Posted by gavinray 1 day ago
We're trying our very best to support and guide without shaming. The difficult part is the influence of friends, specifically a boyfriend, that were convinced led to much of this. Forbidding the relationship is not going to have the right effect. So we're trying to manage it with rules to try and prevent the opportunity to make bad decisions. And talking a lot about honesty, values and respect. There's still respect in our relationship, and I feel that's the key for us to be able to support her.
> I'm curious how many with similar stories think they would have or could have taken a different path with better or different parental support?
I only respond to extreme, repeated negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement never did anything for me.
If your child responds to positive reinforcement in any way, there's a good chance you can support them through it. But if they're like me, they may "only learn the hard way."
And I don't mean negative reinforcement as in physical punishment or being talked down to, but having to live through direct negative consequences of your action.
Sometimes I think "what if I could go back in time, and tell myself not to do XYZ", but I know myself well enough that I'm sure I would not listen.
I sincerely hope that things pan out for your family.
If you want the nuclear option, can you move away from the current environment? If they're young enough not to have a car, that's one way to at least guarantee a "fresh start" where they can't actively go down the current path. They'd need to find a new way into trouble, which is still wholly possible but requires more effort at least.
The common refrain here is usually they can find a bad environment anywhere so just moving won’t solve the problem. Unless it’s really remote, and home schooling. Which would not be healthy for anyone imo.
I’m a software engineer née scientist, but my spouse is a therapist who specializes in addiction. They (and I!) cherish stories like yours because we had seen up-close the struggle that so many people face.
> people willing to judge me by what I could do next instead of only by what I had done before
I think this is a really tragic take so common in the United States. It feels like, at least to me, that societal trust has broken down so much that people are broadly unwilling to take a chance on anyone.
Jail is supposed to mean you paid your debt to society. It's supposed to say 'okay, you've made a mistake, have had time to ruminate on it, now go forth and prosper.' It's not retribution or vengeance, or at least it shouldn't be - especially for non-violent crimes.
I'm truly glad you were fortunate and strong enough to climb out. I wish that this was a more common story.
We need a bigger emphasis on rehabilitation. It ultimately costs LESS for society.
I can also tell you from my 3 years in prison + jail that the grand majority of people in there do not have the innate desire or intention to change.
But for the small percentage that do, they deserve the resources and opportunity.
A good felon buddy of mine has been out now for 4 years. He slowly built a car repair business, with steady clientele, and got his life back on track – including reasonable sobriety and a steady relationship. He and his girl would cruise around often, enjoying their newfound happiness.
Last week he totaled his Harley and his body (destroyed bike, multiple broken bones). Total reset. He now gets PTSD whenever a Harley revvs by passing... physically cannot work.
Please don't get a motorcycle.
(fwiw i agree regardless, don’t get a motorcycle, lost too many friends to accidents or the following addiction)
I'm just offering real-world advice after witnessing all the broken bones and jerked roadrash upon this tattoo'd convict's broken body. Shouldn't be alive.
Putzing around an urban center on a cafe bike is not what it means to "ride a motorcycle" in the US.
Not to mention all the junk on the streets: the oil, anti-freeze, gravel, wet painted turn arrows.
When freeways become unsafe is when the loose nut behind the handlebars decides to wick it up and just "go around all of these big slow things". But that's not the freeways fault.
First year/10,000 miles is the hardest. But the foundational rules apply: Wear the gear, slow down, don't ride impaired (drunk, high, tired...).
Lightning strikes, it sucks. But, anecdotally, my worst motor vehicle injury was while a passenger in a modern car when my friend drove into a left turning vehicle. "Fender bender", "no biggie". Chronic, notable, back pain ever since. Worst than anything I've ever suffered on a motorcycle.
The relevant factor is that a street where motorcycles, cycles, pedestrians, and small/slow cars are dominant – all of which move at generally slow speeds – is of far, far, far less danger than a street (freeway or not) where the primary form factor is large automobiles traveling quickly.
You're describing American cities, while GP (to whom I was responding) was clearly describing the huge number of foreign cities (e.g. SE Asia) where motorcycles are the dominant form of urban transit.
The relevant factor is that a street where motorcycles, cycles, pedestrians, and small/slow cars are dominant – all of which move at generally slow speeds – is of far, far, far less danger than a street (freeway or not) where the primary form factor is large automobiles traveling quickly.
