LTSA Stats.... [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

wkid_one

2nd April 2003, 13:28

Guys & Girls - I have been doing some research as I tend to take the Police and LTSA to taks on some important things...Yes - I have too much time on my hands!!!

Read this in conjuction with the attachment...

Some interesting stats here...(rolling 12 month av to January 31st 2003)

 <table border="0" width="488" cellpadding="4"> <tr> <td width="195"> Mode of Transport </td> <td width="99" align="right" colspan="2"> Deaths </td> <td width="174" align="right" colspan="2"> Injuries </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="195"> Car </td> <td width="57" align="right"> 316 </td> <td width="50" align="right"> (78%) </td> <td width="117" align="right"> 10847  </td> <td width="60" align="right"> (82%) </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="195"> Bikes </td> <td width="57" align="right"> 28 </td> <td width="50" align="right"> (7%) </td> <td width="117" align="right"> 723  </td> <td width="60" align="right"> (5.5%) </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="195"> Cyclists </td> <td width="57" align="right"> 14 </td> <td width="50" align="right"> (3.5%) </td> <td width="117" align="right"> 730  </td> <td width="60" align="right"> (6%) </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="195"> Pedestrians </td> <td width="57" align="right"> 47 </td> <td width="50" align="right"> (12%) </td> <td width="117" align="right"> 993  </td> <td width="60" align="right"> (7.5%) </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="195"> NZ Totals </td> <td width="57" align="right"> 405 </td> <td width="50" align="right"> (100%) </td> <td width="117" align="right"> 13316  </td> <td width="60" align="right"> (100%) </td> </tr> </table>

What is wrong with these figures if you are a motorcyclist.

LTSA says motorcycle registrations are hitting all time high! - yet we make up the 2 lowest group of fatalities on the road after CYCLISTS AND BEFORE PEDESTRIANS!
We are being taxed the highest for vehicle useage yet with have a lower injury percentage than any other form of transport (this doesn't factor in severity of injury) - indicating we are no more likely to get injured than any other mode of transport!  Why do we pay 50% more to register our bikes - these stats don't support the necessity??  We also tend to use our bikes less and use less roading resources.
Why the hell aren't we taxing pedestrians - they almost have twice as many deaths as motorcyclists and more injuries??  Maybe they should wear helmets
What is all the fuss about motorcycles being dangerous, as we make up but a small proportion of accidents and deaths.
Of the car stats - 1/3 we attributeable to passengers - something we largely don't have an issue with on bikes.  Think you can have one car accident and kill 5 people, or worse, kill none, but permanently maim all five......you'd be one wicked stunt rider to pull that off on a bike!
Cyclist have more injuries than motorcyclist, yet any pleb can get a bike?  Where are the efforts to regulate cycle traffic on NZ roads?  You don't have to register a cycle or get a WOF, hell you don't even have to be over 15?
These stats also don't reflect the cause of injury - ie cars not giving a stuff about bikes!  Where is the education of car drivers to inform them that we, as motorcyclists, actually have a right to be on the road!
I can find no stats as to Lane Splitting injuries or deaths (sorry, I am on that soap box again I know)
Also, injuries aren't split out by group and cause - but roading quality accounted for almost 10% of OPen Road Accidents - it would be interesting to see what percentage of these were motorcyclists

This is all just food for thought - but I believe it makes a convincing argument....my conclusions:

Motorcycling is a shit load safer than the authorities have as believe
The LTSA should be focused on other modes of transport before bikes
Given the risk of injury, no motorbiker puts him or herself at risk - yet car drivers seem to drive with reckless abandon - knowing the risk to them is usually limited to panel damage and an insurance claim (if they bloody have it)
There are no stats to validate the present 'anti-biker' mentality of police and goverment - in fact on the figures above - they should be proud of how we ride.
Yes we speed - but we appear to be able to do it a lot safer than others

Well my tirade over, I go now to present this to my MP and send to the LTSA and Police for comment!  Fat chance I will get a reply - but I will feel betta

Dan

bluninja

2nd April 2003, 18:10

WKID, amazing what you can do with stats :D

BTW if you look at accident/deaths per KM travelled cycling and walking come out to be extremely dangerous forms of transport. Sadly I have looked at LTSA stats from time to time. Without a consistent way of objectively recording data these stats will always be a political tool. After all speed is a contributary factor in every vehicle accident (one vehicle al least has to be moving at speed to cause the accident).

One interesting thing thing was the number of open road motorbike accidents on bends. Clearly we have an opportunity to reduce these by improving cornering skills.......OR remove bikes that don't corner well (Harley's anyone?)....educate the car drivers who insist on cutting across the bends....OR stop them tipping piles of metal on the road surafce without addequate signage.

TTFN

What?

2nd April 2003, 20:51

Be careful who you give that info to, Wkid. Stuffed if I want to pay rego and ACC levies on my jandals :D

Imagine air bags on a pushy...:confused:

MikeL

2nd April 2003, 21:10

I'm confused :confused: If these are valid LSTA statistics, what was the basis for upping the rego/ACC levy?? Have we been conned? :mad:
Or is there more to it?
As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Hoon

2nd April 2003, 21:42

You can't make those conclusions as you are comparing different sized groups.  If the group populations were equal (i.e. same number of motorcylists, car, peds and cyclists) then you could make valid comparisons.

You need to know the total users of each mode and convert all the above data into a "percentage of total users".

At the moment, say you have a sample set of 100 people, 90 of them drive and 10 ride bikes.  You are comparing the results of 90 drivers to only 10 bikers.  If say 8 drivers and 1 biker die, driving would still be safer than biking (8.8% fatality rate compared to 10% for bikers).

Hence the reason pedestrians rate highly because almost everyone in NZ walks along the street whereas only say 10% ride bikes.

Accident/deaths per KM travelled are not fair comparisons either as the average cars/bike trip is a lot further than your average cycle or walk.

wkid_one

3rd April 2003, 00:10

Realise all that information, and have to look at miles done etc - however on the face of it (this is data from the LTSA Website) we ARE being conned.

I am well aware of the statistic merits of the comparisons I have done, however based on the statistic sample size (this is a 12 month rolling average - with over 13,000 injuries) the information is statistically valid based on the information I have.

You are correct in that further information is required to break this down - which I have - however given it is a document about 97 pages long - I thought you could all have the condensed version!

In essence, Motorcyclists are not as dangerous as a unit on the road as we are both led to believe and legislated against.  We, by the very nature of the fact we ARE more likely to be injuried if we come off, are more cautious and safer in the nature of our driving.  We tend to be better trained and seek more 'advanced training' the car drivers.

The basis for the information provided as to number of accidents, still doesn't validate an increase in ACC premiums on our registration - as a percentage, our accident rates have actually been declining (or at worst stable) - yet our registration numbers are increasing!

 

Slim

3rd April 2003, 02:30

Interestingly enough, I was just looking at this last week in response to a comment from a Canadian re: statistics from accidents, from a Canadian motorcycle site.

Here's what I found on the ACC Site (http://www.acc.org.nz/productslevies/news/motor-vehicle-levies-from-1-july-2002/) :

"ACC has increased the motorcycle levies to more closely reflect the higher degree of crash involvement and subsequent cost of motorcyclists injuries," and "Motorcycles represent about 3% of the motor vehicle fleet. However, entitlement costs for people injured in crashes involving motorcycles represent about 30% of the total motor vehicle account costs." and, just to really stump you, "Motorcycles do not consume as much petrol as a standard vehicle and are therefore not bearing the full costs of injuries for their class."

Huh? And I always thought petrol tax was meant to be spent on roading & policing & education and stuff. I had no idea that part of my petrol tax was another ACC levy! :angry:

I still reckon accident statistics should be attributed by blame, not involvement.

wkid_one

3rd April 2003, 08:52

Yea, ACC is made up as a component of Petrol Tax.  We are the highest company for tax on Petrol in the Western World - ie of each dollar we spend on petrol we have the highest gross percentage that is attirbutable to tax.  Every time we get a price drop that is sustainable, the government taxes petrol even heavier - yet when we have a sustained price rise - there is no commensurate reduction in this tax!

