Your input needed California Motorcycle Safety

[K-dog]

The major thing that everyone is glossing over here is that our data about crashes, accidents, and the effectiveness of gear is THIRTY YEARS OLD.

I cannot believe this hasn't been mentioned more than once in the first page...we haven't had a conclusive study on motorcycle accidents since the Hurt Report, 30 years ago. We need modern information, about more modern problems. Bikes have changed dramatically since then, gear has changed dramatically since then, and making legislation based off of the assumptions of 30 years ago isn't going to be the most effective use of our money and your time.

There was an attempt at a study. It failed to get enough funding even with the government offering half or something like that. Who do you get to fund such a study?

 

[Z3n]

There was an attempt at a study. It failed to get enough funding even with the government offering half or something like that. Who do you get to fund such a study?

Perhaps via the same state funding that's attempting to increase motorcycle safety? Moving forward on policies or legislation without an understanding of where you can be most effective and without good evaluations of the risks is just going to waste more time and money.

I also don't think that more restrictions are the solution to our problems. You can make kids jump through all the right hoops, but at the end of the day, they're still kids with with skills and flawed judgment will simply crash at higher speed because they lack a good understanding of the skills that lead to safe street riding.

The people advocating more training don't seem to understand that the problem doesn't lie in the training, it lies in the rider. Teaching someone to come into a corner faster isn't going to stop them from crashing. The trick to not crashing is to have the judgment to avoid situations that demand superior skill, not superior skill. Believe it or not, despite the fact that everything the MSF does takes place in a parking lot, they teach the correct reactions to damn near every situation. The problem is that riders don't see past the lessons to the core idea beneath...you don't learn to go fast, you learn so that your margins of safety are higher. Almost every single motorcycle crash is preceded by too much throttle/speed, teaching people when to not use the throttle is far better than teaching them how to corner better. The solution to riders crashing isn't teaching them how to handle the bike at higher speed, it's teaching them how to avoid the situation in the first place.

How do you teach that very particular, unique skill? Fucked if I know. But forcing people to spend hours in classrooms to enjoy riding a motorcycle, teaching them to learn to handle their bikes better is just going to increase the speed that they crash at, because they don't have the good judgment to figure out where to go fast and where to go slow, and the restraint to understand that if they don't understand the conditions, they should be going slow.

Before we are capable of educating others, we need to educate ourselves. At the moment, we have very little good, current data regarding what situations motorcyclists are at highest risk in. The previous data points to most street crashes being very low speed, but do we know if that's still the case? Are we better off focusing on fatal accidents, non-fatal accidents, what? There's questions here that need to be answered before we can have an effective strategy that will help motorcyclist safety.

 

[iamjr2]

There is a new Federally funded motorcycle safety study underway, as part of the Dept of Transportation - SAFETEA-LU Program...

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/

Motorcycle specific information...

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/

The study is being led by Oklahoma State University.... looking into 300 crashes...

http://news.okstate.edu/index.php/n...major-study-into-causes-of-motorcycle-crashes

and

http://www.amadirectlink.com/news/story.asp?id=1431

Preliminary results are due in 2010 and final in 2013...

But of course there is controversy..... MSF thinks 300 crashes is not a large enough sample and has offered to pay for a 900 crash study....

http://www.msf-usa.org/index_new.cf...y&content=5973913A-C291-4619-4DFED000750D9B90

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...crash-causation-study-in-30-years-begins.html

 

[crazybob]

That's because 300 isn't enough for a study like this...

 

[budman]

Taking notes... thanks all for your takes..:thumbup

:smoking

 

[Ironbutt]

How can I help? Volunteer my time?

 

[wingnutthehutt]

The city is doing construction on my street right now and the sidewalks are closed. On my way home the other day I noticed a version of this sign.

It was one of the big temporary diamond ones. Right in front of it was an 80s BMW K series. Why don't we put up modified versions of this sign in strategic areas where there is known to be a high level of motorcycle traffic. A few key areas would obviously be the lead up to all the bay area bridges, interchanges etc. Sometimes a reminder is all it takes.

Or this one. Easily modified to show a motorcycle.

 

[DataDan]

As in the Bay Area, the statewide increase in deaths in the past few years has most affected riders under age 30 and sportbike riders.

That doesn't necessarily mean a young rider today is more likely to die on a motorcycle than his counterpart of 1999, or that sportbikes have become more dangerous. Most likely, it just means that riders under 30 and sportbikes are the fastest growing segments of motorcycling in California.

 

[DataDan]

As I mentioned in another post, alcohol is a decreasing problem in fatal California motorcycle crashes. But it is still a problem. And it's isn't confined to certain age groups.

While the under-30 group comprised a small number of .08+ riders killed in 2000, they have increased steadily since then. Of course, that's due in part to their greater numbers in the riding population, but under-30 deaths at .08+ have increased more than all under-30 deaths. So it seems that the don't-drink-and-ride ethic that has permeated sportbike culture in the past isn't reaching new riders.

 

[UDRider]

The city is doing construction on my street right now and the sidewalks are closed. On my way home the other day I noticed a version of this sign.

It was one of the big temporary diamond ones. Right in front of it was an 80s BMW K series. Why don't we put up modified versions of this sign in strategic areas where there is known to be a high level of motorcycle traffic. A few key areas would obviously be the lead up to all the bay area bridges, interchanges etc. Sometimes a reminder is all it takes.

Or this one. Easily modified to show a motorcycle.

I failed to see the point, hell these signs don't really work all that well for cyclists. The first one is too ambiguous and some motorists interpret them as cyclists should stay the hell away from the road and ride in the gutter. The second one is better, but seems to re-enforce the idea that cyclists can take the road only in certain places where signs are present. In either case, they are intended to let motorists know that cyclists can ride on the road, and are not that effective at it. Anyway wrong forum for this rant.

 

[DataDan]

So, what are the most common causes of fatal motorcycle crashes in California?

I haven't looked at all of the state, but I have made detailed studies of crashes in the Bay Area and around San Luis Obispo. As it happens, the two riding environments differ dramatically, and so do their motorcycle crashes. That in itself should help guide the Office of Traffic Safety project.

The first attachment shows the causes of fatal crashes in the Bay Area 2006-2007, including the 9 counties on the Bay + Santa Cruz. Because the analysis is time consuming, I've gone back only to 2006, and I haven't finished 2008 yet. When I'm done with '08 it will appear in the 1Rider thread Motostats 2008.

The 53 SLO fatal crashes 2004-2008 include all SLO County plus southern Monterey and northern Santa Barbara counties--basically the areas where I ride most. It doesn't include the cities of Monterey, Salinas, or Santa Barbara.

Note that I didn't (couldn't) dig any deeper into events that preceded the crash. While a rider might have "lost control on straight" because he was wheelieing, drunk, or overbraking due to inexperience, I have no way of knowing all of the factors, so I report only the trajectories, which I find on the US DOT database. An investigator's conclusion might be that the most signficant factor leading to the crash was the influence of alcohol or excessive speed, but I can't make that determination.

One striking conclusion is that most fatal crashes involve failure of the rider to steer the bike around a curve or to keep it pointed in a straight line. These are basic control problems that indicate lack of training or inexperience. Collisions with vehicles that fail to yield right of way are less of a problem than might be expected, at least in fatal crashes.

The obvious difference between SLO and the Bay Area is loss-of-control crashes vs. right-of-way violation crashes, a difference due to riding environments. SLO has some typical left-turner crashes, but only 6 of the 53 occurred that way, most of them in cities. Rural crashes outnumber urban crashes 2:1 in SLO, while urban crashes outnumber rural crashes in the Bay Area by nearly 3:1.

Rural counties have different kinds of problems than urban counties to deal with in trying to reduce motorcycle deaths. By recognizing those differences, Office of Traffic Safety will be able to target its efforts effectively.

 

[WFO]

A bit off topic but...

I learned to ride a dirt bike when I was five. By the time I was a teenager I got to be pretty good at it.

Think about it:
The dirt doesn't hurt as much as pavement.
You'll rarely go any faster than 60 mph on a dirt bike - usually you're under 30 mph. A 24 mph average on an enduro course can be quite challenging.
Dirt bikes teach you about traction, throttle control and balance.
Flat trackers usually make the best road racers.
Most Likely, if you end up going to the hospital, it has nothing to do with hitting a car.
You can usually keep riding your bike after a crash.
You can start at a much younger age.
You won't get a ticket for doing a wheelie.

