Is anyone aware if there are any statisitcs to suggest that one type of motorcycle is safer?

(example - is a cruiser safer than a street bike or a touring bike, etc.)

Each specific style of motorcycle has it's own dangers... Sports bikes (crotch rockets) attract a younger, less experienced rider who is more likely to loose control of the motorcycle due to excessive speed.

Cruiser style bikes (Harleys and metric clones) are probably safer than sports bikes, but are involved in many more accidents involving alcohol impaired riders.

Heavy touring bikes are safer still, but spend statistically more time on the roads and highways, so are more likely to be involved in motorcycle vs car accidents.

Perhaps the dual-sport bikes like the BMW R1200GS are statistically the safest of all, as their owners tend to be older, more experienced riders who aren't as likely to loose control due to speed, or be involved in a drunk-driving accident.

touring bikes have body work which can be damaging and street bike have some serious power but in the end theres no difference. It's up to how you ride your bike and the idiots that don't know how to drive that surround you. If your getting a bike go with what your comfortable with and don't get something too overpowering that your not ready for.

The bike has to be matched to your skill level. An expert rider can be safest on a sportbike because it has the best accelerating and braking and a connectedness to the road that no other bike approaches. But a novice rider may be safer on a smaller naked bike or motard, and least safe on a sport bike.

I think heavy bikes being less agile are not going to avoid trouble so easily, but their riders would be the type to less often try to find trouble. So this is kind of an imposable question. Statistics are going to be deceiving because of the wrong people riding the wrong bike.

That said, I'm going to bet that BMWs tend to get into less accidents. I think you will be looking at mature riders who have been riding for a while on bikes that are fairly agile.

Biggest prob with all bikes is a loose nut on the handelbars

Safety is really in the mind of the rider. Any bike can be 'safe' if the rider rides it within the limits of the environment and the rider's abilities.

Racing on the street is just as dangerous on a cruiser as on a sport bike.

A motorcycle is only as safe as the person operating it.

In the early 1990s the European Commission wanted to ban bikes over 100 horsepower... and I remember at the time there was actually no statistical evidence to prove such bikes were more dangerous.

If you are planning a purchase based on such statistics then your reasoning is very flawed. The idea that you will somehow be safer on a particular bike because of statistics is plain crazy, and this thinking represents a bad attitude. YOU have to take responsibility for your safety by YOUR actions and inputs: if you are not up to it, having a 'safer' bike won't keep you alive. The only qualification I would make is that if you can't control your urge to speed, then maybe don't buy a really fast bike.

Any data will be skewed: for instance, the fatality rate for crashes on the 1929 Brough Superior is probably massive, reflecting the poor safety equipment of the time. The death rate on Honda XR250 trail bikes is probably large because rednecks get drunk and ride them without lights. I would wager that the Suzuki GSXR1100 has killed more people than the Bimota SB6, even though they are technically almost the same- the Bimota costs a lot of money, meaning they are used as weekend toys by rich men with a lot to live for. Tourers are probably very safe per mile travelled, because they spend all their time on safe freeways covering huge distances. Bikes that are popular with learners in cities will have a lot of blood on them.

Another example: up until about 1995, the Suzuki RGV250 was learner legal in Australia and lots of people died on them. Today, it is the same RGV250, but the death rates after 1995 would be much smaller. Is the 'bike' any more or less dangerous? Of course not, it's the same bike.

I agree with JetDoc that BMWs are safe, because their riders are slow and boring.

So ignore stats, get a bike you like and feel comfortable on, and be the best rider you can be.

you can not use the word safe and motorcycle in the same sentence.

Technically speaking with regards to performance, sportbikes should be safest because the are more agile (swerve better), have more braking power, and can get you out of a sticky spot in a hurry. But they're the most expensive to insure because statistically they crash more often than any other style. You know what ironic? The highest rate of accidents happens with a particular age group, not bike style. 18-22 year olds (or 24 maybe, can't remember) with less than 6 months experience are in the highest rate of accidents (or they WERE) and are also the majority of sportbike owners. NOW the highest rate of accidents is from 40-45 because of drunk driving and they almost always ride...cruisers!!

It's not the gun that kills people. It's the person pulling the trigger. Same with bikes.

If you want to ride safely, Take the MSF course (www.msf-usa.org) and wear full riding gear. This will put you in a statistically very low-risk group of riders.

if it has 2 wheels and cant stand alone without a kickstand, it aint safe....