| Author |
Message |
    
Royintulsa
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 09:57 am: | 
|
Motorcycles have a higher rate of fatal accidents than automobiles or trucks and buses. United States Department of Transportation data for 2005 from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System show that for passenger cars, 18.62 fatal crashes occur per 100,000 registered vehicles. For motorcycles this figure is higher at 75.19 per 100,000 registered vehicles – four times higher than for cars.[55] The same data shows that 1.56 fatalities occur per 100 million vehicle miles travelled for passenger cars, whereas for motorcycles the figure is 43.47 – 28 times higher than for cars (37 times more deaths per mile travelled in 2007).[56] Furthermore for motorcycles the accident rates have increased significantly since the end of the 1990s, while the rates have dropped for passenger cars.
Any ideas on how to close the gap between rider motorcycle rider deaths and auto deaths? |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 10:49 am: |
|
that kill boy shot reminds me of the numa numa guy
but in leather of course. |
Imonabuss
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 11:24 am: |
|
To reduce fatal accidents - Serious rider instruction and tiered licensing, helmet laws, gear required, strong penalties for drivers who injure/kill motorcyclists.
These things (which would be easy and would get us to where Europe and Japan are) would make a really significant improvement. |
Daves
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Kawa didn't make 3 cyl 2 stoke 900s
750 was the hot 2 stroke, several guys i knew had them. My first street bike, when I was 14(yeah, I had a really cool Dad that let me buy it) was a 400 Kawa triple 2 stroke.
I had a 900 Z1 it was an inline 4, 4 stroke.
As far as this law? Yep, BS |
Jerry_haughton
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 12:40 pm: |
|
As far as this law? Yep, BS
Dave, you forgot the part about this being heavily sponsored by Harley and their dealers because they gotta find some way to sell the trash they are trying to pawn off on kids... |
Syonyk
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Any ideas on how to close the gap between rider motorcycle rider deaths and auto deaths?
Imonabuss's suggestions about rider instruction, tiered licensing, helmet/gear laws, etc, sound good.
However, I'll raise a different question: Why do you (we) care about closing the gap between rider deaths and auto deaths?
Motorcycles are inherently less safe than cars. However, they are MUCH less tolerant of "stupid" than cars. Stupid on a motorcycle (or in an airplane) is much more likely to kill you than stupid in a car.
If someone wants to ride safely, they can. All the resources are out there - gear, rider training, good starter bikes (though we could use a few more good *low* starter bikes for shorter riders), experienced riders willing to provide wisdom gained from hundreds of thousands of miles, etc.
As far as I can tell, this isn't the group that's dying regularly on motorcycles. This is mostly the group of people who ride regularly, ride a lot, and ride in full gear. Yes, it's easy to make fun of the BMW or Goldwing riders who are in head to toe neon, but most of them that I know put on insane numbers of miles and do it quite safely.
A quick survey of local news matches what other studies have shown: Motorcycle fatalities include one or more of the following: "No helmets," "No gear," "Excessive speed," "Alcohol," "Failure to negotiate a curve."
So, the question is, "Can you legislate against stupid?" I don't think so.
Look at helmet laws. They're a good idea... except people who don't want to wear helmets bend them to the breaking point. The DOT half-helmets are of little to no value in a crash, and I've seen people ride with them fully unfastened. Someone who wants to ride safely will wear a helmet, someone who doesn't want to wear a helmet will wear as little helmet as they are legally allowed to do.
A few nights ago, it was a nice evening out, and I saw plenty of people riding up and down a main drag in Albuquerque. This included things like "The guy on a cruiser in jeans and sneakers." No shirt - if he'd had a shirt on, he wouldn't have been able to show off his whole back tattoos. There were also plenty of people on bikes (both sportbikes and cruisers) with lots and lots of skin showing.
Personally, I don't want to see helmet laws and gear requirements. It should be up to the individual - personal freedom and all that. However, I think it's stupid to ride without a helmet & gear (and have almost ended up in a bar fight with an old guy for voicing this opinion... I was talking to a friend of mine, he overheard, and was *pissed*)
So, I suppose my overall view is that I don't care too much. Stupid hurts. Stupid on a motorcycle kills. And, unfortunately, it's not illegal to be stupid.
Now, if I were put in charge of a program to reduce motorcycle fatalities, I certainly have my opinions on how I'd do it.
