Rural Roads More Dangerous Than Urban

2221 Views 16 Replies 16 Participants Last post by rickr01, Dec 23, 2005

timbo

Discussion Starter · Dec 22, 2005

http://motorcyclecruiser.com/newsandupdates/ruralrd/

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

heliman

· #2 · Dec 22, 2005

Interesting study!

I have to whole-heartedly disagree with the basic premise. I live in the country and do most of my riding in the country. I know the roads, traffic, and wildlife. In urban situations potholes can arise overnight, traffic is anything but predictable, and urban two-legged "wildlife" are far more dangerous than the four legged kind.

If you consider the "stupid" factor where riders break the speed limit, drive reckless, and push their riding abilities, then the problem lies with the rider, not the rural roads.

There are few things any safer than riding mid-day on a warm sunny day in the country loaping along at 45 to 50 mph. :chopper:

IMOHO

fauskar

· #3 · Dec 22, 2005

With due respect, that's old news.

PickAttack

· #4 · Dec 22, 2005

So we're actually safer and less likely to be in an accident riding around town with idiot cagers on cell phones?*TIBS*

swmnkdinthervr

· #5 · Dec 22, 2005

heliman said:
Interesting study!

I have to whole-heartedly disagree with the basic premise. I live in the country and do most of my riding in the country. I know the roads, traffic, and wildlife. In urban situations potholes can arise overnight, traffic is anything but predictable, and urban two-legged "wildlife" are far more dangerous than the four legged kind.

If you consider the "stupid" factor where riders break the speed limit, drive reckless, and push their riding abilities, then the problem lies with the rider, not the rural roads.

There are few things any safer than riding mid-day on a warm sunny day in the country loaping along at 45 to 50 mph. :chopper:

IMOHO

Yeah...kinda like the gun being responsible for the shooting...momma always said...stupid is as stupid does...

TomB

· #6 · Dec 22, 2005

Actually, the magazine is completely MIS-STATING the data when they suggest that motorcyclists are in more danger on rural roads. The specific risk to motorcyclists is iunknown, because the study didn't look at it. The magazine reporter has jumped to a conclusion. The reporter seems to be suggesting the following: since 42% more motor vehicle accidents occur on rural roads than on urban roads, and since 4% of ALL motor vehicle accidents involve motorcyles, therefore motorcycle accidents are more likely to occur on rural roads. That conclusion requires a leap of faith, because the data simply doesn't say one way or the other. It's statistially possible (though realistically unlikely) that ALL motorcycle accidents occur in the city. Yet another example of a reporter completely mis-understanding scientific data and reporting his misunderstanding as gospel truth.

Skyview

· #7 · Dec 22, 2005

Journalists write stories to sell papers and grab attention, not to report the facts only. They use facts and spin the story to what they think will grab your attention.

Bhawk

· #8 · Dec 22, 2005

Fatal accidents, as the article states, not accidents. It's true this article does not clearly focus on motorcyclists, but any number of studies have shown that country two-lane roads are the most dangerous for fatalities. Not sure why it would be different for motorcycles. In the city, they may hit us more often, but everybody is going slower.

PickAttack said:
So we're actually safer and less likely to be in an accident riding around town with idiot cagers on cell phones?*TIBS*

fxrflh

· #9 · Dec 22, 2005

That journalist needs to come take a ride with me into NYC, he'll learn real quick that it's way more dangerous than a county road in North Jersey real quick...

fatdruid

· #10 · Dec 22, 2005

urban safer???

Maybe it's just me, but it seems this reporter has their head so far up their ass they can't smell the coffee.
Where I live(Twentynine Palms, CA) we have a lot of what could be considered "country" roads and "urban" roads that become country pretty quick. We also, because of a large Marine Base, have a higher than average concentration of motorcycles. If my memory serves, we haven't had a motorcycle fatality in over a year. That one and the two previous were caused by stupid or impaired cagers, not the riders.
We're on one of the most popular routes to Laughlin, with both city and country riding. I guess it's a good on us that people around here aren't as "rider stupid" as the reporter.

