June 2006 NHTSA motorcycle stats and findings

[DrunkenMonkey]

Tons of stats and interesting findings, such as:

• Motorcycle rider fatalities decreased each year from 1995 to 1997, reaching a historic low of 2,116 in 1997. Beginning in 1998 this trend was reversed and motorcycle rider fatalities have increased each year. Since 1997 motorcycle rider fatalities have increased by 89 percent from 2,116 to 4,008 in 2004.

• FARS data show increases in motorcycle rider fatalities in the age group of 40 and above in the last 10 years. Among all the age groups, the 20-29 age group had the largest number of motorcycle rider fatalities. Motorcycle rider fatalities in the 40-49 age group are fast approaching the number of fatalities in the 20-29 age group.

• The mean age of motorcycle riders killed and the mean engine size of motorcycles involved in fatal crashes are increasing. The mean age of motorcycle riders killed has increased to 38, an increase of nearly 6 years, indicating more involvement of older riders (in the 40 and above age group). The mean engine size of motorcycles involved in crashes has increased indicating a greater number of motorcycles with larger engine sizes being driven.

• FARS data show a greater number of motorcycle rider fatalities involving a motorcycle with a larger engine size. Most of the increases in motorcycle rider fatalities were seen in the 1,001-1,500 cc engine size, once again indicating more motorcycles with larger engine sizes being driven.

[Nate]

Okay, I'm too lazy (not bored enough to read a gubmit report) to look, but do they compare fatalities to the number of registered motorcycles over the same time period? Number of licensed operators? I would expect the accident and fatality number to rise with more riders and bikes on the road.

The crux of all of this is whether fatalities are increasing faster than the registration rate of bikes (which is the only accurate metric since too many riders do not have an M endorsement). If it is rising faster, then there is something that needs to be investigated further.

A year or so back I was loaned a copy of Motorcycle Consumer News which had an article that attempted to determine the increase in fatalities/injuries since '98 or so. Their hypothesis centered around the increased number of larger vehicles on the roadways and examined them. Their argument was that in the past a motorcyclist striking either of the front quarter panels of a automobile (due to a right of way violation most often associated with a left turn) would fly up onto or over the vehicle. Even a strike into the passenger compartment area of the average car would allow the rider to contact the vehicle with more or less of a glancing blow.

Then they turned their attention to the larger SUV and van type vehicles now quite popular. On average the side panels are more vertical even at the front quarter panels and taller. So a rider is less likely to fly over the vehicle and now when the rider impacts the vehicle it is a hard impact and not a glancing blow. The passenger compartment area of these vehicles pose an even greater threat and it is here where their research discovered the highest fatalities (IIRC).

I don't know whether anyone else has chosen to investigate this further, but it seems reasonable to me.

[RichLockyer]

Unless ALL data (available or not) is presented, it is impossible to make a concrete conclusion from any study.

For example, everyone has a woodie about cellphones.

No doubt, they ARE a distraction.
So say that they cite, for example (not a real number) 70% of accidents involve one or both drivers being on the cellphone.
Sounds like a solid indictment, no?

Okay... what if it is determined that at any given time, 80% of the drivers on the road are using their cellphones?
Suddenly, you have 30% of the accidents involving the 20% of the drivers NOT using their phones. THAT would draw the conclusion that use of the phone actually helps to prevent accidents.

Tests done like the one on Mythbusters comparing phone use to alcohol intoxication are skewed by the fact that they forced the drivers into situations that they would not normally be in, IE, forced them to use the phone during the entire test rather than allowing them to say "hold on" and put the phone down during complex maneuvers, plus the phone call consisted of math and logic questions, designed to completely tax the mental resources of the driver, again, without giving them the option of "dumbing out" on the phone call and focusing on driving.

Personally? My opinion is that people who can't drive and use the phone are incapable of handling the multitasking that is needed to operate a motor vehicle under any conditions.
I log about 45k per year, and spend about 2 hours a day on the phone behind the wheel.
The only two accidents that I've had in my life... the phone wasn't even in the truck.