Total Motorcycle Community Forums

The National (USA) Highway Traffic Safety Administration's most recent "numbers" release. Under "Traffic Safety Fact Sheets" click on Motorcycle...

I found it very interesting, that in relation to "vehicle miles travelled" both fatalities AND injuries actually declined from 2005 to 2006.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nh ... 0dba046a0/

On the second page, there's a state by state breakdown of motorcycle fatalities comparing helmet/no helmet and impaired/not impaired for the year 2007.

What I found profoundly puzzling is that in Alabama, of 80 killed, 91% of riders killed were wearing helmets and 9% were not, yet in Iowa, of 54 killed, the numbers are reversed. How odd...

Not surprising is that most of the "helmet optional" states had triple digit death rates.

P

AL does seem to be interesting in it's numbers.

I'm not at all surprised that the no-helmet states have higher numbers. However, I still don't support helmet/seat belt/other 'for your own good' laws for adults. It's not the State's job to protect you from yourself, but to protect you from others. <sigh>

Even so, I think you're an idiot for not riding w/ a helmet or driving w/o a seatbelt. But I do think you should have the option of choosing to be an idiot.

Similar laws to protect minors are a good thing. The state should protect minors from their idiot parents.

</soapbox>

Odd thing too from 97 -07 the percentage of fatalities for us 40+ increased dramatically, about half of all fatalities. *

* Page 4

poet wrote:Odd thing too from 97 -07 the percentage of fatalities for us 40+ increased dramatically, about half of all fatalities. *

* Page 4

It's not odd, it's baby boomers buying bikes, thinking they know how to ride because they rode something that classified as a motorcycle in the 60s for a month or two. Add that to midlife crisis purchase decisions and voila.

Batan wrote: It's not odd, it's baby boomers buying bikes, thinking they know how to ride because they rode something that classified as a motorcycle in the 60s for a month or two. Add that to midlife crisis purchase decisions and voila.

Does that mean me?

Well, Alabama has a helmet law. Most fatalities would be helmeted. There can still be non-helmeted fatalities if not everyone obeys that law, but hopefully, they will be a much smaller percentage.

poet wrote:

Batan wrote: It's not odd, it's baby boomers buying bikes, thinking they know how to ride because they rode something that classified as a motorcycle in the 60s for a month or two. Add that to midlife crisis purchase decisions and voila.

Does that mean me?

Well, I don't know... does it?
Even the fact that you are on this forum, talking about this probably means you're not one of the group, even if the age fits.

More riders are getting the necessary training to ride, especially with gas prices on the rise. Also with gas prices on the rise more cagers are seeing bikers, still a large amount are still blind.

JC Viper wrote:More riders are getting the necessary training to ride, especially with gas prices on the rise.

Related to this is that riders who buy motorcycles for economical transportation (rather than as a hobby) might be less likely to ride recklessly than hobbyists.

It's a lot to assume though. Do we know that a larger percentage of new riders are getting training?

I found it surprising to realize that Maryland (a helmet law state), has a similar helmet/no helmet fatality ratio to Alabama.

Given my own "analysis" of local news reports of motorcycle fatalities, most seem to involve speed, or spring rides (the first warm days of spring always brings out rusty riders) gone horribly wrong.

P