[desertbilly]

Interesting and important information but I think they're missing the boat on the statisitics.



I think they have to look at helmet usage, experience and bike type. Here in AZ, Harleys are extremely popular, and (IMO) less than 5% of those riders/passengers wear helmets or other protective gear. I don't see any way a person can go down in t-shirt/tank top/jeans/shorts/sneakers at 50 to 80 mph and expect to survive.



I routinely wear a suit, lid, gloves and boots. I realize the cruiser crowd must think I'm a complete loser, but I'm going to do my best to stick around to raise my kids.



I wish motorcycling was more about a fantastic ride on a beautiful, open road and less about looking cool and fitting in. I'm not for mandatory helmet laws, but I do wish the cruiser and squid cultures were more supportive of safety gear.

 

[kcobb]

Better motorcycle training is long overdue in this country. I just took the MSF course a few weekends ago (I haven't ridden a bike in about 8 years, so I wanted to start over again). While a nice course, it is not *nearly* enough for beginner training. For the absolute beginners in that class, there is no way they are ready to hit the streets, even though they now can legally update their license and go. They definitely need another class or two, including training for *high-speed* dangers, before they're really ready.



Almost every other G7 country has a rather strict system in place. In England, for example, beginning riders are under a pretty severe HP restriction for the first year, then gradually move up to Superbike status. Even though it involves a lot more testing, I think I would prefer something like that to the fast-and-loose method we have now. I mean, it's insane that anyone, regardless of their training, can plop down the bucks for a GSXR or 929. Maybe some of the Brits here can explain their system in more detail.

 

[CBR1000F]

I agree with Kcobb above... I think we need a tiered licensing system for motorcycles. I can't believe how many times I've heard "A CBR600 F4 (or GSXR or ZX-6 or R6) is a good starter bike" and it simply ain't so.

 

[Gecko]

Near as I can tell from the info in this little press release is that the numbers are up for those under 30 (those more likely to buy a bike too powerful for learning on) and those between 40-49 (yuppies wanting to regain their lost youth without any training) I would guess that those that make it to 30 are more responsible about their riding. I call it survival of the fitest...if you aren't smart enough to be properly trained and wearing the proper safety equipment then you probably don't deserve to continue your existance...Squids and Yuppie cruisers fit this perfectly.

 

[Sunder54]

I know what you're talking about. 750 Katana, always wear my lid, jeans and try for a long sleeve shirt, need to get a suit. I live in Phoenix and maybe 1 in 20 of the riders that I see have a helmet. Alot are wearing shorts and T's. I know it's damn hot (should be 110 today), but skin grafts are a bad thing. Unfortunately articles like this do paint a bad picture of the riding community. One thing needs to be done is ofcourse better education to riders and cagers alike. Maybe tougher license requirements. Most people have the view that riders have a death wish or "think they own the road". The bad apples tend to stand out the most. You see immature squids doing some really stupid things and just know they are not going to be around more than a year.

 

[Sparky]

I agree DesertBilly. They need to look at the intangibles regarding who is riding what bikes. Look at the exploding popularity of Harleys. And who is buying them? Mostly baby boomers that want to look cool as they weather their mid-life crisis. I'd guess that a large percentage of them are first bike owners. Age does not equate to road miles and experience. Couple this with the fact that, at least here in Florida (not far from Daytona), on any sunny weekend, the local bars parking lots are FULL of Harleys. It appears that Harley riders (in general) consider drinking and driving as part of their culture. Helmet, no helmet, heck it doesn't really matter if you drink and ride. Don't get me wrong, I drink way to much beer, but the bikes are in the garage when I wet my whistle.

 

[highside]

I think one of the biggest links is re-entry riders, that is why the largest increase was among older riders. Younger squids without experience are still sliding off the road at about the same rate as before but more and more people who haven't ridden in 10-20 years are getting back on and figuring "it looks like a bicycle, I'll just jump right back on" and they are very rusty in there skills. A lot of the people in that catagory (I know quite a few) never let there licenses lapse while they were having families and so there was no test involved, still have a valid license, haven't ridden in 15 years, buy a 1500CC cruiser that is no GSXR but it still a lot faster than the 400cc bike they had in College and they get themselves in trouble. Dealers are the first step in getting re-entry riders into class.

 

[pk509]

The reasons are pretty simple and right in front of our faces: 1. More people are getting into motorcycing thus putting more bikes on the road. 2. Many, many of those new riders are NOT taking rider training/safety courses and are suffering the consequences of inexperience. 3. Many more of us (not me) are going helmet-less these days and are suffering the consequences of that poorly made decision in accidents.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Somebody mentioned a tiered licensing system and I think that's a really good idea. Couple that with mandatory rider training and I think fatalities will likely start to decrease. As for the helmet issue, I still think that's a personal choice. If you're dumb enough not to wear one, tell your family not to cause a ruckus when you suffer brain damage or die because you made a poor choice. Nuff said.

 

[tbuse]

It's amusing. The article is written in such a way as to perpetuate stereotypes and the "riders" who respond perpetuate many of the same myths. ("I'm safe, but it's those other cruiser, squid, [insert prejudice here] types who cause accidents.") Why was ther no mention of the percentage of accidents caused by automobile drivers? Also notice that only a passing mention was made of better educating automobile drivers.

I currently represent a husband and wife who were hit in separate accidents thirty days apart. Neither was at fault and the people who hit them had basic insurance which will pay nothing towards their recovery. Both at fault drivers will end up paying less than $100.00 for their traffic tickets. There will be no other consequenses to them. Until you change that, drivers have no incentive to look for, and avoid hitting, motorcyclists.

 

[LimeSqueezr]

and then there are many mid-life crisis types along with empty-nest boomers who have NEVER EVER owned a real motorcycle. If they had anything at all it was one of those under-5hp "motorbikes" that required no more license than a bicycle back when they were teenagers. A lot of this well-heeled bunch are going out and buying BigTwin Harleys and the like for poseur cruising around their suburban communities (probably the most dangerous places on earth to ride in terms of road-oblivious cage zombies) and they're NOT learning a thing about safety on a vehicle they barely have a clue how to operate. As we all know, the dealer basically tells you "1 down 4 up" and that's the extent of his interest in your safe operation of it. I've bought a dozen bikes over the past 20 years and never once had a dealer inquire as to whether I had any business getting on such a thing or if I might want or need some instruction. That is why you see a rise in the 40-49 bracket deaths. Hopefully they'll get a clue things need to change before the safety-nazis take over and regulate motorcycles out of existence.

 

[dean]

I agree that a 600 Supersport is not a beginner bike. I bought a Yamaha R6 last year and it was the first bike I have owned in about five years. My last street bike was Kz1000 Z1-R that was modified and I thought buying a R6 vs an R1 would keep me out of trouble. I soon realized after break-in that this 600 was faster than my old 1000! Imagine my surprise when the front end came up on gas alone in first gear. The new 600s have more than enough power for the street and the 1000s are insane. Not that I wouldn't like to get a 1000 now that I've polished my riding skills, but the 600 is still alot of fun and cheaper to insure.

I think they should require a 600cc or less non Sportbike for beginners and after a year or two without incident allow a rider to get a 600 Sportbike and then finally after no incident in a couple more years to be qualified to get a 750cc + Sportbike, etc.

Now anyone with proof of insurance can get a new 1000cc Sportbike with no riding experience required, which usually ends up being a bad move. How many salesmen at the dealer inquire about your riding experience when you look at a Sportbike? Do a study on that. Do you think they would refuse to sell a beginner a Sportbike? I think not. Sometimes making money gets in the way of peoples conscious. I personally wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I sold a big Sportbike to a young beginner. But I have a conscious.......

 

[Gixxerboy]

Aw crap, we're screwed.

New braking systems? More studies? Nuts.

While the legislaters have no interest in bikers (REAL motorcyclists are too small a percentage to worry about) it's us who will wreck our fun.



First a bio to let you know where I'm coming from.

33 year old male - riding 'bout 7 years

Bike: 86 GSXR1100 121hp

Clothing: ALWAYS Jeans, Boots, Full face helmet Gloves; USUALLY (gotta be honist) racing style leather jacket or Joe Rocket Cordura with armor; sometimes full zip together leathers (when I'm going for a real burn

Crashed: never - sometimes do stupid things (like to think I ride really hard but pick appropriate places to really wail) but I like to think I do them where I control most hazards

Learned to ride: wrote a stupid learners exam, bought a CB650 rode it 50 miles home on crowded highways and city streets took another stupid road test on said CB and bought GSXR a year later.



That said here's our prob:

Idiots (like I was) can write a pathetic test then be legal to ride a ZX12R - no real bike control or rider programme required.

Helmet laws - while I hate Seatbelt and Helmet laws (but always wear both) lets face it. We're not smart enought to all wear these without (ooch it pains me to say this) laws.

Drinking and driving? If you drink and ride, you're stupid and don't deserve to ride. IMHO



Unfortunately as we've (as a 'motorcycling population' - squids, rubs, good riders, all) proven we have no control, maybe we need (oh man this hurts) more legal restrictions. While I know guys in their early 20's who have purchased GSXR's and CBR600's as their first bikes and treated them appropriately - awesome riders who never broke the speed limit for their first 6months!!! - this is not the norm.

Maybe we need hp restrictions until we've proven we can control ourselves? Mandatory safety courses that actually teach you how to RIDE rather than get on a bike, ride a figure 8 and shift gears. Helmet laws?



I realize my American bro's are going to slam this simple Cannuck (why am I concerned about the USA? 'cuz what laws are implemented there usually make it here and bike manufacturers ship us the same bikes they get) but how else can we stop this stupidity? If this keeps up we'll have 100hp restrictions, 'leg protectors', mandatory linked braking, etc.



Also, I'm not so sure we can blame a lot of this crap on the hog riders... sure they increase the stats - last hog crash I saw the lameo beanie helmet went rolling by after it popped off right after impact... prob was not on the guys head when he hit the deck... but just the other day I saw a squid - shorts tshirt sneakers - trying to do a burnout on a VTR - kept hopping/stalling/revving the bike to death and still couldn't get it to burn... idiot should have fallen over. We're all guilty... cept maybe wing riders ;-)



Anyone got any better ideas before our rides get legislated into the equavalent of a Honda Spree 50?

 

[TheFox]

Available training would help too. Here in Chicago, all the MSF courses were filled up 2 days after they started taking registrations. In addition, the laws on the books make it difficult to ride without taking the MSF course. You have to have a motorcycle with insurance coverage to take the driver's exam, but you're not legally allowed to buy a motorcycle without an M class liscense. In addition, the major insurace providers want to see your drivers liscence before they give you an insurance policy. Those are pretty big catch-22's, and you'll find a lot of riders (myself included, I'll admit) riding illegally for the first year.



Add this to the traffic problems we've been having recently, the surge in new/returning bikers combined with the low availabilty of trainers, and lack of helmet usage and you have a recipe for dead squids.



Foxy

 

[alanheng]

I completely agree.



I'm generally not one for excessive government regulation, but I think some is in order in this situation in order to maintain the freedom of motorcycling in the long run.



Personnally, I think a graduated licensing system and mandatory rider training would be a great thing - to boost safety, survivability, and rider satisfaction.





If we all started out on 250cc bikes, or had to learn on dirt bikes, we'd have a much greater skill and confidence level. Perhaps we could be required to pass a rigorous dirt bike course to show our prowess in less than perfect riding conditions.



I'd like to see some mandatory race track time in order for someone to gain their license as well, at least if they want to purchase a sport bike.



Then again, we could probably bypass all the need for government intervention if we work to educate ourselves, as well as new riders.



I think a mentorship program would be great to help new riders understand the risks and attitudes they will face. with a mentor, they could learn how to be courtious to other road-go'ers, as well as understand the importance of maintaining a good image in the eyes of the public in order to not be regulated to death.



I think I'm to the point of rambling now... but I'm pretty sure the public won't allow us to continue on our current path, what with so many people dying and all.



Whether we help each other out, or the government "helps" us, something will need to change so that motorcycling isn't banished.

 

[LimeSqueezr]

I don't get it. If the cage drivers did have basic (i.e. liability) ins. how could it not pay anything if they were 100% at fault as you seem to indicate?



Since individuals with big assets don't carry just "basic" insurance, at the risk of sounding a tad cynical there's got to be an insurance company very likely to pay up or you wouldn't be representing these people, right?



So what do you think should be done besides better verification that cage drivers DO have adequate insurance?

 

[Poser]

I see a guy on a Harley who has a similar commute to mine (except the other way) pretty regularly. He wears a black full face helmet and a bright blue Aerostitch suit. So much for the stereotype.



He puts in lots of miles. I put in lots of miles (14,000 last year). That makes a big difference. I doubt that the studies look at how much PRACTICE a rider has and how that affects his likelihood of survival. If they could figure out a way to quantify that, they would probably have a strong argument that riders should ride more.



Now, if you will excues me, my bike is calling me...

 

[Abe_Froman]

Ahhh, here we go again....

Setting aside the myriad of interconnected reasons why the death rate may have increased, let's get right to the point: I don't care. I cover my ass when I ride (I have ridden my bike a total of about 5 miles so far this summer without all of my gear on, and not once without a helmet). If others don't, that's their problem (spare me the tired arguments about health care for underinsured cyclists---that's a fart in a thunderstorm of a government budget. If you want to reduce your taxes, there are exactly 1,000,000 better places to start.) Why is the government keeping statistics on this? I didn't authorize my money to be spent on this stuff. Neither does the constitution. Besides, if we're going to discuss HP limits, CC limits, more rigorous training, more helmet laws, more blah blah effin' blah to save us from ourselves, why don't we just bite the bullet and outlaw stupidity? That way, a cop can take into consideration all the relevant factors in a given situation, study their options under the law, and proceed to saction stupid people. If you're thinking "well, that opens a pandora's box of potential police abuses", well, can't an officer find something to pull you over for now in virtually any concievable anyway?

"More riders are dying in motorcycle crashes, and federal officials want to know why." Well, jeez, if the brain wizards want to know what the sheeple are up to, we'd better bend over and let them find out.

More federal officials are wasting my money on unconsitutional B.S. and I WANT TO KNOW WHY.

Happy Fourth of July (I can't, in good concience, continue to call it Independence day.)

 

[wardp]

If that is the entire press release they missed several important points. The NHTSA report is posted at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/motorcycleimprovement.html

 

[Abe_Froman]

typo-----

end of first paragraph--- should read "convievable anyway?"

 

[Gecko]

As long as the tiers are based on HP and not just displacment. Because a a M600 and a R6 have the same displacement but about 6ohp in difference.