The breathless, gloom-and-doom, news reports about growing motorcycle deaths in the US that come out occasionally (NHTSA recently announced the 2005 figures) certainly grab headlines but seldom reflect reality. In fact, we are in the midst of the biggest motorcycling boom in US history, and popularity of the sport rather than greater risk seems to be driving the trend.

Though the 2005 motorcycle registrations haven't been reported yet, they will be an all-time high, near 6 million (2004 was just short of the 1981 record of 5.8 million). And this comes just 10 years after the slump the mid-90s when registrations were down to 3.8 million, the lowest since NHTSA began reporting in 1975.

Of course, growing popularity has a downside—more riders, more crashes, more deaths. But, while the fatailty rates per registered bike and per mile ridden have increased from their mid-90s all-time lows, they are still relatively low when viewed historically. There were nearly as many bikes on the road in 2004 as in 1981, but deaths in 2004 were 20% lower (see chart—data from NTHSA Traffic Safety Facts 2004, and 2005 Motorcycle Fact Sheet). Too many riders are dying, for sure, but we have made progress.

Here's a phenomenon that has puzzled me, and I would be interested in your opinions: Motorcycle fatality rates (per bike, per mile) seem to be affected by the growth and decline of the sport. Rates were high in the early 80s when motorcycle registrations peaked, they fell as the sport hit the skids in the mid 90s, and they are increasing again as sales and registrations climb to new highs.

My theory is that average risk in the riding population is strongly affected by newbie riders. When the sport ebbed in the 90s, we were left with a higher percentage of die-hard, lifelong riders. Average experience was high, and risk was relatively low. But when sales surged, the newbie percentage increased and average experience dropped—less experience, greater risk. If this theory is true, we should continue to see rising rates as the popularity of motorcycling grows, and they will fall only when sales and registrations flatten out.

---

A superior rider uses superior judgment to avoid problems that would demand his superior skill.

I agree with your theory that it's newbie riders increasing the fatality rate. I also think they will be an ever-increasing factor, for the following reasons:

1. The US market offers few good options for small-displacement motorcycles that are attractive to the newbie rider.

2. The continual increases in horsepower in middleweight sportbikes, and the mistaken idea that a 600cc supersport motorcycle is a good first motorcycle.

3. Lack of rider training associated with getting a license.

4. Lack of enforcement of license and permit laws.

jcloonan:

I agree with your theory that it's newbie riders increasing the fatality rate. I also think they will be an ever-increasing factor, for the following reasons:

1. The US market offers few good options for small-displacement motorcycles that are attractive to the newbie rider.

2. The continual increases in horsepower in middleweight sportbikes, and the mistaken idea that a 600cc supersport motorcycle is a good first motorcycle.

3. Lack of rider training associated with getting a license.

4. Lack of enforcement of license and permit laws.

Plus

5. "Returning" riders with a propensity to acquire ever larger, heavier, faster "fashionable" motorcycles with little experience or experience from 15-30 years ago. Even though the motorycles are technlogically more capable, rider skills are not. Lack of understanding that reaction times may not what they once were.

Iincreasing mc sales with increasing numbers of "other" vehicles occupying the same space (translated, more traffic) with the attendant inattentive drivers(cell phones,reading, eating etc, isolated from the outside world when the windows go up)

Yeah, newbie riders are a problem, but not the only problem here I think.  Now, I got my first motorcycle in July of 2005.  At the end of July 2005 I laid it down and broke my leg (thanks to a cager).  However, since then I've put on 7000 miles on some of the most challenging roads around.  (Lets just say, they don't have a rally in the Black Hills for nothing).  I will acknowledge that my inexperience was part of my accident.

 However, I think that there is another group (or two) that are raising those numbers.  The one that springs to mind is the retiree sort.  Gee, I'm not working anymore and I have the spare money so I think I'll buy a motorcycle.  Too many haven't ridden before or in years.  They buy the biggest and best and just don't have the skills to control it.

The second group that springs to mind are those who don't ride much.  They trailer to the local rallys and roar around being bikers.  Like I read somewhere "$20,000 and 20 miles don't make you a biker."

---

Only a biker knows why a dog hangs his head out the window.

I see only one problem with this post. The use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is problematic. Why? Last year during Sturgis, VMT figures for motorcycles were released. Guess how many Motorcycle VMT were reported for South Dakota that year?  --0-- If this weren't so serious it would be laughable.

This is not uncommon. VMT for motorcycles is vastly under reported. My home state of West Virginia has done the same thing in two if the last six years. I have found several other states have done the same thing. NHTSA reports that registrations are up, but VMT are steady. When the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) confronted NHTSA about these figures at last years "Meeting Of The Minds" the answer was, Yes, we know they are wrong, but it's OK to use them because we always have. They feel no need to change because the states are the ones that report VMT.

So, VMT for motorcycles is not a good stat to use, at least till the problem is fixed.

---

"DUCK" WV

 

These are the real causes for the increase in motorcycle accidents!

click on the link below:

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

Garry Van Kirk

Bikers Accident Survivor Forum

www.bacsuv.com

 

 

These are the real reasons why there is an increase in motorcycle

accidents: click on the link below:

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/

Garry Van Kirk

www.bacsuv.com

If cell phone use by drivers were responsible for the increase in the motorcycle fatality rate, one would expect to see a growing percentage of fatalities in multiple-vehicle crashes. In fact, the distribution between single- and mulitple-vehicle motorcycle fatalities has stayed fairly constant at about 45% single-vehicle for the past 10 years.

A couple of years ago, an article in Motorcycle Consumer News argued that the motorcycle fatality rate increase was due to the increase in the number of SUVs on the road. Again, the argument isn't supported by data. Motorcyclists seem to be crashing in the same ways they crashed 10 years ago, though at a somewhat higher rate.

---

A superior rider uses superior judgment to avoid problems that would demand his superior skill.

DUCK, I think that's the real key issue here.  You're completely right that South Dakota and many other states don't report the information that needs to be reported.  I know that groups like ABATE are trying to change that, but I suspect it will take some time.  Until the WHOLE story is being told, unfortunately, anti motorcycle groups and others will continue to use the information they have in any way they want.

---

Only a biker knows why a dog hangs his head out the window.