• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

Flawed IIHS report raises bike-ban threat

Forums New posts
TWTim

TWTim

0
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
10,379
Reaction score
731
Location
Midland
From the AMA:

You probably saw the headlines in newspapers across the country several weeks ago:

"High-Performance Motorcycles Contributing to High Death Toll."

"Supersport motorcycles lead the pack in death rates and claims costs."

"The New Motorcycles: Bigger, Faster, Deadlier."

And underneath those headlines, you—like many other Americans—read dire warnings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that sportbikes are much more dangerous than other types of motorcycles on the road.

Indeed, the IIHS claimed it had conducted research showing that three types of motorcycles—those that fit in categories it calls "supersport," "sport" and "unclad sport"—are so dangerous that serious action is required to deal with this issue.

What type of action? Here are the IIHS' own words on the subject:

"Short of banning superport and sport motorcycles from public roadways, capping the speed of these street-legal racing machines at the factory might be one way to reduce risk."

That's right—this powerful Washington-based group is talking about either banning or restricting entire classes of motorcycles. And when we hear words like that, we—like you—take notice.

Never mind, for a moment, that the alleged "research" behind this report doesn’t stand up to critical examination. What matters is that mainstream media outlets, which are unlikely to give this report a hard look, are already parroting the IIHS line, which means that we all need to be very concerned.

"This kind of flawed report, passed off as scientific research, has the potential to do great damage," says Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations. "At the very least, it can create false perceptions we’ll have to fight for years. And at worst, it could lead to restrictive laws that have no basis in reality."

Read the whole thing here.

This isn't just about sportbikes. Congress tried to do this with UJMs in the early 80s but thankfully failed, due in part to swift action by the AMA.

No matter what kind of motorcycle you ride, you'd better make your voice heard against this plan.
 
Tim Kreitz said:
From the AMA:

You probably saw the headlines in newspapers across the country several weeks ago:

"High-Performance Motorcycles Contributing to High Death Toll."

"Supersport motorcycles lead the pack in death rates and claims costs."

"The New Motorcycles: Bigger, Faster, Deadlier."

And underneath those headlines, you—like many other Americans—read dire warnings from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that sportbikes are much more dangerous than other types of motorcycles on the road.

Indeed, the IIHS claimed it had conducted research showing that three types of motorcycles—those that fit in categories it calls "supersport," "sport" and "unclad sport"—are so dangerous that serious action is required to deal with this issue.

What type of action? Here are the IIHS' own words on the subject:

"Short of banning superport and sport motorcycles from public roadways, capping the speed of these street-legal racing machines at the factory might be one way to reduce risk."

That's right—this powerful Washington-based group is talking about either banning or restricting entire classes of motorcycles. And when we hear words like that, we—like you—take notice.

Never mind, for a moment, that the alleged "research" behind this report doesn’t stand up to critical examination. What matters is that mainstream media outlets, which are unlikely to give this report a hard look, are already parroting the IIHS line, which means that we all need to be very concerned.

"This kind of flawed report, passed off as scientific research, has the potential to do great damage," says Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations. "At the very least, it can create false perceptions we’ll have to fight for years. And at worst, it could lead to restrictive laws that have no basis in reality."

Read the whole thing here.

This isn't just about sportbikes. Congress tried to do this with UJMs in the early 80s but thankfully failed, due in part to swift action by the AMA.

No matter what kind of motorcycle you ride, you'd better make your voice heard against this plan.
Click to expand...

That, my friend, is enough to get me to join the AMA.
 
Link to the IIHS news release. http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr091107.html
The article is pseudo science with self serving recommendations for the insurance industry.

IIHS has been identified by http://www.hwysafety.com/

CAUTION! The IIHS is an insurance industry public relations and lobbying organization that publishes politically motivated faux studies to support, and promote, its collective self–interest, not the people or the general welfare of the public. ​
 
SparkyBlue said:
IIHS has been identified by http://www.hwysafety.com/

CAUTION! The IIHS is an insurance industry public relations and lobbying organization that publishes politically motivated faux studies to support, and promote, its collective self–interest, not the people or the general welfare of the public. ​
Click to expand...

