Crash stats

[MSTRS]

I've been thinking (yes yes alright...quiet down the back) we often say how bad car drivers are in seeing us, and we know that about 67% of car/bike crashes are the car driver's fault. Despite the fact that overall, crashes are down across the board, what I've been wondering is...
Are there more or less car/bike crashes, as a %, over a longish period. I know it would be difficult to determine, because bike numbers fluctuate year by year, but someone must have done a study that shows a trend. Even if that trend is static.

[NighthawkNZ]

Are there more or less car/bike crashes, as a %, over a longish period. I know it would be difficult to determine, because bike numbers fluctuate year by year, but someone must have done a study that shows a trend. Even if that trend is static.


There has been a continous down turn in accidents per number of vehicles on the road across the board (as far as I know) not just motorcycles. Sorry I can't quote where I read that it was in some report, over the last month or so I have read that many they are all starting to blur... \


So I am off to the toy run and then of the long drop rally to solve my problem of not having a a ride for well dang to long (couple of days now getting the jitters)... Stress relief I call it :D

[MSTRS]

What I am getting at is whether car drivers are better or worse when it comes to seeing us. We all 'know' they are worse...but are they?

[Motu]

It's not dependent of the car driver seeing the motorcycle - it's more dependent on the motorcylist seeing the car and assessing the danger....and taking appropriate action.

Maybe we are finally coming to grips with how to stay alive on a motorcycle?

[MSTRS]

True. Good example of how stats can say what you want. I hadn't thought of that angle. So any answer showing a trend is not much use. But I guess if the trend is that the car/bike crashes are static WRT vehicle numbers, then that tells a story of it's own.

[Highlander]

Motu makes a valid point.
I remember being told at my first defensive driving course: "I don't care if he didn't see you, if you saw him you should have been able to avoid the collision"

Clearly there are situations where that does not apply and there is little you can do, such as someone crosses into your lane within the distance it takes to react, but in general, I think it is good advice.

[p.dath]

Motu makes a valid point.
I remember being told at my first defensive driving course: "I don't care if he didn't see you, if you saw him you should have been able to avoid the collision"

Clearly there are situations where that does not apply and there is little you can do, such as someone crosses into your lane within the distance it takes to react, but in general, I think it is good advice.

I agree - as far as possible, you are responsible for your own personal safety. It doesn't matter who was technically in the wrong - if you are going to get hurt you need to take responsibility to avoid it happening.

[Conquiztador]

I have always been of the opinion that bikers make better cage drivers. It comes from having to be more alert when riding and we then transfer that to our car driving.

One statistic I would LOVE to find out about is: If you take 1000 car only drivers and 1000 bikers who also drive cars, what is the difference in their crash statistics? Somehow I have a gut feeling that the bikers/car drivers would have a much lower crash statistic than dedicated car drivers.

And to take this to the next level: if everyone would have to also have a bike license, perhaps we could change the amount of crashes drasticly...

I know that is an impossibility. Apart from in our own independent Biker state. :niceone:

[Berries]

Are there more or less car/bike crashes, as a %, over a longish period. I know it would be difficult to determine, because bike numbers fluctuate year by year, but someone must have done a study that shows a trend. Even if that trend is static.
Stumbled across the forum this week while trying to source an anti ACC sticker for my SV1000. Interesting reading, especially seeing the names of some of the people I used to work with getting mentioned in another thread.

I have access to CAS so can give you the pure crash numbers. Will post them later in the week. The problem is that the number of registered bikes isn't really a good indicator of the percentage risk as it doesn't tell us the use these bikes get. Obviously a lot of people have more than one bike registered (well, probably not by the time the ACC rises get pushed through), and others have one bike that only gets ridden on sunny summer weekends.

Having said that, I agree with some of the other posters in this thread. Whatever the proportion of car vs motorbike crashes are deemed to be the fault of the car driver it is my view that in many of those cases the rider could have done something to avoid it. Yes, there will always be some unavoidable incidents, but if you ride like you are expecting something to happen then you are already some way to preventing it. At least once a week but generally more often than that someone will try and take me out on the way to work, and I am pretty sure they don’t know me :). Whether it's lane changing on the motorway or pulling out at an intersection (yesterday actually, you should have seen the look on her face when she finally saw me) you should expect these things to happen. It is absolutely pointless being in the right while lying in the road with your leg at a funny angle. Ride it like they are out to get you and maybe they won’t.

[Katman]

I think one of the most telling set of statistics is the total claims currently being made with ACC.

11984 car driver claims

4509 motorcyclist claims.

(Remember we only account for 2% of the road using public).

We are either;

a) Crashing too often, or..........

b) Turning into a bunch of softcocks.

If you come off your bike and graze your knee, for fucks sake, just go home and put a fucking plaster on it!

[flyingcrocodile46]

If you come off your bike and graze your knee, for fucks sake, just go home and put a fucking plaster on it!

:laugh::lol::killingme:rofl:

[Ixion]

I've been thinking (yes yes alright...quiet down the back) we often say how bad car drivers are in seeing us, and we know that about 67% of car/bike crashes are the car driver's fault. Despite the fact that overall, crashes are down across the board, what I've been wondering is...
Are there more or less car/bike crashes, as a %, over a longish period. I know it would be difficult to determine, because bike numbers fluctuate year by year, but someone must have done a study that shows a trend. Even if that trend is static.

Does it matter if they see us or not. We know they don't too often to be acceptable. Assume they don't, work within that.


The cager does not CARE if he kills you or maims you. Only YOU care about you. Work within that,

[Ixion]

I think one of the most telling set of statistics is the total claims currently being made with ACC.

11984 car driver claims

4509 motorcyclist claims.

(Remember we only account for 2% of the road using public).

We are either;

a) Crashing too often, or..........

b) Turning into a bunch of softcocks.

If you come off your bike and graze your knee, for fucks sake, just go home and put a fucking plaster on it!

The problem is, that whenever a biker is knocked off his bike, whilst he is getting up off the road and limping over to the cager to introduce him to Mr Gauntlet, some well meaning bystander calls an ambulance. Even if you tell the ambo to piss off (and most folk will agree, wisely, to be checked out) it still gets charged to ACC as a motorbike accident.

[Katman]

The problem is, that whenever a biker is knocked off his bike,

What about the single vehicle accidents?

[Ixion]

Same thing, though usually the single vehicle crashes have no witnesses .

Basic thing is that motorcycle crashes often are quite minor injury (bruises and grazes) but someone will , with the best of good inrtentions , summon an ambulance,. Even if it turns out to be unnecessary , it goes against us as a motorcycle claim

As said, HTFU , tell the well meaning bystander thanks, but no thanks, and ride off (or limp off) smartish.

[Katman]

As said, HTFU , tell the well meaning bystander thanks, but no thanks, and ride off (or limp off) smartish.

Precisely.

And failing that - don't have the accident in the first place.

[PrincessBandit]

The problem is, that ... some well meaning bystander calls an ambulance. Even if you tell the ambo to piss off (and most folk will agree, wisely, to be checked out) it still gets charged to ACC as a motorbike accident.

I had to be extremely insistent on not having an ambulance called after several insistent prompts by bystanders after my accident.
I'm glad one wasn't called because it wasn't necessary - having my daughter take me to the medical centre later when I got home was all I needed.

Bit of a tricky one though; how often do we (not motorcyclists necessarily) gush about "better to be safe than sorry" for other medical intervention...

[Ixion]

Precisely.

And failing that - don't have the accident in the first place.
Well, yes. Indeed, not even a 'failing that' Not falling off is always best bet. Failing *that* , HTFU.

[Pedrostt500]

The Line is " I Fell of my mountain Bike, while on agnarly trail Dude".
or "I burnt my leg on the lawn mower"
And the answer t o Mr Do Goods, "Can I get You an Ambulance", is, "Can I get you a Farken Herse", use this line with the exspresion of I'm going to Eat your Children,Honestly I like Kids........Bar B Qued.

[Spearfish]

I think Stats can say anything you want to say if you ask the question in a way that leads to the answer you want.

[MSTRS]

Full licence holders are in 54% of all crashes
Learners are in 21% of all crashes
Restricted 7%
Never licensed 3%



Something wrong with that...
Other 15% ????

But you are right that stats can say what you want. Case in point...I started this to see if cagers were getting better or worse. Yet, coming from that angle I failed to see that equally, it could be bikers getting better of worse.
Go figure.

[Spearfish]

Something wrong with that...
Other 15% ????

But you are right that stats can say what you want. Case in point...I started this to see if cagers were getting better or worse. Yet, coming from that angle I failed to see that equally, it could be bikers getting better of worse.
Go figure.

15% are us learners and 10- 15% aren't recorded.

[Berries]

Well I said I would stick some numbers up in answer to the OP so here they are. Car/van vs motorbike crashes since 1990, all resulting in injury of some kind.

1990 - 1361
1991 - 1300
1992 - 1140
1993 - 1001
1994 - 1075
1995 - 1010
1996 - 784
1997 - 724
1998 - 577
1999 - 491
2000 - 356
2001 - 368
2002 - 383
2003 - 403
2004 - 386
2005 - 467
2006 - 492
2007 - 617
2008 - 673

As with any stats, you can make them mean whatever you want. Good luck if you want an accurate number of registered cars per year to make some sense of it. MOT, NZTA and Stats NZ all have different figures (Spearfish try this link for year by year motorbike numbers - http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/MotorVehicleCrashesinNewZealand2008/)

Mopeds are included in the numbers on that link, and their numbers have shot up lately, not only increasing crash numbers but taking up all the bastard parking spaces as well. The above crash numbers exclude mopeds. Unfortunately when it comes to the whole ACC palaver the motorbike class also includes unregistered farm bikes that crash on the road as well as motocross bikes “being tested”.

Culpability is sometimes a bit hit and miss in CAS so I won’t quote any of that. Of interest though are the types of crash, with the five worst being –

2690 – vehicle turned right in to side road across path of oncoming.
1906 – vehicle turned right out of side road and was hit from the right.
1305 – vehicle crossing road failed to give way and was hit by other.
932 – u-turn.
859 – vehicle overtaking other that suddenly turned right.

From experience I would say that the first four are most likely (but not always) going to be the car drivers fault, the old sorry mate I didn’t see you bollocks, whereas the last one is invariably going to be a bike overtaking a line of traffic.

Like I said, pure numbers. While I know there are a small number of mopeds incorrectly classified and therefore in this list that doesn’t explain the increase in the last two years. And it sure as shit isn’t the better weather.

[Ixion]

Like I said, pure numbers. While I know there are a small number of mopeds incorrectly classified and therefore in this list that doesn’t explain the increase in the last two years. And it sure as shit isn’t the better weather.

could be simply more bikes on the road. And the reduction in the early 2000s could be similar -especially as lower numbers probably means MUCH lower inexperienced - those still there would be the hard core experienced riders. Reverse in last three or four years.

[Berries]

I don't think stats for cagers are that accurate, many crashes between cagers go unreported if minor but nearly all minor crashes involving a bike does. Someone will nearly always call out an emergency service to a bike crash no matter how minor the event was.

None of the stats are accurate or a true figure when it comes to crashes. There is no compulsion to report a crash that doesn't result in injury so they should be discounted. As for the others, it is accepted that there is a significant problem with under reporting. They try to cross reference with hospital records but then find that someone who has been slapped around by their wife/husband reports it as a motor vehicle incident so that 1) the Police don't get involved and 2) they can get ACC. Sorry, didn't want to bring Tiger Woods up again.

[Berries]

could be simply more bikes on the road. And the reduction in the early 2000s could be similar -especially as lower numbers probably means MUCH lower inexperienced - those still there would be the hard core experienced riders. Reverse in last three or four years.

You're right. To really make sense of crash stats you have to look at each individual report and then each individual rider. Even then you don't know how much riding experience they have actually had since they got their licence.

[Spearfish]

Mopeds are included in the numbers on that link, and their numbers have shot up lately, not only increasing crash numbers but taking up all the bastard parking spaces as well. The above crash numbers exclude mopeds. Unfortunately when it comes to the whole ACC palaver the motorbike class also includes unregistered farm bikes that crash on the road as well as motocross bikes “being tested”.
Like I said, pure numbers. While I know there are a small number of mopeds incorrectly classified and therefore in this list that doesn’t explain the increase in the last two years. And it sure as shit isn’t the better weather.


Apologies Berries

[Berries]

Its not only the fact we take up all the spaces we also park in a way to block as many parking options as possible!! :chase:


Yeah, I've noticed that. I have also noticed a tendency for them to topple over very easily on a windy day :Oops:

[MSTRS]

Missed this earlier...but thanks for those figures. Interesting reading.
To me, they indicate that accident rates are falling overall. The decline towards 2000, and subsequent rise is indicative of bike numbers.
By 1990, bike numbers had fallen to around 75,000. That number continued to fall into the early 2000s, and then began a steady rise to the current level of around 95,000.
One or both of the motorist types is getting better in terms of avoiding crashes.

[MSTRS]

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

[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]

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:dodge:

[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/saferjourneys/Documents/Road%20Safety%20Progress%20since%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]

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.:blink:

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

[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]

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.

[XP@]

Do we have the crash statistics by month v's petrol price?
Especially when the petrol price went above $2.

(if ACC can think up bizzare correlations like CC rating then so can we)

[Katman]

But the bike only crashes paint a different picture...



Don't they just.

[Spearfish]

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.

Thanks for putting time into finding those. Sometime fact is stranger than fiction

[MSTRS]

Don't they just.

It's not THAT bad. They have dropped, as a percentage of bikes on the road. Just not anywhere near as much a drop as car/bike.
What we can't know from those figures, is how many of the bike only crashes were a result of a rider avoiding a car, or hitting unmarked gravel perhaps, wildlife on a country road (pheasant, hawk, herd of goats, that sort of thing). We all know of one death due to oil.
Still...eternal vigilance is paramount in reducing crashes of all sorts, eh?

[mashman]

I may have missed something, but why don't the figures tally?

1990 – 2073 – 1361 - 577 total = 1938 diff = 135
1991 – 1938 – 1300 - 537 total = 1837 diff = 101
1992 – 1701 – 1140 - 445 total = 1585 diff = 116
1993 – 1478 – 1001 - 360 total = 1361 diff = 117
1994 – 1596 – 1075 - 411 total = 1486 diff = 110
1995 – 1470 – 1010 - 361 total = 1371 diff = 99
1996 – 1158 – 784 - 299 total = 1083 diff = 75
1997 – 1066 – 724 - 264 total = 988 diff = 78
1998 – 897 – 577 - 265 total = 842 diff = 55
1999 – 748 – 491 - 215 total = 706 diff = 42
2000 – 613 – 356 - 221 total = 577 diff = 36
2001 – 579 – 368 - 171 total = 539 diff = 40
2002 – 642 – 383 - 207 total = 590 diff = 52
2003 – 637 – 403 - 203 total = 606 diff = 21
2004 – 617 – 386 - 189 total = 575 diff = 42
2005 – 773 – 467 - 257 total = 724 diff = 49
2006 – 822 – 492 - 273 total = 765 diff = 57
2007 – 1051 – 617 - 363 total = 980 diff = 71
2008 – 1153 – 673 – 420 total = 1093 diff = 60

If for arguments sake the average claim is $20000... that a fairly decent chunk of cash that's being "lost".

Like i say though, i could have misread something in the thread.

[Katman]

It's not THAT bad. They have dropped, as a percentage of bikes on the road. Just not anywhere near as much a drop as car/bike.


They actually show that 'bike only' accidents as a percentage of the total motorcycle accident figures has risen steadily from a low of 24% in 1993 to 36.5% last year.

[avgas]

You are only as dead as your last accident I've been told.

[R-Soul]

Hey guys,

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%!!!



Those stats stink to high heaven.

5000 claims? If you consider that many bikers own a few bikes, you ae looking at one injury claim per 20 bikers per year. The fact that the serious injuries (which would be confiormed by cops) has stayed constant seems right. The fact that the claim numbers have gone up ridiculously seems strange since I did not figure us as a bunch of sissies?

I would not be surprised if it has become standard practice for ACC grafters to just put down a bike accident as the reason why their back is sore and they are no longer able to work.

There should be a way of confirming that an accident actually happened to prevent grafting. For example if a person wants to claim from ACC, they should be able to refer to a police report. And people would not just report an accident to the cops without having some solid evidence thereof. The cops should investigate all "accidents" that may or may not have actually happened (since this is fraud).

The grafters may return to blaming the fact that they "picked up their child" to hurt their back, but at least we would not be nailed by huge levies....

:angry:

[avgas]

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.
No offence by those stats you can also claim the following:
- Medical stuff now costs more
- More administration is involved
- More stuff can be fixed by a medical profession
- ACC solved more 'backlogged' cases in the last 10 years
- Police reported cases decreased as accidents increased

Stats are great for being chopped and changed. Its never what someone says - its always what they don't say that sinks them.

[avgas]

Question:

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

Nope, but if its any consolation I remember hearing that in NZ 80% of the drivable time a car has only 1 occupant. It was some green campaign thing about car pooling.

[MSTRS]

They actually show that 'bike only' accidents as a percentage of the total motorcycle accident figures has risen steadily from a low of 24% in 1993 to 36.5% last year.

Yes, but don't forget that there were at least 25% more bikes (registered) in 2008 than there was in 1993

[avgas]

As said, HTFU , tell the well meaning bystander thanks, but no thanks, and ride off (or limp off) smartish.
Sorry Ix, but while I agree with the HTFU attitude (crushed my ankle and still rode home). I now understand it is ACC and the publics job to ENSURE you are ok - which makes sense. I mean why have a service which only helps those who ask for it?

Is ACC a system for the people? or just those who ask for it?
What do we pay for?
I mean when you think about who deserves ACC more, a rugby player with a possible sprained ankle? or a motorcyclist who came off the bike - feels ok, but may have a delayed concussion? broken foot?
If you want to keep your precious ACC, HTFU would most likely be the last thing to leave my lips.

No point in having a prized pony if you never ride it.

[MSTRS]

I may have missed something, but why don't the figures tally?

1990 – 2073 – 1361 - 577 total = 1938 diff = 135
1991 – 1938 – 1300 - 537 total = 1837 diff = 101 72,676 - 1963 - 2061 - 78
1992 – 1701 – 1140 - 445 total = 1585 diff = 116
1993 – 1478 – 1001 - 360 total = 1361 diff = 117
1994 – 1596 – 1075 - 411 total = 1486 diff = 110
1995 – 1470 – 1010 - 361 total = 1371 diff = 99
1996 – 1158 – 784 - 299 total = 1083 diff = 75
1997 – 1066 – 724 - 264 total = 988 diff = 78
1998 – 897 – 577 - 265 total = 842 diff = 55
1999 – 748 – 491 - 215 total = 706 diff = 42
2000 – 613 – 356 - 221 total = 577 diff = 36
2001 – 579 – 368 - 171 total = 539 diff = 40 57,836 - 658 - 669 - 35
2002 – 642 – 383 - 207 total = 590 diff = 52
2003 – 637 – 403 - 203 total = 606 diff = 21
2004 – 617 – 386 - 189 total = 575 diff = 42
2005 – 773 – 467 - 257 total = 724 diff = 49
2006 – 822 – 492 - 273 total = 765 diff = 57
2007 – 1051 – 617 - 363 total = 980 diff = 71
2008 – 1153 – 673 – 420 total = 1093 diff = 60 96,952 - 1378 - 1396 - 50


Figures in bold are from an earlier thread, and are from MOT's data base. They are registered bikes/crashes/injuries/deaths.
Perhaps the anomoly of figures that don't add up is because they come from a variety of sources? We know that MOT and ACC stats do not match.

[Katman]

Yes, but don't forget that there were at least 25% more bikes (registered) in 2008 than there was in 1993

The percentage of 'bike only' accidents is not influenced by the actual number of motorcycles registered.

[Jantar]

.... 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......
The most likely reason is that the 5000+ number quoted by Nick's Myth includes off road motorcycle claims. If the data presented here (in another thread) that almost 80% of motorcyclists treated in hospital is from off road injuries, then reduce Nick's Myth figures by 80% and Berries numbers are right on the button.

[mashman]

Figures in bold are from an earlier thread, and are from MOT's data base. They are registered bikes/crashes/injuries/deaths.
Perhaps the anomoly of figures that don't add up is because they come from a variety of sources? We know that MOT and ACC stats do not match.

The different data sources makes sense. However that does not justify why the figures are incorrect. How can levies be calculated using figures that cannot be reconciled across all of the departments that are affected?

This is what i thought auditing was all about, Over Price Waterhouse Coopers or whatever they call themselves.... The whole idea being that the information you are presenting is not only valid, but that a business can produce the paper based originals to validate the numbers they are outputting. If this cannot be done, then someone somewhere is failing in their duty, and in this case the "failed" party is us.

I don't know if there's any legal "comeback", and i'd be awfully dissapointed if that was the case. I'd rather they just plucked figures out of thin air <_<

[MSTRS]

The percentage of 'bike only' accidents is not influenced by the actual number of motorcycles registered.

Of course it is.
It's just that the % drop in bike only crashes is not as great as that of car/bike crashes. Which is what you are so hot about. And fair enough, when car/bike crashes are proportionately MUCH less in recent years.

[Katman]

Of course it is.


Trust me John, it isn't.

[MSTRS]

Trust me John, it isn't.

Obviously one of us is missing something. Maybe.
I think I see what you are getting at, and if so, I agree with you. I've said as much myself. Crashes overall are down, relative to bike numbers. Split those crashes into the 2 types, and the picture changes slightly. Car/bike is WAY down...bike only is just down. So, relative to car/bike crashes, bike only crashes are up. Right?
Still doesn't change the fact that crash numbers are reducing.

