IIHS asks gov't to mandate ABS on motorcycles

[pauldun170]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/09/i...n-motorcycles/

Safety group urges highway agency to require anti-lock brakes on new motorcycles

By Ashley Halsey III
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 7, 2010; A07



Citing research showing that fatal motorcycle accidents could be reduced by more than a third, an insurance industry group has asked for a federal mandate to require anti-lock brakes on all new motorcycles.

Until last year, the number of motorcycle fatalities had steadily increased, reaching a record 5,290 two years ago. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which can draw on accident reports from the insurance companies that support it, asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on Thursday to require that new motorbikes be equipped with the brakes.

"Traveling on two wheels instead of four is always riskier, but our new research shows that anti-lock brake technology can make motorcycle riding a much safer way to get around," Adrian Lund, president of the institute, said.

Concern about the added cost -- estimated by motorcycle industry sources at more than $1,000 a bike -- and other issues made motorcycle groups reluctant to embrace a mandate. In a statement, the American Motorcyclist Association endorsed making the brakes an option on more models than manufacturers offer but said they are "not a panacea."

"There are situations when [anti-lock brakes] can increase the risk of a crash, such as when riding an off-highway motorcycle on a trail, or when riding an on-highway or dual-sport motorcycle on a dirt or gravel road," the group said.

Unlike automobile brakes, which respond to a single pedal, a motorcycle has independently controlled front and rear brakes. In some off-road situations, a rider might intentionally clamp down on the rear brake to correct direction if the bike swerves in deep mud or gravel.

With anti-lock brakes, pressure is evaluated several times a second so that the motorcycle avoids stopping so abruptly that the rider loses control.

Insurance institute researchers found that motorcycles with anti-lock brakes were 37 percent less likely to be involved in fatal crashes. Another study determined that motorcycles with anti-lock brakes had 22 percent fewer claims for crash damage per insured vehicle year than the same models without them.

Lund said the two reports provided "compelling evidence that anti-locks reduce fatal crash risk and lower insurance losses. NHTSA has what it needs to move forward with a regulation."

[Dave]

Are you effing kidding me

[pauldun170]

I'm going to go on record as saying I hate the IIHS.

[Particle Man]

*sigh*

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Another study determined that motorcycles with anti-lock brakes had 22 percent fewer claims for crash damage per insured vehicle year than the same models without them.

Lund said the two reports provided "compelling evidence that anti-locks reduce fatal crash risk and lower insurance losses. NHTSA has what it needs to move forward with a regulation."

That study wouldn't have found that the bikes that even come with antilock brakes are high end motorcycles that have a different type of owner. That OWNER is probably less likely to make an insurance claim, in general.

[karl_1052]

My brother asked me if my bike had ABS, and he looked at me like I was crazy when I told him, "No, and I don't want it"

In testing by many enthusiast publications, it does stop shorter and safer than Non-ABS.

[DLIT]

Hahaha. Imagine rolling around on a POS Hyosung with ABS. The brakes would be like 20% of the bike's cost.

[azoomm]

Originally Posted by karl_1052

My brother asked me if my bike had ABS, and he looked at me like I was crazy when I told him, "No, and I don't want it"

In testing by many enthusiast publications, it does stop shorter and safer than Non-ABS.

Now hold on a minute. I love the argument against ABS... why don't you want it?

I don't want them required, but I'm all for having the technology.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by azoomm

That study wouldn't have found that the bikes that even come with antilock brakes are high end motorcycles that have a different type of owner. That OWNER is probably less likely to make an insurance claim, in general.

I was thinking exactly the same thing; 30 year, 50 year-old rider on a high-zoot sport/tourer vs. Squiddly who's been riding for 6 months, on his CBRZXRYZF1500.

Originally Posted by karl_1052

My brother asked me if my bike had ABS, and he looked at me like I was crazy when I told him, "No, and I don't want it"

In testing by many enthusiast publications, it does stop shorter and safer than Non-ABS.

If you're talking about the same publications that I'm thinking of, ABS stopped shorter than riders who had not taken advanced riding schools. ART would do more for rider safety than most technology could.

[karl_1052]

Originally Posted by azoomm

Now hold on a minute. I love the argument against ABS... why don't you want it?

I don't want them required, but I'm all for having the technology.

I don't like the cost, and complexity. My bike is complex enough.