I was reminded this week that we are all unique and view challenges and difficulties with the different backgrounds of our experiences, sometimes causing tensions or frustrations in how we decide to improve. From the point of experiential memory, we internalize insults and injuries much more readily than normal everyday activity and success. Disagreements during personal challenge can be so threatening to who we are, that our bodies will secrete adrenaline to protect us from perceived dangers. The hormonal shifts then embed the imagined slights or challenges into our memory and hold them there regardless of who was factually right or wrong, creating long term friction with the person who disagrees with us (van der Kolk, 2014).
This is played out day after day on the roadways of America whenever crashes involving motorcyclists happen. Regardless of reasonable fault or behavior, there is consistent blame associated with the crash causation with motorcyclists almost automatically pointing their finger away from the rider. As the story goes, a distracted driver – or cager, pulls into the pathway of a motorcycle, and as a result, too many factors build up causing the worst-case scenario to happen.
It is always the other person’s fault. The cager reports the motorcycle came out of nowhere, “I didn’t see them,” so they must have been speeding. The motorcyclist reports, “They never even looked for me” they must have been distracted. The result will remain, too many factors came together, and a crash happened. In our current motorcycling culture, there are strong beliefs potentially narrowing perceptions of responsibility, causing a reliance on these views. In some ways, the previous research sample was limited, with a scope no longer applicable to the current situation.
In the 1981 “Hurt Report,” a seminal causation study, researchers identified the primary physical skills necessary to operate a motorcycle, documenting almost every measurable aspect of the investigated crashes. The human behavioral factors were more difficult to measure and less of a focus. 92% of the motorcycle riders were found not formally trained, with only 54% holding a motorcycle license or permit. 52% were found to be unsure of their own culpability in the crashes. The examples given in rider explanations were determined to have some invention of reason proving to be inaccurate in follow-up investigations by the investigators when compared to physical evidence. At the time of the research, 64.9% of the crashes were due to the other vehicle drivers, with crash locations primarily at intersections.
What has changed in the forty years since the Hurt report is the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (2019) reporting a change where 65% of crashes happen away from intersections, a drastic change from previous findings. Oliver (2016) suggests results from the Virginia Tech Transportation Institutes, MSF 100 Motorcyclists Naturalistic Study indicate approximately 65% of crashes are related to conditions within the motorcyclist’s control. The predominant view is motorcycle riders can avoid an accident by changing their riding behavior by slowing down, extending following distance, anticipating potential conflict areas, and positioning themselves to be more visible to other motorists.
The difference of forty years highlights rider judgment as being more measurable and at question in more crashes. Motorcyclists are now held more accountable for their contribution to crashes and like other roadway users who statistically have fewer crash events per capita and per miles traveled.
In some cases, there is a middle ground for combining our past beliefs with new studies to augment what was formerly scientific fact only a short while ago. Much depends on our ability, as humans, to control our natural inclination to have great differences of opinion long enough for new information to be gained. Having the mindset capable of growth, instead of being fixed in the past, creates an opportunity for those willing to question and change. Being able to accept new or conflicting information is a strong characteristic of life-long learners (Sinek, 2019). It supports a common thread in scientific research to be able to look at challenges with a beginner’s mind (shoshin), allowing for new possibilities to exist, while not completely accepting what was once considered “settled science.”
Motorcyclists must change beliefs about the causes of crashes so we can get beyond finger-pointing and begin to understand ourselves better. Individuals and organizations who only rely on old paradigms about the origin of motorcycle crashes can be of better assistance to the community. Considering new information allows motorcyclists to apply the current evidence to change the culture of motorcycle crash causation for all motorcycle enthusiasts.
References
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2019, July). Traffic safety facts, 2017 data: Motorcycles. (Report No. DOT HS 812 785). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812785
Oliver, L. (2016, November 21). What Virginia tech learned about how and why we crash our motorcycles. Revzilla – Common Tread. Retrieved from https://www.revzilla.com/ common-tread/ what-virginia-tech-learned-about-how-and-why-we-crash-our-motorcycles
Sinek, S. (2019). The infinite game. New York: Penguin.
Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, body in the healing of trauma. New York: Viking.
