Infants On Motorbikes.

[TonySoprano]

I was born and raised in the west. I cannot remember ever seeing anybody drive a motorbike with an infant onboard.

They even have baby seats that attach to the steering column. Since moving out of the west I have witnessed it as common practice. Why don't we do it in the west?

There could even be export opportunities exporting the steering column baby seats.

i take it these are rhetorical questions, in which case you are preaching to the quire.

[TonySoprano]

Why don't we do it in the west?

Probably because to most westerners the idea of having an infant on a motorbike is absolute insanity. No way would it be legal in any western country either.

Fair comment, however, their thinking must change when they have been in Thailand for a while, i have seen many westerners in Pattaya with the infant onboard!

seriously?

that's sad.

[TonySoprano]

clearly the people commenting in this thread have the education of a 1yo child.

Clearly a 2 yo child would know that a car getting into a car crashed will get smashed AS MUCH as a motorbike.

As far as small collisions go, on a motorbike you can avoid them fairly easily by looking in your mirror at all time and avoiding 85% of thai drivers(the drunk %)

wow

[WinnieTheKhwai]

If you look at some Western countries, like Holland, then you will see loads of kids being ferried around on push bikes, usually two of them. And no helmets. ( Note that the Dutch don't go much slower on a push bike than a careful Thai family would on a motorbike. )

So, yes, Westerners do it too.

And as little as 20 years ago child safety seats in cars were also unheard of in most Western countries.. Thailand will catch up sooner or later. Probably sooner, looking at the birth rate.

[Cuban]

Can't say I've seen the police pull motorbikes when the passenger is not wearing a helmet, only when the driver is not wearing a helmet.

Depends on local police and enforcement policy - but the law is that every person on a motorbike or scooter must wear a helmet. Enforced in central Pattaya not in rural Issan.

[loong]

I have often wondered if driving a motorbike is so much more dangerous than driving a car.

I see lots of near misses with motorbikes where their maneuverability has saved the day.

I've seen accidents involving cars, pickups etc, but not many motorbikes.

I've seen the aftermath of an accident where a cement mixer truck ploughed into cars and pickups, yet it seems motorbikes were able to get out of the way. The 4 wheeled vehicles had no way to avoid the accident.

From the Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...or-lack-thereof

In Thailand, a middle-income country, there were 12,492 road accident deaths recorded in 2007 and as many as 973,104 non-fatal injuries in 2006. But more tellingly the report found that 70% were riders of motorcycles and motorised three-wheelers, 8% were pedestrians, and 3% were cyclists.

Altogether the "vulnerable road users" group account for an astounding 81% of road deaths.

And from another study

http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2004/633...trationID=1627+

Motorcycles in ASEAN (percentage of vehicle fleet, 2003)

Viet Nam: 94.4%

Lao PDR: 80%

Indonesia: 75.2%

Cambodia: 75.2%

Thailand: 70.9%

Malaysia: 48.2%

Philippines: 37.7%

Myanmar: 36.9%

Singapore: 19%

Brunei Darussalam: 3%

Source: ASEAN Region Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan, final draft September 2004

So nearly 80% of the vehicles on the road are motorbikes, yet only 70% of road deaths are motorcyclists/passengers.

The remaining 20% of the vehicles on the road account for 20% of deaths.

Taking this at face value, it means that you are safer on a motorbike than in a car! If people took more precautions such as wearing a helmet, the death toll would decrease and so it would be even more safe to use a motorbike.

Of course most long distance journeys are not on a motorbike, so it's not likely to paint a true picture. But it does suggest to me that driving a motorbike is not quite so dangerous as most people assume.

[neverdie]

I just saw a mum and 3 kids on a bike - 1 in front and 3 behind. Nothing remarkable about that except she turned right at some traffic lights right in front of a pickup that was going straight on. The pickup had to brake sharply - I was behind him.

On the bike, she was the only one wearing a helmet.

The police only require a helmet on the driver. Passengers are not required to wear helmets.

Can't say I've seen the police pull motorbikes when the passenger is not wearing a helmet, only when the driver is not wearing a helmet.

Or in the case when I got my only ticket for no helmet, only the farang on the pillion got a ticket, not the bareheaded Thai driver

Firstly Ladies,

I was stopped only last week, the BIB were stopping everything, as they do. I was the rider and wearing a full face helmet, my passenger who was only going a few km's down the road elected not to wear a helmet. We were on Rama 2, or actually the road that runs along next to it. The BIB told me he was going to write me a ticket for the passenger not wearing a helmet. He went on to state that it was law in Thailand for anyone on a motorcycle to wear a helmet, not just the rider.

Anyway, as PB, wisely points out, smelling a rat, just because Im a farang was coming into it, I quested the BIB about what he was writing on the fine & he told me that it was the same wording as if I wasnt wearing a helmet. Ohh yeah, I thought. Anyway, he decided for some reason that he wouldnt write the fine & told me I was being warned .

I have since made several enquiries about this and have been informed on EVERY OCCASSION that it is in fact LAW that motorcycle passengers wear helmets in Thailand.

[stiggy]

As a medic working inThailand some years ago I had to scrape people of the road with alarming regulartiy.

A small child that simply falls off a stationary bike and lands head first can be badly hurt, add speed and your talking dead or brain damaged.

Parents that drive on bikes with no helmet provided for their kids are uncaring or stupid.They are available cheap and something is better than nothing! At least the seats ensure some level of control of the child.

I know of three brain damaged kids where I live all from bike accidents when very young.

I understand the necessity for many families and feel for them.But slow down and get a helmet for christ sake.

[bonobo]

I have often wondered if driving a motorbike is so much more dangerous than driving a car.

I see lots of near misses with motorbikes where their maneuverability has saved the day.

I've seen accidents involving cars, pickups etc, but not many motorbikes.

