Motorcycles cause 10% of traffic deaths in Ontario - Sunnybrook study | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Motorcycles cause 10% of traffic deaths in Ontario - Sunnybrook study

Complete bull. Wonder why none of these scholars in the acedemic peer reviewers recognized the gross error on the input data? MTO stats for 2016 show 1631 injuries for 220,000 registered motorcycles, or 727/100,0000 registered motorcycles. That's about 3 times less than the noted study which lists the number at 2194/100K registrations - a discrepency worth investigating I would think.

Do these people get paid to do this?

see MTO results at : http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/preliminary-2016-orsar-selected-statistics.pdf.

Gah, typed out a big reply and internal server error 500 threw it out for me.

TLDR: ORSAR looks mainly at police and coroner reports and for beginning of 2007 to end of 2012, MC injuries totaled 10,211. Academic report shows 26,831 injuries. Some of the difference of could easily be explained by crashes that police never knew about. Are almost 2/3 of MC injuries in crashes unreported to police? That seems high.

Statscan shows 153K to 210K MC registrations during that period. The primary reason for the huge discrepancy in injuries/100K vehicles between the study and your quick math (and a detailed look at previous ORSAR data) is the study attributed many more injuries to MC. I would be inclined to think that triage nurses will capture a realistic cause of injury and therefore the study is more accurate?
 
That report clearly shows that it is more dangerous to be a pedestrian then to ride a motorcycle. I feel much safer now :D
 
I also believe that old timers coming back thinking they know it already, are more dangerous than youngsters who admit that they don't.

I don't know I can agree with that.

On both sides of the fence there are people who pretend they know it all, both young, and old. I think all of us who have been around here for a while have seen plenty of the young know-it-all crowd, and a few of the old ones as well.

My thoughts on the matter are based on the difference in risk aversion between the two groups though. The young crowd are still at that stage in their life where they think they're invincible (look at the squid percentages) whereas the older crowd are long past that and they now realize that they are actually increasingly breakable. Also, a simple observation based on choice of motorcycles and the speed they operate them at.

Lastly, there's the fact that accident statistics are skewed by the fact the older guys tend to cover more miles. Whereas a new young rider on a sportbike may consider 1000KM to be a good year (a lot of the present company excluded, but there's a lot of above-average riders here), a lot of the older guys with more time and money on their hand might call that a single day or two of riding. Yeah, there's the statistical downward bell curve riders out there on both sides (The ones who never ride further than the local Timmies), but I trust everyone understands the bigger picture.

I'm sure someone can find stats that prove me wrong, but as those who have dug into the stats that this thread is based around, they should always be taken with a grain of salt as they can be skewed easily to fit an agenda or argument.
 
50-60yrs old. Been riding since I was a teenager...

Just so I know from what perspective you’re looking at this from, what age group are you in?
 
Somewhere in all that mess I read something about somebody wanting to improve motorcycle safety. Has anybody else noticed all of the guard rails that have been added to the 401 to prevent cars from crossing the centre ditch and creaming into oncoming traffic?

Guard-Rail-vs-Biker.jpg


Any idiot could have foreseen the problem being created there and any experienced motorcycle rider could have recommended one obvious preventative measure, do you suppose MOT gives a damn about motorcycle safety? I'm thinking no, it's not even an issue in their eyes and cost is paramount over motorcycle safety and our survivability. Dead riders don't require healthcare.
 
I'm thinking no, it's not even an issue in their eyes and cost is paramount over motorcycle safety and our survivability. Dead riders don't require healthcare.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Is there a motorcycle friendly highway barrier? Other than panels of steel or durisol (which will cheese grater you something fierce), what type of highway barriers keep a rider from going through/under?
 
So it sounds like the guv has mastered #fakenews and have proceeded to #fakescience. For your protection and their pleasure.
 
My thoughts on the matter are based on the difference in risk aversion between the two groups though. The young crowd are still at that stage in their life where they think they're invincible (look at the squid percentages) whereas the older crowd are long past that and they now realize that they are actually increasingly breakable. Also, a simple observation based on choice of motorcycles and the speed they operate them at.

Many old farts I see on big iron dress as badly as, if not worse, than "squids." Short sleeve Ts or Harley-themed wife-beaters or sleeveless vests and a tiny brain-bucket. At least most squids use a full-face helmet if little else. Most of these guys, even knowing their own mortality and frailty, refuse to eat right or exercise and thus are borderline morbidly obese, have poor muscle tone, little flexibility etc. Their choice of machinery is not based on them wanting to be safer, it's purely a fashion statement, as is the rest of their get-up. They ride as fast (or as slow) as they do because of the heft of the machines, the lack of capabilities of the machines, their own fears/limits etc.

Lastly, there's the fact that accident statistics are skewed by the fact the older guys tend to cover more miles.

Not sure where this fits into the analysis. While older guys on cruisers cover more miles, the places they're doing it -- controlled access highways or secondary roads -- don't have the same risks as those faced by the urban sport bike rider. While secondary roads have junctions and intersections these are nothing like the hazards posed at urban intersections, exits from malls and plazas etc. IOW, I can cover the distance from Toronto to Ottawa and probably face a fraction of the hazards of riding from Front & Bathurst to Bloor & Bayview.
 
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

Is there a motorcycle friendly highway barrier? Other than panels of steel or durisol (which will cheese grater you something fierce), what type of highway barriers keep a rider from going through/under?

Another design has an extra rail underneath the main top one, and it is specifically to stop riders from going underneath and/or coming into direct contact with the posts. It's still not great but a glancing hit is better than straight-on into a post.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.0678...M4poUP68SHOHHT-o94rg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

They are inconsistently applied. While looking for that shot (which happens to be near where I am now) the adjacent ramp doesn't have it, and just behind that shot closer to the start of that rail, it's there but it's mounted up too high to be effective. The adjacent ramp that doesn't have it is the cloverleaf loop (more likely to have a rider go down?) and if someone goes through underneath that guide rail, they'll end up on this ramp.

There are WORSE designs. The cable design (seen often on rural roads) is lethal. I knew someone who died by hitting one of those.

For the most part, Ontario roads are designed without consideration for motorcyclists at all. Unprotected poles directly beside the road, guide rails in places where they are not needed, cable-stayed guide rails, gravel shoulders (no escape route without crashing), no thought given to the location of maintenance hatches with steel covers (slippery when wet), concrete structures directly beside the lane allowing no escape route and with blunt impact surfaces (the recent reconstruction of Davis Drive in Newmarket comes to mind).
 
"[FONT=&quot]The study looked at 26,831 patients injured in motorcycle crashes and 281,826 injured in car crashes and excluded patients from outside the province.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It found 81 per cent of patients who were in motorcycle crashes were men compared with car crash patients who were 57 per cent female."

Ignoring the motorcycle part of this and focusing on the 57 per cent of car crash patients are female. I find that interesting and wonder why this would be true. Shouldn't that ratio be closer to 50%? Based on the sample size, I would think that 7% above the expectation is statistically significant and wonder what the root cause would be...[/FONT]
 
"[FONT="]The study looked at 26,831 patients injured in motorcycle crashes and 281,826 injured in car crashes and excluded patients from outside the province.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333][FONT="]It found 81 per cent of patients who were in motorcycle crashes were men compared with car crash patients who were 57 per cent female."

Ignoring the motorcycle part of this and focusing on the 57 per cent of car crash patients are female. I find that interesting and wonder why this would be true. Shouldn't that ratio be closer to 50%? Based on the sample size, I would think that 7% above the expectation is statistically significant and wonder what the root cause would be...[/FONT]

Interesting. I wonder if there is a statistical difference between men and women for km/year? I don't know which way the stats would fall though, do people that drive more km get in more crashes, or is the problem with those that drive very few km and therefore never really master driving? Insurance companies probably have much of this info (especially now with the driving recorders people are voluntarily installing in their vehicles).
 
]... Is there a motorcycle friendly highway barrier? Other than panels of steel or durisol (which will cheese grater you something fierce), what type of highway barriers keep a rider from going through/under?

oops, and here was me thinking it was obvious :|

BrianP spotted the danger and is on the right track, he must be an experienced rider, a nice bright yellow piece of plastic about half an inch thick and 12 inches high connected from one post to the next would almost completely prevent the rider from being decapitated or wrapped around the vertical posts. Then all you need to worry about is the cars behind running you over. In the event you do have a get-off, I highly recommend you get up and dive Over that barrier asap.

Incase you haven't noticed MOT is or has already installed this crap along most of the 401 wherever there isn't a rock cut or other physical barrier to prevent cars from crossing the medium and running head on into the opposing traffic. With typical duh, never though of that logic MOT has put these barriers tight to both lanes instead of just one barrier in the middle of the highway. They also never thought about planting trees :/ which would have also served to shield the drivers from the oncoming vehicle headlights, deadened sound and benefited the environment in the way only trees can. It has been my observation that a decent sized tree will stop almost any out of control vehicle pretty darn good.

Any idea how much of your vehicles insurance liability money goes towards repairing guard-rails and bridge abutments after a major accident? ... ya know the MOT can charge the insurance (us) for at least some of the cost encountered to facilitate repairs to those things! Who would you imagine could 'cause' that kind of damage to any significant extent, the motorcycles, the cars or the transport trucks ? lol maybe they need to do a study to answer that one.
 
Last edited:
oops, and here was me thinking it was obvious :|

BrianP spotted the danger and is on the right track, he must be an experienced rider, a nice bright yellow piece of plastic about half an inch thick and 12 inches high connected from one post to the next would almost completely prevent the rider from being decapitated or wrapped around the vertical posts.

I agree you want something to keep you out of the posts, I wondered what solutions had actually been implemented. Most affordable plastics have a tendency to shatter when hit hard. Brians picture with a lower metal railing is a great start, but it is still pretty high with what appear to be limb size gaps above or below. You were probably on to something with plastic, a strip of polycarb down from the metal rail and buried in the ground could take a lot of abuse and direct most objects (including riders) away from the posts. The problem is it will probably double the cost of the barrier and dead people don't cost the government much.

EDIT:
The beginning part of Brian's barrier is quite high in the air (as he pointed out). My guess is that lower rail is to strengthen to rail to catch trucks not actually to help riders.
 
Last edited:
I don't know I can agree with that. On both sides of the fence there are people who pretend they know it all, both young, and old. I think all of us who have been around here for a while have seen plenty of the young know-it-all crowd, and a few of the old ones as well. My thoughts on the matter are based on the difference in risk aversion between the two groups though. The young crowd are still at that stage in their life where they think they're invincible (look at the squid percentages) whereas the older crowd are long past that and they now realize that they are actually increasingly breakable. Also, a simple observation based on choice of motorcycles and the speed they operate them at. Lastly, there's the fact that accident statistics are skewed by the fact the older guys tend to cover more miles. Whereas a new young rider on a sportbike may consider 1000KM to be a good year (a lot of the present company excluded, but there's a lot of above-average riders here), a lot of the older guys with more time and money on their hand might call that a single day or two of riding. Yeah, there's the statistical downward bell curve riders out there on both sides (The ones who never ride further than the local Timmies), but I trust everyone understands the bigger picture. I'm sure someone can find stats that prove me wrong, but as those who have dug into the stats that this thread is based around, they should always be taken with a grain of salt as they can be skewed easily to fit an agenda or argument.
Go back and read again what I said. I'm talking about people who have years ago "mastered" their old motorcycle, and think nothing's changed, compared to fresh youngsters eager to learn. There are also older people who are eager to learn, and younger people who know everything, but older people tend to be a little more stubborn on these things. If you've ever seen a class where a couple or a father/mother and child take the same course, the first thing done is usually to separate them.
 
Now that i read the whole thing and not just the summary, they're saying in there that the elevated health cost could be a novel financial incentive to improve motorcycle safety (HOV lanes inclusion anyone?) to help mitigate the much higher risk associated to riding a motorcycle.
If i dare to quote "anecdotally, insurance companies raising their rates in response to private medical costs have already acted as a deterrent to motorcycle use"

So the Ontario gov't would be looking to recover some of those funds from insurance companies in light of this study. Wonder how the FSCO would take this


The way the study is worded makes it sound like gold for "motos are a reckless choice" in the media, but that's not the point they seem to be wanting to make.
 
Go back and read again what I said. I'm talking about people who have years ago "mastered" their old motorcycle, and think nothing's changed, compared to fresh youngsters eager to learn. There are also older people who are eager to learn, and younger people who know everything, but older people tend to be a little more stubborn on these things.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It's been my observation as someone who spends a lot of time as part of riding groups both big and small that the older crowd, both experienced and new alike, usually (not always, but usually) have safety first and foremost in mind. Yes, sometimes we are not always ATGATT and such (hypocritical from the safety standpoint, I admit, but I'm talking the bigger picture), but from an actual riding perspective we don't take risks, tend to ride at or near the speed limits, are courteous and conscientious around others (to not attract or spark road rage incidents) and generally try to put forth a good positive image.
 
Guys; nothing in that study actually relates to actual motorcycles or riders, Sunnybrook is a research Hospital, they don't have a clue about motorcycles or motorcycle safety, they are simply taking a sector of known patients, in this case; those they identified as have sustained serious injuries reported as motor vehicle related' and used that sub group to examine and report on their medical findings. They do the same thing with any identifiable group of patients that they can pigeonhole! They did it in the 1960's when new born children started showing up with horrific birth defects and that was eventually contributed to thalidomide use in pregnant females. It's left to somebody else to interpret the reports and explore potential counter-measures, solutions and cures.

Turning those reports into headlines is pure media hype. Don't read too much into that part.

For our purposes here motorcycle experts are the best people suited to identifying the root causes, explore solutions and implement the counter-measures.
 
"It found 81 per cent of patients who were in motorcycle crashes were men compared with car crash patients who were 57 per cent female."

Unless that 57% is mostly represented by a majority of female car passengers, why are men paying more expensive insurance rates than women drivers?
 
Gah, typed out a big reply and internal server error 500 threw it out for me.

TLDR: ORSAR looks mainly at police and coroner reports and for beginning of 2007 to end of 2012, MC injuries totaled 10,211. Academic report shows 26,831 injuries. Some of the difference of could easily be explained by crashes that police never knew about. Are almost 2/3 of MC injuries in crashes unreported to police? That seems high.

Statscan shows 153K to 210K MC registrations during that period. The primary reason for the huge discrepancy in injuries/100K vehicles between the study and your quick math (and a detailed look at previous ORSAR data) is the study attributed many more injuries to MC. I would be inclined to think that triage nurses will capture a realistic cause of injury and therefore the study is more accurate?
My guess is the number of injuries reported may probably OK, classifications are not. Do hospitals categorize MX, track or off road accidents as 'motorcycle accidents' for the purpose of this study? My guess is the triage nurse ticks a box and doesn't much care about determining if the accident was on a roadway. Considering there are as many offroad and ebikes operating as there are motorcycles, there is a huge opportunity for error.
 

Back
Top Bottom