Let's use the chart of figures with the number of bikes...
I only have bike numbers from 3 different years, and there will always be year-by-year anomolies, but using the ones I have we get - 1991 0.7% bike only, 2001 0.3%, and 2008 0.4%. We'd need bike numbers for all the years to accurately show a trend

[R-Soul]

They actually show that 'bike only' accidents as a percentage of the total motorcycle accident figures has risen steadily from a low of 24% in 1993 to 36.5% last year.

The percentage may have risen, but the actual number may have dropped?

[R-Soul]

Obviously one of us is missing something. Maybe.
I think I see what you are getting at, and if so, I agree with you. I've said as much myself. Crashes overall are down, relative to bike numbers. Split those crashes into the 2 types, and the picture changes slightly. Car/bike is WAY down...bike only is just down. So, relative to car/bike crashes, bike only crashes are up. Right?
Still doesn't change the fact that crash numbers are reducing.

MSTRS is saying that the percentage of 'bike only' accidents is influenced by the total no of accidents (i.e. if all accidents drop and "bike only" stays the same or drops less tahh car/bike,then it will rise percentage wise).

However katman is right in that the percentage of 'bike only' accidents is not influenced by eth number of bikes. You could originally have 50% bike only accidents, but if 10,000 more bikes are registered and 50% of them still have accidents by themselves, then the % will not change.

Clear? :yes:

[MSTRS]

If 50% of crashes are bike only, of course that won't change. UNLESS the car/bike crashes becomes 40%...then suddenly bike only becomes 60%. KM is just looking at crashes, relative to crashes. That's too much in isolation to have much meaning. However, he would be 100% right if there was (only) 2 crashes in a whole year...1 of each type. The bike only figure would be 50%. The only way to change that would be for the 2 crashes to both be car/bike or bike only...
That's just being silly tho. What matters is the number of crashes overall, RELATIVE to the number of bikes out there. And in that case, the crash rate is trending down.

[R-Soul]

What matters is the number of crashes overall, RELATIVE to the number of bikes out there. And in that case, the crash rate is trending down.

I agree that the number of crashes overall relative to the total no of bikes (i.e. percentage of crashes) reducing is what matters. I stand to be corrected, but I thought the figures show that the percentage of crahes were staying the same over the last few years?

[MSTRS]

I stand to be corrected, but I thought the figures show that the percentage of crashes were staying the same over the last few years?

I don't think so. I may also stand to be corrected. That's why the number of bikes is needed for every year. It's probably on here somewhere...

[R-Soul]

I agree that the number of crashes overall relative to the total no of bikes (i.e. percentage of crashes) reducing is what matters. I stand to be corrected, but I thought the figures show that the percentage of crahes were staying the same over the last few years?

I just chekcked again - the total number of actual crashes are remaining the same or going up slightly, but since the total no of bikers is going up, the percentage must be dropping.

[dipshit]

I think some of the lower accident rates versus registered bikes is reflecting the different usage trends of now versus say the late 70's.

Back then bikes were used as an economical form of day to day transport and an alternative to owning a car.

Now a lot of bikes are more of a toy to be taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend for recreation as the typical owner still has the family car for the day to day stuff.

There are a lot of 5 year old bikes around with less than 10k on them. A lot of motorcycles these days spend heaps of time sitting in the garage.

Accident rates versus kms travelled would probably show less of a reduction.

[MSTRS]

I think some of the lower accident rates versus registered bikes is reflecting the different usage trends of now versus say the late 70's.

Back then bikes were used as an economical form of day to day transport and an alternative to owning a car.

Now a lot of bikes are more of a toy to be taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend for recreation as the typical owner still has the family car for the day to day stuff.

There are a lot of 5 year old bikes around with less than 10k on them. A lot of motorcycles these days spend heaps of time sitting in the garage.

Accident rates versus kms travelled would probably show less of a reduction.

Hmmm. You may have a point. It is fair to say that in the 70s, there was a lot more bikes than now. I don't know that they were never used for 'play'...I know that mine got plenty of playtime.
I doubt that mileage stats would be available prior to online WOFs.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Rather than pissing on about saving a measly few $ per week and the inequity of levies which are most probably not that far off been fair (setting aside the no fault argument). Your time would be better spent trying to save motorcyclists lives through advancing the cause of rider education and training.

Isn't it a more noble and important objective to reduce the hurt, suffering and cost of accidents rather than haggle over the price of the bill to clean the mess up?

A 50% increase in bike only accidents as a percentage of the total is appalling and speaks much about the reckless mindset of bikers.


Here's your missing statistics re bike numbers. If you had spent more effort researching rather than vocalising cranial echoes in these threads you wouldn't need to ask others for help in your fruitless pursuit. I know this because rather than wank on about how unfair things are without any factual basis, I actually did the research that you are attempting in an attempt to ascertain facts before I ran off at the mouth. There is little in the statistics that bikers can be proud of.



http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/1.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/2.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/3.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/4.jpg

[Berries]

I may have missed something, but why don't the figures tally?

1990 – 2073 – 1361 - 577 total = 1938 diff = 135

For that year as an example there were 2073 bike crashes in total, 1361 car vs bike, 577 bike only, 135 bike vs truck, bus, pedestrian, cyclist etc etc.

[Berries]

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

Out of the 12,805 cars involved in injury crashes in 2008 the number of occupants were as follows -

Driver only 7,788
One passenger 3,201
Two pas 1,013
Three pas 535
Four pass 221
Five pas 33
Six pas 9
Seven pas 3
Eight pas 2

Ok for a rough idea of proportions, but I would take those figures with a big pinch of salt. At a crash scene the number of passengers is not a high priority unless they are injured, and I haven’t carried out basic quality checks on the data. Did find a few examples of people being in the boot though. And I don't think they were mafia.

[jeffs]

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.

I think you missed my point because I buried it in my post.

"Crunching stats will never change anything"

So apart from some academic exercise, what outcome do you wish to achieve ?

You are all doing what you are accusing ACC of, "Trying to juggle the stats to fit your agenda"

When you find out that it looks bad, or does not prove anything based on the little data you have been provided, you all start juggling again.

I mealy suggest that you decide what facts you wish to prove and if the data does not provide you with the answer you want, ACCEPT it.


This is not the first time these numbers have been crunched and have looked bad for bikers.

If you are doing it as an academic exercise then feel free.

But understand when you finally get to the conclusion, that bikes crash and if the are more bikes, there are more crashes. Please feel free to inform ACC that they are right.

[mashman]

For that year as an example there were 2073 bike crashes in total, 1361 car vs bike, 577 bike only, 135 bike vs truck, bus, pedestrian, cyclist etc etc.

Cheers for the clarification.



So apart from some academic exercise, what outcome do you wish to achieve ?

If the numbers are sound and bikers are crashing blah blah, i'll be more than happy to accept it and hope that the gubmint does something in regards to a safety campaign. BUT, if you're singling out a group for a levy hike and using your stats to justify the raise, IMHO the numbers need to be absolutely bang on... otherwise it's just lies!



But understand when you finally get to the conclusion, that bikes crash and if the are more bikes, there are more crashes. Please feel free to inform ACC that they are right.

I'll never get to that stage and why would any sane person think that. Statistically it may be made to look that way, but come on, there are waaaaaaaaaay more car crashes than bike crashes PERIOD/FULL STOP. The numbers of each on the road are irrelevant because the crashes have happened. I grant you that as a proportional representation it doesn't "look" good for bikers, but we still don't have as many crashes as cars FACT!

And as i'd like a no fault system the only thing i'd like to inform the ACC of is that, er, hmmm, that i'd like a no fault system please.

[jeffs]

BUT, if you're singling out a group for a levy hike and using your stats to justify the raise, IMHO the numbers need to be absolutely bang on... otherwise it's just lies!

First of yes, they are lies, but he is a politician, and thats what they do.

I do not agree with this, it sucks. But welcome to the worlds of politics
( sorry not meaning to make what you are doing sound bad, because I do understand why you are doing it and applaud you for giving it another go :) ) .

Just so you understand, why I think crunching the numbers is a waist of time and so you understand it is not me dissing your efforts.

Nick Smith was given the stats breakdown, his response on national TV was.

"These are your numbers ( bikers ), I will go with the ones provided to me by my department" ( not exact words as it was some time ago, but close enough. )

This says it all.

1. He has never looked at the stats.
2. If they are wrong, he can blame it on "the department" for providing him with incorrect info.
3. He publicly put down hours of work by bikers, who looked at the data in one sentence.
4. He effectively said " who gives a shit about the stats"







And as i'd like a no fault system the only thing i'd like to inform the ACC of is that, er, hmmm, that i'd like a no fault system please.

Yes 100%, or using ACC maths 200% :) , and as such, the stats mean nothing, because if it is a no fault system. Identifying who is a fault by using data, or using data to prove you are not at fault, is finding blame.

[Katman]

If the numbers are sound and bikers are crashing blah blah, i'll be more than happy to accept it and hope that the gubmint does something in regards to a safety campaign.

Why should it be left up to the government?

Why can't motorcyclists start their own safety campaign?



Statistically it may be made to look that way, but come on, there are waaaaaaaaaay more car crashes than bike crashes PERIOD/FULL STOP. The numbers of each on the road are irrelevant because the crashes have happened. I grant you that as a proportional representation it doesn't "look" good for bikers, but we still don't have as many crashes as cars FACT!


What a ridiculous statement.

We make up 10% of all road going accidents and yet we're only 2% of the road going fleet.

Work that one out.

[jeffs]

Katman, i'm not taking the piss here, I am being serious.

I want to learn to ride better so I do not have an accident.
I do not believe I am bullet proof and at some stage in my riding life will not respond quick enough to a situation. As I did on monday on the desert road, when I aquaplaned at 90kph, in a straight line after dropping my speed from 110kmh when hit by a flash shower.

If you live in Auckland and can teach me, I will learn from you.

I may not agree with the way you deliver your message ( as I have said in the past ), but if you really believe you can teach every ride to never put themselves in a position that they can not recover from, then I will be your pupil.

Like or dis-like you if I learn something I have gained.

[mashman]

I do not agree with this, it sucks. But welcome to the worlds of politics
( sorry not meaning to make what you are doing sound bad, because I do understand why you are doing it and applaud you for giving it another go :) ) .

Heh, no offense taken :angry2:;) I fully understand how to answer a direct question with a non direct answer... it comes as no surprise to me. However, if you run a business using your stats in this way, you'll go bust pretty quickly, and then you have to charge your customers more!

I agree with you 100%, the problem lies with there being NO ACCOUNTABILITY and when you're supposed to be leading from the top, what kind of example does that set... it's ok to lie, steal and ignore people (to mention but a few). And so we'll do a little dance and a little jig until the election, we'll get new promises, a new gubmint and nothing will change... and all because of some fucking report with seriously questionable figures.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but all gubmints are running this country like a business and all really sucking at it. I'd like to see them removed and persons of "responsibility" put in there place... i mean we only really need to cover the ministerial positions and there are plenty of capable people on here who could fill them! I'd like to start interviewing them as soon as possible!!!!

[Katman]

If you live in Auckland and can teach me, I will learn from you.



