Motostats 2018

DataDan

Mama says he's bona fide
Why have motorcycle crashes become deadlier?

The surprising conclusion from yesterday's post is that motorcycle crashes in the US and in California are more likely to be fatal now than they were 30 years ago. The percentage is low--only 4% of US crashes and 3% of California crashes take the life of the rider--but still, this seems contrary to what we know about the sport. Protective gear, improved and worn much more often than 30 years ago, should be reducing crash lethality.

attachment.php



However, since 1997 all-rider helmet laws have been repealed in six states, including four of the top 10 US motorcycle states. Has reduced helmet use increased crash lethality?

attachment.php


Seems not. In spite of the repeals, helmet use has been gradually rising, not falling. Even in states with no helmet requirement, helmet use has increased. In Michigan, the most recent repeal, 70% of crash-involved riders are wearing one. In Texas it's 59%, in Florida 55%.


Older riders are more vulnerable riders

After discovering the lethality increase a few years ago, I wondered if it had resulted from more violent crashes. Maybe brave young riders on 180mph sportbikes had inflated the fatality data. That guess was crushed when I found that young riders, particularly those under age 25, were at less risk of dying in the event of a crash than older riders. Digging deeper, I found that the 55+ age group, not the < 25 group, was pushing lethality higher.

attachment.php


And the 55+ age group has been growing for 30 years:

attachment.php


Since 1990, 26% of motorcyclists involved in crashes in the US have moved statistically from the least vulnerable age group--the under 25s--into more vulnerable groups, most of them into the most vulnerable groups. This accounts for a substantial part of the lethality increase.

In post #9 of this thread, I concluded that growth in the 55+ age group had reduced the crash rate. Increased crash lethality is the downside of that change.


Lethality by age in California is similar to the US:

attachment.php


My detailed California crash data includes rider age back only to 2001, so I can't present an age distribution graph that includes earlier years, but what I have does show that the percentage of crash-involved riders age 55+ doubled from 2001 to 2018:

attachment.php



A more deadly mix of vehicles on the road

Over the past 30 years, the typical family transportation appliance has morphed from a Taurus or Accord into an F-150, Odyssey, or Suburban. This has not been a welcome development for motorcyclists, because the latter group--classified as light trucks by NHTSA--is much less crash-friendly to us. The late Wendy Moon wrote about the impact of this shift in a 2004 Motorcycle Consumer News article, "Fatal Design", and I have kept track of the relevant crash data subsequently.

attachment.php


In 1990, light trucks--pickups, vans, minivans, SUVs, crossovers--comprised less than 20% of vehicles involved in 2-vehicle motorcycle crashes, but accounted for 32% of the rider deaths that occurred in those crashes. In that same year, cars accounted for 75% of crashes and 55% of deaths. Since then, light truck involvement has increased to 37% of crashes and 45% of deaths. Clearly, the difference in motorcyclist crash lethality between cars and light trucks is huge:

attachment.php



Conclusion

In spite of improvements in motorcycle protective gear and its growing use, crashing has become more deadly over the past 30 years. The observed increase in motorcycle crash lethality can be explained in substantial part by the aging riding population and the mix of other vehicles on the road. Neither of those factors is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Motorcyclist median age seems to have stabilized in the late 40s. It has gone from a young man's sport to one that appeals to men and women over a wide age range. While crash risk is lower thanks to the presence of older, more conservative riders, vulnerability to fatal injury has increased due to the same change in age distribution.

For a variety of reasons, Americans enjoy big vehicles to transport themselves and their families. Fifty years ago it was a Buick Electra Deuce-and-a-Quarter. Today, it's a Ford F-350 or Mercedes GLS or whatever, which poses serious danger to a motorcyclist in the event of a crash. The increase in light trucks from < 20% of multiple-vehicle motorcycle crashes 30 years ago to 37% today has resulted in an additional 280 rider deaths per year by my estimate. In no feasible scenario will these vehicles soon become either less popular or less deadly.
 

Attachments

  • lethality helmet use.jpg
    lethality helmet use.jpg
    44.6 KB · Views: 675
  • lethality age.jpg
    lethality age.jpg
    36.8 KB · Views: 207
  • lethality age dist.jpg
    lethality age dist.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 213
  • lethality by age CA.jpg
    lethality by age CA.jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 207
  • lethality lt involvement.jpg
    lethality lt involvement.jpg
    67.2 KB · Views: 204
  • lethality overall.jpg
    lethality overall.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 201
  • lethality comparison.jpg
    lethality comparison.jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 207
  • lethality age dist CA.jpg
    lethality age dist CA.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 203
Last edited:

DataDan

Mama says he's bona fide
tl;dr

Here's a summary of my main posts in this thread. Links are to those posts.


That's it for me. I have no more posts planned for this thread, but I will be glad to answer any questions you have, so post them up.

I haven't cited sources, but everything that appears is from a federal or California government publication. If you have a question on the data, send me a PM and I'll reply with a link or document.
 

GAJ

Well-known member
For a variety of reasons, Americans enjoy big vehicles to transport themselves and their families. Fifty years ago it was a Buick Electra Deuce-and-a-Quarter. Today, it's a Ford F-350 or Mercedes GLS or whatever, which poses serious danger to a motorcyclist in the event of a crash. The increase in light trucks from < 20% of multiple-vehicle motorcycle crashes 30 years ago to 37% today has resulted in an additional 280 rider deaths per year by my estimate. In no feasible scenario will these vehicles soon become either less popular or less deadly.

Good stuff Dan.

My Dad had an Electra 225 he bought in 1966, the year I came to this Country from the UK.

I read an article in an actual moto rag many moons ago how much more dangerous to a rider hitting the side of an SUV was compared to hitting the side of a car.

Maybe it was MCN?
 

DataDan

Mama says he's bona fide
Good stuff Dan.

My Dad had an Electra 225 he bought in 1966, the year I came to this Country from the UK.

I read an article in an actual moto rag many moons ago how much more dangerous to a rider hitting the side of an SUV was compared to hitting the side of a car.

Maybe it was MCN?
Probably so. MCN ran "Fatal Design" by Wendy Moon in the July 2004 issue.

It didn't get as much attention as expected. ISTR that editor Fred Rau had promoted it on the MCN forum as a big deal. However, she implausibly exaggerated the number of motorcyclist deaths due to the shift to light trucks, and there were some errors and ambiguities in the graphics presented with the article. I was highly skeptical at the time.

However, I did start keeping track of 2-vehicle motorcycle crashes and eventually (years later) came to agree that the effect is real, though estimating a much more modest magnitude.
 

Manzanita

Active member
Mean time between motorcyclist death?

Dan,

When I see statistics like this is makes me wonder, can you extrapolate the yearly rate of fatalities into creating an estimate: people who ride X years will have Y risk of dying in a motorcycle accident?

Of course YMMV, but I'm just thinking of all the people who think motorcycling is a death sentence and superficial math from these charts seems to indicate that the vast majority of long-term riders will not die on a motorcycle (or am I reading this wrong?)
 

DataDan

Mama says he's bona fide
When I see statistics like this is makes me wonder, can you extrapolate the yearly rate of fatalities into creating an estimate: people who ride X years will have Y risk of dying in a motorcycle accident?
IOW, average risk of death over X years? With various assumptions, that's a fairly easy estimate to make. From 2014 to 2018, Americans exposed themselves to 43 million motorcycle-years of danger. A "motorcycle-year" is one motorcycle registered--and presumably ridden--for one year. Over that same period, 24,000 riders were killed. So roughly 1 in 1800 riders died per year of exposure. Since 1990, that average rate has ranged from 1 in 1400 (lower number, higher risk than today) to a high near the current value. As a wild-ass guess, with all the unstated underlying assumptions, on average, someone who rides for 10 years will have a 0.55% chance of dying on a motorcycle in that time.

Of course YMMV, but I'm just thinking of all the people who think motorcycling is a death sentence and superficial math from these charts seems to indicate that the vast majority of long-term riders will not die on a motorcycle (or am I reading this wrong?)
You're reading it the same way I read it: Risk of death on a motorcycle is lower than most people think it is. It's not low by the standards of the safety-obsessed who pore over Consumer Reports car crashworthiness ratings, but it is within the range of other normal modern activities. It's about the same, per hour, as general aviation, for example.
 

ThinkFast

Live Long
IOW, average risk of death over X years? With various assumptions

Wouldn’t deaths per moto mile be a bit more informative? I could see plotting in three dimensions a graph showing fatalities as a function of years of experience and annual miles ridden. Hypothesis is that risk of dying declines with years of experience at some rate; but shows a different relationship with annual mileage.

Dunno. Interesting stuff.
 

DataDan

Mama says he's bona fide
Wouldn’t deaths per moto mile be a bit more informative? I could see plotting in three dimensions a graph showing fatalities as a function of years of experience and annual miles ridden. Hypothesis is that risk of dying declines with years of experience at some rate; but shows a different relationship with annual mileage.
In the context of Manzanita's question, the rate per registration-year seems most enlightening and straightforward. It was about the public perception of risk to the average motorcyclist.

You dig a little deeper with the point about the effect of experience--an equally interesting question. Hurt and MAIDS both support your hypothesis that it reduces crash risk. IOW, it's a good thing. (Estimating fatality risk by experience would require far more data than could be gathered in a one-year study of 900 crashes.)

attachment.php


Your proposed third dimension--annual miles--makes it a much harder question. Most motorcyclists understand that experience reduces per-mile risk. And we would also agree that more miles per year increases annual risk. But how do those two factors combine? Who knows?

My feeling is that while experience decreases per-mile risk, the reduction isn't as much as we might expect. In the MAIDS data, the 8+ years group had one-third the risk of the half-year group. Good, sure, but it's not one-tenth, as I probably would have guessed before seeing the data.

With experience we develop partial immunity to the common crashes--left-turners, cutoffs, rear-enders, etc. By living through the close calls (and maybe a few actual crashes) we learn how to avoid them. But experience doesn't protect us from rare, shit-happens events. When I get a little too proud of myself for avoiding crashes, I think about a 2011 crash in San Diego County that took the life of a respected Streetmasters instructor. In the rain on I-805, the driver of a Lexus SUV lost control and spun into a big rig in the right lane, then caromed back toward the center divider, taking out a BMW R1100S.

The more we ride, the more we expose ourselves to unpredictable, unavoidable risks.
.
 

Attachments

  • experiencegraf.jpg
    experiencegraf.jpg
    60.2 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:

DataDan

Mama says he's bona fide
Bay Area Fatal Crashes 2018

I have attached to this post, as a PDF, a list of all 2018 Bay Area fatal crashes in considerable detail.

The file is unwieldy, for sure. It is formatted to print in landscape on 8.5x14 and is unlikely to be actually printed. But it is viewable easily enough in Acrobat Reader full-screen mode.

Data is from the US DOT and CHP databases mentioned previously in this thread. When lane splitting is shown as pre-crash, it came from a news story that quoted CHP as the source. "DOT" is direction of travel. "Primary factor" is shown for the party at fault in the state collision report. "DUI" is from US DOT and reflects either a BAC test or an officer's assessment. Sequence is date within county.

Terminology is straight from the official sources and may be a bit cryptic. Post or PM questions, and I can probably clarify.

If there's further interest in this kind of information, I have 2010-2019 in the same degree of detail, back to 2004 with slightly less, to 1998 with even less, and further with much less.

If there's any objection to providing this kind of detail for fatal crashes (though it is all publicly available information) let me know and I'll delete this post.
 

Attachments

  • MCL_BA.pdf
    139.6 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Top