It is all our fault

[Mom]

Mom, i heard there was one up your way in the dome valley which was pretty bad.

Yeah a very sad one too mate!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10597430

Get used to it. That will be a common theme in Monday morning papers over summer.

Dont ever be fooled into thinking that bikers are ALWAYS AT FAULT mate. This bloke was minding his own business and got taken out. Even the police say so. This is a completely non-fault biker fatality, trouble is it will form part of the statistics that the opening post referred to.

Damned if we do, and damned if we dont really.

[kiwi cowboy]

Still, and I say it again for the fifth time.

That's not the point.

Besides, if you read the actual chart it shows the scooters are up there with the bikes......so yes she is........Just not as many.

* Vehicles at fault

(crashes involving motorcycles in Auckland City):

2004: 6 scooter, 7 motorcycle - 69 per cent

2005: 4 scooter, 12 motorcycle - 76 per cent

2006: 8 scooter, 12 motorcycle - 74 per cent

2007: 8 scooter, 14 motorcycle - 69 per cent

2008: 9 scooter, 16 motorcycle - 61 per cent

Got to this post and nobody,s pointed out that the number of scooter crashes verses the number of motorcycle crashes in relation to the total number of each thats being ridden over all would in my opinion make the scooter percentage worse than the bikes.

[Squiggles]

Finally read the paper tonight and wrote a response... we'll see if it gets published

Re: Motorcyclists to blame
I find the sources & statistics used in Tuesday's article "Motorcyclists more often to blame for crashes" to be rather one sided. For instance, It has long been known that the Automobile Association does not represent motorcyclists, it is near impossible to even be insured with that branch of their "association", or dare i say corporation? A more accurate source would be the 2008 Motorcycle Crash Factsheet as published by the Ministry of Transport, which paints a far different picture. Multivehicle, primary responsibility: 25% Single vehicle primary responsibility: 26%. A subtle caption "In Auckland City" would bring the average reader to think of the entirety of Auckland, not the significantly smaller area laid out in the district plan. Regardless, the figures stand in contrast to the heading "More often to blame", With the percentage of vehicles at fault decreasing each year since 2005. To jump somewhat blindly between sources (AA, Police Statistics, Auckland City Council, Counties Manukau Police) in order to twist figures and manufacture headlines is not reporting at its finest.

xxx
xxxxxxxx

The mentioned factsheet: http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...rashfacts.aspx

[Pwalo]

I'm sure that you can cherry pick stats to paint whatever picture you want.

All the stats presented in the article have a percentage of 'blame' attached which would indicate a somewhat subjective assessment of accidents.

For instance in a single vehicle accident how do you determine what percentage of the accident was the fault of the rider/driver? 100% because they were the only one invovled, or is there a percentage attributed to external factors, such as road surface, weather, visibility, etc?

[Drunken Monkey]

... instance in a single vehicle accident how do you determine what percentage of the accident was the fault of the rider/driver? 100% because they were the only one invovled, or is there a percentage attributed to external factors, such as road surface, weather, visibility, etc?

Erm, if the rider couldn't keep control because of road surface, weather conditions or visibility, then by definition it is the rider's fault, innit?

[MSTRS:Me]

Erm, if the rider couldn't keep control because of road surface, weather conditions or visibility, then by definition it is the rider's fault, innit?

Yep. There would be very few single motorcycle accidents that were not the rider's fault.
Hit by a meteorite, road collapse (under the bike) due to earthquake, falling tree (this one has happened)...not common occurrences, tho.

[Winston001]

Team - all of this arguing about statistics and blame misses the point. It reminds me of the arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

When we ride a motorcycle we only have two tyres to balance on and control the machine. There are no airbags. No crush zones. No cabin.

The slightest accident can result in injury. Eg - I ruptured my biceps tendon on a stopped trail bike when it overbalanced on a rut. Wouldn't have happened in the 4wd.

Motorcycles are inherently more dangerous than cars. It doesn't matter who is to blame for an accident - the biker comes off worse. And that is all that matters to road safety, ACC, health officials, and policy makers.

[MSTRS:Me]

But but but...ACC is (supposed to be) a no-fault system. Why would stats be used at all? Just fund ACC from the govt coffers...

[Winston001]

But but but...ACC is (supposed to be) a no-fault system. Why would stats be used at all? Just fund ACC from the govt coffers...

One of ACC's objectives is to reduce accidents. Just as Health Boards are tasked with reducing illness. Ambulance at the top of the cliff stuff.

[MSTRS:Me]

One of ACC's objectives is to reduce accidents. Just as Health Boards are tasked with reducing illness. Ambulance at the top of the cliff stuff.

I know. Just struck me that a no-fault system which stings some (potential) endusers and does not reward longterm no-users...

[Grahameeboy]

This makes an interesting read.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10597333

If you go to page 4 of this link http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...actsheet.pdfIt is actually 51% of Bikers are primarily at fault so a big difference.

[bogan]

To put in a different perspective, if it is mostly our fault, is that such a bad thing, that means we can take charge and reduce the accidents, take some personal responsibility. But if its all the cagers fault then there very little we can do.

[Pwalo]

Yep. There would be very few single motorcycle accidents that were not the rider's fault.
Hit by a meteorite, road collapse (under the bike) due to earthquake, falling tree (this one has happened)...not common occurrences, tho.

No, I disagree. I don't things are as black and white as you aver. Travelling at any speed won't necessarily protect you from things that you can't detect, ie spilt oil, poorly repaired road surfaces, potholes, gravel, etc.

Sure in most circumstances you will pick hazards up in time to take avoiding action (in a safe and courteous manner of course), but not always.

Mind you that is not meant to absolve any rider from taking responsibilty for their own actions, and safety.

[MSTRS:Me]

No, I disagree. I don't things are as black and white as you aver. Travelling at any speed won't necessarily protect you from things that you can't detect, ie spilt oil, poorly repaired road surfaces, potholes, gravel, etc.

Sure in most circumstances you will pick hazards up in time to take avoiding action (in a safe and courteous manner of course), but not always.

Mind you that is not meant to absolve any rider from taking responsibilty for their own actions, and safety.

For a minute there, I thought you'd been interferred with by Katman....
I'm talking those never-really-specified acts of god.

[Winston001]

Fault.

Think of it like this. There is a sharp bend on SH1 and cars are continually running off it or crossing the centre line. A bad spot.

What do road safety officials and ACC do? Start a national campaign of teaching motorists to slow down for corners? Bombard us with advertisments explaining apexing? After all, its the drivers fault if they can't stay on the road.

No. They send in machinery and trucks to create a new safer corner. They do not blame drivers because its pointless.

Thus it is with motorcycles. No-one is going to take any notice of us trying to blame car drivers.