JonS Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 (edited) Via Digg ... and un Red-X'd Edited November 8, 2009 by JonS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Fail. Try it again. All I see is red X Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 should be fixor'd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 interesting... the helmet usage is confusing though, does motorcyclists injured indicate LESS death? Also, does more % being helmeted indicate the cause (probably not) or just a subject of how many people wear their helmet in comparison to not?hypothetical questions, just what popped in my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Now I can see it. Intersting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 interesting... the helmet usage is confusing though, does motorcyclists injured indicate LESS death? Also, does more % being helmeted indicate the cause (probably not) or just a subject of how many people wear their helmet in comparison to not?hypothetical questions, just what popped in my mind.My take ...'Of all injured/deceased this is how many/percent wear a helmet' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Borgen Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 yea dude. That s pretty crazywhat s your source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 yea dude. That s pretty crazywhat s your source?See the lower left corner of the info graphic ... its not mine, just thought it'd be an interesting post ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Borgen Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 oh, sorry. Missed that from the NHTSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 My take ...'Of all injured/deceased this is how many/percent wear a helmet'That seems correct (correct interpretation of the graphic)... it's really good information, i think the reason I struggle with this graphic so much is because it doesn't "prove a point"... there isn't a clear "See, this is why 16 year olds shouldn't be allowed to ride a bike"....Crazy stuff though, really good information, just difficult to infer action or legislature based on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Das Borgen Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 well, we always assume the risk every time we kick our legs over the seat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmako777 Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 so 63% of people injured were wearing a helmet? i guess a large majority of unhelmeted riders would be deceased therefore accounting for a smaller percentage of injuries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likwid Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 so 63% of people injured were wearing a helmet? i guess a large majority of unhelmeted riders would be deceased therefore accounting for a smaller percentage of injuries?That's what I was saying, is the 100% injured and killed or just injured? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Very nice info indeed. The helmet question has be a bit baffled also, but the replies made here make it a bit more clear.It is reassuring to see that the fatalities and injuries per million road miles is down quite a bit, even though the raw numbers are up. When put into perspective, things are better out there. Even though more people are getting hurt, there are many more out there to be hurt, and over the course of more miles ridden.I find the time of day for deaths to be quite interesting as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 so 63% of people injured were wearing a helmet? i guess a large majority of unhelmeted riders would be deceased therefore accounting for a smaller percentage of injuries?But then if there were less people riding without helmets, and therefore less injuries/deaths of those without helmets, wouldn't the % of people involved WITH helemts increase? It would make that number look worse right? Look at it like this. EVERYONE wears a helmet. Therefore 100% of all motorcycle deaths where wearing helmets. From this data we can come to the conclusion helmets cause more deaths. Just throwing that out there for shits and giggles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Very nice info indeed. The helmet question has be a bit baffled also, but the replies made here make it a bit more clear.It is reassuring to see that the fatalities and injuries per million road miles is down quite a bit, even though the raw numbers are up. When put into perspective, things are better out there. Even though more people are getting hurt, there are many more out there to be hurt, and over the course of more miles ridden.I find the time of day for deaths to be quite interesting as well.Correct on the decrease in injuries and/or fatalities overall per miles ridden.I fear Friday evenings. About twice as dangerous in the city, at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Correct on the decrease in injuries and/or fatalities overall per miles ridden.I fear Friday evenings. About twice as dangerous in the city, at that time.Exactly why I try to stay out of heavily trafficked areas. I have no fear of riding on the freeway, but if there's a back road that is less travelled, there are likely fewer opportunities to get involved in a crash, plus the roads are typically more fun to ride! A good example would be the route I take to Iron Pony. I take 62 to walnut rd in to New Albany, central college rd to sunbury rd, to dempsey to 3. It really doesn't take much longer (if any longer) than slabbing it down 161, and it's more relaxed, not as much looking over the shoulder for the idiots that don't know how to change lanes, etc.... that you get on 161. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 very interesting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonik Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 interesting... the helmet usage is confusing though, does motorcyclists injured indicate LESS death?It says 'injured' not deaths. So like you I am not moved by that particular statistic. So they had a helmet on...didn't die but got bad road rash and that counts as 'injured' I think.Also, does more % being helmeted indicate the cause (probably not) or just a subject of how many people wear their helmet in comparison to not?Exactly. The statistic they should be showing us is percentage dead not wearing a helmet (as a percentage of the total not wearing a helmet) vs percentage dead wearing a helmet. (as a percentage of total wearing).I think the part of the graph you zero'd in on is pointless, it doesn't give us any useful info. And the rest of the graph needs to take into account miles driven per year. I am of the firm belief that motorcycle miles per year are WAY up the last few years.But other than that, great graph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Unfortunately the NHTSA is known to be a bit prone to warping numbers to suit the results. Without knowing totals of types of motorcycles, total highway miles, or other factors of adjustment, simple data is misleading. So I don't know what parts are real. But there is an NHTSA website of raw Ohio data, that is interesting. One thing we discussed in a previous thread, is that there is a huge jump in numbers for bikes over 1400cc. But without the numbers of bikes over 1400cc sold, or miles on road, the data is ineffective. But it does tend to point towards a trend of accidents with very large displacement bikes, that wasn't a trend before. At the same time, smaller displacement bikes (less than 1400cc) were recorded as declining in accidents. Previous statistics threadNHTSA Ohio data for all vehiclesInsurance Institute for Highway Safety - Motorcycles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Previous statistics thread Woo-Hoo, I feel special. Thanks ReconRat lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Just about any study is going to lack, as there are too many variables to get it right from every angle, other than MAYBE the raw data, and you can pull what info you're looking for from that. The most significat thing I saw was as I posted earlier, miles rode is up, vs. number of crashes, even though there are more crashes, the % is down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Just about any study is going to lack, as there are too many variables to get it right from every angle, other than MAYBE the raw data, and you can pull what info you're looking for from that. The most significat thing I saw was as I posted earlier, miles rode is up, vs. number of crashes, even though there are more crashes, the % is down. Need to see the exact same study done every 5-10 years then compare them to see how they have changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jporter12 Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Woo-Hoo, I feel special. Thanks ReconRat lolLike this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevysoldier Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Like this?no it was this one: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.