Crash stats

[mashman]

I see, so why dont you show us how you propose ONLY reducing those accidents that cause injury? You cannot!! The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved. The only thing you can look at is that high energy crashes have the capacity to do more damage (having said that, even in a low energy fender bender, there is still more than enough energy to hurt a person).

I agree, have no problem with that... BUT

And yes you CAN calculate the probability of a serious accident having a massive payout in a number of given accidents, based on history. And over time, all other things being equal, that probability will be reasonably accurate.

How can you say that when you've just said "The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved"... this is why i can't stand probability being used to calculate the future, because you don't know what's going to happen... and using history in this case is rediculous as the ACC stats are highly questionable... that's why i still believe that you can't calculate probability, it's just a best guess scenario...

[R-Soul]

One of the problems with living is a small country is " Economy of Scale".

100,000 registered bikes sounds a lot, but as has been shown at some of the rallies, you will only have a small number of those on the road at one time.

In wellington 6,000 bikers turned up that is 6%.

Add to that the overall reduced distance these bikes travel compared to cars
the predictive calculations become harder. ( I said harder, not imposable )

What has not been done in NZ is a study on rider training and its effect on accident reduction. ( this has been done in other countries )

Why, because until now costs have been manageable by ACC, and ACC has not lost money on investments due to a global downturn.

Now that ACC have been asked to reduce costs,and biker pressure, they are finally coming to the table with skills training to reduce accident rates.

The problem is it has taken to long to get here, and too many adrenalin fueled riders will see little value in it to make an immediate effect.

It will take time to adjust rider attitude, but let us at least embrace anything that is offered and try and start the ball rolling.

To measure how this is going, will require better book keeping than is presently being done by the different agencies.

No arguments there- well said.

You might be able to translate similar studies from say, Australia, and the USA because the laws of physics dont change (although rider attitudes and car drivers attitudes might). I would be interested to know what the Vic, Australia safety levies were spent on to get a 20% reduction in accidents.

[R-Soul]

I agree, have no problem with that... BUT



How can you say that when you've just said "The very nature of an accident is that it happens accidentaly, and the particular way that it happens determines the injuries invoved"... this is why i can't stand probability being used to calculate the future, because you don't know what's going to happen... and using history in this case is rediculous as the ACC stats are highly questionable... that's why i still believe that you can't calculate probability, it's just a best guess scenario...

Its self explanatory really. You cannot predict exactly what will happen in an accident in terms of physics (i.e. the drivers head hitting dashboard, window and passenger in that order), but you can use statistics to say that over time, 20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents (again - its just a probability of what will happen, not a prediction).


Statistics dont predict the fuiture, they just work ourt for a set of circumstances what has happened in tehpast pbased on empirical evidence, and try to establsih the probability of soemting hapenning again for those set of circumstances. Yes, I do agree that stats can be badly misinterpreted, and ther era efatcors that could interfere in them that may not have been taken into account. But generally if a factor is big enough to make a big difference, it will be self evident.


Like teh stats that most accidents are by bikers riding by themselves withno other cars involved. Yes, you get stuff in the road sometimes. But the fact is that you can only really explain this by understanding that most of these riders did not know how to control their bikes properly. As dumb as the stats may make us look as a group, we cannot ignore them.

[R-Soul]

that's why i still believe that you can't calculate probability, it's just a best guess scenario...

There is a global insurance industry that disagrees with you and relies on those same stats for profictability.

[R-Soul]

Another thing... ACC will never be in a position to offer FREE training. That will cost way too much! However it will be subsidised....
The training will be offered by LTSA approved instructors, and they don't come cheap.
They have to make a living too......

That is an example of short term vision.
Would the ACC prefer to pay $400 per person now and have those people uninjured and able to contribute to the economy for the duration of their lives, or pay the entire cost of salary replacement and injury rehabilitation of a portion of them at a later date?

If they can even reduce the number of "bikes only' cases by half, the savings of not having to pay future costs (for which we have to bring in the full amount every year remember) for those cases will add up to quite a lot of money, that can be spent of rider training instead .

It would be interesting to see the real actuarial numbers made up.

In the meantime, they can just let us bikes use the damn motorway buslanes for a start... how FUCKING ARBITRARY was that law?

[mashman]

Its self explanatory really. You cannot predict exactly what will happen in an accident in terms of physics (i.e. the drivers head hitting dashboard, window and passenger in that order), but you can use statistics to say that over time, 20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents (again - its just a probability of what will happen, not a prediction).

