Quote from: WASHINGTON â€" The number of motorcyclist deaths jumped in 2007, accounting for nearly one in eight motor vehicle deaths, government safety officials said on Thursday.
Deaths of people in cars and trucks, on bicycles or on foot dropped by nearly 2,000 last year, pushing the overall death rate to a historic low. But deaths of motorcyclists surged 6.6 percent, to 5,154; 2007 was the 10th straight year of increase.
Experts say the trend is most likely to continue, as high gasoline prices will encourage some travelers to use their bikes more often, getting 50 miles for the $4 gallon of gasoline instead of 20 in their cars.
“We have seen the total motorcycle participation in vehicle miles traveled go up,†said Mary E. Peters, the secretary of transportation and a longtime Harley-Davidson rider.
“We might see more people moving to that mode of transportation,†Ms. Peters said. “We might see that data skew.â€
Motorcycle ridership appears to be rising even as the total miles for all vehicles drops.
Total deaths in motor vehicle crashes in 2007 declined to 41,059, a drop of 3.9 percent compared with 2006. Deaths in cars fell 7.8 percent, and in light trucks 2.7 percent. Even alcohol-related deaths fell....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/us/15fatal.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1218802443-bpyFgA6KbMRXRYGjvnXNow
They are contributing this to people riding more often but I think it has more to do with the power available in new bikes and anyone, even a first time rider, can walk into a bike shop and ride away with a gsx1100.
I think a progressive licensing system would bring the death toll down quite quickly.
In Aus/NZ/Japan/UK
you can ride on a learners permit up to 250cc's but you can not ride at night, with a passenger or on the freeway.
When you pass a practical test you progress to Restricted; your still on the 250 for 2 years then you pass another test and you get your full.
By the time someone gets up on a litter bike (legally) they will have been riding for three + years.
Be careful out there I would hate to see you as a 2008 statistic.
Why do I want the government dictating what size motorcycle I am allowed to ride? I am a grown adult and if i want to kill my self on a 1200cc bike its my business.
My S4R is my first bike. Yes its a bit much for a first bike but I like to think I have a decent amount of common sense. I dont go pulling wheelies and doing stupid crap on the freeway. I havent had any incidents (knock on wood) yet.
The same thing with helmet laws and seatbelt laws. I'd wear a helmet if it were the law or not. But if you dont want to wear one, that is up to you. If you are an adult its up to you. Under 18 would be a different story. The more the government butts into your life the more rights you lose.
Now I have no issue with requiring a strict licensing policy where you need to take a course, But don't tell me I cant buy the bike I want because you want to save me.
I was wondering about this the other day. With the number of scooters on the road today, the number would have to go up significantly....I'm assuming that they're classifying scooters in with motorcycles.
Screw the government telling me what I can and can't ride.
Let them do that and soon enough you'll loose your bike too.
Cause its got more than enough power.
Everyone will be riding Monster 400's.
Quote from: stateprez on August 15, 2008, 06:14:40 AM
I was wondering about this the other day. With the number of scooters on the road today, the number would have to go up significantly....I'm assuming that they're classifying scooters in with motorcycles.
Depend on the state but most state do not consider a scooter a motorcycle.
Quote from: RavnMonster on August 15, 2008, 05:53:00 AM
Why do I want the government dictating what size motorcycle I am allowed to ride? I am a grown adult and if i want to kill my self on a 1200cc bike its my business.
My S4R is my first bike. Yes its a bit much for a first bike but I like to think I have a decent amount of common sense. I dont go pulling wheelies and doing stupid crap on the freeway. I havent had any incidents (knock on wood) yet.
The same thing with helmet laws and seatbelt laws. I'd wear a helmet if it were the law or not. But if you dont want to wear one, that is up to you. If you are an adult its up to you. Under 18 would be a different story. The more the government butts into your life the more rights you lose.
Now I have no issue with requiring a strict licensing policy where you need to take a course, But don't tell me I cant buy the bike I want because you want to save me.
You can buy any bike you want but you can not use it on public roads until you have the experience to do so safely. There are things you can do to speed up the process (like take a couple of courses) but someone should have a little riding experience before riding a 177 kg 130 motorcycle.
You may have common sense, but common sense is not all that common.
I don't care too much about squids taking off a limb or two in a wreck but I don't want them taking out one of mine on their way down or driving up the cost of insurance because mommy bought them a turbo Hybusa as their first bike and they have never ridden anything they didn't have to peddle.
Seat belt and helmet laws are in place to save people who are too foolish to save themselves; a gradual license saves other peoples lives.
I have been riding since I was 12 and I have seen some real stupid shit happen due to inexperience, lack of skill, and too much power.
Quote from: stateprez on August 15, 2008, 06:14:40 AM
I was wondering about this the other day. With the number of scooters on the road today, the number would have to go up significantly....I'm assuming that they're classifying scooters in with motorcycles.
For statistical purposes like this, 2 or 3 wheels will be in the same category. So you get statistics painted with a broad brush
From FHWA
"Motorcycles -- All two or three-wheeled motorized vehicles. Typical vehicles in this category have saddle type seats and are steered by handlebars rather than steering wheels. This category includes motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds, motor-powered bicycles, and three-wheel motorcycles."
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/vehclass.htm
So that statistic covers *everything* real bikes, scoots, mopeds even.
And it's been hashed out here a few times... people people riding bikes or scoots now will mean more accidents. It's simple math.
There's been plenty of discussion as well about if the stats are skewing because there's more rookies and ud/under educated riders hitting the roads now. I'm not just talking about the would-be boy racer on his gsxcbrRR11bty, but also the growing masses of scooter pilots I see how have no clue and doing some *really* dumb shit...
Quote from: yuu on August 15, 2008, 07:37:05 AM
but also the growing masses of scooter pilots I see how have no clue and doing some *really* dumb shit...
Dumb shit like riding 10-15 mph below the speed of traffic while wearing a t-shirt, flip flops and a skull cap.
I am really curious about the gear logic here: Technically, it's not a motorcycle, so you shouldn't have to wear "motorcycle" gear.
Quote from: stateprez on August 15, 2008, 08:28:10 AM
Dumb shit like riding 10-15 mph below the speed of traffic while wearing a t-shirt, flip flops and a skull cap.
I am really curious about the gear logic here: Technically, it's not a motorcycle, so you shouldn't have to wear "motorcycle" gear.
That... saw one riding on a pedestrian walk way then pop into the traffic, from the side walk, that was making a turn to go across a very busy bridge here. Riding a vespa 2-up on a busy parkway...
