Triumphrat

stinebiz · 01-12-2006

OK...here's the thing. The Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) has a rule that all "inexperienced riders" (those with a license for less than a year) are restricted to a 600cc or smaller bike for that first year. COMPLETE INSANITY! Obviously this rule was made by a non-rider because I think we could all agree that a 600 crotch rocket is much more dangerous than most cruisers with much larger engines. I guess the logical restriction (if they must) would be HP to weight ratio, or something similar.

Anyway, the base riding club/mentorship program is working to do away with that. But, while leadership is willing to listen they want statistics to support the accident rate to cc to HP, etc.

Does anyone know of a good site with statistics on accidents that might have a breakdown of cc's and such?

[ This message was edited by: stinebiz on 2006-01-12 19:14 ]

Panthermark · 01-12-2006

Wow, that is a STUPID, STUPID rule!

So, you can't get a 61 hp Bonnie, but you can get a brand new 2006 600cc 130 hp Yamaha YZF-R6?

stinebiz · 01-12-2006

Quote:

So, you can't get a 61 hp Bonnie, but you can get a brand new 2006 600cc 130 hp Yamaha YZF-R6?

That is correct Sir! :hammer:

joerockhead · 01-12-2006

First thing that came to mind was the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA), although I have never used it to research accident statistics.

If I think of anything else I'll post it here.

JR

joerockhead · 01-12-2006

Here's what I've found so far.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd...01/809-360.pdf

www.webs4racers.com/crash/about%20crashes.htm

This material was found searching Google using "motorcycle accident statistics". The first URL takes you to a fairly recent study that only deals with fatalities. Won't help you much but worth checking out in case "leadership" decides to cite this study.

The second one includes a summary of the Hurt Study done in 1981 that seems to be more in depth than the more recent fatal accident study. Check out item number 52, which states that "...Motor vehicle...data contains information which is completely unrelated to actual use." That backs up your argument very well.

And while item 40 mentions that "injury severity increases with...motorcycle size", number 30 points out that "The large displacement motorcycles are under represented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents."

It is important to remember that this study was done in the early eighties, so item 30 is out of date in that the higher speeds and greater acceleration associated with larger displacement in those days are now attainable with relatively smaller bikes.

If I were in your position I would stress the need for training, zero tolerance for alcohol while riding ("leadership" will get a boner over the zero tolerance line), mandatory helmet use, and anything else that will cut down on the occurrence of accidents/injuries rather than simply trying to shoot down the ridiculous cc restriction.

My take on the whole issue is that folks who are willing to fight and maybe die for our country should be able to ride whatever the heck they want, just like everyone else!

Good luck
JR

stinebiz · 01-13-2006

Holy *****! Thanks Joerockhead. I'll check them out. Thanks again.

Quote:

If I were in your position I would stress the need for training, zero tolerance for alcohol while riding ("leadership" will get a boner over the zero tolerance line), mandatory helmet use, and anything else that will cut down on the occurrence of accidents/injuries rather than simply trying to shoot down the ridiculous cc restriction.

These things have been addressed. First the taxpayer affords me free MSF classes every three years. AF-wide, the acceptance of alcohol is dropping and DUI's are career killers whether in a car or on a bike...and, if you're ever in Hawaii and you see a biker with long sleeves, long pants, helmet, eye protection, gloves, sturdy footwear, and a reflective vest during daytime or nightime hours in 90 degree heat, you can be he/she is military. These things are all mandatory.

We are also trying to nix the reflective vest 24 hours a day. That seems a bit stupid when there are thousand dollar kevlar jackets with contrasting reflective material throughout, and we have to cover it with a $6 orange vest.

boozefighter · 01-13-2006

Back in the 1980's we had a Regimental CO who sent a directive out to the Bn's along the lines of-any Officer or StaffNCO who rode a motorcycle would be marked less than outstanding in the judgment block of the fitness report. That, along with several other of his eccentric directives, caused his tenure as CO to be somewhat short lived. The day of his change of command was one of the greatest days in the history of the 7th Marines!! Joe :-D :-D

Speedwasher · 01-14-2006

There is quite a bit of information on this under the members section on the Triumph Enthusiasts Web Site.
Triumph Enthusiasts Web Site.

ozbon · 01-14-2006

Biz, do you mean to say that the Military can impose these restrictions on you as a tax paying road user?. On base I can understand but off base, Boy, you yanks do come up with some strange ideas :???:

rodburner · 01-14-2006

Oz,I live and work in a city with a huge military family,and their riding "uniform" makes a lot of sense to me. Off post,they are still government property,and as such,need to protect themselves from the rest of us.Flying down a freeway at 5:30am in the rain,wearing full camoflauge uniforms,the only thing that catches my eye is the bright orange or green vest. And I`m LOOKING for fellow riders. The non-bike riding public sure isn`t. Once they get home,they can shed the camo that I bought for them and blend in [haha]with the rest of us. :-D