[OreoGitorio]

Analysis: Insurance Industry Distorts Stats On Sportbike Crashes News Article // RoadracingWorld.com

(for those that don't know BJ, he's an Expert Racer at Loudon and all around damn classy guy, 'bout the nicest you'll ever meet)

[kawi997]

very smart indeed

[Pittenger5]

I always wonder why we get the worst rap. In this area anyway, us sportbike riders meet up on Newbury St to look cool, have a starbucks or an ice cream and check out the pretty girls. Cruiser riders meet at the bar and get shitfaced, then ride home.
Who's really the biggest safety risk?

[hessogood]

And is this based on his own personal studies and statistics?

[Crash Dummy Denno]

they say 80% of the time, it works everytime

god damn statistics

if what hes saying is true, then that goes against everything Ive ever heard.... god damn insurance companies!

[hammadown]

Originally Posted by Smooth R6

if what hes saying is true, then that goes against everything Ive ever heard.... god damn insurance companies!

Insurance lobbyists doing their job well!

[Honclfibr]

Originally Posted by Pittenger5

I always wonder why we get the worst rap. In this area anyway, us sportbike riders meet up on Newbury St to look cool, have a starbucks or an ice cream and check out the pretty girls. Cruiser riders meet at the bar and get shitfaced, then ride home.
Who's really the biggest safety risk?

Statistically? Sportbike riders by far. Read the original article, it's quite clear. Sportbike riders have the highest death percentage of all motorcycle owners. It's a pretty black and white fact and focusing only on the increase in deaths ignores the fact there is still an existent problem, the title of the thread should probably be "BJ worsham distorts industry distortion of motorcycle statistics".

[Pittenger5]

Well if anyone knows me at all, I LOOOOOVE statistics, even though they can be manipulated to prove anything you want.
From the CDC
Mortality rates
Ages from 20-24 1983: 5.0, 1993: 3.0, 2003: 2.4
Ages from 40-44 1983: 1.2, 2003: 1.0, 2003: 1.9
So in this case, and we can place the assumption the 20-24 year olds would be MORE sportbike oriented (I cant find any seperation for sure) and the 40-44 would be more cruiser oriented (once again) Since 2003 the younger people mortality rate has dropped by more than 50%, the mortality rate from 40-44 has actually risen. Obviously, before someone comes at me, I know a lot of younger people ride cruisers and older people ride sport bikes, but Id venture to say the majority do not. Its the best I can do (once again using statistics as I can to prove my point.)
As for alcohol impairment, across the board from 2003, motorcycle fatalities based on impairment dropped. EXCEPT in the age range from 55-59, where it went up from 16.7% in 1983 to 21.1% in 2003.
Trends in Motorcycle Fatalities Associated with Alcohol-Impaired Driving --- United States, 1983--2003

This is by no means to start a whole to-do about whos right and whos wrong, I just think sportsbikers get a bad rap (sometimes rightfully so) because of the douchebags among us, whereas cruisers tend to get overlooked for various reasons.

[Honclfibr]

If you look at the original article, it gives statistics:

In an Institute analysis of deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles, supersport drivers had a death rate of 22.6 in 2000 and 22.5 in 2005. Sport and unclad sport bikes, which are similar to supersports, had the next highest death rates at 10.8 for 2000 and 10.7 for 2005. Death rates for other types of motorcycles were much lower. Cruisers and standard motorcycles had a combined death rate of 5.6 in 2000 and 5.7 in 2005. The death rate for touring motorcycles was 5.3 in 2000, rising to 6.5 in 2005. Overall motorcycle driver deaths rose 59 percent between 2000 and 2005, and the overall death rate climbed to 7.5 driver deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles from 7.1.

As pointed out, there is a trend towards balance between sportbike death rates and cruiser/tourer death rates over the last few years, but the death rate is still nearly 400% higher for sportbike riders than cruiser riders. We're getting better, but we still suck ass.

[Honclfibr]

Wait, so you're looking at the change in mortality rate for *all* people aged 20-24 and 40-44 as an indication of *motorcycle fatalities*? That's pretty bogus math considering the small percentage of people that own motorcycles. Not to mention things like advances in medicine, safety, etc.

Implying that a change in the 20-24 age range death rates from 83-03 has anything at at to with motorcycle fatalities is pretty much completely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Pittenger5

Well if anyone knows me at all, I LOOOOOVE statistics, even though they can be manipulated to prove anything you want.
From the CDC
Mortality rates
Ages from 20-24 1983: 5.0, 1993: 3.0, 2003: 2.4
Ages from 40-44 1983: 1.2, 2003: 1.0, 2003: 1.9
So in this case, and we can place the assumption the 20-24 year olds would be MORE sportbike oriented (I cant find any seperation for sure) and the 40-44 would be more cruiser oriented (once again) Since 2003 the younger people mortality rate has dropped by more than 50%, the mortality rate from 40-44 has actually risen. Obviously, before someone comes at me, I know a lot of younger people ride cruisers and older people ride sport bikes, but Id venture to say the majority do not. Its the best I can do (once again using statistics as I can to prove my point.)
As for alcohol impairment, across the board from 2003, motorcycle fatalities based on impairment dropped. EXCEPT in the age range from 55-59, where it went up from 16.7% in 1983 to 21.1% in 2003.
Trends in Motorcycle Fatalities Associated with Alcohol-Impaired Driving --- United States, 1983--2003

This is by no means to start a whole to-do about whos right and whos wrong, I just think sportsbikers get a bad rap (sometimes rightfully so) because of the douchebags among us, whereas cruisers tend to get overlooked for various reasons.

[Pittenger5]

Im sorry, I didnt clarify, those are motorcycle fatality rates by age group, not across the board. Its in the article I linked to.
And Id love to see the original data gathered that they're refering to in the article, something just doesnt seem a whole lot right in those statistics, comparing the CDCs with that data. Of course, Im biased to lean more towards a government agency than "institute analysis".

[Pittenger5]

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by auto insurers"

The data that was quoted in the roadracing world article comes from this group, which is funded by the insurance industry. Conflict of interest perhaps?
Once again, Im more biased toward government studies.

[Honclfibr]

Ahh, ok, that makes a bit more sense if it's a motorcycle fatality study.

As far as bias from an insurance institute study, what would the insurance companies have to gain by skewing data in favor of one type of motorcycle over another?

[Pittenger5]

Originally Posted by Honclfibr

As far as bias from an insurance institute study, what would the insurance companies have to gain by skewing data in favor of one type of motorcycle over another?

From the same article
"Supersports are zooming in popularity, with registrations up 83 percent in 2005 compared with 2000"

Im not saying theres a complete bias, but there could be a reason.
It just seems to me that some of those numbers seem fishy. From the CDC article it seems older riders have more of a death rate, once again, this is why I cant prove it, but that supersport riders in this article have a death rate 4 times that of cruisers, something just doesnt seem to add up somewhere.

[BMFR6]

I havent read everything, but if sportbikes are selling faster than touring bikes, i would imagine the insurance companies would increase the cost of insurance for sportbikes based on that data. a means to capitilze on a hot market.

just a thought.

[Honclfibr]

Originally Posted by Pittenger5

From the same article
"Supersports are zooming in popularity, with registrations up 83 percent in 2005 compared with 2000"

Im not saying theres a complete bias, but there could be a reason.
It just seems to me that some of those numbers seem fishy. From the CDC article it seems older riders have more of a death rate, once again, this is why I cant prove it, but that supersport riders in this article have a death rate 4 times that of cruisers, something just doesnt seem to add up somewhere.

Even the CDC article shows that younger riders have a higher death rate, just that the difference is narrowing between younger and older riders over the past years.

Younger riders prefer sportbikes more than older riders. Younger riders have a higher ratio of fatalities than older riders. Sportbikes have a higher ratio of fatalities than other bikes. Now, whether the higher percentage of younger rider fatalities is due to the fact that they ride high-powered sportbikes, or the higher percentage of sportbike fatalities is due to the fact that they are ridden by younger, less experienced riders...that is a more interesting debate.

[Honclfibr]

Originally Posted by BMFR6

I havent read everything, but if sportbikes are selling faster than touring bikes, i would imagine the insurance companies would increase the cost of insurance for sportbikes based on that data. a means to capitilze on a hot market.

just a thought.

They're increasing in popularity, but still a small percentage of the overall market. Insurance companies would increase their revenue more by increasing premiums on cruiser riders, which are a larger segment of the market, than sportbike riders.

[Pittenger5]

Its also funny how the article has this whole headline about how sportsbikes are so dangerous, then a little blurb in the middle how cruiser riders are a little less than twice as likely to be impaired when they crash, then they go on that sportbikes need to be regulated by the factory or the government. But nothing about alcohol abuse.

[Pittenger5]

I think also the status of the people has to do with raising premiums, if they tried to exponentially raise cruiser rates there would be a whole upheavel, since they have the status in the community, as well as other bargaining tools, such as other insurance policies they can threaten to move etc, than if they raise sportbike rates.

[akira700]

article states:
"Speed was cited in 57 percent of supersport riders fatal crashes in 2005 and 46 percent of the fatal crashes of sport and unclad sport riders. Speed was a factor in 27 percent of fatal crashes among riders on cruisers and standards and 22 percent on touring motorcycles."

So speed was the issue in only 27% of fatal crashes among riders of cruisers.
I then take this to mean that most of the other 73% who died, did so because of inability to TURN their nasty over weight beasts away from on coming traffic even at normal legal speeds !

Point is: We need to see the raw data here. These little blurbs are just not telling the whole story.

[Pittenger5]

Well after all this arguing, I still dont buy into that studies data for a number of reasons, since they dont have anywhere to see the raw data and where they get their information from. But its just another excuse to try and limit or ban something that most people dont like. Damn kids and their crotch rockets.

[CMG241]

Funny-Channel 4 CBS Boston ran a story last nite that motorcycle deaths are up by 6 billion percent or so and how Honda is allegedly promoting reckless riding.

[Pittenger5]

Well, motorcycle deaths are up like 47% since 1993. Of course, they forget to mention motorcycle registrations are up 51% or something in that same time period.
Like was said, you can use statistics to prove whatever you want.

Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." ~~Mark Twain

[benVFR]

You guys can try as hard as you want to try and figure out some way they're biased, but they're not, Honclfibr is right and BJ is trying to manipulate things in that article.

All the insurance industry cares about when doing a study like this is how to adjust their rates.

The cold hard #s there indicate if you ignore *who* is riding the bike and just consider the type of bike as a variable, sportbikes are more dangerous. The key number would seem to be claims divided by total policies for each type of bike.

But none of this is new and it doesn't mean sportbikes should be banned or anything like that.. just accept the fact that if you're 21 and you want to ride a GSX-R 1000 in your first year of riding you're going to be paying a lot more money then a 35 year old guy with 14 years of experience riding a Sportster or a Gold Wing... that is the exact same situation that we have now.

If there is anything to fight against it's if someone tries to say this means Sportbikes should be banned.. they shouldn't, people just need to realize they're going to continue to pay high insurance premiums.

The real danger is if Sportbike death rates keep going up.. if it gets bad enough and the bike truly becomes the most important variable that is the point at which the policies wills top getting written or enough people are unable to afford the insurance, causing sportbike sales to tank. Because there are fewer of us riding then cruiser riders my guess is we are a lot more vulnerable.

[CMG241]

Make helmets mandatory nationwide.