Ducati Monster Forum

Federal Government Will Conduct First Major Motorcycle Crash Causation Study In 28 Years

Article on RRW: http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=38336 (http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=38336)

Its about time.  I hope they keep the tradition of ironically-named authors (Harry Hurt)

The 2009 Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures written by Dr Flippy McHighside.   Written by Dr John Headshake.


I got nothin.

I think the major cause is pretty obvious, and that is car drivers in general are much worse now, with far more distractions.

Then add in stupid stuff like mandating seatbelts and air bags for car drivers but still allowing riders to ride with no helmet.

+1
Thoss helmet-free and helmet-excempt-for-adults States are comepletely arse backwards...

http://www.usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html (http://www.usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html)

Another factor I hope they find is that todays drivers have NO education with regards to motorcycles.  In car drivers education, they teach about trucks and what to look for, how they operate on the road, how they're different but DO NOT cover motorcycles.

So, John and Jane Doe are oblivious to the workings of motorcycles.

Also a factor:  Today's bikes are STUPID fast and the are so few *true* beginner bikes out there and they're looked at as 'wuss' bikes.


I just hope the study isn't used loosely as the basis for some government group to get their panties in a knot, go out half-cocked and end up making motorcycling more expensive for all the existing riders out there like myself (16+ years in the saddle BTW).

[steps off soapbox]

nothing good will come of this.


more rules in the rule book.

one of the most asinine websites i have ever made the mistake of looking at (NOT an attack on the person who posted the link BTW)

I totally agree, and I think they should bring in a graduated system like other countries have. Maybe something along the lines of..

Start off with M/C permit which grants you the right to operate up to 250cc bike for 1 year. After that take another quick test and be granted an advanced permit to operate a 500cc bike for 5 years. After that take another test which grants you unlimited use.

Being able to buy a Superbike with 175+ HP with literally no experience is just idiotic, the riders are a danger to themselves and everyone else around them.

I agree with you but only if RIDERS get to write the rules up.  The politicians will muck that up big time.  No, let me re-phrase that last part:

...BIG time.

I agree with this to a point and with Stew.  Maybe more like 500 or less for 3 years.  I have been riding for about 5 years and don't think I'm unqualified for my S2R1K.

That only works if the person abides by it. How many people out there ride without a moto endorsement on their license? I know QUITE a few that don't. So, how do you enforce that?

I've always felt that a stint on a bike should be part of driver's ed and a prerequisite to getting a driver's license. Those who get it will likely become better and more observant drivers, and those who don't....well....

I would like to see motorcycles get there own lane on major freeways. Will it happen? No, but I'd still like to see it. It would be nice to worry a little less about whether or not this car is going to coming flying into my lane.

I am totally in favor of introducing a graduated system based on age and experience.  People with current M endorsements would be exempted, but I cannot understand any resistance to requiring a new rider to ride only low power bikes for a period of time, and perhaps only during the day, moreover, all drivers/riders should have better training and testing.

Take it as you will.  Plenty of folks would be better off if they had started out learning the right stuff.

I learned by buying a bike with my lawn-cutting money.  I nearly killed myself in the process.  Didn't take a MSF course until I was 20.

never work...
[tongue in cheek,sorta]most of the repli-racers are sold to first time riders[/tongue in cheek, sorta]

+1  what a strange website

It's probably true, but frankly, i think the manufacturers would love to have a 400/600cc market in the USA.  The M620 Capirex sold very well too, even if not a RR.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/USA_declaration_of_independence.jpg (http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/USA_declaration_of_independence.jpg)

Sorry about that.  I just did a search for helmet law and map.  Thought that the map was a pretty good visual representation of which state helemt law and which doesn't.  I didn't pay attention to the rest of the website and the purpose of the site. 

Cheers

I think a graduated license works well based on CCs but that doesn't meant that the bike is easy to ride. Power to weight might be an option but limits should be placed on the weight of a bike. Those 600lb 60hp HDs aren't great starter bikes either.

As for the "gubment takin your baby" entitlement arguments - does anyone here want to complain that the government regulates getting a pilot's license? What's the difference?

