Trucks vs bikes crash statistics

[Jantar]

Just over one week ago, the Ministry of Transport released the 2006 vehicle crash statistics. I have been comparing the lightest motorised vehicles (motorcycles) with the heaviest motorised vehicles (trucks) and found some interesting statistics.


In 2006, 38 motorcyclists1 were killed and a further 1017 were injured in road crashes. This was 10 percent of all deaths and 7 percent of all reported injuries on our roads.
.

They do not give the percentage of total distance travelled by motorcycles, but registration data does show that motorcycles, including scooters and mopeds, make up 7% of the total vehicle fleet.


In 2006, 86 people were killed and a further 1141 were injured in road crashes involving trucks1. This was 21 percent of all deaths and 8 percent of all reported injuries on our roads.....

Because of their large mass trucks tend to be over represented in serious crashes. Deaths from crashes involving trucks make up around 21 percent of the total road toll, while only approximately 7 percent of the total distance travelled on NZ roads is travelled by trucks.

So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?

[LilSel]

Just over one week ago, the Ministry of Transport released the 2006 vehicle crash statistics. I have been comparing the lightest motorised vehicles (motorcycles) with the heaviest motorised vehicles (trucks) and found some interesting statistics.

.

They do not give the percentage of total distance travelled by motorcycles, but registration data does show that motorcycles, including scooters and mopeds, make up 7% of the total vehicle fleet.



So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?

quite interesting reading there... bikes cause less wear & tear on the roads than trucks do as well... shouldnt we have reduced levies as opposed to higher ones?

[NighthawkNZ]

So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?

I been thinking that for years...

[mbazza]

A very good point, to whom MUST we communicate this message? Cheers.:woohoo:

[Deviant Esq]

So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?
Because in motorcycle crashes it's the rider who is at far higher risk to be injured or killed... whereas in accidents involving trucks and other traffic, the truck driver is at far lower risk himself of being injured or killed - that's reserved for the other road users. It's all a "user pays" system.

[Grahameeboy]

It says involving trucks so the majority of deaths / injuries may well be drivers / passengers in cars which are subject to ACC levy's.

Lorry drivers are probably less likely to sustain serious injury compared to car drivers / passengers and motorcylclists so as ACC levy's are based on 'Injury Cost' the levy may well be less for Lorry's.

Lorries also pay RUC charges.

[FROSTY]

heres a point too--FarmBike accidents.Race bike accidents.MX accidents still qualify as bike accidents --HMM

[Grahameeboy]

heres a point too--FarmBike accidents.Race bike accidents.MX accidents still qualify as bike accidents --HMM

I know that Farmbikes accidents are reported and they do not pay ACC but then Farmers pay ACC so I guess it that works out.

[Jantar]

Because in motorcycle crashes it's the rider who is at far higher risk to be injured or killed... whereas in accidents involving trucks and other traffic, the truck driver is at far lower risk himself of being injured or killed - that's reserved for the other road users. It's all a "user pays" system.


It says involving trucks so the majority of deaths / injuries may well be drivers / passengers in cars which are subject to ACC levy's.

Lorry drivers are probably less likely to sustain serious injury compared to car drivers / passengers and motorcylclists so as ACC levy's are based on 'Injury Cost' the levy may well be less for Lorry's.

Lorries also pay RUC charges.

You are both absolutely correct.


In 96 percent of fatal crashes involving motorcyclists, the motorcyclist or a pillion passenger was among those killed (2002- 2006 data).


In crashes involving trucks most of the deaths (about 80%) are not truck occupants, but rather the other road users involved.

As motorcyclists generaly only injure themselves, but truck crashes injure others, I believe that makes trucks much more dangerous. They should therefore pay much more. RUC does not go to ACC but merely makes up the loss of road tax charged on petrol.