I've seen the aftermath of an accident where a cement mixer truck ploughed into cars and pickups, yet it seems motorbikes were able to get out of the way. The 4 wheeled vehicles had no way to avoid the accident.

From the Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...or-lack-thereof

In Thailand, a middle-income country, there were 12,492 road accident deaths recorded in 2007 and as many as 973,104 non-fatal injuries in 2006. But more tellingly the report found that 70% were riders of motorcycles and motorised three-wheelers, 8% were pedestrians, and 3% were cyclists.

Altogether the "vulnerable road users" group account for an astounding 81% of road deaths.

And from another study

http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2004/633...trationID=1627+

Motorcycles in ASEAN (percentage of vehicle fleet, 2003)

Viet Nam: 94.4%

Lao PDR: 80%

Indonesia: 75.2%

Cambodia: 75.2%

Thailand: 70.9%

Malaysia: 48.2%

Philippines: 37.7%

Myanmar: 36.9%

Singapore: 19%

Brunei Darussalam: 3%

Source: ASEAN Region Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan, final draft September 2004

So nearly 80% of the vehicles on the road are motorbikes, yet only 70% of road deaths are motorcyclists/passengers.

The remaining 20% of the vehicles on the road account for 20% of deaths.

Taking this at face value, it means that you are safer on a motorbike than in a car! If people took more precautions such as wearing a helmet, the death toll would decrease and so it would be even more safe to use a motorbike.

Of course most long distance journeys are not on a motorbike, so it's not likely to paint a true picture. But it does suggest to me that driving a motorbike is not quite so dangerous as most people assume.

Statistics can be manipulated and can be taken out of perspective.  When driving at 140 kph, as people do on many expressways, getting in an accident in a car might very well prove fatal.  Motorcycles are not allowed on the expressways, and even if they were, most Thai motorcycles could not approach that speed.  So expressway deaths should be skewed to auto and truck drivers.

However, in cities and in palces where traffic slows the vehicles, motorcylces are far more likely to cause fatalities. Motorcyles crash, and when they do, the dirver is not very protected.  A 30 kph crash in a car will probably not kill the driver or passenger, but it can certainly kill a motorcycle driver.  Added that motorcycle drivers regularly flaunt traffic laws by ignoring red lights and driving down the wrong side of the road, and you have a recipe for death.

Since February, I have seen 4 dead motorcycle drivers on the road.  Two times, they were on the limited access road which goes past my condo.  In March, a driver going the wrong way ploughed into a truck turning into my condo.  On this last Friday, a driver simply lost control while weaving through slow traffic and clipped the back of a car.

Recently, another poster in another thread mentioned that he went to the hospital every year to take care of road rash from dropping his bike.  Well, in 37 years of driving, I have been in exactly two auto accidents, both of them minor with no injuries (in four years when I rode motorcycles sporadically, I had two accidents, both thankfully quite minor, and my helmet kept me from getting anything more than one road rash).  Yet riding a motorcycle has an annual accident rate with him?

You are NOT safer on a motorcycle than a car.  

Edited July 13, 2009 by bonobo

[IanForbes]

Can't say I've seen the police pull motorbikes when the passenger is not wearing a helmet, only when the driver is not wearing a helmet.

Twice I've had girl friends get tickets when riding on my motorcycle. I always wear a helmet but the women won't wear the spare I carry. They get a 200 baht fine. If I get caught I get a 400 baht fine.

I saw a terrible accident two years ago in Chiang Mai where a family of 5 were all killed because the father was on a cel phone and speeding through a red traffic light where they got hit by a big lorry. I have an industrial first aid ticket but couldn't help any of them. Nobody was wearing helmets.

[tartempion]

Passengers are not required to wear helmets.

Yes they are.

When did this law come in? As far as I know only the driver has to have one. What about passengers on Motorbike Taxis?

Strange some people WITH motor bike driving licenses don't know the law

From http://www.phuket-info.com/alexrent.htm

This guy rents cars & motorbikes, he must know his stuff:

ALL riders on a motor bike (including the passenger) MUST wear a crash helmet at all times. This law is ignored by many people and most motor bike hirers do not highlight this legal requirement and do not even offer a crash helmet with the bike. Even worse, you may have to pay an extra cost or deposit for the passenger's helmet. Since late 1998 both driver & front seat passengers in a car must wear seat belts at all time.

[junkofdavid2]

Can't say I've seen the police pull motorbikes when the passenger is not wearing a helmet, only when the driver is not wearing a helmet.

Driver with helmet is "good enough" most of the time.

For some Asians (including other Asian countries I've lived in), it helps to at least "show" the cops that you "attempted" to follow the law, and that therefore makes you a "good person" and thus, you don't "deserve" to be booked...

[sk1max]

I believe that by the letter of the law they're supposed to, but it seems to be only rarely (if ever) enforced.

Everyone on a m/c is required by Thai law to wear a helmet (except the dog in the basket)

[IanForbes]

Just hit a little oil on a curve in the road and you are down on a bike. This is the result of a 20 km per hour skid... Luckily there was no other traffic following or coming at me or I might have been run over.

In a modern car you have an air bag that can save your life in a 80 km an hour crash.

Some women even carry their own airbags...

Some even when they decide to walk...

[dave_boo]

I have often wondered if driving a motorbike is so much more dangerous than driving a car.

I see lots of near misses with motorbikes where their maneuverability has saved the day.

I've seen accidents involving cars, pickups etc, but not many motorbikes.

I've seen the aftermath of an accident where a cement mixer truck ploughed into cars and pickups, yet it seems motorbikes were able to get out of the way. The 4 wheeled vehicles had no way to avoid the accident.

From the Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...or-lack-thereof

In Thailand, a middle-income country, there were 12,492 road accident deaths recorded in 2007 and as many as 973,104 non-fatal injuries in 2006. But more tellingly the report found that 70% were riders of motorcycles and motorised three-wheelers, 8% were pedestrians, and 3% were cyclists.

