[wadenelson]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217420/

2004

There's too much here for me to neatly summarize.

How about EACH of you reading this pick one point that seems noteworthy TO YOU and quote it here, for discussion.

Here's MINE:

Compared to younger motorcyclists, the crashes of older motorcyclists are less likely to be precipitated by running off the roadway

So us old farts ARE more likely to throw in the additional lean necessary when we find ourselves entering a corner "too hot" and successfully "ride it out" instead of panic braking, standing the bike up and either running into the other lane, or OFF THE ROAD COMPLETELY.

I think that's the lesson I'd POUND into riders in a follow-on to the BRC...you've got to develop the MINDSET that you're gonna RIDE IT OUT

 

[Critter]

>22% of all fatalities were on motorcycles of 1000cc or more

 

[Eye_m_no_angel]

>22% of all fatalities were on motorcycles of 1000cc or more

Which means that smaller bikes are deadly?

 

[Urban]

Which means that smaller bikes are deadly?

Stats .

Motorcycles have become larger, heavier, and more powerful. In 1990, less than 22% of fatally injured motorcyclists were riding bikes with engine displacements greater than 1,000 cubic centimeters; in 1999, 34% of bikes fell into this category (Shankar, 2001). A disproportional share of these bikes were being ridden by older motorcyclists.

Another potential factor in the increase in motorcyclist fatalities in the U.S. is a decrease in helmet usage. Whereas laws requiring riders of all ages to wear helmets are the norm worldwide (IIHS, 2003), since 1997 six U.S. states (Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Florida and Pennsylvania) have repealed or weakened their universal helmet laws. Currently only 19 U.S. states (including North Carolina) plus the District of Columbia have laws in place requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets. ----> Nationwide, observed helmet use dropped from 71% in 2000 to 58% just two years later in 2002 (Glassbrenner, 2002). The decline in helmet use is significant, in that helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of fatal injury in crashes by 39% (Deutermann, 2004)

It's actually the old guy riders that are involved in more fatal accidents .

 

[Urban]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3217420/

2004

There's too much here for me to neatly summarize.

How about EACH of you reading this pick one point that seems noteworthy TO YOU and quote it here, for discussion.

Here's MINE:

Compared to younger motorcyclists, the crashes of older motorcyclists are less likely to be precipitated by running off the roadway

So us old farts ARE more likely to throw in the additional lean necessary when we find ourselves entering a corner "too hot" and successfully "ride it out" instead of panic braking, standing the bike up and either running into the other lane, or OFF THE ROAD COMPLETELY.

I think that's the lesson I'd POUND into riders in a follow-on to the BRC...you've got to develop the MINDSET that you're gonna RIDE IT OUT

Interesting points. Thanks for the article.. many different viewpoints.

 

[Eye_m_no_angel]

It's actually the old guy riders that are involved in more fatal accidents .

Not according to that graph.

I wonder what percentage of street legal bikes are over 1,000cc?

 

[hogcowboy]

I didn't see anywhere that idiots on their phones was even part of the problem. Just if you get old and don't wear a helmet you'll die. Pretty lame.

 

[Critter]

Which means that smaller bikes are deadly?

Exactly!

 

[Eye_m_no_angel]

I didn't see anywhere that idiots on their phones was even part of the problem. Just if you get old and don't wear a helmet you'll die. Pretty lame.

And we're going to die anyway, so it seems to me the point is Not To Die Before You Get Old.

^5's Hog, we made it!!!!!

 

[Eye_m_no_angel]

Exactly!

78% of all fatal motorcycle crashed occur on those zippy little, less then 1000cc bastids. They should be banned.

 

[Steele11b]

My Father in law had a massive heart attack and died on his motorcycle. How does that factor into motorcycle fatalities?

 

[Unkle Krusty]

Die to soon

And we're going to die anyway, so it seems to me the point is Not To Die Before You Get Old.

^5's Hog, we made it!!!!!

That is one of the three financial hurdles of life.
You may die too soon. You may live too long. You may become disabled.
Take care of those three and go ride.

Unkle Crusty* AKA Castle Retirement Planning in my former day job.
Now I am just an unemployed bum.

 

[anybike]

I don't take in much from stats produced by someone else, statistics are well designed to make any set of data sound the way you want it to sound.

The graph showing ages and number of crashes is useful, but in a discussion of motorcycle deaths using a graph of crashes is kinda misleading.......as you can from the first use of the graph in this thread.

The CDC has a table showing how many lives saved by helmets per 100,000 registered motorcycle riders, states with helmet laws the number is higher than states without helmet laws.....duh
Well how do they get a saved life.......survived? yes.... wearing a helmet? yes == life saved by helmet. It doesn't matter that they dropped it in the parking lot.

BTW I wear a helmet, and if in a crash I believe I would be better off with a helmet on, I just don't like the use of stats and methods of data collection......there is no way CDC or anybody else knows how many lives were saved by a helmet.

Eye, you and the stats people have done the same thing, you have lumped Honda Shadow, Suzuki C/M 50, 883, Kawi 900(B/C), and Yamaha 950 tourer into the group of zippy little things.

And I wonder how many of that 22% were on 1000cc zippy big things.

 

[Eye_m_no_angel]

Eye, you and the stats people have done the same thing, you have lumped Honda Shadow, Suzuki C/M 50, 883, Kawi 900(B/C), and Yamaha 950 tourer into the group of zippy little things.

I was being silly.:wink: I haven't had time to get serious yet.

And I wonder how many of that 22% were on 1000cc zippy big things.

Of the 22% of fatal crashes that occurred on bikes of 1000cc or larger, I'd say that all of them were on zippy big things of 1000cc or larger.:biggrin:

 

[Unkle Krusty]

Injuries

To determine if a helmet worked, you could study the injuries and interview the injured.
I managed to crash / fall off hundreds of times in cross country race events, and do not recall ever hitting my head, and did not sustain any injuries. Had padded leather MX pants on, heavy shirt, often a riding jacket.
I cart wheeled into the trees once ( was second for about 3 seconds ) during a MX race. Piece of tree poked a hole in my leg that needed repair. My head probably hit things on the way, but nothing of concern.
I fell off in the dirt and slid backwards into a tree. Head hit first. No helmet would likely have caused some damage.
I left the track once at about 90, flew through the air, aiming for small trees and a few rocks. Memory gets me to within about 50 feet of impact. Hit rock with RH side of head about 2 inches behind eye. Probably would have killed me without helmet. Unconscious for about 45 minutes. Some memory issues for quite a long time. Was daily functional, but did not realize what I had forgotten, because I forgot them. For instance when I came to, I did not know what country I was in. Also ripped the heal piece off my boot.
Had a few other track crashes, but none where a helmet was a factor.
I do not factor in the highway statistics, unless they have a column for never crashed.

Unkle Crusty*

Unkle Crusty*

 

[anybike]

lol

I don't consider 110ci as a zippy big thing, although it is over 1000cc and it is fast(recently 1 was running up my butt as we were passing cars, but I had to slow down in the curves so he could keep up), I was thinking more along the lines of a Ninja 1000(and I think they make a 1400) as a zippy big thing.

I think the type of riding the bike is made for, is more significant than the cc's

Even more significant is the type of riding being done at the time of crash, for example someone riding a RK 50mph thru a 15mph curve would be put in the same category as a crotch rocket doing 80mph thru the same curve.

 

[old honda guy]

I think this is the most relevant part:

"A weakness of the current investigation is the absence of exposure data more detailed than number of registered vehicles. In particular, information is needed on where motorcyclists ride, for what purposes, on what types of motorcycles, and most importantly, for what distances."

It's like trying to figure out why a particular group of men has more concussions than the general public without knowing that they are all professional football players. I know one thing, if my wife sees the headline, "More older riders are dying", the lack of facts won't matter a bit.

 

[distantThunder]

interesting that alcohol played a role in quite a few of those single-vehicle crashes. GOES to show ... getting older doesn't make anyone an exception to the effects of booze. I wonder why older riders have that temptation - maybe they like to ride to a local hangout, have a drink and socialize. So the "socializing" part of it is as important as the bike itself?

dT

 

[hogcowboy]

From what I was told, the first thing the cop wanted to know in my wreck is what the blood/alcohol rate was. Not a drop. Strangely if I had I wouldn't have been going as fast. So what do the statistics say about that? Not one darn thing. Yet I bet you could prove it is factor in many non-accidents.

 

[distantThunder]

HAHAHA!!! Probably true.
Unfortunately, motorcycles are not like horses. They don't take the cowboy home - after he spent the night at the local saloon.

I decided a long time ago to SCRAP the idea of having a "social drink" and then riding my bike. IMO, it's not a risk that's worth taking. Yeah, there's the thing about blood-alcohol level. But there's also the combination of alcohol and fatigue ... the two are worse together.

I ride to stay in one piece.
It's worth the effort.

dT