This just in!

[James Burleigh]

[SIZE=14pt]New Study: Motorcycle Deaths Down Dramatically in 2009[/SIZE]

WASHINGTON, April 22

Fatalities Decline at Least 10%; First Drop in 12 Years

WASHINGTON, April 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A report released today by the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) reveals that motorcycle fatalities declined in 2009 by at least ten percent. Based on preliminary data, GHSA is projecting that motorcycle fatalities declined from 5,290 in 2008 to 4,762 or less in 2009. The projection is based on data from 50 states and the District of Columbia. The declines come on the heels of 11 straight years of dramatic increases in motorcyclist deaths.

The new report -- the first state-by-state look at motorcycle fatalities in 2009 -- was completed by Dr. James Hedlund of Highway Safety North. Dr. Hedlund surveyed GHSA members, who reported fatality numbers for every state. While data are still preliminary, most states have quite complete fatality counts for at least nine months, making GHSA confident to forecast that deaths are down at least ten percent for the full year.

GHSA is projecting declines in approximately three-fourths of states. The declines are notable in many states and in every region of the country. In California, for example, based on data for the first nine months, motorcycle deaths are predicted to be down 29 percent, while Florida and New York are down 27 and 16 percent, respectively.

As part of the report, GHSA members were asked to suggest reasons for the decline. States offered several reasons, including: less motorcycle travel due to the economy, fewer beginning motorcyclists, increased state attention to motorcycle safety programs, and poor cycling weather in some areas. According to GHSA Chairman Vernon Betkey, "Clearly the economy played a large role in motorcycle deaths declining in 2009. Less disposable income translates into fewer leisure riders, and we suspect that the trend of inexperienced baby boomers buying bikes may have subsided."

Betkey notes that, as with decreases in the overall highway fatality rate, progress with motorcyclist deaths can be attributed to more than just the economy. According to Betkey, "Multiple states indicated that because of the increases in motorcyclist deaths from 1997-2008, addressing this area has been a priority for state highway safety programs." As more than half of motorcycle fatal crashes do not involve another vehicle, states have been increasingly funding targeted enforcement to ensure that motorcyclists are in compliance with laws regarding endorsements, required insurance and helmet usage. State and federal governments also have stepped up efforts to address drunk motorcyclists.

GHSA cautions that the declines in 2009, while significant and noteworthy after 11 years of increases, represent only one year of data, and much more work needs to be done to continue to achieve declines. According to Chairman Betkey, "We will need to see three to five years of decline before we are ready to say that a positive trend has developed." The new report notes that motorcycle fatalities have significantly decreased in the past, only to rise again. For example, from 1980-1997, motorcyclist deaths dropped almost 60 percent. Sadly, those gains were wiped out during the period of 1997-2008.

To continue progress, the report notes that states need to support efforts that do the following:

• Increase Helmet Use: The most recent data indicated that 41 percent of fatally-injured riders were not wearing helmets despite their proven effectiveness. Thirty states still do not have helmet laws covering all riders.

• Reduce Alcohol Impairment: Highly visible drunk driving enforcement that includes motorcyclists should be encouraged as should be training efforts that help police identify impaired motorcyclists.

• Reduce Speeding: According to the most recent data, 35 percent of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were speeding. More than half of all motorcycle fatal crashes did not involve another vehicle, and speeding likely contributed to many of these.

• Provide Motorcycle Operator Training to All Who Need or Seek It: While all states currently conduct training courses, some areas may not provide enough course openings at the places and times when riders wish to be trained.

 

[cougar8000]

From an instructor point of view it is fully related to a economy and not anything that states are doing. last year I had more classes then ever with fewer then 12 students at the beginning of the class. That has never happened before. Talking to dealers they confirm that their sales are WAY down and traffic is down as well.

At the same time just not too long ago FL has repealed helmet law followed by a spike in the fatality. But considering that economy is down those people are not buying as much and not traveling so problem got muted until later.

Would be interesting to see what happens this year. I predict future decline. BTW. In 8 yrs teaching I have never had to cancel a course in the first 3 month of a season opener. This year I had to cancel one of the first classes as I only had 2 people show up.

 

[Wee Willy]

I have heard indirectly from a thoracic surgeon that after head injuries, the most common cause of fatal MC accident injury is due to crushing chest impacts with things like handlebars, etc. Bad upper chest injuries with pierced lungs, ruptured aorta, ruptured spleens, fun things like that. Wonder if a medieval breast plate might help lower the data even further...

