Accident report

[Paul in NZ]

Sorry - have not been on here much and no idea if this is a repost or not - in fact I don't really care if it is because it is essential reading for all Kiwi Motorcyclists.

Now I know what conclusions I came to after reading it - but I'd be interested in others thoughts... Seriously - please take this at face value and please please read it.

[discotex]

Proves we're better at left handers than right handers. 12% of all crashes on right hand bends vs 8% left.

[jrandom]

It seems to say fairly clearly that we die because we can't control our machines.

[Paul in NZ]

It seems to say fairly clearly that we die because we can't control our machines.

Thats one interpretation - its a very well put together report and some of the info is clearly graphed.

[FJRider]

So the other 80% is on straight roads...??? :eek5:

[jrandom]

Thats one interpretation - its a very well put together report and some of the info is clearly graphed.

Yes, that's why my conclusion was quickly arrived at. A majority of fatal and injury crashes are the rider's fault, and a majority involve 'losing control of the motorcycle'.

Ergo, we die because we don't know how to ride.

[Ms Piggy]

Very interesting that in 2007 the majority of deaths were in riders 30yrs +

[Crisis management]

Completely off topic.....I was thinking about you yesterday Paul and wondering where you had disappeared to, good to hear you're alive and still biking.

Carry on.

[Paul in NZ]

Yes, that's why my conclusion was quickly arrived at. A majority of fatal and injury crashes are the rider's fault, and a majority involve 'losing control of the motorcycle'.

Ergo, we die because we don't know how to ride.

It does seem to knock the old it's all the bloody car drivers fault thing...

Age and bike size are a factor too... Age probably more to do with the rider demographics.

[jrandom]

Age and bike size are a factor too... Age probably more to do with the rider demographics.

Yes, that's what I thought re. age also; the stats just reflect who's riding, rather than who's more (or less) at risk when they ride.

It'd be interesting to be able to correlate these figures with driver licencing and vehicle registration information to derive some truly useful risk numbers.

[Paul in NZ]

Yes, that's what I thought re. age also; the stats just reflect who's riding, rather than who's more (or less) at risk when they ride.

It'd be interesting to be able to correlate these figures with driver licencing and vehicle registration information to derive some truly useful risk numbers.


To me, of more interest was the info on the what people were doing when they died - head ons and running out of road - very sad....

[FJRider]

Losing control is just another way of saying "Pilot error"...
Whatever "factors" influenced the "error", a wrong decision by the "pilot" caused the crash...

[chanceyy]

Makes for very interesting reading all right ..

[Usarka]

I'm surprised at the reporting of alcohol and speed, in particular speed; according to the graph 63% of fatal crashes did not have speed as a determined factor.

Positively surprised that it's not towing the normal propoganda line, and generally surprised that it's that rare as a factor.

Nice report thanks Paul.

[dipshit]

Proves we're better at left handers than right handers. 12% of all crashes on right hand bends vs 8% left.

Because if you run wide on a right hand corner you will hit gravel/ditch/fence. If you run wide on a left hand corner you have the other side of the road to use and you will only be unlucky if a vehicle is coming the other way at the time.

[RT527]

Ergo, we die because we don't know how to ride.



Maybe that should read, we die because we think we know how to ride!.

[jrandom]

Maybe that should read, we die because we think we know how to ride!.

Fatal mismatch of attitude and skill, yes.

[Ixion]

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's just bad luck. Wrong place, wrong time.

[Paul in NZ]

Not necessarily. Sometimes it's just bad luck. Wrong place, wrong time.


The stats would indicate that that happens more often than you would think...

[riffer]

Great report Paul. Cheers. Sobering reading.

[Nasty]

I have printed and will take the time to read ... I believe that these reports are well thought out and am sure it will be sobering.

[Paul in NZ]

Great report Paul. Cheers. Sobering reading.

Sobering for sure, if you read it the right way - perhaps it's a life saver... I have NO agenda re this, I just think its very very interesting.

[Paul in NZ]

I have printed and will take the time to read ... I believe that these reports are well thought out and am sure it will be sobering.

Kari - I thought long and hard about this and I know you are aware that I'd pull the whole thing at your say so...

[sinfull]

Made an interesting comparison on sunday ! Went out for a ride with a guy whom i'd ridden with a few times in the past on the same roads (windy and deserted) we'd ridden some 12 months earlier ! During the first ride of these roads he was leaving me behind on most corners and then i would catch on the straights (similar powered bikes)
In the meantime (since we'd last done this same ride together) i have done perhaps a dozen track days !
Sundays ride started with me following, but it soon turned into me leading (think he felt he was being pushed) the ensuing ride was prolly a bit quick but the majority i rode at the pace (straights were not much quicker than the corners) but it was my mate who was left behind this time !
What has this to do with this thread you say ?
Well i have begun to wonder if the increase in skill (has to be skill don't it ?) level has me riding at a greater pace than before (well yeah i will admit to that) anyone can go fast in a straight line correct ?
Came to a realisation that i want/are going, to go faster and faster so being the wise ol fool i am, i'm presently on tard me ATM buying a van and searching for a track/race bike (failing that i will be tearing the lights off one of the triples, whacking clip ons on it and commiting it)

Before i become one of your statistics !

[Pedrostt500]

I have only given the data a quick read, they way I enturperate it is that the greatest age group at risk is the over 40s, and those riding larger Motor cycles, so my geuss is that this is not so much those who have been riding most of their lives but those who have returned to riding after a number of years away from riding bikes, ie the 40 somthing that can afford to go out and buy a new sports bike of large capacity, that may have owned their last bike 15 to 20 yrs previously, 1970s or 80s technology, probably has forgotten more than they remember about riding, reactions and automatic motor responces, and how quick things can go to custard at +200 kmph.
Now dont think that I am knocking older riders, I am one. what I do suggest is the older rider who has just returned to the fold, after a 10 or more year break, is sent on a refresher course, the prime example I can think of is a newbi that sighned on a couple of weeks ago that had just brought a big shiny new Ducati, and his last bike was a 1970s honda XL 175, that he last rode 25 yrs ago.
It could be worth pushing advanced rider courses to these returnies to the fold.

[jrandom]

Came to a realisation that i want/are going, to go faster and faster so being the wise ol fool i am, i'm presently on tard me ATM buying a van and searching for a track/race bike (failing that i will be tearing the lights off one of the triples, whacking clip ons on it and commiting it)

Before i become one of your statistics !

Wise man.<tenchars>

[Swampdonkey]

The stats say it all. When i feel myself getting cocky,going to fast etc ,I just think how i dont want to be a statistic on a government chart. It works. zYou should see some of the machines the "over 40 ,havent riden for years" set are buying up here. Serious bikes its scary

[Daffyd]

Exactly why, when returning to biking after 25 years, I went for a 400, then a 535. Next will prolly be a 650 or thereabouts.

I shudder when I see peeps coming off their learners upgrading to litre sprotsbikes.

[NordieBoy]

Maybe the drop in 15-24 age-group deaths has something to do with the cheaper cars that are available.
Wonder if there's a corresponding increase in that age-group in car deaths.

[Daffyd]

Maybe the drop in 15-24 age-group deaths has something to do with the cheaper cars that are available.
Wonder if there's a corresponding increase in that age-group in car deaths.

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Boob Johnson]

Very good read, sobering indeed. Had a mate crap off last week, nearly killed himself, riding an old K75 BMW like a sprot bike :bash:
Got off real light with a busted collar bone & a sore head. Less than half a foot to the left & it was certain death or a wheelchair at best, bloody lucky. It's a pretty shit feeling looking at ya mate & wondering if he is dead or not.

[Ragingrob]

I hate stats that are based on number, rather than percentage outta the population. How can they compare stats from the 80s to now by number? Surely you've gotta include the factor of the motorcycle sample size within the population each year!

[RantyDave]

Proves we're better at left handers than right handers. 12% of all crashes on right hand bends vs 8% left.
Not necessarily. If you run wide on a left you "merely" end up on the wrong side of the road. Run wide on a right you come off completely.

Dave

[MacD]

Good post Paul, I hadn't seen the latest version of this document.

I think it brings home two things in particular that people need to keep in mind: that most fatal motorcycle accidents are in the "lost control" categories on the open road, and that fatal motorcycle accidents occur at the rate of about one every 1.3 weeks.

It's a shame the age-crash statistics aren't normalised for the age profile of the current riding population, but it's probably quite hard to work this out as there will be a lot of inactive riders still holding licences that they gained in the '70s and 80's.

[Jiminy]

42% of death where no rider fault was identified. I'm sure proper defensive riding can reduce the risk, but that's a scary big number.

Also, 37% where speed is a factor is a very high number. That's food for the 'speed kills' argument.

[Shadows]

Because if you run wide on a right hand corner you will hit gravel/ditch/fence. If you run wide on a left hand corner you have the other side of the road to use and you will only be unlucky if a vehicle is coming the other way at the time.


Not necessarily. If you run wide on a left you "merely" end up on the wrong side of the road. Run wide on a right you come off completely.

Dave

The thing you need to consider here is that right handers are off camber due to the crown in the road - so it stands to reason there is more potential to fuck up on a right hander than on a left hander. Also there is probably just as often a car coming the other way as there is an solid object on the side of the road in your crash path, and a car covers more ground than stationery object does.

