exist in
aviation, but I think there tend to be fewer of them.)

I'm not real happy with the NHTSA stats, anyway, because they seem to
imply things that are not supported. (Imply, by the presence of
certain graphs,even if the implications are not explicitly stated in
the text.) For example, 66% of the fatals in states with no helmet
laws weren't wearing a helmet.; 15% of the fatals from states that had
mandatory helmet laws died bareheaded. The presence of those stats
suggests that helmets have something to do with surviving crashes,
which is probably true. But all the stats can really demonstrate is
that when there are no helmet laws fewer people wear helmets.

Don

[Jim Logajan]

"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
[ Re GA flying vs. motorcycle riding ]
> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?

Riding a motorcycle is more dangerous on both a per distance and per time
basis. See Table 4, columns 1 and 4 in this document:

"Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf

That document concludes, among other things, that:

"a. High capacity regular public transport (RPT) travel (airline travel) is
the safest form of transport while general aviation is significantly less
safe than car travel;

b. Bus and rail are the safest forms of land transport having very similar
safety rates;

c. Motorcycling is the least safe form of transport."

So sell your bike and go flying. ;-)

[peter]

alank wrote:
> On page 12 of 72 of the below listed Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle
> Crashes -
>
> "In 2004, motorcycles made up nearly 2.4 percent of all registered vehicles
> in the United States and accounted for only 0.3 percent of all vehicle miles
> traveled. In comparison, motorcycle riders accounted for 5.3 percent of
> total traffic fatalities in 1995 and have increased to 9.4 percent of the
> total traffic fatalities in 2004. Per 100,000 registered vehicles, the
> fatality rate for motorcycle riders (69.33) in 2004 was 4.6 times the
> fatality rate for passenger car occupants (15.05). Per vehicle mile traveled
> in 2004, motorcycle riders (39.89) were about 34 times more likely than
> passenger car occupants (1.18) to die in a motor vehicle traffic crash."
>
> So, motorcycle riders are 34 times more likely to die per mile then in a
> car. I believe the analysis on GA to cars is about 6 to 8 times more
> likely. Looks like there is your answer.
>
> Also, have you noticed how the general public freaks out over GA, however
> they don't seem even seem to worry to much if at all when they go bicycle
> riding or boating, which combined has about 3 times the fatalities as GA
> does.

But not when the number of participants is taken into account. Here
are some more statistics on risk per hour of various recreational and
other activities:
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/comparat.html
[Note that per hour is usually more appropriate for such dissimilar
activities than per mile since it would be rare that one would be
trying to decide whether to go to a given destination by plane or by
waterski or bicycle, but it would be reasonable to consider spending a
few hours on a Sunday afternoon on any of the three activites.]
Both GA and motorcycling come out rather high on this table whereas
bicycling and waterskiing have a much more moderate risk level.

But note that even the relatively high risk shown for GA is still
rather modest. Based on that figure, an individual who spent an hour
*every day* for their entire life in a private plane would still be
more likely to eventually die of some unrelated cause than in a plane
crash.

[High Plains Thumper]

Beav wrote:
> "High Plains Thumper" wrote...
>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>> Peter R. wrote:
>>>> "vincent p. norris" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Half a century has passed since then, and I have never
>>>>> again been asked if I fly, when taking out insurance.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, they still ask.
>>>
>>> I dread the day when insurance becomes compulsory.
>>
>> Like in US or Japan?
>
> Or the UK. In fact, Europe as a whole (as opposed to a hole).

True. Perhaps the lack of compulsory insurance in New Zealand results from
the only obstacles being sheep? ;-)

--
HPT

[Charles Talleyrand]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote:
> [ Re GA flying vs. motorcycle riding ]
> > I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
> > Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>
> Riding a motorcycle is more dangerous on both a per distance and per time
> basis. See Table 4, columns 1 and 4 in this document:
>
> "Cross Modal Safety Comparisons"
> http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/Cross_modal_safety_comparisons.pdf
>
> That document concludes, among other things, that:
> c. Motorcycling is the least safe form of transport."
>
> So sell your bike and go flying. ;-)


Hmmmm......