Licensing generally (car/bike) in the US is crap IMO, they could both use a serious overhaul.

how about instead of asking what the differences are between flying a plane, and riding a motorcycle, you tell us what the similarities are.

in my eyes, if you can pass the test, you can ride the bike. any bike you want. that's your prerogative of property ownership. you can buy whatever you want and ride it. obviously you still have to play by the rules (registration, insurance) that are already in place.

what about cars? will they start a graduated license there? no cars with more than 120hp until your 21?

It's not based on engine size, but California does have a fairly new graduated license law for teenagers.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/minors.htm (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/minors.htm)
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/minors_vio_actns_phns.htm (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/minors_vio_actns_phns.htm)

Basically it requires:
Drivers ed class
6 hours professional instruction
50 hours supervised behind the wheel practice
6 months with a permit

After meeting those teens can apply for a provisional license:


There are a few exceptions.

I think the graduated licensing in the UK starts around 125cc, and once you're over 500cc it's all the same (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Washington state has something very similar to that graduated driver's liscense program also. I'm not sure exactly how it works b/c I got my liscense a while befor ethey instituted it and my only child justturned one, so reading up on it has not been high on my list of priorities.

Oh, and I agree about that helmet law site being total idiocity, from my quick perusal they seem to want to ABOLISH helmet laws and think they ar eunconstitutional. I'm one for the graduated cycle liscense, and have spent time discussing the possible benefits of required safety gear in addition to them. Not that I think anything like that would ever pass.

The Doc

I actually think manufacturers would as well. get the new riders on the brand. if they live, then they could set some sort of hook to bring them back in when the reached the allowable age

Both are a form of motorized transport.
Both have the consequence of death or serious injury if one crashes.
Both are operated in public areas.
Both are required to operate within said public areas according to their respective governing laws.

The regulations for car and motorcycle licensure are a joke and need to be strengthened, but I don't believe in a graduated license structure so much. Just that the written test needs to be 3x harder and trooper evaluated road tests need to be mandatory.

I agree that graduated motorcycle licensing is a good thing, riding courses are good, and wearing proper gear is good. I also agree that US drivers are, on the whole, undertrained. But the fact is that the government already regulates getting a motorcycle license. We still have to study and pass a test, written and often driving. In Florida, it is mandatory that you show up at DMV with a MSF Beginner's Riding Course completion card, or no license. That's not so bad.

The big however, though, is that after putting up with the ever-changing, mind-numbing, ill-advised, sea of USAF motorcycle regulations over the last 21 years, I would absolutely hate to see the federal government do for motorcycling what the Air Force has. There's so much buffoonery in USAF safety directives it would drive a sane man batty. I have to say, I'm skeptical about government intervention. I'm not saying it couldn't be for the good, but I have serious doubts.

As for the pilot analogy, motorcyclists don't have such closely regulated traffic patterns or controlled airspace worries, we don't have intricate emergency procedures, or instruments to learn, or flight characteristics to be aware of, or complex weather effects to be wary of, or radios to operate, or ATC centers to deal with, or a federal agency that closely controls every aspect of how we operate......... I think there is a big difference between me hopping on the bike and riding down a country highway and me submitting a flight plan, prepping a plane, getting clearance to taxi/take-off, having my heading/airspeed/altitude controlled by the tower, having my subsequent heading/airspeed/altitude controlled by a Center, navigating by instruments, constantly monitoring a plethora of performance indicators, etc.  I'm not trying to be a smartass, so please don't take offense. I just think we're talking apples/oranges.

I can understand how moto manufacturers would resist this law.  With big contributions to whatever committee is voting on the rules package.

Or, they can just wait until they turn 18 and get a regular license and not really be any more mature than at 16...

So, i am FULLY prepared to get flamed to bits on this, but this is an honest question.

Why would any of you actually want a helmet law?

I am from NH and split my time between there and MA.  I WOULD NEVER ride without a helmet.  I woudl never ride with someone else who wasn't wearing a helmet.  I beleve 110% in helmets.

That said, if someone else wants to choose to ride without a helmet I am not sure how it impacts me that much.  Drunk driving - impacts me.  Speeding (often guilty) could impact me.  Choosing to not wear a helmet - stupid person making a stupid choice, doesn't impact me..

I feel like anytime the gov't gets involved and starts to regulate what i do they get it wrong.  Starts with a helmet law, ends with the banning of all two wheeled vehicles on public roads?

Again - i am not being an asshole here - honestly curious why others feel strongly about this, and i will reiterate i use a helmet 100% of the time and hope all of you do to.