Dig what was in the second paragraph:

"Revelations from IIHS show that they may be a lead cause in the nation's red–light running crisis and the associated high fatal accidents. They spearheaded a movement to shorten yellows causing more entries on red (collisions). This movement undermined sound engineering practices and benefited red-light camera makers and the citation industry.

More than 25 percent of this group's sponsor income comes from citation surcharges."

Hear that sound? It's nero with his fiddle.
 
Flawed or not, if you are expecting that the AMA "can fix this" for sport bike riders (myself included) this time around you are mistaken. The AMA was much stronger in the late 1980's when this came up on the "Honda Huricane 60 Minutes TV show" (Honda's reaction was to change the name of the bike
to a "CBR", remember?). The AMA cannot even figure out how to run a successful race series anymore let alone lobby Congress over "Sportbikes".
People that care about HP bikes better get on the e-mails flying to their own
elected officials ASAP! The increase in deaths just reported for 2006 on all types of Motorcycles was "startling" at best. Biggest age groups affected?
Young riders (20-29) and older riders (45-60). This is not good for us.
 
The only way to fight bad science is with good. It seems that the AMA ought to have an ongoing analysis of the statistics. They should be commissioning their own studies. They should also present alternatives. Railing against the "enemy" will accomplish little. The idea that a better rider can handle a better bike won't sell. There are too many variables. What is a reasonable limitation for street equipment?

We are the perceived problem. We must provide a real answer.
 
Please forgive me, I was giving numbers from a different study. The report I was talking about was a DOT study on 2006 M/C "fatalities" that shows the deaths have "doubled" in the last decade. Fatalities reached 4,810 in 2006, a 5% increase over 2005 at 4,576. The age group with the highest increase was the 20-29 year olds with a 119 more fatalities than in 2005. The 50-59 year old group was the next highest increase with 78 more fatalities. For the first time since 1975, more Motorcyclist's were killed on highways than pedestrians. This fact, regretably is what made the report "news worthy".
All this "bad press" is not a good thing. Motorcyclist's have been through this before in years passed and will weather it this time as well. It is just a shame.
My point, I still stand by, is not to assume the AMA can fix this for us.
 
Buellboy said:
My point, I still stand by, is not to assume the AMA can fix this for us.
Click to expand...

I understand, but having the AMA on our side certainly helps our cause. It's just not the only tool we have available to us.
 
Buellboy said:
My point, I still stand by, is not to assume the AMA can fix this for us.
Click to expand...

You're contesting an argument that no one made. The whole reason I posted this article was to hopefully inspire some grass-roots action. The AMA themselves have a rapid response center by which they solicit their membership for help. Even they know they can't do it themselves.

What saved us from the IIHS 20 years ago was our fortune in getting a single member of congress on our side. Since our current transporation sectretary is an avid motorcyclist, perhaps we have more of a leg-up than we did in the '80s.

As for the death rate, we've already had that conversation in another thread.

2400 deaths a year was apparently perfectly acceptable 10 years ago, but 4900 deaths per year is suddenly a problem in 2007. We went through this in the mid-70s when motorcycle controls were standardized and the Hurt Report was funded -- all because the death rate rose. In that sense, I suppose one could say some good came of all the hullaballoo, but here we are again, right where we were before motorcycling's downturn in popularity during the 1980s.
 
Motohouston is a great advertisement for IIHS. The number of young folks over there that have died this year on sportbikes is staggering. Bad science or good science I think that common sense tells me that young riders on high powered motorcycles are at high risk.
 
mhutch said:
Motohouston is a great advertisement for IIHS. The number of young folks over there that have died this year on sportbikes is staggering. Bad science or good science I think that common sense tells me that young riders on high powered motorcycles are at high risk.
Click to expand...

