Motorcycle accident statistics

[Waxxa]

Thought this was interesting research on motorbike accidents (sourced from the Draggin' Jeans website).

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/%7Ejohn/vfr/hurt.html

[Radar]

Thought this was interesting research on motorbike accidents.

http://www.cs.wisc.edu/%7Ejohn/vfr/hurt.html

Good stuff. Thanks. Here is what I found noteworthy, with my comments in green:


In the single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.
The basics: Practice cornering. Slow in and faster out if safe. No need for brakes if you don't go in too fast.



In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.
Shiite! Not much we can do except drive defensively. As a KB said, "Drive as though everyone is out to kill you."



The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. ...Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.
Does anyone wear brightly coloured vests? No - because it looks dorky?? From a KB poll I think over 90% of us have our headlamps on.



Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin. So much for saying to yourself "Don't need my MC jacket cuz I'm only going to the shops."



Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.
Anyone know the cost of a MC training course in the Wellington area, and is it mainly for beginners or still worthwhile for experienced riders?



Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.
Anyone wear MX knee / shin protectors?



The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.
Anyone wear MX chest-back armour?



You are in greater danger in urban areas than out on the road, even though you may be traveling faster in a rural area.
Take the car to the shops...



The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.
I'll leave this one wide open to KB witticism...

[Ragingrob]

+1 For the summary Radar! :2thumbsup.

Interesting read.

[Ragingrob]

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

Holy shit what the fcuk!

31. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

Yeah so headlights on is definitely the winner on the day!

Driving a car makes you a safer motorcyclist, possibly because it lets you understand the enemy.

Interesting point, I guess you make your enemies your closest friends huh!

A cheapo $70 helmet offers protection very close to what you get from a $300 helmet with similar coverage.

Wow! So the difference would be what? How comfortable it is, ventilation, visors and the such maybe?

[MSTRS]

Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin. So much for saying to yourself "Don't need my MC jacket cuz I'm only going to the shops."



The same is true of cage accidents. Aren't most within 5kms of home? And isn't this because that area is the one most frequented by the 'participants'?
As for bikes, I'd hazard a guess and say that most accidents in this area are the fault of the other motorist...or the bike has cold tyres/rider failed to avoid painted lines?

[DMNTD]

..or the bike has cold tyres/rider failed to avoid painted lines?

...or diesel :mad:

[James Deuce]

A cheapo $70 helmet offers protection very close to what you get from a $300 helmet with similar coverage.

Wow! So the difference would be what? How comfortable it is, ventilation, visors and the such maybe?

Still haven't read that report I keep posting, eh? They're actually often superior in terms of protection capability because they transfer less force to your skull in the BIG impacts.

Apart from the comments about training and helmets they keep forgetting to mention the difference betwen fault/blame and responsibility. I haven't had an accident yet that I wasn't responsible for. I may not have been at fault for any of them, but I was responsible for them.

[Radar]

I haven't had an accident yet that I wasn't responsible for. I may not have been at fault for any of them, but I was responsible for them.


:niceone: If all cagers and MCers had your insight and maturity, there would hardly be any accidents except for the likes of diesel, rocks, etc.

[tri boy]

A cheapo $70 helmet offers protection very close to what you get from a $300 helmet with similar coverage.

Wow! So the difference would be what? How comfortable it is, ventilation, visors and the such maybe?

This was told to me years back.
Basically, spinal/neck injury's are the most common fatal injury related to the head area.
They could build/market a helmet that could stop most high speed impacts to the skull, (even a bullet) but you will probably die of a broken neck/spinal cord in such lnstances any way. Morbid, but quite accurate.

[Ocean1]

23. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years. Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in the accident data.

3 years compulsary dirt based training. :niceone:

Pity there's less and less legal places to practice init? :oi-grr:

[Trouser]

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

Holy shit what the fcuk!




Bloody Americans. So what we can gather from that is, no helmet = more likely to have accident. Possibly because of underlying stupidity.

[Badjelly]

Here are a few things I noticed:

19. ... female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

This surprises me.

23. ... Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in the accident data.

Ocean1 has already caught that one.

37. Crash bars are not an effective injury countermeasure; the reduction of injury to the ankle-foot is balanced by increase of injury to the thigh-upper leg, knee, and lower leg.