Educate me.

<ducking>

Exactly.

There should be stricter training requirements for new drivers, regardless of age.

Problem is, what happens when the guy who chooses not to wear a helmet crashes and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays then? You will.

Here's a question for you: Why is it no one pregnant doges about seatbelt laws and the government mandating airbags?

I am still trying to understand why this study would be a bad thing.

MC laws and licenses are issued by state.  As far as I know there are only federal standards for vehicle safety, and not any laws about operation, training, etc. Also, this is not a bill or anything, just a study - the first one was released in 1981, and a lot has changed since, mostly demographics.  The +40 riders have seen the greatest increase in fatalities over the last 10 years.

If states do choose to use the new data to update laws, they would be bucking the trend.  A lot of this stuff we already know, and I doubt it has changed very much. 

On a more positive note, I would like it if this study challenges or supplants the Snell standards, and calls for some federal standard for other protectors.  The US version of CE.  I don't think it is within the scope of this particular study, but the first one did comment on the existing helmet standards.

I understand your first point..but I don't think it is valid. It can be applied to any activity...skydiving, snowboarding/skiing, diving, walking across the street (and getting hit by a car), etc. We all pay for anyone without insurance who is injured doing any activity . Regulating just motorcycling based on this argument is discriminatory.

On the second point...a lot of people complained very strongly when seatbelt laws were introduced. No one does now because they're older laws and we're used to them.

People don't complain about air bag laws because we don't make cars, so it doesn't directly affect us. I'm sure automakers have their opinion on the issue.

100% agree.
I am STRONGLY against a graduated license system. If people are uncomfortable on a certain size bike, and are responsible enough to choose a smaller bike that suits their tastes, then kudos to them. The test they take to acquire that license should be much harder in order to prepare them for riding ANY bike. Having been to the DMV recently, I can't comprehend in any way, shape, or form some of the people they let walk out of that place with a license. It's unreal.

this is SORT of a joke... but... sort of NOT a joke:
if a guy without health insurance wrecks, and IS wearing a helmet... don't we STILL pay for it?
FURTHER, if a guy NOT  wearing a helmet wrecks without health insurance, he would probably die and the cost would actually be CHEAPER.

okay it's totally a joke...


also, my dad pregnant dog heartily about seat belt laws for many years...
and i think the airbag thing is rather passive when it comes to the consumer, and really doesn't affect the average person, so much as it does the auto mfgs

Some interesting numbers from more recent studies: (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20&%20Consumer%20Information/Articles/Associated%20Files/4640-report2.pdf)
• The largest number of motorcycle fatalities (41%) is still in the 501-1,000 cc engine size
group, followed by 38 percent in the 1,001-1,500 cc engine size group.
• Two-thirds of motorcyclists killed on 1,001-1,500 cc engine size motorcycles were riders
over 40.

This is just fatalities, not crashes, and there is no mention of the relationship between age and experience, but an interesting data point.


The rationale behind helmet laws as they pertain to cost is that head injuries = longer recovery.  If someone comes in with a concussion and other broken parts, they may have to wait until the head is stable before working on the rest of them.  Longer stay = more $$.
Look at #7 here
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html)

Actually, you pay for the ones WITH insurance, too, and conceivably more than for the uninsured ones -- at least if they're with the same Ins. Co. as you're paying into. OK, new rule: Helmets and ATGATT required by law for all Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Arizona members!  ;D

Back on topic, the Hurt Report (how about Skidmore Gitoff as author this time?) did a whole lot to inform new rider & experienced rider training programs. As a new rider, it was really interesting to read the report's summary findings and some of the detailed findings, in order to realize that some of the things I thought were big dangers really weren't, while others I hadn't comprehended were real killers. It changed my riding for the better. I found this link to the summary findings, and read through them as a good refresher:

http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html (http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html)

Bikes, cars, average rider ages, drivers, roadway design, gear & more have all changed dramatically since the Hurt Report was completed; refreshing that info is a VERY good thing in my opinion. Getting it into the hands of traffic engineers, moto instructors & driving instructors would be an even better thing.
 