> First year/10,000 miles is the hardest
This is typical Intermediate Syndrome. The median rider involved in a motorcycle accident has nearly 3 years of experience.
No, road defects, obstacles, and weather are almost never the cause of motorcycle accidents.
I live in Thailand, and I can assure you that while scooters dominating city streets increases awareness by car drivers, it doesn't make accidents less likely.
Most accidents worldwide happen on low-speed streets, not highways. On highways, the speeds are higher, so the rare accidents that occur are more damaging, but the opportunities for accidents are also much, MUCH lower. (No/few turns, no/few stops, similar speed levels, better visibility, etc.)
That's the thing. On a bike you can do everything right and still lose.
California is one of the safer places to ride given how many bikes are here and I've still had too many near misses as a trained, experienced, and conservative rider.
Most people put 1-2k miles a year on their bikes, when I was riding often I put on 2-3k/ month.
Same with anything in life.
Same with a car, just less so. Of course you could also stay at home, wearing protective bumper suit 24/7 (and can still die from any number of things anyway).
At some point there's a tradeoff people make. Some people make it where the tradeoff slider says "motorcycle", rather than stop at "car". And I'm not talking a tiny niche, but about 1-1.2 billion people globally.
- Licensed motorcycle driver
That is to say, those comparing car v motorcycle are doing the wrong comparison here. You'd be evaluating (car + substitute activity of drugs/crime/etc) vs. motorcycle -- rather than merely car v motorcycles.
So not the same?
> Of course you could also stay at home, wearing protective bumper suit 24/7
Quite an extreme and useless comparison. There's a large spectrum of transportation and entertainment options between motorcycle riding and home bound bumper suit at all times.
Does it have to be the same?
Do you discourage people from riding bicycles too, lest they be hit?
If someone uses the word 'same' followed by a 'but' for a significantly different case then the word 'same' is losing its meaning.
> Do you discourage people from riding bicycles too, lest they be hit?
I don't, and my point is these things all have wildly different cost-benefit tradeoffs. So it's unproductive to jump to some extreme risk averse example that no one was suggesting or implying.
It's the same risk dynamic as driving a car to work, just more so. Of course you could also stay at home, wearing protective bumper suit 24/7 (and can still die from any number of things anyway).
Same with a car, or anything really.
The point of parent stands, globally there are billions of people going through their lives with motorcycles as their main vehicles, yet aren't involved in any life-changing accidents.
Some places are more dangerous than others, probably places that doesn't have this already motorcycle-heavy culture, like other countries in the world, has a higher incident rate and more severe accidents, as drivers aren't aware of how motorcycles usually operate.
Promote language of responsibility and accountability.
Look into auto lobby and this "accident" term history.
Use the language of accountability.
I still think "accident" is more accurate, so I'll continue to use that. Thanks for explaining though!
Only by a very lose definition of "fault", chosen for moralistic purposes.
Of course people saying what you say, if it happens to them, they'll suddenly swear theirs was a real accident.
I have seen what happens to motorcycle riders when there are accidents and I have seen what happens to car drivers when there are accidents. I won't get into the gory details but I avoid using bikes as much as possible.
Hard disagree.
Both pedestrians and motorcyclists are raw to the elements, entirely. At least when on roadways an automobile provides a chassis/rollcage.
In America it's the perfect crime.
"I'm so sorry officer I never saw them."
Case closed Lou.
Which is why yesterday, in my mid-sized Southern City: after a motorcyclist hit&ran off the Interstate (dead, into a guardrail; 35, helmet'd/licensed, obeying traffic laws), the local biker clubs put down their swords and rallied in the median well after the accident occurred (as my local newspaper noted).
With all these millions already-spent on Flock cameræ, and T-DOT having dozens more (of their own)... you'd think we'd'a'already caught these guys.!?
----
It's so sad that lack of accountability results in fleeing manslaughterers... but here we are.
The "besides the point" is that the point I was raising was how common motorcycles are, globally. Is that what you're disagreeing with?
Quickly: we seem to agree that motorcycles are dangerous and worldwide their predominance is mostly correlated with poverty (unlike US outlaw/biker culture). I had associated your beside the point with a biker being more-safe than a pedestrian -- is that what you meant?