Yes we use less petrol, however we also only use 2 and 4/3 square inches of road when we ride, we generally ride our bike less, we require less parking facilities, we generally have lower emmissions, we are a more efficient user of petrol, and we don't contribute to motorway and inner city congestion - all things that the so-called LTSA tax is for on petrol.

If you also look at something else - Diesel is so cheap in NZ, because the tax is paid seperately - in the form of Road Users Charges - yet, how many Diesels vehicles in NZ are NOT paying this tax, and thereby getting away with driving their vehicle 'tax free' to a point.  And if they get caught - $400 - whoopee!  Why haven't they included the tax at the pump for 'non-commercial' diesel vehicles!.

Why don't we tax vehicles the MORE they use the road!  Why are commercial trucking firms etc not taxed more - they have a heavier impact on the road......why is NZ a one size fits all economy when it comes to tax!

bluninja

3rd April 2003, 09:32

Errr...WKID petrol in the UK is round the $2 a litre mark.....since the petrol is the same price...the difference must be tax...so I would disagree that NZ has the highest fuel tax.

Great thought provoking post though, sorry if people took my comments about per km accident rates literally.......it was merely an example of how things can be skewed if people ask the wrong questions.

TTFN

What?

3rd April 2003, 11:00

On the button, bluninja. You can make statistics say what ever you want them to. In fact, it is often simplest to use them to disprove the facts that generated them.(?)

So here is a dilemma for you all... The LTSA, and similar bodies around the world, tell us that the majority of crashes happen close to home. On the surface, this would indicate the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome; people when near home relax too much, or take risks because "they know the road".

 But, what if the close to home crash rate is attributable to those drivers who do very little mileage, i.e. never venture far from home and/or don't drive much? What would they do to us if it was proved that your crash likelyhood actually decreased as your average weekly mileage increased?:(

If we all think back to our learner days, is this scenario too difficult to imagine? Personally, I believe my skill level rose with experience, therefore I should think my crash likelyhood, as a result of my own actions at least, has correspondingly decreased.

Argh - my head hurts. Mark Twain was right.:bigthumb:

Hoon

3rd April 2003, 12:02

The close-to-home stats also cannot be trusted without considering the overall percentage of travel time spent "close to home" (likeWhat? says)

Without even looking at the numbers I would expect a higher number of accidents to occur close to home because the average driver spends a larger portion of their seat time driving locally (shopping, visiting, going to work, taking the kids to school etc).  Even far-from-home trips include the close-to-home component when leaving and returning home.

I travel to AKL CBD everyday, whereas my mum rarely goes more than 5 kms from her home.

Even if the average kiwi driver spent 60% of their wheel time locally this would skew the results in that favour.

Coldkiwi

3rd April 2003, 12:30

I'm not sure about bikers taking less risks than car drivers. there are some bikers out there who are intent on taking risks with their tyres.... and desires to point their bikes in the wrong direction to see what happens when it all goes west -nudge nudge,wink wink,say no more, say no MORE!! (specially not about turbo kwakas....)

but I should think the percentage might be about the same given the large numbers of riders who only pull the bike out in the weekend for a leasurely cruise.

howver I have no idea of the numbers so I'll stop wasting webspace with my uninformed dribble

merv

3rd April 2003, 12:54

Relating the crash rate vs cars etc is probably not what ACC look at. They are like an insurance company and their real issue is cost of payouts. So they will have put our rates up based on the number of bikes registered versus the costs still going out the door and expected to go out the door to injured bikers. The dead ones probably don't worry ACC too much, but the legacy of injured ones would.

The hard part is comparing registered vehicles to cyclists and pedestrians where there is no additional recovery of costs. So no doubt we are paying for them overall in our earnings related ACC charges then we are paying on top as drivers and bikers.

I don't think they should differentiate registered motor vehicles for extra charges because the same doesn't apply to jetskis, rugby playing or any other activity that has no registration type fee that can be levied.

It justs seems they try to suck money from wherever it can be sucked.