[MSTRS]

Maybe the drop in 15-24 age-group deaths has something to do with the cheaper cars that are available.
Wonder if there's a corresponding increase in that age-group in car deaths.

Most definitely. Pre-90s, cars cost so much more than bikes, relatively speaking, so young motorists (esp males) went for bikes as affordable independence.
Now, with 'cheap' cars, readily available finance, and bang-for-buck performance cars....vehicle culture is quite different.
The downside of this, is that your typical young squid no longer just takes himself out, he takes a few more with him.

[dipshit]

The thing you need to consider here is that right handers are off camber due to the crown in the road - so it stands to reason there is more potential to fuck up on a right hander than on a left hander. Also there is probably just as often a car coming the other way as there is an solid object on the side of the road in your crash path, and a car covers more ground than stationery object does.

Bullshit. How many riders have run wide into the other lane on a left hand corner and thought "thank christ there wasn't a car coming the other way!"

You don't get let off as easily if you run wide on a right hand corner.

[Finn]

I opened this document with interest but then read 3 words that stopped me from going much further... Ministry of Transport.

[dipshit]

And those that do run wide on a left hand corner and collide with another vehicle probably account for a large number of the head ons.

[dipshit]

I opened this document with interest but then read 3 words that stopped me from going much further... Ministry of Transport.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=102946&d=1218611868

[Finn]

More people die each year as a result of our third world health system than on motorcycles. What you guys should be doing is eating healthy food, excising and getting regular medical checks ups.

[Finn]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=102946&d=1218611868

At least it's warm.

[Katman]

The stats would indicate that that happens more often than you would think...

Would I be correct in assuming you meant to say less often than you think, Paul?

[Katman]

and getting regular medical checks ups.

Yes, but you really don't need to get your prostate checked every week Finn.

:msn-wink:

[MSTRS]

Would I be correct in assuming you meant to say less often than you think, Paul?

No. His reference to Ixion's 'bad luck - wrong time/place' is that it is more common than one might suppose. Which leads on to the supposition that you (and I, too) would support...that there is no such thing as 'bad luck' - only bad choices.

[Katman]

No. His reference to Ixion's 'bad luck - wrong time/place' is that it is more common than one might suppose. Which leads on to the supposition that you (and I, too) would support...that there is no such thing as 'bad luck' - only bad choices.

Sorry, it might be last night's beers, but I'm having trouble following your logic in that post.

Could you please spell it out a little clearer?

I agree with the last bit but don't see how it fits with the first bit.

[FROSTY]

One thing thats clear to me is the decreased popularity in motorcycles as a first vehicle added to immensely improved EMS and serious trauma services had the effect of causing a big dip in motorcycle road deaths in the 90's.
The recent increase suggests to me that it aint bad luck its that the machinery has gotten to be "too good" for inexperienced riders. By inexperienced Im also refering to "born again bikers"

[Lissa]

It is interesting sobering reading, cheers Paul.

[MSTRS]

Sorry, it might be last night's beers, but I'm having trouble following your logic in that post.



That can happen with old age...

[Paul in NZ]

No. His reference to Ixion's 'bad luck - wrong time/place' is that it is more common than one might suppose. Which leads on to the supposition that you (and I, too) would support...that there is no such thing as 'bad luck' - only bad choices.

No - I meant we think it happens more often than it really does ;-)

[Paul in NZ]

Like most of us I kind of go into denial when faced with statistics – denial and suspicion – after all, this can’t apply to ME?? I’m special dammit…

There is also the old chestnut of speed being a factor or responsibility identified vs not identified. Speed is ALWAYS a factor even if you are doing 10kph – the real question is was the speed unreasonable before other factors apart from stuff like rain etc contributed to the ‘accident’… Responsibility is always assigned after the accident and usually by someone who was not actually there – often along the lines of legal responsibility HOWEVER, balanced against this, ‘no rider fault identified’ is not the same as saying someone else was at fault. Its just saying there was not enough objective evidence to assign blame.

Where this information is potentially useful is looking at trends. Yes – the numbers need to be balanced against the number of active riders etc but there are some clear numbers in here that should give us pause to think.

Motorcyclists make up 10% of the road fatalities – a figure that was mentioned on the news this morning. This year NZ will have a record low in the numbers of deaths on our roads and the authorities will be looking at ways to improve that in 2009. Given these statistics I would seriously expect motorcycling to come under some targeted scrutiny in 2009. This could make things rather unpleasant for us unless we can come up with some initiatives to help ourselves.

Over 50% of these fatalities are primarily the fault of the rider – nearly 75% of fatal accidents are primarily the fault of the rider with head ons and running off the road beings the top two. This is fairly plainly poor judgement or bad decisions and motorcyclists are paying a heavy price for these decisions.

Like I said – I have no preconceived ideas and frankly I’m beyond worrying about other folks too much, it’s all I can do to struggle along myself. BUT these figures are not good and are receiving both official and media attention and this is going to cost us all in lost friends and in the pocket through ACC payments, insurance and increased attention from the HP.

What can we do about it?

One thing is to engage with the authorities – I’d like to see a better breakdown of figures to help identify what type of bike and the riding history of the motorcyclist. That may help identify creative legislation that would save maybe 15 to 25 lives a year and countless injuries. Maybe after not being an active rider for a certain period there has to be a graduated license program limiting the power to weight ratio? Maybe certain types of bikes require a special license much like a gun collector needs a special endorsement to own a pistol or automatic weapon?

Please don’t start banging on about freedom of choice or big brother as I don’t give a shit – yes, you are free to kill yourself in all kinds of creative fashions but that freedom seems to be impinging on my freedoms and costing me money

[de_wood_elf]

So does it mean that if I stay on restricted I'm 'protected'?
The thing with so called statistics is that they never offer a full explanation of the results. It never tells us important things like maybe motorcycle riders are made up of more males than females, weekends have the greater number of accident because there are more motorcycles on the road, important things like this are never taken into account nor explained.
Yes I know motorcyclists are at an increased risk of death and injury compared to cars and that certain road maneuvers are riskier than others but apart from that the statistics don't really mean much to me.

[Paul in NZ]

So does it mean that if I stay on restricted I'm 'protected'?
The thing with so called statistics is that they never offer a full explanation of the results. It never tells us important things like maybe motorcycle riders are made up of more males than females, weekends have the greater number of accident because there are more motorcycles on the road, important things like this are never taken into account nor explained.
Yes I know motorcyclists are at an increased risk of death and injury compared to cars and that certain road maneuvers are riskier than others but apart from that the statistics don't really mean much to me.

Good job - stick with that.... It will likely work for you...

[quickbuck]

Came to a realisation that i want/are going, to go faster and faster so being the wise ol fool i am, i'm presently on tard me ATM buying a van and searching for a track/race bike (failing that i will be tearing the lights off one of the triples, whacking clip ons on it and commiting it)

Before i become one of your statistics !

Came to a very similar conclusion myself after Taupo on Sunday.

On the way from Taupo to Turangi i was full of confidence. The traffic was doing what they felt comfortable with, but it felt ultra slow....

Now, if i didn't use restraint, I too could become one of those crazy motorcyclists who terrorise the general public at every tight corner..... (or maybe I already do, just conscious of it now).

OR, just give the bike to the other half and look up track bikes on TM.
Already have the ute.....

[sinfull]

OR, just give the bike to the other half and look up track bikes on TM.
Already have the ute.....

Spent a bit of time crying on tm tonight ! Was watching a SV 1000 write off go from 2700 to 5900 in 30 minutes ! Guess it will be the 955 i strip down then ! Got an auction to watch morra night re the van !
What was on at Taupo on sunday ?

[quickbuck]

What was on at Taupo on sunday ?

I got a bunch of Airforce lads and ladies together, and along with Honda Riders Club we had a bit of a training day on the 2.2k circuit.

On the whole the day went well, and everybody came away with new skills.
Had a debrief (as us military types always do) and come up with some great ideas for next time....

Oh, and our resident racer was testing the "Step Up" ZXR6.... got it going very fast for the 3 hour.

[xgnr]

Very good read, sobering indeed. Had a mate crap off last week, nearly killed himself, riding an old K75 BMW like a sprot bike :bash:
.

Damn another fine bike trashed...

[Marknz]

This thread got me to thinking about airing a question about 'what happens if... ?'

Some will know that I'm currently recuperating after emergency brain surgery on 30 August. Seems that I was on the verge of a major stroke, or worse, sudden death due to a cyst being in a not very good place inside my grey matter. Anyways... how would I have counted statistically if I had had that stroke or sudden death while I was riding on a straight peice of road in the 'rapa at about 100kph, or even coming up or going down the 'takas with the boys? Would I have just been one of those stupid over 40's on a supersport bike who was playing above his weight? I'm sure that's how it would have been represented in the press in the immediate aftermath, but what about in the statistics in the long run?

Just putting it out there.

[James Deuce]

Like most of us I kind of go into denial when faced with statistics – denial and suspicion – after all, this can’t apply to ME?? I’m special dammit…

Please don’t start banging on about freedom of choice or big brother as I don’t give a shit – yes, you are free to kill yourself in all kinds of creative fashions but that freedom seems to be impinging on my freedoms and costing me money

I've thought and thought about this and I can only reiterate conclusions that I came to a number of years ago.

