It has nothing to do with the results it is a “survivor” biased stat article. It says based on accident fatalities so does not account for all miles driven per vehicle type(not in an accident), only those actually hitting somebody. So you don’t get a proper per mile look at the data. it is like that helmet stat from decades ago that said wearing a helmet is more likely to result in a neck injury, becauae they left out the people who died…since dead people weren’t counted as injuries. I have no issue with busses and motorcycles killing more people struck than cars, the article presents as if it includes all vehicles on the road,but if you ran a study on deatha by vehicle type there would be less for motorcycle because there are just way less on the road to start with, even science writers like to skew things if they want to prove something a certain way so saying per mile driven while excluding all milages from non accidents is misleading stats
I see what you’re trying to say here, but the study gets its mileage data from the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) 2002 highway statistics, so it’s an estimate of the total number of miles driven by each category of vehicle. I think the bigger problem with using this study to say that motorcycles are worse than cars is that the “3.77x more likely to kill a child per mile” is based on 4 deaths caused by motorcycles that year. We’re dealing with numbers so small that one accident caused or prevented could swing the “probabilities” wildly in different directions.
Here’s a link to the full study if you’re interested. You’re right that it doesn’t seem to cover injuries though.
but if you ran a study on deatha by vehicle type there would be less for motorcycle because there are just way less on the road to start with,
And more people die on the toilet than playing Russian roulette, doesn’t mean taking a shit is more dangerous.
That’s why you can’t just look at total deaths.
I’m sorry I couldn’t find a way to explain this that you could understand
Lol, no I understand it, I just hate bad science when their goal is publishing, not helping. It reminds me of the Autism study, their test was asking people who came into a corner srore if they wanted the drink(cup) they bought to be upsized for same price. Their assumptive split was a regular “normal” person would upsize for better value, those that said no had autism–because they were attached to cup size or didn’t underatand dollar per oz value system. Just junk science, since people way have a small cupholder in the car or not want so much drink…but they get notoriety and granta for publishing even if it is useless
