Motostats 2008

[DataDan]

Bay Area Moto Deaths, 2007-2008


If you've been around BARF for the past few years, or just been a motorcyclist in the Bay Area, you're probably aware of the alarming number of rider deaths that have occurred since 2007. This year seems to have been somewhat better, but '07 and '08 were dramatically worse than preceding years. The attached chart of fatal crashes by month shows graphically what we have seen in a continuous stream of news articles and posts over the past two years. The bars on that chart represent many tragic stories that have often been the subject of RIP threads.

To help make sense of this disturbing trend, I'm going focus my annual Motostats thread on Bay Area crash statistics. For a broader view of US motorcycling, see the thread Motostats 2006, which isn't quite current but still reflects prevailing trends.

My purposes in presenting the information that will follow are: 1) to help riders avoid crashes by understanding how they happen; 2) to try to put to rest some myths; 3) to provide a reference that will answer questions that often come up about the riders, motorcycles, locations, and circumstances in fatal crashes.

Over the next few weeks, I'm planning posts on fatality rates per registered motorcycle, locations of fatal crashes, the kinds of motorcycles involved, and the riders who became victims. I will focus on 2007 and 2008 in the nine counties on the Bay plus Santa Cruz, but for perspective, I'll be comparing recent years to past years, to the rest of the state, and to the US.

Though it takes longer to analyze the data, eventually I'll post information on crash scenarios and causes (for example, the number of motorcycle-vs-left-turner collisions). Note that I will not be discussing or even mentioning particular crashes. Bay Area motorcycling is a tight community, and I don't want to risk offending someone by identifying a friend or loved one who died on a motorcycle.

If you have suggestions about the kinds of information that would be helpful or interesting, let me know and I'll oblige if I can. The data behind my posts is all from published sources. I'm not going to cite them, but if you have any questions on sources or methods, I'll be glad to provide them.

 

[iehawk]

Thank you, Dan. Thread subscribed. :thumbup

 

[GAJ]

Look forward to the analysis.

 

[DataDan]

Fatality rates--US vs. California vs. Bay Area

In spite of the gloomy news we so often read about motorcycle safety, riding in the US is only slightly more dangerous than it was in 2000. Crash and fatality rates per registered motorcycle have crept upward in the past nine years, but by less than 10%. And while rates are now somewhat above the all-time lows, they are well below the all-time highs. For some history of the fatality rate and conjecture about factors that have affected it, see the thread Motostats 2006. In my opinion, the steady and continuing rate increase is due to the rapid growth of the sport. A high percentage of noobs in the riding population reduces average experience, leading to more crashes.

Much of the negative coverage focuses on motorcycling deaths without recognizing the phenomenal growth the sport has experienced. Since 2000, street bike registrations in the US have increased by 65% while car and truck registrations have increased by only 17%. Yes, more riders are dying each year, but mainly it's because more people are riding. The first attachment shows US motorcycle registrations, deaths, and the rate per registered bike since 2000 (note that registration data for 2008 isn't available yet).

Safety stats in California since 2000 (seen in the second attachment) have been similar to the rest of the US. The number of registered motorcycles and annual deaths have increased considerably, but more or less in proportion. And though our fatality rate is lower, it has increased at about the same pace as the US rate.

Until 2007, the Bay Area followed the same trend--rising popularity drove up both registrations and deaths, though in proportion, as the rate per registered motorcycle stayed flat. But then in 2007, something happened. Bay Area deaths spiked upward from 68 in 2006 to 96 in 2007 and 95 in 2008. These numbers reflect the flood of news stories and RIP threads that hit BARF so hard.

The sharp increase in Bay Area riding deaths wasn't driven by a similar increase in the number of registered motorcycles, which continued to rise at the same pace as in previous years. Thus, the rate per registered bike spiked in 2007 just as deaths did (see third attachment--but stay tuned: I'll revise this chart when 2008 registrations by county become available early next year).

Coming out of nowhere as it did, this increase suggests random variation--just one of those things that happens, especially when numbers are fairly small (from 2004 to 2008, annual Bay Area deaths were 70, 74, 68, 96, 95). But digging further into the data, the underlying changes weren't so random after all. Young riders and sportbikes accounted for most of the increase, and alcohol contributed substantially. These topics will be covered in later posts in this thread.


An odd feature revealed in the attached charts is a significantly lower fatality rate per registered motorcycle in the Bay Area than in the rest of California. The CA rate has been in the 60s (per 100,000 registered bikes) since 2000 while the Bay Area rate (through 2006) was in the 40s. Does anyone have a theory about why the rate here is so low?

 

[DataDan]

Sportbikes in the Bay Area

The recent increase in Bay Area rider deaths has been driven by sportbikes.


When the growing number of motorcycle deaths is discussed, it is often attributed to three factors: drunk (1) baby-boomers (2) on Harleys (3). That's what the news media would have us believe anyway. In their occasional motorcycle death-and-dismemberment stories, they trot out experts who invariably finger those familiar factors. Never mind that alcohol is declining as a problem in fatal crashes (though recent impact in the Bay Area will be the subject of another post). And that average rider age in fatal crashes in California has been stable for the past 10 years (but also a recent Bay Area deviation). And that the cruiser boom has been superseded by a sportbike boom.

Bay Area motorcycle deaths jumped sharply from 68 in 2006 to 96 in 2007 and 95 in 2008, an increase driven by deadly sportbikes crashes (see first attachment). Sportbikes now account for half of all motorcycles involved in fatal crashes in the Bay Area. Sportbike deaths have also been climbing in the rest of the state (see second attachment), now accounting for half of the statewide total as well. But the California increase has occurred gradually over 10 years, so it hasn't had the highly visible impact that the Bay Area increase has since 2007.

However, the growing number of deaths doesn't mean that an average sportbike rider is more likely to crash than he was in 2006, and it certainly doesn't mean that the motorcycles themselves are more dangerous. Rather, it reflects the growing number of people who ride them. Without registration or mileage data by motorcycle type, that kind of statistical determination can't be made, but it's pretty obvious to anyone who pays attention to motorcycles that there are more sportbikes on the road today than ever before. The danger has always been there, no matter what kind of motorcycle. It's just that more people are accepting the risk so they can experience the thrill of riding a sportbike.

BARF, and BARFers individually, contribute substantially to the growth of the sport. Enthusiasm, encouragement, and advice assist new riders in taking the big step of getting a motorcycle. And as we cheerlead, we help noobs understand the risk that goes along with riding. BARF does this very well IMHO. In posts, in real-life interactions, and in the public presence of 1Rider, we keep the yin and the yang equally prominent: Yes, it's really fun, but at the same time it's serious business.

I hope these sobering stats about our little corner of the motorcycling world will help keep that double focus on the enjoyment of riding and the attention to safety it demands.


A note about the bike classifications: US DOT crash data doesn't include anything like motorcycle type that I'm reporting here. But it does have VIN, and from that I can look up the model ID and use my own judgment to place it in a category.

Cruisers are about two-thirds Harleys and one-third Japanese, with a few other makes, too. Standards include older Japanese fours, beginner bikes like the 250 Ninja, and others. Tourers are mostly Harley FLHTs, with a few Gold Wings and others. The "other" category includes scooters, dual-sports, motards, sport-tourers, and dirt bikes like motocrossers involved in road crashes.

More than 75% of the sportbikes in California crash data are models currently or previously raced in Superbike or Supersport. Another 15% are GTs like the Hayabusa; high-performance nakeds including the Monster, FZ1, etc.; and literbikes from the 750cc Superbike era such as the CBR900RR. The remainder are bikes that I would call entry-level sportbikes, mostly SV650s and 600 Katanas, along with a few others that are clearly sporty in design but don't fall into familiar categories.

 

[DataDan]

Age groups in Bay Area motorcycle deaths

The fastest growing age group in motorcycling over the past 10 years has been riders over 40, so one might expect that the sharp increase in Bay Area motorcycle deaths in 2007-2008 involved riders in that group. But the involvement of sportbikes seen in my last post suggests that older riders, who tend more towards cruisers, might not be involved. in fact, the increase in Bay Area deaths has been almost exclusively in the <40 group.

As seen in the first attached chart, deaths of riders under 30 increased suddenly in 2007 and 2008, climbing 87% from the 2005-06. As expected, close to 90% of riders killed in that group were on sportbikes. In the 40+ group, on the other hand, only 11% more deaths occurred in 07-08 compared to 05-06.

Statewide, the increase in motorcycle deaths under age 30 began in 2004 and has continued to the present (see second attachment). Though the shift didn't begin in the Bay Area until 2007, the age distribution here is now similar to the rest of California.

Across the rest of the US, the trend is still toward older riders, as the median fatality age has now reached 40 (third attachment).


Posts in this thread so far have shown that the devastating increase in Bay Area motorcycle deaths in the past two years has had its greatest effect on younger riders and sportbikes. In subsequent posts, I'll get into some details about where and how those crashes occurred.

 

[DataDan]

Yesterday Ogglodyte posted this link to a Google Earth map of the locations of fatal California motorcycle crashes. It's a great use of the GPS coordinates that are now reported with all fatal crashes in the US.

Ogglodyte: In your now-vanished post, you asked about data on non-fatal crashes. That data is obviously used to produce the CHP's summary SWITRS reports (State Wide Integrated Traffic Records System) but isn't published in detail AFAIK.

 

[motoref]

I think part of the problem is new riders buying more bike than they can handle. I've talked to a lot of people who were contemplating buying a (first) bike and nearly all spoke of getting a 600cc or larger sport bike. I also think the bike mags promote this attitude.

 

[Larbeartoo]

Re., "I think part of the problem is new riders buying more bike than they can handle."

BINGO!!

Young riders, as a group, have neither the experience nor the judgement needed to escape riding in a manner that will lead to crashes regardless of what type of bike they ride. When young riders ride bigger, heavier and faster bikes, the crashes will be more frequent and result in greater injury, death and damage than if those young riders had been riding bikes more appropriate to their riding skill and judgement levels.

Motorcycle rider licensure needs to be based on a rider ability rating using a combination of bike rider experience and bike power rating. Some European and Asian countries have been using a motorcycle rider licensing system that requires riders to qualify for larger displacement bikes for years.

 

[DataDan]

Factors in Sportbike Deaths of Riders under 30

I agree with motoref and Larbeartoo that motorcycle capability exceeding the rider's judgment for using it is probably a factor in fatal crashes among young riders on sportbikes. But is there any evidence to support that?



This chart shows some factors associated with the fatal sportbike crashes among riders < 30 discussed in this thread. The triangular marks show the total number of riders in the group, and the bars show the occurrence of factors that might contribute to crashes. In 2008, there were 30 sportbike riders under age 30 in fatal crashes in the Bay Area. Of those 30...

• 15 weren't properly licensed. Of those, 8 were either unlicensed or had a suspended license, and 7 had a valid driver's license but lacked an M endorsement.
  
  
• 9 had BAC of at least .08. None of these were close calls. I excluded one at .01, but the 9 ranged from .11 to .22.
  
  
• 10 were on bikes not registered to them, 6 registered to someone else and 4 not registered.
  
  
• 18 were on models raced in Superbike or Supersport. The other motorcycles, which I also categorize as sportbikes, aren't current SB/SS and include CBR600Fs, Monsters, 1980s sportbikes, and others.

Of these factors, alcohol is the glaring problem. As seen in 2005-07, alcohol seldom contributes to the deaths of riders under age 30. But for some reason, 9 of the 30 deaths involved drinking and riding in 2008. It was also a factor in several non-sportbike deaths of riders under 30.

It's also remarkable that 15 of the 30 deaths were of riders who lacked a valid motorcycle license. At 50% this is much higher than the Bay Area and California overall (about 35%). The fact that 8 were suspended or unlicensed speaks for itself. The 7 with valid licenses but without an M class suggests, to me, noobs who have not taken MSF. If they had taken the course, they'd have the endorsement.

The 10 of 30 who were on someone else's bike also suggests inexperience. And 3 of the 10 on borrowed bikes had BACs of .18, .19, and .19.

Surprisingly, Superbike/Supersport models didn't seem to contribute a lot to the 2007-2008 increase. The percentage of those bikes was lower than in 2005-06. If motorcycle performance contributes to crashes, it's available in all sorts of bikes these days.


This kind of correlation can't prove anything. In a real study like Hurt's, crash involvement of various factors is compared to occurrence in the non-crashing population to arrive at relative risk. However, for the purpose of identifying factors that might have contributed to the significant increase in deaths seen in the Bay Area in 2007-08, they can certainly suggest possibilities.

 

[DataDan]

Urban and Rural Crashes

Over the past 15 years, about one-third of fatal Bay Area crashes have occurred in rural areas and two-thirds in urban areas (first attachment shows 2000-2008). But the acute rise in motorcycle deaths in the past two years shifted that distribution toward urban areas, particularly among sportbikes (second attachment). In 2007-08, 80% of fatal sportbike crashes were in urban areas.

Along with the findings in my previous post about lack of a proper motorcycle license and alcohol involvement, the changing urban/suburban distribution of fatal crashes suggests a growing poseur faction among Bay Area sportbike riders. More unlicensed riders (nearly half of sportbike riders under 30 killed in 07-08 compared to one-third in 05-06) implies more noobs. Because riding sober is a well established cultural norm among sportbike riders, the deviation from that, especially in 2008 (9 deaths among riders under 30 at .08+ compared to 2, 2, and 4 in the preceding three years), indicates a new segment that hasn't adopted the norm. And the growing prevalence of sportbike deaths in urban areas may result from rising popularity among dilettantes who prefer cities and freeways to the backroads most sportriders favor.

Skills needed to survive in town are very different from track-based skills that sportriders take the most pride in. But as mundane as they might seem, the strategies and tactics for street survival taught by MSF and traffic intiution developed from experience are much more likely to save your life than picture-perfect racerboy body position.

 

[Marcoose]

Hmm.

I posted something here that evidently was deleted.

Dan, what's the criteria for keeping and deleting posts?

Thanks,

Marc.

 

[DataDan]

No posts were deleted. A few were lost when BARF was hacked last week. I had to recreate my post on age group involvement from an outline scrawled on a Starbucks napkin.

 

[Marcoose]

That essplains. You don't come across as a thread nazi.

Thanks for the stats. I'm learning a lot, and mostly, making sure I don't add my own name to them.

Marc.

 

[Ogg]

Ogglodyte: In your now-vanished post, you asked about data on non-fatal crashes. That data is obviously used to produce the CHP's summary SWITRS reports (State Wide Integrated Traffic Records System) but isn't published in detail AFAIK.

That's how I see it too. FWIW I've grabbed the FARS data sets going back to '99 and loaded them into SQL Server. Still working through what's there (and there's a LOT) but will post something when I've got it sorted.

 

[budman]

Dan.. these are really good resources for our membership :hail

One particular one that got my jiggy going was the amount of solo accidents.
We commonly think that the left turner in front of us cause us most of the havoc, but the amount of solo accidents really is astounding.

To me that shows that rider skill/bike control is a factor that is a glaring factor.
Bikes are getting better every year and yet the riders in general are not. Time on the bike and training certainly increases our chances of survival IMO.

Bike choice for a new rider also is a major factor.

The amount of unlicensed riders is amazing as well. We would assume no training and not much skill, which cannot be confirmed, but sure seems to make sense.

I also wanted to let you know this info is being shared with the folks in the State Moto Safety arena. Top notch data is extremely useful and DD rocks it.

:smoking

 

[whatever whatev]

Bikes are getting better every year and yet the riders in general are not.

I don't completely agree with this statement just because we haven't defined what "better" means. Yes, many brand new bikes have higher displacement, more torque and horsepower, faster 0-60 times and higher top speed than the version they replace, but this doesn't necessarily mean they're more equipped to handle existing highway speed limits, potholes, sharp turns, poor visibility, and everything else that public roads contain.

Just because it's the "better" version according to the manufacturer and magazine article doesn't mean that it's "better" for every individual or even many real-world conditions the motorcycle is likely to be used in.

One could even argue that many newer motorcycles are harder to operate safely than their predecessors.

 

[Ogg]

One could even argue that many newer motorcycles are harder to operate safely than their predecessors.

It's not much of a stretch to argue that all riders start with some amount of knowledge (often minimal) and experience (often nil). So if we stipulate that humans haven't evolved significantly since the advent of the motorcycle, then Bud's comment is true and only the context (whether this disparity in progress is good or bad) requires further investigation.

Tires and suspensions tend to improve over time which would seem to be "good" (the bike is more tolerant of rider mistakes). However, horsepower (or power/weight) keeps climbing as well; probably bad for the inexperienced motorcyclist. Improvement in braking cuts both ways; the ability to stop faster can be good, but panic induced handfuls of front brake can have more severe consequences.

Then there are the rider's expectations. Why do people ride? What's the goal? Look cool? See the world? Go fast? With the advances in bikes it's a hell of a lot easier to set higher expectations and think you are achieving them than before; all with the same level of naivety and inexperience.

When I add it all up, I see it as a more dangerous environment, and as one requiring more knowledge and experience to survive.

 

[beginner]

Why look at just fatalities? With motorcycles there can be two identical crashes where one person walks away and the other person dies of injuries. Say both riders loose traction in the same turn at the same speed for the same reason. One rider slides into the grass, picks up the bike, and rides home. The other rider makes the identical mistake 10' earlier and instead of stopping on the grass hits a tree. There's no mystery why the second rider died, he hit a tree. What I'd like to know is what led up to the loss of traction.

As far as modern bikes being safer than old ones, the reverse is true. Which bike is going to kill more people, the 600cc super bike with the best of everying or a bike that's underpowered with marginal tires, poor suspension, and crappy brakes? The modern bike is going to be the killing machine for two reasons, because speed increases risk, and because there's a lot of temptation to operate the modern bike beyond the skills and experience of the rider. Once a bike falls skills get left back down the road where the problem started and luck takes over.

 

[DataDan]

Why look at just fatalities?

Because only fatal crashes are reported in enough detail to do this kind of analysis.