And I've seen what happens when pedestrians get hit by a car going way too fast, it sucks, and is horrible, but also besides the point. Not to say one has worse/better accidents, motorcycles accidents obviously has a much higher fatality and serious injuries risk, hard to deny.

>but also besides the point.

Hard disagree.

Both pedestrians and motorcyclists are raw to the elements, entirely. At least when on roadways an automobile provides a chassis/rollcage.

When vulnerable road users are killed in other countries there is strict liability. That is, the driver is assumed at fault unless proven otherwise.

In America it's the perfect crime.

"I'm so sorry officer I never saw them."

Case closed Lou.

~>here in America

Which is why yesterday, in my mid-sized Southern City: after a motorcyclist hit&ran off the Interstate (dead, into a guardrail; 35, helmet'd/licensed, obeying traffic laws), the local biker clubs put down their swords and rallied in the median well after the accident occurred (as my local newspaper noted).

With all these millions already-spent on Flock cameræ, and T-DOT having dozens more (of their own)... you'd think we'd'a'already caught these guys.!?

----

It's so sad that lack of accountability results in fleeing manslaughterers... but here we are.

You disagree with me agreeing with what you just wrote about it being more dangerous to go with motorcycles?

The "besides the point" is that the point I was raising was how common motorcycles are, globally. Is that what you're disagreeing with?

Let me read both these comments some more, because after this one (above): I'm even more confused.

Quickly: we seem to agree that motorcycles are dangerous and worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). I had associated your beside the point with a biker being more-safe than a pedestrian -- is that what you meant?

----

I have done 120mph in both vehicles, car and motorcycle – and won't ever go over 55mph on a dirtbike (only, offroad); never again on-road riding.

> worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture).

Huh? No, it's mostly correlated with working class and below, hardly "correlated with poverty", at least the places I'm familiar with.

I do agree they're dangerous. I don't agree that everyone should always avoid everything dangerous simply because it's dangerous.

Accidents. Not everything is under the driver's control, nor does it happen due to their intention (or even necessarily due to their lack of attention or whatever).

There's a reason the term accident is used (I know at least 10 countries where the meaning is the same).

Crash.

Google crash not accident will give many resources.

https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash...

> there's a reason

Yes, the auto lobby.

Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving.

That's just not true.

> Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving.

What? Where is that conclusion coming from? There can be thousands of "accidents" and they can all be preventable, calling it "crash" or "accident" doesn't imply if it's preventable or not.

Talk about arbitrary hill to die on, very inconsequential. Why is this somehow so important?

FWIW, countries like Sweden call them "accidents" yet treat them as preventable and something to aim to minimize, not sure why it'd matter so much if someone call it accident or not.