Yes, motorcyclists in Ontario get hurt when they crash. Thank you Captain (University of Toronto,) Obvious for pointing it out. Motorcyclists are more apt to get hurt in an crash no matter where they live. How much money did it cost to analyze this data and publish this study?
“The study's authors said they hope the higher medical costs associated with motorcycle crash injuries provide incentive to improve motorcycle safety.” (CP 24)
My question is: "Wouldn’t the money spent analyzing the obvious been better allocated on motorcycle safety training?" By your own admission, fatalities have not changed, only the cost to care for the injuries. Who sponsors this research? Just asking? Hey, help them out - take off your helmet, become a fatality and eliminate the cost of post accident medical care altogether.
But that's just my opinion.
And yes, I am still around ... after a long, wet August, a September plagued with mechanical issues, and an October of motorcycle envy from work ... I'm dreaming of summer 2018 (even if I live in Ontario where I am "3 times more likely" to be hurt riding a motorcycle). Oh, crap, I drive a car in this province too, what does that mean for my statistics?
My view from the lake - yesterday. Here comes winter.
This is what happens when you put non-riders in charge of studying motorcyclists. They don't understand, instead they just look at numbers, data, statistics, and then report their findings.
ReplyDeleteLast year was just an off year for riding. We were surrounded by forest fires all summer, all the while I was juggling overtime at work, teaching, training, and helping out at headquarters breaking in new bikes. Hoping next year will be better. Glad to see you out of hibernation and blogging again.
Thanks Troubadour ... keep our fingers crossed for fine weather, no fires and free time for summer 2018.
DeleteThe view from the lake sure is pretty with the snow.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is obvious that riders would be hurt in an accident worse than someone in a car.
We have State Farm Insurance for our cars and motorcycles and have PIP (Personal Injury Protection) on all policies so that they pay for any out of pocket medical, ambulance, etc expenses. The cars you can get $50,000 PIP coverage, but motorcycles are a maximum of $25,000 PIP. So does that mean they don't think you'll get hurt as bad on a bike, or anything higher than 25,000 in bodily damage is a fatality and not needed? Things that make you go hmmm.
Well, if anything over $25,000 in injuries is a fatality why do they insure car drivers for $50,000? Me thinks there is something stinky here ... or is it prejudice? 3 times ... is that even statistically significant? I would have thought it many times more.
DeleteOnly 3x? Maybe that should be classified as a win considering the difference in required safety equipment. And the cost of that equipment. A blown air bag will cause just about any car to be totaled.
ReplyDeleteThere was another study that claimed that additional training didn’t affect the stats. But it was a pretty small sample.
Richard, I was amazed that motorcyclists were only 3 times more likely to suffer injuries. Personally, I thought it would have been much worse. We (riders) are apparently doing well (in m opinion). It just astounded me that anyone would spend infinite time and money to point out the obvious, unless they (or their benefactors) had an ulterior motive. Again, just my opinion.
DeleteGlad you still are alive :)
ReplyDeleteI see you have morons over there too...stand by, I'm preparing my own rant...
All rants are welcome ... (Please, please .... somebody pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars to point out what everyone already knows!)
DeleteBeat me to it. Saw the same headline and had pretty much the same reaction. Now we need to keep our eyes open for any politician using this headline to drive more stupid, unnecessary laws. Helena Jaczek is one MPP who likes to crusade against motorcyclists, and there are others.
ReplyDeletePoliticians and/or insurance companies...Three times, that's much less than any of us would have predicted isn't it?
Delete