Below is a link to an article from last Sunday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the rise of fatal motorcycle accidents.
I posted it here because I was very surprised at some of the conclusions they came to. Mainly, that the greatest number of deaths being reported is in the over 40 age group. This they attribute to the growing number of over 40 riders in the last 10 years.
I would have believed, based on the number of out of control squids I see on the road, that the greatest number of deaths would come from the 18-25 age group.
Although they only quote statistics from Missouri and Illinois, I would imagine that the information would be consistant across the country.
Anybody have a different take on this?
Rick
Link....
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/St.+Louis+City+%2F+County/F881308DF2B9C0A286256DAE007D2751?OpenDocument&Headline=Middle-aged+riders+are+fueling+rise+in+motorcycle+deaths,+experts+say&highlight=2%2Cmotorcycles
I know Ill. has no helmet laws...I wonder how that affects the survay...Helmets save lives. I live in Fl. and we need our helmet law back!!! I believe the law needs to save us from our selfs some times...Hows this sound? In florida you must wear a seatbelt in your car or get a ticket...but you dont have to wear a helmet on your motocycle..how stupid is that >:(
2002 Missouri had 56 deaths - 2001 Illinois had 140.
Missouri has a helmet law, Illinois doesn't.
Overall the population of Illinois is about double that of Missouri. However, the riding season for many riders may tend to be a little longer for much of Missouri than the heaviest populated areas of Illinois.
It would be interesting to see statistics on the number of deaths per registered motorcycle in states with helmet laws versus those without.
Rick
The other thing that needs to be evaluated is going to a progressive licensing system like most of Europe has.
The idea of somebody with no experience being able to plop down $7000 or $8000 for their first bike and then walk out the door with a new GSXR-600 or R6 or 600RR capable of doing over 150 mph is ridiculous.
But, if we had a system that said you couldn't ride anything bigger that a 250 for the first year, how many new riders would put up with the hassle required to make the steps necessary to progress thru to unlimited riding? Even though this obviously would improve safety for new riders, would this hurt the overall sales of bikes over time?
Rick
QuoteThe other thing that needs to be evaluated is going to a progressive licensing system like most of Europe has.
The idea of somebody with no experience being able to plop down $7000 or $8000 for their first bike and then walk out the door with a new GSXR-600 or R6 or 600RR capable of doing over 150 mph is ridiculous.
But, if we had a system that said you couldn't ride anything bigger that a 250 for the first year, how many new riders would put up with the hassle required to make the steps necessary to progress thru to unlimited riding? Even though this obviously would improve safety for new riders, would this hurt the overall sales of bikes over time?
Rick
Would be nice to see tiered licensing.
Instead of a 2 level, make it a 3 level.
100-500 for 18 months (12 months with an approved course)
test for next level which would be 501-800 for 12 months
much harder test then the 801+ level.
Granted they could make displacement limits by configuration (1000cc twins or 800cc 4's, etc, etc)
But then insurance companies SHOULD be required to only go by driving record and cc's. No more blacklisting. If they insure cars then they have to insure bikes so they just wont insure them.
why not just horsepower limits then? that would take care of a lot of these issues. say.. 50 horsepower? thats all you really need anyway. :P
If we tier motorcycle licencing the next step to a safe society is to just get rid of the high horsepower performance bikes. Its not like the unhelmeted harley masses which make up a lot of the motorcyclists in the country would be bothered by this.
If these idiots want to kill themselves then let them. I feel the same for seatbelts, helmets, guns, cigeretts, et all. When we try to protect morons from their own stupidity they will just find some other way to kill themselves. The only thing we accomplish is screwing up the world for everyone else.
Sportbike riders tend to wear helmets even in "no helmet" states like Florida... cruiser riders tend to wear a bandana. Here in Palm Beach, Florida I've seen a rider crash (cruiser, no helmet, over 50) at 5 mph, crack his head on the pavement and die. No excuse for it, but his own choice.
I've seen riders (mostly over 40 on cruisers) who couldn't make a turn without crossing three lanes of traffic. Do those riders even HAVE at motorcycle license? Probably not.
And of course, the news doesn't tell us if the rider was licensed, did the rider attend an MSF Rider Course, how many years was the rider riding.
I don't ride on the street (too dangerous), and while I'm saddened by rider deaths (like the one I've listed above), I have no sympathy for idiots who don't take the time to wear proper safety equipment.
R/Rob
CCS Amateur #114
Sponsors: Dade Behring (NASDAQ: DADE), Rolane Diagnostics, Prieto Racing, Pirelli, Vortex, GMD Computrack
I have had no problem riding on the street though I do not live in a major metropolis. (I am in milwaukee) All you need to do is pay attention to what is going on around you and wear the right gear.
Now of these problems how many involve alcohol? I bet a good portion do.
also, why are we requiring new car drivers to go to school for driving but not new motorcycle riders?
also, where is the education on the need for wearing proper gear? I have not seen any. Go to a local shop and buy a cbgsyzxrr sportbike or a new cruiser. How many shops actually tell you why you should buy gear? now how many toss you the keys and warn you not to burn your legs when you wear shorts?
The motorcycle industry sucks for safety education. If the unwashed masses dont get the info how can they be expected to do the right thing?
Now those who igonre the info deserve whatever they get.
I think it's fairly simple. New riders have accidents. The majority of new riders are over 40. Though I don't have the statistics, I'd bet that more 1st year riders under 25 are killed than 1st year riders over 40.
Tom
LRRS AM139
Every time a person gets killed on the road, my heart just sinks... :'( :'(
Of the motorcycle deaths in north east Wisconsin, most were:
1) Mature riders 35-60
2) Riding cruisers
3) No helmet
4) Either were driving under the influence or hit a deer.
We lost a lot of people this year. Only one of the people killed were riding a sportbike (once again, no helmet).
Dawn
I am a firm believer that there should be NO helmet law. This is a free country and it's your head. I also disagree with the seatbelt law. However, I always wear a helmet, and always wear a seatbelt. But that's my choice. I have not looked up the official stats for around here, but I know the last five or six deaths I've read about here locally involved Harleys and alcohol and no helmet. Exception is one where a kid ran from the cops, hit the back of a BMW, and then both cop cars ran over him. By the way, I have pretty much quit riding on the street too...too many careless drivers out there that don't care about us. :(
It's sad to see riders die. I'm a firm believer in helmet laws. Yeah, it's a free country, but sometimes people need to be saved from themselves. Whenever someone dies, it's not just a tragedy. Believe or not, it's also expensive.
I'm not putting a price on anyone's life, but insurance rates, taxes, etc are affected by traffic accidents. So if someone dies on the road, for whatever reason, it affects us all. That's why the laws are in place. So stay safe out there guys.
Ray
PS: I hope this doesn't make me seem insensitive or like I'm trivializing peoples' accidents. Just throwing in my two cents. ;)
Nobody wants to die, but nobody getting out alive either. At least they were having fun when their time came.
A tiered system to protect the unaware seems reasonable and right. But in principle, I prefer control over my own life and don't want anybody making decisions for me. The whole save me from myself theory stinks since it paves the way for dependency on government/lawyers to make peoples decisions and shirk off personal responsibility. It's not against the law to talk on my cell phone and drive so it must be safe, RIGHT!
I ware a helmet and my boy rides an old 650 twin till he shows the maturaty for something better. It may be expensive to let eveybody make their own choices, but what's it going to cost when you're not allowed to.
1fast I tried looking for the stats back when Texas went with a no helmet law it was rather interesting. What was found about medical expenses was that those without helmets had LOWER medical expenses than those with. Due to the fact the ones without helmets simply died so care ended there, those with helmets survived and were in need of more care ($$$) as head was protected and the broken arm/leg, the internal injuries all had to be treated.
Uhhh.... Eric...
What's up with "Eric LOSER Kelcher"
Dawn ???
What you talking about? ;)
Seems a certain wannabe racer decided to have some fun today. :D I guess she is still gloating over the MotogpII race win
QuoteWhat you talking about? ;)
Seems a certain wannabe racer decided to have some fun today. :D I guess she is still gloating over the MotogpII race win
Ohhh.....
I think it's time to change your password.
Dawn ;)
and hers ::)
Information from Wisconsin.....
Here's an article from channel 3000 in Wisconsin:
http://www.channel3000.com/news/2355347/detail.html
As of July '03 motorcycle deaths in the state had doubled from last year. Nearly half of the deaths involved Harleys. More than half of the deaths involved riders over age 35.
And an article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in July that focuses on the aging of riders, alcohol and deer impacts:
http://www.racemotorcycles.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?board=ccs1;action=modify;message=18;thread=1064897730
Rick
Couple of things to consider - saving people form themselves could easily extend from helmet laws to outlawing riding motorcycles altogether to outlawing dangerous sports like roadracing.
Personally - I don't care. I chose my safety equipment based on what I feel comfortable in. I do NOT want anyone else deciding that for me, nor would I impose my opinion on you.
