Joined
·
4,369 Posts
And if you don't ride a motorcycle at all, how much more likely are you to survive a motorcycle crash?
Another Crash Statistic Study - Bad News
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
" the number of motorcyclists 45 and older killed in crashes nearly quadrupled from 2001 to 2005"
--I've got money riding on the fact that this segment has also quadrupled since 2001.
"Crashes among this age group increased more than 60 percent during that time, compared with a 6 percent drop in the number of crashes for younger motorcycle riders."
--Really? So the largest growning segment of bike buyers also has the largest growing crash rate? Shocking.
"The aging of the motorcycling population in Michigan may be contributing to the increase in motorcycle fatalities,"
--Or there are FAR, FAR more new riders that can afford bikes than that of the 18-25 year old segment.
""As people age, their bodies become more fragile and their chances of dying as a result of a crash increase. This may well explain the increase in overall motorcycle fatalities that occurred in Michigan in 2005a 54 percent increase from the year before.""
--Wait, "This may well explain the increase"??? That isn't research or statistics, but half-assed guess work.
"In their study of motorcycle crash trends in Michigan since 2001, Kostyniuk and colleague Adam Nation found that the number of motorcycle crashes overall increased 9 percent, while motorcycle registrations have risen 33 percent (to more than 250,000) and licensed motorcyclists have increased 9 percent (to nearly 500,000)."
--Well, look at that, I'm right. a 33% increase in participants and only a 9% increase in crashes. Doesn't sound exactly earth shattering, now does it.
"According to the study, about half of all motorcycle crashes, for both younger and older riders, involve other vehicleswhose drivers are more likely to be at fault."
--So of the 9% increase, 60% was the fault of other drivers? So the increase is even less than stated.
"Overall, the UMTRI study found that motorcycles were involved in about 12 percent of all fatal vehicle crashes in 2005a 32 percent increase since 2001.
--so the segment grows by 33% and fatal crashes increase by 32%. Seems right. How much did this "in-depth" study cost?
--I've got money riding on the fact that this segment has also quadrupled since 2001.
"Crashes among this age group increased more than 60 percent during that time, compared with a 6 percent drop in the number of crashes for younger motorcycle riders."
--Really? So the largest growning segment of bike buyers also has the largest growing crash rate? Shocking.
"The aging of the motorcycling population in Michigan may be contributing to the increase in motorcycle fatalities,"
--Or there are FAR, FAR more new riders that can afford bikes than that of the 18-25 year old segment.
""As people age, their bodies become more fragile and their chances of dying as a result of a crash increase. This may well explain the increase in overall motorcycle fatalities that occurred in Michigan in 2005a 54 percent increase from the year before.""
--Wait, "This may well explain the increase"??? That isn't research or statistics, but half-assed guess work.
"In their study of motorcycle crash trends in Michigan since 2001, Kostyniuk and colleague Adam Nation found that the number of motorcycle crashes overall increased 9 percent, while motorcycle registrations have risen 33 percent (to more than 250,000) and licensed motorcyclists have increased 9 percent (to nearly 500,000)."
--Well, look at that, I'm right. a 33% increase in participants and only a 9% increase in crashes. Doesn't sound exactly earth shattering, now does it.
"According to the study, about half of all motorcycle crashes, for both younger and older riders, involve other vehicleswhose drivers are more likely to be at fault."
--So of the 9% increase, 60% was the fault of other drivers? So the increase is even less than stated.
"Overall, the UMTRI study found that motorcycles were involved in about 12 percent of all fatal vehicle crashes in 2005a 32 percent increase since 2001.
--so the segment grows by 33% and fatal crashes increase by 32%. Seems right. How much did this "in-depth" study cost?
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
And now for the biggest statistic of the entire article:
"[Of motorcyclist wearing helmets] about 3 percent of these riders were killed, 20 percent sustained severe injuries, 54 percent suffered minor injuries and 23 percent were not injured at all. Among helmet-less bikers who crashed, 5 percent were killed, 30 percent were severely injured, 53 percent had other injuries and 12 percent were not hurt.
