An earlier post discussing "how do you reply to someone who tells you motocycle riding isn't safe" got me thinking. Just this weekend I took my new Deluxe for a 350 mile round trip - visited my dauther, sister and brother in law. My brother in law lovers my new ride. He wants a HD so badly he is willing to do anything, but my sister won't give in and believes bikes are dangerous. It's not my place to get in the middle of them over this, but I was trying to be supportive of my brother in law, and respond to my sister's concerns. Oddly enought, over the weekend the government provided updated accident stats, and Igot a chance to discuss them with my sister, and I thought I'd post a summary of the findings for this forum.

Since 1996 the number of motorcycle deaths has doubled, far surpassing the number of all motor vehicle deaths and also far greater than the increased number of motorcycles registered nationally. The actual number is 7 deaths per 1000 registered motorcycle drivers, again far greater than automobile drivers on a per capita and per registered vehicle basis.

The Hurt report, which is still the only motorcycle accident report sponsored by the government and is decades old, noted that many motorcycle fatalities occur from non-licensed drivers who are driving motorcycles. The report also points out that in nearly half of all motorcycle deaths the driver was legally intoxicated or the under the influence of drugs, or by unlicensed drivers. Another 25% of fatalities occurs from car drivers turning in front of motorcycle drivers at intersections. So if you don't drink and ride, have a license, and if you are especially careful at intersections you reduce your "odds" of being one of the unlucky 7 in 1000 by 75% - not quite as good as car drivers, but very close. The stats are also skewed by new/returning drivers over the age of 40 who return/begin riding without training. Their fatality rate is double the average, and a disporportionally large number of these riders own "1200cc or larger bikes", a typical HD owner profile. A MSF course, given by most HD dealers, is cited as significantly reducing accidents, but no hard stats are given.

The report goes on the examine motorcycle drivers helmets obtained from accident scenes. Three out of four severe impacts occur in areas not protected by "skull" caps - the face, lower neck and just above the ear. Full face helmets would further reduce these fatalities, again no concrete facts are provided.

The point? I realize that riding is a personal choice, and what we wear, what we eat/drink, and how we ride are personal choices. I have also, like I'm sure many of you have, lost a friend to accidents that may have been prevented. I'm not preaching here, just trying to balance things a bit. I practice emergency stops in empty parking lots, and have not yet mastered making a U turn in the space of two parking spaces, but I know it can be done. The better I can control my bike, and the more aware I am of the dangers, the longer my aging bones will be able to enjoy the hobby that I will never give up. I respect everyone's right to ride the way they want, with gear of their choice. My only desire is that all of you continue riding for as long as you like, and if having the facts helps that happen or make you any safer in any way, I'm happy to provide them.

Incidentally, David Hough has written hundreds of articles in Motorcycle Consumer News that has been published in two books - "Proficient Motorcycling" and a second version (not sure of the title) with a similar name but more detailed info. Great info, well written and highly useful for all riders - highly recommended. I have no connection with the author or any financial interest in the books, just passing along things I've found useful. Coming home from my daughter's house I arrived back home at 1:30 AM Sunday, driving through 56 degree weather in a summer perforated jacket. Not suf

 

Great post. I had my last trip lengthened (time wise) because of the cold & rain. Was getting off hourly and drinking coffee all afternoon. I could feel the effects of the cold & wet when my fingers could unfasten my helmet for a few minutes at my first stop.

 

Just checking to see if my name is on there yet.
No.
Good!

seriously though, everybody be careful out there.........

 

Are you saying that the number of motorcycle crash deaths is greater than the number of allvehicle crash deaths? Or just that the ratio of deaths to vehicles has increased far morewith motorcycles than with cars?

I'm not entirely sure I believe either one (I certainly don't believe the first), but they're very different statements, and I'm hoping for some clarification.

Edit:
Did some quick research (latest data I could find was 2005) and it looks like both those statements are flawed. Perhaps you meant something else I missed?

From 1996 to 2005, motorcycle fatalities increased 2.1 times (to 4655 in 2005) while motorcycle sales increased (roughly - the only reference I could find was a chart, so I had to estimate numbers from it) 3.6 times. So it looks like the ratio of deaths to motorcycles would have gone down. (Now it's entirely possible that car sales have increased at a far higher rate, while the fatalities haven't changed a whole lot, but I couldn't find any data spanning that far on total number of cars sold.)

As to motorcycle fatalities vs other-vehicle fatalities, in 2005 there were 4655 deaths in motorcyle crashes while there were 54,718 deaths in crashes of vehicles other than motorcycles.

And while we're crunching numbers, lets look at another comparison. Apparently 1,200,000 motorcyles were sold in 2005. That's One Million Two Hundred Thousand people (at least, andreallymany manymore when you figure in all the people riding used bikes and two-up) out there riding. 4655 of them died. That's (if my math holds up)slightly less than .04 percent (that's four tens of one percent, not four percent)of motorcycle riders are involved in fatal accidents. Those really aren't such terrible odds, are they?

 

The hurt report has a great deal of flawed science in it. I'm not going to get into a debate out it ... there needs to be a more recent and comprehensive study if someone wants to argue "facts". In any case .... it should be a personal choice and I'm glad I live in a state that recognizes this.

 

Sorry if I was unclear. The number of motorcycle deaths has doubled in 10 years. That is an absolute number, not relative per driver or registered vehicles. That increase is far greater than the overall growth in traffic fatalities for all drivers, car, truck, motorcycle.

On a per capita basis and relative to registered vehicles, the rate of motorcycle fatalities has outpaced that rate of overall motor vehicle fatalities - so the conclusion is that motorcycle riders as a group are experiencing greater fatality rates than other drivers, and that the trend has accelerated over the last decade. I can't conclude if the source is a greater number of high powered machines, increased rider error, substance abuse or other causes, since they were not included in the summary info.

The point is that on both absolute and relative terms the number of motorcycle fatalities is growing disproportionally faster than other motor vehicle categories. Without more detail it is hard to know the source, but the specific info about older riders was citied in the article.

 

lencap,

Do you have a link for the article?
This has me scratching my head, because it doesn't seem to quite jibe with what I'm digging up.

The only way I can think thedata you're posting could work is if car sales have gone through the roof since 1996 (motorcycle sales certainly have) and increased safety equipment has managed to keep the number of fatalities fairly static, thereby reducing the death-to-car ratio. That still doesn't mean that motorcycles (or their riders) are getting more dangerous, it's more likely just that they're exactly as dangerous as they ever were, and the increased number of riders (along with the increased safety features of cars) are skewing the numbers.

But thenwe are talking aboutstatistics, which can say pretty much anything anyone wants them to say.

 

My friend, while I admire your spirit in trying to "help" your brother in law the reality is that you're working too hard at proving a point which is uncorrelated. It's like comparing apples to airplanes. First problem, the confidence intervals (purpose of estimating the population parameter in a given data sample) are skewed by the very nature of the two vehicle types.

Simply put ... of course there are differences in the number of deaths in vehicles as compared to motorcycles. You are not comparing the same things, soyou can not take raw data like that and simply say there is a correlation when there is no limit on the degree of confidence (the end points of a specified range).

Let me put it this way, when you can account for the number of deaths in automobiles after accounting for all the safety technology then you might have a better idea of the numbers that truly merit comparison. It would be like putting the motorcycle rider in a comforted, air-bag capable capsule and then counting the number of deaths. You will absolutely have fewer deaths, but that's not what you're really trying to count.

An old statistics professor of mine once suggested it this way ... imagine we count the number of people who die on the rail-road tracks when struck by a train. Then we count the number of people who stand on the tracks when a train is coming. We would finda very significant correlation between the two. Does that mean that your chance of getting hit by a train is the same as the person who stands on the track?

Better yet ...should we outlaw trains just because someone gets killed while standing on the tracks?

It's all in what you decide to count and how you relate the numbers. Account for the population differences as well as the variables and then we've got some numbers to discuss.

 

Of all those numbers, what really matters is; what happens to me.

 

double post