Passes & Canyons Blog

The rider (me) definitely lost control of the bike when this happened.

“All of the crashes and near-crashes included in the risk analyses involve some type of control loss for the rider, whereas the baseline reference events include no loss of control.”

It may seem a little obvious and that may be a bit frustrating, but that is the primary conclusion drawn in the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) naturalistic study of motorcycle crashes and near-crashes. Isn’t loss of control a given in a crash?

I guess I’m not sure how to read that. Are they saying that the rider’s loss of control caused the crash or near-crash? Or that the crash/near-crash resulted in the rider’s loss of control? It’s that latter reading in which I would say, “Well . . . Yeah!”

But consider that dropping the bike is included in these incidents and that suggests the former is the one they mean. Dropping the bike didn’t cause the rider to lose control; dropping the bike indicates a loss of control by the rider.

(I’m reasoning this all through as I sit here writing. You’re seeing my thought process in action.)

So if I’ve got that right, then that may well be a significant conclusion. In every instance, the rider could have done something to avoid getting into the situation in the first place.

That actually jibes with what my friend Jungle says. He essentially believes that ALL crashes are avoidable and if you did crash, it was your fault. You could have avoided it if you had been paying more attention, looking further down the road, keeping your speed in check, whatever. And sure, people do turn left in front of you; they’ve done it to me but I haven’t crashed because I’ve either been paying attention and anticipating them, or slowed down nearing the intersection, or whatever. I’m sure this is true of you, too.

Of course then I have to consider what happened to Alan. He and Dan were out riding and seemingly out of nowhere a deer dashed out and hit him from behind. He never saw it, though Dan, riding behind, saw it all. Challenging Jungle a little, I don’t really know how Alan could have done anything at all to prevent that one.

But in all but the very tiniest number of instances, it seems you can do something. That’s why you’ve got to be sober and that’s why you’ve got to be paying attention, ALL THE TIME.

Of course, none of us is perfect and so none of us is really paying attention all the time, every single second. And most of the time we get away with it, but sometimes we don’t. Todd, a guy who came with the OFMC just one year, was on his bike sometime after our trip and he looked down to fiddle with something–I can’t remember what now–and when he looked up a couple seconds later the car in front of him had come to a sudden stop. He rear-ended the guy and went flying. Todd totally gave up motorcycles after that.

So fine, we’re not perfect. But we have to try to be perfect, because the penalty is too great. Back to that conclusion up top, you could paraphrase: If you have full control of your motorcycle, you will not crash. Because no one chooses to crash. If you do crash, you were not in full control. Stay in control.

Biker Quote for Today

A motorcycle coming down from 30 feet at 70 mph gives you a terrible jolt. — Evel Knievel

This chart from the report shows how much certain conditions or actions increase risk. (Source: Motorcycle Safety Foundation)

As noted previously, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) has released the results of its naturalistic motorcycle crash study. Here are some interesting items from that report.

I would guess that the findings the MSF considers important to work into their rider training curriculum could be considered the most relevant. Toward the end of the report there is a section, “Application of Findings,” where they briefly state the issue and then list the finding that suggest more emphasis might be needed in training. I’m going to abbreviate this considerably. If you want to read it all you’ll find the report here.

• Changing direction requires special attention / Riding in a right curve doubles the risk of a crash or near-crash compared to riding on a straight roadway.
• Emphasis on the importance of appropriate speed in curve maneuvers / Study results indicate that excessive speed is a factor in 45% of the events.
• Crashes, if they ever happen, occur mostly in curves and at intersections / The risk of crashes
  and near-crashes are increased at various types of intersections: traffic signaled intersections (nearly 3 times), parking lot/driveway intersections (8 times), and intersections uncontrolled in the rider’s direction (40 times).
• There is rarely a single cause of any crash / Factors that increase risk include locality, intersections, the type of road surface, traffic flow, roadway grade, and roadway alignment; practicing under these conditions, riding with extra vigilance, or just avoiding the risky situations will decrease one’s chance of being involved in a crash.
• Use your eyes and mind to determine how and when to adjust position as situations unfold / having to maneuver to avoid an object increases the crash/near-crash risk by nearly 12 times.
• Running off the road accounts for many crashes / 67% of all single-vehicle crashes and near-crashes involved curve negotiation, and 63% of those were run-off-road or lane line crossing cases.
• Special consideration for starting on a hill / riding on an uphill grade doubles the risk of crash/near-crash, and riding on a downhill grade increases this risk four-fold.
• Types of road surfaces to be aware of, and how to react to them / Riding on a gravel or dirt road is related to 9 times the risk of crash/near-crash involvement than riding on paved, smooth roads.

Of course, we already know these different situations involve greater risk but this study puts some numbers to them as to just how much riskier they are than just going straight on a smooth road under good conditions. All good information to factor into your riding strategy.

Biker Quote for Today

A bad day just makes an evening ride feel that much better.

The opening slide of the naturalistic study slide deck.

About six years ago I wrote quite a lot about a new motorcycle crash study that was being conducted by the University of Oklahoma. It was to be an update to the old Hurt Report of 1981. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) was to chip in to cover the cost.

Then things got a little crazy. The MSF announced it would not help fund the study, but instead would fund its own “naturalistic” study of factors contributing to motorcycle crashes. Later on, Dr. Samir Ahmed, the researcher heading up the Oklahoma study, left the group and had some harsh words for it all. Honestly, I lost track and don’t even know if a report was ever issued.

But now the MSF has completed its study and it recently issued its findings. I’ll do a quick recap here and then follow up in more detail in follow-up posts.

The difference between the two types of studies are that the one looks at police reports and interviews those involved after a crash occurs. The “naturalistic” study equipped 100 motorcycles with a considerable array of cameras and other sensors and tracked riders at all times. The thinking, of course, was that at least some of these riders would experience “incidents” along the way. Then the data collected by the sensors could be studied to develop a deep understanding of what happened, which in turn would make it possible to devise methods for avoidance of such events in the future. And as a purveyor of a motorcycle rider training curriculum, the MSF would presumably revise its curriculum and work these new findings into its training.

A number of the tracked riders did indeed crash, although most of the crashes appear to be been cases of dropping the bike in a parking lot. I say that with some caution, however, because the wording used is not totally clear and that is my interpretation.

The 100 riders covered more than 366,000 miles during the course of the study. There were 78 male and 22 female riders, ages 21 to 79. Bikes included 41 cruisers, 38 touring bikes, and 21 sport bikes. Participants live in California, Virginia, Arizona, and Florida. The study ran over the course of one year.

Altogether, there were 30 crashes and 122 near-crashes, summed up under the term of “crashes and near-crashes” and abbreviated as CNC.

Beyond the 17 incidents of “ground impact – low speed,” which I presume to be dropping the bike, there were 3 incidents where the rider ran off the road, 3 where another vehicle turned in front of them, 2 where the rider rear-ended someone, 1 crash at speed, 1 poor curve negotiation, 1 rider who was rear-ended, and two I’m not sure I understand, but 1 “other vehicle straight crossing path” and 1 “subject vehicle turn into path (same direction).”

Enough for now. I’ll get into the details next time.

Biker Quote for Today

A motorcycle is really a miniature automobile with full sized noise, smell and dirt output.