From: aqn@tivoli.UUCP (Andy Nguyen)
Newsgroups: austin.general
Subject: Re: accepting risk (was speed traps on 2222)
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:31:06 GMT
Reply-To: aqn@tivoli.UUCP (Andy Nguyen)
Distribution: austin
Organization: Tivoli Systems Inc., Austin, TX

rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) wrote:
>Personally, motorcyclists give me the heebie jeebies because, in urban
>traffic, appropriate separations AREN'T maintained, and I know that if
>the driver makes a mistake, and takes a spill, a car driver is very likely
>going to "terminate" his life.
>And, in today's litigious society, who is
>to say that your wife, your children, or your parents, won't try to sue that 
>driver's ass off because of that?

Did you notice that the last sentence apply equally well to four-wheel
drivers, heavy machinery operators, and bungee jumpers?

>Any vehicle driver--car, truck, or motorcycle--claiming that he's performing
>the automotive equivalent of running ass-naked across the prairies, "not 
>affecting anyone else" because of {superior skill, financial grounding, etc}, 
>just isn't facing reality real well.  You're a part of traffic, which just
							^^^^^^^
>happens to be comprised of vehicles weighing from 2,000 to 20,000 lbs, driving
>at high speeds, very likely in mediocre to poor streets and in marginal 
		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>weather.

You are referring to riders/drivers who act irresponsibly in traffic,
on poor roads, and/or in bad weather.  I am NOT arguing FOR those types.

You are assuming that anyone claiming "`not affecting anyone
else'" does not have the intelligence and/or common sense to know when
s/he might be endangering others.  Furthermore, you are assuming that
just because someone likes to drive fast or likes to ride a motorcycle,
that that person will necessarily do so irresponsibly and/or do so in
traffic and/or on poor roads and/or in poor weather.

I agree 100% that  motorcycles are more _physically_ vulnerable
than multi-track vehicles.  However, motorcycles are also superior
when it comes to size, braking, acceleration  i.e. accident avoidance
qualities (buy any moto-mag and any car mag and compare the dimensions,
the weight, and the braking & acceleration numbers).  A motorcycle can
get out of a dangerous situation;  a cage might be a sitting duck with
nowhere to go.

>YOU can't anticipate how you will die, or who you will affect.

Precisely.  Regardless of whether or not you drive a four-wheeled vehicle.
Or a two-wheeled vehicle.  And that is my point here:  why single out
motorcycles?  No one group has a monopoly on dangerous, irresponsible
behavior.

>Your 
>arguments are as specious as the generalizations you find objectionable.
>
>I would like to see either side produce some figures to back their claims;
>so far, nobody has done so.  It shouldn't be too hard, either.  Based on
>my visits to ICU wards, and the number of patients suffering from some type
>of head or spinal trauma--often younger people, quite often a result of
>motorcycle or bicycle crashes, I suspect the naysayers may have a better
>foundation.
>So let's have some facts.  I know there are responsible motorcylists out
>there; a daily commute down Mopac will show a lot who aren't.

After stating your own anecdotal "facts:"

   "...in urban traffic, appropriate separations AREN'T maintained, and
   I know that if the driver makes a mistake, and takes a spill, a car
   ^^^^^^
   driver is very likely going to "terminate" his life,"
   	     ^^^^^^^^^^^
   "...traffic, which just happens to be comprised of vehicles weighing
   from 2,000 to 20,000 lbs, ..."
		 ^^^^^^
   [An empty 16-wheeler w/ a full load of diesel weighs about 30,000 lbs;
   fully loaded it could weigh 60,000 lbs [source:  Larry Swanson, Mayflower
   Van Lines truck driver, the guy who deliver my stuff from New York;
   you ask your own truck driver =|-] ]
   
   "....based on my visits to ICUs ward...",
	^^^^^^^^^^^

   "...a daily commute down Mopac will show a lot [of motorcyclists] who
   aren't..."

you are doing well asking for "facts."

It takes no great leap of the imagination to figure out that since
the number of car registrations is far more than the number of
motorcycle registrations,  it would follow that the number of
motorcycle-related accidents would be far less.

However, here are my supporting data (from "Statistical Abstracts
Of The United States", avail your local lib):

Table 1035, page 609: "Motor-Vehicle Registrations, 1980 to 1989, ..."
Registration (1989):
Cars (incl. taxis)	144,375,000
Motorcycles		  4,376,000

Table 1042, "Motor Vehicle Accidents-Numbers and Deaths: 1970 to 1989"
Motor vehicle accidents (1989):
Cars			 15,300,000
Motorcycles		    211,000

Table 1044, "Fatal Motor Vehicle Accidents, by Type of Vehicle: 1980 to 1988"
Occupant fatalities (1987):
Passenger cars		     25,132
Motorcyles		      3,834

...which is what I am claiming:  the number of motorcycle-related deaths
does not warrant the motorcycle's reputation as a "donorcycle."

-- 
"Obscenity is a crutch for f*cking inarticulate bastards."
Andy Nguyen/Team Paranoid (512) 794-9070  aqn@tivoli.com  ...!uunet!tivoli!aqn
Xref: sparky austin.general:3384 austin.forsale:2449 tx.forsale:460