The AA are lying about us.

[shrub]

I read through the 1 minute pause called Directions that the AA put out, and in an article about road safety found this gem:

"There were about 43 motorcyclist deaths, of which motorcyclists themselves were responsible for 35. Car drivers were responsible for four".

For a start "about 43" deaths? Is their data collection so poor that they were unable to get an exact figure on motorcycle fatalities, yet were able to accurately attribute the exact number of deaths to bike riders and car drivers? Or are motorcyclists of such low value that nobody really knows how many die?

I know Katman probably believes that motorcyclists were responsible for 44 of the 43 deaths, but the good Prof Lamb's stats showed culpibility was pretty evenly divided between us and car drivers, and Prof Lamb doesn't use the word "about" in his research. Which is how come he's a professor, not some minimum wage journo working for AA.

The AA are an influential organisation with a lot of credibility, and you can guarantee that Mary Pajero and Andy Audi are reading this article and tsk tsking about all those mad, crazy bikers with a suicide wish. Unfortunately that means when we ask to be taken seriously regarding road safety, and when we demand that our rights as road users be respected they will say "you bring it on yourselves, don't come looking for sympathy or support".

[Str8 Jacket]

Motorbikes are dangerous. I think that this has been done to death.

Excuse the pun.

[shrub]

Motorbikes are dangerous. I think that this has been done to death.

Excuse the pun.

You've been listening to Katman too much.

What needs to be done to death is the attitude of the AA. As long as an influential organisation like the AA is willingly disseminating complete untruths like that, motorcycling won't get any safer.

[bogan]

wheres the article? if its easily proved wrong complain to the ASA

[SMOKEU]

What has alcoholics anonymous got to do with motorbikes?

[shrub]

wheres the article? if its easily proved wrong complain to the ASA

http://www.aa.co.nz/aadirections/driver/Pages/Who-is-Dying-on-Our-Roads.aspx

I have emailed the link to Charley Lamb for his response.

[Clockwork]

If it's not an advert the ASA will not be interested.

[MSTRS]

If it's not an advert the ASA will not be interested.

They weren't interested in the ACC propaganda ad in major dailies last year, either.

[bogan]

If it's not an advert the ASA will not be interested.

yeh you're right, that doens't look like an advert. Still if it's easily proven wrong I'm sure there's someone to complain to, anyone got a link to last years actual figures?

[shrub]

yeh you're right, that doens't look like an advert. Still if it's easily proven wrong I'm sure there's someone to complain to, anyone got a link to last years actual figures?

Charley Lamb has access to pretty much everything, so I'm looking forward to hearing from him. Once I have that data I will be writing to the editor of Directions as well as Brian Gibbons, the AA CEO. What they need to realise is that AA members are also motorcyclists (because it's my partner who's a member the letter will be in her name) and that presenting data that is incorrect can and will have a detrimental effect on road safety.

[Scuba_Steve]

The AA seem to have gone astray, you could almost be forgiven nowadays for thinking their a Govt owned organization. what happened to the good old days where their purpose was to warn of speed scams ahead & fight the injustice of Govt's retarded road rules?

[rainman]

I's not just the AA who are concerned:


Motorcycle deaths worry Govt

Motorcycle deaths still feature prominently in the road toll.
The number of road deaths recorded as of Tuesday stood at 216 - 20 fewer than at the same time last year.
But 29 motorcyclists have died, one more than at this time in 2009.
Transport Minister Steven Joyce says the number of motorbike riders dying is a real worry, as it's the one casualty toll that has continued to grow.
Motorbike fatalities were 27 in 2003, but gradually rose to about 50 per year in both 2008 and 2009.
The Government says motorcycle numbers increased by 60%, from 60,000 to 97,000 In the past decade.
Copyright © 2010 Radio New Zealand

From http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/07/21/12481056ac4c.

Is this the start of another anti-motorbike push by the gummint?

[bogan]

Charley Lamb has access to pretty much everything, so I'm looking forward to hearing from him. Once I have that data I will be writing to the editor of Directions as well as Brian Gibbons, the AA CEO. What they need to realise is that AA members are also motorcyclists (because it's my partner who's a member the letter will be in her name) and that presenting data that is incorrect can and will have a detrimental effect on road safety.

All well and good that you have faith in Charley, but after his last report he can hardly be considered an unbiased expert. Surely there is crash data online somewhere? what data drew you to the conclusion that AA are lying to us?

[shrub]

Is this the start of another anti-motorbike push by the gummint?

It wouldn't surprise me. Our beloved leaders probably see motorcyclists as irresponsible, low intellect, low income and quite probably drug users, or just another form of boy racer.

[shrub]

All well and good that you have faith in Charley, but after his last report he can hardly be considered an unbiased expert. Surely there is crash data online somewhere? what data drew you to the conclusion that AA are lying to us?

It's more a case that I have faith in the data he has access to, and his last report was fine.

Of course he is biased, he's a motorcyclist, but he's also the consumate professional. While a few people didn't agree with some of his findings, I have read the whole paper and looked at much of the raw data he used as well as the data analysis methods he engaged in, and I have confidence that what he presented was pretty well on the money.

Charley is currently looking up the crash data on the NZTA database, and that is the most complete and accurate information available. I would be very, very surprised if 81% of motorcycle fatalities were the fault of the rider and that only 9% were caused by car drivers given that international statistics show that the other road user was primarily at fault in between 50 and 65% of accidents and road conditions were at fault in 12 - 20% of cases (depending which country you look at). The figures the AA use would suggest that Kiwi bikers are predominantly appalling riders, NZ roads are unbelievably good and Kiwi drivers are the best in the world.

None of which is true.

[Big Dave]

The way to change the AA 'directions' is from within. But none of 'us' can be fucked doing it.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if more than a 15 turn up for the BRONZ agm tonight - let alone fraternise with an out of touch car mob.

[HenryDorsetCase]

J6_1Pw1xm9U

[Katman]

You've been listening to Katman too much.


Well you clearly haven't been listening enough.

I've never said motorcycles were dangerous - in fact, I don't think they are.

It's the motorcyclists on them that can make motorcycling dangerous.

[Katman]

It wouldn't surprise me. Our beloved leaders probably see motorcyclists as irresponsible, low intellect, low income and quite probably drug users, or just another form of boy racer.

And if that's not enough incentive to try changing the way the we are perceived then I have no idea what is.

I've said it plenty of times - if we want to be seen as responsible, mature and intelligent road users then we have to start acting as such. That includes publicly condemning those motorcyclists who ride irresponsibly.

[shrub]

And if that's not enough incentive to try changing the way the we are perceived then I have no idea what is.

I've said it plenty of times - if we want to be seen as responsible, mature and intelligent road users then we have to start acting as such. That includes publicly condemning those motorcyclists who ride irresponsibly.

Actually I agree with you there Katman, but I'm not sure how many motorcyclists out there ride irresponsibly. Sure, the Akaroa GP attracts it's share of idiots (one of the reasons I never ride that road in the weekends), and then you get the badass 1%er showing his workmates at the accounting firm how tough he is by riding at full throttle in traffic on his Harley, but I think most serious motorcyclists are pretty responsible.

And we don't have a public voice, so condemning the idiots is pretty well limited to around a fire at a rally, in a pub or on here; none of which are accessible to the general public.

[Katman]

I would be very, very surprised if 81% of motorcycle fatalities were the fault of the rider and that only 9% were caused by car drivers given that international statistics show that the other road user was primarily at fault in between 50 and 65% of accidents and road conditions were at fault in 12 - 20% of cases (depending which country you look at).

Trawl through the threads on here relating to motorcycle fatalities and you'll find very few where the motorcyclist wasn't entirely responsible for, or at least contributed to, the accident.

(And by 'contributed to' I mean 'significantly influenced').

[shrub]

Trawl through the threads on here relating to motorcycle fatalities and you'll find very few where the motorcyclist wasn't entirely responsible for, or at least contributed to, the accident.

I'm sorry, I don't see KB threads as being a valid source of research data, and from what I've seen here almost every crash is apparently caused by a "cage".

[Katman]

I'm sorry, I don't see KB threads as being a valid source of research data, and from what I've seen here almost every crash is apparently caused by a "cage".

There are plenty of threads on here that, while not necessarily providing much in the way of concrete research data, clearly offer enough information to show the rider at fault.

I'd suggest you're just too scared to allow yourself to be confronted by the ugly truth.

[-Alias-]

The AA have no Credibility.

[Str8 Jacket]

The AA have no Credibility.

Exactly what I was trying to get at..... ;)

[davereid]

There are plenty of threads on here that, while not necessarily providing much in the way of concrete research data, clearly offer enough information to show the rider at fault.

I'd suggest you're just too scared to allow yourself to be confronted by the ugly truth.

The ugly truth is we are good riders, and getting better.

Source http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/MOT_Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%202008_Full%20versio n.pdf


Summary from the above, table 32 , per 10,000 motorcyclists

Year Crashes Injuries Fatalities

1951 454 451 19
1961 394 391 10.3
1971 473 516 9.2
1981 247 254 8.7
1991 270 283 10.7
2001 114 116 6.1
2004 121 123 5.8
2008 142 144 5.2

Who causes the crash ?

71% of crashes were collisions
Motorcyclist primarily responsible for 35% or about 1/3 of collisions

i.e. 2/3rds of collisions are caused by the motorist not the motorcyclist

Of all crashes including single vehicle ones, the motorcyclist was primarily responsible for 51%.

Note : When statistics indicate motorcyclists are primarily responsible for 51% of crashes, this actually indicates a good standard of driving.

Consider a population of 100 vehicles.
If they all crash in single vehicle crashes, then they are primarily responsible for 100% of crashes.
If they all crash into another vehicle, they are primarily responsible for 50% of crashes.

Real world drivers could expect to be halfway between these two extremes at 75% so 51% is statistically significant as a good outcome.

EDIT..

That doesnt mean we should just sit back, we can all become better riders. But it does mean we don't need to react by adding extra laws and controls, to what is already a very regulated riding environment.

I see the Coroner in tears today, as his proposals for compulsory helmets, roll cages, seatbelts, wofs and regos for quads has gone un-noticed.

[shrub]

The way to change the AA 'directions' is from within. But none of 'us' can be fucked doing it.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if more than a 15 turn up for the BRONZ agm tonight - let alone fraternise with an out of touch car mob.

I wonder if it isn't time to rebrand BRONZ?

[BoristheBiter]

"There were about 43 motorcyclist deaths, of which motorcyclists themselves were responsible for 35. Car drivers were responsible for four".
.

A bit off topic but who caused the other 4 deaths?
43 deaths
bikes 35 + cars 4 = 39

[Katman]

Summary from the above, table 32 , per 10,000 motorcyclists


I think you'll find that those stats are per 10,000 motorcycles, not motorcyclists. (Can't seem to open the link).

Therefore they are completely misleading. The number of motorcycles still in existence has risen considerably faster than the number of motorcyclists.

That's a pivotal factor that even Shrub's revered Professor Lamb has chosen to ignore.

[Big Dave]

I wonder if it isn't time to rebrand BRONZ?

We did. The whole thing is as good as can be expected from volunteers.

To make anything work fully would need to re-brand bikers.

[shrub]

We did. The whole thing is as good as can be expected from volunteers.

To make anything work fully would need to re-brand bikers.

That is impossible, they are too flexible and variable an entity.

Can I help with BRONZ? I have a truckload of marketing experience including marketing services and not for profits.

[Big Dave]

That is impossible. Can I help? I have a truckload of marketing experience including marketing services and not for profits.

Sure - The problem to solve is increase membership - ergo finance - to do some marketing.

100,000 vehicles yields a few hundred members.

[oldrider]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter! :shifty:

Relentlessly anti motorcycle! :yes:

[Katman]

Who causes the crash ?


As this thread is primarily about fatal accidents you might like to take note that, from the Ministry of Transports figures, about 75% of these accidents are primarily the fault of the motorcyclist - which actually ties in quite closely with the figures the AA is using.


I have a truckload of marketing experience including marketing services and not for profits.

I hope you're better at that than you are at interpreting statistics.

[bogan]

It's more a case that I have faith in the data he has access to, and his last report was fine.

Of course he is biased, he's a motorcyclist, but he's also the consumate professional. While a few people didn't agree with some of his findings, I have read the whole paper and looked at much of the raw data he used as well as the data analysis methods he engaged in, and I have confidence that what he presented was pretty well on the money.

Charley is currently looking up the crash data on the NZTA database, and that is the most complete and accurate information available. I would be very, very surprised if 81% of motorcycle fatalities were the fault of the rider and that only 9% were caused by car drivers given that international statistics show that the other road user was primarily at fault in between 50 and 65% of accidents and road conditions were at fault in 12 - 20% of cases (depending which country you look at). The figures the AA use would suggest that Kiwi bikers are predominantly appalling riders, NZ roads are unbelievably good and Kiwi drivers are the best in the world.