Thanks for posting that -- I just read the intro summary & scanned the rest, but I plan to read in more detail. Based on that quick reading, it sounds like the CC stats above come from a basic numerical calculation of deaths, not controlling for the ratio of +/- 1,000 cc bikes in the mix -- if 75% of the bikes on the road were <1,000 cc but they notched 41% of the fatalities, then the liter+ bikes would be the ones of most concern. I'd also wonder if they were going by the actual displacement or by the marketing description of, say, a 980 cc bike as a "Literbike"

The stats cited there on alcohol consumption & fatal motorcycle accidents are as striking as ever, as are the two bullet points after the ones you cited:

Two-thirds of motorcyclists killed on 1,001-1,500 cc engine size motorcycles were riders
over 40.
• There were increases in motorcycle fatalities between 1997 and 2006 for each engine size
group, but the largest increase was for motorcycle operators with engine sizes ranging from
1,001-1,500 cc.

thank you for articulation what i was trying to say (and gave up...)

personally, this clearly equates to the younger/less skilled/less careful riders not being able to afford the larger CC bikes rather than the larger cc bikes being safer (and the fact that there are so few race replicas over 1000cc)

i bet there is a similar correlation here concerning the buying power of the older crowd

+11ty billion

Keep your laws off my body (to steal a protest from another debate).

I can't believe avid participants in a risky hobby are advocating for strengthening the nanny state.  Give me a freakin' break - mandatory safety laws?  Really?  Our societies fascination with legislated safety is the most insidious route to fascism yet.   

This whole topic is very close to the politics line.

I'm thinking posts like this cross it.

Care to back it off a notch please?

if you are riding anything under 1000 cc or under 150hp you are quite simply a panzy and totally riding a motorscooter and  not a "real" motorcycle.   [laugh] [laugh] [laugh]

but seriously the study will show that most accidents are caused by cars.  duh.

and honestly i have to agree with soemone else, someone else riding without a helmet doesn't really affect me the same way as if a drunk driver is on the same road and crashes into me.  the helmetless guy if he crashes basically hurts himself more.  and if you think that insurance companies would ever decrease rates you are insane, even if we are riding around in plastic cushioned bubbles they would still be charging more than right now.

Insurance companies decrease rates for taking safety or rider improvement courses...

We all do.  We all also pay for all the people that eat too much, eat [bacon], smoke, drink, take drugs, bungee jump, skydive, ride skateboards, ride bikes, make the beast with two backs without a condom (kids and std's), and I could go on for pages.   

Guess what?  Even if they have insurance, we all pay for the risky behaviors.  Ask your insurance agent.......

So, does that mean we need to pass laws to stop these behaviors?  I say hell no.  Look at the drug laws - do they work?  Hardly.  One could argue that drug laws actually greatly increase the violence associated with their trade, which greatly increases the bill society has to pay to deal with it. 

I pregnant dog about seatbelt laws and mandated airbags......

 

I can't comment on health insurance. I'm in the military...

you make a great argument for banning insurance..

wait..

banning health CARE

The only difference between bikes & planes is altitude and scale.

We have strictly controlled traffic laws (depending on location).
We have intricate emergency procedures.
We have plenty of instruments, we learn them mostly before we get on the bike.
We have "flight" characteristics that vary based on weather, machine, road surface, leaves, dirt, tire state
We have complex weather to be aware of - temperature, pavement temperature, type of pavement, moisture levels, wind conditions, etc.

There's a scale argument here but you're talking about a vehicle that is more complex as compared to a car. It does not fail gracefully like a car does and requires a much higher skill level to operate than a car. You're taking a more complex example of flight than going out and jumping on your bike. When you do that, you have traffic rules and control towers (they're called lights ;)) to contend with until you get out of the city - same deal with planes. Aircraft don't all have to adhere to the same level of control depending on what type of aviation rules they're operating under. You should be doing a pre-flight check on your bike too, you may not be checking fuel for issues but that only takes a couple of minutes anyway.

I'm not suggesting that a FMA is required for motorcycle operation, I'm saying that riding a motorcycle is way more complicated than driving a car. We can sit around & say that we're all responsible adults but that's bullshit.

As for posting the declaration of independence, you're completely missing the point. It seems that every argument about graduated licensing or helmet laws gets (or just about any regulation) devolves into a petty argument about people's rights being taken away which is bad(tm). When personal self interest overrides personal responsibility we have a problem because your rights are now affecting my rights.

