'Supersport' motorcycles especially deadly, study finds

Heres an article I came across from the LA Times site: 'Supersport' motorcycles especially deadly, study finds http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-09/32480557.jpg "Supersport" motorcycle enthusiasts prize such high-performance machines as this Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R, but a study finds that these drivers are being killed at a much greater rate than those who ride other types of bikes. By Martin Zimmerman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 1:34 PM PDT, September 11, 2007 Drivers who use high-performance racing motorcycles, which are popular in California, are being killed at a rate three times higher than those who ride all other types of bikes, according to a study. _____________________________________ FOR THE RECORD: An earlier version of this article said drivers of "supersport" motorcycles were being killed at a rate nearly four times higher than drivers of other bikes. They are being killed at a rate three times higher. _____________________________________ So-called supersport motorcycles have become increasingly popular in recent years, especially among young riders looking for an extremely fast, lightweight bike. They have starred in such speed-culture movies as "The Fast and the Furious" and are often referred to as rice rockets, a nod to the popularity of Japanese-made models such as the Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R. This high performance comes at a cost, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which conducted the study on motorcycle safety. "Supersport motorcycles are indeed nimble and quick, but they can be deadly," said Anne McCartt, the institute's senior vice president for research. The institute's findings come at a time when motorcycle ridership -- and motorcycle-related fatalities -- are on the rise. Nationwide, total registrations climbed 51% from 2000 to 2005, according to institute, and registration of supersport bikes jumped 83% during that same period. Meanwhile, motorcycle fatalities in the U.S. have more than doubled in 10 years, reaching 4,810 in 2006, accounting for 11% of highway fatalities. In 2005, supersport motorcycles had a death rate of 22.5 per 10,000 registered bikes, according to the institute. That compares with 6.5 deaths per 10,000 touring motorcycles, a class that includes such bikes as the Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Electra Glide, and 7.5 per 10,000 motorcycles overall. Supersport bikes are designed as racing bikes and are then modified for highway use -- hence the emphasis on speed. "Supersport motorcycles have such elevated crash death rates and insurance losses because many people ride them as if they were on a racetrack," McCartt said. In 2005, speed was cited as a factor in 57% of supersport riders' fatal crashes, according to the institute. That compared with 22% among fatalities involving touring bikes. The Ninja and the Electra Glide provide a vivid example of how motorcycles differ in power and weight. The 2006 Ninja generates 111 horsepower while weighing 404 pounds. The Harley produces 65 horsepower and weighs in at 788 pounds. The smallest supersports typically have 600-cc engines, but the biggest models top 1,200 or even 1,400 and can reach speeds approaching 200 mph. Although supersports have by far the highest death rate among motorcycles, the fatality rate for touring bikes saw an ominous rise from 2000 to 2005, increasing from 5.3 per 10,000 to 6.5. The institute found that alcohol was a factor in 26% of fatal accidents involving touring bikes in 2005, compared with 19% of supersport fatalities. martin.zimmerman@latimes.com

interesting study

Not surprised, good find.

::yawn:: Another "Ride one of these and die" speech.

what they fail to mention is the median age of sportbike owners compared to that of touring style owners. it goes right along with the saying.... "in order to be old and wise, one must first be young and stupid." if todays "old and wise" has something this powerful back in their day, there would be fewer of them around.

if todays "old and wise" has something this powerful back in their day, there would be fewer of them around. I disagree. "Back in the day" 1974 to be exact, I rode a kawasaki 750 triple. In it's modified condition it was nearly as fast as todays 600's., however it didn't stop or turn worth a shit and shook it's head like a wild bull. The reason me and my buddies who rode those things are still alive is the respect we had for the machines. Todays bikes handle so well that every kid who buys one thinks he is Duhamel. They don't respect how good the bike is compared to how lacking their own abilities are...

i ... never mind .

Too many overly financed, under skilled, and immature people buying sportbikes. I wish they would have at least maybe included how many deaths were just motorcycle involved vs. auto involved. I know that most deaths are just motorcycle involved but if you take out the accidents cause by autos the stats would be somewhat lower. I still believe in cc restriction or HP restrictions in the U.S.

