NTSB Looking into motorcycle crashes

[NC_Yank]

With that said, I personally thinks it should be a personal decision for experienced riders if they want to strap a helmet onto their head but at the same time if they get seriously maimed then my insurance and taxes should not pay for their foolishness.......regardless to who is at fault. I do think that all young and new riders should be required to wear a full face helmet.

NC_Yank did say it jestal.

Also if you went to my link you will see that horseback riding, motorcycling, snowmobiling and more activities get rejected by insurance. Even though it is illegal to not give them insurance that doesn't mean the provider has to cover them if injured in any of these activites.

Thanks Sparky,

I am by far no fan of insurance companies.....or government for that matter. Both are a necessary evil if you will.

We have to remember that insurance companies are a business and as a business they are their to make money, there is nothing wrong with that. Making money in that line of business requires scrutinizing who you are going to insure.

As I said before, I dont care if you rear a helmet or not........however my premiums should reflect that I do wear a helmet, have taken various safety courses and my driving record reflects such..........my premiums should not have to go up because of other riders feel their "imaginable rights" are being violated.

(last I checked, driving on state / federal roads was a priviledge not a right)

The medical bills of an MC rider who has been in a serious accident will by far exceed his / her life time premiums. I should not have to help pay for their gross negligence.

Case in point.......my $35,000.00 Avalanche cost me less then $50.00 per month (full coverage), my $9000.00 FJR cost me over $60.00 per month. My driving record didnt change from one to the other.....its the driving and accident rates of OTHERS.

As someone earlier implied.....most laws on the books are there because someone lacked common sense and as a result we are all paying for it.........its been that way since the beginning of time.

(edited by NC)

 

[sparky3008]

With that said, I personally thinks it should be a personal decision for experienced riders if they want to strap a helmet onto their head but at the same time if they get seriously maimed then my insurance and taxes should not pay for their foolishness.......regardless to who is at fault. I do think that all young and new riders should be required to wear a full face helmet.

NC_Yank did say it jestal.

Also if you went to my link you will see that horseback riding, motorcycling, snowmobiling and more activities get rejected by insurance. Even though it is illegal to not give them insurance that doesn't mean the provider has to cover them if injured in any of these activites.

Thanks Sparky,

I am by far no fan of insurance companies.....or government for that matter. Both are a necessary evil if you will.

We have to remember that insurance companies are a business and as a business they are their to make money, there is nothing wrong with that. Making money in that line of business requires scrutinizing who you are going to insure.

As I said before, I dont care if you rear a helmet or not........however my premiums should reflect that I do wear a helmet, have taken various safety courses and my driving record reflects such..........my premiums should not have to go up because of other riders feel their "imaginable rights" are being violated.

(last I checked, driving on state / federal roads was a priviledge not a right)

The medical bills of an MC rider who has been in a serious accident will by far exceed his / her life time premiums. I should not have to help pay for their gross negligence.

Case in point.......my $35,000.00 Avalanche cost me less then $50.00 per month (full coverage), my $9000.00 FJR cost me over $60.00 per month. My driving record didnt change from one to the other.....its the driving and accident rates of OTHERS.

As someone earlier implied.....most laws on the books are there because someone lacked common sense and as a result we are all paying for it.........its been that way since the beginning of time.

God: Adam & Eve.......dont eat that forbidden fruit.

Eve: That fruit sure does look good....probably delicious...plus it can make one wise.....huh......

(crunch, crunch, crunch)

Eve: Hey Adam try this....

Adam: (huh......she is going to get us in trouble but my oh my....she sure looks mighty fine in that birthday suit of hers).....Ok. (crunch, crunch, crunch)

The rest is history.......now we have hundred of thousands of stupid laws we have to abide by........I would just have been happy running around the garden naked myself. Can we start over and try it again.

Don't know that you really made any kind of valid point here.

Most insurance group policies are such that they hope enough people won't get sick to make up for those who do.

Case and point, I have been at this company for 7 years and my insurance is paid for me. I would guess around $150 a month for 84 months is $12,600. I have used way over that in my dirtbike accident where my collarbone was broken and I needed surgery. Even though I pay I will always be paying less than what just one time use will pay out. The insurance company is gambling that enough people won't use it to make up for me.

So in the end we all rely on the non-use of insurance by others to make it affordable by the few.

You also seemed to miss the point that many many more drunk drivers cause accidents than there are motorcycle accidents and they aren't targeted like the list of those I showed in my link.

Heck the average accident with injuries is caused by people falling asleep, are you going to write them off also.

Many more things in this world make our insurance rates go up than just motorcycles and/or no helmets.

Most likely accidents are in the home, you should know that. They make our rates go up as well.

 

[Ignacio]

As someone earlier implied.....most laws on the books are there because someone lacked common sense and as a result we are all paying for it.........its been that way since the beginning of time.
God: Adam & Eve.......dont eat that forbidden fruit.

