Motostats 2006
- Thread starter DataDan
- Start date
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Women in Motorcycling
One of the more noteworthy but lesser known aspects of the motorcycling boom is the growing number of women who have taken up the sport. The Motorcycle Industry Council estimates that 10% of new bike buyers are women. However, as would be expected, more women are also being killed in motorcycle crashes.
The attached chart shows that the number of women riders fatally injured increased from 50 in 1998 to over 150 in 2004 (note that these are riders only; passengers are not included). Other than the MIC estimate of buyers, there is no data on the female rider population, so fatality rates cannot be calculated. But the falling percentage of all motorcycle deaths since 2004 and the relatively small percentage compared to the estimated 10% of sales suggest that women are less likely to be involved in fatal crashes than men. This is quite different than the results of Hurt’s study in the mid ‘70s, in which he found that “female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.”
One of the more noteworthy but lesser known aspects of the motorcycling boom is the growing number of women who have taken up the sport. The Motorcycle Industry Council estimates that 10% of new bike buyers are women. However, as would be expected, more women are also being killed in motorcycle crashes.
The attached chart shows that the number of women riders fatally injured increased from 50 in 1998 to over 150 in 2004 (note that these are riders only; passengers are not included). Other than the MIC estimate of buyers, there is no data on the female rider population, so fatality rates cannot be calculated. But the falling percentage of all motorcycle deaths since 2004 and the relatively small percentage compared to the estimated 10% of sales suggest that women are less likely to be involved in fatal crashes than men. This is quite different than the results of Hurt’s study in the mid ‘70s, in which he found that “female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.”
Attachments
-
figure 6.JPG
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Unhelmeted Deaths
NHTSA estimates that helmets are 37% effective at saving lives. In other words, for every 100 unhelmeted motorcyclists killed, 37 would have lived had they worn helmets. Other researchers estimate even greater effectiveness. So in addition to the tragedy of lives lost, the number of unhelmeted deaths carries with it a more tragic meaning of lives needlessly lost.
From 1997 to 2003, six states (AR, FL, KY, LA, PA, TX) relaxed their existing universal helmet laws, in effect allowing adults to ride unhelmeted. From 1997 to 2001 the impact of these changes could be seen as an increase in unhelmeted deaths, climbing from 43% to 48% of all deaths (see attachment). But since 2001 this trend has reversed, and the percentage of unhelmeted deaths has dropped below the level of pre-repeal years.
The return to unhelmeted fatality percentages seen in pre-repeal days is one of several unexpected effects that have developed in the years since repeal. I hope to describe others in a later post.
NHTSA estimates that helmets are 37% effective at saving lives. In other words, for every 100 unhelmeted motorcyclists killed, 37 would have lived had they worn helmets. Other researchers estimate even greater effectiveness. So in addition to the tragedy of lives lost, the number of unhelmeted deaths carries with it a more tragic meaning of lives needlessly lost.
From 1997 to 2003, six states (AR, FL, KY, LA, PA, TX) relaxed their existing universal helmet laws, in effect allowing adults to ride unhelmeted. From 1997 to 2001 the impact of these changes could be seen as an increase in unhelmeted deaths, climbing from 43% to 48% of all deaths (see attachment). But since 2001 this trend has reversed, and the percentage of unhelmeted deaths has dropped below the level of pre-repeal years.
The return to unhelmeted fatality percentages seen in pre-repeal days is one of several unexpected effects that have developed in the years since repeal. I hope to describe others in a later post.
Attachments
-
figure 7.JPG
mgb
wants another moto
Great post - thanks for using your considerable powers for good instead of evil!
Any way to look at deaths (or even incidents) by motorcycle type, e.g., cruisers, sportbikes, standards, etc.?
What about comparing different environments, e.g., urban vs. rural vs. suburban, or highway vs. backroad vs. city street.
Any way to look at deaths (or even incidents) by motorcycle type, e.g., cruisers, sportbikes, standards, etc.?
What about comparing different environments, e.g., urban vs. rural vs. suburban, or highway vs. backroad vs. city street.
Lucky_Devil
Well-known member
Very interesting information here :nerd
Thank you very much for taking the time do compile the data, make the graphs and write everything up :thumbup
Thank you very much for taking the time do compile the data, make the graphs and write everything up :thumbup
DD
This is really interesting that the death rate of unhelmeted riders has dropped since 2001. Could that be related to additional training perhaps?
Following this thread is a wealth of information and I salute you :hail
for taking the time to share it with us here. This thread is rated 5 stars by me :thumbup
:smoking
Ozymandias
Well-known member
I know this is off topic, but DAMN I had to read the topic like 4 times.
"WTF?!?! Why the hell are we talking about monostat 2008? Is it something new for feminine hygiene this year and no longer monostat7?!?!?"
I need to get out more or something hahaha
"WTF?!?! Why the hell are we talking about monostat 2008? Is it something new for feminine hygiene this year and no longer monostat7?!?!?"
I need to get out more or something hahaha
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
That's a good point and a likely factor. License compliance among riders in fatal crashes has improved steadily over the past 12 years, from 38% unlicensed in 1994 to 25% in 2006 (coming up in a later post). The easiest way to get a license is to take the dang class. And while you're there, you just might pick up good information about how valuable a helmet can be. So the n00b influx might be increasing helmet usage.
An idea I've had is that people read and hear about an increase in unhelmeted deaths and have a come-to-jesus meeting with themselves about what's important in life. So there's essentially a feedback loop that tends to correct the problem when it gets out of hand. For example, look at Florida (attached). After helmet law repeal, which went into effect 7/1/2000, deaths skyrocketed, and unhelmeted deaths climbed to 66% of the total in 2002. Riders in FL couldn't avoid news about fellow motorcyclists dying, mostly unhelmeted. Then, according to my theory at least, some get the message and start wearing helmets (or wearing them more often). Since '02, the unhelmeted percentage has fallen every year, down to 50% in '06.
Attachments
-
FL1.JPG
Last edited:
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
The Effects of Helmet Laws I
The purpose of this post isn’t to examine the value of helmets. It is well established that helmets save lives. See for example NHTSA’s Helmet Effectiveness Revisited (300K PDF). Rather, my purpose here is to shed some light on the effectiveness of helmet laws, which is a different thing. If the federal government and others are going to advocate state helmet laws, their claims about the benefits of this legislation should be examined critically, not unquestioningly accepted.
Among the 50 states, 20 (plus DC) require helmets for all riders, 28 require them for only some riders (generally excepting adults), and 2 have no requirements at all. The justification for a universal helmet law is obvious: helmets save lives, therefore a law requiring all riders to wear them will result in fewer deaths and less severe injuries. But the data show that it isn’t that simple.
A key assumption underlying the expectation of fewer deaths when helmets are required is that nothing changes but helmet use. The same people on the same bikes will take the same trips riding the same way and have the same crashes—but all will be helmeted. However, if a helmet requirement affects the makeup of the riding population, or the absence of a helmet law changes the way people ride, the effect may be much different. I’ll look at the effects of repeal in later post.
The attached chart compares fatality rates per 100,000 registered motorcycles in states with universal helmet laws vs. other states. Very little difference can be seen between the two.
Rates are calculated using April–September deaths only; otherwise the comparison would be skewed by geography. A year-round comparison tends to favor the non-helmet-law states, many of which have a limited riding season. OH, PA, IL, WI, and MN—all big motorcycling states without helmet laws—have low fatality rates in part because motorcycling isn't a year-round activity. They do most of their riding and experience about 80% of their deaths during the spring and summer months. OTOH, CA, by far the biggest motorcycling state, has 60% of its deaths in the same months.
Repeal states were switched to the non-helmet-law group in the calendar year of repeal.
The purpose of this post isn’t to examine the value of helmets. It is well established that helmets save lives. See for example NHTSA’s Helmet Effectiveness Revisited (300K PDF). Rather, my purpose here is to shed some light on the effectiveness of helmet laws, which is a different thing. If the federal government and others are going to advocate state helmet laws, their claims about the benefits of this legislation should be examined critically, not unquestioningly accepted.
Among the 50 states, 20 (plus DC) require helmets for all riders, 28 require them for only some riders (generally excepting adults), and 2 have no requirements at all. The justification for a universal helmet law is obvious: helmets save lives, therefore a law requiring all riders to wear them will result in fewer deaths and less severe injuries. But the data show that it isn’t that simple.
A key assumption underlying the expectation of fewer deaths when helmets are required is that nothing changes but helmet use. The same people on the same bikes will take the same trips riding the same way and have the same crashes—but all will be helmeted. However, if a helmet requirement affects the makeup of the riding population, or the absence of a helmet law changes the way people ride, the effect may be much different. I’ll look at the effects of repeal in later post.
The attached chart compares fatality rates per 100,000 registered motorcycles in states with universal helmet laws vs. other states. Very little difference can be seen between the two.
Rates are calculated using April–September deaths only; otherwise the comparison would be skewed by geography. A year-round comparison tends to favor the non-helmet-law states, many of which have a limited riding season. OH, PA, IL, WI, and MN—all big motorcycling states without helmet laws—have low fatality rates in part because motorcycling isn't a year-round activity. They do most of their riding and experience about 80% of their deaths during the spring and summer months. OTOH, CA, by far the biggest motorcycling state, has 60% of its deaths in the same months.
Repeal states were switched to the non-helmet-law group in the calendar year of repeal.
Attachments
-
figure 8.JPG
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
The Effects of Helmet Laws II
The purpose of this post isn’t to examine the value of helmets. It is well established that helmets save lives. See for example NHTSA’s Helmet Effectiveness Revisited (300K PDF). Rather, my purpose here is to shed some light on the effectiveness of helmet laws, which is a different thing. If the federal government and others are going to advocate state helmet laws, their claims about the benefits of this legislation should be examined critically, not unquestioningly accepted.
In an earlier post I mentioned that helmet law repeal had produced some unexpected effects. The most surprising one is the way it spurred the growth of motorcycling in states where helmet laws were repealed.
The first chart attached compares the growth in motorcycle registrations from 1994 to 2006 between the 6 states that repealed helmet laws and the other 44 states. In repeal states, registrations increased by 150% while non-repeal states saw an increase of 66%. Maybe I’m confusing cause and effect. Was it actually the other way around: Did the increase in registrations actually produce a political groundswell that led to repeal? No. When the state effects are studied separately, registration growth is seen to accelerate at the time of repeal, not before. And in Louisiana, the one state that re-enacted a universal helmet law, registrations dropped after re-enactment.
Of course, growth brought with it an increase in deaths, also seen in the first chart. And deaths increased more than registrations, which means the rate per registered motorcycle increased too. But the same thing occurred in the other 44 states—deaths climbed faster than registrations.
The second chart, which compares the fatality rates in repeal and non-repeal states, shows that the increase in fatality rate per registered motorcycle since pre-repeal years has been the same in repeal states as in non-repeal states. The concurrent increase in non-repeal states—which obviously has nothing to do with helmet law changes—suggest that the increase in repeal states may not have been caused entirely by helmet law repeal, but by other factors that exist in non-repeal states as well.
Another fact revealed by the second chart is that repeal states had a higher fatality rate per registered motorcycle than non-repeal states even before repeal. This is due in part to geography. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are all suitable for year-round riding, and a longer riding season leads to a higher death rate per registered bike. The higher rate in repeal states has been exploited by safetycrats who wail about the supposed death toll caused by repeal. Yes, repeal states do have higher rates, but it isn’t necessarily due to repeal.
The purpose of this post isn’t to examine the value of helmets. It is well established that helmets save lives. See for example NHTSA’s Helmet Effectiveness Revisited (300K PDF). Rather, my purpose here is to shed some light on the effectiveness of helmet laws, which is a different thing. If the federal government and others are going to advocate state helmet laws, their claims about the benefits of this legislation should be examined critically, not unquestioningly accepted.
In an earlier post I mentioned that helmet law repeal had produced some unexpected effects. The most surprising one is the way it spurred the growth of motorcycling in states where helmet laws were repealed.
The first chart attached compares the growth in motorcycle registrations from 1994 to 2006 between the 6 states that repealed helmet laws and the other 44 states. In repeal states, registrations increased by 150% while non-repeal states saw an increase of 66%. Maybe I’m confusing cause and effect. Was it actually the other way around: Did the increase in registrations actually produce a political groundswell that led to repeal? No. When the state effects are studied separately, registration growth is seen to accelerate at the time of repeal, not before. And in Louisiana, the one state that re-enacted a universal helmet law, registrations dropped after re-enactment.
Of course, growth brought with it an increase in deaths, also seen in the first chart. And deaths increased more than registrations, which means the rate per registered motorcycle increased too. But the same thing occurred in the other 44 states—deaths climbed faster than registrations.
The second chart, which compares the fatality rates in repeal and non-repeal states, shows that the increase in fatality rate per registered motorcycle since pre-repeal years has been the same in repeal states as in non-repeal states. The concurrent increase in non-repeal states—which obviously has nothing to do with helmet law changes—suggest that the increase in repeal states may not have been caused entirely by helmet law repeal, but by other factors that exist in non-repeal states as well.
Another fact revealed by the second chart is that repeal states had a higher fatality rate per registered motorcycle than non-repeal states even before repeal. This is due in part to geography. Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Texas are all suitable for year-round riding, and a longer riding season leads to a higher death rate per registered bike. The higher rate in repeal states has been exploited by safetycrats who wail about the supposed death toll caused by repeal. Yes, repeal states do have higher rates, but it isn’t necessarily due to repeal.
Attachments
-
figure 9.JPG -
figure 10.JPG
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
License Compliance
The percentage of unlicensed riders in fatal crashes has dropped far below the high of 38% in 1994, in spite of a slight increase in 2006--from 24.3% in 2005 to 25.7%. Thus, the increase in overall fatality rate in the past 10 years seems to be unrelated to licensing.