None of which is true.

ok, playing devils advocate here so we don't jump to any erroneous conclusions. Sampled stats don't always conform to the average, it could have just been a bad year. I just don't think we have any evidence that AA are lying to us, and claiming it makes us guilty of that which we accuse AA.

And charley just decided to ignore about 40% of the stats in his last report didn't he?

[shrub]

ok, playing devils advocate here so we don't jump to any erroneous conclusions. Sampled stats don't always conform to the average, it could have just been a bad year. I just don't think we have any evidence that AA are lying to us, and claiming it makes us guilty of that which we accuse AA.

And charley just decided to ignore about 40% of the stats in his last report didn't he?

I think it is easy to show that there were not "about" 43 deaths, of which only 4 were caused by the car driver.

[bogan]

I think it is easy to show that there were not "about" 43 deaths, of which only 4 were caused by the car driver.

then why am I still waiting for you to do that?

[shrub]

then why am I still waiting for you to do that?

I refer you to post 26

[Katman]

This thread here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/123560-ACC-full-of-crap-caught-with-pants-around-the-ankles! is a clear indication of one of the problems we are facing. (Gets interesting about page 4).

Those who are fighting the cause on our behalf appear more guilty of mis-interpreting figures than those fighting against us.

[davebullet]

On the AA - "automobile" is typically defined as a passenger vehicle with 4 wheels. Therefore they can be excused for focussing on one road user segment. (PS: I've been a member for 19 years and I find their motorcycle support woeful).

I think at fault is interesting.

I've seen many threads on here about motorcyclists t-boning car drivers that do u-turns.

Was the motorcyclist travelling at a safe speed? I differentiate from legal speed. I believe the legal speed is way to high in built up areas / suburbia in pouring rain etc...... and way too low on the foxton straights (for example). Dont' tell me 50kph in busy traffic, all parks used scenario is a safe speed.

Was the motorcyclist making himself visible?

Was the motorcyclist in a good road position?

Did the motorcyclist have emergency braking / swerving avoidance skills? (nothing mandates we need to develop these - and don't tell me its part of the BHS / learners test - it isn't).

I could be traveling at 50kph (by witness accounts) in a blind spot on the road (too far to the left), in all black gear on a rainy day, have been daydreaming or missed the turning motorist - wham I t-bone him and the car driver is at fault? Well - I could believe that and remind myself the next time it happens and I'm in hospital - yup that would make it all better eh?

I actually agree with Katman. Fault is not a binary factor (yes or no). Fault is shared. I bet the number of purely and squarely 100% the fault of only one party are very few. Those that are, you could find things that could have been done by the other party to minimise the impact.

Rather than raw statistics, I'd like to see the nature of the accidents to see a "top 10" rider training and legislation could be used to mitigate these. I'd love to have the data / see what is being collected to analyse (I'm a much better data analyst than a rider :laugh:)

[bogan]

I refer you to post 26

last year was 2009 dude, is not in post 26

[Brian d marge]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter! :shifty:

Relentlessly anti motorcycle! :yes:
+1 on that even The Venerable Bede writing under the pen name of Ixion has if I remember, suggested so

Snip
There were about 43 motorcyclist deaths, of which motorcyclists themselves were responsible for 35. Car drivers were responsible for four. Young men and men in their 40s and 50s predominated.

Now I follow the Stats but where the ell did this ones come from ? I mean,, I do agree with the over 40 born again, but those numbers are odd to me

Otherwise I thought it was a reasonable article
Stephen

[shrub]

last year was 2009 dude, is not in post 26

OK, but I doubt the stats will be significantly different. I don't have access to the latest LTSA stats and have asked Charley to look them up, but he's busy as buggeree at the moment so I'm not holding my breath. If I get a chance this afternoon I'll pop in to the local office and see what I cam get.

[bogan]

OK, but I doubt the stats will be significantly different. I don't have access to the latest LTSA stats and have asked Charley to look them up, but he's busy as buggeree at the moment so I'm not holding my breath. If I get a chance this afternoon I'll pop in to the local office and see what I cam get.

I doubt they will be too different either, but I wouldn't go making slanderous accusations until I am sure.

[BoristheBiter]

On the AA - "automobile" is typically defined as a passenger vehicle with 4 wheels. Therefore they can be excused for focussing on one road user segment. (PS: I've been a member for 19 years and I find their motorcycle support woeful).

I think at fault is interesting.

I've seen many threads on here about motorcyclists t-boning car drivers that do u-turns.

Was the motorcyclist travelling at a safe speed? I differentiate from legal speed. I believe the legal speed is way to high in built up areas / suburbia in pouring rain etc...... and way too low on the foxton straights (for example). Dont' tell me 50kph in busy traffic, all parks used scenario is a safe speed.

Was the motorcyclist making himself visible?

Was the motorcyclist in a good road position?

Did the motorcyclist have emergency braking / swerving avoidance skills? (nothing mandates we need to develop these - and don't tell me its part of the BHS / learners test - it isn't).

I could be traveling at 50kph (by witness accounts) in a blind spot on the road (too far to the left), in all black gear on a rainy day, have been daydreaming or missed the turning motorist - wham I t-bone him and the car driver is at fault? Well - I could believe that and remind myself the next time it happens and I'm in hospital - yup that would make it all better eh?

I actually agree with Katman. Fault is not a binary factor (yes or no). Fault is shared. I bet the number of purely and squarely 100% the fault of only one party are very few. Those that are, you could find things that could have been done by the other party to minimise the impact.

Rather than raw statistics, I'd like to see the nature of the accidents to see a "top 10" rider training and legislation could be used to mitigate these. I'd love to have the data / see what is being collected to analyse (I'm a much better data analyst than a rider :laugh:)

Where i agree with what you are trying to say i can't see how someone pulling out in front of me is my fault. It is done to me all the time in my car so if they can't see me or judge my speed while i am in a car how the fuck could they do it while I am on my bike.

What you are getting at is defencive driving, thats what stops me from hitting these tossers.
Someone fails to give way, their fault end of story.

[Okey Dokey]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter! :shifty:

Relentlessly anti motorcycle! :yes:

Yes, I get that impression as well, oldrider.

[p.dath]

I read through the 1 minute pause called Directions that the AA put out, and in an arFor a start "about 43" deaths? Is their data collection so poor that they were unable to get an exact figure on motorcycle fatalities, yet were able to accurately attribute the exact number of deaths to bike riders and car drivers? Or are motorcyclists of such low value that nobody really knows how many die?

I know Katman probably believes that motorcyclists were responsible for 44 of the 43 deaths, but the good Prof Lamb's stats showed culpibility was pretty evenly divided between us and car drivers, and Prof Lamb doesn't use the word "about" in his research. Which is how come he's a professor, not some minimum wage journo working for AA.


The problem with Professor Charles Lamb's report is it only considered MVMA's. I think the above numbers will be related to all accidents involving motorcycles - the vast majority of which involve a single motorcycle loosing control around a corner.

[p.dath]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter! :shifty:

Relentlessly anti motorcycle! :yes:

Having taken the time to personally meet with Mike, I can assure you this is not the case. But if you don't believe me, I invite you to go talk to him as well.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The AA have no Credibility.

actually with our beastly overlords (John Key the smiling assassin and his lumpy minions) i would suggest they have significantly more credibility than a bunch of disorganised dishevelled bikers.

[Genestho]

Having taken the time to personally meet with Mike, I can assure you this is not the case. But if you don't believe me, I invite you to go talk to him as well.

I'm inclined to agree, he's always made time for me and sent me a few studies off his own back that he thought I'd rightly be interested in, although I missed a chance to meet with him, he's approachable and a passionate bloke about what he does, not sure if he still is, but headed or was apart of the national S.A.D.D committee.

I encourage Shrub to make contact and ask about the statistics if you feel them questionable.:yes:

[Katman]

Where i agree with what you are trying to say i can't see how someone pulling out in front of me is my fault. It is done to me all the time in my car so if they can't see me or judge my speed while i am in a car how the fuck could they do it while I am on my bike.

What you are getting at is defencive driving, thats what stops me from hitting these tossers.
Someone fails to give way, their fault end of story.

Reducing motorcycle accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist and reducing motorcycle accidents where the motorcyclist has an influence over the outcome or severity of the accident, are both areas that are equally required of addressing.

As has been said many, many times before - it means jack-shit whether you were in the right or wrong when they're putting you in a hole in the ground.

[MSTRS]

Reducing motorcycle accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist and reducing motorcycle accidents where the motorcyclist has an influence over the outcome or severity of the accident, are both areas that are equally required of addressing.

As has been said many, many times before - it means jack-shit whether you were in the right or wrong when they're putting you in a hole in the ground.

Certainly 'we' can work on the problem of increasing rider awareness of defensive strategies. However, it is also fair to say that even if lack of those abilities by a rider means s/he fails to avoid some prat who's not looking...doesn't remove the fault from said prat. And in the stats, that's all that counts.

[Katman]

However, it is also fair to say that even if lack of those abilities by a rider means s/he fails to avoid some prat who's not looking...doesn't remove the fault from said prat.

And I don't think the statistics suggest it does.

That's why there's a percentage of motorcycle accidents that are attributed to the other person.

I still maintain that it is in our best interests to do all we can to reduce even those accidents that are not our fault.

Greater situational awareness and better training will achieve this.

[MSTRS]

Greater situational awareness and better training will achieve this.

Agreed.
As long as it does not remove the onus on other drivers to take care.
See - the danger is that increasing motorcyclist's god-like ninja skills will mean the aforementioned prats can relax even more.

[Banditbandit]

There are plenty of threads on here that, while not necessarily providing much in the way of concrete research data, clearly offer enough information to show the rider at fault.

I'd suggest you're just too scared to allow yourself to be confronted by the ugly truth.

I'd kinda have to admit that I agree with Katman ... I've been off about eight times .. only twice was another vehicle involved - and both times it was a car ... Only twice (not involving the cars) did I have to make any sort of ACC claim following the offs ... and only the two involving cars also involved cops - so there was no report of the other six offs ... five of those were probably my fault - the other one I won't have a clue - major tank slapper in a sweeping right hander about 110 klicks ... then I was lying down coming back to consciousness. Last time I was off was 10 years ago ... so I've either learnt more or just got lucky - I certainly haven't slowed down or I woouldn't be walking now ...

Yeah - I know - I hate to give Katman ammunition - but riders are responsible for many offs ...

But I remember looking at the ACC stats last year, and a major increase in "motorcycle" accidents was an increase in the little commuter junk that putts around and are involved in accidents - you can ride one with only a car licence, but it is counted as a "motorcycle accident". Dickheads are riding these things and getting hit by cars, stuffing up themselves and getting hurt - the point has never been made ... it's not the serious riders in many cases pushing up the stats - it's the commuter suits on mopeds ...

[Banditbandit]

I The number of motorcycles still in existence has risen considerably faster than the number of motorcyclists.



That's true ... but there are lot of little commuter scooters out there which accounts for quite a sgnificant proportion of the increase in bikes on the road.

[davereid]

But I remember looking at the ACC stats, and a major increase in "motorcycle" accidents was an increase in the little commuter ju8nk that putts arouind - you can ride one with only a car oicence, but it is counted as a "motorcycle" accident. Dickheads are riding these things and getting hit by cars, stuffing up themselves and getting hurt - the point has never been made ... it's not the serious riders in many cases pushing up the stats - it's the commuter suits on mopeds ...


I never saw that bit... do you have a reference ?

I think I have data somewhere that contradicts that, in fact Moped reg bikes are statistically very safe. I'll dig up the actual figures.

[Banditbandit]

I never saw that bit... do you have a reference ?

I think I have data somewhere that contradicts that, in fact Moped reg bikes are statistically very safe. I'll dig up the actual figures.

No, sorry. I was involved in putting together a submission. I think it was in the LTSA's figures - they had a breakdown by cc rating - and there was a big climb in the numbers of small commuter bikes - with a subsequent climb in the number of accidents .. which were generally caused by said riders. There was a reduction, or maybe static, in the bigger ccs - except for the older riders returning to biking, and buying big cruisers . They're right about that.

I dumped the documetns when I shifted towns - unnecessary baggage.

[jeffs]

If I crash my motorbike riding at 100kmh I am more likely to die than if I have a crash in the exact same circumstances while driving a car.

The problem is not who or why the crash happened, its what margin of error and crash protection do I have.

In a car my margin of error and crash protection is greater than on a bike.

What ever the reasons or faults the question is ,

will you stop riding your bike because it is potentially dangerous ?

