1 in 4 drivers aren't going to see you

[p.dath]

People go on about the dangers of motorcycling and the causes of accidents, and I started wondering the other day if you ignore motorcycles and just look at all crashes what happens.

I took a look at this section 2 of this report:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Pages/MotorVehicleCrashesinNewZealand2010.aspx

Figure 17 shows that 23% percent of injury crashes have "driver inattention" listed as a factor - the "I didn't see you" reason. I find this particularly striking, because this means 1 in 4 times at least one of the road users involved didn't see what was happening. Remember, this is for all accidents, not just motorcycle accidents.

And if 1 in 4 times they can't see other cars, trucks, and the like - what difference could wearing a high-visibility vest make on a motorcyclist. Seriously. The problem is not what the object looks like, or how bright it is - but that the person simply didn't see it.


And most of us know that loss of control while cornering is the single biggest type of motorcycle accident category. Well look at figure 12, and you see it is listed as the reason for 34% of the fatality accidents, and 23% of the injury accidents for the general traffic populace.
So it's not that motorcyclists are any worse than any other category in this area. It's simply that road users in general are not good at cornering.


So you know what - I don't think we are doing that bad after all. The only down side is we have less protection than many other road users, so simply get hurt worse when involved in an accident.


So despite the media attention, do you think we are any worse than other categories of road users?

[sootie]

People go on about the dangers of motorcycling and the causes of accidents, and I started wondering the other day if you ignore motorcycles and just look at all crashes what happens.

I took a look at this section 2 of this report:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Pages/MotorVehicleCrashesinNewZealand2010.aspx

Figure 17 shows that 23% percent of injury crashes have "driver inattention" listed as a factor - the "I didn't see you" reason. I find this particularly striking, because this means 1 in 4 times at least one of the road users involved didn't see what was happening. Remember, this is for all accidents, not just motorcycle accidents.

And if 1 in 4 times they can't see other cars, trucks, and the like - what difference could wearing a high-visibility vest make on a motorcyclist. Seriously. The problem is not what the object looks like, or how bright it is - but that the person simply didn't see it.


And most of us know that loss of control while cornering is the single biggest type of motorcycle accident category. Well look at figure 12, and you see it is listed as the reason for 34% of the fatality accidents, and 23% of the injury accidents for the general traffic populace.
So it's not that motorcyclists are any worse than any other category in this area. It's simply that road users in general are not good at cornering.


So you know what - I don't think we are doing that bad after all. The only down side is we have less protection than many other road users, so simply get hurt worse when involved in an accident.


So despite the media attention, do you think we are any worse than other categories of road users?

Thank you for an interesting post.
I also believe that the accident statistics are skewed against motorcyclists, because motorcyclists do not usually have an uninjured witness available to support their case, and because in an injured state, only half remembering what happened as they were knocked unconscious, they tend not to explain things well to police later.

Accurate reporting has actually worked against me. I was involved in something which was a true accident with a number of contributing causes including my not being as clever as I should have been. I actually admitted liability, and I am fairly sure the police wanted that, because they had to find somebody liable. (That is what they do in an injury accident.) They then recommended that no-one be prosecuted as being at fault although I was quite badly injured. They did admit that they did not really understand what happened. I think I now do, but it is quite complicated.

I later discovered that after the initial situation, a truck had avoided a car by crossing in to my lane and taking me out. It was a short acceleration lane & quite clear, but I did not actually remember it later. The police markings on the road showed the point of impact within this lane as my mate advised later, but I was not able to view it of course being in hospital.

I guess the alternative was to find the truck driver at fault, and frankly, I was not too keen on this either. He was also placed in an impossible position and (as you have suggested " did not see me").

I suspect from my experiences above & police interpretation that motorcyclists are quite frequently found to be at fault where in fact, the fault is shared, or at least not clear. I guess this does not really solve anything but I do still consider it at length. I am not blaming the police here either by the way.

[BoristheBiter]

This is something I see every day driving around AKL, just think they haven't seen you and you should be about right, And this is while driving a big arsed ute.

I think some vehicles add to this by being badly designed.

Take my new ute, if I pull up to a T junction no problem but if it is not square on (there is a few in AKL) I have a massive blind spot as the seat and B pillar gets in the way.

But the worst one was the new Mazda 6, the rear view Mirror was so low you couldn't see what was on the left hand side.

[bogan]

1 in 4 drivers who injure you aren't going to see you. Lets not make misleading statements now, leave that up to the pricks that write the reports in the first place.