I'm sorry to say jeffs, but Auckland is what drove me to The Gates of Delirium.

[mashman]

Why should it be left up to the government?

Why can't motorcyclists start their own safety campaign?


I thought the idea behind what you've been advocating was personal responsibility... are you saying that we need an advertising campaign to tell us how to ride?



What a ridiculous statement.

We make up 10% of all road going accidents and yet we're only 2% of the road going fleet.

Work that one out.


Why is it so ridicious? Please explain? You said we only make up 10%... so why? Take off the Katman spectacles and read it again. I am truly curious to hear your explanation for your statement!

Why do i need to work that out? To what end? So why aren't you off targetting those who cause the other 90%?

[Katman]

I thought the idea behind what you've been advocating was personal responsibility... are you saying that we need an advertising campaign to tell us how to ride?



Why is it so ridicious? Please explain? You said we only make up 10%... so why? Take off the Katman spectacles and read it again. I am truly curious to hear your explanation for your statement!

Why do i need to work that out? To what end? So why aren't you off targetting those who cause the other 90%?

Fuck man, is your brain scrambled eggs?

[mashman]

Fuck man, is your brain scrambled eggs?

You're just a typical mud slinger... you don't have any reasons for your statements. I'm more than happy to continue to explore your higher reasoning in private?

Sorry for the thread jack...

[Berries]

I think you missed my point because I buried it in my post. "Crunching stats will never change anything" So apart from some academic exercise, what outcome do you wish to achieve ?
I am just quoting the true number of crashes reported by the Police to answer the OP and other questions that came up, seeing as you asked. No juggling required. However crunching stats obviously can change things because that is exactly what the ACC have just done isn’t it ?


But understand when you finally get to the conclusion, that bikes crash and if the are more bikes, there are more crashes. Please feel free to inform ACC that they are right?
I haven’t checked, but I think if you replace the word bike in that sentence with any other type of vehicle you may just find the answer is the same. I don’t think that was really the point of this thread.

I really do hate to say it but I actually agree with you. I’ve spent enough time looking at crashes and crash stats to know it will never look good for bikers. Unless people start riding defensively to avoid being hit by a car and ride within the limits of themselves, the bike and the road to avoid a single vehicle incident the numbers won’t go down. There is no point trying to lay the blame at anyone else’s door. But it’s hard. The main reason I ride is for the buzz I get from the acceleration, from wasting cars that think they are fast, from getting my favourite corners just right. All risky and antisocial activities unlikely to help reduce the crash numbers in the long run, but they get my adrenaline flowing and make my day better.

[Katman]

I really do hate to say it but I actually agree with you. I’ve spent enough time looking at crashes and crash stats to know it will never look good for bikers. Unless people start riding defensively to avoid being hit by a car and ride within the limits of themselves, the bike and the road to avoid a single vehicle incident the numbers won’t go down. There is no point trying to lay the blame at anyone else’s door. But it’s hard. The main reason I ride is for the buzz I get from the acceleration, from wasting cars that think they are fast, from getting my favourite corners just right. All risky and antisocial activities unlikely to help reduce the crash numbers in the long run, but they get my adrenaline flowing and make my day better.

It's sad that you can be so right on one hand and so wrong on the other.

[Berries]

There's a time and a place for doing that kind of thing though. I don't want to end up as a stat.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Why should it be left up to the government?

Why can't motorcyclists start their own safety campaign?


We make up 10% of all road going accidents and yet we're only 2% of the road going fleet.

Work that one out.

That is the bottom line.

Time to grow up, put all this energy and effort into something infinitely more achievable and worthy than fumbling for excuses as to why we shouldn't pay a fair share of the costs that we cause. Prioritise taking responsibility for the problems we make for ourselves and make it our objective to increase rider education/training and improved road conditions.

Christ! We stopped the world spinning for bikeoi because we were indignant that we were getting shafted with levies but can't find the same enthusiasm to make rider education and better road maintenance happen??? That is sad.

[Qkkid]

Those stats stink to high heaven.

5000 claims? If you consider that many bikers own a few bikes, you are looking at one injury claim per 20 bikers per year.

:angry:

:wacko:Shit we have 5 bikes in our garage no accidents or bins the last 3 and a half years something stinks i reckon.
:yes: Stats are interesting things you leave something out and Presto:woohoo:
Dejavue ACC/ Politicians doing what they do best :yes:
Bullshitting the stats to suit there own agendas:yes:

[mashman]

I am just quoting the true number of crashes reported by the Police to answer the OP and other questions that came up, seeing as you asked. No juggling required. However crunching stats obviously can change things because that is exactly what the ACC have just done isn’t it ?


Is there any further breakdown of these stats? i.e. Estimated speed, reason categorisation for crash, location etc...

[Berries]

Is there any further breakdown of these stats? i.e. Estimated speed, reason categorisation for crash, location etc...

Yes, but estimated speed doesn't tell you anything unless you also look at the speed limit and any curve advisory signage. And unless it was a fatal where the Police did actually try and calculate the speed then it is just a best guess, or based on what the driver/rider said which is possibly going to be an understatement to try and protect themselves. Not much use. "Too fast for the conditions" is a catch all term. If you crash on a bend then it doesn't matter what speed you were going, if you had been going a bit slower you might have made it. Therefore it might get classed as "Too fast for the conditions" when "excessive speed" may be a more useful indicator.

Reason categorisation is a bit vague from the CAS outputs, you actually need to look at individual reports to see what info is hiding away to get a true picture. For instance, it will say "failed to see or look for other party" for just about every intersection crash but you won't necessarily know why. Were they in a hurry, having a bad day etc etc. There are additional sub codes used but I wouldn't attempt an analysis like that on such a big list. A couple of clicks will give you an overall answer but it will really need further drilling in to to provide anything of use. My day job doesn't allow me the time to do that at the moment.

For a proper analysis you need to sit down and view the crash reports. As for location, well, everywhere. Anything specific you are thinking of ?

[Spearfish]

We are missing some vital details

[MSTRS]

"Crunching stats will never change anything"

So apart from some academic exercise, what outcome do you wish to achieve ?



The 'stats' (according to ACC) is what brought us all to this point.
I did start this thread as more for my own interest, but hey...the numbers that are appearing here are telling a story that is somewhat different to what ACC etc would have us all believe.



You are all doing what you are accusing ACC of, "Trying to juggle the stats to fit your agenda"

When you find out that it looks bad, or does not prove anything based on the little data you have been provided, you all start juggling again.

There's no juggling of figures going on here. Simple numbers, lined up, going back over the years. Regardless of whether recent figures 'look bad' - a simple comparison with earlier years (say 1982/1983/1984) tells a very different story as far as 'bad' goes. That's not to say I don't think we couldn't all do better now anyway.



I mealy suggest that you decide what facts you wish to prove and if the data does not provide you with the answer you want, ACCEPT it.

This is not the first time these numbers have been crunched and have looked bad for bikers.

The numbers are what they are. But like any ledgerbook, there are several columns of numbers. One column in isolation is of no practical use, other than for propaganda purposes. We all know that propaganda is a big word for 'lies'.




If you are doing it as an academic exercise then feel free.


Started off as an 'academic exercise' - who knows tho, maybe the truths here will come in useful as this fight progresses. The strange thing about truth is that it always comes out eventually.



But understand when you finally get to the conclusion, that bikes crash and if the are more bikes, there are more crashes. Please feel free to inform ACC that they are right.
As said, ACC are only 'right' when some figures are viewed in isolation. Try filing a GST or Income Tax return using only your expenses for the year...

[wingrider]

Ok, this is slightly off topic but as stats have formed a basis on what ACC and Smith are trying to sell to the public, by way of levy increases, I'll add my 2c worth.

At the end of WW2, America's leading statistician, Dr Deming, was sent to Japan to evaluate a way for Japans economy to recover from the deverstation.

He devised a 14 point plan, radical to the Americans, ( and it was not accepted by them) but quickly taken up firstly by Toyota and quickly followed by other leading Japaneese businesses.

It was so successful, that in the early 50's it was adopted also by the japaneese government.

The end result was that Japan bounced back to be one of the worlds leading economy's.

It was not until 1980 that Ford commissioned him to help them recover from deverstating losses that America started to wake up. But his plan was never adopted by them.

His whole theory was based on one resounding philosophy,

Dr. W. Edwards Deming taught that by adopting appropriate principles of management, organizations can increase quality and simultaneously reduce costs (by reducing waste, rework, staff attrition and litigation while increasing customer loyalty). The key is to practice continual improvement and think of manufacturing as a system, not as bits and pieces."[20]

In the 1970s, Dr. Deming's philosophy was summarized by some of his Japanese proponents with the following 'a'-versus-'b' comparison:

(a) When people and organizations focus primarily on quality, defined by the following ratio,

Quality = Results of work efforts, divided by Total costs.

quality tends to increase and costs fall over time.

(b) However, when people and organizations focus primarily on costs, costs tend to rise and quality declines over time.

I believe the concept of ACC and the Woodhouse principles were along this line of thinking.

By making everyone responsible and thinking of ways to improve their personal safety, you lower the costs and make a quality system.

For whatever reason, over time, the emphasis has gone on cost at the expense of quality.
Also no one seems to have a handle on how to correctly interperate the statistics and felt increasing the cost is the only answer.

I also feel that in our shock when the proposal was announced, we started to think smarter and were able to annalyse the data more effectivly than the politicians or the management of ACC.

Our focus was on quality, reduction of cost, and investment in safety further reducing cost.

We have some very clever and smart people here on KB.

Whats needed is to convince the average joe public, that if we invest in sound educational self safety campaigns, funded by the surplus and investment gains, and return to the foundation principles of ACC, it can be returned to the quality scheme it was intended to be without increasing cost.

In Dr Deming's words,
Adopting appropriate principles of management.

[StoneY]

Of all the crash stats I have ever read, this line from a Herald article today made my blood run cold....

Research published in the New Zealand Medical Journal in September found 16 children were killed and 216 hospitalised in quadbike, or ATV, crashes between 2000 and 2006.

16 kids killed.........thats fuckin mayhem
I am a new convert to minimum age on quads as of today...dead serious

[mashman]

For a proper analysis you need to sit down and view the crash reports. As for location, well, everywhere. Anything specific you are thinking of ?

Nope, nothing specific. You've more than answered my query and confirmed what i thought. I also wish my day job allowed me to have a sit and produce a "real" analysis to support the figures that gobmint agencies put forwards, if only for prevention purposes. Even then though, as you say, there's likely to be lies lies and damned lies from those involved, but at least that would be the official findings...

Perhaps the new software that ACC are implementing will enable us to gaina clearer picture of what's happening and why... :lol::lol::lol: TUI

[mashman]

Ok just 1 quick question. How many motorcycle incidents where reported as avoiding another vehicle? Maybe avoiding a road hazard might be a better way of describing it.

[MSTRS]

Ok just 1 quick question. How many motorcycle incidents where reported as avoiding another vehicle? Maybe avoiding a road hazard might be a better way of describing it.

