[chilipepper]

I agree with range.
If you`re not comfortable, it`s not fun and you`re a danger to yourself.
My words of wisdom(haha)
sell the bike and open a bike account (if you haven`t got one already)
If your fears remain over a lengthy break, invest your savings into a new hobby.

[tzortn]

You have brought up Jason's accident twice. You cannot go by what happened to Jason. Jason was reckless. He was tailgating in heavy traffic at triple digit speeds. Do not use Jason as an example because he caused his own accident with by his foolishness.

That being said you can still get hurt on a bike or in a car or climbing a ladder. If riding is not fun then do not do it.

[Kat-A-Tonic]

Thank you all for your support. I will take my time before I make any decision. I really enjoy riding except for the part of being afraid of serious injury. I am doing all what I can to protect myself, I wear riding gears 100% of the time and I ride defensivly. I don't know why I became very scared lately. I wasn't like that before my track day. I , even, was planning on getting new bike by the end of this year. My track day and learning about Jason fate change my prespective.
Unfortunatly, my neck condition it permenant, and I am going to need a serious surgery at some point in the future. For now, I will take it slow getting myself back on the road.

Here are some factoids that may alleviate some of the concerns you have regarding motorcycles:

1) If you rode for 100 years, the chance of you being killed due to riding is less than 5%.
2) The chances of an experienced motorcycle rider being in an accident is about the same as an experienced car driver.
3) Vehicle failure (the majority being a tire puncture) accounts for less than 3% of motorcycle accidents .
4) For motorcycle accidents, the median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph.
5) More people die every year in SCUBA and sky diving accidents than due to riding motorcycles.

Although motorcycle riding involves some inherent risks, these can be minimized with judicious application of common sense. This is an abundance of scaremongering going on regarding motorcycles but that doesn't mean riding them is an elaborate form of suicide. Wear your gear, be alert and you'll improve your chances dramatically.

[BobKat2002]

I've read several posts on different forums about this.

You know, you might want to consider getting a nice convertible. The enjoyment of riding has a lot to do with sensory stimulation. Acceleration, decelleration. Fractional gravitational stilulation, (Pulling G.s), and what not.

Take out one of these for a ride. Moderately priced and pretty stylish too.

[Mojoe]

1) If you rode for 100 years, the chance of you being killed due to riding is less than 5%.
2) The chances of an experienced motorcycle rider being in an accident is about the same as an experienced car driver.
3) Vehicle failure (the majority being a tire puncture) accounts for less than 3% of motorcycle accidents .
4) For motorcycle accidents, the median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph.
5) More people die every year in SCUBA and sky diving accidents than due to riding motorcycles.

ok....I have to seriously ask where you are getting this statistics. I am not sure if I am reading them right, but they seem to conflict with other statistics I have come across.

For example:

Riding has never been more dangerous- and it's getting worse

*

In 1997, motorcyclists were 13 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash, per vehicle mile traveled.
*

In 2004, motorcyclists were 32 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash, per vehicle mile traveled.

There are more motorcycles on the road than ever before- so you can sadly expect a higher number of deaths. Same for cars, planes, trains, whatever. But how do you determine the true risk? You use 'per vehicle mile traveled'- it takes the number of bikes out of the equation. It's simple to understand: for every hundred miles you put on your bike, you are 32 times more likely to die than if you drive your car a hundred miles. Same if you drive around the block. Same if you drive across the US. It's still 32 times the risk. That risk has risen a lot since 1997:

Only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles, yet they make up almost 10% of all motor vehicle deaths

*

Consider that most motorcycles are not ridden nearly as much as a car, yet they still contribute to 10% of all vehicle deaths. And speaking of 2%, it's no wonder cagers overlook bikers. They are not used to seeing them! There are only 2 bikes for every 100 cars out there!

those are statistics from a link Dee Dub posted a short while back.

http://home1.gte.net/res0ak9f/bike.htm

I know it doesn't help strengthen the case to keep John riding, but the facts are there and they are scary to say the least.

