[Paul_Grimmett]

If I understand correctly, the next highest average is 8 in July (per 19,600 riders) which is a monthly rate of 0.047% fatality rate for 6 yrs. During Sturgis, the rate is 36 fatalities per 400,000 (is this accurate?) which is a fatality rate of 0.009%, which is roughly 5X less.





Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

[DJS]

Lies, [email protected] lies, and statistics

Makes you wonder if any of these people even understand statistical analysis at all. You can't make a conclusion about cause and effect where you have potentially multiple causes unless you control for the other causes. It would not be hard with today's statistical software to control for other variables. Instead these airbags want to justify more of our $$ in their pocket so they make a conclusion that benefits them and then decide how they have to squint at the data to match their position.

David

 

[DJS]

Good point but even that is not the whole story

You can't compare apples to oranges, or in this case native SD riders to swarming, partying, tourist riders at blackhills. An average native rider might do 1000 miles in a good warm month while I bet your average rally rider may do 500 miles if he did trailer it in.

Good statistics would control for miles ridden, type of riding, age, etc. to see if one particular variable is responsible for a perceived increase or decrease.

I'd bet they know their stats are useless, after all these guy make a living off of "playing the odds". They just want you not to question the next rate hike so they put out BS like this.

David

 

[Paul_Grimmett]

Re: Good point but even that is not the whole story

Exactly my point, I was just showing how numbers can be manipulated to fit an existing opinion.

 

[seruzawa]

This is not difficult to understand. If the industry sycophants at the IIHS can "prove" that older riders are more dangerous then the insurance companies can justify charging higher rates. That's what this is all about.



Who the heck listens to the IIHS anyhow? They have all the veracity of a Presidential Press Secretary or a Pentagon Spokesman.

 

[KPaulCook]

This clearly points out the need for an independent study.

Both groups (AMA and IIHS) are using the data for their own agendas. [*] Any accident numbers for South Dakota are skewed by Sturgis. i.e. should throw out deaths by non-residents. [*] Also you can not compare raw numbers use per capita.[*]AMA can not prove that helmet laws do not save lives because they are not comparing per capita stats between states. i.e. like say Florida, no helmet law, has an accident fatal rate of 10% of accidents and California, a helmet law, has a rate of 5% (per cent is a per capita stat, 5% is 5 out of 100 accidents). Unfortunately no stats like this exist. So until then no one can make any conclusions

[*]We are only speculating without a comprehensive study

[*] One good thing though it appears the accident rate (per motorcyclist) is decreasing i.e. more motorcycles on the road (via sales number extrapolation) less deaths per motorcycle sold not the best stat but OK

 

[panthercity]

Re: seruzawa asked...

"Who the heck listens to the IIHS anyhow?"

Unfortunately, the legislators who allow the insurance comapnies to raise our rates based on such spurious data. That's who.

 

[longride]

There are no "independent" studies, just as there is no "free lunch". Somebody is paying for it, and has something to prove. Generally it's the insurance companies looking to raise rates again. When death rates went down, I never saw any studies published, but damn if they all don't come out of the woodwork when they can hang their hat on a rate increase. There are WAY too many variables to draw any conclusions in any study of motorcycle accidents or deaths, and by the time it's completed it's probably obsolete.

 

[Closet_Bad_Ass]

I think that someone needs to point out that accidents resulting in the death of a motorcyclist don't cost the motorcyclist's insurance carrier anything. Most people who own their bikes don't carry collision coverage. So what's the payout!? As far as I know, there aren't any death benefits in my policy. If the IIHS is going to make a case for increased motorcycle fatalities, however valid, then it should raise the rates of the automobile drivers that are responsible for killing the motorcyclists.



As a side issue, wearing a helmet has never killed anyone. Not wearing one...

 

[blackburd]

The real result if an IIHS study

Great.....

One of the few benefits of the aging process was lower insurance rates. Now, out comes a new bogus IIHS study that shows an increase of motorcycle fatalities among riders over 40 years of age. I can't wait to see what this does to my motorcycle insurance bill. ;-(

 

[sarnali]

why is anyone surprised that the IIHS is anti-motorcyclist, and full of crap? Judging by most insuranse co.'s reluctance to insure any bike with a modi***** of performance, and general negative attitude towards bikes most of them display, it's a given that their own political organ will slam bikes as flaming murdercycles from the pits of hell, I'm sure they'd be happier if we all stayed home and watched TV, like contented children, coddled in a cacoon of safety, generously provided by our kindly benifactors @ the insuranse company of our choice, I tried to explain to my agent once that if a person hits a tree at 90mph in his car, you'd call him an irrisponsible fool, If the same person hit a tree on a bike , the first thing out of your mouth would be "motorcycles are dangerous", talk about water off a ducks back, it's hard to argue with a closed mind.

 

[seruzawa]

Re: seruzawa asked...

Unfortunately, yes. And the campaign contributions the insurance comanies give the politicians ensure that the politicians won't question the IIHS's false claims.

 

[sarnali]

why on earth did you censor "modi*****" I guess I should have said "teeny amount" Eh?

 

[DataDan]

Re: This clearly points out the need for an independent study.

I'll look at the SD resident/non-resident breakdown and post the results here when I get a chance. I've already done the helmet law/no helmet fatality state rates (per registration), but I'm going to have to dig them up. ISTR that the rates are very close. As for the Florida results, a year-over-year comparison (before and after repeal) shows a small increase in fatalities due to non-use of helmets. In the first half of 2000, when the helmet law was still in effect, deaths increased by 43%, from 87 in the first six months of 1999 to 124 in 2000. Presumably, that relfects an increase in the number of motorcycles and riders, since the helmet law was not a factor.

In the second half of 2000, after repeal, deaths increased by 48% over the same period in the previous year, from 91 to 135. If the 43% first-half rate of increase had continued through the second half of the year, the second-half toll would have been 130 rather than 135.

That excess of 5 deaths might be attributed to repeal of the helmet law. While the human loss is certainly tragic, the numbers are nowhere near what we were led to expect.

 

[longride]

They parse out the bad words with an engine that looks for certain character strings. Those may occur in the front, middle, or end of a word you use, but still get the asterisk treatment. All the bad words get caught as well as parts of other words. I think you already know how to get around such stuff.

 

[longride]

Re: seruzawa asked...

Man you hit that nail square on the head. Money taks and BS walks. If we don't get the money to fight em we will be walkin, or in out SUV's.

 

[sportbike_pilot]

Re: Lies, [email protected] lies, and statistics

David,

Nice comment on SA. But I can assure you that the majority of policy makers on nearly any issue you care to consider not only do not understand the first thing about data collection or statistical analysis but will ignore even the most lucid explanation of the facts and how they were obtained if it runs counter to what they want to hear. Most people, alas, are interested only in the facts that support their point of view and nothing else matters. Statistics don't lie now and never did - but the people who use them sure do.

This would be a great project for some doctoral student without any axes to grind. I, for one, would be interested in finding out what the available data really says.

Cheers

Martin

 

[KPaulCook]

Good point. You should know given your occupation. I have some questions about why rates are increasing so fast maybe you can shed light on it.

[*]Liability insurance is required in most states right? But liability is what you do to others and their property right. So I am not sure that motorcyclists as a rule cause much damage to others/property. So why should liablilty rates for motorcyclist rise faster than for autos?

[*] Comphensive coverage covers the bike right? So I can see theft causing increases but again accidents should not cause a increase faster that auto rates??

[*] So it comes down to collision coverage like you said? But most people don't carry it? Sounds fishy

 

[DataDan]

Re: This clearly points out the need for an independent study.

I compared fatalities per registered motorcycle in helmet-law vs. non-helmet-law states for 1998. Helmet law states (all riders must wear them) had 6.14 fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles. Non-helmet-law states (either no one has to wear them, or only minors do) had 5.78 fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles.

 

[yzf1070]

Do you feel the least bit remorseful for slamming the credibility of the AMA now? The AMA is constantly fighting against these ridiculous charges from different political groups, mostly insurance based, that are geared towards, best case, raising our rates and worst case, taking away our right to ride at all. Do you really think that the AMA conceding to a mandatory helmet law will stop these kinds of attacks? More to the point do you really think that you as a motorcyclist should be spouting off that our only governmental support has lost all credibility because they refuse to support such mandatory helmet laws? What makes you think that denigrating the AMA publicly, as you have done previously, helps support our cause?



Look if you want to support helmet laws, go ahead you can do that. All I ask is that you chose your forums more carefully. Don't try to condemn the AMA, and all the good they do for us as motorcyclists, because of their view on one issue. If you want them to change their view, first if you haven't already done so join the AMA! Then write them and tell them your viewpoint in a constructive manner. Don't go out on public Internet chat boards and lambaste them as a bunch of organ donor buffoons with no credibility. How can we change the publics’ perception of the AMA and motorcycling? Start with yourself....