Do Statistics tell the truth? | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Do Statistics tell the truth?

MTO compiles that raw data yearly (i think?!) and it makes for interesting reads/reports.

They do every year, but the access is cryptic and poorly laid out or explained.

The British MT does a much, much better job, with breakdowns of crash types, time of day, etc.

Too many crashes are still "loss of control" single bikes. The reported numbers are far below reality, because no one reports a single-bike accident unless they have to.

Still to much alcohol involved, and just staying off the roads Friday and Saturday nights can have a huge effect on risk.
 
Motorcycle Commentary

In response to the J.D. Power and Associates 2010 U.S. Motorcycle Competitive Information Study, which reveals that the average rider age has increased from 40 in 2001 to 49 in 2010, and the percentage of first-time motorcycle buyers has declined for a second consecutive year, Jim Gianatsis of FastDates.com wrote the following piece:

This is a devastating statistic for the motorcycle industry. With the median age of motorcycle buyers (and hence riders) going up by one year of age, in each of the last nine years.

That essentially means no young new riders are coming into the sport, and sales are dropping at a devastating rate of 5-10% per year, no matter what the economy does to improve.

If this trend continues, in 10-20 years when the current median rider age of 49 years old reaches 60-70 years old, and riders die off/stopping buying motorcycles, there will be effectively no new motorcycles sold in America.

New motorcycle sales have already dropped some 30-70% among manufacturers in the last three years because of the economic collapse in America. This new riders Median Age statistic report means that even if the U.S. economy improves 5-10% per year in the coming years, new motorcycle and product sales will never increase from where they have fallen today, because of the demographics growing older in age at a similar rate–a very disconcerting prognosis.

The only way to turn this around is to sell affordable priced, financed, and insured entry level motorcycles and scooters to teen angers with their parent’s blessing that are as cheap and easy to purchase, insure and operate as $2,000 used car.

We don’t see that happening with TV shows like Stunt Rider on The Speed Channel serving as the only street bike role model for kids, and the statistic that motorcyclists are seven-times more likely to killed in a road accident compared to automobile drivers.

Not since the "You Meet the Nicest People on a Honda" ad campaign of the 1960s has a motorcycle manufacturer really targeted the entry level / new rider market.

And all of us in the motorcycle media are guilty of perpetuating this decline in new riders, because we only feature high end and middleweight motorcycles that only affluent older riders can afford to buy.

When is the last time a U.S. motorcycle publication ran a cover feature story on motor scooters and practical 125cc street bikes that a high school/college kid could afford to buy? Never.

We have all helped to kill off the entry-level motorcycle market. It’s all our faults and the industry is coming down around us because of it.

Kudos to Honda for introducing the new $3,995 affordable CBR250R street sportbike for 2011, but it’s still may be too expensive and sporty for what most entry level riders need. It needs to have scooter practicality for carrying school books, gym gear, and a passenger.

Like many of you I was at the IMS Long Beach Show this past weekend. I think I remember seeing about five 20-something-year-olds the day I was there–no one under 20 years. Mostly everyone was 35 years and older. The Los Angles International Auto Show two weeks earlier had a much younger demographic.

We all need to think about promoting and selling entry-level motorcycles in America before the sport dies off, and we put ourselves out of business.

Jim Gianatsis, Gianatsis Design Associates
FastDates.com
 
Last edited:
I've heard from several sources that most motorcycle fatalities involve riders over 45. I don't dispute this fact. I only want to find out why this is. Is it because older riders are reckless and unskilled, or is it because the older demographic (age 45-65) is over represented in the motorcycle population. I suspect the answer is that there are more of us old farts out there, but I would like every one to post links to some solid demographic research that sheds some light on this question. American information is fine as our Canadian stats may be harder to obtain.

If my theory proves to be true. What future does our sport have with so few young riders entering the market (possibly due to insurance prices)?

Look at the numbers closely and be suspicious of those who have an agenda. I looked into the motorcycle fatality stats years ago and found that although the statistical data tell the truth, the "studies" concocted from them are very, very, skewed. There are a lot of factors to consider: rapid rises in registrations mean an influx of new inexperienced riders and almost always results in more fatalities. As posted in another thread, todays motorcyclists are less likely to be involved in a fatal accident than ever and the gradual trend in deaths is DOWN. Perhaps as you say, this is due to an ageing demographic, or it may be fewer people riding their bikes, or it may just be there are no new young riders getting into the sport. One thing is for sure - the squares don't like motorcycles and they'll do anything to discourage young people from riding. Look at the Ontario Road Safety Annual Report for a comprehensive view of the trends. It is concerning though that few young riders are entering the sport, I blame insurance mostly because used motorcycles are relatively cheap.
 
Last edited:
Stats are worth looking at to see how you can modify your position in your group. If alcohol is part of the stats you can decline the bar to bar poker runs and change your risk percentages. etc.
 
[h=1]Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.[/h] [h=2]Homer Simpson[/h]
 
Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Homer Simpson
+ 1,next year it will probably be a different age group ,a ten year study might give better info
 
We can question the data all day long but one fact remains. There are not enough new riders entering the sport. Its a sad fact.
 