[Mojoe]

look at this list right here. this is ONLY the ones they happen to get information about. I think you could easily double or triple that if you count the people they haven't heard about. I think it was 2 weeks ago that that 4 died just in here in Quebec during the weekend.
I didn't here of any dieing from scuba diving or parachuting....but then again I am not sure if there is a site that gives those statistics...lol.

http://remembertheriders.com/lastrides.php

[steves]

My friend has a new baby on the way, and said to me "I don't have enough time to ride my harley anymore"

So I tell him to prep his bike for storage, run stabil into the fuel, park it in the back of his garage, throw a cover over it, and get back to me next season.

It takes an afternoon to haul the bike back out again if you're ready to ride, but you'll never get *that* bike back again.

[Kat-A-Tonic]

1) If you rode for 100 years, the chance of you being killed due to riding is less than 5%.
2) The chances of an experienced motorcycle rider being in an accident is about the same as an experienced car driver.
3) Vehicle failure (the majority being a tire puncture) accounts for less than 3% of motorcycle accidents .
4) For motorcycle accidents, the median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph.
5) More people die every year in SCUBA and sky diving accidents than due to riding motorcycles.

ok....I have to seriously ask where you are getting this statistics. I am not sure if I am reading them right, but they seem to conflict with other statistics I have come across.

For example:

Riding has never been more dangerous- and it's getting worse

*

In 1997, motorcyclists were 13 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash, per vehicle mile traveled.
*

In 2004, motorcyclists were 32 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash, per vehicle mile traveled.

There are more motorcycles on the road than ever before- so you can sadly expect a higher number of deaths. Same for cars, planes, trains, whatever. But how do you determine the true risk? You use 'per vehicle mile traveled'- it takes the number of bikes out of the equation. It's simple to understand: for every hundred miles you put on your bike, you are 32 times more likely to die than if you drive your car a hundred miles. Same if you drive around the block. Same if you drive across the US. It's still 32 times the risk. That risk has risen a lot since 1997:

Only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles, yet they make up almost 10% of all motor vehicle deaths

*

Consider that most motorcycles are not ridden nearly as much as a car, yet they still contribute to 10% of all vehicle deaths. And speaking of 2%, it's no wonder cagers overlook bikers. They are not used to seeing them! There are only 2 bikes for every 100 cars out there!

those are statistics from a link Dee Dub posted a short while back.

http://home1.gte.net/res0ak9f/bike.htm

I know it doesn't help strengthen the case to keep John riding, but the facts are there and they are scary to say the least.

Yes, I agree motorcycles make up a disproportionate amount of the fatalities. However, that's not to say that riding one is tantamount to suicide. Driving an automobile is a relatively safe endevour as your chances of being killed in automobile accident is relatively slim despite the grim sequences shown on TV. Even though motorcyclists are several times more likely to be killed than car drivers, it's the comparison to automobiles that make them seem hazardous.

For example: If you compare 99.0% to 99.9% as probability values, the first value is 10 times worse than the second value but it's still a very high value. So, if each year I'm 99.0% likely to not die riding a motorcycle versus 99.9% chance of not dying driving a car, I still have a very good chance of not dying riding a motorcycle. It's the comparison to cars that inflates the perceived danger of riding.

So, when people quote statistics like (e.g. 32 times more likely per mile) it can be very misleading when determining risk. Most people don't ride motorcycles as much as they drive their car so the this statistic is not very meaningful. This type of statistical scaremongering has been going on for some time and I'm concerned that people are accepting them as an accurate depiction of motorcycle life. I'm not disputing the validity of these numbers but taken at face value they are deceptive in terms of how dangerous an activity really is.

People that typically quote statistics as X times more dangerous as some other activity usually have some sort of scare agenda. However, if you were told that the chances of you dying in a motorcycle accident per year was 99.95% unlikely, you wouldn't give riding a bike a second thought. Yet that is the actual statistic. There are hundreds of thousands of riders in Canada (close to 350,000) and yet the number of fatalities last year was under two hundred (179 IIRC). You are many times more likely to die from smoking or alchohol related activities.

One last note, new riders are more likely to get into a serious accident, which explains the jump in fatality rate per mile as motorcycling has been booming as of late (thanks partly to high oil prices). However, when comparing to experience rider, you chances of an accident is not greater than an experienced car driver. The caveat, however, if you do get into an accident you'll be more likely to experience serious injury. You're not as well protected on a motorcycle when compared to being in a car.

[slayergsxf1]

UMMMM dont get rid or the bike ...double disk lock it give the key to someone you trust and leave it alone......keep the Kat remember they dont makeum anymore....take care dude...

[The CyberPoet]

Yes, I agree motorcycles make up a disproportionate amount of the fatalities.

Here's the hard numbers for 1994 thru 2004:
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

For 2004 (full report, PDF) [USA & PR]:

38,253 Motor Vehicle Traffic Deaths - 39% of which were alcohol related.
1,862,000 Injuries (*)
4008 Motorcyclists killed (includes 50 that were moped drivers, 10 which had trikes, 86 that were dirt-biking, and 49 were on the little mini-bikes, plus 22 where they didn't know what to call it), of which:
3894 were riding either a motorcycle or a scooter (cops are notorious for improperly reporting 2-wheeled classifications) and 313 were passengers.
76,000 Motorcyclists injured (*)
23,000 of those injured had seriously incapitating injuries.(*)
5,494 Pedestrians killed
118,000 Pedestrians injured (*)
(*) NOTE: These numbers only include those reported to the police, and the classification for motorcycles also includes scooters & mopeds (any motorized two-wheeler).

Now, looking at those numbers, it's could be (falsely -- bit of tongue in cheek humor here) established that it is still far safer to ride your motorcycle to destination "X" than it would be to walk there. Matter of fact, it's enough of a margin that I endorse riding all the way to your desk, to avoid potential injuries while walking from where you park the bike to where you actively engage in your profession. Actually, I think I'm going to start riding my kat from my bedroom to my den just to reduce my risk factors!

Other serious statistics (if you use a weird way of looking at them):
It is still six times safer to ride between 3am and 6am on a Tuesday morning than it is to ride during bar-close (midnight to 3am) on a Sunday morning.
The most dangerous hour to be a biker on the road is 4-5PM on weekends, the safest is 6 - 7AM on weekends (ties with 3-5AM on weekdays). Wee hour rides seem to be the safest ticket -- although faster emergency response times may also factor into it.
The hour to be on the road is 4 AM - 4:59 AM on a weekday. The least safe time is between 2 AM and 2:59 AM on a weekend.
You are 66.7 times as likely to die by being struck by a light truck (pickup, SUV) than you are by being struck by a bus, statistically speaking. Appearantly they pay bus drivers to pay attention, unlike SUV & Pick-Up drivers... SUV's and Pick-ups actually form the highest threat-ratio for us bikers, edging out standard passenger cars by an 18% margin.
More helmet-wearers died than non-helmet wearers by a goodly margin. 27 States have exceptions to helmets (such as age 18 or 21), and three have no helmet requirement at all. Louisiana wins as the state that most flip-flops on helmet laws, flip-flopped 4 times in the last 30 years).
There is a serious risk in the hitting a stationary object -- over 1/4 of the motorcyclists who died in 2004, died by hitting a stationary object (either another vehicle that was stopped or something else). Stop hitting stuff that isn't moving -- it's not fair!
In the bigger picture, motorcyclists only represented 8/10ths of 1 percent of all accidents in the country, but also represented 7% of all the traffic deaths. We're doing more than our share boys -- maybe we should write the folks over at Volvo and tell them to start taking up their own damn slack!
Slightly over 40% of the ALL the motorcycle crashes (not just fatalities) involved no other vehicle, stationary object or other form of collision other than the ground. And they say ABS is over-rated for motorcycles... hmmm...
In 66 of the cycle deaths, a fire broke out. No breakdown data on whether it happened before they went down or afterwards, but I'm willing to bet that at least a half of them had an electrical and/or fuel fire start before they wrecked, and that over-power headlights played into it.
as a biker, you are more than 8 times more like to have an fatal accident if you are a male. Reduce your risks and get a sex-change operation. Can't afford one? Talk to SweetLou for the home-kit! (side-note: I don't want to know how bad the two accidents were where neither the police nor the coroner could determine the sex of the rider)
You are more likely to die riding between ages 35 - 44 than between 25-34. If you can get past age 54, the numbers start dropping rapidly again. Only 20 riders over the age of 74 died on the road -- and all of them had valid licenses (seriously!).
about 30% of the MC fatalities had alcohol involved. That statistic was suprising because I expected the number to be higher.
Florida and California tied perfectly for the most dead riders, with Texas bring up second place (in "wintering" states, Pennsylvania was the winner, ahead by one over Illinois -- both helmet optional states for riders). Illinois does get the stupidity award here though -- their supreme court ruled in 1969 that helmet laws were unconstitutional (period).
It is estimated that 671 of the biker deaths would have been prevented without any long term imparement if they had been wearing a helmet. That's about 38% who would have walked away in the long run! And if you include those who would have had other serious (long-term) injuries, the numbers climbs to something like 75%... WEAR YOUR HELMET!