As for this study, as was already mentioned, it has nothing to do with regulation by the government. I'm really looking forward to learning from the study and hopefully becoming a safer rider. I don't imagine that the findings will be all that different than they were in the Hurt report but I could be really wrong there (wouldn't be the first time!). There's been anecdotal evidence for several years which supports the findings of the Hurt report.

I think we should all be glad that there is investment in the motorcycle industry that will directly benefit the riders and that discussions about rights and regulation is extremely premature.

Keep your risky, expensive behavior off my deductible :) 

(Freedom from social or financial cost is a freedom)

Some (probably most) would say you should get rid of your motorcycle then...and we all should only drive Volvos with <100 hp.  ;) ...and that's just the beginning.

No, there is a difference between mitigated and unmitigated risky behavior.   When you have numbers to back that, then there is a fairly easy calculation of cost. 

Look, I do get the argument.   How do we balance personal freedoms with public safety?  It is not an easy question to answer.  But when people -on the basis of some ideology- argue against the mandate for things like seatbelts -which is itself an easily defensible practical idea- I think, geez people, pick your battles.

Also, keep in mind what costs are being distributed to the public by imposing this idea of freedom.  I think we are getting to the point where we are paying for our individual set of behaviors.  You smoke or eat 12 bacon cheeseburgers a day?  That'll be 50% more insurance, please.  I think that is fair.  All I am saying is that we can't expect other people to foot the bill for other people's costly decisions.  Freedom ain't free - if you want to go seatbelt commando, then pay more.  I want to pay for safe person insurance.  You can pay for unsafe person insurance if you choose.

Also, you can't say because the industry already supports all these other risky behaviors, then it is a good idea to add another one to the tab.  You can argue that it should be grandfathered in, but not that it is a good idea.  Or, that it serves some concept of "freedom".

Mitigated vs. unmitigated risk is a function of perspective. Pro-helmet moto riders say proper gear is adequate risk mitigation...anti-motorcycle proponents think that banning motos all together is the only adequate mitigation.

I agree with all the paragraph above. But that is not govt. mandated safety...it is insurance company mandated safety/health through higher premiums. I have no problem with an insurance company saying a person will not be covered if they get in a moto accident and they weren't wearing a helmet...or into a car accident and they weren't wearing a seatbelt...or that their premiums are higher if they're classified as obese. The terms just have to be stated in the policy.

Anyway...I'm pro helmet...I don't think its a bad thing that the govt. is doing another moto crash study...if anything comes from the study hopefully it is a renewed emphasis on training and safety, not a restriction of our rights to ride. I'm out...too hard not to get at least a bit political.  ;)

my volvo has 240 hp stock

(but i upgraded the ECU and turbo cooler and now it's >320 hp)

I wasn't saying they actually have 100 hp...just that the safety nazis probably think they should only have 100. That's what I meant anyway.

i gotcha..

like i said, ban health care..   the morons will gradually be weeded out of the population and the survivors will be the safe drivers.. :D

I know you're being facetious but it would be really nice if we could be sure that only the stupid people got killed in car accidents but that's most definitely not true.

or at least only the drivers who refuse to exercise proper safety

its true, utterly facetious

it is contrapost to those who think there should be no regulations on riders, such as helmet or rider training.  at some point, everyone takes a dive.  if you've got your bucket on, i am less likely to skid and crash due to your brains being strewn about the motorway -- and we all know brains and spinal fluid are very slippery.

if someone believes there should be no safety rules for riders, then let's go the distance and get rid of everything down the line...

it's our duty to do as much right as possible.. support the reasonable and fight the idiotic (like that maryland delegate who wanted to ban sportbikes recently.. brownwad?  brainfud?  what was his name?)

The Three Stooges  - Men In Black - Minisode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVdUsgYA_D4#normal)

Couldn't help myself..... :P

Ahhh, a blast from the past. How did your 30's treat you?

Better than yours. 8)

you rock!  i saw that in the theatre right before the original Jason and the Argonauts when i was a kid..  it was my birthday and pop took all the neighborhood kids to the theatre -- in the back of the Country Squire station wagon.. <sigh> good times, good times!

Mine aren't even close to halfway over...

He's pretty old, maybe you meant "how did THE 30's treat you?" Ouch!

The Doc

More On The Upcoming Motorcycle Crash Causation Study (http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=38400)