Motorcycle accident myths - A public presentation on the facts [Archive]

bogan

10th May 2010, 12:04

In my view there is only one cause of virtually all accidents on the road, and that is simply having a very high level of incompetent and (virtually) untrained drivers. If we all had to go through say 30 hours of proper intensive skill based training to obtain a license in the first place, and then a compulsory 10 hours every 5 years to renew a license, then that would go a long way to improving our road toll.

It amazes me that the beurocrats are spending tens of millions of dollars to take bends out of roads that are supposedly "black spots". They can't take ALL the bends out of ALL the roads, so it seems pointless. Spend the money to teach drivers (of cars and bikes) how to go around a bend properly and safely. That would seem a better investment to me.

Isn't visibility of bikes just a symptom, and not a cause? A good example is visibility on say a transport yard - there are so many high viz jackets and signs around that the only bugger that stands out now is the one NOT wearing a vest. Same with driving lights in daytime, now it seems the only vehicles that stand out are the ones that DON'T have their lights on.

Yeh I agree the amount of numpties on the roads is worrying to say the least, though having the capability to drive well in a test situation doesn't mean the driver will continue to pay attention and drive defensively normally, attitudes need to change to fix that. Though I reckon we do whatever Charles Lamb reckons, he seems like a smart cookie! +1 to the uploaded video idea.

Katman

10th May 2010, 12:07

It will be interesting to see what he says about the part that motorcyclists attitudes and riding manner contribute to the figures.

shrub

10th May 2010, 12:08

Sounds good. I will be there. Hows life anyway mate? its been a while, you should come for a ride one sunday.

It's been too long, but I've been stupidly busy buying houses, studying and trying to earn money and if I couldn't ride to Uni every day I'd go insane - when I went to bring my car to my new house there were cobwebs over the exhaust pipe and one tyre was half flat. A Sunday ride sounds bloody excellent

Bass

10th May 2010, 13:01

A

“The largest single determinant of accidents is visibility issues affecting drivers of other vehicles involved in motorcycle accidents"

Would be interested in hearing more also.
However, this excerpt implies pretty strongly that he is dealing with multi vehicle accidents.
My understanding is that in NZ anyway, about 45% of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle events. We seem to forget that in most of the accident statistic discussions on this site and in my opinion, it's a pretty damning number.

I wonder if it's the "Charley Lamb" that I grew up with.
He's not a tall skinny and mostly bald guy is he?

shrub

10th May 2010, 13:09

Would be interested in hearing more also.
However, this excerpt implies pretty strongly that he is dealing with multi vehicle accidents.
My understanding is that in NZ anyway, about 45% of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle events. We seem to forget that in most of the accident statistic discussions on this site and in my opinion, it's a pretty damning number.

I wonder if it's the "Charley Lamb" that I grew up with.
He's not a tall skinny and mostly bald guy is he?

That's our Charley Lamb. Ex Air Force currently a university professor and passionate about bikes.

bogan

10th May 2010, 13:10

Would be interested in hearing more also.
However, this excerpt implies pretty strongly that he is dealing with multi vehicle accidents.
My understanding is that in NZ anyway, about 45% of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle events. We seem to forget that in most of the accidents statistic discussions on this site and in my opinion, it's a pretty damning number.

yes but single vehicle accidents caused by what? rider error, speed, road conditions, mechanical failure, largest single determinant relies heavily on how you group the determinants.

oldrider

10th May 2010, 13:35

A detailed analysis of the New Zealand Ministry of Transport accident data questions the commonly held view of what is causing New Zealand’s motorcycle accidents

Where: The Cashmere Club
88 Hunter Tce

When: Tuesday 18th May
7:30 pm

Hear Associate Professor Charles (Charley) Lamb, Head Business Management, Law and Marketing – and Director Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies Project at Lincoln University.

“The largest single determinant of accidents is visibility issues affecting drivers of other vehicles involved in motorcycle accidents"

Thank you for posting that!

I shall seriously consider my options in order to try and get there and listen to him.

I do worry about these people and their statistics (and who pays for them) but he sounds like a biker friendly at least!

Does that mean that his findings can be disputed/dismissed as biased and meaningless by the anti-biker world in reply?

Can his address be recorded in some medium for those who are unable to be there to hear him?

shrub

10th May 2010, 13:39

Charley and one of his post graduate students undertook a very detailed and thorough study of the official crash analysis data collected by Police and have come to some interesting conclusions. Knowing how he works, he will welcome anyone challenging his findings, but they will need to really know their stuff or will be very quickly dispatched.

mashman

10th May 2010, 13:43

I'd also love a listen... Could someone ask if his base data is available to joe public please?

PirateJafa

10th May 2010, 14:55

Any spokesperson (Ixion, Mom, StoneY?) given the media a heads-up?

R-Soul

10th May 2010, 15:14

Yeah I 'd be really keen on his observations.

HI VIS RULES!!

Bass

10th May 2010, 16:08

yes but single vehicle accidents caused by what? rider error, speed, road conditions, mechanical failure, largest single determinant relies heavily on how you group the determinants.

You miss my point. The excerpt quoted specifically excludes single vehicle events. I don't doubt that Charley is forthright and thorough, he always was. I am however querying a statement that infers a major determinant but excludes 45% of the available data.

Charley and one of his post graduate students undertook a very detailed and thorough study of the official crash analysis data collected by Police and have come to some interesting conclusions. Knowing how he works, he will welcome anyone challenging his findings, but they will need to really know their stuff or will be very quickly dispatched.

I don't doubt it for a second. It's been decades since I spoke to him and he knows my Mum better than he knows me. I never knew that he was into bikes.
I cannot attend and would like to know more about what he has to say.

bogan

10th May 2010, 16:28

shrub

10th May 2010, 17:16

You miss my point. The excerpt quoted specifically excludes single vehicle events. I don't doubt that Charley is forthright and thorough, he always was. I am however querying a statement that infers a major determinant but excludes 45% of the available data.
.

I happen to know the study was based on a fairly exhaustive analysis of the crash analysis reports for every motorcycle accident in Auckland and ChCh in 2008. I think Charley is far too professional to exclude any relevant data.

p.dath

10th May 2010, 17:20

I would love to attend, but can't. Could we please post up a set of slides or a web link? Could someone video it and put it up on YouTube?

Squiggles

10th May 2010, 17:24

A vid of it would be great

schrodingers cat

10th May 2010, 19:02

Looking forward with interest to this.

I hope I don't learn that I have to take some responsibility for my own actions tho. Hasn't the last decade taught us that everything is someone elses fault? :blink:

Usarka

10th May 2010, 19:10

I hope I don't learn that I have to take some responsibility for my own actions tho. Hasn't the last decade taught us that everything is someone elses fault? :blink:

You don't even know where you're going!

shrub

10th May 2010, 21:24

Hasn't the last decade taught us that everything is someone elses fault? :blink:

Yeah, the previous government's fault. Everything is their fault. Bastards.

Berries

10th May 2010, 21:40

However, this excerpt implies pretty strongly that he is dealing with multi vehicle accidents.
I agree, but many of the myths surround those crashes where another vehicle is involved and we are all quick to blame the car driver, when on closer reading perhaps the rider could have done one of several things to avoid becoming a statistic. Not sure if that is the aim of the talk but it would be good to be able to view the presentation, hopefully something can be posted in this thread after the event. I am sure he will clarify which crashes he is dealing with.

My understanding is that in NZ anyway, about 45% of motorcycle accidents are single vehicle events.
Closer to 30% for NZ as a whole, but might be higher in larger urban areas like Chch and Dorkland. I posted a few numbers in another thread here which might be of interest - http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/114228-Crash-stats?p=1129569477#post1129569477

Bass

11th May 2010, 08:20

I happen to know the study was based on a fairly exhaustive analysis of the crash analysis reports for every motorcycle accident in Auckland and ChCh in 2008. I think Charley is far too professional to exclude any relevant data.
I sincerely hope that you are right - I was simply commenting on the excerpt that you quoted. Often, we see negative comments about statistics and sadly, they are usually true because the stats have been misapplied. However, properly applied statistics is probably the most powerful analysis tool that I have ever been given and so I would welcome a rigorous analysis of the available data.

I agree, but many of the myths surround those crashes where another vehicle is involved and we are all quick to blame the car driver, when on closer reading perhaps the rider could have done one of several things to avoid becoming a statistic. Not sure if that is the aim of the talk but it would be good to be able to view the presentation, hopefully something can be posted in this thread after the event. I am sure he will clarify which crashes he is dealing with.

Closer to 30% for NZ as a whole, but might be higher in larger urban areas like Chch and Dorkland. I posted a few numbers in another thread here which might be of interest - http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/114228-Crash-stats?p=1129569477#post1129569477

I tend to agree with everything you say but you are asking for us to take responsibility for our own actions - that's not going to happen, is it?
The data you quote is useful, thank you. However, it is injury accident data and not all accident data

Mom

11th May 2010, 08:25

A detailed analysis of the New Zealand Ministry of Transport accident data questions the commonly held view of what is causing New Zealand’s motorcycle accidents

Unable to attend for geographical reasons but would be really keen to have a transcript of this speech if possible. Wonder if you could let me have some contact details for Mr Lamb so I can approach him directly?

Any spokesperson (Ixion, Mom, StoneY?) given the media a heads-up?

I have no doubt there will be media there.

Mom

11th May 2010, 08:26

Flip

11th May 2010, 16:53

Who is organising this?

What's the catch?

Who is paying for the band and hall so what else is going on here, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

shrub

11th May 2010, 19:04

Who is organising this?

What's the catch?

Who is paying for the band and hall so what else is going on here, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Charley is organising this, and paying any costs - why? Because he thinks it's important to get the full story out there.

bogan

11th May 2010, 19:14

Charley is organising this, and paying any costs - why? Because he thinks it's important to get the full story out there.

good man! and on that note, will the figures he has gathered be released as well?

Berries

11th May 2010, 21:36

The data you quote is useful, thank you. However, it is injury accident data and not all accident data
Can post that tomorrow if you want it - MOT/Police crash data that is.

Bass

11th May 2010, 22:48

Can post that tomorrow if you want it - MOT/Police crash data that is.

I would be interested but I wonder how accurate/complete it is, given that there is no legal requirement to report non-injury accidents to the cops.

Is there actually any database out there that will have complete data?

mikeey01

11th May 2010, 23:14

I'll see if I can video it and post up on u-tube for those that can't attend but may need to see what he's on about.

It's worth a shot, I'll see what I can do for ys.

mikeey01

11th May 2010, 23:16

I'll ask Charley if that's possible.

If at all possible....
Can you ask if I can video it, setup lights etc.
Do you know how long his talk will be?

Berries

11th May 2010, 23:37

I would be interested but I wonder how accurate/complete it is, given that there is no legal requirement to report non-injury accidents to the cops.

Is there actually any database out there that will have complete data?

No. The insurance companies won't release their data to help provide a better picture so there will never be a true record of the number of incidents, even if you assume people claim on the insurance. Which they don't. Even if they have insurance. We assume all fatal crashes get reported but have factors to account for the under reporting of minor and even serious injury crashes (based on hospital data), as well as non injuries, which is something like 1:14. You basically have to go with what is available, which is the MOT database, knowing the deficiencies. That includes no requirement to report a crash that did not result in injury as you mentioned. It is massively flawed if you want to know accurate figures, but the best that is available.

Will stick the info in this post tomorrow.

Bass

12th May 2010, 08:04

No. The insurance companies won't release their data to help provide a better picture so there will never be a true record of the number of incidents, even if you assume people claim on the insurance. Which they don't. Even if they have insurance. We assume all fatal crashes get reported but have factors to account for the under reporting of minor and even serious injury crashes (based on hospital data), as well as non injuries, which is something like 1:14. You basically have to go with what is available, which is the MOT database, knowing the deficiencies. .

I thought that there might not be a complete database which is why I asked, but I didn't realise that the insurance companies refused to release data. That seems a bit strange to me but I can understand that it might be commercially sensitive.
It's a bit communist I know, but I wonder if there might not be a case to force them all to release the data.
Sorry but I'm a bit unclear on exactly what your 1:14 ratio refers to.
Is it injury:non-injury accidents?

Maki

12th May 2010, 08:11

bogan

12th May 2010, 08:27

“The largest single determinant of accidents is visibility issues affecting drivers of other vehicles involved in motorcycle accidents"

The largest SINGLE determinant. I reckon it is true. What I can not understand is why people ride around wearing black helmets yup, black clothes yup, with a bit of red on my jacketand bikes that are painted in dull colorsyup, but its shiney too!. Are they just plain stupid or is something else driving their behavior?

Do you wear high vis? And we have to have headlights on now :sick: so other motorist should :shutup: see that before pulling out in front of us.

davereid

12th May 2010, 08:28

“The largest single determinant of accidents is visibility issues affecting drivers of other vehicles involved in motorcycle accidents"

Thats one of the things about his bluudy lights on law.

I always used my headlight as a warning device - flashing it at any car that I thought was, or could, turn into my path. Often I would see the motorist take a second look - I had achieved what I wanted which was their attention. Now the best I can manage is a "flick" onto HI which seems much less effective.

Same as my brake lights. The transition from OFF to BRIGHT used to be really noticeable. But now, it goes from park to brake, merely a change in intensity.

Maki

12th May 2010, 08:30

Nope, I don't wear hi vis but I have a brightly colored bike and helmet. I think it makes a world of difference compared to some fo the invisible people out there.

bogan

12th May 2010, 08:48

Nope, I don't wear hi vis but I have a brightly colored bike and helmet. I think it makes a world of difference compared to some fo the invisible people out there.

to a point yes, but its all a question of degree, how much is enough visibility? you cannot be bright enough to stop all motorists cutting you off (i was hit with light on, white bike, red jacket, sunny day with no glare), and there is still the looming effect even if they see you.

Thats one of the things about his bluudy lights on law.

I always used my headlight as a warning device - flashing it at any car that I thought was, or could, turn into my path. Often I would see the motorist take a second look - I had achieved what I wanted which was their attention. Now the best I can manage is a "flick" onto HI which seems much less effective.

Same as my brake lights. The transition from OFF to BRIGHT used to be really noticeable. But now, it goes from park to brake, merely a change in intensity.

yeh it seems a slippery slope when they start legislating us all to the lowest denominator for safety reasons, I sometimes have to bump start my bike so leave the headlight off to charge the baterry on my short commute, shouldn't do that anymore, please mr gubbermint, can I have some personal responsibility! /rant

Berries

12th May 2010, 10:54

Sorry but I'm a bit unclear on exactly what your 1:14 ratio refers to.Is it injury:non-injury accidents?

They reckon that only one in 14 non injury crashes gets reported and makes it on to the database, which is a best guess.

Here’s those numbers anyway. First figure is number of all reported crashes involving motorbikes across NZ (including non injury). Second figure is the number of them that were multi vehicle, third figure is the number that were single vehicle. Total crashes includes bike vs cyclist and bike vs ped crashes which explains the difference of 115 if you add them all up. Note that mopeds are often incorrectly coded as motorbikes so may feature in these numbers and go a little way to explain the increases.

2005 1064 753 293 (27%)
2006 1088 764 307 (28%)
2007 1347 911 408 (30%)
2008 1507 998 477 (32%)
2009 1442 961 461 (32%)

I do quite a bit of crash analysis at work which is why I am interested in this presentation, to get the thread back on topic.

Bass

12th May 2010, 11:17

They reckon that only one in 14 non injury crashes gets reported and makes it on to the database, which is a best guess.

Whoa!
So that means what? It doesn't actually allow us to calculate the total number of accidents, does it? (Thanks BTW).

Worse, that the sample we have ,(the reported events), is not a random one and so may be completely unrepresentative of the total event population?

Indulging in a bit of surmise for a second, it could for example be argued that collision with another vehicle is more likely to cause injury than just coming off and so the unreported accidents are more likely to be single vehicle events?

That has to make it really difficult to accurately say anything about motorcycle accidents overall.

I wonder how Prof Lamb got around that one.

p.dath

12th May 2010, 11:20

“The largest single determinant of accidents is visibility issues affecting drivers of other vehicles involved in motorcycle accidents"

The largest SINGLE determinant. I reckon it is true. What I can not understand is why people ride around wearing black helmets, black clothes and bikes that are painted in dull colors. Are they just plain stupid or is something else driving their behavior?

The tricky bit is Maki, when they have looked at the accident rates between high-viz users and non-high viz users in accidents where the cage claims not to have seen them - the rates are about the same to within 1%.

It seems that when a cage does not see a motorcycle, they don't see them no matter what they are wearing.

Bass

12th May 2010, 11:46

It seems that when a cage does not see a motorcycle, they don't see them no matter what they are wearing.

I'm interested.
Do you have a link to an appropriate study?

Ixion

12th May 2010, 11:54

They reckon that only one in 14 non injury crashes gets reported and makes it on to the database, which is a best guess.

I'd suspect (without any evidence) that bike crashes (injury and non injury) are reported more often. If a bike goes down, someone always calls the cops. And usually an ambulance.

It seems that when a cage does not see a motorcycle, they don't see them no matter what they are wearing.

I don't have any evidence for this, either, but personal experience suggests it is pretty much so. I ride a variety of bikes. And I vary what I wear. Sometimes it's a black bike, black leather and black helmet. Sometimes a big all white bike, hi-viz jacket (not just a vest) , and white helmet. And all combinations in between, including variously coloured bikes. With and without headlights on. It doesn't really seem to make much difference.

Once, some years ago, my perception was that the hi-viz and headlamp combo did make a signifcant differnce. But it seems to have lost its edge nowadays (I suspect because hi-viz and headlamps are both so common now, it no longer has the WTF is that factor).

Berries

12th May 2010, 13:38

So that means what? It doesn't actually allow us to calculate the total number of accidents, does it? (Thanks BTW).
No. We will never know the true number of crashes of any type. If I dropped my bike on a corner, completely my own fault, would I bother reporting it ? If I was going to make an insurance claim then possibly, otherwise highly unlikely.

Indulging in a bit of surmise for a second, it could for example be argued that collision with another vehicle is more likely to cause injury than just coming off and so the unreported accidents are more likely to be single vehicle events?
Possibly, and to refute that argument the only data available is the same data where we know so much is missing. Catch 22. Data like the ‘reported’ single bike stats show a much higher severity rate than multi vehicles crashes (47% of injury crashes were fatal or serious compared to 37%) or that only 11% of reported bike crashes were non injury compared to 31% of multi vehicle crashes. May not be totally accurate, but does paint a picture.

You could also argue that a two vehicle incident is more likely to get reported because one party will want to be claiming off the other, or that because they are more likely to be in an urban area (72% of multis were urban compared to only 36% of singles) they are more likely to get Police attendance.

That has to make it really difficult to accurately say anything about motorcycle accidents overall. I wonder how Prof Lamb got around that one.
I don’t think it is a case of getting around it, you can only talk accurately about the information at hand and if we don’t report crashes we are involved in then we can’t complain that the full information isn’t available. What will make the presentation interesting is that the Prof has actually looked at the crash reports which will take it beyond the usual simplistic road safety messages we get hammered with.

Bass

12th May 2010, 14:02

No. We will never know the true number of crashes of any type. If I dropped my bike on a corner, completely my own fault, would I bother reporting it ? If I was going to make an insurance claim then possibly, otherwise highly unlikely.

only 11% of reported bike crashes were non injury .

You have thrown some new information in there.
Therefore, if we know the number of reported crashes, that 11% of them were non-injury and that only 1in 14 (guesstimate) non-injury are reported, we can calculate an estimated total.
e.g. 2009 1442 reported
11% non injury = 159 and 1283 injury
If 149 is 1/14 of total non-injury then total is 2086
Total accidents is then 1283 + 2086 = 3369
It's only a rough estimate, I know, but it's the number I was trying to get some sort of handle on. Thanks again.

Katman

12th May 2010, 14:28

Total accidents is then 1283 + 2086 = 3369
It's only a rough estimate, I know, but it's the number I was trying to get some sort of handle on. Thanks again.

We're not very good at this motorcycling lark, are we?

Maha

12th May 2010, 15:13

Radio advert.....

'70% of all motorcycle accident involve another vehicle and 33% (30 something anyway?) of those accidents are not the motorcycles fault'.
So I take it that 30% of motorcycle accidents dont involve another vehicle? Rider error?
What then, is the total percentage (going on the figures above) of motorcycle accidents, that are the other vehicles fault?

Katman

12th May 2010, 15:33

33% of 70 = 23.1

Therefore (according to the figures you've given) 46.9% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of another vehicle.

Maha

12th May 2010, 15:48

33% of 70 = 23.1

Therefore (according to the figures you've given) 46.9% of motorcycle accidents are the fault of the other vehicle.

So, more than half of all bike accidents are (going by those figures) the motorcycles fault?
Is your figure correect Steve? 46.9%?

I would have thought it would be less than that?
Isn't it 23.1%?
Because its out of 100 not 70....I could be wrong.

Katman

12th May 2010, 15:54

Because its out of 100 not 70....I could be wrong.

The 33% figure is for the multi-vehicle accidents only - not all motorcycle accidents.

Sentox

12th May 2010, 15:58

FML. See post #60.

Maha

12th May 2010, 16:00

His math is correct.

Still, following the language of the statement strictly, you can say that 46.9% of accidents involving a motorcycle are not the fault of another vehicle. You can't state categorically that the 53.1% of accidents are the fault of the rider though... invisible road hazards, animals entering the road, etc.

So the Radio add could be misleading in the way it words the figures?

Sentox

12th May 2010, 16:04

So the Radio add could be misleading in the way it words the figures?

Damn, you got in before my edit :p I cocked it up a little first time around.

A little bit. It's fair to say that a good portion of motorcycle accidents are the rider's fault, but you can't extrapolate the exact figure from that statement without more details.

Edit: ARGH BRAIN FAIL. Re-reading the original statement: 70% of accidents involve other vehicles. 33% of those are not the rider's fault; therefore, they are implicitly another vehicle's fault. 23.1% of all motorcycle accidents are the fault of another vehicle.

Edit #2: Well, to be totally pedantic, 23.1% of accidents involve another vehicle and were not the rider's fault. Depends how they assign blame and deal with factors like mechanical breakdown, invisible hazards like diesel, etc.

Katman

12th May 2010, 16:35

Berries

12th May 2010, 16:38

.........It's only a rough estimate, I know, but it's the number I was trying to get some sort of handle on. Thanks again.
It will actually be a lot more than that. You can add at least 50% to your serious injury crashes and multiply your minor injury crashes by between 3 and 4. These are the underreporting factors used when reporting on social cost.

So I take it that 30% of motorcycle accidents dont involve another vehicle? Rider era?
I know you meant error but era could be just as close to the truth.

So the Radio add could be misleading in the way it words the figures.
All crash stats that you see can be misleading, even if unintentional. What period are they based on ? What area ? State highways or all roads ? So many variables and unless you compare like with like you’ll never get the same figures twice. For instance, the figures I gave earlier for multi vehicle crashes have prime fault attributed to the rider in 34% of them, part fault 11% and no fault in the remaining 55%. Very simplistic analysis if you don’t look at each crash report which is what Prof Lamb appears to have done. If you want to make it look good for riders then look at urban crashes. In a recent report I did in Otago I found that the other driver was at fault in 60% of urban crashes. Want to make it look bad look at rural crashes where I found the rider was either partly or primarily at fault in 70% of them, and that doesn’t account for the bike only crashes, which were the majority on rural roads.

You can prove anything with stats*, take them all with a pinch of salt and look at who is pushing them.

* Disclaimer - Although I have tried I have yet to prove that bikes 601cc and over are more dangerous than sub 600's.

Bass

12th May 2010, 17:06

It will actually be a lot more than that. You can add at least 50% to your serious injury crashes and multiply your minor injury crashes by between 3 and 4. These are the underreporting factors used when reporting on social cost.

So the number is likely to be over 5000 then, maybe well over?
How many bikes are registered in NZ currently?
How does the underreporting work?
Are you saying that half of the serious injury m/c accidents are never reported to the cops?
I think that's enough questions for now.

shrub

12th May 2010, 17:19

76.9 of those 100 accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Actually 100 of them were the fault of the motorcyclist - if the dirty bikers were sensible and drove Volvos none of them would have bike accidents. I hear you Katman, bikes are dangerous and the sooner we stopped riding the things the better for everyone. And Saddam Hussein had WMD and God made the world in 6 days. Oh, and Elvis is still alive.

schrodingers cat

12th May 2010, 17:22

Actually 100 of them were the fault of the motorcyclist - if the dirty bikers were sensible and drove Volvos none of them would have bike accidents. I hear you Katman, bikes are dangerous and the sooner we stopped riding the things the better for everyone. And Saddam Hussein had WMD and God made the world in 6 days. Oh, and Elvis is still alive.

Nasty petrol burning Volvo's? Stone the heritic. Surely we need all drive 'Smart' cars until recumbant bicycles are made compulsary for all.
And Jesus sandles

R-Soul

12th May 2010, 17:26

The tricky bit is Maki, when they have looked at the accident rates between high-viz users and non-high viz users in accidents where the cage claims not to have seen them - the rates are about the same to within 1%.

It seems that when a cage does not see a motorcycle, they don't see them no matter what they are wearing.

Well at least that goes some way to prove the cage drivers are not really TRYING to kill us... bonus!! Or maybe they are trying equally hard regardless of what we are wearing.... :shutup:

shrub

12th May 2010, 17:30

Nasty petrol burning Volvo's? Stone the heritic. Surely we need all drive 'Smart' cars until recumbant bicycles are made compulsary for all.
And Jesus sandles

I'm intending to fit pedals to my Volvo and trade my nasty leathers in on a nice home knitted jumper made of hemp.

I think I have finally clicked what Katman is on about - bikes are dangerous and all bike crashes are the fault of the rider for riding such dangerous things.

Katman

12th May 2010, 17:47

Berries

12th May 2010, 21:56

So the number is likely to be over 5000 then, maybe well over?
Could be up there, but we'll never know.

How many bikes are registered in NZ currently?
Have a look at Section 4 on this link - http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/MotorVehicleCrashesinNewZealand2008/

How does the underreporting work?
Say that we know the Police have reported ten serious injury crashes. We also know for example that the local hospital has treated 15 serious injuries from 15 crashes over that same period. Therefore you can consider that five crashes were not reported. Carry out that data matching process across the country and you can come up with a factor to multiply reported crashes to get a more accurate picture of the true number, in this case a factor of 1.5. The reason being that when you are planning a roading job you can easily work out the cost, but need to show the benefits. The better the cost/benefit ratio the more likely it is you'll get the funding. It's a bit more complicated than that but Antiques Roadshow is about to start.

Are you saying that half of the serious injury m/c accidents are never reported to the cops?
Nah, adding 50% gives you a third, as in the 10 to 15 example above. This is for all crashes though, there is no breakdown for vehicle type. There will be some differences between vehicle types I am sure but this would be very hard to quantify. Serious injuries can be relatively minor in the scheme of things btw. And for crash stats bruising is considered a minor injury.

RiderInBlack

13th May 2010, 00:17

Hey, don't shoot the messanger.

:whistle:What, I thought ja where ta nail them ta some planks and hung them high. Bugger now will have ta walk all the way back home for a gun now.

Silage

18th May 2010, 08:59

I heard somewhere that Charly Lamb is speaking tonight at the Cashmere Club, 88 Hunter Tce Chch at 7:30. I am intending being there even though it will be with my low vis helmet, black jacket (with a couple of reflectors).

NighthawkNZ

18th May 2010, 18:48

Once, some years ago, my perception was that the hi-viz and headlamp combo did make a signifcant differnce. But it seems to have lost its edge nowadays (I suspect because hi-viz and headlamps are both so common now, it no longer has the WTF is that factor).

I been saying that all long really... if every thing is orange what will stand out more another orange vest or black

bikemike

18th May 2010, 22:49

Interesting talk. Main thing I took away was the apparently blatant use of averages to portray Old riders and Large bikes as the over-represented groups in the accident stats, when in fact the converse is true. (21yo and 250cc are most common).

Also, I thought the emphasis on looking to see what is there, rather than looking to see what is not there was very useful. I consider myself quite observant, but had not thought clearly of this distinction. When I look to join at an intersection, I look in the way that I wish to go first, and look to see what IS there; then I look in the direction the traffic in my intended lane is coming from, and I think sometimes I look to see that nothing is there, rather than what is; also, I am possibly a bit sloppy on my shoulder check before I pull off - not always thinking about what I am looking for. It's interesting when you think about it - a different psychology altogether in the way that you look.

