IIHS And "Highway Loss Data Institute" - Distorting The Facts--Again - Wheelspin

Well, they're at it once again, unfortunately.

Yet another sham organization posing as an "institute" has distorted the facts to trumpet its insurance-industry-funded agenda against sportbikes. In a press release that was picked up by many major news media outlets, the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) and the so-called "Highway Loss Data Institute" claimed that "supersports motorcycles have the highest death rate" and spewed forth statistics that purportedly show why sportbikes should either be capped with a horsepower limit or banned altogether. Quotes were listed from people with inane-sounding titles such as "senior vice president for research"-but all it takes is a cursory look at the actual data used in the alleged report to see that the only "research" done was how to twist and selectively state the data so it would appear to validate the claims of the . . . oh, right, "institute."

This is the same situation that occurred back in the 1980s when the IIHS convinced a misguided senator from Missouri named John Danforth to attempt introducing national legislation that would ban all "superbike" motorcycles. Danforth quickly withdrew his proposal after intense protest from rights activists and lobbying by the motorcycle industry

The latest report states that riders of supersport motorcycles have a death rate that is "four times higher than the death rate for motorcyclists who ride other types of motorcycles." Then there are the usual ignorant comparisons between the evil Japanese Kawasaki Ninja ZX-6R sportbike and the Harley-Davidson Ultra Classic Electra Glide touring rig. A quote from a woman named Anne McCartt (the "senior vice president for research" at the HLDI) goes on to state that, "[Supersport] bikes made up less than 10 percent of registered motorcycles in 2005 but accounted for over 25 percent of rider deaths." There are more figures bantered about, such as, "Speeding and driver error were bigger factors in fatal crashes of supersport, sport, and unclad sport bikes compared with other classes of motorcycles." McCartt continues her proselytizing with utterly insightful remarks such as, "Motorcyclists presumably buy supersports and sport bikes because they want to go fast, and manufacturers are happy to oblige." Then, of course, she proffers the same insurance-industry mantra that was brought up with Senator Danforth: "Short of banning supersport and sport motorcycles from public roadways, capping the speed of these street-legal racing machines at the factory might be one way to reduce their risk."

In basically regurgitating the IIHS' press release, what the news media failed to notice in PR copy is that the supersport's "four times higher . . . death rate" number was achieved through selective percentage; the actual statement is "four times higher . . . death rate . . . per 10,000 registered motorcycles." This means that instead of comparing each group of motorcycle categories as a whole, the HLDI used only a slice of the largest group by far-cruisers-in order to dramatically over-emphasize the figure. What isn't mentioned is that the fastest growing segment of fatal motorcycle accidents (by a large margin) is the over-1200cc category, which basically comprises-yep, you guessed it-cruisers and touring bikes. Sorry, HLDI, but there weren't enough Hayabusas sold to come anywhere near being part of that group. And while selective percentages may show sportbikes to be death machines, the actual numbers show that the groups with the largest fatality figures are cruisers/standards and touring bikes.

What was also ignored from the actual data was that deaths in the 20-29-year-old age group-the one that used to be consistently the highest-actually decreased during that same period. Meanwhile, the 40-years-and-over age group (not exactly a prime supersports customer base) increased at the highest rate.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to presume that speeding and driver error will be bigger factors in fatal accidents of sportbikes than other classes of bikes. But again, what the report failed to note was that alcohol played a far greater role in all motorcycle fatalities (more than 40 percent) than speed or rider error. So shouldn't we ban alcohol?

I'm not trying to single out cruiser and touring bike riders here; with the biggest percentage of registrations, it's easy for the law of averages to come into play with regard to accidents and fatalities for these two groups. I'm simply pointing out the IIHS' agenda of twisting the facts to gloss over one big problem in order to single out a smaller one, only because that smaller one costs their funding backers more money in insurance claims.

It's also disappointing how several of today's major newspapers simply recited the press release in their fervor for a sensationalist story, instead of actually doing a little research to see if the facts stated were actually true. Or even interviewing anyone from the motorcycle industry for a rebuttal statement . . . and they call themselves "journalists"?