"Unlicensed" here means either lacking a valid driver's license--suspended, revoked, or unlicensed--or lacking a motorcycle endorsement.
The percentage of unlicensed riders in fatal crashes has dropped far below the high of 38% in 1994, in spite of a slight increase in 2006--from 24.3% in 2005 to 25.7%. Thus, the increase in overall fatality rate in the past 10 years seems to be unrelated to licensing.
"Unlicensed" here means either lacking a valid driver's license--suspended, revoked, or unlicensed--or lacking a motorcycle endorsement.
Attachments
-
figure 11.JPG
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Alcohol Use by Riders Killed
Another bit of good new in the motorcycle crash data these days is a declining percentage of riders who die drunk. From 34% with a BAC of .10 or more in 1993 (NHTSA's standard at the time), riders killed in 2006 with BAC .08 or more is down to 27%. That's just 4 percentage points over the figure for drivers in cars and light trucks, narrowing the gap considerably from the 1990s.
The bad news, though, is that much higher percentages persist in the 35-44 age group. In fact, little has changed in those groups in the past 10 years. My guess is that the drinking-and-riding ethic is slowly changing, with older riders still embracing it as part of the fun and younger riders rejecting it. Notice how the 30-34 group was #2 in alcohol-related deaths in 1993-1995 but is now low enough that it isn't reported by NHTSA. Drinking and riding is a bad idea that will continue with those who grew up with it. But as the older generation is replaced by the younger, I expect that the overall downward trend will continue, and in a few years we'll see percentages less than those for drivers.
Another bit of good new in the motorcycle crash data these days is a declining percentage of riders who die drunk. From 34% with a BAC of .10 or more in 1993 (NHTSA's standard at the time), riders killed in 2006 with BAC .08 or more is down to 27%. That's just 4 percentage points over the figure for drivers in cars and light trucks, narrowing the gap considerably from the 1990s.
The bad news, though, is that much higher percentages persist in the 35-44 age group. In fact, little has changed in those groups in the past 10 years. My guess is that the drinking-and-riding ethic is slowly changing, with older riders still embracing it as part of the fun and younger riders rejecting it. Notice how the 30-34 group was #2 in alcohol-related deaths in 1993-1995 but is now low enough that it isn't reported by NHTSA. Drinking and riding is a bad idea that will continue with those who grew up with it. But as the older generation is replaced by the younger, I expect that the overall downward trend will continue, and in a few years we'll see percentages less than those for drivers.
Attachments
-
figure 12.JPG
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Impairment Begins at .01
The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, a set of recommendations developed by MSF, AMA, NHTSA, and independent motorcycling advocates, stated in 2000: “It is unknown at precisely what [blood alcohol] levels motorcycle-specific judgment and skills are impaired.” In its 2006 Motorcycle Safety Program Plan (1.7MB PDF), NHTSA reported that it is conducting an experiment to measure the effects of impairment on motorcyclists at different BACs. My small contribution to answering this question seems to show that for some riders, and to some extent, impairment begins at .01 BAC.
It has been suggested that drunk riders are more likely to be involved in single-vehicle crashes than are sober riders. That would make sense because multiple-vehicle crashes are usually caused by other motorists while single-vehicle crashes are usually the rider’s fault. To see if this hunch is supported by facts, I tallied rider BAC and crash type (single-vehicle or multiple-vehicle) for 26,000 fatal motorcycle crashes in the US from 1994 to 2006. The result is seen in the attached chart.
At each measured BAC level, the percentage of riders killed in single- vs. multiple-vehicle crashes is shown. At .00 BAC, one-third were in single-vehicle crashes and two-thirds were in crashes with two or more vehicles. At .15 BAC and higher, two-thirds were single-vehicle and one-third were multiple-vehicle. From .01 to .14, higher BAC is associated with a higher percentage of riders in single-vehicle crashes.
If we can assume that rider impairment is more likely to cause a single-vehicle motorcycle crash than a multiple-vehicle crash, then it clearly begins at .01 and increases steadily with BAC. But why would that be? Physical impairment doesn’t start that low. Vision, balance, and motor skills aren’t affected until a higher BAC. Judgment, however is a different story.
You’ve probably been out drinking with a group where some guy boorishly hits on the cocktail waitress after the first round, guaranteeing crappy service for the rest of the night. Yet other drinkers maintain decorum round after round, even after their motor skills are woefully deteriorated. As I see it, this individual variation in judgment under the influence of alcohol accounts for the apparent low onset of impairment. In the article Rolling Stoned, Motorcycle Cruiser magazine reports on an experiment that demonstrated the effects of impaired judgment on drinking riders. Some subjects exhibited improved skills at low BAC but their judgment deteriorated early.
