Читать книгу Proficient Motorcycling - David L. Hough - Страница 15

I am frequently asked for “the truth” about motorcycle crashes, as if someone were trying to hide the evidence. The basic problem with statistics is figuring out how to collect and sort the data. It might seem that it would be a simple task to collect motorcycle fatality statistics from all the states, but the real-world situation is extremely complex. To get the big picture, all the states send in their own results to the feds. But different states have different rules for reporting crashes and fatalities. For instance, California reports motorcycle crashes that occur only on public streets and highways, including mopeds and motorized bicycles. By comparison, Missouri reports motorcycle crashes on public streets and highways plus nonpublic property, including off-highway motorcycles, mopeds, motorized bicycles, and three- or four-wheeled ATVs. Each state has different rules, so we have to temper the national results with a bit of common sense. (Source: MSF Motorcycle Crash Statistics, 2001.)

We do have statistics about motorcyclist fatalities that I believe are reliable. Back in the 1970s, there was a surge in motorcycle fatalities. Then, from 1980 until 1997, the motorcycle fatality totals gradually dropped, just as all other forms of transportation were getting safer. But around 1997, the trend reversed. Motorcycle sales began to increase, and the fatality numbers started climbing again. It may be helpful to look at the fatality rate as well as the total number of fatalities per year. The rate takes into account the relative number of motorcycles on the road. The most desirable way to calculate the fatality rate would be comparing fatalities with miles traveled, but I’m suspicious of any “miles traveled” number because that has to be a guess. The other way to calculate the rate is by comparing fatalities with motorcycle registrations. I believe registrations are more reliable, so that’s the rate I use for calculating.

In my opinion, if you ride primarily in city traffic, your specific risks are defined fairly well by the Motorcycle Accident Factors Study conducted by the Traffic Safety Center of the University of Southern California, in the late 1970s. The study has become known as simply the Hurt Report, after lead investigator Dr. Hugh “Harry” Hurt. The USC team investigated 1,100 motorcycle accidents that occurred in the greater Los Angeles area over a two-year period and analyzed 900 of those accidents for the report. I had an opportunity to interview Harry several years ago, and I asked specifically if he felt the report was still valid for this generation’s motorcyclists. Harry suggested that motorcyclists were having the same sort of crashes as in the 1970s but at higher speeds, and on more expensive bikes. So it’s still worthwhile to look to the Hurt Report for clues about today’s motorcycle crashes.

Let’s also note that the definitions have changed. Back in the days of the Hurt Report, unfortunate events were called accidents—as if no one could predict what was happening or do anything about it. But today unfortunate events are called crashes. We’re getting away from the concept of a motorcyclist being an accident victim because in most situations the people involved can observe what’s happening and take evasive action.

The majority of motorcycle crashes in the 1970s were collisions with other vehicles, mostly automobiles. Seventy-four percent were multivehicle—that is, at least one vehicle colliding with another. Twenty-six percent of motorcycle crashes were single vehicle, as when a bike slides out on gravel in a corner without involving another vehicle.

The important point of this big picture is that back in the 1970s almost 75 percent of motorcycle crashes were multivehicle collisions, and roughly half of those collisions were precipitated by auto drivers. About 25 percent of all city motorcycle crashes were collisions with left-turning cars. The two most common errors motorcyclists made were believing the other driver saw them and not taking any evasive action. For example, 32 percent of the riders who collided with other vehicles rode into a collision without taking any evasive action.

Today, that picture has changed slightly. According to a 2004 report of the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), 46 percent of fatal motorcycle crashes were single vehicle, and more fatalities occurred on rural roads than on urban streets. In single-vehicle fatal crashes, the motorcyclist collided with a fixed object in approximately 60 percent of the cases.

Only about one-fourth of all motorcycle crashes in the Hurt Report were precipitated by rider error: for example, the motorcyclist went wide in a turn and sideswiped a car or overcooked the rear brake trying to stop and slid out. That’s a clue that riders didn’t really understand how to control their motorcycles. Apparently, that trend continues. NCSA reported in 1999 that 30 percent of riders involved in fatal crashes didn’t take evasive action. Only 13 percent were attempting to brake, and 9 percent were attempting to steer out of trouble. If there is a lesson here, it is that motorcyclists would benefit from proficient control skills. For years we’ve been able to point the finger at other motorists as being the problem, but today it’s obvious that motorcyclists are responsible for at least half of fatal crashes.