You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

I think the ooos and ahhs of motorcycle danger are being a little bit overstated here.

Roughly 25 times more dangerous than driving on a per mile basis which is the most routinely dangerous thing anyone does on a regular basis.

And if we want to play armchair actuaries google states there are about 30 deaths/100 million miles and if we assume 1000 miles per year per driver and 40 years of lost life per death you end up with about 100 hours per year of life shortening by driving a motorcycle.

But if you account for driving 10000 miles per year driving is shortening your life by 40hrs per because you do it so much more.

So commuting to work on a motorcycle likely racks of the lost hours of life whereas riding on the weekend for a few hours is likely dwarfed by the sheer hours you spend driving.

Compared to smoking which shortens your life by 10 years or so over say 60 years of smoking is something like 1500 hours per year of smoking. Though smoking isn’t a straight probability problem so not really correct but I find it interesting.

So the conclusion is if you smoke you might as well ride a motorbike.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I am so sorry both of you are going through that again. I hope you are able to overcome sooner than later. I understand the numbness. You are right, I do not see riding a motorcycle with dependents as selfish. I think it's only looked at this way because it's just the one person riding it. I look at things like boating, and not only are there fatal accidents, they also include kids drowning etc. Should we say a father is selfish because he wants a ski boat, then takes the kids along and one of them dies in a drowning? Is motorcycling or dirtbiking selfish if you also have your kids riding as well at a very young age? Is it selfish to push your kids into your same hobby so you can keep doing it, putting them at risk? Or is this called living life and having fun, which inherently has risks involved. Man I dislike the word selfish. Seems to be thrown around too easily.

I agree with your examples of boating and dirtbiking being risky, but a lot of that risk is under your own control. Road biking is an entirely different level of risk specifically because most of it is completely out of your control. You could be the best rider in the world, but it doesn't matter when a car swerves into you because the driver is a clueless idiot. I rode when I was younger and would love to again, but with all of the idiot drivers out there I know it's only a matter of time until something bad happens. And I don't think it would be fair to my wife or my kids to put them through that

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

Maybe so but me enjoying burnouts and how loud my car is at he expense of every person in the community is a little selfish, they may not think they are cool but do they realize everyone hates them? If you want to floor it go out in the country not down residential streets.

Well, yeah, doing burnouts or speeding in the neighbourhood is ridiculous. There are probably 30 Mustangs within a 500 meter radius of my house. I've never seen anybody do a burnout in the middle of Lake Bonavista. I get that they can be loud, though.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

When raising kids, there is a concept of risk control. You cannot remove all risk from a child's life and expect them to grow up as a well adjust adult. Children need to be able to and learn how to address risk and have a threat as a consequence... but incidents and consequences reduced. Otherwise, they just turn into weird robotic husks. IMO, in the same way, parents also need to seal off certain risky activities, but to have controlled risk activities to reset, avoid parental burnout, mental health etc. and avoid being a physical, emotional and mental husk. It's not fair to consider parents must be completely self less. Like the tiniest bit of "selfishness" cannot be considered "self care". #### anyone who says parenting isn't stressful.

This is a great post and point, everyone has their own personal threshold for risk, and their own needs for different activities - some of which may be "risky" - to feel engaged with life. Being mostly risk-averse works for me, but like many other idiosyncrasies, that doesn't mean it works for everyone, and it can go deeper than willful ignorance of consequences, which is what I've unconsciously assumed was the rationale for those who seek out risk in the past. Sincerely - thank you for your perspective.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Well, yeah, doing burnouts or speeding in the neighbourhood is ridiculous. There are probably 30 Mustangs within a 500 meter radius of my house. I've never seen anybody do a burnout in the middle of Lake Bonavista. I get that they can be loud, though.

More dbag's in Mckenzie Towne vs Lake Bonavista, it's just science.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I agree with your examples of boating and dirtbiking being risky, but a lot of that risk is under your own control. Road biking is an entirely different level of risk specifically because most of it is completely out of your control. You could be the best rider in the world, but it doesn't matter when a car swerves into you because the driver is a clueless idiot. I rode when I was younger and would love to again, but with all of the idiot drivers out there I know it's only a matter of time until something bad happens. And I don't think it would be fair to my wife or my kids to put them through that

I hear ya, but I feel (sorry, I haven't looked at stats) that most bike incidents are due to the rider riding in a unsafe manner in the first place. As soon as you lose that defensive style, and ride like a jackaas that a lot do, your risk probably increases 100x.

I commute to work on a bike via deerfoot and a variety of other roads, and I've certainly have come across some dumb people day to day, but I wouldn't say it was life threatening. If I was speeding however at 40 over the limit on a rice rocket, for sure I'd be a organ donor.

