The following comes from a detailed University of Southern California study of motorcycle accidents in the LA area. It is very instructive about how we can ride to stay safe. In short -- get miles under your belt, take a safety course, wear protective clothing always, don't drink and drive, and when all else fails, keep your insurance up to date.

Key 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. (OP COMMENT: ATGATT)

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. (OP COMMENT: Bright/reflective clothing and driving to stay visible ftw.)

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. (OP COMMENT: Front reflectors ftw.)

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. (OP COMMENT: Age and wisdom beats youth and energy. Women drivers . . .)

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. (OP COMMENT: Drive like an idiot and die like an idiot.)

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. (OP Comment: Take the motorcycle safety courses, take a racing course.)

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. (OP COMMENT: Wear leg protection, too.)

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. (OP COMMENT: Yay, 2fiddy!)

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. (OP COMMENT: ATGATT, kiddies!)

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. (OP COMMENT: Duh!)

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.

All good tips, but the Hurt report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report) (which those findings came from), was published in 1981, and in recent years there has been more and more discussion about which of the findings may have changed in the intervening period. It's probably a good assumption that many of them remain just as significant, but others perhaps not quite as much. Motorcycles have changed quite a bit in 30 years, riders have changed, and traffic conditions have changed. That's why the AMA has been trying to get federal funding for an update to this study to see exactly what has changed in this arena. The funding has been a bit up in the air the past year or two, and last I heard they had enough to go forward, but only studying 100 - 200 accidents instead of the volume that they had intended; not sure where it stands other than that.

Thanks, Alex. You anticipated my next post! This is what motivated me to start the thread -- article in December Sportrider mag about coming studies, and me looking up the last one. And the last one is, I think, still really instructive and a must read, especially for new riders. My real hope is that someone new will click on this "Riding Skills" forum, and see these conclusions as a good intro and primer for basic rider safety. I vote we keep this up and highlight it until the new ones come along.

On status of new study: The US govt. pledged $2.8 million for the study in 2007, followed by lots of drama about the sample size of the study (300 vs. 900 vs. 1200) and control issues between AMA/Oklahoma State faction and MSF/Virginia Tech faction. So now two studies are on the way: Two Crash Studies Coming (http://www.sportrider.com/features/146_1012_motorcycle_crash_studies_moving_ahead/index.html).

Should be interesting. (I'm certain helmet usage has gone way up, as has training, and suspect different results between street bikes and cruisers.) In the meantime, lots still to take from the older study, and well worth discussion here. Lots of gold to reinforce key themes that often come up and we should take every opportunity to make sure continue to be discussed: ATGATT, take a course, etc.

There are also many inherent correlations that are still indirect. For example, the rider who wears lots of gear is less likely to crash because he or she is also the same kind of person to appreciate the dangers of motorcycling and put forth effort to both research safety tips and to be more aware of potential environmental dangers.
Posted via Mobile Device

There are also many inherent correlations that are still indirect. For example, the rider who wears lots of gear is less likely to crash because he or she is also the same kind of person to appreciate the dangers of motorcycling and put forth effort to both research safety tips and to be more aware of potential environmental dangers.
Posted via Mobile Device

Heh I dunno about that one. Some people are just luckier than others. Some people are just naturally better and more gifted riders. I'd say that's the case regardless of gear selection and attitude.

Heh I dunno about that one. Some people are just luckier than others. Some people are just naturally better and more gifted riders. I'd say that's the case regardless of gear selection and attitude.

Both Flashmonkey and JMcDonald probably right. Skill and caution might interplay something like this:

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk28/gfloyd2002/Safety.jpg

Of course its not a perfect connection, but these are definite trends Ive noticed.
Posted via Mobile Device

Of course its not a perfect connection, but these are definite trends Ive noticed.
Posted via Mobile Device

Among new riders or in general? And are you sure you're not placing a bias on your observations by subconciously being harder on squids?

I'm definitely leaping into the realm of voodoo science here, but I definitely believe that regardless of skill, conditioning and armour, some riders are just prone to crash more than others.

Vooodooo i tell ya haha. :D

Yeah, I am just referring to trends, and am indeed primarily focusing on sportbike riders. The same kinds of riders who feel they are too invincible for gear are the same kinds of riders who think they are the exception who was born to start on a supersport and are the same kinds of riders who dont bother to or realize the importance to research and practice safe and correct riding techniques. Around here, maybe 20% of sportbike riders wore helmets, and maybe 5% wore jackets or gloves consistently, that I saw. I never saw anyone wearing more than tennis shoes, and even at bike nights where you know everyone was racing around maybe 40% wore helmets and 10% wore jackets. However, I only saw one other guy who was wearing more than tennis shoes. And these are all the same guys I saw who could barely pull into traffic without having to walk the bike until strait, and cornered with the worst form possible, all because they didnt appreciate the sport enough (beyond the image) to either protect themselves or learn even the basics of sportbike riding.

Second, I have never personally seen or met good sportbike rider who wasnt geared up. Every sport rider Ive ever personally met who was into good cornering form and safe riding wore ATGATT.

Third, insurance prices are based almost completely on statistics. The factors I mentioned above must indeed be part of trends when it costs 3x as much for me to insure a 600SS as it would for me to insure a 1000cc standard like a Z1000 or FZ1 (because we all know SS bikes tend to attract these more negligent riders). Of course, that is a bit tangential, but it does support the relevance of these factors to the likelihood of crashing.

Fourth, I have only ever had one person endanger me from truly failing to see me as the only factor. This is in about 6000 miles of city and some intra-city highway riding. I cant possibly be that lucky, when so many people report being regularly cut off or merged into and what not. I really dont like to say I am just better at it, especially being a new rider, but the effort I put into learning and practicing safe riding habits (hours of research, the BRC, etc) must play a role.

I am not saying they are all linearly and inextricably linked. I am really just pointing out that how one looks at motorcycling seems to influence the rate at which one learns and improves, the correctness of this learning, and the liklihood of being involved in a crash. Basically, if you can learn to appreciate the value of good gear and learning correct and safe riding techniques and habits, you will make a big dent in your chances of crashing. Several of the points in the OP are basically saying the same things.
Posted via Mobile Device

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.



I wonder what excuse the dead riders had, for not wearing a helmet?

I wonder what excuse the dead riders had, for not wearing a helmet?

Of all the dead riders I've ever talked to, none ever had a complaint about not wearing a helmet.

A few random observations, not based on science and no link between these different thoughts.

This past summer in Rhode Island most of the single rider crashes, death resulting were cruiser riders without helmets at night. Now is this because cruiser riders drink and ride, don't wear helmets, or there are more cruisers?

Some insurance companies will charge more for a 600SS than a 1000 standard, while others go by displacement.

With 18,000 miles of riding I was on a 2 lane road at night, going 50 in a 45 and a car driver that did see me pulled right into my path of travel (eyeing me all the way) causing me to brake hard. No one else around but the 2 of us.

Riding with a friend who has over 30,000 miles, which is about 50,000 miles between us a girl merged right up on us on a country road in clear daylight. We both hit the gas hard as we knew she didn't see us and that was the best chance we had for avoiding her.

Don't think in either of those 2 above cases the miles we have had anything to do with anything. I can go months without a close call and then have 2 close calls in a week. The driver who doesn't see you because they are preoccupied, have the sun in their eyes, or whatever are the problem. Its the varied riding experience that allows us to avoid the collision. Let me state I don't think my 13,000 miles is a big number, but I have dirt riding experience/racing back to age 10 (46 now). Its like people say you can ride your roads 5,000 miles a summer or learn much more in a couple days at the track.

Most sportbike riders I see riding around here I wouldn't want to associate with. The ones I trust and enjoy riding with wear just about all the gear (helmet, gloves, boots, jacket), but most don't wear riding pants unless they are on the track. I might buy some pants after seeing pictures of a friend's rashed legs after crashing

Heh I dunno about that one. Some people are just luckier than others. Some people are just naturally better and more gifted riders. I'd say that's the case regardless of gear selection and attitude.

Agreed. I know guys who have ridden from RI to Fla on sportbikes and had no close calls, logged many track days, and road raced pretty good back some years ago, then drop it in a corner on their daily commute.

Agreed. I know guys who have ridden from RI to Fla on sportbikes and had no close calls, logged many track days, and road raced pretty good back some years ago, then drop it in a corner on their daily commute.

That daily commute is where I'd suspect most accidents to happen. It becomes mundane and somewhat boring, people are off their game usually, and are almost certainly underdressed (me for example :D).

It's a grind for a reason. :p

There are also many inherent correlations that are still indirect. For example, the rider who wears lots of gear is less likely to crash because he or she is also the same kind of person to appreciate the dangers of motorcycling and put forth effort to both research safety tips and to be more aware of potential environmental dangers.
Posted via Mobile Device

Totally right (my opinion), those who prepare properly know how to ride properly. Although we all have those moments where a safely situation presents itself, and we turn into bats out of hell.

17. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider. (OP COMMENT: Front reflectors ftw.)

I'm curious how you come to the conclusion of front reflectors FTW. The front reflectors on all motorcycles are for visibility from the side, and do not increase the frontal visibility of a motorcycle. Not trying to start an argument, just curious.

I'm curious how you come to the conclusion of front reflectors FTW. The front reflectors on all motorcycles are for visibility from the side, and do not increase the frontal visibility of a motorcycle. Not trying to start an argument, just curious.

Standard reflectors specced to Consumer Product Safety Commission standards only have a thirty degree wide entry angle (reflecting light from thirty degrees off center), and reflections are dimmer the further away from straight on the light is. So I see where you are coming from on the benefits of a front reflector that is pointed sideways to head on visibility.

http://www.onemathematicalcat.org/Math/Geometry_obj/graphics/30_deg_angle.png

But you can see from the picture that even this narrow 30 degree angle gives more and more usable space the further you move away from the motorcycle, including areas that would be in "front" of the bike. (If defined as "not behind".) So think of the conclusion about frontal surface conspicuity not just head on visibility, but visibility from the perspective of any car ahead of the motorcycle - like on a side street ready to turn out.

I just moved my bike onto my street about 45 feet from the intersection of the next street over, and hit my front reflector with a flashlight from the other street. I got a reflection back in the dark. The reflector worked marginally well from the angle at which a car would be turning from a side street and looking for the motorcycle as it pulls out. The main accidents discussed in the Hurt report are not head on collisions,but people making left turns in front of motocycles because they dont see them. So you want visibility from cars in "front" of the motorcycle, but in front off and off to the side where people can see you as they are about to pull out. I'm pretty sure that the conclusion listed isn't about frontal surface visibility to avoid head on collisions, but for view of the motorcycle from the "front" as a car decides whether to pull out or not. And from my little experiment, there is at least some marginal benefit to having a front reflector for that.

Another reason I thought it worth highlighting the front reflector in the OP is that there are many, many discussions on motorcycle websites about removal of front reflectors as a mod to improve bike looks. Anything that lowers visibility of the motorcycle, even marginally, is a bad thing.

Of all the dead riders I've ever talked to, none ever had a complaint about not wearing a helmet.

Dead guy still not wearing his helmet (and he removed his reflectors).

http://www.odditycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/David-Colon-motorcycle.jpg

Sorry, couldn' resist.:rolleyes: