1st New study since Hurt Report

[Miriam]

Recently, Congress appropriated funding for a motorcycle-crash study that required the motorcycling community to come up with matching funds before the research can begin. Thanks to a major contribution from the motorcycle industry, through the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, along with pledges from the American Motorcyclist Association and individual riders, that funding is now assured, and the study should begin this fall at the Oklahoma Transportation Center, which is an independent and respected research center at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater.

 

"The increasing number of fatalities among motorcyclists over the past nine years have concerned us," said Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations. "And that's why we've worked so hard to get an updated study of the causes of motorcycle crashes.

 

"We look forward to getting this valuable research that will help save lives on the nation's highways."

Source

[Fugu]

The article glibly references an increase in fatalities of 5% without mentioning whether that represents a per capita increase in fatalities or not. I know motorcycle registrations are way up, wouldn't a responsible report on the topic include relevant registration data so one could determine the rate of fatalities per rider, or at least per bike and whether there has really been a change? Shame on the AMA guy for just parroting the same sentiment. I guess it's proof 5 out of 4 people don't understand numbers.

 

More disconcerting is the involvement of government funding in this research. I do not believe the gubment will do anything positive with whatever data is gleaned from this study and frankly I do not want or need them involved them in my motorcycle safety. I can just see some moron senator trying to make a name for their self by mandating every bike have an airbag or some BS.

[bakerzdosen]

Well, I personally hope that it will be at least as informative as the Hurt Report. However, I do also hope that it won't mean any additional legislation (meaning rules with which I don't agree. ).

[Wyn]

Why do they need a study? I can tell them, bonehead amatures who don't think, prepare, wear, and want to show off.

Dudes nobody's watchin. If they are, it's on YouTube and they're laughin their asses off at what dumb asses you are!

 

And why do they call it the Hurt Report? Shouldn't they call it the Casualty Report? Or Dumas Report?

[motoguy128]

I beleive it's the Hurt report because it's the name of one of the authors I believe (H.H. Hurt).

 

I think it's long overdue. The first study provided objective data to supprot the use of safety gear, rider training, making motorcycles more visible (headlight use mandated), and dismissed some myths. It showed that speed was not a major factor in accidents. Half occured at speeds under 31mph at time of impact. 50% of the accidents were the fault of dirver of the other vehicle.

 

A new study with the more modern motorcycles may help show IF the accident rates have improved. If rider training is more common. IF the increased performance has reduced or increased accdents (most bikes in the first study still had drum brakes and made less than 40HP (est?)), whether ABS reduces accidents.

 

It could have a positive impact on insurance rates for example. State Farm, for one primarily bases their rats on engine displacement and whether it's a high risk (sportbike) or low risk model (everything else). I'd like to see the type of vehicle and safety equipment be factored in. The newer BMW's and other full or partially faired motorcycles for example have outstanding headlight arrays, that I feel make a significant difference in visbility.

[Miriam]

Why do they need a study?

Maybe if you read the Hurt Report before ridiculing it, you'd think differently.

[Jim VonBaden]

Why do they need a study?

Maybe if you read the Hurt Report before ridiculing it, you'd think differently.

 

 

I think it is a good thing! The Hurt Report halped make motorcycles, and riding safer but dismissing some long held myths, and making rider education more important.

 

It also helped the highway department understand motorcycle crashes and design safer roads for us.

 

Jim

[motoguy128]

I wish the original Hurt report was even more widely publisized. I still have a guy at work that is convinced that helmets reduce visibility and can break your neck if it "catches" the pavement when you crash. It's that kind of hopeless ignorance that I think a new report might help prevent.

[DaveTheAffable]

+1 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/motorcycles/

 

"Trends accompanying the rising motorcyclist death toll include a dramatic increase in motorcycle ownership, particularly by riders over 40, along with changes in other factors such as motorcycle size and rider experience. The rate of increase in fatalities has outpaced the rate of increase in motorcycle registrations, and the death and injury rates among middle-aged motorcycle riders have increased more rapidly."

 

Let's give input where appropriate to MSF or others so that the study is done well, rather than complaining about it before it's even been started.

[Fugu]

It could have a positive impact on insurance rates for example. State Farm, for one primarily bases their rats on engine displacement and whether it's a high risk (sportbike) or low risk model (everything else).

 

Having spent a considerable amount of time in the insurance industry, I have little faith that there is any study outcome that would lower rates appreciably. Part of this is regulatory restrictions, and part of it is their fault.