Men shouldn't be riding bikes on the road under the age of 25. The process around risk taking in the 15-19 year old age group is well documented and now increasingly understood to be caused a lack of brain development in the areas that moderate risky behaviour. Long known and understood by the military who advertise systematic butchery as "adventure", knowing that they'll appeal to a gullible and gung ho age group. This area of the brain doesn't finish developing until a bloke is around 25. There's your lack of judgement right there.

There are a number of us out there who have "monocular" vision. Your visual cortex switches between eyes as required and when looking straight ahead only one eye functions. I have a friend with this problem and he simply cannot judge how closely he is following a single track vehicle as he has no depth perception. These people probably shouldn't be allowed a bike license. It's questionable that they should be driving at all. Sarge will probably be around tonight to rearrange my internal organs, but it's my opinion and inherently worthless. Someone else with the smarts and research could make it a reality.

Brain injuries, either chemical or trauma. Shouldn't be allowed to ride a bike ever. Poor judgement, and labile personality equals bad decisions. I probably shouldn't be riding. Ever taken P? No bike license. Ever been busted for class A or B drug possession? No bike license. Ever been an amateur or professional boxer or jockey? No bike license.

If you sell a road registered motorcycle and don't buy another within 6 months, you should actually foreit your bike license and start the graduated process again if you buy another road bike. I can hear the indignant howls from here. Your road craft and road sense evaporates rapidly. Driving a car and riding a bike are in no way complimentary. The only thing they share in common are the traffic regs, and most motorcyclists don't give two hoots about traffic regs. I know I don't, but I'm a bit arrogant. After 10 years off bikes I had to relearn and unlearn a bunch of stuff. It took 3 years and 2 accidents to get over the "woohoo, I'm riding again" feeling.

If you hold a race license, no road license. More shouting, I know, but it seems to me that a race license seems to convey a sense of invulnerability to the fast road rider.

All a bit harsh isn't it? There's compellign scientific and statistical arguments to back my conclusions up. It only takes a few laws to make them real if you don't, as Paul has said, sharpen up our overall act.

[James Deuce]

This thread got me to thinking about airing a question about 'what happens if... ?'

Some will know that I'm currently recuperating after emergency brain surgery on 30 August. Seems that I was on the verge of a major stroke, or worse, sudden death due to a cyst being in a not very good place inside my grey matter. Anyways... how would I have counted statistically if I had had that stroke or sudden death while I was riding on a straight peice of road in the 'rapa at about 100kph, or even coming up or going down the 'takas with the boys? Would I have just been one of those stupid over 40's on a supersport bike who was playing above his weight? I'm sure that's how it would have been represented in the press in the immediate aftermath, but what about in the statistics in the long run?

Just putting it out there.


If your family allowed an autopsy, and the occluded blood vessel or ruptured cyst was discovered the stats would be recorded very differently. There are a bunch of clues that things like embolisms and aneurysms leave that will be immediately obvious to any pathologist.

By the way: I'm pleased you're still with us mate.

[quickbuck]

If your family allowed an autopsy, and the occluded blood vessel or ruptured cyst was discovered the stats would be recorded very differently. There are a bunch of clues that things like embolisms and aneurysms leave that will be immediately obvious to any pathologist.

By the way: I'm pleased you're still with us mate.

Exactly....
And +1 you are still with us.

[FROSTY]

Just a lil side note. I have had my eyes fixed many years ago so I had 20/20 vision. I was a lil worried about my racing because one eye was getting lazy.
My eye doctor was quite clear on this point. Human beings are MONOCULAR at any distance beyond 40 feet. I figure a man in the business of eyesight probably knows wot he's on about.

[Paul in NZ]

Some will know that I'm currently recuperating after emergency brain surgery on 30 August. Seems that I was on the verge of a major stroke, or worse, sudden death due to a cyst being in a not very good place inside my grey matter. .

Fudge - emergency brain surgery... gleep, that would take the gloss off your turds.. Glad you are OK...

Look - it's just stats OK - there are any number of suicides and assorted mechanical or health issues that are misreported but I assume the incidences of these are relatively constant - except possibly in the 80's and 90's more people were topping themselves because of the crap music - HOWEVER it's the trends that are interesting and even counting the oddballs - a LOT of, indeed probably most motorcycle accidents are NOT the fault of other drivers...

Its serious food for thought!

[quickbuck]

Human beings are MONOCULAR at any distance beyond 40 feet. I figure a man in the business of eyesight probably knows wot he's on about.

Heck.... But when you think about it we are..... We use a variety of other tools to judge distances beyond that.
Relative size being one....

So to add to that, this makes is so hard to judge the speed of a motorcycle coming toward you. The headlight (if on) is the most visible thing, and it won't appear to change it's size at any appreciable rate.....

Hmmmmm... This road riding thing is starting to give me the willies.

[Paul in NZ]

I figure a man in the business of eyesight probably knows wot he's on about.

Yeah, I purchased a Mazda 626 4WS off a guy in the auto industry - he was bound to know a thing or two eh? (the bastard - we ended up on 1st name terms with Mazda service managers in 3 major cities)

[jrandom]

If you hold a race license, no road license. More shouting, I know, but it seems to me that a race license seems to convey a sense of invulnerability to the fast road rider.

Dunno about a sense of invulnerability. More like a sense of how fookin dangerous a place the road is. At least, that's how it is for me.

I have a race licence and no road licence, now, and the road licence will be going away in a drawer for a few extra months when I get it back, I think. I'm surprised at how comfortable I am with things as they are.

[Paul in NZ]

So to add to that, this makes is so hard to judge the speed of a motorcycle coming toward you. .

I'm thinking the problem is that its hard for motorcyclists to judge the speed of the landscape coming towards them...

[James Deuce]

Just a lil side note. I have had my eyes fixed many years ago so I had 20/20 vision. I was a lil worried about my racing because one eye was getting lazy.
My eye doctor was quite clear on this point. Human beings are MONOCULAR at any distance beyond 40 feet. I figure a man in the business of eyesight probably knows wot he's on about.

Yeah but when your mate follows a bike at less the 40 feet, in his car, and you have to shout out a warning as the blissfully unaware biker is about to disappear under the front of the car. You know what I'm saying right? Or those guys that just ride right into the back of things repeatedly? Or stop in the middle of intersections all the time. I'm not talking about normal human eyesight I'm talking about people who put their hand out to shake and accidentally hit you in the chest.

[Titanium]

Yes, that's why my conclusion was quickly arrived at. A majority of fatal and injury crashes are the rider's fault, and a majority involve 'losing control of the motorcycle'.

Ergo, we die because we don't know how to ride.

Or we die because we think we know how to ride, but in reality we dont .....

Good report.

[Paul in NZ]

Or we die because we think we know how to ride, but in reality we dont .....

Good report.

Oh we know how to ride - we are just obsessed with riding faster and faster. ANYONE could ride nearly any bike at the speed limit and I doubt they would ever have many issues...

[James Deuce]

Dunno about a sense of invulnerability. More like a sense of how fookin dangerous a place the road is. At least, that's how it is for me.

I have a race licence and no road licence, now, and the road licence will be going away in a drawer for a few extra months when I get it back, I think. I'm surprised at how comfortable I am with things as they are.

It usually goes one of two ways. Road riding takes a back seat altogether, or arrogant disdain for other snail-like road users while riding on the road at warp speed.

[quickbuck]

I'm thinking the problem is that its hard for motorcyclists to judge the speed of the landscape coming towards them...
One thing I do is "Keep my eyes looking up the road".
Target fixation on the objects on the side of the road is never good.

[Titanium]

Oh we know how to ride - we are just obsessed with riding faster and faster. ANYONE could ride nearly any bike at the speed limit and I doubt they would ever have many issues...

But that would be boring and not so cool ... lets ride it on just 1 wheel at the speed limit, or lane split, or pass on blind corners, geez we could do all that on 1 wheel as well ............

Then our mates would think we new how to ride as well .......

so many other factors apart from speed ... problem is with the organic matter between throttle and seat!

[Paul in NZ]

One thing I do is "Keep my eyes looking up the road".
Target fixation on the objects on the side of the road is never good.

I probably don't go that fast to worry about it - I just wobble along occasionally reaching down and giving Vickis leg a squeeze, pondering the next coffee stop, wondering if my bladder will burst and going bbbrrrrm, waaaah, bbrrrrrm in my helmet in between mangling old queen songs that I can only remember some of the words to....

[Titanium]

One thing I do is "Keep my eyes looking up the road".
Target fixation on the objects on the side of the road is never good.

I ride watching the car in front of the car in front of the car infront of you ...... cause that is the one that is going to fcuk you up, or the intersection / lights / side road / pedestrian infront of the one you are coming up to.

[Paul in NZ]

Then our mates would think we new how to ride as well .......!

Ah well - I don't have any mates....

(most of em died in motorcycle accidents)

[jrandom]

It usually goes one of two ways. Road riding takes a back seat altogether, or arrogant disdain for other snail-like road users while riding on the road at warp speed.

