2007-05-02 09:49:41 · 13 answers · asked by vufgew 1 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Motorcycles
If there is a bike lane that separtes the bicyclist from the motor-vehicle traffic, then I'd say that the bicycle is safer. But here in New England there are very few roads with bike lanes. Bicycles have to compete for for what little space motor vehicles give them at the far edge of the road. Many motorists do not give bicyclists much of break, they won't move left, won't slow down, won't yeild the right-of-way. At least on a motorcycle you are keeping up with traffic, not being constantly passed it. I think that the motorcycle, which gets to use the entire road, is safer bet in traffic.
2007-05-02 13:33:56 · answer #1 · answered by V-Starion 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
lol @ roy (above)
Well motocycles are dangerous if you don't know how to ride them. So are bicycles because sometimes people don't see them and they'll hit you. Motorcycles are faster and you can ride them at night. You can ride bicycles at night as well but those little reflectors are VERY hard to see and you are 80% more likely to get ran over. Bicycles are cheaper and require little experience. If you live in a more rural town where there aren't many cars and its common to see bike riders I'd suggest a bike. If you live in a big city or the suburbs A motorcycle will probably be best.
2007-05-02 10:00:53 · answer #2 · answered by powerpuffcutie24™ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Try this. Take a bicycle and ride and ride as fast as you can on a straight road and then fall off, check your injuries/cost of repair to your body. Now take a Motor Cycle and do the same thing! Your injuries would be more painful from the bicycle, because you would not live to feel pain from the Motorbike accident. Seriously of course a motorbike is more dangerous!
2007-05-02 09:56:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I ride an electric assist bike to work when weather permits, and I can hear what is happening around me better that I could on a gas vehicle. I can't go as fast (safer?) as a motorcycle, but I pass every service station I come to.
2007-05-02 10:00:43 · answer #4 · answered by avnurd 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
About 10 years ago I had a series of bad crashes on my KX250, but was lucky enough not to break any bones. I decided I would take a break from motocross and try mountain biking. I went out and spent a ton of money on a Klein mt. bike. I headed out to the trails, crashed and broke my collar bone. I healed up from that went out again and broke my arm...I'm back on a motocross bike now. As far as riding a bicycle on the road, I believe that is more dangerous also because you cannot flow with traffic.
2007-05-03 01:40:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i'd say a bike is extra risky. sure you've gotten a stunning probability of damage on a bicycle although the final public of the time a minor harm which likely wouldnt be seen risky. On a bike you've the alternative of dashing at 80mph and hitting a fault contained in the line and your flipping.. On a bicycle (till you acquire tremendous legs) you dont get the alternative to hit those extreme speeds it really is the reason i'd say a bike is extra risky.
2016-11-24 21:22:55 · answer #6 · answered by curlee 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on where you ride it - on an interstate, I would say the motorcycle is safer.
2007-05-02 09:54:38 · answer #7 · answered by Gemma 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Ever outrun a German Shepard on a bicycle?
2007-05-03 05:53:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the time, place, and skill level or the rider for both.
2007-05-02 15:50:32 · answer #9 · answered by csburridge 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on where and who is riding either one. Both are reasonably safe, but both can get you killed if you or someone around you is not careful.
2007-05-02 09:54:26 · answer #10 · answered by loon_mallet_wielder 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