This document claims there is a motorcycle fatality every 5.6 million
vehicle km.
( 17.75 deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle km, table 4 column 1)
It also claims there is a motorcycle fatality every 11,000 vehicle
hours.
(8.8 deaths per 100,000 vehicle hours, table 4 column 4)

Therefore the average Australian motorcycle goes 495 km per hour.
(5633802.82 km per death / 11363.6364 hours per death)

Can someone explain this to me?

-Charles Talleyrand

[Robert Bolton]

"James Prine" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
>> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
>> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
>> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>
> Charles, I used to ride my motorcycle to the Elmdale Airpark in
> Abilene, Texas many years ago, so I could make sport parachute jumps.
> It was rather convenient, because my helmet, jumpsuit, boots, goggles,
> gloves, etc., were interchangeable for both riding the bike and jumping
> (and no, I didn't wear the parachutes to the DZ; I kept my Para-
> Commander and my cheapo T-10 rig in a locker).
>
> I also earned my PP/SEL and later became a cave diver (mostly in
> Florida); I earned my living as a law enforcement officer most of the
> time.
>
> An insurance salesman offered the guys in my platoon life insurance
> packages, and when I filled out the forms and listed the activities I
> engaged in, the salesman just laughed and tore up the forms right in
> front of me. He explained that sure, his company would be glad to take
> the premiums, but it'd be theft because there was NO WAY they'd pay off
> if my luck ran out.
>
> I don't think that's changed much over the years.
>
I luckily took out an additional life insurance policy just before I became
temporarily uninsurable. Riding didn't increase my rates at all, but that was
because it flat didn't pay for dying while engaged in risky behavior, including
motorcycling, snow machining, etc, etc, etc.

Robert

[Chuck Rhode]

Charles Talleyrand wrote this on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:24:06 -0700. My
reply is below.

> This document claims there is a motorcycle fatality every 5.6
> million vehicle km.

> It also claims there is a motorcycle fatality every 11,000 vehicle
> hours.

> Therefore the average Australian motorcycle goes 495 km per hour.

> Can someone explain this to me?

Sure! Well, um, you see ...?

--
... Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
... 1979 Honda Goldwing GL1000 (Geraldine)
... Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
... 71° — Wind Calm — Obscured. Fog; lightning.

[.p.jm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 09:42:10 -0500, Chuck Rhode
> wrote:

>Charles Talleyrand wrote this on Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:24:06 -0700. My
>reply is below.
>
>> This document claims there is a motorcycle fatality every 5.6
>> million vehicle km.
>
>> It also claims there is a motorcycle fatality every 11,000 vehicle
>> hours.
>
>> Therefore the average Australian motorcycle goes 495 km per hour.
>
>> Can someone explain this to me?
>
>Sure! Well, um, you see ...?

They probably added NZ in to it - that tends to skew the
average :-)


--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

[fbartels]

When I first started ridding a motorcycle a friend told me that most people
will tell you that one needs to ride a bike like other people don't see
you. He said this was NOT enough. He said the correct way to ride a
motorcycle is to ride like other drivers see you and are aiming for you.
He also said that most motorcycle accidents happen in the first year of
ridding.

When I first started flying at the age of 16 (I didn't have a drivers
license at the time and had to hitch-hike to the airport to fly) my
instructor told me to never fly into a storm and always fly with a landing
spot in mind. He said you should always fly with the expectation that your
engine will quit at the most inappropiate time.

One of my instructors was a retired bush pilot from Alaska and another had
been a WWII bomber pilot with about 12,000 hours of flight time. Both made
me practice emergency landings by stopping the engine in midflight without
warning. Dead stopping the prop (note the prop should be in a horizontal
position so one doesn't damage the prop or engine crankshaft when making
an emergency landing, e.g. cost less to fix after the crash) and removing
the key from the on/off switch. Only after I had picked out a road or
field and was flaring out for landing did they restart the engine.

A few other notes they mentioned to me on emergency landings.

If on final flare out one is headed for a fence or other flexible object
don't attempt to pull up at the last minute and risk stalling out...just
go on through it.

The other is that if one were in a plane with retractable gear and the only
spot to land was in a field with crops such as cotton or soy beans to leave
the gear up and make a belly landing. One is more likely to flip a plane
with the gear down and once again it cost more to repair landing gear than
some sheet metal.

Statistics aside another factor in minimizing risk is proper training and
education.

Do you know the difference between a power pilot and a glider pilot? When
the power plane pilot needs to make an unexpected landing he/she will look
for any place to land. The glider pilot looks for the place where he/she
will get the best meal.

Frank Bartels
Maryland

____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com

[Atticus Finch]

On 8/25/2006 8:39 AM Matt Whiting mumbled something about the following:
> NrDg wrote:
>
>> "Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> I fly a small airplane (a Cessna 150) that is well maintained. I fly
>>> over forests in good weather and typically during the day. My biggest
>>> fear is the engine quits over the forest and I have no place to make a
>>> deadstick landing except the tops of large trees.
>>>
>>> I drive a moderate motorcycle (a Honda Nighthawk 750) at moderate
>>> speeds through my small town and through the surrounding forests. My
>>> biggest fears are either that I will slide on a patch of dirt on the
>>> road and crash or someone will hit me with their car through
>>> inattention.
>>>
>>> I've been asked several times which of these things is more dangerous.
>>> Can anyone provide some statistics on this?
>>
>>
>> What I have heard and believe myself is that the risk of death is
>> similar for both activities on average. Hazards are different. Private
>> pilots tend to do themselve in with their own mistakes. Riders get got
>> by others a lot more.
>
> It has been a while, but my recollection is that the Hurt report doesn't
> bear out the claim that motorcycles are more often done in by others. I
> believe more than 50% of the motorcycle fatalities involved only the
> motorcyclist.
>
> Matt

His statement is correct. More motorcyclists are done in by others than
pilots are done in by others. He didn't claim that the majority of
motorcycle fatalities are the result of other motorists.

If only 45% of motorcycle fatalities are by other motorists, that's a
much larger percentage of airplane fatalities by other pilots.

[Atticus Finch]

On 8/25/2006 12:28 PM Robert M. Gary mumbled something about the following:
> I'd put my kinds in an airplane with a safe pilot long before I'd put
> them on the back of a motorcycle with a crazy rider. It all depends on
> the person at the controls.
>
> -Robert
>
>

And I would rather put my kids on the back of a motorcycle with a safe
rider than put them in an airplane with a crazy pilot.

[Robert M. Gary]

Atticus Finch wrote:
> On 8/25/2006 12:28 PM Robert M. Gary mumbled something about the following:
> > I'd put my kinds in an airplane with a safe pilot long before I'd put
> > them on the back of a motorcycle with a crazy rider. It all depends on
> > the person at the controls.
> >
> > -Robert
> >
> >
>
> And I would rather put my kids on the back of a motorcycle with a safe
> rider than put them in an airplane with a crazy pilot.

Amen

[Skywise]

"alank" > wrote in news:IWzHg.4185$_q4.3573@dukeread09:

> On page 12 of 72 of the below listed Recent Trends in Fatal Motorcycle
> Crashes -
>
> "In 2004, motorcycles made up nearly 2.4 percent of all registered
> vehicles in the United States and accounted for only 0.3 percent of all
> vehicle miles traveled. In comparison, motorcycle riders accounted for
> 5.3 percent of total traffic fatalities in 1995 and have increased to
> 9.4 percent of the total traffic fatalities in 2004. Per 100,000
> registered vehicles, the fatality rate for motorcycle riders (69.33) in
> 2004 was 4.6 times the fatality rate for passenger car occupants
> (15.05). Per vehicle mile traveled in 2004, motorcycle riders (39.89)
> were about 34 times more likely than passenger car occupants (1.18) to
> die in a motor vehicle traffic crash."
>
> So, motorcycle riders are 34 times more likely to die per mile then in a
> car. I believe the analysis on GA to cars is about 6 to 8 times more
> likely. Looks like there is your answer.

There is a major flaw in this comparison of past and current
fatality rates.

First of all, car design has changed dramatically over the years
to increase occupant survivability rates. Little to nothing has
changed for motorcyclists.

The problem is that it only APPEARS that motorcycle fatalities
have increased in proportion to car fatalities. The reality is
that car fatalities have decreased whereas motorcycle fatalities
may have stayed the same, or even dropped, but not as dramatically.
This must be taken form teh perspective of a fixed number of
persons.

Just to make up some numbers....

10,000 cars and 100 bikes.

In 1950, 500 car drivers and 10 bikers die. That makes bikers
2% of the fatalities.

Then technology steps in and invents air bags, crumple zones,
uni-body construction, etc...but little is done for bikes,
except mandatory helmet laws.

50 years later, for the same group of 10,000 cars and 100 bikes,
there's only 100 car fatalities and 5 biker deaths. Now the
proportion says that bikers make up 5% of road fatalites, 2.5
times more than 50 years before.

See the problem?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

Don Tuite > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> I'm not real happy with the NHTSA stats, anyway
<Snipola>

"There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Atticus Finch" > wrote in message
...
> On 8/25/2006 12:28 PM Robert M. Gary mumbled something about the
> following:
>> I'd put my kinds in an airplane with a safe pilot long before I'd put
>> them on the back of a motorcycle with a crazy rider. It all depends on
>> the person at the controls.
>>
>> -Robert
>>
>>
>
> And I would rather put my kids on the back of a motorcycle with a safe
> rider than put them in an airplane with a crazy pilot.

But all things (ie controller) being equal I'd put my child in a light
aircraft before I'd put them on a motorcycle.

[Atticus Finch]

On 8/28/2006 11:31 AM Gig 601XL Builder mumbled something about the
following:
> "Atticus Finch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 8/25/2006 12:28 PM Robert M. Gary mumbled something about the
>> following:
>>> I'd put my kinds in an airplane with a safe pilot long before I'd put
>>> them on the back of a motorcycle with a crazy rider. It all depends on
>>> the person at the controls.
>>>
>>> -Robert
>>>
>>>
>> And I would rather put my kids on the back of a motorcycle with a safe
>> rider than put them in an airplane with a crazy pilot.
>
> But all things (ie controller) being equal I'd put my child in a light
> aircraft before I'd put them on a motorcycle.
>
>

And all things being equal, my kids will ride on a motorcycle. They
already do, have almost all of their lives, and my 2 youngest daughters
want Harley's of their own when they get old enough.

[Bob Myers]

"NrDg" > wrote in message
m...
> What I have heard and believe myself is that the risk of death is similar
> for both activities on average. Hazards are different. Private pilots tend
> to do themselve in with their own mistakes. Riders get got by others a lot
> more.

That pretty well agrees with what I managed to piece
together the last time I looked into this. Having some
interest in both activities I tried to figure it out as best
I could, but there definitely ARE a lot of conflicting
statistics out there. Actually, I got into riding because
recreational flying was just getting to be SO damned
expensive (I know, if you really wanna do it, you'll
find a way - I guess I just didn't want it enough), and is
certainly a hell of a lot less able to satisfy the "I wanna go
for a ride NOW" sort of spontaneity that I can get with
the bike.

But it IS a different sort of risk, as you said. In flying,
probably 99% of the time your fate is completely in
YOUR hands - if something bad happens, it is almost
always going to be your own fault. That's certainly a
lot less true on a motorcycle, but I also like to think that
there's a lot I can do to minimize my own risk such that
it's not really as high as the statistics would make it seem.
You get to do that in flying as well, but I tend to think that
the statistics there really do reflect the actual risk to the
average, conscientious pilot pretty well.

Bob M.

[Bob Myers]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> First of all, car design has changed dramatically over the years
> to increase occupant survivability rates. Little to nothing has
> changed for motorcyclists.

Not entirely true. Modern motorcycles are a good deal
more advanced than their predecessors of, say, 20-30
years ago, in the areas of suspension and frame design,
tires, etc.. There have also been improvements made in
the protective gear available to motorcyclists, although
obviously that's a factor only if the rider chooses to wear
the gear.

Clearly a motorcycle can't provide the same sort of
protection as a car - there IS a reason those things are
referred to as "cages," besides the derogatory aspect -
but it's just not true that a bike from the 2000s is the same
as one from the 1970s.

> Just to make up some numbers....
>
> 10,000 cars and 100 bikes.
>
> In 1950, 500 car drivers and 10 bikers die. That makes bikers
> 2% of the fatalities.

Well, 1.96%, actually, but that's being pedantic...

But it's a completely irrelevant percentage. If there
were during this period only 500 cars on the road, but
there were 1,000,000 motorcycles, and each vehicle
on average covered the same mileage, then clearly the
bikes would be far safer. The ONLY meaningful way
to compare safety numbers for any type of transportation
is in terms of per-passenger-mile numbers. You tried to
bring that in here, by stating the number of vehicles in
total, but even that is by itself not particularly interesting,
since it says nothing about how much each vehicle is
actually used - how much exposure to *potential* accidents
there are in each case.

In the above, 10% of the bikers (assuming one per bike)
and 5% of the drivers were killed. But if the bikes totalled
a million miles during this period, and the cars totalled only
200,000 (obviously, this is not a real-world case), then
we'd conclude that the bikes are actually considerably
safer; on a per-passenger-mile basis (at one occupant
per car), we have a death for every 400 passenger-miles
in the cars, but only one per 100,000 passenger-miles
for the bikes.


Bob M.

[birdog]

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "NrDg" > wrote in message
> m...
>> What I have heard and believe myself is that the risk of death is similar
>> for both activities on average. Hazards are different. Private pilots
>> tend to do themselve in with their own mistakes. Riders get got by others
>> a lot more.

I just got to jump in on this. I've been both ways - motorcycles and light
planes.

In flying, you can make a lot of small mistakes with pleanty of time to
correct them. If you are a careful pilot and do everything right, your
chances of dying at an advanced age in bed are very good. Chances of
mechanical failure are very rare today, and a midair is even more rare. The
careful pilot MIGHT be run down by a descending airliner.

On a motorcycle, you can do everything EXACTLY right, and still have a good
chance of disaster. Road conditions around a curve, driver pulling in front
of you, crowding you in passing. During the summer here in East Tennessee,
seldom a week goes by that there isn't a fatality reported in the paper.
Ever ride on a country road in the fall after leaves cover the road, and wet
with rain? These things are killing machines - talk to anyone in an
emergence room. But, hell yes they are fun.

I gave up the bikes volunterally. Old age took my plane away.

[Bob Myers]

"birdog" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "NrDg" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> What I have heard and believe myself is that the risk of death is
>>> similar for both activities on average. Hazards are different. Private
>>> pilots tend to do themselve in with their own mistakes. Riders get got
>>> by others a lot more.
>
> I just got to jump in on this. I've been both ways - motorcycles and light
> planes.

OK, but please watch the attributions - while you DID
include the original writer of the above, you also got my
name in there and someone might attribute the comments
to me. Fortunately, in this case, I happen to agree with
them.


> In flying, you can make a lot of small mistakes with pleanty of time to
> correct them.

Agreed, with some exceptions. Most of those would come
under the heading of Altitude Is Your Friend, but basically,
sure. On the other hand, little mistakes near the ground can
bite you really, really hard. Ask John Denver...


> On a motorcycle, you can do everything EXACTLY right, and still have a
> good chance of disaster. Road conditions around a curve, driver pulling in
> front of you, crowding you in passing.

Yeah, but wasn't that the original point? That on a bike, there
are more things that are completely OUT of your hands.


> During the summer here in East Tennessee, seldom a week goes by that there
> isn't a fatality reported in the paper.

No doubt, but again that by itself doesn't say a lot unless we
know how many bikes are on the road vs. the number of
planes in the air, and how much time each spends there.

> Ever ride on a country road in the fall after leaves cover the road, and
> wet with rain? These things are killing machines - talk to anyone in an
> emergence room. But, hell yes they are fun.

Riding on a country road in the fall with leaves and/or
water, though, is a choice; it IS within the rider's
control, and you can decide that you're just not up to
it. Or that you ARE, but that you have to modify your
behavior accordingly. Not really much different from each
pilot's "personal minimums" re the weather, etc..
Everyone, in ANY such activity, makes decisions all the time
which are based on the current conditions and how much
risk that individual deems "acceptable." Hopefully, in all
cases, the person making that decision would be fully
informed and at least reasonably objective about their own
skills and the capabilities of their machine. I also think that
in the case of motorcycling, there's a lot LESS of that latter
part than in flying. The bar is set a bit higher in terms of the
"price of admission" re demonstrated skill, judgement, and
knowledge, and as a result flying tends to have a LOT fewer
of the class we'd call "squids" in motorcycling.

Bob M.

[NrDg[_1_]]

"birdog" > wrote in message
.. .
>> "NrDg" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> What I have heard and believe myself is that the risk of death is
>>> similar for both activities on average. Hazards are different. Private
>>> pilots tend to do themselve in with their own mistakes. Riders get got
>>> by others a lot more.
>
> I just got to jump in on this. I've been both ways - motorcycles and light
> planes.
>
> In flying, you can make a lot of small mistakes with pleanty of time to
> correct them. If you are a careful pilot and do everything right, your
> chances of dying at an advanced age in bed are very good. Chances of
> mechanical failure are very rare today, and a midair is even more rare.
> The careful pilot MIGHT be run down by a descending airliner.

These are not the types of things that gets pilots. The major problems are
mental and likely involve weather in one way or the other. A strong desire
to get home when the weather is marginal. Flying too low under a cloud
layer - scudrunning - and hitting something poking up from the ground or the
ground itself. Loosing control by flying in the clouds without sufficient
instrument training. Flying in clouds in icing conditions. Getting caught in
a thunderstorm cell. Flying into an invisible rotor mountain flying. Taking
off too heavy for current temperature and wind and runway too short. Yah if
you only fly day VFR with no wind and clouds you are very safe. If you want
practical transportation you need to nip at the weather / ability boundary
and may risk getting in over your head if you evaluate the situation
incorrectly.

> On a motorcycle, you can do everything EXACTLY right, and still have a
> good chance of disaster. Road conditions around a curve, driver pulling in
> front of you, crowding you in passing. During the summer here in East
> Tennessee, seldom a week goes by that there isn't a fatality reported in
> the paper. Ever ride on a country road in the fall after leaves cover the
> road, and wet with rain? These things are killing machines - talk to
> anyone in an emergence room. But, hell yes they are fun.

You can reduce your risk significanly in the face of perverse actions of
others but yah you are a lot more at risk from the actions of others when
riding. Pilots like to think they are safer than they really are on average.
The average overall risk for both activities is similar.

> I gave up the bikes volunterally. Old age took my plane away.

I gave up planes because I needed the money for early retirement. I got into
bikes as a somewhat replacement for flying. If I won the lottery, the first
thing I'd do is buy a plane (and keep the bike).

[Skywise]

"Bob Myers" > wrote in news:KRGIg.20$TJ6.18
@news.cpqcorp.net:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
<Snipola>

>> In 1950, 500 car drivers and 10 bikers die. That makes bikers
>> 2% of the fatalities.
>
> Well, 1.96%, actually, but that's being pedantic...
<Snipola>

errr....10 divided by 500 = .02, or 2%. How'd you get 1.96%?

As for the rest, you're right in that I did not present the
whole picture. It's not easy to compare apples and oranges and
get a meaningful answer.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jose[_1_]]

> errr....10 divided by 500 = .02, or 2%. How'd you get 1.96%?

Dividing by the total number of motorists - 510.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Skywise]

Jose > wrote in news:k7NIg.21493$gY6.16604
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

>> errr....10 divided by 500 = .02, or 2%. How'd you get 1.96%?
>
> Dividing by the total number of motorists - 510.
>
> Jose

errr....duh.... :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?