It's too bad we couldn't model our transportation system after the Germans. They've really got their act together on so many different levels. It puts our system to shame.
Then again, there aren't too many places to ride dirt bikes in Germany.

 

[Burning1]

I'd like to see the MSF course included as a valid traffic violator school. I think the value in violator schools is not in explaining what the driver did wrong, but instead educating and encouraging good rider behavior. I believe that 3 day class provides significant benefits over spending a few hours on a website.

I'd second the suggestion for better engineering for rider safety. It would be nice to see higher barriers on overpasses and barriers around popular motorcycle destinations that would be easier on the riders (e.g. head height chain link fence to prevent riders from flying off the edge of a cliff or sliding under a barrier and hitting a post.) Such barriers may not be as economical as what's currently in place, but I believe they could make a major difference if placed strategically.

 

[icemilkcoffee]

One ting that can be done immediately is to get rid of old laws that restrict what kind of lighting you can have on a motorcycle. Every motorcycle should have the basic minimal lighting obviously. But beyond that- let riders add on additional flickering lights, flashing lights, spinning lights, ground effect lights, purple lights, etc, to their hearts' content. Anything to make the moto rider more visible should be legalized. LED technology is such that adding additional visibility lighting is much easier and much more effective than before.

 

[Abacinator]

One ting that can be done immediately is to get rid of old laws that restrict what kind of lighting you can have on a motorcycle. Every motorcycle should have the basic minimal lighting obviously. But beyond that- let riders add on additional flickering lights, flashing lights, spinning lights, ground effect lights, purple lights, etc, to their hearts' content. Anything to make the moto rider more visible should be legalized. LED technology is such that adding additional visibility lighting is much easier and much more effective than before.

No. Such things are easily overdone and can be obnoxious and distracting. IMO.

I've always felt that the best way to improve everyone's experience on the roads is to make it far more difficult and expensive to obtain a driver's license.

 

[ontherearwheel]

So, what are the most common causes of fatal motorcycle crashes in California?

I haven't looked at all of the state, but I have made detailed studies of crashes in the Bay Area and around San Luis Obispo. As it happens, the two riding environments differ dramatically, and so do their motorcycle crashes. That in itself should help guide the Office of Traffic Safety project.

The first attachment shows the causes of fatal crashes in the Bay Area 2006-2007, including the 9 counties on the Bay + Santa Cruz. Because the analysis is time consuming, I've gone back only to 2006, and I haven't finished 2008 yet. When I'm done with '08 it will appear in the 1Rider thread Motostats 2008.

The 53 SLO fatal crashes 2004-2008 include all SLO County plus southern Monterey and northern Santa Barbara counties--basically the areas where I ride most. It doesn't include the cities of Monterey, Salinas, or Santa Barbara.

Note that I didn't (couldn't) dig any deeper into events that preceded the crash. While a rider might have "lost control on straight" because he was wheelieing, drunk, or overbraking due to inexperience, I have no way of knowing all of the factors, so I report only the trajectories, which I find on the US DOT database. An investigator's conclusion might be that the most signficant factor leading to the crash was the influence of alcohol or excessive speed, but I can't make that determination.

One striking conclusion is that most fatal crashes involve failure of the rider to steer the bike around a curve or to keep it pointed in a straight line. These are basic control problems that indicate lack of training or inexperience. Collisions with vehicles that fail to yield right of way are less of a problem than might be expected, at least in fatal crashes.

The obvious difference between SLO and the Bay Area is loss-of-control crashes vs. right-of-way violation crashes, a difference due to riding environments. SLO has some typical left-turner crashes, but only 6 of the 53 occurred that way, most of them in cities. Rural crashes outnumber urban crashes 2:1 in SLO, while urban crashes outnumber rural crashes in the Bay Area by nearly 3:1.

Rural counties have different kinds of problems than urban counties to deal with in trying to reduce motorcycle deaths. By recognizing those differences, Office of Traffic Safety will be able to target its efforts effectively.

Without knowing the exact reason and conditions of each crash, there is no way you can say for sure that lack of training or inexperince was a factor in all crashes.

One reason stats are useless.

 

[Z3n]

Without knowing the exact reason and conditions of each crash, there is no way you can say for sure that lack of training or inexperince was a factor in all crashes.

One reason stats are useless.

If it's a factor in most crashes, though, then it would be worthwhile to address why it's happening.

And the stats that are presented are much more general. It's why we need another Hurt report, which went to the scenes of accidents and interviewed people involved in them to figure out what really happened.

 

[canyonrat]

Here's my 2 cents.

Tiered licensing and insurance:

Some sort of action/change should occur at the insurance level. California has full control of it's insurance regulations. I agree with some sort of tiered licensing based on age and or experience. The insurance companies should be regulated to offer discounts for each MSF course or riders' safety course or FORMAL trackday (like Superbike School) completed. These discounts should only be good for a limited number of years which would encourage riders to continue taking training.

Checkpoints:

I have many issues with roadblocks for DUI checking. My libertarianism showing through. At the same time I understand the thinking behind it. Police could instead conduct gas station check points. Drivers are already stopped for a few minutes pumping gas. The Police could randomly check to see if the driver has all of their paperwork (drivers license, vehicle registration, and insurance). Even go further and randomly do a quick background check. This would also be a chance to sniff for booze. Searching of vehicle should be highly discouraged. This could also apply to known motorcycle "hangouts" with an emphasis being on checking paperwork and vehicle safety checks. Loud pipes, blinkers, mirrors, etc., ticket violations should be discouraged but friendly discussions on such matters should be encouraged. Paperwork violations should be heavily enforced.

Street signage:

Signs specifically designed to warn motorcyclists of dangers ahead. For example: "Blind driveways", "decreasing radius corner", "u-turn area ahead", "scenic roadside pull off area", "high motorcycle crash area ahead", along with others. I'm not a road sign guy so they of course should design them.

Change to vehicle code:

This would be a tough one to stomach, but there are MANY areas I will pass over the double yellow on the bike, and a few passing zones I will not pass on the bike. I am aware much of HWY1 as well as other roads were repainted with nearly all double yellow about a decade ago to receive increased federal funds. Perhaps a "motorcycle only" passing designation. this also could tie in with motorcycle signage for those legal areas I don't pass on. "Caution when passing - driveways".

Misc:

A BIG problem are areas like HWY9 and HWY35, along with more than I know of. Many locals need to use roads like these to get home, tourists are traveling them, peddle bikes poke along, and sportbikes and riceburner cars are speeding through them. I would say that the current enforcement tactics are not perfect and could stand to be improved upon. The State or Local Governments can't warn drivers of the speeding menaces ahead because then they could be held liable if an accident occurs; that liability should be removed so that warning can be made, particularly for tourists. I would also say that I think it would be frustrating as hell to be a CHP trying to patrol such areas around mid summer weekends. So the officers' frustrations also must be considered in this, where as I will guess they often are not. This is a whole topic on it's own.


Thanks for all of your guy's hard work,

Mark

 

[rodr]

...
Checkpoints:

I have many issues with roadblocks for DUI checking. My libertarianism showing through. At the same time I understand the thinking behind it. Police could instead conduct gas station check points. Drivers are already stopped for a few minutes pumping gas. The Police could randomly check to see if the driver has all of their paperwork (drivers license, vehicle registration, and insurance). Even go further and randomly do a quick background check. This would also be a chance to sniff for booze. Searching of vehicle should be highly discouraged. This could also apply to known motorcycle "hangouts" with an emphasis being on checking paperwork and vehicle safety checks. Loud pipes, blinkers, mirrors, etc., ticket violations should be discouraged but friendly discussions on such matters should be encouraged. Paperwork violations should be heavily enforced.

Eww. Sounds like a police state. Your libertarianism is not showing through as much as you think.

 

[reidconti]

Eww. Sounds like a police state. Your libertarianism is not showing through as much as you think.

This.

A *very* strong libertarian might say DUI shouldn't be illegal in and of itself because there are already punishments for causing collisions and for causing bodily harm in a collision; why does it matter if you were drunk or just stupid?

Of course, we all know the punishments for crashing into another vehicle are very minimal, which is one reason DUI laws exist at all.