Is the Hurt Study relavant anymore...

[Mcgyver74]

So I'm about to take another Experienced Rider course in September (I try to do on approx once every other year) and I was reflecting on past experiences in the course.

In almost every MSF course they make reference to the Hurt Study which summarized a study of thousands of motorcycle accidents and has some pretty eye opening info, such as the lack of training and protective gear etc.

However, if you look at the report, it was published in 1981 almost 30 years ago, there was a lot less traffic congestion back then, Also no SUV's no Cell Phones etc. Additionally, protective gear/braking technology has progressed significantly since then

So my question is, Is the Hurt Study Relevant anymore? Many safety experts will whip this thing out like it's in a hip holster when talking about safety, but can we rely on it?

My belief is that some parts are still relevant, but we are really in need of a whole new study that will take into account todays traffic conditions and advanced vehicles....

What do you all think?

 

[Auburn]

The AMA along with others have help to raise money to supplement what the FED is putting into the pot to do a study to start this Fall. Motorcycle Study

 

[frayne]

Maybe a bit dated but good basic information to build on. I would venture to bet the only thing that changes much are the numbers in respect to volume, percentages probably pretty much stay the same. Just IMHO.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

In almost every MSF course they make reference to the Hurt Study which summarized a study of thousands of motorcycle accidents and has some pretty eye opening info, such as the lack of training and protective gear etc.
However, if you look at the report, it was published in 1981 almost 30 years ago, there was a lot less traffic congestion back then, Also no SUV's no Cell Phones etc. Additionally, protective gear/braking technology has progressed significantly since then

So my question is, Is the Hurt Study Relevant anymore? Many safety experts will whip this thing out like it's in a hip holster when talking about safety, but can we rely on it?

My belief is that some parts are still relevant, but we are really in need of a whole new study that will take into account todays traffic conditions and advanced vehicles....

What do you all think?

Yes, the Hurt Study summarized m/c accidents -- but, they were mainly looking for causes of those events and then bringing to light what, if anything, can be done about it. (not so much: lack of training and protective gear -- altho, yes, mentioned...)

I think the basics uncoverd in the Hurt Study are still relevant and, yes, you can rely on them -- basic m/c safety concepts (some of which are):

• Most accidents happen during daylight hours, at intersections, during the 1st hour of riding, etc.
• Most common multi-vehicle accident is car turning left in front of on-coming m/c.
• Single vehicle m/c crashes were (mostly) failing to negotiate a turn.
• See & be seen (conspicuity).
• 77% of m/c collisions occur between the 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock positions (in front of the rider).

The things that have changed (since the original Hurt Study) are, alot, technology related: ABS brakes, electronic distractions, more hi-speed roadways, etc.I feel sure another study would find many similarities with the original (basic concepts) and some new problems that just weren't an issue back then.

 

[happyPuppy]

it is relevant to a certain degree, but yes it is dated. This is the newest study released late July by NHTSA

https://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811149.PDF

 

[Big Sky]

Sure it's dated, but about the best alternative to nothing that there is. I suspect what's changed quite a bit is rider/accident age demographics. Damn boomers.

 

[msfchris]

Something more recent (2004)...

MAIDS - (Motorcycle Accidents In Depth Study)

Over 900 accidents over 3 yrs in 5 European countries.

Here's a PDF overview of the study: Clicky!