Motorcycle Crash Stats

[Niterider]

Found sum interesting stuff right here.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Motorcycle-Crash-Factsheet-July-07.pdf

Does anyone have a clue what happened that brought the roadkill down so drastically from the 80's to the 2000's.

[Grub]

Good post, thanks for that ... makes really interesting reading.

To really answer your question, you'd have to go back to the registration stats and see how many motorcycles were on the road and then work out the number of accidents per 100 bikes on the road.

You'll see from this post of registration stats (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1513772&postcount=3), that in 1980/81 there were three times as many bikes on the road as there are now (30K vs 11K). Although at the rate sales are going, we might reach those levels again soon.

[Biggles2000]

Does anyone have a clue what happened that brought the roadkill down so drastically from the 80's to the 2000's.

The powers that be came down hard on drunk driving.

[Jantar]

Two things happened.

The first one Gubb already addressed, and that is the number of motorcycles on the road decreased after 1981.

The second one is that the open road speed limit was increased from 80 to 100 kmh in 1986. And, hey, look at the graph. The peak motorcycle accident rate was in 1986!!!! :confused:

[Deano]

Does anyone have a clue what happened that brought the roadkill down so drastically from the 80's to the 2000's.

All the big bore two strokes from the 70's (H1, waterbus etc) had all been written of by the 80's ?

[Rob Taylor]

All the big bore two strokes from the 70's (H1, waterbus etc) had all been written of by the 80's ?

Or maybe motorcycle prices are to high now for the young fella to afford...Hold on, when did the 250cc rule come in for learners??? That could have something to do with it .....:confused:

[riffer]

I'd put money on the impact of deregulation of imported cars, making more youngsters choose cars over motorcycles as first transport.

Couple that with NZ effectively being in the grip of 2 recessions, one in 1987-89, the other in 1992-95, reducing discretionary spending hugely.

Look in five years when the latest recession is over. It will have a corresponding effect due to the sales of bike dropping off.

[mowgli]

Very interesting. The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows that between 2002 - 2006, in crashes involving motorcycles, the rider was primarily responsible in more than half the cases.

Sure motorcycling is dangerous but I don't know how many times I've been told that usually the rider is taken out and wasn't at fault. That assertion is clearly wrong according to these stats. Go figure

[mowgli]

Couple that with NZ effectively being in the grip of 2 recessions, one in 1987-89, the other in 1992-95, reducing discretionary spending hugely.

You missed one: 2008-10 :shit:

Edit: Oops! No you didn't "recent recession" :wacko:

[Ixion]

All the big bore two strokes from the 70's (H1, waterbus etc) had all been written of by the 80's ?

Not all. Not all.

[Niterider]

All the big bore two strokes from the 70's (H1, waterbus etc) had all been written of by the 80's ?

Now u're talking! I owned a 750 trip waterbus. What a machine!:2thumbsup

[dipshit]

Sure motorcycling is dangerous but I don't know how many times I've been told that usually the rider is taken out and wasn't at fault. That assertion is clearly wrong according to these stats. Go figure


Yeah, BRONZ is full of shit.

[dipshit]

I'd put money on the impact of deregulation of imported cars, making more youngsters choose cars over motorcycles as first transport.

Couple that with NZ effectively being in the grip of 2 recessions, one in 1987-89, the other in 1992-95, reducing discretionary spending hugely.

And add to that, that Jap bikes went through their fat ugly stage in the late 80s', ealy 90s'.

CBR1000/600... GSX600 teapot... GPX750... :sick: So much plastic everwhere. Who would want one?

[awayatc]

I'd put money on the impact of deregulation of imported cars, making more youngsters choose cars over motorcycles as first transport.



That alone has to be the major reason....Up untill the cheap Jap imports era cars were horrendously expensive...AND very boring..
(Thousands and thousands of dollars just for a second hand Vauxhall Viva...)

Now you can buy a 200 HP turbo Blabla for a couple hundred dollars.....
Second hand motorbikes however are far more expensive in NZ then in most other countries....

Plus licences for Motorbikes are now a lot harder to get, and a lot more expensive!

[Taz]

I see in the original link that you have a higher chance of crashing between the hours of midday and 4pm on a Saturday or Sunday so my advice would be to stay put in whichever pub you're in and ride home after 4.:apint::drinkup::scooter:

[riffer]

I've been thinking about another thing.

Looking at the statistics in age group of crashing riders.

There's one group that's increasing in crashes lately - the over 35s.