--So folks, you have a 2% better chance at survival if you wear a helmet and only a 10% difference in severe injuries. This should easily be enough to spend millions on laws and enforcement. Please god! Have the government step in and protect myself from making decisions!
And yes, I wear a helmet all you b!tching little government legislation whores!
"[Of motorcyclist wearing helmets] about 3 percent of these riders were killed, 20 percent sustained severe injuries, 54 percent suffered minor injuries and 23 percent were not injured at all. Among helmet-less bikers who crashed, 5 percent were killed, 30 percent were severely injured, 53 percent had other injuries and 12 percent were not hurt.
--So folks, you have a 2% better chance at survival if you wear a helmet and only a 10% difference in severe injuries. This should easily be enough to spend millions on laws and enforcement. Please god! Have the government step in and protect myself from making decisions!
And yes, I wear a helmet all you b!tching little government legislation whores!
"One statistic that can be gleaned is that your chances of surviving a crash are 97% if you wear a helmet and 95% if you don't. So by extrapolation your chances of getting killed if you don't wear a helmet increase by 66%."
This is an excellent example of why no one should trust out-of-context statistics.
This is an excellent example of why no one should trust out-of-context statistics.
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
Yeah, I was trying to figure out where he got that stat from, because it definitely is not supported in the article.
The "study" was dumb enough; it doesn't need to be intensified with additional wrong conclusions.
The "study" was dumb enough; it doesn't need to be intensified with additional wrong conclusions.
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
Yes, 5 is 66% more than 3. but 5% is not 66% more than three percent. It is an increase of 66%, but your chances of getting killed if you don't wear a helmet does not increase by 66%. It is still 2%.
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
No kidding. These studies show nothing.
I do find it interesting that there is only a 2% difference from helmet wearing fatalities to no-helmet wearing fatalities.
I do find it interesting that there is only a 2% difference from helmet wearing fatalities to no-helmet wearing fatalities.
Joined
·
4,369 Posts
c) Add a $2 state gasoline tax to every gallon of gasoline sold -- diesel can remain cheap as it is much more efficient and the primary fuel for commercial vehicles.
--As most towns/states/cities do not have adequate public transportation all this will do is tax the poor into a poorer state. Second of all, a tax to just tax a segment is wrong on many levels.
And you damn well know that this tax money would be wasted and never put to a good purpose.
Everyone loves to tax something they hate, but yet never think about the issues it would bring, like inflation. Feel like paying twice as much for groceries, while you pay twice as much to get to the grocery store? How about general goods like lumber and tires and paint? Everything would go up because of this ill-conceived tax while still being forced to drive just as much because public transportation is poor throughout the country.
--As most towns/states/cities do not have adequate public transportation all this will do is tax the poor into a poorer state. Second of all, a tax to just tax a segment is wrong on many levels.
And you damn well know that this tax money would be wasted and never put to a good purpose.
Everyone loves to tax something they hate, but yet never think about the issues it would bring, like inflation. Feel like paying twice as much for groceries, while you pay twice as much to get to the grocery store? How about general goods like lumber and tires and paint? Everything would go up because of this ill-conceived tax while still being forced to drive just as much because public transportation is poor throughout the country.
Joined
·
17,449 Posts
"However, younger bikers are still nearly three times as likely to be involved in a crash than their older counterparts and are more likely to be cited for hazardous actions, such as speeding, reckless driving and careless or negligent driving."
Heh heh. So much for those "superior" reaction times and those "safer" sportbikes.
Oh yeah. Total # of riders up 9%. Total # of crashes up 9%. Well, duh!
Whatever. The data will be tweaked to fit whatever agenda the pols already have in mind anyhow.
Heh heh. So much for those "superior" reaction times and those "safer" sportbikes.
Oh yeah. Total # of riders up 9%. Total # of crashes up 9%. Well, duh!
Whatever. The data will be tweaked to fit whatever agenda the pols already have in mind anyhow.
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
