So many mistakes. Would you employ the authors?

[cheshirecat]

This has got to be one of the most micky mouse stats reports I've had the misfortune of reading - and I only got part way through it. (Sorry MM)
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/motorcycle-crashfacts-2013.pdf

[Jantar]

I'm sure that the statistics they present are correct, but as they don't include the supplementary data they are false by implication.
Have a look at the accidents by age group. The ages go up in steps of 5 years to age 40, but everyone over the age of 40 is included in a single group making that group appear to over represented, when in reality the next 7 or 8 steps being combined would show a different story. More realistic would be if they seperated the groups by the number of riders in each group, but that probably wouldn't show the results that ACC want.
Similarly with bike size, they give no indication of the number of bikes in each group, nor do they any stats by distance travelled.

[R650R]

Would be interesting to compare the stats if there was data (and there wont be) on car accidents per mileage when used on holiday or recreational purposes. Its a bit unfair to be comparing per km travelled when the car fleet would be bumped up by commercial fleets, sales reps etc clocking up big kms.
And the cc thing shows how little they know (and perhaps that's best) as there are lower cc bikes that you could safely say are higher risk than many big cc bikes.
One thing we'll never see in these reports is the ACC levy $ bikers pay per km compared to car...
But they have to write all that stuff, they'd get the sack if they said we have all these crashes because sometimes people do silly stuff or are just not paying attention to road and hazards.
wouldn't lose any sleep over it, justa govt dept being a govt dept, business or lack of it as usual...

[James Deuce]

The only question that needs to be asked is what number of road-registered motorcycles do the deaths equate to for each time period. That's a very different picture, one that is easy to research and represent, and one that every motorcycle "lobby" group will fail to capitalise on.

[ducatilover]

600cc bikes and larger are far more dangerous, so they said.
Then allow learners on 660cc bikes.
Then show stats that prove the original point wrong.


Why the fuck can these money hungry bacon fat dripping useless desk jockey cunt hat fuckbags be allowed anywhere near legislation and data gathering when all they do is rape and fuck the poor little niggers like us?

I think they should abolish the fucking stupid ACC levy increases they applied, otherwise they are blatantly lying to the consumer and surely that is illegal.




Disclaimer
All reasonable endeavours are ma
de to ensure the accuracy of the information in this report. However, the information is
provided without warranties of any kind including accuracy, completeness, timeliness or fitness for any particular purpose.


Fuck these pricks.

[GTRMAN]

600cc bikes and larger are far more dangerous, so they said.
Then allow learners on 660cc bikes.
Then show stats that prove the original point wrong.


Why the fuck can these money hungry bacon fat dripping useless desk jockey cunt hat fuckbags be allowed anywhere near legislation and data gathering when all they do is rape and fuck the poor little niggers like us?

I think they should abolish the fucking stupid ACC levy increases they applied, otherwise they are blatantly lying to the consumer and surely that is illegal.







Fuck these pricks.

I think you may be holding back, that's not healthy. Come on now, let it all out, you'll feel better.

[haydes55]

Lol only 30% of fatalities involved speeding. Maybe fatalities will happen due to other factors not just speed? Maybe enforcing speed limits doesn't lower the road toll?

[veldthui]

Gotta love the one where they say that the motorcyclist is at fault when a vehicle turns across in front of them. NOt all the time of course but to say they are to blame at any of the time is laughable.

[SILVER SUZI]

Statistics are just that, statistics. Unfortunately they can be skewed to suit whomever writes the report. Given all the data I'm sure you could cherry-pick the numbers to prove motorcycling is safer than driving a car. That prolly why they don't publish any supplementary data. Motorcycling is a minority, and it's far easier to rape a minority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Milts]

Gotta love the one where they say that the motorcyclist is at fault when a vehicle turns across in front of them. NOt all the time of course but to say they are to blame at any of the time is laughable.

That statement is ridiculous. If you are doing 250 km/h along a two lane road, and someone turns across you into their driveway, you would be (primarily) at fault; they couldn't have expected you to arrive so quickly.

Obviously this would only be the minority of the time. Which is exactly what they say - 6% of the time in fact.