Statistics dont predict the fuiture, they just work ourt for a set of circumstances what has happened in tehpast pbased on empirical evidence, and try to establsih the probability of soemting hapenning again for those set of circumstances.

What? You're saying that statistics don't predict the future... Using your example, "20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents " IS predicting the future because it hasn't happened yet!!! Of course it's a prediction, if it isn't why try to calculate it... going to happen usually meaning in the future???

Yes, I do agree that stats can be badly misinterpreted, and ther era efatcors that could interfere in them that may not have been taken into account. But generally if a factor is big enough to make a big difference, it will be self evident.

Can't agree on the self-evident thing. There is the potential, but that's all, nothing more, nothing less... it may never come to pass, well not until next years stats have been suitably massaged .

Like teh stats that most accidents are by bikers riding by themselves withno other cars involved. Yes, you get stuff in the road sometimes. But the fact is that you can only really explain this by understanding that most of these riders did not know how to control their bikes properly. As dumb as the stats may make us look as a group, we cannot ignore them.

Absolutely agree, apart from the assumption that most riders did not know how to control their bikes... there's no stats to back that up here (it may well be the case), so that's a big assumption... guess i'm wishing i had that answer from berries now ...

If there's something on the road i'd blame target fixation... something that fuckin hard to ignore when you get a few tenths of a second to react... 50 - 50 as to wether you're about to test those laws of physics or not.

There is a global insurance industry that disagrees with you and relies on those same stats for profictability.

PAH!!!! So as long as something is profitable, their calculations are correct??? Huge profits means that they have got it wrong and that they're screwing their customers to hit their profit margins... But that's my take!

[R-Soul]

What? You're saying that statistics don't predict the future... Using your example, "20% of cars involved in head on collisions at 120km/hr will have at least one fatality per two accidents " IS predicting the future because it hasn't happened yet!!! Of course it's a prediction, if it isn't why try to calculate it... going to happen usually meaning in the future???

Nope it is not predicting the future, it is trying to predict the probabibility (ie still uncertain, but probable) of certain things happeneing when certain factors are true.
Using my example, that does not mean that of the next two accidents, one will be guaranteed to have a fatality. The next ten accidents could be fatality-less. But over the next 1000 or so having those characteristics, 500 people or close will probably die.

If the same statistics repeat themselves year after year, of course you have a reason to believe that they will repeat themselves again next year (all other things being equal of course).

Can't agree on the self-evident thing. There is the potential, but that's all, nothing more, nothing less... it may never come to pass, well not until next years stats have been suitably massaged .

Occasionally there is an influence from left field, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Its pretty settled that certain factors influence crashhes and their survavbility and their probability of injury. eg speed and kinetic energy - the more there is, the more injuries/fatalities in general.

Absolutely agree, apart from the assumption that most riders did not know how to control their bikes... there's no stats to back that up here (it may well be the case), so that's a big assumption... guess i'm wishing i had that answer from berries now ...

If there's something on the road i'd blame target fixation... something that fuckin hard to ignore when you get a few tenths of a second to react... 50 - 50 as to wether you're about to test those laws of physics or not.

Yup -they do not know how to control their bikes or themselves, or do not know what their bikes can do - solved by appropriate training.

PAH!!!! So as long as something is profitable, their calculations are correct??? Huge profits means that they have got it wrong and that they're screwing their customers to hit their profit margins... But that's my take!

Remember that they are in competition with others for profits, so they also try and cut their margins based on actuarial stats.

[mashman]

Nope it is not predicting the future, it is trying to predict the probabibility (ie still uncertain, but probable) of certain things happeneing when certain factors are true.
Using my example, that does not mean that of the next two accidents, one will be guaranteed to have a fatality. The next ten accidents could be fatality-less. But over the next 1000 or so having those characteristics, 500 people or close will probably die.

How do you predict a probability, as probability is a prediction tool? You keep using the future tense of "will" as well... When will these events come to pass? The future maybe???

If the same statistics repeat themselves year after year, of course you have a reason to belie ve that they will repeat themselves again next year (all other things being equal of course).

Reason to believe is comletely different to guarenteed to happen... they're accidents remember... unpredicatble, your words.

Occasionally there is an influence from left field, but those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Its pretty settled that certain factors influence crashhes and their survavbility and their probability of injury. eg speed and kinetic energy - the more there is, the more injuries/fatalities in general.

