PDA

View Full Version : The Big Dave Files



Big Dave
17th March 2006, 17:32
or
The power of the press and WTF am I doing weilding it.

Dateline 16/3/06.
A bike politics meeting, a few emails, a meeting with deep throat (no, not that deep throat buggy - watergate) and 'the Big Dave files' are set to appear in Kiwi Rider Magazine on a regular basis.

This afternoon I've been show the door to interviews with the PM, Minister for Land transport, ACC, Police chief and more - to ask them questions about motorcyclists and their treatment. (I reckon I might just be able to tell them a thing or two as well :-p)

If this all works - i'm going to set up the meetings and ask KRers & KBers what questions they want asked of the powers that be.

Don't answer yet - but think about it.

I've also been given the keys to a treasure trove of data about motorcycling.

Here we go - check this.

BD Files Part 1a
Would anybody care to offer a theory to explain these trends.

Ixion
17th March 2006, 17:35
When did Jap import rice burners start hitting the market?

And , sounds good. But beware you don't get sucked into the official rubber stamp machine. Seen that happen more than once. Those bureaucrats can be *sooo* convincing.

Big Dave
17th March 2006, 17:42
When did Jap import rice burners start hitting the market?

And , sounds good. But beware you don't get sucked into the official rubber stamp machine. Seen that happen more than once. Those bureaucrats can be *sooo* convincing.

Thanks and I hear you - conversely they haven't had the front end wash out on pea gravel.

erik
17th March 2006, 23:13
BD Files Part 1a
Would anybody care to offer a theory to explain these trends.
My guess:

Increase in imported cars in the late 80's and decrease in car price mean more people driving them, hence number of cars on the road and car accidents increase dramatically from 1988 to 2003.
Bike numbers don't increase as rapidly. While the number of bike crashes might have stayed constant (or increased), the large increase in car crashes makes the bike crashes form a smaller percent of the total.

Karma
17th March 2006, 23:18
Yeh you'd have to reference it against things like car safety for instance...

There was a time when it was more likely you'd die in a car crash than walk away...

Remember things like the old Mercedes steering wheel that used to cut peoples chest open if they crashed.

Motu
18th March 2006, 08:54
That crossover year coinsides with the height of the Yuppy era - when bikes went from a necessity/enthusiasts vehicle to a fashion accessory,to to bought ''just because they can'',no home was complete without a Monsta and a KTM,complete top of the line riding kit for each,a jet ski,seperate trailers for each.The bike has now become the toy they always wanted.They couldn't handle their money.....couldn't handle their bikes either.

Also shows our increased use of protective gear produces less injuries...but more deaths.In some of the helmet reshearch it shows less injuries for full face helmets,but increased deaths from spinal cord injuries....nothing can be proved,but the graph shows trends.

thealmightytaco
18th March 2006, 13:00
Hmmm, very interesting graph. Trends I'm not sure about, I like the opinions given thus far though, especially the increased gear accounting for less injuries, and the influx of old japanese cars raising the 4 wheeled vehicle count compared to the 2 wheelers.

But the graph would make a fantastiuc argument against the exorbitant motorbike acc levies; we're less likely to crash than the rest, and if we do we're more likely to be beyond repair and hence not need any ongoing payments. Ya bastards.

Terrible thought that last one though, but apparently it is so.

oldrider
18th March 2006, 19:36
There are statistics of war that detail the change between brain injures and deaths following the introduction of steel helmets.

Maybe the introduction of safety gear and the improvement of the quality can be tracked.

When I got my licence and started riding bikes, you couldn't buy affordable safety gear and even if you could you didn't have to wear it.

The bikes were pretty docile, the brakes and lighting were crap and we seemed to crash off more than have accidents with other vehicles, maybe the poor roads contributed.

I like what you are doing Dave keep it up. Cheers John.

Big Dave
18th March 2006, 20:49
I'll try and note what bikes were the best sellers at each peak of the graph.

I'm at some disadvantage only having being here 5 years - Anybody know - or where I can find out:

What year

was Random Breath testing Introduced?

were helmets made compulsory?

Did 250cc restrictions come into force?

were rider training made compulsory?

thanks

Big Dave
18th March 2006, 20:58
But the graph would make a fantastiuc argument against the exorbitant motorbike acc levies;

Don't just jump straight to the climax of all this! we build slowly and garner interest first.

Wait till I roll out the injustice of the 4T formula for weight based road wear and tear calculations. It'll knock yer socks off.

Lou Girardin
20th March 2006, 08:26
Could it be that the actual reporting of injury accidents has fallen since '90. Co-incidentally since the Police takeover from MOT. So that unless the injury requires an ambulance it is highly likely that it's not attended. Fatals are always attended.
Add to that the comment already said, that as bikes become toys, their owners can also afford better protective gear.

Motu
20th March 2006, 09:35
That graph starts in 1970,the year I started riding bikes.The early 70s sure were a heady time,there was a huge boom in the interest in bikes,and it was the begining of the superbike era.Previously performance bikes had been the reserve of the very experianced rider - now anyone could walk in and with 25% deposit ride out on any bike on the floor.The steep climb of the graph shows these kids killing themselves,but also reflects the big increase of bikes on the road,and off road...trail bikes were the new thing back then too,I bought my first new trail bike in 1971.

There was a helmet law - you had to wear one if doing over 30mph,but no one did,and the Cops never enforced the rule.I never heard of anyone being done for it.The helmet law was extended to any speed in 1973/74 I think....I lost my licence that summer,but may of been riding legally as I remember the first day of compulsory helmets.I already wore a helmet off road,and if I was going to go for a fast ride often wore one too.

Big Dave
20th March 2006, 11:23
Thanks motu and others - what I was looking for - but why do you reckon deaths started to fall sharply in the late 80's - because there was more car accidents? or is it a bike safety issue.
I'll ask ACC too.

Big Dave
20th March 2006, 11:26
Got any pics from today?


www.davidcohen.co.nz/satcorro

The Stranger
20th March 2006, 11:44
Dave, you already have access to the guy whom knows most about this sort of thing.
Give Finn a call.

oldrider
20th March 2006, 12:00
Dave, looking at the graph and thinking of what occurred at the time of the cross over, the thing that springs to mind is not directly involved with motorcycling but could be influential.

The stock market crash of 1987, followed by the introduction of Japanese cheap car imports, followed by a sharp decline in new motorcycle sales.

I may be off beam but that's my recollection of the trends over that period. Worth a thought? :confused: John.

Big Dave
20th March 2006, 12:37
I may be off beam but that's my recollection of the trends over that period. Worth a thought? :confused: John.


Of couse! - it has to be indexed against registrations - nice work.

Motu
20th March 2006, 12:49
I'm not sure when the graduated licence and 250 limit came in,I already had a full licence so it didn't concern me...but mid 70s anyway.Before that you got a provisional....written test and ''oral'',there were no restrictions other than no pillion I think,you could be on a provisional for as long as you liked,it only cost 50cents...I paid 50cents a couple of times.Then you sat your full,which was just the practical,you had a L rego label,so you could only ride your own,or another learners bike...you could be fined caught riding with a full label (I know that because I had a court case over it) Car drivers had to have an ''L'' label in the rear window too.

With the graduated licence came a big push in rider training,the Coca Cola Riding School at Western Springs was where everyone went to learn to ride - my wife learnt to ride there,taught by a friend who was doing it from the very beginning,he only gave up a role in rider training a couple of years ago due to illness.My wife says it wasn't compulsory when she went there,she just wanted to be taught correctly - just as well,otherwise we would of never met.Kinda embarressing as an experianced rider being pulled up on some of my glaring faults by a learner!

Insanity_rules
20th March 2006, 12:59
Go get em Big Dave, we need a rational voice.

If you look at the horsepower increase of bikes between 85 to now theres waaaayyyy more bang to buck ratio increase between then and now.

Also look at how the population of cages has increased as Jap imports have saturated our roads with bigger horsepower(snigger) cars, your average learner (or not so) cager can get a WRX or GSR for Feck all and tear around the countryside like an idiot taking out our 2 wheel bretheren.

It would be interesting to know how many of these deaths were biker at fault but I'd dare say more often than not its the bloody cager's fault.

Big Dave
20th March 2006, 13:01
Dave, you already have access to the guy whom knows most about this sort of thing.
Give Finn a call.

Will do.....

Big Dave
20th March 2006, 13:04
It would be interesting to know how many of these deaths were biker at fault but I'd dare say more often than not its the bloody cager's fault.

