There has been a lot of discussion on my local DOCSD board regarding what is perceived as a rash of accidents and injuries lately and I have done a lot of thinking on this subject from the perspective of someone who does not view motorcycles are inherently dangerous.
A lot of folks posted up how they don’t like to ride in the canyons anymore, some folks went so far as to say that they are going to ride only on the track. Some of the forum members talked about how tragic it all is and just how many accidents were occurring. I took the opposite approach and posted up that I love riding on the streets and don’t feel that they are necessarily dangerous and that there are a number of things that we can do to make ourselves safer.
Because there are so many variables with each individual rider and each individual piece of road it is hard for me to lump all of these crashes together. I can’t just agree with the statement that “motorcycles are dangerous” or “it is dangerous to ride in the canyons”. There has to be something in common with all of these crashes apart from location, bike type, etc. It can’t be simply that riding a motorcycle is dangerous anymore than breathing is dangerous. I would argue that the motorcycle is not what is unsafe. It is the operator who is potentially unsafe. If it were motorcycles then we would expect to see a much higher rate of crashing. But there are plenty of riders on the road who have gone years without crashing. So why is that?
As a statistics and six sigma guy I tend to look at the world as a series of processes and defects. Riding a motorcycle might not be a strict set of processes in the same manner that building a car is but it is still a number of steps that get completed to accomplish some task. Negotiating a corner on a motorcycle is not just some random act. It is a series of steps that get done. Some of these are done sequentially and some are done simultaneously. We can also skip steps but that is where defects tend to occur (for example, one of the steps might be to judge your corner speed. If that step is skipped it could result in you being too fast to take the turn). In the case of turning a motorcycle a defect could be anything that keeps you from successfully negotiating the turn. I could also make a good argument that anything that forces you to change your path mid-turn is also a defect. For that matter so would using your brakes. You can see where I am going with this and there are a lot of opportunities to create an error. Some of these could be more serious than others but that becomes a book in and of itself. In an perfect turn you (1) identify the turn and gather reference points; (2) change your speed accordingly to allow you to negotiate the turn; (3) initiate the turn; (4) accelerate through the turn; (5) complete the turn. This is really, really oversimplifying the process but that is the general idea. At least that is the general idea on a high level. The details of these steps (i.e. when to brake, what the proper turn entry speed is, etc) is different for each road, rider, turn, etc. As you might imagine there are a lot of opportunities for mistakes to be made.
I also believe that there are more factors at play here than we are realizing. If the processes were that straight forward then we would just need to invent a bike that does those things for you. Experience, willingness to take risks (deviate from the established process boundaries), observation skill (do I need to alter my normal process because of some unknown variables?), etc all have an impact on accident rate. But most statistics don’t look at those factors. They look at horsepower, engine displacement, helmet usage, and other factors that don’t necessarily help solve the root cause of the accident. My point is that it is much more important to have good observation skills than it is to ride a low horsepower motorcycle so I believe that the safety guru’s are going after the wrong potential root cause. Now experience also comes into play alongside the variable of observation skills. A more experienced rider has the potential for having much stronger observation skills than a new rider. That is not necessarily true but I would imagine it is more often than not. The amount of training someone has had will also play a factor in accident rate. Maybe not just because of the training but because of the attitude that goes alongside a willingness to learn more and improve your skill. If someone is willing to look at their riding style with a critical eye and learn from it then they will probably be less likely to make a mistake while riding. I say this because most people who go to schools will then take the time to think about those skills and think about how they can improve their lines, their entry speed, etc. Those who think that they don’t need to learn anything more or that riding a motorcycle requires no special skill are probably pretty apt to make mistakes. I would bet that a common cause in many of these accidents is some combination of the above.
What is the answer? I don’t know. I would say more training but forced training never really seems to impact people. If you are paying for it and are willing to go on your own accord then I would imagine you would get much more out of it. Some people are just not analytical and don’t want to improve their riding. Is the answer tiered licensing? Maybe, but I doubt very much that you will get that new 40something rider who wants to get a big cruiser onto a learner bike. Yeah, you can get those 16 – 18 yo’s but this is about it. Maybe the solution is to just accept that we are going to have crashes on bikes just like we are going to have car crashes. Maybe we cannot change people into thinking a certain way. Maybe we just have to let people be responsible for their own decisions.
As for me I will keep doing track days, riding on the streets, and going to schools for as long I can still ride.