Granted, but again it's not a given that a motorcycle rider will suffer any injury for any given instance, it may be probable, but it's not definitive. You could look at the police paperwork without knowing the outcome of an accident and guess what had happened. You have a 50 - 50 chance of being right or wrong. A probability calculation could get it 100% wrong! just as wrong as a good guess

Yup -they do not know how to control their bikes or themselves, or do not know what their bikes can do - solved by appropriate training.

Proof or it never happened! Training doesn't help with the unknown, i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations, maybe even 99%, but can't be relied upon as the cure you seem to believe it to be. Accidents happen remember, an accident being something outwith rider control perhaps.

Remember that they are in competition with others for profits, so they also try and cut their margins based on actuarial stats.

Yeah, i'm sure a 20 million dollar hit to generate 50 million dollars doesn't make sound business sense, especially when your profits are running into the billions... All thanks to probability and the weighting of risk, but hey, that's what their business is, making money!

[R-Soul]

How do you predict a probability, as probability is a prediction tool? You keep using the future tense of "will" as well... When will these events come to pass? The future maybe???

Yes it is predicting a probaibilty of what will happen in the future, but not the future itself.

Reason to believe is comletely different to guarenteed to happen... they're accidents remember... unpredicatble, your words.

Reason to believe is effectively probability. There will be a probable chance of X happening, so I have reason to believe that it will. it makes no guarantees though.

So what exactly is your argument here? Is it that historical statistics are overwhelmingly wrong and inaccurate at predicting probabilities (of, for example, injury stats) in the future? In which case I am laughing at your obtuseness.

Or is it that historical stats are are not capable of predicting the exact outcomes of specific events like accidents.? In which case I agree.

Granted, but again it's not a given that a motorcycle rider will suffer any injury for any given instance, it may be probable, but it's not definitive. You could look at the police paperwork without knowing the outcome of an accident and guess what had happened. You have a 50 - 50 chance of being right or wrong. A probability calculation could get it 100% wrong! just as wrong as a good guess

Sure if you look at a single accidnet. that has nothing to do with probabilities and stats. Stats work most effectively over a number of samples. They mean nothing in ones and twos.

If the chance of something happening is 90%, that means that it will happen 9 out of 10 times. Maybe not the next time, or the one after next, but over time and a large number of accidents it will. So nine out of ten times in the long run it will get it right. Again not every time.

Proof or it never happened! Training doesn't help with the unknown, i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations, maybe even 99%, but can't be relied upon as the cure you seem to believe it to be. Accidents happen remember, an accident being something outwith rider control perhaps.

You contradict yourself. "i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations". Now take that "situation" as the collective group of situations being
- rider going into a corner too fast
- corner radius decreasing
- obstacle in the way (like a cow pat/pothole/gravel)

Not unheard of in bike circles...
And (without having more information available) you could reasonably assume that one of these happened in a large proportion of those "bike only accidents". Training a rider properly would teach them to be able to
- countersteer in the corner,
- not kill throttle hard,
- look where they want to go, and
- to know that they have another 10 degrees of lean if they need it.

So what you are saying is that despite it being "helpful" and maybe avoiding a crash completely in 9 out of ten such situations, it "can't be relied upon as the cure" I believe it to be? If done properly and trained into a noobie until its reflex, yes, you can prevent most such accidents.

It wont cure those idiots that have a death wish, but at least it will give the others a chance if they make a mistake!

Yeah, i'm sure a 20 million dollar hit to generate 50 million dollars doesn't make sound business sense, especially when your profits are running into the billions... All thanks to probability and the weighting of risk, but hey, that's what their business is, making money!

That is what ALLl businesses business is-making money. If your competitor has more accurate stats, they can be more accurate in their predictions, and shave more margins off and undercut competitors. It is a science, not a guess. Take that as fact.


You seem to be adviocating that the future is the future which we can never know or predict, and past facts are in the past and dont mean anything for teh future, so we just throw our hands up in despair and trust our future to destiny and common sense? And watch the bodies pile up?

[jeffs]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics

[R-Soul]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics

Well thought out, that...

At the end of the day the only way to reduce the payouts is by reducing the accidents. All of them.
But at ACC the bean counters dont like having to really think and get their hands dirty.

[MSTRS:Me]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics

And you forgot the couple, with a bike each (levy each as well, of course)...they will likely sell/park up her bike and she'll pillion with him. In that scenario, ACC will get one levy and pay for two people should they have a crash.

[mashman]

Yes it is predicting a probaibilty of what will happen in the future, but not the future itself.

Of course you're predicting the future, i'm not saying to a particular date and time, but you are predicting the future because you say it will happen you slippery fillet of sole you

Reason to believe is effectively probability. There will be a probable chance of X happening, so I have reason to believe that it will. it makes no guarantees though.

So if it makes no guarentees, why are bikers being stung with such a high levy hike?

So what exactly is your argument here? Is it that historical statistics are overwhelmingly wrong and inaccurate at predicting probabilities (of, for example, injury stats) in the future? In which case I am laughing at your obtuseness.

Or is it that historical stats are are not capable of predicting the exact outcomes of specific events like accidents.? In which case I agree.

I haven't been called obtuse in a while, believe it or not... If your base data is wrong, then yes, the outcome of your probability calculation will be wrong and therefore any levy you attach to anything becomes questionable. But i'm sure there's a variance for that TUI time...

Sure if you look at a single accidnet. that has nothing to do with probabilities and stats. Stats work most effectively over a number of samples. They mean nothing in ones and twos.

If the chance of something happening is 90%, that means that it will happen 9 out of 10 times. Maybe not the next time, or the one after next, but over time and a large number of accidents it will. So nine out of ten times in the long run it will get it right. Again not every time.

Stats work perfectly, even if you're using 1's and 2's, because that's what has been chosen to be used... but the probability calculation will be further out.

Oh and chance has a 50 - 50 outcome, irrespective of what the scientific community says... their definition is wrong in the eyes of the layman!

You contradict yourself. "i'm sure it helps in 90% of situations". Now take that "situation" as the collective group of situations being
- rider going into a corner too fast
- corner radius decreasing
- obstacle in the way (like a cow pat/pothole/gravel)

Not unheard of in bike circles...
And (without having more information available) you could reasonably assume that one of these happened in a large proportion of those "bike only accidents". Training a rider properly would teach them to be able to
- countersteer in the corner,
- not kill throttle hard,
- look where they want to go, and
- to know that they have another 10 degrees of lean if they need it.

It wont cure those idiots that have a death wish, but at least it will give the others a chance if they make a mistake!

I have no problem with rider training, we could all make some use of it, i have no doubt, but it's not the silver bullet, as not all accidents can be "dealt with" and not all accidents are rider error... i'm not saying that rider error isn't the cause of accidents, but if you can't prove to what extent, it's a moot point! ACC seems to think differently because it's been calculated (fucking rediculous)... you don't work for ACC do you

It is a science, not a guess. Take that as fact.

It's a guess... just because you've used a calculation to come up with an answer doesn't make it science, especially with something as broadly ranging as probability.

What i'm advocating is that historical data is an excellent teacher if it can be trusted, if not it can do just a much harm.

As for the future, I say MIGHT, you say WILL, which is why I consider your staunch denial that probability is not predicting the future (however you dress it up, it give a warning, it shows that most likely etc...) to be completely contradictory.

I would love to do the stats properly, ya know read the reports, categorise everything as correctly as possible, put people on a lie detector machine that's wired to the mains... that sort of thing... but it's looking improbable that i'll get that chance... and then at least people would be getting the truth, not some fucking agenda driven by shitty stats, which in turn screws any "valid" (eeeeeek) probability calculation... One of the reasons i protested in the first place and will continue to do so...

[mashman]

One thing I forgot to add was, if the levies increase to such a rate that it is no longer economically viable to ride your bike, just like the levies proposed by ACC before the Gov dropped them.

The people who find it no longer viable are the lower payed or students.

If you only remove them from the rider community, you reduce the total income pool.

But you will not reduce the costs by much, as the people who can afford to ride will still ride. That means the bikers who earn more. So that means they cost more to service in the case of an accident. So the costs may go down by a little but not as much as ACC would hope.

When those riders do get to the point of being able to afford to ride, they are called
Born Again Riders, and they cost ACC more money.

Then the circle goes around one more turn : )

Don't you love economics and statistics

They call it the Social Cost... yes yes, another cost and usually one that they land on a group of people that are more probable to fit into the category of Willingness To Pay! like really really rich bikers... for example

Yup economics, stats and politicians... just jim dandy...