Over a decade of riding... joined the "those who have crashed" club

Damn Derek sorry to hear about this but glad you are okay!!!!

 

i wish everyone had to take a race school on track not just some drivers Ed in a parking lot which does nothing

 

In Oregon it is now mandatory to do Motorcycle Safety Class. Obviously not the equivalent of a trackday, but it's an entire weekend course with 50% books, 50% riding tests. When I took mine they were very strict and if they didn't think you took it seriously, your money was not refunded and you did not get your certification. I don't know if it's still that way today, but at least it's mandatory here. I agree though, that sounds like it would be a great learning experience for people. I feel the same way about autocross. I feel like people should have to do autocross or an HPDE day to understand exactly where the limits are instead of having to worry about when you're in a bad situation to find out.

Yikes! Yeah, these days 750cc is plenty of power, so is 600cc, they make more and more power every year. In the 70s or 80s bikes, something that big would probably be "ok" but most of the fuel injected bikes just started getting stupid fast even in the 600-750cc areas. I mean shit, Ducati now has what, a 1299 I think now? Supposedly 205hp. My 900cc SuperSport makes somewhere around 90 I believe, and I remember thinking, "Man I'm so glad I started on my Ninja 250, I'd have killed myself with this if I started with this bike..." Totally unnecessary power even with my 900SS.

 

 

My Ducati 1199R ...201hp easiest Bike I have ever ridden fast with all the electronics...saw 290kmh on track last year

Your wrist, skill ,training and common sense are more important than how powerful the bike is. Riding a 250 for 10 years with no lessons or advancement in skill isn't any better than buyng a fast bike if you don't have the aforementioned stuff

 

I'm not disputing that at all. I agree with you. But it's still easier to give yourself a larger room for error. You can do trackdays in a Diesel Rabbit, you can do them in a Ferrari. And of course, if you lack self control and common sense, get yourself in trouble with both. But it's going to hurt a lot less if you mess up going 40mph in a Diesel Rabbit (can they go that fast? ) than 120mph in a Ferrari.

Also BMW S1000RR...again so easy with all the electrionics to ride so fast

 

 

My Ducati 1199R ...201hp easiest Bike I have ever ridden fast with all the electronics...saw 290kmh on track last year

 

Yeah but how many bikes have you owned, trackdays have you done, etc. I can't say I'd recommend that to anyone getting their first street bike....

Maybe I should try one and find out just how easy it is

I'm not disputing that at all. I agree with you. But it's still easier to give yourself a larger room for error. You can do trackdays in a Diesel Rabbit, you can do them in a Ferrari. And of course, if you lack self control and common sense, get yourself in trouble with both. But it's going to hurt a lot less if you mess up going 40mph in a Diesel Rabbit (can they go that fast? ) than 120mph in a Ferrari.

 

At a certain point it doesn't matter. If you run down the street naked as fast as you can and throw yourself down the road you are gonna be fucked up. A 250 can go a lot faster than you can run . At a certain speed it doesn't matter if I hit an object at 70mph with my body or 140 mph I'm more than likely dead in both cases..

Yeah but how many bikes have you owned, trackdays have you done, etc. I can't say I'd recommend that to anyone getting their first street bike....

Maybe I should try one and find out just how easy it is

 

 

Yes my point is bikes are as fast as motogp bikes were a few years ago but now have all the electrionics to save your ass, traction control, power control so full power doesn't happen until higher gears not in first, wheelie control, ABS.

At a certain point it doesn't matter. If you run down the street naked as fast as you can and throw yourself down the road you are gonna be fucked up. A 250 can go a lot faster than you can run . At a certain speed it doesn't matter if I hit an object at 70mph with my body or 140 mph I'm more than likely dead in both cases..

 

I'm just making a point that it makes sense to limit oneself when they are a brand new rider than go full bore. Again, I agree with your points on control and common sense. I suppose I'm just an advocate for limiting the scope of potential error when beginning. Not everyone necessarily is going to, will want to, or feels the need to. Not everyone has the same skill set either. I prefer to advise on the potential cause for error, as it seems a vast majority of new riders who want sport bikes consider themselves valentino rossi and feel the need to prove it on the street. Not all, but many.

 

Yes my point is bikes are as fast as motogp bikes were a few years ago but now have all the electrionics to save your ass, traction control, power control so full power doesn't happen until higher gears not in first, wheelie control, ABS.

 

Valid point.

By that logic, all new drivers should start out with a Ferrari F40 or a supercar that is capable of 0-60 in 3 seconds or less. Learning to ride a motorcycle takes patience, lots of miles and breaking out of habits. You have to train yourself to handle it way differently than cars (countersteering, levers, the throttle, etc). You also have to understand how to properly modulate your brakes when stopping quickly and not cause yourself to lock up a rear. You basically have to teach yourself something brand new.

 

Is the best way to learn something new, putting yourself at the throttle of something wicked powerful? If you taught a 15 year old to drive, would the FIRST thing you put him in be a supercar?

 

Generally the crowd that makes that argument also will tell you that you need that performance to "get out of the way" of bad situations. However, I've learned that it is far quicker to use your brakes and slow down, than it is to attempt to speed up. Even more importantly is good habits of being aware of the traffic around you and not putting yourself in potentially dangerous predicaments with drivers on the road. Assume they want to kill you, assume they don't see you, assume they're an idiot and be very cautious.

 

I think it's probably a lot of young males, aged 16 - 25 that fall into the trap of, "I wanna buy me the most powerful thing I can get!" without taking into consideration the dangers.

i wish everyone had to take a race school on track not just some drivers Ed in a parking lot which does nothing

 

IMO driver's licenses are just a way for the government to further keep tabs on people. The requirements are very lenient because so many people have to drive. If we really required people meet serious requirements, a lot of people probably wouldn't be able to drive and it would probably mess up society, hence the lenient requirements.

I think it's probably a lot of young males, aged 16 - 25 that fall into the trap of, "I wanna buy me the most powerful thing I can get!" without taking into consideration the dangers.

 

 

Most deaths on bikes are guys over 40 having a midlife crisis on their cruiser

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcyc...#Age-and-gender

Most deaths on bikes are guys over 40 having a midlife crisis on their cruiser

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcyc...#Age-and-gender

 

Interesting statistics. I wonder if the number of total deaths is going up because of population vs total number of people riding each year new, or if there is other trends to that. Crazier to me that 29 percent of fatal accidents the rider was .08 or above BAC. I won't even ride if I've had one whole beer.

 

This one is even more crazy...

 

Fifty-three percent of motorcycle drivers killed at night (9 p.m.-6 a.m.) in 2012 had BACs at or above 0.08 percent.

I've created some artist renditions to recreate yesterday's event.

 

 

Most deaths on bikes are guys over 40 having a midlife crisis on their cruiser

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcyc...#Age-and-gender

 

I don't doubt that at all based on what I see in Coloardo. Cruisers ride bar to bar and nothing more so it is little surprise when they crash. Alcohol + no 2 wheel experience + Harley Davidson bandana instead of helmet = DEAD

Glad that you're okay.

 

For a brief moment I recall looking at the smashed turn signals on the road and thinking, "I really fcuking hated those turn signals, at least now I can order something better."

 

I am feeling a bit sad about bikes at the moment, have had them for pretty much all my life but over the last couple of years have started to get arthritis in my neck and have trouble looking behind and riding sport bikes.

Am going to sell my MV Agusta f41000 as that is just to much of a torture rack but will keep my Aprilia Tuono for this year as it is a naked and a much more upright riding position, if my neck holds up and it is not compromising my ability to ride safe I will probably stay with naked bikes. If it gets to a point where I feel unsafe I will hang up my helmet.

 

BTW, please always wear gear even if only for a 1/2 mile ride, distance has no bearing on an accident.

Glad you came out without major injuries.

I am feeling a bit sad about bikes at the moment, have had them for pretty much all my life but over the last couple of years have started to get arthritis in my neck and have trouble looking behind and riding sport bikes.

Am going to sell my MV Agusta f41000 as that is just to much of a torture rack

 

Two words for you... Ducati Hypermotard.

 

As a moto guy just looking at that bike I envision myself in traffic court.

Most deaths on bikes are guys over 40 having a midlife crisis on their cruiser

 

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcyc...#Age-and-gender

I'm not understanding the helmet use section. Am I reading that correctly that 59% of fatalities were wearing a helmet? If that's the case, then why would I care so much about a trend of increasing helmet use? Am I just being dense or isn't it a more useful/classic stat to establish how many motorcycle accidents resulted in fatalities with and without a helmet? Isn't that what legislators and insurers care about? Steer me straight.

I'm not understanding the helmet use section. Am I reading that correctly that 59% of fatalities were wearing a helmet? If that's the case, then why would I care so much about a trend of increasing helmet use? Am I just being dense or isn't it a more useful/classic stat to establish how many motorcycle accidents resulted in fatalities with and without a helmet? Isn't that what legislators and insurers care about? Steer me straight.

 

I saw that too. But correlation doesn't = Causation. Numbers and statistics are interesting, but sometimes I feel like the data is useless lol.

Glad you're ok. Heck what took you ten years I did in the first week of riding!

 

Be happy it wasn't more serious.

I'm not understanding the helmet use section. Am I reading that correctly that 59% of fatalities were wearing a helmet? If that's the case, then why would I care so much about a trend of increasing helmet use? Am I just being dense or isn't it a more useful/classic stat to establish how many motorcycle accidents resulted in fatalities with and without a helmet? Isn't that what legislators and insurers care about? Steer me straight.

 

It could have to do with a study showing the vast majority of impacts to motorcycle helmets occurred in the forehead to chin region. Since a most Harley riders wearing helmets have either a half helmet which covers just the top of the head, or open face helmets which cover the top/back/side of the head they aren't protecting the area with the highest likelihood of suffering an impact in a crash.

 

I'm not understanding the helmet use section. Am I reading that correctly that 59% of fatalities were wearing a helmet? If that's the case, then why would I care so much about a trend of increasing helmet use? Am I just being dense or isn't it a more useful/classic stat to establish how many motorcycle accidents resulted in fatalities with and without a helmet? Isn't that what legislators and insurers care about? Steer me straight.

 

I think that just says that the likelyhood of a fatal motorcycle accident is high no matter what. The real metric would be how many of those non fatal accidents were because of a helmet. Fact is, when you hit stopped car at 50mph, helmet or not you probably arent going to end up ok.

In a high speed crash on a hard impact, the helmet just keeps your head/brain relatively intact vs. being splattered across the back of a big-rig trailer.

 

At a certain point the laws of physics just deem your 200lbs of watery pulpy body loses the fight against several tons of metal.

I'm not understanding the helmet use section. Am I reading that correctly that 59% of fatalities were wearing a helmet? If that's the case, then why would I care so much about a trend of increasing helmet use? Am I just being dense or isn't it a more useful/classic stat to establish how many motorcycle accidents resulted in fatalities with and without a helmet? Isn't that what legislators and insurers care about? Steer me straight.

That stat is more related to the percentage of riders that are wearing helmets than anything else. Having a helmet on doesn't protect the rest of your vital organs. What is really missing is the percentage of riders who survive a wreck rather than die due to having a helmet on. As JK79 said, type of helmet plays a key role. Acording to the NHTSA close to 75% of riders wear a helmet. That is still a pretty big gap from the 59% that die wearing one.