We had one of ‘those’ accidents in St. Louis over the weekend. Two men, age 20 & 19, were killed when the motorcycle they were riding left the roadway 10PM on Sunday evening. Now, there are a lot of blanks you and I can probably fill in correctly despite the fact none of us were there. However, who among us haven’t forgotten, while on a winding, hilly road, that we’re not on a roller coaster with tracks and guard rails, but rather on a machine that merely obeys the laws of physics that we impose on it? I’m sure I’m not the only one that leans into those turns and turns that throttle on a little more than necessary…..

However, it brings up something I’ve been thinking about. We’ve all heard the ‘I don’t’ like those things, their dangerous’ routine, but if you were to factor out the rider error accidents (drugs & alcohol, single bike accidents on winding roads etc  ), I wonder if the accident / injury statistics between bikes and cars would move closer together or perhaps even reveal surprising data?  

Here’s my hypothesis. Motorcyclist have two major advantages over cars: 1) since even a minor fender bender to us could lead to disaster, we by nature ride very defensively. Typically, we avoid putting ourselves in situation where the likelihood of danger is higher than our comfort level.  That comfort level is different for every rider based upon their skill.  2) Even with a full face helmet, our field of vision is much higher than in a car. I have a ¾ helmet with a shield and my field of vision is the same as if I’m walking down the street. I routinely spot danger like drivers distracted on cell phones ready to swap lanes without any warning        while on my bike way more often than when I’m driving my 99 4-wheel drive Silverado.

When the excuse is given after a car/bike collision, ‘I didn’t see him” I’m wondering is that any different than when two cars collide? When two cars hit, isn’t it because one driver didn’t see the other driver until it was too late? What, did one car run into another car on purpose??? So, is it possible that if you were to take away bike accidents that are caused by rider error and look only at those accidents where a car doesn’t see a bike and then compare that statistically to accidents between cars, would / could it turn out that defensive riding and a wider range of vision lead to the conclusion that motorcycles are potentially safer than cars???

I too wear an open-face helmet, but with goggles instead of face shield.   Partly because I like the feel of the wind in my face, partly because I felt constricted when I wore a full-face helmet, but mostly because of the increased visibility.  It's a matter of whether I want to see better and potentially avoid an accident, or assume I'm going to have an accident and wear an enclosure on my head which restricts my vision.  I think the open-face helmet helps me drive more defensively.

Good points,... Those of us with a brain, definitely drive more defensively than cagers, but I do see plenty of bikes going through traffic like they're in a video game.
And,... two wheels are inherently less stable than four, with less grip in turns and longer stopping distances.  
More sensitive to wind, rain and road hazards...

They really aren't as safe as a car,... just way more economical, elemental, and fun...

Good points but you can't facor out anything. The data speaks for itself. Also their is an obvious greater risk of injury to rider in any type of collision. The greater the injury the greater the pay out. If you die in a bike crash more money has to be shelled out to you than than someone in a single car crash. There is a cage to protect driver. Not so in a car. Thus motorcycling has a higher liability than car driving in terms of the outcome when an incident occures. I guess its not the frequency so much as the severity of the incident that transpires.

Risk assessment..our two brains come up with remarkably different responses..and I didn't see him is more often really I wasn't paying attention, excluding the legit sun in eyes, fog percentage. But that response leads to legal penalties so it isn't offered up too often.
The US highway deaths down in 2008 to 37, 261.
(Starting rant)
US risk assessment..2,974 people died in terrorist attack on 9/11/01.  so probably still less than 4,000 US dead from terrorist attacks starting from that date till now.. We start a war where we now have 4, 318 dead (oh and 31, 368 seriously wounded).  Highway deaths is aprox 266, 000 for the time span starting at 9/11..  So which do you think has a greater chance of killing you, a terrorist or fellow American
Fortuneately, the US still refuses to hold people accountable, either for DUI or smoking cigaretts; vehicular manslaughter a bit more ((rant over)) .
As observent as we riders are, the patch of sand or oil and the mindless cager will, along with bambi, still take a toll.  I think most seasoned riders are better drivers because of their riding: cause you quickly learn the cost for not paying attention while riding!
OH, the two brain thing..our prehistoric ice age  brain reacts strongly to someone purposfully trying to kill us; we respond.  We don't like to think abut the highway or cigaretts/cancer deaths cause they don't actully pick out a target, it more like the occasional lightening strike to our prehistoric mind (which obviously still has lotsa say as compared to our modern mind).  We over respond to targeted aggression against us, underrespond to random but much more common killings.

Smoke.