Motostats 2006

[DataDan]

Everyone talks about motorcycle safety stats, but few people know where to find the latest ones and even fewer have the time or interest to figure out exactly what they mean.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), part of US DOT, collects a lot of data about fatal motor vehicle crashes and publishes it annually. Some motorcycle-specific information can be found in the Motorcycle Fact Sheet (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/TSF/2006/810806.pdf) (750K PDF), more is scattered in the 200-page Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/TSF2006EE.PDF) (1.5MB PDF), and much more sits as raw data in the FARS database (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx) (Fatality Analysis Reporting System), of not much use to anyone until it’s compiled into meaningful form. Unfortunately, the motorcycle stats aren’t collected in a single reference, which would be a convenient resource for those interested in the current state of motorcycle safety but who don’t have the time to spend gathering it from multiple sources. Not to mention the value in settling forum arguments.

For several years I’ve collected motorcycle data from NHTSA and other sources and maintained it in tables and charts, mainly for my own interest but also posted on forums occasionally. The 2006 data is now available (though not absolutely final), and I have begun gathering up the bits I’m interested in. Time permitting, I’m going to post some of the data I get and my interpretations in this thread. I’m sure there will a lot of other interpretations and opinions as well.

Here are some of the topics I have in mind. Please post your suggestions, and I'll try to dig something up if it's available.

fatality rate per registered motorcycle over the past 30 years


single- and multiple-vehicle crashes


the role of SUVs and other light trucks


deaths by age and sex


alcohol-involved fatal crashes


fatal crash involvement by motorcycle manufacturer


helmet use in fatal crashes and the effect of helmet law

I'm not going to include references in individual posts, but I'd be glad to share sources and methods with anyone who's interested. PM me with your questions.

[DataDan]

The talking head gravely proclaims: “Motorcycle Death Toll Soars Again. Tune in at 10.” And then various chin-pulling safetycrats, insurance industry representatives, doctors, and mothers are interviewed, each weighing in with an opinion about motorcycle safety. Of course, this plays much better if it’s edited into video of some horrific motorcycle crash.

Anyone who has read newspapers and watched TV news for a while will take such hysteria with a grain of salt. Chances are the “experts” don’t actually know the facts, or if they do are distorting them for their own purposes. And the news-droid, with the sophistication of a special-ed 8th grader, laps it up, totally unburdened by the hard-boiled skepticism his breed is supposed to possess.

Indeed, annual motorcycle deaths in the US have more than doubled since 1997, a fact trumpeted in more than one headline. But that’s less than half the story. The rest includes the soaring popularity of motorcycling and the historical perspective, which are shown in the attached chart.

Motorcycling in America is in an unprecedented, sustained boom (though probably winding down a bit right now). In the early ‘90s, annual unit sales had dropped to 280,000 a year, off by two-thirds from a decade earlier. And the number of registered bikes fell to 3.8 million in the mid-90s, the lowest count seen in the 30 years DOT has been reporting. But in the past 15 years, sales have rocketed to over 1 million units a year and registrations have hit an all-time high.

As the popularity of motorcycle soared, so have deaths. That’s not surprising. We all know it’s dangerous; that’s why we get trained, read safety-related books, magazine articles, and forum threads, wear good protective gear, and keep our rides in tip-top shape. So the question a thoughtful observer would ask isn’t whether more people are dying—with 75% more people on motorcycles that’s almost a foregone conclusion. The question is whether deaths are increasing disproportionately.

One way to answer that question is by looking at the death rate per registered motorcycle. In fact, the rate has climbed too. From an all-time low of 55 deaths per 100,000 registrations in 1997, it grew to 72 deaths in 2006, a 31% increase in 9 years. Not a good thing, of course, but viewed in historical context, it doesn’t seem particularly alarming.

To get the 31% increase one must cherry-pick the starting rate at its all-time low in 1997. The rate of 72 in 2006 is also about the same as it was in 1989 and 25% below the all-time high of 1978. Is there any reason to believe that the rate should have remained at its all-time low? And how did it get there, anyway? The 40% rate drop from the mid-80s to the mid-90s was pretty extraordinary.

What do you think has driven the motorcycle death rate increase since 1997, and what do you think caused the sharp drop between the ‘80s and the ‘90s?

[SVforMe]

fatal crash involvement by motorcycle manufacturer



I'm interested in this juicy tidbit. So, does this mean you use SAS/STAT recreationally?

[jrace]

I'm interested in this juicy tidbit. So, does this mean you use SAS/STAT recreationally?

Dude. His username is DataDan. That's practically superpowers right there. :)

-jim

[xgambit]

and i thought this was a thread about yeast infection :wtf

[donoman]

Instead of comparing vs. registrations, can you find the # of licensed riders? The reason I ask is that many people own multiple motorcycles. Of course, some licensed riders no longer ride.

[Nemo Brinker]

Fabulous information, Datadan, htanks for using your superpowers here! Any way you can pull out deaths per miles ridden?

[DataDan]

Nemo Brinker wrote: Any way you can pull out deaths per miles ridden?
I could post a chart, but it wouldn't be meaningful.

US DOT estimates of annual motorcycle miles are crap because states aren't required to report it, and some don't. For 2003, DOT estimated 1800 miles per registered motorcycle, while the Motorcycle Industry Council (trade group) estimated over 3000 miles.

One action item that came out of a 2007 NTSB (part of DOT) motorcycle safety forum is for DOT to find a way to publish more accurate motorcycle mileage estimates.

Since annual mileage per bike probably doesn't change much year-over-year, the rate per registration is a reasonably good way to view the trend in the short term, IMHO. However, lack of mileage estimates makes a comparison between bikes and cars a problem. But then there are lots of other reasons that the car/bike comparison is difficult.

donoman wrote: Instead of comparing vs. registrations, can you find the # of licensed riders?
US DOT doesn't report motorcycle licenses. In fact, I don't think they're required in all states. California does report them, and the number of licensed motorcycle riders is about 50% higher than the number of registered motorcycles. So rate per licensed rider wouldn't be able to show the effect of multiple-bike riders.

[TTTom]

...To get the 31% increase one must cherry-pick the starting rate at its all-time low in 1997. The rate of 72 in 2006 is also about the same as it was in 1989 and 25% below the all-time high of 1978. Is there any reason to believe that the rate should have remained at its all-time low? And how did it get there, anyway? The 40% rate drop from the mid-80s to the mid-90s was pretty extraordinary.

What do you think has driven the motorcycle death rate increase since 1997, and what do you think caused the sharp drop between the ‘80s and the ‘90s?

It would be interesting to compare this data with the various changes in state helmet laws. There was a push to enact helmet laws all around the country after the first big US motorcycle boom. Since then the trend has gone the other way and a lot of states have rolled back their helmet laws.

[bikecraft]

-deaths by engine CC size

[LS1Bandit]

Since annual mileage per bike probably doesn't change much year-over-year,

Out of curiosity - do you have anything to support that? It would seem that you're potentially throwing out a clue to the increased rate. If people are riding their motos more, then that might explain the increased death rate. Maybe as gas prices continue to go up people use their motos for commuting more and thus their mileage goes up ....