Supersport bikes are designed as racing bikes and are then modified for highway use -- hence the emphasis on speed. "Supersport motorcycles have such elevated crash death rates and insurance losses because many people ride them as if they were on a racetrack," McCartt said. Should have said, many people TRY to ride them as if they were on a racetrack.

shit now I gotta go sell the gix. Not

three words i ride by: RESPECT THE BIKE....oh and of course WATCH FOR IDIOTS

three words i ride by: RESPECT THE BIKE....oh and of course WATCH FOR IDIOTS and CORNER ENTRY SPEED

and CORNER ENTRY SPEED +100 :thumbup:

Too many overly financed, under skilled, and immature people buying sportbikes. I wish they would have at least maybe included how many deaths were just motorcycle involved vs. auto involved. I know that most deaths are just motorcycle involved but if you take out the accidents cause by autos the stats would be somewhat lower. I still believe in cc restriction or HP restrictions in the U.S. Why would they do that....Then it would show that they are not as dealy as they want everyone to percive them......Damm liberal commi bastards!!

You know i can't speak for everyone but i have yet to hear someone say that this are safe. everyone i have talked to, myself included, know what the risks are and know that it is something that can kill us. however without the risk it wouldn't be such a great rush.

Sooner or later the insurance companies or the politicians, or a combo of both, are going to drastically restrict if not outlaw our beloved GSXRs, (and the Hondas and Yamahas as well, even though they are slower) unless we find a way to keep untrained and completely inexperienced riders from buying these things, then going out an killing themselves a week or month later. (How many of those have we read about on this very board...with some of us defending the not-so-quick and the dead?) I (and perhaps many on this board) am of the opinion that a person should have the right to kill themselves with stupid if they want. Particularly when it is something like motorcycle riding where most (not all, unfortunately) of the time the dead person was also the stupid person. But I fear we are in the minority and may soon be punished for the stupidity of others.

CC and Horsepower restriction is a bad idea. The way I see it is I am a grown man, and If I want to own a bike thats 1000 CC's and can push 200, thats my choice and no one elses. I understand all of the frustration with the deaths of inexperienced riders, but that comes with the territory. If I wanted to be told what I can and cant own then Id move to europe...till then no more talk of telling me what to do.

CC and Horsepower restriction is a bad idea. The way I see it is I am a grown man, and If I want to own a bike thats 1000 CC's and can push 200, thats my choice and no one elses. I understand all of the frustration with the deaths of inexperienced riders, but that comes with the territory. If I wanted to be told what I can and cant own then Id move to europe...till then no more talk of telling me what to do. I totally respect your opinion as far as you wanting to go as fast as you want. You might be one of those riders that will go fast on a rural highway or something. However, most riders will take their bikes over 150mph on any stretch of highway/interstate and will just weave through the traffic. Those are the guys that put others at risk vs. just their own lives.

I totally respect your opinion as far as you wanting to go as fast as you want. You might be one of those riders that will go fast on a rural highway or something. However, most riders will take their bikes over 150mph on any stretch of highway/interstate and will just weave through the traffic. Those are the guys that put others at risk vs. just their own lives. I understand that and those kinda guys and gals piss me off as well. I just dont like the idea of restrictions cause it cuts the fun off for everyone. I take my bike to AZ track days and get it up as fast as I can handle inside the city. And yes, me and my group also take the bikes up into the high country north of Phoenix and ride the mountain twisties and great straight aways as fast as we can handle there too...the difference like you said is that it is rural and no one is ever on the roads at 6am on sundays except for a few state cops that usually let us do our thing and have the ideas that if we screw the pooch and go off the edge of a cliff at 115mph then its our fault, so it makes for great fun.

Screw the media. Screw soccer moms. Screw "lets care about everything life is so presciouse 1990's mentality" bring back the good ole days. ^^ aka screw the pooch its our fault.^^ pretty damn soon, America home of the free, won't be so damn free with all the restrictions on crap these days

what they fail to mention is the median age of sportbike owners compared to that of touring style owners. it goes right along with the saying.... "in order to be old and wise, one must first be young and stupid." if todays "old and wise" has something this powerful back in their day, there would be fewer of them around. +1, not to mention that around 51% of ALL motorcycle crashes are done by people who have been riding less than 6 months. So what they're forgetting is the "Squid Factor". If they did a study ONLY with people who've been riding over 6 months, that number would drop by atleast 51% or more... The report is thus pointless.

I agree with the above. I would love to see a breakdown of those crashes to determine how many were under the age of 25 and who were unexperienced. I took a rider safety course in CT, otherwise known as the BRC, and I cannot say enough about it. It should be a requirement that this class is taken for those who want to get there motorcycle license. I would be dead already if I had not taken this course.

Too many overly financed, under skilled, and immature people buying sportbikes. OMFG, I'm so glad somebody said it.:clap: I hate these kinds of articles. They are very biased. I'd like to know how many of those fatalities were wearing full gear, how many were riders without helmets, how many were improperly endorsed riders, and how many were riders who had less than 1 year's worth of riding experience. I'd be willing to bet that if you broke down the fatalities by groups, then the statistics wouldn't be as shocking. Of course, without the shock factor, nobody would give a flyin' fcuk about the article in the first place, and the study would be worth squat.

i ... never mind . :funny: :funny: :funny:

pretty damn soon, America home of the free, won't be so damn free with all the restrictions on crap these days ....pretty soon? ...what a biased article though - it could use alot of supporting evidence...

Reckless sportbike riders? In a state where no one (cagers especially) knows how to drive?? OH RLY? Say it ain't so... I live in San Diego, and I ride pretty defensively... (more like passive/aggresive) I have close calls every single ride... because someone isn't paying attention when they drive... Motorcycles need to be respected by both riders and car-drivers for deaths to go down...

Motorcycles need to be respected by both riders and car-drivers for deaths to go down... nail on the head :thumbup:

F@ck Em, they want to talk about how deadly bikes are, let's talk about guns and how they can be used in the wrong ways! Don't see them banning those anytime soon.

Hell I don't even own a bike yet and I can sniff all kinds of crap in this. 'Supersport' motorcycles especially deadly, study finds "Supersport" motorcycle enthusiasts prize such high-performance machines as this Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R, but a study finds that these drivers are being killed at a much greater rate than those who ride other types of bikes. Really? This high performance comes at a cost, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which conducted the study on motorcycle safety. "Supersport motorcycles are indeed nimble and quick, but they can be deadly," said Anne McCartt, the institute's senior vice president for research. Flying in a passenger plane can be deadly too. Ask around. The institute's findings come at a time when motorcycle ridership -- and motorcycle-related fatalities -- are on the rise. Here is a wild thought.. Maybe there are MORE people in the world than in 2000? We are growing population wise.. "Supersport motorcycles have such elevated crash death rates and insurance losses because many people ride them as if they were on a racetrack," McCartt said. And this is the big thing, what do you expect when the majority of sportbike riders I've seen (I'm in KY) wear flip-flops, shorts, and no helmet? Also, when they only wear a helment and no body protection? Unsafe riding + No protection = High risk of injury / death I'm sure this would go down if sportbike riders too the races to a track.... which leads to this: In 2005, speed was cited as a factor in 57% of supersport riders' fatal crashes, according to the institute. That compared with 22% among fatalities involving touring bikes. Keep the high speed riding to controlled areas (aka a track) and that should lower that number I would think by quite a bit. I know I don't have much room to talk since I don't ride yet, but even common sense wins here.

and CORNER ENTRY SPEED you don't have to tell me about that one :infrandom , i learned that one the hard way :headshake

