Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Courtesy of Roadracing World Magazine, Greg Fryer during practice at Daytona. Photo by Rick Menatace Is Greg a safe motorcycle driver?

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Courtesy of Roadracing World Magazine, Greg Fryer during practice at Daytona. Photo by Rick Menatace Is Greg a safe motorcycle driver?"— Presentation transcript:

1 Courtesy of Roadracing World Magazine, Greg Fryer during practice at Daytona. Photo by Rick Menatace Is Greg a safe motorcycle driver?

2 Measuring the Danger of Driving Motorcycles and the Effectiveness of Motorcycle Safety Programs in the USA 2012 SMSA Conference - Nashville, TN Joseph Elliott Executive Director National Motorcycle Training Institute

3 Teammate Vince (left) experiencing a collision Apparently I was interested in dangerous and enjoyable activities from a young age. I was co- captain of my High School Rugby Team. Courtesy of DeMatha HS Yearbook

4 Studied Electrical Engineering at University of MD. Honors project: Microwave Communications Test Apparatus Fully Funded Graduate Research in Nuclear Physics at Oregon State University. This is the team I worked with at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. We used the Heavy Ion Collider to create exotic unstable isotopes to study.

5 Brotherhood Raceway, Terminal Island, Los Angeles. I am on the left. Found my way to University of Southern California in Los Angeles in 1990 with fully funded research in Photonics. Also studying and practicing motorcycle driving, and motorcycle training with the “Doug Fitts” CMSP (and Hoot Gibson).

6 A nonprofit IRS 501(c)3 Public Benefit Institute with an independent Board of Directors “We do not promote motorcycling, we promote making informed choices!”

7 Our mission is to reduce the fatality rate and morbidity (disabling- injury) rate for motorcyclists. Properly define and measure appropriate fatality and morbidity rates. Encourage behaviors that decrease these rates; discourage behaviors that increase these rates. Provide and maintain motorcycle rider education curriculum that is open and is free to copy, distribute, and use. Maintain objectivity through careful monitoring of funding, minimizing and eliminating conflicts of interests of our funding sources with our mission. Our Institute can receive Tax Deductible Bequests, Transfers, and Gifts. All donations are tax deductible. The Board of Directors of NMCTI diligently enforces the IRS Code 501(c)(3) for Charitable Organizations. Mission Specifics:

8 Example: “A motorcyclist can’t live forever.” NMCTI uses Scientific Method This is not scientific because it cannot be disproved. There are many statements that are reasonable to say even if they are not scientific. A scientific hypothesis cannot be proved, only disproved. Of course there are unreasonable and unscientific statements too. Francis Bacon Karl Popper

9 Truth: The quality of being factual. Truthiness: The quality of preferring facts one wishes to be true, rather than facts known to be true.

10 Truthiness cultivates confirmation bias, the seeking out of information that confirms the statement or belief and discounting information that conflicts with the statement or belief. Truth accepts both information that confirms and conflicts with the statement or belief.

11 Motorcycle Truthiness Example: “Motorcyclists who ride a lot get into less crashes.” Who comes to mind for you? This may be something we wish to be true and it has good truthy feel to it. Will this statement cultivate confirmation bias, the seeking out of information that confirms the statement or belief and the discounting of information that conflicts with the statement or belief?

12 A Scientist would make the following chart: Then count and compare all the boxes. Not just box d.

13 Does umbrella carrying cause rain? Paris Street; Rainy Day, Gustave Caillebotte Example: It is correlated that people carry umbrellas more often when it is raining. Umbrella carrying is correlated with rain. We must also be careful with correlation and causality.

14 Today’s Goal: Properly Define and measure appropriate Motorcycle Fatality Rates and relate these rates to the danger of driving a motorcycle. Images provided by HB

15 We use the Simplified definitions: Risk - The chance of Loss Danger - The chance of Harm

16 For motorcycling, we are using the word “danger” this way Danger - Chance of Bodily Harm

17 Morbid Injury - Gruesome or grisly injury Fatality - the ultimate morbid injury, the ultimate bodily harm.

18 We use the fatality data to estimate and model the danger.

19 Statistics is not the same as probability. We will use statistics to create a model for probability. Probability is often used as the “chance of an event occurring” A very brief intro to Probability and Statistics

20 In science, we often use statistics to Estimate or MODEL probability. We use the statistics to estimate the coin flip in this case: Initial Model of Probability Heads: 53% chance For example, I flip 100 coins and observed that 53 coins came up heads, 47 came up tails. Scientists would say the statistics observed from this experiment show heads came up 53% of the time.

21 Of course with more experimentation, and independent verification from others, our model would approach the 50% probability of a coin flip. The statistics gave us an estimation, a Model of Probability: Heads 53% of the time. The probability model gets “sharpened” with independent experimental repetition and statistical analyses.

22 We use the fatality rate that include just motorcycle drivers to model the danger of driving motorcycles. We use the fatality rate that include all fatalities occurring in collisions that involve at least one motorcycle to model the danger to the population. Modeling Danger, the chance of harm, related to Motorcycles:

23 Comparing the fatality rates due to motorcycles with those due to passenger vehicles can quantify the relative danger. VS 2001-2010 USA

24 1991-2000 USA VS 2001-2010 USA Comparing fatality rates for the same locality in different years can quantify changes in danger.

25 Gathering the Data FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System FARS is managed by National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration Our thanks to Lorenzo Daniels of NHTSA for providing the FARS data used in this presentation.

26 I ask Mr. Daniels to extract the following categories of fatalities. In addition to motorcycles, I asked Mr. Daniels for identical data for Passenger Vehicles. Fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving at least one motorcycle. (ALL) Fatalities of motorcycle drivers. (MCD) Fatalities of licensed motorcycle drivers. (LMD) Fatalities of motorcycle occupants. (OCC)

27 Making Rates: We need to divide the number of annual fatalities with a count of a meaningful group so we can make useful comparisons.  Population (POP)  Number Registrations issued (REG)  Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Some common categories used:

28 Scientists like to Collect and Compare, then reduce to manageable pieces. How can we usefully combined the available data?

29 The following chart makes scientists happy.

30 Box 1 ALL OCCMCDLMD POP REG VMT Combining the Available Fatality and Group Data Box 2Box 3Box 4 Box 5Box 6Box 7Box 8 Box 9Box 10Box 11Box 12 We will look at Box 1 and Box 11 today.

31 Box 1 = All/POP We choose to use Box 1, fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving at least one motorcycle divided by census population, to model the danger of motorcycles to the population. Box 11 = MCD/VMT We choose to use Box 11, motorcycle driver fatalities divided by Vehicle Miles Traveled, to model the danger to the driver.

32 ALL = All fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving at least one motorcycle POP = census population Divided By Looking closer at Box 1 = ALL/POP

33 Using Population makes comparison of big States with small States possible.

34 Also we can compare a particular State’s danger with itself as it grows or shrinks in population over time. 1990s 2000s vs.

35 Compare the relative danger: Applying these ideas to our subject:

36 What is the relative danger between motorcycles and passenger vehicles for the USA Population? We choose to use Box 1 =All/Pop fatality rates, and compare.

37 What is the relative danger between motorcycles and passenger vehicles for the USA Population? Compare the motorcycle and passenger vehicle, Box 1 =All/Pop, fatality rates. 1990s 2000s % Change >> 9 16 +74% 145 134 -7% Units = Fatalities per Million Population

38 Passenger Vehicles kill many more people than Motorcycles in the 1990s and in the 2000s. However Passenger Vehicle danger decreased in the 2000s. Motorcycle danger increased in the 2000s.

39 Passenger Vehicles less dangerous Motorcycles more dangerous A different look at the same data.

40 1990s 2000s % Change >> 9 16 +74% 145 134 -7% Units = Fatalities per Million Population Motorcycles got more dangerous Passenger Vehicles got less dangerous

41 Next: What is the relative danger to the Driver? Box 11 = Driver Fatalities per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Traveled 1990s 2000s % Change >> 21 27 +28% 0.9 0.8 -11% Units = Driver Fatalities per 100 Million Miles Traveled

42 Important! What if you don’t trust VMT? You can you check and estimate the VMT in your state! The first step is to prepare yourself for accepting the enormous number of passenger vehicle drivers on the road. Then you can determine the ratio of passenger vehicles to motorcycles. This ratio would approximate the VMT ratio. Warning, motorcycles are less than 1%.

43 Just start by trying to count the number of passenger vehicles you see when driving to work or school or the store, etc. Note that it is better to have a passenger do the counting.

44 Driving a Motorcycle is much more dangerous than driving a passenger vehicle. Driving a Motorcycle is 34 times more dangerous than driving a passenger vehicle. 34 times more dangerous is difficult to understand. Comparing Motorcycle to Passenger Vehicle Rates of Box 11 =MCD/VMT shows:

45 Small Passenger Vehicle and Large Motorcycle. Who is being attended to? Courtesy of Steve and HB.

46 Common Follow-up Question: Are the Motorcycle Drivers getting killed licensed? 77% killed had a valid motorcycle license

47 Licensed Not Licensed Another look at the licensed/not licensed fatality data

48 Quiz Question: Comparing a sober motorcycle driver and a drunk car driver, which situation is more dangerous? Hint: Multiple answers, must answer “Dangerous to whom?” first. Dangerous to the driver or to all?

49 All the statistics are also available by State. We can use fatality statistics to model the danger motorcycles pose to the population by US State.

50 Comparison between 1990s and 2000s of the danger of motorcycles to population for US States 1991-20002001-2010% Change1991-20002001-2010% Change Alabama 7.915.8100Montana 16.526.259 Alaska 9.511.622Nebraska 4.4 8.9102 Arizona 15.018.825Nevada 11.817.044 Arkansas 8.522.4164New Hamp. 15.118.724 California 9.011.629New Jersey 5.4 8.456 Colorado 13.417.228New Mexico 16.120.326 Connecticut 11.413.418New York 6.0 8.643 Delaware 10.814.030North Carol. 10.115.452 Florida 12.124.199North Dak. 7.210.647 Georgia 7.613.780Ohio 11.014.128 Hawaii 14.316.817Oklahoma 9.319.0104 Idaho 12.316.534Oregon 8.311.134 Illinois 9.210.817Penn. 8.914.967 Indiana 10.615.243Rhode Is. 8.211.338 Iowa 10.816.351South Carol. 15.322.346 Kansas 8.914.057South Dak. 16.827.061 Kentucky 7.818.4136Tennessee 10.618.978 Louisiana 7.818.1132Texas 7.815.6100 Maine 13.014.29Utah 9.910.45 Maryland 7.412.569Vermont 10.413.126 Mass … tts 5.5 7.944Virginia 5.6 9.366 Michigan 7.110.446Washington 7.010.550 Minnesota 7.810.737West VA 10.417.36 Mississippi 5.613.7145Wisconsin 11.316.042 Missouri 7.013.796Wyoming 16.233.7108 National Average914.258% Copyright 2012 National Motorcycle Training Institute Prepared for 2012 SMSA ConferenceUnits = Fatalities per Million Population

51 Top Ten relatively most dangerous 1990s 2000s %Change Wyoming 16.233.7108 South Dak.16.827.0 61 Montana 16.526.2 59 Florida 12.124.1 99 Arkansas 8.522.4164 South Carol.15.322.3 46 New Mexico 16.120.3 26 Oklahoma 9.319.0104 Tennessee 10.618.9 78 Arizona 15.018.8 25 Units = Fatalities per Million Population

52 Top Ten relatively least dangerous 1990s 2000s %Change Massachus. 5.5 7.9 44 New Jersey 5.4 8.4 56 New York 6.0 8.6 43 Nebraska 4.4 8.9102 Virginia 5.6 9.3 66 Michigan 7.110.4 46 Utah 9.910.4 5 Washington 7.010.5 50 North Dak. 7.210.6 47 Minnesota 7.810.7 37 Units = Fatalities per Million Population

53 Next, model the effect of motorcycle programs in States. Measure the change in danger from the 1990s to the 2000s within each state.

54 1990s 2000s %Change Arkansas 8.522.4164 Mississippi 5.613.7145 Kentucky 7.818.4136 Louisiana 7.818.1132 Wyoming 16.233.7108 Oklahoma 9.319.0104 Nebraska 4.4 8.9102 Texas 7.815.6100 Alabama 7.915.8100 Florida 12.124.1 99 Ten states with the biggest increase in danger: Units = Fatalities per Million Population

55 Ten states with the smallest increase in danger: 1990s 2000s %Change Utah 9.910.4 5 Maine 13.014.2 9 Hawaii 14.316.817 Illinois 9.210.817 Connecticut 11.413.418 Alaska 9.511.622 New Hamp. 15.118.724 Arizona 15.018.825 New Mexico 16.120.326 Vermont 10.413.126 Units = Fatalities per Million Population

56 Motorcycle Safety: B. is about making the motorcycle driver safer. A. is about making the population safer. C. is an oxymoron. Quiz Question:

57 NMCTI uses Scientific Method A scientific hypothesis cannot be proved, only disproved. “Motorcycling can be safe” has been disproved.

58 Old Paradigm: Motorcycling can be Safe and Enjoyable New Paradigm: Motorcycling is Dangerous, and can be Enjoyable

59 Start using this new paradigm and begin reducing the danger of driving motorcycles in your State.

60 Start reducing the danger to the population. Start reducing the danger to the drivers.

61 Measuring the Danger of Driving Motorcycles and the Effectiveness of Motorcycle Safety Programs in the USA 2012 SMSA Conference - Nashville, TN Joseph Elliott Executive Director National Motorcycle Training Institute

62 Our mission is to reduce the fatality rate and morbidity (disabling- injury) rate for motorcyclists. Properly define and measure appropriate fatality and morbidity rates. Encourage behaviors that decrease these rates; discourage behaviors that increase these rates. Provide and maintain motorcycle rider education curriculum that is open and is free to copy, distribute, and use. Maintain objectivity through careful monitoring of funding, minimizing and eliminating conflicts of interests of our funding sources with our mission. Our Institute can receive Tax Deductible Bequests, Transfers, and Gifts. All donations are tax deductible. The Board of Directors of NMCTI diligently enforces the IRS Code 501(c)(3) for Charitable Organizations. Mission Specifics:


Download ppt "Courtesy of Roadracing World Magazine, Greg Fryer during practice at Daytona. Photo by Rick Menatace Is Greg a safe motorcycle driver?"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google