who owns a Honda CBR 600? I'm pretty much set on getting one as a first bike.

[Zebo]

Don't do it seriously. Enlist in Marines infantry or something if you want high speed low drag and it's safer.

 

[Zenmervolt]

All this is meant to show is that you will get hit by another car regardless of what bike you ride.

Irrelevant to whether you have a greater chance of making a mistake on a supersport vs something like a 250R or a GS500. Honestly, how do you not understand that?

Actually it does contradict what the "don't start on a supersport" crowd is saying. It says that age is a significant factor in accidents. The DSOASS crowd is recommending a 250r to anyone regardless of age and implying that the supersport bike alone is a cause of accidents.

No, it doesn't. How do you not understand that age is a separate variable? Saying that young riders crash more regardless of bike type does not have any affect on whether a supersport increases the likelihood of a crash even further.

Purely hypothetically, it's possible that young riders on cruisers crash 5 times more than old riders on cruisers while young riders on supersports crash 10 times more than old riders on supersports. In such a case, the fact that young riders crash more in general does not in any way contradict that fact that young riders are still more likely to crash on supersports.

It does contradict the DSOASS crowd. Anyone starting out on a bike is more likely to get in a wreck regardless of what bike they are on. People have said that arguing with the DSOASS crowd just to have it dismissed as phooey.

*sigh* Once again, no, it doesn't. The fact that young people are more likely to get in a wreck in general does not mean that the likelihood of a wreck on a supersport doesn't increase even further.

Furthermore, not one person has denied the fact that young riders crash more in general. What we have been saying, however, is that the chances of a young rider crashing are increased even further by starting out on a supersport. How are you not grasping this?

Timeframe isn't 2000-2010. /shrug It's the closest the US has to viable statistics on the matter. Also, the professor in charge seems to think that it's still viable.

The data are largely still viable. However, you can't just look at them all willy-nilly and ignore the fact that the "large displacement motorcycles" of the study were Harleys and UJM 750s which are totally different from modern supersports. The core data that those bikes (Harleys and UJMs) are under-represented in accidents remains true. However, you cannot extrapolate from those data that supersports are under-represented because there are no supersports in the data since they didn't exist at that time.

Taking away the core information is one thing, intentionally misrepresenting data as you're doing is another thing entirely.

I tried to find the best information available on the subject that wasn't the normal forum speculation filled with people getting butt hurt because someone dares point out the flaws in their arguments.

I'm still waiting for you to (a) accurately represent the arguments that have been made in favor of starting on a smaller bike and (b) present anything even resembling a logical rebuttal to those arguments.

It's nice that you actually had some substance to your post though and didn't just come off with insults because you don't have a leg to stand on like some others.

Thanks for admitting that there was substance. The next step would be for you to actually address it.

ZV

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I agree that the math here could do to be looked at more closely. I understand what a median is. I quoted the quotes because I thought they were interesting, not only because I thought they backed up anything that I was arguing.

ORLY?

Here are some statistics for the few here that like to claim they are on there side.

You at least implied that the stats backed you up, when they do not.

 

[Kirby]

lol@madouche

 

[Zebo]

I need to post my pics sometime of 14 broken bones at 20..half skin missing on my back and hands... My tune up surgeries over the years. About every two years I need something. Lost my wrestling scholarship and really changed my life all because I had to have a vmax. I'm almst 40 and it's painful to run...I still do it for my heart while downing asprins and naproxin but I wish I never got a street bike. My son is getting his licence next year and he's getting 6000+ lbs of steel wrapped around him like it or not.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I need to post my pics sometime of 14 broken bones at 20..half skin missing on my back and hands... My tune up surgeries over the years. About every two years I need something. Lost my wrestling scholarship and really changed my life all because I had to have a vmax. I'm almst 40 and it's painful to run...I still do it for my heart while downing asprins and naproxin but I wish I never got a street bike. My son is getting his licence next year and he's getting 6000+ lbs of steel wrapped around him like it or not.

Does your son really need a large SUV to be safe?

Also explain the dangers of rolling over to him...
(young people don't necessarily have the sense to treat 6000lb vehicles like 6000lb vehicles).

 

[SpatiallyAware]

 

[SpatiallyAware]

<snip>

I'm still waiting for you to (a) accurately represent the arguments that have been made in favor of starting on a smaller bike and (b) present anything even resembling a logical rebuttal to those arguments.

