Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Courtesy of Roadracing World Magazine, Greg Fryer during practice at Daytona. Photo by Rick Menatace
Is Greg a safe motorcycle driver?
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
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
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.
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).
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!”
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:
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
Truth:The quality of being factual.
Truthiness:The quality of preferring facts one wishes to be true, rather than facts known to be true.
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.
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?
A Scientist would make the following chart:
Then count and compare all the boxes. Not just box d.
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.
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
We use the Simplified definitions:
Risk - The chance of Loss
Danger - The chance of Harm
For motorcycling, we are using
the word “danger” this way
Danger - Chance of Bodily Harm
Morbid Injury - Gruesome or grisly injury
Fatality - the ultimate morbid injury, the ultimate bodily harm.
Fatality - the ultimate morbid injury, the ultimate bodily harm.
We use the fatality data to estimate and model the danger.
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
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.
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, aModel of Probability: Heads 53% of the time.
The probability model gets “sharpened” with independent experimental repetition and statistical analyses.
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:
Comparing the fatality rates due to motorcycles with those due to passenger vehicles can quantify the relative danger.
VS
2001-2010 USA2001-2010 USA
1991-2000 USA
VS
2001-2010 USA
Comparing fatality rates for the same locality in different years can quantify changes in danger.
Gathering the Data
FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FARS is managed by National Highway and Traffic Safety AdministrationOur thanks to Lorenzo Daniels of NHTSA for providing the FARS data used in this presentation.
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)
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:
Scientists like to Collect and Compare, then reduce to manageable pieces.
How can we usefully combined the available data?
The following chart makes scientists happy.
Box 1
ALL OCC MCD LMD
POP
REG
VMT
Combining the Available Fatality and Group Data
Box 2 Box 3 Box 4
Box 5 Box 6 Box 7 Box 8
Box 9 Box 10 Box 11 Box 12
We will look at Box 1 and Box 11 today.
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.
ALL = All fatalities in motor vehicle crashes involving at least one motorcycle
POP = census population
Divided By
Looking closer at Box 1 = ALL/POP
Using Population makes comparison of big States with small States possible.
Also we can compare a particular State’s danger with itself as it grows or shrinks in population over time.
1990s 2000s
vs.
Compare the relative danger:
Applying these ideas to our subject:
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.
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
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.
Passenger Vehicles less dangerous
Motorcycles more dangerous
A different look at the same data.
Comparing the Danger, Passenger Vehicles to Motorcycles, USA
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1991 - 2010
Fata
litie
s / M
illio
n Po
pula
tion
1990s
2000s
% Change
>>
>>
>>
9
16
+74%
145
134
-7%
Units = Fatalities per Million Population
Motorcycles got more dangerous Passenger Vehicles got less dangerous
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
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%.
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.
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:
Small Passenger Vehicle and Large Motorcycle.
Who is being attended to?
Courtesy of Steve and HB.
Motorcycle Driver Fatalities as Percentage Licensed
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1991 - 2010
Perc
enta
ge L
icen
sed
Common Follow-up Question: Are the Motorcycle Drivers getting killed licensed?
77% killed had a valid motorcycle license
Motorcycle Drivers Killed, USA
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
1991 - 2010
Licensed
Not Licensed
Another look at the licensed/not licensed fatality data
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?
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.
Comparison between 1990s and 2000s of the danger of motorcycles to population for US States
1991-2000 2001-2010 % Change 1991-2000 2001-2010 % Change
Alabama 7.9 15.8 100 Montana 16.5 26.2 59Alaska 9.5 11.6 22 Nebraska 4.4 8.9 102Arizona 15.0 18.8 25 Nevada 11.8 17.0 44Arkansas 8.5 22.4 164 New Hamp. 15.1 18.7 24California 9.0 11.6 29 New Jersey 5.4 8.4 56Colorado 13.4 17.2 28 New Mexico 16.1 20.3 26Connecticut 11.4 13.4 18 New York 6.0 8.6 43Delaware 10.8 14.0 30 North Carol. 10.1 15.4 52Florida 12.1 24.1 99 North Dak. 7.2 10.6 47Georgia 7.6 13.7 80 Ohio 11.0 14.1 28Hawaii 14.3 16.8 17 Oklahoma 9.3 19.0 104Idaho 12.3 16.5 34 Oregon 8.3 11.1 34Illinois 9.2 10.8 17 Penn. 8.9 14.9 67Indiana 10.6 15.2 43 Rhode Is. 8.2 11.3 38Iowa 10.8 16.3 51 South Carol. 15.3 22.3 46Kansas 8.9 14.0 57 South Dak. 16.8 27.0 61Kentucky 7.8 18.4 136 Tennessee 10.6 18.9 78Louisiana 7.8 18.1 132 Texas 7.8 15.6 100Maine 13.0 14.2 9 Utah 9.9 10.4 5Maryland 7.4 12.5 69 Vermont 10.4 13.1 26Mass…tts 5.5 7.9 44 Virginia 5.6 9.3 66Michigan 7.1 10.4 46 Washington 7.0 10.5 50Minnesota 7.8 10.7 37 West VA 10.4 17.3 6Mississippi 5.6 13.7 145 Wisconsin 11.3 16.0 42Missouri 7.0 13.7 96 Wyoming 16.2 33.7 108
National Average 9 14.2 58%Copyright 2012 National Motorcycle Training InstitutePrepared for 2012 SMSA Conference Units = Fatalities per Million Population
Top Ten relatively most dangerous
1990s 2000s %ChangeWyoming 16.2 33.7 108South Dak. 16.8 27.0 61Montana 16.5 26.2 59Florida 12.1 24.1 99Arkansas 8.5 22.4 164South Carol. 15.3 22.3 46New Mexico 16.1 20.3 26Oklahoma 9.3 19.0 104Tennessee 10.6 18.9 78Arizona 15.0 18.8 25
Units = Fatalities per Million Population
Top Ten relatively least dangerous
1990s 2000s %ChangeMassachus. 5.5 7.9 44New Jersey 5.4 8.4 56New York 6.0 8.6 43Nebraska 4.4 8.9 102Virginia 5.6 9.3 66Michigan 7.1 10.4 46Utah 9.9 10.4 5Washington 7.0 10.5 50North Dak. 7.2 10.6 47Minnesota 7.8 10.7 37
Units = Fatalities per Million Population
Next, model the effect of motorcycle programs in States.
Measure the change in danger from the 1990s to the 2000s within each state.
1990s 2000s %ChangeArkansas 8.5 22.4 164Mississippi 5.6 13.7 145Kentucky 7.8 18.4 136Louisiana 7.8 18.1 132Wyoming 16.2 33.7 108Oklahoma 9.3 19.0 104Nebraska 4.4 8.9 102Texas 7.8 15.6 100Alabama 7.9 15.8 100Florida 12.1 24.1 99
Ten states with the biggest increase in danger:
Units = Fatalities per Million Population
Ten states with the smallest increase in danger:
1990s 2000s %ChangeUtah 9.9 10.4 5Maine 13.0 14.2 9Hawaii 14.3 16.8 17Illinois 9.2 10.8 17Connecticut 11.4 13.4 18Alaska 9.5 11.6 22New Hamp. 15.1 18.7 24Arizona 15.0 18.8 25New Mexico 16.1 20.3 26Vermont 10.4 13.1 26
Units = Fatalities per Million Population
Motorcycle Safety:
B. is about making the motorcycle driver safer.
A. is about making the population safer.
C. is an oxymoron.
Quiz Question:
NMCTI uses Scientific Method
A scientific hypothesis cannot be proved, only disproved.
“Motorcycling can be safe” has been disproved.
Old Paradigm: Motorcycling can be Safe and Enjoyable
New Paradigm:Motorcycling is Dangerous, and can be Enjoyable
Motorcycling is Dangerous, and can be Enjoyable
Start using this new paradigm and begin reducing the danger of driving motorcycles in your State.
Start reducing the danger to the population.
Start reducing the danger to the drivers.
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
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:
