Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

If your me then you might stay away from big bikes. I rode a Honda CBR1000rr for some years and I can tell you it was beyond fast. A moped is safer as long as you don't ride like me and make yourself seen and most of all be aware of your surroundings at all times.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

♣Slew Foot♣ /

when I was in my first accident while back I broke my wrist I was able to eject the moped ahead of me a little trick with the front brake taking a right angle at full speed and lifting your leg my wrist got broken by the lady's freaking mirror now in the ER right next to me on the gurney was the guy that was in the exact same kind of accident some lady at a yellow light took it cut them off Full Throttle well for me it was about 35 to 40 now I broke two bones in my wrist and required a plate I was not wearing any safety equipment I was wearing a t-shirt and jeans now I didn't even get any scrapes or anything in that one the bike took most of it it took about 3 1/2 seconds that's how much time I had now the gentleman on the next Gurnee was wearing full safety gear including a full face helmet he was riding a full size dresser Harley he had two broken forearms a broken leg and contusions all over his head even with the helmet.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Douglas Binder /

Not to get too hung up in the science, but the two ways the mass of the bike matter are with how much they slow the car down, which I suspect is insignificant, and how the mass of the bike affects braking distance. I think that is offset by the superior braking of a modern motorcycle. The mass to be considered is your body mass. The amount of damage you sustain is a function of the equation e = mv^2. The kinetic energy in the mass of your body is the square of the speed you are traveling at impact. This is eye opening when you consider that 50mph squared is 2500 and 30mph squared is 900 so you have 2.7 times the energy at 50mph. Speed is very much not your friend. It is also worth pointing out that braking distance is also the square of the speed. Around here we have two things deer and idiot drivers. I'm old enough that I heal slowly so I only ride on the track.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Douglas wrote: ` This is eye opening when you consider that 50mph squared is 2500 and 30mph squared is 900 so you have 2.7 times the energy at 50mph. Speed is very much not your friend. It is also worth pointing out that braking distance is also the square of the speed. Around here we have two things deer and idiot drivers. I'm old enough that I heal slowly so I only ride on the track.' END quote

Douglas, I don't believe you have figured this out rationally. You say before this quote that the superior braking of the MC compensates the superior speed impact devastation.

NO Way! The moped's inferior braking at 30mph is nearly as good as a much heavier MC at 50 mph,although what MC just runs 50 mph routinely?

A moped can stop really quickly in a 30mph panic stop, and even if it doesn't stop,say just gets down to 15mph, the impact is WAY less than an MC.

Not convinced at all. Use your math to show these young ones how much HARDER you impact at 60mph than at 40mph. Or even 50mph. They can then see why they shouldn't try to make their moped run as fast as they can.

I don't think they teach physics in high school anymore.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Douglas Binder /

Don, I have no idea what you are saying when you say I haven't figured this out rationally. I was not saying anything about mopeds vs motorcycles, just that if you are going to factor speed into the equation, then make sure you are using the correct equation. Furthermore, the kids that I teach definitely know physics. Most of them take AP physics in high school. I also am an instructor for the Street Survival teen driving program and certainly push the point about speed.

Pretty much every time I take my Puch Maxi out, I do ~60mph (hopefully considerably more this summer), however, when I need to slow down, I have about a mile to do it in. I'm sure glad I don't have to trust my stock rear brakes!

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

You need to work on your brakes. The rear should nearly lock-up and the front should just about put you over the handlebars. IF you're going to run 60 on a moped, you have no excuse not to mod it to disc brakes.

Maybe you weigh 300 lbs...…………...after all it is inertia and that is physics. Below,make sure you read the last SIX WORDS.

What we need to look at is:

If you have a 2,000 kg car (which is about 4400 lbs) that is driving at 10 m/s (or about 22 mph), you would have a kinetic energy of 100,000 Joules. If you doubled your speed to 20 m/s (which is about 45 mph), your kinetic energy would be 400,000 J. In this example, it is clearly apparent that higher speeds will result in higher energy crashes. By doubling your speed, you increase the energy in a collision by FOUR TIMES, which makes it significantly more dangerous.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Douglas Binder /

Duh, that's what I said: e=mv^2. And, no, I don't need to work on my brakes. The only time I ever ride it is on a closed, straight course.