Altogether the "vulnerable road users" group account for an astounding 81% of road deaths.

And from another study

http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2004/633...trationID=1627+

Motorcycles in ASEAN (percentage of vehicle fleet, 2003)

Viet Nam: 94.4%

Lao PDR: 80%

Indonesia: 75.2%

Cambodia: 75.2%

Thailand: 70.9%

Malaysia: 48.2%

Philippines: 37.7%

Myanmar: 36.9%

Singapore: 19%

Brunei Darussalam: 3%

Source: ASEAN Region Road Safety Strategy and Action Plan, final draft September 2004

So nearly 80% of the vehicles on the road are motorbikes, yet only 70% of road deaths are motorcyclists/passengers.

The remaining 20% of the vehicles on the road account for 20% of deaths.

Taking this at face value, it means that you are safer on a motorbike than in a car! If people took more precautions such as wearing a helmet, the death toll would decrease and so it would be even more safe to use a motorbike.

Of course most long distance journeys are not on a motorbike, so it's not likely to paint a true picture. But it does suggest to me that driving a motorbike is not quite so dangerous as most people assume.

Statistics can be manipulated and can be taken out of perspective. When driving at 140 kph, as people do on many expressways, getting in an accident in a car might very well prove fatal. Motorcycles are not allowed on the expressways, and even if they were, most Thai motorcycles could not approach that speed. So expressway deaths should be skewed to auto and truck drivers.

However, in cities and in palces where traffic slows the vehicles, motorcylces are far more likely to cause fatalities. Motorcyles crash, and when they do, the dirver is not very protected. A 30 kph crash in a car will probably not kill the driver or passenger, but it can certainly kill a motorcycle driver. Added that motorcycle drivers regularly flaunt traffic laws by ignoring red lights and driving down the wrong side of the road, and you have a recipe for death.

Since February, I have seen 4 dead motorcycle drivers on the road. Two times, they were on the limited access road which goes past my condo. In March, a driver going the wrong way ploughed into a truck turning into my condo. On this last Friday, a driver simply lost control while weaving through slow traffic and clipped the back of a car.

Recently, another poster in another thread mentioned that he went to the hospital every year to take care of road rash from dropping his bike. Well, in 37 years of driving, I have been in exactly two auto accidents, both of them minor with no injuries (in four years when I rode motorcycles sporadically, I had two accidents, both thankfully quite minor, and my helmet kept me from getting anything more than one road rash). Yet riding a motorcycle has an annual accident rate with him?

You are NOT safer on a motorcycle than a car.

I'd be willing to bet that per km traveled in Thailand, motorcycles are safer in regards to accidents.

Think of it this way; there were 1.7 Million motorcycles sold in Thailand last year. Assuming a product life of five years, i.e. the bikes being bought are replacing those five years old and there's no growth in numbers of bikes on the road, we can conservatively estimate the number of bikes on the road as being no less than 8.5 Million. Estimate number of motor vehicles on the road? 3.6 Million based on the 70% of vehicles in Thailand being motorcycles.

So, for 8.5 Million bikes, there were 1 fatality per 972 motorcycles. And for 3.6 Million motor vehicles, there was 1 fatality per 960 cars/trucks. So just looking at fatalities per vehicle, you're a bit safer on a motorcycle in Thailand (about 1.25% safer).

I'd be willing to bet that motorcycles travel, on average, as far as cars/trucks do per year. So, unless proven wrong, I'm going to take an average of 10 000 km/year for both. 85 Billion km traveled on motorcycles last year resulted in a death rate of 1 fatality per 9 720 506 km. 36 Billion km traveled in cars/trucks last year resulted in a death rate of 1 fatality per 9 605 122 (same 1.2% safer).

So unless the cars/trucks are averaging more than 120 km per year in distance traveled over what the motorcycles are averaging, they're more dangerous.

It's all theoretical though. On a short trip (2 or so km) into town or out to the farm my daughter rides on the Click. Anything past that and we're in the truck.......

[neverdie]

^ luv ur work dave_boo, someone that can actually be bothered to get their calculator out

[jtp]

No matter what,i still feel a cold chill when my daughter goes off to school on the Honda...I hope never to see the day she does not return.

[dave_boo]

I'm not condoning nor condeming what choices other parents make regarding their offspring. I fervently believe in Darwinism and so rather than interfere with the natural order of things I let Nature sort sh!t out.

And yep, I love me numbers...

[Datsun240Z]

This is Thailand. By the way I know that Farang land rules are safer and so. But I love the insanity of Thai traffic, it gives men freedom, but it's dangerous.

@ Ian: That last pic is scary man! I dropped my coffee.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Datsun240Z

[Bjorn]

In general, thai parents don't care vey much if they loose a child, just get pregnant again. That is how they solve a "problem" like this.

[bonobo]

I have often wondered if driving a motorbike is so much more dangerous than driving a car.

I see lots of near misses with motorbikes where their maneuverability has saved the day.

I've seen accidents involving cars, pickups etc, but not many motorbikes.

I've seen the aftermath of an accident where a cement mixer truck ploughed into cars and pickups, yet it seems motorbikes were able to get out of the way. The 4 wheeled vehicles had no way to avoid the accident.

From the Bangkok Post

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...or-lack-thereof

In Thailand, a middle-income country, there were 12,492 road accident deaths recorded in 2007 and as many as 973,104 non-fatal injuries in 2006. But more tellingly the report found that 70% were riders of motorcycles and motorised three-wheelers, 8% were pedestrians, and 3% were cyclists.

Altogether the "vulnerable road users" group account for an astounding 81% of road deaths.

And from another study

http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2004/633...trationID=1627+

So nearly 80% of the vehicles on the road are motorbikes, yet only 70% of road deaths are motorcyclists/passengers.

The remaining 20% of the vehicles on the road account for 20% of deaths.

Taking this at face value, it means that you are safer on a motorbike than in a car! If people took more precautions such as wearing a helmet, the death toll would decrease and so it would be even more safe to use a motorbike.

Of course most long distance journeys are not on a motorbike, so it's not likely to paint a true picture. But it does suggest to me that driving a motorbike is not quite so dangerous as most people assume.

Statistics can be manipulated and can be taken out of perspective. When driving at 140 kph, as people do on many expressways, getting in an accident in a car might very well prove fatal. Motorcycles are not allowed on the expressways, and even if they were, most Thai motorcycles could not approach that speed. So expressway deaths should be skewed to auto and truck drivers.

However, in cities and in palces where traffic slows the vehicles, motorcylces are far more likely to cause fatalities. Motorcyles crash, and when they do, the dirver is not very protected. A 30 kph crash in a car will probably not kill the driver or passenger, but it can certainly kill a motorcycle driver. Added that motorcycle drivers regularly flaunt traffic laws by ignoring red lights and driving down the wrong side of the road, and you have a recipe for death.

Since February, I have seen 4 dead motorcycle drivers on the road. Two times, they were on the limited access road which goes past my condo. In March, a driver going the wrong way ploughed into a truck turning into my condo. On this last Friday, a driver simply lost control while weaving through slow traffic and clipped the back of a car.

Recently, another poster in another thread mentioned that he went to the hospital every year to take care of road rash from dropping his bike. Well, in 37 years of driving, I have been in exactly two auto accidents, both of them minor with no injuries (in four years when I rode motorcycles sporadically, I had two accidents, both thankfully quite minor, and my helmet kept me from getting anything more than one road rash). Yet riding a motorcycle has an annual accident rate with him?

You are NOT safer on a motorcycle than a car.

I'd be willing to bet that per km traveled in Thailand, motorcycles are safer in regards to accidents.

Think of it this way; there were 1.7 Million motorcycles sold in Thailand last year. Assuming a product life of five years, i.e. the bikes being bought are replacing those five years old and there's no growth in numbers of bikes on the road, we can conservatively estimate the number of bikes on the road as being no less than 8.5 Million. Estimate number of motor vehicles on the road? 3.6 Million based on the 70% of vehicles in Thailand being motorcycles.

So, for 8.5 Million bikes, there were 1 fatality per 972 motorcycles. And for 3.6 Million motor vehicles, there was 1 fatality per 960 cars/trucks. So just looking at fatalities per vehicle, you're a bit safer on a motorcycle in Thailand (about 1.25% safer).

I'd be willing to bet that motorcycles travel, on average, as far as cars/trucks do per year. So, unless proven wrong, I'm going to take an average of 10 000 km/year for both. 85 Billion km traveled on motorcycles last year resulted in a death rate of 1 fatality per 9 720 506 km. 36 Billion km traveled in cars/trucks last year resulted in a death rate of 1 fatality per 9 605 122 (same 1.2% safer).

So unless the cars/trucks are averaging more than 120 km per year in distance traveled over what the motorcycles are averaging, they're more dangerous.

It's all theoretical though. On a short trip (2 or so km) into town or out to the farm my daughter rides on the Click. Anything past that and we're in the truck.......

And I would be equally as sure that riding a motorcylce is more dnagerous.  I can't find anything on THailand specifically, but there shouldn't be a reason to make THailand different thatn any other country.  here are some stas from the US:

Compared with cars, motorcycles are an especially dangerous form of travel. The federal government estimates that per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles in 2006 was about 35 times the number in cars.1 Motorcyclist deaths have been rising in recent years — more than doubling by 2007 from the record low in 1997. In 2007, more motorcyclists died in crashes than in any year since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began collecting these fatal crash data. In contrast, passenger vehicle occupant deaths reached a record low in 2007. Motorcycles often have excessive performance capabilities, including especially rapid acceleration and high top speeds. They are less stable than cars in emergency braking and less visible to other motorists. Motorcyclists are more prone to crash injuries than car occupants because motorcycles are unenclosed, leaving riders vulnerable to contact with hard road surfaces. This is why wearing a helmet, as well as other protective clothing, is so important. Helmets are the principal countermeasure for reducing crash-related head injuries, the leading cause of death among unhelmeted riders.2  (link)

True, bikes in Thailand are not as powerful as bikes in the US, so they don't speed along at high speeds along the interstates, but then again, on a per mile basis, interstates are safer than local traffic roads. On the other hand, less-powerful bikes cannot get out of danger as well  Just today, I almost slammed into a bike rider who did a quick u-turn in front of me, but didn't have the power to accelerate out of my way.

I can appreciate the numbers you calculated, but you are also assuming many of the inputs.  GIGO. All data I have ever read, all insurance company rates, all of this points to the fact that riding a motorcycle is far more dangerous than driving a car.  And, as I posted before, even in my own little niche of exeriences, four dead motorcyclists since February, while not a statistically valid sample, surely is indicative of something.

[Dkalasz]

In general, thai parents don't care vey much if they loose a child, just get pregnant again. That is how they solve a "problem" like this.

this statement is just absurd

[TAWP]

Can't say I've seen the police pull motorbikes when the passenger is not wearing a helmet, only when the driver is not wearing a helmet.

Reminds me of a sight I wished I had the presence to snap away at with my camera: a police officer (not the lowest kind either, some rank and nice hat) on a police bike with no helmet on himself (but his nice police hat as mentioned) and with one kid in-front and one kid behind heading up one large Rama-road under the toll way.

Was such a great symbol of the state of the police here.

[Briggsy]

Can't say I've seen the police pull motorbikes when the passenger is not wearing a helmet, only when the driver is not wearing a helmet.

Reminds me of a sight I wished I had the presence to snap away at with my camera: a police officer (not the lowest kind either, some rank and nice hat) on a police bike with no helmet on himself (but his nice police hat as mentioned) and with one kid in-front and one kid behind heading up one large Rama-road under the toll way.

Was such a great symbol of the state of the police here.

State of the police or police state?

[dave_boo]

Statistics can be manipulated and can be taken out of perspective. When driving at 140 kph, as people do on many expressways, getting in an accident in a car might very well prove fatal. Motorcycles are not allowed on the expressways, and even if they were, most Thai motorcycles could not approach that speed. So expressway deaths should be skewed to auto and truck drivers.

They actually proven your next point; motorcycles are safer at speed. Consider the race track if nothing else; where are the accidents? In slow corners! Seems odd, but the slower a motorcycle goes the greater the risk of being involved in an accident.

However, in cities and in palces where traffic slows the vehicles, motorcylces are far more likely to cause fatalities. Motorcyles crash, and when they do, the dirver is not very protected. A 30 kph crash in a car will probably not kill the driver or passenger, but it can certainly kill a motorcycle driver. Added that motorcycle drivers regularly flaunt traffic laws by ignoring red lights and driving down the wrong side of the road, and you have a recipe for death.

I've read (i.e., don't take this as the truth) that it's the fall that kills you, not the speed with the obvious exception of those high speed crashes that put you through a lorry's trailer. Assuming that this is true, and the previous paragraph is true, wouldn't it make sense that since most accidents at slower speed is a simple fall over and those at high speed (excepting the previous example of the trailer) usually involve a gradual yiedling to gravity and fewer deaths?

Since February, I have seen 4 dead motorcycle drivers on the road. Two times, they were on the limited access road which goes past my condo. In March, a driver going the wrong way ploughed into a truck turning into my condo. On this last Friday, a driver simply lost control while weaving through slow traffic and clipped the back of a car.

Out in the sticks where my house is everyone uses motorcycles fairly exclusively. And while I haven't actually seen any dead riders on the road yet, in the 3+ years I've been there I've only seen one set of outlines.

Recently, another poster in another thread mentioned that he went to the hospital every year to take care of road rash from dropping his bike. Well, in 37 years of driving, I have been in exactly two auto accidents, both of them minor with no injuries (in four years when I rode motorcycles sporadically, I had two accidents, both thankfully quite minor, and my helmet kept me from getting anything more than one road rash). Yet riding a motorcycle has an annual accident rate with him?

37 years? That's more than this pup's been alive. I'm sure that had you racked up as many km on the motorcycle you'd be sprouting stats similar to your auto record as far as accidents are concerned. In regards to the other poster; perhaps he shouldn't be riding bikes? Grandpa always said, the first time the horse kicks you, it's the horse's fault. The second time it's yours.

You are NOT safer on a motorcycle than a car.

And I disagree. But that's the wonderful thing about life. You feel that you're safer in a car and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong and all cars should be taken away, just as it's not your place to say the same of motorcycles. We'll let Nature sort it out.

And I would be equally as sure that riding a motorcylce is more dnagerous. I can't find anything on THailand specifically, but there shouldn't be a reason to make THailand different thatn any other country. here are some stas from the US:

There's a problem with your assumption; Thailand is not the US. How many kids in the US grew up riding on motorcycles? Now compare that with the fact that in the States (contrasted with LOS where as soon as you're big enough to reach the shifter you're on a bike), most motorcyclist get their first experience at the tender young age of 16--when there's NO limit on the bike they can purchase (contrasted to LOS where the income is a deciding factor in the bike purchased; how many teenagers do you see on anything faster than a 28ish HP NSR). Also consider time available to ride, in some parts of the States you only get 6 months and that doesn't include days during the summer when it's raining (contrasted with LOS where motorcycles are ridden year round). So unless you dare to claim that the experience gained from the aforementioned facts is irrelevant, comparing USA to LOS in this matter is another example of apples and oranges.

Compared with cars, motorcycles are an especially dangerous form of travel. The federal government estimates that per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles in 2006 was about 35 times the number in cars.1 Motorcyclist deaths have been rising in recent years — more than doubling by 2007 from the record low in 1997. In 2007, more motorcyclists died in crashes than in any year since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began collecting these fatal crash data. In contrast, passenger vehicle occupant deaths reached a record low in 2007. Motorcycles often have excessive performance capabilities, including especially rapid acceleration and high top speeds. They are less stable than cars in emergency braking and less visible to other motorists. Motorcyclists are more prone to crash injuries than car occupants because motorcycles are unenclosed, leaving riders vulnerable to contact with hard road surfaces. This is why wearing a helmet, as well as other protective clothing, is so important. Helmets are the principal countermeasure for reducing crash-related head injuries, the leading cause of death among unhelmeted riders.2 (link)

True, bikes in Thailand are not as powerful as bikes in the US, so they don't speed along at high speeds along the interstates, but then again, on a per mile basis, interstates are safer than local traffic roads. On the other hand, less-powerful bikes cannot get out of danger as well Just today, I almost slammed into a bike rider who did a quick u-turn in front of me, but didn't have the power to accelerate out of my way.

And I'd be willing to bet that Americans, in their big heavy SUVs take little heed of motorcyclists as they wolf down their Big Macs. The greater volume of ignorant people in large metal cages that the US has automatically makes it more dangerous for a motorcyclist. That still doesn't invalidate my point that in Thailand both modes of transportation are equally dangerous (1.25% is well within statistical error).

I can appreciate the numbers you calculated, but you are also assuming many of the inputs. GIGO. All data I have ever read, all insurance company rates, all of this points to the fact that riding a motorcycle is far more dangerous than driving a car. And, as I posted before, even in my own little niche of exeriences, four dead motorcyclists since February, while not a statistically valid sample, surely is indicative of something.