[FJRider]

I didn't see you also means ... "I wasn't looking". Be it through inattention or diverted attention. But how often is it used to try and divert blame away from themselves. the "But it can't be my fault ... I'm a good driver" type thinking.

Inattention can be thinking of things not directly connected with driving safely to your destination. Regular trips using the same route day after day after day ... can also cause inattention. The comment "I do this route every day" should ring bells in your head that they weren't looking ... just going through the motions of driving ...

Diverted attention can be things like talking to a passenger (scolding the kid in the back seat) talking on a phone (even a hands free diverts attention) ... looking in mirrors for your mate following you, instead of stopping and waiting. Checking the map/GPS for instructions. I've known a few motorcyclists to crash trying to determine the cause of a persistent squeak. Or checking in their mirrors that their luggage is still secure.

The number of possibilities for either ... are endless. As such ... motorcyclists can be expected to be no different to any other vehicle operator.

Failed to take a bend is common in car/truck accidents too ... just motorcyclists generally come off worse in such accidents. ANY accidents actually.

[James Deuce]

Thank you for an interesting post.
I also believe that the accident statistics are skewed against motorcyclists, because motorcyclists do not usually have an uninjured witness available to support their case, and because in an injured state, only half remembering what happened as they were knocked unconscious, they tend not to explain things well to police later.

Accurate reporting has actually worked against me. I was involved in something which was a true accident with a number of contributing causes including my not being as clever as I should have been. I actually admitted liability, and I am fairly sure the police wanted that, because they had to find somebody liable. (That is what they do in an injury accident.) They then recommended that no-one be prosecuted as being at fault although I was quite badly injured. They did admit that they did not really understand what happened. I think I now do, but it is quite complicated.

I later discovered that after the initial situation, a truck had avoided a car by crossing in to my lane and taking me out. It was a short acceleration lane & quite clear, but I did not actually remember it later. The police markings on the road showed the point of impact within this lane as my mate advised later, but I was not able to view it of course being in hospital.

I guess the alternative was to find the truck driver at fault, and frankly, I was not too keen on this either. He was also placed in an impossible position and (as you have suggested " did not see me").

I suspect from my experiences above & police interpretation that motorcyclists are quite frequently found to be at fault where in fact, the fault is shared, or at least not clear. I guess this does not really solve anything but I do still consider it at length. I am not blaming the police here either by the way.

You only have the luxury of that approach to reconciling the accident and its outcomes because we have ACC. When that goes, we'll have the same system as the UK were compensation is apportioned according to the liability accepted by both parties.

[FJRider]

You only have the luxury of that approach to reconciling the accident and its outcomes because we have ACC. When that goes, we'll have the same system as the UK were compensation is apportioned according to the liability accepted by both parties.

Regardless of the "No fault" ACC being in place .... we still have a court system .... and drivers that have committed a driving offence can expect to be charged. Often BOTH/ALL parties involved are charged with an offence/infringement.

[mashman]

Not news really given that 78% of all serious road injuries (2009) were sustained in a car.

[James Deuce]

Regardless of the "No fault" ACC being in place .... we still have a court system .... and drivers that have committed a driving offence can expect to be charged. Often BOTH/ALL parties involved are charged with an offence/infringement.

Secondary to the issues around compensation and rehab. Any potential penalties for drivers and riders aren't anything like commensurate to the damage caused in accidents. There is very little worse than finding you've be tried in absentia and held even partially liable for an accident that has crippled you and a health system that won't support you unless someone else is paying.

It gives me the shits when when people dismiss ACC so casually. You have no idea how good you have it.

[FJRider]

It gives me the shits when when people dismiss ACC so casually. You have no idea how good you have it.

I do actually .... that's why I got health insurance.

Being asked at an A & E for my insurance company name ... with me bleeding on their floor from a gashed arm ... didn't seem funny at the time.

[sootie]

You only have the luxury of that approach to reconciling the accident and its outcomes because we have ACC. When that goes, we'll have the same system as the UK were compensation is apportioned according to the liability accepted by both parties.

Fair comment. In this case, if the police had found me at fault, I would have contested the case in court.
The police stopped that happening because they were satisfied that the issues were quite complex.

A very senior police officer from the Crash Investigation squad came around to see me at home some weeks after the crash. He told me he had been a motorcycle cop in London for some years, and was obviously sympathetic. At the same time, he definitely wanted to close the file. He said that a car had been involved in a very similar accident at this same intersection just 24 hours later, and that we were just two of a long string of collisions there. He also said they were going to upgrade the intersection, and 1 year later they spent a good million dollars changing it to a roundabout - I fully approved & now use it again.

Neither the cop nor I wanted the truck driver held responsible. He was as much a victim as I was, and might have lost his job. In the end, I think the outcome was the best for those concerned. The only thing I really learned is that sometimes "Real Shit does happens" even when there is no obvious single simple cause.

[Akzle]

So despite the media attention, do you think we are any worse than other categories of road users?

no. generally motorbicyclists are safer road users. because we "know the road" - we know the differences in surface, camber, seal etc make a difference. we "know the vehicle" - we know the physics of a vehicle and how it will behave.
it's not a random thing that you put in D to go forwards an R to go backwards (only if you really have to, because going backwards is so tricky...)
we know that, whoever is at fault, it'll probably be us in hospital.
we don't just get on the bike to fuckaround - we're there to ride.
(and i don't get in a car to fuckaround... if i'm in a car i DRIVE.)
we don't have CD changers (goldwings GTFO), capucinos or blackberrys.

personally i reckon every cager should have to do time on a 50cc 'cooter (about 2 years) before they're allowed the car.
and when is the power-to-weight LAC(ars)S coming out???

[Virago]

no. generally motorbicyclists are safer road users. because we "know the road" - we know the differences in surface, camber, seal etc make a difference. we "know the vehicle" - we know the physics of a vehicle and how it will behave...

Accident statistics confirm otherwise...

[Kickaha]

Accident statistics confirm otherwise...

You do realise you're not meant to point that out?

[Berries]

So despite the media attention.....
What media attention? The only time I see or hear about motorcycle safety is on KB or when some dropkick goes up in flames doing something stupid. Personally, I would have thought the media attention is minor, but as riders we notice it more. The fact that many riders, at least on KB, appear to have a chip on their shoulder about 'them' and the fact that 'they' cause all our injuries probably makes it more noticeable as well.


Figure 17 shows that 23% percent of injury crashes have "driver inattention" listed as a factor - the "I didn't see you" reason. I find this particularly striking,
I don't. If you have a crash at an intersection where one vehicle pulls out in to the path of another with the right of way the crash will generally be given two codes, one to say a vehicle failed to give way and one to say that the driver "failed to look or see" the other vehicle. Unless it was deliberate the driver/rider clearly did not see the other party otherwise they would have given way. The code is somewhat redundant.

In light of the number of crashes that occur at intersections that involved more than one party the fact 23% have been recorded as inattention isn’t a surprise. You will also get this code used if a car driver pulls out in to the path of a motorbike ridden at night with no lights, or a bike doing twice the speed limit in the middle of town. In other words, the term "driver inattention" in the context being used is too vague to have any real value.

[pete376403]

I recall reading an (IIRC) Two Wheels article - in Milan or some other italian city everyone DID have to ride scooters prior to getting a car licence - and even though there were (and probably still are) teeming hordes of scooters and bikes in the city, the car drivers in the main avoided hitting them.

[KIPS powervalve]

no. generally motorbicyclists are safer road users. because we "know the road" - we know the differences in surface, camber, seal etc make a difference....

personally i reckon every cager should have to do time on a 50cc 'cooter (about 2 years) before they're allowed the car.
and when is the power-to-weight LAC(ars)S coming out???

"Safer road users"? lane splitting is not safe! I have seen cops on their whale-like BMWs doing it, but I doubt they get seen by cagers.
As proof, I have very nearly been cleaned up by a bike overtaking while I was changing lanes in heavy traffic (yes I was on my bike and looked). Needless to say, I [lane split] myself.
Not sure if we all "know the road" - you only need to look at the newspaper photo of that white Buell in a tree a couple of months ago for that to stand. Somebody didn't read the road there! Luckily he (she?) survived. Generally though, yes, seal, oil, water etc are more well observed by us.

As for the cagers on mopeds, this is a good idea. I thought about this when I very first started on a 50cc scooter (with no MC licence). It immediately teaches you how to ride AND drive defensively... WAY MORE THAN THE DEFENSIVE DRIVING COURSE. You learn real quick that you need to pay attention, and if you don't learn that then you should not be on the road be it on a push bike or 'Busa Turbo.

LAMS comes in on 1st of October. This is fantastic, but a) kills the market for 2stroke 250s and b) will kill more learners than a TZR/NSR/KR250 ever did. Look at some of the bikes on there: RVF400, GSX600U etc, scary-fast bikes for newbs.

[mashman]

Accident statistics confirm otherwise...

