Talk:Motorcycle safety

message: Reading this article, this section sits very awkwardly.  I am sure there is lots of controversy about Bike safety and causative factors in accidents.  To single out one report seems ill-balanced.  That topic could be moved to an article of its own right, or cut down to about 1 sentance.  I get the impression that it is something the writer feels strongly about, but its really very 'off topic'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.162.100 (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The "controversy" section

message: Re this section.  I feel this is a vanity article, as it simply points out a few non-notable people who have died while riding motorcycles.  It seems heavily weighted towards police officers, so the "experienced" title is innaccurate, and in any case has no hope of being a comprehensive list, given that a much greater number of "experienced riders" have had and will continue to have fatal accidents.
However, I'm open to discussion on this topic.  If there are no other objections or concerns, I'm planning to remove the section again. -Tejastheory 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of motorcycle deaths involving experienced riders

message: How important are motorcyclists to the organ transplant programme (cadaveric donors)? I read the claim in a tabloid that organ transplant programmes would become simply impossible to maintain without the steady supply of head-crushed motorcyclists. Is that true?
It was written in order to oppose the idea that new traffic law would ban motorcycles from carrying more than one person. That is, the tabloid editors think it is a positive idea that rich, reckless young adults can save the lives of six or seven other people via self-extermination.
While some organ donations do involve motorcyclists, there has never been any suggestion from the medical profession that this justifies taking unnecessary risk.Danwoodard (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braindead motorcyclers are important source or not? 

message: I agree that both of these should be merged into motorcycle safety. However, both are commonly used phrases and should be retained and clearly visible within the body of the page - ideally as subsections of the section on Personal protective equipment. --Cheesy Mike 17:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So who does this?  Can you do it, Cheeseman? If so, I say, DO IT! Jeff dean 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to do it, would like to see a couple more opinions first though. :-) --Cheesy Mike 19:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable I suppose. But the ATGATT and MOTGMOTT acronyms are pretty useless as shown and would not be found by someone interested in motorcycle safety — where the information would be more useful. Hell, I am an MSF Chief Instructor and RiderCoach Trainer, and I have never heard of those acronyms So, I suggest you seize the bull by the horns and MERGE! Jeff dean 00:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ATGATT & MOTGMOTT 

message: It's an interesting blog, and I might add it to my bookmarks beside Scooter Scoop, but (a) it's a blog, (b) its focus is on fashion rather than safety (although the two can overlap). It seems to be covered under WP:EL, Links normally to be avoided, 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
Now, WP:EL is a guideline rather than a policy, so there can be some leeway if there's enough of a consensus by editors. My own feeling is that it doesn't have enough relevance to safety to worry about making an exception. AndroidCat 21:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It should not be there. Jeff dean 23:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't have thought it would be possible to have that good of a blog about such a narrow topic.  And scooter racing??  Do many people really race with scooters?  Anyway, on-topic, it does talk about safety almost as much as it talks about fashion, though I still think I agree with the above that it's not focused enough on safety, and not authoritative enough.  --Interiot 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They race in Japan and it looks like fun. AndroidCat 01:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scooter fashion blog

message: "Wilbur Wright, The Wright Brothers, F.C. Kelly, Ballentine, 1966"
I've just read through this and could not find the material quoted in this article. Does anyone know if it is from a particular edition or what page it is on? -AndrewDressel 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material obviously comes from this website, which doesn't provide a source for the text.  It could not have come from the purported original source, because the website author says he deliberately changed "bicycle" to "bike", and our version uses "bike".  If you read "The Wright Brothers" and didn't see it, I'm betting it's not there.  Having an incorrect source like this, in my opinion, is dubious enough that we should not simply remove the source, but we should remove the material as well. --Allen 20:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I finally found a published source in The Bishop's Boys by Tom D. Crouch. You can read it online with Google Books. Since the role of countersteering isn't clear in this article, I've put the information directly in the countersteering article instead. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great!  Now, what was Crouch's source?  Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He puts a footnote after it (#16), which is encouraging, and the table of contents says the notes start on page 531, but Google doesn't have page 531 online. I guess it's time to visit the library again. Dang, just when I thought I could do everything from the comfort of my kitchen table. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wright Brothers 

