Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Autonomous cars versus old motorcycles

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. Cotten View Post
    Can't get much worse, Eric!

    Today, my local CBS affiliate broadcast in its morning and noon news reported that a Canadian study claims there are "five times more motorcycle fatalities than for automobiles".

    If that ain't 'fake news', what is?

    .....Cotten
    PS: Curiously, I cannot find it on their website...
    The CBS station and the originating radio station in Toronto got the whole study results wrong. It was a study of the hospital and other medical costs of treating motorcycle and automobile accident victims and was done by Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto and University of Toronto medical research people.
    Some comments from a Toronto motorcycle forum to-day were

    ": This study (yeah, I read the whole thing) seems to direct itself
    : towards medical costs incurred per accident and omits DOAs.
    : There the ratio seems to be 6:1, with 5:1 being the likelihood of
    : death per accident (MC to car) based on distance travelled per
    : year.
    : Motorcyclists sustain 3 times the number of injuries per accident
    : as people in cars (makes sense)."

    The radio station headline was
    : “Motorcycles account for five times the deaths, six times the
    : medical costs and 10 times the severe injuries – those
    : injuries being ones that would matter to your life – as
    : compared to cars.”

    : This headline is very misleading.

    My comments on the radio station's claims were -

    "Looking at US M/C accident statistics motorcyclist fatalities are in the 14 to 16% range of the total of all traffic fatalities in a number of states.
    The headline "motorcycles cause 10 %....." is inaccurate and misleading. In 2016 of 775 traffic fatalities in Ontario,(where the study took place) motorcycles were involved in 57 fatalities (7.4% of all fatalities). Considering that for the last year of complete accident data so far published for Ontario (2014) 43.1 % of motorcycle fatal accidents were single vehicle ones (and therefore fault could be presumed to be likely due to the motorcyclist) that leaves 56.9% to have involved 2 or more vehicles. Traditionally, this sort of collision data, in my experience of looking at actual collision reports, suggests that about half of the 2 or more vehicle collisions where one was a motorcycle, fault could be found with the behaviour of the other vehicle.
    So probably about 1/3 of the motorcyclist fatalities are the result of errors by other vehicles. Therefore, citizens on motorcycles and making errors while riding are principally responsible for about 5% of the road traffic fatalities in Ontario.

    AFJ

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AFJ View Post
    The CBS station and the originating radio station in Toronto got the whole study results wrong. It was a study of the hospital and other medical costs of treating motorcycle and automobile accident victims and was done by Sunnybrook hospital in Toronto and University of Toronto medical research people.
    Some comments from a Toronto motorcycle forum to-day were

    ": This study (yeah, I read the whole thing) seems to direct itself
    : towards medical costs incurred per accident and omits DOAs.
    : There the ratio seems to be 6:1, with 5:1 being the likelihood of
    : death per accident (MC to car) based on distance travelled per
    : year.
    : Motorcyclists sustain 3 times the number of injuries per accident
    : as people in cars (makes sense)."

    The radio station headline was
    : “Motorcycles account for five times the deaths, six times the
    : medical costs and 10 times the severe injuries – those
    : injuries being ones that would matter to your life – as
    : compared to cars.”

    : This headline is very misleading.

    My comments on the radio station's claims were -

    "Looking at US M/C accident statistics motorcyclist fatalities are in the 14 to 16% range of the total of all traffic fatalities in a number of states.
    The headline "motorcycles cause 10 %....." is inaccurate and misleading. In 2016 of 775 traffic fatalities in Ontario,(where the study took place) motorcycles were involved in 57 fatalities (7.4% of all fatalities). Considering that for the last year of complete accident data so far published for Ontario (2014) 43.1 % of motorcycle fatal accidents were single vehicle ones (and therefore fault could be presumed to be likely due to the motorcyclist) that leaves 56.9% to have involved 2 or more vehicles. Traditionally, this sort of collision data, in my experience of looking at actual collision reports, suggests that about half of the 2 or more vehicle collisions where one was a motorcycle, fault could be found with the behaviour of the other vehicle.
    So probably about 1/3 of the motorcyclist fatalities are the result of errors by other vehicles. Therefore, citizens on motorcycles and making errors while riding are principally responsible for about 5% of the road traffic fatalities in Ontario.

    AFJ
    The scientific paper on which the radio stations, who were involved, reported on stated the following in regard to their data source.
    "The study was conducted by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Services and the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. The study examined Ontario crash victims (26,831 motorcyclists and 281,826 automobile passengers) from 2007 to 2013. It calculated the cost of the crashes to the health care system, and compared the aftermath of the car crashes to the bike crashes."