Eve: That fruit sure does look good....probably delicious...plus it can make one wise.....huh......

(crunch, crunch, crunch)

Eve: Hey Adam try this....

Adam: (huh......she is going to get us in trouble but my oh my....she sure looks mighty fine in that birthday suit of hers).....Ok. (crunch, crunch, crunch)

The rest is history.......now we have hundred of thousands of stupid laws we have to abide by........I would just have been happy running around the garden naked myself. Can we start over and try it again.

Here's where the train starts going off the tracks and why Admins close threads.

Let me try once more because there's some good discussion in amongst the startings of flames. Metaphors may be a great tool to illustrate a point of the topic, but on this forum they inevitably lead astray of the subject and end up in political or relgious flame fests when we should all be out riding.

Please confine your political commentary to material that is "SPECIFICALLY about pending motorcycle legislation, regulation, and laws" as the Forum Guidelines spell out.

Please, no responses to the off-topic part of NC_Yank's post.

Thank you.

The Management

 

[Scab]

Dayum! Why don't we pick a topic that someone is passionate about?

Okay, I will concede to the well-made points above.(all posts disputing my flawed initial logic) The curiosity in me would like to see the results of such a study, but I will agree to the wisdom above that if big brother has anything to do with it, we riders will end up with the shaft in some shape, form, or fashion. Perhaps better to leave well enough alone.

 

[sparky3008]

As someone earlier implied.....most laws on the books are there because someone lacked common sense and as a result we are all paying for it.........its been that way since the beginning of time.

God: Adam & Eve.......dont eat that forbidden fruit.

Eve: That fruit sure does look good....probably delicious...plus it can make one wise.....huh......

(crunch, crunch, crunch)

Eve: Hey Adam try this....

Adam: (huh......she is going to get us in trouble but my oh my....she sure looks mighty fine in that birthday suit of hers).....Ok. (crunch, crunch, crunch)

The rest is history.......now we have hundred of thousands of stupid laws we have to abide by........I would just have been happy running around the garden naked myself. Can we start over and try it again.

Here's where the train starts going off the tracks and why Admins close threads.

Let me try once more because there's some good discussion in amongst the startings of flames. Metaphors may be a great tool to illustrate a point of the topic, but on this forum they inevitably lead astray of the subject and end up in political or relgious flame fests when we should all be out riding.

Please confine your political commentary to material that is "SPECIFICALLY about pending motorcycle legislation, regulation, and laws" as the Forum Guidelines spell out.

Please, no responses to the off-topic part of NC_Yank's post.

Thank you.

The Management

Insurance rates usually go up because of first time riders, them trying to stunt or doing something else above their "head" crash and they claim insurance to replace/repair their bike.

As long as bikes exist you will never get away from this fact and new young riders.

Helmet or no helmet them wrecking their sport bikes is what makes sport bikes insurance rise and they hope you the older more experienced rider won't crash so they can use your premiums to make up for the others.

Heck statistics lately show a trend of older bikers starting to be the more likely to wreck as they get into retirement age, buy nice new Harleys and don't know how to ride and crash.

Your anti-no helmet and no insurance clause is out of line and is not the cause of higher insurance rates.

 

[zzzzip]

Can't say I investigated "thousands" of crashes in my 30 years in the business, but I was an accident reconstructionist for a few years.

Refresh my memory (I'm old and retired)-- half the length of a football field in 2 seconds to impact: what would be the acceleration factor for that bike?

Very PDQ I suspect. What was the bike?

B)

 

[sparky3008]

Can't say I investigated "thousands" of crashes in my 30 years in the business, but I was an accident reconstructionist for a few years.
Refresh my memory (I'm old and retired)-- half the length of a football field in 2 seconds to impact: what would be the acceleration factor for that bike?

Very PDQ I suspect. What was the bike?

B)

At 55mph you cover 81ft per second 2 seconds 162ft.

 

[zzzzip]

Can't say I investigated "thousands" of crashes in my 30 years in the business, but I was an accident reconstructionist for a few years.

Refresh my memory (I'm old and retired)-- half the length of a football field in 2 seconds to impact: what would be the acceleration factor for that bike?

Very PDQ I suspect. What was the bike?

B)

At 55mph you cover 81ft per second 2 seconds 162ft.

That's probably good for at least a first in ten, if not a touchdown.

 

[NC_Yank]

Can't say I investigated "thousands" of crashes in my 30 years in the business, but I was an accident reconstructionist for a few years.
Refresh my memory (I'm old and retired)-- half the length of a football field in 2 seconds to impact: what would be the acceleration factor for that bike?

Very PDQ I suspect. What was the bike?