As nice as it may be to 'prove' that we are seldom responsible for our bins, it's a forlorn hope to try and do so. Also I'm not sure that there is any use in garnering that info. ACC is still (apparently) a no-fault system, so they are only interested in crash injuries.
Still, if the breakdown exists, and shows a large percentage of bike-only are result of avoiding BadStuff (TM), perhaps that would spur more training schemes to promote rider awareness/control.

[R-Soul]

Hmmm. You may have a point. It is fair to say that in the 70s, there was a lot more bikes than now. I don't know that they were never used for 'play'...I know that mine got plenty of playtime.
I doubt that mileage stats would be available prior to online WOFs.

It might be that the bikes of then were not capable of the ridiculous speeds and huge acceleration that they are capable of now? And people did not trust their engineering enough to feel bulletproof at stupid speeds like they do now?

[MSTRS]

It might be that the bikes of then were not capable of the ridiculous speeds and huge acceleration that they are capable of now? And people did not trust their engineering enough to feel bulletproof at stupid speeds like they do now?

Then why are the crash stats from those times so bad compared to now? I mean, crashes per 10,000 bikes ranged from 248 to 533 in the 70s. They've been under 150 in the 2000s, and as low as 114 (2001).

[R-Soul]

Then why are the crash stats from those times so bad compared to now? I mean, crashes per 10,000 bikes ranged from 248 to 533 in the 70s. They've been under 150 in the 2000s, and as low as 114 (2001).

Good point...
Maybe back then teh engineering was not good enough to keep people out of trouble, but then the safety aspects (brakes, suspension etc) cuaght up. now the engine stech has made bikes too fast for themselves again? I dont claim to know it all - just making suggestions...

[MSTRS]

Good point...
Maybe back then teh engineering was not good enough to keep people out of trouble, but then the safety aspects (brakes, suspension etc) cuaght up. now the engine stech has made bikes too fast for themselves again? I dont claim to know it all - just making suggestions...

I can't explain why the crash rate is so changeable either.
If we look at bikes, and their capabilities - then modern bikes are a quantum leap ahead of anything from the 70s. Yet, compare a new bike of any genre with one from the 90s, and there isn't a huge deal of difference in terms of power/handling. Sprotbikes may have far greater hp now, but even in the squids world on our roads, there isn't a huge difference as to how quick these bikes can go, and how fast they can get there.
If you want to go that way, then you have to breakdown the stats even more...right down to make/model*...but at least down to style. I don't think there is any reason to believe that only sprotbikers are killing themselves. Or that HD riders are standout features.
I think it's more rider attitude or experience.
It's reasonably common knowledge that the heyday of biking was in decline from about the mid 80s through to the early 2000s. So by 2001 (that year saw the lowest crash rate ever), perhaps only longterm riders were still 'at it'? All their idiot mates had either killed themselves or had given up bikes, and the dedication/experience was showing in the crash rate? Since then, bikes have been on the rise again, and the slight rise in the crash rate is a result of a new crop of idiots, or the return of the old ones that had given it away?

* Certain bikes earned a rep - like the old Kwaka triples, the 750? became known as The Widowmaker...for good reason. I recall the first Z900s (of Stone fame) - I seem to remember there being 7 brought into the country and within a short time of them all being sold, 6 were written off and the riders dead. Those bikes were tame by today's standards, but they were a huge leap beyond most bigger road bikes at the time, and no doubt that caught out their squidly riders.

[R-Soul]

I can't explain why the crash rate is so changeable either.

It's reasonably common knowledge that the heyday of biking was in decline from about the mid 80s through to the early 2000s. So by 2001 (that year saw the lowest crash rate ever), perhaps only longterm riders were still 'at it'? All their idiot mates had either killed themselves or had given up bikes, and the dedication/experience was showing in the crash rate? Since then, bikes have been on the rise again, and the slight rise in the crash rate is a result of a new crop of idiots, or the return of the old ones that had given it away?

Thats a very good explanation. Now explain why bikes were in decline? Because all and sundry were killing themselves?

[MSTRS]

Thats a very good explanation. Now explain why bikes were in decline? Because all and sundry were killing themselves?

Nope. Used Jap import cars were replacing bikes in the cheap vehicle market. Which meant that most of those who viewed bikes as cheap transport were dragged away. Only the dedicated kept at it.

[MSTRS]

And now that some of those that were 'dragged away' are finding the call back to bikes irresistable, the average age of crash victims is increasing. These BABs maybe finding it hard to make the adjustment onto today's bikes, compared to what they are used to, or think they remember...

[Berries]

Ok just 1 quick question. How many motorcycle incidents where reported as avoiding another vehicle? Maybe avoiding a road hazard might be a better way of describing it.

"I swerved to miss an XXXXX officer, honest"

Insert your own object, animal, mineral or vegetable. A big black dog running across the road is the famous one. Dead possum, sheep, rabbit, rock, pothole, tractor, car on wrong side of road, swarm of bees, puddle, pedestrian, bag of chips.................... I don't think the information is worth much as it has the potential to be grossly inflated.

[candor]

Submitters just got a few docs "explaining" ACC.

I note this spiel;
"There is no data available within New Zealand to support or refute the comment on engine power. ACC is unable to use power-to-weight ratios as the power and weight data for each motorcycle is not available.
ACC uses data from its claim system and estimates of the future costs of claims, together with data from the Ministry of Transport’s crash recording system, to determine whether the risk for various sizes of motorcycles is similar. This information is then used to build various relativity factors. These relativities are based on the injury cost per vehicle to ACC, and are used to determine what levy each subclass of motorcycle would need to pay to ensure the expected levy is collected.
The idea behind the different subclasses is to reduce the degree of cross subsidisation between different types of motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).

Well why aren't drivers of Barinas charged more then - is it because they die more so futureless they cost less for future liabilities than the seriously injured subaru driver?

Wonder if ACC keeps injury data on small vs big or newer vs older cars or Euro/Yank vs Jap crap and can charge accordingly. Stay away from those Barinas I tell ya' but ACC fees likely won't.

[jeffs]

And now that some of those that were 'dragged away' are finding the call back to bikes irresistable, the average age of crash victims is increasing. These BABs maybe finding it hard to make the adjustment onto today's bikes, compared to what they are used to, or think they remember...

And now you have sort of hit on the crux of the matter. Older bikers can be higher payed due to working up the work chain.

If we ( yes me inclusive ) crash and have to make lost time injury claims, it is at 80% of our wage.

So one higher wage earner could ( and often does ) cost ACC 4 times a youngster.

So the crash rate does not need to be high to hit ACC in the pocket.

Hence if you look at cost, ( and that is what ACC have done ) the cost has gone up irrespective of the crash rate.

What ACC have done is try to find a way of charging for this without saying it out loud.

How

By introducing bike engine bands.

The philosophy is simple.

To them, if you can afford a bigger bike, you must be earning more money.


If you take out the high risk individuals ( people who think they are bullet proof and ride like it ) and go for the mean.

The risk has not changed, the young are at the same risk as the old.

Its just that the old cost the ACC more.

Sorry I should finish this of with " this sucks, because I am getting older" and already pay more tax.

[mashman]

"I swerved to miss an XXXXX officer, honest"

Insert your own object, animal, mineral or vegetable. A big black dog running across the road is the famous one. Dead possum, sheep, rabbit, rock, pothole, tractor, car on wrong side of road, swarm of bees, puddle, pedestrian, bag of chips.................... I don't think the information is worth much as it has the potential to be grossly inflated.

:lol::lol::lol: but still no golden unicorn... Kind of answers the reading between the lines question anyway. Though, this leads me to wonder... if that simple question can bring on such a response, then to me it sounds like the stats that answer the question have never really been produced. That being the case, the injury prevention etc... being toted by the gobmint and ACC is not actually undergoing any serious analysis... and is just more smoke and mirrors... wonder why...

[mashman]

As nice as it may be to 'prove' that we are seldom responsible for our bins, it's a forlorn hope to try and do so. Also I'm not sure that there is any use in garnering that info. ACC is still (apparently) a no-fault system, so they are only interested in crash injuries.
Still, if the breakdown exists, and shows a large percentage of bike-only are result of avoiding BadStuff (TM), perhaps that would spur more training schemes to promote rider awareness/control.

That's wasn't really my intention with the question, but in order to devise a targeted safety campaign or training scheme, these questions need to be asked and as berries highlights above, how can you make it effective when everyone lies? Just another waste of cash...

As far as ACC goes, there are shitloads more car crashes and resultant claims than bikes and yet the bikes get hit with a levy hike... not exactly fair, unless of course you're not trying to make it fair and thus doing the complete opposite of what it takes for a no-fault system, and i'm fully aware that no amount of statistical analysis is going to change that (primarily as it's only a small part of a probability calculation)... then again, once ACC is opened up fully for competition purposes, a pocket full of gravel or a raft of useful stats will go a long way...

[Berries]

Though, this leads me to wonder... if that simple question can bring on such a response, then to me it sounds like the stats that answer the question have never really been produced. That being the case, the injury prevention etc... being toted by the gobmint and ACC is not actually undergoing any serious analysis... and is just more smoke and mirrors... wonder why...

Don't get me wrong, objects in the road can and do cause people to lose control and get horrifically injured or killed. Shit, just have a look around the forum. In one of my old jobs I would happily have taken the time to try and provide you with an answer as well. In my current job though I don't get paid to muck round in CAS, and I know this is one of those timeconsuming ones because you need to weed out the insurance jobs.

The stats can be easily produced but like the majority of them you've got to look behind the big numbers to really find the issues.

[mashman]

Don't get me wrong, objects in the road can and do cause people to lose control and get horrifically injured or killed. Shit, just have a look around the forum. In one of my old jobs I would happily have taken the time to try and provide you with an answer as well. In my current job though I don't get paid to muck round in CAS, and I know this is one of those timeconsuming ones because you need to weed out the insurance jobs.

The stats can be easily produced but like the majority of them you've got to look behind the big numbers to really find the issues.

Heh, i wasn't having a go at what you were saying, but there are those that will think that way... i'm a definate target fixation candidate so know what you meant...

I've also been in a similar position back in the UK where i had access to the dvla, police and ABI data... fantastic to crunch against (geeky as it may sound), some quite stunning results, but no time to really dig through the reports to get any "true" results...

There really is no need for a pleb like me to know what's behind the stats (other than curiosity, or for future reference), i'm just surprised that there seems to have been no QA in regards to the ACC stats, especially since it's driving policy and we are being asked to take the stats as gospel and swallow the associated levy bump... I suppose it's easier to make people pay rather than return to the source and find out where all the money's going...

[R-Soul]

Isn't it a more noble and important objective to reduce the hurt, suffering and cost of accidents rather than haggle over the price of the bill to clean the mess up?

A 50% increase in bike only accidents as a percentage of the total is appalling and speaks much about the reckless mindset of bikers.


Here's your missing statistics re bike numbers. If you had spent more effort researching rather than vocalising cranial echoes in these threads you wouldn't need to ask others for help in your fruitless pursuit. I know this because rather than wank on about how unfair things are without any factual basis, I actually did the research that you are attempting in an attempt to ascertain facts before I ran off at the mouth. There is little in the statistics that bikers can be proud of.



http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/1.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/2.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/3.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg305/flyingcrocodile46/4.jpg


I am blocked from seeing them at work, but will check at home. I was under the impression that we were studying these stats to understand the stats, not to save a few bucks (although I would have been pissed at $750 a pop). Besides looking at the stats makes you realise where we are going wrong.


This discussion is after the fact that the levies are what they are.

See my other thread about how to save lives:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=114978

[MSTRS]

Besides looking at the stats makes you realise where we are going wrong.


What page 2 actually does is prove the lies about massively increasing accidents...

[R-Soul]

I am blocked from seeing them at work, but will check at home. I was under the impression that we were studying these stats to understand the stats, not to save a few bucks (although I would have been pissed at $750 a pop). Besides looking at the stats makes you realise where we are going wrong.


This discussion is after the fact that the levies are what they are.

See my other thread about how to save lives:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=114978


Besides you have to question figures like why previously 1 in 64 bikes made claims, but now 1 in 20 bikes make claims, despite the number of serious accidents staying the same.

Does that imply a pussy biker's mindset, or a target for bludgers?

[jeffs]

If you really have access to the real raw data, I think looking at the data is a very useful thing ( so don't get me wrong ).

It will allow you to see if the stats proclaimed by ACC are well out or just marginally out.

If well out, they are important.

If Just out by a factor of 10% then they will not provide a silver bullet to the biker cause.

If they are 100%, start polishing the bullet.

But my point is the crash rates are not the root cause to the ACC levy increases ( yes I know this will upset some people ).

COST IS !!!!

You can have 100 accidents with injury claims costing $1000 each and that is $100,000.

You can have 2000 accidents with no injury claims and it will cost ACC nothing.

Or you could have 2 accidents with ACC lost time injury wage payments costing $50,000 a year each, That is still $100,000

To ACC it is the cost of servicing Bikes that is causing the raises.

This sucks, as real income protection allows you to adjust your payment to protect higher wage earners.

ACC is not an insurance company and as such is not really set up to do this.

Your bike insurances does not allow you to cover your income, as it is protected by ACC.

So in the case of accidents you are screwed, and if you crash riding a bike your are screwed harder.

ACC levy hikes are not about Road safety they are about cost.

And the 2 are not mutually inclusive.

I honestly believe that if the cost to ACC had not increased, but the Accident rate had, ACC would not have done anything
Because it is not interested in reducing accidents rate, but only in reducing costs.

That is why I believe to ACC the overall accident stats are not as important as some think.

What I and other want to see is a reduction in accidents, irrespective of whether it costs ACC money.

[R-Soul]

If you really have access to the real raw data, I think looking at the data is a very useful thing ( so don't get me wrong ).

It will allow you to see if the stats proclaimed by ACC are well out or just marginally out.

If well out, they are important.

If Just out by a factor of 10% then they will not provide a silver bullet to the biker cause.

If they are 100%, start polishing the bullet.

But my point is the crash rates are not the root cause to the ACC levy increases ( yes I know this will upset some people ).

COST IS !!!!

You can have 100 accidents with injury claims costing $1000 each and that is $100,000.

You can have 2000 accidents with no injury claims and it will cost ACC nothing.

Or you could have 2 accidents with ACC lost time injury wage payments costing $50,000 a year each, That is still $100,000

To ACC it is the cost of servicing Bikes that is causing the raises.

This sucks, as real income protection allows you to adjust your payment to protect higher wage earners.

ACC is not an insurance company and as such is not really set up to do this.

Your bike insurances does not allow you to cover your income, as it is protected by ACC.

So in the case of accidents you are screwed, and if you crash riding a bike your are screwed harder.

ACC levy hikes are not about Road safety they are about cost.

And the 2 are not mutually inclusive.

I honestly believe that if the cost to ACC had not increased, but the Accident rate had, ACC would not have done anything
Because it is not interested in reducing accidents rate, but only in reducing costs.

That is why I believe to ACC the overall accident stats are not as important as some think.

What I and other want to see is a reduction in accidents, irrespective of whether it costs ACC money.


What you are saying is factually true, but practically is ludicrous. For a set number of accidents most of them will fall along a bell curve of seriousness and cost. That is chance for you.

[jeffs]

What you are saying is factually true, but practically is ludicrous. For a set number of accidents most of them will fall along a bell curve of seriousness and cost. That is chance for you.



Yes ACC don't care if you fall off, they only care that it costs them money. sucks doesn't it. :(

[jeffs]

Sorry I should have said, My wife is one of NZ's highest and most qualified Health and safety experts, and she think it sucks as well. Why, because it is not about accident prevention is is about cost management.

[mashman]

Sorry I should have said, My wife is one of NZ's highest and most qualified Health and safety experts, and she think it sucks as well. Why, because it is not about accident prevention is is about cost management.

Absolutely, so why won't they listen... "I suppose it's easier to make people pay rather than return to the source and find out where all the money's going..."

The whole system needs an overhaul and that means starting from scratch. Identifying a single source of truth (the best data source) for each facet of the claim process, from crash to completion of treatment... and comparing it to the paper based documentation to ensure that's it as close to perfect as you can get it... this would include everything from the police reports to the payment slip for a physio/doctor... From what i can tell ACC should be no more than a funding/payment body, primarily as the crash stats will be logged in the police system, and most likely some other systems... There shouldn't be more than 1 system holding a certain piece of information, it's too much of a nightmare to administer.

The money is there to do it too... someone mentioned that the new software that ACC are going to implement would likely cost 131 million dollars over its life time (10 years i think)...

Give me 50 guys, 3 years and 50 million (most likely would only need half of that) and you'll have a system that fits the process, not a process to fit the system (fucking rediculous idea)... then stats can be used for injury prevention and not setting policy or levies (more stupid ideas)...

My heart goes out to your wife Jeffs, i'd hate to be in a position of actually watching it happen from the inside...

[R-Soul]

Sorry I should have said, My wife is one of NZ's highest and most qualified Health and safety experts, and she think it sucks as well. Why, because it is not about accident prevention is is about cost management.

sure it is- the bean counters always have teh last say in government.

But they know that for a given number of falls, X% will cost above $Y, Z will cost above $Z, and so on. The actuaries work it out for them.

So they know that if you reduce the number if accidents in general, you will reduce the cost.

[mashman]

So they know that if you reduce the number if accidents in general, you will reduce the cost.

Bullfuckingshit... how can you be so blinkered? If a bus full of politicians goes over the edge of the road and injures all of them beyond repair, shhhhhit that's gonna be a hefty bill until they're all dead... You can't calculate it, it just happens...

X x Y does not equal Z, the probability of X x Y equals Z... actuarial bullshit with human lives v cost as the parameters... WTF!!!!

[MSTRS]

Bullfuckingshit... how can you be so blinkered?
Ya what? Less accidents IN GENERAL will mean less costs. Which is what R.Sole said.

If a bus full of politicians goes over the edge of the road and injures all of them beyond repair, ...

We used to dream of that happening.
Trouble is, the only pollies that'll all get together in a bus is the Labour lot...and we need them just now.

[R-Soul]

Bullfuckingshit... how can you be so blinkered? If a bus full of politicians goes over the edge of the road and injures all of them beyond repair, shhhhhit that's gonna be a hefty bill until they're all dead... You can't calculate it, it just happens...

X x Y does not equal Z, the probability of X x Y equals Z... actuarial bullshit with human lives v cost as the parameters... WTF!!!!

I see, so why dont you show us how you propose ONLY reducing those accidents that cause injury? You cannot!! The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved. The only thing you can look at is that high energy crashes have the capacity to do more damage (having said that, even in a low energy fender bender, there is still more than enough energy to hurt a person).

9 out of 10 times, fender bender does nothing. But one out of 10 times, it causes whiplash becuase the driver was sitting in a strange posture, or unprepared for teh bump, or whatever. You cannot predict when teh cost will be increased. So you do stuff to reduce accidents in general, because (logically somehow) that will reduce ALL payments.

And yes you CAN calculate the probability of a serious accident having a massive payout in a number of given accidents, based on history. And over time, all other things being equal, that probability will be reasonably accurate.

[jeffs]

And yes you CAN calculate the probability of a serious accident having a massive payout in a number of given accidents, based on history. And over time, all other things being equal, that probability will be reasonably accurate.


One of the problems with living is a small country is " Economy of Scale".

100,000 registered bikes sounds a lot, but as has been shown at some of the rallies, you will only have a small number of those on the road at one time.

In wellington 6,000 bikers turned up that is 6%.

Add to that the overall reduced distance these bikes travel compared to cars
the predictive calculations become harder. ( I said harder, not imposable )

What has not been done in NZ is a study on rider training and its effect on accident reduction. ( this has been done in other countries )

Why, because until now costs have been manageable by ACC, and ACC has not lost money on investments due to a global downturn.

Now that ACC have been asked to reduce costs,and biker pressure, they are finally coming to the table with skills training to reduce accident rates.

The problem is it has taken to long to get here, and too many adrenalin fueled riders will see little value in it to make an immediate effect.

It will take time to adjust rider attitude, but let us at least embrace anything that is offered and try and start the ball rolling.

To measure how this is going, will require better book keeping than is presently being done by the different agencies.

[Katman]

It will take time to adjust rider attitude,

Here's hoping you're here for the long haul.

Believe me, it's a thankless task.

[mashman]

Ya what? Less accidents IN GENERAL will mean less costs. Which is what R.Sole said.

He also says


I see, so why dont you show us how you propose ONLY reducing those accidents that cause injury? You cannot!! The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved. The only thing you can look at is that high energy crashes have the capacity to do more damage (having said that, even in a low energy fender bender, there is still more than enough energy to hurt a person).

9 out of 10 times, fender bender does nothing. But one out of 10 times, it causes whiplash becuase the driver was sitting in a strange posture, or unprepared for teh bump, or whatever. You cannot predict when teh cost will be increased. So you do stuff to reduce accidents in general, because (logically somehow) that will reduce ALL payments.


If you don't know when it's going to happen, what sort of accident it will be, how much the resultant costs are going to be, then i can't accept the statement made, hence the strong bullshit...

Even the gobmint use the example of the guy crashing his bike, earning 80000a year and then us having to foot the bill for that. If you have 10 minor accidents that total 80000 then fine the statement looks true, but it only takes 1 to tip the balance... what if there's 10 @ 80000... how the hell will they cover that? More levy hikes? I wonder how many they're actually catering for... what does my extra 500 bucks a year cover?

There is a probability that less accidents should mean less cost (and that's probably what you mean by IN GENERAL), and if there was that correlation then we would have been beaten black and blue with it for the full hike, but the correlation doesn't exist and so any statement that could or should make sense just doesn't stack up in real life. It's all just speculation...

It's statements like that that give credence to the use of probability. After all probability is just a future projection, but with a weighting added for risk, nothing more, nothing less. It's a bullshit mechanism for predicting the future and actually then telling us we need to pay for it... screw the present for the future because the probability calculation says so... WTF!!!