The first is definitely a tiered licensing system. However, I don't think a purely time based system is the most effective. It should include a way to log mileage, and have some mileage based factors as well. Someone who rides 1500 miles/month on a starter bike will be suited to a larger bike much faster than someone who rides 150 miles/yr. To upgrade to the next level, there should be a riding skills test as well (on your current bike). Similar to the current stuff, you don't have to be perfect, but you have to show competence.
The other big thing I'd throw money at would be advertising campaigns and events focused on changing public opinion of riding safety. I don't think legislating gear/helmets is terribly effective, but I think spending time and money informing people (graphically, if needed) about the merits of gear is worthwhile. One of the gear companies has that spokesperson who went down when her bf went too fast & blew her off the back of his bike - stuff like that needs to be more visible to non-riders.
Do demonstrations at various events. Drop a watermelon from "normal riding height," then drop one in a helmet from the same height.
Basically, the goal is to make it socially unacceptable to ride unprotected. Or, at least, if someone is going to do that, they should be quite clear on the risks. And I think it should be made *very* clear that riding as a passenger unprotected is stupid.
http://www.livefreeridealive.com/ is a really good start.
But, in general, I don't think there's any particular law or series of laws that can be passed that will have a significant effect on motorcycle fatalities. The change needs to be from within - riders being more willing to seek regular training, to not "ride to drink, drink to ride," and to wear competent gear.
And passengers have to refuse to ride with riders who don't have the passenger's safety in mind. |
Daves
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 01:12 pm: |
|
Went for a great 100 mile ride last night with a little hottie on my FLHT. Neither of us had helmets.
Of course I've ridden probably close to 200,000 miles without one and probably about 50,000 with one.
2 weeks ago, same gal but we took the XB, both had helemts,Vanson jackets(good thing I have 2) gloves, boots etc.
I guess I am stupid. I'm ok with that.
For me it depends on the bike, and what type of riding I plan on doing.
The Harleys, usually no helmet, if it's hot no shirt.
The Buell, full leather most of the time and 99.9% with helmet. |
Etennuly
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 01:13 pm: |
|
Daves you are so right. The buddy of mine that was the more experienced rider was on a 750 triple. He is still kicking today. The brand new 1973 900 was a four stroke. It was faster than the 750. He could not negotiate a corner after passing the 750 at speed.
Hard to believe they were on a 3.75 inch front tire and a 4 inch rear. |
Syonyk
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 01:18 pm: |
|
The Harleys, usually no helmet, if it's hot no shirt.
The Buell, full leather most of the time and 99.9% with helmet.
What's so different about the two bikes that justifies totally different gear?
Not trying to be a prick, just genuinely curious as this makes no sense to me. I assume you're not getting a knee down with a passenger on the Buell, but otherwise the exact same threats apply - crap in the road (oil, sand, etc), other traffic, mechanical failure of a catastrophic variety... |
Daves
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 01:32 pm: |
|
Not so much the difference in the bikes, which is HUGE but more a difference on how I ride each bike.
The HDs, kicked back, 5 or so over the speed limit, corners at 10-15-20 over.
The Buell, well,need I say more?
I understand what you are saying, that all the "other" factors are the same but in 30+ years of riding on the road I've done a pretty good job of avoiding them.
Both my crashes have been "self inflicted" and were on Buells.
I also ride pretty much totally different when it's just me or with a passenger. Although, this new one likes going fast, over 100 is her favorite! Hit 130 on the Buell. I think I like her! |
Pammy
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 01:42 pm: |
|
So we can all agree that the number one cause of fatal motorcycle accidents is .....testosterone. Well I, for one, agree.  |
Daves
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 02:31 pm: |
|
Pammy
Testosterone explains lots of things! |
Royintulsa
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 03:29 pm: |
|
Why do I care about reducing motorcycle deaths? To encourage more people to ride. To avoid having insurance companies deny you coverage for health insurance because you ride. The more motorcycles on the road, the fewer cars making it safer for riders. Losing the label donor cycle and murder.
A lot of this countries energy problems, traffic gridlock problems and parking problems would diminish somewhat if more people rode bikes.
People are afraid to ride, if we changed the culture we would all benefit. |
Hybridmomentspass
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 03:32 pm: |
|
"What's so different about the two bikes that justifies totally different gear? "
My father has an Electra Glide, I ride it sometimes. I, too, equip myself a little different. Not as different as Dave, but different.
On my Buell, I never ride without my jacket, jeans, gloves.
If I take his bike out for a few I'll wear whatever.
Same helmet (only have one 'street' helmet, dont want to chance my race one on the street and not going to wear my dirt one on the street), just dont worry as much about jacket and gloves. And sometimes I'll hop on for a few in shorts.
Similar if I take a buddys bike out, depending on what it is depends on what I wear. A few months back my buddy just bought a bobber from another friend. I didnt have my helmet (full face), so I borrowed one of his half helmets (still DOT legal, at least half inch of padding, not one of those peanut shells) and took off with only tee, jeans, and sneakers. I wasnt going on a spirited ride like my 1125, high(er) speed curves etc, was just going a few miles down the road at a more relaxed pace.
Everyone is different, has their own opinions etc.
Im still against Malories Law and am glad it aint in NC |
Hybridmomentspass
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 03:37 pm: |
|
Roy - you posted while I was typing - I like your post, you make a lot of good points but forgot one:
more people ride safely and we'll also benefit on our auto insurance.
Just before I got my 1125R (this was in Nov of 2007, got the bike Jan 08, July to January was SUCH a long wait....) I called my insurance agent, I was with nationwide at the time. He quoted me 555 a month for my 1125R for full coverage. I was 25 at the time with no accidents and it'd been years since a moving violation. He stated taht sportbikes have a lot of accidents and that Nationwide wanted to charge so much that either A)they get so much money from sportbike riders that if/when they crash they have the money to cover it, or B)the price would scare them away.
Its a shame.
Its a shame we all pay a little more because of the 'bad seeds' who speed and have dumb wrecks due to bad decisions etc |
Pammy
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 07:27 pm: |
|
Yes it does Dave...yes it does. |
Rmzmzm
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 08:50 pm: |
|
Dave, you forgot the part about this being heavily sponsored by Harley and their dealers because they gotta find some way to sell the trash they are trying to pawn off on kids...
Things that make you go HMMMMMM
http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/ba82r/hb2470. pdf
CSHB 2470 would narrowly define sports bikes and differentiate them from larger touring bikes such as those manufactured by Harley-Davidson. |
Hybridmomentspass
| | Posted on Thursday, May 19, 2011 - 10:25 pm: |
|
and?
You honestly think that HD is forking money into this? |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 01:29 am: |
|
>>> Any ideas on how to close the gap between motorcycle rider deaths and auto deaths?
Simple. Get rid of seat belts and airbags, and put sharp spikes on car dashboards? |
Hybridmomentspass
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 08:45 am: |
|
Blake, for the first time in a long time Im going to say this to you - outstanding. That was funny stuff.
Yeah, the simple truth is that cars are much more safe than bikes, that aint going to change. |
Rmzmzm
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 10:18 am: |
|
>>>>>>>> and?
You honestly think that HD is forking money into this?
When it comes to anything involving politics, I think that it is always a possibility (I do live in IL).
The fact that HD could benefit by getting sport-bikes classified as something other than a motorcycle and their name is used in the political papers, is not lost on me.
Rational thinking would indicate HD's name was used in the same manner as "Xerox" is often used instead of "copy machine" and nothing more.
I think the only reason this bill exists is to pander votes. A politician capitalized on a family's tragedy for his next election campaign. Anything more than that is unlikely and coincidental (but not impossible  ). |
Hybridmomentspass
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 10:42 am: |
|
"Rational thinking would indicate HD's name was used in the same manner as "Xerox" is often used instead of "copy machine" and nothing more"
And thats how I was looking at it.
HD is one of very few manufacturers that dont offer a sportbike, so I think its easy to say 'and bikes like Harley' because its a blanket statement, HD offers nothing in the way of a sport bike. VS if they said honda or KTM or Ducati etc etc etc - they all offer sport bikes and people know it.
I know anything is possible, but I fail to see how HD could profit from people having to have at least 2 years of a riding a sportbike before being able to have a passenger on board. Its not banning sportbikes or making them harder, more expensive to get, its just a rule on carrying a passenger.
Here in NC we have a similar law for ALL motorcycles - if you have your permit (M permit) you cant have a passenger. Permit is very easy to get, written test I think (it came into play a few years back, years after I'd gotten my license).
If you do the MSF course or the driving test at DMV then you get your license and are allowed to have a passenger. |
Greatnorthrider
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 11:52 am: |
|
COMMITTEE:
Homeland Security and Public Safety
Can someone explain this to me? What does Homeland Security have to do with a bill regarding motorcycle safety?  |
Greg_e
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Homeland security oversees the DOT and FAA now, so anything involving DOT regulations also involves Homeland Security.
