“Motorcycle Deaths on the Rise”

[Go2Trackdays]

Is on the top of the front page of the Mercury News this morning (Wed 10/3/07)

They included a small map of the spot where the two young riders were killed yesterday, 28yr old Marco Mena-Flores and a 21 yr old.


“Traffic officials say motorcycles are more powerful than ever and those riding them OLDER THAN EVER” oh snap! :cry Average age 41, was 32 ten years ago. In 2004 1,847 over 40 died compared to 541 in 1994.

They also have a bar chart of motorcycle deaths in CA starting in 2000 at 275, and in 2006 it was 433.

 

[Ogier le Danois]

Did they also mention the HUGE increase in ridership.

most increases of deaths per riders can be laid at the feet of increased congestion IMHO.

 

[ALANRIDER7]

It's a classic example of putting a spin on things.

The totals will all go up as the number of riders increases. Duh. What truly matters is the rate at which things happen, not the numbers.

 

[DataDan]

ALANRIDER7 wrote: The totals will all go up as the number of riders increases. Duh. What truly matters is the rate at which things happen, not the numbers.

The same idea applies to the age distribution too. Older riders are dying in greater numbers for the simple reason that there are more of them. But they're less likely to die than younger riders. For 2003: median rider age was 41, median fatality age was 38.

 

[essvee]

It's a classic example of putting a spin on things.

The totals will all go up as the number of riders increases. Duh. What truly matters is the rate at which things happen, not the numbers.

From the same article:

"The accident trend is a worry across the country, where motorcycle deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1994 jumped from 23 to 39 over a decade, while the injury rate went from 561 to 703 per 100 million miles over the same period."

(Boy, that is poorly written!)

 

[ST Guy]

'Hope my wife doesn't see that. She gives me enough grief as it is for riding. She's always saying "Every morning I hear about motorcycle accidents on the news."

 

[Beauregard]

Did they also mention the HUGE increase in ridership [?]

Werd.

 

[sifr]

From the same article:

"The accident trend is a worry across the country, where motorcycle deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1994 jumped from 23 to 39 over a decade, while the injury rate went from 561 to 703 per 100 million miles over the same period."

(Boy, that is poorly written!)

Though true, that particular statistic isn't very revealing. While it's true that the number of riders is hidden in that 100 million miles, it says nothing about the average length of time (or average cumulative mileage) of any of the accident victims.

And, of course, it doesn't speak at all to solo vs. vehicle-involved accidents, victim impairment at the time of the accident, age of the victims, average speed at the time of the accident, protective gear worn by the victims, etc. etc. etc.


That sort of statistic is what scientists sometimes call "trivially true". It's a fact, but it's uninteresting and uninformative.

 

[DataDan]

essvee wrote: From the same article:

"The accident trend is a worry across the country, where motorcycle deaths per 100 million miles traveled in 1994 jumped from 23 to 39 over a decade, while the injury rate went from 561 to 703 per 100 million miles over the same period."

NHTSA's estimates of motorcycle miles traveled aren't worth a shit because states aren't required to provide them, and some don't. Thus the rate per mile can't be trusted. In the NTSB meeting last month (the one where they recommended helmet laws in all states), another recommendation was that NHTSA figure out how to produce accurate motorcycle mileage estimates.

For now, the only exposure measure available is registered motorcycles. I've attached a chart showing California registrations, deaths, and the fatality rate 1993-2006 (I don't have 2006 regs). The rate hasn't changed much in the past few years, so the main factor driving the increase in deaths is the growing popularity of motorcycling.

 

[sifr]

NHTSA's estimates of motorcycle miles traveled aren't worth a shit because states aren't required to provide them, and some don't. Thus the rate per mile can't be trusted. In the NTSB meeting last month (the one where they recommended helmet laws in all states), another recommendation was that NHTSA figure out how to produce accurate motorcycle mileage estimates.

For now, the only exposure measure available is registered motorcycles. I've attached a chart showing California registrations, deaths, and the fatality rate 1993-2006 (I don't have 2006 regs). The rate hasn't changed much in the past few years, so the main factor driving the increase in deaths is the growing popularity of motorcycling.

In other words, the actual percentage of riders who die hasn't really changed in the past decade. Based on that particular set of data, anyway.

 

[xgambit]

you guys show that bad reporter! ya! cause you know, im sure he reads this. :rolleyes

even if he's not, im sure you guys are making a compelling arguement for motorcycle riding to the BARFers that are against it. ya. really.

 

[ALANRIDER7]

I would expect the increase in injuries and fatalities is largely due to the fact that rider education and licensing sucks ass.

 

[silverbelt]

I would expect the increase in injuries and fatalities is largely due to the fact that rider education and licensing sucks ass.

...and peer pressure to get the latest and fastest bike. Also in that article was acknowledgement that bikes are faster than ever and that even minor mistakes are fatal at speed. The latest and greatest sportbikes get to speed too quick for riders to correct mistakes. They do not suffer fools.

 

[tzrider]

I would expect the increase in injuries and fatalities is largely due to the fact that rider education and licensing sucks ass.

Seems to me that would only be true if it's gotten worse. Do you think that's the case?

 

[dasgimpen]

How about the increase in driver distraction? Cell phones, GPS, radio, kids, in-car movies, passengers, etc etc? My only serious crash was caused by a dumb driver and could've happened as easily in a car as it did on the bike.

 

[sammmy]

If it's your time it's your time Fuck it..........

:cool

 

[SVsick50]

Everything's on a rise.

I can't wait for the future.

 

[sammmy]

:laughing

 

[Aether]

This reminds me of the pro gun control people posting statistics. The claims of "child fatalities" would lead one to think of children right? As it turns out, they include basically every possible incident: "children" up to age 23, gang shootings, drug dealers, etc... Basically if you look at the stats for what I would consider a child: 17 and under, it cuts off almost 80% of those "scary" statistics. The same can be done/said for motorcycles. More people are riding in general, which will raise the number of incidents as stated above me, and most of those people do stupid things. If they only reported fatalities where it was a rider with no "influence", with full gear, doing the speed limit, on regular streets, on a bike they could handle, I can imagine the stats would look very different. Squids ruin statistics.

 

[chiara]

What would truly be telling would be to compare the number of riders involved in fatal accidents to their experience. For example, I'd imagine the number of deaths among riders with 5 or more years of experience is a very small portion of the 433 who died in 2006.