[jeffs]

Sorry Guys if this is off thread, I'll try to keep it in, in future posts ( probably ).


Here's hoping you're here for the long haul.


Truth is Katman, Anything I do is purely selfish. :)

All I want to do is survive a method of transport I have chosen to get to work on, and not see the pain in my family that my Nephews death by bike 2 years ago caused our family.

If ACC offer training, I will take it. There are many who thinks they are too good to even give it a try ( and by looking at a lot of the posts on KB, there are lots ). But unlike you I will not loose sleep over it, if they do not.

If people do not turn up to free training ( if ACC deliver on their promise ) it will soon be canceled.

So collect the stats and crunch them to get a base line and with luck it will show a reduction in the accident rates.

We will probably get one shot at this. Do nothing and the levies go up again.

[quickbuck]

You are right, it is really hard to convince people they don't know it all, and need training...
Motorcyclists are particularly bad at admitting they could do better... Part of the make-up of a motorcyclist.....

Another thing... ACC will never be in a position to offer FREE training. That will cost way too much! However it will be subsidised....
The training will be offered by LTSA approved instructors, and they don't come cheap.
They have to make a living too......

Oh, and StoneY, I was a kid on a farm once, and used to race around on Trikes... before the Merkins deemed them too dangerous.
Yes, it was very easy for mum and dad to forget how much those weighed... and how fast they went when you weighed 40kg dripping wet... Then the whole "No Fear" thing!

It was a bit of a recipe for disaster BUT again, it came down to education.... (says the guy who has been on 2 wheels since he was 6).

[Berries]

Submitters just got a few docs "explaining" ACC.

I note this spiel;
"There is no data available within New Zealand to support or refute the comment on engine power. ACC is unable to use power-to-weight ratios as the power and weight data for each motorcycle is not available.
ACC uses data from its claim system and estimates of the future costs of claims, together with data from the Ministry of Transport’s crash recording system, to determine whether the risk for various sizes of motorcycles is similar. This information is then used to build various relativity factors. These relativities are based on the injury cost per vehicle to ACC, and are used to determine what levy each subclass of motorcycle would need to pay to ensure the expected levy is collected.
The idea behind the different subclasses is to reduce the degree of cross subsidisation between different types of motorcycles (e.g. commuter bikes vs. high performance bikes).

Yes, it is a crock of shit. How cross subsidisation between commuter bikes and high performance bikes can be based on engine size alone I don't know. "Would Sir prefer the RGV this morning or the GN 250 ?" (No disrespect to all you RGV riders out there). And surely there must be cross subsidisation between different cars as well if they are trying to be fair ?? [Ok, we know they aren't. Sorry. :Offtopic:]

The one thing I don't know, which I am sure someone can answer, is what data ACC collect regarding the bike details when there is a claim ? Do they bother with model and engine size or are they relying on other databases ?


I honestly believe that if the cost to ACC had not increased, but the Accident rate had, ACC would not have done anything
Because it is not interested in reducing accidents rate, but only in reducing costs. That is why I believe to ACC the overall accident stats are not as important as some think.

Agree totally.

[Katman]

If ACC offer training, I will take it. There are many who thinks they are too good to even give it a try ( and by looking at a lot of the posts on KB, there are lots ). But unlike you I will not loose sleep over it, if they do not.



I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about changing rider's attitudes. I didn't realise you were only looking at the little picture.

Rider training is only a small part of changing rider's attitudes.

[MSTRS]

If you have 10 minor accidents that total 80000 then fine the statement looks true, but it only takes 1 to tip the balance... what if there's 10 @ 80000...



But you are providing your own answer to the 'less accidents = less cost' argument!!!
True - there will likely always be the odd 'spike' in either number of crashes, or injury type*, or personal compensation level...
That just introduces the fact that with less accidents, there is likely to be less of those 'spikes' as well.

* Case in point...I marshal at most m/c race meetings at Taupo and Manfield. The last round of Vic club's winter series saw 5 serious pelvis injuries. That has never happened before. There was no apparent reason for it - other that if it's possible then it could happen, and did in this case. It may never happen again.

[jeffs]

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about changing rider's attitudes. I didn't realise you were only looking at the little picture.

Rider training is only a small part of changing rider's attitudes.

People will not listen to me because compared to some i'm new to biking, so for me, Small steps today :) The world tomorrow :)

First I have to learn what it is i'm talking about, before I can preach to anyone.

But even this could be a load of crap, as we have still yet to see what ACC are offering in rider training.

If they only offer new rider training, it will do some good, but what good will that do to change the attitude of existing riders ?

The one that don't listen to you already ?

[mashman]

But you are providing your own answer to the 'less accidents = less cost' argument!!!
True - there will likely always be the odd 'spike' in either number of crashes, or injury type*, or personal compensation level...
That just introduces the fact that with less accidents, there is likely to be less of those 'spikes' as well.


I'm not saying that less accidents = less cost. I'm not saying that couldn't be the case either and logic would say that if nothing changes that could be true... although, if the cost of treating accidents rises yearly, as is usually the case, then less accidents doesn't necessarily mean less cost. Exactly the same thing can be said for the types of crash, as you've pointed out, 5 pelvic injuries is likely unheard of, but if they're bad enough, debilitating enough, then those 5 accidents alone could cost way more than the cost of 50 minor accidents and then the opposite is true... i hate being definitive when it comes to the future... you just never know what's around the corner...

I see what you're saying, but to be so definate in saying "Less accidents IN GENERAL will mean less costs" isn't a true statement... heh, we need to have this conversation next year... hell if nothing else there'll be a new set of statistics to um and ar over :2thumbsup

[mashman]

I see, so why dont you show us how you propose ONLY reducing those accidents that cause injury? You cannot!! The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved. The only thing you can look at is that high energy crashes have the capacity to do more damage (having said that, even in a low energy fender bender, there is still more than enough energy to hurt a person).

I agree, have no problem with that... BUT



And yes you CAN calculate the probability of a serious accident having a massive payout in a number of given accidents, based on history. And over time, all other things being equal, that probability will be reasonably accurate.

How can you say that when you've just said "The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved"... this is why i can't stand probability being used to calculate the future, because you don't know what's going to happen... and using history in this case is rediculous as the ACC stats are highly questionable... that's why i still believe that you can't calculate probability, it's just a best guess scenario...

[R-Soul]

One of the problems with living is a small country is " Economy of Scale".

100,000 registered bikes sounds a lot, but as has been shown at some of the rallies, you will only have a small number of those on the road at one time.

In wellington 6,000 bikers turned up that is 6%.

Add to that the overall reduced distance these bikes travel compared to cars
the predictive calculations become harder. ( I said harder, not imposable )

What has not been done in NZ is a study on rider training and its effect on accident reduction. ( this has been done in other countries )

Why, because until now costs have been manageable by ACC, and ACC has not lost money on investments due to a global downturn.

Now that ACC have been asked to reduce costs,and biker pressure, they are finally coming to the table with skills training to reduce accident rates.

The problem is it has taken to long to get here, and too many adrenalin fueled riders will see little value in it to make an immediate effect.

It will take time to adjust rider attitude, but let us at least embrace anything that is offered and try and start the ball rolling.

To measure how this is going, will require better book keeping than is presently being done by the different agencies.

No arguments there- well said.

You might be able to translate similar studies from say, Australia, and the USA because the laws of physics dont change (although rider attitudes and car drivers attitudes might). I would be interested to know what the Vic, Australia safety levies were spent on to get a 20% reduction in accidents.

[R-Soul]

I agree, have no problem with that... BUT



How can you say that when you've just said "The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved"... this is why i can't stand probability being used to calculate the future, because you don't know what's going to happen... and using history in this case is rediculous as the ACC stats are highly questionable... that's why i still believe that you can't calculate probability, it's just a best guess scenario...

Its self explanatory really. You cannot predict exactly what will happen in an accident in terms of physics (i.e. the drivers head hitting dashboard, window and passenger in that order), but you can use statistics to say that over time, 20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents (again - its just a probability of what will happen, not a prediction).


Statistics dont predict the fuiture, they just work ourt for a set of circumstances what has happened in tehpast pbased on empirical evidence, and try to establsih the probability of soemting hapenning again for those set of circumstances. Yes, I do agree that stats can be badly misinterpreted, and ther era efatcors that could interfere in them that may not have been taken into account. But generally if a factor is big enough to make a big difference, it will be self evident.


Like teh stats that most accidents are by bikers riding by themselves withno other cars involved. Yes, you get stuff in the road sometimes. But the fact is that you can only really explain this by understanding that most of these riders did not know how to control their bikes properly. As dumb as the stats may make us look as a group, we cannot ignore them.

[R-Soul]

that's why i still believe that you can't calculate probability, it's just a best guess scenario...

There is a global insurance industry that disagrees with you and relies on those same stats for profictability.

[R-Soul]

Another thing... ACC will never be in a position to offer FREE training. That will cost way too much! However it will be subsidised....
The training will be offered by LTSA approved instructors, and they don't come cheap.
They have to make a living too......



That is an example of short term vision.
Would the ACC prefer to pay $400 per person now and have those people uninjured and able to contribute to the economy for the duration of their lives, or pay the entire cost of salary replacement and injury rehabilitation of a portion of them at a later date?

If they can even reduce the number of "bikes only' cases by half, the savings of not having to pay future costs (for which we have to bring in the full amount every year remember) for those cases will add up to quite a lot of money, that can be spent of rider training instead .

It would be interesting to see the real actuarial numbers made up.

In the meantime, they can just let us bikes use the damn motorway buslanes for a start... how FUCKING ARBITRARY was that law?

[mashman]

Its self explanatory really. You cannot predict exactly what will happen in an accident in terms of physics (i.e. the drivers head hitting dashboard, window and passenger in that order), but you can use statistics to say that over time, 20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents (again - its just a probability of what will happen, not a prediction).

Statistics dont predict the fuiture, they just work ourt for a set of circumstances what has happened in tehpast pbased on empirical evidence, and try to establsih the probability of soemting hapenning again for those set of circumstances.


What? You're saying that statistics don't predict the future... Using your example, "20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents " IS predicting the future because it hasn't happened yet!!! Of course it's a prediction, if it isn't why try to calculate it... going to happen usually meaning in the future???



Yes, I do agree that stats can be badly misinterpreted, and ther era efatcors that could interfere in them that may not have been taken into account. But generally if a factor is big enough to make a big difference, it will be self evident.


Can't agree on the self-evident thing. There is the potential, but that's all, nothing more, nothing less... it may never come to pass, well not until next years stats have been suitably massaged :dodge:.



Like teh stats that most accidents are by bikers riding by themselves withno other cars involved. Yes, you get stuff in the road sometimes. But the fact is that you can only really explain this by understanding that most of these riders did not know how to control their bikes properly. As dumb as the stats may make us look as a group, we cannot ignore them.

Absolutely agree, apart from the assumption that most riders did not know how to control their bikes... there's no stats to back that up here (it may well be the case), so that's a big assumption... guess i'm wishing i had that answer from berries now :lol:...