[DataDan]

Out of curiosity - do you have anything to support [DataDan's assertion that average annual mileage per bike doesn't change much year-over-year]? It would seem that you're potentially throwing out a clue to the increased rate. If people are riding their motos more, then that might explain the increased death rate. Maybe as gas prices continue to go up people use their motos for commuting more and thus their mileage goes up ....
Motorcycle Industry Council owner surveys showed just a 1% change in annual mileage per bike from 1998 to 2003 (the two most recent). But those figures nearly doubled the annual miles from the 1990 survey.

That's the support for my guess that miles-per-bike doesn't change much in the short-term. Plus, just a sense that when we're talking about 5 million motorcyclists, population behavior tends to change slowly.

[DataDan]

Sometime within the next few months we’ll be discussing the latest news release about motorcycle safety. It will probably come from government bureaucrats, the insurance industry, or the medical profession, and it will be picked up by the Associated Press and distributed far and wide to a front porch, TV, or website near you. The article’s grabber will be about the increase in motorcycle deaths, which have more than doubled in the past ten years. Various experts will be quoted, each blaming the rising death toll on a favored demon summoned up from the statistical ooze. Repealed helmet laws, big cruisers, sportbikes, and alcohol may be cited. But one of the most popular culprits will be “older” riders. What could be more obvious? Feeble-minded, feeble-bodied old coots trying to recapture lost youth, take up motorcycling when they should be playing shuffleboard at the Senior Center and counting down the days ‘til their octuple bypass.

Problem is, older riders aren’t the problem. At least not in the way the experts would have us believe. They’re the ones dying on motorcycles these days because they’re the ones who happen to be riding motorcycles these days. And bikes are dangerous, just as they were when they were invented 100 years ago, when T.E. Lawrence died on his Brough Superior, and when Brando portrayed the archetypical hard-ass biker dude in The Wild One. Truth be told, risk is part of the attraction. A motorcycle demands a rider’s best if he is to survive, and our over-padded, over-regulated, warning-labeled modern world doesn’t offer a lot of challenges like that. Casualties, while tragic, are also inevitable.

An earlier post showed that US motorcycle deaths have indeed more than doubled in the past 10 years and that the death rate per registered motorcycle has increased too. Breaking down deaths into age groups, riders 40 and up have accounted for most of the additional 2700 deaths in 2006 over 1997, and the 40-49 and 50+ age groups each account for nearly as many deaths as the 20-29 group (see attachment 1).

Experts commenting on this change, digging deep for an explanation, will assert that older riders crash because they are unfit to ride motorcycles. Diminished strength, agility, vision, and reactions are often mentioned. What will be ignored in the rush to identify a cause is the abundant evidence that older motorcyclists are less likely to crash than younger riders. Hurt found: “Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented.” Similarly, MAIDS (the European study published in 2004) found: “Riders between 18-21 and 22-25 were over-represented, while riders between 41 and 55 were under-represented in the accident population.” The same relationship between older and younger riders is found when US fatality rates per owner by age group are compared. As attachment 2 shows, older riders have a much lower death rate than younger riders. The growing number of 40+ riders among those killed in crashes is due not to imagined infirmity but to their growing numbers in the riding population.

The changing age distribution of US motorcyclists also helps to explain the long-term trend in the fatality rate described in an earlier post. Deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles dropped from 88 in the mid ‘80s to 55 in the mid ‘90s and have since crept back up to 72 in 2006. Authorities commenting on this trend focus on the recent increase, but an understanding of the earlier decrease is also necessary to get the big picture. Attachment 3 shows that the falling death rate from 1986 to 1997 tracked a plummeting percentage of under-30 riders in the population while the percentage of 40+ riders grew. Because of the wide gap in age-group death rates seen in attachment 2, the change in rider age distribution significantly affected the overall death rate. The combination of fewer <30 riders and more 40+ riders pushed the fatality rate downward.

But age distribution alone can’t fully explain the drop in the death rate through the mid ‘90s, nor can it explain the subsequent increase. To complete the picture it’s necessary to consider also riding experience, another significant factor in crash risk. Hurt found that riders with less than 6 months experience were more likely to crash than the riding population average and riders with over four years were less likely to crash. MAIDS found that “riders who have less than 6 months experience on any motorcycle are more likely to be in an accident when compared to the riding population,” and “riders with a great deal of riding experience (i.e. over 98 months) were found to be less likely to be in an accident.”

An increase in average experience and consequent decrease in risk were the silver lining in the decline of motorcycling that began in the early ‘80s and ended at the sport’s low point in the mid ‘90s. Fewer new riders—with zero experience—were taking up the motorcycling and lowering the average, while those who stuck to it gained experience and raised the average. Median rider age climbed from 27 in 1985 to 32 in 1990 to 38 in 1998, due to the simultaneous effects of older riders taking up the sport and continuing riders gaining both years and experience. The combined effects of an aging riding population with more experience led to the all-time low rider fatality rate in 1997.

The mirror image of the slumping industry / decreasing risk relationship was an increase in average population risk when motorcycling rebounded in the mid ‘90s. More new riders were taking up the sport, lowering experience and raising risk in the population. As shown in attachment 3, the rider increase was almost exclusively in the 40+ age group, and the increase in the fatality rate for those riders from 1998 to 2003 seen in attachment 2 is the result. These older riders are dying more frequently—though still well below the rate for riders under 40—not because they are old but because they are newbies.

The riding season safety drumbeat is just around the corner. When it arrives, try to keep the safetycrats’ message in perspective. If you’re an older rider, the news isn’t as dire as it seems. If you’re a younger rider, don’t interpret the emphasis on aging riders as letting you off the hook. We all need to keep our heads in the game at all times, no matter how old we are.

[DataDan]

A question sometimes asked is how fatalities break down by type of motorcycle. Who’s more at risk, the cruiser rider or the sportbiker? Actually, the subtext of the question is more about riders than motorcycles. And it’s more of an assertion than a question: Those who ride my kind of bike are surely safer than those who ride the other kind.

Unfortunately, DOT’s data doesn’t make that kind of information easily available. Unlike cars in fatal crashes, which are identified by make and model, motorcycles are identified only by make and displacement group—and the displacement groups aren’t very helpful.

Even analysis by make is a problem because there are no exposure measures to compare to. One can’t look up registrations by make and calculate a fatal crash involvement rate per registered motorcycle. So the meager knowledge that can be gained comes from looking at trends over time. And that’s what the chart below shows.

Considering the fatality rate increase over the past 10 years shown in an earlier post, is there anything that points to a particular brand of motorcycle driving the trend?

From 1994 to 2000, Harley involvement in fatal crashes increased considerably, growing from 21% to 31%. That’s the time when Harley sales were growing fastest, and they probably attracted inexperienced new riders. But after that, the HD contribution has leveled off, so their contribution to the subsequent increase isn’t out of proportion to that of other manufacturers.

