View Full Version : ACC full of crap: caught with pants around the ankles!
Rogue Rider
17th May 2010, 18:33
Just viewed an article on 3 news re a statistics report investigated by a University Professor which highlights the clear misrepresentation of statistics against motorcycles and accidents.
His report shows that 40% of motorcycle accidents are caused by other vehicles, (including police cars lol).
His question was why does govt departments unfairly target motorcyclists when clearly the larger issue is driver education in those causing the accidents, he also slammed acc for there incredible hike in levy which is misrepresented grossly by user. User pays system would then highlight that cars be penalized a higher fee, and not motorcycles.
Acc spokesman came back with a figure of 25% of motorcycle accidents involved only one vehicle....... I wonder where that figure came from, a one month time frame or out of a hat whilst he was sipping a dble latte with his nob stroking cubical buddies........:innocent:
:scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter:
meowmix
17th May 2010, 18:36
I was expecting a topic about this to pop up a few minutes earlier, bit slow eh?
Yea he pretty much gave a small summary of some of the ideas that have been tossed around here for the last bunch of months. I'm very glad it made it to the news and public eye from an authoritive figure. Lets hope the public payed attention.
schrodingers cat
17th May 2010, 18:40
Acc spokesman came back with a figure of 25% of motorcycle accidents involved only one vehicle....... I wonder where that figure came from, a one month time frame or out of a hat whilst he was sipping a dble latte with his nob stroking cubical buddies........:innocent:
:scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter:
There are lies, damn lies and statistics...
thepom
17th May 2010, 18:40
Needs to be put out there louder.....
AllanB
17th May 2010, 18:55
whilst he was sipping a dble latte with his nob stroking cubical buddies........:innocent:
:scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter:
Free coffee and a hand job - now that's the way to make a happy work environment!
Statistics are funny things - able to be twisted to suit the user.
ACC - piff it's been broken for a long time.
Katman
17th May 2010, 19:03
His report shows that 40% of motorcycle accidents are caused by other vehicles, (including police cars lol).
His question was why does govt departments unfairly target motorcyclists when clearly the larger issue is driver education in those causing the accidents,
So if 60% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the motorcyclist how can driver education be the larger issue?
:scratch:
bogan
17th May 2010, 19:10
this is nothing new, those figures were found once we started investigating acc's claims at the time the levies were introduced. education of both drivers and riders is the way to go
Hitcher
17th May 2010, 19:16
Bogan is right. ACC officials aren't interested in anything the likes of Prof Charley may put forward. They've made their minds up and will be unshakeable in their resolve. The media aren't really interested in this story as they have a view that bikers are largely a bunch of blue-collar, Labour-voting oiks. "New Zealand's Best Mullet" is likely to get better media coverage than this issue.
There was a window of opportunity open briefly at the time of last year's campaign but that has now firmly closed. ACC will be back for the remaining levy increase they "conceded" last time at some stage over the next couple of years.
mashman
17th May 2010, 21:02
So if 60% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the motorcyclist how can driver education be the larger issue?
:scratch:
why 60%? The ACC guy says 25% are single vehicle and that couldn't be anything to do with loose seal or cow shit or oil or diesel or bit of debris falling from trailers or anything else could it? Perhaps our fuck up stats are lower than you think Katman? But completely agree with bogan, tis a 2 way street so to speak and all concerned need educated or their attitude checked... but you can never know for sure which needs attention and only 1 is truly possible
Berries
17th May 2010, 21:39
Acc spokesman came back with a figure of 25% of motorcycle accidents involved only one vehicle....... I wonder where that figure came from, a one month time frame or out of a hat whilst he was sipping a dble latte with his nob stroking cubical buddies........:innocent:
I wouldn't argue with that figure for bikes. What made me laugh though is that a significant proportion of car crashes are single vehicle only, so I wonder what the figure is for those ? I wouldn't be surprised if it is around the same amount, meaning the statement was completely irrelevant.
With Katman on the other issue. If 40% of crashes are caused by the other vehicle then, if my maths is right, the majority aren't. Don't know how you can then swap that around and state that the minority is the bigger problem.
Katman
17th May 2010, 21:43
why 60%? The ACC guy says 25% are single vehicle and that couldn't be anything to do with loose seal or cow shit or oil or diesel or bit of debris falling from trailers or anything else could it?
So how do you propose we get those that can do something about those things to listen to us?
'Cos all I can hear from the powers that be is little more than contempt filled sniggering.
Perhaps an attitude shift among motorcyclists might go some way towards convincing them that we have real concerns that need addressing.
bogan
17th May 2010, 21:50
I wouldn't argue with that figure for bikes. What made me laugh though is that a significant proportion of car crashes are single vehicle only, so I wonder what the figure is for those ? I wouldn't be surprised if it is around the same amount, meaning the statement was completely irrelevant.
With Katman on the other issue. If 40% of crashes are caused by the other vehicle then, if my maths is right, the majority aren't. Don't know how you can then swap that around and state that the minority is the bigger problem.
I spose one thing, is thats the 40% the rider can't do fuck all about, for the other 60%, just don't set off the fuckwit detector and you'll be fine :shutup:
The flip side of that is educate 2.5million drivers for 40% of accidents, or 200,000 riders for 60% and it is no wonder we are being targetted.
However, targeting us through our wallet and subverting the ACC principals are still complete BS, see you at the beehive for the next one :Punk:
EDIT think charley is doing his presentation tomorow night so hopefully we'll get some more comprehensive stats from that :2thumbsup
Katman
17th May 2010, 21:59
I spose one thing, is thats the 40% the rider can't do fuck all about,
That's a pretty sad approach.
Of those 40% of accidents caused by the other vehicle I bet there is a large percentage that the motorcyclist could have done something about.
bogan
17th May 2010, 22:06
That's a pretty sad approach.
Of those 40% of accidents caused by the other vehicle I bet there is a large percentage that the motorcyclist could have done something about.
a very good point, I really should have thought of that as I do ride that way, a lot of cars give off subtle signals (creeping at intersections, drivers looking elsewhere, not behaving as if they know other traffic is around....) that there's a numpty behind the wheel (well more so) which have kept me from having to do a hard stop or evasion, perhaps even stopped me binning
JMemonic
17th May 2010, 22:11
What the ACC guy said was that the good Prof's figures were wrong and the majority of crashes were single vehicle only he then said their figures indicated that 25% of all motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents.
Now I could be wrong but when I went to school 25% is not a majority or perhaps that was why I failed school c.
Of course the true figures would be interesting to see, but if what he stated, and I am sure I heard it right, is correct in 75% of other cases there is another vehicle involved, that info of course does not take into account as to who is at fault and nor should it as ACC is a no fault system. It would be interesting to discover of the solo crashes how many of them had contributing factors like loose gravel or diesel on the road.
There will be some here who will regardless of information bang on that any collision involving motorcyclist is the fault of the rider blah blah etc etc, they can in my humble opinion go fornicate themselves with a fish fork, my last collision there was nothing I could have done to avoid the incident and the driver of the car that hit me admitted as much.
Katman
17th May 2010, 22:23
What the ACC guy said was that the good Prof's figures were wrong and the majority of crashes were single vehicle only he then said their figures indicated that 25% of all motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents.
Now I could be wrong but when I went to school 25% is not a majority or perhaps that was why I failed school c.
No he didn't. All he said was that motorcyclists were often at fault - then went on to add that 25% were single vehicle accidents.
I'm not surprised you failed School C.
trailblazer
17th May 2010, 22:35
i say we do what the trucks did a couple of years ago and do a slow moving protest on the main hiways and motorways in peak hour traffic. That will get the fuckers to listen to us.
bogan
17th May 2010, 22:57
my last collision there was nothing I could have done to avoid the incident and the driver of the car that hit me admitted as much.
same here, but likely I would have had some more in between if I didn't ride so carefully :shifty:
mashman
17th May 2010, 23:05
With Katman on the other issue. If 40% of crashes are caused by the other vehicle then, if my maths is right, the majority aren't. Don't know how you can then swap that around and state that the minority is the bigger problem.
because that 60% could be made up of 6 other reasons at 10% each, making the 40% the majority?
mashman
17th May 2010, 23:10
So how do you propose we get those that can do something about those things to listen to us?
'Cos all I can hear from the powers that be is little more than contempt filled sniggering.
Perhaps an attitude shift among motorcyclists might go some way towards convincing them that we have real concerns that need addressing.
lol, any initiative i would "promote" would take more money than would be available and therefore would not be considered as viable...
The shift in attitude you're talking about is across all walks of life... motorcyclists are no different in that respect, but that still doesn't mean that the larger percentage of incidents are caused by motorcyclists... I guess we have no real proof... Is there a percentage of fuckwiotedness that you'd be happy with?
Berries
17th May 2010, 23:16
Double post
Berries
17th May 2010, 23:17
because that 60% could be made up of 6 other reasons at 10% each, making the 40% the majority?
Now my head hurts. Whichever way you look at it, the TV only showed a few edited clips. Hopefully a bit more info about the study will be put on the forum after the Chch presentation tomorrow.
mashman
17th May 2010, 23:27
Now my head hurts. Whichever way you look at it, the TV only showed a few edited clips. Hopefully a bit more info about the study will be put on the forum after the Chch presentation tomorrow.
lmao, i just bluff my way though it and hopei make sense :shifty: i didn't even see the item truth be told, but i am looking forward to reading more of the info and protecting the motorcyclist from the wrath of Katman :shifty: lol...
Spearfish
18th May 2010, 00:00
As all good Kiwis know "She'll be Right" its the "no worries" approach to absolutely anything.
Pity its turning out to be so expensive, not just in $ terms.
Smifffy
18th May 2010, 08:10
lmao, i just bluff my way though it and hopei make sense :shifty:...
Yeah, I have noticed that you have a tendency to do that lol.
BiK3RChiK
18th May 2010, 08:24
Whatever.... None of this will have any effect whatsoever. ACC couldn't care less about justifying any of the increases. They are an insurance company now and it's all about the mighty dollar. All they are interested in is collecting more revenue, and they have a captured market, as none of us can pull out of their insurance scheme, unless we don't register our vehicles.
Also, most of us own cars, so saying 'put the ACC portion of car registration up so it doesn't affect us bikers' is a ridiculous argument. Either way, as Hitcher said, ACC will get it's increases.... The horse has bolted folks! Get used to it.....
All my opinion of course.....
Smifffy
18th May 2010, 08:32
As a smart guy I know at work has pointed out a few times, a person might have a couple (or more) bikes, maybe 2 (or more) cars and even be rquired to drive a registered vehicle for work purposes. In all of these situations the largest risk variable is the same - the driver/rider. One person can only have one mode of transport on the road (under it's own power for the pedants who suggest A-frames & trailers) at any given time. Whilst the remaining vehicles are parked up they are only at risk of being in an accident in bizarre circumstances.
Perhaps individuals should be levied rather than vehicles? Perhaps then the accident prone could also have higher levies like a true insurance scheme?
Katman
18th May 2010, 08:37
As a smart guy I know at work has pointed out a few times, a person might have a couple (or more) bikes, maybe 2 (or more) cars and even be rquired to drive a registered vehicle for work purposes. In all of these situations the largest risk variable is the same - the driver/rider. One person can only have one mode of transport on the road (under it's own power for the pedants who suggest A-frames & trailers) at any given time. Whilst the remaining vehicles are parked up they are only at risk of being in an accident in bizarre circumstances.
Perhaps individuals should be levied rather than vehicles? Perhaps then the accident prone could also have higher levies like a true insurance scheme?
I've always believed that those that make it a habit of righting off their motorcycles (and injuring themselves in the process) should be the ones to be penalised.
At least that way they may acquire an incentive to improve their riding.
duckonin
18th May 2010, 08:43
I've always believed that those that make it a habit of righting off their motorcycles (and injuring themselves in the process) should be the ones to be penalised.
At least that way they may acquire an incentive to improve their riding.
Maybe no ACC compensation for the first month...Bit of an incentive..
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 08:51
Maybe no ACC compensation for the first month...Bit of an incentive..
