Motorcycle accident myths - A public presentation on the facts

[Katman]

Actually, I think I was wrong.

Take 100 motorcycle accidents.

According to the figures above 30 of them will involve no other vehicle.

Of the other 70 accidents that involve another vehicle 33% (23.1) of them are not the fault of the motorcyclist.

Therefore 46.9 of those 70 accidents are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Add that 46.9 to the 30 accidents that only involve the motorcyclist and you get 76.9 of those 100 accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist.

[Berries]

.........It's only a rough estimate, I know, but it's the number I was trying to get some sort of handle on. Thanks again.

It will actually be a lot more than that. You can add at least 50% to your serious injury crashes and multiply your minor injury crashes by between 3 and 4. These are the underreporting factors used when reporting on social cost.

So I take it that 30% of motorcycle accidents dont involve another vehicle? Rider era?

I know you meant error but era could be just as close to the truth.

So the Radio add could be misleading in the way it words the figures.

All crash stats that you see can be misleading, even if unintentional. What period are they based on ? What area ? State highways or all roads ? So many variables and unless you compare like with like you’ll never get the same figures twice. For instance, the figures I gave earlier for multi vehicle crashes have prime fault attributed to the rider in 34% of them, part fault 11% and no fault in the remaining 55%. Very simplistic analysis if you don’t look at each crash report which is what Prof Lamb appears to have done. If you want to make it look good for riders then look at urban crashes. In a recent report I did in Otago I found that the other driver was at fault in 60% of urban crashes. Want to make it look bad look at rural crashes where I found the rider was either partly or primarily at fault in 70% of them, and that doesn’t account for the bike only crashes, which were the majority on rural roads.

You can prove anything with stats*, take them all with a pinch of salt and look at who is pushing them.

* Disclaimer - Although I have tried I have yet to prove that bikes 601cc and over are more dangerous than sub 600's.

[Bass]

It will actually be a lot more than that. You can add at least 50% to your serious injury crashes and multiply your minor injury crashes by between 3 and 4. These are the underreporting factors used when reporting on social cost.

So the number is likely to be over 5000 then, maybe well over?
How many bikes are registered in NZ currently?
How does the underreporting work?
Are you saying that half of the serious injury m/c accidents are never reported to the cops?
I think that's enough questions for now.

[shrub]

76.9 of those 100 accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist.

Actually 100 of them were the fault of the motorcyclist - if the dirty bikers were sensible and drove Volvos none of them would have bike accidents. I hear you Katman, bikes are dangerous and the sooner we stopped riding the things the better for everyone. And Saddam Hussein had WMD and God made the world in 6 days. Oh, and Elvis is still alive.

[schrodingers cat]

Actually 100 of them were the fault of the motorcyclist - if the dirty bikers were sensible and drove Volvos none of them would have bike accidents. I hear you Katman, bikes are dangerous and the sooner we stopped riding the things the better for everyone. And Saddam Hussein had WMD and God made the world in 6 days. Oh, and Elvis is still alive.

Nasty petrol burning Volvo's? Stone the heritic. Surely we need all drive 'Smart' cars until recumbant bicycles are made compulsary for all.
And Jesus sandles

[R-Soul]

The tricky bit is Maki, when they have looked at the accident rates between high-viz users and non-high viz users in accidents where the cage claims not to have seen them - the rates are about the same to within 1%.

It seems that when a cage does not see a motorcycle, they don't see them no matter what they are wearing.

Well at least that goes some way to prove the cage drivers are not really TRYING to kill us... bonus!! Or maybe they are trying equally hard regardless of what we are wearing....

[shrub]

Nasty petrol burning Volvo's? Stone the heritic. Surely we need all drive 'Smart' cars until recumbant bicycles are made compulsary for all.
And Jesus sandles

I'm intending to fit pedals to my Volvo and trade my nasty leathers in on a nice home knitted jumper made of hemp.