Peacekeeper

· #11 · Dec 22, 2005

believe their stats are twisted. Another lifetime ago I worked as a traffic officer. I had the displeasure to work numerous motorcycle accidents. The majority, maybe 85% to 90% were directly related to two (2) factors.

1) Cadges turning in front of motorcycles.
2) Motorcycles traveling at an excessive speed in the presence of cadges.

A lot were a combination of both involving young inexperienced riders on crotch rockets. Approximately 100% of the time the cadge drivers first statement was I never saw him coming. The majority of the accidents worked by me involving older experienced riders were attributed to the cadge and not the rider. These types usually involved left turns in front of bike and rear ending of the bike. Rarely were there many rural accidents between cadge and bike. Most of the rural wrecks were attributed to either excessive speed or wildlife/livestock collisions with the latter being very rare. Older riders tended to be involved in more single bike wrecks attributed to alcohol.

But then that was another lifetime ago, who knows what the deal is today.

:chopper:

See less See more

PickAttack

· #12 · Dec 22, 2005

Bhawk said:
Fatal accidents, as the article states, not accidents. It's true this article does not clearly focus on motorcyclists, but any number of studies have shown that country two-lane roads are the most dangerous for fatalities. Not sure why it would be different for motorcycles. In the city, they may hit us more often, but everybody is going slower.

Since it didn't clearly focus on motorcycles, I just left the word "fatal" out of the question. :duh?:

FlaFatBoy

· #13 · Dec 22, 2005

TomB said:
Actually, the magazine is completely MIS-STATING the data when they suggest that motorcyclists are in more danger on rural roads. The specific risk to motorcyclists is iunknown, because the study didn't look at it. The magazine reporter has jumped to a conclusion. The reporter seems to be suggesting the following: since 42% more motor vehicle accidents occur on rural roads than on urban roads, and since 4% of ALL motor vehicle accidents involve motorcyles, therefore motorcycle accidents are more likely to occur on rural roads. That conclusion requires a leap of faith, because the data simply doesn't say one way or the other. It's statistially possible (though realistically unlikely) that ALL motorcycle accidents occur in the city. Yet another example of a reporter completely mis-understanding scientific data and reporting his misunderstanding as gospel truth.

@gree: with Tom

ccrane2299

· #14 · Dec 23, 2005

I would think that most accidents WOULD happen on rural roads...That is where we like to ride. Most accidents happen close to your home...that is where you are most likely to be. Same argument I think.
Chris

Kindsvater Flat

· #15 · Dec 23, 2005

Just got to watch out for those drunken farmers....

Wait thats me! :laugh:

See less See more

petelogan

· #16 · Dec 23, 2005

Peacekeeper said:
believe their stats are twisted. Another lifetime ago I worked as a traffic officer. I had the displeasure to work numerous motorcycle accidents. The majority, maybe 85% to 90% were directly related to two (2) factors.

1) Cadges turning in front of motorcycles.
2) Motorcycles traveling at an excessive speed in the presence of cadges.

................

But then that was another lifetime ago, who knows what the deal is today.

:chopper:

Same.

I believe the "I never saw him" is always a lie. They see, they just underestimated the speed, and overestimated the distance. If they told the truth, they would say "I thought I had time".

Road layout also makes a difference. Here in Luxembourg we have very few turn-across situations outside the towns, and almost all riding is done in the country on sport bikes.

So here the causes of fatalities in order are:

1. Rider loses control on a left hand bend and merges with scenery

2. Rider loses control on a right hand bend and merges with oncoming traffic, and

3. Granny turns left and creams rider.

See less See more

rickr01

· #17 · Dec 23, 2005

Leaf Peepers

The most dangerous time to drive in Vermont is during leaf peeper season when the idiots are looking at the leaves, yelling at the kids and talking business on the cell phones all at the same time. There is more rear end collisions during this time then any other in Vermont, and that includes bikes.

The rest of the time I would have to disagree with the report!

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.