And yes, the distinct lack of protective apparel too. In my state (VA) anything over 50 cc is treated like a motor cycle when it comes to the helmet law. Under 50 and you don't need didly to operate one. No license, insurance.. I don't think you even need a proper moto helmet.
Who's logic? The scoot pilots?
Quote from: yuu on August 15, 2008, 08:33:09 AM
Who's logic? The scoot pilots?
Yeah. It's less than 100 cc's so it must be safer, right? <sarcasm>
Speaking of which:
My sister in law was in a motorcycle accident in Boise Idaho last Sunday.
She was learning to ride a bike. Wasn't taught very well, front wheel came up and she couldn't/didn't know how to stop it.
off the road and over the bank of the river onto the boulders along the river, with the bike ending up on top of her.
Idaho doesn't have a helmet law.........so the helmet was in the car instead of on her head.
Now; one fractured skull, a ruptured ear drum, and cerebral fluid leaking out her ear. Nice huh?
Lack of common sense? maybe. Would a helmet law have prevented this? Maybe.
So now she has to have 2 months of physical therapy and speech therapy to recover and will not regain her hearing in the ruptured ear.
I have to say, learn on a small bike, alot easier to control. A helmet law most likely would have protected her.
I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot do but unfortunately there are too many idiots that NEED protecting.
case in point. Now we all get to pay for my sister in law's rehab via the VA hospital.
Quote from: stateprez on August 15, 2008, 08:28:10 AM
Dumb shit like riding 10-15 mph below the speed of traffic while wearing a t-shirt, flip flops and a skull cap.
I am really curious about the gear logic here: Technically, it's not a motorcycle, so you shouldn't have to wear "motorcycle" gear.
That is the mentality my mom's friend picked up a scooter and started riding wearing just the helmet which i promptly scolded her on. She now has a nice joe rocket leather jacket with gloves and riding boots. There just isnt enough information being given to all of these people buying scooters. All it takes though is one person to tell them hey falling at 50mph on pavement on a scooter or motorcycle hurts exactly the same. Spread the good word!
I personally dont want the Gov. telling me what i can and can not ride. Especially considering my first bike was a 1982 920cc yamaha virago. Now this is by no means a powerful bike, it redlined in 5th gear going about 85mph due to really low gearing. Just because a bike has a large displacement doesnt always mean there is a ton of power being put out. But if it had been up to the goverment i would have had to start on a 250 even though i had been riding dirtbikes since i was 13! No way in hell!
I'm not dealing with a stricter system because there are too many idiots out there. Reminds me of a recent paintball article about how a women wanted all paintball guns registered because her son was hurt by one. However she turned out to be playing in someones backyard and was not being safe and ensuring the guns were not loaded. They also had a game keep playing while they were taking a break. Either way we end up paying for other peoples mistakes and i'm sick of it.
A better solution in my mind instead of constant restrictions on CCs for 2 years would be something along the lines of an MSF course is required for a permit that would allow you to ride in the day only, unless maybe commuting to work or if at night with another rider within a 1/4mile or so. Then say a second more advanced course is needed for an actual full license that could be taken within 6months. I could flesh this out more but thats my quick idea.
Quote from: VisceralReaction on August 15, 2008, 09:19:32 AM
Speaking of which:
My sister in law was in a motorcycle accident in Boise Idaho last Sunday.
She was learning to ride a bike. Wasn't taught very well, front wheel came up and she couldn't/didn't know how to stop it.
off the road and over the bank of the river onto the boulders along the river, with the bike ending up on top of her.
Idaho doesn't have a helmet law.........so the helmet was in the car instead of on her head.
Now; one fractured skull, a ruptured ear drum, and cerebral fluid leaking out her ear. Nice huh?
Lack of common sense? maybe. Would a helmet law have prevented this? Maybe.
So now she has to have 2 months of physical therapy and speech therapy to recover and will not regain her hearing in the ruptured ear.
I have to say, learn on a small bike, alot easier to control. A helmet law most likely would have protected her.
I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot do but unfortunately there are too many idiots that NEED protecting.
case in point. Now we all get to pay for my sister in law's rehab via the VA hospital.
no we all don't pay for her rehab, her insurance does, the insurance company makes boat loads of money off people every year that don't make claims, if anything you make insurance pay at time to keep them honest as they shyould be...
if insurance wasn't a good business it wouldn't be around but they make tons of money so i don't want to hear about how insurance companies are hurting they aren't, insureance would go up every year even if nobody ever made a claim bc they are there to make money not "help you"
sadly your sister in law made a mistake by not wearing a helmet, she was a new rider and should have been wearing one, but that is a lesson she has now learned on her own. maybe a helmet would have done nothing to help, but that we will never know for sure, all we know for sure is what happened without wearing one. hopefully she can learn from this incident and will recover in time.
I agree the law should not be telling us what to wear and what bikes to ride.
what needs to happen is to have better rider training and hoepfully just more responsible riders out there that spread the word to their friends and such (not in a condescending way) about proper gear, proper training, riding safer, and "gasp" provide a better role model for new and prospective riders to emulate.
if you want to start out over your head and possibly mess yourself up you can and should be allowed to make your own decision no matter how stupid as long as you are over the age of 18..., the good thing is that luckily your sister in law did not kill or injure anyone else besides herself, which is a good thing and i'm sure she would never want to injure someone else liek that.
what i do think needs to happen is that driving license tests should be tougher and retests mandatory every couple of years. i think the fact that we give a 4000lb weapon to anyone after a simple test is crazy. a car is a great tool but as everyone knows in the thousands and thousands of accidents that happen every year it can change people's lives forever and not in a positive way.
i dont' think that restricting riding to day only is a good thing, afterall day=more cars on the road, i ahve found that riding later at night usually is somewhat safer bc there are less cars on the road, yes the tradeoff is that cars are harder to see but there are dfeinitely less on the road later at night, like i'm on the 101 at 12am there is me and about 6 other cars on the highway, its much safer than during the day.
Quote from: sbrguy on August 15, 2008, 09:36:49 AM
what i do think needs to happen is that driving license tests should be tougher and retests mandatory every couple of years. i think the fact that we give a 4000lb weapon to anyone after a simple test is crazy.
+1 Absomake the beast with two backsinglutely
I don't think we need stricter licensing. Its just going to put restrictions on those of us who are responsible. According to the AMA, 40% of motorcycle fatalities are by people without an endorsement, or without a license at all! http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/ridered.asp Plus, I don't see how you can structure a restriction to be at all effective. The size of the bike doesn't dictate judgment, nor does it add a layer of protection for people who are destined to roll the throttle all the way open on a 25 mpg city street. So everyone is limited to 250cc -- we all know there are plenty of ways to kill yourself on a Ninja 250 (or ANY 250 for that matter) with poor judgment.