And 20 years ago it was the 17-25s crashing all the time.

It's my generation guys. Those of us that didn't kill ourselves in the 80s are coming back to biking and bringing those same attitudes back with us.

And surprise, surprise - same result.

[Jantar]

Very interesting. The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows that between 2002 - 2006, in crashes involving motorcycles, the rider was primarily responsible in more than half the cases.

Sure motorcycling is dangerous but I don't know how many times I've been told that usually the rider is taken out and wasn't at fault. That assertion is clearly wrong according to these stats. Go figure

Like all statistics, the conclusion drawn depends on how the data is presented. Note that in the graph, single vehicle and multiple vehicle crashes are lumped together. It is Police and ACC policy to call ALL single vehicle accidents driver/rider fault unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. So almost all single vehicle motorcycle accidents are the fault of the rider. Of course it is hard to blame these on the other vehicle if there is no other vehicle involved. Once those single vehicle accidents are removed from the table, then we find that motorcyclists are fully to blame in less than 35% of the accidents.

It does seem strange that motorcyclists in NZ are more to blame than in Brittain where a similar analysis showed motorclists were to blame in around 22% of multi vehicle accidents.

[RiderInBlack]

And add to that, that Jap bikes went through their fat ugly stage in the late 80s', ealy 90s'.

CBR1000/600... GSX600 teapot... GPX750... :sick: So much plastic everwhere. Who would want one?I did ("Roxanne" CBR1000FL) And still love the look of the CBR1000F's:bleh: Would love ta see them back and up dated. Better rider position than the Blackbird IMHO.

[dipshit]

Once those single vehicle accidents are removed from the table, (:whistle:) then we find that motorcyclists are fully to blame in less than 35% of the accidents.

??????

Are you a member of BRONZ???

[Jantar]

??????

Are you a member of BRONZ???

No I'm not. But I do know how to weed the false assumptions out of statistics.

[dipshit]

No I'm not. But I do know how to weed the false assumptions out of statistics.


By ignoreing them???

[Jantar]

No, by not including irellevant data in the first place.

By including single vehicle accidents in any statement about accidents involving a second vehicle is similar to claimimg that 100% of drug addicts started by drinking milk.

[Coyote]

Or maybe motorcycle prices are to high now for the young fella to afford...Hold on, when did the 250cc rule come in for learners??? That could have something to do with it .....:confused:
Don't know about that. The cars that people my age tend to go for are more expensive than my bike. What's more all the money they then put into their car (stereo, mags, etc.) is worth another bike. I'm inclined to say it's the banks fault for playing on my generations attitude of "I want it now!!! FUCKING NOW!!!", and there's a multitude of reasons why they've been brought up to be such a way, but of course my generation are idiots for being like that anyway.

I'd put money on the impact of deregulation of imported cars, making more youngsters choose cars over motorcycles as first transport.
There's also a huge push by everyone around you to get a car. A car is needed to be part of society. You need to be able to carry mates around, and a bike is being selfish. It's a waste of money just for a 'toy'. And bikes are gay, like everything else. It's only the bikers (and a few others that strongly want one but can't afford it) that actually understand why. Even then a few biker mates have been selling their bikes to get a car.

What's more everyone is convinced you can only have sex in a car. They're just not being imaginative.

[dipshit]

By including single vehicle accidents in any statement about accidents involving a second vehicle is similar to claimimg that 100% of drug addicts started by drinking milk.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1643087&postcount=8

Who says we are olny talking about multi vehicle accidents?

Thanks to dicks like BRONZ, a lot of riders really do think that the majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by other road users and that their shit don't stink.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Jantar]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1643087&postcount=8

Who says we are olny talking about multi vehicle accidents?

Thanks to dicks like BRONZ, a lot of riders really do think that the majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by other road users and that their shit don't stink.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

How can we not be talking about multi vehicle accidents when discussing causes involving "other" road users?

[dipshit]

How can we not be talking about multi vehicle accidents when discussing causes involving "other" road users?


http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...87&postcount=8

"Very interesting. The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows that between 2002 - 2006, in crashes involving motorcycles, the rider was primarily responsible in more than half the cases."

[Jantar]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...87&postcount=8

"Very interesting. The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows that between 2002 - 2006, in crashes involving motorcycles, the rider was primarily responsible in more than half the cases."

