Talking about David Hough... I was in touch with him a couple of years ago about this very topic... check it out:
David L Hough had
interviewed Mr Hurt (HURT report... I am sure you heard of it), and I had emailed them both at the time to talk about displacement, and whether or not they thought it was a major factor in crashes...
FYI: Mr. David L Hough is one of the most famous moto journalist in the US, and wrote books like Proficient Motorcycling. His work has appeared in numerous motorcycle publications, but he is best known for the monthly skills series “Proficient Motorcycling” in Motorcycle Consumer News, which has been honored by special awards from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.
My email to them:
======================================
----- Original Message -----
From: David ******
To:
[email protected] ;
[email protected]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 1:08 PM
Subject: Motorcycle Stats info
Mr Hurt, Mr Smith, Mr. Hough, or to whom it may concern,
I was reading a very interesting article online (
http://www.soundrider.com/archive/sa..._interview.htm) and was wondering if you had any data on whether or not the engine size of motorcycles was shown to have any direct impact on accidents (we know that the bigger the engine cc, the worse the injuries are, but are there proportionally more accidents on higher cc engines?).
There are many online "sports bike" forums in which motorcyclists debate about this topic... generally, it makes sense to advise a new rider to start as small as possible, i.e. 250cc, and gradually increase as they gain experience, but is there any data out there supporting that advise? Are there stats "proving" that it is better to start on a 250cc supersport vs a 600cc supersport?
The only report I could find on the topic was European and simply stated "it is not what you ride, but how you ride", or in other words that the engine cc had no direct impact on accident rates.
Since you clearly know what you are talking about (unlike most of these people in online forums!), it would be greatly appreciated if you could share your thoughts or data (if any).
Thank you in advance!
With my best regards,
David *******
Motorcycle enthusiast.
=======================================
Mr Hough's response:
=======================================
from DAVID L HOUGH <
[email protected]>
to David ****** <david*****@gmail.com>
cc
[email protected]
date Jul 23, 2007 2:23 PM
subject Re: Motorcycle Stats info
David,
Managing the risks of motorcycling is much more complicated than making distinctions in engine displacement. First, engine displacement is not a good indicator of potential motorcycle acceleration or speed. There are 600cc sport bikes that are extremely fast, and there are heavy 1200cc cruisers that are tuned for torque rather than horsepower. It could be that acceleration or top speed relates to crash frequency. Shortly after the release of powerful sport bikes, there have historically been surges in crash frequency--at least as reported anecdotally by dealerships and mechanics. Note that NHTSA now used the term "crash" as compared to "accident."
We should also look at factors other than the total number of fatalities, when attempting to determine what's happening. I look at the fatality rate, in deaths per 100K registrations. A different way to look at the rate is fatalities per miles traveled, but I am suspicious of estimates for motorcycle miles traveled. When looking at the fatality rate, it appears that the rate has leveled off since 2003, while US motorcycle registrations have continued to increase. That's an indication that riders who bought bikes in say, 2000 - 2002 have gotten a little smarter, and reduced their crash exposure. The same thing happened during the huge motorcycle surge in 1979 - 1981. What's more, if you compare the fatality rate of 1978 to that in 2005, the 2005 rate is roughly a third lower.
Statistically, I am not aware of any studies that show absolutely that larger engines (measured in displacement) are a factor in crash frequency. NHTSA has noted an increase in the frequency of large displacement bikes involved in fatal crashes, and an increase in the age of riders involved in fatal crashes. However, I believe this is a result of the sizes of motorcycles being purchased, the number of motorcycles in the traffic mix, and the average age of motorcyclists. Unlike automobiles, motorcycles have surges of popularity, and there has been a surge in sales over the past several years, coincident with the increase in fatalities. Also, over the past couple of decades, motorcycles have gotten bigger and heavier, with stock engines now up to 2400cc. With more motorcycles being purchased and more big-displacement engines in the mix, I think it's realistic to expect an increase in big bikes being involved more in crashes--and therefore fatal crashes. I don't believe that increases in displacement, weight, horsepower, etc. are the root causes of the increase in fatalities per year.
A second consideration is the knowledge and skill level of motorcyclists. A skilled rider on a quick or large bike doesn't necessarily jack up the risks, while an unskilled rider on a heavyweight cruiser may have greater than average risks. Since around 1980 when rider training began to be incorporated into state motorcycle safety programs, crashes and fatalities were decreasing. Around 1999 the Motorcycle Safety Foundation redesigned it's beginning rider training, to reduce training to the "minimum required standards." Some of us use the term "dumbed down" to describe this change, although others argue that the change was to help more riders pass the test and get licensed. It may be a coincidence, but we may note that the current novice rider course (Basic RiderCourse or BRC) has not stemmed the increase in fatalities. So, it might seem reasonable to expect a new rider to get some saddle time on a smaller machine before graduating to a more powerful motorcycle. However, the current system is for the novice to learn on a bike up to 500cc. That means that after a brief two day class, a course graduate can obtain an unlimited license and is free to purchase a 2400cc cruiser or a 1400cc sport bike. I know many instructors who are very concerned that new riders with only 2 days under their belts are assumed to be skillful enough to handle a fast, powerful motorcycle. And there are few opportunities for riders to obtain more advanced training that's applicable to riding in traffic.
We might also note that a great many motorcyclists do not exhibit much concern for the risks. That is, a rider who wears good riding gear demonstrates an awareness of the considerable risks. A rider who does not wear riding gear demonstrates a disregard for the risks. On the coasts, it's more common to find a majority of riders wearing gear. In the midwest and south, it's more common for the majority of riders to be not wearing gear at all. Not wearing a helmet is not my big concern--it's that not wearing even minimal gear is an indication the rider is either unaware of the risks, or understands the risks and is willing to ride without protection. A bee in the eye or a stone in the forehead at 75 mph can easily distract a rider from the task at hand, creating a situation ripe for "losing control."
A third consideration is alcohol. It's common for those who die in motorcycle crashes to have alcohol in the blood. Roughly half of all motorcycle fatalities involve alcohol use by the motorcycle operator. Part of the "biker" lifestyle is to socialize at bars or lounges where drinking is encouraged. However, since alcohol reduces inhibitions and judgment, it should be no surprise when a rider who is under the influence crashes on the way home from the tavern. Let's note that alcohol abuse by motorcyclists is on the increase, while other motorists are gradually reducing alcohol abuse. Because even very good crash padding can only attenuate injuries within a limited range, good riding gear cannot help prevent fatalities resulting from high speed DUI crashes.
We might suspect that an untrained, inexperienced, intoxicated rider with little concern for the risks is much more likely to die in a fatal motorcycle crash--regardless of helmet use or engine displacement.
David L Hough
=====================================
Independently of what we all think in here, this is a great write up....
it's a bike that I've found that I have grown into as my experience and skills have improved, but at no time have I thought I wished I'd bought something smaller. 
within a month, both whilst stationary, once on the patio and once on the road, but was glad I had the crash bobbins on !!! How tall are you? I bought mine from somebody that was 5'8" and they'd had it lowered 15mm (front and rear), I never bothered to put it back up to standard height and I'm 6 foot tall ! This means a lower centre of gravity and I can get both feet flat on the floor. It's staying lowered.