This is a much better article compared to the one I read earily which was basically a journalist anti-sportbike article. Ya that percentage is high. Extremely. Article failed to mention that most sportbike riders are younger andt he average age is much lower. has to do with a couple of things. Sportbikes attract younger riders. Rolled into that category is the type of "attitude" along with lack of skill and experience. Also price, their pretty much cheap, easy to finance, dealers knows what sells and thats egos. They exploit this and nothing stops them from selling a ZX14 to a brand new rider who's 17, and don't even check to see if he has insurance or a license, only cause its under $10,000. Testosterone plays a factor too. Just because your on something "fast as hell" people have a tendency to drive fast (common with a lot of things) or be cocky, try to race everything you see. Even attention, heck sportbikes are attention getters, head turners. Look to your driving experience, "attention" getting vehicles (cars with rims, souped up cars, "rice rockets" that douche in the BMW with chrome, heck even SUVs with RIMs) are normally the one driving like assholes. It just comes with the territory. And insurance isn't stupid, they know allllllll this. And what you guys are failing to see is that what the article says is TRUE. This has nothing to do with cagers killing motorcycles. Take that out of the equation. Simple math. Every 10,000 sportbikes, 22.5 of them are KILLED. What is it for the other group which includes touring and cruisers? 6.5 for every 10,000. I don't care how you argue that, math is math. Your saying cause their more motorcycles on the road? Look at the math again, its percentages of the total of motorcycles. Sportbikes make a majority. Also one more thing, you all know sportbikes is the minority right for motorcycles right? Even more shocking. I guess thats the price you pay for freedom. Freedom to do whatever the fuck you want and not give a shit. Let yourself be bad ass. The big CC bikes are a huge market, you don't even see a lot of the smaller ones, which I WISH they came to the US. As for the europe comment. Go ahead and move there. Have fun riding your 1000cc sportbike....in about 10 years. Hate to say it, but a progressive license is def needed in the US like in europe. Talk about freedom, but i'm sick of seeing squids offing themselves, sick of the negative press. And its prob a better idea before sportbikes begin to get banned. Heck, you would prob see a lot less people riding if that happened, cause they wouldn't be willing to ride a "smaller" bike for the first few years. Bottom line, sportbikes isn't the problem. Its the rider. Sportbikes may attract that certain type of rider, but their lack of training and skill doesn't help either. Heck, a regular license should be a lot harder to obtain.

Even though I stand by my first posts in this thread, I have to agree with you Hawk... When I was in the Marines, before I even bought my first bike(600cc), I knew this 18 year old guy/kid, bought a brand new 05 R1, first bike, dropped it on the way home, dropped it in the parking lot when he got home, then dropped it 3 more times to and from work his first two weeks... Needless to say he should be happy his drive to work from the barracks was less than 2 miles... and the highest speed limit to work was 30mph. I think there should DEFINITELY be a progressive license... and more choices of smaller cc's...I'd buy one just for the fun factor...

F@ck Em, they want to talk about how deadly bikes are, let's talk about guns and how they can be used in the wrong ways! Don't see them banning those anytime soon. Have you tried buying a .50 cal in California lately? Or any rifle with a pistol grip, aka "assault rifles"? Good luck. I can't remember if the ban has been lifted or not yet, but they have been banned before and they can do it again. Chango

If Your On A Bike You Should Know The Risks Involved

I am totally against enforcing helmet laws, seat belt laws anything like that. The risks involved while riding a motorcycle, driving a car, hell just walking down the street are well know by the majority of people. There is always going to be stupid people doing stupid things. Enforcing laws on personal safety is bullshit. If i want to ride without a helmet or seat belt ( i do wear both at all times) that is my personal choice. I want to ride the biggest fastest bike on the market and take on the risk involved with that then its my choice to do so. If you try to make getting a license harder its just bring on more people riding without licenses. You dont need a motorcycel license to buy a bike. I do fully agree with this article. Its stat's. Numbers dont lie. I dont see to many harley riders doing 90mph wheelies, 170 in the straights, or knee dragging on backroads. Alot of us sport riders undertake in alot more risks. Our bikes of capible of handling them as long as the rider has control and skill to preform that risk. More risk= more deaths/injuries. But it is still my choice to take that risk and in doing so i accept all repercusions for that action.

Should have said, many people TRY to ride them as if they were on a racetrack. +1 on that one. Its just like what the others have been saying- people need to respect riders and riders need to respect their bikes. Just this year alone I have seen more motorcycle accidents involving a motorist along the Santa Monica Fwy and other So Cal roads than the previous couple of years. 2 factors- rider going way too fast splittin lanes and the dumbass cager- talking on the phone, not paying attention, cutting off the rider while changing lanes. Ballhawke is also right- maybe we do need to have more stringent testing to aquire a moto license. k enough rambling. ride safe ppls!

I disagree. "Back in the day" 1974 to be exact, I rode a kawasaki 750 triple. In it's modified condition it was nearly as fast as todays 600's., however it didn't stop or turn worth a shit and shook it's head like a wild bull. The reason me and my buddies who rode those things are still alive is the respect we had for the machines. Todays bikes handle so well that every kid who buys one thinks he is Duhamel. They don't respect how good the bike is compared to how lacking their own abilities are... Exactly.....:thumbup:

I have absolutely NO problem with a progressive license or restricting it. Freedom you say? Ok...but i'm sure you'd all agree with the idea that DRIVING overall is a privilage. You would have NO problem making it harder for people to get into a car and get a license. To get a license in the United States is a fucking joke. A big one. Driving is a privilage, not a freedom, you need to earn it! If that means putting your ass 3 years in school and countless hours behind the wheel before getting a license, heck thats fine with me! They wouldn't send you to war without the proper training. You can't operate on a person as a doctor, without going to years of schooling and earning a license and degree. Heck, you setting foot in a vehicle is going to have a much larger effect. Two things are going to happen here. Either they ban sportbikes completely, or put temp restriction on people using them. There was a bumper sticker that made a lot of sense. GUN CONTROL MEANS HITTING THE TARGET.

and notice that they always do these studies in cali. where its really overly populated! why dont they do statistics of lets say new york or chicago then see what they find. They study cali drivers.

LA Times = Highly Liberal. Enough said.

and notice that they always do these studies in cali. where its really overly populated! why dont they do statistics of lets say new york or chicago then see what they find. They study cali drivers. lol, not to mention you have people like paris hilton and lindsey lohan droving around drunk looking for bikes to smash in to.

lol, not to mention you have people like paris hilton and lindsey lohan droving around drunk looking for bikes to smash in to. I'm asleep while they are out driving so i'm good Greg.:thumbup: :laughingr

I understand that and those kinda guys and gals piss me off as well. I just dont like the idea of restrictions cause it cuts the fun off for everyone. I take my bike to AZ track days and get it up as fast as I can handle inside the city. And yes, me and my group also take the bikes up into the high country north of Phoenix and ride the mountain twisties and great straight aways as fast as we can handle there too...the difference like you said is that it is rural and no one is ever on the roads at 6am on sundays except for a few state cops that usually let us do our thing and have the ideas that if we screw the pooch and go off the edge of a cliff at 115mph then its our fault, so it makes for great fun. Tortilla Flat is pretty sick road. My girl is going to school at MMI and she drove me out there in her car. Haven't riden a bike on it yet but I will soon...she has 3 sportbikes now. I've ridden New River Rd to scrub in some new tires for her...fun sweepers out there. She's getting to know some roads further out so I'm sure I'll hit some roads the next time i'm in Phoenix.

If Your On A Bike You Should Know The Risks Involved LOL you took my picture and used it for your avatar... LOOOOSER!

LOL you took my picture and used it for your avatar... LOOOOSER! i was wondering about his sig...it reads K7GIXXER 600R....i am missing something here :headscrat

i was wondering about his sig...it reads K7GIXXER 600R....i am missing something here :headscrat I wish my GSXR was a type R...:bowdown:

yea of course motorcycles are dangerous, however what about alcohol, drinking, sex (std's, aids) and many other things in life?! It's your ability to control what happens (ie. being sen:arsenal sible), minus the unfortunate instances when an unknown occurs. EVERYONE BE CAREFUL, but enjoy such a wonderful machine. happy riding. :rofl: :hmmm:

http://www.stephenpost.com/images/Myspace/drama_lama.jpg just had to clear up drama, please take it to PM

Damn I got pwned by Greg.:hmmm: I thought I was being respectful. Ah no biggie.

They don't mention all the dumb drivers out there that try to hit bikers when they are on the freeway...

I got to "fast and the furious" and stopped reading. From some of the comments it looks like I've spared myself some time. Driving really isn't a "privilege" anymore. Unless you live in a place with GOOD mass transit you can't do much without a car. I would like to see something akin to a reward system though. Pay for and go to advanced classes which teach you things other than "this is the gas and this is the brake" and get say... an advanced license which allows you to do more stuff (like go faster) and get hassled less. We already have a step system. It's called permit to license.

