Harold quite sympathetic

[MSTRS:Me]

The general concensus at the moment seems to be that 58% of motorcycle related accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

It is definitely somewhere between 50 - 58%. Trouble is, it's easy to apportion blame to the car driver part of the stats (IDSY?) but harder to be certain how much blame rests entirely on the bikers. Not downplaying the part played by simple dumb behaviour, but an inherently unstable mode of transport is notoriously prone to shit often beyond the control of the rider. Kanga and 2 mates on SH5 is a prime example.

[bogan]

So the fact that I own a Ute as well as a bike means I subsidise myself.

I subsidize myself too, if ya know what I mean

Can anyone point me to where the 58% comes from, i'll add it to the wiki page

[Katman]

I'm scared that if we argue about the fine points of statistics, we'll lose sight of the real issues where we can probably get some traction.

I agree to a point, but you can be well assured that ACC will be arming themselves with statistics.

For us to have any credibility we have to stop trundling out the old "most of our accidents are the cagers fault" line.

[riffer]

I agree to a point, but you can be well assured that ACC will be arming themselves with statistics.

For us to have any credibility we have to stop trundling out the old "most of our accidents are the cagers fault" line.

Probably better to try saying that a large percentage of motorcycle crashes are due to factors out of their control.

Don't forget that a number of us have also fallen off due to road conditions as well. Would you like me to include a number of pictures of road repairs in the Wellington area I would consider to be hazardous to motorcyclists?

Having said that, I would tend to agree that the majority of accidents involving motorcyclists don't involve a car.

But a substantial amount do. If 42% of car accidents were due to speeding, do you think it would be something worth discussing? I would speculate that TPTB would say it was the MAJOR factor.

[rebyl]

I'm really quite worried about over-use of statistics to try and present a logical case. In the Bronz post, I attached my letter to the consultative process and it's worth re-posting the first point here:

1. Raising ACC does absolutely nothing to address the root cause of motorcycle or car accidents, it is almost literally just providing more ambulances at the bottom of the cliff. As a competent driver/rider with a good history, I would be discriminated against by paying for those with a less acceptable accident record. Surely, raising the standard of driving is truly addressing the root cause, whether it be on a motorcycle or a 4-wheeled vehicle? The techniques which I learned on my advanced courses, particularly the ones concerned with situational awareness should be mandatory at the most basic level as part of tuition. The standards required to attain a licence are laughable compared with many other western countries. This really is the nub of the issue. PLEASE CONCENTRATE ON RAISING DRIVING STANDARDS LIKE MANY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES.

I'm scared that if we argue about the fine points of statistics, we'll lose sight of the real issues where we can probably get some traction.

This really is the main problem...I issue Basic Skills certs and the standard really does need to be lifted. Also more Advanced Riding courses need to be made available...especially to the newer riders

[Katman]

It is imperative that BRONZ obtain all information regarding motorcycle accidents from ACC so that an independant study can be done to see what costs are attributable to those not paying registration.

The Stranger mentioned in another thread that last time BRONZ attempted to get this information it was going to cost about $10,000 through the Official Information Act.

If that is the case then we need to think of ways of getting together $10,000 to place at BRONZ's disposal.

[Ixion]

Can I still do a burnout on the steps of Parliament?

Oh yes, with you, they'll feel sorry for you no matter what

[Maki]

So its a no fault system meaning all bikers accidents are biker pays? to me that sounds like biker fault. Or is it just that we decide to partake in a more risky activity so we should pay more, which sounds like user pays. Doesnt make sense to me, but ill stop using these stats (with discussions with mates collegues etc, I aint gonna be talking to media ) as it sounds like a no go area.

Its no fault as long as they like you. If they don't like you it's your fault and you have to pay. They like rugby players, skiers, adventure tourists, horseback riders, runners, netball players, basketball players, skateboarders, etc. etc. They don't like bikers and therefore bikers have to pay.

It really is that arbitrary and that unfair and we should NOT accept it. I consider the unfairness of this a violation of basic human rights. Everyone should have the right to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against.

[peasea]

I agree to a point, but you can be well assured that ACC will be arming themselves with statistics.

For us to have any credibility we have to stop trundling out the old "most of our accidents are the cagers fault" line.

Quite right, milking the "but our machines are more environmentally friendly etc" line might do some good. The Greens will be getting letter from me along those lines and they already oppose Nick Smith's proposals. (If I'm correct.)

I have also read that the Maori party is also opposed; another letter.........