[Deviant Esq]

As motorcyclists generaly only injure themselves, but truck crashes injure others, I believe that makes trucks much more dangerous. They should therefore pay much more. RUC does not go to ACC but merely makes up the loss of road tax charged on petrol.
I think we all agree with that sentiment. From that point of view, drivers who have been done for DIC should also be made to pay higher ACC premiums, as should boy racers, as should anyone who has been convicted of careless / dangerous driving causing serious injury / death, as should anyone who continuously drives / rides a motor vehicle that is seriously defective yet passes warrants... hell, we could be here all night.

[Coyote]

But most trucks are owned by a business, and the government is already taking way way more money than they should from investors.

I say we should remove all acc tax from trucks and let motorcyclists pay.

[oldrider]

Isn't this the sort of thing that BRONZ was born into our world for?

Gathering and representing information and statistics that benefit motorcyclists and break down incorrect stereotyping?

Are they (BRONZ) the people most suitable to present the facts to bodies of influence? Cheers John.

[Dargor]

As motorcyclists generaly only injure themselves, but truck crashes injure others, I believe that makes trucks much more dangerous. They should therefore pay much more. I second that.
Someone should have a good rant at ltsa. Im not going to do it because my last dealings with them were so un-productive. Maybe thats just because im a "stupid kid", hopefully whoever dose has better luck.

[Grahameeboy]

But most trucks are owned by a business, and the government is already taking way way more money than they should from investors.

I say we should remove all acc tax from trucks and let motorcyclists pay.

Well I guess Truck Firms pay ACC anyway plus they contribute to roads via RUC.....in the UK you pay Road Tax and it just varies according to what the vehicle is..motorbikes are lowest up to Trucks which are higher plus National Insurance is paid by all employees so really it is not so bad here

[RT527]

So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?


And from this statement your showing a lack of understanding and tolerance towards other users....Think about it, of that 21% how many of the motorcyclists have come around the corner on the wrong side of the road.:gob:, and who says over all that trucks pay a lower acc levy?.....it may be lower for the truck but when you factor in every other tax and insurance levy thats out there , transport operators pay huge dividends to the coffers.

[NighthawkNZ]

Isn't this the sort of thing that BRONZ was born into our world for?

Gathering and representing information and statistics that benefit motorcyclists and break down incorrect stereotyping?

Are they (BRONZ) the people most suitable to present the facts to bodies of influence? Cheers John.

yes that is correct, however they have lost their teeth and will to do anything to tell the honest truth. They now (well here in dunedin anyway) seem more like every other MC club than an organisation to represent bikers in general to change things for the better for every on on the road... not just bikes

[Kickaha]

Just over one week ago, the Ministry of Transport released the 2006 vehicle crash statistics. I have been comparing the lightest motorised vehicles (motorcycles) with the heaviest motorised vehicles (trucks) and found some interesting statistics.

.

They do not give the percentage of total distance travelled by motorcycles, but registration data does show that motorcycles, including scooters and mopeds, make up 7% of the total vehicle fleet.



So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?

I don't believe that data shows any such thing, as you don't have distance traveled by the motorcyles to do a proper comparison and and it doesn't show who was at fault in the accidents

[Jantar]

And from this statement your showing a lack of understanding and tolerance towards other users....Think about it, of that 21% how many of the motorcyclists have come around the corner on the wrong side of the road.:gob:, .....

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet-July-07.pdf

The data does not answer that spefic question, but 6% of motorcycle accidents were head on collisions and 80% of that 6% was attributed to the motorcyclist being at fault. So a maximum of 4.8% could be due to the motorcyclist coming around a corner on the wrong side of the road.

On the other hand 8% of truck accidents are head on and less than 30% of that 8% are attributed to the truck driver. It is apparent that for head on accidents it is cars that have the worst record.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Truck-Crash-Factsheet-July-07.pdf


and it doesn't show who was at fault in the accidents

The articles do show fault to a certain extent.

[Hitcher]

So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?

