"Which is safer, a motorcycle or an airplane?"

[chai rome]

https://hangar.aopa.org/discuss/viewtopic/36/862?post_id=3485

Interesting thoughts in response to this article, for sure.

 

[budman]

This comment had me chuckling.

RE: WHICH IS SAFER, A MOTORCYCLE OR AN AIRPLANE?
Posted by Mike Barker on Oct 29, 2018 9:03 am

The stats are different for each person, and mostly dependent on their spouse. For instance, my wife hates motorcycles but loves airplanes, so my entire life is much safer with an airplane. My brother’s wife wouldn’t get near a 4 seater single aircraft, but loves to ride across the country on the back of their Harley, so his life is much safer with a motorcycle.

**********************

Article is interesting.

Since I take the question as you do this or you do that I will remain an asphalt aviator myself.

 

[DataDan]

The first response at the link is from "Arthur Friedman". Presumably, this is Art Friedman formerly of Petersen Publications, editor of Motorcyclist in the 1980s, responsible for the spin-off of Motorcycle Cruiser and Sport Rider. He's also the guy who hired both Nick Ienatsch and Mitch Boehm straight out of college into big time motojournalism. In my early days of riding, he was one journalist I trusted on the subject of riding well. Friedman was one of the authors of the 2000 effort, National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. I disagree with a few things he had to say in his reply, and I may post more about that later.

It was probably 10 years ago, but I once had some data on average annual hours flown and occupants killed in general aviation. Making a wild-ass guess carefully considered estimate of motorcycle hours from motorcycle miles, I concluded that the two were very close in terms of deaths per hour of participation. Again, possibly more later.

 

[moto-rama]

We travel quite a bit, and I get through airplane rides by saying a lot of Hail Marys on take off and landing.

 

[budman]

I think the premise is riding vs personal flying and it does not apply to commercial flying.

It was I fly my plane or I fly my moto.

 

[DataDan]

In the linked AOPA forum, Art Friedman wrote:

the NTSB seems to regard motorcycling as the more dangerous activity, pegging your chances of dying at 28 times per mile greater than in a car.

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Pages/SR1801.aspx

(In my opinion, the study that was based on was quite poor, with so little data that almost any conclusion could be challenged.)​

The conclusion isn't controversial at all. That's been the ratio for a long time, re-calculated on a new batch of data every year. (BTW, the link didn't work for me.)

As with pilots, motorcyclists keep making the same fatal mistakes: riding without a DOT helmet (which reduces your odds in a crash by about a third), riding after drinking (one beer makes you 44 times more likely to crash).​

That's not true. Troll? Joke? Typo? I don't know of any study anywhere that concluded that. In fact, there was a motorcycle experiment done showing that low BAC (.02%--one beer) had no effect on riding ability.


I found data on general aviation fatalities here from the FAA: Fact Sheet – General Aviation Safety

I found data on general aviation hours flown here from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association: 2016 General Aviation Statistical Databook (PDF)

I found data on motorcycle vehicle-miles traveled and fatal crashes here from NHTSA: Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report Tables

The following table is built from those sources. I have summed years 2014-2016 in order to calculate 3-year average rates.

Motorcycling vs. General Aviation, 2014-2016

No code has to be inserted here.

Is 30 or 40 mph a good speed estimate for calculating motorcycle hours of exposure? I dunno.

Note the big difference between general aviation fatal crashes and fatalities. Motorcycle fatal crashes are very close to 1.0 deaths/crash.

If you read the AOPA's OP carefully, you'll see that what he's really interested in is data from the Civil Air Patrol, not from the entire population of general aviation pilots. So this doesn't really address his question.

BTW, I don't know squat about aviation, while some BARFers are experts. If I've made an error, please let me know, and I'll correct my post.

 

[Schnellbandit]

All the data means little because what happens to one person doesn't happen to another based on a statistic, it happens because of so many variables that work on a situation and then shit happens. It's like the per mile thing. According to what, time of day, route traveled, condition of the road, the other driver, the weather, the animal that jumped out in front? Not a single one of them is predictable in any value enough to draw any conclusion.

We can analyze things a million different ways not there is no way to predict what another human being will do with any certainty. I'm pretty sure most collisions and such are the result of what people do. The best thing we have is a guess.