Yes, Charlie cited Visibility Issues as the key thing to work on. But he also pointed out the diminishing benefit as more headlights and hi-vis is used. He was clear that it is visibility issues - not just hi-vis. As MP Rick Barker pointed out, it's about making yourself visible, with movement for example, and about making our case visible!

Charlie lauded the Bikesafe program in the UK, quite right too. I did Bikesafe in the UK, in Scotland, and it is/was bloody excellent - not just my ride but the idea and execution of the program in general.

Some people mentioned the value of track skills, and braking training in particular and that made me wonder: Charlie pointed out that the benefits of training are generally positive, but not always - sometimes perhaps training seems to makes people think they can handle more than they really can. I have been riding for 27 years - I can't remember a single emergency braking manoeuvre on a bike. It's always been mixed, day, night, fast, slow, town, open road, off road, loaded, two up, solo, all weather... a lot of miles over the 27 years and not one emergency stop....? Do people generally find themselves having to slam on the anchors on a regular basis, or at least on a speaking-terms basis?

I don't know who the chap was that pointed out that it is also about taking complete responsibility for ourselves - he said he was an instructor. I concur: I'd have to add that on the Bikesafe ride the police made it abundantly clear that it's all about getting the skills and having the attitude to be totally in control, it's about using a system, not rules, about assuming responsibility not assuming what anyone else is going to do.

There will always be bad drivers, and people will always fail to see. However, If we can all use these stats, and persuade people in positions of authority, and refute the falsehoods and change the perception of bikers, and the perception of the nature of the problem with biker accidents then perhaps we can get some meaningful action, like training to teach people to drive not to sit the test, like having young riders on two wheels before they can access cars (because experience - or at least Charlie said a license - on a motorcycle reduces the chance of said driver having a car accident involving a motorcycle) and other such things, then we can get progress.

It occurs to me that folks always like to have a bogey man though, and it will be a bit of a battle!

PRISM Motorcycle Club was mentioned, of whom I was not aware.
Charlie agitated a little for a National Motorcycle lobby / advocacy. I'd be all for that.

Unfortunately it looked like most came by car - I saw less than a dozen bikes there, and the room was full of the older rider stereotype with not a one looking under 30, most over 40 or more. Possibly preaching to the converted.

Someone asked on behalf of those here on KB if they could get the presentation slides / data, so we could all get a good butchers. So, perhaps that will be posted.

Squiggles

18th May 2010, 22:57

PRISM Motorcycle Club was mentioned, of whom I was not aware.
PRISM = Promote Responsiblity In Safe Motorcycling
They run the Bikers Against ACC Levies (http://www.bikersagainstacc.org.nz/) site

oldrider

18th May 2010, 23:24

Thank you for posting, I wanted to be there but it was just not a goer!

Berries

18th May 2010, 23:35

So what are the myths/facts according to the Prof ?

JMemonic

19th May 2010, 05:56

So what are the myths/facts according to the Prof ?

I am about to head to work with no net connection so quickly I will say I have asked for a copy of the presentation I can post here for all to see, the good Professor informed us this was part of a much larger paper due to be presented in the USA in a few weeks so that should be available to all however he will try and get something suitable to post.

He pointed out some large discrepancies in the way the sats are presented and gathered, but I must go so I will try and get back to this this afternoon.

There is an excellent post on page 5 about the evening.

mikeey01

19th May 2010, 07:51

Sorry I won't be able to video this as first thought :( sorry all.

Mr Merde

19th May 2010, 08:39

I don't have any evidence for this, either, but personal experience suggests it is pretty much so. I ride a variety of bikes. And I vary what I wear. Sometimes it's a black bike, black leather and black helmet. Sometimes a big all white bike, hi-viz jacket (not just a vest) , and white helmet. And all combinations in between, including variously coloured bikes. With and without headlights on. It doesn't really seem to make much difference.

Once, some years ago, my perception was that the hi-viz and headlamp combo did make a signifcant differnce. But it seems to have lost its edge nowadays (I suspect because hi-viz and headlamps are both so common now, it no longer has the WTF is that factor).

In the early 90's over in the UK a there was a survey done with car drivers to investigate this problem

The results were suprising.

Car drivers didnt see bike riders (not unsupprising)

Hi Vis and bright colours aided the rider in being seen as did having the headlight on

and the supprising find was that car drivers noticed riders in black a lot more than was expected.

something to do with the way our brain perceives things and the black colouring giving the inpression of a space or hole where the driver expected to see something.

A case where the absense of something (colour, light) etc triggers a reaction in the subconcious .

Okey Dokey

19th May 2010, 08:42

I heard about half of a feature on national radio about 15 minutes ago that seemed to be covering what the prof said. Comments about ACC needing to look at the prof's figures, and that motorcyclists were not giving up on the levy battle. Some labour MP said he would be taking the figures back to parliament. There was a comment about bikers being only 2% of ACC road accident costs but having to pay more than anyone else except commercial vehicles (paraphrase- may not have that perfect) Perhaps there is something on the radio NZ site if people want to try and listen. Cheers.

avgas

19th May 2010, 09:22

Actually, I think I was wrong.

Take 100 motorcycle accidents.

According to the figures above 30 of them will involve no other vehicle.

Of the other 70 accidents that involve another vehicle 33% (23.1) of them are not the fault of the motorcyclist.

Therefore 46.9 of those 70 accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Add that 46.9 to the 30 accidents that only involve the motorcyclist and you get 76.9 of those 100 accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist.
Still not good enough as far as I am concerned.
I choose to ride a bike, therefore if I have a motorbike accident I am 99.9% responsible for that outcome. If you don't believe me, go have a motorbike accident without a riding a motorbike.
It is not compulsory to ride a motorbike. So all of you quoting "its not my fault - its theirs".....HTFU
Your making the rest of us look like a bunch of pussies.

note: just because its my fault I crash, does not mean I should pay more for ACC. It is also my fault when I crash a mountainbike, roll down a hill, climb trees or set my self on fire......and I have no ACC increases in these past-times of mine. But I still say its my fault.
ACC does not care who's fault it is.

Spearfish

19th May 2010, 10:21

Still not good enough as far as I am concerned.
I choose to ride a bike, therefore if I have a motorbike accident I am 99.9% responsible for that outcome. If you don't believe me, go have a motorbike accident without a riding a motorbike.
It is not compulsory to ride a motorbike. So all of you quoting "its not my fault - its theirs".....HTFU
Your making the rest of us look like a bunch of pussies.

note: just because its my fault I crash, does not mean I should pay more for ACC. It is also my fault when I crash a mountainbike, roll down a hill, climb trees or set my self on fire......and I have no ACC increases in these past-times of mine. But I still say its my fault.
ACC does not care who's fault it is.

I have to agree with your post.

If your into conspiracies then the modern way of dealing with a problem is to remove the problem because the cause is to hard to fix.
Say the driver training level is to low, so bikes. bicycles, mopeds etc get knocked off regularly so rather than fix the low level of skill its easier to remove the now "unsafe" vehicles off the road.
Proof was a certain police sarge admitting defeat with the statement that mopeds (governed to the speed limit) are not safe on NZ roads.
Because this type of thinking comes in slowly over time it becomes normal, your probably an irresponsible parent if your kid rides a bicycle to school.
Personally I think that's farken sad and its something lost.

Okey Dokey

19th May 2010, 11:57

phurrball has put up a linky to nat radio in the acc pants down thread :)

p.dath

19th May 2010, 12:11

I am VERY interested in this. Please please try and get the slides to post. Do you have the email address of the presenter? I am happy to email him direct and get them, PDF them, give him credit, post them, whatever.

Ixion

19th May 2010, 12:14

PM sent .

imac

19th May 2010, 12:40

It is not compulsory to ride a motorbike. So all of you quoting "its not my fault - its theirs".....HTFU
Your making the rest of us look like a bunch of pussies.

Um so I'm walking along the street and a car (or bike or cyclst) crosses the curb and f**ks me over. It's my fault because I CHOSE to walk?
I'm not conviced by your argument

p.dath

19th May 2010, 12:50

I have the presentation from Professor Lamb now, but it is in a PowerPoint, and the "ppt" extension is not allowed to be opened up. I will email the mods and request it to be added.

EDIT: Presentations now converted to PDF so I can uploaded then. The attachments came with this email:

I have attached both the PowerPoint presentation from last night and the paper which will be given in the US in a couple of weeks. These are both edit protected, so when you open them - just select "Read Only".

Distribute them as you wish according my editorial rights.
Cheers

Charles (Charley) G. Lamb
Associate Professor
Head of Business Management, Law and Marketing Department
Director of Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies (AIMS) project
Faculty of Commerce
P O Box 84
Lincoln University 7647
Christchurch, New Zealand

p +64 3 321 8259 | m +64 027 608 3995 | f +64 3 325 3847
e charles.lamb@lincoln.ac.nz | www.lincoln.ac.nz

Lincoln University, Te Whare Wanaka o Aoraki
New Zealand's Specialist Land Based University

Spearfish

19th May 2010, 15:34

p.dath

19th May 2010, 17:41

The mods have now allowed the PPT extension for me, so here are the original files as received by myself.

I have attached both the PowerPoint presentation from last night and the paper which will be given in the US in a couple of weeks. These are both edit protected, so when you open them - just select "Read Only".

Distribute them as you wish according my editorial rights.
Cheers

Charles (Charley) G. Lamb
Associate Professor
Head of Business Management, Law and Marketing Department
Director of Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies (AIMS) project
Faculty of Commerce
P O Box 84
Lincoln University 7647
Christchurch, New Zealand

p +64 3 321 8259 | m +64 027 608 3995 | f +64 3 325 3847
e charles.lamb@lincoln.ac.nz | www.lincoln.ac.nz

Lincoln University, Te Whare Wanaka o Aoraki
New Zealand's Specialist Land Based University

oldrider

19th May 2010, 21:42

Sorry, I can not open the first link. (Dispelling-Myths)

Bald Eagle

19th May 2010, 21:44

the ppt has a password can not open

Ocean1

19th May 2010, 22:29

Sorry, I can not open the first link. (Dispelling-Myths)

the ppt has a password can not open

Click on "Read only"

You can't save it, but it'll be right here.

p.dath

19th May 2010, 22:50

Sorry, I can not open the first link. (Dispelling-Myths)

You may not have a recent version of Powerpoint. Try the PDF versions I uploaded earlier.

Bald Eagle

19th May 2010, 23:04

You may not have a recent version of Powerpoint. Try the PDF versions I uploaded earlier.

Thanks for that it works, ( My MAC version of msoft bugware just threw up the random Gates DRM error )

monkeymcbean

19th May 2010, 23:29

That was a very interesting read indeed.

I hope these analysis of statistics are presented to the intelligent members of parliment. :yes:

p.dath

19th May 2010, 23:37

Click on "Read only"

You can't save it, but it'll be right here.

+1. You can probably go right click/"save link as" if you want to save it. Or look at the PDF versions I posted earlier.

Bald Eagle

19th May 2010, 23:47

A very interesting read, a visibilty campaign like the UK ads which have been posted here in the past would be a good start to use the 'ring fenced for safety' part of the acc levy money they pillaging of us all.

p.dath

20th May 2010, 08:03

I particularly like this part of the conclusion:

Conclusions
The New Zealand road safety strategy has been, and currently is, largely based on the Australian, Victorian Sate Government, road safety initiatives (Macpherson et al 1998, MOT 2009c). This has largely focused on the factors of alcohol and speed as being major contributors to motor vehicle accidents.

In the case of the motorcyclists, the current New Zealand road safety strategy, (MOT 2009a), stated their focus will be on four areas:
1. Targeted treatments of popular motorcycle routes, ie road surfaces, crash barriers etc.
2. Safer motorcycles for novice riders through limiting power the power to weight ratio of motorcycles to 150kw/tonne (0.15kw/kg).
3. Improve rider training and licensing.
4. Improve training and licensing of those returning to ride motorcycles.

Whilst these initiatives are admirable, and may go some way toward reducing the motorcycle accident rate, they still, fundamentally do not address the single largest determinant of accidents. As documented here, visibility, particularly the apparent difficulty that other road users have in seeing motorcyclists, is a substantial contributor to motorcycle accidents. Given this unambiguous conclusion, communication with the public about visibility, and enforcement measures geared toward greatly improving the visibility of motorcycles by other motorists should be a priority in all motor vehicle policy decisions and initiatives. A dispassionate analysis of the Ministry of Transport's CAS 2008 accident database demonstrates that speeding, alcohol, and inexperience are considerably less likely to result in accidents involving motorcycles and other vehicles. Though these potential causes of accidents should not be ignored, the effects of them - even when added together - are not as significant as the problem of motorcycle visibility.

Katman

20th May 2010, 08:43

I particularly like this part of the conclusion:

Unfortunately, the governments answer to the visibility issue will simply be to make hi-viz vests compulsory.

I think we should be focusing more on our own ability to see and read situations.

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 08:53

I can't believe that we still have members here (Avgas and KM spring to mind) that continue with the farcical view that since we ride MCs, near 100% of crashes are our fault. What a crock of apologist bullshit. That view is like the battered women who blame themselves for their partner's violence towards them. Since it's "not the partner's fault" he doesn't have to change his behaviour.
As bikers, we can own, and do something about, what IS our fault and we can try to get our roadcraft skill level to the point where we are able to 'compensate' for the poor skills of others. It is about 50% of all crashes we are involved in that are NOT our fault. That's an awful lot of other parties that are excused by the above apologist view.

Usarka

20th May 2010, 08:53

Unfortunately, the governments answer to the visibility issue will simply be to make hi-viz vests compulsory.

Wow did you read that in the tea leaves, or in the dregs of your negativity juice?

Genestho

20th May 2010, 08:53

I particularly like this part of the conclusion:

Is it known if Mr Lamb has put forth submissions, EDIT: Re:Mot proposals? Or is this analysis pretty recent, I am aware a few stakeholders have mentioned visibility and motorist education issues.

avgas

20th May 2010, 08:59

Katman

20th May 2010, 09:03

I can't believe that we still have members here (Avgas and KM spring to mind) that continue with the farcical view that since we ride MCs, near 100% of crashes are our fault.