Both are possibilities, of course, but I can't say I identify with either.

I just have little desire to do a particular sort of riding on the road.

But the gravel roads call out to me, and I've always wanted an FXDWG, too, come to think of it.

[BMWST?]

Bullshit. How many riders have run wide into the other lane on a left hand corner and thought "thank christ there wasn't a car coming the other way!"

You don't get let off as easily if you run wide on a right hand corner.

thtas exactly what he said


...... so it stands to reason there is more potential to fuck up on a right hander than on a left hander......

[Fatjim]

First of all. Paul, welcome back, you weren't gone nearly as long as I expected, and its good to see you again. Is there a touch of irony in what brought you back?

Second, Mark, funfuckintastic to see you're still with us mate.

Now to the stats. I browsed the document and although it seems exhaustive in its stats gathering I was disappointed about the interpretation throughout. The summation at the beginning is fairly spot on, but the apparent haphazard partizan highlighting throughout does nothing for me.

eg.s
1. 45% of accidents involved drugs/speed or alcohol. That means the majjority didn't have anything to do with those. I think thats far to high and those reasons need addressing fast.
2. 83% of injuries are to males. 17% to therefor to females and those of indetermind sex. Thats the worrying stat for me, what percentage of riders/pillions are women?


Lets be blunt and lets face it, speed, recklessness and stupidity have a lot to do with a lot (not all) of crashes.

But the reasons the stats are so bad is not just because of that but because a motorcycle offers "a much lower level of occupant protection than is provided by a car." Many of the fallen would still be here if they had been in a car.

[dipshit]

thtas exactly what he said

Obviously you have a selective reading problem...


The thing you need to consider here is that right handers are off camber due to the crown in the road - so it stands to reason there is more potential to fuck up on a right hander than on a left hander. Also there is probably just as often a car coming the other way as there is an solid object on the side of the road in your crash path, and a car covers more ground than stationery object does.

[scumdog]

Because if you run wide on a right hand corner you will hit gravel/ditch/fence. If you run wide on a left hand corner you have the other side of the road to use and you will only be unlucky if a vehicle is coming the other way at the time.

Generally I seem to cut through a left-hand bend a whole lot faster andeasier than a right-hand one.

Mybe it's the subconscious thought that if I over-cook a left-hander I still have a bit of road to 'play with' unlike a right-hander???

[quickbuck]

.... going bbbrrrrm, waaaah, bbrrrrrm in my helmet in between mangling old queen songs that I can only remember some of the words to....

Beelzebub has a devil for a side board for me?

[Jiminy]

I'm still surprised that there are so many "bad time bad place" crashes. I was expecting a higher percentage of crashes where the rider's responsibility is clearly identified. It's quite scary to think that there are so many cases that are mostly out of your control.


But the reasons the stats are so bad is not just because of that but because a motorcycle offers "a much lower level of occupant protection than is provided by a car." Many of the fallen would still be here if they had been in a car.

Yep, but that ain't gonna change tomorrow (although I like the idea of the airbag vest), so we still have to compensate by being better riders than drivers. And the recent trend doesn't seem to go in the right direction.

[FROSTY]

Yeah but when your mate follows a bike at less the 40 feet, in his car, and you have to shout out a warning as the blissfully unaware biker is about to disappear under the front of the car. You know what I'm saying right? Or those guys that just ride right into the back of things repeatedly? Or stop in the middle of intersections all the time. I'm not talking about normal human eyesight I'm talking about people who put their hand out to shake and accidentally hit you in the chest.
Those people have other er issues.
Interestingly enough my depth perception was all outa whack just after my last er incident.The eyesight was fine but i'd knock glasses or cups n stuff off of tables wonder if the people concerned have what I had on a permanent basis?

[James Deuce]

Those people have other er issues.

No they don;t they have the issue I' was talking about. No depth perception and awareness of their lack of depth perception because they've never had it.

[MSTRS]

... No depth perception and awareness of their lack of depth perception because they've never had it.

Sure about that? I know what you mean, but isn't it more likely that this is a condition they have developed 'later' in life?
We all learned to interpret what we were seeing and adjusted our 'input' as we discovered what worked/didn't work (tripping over things etc). If you had monocular vision from the very start, you'd know no different and by the time you reached adulthood, you'd have it under control. YT does. But if something changes in your (stereo)vision as an adult, you would have big problems, since the brain doesn't rewire itself readily.

[Jantar]

There are lies, damn lies, and there are statistics.

The data and facts presented on motorcycle accidents are absolutely correct. Its a pity they don't tell the rest of the story.

Notice how the number of fatalities increased through the early 1980s until 1986 then took a sudden downturn. The question we should be focusing on is "What happened in 1986 that caused this sudden improvement in safety, and can we repeat it?"

The statistics by age make it appear that the over 25s are the most dangerous age group. So how about breaking that into 5 year groups like the rest. Show them as 25 - 29, 30 - 34, 35 - 39, etc. Then make the comparison.

Look at the accidents by size. The over 750s are not getting ang worse, but most of the others are. Why? The accident rate for 250 - 749 is dropping. Good, can we repeat it for the other classes? or is it because of the demise of the 400 class?

Fault in crashes should be broken into two groups, single vehicle and multi vehicle crashes. By combining them they hide the effect of the SMIDSY type crash.

Then speed, that so called major cause: Speed alone is the cause in 22% and a contributing factor in a further 15%. But look at the definition of speed. Its "Too fast for the conditions". It is not "Exceeding the speed limit". Lets now go back to that very first graph and repeat the question "What happened in 1986 that caused this sudden improvement in safety, and can we repeat it?" What happened was that the speed limit was raised from from 50 mph (80 kmh) to 100 kmh and open road accidents immediately dropped.

The report is interesting, but I would like it to present the missing data as well.

[Katman]

Notice how the number of fatalities increased through the early 1980s until 1986 then took a sudden downturn. The question we should be focusing on is "What happened in 1986 that caused this sudden improvement in safety, and can we repeat it?"


The country was flooded with cheap Jap imports.

[dipshit]

BUT these figures are not good and are receiving both official and media attention and this is going to cost us all in lost friends and in the pocket through ACC payments, insurance and increased attention from the HP...

...Please don’t start banging on about freedom of choice or big brother as I don’t give a shit – yes, you are free to kill yourself in all kinds of creative fashions but that freedom seems to be impinging on my freedoms and costing me money


Exactly the point i try to raise on occasions. It isn't the "safety Nazis" or Helen Clark that may cause us to lose any freedoms we enjoy now. If anything it will be those blow-hards that say things like... "it's my life"... "I can ride how the fuck I want"... "what do you think I pay my ACC levies for"

Look at all the new tough laws and police powers to combat boy-racers for example. First you have boy-racers causing trouble on the roads then you have legislation to help curb the problem. It doesn't happen the other way around.

It is usually in the best interest of smaller minority groups to stay under the trouble radar as much as possible.

[Katman]

If anything it will be those blow-hards that say things like... "it's my life"... "I can ride how the fuck I want"... "what do you think I pay my ACC levies for"



Yep, Motorcycling's cancer.

[FROSTY]

Yeah, I purchased a Mazda 626 4WS off a guy in the auto industry - he was bound to know a thing or two eh? (the bastard - we ended up on 1st name terms with Mazda service managers in 3 major cities)
You pedantic sod-:bleh:
OK--this guys whole career has been about correcting defective vision. Specifically people who it is mission critical to have perfect vision.
Such as airline pilots. He's one of the guys that says if a pilot can or can't carry on flying 747's.

[FROSTY]

Exactly the point i try to raise on occasions. It isn't the "safety Nazis" or Helen Clark that may cause us to lose any freedoms we enjoy now. If anything it will be those blow-hards that say things like... "it's my life"... "I can ride how the fuck I want"... "what do you think I pay my ACC levies for"

Look at all the new tough laws and police powers to combat boy-racers for example. First you have boy-racers causing trouble on the roads then you have legislation to help curb the problem. It doesn't happen the other way around.

It is usually in the best interest of smaller minority groups to stay under the trouble radar as much as possible.
BANG ON DUDE :2thumbsup:2thumbsup
Its a fuck load easier to be self policing and be seen to be as such than have the heavies come in and do it for ya.

[Fatjim]

No they don;t they have the issue I' was talking about. No depth perception and awareness of their lack of depth perception because they've never had it.

TBH, I'm virtually blind in the left eye, born that way. I had to convince the optimistic that it was worth correcting because I was used to it and not having it would be weird. I can't see anything "Clearly", and I use clearly very liberaly, further than 2 feet away. Admittedly my hand eye coordination sucks (stroking's ok though), and my depth perception aint the best. Had you noticed Jim?

[FROSTY]

The data and facts presented on motorcycle accidents are absolutely correct. Its a pity they don't tell the rest of the story.Notice how the number of fatalities increased through the early 1980s until 1986 then took a sudden downturn. The question we should be focusing on is "What happened in 1986 that caused this sudden improvement in safety, and can we repeat it?"


Lets now go back to that very first graph and repeat the question "What happened in 1986 that caused this sudden improvement in safety, and can we repeat it?" What happened was that the speed limit was raised from from 50 mph (80 kmh) to 100 kmh and open road accidents immediately dropped.