I don't think you necessarily think you have that much more control on a bike vs a boat. On a bike you have external factors such as other cars and wildlife to deal with, but you drive appropriately and you will likely be safe. Same thing for a boat, if you pilot it safely and respect the water, you will be safe as well, but there are external factors such as waves, winds, drunks, and other things that you may never have dealt with.

[Titan2]

Originally Posted by Cappy

Boat people always humble brag about how much their hobby costs. It's weird

Avatar making a lot more sense now!

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Titan2

Avatar making a lot more sense now!

I wish I had humble brag boat money!

[Sainters7]

GMG when I misplaced something when I was drinking or on the jazz cabbage, you can't even factor in common sense to find it. Could literally be anywhere.

House keys in the fridge crisper? Alright then...

[N-E-B]

Able bodied people in condo buildings that take the elevator from the first floor to the second. The stairs are faster. Quit being lazy and take them.

[81MC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Roughly 25 times more dangerous than driving on a per mile basis which is the most routinely dangerous thing anyone does on a regular basis.

And if we want to play armchair actuaries google states there are about 30 deaths/100 million miles and if we assume 1000 miles per year per driver and 40 years of lost life per death you end up with about 100 hours per year of life shortening by driving a motorcycle.

But if you account for driving 10000 miles per year driving is shortening your life by 40hrs per because you do it so much more.

So commuting to work on a motorcycle likely racks of the lost hours of life whereas riding on the weekend for a few hours is likely dwarfed by the sheer hours you spend driving.

Compared to smoking which shortens your life by 10 years or so over say 60 years of smoking is something like 1500 hours per year of smoking. Though smoking isn’t a straight probability problem so not really correct but I find it interesting.

So the conclusion is if you smoke you might as well ride a motorbike.

Assumes risk is linear. No doubt risk skews inexperience, or overconfidence, or lack of skill or lack of PPE. Even ‘not at fault’ collisions, well, did you do everything you could to be visible, Position yourself well etc.

I don’t think it’s fair to say risk is a function of casualties/km.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Assumes risk is linear. No doubt risk skews inexperience, or overconfidence, or lack of skill or lack of PPE. Even ‘not at fault’ collisions, well, did you do everything you could to be visible, Position yourself well etc.

I don’t think it’s fair to say risk is a function of casualties/km.

Sure but the same is true of the comparison to driving. So I think the ratio of risks between the two is roughly linear. You can get rid of 1/4 of the risk by not driving impaired. Helmets help a bit reducing likelihood of death by 40% in a crash but lots of people wearing helmets still die.

Also I suspect most people when reading these types of stats put themselves in the better than average category and believe they have more control over the world than they do.

But things like diet and exercise dwarf the types of risks we are talking about.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Able bodied people in condo buildings that take the elevator from the first floor to the second. The stairs are faster. Quit being lazy and take them.

could be a zillion reasons why they don't take the stairs, but even if they are simply lazy, who cares.

[Wormius]

The monthly elevator gear grinder. Time flies.

[timun]

People who are annoyed at other people using the elevator when they could be using stairs GMG. Those people complaining about others using the elevator are usually themselves using the elevator, and complain about the people using the elevator for a floor or two because it slows their own trip on the elevator.

Quite simply, if you don't like sharing the elevator with people taking it only a floor or two: you take the stairs.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

Able bodied people in condo buildings that take the elevator from the first floor to the second. The stairs are faster. Quit being lazy and take them.

I don’t even know where the entrance to the stair are in my condo lobby. Any time I have taken them down it takes me outside. And that door is locked from the outside

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by timun

People who are annoyed at other people using the elevator when they could be using stairs GMG. Those people complaining about others using the elevator are usually themselves using the elevator, and complain about the people using the elevator for a floor or two because it slows their own trip on the elevator.

Quite simply, if you don't like sharing the elevator with people taking it only a floor or two: you take the stairs.

Yeah, I said this before. There is literally no difference in your experience between someone getting in one floor below you and taking the elevator two floors up and someone just getting in with you and taking the elevator one floor up. Some people just want to be miserable.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Wormius

The monthly elevator gear grinder. Time flies.

I’m amazed this one bugs people enough that it is a regular topic.

[Strange Brew]

OK this isn't a big deal. But if you are on a long elevator ride and you make multiple stops because people are getting on the elevator for one floor or two, that is a bit of a gear grinder.

[Sliver]

I find myself on an elevator, like, three times a year and even I can appreciate it's annoying when some tit hops on to take one floor. It's a GG because although the inconvenience is mild, it is legitimate to be frustrated by a guy wasting an elevator full of people's time when taking the stairs takes basically the same amount of time and inconveniences nobody.