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

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.

A clip from a video about the MSF 'naturalistic' motorcycle study.

Time passes and things slip our minds but out of view from the rest of us things do get done. In this case I’m speaking of the two different motorcycle safety studies currently under way around the U.S. One is the new version of the Hurt study that is being conducted by Oklahoma State University. I haven’t heard anything at all about that one since the guy running it, Samir Ahmed, announced that he was leaving the project, and said he had doubts that it could achieve its intent.

The other is the “naturalistic” study being conducted by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and it is moving along on schedule.

I got an email recently from Mike Ginocchi, a guy I ran into who was interested in the OSU study. Mike is a retired accident investigator and he felt he was a natural choice to be brought on the team but the OSU guys apparently had other ideas. So he petitioned the MSF to be one of the 100 riders they would equip with tracking devices so as to observe their riding behavior, particularly when it comes to getting into or avoiding crashes. The MSF was interested, so every time he rides now he is being recorded.

A local TV station thought this was pretty interesting so they did a piece on him and the study. You can go watch it here and see just what it’s all about. I agree with the TV staion–it’s pretty interesting.

Recent from National Motorcycle Examiner
Lojack announces top five motorcycle recoveries for 2012

Biker Quote for Today

Everyone I know predicted my death when I bought my bike. I say it’s done just the opposite. Even if it does kill me, it wouldn’t take too many days like today to make it worth it.