The LTSA website shows detailed stats regarding types of crashes etc and for sure, bikers have too many single vehicle, crashing on straight roads and failing to take a corner type accidents. This has happened on some of our Ulysses rides in the past where I have been amazed that some people have just run off the road and generally when they are not going that fast. I do wonder are we all getting too bloody old and our eyesight is failing. I can't see age related stats on the LTSA site so I am not sure if that is an issue. On average though the age of bikers is probably greater than 30 years ago. Most young guys buy a boy racer type car these days.

Ride safely and with time that is the only way the premiums will come down if their are less injuries to pay for.

MikeL

3rd April 2003, 14:31

Merv
That was an unwarranted slur on fellow Ulyssians :mad: We are not too old and our eyesight is still good enough to see the white lines. If some of us are wandering off the road it must be because of distractions or the sudden urgent need to empty our bladder.
If age is relevant, I think it's more likely to be a positive factor. From my observations there are definitely fewer younger riders proportionally than when I first started riding 30 years ago - at that time it was predominantly a young person's sport (late teens to late twenties) and it was relatively rare to see anyone in their forties or older. Considering the statistics for young male car drivers, I believe the motorbike injury/fatality rate would be much higher if the average age had not shifted so much. Experience must count for something!
Anyone seen any statistics for motorbike accidents/deaths by age group?

bluninja

3rd April 2003, 15:23

Hmmmm, my only ride out with Ulysses one person ran off at a corner and up a path almost coming off.....apparently desperate for a pee . Another was riding a 955i without even a restricted license and was pretty wobbly come the twisty bits.:o Now I'm old enough to ride with them (officially) I'm not sure I would want to....they may feel the same way about me.

Yes I've seen the stats for age related deaths it's actually in the attachment WKID put in. Yes they do drop off after age 35 and then again at 44 (perhaps Ulysses should increase their membership age :p). Again without knowing the number of riders of varying age the information is pretty much useless. In fact on the anecdotal observances of the previous posters (removes dictionary from mouth) of more mature riders than young guns; it could appear that young riders are even more at risk of death and injury riding a bike.

What annoys me the most is that the ACC is not investigating the causes of the higher (pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist) death and injury rate and making an effort to reduce the payouts by working on the causal factors. This has bugger all to do with blame or liability, so they should be ploughing some of this cash into reducing the accidents in the first place.

Instead of running prime time TV ads of mums tripping over kids toys, men stepping out of a shower(in an unfeasibly large shower room) and smacking their head, and not to cook chips at the end of a night out.....why not work on the government to get some decent driver training and education before they are allowed on the roads with an emphasis on vunerable road users.

TTFN

 

bluninja

3rd April 2003, 15:28

Whoops...forgot one paranoid comment.....if ACC want to cut the death toll from motorcyclists why not just keep hiking the ACC levy for bikes so it becomes less affordable and people switch away from bikes. Less bikers paying more money...until there's no bikers on the roads......and so at a stroke biker deaths and injuries are removed from the road toll. Hey..such a simple solution and costs nothing to implement. If the bikers get hacked off, just wind them up some more so they give up riding.:mad:

TTFN

wkid_one

3rd April 2003, 15:54

The main thrust behind the increase in ACC premiums in the registration of motorcycles is attributed to the severity of the accident/injury and the duration of recuperation and therefore payment by ACC.  Motorcycle injuries tend to be more severe and long lasting - however, there are fewer of them.

Yes, you can argue petrol in the UK is $2 per litre - however - you aren't comparing apples with apples.  If you take the UK pound as the pound and the dollar as the dollar - we ARE one of the highest country for excise tax on petrol - refering to the article completed on 20:20 in May 2001.......happy to provide a copy.  If you take pure Tax as a percentage of the cost in the nominated currency of the country concerned - we are.  Especially for 'non-essential' taxations.

Yes Statistics can be made to read whatever you like - true - as I said before I have the full 97 page breakdown of the motor accident and fatality statistics for 2002 which I am happy to go through with you.  The information I have provided is largely sterilised and simplified for the purposes of discussion.  Does this not also mean that statistics can be made to read against motorcyclists as they have to date.

There are a variety of external factors - many motorcycles own more than one bike but only ride one at a time - is this fair?

The information I have provided here is only a snippet of what has been 6 months worth of work and research - happy to discuss with anyone!

