I just did my msf class last weekend they said 46% of deathes is because people cant handle curvs

 

And it will happen regardless. When I started riding there were no sportbikes Everything was just "a motorcycle". Riders were killed riding the current "sportbikes" aka Sportsters, BSAs, Triumphs, and in the "cheap seats" the Honda 305 Scrambler and Hawk. Those were the hot bikes and those are what the riders were thrashing. Later on it was the Z1 and H1 Kaws, then the V65 Magna - a cruiser! - and now the sportbikes after the factories started segmenting the market into styles. Oddly enough when a ban on big sportbikes was attempted by Senator John Danforth the truth came out. The big sportbikes had safer riders than the smaller ones, the riders were usually older, more mature, and had serious money tied up in the bikes. Seems age has more to do with it than the actual motorcycle.

Face it, many riders ride whatever is quickest and fastest and the younger the rider the more likely it is. If sportbikes were outlawed tomorrow you'd have these same people riding whatever else was there. They'd be on some cruiser scraping everything in sight and crashing out just the same.

Of course there is the increase in older rider deaths and those are probably on cruisers. Again it is due to lack of riding skill, much the same as the squids. A corner doesn't change just because you're on a certain type of bike - too fast in is too fast in, you're gonna crash. The difference is the speed is a bit higher before the sportbike rider biffs it, but it seems both biff it in corners when they screw up.

 

Motorcycle sales spike everytime the price of gas jumps way up. The "bullet bikes" get bought in larger numbers because you get more speed for your dollar than in the cruisers and because they are "hot" and "macho" and whatever else is cool these days. You put newbies on bullet bikes and a lot of them will die in the first year. That's just reality.

 

There is the other side of reality....
A lot of newbies that ride cruisers seem to think the road is softer at 70mph on a cruiser than on a sportbike for some reason. Hence passing up the helmet and gear. They seem to think that wearing sunglasses and a vest that has enough patches that resembles a boyscout is enough. All while maintaining the bravado.

As far as the statistics..... you can find some that will say that sportbike deaths are double the cruisers. And you can find some that would say that cruisers death numbed are higher due to lack of head gear. Its a relative and a shame that a lot of deaths on any form of bike could have been prevented with a little bit of thought.

 

I can tell you as an insurance agent I almost never get a call about one of my clients having an accident on a cruiser; but the sport bikes I insure are a total different story. Since I'm in this business and I ride I see the worst rider mistakes by young guys on sport bikes. Wheelies at high speed on busy roads and freeways; super speed weaving in and out of traffic on the highway... I have never had one of my Harley clients file a claim. Mostly this happens because they are typically older and less reckless. Before I get a rash of response about the typical HD rider with his leather vest and doo rag; I get it and agree with you.

 

They were talking raw numbers, not percentages. If the raw numbers go from 10,000 to 20,000 but the number of riders go from 2 million to 5 million, is motorcycle riding more or less dangerous?

Those numbers were made up by me to make a point.

 

One thing about statistics... you can play with the numbers in many ways, and come out with completely different conclusions, depending what it is you want to find.

I choose to take that video with a little more than a grain of salt (someone pass me the salt shaker) because the people who are putting out this video are the ones who make profit from insurance policies. To me, it just has a feel of the insurance business trying to justify the increased rates across the board they all want.

(those fvckers raped me hard in the a$$ when the government decided to allow them to use your credit score in calculating your insurance rape... I mean rates.)

 

Insurance Rape



Been driving since 1966 with 2 fender benders, none in the last 28 years but because I paid off my huge credit card debt I too get raped by insurance rates. Insure 2 cars and 2 bikes and my rate is pretty high, but not as high as an 18 yr old or my son in law.

 

Because I do not have an "A" rating on my credit score, my rates went from $1000 to $2000 a year for full coverage on my car!

 

I pay $300 bucks a year for full coverage on my red Harley. My Credit scope is in the fan.

You needs to find a better insurance company. I use progressive. Gieco was 3x higher.

Now back to the original posters thread.

Noobs gotten buy spork bikes, noobs gotta crash.

Just like when you look into past lives, ever one was royalty, not dung haulers.
Most that starts on a spork bike, crash and burn.

 

In Fl I pay 1800 for 2 Hyundai's and 560 for my phantom and a 150cc scooter. Higher than I paid in NY.

 

Wow. Sound slike a lot. I don't know how old you are (I am 54, no accidents or tickets, wife has had no accidents since we were married anyway [14 years] and one ticket [speeding] that I recall)), but here's what I am paying in Florida (I assume you quoted 6moth coverage so I will too):

2006 Honda Element
1989 Mitsubishi Montero 4wd
1986 Suzuki Savage (650cc)
1968 Honda CB 350 (325cc)
Comp on all

$665 per 6 month

 

Cruiser rider and with ATGATT

 

My coworker rides a 1200 with no gear on. At first I was worried about what he thought of me in all my gear but now it is none of my business.

 

"90% of all statistics are completely made up."

LOL!

(And it's only 72% that are made up. Get your facts straight.)

 

Your both wrong, its 52.4%


the .4 gives it more credibility. :thumbsup:



Also, pay around $110/mo to insure 2 cars and one pickup through State Farm. The bike is $100/year through Progressive.

State Farm bike rates are just weird for some reason. I was told they only look at the engine size, not Hp.


BUT, I also have a teenager who will be added to the policy soon. I'm betting those rates will double.

 

IMHO, the real issues here are misconceptions. Uneducated (motorcycle-wise) people & riders assume:
Sportbikes are either dangerous (from a conservative stand point) or must be ridden to the limit on the street at all times(from a typical newbie stand point).
Cruisers are too slow (from a typical "squid" stand point) or can be ridden safely without helmets because it's a "cruiser" (from a wannabe "hell's angel" point of view).

The pavement does not discriminate between a sport bike and a cruiser. Physics doesn't care either. Your brains can easily be splattered if you do something stupid on either one.

The real key is attitude adjustment and rider education. We Americans are blessed with so many things. Unfortunately, a sound licensing system is not one of them. Getting a license is ridiculously easy in some states. Imagine sharing the road with an under-trained motorist (bike or car) much less a drunk one. Add the occasional driver or rider with a bad attitude. Even worse are the unlicensed and/or uninsured drivers and riders that are out there in the thousands. It is a recipe for disaster. And it is playing out slowly as we speak. To blame "sport bikes" is stupid. It is equally stupid to blame motorcycles in general. Motorcycles don't ride themselves down the street. People do. Therefore the responsibility is on the rider and those that share the road with him/her. The HURT report is worth reading.

 

Good post

 

Most often when I read articles about motorcycle accidents here in Cincy, it's a cruiser. It's a bar hopping, harley riding, "cruise mentality" kinda guy. He got drunk and rode home, but didn't quite make it.

I don't think sportbike riders are more reckless across the board, just reckless in different ways.

 

I'm jealous LW..

845.82 for 6 months, and I only carry two vehicles

2002 Ford Windstar
2005 Yamaha RoadStar Silverado 1700

I carry full coverage on both (bike is mandatory since I owe the bank money on it)

 

I have full coverage on all my vehicles, and pay just over 650 every 6 months.

F150=$445
Marauder=$112
22 ft camper=$103

 

WOW.. After looking through this thread at some of the rates you guys are paying for insurance, my jawbone almost hit the floor.

I only pay $200 for my 96 Virago, for the whole year !!!!

 

We recently switched insurance companies (had State Farm switched to Allstate) because SF homeowner's in this hurricane belt was getting unmanageable (especially with my [lack of] income). SF was set to raise rates again, AS had already raised theirs. Also SF was only providing coverage for the mortgage holders, not half of what it would cost us to replace the home in a total loss. AS provided real replacement cost coverage for a tad less than the old SF rate and reduced our car and bike rates substantially ($11 a month for both bikes, compared to SF rate of $45).

Anyway, what I learned is it pays to shop around; it is a hassle to move everything and compare apples to apples, but we are now saving substantially every month.

SF has become complacent that no one will leave them and every few years threatens to drop homeowners in FL altogether. I got tired of their game and just had to cut expenses (not just insurance).

Cheers,

Mike

 

Wow... look at that. When you normalize death rates against a specific number of bikes registered, the death rates for the superbike crotch rockets are way higher than other types (and cruisers are lowest).

How can that be?

Oh, yeah... because the people who buy bullet bikes are mainly interested in seeing how fast they can go, their average age is lower (so they take more risks), and the bikes have more power so they are much more difficult to control especially among newbies.

Sometimes common sense does prove to be useful in understanding reality.

http://www.cce.csus.edu/conferences/ots/cmss08/docs/Teoh.pdf

 

Let me tell you how far I trust ANYTHING put out by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety... ya think they might just be a bit biased and trying to make stats meet what they want to see? They are financially backed and created by the one group that would like motorcycles wiped out entirely - The Insurance industry!. They were backing the ban of 1000cc sportbikes back in 1986 with Senator Danforth. Unfortunately for them the real statistics tripped them up. Seemed the big sportbikes didn't have the huge fatality rates they claimed.

Just remember the thought here by German anti-fascist Martin Niemoller:

"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

Now lets modify it to suit the IIHS attitude toward motorcycles:

First they came for the sportbikes, but I was not a sportbike rider so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the naked and dual sport bikes, but I was neither, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the standard and power cruiser bikes, but I was not a standard or power cruiser rider so I did not speak out.
And when they came for my cruiser/tourer, there was no one left to speak out for me.

Then there is the one by James Baldwin:

"If we know, then we must fight for your life as though it were our own…. For if they take you in the morning, they will be coming for us that night."

I know it's nothing remotely as critical as the situations Baldwin or Neimoller encountered, but there are some similarities in general.

One more point to be made. If the sportbikes boosted the death rate by that huge a percentage, why wasn't there a huge boost in the overall death rate on bikes. Based on what is appearing to be claimed, there should be a huge increase. But I guess it's probably because it isn't totally there. How would a drop in deaths be reconciled with the stats? And what bikes were considered in what categories? Then what about per mile ridden?

Again, it's the rider, not the bike. The young riders who are sportbike fatalities now were standard bike fatalities before sportbikes existed. They're the ones who wadded up BSA/Triumph 650s and Harley Sportster 883s in the 60s and 70s and then on the standard Japanese bikes in the 70s and early 80s. The sportbike thing is no new phenomenon by any stretch.

 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety certainly has an agenda here, regardless of the statistics: If they can convince insurance regulators that those bikes are indeed more dangerous, then they can raise premiums for those bikes.

 

Never afraid to state the obvious, this guy summed it up pretty succinctly:

"Supersport motorcycles have such elevated crash death rates and insurance losses because many people ride them as if they were on a racetrack," McCartt said.

Bullseye

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/11/autos/motorcycle_safety/index.htm

 

Again, it isn't the supersport bike.

As you highlighted, but with a slight modification, removal of the word "them":
Many people ride as if they were on a race track.

That is never going to change, it happens in cars, it happens in trucks, it happens on motorcycles and did long before there were sportbikes.

When muscle cars were eliminated from existence by the insurance industry, there wasn't any drastic drop in deaths. Even as the muscle cars declined in numbers and most cars were ending up at under 150 hp the deaths from "hot rodding" around didn't drop. It always has and always will happen. Get used to it and remember very well who the IIHS actually represents - the Insurance Industry and their stock holders. They could actually care less about the public, as we see in the Insurance Industry's actions in the health care arena.

 

IIHS actually represents - the Insurance Industry and their stock holders.

Right. That's why we could use pay-at-the-pump no-fault driver's insurance. Get the profit out, get everyone covered.

They could actually care less about the public, as we see in the Insurance Industry's actions in the health care arena.

Right. That's why we need, at a minimum, Medicare-for-All or equivalent public option health care. It's the profit requirement that diminishes caring and quality.

 

When I started riding over 30 years ago there were a lot more
beginner" bikes that were lighter, easier to handle, and not nearly as fast as today's bikes. There are virually no true "starter" bikes today. While you certainly could kill yourself on a Reber 250 you had to work harder to do it than on a new 600cc sportbike today. And I notice increasingly that people with little or no experience are buying top-of-the-line sportbikes. Just recently I was filling up my bike at the gas station, when at the next pump a young guy with no riding gear, no helmet, no anything started to pull out on his new Haybusa. He must have turned a bit too much throttle because the bike came out from under him, crashing in the street about 50 feet later while he ended up on the ground more embarrassed than hurt. 30 years ago there were not too many Haybusa type bikes that could be bought and were unlikely to be bought by new riders. I'm long past any sportbike days, but I don't assume that because I ride a cruiser (Triumph America) that I don't have to still be extra aware and careful when riding. I may be less likely to have a crash, but healing takes a lot longer when you get up in years. And BTW, my annual insurance on my 2011 bike is $260. (Ask an insurance agent and he will tell you that location is a key factor in rates, as is the rider's accident and ticket history. Engine size also matters a lot: my 865cc cruiser was less than half the annual cost with Progressive compared to what I originally planned on buying, the 1600 cc Triiumph Thunderbird.)

 

I think America and other countries need to adopt a graded licencing system similar to what is in the UK. In the UK, from what I've heard, your first bike has to be a 125cc. After a year or so on that you're welcome to go to a bigger bike.

Strangely enough, because of this law there are a whole slew of 125cc bikes that are designed to look and feel like much larger bikes. It's not enough for some people but for those riders looking for more style over substance, they just slap on a few new decals, attach a new muffler and no one knows that it's a small engine size. :biggrin: Youtube is full of French and British riders doing this. Make fun of them all you want, they're newbies that are not putting their lives on the line. I'm pretty sure they have mandatory helmet laws too.

Since the US is a bigger country with bigger roads than here and the UK, there should be a similar law with 250cc instead of 125cc. It'd probably save a lot of people's lives in the long run.

 

Nobody is implying that the government should start restricting what bikes we can buy or ride. However, the precedent already exists that car makers put top speed limiters on their cars (although it is usually at some ridiculous speed like 190).

The point is and was, data that looks reliable points out the fact that Rocket Bikes are accounting for WAY too many deaths by proportion to their numbers. Insurance companies care becaus that costs them money. Bikers should care because they are the ones killing themselves.

But (predictably) the various responses are:

1) The data must be wrong, numbers can be manipulated so that means no statistics can be trusted.

2) The insurance companies are lying. This is particularly bizarre: what motive do they have to lie? They can raise rates anytime they want just by showing their cumulative claim losses to the insurance commissioner. Why would they LIE to single out a specific type of bike as their loss leader?

3) To quote from my era (60's): The problem is not high performance cars, it's low performance drivers. There is a kernel of truth in this but it is also a dangerous evasion because it peddles the myth that the rider can control it and stay out of trouble. In many cases, a newbie on a bike that weighs 400 pounds and has 100 HP is an accident with a time stamp on it.


The way I read the data is simple (look at it if you don't believe this):

The people buying rocket bikes, on average, are lower age. That combined with the bike's ferocious power "squares" the danger since younger people are more inclined to take risks. And, the fact that a buyer is selecting a race bike that is street legal also says something about that person's mindset: ie, they plan to ride it fast. The results are as shown: higher death rates. Period.

The point is that this is a cautionary tale. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Ever get the feeling that some people come to the forums for no purpose other than to argue?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

Dont you just LOV when you have someone who takes something dished out by a special interest group, starts preaching it as if it was the Gospal of John, and then throws in his own distorted "facts"...

Is it any wonder WHY this society is goin straight to Hell in a handbasket...

 

"Ever get the feeling that some people come to the forums for no purpose other than to argue?"

Yup.

 

I completely disagree. Where would you two guys ever come up with such a silly notion? Do you have any data to back up such claims?:biggrin: