jimmer23 said:
Gee whiz you got me. So you're telling me that I'd be better off getting t-boned by a car at 25mph on my bike than on your motorcycle? Or hit anywhere else for that matter - front, back, etc. So by your self-described LOGIC, a pedestrian would stand a better chance against that same car than a motorcycle or a bike; what with all that useless metal to crash on top of them.
Can I ask you exactly where did you get your crack, and do you have any left after smoking the quantities that have you so high?
This is so easy, have you made it as far as high school physics boy? A motorcycle has far more MASS (look it up if you "no comprende amigo") and therefore will absorb far more FORCE than a 15 pound tin-foil-like-crumpling bicycle frame. Furthermore, the impact is far more likely to be absorbed by a BIG MOTORCYCLE PART in relation to the small mass of a bicycle. WHICH leaves the brunt of the impact to be borne by the RIDER of the bicycle. You know, legs, head, back, and the like of which you have already obviously cracked? Go ahead and get a paper and pencil, maybe a crayon, and draw it out if it helps you to understand.
Well, I guess we see the limit of your knowledge. Mass absorbing force? Gee, that doesn't happen. Force can act on a mass, but it doesn't soak it up like a sponge, beav. I know you didn't get that far in school, but there's this little ol' equation that says that force=mass*acceleration. If you used a bit of algebra (you might need your nanny to help you with this), you could rearrange that equation to find that if you divide that force by the mass it is acting on, you get an acceleration. Hmmmm. Imagine that, that ol' force didn't just disappear in that mass. No, it made that mass move. Weird, eh? Now, later I'm gonna use a term called "momentum." That's just a mass times its velocity. But guess what: if you change that momentum over a little interval of time, guess what you get? That's right: force. It takes force to change momentum. See, there's something they teach in a math class called calculus, and that thing is integration. And when you integrate a change in momentum over time, you get force. I know that's complicated, but maybe someday, after you get the hang of fractions, you'll get to take calculus.
And since you mentioned getting t-boned, we'll look at that scenario, cupcake: in a t-bone, on a motorcycle, there is nothing to protect your legs, therefore the force the car applies will be acting on your leg, or simulataneously, the motorcycle. Now let's get to that cushion. Since the motorcycle has inertia(OOOpps. I better explain inertia to you: inertia is just a measure of how much something resists a change in its motion. Can you handle that?) much greater than your leg, the motorcycle is less likely to move than the parts of your leg are. The net result is a crushing leg injury. A bicyclist is likely, in the same scenario, to suffer equally horrific injuries, BUT the one thing the bicyclist has going for him is that his ride has magnitudes less inertia than the motorcycle. Therefore, while the car will break the cyclists leg, it is unlikely that the fractures will be much greater from his leg being pinned betweent the bike and the car. Head on collision: in both cases the rider is likely to suffer chest and head trauma, as well as spinal trauma, when he rotates over his ride into the car. The motorcyclist's head may be spared due to the better protection offered by a motorycle helmet. The one thing that won't be spared is the motorcyclist's femurs and or pelvis. It is common in these types of collisions for the motorcyclist, as they rotate over the bike...don't forget, he still has forward momentum....to fracture both femurs when they strike his clip-ons (aka handlebars) or handlebars. The cyclist may incur the same injuries or he may not since the bicycle is likely to rotate with the cyclist. At the very least, the bicycle has much less forward momentum and will likely be moved in some other direction. Glancing blows? Well, guess what: even if the car only hits the motorcycle and not the ridere, the motorcycle is still likely to go down so that the rider is likely to be hit by the motorcycle. These cases are all born out by injuries typically seen in motorcycle and bicycle accidents.
Since you seem to have difficulty understanding simple, Newtonian mechanics, let me say this: a motorcycle and rider system moving at 25 mph has more energy than a bicycle and rider moving at that same speed. So that energy has to be dissipated somewhere, and it's usually the rider that is the victim of that dissipation. More importantly, the motorcycle rider combo has more momentum. In fact between the car, the motorcycle, and the rider, the rider has the least momentum, so if he/she is between the two, guess which of the three will suffer the most?
What is really stupid is to claim that there is any real substantive advantage to being on either a motorcycle or bicycle in a 25 mph collision. The difference in injury severity between the two scenarios is unlikely to be so great that one is preferable over the other. Now see, that's something that you probably didn't pick up in the video game you were playing.