Summary of MAIDS Study
Posted February 21st, 2011 at 05:48 PM by gfloyd2002
In my ongoing attempt to keep thinking about safety and make sure we use facts to back up our discussions, I've been trying to post on the main motorcycle safety studies every month or so. In The Cause and Effect of Motorcycle Accidents thread, I listed the conclusion of the Hurt Report following the USC study of accidents in the LA area in the early 80's. In Cause and Effect (Part II) thread I discussed the conclusions of the 2007 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study on fatal two-vehicle motorcycle accidents. This thread will discuss the concusions of the 2004 MAIDS (Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study) study of European motorcycle accidents. Keeping in mind that the study methods have come under some scrutiny, and that cultural differences may not make the findings completely applicable here, in context of the other two major studies, there are still some good takeaways. The study reconstructed 921 motorcycle accidents during 1999 and 2000 in France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Spain, including detailed witness interviews, medical records reviews, vehicle inspections and crash scene forensics. The study is free to the public at MAIDS Online, after you sign up.
The key findings of the study - you may notice some familiar themes from the other studies:
1. Most crashes are 2 vehicles. 70% of crashes involved another car or truck, 30% were collisions with road only, tree, stationary object, bike, pet, etc. This is a higher percentage of 2 vehicle accidents than in the U.S.
2. Most caused by rider, barely. Of the two-vehicle accidents, 50% were caused by the error of the passenger car driver and 37% were motocycle rider error. Considering rider blame in solo crashes and two-vehicle accidents, it appears that rider error of the rider is the primary cause of a majority of accidents. (It is interesting to note that in Europe there are fewer rider only accidents than in the US and a lower level of rider error as the cause of accidents.)
3. Sorry, I didn't see you. Failure to perceive the motorcyclist is the reason for 70 percent of the two-vehicle collisions when the car driver is at fault. (Though oddly, only 18% of drivers were giving tickets for their role in the crashes. wtf.) Drivers with motorcycling experience are more likely to see and avoid motorcyclists.
4. Most crashes happen in intersections.
5. Speed differential is more important than speed. Going either faster or slower than nearby traffic—was a contributing factor in 18 percent of the crashes. In a blow to highway patrolmen everywhere, the study concluded "there were relatively few cases in which excess speed was an issue related to accident causation" and found no correlation between speed and accident rates. Dunk your donut in that, copper! Though this likely has to do with relative safety of highways without intersections, it certainly argues in favor of traveling with the flow of traffic.
6. Slow speed collisions are most common. In 70% of the crashes, the rider hit the car or other object at under 30 mph. (This is a very important stat, imho. Stopping distances at 30mph or under are shorter than the width of a standard intersection. Good attention to surroundings and being ready to stop quickly becomes a huge weapon for the rider to avoid these crashes.)Also . . . if most accidents happen in intersections at low speeds, what does that tell you about the need to wear gear even on that jaunt to school or the corner store?
7. ATGATT and strap on your helmet. 90% of the riders involved in the crashes were wearing helmets (wow!) and "helmets were found to be an effective protective device to reduce the severity of head injuries." However, 9% lost their helmets due to bad fit, lack of fastening or because of severity of crash. Tighten that buckle! Other protective gear also did a great job of reducing common injuries, even though wearing gear couldn't protect everyone all the time, depending on the severity of the crash.
8. Skill alone isn't enough. 73.1% of riders attempted some form of collision avoidance before impact. Of these, 32% experienced some type of loss of control during the avoidance maneuver. 13% of the time, the rider chose the wrong avoidance manuever altogether. Braking was the best option most of the time.
9. Don't drink and drive. Drinking played a role in 5% of the crashes. Again, points to Europe for lower rates than in the US. That said, drinkers were still clearly over-represented in the crash statistics. Also, crashing motorcyclists were more likely to have been drinking than the drivers they collided with.
10. Age and guile over youth and exuberance. Riders between 18 and 25 years old were overrepresented, while riders aged 41 to 55 crashed less frequently. Riding experience also worked in the rider's favor, both total and on the bike being ridden. Inexperienced riders are also more likely to do something that causes the accident.
11. Get a license, take the MSF. Riders who took rider training were more likely to try some sort of avoidance maneuver, such as braking or swerving. Untrained riders were more likely to sit there and crash without doing anything to prevent it. Riders without correct licenses crashed more than riders who were properly licensed.
12. Wear bright clothing. Riders wearing dark clothing were more likely to crash than others.
13. It is what is in front of you that merits attention. 90% of all crash threats were in front of the riders who crashed. Sides and especially the rear are not major concerns.
14. It is how you ride, not what your ride. The study also compared accidents across motorcycle type, including engine size, stlye, etc. Only "modified conventional street motorcycles" were overrepresented. (Uh oh. About that new Area P exhaust I'm ordering . . .
)
15. Blaming the bike is a cop out. Technical failures were a factor in only 1% of the accidents, except perhaps the faulty nut holding the handlebars. Tire failure was was the most important crash-causing technical failure. Check your tire pressures and tread wear, people!
16. Blaming the road is a cop out. Road conditions weren't a factor in 97% of accidents. For the remaining 3%, it was a factor, but (and the study didn't make a conclusion here) I think we can agree that the rider probably could/should have been paying closer attention and adjusted his/her riding for road conditions in most cases.
What sorts of conclusions can you draw from these or other findings of the MAIDS study?
The key findings of the study - you may notice some familiar themes from the other studies:
1. Most crashes are 2 vehicles. 70% of crashes involved another car or truck, 30% were collisions with road only, tree, stationary object, bike, pet, etc. This is a higher percentage of 2 vehicle accidents than in the U.S.
2. Most caused by rider, barely. Of the two-vehicle accidents, 50% were caused by the error of the passenger car driver and 37% were motocycle rider error. Considering rider blame in solo crashes and two-vehicle accidents, it appears that rider error of the rider is the primary cause of a majority of accidents. (It is interesting to note that in Europe there are fewer rider only accidents than in the US and a lower level of rider error as the cause of accidents.)
3. Sorry, I didn't see you. Failure to perceive the motorcyclist is the reason for 70 percent of the two-vehicle collisions when the car driver is at fault. (Though oddly, only 18% of drivers were giving tickets for their role in the crashes. wtf.) Drivers with motorcycling experience are more likely to see and avoid motorcyclists.
4. Most crashes happen in intersections.
5. Speed differential is more important than speed. Going either faster or slower than nearby traffic—was a contributing factor in 18 percent of the crashes. In a blow to highway patrolmen everywhere, the study concluded "there were relatively few cases in which excess speed was an issue related to accident causation" and found no correlation between speed and accident rates. Dunk your donut in that, copper! Though this likely has to do with relative safety of highways without intersections, it certainly argues in favor of traveling with the flow of traffic.
6. Slow speed collisions are most common. In 70% of the crashes, the rider hit the car or other object at under 30 mph. (This is a very important stat, imho. Stopping distances at 30mph or under are shorter than the width of a standard intersection. Good attention to surroundings and being ready to stop quickly becomes a huge weapon for the rider to avoid these crashes.)Also . . . if most accidents happen in intersections at low speeds, what does that tell you about the need to wear gear even on that jaunt to school or the corner store?
7. ATGATT and strap on your helmet. 90% of the riders involved in the crashes were wearing helmets (wow!) and "helmets were found to be an effective protective device to reduce the severity of head injuries." However, 9% lost their helmets due to bad fit, lack of fastening or because of severity of crash. Tighten that buckle! Other protective gear also did a great job of reducing common injuries, even though wearing gear couldn't protect everyone all the time, depending on the severity of the crash.
8. Skill alone isn't enough. 73.1% of riders attempted some form of collision avoidance before impact. Of these, 32% experienced some type of loss of control during the avoidance maneuver. 13% of the time, the rider chose the wrong avoidance manuever altogether. Braking was the best option most of the time.
9. Don't drink and drive. Drinking played a role in 5% of the crashes. Again, points to Europe for lower rates than in the US. That said, drinkers were still clearly over-represented in the crash statistics. Also, crashing motorcyclists were more likely to have been drinking than the drivers they collided with.
10. Age and guile over youth and exuberance. Riders between 18 and 25 years old were overrepresented, while riders aged 41 to 55 crashed less frequently. Riding experience also worked in the rider's favor, both total and on the bike being ridden. Inexperienced riders are also more likely to do something that causes the accident.
11. Get a license, take the MSF. Riders who took rider training were more likely to try some sort of avoidance maneuver, such as braking or swerving. Untrained riders were more likely to sit there and crash without doing anything to prevent it. Riders without correct licenses crashed more than riders who were properly licensed.
12. Wear bright clothing. Riders wearing dark clothing were more likely to crash than others.
13. It is what is in front of you that merits attention. 90% of all crash threats were in front of the riders who crashed. Sides and especially the rear are not major concerns.
14. It is how you ride, not what your ride. The study also compared accidents across motorcycle type, including engine size, stlye, etc. Only "modified conventional street motorcycles" were overrepresented. (Uh oh. About that new Area P exhaust I'm ordering . . .
) 15. Blaming the bike is a cop out. Technical failures were a factor in only 1% of the accidents, except perhaps the faulty nut holding the handlebars. Tire failure was was the most important crash-causing technical failure. Check your tire pressures and tread wear, people!
16. Blaming the road is a cop out. Road conditions weren't a factor in 97% of accidents. For the remaining 3%, it was a factor, but (and the study didn't make a conclusion here) I think we can agree that the rider probably could/should have been paying closer attention and adjusted his/her riding for road conditions in most cases.
What sorts of conclusions can you draw from these or other findings of the MAIDS study?
Total Comments 0
