[haiku2077]

Sportbikes are lower, but they're not typical. Sportbikes sales trended way down over the past decade, with models being discontinued entirely in some regions. Current sporty-style bikes are generally more upright seating and share engines and platforms with non-sport models. Dual sport/off road bikes have trended upwards, even for riders who never go off pavement, because they're cheap to run and very practical as general purpose motorcycles. More recently, there's been a trend towards large touring bikes as well.

https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/motorcycle-industry-q1...

[dumbfounder]

Yes your enduros and such are taller than sport bikes, but a Harley would be much lower, yes?

[joecool1029]

Somewhat yeah, the GS is a tall bike for sure. I have a zrx1200 and I'm still a ton taller than when I am in the miata. Miata is probably one of the lowest riding vehicles you can get and headlights are a problem at night shining in my eyes, where on the motorcycle it is not an issue.

I don't have a brake light on my helmet on motorcycle but I added DOT-C2 tape to the back and sides of it, stuff like this: https://www.amazon.com/THKULKME-Reflective-Reflector-Waterpr...

[nandomrumber]

I see, thanks for the info. I’m licensed but haven’t owned a bike in years.

Do we have stats on whether more sports bike riders are involved in crashes that bikes with better visibility?

[haiku2077]

Not really. Outside of a few groups at places like Virginia Tech, motorcycle safety studies don't get much funding. Too niche.

You can use insurance rates as a loose proxy- sportbikes are between one and three orders of magnitude more expensive to insure than adventure bikes, touring bikes or cruisers. But I suspect that has more to do with the average age of the riders.

[toyg]

And bike power. Sportsbikes are often road-legal versions of actual racing bikes, with all that it entails. If a third of cars on the road were tuned-down Ferraris and McLarens, you bet they'd crash left right and center.

[taneq]

Yeah, bike power has increased significantly. Iirc the age distribution of fatal crashes is double peaked, with one peak in the 20s from young riders who don’t know what they’re doing yet, and another in the late 40s or so from older riders who haven’t ridden in 20 years but still think they know what they’re doing. The skills needed to handle a modern 600cc sports bike with 160+ hp are on another level compared to the skills needed for a 600cc sports bike from the 90s with 110hp.

[lazide]

Also slower reaction times (and less testicular fortitude!) in someone older, along with the lack of practice.

There are some situations you can get yourself out of (and many more you can get into!) as a 20 something that will just outright result in death when you’re older.

Source: rode a 1400cc bike for almost a decade, awhile ago. Never went above 140mph on it though.

[haiku2077]

Weirdly, an adventure bike with higher horsepower will have cheaper insurance than a race replica with less horsepower.

[somerandomqaguy]

Kinda. Power delivery is wildly different between an ADV and a sports bike.

On a sorta dual sport like a Kawasaki KLR650 you get peak torque from the engine at around 2500 RPM, which is comfortably in school zone speed limit territory.

Something like the Yamaha R6 won't really start feel like it's pulling until you get the engine above 8000 RPM at least and then you getting peak torque until around 12,000 RPM. By then you're doing 70kph to 90kph in first gear.

Sports bikes are more comfortable ridden aggressively. Unfortunately that also gives a lot of riders a false sense of skill; right until they moment run into a situation above their skill level and they crash while panicking.

[haiku2077]

A 1300GS has significantly higher horsepower than an R6, variable valves so it pulls across the rev range, and yet still costs a fraction of an R6's insurance cost; it would appear that the riders have a much larger role in the premium than the engine.

[lupusreal]

Doesn't seem that weird to me. Having lots of horsepower available doesn't mean you have to use it. Conversely, having only modest horsepower is still more than enough to drive at a truly reckless speed on most if not all roads. The psychology of the biker, their inclination to go fast, plays a more important role than the raw horsepower statistic. It seems safe to assume that people who deliberately purchase a race replica, even one with only modest horsepower, are more likely to go way too fast.

In any case, insurance companies have a monetary incentive to go by the data. Whatever the cause, they evidently have data that says race replicas correlate with insurance claims.

[jajko]

Absolutely. I have a meagre Honda ADV 350 with some 28 HP (can't start biking on higher models in Europe, first 2 years its this or lower level), and hell 0-50kmh is blisteringly fast, 50-90kmh still much faster than our BMW with 245HP in sports mode. Sure above 100kmh it gets slower but I use it for non-highway commute, winding roads through vineyards and such so I don't even ride it that way. It makes bike much lighter while its pretty big for a big guy like me, and being nimble is priceless for enjoyment and safety too.

I literally don't need more, it becomes just an ego or emotions game. Faster only gets you to places way sooner than other drivers expect you to, massively increasing risk exposure.

[bigfudge]

I think you mean one and three times more expensive. 3 orders of magnitude is 1000 times more expensive!

[haiku2077]

Yeah... I've gotten quotes with that kind of spread between "old man" bikes and very fast sport bikes. IIRC if you buy a cruiser or certain ADVs the insurance company expects to never hear from you with a claim, while certain sport bikes, the insurance expects you to total it within 18 months.