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 )
3.  NHTSA report DOT HS 809 360
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 )
3.  NHTSA report DOT HS 809 360
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.  

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