ORIGINAL: rfranz1952

Yeah,its old, but nothing has been done in the US that even approaches the detail and scope of the study. It was also done in an urban environment in California, which may skew some of the findings--collisions with animals, single vehicel accidents, etc. IT relied on reported accidents, so if someone went down on their bike and never reported it, they were not included. As a result, single vehicle accidents and mild injury accidents are probably under reported. On the whole though, I think the findings are still valid.

There was a similar, recently completed study done in Europe, called the MAIDS study, which validated and confirmed many of the Hurt study findings.

ORIGINAL: BigJfxdwg

I have one thing to say about studies like this and statistics.

If 4/5 dentists recommend Colagate then why are there so many other types of toothpaste.

Think about what that means for a minute.









You can make a statistic to show what ever you want.

ORIGINAL: OnTheRoadAgain

"Harry Hurt investigated almost every aspect of 900 motorcycle accidents in the Los Angeles area. Additionally, Hurt and his staff analyzed 3,600 motorcycle traffic accident reports in the same geographic area."

"44. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident."

How long ago were helmets optional in CA???????

ORIGINAL: 99octane

While the Hurt study is an interesting and educative read, and still has much to teach to those willing to listen, you must keep in mind that it's almost 30 years old, and thus reflects a reality that no longer exists. It's been pionieristic in its own times, and that made it famous, but now road safety statistics are an everyday matter: doing some search on the web you may find much more pertinent and accurate data.

Here a link that may be of interest.
http://www.motorcycle-accidents.com/pages/stats.html