----
I have done 120mph in both vehicles, car and motorcycle – and won't ever go over 55mph on a dirtbike (only, offroad); never again on-road riding.
Huh? No, it's mostly correlated with working class and below, hardly "correlated with poverty", at least the places I'm familiar with.
I do agree they're dangerous. I don't agree that everyone should always avoid everything dangerous simply because it's dangerous.
There's a reason the term accident is used (I know at least 10 countries where the meaning is the same).
Google crash not accident will give many resources.
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash...
> there's a reason
Yes, the auto lobby.
Saying "accident" implies that the tens of thousands of road deaths every year are an unavoidable consequence of the convenience of driving.
That's just not true.
What? Where is that conclusion coming from? There can be thousands of "accidents" and they can all be preventable, calling it "crash" or "accident" doesn't imply if it's preventable or not.
Talk about arbitrary hill to die on, very inconsequential. Why is this somehow so important?
FWIW, countries like Sweden call them "accidents" yet treat them as preventable and something to aim to minimize, not sure why it'd matter so much if someone call it accident or not.
I had two accidents during my 5 years of commuting, and both times I only got minor scratches and had to replace my shoes. Both happened at speeds a determined bicycle rider could achieve, but I suspect I wouldn't be as well protected on a bicycle (both the machine itself and the protective gear tend to be much lighter there than on a moped). If I needed to do that again, I'd buy a model with two wheels at the front, which would have prevented both accidents - though I'm not sure if added stability wouldn't encourage me to ride faster.
So it's pretty specific, but if you're somewhere where driving culture is not too cutthroat, the roads can support single-track vehicles, and the traffic rather than actual distance is the limiting factor - owning a bike can be an objectively better option.
I've always thought it made more sense that instead of large metrobuses the local transit authority operate more like a locals-only taxiservice – similar to their already-existant handicapped-access services (which send a solitary transport driver, with ramped single-occupant van/vehicle).
If every scooter rider in Taipei had a car, the city traffic would move a meter a day.
It's also about convenience, btw, not just cost. It's basically impossible to park a car here. Scooters are also difficult but at least possible.
A huge chunk of people here just take public transit now, as it should be.
This makes everything so far apart as to make walking inconvenient. Add in unbearable weather for half of most years (whether hot/cold), and it just isn't convenient to grab something "on a quick walk" from the grocery store that is miles away from most homes.
Thankfully (some) cities are beginning to realize this, and are changing (IMHO: stupid) zoning/regulations. My favorite example has been of my own hometown's (Austin) reduction in required parking spaces for most commercial activities. This increases density, and encourages more walking. ATX's buslane-onlies leave a lot to be desired... but at least they've gotten rid of (most) downtown oneways.
Not all bike owners and riders have a shady history or risk taking behavior (aside from riding a motrobike).
It's not bad advice, just unlikely to land. Thrill seekers seek thrills.
Closest feeling you can get to flying and a helluva lot cheaper.
Bike costs are line noise, (cheap!) planes I fly are better part of $200 an hour.
I get what you're saying though. Barely been on bike since latest baby and wondering if I should just sell them for now.
As much as I miss riding and wife misses riding with me, if the worst were to happen, yikes.
I’d say this is a strong case against getting one for anyone who has struggled with addiction. In my experience a part of the constant battle is a difficult relationship with sources of stimulation.
Having said all that and despite being in recovery for many years... I still lust after the feeling of completely unfettered freedom being on a bike on an open road. Before I bought my bike a friend had warned me that once you ride, you’ll never not want to ride. He was right.
This, is wisdom.
Glad we both made it (so far).
While it probably sounds crazy, owning a tractor is almost as good. There are even more mechanical widgets to play with and it is dead simple and easy to work on like a motorcycle. I still miss the motorcycle but now I can actually do useful work while somewhat scratching the itch.
Absolutely. Broken bones, and all.
----
>wondering if I should just sell them for now
>if the worst were to happen, yikes
Listen to yourself, Papa.
----
It's a young (dumb) man's game.
This has been my favorite sentence (so far) in this discussion – whatever one's opinion is on motorcycling. Capital 't' Truth.
