Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (
-   AMA Racing (
-   -   AMA Exposes Insurance Institute Errors (

Paul_Grimmett 08-01-2002 09:26 AM

Re: AMA Exposes Insurance Institute Errors
If I understand correctly, the next highest average is 8 in July (per 19,600 riders) which is a monthly rate of 0.047% fatality rate for 6 yrs. During Sturgis, the rate is 36 fatalities per 400,000 (is this accurate?) which is a fatality rate of 0.009%, which is roughly 5X less.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

DJS 08-01-2002 09:26 AM

Lies, [email protected] lies, and statistics
Makes you wonder if any of these people even understand statistical analysis at all. You can't make a conclusion about cause and effect where you have potentially multiple causes unless you control for the other causes. It would not be hard with today's statistical software to control for other variables. Instead these airbags want to justify more of our $$ in their pocket so they make a conclusion that benefits them and then decide how they have to squint at the data to match their position.


DJS 08-01-2002 09:35 AM

Good point but even that is not the whole story
You can't compare apples to oranges, or in this case native SD riders to swarming, partying, tourist riders at blackhills. An average native rider might do 1000 miles in a good warm month while I bet your average rally rider may do 500 miles if he did trailer it in.

Good statistics would control for miles ridden, type of riding, age, etc. to see if one particular variable is responsible for a perceived increase or decrease.

I'd bet they know their stats are useless, after all these guy make a living off of "playing the odds". They just want you not to question the next rate hike so they put out BS like this.


Paul_Grimmett 08-01-2002 09:49 AM

Re: Good point but even that is not the whole story
Exactly my point, I was just showing how numbers can be manipulated to fit an existing opinion.

seruzawa 08-01-2002 10:18 AM

Re: AMA Exposes Insurance Institute Errors
This is not difficult to understand. If the industry sycophants at the IIHS can "prove" that older riders are more dangerous then the insurance companies can justify charging higher rates. That's what this is all about.

Who the heck listens to the IIHS anyhow? They have all the veracity of a Presidential Press Secretary or a Pentagon Spokesman.

KPaulCook 08-01-2002 10:20 AM

This clearly points out the need for an independent study.
Both groups (AMA and IIHS) are using the data for their own agendas.[*] Any accident numbers for South Dakota are skewed by Sturgis. i.e. should throw out deaths by non-residents.[*] Also you can not compare raw numbers use per capita.[*]AMA can not prove that helmet laws do not save lives because they are not comparing per capita stats between states. i.e. like say Florida, no helmet law, has an accident fatal rate of 10% of accidents and California, a helmet law, has a rate of 5% (per cent is a per capita stat, 5% is 5 out of 100 accidents). Unfortunately no stats like this exist. So until then no one can make any conclusions
[*]We are only speculating without a comprehensive study
[*] One good thing though it appears the accident rate (per motorcyclist) is decreasing i.e. more motorcycles on the road (via sales number extrapolation) less deaths per motorcycle sold not the best stat but OK

panthercity 08-01-2002 10:24 AM

Re: seruzawa asked...
"Who the heck listens to the IIHS anyhow?"

Unfortunately, the legislators who allow the insurance comapnies to raise our rates based on such spurious data. That's who.

longride 08-01-2002 10:47 AM

Re: AMA Exposes Insurance Institute Errors
There are no "independent" studies, just as there is no "free lunch". Somebody is paying for it, and has something to prove. Generally it's the insurance companies looking to raise rates again. When death rates went down, I never saw any studies published, but damn if they all don't come out of the woodwork when they can hang their hat on a rate increase. There are WAY too many variables to draw any conclusions in any study of motorcycle accidents or deaths, and by the time it's completed it's probably obsolete.

Closet_Bad_Ass 08-01-2002 11:17 AM

Re: AMA Exposes Insurance Institute Errors
I think that someone needs to point out that accidents resulting in the death of a motorcyclist don't cost the motorcyclist's insurance carrier anything. Most people who own their bikes don't carry collision coverage. So what's the payout!? As far as I know, there aren't any death benefits in my policy. If the IIHS is going to make a case for increased motorcycle fatalities, however valid, then it should raise the rates of the automobile drivers that are responsible for killing the motorcyclists.

As a side issue, wearing a helmet has never killed anyone. Not wearing one...

blackburd 08-01-2002 11:42 AM

The real result if an IIHS study

One of the few benefits of the aging process was lower insurance rates. Now, out comes a new bogus IIHS study that shows an increase of motorcycle fatalities among riders over 40 years of age. I can't wait to see what this does to my motorcycle insurance bill. ;-(

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.