What's Killing Us? Pt. 4 of 4

Do our choices of motorcycle have an influence of how and why we crash? Is there any validity to this thought? Often, we hear certain types of bikes being blamed for the accidents. You often hear laments about those “drunken Harley riders”, or those “damn kids on the crotch-rockets”. What studies and ideas have concentrated on the type of motorcycle as the cause of accidents?

In the 80’s a Senator named John C. Danforth, fueled by an IIHS study of motorcycle accidents, proposed a bill to outlaw or horsepower-limit what was deemed a “superbike”. Later discovered to be a fatally flawed and mostly untrue study, both the study and the bill quickly fell to the sword of time.

Let’s take a moment to look at the credibility of the IIHS studies; remember that I mentioned their study that showed that new rider training didn’t seem to prevent accidents? A IIHS study helped fuel the Danforth ban by asserting that so called “superbikes” (now referred to as ‘supersports’ by the IIHS) were 4 times more likely to have a fatal accident than other types of bikes.

A quick checkup on the IIHS site currently shows that they are re-asserting their previous claims that:

“driver death rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles for supersports is about 4 times higher than the rate for motorcyclists who ride cruisers, standards, or touring bikes.”

Open up a copy September 11, 2007 IIHS status report and you’ll find a statistical crucifixion of the “supersport” class of motorcycle. According to the report, the class is over-represented in accidents, fatalities, and thefts. While attempting to remain impartial, the report is pretty alarming, especially the cover which superimposes the image of a sportbike over a Nascar track, asserting that the proper place for both is not on the highway, but on the racetrack.

But we need to read between the lines – this report is written by the same folks who brought you the aborted “Danforth ban”; these are same folks who assert that motorcycle training doesn’t seem to reduce accidents. These people work for the people who write the checks when these bikes are crashed or stolen. Do you think they have an interest in reducing or eliminating the class of motorcycle that costs them the most money?

Let’s be fair about this; the numbers do seem to point to a type of motorcycle that is the obvious glutton at the buffet of bad news. But for a moment, let’s think outside the box again. Is it the machine itself that is the inherent problem? The IIHS asserts that such power should only be on a racetrack, but one can run out and purchase a 500+ hp Mustang cobra if one can afford it. The racecars used at the Talladega racetrack on the Nascar circuit are rated at 470hp – and yet I haven’t found any IIHS calls to ban Mustang Cobras. Is it because the mustangs crash less than their lesser versions? Or are the highly stolen and totaled “supersport” motorcycle a less-than-profitable burden they’d rather get rid of?

Most vehicles are inherently inanimate objects – they don’t do much without human intervention. With that in mind, if you posed an arbitrary ban on a type of motorcycle based on horsepower, or looks, or whatever criteria you choose, you’ll end up with a situation that occurs with many things that are outlawed; people will work around it. Manufacturers will produce sport bikes with slightly less horsepower or a few CCs of displacement less than the imposed limit. Ban sport bikes and people will ride sporty standards and fix them up with full fairings. Ban handgun magazines over 9 rounds and people will just buy the larger magazines out of state.

What’s the thread that ties all these thought together? There’s a human being at the controls. Blaming machines isn’t the answer.

Where does that leave us? Is there a way to find that proverbial “smoking gun” that will show us exactly what causes a motorcycle accident? In the end, a study of the available evidence shows that there isn’t a definitive answer. After all, the study of crash statistics for me has shown that there are so many variables involved that a statistical scapegoat has yet to reveal itself.

So here we are, left with a lot of information and not a lot of conclusions. There’s a actual study that makes some great common sense answers that probably will keep you safe, some somewhat biased studies that may or may not be helpful and some ideas about our culture that may show that most of us simply don’t care about either. I guess in a nutshell, those who pay attention to the reports and numbers probably act responsibly when operating their motorcycles; those caught up in the idea of looking cool and riding fast couldn’t give a crap about statistical analysis. In that case, the answer to “what’s killing us” - might be us.

Recent sales reports show that motorcycle sales between 2008 and 2009 are down a whopping 47%, no doubt a result of our current economic climate. Initial accident statistics for 2009 show a decrease in fatalities in 2009 following an annual increase in the decade from 1998 to 2008. Is this proof that a simple fact of life is that more people riding = more people crashing? Or it is a statistical aberration, a simple reflection our economic times?

In the end it seems that crashing is mystery; an excepted risk of all riders out there. Forces under and beyond your control conspire to separate you from your favorite ride. Be safe out there, but remember - with a grain of salt; cardiovascular disease kills far, far more Americans than all motor vehicle accidents (around 30% vs. 2%).