Does anyone remember crash bars? I think I had some on the CB175: they were steel bars bolted to the front frame tube designed to protect ... actually I'm not sure whether they were designed to protect the rider or the bike. They might have given some benefit in a low-speed lowside, but they would also have been great at setting the bike tumbling in a higher-speed crash. I can't believe I ever thought they were a good idea!

[Ocean1]

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.


So what we can gather from that is, no helmet = more likely to have accident.

20% less likely, in fact.

Which is inneresting, less risk-averse without one perhaps?

Note the data doesn't specify consequencial outcomes, just incidences.

[Radar]

Does anyone wear shin/knee guards, or spinal/chest armour while road riding?

I met a rider last week who wore shin/knee guards - he got these after a boy racer came too close, hitting his mirror, and he was knocked off but lucky he was not going fast and on a residential street.

[Radar]

Here are a few things I noticed:

19. ... female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

This surprises me.


This took me awhile, but here is my take on it: Maybe women try to keep up with the guys but do not have the experience. I also seem to remember scientific evidence that showed men/boys have better [spatial-mechanical-or-whatever-it-was] skills than women/girls.

Before I get smacked, I am talking about women in general as per the statistic above; obviously there are some superb women riders.

[Rosie]

Does anyone wear shin/knee guards, or spinal/chest armour while road riding?

I met a rider last week who wore shin/knee guards - he got these after a boy racer came too close, hitting his mirror, and he was knocked off but lucky he was not going fast and on a residential street.

I often wear knee armour.

[Ragingrob]

My cordura pants have knee, shin, and thigh soft armour built in :)

[Rosie]

My cordura pants have knee, shin, and thigh soft armour built in :)

My trousers have soft armour in the knees, but it's just skinny closed-cell foam. The armour has foam and a hard outer layer, and it's strapped onto my leg, so it's going to stay in place better.

The armour can be worn with other trousers - draggin jeans, mx pants etc. And it keeps your legs warm in winter.

[Badjelly]

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.


So what we can gather from that is, no helmet = more likely to have accident. Possibly because of underlying stupidity.


20% less likely, in fact.

I'm with Trouser: those figures suggest no helmet = more likely to have accident. Unless my brains have been baked by wearing a helmet all these years.

[Radar]

My cordura pants have knee, shin, and thigh soft armour built in :)

What I meant was hard armour, not the soft CE armour built in to jackets and pants, and not even Kevlar that is built in. Motorcross armour sold separately is what I am asking about - such as what Rosie has for knee protection - the type that is strapped onto your body. I would think spinal-chest protection would cut down on serious injuries if a rider hit something like a car or lamp post.

[Ocean1]

I'm with Trouser: those figures suggest no helmet = more likely to have accident. Unless my brains have been baked by wearing a helmet all these years.

If 50% of the overall data set is not wearing a helmet but only 40% of the crashies are, then...?

[Jiminy]

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

20% less likely, in fact.

Which is inneresting, less risk-averse without one perhaps?

Note the data doesn't specify consequencial outcomes, just incidences.

I read it the other way around:
Riding: 50% with helmet, 50% without helmet (that's an awful lot!)
Crashing: 40% with helmet, 60% without helmet

Therefore people wearing helmets crash more often. This would support the theory that people who wear bright colors are less likely to crash because of their general attitude rather than what they wear. Damn, it contradicts what I though all along...


Here are a few things I noticed:

19. ... female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

This surprises me.

Yes, me too. Are ladies less comfortable in urban traffic?

[Ocean1]

:o
I read it the other way around:
Riding: 50% with helmet, 50% without helmet (that's an awful lot!)
Crashing: 40% with helmet, 60% without helmet

Therefore people wearing helmets crash more often. This would support the theory that people who wear bright colors are less likely to crash because of their general attitude rather than what they wear. Damn, it contradicts what I though all along...

Y'know, I do believe you're right. :o

Which sorta makes more sense, what was your theory re violently coloured gear?


Yes, me too. Are ladies less comfortable in urban traffic?

Surprised me a bit too, generally they take less risks. Maybe a higher percentage of 'em have a shorter riding carrer, putting more of them in the learner category.

[Jiminy]

I've noticed the following two that surprised me:

41. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

53. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.

I'm sure the numbers are a bit better here, but how much better?

Oh, and:

# Black is a poor choice but not as bad as olive drab.

Damn, when I think of all those olive drab leather jackets around ;)

[Jiminy]

:o

Y'know, I do believe you're right. :o


:)


Which sorta makes more sense, what was your theory re violently coloured gear?

There are some studies showing that people wearing a white helmet and colored gear are less represented in accidents, presumably because you are more visible. The difference is significant enough for me to wear gear with some sort of colored pattern.

However, there are also some arguments that people wearing high-viz vests and other types of colored gear for safety reason are more likely to be careful riders and less represented in crashes because of their attitude rather than the color of their gear.

There are quite a few threads around about gear and color.

[kave]

I'm obviously wrong, but I thought if people wearing helmets accounted for 50% of all riders, but only 40% of crashes, then helmet wearers are under-represented in the crash statistics by 20%, wheras if non-helmet-wearers represented 50% of all motorcyclists but 60% of riders involved in crashes then they were over represented by 20%.

Where is my maths going wrong?

[Ocean1]

I'm obviously wrong, but I thought if people wearing helmets accounted for 50% of all riders, but only 40% of crashes, then helmet wearers are under-represented in the crash statistics by 20%, wheras if non-helmet-wearers represented 50% of all motorcyclists but 60% of riders involved in crashes then they were over represented by 20%.

Where is my maths going wrong?

You're not. Both are correct.

I just mis-read the original statement to mean the dudes without the helmets were less likely to crash.

[Badjelly]

However, there are also some arguments that people wearing high-viz vests and other types of colored gear for safety reason are more likely to be careful riders and less represented in crashes because of their attitude rather than the color of their gear.

Yes, that sort of effect tends to confound all these statistical analyses.

You remember the announcement a few years back that HRT (hormone replacement therapy) increases the risk of breast cancer? A major part of the previous belief that it was beneficial arose from the fact(*) that woman taking HRT were more health-conscious & wealthy and consequently healthier, leading to a positive correlation between HRT and health.

At least I read an article on the WWW that said this a few weeks ago. I wish I could find it.

The question was solved in the case of HRT with double-blind clinical trials, but this wouldn't be possible for motorcyclists wearing high-vis clothing.


(*) Well, OK, it's more of an educated guess, but it will pass for a fact on KB.

[Maha]

...or diesel :mad:

Enter Grahameeboy..not literally of cause....:baby:

[Katman]

I've had countless motorcycle accidents over the years but like Jim2, I can't think of a single one that wasn't either my fault or that there wasn't something I could have done to avoid it.

[Badjelly]

At least I read an article on the WWW that said this a few weeks ago.

Here it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html

and here's a relevant quote



The catch with observational studies like the Nurses’ Health Study, no matter how well designed and how many tens of thousands of subjects they might include, is that they have a fundamental limitation. They can distinguish associations between two events — that women who take H.R.T. have less heart disease, for instance, than women who don’t. But they cannot inherently determine causation — the conclusion that one event causes the other; that H.R.T. protects against heart disease. As a result, observational studies can only provide what researchers call hypothesis-generating evidence — what a defense attorney would call circumstantial evidence.

Testing these hypotheses in any definitive way requires a randomized-controlled trial — an experiment, not an observational study — and these clinical trials typically provide the flop to the flip-flop rhythm of medical wisdom.


For HRT read coloured vests (or helmets or dirt bike experience or ...) and for heart disease read death or injury due to motorbike accidents.

[Trouser]

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.



20% less likely, in fact.

Which is inneresting, less risk-averse without one perhaps?

Note the data doesn't specify consequencial outcomes, just incidences.

Not so.

50% helmet means 50% no helmet.

40% of accidents had helmet means 60% had no helmet.

[Ripperjon]

It's interesting reading eh?

I noticed that the links at the bottom of the report aren't working so i did some google detective work.

Here is the page i think one of the links should've connected to;

http://www.ecsis.net/mrep/

I haven't looked into much of it yet but there must be a mine of info. there.

The most obvious link from that page is the one that says "Motorcycle Safety Information and Resources" which links to here;

http://www.motorcyclesafetyinfo.com/

... and is where the original report can be found.

Anyway, as i said, i haven't looked through much of it yet so this post might be a bit irrelevant but thought you guys might wanna check it out for yourselves.

[Ripperjon]

One more thing...

I found a link to the Euro version of the accident study;

http://www.motorcyclesafetyinfo.com/motorcycle_accident_in_depth_study.html

And noticed that the Europeans are a bit more safety concious when it comes to wearing helmets while riding;

"21. 90.4% of the PTW riders wore helmets. However, 9.1% of these helmets came off the wearer's head at some time during the accident, due to improper fastening or helmet damage during the accident. Overall, helmets were found to be an effective protective device to reduce the severity of head injuries."