B)

Without going back several years and pulling the file.....(going from memory)

minimum speed at impact was at least 70 mph / 102 fps.

His body was thrown / vaulted over the van 101 feet (measured) not including his noggin

slidding an additional amount. It was reconstructed by 3 reconstructionist including myself. <_<

(certified at the North Carolina Justice Academy)

His estimated speed was based upon the distance his body traveled as well as over 15 witnesses

at the scene (hang out for kids cruising Church St in Concord NC).

Dont recall the bike off the top of my head but there wan't much left of it.

One of the other reasons this case sticks in my mind is because both drivers had Nationwide, yet

they both ended up in civil court (several years later) and I had to testify, which I found assinine on Nationwide's part..........you basically had one policy owner suing the other.

(The motorcyclist was the plaintiff.......yet the driver of the van had more serious injuries)

Yes, I realize that an ambulance chasing lawyer was involved in the matter......

And just to keep this on topic, legislation.

If they (insurance companies) truly want to make roads safer then they can do it internally without getting Uncle Sam involved. Instead Uncle Sam (North Carolina in particular) has no problem allowing illegal aliens to obtain a drivers license and the insurance companies have no problem collecting premiums from such drivers who statiscally are killing us (no pun intended) with their reckless driving habits.......drinking, unable to read traffic sign (in english), overcrowding of vehicles, eluding police because of 1)no insurance or expired, 2) no license or revoked, 3)no registration or expired or ficticious registration, ....etc. etc.

I once managed to arrest the same guy 3 times in one year with him giving me an NC driver license with a different name each time..........yep, we can rely on the government keeping us safe. :angry:

If Uncle Sam wanted to keep drivers safe then they would enact stiffer driver licensing requirements as well as using our monies more wisely. There is a whole host of things that could be done............but between the insurance companies and uncle sam it comes down to money and politics...............I would not hold my breath on either of the two truly looking out for my best interest. <_<

 

[panthercity]

Can't say I investigated "thousands" of crashes in my 30 years in the business, but I was an accident reconstructionist for a few years.

Refresh my memory (I'm old and retired)-- half the length of a football field in 2 seconds to impact: what would be the acceleration factor for that bike?

Very PDQ I suspect. What was the bike?

B)

At 55mph you cover 81ft per second 2 seconds 162ft.

That's steady state, not acceleration.

 

[radman]

I've always believed license plates should be issued to an owner, not a vehicle. No license, or insurance, no plates. Too many drunks etc buy a car a year, with very current plates, then are relatively safe till the plates expire. Not perfect, but a big step in the right direction.

 

[sparky3008]

Without going back several years and pulling the file.....(going from memory)

minimum speed at impact was at least 70 mph / 102 fps.

His body was thrown / vaulted over the van 101 feet (measured) not including his noggin

slidding an additional amount. It was reconstructed by 3 reconstructionist including myself. dry.gif

(certified at the North Carolina Justice Academy)

His estimated speed was based upon the distance his body traveled as well as over 15 witnesses

at the scene (hang out for kids cruising Church St in Concord NC).

Dont recall the bike off the top of my head but there wan't much left of it.

No insurance claim here, just funeral costs!!

I here you on the illegal aliens. The system doesn't work very well here. From what my mother tells me cops don't have much jurisdiction when it comes to illegals and they can't even arrest on this I don't think. It is a job for INS. To hold them they need a different charge and if no one comes to get them before that small amount of time is usually up they are back out on the street. This is again from memory of how she explained it and if wrong it is my fault not my mothers.

 

[Ari Rankum]

Can't say I investigated "thousands" of crashes in my 30 years in the business, but I was an accident reconstructionist for a few years.
Refresh my memory (I'm old and retired)-- half the length of a football field in 2 seconds to impact: what would be the acceleration factor for that bike?

Very PDQ I suspect. What was the bike?

B)

Assuming constant acceleration (which wouldn't be true for any bike I know of...but not having the power curve or bike model for that matter....), you could use s=V0t + 1/2at^2 to solve for a.

s = 1/2 football field = 150ft.

V0 = 0mph

t = 2

Plugging and chugging,

150 = 2a.

a = 75 fps/s

or >2g.

IMPOSSIBLE AND COMPLETELY BOGUS DISTANCE AND TIME FIGURES (if it's a wheel-driven bike that relies on surface friction, as opposed to a Jay Leno-type jet bike)!

Q.E.D.

 

[Ari Rankum]

Can't say I investigated "thousands" of crashes in my 30 years in the business, but I was an accident reconstructionist for a few years.

Refresh my memory (I'm old and retired)-- half the length of a football field in 2 seconds to impact: what would be the acceleration factor for that bike?

Very PDQ I suspect. What was the bike?

B)

Without going back several years and pulling the file.....(going from memory)

minimum speed at impact was at least 70 mph / 102 fps.