message: We call the following language "deceptive": "To turn, the motorcycle must lean. To lean the motorcycle, press on the handgrip in the direction of the turn. Press left-lean left-go left. Press right-lean right-go right. Higher speeds and or tighter turns require the motorcycle to lean more.[7]"
How is this deceptive?  It's just a description of countersteering that doesn't use the word itself.  Unless someone can find a reliable source calling this language deceptive, we should take it out.  Same goes for the claim about "deceptive" images, which doesn't even make clear what images it's talking about.
Also, we have too much quoted text in the article.  Not as big a deal as the unsourced claims, though.  --Allen 20:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  deceptive language and diagrams? 

message: For those interested, I have (finally) started a rewrite of the Causes of Accidents section in my Sandbox area.  We had quite a bit of discussion on the subject, and I figure it's about time to get rid of that terrible "Not countersteering causes accidents!" section.
Cheers
Bagheera (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bagheera - I've read your sandbox, it's an infinite improvement over the current content - please remove all the countersteering stuff and put your content in it's place.  Counter steering is a very interesting topic, but all this information should be in the counter-steering article. It has no place in this discussion other than a single sentence stating the number of accidents the Hurt report claims are caused by inability to consciously use countersteering to perform fast evasive manouveurs.  This sentence should appear in your "Operator Error" section.  My only criticism of your sandbox is the splitting of environment from operator error.  It's a tricky issue to get right, but there is a lot of strength to the argument that all environmental causes are actually operator error - skid on ice (shouldn't go so fast round icy corner) - skid on diesel spill (shouldn't ride quickly on traffic junction next to filling station) - lost control after hitting pothole or dead animal (should watch where you are riding) etc. etc.  This section is currently awful with very little actual supported fact about causes of accidents at all. Tonywoodhouse (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I support getting rid of the countersteering stuff. Very much POV IMHO. I'll chip in with some contributions once you put your stuff into the main article. --TimTay (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just read the Hurt report summary - it absolutely does not say that lack of countersteering is the primary cause of accidents - whoever wrote that stuff had clearly never read it.  This whole section is wrong, wrong wrong.  At the risk of upsetting a few people, I will re-write the whole section on causes based on Bagheera's sandbox shortly unless anyone objects.  I'll cite both the Hurt Summary and the more recent british study.  It's worth mentioning that the Hurt study is largely unreliable when looking at the causes of modern UK accidents.  It talks about only 10% riders having a licence, insurance, and the vast majority of riders not wearing a helmet.  All of these factors are totally different in the UK where helmet, insurance and licence are compulsory. Tonywoodhouse (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting a rewrite 

message: #Try page 131 of Motorcycling Excellence, published by MSF.
#Also ... try this
I have not seen an original copy of Wilbur's text, quoted above.  I would like to.
Motorrad-67 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The second just appears to refer to the first, and I can't tell if either is original. At one point, someone cited a biography of the Wright brothers that was based on actual interviews. Unfortunately, when I checked a copy out of the library and read it, I found no mention of countersteering. I'll have to look for a copy of this to see if it cites an original. I'd like to see the original text as well. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: If we do find an original source, it'll make a nice addition to the countersteering article and the history section of the Bicycle and motorcycle dynamics article. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''"Questions Wright brothers and countersteering. I've looked for a source for this, but have been unable to find one."''

message: I get a kick out of this.  Students frequently ask me, "when you say 'press' do you mean press forward or down?"
You press on the handlebars in the only way they go because they pivot around the axis of the steering head.  So, actually, you are pressing a little north of forward because of the head angle or rake of the bike.
So I show the students how the handlebars turn. 
Andrew Dressel has it right: press down all you want, but only pressing forward turns the front wheel and causes countersteering.
That is the best way to put it.  Motorrad-67 (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press down or forward? 