But it looks like 1 in 10 of them don't do them up properly:Oops:

[Waxxa]

Well done on those sites Ripperjon. Interesting reading eh?

[dpex]

Today I had a long discussion with Frosty on this matter.

In or on every other device I have driven, flown, hung from, you name it, an opportunity exists to practice reaching and passing through an event-horizon; albeit in a controlled manner, and coming out of the experience knowing where the event-horizon exists, but without sustaining injury.

Skidding in various ways in a car, stalling or spinning an aircraft, dealing with rock-climbing failure (when a back-up exists). In all such cases I have had the luxury of 'knowing' I could practice passing through an event horizon without personal injury.

Not so on my bike; and most especially in the matter of cornering on other than smooth, dry roads. On my bike, once I pass through the event horizon personal injury is high on the list of results....not to mention the damage to my bike. :--((

As a result, my lack of 'knowing' the point where a skid event-horizon will be reached on my bike, especially in wet conditions, I have found I tend to significantly under-estimate the arrival of that point. This has seen me swing wide on both left and right corners. In other words, I have failed to lay down harder for fear of finding something worse.

My argument with Frosty was, 'I believe it would be great if someone could devise some form of training programme on a bike, either with protective clothing which would more or less guarantee survival, or some sort of cage arrangement....and a bike which can be dropped without financial penalty.'

You see, until a human finds the event horizon he/she will always assume it is closer than actuality. Like a pilot learning the event horizon of a stall. The first through fifth experience is often a nightmare of a new pilot. But after experiencing a dozen or more, controlled stalls, the pilot's brain logs on vital autonomic data required to undo the stall, and also has the confidence associated with knowing when a stall will occur and that he/she can deal with one.

I would lay odds that a significant number of head-on bike/other vehicle collisions which occur on the open road, occur on left-hand corners, where the rider has 'frozen' a bit, failed to lay over for fear of a skid, and then slammed into an on-coming.

I would also lay odds that the number of bikers who have ended up in a ditch, or eaten a fence somewhere around a right-hand corner, have done so for the same reason.

Ergo; their experience of 'knowing' almost exactly 'when' their bike will unstick is non-existent. So they over-compensate in fear and undercompensate with what their bike will actually allow.

Cheers
David.

[scorpious]

Driving a car makes you a safer motorcyclist, possibly because it lets you understand the enemy.

Interesting point, I guess you make your enemies your closest friends huh!]

Well I think the law should be that everyone one must have had a motorcycle licence for 1 year before getting a car, as soon as I got a bike and had had it for a while i found my road awareness all round shot up 10fold




A cheapo $70 helmet offers protection very close to what you get from a $300 helmet with similar coverage.

Wow! So the difference would be what? How comfortable it is, ventilation, visors and the such maybe?

Thats what I was told

[Katman]

I would lay odds that a significant number of head-on bike/other vehicle collisions which occur on the open road, occur on left-hand corners, where the rider has 'frozen' a bit, failed to lay over for fear of a skid, and then slammed into an on-coming.

I would also lay odds that the number of bikers who have ended up in a ditch, or eaten a fence somewhere around a right-hand corner, have done so for the same reason.


And I would lay odds that both those situations could be avoided if the motorcyclist had reduced their speed to match the conditions and/or their riding ability.

The road is no place to be trying to explore your 'limits'.

[James Deuce]

Yeah I've thought about this for a wee while and I agree with katman. It's a case of not getting your corner entry speed correct.

[Jantar]

....In or on every other device I have driven, flown, hung from, you name it, an opportunity exists to practice reaching and passing through an event-horizon; albeit in a controlled manner, and coming out of the experience knowing where the event-horizon exists, but without sustaining injury.....

Well spotted. There is a big difference between stalling an aircraft and fiding the point at which motorcycle tyres decide to let go.

A stall in an aircraft is due to the angle of attack. The speed at which that occurs can vary according wing loading, air density etc, but can be calculated and documented in the flight manual. It can be practiced to recognise the onset, (buffetting, sloppy controls, low noise), and once fully devloped a recovery can be made. But would you like to practice a fully developed stall at less than 300' agl?