After 2000, Suzuki has increased from 14% to 18%, which might reflect the success of the GSX-R series and, of course, the “fastest bike on the planet”, the Hayabusa. These motorcycles are wildly popular with sportbike riders who may be pushing rates upward.

The real puzzler is the declining percentage of Hondas among bikes involved in fatal crashes, which dropped from 30% to 20% in the period charted. As of 2003 they still held the #1 plate in market share, so declining sales don’t seem to be the answer.

The “other” category in the chart includes motorcycles that NHTSA reports as other and unknown as well as BMW, Ducati, and Triumph, whose percentages are too small for this chart. One noteworthy detail is a sharp increase in the number of Ducatis in fatal crashes. From the low- to mid-teens in 1999 to 2004, it jumped suddenly to 33 in 2005 and 27 in 2005. This scrap of evidence is too small to be considered significant, but it hints at increasing risk in the high-end sportbike segment.

[shraz]

interesting graphs.

[SpikedLemon]

Have you sufficient data to determine cause of accident?
Single Vehicle vs. multi-vehicle?
if Multi-vehicle: who was at fault?

Or: rate of speed in respect to the accident rate? (hurt report's data suggested that more accident occurred at low speeds <30mph) ... Can that be correlated back to engine displacement (does engine displacement actually increase the death rate / accident rate)

[vaara]

So if they'd just raise the motorcycle licensing age to 40, the fatality rate would be cut in half! :thumbup

Way, way, way OT, but DataDan: do you have any source for motorcycle sales and/or registrations by model and manufacturer? I've been web-snooping for this data, but haven't found anything.

[Eisernkreuz]

Harley and Honda riders seem to be the problem :laughing No wonder my bike's insurance is $8.50 a month :rofl

[budman]

:applause

Great stuff Dan as always.

:smoking

[DataDan]

SpikedLemon wrote: Have you sufficient data to determine cause of accident?
Single Vehicle vs. multi-vehicle?
if Multi-vehicle: who was at fault?

Or: rate of speed in respect to the accident rate? (hurt report's data suggested that more accident occurred at low speeds <30mph) ... Can that be correlated back to engine displacement (does engine displacement actually increase the death rate / accident rate)
Single vs. multiple is available, as well as types of other vehicles in 2-vehicle crashes. That will be in an upcoming post.

Circumstances of a particular crash (e.g., motorcycle going straight hit oncoming left-turner who failed to yield to motorcycle) can be inferred by looking at details in the database. But there's no easy way to identify causes in a query on, say, 1000 crashes. I compiled data on Central Coast deaths over the past three years via the FARS database and news reports, and I was able to construct narratives, describe the bikes and riders, and decide who was at fault. But that was 35 crashes and it took many hours. Even the Bay Area would be a much bigger job than that.

Speed isn't very consistently reported. Even if it were, there's the problem of speed when. Hurt's thorough investigations identified both crash speed and pre-crash speed. I.e., how fast the motorcycle (and other vehicle) was traveling before the crash scenario unfolded and at impact. On the FARS database, there's only one speed data element per vehicle, and it's not real clear what is reported. My only experience at analyzing by vehicle speed was fatal California intersection crashes in 2004. I found 37 where motorcycle speed was reported, in 16 the rider was speeding (> speed limit) and in 11 of those speed was >= limit + 15. I certainly didn't try to draw a conclusion from that. I was just wanted a sense of how often speed contributes to intersection crashes.

In the online database, engine displacement coding is really lame. Basically it's up to 500, 500-750, and 750+. Some of the research that NHTSA publishes reports displacement in much more detail, but I don't know how to get that data.

vaara wrote: Way, way, way OT, but DataDan: do you have any source for motorcycle sales and/or registrations by model and manufacturer?
Sales are reported by the Motorcycle Industry Council (http://www.mic.org) in a publication they call the Statistical Annual. You'll find ordering info at their website, but the prices they charge are outrageous.

[vaara]

Ah. Well, I was just curious, because I was on the Dutch V-Strom forum recently and someone mentioned that the DL650 is the second most popular bike in the Netherlands. :wtf

I suspect it's not even in the top 50 stateside...

[DataDan]

One of the more noteworthy but lesser known aspects of the motorcycling boom is the growing number of women who have taken up the sport. The Motorcycle Industry Council estimates that 10% of new bike buyers are women. However, as would be expected, more women are also being killed in motorcycle crashes.

The attached chart shows that the number of women riders fatally injured increased from 50 in 1998 to over 150 in 2004 (note that these are riders only; passengers are not included). Other than the MIC estimate of buyers, there is no data on the female rider population, so fatality rates cannot be calculated. But the falling percentage of all motorcycle deaths since 2004 and the relatively small percentage compared to the estimated 10% of sales suggest that women are less likely to be involved in fatal crashes than men. This is quite different than the results of Hurt’s study in the mid ‘70s, in which he found that “female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.”

[redline]

Great stuff! Terrific thread. I can't think of a good question, but you're doing great without me. Hey, didn't AMA and NHTSA agree to do an updated version of the Hurt report finally? Will it be a few years before we see the results?

[DataDan]

NHTSA estimates that helmets are 37% effective at saving lives. In other words, for every 100 unhelmeted motorcyclists killed, 37 would have lived had they worn helmets. Other researchers estimate even greater effectiveness. So in addition to the tragedy of lives lost, the number of unhelmeted deaths carries with it a more tragic meaning of lives needlessly lost.

From 1997 to 2003, six states (AR, FL, KY, LA, PA, TX) relaxed their existing universal helmet laws, in effect allowing adults to ride unhelmeted. From 1997 to 2001 the impact of these changes could be seen as an increase in unhelmeted deaths, climbing from 43% to 48% of all deaths (see attachment). But since 2001 this trend has reversed, and the percentage of unhelmeted deaths has dropped below the level of pre-repeal years.

The return to unhelmeted fatality percentages seen in pre-repeal days is one of several unexpected effects that have developed in the years since repeal. I hope to describe others in a later post.

[mgb]

Great post - thanks for using your considerable powers for good instead of evil!

Any way to look at deaths (or even incidents) by motorcycle type, e.g., cruisers, sportbikes, standards, etc.?

What about comparing different environments, e.g., urban vs. rural vs. suburban, or highway vs. backroad vs. city street.

[Lucky_Devil]

Very interesting information here :nerd

Thank you very much for taking the time do compile the data, make the graphs and write everything up :thumbup

[budman]

NHTSA estimates that helmets are 37% effective at saving lives. In other words, for every 100 unhelmeted motorcyclists killed, 37 would have lived had they worn helmets. Other researchers estimate even greater effectiveness. So in addition to the tragedy of lives lost, the number of unhelmeted deaths carries with it a more tragic meaning of lives needlessly lost.

From 1997 to 2003, six states (AR, FL, KY, LA, PA, TX) relaxed their existing universal helmet laws, in effect allowing adults to ride unhelmeted. From 1997 to 2001 the impact of these changes could be seen as an increase in unhelmeted deaths, climbing from 43% to 48% of all deaths (see attachment). But since 2001 this trend has reversed, and the percentage of unhelmeted deaths has dropped below the level of pre-repeal years.

The return to unhelmeted fatality percentages seen in pre-repeal days is one of several unexpected effects that have developed in the years since repeal. I hope to describe others in a later post.

DD

This is really interesting that the death rate of unhelmeted riders has dropped since 2001. Could that be related to additional training perhaps?

Following this thread is a wealth of information and I salute you :hail
for taking the time to share it with us here. This thread is rated 5 stars by me :thumbup

:smoking

[Ozymandias]

I know this is off topic, but DAMN I had to read the topic like 4 times.

"WTF?!?! Why the hell are we talking about monostat 2008? Is it something new for feminine hygiene this year and no longer monostat7?!?!?"

I need to get out more or something hahaha

[DataDan]

This is really interesting that the death rate of unhelmeted riders has dropped since 2001. Could that be related to additional training perhaps?
That's a good point and a likely factor. License compliance among riders in fatal crashes has improved steadily over the past 12 years, from 38% unlicensed in 1994 to 25% in 2006 (coming up in a later post). The easiest way to get a license is to take the dang class. And while you're there, you just might pick up good information about how valuable a helmet can be. So the n00b influx might be increasing helmet usage.

An idea I've had is that people read and hear about an increase in unhelmeted deaths and have a come-to-jesus meeting with themselves about what's important in life. So there's essentially a feedback loop that tends to correct the problem when it gets out of hand. For example, look at Florida (attached). After helmet law repeal, which went into effect 7/1/2000, deaths skyrocketed, and unhelmeted deaths climbed to 66% of the total in 2002. Riders in FL couldn't avoid news about fellow motorcyclists dying, mostly unhelmeted. Then, according to my theory at least, some get the message and start wearing helmets (or wearing them more often). Since '02, the unhelmeted percentage has fallen every year, down to 50% in '06.

[DataDan]

The purpose of this post isn’t to examine the value of helmets. It is well established that helmets save lives. See for example NHTSA’s Helmet Effectiveness Revisited (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809715.pdf) (300K PDF). Rather, my purpose here is to shed some light on the effectiveness of helmet laws, which is a different thing. If the federal government and others are going to advocate state helmet laws, their claims about the benefits of this legislation should be examined critically, not unquestioningly accepted.


Among the 50 states, 20 (plus DC) require helmets for all riders, 28 require them for only some riders (generally excepting adults), and 2 have no requirements at all. The justification for a universal helmet law is obvious: helmets save lives, therefore a law requiring all riders to wear them will result in fewer deaths and less severe injuries. But the data show that it isn’t that simple.

A key assumption underlying the expectation of fewer deaths when helmets are required is that nothing changes but helmet use. The same people on the same bikes will take the same trips riding the same way and have the same crashes—but all will be helmeted. However, if a helmet requirement affects the makeup of the riding population, or the absence of a helmet law changes the way people ride, the effect may be much different. I’ll look at the effects of repeal in later post.

The attached chart compares fatality rates per 100,000 registered motorcycles in states with universal helmet laws vs. other states. Very little difference can be seen between the two.

Rates are calculated using April–September deaths only; otherwise the comparison would be skewed by geography. A year-round comparison tends to favor the non-helmet-law states, many of which have a limited riding season. OH, PA, IL, WI, and MN—all big motorcycling states without helmet laws—have low fatality rates in part because motorcycling isn't a year-round activity. They do most of their riding and experience about 80% of their deaths during the spring and summer months. OTOH, CA, by far the biggest motorcycling state, has 60% of its deaths in the same months.

Repeal states were switched to the non-helmet-law group in the calendar year of repeal.

[DataDan]

The purpose of this post isn’t to examine the value of helmets. It is well established that helmets save lives. See for example NHTSA’s Helmet Effectiveness Revisited (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809715.pdf) (300K PDF). Rather, my purpose here is to shed some light on the effectiveness of helmet laws, which is a different thing. If the federal government and others are going to advocate state helmet laws, their claims about the benefits of this legislation should be examined critically, not unquestioningly accepted.


In an earlier post I mentioned that helmet law repeal had produced some unexpected effects. The most surprising one is the way it spurred the growth of motorcycling in states where helmet laws were repealed.

The first chart attached compares the growth in motorcycle registrations from 1994 to 2006 between the 6 states that repealed helmet laws and the other 44 states. In repeal states, registrations increased by 150% while non-repeal states saw an increase of 66%. Maybe I’m confusing cause and effect. Was it actually the other way around: Did the increase in registrations actually produce a political groundswell that led to repeal? No. When the state effects are studied separately, registration growth is seen to accelerate at the time of repeal, not before. And in Louisiana, the one state that re-enacted a universal helmet law, registrations dropped after re-enactment.

Of course, growth brought with it an increase in deaths, also seen in the first chart. And deaths increased more than registrations, which means the rate per registered motorcycle increased too. But the same thing occurred in the other 44 states—deaths climbed faster than registrations.

The second chart, which compares the fatality rates in repeal and non-repeal states, shows that the increase in fatality rate per registered motorcycle since pre-repeal years has been the same in repeal states as in non-repeal states. The concurrent increase in non-repeal states—which obviously has nothing to do with helmet law changes—suggest that the increase in repeal states may not have been caused entirely by helmet law repeal, but by other factors that exist in non-repeal states as well.

Another fact revealed by the second chart is that repeal states had a higher fatality rate per registered motorcycle than non-repeal states even before repeal. This is due in part to geography. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are all suitable for year-round riding, and a longer riding season leads to a higher death rate per registered bike. The higher rate in repeal states has been exploited by safetycrats who wail about the supposed death toll caused by repeal. Yes, repeal states do have higher rates, but it isn’t necessarily due to repeal.

[DataDan]

The percentage of unlicensed riders in fatal crashes has dropped far below the high of 38% in 1994, in spite of a slight increase in 2006--from 24.3% in 2005 to 25.7%. Thus, the increase in overall fatality rate in the past 10 years seems to be unrelated to licensing.

"Unlicensed" here means either lacking a valid driver's license--suspended, revoked, or unlicensed--or lacking a motorcycle endorsement.

[DataDan]

Another bit of good new in the motorcycle crash data these days is a declining percentage of riders who die drunk. From 34% with a BAC of .10 or more in 1993 (NHTSA's standard at the time), riders killed in 2006 with BAC .08 or more is down to 27%. That's just 4 percentage points over the figure for drivers in cars and light trucks, narrowing the gap considerably from the 1990s.

The bad news, though, is that much higher percentages persist in the 35-44 age group. In fact, little has changed in those groups in the past 10 years. My guess is that the drinking-and-riding ethic is slowly changing, with older riders still embracing it as part of the fun and younger riders rejecting it. Notice how the 30-34 group was #2 in alcohol-related deaths in 1993-1995 but is now low enough that it isn't reported by NHTSA. Drinking and riding is a bad idea that will continue with those who grew up with it. But as the older generation is replaced by the younger, I expect that the overall downward trend will continue, and in a few years we'll see percentages less than those for drivers.

