Motorcycle Risk Study by Insurance Company

Re: For those that can't read

I'll answer the third post because it didn't make any more sense than the first two. Guess what stupid? Many insurance companies won't insure sport bikes any more and the number is growing every day. There are NO insurance companies that won't cover a cruiser. Sounds like your side is losing. Your examples that you "quoted" from the study say NOTHING of cruisers. There are more types of bikes than a cruiser. But since you supposedly have 23 years of riding experience, which is bullshyt, you would know that wouldn't you? Now, I not only quoted some pieces of the study, but quoted the summary. Are you smart enough to know what a summary is? Good. Lets read the f&cking summary again:

In summary, sport bikes can be considered the highest risk vehicle on the road:

- sport bikes can be very difficult to control

- sport bikes are attractive to less experienced riders

- sport bikes tend to be more frequently used in higher risk situations

While sport bike rates are generally 28% higher than motorcycle rates overall, based

on claims experience they should be as much as 89% higher.

There, I bold faced it in case you can't see again. Can someone as stupid as you wrap your mind around that? That is the summary, the conclusion, the end game. Now I want you to quote in that study where cruisers are dangerous, and that drunks on cruisers are causing all the accidents. If you can't do that then it's time for you to shut the f&ck up, right? As for the Motorcyclist article, they do not quote any source for anything, as I have it right here. They mention briefly the Hurt report of 1981, but unfortunately for you and your stupid argument, they just made the rest up as they went along, kind of like you are doing now. Maybe if you could actually comprehend what you read, I wouldn't need to write this, but morons like you just keep digging a little deeper a little longer. So far your batting zero honey bunch. Try not to get so nrevous next time and only post your stupidity once.

Perhaps another reason sport bike claims are higher than for standards and tourers is sport bikes have more-fragile body work. A guy at a BMW dealer told me that insurance rates are much higher on the K1200RS than on the K1200LT not so much because the RS is more powerful, but that it is much more likely to suffer expensive damage in a very minor incident. He told me he has seen people do $2,000 worth of damage to the body work dropping the bike in the garage. By contrast, the LT has bumpers on the side that protect it when dropped at low- or no-speed. Ditto the cylinder heads (sometimes with add-on bumper, but even without) on the R series bikes. Disclaimer: I can't vouch that any of this is true, it's just what I've been told. However, I have had my R1100R down twice, once doing a couple 360s on its cylinder head bumper before I got to the cut-off switch, with no damage to the bike at all beyond scuffs on the cylinder bumper, and a shattered hard bag when I was struck by a car. In both cases I picked the bike up and rode on. In both cases I'm certain there would have been several hundred to possibly thousands of dollars in damage had I been riding a sport bike with full body work and no bumpers to protect it.

Look, you have to take into account the long history some people have here with Kook and his pointless insulting diatribes. It becomes more an exercise in baiting a demented bull than actually making a realistic argument.



All the arguing over these things is pointless anyhow because:



1) Modern motorcycles have quite adequate acceleration and braking for real world situations. No bike is particularly "safer" than the next.



2) A good experienced rider will be able to ride reasonably safely no matter what he rides.



3) An idiot is going to get bashed up no matter what he rides.



I liken motorcycles to airplanes in many ways. And as Chuck Yeager liked to say, the person with the most hours in the ****pit wins.



Experience is more important than machine.