The point at which a motorcycle tyre lets go is dependent on tyre temperatutre, tyre pressure, tyre wear, road surface, coefficient of friction etc, and cannot be documented. There are warning signs, but not in sufficient time to ALWAYS correct it. Pushing a motorcycle to the limit is like stalling a plane at 150'.

[scorpious]

And I would lay odds that both those situations could be avoided if the motorcyclist had reduced their speed to match the conditions and/or their riding ability.

The road is no place to be trying to explore your 'limits'.

I would agree
I definitely wouldn't have met the ditch it I'd known that you cant go round a 25km downhill corner at 85 lol

[KiwiJohn]

Today I had a long discussion with Frosty on this matter.

In or on every other device I have driven, flown, hung from, you name it, an opportunity exists to practice reaching and passing through an event-horizon; albeit in a controlled manner, and coming out of the experience knowing where the event-horizon exists, but without sustaining injury.

Skidding in various ways in a car, stalling or spinning an aircraft, dealing with rock-climbing failure (when a back-up exists). In all such cases I have had the luxury of 'knowing' I could practice passing through an event horizon without personal injury.

Not so on my bike; and most especially in the matter of cornering on other than smooth, dry roads. On my bike, once I pass through the event horizon personal injury is high on the list of results....not to mention the damage to my bike. :--((

As a result, my lack of 'knowing' the point where a skid event-horizon will be reached on my bike, especially in wet conditions, I have found I tend to significantly under-estimate the arrival of that point. This has seen me swing wide on both left and right corners. In other words, I have failed to lay down harder for fear of finding something worse.

My argument with Frosty was, 'I believe it would be great if someone could devise some form of training programme on a bike, either with protective clothing which would more or less guarantee survival, or some sort of cage arrangement....and a bike which can be dropped without financial penalty.'

You see, until a human finds the event horizon he/she will always assume it is closer than actuality.…

I would lay odds that a significant number of head-on bike/other vehicle collisions which occur on the open road, occur on left-hand corners, where the rider has 'frozen' a bit, failed to lay over for fear of a skid, and then slammed into an on-coming.

I would also lay odds that the number of bikers who have ended up in a ditch, or eaten a fence somewhere around a right-hand corner, have done so for the same reason.

Ergo; their experience of 'knowing' almost exactly 'when' their bike will unstick is non-existent. So they over-compensate in fear and undercompensate with what their bike will actually allow.

Cheers
David.

My riding definately stepped up a notch or three during a open practice day at Pukekohe in the late 80's. I rode the same bike 9an impulse) as a much more experienced rider who was also about 30kg heavier. Following him through the hairpin on my first circuit of the track was an eye opener. Having ridden with him on the open road at speed I was confident in his ability, and judgement; so on the track I followed his line, and breaking religiously confident that as long as I matched him I would be fine as in weight versus bike performance I had some advantage and more lee way for error. Well, following his brakingpoint and breakingto the apex on the then corragated surface had me absolutely freaked the first time - especially as I leaned in and could observe my front wheel bouncing left to right about 500-600 mm under brakes. Still he remained upright and so did I. And again on the second lap, and on the third by which time I was unfased by the antics of my bikes front end, and my confidence soared when I calmly, with control steeed arround the 2 other riders who dumped their bikes on the apex on my line.
While I have never ridden my bike hard enough to observe these wild antics of my bikefront end on the open road, the experience of calmly taking a "mental pause" and not over or under reacting in unexpected emergencies has saved the day many times in the 1/2 (maybe 3/4) million or so kilometres since: sun strike, two wheel drifts on misread surfaces, bird and bee strikes, riding to survive when forced off the road by overtaking articulated trucks in the middle of road works, avoiding kids chasing dogs and balls, and avoiding heads on with on coming overtaking vehicles on bridges with a gap less than bar width available, flat tyres, manhole covers and Piles of bricks!! droped by other vehicles mid corner. Knowing that the limits that I set myself on a day to day basis can be exceeded and having had a variety of experiences in which I have both succeeded and FAILED to cope with both "normal road hazards" and my own errors all support David's argument that learning the limits both the mechanical and the psychological and exceeding them is what separates the survivor from the victim.

Oddly my most serious injuries are all the result not motorcycle but car accidents most often as a passenger in a car. falling off bikes is part and par, but knowing your limits and being prepared means being able to select when and how one hits the ground once it becomes inevitable- I have never had cause to hit the ground at much over 25km because the gaps I have thus far maintained have given me room to brake. Though the dog that took out my front wheel (from behind) did cause my shoulder to be temporarily dislocated, none of the m/c accidents resulted in serious injury beyond minor bruising, and 1x sprain, two sets of ruined leathers and 2x helmets and lots, and lots of levers, indicators, and mirrors replaced.

The only events that experience and knowing my limits had no impact upon were the dog, and the three times I got tail-ended by cars at compulsory stops and red lights, oh yeah and the time I got run over by an ARA bus that cut the corner - you guessed it - when I was stopped for a red light!

My experience, like that of David's, suggests that exposure to realistic performance limits in both controlled and uncontrolled contexts is crucial to rider survival. I know that the limits on the track are artificial (it is unlikely a tin top, or a pile of bricks is magically going to appear, and there is always a relatively "safe" runoff available. I ride on the road knowing that the bike will generally come unstuck long after I think it will, but also knowing that when it does come unstuck, I can ride through it if and only if my head is in the game, and I've left enough room to recover.
Funny every time I land a glider, I have no choice but to do so in a controlled crash. Likewise when I rock climb I do so knowing that I am pushing the limits and will fall off and may get injured despite carefull preparation. The trick is to reduce the severity of every unavoidable impact.
Same deal on bikes, do what one can to limit exposure to painful events, and reduce the damage by learning to use the available gaps to best effect.

How? By continuous practice, and CAUTIOUSLY improvement of ones riding on the track, and in normal and extreme conditions - hurricanes, rain, sleet, and hail. Hiding from the weather reduces ones chance of learning to read and respond to road surface defects, and the unexpected. Discuss and read about others good and bad experiences - i.e., hang out with other riders - and take their exaggerated prowess with a grain of salt. Just because I have survived past the "8 year grace period" and done hundreds of thousands of KM does not mean I can't improve my skills, or that I always judge a corner correctly, it just means I'm better prepared to handle it when everything goes sideways. Black ice, and deep puddles do not faze me on their own, it is encountering them in combination with tailgating cars, wind gusts and on-comming headlights that freaks me out. All the added factors reduce my options just that little bit too much on occasion.
Ridden smoothly, a bend is merely a straight bit of road that has to be ridden at a bit of a variable lean, and with particular care because ones vision is reduced.
As for compulsory stops at intersections I have learned to watch my mirrors and bail (stand on the pegs) when cars neglect to stop short.

In regards to m/c accident statistics it is about time these were comprehensively taken and analysed in NZ. too often it would seem that the official stats fail to support either bikers real world experiences, or ACC or TNZ analysis and policies.
Perhaps some of the new (2011) ACC safety levy will be used to deliver a proper understanding of what contributes to m/c injuries and fatalities. My reading of both local and international studies suggests that rider error, and rider behaviour only accounts for about 1/3 of accidents. What is not clear is whether some of this rider behaviour that is negatively criticised actually contributes to increasing injury or rather counter-intuitivly to an overall reduction (c.f. counter-steering which make no sense at all to a non-rider).
In Britain one study indicated that speeding wasn't a major issue, rather a failure to adjust speed to the conditions i.e., slow down when necessary. From memory fewer than 3.5 % of accidents involved traveling above the posted open road limit. And riders experience supported this statistic. I believe that in NZ riding to conditions is vastly more important than staying below a posted open road limit, and my experience has shown that accidents are far more likely to occur at slower than urban speeds, and most often when either stationary, or simply slowing down (not emergency braking), mostly because it is hardest to avoid cars in these situations of slow speeds and low stability.
cheers
John

[That looks like fun]

Went to a track day at Taupo once :scooter: Classes with white boards, exercises on the track etc, then a couple of hours to try it all out :yes:
Joker in the class asked the question "if you go into a corner to hot or take the wrong line, what is your best course of action?" :shutup:
The answer was :blink: Pray :facepalm:
Instructor then went on to inform us he was there to teach us how not to get into those situations :love:
My recent departure from the seat was caused by exactly that, I got my self into a situation that I did not have sufficient skills to deal with. :crybaby:
Never was a good listener :facepalm:

Survival, its an attitude thing :woohoo:

[NordieBoy]

Yep :yes:

As I've never really gone over the edge, I have no idea where it is.
This makes me a far less smooth rider than I could be.

:scooter: