We have been pushing it hard in Central Otago!

[pzkpfw]

Almost 100% of car crashes are caused by car drivers. We are responsible for only 50% of our crashes...

The stats are hurting my head.

What's the "Multi vehicle primary responsibility 25%" mean in the pie chart?

Isn't (at least some of this) bike vs car accidents (with bike at fault)?

[davereid]

Yeah, we are actually arguing over very small percentage points, err with no real advantage in the outcome for us as bikers either way.

But yes, in 25% of motorcycle collisions the motorcyclist is primarily at fault.

Its not correct to assume that the biker is responsible for 25% of car crashes.

Say there are 100 collisions, 96 involve only cars, and 4 involve bikes.

96 are totally the fault of a car driver - must be cos he hit another car.
1 is primarily the fault of a motorcyclist
3 are primarily the fault of the car driver who crashed into a biker.

So, in this example 100% of car v car accidents are the car drivers fault, 99% of all accidents are the car drivers fault, and 25% of the motorcyclists accidents are the motorcyclists fault.

Those figures on the pie chart apply only to motorcycle crashes, not all crashes !

[pzkpfw]

Those figures on the pie chart apply only to motorcycle crashes, not all crashes !

Insert facepalm smiley here.

Thanks. I will slink off now...

[dipshit]

What's the "Multi vehicle primary responsibility 25%" mean in the pie chart?

That is 25% of all motorcycle crashes are a motorcycle hitting a car and being the one at fault.

[mikeey01]

That is 25% of all motorcycle crashes are a motorcycle hitting a car and being the one at fault.

Could this be included in those stats?
bike lost control into car etc i.e. wet/gravel / oil on road?

I can't help but think the raw data when viewed may show data entry errors such as this one or others.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Could this be included in those stats?
bike lost control into car etc i.e. wet/gravel / oil on road?.

would still be rider error...

[davereid]

Insert facepalm smiley here.Thanks. I will slink off now...

Haha.. no need to slink off. Its a deliberate data manipulation technique used by statisticians to make a particular group look good, or bad as required by the spin doctor.

Cos the other way to look at it is..

Say there are 100 collisions, 96 involve only cars, and 4 involve bikes.

96 are totally the fault of a car driver - must be cos he hit another car.
1 is primarily the fault of a motorcyclist
3 are primarily the fault of the car driver who crashed into a biker.

99% primarily the cars fault
1% primarily the motorcyclists fault


I could argue that

96 car v car crashes = 192 cars that crashed
4 car v bike crashes = 4 more cars and 4 bikes.

Now my sample has 196 cars and 4 bikes..

I can redo my stats to show much better figures for cars..

I can say 200 crashes
99 car drivers prosecuted ie 49.5% of car drivers doing illegal stuff
1 biker out of 4 = 25% of bikers doing illegal stuff

Now I have halved your impression of how bad the car driver is, and made the biker look 25x worse.

Thats why figures from ACC and NZTA that are not supplied with raw data should be treated with extreme caution.

[dipshit]

Could this be included in those stats?
bike lost control into car etc i.e. wet/gravel / oil on road?

I can't help but think the raw data when viewed may show data entry errors such as this one or others.

I have no doubt they are. If a bike runs wide on a corner and smacks head-on into an oncoming car, i am sure that would be classed as a multi-vehicle accident.

Why would you think of that as an error in the stats...???

[dipshit]

would still be rider error...

He's just doing the typical motorcyclist thing. If he can't blame a car driver then the next best thing is to blame the road.

[dipshit]

Thats why figures from ACC and NZTA that are not supplied with raw data should be treated with extreme caution.

And even more so from any motorcyclists talking to the media.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

He's just doing the typical motorcyclist thing. If he can't blame a car driver then the next best thing is to blame the road.

Not always, I have hit newy sealed road on a 100kph corner on state hwy 1, there was no signs no indication that it was there till I hit it... and yes I nearly had an off, It just looked like a normal piece of road, and I couldn't tell that there was grit till I was on it...

The road crew were just packing up the signs as I hit it, and could see one of them actually laughing as he watched me gain control... Got to the rally we were going to, and heard that there was an off on the same piece of road...

If the signs were still there I would not have hit it at 100kph and would have had some warning...

[dipshit]

So Monstaman, found any NZ data that shows "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" yet..???

[Monstaman]

And even more so from any motorcyclists talking to the media.

Broken record

So Monstaman, found any NZ data that shows "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" yet..???

Broken record.

Other than this reply I am not even going bother responding to you as you will only want to shoot it down with shit again and quite frankly I can't be fucked with you, it would seem that anyone who says anything you don't agree with is totally wrong .. g o o d on ya!! .

[Winston001]

so... then the arguement comes down we are all subsidising pedisrians, cyclists, kids, teenagers & adults that play local club sport.

All the ACC i contribute, PAYE, rego, fuel etc, is to cover me as citizen no matter what I do...

With respect of high risk occupations paying high ACC levies, they may well do. But I think what is raising the ire of some, is that some high risk "activities" are not subject to any ACC levies.

Who pays the ACC levy for workers? As I understand it, it's the employer. If something goes tits up at work it would be the employer who could be held liable for whatever personal injuries might result.

Ultimately, extracting the ACC levy based upon who suffers the injury as opposed to who causes the injury is beyond reason and fairness.

Very good points chaps which I agree with in essence. We - the NZ working public - do subsidise non-work ACC claims. Falls in the shower, sports etc. That's what we pay the earner premium for. Its 0.5c/$ in of your PAYE tax. It probably needs to rise.

The average claimant also subsidises non-work claims too in the sense that they get no wages comp for the first week.

Employers pay a levy calculated on the job risk so they bear a disproportionate cost of ACC. There are no exceptions for stupid workers or accidents caused by other people. The employer pays whatever - no fault remember?

However an employer with a bad accident record does not pay an extra levy. So Mikkel, in the ACC sense the employer isn't held liable.

That doesn't mean an OSH prosecution can't happen but thats nothing to do with ACC.

The core problem is ACC has a motorvehicle account. So far as I know this goes back to the very beginning in 1972. Arguably it shouldn't exist and all ACC money should come from employers and the earner premium. Sorry lads but I cannot see that happening.

Finally as much as it irritates me to see sporting injuries get a free ride, I cannot for the life of me construct a simple method to tax sport. If you impose it on gear, the retailer suddenly needs a new accounting system to cope. Tax teams....?? Yeah right. Who'd play?

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

the retailer suddenly needs a new accounting system to cope. Tax teams....?? Yeah right. Who'd play?

no they don't? retail systems could easily coupe and add the extra levy fee on and the software doing the accounts out the back is even easier to setup