Crash stats

[XP@]

Do we have the crash statistics by month v's petrol price?
Especially when the petrol price went above $2.

(if ACC can think up bizzare correlations like CC rating then so can we)

[Katman]

But the bike only crashes paint a different picture...

Don't they just.

[Spearfish]

I think you'll find the protest threads are elsewhere. This one is called Crash Stats and that is what is being discussed. For me I'm posting because I have seen so much incorrect information when it comes to crash numbers on this forum that I thought I would put them right seeing as I have access to them.

Thanks for putting time into finding those. Sometime fact is stranger than fiction

[MSTRS:Me]

Don't they just.

It's not THAT bad. They have dropped, as a percentage of bikes on the road. Just not anywhere near as much a drop as car/bike.
What we can't know from those figures, is how many of the bike only crashes were a result of a rider avoiding a car, or hitting unmarked gravel perhaps, wildlife on a country road (pheasant, hawk, herd of goats, that sort of thing). We all know of one death due to oil.
Still...eternal vigilance is paramount in reducing crashes of all sorts, eh?

[mashman]

I may have missed something, but why don't the figures tally?

1990 – 2073 – 1361 - 577 total = 1938 diff = 135
1991 – 1938 – 1300 - 537 total = 1837 diff = 101
1992 – 1701 – 1140 - 445 total = 1585 diff = 116
1993 – 1478 – 1001 - 360 total = 1361 diff = 117
1994 – 1596 – 1075 - 411 total = 1486 diff = 110
1995 – 1470 – 1010 - 361 total = 1371 diff = 99
1996 – 1158 – 784 - 299 total = 1083 diff = 75
1997 – 1066 – 724 - 264 total = 988 diff = 78
1998 – 897 – 577 - 265 total = 842 diff = 55
1999 – 748 – 491 - 215 total = 706 diff = 42
2000 – 613 – 356 - 221 total = 577 diff = 36
2001 – 579 – 368 - 171 total = 539 diff = 40
2002 – 642 – 383 - 207 total = 590 diff = 52
2003 – 637 – 403 - 203 total = 606 diff = 21
2004 – 617 – 386 - 189 total = 575 diff = 42
2005 – 773 – 467 - 257 total = 724 diff = 49
2006 – 822 – 492 - 273 total = 765 diff = 57
2007 – 1051 – 617 - 363 total = 980 diff = 71
2008 – 1153 – 673 – 420 total = 1093 diff = 60

If for arguments sake the average claim is $20000... that a fairly decent chunk of cash that's being "lost".

Like i say though, i could have misread something in the thread.

[Katman]

It's not THAT bad. They have dropped, as a percentage of bikes on the road. Just not anywhere near as much a drop as car/bike.

They actually show that 'bike only' accidents as a percentage of the total motorcycle accident figures has risen steadily from a low of 24% in 1993 to 36.5% last year.

[avgas]

You are only as dead as your last accident I've been told.

[R-Soul]

Hey guys,

You can see that police reported serious injuries has risen a little bit in the last 10 years, maybe by 15% max (This is way less than the % increase in registered bikes, by the way) . But, acc claims have risen by 580%!!!

Those stats stink to high heaven.

5000 claims? If you consider that many bikers own a few bikes, you ae looking at one injury claim per 20 bikers per year. The fact that the serious injuries (which would be confiormed by cops) has stayed constant seems right. The fact that the claim numbers have gone up ridiculously seems strange since I did not figure us as a bunch of sissies?

I would not be surprised if it has become standard practice for ACC grafters to just put down a bike accident as the reason why their back is sore and they are no longer able to work.

There should be a way of confirming that an accident actually happened to prevent grafting. For example if a person wants to claim from ACC, they should be able to refer to a police report. And people would not just report an accident to the cops without having some solid evidence thereof. The cops should investigate all "accidents" that may or may not have actually happened (since this is fraud).

The grafters may return to blaming the fact that they "picked up their child" to hurt their back, but at least we would not be nailed by huge levies....

