Old 01-04-06, 05:57 PM
  #10  
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Roody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dancing in Lansing
Posts: 24,221
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 711 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Brad M
I think this says it all: http://www.iihs.org/research/fatalit...df/general.pdf

"Seventy-five percent of motor vehicle fatalities in 2003 were passenger vehicle occupants, 11 percent were
pedestrians, 8 percent were motorcyclists, 1 percent were bicyclists, and 2 percent were occupants of large
trucks."

This only includes fatalities where a motor vehicle was involved. What did all those airbags and crumple zones do for these 30,000+ motorists
?
Brad I agree with you but I predict you will get nowhere trying to convince people that cars are dangerous. People don't judge "danger" based on objective data. They judge it based on subjective feelings. People feel safer in a car, so they believe they are safer. They sure can't tolerate believing that their pretty car, where they spend so much time, is actually a deathtrap. The car body that supposedly protects them is what actually injures or kills people in most crashes. Furthermore, when you're traveling 70 mph, or even 25 mph in a car, the physical forces that can harm you are greater than when you are travelling 15 mph on a bike.

So give me my nice safe bike any day.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline