'Supersport' cycles step up risk

[Ignacio]

Unfortunately all the laws (there's that political word again :angry2: , sorry Iggy) in the world can't make people be responsible or understand risk and consequences.

Don't be sorry. Tie it to frickin' motorcycles somehow...or FJRs specifically. This forum is about FJRs first and foremost and motorcycles second....not *general* political rants. Take that **** to some other place.

 

[Waaane]

Is anybody else here surprised at the low level of "cruiser" deaths? This seems to fly in the face of a perception ocasionally expressed here that these bikes are generally ridden from bar to bar by a bunch of drunken inexperienced yuppie louts dressed in their underwear.

I guess it might be that they drive very low miles between bars and these small numbers of miles add up to fewer accidents per registered bike. It would be interesting to get all the raw data and run it through some truely meaningful statistical analysis.

 

[radman]

Is anybody else here surprised at the low level of "cruiser" deaths? This seems to fly in the face of a perception ocasionally expressed here that these bikes are generally ridden from bar to bar by a bunch of drunken inexperienced yuppie louts dressed in their underwear.
I guess it might be that they drive very low miles between bars and these small numbers of miles add up to fewer accidents per registered bike. It would be interesting to get all the raw data and run it through some truely meaningful statistical analysis.

On the other hand, cruiser related trailer deaths are through the roof, and the politicos are taking action.

https://HDtrailerdeathhorror/CaptMorgan.net

 

[0Face]

So, any ideas? I'm not for more laws, there's enough of those already but is there anything we can do? Or do we just wait till they thin themselves from the herd?
Sorry, I don't mean to rant. :angry:

From a news article to a political rant in 4 posts. Congrats....it's a recent record!

Please keep the discussion about the article and off politics to keep this thread open.

I didn't think that I was being political. I was only asking what we could possibly do to avoid the bad press which usually leads to new laws.

In addition, not to be a smart @ss, maybe you could explain how my post crossed the line. I looked in the forum guidelines and found this:

"2. No religious/moral philosophy/political crap. There are countless forums/blogs on the web if you want to delve into these divisive topics. This is a motorcycle forum. That said, political discussions SPECIFICALLY about pending motorcycle legislation, regulation, and laws are allowable."

Was my post outside of this? If so, I apologize.

On another point. In the Hurt report regarding motorcycle accidents the summery point 15 states:

"The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph."

 

[IRBR]

Thanks for the post that started this thread about the article on USA Today's website. I saw a very similar article on CNN's Business website.

And I posted a similar post in the Sportbike section of the FJR Forum:

Sportbikes, In the New, And It's Ugly

You are invited to read it since it presents some slightly different points of view and information.

IRBR

 

[Kevin Daly]

I love When the Media releases the results of "Studies".
I'm sure with all the engineers on the forum we have some people familiar with statistics (more than me anyway) and how they get manipulated.

These things are never looked at objectively by the media. We all know how they portray motorcycles as "bad". Just like guns are bad. It's not the instrument it's the player right?

So why is it that these bikes are overrepresented in the accident statistics? Is it really the bike? You can't tell me that "apehangers" are safer than an R1. Do we enact tougher licensing? Restrict the size of bikes to the length of license time? Age of rider?

In my opinion it's the morons these bikes attract. Don't get me wrong I love those bikes too (I guess I just called myself a moron). It's just that I see these "kids" riding high performance bikes with a helmet strapped to the back seat. I think these guys make us all look bad. I go out of my way to be polite to knuckleheads in cars so they won't get the wrong impression of bikers.

So, any ideas? I'm not for more laws, there's enough of those already but is there anything we can do? Or do we just wait till they thin themselves from the herd?

Sorry, I don't mean to rant. :angry:

Oface,

So being a scientist, statistics is a language I know well. Basically there are two dialects: the universal scientific statistical language, which allows all scientists to understand each other across desprate fields, then there is the political statistics dialect, which is basically not a language perse but rather a perversion.

So as we all know there are several factors that result in a definable probability that Rider X is going to have a fatal crash (we can term P-FC). We can predict with reasonable accuracy what will determine this value in simple terms by quantifying all of the factors and essentially summing their contribution. Factors fall into three catagories Rider-related, Bike-related and Environment-related. So for example:

PCrash= R-age + R-sex + R-experience + R-health/condition +R-gear + B-quality + B-maintainance + E-weather + E-surface

This is an over simplified equation. for example we know that R-experience can be extensive yet highly variable (I road flatrack for ten years you road MotoGP and he road a 10-speed) and we can also imagine that these factors can interact like perscription drugs. For example a young male who has 2 months experience rides drunk and emotionally upset because his girlfriend just dumped him, with little or no protection on a high quality bike that is not well maintained in the dark on a wet night is prolly in trouble.

I garentee you that the insurance companies have such statistical models and they know just by looking at the bike you buy, your age, your experience and what state/county you live in, what your PFC is. That is why some of us pay $2000 a year for minimum coverage and others have comprehensive with a 250 deductable for $200 per year.

The fact that fast bikes are associated with more fatalities has little to do with the bikes; they tend to impliment all of the latest technology and far outperform any cruser on just about any performance test (we know that). Rather, it has everything to do with who buys them. Since I work at a university can tell you what 18-20 year olds are riding 90% of the time. And then there is the 40+ somethings who buy a first bike (or the first in 20 years).

SO what can be done about it? EDIT (in response to Iggy's comment)... nothing so go for a ride

-my 2c

 

[Kevin Daly]

Here. At least the IIHS offers a Status Report with spiffy charts and graphic of their study. They use the ST1300 as an example of the "sport" category.....so the FJR would logically best fit into that category.

thats a nice straght forward report, if not a bit simple.

 

[Kevin Daly]

I think it's very interesting that the average age of Sport style fatalities was 34 when the average sport bike owner is 39. What does this tell you? In fact, the average age of the fatality is significantly younger than the avergage age of the owner in each class except in the touring class.

YEP! good eye!

PS sorry for the triple post, i just respond as i read or I forget.

 

[protondecay123]

What's kinda funny for me about that study is that it's old news

2000 ________________________________________________________ _______________ 2005

_________________Deaths ____#bikes _____Deaths/10,000 _______________Deaths ____________# bikes ______Deaths/10,000

Cruiser/standard ___976 ____1,752,377 ____ __5.6 _____________________ 1,583 ___________ 2,778,348 _____ 5.7

Sport/unclad sport __248 ______229,020 _____10.8 _____________________ 430 ____________401,130 _______10.7

Supersport _______ 619 _____273,733 ______22.6 ______________________ 1,128 ____________501,002 _______22.5

Touring ___________ 256 _____480,314 _______5.3 ________________________ 521 ___________ 807,291 _________6.5

Other/unknown _____442 _____829,944 _______5.3 ________________________388 ____________893,567 _________4.3

Total _____________2,541 ___3,565,388 ______7.1 _______________________ 4,050 __________5,381,338 ________ 7.5

What's so funny is that the death rate for supersports actually decreased by a tenth of one percent/10,000 registrations from 2000 to 2005! It's no surprise that young, inexperienced riders on extremely fast motorcycles have a higer death rate.

Also the overall increase in death rate from 2000 to 2005 is nearly completely attributable to the greatly increased death rate from Touring Bikes! I've never enjoyed riding those machines because they are so heavy. The FJR is as heavy a bike as I ever want to ride.

:assassin:

 

[IRBR]

...the overall increase in death rate from 2000 to 2005 is nearly completely attributable to the greatly increased death rate from Touring Bikes! :assassin:

Well, there you have it. The problem is Touring bikes. I say, let 'em ban the Gold Wing!



IRBR

 

[0Face]

SO what can be done about it? EDIT (in response to Iggy's comment)... nothing so go for a ride

I love this place!!

Nothing like an awesome explanation that in essence is: X = Go for a ride.

It's sunny out and I don't have to work and THAT equals X my friends. :yahoo:

 

[Low Level FJR Pilot]

Hey, AMA is calling the report into question based on methodology used in the research. Check the link below:

https://www.amadirectlink.com/news/2007/IIHS.asp

 

[650cent]

Hey, AMA is calling the report into question based on methodology used in the research. Check the link below:
https://www.amadirectlink.com/news/2007/IIHS.asp

Good article from people who know their ****. Looking forward to the new Hurt report.

Bill

 

[wfooshee]

Putting the ST1300 and FJR together with the ZX-14 and 'busa means all they looked at was displacement.

A very tiring insurance company tendency.

 

[Kevin Daly]

SO what can be done about it? EDIT (in response to Iggy's comment)... nothing so go for a ride

I love this place!!

Nothing like an awesome explanation that in essence is: X = Go for a ride.

It's sunny out and I don't have to work and THAT equals X my friends. :yahoo:

Saddly, i should have played X=hookie since it was beautiful out and all i got at work was a bunch of lazy ***** telling me that I need to do their jobs! ...Tommorow it rains and I know from my equations that a worn tire on roads that havent been wet in weeks, means I would be asking for it. X is not looking good for me

 

[v65]

Oface,So being a scientist, statistics is a language I know well. Basically there are two dialects: the universal scientific statistical language, which allows all scientists to understand each other across desprate fields, then there is the political statistics dialect, which is basically not a language perse but rather a perversion.

So as we all know there are several factors that result in a definable probability that Rider X is going to have a fatal crash (we can term P-FC). We can predict with reasonable accuracy what will determine this value in simple terms by quantifying all of the factors and essentially summing their contribution. Factors fall into three catagories Rider-related, Bike-related and Environment-related. So for example:

PCrash= R-age + R-sex + R-experience + R-health/condition +R-gear + B-quality + B-maintainance + E-weather + E-surface

This is an over simplified equation. for example we know that R-experience can be extensive yet highly variable (I road flatrack for ten years you road MotoGP and he road a 10-speed) and we can also imagine that these factors can interact like perscription drugs. For example a young male who has 2 months experience rides drunk and emotionally upset because his girlfriend just dumped him, with little or no protection on a high quality bike that is not well maintained in the dark on a wet night is prolly in trouble.

I garentee you that the insurance companies have such statistical models and they know just by looking at the bike you buy, your age, your experience and what state/county you live in, what your PFC is. That is why some of us pay $2000 a year for minimum coverage and others have comprehensive with a 250 deductable for $200 per year.

The fact that fast bikes are associated with more fatalities has little to do with the bikes; they tend to impliment all of the latest technology and far outperform any cruser on just about any performance test (we know that). Rather, it has everything to do with who buys them. Since I work at a university can tell you what 18-20 year olds are riding 90% of the time. And then there is the 40+ somethings who buy a first bike (or the first in 20 years).

SO what can be done about it? EDIT (in response to Iggy's comment)... nothing so go for a ride

-my 2c

Being a mathematician by trade I would like to add to your observations: statistics is not mathematics. In fact statistics is about 50% mathematics (that may be generous), the rest is the training and experience to interpret the data and draw conclusions from it.

The article claims that the "sportiness" of the motorcycle is correlated with death rates. OK, but what we really want to know is if I ride a sportbike will I die? Let's look at another example: In the early twentieth century there was a correlation between the population of the Church of England and the number of criminals in England. Should the constabuls have arrested the entire church? Not likely. The relationship existed because the population of England was on the rise, causing both the number of churchgoers and criminals to increase. So population was a driving factor for both increases.

So, as has been correctly pointed out there is a difference between correlation and causation (which incidently is why it took so long to prove that cigarette smoking was a contributing factor to cancer). What we would all like to know is if there is an driving factor in the statistics presented, for example age and experience? Only more studies will answer that.

Now here is an odd point of view, this report may turn out to be positive in the long run. It draws attention to the matter, hopefully it will fuel the need to update the Hurt report, which will answer these questions.

As a side note, most of the young men ride sportbikes on our campus also. But they are suprising well-trained, 90% of the riders I interact with on campus have taken the beginning rider course, some have taken the more advanced courses. However, I think that is in sharp contrast with the college across the street.

 

[Kevin Daly]

Being a mathematician by trade I would like to add to your observations: statistics is not mathematics. In fact statistics is about 50% mathematics (that may be generous), the rest is the training and experience to interpret the data and draw conclusions from it.
The article claims that the "sportiness" of the motorcycle is correlated with death rates. OK, but what we really want to know is if I ride a sportbike will I die? Let's look at another example: In the early twentieth century there was a correlation between the population of the Church of England and the number of criminals in England. Should the constabuls have arrested the entire church? Not likely. The relationship existed because the population of England was on the rise, causing both the number of churchgoers and criminals to increase. So population was a driving factor for both increases.

So, as has been correctly pointed out there is a difference between correlation and causation (which incidently is why it took so long to prove that cigarette smoking was a contributing factor to cancer). What we would all like to know is if there is an driving factor in the statistics presented, for example age and experience? Only more studies will answer that.

Now here is an odd point of view, this report may turn out to be positive in the long run. It draws attention to the matter, hopefully it will fuel the need to update the Hurt report, which will answer these questions.

As a side note, most of the young men ride sportbikes on our campus also. But they are suprising well-trained, 90% of the riders I interact with on campus have taken the beginning rider course, some have taken the more advanced courses. However, I think that is in sharp contrast with the college across the street.

Yes Doctor, I concur

Seriously, we too do seem to have some groups of young sport riders that take a professional approach to riding.

So does your university offer any kind of motorcycle saftey?? you would think that this would be an attractive course. When I was at Ohio State they had a skydiving course that students could take. Seems like this would be a public service! and could get some teaching credit too

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Thanks Kevin Daly and v65. When in old England they ate on pewter, and tomatoes were eaten, people got sick and died -- tomatoes were considered poison (when, in fact, the tomato's acids leached the lead from the pewter -- the real killer). Yes, there was a problem -- but, the difference between v65's correlation and causation is evident.

What's needed is a study/plan without "an axe to grind" -- and that certainly isn't the IIHS. Maybe, not even the AMA? What's needed is an objective 3rd party (The Hurt Report is as close to that standard as we've ever had).

I especially liked Kevin Daly's equation of factors involved -- a correct (but difficult to implement) analysis, imo. Those factors are all variable and have varying effects and the equation becomes quite involved -- maybe opening more inspection than providing answers? Age/experience, for example, can be a 'double-edged-sword'. Young reflexes v/s old age decrepitude. Experience based on training, study, and practice v/s one year of experience 10 (or 20) years over. Picking a number just won't work. Some other factors in the equation are exposure and speed (the latter, one the IIHS loves to exploit). Those who ride alot and are easily, statistically, verifiable can have an inverse effect by virtue of their 'exposure' (gamble). As 'safety-crats' will want to do -- slow everyone down -- slow speeds just don't pass the safety 'litmus test', either. Speed differential is the problem.

My take: Decisions seem to be the critical component. Decisions whether to wear a helmet and protective gear, for instance, are very telling on where a rider will end-up on any statistics chart. Those types of decisions determine how and where they ride and (now for the m/c, FJR content) the type of bike they choose. In our case, it's the balanced performance, competent, safe, and hopefully statistically un-blemished FJR.

 

[IRBR]

I read the entire IIHS report this morning. These statistics stood out:

1. Only 51% of riders currently wear helmets, a 20% decrease from 7 years ago.

2. Deaths have doubled in the last 10 years, up to the current ~4500 deaths per year.

3. The rise in deaths is pronounced among those in the 40+ years old category.

4. The average age of a sportbike rider is 33 years old.

5. The average age of a fatally injured sportbike rider is 27 years old.

6. Unhelmeted riders are less likely to have insurance. (My opinion: This implies a consistency in irresponsible behavior.)

7. ~51% of riders have health insurance.

8. The socioeconomic costs of motorcycle crash injuries totaled $17.4 Billion in the USA in 2005. Half of this amount went of medical bills and lost wages. Taxpayers usually pay for the medical expenses of uninsured riders.

9. Among fatally injured motorcycle riders in 2005, those with blood alcohol contents over 0.08% were most strongly represented by cruiser riders who, as a category, had the highest rate of offense.

10. Touring motorcycles had the most expensive insurance claims, with the Harley Screaming Eagle Electra Glide having more than 2 times the average insurance claim costs of all other motorcycles.

11. Sportbikes' overall theft losses are more than 7 times the average for all other motorcycles with the 2002-2006 Honda CBR-1000RR being the worst offender.

My conclusion: No wonder I first saw this on CNN's Business website. It's mostly about the money it's costing insurance companies. Safety concerns are only incidental.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

IRBR

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

I read the entire IIHS report this morning. These statistics stood out:<snip>8. The socioeconomic costs of motorcycle crash injuries ....Taxpayers usually pay for the medical expenses of uninsured riders.

Taxpayers pay the medical expenses of insured riders, too. The exception would be the self-insured/independently-wealthy rider -- we might not have to 'chip-in' (he might just pay it all himself).

10. Touring motorcycles had the most expensive insurance claims, with the Harley Screaming Eagle Electra Glide having more than 2 times the average insurance claim costs of all other motorcycles.

No surprise there -- have you priced one of those 'Screaming Eagle' babies? Easily 2 times as much as alot of other (average) touring bikes. They just need to pay 2 times as much in premiums to keep the Ins. industry happy.

My conclusion: .... It's mostly about the money it's costing insurance companies. Safety concerns are only incidental.

Thanks IRBR, for pulling-out the relevant stats -- and offering your opinions. Opinions I agree with, btw.