If you just look at this as a presentation of data, it's kinda a nice report - interesting to see the % of crashes in which alcohol/drugs were involved, % by type of license vs unlicensed, types of crashes with cars etc.

It would be nice for them to release all the raw data as a spreadsheet too. In fact, if you care enough, you can ask them and they are legally obligated to do so (Official Information Act). Only other thing which would be nice would be all of these numbers as a ratio of distance traveled rather than sum total.

It's worth pointing out that this was released by the Ministry of Transport, not ACC. Which is interesting, as it clearly contradicts some of ACC's arguments (as Mashman said re engine size etc). Which, as far as I can see, makes it a useful document for motorcyclists to be able to refer to.

[Swoop]

Gotta love the one where they say that the motorcyclist is at fault when a vehicle turns across in front of them.
Of course it's the rider's fault. That person should have been in a vehicle with 4 wheels. Only common sense you know...(if you like gubbernment bullshit and propaganda).

[Damantis]

:clap: Nice to know that with the countries educational standard continuing to decline, there will always be positions for the underachievers at the department of statistics.

[Old Steve]

See the pie chart, 14% of fatal accidents have alcohol or drugs involved, 13% have alcohol, drugs and speed involved, and 17% have speed involved. Yet 56% had no alcohol, drugs or speed involved.

So it's safest to be pissed or drugged out and be speeding? Under no conditions should you be sober and under the speed limit.

You can infer anything with statistics.

[Damantis]

i.e unlicensed, disqualified / forbidden and no NZ license, not to mention the further 18% who crashed on a learner license ( without a breakdown of whether they were riding within the terms of that license ), I would suggest that amending the figures to include only properly licensed riders riding within the terms of their license may prove that the majority of "legal" motorcycle crashes are in fact not caused by the motorcyclist. Were those 19% attributed blame due to riding illegally? This is unclear.

[Berries]

i.e unlicensed, disqualified / forbidden and no NZ license, not to mention the further 18% who crashed on a learner license ( without a breakdown of whether they were riding within the terms of that license ), I would suggest that amending the figures to include only properly licensed riders riding within the terms of their license may prove that the majority of "legal" motorcycle crashes are in fact not caused by the motorcyclist.
I doubt that very much. Apart from those disqualified riders who were riding pissed and stoned with no helmet on and hit a tree I would suggest that the 'non-legal' riders have the same type of crashes as legal riders.

People fuck up whether they are driving or riding. As riders we are more likely to get seriously hurt if someone does fuck up so blaming the other person is always a cop out. I can do statistics and I use the same data that fed in to this MOT report. It is safe to say that the majority of crashes involving a motorbike were avoidable on the part of the rider, regardless of who ends up being blamed for the incident happening.

Ride around with the view that most bike crashes are caused by cars and something will happen to confirm it. And you might get hurt.

Ride around with the view that most crashes can be avoided by the rider and something will happen to confirm that as well, it is all down to attitude.

And IAM training, apparently.

[Jantar]

....
Ride around with the view that most crashes can be avoided by the rider and something will happen to confirm that as well, it is all down to attitude.
.....
You are onto it. Most accidents are avoidable, even those where the basic cause is outside our responsibility. but it does require that we keep a good lookout as to road conditions, other traffic, hazzards at the side of the road etc. Its just a pity that the police bosses have decided that they would rather have us watch our speeds and ignore all those other hazzards.

[avgas]

Last time I checked motorcycles accounted for 10% of vehicle registration. So 9% of deaths and 19% of injuries is probably a fair call when you look at the stats. This also means that motorcycle registration should be same as other vehicle registration due to the fact that proportions are similar.
As for injury over distance as a statistic.........I am sure certain rugby players have worse. What is their ACC levy?
In fact if you took into account walking - I would be surprised if it is 50 times more likely to cause injury over the same distance of a car.

Stats are marketing. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise (from someone who has studied and worked with both for a long time). True statistics has to show all statisics, not just a scramble of what suits the argument.
i.e. a median of 50%, half the people fail, half succeeded. Standard deviation of 33.33%

Not : "50% of the class passed, 27% with excellence".