We can question the data all day long but one fact remains. There are not enough new riders entering the sport. Its a sad fact.

10 years ago I thought that motorcycle is a suicide weapon on two wheels. 7 years ago I got interested in bikes, my boss at that time was racing an old Ninja. He showed me a different perspective. It took me two years to convince my better half and I never regreted the decision of getting a bike. People don't know what the don't know. So far I managed to convert two guys to get their M1/M2s. Unfortunately one bought the bike he can't register and the other polishes his bike more than he rides it. But what can I do about it? I took quite a few friends for a quick ride with me. Reaction is priceless. They won't run to the dealer to buy a bike right away, but who knows may be in a few years, when they reach mid-life crisis....

And as for the stats. Yes, we have more older riders. What's average mileage per year? Any stats on that? A young fellow on super sport and older dude taking regular week long trips to the States? I would guess that older riders put more miles, however I could be wrong.
 
It's likely that the touring-oriented riders will put on more annual mileage and also be older (few twentysomethings ride Gold Wings) but it's also not likely that collision frequency is in proportion to annual mileage.

Who is more likely to crash - someone who puts on just a few kilometers per year and thus never really gets proper experience, or someone who has been around the block several times over and has seen and been through and dealt with just about everything?

Who is more likely to crash - someone who has done 200,000 km of riding in straight lines on America's interstates, or someone who has commuted in the city for a decade, or someone who has done a thousand laps of Shannonville, or someone who has done motocross, or someone who has done ALL of that? The straight-liner won't know corners and might not know traffic. The city commuter won't know high speed. The track-only rider won't know (non-race) traffic and neither will the motocrosser. I think the more different experiences you have, the better off you are.
 
Young people bounce better.

And this is why I do not wish to become a UFO again at my age. Bad enough the first time. :)
 
It's likely that the touring-oriented riders will put on more annual mileage and also be older (few twentysomethings ride Gold Wings) but it's also not likely that collision frequency is in proportion to annual mileage.

Who is more likely to crash - someone who puts on just a few kilometers per year and thus never really gets proper experience, or someone who has been around the block several times over and has seen and been through and dealt with just about everything?

Who is more likely to crash - someone who has done 200,000 km of riding in straight lines on America's interstates, or someone who has commuted in the city for a decade, or someone who has done a thousand laps of Shannonville, or someone who has done motocross, or someone who has done ALL of that? The straight-liner won't know corners and might not know traffic. The city commuter won't know high speed. The track-only rider won't know (non-race) traffic and neither will the motocrosser. I think the more different experiences you have, the better off you are.

Agreed. I have all of that but then I believe that complacency becomes a real danger after time. And ego.
 
We can question the data all day long but one fact remains. There are not enough new riders entering the sport. Its a sad fact.

I think that is changing. Everywhere I look I see brand new 125 and 250 beginner bikes with the big four making a new model every year. The push is there.
 
Which truth?
 
It's likely that the touring-oriented riders will put on more annual mileage and also be older (few twentysomethings ride Gold Wings) but it's also not likely that collision frequency is in proportion to annual mileage.

Who is more likely to crash - someone who puts on just a few kilometers per year and thus never really gets proper experience, or someone who has been around the block several times over and has seen and been through and dealt with just about everything?

Who is more likely to crash - someone who has done 200,000 km of riding in straight lines on America's interstates, or someone who has commuted in the city for a decade, or someone who has done a thousand laps of Shannonville, or someone who has done motocross, or someone who has done ALL of that? The straight-liner won't know corners and might not know traffic. The city commuter won't know high speed. The track-only rider won't know (non-race) traffic and neither will the motocrosser. I think the more different experiences you have, the better off you are.

Someone in their third year of riding.
 
As Mr Twain said, "lies, damn lies and statistics". But if what you posit is true, then look for some great deals on new and used bikes in the next 10-15 years! Supply and demand!
 
It's likely that the touring-oriented riders will put on more annual mileage and also be older (few twentysomethings ride Gold Wings) but it's also not likely that collision frequency is in proportion to annual mileage.

Who is more likely to crash - someone who puts on just a few kilometers per year and thus never really gets proper experience, or someone who has been around the block several times over and has seen and been through and dealt with just about everything?

Who is more likely to crash - someone who has done 200,000 km of riding in straight lines on America's interstates, or someone who has commuted in the city for a decade, or someone who has done a thousand laps of Shannonville, or someone who has done motocross, or someone who has done ALL of that? The straight-liner won't know corners and might not know traffic. The city commuter won't know high speed. The track-only rider won't know (non-race) traffic and neither will the motocrosser. I think the more different experiences you have, the better off you are.
+1
Additionally, the increase in the median age of riders is naturally going to result in the age of riders killed being higher.
I do think that overall, the single biggest factor is that many "returning" riders rely on the experience they garnered 20 earlier. They don't realise just how much traffic, bikes, and their own skills have changed. Nor are they fully aware of just how bad most car drivers are nowadays, from lacking simple courtesy to believeing that a hundred hours playing GTA IV equals "mad skillz" behind the wheel to those who can't even read enough English to understand the word STOP.
100% of people die; it's the how and when that we need to pay attention to.
 

Back
Top Bottom