message: As part of the process of cleaning up one of the oldest articles marked for cleanup I have removed some of the long quotations I was unable to incorporate into the article. Instead of deleting them entirely I have moved them off of the main article per WP:NOT (WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE) as well as WP:QUOTEFARM and have instead commented them out here in this talk page section. If you can reincorporate them, feel free to add them back into the article in accordance to policy and guidelins as well as WP:MOS, or consider adding them to Wikiquote. Barkeep Chat | $ 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotations 

message: The whole section is a mess and generally reads like advertising for Honda, Dainese and Hit Air (even quoting prices, which is quite ridiculous for an encyclopedia). Also, many statements are unsourced. Needs a complete do-over, which I am not qualified to provide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.104.3 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Airbag devices

message: * First 125.200.65.68 made an edit and commented that he/she corrected the obvious omission that counter-steering is only done during the first moments of the turn. The words 'initially and momentarily' clarify this point. I agree.
* Then Dbratland reverted the edit with No. If you need to lean deeper during a turn, you countersteer more. When you need to stand the bike up when you're done, you countersteer back. You're always countersteering. I don't agree completely.
One problem is that, as Tonywoodhouse explains above, counter steering is a very interesting topic, but all this information should be in the counter-steering article. It has no place in this discussion other than a single sentence stating the number of accidents the Hurt report claims are caused by inability to consciously use countersteering to perform fast evasive manouveurs. So I don't mind leaving out the words that 125.200.65.68 added.
Another problem is that, as explained in the Countersteering article, countersteering is not precisely defined in the literature. Even Cossalter uses the term to mean something entirely different than the sense at issue here. In fact, I prefer 125.200.65.68's definition because, as Cossalter describes and as the countersteering article tries to explain, the initial, momentary steer torque and angle are both opposite the desired turn direction. The sustained steer angle is in the same direction as the turn. The sustained steer torque required to maintain that steer angle is either with or opposite the turn direction depending on forward speed, bike geometry, and combined bike and rider mass distribution.
I propose that we keep the description as brief as it is here, or make it even briefer, and continue any discussion on how motorcycles are actually turned on the countersteering article talk page. -AndrewDressel (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree. The topic is given undue weight here. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  It's a pointless controversy to have on this page, nor should there be any how-to here or on the page Countersteer.  It might also be helpful to start a how-to on countersteering over at Wikibooks.  Not as a dumping ground, but as an outlet for quality writing on countersteering technique.<P>Also, if we had a good how-=to article on countersteering over at Wikibooks to point to, it would be much easier to delete non-encyclopedic content without feeling like we were gutting the article.  --Dbratland (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countersteering, again. 

message: ...this  is the "missing source" for death statistics in the UK. I have no tiem now to check it. Cheers. Randroide (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think... 

message: This article needs to be expanded to include points of view other than the official ATGATT approach, because this article should not be "how to be safe" but rather be a neutral article that includes a full range of common approaches to safety, including those who have a disregard for safety. I believe this adds to the credibility of the article, which increases the persuasiveness of the gear+training approach by demonstrating an even handed approach. Probably tagging it with  would help raise the profile of the issue.
I added photos :File:Harley riders on I4.jpg and :File:Half helmet Harley-Davidson rider.jpg to begin to illustrate that not everyone thinks alike on this. Specific sources that I think should be used to expand the coverage are Packer's Motoring Without Mayhem , Bourne's Philosophical Ridings  and Bernard Rollin's essay It's my own damn head . Gabrielle Giffords, a strong advocate for motorcycle safety, is also an opponent of mandatory helmets and is reported to ride without a helmet. The majority of US states have repealed helmet laws since the US congress stopped mandating them in order to receive highway funding, emphasizing that these (effing idiots IMHO) are not a fringe group (unfortunately). --Dbratland (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand coverage of safety to include multiple points of view 

message: I deleted some rather blatant editorializing and original research from the Accident rates section but it still needs more cleanup. There are some conclusions drawn about comparisons between the US and Japan that are based mostly on an editors opinions about what the comparative rates per registered vehicle means, ans some data about road length and road type (as a proxy for speed). That's fine as far as it goes, but without comparing accidents per mile, it can be misleading, particularly when the US is involved. Americans have a habit of filling their garages with motorcycles that they don't ride. Consumer Reports reported the average American only puts 1,000 miles per year on each bike they own; drastically fewer miles than other parts of the world. This helps explain why the US fatality rate per registered motorcycle is similar to Europe, but Europe has fewer accidents per mile traveled.<P>In any case, you still aren't free to insert your opinions about what the data means. See WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. You can cite the data, and you can cite what the experts -- not what a Wikipedia editor -- thinks the data tells us. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I am not comfortable with anything added today and therefore using the principle of WP:BRD I have reverted their bold additions back to this revision. I feel that incorrect summaries have been drawn from the wealth data that is presented in the Japanese report and would therefore like to request that any summary of the data is discussed here before adding to the article. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disupted accident rates section 

message: I've created a workpage to work on some revision of this article. I'm thinking the Conroversey section belongs either on Sport bike or Types of motorcycles, since it's more to do with classification schemes and how insurance works in the USA. It doesn't have a lot of broad importance. The main thing I'm working on is a new section, Attitudes about risk. I need to fill in some areas and tweak the wording, but it's coming along. The difficulty is getting the wording right so that it is neutral enough. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Dennis, I think we're done with this workpage -- Attitudes about risk is now incorporated in the article.  Can the workpage be blanked? — Brianhe (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need the workpage for the Attitudes about risk section any more. I still think the Controversy section should be merged into either Sport bike or Types of motorcycles, since the real controversy between the AMA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is over classifying some bikes as sport and others as touring. The Air bags section should be merged into either Motorcycle personal protective equipment or Air bag. But I guess we don't need the workpage to have that discussion, so delete away. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section: Attitudes about risk 

message: Suzy Perry is preaching about long term hearing loss, and it brings to mind hazards other than crashing. Others I can think of are hypothermia, heat illness, dehydration, and wind and particle damage to the eyes. By the same token, Motorcycle personal protective equipment exclusively discusses crash protection and fails to cover the role that clothing plays in preventing these issues. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazards other than crashing are missing from this article 

message: The section on veterans is fine as far as it goes, but there's a couple issues. The first is that Motorcycle_training#Armed_forces_off-duty_riding covers the issue in greater detail, with multiple sources. It might make sense to decide whether Motorcycle safety or Motorcycle training is the main article to cover veteran deaths, and the military's response to it, rather than have duplication at cross purposes.<P>The second issue is that the source makes some invalid arguments: "Data suggests that the faster the bike, the greater the death rate: More than 70 percent of motorcycle rider fatalities in 2006 occurred either on a bike with an engine between 501 and 1,000 cubic centimeters in size, or an engine between 1,001 and 1,500 cc’s." The NHTSA data do not say this. They say that the increase in deaths, nationally, not just among young veterans, since the 1990s, is mostly attributable to more and more riders over age 40 buying large-displacement Harley-Davidsons and similar cruisers, which do not have speed and power consummate with their displacement. Younger rider deaths on faster, but smaller displacement, sport bikes haven't been up dramatically. Except among veterans. In other words, the picture is complicated and it demands more intelligent reasoning than the abilitymagazine.com article provides. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motorcycle deaths and veterans 

message: This section Motorcycle safety#Airbag devices is self-contradictory and badly promotional.  I've cleaned up some of the promotional tone but it still says the devices were invented in either 1973, 1976 or 1995, by inventors in Hungary or Japan, and testing shows 83% improvement in crash or there has been no testing.  The Goldwing price cited at $23,099 contradicts the published 2013 price of $29,550  and probably contradicts WP:NOPRICES anyway.  Please help clean up. Brianhe (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airbag section is a mess 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Motorcycle safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090504143340/http://latimesblogs.latimes.com:80/uptospeed/2009/05/maids-20.html to http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/05/maids-20.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In many countries, incompatibility issues exist between motorcyclers risk attitudes and nationwide road safety plans. Western democratic societies often rely upon fundamental utilitarian views to achieve its function, such as setting the limits to individual freedom to guarantee public safety. Vision Zero and other absolute political goals are fundamentally incongruent with the individualistic philosophy of risk acceptance and valorization. For years, in France, legislative measures have been taken to limit the output power of two wheeled vehicles Legifrance, (10 May 2016) "Article R169", Code de la Route. Talks about mandatory speed limiting devices have surged uproar in the motorcycle communities in countries such as the UK
and Sweden. The arguments used against these devices are discrimination of a group road users, being contrary to national legal customs, and intrusive.
However, rallies and motorcycler’s right organizations have helped inform public officials about the negative impacts of such restrictions on their communities, with no reports of such devices being fitted having seen the day. Instead, collaboration with these groups are leading to increased focus on rider training and roadside safety measures. Moreover, focus is shifted towards the statistically largest percentage of accidents, which are due to alcohol & drug use, non street-legal motorcycles, and riders not having a valid motorcycle license.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overtoasted (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask that you move this text to Talk:Motorcycle safety/Workpage? - Brianhe (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Motorcycle Safety and Society