[cheshirecat]

Last time I checked motorcycles accounted for 10% of vehicle registration. So 9% of deaths and 19% of injuries is probably a fair call when you look at the stats. This also means that motorcycle registration should be same as other vehicle registration due to the fact that proportions are similar.
As for injury over distance as a statistic.........I am sure certain rugby players have worse. What is their ACC levy?
In fact if you took into account walking - I would be surprised if it is 50 times more likely to cause injury over the same distance of a car.

Stats are marketing. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise (from someone who has studied and worked with both for a long time). True statistics has to show all statisics, not just a scramble of what suits the argument.
i.e. a median of 50%, half the people fail, half succeeded. Standard deviation of 33.33%

Not : "50% of the class passed, 27% with excellence".
Well said and what they can be challenged on.

[roogazza]

Last time I checked motorcycles accounted for 10% of vehicle registration. So 9% of deaths and 19% of injuries is probably a fair call when you look at the stats. This also means that motorcycle registration should be same as other vehicle registration due to the fact that proportions are similar.
As for injury over distance as a statistic.........I am sure certain rugby players have worse. What is their ACC levy?
In fact if you took into account walking - I would be surprised if it is 50 times more likely to cause injury over the same distance of a car.

Stats are marketing. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise (from someone who has studied and worked with both for a long time). True statistics has to show all statisics, not just a scramble of what suits the argument.
i.e. a median of 50%, half the people fail, half succeeded. Standard deviation of 33.33%

Not : "50% of the class passed, 27% with excellence".

Five or six have died fishing, this xmas period !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just about the same as road deaths !

[Damantis]

I doubt that very much. Apart from those disqualified riders who were riding pissed and stoned with no helmet on and hit a tree I would suggest that the 'non-legal' riders have the same type of crashes as legal riders.

People fuck up whether they are driving or riding. As riders we are more likely to get seriously hurt if someone does fuck up so blaming the other person is always a cop out. I can do statistics and I use the same data that fed in to this MOT report. It is safe to say that the majority of crashes involving a motorbike were avoidable on the part of the rider, regardless of who ends up being blamed for the incident happening.

Ride around with the view that most bike crashes are caused by cars and something will happen to confirm it. And you might get hurt.

Ride around with the view that most crashes can be avoided by the rider and something will happen to confirm that as well, it is all down to attitude.

And IAM training, apparently.

I was making an intentionally ambiguous point to highlight that when we are presented with some data and a "conclusion" drawn from it, it's not hard to pick holes in how it's presented and how the conclusion is arrived at. Or as someone above has said, "Statistics are marketing" etc.

[noobi]

Gotta love the one where they say that the motorcyclist is at fault when a vehicle turns across in front of them. NOt all the time of course but to say they are to blame at any of the time is laughable.

It says "In this type of crash it is most common that the other vehicle turns across
the path of the motorcyclist. The motorcyclist has the primary responsibility
in only 6 percent of these crashes."

Meaning in 6% of the 12% of all crashes in the defined period, which involved that kind of movement (car across the path), were the fault of the motorcyclist.

In English.
There were 6362 motorcycle crashes between 2008-2012.
764(12%) of those were defined as 'right turn against'.
46(6%) of those were calculated to be 'the primary responsibility' of the motorcyclist.

I think when they say 'only 6 percent', they are trying to point out how small the percentage of that type of crash were the motorcyclists responsibility. Not quite the same as saying 'The motorcyclist has the primary responsibility
in 6 percent of these crashes.'

[avgas]

Five or six have died fishing, this xmas period !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just about the same as road deaths !
FYI they will try and tie this to the number of fish. Reduce the numbers and less people will die fishing.
Problem for them is correlation does not equal causation.

Fact of the mater is motorcyclists are being penalised. And they are not the only one. There are NZ$25,000,000,000 why the system is broken since its inception. Which is strange as there was no reasons to say the system was broken pre-2007. Now I keep my head out of politics - and keep them in industry. But I have to admit. I smell a rat with the now-called "ACC Insurance" .


Well said and what they can be challenged on.
Good luck - I tried this many moons ago (along with many others).
It was far more effective to send them a post-it note stating 1 statistic.