Here is what I do know beyond any doubt:

If something bad happens when I ride it is only because:

1. I messed up
2. Someone or something else messed up or happened.

If something bad happens in an airplane:

1. It is not because I messed up.

 

[ocoas]

I fly and ride.
Non scientific, but I think riding is safer.
When you crash on a motorcycle, you might live.
When you crash in an airplane you probably will not.

Therefore riding is safer.

 

[295566]

All the data means little because what happens to one person doesn't happen to another based on a statistic, it happens because of so many variables that work on a situation and then shit happens. It's like the per mile thing. According to what, time of day, route traveled, condition of the road, the other driver, the weather, the animal that jumped out in front? Not a single one of them is predictable in any value enough to draw any conclusion.

We can analyze things a million different ways not there is no way to predict what another human being will do with any certainty. I'm pretty sure most collisions and such are the result of what people do. The best thing we have is a guess.


Here is what I do know beyond any doubt:

If something bad happens when I ride it is only because:

1. I messed up
2. Someone or something else messed up or happened.

If something bad happens in an airplane:

1. It is not because I messed up.

The more data you have there is an increase in the amount of metrics one can analyze, as well as a greater accuracy to the statistics. That's how math works.

You can disagree all you want but you're wrong.

 

[Schnellbandit]

Math can't and never will be able to predict what independent thought can produce through a decision. For no reason, not even known to the person affected, a memory can rise to the surface and cause someone to do something and no analysis will ever figure out why, when that might happen or what the person will do because of it.

And the driver turns in front of the motorcyclist or the pilot decides to nose dive the plane into the ground. Hindsight is crystal clear and the basis for all kinds of claims that one thing led a person to do this or that. The problem is that person will never exist after they are dead nor will the moment in time when they did what they did ever exist again.

When two people exist who are identical then the actions of one might be able to be used to predict the actions of another. When that happens they will be artificial. Until then, generalizations are as close as math can get you and not any closer.

Don't just say that is wrong, prove it. So far no one has been able to so here is the chance of a lifetime.

 

[kuksul08]

Funny enough, I was just talking to a friend of mine who is an F-16 pilot in the air force. He trains new pilots, and has done one tour in Afghanistan with some action.

He said "You are crazy for riding a motorcycle!"

I laughed to myself, thinking the exact thing about his job.

 

[cfives]

Mathematical models are not intended to predict the outcome of some specific random event, but are useful in predicting the probabilities of various outcomes based on a dataset that hopefully encompasses a very large number of specific random events.

 

[tzrider]

All I know with any certainty is that I’m a lot safer riding a motorcycle than I would be flying a plane.

 

[OaklandF4i]

Is 30 or 40 mph a good speed estimate for calculating motorcycle hours of exposure? I dunno.

Note the big difference between general aviation fatal crashes and fatalities. Motorcycle fatal crashes are very close to 1.0 deaths/crash.

If you read the AOPA's OP carefully, you'll see that what he's really interested in is data from the Civil Air Patrol, not from the entire population of general aviation pilots. So this doesn't really address his question.

BTW, I don't know squat about aviation, while some BARFers are experts. If I've made an error, please let me know, and I'll correct my post.

As always, love your posts DataDan. :thumbup This thread is of particular interest to me.

I grew up on and around a general aviation (GA) fixed based operation (FBO), literally. My father operated it. I learned to fly AND ride motorcycles there. :teeth

If you would have asked me this question without any form of statistics, I would have said GA is safer than riding a motorcycle by a considerable margin. Just my gut instinct without any facts, which obviously might be wrong based on how the stats are presented so far.

I think its going to be tough to get a perfect apples to apples comparison for exposure. Miles or hours? Hours is probably best, but as you pointed out, how do you estimate motorcycle hours. Increasing or decreasing speed in the estimation drastically change the final calculation for motorcycle deaths/exposure. Or conversely, if you go miles for determining exposure it will probably make GA seem safer.

Then account for fatalities, as aircraft probably include passengers more often than motorcycles. If you backed out the "extra" deaths per fatal accident and make them 1:1 how does that affect it.

I would think that the average GA pilot would have far fewer hours of exposure than the average motorcycle rider in any given year. What does this do to the figures or how to account for it statistically. Its a very very small percentage of GA pilots who fly significant hours annually in my experience.