Guys/Gals... I just emailed Martin Zimmerman at the LA Times. He is the author of this article and I gave him a peice of mind (in a professional manner) and asked if there was any way he could break down the statistics to a lower level of detail to show what could be really causing these fatalities (inexperienced riders I am sure makes up a good #). A good friend of mine lost a family friend in South Carolina earlier this week. I met him a few times and he was a great person and an absolute tragic loss, however he is a good example of how these bikes can be looked at as dangerous. He had his bike for 1 month, was riding at 1am without a helmut, and hit a curb. He died at the hospital from head injuries. Whether or not he was on a streetbike, or a harley, the fact remains the same, he did not have the experience to be on a bike period. Hopefully Mr. Zimmerman will have the time to respond to my thoughts. If he does, I will definitely post on here in response to this article. Thanks guys!

http://www.stephenpost.com/images/Myspace/drama_lama.jpg just had to clear up drama, please take it to PM Dammit Valhalla! You could have at least waited until I read his response! Heheheh... Actually I couldn't care less... Just thought I'd start a little fight... Anyhoo... I promise I'll be good...

Guys/Gals... I just emailed Martin Zimmerman at the LA Times. He is the author of this article and I gave him a peice of mind (in a professional manner) and asked if there was any way he could break down the statistics to a lower level of detail to show what could be really causing these fatalities (inexperienced riders I am sure makes up a good #). A good friend of mine lost a family friend in South Carolina earlier this week. I met him a few times and he was a great person and an absolute tragic loss, however he is a good example of how these bikes can be looked at as dangerous. He had his bike for 1 month, was riding at 1am without a helmut, and hit a curb. He died at the hospital from head injuries. Whether or not he was on a streetbike, or a harley, the fact remains the same, he did not have the experience to be on a bike period. Hopefully Mr. Zimmerman will have the time to respond to my thoughts. If he does, I will definitely post on here in response to this article. Thanks guys! Way to go. They probably don't have the statistics broken down anymore than what they posted.:thumbup:

LA Times = Highly Liberal. Enough said. yeah ur right! What also makes me mad is that they are spending all this money on studies that really wont make a difference to people. Like people actually turn to a study to figure out if thy should buy a bike or not! Why dont they spend some of the money to lower our taxes or pay for some other things that are necessary in this country! (heck maybe lower the price of fuel but that is too much to ask)

Go figure, the guy still has not emailed me back yet. Probably will not either, oh well. I tried!

I don't believe in limiting bikes based on years of experience or age. I do believe in having a check and balance that looks at a riders skills and gives a certain level of license. Much like a class A,B, and C CDL. You should have to take a riding test to look at your skills giving you the right to license a certain size or type of bike. Bikes could be categorized and you shoud be eligable to take a test every six months or so to see if your skills have improved enough to change your license type. I love my freedom and I hate big government. However, in the past year I have seen atleast 30 brand new sportbikes wrecked because a 17-20 year old kid took his brand new ride and wanted to stunt it or was riding too fast. These bikes (along with all vehicles) deserve respect and you have to listen to what they are telling you. Until you understand what a bike does under certain conditions, you should not be allowed to ride a (superbike). Just take me for example. Look at my Avatar. That was after I had been riding for like 6 months. I had no business being on a 600cc sportbike. I had gear at home but chose not to wear it because it wasn't "cool". I was an idiot. Now I ride with full gear and have much more respect for the bike. I'm lucky i didn't kill myself. Just my $0.02

Yeah I wish we had a high performance license.

I don't believe in limiting bikes based on years of experience or age. I do believe in having a check and balance that looks at a riders skills and gives a certain level of license. Much like a class A,B, and C CDL. You should have to take a riding test to look at your skills giving you the right to license a certain size or type of bike... Oregon, I don't know about other states though, used to have 2 classes of motorcycle endorsements. One was 599cc and under the other was 600cc and above. It didn't solve anything as far as reducing the number of wrecks or accidents. I'm not sure when they got rid of the law, my cousin got his 599cc and under endorsment when I was like 12 so it had to have been in the the mid 90's. Not to mention that ANYONE can keep it calm for a quick test... so re-evaluating every six months wouldn't do any good either... does anyone actually drive the way they did when they took their driving test at age 16. LOL not a chance! Once you have your license in hand and the instructor leaves the car you're not going to be driving the way you did on the test.

theyre faster and lighter than touring cycles, of course we die more often