    I went to the official Ontario statistics (ORSAR) for the full years 2007 through 2013 (The medical study covered data from spring 2007 to spring 2013) and counted up the following totals for the seven years 2007-2013.
    Total number of road licensed motorcycle and licensed moped drivers and passengers involved in accidents - 13,493
    Total number persons requiring treatment at emergency rooms but NOT requiring a stay in hospital of 1 night or more - 7,696
    Total number of persons requiring a stay in hospital of 1 night or more - 2,064
    Therefore the total hospital cases relating to motorcycle accidents in those 7 years should be 9,760, not 26,831.

    Why do these figures differ?
    Probably the fact that the scientific paper's authors wrote that the coding system used by the hospitals has never been validated for distinguishing "amongst motorcycles, mopeds, motor scooters and motorized bicycles" and the fact that in looking at information from that source some years ago I noted that there were injury cases of "scooter riders" over 90 years of age reported. Presumably to someone who works in a hospital, a 'scooter" may be a device to assist senior's mobility.
    The number of bicycle accidents over those 7 years is recorded by ORSAR as 17,861 and the injury (emergency treatment and admitted for at least one night's stay treatment) totalled 9,299 cases. Maybe motorcycles and bicycles are being confused by hospital staff who probably are more interested in patient care than in recording information for statisticians.

    AFJ

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    563

    Default

    Thought I would post this here instead of starting a new thread since it still pertains to our old motorcycles and the future of being able to ride them.

    AMA magazine, Dec. 2017, page 14. CA Gov. Jerry Brown is considering banning the sale of vehicles powered by internal combustion engines a decade from now, according to a report from Bloomberg News. Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, told the news agency the measure may be necessary to achieve long-term targets for cleaner air. Car and motorcycle manufacturers would be under heightened pressure to move toward vehicles powered by electricity, hydrogen or other fuel sources.
    Bob Rice #6738
    He that conquereth his own soul is greater than he who taketh a city.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigLakeBob View Post
    Thought I would post this here instead of starting a new thread since it still pertains to our old motorcycles and the future of being able to ride them.

    AMA magazine, Dec. 2017, page 14. CA Gov. Jerry Brown is considering banning the sale of vehicles powered by internal combustion engines a decade from now, according to a report from Bloomberg News. Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board, told the news agency the measure may be necessary to achieve long-term targets for cleaner air. Car and motorcycle manufacturers would be under heightened pressure to move toward vehicles powered by electricity, hydrogen or other fuel sources.
    What Bloomberg (and Gov. Brown) actually said -

    "California’s energy future is visible in the underground garage of a luxury condominium that rises behind the façade of a former San Francisco muffler shop. The parking spaces come equipped with charging stations for electric cars -- an amenity that, as of next year, the city will require.

    The city law, which mandates that at least 10 percent of parking spaces in all new buildings be equipped with car chargers, is just one way the state and local governments are pushing Californians to use emissions-free cars and trucks. How California’s strategies work is a question of interest far beyond America’s largest state.

    Its experiments come in many forms and sizes. Electric car sharing programs are under way in low-income neighborhoods in Sacramento and Los Angeles, and free public chargers are springing up on streets and in parking garages. L.A. is leading a group of 30 cities in an effort to persuade automakers to build zero-emission police cruisers, street sweepers, buses and trash trucks.

    The state government, for its part, is creating an array of incentives to get people, school districts and businesses to go electric: rebates and loan assistance for buyers of electric and hybrid cars (with more money available for low-income buyers); electric car sharing programs; clean vehicles for farm-worker van pools; electric school buses, and vouchers to help businesses buy trucks, tractors, bulldozers, forklifts -- whatever kind of mobile machinery they use.

    California’s cap and trade program, which puts a rising price on greenhouse-gas emissions, is a crucial part of its plan. Not only has the program has modestly raised the price of gasoline, making electric cars marginally more competitive, it helps pay for the aforementioned experiments. Proceeds from the program’s emissions permit auctions raise almost $2 billion a year.

    The state’s goal -- 1.5 million zero-emissions vehicles by 2025 -- still seems distant. There are only about 340,000 electric cars in the state right now, bought over the last six years, and Californians already buy almost half of all electric cars sold in the U.S. Having pledged to lower its greenhouse-gas emissions 40 percent by 2030, however -- the greatest share of which come from car and truck tailpipes -- California is trying almost everything.

    It’s not surprising that the effort is most pronounced in urban areas. That’s where pollution is greater (six of the 10 most polluted cities in the U.S. are in California) and political support for climate policy is stronger (Los Angeles’s and San Francisco’s plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are more aggressive than the state’s).

    There are a few things California has yet to try to drive gasoline-fueled cars off the road. Governor Jerry Brown recently raised the possibility of simply banning the sale of them -- as China, France and the U.K. all have pledged to do in coming decades. Such a step might be necessary someday, and not just in a single state, to avert ecological disaster. In the meantime, California is helping the rest of the U.S. figure out what works -- one parking spot at a time."

    I don't read that as a "ban on the internal combustion engine in 10 years" but an attempt to find solutions to serious urban air pollution problems.

    AFJ

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    3,711

    Default

    This is very much like checking the air pressure in your tires as your car is plummeting off a cliff. If this world does not put a priority on getting population under control, these 'feel good' green initiatives will be pointless; and population control will happen under nightmare conditions, and despite us. I don't believe human technology or politics is remotely close to balancing the needs of 12 billion plus people in this century. I agree that things can and need to be done, but all of these conversations ignore the elephant in the room.
    Eric Smith
    AMCA #886

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    433

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by exeric View Post
    This is very much like checking the air pressure in your tires as your car is plummeting off a cliff. If this world does not put a priority on getting population under control, these 'feel good' green initiatives will be pointless; and population control will happen under nightmare conditions, and despite us. I don't believe human technology or politics is remotely close to balancing the needs of 12 billion plus people in this century. I agree that things can and need to be done, but all of these conversations ignore the elephant in the room.
    This discussion about self-driving cars was useful in that it discussed a looming problem for those of us who still would like to be able to ride our old bikes on public roads. Off-topic posts about perceived immense problems such as you describe are not very helpful, particularly as you do not propose any solutions to the increasing human population of this planet.
    AFJ

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sarasota, Florida
    Posts
    3,711

    Default

    Your criticism is absolutely correct, and I have no solutions, and unfortunately, I have yet to hear of any solutions. I'm sorry for being such a gloomy Gus, but you have sort of proved my point. No one wants to include over-population in conversations about the environment, transportation, medicine, or land use. We can talk about technology, and how it could have a positive effect on the future, but we have all seen what fuels massive change in human behavior and it's historically something bad. This has been an interesting conversation, but I'm afraid I am too cynical to contribute, so I'll bow out. I will say that I ride a bicycle every day, and try to do all my errands with it. I have tried to live in harmony with the natural world, and avoid useless waste, and squandering of resources. I think if that approach to life was more pervasive, we might not be having this conversation.
    Eric Smith
    AMCA #886

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Central Illinois, USA
    Posts
    3,553

    Default

    We could still put up a fight, Folks!

    Our immediate concern is insuring that new regulations will have a "grandfather" clause, allowing "obsolete" or "Historical" vehicles to remain in service.

    The best advocate would be as large and broad of an organization as possible, representing as many voters as possible.

    Sometimes you gotta hold your nose and take the medicine.

    ....Cotten
    AMCA #776
    Dumpster Diver's Motto: Seek,... and Ye Shall Find!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    328

    Default

    I hope these headlesss cars and trucks have some kind of head,maybe with eyes,so I can still get a read if the driver(computer) sees me or not.I get extra cautious if Im coming thru an intersection and the car waiting to pull out has all blacked out windows.I like to read the drivers and the roads.
    Tom

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    433

    Default

    There are a whole host of issues regarding this and a lot that haven't even been touched on. What if you are taking a road trip to the west coast and live in a state that sill allows fossil fuel vehicles? Are you stopped at the border and denied entry? Another big what is how will the insurance companies weigh in on this. They are going to want to be able to assign liability in case of an accident. Is the vehicle at fault? How does it pay for damages? I too have no answers but I can tell you that the rush to put autonomous vehicles on the road is fraught with questions and problems that have yet to be resolved. Yes there are a lot of people on the planet but they are concentrated and not dispersed and for a myriad of reasons. China's one child policy looked like a great idea at the time but now they are starting to realize the down side of that policy. No males. Just remember one of the scientific principals "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" If people would remember that when dreaming up stuff we might have a more harmonious world. Bash away!

    Tom (Rollo) Hardy
    AMCA #12766

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •