Guys,
From a bikers point of view, I was thinking today about crash statistics on our roads ( wherever you are ), and the things we as individuals can do to reduce our own risk of being involved in a road traffic accident.

The types of roads we negotiate varies to certain extent depending in what country you are in, and the associated laws with those roads. Additionally there are various courses available ( some highlighted on this site ), which claim to improve rider skills and awareness.

We are all aware, and frustratingly so, that Mr and Mrs ' I didnt see you ' exist, and they will remain with us for as long as we have roads!

But what interests me, which comes away slightly from the usual topics of safety, being roads and restrictions, laws and speeds etc, is the type of bike we ride.

How many riders, actually ride a bike that suits the relevant use? Example being, why by a superbike, if your commuting to work, say 15 mile round trip everyday? Is that necessary ? Do you need the power of a 600 - 1000, for that type of use? Sure if your qualified to do so, you can but whatever you want, but are you putting yourself at risk by not buying a more suitable bike for the relevant use? Obviously you could argue that if the rider is competent enough, he/she can use any bike.

Further more, it would be interesting to see the crash statistics, say over a year, between superbikes and cruisers. Whether that be in one state in the us, or over here in the uk.

Is the slower approach to riding on a cruiser, safer than the incredible speeds reached by superbikes? Are cruisers involved in less road traffic accidents? If involved in a road traffic accident do you stand a higher risk of serious injury on a superbike or a cruiser? All road traffic accidents are different in some way or another, and I know its difficult to generalise on such topics, but it just grabbed my thoughts today. I appreciate also that such topics are complex and can expand into other matters of riding, so my thoughts have been kept short.

Statistics of the above would be very interesting, as would the input of all riders with varying experience.

_________________
Whatever you do, think about it first!

I've had a bit of an interest in this over the years as both an automotive engineer ("greedy corporate safety/environment-hating baby killer") and motorcycle enthusiast ("irresponsible jerk- you know my brother's uncle's best friend's little brother was killed on a bike").

So let me start by admitting the obvious. Yes, seatbelts are safer when you have an accident and a car is safer in an accident than a motorcycle. Duh.

But let's state something equally obvious. Seatbelts do nothing but potentially annoy the "crumb" out of you if you never have an accident and a motorcycle is just as safe as a car or a semi-tractor if you never hit anything.

That said, virtually no real reliable motorcycle specific statistics of the kind you talk about exist that I'm aware of. But there are some enlightening general traffic statistics available in the U.S. from the Federal Department of Transportation.

Now before we start with bikes, lets take a brief look at SUVs. You know, the one's that the safety nazis were trying to kill a year or two ago? You're something like 3-4 times more likely to die in an SUV roll-over than in a car. Why would anyone opt for an SUV when people must be just lying under an SUV every 15 miles or so, right?

Well taking a look at traffic deaths in the U.S. (deaths are good because it's unequivocal, you're either breathing or not. No room for questioning the "degree" of injury or police reporting system biases), we find that there's somewhere like 4-5000 traffic deaths in the U.S. every year. Now realize that there are 50 states. Top end- 100 traffic deaths per state per year. Doled out over something like 300 million people in the country.

No matter how relatively dangerous SUVs are in roll-overs, they simply can't be that significant.

The agencies also report fatalities against millions of miles travelled, so you can compare different vehicle types. Bikes do indeed have somewhat more fatalities than cars, but cars are something like 3 fatalities per 100 million miles.

I'm not poo-pooing the danger of bikes, but a bit of perspective is a good thing.

The interesting thing about crashes regardless of vehicle is that 80% of the accidents involve 20% of the drivers.

Recently there's been some interesting research that indicates there are some personality traits that do indicate a higher propensity to being accident prone. For instance people who worry a lot or who are very talkative have difficulty focusing on the task at hand.

One of the more interesting things that I've seen came out of Bike magazine (those Brits!). They didn't do anything real scientific, but they asked some police officers to discuss factors that seem to affect motorcycle safety. They suggest that the "Mr. and Mrs. I-didn't-see-him" attitude may be a big part of the problem.

Riders that are always blaming others for motorcycle accidents don't tend to appreciate their role in in saving thier own skin. They tend not to pay attention to thier surroundings (after all, people should be looking out for them). They also don't ride for the joy of riding, they ride for the thrill of speed. "10 feet tall and bullet-proof" is an accident waiting to happen.

That, the police say, tends to create a hierarchy of dangerous bikes, starting with sports bikes, then sport tourers, dual sports/adventure tourers, and finally cruisers as the safest of bikes based largely on driver procilivities.

Now these days in the states there seems to be a rise in accident statistics related to old guys getting on big cruisers for the first time. Rider friends of mine tend to agree that the safest older riders started young on dirt bike and learned not only the physics of riding and also crashing.

Which leads to what I found to be the most interesting Bike article conclusion. The magazine asked the cops what trait identifies the safest drivers.

Thier answer- if you ride in the winter, you're probably about as truly bullet-proof as you can get. Clearly you're riding for the joy of riding, or at least out of necessity. You've probably got pretty good riding chops that are practiced regularly. And you tend to have a pretty good grasp of how the bike operates, your surroundings, and your precarious mortality.

Maybe not what you asked, but I thought the thread deserved at least one good shot.

I have a data point to back that up--I remember when I was a kid riding with an uncle by marriage who was an airline pilot. He was totally focused on the task at hand--little talking, no radio, etc. So much so, in fact, that he needed a navigator lest he miss turns.

That leads me to conclude that the recent rise in motorcycle accidents is not solely due to older riders taking up the sport or returning to it, but also to the profusion of cell phones. I haven't had that many close calls in the few months I've been riding a motorcycle, but in every instance the driver who pulled out in front of me was talking on a cell phone.

I've told my two college age daughters that if I catch them talking on a cell phone (much less text messaging) while driving, I'll give them a choice as to whether I cancel their cell phone account or take them off of my auto insurgence.