His body was thrown / vaulted over the van 101 feet (measured) not including his noggin

slidding an additional amount. It was reconstructed by 3 reconstructionist including myself. <_<

(certified at the North Carolina Justice Academy)

His estimated speed was based upon the distance his body traveled as well as over 15 witnesses

at the scene (hang out for kids cruising Church St in Concord NC).

This is on the verge of believability. I figure the 1/2 football field was a little short of the true distance.

What do you use for the coefficient of static friction for motorcycle tire on dry pavement? I've never heard of a value greater than 1 being used for an accident on surface streets. But if you say it's 1, you still come up with an overly optimistic speed or understated distance, based on the following:

Vf^2 = V0^2 + 2as

Vf^2 = (70*5280/3600)^2 = 10540.4

V0^2 = 0

s = 150

Solving for a, I get a = 35.13 fps/s

Using Ff = Fnc

eliminating common terms, I get

a = gc

or

c = a/g = 35.13/32 = 1.1

Something aint right. It's either the terminal speed or the estimated distance from the start of acceleration to impact.

 

[zzzzip]

Tadahhhh---

I knew a gearhead would get his dog in this fight.

I thought that was a little optimistic. However, I can't argue with the speed as related to the height/distance formula after impact: it is considered an absolute speed, subject to your interpretation of the exact height at launch and exact distance to first touchdown and factoring in uphill/downdill takeoff and landing. :blink:

I assume the most accurate such measurement of speed I undertook was the night I took a leak roadside, and attempted to ascertain the speed of my piss by measuring the height of take off and the distance at landing. Unfortunately, I couldn't verify my findings, because radar doesn't measure the speed of everything. :lol:

B)

 

[radman]

Well, I think-

* eip = cosp+ isinp = -1

* 3eip/2 = 3(cos[p / 2] + isin[p / 2]) = 3i

* 2eip/6 = 2(cos[p / 6] + isin[p / 6]) = Ö3 + i

If z1 = r1eiq1 and z2 = r2eiq2, then

z1z2

=

r1r2ei(q1 + q2)

z1 z2

=

r1 r2

ei(q1-q2)

If z = reiq, then _

z = re-iq (Do you see why?) and so z _

z = (reiq)(re-iq) = r2.

Example

To calculate (1+i)8, we can first rewrite 1+i as Ö2eip/4. Then

(Ö2eip/4)8

=

(Ö2)8ei8p/4

=

16e2pi

=

16.

_____

Ö12+12

=

Ö2

tan-1 æ

ç

è 1 1

ö

÷

ø

=

p 4

To further simplify...

\[(a + bi) + (c + di) = (a+c) + (b + d) i\]

\[(a + bi) (c + di) = ac + adi + bci + bdi^{2} = (ac - bd) + (ad +bc) i\]

\[\frac{1}{a + bi} = \frac{a}{a^2 + b^2} - \frac{b}{a^2 + b^2} i\]

\[\frac{a + bi}{c + di} = \frac{ac + bd}{c^2 + d^2} + \frac{bc - ad}{c^2 + d^2} i\]

\[a^{2} + b^{2} = (a + bi) (a - bi)\] (sum of squares)

\[e^{i \theta} = \cos(\theta) + i \sin(\theta)\]

\[n^{a + bi} = n^a (\cos(b \ln n) + i \sin(b \ln n)) \]

\[\text{If} \, z = r(\cos \theta + i \sin \theta) \, \text{then} \, z^{n} = r^{n} ( \cos n \theta + i \sin n \theta ) \] (DeMoivre's Theorem)

if \[w = r(\cos \theta + i \sin \theta);n=integer\] then there are n complex nth roots (z) of w for k=0,1,..n-1

\[z(k) = r^{1/n} [ \cos \frac{\theta + 2 \pi k}{n} + i \sin \frac{\theta + 2 \pi k}{n} ]\]

\[\text{If} \, z = r (\cos \theta + i \sin \theta) \, \text{then} \, ln(z) = \ln r + i \theta\]

\[sin(a + bi) = sin(a)cosh( B) + cos(a)sinh( B) i\]

\[cos(a + bi) = cos(a)cosh( B) - sin(a)sinh( B) i\]

\[tan(a + bi) = \frac{\tan(a) + i \tanh( B) }{1 - i \tan(a) \tanh( B) } \] \[ = \frac{sech^2( B) \tan(a) + \sec^2(a)tanh( B) i}{1 + \tan^2(a)tanh^2( B) }\]

So yer all fulla ****!

 

[zzzzip]

Sorry Rad, but as any defense lawyer will thell you, that formula is no longer valid due to the Global Warming Effect.

B)

 

[Ignacio]

Still seems some people can't make the distinction between poltics in general and pending motorcycle legislation, regulation, and laws.

*sign*

Thread closed.