LTNZ is onto this. Legislation cometh in 2009.

[rphenix]

So from this data we can see that trucks are more dangerous than bikes. So why do they pay lower ACC charges?

Not to mention I think they should be paying more to be on the roads ever seen what happens to roads built ontop of soft soil after its rained and a few heavy laden tankers go over it? Im thinking of BOP in particular Kaimais etc.. cant tell me they dont "wear out" the road much faster than other vehicles.
I'm pretty sure motorcycles don't lead to many potholes in the road :shit:

[scumdog]

You are both absolutely correct.


As motorcyclists generaly only injure themselves, but truck crashes injure others, I believe that makes trucks much more dangerous. They should therefore pay much more.

I have no figures but have a gut feeling that a majority of truck vs car/motorcycle crashes are not the truck drivers fault, anybody prove it one way or the other??

[Usarka]

there would be at least 10 times more miles driven by trucks than by bikes in any given week (apart from the one between christmas and new year). maybe our acc should be 10 times higher.

but agree that we need to seperate farm bike accidents from the acc stats

[Coyote]

I'm pretty sure motorcycles don't lead to many potholes in the road :shit:
Nope, just a lot of footpeg scrapes :p

[Jantar]

The data supports your gut feeling. Although specific Truck Vs Bike accidents are not given, an interpolation of the data suggests that the rider is at fault more than the truck driver. The car driver is at fault more often in both truck Vs car and Car Vs bike accidents.

What the data does show is that truck accidents are over represented in the injury and fatality statistics simply because of the size and weights involved. Blame is not considered, only effect. In Bike accidents it is usually only the rider or pillion injured, so bike's injury and fatality statistics are in line with bike usage.

[Quasievil]

Not to mention I think they should be paying more to be on the roads ever seen what happens to roads built ontop of soft soil after its rained and a few heavy laden tankers go over it? Im thinking of BOP in particular Kaimais etc.. cant tell me they dont "wear out" the road much faster than other vehicles.
I'm pretty sure motorcycles don't lead to many potholes in the road :shit:

maybe the answer is that the road builders and funders build roads capable of handling thetrucks, instead of build this week and repair next week kinda roads.

[Quasievil]

As a Driver of a often 45000 kg rig, I have a few opinions on this kinda subject

last time I heard 80% of crashes involving trucks was not the fault of the Truck driver it was the fault of the other vehicle.

Dont think the driver of the truck is safe, many truckies get hurt, they can have huge weights involved in the crash dynamics, roll overs are very common, broken backs and necks are common as are deaths, they are not the solid planted on the road type vehicle they appear, they are twitchy on the road, they require many more steering inputs than cars and require a great deal of skill and concentration to drive and manage well on the road.

I reckon in the last 6 months I have come close to wiping out two bikes, on both occasions it was thew bikers fault, both due to excessive speed and impatience, both as it happened on Auckland motorways in lightish traffic.
if your in a heavy truck you cannot do a hell of a lot apart from ya best, you cant stop in a hurry, you cannot turn in a hurry, everything is slow, I find a huge percentage of motorists just dont understand this, liken it to a train, at 45000kgs at 80- 90 kmph if I turned hard the truck wont turn bugger all
every day I get cut off mulitple times I get passed dangerously as the lanes merge, or get a vehicle pull out in front of me, the biggest problem as I see it is the apparent attitude of "I MUST GET PAST THE TRUCK" that comes out with so many drivers, people need to realise how heavy trucks are.

unfortunetly Trucks have to be on the road in MASS, without them the whole country would simply shut down, riders, drivers need to basically stop fucking around with us, and give us some space.

[Bullitt]

there would be at least 10 times more miles driven by trucks than by bikes in any given week (apart from the one between christmas and new year). maybe our acc should be 10 times higher.

but agree that we need to seperate farm bike accidents from the acc stats
Given that ACC is paid per vehicle and not per km I dont think the number of miles per crash is relevant to this discussion.

Just making up numbers imagine this argument. A bike is 10 times more likely than a truck to crash in a given distance. However in a given year a truck travels 10 times further therefore both have an equal chance of crashing in a given year.

As the stats that started this thread are crashes per year not crashes per km all that is important is how likley a vehicle is to crash and cause an injury/fatality per year

[RT527]

Not to mention I think they should be paying more to be on the roads ever seen what happens to roads built ontop of soft soil after its rained and a few heavy laden tankers go over it? Im thinking of BOP in particular Kaimais etc.. cant tell me they dont "wear out" the road much faster than other vehicles.
I'm pretty sure motorcycles don't lead to many potholes in the road :shit:



Why is it that the roads in Europe dont wear out as fast with a hell of a lot more heavy vehicles traveling on them than here.

It isnt the truck its the way roads are engineered.....and yes there is no disputing that trucks do damage the roads....but then how many of you dont slow down for new seal, in your cars/bikes/trucks etc....if you dont then you are also contributing to poor roading surfaces because your striping the newly laid seal before it has time to settle in.
And I see it every day while Im going the posted speed limit through road works , i get ppl passing me giving me the fingers cause im holding them up,

Remember people Roads weren't just made for Motorcyclists mind you the way they are made you`d think they were.

I make every attempt cosider other road users at all times,....doesnt always work tho.

[Sanx]

Why is it that the roads in Europe dont wear out as fast with a hell of a lot more heavy vehicles traveling on them than here.

Because they're built properly...


...but then how many of you dont slow down for new seal, in your cars/bikes/trucks etc....if you dont then you are also contributing to poor roading surfaces because your striping the newly laid seal before it has time to settle in..

New seal? No-one in Europe uses chipseal, as it's complete crap. Should Transit insist on laying decent quality surfaces, perhaps this problem wouldn't occur.

[RT527]

Because they're built properly...

Sorry I was being sarcastic...I know why the roads dont fall apart on europes swampy marsh area.....



New seal? No-one in Europe uses chipseal, as it's complete crap. Should Transit insist on laying decent quality surfaces, perhaps this problem wouldn't occur.

Yeah and they also lay huge concrete swamp mats down before ashpalting takes place, we just use cloth first which doesnt help much as it still gives way underneath.

[Jantar]

... No-one in Europe uses chipseal, as it's complete crap. ....
This is a suprising comment from a motorcyclist. I would rather ride on chipseal in frosty conditions than smooth asphalt.
:yes:

[Pixie]

Not to mention I think they should be paying more to be on the roads ever seen what happens to roads built ontop of soft soil after its rained and a few heavy laden tankers go over it? Im thinking of BOP in particular Kaimais etc.. cant tell me they dont "wear out" the road much faster than other vehicles.
I'm pretty sure motorcycles don't lead to many potholes in the road :shit:.

Wouldn't be a problem if our roads weren't built using 3rd world construction standards

[Pixie]

This is a suprising comment from a motorcyclist. I would rather ride on chipseal in frosty conditions than smooth asphalt.
:yes:

Asphalt is self draining,doesn't suffer tar flushing and the tyres we buy are designed to grip asphalt,not chipseal

[Jantar]

Asphalt is self draining,doesn't suffer tar flushing and the tyres we buy are designed to grip asphalt,not chipseal
Nothing is self draining when you get days of continuous below zero temperatures, hoar frost, and the groung frozen to a depth of some centimeters. In summer riding though I must admit that asphalt is much nicer to ride on.

[twinkle]

No-one in Europe uses chipseal, as it's complete crap.

errr yes they do. Quite a bit too from what I gather. I think they probably use smaller stones though, although i've noticed them starting to use smaller chips here sometimes.


Asphalt is self draining,doesn't suffer tar flushing and the tyres we buy are designed to grip asphalt,not chipseal

By asphalt you mean hotmix, I think :innocent: