Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
r1limited

AMA published some interesting Crash Stats

Recommended Posts

r1limited

I thought this was interesting, pages from AMA mag Nov 17 on

Understanding the crash cycle

One of the statements was

Quote

19% of riders who crashed had no motorcycle endorsement on their license and 5 % had no license at all

That is an interesting statistic, does this mean that 74% or crashes were endorsed riders?  Read on Lets find out

Interesting as well is to read 51% of crashes a failure by the driver of the other vehicle with rider failure at 44%

CrashPage-1.jpg

CrashPage-2.jpg

CrashPage-3.jpg

CrashPage-4.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beemer

I can't read all that small print so I have to ask about the 44% rider failure, I take it they lumped all riders together to get that figure because the last static I read about showed that the higher in age the rider was the less likely he or she was to have an accident and it was much lower than 44%. It showed the younger crowd to be most likely to have an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r1limited
27 minutes ago, Beemer said:

I can't read all that small print so I have to ask about the 44% rider failure, I take it they lumped all riders together to get that figure because the last static I read about showed that the higher in age the rider was the less likely he or she was to have an accident and it was much lower than 44%. It showed the younger crowd to be most likely to have an accident.

Ya limited on size here 1.9 mb, Sorry for the multiple posts on it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guylee
3 hours ago, Beemer said:

I can't read all that small print so I have to ask about the 44% rider failure, I take it they lumped all riders together to get that figure because the last static I read about showed that the higher in age the rider was the less likely he or she was to have an accident and it was much lower than 44%. It showed the younger crowd to be most likely to have an accident.

That's cuz us young'uns are always doing DANK WHOOLIES.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beemer
20 hours ago, guylee said:

That's cuz us young'uns are always doing DANK WHOOLIES.

Ha, ha! I kinda figured that. I remember being young & dumb once myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r1limited

There are a lot of stats, it says under Other Dangers 62% of "fatalities" where with fixed objects.  They list this as fences, curbes, trees/poles mailboxes.  Going on it stated over 95% of those 62% the first objetc was fixed.  (We speek of Fixation and Looking through the turn)

 

It reads further and I quote
 

Quote

By way of comparison, in multi-vehicle crashes, motorcyclists struck the other vehicle before striking a fixed object about 81% of the time

This is the not paying attention keeping your bubble and exit option always open.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gregjet

Read the Aussie stats for the previous 4 years and they are a fair bit different.

It appears here that a lot of people ( male and female) are going back to motorcycles as they get older. The upper age stats have become very significant. Substantial increases over the last few years in this age group especially in the retired ages ( my lot). Lots of speculation , of course, why, but no actual research.

My thoughts are that it is, at least partially, because they tend to buy cruisers and maintain their driver instincts, which suit them not well on a bike.

A big problem with our stats is that they include non- on- roads accidents ( farm, dirt riders and even dirt racing stats) which skews the results ridiculously when examining "road toll". A solid proportion of these will of course include people with no licence, as it in not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
r1limited
19 hours ago, gregjet said:

My thoughts are that it is, at least partially, because they tend to buy cruisers and maintain their driver instincts, which suit them not well on a bike.
A big problem with our stats is that they include non- on- roads accidents ( farm, dirt riders and even dirt racing stats) which skews the results ridiculously when examining "road toll". A solid proportion of these will of course include people with no licence, as it in not required.

I think the first part is relativly true everywhere (No proof) just how I feel.  On the second part this is how the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the DOT (Department of Transportation) clumped it all together as well.  Until recently this is the most cpmprehensive report I have seen....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
e30kawi

I find it funny that they used a picture of a camaro in the article. That's what I slammed into the side of at 60mph, driver turned left in front of me. It was yellow, but the guy replaced it with a black one after the accident... Now I wear a funny shoe with a one inch lift in it because my leg is short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  


×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.