Some sobering numbers

The December Motorcyclist (AMA magazine) has an editorial by Robert Rasor titled "Taking Control" (page10) that I found interesting.
Robert says, regarding some motorcyclists today, "...We have met the enemy and he is US!"
He goes on to say that there are too many riders out there that seem to go out of their way to make the motorcycle lifestyle look bad.
The thing that really got me thinking is the numbers that he quoted from past years accidents.

Quote:
"Did you know that 46% of the 78,000 motorcycle crashes in 2002 were single-vehicle crashes? Did you know that in 2003, 30 % of ALL fatally injured motorcycle operators, and 44% of those who died in single-vehicle crashes, had blood-alcohol levels of 0.08 or higher? That makes them legally drunk in all 50 states!"
End Quote

Now that may not seem like much to some. But to me, knowing that a FULL ONE THIRD of motorcycle operators, who were killed in one year, were legally drunk is SCARY. And the number is even higher for single vehicle (motorcycle ONLY) fatalities. That means that almost half (44%) of all bikers that died in accidents where the motorcycle was the ONLY vehicle involved, were drunk.

Kind of puts shame to our way of thinking that most motorcycle accidents are caused by cages. They’re not. Almost half of the fatalities in 2003 were caused by drunken motorcyclists, killing themselves.

We need to do something about this. We have to stop ourselves and our friends from riding after drinking. Darwin is not sorting things out, we are killing ourselves.

This in no way lessens the threat that some cagers pose to the motorcycling community. It is just meant to open some eyes to the numbers of deaths that are NOT caused by cagers.

What’s the old saying? Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.
Lets make it our mission to live by: Bikers don’t let bikers ride drunk.

Be responsible.
Thanks for listening,
Lonny

12 hours between bottle and throttle.....

What is the breakdown of those stats by brand???? I have a feeling Harley riders get drunk and ride just a little bit more often that sportbikers.

You've got that data, run a crosscheck against the chart which displays each state's average IQ and who they voted for...

ALANRIDER7 said:

What is the breakdown of those stats by brand???? I have a feeling Harley riders get drunk and ride just a little bit more often that sportbikers.

Click to expand...

wow..

Alan,
Maybe. But does it really matter?
We are fighting a war against perceived "unjust reporting" by the media and we are too drunk or dead to prove them wrong.
(metaphorically speaking)
In the press, a biker is a biker. Regardless of what they ride.

So, if 30% of dead or mangled bikers are drunk, how is it an unjust reporting?

Lonster said:

Alan,
Maybe. But does it really matter?
We are fighting a war against perceived "unjust reporting" by the media and we are too drunk or dead to prove them wrong.
(metaphorically speaking)
In the press, a biker is a biker. Regardless of what they ride.

Click to expand...

Lonster said:

In the press, a biker is a biker. Regardless of what they ride.

Click to expand...

horribly true, and those numbers really translate into even higher insurance for us because it looks like if you ride a bike you are likely to go out and ride it drunk

Has anyone here ever tested their own BAC after drinking?

I partied at a bar in Wyoming last summer. After drinking a cocktail and several beers in about 3 hours, I knew there was no way I could have driven much less rode. It didn't matter since I was staying at the adjacent hotel and could stumble to bed. The bar had one of those coin-operated breathalyzer machines. Just for the hell of it, I pulled out a quarter and tested myself. I was looped enough that I had to try twice to get the quarter in the slot.

I blew a 0.06.

Maybe the machine wasn't accurate, but it scares me to think just how much one needs to drink to blow a 0.08 or above and thus be "intoxicated" in the eyes of the law. These guys who crash, die, and test at 0.08 or above aren't suffering the consequences of a single glass of wine with dinner: They're paying the price for riding while f'ed up.

In terms of crashing in general, with or without alcohol. Both cruisers and sportbikes have their fair share of squidy recklessness. And I've ridden drunk off my ass before, a miracle I made it home.

Lonster said:

That means that almost half (44%) of all bikers that died in accidents where the motorcycle was the ONLY vehicle involved, were drunk.

Click to expand...

One word: Darwin. Helps keep the gene pool minty fresh.

Actually, if you want to look at these numbers...

56 percent killed themselves sober, 44 percent killed themselves drunk.

This means that by these numbers, if you ride sober, your chance of getting yourself into a fatal accident goes up by a good 27%!

Or if you get yourself drunk, you are now only 79% as likely to kill yourself as you would sober.

Pass me a few beers!

And last year with 70 to 30%...

You were 233% as likely to kill yourself sober, than as drunk.

Or only 42% as likely to kill yourself drunk, as sober.

Pass the Ketel One!

So...What's the stats for cars in single vehical accidents?