[avgas]

So, that is the final story as far as I'm concerned regarding bikers, ACC and statistics. Nothing to do with how safe we are, how safe other drivers are. Everything to do with bikers over-claiming for every sandfly they get in their eye while riding.

No offence by those stats you can also claim the following:
- Medical stuff now costs more
- More administration is involved
- More stuff can be fixed by a medical profession
- ACC solved more 'backlogged' cases in the last 10 years
- Police reported cases decreased as accidents increased

Stats are great for being chopped and changed. Its never what someone says - its always what they don't say that sinks them.

[avgas]

Question:

Does anyone know how often in a CAR crash; there is more than 1 occupant in the car?

Nope, but if its any consolation I remember hearing that in NZ 80% of the drivable time a car has only 1 occupant. It was some green campaign thing about car pooling.

[MSTRS:Me]

They actually show that 'bike only' accidents as a percentage of the total motorcycle accident figures has risen steadily from a low of 24% in 1993 to 36.5% last year.

Yes, but don't forget that there were at least 25% more bikes (registered) in 2008 than there was in 1993

[avgas]

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

Sorry Ix, but while I agree with the HTFU attitude (crushed my ankle and still rode home). I now understand it is ACC and the publics job to ENSURE you are ok - which makes sense. I mean why have a service which only helps those who ask for it?

Is ACC a system for the people? or just those who ask for it?
What do we pay for?
I mean when you think about who deserves ACC more, a rugby player with a possible sprained ankle? or a motorcyclist who came off the bike - feels ok, but may have a delayed concussion? broken foot?
If you want to keep your precious ACC, HTFU would most likely be the last thing to leave my lips.

No point in having a prized pony if you never ride it.

[MSTRS:Me]

I may have missed something, but why don't the figures tally?

1990 – 2073 – 1361 - 577 total = 1938 diff = 135
1991 – 1938 – 1300 - 537 total = 1837 diff = 101 72,676 - 1963 - 2061 - 78
1992 – 1701 – 1140 - 445 total = 1585 diff = 116
1993 – 1478 – 1001 - 360 total = 1361 diff = 117
1994 – 1596 – 1075 - 411 total = 1486 diff = 110
1995 – 1470 – 1010 - 361 total = 1371 diff = 99
1996 – 1158 – 784 - 299 total = 1083 diff = 75
1997 – 1066 – 724 - 264 total = 988 diff = 78
1998 – 897 – 577 - 265 total = 842 diff = 55
1999 – 748 – 491 - 215 total = 706 diff = 42
2000 – 613 – 356 - 221 total = 577 diff = 36
2001 – 579 – 368 - 171 total = 539 diff = 40 57,836 - 658 - 669 - 35
2002 – 642 – 383 - 207 total = 590 diff = 52
2003 – 637 – 403 - 203 total = 606 diff = 21
2004 – 617 – 386 - 189 total = 575 diff = 42
2005 – 773 – 467 - 257 total = 724 diff = 49
2006 – 822 – 492 - 273 total = 765 diff = 57
2007 – 1051 – 617 - 363 total = 980 diff = 71
2008 – 1153 – 673 – 420 total = 1093 diff = 60 96,952 - 1378 - 1396 - 50

Figures in bold are from an earlier thread, and are from MOT's data base. They are registered bikes/crashes/injuries/deaths.
Perhaps the anomoly of figures that don't add up is because they come from a variety of sources? We know that MOT and ACC stats do not match.

[Katman]

Yes, but don't forget that there were at least 25% more bikes (registered) in 2008 than there was in 1993

The percentage of 'bike only' accidents is not influenced by the actual number of motorcycles registered.

[Jantar]

.... Be generous and say that each bike had a pillion that suffered the same injuries and you don’t come anywhere close to the ACC figures......

The most likely reason is that the 5000+ number quoted by Nick's Myth includes off road motorcycle claims. If the data presented here (in another thread) that almost 80% of motorcyclists treated in hospital is from off road injuries, then reduce Nick's Myth figures by 80% and Berries numbers are right on the button.