The New Motorcycles: Bigger, Faster, Deadlier

[mdisher]

Link to Article is here: Click This

"These high-performance machines, often called "superbikes" or "supersports," accounted for less than 10% of motorcycle registrations in 2005 but accounted for more than 25% of rider fatalities, according to data collected by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and analyzed in a study released last week by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety."

 

[jwilly]

Interesting points as well:

In 2005, riders 40 or older accounted for 47% of motorcycle fatalities, compared with 24% 10 years earlier.

In addition to more-powerful machines, an influx of inexperienced riders is also helping to drive accident rates higher. And as more middle-age consumers return to motorcycling -- often after not having ridden for 20 years or more -- more older riders are being killed in crashes.

 

[vectervp1]

So what this tells me is too many folks over 40 are buying sportbikes and getting in way over their heads. They had a cool CB500 'back in the day' and now think they can handle an R1 or GXR1000 because they road the most badass bike ever created back in 1980.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

<snip>So what this tells me is too many folks over 40 are buying sportbikes and getting in way over their heads.

That's apparently what the author wanted you to take away from the article. (Everyone here should read it -- thanks Renegade) It's so typical of bias, innuendo, and disconnected statistics used to paint an inaccurate picture. No doubt performance has increased, buyers are older, and ('laid-back', author's words) H-D has the lion's share of the market -- but, he fails to make the connection that the majority of buyers will be on H-Ds.

Classic 'yellow journalism', imo.

 

[EasyRider]

The same stuff can be said about sports cars compared to regular cars.

 

[daviddowns2000]

So what this tells me is too many folks over 40 are buying sportbikes and getting in way over their heads. They had a cool CB500 'back in the day' and now think they can handle an R1 or GXR1000 because they road the most badass bike ever created back in 1980.

The percentage of owners over 40 has increased by about the same proportion over the same time period. More owners over 40, more accidents/fatalities in owners over 40. Not surprising.

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/ped...le03/recent.htm

 

[Silver Penguin]

The total number of rider deaths has more than doubled since 1997. At the current rate, some safety experts say, fatalities in 2007 could surpass the previous peak of 4,955 set in 1980.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I believe that statistics are being manipulated for the purpose of scaremongering. If there were the same number of riders on the road now as there were in 1997, then the doubled fatality rate would be of more concern.

The article quotes an increase in the death rate of riders over the age of 40. Hello!! Who are the biggest group of new riders?

I do agree that a new, or even distant re-entry rider has no place on a bike such as an FJR, to begin with. Skills must be learned (or re-learned) along with a healthy respect for what a modern super-sport is capable of.

Other countries have graduated licensing schemes. Perhaps that is what's needed here, with at-fault accidents dropping the rider's license to a lower level until he/she has again proven competency at that level.

Jill

 

[fatrat]

The same stuff can be said about sports cars compared to regular cars.

this has got the insurance institute's attention all right, i bought a ninja250r play-toy last week-end,,,the full coverage is 120$MORE than my fjr, a 250 with 36 hp verses 145 hp, and 120$ more????? :angry:

 

[OrangevaleFJR]

The same stuff can be said about sports cars compared to regular cars.

this has got the insurance institute's attention all right, i bought a ninja250r play-toy last week-end,,,the full coverage is 120$MORE than my fjr, a 250 with 36 hp verses 145 hp, and 120$ more????? :angry:

How the heck is a Ninja 250 rated as a supersport?

It's should be considered a standard, or sport. Not supersport.

Get a different insurance company.

 

[Silver Penguin]

i bought a ninja250r play-toy last week-end,,,the full coverage is 120$MORE than my fjr, a 250 with 36 hp verses 145 hp, and 120$ more????? :angry:

Do you think that you have been lumped together with the stereotypical rider of Ninja 250? i.e. young and inexperienced therefore a high risk to the insurance company? I have a 2007 Ninja 650R which costs less to insure than my 2003 FJR.