If the answer is yes, then stop riding and get on with your life.

If the answer is maybe, then just ride the best you can and increase your margin of error by changing your style to suite the conditions.

If your answer is " I'm a speed god and immortal" Then you will never change, no matter what anyone does or says and you will always be immortal right up to the time you die of a bike crash or old age.

Yes the figures are probably wrong, but be certain who ever wrote the article does not give a shit, it just makes good copy.

Bad news sells papers...

Telling people smoking kills rarely stop people smoking.

[dipshit]

BRONZ And Prof Lamb are the ones trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. (no pun intended)

Prof Lamb looked at Auckland and Christchurch figures only. That will create a sampling bias of more multi vehicle accidents.

The AA figures on the fatals are indeed a reality. The MOT put fatal motorcycle accidents at about 75% as rider at fault http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf (bottom of page 4)

This does quite often come as a surprise to those who keep listening to BRONZ's bullshit.

[MSTRS]

It's still playing with figures to promote a certain view.
If 75% of fatals were rider error, that's saying something entirely different to the 50% each way over all crashes.

[Katman]

The AA figures on the fatals are indeed a reality. The MOT put fatal motorcycle accidents at about 75% as rider at fault


Just thought I'd quote it in case anyone missed it.

[dipshit]

If 75% of fatals were rider error, that's saying something entirely different to the 50% each way over all crashes.

A car pulls out in front of you coming out of the supermarket... you hit it and get a broken leg. Not fatal.

You are on your bike fanging it over a nice bit of road... you run wide on a corner and go through a farmer's fence at 140. More likely to be fatal.

[davereid]

Just thought I'd quote it in case anyone missed it.


only 75% huh ?

That's WAY BETTER than car drivers. They were responsible for 99% of fatal accidents that car drivers died in.

You are the victim of a simple statistical lie called switching the denominator.

ie..

There are 100 vehicles on the road.

50% are red and 50% are blue. They have an exactly equal chance of crashing into each other.

We will have 3 types of crashes. And, we know they all have an equal chance of occuring.
They are

Red Car hits Red Car
Blue Car hits Blue Car
Red Car hits Blue Car

We have just shown the RED car to be a factor in 66% of crashes.

[dipshit]

That's WAY BETTER than car drivers. They were responsible for 99% of fatal accidents that car drivers died in.

So either a car driver ran off the road on its own or had a fatal crash with another car. Yes, all of which would be a car driver's fault.

[Katman]

You are the victim of a simple statistical lie called switching the denominator.


I'd love to hear how you explain away the fact that motorcycles make up 2% of the road going fleet but 10% of road accident figures.

[mattian]

The AA suck. I went there to enquire about insurance for my bike and they said no, because I have to have a "Car" insured with them as well. Thought that was a bit fucked.

[Ronin]

We have just shown the RED car to be a factor in 66% of crashes.

Thats because red ones go faster. Speed kills.

[davereid]

I'd love to hear how you explain away the fact that motorcycles make up 2% of the road going fleet but 10% of road accident figures.

We simply don't know if motorcyclists crash more than car drivers, as we don't record crash rates.

We only record injury rates.

Motorcycles don't have air-bags, seatbelts, roll cages, neck restraints, or wheels at each corner to stop them tipping over.

So, all we can say with certainty is that when a motorcycle crashes, the rider has a higher chance of being injured.

Any suggestion that we are bad riders because we represent 10% of injured drivers when we are only 2% of all drivers, is completely invalid.

[Katman]

We have just shown the RED car to be a factor in 66% of crashes.

'To be a factor in' does not equate to apportioning fault.

[davereid]

'To be a factor in' does not equate to apportioning fault.

I tried to keep it simple to teach the principle of changing the denominator. There weren't really any red cars. I just made them up.

It was related to the quote that 75% of motorcycle deaths are the the fault of the biker. As I pointed out, 99% of car driver deaths are caused by drivers.

The TRICK is to define the question at the beginning by looking at the entire population.. then to switch to a subset of the general population when presenting your results.

EDIT.. you will see the "a factor in" regularly used with things like alcohol, speeding, vehicle defects etc...

You also don't need to explicitly define the denominator, people will cheerfully do it (incorrectly) themselves.

For example, when it was quoted that 75% of motorcycle deaths are the fault of the rider, most people felt uncomfortable about that, as they expected the figure to be about 50%.

Once the real denominator was introduced it was clear that it was just a deliberately misleading statistic.

[bogan]

I tried to keep it simple to teach the principle of changing the denominator. There weren't really any red cars. I just made them up.

It was related to the quote that 75% of motorcycle deaths are the the fault of the biker. As I pointed out, 99% of car driver deaths are caused by drivers.

The TRICK is to define the question at the beginning by looking at the entire population.. then to switch to a subset of the general population when presenting your results.

you may be misinterpreting it, as I read it the quote refers to the person in control of the vehicle (the biker) the 99% you are giving refers to anyone in a car (drivers) which is pretty meaningless other than to show how stats can be manipulated.

[davereid]

you may be misinterpreting it, as I read it the quote refers to the person in control of the vehicle (the biker) the 99% you are giving refers to anyone in a car (drivers) which is pretty meaningless other than to show how stats can be manipulated.

Its just an example of how as KM has quite rightly pointed out, TPTB are telling lies about us.

My point was simply to show how the bastards had done it so no one will fall for it again !

[freedom-wedge]

only 75% huh ?

That's WAY BETTER than car drivers. They were responsible for 99% of fatal accidents that car drivers died in.

You are the victim of a simple statistical lie called switching the denominator.

ie..

There are 100 vehicles on the road.

50% are red and 50% are blue. They have an exactly equal chance of crashing into each other.

We will have 3 types of crashes. And, we know they all have an equal chance of occuring.
They are

Red Car hits Red Car
Blue Car hits Blue Car
Red Car hits Blue Car

We have just shown the RED car to be a factor in 66% of crashes.

I was waiting to come up on a post that spelled it out clearly, You dont think the massive amount of government money that comes to the AA by way of lucrative contracts encourages them to discredit who ever the contactor desires they axe and we are it, once they turn the bikers against the AA who amongst us will help them when its the car drivers turn to be axed or should I say taxed, we all know that red cars go faster David so the drivers of them must be at fault.

[Pixie]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter! :shifty:

Relentlessly anti motorcycle! :yes:

He's a government construct - doesn't really exist.Created to advance the Govt.'s anti motorcycle agenda.

I mean..... Mike No one?
Who'll fall for that pseudonym?

[Pixie]

BRONZ And Prof Lamb are the ones trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. (no pun intended)

Prof Lamb looked at Auckland and Christchurch figures only. That will create a sampling bias of more multi vehicle accidents.

The AA figures on the fatals are indeed a reality. The MOT put fatal motorcycle accidents at about 75% as rider at fault http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet.pdf (bottom of page 4)

This does quite often come as a surprise to those who keep listening to BRONZ's bullshit.

Nice to know you have faith in the people who determine the causes of accidents.(the police)

Vehicle was moving = speed was a factor in the accident.
Motorbike crashed due to lax road maintenance = Biker's fault for riding at all.

[riffer]

We will have 3 types of crashes. And, we know they all have an equal chance of occuring.
They are

Red Car hits Red Car
Blue Car hits Blue Car
Red Car hits Blue Car

We have just shown the RED car to be a factor in 66% of crashes.

How the fuck do you get that? Apply a % rating to the incidence of colour of car.

There are six different potential contributors to an accident.

Red Car, Red Car, Blue Car, Blue Car, Red Car, Blue Car

Each has a % rating of 16.75%.

There are three contributors for Red Car = 16.75 x 3 = 50%
There are three contributors for Blue Car = 16.75% x 3 = 50%

So I've disproved your argument even before I introduce the obvious fact that you neglected the fourth, fifth and sixth type of crashes:

4. Blue Car hits Red Car
5. Red Car crashes by itself
6. Blue Car crashes by itself.

Dipshit and Katman's delivery is diabolically insensitive - shit I'm Aspergers and even I can tell that - but their logic is sound.

Believe it or not though there are many within BRONZ who actually would like to change many bikers opinions about riding and I'm one of them. I may not be an angel but I do realise that the public DO have a bad opinion of us, and to a certain extent they're right. I'm guilty of helping them to have that opinion.

Some of us in BRONZ do want to make a difference - and I think this message has to a certain extent been lost within the anger about the ACC levy increases.

[riffer]

Motorbike crashed due to lax road maintenance = Biker's fault for riding at all.

Bollocks. Accept some responsibility for your lack of ability to read the road conditions. When I was a teenager the roads were way worse and we learned to ride to the conditions.

Again, I despair at the "It's my right to have everything given to me on a plate" and "It's not my fault if I fuck up" mentality.

[Ocean1]

When I was a teenager the roads were way worse and we learned to ride to the conditions.

Yeah, but because the surfaces were a serious variable you learned not to trust your grip eh?

Reckon the first stage in a graduated licence system should be 100 hrs on a 125 dirt bike, in a greasy padock.


Again, I despair at the "It's my right to have everything given to me on a plate" and "It's not my fault if I fuck up" mentality.

Different rant, mate. They're responsible whether they believe so or not, ignore the bleating.

[davereid]

How the fuck do you get that? Apply a % rating to the incidence of colour of car. There are six different potential contributors to an accident. Red Car, Red Car, Blue Car, Blue Car, Red Car, Blue Car Each has a % rating of 16.75%. There are three Contributors for Red Car = 16.75 x 3 = 50% There are three contributors for Blue Car = 16.75% x 3 = 50% So I've disproved your argument even before I introduce the obvious fact that you neglected the fourth, fifth and sixth type of crashes: 4. Blue Car hits Red Car
5. Red Car crashes by itself 6. Blue Car crashes by itself. Dipshit and Katman's delivery is diabolically insensitive - shit I'm Aspergers and even I can tell that - but their logic is sound.

Believe it or not though there are many within BRONZ who actually would like to change many bikers opinions about riding and I'm one of them. I may not be an angel but I do realise that the public DO have a bad opinion of us, and to a certain extent they're right. I'm guilty of helping them to have that opinion. Some of us in BRONZ do want to make a difference - and I think this message has to a certain extent been lost within the anger about the ACC levy increases.

I thinks its a Q.E.D.

I was demonstrating how statistics could be used to create a viewpoint that appeared sound, but was not.

Switching the denominator is a very common technique. Watch it used in the next year or so to "prove" we need a lower drink drive limit.

You have done it yourself in your reply, identifying 6 potential contributors to a crash.

I could only find one, the driver.

[riffer]

I thinks its a Q.E.D.

I was demonstrating how statistics could be used to create a viewpoint that appeared sound, but was not.

Switching the denominator is a very common technique. Watch it used in the next year or so to "prove" we need a lower drink drive limit.

You have done it yourself in your reply, identifying 6 potential contributors to a crash.

I could only find one, the driver.

LOL. OMG so very true... :yes:

[Rogue Rider]

Its of no suprise that pretty much statistics can be manipulated to say anything...... Especially by adding words like approximately, about, and most.........
These reporters and recorders are simply mungerers of lies and deceit.

It's all poohs I tell you, Pooh's.
:scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter::scooter::scoo ter::scooter:

[bogan]

Reckon the first stage in a graduated licence system should be 100 hrs on a 125 dirt bike, in a greasy padock..

check! learnt on a cb125, then a cr125, then a rm125, then road bikes. Though I still managed to drop it during a front wheel lock up, no training is completely idiot-proof! But after off-road stuff i must have got so good at falling off that I didn't fuck myself up any.

[riffer]

Reckon the first stage in a graduated licence system should be 100 hrs on a 125 dirt bike, in a greasy padock.

Which is pretty much how those of us who grew up in the Hutt in the 70s and 80s did it too mate. I did all my learning on the Hutt Riverbank between Stokes Valley and Pomare, and in the tracks around Stokes Valley.

After a while you get sick and bloody tired of having to fix your traillie and end up not crashing.

[davebullet]

Where i agree with what you are trying to say i can't see how someone pulling out in front of me is my fault. It is done to me all the time in my car so if they can't see me or judge my speed while i am in a car how the fuck could they do it while I am on my bike.

What you are getting at is defencive driving, thats what stops me from hitting these tossers.
Someone fails to give way, their fault end of story.

Sure - it isn't your fault if:
you are travelling at less than 30kph
its is daylight
no sunstrike
road surface ok
you are fully alert
you are as visible as possible (lane position / hi-vis gear / lights on etc...).
you know how to emergency stop and apply your brakes to just before the point of tucking the front
you wear the best protective gear
your bike and tyres are wof compliant

I just think someone ticking all the above boxes in a u-turn incident is highly,highly unlikely. Either I am a bit naive and haven't had anyone do this to me, or I have pre-empted the situatoin... usually by slowing right down or avoiding known streets / times of day where there is a high fuck up rate.