There were a lot of assumptions in my figures; mainly the total number of vehicles on the road. However, assuming I was on the low side of that, accidents per vehicle in Thailand are going to be even much lower.

[bonobo]

Statistics can be manipulated and can be taken out of perspective. When driving at 140 kph, as people do on many expressways, getting in an accident in a car might very well prove fatal. Motorcycles are not allowed on the expressways, and even if they were, most Thai motorcycles could not approach that speed. So expressway deaths should be skewed to auto and truck drivers.

They actually proven your next point; motorcycles are safer at speed. Consider the race track if nothing else; where are the accidents? In slow corners! Seems odd, but the slower a motorcycle goes the greater the risk of being involved in an accident.

However, in cities and in palces where traffic slows the vehicles, motorcylces are far more likely to cause fatalities. Motorcyles crash, and when they do, the dirver is not very protected. A 30 kph crash in a car will probably not kill the driver or passenger, but it can certainly kill a motorcycle driver. Added that motorcycle drivers regularly flaunt traffic laws by ignoring red lights and driving down the wrong side of the road, and you have a recipe for death.

I've read (i.e., don't take this as the truth) that it's the fall that kills you, not the speed with the obvious exception of those high speed crashes that put you through a lorry's trailer. Assuming that this is true, and the previous paragraph is true, wouldn't it make sense that since most accidents at slower speed is a simple fall over and those at high speed (excepting the previous example of the trailer) usually involve a gradual yiedling to gravity and fewer deaths?

Yes, at a slower speed, a motorcyle is less stable. But what does that have to do with a motorcycle being safer at speed? I would rather tip over at a stoplight than lay down my bike at 140 kph. It is only the chance of loosing control is greater at 5 kph than at higher speeds.

On your comment about high speed causing fewer deaths, I am at a loss here. You are writing that a simple fall-over is safer than a high speed accident? That a high speed accident causes fewer deaths? Am I reading you right? Whether at speed or at rest, the vertical impact would be the same. Gravity does not care if there is horizontal momentum. But at high speeds, the horizontal force is much, much greater.

Since February, I have seen 4 dead motorcycle drivers on the road. Two times, they were on the limited access road which goes past my condo. In March, a driver going the wrong way ploughed into a truck turning into my condo. On this last Friday, a driver simply lost control while weaving through slow traffic and clipped the back of a car.

Out in the sticks where my house is everyone uses motorcycles fairly exclusively. And while I haven't actually seen any dead riders on the road yet, in the 3+ years I've been there I've only seen one set of outlines.

Recently, another poster in another thread mentioned that he went to the hospital every year to take care of road rash from dropping his bike. Well, in 37 years of driving, I have been in exactly two auto accidents, both of them minor with no injuries (in four years when I rode motorcycles sporadically, I had two accidents, both thankfully quite minor, and my helmet kept me from getting anything more than one road rash). Yet riding a motorcycle has an annual accident rate with him?

37 years? That's more than this pup's been alive. I'm sure that had you racked up as many km on the motorcycle you'd be sprouting stats similar to your auto record as far as accidents are concerned. In regards to the other poster; perhaps he shouldn't be riding bikes? Grandpa always said, the first time the horse kicks you, it's the horse's fault. The second time it's yours.

How could that be? With far fewer miles driven, I have had the same number of accidents on a bike as I have had in a car. So if I had driven any more kilometers on a bike, I would likely have had more accidents. Even one more accident in several million kilometers driven would skew my personal stats in favor of cars and against bikes. Right now, I have had two accidents with a couple million auto miles driven, and two accidents with maybe 3,000 bike miles driven.

You are NOT safer on a motorcycle than a car.

And I disagree. But that's the wonderful thing about life. You feel that you're safer in a car and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong and all cars should be taken away, just as it's not your place to say the same of motorcycles. We'll let Nature sort it out.

And I would be equally as sure that riding a motorcylce is more dnagerous. I can't find anything on THailand specifically, but there shouldn't be a reason to make THailand different thatn any other country. here are some stas from the US:

There's a problem with your assumption; Thailand is not the US. How many kids in the US grew up riding on motorcycles? Now compare that with the fact that in the States (contrasted with LOS where as soon as you're big enough to reach the shifter you're on a bike), most motorcyclist get their first experience at the tender young age of 16--when there's NO limit on the bike they can purchase (contrasted to LOS where the income is a deciding factor in the bike purchased; how many teenagers do you see on anything faster than a 28ish HP NSR). Also consider time available to ride, in some parts of the States you only get 6 months and that doesn't include days during the summer when it's raining (contrasted with LOS where motorcycles are ridden year round). So unless you dare to claim that the experience gained from the aforementioned facts is irrelevant, comparing USA to LOS in this matter is another example of apples and oranges.

When we are writign about fatalities per km driven, it really doesn't matter if someoen in Maine can drive all year around or not. And for the record, my US home is in San DIego, where you can drive year round. California has the largest percentage of bike riders in the US, I believe I read before. And where I am from, many, many kids grow up on bikes. It is a huge industry and a very popular pastime. But that is irrelevant to the issue. In Thailand or the US, there will always be people who are riding for teh very first time. It is a law of science. In order to be a rider, you had to have been a first-time rider at soem time in your life.

Yes, bikes are different in the US, and that does make a difference. But traffic laws are better observed in the US, and the roads are better designed. But for whatever differences you can note, do you relaly think that it would make that big of a difference in Thailand? From 35 times more likely to die on a bike in the US to more likely to die in a car in Thailand?

