Crash stats

**Katman** · 5th December 2009, 20:17

Originally Posted by Ixion

As said, HTFU , tell the well meaning bystander thanks, but no thanks, and ride off (or limp off) smartish.

Precisely.

And failing that - don't have the accident in the first place.

**PrincessBandit** · 5th December 2009, 20:26

Originally Posted by Ixion

The problem is, that ... some well meaning bystander calls an ambulance. Even if you tell the ambo to piss off (and most folk will agree, wisely, to be checked out) it still gets charged to ACC as a motorbike accident.

I had to be extremely insistent on not having an ambulance called after several insistent prompts by bystanders after my accident.
I'm glad one wasn't called because it wasn't necessary - having my daughter take me to the medical centre later when I got home was all I needed.

Bit of a tricky one though; how often do we (not motorcyclists necessarily) gush about "better to be safe than sorry" for other medical intervention...

**Ixion** · 5th December 2009, 20:36

Originally Posted by Katman

Precisely.

And failing that - don't have the accident in the first place.

Well, yes. Indeed, not even a 'failing that' Not falling off is always best bet. Failing *that* , HTFU.

**Pedrostt500** · 5th December 2009, 21:52

The Line is " I Fell of my mountain Bike, while on agnarly trail Dude".
or "I burnt my leg on the lawn mower"
And the answer t o Mr Do Goods, "Can I get You an Ambulance", is, "Can I get you a Farken Herse", use this line with the exspresion of I'm going to Eat your Children,Honestly I like Kids........Bar B Qued.

**Spearfish** · 5th December 2009, 23:15

I think Stats can say anything you want to say if you ask the question in a way that leads to the answer you want.

**MSTRS:Me** · 6th December 2009, 08:35

Originally Posted by Spearfish

Full licence holders are in 54% of all crashes
Learners are in 21% of all crashes
Restricted 7%
Never licensed 3%

Something wrong with that...
Other 15% ????

But you are right that stats can say what you want. Case in point...I started this to see if cagers were getting better or worse. Yet, coming from that angle I failed to see that equally, it could be bikers getting better of worse.
Go figure.

**Spearfish** · 6th December 2009, 15:05

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Something wrong with that...
Other 15% ????

But you are right that stats can say what you want. Case in point...I started this to see if cagers were getting better or worse. Yet, coming from that angle I failed to see that equally, it could be bikers getting better of worse.
Go figure.

15% are us learners and 10- 15% aren't recorded.

**Berries** · 10th December 2009, 21:52

Well I said I would stick some numbers up in answer to the OP so here they are. Car/van vs motorbike crashes since 1990, all resulting in injury of some kind.

1990 - 1361
1991 - 1300
1992 - 1140
1993 - 1001
1994 - 1075
1995 - 1010
1996 - 784
1997 - 724
1998 - 577
1999 - 491
2000 - 356
2001 - 368
2002 - 383
2003 - 403
2004 - 386
2005 - 467
2006 - 492
2007 - 617
2008 - 673

As with any stats, you can make them mean whatever you want. Good luck if you want an accurate number of registered cars per year to make some sense of it. MOT, NZTA and Stats NZ all have different figures (Spearfish try this link for year by year motorbike numbers - http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...ewZealand2008/)

Mopeds are included in the numbers on that link, and their numbers have shot up lately, not only increasing crash numbers but taking up all the bastard parking spaces as well. The above crash numbers exclude mopeds. Unfortunately when it comes to the whole ACC palaver the motorbike class also includes unregistered farm bikes that crash on the road as well as motocross bikes “being tested”.

Culpability is sometimes a bit hit and miss in CAS so I won’t quote any of that. Of interest though are the types of crash, with the five worst being –

2690 – vehicle turned right in to side road across path of oncoming.
1906 – vehicle turned right out of side road and was hit from the right.
1305 – vehicle crossing road failed to give way and was hit by other.
932 – u-turn.
859 – vehicle overtaking other that suddenly turned right.

From experience I would say that the first four are most likely (but not always) going to be the car drivers fault, the old sorry mate I didn’t see you bollocks, whereas the last one is invariably going to be a bike overtaking a line of traffic.

Like I said, pure numbers. While I know there are a small number of mopeds incorrectly classified and therefore in this list that doesn’t explain the increase in the last two years. And it sure as shit isn’t the better weather.

**Ixion** · 10th December 2009, 21:58

Originally Posted by Berries

Like I said, pure numbers. While I know there are a small number of mopeds incorrectly classified and therefore in this list that doesn’t explain the increase in the last two years. And it sure as shit isn’t the better weather.

could be simply more bikes on the road. And the reduction in the early 2000s could be similar -especially as lower numbers probably means MUCH lower inexperienced - those still there would be the hard core experienced riders. Reverse in last three or four years.

**Berries** · 10th December 2009, 22:02

Originally Posted by Spearfish

I don't think stats for cagers are that accurate, many crashes between cagers go unreported if minor but nearly all minor crashes involving a bike does. Someone will nearly always call out an emergency service to a bike crash no matter how minor the event was.

None of the stats are accurate or a true figure when it comes to crashes. There is no compulsion to report a crash that doesn't result in injury so they should be discounted. As for the others, it is accepted that there is a significant problem with under reporting. They try to cross reference with hospital records but then find that someone who has been slapped around by their wife/husband reports it as a motor vehicle incident so that 1) the Police don't get involved and 2) they can get ACC. Sorry, didn't want to bring Tiger Woods up again.

**Berries** · 10th December 2009, 22:13

Originally Posted by Ixion

could be simply more bikes on the road. And the reduction in the early 2000s could be similar -especially as lower numbers probably means MUCH lower inexperienced - those still there would be the hard core experienced riders. Reverse in last three or four years.

You're right. To really make sense of crash stats you have to look at each individual report and then each individual rider. Even then you don't know how much riding experience they have actually had since they got their licence.

**Spearfish** · 11th December 2009, 19:43

Originally Posted by Berries

Mopeds are included in the numbers on that link, and their numbers have shot up lately, not only increasing crash numbers but taking up all the bastard parking spaces as well. The above crash numbers exclude mopeds. Unfortunately when it comes to the whole ACC palaver the motorbike class also includes unregistered farm bikes that crash on the road as well as motocross bikes “being tested”.
Like I said, pure numbers. While I know there are a small number of mopeds incorrectly classified and therefore in this list that doesn’t explain the increase in the last two years. And it sure as shit isn’t the better weather.

Apologies Berries

**Berries** · 11th December 2009, 22:30

Originally Posted by Spearfish

Its not only the fact we take up all the spaces we also park in a way to block as many parking options as possible!!

Yeah, I've noticed that. I have also noticed a tendency for them to topple over very easily on a windy day

**MSTRS:Me** · 12th December 2009, 09:57

Missed this earlier...but thanks for those figures. Interesting reading.
To me, they indicate that accident rates are falling overall. The decline towards 2000, and subsequent rise is indicative of bike numbers.
By 1990, bike numbers had fallen to around 75,000. That number continued to fall into the early 2000s, and then began a steady rise to the current level of around 95,000.
One or both of the motorist types is getting better in terms of avoiding crashes.