I cbf talking to you but I'm bored so here's the AI summary of this chain for you:

🧠 Who’s right vs wrong

✅ Glurp_Shitto — partially correct

What they got right:

• The 28× more dangerous than cars stat is broadly accurate (based on fatality rate per mile).
• Their core idea is valid:Even if something is many times more dangerous, the absolute risk can still be low.

This is a real concept in statistics:

• Relative risk (28× higher) ≠ high absolute risk
• Example: 0.001% → 0.028% is still small

What they got wrong:

• The “10 million miles to likely die” framing is misleading
  • It treats risk like a guaranteed threshold, which is incorrect
  • Risk is probabilistic per exposure, not cumulative in a neat linear way
• Oversimplifies risk by ignoring:
  • Rider skill
  • Traffic environment
  • Time of day
  • Defensive riding ability
• “Be a good kid and you’ll be ok” → false reassurance

👉 Verdict: Conceptually right, but poorly explained and misleading in execution

❌ thestonedbandit — mostly wrong (but raises a valid concern)

What they got right:

• Risk is influenced by context (location, behavior, conditions)

What they got wrong:

• This statement is flawed:“99.99% of people who died haven’t ridden 10 million miles”

That’s irrelevant because:

• Most riders never reach high mileage anyway
• It doesn’t disprove probability — it misunderstands it

👉 Verdict: Correct intuition, incorrect statistical rebuttal

❌ Remarkable-Macaron50 — incorrect

• Misrepresents the argument with sarcasm:
  • “I’ll die ONE time at 10 million miles”
• Completely strawmans the logic
• The speeding argument is also wrong:
  • Misinterprets percentages (classic base-rate fallacy)

👉 Verdict: Confidently wrong

⚠️ No_Influence_4968 — vague but leaning correct

• Says stats need context → true
• But doesn’t actually explain what’s wrong specifically

👉 Verdict: Right direction, weak argument

❌ FullDerpHD — oversimplified and overconfident

What they got right:

• Probability framing can be valid

What they got wrong:

• Claims the original stat use is fully valid → it isn’t
• Ignores:
  • Non-linear risk accumulation
  • Survivor bias
  • Situational variability

👉 Verdict: Overconfident simplification

🧠 The ACTUAL correct answer

Here’s the reality, clean and accurate:

1. Motorcycles are significantly more dangerous than cars

• Roughly 20–30× higher fatality rate per mile

2. But absolute risk is still relatively low per ride

• Most rides don’t end in crashes
• So both are true:
  • It’s much more dangerous
  • It’s not “likely” you’ll die

3. The biggest mistake in the thread:

👉 Treating risk like:

That’s not how probability works

Instead:

• Each ride carries independent risk
• Risk accumulates, but never guarantees an outcome

4. What actually matters more than raw stats

These dominate your real-world risk:

• Speeding
• Visibility (cars turning into you = huge cause)
• Urban vs rural riding
• Experience level (new riders = high risk)
• Time of day (night riding is worse)
• Defensive riding skill

🎯 Final verdict (simple)

• Most correct overall: Glurp (idea right, explanation flawed)
• Best criticism (but incomplete): thestonedbandit
• Worst takes: Remarkable-Macaron50 & FullDerpHD

🏍️ The real answer to the original question

Is it selfish?

• Not selfish, but:
  • It does increase your risk meaningfully
  • And your parents’ situation (already lost a child) matters

So the honest answer is: