Crash stats

[mashman]

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.

The different data sources makes sense. However that does not justify why the figures are incorrect. How can levies be calculated using figures that cannot be reconciled across all of the departments that are affected?

This is what i thought auditing was all about, Over Price Waterhouse Coopers or whatever they call themselves.... The whole idea being that the information you are presenting is not only valid, but that a business can produce the paper based originals to validate the numbers they are outputting. If this cannot be done, then someone somewhere is failing in their duty, and in this case the "failed" party is us.

I don't know if there's any legal "comeback", and i'd be awfully dissapointed if that was the case. I'd rather they just plucked figures out of thin air

[MSTRS:Me]

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

Of course it is.
It's just that the % drop in bike only crashes is not as great as that of car/bike crashes. Which is what you are so hot about. And fair enough, when car/bike crashes are proportionately MUCH less in recent years.

[Katman]

Of course it is.

Trust me John, it isn't.

[MSTRS:Me]

Trust me John, it isn't.

Obviously one of us is missing something. Maybe.
I think I see what you are getting at, and if so, I agree with you. I've said as much myself. Crashes overall are down, relative to bike numbers. Split those crashes into the 2 types, and the picture changes slightly. Car/bike is WAY down...bike only is just down. So, relative to car/bike crashes, bike only crashes are up. Right?
Still doesn't change the fact that crash numbers are reducing.

Let's use the chart of figures with the number of bikes...
I only have bike numbers from 3 different years, and there will always be year-by-year anomolies, but using the ones I have we get - 1991 0.7% bike only, 2001 0.3%, and 2008 0.4%. We'd need bike numbers for all the years to accurately show a trend

[R-Soul]

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.

The percentage may have risen, but the actual number may have dropped?

[R-Soul]

Obviously one of us is missing something. Maybe.
I think I see what you are getting at, and if so, I agree with you. I've said as much myself. Crashes overall are down, relative to bike numbers. Split those crashes into the 2 types, and the picture changes slightly. Car/bike is WAY down...bike only is just down. So, relative to car/bike crashes, bike only crashes are up. Right?
Still doesn't change the fact that crash numbers are reducing.

MSTRS is saying that the percentage of 'bike only' accidents is influenced by the total no of accidents (i.e. if all accidents drop and "bike only" stays the same or drops less tahh car/bike,then it will rise percentage wise).

However katman is right in that the percentage of 'bike only' accidents is not influenced by eth number of bikes. You could originally have 50% bike only accidents, but if 10,000 more bikes are registered and 50% of them still have accidents by themselves, then the % will not change.

Clear?

[MSTRS:Me]

If 50% of crashes are bike only, of course that won't change. UNLESS the car/bike crashes becomes 40%...then suddenly bike only becomes 60%. KM is just looking at crashes, relative to crashes. That's too much in isolation to have much meaning. However, he would be 100% right if there was (only) 2 crashes in a whole year...1 of each type. The bike only figure would be 50%. The only way to change that would be for the 2 crashes to both be car/bike or bike only...
That's just being silly tho. What matters is the number of crashes overall, RELATIVE to the number of bikes out there. And in that case, the crash rate is trending down.

[R-Soul]

What matters is the number of crashes overall, RELATIVE to the number of bikes out there. And in that case, the crash rate is trending down.

I agree that the number of crashes overall relative to the total no of bikes (i.e. percentage of crashes) reducing is what matters. I stand to be corrected, but I thought the figures show that the percentage of crahes were staying the same over the last few years?

[MSTRS:Me]

I stand to be corrected, but I thought the figures show that the percentage of crashes were staying the same over the last few years?

I don't think so. I may also stand to be corrected. That's why the number of bikes is needed for every year. It's probably on here somewhere...

[R-Soul]

I agree that the number of crashes overall relative to the total no of bikes (i.e. percentage of crashes) reducing is what matters. I stand to be corrected, but I thought the figures show that the percentage of crahes were staying the same over the last few years?

I just chekcked again - the total number of actual crashes are remaining the same or going up slightly, but since the total no of bikers is going up, the percentage must be dropping.

[dipshit]

I think some of the lower accident rates versus registered bikes is reflecting the different usage trends of now versus say the late 70's.

Back then bikes were used as an economical form of day to day transport and an alternative to owning a car.

Now a lot of bikes are more of a toy to be taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend for recreation as the typical owner still has the family car for the day to day stuff.

There are a lot of 5 year old bikes around with less than 10k on them. A lot of motorcycles these days spend heaps of time sitting in the garage.

Accident rates versus kms travelled would probably show less of a reduction.

[MSTRS:Me]

I think some of the lower accident rates versus registered bikes is reflecting the different usage trends of now versus say the late 70's.

Back then bikes were used as an economical form of day to day transport and an alternative to owning a car.

Now a lot of bikes are more of a toy to be taken out of the garage on the occasional sunny weekend for recreation as the typical owner still has the family car for the day to day stuff.

There are a lot of 5 year old bikes around with less than 10k on them. A lot of motorcycles these days spend heaps of time sitting in the garage.

Accident rates versus kms travelled would probably show less of a reduction.

Hmmm. You may have a point. It is fair to say that in the 70s, there was a lot more bikes than now. I don't know that they were never used for 'play'...I know that mine got plenty of playtime.
I doubt that mileage stats would be available prior to online WOFs.

[flyingcrocodile46]

Rather than pissing on about saving a measly few $ per week and the inequity of levies which are most probably not that far off been fair (setting aside the no fault argument). Your time would be better spent trying to save motorcyclists lives through advancing the cause of rider education and training.

Isn't it a more noble and important objective to reduce the hurt, suffering and cost of accidents rather than haggle over the price of the bill to clean the mess up?

A 50% increase in bike only accidents as a percentage of the total is appalling and speaks much about the reckless mindset of bikers.


Here's your missing statistics re bike numbers. If you had spent more effort researching rather than vocalising cranial echoes in these threads you wouldn't need to ask others for help in your fruitless pursuit. I know this because rather than wank on about how unfair things are without any factual basis, I actually did the research that you are attempting in an attempt to ascertain facts before I ran off at the mouth. There is little in the statistics that bikers can be proud of.



http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/1.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/2.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/3.jpg

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/g...codile46/4.jpg

[Berries]

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

1990 – 2073 – 1361 - 577 total = 1938 diff = 135

For that year as an example there were 2073 bike crashes in total, 1361 car vs bike, 577 bike only, 135 bike vs truck, bus, pedestrian, cyclist etc etc.

[Berries]

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

Out of the 12,805 cars involved in injury crashes in 2008 the number of occupants were as follows -

Driver only 7,788
One passenger 3,201
Two pas 1,013
Three pas 535
Four pass 221
Five pas 33
Six pas 9
Seven pas 3
Eight pas 2

Ok for a rough idea of proportions, but I would take those figures with a big pinch of salt. At a crash scene the number of passengers is not a high priority unless they are injured, and I haven’t carried out basic quality checks on the data. Did find a few examples of people being in the boot though. And I don't think they were mafia.