You are joking. Aren't you?
Pixie
18th May 2010, 09:17
Acc spokesman came back with a figure of 25% of motorcycle accidents involved only one vehicle....... I wonder where that figure came from,
Scientia ex rectum
Smifffy
18th May 2010, 09:23
Maybe no ACC compensation for the first month...Bit of an incentive..
The first month IMO is when the bulk of the compo should come. I have no problem paying for someone to get patched up after an accident, it's some of this ongoing bullshit stuff for supposed rehab that I object to. I don't see why I should have to subsidise top of the line boots for someone to go hunting after they've had an accident and claim they can no longer wear a standard boot. (An example I've heard of)
duckonin
18th May 2010, 09:26
You are joking. Aren't you?
NO !!!! Not at all...What would you suggest as an incentive then??
'My responce was to post 28 katman'
Pixie
18th May 2010, 09:27
So how do you propose we get those that can do something about those things to listen to us?
'Cos all I can hear from the powers that be is little more than contempt filled sniggering.
Perhaps an attitude shift among motorcyclists might go some way towards convincing them that we have real concerns that need addressing.
Get out of the motorcycle industry,Katman.
You are an enabler - contributing to the deaths of countless poor kiwis.
Like a drug pusher mitigating his guilt by providing sterile hypodermic syringes.
bogan
18th May 2010, 09:28
NO !!!! Not at all...What would you suggest as an incentive then??
oh I dunno, self preservation perhaps? I fail to see how money is going to make a difference when the much bigger downside to an accident is still gonna be serious personal injury or death.
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 09:28
NO !!!! Not at all...What would you suggest as an incentive then??
ACC is still a no fault scheme. It;s supposed to be a 'one size fits all' system. There can't be any incentives.
Smifffy
18th May 2010, 09:35
ACC is still a no fault scheme. It;s supposed to be a 'one size fits all' system. There can't be any incentives.
The biggest incentive seems to be to be 18 and fearless in a chopped and channeled WRX or EVO, rather than a 40 year old with a family to care for, riding a cruiser or goldwing
duckonin
18th May 2010, 09:35
ACC is still a no fault scheme. It;s supposed to be a 'one size fits all' system. There can't be any incentives.
True....+1 I was only generalizeing
Katman
18th May 2010, 09:56
ACC is still a no fault scheme. It;s supposed to be a 'one size fits all' system. There can't be any incentives.
All too often we read on here "Bugger, written off my bike again. Oh well, at least I get to going bike shopping again".
Six months later we're reading the same story all over again.
That size doesn't fit me.
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 10:08
All too often we read on here "Bugger, written off my bike again. Oh well, at least I get to going bike shopping again".
Six months later we're reading the same story all over again.
That size doesn't fit me.
But that's insurance. To cover the vehicle only. Where the cover is tailored to the individual/risk and the premium/excess/conditions of policy change dependent on that individual's history.
Katman
18th May 2010, 10:13
But that's insurance. To cover the vehicle only. Where the cover is tailored to the individual/risk and the premium/excess/conditions of policy change dependent on that individual's history.
And quite frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with ACC taking the same approach.
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 10:26
And quite frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with ACC taking the same approach.
Really? Then why are you pissy about paying more because fuckwits keep hurting themselves? Those fuckwits don't pay extra/get less, do they? And all us 'safe, responsible' riders get to subsidise them.
JMemonic
18th May 2010, 10:40
No he didn't. All he said was that motorcyclists were often at fault - then went on to add that 25% were single vehicle accidents.
I'm not surprised you failed School C.
Simply I don't like you and stand by my earlier statements about you, that aside how the hell does that 25% go with their, (and by their I mean that spokesman's), previous statements that the majority of motorcycle accidents are solo accidents with no other party involved?
At the end of the day there are things that can be done but hiking up the ACC fee when in 40% of accidents there is a whoops did not see the motorcycle admitted, how many folks are scared to admit they didn't see the bike? If that figure went up by 11% then it would really change the figures.
I am surprised admissions of didn't see the bike is so high given human nature, and of course dick heads like yourself would say that is the motorcyclists fault but you never offer any real suggestion as to how to solve this "issue", step down off your soapbox and fade into the background until you can offer practical suggestions to the problems, Your bleating on about "I was a motorcycle courier in London and survived" means two shakes of sod all if you never offer practical solutions, oh and here's a suggestion as a starter driver training, your nothing but part of the problem.
Katman
18th May 2010, 11:04
Simply I don't like you and stand by my earlier statements about you, that aside how the hell does that 25% go with their, (and by their I mean that spokesman's), previous statements that the majority of motorcycle accidents are solo accidents with no other party involved?
Care to point out where he says that the majority of motorcycle accidents are solo accidents?
http://www.3news.co.nz/Motorcyclists-unfairly-targeted---research/tabid/309/articleID/156220/Default.aspx
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 11:06
The % of this/that/other accident type is somewhat meaningless.
ACC are very keen to throw in the "40% are single bike accidents", but they cannot say that it was rider fault. Human error is always present (and that is a subtle difference to 'fault'). There are also issues of other outside forces that may be involved (road surface, animals, mechanical failure, other vehicle being avoided, etc)
Of the other 60% of accidents, near 70% of those were the direct result of another vehicle, usually 4 wheeled being at fault (again, human error or other can apply). Which leaves the other 30% - which splits into where the rider is deemed to be at fault (once again, human error etc) or shares the fault.
Simply put, for all bike accidents approx 40% is driver's fault, 50% is rider's fault, and the remaining 10% is perhaps a sharing of fault.
What rankles is that ACC STILL tout themselves as a no fault scheme, yet they use (dodgy) stats attributing fault to us, but downplay or ignore the others that make up the stats.
Katman
18th May 2010, 11:06
Really? Then why are you pissy about paying more because fuckwits keep hurting themselves? Those fuckwits don't pay extra/get less, do they? And all us 'safe, responsible' riders get to subsidise them.
Do you really think that post makes any sense?
That's exactly why I am "pissy" about it.
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 11:15
Do you really think that post makes any sense?
That's exactly why I am "pissy" about it.
Of course my post makes sense. All my posts do...
You said you have no problem with ACC acting like an insurance co, but you rant about riders not doing us any favours. IE - their crashing costs us all.
So which is it? You resent paying extra to subsidise the idiots, or you don't?
Or do you want the idiots-only to pay extra, like they would under proper insurance? Which ACC patently IS NOT.
Katman
18th May 2010, 11:28
Or do you want the idiots-only to pay extra, like they would under proper insurance?
Bingo! <hgvhgvhjv>
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 11:38
But that is never going to happen. Only the work account may be privatised.
Since the motor pool remains funded via regos, individual behaviour will never be rewarded or penalised. But the entire M/C class will be, and is being, penalised via the use of dodgy stats.
oldrider
18th May 2010, 11:45
Of course my post makes sense. All my posts do...
You said you have no problem with ACC acting like an insurance co, but you rant about riders not doing us any favours. IE - their crashing costs us all.
So which is it? You resent paying extra to subsidise the idiots, or you don't?
Or do you want the idiots-only to pay extra, like they would under proper insurance? Which ACC patently IS NOT.
Am I reading you wrong, I see ACC doing just that by forcing motorcyclists to pay extra because they believe "we" are the idiots!
Also, companies with (measured) better ACC and safety records pay less ACC premiums than those with lesser ACC and safety records now and have done so for many years!
Katman
18th May 2010, 11:46
But that is never going to happen.
No, because people like yourself are too pig-headed to see that maybe that would be a better solution to the problem rather than penalising everyone.
Katman
18th May 2010, 12:04
And furthermore, I have never believed that this whole ACC saga is about money (or the lack of it).
I'm more inclined to view it as an attempt by the government to discourage people from getting into motorcycling (and encouraging those who are not overly passionate about motorcycling to get out of it) thereby making their job of legislating motorcycles off the road that much easier.
MSTRS
18th May 2010, 12:13
Am I reading you wrong, I see ACC doing just that by forcing motorcyclists to pay extra because they believe "we" are the idiots!
Also, companies with (measured) better ACC and safety records pay less ACC premiums than those with lesser ACC and safety records now and have done so for many years!
The motor account and the work account are two different things. Yes, they are both ACC, but the work account is (relatively) open to competition whereas the motor account is not. Nobody sees ACC changing that, so 'insurance' in the motor account is a non-starter.
No, because people like yourself are too pig-headed to see that maybe that would be a better solution to the problem rather than penalising everyone.
Not me. I'm open to anything. Except decisions based on bullshit.
duckonin
18th May 2010, 12:17
And furthermore, I have never believed that this whole ACC saga is about money (or the lack of it).
I'm more inclined to view it as an attempt by the government to discourage people from getting into motorcycling (and encouraging those who are not overly passionate about motorcycling to get out of it) thereby making their job of legislating motorcycles off the road that much easier.
+1 Exactly that is what it is all about..
HenryDorsetCase
18th May 2010, 12:34
Free coffee and a hand job - now that's the way to make a happy work environment!
Statistics are funny things - able to be twisted to suit the user.
ACC - piff it's been broken for a long time.
are you giving, or getting, said handjob.? that makes a difference.
dipshit
18th May 2010, 15:42
His report shows that 40% of motorcycle accidents are caused by other vehicles,
Which only proves BRONZ and other motorcycle spokesman were the ones talking shit when they constantly told the public and media that "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers."
dipshit
18th May 2010, 15:50
because that 60% could be made up of 6 other reasons at 10% each, making the 40% the majority?
Nope, rider error makes up the biggest margin.
A rider that runs wide on a corner and crashes into a power pole and is classed as a single vehicle accident... or runs wide on a corner and crashes into an oncoming car (or other motorbikes) and is classed as a multivehicle accident... it's all largely academic.
mashman
18th May 2010, 20:16
Nope, rider error makes up the biggest margin.
A rider that runs wide on a corner and crashes into a power pole and is classed as a single vehicle accident... or runs wide on a corner and crashes into an oncoming car (or other motorbikes) and is classed as a multivehicle accident... it's all largely academic.
I don't dispute that may well be the case... and it would make perfect sense, to a certain degree... but as yet do we actually know? you seem pretty sure...
True. But you still need to analyse the cause in order to administer prevention?... unfortunately people lie and we may get the true cause : prevention ratio... which can only hurt. Has the Lamb spoken yet?
scumdog
18th May 2010, 20:18
So if 60% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the motorcyclist how can driver education be the larger issue?
:scratch:
Yup, kinda thought some sort of education could assist with that figure...
dipshit
18th May 2010, 20:45
True. But you still need to analyse the cause in order to administer prevention?... unfortunately people lie and we may get the true cause.
Ministry of Transport say 39% (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf) of bike accidents were caused by other road users.
This Professor says likewise - 40% of bike accidents were caused by other road users.
BRONZ and many other motorcycle spokesmen said most motorcycle accidents are caused by other road users.
So who were the ones talking crap..??? What exactly is the Prof telling us that we didn't know before..???
BMWST?
18th May 2010, 20:51
So if 60% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the motorcyclist how can driver education be the larger issue?
:scratch:
your hobby horse is getting the better of you...60 percent of motorcycle accidents either involve no other vehicles or involve another vehicle(S) where the motorcyclist may or may not be at fault.the other 40 percent another vehicle IS at fault
JMemonic
18th May 2010, 22:13
Went to the good Professors presentation, dam informative on how some of the stats are derived, interestingly enough the stats presented by the Govt and ACC are way off international figures. Part of the issue is how accidents are recorded in the databases, and then how the information is accessed and used, I hope to have links to information from the presentation for all to see in due course as what we saw was only part of a paper due to be presented at a conference in the USA soon.
mashman
18th May 2010, 22:36
Ministry of Transport say 39% (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf) of bike accidents were caused by other road users.
This Professor says likewise - 40% of bike accidents were caused by other road users.
BRONZ and many other motorcycle spokesmen said most motorcycle accidents are caused by other road users.
So who were the ones talking crap..??? What exactly is the Prof telling us that we didn't know before..???
lol, the impartial man might be able to find out... until he's discredited that is... problem is noone really wants to find out... there'd be no arguments over who had the correct figures... we'd just have a set of figures that "opposing" sides agreed on and then we could start talking about real preventative measures instead of poking each other in the eye because that's what suits the agenda of the moment... it's pretty much what we're all asking for, yet noone seems to care... so we think there's dodgy dealings (there may well be), political agendas and conspiracy theories galore to muddy the waters even further and get off message... divide and conquer... we all know it, but we also like the drama of disagreeing...
Phurrball
19th May 2010, 10:55
Here's the linky to the Radio NZ story and audio:
RNZ Charles Lamb Study (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/05/19/1248044ceaab)
Ixion
19th May 2010, 11:11
Unfortunately there's one little gotcha in the press report
Associate Professor Charles Lamb of Lincoln University says it was based on an ACC claim that motorcyclists are to blame for 87% of the crashes they are involved in.
The ACC didn't base the increase on such a claim. There basis was much simpler. Simply that we cost more than we paid. ACC doesn't actually care who CAUSES an accident, only who they PAY.
And the 87% figure didn't come from ACC. It came from our dear friends the AA.
Ixion
19th May 2010, 11:35
BTW, that 87% figure was "invented" by the AA. Just their way of showing the love. But, I have heard how the figure was arrived at.
Fristly, it is 87% of accidents where THEY (the AA, not the police) deemed the motorcycle has ANY responsibility. Even 1%. And, that "responsibility" could be a dereliction such as not wearing hi-viz vest! Thus, by their logic contributing to the crash by failing to make himself visible.
I can't vouch for that explanation, I had it second hand. But I'm inclined to believe it.
The ONLY figures for crash responsibility that I DO place any credence whatsoever in are those from the MoT (who get them from the police)
They say (for the 2003 2007 period)
(Here : http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf)
Multi vehicle crashes (including motorcycle on motorcycle)
No responsibility whatsoever to the rider - 39%
Part responsilibity on rider --------------------7%
Rider responsible for crash -------------------25%
That totals 71%. The remainder 29% (which is an important figure , ignored by both ACC and AA), were crashes where the police concluded NO-ONE was to blame. Acts of God and such like. You can't just deduct the percenatge where a car was responsible from 100 percent and say that riders are responsible for all the rest
For single vehicle accidents
No responsibility whatsoever to the rider - 3% (eg straying stock)
Rider responsible for crash -------------------26%
Remainder, no fault found to anyone-------71% !!
So, in short the police (who have no reason to favour bikes, or the reverse) say that only in 26% of cases (interestingly , almost the same, multi or single vehicle) was the rider wholey to blame. But of course, if you reckon that not wearing a hi-viz vest makes the rider totally to blame, the figures spouted by Mr Katman, the AA and ACC are easy to manufacture.
Katman
19th May 2010, 12:06
(Here : http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf)
Multi vehicle crashes (including motorcycle on motorcycle)
No responsibility whatsoever to the rider - 39%
Part responsilibity on rider --------------------7%
Rider responsible for crash -------------------25%
That totals 71%. The remainder 29% (which is an important figure , ignored by both ACC and AA), were crashes where the police concluded NO-ONE was to blame. Acts of God and such like. You can't just deduct the percenatge where a car was responsible from 100 percent and say that riders are responsible for all the rest
That pie chart you're looking at is for all motorcycle accidents.
The 29% that you conveniently put down to 'Acts of God' are the single vehicle proportion of those accidents of which 26% are the riders responsibility and only 3% where no responsibility was found.
dipshit
19th May 2010, 12:14
For single vehicle accidents
No responsibility whatsoever to the rider - 3% (eg straying stock)
Rider responsible for crash -------------------26%
Remainder, no fault found to anyone-------71% !!
What...???
How on earth did you reach that conclusion from the link you posted..???
One pie chart shows a breakdown of all motorcycle accidents. 25% of all motorcycle accidents are single vehicle rider at fault. 3% are single vehicle, no rider fault identified.
Where do you get this 71% no fault of anyone..???
Katman
19th May 2010, 12:16
What...???
How on earth did you reach that conclusion from the link you posted..???
Heaven help us with him at BRONZ's forefront.
bogan
19th May 2010, 12:16
from the graph on p4 (link ix posted):
Single vehicle, no rider fault identified 3%
Single vehicle, rider at fault 26%
Multi vehicle, primary responsibility 25%
Multi vehicle, no rider fault identified 39%
Multi vehicle, partial responsibility 7%
It seems bikers are directly responsible for 51% of their crashes, and other vehicles directly responsible for <39% and partially responsible for <7% (< cos not being bikers fault doesn't mean its the other motorists fault)
Or have I gone wrong somewhere?
dipshit
19th May 2010, 12:18
That pie chart you're looking at is for all motorcycle accidents.
Who would of thought... a motorcycling spokesman talking shit again.
No wonder the powers at be think motorcyclists are a bunch of fuckwits.
Ixion
19th May 2010, 12:19
Because the same pie chart to which you refer clearly shows "Single vehicle, rider at fault, 26%" . 26% + 3% = 29%. 100% minus 29% = 71%.
Of course, in your obseessional hatred of all motorcyclists, you have studiously ignored that, preferring to assume that motorcyclists (those evil , baby eating monsters) must always be to blame for everything.
Those are not MY figures. They are the official figures (and the ONLY official figures in new Zealand) from the MoT. If you don't like them because they don't sufficiently slag off motorcyclists, go argue with the Ministry.
dipshit
19th May 2010, 12:20
from the graph on p4 (link ix posted):
Single vehicle, no rider fault identified 3%
Single vehicle, rider at fault 26%
Multi vehicle, primary responsibility 25%
Multi vehicle, no rider fault identified 39%
Multi vehicle, partial responsibility 7%
It seems bikers are directly responsible for 51% of their crashes, and other vehicles directly responsible for <39% and partially responsible for <7% (< cos not being bikers fault doesn't mean its the other motorists fault)
Or have I gone wrong somewhere?