[brichter]

There's no way to give you enough positive rep for this thread! :thumbup :hail

[DataDan]

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, a set of recommendations developed by MSF, AMA, NHTSA, and independent motorcycling advocates, stated in 2000: “It is unknown at precisely what [blood alcohol] levels motorcycle-specific judgment and skills are impaired.” In its 2006 Motorcycle Safety Program Plan ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/MotorcycleSafety.pdf ) (1.7MB PDF), NHTSA reported that it is conducting an experiment to measure the effects of impairment on motorcyclists at different BACs. My small contribution to answering this question seems to show that for some riders, and to some extent, impairment begins at .01 BAC.

It has been suggested that drunk riders are more likely to be involved in single-vehicle crashes than are sober riders. That would make sense because multiple-vehicle crashes are usually caused by other motorists while single-vehicle crashes are usually the rider’s fault. To see if this hunch is supported by facts, I tallied rider BAC and crash type (single-vehicle or multiple-vehicle) for 26,000 fatal motorcycle crashes in the US from 1994 to 2006. The result is seen in the attached chart.

At each measured BAC level, the percentage of riders killed in single- vs. multiple-vehicle crashes is shown. At .00 BAC, one-third were in single-vehicle crashes and two-thirds were in crashes with two or more vehicles. At .15 BAC and higher, two-thirds were single-vehicle and one-third were multiple-vehicle. From .01 to .14, higher BAC is associated with a higher percentage of riders in single-vehicle crashes.

If we can assume that rider impairment is more likely to cause a single-vehicle motorcycle crash than a multiple-vehicle crash, then it clearly begins at .01 and increases steadily with BAC. But why would that be? Physical impairment doesn’t start that low. Vision, balance, and motor skills aren’t affected until a higher BAC. Judgment, however is a different story.

You’ve probably been out drinking with a group where some guy boorishly hits on the cocktail waitress after the first round, guaranteeing crappy service for the rest of the night. Yet other drinkers maintain decorum round after round, even after their motor skills are woefully deteriorated. As I see it, this individual variation in judgment under the influence of alcohol accounts for the apparent low onset of impairment. In the article Rolling Stoned ( http://motorcyclecruiser.com/streetsurvival/drunk/), Motorcycle Cruiser magazine reports on an experiment that demonstrated the effects of impaired judgment on drinking riders. Some subjects exhibited improved skills at low BAC but their judgment deteriorated early.

The role of impaired judgment in spite of fully functional physical skills presents a problem for programs that attempt to reduce alcohol-related motorcycle crashes. It’s easy for someone to understand why he shouldn’t ride if he can’t see straight or keep the motorcycle upright. It’s more difficult when he’s fully capable of controlling the bike but lacks the good sense to ride safely. I don’t think lower BAC limits are the answer, because the results seen here don’t reveal a characteristic of all riders, just some. In fact, I would guess that most motorcyclists can ride safely at any level of intoxication that doesn’t significantly affect their perception or motor skills. Rather, I think the message in the data is that judgment can be impaired long before a rider notices his physical skills deteriorating and that people need to be aware of their limitations when drinking.

If you’re the kind of person whose inhibitions loosen easily with alcohol, consider the vast difference in the consequences of a social faux pas and of overestimating your riding abilities.

[Bowling4Bikes]

Dan-awesome job dude!

I saw the separation of make vs. deaths, but I missed one that has sport bikes vs. cruisers. I am willing to bet that Honda had a decrease in % deaths because of their rising popularity of their cruiser line from 1997 on. Is there a way to look at the data when Japanese cruisers gained popularity/traction in the US, and their subsequent effect on future data?

Also it's totally believable that there are more % 40+ year old riders. the baby boomers are getting old but are still pretty virulent. life expectancy is increasing, so it makes sense that there are more 'older' beginner riders. good that you were able to show that it's still the young ones (most likely on sport bikes IMO) that are over-represented.

well done, Dan!

[DataDan]

I saw the separation of make vs. deaths, but I missed one that has sport bikes vs. cruisers. I am willing to bet that Honda had a decrease in % deaths because of their rising popularity of their cruiser line from 1997 on. Is there a way to look at the data when Japanese cruisers gained popularity/traction in the US, and their subsequent effect on future data?
Analysis by bike style isn't something I can do on a large scale. Here's how it can be done: Get the VIN for each motorcycle involved in a fatal crash from the FARS database. From VIN, look up the bike's model ID via a resource such as VIN Assist (which isn't cheap). From model ID, look up "style" in a table you've developed. Count bikes involved by style. Then, in a similar process, get registrations by style based on detailed state registration data. Divide crash counts by registration counts to get involvement rate by style. Last summer, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a controversial study, These Machines Were Designed for the Racetrack (http://www.iihs.org/news/2007/iihs_news_091107.pdf) (1.7MB), using a similar methodology. The study was widely discussed on BARF and other sportbike forums, and I don't want to re-open that discussion in this thread.

My only attempt at analysis by style was looking at bikes involved in Central Coast (SLO County plus parts of Monterey and Santa Barbara Counties) fatal crashes 2004-2006: 12 cruisers, 14 sportbikes, 1 sport-tourer, 5 standards, 1 scooter. I don't have detailed registration data, so I can't calculate rates. And rates wouldn't be be accurate anyway because we get riders from everywhere who are just passing through.

[DataDan]

Ask non-motorcyclist safety authorities what has caused the motorcycle fatality rate to climb by 30% since it bottomed in 1997 and they’ll cite their usual reasons: drinking, helmet law repeal, larger motorcycles, feeble old geezers, and all the rest. I hope this thread has shown that these factors aren’t as easy to implicate as the “experts” would have us believe.

Ask motorcyclists the same question and many will blame increasingly inept drivers piloting 3-ton land barges while talking on the phone and sipping their lattes. But this explanation, too, comes up short when the data is examined. Proportionally, riders are dying in the same kinds of crashes as they did in 1997; the now-ubiquitous SUV is involved in more crashes for the simple reason that it is replacing the family sedan; and perhaps most surprisingly, drivers have gotten better, not worse.

Car-vs-bike crashes play out in the same ways that car-vs-car crashes do. When a motorcycle is involved, the difference isn’t the crash configuration, it’s the far more serious injuries a rider suffers compared to a cage occupant victimized in a similar crash. Careless drivers collide with each other just as they collide with motorcyclists, and they do it—literally—100 times more often. Thousand of times a day they turn left in front of oncoming vehicles, rear-end stopped vehicles, run red lights, merge into occupied space, and cross the centerline. Because of these similarities, the overall rate at which drivers crash is a good indication of the risk motorcyclists face from poor driving.

The attached chart compares the passenger vehicle crash rate to the motorcycle fatality rate from 1988 to 2006. The former includes both cars and light trucks (pickups, SUVs, minivans) and crashes of all severities—fatal, non-fatal injury, property damage only. Also shown is the number of deaths among pedestrians and bicyclists, who are also victims of bad driving.

Clearly, the passenger vehicle crash rate has fallen steadily since 1995 and pedestrian and bicyclist deaths declined with it, while the motorcycle death rate climbed. Drivers have become safer, yet more motorcyclists die. So, contrary to what many riders think, drivers aren't responsible for our rising fatality rate. That's not to say they don't kill a lot of motorcyclists—they do. But they're not a greater danger to us now than they were when the motorcycle death rate was at its all-time low. I'll have more on this later in a look at single- vs. mulitple-vehicle motorcycle crashes and the role of the notorious SUV.

[DataDan]

I argued in my last post that drivers are getting better, not worse. Yet the motorcycle fatality rate is on the rise, and many riders feel that other vehicles are responsible. Data on single- vs. multiple-vehicle crashes shows that the proportion of riders killed in multiple-vehicle crashes has remained at about 56% since the mid-‘90s, when the fatality rate was at its all-time low (see first attached chart). So at a gross level anyway, the unchanged proportion of multiple-vehicle crash deaths suggests that declining rider proficiency is contributing to the increase in fatality rates, not inept driving. Poor judgment and inadequate skills that sometimes lead to single-vehicle crashes will result in multiple-vehicle crashes at other times.

Looking closer, though, reveals an interesting trend. Proportionally, two-vehicle fatal crashes with cars are decreasing as crashes with light trucks—the popular class that includes pickups, minivans, and SUVs—are increasing. To a degree, this is expected as light trucks replace cars as family vehicles. In fact, the combined percentage of light truck and car crashes hasn’t changed appreciably in 10 years. But fatal motorcycle crashes with light trucks now outnumber fatal crashes with cars, and light trucks do not yet outnumber cars on the road. Light truck crashes have increased disproportionately.

A comparison of the involvement of motorcycles in fatal two-vehicle crashes with other types of vehicles (second attachment) shows that light trucks have a higher involvement rate than other types of vehicles do. In 2006, for example, motorcycles were involved in 9% of all fatal two-vehicle crashes (the diamond marker) and in 8.5% of two-vehicle crashes with cars, while 11% of two-vehicle crashes with light trucks were vs. motorcycles. This rate disparity will produce an increase in the overall involvement rate of motorcycles as light trucks replace cars.

A second bit of bad news is found in the increasing rate at which light trucks collide with motorcycles. Per registered vehicle, light truck collisions with bikes have increased faster than car collisions. So not only are light trucks a growing percentage of the fleet, they seem to be getting more dangerous as well. However, it is highly speculative to blame the rising rate on the vehicles because other, more subtle factors could be at work. For example, the migration from cars to light trucks could include less cautious drivers more likely to collide with motorcycles, so the difference between the light truck rate and the car rate would reflect both an increase in the former and a decrease in the latter. Or the growing number of newbie motorcyclists could be at greater danger from light trucks than they are from cars.

But assuming that both of these factors are at work—a rising overall rate due to the shift from cars to light trucks and a rising light truck crash involvement rate independent of cars—the third chart shows how motorcycle crashes might have been affected. The upper limit of the colored area represents the actual number of two-vehicle motorcycle crashes vs. cars and light trucks. The red band represents the number of crashes accounted for by the growing proportion of light trucks in the fleet. The gold band represents the more speculative increase due to the increasing light truck crash involvement rate. Thus, the shift from cars to light trucks could account for as many as 270 additional motorcycle deaths in 2006 over the number that would have been expected if the light truck proportion of the fleet and crash rate with motorcycles had not changed from mid-'90s values.

While the actual effect is almost certainly less than 270 deaths, still, a significant number of motorcyclists have lost their lives due to the growing popularity of pickups, minivans, and SUVs. These vehicles present problems both because they are more unforgiving in an impact and because they are harder to see over, around, and through. As much as we wish they'd disappear, they're going to be around for a long time, thanks in part to government regulations that favor them in fuel economy standards. Our best response is to learn how to deal with them.


This is my last planned post in this thread. But if you have requests or questions, post them up or send me a PM.

[Burning1]

Data Dan,

Let's assume that the ratio of inexperienced riders to experienced riders has increased over the past 10 years.

It stands to reason that during the motorcycling slump of the 1990s, a large percentage of the registered motorcycles belonged to older, more experienced riders who were dedicated enough to stay with the sport even as support and interest wained. Let's also assume that all motorcycles registered since 1996 were registered by newbies.

Can we correlate the increase in new riders with the increase in accidents? Would this explain the ~35% rise in fatalities even as motorcycle training, gear, and equipment has improved?

[wellbredred]

What do you think has driven the motorcycle death rate increase since 1997, and what do you think caused the sharp drop between the ‘80s and the ‘90s?

First off Dan-thanks for putting this together. Excellent and interesting.

Don't have a theory on what caused the drop, but perhaps a comparison of accident locations vs population density changes, could shed a little light on why the increase?

Are states like CA, FL, and AZ driving the overall rate up?

Thanks again,
-M

[DataDan]

Let's assume that the ratio of inexperienced riders to experienced riders has increased over the past 10 years.

It stands to reason that during the motorcycling slump of the 1990s, a large percentage of the registered motorcycles belonged to older, more experienced riders who were dedicated enough to stay with the sport even as support and interest wained. Let's also assume that all motorcycles registered since 1996 were registered by newbies.

Can we correlate the increase in new riders with the increase in accidents? Would this explain the ~35% rise in fatalities even as motorcycle training, gear, and equipment has improved?
I think changing average experience in the riding population--and consequent changing average risk--explains part of the decrease in the fatality rate from mid-80s to mid-90s, and virtually all of the subsequent increase.

Hurt and MAIDS both found that risk decreases with experience, as you would expect. Another confirmation can be found in an evaluation of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program. But I don't have a way to show quantitatively the correlation we both think exists.

Go back to the first chart in this thread, which shows regs, deaths, and rate. It appears that registration decline and growth is the force that drives average risk--at least that makes more sense than the converse. When the riding population fell, the n00b percentage must have fallen too. So average experience would increase and average risk would drop. Then when registrations began to climb, the n00b percentage followed, average experience fall, and risk increased.

Viewed that way, the puzzle becomes the rather mild rate increase since 1997. Paralleling a steady drop in regs from the early '80s was a similar decrease in the rate. But then when sales really took off, the rate increased more slowly, and is still nowhere near its '80s highs.

That disparity can be explained, as I see it, by the changing age distribution. N00bs in the 1980s were teens and twenties, the highest risk age groups. Today the average rider is a 40-something and many n00bs are in their 50s, both historically low risk groups.

If, as it now appears, the motorcycle market is headed for a slowdown, this hypothesis would predict a drop in the fatality rate in the next few years, possibly to a new all-time low. Regs will stabilize, if not fall, there will be fewer n00bs, average experience will increase, and average risk will decrease.

[DataDan]

Don't have a theory on what caused the drop, but perhaps a comparison of accident locations vs population density changes, could shed a little light on why the increase?

Are states like CA, FL, and AZ driving the overall rate up?
Surprisingly, no.

To find out which states had the biggest increases in rate per registered motorcycle, I calculated the difference between the 3-year average 2004-2006 and the 3-year average 1994-1996. The US rate increased from 57 to 71 deaths per 100,000 registrations.

CA had a below average rate in '95, increased somewhat more than average, and was still below average. FL had a higher than average rate but a lower than average increase. AZ had a higher than average rate and an increase very close to the average.

The ten states whose rates increased most were:


MS: 121.25
KY: 79.47
LA: 71.81
DE: 70.27
WV: 58.48
MD: 40.62
NC: 35.95
GA: 32.19
MO: 29.58
NE: 28.04

The ten states whose rates decreased most were:

MT: -26.86
UT: -23.58
AK: -6.78
MI: -5.93
IL: -2.79
CO: -2.22
NJ: -1.67
HI: -1.60
OH: -0.11
ND: -0.02

(amounts of increase/decrease are shown)

[wellbredred]

Surprisingly, no. The ten states whose rates increased most were:

MS: 121.25
KY: 79.47
LA: 71.81
DE: 70.27
WV: 58.48
MD: 40.62
NC: 35.95
GA: 32.19
MO: 29.58
NE: 28.04

The ten states whose rates decreased most were:

MT: -26.86
UT: -23.58
AK: -6.78
MI: -5.93
IL: -2.79
CO: -2.22
NJ: -1.67
HI: -1.60
OH: -0.11
ND: -0.02

(amounts of increase/decrease are shown)

Thanks DD. Found this interesting. Also found this map of % change in population from 2000 to 2006. Not really the range of your data, but I would think the trend is consistent. So with a few exceptions the states with low-moderate growth rates suffer the higher % increases in accidents/registered vehicle. I mean what is going on in NE? You could explain MS, KY, and LA on lack of education and inbreeding (:wow :laughing), but NE?

[DataDan]

You could explain MS, KY, and LA on lack of education and inbreeding, but NE?
Never been to a Cornhuskers game, have you?

[wellbredred]

:rofl I had deliberately blocked that part of my life out. Damn

That was for my wife's benefit. My in-laws moved there and for 20+ years I had to go there for family functions and holidays. People around here are "Raider Nation yeah!" They're posers compared to Nebraskans. That whole damn state has "Go BIG RED" fever. Your right NE can be explained by insanity :laughing

[DataDan]

A few random facts about 2006 Bay Area fatal crashes:
71 motorcycles were involved in 68 fatal crashes: 30 cruisers, 28 sportbikes, 7 standards, 1 dirtbike, 1 scooter, 1 tourer, and 3 unknown.


Alameda County had the most fatal crashes with 14, Napa and Marin had the fewest with 2 each.


26 crashes or 38% were single-vehicle and 42 crashes or 62% were multiple-vehicle. 3 were two-motorcycle crashes.


59% of the cruisers and 71% of the sportbikes were involved in multiple-vehicle crashes.


Of the 71 riders, 2 were women. One was in her 40s, the other in her 50s. One rode a sportbike, the other a standard. One had .00 BAC, the other did not have BAC reported. Both were helmeted.


Average rider age was 41, average cruiser rider was 49, average sportbike rider was 30.


47 crashes, or 69%, occurred April-September. Sportbike crashes were more seasonal with 81% Apr-Sep, while 59% of cruiser crashes were Apr-Sep.


Cruiser crashes occurred most frequently between 11:30pm and 4:00am (8 of 28 crashes), and during daylight hours on weekends (7 crashes). Most of the late-night crashes involved alcohol; few daylight crashes did.


Sportbike crashes occurred most frequently on weekend afternoons between 2:30 and 6:30 (9 of 27 crashes) and on Thursday and Friday evenings (5 crashes). The few sportbike crashes that involved alcohol occurred in evening and late-night hours.


Of the 71 riders, 45 had a valid driver’s license with a motorcycle endorsement, 15 lacked the endorsement, 7 had a suspended or revoked license, 1 was unlicensed, and 3 did not have license status reported. The 34% who weren't properly licensed is somewhat higher than the US percentage reported in an earlier post.


Of the 71 riders, 2 were unhelmeted and 4 were reported to have helmets worn "improperly", which I think means that it came off in the crash. However, I don’t believe crash investigators attempt to assess to legality of helmets, so some of the those reported as helmeted may have been wearing non-compliant helmets.


Of the 71 riders, 57 had blood alcohol test results reported: 74% of those were 0.00, 23% were .08 or higher, 3% were .01-.07. This is similar to the US data reported earlier.


By age, 12% of riders under 30 had .08+ BAC compared to 36% for riders 30-39 and 23% for riders 40 and over. Again, this is similar to the US figures.


By motorcycle style, 13% of sportbike riders were .08+ BAC, compared to 37% of cruiser riders and 20% of riders on other/unknown styles.


The highest BAC reported for a rider in a fatal crash in the Bay Area in 2006 was .38 for a sportbike rider in his 40s who was running from the police.
Data includes the 9 counties on the Bay plus Santa Cruz.

[brichter]

Interesting alcohol stats, with such a high percentage of 30-39 year olds, and both older and younger groups being lower.

Does the fatality by manufacturer track registrations by manufacturer, or is there a sportbike brand overrepresented in those stats?

Looks like the cruiser set needs to learn when to put the keys down.

.38? :wtf How'd that clown manage to get it off the kickstand?

[DataDan]

Does the fatality by manufacturer track registrations by manufacturer, or is there a sportbike brand overrepresented in those stats?
Very interesting question, but AFAIK, registrations by manufacturer aren't available. What would be required is to get the make and VIN for registered motorcycles in certain zip codes, decode the VIN to derive model ID, map model to "style", then summarize sportbike registrations by manufacturer.

[Var]

I'd like some info pls Dan.

How about

Out of all MC accidents where the RIDER was at fault, how often did a third party get injured or killed?

[DataDan]

Out of all MC accidents where the RIDER was at fault, how often did a third party get injured or killed?
In 2006, 31 occupants of cars and light trucks (pickups, vans, minivans, SUVs) were killed in 2-vehicle crashes with motorcycles.

It’s difficult to figure out who was at fault from NHTSA’s database because you have to infer fault based on multiple factors. And both parties share the blame sometimes, but the database doesn’t provide the color needed to determine who was more at fault as a jury would at trial.

Here are a few examples where the rider was at fault:
The most horrific crash I know of caused by a motorcyclist occurred in June 2006 and accounted for 4 of the 31 vehicle occupants killed in crashes with motorcyclists that year. A 20-year-old rider on a Kawasaki ZX-6R traveling 129mph--estimated by the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the crash--collided with an oncoming minivan turning left into the Renaissance Faire near Linden PA. The rider was decapitated on impact, saving him from the horror his victims would suffer. The motorcycle then penetrated the right-side door of the Plymouth Voyager and overturned it. The bike's gas tank ruptured, and the interior of the van exploded in flames. A mother, father, grandmother, and daughter were all killed, some on impact, others in the fire.


In August 2006 in Lexington, KY, a 19-year-old rider on a Suzuki GSX-R600 was running from the cops at high speed when he hit a car pulling out of a gas station. The driver of the Chevy Malibu would die a month later of his injuries. The rider survived and was charged with manslaughter, among other crimes.