<snip>
ZV

ZV... He doesn't have anything to back his opinion up other than grasping for straws trying to make failed connections with irrelevant statistics. He's justified his own actions using this flawed logic and is apparently incapable of admitting that he just might be wrong.



I still think we should ban him from the garage fleabag-style. The last thing a new rider needs when trying to decide between a GS or a 600 is another completely inexperienced rider pushing the 'a supersport makes a great first bike because it has a steering damper and slipper clutch' crap.

 

[Greenman]

Forums are full of stupid people, new riders get all sorts of bad advice. It's not up to us to control what they see and hear. Maduce isn't the only squid that posts here, we have several.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I've only got 6,000 ish miles of streetbike experience. Haven't wrecked once. The only close calls have been other drivers not seeing me.

I've got news for you. You're still a n00b.

 

[madeuce]

Irrelevant to whether you have a greater chance of making a mistake on a supersport vs something like a 250R or a GS500. Honestly, how do you not understand that?

Because it's not true and that's what you can't wrap your head around. Even your misguided example of taking of coming around a 30MPH is flawed. I can get on my bike, a supersport and prove you wrong 7 days a week.

The statistic still shows that other motorists are the greatest danger for a motorcycle.

Once again, if this was really about safety, and not your personal agenda you wouldn't recommend a motorcycle to anyone. The risk from going from a car to a bike increases 10 fold compared to even the wildest made up risks about going from a 250 to a 600 supersport.

No, it doesn't. How do you not understand that age is a separate variable? Saying that young riders crash more regardless of bike type does not have any affect on whether a supersport increases the likelihood of a crash even further.

Purely hypothetically, it's possible that young riders on cruisers crash 5 times more than old riders on cruisers while young riders on supersports crash 10 times more than old riders on supersports. In such a case, the fact that young riders crash more in general does not in any way contradict that fact that young riders are still more likely to crash on supersports.

It sure does contradict the DSOASS crowd. I understand that age is a separate variable. You and your buddies don't quite understand that yet. It looks like you started to on your "purely hypothetical." Most of the time it gets lumped right in with SS bikes. Combining age with SS bikes is the most common mistake I can see in the DSOASS crowds "you'll die on a 600" argument. If you look at them separately you can see that age is the big factor involved, not the fact someone is on an SS.

Purely hypothetical, it IS possible that young riders crash at a higher rate then older riders. Just like it possible that someone might make a mistake on a SS that they wouldn't make on a non-SS.

Age is going to come out being a bigger factor 7 days a week. You aren't recommending anyone to wait until they are 30 to get a bike though. So you really can't be that concerned about safety, is it some personal agenda you have that makes you ignore it?

*sigh* Once again, no, it doesn't. The fact that young people are more likely to get in a wreck in general does not mean that the likelihood of a wreck on a supersport doesn't increase even further.

Furthermore, not one person has denied the fact that young riders crash more in general. What we have been saying, however, is that the chances of a young rider crashing are increased even further by starting out on a supersport. How are you not grasping this?

*sigh* Once again, it does contradict what the DSOASS crowd has been saying. The risk of starting out on a bike is far greater than the risk involved in the difference of a 250 and a 600 SS.

How many times have we heard the "It's ok, start out on a 600, we'll buy your bike for cheap after you die." That's implying that the risk of starting out on a 600 vs a 250 is perilously greater than the risk involved going from a car to a 250. It's extremely false and used by the DSOASS crowd all the time.

The data are largely still viable. However, you can't just look at them all willy-nilly and ignore the fact that the "large displacement motorcycles" of the study were Harleys and UJM 750s which are totally different from modern supersports. The core data that those bikes (Harleys and UJMs) are under-represented in accidents remains true. However, you cannot extrapolate from those data that supersports are under-represented because there are no supersports in the data since they didn't exist at that time.

Taking away the core information is one thing, intentionally misrepresenting data as you're doing is another thing entirely.

If you don't like the data about bigger bikes don't use it, I don't think it's that relevant myself. We aren't talking about bigger bikes, we're talking about faster bikes.

I did assume that bigger bikes back then had more power than smaller bikes. I think in general that's a decent assumption. If it's not /shrug, don't use it.

Misrepresentation of data is what's happening every time we hear one of those "you'll die on a 600 SS" comments. Either that or it's just ignorance.

I'm still waiting for you to (a) accurately represent the arguments that have been made in favor of starting on a smaller bike and (b) present anything even resembling a logical rebuttal to those arguments.

I'm not going to argue with you about "sharks and lightning." You made an argument about cornering and I addressed it. If anyone lives in CO and wants to go for a ride, I can prove that a 600 SS is not that touchy in a 30MPH curve in 2nd gear.

The only way I'm going to be high enough in the RPMs to be as touchy as you think is by first trying to take the corner way too fast for safe riding on the street anyway.

My 650r non-SS bike would be a better example of a bike that would be a little touchier in the curve you are talking about.

Thanks for admitting that there was substance. The next step would be for you to actually address it.

ZV

What else would you like me to address? When the DSOASS crowd talks about how dangerous a 600 is it's generally very vague with no real substance.

When someone is constantly going off about how "you're going to die because you must be a squid if you want to ride a SS" there's not much more to do other let them celebrate their ignorance.

All it takes is a look at their posts. It's all about insulting someone who doesn't agree with them. When you point out that they are wrong and attempt to explain it comes down to just more insults.

Jules is apparently pissed because the statistics he was quoting over and over are fictional. The same jules that tries to downplay age as a significant factor. Constantly trying to stereotype me into some kind of rider that he feels better arguing against.

Spatiallyaware seems to have almost nothing to contribute other than weak attempts at belittling. He actually started making an argument once, and it amounted to saying that a slipper clutch won't help protect you from locking the rear wheel when you downshift too far? I can only tell them he's wrong so many times. He's too busy throwing insults and hollering "Ban hammer" to actually contribute.

nkgreen? just one of the guys that's lucky he's on the internet and not face to face I guess.

At least plasma is making an attempt, wouldn't fault him for that even if I don't agree with him.

Most peoples best argument is "well, ZV said..."

If you look at the big picture, if a person on a 600, and a person on a 250 both follow:

Take the MSF
Wear your gear
Ride responsibly
Watch for other drivers.

They are probably going to be ok. The difference between the safety of the bikes is debatable and is going to be minor at best compared to the risk of moving from a car to a bike. Is a bike moving 150mph more dangerous than one moving 60MPH, of course. That mistake starts with the rider, not the bike.

 

[madeuce]

I need to post my pics sometime of 14 broken bones at 20..half skin missing on my back and hands... My tune up surgeries over the years. About every two years I need something. Lost my wrestling scholarship and really changed my life all because I had to have a vmax. I'm almst 40 and it's painful to run...I still do it for my heart while downing asprins and naproxin but I wish I never got a street bike. My son is getting his licence next year and he's getting 6000+ lbs of steel wrapped around him like it or not.

What happened on your bike?


Before I bought my bike I read.
http://www.kawiforums.com/newbie-corner/116620-new-rider-crash-amputee-please-read.html

Great read and I think everyone should read it before getting a bike.

Everyone will get something different out of it and there are a few lessons in it.

 

[madeuce]

ORLY?

You at least implied that the stats backed you up, when they do not.

The reason the the statistics were linked is because someone kept saying that the statistics were so one sided against SS bikes. It's not the case however because there are no good statistics yet with SS bikes. There is one in the works that's supposed to be as good as the Hurt report, if they can get the funding to do more than 300 cases.

The statistics we have do back up a lot of what I'm saying. The major dangers in riding come from other motorists, riders being new, and riders being young and not wearing gear. Those types of riders are the dangerous part of the equation, not the difference between a 250 and a 600.

 

[madeuce]

I still think we should ban him from the garage fleabag-style. The last thing a new rider needs when trying to decide between a GS or a 600 is another completely inexperienced rider pushing the 'a supersport makes a great first bike because it has a steering damper and slipper clutch' crap.

Tell you what, when some people concede that the major risks involved in riding a motorcycle are the ones listed below, and that the difference in risk involved from riding a non-SS bike and SS bike are minor in comparison, I won't post about it again until someone starts with the "you'll die because you ride a SS" crap.

1. Inexperience
2. Rider age
3. Improper gear
4. Other drivers in 4 wheeled vehicles

 

[PlasmaBomb]

What happened on your bike?


Before I bought my bike I read.
http://www.kawiforums.com/newbie-corner/116620-new-rider-crash-amputee-please-read.html

Great read and I think everyone should read it before getting a bike.

Everyone will get something different out of it and there are a few lessons in it.

Dude is an idiot...

 

[MiataNC]

The reason the the statistics were linked is because someone kept saying that the statistics were so one sided against SS bikes. It's not the case however because there are no good statistics yet with SS bikes. There is one in the works that's supposed to be as good as the Hurt report, if they can get the funding to do more than 300 cases.

The statistics we have do back up a lot of what I'm saying. The major dangers in riding come from other motorists, riders being new, and riders being young and not wearing gear. Those types of riders are the dangerous part of the equation, not the difference between a 250 and a 600.

From the Hurt Report (FYI I dated his daughter in high school Bpow-Chica-Wow-Wow....)

The stats ARE 1-sided against sportbikes.

Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment. - Typical of 600/1000cc sportbikes running too hot into a corner/curve.

In the single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slide-out and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering. - Typical of 600/1000cc sportbikes running too hot into a corner/curve. Also riding a bike with unforgiving characteristics decreases the margin for rider error, resulting in more accidents.

In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents. - It is way too easy to ride fast on a sportbike, and that which makes you more vulnerable to cages violating your right, giving you less time to react and avoid collision.

The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph - A typical of 600/1000cc sportbike is doing better than @30mph before shifting into 2nd gear, and that isn't even winding past half the RPM range.

Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly Overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented.- Of the two groups, which is most likely to be a sportbike rider? Which group do the people on this board contemplating and recommending 600/1000cc sportbikes fall into?

Craftsmen, laborers and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders but the professionals, sales workers and craftsmen are underrepresented and the laborers, students and unemployed are overrepresented in the accidents.- Again which group is a typical 600/1000cc sportbike rider?

Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data. - The kind of driver/rider that is likely to rack up a lot of tickets is also the type most likely to want a 600/1000cc sportbike.

Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.- A bike with razor edge characteristics (ie sportbike) will amplify this lack of skill and control.

The large displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.- When the Hurt Report was made 750cc air-cooled inline-4s were considered "large displacement bikes". These bikes were producing less HP (@67 for a Honda CB750) than a Ninja 650R or SV650 does today. (@67 for a Honda CB750) Modern 600cc supersports push @120hp

Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.- Sadly more typical of sportbike riders than cruiser.

Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.- Typical of younger sportbike riders who cannot afford the high insurance rates. Most only carry liability in states that mandate insurance. There is a reason insurance companies charge more for sportbikes. Underwriters are biased ONLY when it comes to paying out claims.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

The reason the the statistics were linked is because someone kept saying that the statistics were so one sided against SS bikes. It's not the case however because there are no good statistics yet with SS bikes. There is one in the works that's supposed to be as good as the Hurt report, if they can get the funding to do more than 300 cases.

The statistics we have do back up a lot of what I'm saying. The major dangers in riding come from other motorists, riders being new, and riders being young and not wearing gear. Those types of riders are the dangerous part of the equation, not the difference between a 250 and a 600.

*Facepalm*
Yes there are...

Riders of machines 600cc and above seem to have an above average risk of becoming involved in accidents on bends, and there is also some evidence of an increased risk of accidents involving overtaking or filtering for riders of machines 900cc and above.

Just under a third of accidents suffered by motorcyclists did not involve a second vehicle.

UK Road Safety Statistics 2004

Yup riders on 600cc machines are more likely to kill themselves in accidents which don't involve other road users...

I know it must be because 600s are so easy to control with the dampers and slipper clutches.

Edit: A bit more info...

Bend accidents are a particular area of concern as our analysis shows that they are
over twice as likely to cause a rider or pillion&#8217;s death when compared with the
sample as a whole, and over one and a half times more likely to cause serious
injuries.

 

[JulesMaximus]

What happened on your bike?


Before I bought my bike I read.
http://www.kawiforums.com/newbie-corner/116620-new-rider-crash-amputee-please-read.html

Great read and I think everyone should read it before getting a bike.

Everyone will get something different out of it and there are a few lessons in it.

That link pretty much confirms everyone here who is saying don't get a super sport as your first bike.

Even the guys responding are saying it.

I post on an SV650 forum and they say the same thing as well, don't get a supersport as your first bike.

 

[Zebo]

I totally disagree with posters discouraging superbikes .. any bike is a problem because of 4 ton battering rams on the road and cracked out, drunk, and imbeciles allowed to drive them If there were no cars I'd have the fastest 1100/1200 CC bike they make.

 

[madeuce]

From the Hurt Report (FYI I dated his daughter in high school Bpow-Chica-Wow-Wow....)

The stats ARE 1-sided against sportbikes.

Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment. - Typical of 600/1000cc sportbikes running too hot into a corner/curve.

In the single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slide-out and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering. - Typical of 600/1000cc sportbikes running too hot into a corner/curve. Also riding a bike with unforgiving characteristics decreases the margin for rider error, resulting in more accidents.

In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents. - It is way too easy to ride fast on a sportbike, and that which makes you more vulnerable to cages violating your right, giving you less time to react and avoid collision.

The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph - A typical of 600/1000cc sportbike is doing better than @30mph before shifting into 2nd gear, and that isn't even winding past half the RPM range.

Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly Overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented.- Of the two groups, which is most likely to be a sportbike rider? Which group do the people on this board contemplating and recommending 600/1000cc sportbikes fall into?

Craftsmen, laborers and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders but the professionals, sales workers and craftsmen are underrepresented and the laborers, students and unemployed are overrepresented in the accidents.- Again which group is a typical 600/1000cc sportbike rider?

Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data. - The kind of driver/rider that is likely to rack up a lot of tickets is also the type most likely to want a 600/1000cc sportbike.

Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.- A bike with razor edge characteristics (ie sportbike) will amplify this lack of skill and control.

The large displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.- When the Hurt Report was made 750cc air-cooled inline-4s were considered "large displacement bikes". These bikes were producing less HP (@67 for a Honda CB750) than a Ninja 650R or SV650 does today. (@67 for a Honda CB750) Modern 600cc supersports push @120hp

Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.- Sadly more typical of sportbike riders than cruiser.

Less than 10&#37; of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.- Typical of younger sportbike riders who cannot afford the high insurance rates. Most only carry liability in states that mandate insurance. There is a reason insurance companies charge more for sportbikes. Underwriters are biased ONLY when it comes to paying out claims.

Everything in blue is just more of the same. Claiming that it's more likely to SS when it's only opinion and not based on the statistics at all, or mixing the SS with the age or rider behavior to provide your results. If you have to combine them to get the result you're looking for there is a reason. The reason is that the age and rider behavior are bigger factors, not the bike.

 

[madeuce]

*Facepalm*
Yes there are...

Link some please.

Yup riders on 600cc machines are more likely to kill themselves in accidents which don't involve other road users...

I know it must be because 600s are so easy to control with the dampers and slipper clutches.

Edit: A bit more info...

It's unfortunate that your relying on a claim that's about 600cc and above and trying to distort that into information about 600cc. It's also less than a third of accidents, and in the UK...

 

[JulesMaximus]

Everything in blue is just more of the same. Claiming that it's more likely to SS when it's only opinion and not based on the statistics at all, or mixing the SS with the age or rider behavior to provide your results. If you have to combine them to get the result you're looking for there is a reason. The reason is that the age and rider behavior are bigger factors, not the bike.

Even if that were true you've said nothing to disprove what we've said. You have zero facts to back up your claim that the bike makes no difference.

 

[madeuce]

That link pretty much confirms everyone here who is saying don't get a super sport as your first bike.

Even the guys responding are saying it.

I post on an SV650 forum and they say the same thing as well, don't get a supersport as your first bike.

There is a lot you can take from it.

One of the things it confirms is that he was not riding safely. Regardless what bike that guy was on, he was going to get his. It might have been in a parking lot stunting on that 250r that he was suggested by you to get.

If he was riding safely there would have been no accident and it wasn't a little mistake. If you are bringing the front of your bike up when you hit 3rd you aren't accidentally giving it a little too much throttle.

 

[madeuce]

Even if that were true you've said nothing to disprove what we've said. You have zero facts to back up your claim that the bike makes no difference.

You have 0 facts to back up your claims that a 600 is death.

It still stands that

If you look at the big picture, if a person on a 600, and a person on a 250 both follow:

Take the MSF
Wear your gear
Ride responsibly
Watch for other drivers.

They are probably going to be ok. The difference between the safety of the bikes is debatable and is going to be minor at best compared to the risk of moving from a car to a bike.

 

[MiataNC]

Everything in blue is just more of the same. Claiming that it's more likely to SS when it's only opinion and not based on the statistics at all, or mixing the SS with the age or rider behavior to provide your results. If you have to combine them to get the result you're looking for there is a reason. The reason is that the age and rider behavior are bigger factors, not the bike.