Motostats 2008

[DataDan]

Here is the FARS FTP site.

If you'd rather obtain data via the FARS query facility as text files that can be opened with Excel, send me a PM and I'll show you how I've done it for CA.

 

[optimusbhk]

Too many rider deaths... any effort going on to increase awareness of riders to drivers?

By the way, I am not implying that drivers are only at fault... as many crashes involve only the rider.

 

[Marcoose]

Most crashes are avoidable at no fault whatsoever of a driver. Most crashes are the sole responsibility of the rider.

Sure a little driver awarness can't hurt, but the stats prove the emphasis should be put on the rider.

 

[Ogg]

I don't disagree with your conclusion that the critical element is always the rider.. but I'm not sure the stats "prove" anything

 

[DataDan]

Crash Configurations

To review the 2008 Bay Area crash data presented earlier in this thread:

• In 2007, Bay Area motorcycle deaths spiked up to 96 from 68 the previous year, and the trend continued with 95 deaths in 2008.
  
  
• The fatality increase was not driven by growth in motorcycle registrations, so the death rate per registered motorcycle increased too.
  
  
• The spike in fatalities was due to an increase in deaths on sportbikes. While sportbike involvement in fatal crashes had averaged about 30 per year prior to 2007, it jumped up to 56 in 2007 and 50 in 2008.
  
  
• The increase in fatal crashes most affected riders under 30. Deaths of riders 50 and over haven't increased significantly since 2006.
  
  
• Several factors indicate high noob involvement in the sportbike crashes.

Now let's look at the changing crash configurations in Bay Area fatalities 2006-2008.

In 2006, the three most common crash configurations were about equal in number. Running wide in a curve (17 crashes), losing control in a straight line (17), and colliding with a crossing vehicle (16) accounted for 75% of the fatal crashes that year (see chart below). In 2008, the second two configurations had changed little since 2006, but the number of crashes that occurred when the motorcycle ran wide in a curve had doubled. In these crashes, the motorcycle either runs off the road and hits a fixed object or into the oncoming lane and hits another vehicle.



In 2006, deaths due to running wide in a curve affected cruisers and sportbikes equally, but in 2007 and 2008, twice as many sportbikes as cruisers crashed that way. In 2006, 4 riders under age 30 died on sportbikes when they ran wide in a curve, in 2007 it was 17, and in 2008 it was 8. Clearly, a problem that has developed and has increased Bay Area motorcycling deaths is young riders on sportbikes crashing in curves.

The configuration most often discussed when motorcyclists talk about crashes is the collision with a crossing vehicle--usually a left-turner. Surprisingly, left-turner crashes have accounted for little of the increase in Bay Area deaths since 2006. While most left-turner crashes are caused by the driver involved, the motorcyclist is responsible for some. Since 2006, drivers have been responsible for 50% of the crashes between a motorcycle and another vehicle that crossed its roadway, motorcyclists have been responsible for 37%, and the remaining 13% are undetermined. Some of the drivers who caused crashes ran red lights or stop signs, but most simply failed to yield the right of way. When the motorcyclist causes a crash with a crossing vehicle, it is usually by running a stop sign or red light, but a significant number are due to excessive speed.

Under "lost control on straight", I include any crash where the motorcyclist lost control going straight without an identified cause such as hitting debris or a mechanical malfunction. Nearly half of these involved BAC of .08 or higher. Some occurred when the rider crashed under braking. Some were due to witnessed recklessness (including stunting). Others were apparently due to inattentiveness, because the motorcycle drifted off the road. Still others weren't adequately explained.

The "other" category on the chart includes (totals for 2006-2008): 9 passing attempts by riders that somehow went wrong; 6 head-ons caused by drivers who crossed the centerline; 6 lane-splitting crashes; 4 collisions with pedestrians (riders survived, peds did not); 4 collisions with vehicles making illegal U-turns; and 2 rear-enders where the motorcyclist was the victim (contrast this to the 20 deaths where a motorcycle rear-ended another vehicle).

 

[thinmac]

DataDan,

Do you think that the data for fatal crashes is representative of serious motorcycle crashes in general? I ask because a crash that results in paralysis is as much of a concern as one that ends in death. Do you think people injure themselves in the same ways they kill themselves?

 

[DataDan]

DataDan,

Do you think that the data for fatal crashes is representative of serious motorcycle crashes in general? I ask because a crash that results in paralysis is as much of a concern as one that ends in death. Do you think people injure themselves in the same ways they kill themselves?

That's a very good question, and I don't have a definitive answer.

I report on fatal crashes because detailed data is available that isn't available for non-fatals, and because they are of the greatest concern for many readers. From reading about crashes in the news and on forums for many years, my hunch is that fatal crashes generally occur in the same way as non-fatals.

To a large extent, the difference in injury severity is luck. Lowside in a right-hander with no other traffic around and you slide to the left shoulder, bruised up for sure but maybe not even in need of an ambulance. If there's an oncoming vehicle though, the consequence could easily be fatal. But then I read about a headon in Marin County in 2005 where the rider flew over the car (I think it was a Miata) and landed uninjured on a soft patch of grass. Hit a left-turner crossing your path near the front wheel and you'll tumble over the hood. Hit it at the "B" pillar and you could suffer fatal injuries.

There's some enlightenment on this quesion in CHP's SWITRS reports, which cover both fatal and non-fatal crashes (US DOT's reports estimate rather than count non-fatal crashes). Here is a comparison of crash factors in fatal and non-fatal motorcycle crashes where the rider was at fault for all of California in 2008 (from Tables 7K and 7L):

[TABLE="head"]Primary Collision Factor |fatal |% |non-fatal |%
Unsafe Speed |150 |39.8% |3,143 |47.2%
DUI |96 |25.5% |604 |9.1%
Improper Turning |54 |14.3% |1,386 |20.8%
Wrong Side Of Road |37 |9.8% |334 |5.0%
Other Hazardous Violation |9 |2.4% |129 |1.9%
Traffic Signals And Signs |9 |2.4% |125 |1.9%
Automobile Right-Of-Way |7 |1.9% |200 |3.0%
Unsafe Lane Change |7 |1.9% |182 |2.7%
Improper Passing |4 |1.1% |225 |3.4%
Following Too Closely |1 |0.3% |138 |2.1%
Unknown |1 |0.3% |67 |1.0%
Pedestrian Right-Of-Way |1 |0.3% |8 |0.1%
Other Equipment |1 |0.3% |6 |0.1%
Other Improper Driving | |0.0% |58 |0.9%
Unsafe Starting Or Backing | |0.0% |50 |0.8%
Brakes | |0.0% |1 |0.0%
TOTAL |377 | |6656 | [/TABLE]

The 377 fatal crashes where the rider was at fault comprise 70% of all fatal crashes while the 6656 non-fatals are 58% of the total.

I'm not real confident of this compilation because "unsafe speed" is a catch-all. With the US DOT data I used for the analysis of crash causes earlier in this thread, it can usually be determined, for example, that the motorcycle ran wide in a curve and hit another vehicle or fixed object. But in this SWITRS summary, the same crash could be categorized simply as "unsafe speed".

 

[StevenDavisFoto]

do we have any data that shows correlations between wearing of proper gear (going ATGATT) and injuries/deaths?

i see squids every day and they HAVE to be much more likely to die than people going ATGATT. thoughts?

 

[Marcoose]

I'm an ATGATT rider. My suit is 2-3 times bigger than my size to fit the extra padding. I seriously look like I weigh 50 pounds more than I do.

Something tells me all that gear will protect me against road rashes and bruises. But if I go off a corner straight into the incoming traffic, I'm dead meat.

I still would be interested in seeing the correlation, though.

Welcome to BARF, Steve.

Marc.

 

[DataDan]

do we have any data that shows correlations between wearing of proper gear (going ATGATT) and injuries/deaths?

i see squids every day and they HAVE to be much more likely to die than people going ATGATT. thoughts?

To show the benefit of protective gear in saving lives, use in fatalities would have to be compared to use in non-fatal crashes. The question of interest is: Given that a crash has occurred, how much more likely is an unprotected rider to die? Unfortunately, that data isn't generally available, though it is published for helmet use in certain states.

And it gets even more complicated since all crashes aren't equal. If riders who wear protective gear tend to have different kinds of crashes than those who don't, a conclusion about the effect of protective gear would also reflect riding habits.

A NHTSA study on helmet effectiveness for preventing deaths concluded that 37% of unhelmeted fatalities could be prevented with a helmet. The study was able to control for crash type because it compared the fate of rider and passenger in the various combinations of helmet use.

While protective gear other than helmets can prevent many painful injuries, it doesn't prevent more serious injuries or death. Fractures, amputations, and internal injuries happen even with proper gear. Both the Hurt study and MAIDS (a 2000 study of motorcycle crashes in Europe) found that jackets, pants, gloves, and boots all helped to reduce or prevent minor injuries like road rash and bruises.

Think of injury prevention in three tiers, from most effective to least effective:

1. Avoid potentially dangerous situations by anticipating problems and not getting sucked into them.
   
   
2. When your powers of anticipation have failed to warn you of a problem, execute evasive maneuvers to prevent a crash. This is less effective because there may not be enough time and space to avoid a crash, and the attempted maneuver itself may result in a crash.
   
   
3. When you're unable to brake, accelerate, or steer your way out of a crash that you didn't anticipate, you need protective gear to reduce injury. While this is an essential part of safer riding, it is less effective than tiers 1 and 2 because of the many kinds of injuries our protective gear cannot prevent.