Jill

 

[Geezer]

this has got the insurance institute's attention all right, i bought a ninja250r play-toy last week-end,,,the full coverage is 120$MORE than my fjr, a 250 with 36 hp verses 145 hp, and 120$ more????? :angry:

Maybe it's because a thief can pick the little 250 up and stick it in the trunk of his car.....

Seriously, one of my kids has a Ninja 250. Liability insurance, no collision or theft, is under $100.

 

[cougar8000]

I do agree that a new, or even distant re-entry rider has no place on a bike such as an FJR, to begin with. Skills must be learned (or re-learned) along with a healthy respect for what a modern super-sport is capable of.

In my experience returning warrior can get him self in trouble even on a much smaller machine. From where I seat I see lots of returning warriors have no idea what they are doing on the bike.

Correct me if I am wrong, but back in those days there were not much training available and as long as you could ride a bicycle you could ride a motorcycle. They, bikes, were small and one had to really push to get into trouble. So, this returning warriors say scrue with training. I know what I am doing. Their ego is bigger them Everest.

I have one primate working with me. He scares me every time we go to lunch together. He has about 7 years old cruiser, model is really irrelevant [SIZE=8pt]HD if you must know [/SIZE]. He races ahead in the straight line like a he has fire up his ***. And then he literally parks it in the corners. His tires a re square. Square I tell you. I tried couple of times to tell him to take the class and based on his response I keep my mouth shut now.

So, old timers, talk to your friends and tells them that this is not a competition and go take a class.

Those under 30 is different story. No matter how much training they take, and I do see lots of then in the classes, they still have testosterone problem.

Bottom line, it has very little to do what kind of bike you have, it is a will to survive and understanding the consequences that will keep you from doing the stupid ****. And make you Take safety classes.

 

[RatoneMuerto]

This is scaremongering in a big way and will surely lead to trouble in Congress for all manufacturers.IIHS is a very powerful lobby trying to protect the insurance biz and has been successful in getting legislation.I remember the Kawasaki H2 750 all too well.The Widowmaker was evil and was put to death in 1975 by the legislature and legal system.The number of lawsuits in its three year run was legendary.Can our current crop of machines weather the storm?Time will tell and squids are everywhere in all age groups.BTW I have ridden the Hypermotard.It is powered by the same motor as the 1098.Would be so easy to see myself being in the squid factor on it.Dangerously fun!

 

[Grumpy]

The total number of rider deaths has more than doubled since 1997. At the current rate, some safety experts say, fatalities in 2007 could surpass the previous peak of 4,955 set in 1980.

I don't claim to be any kind of expert, but I believe that statistics are being manipulated for the purpose of scaremongering. If there were the same number of riders on the road now as there were in 1997, then the doubled fatality rate would be of more concern.

The article quotes an increase in the death rate of riders over the age of 40. Hello!! Who are the biggest group of new riders?

I do agree that a new, or even distant re-entry rider has no place on a bike such as an FJR, to begin with. Skills must be learned (or re-learned) along with a healthy respect for what a modern super-sport is capable of.

Other countries have graduated licensing schemes. Perhaps that is what's needed here, with at-fault accidents dropping the rider's license to a lower level until he/she has again proven competency at that level.

Jill

When you go back to the origional source, the IIHS Report, you'll find that the FJR is classified as a Sport bike. The insurance folks have the statistics all messed up. However, in their defense, the statistics have to be based on accident reports that may or may not be accurate. We need another Hurt report!

jim

 

[HaulinAshe]

I said it many times right after purchasing the 05, "I've never owned a street bike that performed anywhere close to the FJR." Perhaps that realization at age-46 was enough to engage a healthy respect for the potential of the machine.

I have owned a Kawi-1000 and BMW 650, neither of which could hold a candle to the Feej. One can easily see the lure of the sexy lines, killer acceleration and awesome braking power of today's bikes. The article is an interpretation of the available data. Numbers don't lie, but trends are conclusions based on interpretation of numbers. The WJ article's interpretation does not bode well for the FJR insurance rates.