The joke around the marina is usually about expensive boats just sitting... in my experience, its very much the same around small GA airports with expensive planes.

Those low users are probably why the author wanted to stick the Civil Airpatrol figures. They fly more often than the average GA pilot and might be arguable safer due to it.

My only anecdotal experience is a minor crash in an Ercoupe and many many on motorcycles. All obviously non fatal. :laughing I also havent been around GA for decades.

Looking forward to following the thread and your conclusions. arty

 

[dravnx]

GA or General Aviation means any aircraft that is not a Part 121 aircraft. Part 121 is scheduled airlines. So GA can be anything from a 10 passenger turbine to a single seat experimental. As CJ stated, a 1:1 comparison would be more realistic.
I read Friedman's article and disagree with him. He stated that "The airplane is more likely to fail than the pilot." I won't quote statistics but this is just not true. Most sources say that 80% of aircraft accidents are pilot error and the remaining 20% are weather related or equipment failure. Weather related accidents are human error as our weather forecasting and detection is able to prevent accidents as long as pilot's make sound decisions based on this information.

 

[DataDan]

As always, love your posts DataDan. :thumbup This thread is of particular interest to me.

Thank you.

I read Friedman's article and disagree with him. He stated that "The airplane is more likely to fail than the pilot." I won't quote statistics but this is just not true. Most sources say that 80% of aircraft accidents are pilot error and the remaining 20% are weather related or equipment failure. Weather related accidents are human error as our weather forecasting and detection is able to prevent accidents as long as pilot's make sound decisions based on this information.

I think he was referring to physical failure of the pilot compared to the aircraft. In the preceding paragraphs he noted the frequent contribution of pilot errors such as flying under visual flight rules into instrument conditions (such as JFK Jr.), running out of gas, and low altitude.

Then account for fatalities, as aircraft probably include passengers more often than motorcycles. If you backed out the "extra" deaths per fatal accident and make them 1:1 how does that affect it.

So GA can be anything from a 10 passenger turbine to a single seat experimental. As CJ stated, a 1:1 comparison would be more realistic.

Because fatalities per motorcycle crash is so close to 1, I didn't include fatal crash rate separately. Using crashes rather than deaths, the two motorcycle rates become .74 and .99 (depending on the hours-miles factor). Compare that to the .99 general aviation rate.

My answer to the OP's question: They're about the same.

 

[HadesOmega]

I studied aviation in college and statistically you are more likey die in an automobile than in an aircraft. Moto is more dangerous than car so your even more likely to die =P

I mean hey I'm an uber driver and drive all over thr place and I see accidents all the time. People just SUCK at driving. You don't hear of aircraft crashing all the time, I'm not a pilot though.

 

[OaklandF4i]

I studied aviation in college and statistically you are more likey die in an automobile than in an aircraft. Moto is more dangerous than car so your even more likely to die =P

I mean hey I'm an uber driver and drive all over thr place and I see accidents all the time. People just SUCK at driving. You don't hear of aircraft crashing all the time, I'm not a pilot though.

Merlin, we are talking about GA vs Motorcycles. If you add in commercial scheduled airlines and do the analysis with passenger miles, the statistics get skewed in the opposite direction making it a safer proposition than automobiles or motorcycles. VS exposure in hours for GA only and Motorcycles.

Growing up in GA, I had the same initial response as you (and often heard the same thing.) But take GA as a subset of plane travel and it appears to be close to the same risk as motorcycles.

I think if there was a way to reliably break out GA time into miles, it might make GA look more favorable. Just a guess, ie GA miles traveled vs Motorcycle miles traveled per fatal accident.

Certainly interesting regardless. :thumbup

 

[Butch]

Good thoughts. Many of my yahoo pals from earlier days are are now pilots. Dumb dumb dumb.

But hey. Whatever...

 

[cal scott]

Good thoughts. Many of my yahoo pals from earlier days are are now pilots. Dumb dumb dumb.

Why do you say "dumb, dumb, dumb"? That strikes me as being akin to what many non-motorcyclists naively say about motorcycles. I believe it all comes down to risk vs reward. In this regard I am assuming that we can all agree that the reward outweighs the risks when it comes to motorcycling. Do you not think that those yahoo pals would make the same argument? While the risk may be higher, it may be that the reward is also commensurately higher.