One statistic I'd like to see is how many bikes were being ridden the entire time. Ie was there a sudden downturn in MC rego's
Less bikes on the road means less accidents surely

[motorbyclist]

I have only given the data a quick read, they way I enturperate it is that the greatest age group at risk is the over 40s, and those riding larger Motor cycles, so my geuss is that this is not so much those who have been riding most of their lives but those who have returned to riding after a number of years away from riding bikes, ie the 40 somthing that can afford to go out and buy a new sports bike of large capacity, that may have owned their last bike 15 to 20 yrs previously, 1970s or 80s technology, probably has forgotten more than they remember about riding, reactions and automatic motor responces, and how quick things can go to custard at +200 kmph.

that's what i read too

plus, of course, older riders don't bounce as well as the young ones



Men shouldn't be riding bikes on the road under the age of 25. The process around risk taking in the 15-19 year old age group is well documented and now increasingly understood to be caused a lack of brain development in the areas that moderate risky behaviour. Long known and understood by the military who advertise systematic butchery as "adventure", knowing that they'll appeal to a gullible and gung ho age group. This area of the brain doesn't finish developing until a bloke is around 25. There's your lack of judgement right there.


bollocks

i'm looking at these statistics and asking why riders under 25 payer extra for insurance if older riders seem to be the ones crashing

which is why this report needs to take into account the proportions of age groups within the riding population, and the total number of accidents (reported or claimed) that did not result in injury

the age discrepancy could be young riders bouncing better, could be simply because of less young riders, or as you suggest perhaps old riders should re-do the graduated licence system

[Ixion]

One statistic I'd like to see is how many bikes were being ridden the entire time. Ie was there a sudden downturn in MC rego's
Less bikes on the road means less accidents surely

Certainly was. I recall in the 70s, there were heaps of other bikes on the road. Almost always there'd be half a dozen bikes at the head of a traffic light queue. And they were more widespread. Nowadays when you do get a lot of bikes about they tend to be concentrated on a few places (eg Puhoi pub) on a few days (eg sunny Sundays). In the 70s they were all over.

Then in the later 80s the numbers I saw each day went down hard and fast. By the 90s I was seriously beginning to think that motorcycling was going to die out. I could ride to work all week, and maybe only see two or three other bikes. And in winter, maybe none at all!
Then in the 2000s it's started to rise again. Each year, more bikes around, and more 'universal'. Still nowhere near as many as in the 70s but a shit load more than the 90s (Im including scooters as bikes). 'S good!

[The Pastor]

so lost control of motorbike = gravel or deseil on the road aye

[dipshit]

which is why this report needs to take into account the proportions of age groups within the riding population, and the total number of accidents (reported or claimed) that did not result in injury

It gives you a clue in the report "The average age of motorcycle casualties has risen over the last 25 years, from 22 in 1980 to 35 in 2007. This reflects a trend away from motorcycling among the young."

The average age of casualties is rising because the average age of motorcyclists are rising because less young people are getting into motorcycling.

Next time you are at a rally take note how many 35 + aged people there are verses how many 20 and under riders there are.

[scumdog]

The country was flooded with cheap Jap imports.

Dead right if you're talking about cars.

[riffer]

so lost control of motorbike = gravel or deseil on the road aye

Maybe some of it could be attributed to this. But I would venture that the majority of loss of control of motorbike incidents would be through riders losing it on corners or simply running out of road.

[The Pastor]

i dunno how easy is it to slip on a bit of deseil or gravel while leaned over in a corner. cop comes along and hey you were speeding.

[Motu]

Certainly was. I recall in the 70s, there were heaps of other bikes on the road. Almost always there'd be half a dozen bikes at the head of a traffic light queue. And they were more widespread. Nowadays when you do get a lot of bikes about they tend to be concentrated on a few places (eg Puhoi pub) on a few days (eg sunny Sundays). In the 70s they were all over.

Then in the later 80s the numbers I saw each day went down hard and fast. By the 90s I was seriously beginning to think that motorcycling was going to die out. I could ride to work all week, and maybe only see two or three other bikes. And in winter, maybe none at all!
Then in the 2000s it's started to rise again. Each year, more bikes around, and more 'universal'. Still nowhere near as many as in the 70s but a shit load more than the 90s (Im including scooters as bikes). 'S good!

Definitely - I remember going to Taranaki in the early '90's ....the only other bikes I saw on the road were Harleys,and I could count them all on one hand and still have a finger left to pick my nose.I thought I was the only guy without a patch who was riding a bike back then.I would certainly expect a dip in bike accidents through the late '80's and '90's.

Another thing (while we are talking about crashing on gravel) I think the bikes to too narrow focused these days,particularly the sports bikes and cruisers.Sure,they are good at what they do...very,very good - but they are very,very bad at what they don't do well.In earlier times you had a bike to do everything you needed to do on a bike - which was to take you to work everyday,pick up parts and groceries after work,go to parties,get drunk and take a chick back home with you,and then on the weekend go riding with your mates.It didn't do any of this stuff very well,but it could.Push a modern motorcycle out of it's sphere of excellence and it's a nasty beast to behold.Just my personal view.....

[Paul in NZ]

Push a modern motorcycle out of it's sphere of excellence and it's a nasty beast to behold.Just my personal view.....

You might be onto something there....

[Genestho]

Im intrigued as to what the interpretation are of the stats under "lost control of motorcycle"
My husband was logged by emergency services as "patient lost control of Motorcycle into car" when the car driver crossed the centreline drunk and killed three people...

Im not sure what our friend was logged under. Dont have the info..

It just made me wonder how wide the interpretations are when creating these reports...

[rphenix]

Very interesting that in 2007 the majority of deaths were in riders 30yrs +

Given the amount of 18-20year old's dying the past few weeks that might be different this year.

[motorbyclist]

yeah, since petrol breached $2 a litre a lot of young people have been forced to use scooters or trade their car for a bike

and promptly discover the hard way about road rash and how blind cagers can be

[letard]

I've thought and thought about this and I can only reiterate conclusions that I came to a number of years ago.

Men shouldn't be riding bikes on the road under the age of 25. The process around risk taking in the 15-19 year old age group is well documented and now increasingly understood to be caused a lack of brain development in the areas that moderate risky behaviour. Long known and understood by the military who advertise systematic butchery as "adventure", knowing that they'll appeal to a gullible and gung ho age group. This area of the brain doesn't finish developing until a bloke is around 25. There's your lack of judgement right there.




fitting in that age braket i do agree with it. a few times after i stopd all that was going threw my head was WHY? why did i jst do that.
i have tonned down my riding consideribly but still have to tell my self to slow down some times.

[Paul in NZ]

fitting in that age braket i do agree with it. a few times after i stopd all that was going threw my head was WHY? why did i jst do that.
i have tonned down my riding consideribly but still have to tell my self to slow down some times.


The force is strong with this one - perhaps he is worthy??? (no seriously well done)

[James Deuce]

He may be "The One".

[motorbyclist]

fitting in that age braket i do agree with it. a few times after i stopd all that was going threw my head was WHY? why did i jst do that.
i have tonned down my riding consideribly but still have to tell my self to slow down some times.

yeah, from 15 through 18 i was pretty much teh same... now almost 20 and being much more responsible... although since riding safely i've had two bins doing it:crazy: versus zero bins being an idiot:wacko:

[James Deuce]

bollocks

the age discrepancy could be young riders bouncing better, could be simply because of less young riders, or as you suggest perhaps old riders should re-do the graduated licence system
Don't make me dig out the research and make you cry.

It ain't bollocks. There is a significant and measurable difference in brain activity and hormone levels post-25 in adult human males.

Comparatively speaking there's sod all under 25s riding bikes, even with the recent increase in bikes. Now that petrol has dropped significantly, I'm sure that bike and scooter sales will drop accordingly. Until there's comparable numbers of Under-25s on bikes, you can't use the stats to compare anything, except to make the comment that motocycling still isn't a popular under-25 pastime.

[Ixion]

By observation, on week days there's more young riders than old ones. But on weekends (especially sunny ones) a whole swarm of wrinklies come out of the woodwork. Some on Harleys, some on big sprots bikes.

Some ride well. Some I suspect don't.

But I do believe that if you don't ride nearly every day, you lose (or never acquire) that fine edge that we call the spidey sense. Unfortunately none of the figures indicate any measure relating to annual mileage on a bike.

[motorbyclist]

Don't make me dig out the research and make you cry.

It ain't bollocks. There is a significant and measurable difference in brain activity and hormone levels post-25 in adult human males.

well aware of that


Until there's comparable numbers of Under-25s on bikes, you can't use the stats to compare anything

no, we can't....

which was my point - if we can conclude anything from the stats as they are, it's to ban riders over 25, not under. but we can't, nor can we simply ban riding under 25 because of a hormonal difference that could (does) lead to risk taking.

we could ban risk takers... oh wait, it's called dangerous driving and carries a hefty fine too

[James Deuce]

well aware of that


no, we can't....

which was my point - if we can conclude anything from the stats as they are, it's to ban riders over 25, not under. but we can't, nor can we simply ban riding under 25 because of a hormonal difference that could (does) lead to risk taking.

we could ban risk takers... oh wait, it's called dangerous driving and carries a hefty fine too
Gahh!

It's not hormones! That's only a small part of the equation.

It's actual brain development. Under 25 year old males are fundamentally brain damaged and are like that for a reason. The really brave, really stupid ones would do all the macho work when out hunting for food or fighting other tribes. That way the clever ones got to survive and become the information repositories, and had the inter-personal skills required to live in a Matriarchal society. Chicks are hard work.

One of the unfortunate drawbacks of a society that looks after people with special needs is that the macho under 25 population actually grows instead of being harvested and end up members of a society that frowns on risk taking.

I'm as serious about keeping under 25 males off motorbikes as I am about wanting a world where people like Sarge don't need to do horrible things so you can sleep quietly, secure in the illusion that your world is a safe place.

[Swoop]

This year NZ will have a record low in the numbers of deaths on our roads and the authorities will be looking at ways to improve that in 2009.
With the associated costs of petrol rising and falling, the statistics will be modified in a reaponse to that.

BANG ON DUDE :2thumbsup:2thumbsup
Its a fuck load easier to be self policing and be seen to be as such than have the heavies come in and do it for ya.
That is the simple fact that has eluded the vocal wanker here. The more he spouts, the more attention will be given by the regulators, who will believe that they have failed with their previous laws. Simple result? More laws that do nothing.

[scracha]

It just made me wonder how wide the interpretations are when creating these reports...

Yep, and when you're meandering through a bend and it turns all gravelly and diesel (like it quite often does here) and end up dusting off your leathers (if you're lucky). Mr plod comes along and then does you for "careless driving" as you were clearly "riding too fast for the conditions"

$hit sometimes happens and unlike wot these statistics imply, I think $hit happens more than 3% of the time.

[gammaguy]

It seems to say fairly clearly that we die because we can't control our machines.

and if the dickhead i was behind today on the ducati monster is anything to go by,that is surely the case.so busy being stylish,hanging off etc,he didnt realise he was 10mm off the back bumper of the car in front.

until she braked and he overtook her on a blind corner to avoid a collision.

surprise surprise,he pulled in to the next pub carpark.

nothing like a cold beer to steady the nerves after some hard riding is there?

[Naki Rat]

The thing you need to consider here is that right handers are off camber due to the crown in the road - so it stands to reason there is more potential to fuck up on a right hander than on a left hander.

Not quite! The 'crown' in the road cross section reduces on a corner with super-elevation (camber), with the outside lane gradually lifting as the corner tightens. This lifting continues until the crossfall of the roadway is one continuous gradient across the entire road width. On many corners this crossfall will steepen further, reaching a maximum at the apex of the corner.

The exception to this is that urban roadways (i.e. 50km/h zones) are not normally designed with camber.

Think I'd go with the less run-off space and optional head-on reasoning for this one.

[motorbyclist]

Not quite! The 'crown' in the road cross section reduces on a corner with super-elevation (camber), with the outside lane gradually lifting as the corner tightens. This lifting continues until the crossfall of the roadway is one continuous gradient across the entire road width. On many corners this crossfall will steepen further, reaching a maximum at the apex of the corner.


uh, what?



i've seen many a non-urban corner with a nasty off camber, though the crown in the road usually has nothing to do with it

[Naki Rat]

uh, what?

Maybe easier to understand with diagrams (http://www.foresoft.com/Tutorials/superelevation_files/diagram.jpg) See bottom series of cross sections.


i've seen many a non-urban corner with a nasty off camber, though the crown in the road usually has nothing to do with it

"Off camber" is a colloquial term describing insufficient superelevation of a corner either by bad design or pavement deformation. This also explains the design shortfalls of a rural road as opposed to a state highway.

[Shadows]

Not quite! The 'crown' in the road cross section reduces on a corner with super-elevation (camber), with the outside lane gradually lifting as the corner tightens. This lifting continues until the crossfall of the roadway is one continuous gradient across the entire road width. On many corners this crossfall will steepen further, reaching a maximum at the apex of the corner.

The exception to this is that urban roadways (i.e. 50km/h zones) are not normally designed with camber.

Think I'd go with the less run-off space and optional head-on reasoning for this one.

Yes, quite true on a well designed and constructed road. So many of them aren't.

[scumdog]

we could ban risk takers... oh wait, it's called dangerous driving and carries a hefty fine too

Mehh, only if said driving was a danger to any person....

[RT527]

Mehh, only if said driving was a danger to any person....

Which unless your an alien that would mean the person operating the vehicle is putting his person in danger .......so that would be dangerous driving, would it not?.

[Naki Rat]

Which unless your an alien that would mean the person operating the vehicle is putting his person in danger .......so that would be dangerous driving, would it not?.

No. More like natural selection

[motorbyclist]

it's pretty subjective really

simply getting off my chair and walking puts me in a slight danger (of tripping)

travelling on the back of a machine doing 100kph can be considered a bit more dangerous.... then continuing to squeeze between stationary vehicles less than a metre apart while holding the same speed is yet more so.... where the individual draws the line and the police draw the line will never match up. we always get the "that was fine", "that was borderline", and "that was stupidly dangerous, give back my acc" responses to all of these threads

but my point was is they already have laws in place to deal with idiocy, and it's the idiots who will continue to break them no matter how draconian the laws become - and with more draconian measures like blanket bans, the rest of will get 'punished' because of some idiot's actions

[Katman]

and with more draconian measures like blanket bans, the rest of will get 'punished' because of some idiot's actions

Exactly - hence my "campaign".

[PrincessBandit]

This thread got me to thinking about airing a question about 'what happens if... ?'

Some will know that I'm currently recuperating after emergency brain surgery on 30 August. Seems that I was on the verge of a major stroke, or worse, sudden death due to a cyst being in a not very good place inside my grey matter. Anyways... how would I have counted statistically if I had had that stroke or sudden death while I was riding on a straight peice of road in the 'rapa at about 100kph, or even coming up or going down the 'takas with the boys? Would I have just been one of those stupid over 40's on a supersport bike who was playing above his weight? I'm sure that's how it would have been represented in the press in the immediate aftermath, but what about in the statistics in the long run?

Just putting it out there.

I haven't waded right through this whole thread yet, but was also intrigued by the 7 page document (yes, scan read it all and downloaded for an closer look tomorrow when I'm not so tired). It certainly does get one thinking, and I found the stats concerning older riders interesting as well as the very last comment. It went something like "despite learner and restricted licence holders being restricted to 250cc and under .........blah blah......no. of deaths/injuries while riding bikes bigger than their restriction".
Now, getting to why I quoted you, I remember reading a booklet waaaaaay back when I first started riding (2 years ago) which contained a comment I've not forgotten. It was aimed primarily at guys who pillion their girlfriends and how the pillion needs to understand that their behaviour can impact hugely on the outcome of a ride. The example used was 'your girlfriend digs you in the ribs [or some such "girlie" type of thing] causing you to lose control of your bike on a bend. Your death will be chalked up as "lost control of motorcycle on bend" rather than more accurately pillion distraction.' Which does mean than statistics, in and of themselves, don't always paint an accurate image. However fatal heart attacks while riding or a brain aneurysm while on your bike would be quite rare I'd have thought, but then you never know eh.

[Paul in NZ]

OK - I'll try and make a point.....

Yes - you can pick statistics to bits, we all know they are hardly perfect and that the info gathering is slightly warped BUT they are generally good at revealing trends. However you look at it there are some alarming numbers there yet the most alarming thing of all is that the spotlight of attention is swinging onto motorcyclists as a group to be targetted!

For example...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4804914a11.html

Now - we will all have a theory about the fairness of this - thats wonderful but pointless. People will persist in coming up with all kinds of ways of killing themselves and others while justifying it all. The problem I have is that I'm shortly going to be faced with higher ACC levies, taxes, fines and police attention because of this. Effectively I'll get taxed off the roads because of these morons and I'm not happy. :innocent:

I'm old and have been riding since the early 70's. Every generation there is a new bunch of 'well ard' types that dive into biking boots n all and within a week are hardened bikers with a menacing 1000 yd stare and an evil reputation for crashing and burning (but I'm still riding) - within 2 or 3 summers they 'disappear' and the cautious / sustainable riders pick up the tattered reputation of motorcycling and ride on.

I'm 52, I'll ride as long as I can start the triumph and then find something with electric starting unless I'm taxed off the road - I'd appreciate a bit of help here folks.....

[gammaguy]

OK - I'll try and make a point.....


I'm old and have been riding since the early 70's. Every generation there is a new bunch of 'well ard' types that dive into biking boots n all and within a week are hardened bikers with a menacing 1000 yd stare and an evil reputation for crashing and burning (but I'm still riding) - within 2 or 3 summers they 'disappear' and the cautious / sustainable riders pick up the tattered reputation of motorcycling and ride on.

I'm 52, I'll ride as long as I can start the triumph and then find something with electric starting unless I'm taxed off the road - I'd appreciate a bit of help here folks.....

well said


for some people motorcycling is treated as an extreme sport.next year they will be windsurfing,bungee jumping.whatever.

for me its a way of life,and that why i take it seriously enough to have a huge amount of fun but still be around to ride tomorrow and hopefully for a long time to come.