I've never said that John (and it shows how desperate you're becoming by suggesting that I have).

I do however believe that in nearly all motorcycle accidents there is something that the motorcyclist could have done to avoid or greatly lessen the severity of the accident.

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 09:12

Forgive me for reading between the lines of your posts. Which are of the flavour that we are masters of our own destiny.

Katman

20th May 2010, 09:16

Forgive me for reading between the lines of your posts. Which are of the flavour that we are masters of our own destiny.

That's not reading between the lines at all.

I'll happily go on record saying we're the masters of our own destiny.

That's not the same as 'always being at fault' though.

RentaTriumph

20th May 2010, 09:17

No mention of quad bike, 2 wheeled farm bikes or dirt bike bike accidents in the reports. This all contributed to our ACC levies rising so why aren't they included in the numbers especially when quad bikes cause so many deaths a Year with riders under 15 years old. Have I missed something?.

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 09:23

That's not reading between the lines at all.

I'll happily go on record saying we're the masters of our own destiny.

That's not the same as 'always being at fault' though.

Would that were so. If there is a difference, it's so subtle as to make no difference.
To be master etc suggests that one is in control, therefore what happens to one is one's 'fault'...

RiderInBlack

20th May 2010, 09:40

I do however believe that in nearly all motorcycle accidents there is something that the motorcyclist could have done to avoid or greatly lessen the severity of the accident.That is it true, but that is also true for any road user. I'd be more sympathetic to ya view point if you at less acknowledged that while you single-minded try hammering your view home anytime a rider cames down and another vehicle is involved (see http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123226-Biker-Down.-Oh-shit-it-s-me...?p=1129753254#post1129753254 , http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123226-Biker-Down.-Oh-shit-it-s-me...?p=1129753222#post1129753222 , http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123226-Biker-Down.-Oh-shit-it-s-me...?p=1129753160#post1129753160 ). I have not once seen ya post that you accept that the other road user had some responsibility in an accident. In FM case, the accident was very clearly the driver's fault with little he could have done about it bar not be there that day.
One of the longest Motorcycle Injury cases I have looked after in Hospital was due to a unsecured Trailer braking free of a car and hitting the rider. He was riding legally and the car was traveling in the other direction (so he wasn't riding too close). There was nothing he could have done to avoid that accident bar not being there ether.
So Katman, although we accept as riders that to stay safe on the road we need ta be more aware than most road users, it is not fair to lay majority of the blame on our shoulders. Other road users need to accept their fair share of responsibility too.

Katman

20th May 2010, 09:41

Would that were so. If there is a difference, it's so subtle as to make no difference.
To be master etc suggests that one is in control, therefore what happens to one is one's 'fault'...

If you want to go through life letting someone else control your destiny John then good luck to you.

Swoop

20th May 2010, 09:46

I note that Dr David Cohen has contributed to the paper.

p.dath

20th May 2010, 10:00

Unfortunately, the governments answer to the visibility issue will simply be to make hi-viz vests compulsory.

I think we should be focusing more on our own ability to see and read situations.

If you believe Professor Lamb's research, and you live in an urban Area like Auckland, the problem tends to be a driver pulling out in front of you in a 50km/h zone.
Agreed, we need to focus on our issue of not being seen through increased situational awareness, but sometimes you just can't plan for every unexpected situation (in fact, most of us involved in accidents can't, the statistics would suggest). Sometimes (actually a lot of the time it would seem), a car will simply just pull out in front of you and you wont be able to do anything about it.

Katman

20th May 2010, 10:04

Agreed, we need to focus on our issue of not being seen through increased situational awareness, but sometimes you just can't plan for every unexpected situation (in fact, most of us involved in accidents can't, the statistics would suggest).

Statistics say absolutely nothing about peoples situational awareness (other than some people clearly don't have any).

p.dath

20th May 2010, 10:08

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 10:08

If you want to go through life letting someone else control your destiny John then good luck to you.

Fuck off. I control what I do.
But none of us can always avoid being caught up in what others do. And to suggest that we can, is bullshit.
R-I-B said it perfectly...

Mr Merde

20th May 2010, 10:30

.... intelligent members of parliment. :yes:

So when did we have a new election? Trying hard to think of any politican who would qualify for this description.

Katman

20th May 2010, 10:32

But none of us can always avoid being caught up in what others do. And to suggest that we can, is bullshit.

You can at least attempt to avoid being caught up in what others do.

That is what being the master of your own destiny is about.

Mr Merde

20th May 2010, 10:35

You can at least attempt to avoid being caught up in what others do.

That is what being the master of your own destiny is about.

Sorry KAtman but todays society is totally based on any problem being someones or something elses fault.

Political Correctness and its advocates have managed to totally brainwash the majority.

You are not the master as its someone elses fault or responsibility to look after you.

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 10:47

You can at least attempt to avoid being caught up in what others do.

That is what being the master of your own destiny is about.Well...no, it's not, actually.
Attempting to control what happens to you, when some-else's destiny impinges on you, is not being master etc. It IS trying to avoid being a slave tho...
I'm trying not to be obtuse, but mere words don't really convey the sentiment...

Sorry KAtman but todays society is totally based on any problem being someones or something elses fault.

Political Correctness and its advocates have managed to totally brainwash the majority.

You are not the master as its someone elses fault or responsibility to look after you.
And, no, that's NOT what I'm saying, either.

RiderInBlack

20th May 2010, 11:07

You can at least attempt to avoid being caught up in what others do.

That is what being the master of your own destiny is about.Which is entirely impossible in the Universe we live in. Everything in this Universe has some effect on everything else in this Universe (be it very slight). Your choices effect others (even if ya not aware of it) as their choices effect yours, and so on and so on. Ya have to be an advanced mathematician to even get close to predicting cause and effect of even ya smallest choices, let alone the cause and effect of other poeples' choices on you.

Scuba_Steve

20th May 2010, 11:18

...then do you think that wearing something to improve your visibility should also be a law, for the same reason? Remembering that the vast majority of accidents occur when a car pulls out in front of a motorcycle claiming they did not see the motorcycle.

Yes every Motorcyclist should be forced by law to carry (your choice of) a RPG-7, RPG-29 or RPG-32. ...That'll get us seen!

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 11:36

It doesn't matter what we wear. If blind cagers don't see trains, buses or 40t trucks, what makes you think they'll see a hi-vis vested rider?

RiderInBlack

20th May 2010, 11:42

Yes every Motorcyclist should be forced by law to carry (your choice of) a RPG-7, RPG-29 or RPG-32. ...That'll get us seen!Will do that happily when and if all road vechiles have to have their lights on 24/7 and all vechiles have to have a four inch hi-vis stripe all around them. Am sick of Drivers who don't try ta be more visible in poor conditions. My favourite are Police cars in the mist without there lights on and gray/white cars in the mist without their lights on.

oldrider

20th May 2010, 11:55

Please, PLEASE, no more bloody stupid laws, damn it we have enough of those now!

This process is about understanding the problem and taking appropriate action, not adding to the problem!

p.dath

20th May 2010, 12:28

Will do that happily when and if all road vechiles have to have their lights on 24/7 and all vechiles have to have a four inch hi-vis stripe all around them. Am sick of Drivers who don't try ta be more visible in poor conditions. My favourite are Police cars in the mist without there lights on and gray/white cars in the mist without their lights on.

Most road vehicles don't have a trouble seeing vehicles the same size as themselves or larger, so no point in them having additional visibility aides. And when they do fail to see a larger vehicle they seldom kill the driver of that larger vehicle.

bogan

20th May 2010, 12:29

Let me done my flame suit for a little while.

We have to wear motorcycle helmets because there is a clear link between a "bad" result in an accident and not wearing a helmet. This is a personal freedom that was removed from us. Should it have been?

If you do believe that wearing a helmet should remain a law, then do you think that wearing something to improve your visibility should also be a law, for the same reason? Remembering that the vast majority of accidents occur when a car pulls out in front of a motorcycle claiming they did not see the motorcycle.

If you don't believe there should be a helmet law, then I assume you also think that suicide should be legal? It's obviously a personal choice that the state has also removed from us.

wearing helmets shouldn't be a law, though in the biker test/training (that we should have) there should be a section informing the rider of consequences, I didn't realize comiting suicide was illegal, what's the penalty for that?

Please, PLEASE, no more bloody stupid laws, damn it we have enough of those now!

This process is about understanding the problem and taking appropriate action, not adding to the problem!

fucking aye, and appropriate action should focus on education rather than legislation.

p.dath

20th May 2010, 12:35

wearing helmets shouldn't be a law, though in the biker test/training (that we should have) there should be a section informing the rider of consequences, I didn't realize comiting suicide was illegal, what's the penalty for that?

Actually, attempted suicide is illegal. I think their are around 3,000 attempted [but unsucessful] suicides resulting in hospitilsiation each year (apparently attempting suicide is even more dangerous than driving a car!). I know someone in that industry, and I think that's the numbers they told me.

I'm not sure of the penalty. But you can be detained for your own safety.

RiderInBlack

20th May 2010, 15:14

Most road vehicles don't have a trouble seeing vehicles the same size as themselves or larger, so no point in them having additional visibility aides. And when they do fail to see a larger vehicle they seldom kill the driver of that larger vehicle.What a lot of dribble. I know from personal experience that in poor conditions I've personally have had difficulty seeing larger vehicles even while driving the van if the other vehicle has not turned their lights on. By the way a motorbike hitting the driver door can be fatal for the driver and the rider can be thrown clear. Do not ASS-U-ME that you are safe driving ya 4x4 urban tank, thinking that everyone can see ya under all conditions, and that ya think ya will come off better in an accident. It's that kind of thinking that makes the roads very unsafe for all.

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 16:48

Most road vehicles don't have a trouble seeing vehicles the same size as themselves or larger, so no point in them having additional visibility aides. And when they do fail to see a larger vehicle they seldom kill the driver of that larger vehicle.

That 'most' don't generally pose a problem for riders either. It's the other ones that are the problem. If they don't see or perceive a B-train as a threat to them, nothing we do will make them see us. So, forget the visibility thing, we must hone our 'spidey senses' to avoid them.

Katman

20th May 2010, 16:55

So, forget the visibility thing, we must hone our 'spidey senses' to avoid them.

Steady on John - that could just about be something that I would say.

RiderInBlack

20th May 2010, 17:09

So, forget the visibility thing, we must hone our 'spidey senses' to avoid them.Yep I "listen" ta my "spidey senses" riding too, but sometimes they go on the blink. They are handy when driving other vehicles too. It's called defensive driving/riding. ALL Road users should use it, but they don't.

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 17:14

Steady on John - that could just about be something that I would say.

Really? It must be all in the way it's said then, eh?

MSTRS

20th May 2010, 17:16

It's called defensive driving/riding. ALL Road users should use it, but they don't.

Sadly, there are a lot out there who don't even realise it exists...and they operate all types of vehicles.
They are the one's that are killed by bigger vehicles. Or kill those in smaller ones.

gunnyrob

20th May 2010, 17:34

Dear boys & girls, professor Lamb has sent me a copy of his presentation and report. Enjoy & respect.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123697-Professor-Lamb-s-Presentation-and-report-18-May-10?p=1129758221#post1129758221

mashman

20th May 2010, 17:37

It helps when people driving vehicles actually realise that they're driving vehicles, not doing their makeup, or texting, or talking to passenger, on phone etc... vehicles that are metal boxes generously padded with airbags... so she'll be right... go take a look at any busy supermarket car park... it's a fuckin car park, there's next to no speed involved and yet there's all sorts of dings and a fuck up nearly every time a car backs out... I often amuse myself by having my smoko by the car park and whincing at the abysmal skills of drivers... i don't believe that people are concentrating in cars, not on the road anyway... too many distractions... and when that lapse occurs on a bike, it can cost us our lives very quickly... especially with the airbag brigade screaming their head off to Abba greatest hits... BANG!

They are my observations and it's my kids that like Abba :shifty:

Katman

20th May 2010, 17:45

Really? It must be all in the way it's said then, eh?

Cool, we can work as a team.

I'll be the bad cop. :angry2:

p.dath

20th May 2010, 17:49

Read this thread - http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...cle-Road-Craft

Just read your signature. Funny timing. My copy of that book has just arrived today.

Ixion

20th May 2010, 18:56

Well well. A very interesting snippet in today's budget

14.52: The Government will provide $2 million in new funding in 2010/11 so the Department of Labour can provide "more robust ACC policy advice" says ACC Minister Nick Smith says.

Make of that what you will. I know what I make of it. Old saying, when thieves fall out, honest bikers have a chance.

NighthawkNZ

20th May 2010, 19:25

gunnyrob

20th May 2010, 21:26

NighthawkNZ

20th May 2010, 21:32

Ocean1

20th May 2010, 21:45

We have to wear motorcycle helmets because there is a clear link between a "bad" result in an accident and not wearing a helmet. This is a personal freedom that was removed from us. Should it have been?

No. Consequences. Ours.

If you do believe that wearing a helmet should remain a law, then do you think that wearing something to improve your visibility should also be a law, for the same reason? Remembering that the vast majority of accidents occur when a car pulls out in front of a motorcycle claiming they did not see the motorcycle.

The link between “visible” apparel and conspicuity is, if anything, inverse. So go stick yer fluro vest where the sun don’t shine, black is the new black.

If you don't believe there should be a helmet law, then I assume you also think that suicide should be legal? It's obviously a personal choice that the state has also removed from us.

Correct.

oldrider

20th May 2010, 22:44

PirateJafa

20th May 2010, 23:11

Um so I'm walking along the street and a car (or bike or cyclst) crosses the curb and f**ks me over. It's my fault because I CHOSE to walk?
I'm not conviced by your argument

Nope - cars are not allowed on footpaths. hence the name. try again

Neither are cars allowed to run over a law-abiding motorcyclist say, sitting at a red light in front of them.

You've proved you are a moron, please don't bother trying to post again.

Spearfish

20th May 2010, 23:22

I have always used my headlight "on" in urban areas because it was expected in those areas but I never switched my light "on" in rural areas!

If I wanted to make myself seen in rural areas I would flash my light on and off, it was nearly always seen readily that way!

Everybody sees the guy "without" his light on these days, that's his point of difference!

Now my headlight is hard wired according to the law and I do not feel I have the same control over my visibility that I used to have before!