Only if you take the total number of that category of vehicle and divide it by the number of incidents for that vehicle type. Whereas if we are all categorised as road users who are using a vehicle, most of the incidents resulting in serious injury happen when people are driving cars. Wonder what the stats would be like if motorcycles had their own road? After all if 40% of our incidents are car v bike (from memory from other threads), irrespective of fault, then motorcyclists are going to have 40% less incidents. Motorcycles don't put car drivers in hospital. So the car crash stats would stay approx the same for cars. The motorcycle stats would drop dramatically. Yes I realise that our own road would prolly result in more loss of control incidents, but we'd have 40% to play with :eek:.

[Berries]

Yes I realise that our own road would prolly result in more loss of control incidents, but we'd have 40% to play with :eek:.
Yeah, but they won't give us the same width if there are no cars so the number of crashes will rise further. I do think we should use the same shared roading infrastructure but be exempt from all the rules. Sure, there will be a spike lasting a year or three but as soon as Darwin has sorted things out it would be great.

[Virago]

Only if you take the total number of that category of vehicle and divide it by the number of incidents for that vehicle type. Whereas if we are all categorised as road users who are using a vehicle, most of the incidents resulting in serious injury happen when people are driving cars. Wonder what the stats would be like if motorcycles had their own road? After all if 40% of our incidents are car v bike (from memory from other threads), irrespective of fault, then motorcyclists are going to have 40% less incidents. Motorcycles don't put car drivers in hospital. So the car crash stats would stay approx the same for cars. The motorcycle stats would drop dramatically. Yes I realise that our own road would prolly result in more loss of control incidents, but we'd have 40% to play with :eek:.

We have entered the twilight zone... :facepalm:

[Akzle]

"Safer road users"?...

LAMS comes in on 1st of October. This is fantastic, but a) kills the market for 2stroke 250s and b) will kill more learners than a TZR/NSR/KR250 ever did. Look at some of the bikes on there: RVF400, GSX600U etc, scary-fast bikes for newbs.
not necessarily. the 600U is necked down from "scary-fast" dont know about the RVF, but who the fuck would be seen on a h*nda anyway?
i think the larger bikes are certainly better for larger folk (like my 6ft 90kg)
had a mate went from an ag100 to an RF900. hasn't put it down once.


... but we'd have 40% to play with :eek:.

women = 60% of the population apparently. ban them from driving. i'm sure it'd drop the road toll at least 80%.
(no comic sans, i'm f*cking serious.)

[duckonin]

[/COLOR]


women = 60% of the population apparently. ban them from driving. i'm sure it'd drop the road toll at least 80%.
(no comic sans, i'm f*cking serious.) :killingme.

Come on Akzel give it some thought instead of having a massive brain fart.:killingme Most woman are very good drivers.:yes:

[Akzle]

:killingme.

Come on Akzel give it some thought instead of having a massive brain fart.:killingme Most woman are very good drivers.:yes:

have some comic sans.

[mashman]

Yeah, but they won't give us the same width if there are no cars so the number of crashes will rise further. I do think we should use the same shared roading infrastructure but be exempt from all the rules. Sure, there will be a spike lasting a year or three but as soon as Darwin has sorted things out it would be great.

Nahhh, it's just make us better riders.


We have entered the twilight zone... :facepalm:

I know, who woulda thunk that someone would consider themselves to be a road user irrespective of the transport method they choose... but it's a good thing that you think otherwise, else ACC might be up shit creek.


women = 60% of the population apparently. ban them from driving. i'm sure it'd drop the road toll at least 80%.
(no comic sans, i'm f*cking serious.)

No argument from me... makeup, mobiles, gabbing, marvelling at the fact that their eye shadow matches the shade of the car behind them and that they have to change the colour of their c.................

[Motobutch]

2 seconds is an interesting figure.

We were taught in pilot flying the aereoplane school that if we didn't look at a bit of sky for at least 2 seconds (when trying to spot other aereoplanes), that our brains would just "fill in the blanks" with an empty bit of sky, whether or not something was actually there. These are the same brains that are looking for you at intersections, regardless of whether you've got your swanky hi viz vest on.

So how many people do you know that look both ways, for at least 2 seconds, every time they turn their cars? You know, those same people that you see round town who can't even competently operate shopping trolleys.

I'm pretty new at this, but I reckon the best bit of advice I've heard yet is to ride like a paranoid fucker, 'cos they are all out to get me, whether they like it or not. Human beings are error making machines, and they perform to design specification admirably.

[baffa]

TLDR: I'm an amazing rider, and you all suck.

Think that covers it.