Here's the bike at the Ohio Mile, setting the speed record for all 50cc bikes ever to run there.

ECTA0239cropped.jpg

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

You need to adjust your thinking. Brakes on an MC do NOT make up for the difference In speed and mass.

BTW, what is your record speed?

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> You need to adjust your thinking. Brakes on an MC do NOT make up for the

> difference In speed and mass.

>

> BTW, what is your record speed?

Got this: https://www.ectamile.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Final-Ohio-Bike-Records1.pdf

Couldn't find a later record after 56 mph.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Douglas Binder /

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. "Brakes on an MC do NOT make up for the difference In speed and mass."? Are you talking about My bike? It's only used for land speed racing. I only use the brakes when I pull up to my pit.

This will be the last time I bother responding to you. If you feel free to insult me by telling me that I need to adjust my thinking, you close the door to any dialog.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Chöschi21 C.K. /

> Don Ohio Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Couldn't find a later record after 56 mph.

Try to look next time, its on the 3. Page, 61.2995mph.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Almost every bad accident I've known has been some shitty driver obliviously pulling out in front of a rider. Bigger brakes on motorcycles dont stop you faster when it's a heavier bike moving faster... sure you're marginally more likely to get run off the road with a moped, but that seems more like personal discomfort than genuine risk. And you're marginally less visible on a moped too. But it's hard to do as much damage when you're only capable of hitting maybe 35

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Douglas, I think I misunderstood this statement a little.

` and how the mass of the bike affects braking distance. I think that is offset by the superior braking of a modern motorcycle. '

I thought you were saying since a MC has greater braking, it would be the same as a moped in force.

I do apologize to you.Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

♣Slew Foot♣ /

you can you can only stop so fast and maintain control my bike's is set up so I get 60% stopping power rear 40% front because I ride in the snow and the slick

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

> ♣Slew Foot♣ Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> you can you can only stop so fast and maintain control my bike's is set

> up so I get 60% stopping power rear 40% front because I ride in the snow

> and the slick

The front brake is your best friend or worst enemy,depending on road conditions. I always try to hit the rear brake first in iffy conditions,as the front brake can put you down in a heartbeat. Been there.suffered that!

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

♣Slew Foot♣ /

But when you have a flat tire the rear is the one that will kill you

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

> Born to be WillD Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Almost every bad accident I've known has been some shitty driver

> obliviously pulling out in front of a rider.

Definitely. Was out riding yesterday and some dumb shit was waiting to turn right out of a side street. He saw me coming and was inching forward and decided to pull out anyway. I slammed on the brakes but still ended up hitting his front left tire and fender with my wheel.

Scared the crap out of me.

Of course the guy proceeded to drive off immediately after giving me that look they always give.

I've been commuting via bicycle forever so I encounter this stuff almost daily. But on the bike I can stop at any speed really quickly.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Over here a moped is definitely safer. You actually have to be able to drive a car here before you get a license and because of all the bicycles people are generally more attentive.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

kevin Smellaflange /

if people don't like the way we need to drive...

...then they should get off of the side walk...lol

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

I guess probably the most objective way to look at this would be to consider statistics, of course then you're also introducing bias from the types of people that ride each and how they ride, you also have bias in that minor accidentsarent usually reported. Without looking it up, I'd suspect on a per rider basis, motorcycles would have a much higher fatality and hospitalization rate, but mopeds probably have more frequent minor accidents

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

"You actually have to be able to drive a car before you get a license" SO much this, I think the only requirement in this country is a pulse and to be 18, if you wait until 18 in MN you are not required to take any kind of a training course. Asinine. Our driving habits reflect this. Of course it also used to be possible to receive a ticket for not signaling, running red lights/stop signs etc. No more. The police run reds, don't signal, why should anyone else?