message: I added two short paragraphs on Blinkers and Rear View Mirrors. I saved it. Now I realize that also Brake Lights should as well be a part of the section. Brake light switches were not installed on motorcycles in the early days of motorcycle models. Hand signals were used to show turn directions, slow down, or stop. There is no section on hand signals. Also headlights. At one time, incandescent lights were the safest, to be replaced by Halogen lamps, which are now being replaced by superbright LEDs. Incandescents originally replaced Acetylene lamps or kerosene lamps. Also, this section could use some references and documentation. B'H.  MichaelAngelo7777  (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of adding information about the historical chronology, but it needs to make sense to the reader.<P>This entire article is focused on the present, with the purpose of explaining the modern circumstances. It goes back to the Hurt Report of the 70s with the purpose of laying a foundation to explain the present. So sticking in this random stuff about dirt bikes and lights that didn't used to be around doesn't make very much sense. Do we need to mention every single thing that bikes didn't have until it was invented? Windscreens? Gears? License plates? Do we need to mention every single thing that off-road bikes don't have?<P>It is confusing to have this stuff pop up out of nowhere like that. It needs to be moved to a separate section that takes a historical view, where you can tick off chronologically each of the things that were invented and later became standard on most bikes in most jurisdictions today. It might even make more sense to go over to History of the motorcycle and add safety innovations like lights and horns and so on in the overall chronology, and then when that's more or less complete, add a summary of the safety history to this article. Off road bikes don't belong in this article at all. If you're going to do that, you're going to have to mention each of the things that racing bikes don't have. Then somebody will object that trials bikes have this but MotoGP bikes have that and flat track bikes have something else. It's out of scope. It's very clear this is an article about road traffic safety. Street legal bikes that you need a license to ride on public roads. And no, that does not mean we need to change the title to some thing long and clumsy like Street legal production road motorcycle safety in modern times. The scope of Wikipedia articles is not required to be defined in the title. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brake Lights - Turn Signal Indicators - Rear View Mirrors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Motorcycle safety. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacc.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/05/maids-20.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140823225106/http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf to http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205212050/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacci4784?version=1 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacci4784?version=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I would like to propose adding the following entry. There does not seem to be any concise discussion of risk. As an emergency physician i have seen quite a few fatalities so I feel providing clear and concise informaiton regarding what the levels of risk are and who is at risk will be useful. Naturally I would like to discuss it first with anyone else interested in this topic:
Risk to the rider and others
NHTSA data from 2016 places the risk of death while riding a motorcycle at 28.51 times the risk of driving the same distance in a car 2016 MOTORCYCLES Traffic Safety Fact Sheet. NHTSA reports that wearing a helmet reduces the risk of death by 37% Helmet Effectiveness Revisited, while data from the insurance industry that helmets are worn an average of 65% of the time by riders nationwide Insurance Institute for Highway Safety - Motorcycles. Based on this data a motorcycle rider's risk of death, compared to his risk when driving a car the same distance, is 25 times greater if he is wearing a helmet and 35 times greater if he is not. 
One argument against laws requiring helmets is the belief that a skilled rider may be able to avoid accidents. However most fatal motorcycle accidents involve collisions with cars, trucks or SUVs and 45% follow a single scenario, a vehicle turning left across the path of a motorcycle travelling in the opposite direction. ( https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/topicoverview )  In this situation the motorcycle has the right of way but even a skilled rider may be unable to avoid the collision. An approaching driver in a larger vehicle will be more likely to be seen. If a collision does occur a fatality is much less likely if both vehicles are enclosed and equipped with crumple zones, seatbelts and airbags 
A second argument against helmet laws is the concept of autonomy, i.e. the rider should be free to accept the risk of riding without a helmet because he/she is the only one harmed. However the rider's death may deprive his family of a beloved parent, spouse or child and potentially of his family's only source of income. Law enforcement and the family of the motorcycle rider may press for the other driver to be charged with vehicular homicide, punishable by a decade or more in prison with potentially irreparable harm to his or her family and children as well as those of the deceased cyclist. https://www.thenewscenter.tv/content/news/Motorcycle-rider-killed-in-head-on-collision-in-Gallia-County-490952711.html . Clearly the pain and suffering resulting from a fatal motorcycle accident, and consequently the risk, is not limited to the rider or even the rider's family.Danwoodard (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine by me if you want to insert some of these statistics where relevant. Many of these are mentioned in other articles, like Motorcycle helmet and Motorcycle fatality rate in U.S. by year. It's important to be clear on what the context of a given risk measurement is. Some individuals are making a choice between two hours of urban bicycling on Saturdays vs two hours of rural motorcycling. The distance is irrelevant; they simply have X number of leisure hours. For a commuter, the distance is fixed, so comparing the risk per mile for car, motorcycle, bicycle or train, is meaningful. For a billionaire commuter, it might be worth knowing the relative risk of covering that 10 miles by helicopter or airplane, which is significantly more dangerous for a short daily commute, compared even to cars, than ground travel, since takeoff and landing are risky, and short trips don't amortize that risk much, as it does with the long airline flights that non-billionaires fly. Motorcycling for leisure or work or commuting are not the same things.