Curious,

W2

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

In California, for example, based on data for the first nine months, motorcycle deaths are predicted to be down 29 percent, while Florida and New York are down 27 and 16 percent, respectively.As more than half of motorcycle fatal crashes do not involve another vehicle,

2 statements (from the article) bolded:

The first (29% less..., etc.): The industry is down (somewhere in the neighborhood of) 20-some %. Many dealerships closed -- Suzuki has zero 2010 models ~ it's predictable that all statistics will be lower by something similar to the industry standard. :blink: :huh:

The second is, I think, considerably different from the late Prof. Harry Hurt's findings? The Hurt Report found (if memeory serves...?) that the No.1 cause of motorcycles crashes was multiple vehicle -- motorcycle and other vehicle/s. No.2 cause was single vehicle crashes -- motorcycle only.

EDIT: (paraphrased from the Hurt Report) "...two-thirds of motorcycle crashes involved cars."

The new Governors' report seems to indicate that single vehicle crashes (at least fatal ones) have surpassed the previous multiple vehicle statistic.

If so, that can't be a good sign. As bikes get bigger, more powerful, better -- riders get less proficient.

(and/or, other road users are getting better at not running over motorcyclists?)

 

[happyPuppy]

I have heard indirectly from a thoracic surgeon that after head injuries, the most common cause of fatal MC accident injury is due to crushing chest impacts with things like handlebars, etc. Bad upper chest injuries with pierced lungs, ruptured aorta, ruptured spleens, fun things like that. Wonder if a medieval breast plate might help lower the data even further...
Curious,

W2

True. Most injuries are due to blunt trauma, head and legs. In fact the last stats I saw blunt trauma was the leading killer, often it causes massive cerebral hemorrhage due to hydrostatic pressure ruptures. it is one reason I wear chest and back armor as well.

 

[SouthernCruizer]

<<<States offered several reasons, including: less motorcycle travel due to the economy, fewer beginning motorcyclists, increased state attention to motorcycle safety programs, and poor cycling weather in some areas. >>>

****************************************************

I dont think the economy has much to do with it. I've been seeing a decline every year for the last 4 or 5 years in bike rallies/events here in the south. My own Saturday riding group has dwindled from 14 riders a few years ago to less than 5 now. I think the biking cycle is just seeing a normal down turn that happens every now n then. I also believe that the trend of trading "up" to a Harley has hurt, or quickened, the down turn in the industry for numerous reasons that I won't get into here.

 

[Fred W]

The first (29% less..., etc.): The industry is down (somewhere in the neighborhood of) 20-some %. Many dealerships closed -- Suzuki has zero 2010 models ~ it's predictable that all statistics will be lower by something similar to the industry standard. :blink: :huh:

Hmmm... really?

So lets say that the industry was down by 20%. That would be in new sales. But there are a whole bunch of not new bikes out on the road. Suppose that a bike lasts 10 years on average (that's a very conservative number), and that bike sales were relatively flat year over year. That would mean that new bike sales only represent 10% (or likely much less) of the total population of riders on the road. So if new sales were off by 20% last year, that would be 20% of that 10%, or only 2% total reduction of riders. It shouldn't explain a 20% observed reduction in fatalities.

Unless only new bike riders have fatal accidents.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

The first (29% less..., etc.): The industry is down (somewhere in the neighborhood of) 20-some %. Many dealerships closed -- Suzuki has zero 2010 models ~ it's predictable that all statistics will be lower by something similar to the industry standard. :blink: :huh:

Hmmm... really?

So lets say that the industry was down by 20%. That would be in new sales. ...

Unless only new bike riders have fatal accidents.

I'm thinking everything is down 20% (or a number similar to the industry's sales slump...).

Number of riders, commuters, tourers -- less parts & accessory sales -- etc.?

(nice number-work, tho... )

4 out of 3 Americans don't understand fractions...

 

[Fred W]

...and the majority are above average!

 

[Wee Willy]

it is one reason I wear chest and back armor as well.

Your avatar could use some too it seems.

I wear the gear too, but there's nothing in it to really spread a concentrated and high-impulse load across a large area. My gear seems designed to keep sliding injuries to a minimum and adds details to protect angular parts of the body like elbows, knees, etc. A more structurally-stiff setup would be required to prevent a chest-on-handlebar deep blunt trauma injury from occuring. Almost like frontal armor that spreads the load across the entire chest. I imagine that would be alot of fun to wear for long distances.

Cheers,

W2

 

[Tenchi]

What's the comparative increase/decrease of deaths and accidents by other modes of transportation?

 

[Crash Cash]

A more structurally-stiff setup would be required to prevent a chest-on-handlebar deep blunt trauma injury from occuring. Almost like frontal armor that spreads the load across the entire chest. I imagine that would be alot of fun to wear for long distances.

Well, the offroad guys have had chest protectors like these for years. They're actually pretty lightweight and comfortable. I think they're a little overkill, kind of like wearing full race leathers on the street, but they're out there.

 

[Crash Cash]

What's the comparative increase/decrease of deaths and accidents by other modes of transportation?

I typed "auto fatality statistics" into google and got NTHSA stats and a year-old WSJ article saying "the number of overall traffic fatalities reported at the end of 2009 reached the lowest level since 1954" and "that traffic deaths fell significantly in 2008, possibly by as much as 10%. Moreover, the preliminary data on 2008 highway deaths suggests that fatal accidents declined faster than vehicle miles traveled – in other words, the decline in fatalities may not simply be the result of fewer people driving."

I've always wondered how they measure "miles traveled" in any meaningful way.

So it's not just bikes. The WSJ article goes on to say:

So what are we doing right? "We don't really know why fatalities are trending down," says Barbara Harsha, executive director of the GHSA. "We are taking educated guesses."

And it's the experts saying that...

 

[RadioHowie]

So it's not just bikes.

I don't think you can possibly make any comparisons between bike safety and car safety.

Cars on today's roads are quantum leaps ahead of 20-30 year old cars relative to protection in an accident, but a body hitting the pavement after being thrown from a bike is NO safer today than 20-30 years ago if you're not wearing a helmet and gear.

 

[RadioHowie]

Crap......my participation kills yet ANOTHER thread.

 

[Crash Cash]

I don't think you can possibly make any comparisons between bike safety and car safety.

No, you definitely can't... I was trying to make the point that car fatalities are going down too, and wondering a little if there was a common factor, such as the economy making people drive less. That's just a SWAG though, and the article itself says even the experts don't have much clue about it either.

I know *my* miles are way down, but it's because "there's nothing to do and nowhere to go" - there's few places attractive enough to actually get up and go to. I don't go to the mall anymore because half the stores are closed, most of the being the stores I went to. All my riding friends have moved to far places like DC, North Carolina, Arizona, or Japan. About the only thing that's broken me out of the work/home/restaurant/grocery-store mold in the last 6 months has been Sun'n'Fun, a day at Bike Week, and a couple trips to KSC.

I no longer go downtown because the construction at 50 & 436 is horrid, and a motorcyclist got killed yesterday (Thursday) by a construction truck not looking when it just decided to pull out. I'd have to use the toll expressway which is nice, but it becomes a "mission" instead of a drive.

Crap......my participation kills yet ANOTHER thread.

Don't cry! I actually had to do a ton of stuff at work today, so no forum-rummm-mming until I got home.

 

[Larry33319]

Several years ago a lot of older riders, those who rode 30 or so years ago came back into riding. Motorcycles were "in style"again. Quite a few of the returning riders bought Harleys and large cruisers. Unfortunatly their reflexes were not the same as their memories and the bikes were bigger and fsater in a lot of cases. The Harley fad has passed, as can be seen with their 75% drop in sales last year. That helped a lot in lowering the statistics. The failing economy helped also by younger inexperianced riders not being able to get credit or be able to pay cash for new bikes. The new sportbikes we see today are better than a factory race bike from 15 years ago right off the showroom floor. With new bike sales down, less people are joining our ranks. That would help as well. The MSF classes in Florida now required by law to get your motorcycle endorsement, are down greatly. I feel that with less new riders and less older returning riders, the numbers went down just by that fact alone. JMHO

 

[DeweyIsgod]

The MSF classes in Florida now required by law to get your motorcycle endorsement, are down greatly. I feel that with less new riders and less older returning riders, the numbers went down just by that fact alone. JMHO

Texas started requiring a MSF course as a license requirement in August 2008. I'd be interested in how that effected the numbers this year. I would imagine that the fatality rate is higher in new riders (which often have a new bike as well).

The insurance industry always talks about accidents or fatalities per mile driven as an indication of safety. It sounds like everyone's speculation is on the miles driven side that's missing from this article.

 

[Wanderer]

I absolutely believe it's the economy.

Sure bikes are faster and more powerful but so are the brakes, chassis and tires much improved as well. I think that a new sport bike may get you out of your comfort zone quicker, but with the ability to hold a line better and stop faster it sets the bar for 'danger' a good bit higher. I recently rode a restored Suz GS1000 and was terrified at how bad the brakes were on that. Much more unnerving than the motor, even though it was a beast in it's heyday.

With so many people having zero disposable income it's hard to justify buying a toy and get into the sport. The ripple effect is theres less new bike jealousy that would convince a non-rider to take the plunge because his co-worker did.

I think there's a large unspoken factor in less miles traveled as well. Even veteran hardcore riders are putting less miles on the bike. My wife and I are largely unaffected by the recession in any tangible way- No kids, dual income, few bills, low rent apt- but everytime I think "man it's a beautiful day, I'm gonna go ride" I mentally add up the 15-18$ I'll spend on gas, the wear on the tires (nine or ten 500 mile day rides and I need a rear tire!) and all the associated wear on the bike. I'd personally save those tire miles for my Black Hills trip this summer or SWFOG in Sept.

I honestly can't see how the economy DOESN'T play a majority role in the downturn of riders and then in turn fatalities.