No, you can obviously read and understand plain English. Unlike the fuckwits in BRONZ.
dipshit
19th May 2010, 12:22
Because the same pie chart to which you refer clearly shows "Single vehicle, rider at fault, 26%" . 26% + 3% = 29%. 100% minus 29% = 71%.
That isn't just single vehicle accidents though. The 25% of single vehicle rider at fault, is not the percentage of all single vehicle motorcycle accidents... it the percentage of all motorcycle accidents.
dipshit
19th May 2010, 12:24
The title for this thread should be.... ' BRONZ full of crap: as usual.'
Katman
19th May 2010, 12:25
Because the same pie chart to which you refer clearly shows "Single vehicle, rider at fault, 26%" . 26% + 3% = 29%. 100% minus 29% = 71%.
So the 71% are the multi-vehicle accidents (of which motorcyclists have primary or partial responsibility in almost half the cases).
Dumbarse.:weird:
dipshit
19th May 2010, 12:49
Those are not MY figures. They are the official figures (and the ONLY official figures in new Zealand) from the MoT. If you don't like them because they don't sufficiently slag off motorcyclists, go argue with the Ministry.
Ixion, YOU are the one doing mental gymnastics to arrive at different conclusions that what the figures actually say!
Who do you think the public will have more credibility in if spokesmen for motorcyclists keep talking shit..??
JMemonic
19th May 2010, 16:24
Fuck me! No wonder motorcyclists are screwed and we have no national body as such, I don't get it a Professor (who happens to be a motorcyclist) goes and spends a year of an undergrads life doing the hard yards getting information together and its now available to you all (see post) (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123180-Motorcycle-accident-myths-A-public-presentation-on-the-facts?p=1129756882#post1129756882) and you lot are arguing over data that he manages to prove is incorrectly collected and collated.
We are fucked, nope truely, Katman and ilk will win, motorcycling will become an elitist hobby for the wealthy and politicians while the rest of us look back on our lives with misty eyes and tell our grand kids what it was like to actually ride motorcycles, one of the things the good Professor mentioned was the fact motorcyclists need a national voice, well this discussion kills that idea.
The Pastor
19th May 2010, 16:29
So if 60% of motorcycle accidents are caused by the motorcyclist how can driver education be the larger issue?
:scratch:
well it'll be 40% others fault
then it'll be some% riders fault
some % other factors - desiel, gravel, acts of god etc.
or something
Katman
19th May 2010, 16:37
one of the things the good Professor mentioned was the fact motorcyclists need a national voice
Did you also see the bit about the need to improve motorcyclists attitudes towards the way they ride?
JMemonic
19th May 2010, 21:50
Did you also see the bit about the need to improve motorcyclists attitudes towards the way they ride?
Had to take you off ignore again, this is getting annoying. Actually what he said to paraphrase was that all training to operate a vehicle of any kind in this country is sadly lacking, people are trained to pass a test not actually on how to drive or ride, everyone's attitude to how the operate a vehicle needs to be improved and he spoke of the red mist syndrome that affects people.
But that goes against your general theme that motorcyclists are the only ones at fault.
Interestingly he points to incentives that are run in the UK by the police, such as sponsorship of training events that have improved stats there. Also there was mention of a country where you can only start to learn to drive a car at 18, and its a two year process to even get you licence, however you can ride a moped/motorcycle of less than 49cc at the age of 15, this nation is under represented in the crash stats in comparison with other nations, the real difference is the education and training systems in place for all.
Anyhow thanks for the red rep, was wondering when I would collect one from you with regard to this thread, I was considering adding something witty and sarcastic but you might take it to heart.
Swoop
20th May 2010, 08:21
..that all training to operate a vehicle of any kind in this country is sadly lacking, people are trained to pass a test not actually on how to drive or ride,
If only the authorities would realise this. "Scratch and win" your licence... Don't people eat Cornflakes these days?
dipshit
20th May 2010, 09:51
Interestingly he points to incentives that are run in the UK by the police, such as sponsorship of training events that have improved stats there.
Well let's take a look at what some of that advanced training entails... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/121651-Police-Riders-Handbook-to-better-Motorcycling-Motorcycle-Road-Craft
Have a read through that excellent thread with outtakes from a UK police motorcycle training handbook.
Things like...
"These facts show that we are not good at learning from our experiences. Most riders involved in accidents do not accept that they contributed to it. If you think that you did not contribute to the accident, you will also think that you have nothing to learn from it, and your riding technique, together with any faults contributed to the accident, will remain unchanged." ...
... "• A false sense of personal invulnerability
• An illusion of control
These attitudes tend to prevent us from accepting that the risks of riding apply to us as well as to other people.
Critical self-awareness – the key to riding skill
Acknowledging the need to change attitudes is difficult because the evidence is statistical and most people trust their own experience rather than statistics. If you are a fast aggressive rider, you may not make the connection between your attitudes and the way you ride even if you have been in an accident. Research has shown that riders have a strong tendency to blame the road conditions or other road users rather than themselves for the accidents that they cause. This helps to explain why there is a strong tendency for riders to repeatedly make the same mistakes and become involved in the same kinds of accidents."
Now with the likes of BRONZ constantly telling the public and media that most motorcycle accidents are caused by other road users for political and PR reasons... your average motorcyclist begins to believe the bullshit as well and develops an attitude that their shit doesn't stink and it's all the other road users that are useless... and encourages them to shift blame and responsibility from themselves to others. This attitude is the total opposite direction we should be heading in.
Being safe on the roads is largely about attitude and your headspace. Without getting these basic things sorted first amongst riders out on the roads - things aren't going to change until the powers-at-be forced change upon us.
The bullshit from the likes of BRONZ will not be helping in the long run.
NighthawkNZ
20th May 2010, 10:25
No he didn't. All he said was that motorcyclists were often at fault - then went on to add that 25% were single vehicle accidents.
I'm not surprised you failed School C.
Just because there is no other vehicle at fault or involved does not automatically mean the rider of the bike is at fault... Just because there is no eviedence there as stock on the road (as it has wandered back into its paddock the same way it got out), or that the the rider hit un-marked freshly seal road (I have havd many close calls with this) or tried to dodge an on coming vehicle that was taking the corner wide or any number of reasons (yes including the rider at fault for what ever reason)
But again in the stats just because there is no other vehicle at fault or involved does not mean automatically the rider of the bike is at fault... it means that there was no other vehicle involved in the final accident... thats all nothing else.
bogan
20th May 2010, 12:21
Now with the likes of BRONZ constantly telling the public and media that most motorcycle accidents are cause by other road users for political and PR reasons... your average motorcyclist begins to believe the bullshit as well and develops an attitude that their shit doesn't stink and it's all the other road users that are useless... and encourages them to shift blame and responsibility from themselves to others. This attitude is total opposite direction we should be heading in.
Being safe on the roads is largely about attitude and your headspace. Without getting these basic things sorted first amongst riders out on the roads - things aren't going to change until the powers-at-be forced change upon us.
The bullshit from the likes of BRONZ will not be helping in the long run.
Agree with some of that, there is cause, and there is effect. While motorcyclicts are the cause of roughly 50% of their accidents, they have to deal with the effects of roughly 100% of the accidents. So it seems prudent to take extra care to avoid any accident, whether we are or are not the cause of it. However it also seems prudent to tell other motorists to stop hitting us!
And all of the advice should be backed up by the proper use of statistics and studies (which are completely available to the public), none of this blatant statistical manipulation that seems to be going on far too frequently.
mashman
20th May 2010, 13:50
"These facts show that we are not good at learning from our experiences. Most riders involved in accidents do not accept that they contributed to it. If you think that you did not contribute to the accident, you will also think that you have nothing to learn from it, and your riding technique, together with any faults contributed to the accident, will remain unchanged." ...
... "• A false sense of personal invulnerability
• An illusion of control
These attitudes tend to prevent us from accepting that the risks of riding apply to us as well as to other people.
Critical self-awareness – the key to riding skill
Acknowledging the need to change attitudes is difficult because the evidence is statistical and most people trust their own experience rather than statistics. If you are a fast aggressive rider, you may not make the connection between your attitudes and the way you ride even if you have been in an accident. Research has shown that riders have a strong tendency to blame the road conditions or other road users rather than themselves for the accidents that they cause. This helps to explain why there is a strong tendency for riders to repeatedly make the same mistakes and become involved in the same kinds of accidents."
not disagreeing, but it's hardly surprising that these people refuse to take accountability, primarily when you are encouraged to say nothing at the scene of an accident as you may well say something that invalidates your insurance. The "fact" that you ride for 10 years at warp speed without an accident lures you into a false sense of security, absolutely... so when you do have your accident, something else must have been to blame... i know that's what you're saying and that it refers to people in general, but it's always been that way...
All of the bullshit from "everyone" everywhere doesn't help... I don't particularly blame any single organisation, as it takes them all to make it work... and we all know, or hopefully know, that vilifying individuals/groups does fuck all for the situation... but it would seem that there are those that profit (not just financially) from the status quo... utter shame eh.
JMemonic
20th May 2010, 16:08
If only the authorities would realise this. "Scratch and win" your licence... Don't people eat Cornflakes these days?
It would seem not, along with weetbix etc.
<snip for no other reason than to save space>
Now with the likes of BRONZ constantly telling the public and media that most motorcycle accidents are cause by other road users for political and PR reasons... your average motorcyclist begins to believe the bullshit as well and develops an attitude that their shit doesn't stink and it's all the other road users that are useless... and encourages them to shift blame and responsibility from themselves to others. This attitude is total opposite direction we should be heading in.
Being safe on the roads is largely about attitude and your headspace. Without getting these basic things sorted first amongst riders out on the roads - things aren't going to change until the powers-at-be forced change upon us.
The bullshit from the likes of BRONZ will not be helping in the long run.
BRONZ are not the worst thing out there, and in some respects their actions are only the inverse of what the AA, ACC, MoT and politicians are putting out, a middle ground needs to be found.
You are right about some motorcyclists having the attitude we are never in the wrong, but the attitude of those who solely drive cars seems and thus the public at large seems to be motorcyclists bring all collisions on themselves. If we only looked at multiple motor vehicle accidents where a motorcycle and another vehicle collide there seems to be a predominance of "sorry mate I did not see you" and that unfortunately seems to be a catch all, which it should not be. As I said earlier there appears to be a need for more training all around, it was interesting the the stats showed a lower number of class 6 licence holders involved in multi vehicle collisions which could be due to a better awareness.
One must not discount the media's involvement in the public perception (and possibly some motorcyclists) that we as motorcyclists are always at fault, it would be hard to disagree they do have a tendency to sensationalise any collision they get the opportunity to and if the blame can be attributed in some manner to the rider involved the story will last days and be huge on the front page, where as if it is suspected that a car is at fault it will be a brief snippet in the national media and page two or three in the local area.
Look at the attention that was drawn to the bloke doing a runner from the police late last year? in Auckland and the coverage of the pursuit or the U-turns that involved Police and motorcycles, the tendency has been to attempt to shift blame onto the bike, in the last case a witness (if thats what you could call him) was found that testified on national television that he heard the bike and by the sound alone believed the bike was travelling at excessive speeds, this is what the public see, hear and believe. This will remain the perception for most even when the results of the investigations are finally made public, regardless of the final results, (my apologies to the family and friends of the rider for dragging this up but I needed an example that was fresh in minds).
Interestingly I understand there were 4 or 5 similar incidents involving members of the public colliding with the Police doing the same manoeuvre in cars that never made national news in the time between the collision on the West coast and the one I refer to above.
Now I am not trying to paint the Police in a bad light here just using two cases that have made the national media that help form and reinforce perceptions.
It in some ways is also that perception that draws the folks who see the roads as a race track to motorcycling, they see it as being a way to be for want of better terms antisocial, not unlike the idiot boyracers, I know some very genuine car enthusiasts who are in their adult years, they have been into modified cars for years, yet these folks are now tared and feathers as boy racers, these are the kind of folks who take pride in building up a mostly standard looking car with a different engine, running gear etc fitted. The perception of the masses is because they do this they are boy racers or having a mid life crisis and trying to be boys again, yet they are enjoying what they have been doing for years.
