Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Insurance Information about thefts and accidents (USA)

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by davidp1984, Jan 24, 2012.

  1. Came across this and thought some people may find it interesting, mainly looking at you Rob...

    It's all about America but still thought it was interesting.

  2. and...
    wait... wut?

    The second quote implies a decline in fatalities, but the first indicates an increase.

    In case anyone still thought this was a good idea.
  3. Interesting stuff.

    A couple of things struck me.

    Firstly, the section on ABS, as seems usual, made no mention of other possible reasons for the reduction in crash rates for ABS bikes apart from any benefit from the ABS itself. The most obvious possibility is that buyers/riders of bikes with ABS may be more risk averse generally than buyers/riders of bikes without. Or they may use their bikes in different ways eg all weather commuting rather vs sunny Sunday twisty bashing.

    Secondly, there seemed to be a spike in crash/casualty rates in ~2006-2007, with numbers then dropping away quite sharply. Wonder why. Could it be a function of an increase in cashed up dilletantes falling off their shiny toys pre-GFC but then having to sell the playthings post GFC leaving only the experienced long term diehards?

    Thirdly, although the report makes much of the reduction in helmet usage since 2000, it appears that overall fatality rates have dropped between 2009 and 2010. Tends to back up my contention that the presence or absence of an individual item of PPE has only a limited effect on a rider's overall risk profile. No, that's not an argument that riding lidless is "safe" in itself but it does go towards putting the sometimes obsessive fixation with type/make/Aust vs Euro standard/full vs open face into perspective.

    And given that cruisers allegedly don't handle and the constant snipes that cruiser riders can't ride, it's interesting that they ain't that heavily represented. I won't point a finger at the class of bike and rider that is though, 'cos my flame suit is at the dry-cleaners today :wink:. :bolt:
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Thanks for the headsup David. I will definitely have a look at that page.

    One of the key differences between the U.S. and Australia motorcycle crash data is the revalence of alcohol in US crash data. We seem to have heard the message here and grog doesn't feature heavily - but then it does depend on the report you read.
  5. "over 50" plus "under 55" does not equal total fatals
  6. Nope. It would be total fatals plus an overlap.

    But it does cover all fatals (And extra)

    so a 1300 decrease in one and a 120 odd increase should equal a total decrease.
  7. Its still possible if there is a significant increase in the 50-55 age group.

    Its bad analysis though I agree.
  8. Very true - and probably very significant. It could also be that ABS bikes may be newer and that perhaps the age of the bike and its maintenance may be significant.

    As far as helmets go, it could also be that those riding without helmets have a different risk taking profile and crash more.

    The American rider profile is different - especially in the northern states where there is a very definite non-riding season. Is the enforced layoff from riding in winter significant? Is the increase in crashes in spring to do with a decline in skills or to do with an increase in exposure? There's a lot of questions around US studies.
  9. US riders are an interesting bunch. Some will argue like mental for ABS (even though many don't understand it or the impacts on a motorbike) and argue that it will save lives... then argue for the right not to wear a helmet which has been objectively shown to save lives.

    I entirely agree with PatB, at this stage of the game, since ABS is an option, the more conservative choose it, but the more conservative are less frequently involved in crashes in the base case, so it's no surprise that fewer ABS bikes appear in the stats.

    One absolute benefit of ABS though, is that it will avoid some of the numpty carpark or braking in the wet falls that would otherwise have lead to an insurance claim.

    Anyway, the claim that there will be a 37% reduction in fatals if all bikes went ABS is totally bogus. The NHSTA paper as written, wouldn't pass a 1st year stats assingment .
  10. But we already know there wasn't since the total increase in all riders 50 and over was 119
  11. There could be a significant increase in 50-55 but a decrease in 55 and over that would account for it. Or maybe you are right.

    Anyway it doesn't matter, its obvious that they are just picking the stats that suit their argument.
  12. Allow me to disagree with this statement.
    Conservative riders will not buy any modern hi-tech equipment as ABS. Most of conservative riders think they are already safe - as they are conservative.
    Conservative riders tend to use older motorcycles. Apparently without ABS.

    However I agree with PatB - there is no obvious correlation between ABS and crash rate. I guess most ABS-equipped bikes are newer and may have better handling, be better maintained, ridden differently etc.
  13. Depends how you define conservative in this context.

    Bottom line, though, is that just because an ABS equipped bike is 37% less likely to be involved in a crash it does not follow that the presence of the ABS system was directly responsible for the avoidance of the crash. It is therefore bollocks to claim that if all bikes have ABS, crashes will drop by 37%.

    Unless you control for all the other potential factors that may cause ABS equipped bikes to crash less, IMHO it is impossible to come up with any meaningful figure for a likely reduction in crashes. The one thing that I can state with certainty is that it ain't 37%.

    And that's coming from someone who believes that, for the average, everyday rider in most circumstances, a good ABS system (defined as one which behaves as well as or better than that fitted to a 2000 BMW R1100RT, given that that is the system I am both familiar and happy with so I feel able to use it as a personal benchmark) represents a net safety benefit.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. I thoroughly disagree. If your old bike is due for replacement and you have the option of getting the model you want with ABS and you're a conservative rider, it's a no brainer - you'll take the ABS option. I can't fathom how you think a conservative rider wouldn't.

    It's the rider with either bravado about their skills, or confidence in them that doesn't think they'd need it.

    We must move in different circles.
  15. It all depends on your definitions - Rob means "riders who ride in a conservative manner".
  16. Are you conservative rider?

    Will you buy an ABS-eqipped bike now? (Just imagine you current one has gone for a long-long vacation or just disappeared).
  17. Interestingly the bike I'm next interested in only comes to Australia with ABS. It's offered overseas in both with & without. So what's that tell you? :-k


    That's the point. When every bike has ABS, the factor influencing the whole 37% better stat will disappear and the true impact of ABS will be measurable IF all other things are equal. Guess what my prediction is?

    - - -
    Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'
  18. Dunno about yours Rob, but mine is "marginal at best".
  19. Eggzaccery :)

    - - -
    Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'