If you are are not riding to protect your life - that in itself is a failure / fault.

The law doesn't keep me safe. The law is an arse. I do that job (the keeping safe bit, not being an arse).

[davebullet]

An example...

I was splitting down Ngauranga gorge about a year ago.

I was in the right lane (just to the left of the right lane traffic). I was going about 60kph, cars about 30kph a gap in traffic to the left. A Subaru driver suddenly changed lane to take the gap (no indicating). I was next to her. HEr wing mirror caught my right handlebar, I moved over to the left with her. God knows how I stayed upright, luckily my bar didn't "lock" into the wing mirror / door.

She was totally at fault - right? Well
I was speeding
I didn't notice the gap
I wasn't confident enough to swerve / evasive maneouvres
I was oblivious to Subaru legacy / impreza drivers
I probably wasn't concentrating as hard as I should have been

I now am very weary of gaps. I use a car as a shadow / buffer until the gap is filled. I've become much better at swerving to avoid obstacles in the road or evasive changes. I haven't been caught in a similar situatoin but have "read" it before it happened numerous times since.

I took the responsibility / blame. I'm now better off for it.

[dipshit]

I was demonstrating how statistics could be used to create a viewpoint that appeared sound, but was not.

You should become a spokesman for BRONZ. Your ability to bury your head in the sand and talk shit is right up there with the rest of those idiots.

They need someone good at talking shit to deal with all this bad press...



"There were about 43 motorcyclist deaths, of which motorcyclists themselves were responsible for 35. Car drivers were responsible for four. Young men and men in their 40s and 50s predominated."

http://www.aa.co.nz/aadirections/driver/Pages/Who-is-Dying-on-Our-Roads.aspx


"Police say that, unusually, all 11 of the fatalities since last September were the fault of the motorcyclist. In the five cases where other vehicles were involved, the drivers of those vehicles were not at fault."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3831632/Blitz-on-bikers-sparks-tension


"Transport Minister Steven Joyce says the number of motorbike riders dying is a real worry because it is the one casualty toll that has continued to grow."

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/07/21/12481056ac4c

[Ocean1]

Which is pretty much how those of us who grew up in the Hutt in the 70s and 80s did it too mate.

You grew up? It was optional y'know.

Especially in the valley.



After a while you get sick and bloody tired of having to fix your traillie and end up not crashing.

And the body, pain is the best teacher. And I bounced WAY better then...

[jeffs]

Bikes crash, cars crash, airplanes crash, that is why AA insurance exists.

What defines the death rate is the level of protection.

If you hit an immovable object at 100kmh it makes no difference what that object is made of.

In a car you may survive, on a bike you are less likely too.

2% of the population and 10% of the deaths is not always about bad driving, its about hard stopping, and being made up of nothing more that skin and bone.

Reducing the number of crashes may get the death rate down, but not all, if the remaining crashes are at 100kmh.

I ride a bike to feel alive, I don't have to ride it badly or madly to feel alive, but if I go to work with the flow of motorway traffic and crash, no matter who is a fault, I have a lower survivability level than a car.

I will die one day, I don't want it to be riding a bike, but I also don't want it to be of old age in bed.

For gods sake stop the doom and gloom. :)

A death costs ACC less money than a long term disability, don't get death rates and ACC costs mixed up.

[Berries]

OK, but I doubt the stats will be significantly different. I don't have access to the latest LTSA stats and have asked Charley to look them up, but he's busy as buggeree at the moment so I'm not holding my breath. If I get a chance this afternoon I'll pop in to the local office and see what I cam get.
Give me till lunchtime and I will post the 2009 fatal stats myself.

[BoristheBiter]

Sure - it isn't your fault if:
you are travelling at less than 30kph
its is daylight
no sunstrike
road surface ok
you are fully alert
you are as visible as possible (lane position / hi-vis gear / lights on etc...).
you know how to emergency stop and apply your brakes to just before the point of tucking the front
you wear the best protective gear
your bike and tyres are wof compliant

I just think someone ticking all the above boxes in a u-turn incident is highly,highly unlikely. Either I am a bit naive and haven't had anyone do this to me, or I have pre-empted the situatoin... usually by slowing right down or avoiding known streets / times of day where there is a high fuck up rate.

If you are are not riding to protect your life - that in itself is a failure / fault.

The law doesn't keep me safe. The law is an arse. I do that job (the keeping safe bit, not being an arse).

What a pile of crap. if i am traveling along a road and someone fails to give way and pulls out in front of me and i hit them it their fault end of story.
Saying i am at someways resposable is just wrong, saying could i have avoided said crash is a completely different argument.
Like i said we are talking about fault not defensive driving.

[Pixie]

Bollocks. Accept some responsibility for your lack of ability to read the road conditions. When I was a teenager the roads were way worse and we learned to ride to the conditions.

Again, I despair at the "It's my right to have everything given to me on a plate" and "It's not my fault if I fuck up" mentality.

Welcome to Riffer's NZ:the land where the legal concept of negligence does not exist,but you can't sue for satisfaction either.

Local and national governments would love us all to be like you.

I had a tale of a biker's wife who crashed,after encountering car parts scattered though Hunua gorge,recounted to me the other day.
I guess in Riffer's NZ it's 90% her fault she crashed,even though she was a learner?

[shrub]

Give me till lunchtime and I will post the 2009 fatal stats myself.

Cheers, that would be great.

[BoristheBiter]

An example...

I was splitting down Ngauranga gorge about a year ago.

I was in the right lane (just to the left of the right lane traffic). I was going about 60kph, cars about 30kph a gap in traffic to the left. A Subaru driver suddenly changed lane to take the gap (no indicating). I was next to her. HEr wing mirror caught my right handlebar, I moved over to the left with her. God knows how I stayed upright, luckily my bar didn't "lock" into the wing mirror / door.

She was totally at fault - right? Well
I was speeding
I didn't notice the gap
I wasn't confident enough to swerve / evasive maneouvres
I was oblivious to Subaru legacy / impreza drivers
I probably wasn't concentrating as hard as I should have been

I now am very weary of gaps. I use a car as a shadow / buffer until the gap is filled. I've become much better at swerving to avoid obstacles in the road or evasive changes. I haven't been caught in a similar situatoin but have "read" it before it happened numerous times since.

I took the responsibility / blame. I'm now better off for it.

If you want to go down of the lines of areas that need addressing instead of fault then by that stats in the document posted at the begininning of ths thread we should stop anyone driving in the rain, take out all corners and not have anyone aged between 19 and 25 driving.

[Banditbandit]

If your answer is " I'm a speed god and immortal" Then you will never change, no matter what anyone does or says and you will always be immortal right up to the time you die of a bike crash or old age.



I don't believe I'm a Speed God (plenty on the road are faster than me ...) and I don't believe I'm immortal .... yes I ride pretty fast ... will I stop? NO. I thought I would slow down when I got older - I got way past 50 and I've just got faster ...

If I crash and burn - I don't give a fuck ... I never expected to live to be this old ... every day is a bonus ...

I know the risks - who gives a shit ?

[Katman]

I don't believe I'm a Speed God (plenty on the road are faster than me ...) and I don't believe I'm immortal .... yes I ride pretty fast ... will I stop? NO. I thought I would slow down when I got older - I got way past 50 and I've just got faster ...

If I crash and burn - I don't give a fuck ... I never expected to live to be this old ... every day is a bonus ...

I know the risks - who gives a shit ?

And clearly you don't give a shit whether you drag motorcycling down with you.

Some of us have more respect for it.

[MSTRS]

Bikes crash, cars crash, airplanes crash, that is why AA insurance exists.

What defines the death rate is the level of protection.

If you hit an immovable object at 100kmh it makes no difference what that object is made of.

In a car you may survive, on a bike you are less likely too.

2% of the population and 10% of the deaths is not always about bad driving, its about hard stopping, and being made up of nothing more that skin and bone.

Reducing the number of crashes may get the death rate down, but not all, if the remaining crashes are at 100kmh.



And this is it, in a nutshell.

Motorcycle crash = high chance of injury
Car crash = low chance of injury

Yet despite the low chance of injury (and even lower chance of death) in a car crash, 125% of car drivers were at fault in a fatal (100% driver deaths, 25% motorcyclist deaths). And they say that bikers are bad...

Aren't stats wonderful?

[shrub]

The issue I wanted to raise was that the AA felt they could communicate a message that I am convinced is erroneous: namely that the overwhelming majority of motorcycle fatalities aren solely the fault of the rider, and that only 9% were the fault of car drivers.

What is wrong with this is it tells the world that it's our own silly fault and if we want to stop dying we should stop riding. It means there is no need for driver education or improving roads for motorcycle safety because they're an insignificant part of the problem.

Yes, we are ultimately responsible for our own safety and we need to ride intelligently and defensively, but it's a two way street and we need the authorities to consider motorcyclists when they build and repair roads, and car drivers need to change the way they drive. If us motorcyclists wake up and grow up, and the authorities take our safety seriously; then motorcycle crash and fatality numbers would plummet, but as long as idiotic comments like the one I quoted are the stated opinion of an influential organisation like the AA, we're on our own.

[dipshit]

Yet despite the low chance of injury (and even lower chance of death) in a car crash, 125% of car drivers were at fault in a fatal (100% driver deaths, 25% motorcyclist deaths). And they say that bikers are bad...

Aren't stats wonderful?

It also shows your average motorcyclist is as thick as pig shit when it comes to understanding statistics. Jesus Christ. :blink:

[Katman]

The issue I wanted to raise was that the AA felt they could communicate a message that I am convinced is erroneous: namely that the overwhelming majority of motorcycle fatalities aren solely the fault of the rider, and that only 9% were the fault of car drivers.

What is wrong with this is it tells the world that it's our own silly fault and if we want to stop dying we should stop riding. It means there is no need for driver education or improving roads for motorcycle safety because they're an insignificant part of the problem.

Yes, we are ultimately responsible for our own safety and we need to ride intelligently and defensively, but it's a two way street and we need the authorities to consider motorcyclists when they build and repair roads, and car drivers need to change the way they drive. If us motorcyclists wake up and grow up, and the authorities take our safety seriously; then motorcycle crash and fatality numbers would plummet, but as long as idiotic comments like the one I quoted are the stated opinion of an influential organisation like the AA, we're on our own.



I've just read the article and apart from not giving the exact number of motorcyclist fatalities I can't see anything obviously incorrect with what the article is saying.

I think it high time that hard hitting facts were made plainly obvious to us. Maybe that way we'll start pulling our heads out of the sand.

[MSTRS]

It also shows your average motorcyclist is as thick as pig shit when it comes to understanding statistics. Jesus Christ. :blink:

And just how is that different from claiming 75% of rider deaths are rider fault?
It's a sweeping statement that ignores many other factors. And yet, maybe still true. Just like my tongue-in-cheek post.

[dipshit]

The issue I wanted to raise was that the AA felt they could communicate a message that I am convinced is erroneous: namely that the overwhelming majority of motorcycle fatalities aren solely the fault of the rider, and that only 9% were the fault of car drivers.

Which just happens to be closer to the truth though.




What is wrong with this is it tells the world that it's our own silly fault and if we want to stop dying we should stop riding. It means there is no need for driver education or improving roads for motorcycle safety because they're an insignificant part of the problem.

We need to look at our own riding habits and attitudes. Thinking our shit doesn't stink and car drivers need better education isn't going to address the vast majority of motorcycle fatalities.

[MSTRS]

I think it high time that hard hitting facts were made plainly obvious to us. Maybe that way we'll start pulling our heads out of the sand.

I agree. BUT when the 'hard-hitting facts' isolate one type of vehicle/crash, without including the other, equally bad, vehicle/crash types, it is hard to take them seriously.
Besides, as motorcyclists, we know that single bike crashes 'may' be the rider's responsibility, but not necessarily fault. there is a difference, and probably only a biker can understand that. But to the car-driving reader, there is no such distinction = bikers are bad.

[shrub]

Which just happens to be closer to the truth though. We need to look at our own riding habits and attitudes. Thinking our shit doesn't stink and car drivers need better education isn't going to address the vast majority of motorcycle fatalities.

I very much doubt it's anywhere near the truth if I look at the MOT stats for accidents that you found (thank you), 39% of crashes were multi-vehicle and no rider fault, 3% were single vehicle no rider fault. In other words 42% of crashes were NOT the rider's fault. The AA claim that 82% of fatalities were the rider's fault, and I find that very hard to believe.

I agree, we need to change the way we ride, but if the people building and maintaining the roads do nothing about the factors that make roads specifically dangerous to bikes, AND if there is absolutely no attention given to the fact that car drivers need to change the way they drive, we're fighting an uphill battle. If we use the MOT stats, then we are responsible for 58% of crashes, so the best we can possibly do is cut the crash rate by 58%.

I reiterate: we do need to accept responsibility for our own safety, but we're riding on roads other people design and build, and we're sharing those roads with other road users. Their role in motorcycle crash rates cannot be ignored.

[Banditbandit]

Some of us have more respect for it.

Oh Oh Oh .. early choked on my coffee reading that one ... Respect for it ???? Jeez mate, respect for a bunch of disreputable leather-clad hoons? You sound like the AMA ... "the trouble is caused by 1% .."

Katman, you're just way too predictable ...

[Banditbandit]

It also shows your average motorcyclist is as thick as pig shit when it comes to understanding statistics. Jesus Christ. :blink:

Yeah mate ... :laugh: the only figures I care about are the ones on the left clock (rpm) and the ones on the right clock (speed) and I don;t often give a FF about the ones on the right ... :p

[jeffs]

But to the car-driving reader, there is no such distinction = bikers are bad.

Just splitting hairs here :)

Bikers are not all bad. We all know that because we are bikers :)

It's just that we die more often from crashes.

If you fall from a building on to a stunt crash mat, stunt men generally don't die.

But if you fall from a building onto concrete they would.

So to reduce death rates you use a Crash mat.

That is one of the reasons for Airbags in cars.

My bike does not have a Airbag.

One of the main reasons car death rates have reduced is the introduction of better safety features, not better driving.

Apart from ABS brakes what advance has there been in bike safety features to assist with
survivability ?

The emphasis has been totally on " the rider died because he is at fault"

In a car crash it would have been " He died because his car did not have the modern safety features, and if he was driving a Ncap 5 car he would have probably survived"


My comments are about the number of deaths not the number of crashes. There is a difference.

The only way to reduce the number of crashes is to alter your riding styles as Katman says.

[jeffs]

If I crash and burn - I don't give a fuck ... I never expected to live to be this old ... every day is a bonus ...

I know the risks - who gives a shit ?

I'm with you, I know the risks and I still ride, I just would have put it differently :)

[MSTRS]

One of the main reasons car death rates have reduced is the introduction of better safety features, not better driving.



What we really need to know is what is the crash rate (forget injury or death for the moment) per 10,000 vehicles itemised by all types of vehicle, over a long period. Only then do we have a stat that can be correlated with the injury/death rates over the same period.
Then what you say above could be shown to have real meaning.
Bikers are not crashing more than in years past. It is probable that we are crashing less. This is per bike on the road. But those crashes that do happen still tend to hurt/maim/kill us, just as was the case 100 years ago.

[davereid]

In a car crash it would have been " He died because his car did not have the modern safety features, and if he was driving a Ncap 5 car he would have probably survived"


Great Post Jeff.

AA are mentioning the issue of "blame" because they feel some level of sympathy from amongst their own membership to bikers, and the targeted ACC system.

This is just part of a quiet campaign of cherry picked or simply misleading information, to reduce public sympathy for biker before the next round of ACC increases.

KM and DS are right, lots of bikers do dumb stuff. Many of them probably do equally dumb shit in their cars.

We are allowing TPTB to divide us into two groups, the motorcyclist and the motorist. That is what we have to stop.

Its a bit like helmet laws.

When proposed for NZ some said great idea. Some opposed it.

But those who opposed it did so arguing against the statistics, and discussing how those with scalp conditions, migraines etc would cope.

In the USA, some said great idea. Some opposed it.

But those who opposed it said - hey its my life. Get out of my face, and go and be someone else's Nanny.

The Result ?

Americans are still fighting helmet laws, and are still ridng, exactly as they were in 1970. We face punitive taxes, restrictive licensing systems designed to ensure young people don't ride, and in the near future ATGATT laws, ABS laws and the eventual demise of biking.

[dipshit]

I very much doubt it's anywhere near the truth if I look at the MOT stats for accidents that you found (thank you), 39% of crashes were multi-vehicle and no rider fault, 3% were single vehicle no rider fault. In other words 42% of crashes were NOT the rider's fault. The AA claim that 82% of fatalities were the rider's fault, and I find that very hard to believe.

Do you understand the difference between all crashes and just the fatal ones...???

The AA brought up the fact that the majority of *fatal* motorcycle accidents were the fault of the rider. Not other road users like spokesman for motorcyclists keep telling everybody.

This MOT graph has remained pretty constant over the last few years...

[MSTRS]

Too late to fight on those grounds. Nanny State is well entrenched here, and isn't listening.

[Katman]

I very much doubt it's anywhere near the truth if I look at the MOT stats for accidents that you found (thank you), 39% of crashes were multi-vehicle and no rider fault, 3% were single vehicle no rider fault. In other words 42% of crashes were NOT the rider's fault. The AA claim that 82% of fatalities were the rider's fault, and I find that very hard to believe.


Read page 4. http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycles_09.pdf

From the Ministry of Transports own 2008 factsheet it states - 'The motorcycle rider had primary responsiblity for nearly three-quarters of all fatal motorcycle accidents'.

Until Berries gets back to us with the 2009 figures then we will have to assume that they may well be quite similar to the 2008 figures. Hell, they might even work out to 81%.

Edit: Way too slow. Dipshit beat me to it.

[Berries]

From the MOT database, the same one used by NZTA and the AA.

49 fatal crashes in 2009 involving motorbikes and mopeds.

19 crashes involved the bike only
29 involved another vehicle
1 involved a cyclist

In all but six crashes the only fatality in the crash was the rider. Those other six were –

Two riders in the same crash
Rider and pillion
Pillion only
A car passenger
A cyclist
A pedestrian

So in the 49 crashes 51 people died, 46 of them riders.

Fault is a hard one to comment on without looking at each individual crash report, even then, a serious crash unit report or inquest may reveal other information that is not on the TCR and may not have made it on to the database. The most simplistic analysis uses the database to look at the codes given to all parties involved and from that determines fault. Using that method gives us this -

Motorbike only, rider at fault 19
More than one party, motorbike no fault 16
More than one party, motorbike part fault 8
More than one party, motorbike prime fault 15

Those figures don’t add up. That’s because in five crashes more than one bike was involved. In the first post the AA quote that the riders were responsible for 35 of these crashes, which is close to the 34 where is was deemed prime fault and bike only. They also said that car drivers were only responsible for four, but the same analysis shows that cars were prime fault in nine crashes and then SUV’s, trucks and vans were prime fault in four others. (That doesn’t add up either because you can have two part fault vehicles in the same crash).

Fault is an emotive subject, and if you simply quote what the analysis shows I don’t believe you will be correct. There are often underlying issues that may have contributed to the crash that are not coded. That’s my personal opinion based on 15 years of crash investigation anyway.

[jeffs]

I think people are reading too much into the AA web page.

If I was not a biker I would read it as " People are concerned about bikers dieing"

2 years ago I lost my nephew in a bike crash.

It was his fault, no one else was to blame.

Given the circumstances he was just as likely to have crashed in a car.

AND I AM 100% CERTAIN IF HE HAD BEEN DRIVING A CAR HE WOULD HAVE SURVIVED.

All this tells me is bikes and cars crash, but if I ride a bike my chances of the same crash being a fatal are higher.

It does not tell me that he crashed because he was riding a bike.

[shrub]

Do you understand the difference between all crashes and just the fatal ones...???

The AA brought up the fact that the majority of *fatal* motorcycle accidents where the fault of the rider. Not other road users like spokesman for motorcyclists keep telling everybody.

This MOT graph has remained pretty constant over the last few years...


How many times do I have to say it? While we have the majority of influence over our safety, other road users and the people who build and maintain our roads have a significant part to play. Absolving them of all responsibility is as ridiculous as blaming them for everything, yet the powers that be are doing just that.

[Katman]

How many times do I have to say it? While we have the majority of influence over our safety, other road users and the people who build and maintain our roads have a significant part to play. Absolving them of all responsibility is as ridiculous as blaming them for everything, yet the powers that be are doing just that.

Good luck with that focus on shifting the blame.

Motorcyclists have been doing it since forever and look where it's got us.

[MSTRS]

It does not tell me that he crashed because he was riding a bike.

Sorry about your nephew.
But when this whole thing kicked off last year, we were told, and I quote, "Motorcyclists are 18x more likely to crash than car drivers". I was never convinced that this was the case, unless you add in the words 'to be hurt/killed'. I would think that car drivers WILL believe that figure.
But at the end of the day, all motorists have crashes, the major portion will be single vehicle crashes (so driver/rider fault*) and riders will feature much higher in the injury/death stats. So we need to crash less than we are.

*at least bears responsibility

[shrub]

From the MOT database, the same one used by NZTA and the AA.

49 fatal crashes in 2009 involving motorbikes and mopeds.

19 crashes involved the bike only
29 involved another vehicle
1 involved a cyclist

In all but six crashes the only fatality in the crash was the rider. Those other six were –

Two riders in the same crash
Rider and pillion
Pillion only
A car passenger
A cyclist
A pedestrian

So in the 49 crashes 51 people died, 46 of them riders.

Fault is a hard one to comment on without looking at each individual crash report, even then, a serious crash unit report or inquest may reveal other information that is not on the TCR and may not have made it on to the database. The most simplistic analysis uses the database to look at the codes given to all parties involved and from that determines fault. Using that method gives us this -

Motorbike only, rider at fault 19
More than one party, motorbike no fault 16
More than one party, motorbike part fault 8
More than one party, motorbike prime fault 15

Those figures don’t add up. That’s because in five crashes more than one bike was involved. In the first post the AA quote that the riders were responsible for 35 of these crashes, which is close to the 34 where is was deemed prime fault and bike only. They also said that car drivers were only responsible for four, but the same analysis shows that cars were prime fault in nine crashes and then SUV’s, trucks and vans were prime fault in four others. (That doesn’t add up either because you can have two part fault vehicles in the same crash).

Fault is an emotive subject, and if you simply quote what the analysis shows I don’t believe you will be correct. There are often underlying issues that may have contributed to the crash that are not coded. That’s my personal opinion based on 15 years of crash investigation anyway.

Thanks. So the AA were, at best, disingenuous as "more than one party, motorbike no fault 15" is not "4". And I agree, attributing blame is a moving target and even deciding whether the crash involved another vehicle is a challenge. Last year I watched a guy die on the side of the road. He binned his bike and after he had come off hit my son's bike from behind - he was well and truly off when they hit, yet that has been recorded as a muliple vehicle crash.

[BoristheBiter]

Sorry about your nephew.
But when this whole thing kicked off last year, we were told, and I quote, "Motorcyclists are 18x more likely to crash than car drivers". I was never convinced that this was the case, unless you add in the words 'to be hurt/killed'. I would think that car drivers WILL believe that figure.
But at the end of the day, all motorists have crashes, the major portion will be single vehicle crashes (so driver/rider fault*) and riders will feature much higher in the injury/death stats. So we need to crash less than we are.

*at least bears responsibility

And most of the minor car v car crashes go unreported.

[jeffs]

all motorists have crashes

Yes :) Well to be exact "potentially could crash"

I am only responding to this thread because it was not about crashes, it is about deaths.

I am over the ACC saga and am just getting on with my life.

I choose to ride a powerful, potentially dangerous, low safety featured form of transport to commute to work. I do so because it gives me greater convenience and flexibility than any other form of transport given my working practices.

If I could traverse Auckland as easily in a car I would drive a car.

I have weighed up the odds, risks, lifestyle choices and practicalities.

The form of transport I have chosen just happens to be called motorbike.

:)

[bogan]

Thanks. So the AA were, at best, disingenuous as "more than one party, motorbike no fault 15" is not "4".

yup, now is the time to complain then, though the first thing they will ask for is a reference to the data berries provided.

[Berries]

yup, now is the time to complain then, though the first thing they will ask for is a reference to the data berries provided.

It's a simple CAS output with a bit of explanation that they can request for free from either the MOT or NZTA. Or they can ask me to provide it but I'll be charging them.

[mashman]

Fault is an emotive subject, and if you simply quote what the analysis shows I don’t believe you will be correct. There are often underlying issues that may have contributed to the crash that are not coded. That’s my personal opinion based on 15 years of crash investigation anyway.

yet the govt, ACC, AA and various other institutes can use these figures to justify their levy/price increases... and as a byproduct, ignore the causes of crashes because the detail isn't known WTF!!!! sounds like a HUGE double standard to me...

What's the point in trying to stay safe on the road (other than to stay alive :)), when the causes of incidents are not being given the analysis they require? Surely these institutes know this and if that's the case they're not giving a shit (i'll stop callin ya Shirley)...

[Berries]

What's the point in trying to stay safe on the road (other than to stay alive :)), when the causes of incidents are not being given the analysis they require? Surely these institutes know this and if that's the case they're not giving a shit (i'll stop callin ya Shirley)...
Staying alive is all that is important isn't it ? Sod all the numbers that idiots like me throw around.

I’m looking at it from a different perspective though. Take an example given somewhere else in this thread. You are tootling along in the fast lane when a car pulls in to your lane without checking or indicating and knocks you off. Based on the crash codes given this is most likely to show up as no fault to the bike and prime fault to the car driver. It is my opinion that any rider that sits in a blindspot and gets taken out this way should share some of the blame, if not the fault. We can blame car drivers all we want for being idiots and not looking over their shoulder etc etc, but it is within our power, in many many cases, to avoid the crash happening. So I think that, certainly in multi vehicle crashes, riders are actually more at fault than the stats show. The opposite is true in single vehicle crashes where I think that too often the rider receives the sole blame and other contributing factors are overlooked.

[mashman]

Staying alive is all that is important isn't it ? Sod all the numbers that idiots like me throw around.

I’m looking at it from a different perspective though. Take an example given somewhere else in this thread. You are tootling along in the fast lane when a car pulls in to your lane without checking or indicating and knocks you off. Based on the crash codes given this is most likely to show up as no fault to the bike and prime fault to the car driver. It is my opinion that any rider that sits in a blindspot and gets taken out this way should share some of the blame, if not the fault. We can blame car drivers all we want for being idiots and not looking over their shoulder etc etc, but it is within our power, in many many cases, to avoid the crash happening. So I think that, certainly in multi vehicle crashes, riders are actually more at fault than the stats show. The opposite is true in single vehicle crashes where I think that too often the rider receives the sole blame and other contributing factors are overlooked.

I understand what you're talking about and understand that the information isn't there ON THE SYSTEM. Statistics aren't good enough, imho, when it comes to road safety, because they're relying on statistics to tell them why road users crash. I think we all know. To that end. Our time, our effort and our money is being wasted with policies and procedures developed on the basis of what the computer said. The computer tells them where to focus... You say yourself that to get a more accurate view of what the "real" stats are, you would have to look at the files, reclassify, recompile etc... if that isn't being done, and it doesn't look like it is, then it's likely that we're focussing our resources in the wrong place. It's funny, but until someone does the leg work we'll never really KNOW what the real causes are... we will only ever suspect... but it costs too much money to do that :) and the computer doesn't need to get paid...

[shrub]

I think we need to look beyond using blame because nobody sets out to have or cause a crash, and recognise that there is no black or white in most cases. I think motorcyclists, other road users, the people who set and police the laws and the people who design and maintain our roads need to recognise that road safety is a universal problem, and within all of our ability to solve.

One of my problems with the AA article was that it gave the impression (to me at least) that motorcyclists were responsible for the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities, when that is not the case.

As an aside, what if a a loud and powerful bike blasted past half asleep car driver and startled said driver causing them to run off the road - who would be at fault? And Berries example of the car and bike in blind spot is a good case of how we have to use different skills and attitudes to stay alive.

[davereid]

But when this whole thing kicked off last year, we were told, and I quote, "Motorcyclists are 18x more likely to crash than car drivers".

That particular statistic can be discounted, as no one collects crash data, only injury data.

But the "More Likely" tag is another flag of a statistical "fiddle".

ie.

A single line on my lotto card gives me a 1 in 36,000,000 chance of winning.

2 lines makes me twice as likely to win.


The bank still doesn't think I have any money, even when I tell them I intend buying an entire card.

[Katman]

One of my problems with the AA article was that it gave the impression (to me at least) that motorcyclists were responsible for the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities, when that is not the case.


So you keep saying. But for every fatality you can come up with that was not the responsibility of the motorcyclist I can guarantee I could list you four that were.

[davereid]

So you keep saying. But for every fatality you can come up with that was not the responsibility of the motorcyclist I can guarantee I could list you four that were.

That is because water finds its own level.

Your friends and associates may meet your 5:1 criteria.

My friends and associates have it the other way around.

I have been motorcycling for 40 years, and have no fatalities in my peer group, and only 1 friend or associate who was responsible for his accident.

Don't discredit me and my mates, with the skills or mindset of those you associate with.

[shrub]

So you keep saying. But for every fatality you can come up with that was not the responsibility of the motorcyclist I can guarantee I could list you four that were.

I shouldn't dignify your post with a reply, but maybe, just maybe you'll actually pay attention to what I'm saying and get off your tedious little bandwagon.

I accept that a reasonable percentage of motorcycle crashes are either caused by the rider or are avoidable if the rider used the correct strategies. In simple terms that you might understand, some bikers deserve to crash because they ride dangerously and some crashes are avoidable by defensive riding, so motorcyclists are the best people to improve their safety. Do you get that? I actually agree with you.

But unlike you, I can see the bigger picture, and if we look at the LTSA crash statistics, around 40% of motorcycle crashes are caused by another road user, so the bigger picture has an ambulance and a crashed bike in it with another vehicle that caused the crash. What I keep trying to say is that we need the other people involved in causing and influencing the crashes to take responsibilty for their part. The trouble is that articles like the offending document don't help because they dump the overwhelming majority of the responsibility in the motorcyclists laps and make it quite clear that little or no fault lies anywhere else, so they have no part to play. Your message I believe.

They paint us as irresponsible, reckless and foolhardy, and before you bang on about that is how all motorcyclists are, maybe you should spend less time here and more time on the road. When I ride I find that 95% of the riders I see on the road are responsible, careful and competent 99% of the time. Everyone I know takes their safety very, very seriously from owning the best gear they can to doing rider training every chance they can and having highly maintained bikes with superb brakes and handling. And I could talk about the braking and handling technology of a 1980s bike, but I used to ride the things and I take my personal safety too seriously to trust archaic technology like that. I owned a 1981 GSX1100 briefly a few years ago but the thing had no brakes and weaved like a drunk fat chick on the dancefloor so I stuck it in the shed and sold it as soon as I could.

Now if you can't add anything more than "motorcyclists are their own worst enemies and deserve everything they get", find another thread.

[Katman]

It's ok shrub - you're just in denial.

[dipshit]

One of my problems with the AA article was that it gave the impression (to me at least) that motorcyclists were responsible for the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities, when that is not the case.

Even the breakdown of numbers Berries has tabled here makes 70% rider at fault. (not counting the 8 partial fault)

That is consistent with what the MOT has been saying. (about our fatal accidents)

[Katman]

Now if you can't add anything more than "motorcyclists are their own worst enemies and deserve everything they get", find another thread.

That's a bit rich. I've been here since post #1 - remember?



I know Katman probably believes that motorcyclists were responsible for 44 of the 43 deaths, but the good Prof Lamb's stats showed culpibility was pretty evenly divided between us and car drivers, and Prof Lamb doesn't use the word "about" in his research. Which is how come he's a professor, not some minimum wage journo working for AA.

[riffer]

I find it interesting that I've been attacked by Pixie for my opinion.

I'll try and explain it real slow for the likes of Pixie.

It doesn't make one god-damned bit of difference whether the road is good or bad or whether the roading staff was incompetent.

I'm not talking fault; I'm talking responsibility.

If we crash we get hurt easily. Like it or not the roading system is geared towards four-wheeled (and greater) vehicles which have the dual advantages of better inherent stability and greater protection in a crash.

Bearing those two factors (which override ANYTHING ELSE since they have the potential to kill us) it behooves us to take a HUGELY greater responsibility for our own safety.

I don't expect anyone else to take responsibility for my own safety. I expect that road conditions will change. I don't trust other road users. 31 years of riding will do that. My spidey-senses are getting pretty damn well honed now. Now every so often (about every 50,000 kms it would seem) I stuff up and it costs me, both in pain and money.

But no matter whose fault it was, it is ALWAYS my responsibility to ensure MY own safety.

How hard is that to understand?

[shrub]

Now every so often (about every 50,000 kms it would seem) I stuff up and it costs me, both in pain and money.

But no matter whose fault it was, it is ALWAYS my responsibility to ensure MY own safety.

How hard is that to understand?

Ouch - an off every 50,000 kms - that would put me off motorcycling.

I agree, ultimately I have the primary responsibility for my safety, but that does NOT absolve other road users and those who make and maintain our roads from their role. Saying "it's not their fault they're idiots/don't consider my safety" is half the reason we run the risks we run as riders. I don't like that the roading system is oriented towards 4 wheeled vehicles, often placing bikers at risk, and I'm not willing to sit back and say "oh well, that's just how it is".

Idiotic articles like the one in question display an attitude from above that motorcyclists are their own worst enemies, and it's an attitude that's exacerbated by attitudes like yours and Katmans. Yes, we are ultimately responsible for our own safety, but should we passively sit back and allow poorly designed and maintained roads to significantly increase the risks we face? Should we just take it on the chin and accept that driver training and skill levels in this country are appalling and place us at risk? Is it perfectly acceptable that a great many car drivers have absolutely no idea about how to drive around us, or that their behaviour can unwittingly place us in danger?

Is "sorry mate, I didn't see you" now an acceptable excuse? Is the response to that now "that's OK mate, it wasn't your fault".

I'm sorry, I don't think it is. Just like it's my responsibility to be safe in my home, I would not accept a society where to be safe in my home I had to have safety glass, burglar bars and a shotgun under my bed, so am sick of accepting roads and traffic that are not safe for me, my son on his bike or my daughter on her scooter. I'm sick of hearing about learners being skittled because they didn't have a highly developed spidey and I'm sick of hearing about bikers getting killed and injured because there was unmarked gravel in the middle of a corner or the motorist didn't realise they were so close when they pulled out. Just a few months ago a young guy was killed because a truck driver saw his light and pulled out anyway - that was not OK.

I accept that there is a tendency these days to think all that's perfectly acceptable because nobody else is responsible for our safety, but I don't. And I'm not willing to accept organisations like the AA promulgating a message that motorcyclists are the problem. I'm happy to do my bit (and not having had an off since the early 80s is my reward), but I'm not the only person on the road and it's time the other people involved in my safety were made to take a little more responsibility.

[riffer]

Good response.

I'm not suggesting at all that we make an excuse for others' poor behaviour.

My point is, at the end of the day, I'm still the one that gets hurt. So it behooves me to ensure maximum responsibility for my own safety. I get irritated by people suggesting it's everyone else's job to keep them safe.

Let's educate the public. Let's also stop kidding ourselves that we aren't also to blame.

Everybody needs to smarten up.

[Katman]

but should we passively sit back and allow poorly designed and maintained roads to significantly increase the risks we face? Should we just take it on the chin and accept that driver training and skill levels in this country are appalling and place us at risk? Is it perfectly acceptable that a great many car drivers have absolutely no idea about how to drive around us, or that their behaviour can unwittingly place us in danger?


Of course we shouldn't sit back and accept any of that.

But until we are seen in a different light by the powers that be, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will make the slightest bit of difference.

In order to be taken seriously we need to be seen as a body of people who are worth listening to seriously. At the moment it is far too easy for the general public and the powers that be to focus on the idiots amongst us.

In order to bring about a solution you must first address the root problem.

[Katman]

And I'm not willing to accept organisations like the AA promulgating a message that motorcyclists are the problem.

I would dearly love to have the opportunity for you and I to sit down with Berries and study each motorcycle fatality in order to work out who had the greater degree of responsibility in the accident.

You would be in for a rude shock.

[davereid]

Of course we shouldn't sit back and accept any of that. But until we are seen in a different light by the powers that be, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will make the slightest bit of difference. In order to be taken seriously we need to be seen as a body of people who are worth listening to seriously. At the moment it is far too easy for the general public and the powers that be to focus on the idiots amongst us. In order to bring about a solution you must first address the root problem.


The only thing TPTB will ever notice is that motorcyclists have more accident injuries than car drivers, and that it is getting worse.

With all the modern technology being bunged into cars, it will not be long before a person of normal health can walk away from the worst accident that his computerised car will let him have.

Volvo have already promised a car so safe you wont be able to die in it, by 2015.

Do you see any of the motorcycle manufacturers making such a claim ?

I have more chance of winning lotto than dying on my motorbike.

Even when they make a Volvo that I can't die in, I'll cheerfully putt down country roads on a sunny day, helmetless, in my jeans and black singlet, just for fun.

Taking a tiny risk, to improve my enjoyment of my life.

And I'll curse the know-it-all-bastards, who have inflicted me with helmets, ATGATT, annual training, 10 year learners licences, and discouragement taxes .

Cos, after doing it all, they will discover, motorcycles aren't any safer than when they started.

[Katman]

Cos, after doing it all, they will discover, motorcycles aren't any safer than when they started.

That's absolutely right.

The greatest way to make a motorcycle safer is by improving the attitude of the person riding it.

[shrub]

Let's educate the public. Let's also stop kidding ourselves that we aren't also to blame.

Everybody needs to smarten up.

That's exactly where I'm coming from. Personally I minimise risk when I ride because that is the best way I know to keep my bike safe and avoid pain and hospital food. It is in all of our best interests to ride carefully because there really are no good sides to binning your bike - the last time I came off my bike I was stationary (foot slipped while a pillion was getting off) and it still cost me a bloody fortune. And humilated me.

I think there is a problem with a lot of rider's behaviours because they don't realise their limitations. I also have a problem with much of the advanced rider training as most of it seems to be riding as fast as possible around a race track, and so you get someone who does a couple of courses, learns how to go fast around corners and then rides the Akaroa GP every weekend looking for takers. I've been riding around 20 years if I take out a couple of periods when I wasn't able to (small children etc), and I know that riding fast is frequently not riding well.

Or they get caught up in the red mist of "showing that turkey" how to ride - I followed a twat in a Harley down a windy road on a Triumph 1050 Tiger. He wanted to stop me passing (I understand that would have meant my penis was bigger), so was all over the road, sparks were flying up from grinding metal and he had a frikking pillion!

We have a lot at stake, so I think for us it comes down to education and attitudanal changes, and they should be successful with the right approach because none of us like crashing.

But we share the roads with others and a significant proportion of motorcycle crashes are caused by other people, so we need to get the other stakeholders involved in the dialogue. We need the authorities and other road users to see that they are a part of the problem too, and that there are no benefits to anyone from being a part of a bike crash. A few years ago my son was riding home from work on his prized CBX250 and a woman turned across the road in front of him. She was fined, had to pay reperation, lost her license and felt like crap. She almost paid as much as he did for her stupidity and she sent him a get well card saying "I will never make that mistake again".

But as long as the authorities, and I include the AA in that, don't recognise that motorcycle crash rates are frequently (and even 20% is too frequent for my tastes) caused by car drivers or by avoidable road conditions like unmarked grit we're fighting a losing battle. We can all become exemplory riders, but we will still be taken out.

[MSTRS]

Everybody needs to smarten up.

Yes.

I liken this situation to driving/riding in general...
Most people have a car. Most of them park it in their driveway or garage. Most have to back out to get to the road. Most have to cross a footpath before reaching the road. Most look for pedestrians/kids on bikes before crossing the footpath. Usually, there's no-one there. Over time, the driver backs out faster and starts to look for road traffic instead. Then, one day...

Complacency. It's a killer.

[shrub]

Of course we shouldn't sit back and accept any of that.

But until we are seen in a different light by the powers that be, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth will make the slightest bit of difference.

In order to be taken seriously we need to be seen as a body of people who are worth listening to seriously. At the moment it is far too easy for the general public and the powers that be to focus on the idiots amongst us.

In order to bring about a solution you must first address the root problem.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for. In my experience there are very few riders who ride dangerously or stupidly and I think expecting the ones who don't to toe the line and behave is like expecting boy racers to buy Priuses and be home in bed on a Saturday night. It ain't gonna happen, so we'll be waiting forever, and that gives us an excuse to say "when every biker behaves we can start expecting the other stakeholders to participate", and do nothing but whine.

The root problem is that we don't have a voice. What we need is to be taken seriously as a body is to become a body with credible spokespeople, we need to know our stuff and we need to have a common voice. At the moment BRONZ is all we have, so maybe that's where we need to start.

[Katman]

But as long as the authorities, and I include the AA in that, don't recognise that motorcycle crash rates are frequently (and even 20% is too frequent for my tastes) caused by car drivers or by avoidable road conditions like unmarked grit we're fighting a losing battle.

Your first four paragraphs could have been written by me.

But surely if 20% is too frequent for your tastes then 80% must totally blow your mind.

[avgas]

http://www.aa.co.nz/aadirections/driver/Pages/Who-is-Dying-on-Our-Roads.aspx

I think you missed the key point in that whole document....


Story by Peter King

So holds as valid as the latest Shrek movie.
Is not an "article" its a "story"......so nothing needs to be referenced, or for the matter true

[shrub]

Your first four paragraphs could have been written by me.

But surely if 20% is too frequent for your tastes then 80% must totally blow your mind.

that's what I've been trying to get through to you - I agree with you for the most part, the difference is I see the problem as extending beyond rider behaviour.

The 80% is far too high, but what do we do about it? Lecturing and ranting achieves nothing beyond alienating the majority of motorcyclists.

As a marketer I believe we need to adopt a more holistic approach and we need to engage in social marketing to enact behaviour change; and for that to happen we need to have that common voice and a central body that can be funded and resourced. We need to show bikers that we're working on the other factors that influence their safety, and we need to show the other stakeholders that we're taking responsibility ourselves.

[Katman]

As a marketer I believe we need to adopt a more holistic approach and we need to engage in social marketing to enact behaviour change; and for that to happen we need to have that common voice and a central body that can be funded and resourced. We need to show bikers that we're working on the other factors that influence their safety, and we need to show the other stakeholders that we're taking responsibility ourselves.

I'm with you 100% on that.

[dipshit]

As a marketer I believe we need to adopt a more holistic approach and we need to engage in social marketing to enact behaviour change; and for that to happen we need to have that common voice and a central body that can be funded and resourced. We need to show bikers that we're working on the other factors that influence their safety, and we need to show the other stakeholders that we're taking responsibility ourselves.

But the PR spin that the likes of BRONZ have been feeding the public is actually been the lie.

They repeatedly told the media and anybody else they could that "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" to gain sympathy from authorities and the public.

Even motorcyclists fell for the spin. Some even regurgitating it themselves to the media...

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/78163/cars-cause-most-crashes-rider

"The accident statistics were "bent" and he said it was usually car drivers who caused accidents and motorcyclists who were injured."

http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/wanaka/78575/anger-motorcycle-club

"Most accidents are caused by car drivers on phones, not looking properly or being complacent."

It simply isn't true.

No doubt it does come as a surprise to many riders when they read the likes of this below and they do have trouble believing it.


"There were about 43 motorcyclist deaths, of which motorcyclists themselves were responsible for 35. Car drivers were responsible for four. Young men and men in their 40s and 50s predominated."

http://www.aa.co.nz/aadirections/driver/Pages/Who-is-Dying-on-Our-Roads.aspx


"Police say that, unusually, all 11 of the fatalities since last September were the fault of the motorcyclist. In the five cases where other vehicles were involved, the drivers of those vehicles were not at fault."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3831632/Blitz-on-bikers-sparks-tension

The trouble with the spin from BRONZ is that motorcyclists develop an attitude that their shit doesn't stink and it's everybody else's fault so they don't need to look at their own riding habits and make improvements... so the status quo continues.

And when the general public does wake up to what is actually going on, any sympathy towards us could be lost.

Then look out for the authorities coming down hard on us. :bye:

[Big Dave]

The people at BRONZ work diligently to promote responsible riding and volunteer their time to provide safety courses that are endorsed by Ulysses to HOG to ACC who provide vouchers. Average folks working democratically, transparently and in good faith.

The poster's statements regarding subterfuge or misleading are simply absurd.

[MSTRS]

Everyone (and no-one) is lying. Except Nick the Prick.
People quote stats to reinforce their own viewpoint. Problem with this, is that those that read it get mislead to the whole truth. Or worse, 'fill in the missing pieces' based on what they think they read. IE the AA claim that 35 out of 43 motorcycle deaths were the fault of the rider = 80% of motorcycle crashes are the rider's fault. This is not so. The full story is only apparent if the full stats are in the one article. Which doesn't happen.

[Katman]

What bugs me most is the attitude that many have of "hey, accidents happen - you'll never get rid of them" which then seems to lead them to the belief that nothing can be gained from trying to reduce them.

[dipshit]

The people at BRONZ work diligently to promote responsible riding and volunteer their time to provide safety courses that are endorsed by Ulysses to HOG to ACC who provide vouchers. Average folks working democratically, transparently and in good faith.

And then they undermine all that good work by propagating the lie that most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers.




The poster's statements regarding subterfuge or misleading are simply absurd.

Do you want me to show you examples of where BRONZ has said that and even had it on anti ACC literature.

[dipshit]

What bugs me most is the attitude that many have of "hey, accidents happen - you'll never get rid of them" which then seems to lead them to the belief that nothing can be gained from trying to reduce them.

But in the same breath call for better education for car drivers... cos they all know car drivers are the problem.

[riffer]

What bugs me most is the attitude that many have of "hey, accidents happen - you'll never get rid of them" which then seems to lead them to the belief that nothing can be gained from trying to reduce them.

You know, that pisses me off too.

[davereid]

What bugs me most is the attitude that many have of "hey, accidents happen - you'll never get rid of them" which then seems to lead them to the belief that nothing can be gained from trying to reduce them.

I'm pretty relaxed about my chance of having an accident. I ride carefully, and I don't particularly care if you don't, as long as you are a safe distance from me..

I'm much less relaxed about watching caring people inflict an wide range of safety initiatives on me.

And this is the reason for our dispute.

I ride a dangerous motorcycle for pleasure.

Sometimes I increase my risk by riding without ATGATT, indeed as I have already commented, a quiet putt, helmet-less down a country road on a stinking hot day is a true pleasure, already (legally) denied me by clever carers.

Soon my jacket and pants will be mandated, and my boots will need a DOT sticker. I'll have to retrain every 5 years, as it must be my skill level that makes your mates crash.

You will do it all, convinced that as its for my own good, you have the moral authority to ruin my motorcycling.

Its getting to be like drinking a single malt whisky... with a pint of water added by those who love me to make me safer.

[Katman]

You will do it all, convinced that as its for my own good, you have the moral authority to ruin my motorcycling.


It's called fighting back against the irresponsible motorcyclists (who have no moral authority) who are ruining motorcycling for us all.

Get used to it.

[bogan]

I agree with davreid on this one, each rider should be responsible for thier own safety, by all means educate and train people to ride safely, but making laws for everything won't do fuck all except gather revenue and make riding less enjoyable.

[Katman]

I agree with davreid on this one, each rider should be responsible for thier own safety, by all means educate and train people to ride safely, but making laws for everything won't do fuck all except gather revenue and make riding less enjoyable.

Best then we get our thinking caps on because if we don't come up with ideas to improve matters the government sure as fuck will.

[MIXONE]

Best then we get our thinking caps on because if we don't come up with ideas to improve matters the government sure as fuck will.

Hell must have just frozen over because I actually agree with you.:shit:

[FJRider]

Hell must have just frozen over because I actually agree with you.:shit:

I was thinking it was a little cool myself ... :shifty: :blink: :innocent:

[bogan]

Best then we get our thinking caps on because if we don't come up with ideas to improve matters the government sure as fuck will.

didn't you start a thread in which many good ideas were put forward? whats being done about them?

[MIXONE]

I was thinking it was a little cool myself ... :shifty: :blink: :innocent:

They have the interweb in hell?
At least I've got something to look forward to.

[Katman]

didn't you start a thread in which many good ideas were put forward? whats being done about them?

It was started in the hope that it may have provoked some debate at the BRONZ meeting.

Whether it did or not, remains a mystery.

[bogan]

It was started in the hope that it may have provoked some debate at the BRONZ meeting.

Whether it did or not, remains a mystery.

Regardless of why it was started, we already put our thinking caps on and so far it has come to nought. Seems to me we need some people to stand up and start doing shit (outside of whinging on kb), if you feel so strongly it needs to be done, and that bronz won't do it, put your hand up.

[shrub]

Regardless of why it was started, we already put our thinking caps on and so far it has come to nought. Seems to me we need some people to stand up and start doing shit (outside of whinging on kb), if you feel so strongly it needs to be done, and that bronz won't do it, put your hand up.

And there lies the problem - do we sit in our comfy chairs and wax eloquent or do we do something about it? BRONZ are flawed, but they are there and have a structure and with the right resources could well be the answer, so do we embrace BRONZ or start something new?

Or do we do nothing?

[Katman]

And there lies the problem - do we sit in our comfy chairs and wax eloquent or do we do something about it? BRONZ are flawed, but they are there and have a structure and with the right resources could well be the answer, so do we embrace BRONZ or start something new?

Or do we do nothing?

I believe that BRONZ has an infrastructure that is too valuable to throw away. It just needs far more support and someone to stear it in the right direction.

[shrub]

I believe that BRONZ has an infrastructure that is too valuable to throw away. It just needs far more support and someone to stear it in the right direction.

I think you're right and that they need support.

[Katman]

I also believe it's imperative that the national over-seeing body of BRONZ is reinstated asap.

It will be counter-productive starting up a whole lot of regional bodies if they all start pulling in different directions.