Compared with cars, motorcycles are an especially dangerous form of travel. The federal government estimates that per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles in 2006 was about 35 times the number in cars.1 Motorcyclist deaths have been rising in recent years — more than doubling by 2007 from the record low in 1997. In 2007, more motorcyclists died in crashes than in any year since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began collecting these fatal crash data. In contrast, passenger vehicle occupant deaths reached a record low in 2007. Motorcycles often have excessive performance capabilities, including especially rapid acceleration and high top speeds. They are less stable than cars in emergency braking and less visible to other motorists. Motorcyclists are more prone to crash injuries than car occupants because motorcycles are unenclosed, leaving riders vulnerable to contact with hard road surfaces. This is why wearing a helmet, as well as other protective clothing, is so important. Helmets are the principal countermeasure for reducing crash-related head injuries, the leading cause of death among unhelmeted riders.2 (link)

True, bikes in Thailand are not as powerful as bikes in the US, so they don't speed along at high speeds along the interstates, but then again, on a per mile basis, interstates are safer than local traffic roads. On the other hand, less-powerful bikes cannot get out of danger as well Just today, I almost slammed into a bike rider who did a quick u-turn in front of me, but didn't have the power to accelerate out of my way.

And I'd be willing to bet that Americans, in their big heavy SUVs take little heed of motorcyclists as they wolf down their Big Macs. The greater volume of ignorant people in large metal cages that the US has automatically makes it more dangerous for a motorcyclist. That still doesn't invalidate my point that in Thailand both modes of transportation are equally dangerous (1.25% is well within statistical error).

I can appreciate the numbers you calculated, but you are also assuming many of the inputs. GIGO. All data I have ever read, all insurance company rates, all of this points to the fact that riding a motorcycle is far more dangerous than driving a car. And, as I posted before, even in my own little niche of exeriences, four dead motorcyclists since February, while not a statistically valid sample, surely is indicative of something.

There were a lot of assumptions in my figures; mainly the total number of vehicles on the road. However, assuming I was on the low side of that, accidents per vehicle in Thailand are going to be even much lower.

In the US, bikers generally obey traffic laws and generally wear protective equipment. They gnerally are licensed and have taken motorcylce driving safety courses. Yet they are 35 times more likely to die per mile driven than auto drivers. Thai bikers often flout traffic laws, often have no license, and often ignore safety gear. So I cannot see how anyone would think that Thai bikers are safer than US bikers, unless they give credence to the protective tattoos many bikers wear.

The bottom line is that every single study I have read shows that biking is more dangerous than driving a car. And the insurance companies, huge corporations which have the resources to study this, also agree. 

I like biking. I also like riding a horse, and that is much more dangerous than riding a bike. I am not saying that motorcycles should be banned. I just believe that people should make informed choices based on facts, not speculation. And if people truly realized that bike riding is more dangerous than driving a car, perhaps they would take a few extra precautions, and that might be enough to save a life.

Edited July 14, 2009 by bonobo

[IanForbes]

No use arguing with him, bonobo, he has his mind made up. My ex-wife was a nurse and she said the accident ward was filled with patients that had been in motorcycle accidents. They out numbered the car accident victims 10 to one, and there are no where near as many motorbikes as cars and trucks. Young male riders far out number everyone else when it comes to bike accidents.

But, statistics are for losers. Life is a risk and without taking a few risks then life would be pretty boring... even for old sods like myself. I have several friends in Thailand who won't ride a motorbike. They KNOW they are dangerous. I agree with them, but I'm still willing to ride. I get my annual road rash but it goes with the territory. I'm just EXTRA careful in traffic. Every time I get a little cocky something usually reminds me how foolish I am.

There are always people who like to push the limits... even on peddle bikes

[dave_boo]

Yes, at a slower speed, a motorcyle is less stable. But what does that have to do with a motorcycle being safer at speed? I would rather tip over at a stoplight than lay down my bike at 140 kph. It is only the chance of loosing control is greater at 5 kph than at higher speeds.

Force=Mass*Gravity. Gravity=an average magnitude of 9.8 m/s² If we are to concede the point that motorcycles are more likely to suddenly tip over at low/no speeds, than the force exerted on the average person's cranium (approximately 5kg) from a fall in those conditions is 5 kg*9.8 m/s². A tip over in 1/2 second results in a force of 196 kg-m. A more gradual fall, as in a slow fall from a high speed sweeping turn results in 49 kg-m force. Notice this only applies to head injuries and not the battle scars that most motorcyclist display (road rash) and is much more likely to occur in higher speed accidents.

On your comment about high speed causing fewer deaths, I am at a loss here. You are writing that a simple fall-over is safer than a high speed accident? That a high speed accident causes fewer deaths? Am I reading you right? Whether at speed or at rest, the vertical impact would be the same. Gravity does not care if there is horizontal momentum. But at high speeds, the horizontal force is much, much greater.

Gravity does care if there's horizontal momentum resisting it! Ever hear of Centrifugal force (the thing that keeps our planet from falling into the local star)?

How could that be? With far fewer miles driven, I have had the same number of accidents on a bike as I have had in a car. So if I had driven any more kilometers on a bike, I would likely have had more accidents. Even one more accident in several million kilometers driven would skew my personal stats in favor of cars and against bikes. Right now, I have had two accidents with a couple million auto miles driven, and two accidents with maybe 3,000 bike miles driven.

Are you stating that you would not have gained needed experience that would prevent future accidents had you ridden the bike more? The word used in the post of yours was sporadic; this is not condusive to providing experience that prevents such occurances. Your millions of kilometers in autos has imbued you with enough experience that you are easily able to prevent accidents while behind the wheel; why do you assume that doing the same on a motorbike wouldn't also work?

When we are writign about fatalities per km driven, it really doesn't matter if someoen in Maine can drive all year around or not. And for the record, my US home is in San DIego, where you can drive year round. California has the largest percentage of bike riders in the US, I believe I read before. And where I am from, many, many kids grow up on bikes. It is a huge industry and a very popular pastime. But that is irrelevant to the issue. In Thailand or the US, there will always be people who are riding for teh very first time. It is a law of science. In order to be a rider, you had to have been a first-time rider at soem time in your life.