Motorcycle riding is risky. Period. Just like everything in life. Its just a matter of how much risk you are willing to personally accept. I know my limits and bought a Monster 696 as a first bike two days after completing a MSF course. I have never felt like the bike was getting away from me or that I was a risk to others on the road. I don't need a paternalistic government protecting me.
“We are the only industrialized country in the world where there is an organized effort to weaken or repeal motorcycle helmet laws,†Mr. Rader said. “That definitely is a factor in the increasing deaths.â€
At the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, which is financed by the manufacturers, Tim Buche, the president, said a person killed on a motorcycle was 2.5 times more likely to be under the influence of alcohol than a person killed in a car and three times more likely not to have a proper license.
“There’s risks in everything in life, but the risks can be addressed,†Mr. Buche said, by training, licensing, riding sober and wearing protective gear.
Last year I started to work on a paper to research how much the each of the different factors explain the number of fatalities. I ended up getting side tracked, but just looking at helmet laws in a simple mean comparison between states with and without helmet laws there is a significant difference in fatality rates. Helmet law states have ~56% the fatality rates of states without helmet laws.
I really don't understand the tough stance against helmet laws by some of the members here, but personally I think insurance companies should be the way to fight the lack of helmet use.
it would lower my insurance if inexperienced dicks have to go thru a licensing scheme
plus, those same inexperienced dicks often crash into cars and other things (like ppls property).
you want to kill yourself, be my guest, hang yourself in your bathroom.
but as soon as you put a tire on a PUBLIC motorway, we all should have a say abotu it.
Quote from: RavnMonster on August 15, 2008, 05:53:00 AM
Why do I want the government dictating what size motorcycle I am allowed to ride? I am a grown adult and if i want to kill my self on a 1200cc bike its my business.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on August 15, 2008, 12:03:40 PM
it would lower my insurance if inexperienced dicks have to go thru a licensing scheme
plus, those same inexperienced dicks often crash into cars and other things (like ppls property).
you want to kill yourself, be my guest, hang yourself in your bathroom.
but as soon as you put a tire on a PUBLIC motorway, we all should have a say abotu it.
+11ty billion
forget motorcycles ... I'd like to have some licensing controls on CARS ...
I'm so sick of soccer moms in their giant make the beast with two backsing SUVs pulling u-turns across 4 lanes of traffic without looking because either they're too damn fat to drag their double chins around and too preoccupied by their greasy nacho cheese gorditas and big gulps.
I'd like to know how many of those fatalities were caused by cars.
I didnt bother reading through every post but I'd like to add that I do remember reading that the majority of the increase in biker deaths has been from born-again riders/riders above the age of 35 or 40 ( not certain the exact age but you get the point) not the size of bikes that these new riders and kids are buying..
It has been muted in the EU that motorcycles should be banned to eliminate road deaths.
I read a comment from a Police Office who stated 'People need protecting from themselves'
You guys are so lucky that the principles of liberty are recognised and (in most cases) upheld. Don't let them take that away
Quote from: MAXdB on August 15, 2008, 04:34:33 PM
I didnt bother reading through every post but I'd like to add that I do remember reading that the majority of the increase in biker deaths has been from born-again riders/riders above the age of 35 or 40 ( not certain the exact age but you get the point) not the size of bikes that these new riders and kids are buying..
That's the second largest group, the first being the squid kids out there.
motorcycles do only what a person makes them do, no matter the make/model, w/ that said, I agree w/ what some of you have said about motorcycle awareness(this generation's cool word) and stricter education/licensing requirements for all motor vehicles. I pregnant doged about this here: http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=9292.0
Quote from: someguy on August 15, 2008, 05:12:46 PM
That's the second largest group, the first being the squid kids out there.
I was thinking about this the other day.
It seems that its much more often now I see younger people with T shirts and tennis shoes. I rarely see anyone now with full gear on.
I still find it so cool that my next door neighbor and his best friend both got Ninja 250s to start with. Took the MSF class and both bought decent gear. [thumbsup]
Quote from: green bastard on August 15, 2008, 07:23:24 AM
Seat belt and helmet laws are in place to save people who are too foolish to save themselves; a gradual license saves other peoples lives.
Why should the Gov have the right to tell any adult that they can't kill themselves if they want to? As long as they arent hurting anyone else, have at it. The more laws you put in place to "save those who need saving" the more of your rights are taken away.
Quote from: MAXdB on August 15, 2008, 04:34:33 PM
I didnt bother reading through every post but I'd like to add that I do remember reading that the majority of the increase in biker deaths has been from born-again riders/riders above the age of 35 or 40 ( not certain the exact age but you get the point) not the size of bikes that these new riders and kids are buying..
YUP!!!
I just took my MSF course about a month ago. Let me tell you guys, half the class were guys over 45-50 who wanted to "get back on the bike" again. These guys were scary on those little honda 250's. They were all scared to death to ride them and had no business being on two wheels. Every one of them were buying 800lb Harley's and Giant Honda Cruisers. These are the folks you all need to look out for.
Quote from: RavnMonster on August 18, 2008, 09:32:32 AM
Why should the Gov have the right to tell any adult that they can't kill themselves if they want to? As long as they arent hurting anyone else, have at it. The more laws you put in place to "save those who need saving" the more of your rights are taken away.
But you and I pay for it with our insurance costs! I don't want the govt involved either, but how else do you keep the costs down? I have NO desire for the graduated licensing scheme that Europe has.. I would rather see it illegal to buy a bike without a license, a $1000 mandatory fine for being stopped without a license, and a mandatory MSF cert to carry insurance.
Quote from: ducducgooseme on August 18, 2008, 09:54:31 AM
a mandatory MSF cert to carry insurance.
I have never taken the MSF course but i am a very capable rider, however if this had be in effect when i was looking at a bike i don't think i would have had much issue with it then.
These statistics are potentially misleading.
A 6.6% growth in the number of deaths is significant if the rate of increase is less than 6.6%
If the overall growth of ridership in terms of miles ridden has increased more than 6.6% than it's a net decrease in motorcycle deaths per usage. And we know there was an increase in motorcycle usage.
I HATE the misuse of statistics.
QuoteMotorcycle ridership appears to be rising even as the total miles for all vehicles drops.
So total mileage across all vehicles has dropped. But bikes alone increased, thus making bikes a greater % of the overall miles driven. And the overall death count has decreased, so it is completely possible that % of miles ridden per motorcycle deaths has decreased.
This article is biased against motorcycles.