----
Thirty years ago, my mother gave me some small amount of money to NOT ride a motorcycle on roadways until after she died. Being young and broke, I took the money. stopped riding.
After she died, I had aged just enough to realize that I didn't actually want to ride motorcycles on-road, anymore. Even after decades of wanting to...
Somehow mama-up-there knew I'd eventually grow up, and it only cost her a few hundred dollars [to not have to witness my motorcycle accident (while alive, nor ever from-above)].
What are your thoughts on Roller Coasters? Hit a good theme park, ride maybe 6 with your eyes closed within a couple of hours.
I can't help but feel riding one (Roller Coaster) is much more optimal than $200/hr flying a plane, and much safer than a motorcycle, even if you rented vs purchase one.
That’s like telling a skydiver to go ride the Drop Tower (or whatever the ride is that drops you straight down).
Not only is the experience different, but you aren’t in control. You aren’t controlling what’s happening.
For me a big part of the enjoyment comes from being in control of the bike.
Personally I would get zero enjoyment riding as a passenger on a bike. The thrill comes from riding and maneuvering the bike, not just going fast.
Yes. Chasing perfection every time.
How smoothly can you roll out of this corner. How perfect a line can you take. How smoothly can you shift up or rev match and shift down.
I don't think I've ever been a passenger. My young wife enjoyed riding with me before our youngest came.
Either stand-up (small one-rider) or a 3-seater; each has its perks.
You can waterski behind a larger HP machine, and it's always nice to have a fellow beloved rider saddling-up alongside your antic't britches – whatever the hell that means, to you.
Or go be stupid and jumpwake on a crotchrocket standup jetski #LifeIsShort #CrippleLife #DontGetRunOver
It's a thrill for sure. Mostly on the smaller coasters thee days because of the kids.
Hah, that's funny for someone who got into FPV quadcopters recently and just passed his motorcycle license. I might have a problem.
They could have just-as-easily landed on the barn I built, a decade ago – years of work.
Pilot's stupidity (flying in such known weather conditions, inexperienced) could have killed more than just he & his pickleball passengers.
----
The part where I start getting upset is when others' lives are put into risk (particularly when: no fault of their own, bystanders).
there’s lots offered near the bay area (where I’m from) and they don’t cost that much for what you’re getting in return
This has been a very terrible and very real lesson in mortality. Wish we had some basic social safety nets for middle-aged unemployables (e.g. single-payer healthcare).
But somehow no old bold riders.
In other countries they are a huge means of transport.
"Oh, but this is acceptable risk"
Well, for billions, a motorcycle is too.
E.g. the most common motorcycle in Vietnam is the 110cc Honda Wave with a top speed under ideal conditions of ~60mph. It literally would not be called a motorcycle in the US.
I don't think any city in Europe is as anti-human as your standard American metro, suburb, or small town.
Also: European metro areas are full of two-wheeled not-motorcycles, like the Honda above.
Agreed
> Also: European metro areas are full of two-wheeled not-motorcycles, like the Honda above.
Not the European metropolitan area I live right next to and travel to/from, they are proper motorcycles, who also travel on the highway, which isn't legal for the "two-wheeled not-motorcycles" you talk about.
It's OK to not be aware of how everything is everywhere in the world, no one thinks less of you for that. However, being so confident about something you obviously can't know, isn't as harmless and does indeed make you look slightly weird for being so combative about it.
Your point is that there are cities that are full of motorcycles. My point is: sure, but most of those in most cities are not the 1000cc+ motorcycles Americans are typically referring to, and even if they are, a city full of motorcycles is a completely different risk environment from a city that is not full of motorcycles.
The bikes, usage patterns, and environment are all totally different. It's obviously silly to act like they're not.
Apparently the numbers for bicycles are a bit better, even in adjusted terms, but still. They're very unsafe in general.
The effect on physical and psychic health largely outweighs (sometimes to x30) the risk of accidents and pollution disease.
(2012, french) https://www.ors-idf.org/nos-travaux/publications/les-benefic...
I haven’t ridden on the road since. Just no joy in riding anymore if it just takes one careless individual on a cell phone…
Every so often I think about linking up with a group ride again or even going to a spin class, but I just don’t see the fun in it anymore.
It's laughable how proud some cyclists become when they think a painted stripe will somehow protect them from cellphoned sharks.
Obviously US bicycling infrastructure is laughably dangerous, and nobody deserves full-blame for exercising their legal rights upon roadways -- but e.g: biking up Lookout Mountain's shoulderless 2-lane highway is. stupid.ly common. These are tourist roadways winding through a mountainrange – are you cyclist's suicidal, or just hubric? Nobody knows where they are, and your dumb_ass is in the blindcurve going 2mph.
Your legal right #RIP
I sometimes lament that I wish I could ride in a group again, but it’s such a hurdle to get over mentally for me.
It is a lot of fun having camaraderie with similarly skilled riders hammering it out in the big ring for two hours, but just never have been able to get back to that place where I’m comfortable enough to do it.
Edit: oh, rereading your comment… my friend was not at fault in her crash. She was a careful rider just out for a spin and happened to cross paths with the wrong idiot who was distracted and veered onto the shoulder. I was expressing sadness that that is all it took to end her life.
Even as a pedestrian, I hate crossing a small road using crosswalks at a 4 way stop.
More than once, I’ve been nearly run over — even by vehicles that came to a complete stop.
Others were too distracted and plowed nonstop going 40+mph through the 4way stop.
I actually prefer to cross in the middle of the road on my own terms.
I live in a non-California state and I'm shocked whenever I see a motorcyclist who doesn't illegally lane split, who maintains a standard following distance (ideally 3 car lengths on an interstate), etc. Plus, most of them aren't even good at choosing leather jackets (not enough schotts or even made in Japan actual horsehide, lots of slop non-protective because most of these people are poor from the Harley purchase) and they don't wear proper protective heavy bottoms (i.e. leather/kevlar pants or HEAVY selvedge denim like 25 oz+). Many don't wear helmets because doing so might make them look like "fairies" to their friends in the outlaw biker gang.
Similarly, half or more of the cyclists in your average complete streets/walkable cities liberal area either 1. actually don't have a drivers license and are thus oblivious to road laws when they routinely get on the road, 2. refuse to use a helmet/put lights on at night/hand signal when turning, and 3. refuse to use perfectly good empty sidewalks (yes its legal here to bike on the sidewalk) to cycle on when possible.
I see this shit all the time, and I understand why they end up as roadkill time-and-time again. Keep winning Darwin awards. My heart goes out to those who legitimately did everything right and ends up squashed anyway, but the myriad number of idiots ruins it for the victims.
I actually don't know which makes me more scared to see on the road, a clapped out Nissan/dodge, a Harley rider, or a cyclist. At least the cyclists and nissan drivers are probably young and thus far more alert than the average geriatric who thinks they're so cool for owning the worlds most gaudy motorcycle.
>Many don't wear helmets because doing so might make them look like "fairies" to their friends in the outlaw biker gang.
I now live in a state which requires helmets for all riders.
This is a good idea – for exactly the reason you stated.
3 car lengths is a ridiculously too close following distance at freeway speeds.
So sad to see; I am walking his dogs; last time I saw him I said "I am just worried that this will make you spin out, again."
Definitely helped me continue deciding not to get a motorcycle, myself.
A freaking motorcycle with 300+ kilos moving ate highway speeds or more.
----
Certainly speed was a factor but isn't that why ya'll ride?
~30% of deaths involve drunk riding
~30% of deaths involve not wearing any helmet (let alone full face ECE 22.06 rated ones or any other gear at all)
~30% of deaths involve someone with no motorcycle licence.
These aren't all mutually exclusive obviously, rather the Venn diagram probably looks rather...circular.
The issue isn't so much everyone trying to kill you, you can fix a lot of the visibility issues and you have some additional options if someone is about to hit you. The problem is that two wheels make for a VERY dynamic system and you're managing two different brakes with weight shifting between two wheels based on your inputs. To that end ABS and TCS are absolutely huge, IIRC something like >60% safety improvement.
Tldr don't buy an old retro bike with no safety systems and ride it drunk without a license or gear, you'll continue to pad the numbers.
This rider (I described above) was
~sober
~helmetted (fully faced)
~licensed
1. I fell over at a stop sign on a canted hill while stopped because the rented Harley was so fucking big. I immediately returned it and will never ride a Harley again, those things suck.
2. I stupidly stopped just before the crest of a gravel road because I couldn't determine the best path (should have just trusted my tires and picked one), started sliding backwards. Rather than spin my tires and risk shooting off, or slide backwards into the unknown, I just tipped over and rolled off the bike.
No injuries either times. No at speed near misses. I have a simple rule: if I'm not 100% sure, I don't do it. A pass, a light, an intersection, when in doubt, I slow down, or stop, or hang out where I am in a lane.
Maybe one day I'll get taken out at a stop light or something random like that but the joy that riding has brought me I just can't give up. Exploring the world on a motorcycle is just amazing.
All activities come with risks. Motorcycling is up there but so is rock climbing, kayaking, rafting, hiking, bicycling, swimming - all activities I personally know someone who has been severely injured doing. You take precautions but you gotta live.
I agree. Among my fondest (and 3rd-most-painful) memories is sitting atop my Honda XR80 – FREE – pondering what my adolescent mind might eventually wish to accomplish.
----
>all activities I personally know someone who has been severely injured doing
My twin's friend, an experienced multi-pitch climber, recently perished in a freak-drowning accident (while leading amateurs) on a simple repelling expedition (single-pitch, lots of attention-to-safety). Somehow he slipped, fell into rainstorm-capture... and nobody knew how to help him quickly enough.
Obviously he should have had another experienced buddy, but it apparently "all happened so quickly" that nobody thought otherwise (was possible).
#RIP, assailedclimberbro
You can be the best rider in the world and still have a bad day/week/month/year/life.
I am back on the horse. It is just a zen and still relaxing time, albeit more anxiety while riding, than before. Thankful I can still ride, and I do.
I'm glad you're better. Tenacity.
More likely you're belted in your cage and surrounded by airbags.
Apples to orangutans.
THIS is the major difference, protecting even the best motorcyclist's abilities.
Some US highways are posted at 85mph [137km/h] – unprotected flesh doesn't stand a chance!
I'm sorry, but from a European perspective, this is the problem, not bikes. If your roads and driving culture encourage driving a tank for safety, that's a bit less than ideal.
I commuted to work for 5 years on a moped. I never used a highway, almost never exceeded 50km/h, and had 2 accidents during that time; both resulted in just a few scratches and bruises.
In another post, you said: "maybe speed was a factor" - actually, it's the only factor. If you never go too fast and never use roads where others may go too fast, you're safe - at least from life-altering tragedies.
If, on the other hand, it's generally impossible to get where you want to without using highways, or the sheer distance forces you to step on it - then yeah, don't buy a motorbike. Just note that it's not the bike's fault!
While you're right about slower generally being safer, you should still treat it like a life-altering tragedy could happen at any time and like you're going 200 kph.
It's still worth noting the relative probability: death or life-changing injury is basically what happens in every single accident when you're going 200km/h on a highway surrounded by (what could as well be) steel walls moving at the same speed; in my use case, when not exceeding 40-50 km/h and using roads where other users basically stand still most of the time, you need a pretty specific conditions and a lot of bad luck to even have an accident, much less die or become permanently disabled as a result of one. Still, not a zero probability, but the difference between 100% and 0.01% is kind of noticeable.
Half of the group rides I see are to "honor" or "remember " a rider who died doing something stupid as well.
Had to look away to stop from tearing up in Panera a few times at the end.
Sending this to my sister who has had struggles like this. She recently finished her BS and hopes to be an counselor or therapist after finishing her masters.
Can relate. Been 45 years, for me. Got my act together at 18, but before that...
I've not had nearly the adversity of the author, but I do know a little bit about what it's like to have an alternative background that makes companies not want to take a chance on you. It motivates you to take advantage of the chances you're given. The first time someone gave me a job, I felt so utterly grateful that I worked twice as hard as most and complained half as much. You could cynically call that exploitation, but I didn't see it that way.
When I came into a position to make my own hiring calls, I tried paying that forward, and I got some great employees from it. Arguably a couple duds as well, but I never regretted giving the chance.
Shout out to Hasura as well, btw. I've encountered their leadership team a couple times and everything about them has screamed integrity. It did not surprise me to hear that they are part of this story.
> When I came into a position to make my own hiring calls, I tried paying that forward, and I got some great employees from it. Arguably a couple duds as well, but I never regretting giving the chance.