Stats Stats and More Stats

[wkid_one]

I have attached some interesting 'reports' from the LTSA - if you are so inclined to read them - as I am.

The most interesting report is the Table 34 - which shows the accident by type.

Some summary


Nigh on 700 crashes involving injury (ie - involving ACC) - but only 30 deaths (yes only is a dismissive word I suppose).
Loss of control is the biggest factor causing death.
Loss of control is the biggest factor on the open roads, mainly while cornering.
But in urban situations, intersections cause the most injury - many of which were caused by 'failing to give way to right'. Nothing unexpected here.
Motorcycles account for only 6% of the vehicle fatalities on NZ roads in 2002 - with most being under 40.
NO fatal crashes on bikes involved alcohol.
NO fatal crashes on bikes were deemed to be due to excess speed!!!!
Again - bikes only contribute to about 6-7% of all roading injurie
Meh - we aren't as bad as we think.

There were 3600 bikes registered in 2002.

30 accidents mean 1% fatality rate -which isn't flash

[riffer]

So using those statistics we can expect to have on average 10 kiwibikers lose their lives every year?

That's not good.... :disapint:

Do they mention what was the predominant cause of the fatal accidents? I couldn't find it....

[riffer]

Doh! my bad... see table 34.

[tuscan]

Sorry, reading the reports seems like a big effort :sleep: and I'm meant to be studying anyway, but I was wondering what % of road users are on bikes.

Also are many killed on urban roads? :spudwhat:

[tuscan]

OK don't worry I've read them myself... :whistle:

They should have a years-of-experience table as well I reckon, but as usual seems us young-uns are over represented... :brick: I guess that's to be expected.

Somewhat off the topic, but does anyone else really not like that shiny seal stuff they use to repair urban roads. At night time in the rain it gets bloody slippery :doctor: . Or maybe its just my skinny tyres...

[MD]

Maybe I'm on the wrong tack but the deaths are constant from the 40s to 1973 when it doubles and stays constant at this higher level until 1984 when it leaps up again. 1991 onwards see a rapid reduction. What influenced these steps?
I was a beginner rider in 76 so from my observations. Prior to 73 riders only had one choice of bike -British. The Jap bikes took off (sales wise, not so much speed) from early/mid 70s putting more riders on the road and petrol soared at the same time. But I'm speculating the Jap bikes soon gave more performance than riders were used too (Mach 3s, Yam RDs, Fours, Z1 ...) and this lead to increased deaths. 1984 was about the time that horsepower outputs shot up dramatically towards 100hp, a big leap froma few years earlier.
Jap 2nd hand car imports came along late 80s (I think?) which certainly had young Uns taking up cheap cars instead of bikes hence less inexperienced riders on the roads by early 90s lowered deaths.
Good to see we don't drink and ride and don't take out pedestrians. As Wkid said its cornering and right hand turns that get us. Now we know we will still rush off in search of that next exhilarating corner.

[vifferman]

Somewhat off the topic, but does anyone else really not like that shiny seal stuff they use to repair urban roads. At night time in the rain it gets bloody slippery :doctor: . Or maybe its just my skinny tyres...Y'mean tar snakes? Horrible nasty things, and they're slippery in the dry too. No, it's not just your skinny tyres. It's almost like they're specially designed to be as slippery as possible.

[riffer]

Y'mean tar snakes? Horrible nasty things, and they're slippery in the dry too. No, it's not just your skinny tyres. It's almost like they're specially designed to be as slippery as possible.
Thank goodness you guys have trouble with them too. I thought it was just me. Haywards Hill has a few nasty ones and seal which doesn't cover the road probides funnny "lips" in the wrong places ie middle of an off camber corner.

[V Twin Raver]

Y'mean tar snakes? Horrible nasty things,

I am glad you mention those, I thought it was just me being a nancy. In the wet they make your tyres slide even if you are riding straight & in the upright position!!! They give me the shits!!! Heaps of them on urban streets around Mt Eden.