It's like saying the number of deaths due to flying has increased several hundred percent since 1910, therefore flying is getting very dangerous. it doesn't address the number of people who actually fly though. The reality is that the mortality rate from flying has dropped to a minuscule percentage.
QuoteI HATE the misuse of statistics.
there are 3 types of lies:
lies
big lies
and statistics
Quote from: RavnMonster on August 18, 2008, 09:32:32 AM
Why should the Gov have the right to tell any adult that they can't kill themselves if they want to? As long as they arent hurting anyone else, have at it. The more laws you put in place to "save those who need saving" the more of your rights are taken away.
Playing with an R1 in a parking lot is one thing...
The rest are out on the street, putting other people in danger operating on roads that don't belong to them.
Quote from: cmorgan47 on August 18, 2008, 11:11:58 AM
there are 3 types of lies:
lies
big lies
and statistics
At the risk of sounding anal, I believe it's "lies, damned lies, and statistics" which is attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.
That's one of my favorite quotes. [thumbsup] Probably because of how misused statistics are.
Quote from: fwtcc on August 18, 2008, 11:20:28 AM
Playing with an R1 in a parking lot is one thing...
The rest are out on the street, putting other people in danger operating on roads that don't belong to them.
I agree, but we already have laws in place that govern against that behavior. I never said anything about laws that protect people from other people. I fully support heavy fines for idiots who break the law. I was riding home last night and at least two idiots came by me weaving in and out of traffic like fools. Not to mention the guys Ive seen with wheels up on I95 doing 110mph. But they probably took the MSF course too and you see what that did, not a damn thing.
Quote from: DucPete on August 18, 2008, 11:23:22 AM
At the risk of sounding anal, I believe it's "lies, damned lies, and statistics" which is attributed to Benjamin Disraeli.
That's one of my favorite quotes. [thumbsup] Probably because of how misused statistics are.
at the risk of sounding pedantic, you're not being anal... but rather, pedantic.
correct on the quote though
[roll]
Pedantic?
If you're going to use a quote, do it right. I wasn't trying to drag you through the mud.
Quote from: DucPete on August 18, 2008, 12:13:03 PM
[roll]
Pedantic?
If you're going to use a quote, do it right. I wasn't trying to drag you through the mud.
joking.
sorry for lack of smiley.
With what I've been able to find with a quick google*, in 1999 motorcycles accounted for 0.4% of total vehicle miles traveled in the U.S., but they accounted for 5.5% of the deaths. For every 100,000 miles traveled, 1.3 car occupants died, while 23.4 motorcyclists died. That means a person on a motorcycle was/is 18 times more likely to die than a cager.
I know these are statistics (lies, damned lies, etc.), but to me, it seems like the increased risk of death justifies some reconsideration of life insurance.
*http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2001/809-360.pdf
Quote from: RavnMonster on August 18, 2008, 09:32:32 AM
Why should the Gov have the right to tell any adult that they can't kill themselves if they want to? As long as they arent hurting anyone else, have at it. The more laws you put in place to "save those who need saving" the more of your rights are taken away.
as long as you stay on private property you should own and ride anything you like
once you set tire on public roadways, it is different.
the flaming fireball you turn into doesn't stop when it comes to other folks.
I had a 250 for a long time before I upgraded and I know I gained a lot from that. I don't see exactly what harm can come from a law that says requires one to have to have a certain amount of experience before one gets a bike that was intended for an experienced rider. Then again if your not intelligent enough to realize that you should not get a liter bike as your first bike then maybe your death will contribute, in a necessary way, to the evolution of the species. The average human IQ is dropping because we have no natural predators and our system is designed to preserve human life. You know how I know that? From a Korn music video baby!
How did this go from an article attributing an increase in motorcycle deaths due to higher motorcycle usage because of high gas prices to a tiered-license system, more big brother because of higher CC's, helmet laws +/- and insurance premiums concerns ?
But since this is a moto forum I'll play along.
1) F the tiered-license system, if you like it so much because it's great in Europe, move there.
2) I don't need more big brother telling me what to do. Public or Private. I pay taxes just like everyone else.
3) Helmet laws, yes! If your state does not have one and your are to much of an idiot not to where one, suffer the consequences. VisceralReaction, sorry about your sis-n-law.
4) I pay for my insurance premiums, not you. If you want to pay my insurance costs, let me know, maybe we can work something out and I'll go out an buy a 125cc. Or maybe YOU should be a 125cc if premiums concern you that much.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 01:44:31 AM
How did this go from an article attributing an increase in motorcycle deaths due to higher motorcycle usage because of high gas prices to a tiered-license system, more big brother because of higher CC's, helmet laws +/- and insurance premiums concerns ?
But since this is a moto forum I'll play along.
1) F the tiered-license system, if you like it so much because it's great in Europe, move there.
2) I don't need more big brother telling me what to do. Public or Private. I pay taxes just like everyone else.
3) Helmet laws, yes! If your state does not have one and your are to much of an idiot not to where one, suffer the consequences. VisceralReaction, sorry about your sis-n-law.
4) I pay for my insurance premiums, not you. If you want to pay my insurance costs, let me know, maybe we can work something out and I'll go out an buy a 125cc. Or maybe YOU should be a 125cc if premiums concern you that much.
Couldn't have said it better myself
Insurance companies put people into groups. When people in that group do bad things, everybody in the group suffers from higher insurance rates. Its why they ask you what kind of car/bike you have. People with performance cars have to pay more. People on bikes like ours, which generally get grouped into standard or sport bike groups, are affected by every kid that goes out and buys an R1 or R6 as their first bike and crashes it. Our individual rates are also affected by cruisers cause we're part of the general motorcycle group.
As wrong as it might be, thats how it works. Your actions ('your' being very general here, as in anybody with a motorcycle) affect others. Every time insurance companies get a hold of statistics like these, they're gonna equate it with danger and possible lost money so they're gonna raise our rates.
Thats just how it works. Ducatizzz gets it.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 01:44:31 AM
How did this go from an article attributing an increase in motorcycle deaths due to higher motorcycle usage because of high gas prices to a tiered-license system, more big brother because of higher CC's, helmet laws +/- and insurance premiums concerns ?
But since this is a moto forum I'll play along.
1) F the tiered-license system, if you like it so much because it's great in Europe, move there. I mean why should we have something like that. It's not like there isn't a tiered licensing system for a car, oh wait, there is its called a learners permit and you have to a responsible person ride with you while you drive a car for six months in most states. Those commie fvcking bastards must have snuck that one in there on ya.
2) I don't need more big brother telling me what to do. Public or Private. I pay taxes just like everyone else. Go ahead and take a gun in to the capital building or walk across the highway. You pay your taxes you can do what ever you want. OR the other people that pay for the same stuff want to use it with relative safety.
3) Helmet laws, yes! If your state does not have one and your are to much of an idiot not to where one, suffer the consequences. VisceralReaction, sorry about your sis-n-law. I agree with you hear, no helmet is just stupid.
4) I pay for my insurance premiums, not you. If you want to pay my insurance costs, let me know, maybe we can work something out and I'll go out an buy a 125cc. Or maybe YOU should be a 125cc if premiums concern you that much. See the post above, its fairly irresponsible to believe your actions don't affect everyone else in this regard. A 125cc limit is a tad extreme for the American road system, I would say 250-500cc. If you don't have fun on a 250 be a man and get off the straights.
The bright side is without this stuff in place there is some culling of the herd going on. So there's always that. It sucks that laws have to be made because some people are too stupid to handle themselves appropriately but that's life. If the laws are made be thankful you're grand fathered in. On the otherside, they won't be made because this country is full of whiney pregnant doges.
The only problem I have with a tier system is my lack of confidence in the government or any bureaucracy to properly distinguish risk compared to model. I don't know about now, but for a while it cost more to insure a Monster 900 than the obviously faster 748. Why? 750cc cut off. I could just see it now, kids buzzing around on 250cc 2 stroke race bikes because they can not ride a 400 standard yet.
Quote from: howie on August 19, 2008, 06:59:14 AM
The only problem I have with a tier system is my lack of confidence in the government or any bureaucracy to properly distinguish risk compared to model. I don't know about now, but for a while it cost more to insure a Monster 900 than the obviously faster 748. Why? 750cc cut off. I could just see it now, kids buzzing around on 250cc 2 stroke race bikes because they can not ride a 400 standard yet.
I completely agree with that Howie that is a serious issue. Until there is an actual standard to classify motorcycles besides ccs this is going to be an issue. We all see it already when it comes to insurance, my 695 was more to insure than my brothers CBR600RR and the CBR is clearly a much faster and more powerful motorcycle. I would imagine something along the lines of a standard government dyno test might be needed to achieve this.
Question is though do you factor in just HP, just Torque or a combination of both?
Quote from: JBubble on August 19, 2008, 05:07:52 AM
Insurance companies put people into groups. When people in that group do bad things, everybody in the group suffers from higher insurance rates. Its why they ask you what kind of car/bike you have. People with performance cars have to pay more. People on bikes like ours, which generally get grouped into standard or sport bike groups, are affected by every kid that goes out and buys an R1 or R6 as their first bike and crashes it. Our individual rates are also affected by cruisers cause we're part of the general motorcycle group.
As wrong as it might be, thats how it works. Your actions ('your' being very general here, as in anybody with a motorcycle) affect others. Every time insurance companies get a hold of statistics like these, they're gonna equate it with danger and possible lost money so they're gonna raise our rates.
Thats just how it works. Ducatizzz gets it.
Maybe in your state. In my state, my premiums are based on MY driving record, not on my neighbors or my uncles or on some kid with an R1, or some Yuppi on a Desmo.
If a rider flyes off a cliff tomorrow my premium stays the same, why? Because MY driving record is still clear.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 09:22:49 AM
Maybe in your state. In my state, my premiums are based on MY driving record, not on my neighbors or my uncles or on some kid with an R1, or some Yuppi on a Desmo.
If a rider flyes off a cliff tomorrow my premium stays the same, why? Because MY driving record is still clear.
...and my '03 999 was cheaper to insure than my '05 S2R.....aka value of the bike has something to do with it.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 09:22:49 AM
Maybe in your state. In my state, my premiums are based on MY driving record, not on my neighbors or my uncles or on some kid with an R1, or some Yuppi on a Desmo.
If a rider flyes off a cliff tomorrow my premium stays the same, why? Because MY driving record is still clear.
I doubt we'll agree on this but whatever. Here's some more info:
Your premiums, just like everybody else, are based on a couple things. Your record and the insurance company's view of riders that have similar bikes. Hence, other people affect you.
Quote from: stateprez on August 19, 2008, 09:38:33 AM
...and my '03 999 was cheaper to insure than my '05 S2R.....aka value of the bike has something to do with it.
And stateprez, of course value of the bike has something to do with it. Never said it didnt.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 09:22:49 AM
Maybe in your state. In my state, my premiums are based on MY driving record, not on my neighbors or my uncles or on some kid with an R1, or some Yuppi on a Desmo.
If a rider flyes off a cliff tomorrow my premium stays the same, why? Because MY driving record is still clear.
Your driving record and
the type of bike you have. Cruisers are usually less, because people on cruisers tend to do just, that cruise. Sport bikes are more expensive because they are faster and some people do tricks on them and almost everyone that has them is going to test the throttle every once in awhile. That kind of thing lends itself to accidents. Standards are an inbetween. They can go quick and incite that kind of behavior from their owner or can be ridden fairly comfortable, and the owner can go that route.
If you think your premiums are strictly based on your behavior, get a quote for a 600 shadow. My guess is that it is considerably cheaper.
Quote from: fwtcc on August 19, 2008, 09:50:15 AM
Your driving record and the type of bike you have. Cruisers are usually less, because people on cruisers tend to do just, that cruise. Sport bikes are more expensive because they are faster and some people do tricks on them and almost everyone that has them is going to test the throttle every once in awhile. That kind of thing lends itself to accidents. Standards are an inbetween. They can go quick and incite that kind of behavior from their owner or can be ridden fairly comfortable, and the owner can go that route.
If you think your premiums are strictly based on your behavior, get a quote for a 600 shadow. My guess is that it is considerably cheaper.
You've got it down fwtcc! [thumbsup]
Quote from: howie on August 19, 2008, 06:59:14 AM
The only problem I have with a tier system is my lack of confidence in the government or any bureaucracy to properly distinguish risk compared to model. I don't know about now, but for a while it cost more to insure a Monster 900 than the obviously faster 748. Why? 750cc cut off. I could just see it now, kids buzzing around on 250cc 2 stroke race bikes because they can not ride a 400 standard yet.
Australia does it based on a "kW per kg" ratio.
i.e. a monster 750 is 60 hp and about 415 lbs. so the ratio is 60/410 or 0.14. the 748 is about 100 hp and about the same weight, so the ratio is 0.24.
power:weight ratio is very easy for the manufacturer to list on their bikes. most of them already do it for Australia and other countries.
Quote from: fwtcc on August 19, 2008, 09:50:15 AM
If you think your premiums are strictly based on your behavior, get a quote for a 600 shadow. My guess is that it is considerably cheaper.
...and tell them you are 50 years old and married with a perfectly clean record.
Quote from: JBubble on August 19, 2008, 09:39:35 AM
And stateprez, of course value of the bike has something to do with it. Never said it didnt.
That was actually a general statement, not directed at you.
FYI my insurance company spells "Ducati", "Dekati", so I'm sure they'd have correct performance figures.
Quote from: stateprez on August 19, 2008, 09:56:04 AM
That was actually a general statement, not directed at you.
FYI my insurance company spells "Ducati", "Dekati", so I'm sure they'd have correct performance figures.
Its all cool.
And good lord, DEKATI? Thats just ..... I have no words.
OK soo...I'm wrong and your right? ???
By your logic, all moto accidents will affect premiums. So we should be angry at the motorcyclist that got rear-ended and died on the freeway, as that's affecting our premimus? Or only at squids with R1s?
I'll end this with my first question as nobody answered it.
Quote
How did this go from an article attributing an increase in motorcycle deaths due to higher motorcycle usage because of high gas prices to a tiered-license system, more big brother because of higher CC's, helmet laws +/- and insurance premiums concerns ?
2) I don't need more big brother telling me what to do. Public or Private. I pay taxes just like everyone else.
3) Helmet laws, yes! If your state does not have one and your are to much of an idiot not to where one, suffer the consequences. VisceralReaction, sorry about your sis-n-law.
[/quote]
I find this very funny.
in the second part you say "i dont' need big brother telling me what to do"
then in the very next sentence you say you want "helmet laws" last time i checked that is "big brother" telling you what to do.
[clap]
don't worry we are ALL blatant COMPLETE hypocrits justifying positions on what we think is right and will always no matter what tell others what to do while at the same time not wanting anyone else telling us what to do.
i did the same thing a few postings up.. i just like seeing other people doing exactly what i do.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:06:47 AM
OK soo...I'm wrong and your right? ???
By your logic, all moto accidents will affect premiums. So we should be angry at the motorcyclist that got rear-ended and died on the freeway, as that's affecting our premimus? Or only at squids with R1s?
nope, we should be angry at the legions of squids on R1s who get tickets for speeding and running red lights and end up in emergency rooms after "wheelie-ing" down the highway at 80 mph.
Quote
I'll end this with my first question as nobody answered it.
How did this go from an article attributing an increase in motorcycle deaths due to higher motorcycle usage because of high gas prices to a tiered-license system, more big brother because of higher CC's, helmet laws +/- and insurance premiums concerns ?
because the recent increase in biker deaths MOST LIKELY is directly attributable to the thousands of newbie riders who have bought a bike due to gas prices and don't have any safety training at all.
that's why.
are you angry that "big brother" paved those roads? put up street signs? organized emergency services to scoop your carcass off the highway? what about how big bro put in those nice sewers so the streets don't flood when it rains, or how he paid engineers to create safe-angle turns for the highway on ramps so you don't wipe out going around the turn? what about big bro making it so bikers can ride in the HOV lane? or is this all just too logical for you?
big bro sucks sometimes, but as far as public road safety, i am mostly all for it.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:06:47 AM
OK soo...I'm wrong and your right? ???
Yes.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:06:47 AM
By your logic, all moto accidents will affect premiums. So we should be angry at the motorcyclist that got rear-ended and died on the freeway, as that's affecting our premimus? Or only at squids with R1s?
No.
See ducatizzz's response.
Quote from: sbrguy on August 19, 2008, 10:13:36 AM
2) I don't need more big brother telling me what to do. Public or Private. I pay taxes just like everyone else.
3) Helmet laws, yes! If your state does not have one and your are to much of an idiot not to where one, suffer the consequences. VisceralReaction, sorry about your sis-n-law.
I find this very funny.
in the second part you say "i dont' need big brother telling me what to do"
then in the very next sentence you say you want "helmet laws" last time i checked that is "big brother" telling you what to do.
[clap]
don't worry we are ALL blatant COMPLETE hypocrits justifying positions on what we think is right and will always no matter what tell others what to do while at the same time not wanting anyone else telling us what to do.
i did the same thing a few postings up.. i just like seeing other people doing exactly what i do.
The keyword is "more" I don't need "more" big brother. My state already has a helmet law, and I agree with it, that's not "more" big brother, that's just current big brother and it suffices.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on August 19, 2008, 10:14:44 AM
nope, we should be angry at the legions of squids on R1s who get tickets for speeding and running red lights and end up in emergency rooms after "wheelie-ing" down the highway at 80 mph.
because the recent increase in biker deaths MOST LIKELY is directly attributable to the thousands of newbie riders who have bought a bike due to gas prices and don't have any safety training at all.
that's why.
And what are you basing this on? Months of scientific research? Or just your own opinion?
Quote from: ducatizzzz on August 19, 2008, 10:14:44 AM
are you angry that "big brother" paved those roads? put up street signs? organized emergency services to scoop your carcass off the highway? what about how big bro put in those nice sewers so the streets don't flood when it rains, or how he paid engineers to create safe-angle turns for the highway on ramps so you don't wipe out going around the turn? what about big bro making it so bikers can ride in the HOV lane? or is this all just too logical for you?
big bro sucks sometimes, but as far as public road safety, i am mostly all for it.
Yes I'm very angry....you guys crack me up. You go from one extreme to the next. Let's stay on topic here, moto accidents and how big brother relates to that, not how BB relates to sewers or ramp building.
Quote from: JBubble on August 19, 2008, 10:16:29 AM
Yes.
Thanks for clarifying, it must be feel good to be right all the time.
Quote from: JBubble on August 19, 2008, 10:16:29 AM
No.
See ducatizzz's response.
No? Only squids R1s?? Wow that's news to me. I'm glad I come to this forum for all the FACTS!
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:29:03 AM
Thanks for clarifying, it must be feel good to be right all the time.
Ahhhh, I love it when you try to put words in my mouth. Its an amazing debate skill.
Never said I was right all the time. Just on this.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:29:03 AM
No? Only squids R1s?? Wow that's news to me. I'm glad I come to this forum for all the FACTS!
The 'no' was saying "no, we shouldn't be mad at all squids on R1s and of course we shouldn't be angry with motorcyclists that get rear ended."
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:26:48 AM
And what are you basing this on? Months of scientific research? Or just your own opinion?
1. Splatt's Motorcyclist Citation Database
2. Maryland state reports on motorcyclist citations (here is an example of a report (http://house.state.md.us/2004rs/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0611.doc))
3. NHTSA report DOT HS 809 360 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-360.pdf)
4. ...which is summarized here: http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/crash.htm
to name a few.
(I'm an attorney, I have a few interns at my disposal.)