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Pushrod Fifty /

Both equally as sketchy but bicycles are far more dangerous in my opinion.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

♣Slew Foot♣ /

But the globalist love bicycle Riders there's bicycle Lanes popping up everywhere it doesn't mean anything to drivers that don't run you over anyway

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

> Stephen Keller Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> "You actually have to be able to drive a car before you get a license"

> SO much this, I think the only requirement in this country is a pulse

> and to be 18, if you wait until 18 in MN you are not required to take

> any kind of a training course. Asinine. Our driving habits reflect this.

> Of course it also used to be possible to receive a ticket for not

> signaling, running red lights/stop signs etc. No more. The police run

> reds, don't signal, why should anyone else?

Here its about 30 hours of driving lessons, a written test and a road test. If you can't drive a car you won't get a license.

Right now seniors on electric bicycles are the biggest threat on the road. (Fatal incidents with bicycles are skyrocketing the last few years.)

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

Dirty30 Dillon /

> Stephen Keller Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> "You actually have to be able to drive a car before you get a license"

> SO much this, I think the only requirement in this country is a pulse

> and to be 18, if you wait until 18 in MN you are not required to take

> any kind of a training course. Asinine. Our driving habits reflect this.

> Of course it also used to be possible to receive a ticket for not

> signaling, running red lights/stop signs etc. No more. The police run

> reds, don't signal, why should anyone else?

Plenty of states have mandatory class hours and even road hours prior to being allowed your license. But also plenty of states don't really require any thing to ride a moped.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

bicycles are not significantly more dangerous, and definitely much less so than motorcycles. I've ridden thousands of city miles. Once a car passed and then immediately turned right directly in front of me. I slammed his side, bent my wheel. One time a car clipped my elbow with a mirror. I saw the passenger reach out to fix the mirror as they drove on, so the KNEW they hit me. I caught up at the next light but decided to drop it because there is literally zero positive outcomes from confronting someone except stroking your own pride/machismo.

I mean I understand the fear, it feels uncomfortable having cars pass you much faster than you're going, but they aren't just going to hit you. And certainly as drivers I recognize folks often get nervous passing bicycles too.

here's a fantastically well documented and researched piece:

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/166/2/212/98784

On a per-mile-travelled basis it appears bicycles have a slightly higher rate of fatal and serious injury than car, comparable level to walking, and much lower than motorcycles. But it also shows the bicycle injury/death rate is (very unfortunately) significantly inflated by kids and elderly

It definitely feels scarier riding a bicycle on roads, but it's not actually. I'm sure we've all got some anecdotal stories of people we've distantly know who've been injured on bikes but it's just confirmation bias.

Re: Are motorcycles safer then stock mopeds?

> Dirty30 Dillon Wrote:

> -------------------------------------------------------

> > Stephen Keller Wrote:

>

> > -------------------------------------------------------

>

> > "You actually have to be able to drive a car before you get a license"

>

> > SO much this, I think the only requirement in this country is a pulse

>

> > and to be 18, if you wait until 18 in MN you are not required to take

>

> > any kind of a training course. Asinine. Our driving habits reflect

> this.

>

> > Of course it also used to be possible to receive a ticket for not

>

> > signaling, running red lights/stop signs etc. No more. The police

> run

>

> > reds, don't signal, why should anyone else?

>

> Plenty of states have mandatory class hours and even road hours prior to

> being allowed your license. But also plenty of states don't really

> require any thing to ride a moped.

We do too, IF you are under 18, as for mopeds, it has been so long, but you can get a special permit for moped only at 15, there is a written test, and if I recall a small road test on a course? But if you have a reg DL there is nothing else required. You would think there would be a national standard for things as important as this. I mean what is the difference between a 16yo who has never driven and an 18+yo who has never driven? Why should one be required to have instruction and one not?

Want to post in this forum? We'd love to have you join the discussion, but first:

Login or Create Account