Me and my wife both wear black leather or Cordoba (sp?) we have been wondering about our visibility to other road users lately and have been considering flouro vests!

Doesn't sound as if they are all they are cracked up to be either does it!

That was a very factual, informative and interesting review, I shall read it over and over until it does get in, like Mrs Marsh's chalk!

You remember those broken chalk sticks to huh? LoL

You can still flash using the high beams, Probably better on bikes with two headlights.
I'm not sure the fluro jacket makes much difference on a bike with a tall shield and and good set of retina burners on, but that's only from the front during the day.
I know they make a difference being attacked from side on and the dreaded rear ender, especially at night.
One down side to a fluro is it attracts drunks like a moth to a light bulb riding the inner city after 11pm.
Thats my experience in the inner city, open road riding is a whole different thing.

bikemike

21st May 2010, 00:01

Anyone know more as to why Table one shows 1973,1988,1989,1990,2003,2007,2008, 2009 (or 8 years out of 37) but Figures Two and Three show data points for 1980 through 2009? (30/30 years)

Berries

21st May 2010, 06:55

Probably for legibility. All those missing years from the table are shown on the two graphs so you can see that nothing is trying to be be hidden. As for the years, who knows ? Pre 1980 stuff isn't kept electronically so is much harder to interrogate.

Bass

21st May 2010, 07:29

Well that was a useful and thorough presentation, as expected, and yet I am disappointed.
I think that I was expecting too much - I was hoping for something that would be our tactical nuke in the battle for truth about motorcycling. This isn't it.
Prof Lamb ignores single vehicle accidents and using his own 2008 figures, they were nearly 34% of the total. I cannot say what proportion of these single vehicle events are the fault of the rider, but my own opinion is that it will be the vast majority.
Further Berries has pointed out to us that if the hospital data is compared to the MOT data, then we are forced to the conclusion that most motorcycle injury accidents are never reported and this by a huge margin - approx half for serious injury and as much as 3/4 for lesser injuries. This means that motorcycling cost to ACC to way out of proportion to what the MOT figures would suggest.
Prof Lamb makes no mention of this.

I have no doubt that he had excellent reasons for excluding these data. I suspect that it is for the reasons that Berrie has already discussed which would mean that he could not say anything definitive about these items.
He has built an excellent case for shifting the policing emphasis but it is not the answer to a maiden's prayer that I hoped it might be.

p.dath

21st May 2010, 07:36

uuum Guys, I posted Charlies report on the site......

have a look.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123697-Professor-Lamb-s-Presentation-and-report-18-May-10?p=1129758221#post1129758221

You were a bit slow. I posted them up several days ago in this thread. I format shifted them to PDF for those who can't open PPT files as well.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123180-Motorcycle-accident-myths-A-public-presentation-on-the-facts?p=1129756882#post1129756882

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123180-Motorcycle-accident-myths-A-public-presentation-on-the-facts?p=1129757245#post1129757245

p.dath

21st May 2010, 07:45

Everybody sees the guy "without" his light on these days, that's his point of difference!

I don't see anyone around with their headlight off. And every study I've seen suggests the exact opposite of what you are saying (people see those with their headlights on). Most jurisdictions that have moved to riders having their lights permanently on have experienced a reduction in accidents.

Now my headlight is hard wired according to the law and I do not feel I have the same control over my visibility that I used to have before!

Granted you have a minor restriction in control over the operation of a light, but you can still flash your high beam. You also have a horn ...

Me and my wife both wear black leather or Cordoba (sp?) we have been wondering about our visibility to other road users lately and have been considering flouro vests!

I tend to wear my flouro's at night, and early morning/evening when their is very little sunlight. I don't very it very much during summer. From looking at other motorcycles at night time I feel there is a big difference in visibility. I guess you can try looking at other bikers at night time and come to your own conclusion.

Prof Lamb ignores single vehicle accidents and using his own 2008 figures, they were nearly 34% of the total. I cannot say what proportion of these single vehicle events are the fault of the rider, but my own opinion is that it will be the vast majority.

If I recall the MOT stats the largest quantity of single vehicle motorcycle accidents is failing to take a corner. So I think you're probably right.

Katman

21st May 2010, 08:43

Well that was a useful and thorough presentation, as expected, and yet I am disappointed.

I, too, was rather disappointed with it. Such a brief mention of the part that riders attitudes play in the accident rates made it seem to me that the professor wants to remain onside with motorcyclists more than he wants to get to the root of the problem.

I was also disappointed to see him, in his own way, manipulate figures. His graph showing the rise in the number of motorcycles superimposed over the graph showing a drop in the number of accidents per 10,000 motorcycles (not motorcyclists) is rather misleading. My poll, as it currently stands, shows that there are almost twice the number of motorcycles out there than the number of motorcyclists that can ride (and have accidents on) them.

quickbuck

21st May 2010, 09:44

My poll, as it currently stands, shows that there are almost twice the number of motorcycles out there than the number of motorcyclists that can ride (and have accidents on) them.

One could argue that that there is MORE than twice :shutup:

bogan

21st May 2010, 09:46

I was also disappointed to see him, in his own way, manipulate figures. His graph showing the rise in the number of motorcycles superimposed over the graph showing a drop in the number of accidents per 10,000 motorcycles (not motorcyclists) is rather misleading. My poll, as it currently stands, shows that there are almost twice the number of motorcycles out there than the number of motorcyclists that can ride (and have accidents on) them.

yeh that is quite misleading, as you shouldn't put rates and absolutes on the same graph. 2 different graphs, or having the accidents in absolute would paint a different picture.

edit, wheres this poll btw?

dipshit

21st May 2010, 09:57

yeh that is quite misleading, as you shouldn't put rates and absolutes on the same graph. 2 different graphs, or having the accidents in absolute would paint a different picture.

Precisely. Very misleading in the way he has presented it. Either show accidents per 10,000 by itself or number of motorcycles vs total number of accidents.

Like for example one year you could have 10,000 motorcycles on the road and 100 accidents. Next year you could have 20,000 motorcycles on the road and 199 accidents. The accident rate per 10,000 would show a drop and look more impressive when plotted against the increase in motorcycles. However it is very misleading.

I always find it ironic when spokesmen for motorcyclists are more guilty of the very things they are accusing the government of.

JMemonic

21st May 2010, 09:59

I, too, was rather disappointed with it. Such a brief mention of the part that riders attitudes play in the accident rates made it seem to me that the professor wants to remain onside with motorcyclists more than he wants to get to the root of the problem.

I was also disappointed to see him, in his own way, manipulate figures. His graph showing the rise in the number of motorcycles superimposed over the graph showing a drop in the number of accidents per 10,000 motorcycles (not motorcyclists) is rather misleading. My poll, as it currently stands, shows that there are almost twice the number of motorcycles out there than the number of motorcyclists that can ride (and have accidents on) them.

And that is no different to how the AA, ACC, MoT, and politicians show the stats INTERNATIONALLY, you love your whole attitude thing even though the good Professor has shown ALL attitudes need to be improved on the road. Your the one here trying to manipulate the facts to fit you pet topic. BTW Professor Lamb is a motorcyclist.

dipshit

21st May 2010, 10:02

And that is no different to how the AA, ACC, MoT, and politicians show the stats INTERNATIONALLY.

Got an example..??

I myself have seen more bullshit coming from motorcyclists than anything.

Katman

21st May 2010, 10:17

And that is no different to how the AA, ACC, MoT, and politicians show the stats INTERNATIONALLY, you love your whole attitude thing even though the good Professor has shown ALL attitudes need to be improved on the road. Your the one here trying to manipulate the facts to fit you pet topic. BTW Professor Lamb is a motorcyclist.

Your whole "they manipulate figures so we should be allowed to" argument is laughable.

If we want to be taken seriously we need to rise above those sort of playground antics.

T.W.R

21st May 2010, 10:21

If we want to be taken seriously we need to rise above those sort of playground antics.

You should take heed of your own words :yes: and stop bleeting here and get out in the public eye on your pedestal and start preaching your cynical ramblings out in the open

JMemonic

21st May 2010, 10:23

Got an example..??

I myself have seen more bullshit coming from motorcyclists than anything.

What do you need an example of? I an lost to understand this, given as was stated earlier this is a paper for presentation at an international conference to be held in the USA one would be advised to write such a paper to set standards. There is nothing more untruthful than statistic when only part of the data is given, Professor Lamb has given you a collation of data derived from the crash stats for New Zealand, it has shown the figures to be different to the various government bodies trying to screw motorcycles and you still want believe the government figures?

There seems to be no point trying to dissuade you and Katman from your position of all motorcycle collisions are the riders fault, you both seem to have a strong belief that government agencies are there to do right by us, honestly nothing would convince either of you that until you get hit by a car and the driver "says sorry mate I did not see you".

Oh and an aside although the investigation has not been completed it would seen the recent death in your own region seems to preclude you whole argument that we as motorcyclists are always at fault.

JMemonic

21st May 2010, 10:27

Your whole "they manipulate figures so we should be allowed to" argument is laughable.

Is that how you actually read what I said? I never said that "And that is no different to how the AA, ACC, MoT, and politicians show the stats INTERNATIONALLY."

I never said anything about manipulation but if thats how you read fine nothing anyone says will ever alter you opinion,

Katman

21st May 2010, 10:29

There seems to be no point trying to dissuade you and Katman from your position of all motorcycle collisions are the riders fault,

Here's a challenge for you.

If you can point me to one post where I have ever said "All motorcycle accidents are the motorcyclist's fault" I will not post on Kiwibiker ever again.

You keen? Or are you just full of shit?

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 10:31

FFS. Now we have our favourite KBers grizzling that someone is 'manipulating stats'. Just what do they think brought us to this point? Veritas in vino?

dipshit

21st May 2010, 10:34

it has shown the figures to be different to the various government bodies trying to screw motorcycles

Example...???

dipshit

21st May 2010, 10:51

FFS. Now we have our favourite KBers grizzling that someone is 'manipulating stats'. Just what do they think brought us to this point? Veritas in vino?

People believed BRONZ's bullshit so much that they didn't believe the real MoT stats when it was put to them.

p.dath

21st May 2010, 10:52

Here's a challenge for you.

If you can point me to one post where I have ever said "All motorcycle accidents are the motorcyclist's fault" I will not post on Kiwibiker ever again.

You keen? Or are you just full of shit?

I can. It's this post. :lol:

EDIT: But please don't leave.

p.dath

21st May 2010, 10:55

bogan

21st May 2010, 11:03

Facts and figures are just that, facts and figures. To apply meaning to them they require manipulation to try and spot that nugget of gold.

Sure ACC manipulate the figures. Sure Professor Lamb manipulated the figures. It's just what you do.

and why do they do it? cos they have already taken sides, think about it, if you don't take sides (or at least put your side, aside) and summarize the stats, it's going to be a better summary.

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 11:27

People believed BRONZ's bullshit so much that they didn't believe the real MoT stats when it was put to them.

And strangely enough, few if any of us believed ACC's bullshit stats either. The ones they said they got from MoT. Which did not agree with the same figures 'we' got from Mot. Somebody was lying...and I doubt it was 'us'.

Compiling numbers is grunt work. 'Iinterpreting' them is statistician's work. People with an agenda twist the interpretation for their own ends.

All I'm saying is, don't accuse one man/group of doing that, when we are in a situation created by another doing the twisting (and lying too).

Katman

21st May 2010, 11:30

and why do they do it? cos they have already taken sides, think about it, if you don't take sides (or at least put your side, aside) and summarize the stats, it's going to be a better summary.

Precisely. A totally unbiased investigation and summary of the statistics is the only one that is of any value.

I suggested back at the start of the ACC saga that ACC's motorcycle accident records should be obtained (through the OIA if necessary) and be subjected to study by an independant body. BRONZ consigned the idea to the 'too hard' pile.

I wonder why?

Swoop

21st May 2010, 11:31

I myself have seen more bullshit coming from motorcyclists than anything.
Are you including or excluding yourself from that statement?

Most of your posts are the former.

Usarka

21st May 2010, 11:32

Just as an aside, has anyone contacted their MP with this research?

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 11:36

Precisely. A totally unbiased investigation and summary of the statistics is the only one that is of any value.

I suggested back at the start of the ACC saga that ACC's motorcycle accident records should be obtained (through the OIA if necessary) and be subjected to study by an independant body. BRONZ consigned the idea to the 'too hard' pile.

I wonder why?

I remember ACC demanding $10,000 for some section of information...

Katman

21st May 2010, 11:50

I remember ACC demanding $10,000 for some section of information...

If cost was the only thing stopping BRONZ obtaining that information then a campaign to get $1 each from 10,000 motorcyclists is all it would have taken.

I think they chose not to obtain the information because deep down they knew that they wouldn't like the results of an independent study.

bogan

21st May 2010, 11:52

If cost was the only thing stopping BRONZ obtaining that information then a campaign to get $1 each from 10,000 motorcyclists is all it would have taken.

I think they chose not to obtain the information because deep down they knew that they wouldn't like the results.

i thought they did obtain a rather large amount of information though? I'm sure Ixion can confirm one way or another

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 12:09

JMemonic

21st May 2010, 12:11

People believed BRONZ's bullshit so much that they didn't believe the real MoT stats when it was put to them.

SO your saying you now believe the figures put forward by Professor Lamb as they are drawn off the MoT accident database, although there were some inconsistencies noted in the data such as the cc rating of the bikes were not in about 25% of cases still recorded and that is after a recent look at the data from 2008.

Katman

21st May 2010, 12:13

What he found was.......

Les is hardly an independent (read - unbiased) body.

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 12:16

Les is hardly an independent (read - unbiased) body.

No such animal. He was using the same data that ACC apparently used, yet got a totally different result. Some, but not all, of that can be put down to bias.

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 12:22

JMemonic

21st May 2010, 12:22

Just as an aside, has anyone contacted their MP with this research?

Rick Barker a list MP was going to present the information to the house apparently.

JMemonic

21st May 2010, 12:37

Who remembers ACC telling us that 'big' bikes were in more and worse accidents, and that was why a cc-based scale of levies was necessary?
We didn't believe that and looking at the same data told us that any greater cost was due to income compensation. And set about including that in our submissions.
Their justification was bullshit, but now they use our reasoning to keep on with the cc split.
It's taken 6 months or more, but only a week or two ago, one of the ACC talking heads was telling the country that it was IC to blame.

Their agenda is clear. Raise levies for motorcyclists anyway they see fit. And when their 'reason' is exposed as bullshit, they simply change their reason by using our collective efforts...

On the CC rating issue Professor Lamb in his presentation shows a particular day, here in Christchurch where one Rocket III was in an accident, on the same day in Christchurch four 250's shared a similar fate, the way ACC and the AA determined the CC rating for that day was to add up the total capacity of the bikes combined and divide by the number of bikes involved on the day so a figure of 660cc was derived, that is what they based the cc rating on not real world figures that actually showed the 250cc bike was more likely to have a collision.

Spearfish

21st May 2010, 12:42

On the CC rating issue Professor Lamb in his presentation shows a particular day, here in Christchurch where one Rocket III was in an accident, on the same day in Christchurch four 250's shared a similar fate, the way ACC and the AA determined the CC rating for that day was to add up the total capacity of the bikes combined and divide by the number of bikes involved on the day so a figure of 660cc was derived, that is what they based the cc rating on not real world figures that actually showed the 250cc bike was more likely to have a collision.

And then they add the "per km travelled equation" rather than the % of the fleet

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 12:43

Like I said...Bullshit.

Ixion

21st May 2010, 13:25

What Ixion was after was the 'raw data'. I believe he got it in the end (without having to put out...). What he found was that what ACC was telling everyone, was bullshit that could not be substantiated by their own raw figures.

There was a whole thread on it. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/110784-Data-from-ACC Splenetic biker-phobic posters could do well to check their propaganda before posting.

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 13:59

Thanks Les. Reading through, posts from #64 are VERY telling. Just as I was saying earlier.

dipshit

21st May 2010, 15:06

SO your saying you now believe the figures put forward by Professor Lamb as they are drawn off the MoT accident database, although there were some inconsistencies noted in the data such as the cc rating of the bikes were not in about 25% of cases still recorded and that is after a recent look at the data from 2008.

Right, first the MoT claim...

"A higher proportion of crashes involving large bikes (500 cc or bigger) result in death rather than injury – riders of large motorcycles make up 32 percent of all casualties but 52 percent of deaths. This is, at least partly, a result of riding patterns. Small motorcycles and scooters tend to be used for „around-town‟ riding, where speeds are low, whereas large bikes spend a much greater proportion of time on the open road and travelling at higher speeds. For bikes of 500 cc or bigger, over half (56%) of all reported injury crashes are on the open road. This compares to only 8 percent for small bikes with an engine size under 125 cc and nearly a third (30%) for bikes with engine sizes of 125-499 cc." From...
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf

The MoT is pointing out larger capacity bikes tend to have the more serious injury accidents. They are not talking about the total number of accidents that include more minor injuries.

So where is Lamb's breakdown between all accidents and the more serious and fatal accidents the MoT is more concerned about... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123697-Professor-Lamb-s-presentation-and-report-18-May-2010?p=1129758383#post1129758383 ..??? He appears to be talking about all minor and serious accidents and has sidestepped the MoT's main point.

Then we have Ixion's analysis... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/110784-Data-from-ACC?p=1129485659#post1129485659

I have ordered the cc ratings to make it easier to follow...

ccrating...........cost .........numberofclaims .........avgperclaim
0-50..............2520662.53..........84............ ......... 30007.
51-125..........1290834.84..........19............... .......67938.
126-250........2899501.65.........88.................. .....32948.
251-400..........193110.42...........10 .................... 19311.
401-600..........974371.70..........16............... .....123398.
601-750........1039516.43..........35................. .....29700.
751-900........4137470.95..........36................. .....14929.
901-1000......6460741.68..........57.................. ..113346.
1001-1340....2866583.22...........44................... ..65149.
Unknown.......5981107.39......... 29.................... 206245.

This shows that while 50cc scooters and 250cc bikes are indeed having a lot of accidents, their average cost to the taxpayer is around the $30,000. per accident, while both 600cc and 1000cc are around four times that at $120,000. average per accident.

This coincides with the MoT's original claim of 500cc and up are having the more serious accidents. (go read the bit in red again)

Ixion

21st May 2010, 15:50

Right, first the MoT claim...

Then we have Ixion's analysis... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/110784-Data-from-ACC?p=1129485659#post1129485659

I have ordered the cc ratings to make it easier to follow...

ccrating...........cost .........numberofclaims .........avgperclaim
0-50..............2520662.53..........84............ ......... 30007.
51-125..........1290834.84..........19............... .......67938.
126-250........2899501.65.........88.................. .....32948.
251-400..........193110.42...........10 .................... 19311.
401-600..........974371.70..........16............... .....123398.
601-750........1039516.43..........35................. .....29700.
751-900........4137470.95..........36................. .....14929.
901-1000......6460741.68..........57.................. ..113346.
1001-1340....2866583.22...........44................... ..65149.
Unknown.......5981107.39......... 29.................... 206245.

This shows that while 50cc scooters and 250cc bikes are indeed having a lot of accidents, their average cost to the taxpayer is around the $30,000. per accident, while both 600cc and 1000cc are around four times that at $120,000. average per accident.

This coincides with the MoT's original claim of 500cc and up are having the more serious accidents. (go read the bit in red again)

No it doesn't. Or not entirely. They may be having more 'serious' accidents (whatever that may mean) but the main reason the bigger bikes cost more is that the ACC payment for earnings compensatrion is MUCH higher on big bike crashes. Which means that people who ride big bikes have higher incomes than people who ride small bikes. Gee, who'd have thought.

I deduced this by examing the relativities, per claim of earnings compensation, rehabilitation,(mainly medical treatment) and other costs. Read the threads further.

The earning cost was MUCH higher (higher incomes). The rehabilitation cost was a bit higher (not much) , which may mean more serious crashes, or may mean that big bikes are ridden by older riders who don't bounce as easily. Or, both may point to bigger bikes being ridden by more experienced riders who have fewer minor 'whoopsie' accidents, but the same ratio of major ones, thus pushing up the average.

Charging riders of big bikes more because they earn more is only fair if ACC charge Mercedes and Rolls-Royce and Lexus owners more, too

You also ignore the fact that 50-125cc costs less than 1001-1340cc. And 751 to 900 cc costs only a QUARTER of 50 to 125cc. carefull riders, those ZX9 guys, eh

See, you are playing the same game as ACC, taking data out of context, ignoring what doesn't fit your predetermined hobby-horse and assuming simplistic causes. You don't work for ACC , do you? You're doing an awfully good job as their spokesperson, and pushing their propaganda line.

avgas

21st May 2010, 15:56

Here's a challenge for you.

If you can point me to one post where I have ever said "All motorcycle accidents are the motorcyclist's fault" I will not post on Kiwibiker ever again.

You keen? Or are you just full of shit?
That one. Do I win a prize.
FYI Its your own fault that I got to post this. lol ;)

avgas

21st May 2010, 16:01

That 'most' don't generally pose a problem for riders either. It's the other ones that are the problem. If they don't see or perceive a B-train as a threat to them, nothing we do will make them see us. So, forget the visibility thing, we must hone our 'spidey senses' to avoid them.
But i turn them off when the wife is in the car. She bores me.

Katman

21st May 2010, 16:33

There was a whole thread on it. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/110784-Data-from-ACC Splenetic biker-phobic posters could do well to check their propaganda before posting.

TL,DR

So have you learnt how to read a pie chart yet Les?

dipshit

21st May 2010, 16:39

You also ignore the fact that 50-125cc costs less than 1001-1340cc.

They only cost more on the average for each claim (just). There are far fewer accidents with them and much less total cost.

And 751 to 900 cc costs only a QUARTER of 50 to 125cc. carefull riders, those ZX9 guys, eh

An oddball not so common cc rating these days. Still 36 claims for that category as opposed to 19 for the 125's.

See, you are playing the same game as ACC, taking data out of context, ignoring what doesn't fit your predetermined hobby-horse and assuming simplistic causes.

Shall we talk about your "amazing skills of unbiased analysis" from that thread yesterday shall we.? :shifty:

You don't work for ACC , do you? You're doing an awfully good job as their spokesperson, and pushing their propaganda line.

Like I said, I have heard more BS coming from motorcyclists than anyone else. We need to make sure our arguments our watertight before trying to win the public over with them.

But no... keep telling them most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers then deny everything else... that'll work. :wait:

MSTRS

21st May 2010, 17:37

We need to make sure our arguments our watertight before trying to win the public over with them.

Sure, some of our argument/s is emotive, due to not wanting more of our hard-earned gouged. However, there wasn't a single so-called fact put forward by ACC or Nick the Prick that stood up to scrutiny. Yet the public lapped them up, didn't they?

Katman

21st May 2010, 17:59

Sure, some of our argument/s is emotive, due to not wanting more of our hard-earned gouged. However, there wasn't a single so-called fact put forward by ACC or Nick the Prick that stood up to scrutiny. Yet the public lapped them up, didn't they?

I've said it time and time again..........

If we were seen to be making a concerted effort to clean up our own backyard it would go further toward securing us a favourable ear than anything the ACC or WRB campaigns have achieved thus far.

RiderInBlack

21st May 2010, 18:51

I've said it time and time again..........

If we were seen to be making a concerted effort to clean up our own backyard it would go further toward securing us a favourable ear than anything the ACC or WRB campaigns have achieved thus far.So have ya got started at ya place:apint:Just another Tuis moment kindly brought to you from our favorite Poster.

rocketman1

21st May 2010, 19:09

Berries

22nd May 2010, 00:43

Didn’t do much for me either. Most of the recommendations make sense, if the MOT ever see them, but I am not convinced by the main argument. It takes two parties to have a ‘MVMA’ as the Prof calls them and it only takes one of them to ensure the crash doesn’t occur (in most cases, before I get slammed). Knowing that bikes have a smaller profile, are less visible and more prone to the SMIDSY syndrome is one thing. Expecting the car driver to change his behaviour/attitude is a bit much. Shit, they pull out on other cars more than they do bikes.

If we wait for driver training to improve then you can forget about anyone currently holding a licence improving. It will be the next generation and by then most of us will be too old to ride anyway. I’ll shut up now before I go off on one and start to sound like Katman.

I am glad someone who was at the presentation explained the slide with the Rocket and the 250’s. If that truly is the way ACC decided on 600cc being the magic levy limit then it really is a bigger crock of shit than I thought it was. I know how much model and engine size is missing from the crash data, I offered my services to the MOT to fix it up and they weren’t interested. I guess if they were they would do it themselves. Without it though anything you hear about engine size and crash relation is complete cock.

Couple of points about analysing crash data. This paper was based on multi vehicle crashes in Auckland and Canterbury. These are predominantly urban crashes and due to that fact will include a high number of commuter type bikes. (An assumption, I brought Chch data home rather than Canterbury). If single bike crashes were included then I would expect the engine size to be higher, if more rural crashes were included I would expect the engine size to be higher as well. I certainly don’t agree with the ACC view but I also don’t think you can extrapolate the figures presented here to give you an accurate national picture. IMO engine size is irrelevant when it comes to most car vs bike crashes in urban areas. Funny though that Figure Four in the slides shows that bikes over 1000c actually made up a greater proportion of bikes involved in these crashes than 250’s. If you are going to debunk a myth you need to use all the information available and present it clearly. Unfortunately because this presentation was based on only specific crash types in limited areas it doesn't do that, it just adds more wood to the fire.

Personally I would rather have seen two or three months data for the whole country analysed instead of a full year for just two areas. Each Police district and NZTA region has their own way of doing things which can impact on the quality of data being fed in to CAS. With a smaller sample area the influence of the people involved is greater.

So yeah, when I saw this presentation mentioned I was kind of hoping for something to dispel the myths and present the facts like the title says. We all know the myths, but I don’t think it has helped us get any closer to the facts, other than those related to car vs bike crashes in Auckland and Canterbury. And I don’t live there so don’t really care about them.

oldrider

25th May 2010, 17:26

Irrespective of the facts, figures and trends etc, lately there have been far too many accidents involving motorcycles! :sick:

One poster even commented that the news reports sounded like the accidents were "scripted" by an ACC representative! :shifty:

I have resolved from now on, to try and always ride and behave on my bike as if the whole of NZ was watching and judging the "motorcycling world" on "my" performance! :shit:

Why? Because "that" is the only thing that I have total responsibility and control over! :yes:

Wish me luck, I hope I don't let you guy's and gal's down! :whistle:

AD345

25th May 2010, 17:36

oldrider

26th May 2010, 12:03

I was searching for road condition information (due to current flooding) and came upon this.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/traffic/ways/motorcycle/index.html

Frankly, I don't see anything hostile or derogatory toward motorcycling in this page, just simple helpful facts of motorcycling!

Quite encouraging really! :yes:

Are we inclined to be a little over sensitive about how we look to other road users?

Robby Burns the poet springs to mind. "Would that God the gift to give us, to see our selves as others see us". :mellow:

Ixion

26th May 2010, 12:23

Frankly, I don't see anything hostile or derogatory toward motorcycling in this page, just simple helpful facts of motorcycling!

Quite encouraging really! :yes:

Are we inclined to be a little over sensitive about how we look to other road users?

>

Yes. We are. Most of the public don't have any real sentiment about motorcyclists , one way or the other.

It's the usual bell curve thing.
10% of people are bikers, or have-been/will-be bikers/pillions etc
20% don't ride themselves but are positive towards it (old ladies , in particular) .
10% really hate bikes Sometime because of some personal tragedy involving them, sometimes because they are just haters, who are also hostile to old drivers, young drivers, truck driver , women drivers, Asian drivers etc.
20% are disapproving (middle aged women in particular), without actually being hostile. Usually the "oh, so dangerous" thing.
And the rest of the public don't really care, don't have any opinion. They'll criticise a rider who does somethign they think inconsiderate or stupid, but just as they would an old driver, a young driver, a truck driver , a woman driver, an Asian driver etc.

I don't believe there is any conspiracy to try to ban bikes. Various bureacrats and police (not to mention doctors) are critical of motorcyclists because of our accident and injury rates. But they just want us to crash less, not be banned

We shouldn't read deep conspiracies into the ACC levy hike. ACC are a bunch of bean counters. They don't want to put our levies up because they want bbikes banned, they want to put them up because (in their opinion) we are not paying enough. Which is, sort of, true, especially if your life revolves around beans. If the average levy was $5000 they'd love us, cos we'd be paying more than we cost.