Yet their number is still only about 60% of the total riders killed on cruisers. Funny how no one seems to care about what's happening in that demographic. This all comes down to bias -- plain and simple.
 
Several years ago, these buffoons released a report showing a much higher roll-over rate for 2dr SUVs vs 4dr models. They were bright enough though, to have atributed the most likely factor as being the difference in the demographic DRIVING the 2dr vs the 4dr. How odd then, that they were unable to draw the same conclusion here?
 
Yep. There's a sub-section of the AMA article called "Long-standing Bias" that bolsters your point nicely.
 
I saw the December issue of the AMA magazine and read the 4 page article. Other than conceding the research is "flawed" by the IIHS and referencing the famous "Danforth Bill" of the 1980's I do not recall how the AMA is saying
"sportbike riders" (yes, according to the article, all Buell's are sportbikes, including the Blast) what their plan is to attack this mess. The last line of the article says: Will history repeat itself? Stay tuned. I guess we really are alone.
 
Buellboy said:
Other than conceding the research is "flawed" by the IIHS and referencing the famous "Danforth Bill" of the 1980's I do not recall how the AMA is saying "sportbike riders" (yes, according to the article, all Buell's are sportbikes, including the Blast) what their plan is to attack this mess.
Click to expand...

You can be sure that the AMA has its lobbyists and PR people making phone calls and paying personal visits to representatives. With only a few hundred thousand members, the AMA doesn't have the mighty influence of, say, the NRA -- but they do work very hard when it comes to this kind of stuff.

They need us to do our part, too. So don't forget to contact your representative regarding this subject. The IIHS is indeed a joke of an organization, but all it takes is one congressman to buy into their bull**** and draft a bill.

:rider:
 
mikeofcontex said:
The only way to fight bad science is with good. It seems that the AMA ought to have an ongoing analysis of the statistics. They should be commissioning their own studies.
Click to expand...


Ummmm... uhhhh.... :deal: I think you missed a little piece from the AMA article.

It's perhaps telling that the IIHS would release this report now, since it comes at a time when the federal government, the motorcycle industry, the AMA and individual riders (through our “Fuel the Fund” program) have committed funding to the first comprehensive study of motorcycle crashes since the Hurt Report nearly three decades ago. The AMA worked for years to get congressional approval of that multi-year study, which is expected to begin within the next few months.

It may not be their own study, but it's at least more independent than the anything the IIHS put together. I actually wrote a letter to Senator Dansforth the last time this BS went down in the 80's. Looks like I'll need to write another letter. Thank God we have email now. :mrgreen:
 
Tim Kreitz said:
From the AMA:

You probably saw the headlines in newspapers across the country several weeks ago:

"High-Performance Motorcycles Contributing to High Death Toll."

"Supersport motorcycles lead the pack in death rates and claims costs."

"The New Motorcycles: Bigger, Faster, Deadlier."
Click to expand...


Well, nobody NEEDS those high-powered assault rifles, anyway. They are no good for hunting or target shooting and they are only owned by gangs and paramilitary militias. We should ban the manufacture and sale of any rifle that can take a magazine holding more than five rounds.





Ooops. Wrong discussion. :trust:




Or is it??? :-|
 
I'll take a SWAG that only 10% of the riding population is an AMA member. If everyone that rode was an AMA member, that could possibly purchase more political influence and power and fund studies that protect our passion.

Shame on anyone who isn't a member. It doesn't cost much. Also, imagine what 4,000,000 members compared to 400,000 members looks like to those with the power when we are being represented. There's strength in numbers.
 
X1Glider said:
Shame on anyone who isn't a member. It doesn't cost much. Also, imagine what 4,000,000 members compared to 400,000 members looks like to those with the power when we are being represented. There's strength in numbers.
Click to expand...

Yep. And just so you'll know, 4 million is approximately how many members the NRA has.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top