 

 

 

 

 

wkid_one

3rd April 2003, 15:55

PS: the LTSA website and the article I previously attached does breakdown by AGE GROUP! but not cross referenced by vehicle class - I do have this and will look it up and post it later!

Redstar

3rd April 2003, 17:17

Actually I think it only fair that we pay more ACC levies than other road users! While I was passing a GSXR1100 the otherday at a sedately 235Kmls/hr I noticed that this idiot was Smoking a fag,talking in his mobile,fiddling with his radio and airconditioner
shaving,eating his lunch,reading some boreing meeting minutes,
putting on his make-up(weirdo)all that with his helmet gloves and body armoured gear! amazing I tell you.

I think a fairer system is user pay through vechicle insurance
I do 15,000 a year and rarely get killed.

bluninja

3rd April 2003, 17:59

WKID, not sure I want the full 97 page report....BUT does it have an explanation of their data acquisition methodology and quality controls on the data? I would be interested in that. Cos to coin an old programming phrase 'Crap in - Crap out'. As a sad git I did some formal study on systems analysis in a degree course (not IT related) and it always interests me about what system is actually being anlaysed and the perspective of the analyst as this will have a great bearing on the result.

TTFN

ps I make UK tax at 74% ish of total cost and NZ tax at 38% ish of total fuel cost.

wkid_one

3rd April 2003, 18:56

Yeah, I am pretty sure it does have information as to the method of collection.  It is largely driven from the ACC Forms & Police Data - ie dependant on the information obtained at the time of the accident - and in some cases the 'interpretation' given by the officers on the scene or crash investigation specialists.

I will try and dig out the whole form.  I will also post the article on the tax differences country to country as a seperate document.

The upshot of everything is that whilst we have more severe accidents - we don't warrant excessively restrictive tax and legislative movements.  We have less injuries as a percentage of registered vehicles than cars.  The figures also hide the accidents caused by Cars etc that impact on motorcycles - ie the blame or fault of the accident.  This is a difficult area to accurately determine as there are so many variables - eg a car driver pulling on to a road in front of a bike - did he not see him, was the bike travelling to fast, was the bikes brakes faulty etc etc etc.

Rugby has more injuries and is the result of more ACC payments (go to the ACC website) than motorcycling - yet it still only costs a pittance to play rugby??  We are being targetted purely because we are easy to seperate as a group and I believe there is a stereotype attached to motorcycling by those who don't!

I still reckon I have months left in this.  It is just an exercise I am doing for my stats study - plus I have WAY too much time on my hands at the moment

I am glad it has provoked so much discussion - that was my only intention and to question, why as such a large united voice - we just let it happen!

MikeL

3rd April 2003, 21:00

Originally posted by wkid_one
why as such a large united voice - we just let it happen!
"We" doesn't include me because, as I understand it, these changes were brought in last year, when I was still an oblivious and uncaring cager...
Now, though, I'm angry, and the question is "what can I do about it now?". Letter to MP? Refusal to pay full rego when it becomes due? Suggestions, please.

merv

3rd April 2003, 22:13

Bikers didn't just let the ACC thing happen we had the big ride-in to parliament and Ruth Dyson did listen and in the end we got slugged a lot less than was first planned, but watch out in future years.

As for suggesting I was slurring Ulyssians, well I am one and I was quoting fact - I said the LTSA stats show there is a large proportion of bike crashes that are single vehicle on straights or curves - i.e. bikers fault pure and simple, no one else made them do it - and then I said - fact also - that I have been amazed at the number that have done just that on rides I have been on over the years.

I have been riding 34 years and even 30 years ago it was rare for any of the young guys I rode with then to crash on the road. The difference maybe was the bikes were definitely slower and we were mainly dirt bikers too and we had our crashes in the dirt with little damage occurring.

It is time they registered pushbikes, skateboards and rugby players so they can be slugged their own speciall ACC fee and not just pick on us. Als as all the multi-bike owners know too what a rip-off when we only ride one at a time.

But hey we have fun when we do it though - ride that is, and as I said before ride safe - that is the only way to get the premiums down but it will take time for that to have any effect until the legacy of costs has diminished.

merv

3rd April 2003, 22:31

p.s. this is the table I was looking at http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2001/docs/motorcycle-table-33.pdf

We had the debate on the Ulysses site once with bikers blaming cars for crashes, but when you see this breakdown of where accidents occur and you add up the loss of control and collison with obstructions, which really are purely down to the biker, that's about 1/3 of the crashes and of the other 2/3 I doubt you could say every one can be blamed on the other driver or whoever.

wkid_one

3rd April 2003, 22:35

I have a worse idea - why not introduce the Tax Nazi's to the GPS system presently being trailed in the UK and tax us per KM we do, have an excess speed tax, an overtaking tax, and lane sharing tax, and a rubber left on the road tax

wkid_one

3rd April 2003, 22:39

Even better - why not get like Minority Report and they just take your license off you the minute you think about buying a bike and empty your bank account?

They could create a proactive and pre-emptive tax system!.  Thanks for the buying the bike, that'll be $19,995 for your 2002 R1 and $5000 in forward paid taxes and fine!  Shit, I hope no government officials are reading this - they may see merit in that!

aff-man

4th April 2003, 08:01

Well i was quite surprised when my first rego came i mean a had to pay 1/14 of what my bike was worth just to ride it for 6 months. As to bluninja's comment

"and so at a stroke biker deaths and injuries are removed from the road toll. Hey..such a simple solution and costs nothing to implement. If the bikers get hacked off, just wind them up some more so they give up riding.<IMG alt="" src="http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif" border=0> "

Young guys who are starting out and have to pay 1/10 of what thier first bike may cost to ride it for 6 months is just silly. So maybe the government has already put into play the whole "if they can't afford to be on the road then all the better for us" plan!!!

:angry:

MikeL

4th April 2003, 11:14

Merv
I wasn't seriously offended by your comment re Ulyssians - my tongue, as usual, was firmly in my cheek when I made that posting. I really don't have any evidence at all to back up my assertions - my experience is limited and may be quite different from the majority. Whether we Ulyssians really are just a bunch of old w*nkers making fools of ourselves is not the point - quite honestly I don't give a damn what others think. But what is interesting, and important, are the facts about accidents/injuries/fatalities by age groups, and the reasons for them. Your observations about younger riders in the past rarely crashing on the road (which is contrary to my gut-feeling but may very well be true) and the number of single-vehicle bike accidents today (which may involve a disproportionately high number of older riders) are the sort of facts that need more analysis.
One more point about older riders: when I got my licence in the late 60s, I did a simple written and oral test for the provisional licence, then for the practical I went 5 minutes round the block on a 50cc moped followed by a bored traffic officer. That licence enabled me to ride any bike onto the road and it has remained valid for over 30 years, during which time I not only rode nothing bigger than 50cc but actually rode nothing at all. At any time I could have legally hopped on a 1000cc sports bike without any further training or check of my riding. Surely a recipe for disaster?? When I started riding again 6 months ago I was acutely aware of my inexperience, and also the inevitable deterioration in eyesight, reaction times etc. I know that I am at greater risk than say a 30 yr old with 10 yrs experience. But perhaps I compensate by my awareness of the risk. And statistically, are there more people like me, than, say 17 yr olds with a death wish riding clapped out bikes with bald tyres and dodgy brakes?? (disclaimer: any resemblance to any person, living or dead, who may appear in this forum is entirely coincidental).
End of rave. I've forgotten what else I was going to say. Must be the Alzheimers again.

merv

4th April 2003, 13:13

If you want to check out a few of our rides have you seen my website - I have all the road and adventure stuff loaded going back a few years. Just don't look for the trail and other stuff its not there at the moment.

http://bikemerv.topcities.com/index.html

I haven't got the time to tell you which rides nor who, but I can go through the lists and remember a number of occasions when we were stopping to pick up those that ran off the road. Being the tactful soul I am I usually don't embarrass them by photographing them. Usually on Ulysses rides we aren't going very fast and that is why it amazed me at times - and in many cases these are people I don't know very well so I don't know about their riding background. If they crashed on unexpected gravel patches or something it wouldn't be such a surprise but it has tended to be on plain old ordinary sealed roads.