Crash stats

[sammcj]

Question:

Does anyone know how often in a CAR crash; there is more than 1 occupant in the car?

[Berries]

It is recorded on the crash report the Police fill out so should be readily available. Will check it out.

The other side of the coin is the bike-only crashes over the same period. Berries? Can you supply that?

No problem although I left my flash drive at work so it will have to be Monday. I was looking at make, model and engine size recently and had these figures for the last five years, bike only -

2004 - 190
2005 - 258
2006 - 273
2007 - 370
2008 - 417

But will get the full data with a bit more detail on Monday.

[Spearfish]

I know I probably shouldn't think it but...

[MSTRS:Me]

I know I probably shouldn't think it, but the stats are undermining my confidence that we are actually being hard done by.
The only argument I see is the tampering with founding principles of ACC.

Nobody doubts that there aren't idiots out there doing us no favours etc....however, when one compares crashes/bike numbers, the picture painted cannot be simply interpreted that we are having more crashes. Wait til Berries gets the pre-2004 bike only figures. Then we will see any trend there as well.

[Berries]

Well I feel hard done by. I will continue to feel hard done by while sports players and cyclists get ACC cover but don't pay specific levies related to their own risk profile. I will also continue to feel hard done by whenever I see some twat boy racer who is quite clearly a crash waiting to happen paying less than I do for ACC cover.

I also feel hard done by whenever I ride past the local bike shop and see the green Street Triple in the window, knowing my SV is worth bugger all as a trade in.

[Vgygrwr]

A couple of observations to add to the questions on statistics:
Firstly if you check compensation to dependents on fatalities think there is both provision for a lump sum and cover to care for dependent children up to age 18 for 5 years from the date of accident at 80% of the deceased earnings.
Secondly there appears to be a relationship between the number of new registrations and the number of accidents. Think there are some clear statistics on old guys like me coming back to bikes being high risk in the first 12 months.

[Spearfish]

Yeah your both right

[mattbishop]

Hey guys,
Looking at the stats, I would say that it very clearly shows that it has been us bikers that have F**ked it for ourselves. I've attached a graph which compares police reported serious injuries for motorcyclists to ACC claims accepted for injuries, back to 1998.

Sources are http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjo...nce%202000.pdf and http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/QuestionsandAnswers.pdf.

You can see that police reported serious injuries has risen a little bit in the last 10 years, maybe by 15% max (This is way less than the % increase in registered bikes, by the way) . But, acc claims have risen by 580%!!!

So, that is the final story as far as I'm concerned regarding bikers, ACC and statistics. Nothing to do with how safe we are, how safe other drivers are. Everything to do with bikers over-claiming for every sandfly they get in their eye while riding.

Hate to say, this is not a good position for argument. Only good thing to take from it is solid evidence that ACC shouldn't base levies on the amounts people claim. According to the actual crash data, there is a vague basis for a 15% increase in levies. Maybe ACC knows this, and figures it is easier to charge more than to work out who is claiming when they shouldn't?

[sammcj]

Watch out for ANY stats from stuff.co.nz ; they're fairfax group!

[MSTRS:Me]

Hey guys,
Looking at the stats, I would say that it very clearly shows that it has been us bikers that have F**ked it for ourselves. I've attached a graph which compares police reported serious injuries for motorcyclists to ACC claims accepted for injuries, back to 1998.

I'm having just a 'little' trouble with the red line on that graph. We know that 1998 records 874 'serious' injuries (ones that require extensive medical intervention and/or followup, rehabilitation, wage compensation, etc - not just a plaster for a graze). Yet, we also know from ACC themselves that 2008 showed an equivalent figure of 1335. NIck the Prick's magical figure of 5044 that shows on the graph is all claimed injuries. So approximately 3700 were for minor injury claims. Nor should they be counted when the 1998 non-serious injuries claims are not there on record.
We've had this info from Ixion.

[sammcj]

Hey guys come on - Let's end the flame war here and concentrate on working together for justice with ACC.

[Berries]

Ok, here’s those numbers. All crashes involving motorbikes nationwide that resulted in injury. First number is total number of crashes involving a motorbike, second figure is the number of car vs bike crashes and the final figure is bikes on their own.

1990 – 2073 – 1361 - 577
1991 – 1938 – 1300 - 537
1992 – 1701 – 1140 - 445
1993 – 1478 – 1001 - 360
1994 – 1596 – 1075 - 411
1995 – 1470 – 1010 - 361
1996 – 1158 – 784 - 299
1997 – 1066 – 724 - 264
1998 – 897 – 577 - 265
1999 – 748 – 491 - 215
2000 – 613 – 356 - 221
2001 – 579 – 368 - 171
2002 – 642 – 383 - 207
2003 – 637 – 403 - 203
2004 – 617 – 386 - 189
2005 – 773 – 467 - 257
2006 – 822 – 492 - 273
2007 – 1051 – 617 - 363
2008 – 1153 – 673 – 420

Figures slightly different to my post above, I had been playing around with those numbers.

As always, you can interpret this kind of data in many ways. It gives MSTRS:Me an answer of sorts to the original post, but does not take in to account fault. It is difficult to correlate the 2008 ACC figures as well. In 2008 the MOT database shows 1153 motorbike crashes that resulted in injury, 44 fatal, 365 serious and 684 minor. Be generous and say that each bike had a pillion that suffered the same injuries and you don’t come anywhere close to the ACC figures.

@sammcj – For some analysis, like the number of car occupants, you need to use a different programme than CAS and unfortunately some of these broke recently when CAS was updated. Still waiting on a fix.

I feel hard done by hills, and headwinds but hey its just a matter of scale but at least when Berries kicks the thing over its lite to pick up.

You must be keen, I would never try and pick up a burning bike

[jeffs]

Remember Car drivers have been told they are paying $77 for the privilege of watching you us go past them in traffic, and they will see the car levy increase as being the fault of motorbikes crashing. ( true of not true, this is what they have been told ).

Crunching stats will never change this

So please decide what you are fighting ? You are all coming from so may angles, from the outside it looks like you are so worked up about the ACC hikes that you no longer have any focus, or even a legit reason to still be fighting. ( not my opinion, just the way it is in the no-biker world ).

As bikers, we all ( or a lot of us ) went on rallies to say. "ACC this is not fare and the proposed levies are too high, and unjust !"

Well we got a response, they have lowered the levies.

Ok we may not agree the levies are acceptable.

But as far as joe public is concerned our protest is won, and we got a very big reduction.

So please decide on what you are protesting against now, because it is starting to look like you are protesting, because you have forgotten how to stop.

So make your own list and choose which one will give you support, and realise Joe public is over this, they think we won and
we should move on.


1. Because ACC in principle was set up as a "No fault system" ?
2. Because you think bikes really don't crash as much as ACC are saying so its not fare ?
3. Because its not fare that big bike should pay more than little ones ?
4. There are 100, 000 bikes how could ACC only collect $12M from us ?
.
6. Fill in you one reason ...

Some may not like this post, but what the hell
ACC already painted a target on my back. At least bikers will have something to aim at.

You may be still pissed, because we all know they set the levies so high, so they could drop it and look like good guys.
But shit thats politics, get used to it.

[Berries]

I think you'll find the protest threads are elsewhere. This one is called Crash Stats and that is what is being discussed. For me I'm posting because I have seen so much incorrect information when it comes to crash numbers on this forum that I thought I would put them right seeing as I have access to them.

[MSTRS:Me]

Thanks Berries. What I see is that bike crashes are down, as a percentage of bikes on the road, and the biggest area of decrease is car/bike. I am surprised at that, given the number of bikers claiming the SMIDSY syndrome. But the bike only crashes paint a different picture...

I know that Nick the Prick is lying about the numbers...we all know that...I was interested in seeing what the trend is. Whether this info will be useful in the fight, I don't know, but it is good to have it on hand.