http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x70/AnthonyMarr/accident001.jpg

I know, I know, when I twist the throttle of my Ninjette at 5K rpm, sometimes I find myself wishing that the bike would leap forward twice as fast. But then, at 10k rpm, my wish was realized. Do I need a supersport, even just a 600? Absolutely not. The Ninjette has much more power than needed in the twisties, which, combined with its light weight and thus flickability, may make it a faster bike than even a more powerful but less flickable mount. And that's all I need, or even want. Because much as I love riding, I love living even more.

For those who still want to step up to a supersport, I suggest sparing a thought for the following before deciding to do so. First question of course is about safety. According to the Insurance Information Institute, sport bike (e.g. Ninjette) fatalities number 10.7 deaths per 10,000 sport bikes, whereas supersport bike fatalities number 22.5 per 10,000 supersport bikes. Supersports have the overall highest insurance losses under collision coverage among the motorcycle classes, almost four times higher than for touring models and more than six times higher than for cruisers. Nine of the ten motorcycles with the highest losses were supersports.

Following are 2 paragraphs from
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/


By Type of Motorcycle:

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), riders of “supersports” motorcycles have driver death rates per 10,000 registered vehicles nearly four times higher than for drivers of other types of motorcycles. Supersports have more horsepower than conventional motorcycles and can reach speeds of up to 190 mph. They are built on racing platforms and are modified for street use. The bikes are popular with riders under the age of 30. The bikes are light-weight and aerodynamically styled. In 2005, these bikes registered 22.5 driver deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles compared with 10.7 deaths for other sport models (related to supersports but do not have the acceleration, stability and handling of supersports). Standards and cruisers and touring bikes, with upright handlebars, have rates of 5.7 and 6.5 per 10,000 vehicles. In 2005, supersports accounted for 9 percent of registrations, and standards and cruisers made up 51 percent of registrations. Among fatally injured drivers, the IIHS says that drivers of supersports were the youngest—with an average age of 27. Touring motorcycle drivers were the oldest, 51 years old. Fatally injured drivers of other sports models were 34, on average; standard and cruiser drivers were 44 years old. Speeding and driver error were bigger factors in supersport and sport fatal crashes. Speed was cited in 57 percent of supersport riders’ fatal crashes in 2005 and in 46 percent for sport model riders. Speed was a factor in 27 of fatal crashes of riders of cruisers and standards, and for 22 percent of riders of touring models.

Collision Losses by Type:

The IIHS says that supersports have the overall highest insurance losses under collision coverage among the motorcycle classes, almost four times higher than for touring models and more than six times higher than for cruisers. Nine of the ten motorcycles with the highest losses were supersports. Claim frequency is driving the high losses for supersports, meaning that they are involved in more collisions than other types of motorcycles—there were 9 claims per 100 insured vehicle years for supersports models, compared with 2.3 for all models. The models surveyed were all 2002-2006 models. Touring motorcycles had the most expensive claims because they are the most expensive to purchase. Supersport models are the most popular with thieves—with average loss payments for theft losses per insured vehicle years of $246 for 2002-2006 models, seven times higher than the average for all motorcycles. Supersport models had the highest frequency of thefts—31.8 per insured vehicle year, compared with cruisers and touring models which had the lowest at 1.1 claims per insured vehicle year. However, touring models had the highest average loss payments—$15,696, reflecting their high purchase price and upgrades.

What kind of bike is that stuck in the car?

My instinct tells me that the greatest contributor to the dramatically higher accident rates for supersport bikes is not the bike, but the rider profile.

Your average squid wouldn't be caught dead on a 250. Young, aggressive males want sexy, powerful bikes. The whole "mine's bigger/more badass" syndrome that indicates just which head is being used for all the thinking.

To be sure, not ALL SS riders are like that. There are plenty of rational, mature, skilled riders out there on SS bikes. But there AREN'T a lot of young studly idiots riding Ninjettes.

So, those most likely to splatter themselves tend to flock to Gixxers and the like.

Those who ride 250s are generally either very small people (usu. women, who tend to be less aggressive than men at any age), cautious beginners who don't want to start with a SS bike, or those of us who don't believe that a SS bike is necessary to have fun.

I'm in the latter category. I'm 50, and am fully aware that it ain't size that matters...it's how you use it. I don't have to impress anybody but myself, thank you.

(By the way... on my recent trip I had two guys (separate encounters), both bike owners, complement me on the bike and ask what engine was in it. I told them to guess, and they both thought it was a 900.)

When I start feeling truly limited by the 250, I'll consider moving up. But as long as I'm having a blast on a bike that's cheap to buy, cheap to insure and cheap to run, why bother? I even proved to my own satisfaction that the use for which the bike is arguably least well suited -- touring -- is done with no problem and in great comfort. (See the CT to Indianapolis thread... 2600 miles in about 13 days.)

But there AREN'T a lot of young studly idiots riding Ninjettes.


Hey, im a studly idiot and I ride a ninjette :D

Your average squid wouldn't be caught dead on a 250.

Interesting wording. The average squid probably won't die riding a 250, but might be caught dead on a litre bike.

BTW, SS bikes have 4x the fatality of general bikes, and 2x that of sport bikes. This means that sport bike fatality is 2x that of general bikes. So, even riding a Ninjette is twice as dangerous as riding a, say, Yamaha Virego 650. I can see how that could be true, knowing the way I ride my Ninjette compared to my previous (80s) Yamaha 650.

Be careful with language. It can be misleading.

One bike is not inherently more dangerous than another. It's the rider that makes the difference.

If you ride a Hayabusa like your grandmother would, you'll be as "safe" as if you were riding a Gold Wing.

http://rlv.zcache.com/grandma_on_a_harley_card-p137308353250403308328z_400.jpg

It's good to know the accident stats, but in the end people will buy what they want, and considering where they came from, does it make sense to stop them?

In this community we have a reasonably large base of people who were responsible enough to take MSF type courses, and buy something reasonable for a beginner. Most people here seem to have kept the bike for 2-3 years (or longer), and because of this particular machine, more of us have learned critical riding skills.

Wouldn't this be the ideal set of people to actually be responsible enough to drive larger machines? The other side of the picture is kids just getting into the sport, hopping onto the ZX-14 forums and getting people replying "Yeah, it's a great starter bike!... just watch your throttle man!" (yes, I've actually seen that :)

I guess my argument is, if these bikes are designed only for the responsible and level headed, where else do you find these kinds of people? If it's not with the people doing everything right (sober rider, atgatt, skills focused, safety focused, progression focused), then the machines just shouldn't exist ;)


Just playing devils advocate here, not encouraging anyone to run out and buy something stupid.

I think you've got the cart before the horse. The Ninjette isn't "designed only for the responsible and level headed." Rather, the irresponsible and impulsive are not attracted to it because it's "too small."

Be careful with language. It can be misleading.

One bike is not inherently more dangerous than another. It's the rider that makes the difference.

If you ride a Hayabusa like your grandmother would, you'll be as "safe" as if you were riding a Gold Wing.

Point taken. It's the biker, not the bike. But still, I would contend that given a Busa and a Ningette ridden by the same rider, he would more likely crash on the Busa than on the Ninjette.

Just found this link showing 2 of these fatalities. WARNING: EXCEEDINGLY GRUESOME!!! NOT FOR THE FAINT-HEARTED!!!! but would make a superb safe-riding training tool. Not to mention the 2 ex-bikers, the bike itself is in so many pieces it is impossible to tell even what type of bike it is, much less the make and model. A wild guess is that it is a cruiser. The guy's helmet is stuck in the grill of the truck with which his bike had a head-on collision.

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x70/AnthonyMarr/fatal_car_accidents_16.jpg

Did not protect his head and face, that's for damn sure. Neither biker nor passenger was wearing gear. Both very dead.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dmotorcycl e%2Baccidents%26ei%3DUTF-8%26type%3D966134%26fr%3Dchr-greentree_ff%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=495&h=282&imgurl=www.consumershero.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F12%2Ffatal_car_accidents_17.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consumershero.com%2Farchives%2F574&size=50k&name=fatal+car+accide...&p=motorcycle+accidents&oid=1683b920fcd4fddc&fr2=tab-web&no=2&tt=9216&sigr=119fhhcsn&sigi=12bsjsrpm&sigb=13o1b5mgl

I would contend that given a Busa and a Ningette ridden by the same rider, he would more likely crash on the Busa than on the Ninjette.I agree with adouglas and disagree somewhat with this statement. If one is an experienced rider, then I don't see how they would be more likely to crash on a Busa than on a Ninjette. What would make this rider more likely to crash (or be more seriously injured in a crash) is if the rider was on the Busa for the purpose of doing what he/she cannot do on a 250. As a middle aged guy who had a 250 and now has a SS 600 (zx6r), I really don't find myself riding it that much different. At least, not different enough to put me at more risk for injury.

Now your statement would be very true of an inexperienced rider. And by inexperienced, I don't mean the number of riding years, but rather inexperienced with riding a bike with the power and throttle response of a Busa.

Sweet, I was getting anxious. It'd been a whole 5 minutes since the last 250cc+ hate-fest.

IF YOU RIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A NINJA 250 YOU ARE A SQUID AND YOU SUCK AND YOUR STUPID

Glad I got that out of the way

Sweet, I was getting anxious. It'd been a whole 5 minutes since the last 250cc+ hate-fest.

IF YOU RIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A NINJA 250 YOU ARE A SQUID AND YOU SUCK AND YOUR STUPID

Glad I got that out of the way

Actually I've been toying about the idea of a 400, if it exists. I heard that it's been killed by people wanting at least 600s as a status symbol. I've had a 650 before, and might again, but right now, I'm probably giving myself a warning to not do it too soon, if ever.

Actually I've been toying about the idea of a 400, if it exists.

I think the only 400 in the states is the Suzuki DRZ. Sweet looking bike, too.

Or... you should try to find an old CB450 and restore it! ;)

Sweet, I was getting anxious. It'd been a whole 5 minutes since the last 250cc+ hate-fest.

IF YOU RIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A NINJA 250 YOU ARE A SQUID AND YOU SUCK AND YOUR STUPID

Glad I got that out of the way

I'm probably overstepping my bounds, but if this was any other board I'd think this was trolling. This level of sarcasm doesn't accomplish anything.

If you want to make a point about SS's being safe enough, then do so. Believe it or not, some of the previous posters were trying to explain the large disparity by saying there's nothing wrong with the bikes *if* ridden properly, but obviously many people don't.

We all take significant risks by being on a 2 wheeled vehicle. I think you'd have to be more than a little insane to not evaluate those risks critically and consider how to reduce them -- for lots of people, that means riding a 250. Does that mean it's right for everybody? Of course not, and nobody was suggesting that.

Paraphrasing something I read once, if you're ever in a position where you're not just a little afraid of the bike, it's time to stop motorcycling.

/rant

:whistle:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dmotorcycl e%2Baccidents%26ei%3DUTF-8%26type%3D966134%26fr%3Dchr-greentree_ff%26fr2%3Dtab-web&w=495&h=282&imgurl=www.consumershero.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2006%2F12%2Ffatal_car_accidents_17.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consumershero.com%2Farchives%2F574&size=50k&name=fatal+car+accide...&p=motorcycle+accidents&oid=1683b920fcd4fddc&fr2=tab-web&no=2&tt=9216&sigr=119fhhcsn&sigi=12bsjsrpm&sigb=13o1b5mgl

Holy ****! :eek:
I saw a few of those pics towards the bottom of Ride2die.com, the rest of the picture set is equally gross.

Be careful with language. It can be misleading.

One bike is not inherently more dangerous than another. It's the rider that makes the difference.

If you ride a Hayabusa like your grandmother would, you'll be as "safe" as if you were riding a Gold Wing.

Sweet, I was getting anxious. It'd been a whole 5 minutes since the last 250cc+ hate-fest.

IF YOU RIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A NINJA 250 YOU ARE A SQUID AND YOU SUCK AND YOUR STUPID

Glad I got that out of the way

I think you've got the cart before the horse. The Ninjette isn't "designed only for the responsible and level headed." Rather, the irresponsible and impulsive are not attracted to it because it's "too small."

+1

Intoxication is also a large contributor to motorcycle related accidents and deaths...Not just the bike itself....Like someone stated earlier in the thread it has to do with the rider not the bike..Personally I couldnt imagine riding with any alcohol in my system, but people do..

The more I read, the more I think that I'll be keeping my Ninja for a while longer. I've only got 6 months experience riding, my open license is 6 months away and I always thought I'd trade up to something bigger and faster.

I'm not one for the "nanny" state, but the best thing the State Government Transport Dept has probably ever done for me is to limit my first year to a 250cc bike, and I'm really starting to think that another 6 months to a year might not be such a bad thing for me either.
A friend who rides a GSX-R750 said to me once "You'll sh*t yourself when you get on a 600." I think what he meant was that with my limited experience, the 600 being not much heavier but much more powerful I stood the risk of being well and truly out of my depth.

In the state I live in motorcyclists make up 4% of motorists, but account for 22% of deaths on the roads. A large portion of those who die are guys like me, 40-plus years old, who've either never ridden bikes before or who rode bikes in their youth and now are in a position to buy the bike of their dreams. And a lot of those bikes are 600cc plus sportsbikes and they find themselves in those situations where ability is well and truly overcome by ambition often with serious results.

I'm not anti anything (within reason), it's just that for me I'm beginning to think that the upgrade might not be such a good idea after all in the short-term. Or as I saw another member post on here somewhere, maybe when I can drag a knee then it's time for me to think about the bigger,faster bike.

Until then I'm more than happy to ride my Ninja and hone my skills :D

Sweet, I was getting anxious. It'd been a whole 5 minutes since the last 250cc+ hate-fest.

IF YOU RIDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A NINJA 250 YOU ARE A SQUID AND YOU SUCK AND YOUR STUPID

Glad I got that out of the way

<*sigh*>

Read the post, pal, read the post.


To be sure, not ALL SS riders are like that. There are plenty of rational, mature, skilled riders out there on SS bikes.

Ready FIRE! aim

In the state I live in motorcyclists make up 4% of motorists, but account for 22% of deaths on the roads. A large portion of those who die are guys like me, 40-plus years old, who've either never ridden bikes before or who rode bikes in their youth and now are in a position to buy the bike of their dreams.

I'd like to see those stats.

I'd be willing to bet that a larger portion of those who die are males under 30 years old.

I'd like to see those stats.

I'd be willing to bet that a larger portion of those who die are males under 30 years old.

Older motorcyclists now account for half of all motorcyclist fatalities. NHTSA data show that in 2007, 49 percent of motorcyclists killed in crashes were age 40 or over, compared with 33 percent 10 years earlier. In contrast, fatalities among young motorcyclists have declined in the past 10 years, relative to other age groups. In 2007 fatalities in the under 30-year-old group dropped to 31 percent of total motorcyclists killed in crashes from 41 percent in 1997. Fatalities among motorcyclists in the 30-to 39-year-old group fell to 20 percent in 2007 from 26 percent ten years earlier.

From the OP's link http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/


I could see where some places would have a greater number of older riders involved.

I think the only 400 in the states is the Suzuki DRZ. Sweet looking bike, too.

Or... you should try to find an old CB450 and restore it! ;)

old (74-75) honda cb400f with the 4-1 chrome pipes would be a sweet project.

That data leaves a lot to be desired. For that to mean anything you would need to know the spread.

% of bikes registered to the different age groups.

ideally this would also have some indication of the annual mileage as well.

For example, I am 24 and have ridden 5k miles in the past 4 months on a sport bike.

My neighbor has had his cruiser for 5 years and probably hasn't broken 2k yet.

Interesting stats Rock.

Here in Eastern Canada the age of bike fatalities is also rising but so is the average age of all riders. For instance there was a story in the news that motorcycle registrations in Nova Scotia are up 100 percent over the past decade or so. That's in part because us baby boomers are getting back into bikes. It also means more boomers are in accidents.

It would be nice to see what kind of bikes are bought by what age group.

Take Care

That data leaves a lot to be desired. For that to mean anything you would need to know the spread.

% of bikes registered to the different age groups.

ideally this would also have some indication of the annual mileage as well.I agree completely. I think this is statistically misleading. Do we know if the percent of total riders over 40 has gone up? Do those over 40 have a higher level of crashes per 1000 driven?

I know this isn't factually based, but in my experience, when I see a bike doing wheelies, or speeding through traffic, or any other highly dangerous (stupid) activity, the rider is always in that 20-30 crowd.

ideally this would also have some indication of the annual mileage as well

You've got to be careful with that too, though - the guy who is a courier Manhattan may only put on 4,000 miles in a year, but he sees a hell of a lot more than the guy commuting 35,000 miles a year in rural Kansas.

:lalala:
But seriously If you want to be safe get off the twowheeler and crawl into the back seat of a new volvo.

:lalala:
But seriously If you want to be safe get off the twowheeler and crawl into the back seat of a new volvo.

Congrats first of all for moving up to the GX-6R. My starting this thread is by no means to discourage 250 riders from becoming 650 or 1100 riders, but merely, as the title states, to present something for SS aspirants to consider. I'm sure that you have considered these things before moving up, and you still being healthy and sound maybe proof of this, but I'm also sure that some of those aspiring to move up may not. I'm just saying: Beware of the risk before taking it. And I might take it myself one day.

We bikers are all risk takers. I'm the first to admit to risk taking not just with 2-wheeling, but with other sports, living and projects. But when I do, I always make sure that they are calculated risks, and that my calculations would include risk assessment. The fact that I'm still healthy and sound (at age 65) may be proof of this too ("knock on wood").

I don't believe the stats have any bearing on the danger of one bike over another. It's the riders who choose which bike that decides which is more dangerous.

I have never said that i believed a supersport is a good starter bike. But after getting comfortable on the 250 you can ride a bigger bike.

The only reason i did the la la la is that this topic seems to be repeated every week . THE 250 IS A GREAT BIKE. No augument here , but the majority of the 250 riders will move on to a different bike.

I'm with everyone else when i say ride safe and with in you limits.

I'd like to see those stats.

I'd be willing to bet that a larger portion of those who die are males under 30 years old.

You're correct. I should have checked before I went to print.

Lesson learned. :o

From motorcycle-accidents.com:

#19 & #29 address the age question.

#26 points out the prevalent incompetence in counter-steering in some riders.

#30 addresses large displacement motorcycles.

#35 onwards mostly about injury and gear.

-------------------------------------------------

Motorcycle Accident Causes and Factors

In 2006 about 4,935 people were killed riding motorcycles of different kinds (see above). A major Motorcycle accident study analyzed information from thousands of accidents, drew conclusions about the causes and looked for ways people can avoid accidents. The "Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures," was a study conducted by the University of Southern California, with funds from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, researcher Harry Hurt investigated nearly every aspect of 900 motorcycle accidents in the Los Angeles area. Additionally, Hurt and his staff analyzed 3,600 motorcycle traffic accident reports in the same geographic area. Below are some of the findings.

Motorcycle Accident Study findings:

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most usually a passenger automobile.

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

3. Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat.

4. In the single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slide out and fall due to over braking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

5. Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

6. In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

8. Deliberate hostile action by a motorist against a motorcycle rider is a rare accident cause. The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

9. Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

10. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents.

11. Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin.

12. The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

13. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets. (Note: the statistics which have just been released here in Australia - August 1996, DO NOT SHOW that "Lights on" legislation has worked!)

14. Fuel system leaks and spills were present in 62% of the motorcycle accidents in the post-crash phase. This represents an undue hazard for fire.

15. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

16. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three- fourths of all accident hazards are within 45 degrees of either side of straight ahead.

17. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

18. defects related to accident causation are rare and likely to be due to deficient or defective maintenance.

19. Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly over-represented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly under represented. Although the majority of the accident-involved motorcycle riders are male (96%), the female motorcycle riders are significantly over represented in the accident data.

20. Craftsmen, laborers, and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders. Professionals, sales workers, and craftsmen are under represented and laborers, students and unemployed are over- represented in the accidents.

21. Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are over represented in the accident data.

22. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.

23. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years. Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly under represented in the accident data.

24. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

25. Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

26. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would over brake and skid the rear wheel, and under brake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to counter-steer and swerve was essentially absent.

27. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

28. Passenger-carrying motorcycles are not over represented in the accident area.

29. The driver of the other vehicles involved in collision with the motorcycle are not distinguished from other accident populations except that the ages of 20 to 29, and beyond 65 are over represented. Also, these drivers are generally unfamiliar with motorcycles.

30. The large displacement motorcycles are under represented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.

31. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

32. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are under represented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders.

33. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

34. Motorcycle modifications such as those associated with the semi-chopper or cafe racer are definitely over represented in accidents.

35. The likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents-98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.

36. Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.

37. Crash bars are not an effective injury countermeasure; the reduction of injury to the ankle-foot is balanced by increase of injury to the thigh-upper leg, knee, and lower leg.

38.The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, which are frequent but rarely severe injuries.

39. Groin injuries were sustained by the motorcyclist in at least 13% of the accidents, which typified by multiple vehicle collision in frontal impact at higher than average speed.

40. Injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size.

41. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

43. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

44. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

45. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

46. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

47. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

48. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

49. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

50. There is not liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

51. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

52. Valid motorcycle exposure data can be obtained only from collection at the traffic site. Motor vehicle or driver license data presents information which is completely unrelated to actual use.

53. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.