Most, if not all, of the negativity (and the ACC levies, too) could be made to go away by one very simple thing. Motorcyclists not crashing so much!

So, y'all stop falling off y' bikes. OK ? It's easy. Just make sure the rubbery black bits stay down below, the pink squishy bit stay up top. Then everybody (almost) will love us. or, at least not care about about us.

Spearfish

26th May 2010, 13:08

The transport fleet does tens of thousands of kms per year and bikes hardly reach tens . Govt Depts will always look at it that way and will always put bikes on the back foot.

p.dath

26th May 2010, 14:28

Just for your interest, I asked the AA about their opinion on the study. The reply was quite long and below. They said they are going to arrange a meeting with the Professor, as some other benefit may come out of it.

Thanks for this Philip. I have had a chance to read Charles Lamb’s paper and while I don’t want to diminish the importance of his conclusion that improving conspicuity could reduce some multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents (MVMA), I don’t find his report or remaining conclusions particularly helpful when his analysis excludes over a third of all motorcycle accidents, namely solo crashes. He seems to be implying, as a result of his selective analysis, that the current policy formulation in the area of ACC m/c levies or m/c road safety generally (the former being a subset of the latter) is flawed, which I think applies more to his paper. Consequently, I read his statement (p2) that differences in interpretation of accident statistics offer the potential for distorting and misrepresenting the accident situation and that the “conclusions that should be drawn from a dispassionate analysis of the data” forms the basis of his research, with more than a hint of irony. No policy analysis, the AA’s included, would exclude such a significant proportion of m/c accidents and the causes thereof when trying to draw conclusions, social cost estimates, and recommendations about them. If he restricted his comments to solely MVMA then his conclusions about visibility are valid but he cannot draw conclusions about all m/c accidents from his selective analysis.

I also find the comments in his opening slides somewhat inflammatory and its not clear what the purpose of such a piece of research is, certainly not what it purports to be and I don’t think it makes a positive contribution to the debate.

I would be concerned if motorcyclists read this report and assumed that conspicuity is the silver bullet. By his own analysis it is only a factor in 38.6% of MVMA accidents, which equals less than 25% when you include solo m/c accidents in which visibility is probably not a factor (except lack of on the riders part). He also notes in his PowerPoint that 40% of m/c accidents are caused by other road users – which means 60% are more likely to be the fault of the rider? How will conspicuity address this majority? In terms of setting policy we should also consider the causes of the other 75% of m/c accidents where conspicuity isn’t a factor. He seems to try to diminish the value of other safety initiatives, or enforcement of crash causes like speed and alcohol, yet our analysis of CAS (serious and fatal m/c crashes only), which you have, shows poor handling is the most common cause (18%), followed by speed (16%) and alcohol (9%), combined these are much greater than visibility which is the opposite of what he concludes.

I note he refers to the “87% of motorcyclists at fault” quote in the paper, and attributes this to the AA in the PowerPoint, although he does not acknowledge the source or try to verify it. I don’t know where he got it from, probably copied email correspondence, but where we have used that figure it has been with the proviso that it was an analysis of the very same CAS data Mr Lamb uses in his report, but only relating to serious and fatal m/c crashes. This was in response to the ACC debate last year, the point being that not all m/c crashes lead to ACC claims. Yes, it was a selective use of data just as he has done, but more relevant in this case to try to understand ACC’s policy setting. I hope he doesn’t think that ACC use non-injury or minor injury m/c crashes to set levies as these are unlikely to impose costs on ACC, yet he has included such crashes while excluding a third of all m/c accidents, serious or not. An example is his revelation that there are more accidents involving 21 year olds on 250cc ‘bikes. Could it be that several accidents involving young, fit males on low incomes impose less costs on ACC than a single accident involving a well-paid older male on a big bike? Could that explain ACC’s differential levy? You can’t conclude that from crash data alone.

I also have concerns with some of the data he has published. He states that the number of m/c injury crashes per 10,000 ‘bikes was 121 in 2008, and attributes this to MoT (and CAS), yet the MoT crash report puts this at 142 (the same under-reporting applies to previous years’ data). He offers no explanation as to why this is different and I am concerned his data, especially being attributed to the MoT, will be taken as accurate when the graphs he derives from these underestimate what is a worsening trend, the very problem road safety advocates are trying to address (also, if he compared the same data with the trend for passenger vehicles, his graphs would look a lot worse). I am very surprised Mr Lamb has published this data and attributed it to MoT without querying the variance and stating why his figures underestimate previously published authoritative and peer-reviewed data by a significant margin. This brings into question the validity of the remaining CAS analysis in his report.

I could also add that I find his choice to restrict individual analysis of CAS reports to Auckland and Christchurch odd. These have huge urban networks (and safer motorways) and so would include a large number of lower speed accidents – again the sort of accidents that don’t result in big ACC costs (if that was the original driver for this research). Our analysis of CAS (all road crashes) shows a majority occur on the open road which, at higher speeds, are obviously more serious, so only reviewing the data from two major urban areas distorts the true picture of serious crashes in NZ. A better sample would have been the Waikato or Manawatu for example which gives a better urban/rural split.

Neither Mike nor I know Mr Lamb but we will arrange to meet with him to understand some of the parameters he has chosen for this research and also the reasons for differences in data values from the same source, as well as having a general discussion about m/c safety and local and international research which he may be able to assist us with.

Ixion

26th May 2010, 14:49

Ah. I forgot about the AA. Yes, they *are* trying to ban bikes.

dipshit

26th May 2010, 15:53

Just for your interest, I asked the AA about their opinion on the study. The reply was quite long and below. They said they are going to arrange a meeting with the Professor, as some other benefit may come out of it.

So in a polite and diplomatic way he basically said this Professor is talking more shit than ACC and the AA combined.

Good analysis on his part. Then again a 12 year-old with half a brain could see that too.

Katman

26th May 2010, 16:15

Instead of the smoking gun motorcyclists were hoping for methinks the professor has given us a water pistol.

peasea

26th May 2010, 16:23

Instead of the smoking gun motorcyclists were hoping for methinks the professor has given us a water pistol.

Which we should fill with sulphuric acid and use to squirt Nick Smith in the eyes.

avgas

26th May 2010, 16:37

The transport fleet does tens of thousands of kms per year and bikes hardly reach tens . Govt Depts will always look at it that way and will always put bikes on the back foot.
Sorry but this is how you measure.
What does something or someone do?
How often do they do it?
How often is there an incident?

Do you have a better way to compare motorbike crashes to other vehicles on the road?

R-Soul

26th May 2010, 16:38

I have resolved from now on, to try and always ride and behave on my bike as if the whole of NZ was watching and judging the "motorcycling world" on "my" performance! :shit:

Explain to me why this is regarded as being more important that actually surviving on a day to day basis? To my mind this is much moreimportant, and logically should be how EVERYONE should ride from day one (not just now).

JMemonic

26th May 2010, 17:38

Spearfish

26th May 2010, 18:13

Sorry but this is how you measure.
What does something or someone do?
How often do they do it?
How often is there an incident?

Do you have a better way to compare motorbike crashes to other vehicles on the road?

I think we are on the same page?
I felt the way of comparing crash rates as just a % of the total vehicle fleet is off the mark compared with km travelled per crash.
And considering there are more bikes than there are riders for them it doesn't paint a good picture.

bogan

26th May 2010, 18:42

Interesting that the AA should come out with "solo accidents" and "selective analysis" when the Professor show how they selected only this first column from the data table, and if there was a motorcycle in that column they took that as a solo accident disregarding the following columns in the data.

Interesting that nobody seems to be able to do an unbiased report into motorcycle accidents, must say I was hoping for more from the prof.

I mean how hard can it be? fuck, someone point me at the relevant data and I'll do one

Berries

26th May 2010, 22:21

Ask the right questions and you can't get dud information. NZTA should provide that info free of charge if you speak to the right people. I could do it for you but my charge out rate is extortionate.

JMemonic

27th May 2010, 20:00

I guess there is really no point in anyone in this country doing research into motorcycle accidents as everyone knows the cause, because the AA and ACC tell them the right info. I took the time to go back through the post in this thread and I was a little bemused to re-read all the comments rubbishing Professor Lambs study.

I figure its easier to shoot the messenger on KB than actually read the info provided especially any that points out that the figure in NZ contraindicate international studies from the US and Europe, that can be found on pages two four and of the presentation. Even when someone can show how the figures have been skewed and can prove the AA's figures are wrong folks are so keen to support an organisation that has publicly stated they have no concern for motorcycles or motorcyclists and I guess those who didn't actually see the presentation of question the Professor know all that happened there.

I am going to enjoy riding my bike cause in a few years you will win and bikes will be banned from the roads here, when it happens you folks will be able to look back with pride in your achievements.

Katman

27th May 2010, 20:08

I took the time to go back through the post in this thread and I was a little bemused to re-read all the comments rubbishing Professor Lambs study.

They're all valid comments that any Professor worth his degree should have foreseen.

Or maybe he did and just figured we'd all be too dumb to notice.

bogan

27th May 2010, 21:12

Ask the right questions and you can't get dud information. NZTA should provide that info free of charge if you speak to the right people. I could do it for you but my charge out rate is extortionate.

hey at least you're honest :lol: maybe you should do the study! I can't be assed getting all that info, will re-summarize from the figures in the profs work as arbitrarily as possible instead.

Firstly 66% are multi vehicle, leaving 34% single vehicle accidents (2008).
Skipped through a bunch of pages which all looked pretty accurate, though the biker numbers and accident rates graph was misleading at first glance.
Rates and responsibilities table, 3 biggest factors are visibility 33.8% cager fault, agressive riding 13.2% biker fault, inattention 12.8% cager fault. Putting these into an overall context then gives; visibility 22.3% cager fault, agressive riding 8.7% biker fault, inattention 8.4% cager fault. As stated on the next page other motorists are respnsible for 40% of motorcyclists accidents, and of that 40% visibility is a factor in 22.3%(22.3/40 that is) and inattention in 8.4% (and I'm guessing there is likely to be a large overlap between these two groups). And taken from the 2009 stats here (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycles_09.pdf) 28% of accidents were at fault single vehicle biker accidents, however it does not go into a comprehenisve breakdown of this; however full license holders only account for 51% of accidents.

Another factor is the fleet sizes, 40% caused by 3 million drivers, or 53% caused by 100,000 bikers (IIRC feel free to correct me on these figures). Putting that in perspective, as a driver, you have a 1.33e-5 % chance of causing a biker crash, as a rider you have a 5.3e-4 % chance of causing you own accident, so roughly 40x more likely per individual. I'm not sure whether this is relevant other than to illustrate why the government is quite keen to get us off the roads.

So in summary;
40% of accidents caused by cagers
53% of accidents caused by bikers
Visiblity the main factor in cager caused accidents 22.3%
Confirmend non-full licensed riders account for 20% (5% are unknown license status), 11% of this is learners (proportions of license holder type are similar for different accident causes).

Now taking off my impartial hat, and putting on my biker hat, it doesn't look good. Visibility is still the biggest single cause there, and should definely be worked on, whether it be the education of 3mil motorists, or increasing the visibility of biker (I for one am all for the legalization of headlight modulators) or both, something needs to be done. Learner riders are a worrying statistic, 11% of all accidents caused by learners (significant assumptions to get the 11% though), better training and tougher testing are th obvious choices for learner rider developement. This still leaves 33% of accidents biker fault though the exact cause is unknown.

Now puts on armoured hat and prepares for the flaming.

EDIT: it should also be noted that I'm still 110% against the bastards raising our levies cos its a no fault fucking system and the above means didly squat in that context!

Berries

28th May 2010, 00:29

And taken from the 2009 stats here (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycles_09.pdf) 28% of single vehicle biker accidents were the bikers fault, however it does not go into a comprehenisve breakdown of this
Not quite. That pie chart shows that 28% of all motorbike crashes were bike only and the rider was at fault. It also shows that 29% of all motorbike crashes were bike only. Using those figures the rider was deemed to be at fault in 96% of bike only crashes. This is where any basic level analysis runs in to problems due to the way CAS calculates fault. It does this based on the cause codes given to the vehicles involved. So if the rider has the codes "lost control" and "run wide on bend" attributed to him he is going to be flagged as being at fault. Some would say he is, but it is a long way from being 100% accurate.

That same pie chart shows that 39% of crashes were multi vehicle and the other person was at fault, the same as the 40% stated by Professor Lamb.

Even when someone can show how the figures have been skewed and can prove the AA's figures are wrong folks are so keen to support an organisation that has publicly stated they have no concern for motorcycles or motorcyclists.
I know I haven't been on KB for long but I have yet to see anyone support the AA. (Excluding the 12 steppers obviously). That 87% figure quoted in the abstract for the paper is quite clearly rubbish and could have been countered with the most simple CAS analysis.

I am going to enjoy riding my bike cause in a few years you will win and bikes will be banned from the roads here, when it happens you folks will be able to look back with pride in your achievements.
Get real. You are deluded if you think this paper, or any data produced by third parties from the national database, including the AA, is going to change anything.

As pointed out earlier, this presentation was advertised as -

Motorcycle accident myths - A public presentation on the facts

A detailed analysis of the New Zealand Ministry of Transport accident data questions the commonly held view of what is causing New Zealand’s motorcycle accidents.

I think the reason you think it is being rubbished is that people are pointing out that the paper was overhyped in that one sentence. Clearly, it was a detailed analysis of certain crash types in certain areas of the country over a certain period of time, but because of that it can not, and should not, be used to imply any kind of national results or presentation of national facts.

bogan

28th May 2010, 08:53

Not quite. That pie chart shows that 28% of all motorbike crashes were bike only and the rider was at fault. It also shows that 29% of all motorbike crashes were bike only. Using those figures the rider was deemed to be at fault in 96% of bike only crashes. This is where any basic level analysis runs in to problems due to the way CAS calculates fault. It does this based on the cause codes given to the vehicles involved. So if the rider has the codes "lost control" and "run wide on bend" attributed to him he is going to be flagged as being at fault. Some would say he is, but it is a long way from being 100% accurate.

true, thats what i meant but it was worded poorly.