 

[Colin24]

As gleaned from another thread. Here's a link to the actual IIHS report. Very interesting reading.

IIHS Report

What I find most interesting about this whole situation (both the IIHS report and the media reports that have been based on it) is that they have _ALL_ focused on the issue of these killer supersport bikes.

People in the industry know full well about how the media operates. So by making the statement "These machines are meant for racetracks" on the very front page of the document. Then putting a picture with the bike superimposed on top of an action shot of NASCAR is bound to draw the media to that very story. To the exclusion of all other items presented in the report.

However, if you were to actually read the document and think about the numbers and what they mean. You get an entirely different view of the situation. The most alarming thing I see, and it has nothing to do with the lead article of supersport bikes, is the lack of helmet use.

Up here in Canada it is mandatory across the country to wear a helmet (AFAIK), and as an aside to wear a seatbelt in a car. It is just simply a given up here, get on a bike, put on a helmet. Whereas in the US there are large "biker-rights" who continue to fight against the use of helmets. To me this is absolutely baffling. There is a whole list of issues people give why they don’t want to wear a helmet from personal freedom to supposed safety concerns. But the reality is they are all bogus

As for the higher death rate for riders of supersports, take a look at the numbers. There are some interesting tidbits in there. The most obvious is the average age of fatally injured riders for each of the categories. Supersport have the lowest age (27) with all other categories considerably higher. In fact it is the only category in which the average age of fatility did not increase from 2000 to 2005. Combine some familiarity with the motorcycle subculture and it becomes immediately obvious what the problem is. (IMHO) Young inexperienced drivers. They like fast shiny things, and supersport bikes are fast and shiny and cheaper than a car. Now combine an excess of testosterone, a fast high performance bike, a complete lack of training for a motorcycle of that performance level and no helmet laws. What do you think is gonna happen to the death rate for this class of bike?

They do go on to talk about "speed" being a factor in many of these crashes. But of course what I always question is the metrics for determining if "speed" is a factor. If its simply a matter of driving faster than the posted limit then around here (and most other places I have ridden) then every single accident will have speed as a factor because every single person on the road is exceeding the speed limit by at least 1 mph.

And one last little nugget of information. Tucked away halfway through the report. 19% of supersport, 23% of sport and 26% of touring riders involved in fatal accidents were driving impaired.

While it has been some time since the Hurt report and do feel it is time for another in depth study on the subject. Past studies, this report and I would be willing to bet most future reports will find the very same thing:

Riders who don’t drink and wear the proper gear (helmet, boots, etc) are highly under-represented in the accident statistics.

- Colin

 

[Honzo]

The same stuff can be said about sports cars compared to regular cars.

this has got the insurance institute's attention all right, i bought a ninja250r play-toy last week-end,,,the full coverage is 120$MORE than my fjr, a 250 with 36 hp verses 145 hp, and 120$ more????? :angry:

I'll bet it's because of the name... "Ninja". The rider of this machine must be a speed demon and a reckless roughian to possess something with a title like that. You might as well put the word "Killer" on the side. Damn those motorcycle people. They are bad, bad people. Do not let you children see them. Make them PAY!!!!!!

 

[fatrat]

i'm not sure what' their reasoning is, but to charge same price for one 250r,,,as for TWO 900cc triumphs,,,,,plus,,,120$ more than FJR pisses me. maybe a ninja is more inheiritly dangerous than an FJR, even a 250?????i'm 63, live [and mostly] ride in a rural area, and felt like to now i had real fair rates for 3 bikes and 4-wheeler, called another ins. co.,[same as home and autos], they said 750$ yr.for 250r, 300$ more than current. gonna contact more, see if i can find one that charges by cc's instead of name. i just bought this bike on a whim[250r], i guess the moral here is, if there one, is check ins. rates before buying.

 

[mdisher]

You didn't mention which insurance company or companies you've looked at. While rates do vary a lot by state company and region (not to mention your driving record)...

The prices you're quoting for a Ninja 250 are insane.

I would keep looking.