 

If rates went down for RTs, somebody would analyze the data and find that upper and middle class white males are overrepresented in RT ownership, and declare that the rate cut = racism. Crash / injury data would not matter.

[Fugu]

Let's give input where appropriate to MSF or others so that the study is done well, rather than complaining about it before it's even been started.

 

Thanks for finding that info re: registration vs. accidents. Too bad the writer of the linked article didn't bother. Of course we don't know by how much fatalities are outpacing registrations, but unfortunately they are.

 

As for complaining about it before it's been started, I have no problem with there being a new study. I do have a problem with what might be the only major study of the last decade (or two) being done with the involvement of congress, as I long ago disabused myself of the notion that they exist to serve this nation. I'd have no more faith in the impartiality of such a study than if the insurance institute for highway safety did it. Maybe it will turn out fantastic, like all the other stuff our government does so well.

 

I wonder if the study will include some scientific analysis of the Snell, DOT, and EU helmet standards?

[Pilgrim]

Let's give input where appropriate to MSF or others so that the study is done well, rather than complaining about it before it's even been started.

 

Thanks for finding that info re: registration vs. accidents. Too bad the writer of the linked article didn't bother. Of course we don't know by how much fatalities are outpacing registrations, but unfortunately they are.

 

As for complaining about it before it's been started, I have no problem with there being a new study. I do have a problem with what might be the only major study of the last decade (or two) being done with the involvement of congress, as I long ago disabused myself of the notion that they exist to serve this nation. I'd have no more faith in the impartiality of such a study than if the insurance institute for highway safety did it. Maybe it will turn out fantastic, like all the other stuff our government does so well.

 

I wonder if the study will include some scientific analysis of the Snell, DOT, and EU helmet standards?

 

Just to continue to belabor the point that statistics usually don't account for a lot of things . . .

 

The upsurge in registrations reflects a large increase in the number of new riders - who are vastly overrepresented in accidents.

 

As to Snell, DOT, EU - did you see the study done by, I think it was, Cycle Guide last year?

 

Pilgrim

[Fugu]

As to Snell, DOT, EU - did you see the study done by, I think it was, Cycle Guide last year?

 

Precisely why I'd like to see a really well done study on it to try and settle the squabbling. Seems to me that Snell is really defensive about their standards, and some scientists really don't like Snell almost like it's personal, and that obfuscates the real issue to some extent.

[sgendler]

As for complaining about it before it's been started, I have no problem with there being a new study. I do have a problem with what might be the only major study of the last decade (or two) being done with the involvement of congress, as I long ago disabused myself of the notion that they exist to serve this nation. I'd have no more faith in the impartiality of such a study than if the insurance institute for highway safety did it. Maybe it will turn out fantastic, like all the other stuff our government does so well.

 

A large percentage of all scientific research in the US is funded, at least in part, by the federal government. JUst because the government is cutting a check, don't expect them to be involved in the actual research - anymore than congress gets involved in my mother's federally funded research into cystic fibrosis and breast cancer. There is a 'political' process to getting the money - in which the methods and potential value of the result are compared to competing research proposals, but once the grant is awarded, her research is her own - at least until she publishes results. I'd be very surprised if the program at Oklahoma will be any different. They'll get their grant and do the research without any input from congress until such time as they publish or fail to generate results within the expected timeframe.

 

Which isn't to say that Congress won't then turn around and use the results t justify doing something stupid. Let's face it, that's the thing congress does best. But I'd be very surprised to see congress meddling in the data gathering or analysis itself.

 

--sam

[tallman]

Without addressing any particular post, there are already some "opinions" being passed as "facts".

The reality is more motorcyclists are involved in fatal crashes. To justify that based on an increase in riders doesn't change that fact.

Nearly half of all fatal accidents involve alcohol.

Many involve inappropriate control of the motorcycle.

Many involve speed.

Many involve speed, alcohol, and failure to control the two wheeled vehicle.

I have no problem with gathering data and providing the public with more information.

The last two times this topic came up, I researched driver training in the US, Canada, and Australia, with anecdotal information from Europe.

I looked at helmet laws and states that had changed the law.

Some results were surprising, some not so much.

I contacted the Agency studying traumatic brain injury and motorcycle helmets.

Etc.. Etc.. Etc..

Too tired to beat that horse this time.

