So basically you're saying that you recognize all sides and take none, but for the moment, you understand the concerns of the "riding is dangerous" camp... In all fairness I am no different, only I disagree that one should preach the dangers of riding to those who have clearly already considered and accepted them (again, I'm not talking about you).
Riding is no more "dangerous" on the grounds of getting into accidents than cars (excluding for a second very low rider skill, unfavorable weather conditions, etc.). However, I think we can agree it IS more dangerous than being in a car once an accident scenario has begun (no metal cage, less protection). However, pedestrians are FAR more likely to be seriously injured under these circumstances than a helmet-wearing, aware motorcyclist. So assuming an accident is occurring- I would ague that walking IS more dangerous than riding, as are bicycling, flying(!), taking a train, etc. I really think that's a fair analysis. Certain exclusions have to made- for instance recklessness. Some motorcyclists are reckless, but so are some drivers, some pedestrians, and some pilots. Some riders are unskilled, but some pedestrians don't pay attention to traffic, or walk because they're drunk- "unskilled pedestrians." Some motorcyclists have a tendency to speed, but what do you a call a man on a 20lb. piece of aluminum with a foam, non-full face helmet cruising along at 30 MPH? (referring to a road cyclist, in case you don't get the picture). I do that too, and let me tell you, that feels truly dangerous >).
That's really a devil's-advocate analysis...I personally do feel an extra element of danger when riding, but again, we all know and accept these risks. The real purpose of my post was to call out pre-meds acting like seasoned, paternalistic doctors.