<P>As far as arguments, the first thing to remember is how US-centric this debate even is. Wikipedia readers outside the US have no experience with the state-by-state back and forth debate over motorcycle helmets. Writing for a broad, global audience, Motorcycle safety should try to convey the general outlines of why this is even an issue in the US. Everybody else takes mandatory helmet laws for granted.<P>Even aimed only at US readers, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or an advice site. It's not our job to tell anybody that riding without a helmet is bad. Instead, we should try to equip them with a broad understanding. The section Motorcycle_safety#Attitudes_about_risk attempts to do that. It's important to understand that quoting fatality rates to many motorcycle riders is evidence that you aren't even paying attention -- their choice to ride without a helmet has an entirely different basis than what is or isn't safer. The four rough classes of thought about motorcycling risk are deeply incompatible. They have drastically different values, and so the first and perhaps the second group might be interested in risk comparison data, for the third and fourth groups, it's entirely beside the point, so it goes right past them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: ”...what about their families?” Not relevant to an encyclopedia. You could say the same about gun ownership or snowboarding or smoking. There are people who think Wikipedia should strive to “educate” readers about the need for trickledown economics, or Trump’s idiotic wall. That’s why we should try to be detached, and describe points of view, without prescribing anything. I think WikiProject Medicine has many examples of how we can give accurate health information without playing the role of advocate. I’ll pick out some that seem relevant. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for autonomy, allowing the individual to accept risk, but both the family and society should be fully informed of the level and scope of the risk. The effects of a rider's death on his and other families are relevant specifically because the legal effort to repeal helmet laws has been predicated on the assertion that the rider is placing only himself at risk. This plainly is not the case. The goal of this article is not to attempt to persuade cyclists to wear helmets but to inform them and their families of the scope of the risk so that they can make an informed decision and will be prepared. As an example of the tragedy of uninformed decisions, I had a patient recently who was injured in a low speed (<30mph) accident. He was in a prolonged coma and sustained permanent brain, vision and hearing damage. When asked why he was not wearing a helmet he said that he (and his family) assumed that since it was legal, it must be safe. Another family I know of has lost a father, son, husband and breadwinner in a collision that he might have survived with a helmet and would have been uninjured in a car. His decision not to wear a helmet has destroyed both his family and the family of the other driver. In other high risk sports the risk is more likely to be understood and accepted by the family and others are unlikely to be blamed if the participant dies.Danwoodard (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "I am all for autonomy"? Let me be more blunt: what you are for and not for belongs on your Livejournal, not a Wikipedia article. Not even a talk page. Yes, it's probably helpful if we reveal our personal biases, but only to a point. Using talk pages to engage in discussions that aren't about how to improve the article are a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NOTFORUM policy, explained in detail at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Personal anecdotes about your patients don't belong on Wikipedia. Content should flow from sources. Starting with your personal experiences and then going and searching for sources that support what you have to say means confirmation bias is built in from the outset.<P>If you added information in an article about light bulbs intended to help consumers choose which bulb would be most economical, that would violate the the WP:NOTCATALOG policy -- Wikipedia is not a price comparison service. If you wrote content with the intent of helping readers pick the best adhesive for a broken chair leg, that would violate the WP:NOTADVICE or WP:NOTMANUAL policy.<P>You're making it very clear that your basic goal is to tell people what they should and shouldn't do, and to advocate for against a specific political agenda. And, yes, there is policy against that, WP:NOTSOAPBOX.<P>If you've stated that this is your goal and your edits are explicitly designed to subvert and skirt clear policy restrictions, then you're not editing in good faith and you're not here to build an encyclopedia.<P>Most of us can put aside our own feelings and think about a topic objectively, if we are motivated to do so. If you say you are trying to put aside your biases and communicate facts dispassionately, we will all strive to assume good faith that you're at least as capable of objectivity as the rest of us. All I'm really asking for is for you to take the approach of describing significant points of view. If anti-helmet law groups are making a certain argument, find a good secondary source that verifies that, and summarize it. Find good secondary sources that state the counter arguments by those favoring helmet laws, and summarize those. You do not have to treat crackpot theories as equal to scientific fact, creating  the fallacy of false balance. Consider how the articles Vaccination policy and Vaccine controversies are written. Your best role models are the many Featured Articles in :Category:FA-Class medicine articles. Good examples are FAs like Lung cancer, which makes very clear how harmful smoking is without advocating for smoking bans or preaching to quit smoking. Water fluoridation is a close parallel to helmet laws, and you can see that it pulls no punches. Or consider Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act. There's helpful guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/How to edit.<P>Please don't let me stop you from proceeding. I think you should go ahead and expand the article as you describe; you've been shown where to find the necessary guidance on our goal of a neutral point of view. I'd also consider that the people whose minds you want to change have already seen and ignored many pro-helmet-law advertisements from the CDC and IIHS and so on, and if they think this Wikipedia article is just parroting that official line, they'll ignore that too. If you meet them where they are, and they know that you take seriously the kind of thinking behind their choices, they'll probably be more willing to listen to a different side. If you ask me, what really matters is that social identity is inextricably bound up with ideology like opposition to helmet laws, and that exists independent of facts like relative risk or social costs of injuries. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risk 