[GOONR]

I also believe it's imperative that the national over-seeing body of BRONZ is reinstated asap.

It will be no use starting up a whole lot of regional bodies if they all start pulling in different directions.

Something like the BMF (http://www.bmf.co.uk/home/index.php) in the Uk?

[Katman]

Something like the BMF (http://www.bmf.co.uk/home/index.php) in the Uk?

That looks like a great site.

Should be plenty of ideas for the picking.

[davereid]

It's called fighting back against the irresponsible motorcyclists (who have no moral authority) who are ruining motorcycling for us all. Get used to it.

I'm already used to it.

Blaming others then throwing them to the wolves to save yourself is an ancient art, you didn't invent it.

The first helpful bastards showed up in the late 60's so nothing new there. You guys are too young to remember, but we have seen it all before.

We got helmets due to a rash of bike crashes. The "experts" promised us that they would save lives. Maybe they did, but it was never obvious in the figures for bikers killed.

You can't pick the year helmets became compulsory by looking at motorcycle death rates. But it's easy to spot if you look at other data. We had two full time spinal units within the first decade, populated with alive but broken bikers.

Then in the late 70's early 80's the jap super-bike arrived.

The TV was full of documentaries on "MurderCycles". Politicians were rabid with schemes to restrict horsepower, wonderful new laws that would make us safe.

Now we had to do a test to get a licence, instead of paying a fiver. Nothing changed. Some riders valued life and limb. Some did not.

The Jap import car arrived, and motorcycling got forgotten, as tired old cunts like me, who had never listened to the politicians kept on riding just like we always had, and the new crop of bad drivers chose jap imports, and became the boyracer.

Attention was diverted from us, and bikers had a reprieve.

Then, bad car drivers who had had a bike in the 60's or 70's decided to buy a Harley as the boat didn't make 'em bad-ass enough.

Trouble was, they crashed just as much as they did in the 60's and 70's. But the ACC man was in tears, as they were now wealthy. The accident cost fuck all. It was the earnings related compensation that broke the bank.

So now, we have a new era.

The youngsters will push a new range of "safety initiatives" in the hope that throwing some new jews in the fire will mean the nazis will go home.

The old cunts don't care. they know the TPTB will only ever add $$$ to the equation, and they have plenty of those.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

It remains my opinion that we have to dispute the right of ACC and government to attack individual road users on the basis of risk. That has been shouted down here, with calls for more laws. I can't support that.

But, I would add my assistance and support to voluntary programs. Like the wonderful mentor scheme. Like assisting others to up-skill.

So... I'll not comment again in this or any other thread on ACC or biker safety, except where I can offer something positive.

But please don't think for a moment that they will go away if you feed them.

[MSTRS]

So... I'll not comment again in this or any other thread on ACC or biker safety, except where I can offer something positive.


Please don't stop contributing. Your contribution adds value, regardless.

[Katman]

The youngsters will push a new range of "safety initiatives" in the hope that throwing some new jews in the fire will mean the nazis will go home.

For a start, I'm flattered that you think I'm a youngster. Although I'm perhaps not the relic you see yourself as, I've certainly been around a while.


It remains my opinion that we have to dispute the right of ACC and government to attack individual road users on the basis of risk. That has been shouted down here, with calls for more laws. I can't support that.


The fact remains that all our disputes so far have fallen on deaf ears. That will not change until we come across as a sensible body whose opinion is worth listening to. It will also not change until we become a strong enough body that we can protect the future of motorcycling without instigating more laws.

At the moment the best we can hope for is that by initiating new ideas to improve the way that motorcycling is perceived we will gain the time needed to become that strong.

Motorcycling needs to entice more numbers to it's fold. We will not get that by perpetuating the idea that we see ourselves as existing outside of society.

[shrub]

So... I'll not comment again in this or any other thread on ACC or biker safety, except where I can offer something positive..

No, you say some good stuff.

[dipshit]

I would dearly love to have the opportunity for you and I to sit down with Berries and study each motorcycle fatality in order to work out who had the greater degree of responsibility in the accident.

You would be in for a rude shock.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/125845-The-ACC-saga-a-new-approach.?p=1129822417#post1129822417

[Brian d marge]

For a start, I'm flattered that you think I'm a youngster. Although I'm perhaps not the relic you see yourself as, I've certainly been around a while.



The fact remains that all our disputes so far have fallen on deaf ears. That will not change until we come across as a sensible body whose opinion is worth listening to. It will also not change until we become a strong enough body that we can protect the future of motorcycling without instigating more laws.

At the moment the best we can hope for is that by initiating new ideas to improve the way that motorcycling is perceived we will gain the time needed to become that strong.

Motorcycling needs to entice more numbers to it's fold. We will not get that by perpetuating the idea that we see ourselves as existing outside of society.

I think the Brits , and kiwis , not sure about the rest are great committee formers , look at the state of Road Racing ,
So when it comes to road safety ,,,good luck
The Canadians always seem sensible

Stephen

[Katman]

Yet another statistic this weekend to support the AA's 'lie'.

[MSTRS]

1 biker. 4 car-bound.
I long for those halcyon days when we had a 4kph tolerance and no deaths...

[dipshit]

I would be very, very surprised if 81% of motorcycle fatalities were the fault of the rider and that only 9% were caused by car drivers...

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/125845-The-ACC-saga-a-new-approach.?p=1129827474#post1129827474

So in 49 fatalities 7 were caused by cars and 2 by trucks.

9 from 49 makes 81%, 9%. (oops... that should read 81%, 19%... forgot the ten)

[mashman]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/125845-The-ACC-saga-a-new-approach.?p=1129827474#post1129827474

So in 49 fatalities 7 were caused by cars and 2 by trucks.

9 from 49 makes 81%, 9%.

"Rider at fault in 33 crashes, other vehicle/person at fault 11 crashes, shared fault three crashes and other (ie bike or road fault) two crashes"

wanna do yer figures again :)

[dipshit]

"Rider at fault in 33 crashes, other vehicle/person at fault 11 crashes, shared fault three crashes and other (ie bike or road fault) two crashes"

wanna do yer figures again :)

"Well we have failing to give way coming out of a driveway or intersection, turning right in front of riders, swinging wide on a curve, losing control on a curve and a u-turn on a corner accounting for seven crashes, then two where the blame was shared where the car was doing a u-turn which may have been safe if the motorbike hadn’t been speeding, in one case 50 over the limit. There were two involving trucks failing to give way."

7 cars at fault. 2 trucks and 2 partially responsible. 11.

Other vehicles *totally* at fault... 9

*Cars* at fault if counting the two partially responsible... 9

9 from 49 = 9% (oops... that should read 19%... forgot the ten)

[mashman]

"Well we have failing to give way coming out of a driveway or intersection, turning right in front of riders, swinging wide on a curve, losing control on a curve and a u-turn on a corner accounting for seven crashes, then two where the blame was shared where the car was doing a u-turn which may have been safe if the motorbike hadn’t been speeding, in one case 50 over the limit. There were two involving trucks failing to give way."

7 cars at fault. 2 trucks and 2 partially responsible. 11.

Other vehicles *totally* at fault... 9

*Cars* at fault if counting the two partially responsible... 9

9 from 49 = 9%

Ain't statistics grand :)... but "Rider at fault in 33 crashes"... how can you translate that to mean anything other than 33 out of 49?

[shrub]

Ain't statistics grand :)... but "Rider at fault in 33 crashes"... how can you translate that to mean anything other than 33 out of 49?

Using his maths, 33 from 49 - 9%.

[MSTRS]

9 from 49 = 9%

18% on my calculator

[shrub]

18% on my calculator

Don't tell him about calculators, he's happy using his fingers.

[dipshit]

Ain't statistics grand :)... but "Rider at fault in 33 crashes"... how can you translate that to mean anything other than 33 out of 49?

Out of the 49 fatalities other road users weren't the reason in 80% of the cases.

[mashman]

Out of the 49 fatalities other road users weren't the reason in 80% of the cases.

I make it 67.3469387755102%

[MSTRS]

Don't tell him about calculators, he's happy using his fingers.

When I say 'calculator' I really mean 'abacus'.
Maths was never my strong point, but this is pretty basic arithmetic...

[Berries]

So in 49 fatalities 7 were caused by cars and 2 by trucks.
9 from 49 makes 81%, 9%. (oops... that should read 81%, 19%... forgot the ten)
I was trying to be brief in my description in that other post so the numbers are correct -


Rider at fault in 33 crashes, other vehicle/person at fault 11 crashes, shared fault three crashes and other (ie bike or road fault) two crashes.
I didn't go in to great detail of the other 11 crashes, but the actual breakdown is as follows -
33 crashes where the rider was at fault - 67%
7 crashes where a car was at fault - 14%
3 crashes where a truck was at fault - 6% (I said two were failing to give way, one other turned right across the path of a bike)
3 crashes where both the driver and rider share some of the blame - 6% (two were the u-turns, the other was turning left while being undertaken)
1 cyclist, 1 road and 1 tyre making up the rest.

Sorry for the confusion, but you can get hung up on fault. Based on these figures it is either 67% for just the rider or 73% if you include the shared fault. But again, we are only talking 49 crashes which isn't many so you can't take those figures and say they represent the true picture for all crashes. I only posted in this thread to show that the AA were wrong in their magazine.

[Katman]

I only posted in this thread to show that the AA were wrong in their magazine.

Only in the number that they attribute to car drivers.

Going by your figures, they've actually let us off the hook with one.

[shrub]

I was trying to be brief in my description in that other post so the numbers are correct -


I didn't go in to great detail of the other 11 crashes, but the actual breakdown is as follows -
33 crashes where the rider was at fault - 67%
7 crashes where a car was at fault - 14%
3 crashes where a truck was at fault - 6% (I said two were failing to give way, one other turned right across the path of a bike)
3 crashes where both the driver and rider share some of the blame - 6% (two were the u-turns, the other was turning left while being undertaken)
1 cyclist, 1 road and 1 tyre making up the rest.

Sorry for the confusion, but you can get hung up on fault. Based on these figures it is either 67% for just the rider or 73% if you include the shared fault. But again, we are only talking 49 crashes which isn't many so you can't take those figures and say they represent the true picture for all crashes. I only posted in this thread to show that the AA were wrong in their magazine.

Thank you, that is exactly the point of this thread.

Sadly a lot of people read it and decided for themselves that motorcyclists are a menace to everyone and the sooner they all die/bugger off, the better. It is my experience as a reasonably experienced and active motorcyclist that the overwhelming majority take riding seriously and have sufficient skill to survive. The biker at fault injuries and fatalities seem to be largely caused by ignorance (beginners especially) or in a small percentage through rider stupidity and autocide.

I see the solution to motorcyle crashes being a process of education. I understand that there are a number of factors (things like riding an unfamilar bike, riding too fast for the conditions, riding tired, rusty etc) that are present in most crashes, and if those factors are eliminated or managed, then the crash is avoidable. I am convinced that 99% of motorcyclists don't actually want to crash and will do anything to avoid it so let's work with TPTB to educate and inform these people. Let's get a hold of Nigel Noob and teach him to ride, teach him to recognise when a car isn't planning to stop, when the road is slippery etc.

The idiots who ride stupidly think they know better, and there is no point in wasting our time with them. They will always exist, just like there will always be people who think they are such good drivers they can drive pissed.

And while we're at it, let's educate and inform other road users about us, what we need from them and how we can all work together. A common attitude is to ride as though every other road user is a killer out to kill, but in my experience 99% of car and truck drivers would hate to hurt, let alone kill, a biker. Their role in crashes comes from ignorance not malevalence, and ignorance is a factor that is easily removed.

[Voltaire]

I too am sick of reading about motorcycles in AA Directions.....the latest issue they had a statement about the fairness of motorcycles paying the same as cars in the northern gateway tunnel...that was it for me.....I don't want to read this....so I emailed them and asked to stop sending me Directions Magazine....sorted....:innocent:
Next I'm cancelling my Herald subscription.....mainly as I'm sick of reading bad news and I can better spend that $43.00 a month.:shutup:

[Hanne]

...not some minimum wage journo working for AA.



Actually, I hear their rate for articles is well above the market rate and space on their pages is hotly contested ><

[shrub]

Actually, I hear their rate for articles is well above the market rate and space on their pages is hotly contested ><

Shame the quality of their content doesn't reflect that.

[avgas]

I also believe it's imperative that the national over-seeing body of BRONZ is reinstated asap.

It will be counter-productive starting up a whole lot of regional bodies if they all start pulling in different directions.
Its already begun

[Pixie]

Actually, I hear their rate for articles is well above the market rate and space on their pages is hotly contested ><
Lots of companies want to advertise their stair climbers and mobility scooters