[sinfull]

I'm 52, I'll ride as long as I can start the triumph and then find something with electric starting unless I'm taxed off the road - I'd appreciate a bit of help here folks.....

Geeeez Paul i can try, but it has been a while since i kicked a triumph over !! But i'm keen to try an refresh my skills !

[Motu]

for some people motorcycling is treated as an extreme sport.next year they will be windsurfing,bungee jumping.whatever.


There seems to be excess interest given to the older riders in the statistics - but I think these extreme sport types would show higher if we had a way to categorize them.It's easy to find a guy dead on the road,turn over his license and find his age,write it down as a statistic - but it's just so un PC to say he gave it all he had,pushed everything to the limit and lived for the thrill...no mater if it was on a bike,the surf ski,the kayak etc.That's what killed him,not that he was riding a motorcycle.

Like Paul,I'm going to be really pissed off if costs,rules and regulations stops me from riding my bike....I've already sold two this year to cut back to the one registered,WoF'd and insured bike I can afford.I'm just quietly pottering away in my corner of the world,harming no one....why should I pay the costs.

Like James mentions in another thread - ride like a nana for a couple of months,watch us drop off the radar.Can we do it? I'm still a hippy at heart,I still believe in Utopia....

[Oscar]

Is it just me or do some of our comrades have their heads firmly in the sand?


The Ministry of Transport says the number of people dying in motorbike crashes is rising.

Three people were killed in a motorbike collision on the Christchurch - Akaroa highway on Saturday - taking the total number of rider and pillion passenger deaths to 50.

The ministry says that's almost a third more than the 38 fatalities recorded by the same point in 2006 and 2007.

It believes the higher number of deaths is directly related to the number of new motorbike registrations: some 16,000 more motorbikes were registered in 2007 alone.

Transport Ministry spokesperson David Crawford says the number of motorbike crash injuries has doubled since 2002.

He says older people, who are returning to riding with bigger bikes after years away, have also been causing a large number of accidents.

But the Bikers Rights Organisation disagrees. President Finn Nielsen told Summer Report on Monday that he doubts a lack of skill can be blamed.

Copyright © 2008 Radio New Zealand

The stats say returning riders are killing themselves in increasing numbers.
The road toll for motorcycles is up.
Three are killed by another rider.

Exactly what is to blame, Mr. Finn?

[Tone165]

Is it just me or do some of our comrades have their heads firmly in the sand?



The stats say returning riders are killing themselves in increasing numbers.
The road toll for motorcycles is up.
Three are killed by another rider.

Exactly what is to blame, Mr. Finn?

If I might address this one...

1st thing to say is that when dealing with this sort of thing..one must enter at the far end of the feild...and NOT at a reasonable starting point for discussion.

We..the motorcyclists..must put the main focus on outside factors, without denying the facts.

I wont bore you with figures that are subject to manipulation,

A large number of MC crashes are single vehicle ones, that means that they were rider error..


But what about the pothole or peice o crap on the road! I hear you say..

Environmental???? Could be, but also can be that the rider "Should" have been riding to suit actual AND possible conditions...food for debate at least!

Clearly there are problems that need to be looked at in the area of rider training, roadcraft, skills development etc...

But..to be quoted in the major press that the problem is "mainly" the riders themselves, would be to releive the wider community of responsibility.

We need to raise awareness, not provide "outs" for anyone.

I'm a huge advocate of rider training here in SEQ where we have exactly the same problems. We don't have anyone doing the BRONZ thing here.

We do have some new laws...eg..."A rider must face forward when riding a motorcycle" I shit you not!....this is how Govt reacts to things..with dopey laws!

So..the real question here is why are you bagging the guy, when you should be 110% supporting him, and BRONZ, to act on your behalf, among the wider community!

We can train and practice and drill and study and be the worlds best riders.....do you think that would mean no more dead bikers???

We can fix our own problems ourselves...in house, but NOT if restrictive and ineffective laws are passed.....imagine if the 250cc rule was extended to everyone!

What a success it would be...road deaths would be down heaps.....don't try and deny it...because for a start..half of the riders out there would give up riding if they had to go back to a 250.

So c'mon Kiwi's...back your man, dissention in the ranks is not helpful..because there are plenty of Non MC folk to raise the negative arguements!

And they can do it much better than you, because they are not held back by any actual knowledge of what the hell they are on about!

[Katman]

So..the real question here is why are you bagging the guy, when you should be 110% supporting him, and BRONZ, to act on your behalf, among the wider community!


Personally, I'd like to see BRONZ being a little more forthcoming with an audible and public affirmation that motorcyclist's shit does, in fact, stink.

Organised bodies who claim to represent motorcyclists do more harm than good by denying the fact that the majority of our misfortunes are of our own doing.

(Which is the reason the Anti WRB campaign is going nowhere).

[riffer]

Personally, I'd like to see BRONZ being a little more forthcoming with an audible and public affirmation that motorcyclist's shit does in fact stink.

Fair enough. But that's only half the equation. We get your point. What can you offer beyond pointing out the faults?

Otherwise we're only adding to the perception problem and inevitably hastening our own demise.

[dipshit]

We do have some new laws...eg..."A rider must face forward when riding a motorcycle" I shit you not!....this is how Govt reacts to things..with dopey laws!

This is no surprise whatsoever. There are motorcyclists this fucking stupid...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PlvtI0WBrHY

(4:02 for the riding backwards bit)

[Katman]

What can you offer beyond pointing out the faults?



:brick:

I've got a battered and scarred forehead to show for what I have "offered".

[Ixion]

I've been riding since the 50s (well, legally, a bit less).

The bastards have ALWAYS been trying to tax us off the roads. It's what they do. Cos they hate us. A rise in the road toll is just a convenient excuse, if it were not that it would be something else. No man ever lacked for a stone to throw at a dog.

If they raise rego to a point I can't afford it (insert poor sweet old man bit) , I'll just ride without. Wouldn't be the first time.

[hospitalfood]

fatal crashes:-

alcohol and drugs 8%
neither 55%

safer drunk and wasted !

[riffer]

:brick:

I've got a battered and scarred forehead to show for what I have "offered".

Nah, I'm serious. If this is, indeed, such a crisis point it's time to start offering solutions.

I'm not convinced that we face a crisis from outside forces. Sure, there's some bleating in the media ATM regarding motorcycle safety, but come the NY when the markets open again and everything gets even worse they'll soon forget about motorcyclists again.

But a lot of what you talk makes sense even if the message is somewhat strident. So I'd like to hear what ideas you have.

Cause "Slow down" ain't enough as a one rule fits all. And that seems to be the establishment's answer ATM.

[Tone165]

Cant argue with you regarding the statement in your signature, but I guess it is a PR issue.

To parallel it... if the gun arguement for and against was put forward in reasonabe terms it would be good...but as long as you have a vehrment, extremest pov on one end of the arguement, there is no place for "reasonable" at the other.

By fighting from either end, with luck...you will end up with reasonable..if you start with reasonable it will get bargained back to ridiculous and unworkable.

but...a great source of revenue!

[Oscar]

If I might address this one...

1st thing to say is that when dealing with this sort of thing..one must enter at the far end of the feild...and NOT at a reasonable starting point for discussion.

We..the motorcyclists..must put the main focus on outside factors, without denying the facts.

I wont bore you with figures that are subject to manipulation,

A large number of MC crashes are single vehicle ones, that means that they were rider error..


But what about the pothole or peice o crap on the road! I hear you say..

Environmental???? Could be, but also can be that the rider "Should" have been riding to suit actual AND possible conditions...food for debate at least!

Clearly there are problems that need to be looked at in the area of rider training, roadcraft, skills development etc...

But..to be quoted in the major press that the problem is "mainly" the riders themselves, would be to releive the wider community of responsibility.

We need to raise awareness, not provide "outs" for anyone.

I'm a huge advocate of rider training here in SEQ where we have exactly the same problems. We don't have anyone doing the BRONZ thing here.

We do have some new laws...eg..."A rider must face forward when riding a motorcycle" I shit you not!....this is how Govt reacts to things..with dopey laws!

So..the real question here is why are you bagging the guy, when you should be 110% supporting him, and BRONZ, to act on your behalf, among the wider community!

We can train and practice and drill and study and be the worlds best riders.....do you think that would mean no more dead bikers???

We can fix our own problems ourselves...in house, but NOT if restrictive and ineffective laws are passed.....imagine if the 250cc rule was extended to everyone!

What a success it would be...road deaths would be down heaps.....don't try and deny it...because for a start..half of the riders out there would give up riding if they had to go back to a 250.

So c'mon Kiwi's...back your man, dissention in the ranks is not helpful..because there are plenty of Non MC folk to raise the negative arguements!

And they can do it much better than you, because they are not held back by any actual knowledge of what the hell they are on about!

Why should I support him 110% if I don't agree what he's saying?
As for your comments - you're just giving me an excuse for my tombstone: "I didn't crash because of my lack of training, what killed me was environmental conditions, bad roads and bad drivers"

[Oscar]

Fair enough. But that's only half the equation. We get your point. What can you offer beyond pointing out the faults?

Otherwise we're only adding to the perception problem and inevitably hastening our own demise.

How 'bout confronting some issues within our own ranks?
Start with encouraging "Born Again Bikers" to get some training.

The perception problem is that we're irresponsible and reckless, something that the comments from Mr Finn did a lot to reinforce.

[Katman]

Nah, I'm serious. If this is, indeed, such a crisis point it's time to start offering solutions.



If you haven't seen solutions offered in the postings I've made over the last couple of years then you are one of the ones responsible for those scars on my forehead.

[riffer]

If you haven't seen solutions offered in the postings I've made over the last couple of years then you are one of the ones responsible for those scars on my forehead.

Yeah, maybe, maybe not. My problem has been that I've been guilty of writing you off because of the tone of your message.

There is merit in your argument however. And what I'd like to see is say, a ten point action plan. Motorcycle deaths aren't actually increasing per capita, but they are increasing as registrations increase.

And I'm not too sure if the blame can be attached to any one thing. Yes, some guys are total idiots. But the vast majority aren't. And there's at least two fallen KBers whom I knew personally and whose riding I respected - and they were both mentors on this site - whose deaths can't be put down to riding like muppets. How can we prevent their deaths?

The muppets probably make up 50% of the problem. What about the rest?

[Ixion]

..
And I'm not too sure if the blame can be attached to any one thing. Yes, some guys are total idiots. But the vast majority aren't. And there's at least two fallen KBers whom I knew personally and whose riding I respected - and they were both mentors on this site - whose deaths can't be put down to riding like muppets. How can we prevent their deaths?

The muppets probably make up 50% of the problem. What about the rest?

To some extent, you can't.

Sometimes, the Biker Gods just decide to shit on you. Take Mr Dodgyiti's recent incident (not a death but could have been). Just sitting, stopped, by the side of the road. And a boat comes flying through the air and hits him. How on earth can anything prevent something like that - short of banning motorcycles altogether. Or the accident where a tree branch fell down in front of a biker (who happened to be a cop!).

Motorcycling will always be dangerous. Like swimming. Or scuba diving. Or parachuting. Seen the fatality trends for some of those?

The difference is that no-one has a vested interest in demonising swimmers, or divers, or parachutists.

The answers to the "how do you prevent as many of the deaths/injuries as possible" are well known and well rehearsed. But to put them into effect is another matter.

There are re-training courses , targeted specifically at 'returning bikers'. But how do you force anyone to go to one? And I do not believe that the much blamed BAB is the monster he is made out to be . Much is made of the "had a bike licence at 16 and now buys a GSXR1000 at 40, never having ridden in the interim". But what of the "buys a Harley, never having ridden a bike at all, and won't suffer the indignity of a learner licence so doesn't have a bike licence at all". A situation which is , I'm told, much more common, and one which the police (and probably other authorities) are happy to turn a blind eye to.

And- even if you could make every rider attend a dozen course, take a dozen tests to prove how skilled he is, how is any of that going to stop an idiot deciding to overtake a string of cars on a blind corner? You can teach skills, but you can''t teach common sense.

[reofix]

solutions or paranoia.?.. no one is out to get us... if we speed a lot we get more tickets ... if we crash a lot our ACC premiums go up... bikes have never been banned anywhere... just bikers will be expected to pay their share , just like all the other sectors of society... have you ever seen the difference btwn the ACC levy rate for construction and for office workers? last time i looked construction workers paid 10 times more!!!

[reofix]

saw an interesting stat on horses (the kind with 4 legs)... seems you are twice as likely to end up in hospital riding a horse as compared to a motorbike ( per hour so spent) ... and guess what .....experience makes a big difference to bike riders (more experienced = less hospital time) but no difference to the horsey crew... those big sweaty beasts chuck everybody off!!!

[Woodman]

The fact remains that we choose to ride bikes and even a minor incident geneally ends up with more severe injuries that will require more hospital/medical time to get us right again. Cars run into each other on a daily basis and never cause injuries, the same cannot be said for car vs motorcycle or motorcycle vs motorcycle/tree/bridge/road etc. My point is, why should car drivers have their acc increased because we choose bikes, surely the fair system is user pays.

[reofix]

yip.. yip... and yip!

[reofix]

ixion... in the modern parlance we need competency based training and licensing... do not hold your breath

[Ixion]

We had a trial of that - the CBTA. It was a total rort.

And don't talk to me about horses. Stubborn pig headed malevolent cunning scheming vicious brutes determined to get their own way. Good thing I'm more stubborn pig headed malevolent cunning scheming vicious and determined to get my own way.

[Fudmucker]

Another possible factor is that in right handers, many riders are leaning over into the opposite lane with only their wheels on the left.
We have had a couple of serious head-ons in South Africa with the rider striking oncoming vehicles.

[MarkH]

I just had a read through that report and the same thing struck me that always strikes me when I read anything like this - the info I want is the info not available. What I want to know is this: how many person hours or kilometres of riding is involved per group? The report says that in 2007 there were 17 motorcyclists killed in the 40 years and over bracket, but we don't know how many kilometres were ridden in 2007 by motorcyclists 40yrs old and over. In 1981 there were 6 deaths in the same category, but once again we don't know how many kilometres were ridden by that category in that year.

The more time you spend riding the more you are at risk, logical really since it is obvious that the risk of dying while riding a motorcycle if you ride for zero hours is pretty damn low! The statistics could be showing a trend towards an increased risk of death or they could be showing a trend towards a decreased risk of death - I just can't tell due to the info I want that is unavailable.

[Tone165]

Why should I support him 110% if I don't agree what he's saying?

Because he has a platform from which to put forward our concerns, and to have "us" cut his legs out from under him will just mean that once again nothing gets done. I dont know why you dont agree with him, because he seems to be on track. Perhaps you are not such an authority, and might do more good putting your own opinions aside in favour of the general consensus.


As for your comments - you're just giving me an excuse for my tombstone: "I didn't crash because of my lack of training, what killed me was environmental conditions, bad roads and bad drivers"

Some ppl take responsibility for their actions...some like to make excuses, still others put their time and effort into improving the situation, then there are the ones who sit and disagree with everything...so much easier than actually contributing anything!

[Tone165]

This is no surprise whatsoever. There are motorcyclists this fucking stupid...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PlvtI0WBrHY

(4:02 for the riding backwards bit)

Yeah yeah...I am not disputing that there are idiots around..just questioning weather law changes have any effect on them?

[Motu]

just questioning weather law changes have any effect on them?

Personally,rain on tuesday doesn't effect me at all.....but a sunny sunday has me out riding.

[Oscar]

Some ppl take responsibility for their actions...some like to make excuses, still others put their time and effort into improving the situation, then there are the ones who sit and disagree with everything...so much easier than actually contributing anything!


How do you know what I contribute?
Whilst you're trying to figure that out, look up ad hominem argument somewhere.

[Tone165]

Your right that I don't know anything about you, other than what I glean from a few paragraphs in a forum, but I gotta work with what I have!

ad hominem ....yes very nice!

My take puts folk into 2 groups..

Positive....those with ideas and action

Negative..those with critisism and obstacles

Rather than sabotaging the legitimate efforts of those that are doing something because you do not agree 100%, why not find some common ground and pitch in.

But again...you might be some kind of Motorcycling Messiah, and I just cannot see that from your negative and cynical posts.

In that case....keep up the good work!

[Tone165]

Personally,rain on tuesday doesn't effect me at all.....but a sunny sunday has me out riding.


so its true!

rainy tuesdays prevent accidents!!!!!!!

[Oscar]

Your right that I don't know anything about you, other than what I glean from a few paragraphs in a forum, but I gotta work with what I have!

ad hominem ....yes very nice!

My take puts folk into 2 groups..

Positive....those with ideas and action

Negative..those with critisism and obstacles

Rather than sabotaging the legitimate efforts of those that are doing something because you do not agree 100%, why not find some common ground and pitch in.

But again...you might be some kind of Motorcycling Messiah, and I just cannot see that from your negative and cynical posts.

In that case....keep up the good work!

Negative and cynical?
I think you'll find it's realistic and experienced.

You're very close to George Bush's theory "...if you're not with us, your against us and if you're against us, you're a terrorist." Goebbels 101, in other words.

And to reiterate, my original comment was aimed at the BRONZ spokesman who said:



But the Bikers Rights Organisation disagrees. President Finn Nielsen told Summer Report on Monday that he doubts a lack of skill can be blamed.



I think I have every right to disagree with him, as not only does his statement go against my personal experience (which is extensive and includes participation in Racing, Event Organisation, Club Administration, NZACU and MNZ), and flies in the face of all studies in this area - the FACTS are that inexperienced riders ARE the ones that get hurt.
Furthermore I do not belong to his organisation and I do not think he speaks for all motorcyclists any more than Allan R Kirk does.
So how does my disagreement "sabotage" anything?
What gives you the right to direct this discussion?

You can crap on all you like about people falling into your simplistic groups, but I have yet to see you put forth anything other than the theory that we should support everything this unelected minority group says.

[Mon ami mate]

Because if you run wide on a right hand corner you will hit gravel/ditch/fence. If you run wide on a left hand corner you have the other side of the road to use and you will only be unlucky if a vehicle is coming the other way at the time.

Who is unlucky if you run wide on a left hand corner ?
Only those you kill.