QuoteYes I'm very angry....you guys crack me up. You go from one extreme to the next. Let's stay on topic here, moto accidents and how big brother relates to that, not how BB relates to sewers or ramp building.
Big brother is big brother. You can't separate those things. If you want Big Bro paving your roads, you can bet he is going to regulate the use of those roads. And you can bet people will support it, esp when they are being buzzed by R1's wheelie-ing down I95.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on August 19, 2008, 10:37:16 AM
1. Splatt's Motorcyclist Citation Database
2. Maryland state reports on motorcyclist citations (here is an example of a report (http://house.state.md.us/2004rs/fnotes/bil_0001/sb0611.doc))
3. NHTSA report DOT HS 809 360 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-360.pdf)
4. ...which is summarized here: http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/crash.htm
to name a few.
(I'm an attorney, I have a few interns at my disposal.)
Big brother is big brother. You can't separate those things. If you want Big Bro paving your roads, you can bet he is going to regulate the use of those roads. And you can bet people will support it, esp when they are being buzzed by R1's wheelie-ing down I95.
From the links you provided I went ahead and took an excerpt on the report conclusions that I would like you to comment on.
Quote
Helmet use among fatally injured motorcyclists below 50 percent
High blood alcohol levels are a major problem among motorcycle operators
More riders age 40 and over are getting killed
Half of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash
In your professional opinion as an attorney with many interns at your disposal, would you say the above statements fit the "squid" profile we've all come to know and love? Or does it fit another profile?
The rest of the points are all closely related and in my professional opinion (I'm a Senior Web Developer with a few Web Developers at my disposal) cannot be solely attributed to "squids on R1's" as you have mentioned. If you think that's that case then that's fine, it's still only your opinion. Interns or no interns.
I live in Cali, so the I95 reference is inconsequential to me.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:59:13 AM
I live in Cali, so the I95 reference is inconsequential to me.
Just for reference, I95 is a major interstate that runs down the east coast. Makes it relatively easy to get to places like Myrtle Beach (big bike weeks) and Daytona. Also goes through the DC Metro area where he's located.
Lots and lots of traffic since its a major corridor.
QuoteHelmet use among fatally injured motorcyclists below 50 percent This statement isn't a complete sentence, so you can not base any assumption on it. Helmet has dropped among those fatally injured? Fatal accidents among those wearing helmets is 50% below those without? etc. ect.
High blood alcohol levels are a major problem among motorcycle operators Sounds pretty squidly to me.
More riders age 40 and over are getting killed MORE, as in last year 5 died this year 8 died that is more. There is no definition of what more is applied to, therefore you can't make an assumption to the value of the statistic
Half of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash Also sounds pretty squidly. Going really fast straight, then, "OH NO, A TURN!"
Funny thing about half statistics, they are worth as much as no statistic, and only a hair less then out of context statistics
Quote from: ducatizzzz on August 19, 2008, 09:53:13 AM
...and tell them you are 50 years old and married with a perfectly clean record.
QuoteYour driving record and the type of bike you have
Originally the other half was bold. I did accept that an individuals behavior is taken into effect when given insurance premiums.
I think the tiered system for licensing based on power to weight ratio works though.
Quote from: fwtcc on August 19, 2008, 11:31:49 AM
<snip>
I think the power to weight ratio works though.
I'd like to see that in practice here. Maybe keep the whole thing about going for so long without an accident lowers your premium too.
Quote from: arai_speed on August 19, 2008, 10:59:13 AM
From the links you provided I went ahead and took an excerpt on the report conclusions that I would like you to comment on.
In your professional opinion as an attorney with many interns at your disposal, would you say the above statements fit the "squid" profile we've all come to know and love? Or does it fit another profile?
Let me help explain some:
QuoteHelmet use among fatally injured motorcyclists below 50 percent
what are their demographics?
QuoteHigh blood alcohol levels are a major problem among motorcycle operators
what are their demographics?
QuoteMore riders age 40 and over are getting killed
are these new riders (relevant to this thread OP)
what percentage of those killed are over 40 versus those under 25?
in other words, if 80% of those killed are under 25, and 10% are over 40, an increase in the latter group to 12% represents a 20% increase.
QuoteHalf of the fatalities are related to negotiating a curve prior to the crash
Demographics? Are these new riders unfamiliar with riding a curve?
that's how i'd deal with it.
Quote from: ducatizzzz on August 19, 2008, 10:14:44 AM
because the recent increase in biker deaths MOST LIKELY is directly attributable to the thousands of newbie riders who have bought a bike due to gas prices and don't have any safety training at all.
Picking just one nit: the original report (and NYT news article) that touched this off was 2007 data, so probably won't reflect gas price driven increases in moto/scooter use that we're going to see in the 2008 data. I'd predict that 2008 is going to be a bad year for moto deaths for the reason you cite, but just not in 2007 when gas varied from an inflation adjusted $2.10-ish to around $3.10.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html.
I'd wager the 2007 increase in moto use & deaths is a continuation of the trend noted elsewhere, the significant increase in either first-time or returning riders over 40 -- and for the record, I'm one of the former, who started after age 40. Also for the record, the first bike was the much-maligned Buell Blast a 490cc, VERY beginner bike, so about twice the discussed 250cc limit, though probably about half the bike. [laugh]
In general, I'm on Ducatizzzz side in this argument -- what we do on public roads IS the business of government, and stupid things done by some riders on those roads affect all riders in a whole lot of ways, including higher insurance rates and a whole lot more attention from the police. But I do think you're casting your argument too narrowly; it's not just the Corona tank top/flip flop R1 with a wheel in the air blowing by on the interstate, but also the statistically significant number of riders who ride drunk, or without a moto license (or any license for that matter). And new riders (gas price, midlife moment, whatever) whose skills fall short at crisis moments, some of them self-induced.
How we ride is also the business, literally, of insurance companies who attempt to make money predicting the future in the aggregate, so what someone else does on a bike similar to yours absolutely affects what you pay. Or on a bike that your insurance company THINKS is similar to yours, which is why it makes a huge difference if yours thinks the Monster is a standard or a sport bike. It's an imprecise science that only tangentially reflects your actual behavior, a point driven home to me when I just bought life insurance. I picked the company that insures our cars, motorcycles & home, and sat through a long interrogation about the fact that i answered "yes" about rock climbing, from a phone interviewer who wouldn't know a carabiner if it pinched his puffy man breast. But not a single question about the motorcycles or whitewater paddling or backcountry skiing, all of which are MUCH more likely to do me harm than the silly little top roping stuff I do at the local crags.
That's why I think that your point, Arai-Speed, that idiotic behavior on motorcycles isn't limited to squids actually undermines your argument. Idiotic behavior by anybody on a motorcycle operated on public roads affects all motorcyclists, whether we like it or not, whether we deserve it or not.
Quote from: Fergus on August 18, 2008, 02:35:52 PM
With what I've been able to find with a quick google*, in 1999 motorcycles accounted for 0.4% of total vehicle miles traveled in the U.S., but they accounted for 5.5% of the deaths. For every 100,000 miles traveled, 1.3 car occupants died, while 23.4 motorcyclists died. That means a person on a motorcycle was/is 18 times more likely to die than a cager.
I know these are statistics (lies, damned lies, etc.), but to me, it seems like the increased risk of death justifies some reconsideration of life insurance.
*http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2001/809-360.pdf
I didn't follow the link, but I'm pretty sure you got the mile/deaths ratio wrong. According to this, the average person would be dead after riding a motorcycle for 5000 miles. And car drivers (who average 15,000 miles a year) would die after 6 years.
Quote from: erik822 on August 19, 2008, 12:10:30 PM
I didn't follow the link, but I'm pretty sure you got the mile/deaths ratio wrong. According to this, the average person would be dead after riding a motorcycle for 5000 miles. And car drivers (who average 15,000 miles a year) would die after 6 years.
I looked at that link. There are no statistics that show deaths as a ratio of usage. Which in my opinion is such a serious flaw, that it makes much of the data in there meaningless.
The 100,000 miles in that quote should actually be 100,000 vehicles registered per the document in that link. And deaths per vehicles registered still doesn't really show what's happening.
Consistent with this thread, I wish motorcycle accident statistics would record the gear the injured/deceased was wearing.
It would be easy enough for PD to record if the guy was wearing a helmet. Likewise, if they were wearing "some kind" of jacket, gloves and boots. I can't expect to saddle them with the burden of determining armored vs plain leather jacket, but it would go a long way to demonstrate that wearing gear reduces injury.
It is funny all of the standards cars have to be crash safe, not to mention the user optionals like seat belts, such as crumple zones, air bags, the strength of the pillars, shatter proof windshields, blah blah.
Yet a motorcycle uses the same roads and the rider barely needs to wear a helmet. and people complain about that.
I guess the lesson to be learned from all of this is very simple:
Don't drive, ride a motorcycle, ride a bike, use public transportation or be a pedestrian.
Making sure you never take part in any of those activities will cut your risk of dying in a traffic-related fatality to near zero.
Though even if you do all of that, you're still at risk:
http://cbs2.com/local/Car.Crash.Woman.2.762310.html
Quote from: fwtcc on August 19, 2008, 01:35:05 PM
It is funny all of the standards cars have to be crash safe, not to mention the user optionals like seat belts, such as crumple zones, air bags, the strength of the pillars, shatter proof windshields, blah blah.
Yet a motorcycle uses the same roads and the rider barely needs to wear a helmet. and people complain about that.
the happiest people pregnant dog about the shallowest things
You'll have that.. ???
Quote from: DucPete on August 19, 2008, 12:43:26 PM
The 100,000 miles in that quote should actually be 100,000 vehicles registered per the document in that link. And deaths per vehicles registered still doesn't really show what's happening.
The article says
"Per 100,000 registered vehicles, fatality rate for motorcyclists (59.53) in 1999 was 3.6 times the fatality rate for passenger car occupants (16.41). Per vehicle mile traveled in 1999 [for the 100,000 registered vehicles], motorcyclists (23.4) were about 18 times as likely as passenger car occupants (1.3) to die in motor vehicle traffic crashes."I added the stuff in the []. I read the per VMT with respect to the 100k registered bikes...
In my real job I work with data and conduct statistical analysis in order to make inferences about the natural world. In my field
there is standard of rigor that applies to the interpretation of data. In the context of my professional experience I have to say that
you can infer very little with the data quoted here. All we can say is there more motorcycle deaths than there were before. We can't blame the squids or the old harley riders. What we need to be able to make some inferences is some comparable standard. Here is a simple example: Deaths are up 50% and ridership is 50% in the last 10 years. Now is this all we need to say riding is no more dangerous than it was 10 years ago? No, we still need to know the numbers of miles ridden. If the number of miles ridden each year per rider has doubled than we could conclude that riding is now safer in spite of
the higher death rate. On the issue of age, we would need to be able to compare the age structure of the dead riders to the age structure of the overall group of riders. If we had those data we could conduct some statistical tests and begin to make some inferences about riding.
Quote from: DucPete on August 18, 2008, 10:49:23 AM
These statistics are potentially misleading.
A 6.6% growth in the number of deaths is significant if the rate of increase is less than 6.6%
If the overall growth of ridership in terms of miles ridden has increased more than 6.6% than it's a net decrease in motorcycle deaths per usage. And we know there was an increase in motorcycle usage.
My thoughts exactly.
So I looked up some info and decided to do the math.
There are no current estimates from sources for the number of riders for 2007. I was able to find a FHWA number for 2006. Therefore, I used the 2006 numbers all the way around, assuming the 75% growth in ridership used by the NHTA.
1997 deaths 2,116 riders 3,600,000 fatality rate: .059%
2006 deaths 4,810 riders 6,200,000 fatality rate: .078%
A higher percentage of riders are dying today than 10 years ago it appears. If that's true then it should be a concern for the riding community and biking industry.
As far as the argument over licensing. I'm a big libertarian and don't believe it's the governments role to protect you from yourself. I do believe it is the governments role to help ensure you don't harm everyone else though.
Licensing is just common sense. Can you buy an earth mover if you have the cash? Yup. Can you operate it legally or insure it without the proper license? NOPE. Training and education are something that should be expected and required - not hoped for. It's that way for everything from a fork lift to a Semi. Why should bikes be exempt from that or cars for that matter?
Driving is not a right in this or any country it is a privilege. One that can be revoked for any of a number of reasons and is on a daily basis. If you're fighting this battle to maintain your "rights" = you've already lost.
FYI here's the NHTSA source document for the article
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.6a6eaf83cf719ad24ec86e10dba046a0/
Quote from: COWBOY on August 19, 2008, 03:10:23 PM
Licensing is just common sense. Can you buy an earth mover if you have the cash? Yup. Can you operate it legally or insure it without the proper license? NOPE. Training and education are something that should be expected and required - not hoped for. It's that way for everything from a fork lift to a Semi. Why should bikes be exempt from that or cars for that matter?
Driving is not a right in this or any country it is a privilege. One that can be revoked for any of a number of reasons and is on a daily basis. If you're fighting this battle to maintain your "rights" = you've already lost.
bravo, well stated [clap]