(Please visit one of our advertisers)

No donations or subscriptions are required

   OR   
   
Subscription choices:
Board Karma = 40  (3453 positive of 3835 votes is 40 %pts higher than a neutral 50%)
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle   
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

You can the entire collection of Safety Tip articles in a 33 Megabyte PDF Portfolio

 All Forums
 Motorcycle Safety
 General Discussion
 It's confirmed - we are better drivers than non-riders
Member Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  

woonjas
Male Junior Member
26 Posts


Canton, Mississippi
USA

Yamaha

XTZ750 Super T?n?r?

Posted - 11/14/2013 :  3:10 PM Follow poster on Twitter  Join poster on Facebook as Friend                        Like
At least according to an insurance company:

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle...xzz2kbqwSwHG

gymnast
Moderator
4260 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 11/14/2013 :  4:44 PM
That is an interesting association and may indeed be true, however,
I wonder if Mr Clark is joking, ignorant, or illiterate when he made the following comment.

"Clark presented the data yesterday at a conference organised by the Motorcycle Industry Association to examine evidence that increasing the number of motorcyclists on the road could actually improve safety."


According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), a motorcycle rider is eight times more likely to be injured and 37 times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident than the occupant of a car in an automobile crash.
Go to Top of Page

James R. Davis
Male Administrator
17361 Posts
[Mentor]


Houston, TX
USA

Honda

GoldWing 1500

Posted - 11/14/2013 :  5:26 PM Follow poster on Twitter  Join poster on Facebook as Friend  
Joking? don't think so.

The "8 times more likely to be killed and 35 times more likely to be injured" statistic is entirely consistent with what I've said here many times - when comparing a rider and a driver who are involved in an accident.

The incidents of motorcycle riders being involved in an accident are substantially less than those of automobile drivers.

That, in my opinion, is primarily because motorcycle riders in the US average only about 2,000 miles per year of EXPOSURE, while automobile drivers average in excess of 12,000 miles of EXPOSURE.
Go to Top of Page

rayg50
Male Moderator
2083 Posts
[Mentor]


NYC, NY
USA

Honda

Shadow Spirit 750DC

Posted - 11/14/2013 :  9:25 PM
Edited to add the following explanation since a couple of years ago a board member pointed out my bad habit of quoting and making it seem as if I were directing the reply to the poster. This is not meant as a response to Mr. Davis' post but rather I am using it as a jumping off point which I hope all members will jump in and take me to task on.

This is a topic that I usual try to sit out because it makes my head hurt. Trying to translate thought into words on this topic is difficult because I believe that some things are mixed together that might be best left separate. Let me take one piece of the puzzle as a start, the "safety" of the mode of transportation.
quote:
That, in my opinion, is primarily because motorcycle riders in the US average only about 2,000 miles per year of EXPOSURE, while automobile drivers average in excess of 12,000 miles of EXPOSURE.
Air transportation is said to be among the safest forms of transportation. Does it become less safe because there are frequent flyers, or does it remain just as safe? Said differently, if nothing but frequent flyers were allowed on planes would air transportation be considered less safe because their individual exposure has increased? You can go with the flip side if it will help the members understand my question. If everyone were limited to one round trip a year would flying be safer?

The next piece of the puzzle.
quote:
The incidents of motorcycle riders being involved in an accident are substantially less than those of automobile drivers.
Isn't that the basic determining factor in ranking safety? Air and rail IMO are viewed as safer than automobiles because they crash less. Why is it different for motorcycles?

And the final piece (I think).
quote:
The "8 times more likely to be killed and 35 times more likely to be injured" statistic is entirely consistent with what I've said here many times - when comparing a rider and a driver who are involved in an accident.
Here is my toughest sell. This is irrelevant in viewing the mode of transportation's "safety", unless you apply it equally. If this is relevant then Air travel must be the least safe since I don't see too many people walking away from a plan crash.

I hope when I reread this in the morning it still makes sense to me and I don't find too many "what the heck did I mean by that" sentences. LOL.

This is one of those discussions best had over dinner and a drink or two once the bikes have been put away for the night.

Edited by - rayg50 on 11/14/2013 9:34 PM
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4260 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 11/14/2013 :  9:52 PM
Ray, have a drink, settle back a while and then mount a set of handlebars on the hood of your car and a pair of footpegs on the bumper and have someone drive you around while you make motorcycle sounds.

OK, now since fender benders are a lot more common than injury accidents among the population of automobile drivers and passenger, I'll bet'cha that the disparity in injury and fatality statistics between cars and bikes could be "evened up" real quick if everyone would put someone up on the hood with the bars and footpegs and the wife and kids would ride up on top on the roof rack. Just a thought towards bringing some per mile and per registration crash injury and fatality parity for automobile and motorcycle users.
Go to Top of Page

Horse
Senior Member
258 Posts


Newbury, Berkshire
United Kingdom

BMW

R850RT

Posted - 11/15/2013 :  6:18 AM
Dr Alf Minter researched car & bike accident rates, in the UK, back in 1978.

He found that the actual rate per mile travelled is little different, 'just' that a rider will suffer injury while a driver will damage their vehicle.

He used insurance company records.

http://www.teamrc17.net/archive/200...sg00555.html
~ The Minter Report (from the UK) showed the rate of casualties to exceed that of car drivers by a factor of under 4.0,

http://www.docsarah.demon.co.uk/QQNL25.htm
One report (Minter Report) accurately estimated motorcycle mileage, and adjusted journeys for age groups. This showed the rate of casualties to exceed that of car drivers by a factor of under 4.0, very much lower than the crude rates per passenger kilometre of over 20.

