Study: Antilocks trim fatal motorcycle crashes

WASHINGTON -- Antilock brakes could help motorcycle riders avoid fatal crashes, according to a study by the insurance industry.

Published by our friends The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said Wednesday that the fatal crash rate involving motorcycles equipped with optional antilock brakes, or ABS, was 38 percent lower than the rate involving similar motorcycles without the systems.

seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1155ap_motorcycle_safety.html



Did it never occur to our learned friends that ABS is only available on high end bikes? And that bikes with ABS are generally purchased by older folk? And that it's the younger crowd that does most of the crashing?

Anyone know of any 600 class sportbikes with ABS? Anyone have any verified info breaking down the motorcycle accident statistics by age and bike class?

My personal opinion is that the Beltway Buttheads are after us again

Wonder if Joan Claybrook has anything to do with this?

Steell:
I'm in total agreement with your whole post. The ghost of Joan still haunts us....and the IIHS is doing what it thinks is good for IT....and not necessarily what's good for YOU and ME. Was it Mark Twain (or maybe Will Rogers) who said: "There are lies, damned lies....and then there are statistics." or words to that effect. Smart guy(s).

I must defend Ms. Claybrook. She actually designed the most advanced motorcycle on Earth. Especially innovative was the seating position (directly behind the engine for maximum impact damage to the driver when he passed out from the heat, plus poor visibility), the rear steering (no more sliding around turns), the front wheel drive (no more dangerous wheelies), and of course, the training wheels (outriggers) that gave the bike a nice wide profile for riding on crowded streets. I can't image why Harley didn't run with this design (see link).

www.motorcycleproject.com/motorcycle/text/claybrk.html

"This "motorcycle" was designed by Joan Claybrook. Claybrook was a Carter appointee..."

Well no wonder it's a piece of crap, it was designed by a govmint panel headed by the worst president in my memory.

I really have to question the results, how does one determine if a abs system would have saved a life, when the car turns directly in front of a bike, when they change lanes all of the sudden while on the cell phone, when a car pulls out of a parking lot right into the path of a bike.

None of these could or should be used to create a statistic, the riders most of the time had no chance.

I have to throw the BS FLAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well,what you lot get, we get after a while.
Sounds like a "good" reason to make abs compulsory.
Anyone know how to fit abs to a 1980 500?
Or .... how to make it so fast that it doesn't matter:silly:

steell wrote:

My personal opinion is that the Beltway Buttheads are after us again

Wonder if Joan Claybrook has anything to do with this?

Oh, Steve! Such cynicism!!! You know Big Brother and Big Sister (I'm thinkin' Al ("I'm your pal!") Gore and Nancy ("They can take a bus after we make gas for their car too expensive! Muffy, dahling, have my limousine ready for me at 8, that's a good dear.") Pelosi) have only your BEST interests at heart! Don't you understand? They HAVE to outlaw any motorized vehicle made before 2000! They're DANGEROUS and they POLLUTE, for Mother Earth's sake!

hey Steele the CBR600rr is testing abs/electronic combine braking right now and from what i know it will be here in 09'
i have ridden BMW, Honda and Harley-Davidson ABS bikes, and i have to say that i really do like it and the next bagger i buy will have it. i find it confidence inspiring in the rain and loose road conditions.
reducing accidents? you can infer statistics anyway you want, i suspect that the difference in most accidents is not the few feet that abs will get you stopped faster. losing control of the front because of a locked front wheel, yes.

While you might question the methodology of the study, why would you think non-ABS bikes are safer?

macattak wrote:

While you might question the methodology of the study, why would you think non-ABS bikes are safer?

I'm not sure how good ABS system is on a motorcycle, but I've had 200,000 miles in Ford F250/350 trucks with antilock brakes and pretty much all they do is release all brake pressure when the wheels "begin to lock" and "begin to lock" I mean even at the first hint of even being close to lockup all brakes are shut down. So I'm driving along, light turns red when I'm 50 ft back, I can either run the light=A, or jam the brakes on, begin to stop, and antilock brakes say "No, you're NOT stopping, because you MAY lock the brakes"=B, so I run the light thanks to a stupid computer that second guesses my braking ability. I don't like it, to put it mildly, and it's caused a lot of wrecks in Fords trucks. I can live without it real easily.

I've been a mechanic for over 30 years and know for a fact that a non ABS vehicl will stop quicker than an ABS equipped vehicle! Problem is that you may be facing the "other" way after you stop. People think ABS stops faster, all ABS does is allow you to be in control (steering, etc) while panic stopping. The micro seconds that the brakes are released while ABS is operating causes slightly longer stopping distances. I'll stick with a non-ABS bike thank you!

macattak wrote:

While you might question the methodology of the study, why would you think non-ABS bikes are safer?

I don't pretend to speak for Steve, but I'd like to take a swing at this.
I would never say that non-ABS bikes are safer than ABS equipped bikes. But that's not my point in ridiculing the study. (Incidentally, my post above WAS ridicule of the study, not of Steve posting it. Just in case anybody missed the irony.)
so here's my points in no particular order:
* Life is inherently dangerous. When the government perceives its primary job to be keeping everybody safe, I get pissed. It's not about what is safer, it's about whether I have the right to accept my own risk. Now, before anybody drags out that damned socialistic mantra about my risk costing society, that argument doesn't come anywhere close to passing the test for reasonability on this subject. That's the big picture.
* I ride motorcycles because I'm a gearhead. I find great joy/fulfillment/sh!#-eating-grin-giddyness out of participating in what a machine does. I want to feel the gears shifting through the leather of my left shoe. It's even better when it's coordinated with the "just right" throttle blip of the right wrist and no clutch. I love the feel of the bike settling in to a corner, feeling the way the right hand fingers provide just the right front brake dive to shorten up the trail so the countersteer pressure on the inside bar provides just the right arc through the corner so the bike hits the apex exactly. It's a trip to brake hard, keeping the front tire just off lockup, while feeling the back tire just lightly scuff at that edge of skidding.
Someone doesn't like motorcycling at that level of participation/acceptance of risk, let them have the Pacific Coast plastic bike. I want the right to ride a real machine, one that begs me to pay attention to what's going on.
But when our friends The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety start publishing this, getting the feds to decide that all bikes, even those NOT ridden by soccer moms taking the team to practice (Oh, that's right! Soccer Moms AREN'T taking kids to practice on a bike!!!) need ABS, air bags, roll cages, side impact protection, yada, yada, yada, is the next step.
So I personally take every opportunity to rail against The Big Socialist Brother Bureaucracy takeover of our lives.
(clunk)
That was my wife taking my soapbox away.
Anybody wanna go ride bikes?