Modern Buddy

I just finished reading this article:
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/au ... autos_2841

It's certainly not encouraging news. While most of this is attributed to increased ridership (hopefully the death rate hasn't increased) and the repeal of helmet laws, I have to wonder if some of this increase is due to more people using cell phones and texting while driving. There is also mention of alcohol and speed being signficant factors ... no surprise there.

Rob

I suspect it has more to do with young kids doing stupid things on sportbikes. I think it's related to gas prices. More kids are buying bikes that would have bought cars if gas was still cheap.

Proof of my suspicion is the fact that the vast majority of kids on sportbikes are wearing a t-shirt, shorts, and flip flops. Even at temperatures as low as 65 degrees. At least that's what they wear where I live. And they always seem to be popping wheelies at 100 mph down the highway as they weave between traffic.

k1dude wrote:I suspect it has more to do with young kids doing stupid things on sportbikes.

Actually, that's probably not the case.


There are two major factors that contribute:
more motorcycles on the road
states repealing helmet laws
(*Debating helmet laws is not permitted under our Posting Guidelines but there's no debating that more and more states are repealing their laws and that fatalities increase every time they do.)

The three major determinants of a fatal crash: speed, alcohol use, not wearing a helmet.

Yes, drivers out there seem worse and worse and riders seem to be battling for their lives on their daily commutes. But fatalities would be far fewer if riders changed their own behaviors and acted more responsibly.

Thanks for the chart. Interesting. So basically it's our own bad behavior and/or bad behavior of cagers.

I said sport bikes anecdotally. Around where I live, the fatalities always show a sport bike in pieces on TV and give the age of a young rider. That combined with lack of riding gear and outrageous riding made me come to my conclusion.

A couple things I would like to see before I'd make any conclusions:

1. Is this an increase in rate, or an increase in numbers? How does that compare with overall rider numbers?

2. The chart Eric included is very interesting. However, to get a true picture, I'd need to know how the age ratio has changed over that time. (My suspicion is that the age of riders has significantly shifted older during the same time period - not many grandparents I knew in the 1970's were riding on two wheels, but nearly all the 20 somethings were. It could be that the actual change in ratio of fatalities mimics the change of ratio of riders' age group).

44% (in 2009) of fatal motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle, meaning no collision with another vehicle is involved. In CA, it's a bit smaller, but still very significant, 37%.

A high percentage of crashes occur in rural areas or outside cities, too.

ericalm wrote:The three major determinants of a fatal crash: speed, alcohol use, not wearing a helmet.

Another factor shows up in the statistics that surprises me. A substantial proportion of crashes involve riders without motorcycle endorsements. Much higher than the number of cage drivers without valid licenses.

Dooglas wrote:

ericalm wrote:The three major determinants of a fatal crash: speed, alcohol use, not wearing a helmet.

Another factor shows up in the statistics that surprises me. A substantial proportion of crashes involve riders without motorcycle endorsements. Much higher than the number of cage drivers without valid licenses.

Yup. No license also often means no training.

2010 fatalities by state with speculation on causes.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/publications/s ... es11.3.pdf

k1dude wrote:Thanks for the chart. Interesting. So basically it's our own bad behavior and/or bad behavior of cagers.

I said sport bikes anecdotally. Around where I live, the fatalities always show a sport bike in pieces on TV and give the age of a young rider. That combined with lack of riding gear and outrageous riding made me come to my conclusion.

That's because those are the ones that are going to gain the most interest for the news company.
A kid from my high school (he was 17) ate it after being "cut off" while going way too fast on the highway* in the same week that a dear friend of my family's (53) was made into a road pancake by a kid in a pickup that "didn't see him." The high school kid was all over the news for weeks, the friend, father, son, brother, not in the news at all.

*the corolla that he ended up hitting and flinging himself over was going about 75mph in the 65mph zone, they moved into the left lane to pass the person in front of them. The kid on the sport bike was going about 120, out of sight distance from the corolla and came upon the corolla too quickly to react.

AWinn6889 wrote:

k1dude wrote:Thanks for the chart. Interesting. So basically it's our own bad behavior and/or bad behavior of cagers.

I said sport bikes anecdotally. Around where I live, the fatalities always show a sport bike in pieces on TV and give the age of a young rider. That combined with lack of riding gear and outrageous riding made me come to my conclusion.

That's because those are the ones that are going to gain the most interest for the news company.

The report gives national statistics, but there will be many regional and local differences in causes and age. While the TV news will certainly skew to sensationalistic, it's also possible that in that area, a high number of the fatalities are younger riders on sportbikes who eschew full gear.

Following assumptions with other assumptions doesn't really reflect the data, and that's all we have to go on here. It's possible that FARS or CA DOT may have fatality reports by age and zip code, but I haven't checked that out.

Around here it's related to mid-life crisis types buying big cube Harleys as first bikes, and riding without helmets as required by the HD credo.

At long last our state will no longer issue a motorcycle license without passing the state run motorcycle driver training course.

Beamster wrote:At long last our state will no longer issue a motorcycle license without passing the state run motorcycle driver training course.

Sadly, in some states this just means even more unlicensed riders, another predictor for crashes and fatalities.

Eric,

We read weekly about some middle age weekend wannabe rider getting scraped up off the pavement in here town.

It's a good thing that training is required here and everyone should be taking rider safety courses, required or not. The state also runs advanced rider courses that cover techniques that most never get to experience in normal riding.

But the laws are needed to protect the stupid from themselves.

Beamster wrote:Eric,

We read weekly about some middle age weekend wannabe rider getting scraped up off the pavement in town.

I think it's a good thing that training is required here.

We also have a ban on hand held cell phone use in vehicles but that doesn't stop the kids from getting killed crashing into phone poles while texting.

Stupid is stupid all around the world.

Oh, I completely agree. The MSF/training classes should be promoted more, required in some cases, etc. Just saying that there are also unfortunate consequences of requiring the training, too. This is especially true here, where the classes are more expensive than any other state and it can take over three months to get into a class.

Lots of motorcycle accidents in the news here lately. In today's paper there was a scooter accident with a fatality, (they were riding two up and the passenger was killed. A car turned in front of them but could not tell from the article who was at fault.

Then a motorcyclist got shot in a road rage incident. A husband and wife were riding seperate bikes and she got cut off by a driver in a car. Apparently the husband confronted the driver at a stop and assaulted the driver (who was allegedly 65) and he, the driver of the car pulled out a semi-automatic pistol and shot the guy. Sounds like stupidity all around in that one. Even if the car driver was being a complete jerk, and he may well have been... It's better not to have a confrontation.

People just act looneytunes. I was riding to my bank, and was in a 25 mph residential area with stop signs every block. A real creep in a large black pickup started following me way too close at an intersection. I felt the heat from his radiator. I got the heck away and there he was. I pulled over to let him pass and he just stopped in the road... In the middle and would NOT pass. I looked back and he gave me a really creepy look. I pulled all the way in to someone's driveway and went to their porch and knocked on the door,(it was a nice neighborhood), and the guy squealed his wheels and drove off. He had an array of creepy bumper stickers too. The person who answered the door was very nice. She saw the guy and thought it was very weird. My bank was only a block up but I was really really creeped out.

ericalm wrote:44% (in 2009) of fatal motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle, meaning no collision with another vehicle is involved. In CA, it's a bit smaller, but still very significant, 37%.

A high percentage of crashes occur in rural areas or outside cities, too.

I really have to wonder if they added the number of wrecks that were caused by cars (where the motorcycle was trying to avoid the car, ended up missing the car, but wrecking themselves) to that first number, how much higher the number would be. Meaning, maybe instead of 44% it would be 75% or higher.

michelle_7728 wrote:

ericalm wrote:44% (in 2009) of fatal motorcycle crashes are single-vehicle, meaning no collision with another vehicle is involved. In CA, it's a bit smaller, but still very significant, 37%.

A high percentage of crashes occur in rural areas or outside cities, too.

I really have to wonder if they added the number of wrecks that were caused by cars (where the motorcycle was trying to avoid the car, ended up missing the car, but wrecking themselves) to that first number, how much higher the number would be. Meaning, maybe instead of 44% it would be 75% or higher.

Not sure but a good question. My qualifying of the 44% as being strictly non-collision could be inaccurate, though that did come from a piece about the 2009 report. (Reporting on these things is often inaccurate.) Another NHTSA paper states that riders may be culpable in all instances of single vehicle crashes.

These things may also vary because of the way cities and states record and report the crashes. There could be many variations of "single vehicle." I'm trying to dig up an clear answer, though.

Oh no...I'm not disputing the "non-collision" verbage at all. It's just that you hear/read time and time again of where a car caused a single vehicle (single vehicle being a motorcycle or scooter) accident even though the car wasn't hit....and often the car left the scene knowing, or sometimes being oblivious to the fact, that they had caused an accident.

michelle_7728 wrote:Oh no...I'm not disputing the "non-collision" verbage at all. It's just that you hear/read time and time again of where a car caused a single vehicle (single vehicle being a motorcycle or scooter) accident even though the car wasn't hit....and often the car left the scene knowing, or sometimes being oblivious to the fact, that they had caused an accident.

Yup; I'm unsure as to whether "single-vehicle" is clearly (and consistently) defined to include or exclude these types of crashes.

For instance, when I totaled a Buddy, the crash was caused by another vehicle coming into my lane, though there was no actual contact. I had to avoid getting hit and went down. The driver did stay and was held responsible by insurance, etc. This was probably not considered a single-vehicle crash.

The numbers I quoted were from the NHTSA FARS system, but the report in the OP was from a different source, the Governors Highway Safety Association. They may have different criteria or use different sources for their info. So "single-vehicle" may not be the same in their report as it might be elsewhere.

According to the 2010 report I posted that looked at state-by-state data, "in 2008, 35% of motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes were speeding, compared to 23% for passenger car drivers and 19% for light truck drivers (NHTSA, 2009). More than half of all motorcycle fatal crashes did not involve another vehicle (my emphasis), and speeding likely contributed to many of these."

From the MSF BRC handbook:
"Crash studies show that running off the road, usually in a curve, accounts for about 37 percent (this is 2005 NHTSA data) of total motorcycle fatalities. This is the primary situation in which motorcyclists have single-vehicle crashes." (my emphasis)

So basically, slow down on curves and you'll avoid getting into trouble more than a third of the time.

siobhan wrote:So basically, slow down on curves and you'll avoid getting into trouble more than a third of the time.

Yup. My one crash not reported to any agency other than MB (because I was able to get up and ride away with just a bloody knee and bruised ego) was due to this.

Anecdotally, the reason almost every experienced (meaning more experienced than I am, ha) rider I know has had a single-vehicle crash has been due to going through a turn too fast and losing it. Thankfully, none of these has been fatal.

ericalm wrote: Oh, I completely agree. The MSF/training classes should be promoted more, required in some cases, etc. Just saying that there are also unfortunate consequences of requiring the training, too. This is especially true here, where the classes are more expensive than any other state and it can take over three months to get into a class.

The required class here, required to get licensed, is part of the state community college system and is dirt cheap, just a bit over $100 and using all of the school's equipment with no obligation to replace broken stuff. There are many many classes so getting in within a specific season is no problem.

When I observe the classes I really think it's a good thing because the beginners are sometimes really needy in skills and might have ended up getting squished out on the road without the help.

I do have to say that I think the state's motivations are probably not completely obvious though. When a person passes the program they are no longer required to take the DMV test saving the state the cost of Inspectors.

Not to be unkind, but then there are the kids that wheely side by side going down the highway at 65 mph in rush hour traffic. No more commentary required on that one.

Can you say "Darwin Awards?"

Sorry...couldn't resist. Age doesn't matter...stupidity does.

When ever I find myself doing (or contemplating doing) something stupid on my scooter, I recite to myself "Old and bold". Short for "There's old, and there's bold, but not many old and bold riders". I'd much rather be old than bold.

I would just like to add concerning the "training," for new scooter riders, get it if you want it. It's a great idea. But for reasons such as some eric posted, its not always viable.

I have my M1 but never took the MSF. I feel safe and qualified to be on the road. Many have had much training and gone down. Some more then once. Others have rode decades without taken so much as a day worth of instruction and have never so much as slipped on a banana peel. I believe this is a fact.

We are talking about death, here. Pretty serious subject. I would like to see a statistic about riders NOT speeding, intoxicated, or unlicensed. And when they crash / die, if prior so called training was had or not?

Otherwise I would say to licensed, qualified riders have fun and ride happy. Educate yourself and read and watch vids and ride. There is a lot of DIY to riding and learning from experience. Don't rely too much on others to teach you how to ride. It's something you learn. I am pretty sure that is something many an experienced rider would concur with to some degree. Before fearing death or assuming a class will save your ass, I mean.

But maybe a stat or two will prove me wrong? I just want people to have fun and ride safe with or without taking MSF and not fear death riding. I think MSF has much to offer, but its not a requirement for safe and prudent riding imo. And it will still allow cagers to turn left in front of you. And it won't defy the law of physics for you, either.

So is an MSF grad more likely not to get hit or hit something, or slide down on ice, or what? And defy death if so?

I want to be clear the above post is about crashing and dying. While riding a motorcycle or scooter. Not about what a person is or is not taught and to what value, by MSF.

Completing the MSF course reduces your risk of crashing. There are stats for that. As far as risk of fatality, I'm not sure of the numbers. But one way to reduce your risk of dying in a crash is to reduce your risk of crashing.

ericalm wrote:

siobhan wrote:So basically, slow down on curves and you'll avoid getting into trouble more than a third of the time.

Yup. My one crash not reported to any agency other than MB (because I was able to get up and ride away with just a bloody knee and bruised ego) was due to this.

Anecdotally, the reason almost every experienced (meaning more experienced than I am, ha) rider I know has had a single-vehicle crash has been due to going through a turn too fast and losing it. Thankfully, none of these has been fatal.

Sometimes it's hard to resist going fast in turns because it's SO MUCH FUN!!! Too bad it's so dangerous on a 2 wheeler.

Yesterday I did a 100 mile loop of all twisties in the 20mph to 55mph range. It was all knee draggin' fun!!! But it's so easy to blow it in a turn. Around the apex of one blind corner I hit gravel and almost lost it. Several other turns had rocks, twigs, or potholes in the road (since the snow recently melted and there hasn't been road maintenance yet). The road is so narrow, sometimes oncoming traffic takes part of your lane too. Especially the logging trucks. Fortunately there is so little traffic it's usually not a problem. Another bad thing about the ride is - if you blow a turn, it's basically a 500 foot cliff with no guard rails. Scary stuff but soooo fun.

As a side note, I don't know if it was the altitude, or no stop signs, or the gas, but I got 113 mpg's in the mountains (from 2,000 feet to 7,000 feet)!!! And I was riding like a crazy person. I had an extra gallon in a can onboard for the ride and didn't even need it!

k1dude wrote:

ericalm wrote:

siobhan wrote:So basically, slow down on curves and you'll avoid getting into trouble more than a third of the time.

Yup. My one crash not reported to any agency other than MB (because I was able to get up and ride away with just a bloody knee and bruised ego) was due to this.

Anecdotally, the reason almost every experienced (meaning more experienced than I am, ha) rider I know has had a single-vehicle crash has been due to going through a turn too fast and losing it. Thankfully, none of these has been fatal.

Sometimes it's hard to resist going fast in turns because it's SO MUCH FUN!!! Too bad it's so dangerous on a 2 wheeler.

Yesterday I did a 100 mile loop of all twisties in the 20mph to 55mph range. It was all knee draggin' fun!!! But it's so easy to blow it in a turn. Around the apex of one blind corner I hit gravel and almost lost it. Several other turns had rocks, twigs, or potholes in the road (since the snow recently melted and there hasn't been road maintenance yet). The road is so narrow, sometimes oncoming traffic takes part of your lane too. Especially the logging trucks. Fortunately there is so little traffic it's usually not a problem. Another bad thing about the ride is - if you blow a turn, it's basically a 500 foot cliff with no guard rails. Scary stuff but soooo fun.

As a side note, I don't know if it was the altitude, or no stop signs, or the gas, but I got 113 mpg's in the mountains (from 2,000 feet to 7,000 feet)!!! And I was riding like a crazy person. I had an extra gallon in a can onboard for the ride and didn't even need it!

I knee drag my SH all the time.
ust gotta remember to brake before the turn not during it.