There is plenty mucho information available.

Spend 20-30 hours or so reading and do it with an open mind.

One nugget, both the Hurt Report and recent data suggest that there are a spate of accidents in the first X months of motorcycle ownership.

Then there is a spike a couple of years later, so it's not all nubes involved.

Tiered license programs coupled with stringent rider training, no alcohol, judicious operation based on environment and road conditions will go a long way towards reducing the number of fatalities.

Best wishes.

[Twisties]

The article glibly references an increase in fatalities of 5% without mentioning whether that represents a per capita increase in fatalities or not.

 

I haven't read the article yet, but I think I can fill in on some of the Stats:

 

deaths are measured per 100,000 vehicle miles. Since about 1997, motorcycles have doubled from about 20, to about 40. In the same time period cars have dropped.

 

About 3300 motorcyclists are killed a year.

 

Why do they need a study? I can tell them, bonehead amatures who don't think, prepare, wear, and want to show off.

 

The funny thing about science is that often times you find the answer isn't what you thought it would be going in, and sometimes it turns out to be something completely opposite. I'm glad they're doing a study. Even if all our prejudices are found to be true, and I agree with yours, even if they identify one additional reason, or quantify the contributions of each of those factors, we will have learned something that will save somebody sometime. Gosh, you can really tell I'm a scientist, can't you. Heck, maybe they'll get rid of gummy worms and fix the striping paint after this one.

 

I wish the original Hurt report was even more widely publisized. I still have a guy at work that is convinced that helmets reduce visibility and can break your neck if it "catches" the pavement when you crash. It's that kind of hopeless ignorance that I think a new report might help prevent.

 

And he is absolutely sure his bike needs to be 120 decibels at 25 feet away, but he doesn't need hearing protection either because it's only loud if you have a helmet amplifying the sound.

 

ust to continue to belabor the point that statistics usually don't account for a lot of things . . .

 

The upsurge in registrations reflects a large increase in the number of new riders - who are vastly overrepresented in accidents.

 

In the MSF course I think they teach 1st 6 months of riding and first 6 months on a new bike. I think there are some other studies that also implicate young, under prepared riders without a license.

[Wyn]

Geez, does anyone on this forum have a sense of humor?

Sorry I'm generalizing again, just this thread?

 

Perhaps I was out of line?

 

Maybe it's my avatar?

[Miriam]

Geez, does anyone on this forum have a sense of humor?

Yep

Perhaps I was out of line?

Nope

Maybe it's my avatar?

Nope

[LuckyLeif]

I wish the original Hurt report was even more widely publisized. I still have a guy at work that is convinced that helmets reduce visibility and can break your neck if it "catches" the pavement when you crash. It's that kind of hopeless ignorance that I think a new report might help prevent.

Agreed. Once people have formed an opinion they will believe what they want to believe. Raw data and even analysis is often not sufficient to convince people to change their behavior. It took nearly 40 years of public health education to convince the majority of Americans that smoking is injurious to health. We are facing a similar situation with obesity and related diseases such as diabetes. I suspect most current riders have their beliefs about MC safety and are not likely to change their opinion. It's the new riders who are more acceptive and this is one group that the MSF does reach. In the old MSF curriculum, the Hurt study was prominant - now it's hidden in the content (but it is there).

[11101110]

I noticed something in one of the post above. Riders are dying at a higher rate that new registerations. But the new riders are older. Well maybe, just maybe a 50 yo rider cannot survive a collision as well as a 20 or 30 yo rider can. I'd also like to know if deaths are up due to relaxation of helmet and other safety laws. Saw a guy a week ago drop his bike in the walmart parking lot because he had some problem trying to turn his bike. I sware his handle bars came up almost to my sholders. I'm 6'3".

 

I have heard organ transplant doctors say that in states without helmet laws people needing organs get them a lot sooner.

 

Here is a good story of stupidity. My divorced neighbor was over at her ex husbands place less than a week after he bought a harley (yep bean cap only). He put his 8 yo son on the back to take him around the block without a helmet . Luckly he lost control before going five feet sending both to the ground. Luckly his son was not hurt.

[Bud]

Last weeks St. Louis Post Dispatch had a story about motorcycle fatalities in Missouri and Illinois. Missouri mandatory helmet law state, Illinois is not.

 

Deaths down in IL and up in MO.

 

Officials at a loss to explain why. Perhaps further study of the data provide explanation.