Is it safer to ride a bicycle or motorcycle?

The speed is what's dangerous about riding a motorcycle although I feel safe in traffic while moving, it's when I'm stopped at a stoplight where I feel vulnerable. On a motorcycle I can get out of situations that you can't get out of on a bicycle, the problem is when you do crash odds are it will be worse on a moto.

If you don't have to be on highways, motorcycles are pretty darn safe and probably safer than a bicycle. On expressways or highways (which you obviously don't bike on) a motorcycle can be very unsafe, mostly because cars can't see you all that well (wider lanes, more blind spots, etc.) and you're moving at much higher speeds. I've seen a motorcyclist clipped on an expressway going 75. I've also seen a motorcyclist die in regular neighborhood driving. Both are incredibly horrible, but I've heard of many more cyclists getting hit. It all depends on your cycle route. If there aren't bike lanes, I totally understand why you are hesitant to bike. However, realize the expenses that come with owning a motorcycle and you aren't that much safer.

Bike! Motorcycles are death traps. I read once that you are 45 times more likely to die in a motorcycle crash than a car crash.

Bike is much safer. Both in published studies and from my own experience doing surgical residency in LA. We got plenty of bike and MC accidents but the bikers did ok unless they get totally run over which is rare. MC accidents almost always involve higher speeds which means more severe injuries. MC solo crashes frequently involve severe injuries. Bike solo crashes hardly even involve severe injuries

In London definitely Motorcyles

Both are much more dangerous to Americans than terrorists. But neither is as dangerous as a hospital. Hospitals infect and kill over 20,000 people a year with antibiotic-resistant microbes.

I cycle and motorcycle, both are inherently unsafe. My best advice on a MC is to imagine that you're invisible. Don't put yourself in a position where you can get hit by a distracted driver. Of course, you can't always do this, but assuming the drivers don't see you is probably closer to right than wrong most of the time.

On a bicycle, it's different. Be as visible as possible. I use a 1 watt SuperFlash blinkie on the back (the brightest I could find) and a white (very, very bright) strobe on the front to make sure cars don't turn in front of me or pull out in front of me. I've tested it at night and it is almost as bright as a single low beam car headlamp. I don't think anyone would be able to say they didn't see me.

Oh, and to answer your question, for commuting I'd choose the motorcycle. Drivers are incredibly distracted during typical commute hours. I'd rather have a shot at getting out of the way versus being a sitting duck at 17mph on a bicycle.

I have ridden bicycles (commuted and raced semi-professional MTB in Vancouver, BC) and owned a motorcycle.I would say that commuting in the city is way more dangerous on a bicycle. Bicycles lack the speed to ride anywhere except on the side of the road or the bike lane. They lack a horn as well as the power to overtake people.As well, people usually understand that motorcycles are dangerous and/or owned by people who can kick your a$$ so they tend to give you a wide berth (not always, but sometimes) depending on the situation. Cyclists on the other hand are generally disliked for obvious reasons and people tend to drive more agressively on purpose around them. This is especially true in Vancouver where there are a lot of neophyte "cyclists" who have decided to drop $5000 on a bike after having not ridden since elementary school and who, for the most part, drive like total a$$holes.

commuter wrote:

I have been commuting by bicycle and it doesn't feel very safe. I'm wondering if a motorcycle would be any safer. I see the main advantages to a motorcycle as being able to be in the center of the lane, being able to keep up with traffic and being able to accelerate out of a dangerous situation. The bicycle with its slower speed has the advantages of more control, more time to make decisions and quicker stopping.

Assuming a responsible rider on a commute with a max speed limit of 45 mph on two and four lane roads, which do you think would be safer?

fisky wrote:

I use a 1 watt SuperFlash blinkie on the back (the brightest I could find) and a white (very, very bright) strobe on the front to make sure cars don't turn in front of me or pull out in front of me.

I hope you don't use these on bike paths like a lot of jerks do.

uphill run wrote:

If you don't have to be on highways, motorcycles are pretty darn safe and probably safer than a bicycle. On expressways or highways (which you obviously don't bike on) a motorcycle can be very unsafe, mostly because cars can't see you all that well (wider lanes, more blind spots, etc.) and you're moving at much higher speeds. I've seen a motorcyclist clipped on an expressway going 75. I've also seen a motorcyclist die in regular neighborhood driving. Both are incredibly horrible, but I've heard of many more cyclists getting hit. It all depends on your cycle route. If there aren't bike lanes, I totally understand why you are hesitant to bike. However, realize the expenses that come with owning a motorcycle and you aren't that much safer.

This is totally untrue. Motorcycles are far more dangerous in the city than on open roads. Almost half of all motorcycle accidents are caused by left turning cars hitting a motorcycle that was going straight through an intersection.

It's actually very difficult to determine how dangerous motorcycle riding is for a particular person, because there are so many variables. The skill of a rider is very significant, both in terms of general bike control and defensive riding. ABS has been shown to drastically reduce motorcycle accidents. Full protective gear makes a big difference as well. Ever watch Moto GP? Those guys crash pretty regularly, and they sometimes hop up, grab the bike, and keep going.

I'd also add that motorcycling is safer when you can split lanes, as it is legal to do in California. Motorcyclists in a traffic jam are sitting ducks for a potential pileup. Between lanes means you won't get rear-ended, and because cars at low speeds can't change lanes quickly, It's pretty easy to avoid getting sideswiped.

I once read about a unit of measurement called a micromort, which is a 1 in 1 million chance of death. For example, by going skydiving you inherit a 10 in 1 million chance of death, and therefore inherit 10 micromorts. I believe flying in airplanes are about 1000 miles per micromort, and cars are 220 miles per micromort. In addition, I read that bicycles are 22 miles (I think) per micromort, whereas motorcycles are a mere 6 miles/ micromort, therefore meaning that motorcycles are significantly more dangerous than bicycles.

mitchellmac2 wrote:

I once read about a unit of measurement called a micromort, which is a 1 in 1 million chance of death. For example, by going skydiving you inherit a 10 in 1 million chance of death, and therefore inherit 10 micromorts. I believe flying in airplanes are about 1000 miles per micromort, and cars are 220 miles per micromort. In addition, I read that bicycles are 22 miles (I think) per micromort, whereas motorcycles are a mere 6 miles/ micromort, therefore meaning that motorcycles are significantly more dangerous than bicycles.

Everyday riding of a bike, yes, that is much safer but I bet that measurement isn't figuring commuting every day in traffic.

I have done both: Motorcycle is safer by far, assuming you obey traffic laws in both cases. fisky and who cares1 gave correct answers. You can expect to be badly treated by automobiles whether on a motorcycle or bicycle, the difference is what you can do about it.

I'll add that while on the motorcycle I never had anyone try to intentionally hit me, on the bicycle three times that I can recall (admittedly spread over many years). Same for blaring the horn, nobody does that to a motorcycle, they do it almost every day for a bicycle, often when they have already gone by so it can't possibly mean "hey be careful". My interpretation is "get on the sidewalk where you belong".

@uphill run - The last part didn't make sense. Expenses don't equate to safety.

@skinnyb - From a successful commute point of view, anybody who ended up in the ER did not do "pretty well". As for injury comparison, there is something wrong with your sample.

@800 dude - Yes, left turning drivers are a menace. But bicycles also do poorly in that scenario.

I used to loved riding my bike in the city. After several near death experiences and crashes, I only do mountain biking.

Although in the states, you can't do that safely either in the fall because of a certain "season".

Cross-walks are incredibly dangerous for pedestrians, always from right-turning cars.

As a driver I can easily say that I have come closer to hitting motorcycles than I ever had to cyclists. Cycles are slower and easier to find and track.

Motorcycles with their higher speed often come out of nowhere and are more difficult to spot. On busy multilane highways some of them start passing on the right or worse pass between lanes and really they take a significant risk.

I have seen cyclists bike at dusk in dark clothes but usually they are some kid or poor guy without regular transportation. That is rare.

Bad Wigins wrote:

fisky wrote:

I use a 1 watt SuperFlash blinkie on the back (the brightest I could find) and a white (very, very bright) strobe on the front to make sure cars don't turn in front of me or pull out in front of me.

I hope you don't use these on bike paths like a lot of jerks do.

Nope, no need for a strobe on a bike path because there are no cars. Plus, I never ride the bike paths locally because 1) I have nice rural roads nearby that go for miles and then dead end so there is almost no traffic, and 2) too many oblivious walkers on bike paths and little kids weaving all over the place.