"Total ammount of levy you will get via motorcycle rego from me = $0
Go fuck yourselves"

Having moved to land of the expense......I can't help but notice the tips that USA and NZ seem to share between themselves re: Health "Insurance"...........if ACC can copy the scam here and Obama can copy the scam there - expect the next bust to be in healthcare by 2020.......except it will be in the Quadrillions of dollars.

[Ocean1]

Having moved to land of the expense......I can't help but notice the tips that USA and NZ seem to share between themselves re: Health "Insurance"...........if ACC can copy the scam here and Obama can copy the scam there - expect the next bust to be in healthcare by 2020.......except it will be in the Quadrillions of dollars.

There's certainly going to be a crisis. But it doesn't require dodgy politics to engineer, it's a simple matter of medical demand hugely outstripping supply budget. It's been festering for a decade.

[avgas]

There's certainly going to be a crisis. But it doesn't require dodgy politics to engineer, it's a simple matter of medical demand hugely outstripping supply budget. It's been festering for a decade.
But becomes amplified when people are required by law to get insurance for it. I suspect ACC wouldn't be getting a $5B/year profit if it wasn't compulsory. All they had to do was trim the expenses (aka say 'no') and they were laughing all the way to the bank. US insurance co's have been saying no for years. They just needed a man to make it law to signup with them..........and the kicker is that the insurance doesn't mean that you will be covered in hospital (like ACC), so in your time of need the insurance company doesn't have to do squat because you went to the wrong provider.

Rough times ahead for all. Don't get sick or injure yourself. Chances are (in either country) you won't be covered or will have to fight in court to be covered.

[Katman]

Last time I checked motorcycles accounted for 10% of vehicle registration.

Sorry but you better check your figures.

It's more like 2% of total vehicle registrations.

[avgas]

Sorry but you better check your figures.

It's more like 2% of total vehicle registrations.
Not many have a car parked at home.......or 3......

But I know plenty of people who have a registered bike that isn't transport.

Also 9% death from 2% registrations is not bad statistics. It's actually better than the drunk driving one which we seem so adamant is pure evil.

I did just look at the actual stats. Motorcycles, mopeds + ATV's make up of 3% of registrations, and 6% of vehicles owned (2012).
Are you more inclined to die or get injured on a motorcycle.... NO DOUBT. Does that mean you should pay more levies? Certainly - so long as every activity also has increased levies. Otherwise why have ACC - why not pay for private insurance where you know they are going to penalize you. UN

If we have increased tax on smoking because its bad for your health, and motorcycles because its bad for your health - what about contact sports? Cycling? sugared drinks?

My argument has never been that it was silly to increase ACC levies on motorbikes - my argument is that it is UNFAIR to, which goes against the ONLY principle of maintaining an ACC system. If ACC can't be fair, or honest - why keep it?
If a bank simply spent your money you would not keep banking with them.
If a school did not teach the students you would not keep it.
If a dentist caused dental decay you would not keep them.

So why would you keep a government based healthcare scheme that a) does not treat people faily, b) does not treat people properly and c) saves money in a bank rather than spends it on treating people. That sounds more like an investment scheme than a healthcare scheme.
To give you a comparison. ACC is currently making 250% profit the NZ Super scheme is. I'll give you a hint - the latter is an investment scheme and designed to make money (it's currently run independent from NZ Super which is currently being paid to retiree's).
The system broke 5+ years ago. And now we have a pyramid scheme.

[Pixie]

Why the fuck can these money hungry bacon fat dripping useless desk jockey cunt hat fuckbags be allowed anywhere near legislation and data gathering when all they do is rape and fuck the poor little niggers like us?




Fuck these pricks.

They will as long as the poor little niggers willingly bend over and spread their cheeks.

A quote from a Canadian rider on another forum: "Motorcycling is an undesirable activity (it increasingly gets in the way of road crash reduction that many governments are obscessed with.) Insurance cost increased is an effective way to disuade people from taking up the activity."

This NZ Govt. document has been prepared for the sole reason of justifying the advance of the NZ Govt.'s agenda.

How long will you people continue to bury your heads in the sand?