The role of impaired judgment in spite of fully functional physical skills presents a problem for programs that attempt to reduce alcohol-related motorcycle crashes. It’s easy for someone to understand why he shouldn’t ride if he can’t see straight or keep the motorcycle upright. It’s more difficult when he’s fully capable of controlling the bike but lacks the good sense to ride safely. I don’t think lower BAC limits are the answer, because the results seen here don’t reveal a characteristic of all riders, just some. In fact, I would guess that most motorcyclists can ride safely at any level of intoxication that doesn’t significantly affect their perception or motor skills. Rather, I think the message in the data is that judgment can be impaired long before a rider notices his physical skills deteriorating and that people need to be aware of their limitations when drinking.
If you’re the kind of person whose inhibitions loosen easily with alcohol, consider the vast difference in the consequences of a social faux pas and of overestimating your riding abilities.
The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, a set of recommendations developed by MSF, AMA, NHTSA, and independent motorcycling advocates, stated in 2000: “It is unknown at precisely what [blood alcohol] levels motorcycle-specific judgment and skills are impaired.” In its 2006 Motorcycle Safety Program Plan (1.7MB PDF), NHTSA reported that it is conducting an experiment to measure the effects of impairment on motorcyclists at different BACs. My small contribution to answering this question seems to show that for some riders, and to some extent, impairment begins at .01 BAC.
It has been suggested that drunk riders are more likely to be involved in single-vehicle crashes than are sober riders. That would make sense because multiple-vehicle crashes are usually caused by other motorists while single-vehicle crashes are usually the rider’s fault. To see if this hunch is supported by facts, I tallied rider BAC and crash type (single-vehicle or multiple-vehicle) for 26,000 fatal motorcycle crashes in the US from 1994 to 2006. The result is seen in the attached chart.
At each measured BAC level, the percentage of riders killed in single- vs. multiple-vehicle crashes is shown. At .00 BAC, one-third were in single-vehicle crashes and two-thirds were in crashes with two or more vehicles. At .15 BAC and higher, two-thirds were single-vehicle and one-third were multiple-vehicle. From .01 to .14, higher BAC is associated with a higher percentage of riders in single-vehicle crashes.
If we can assume that rider impairment is more likely to cause a single-vehicle motorcycle crash than a multiple-vehicle crash, then it clearly begins at .01 and increases steadily with BAC. But why would that be? Physical impairment doesn’t start that low. Vision, balance, and motor skills aren’t affected until a higher BAC. Judgment, however is a different story.
You’ve probably been out drinking with a group where some guy boorishly hits on the cocktail waitress after the first round, guaranteeing crappy service for the rest of the night. Yet other drinkers maintain decorum round after round, even after their motor skills are woefully deteriorated. As I see it, this individual variation in judgment under the influence of alcohol accounts for the apparent low onset of impairment. In the article Rolling Stoned, Motorcycle Cruiser magazine reports on an experiment that demonstrated the effects of impaired judgment on drinking riders. Some subjects exhibited improved skills at low BAC but their judgment deteriorated early.
The role of impaired judgment in spite of fully functional physical skills presents a problem for programs that attempt to reduce alcohol-related motorcycle crashes. It’s easy for someone to understand why he shouldn’t ride if he can’t see straight or keep the motorcycle upright. It’s more difficult when he’s fully capable of controlling the bike but lacks the good sense to ride safely. I don’t think lower BAC limits are the answer, because the results seen here don’t reveal a characteristic of all riders, just some. In fact, I would guess that most motorcyclists can ride safely at any level of intoxication that doesn’t significantly affect their perception or motor skills. Rather, I think the message in the data is that judgment can be impaired long before a rider notices his physical skills deteriorating and that people need to be aware of their limitations when drinking.
If you’re the kind of person whose inhibitions loosen easily with alcohol, consider the vast difference in the consequences of a social faux pas and of overestimating your riding abilities.
Attachments
-
figure 13.JPG
Last edited:
Bowling4Bikes
Steee-riiike!
Dan-awesome job dude!
I saw the separation of make vs. deaths, but I missed one that has sport bikes vs. cruisers. I am willing to bet that Honda had a decrease in % deaths because of their rising popularity of their cruiser line from 1997 on. Is there a way to look at the data when Japanese cruisers gained popularity/traction in the US, and their subsequent effect on future data?
Also it's totally believable that there are more % 40+ year old riders. the baby boomers are getting old but are still pretty virulent. life expectancy is increasing, so it makes sense that there are more 'older' beginner riders. good that you were able to show that it's still the young ones (most likely on sport bikes IMO) that are over-represented.
well done, Dan!