On the state/deaths stuff. Keep in mind that there are a lot more large cities in IL as well adding to the possibilty of more car/bike wrecks vs/ single bike incidents, and hitting or getting hit by a car is bad no matter what your equipment. I do agree though that there are more deaths in no law states. But is that really a bad thing? I don't mind motorcyclists dying any more than any other deaths. It's gonna happen sooner or later and if you're dumb enough to put yourself in a situation where you get killed when wearing a helmet would save you - no big loss.
FWIW, I wish Harley would, from the factory, put real brakes on baggers. Aftermarket upgrade money aside, it would would help keep their potential repeat customers alive. (Sorry P*)
Helmets are good, we know that. Forcing people to do it? Don't know.
Driving a car and riding a motorcycle are not rights, they are privelages that are extended to people that meet the criteria. So, you could force people to do what is necessary to protect themselves, but I really don't want to see it.
Tiered licensing? In the US? Won't happen. First, there is no way the manufacturers will support it. Motorcycles are not as necessary in the US as they are in Europe. Europe is a socialist economy with unbelieveable fuel costs. The cities have been around for thousands of years. Roads and houses are small, space is not available. It only makes sense because of fuel costs, storage, and traffic reasons to have motorcycles and scooters. Grandma could have an Aprilia scooter!
In the US, their is a vast expanse of space. Long distances to travel. The manufacturers need to sell bikes, and few of them have a decent selection of entry level bikes.
As for accidents...
The statistics really don't show if the motorcyclists are just being ran over by stupid cage drivers. This is a problem. Can be an issue of the chicken or the egg. Deer fall into the same category. Not a fault of the motorcyclist, necessarily, but they are the statistic.
Training? How about motorcycle training? (From a teacher, so to speak...LOL!) Can be a big issue in all these older cruiser riders returning. To generalize based on what I've seen, I can't believe some of the poor decisions that I see lots of newer Harley riders do around me. They ride like they are in a car, they use the rear brake, they "walk" their bike to a stop, etc. Women riders that can't seem to control their big dresser at a stop sign. This isn't meant to categorize cruiser, Harley, or women, but I do notice a lot of unbelieveibly poor execution by motorcyclists in those categories around me. Seems to go with the age group and the death rate.
I vote for teired systems. I started out on an R1 at 18 years old and am somehow still alive. It certainly wasnt from lack of trying. This sort of thing shouldnt be allowed to happen.
From what I see, the death rate is still at 100%. No one has been able to live forever. I don't want the government telling me to wear a helmet or seatbelt, not smoke or drink, wear a condom, or stop me from doing anything that may increase the likelyhood of just me getting hurt.
I can see making us wear eyewear or being sober, since that could affect someone else, but let us take our own chances. That is what our country was founded on.
More training may be a good thing. I got my permit by reading the manual in line at the DMV. Then I jumped on my new 600 and had some fun practicing wheelies and seeing how far down I could get the bike. Although most of my near-accidents came from women in SUVs (sorry) who weren't paying attention. So maybe we should have a tier system for SUVs also. Otherwise you stay in your small/manueverable car.
This is a little off topic, but still part of the conversation. I just recieved this E mail and thought it fit.
Subject: How are people over 40 still alive.
>
> FW: How are people over 40 still alive.Subject: FW: How are people over 40
still alive.
> All people over 40 should be dead.
> To the survivors:
> According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who were kids
> in the 40's, 50's, 60's probably shouldn't have survived.
>
> Our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paint. We had
> no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets, and when we
> rode our bikes, we had no helmets. (Not to mention the risks we took
> hitchhiking.)
>
> As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags. Riding
> in the back of a pickup truck on a warm day was always a special treat.
>
> We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. Horrors! We
> shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one
> actually died from this.
>
> We ate cupcakes, bread and butter, and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but
> we were never overweight because we were always outside playing.
>
> We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were
> back when the street lights came on. No one was able to reach us all
> day. No cell phones. Unthinkable.
>
> We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then rode down
> the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running
> into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
>
> We did not have Playstations, Nintendo 64, X-Boxes, no video games at all,
> no 99 channels on cable, video tape movies, surround sound, personal cell
> phones, personal computers, or Internet chat rooms. We had friends! We went
> outside and found them.
>
> We fell out of trees, got cut and broke bones and teeth, and there were no
> lawsuits from these accidents.
>
> We made up games with sticks and tennis balls and ate worms, and although
> we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes, nor did the
> worms live inside us forever.
>
> We rode bikes or walked to a friend's home and knocked on the door, or rang
> the bell or just walked in and talked to them.
>
> Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't
> had to learn to deal with disappointment.
>
> The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of. They
> actually sided with the law. Imagine that!
>
> This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem
> solvers and inventors, ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion of
> innovation and new ideas.
>
> We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to
> deal with it all.
>
> And you're one of them! Congratulations.
>
> Please pass this on to others who have had the luck to grow up as kids,
> before lawyers and government regulated our lives, for our own good.
>
> Kind of makes you want to run through the house holding a pair of scissors,
> doesn't it?
QuoteI am a firm believer that there should be NO helmet law. This is a free country and it's your head. I also disagree with the seatbelt law. However, I always wear a helmet, and always wear a seatbelt. But that's my choice.
I agree with this statement and live the same way.
As far as arguing that the helmet law will save us insurance money, why not make everyone that drives a car wear one? I mean I know it can be proven that wearing a helmet will save X% of lives over not wearing one in a car.....lets pass a law that requires the use of helmets while driving any vehicle. ::)
While we're at it, lets pass a law stating that you can only have sex in one position, cause any other way than missionary causes back problems and that is a drain on the medicare/insurance system! ;D
The freedom thing. It is kind of tricky.
Again, driving is not a right. There are rules and regulations. You are required to have a license to drive. Cars must have minimal safety requirements, etc.
I don't like helmet or seat belt laws, but that doesn't keep me from using them. However, I don't know if the case can really be made that they restrict our freedoms.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms goes back to the ability of the people to hunt for food, protect themselves, family, and friends (and potentially property, and to rise up against oppression. The founding fathers recognized the need of the people the ability to remove a government.
However, regulations that protect us...
It is a bit different when compared to the freedoms that are considered our "rights".
Please tell me you are kidding about reinstating the helmet law :o. BIG BROTHER has enough power. We (FL) finally get a little of our freedom to choose back and you want to give it away... ???
"saved from ourselves", think of what you are saying...it definately has a soviet ring to it.
Personally, I think any motorcyclist that doesn't wear a helmet while riding on a major highway is nuts. It's called a calculated risk and one that everyone should make for themselves.
Okay, I'll get off the soap box now.
What conclusions can you draw from the data given? Not many if you consider the vast number of variables that cannot be controlled for. Do Harley riders make up the majority of deaths... well ofcourse- they also make up the majority of bikes sold. Do novice riders represent a danger to themselves... well ofcourse. Does a 46% increase in motorcycle deaths last year mean that motorcycles have suddenly become more dangerous... no, not when you consider sales went up by 200%. How many of those bikes were sold to novice riders is unknown. Beware the pitfalls of making "sound" conclusions from sketchy data. Protect yourself by whatever means you deem necessary. But don't use these weak arguments to mandate my behavior. I'll pay my own insurance based upon my driving history. I'll continue to exercise my good judgement to protect myself while having all the fun a good ride has to offer.
PS
City of Chicago riding is only dangerous if you stop paying attention.
I'm a firm believer that you can 'spin' statistics to support whatever position you choose.
My only reason for bringing this topic up initially was that I was surprised at the trend that was being observed of the substantial increase in deaths of riders over 40.
I was looking for opinions as to the primary reason behind this increase...... inexperience, alcohol, decreased reaction skills, etc.
This was not intended to bash Harleys. Yes, there are a lot of Harleys out there and a large number of deaths occur with Harley riders.
What I really find interesting was the fact on a national level there was a steady annual decrease in motorcycle deaths from 1980 until about '94 .....
and since then the trend has reversed and there has been a steady increase in deaths each year.
How does this compare to the number of bikes sold from 1980 to 2002? Is there a direct correlation between the number of deaths and the number of bikes sold each year? Personally I think there is more to it than that. And it's not a simple answer.
Maybe a combination of a change in who the 'typical' new riders are (age, income, reason for riding, etc.) along with changes in what type of bike is 'typically' being sold.
Are mandatory helmet laws going to reverse things? Probably not. Adopting tiered licensing for new riders? Maybe. Requiring new rider training courses? Probably.
I know I don't have the answers. But I enjoy hearing the thoughts of others!
Rick
I agree, these are interesting facts that inspire people to take action. Some are looking for answers and others are looking for action. My rebuttal was to those too quick to jump to action based upon the 'data.' I spend hours each day pouring over studies of this sort identifying their inherent shortcomings. Trying to find positve correlations between the data and outcomes will never provide the 100% certainty that you are looking for, but trends will be noticeable. At the end of the day, I bet, you will find that overall market factors such as numbers of bikes sold, years of experience, and alcohol are the major players. It is harder than you think to escape the macro market influences. Abberations usually fix themselves, it is called regression to the mean. In the end statistics only speak about populations. They say nothing of your individual ability.