message: These edits, by , followed by some changes by me, I think are a big improvement. The UK report for 2017 that Danwoodard adds a lot of detail. I tried to clarify why the US and UK rates per mile aren't comparable, but I think it can be better. We should probably give an example, such as a vehicle with 3 occupations going one mile and crashing, with one fatality. That would count as one fatality per vehicle mile traveled, which is what the US data is. Per passenger mile, it would be one fatality per 3 passenger miles, since two of the three survived. The first gives a number three times as high, even though it's describing the same thing. Because the US data doesn't include the average number of vehicle occupants, it's impossible to tease out the underlying reality, so a direct comparison is impossible. Perhaps Americans and Britons have on average the same number of vehicle occupants, but we can't assume that.<P>I'd like to assume an average speed for bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles and cars, to calculate from this data a rate per hour, describing leisure time rather than an effort to get from A to B. So if you said bicycles average 10 mph, they would have 309 deaths per billion hours, while motorcycles, if they average 50 mph, would have 5,845 deaths per billion hours, and pedestrians only about 106 per billion hours. With better assumptions, I think this is valid, but it goes beyond the routine calculations allowed by the WP:CALC section of the WP:No original research policy. We'd need to find this actually stated in a source, rather than figuring it out ourselves.<P>What we can do is work on making this more readable and anticipate any confusion readers might have, and of course correct any errors. Hopefully I didn't introduce any but chances are I did at least a little. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansions of risk section