Motorcycles are an easy group to target, some politicians have not gotten into their heads not all riders are gang members or for that matter idiots, nor can they comprehend motorcycling can be a social activity no different from their MG club or Rugby club etc. And while motorcyclists are on both sides of the equation both being silly buggers and calling for what is not far off their ultimate goal of banning bikes we will collectively lose.
What perhaps is called for is a national federation of clubs that can speak with one voice, it would need to involve the militant, (as it seems to be perceived), BRONZ (although I am really adverse to that term for them perhaps proactive would be better), some organisation that would satisfy the likes of Katman and his screeching that motorcyclist are all at fault except him, and all the other great organisations out there working promoting safer and enjoyable riding. On that note not all BRONZ regions are the same, hell I understand they don't even have a national committee currently, please inform me if I am wrong.
Oh and on the training this apparently the powers that be don't like the concept as there is evidence to say the more training folks get the more over confident they become, this increases the risks they take (out of Victoria again as if that Aussie states policies are the best for us). Personally I believe training is always beneficial, and you can never have to much.
If you see a rider doing stupid things you have two choices, pull over and let them go be an idiot or calmly talk to them and advise them of how to improve, at the end of the day its their choice, and if everyone just went by that we might get on better.
BTW I hate hearing about the most bins wins syndrome that affects some but they are the idiot few not the majority, they also happen to be the most vocal, that's what needs to change, yelling at them has not worked, screaming from a soapbox has not worked, why because it just reinforces the view what they are doing is cool and anti social, ignore them and they will lose.
FatHead
31st May 2010, 12:49
It would seem not, along with weetbix etc.
BRONZ are not the worst thing out there, and in some respects their actions are only the inverse of what the AA, ACC, MoT and politicians are putting out, a middle ground needs to be found.
You are right about some motorcyclists having the attitude we are never in the wrong, but the attitude of those who solely drive cars seems and thus the public at large seems to be motorcyclists bring all collisions on themselves. If we only looked at multiple motor vehicle accidents where a motorcycle and another vehicle collide there seems to be a predominance of "sorry mate I did not see you" and that unfortunately seems to be a catch all, which it should not be. As I said earlier there appears to be a need for more training all around, it was interesting the the stats showed a lower number of class 6 licence holders involved in multi vehicle collisions which could be due to a better awareness.
One must not discount the media's involvement in the public perception (and possibly some motorcyclists) that we as motorcyclists are always at fault, it would be hard to disagree they do have a tendency to sensationalise any collision they get the opportunity to and if the blame can be attributed in some manner to the rider involved the story will last days and be huge on the front page, where as if it is suspected that a car is at fault it will be a brief snippet in the national media and page two or three in the local area.
Look at the attention that was drawn to the bloke doing a runner from the police late last year? in Auckland and the coverage of the pursuit or the U-turns that involved Police and motorcycles, the tendency has been to attempt to shift blame onto the bike, in the last case a witness (if thats what you could call him) was found that testified on national television that he heard the bike and by the sound alone believed the bike was travelling at excessive speeds, this is what the public see, hear and believe. This will remain the perception for most even when the results of the investigations are finally made public, regardless of the final results, (my apologies to the family and friends of the rider for dragging this up but I needed an example that was fresh in minds).
Interestingly I understand there were 4 or 5 similar incidents involving members of the public colliding with the Police doing the same manoeuvre in cars that never made national news in the time between the collision on the West coast and the one I refer to above.
Now I am not trying to paint the Police in a bad light here just using two cases that have made the national media that help form and reinforce perceptions.
It in some ways is also that perception that draws the folks who see the roads as a race track to motorcycling, they see it as being a way to be for want of better terms antisocial, not unlike the idiot boyracers, I know some very genuine car enthusiasts who are in their adult years, they have been into modified cars for years, yet these folks are now tared and feathers as boy racers, these are the kind of folks who take pride in building up a mostly standard looking car with a different engine, running gear etc fitted. The perception of the masses is because they do this they are boy racers or having a mid life crisis and trying to be boys again, yet they are enjoying what they have been doing for years.
Motorcycles are an easy group to target, some politicians have not gotten into their heads not all riders are gang members or for that matter idiots, nor can they comprehend motorcycling can be a social activity no different from their MG club or Rugby club etc. And while motorcyclists are on both sides of the equation both being silly buggers and calling for what is not far off their ultimate goal of banning bikes we will collectively lose.
What perhaps is called for is a national federation of clubs that can speak with one voice, it would need to involve the militant, (as it seems to be perceived), BRONZ (although I am really adverse to that term for them perhaps proactive would be better), some organisation that would satisfy the likes of Katman and his screeching that motorcyclist are all at fault except him, and all the other great organisations out there working promoting safer and enjoyable riding. On that note not all BRONZ regions are the same, hell I understand they don't even have a national committee currently, please inform me if I am wrong.
Oh and on the training this apparently the powers that be don't like the concept as there is evidence to say the more training folks get the more over confident they become, this increases the risks they take (out of Victoria again as if that Aussie states policies are the best for us). Personally I believe training is always beneficial, and you can never have to much.
If you see a rider doing stupid things you have two choices, pull over and let them go be an idiot or calmly talk to them and advise them of how to improve, at the end of the day its their choice, and if everyone just went by that we might get on better.
BTW I hate hearing about the most bins wins syndrome that affects some but they are the idiot few not the majority, they also happen to be the most vocal, that's what needs to change, yelling at them has not worked, screaming from a soapbox has not worked, why because it just reinforces the view what they are doing is cool and anti social, ignore them and they will lose.
Bling that man very good post well said.
MiniFlick
5th June 2010, 12:41
we agree.minilicka and pornoshauno that is.those acc f-wits just have it in for bikers.They probly had nothin better to do sitting in the rush hour traffic one morning watching bikers scoot past them and thought.....i know lets get these bikers!!hmmmm lets increase thier levies aye.fkn assholes,i just wanna smash thier smirky smiles off thier fukfaces and do a burnout in thier parking spaces at acc headquarters.and then when i get really angry....... Yeah i reckon they need to target the steel coffin drivers,there is more of them so that means they are having more crashes?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.