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[Kat-A-Tonic]

Time to eat crow.

In double checking my facts I realized the number SCUBA deaths and skydiving accidents did not exceed the number of motorcycle deaths. Actually, it did but I accidently compared the Canadian motorcycle death statistics with the American SCUBA/skydiving death statistics. That's a big NO NO in my book!

Everything has been rechecked and the other facts still stand. I apologize for the mistake.

[JohnE1000]

CP wrote:

is still far safer to ride your motorcycle to destination "X" than it would be to walk there.

CP how did you come up to this conclusion?
One number by itself is not enough to be used in any statistical reasoning. The number of pedestrians fatalities is useless if not compared to the number of pedestrians.

For example: One can say there is 50 riders has been killed last year. This statement can't be used by itself in statistical analysis. But, if we can say 50 riders has been killed last year, and there are 1000 registered riders last year, then we can conclude that there is 50/1000 = %5 fatalities.

Same concept applies to the number of pedestrians killed vs. the number of riders killed vs. the number of dirver killed. Without knowing the number of pedestrians on the road, we can't compare them.

The number of Vehicle Traffic Deaths is almost 10 times higher than motorcycle death, and that is because the number of registered cars is more than 10 times the number of registered motorcycles. Even that number doesn't mean much, becuase cars are much more utilized than motorcycles. Most motorcycle owners park their bikes in the winter, and large segment of them don't even put more than few thousands miles a year. Pluging the numbers of traveled miles in the formula is only logical to derive accurate conclusion.

Personally, I don't care much for the number of death. I care more for the number and the type of injuries. Motorcycle injuries (in most cases) is more severe than vehicle injuries. I prefere to be dead than losing my limbs or the ability to move.

[Kat-A-Tonic]

CP wrote:

is still far safer to ride your motorcycle to destination "X" than it would be to walk there.

CP how did you come up to this conclusion?
One number by itself is not enough to be used in any statistical reasoning. The number of pedestrians fatalities is useless if not compared to the number of pedestrians.

For example: One can say there is 50 riders has been killed last year. This statement can't be used by itself in statistical analysis. But, if we can say 50 riders has been killed last year, and there are 1000 registered riders last year, then we can conclude that there is 50/1000 = %5 fatalities.

Same concept applies to the number of pedestrians killed vs. the number of riders killed vs. the number of dirver killed. Without knowing the number of pedestrians on the road, we can't compare them.

The number of Vehicle Traffic Deaths is almost 10 times higher than motorcycle death, and that is because the number of registered cars is more than 10 times the number of registered motorcycles. Even that number doesn't mean much, becuase cars are much more utilized than motorcycles. Most motorcycle owners park their bikes in the winter, and large segment of them don't even put more than few thousands miles a year. Pluging the numbers of traveled miles in the formula is only logical to derive accurate conclusion.

Personally, I don't care much for the number of death. I care more for the number and the type of injuries. Motorcycle injuries (in most cases) is more severe than vehicle injuries. I prefere to be dead than losing my limbs or the ability to move.

I think CP intended this statement not to be intended to be taken seriously, hence, his comment of it being 'tongue-in-cheek'.

[The CyberPoet]

CP wrote:

is still far safer to ride your motorcycle to destination "X" than it would be to walk there.

CP how did you come up to this conclusion?

Did you miss the part close to the start of that paragraph where I said:

(falsely -- bit of tongue in cheek humor here)

???

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

[GytRDunKat]

In 66 of the cycle deaths, a fire broke out. No breakdown data on whether it happened before they went down or afterwards, but I'm willing to bet that at least a half of them had an electrical and/or fuel fire start before they wrecked, and that over-power headlights played into it.

That means that there's like a certain percent of a chance (insert statistical analasis quotient here) that people on this forum saved my life!!! Thanks for the 90/110 info!! Stoopid previous owners!!

Thanks everyone for looking out for fellow Kat riders