I can only comment from immediate personal experience. I do not have a huge statistical pool from which to draw.
However, I believe (and have experienced) that if one starts with a small-caliber, easy-to-handle bike as one's first to drop--I mean ride--and then moves gradually up the displacement scale with age, the insurance bills will always be pretty small.
I started with a 1983 GPZ 305, then bought a 1986 Honda Interceptor 500, and then in 1990 a CBR1000F. Insurance was always reasonable, even for the 1000F which my insurance company didn't seem to recognize as a "sport bike." And of course by today's standards it's not.
I'm now 43 and have a 02 R1 and an 01 R1100S. Both bikes together are about 6 bills a year with a $1000 deductible. This has always struck me as extremely reasonable.
However, I have never made a claim. I have never reported a traffic violation to my insurance company (they've never asked. they can find out for themselves).
Buz might have something interesting to add in this regard; he's fortyish and has a sweet fleet. How much do you pay in insurance, Buz? Does it seem fair?
Just like all the wheelchair bound people will miraculously stand up and walk during a Kerry presidency (Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!) the Kook will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes with yet another round of solipsisms.
It's easy to be right all the time when you are the only conscious entity in the universe.
I have no tickets or accidents. I've never filed a claim for any motorcycle I've owned. I got my motorcycle license in 1996 (although I've been riding 'em illegally a lot longer than that!).
My rates are very reasonable. State Farm rates bike on displacement for some reason which makes my Geezer Glide at 1450cc more expensive than the 916cc Duc or the 750cc MV Agusta. The Duc and the MV are about $45 a month and the Harley is in the low $50s. This is with a $1000 deductible and don't forget I live in SoCal where rates are much higher relative to rural areas.
I just turned 40! Don't call me 40-ish yet! Although a girl at the gym said that 40 is "the new 30." Whatever the hell that means.
Not really going to argue that a GSXR-1000 is easier to handle safely than a cruiser etc..
- This study only refers to Manitoba, CA, not all of the US or all of Canada or both. Who knows what is going on in Manitoba. The demographics may be different.
Sounds like Manitoba is experiencing heavy growth in riders from the study.
Growth in riders == new riders on the road == more crashes. Not exactly rocket science.
New riders are likely the cause, not what bike they pick.
Yes a Gixxer or whatever is easier for the 18 year old to toss down the road but if he couldn't have a Gixxer he might be just as likely to toss a sportster down the road.
I generally think the guys with the biggest chip on their shoulder, the guys with the biggest craving for an adrenaline rush, the guys who are most likely to let testosterone make their riding decsions, etc.. are always going to end up buying the fastest bikes they can.
But if you take away the sport bikes they will just buy the fastest cruisers or standards, and ride them just as agressively, and then they will just toss those bikes down the road instead.
I think it is pretty obvious, young kids who are new riders who want to buy a bike to be a bad ass, are not buying cruisers or gold wings, they buy Sport Bikes! Of course they are going to get destroyed! Everyone knows the image of the local squid who wants to learn to ride. This is the guy who thinks a 600 is too slow, etc..
Guess my point is it is not the sportbikes that are dangerous, it is just that a lot of the most retarded, stupidest, newest riders choose to get a sportbike despite the warnings that "This bike is intended for expert riders"
Does any of this come as a surprise? Allowing our young adults Sport Bike ownership is like introducing them to sex...most have no idea how to control it; all are infatuated with it; few learn the necessary discipline; a great deal of them end up in trouble.
okay. I read through it. What I found interesting is that us old farts on big a** touring bikes crash less often (doh) but cost a butt load more when we do. So, I take that partly to mean, squids dress for the crash and touristas dress for the ride..... Plus it will probably break the wine glasses and CD's in the tour pack.
Yeah, but don't forget that the power the sportbikes bikes develop can get even a very experienced rider in over his head in an awful hurry. Hotshot sportbike brakes are less effective at 160mph than the merely adequate brakes on a cruiser travelling at 80 mph.
A modern sportbike gives far less margin for error. A foolish choice of bikes for a newby. Very foolish.
Even though the data is only for Manitoba, I'm not sure that I believe it's correct. There's one chart that lists costs for injury and costs for physical damage for motorcycles vs. autos, which seems to indicate that physical damage costs are higher for motorcycle damage claims than for auto damage claims. Considering that even a fender bender can cost a couple of grand to repair, I question the validity of this data, which makes me question the rest of the data in the report.
Since this report was prepared for an insurance company, on the potential risk (cost) vs. premiums charged (income), what conclusion would you expect them to come to? Bikes are over-insured and their premiums are too high? I would expect any and all insurance industry studys to find that damage claims and costs are rising, and premiums are not high enough to cover their (insurance companies) risks.
Sounds like your is a little cheaper than mine but that's the California factor. Mine is for 100/300 plus all the uninsured motorist coverage I can buy since I live in the land of the uninsured motorist. Many without driver's licenses!