Yes, we all rode a bike for the first time at one time. However, skills are lost. I can't claim that after 4 months of not riding my skills would be the same as the day I put the bike away. And if your skills aren't up to par, than can you expect to ride safely?

Yes, bikes are different in the US, and that does make a difference. But traffic laws are better observed in the US, and the roads are better designed. But for whatever differences you can note, do you relaly think that it would make that big of a difference in Thailand? From 35 times more likely to die on a bike in the US to more likely to die in a car in Thailand?

Sigh, in 2006, per the DOT report listed in your article, in 2006 there were 6 686 147 registered motorcycles that traveled 12 401 000 000 miles (19 957 474 944 km) that's an average of 1 855 miles (2 984 km) ridden in a year per registered motorcycle. Is that enough to gain life saving experience? Does this not fall WELL short of the experience that Thais have and use to prevent injury/death? If you were going to hire someone as a chauffer in Thailand who had only driven less than 2000 miles in the previous year? And did you catch the part that nearly 3% of the motor vehicles (motorcycles) only travel 0,4% of the total miles? I.E., the average cage driver puts at least 7.5x as many miles on their vehicle in the States than a motorcyclist?

I'll concede that riding motorcycles in the US is more dangerous than driving a vehicle. Could you admit that probably has more to do with the inexperienced riders than the vehicle itself?

In the US, bikers generally obey traffic laws and generally wear protective equipment. They gnerally are licensed and have taken motorcylce driving safety courses. Yet they are 35 times more likely to die per mile driven than auto drivers. Thai bikers often flout traffic laws, often have no license, and often ignore safety gear. So I cannot see how anyone would think that Thai bikers are safer than US bikers, unless they give credence to the protective tattoos many bikers wear.

Experience. In the States, who's safer; the beer gut mid-life crisis'er in a Dodge Viper or a young kid in a Toyota Corrolla he think can eat Camaros for breakfast? All that training, which is good, does not trump real world experience.

The bottom line is that every single study I have read shows that biking is more dangerous than driving a car. And the insurance companies, huge corporations which have the resources to study this, also agree.

I like biking. I also like riding a horse, and that is much more dangerous than riding a bike. I am not saying that motorcycles should be banned. I just believe that people should make informed choices based on facts, not speculation. And if people truly realized that bike riding is more dangerous than driving a car, perhaps they would take a few extra precautions, and that might be enough to save a life.

At least we can agree on horse riding! I grew up with a beautiful white speckled Apaloosa and it provided me with some wonderful memories (plus chicks dig a guy with a horse... ). Bike riding in the States is more dangerous; but how do you reconcile the fact that per motorcycle in Thailand the death rate is essentially the same as for motor vehicles?

[bonobo]

No use arguing with him, bonobo, he has his mind made up. My ex-wife was a nurse and she said the accident ward was filled with patients that had been in motorcycle accidents. They out numbered the car accident victims 10 to one, and there are no where near as many motorbikes as cars and trucks. Young male riders far out number everyone else when it comes to bike accidents.

But, statistics are for losers. Life is a risk and without taking a few risks then life would be pretty boring... even for old sods like myself. I have several friends in Thailand who won't ride a motorbike. They KNOW they are dangerous. I agree with them, but I'm still willing to ride. I get my annual road rash but it goes with the territory. I'm just EXTRA careful in traffic. Every time I get a little cocky something usually reminds me how foolish I am.

There are always people who like to push the limits... even on peddle bikes

Yes, I agree.  Life needs to be pushed in order to enjoy it.  I liked riding bikes when I had access to a big BMW, and I did off-road with an XL350.  My two accidents, minor though they were, were from only 3 or 4,000 miles driven (and one of them was my fault).  I was heavily into jumping horses, and that is much, much more dangerous than bikes. Throw in parachuting, diving, hang gliding, combat, etc, and I have not led the most protected life, either.

I met an ex Air Force guy in Loei who rides a Harley, and I would love to tool around Thailand on a big bike like that, taking a couple weeks. But likek you, I would enjoy it, but be extra careful in traffic.

I guess I was just surprised to read that, and I always think that while people can take the risks they deem acceptable, they should understand just what those risks are.  

Children, though, do not understand the risks, and parents who throw them on a bike willy nilly are doing them wrong.  I understand that some Thais do not have that many options, but the parents can at least take steps to try and make it as less dnagerous as possible.

Edited July 14, 2009 by bonobo

[neverdie]

No use arguing with him, bonobo, he has his mind made up. My ex-wife was a nurse and she said the accident ward was filled with patients that had been in motorcycle accidents. They out numbered the car accident victims 10 to one, and there are no where near as many motorbikes as cars and trucks. Young male riders far out number everyone else when it comes to bike accidents.

But, statistics are for losers. Life is a risk and without taking a few risks then life would be pretty boring... even for old sods like myself. I have several friends in Thailand who won't ride a motorbike. They KNOW they are dangerous. I agree with them, but I'm still willing to ride. I get my annual road rash but it goes with the territory. I'm just EXTRA careful in traffic. Every time I get a little cocky something usually reminds me how foolish I am.

There are always people who like to push the limits... even on peddle bikes

Ian, I normally enjoy your posts, but you have got me with this one. What a LOAD OF RUBBISH. Wards full of motorcyclists. Outnumbering car accident patients 10 to 1.

I have extensive experience in dealing with this issue & I'm not sure where your wife was working, maybe it was a hospital located in a town for the metally challenged and there were not many cars or something? Maybe a moto cross circuit nearby....there has to be some reason why this was the case in ur wifes hospital.....OR ARE ONE OF YOU COOKING THE BOOKS??