Posted by Bob Myers on April 24, 2009, 3:12 pm
Saw some interesting (to me, at least) figures out from the Colorado
DOT in an AP article in this morning's paper.
Colorado saw a record number of motorcycle rider/passenger
fatalities in 2008: 98. The previous record year was 2007
(90), so clearly we've got at least a two-year trend in the
wrong direction going on here.
- This represents 18% of Colorado traffic deaths in 2008,
though motorcycles make up only 3% of registered vehicles.
- 70% of those killed on motorcycles in '08 were either not
wearing a helmet or were "wearing them incorrectly."
- The motorcyclist was found to be at fault in 80% of the
fatal crashes.
- 39 percent of the riders killed either didn't have a
motorcycle endorsement or didn't have a license at all.
Sigh. The "no helmet" stat doesn't surprise me; there's no
helmet law in this state, and I'd have to say that any sort of
real protective gear (beyond the de rigeur black leather
jacket for the cruiser/chopper crowd) seems to be the
exception rather than the rule. It's not just the cruiser guys,
either - we have plenty of squids around here in T-shirts,
shorts, and flip-flops.
I'd think that there's a fair number in that total who were out-
of-state tourists who simply aren't very familiar with riding
in the mountain twisties, but have absolutely no data to back
that up and it's probably just wishful thinking on my part in the
first place (in the sense that I'd LIKE to think our locals are
better than that...but come to think of it...).
I was a little surprised at first at the high percentage of
no endorsement/no license deaths, but on just a bit of further
reflection...naw, that does make sense, too.
Too damn many, however you try to explain it.
Bob M.
Posted by Road Glidin' Don on April 24, 2009, 5:49 pm
> - 70% of those killed on motorcycles in '08 were either not
> wearing a helmet or were "wearing them incorrectly."
Actually, that doesn't say much if 70% of motorcyclists there don't
wear helmets. A figure like that has to be compared to the rate of
helmet use.
Posted by Jujitsu Lizard on April 24, 2009, 6:29 pm
>> - 70% of those killed on motorcycles in '08 were either not
>> wearing a helmet or were "wearing them incorrectly."
>Actually, that doesn't say much if 70% of motorcyclists there don't
>wear helmets. A figure like that has to be compared to the rate of
>helmet use.
That is just the start of the statistical problem. You're also going to
find that the other variables aren't random with respect to helmet usage.
You're going to find that helmet wearers are going to be biased by age,
gender, educational background, cycle endorsement, riding style, etc.
A fair percentage of helmet wearers are going to those who just took the MSF
course the week before and are afraid to go over 45 MPH ... : )
Even if you know what percentage of cyclists in the state wear helmets,
you're still statistically at square one.
The Lizard
Posted by Bob Myers on April 24, 2009, 6:30 pm
Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>> - 70% of those killed on motorcycles in '08 were either not
>> wearing a helmet or were "wearing them incorrectly."
> Actually, that doesn't say much if 70% of motorcyclists there don't
> wear helmets. A figure like that has to be compared to the rate of
> helmet use.
Agreed; I'm just reporting the numbers, I'm not making 'em
up here.
Bob M.
Posted by Rkleinsch1216128 on April 24, 2009, 5:55 pm
> - 70% of those killed on motorcycles in '08 were either not
> wearing a helmet or were "wearing them incorrectly."
How do you wear a helmet incorrectly ?
Backwards ?
XML Sitemap
> wearing a helmet or were "wearing them incorrectly."