If there's something on the road i'd blame target fixation... something that fuckin hard to ignore when you get a few tenths of a second to react... 50 - 50 as to wether you're about to test those laws of physics or not.



There is a global insurance industry that disagrees with you and relies on those same stats for profictability.


PAH!!!! So as long as something is profitable, their calculations are correct??? Huge profits means that they have got it wrong and that they're screwing their customers to hit their profit margins... But that's my take!

[R-Soul]

What? You're saying that statistics don't predict the future... Using your example, "20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents " IS predicting the future because it hasn't happened yet!!! Of course it's a prediction, if it isn't why try to calculate it... going to happen usually meaning in the future???

Nope it is not predicting the future, it is trying to predict the probabibility (ie still uncertain, but probable) of certain things happeneing when certain factors are true.
Using my example, that does not mean that of the next two accidents, one will be guaranteed to have a fatality. The next ten accidents could be fatality-less. But over the next 1000 or so having those characteristics, 500 people or close will probably die.

If the same statistics repeat themselves year after year, of course you have a reason to believe that they will repeat themselves again next year (all other things being equal of course).



Can't agree on the self-evident thing. There is the potential, but that's all, nothing more, nothing less... it may never come to pass, well not until next years stats have been suitably massaged :dodge:.

Occasionally there is an influence from left field, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Its pretty settled that certain factors influence crashhes and their survavbility and their probability of injury. eg speed and kinetic energy - the more there is, the more injuries/fatalities in general.




Absolutely agree, apart from the assumption that most riders did not know how to control their bikes... there's no stats to back that up here (it may well be the case), so that's a big assumption... guess i'm wishing i had that answer from berries now :lol:...

If there's something on the road i'd blame target fixation... something that fuckin hard to ignore when you get a few tenths of a second to react... 50 - 50 as to wether you're about to test those laws of physics or not.

Yup -they do not know how to control their bikes or themselves, or do not know what their bikes can do - solved by appropriate training.



PAH!!!! So as long as something is profitable, their calculations are correct??? Huge profits means that they have got it wrong and that they're screwing their customers to hit their profit margins... But that's my take!
Remember that they are in competition with others for profits, so they also try and cut their margins based on actuarial stats.

[mashman]

Nope it is not predicting the future, it is trying to predict the probabibility (ie still uncertain, but probable) of certain things happeneing when certain factors are true.
Using my example, that does not mean that of the next two accidents, one will be guaranteed to have a fatality. The next ten accidents could be fatality-less. But over the next 1000 or so having those characteristics, 500 people or close will probably die.


How do you predict a probability, as probability is a prediction tool? You keep using the future tense of "will" as well... When will these events come to pass? The future maybe???



If the same statistics repeat themselves year after year, of course you have a reason to belie ve that they will repeat themselves again next year (all other things being equal of course).


Reason to believe is comletely different to guarenteed to happen... they're accidents remember... unpredicatble, your words.



Occasionally there is an influence from left field, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Its pretty settled that certain factors influence crashhes and their survavbility and their probability of injury. eg speed and kinetic energy - the more there is, the more injuries/fatalities in general.


Granted, but again it's not a given that a motorcycle rider will suffer any injury for any given instance, it may be probable, but it's not definitive. You could look at the police paperwork without knowing the outcome of an accident and guess what had happened. You have a 50 - 50 chance of being right or wrong. A probability calculation could get it 100% wrong! just as wrong as a good guess



Yup -they do not know how to control their bikes or themselves, or do not know what their bikes can do - solved by appropriate training.


Proof or it never happened! Training doesn't help with the unknown, i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations, maybe even 99%, but can't be relied upon as the cure you seem to believe it to be. Accidents happen remember, an accident being something outwith rider control perhaps.



Remember that they are in competition with others for profits, so they also try and cut their margins based on actuarial stats.

Yeah, i'm sure a 20 million dollar hit to generate 50 million dollars doesn't make sound business sense, especially when your profits are running into the billions... All thanks to probability and the weighting of risk, but hey, that's what their business is, making money!

[R-Soul]

How do you predict a probability, as probability is a prediction tool? You keep using the future tense of "will" as well... When will these events come to pass? The future maybe???
Yes it is predicting a probaibilty of what will happen in the future, but not the future itself.



Reason to believe is comletely different to guarenteed to happen... they're accidents remember... unpredicatble, your words.

Reason to believe is effectively probability. There will be a probable chance of X happening, so I have reason to believe that it will. it makes no guarantees though.

So what exactly is your argument here? Is it that historical statistics are overwhelmingly wrong and inaccurate at predicting probabilities (of, for example, injury stats) in the future? In which case I am laughing at your obtuseness.

Or is it that historical stats are are not capable of predicting the exact outcomes of specific events like accidents.? In which case I agree.


Granted, but again it's not a given that a motorcycle rider will suffer any injury for any given instance, it may be probable, but it's not definitive. You could look at the police paperwork without knowing the outcome of an accident and guess what had happened. You have a 50 - 50 chance of being right or wrong. A probability calculation could get it 100% wrong! just as wrong as a good guess

Sure if you look at a single accidnet. that has nothing to do with probabilities and stats. Stats work most effectively over a number of samples. They mean nothing in ones and twos.

If the chance of something happening is 90%, that means that it will happen 9 out of 10 times. Maybe not the next time, or the one after next, but over time and a large number of accidents it will. So nine out of ten times in the long run it will get it right. Again not every time.



Proof or it never happened! Training doesn't help with the unknown, i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations, maybe even 99%, but can't be relied upon as the cure you seem to believe it to be. Accidents happen remember, an accident being something outwith rider control perhaps.

You contradict yourself. "i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations". Now take that "situation" as the collective group of situations being
- rider going into a corner too fast
- corner radius decreasing
- obstacle in the way (like a cow pat/pothole/gravel)

Not unheard of in bike circles...
And (without having more information available) you could reasonably assume that one of these happened in a large proportion of those "bike only accidents". Training a rider properly would teach them to be able to
- countersteer in the corner,
- not kill throttle hard,
- look where they want to go, and
- to know that they have another 10 degrees of lean if they need it.

So what you are saying is that despite it being "helpful" and maybe avoiding a crash completely in 9 out of ten such situations, it "can't be relied upon as the cure" I believe it to be? If done properly and trained into a noobie until its reflex, yes, you can prevent most such accidents.

It wont cure those idiots that have a death wish, but at least it will give the others a chance if they make a mistake!



Yeah, i'm sure a 20 million dollar hit to generate 50 million dollars doesn't make sound business sense, especially when your profits are running into the billions... All thanks to probability and the weighting of risk, but hey, that's what their business is, making money!

That is what ALLl businesses business is-making money. If your competitor has more accurate stats, they can be more accurate in their predictions, and shave more margins off and undercut competitors. It is a science, not a guess. Take that as fact.


You seem to be adviocating that the future is the future which we can never know or predict, and past facts are in the past and dont mean anything for teh future, so we just throw our hands up in despair and trust our future to destiny and common sense? And watch the bodies pile up?

[jeffs]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics :)

[R-Soul]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics :)

Well thought out, that... :2thumbsup

At the end of the day the only way to reduce the payouts is by reducing the accidents. All of them.
But at ACC the bean counters dont like having to really think and get their hands dirty.

[MSTRS]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics :)

And you forgot the couple, with a bike each (levy each as well, of course)...they will likely sell/park up her bike and she'll pillion with him. In that scenario, ACC will get one levy and pay for two people should they have a crash.

[mashman]

Yes it is predicting a probaibilty of what will happen in the future, but not the future itself.


Of course you're predicting the future, i'm not saying to a particular date and time, but you are predicting the future because you say it will happen you slippery fillet of sole you :girlfight:



Reason to believe is effectively probability. There will be a probable chance of X happening, so I have reason to believe that it will. it makes no guarantees though.


So if it makes no guarentees, why are bikers being stung with such a high levy hike?



So what exactly is your argument here? Is it that historical statistics are overwhelmingly wrong and inaccurate at predicting probabilities (of, for example, injury stats) in the future? In which case I am laughing at your obtuseness.

Or is it that historical stats are are not capable of predicting the exact outcomes of specific events like accidents.? In which case I agree.


I haven't been called obtuse in a while, believe it or not... If your base data is wrong, then yes, the outcome of your probability calculation will be wrong and therefore any levy you attach to anything becomes questionable. But i'm sure there's a variance for that TUI time...



Sure if you look at a single accidnet. that has nothing to do with probabilities and stats. Stats work most effectively over a number of samples. They mean nothing in ones and twos.

If the chance of something happening is 90%, that means that it will happen 9 out of 10 times. Maybe not the next time, or the one after next, but over time and a large number of accidents it will. So nine out of ten times in the long run it will get it right. Again not every time.


Stats work perfectly, even if you're using 1's and 2's, because that's what has been chosen to be used... but the probability calculation will be further out.

Oh and chance has a 50 - 50 outcome, irrespective of what the scientific community says... their definition is wrong in the eyes of the layman!



You contradict yourself. "i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations". Now take that "situation" as the collective group of situations being
- rider going into a corner too fast
- corner radius decreasing
- obstacle in the way (like a cow pat/pothole/gravel)

Not unheard of in bike circles...
And (without having more information available) you could reasonably assume that one of these happened in a large proportion of those "bike only accidents". Training a rider properly would teach them to be able to
- countersteer in the corner,
- not kill throttle hard,
- look where they want to go, and
- to know that they have another 10 degrees of lean if they need it.

It wont cure those idiots that have a death wish, but at least it will give the others a chance if they make a mistake!



I have no problem with rider training, we could all make some use of it, i have no doubt, but it's not the silver bullet, as not all accidents can be "dealt with" and not all accidents are rider error... i'm not saying that rider error isn't the cause of accidents, but if you can't prove to what extent, it's a moot point! ACC seems to think differently because it's been calculated (fucking rediculous)... you don't work for ACC do you :2thumbsup



It is a science, not a guess. Take that as fact.


It's a guess... just because you've used a calculation to come up with an answer doesn't make it science, especially with something as broadly ranging as probability.

What i'm advocating is that historical data is an excellent teacher if it can be trusted, if not it can do just a much harm.

As for the future, I say MIGHT, you say WILL, which is why I consider your staunch denial that probability is not predicting the future (however you dress it up, it give a warning, it shows that most likely etc...) to be completely contradictory.

I would love to do the stats properly, ya know read the reports, categorise everything as correctly as possible, put people on a lie detector machine that's wired to the mains... that sort of thing... but it's looking improbable that i'll get that chance... and then at least people would be getting the truth, not some fucking agenda driven by shitty stats, which in turn screws any "valid" (eeeeeek) probability calculation... One of the reasons i protested in the first place and will continue to do so...

[mashman]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics :)

They call it the Social Cost... yes yes, another cost and usually one that they land on a group of people that are more probable to fit into the category of Willingness To Pay! like really really rich bikers... for example ;)

Yup economics, stats and politicians... just jim dandy...