The only suitable comparisons come from the occupational field, where it can be shown that police motorcyclists (Class 1), when compared with a similar cohort of car drivers (Class 1) are less likely to be involved in any accident. This is a highly selected group who are at low accident risk anyway, but the point is demonstrated that if you compare like with like, motorcycles may be a less hazardous form of transport than either popular image or misleading crude statistics suggest.


http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=212632



Title:

THE MINTER REPORT - AN ANALYSIS OF STATISTICS RELATING TO MOTORCYCLING

Accession Number: 00394668

Record Type: Monograph

Abstract:

The study attempts to prove that the accident liability of drivers is not dependent on the type of motor vehicle used and that for the same age and experience the accident levels of twmv riders and car drivers are not very different. Although official statistics on accidents and casualties appear to show that motorcycling is many times more dangerous than car driving, it is believed that these figures overstate the situation. The study examines official and other data in order to judge the matter fairly and makes proposals for future policies that could be followed by both trade and users of twmvs. It is suggested that as there are wide variations of driving behaviour and competance amongst both motorcyclists and car drivers, such variations should be taken into account before conclusions are made. (TRRL)

Report Numbers: Monograph
Corporate Authors:
Motorcycle Association of Great Britain Limited
Starley House, Easton Road Coventry England
Authors: MINTER, A L
Pagination: 86 p.
Publication Date: 1983-12
Go to Top of Page

rayg50
Male Moderator
2083 Posts
[Mentor]


NYC, NY
USA

Honda

Shadow Spirit 750DC

Posted - 11/15/2013 :  6:22 AM
gymnast, I'm a visual person so your suggestion had me on the hood of the car with a snoopy (Red Baron) outfit on (goggles, scarf and leather "helmet").

There have been many threads on this forum discussing the risk involved in riding a motorcycle. I think many of the differences in thought are a result of the ambiguity of what is meant by "safe". When the extent of the injuries expected are placed in the equation the obvious result, IMO, is that motorcycles are less safe than other forms of transportation, but is it fair (hate having just said fair) to take that into consideration? I would separate that out as a consequence while others would not. If you look at the activity without the consequences then I propose that riding is safer (you are less likely to be involved in an accident).

The OPs link I think supports that view (yeah it's a stretch). Riders fully realize that they are at greater risk when it comes to the consequences and therefore are more focused on the world around them. I think it translates well to when they are behind the wheel of a car. When I drive, now, I drive the way I ride because my mind retains the consequences of riding.

Your example may actually help others understand my difficulty in defining safe when comparing modes of transportation. I would hold that the safety of the vehicle does not change (if we ignore the impaired view to the driver) in your example while the safety of the individual radically decreases.

Does "the disparity in injury and fatality statistics between cars and bikes" deserve to be a consideration? Should it not be broken into 2 separate ratings, the likelihood of accident given one rating while the severity of possible injury another?

Sorry for drifting the topic woonjas but my mind (which drifts naturally) has associated the 2 thoughts.
Go to Top of Page

Magnawing
Male Senior Member
281 Posts


The Woodlands, TX
USA

Honda

VF750C

Posted - 11/15/2013 :  10:16 AM Follow poster on Twitter
I think that comparing automobile accidents (in enclosed vehicles) involving licensed, active, motorcycle riders to those involving non-riders would be a more relevant statistic.

Comparing car/truck accidents to motorcycle accidents is apples to oranges...yes, they're both motorized vehicles sharing the same roadways but that's where the similarity ends. That's like comparing American football injuries to tennis injuries. They're both outdoor sports played using balls on a rectangular playing surface but that's where the similarity ends.

"Scientific" crash research statistics are only as useful as the researcher and the intended audience need them to be...and the intended audience is frequently either a governing body looking for confirmation of expected results or an insuring entity justifying a rate increase.
Go to Top of Page

scottrnelson
Advanced Member
6937 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, ID
USA

Honda

XR650L, 790 Adv R

Posted - 11/15/2013 :  10:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Magnawing

I think that comparing automobile accidents (in enclosed vehicles) involving licensed, active, motorcycle riders to those involving non-riders would be a more relevant statistic.
Isn't that exactly what the article referenced in the original post said?
quote:
Equity Red Star compared car drivers to car users who also have an insured motorcycle, and found the latter 23% less likely on average to make a claim on their car policy.
Go to Top of Page

kacinpa
Male Advanced Member
802 Posts
[Mentor]


Lansdale, PA
USA

Triumph

Sprint GT

Posted - 11/15/2013 :  3:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scottrnelson

quote:
Originally posted by Magnawing

I think that comparing automobile accidents (in enclosed vehicles) involving licensed, active, motorcycle riders to those involving non-riders would be a more relevant statistic.
Isn't that exactly what the article referenced in the original post said?
quote:
Equity Red Star compared car drivers to car users who also have an insured motorcycle, and found the latter 23% less likely on average to make a claim on their car policy.




I believe that IS exactly what they are saying.

The increase in overall safety would be due to the increased number of motorcyclists being safer CAR drivers.
Go to Top of Page

greywolf
Male Moderator
1484 Posts
[Mentor]


Evanston, IL
USA

Suzuki

DL650AL2

Posted - 11/15/2013 :  8:35 PM
Well, fewer car accident claims by licensed motorcyclists could also involve less miles driven in cars because of the miles traveled on the bike instead. Lets not be too quick to establish limited meaning to statistics.
Go to Top of Page

Magnawing
Male Senior Member
281 Posts


The Woodlands, TX
USA

Honda

VF750C

Posted - 11/17/2013 :  6:22 PM Follow poster on Twitter
Sorry, I completely missed that statement.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  
Jump To:
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle © Master Strategy Group Go To Top Of Page
  This page was generated in 0.36 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05