Katman

28th May 2010, 19:44

Ah. I forgot about the AA. Yes, they *are* trying to ban bikes.

And who do you think has the more direct path to the governments ear, Einstein?

The AA or BRONZ?

Perhaps it's time BRONZ pulled it's head out of it's arse.

oldrider

28th May 2010, 22:00

Explain to me why this is regarded as being more important that actually surviving on a day to day basis? To my mind this is much moreimportant, and logically should be how EVERYONE should ride from day one (not just now).

Not sure whether I am reading the intention of your post correctly or not but here goes.

I have been riding aggressively for 56 years, because I always believed that's the way you stay on your wheels and out of trouble!

Things like, when in doubt blast out, right or wrong see the gap take it, nutter signs, flipping the bird, wanker signs, are you fucking blind eye signs, etc etc etc! :shifty:

Altogether not good advertising or marketing for motorcyclists per se. :oi-grr:

I also was pointing out that the only thing we have control over is, "our own behaviour".

I may also have been guilty of unwittingly helping to form some negative attitudes by other motorists toward us, if in fact there are any and if it is as bad as Katman believes.

I also think I could consciously make a bigger effort to build more harmonious attitudes and relationships between other road users and motorcyclists by riding in a more respectful manner towards them.

My own behaviour is the only thing that I and I alone can influence and control, so I have resolved to try to make a difference in the future, if I can!

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that it really should be like that for "everyone" all the time from day one!

Well true, I don't think anyone can argue with that! :shutup:

Friends in need are friends indeed and we (motorcyclists) currently need all the friends and supporters that we can get! :yes:

Hey look kids, see the nice motorcycle, wave to him/her, that might be you one day if you behave! :ride:

Katman

28th May 2010, 22:10

If more riders took a similar attitude John we'd be a real force to be reckoned with.

_Shrek_

29th May 2010, 09:15

I still ride with the atitude they're out to get me, but have layed off the "deaf sign language" (well most of the time) & sit back a bit futher than I used to & wait for the gap thats not going to piss them off, over the past 12 months Mrs S & I have noticed a change in traffic behavour ie: camper vans, cars towing & general public have been moving to the left & letting us through, I found truckies the best as they give a flick on the LH indercator to say it's clear maybe some of that is an atitude change in me & the way I ride or there is more bike awarness out there

Katman

29th May 2010, 09:22

I believe that New Zealand motorcyclists would be better served if BRONZ were to drop the 'demanding rights' attitude and started petitioning the government for a better standard of motorcycle training and licensing.

They should also be focusing on improving the attitudes of motorcyclists rather than continuing along the path of trying to blame our misfortunes on everyone and everything else.

Maybe BRONZ should consider working with ACC rather than against them.

p.dath

29th May 2010, 09:57

I believe that New Zealand motorcyclists would be better served if BRONZ were to drop the 'demanding rights' attitude and started petitioning the government for a better standard of motorcycle training and licensing.

Excuse me for butting in; but do you have ant specific ideas how we could improve motorcycle training and licencing?

I quite like the German model, bu I doubt NZ would tolerate it. In the german model you hace to do a certain number of hours in all different kinds of traffic conditions (e,g. 10 hours on a highway, 10 hours on urban roads, 10 hours at night time, etc). However this has to be surpervised by a licenced instructor, so it costs a lot of money. At the end you get a certificate to say you have completed the supervised hours, and then you take that along when you apply for your licence.

p.dath

29th May 2010, 09:58

I believe that New Zealand motorcyclists would be better served if BRONZ were to drop the 'demanding rights' attitude and started petitioning the government for a better standard of motorcycle training and licensing.

ps. You might be interested to know that the failure rate has gone way up recently since they moved away from the scartchy cards to computerised testing where the candidates get the same questions - but in a random order.

peasea

29th May 2010, 10:18

Hey look kids, see the nice motorcycle, wave to him/her, that might be you one day if you behave! :ride:

Plant the seed. I was spoken to just yesterday outside the Four Square by a youngster (4 or 5)on a scooter. "Is that your motorbike?" (Only guy in leather for miles says...) "Yes, it sure is"
"How fast does it go?" To which I replied "As fast as I want it to but it's not about how fast you go, it's how cool you look." I hope he took it in.

Katman

29th May 2010, 10:18

Excuse me for butting in; but do you have ant specific ideas how we could improve motorcycle training and licencing?

Specific ideas on motorcycle training would likely fill a whole thread of it's own. Suffice to say, the idea of getting someone to ride around a few cones for a couple of hours and then giving them a certificate which allows them to go out and learn to ride on the streets of Auckland and the like is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.

Yes, the German licensing model sounds like a good idea. Sure it would cost considerably more to get your license but the reduction in the number of deaths and injuries would make it money well spent.

pritch

29th May 2010, 13:18

Yes, the German licensing model sounds like a good idea. Sure it would cost considerably more to get your license but the reduction in the number of deaths and injuries would make it money well spent.

The Germans have a similarly comprehensive hunting licence education system. Knowing this I loaned one of my shotguns to a German. I got the gun back in two pieces. There is an old saying to the effect that it's no good educating idiots.

None of which should be taken as indicating that I don't agree with more comprehensive driver training, but some form of psychological testing might not go amiss as well?

peasea

29th May 2010, 14:21

The Germans have a similarly comprehensive hunting licence education system. Knowing this I loaned one of my shotguns to a German. I got the gun back in two pieces. There is an old saying to the effect that it's no good educating idiots.

None of which should be taken as indicating that I don't agree with more comprehensive driver training, but some form of psychological testing might not go amiss as well?

That would open up a can of worms, wouldn't it? I can just imagine a scratchy test for sanity lol.

bogan

29th May 2010, 15:56

That would open up a can of worms, wouldn't it? I can just imagine a scratchy test for sanity lol.

well theres already a computer one, and if you're reading this then I'm afraid I have some bad news for you!

kb being where all the mad coonts are :yes:

peasea

29th May 2010, 15:59

well theres already a computer one, and if you're reading this then I'm afraid I have some bad news for you!

kb being where all the mad coonts are :yes:

Oh crap, another epic fail I'm going to need counselling for.

"Jimmy! Are you there Jimmy?"

Slurp. Ahh, that's better.

Katman

29th May 2010, 23:09

And furthermore, the sooner we see a change at the head of BRONZ Auckland, the better will be the advancement of motorcycling.

MarkH

31st May 2010, 21:59

I still think that all car drivers should have to ride a push bike and a motor scooter around town for half an hour before they get a car licence
They would have one big appreciation for the real people that ride on two wheels.

I read that they want to improve education/training for motorcyclists - I have no objection to that, it sounds like a good idea. Maybe ACC should subsidise training for anyone that wants it - less accidents is surely a good thing? But what about car drivers, they cause a lot of injuries to bikers - what about some training for them?

What I would suggest is this:
When a driver fucks up (failure to give way, running a red light, etc) then instead of a fine and then carry on driving like a dick - how about a fine and mandatory driver training, teach the idiots about taking more care at intersections. Sure a fender bender may not be such a big deal, but if their driving doesn't change then maybe next time they will injure a motorcyclist.

What about when you get too many demerit points - they take your license off you for 3 months. How about a mandatory advanced driving course instead - teach you to drive better! (admittedly you do get practise at driving REALLY carefully and within the law for 3 months when you have no license). Personally I think a 3 month loss of license is bloody stupid - some of us can't work without having a license and losing your job is a bit harsh when you have already been punished for each offence that earned the demerit points. The work license system is also daft - you can't apply for it for the first month (I would be bankrupt if I went a month without working) and then it costs heaps to get the temporary license for less than 2 months. The authorities work to hard to fuck over the motorists and do too little to help them become more competent.

p.dath

31st May 2010, 22:11

I read that they want to improve education/training for motorcyclists - I have no objection to that, it sounds like a good idea. Maybe ACC should subsidise training for anyone that wants it - less accidents is surely a good thing? But what about car drivers, they cause a lot of injuries to bikers - what about some training for them?

What I would suggest is this:
When a driver fucks up (failure to give way, running a red light, etc) then instead of a fine and then carry on driving like a dick - how about a fine and mandatory driver training, teach the idiots about taking more care at intersections. Sure a fender bender may not be such a big deal, but if their driving doesn't change then maybe next time they will injure a motorcyclist.

What about when you get too many demerit points - they take your license off you for 3 months. How about a mandatory advanced driving course instead - teach you to drive better! (admittedly you do get practise at driving REALLY carefully and within the law for 3 months when you have no license). Personally I think a 3 month loss of license is bloody stupid - some of us can't work without having a license and losing your job is a bit harsh when you have already been punished for each offence that earned the demerit points. The work license system is also daft - you can't apply for it for the first month (I would be bankrupt if I went a month without working) and then it costs heaps to get the temporary license for less than 2 months. The authorities work to hard to fuck over the motorists and do too little to help them become more competent.

I like the way you think, but playing Devil's advocate;

Lets say someone looses their licence for three months through collecting too many demerits through speeding - how will an advanced driving course make any difference? They didn't loose their licence because of a lack of skill ...

I think a 3 month loss of licence is appropriate. There has to be consequences. It's part of the penalty. If you don't like the penalty ... well the solution is obvious isn't?

What about a slight variation on your idea. If a driver is involved in an accident with another individual (be it a cyclist, pedestrian, car, motorcylist train, etc) then send them on a training (or "re-education") course. Because this kind of error is related to a failure to appreciate the situation you are in and the environment around you. Perhaps more of a defensive driving course, than an advanced driving course.

EDIT: And what do you do about those people who don't do the training course?

RiderInBlack

1st June 2010, 09:52

EDIT: And what do you do about those people who don't do the training course?That's easy, longer suspension (eg: 6 months instead of 3) of their drivers license. If they are caught driving/riding during their suspension, then impounding of their vehicle for the lenght of the suspension. If they don't have a vehicle, then community service lasting the lenght of the suspension.

MarkH

1st June 2010, 10:14

Lets say someone looses their licence for three months through collecting too many demerits through speeding - how will an advanced driving course make any difference? They didn't loose their licence because of a lack of skill ...

If they don't lack skill then they don't need the course - so they either lose their license for 3 months or pay and do a course they don't need, this is on top of the fines they had to pay as they incurred those demerit points. If they continue to speed then at least they are well trained and skilled - so they probably aren't the huge threat to everyone's lives that speeders are made out to be.

I think that any sort of incident which shows bad driving and failure to adhere to the laws could be used as an excuse to make someone up-skill their driving abilities - there is plenty of evidence out on our roads that a huge number of drivers could do with more training and a reminder of how to take more care. All drivers new to driving should also be made to get more training before we give them a license to pilot a tonne and a half (or more) of glass & steel at 100kph on a road shared with other motorists.

The authorities don't do much to improve drivers - failure to give way is what? $150 fine, some demerit point and carry on? If it was all about reducing accidents then a $150 1-day course in road rules would be a better penalty than a $150 fine. Many drivers would find that giving up a day of their time would be more annoying than the fee - maybe they might make a greater effort to drive more sensibly to avoid such punishment in the future. Better they stop failing to give way BEFORE they break a perfectly good motorcycle as well as the legs of the motorcyclist.

It's all well and good to train motorcyclists to ride better, but when someone pulls out of an intersection without looking properly then if there isn't enough room to avoid the car there is a high chance of injury which will cost ACC money, which we will have to pay when we register our bikes - ACC should be pushing better education for car drivers so they don't cause injuries to bikers so ACC doesn't have to pay so much to us.

Government departments seem to be good at taking our money, but bad at anything else.

p.dath

1st June 2010, 11:26

That's easy, longer suspension (eg: 6 months instead of 3) of their drivers license. If they are caught driving/riding during their suspension, then impounding of their vehicle for the lenght of the suspension. If they don't have a vehicle, then community service lasting the lenght of the suspension.

I guess you could always say you have to present the "training certificate" to get your licence back. That's easy.

RiderInBlack

1st June 2010, 11:51

I guess you could always say you have to present the "training certificate" to get your license back. That's easy.Yep. Make training an option to shorten ya suspension, and there would be a lot that would go for it. Of cause the suspended driver would have to pay for the course. I tell ya that when I was self employed and suspended for 3 months for too many demerits, I would have gone to a course rather than the suspension any day. 3 months without income (no driving meant no work) would have made me go belly-up, and I couldn't afford the Grand to apply for an exemption.

avgas

1st June 2010, 13:09

And furthermore, the sooner we see a change at the head of BRONZ Auckland, the better will be the advancement of motorcycling.
Huh, that doesn't sound like you katman........
I will disagree with you to see if I can bash the common sense back.
It doesn't matter a flying fuck who is in charge of BRONZ - those balding morons don't change the way I ride, I do.
If you want motorcycling to advance - stop making it so easy to do. I am sick of the young on bullets who act like rossi and promptly drop it, or the old born again farts who now rely on the technology in the new bikes to save their life because it takes them 5 seconds to grab the brake lever.
What happened to being forced to learn from you mistakes in a paddock before you got onto the road?
Learning how to lose it on a bike before you could buy it?
My riding skill is shit - but the rest of the world has become so complacent that it makes me look like my riding skill is increasing where the reality is that its decreasing.
BRONZ don't count for 3/8" of a pigs dick in the world of motorcycling.

Katman

1st June 2010, 14:27

Huh, that doesn't sound like you katman........
I will disagree with you to see if I can bash the common sense back.
It doesn't matter a flying fuck who is in charge of BRONZ - those balding morons don't change the way I ride, I do.
If you want motorcycling to advance - stop making it so easy to do. I am sick of the young on bullets who act like rossi and promptly drop it, or the old born again farts who now rely on the technology in the new bikes to save their life because it takes them 5 seconds to grab the brake lever.
What happened to being forced to learn from you mistakes in a paddock before you got onto the road?
Learning how to lose it on a bike before you could buy it?
My riding skill is shit - but the rest of the world has become so complacent that it makes me look like my riding skill is increasing where the reality is that its decreasing.
BRONZ don't count for 3/8" of a pigs dick in the world of motorcycling.

I agree entirely that the responsibility for our own well-being rests squarely on our own shoulders and the sooner that BRONZ accept and endorse that fact, the better.

However, when it comes to presenting motorcyclists grievances to the powers that be, we would stand a far better chance of gaining a sympathetic ear if we weren't represented by a clown intent on off-loading blame onto everyone else.