Safety: Planes vs Bikes

"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.

"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).

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...006/810606.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))

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...006/810606.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))

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

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

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.

"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" 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.

"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?