[Hitcher]

Thank goodness you guys have trouble with them too. I thought it was just me. Haywards Hill has a few nasty ones and seal which doesn't cover the road probides funnny "lips" in the wrong places ie middle of an off camber corner.
Phew! And I thought it was just my crap riding on this stretch of road, probably intimidated as well by the lovely cheese-cutter median barrier...

[wkid_one]

Basically - you can ride pissed down the straights on the open road as no biker has died here - so your odds a pretty good!!!

Scary in a way when you put it in to terms like CN6.

I also read www.r1-forum.com (http://www.r1-forum.com) and they are forever posting about members and friends of members who are killed will riding - very sobering.

What we also have to put in to perspective is that there are only somewhere between 3600-4000 registered bikes out there. This figure hasn't been growing too rapidly either.

[Hitcher]

What we also have to put in to perspective is that there are only somewhere between 3600-4000 registered bikes out there. This figure hasn't been growing too rapidly either.
So this auspicious web site represents the views of between one-third or one-quarter of the registered bikers in New Zealand? Woo hoo!

[scumdog]

Funny that one about speed not being a factor in m'bike crashes, just reviewed a case where two bikes hit an oncoming truck on a down-hill left hand bend, said truck was on its side of the road grinding its way up the hill at about 25-30k, both bikes low-sided, one went smack into the centre of the nice chrome bumper, the other one hit behind the front wheel of the truck, the rider of that one ended up a bit dead under the truck front axle and the other guy got a visit to hospital.
Bend had 45k advisory sign, 6 other bikes had just got around it ok but these two were prety much on the centre line when they went down, second guy had tons of time to react too. (his bike hit the bumper)
No oil./rain/ice in the factor either.

[wkid_one]

Funny that one about speed not being a factor in m'bike crashes, just reviewed a case where two bikes hit an oncoming truck on a down-hill left hand bend, said truck was on its side of the road grinding its way up the hill at about 25-30k, both bikes low-sided, one went smack into the centre of the nice chrome bumper, the other one hit behind the front wheel of the truck, the rider of that one ended up a bit dead under the truck front axle and the other guy got a visit to hospital.
Bend had 45k advisory sign, 6 other bikes had just got around it ok but these two were prety much on the centre line when they went down, second guy had tons of time to react too. (his bike hit the bumper)
No oil./rain/ice in the factor either.
Is that speed - or poor cornering/skill?

The report is labelled Speed deemed 'inappropriate' for the situation - not excess speed.

[scumdog]

Is that speed - or poor cornering/skill?

The report is labelled Speed deemed 'inappropriate' for the situation - not excess speed.

Wellll, sure they PROBABLY weren't doing over a 100k but it is still speed related, to put in the proviso "inappropriate" is splitting hairs a bit, the crash still involved excess speed (as the corner had a real big 45k advisory sign).

Maybe the statistic guys should have a section labelled "Speed in excess of the legal limit on that section of road" - that would make it a bit clearer.

[wkid_one]

Wellll, sure they PROBABLY weren't doing over a 100k but it is still speed related, to put in the proviso "inappropriate" is splitting hairs a bit, the crash still involved excess speed (as the corner had a real big 45k advisory sign).

Maybe the statistic guys should have a section labelled "Speed in excess of the legal limit on that section of road" - that would make it a bit clearer.
Here is where you are wrong - that big 45kph sign is NOT a legal limit for that corner. It is an advised speed based on the safest speed for ANY vehicle to negotiate the corner - it therefore caters to the lowest common denominator of vehicle expected to take the corner.

[riffer]

What we also have to put in to perspective is that there are only somewhere between 3600-4000 registered bikes out there. This figure hasn't been growing too rapidly either.

So this auspicious web site represents the views of between one-third or one-quarter of the registered bikers in New Zealand? Woo hoo!
You need to also take into account that some of the members on this site have more than one motorcycle. Could be representative of even more than a third!

[jrandom]

Are you sure about that number? It seems ridiculously low. I would have thought the number of bikes on the road in NZ was at least ten times that.

[scumdog]

Here is where you are wrong - that big 45kph sign is NOT a legal limit for that corner. It is an advised speed based on the safest speed for ANY vehicle to negotiate the corner - it therefore caters to the lowest common denominator of vehicle expected to take the corner.

I (of all people) am quite aware the 45k sign was not a speed restriction sign but it is a bloody good hint that the corner is a tad more than a slight deviation in an otherwise straight road and as such maybe speed should be reduced a little - in this case it was not, whether the two were playing "catch-up" to the rest, racing or whatever, their speed was too much for the corner.

Actually the pair had already negotiated a couple of equally tight corners within 150 metres or so of the crash so it is not like they had just run off a long straight into the bend, (they were right hand bends so maybe they "straightened" them a bit? :sly:)

[James Deuce]

I (of all people) am quite aware the 45k sign was not a speed restriction sign but it is a bloody good hint that the corner is a tad more than a slight deviation in an otherwise straight road and as such maybe speed should be reduced a little - in this case it was not, whether the two were playing "catch-up" to the rest, racing or whatever, their speed was too much for the corner.

Actually the pair had already negotiated a couple of equally tight corners within 15 metres or so of the crash, they were right hand bends so maybe they "straightened" them a bit? :sly:
You have a good point, and the other cornering methodology that gives me the "proverbials" is people that take right hand corners with their wheels on the centre line.

I use the right hand side of the lane for lefties, and the left hand side for righties and apex late, as this gives me better sightlines through corners, and somewhere to go when someone coming the other way stuffs up. A case in point last week was the rider of the yellow Ducati last weekend on the 'takas who was riding by centre line braille and missed me by inches, only because I had room to adjust my line. If I'd been a truck, his head and upper body would have disintegrated like a rotten watermelon against my grill.

[spudchucka]

Is that speed - or poor cornering/skill?

The report is labelled Speed deemed 'inappropriate' for the situation - not excess speed.
Why did they lose control? Would they have maintained control had they been going a little slower?

If the answer is yes then speed in the circumstances was a contributing factor.

[Hitcher]

I use the right hand side of the lane for lefties, and the left hand side for righties and apex late.
Textbook, mate. And pretty to watch.

[scumdog]

Why did they lose control? Would they have maintained control had they been going a little slower?

If the answer is yes then speed in the circumstances was a contributing factor.

Yep S.C., if the truck hadn't been there these guys MIGHT have made it with less body damage, (they were down before hitting the truck), if the truck was not there they would have hit the armco on the wrong side of the road anyway.

If they had been going a bit slower they most likely would still be around - although i have reservations on that as the surviving rider had already had an "off" a couple of hours earlier on an even windier road.

[MD]

Funny that one about speed not being a factor in m'bike crashes...Bend had 45k advisory sign, 6 other bikes had just got around it ok but these two were prety much on the centre line when they went down, second guy had tons of time to react too. (his bike hit the bumper)
No oil./rain/ice in the factor either.
As much as I hate to admit it Scumdog's shot us all down in flames. There are only 2 reasons for a crash in a corner; lost traction- oil/shingle..or too fast to turn e.g. corner tightens up more than expected. I'm as guilty as sin. Love cornering just like most riders. Straight line speed hasn't caused crashes because we have our eyes peeled ahead for the slightest risk and slow at the first sign of another car miles ahead or so much as a mouse at the roadside.
Haven't got that luxury of seeing ahead when cornering. We can't hide from the truth, corners are dangerous for all vehicles, its just that they are fun on a bike.

[wkid_one]

As much as I hate to admit it Scumdog's shot us all down in flames. There are only 2 reasons for a crash in a corner; lost traction- oil/shingle..or too fast to turn e.g. corner tightens up more than expected. I'm as guilty as sin. Love cornering just like most riders. Straight line speed hasn't caused crashes because we have our eyes peeled ahead for the slightest risk and slow at the first sign of another car miles ahead or so much as a mouse at the roadside.
Haven't got that luxury of seeing ahead when cornering. We can't hide from the truth, corners are dangerous for all vehicles, its just that they are fun on a bike.
Extremely arguable point here. Did they lose crash because they were going too fast - or didn't have the correct skills? They are only looking at whether the speed was fitting to the conditions. NOT the riders skill level etc.

Re the tightening up - is that the riders fault - or the LTSA's fault for not correctly sign posting the corner? Is it speeds fault?

The report is basically saying - speed is involved where it is deemed to be excessive/unsafe for the situation/conditions.

You could then argue any accident is due to speed, unless something hits it, as a stationary object hits nothing.

We have had this discussion before - at the end of the day - these are the reports the the governing bodies legislate by

[Lou Girardin]

Why did they lose control? Would they have maintained control had they been going a little slower?

If the answer is yes then speed in the circumstances was a contributing factor.

Using that reasoning, which the LTSA do, speed is a factor in damn near every accident.

The latest Bike magazine has a good article on exactly this tactic being used in the UK. If you're going to blame speed as a killer it is necessary to have a higher percentage than the correct 7.3%. So they include other factors; such as, aggressive driving, interaction or competition with other road users, inexperience of the vehicle. Then voila, you have 33% of accidents caused by excessive speed.

[KATWYN]

Using that reasoning, which the LTSA do, speed is a factor in damn near every accident.

.

80% attitude 20% skill - To mention the source -I learnt this at a "street talk" workshop. (the LTSA workshop that cuts 6 months off your restricted
licence so you can get your full)

Its attitude behind the wheel that seems to determine a heck of a lot.

Agro :angry2:

Calm :calm:

[spudchucka]

Extremely arguable point here. Did they lose crash because they were going too fast - or didn't have the correct skills? They are only looking at whether the speed was fitting to the conditions. NOT the riders skill level etc.
I'm hesitating before posting much in this thread because I don't want to be accused of starting another bloody speed, bikers versus the police / LTSA etc thread - BUT is not the drivers / riders skills part of the "conditions". Are the riders skills not relevant to the road conditions and vice versa. If they did not have the skills to go THAT fast in THAT corner under THOSE conditions and they subsequently lost control, crashed and killed themselves or another person then can you not reasonably say that speed, relevant to all the conditions, (including the riders skill level) was a contributing factor?? Bearing in mind that skill level is a subjective element that cannot really be measured especially if the rider has snuffed it as a consequence of the crash!!!!!

[spudchucka]

Using that reasoning, which the LTSA do, speed is a factor in damn near every accident.

The latest Bike magazine has a good article on exactly this tactic being used in the UK. If you're going to blame speed as a killer it is necessary to have a higher percentage than the correct 7.3%. So they include other factors; such as, aggressive driving, interaction or competition with other road users, inexperience of the vehicle. Then voila, you have 33% of accidents caused by excessive speed.
I don't really give a stuff about numbers supplied by the LTSA or any overseas agency. As I see it motorists sometimes lose control of their vehicles. They do so for a large number of reasons, one of which is speed, regardless of whether it is above or below the posted speed limit or if it results in a fatality or not it is still a contributing factor in many crashes. If those motorists who have lost control were driving slower then they probably would have maintained control and the crash would not have happened or the consequences may not have been as severe.

[spudchucka]

Its attitude behind the wheel that seems to determine a heck of a lot.

Agro :angry2:

Calm :calm:
I'm sure that is one of the few things of any value that are taught at those courses.

[DEATH_INC.]

I don't really give a stuff about numbers supplied by the LTSA or any overseas agency. As I see it motorists sometimes lose control of their vehicles. They do so for a large number of reasons, one of which is speed, regardless of whether it is above or below the posted speed limit or if it results in a fatality or not it is still a contributing factor in many crashes. If those motorists who have lost control were driving slower then they probably would have maintained control and the crash would not have happened or the consequences may not have been as severe.

I think the point is that speed isn't the only thing that caused them to crash.There must have been other causes too.(though in this case it does sound like excessive speed was the main one...)
Example;on the last KB coromandel ride(you know the one...)the guy that crashed first was between two other riders who took the corner at the same speed as he was going.They went around the corner(as did others) he didn't.How could speed be the cause of this accident?
Not picking at you spud,just something to think about......

[spudchucka]

I think the point is that speed isn't the only thing that caused them to crash.There must have been other causes too.(though in this case it does sound like excessive speed was the main one...)
Example;on the last KB coromandel ride(you know the one...)the guy that crashed first was between two other riders who took the corner at the same speed as he was going.They went around the corner(as did others) he didn't.How could speed be the cause of this accident?
Not picking at you spud,just something to think about......
Well I'm not saying and I hate the inference that speed was the cause of the crash or fatality. What I have always tried to say is that speed is a contributing factor in crashes / fatalities and is relevant to almost all crashes in some regard, whether it is just plain crazy speed, speed too fast for the coinditions or the road users was just out of their depth, it is still all relevant in some way to speed.

There are always other factors but that does not mean that speed wasn't a factor as well. It is peoples attitudes to speed that make it a factor and also make it a controvertial issue that is constantly discussed.

[Milky]

I'm hesitating before posting much in this thread because I don't want to be accused of starting another bloody speed, bikers versus the police / LTSA etc thread - BUT is not the drivers / riders skills part of the "conditions". Are the riders skills not relevant to the road conditions and vice versa. If they did not have the skills to go THAT fast in THAT corner under THOSE conditions and they subsequently lost control, crashed and killed themselves or another person then can you not reasonably say that speed, relevant to all the conditions, (including the riders skill level) was a contributing factor?? Bearing in mind that skill level is a subjective element that cannot really be measured especially if the rider has snuffed it as a consequence of the crash!!!!!
I totally agre with your statement there spud.
It is also so much easier to package it that way, because the statement covers so much - lack of skill, road conditions, tyres etc etc - how would a relative feel if the police came and said "your son crashed because he didnt have sufficient skill to take the corner" It is a blanket statement which is easy to peddle to the media and society with the added bonus of reinforcing the speeding message.

[Zapf]

Its more about respect for THE speed

High powered sports cars / race cars / bikes all the same. If its a stright road is sort of ok. But when people don't have the respect for the speed they are doing then all hell breaks loose.... :niceone:

[scumdog]

I think the point is that speed isn't the only thing that caused them to crash.There must have been other causes too.(though in this case it does sound like excessive speed was the main one...)
Example;on the last KB coromandel ride(you know the one...)the guy that crashed first was between two other riders who took the corner at the same speed as he was going.They went around the corner(as did others) he didn't.How could speed be the cause of this accident?
Not picking at you spud,just something to think about......

Without wishing to be too unkind to that unfortunate rider you could still use "excessive speed" - for his skill, for his tyres, for his type of bike, whatever, unless something mechanical or rider based comes into the picture it must have been a problem of the speed being too much for something, - even if it was not over the legal speed limit.

[bluninja]

SC, this sounds a bit like a 'speed' crusade to me. As has been pointed out, you can't have an accident between 2 stationary vehicles, so speed is always going to be a contributing factor.

There could have been any number of reasons (as you said) that the particular rider didn't make the corner; yet without knowing what they are, you seem to be suggesting it must be speed related in some way. The problem with stats is that they need something objective to measure, and it's a bit difficult to measure things like target fixation, looking at the odometer as your bike moves on to 10,000 kms (presumed cause of a UK bike fatality), stiffening up in the arms when you see an approaching vehicle in the bend, chopping the throttle in a bend, touching the front brake etc...

You could say all these only occur because the (rider) perceived speed is too high, and therefore are speed related, but I just think this is just another convenient catchall.

BTW got a shock when I saw the picture of an old friend in the local newspaper...dead in a motorbike crash....49 years old, a recent license holder on a fireblade....regardless of the cause...he is now another statistic.

[scumdog]

bluninja, no, it's not a 'speed' crusade but more an attempt to balance the argument that so many put that speed "can't" be a factor in crashes, -of course there are more factors but you have to have speed of some sort to have a crash, whether it is 'excessive' or 'exceeding the legal limit' it all boils down to speed.

I'm not condeming it, ride as fast as you want but realise you are going to have to stop at some stage - and it might not be how you planned AND the higher the speed in the wrong circumstances the bigger the 'splat' factor.