The graph quoted on the motorcycle accident statics does indeed take into account ALL motorcycle accidents, not just multi vehicle accidents, but the claim from BRONZ is a follow on from what used to be printed on NZACU material and refers to multi vehicle accidents. That is why I contend that if you are commenting on accidents caused by other vehicles then you must remove the single vehicle accidents from the data. Alternatively you could include all single vehicle car accidents and all multi vehicle accidents that do not include bikes for a more comprehensive picture.

But I will leave you with this by Landon Prescott:


Motorcycle riders often get an unjustified reputation as being reckless, risk takers, and that they generally disobey traffic laws. This perception is unfounded and there are many statistics that back up the fact that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the motorcycle rider, but that of another driver.

A major study conducted by the University of Southern California (USC) found that approximately three-fourths of motorcycle accidents involved a collision with another vehicle, usually a passenger automobile. It was also found that in the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents. Further the study by USC found that the failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

[Katman]

The graph quoted on the motorcycle accident statics does indeed take into account ALL motorcycle accidents, not just multi vehicle accidents, but the claim from BRONZ is a follow on from what used to be printed on NZACU material and refers to multi vehicle accidents. That is why I contend that if you are commenting on accidents caused by other vehicles then you must remove the single vehicle accidents from the data. Alternatively you could include all single vehicle car accidents and all multi vehicle accidents that do not include bikes for a more comprehensive picture.

But I will leave you with this by Landon Prescott:

Must be very comfortable for you living in Lahlahland.

(What about all the single vehicle accidents that don't get reported)?

[Skyryder]

Must be very comfortable for you living in Lahlahland.

(What about all the single vehicle accidents that don't get reported)?


I've been riding for most of my life and can honestly say that most of my 'near misses' have been caused by vehicles that have performed an unexpected manouvre. The fact that I ride with this in mind is what has saved me more times than I care to remember.

Skyryder

[Hoon]

I'd put money on the impact of deregulation of imported cars, making more youngsters choose cars over motorcycles as first transport.

Yep first thing that popped into my mind too. Back in the 80's a motorbike was the cheapest way to get on the road. You could pick up a bike for a few hundred. Also policing, licensing was pretty lax and no wof/reg/license fines were only $40 a piece. The 15-19 yo casualties graph during that time backs this up.

Then Jap imports came along, teenagers stop buying bikes and get cheap cars instead for their first vehicle. Fines, policing and licensing tighten up and all the shitter bikes are forced off the roads.

These days a learners bike is $4K plus, the price of a decent car.

[Henk]

My guess is that in the 80s (when I started riding) the reason most of my mates had bikes was that it was about the only economic way to get something fast. That changed with the flood of cheap, quick, jap import cars. The risk taking nutters that once had the choice between litre bikes and clapped out Hillman Hunters suddenly had another option. As for the blame game in accident statistics, I've crashed a number of times over the years and in every case I have been at least partly to blame, even if only through a temporary reduction in the required paranoia index.

[Patar]

The statistic that I find the most interesting is that the risk for motorcyclists to be involved in a fatal or injury crash is more than 14 times that of a car, and this leads to motorcyclists contributing 10% of all deaths and 7% of all injuries which isn't all too disproportionate to the amount of motorcyclists on the roads today.

And given that motorcyclists are primarily at fault 25% of the time in multi-vehicle crashes (note I'm ignoring single-vehicle rider-at-fault crashes) I would say that, generally, motorcyclists are safer than cars and if the govt. wants to do something about road tolls they should encourage two wheeled transport and educate car drivers.

[swbarnett]

The statistic that I find the most interesting is that the risk for motorcyclists to be involved in a fatal or injury crash is more than 14 times that of a car
I read an article recently (If I could find it I'd put up a reference) that suggested that this figure is wildly inaccurate. The logic was basically that they are not comparing like with like. For example, most motorcyclists are between 15 and 40, whereas car drivers are more evenly spread over a wider age range. So a more accurate comparison can be drawn if you only consider drivers in this age group for both car and bike statistics. The comparison then starts to look more favourable towards bikes. Other demographics were talked about as also slanting the statistics.

[swbarnett]

Found the article - it's Hash's column in Two Wheels 06/08.

Other factors mentioned include sex (not while riding...) (more than 90% of riders are male while car drivers are 60:40 male:female) and the fact that riders are already generally risk takers (no data exists that compares accident rates of those that ride and drive).

[Badjelly]

Found the article - it's Hash's column in Two Wheels 06/08.

I'll have another look at that article tonight. I read it a month or 2 ago and I must say it seemed to me he was pushing shit uphill with a small shovel. Sure, male:female ratios, age differences, blah, blah, blah but can you really explain away a factor of 14?

I'm sure that I have a greater risk of being injured or killed while riding my bike than while driving my car over the same route at the same time of day, because:

The bike has 2 wheels instead of 4 and consequently tends to fall over when it loses traction
On the bike I'm not surrounded by sheet metal as I am in the car

The statistics, such as they are, tend to confirm this. It's going to take some solid analysis of solid data to convince me otherwise.

[awayatc]

If you would put pure testosterone and stupidity aside.....

On a bike you have NOT got:
A stereo to fiddle with
A fone to talk/text with
A nicotine habit to feed
A passenger you got turn and talk to
An "autopilot".....( steer with knees while you........)

So If you are a sensible commuter who can keep the ponies in check......Yes then as a biker you ride with 100x more concentration and defensive riding skills then any Cage driver......

You sit on the engine with the fueltank between your knees, and nothing between you and the outside world apart from what you wear......

If that can't keep you concentrated..........
:scooter:

[Badjelly]

If you would put pure testosterone and stupidity aside.....

At my age, I need all the testosterone I can get!

[Patar]

One thing i hate about statistics is that how they gather and interpret their data isn't always very clear.

The way that I see it is that single-vehicle accidents can be somewhat ignored, as they can be eliminated by not taking unnecessary risks (i.e weekend rides, which is where most bikes crash in a single-vehicle accident). Single-vehicle crashes account for 29% of all bike crashes and only 3% of that 29% the rider is not at fault leading to ~10% of all single-vehicle crashes involving bikes where the rider is not at fault.

So anyway, for multi-vehicle crashes it can be said that x% of crashes involve motorcycles ( lets assume 8% of all multi-vehicle crashes involve motorcycles, although i have no idea on this number) it can then be said that 100% of multi-vehicle crashes involve cars (lumping trucks and all vehicles with 4 wheels) and going by the statistic that in multi-vehicle accidents involving bike the rider is fully at fault 36% of the time, that would lead to bikes being the cause of 3% of all multi-vehicle accidents (assuming 8% is correct) and cars being fully at fault 57% of the time, leading to cars causing 97% of multi-vehicle accidents.
These numbers have been rounded up, there is about 1% of all multi-vehicle accidents where both motorcyclists have partial blame.
(note: this is total multi-vehicle accidents including bike-bike (never heard of one of these in nz), bike-car and car-car)


So, in summation,

[xwhatsit]

Must be very comfortable for you living in Lahlahland.
Not really -- if you ask me, it's a far scarier world if indeed car drivers are usually at blame. If instead motorcyclists are usually the problem, then at least I have more responsibility and control over whether I end up toast or not.

But anyway. These graphs were in the Sunday Herald I think -- waffling on about rising ACC costs. Probably based on a press release designed to mitigate forthcoming resentment about higher levies...?

[swbarnett]

I'll have another look at that article tonight. I read it a month or 2 ago and I must say it seemed to me he was pushing shit uphill with a small shovel. Sure, male:female ratios, age differences, blah, blah, blah but can you really explain away a factor of 14?
I think the point of the article was that, yes motorcycles are more dangerous than cars but how much is probably exaggerated by not comparing like with like.


I'm sure that I have a greater risk of being injured or killed while riding my bike than while driving my car over the same route at the same time of day, because:

The bike has 2 wheels instead of 4 and consequently tends to fall over when it loses traction
On the bike I'm not surrounded by sheet metal as I am in the car

The statistics, such as they are, tend to confirm this. It's going to take some solid analysis of solid data to convince me otherwise.
I'd tend to agree that one is safer in a car than on a bike (this is part of the point of riding for some). The question is whether, on a population basis, the extreme comparisons can be supported.

[mouldy]

If statistics show that 24 percent of riders crash while under the influence and 76 crash while straight does that mean its safer to ride toasted ?

[1 Free Man]

If statistics show that 24 percent of riders crash while under the influence and 76 crash while straight does that mean its safer to ride toasted ?
It would appear that way wouldn't it. Must get a quart of burbon to carry under the seat just to ensure I'm properly tanked before I ride. LOL:banana:

[swbarnett]

If statistics show that 24 percent of riders crash while under the influence and 76 crash while straight does that mean its safer to ride toasted ?
No.

You may find that the other 76% all had bald tyres on an oily road. In this case it would be possible to say that riding toasted with good tyres on a dry road may indeed be safer, but riding toasted with bald tyres on an oily road is not.

All this statistic really shows is that the issue requires more study.