• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

  • Beginning April 1st, and running through April 30th, there is a new 2024 BMW MOA Election discussion area within The Club section of the forum. Within this forum area is also a sticky post that provides the ground rules for participating in the Election forum area. Also, the candidates statements are provided. Please read before joining the conversation, because the rules are very specific to maintain civility.

    The Election forum is here: Election Forum

NY Times On HLDI Study: Helmets & ABS Good, Safety Courses Not Effective

exgman

Active member
Here's something I found online in the NYTimes website today. Looks like it was posted online yesterday. Seems to be a distillation of Highway Loss Data Institute information:


Motorcycle Training Does Not Reduce Crash Risk, Study Says
By CHERYL JENSEN
Courses designed to make new motorcyclists safer are not decreasing crashes, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute, an affiliate of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. However, research also shows that helmets and antilock brakes on motorcycles are life savers.

“We are not saying they aren’t supposed to get training, but we need to have realistic expectations about what training can do,” said Anne McCartt, the senior vice president for research at the Insurance Institute, which is funded by the insurance industry.

These findings are part of a number of studies the institutes have just released on motorcycles. The groups have looked at antilock brakes, helmet laws and rider training programs to see what role they play in keeping riders safe and preventing deaths.

The issue is that as ridership has increased, so has the number of fatal crashes. Motorcycle registrations rose to 7.7 million in 2008, which is up from 4.3 million in 2000, according to R.L. Polk & Company data. Rider deaths topped 5,000 in 2008, more than in any year since 1975, when the government began collecting fatal crash data.

Eight out of 10 motorcycle crashes result in injury or death, compared with two out of 10 car crashes, the study found. It makes sense, because motorcycle riders don’t ride in a cocoon with crush space, seat belts and airbags to protect them.

But some things do help prevent deaths.

The study shows that motorcycles with antilock brakes are 37 percent less likely to be involved in fatal crashes, and buyers can now find them on at least 60 new models, according to the institute. And helmets reduce the likelihood of a death in a crash by 37 percent.

What is not so certain are the safety benefits of mandatory training programs for young drivers in some states. The study compared insurance claims in four states that require riders under 21 to take courses with states that do not. The study noted a 10 percent increase in crashes in states that required the courses.

But that finding wasn’t “statistically significant,” Ms. McCartt said. That means the increase might or might not be real, although the institute found it worth noting. “It is important that it was going in the opposite direction of what people would expect,” she said.

While it seems counterintuitive that more education couldn’t be a good thing, this finding is similar to other research on driver education for teenagers that has concluded that driver education hasn’t been shown to reduce car crashes, Ms. McCartt said.

“I certainly think it is compelling that rider training classes don’t seem to be keeping people safer,” she said. “People need to know how to operate motorcycles, and I think a training course would be a good way for someone to learn how to do that.”

But, she said, it may be that a training class does not change the “potential risk-taking behaviors that are associated with crashes – speeding, alcohol, the type of bike you are riding. There is a lot a class can’t do.”

Robert Gladden, the general manager of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation — an industry-sponsored group that promotes safety through rider training and education, operator licensing tests and public information programs — said he had no comment on the findings because the foundation “would have to spend quite a bit of time going through their data to either verify or validate it.”
 
Anything the insurance industry has to say about anything is motivated by increasing their profits and nothing else. :bluduh
 
Anything the insurance industry has to say about anything is motivated by increasing their profits and nothing else. :bluduh

:ha

add to that the fact that the story is in the new york times!

seriously, it would not surprise me at all that the basic MSF course hasn't made a real impact on safety. it was pretty much an invention of the Motorcycle Industry Council to get more butts into seats while minimizing product liability lawsuits.

i wish the licensing certifications in the USA were more strict, and had a strong training component.

ian
 
I think the reader-comments following the actual article are well worth visiting.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/201...aining-does-not-reduce-crash-risk-study-says/

I find this last statement by Mr. Gladden curiously frustrating. The industry as a whole is rarely visited by professional research, so why not take the time to go through the data, whatever the source? This seems a bit lazy and reactionary to me.

Robert Gladden, the general manager of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation ÔÇö an industry-sponsored group that promotes safety through rider training and education, operator licensing tests and public information programs ÔÇö said he had no comment on the findings because the foundation ÔÇ£would have to spend quite a bit of time going through their data to either verify or validate it.ÔÇØ

i wish the licensing certifications in the USA were more strict, and had a strong training component.
+1. Now that's something I'd get behind.
 
:ha

add to that the fact that the story is in the new york times!

seriously, it would not surprise me at all that the basic MSF course hasn't made a real impact on safety. it was pretty much an invention of the Motorcycle Industry Council to get more butts into seats while minimizing product liability lawsuits.

i wish the licensing certifications in the USA were more strict, and had a strong training component.

ian

yeah, well like the article pointed out, training won't change the fact that young folks think they are immune to death, I know I was in my 20's! :lol (based on the fact I'm still here and considering what I did, how I rode on motorcycles and just life in general!)

I wish they would crack down on licensing and make it nearly impossible to get one now, way to many bikers out there and I'm getting REALLY tired of waving all the time! my left arm is proportionally way out of scale with right! (no, really..:bolt)

RM
 
I wish they would crack down on licensing and make it nearly impossible to get one now, way to many bikers out there and I'm getting REALLY tired of waving all the time! my left arm is proportionally way out of scale with right! (no, really..:bolt)

RM

:laugh

no, really... at a minimum i feel that we should have a graduated licensing system.

the fact that a kid can go out and buy a "boosa" without any training or restriction whatsoever is absolutely nuts.
 
Quoted in part from the article:

""What is not so certain are the safety benefits of mandatory training programs for young drivers in some states. The study compared insurance claims in four states that require riders under 21 to take courses with states that do not. The study noted a 10 percent increase in crashes in states that required the courses.""


I seem to recall reading that the largest group currently suffering Motorcycle highway deaths were middle aged men presumably re-entering the fold after a lengthy time away from bikes.

Could the insurance industry be using a "smoke screen"?

Remember when Joan Claybrook head of NHTSA under the Carter administration came out against training for motorcyclists. Her reason was that motorcycling was just too dangerous period any training offered would simply encourage people to their untimely deaths.

Some things never go away.
 
yeah, well like the article pointed out, training won't change the fact that young folks think they are immune to death, I know I was in my 20's! :lol

Ah yes, my first lesson:

"Don't use the front brake, it will put you over the handlebars."

Beyond that, all I could find for training materials in 1970 was one book. It was an antediluvian predecessor to the David Hough books.
 
The problem with the MSF courses is that they teach you how to operate a 250cc motorcycle in a parking lot. I operate a 1150cc motorcycle on busy roads and highways.

We need to employ the British model, where a strict licensing examiner follows you around, critiquing your riding skills. Unskilled riders must take courses and exams until they pass.

Here in the U.S., spend a couple hours walking a Honda Rebel around a parking lot, take a written test the examiner won't let you fail, and you've got your license. It's a complete and total joke.
 
:laugh

no, really... at a minimum i feel that we should have a graduated licensing system.

the fact that a kid can go out and buy a "boosa" without any training or restriction whatsoever is absolutely nuts.

That is a serious issue...especially around Ft Hood and soldiers stationed there or coming home from overseas...It got so bad the base commander stepped in with required minimal training before you came on his base. Lot's of fatalities in the area with his soldiers on very fast bikes.

Doesn't Great Britain have a graduated license system?
 
That report forget to mention the increase in safety by having LOUD PIPES!!!

:whistle


:laugh
 
That report forget to mention the increase in safety by having LOUD PIPES!!!

:whistle


:laugh

I was discussing "loud pipes save lives" with a fellow rider last night. He was an adherent to the mantra. I mentioned the "Doppler Effect" as a reason as to why "loud pipes save lives" is a failed theory. He looked at me as if I had three heads on top of my shoulder.

This often is the result when physics trump an urban legend.
 
Ms. McCartt of the IIHS admits that there was no statistically significant increase in motorcycle accidents in 4 states which require under 21 year olds to take a training course, she then goes on to talk as if there was a significant difference.

PT9766

PT, I think her premise wasn't that the difference was statistically significant or not but the direction that the statistics point to which, unless some anomaly, IS significant.

What I feel is MOST significant is what OfficerImpersonator posted. That the MSF BRC is just that - a course that teaches you how to operate a motorcycle. Granted, some percentage of folks who take the course already have SOME operator knowledge/skill. Note the use of the word "operator" because operation and riding are two different things. Knowing how to launch without hiccups and stalling, how to brake without skidding or going over the handlebars, knowing how to turn, etc are all OPERATING skills. They are taught on small bikes in parking lots with cones. But that is a FAR FAR cry from the skills necessary to become a competent RIDER.

Significant I think to point out here is that most if not all State-mandated driver education courses require student drivers to complete some amount of actual seat time, on the open road with an instructor. In this case now, not only is the student learning how to OPERATE a vehicle but s/he is learning how to DRIVE a car. NONE of this happens with BRCs or even ERCs. And it gets even worse when a State (like Maine for instance) allows a new rider to simply take an 8-hour permit course involving ONLY classroom instruction and then sends them on their way with permit in hand to start riding. Go! Have fun!

Given that, perhaps it is no surprise what the statistics show? The BRC giving new riders a false sense of security? I don't know, that's an awful lot of false senses but.... The fact still remains that the US is WOEFULLY inadequate in its requirements for MC education and rider instruction.

I would be interested to know what the helmet laws are in the 4 states requiring training referenced in the article? Maine requires riders under 18 to wear helmets (don't get me started....)
 
Well.. There you go?? Read some of the blog posts after the article and:

"No surprise. I sent my 16 yr old son to a winter driving safety course. He did come out with better winter driving skills but then he drove commensurately more fearlessly. Sending him to the course kind of backfired."
 
And I guess this all brings up the question - how DO you train a better RIDER without causing injury in the training process? My RS has ABS. I've felt it kick in once, briefly. Other than that, I've never "panic-stopped" with it however I have experimented.
 
Well.. There you go?? Read some of the blog posts after the article and:

"No surprise. I sent my 16 yr old son to a winter driving safety course. He did come out with better winter driving skills but then he drove commensurately more fearlessly. Sending him to the course kind of backfired."

:ha

hey, it's like riding or driving in europe. people go fast, but they know wtf they're doing! :thumb
 
PT, I am not debating your math at all. But she does make it clear (at least to me) that people would EXPECT there to be a statistical difference in the OTHER direction. Yes, perhaps 10% was within the statistical margin of error but she is pointing out that the direction of the "margin" was counter-intuitive to what most would expect. Had it been 10% LESS but still within the margin of error, it is likely that some would still find it surprising, not of the direction of the difference, but that the percentage difference was so small?
 
Back
Top