Why does the Vrod stick out in my mind as something with enough horsepower to qualify as a deadly road machine? I've seen a lot of different Harleys running at 100mph on the roads so I can say it has nothing to do with the style of vehicle.
Again and old study, but one that should be used to argue the case against stupidity directed at motorcycle riders:
http://www.emsaonline.us/pdf/EMSA_Spring_2007.pdf
If motorcycles need special rider permits, then so do horses that put you much farther in the air.
Moving on to bicycles, many states require minors to wear helmets while riding.
Move on to skate related injuries and I'm sure there is a case to be made there about helmets and requiring permits and training.
My god, we would all be safer if we just stayed at home, no more walks in the park (might get mugged, raped, etc.), no more bicycle riding (falls, head injuries), no jogging (again mugged, raped, etc.). The only safe thing to do is cower in your home and hope that tornado, flood, wind storm, hurricane, earthquakes don't happen.
Maybe we should legislate against tornadoes, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes, volcanoes... We can not have those anymore, if you want to have one you will be required to take a special test (written and performance) and obtain a license to be present at the event or to host an event. |
Crackhead
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 02:10 pm: |
|
I think the bill would also exclude Buells (XB and 1125) because we do not lean over the gas tank, we sit on top of the tank.
:-D
Got to love stupidity. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2011 - 08:16 pm: |
|
If you're not leaning over the tank, it's exempt, right. What could go wrong with a beginner on a bike like this???
 |
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 09:37 am: |
|
Ducati buillt a Vrod I saw one at the local bike night pretty rather have a Multistrudel. Remember who goes into Governement service. The folks in student government we all looked at and said ___ blank off Now they are saying my turn. |
Firebolt020283
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2011 - 02:20 pm: |
|
glad I don't live in texas no more... |
Rmzmzm
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2011 - 05:51 pm: |
|
>>>>>>>>>>I know anything is possible, but I fail to see how HD could profit from people having to have at least 2 years of a riding a sportbike before being able to have a passenger on board. Its not banning sportbikes or making them harder, more expensive to get, its just a rule on carrying a passenger.<<<<<<<<<<
Once the differentiation is made law, for whatever reason, it becomes "precedent". The long-term result becomes additional discriminatory laws getting passed with far less resistance.
If you doubt how a move like this could benefit a corporation, it is because you are considering it as a single law and not as a 1st step or gateway to other laws.
If you think I am simply paranoid, then please read Wendy Moon's blog regarding the history of the MSF and MIC and the Rider's Edge program. Keep in mind as you read it that HD represents 50% (or more) of all motorcycles sold inside the USA. If the influence of the motorcycle manufacturer within the MIC is proportionate to it's sales, then HD basically owns the MIC and the MIC owns the MSF. Currently only 3 states have prevented the MSF from taking over the administration of their motorcycle safety programs and continue to offer independent low-cost rider training. |
Keys
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2011 - 01:08 pm: |
|
gee, I never even bothered to get my class M license. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2011 - 04:17 pm: |
|
It has been trending worse in washington state. The governor is not a friend to motorcyclists. She wants you to have a restrictive class determination on your motorcycle. (the state used to have a tiered system 0-500, 501-1000, 1000+, trike, sidecar)
But the kicker is she wants to make it so that you have to have the class endorsement, for the bike you want to purchase, BEFORE you can purchase the bikes..... and state regulations limit the size to learning bikes as 250cc's.... It will KILL the new motorcycle market. (because it doesnt exclude or affect private sales, just those from a dealer) She is full of prattle and twattle-useless windbag of mostly water sacked in an aged fleshy bag o bones. She KILLED access to alot of state DNR land because of environazis, and is on a crusade to get two strokes banned from the woods.
If you dont pay taxes you shouldnt get to vote; if you dont RIDE you shouldnt get to create, mandate, impose legislation that affects the sport, industry and lifestyle. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 11:22 am: |
|
All the legislation in the world directed at a motorcycle rider will do nothing to get the jerk behind me in their car on the freeway in heavy traffic to give me more than the 1/4-1/2 second following distance that the idiot was giving me.
(Putting the 1" diameter x 4" long rusty bolt back into my jacket. )
(and, no, I haven't read the whole thread ) |
Aeholton
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Simple. Get rid of seat belts and airbags, and put sharp spikes on car dashboards?
Wasn't that Sam Kinison's idea? |
|