In February 2006 in Gainesville, FL, a 24-year-old rider on a Honda CBR900RR with a passenger hit a bicyclist attempting to cross the 2-lane road. The motorcyclist, whose license was suspended for the third time, was traveling 73mph in a 60mph zone; the bicyclist was drunk. All three died.


You can read a 2005 BARF thread about a rider who killed himself and severely injured a woman driving a VW Passat here (http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120375). The 22-year-old rider on his 2-week-old R6 blew through a stop sign on a residential street in Alameda and T-boned the car, crossing on a street with no stop sign, at an estimated 44mph. He was killed; she was seriously injured but saved by a side-impact airbag.


More recently, in January of this year a motorcyclist in Palm Harbor, FL traveling at an estimated 140mph hit an oncoming Chevy Suburban as it turned left. The ‘Burb was spun around, overturned, and set on fire. Both the rider and driver were killed. See pic below.

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=240741&d=1201830137

[Var]

So basically 3 times as many people get killed by lightning each year than by motorcyclists.

About 20 times as many get killed by accidental discharge of firearms.

322 times as many get murdered



why do we get enforced against so ruthlessly?

[caponerd]

Dan, given the time and effort you put into the research and writing of this excellent article, I hope that you're also trying to sell it to the motorcycling press.

This deserves widespread publication, and you deserve to get paid for your work.

[brichter]

So basically 3 times as many people get killed by lightning each year than by motorcyclists.

About 20 times as many get killed by accidental discharge of firearms.

322 times as many get murdered



why do we get enforced against so ruthlessly?

Good question for the LEOs. Go ask it in the LEO forum.

[daemon]

Dan, given the time and effort you put into the research and writing of this excellent article, I hope that you're also trying to sell it to the motorcycling press.

This deserves widespread publication, and you deserve to get paid for your work.

+1

[DataDan]

Because sportbikes are the main interest at BARF, I looked into the 27 fatal Bay Area sportbike crashes in 2006 in more detail.

Of the sportbikes involved in fatal crashes, there were 10 Hondas, 8 Suzukis, 6 Yamahas, 2 Kawasakis, 1 Aprilia, and 1 Triumph.


CBR600s (Fs and RRs), GSX-R600s, GSX-R750s, and R6s accounted for 15 of the 28 motorcycles. Literbikes accounted for only 6. There were no Hayabusas or ZX-12s.


Riders who die on sportbikes aren't "kids". Average age was 30.


Of the 27 fatal sportbike crashes (including one involving 2 sportbikes), only 9 occurred in what might be called sport-riding environments--twisty roads in rural areas. The other 18 occurred in urban/suburban environments, where different skills are called for--skills that have nothing to do with getting a knee down and which are the same whether you're riding a Gixxer, a Harley or a Vespa.


Of the 27 fatal sportbike crashes, 19 were clearly caused by riders, 2 were clearly caused by drivers, 5 were caused by a combination of rider and driver actions, and 1 was a shit-happens incident where a motorcyclist was caught up in a 9-vehicle melee resulting from debris dropped in heavy freeway traffic. In other words, 24 of the 27 sportbike deaths that occurred in the Bay Area in 2006 could have been prevented by the rider.

What contributions did riders make to those 24 preventable crashes?
In 7, the motorcycle ran wide in curve and hit an oncoming vehicle, guardrail, tree, fence, or other fixed object.


In 2, a stunt went wrong.


In 2, the rider made an unsafe pass and hit, in one case, the vehicle being passed as is turned left, and in the other case an oncoming vehicle.


In 2, the rider ran a red light and hit a crossing vehicle. One was running from police.

In the remaining 11 crashes, "excessive speed" was cited. But that doesn't tell us much because 100mph could be perfectly safe in one situation and 25 could be deadly in another. So I looked into these crashes in more detail to find out how speed contributed.
In 5, the rider was speeding in the presence of traffic and hit a turning or crossing vehicle. In some of these, the driver also contributed by failing to yield right of way.


In 4, the rider lost control of the motorcycle on a straight road and hit either an oncoming vehicle or a fixed object.


In 1, a drunk running from police lost control and hit a curb, signpost, and tree.


In 1, at 100mph, the motorcycle rear-ended a car traveling at 70mph on the freeway.

If there's a lesson here, it's that sportbike riders make their own trouble; they're usually not victims of other motorists' errors. This is bad news for those who would prefer to rationalize away their self-created risk but good news for those looking for ways to reduce it.

[Var]

In 4, the rider lost control of the motorcycle on a straight road and hit either an oncoming vehicle or a fixed object.


you think these guys were stunting?

[DataDan]

Stunts weren't mentioned, but are possible in some.

One was riding a "new Suzuki [2006 GSX-R600] at high speed when he was ejected...upon hitting the median."

One lost control on a city street, crossed the median, and hit another vehicle head-on. Information is thin, and speed is the only factor mentioned.

One was drunk and ran off the road, killing his passenger. Both speed and recklessness were reported.

One was riding at 70mph on the Bay Bridge in heavy fog and lost control on wet pavement.

[Var]

So many different scenarios, so many different ways to die.

[DataDan]

Yeah, and that's really why I looked into the details behind those 27 sportbike crashes. Boiling them down to "excessive speed", as police and news media are inclined to do, isn't at all helpful.

There are some specific lessons here (Don't stunt where you might run into either a) a parked car, or b) another stunter), but trying to find a few general rules that will cover many situations is much harder. Stay within your limits? Sure, but limits are uselessly defined in terms of outcome: If you crash, you've exceeded your limits. If not, you're cool.

I think the real value in crash studies isn't in sweeping conclusions that cover, in no more than a general way, a large percentage of crashes. Rather, the value is in studying individual crashes. What did the situation look like before the pivotal event that led to the crash? Which parties made the key mistakes? What unilateral action could the motorcyclist have taken to terminate the chain of events before it turned deadly? A rider who's willing to accept full responsibility for his own survival and to look objectively at the mistakes other riders have made can gain much from studying crashes in detail.

[Jomega]

dood you rock!

this is the most valuable thread I've ever read; Thanks DataDan.

[LS1Bandit]

Also it's totally believable that there are more % 40+ year old riders. the baby boomers are getting old but are still pretty virulent.
OK, I know I'm responding to a really old post, and my post is way OT, but damn, this comment really made me laugh.

Was "virulent" a freudian slip?


vir·u·lent

1 a: marked by a rapid, severe, and destructive course <a virulent infection> b: able to overcome bodily defensive mechanisms : markedly pathogenic <virulent bacteria>2: extremely poisonous or venomous3: full of malice : malignant <virulent racists>4: objectionably harsh or strong <virulent criticism>


I'm assuming you meant "virile":


vir·ile

1: having the nature, properties, or qualities of an adult male; specifically : capable of functioning as a male in copulation2: energetic, vigorous3 a: characteristic of or associated with men : masculine b: having traditionally masculine traits especially to a marked degree4: masterful, forceful