I think I might have some of that - hang on a minute.

no - not quite - not blame but how - per 2004.

I can even tell you what time of day you are most likely to bin it.

Motu
20th March 2006, 13:33
The crossover and decline in injuries doesn't happen until 1987/88 - Jap Imports were a very new thing then,still private people going over and bringing back a couple of cars,we weren't geared up as fully dependant on Jap Imports until after 1990.I worked for a dealer in 1988 who imported half a dozen every couple of months,and we did them up for resale,they sublet another shop out to an importer who was probably doing 20 or more in a shipment,everyone thought he was crazy.This is too early to show a switch to cars by the young guys,the dip in bike sales would be more early 90s I'd say.

scumdog
20th March 2006, 13:43
Could it be that the actual reporting of injury accidents has fallen since '90. Co-incidentally since the Police takeover from MOT. So that unless the injury requires an ambulance it is highly likely that it's not attended. Fatals are always attended.
Add to that the comment already said, that as bikes become toys, their owners can also afford better protective gear.

Nah, they are now hammering us to report ALL injury crashes - ones that would have not even been looked at 7-8 years ago are now being recorded as 'Injury Crash.

I suspect the average age increase for bike riders has helped a bit too - not so many teenagers on bikes now compared to when i was a boy.

Just look at the College/High School car parks these days - in Nelson back in the 60's there was a fair line-up of bikes in the park.

Big Dave
20th March 2006, 13:52
Nah, they are now hammering us to report ALL injury crashes


Consider it the 'working for me' part of your public service :sherlock:

scumdog
20th March 2006, 13:54
It would be interesting to know how many of these deaths were biker at fault but I'd dare say more often than not its the bloody cager's fault.

Have to be careful here, I haven't checked ALL the figures but imho the rider themselves is the main factor - a hell of a lot of crashes are single bike/left the road sort of thing and a fair few others are bikes crashing into the cage due to excess cornering speed on the bikes part etc.

Big Dave
20th March 2006, 14:11
Have to be careful here, I haven't checked ALL the figures but imho the rider themselves is the main factor - a hell of a lot of crashes are single bike/left the road sort of thing and a fair few others are bikes crashing into the cage due to excess cornering speed on the bikes part etc.

I agree - however according to the way i interpret 'turning against' in table 33
you could say that the 'single most likely cause' of injury is someone turning right, in front of you at an intersection?

far queue
20th March 2006, 19:59
I don't know when the bike capacity restrictions were introduced, but they were there when I got my licence in 1979.

Also untill around the mid 80's the law was that a 66% deposit was required for ALL cars and all new bikes but only 33% for a used bike, which helped push more young people into bikes because that's all they could afford. This requirement was removed completely sometime mid 80's, but used car prices were still relatively high, and then the imports started coming in which dropped the arse out of the used car prices. So, suddenly, relatively cheap used cars were available with bugger all deposit, bikes lost a lot of their popularity with those that were just looking for cheap transport, and the bike shops started closing down. Lower % of bikes on the road = lower % of accidents involving them.

Lou Girardin
21st March 2006, 08:14
Nah, they are now hammering us to report ALL injury crashes - ones that would have not even been looked at 7-8 years ago are now being recorded as 'Injury Crash.



No doubt. But are you guys getting to all injury accidents? Particularly in the main centres.
Our criteria for injury accidents used to be those requiring ambulance transport - still the same?

scumdog
21st March 2006, 09:27
No doubt. But are you guys getting to all injury accidents? Particularly in the main centres.
Our criteria for injury accidents used to be those requiring ambulance transport - still the same?

Nope, even a small cut that may only need a Band-Aid, broken finger, road-rash to a knee - if it constitutes an 'injury' of any sort it goes on an Injury report.

Vitually all that can go on a Non-Injury report is a car-prak fender-bender.

And Ambo IS called out more - it's arse covering in case I say "You'll be right matey" - and fifteen minutes late 'matey' topples over and then his rellies do the PCA thing..

Lou Girardin
21st March 2006, 15:01
Nope, even a small cut that may only need a Band-Aid, broken finger, road-rash to a knee - if it constitutes an 'injury' of any sort it goes on an Injury report.

.

Seems strange. What's the criteria now for 'causing injury' charges?