I saw the separation of make vs. deaths, but I missed one that has sport bikes vs. cruisers. I am willing to bet that Honda had a decrease in % deaths because of their rising popularity of their cruiser line from 1997 on. Is there a way to look at the data when Japanese cruisers gained popularity/traction in the US, and their subsequent effect on future data?
Also it's totally believable that there are more % 40+ year old riders. the baby boomers are getting old but are still pretty virulent. life expectancy is increasing, so it makes sense that there are more 'older' beginner riders. good that you were able to show that it's still the young ones (most likely on sport bikes IMO) that are over-represented.
well done, Dan!
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Analysis by bike style isn't something I can do on a large scale. Here's how it can be done: Get the VIN for each motorcycle involved in a fatal crash from the FARS database. From VIN, look up the bike's model ID via a resource such as VIN Assist (which isn't cheap). From model ID, look up "style" in a table you've developed. Count bikes involved by style. Then, in a similar process, get registrations by style based on detailed state registration data. Divide crash counts by registration counts to get involvement rate by style. Last summer, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a controversial study, These Machines Were Designed for the Racetrack (1.7MB), using a similar methodology. The study was widely discussed on BARF and other sportbike forums, and I don't want to re-open that discussion in this thread.
My only attempt at analysis by style was looking at bikes involved in Central Coast (SLO County plus parts of Monterey and Santa Barbara Counties) fatal crashes 2004-2006: 12 cruisers, 14 sportbikes, 1 sport-tourer, 5 standards, 1 scooter. I don't have detailed registration data, so I can't calculate rates. And rates wouldn't be be accurate anyway because we get riders from everywhere who are just passing through.
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Coexisting With Cages I
Ask non-motorcyclist safety authorities what has caused the motorcycle fatality rate to climb by 30% since it bottomed in 1997 and they’ll cite their usual reasons: drinking, helmet law repeal, larger motorcycles, feeble old geezers, and all the rest. I hope this thread has shown that these factors aren’t as easy to implicate as the “experts” would have us believe.
Ask motorcyclists the same question and many will blame increasingly inept drivers piloting 3-ton land barges while talking on the phone and sipping their lattes. But this explanation, too, comes up short when the data is examined. Proportionally, riders are dying in the same kinds of crashes as they did in 1997; the now-ubiquitous SUV is involved in more crashes for the simple reason that it is replacing the family sedan; and perhaps most surprisingly, drivers have gotten better, not worse.
Car-vs-bike crashes play out in the same ways that car-vs-car crashes do. When a motorcycle is involved, the difference isn’t the crash configuration, it’s the far more serious injuries a rider suffers compared to a cage occupant victimized in a similar crash. Careless drivers collide with each other just as they collide with motorcyclists, and they do it—literally—100 times more often. Thousand of times a day they turn left in front of oncoming vehicles, rear-end stopped vehicles, run red lights, merge into occupied space, and cross the centerline. Because of these similarities, the overall rate at which drivers crash is a good indication of the risk motorcyclists face from poor driving.
The attached chart compares the passenger vehicle crash rate to the motorcycle fatality rate from 1988 to 2006. The former includes both cars and light trucks (pickups, SUVs, minivans) and crashes of all severities—fatal, non-fatal injury, property damage only. Also shown is the number of deaths among pedestrians and bicyclists, who are also victims of bad driving.
Clearly, the passenger vehicle crash rate has fallen steadily since 1995 and pedestrian and bicyclist deaths declined with it, while the motorcycle death rate climbed. Drivers have become safer, yet more motorcyclists die. So, contrary to what many riders think, drivers aren't responsible for our rising fatality rate. That's not to say they don't kill a lot of motorcyclists—they do. But they're not a greater danger to us now than they were when the motorcycle death rate was at its all-time low. I'll have more on this later in a look at single- vs. mulitple-vehicle motorcycle crashes and the role of the notorious SUV.
Ask non-motorcyclist safety authorities what has caused the motorcycle fatality rate to climb by 30% since it bottomed in 1997 and they’ll cite their usual reasons: drinking, helmet law repeal, larger motorcycles, feeble old geezers, and all the rest. I hope this thread has shown that these factors aren’t as easy to implicate as the “experts” would have us believe.
Ask motorcyclists the same question and many will blame increasingly inept drivers piloting 3-ton land barges while talking on the phone and sipping their lattes. But this explanation, too, comes up short when the data is examined. Proportionally, riders are dying in the same kinds of crashes as they did in 1997; the now-ubiquitous SUV is involved in more crashes for the simple reason that it is replacing the family sedan; and perhaps most surprisingly, drivers have gotten better, not worse.
Car-vs-bike crashes play out in the same ways that car-vs-car crashes do. When a motorcycle is involved, the difference isn’t the crash configuration, it’s the far more serious injuries a rider suffers compared to a cage occupant victimized in a similar crash. Careless drivers collide with each other just as they collide with motorcyclists, and they do it—literally—100 times more often. Thousand of times a day they turn left in front of oncoming vehicles, rear-end stopped vehicles, run red lights, merge into occupied space, and cross the centerline. Because of these similarities, the overall rate at which drivers crash is a good indication of the risk motorcyclists face from poor driving.
The attached chart compares the passenger vehicle crash rate to the motorcycle fatality rate from 1988 to 2006. The former includes both cars and light trucks (pickups, SUVs, minivans) and crashes of all severities—fatal, non-fatal injury, property damage only. Also shown is the number of deaths among pedestrians and bicyclists, who are also victims of bad driving.
Clearly, the passenger vehicle crash rate has fallen steadily since 1995 and pedestrian and bicyclist deaths declined with it, while the motorcycle death rate climbed. Drivers have become safer, yet more motorcyclists die. So, contrary to what many riders think, drivers aren't responsible for our rising fatality rate. That's not to say they don't kill a lot of motorcyclists—they do. But they're not a greater danger to us now than they were when the motorcycle death rate was at its all-time low. I'll have more on this later in a look at single- vs. mulitple-vehicle motorcycle crashes and the role of the notorious SUV.
Attachments
-
figure 14.JPG
DataDan
Mama says he's bona fide
Coexisting With Cages II
I argued in my last post that drivers are getting better, not worse. Yet the motorcycle fatality rate is on the rise, and many riders feel that other vehicles are responsible. Data on single- vs. multiple-vehicle crashes shows that the proportion of riders killed in multiple-vehicle crashes has remained at about 56% since the mid-‘90s, when the fatality rate was at its all-time low (see first attached chart). So at a gross level anyway, the unchanged proportion of multiple-vehicle crash deaths suggests that declining rider proficiency is contributing to the increase in fatality rates, not inept driving. Poor judgment and inadequate skills that sometimes lead to single-vehicle crashes will result in multiple-vehicle crashes at other times.
Looking closer, though, reveals an interesting trend. Proportionally, two-vehicle fatal crashes with cars are decreasing as crashes with light trucks—the popular class that includes pickups, minivans, and SUVs—are increasing. To a degree, this is expected as light trucks replace cars as family vehicles. In fact, the combined percentage of light truck and car crashes hasn’t changed appreciably in 10 years. But fatal motorcycle crashes with light trucks now outnumber fatal crashes with cars, and light trucks do not yet outnumber cars on the road. Light truck crashes have increased disproportionately.
A comparison of the involvement of motorcycles in fatal two-vehicle crashes with other types of vehicles (second attachment) shows that light trucks have a higher involvement rate than other types of vehicles do. In 2006, for example, motorcycles were involved in 9% of all fatal two-vehicle crashes (the diamond marker) and in 8.5% of two-vehicle crashes with cars, while 11% of two-vehicle crashes with light trucks were vs. motorcycles. This rate disparity will produce an increase in the overall involvement rate of motorcycles as light trucks replace cars.
A second bit of bad news is found in the increasing rate at which light trucks collide with motorcycles. Per registered vehicle, light truck collisions with bikes have increased faster than car collisions. So not only are light trucks a growing percentage of the fleet, they seem to be getting more dangerous as well. However, it is highly speculative to blame the rising rate on the vehicles because other, more subtle factors could be at work. For example, the migration from cars to light trucks could include less cautious drivers more likely to collide with motorcycles, so the difference between the light truck rate and the car rate would reflect both an increase in the former and a decrease in the latter. Or the growing number of newbie motorcyclists could be at greater danger from light trucks than they are from cars.
But assuming that both of these factors are at work—a rising overall rate due to the shift from cars to light trucks and a rising light truck crash involvement rate independent of cars—the third chart shows how motorcycle crashes might have been affected. The upper limit of the colored area represents the actual number of two-vehicle motorcycle crashes vs. cars and light trucks. The red band represents the number of crashes accounted for by the growing proportion of light trucks in the fleet. The gold band represents the more speculative increase due to the increasing light truck crash involvement rate. Thus, the shift from cars to light trucks could account for as many as 270 additional motorcycle deaths in 2006 over the number that would have been expected if the light truck proportion of the fleet and crash rate with motorcycles had not changed from mid-'90s values.
While the actual effect is almost certainly less than 270 deaths, still, a significant number of motorcyclists have lost their lives due to the growing popularity of pickups, minivans, and SUVs. These vehicles present problems both because they are more unforgiving in an impact and because they are harder to see over, around, and through. As much as we wish they'd disappear, they're going to be around for a long time, thanks in part to government regulations that favor them in fuel economy standards. Our best response is to learn how to deal with them.
This is my last planned post in this thread. But if you have requests or questions, post them up or send me a PM.
I argued in my last post that drivers are getting better, not worse. Yet the motorcycle fatality rate is on the rise, and many riders feel that other vehicles are responsible. Data on single- vs. multiple-vehicle crashes shows that the proportion of riders killed in multiple-vehicle crashes has remained at about 56% since the mid-‘90s, when the fatality rate was at its all-time low (see first attached chart). So at a gross level anyway, the unchanged proportion of multiple-vehicle crash deaths suggests that declining rider proficiency is contributing to the increase in fatality rates, not inept driving. Poor judgment and inadequate skills that sometimes lead to single-vehicle crashes will result in multiple-vehicle crashes at other times.
Looking closer, though, reveals an interesting trend. Proportionally, two-vehicle fatal crashes with cars are decreasing as crashes with light trucks—the popular class that includes pickups, minivans, and SUVs—are increasing. To a degree, this is expected as light trucks replace cars as family vehicles. In fact, the combined percentage of light truck and car crashes hasn’t changed appreciably in 10 years. But fatal motorcycle crashes with light trucks now outnumber fatal crashes with cars, and light trucks do not yet outnumber cars on the road. Light truck crashes have increased disproportionately.
A comparison of the involvement of motorcycles in fatal two-vehicle crashes with other types of vehicles (second attachment) shows that light trucks have a higher involvement rate than other types of vehicles do. In 2006, for example, motorcycles were involved in 9% of all fatal two-vehicle crashes (the diamond marker) and in 8.5% of two-vehicle crashes with cars, while 11% of two-vehicle crashes with light trucks were vs. motorcycles. This rate disparity will produce an increase in the overall involvement rate of motorcycles as light trucks replace cars.
A second bit of bad news is found in the increasing rate at which light trucks collide with motorcycles. Per registered vehicle, light truck collisions with bikes have increased faster than car collisions. So not only are light trucks a growing percentage of the fleet, they seem to be getting more dangerous as well. However, it is highly speculative to blame the rising rate on the vehicles because other, more subtle factors could be at work. For example, the migration from cars to light trucks could include less cautious drivers more likely to collide with motorcycles, so the difference between the light truck rate and the car rate would reflect both an increase in the former and a decrease in the latter. Or the growing number of newbie motorcyclists could be at greater danger from light trucks than they are from cars.
But assuming that both of these factors are at work—a rising overall rate due to the shift from cars to light trucks and a rising light truck crash involvement rate independent of cars—the third chart shows how motorcycle crashes might have been affected. The upper limit of the colored area represents the actual number of two-vehicle motorcycle crashes vs. cars and light trucks. The red band represents the number of crashes accounted for by the growing proportion of light trucks in the fleet. The gold band represents the more speculative increase due to the increasing light truck crash involvement rate. Thus, the shift from cars to light trucks could account for as many as 270 additional motorcycle deaths in 2006 over the number that would have been expected if the light truck proportion of the fleet and crash rate with motorcycles had not changed from mid-'90s values.
While the actual effect is almost certainly less than 270 deaths, still, a significant number of motorcyclists have lost their lives due to the growing popularity of pickups, minivans, and SUVs. These vehicles present problems both because they are more unforgiving in an impact and because they are harder to see over, around, and through. As much as we wish they'd disappear, they're going to be around for a long time, thanks in part to government regulations that favor them in fuel economy standards. Our best response is to learn how to deal with them.
This is my last planned post in this thread. But if you have requests or questions, post them up or send me a PM.
Attachments
-
figure 15.JPG -
figure 16.JPG -
figure 17.JPG
Last edited:
Burning1
I'm scareoused!
Data Dan,
Let's assume that the ratio of inexperienced riders to experienced riders has increased over the past 10 years.
It stands to reason that during the motorcycling slump of the 1990s, a large percentage of the registered motorcycles belonged to older, more experienced riders who were dedicated enough to stay with the sport even as support and interest wained. Let's also assume that all motorcycles registered since 1996 were registered by newbies.
Can we correlate the increase in new riders with the increase in accidents? Would this explain the ~35% rise in fatalities even as motorcycle training, gear, and equipment has improved?
Let's assume that the ratio of inexperienced riders to experienced riders has increased over the past 10 years.
It stands to reason that during the motorcycling slump of the 1990s, a large percentage of the registered motorcycles belonged to older, more experienced riders who were dedicated enough to stay with the sport even as support and interest wained. Let's also assume that all motorcycles registered since 1996 were registered by newbies.
Can we correlate the increase in new riders with the increase in accidents? Would this explain the ~35% rise in fatalities even as motorcycle training, gear, and equipment has improved?