I agree with Alan to a point.

I would care to wager that more fatals on Harley type bikes are alcholol related... hell, it seems hard to die at 45mph or on a 10 mile ride any other way.

Sportbike deaths, I would predict, result from younger and less experienced riders on machines that their brains cannot accept far exceed their skills.

Again, It doesn't matter who or how, just that it happens.
This thread was not to point fingers at a particular moto-demographic. It was to get us all to take responsibility for ourselves and our fellow riders.
Be safe.

Lonster said:

Again, It doesn't matter who or how, just that it happens.
This thread was not to point fingers at a particular moto-demographic. It was to get us all to take responsibility for ourselves and our fellow riders.
Be safe.

Click to expand...

Actually it does matter. It matters quite a bit. And the part about responsibility for fellow riders?????
Where did you come up with that one?
Sounds to me like you want to get up into other people's buisiness.
So to be fair, or at least be able to put this abstract info to any use whatsoever, what are the stats for car? For Harley's? Hell, for SUVs?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

nedro said:

Actually it does matter. It matters quite a bit. And the part about responsibility for fellow riders?????
Where did you come up with that one?
Sounds to me like you want to get up into other people's buisiness.
So to be fair, or at least be able to put this abstract info to any use whatsoever, what are the stats for car? For Harley's? Hell, for SUVs?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Click to expand...

OK Nedro, I'll answer your ridicules post.
First, It's obvious from your past posts that you have a problem with Harley riders. So right from the start you’re not a 'team player'. To you, we are not all motorcyclists but rather 'us and them'. That's not a solution; it's part of the problem

Second, Yes, I have noticed your history of posting negative, thoughtless things to other peoples posts seemingly just to get a rise from them. (Yes, it worked again here.)

Third, I don't want to attend to each individual riders business. I just thought it was about time *I* vocalized *my* opinion about how many riders are killing themselves by riding drunk into oblivion.
If you don't want to help a fellow rider by telling them they are to drunk to ride or, if you ride drunk your self, I now know that you don't want to be bothered by myself or someone else trying to save your life. That's cool. Your decision.

Fourth, the number of cars, SUV's and unicycles involved in single vehicle fatalities does not factor into this discussion because it is a discussion about ONLY motorcycles.

Please feel free to read the whole article. If you still feel that you have no responsibility to help change the publics’ PERCEIVED opinion that all bikers are reckless, crazy, drunken stunters, then by all means, please don’t help. Your probably too busy fixing bikes that you have “thrown down the track” anyways.
Have a nice day,
Lonster

Good post Lonster I'm glad there are people like you out there, who look out for fellow riders. When I come across another bike on the road, it doesn't matter what brand or kind it is; I give them the same respect every time. I enjoy the feeling that I'm part of a community. That was probably the best thing when I first got my bike - all the waves. I know I'd stop for anyone on the side of the road, and I'd like to think they would too.

I don't think "unjust reporting" is the problem. A recent article in Motorcycle Consumer News, an otherwise reliable magazine, complained that the press mentioned alcohol more often in the case of fatal motorcycle crashes than in fatal car crashes. "Media bias" was the verdict (and the title of the article IIRC).

Not so fast. In 2003 according to NHTSA stats, motorcyclists were found to be under the influence 38% more often than drivers. So the problem isn't the reporting, it's the underlying truth.

That doesn't mean that motorcyclists drink and drive more than cagers, although they might. It's possible—probable I would say—that riding a motorcycle drunk is more likely to result in a crash than driving a car, simply because the task is more difficult.

As for the brand breakdown, I have compiled the 2003 results and attached a chart. Note the considerable "unknown" alcohol results. Drivers are not always tested for alcohol, and I would guess there's inherent bias in favor of testing drunks. A corpse that reeks of Jack Daniels is more likely to be tested than one that was apparently sober in life. OTOH, some states test fewer riders than others. NY, for instance, tests only about one-third while CA tests over 80%. And NY is no more accurate than CA at picking drunks to test. So drunks as a percentage of the total shouldn't be expected to be accurate (it will be low), but neither should drunks as a percentage of those tested (it will be high).

However, considering only riders actually tested and comparing brands:

• 52% of Harley riders who were tested had a .01 or higher and 41% had a .08 or higher
• 35% of non-Harley riders who were tested had a .01 or higher and 26% had a .08 or higher

EDIT: The stats in the last paragraph and in the attached chart refer to riders in fatal crashes. In most but not all cases the rider was killed. In some fatal crashes the rider survived and either a motorcycle passenger, other vehicle occupant, pedestrian, or bicyclist was killed.

EDIT: Corrected misremembered figure in the second paragraph.