I think I have finally clicked what Katman is on about - bikes are dangerous and all bike crashes are the fault of the rider for riding such dangerous things.

[Katman]

Actually 100 of them were the fault of the motorcyclist - if the dirty bikers were sensible and drove Volvos none of them would have bike accidents. I hear you Katman, bikes are dangerous and the sooner we stopped riding the things the better for everyone. And Saddam Hussein had WMD and God made the world in 6 days. Oh, and Elvis is still alive.

Hey, don't shoot the messanger.

[Berries]

So the number is likely to be over 5000 then, maybe well over?

Could be up there, but we'll never know.

How many bikes are registered in NZ currently?

Have a look at Section 4 on this link - http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...ewZealand2008/

How does the underreporting work?

Say that we know the Police have reported ten serious injury crashes. We also know for example that the local hospital has treated 15 serious injuries from 15 crashes over that same period. Therefore you can consider that five crashes were not reported. Carry out that data matching process across the country and you can come up with a factor to multiply reported crashes to get a more accurate picture of the true number, in this case a factor of 1.5. The reason being that when you are planning a roading job you can easily work out the cost, but need to show the benefits. The better the cost/benefit ratio the more likely it is you'll get the funding. It's a bit more complicated than that but Antiques Roadshow is about to start.

Are you saying that half of the serious injury m/c accidents are never reported to the cops?

Nah, adding 50% gives you a third, as in the 10 to 15 example above. This is for all crashes though, there is no breakdown for vehicle type. There will be some differences between vehicle types I am sure but this would be very hard to quantify. Serious injuries can be relatively minor in the scheme of things btw. And for crash stats bruising is considered a minor injury.

[RiderInBlack]

Hey, don't shoot the messanger.

What, I thought ja where ta nail them ta some planks and hung them high. Bugger now will have ta walk all the way back home for a gun now.

[Silage]

I heard somewhere that Charly Lamb is speaking tonight at the Cashmere Club, 88 Hunter Tce Chch at 7:30. I am intending being there even though it will be with my low vis helmet, black jacket (with a couple of reflectors).

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Once, some years ago, my perception was that the hi-viz and headlamp combo did make a signifcant differnce. But it seems to have lost its edge nowadays (I suspect because hi-viz and headlamps are both so common now, it no longer has the WTF is that factor).

I been saying that all long really... if every thing is orange what will stand out more another orange vest or black

[bikemike]

Interesting talk. Main thing I took away was the apparently blatant use of averages to portray Old riders and Large bikes as the over-represented groups in the accident stats, when in fact the converse is true. (21yo and 250cc are most common).

Also, I thought the emphasis on looking to see what is there, rather than looking to see what is not there was very useful. I consider myself quite observant, but had not thought clearly of this distinction. When I look to join at an intersection, I look in the way that I wish to go first, and look to see what IS there; then I look in the direction the traffic in my intended lane is coming from, and I think sometimes I look to see that nothing is there, rather than what is; also, I am possibly a bit sloppy on my shoulder check before I pull off - not always thinking about what I am looking for. It's interesting when you think about it - a different psychology altogether in the way that you look.

Yes, Charlie cited Visibility Issues as the key thing to work on. But he also pointed out the diminishing benefit as more headlights and hi-vis is used. He was clear that it is visibility issues - not just hi-vis. As MP Rick Barker pointed out, it's about making yourself visible, with movement for example, and about making our case visible!

Charlie lauded the Bikesafe program in the UK, quite right too. I did Bikesafe in the UK, in Scotland, and it is/was bloody excellent - not just my ride but the idea and execution of the program in general.

Some people mentioned the value of track skills, and braking training in particular and that made me wonder: Charlie pointed out that the benefits of training are generally positive, but not always - sometimes perhaps training seems to makes people think they can handle more than they really can. I have been riding for 27 years - I can't remember a single emergency braking manoeuvre on a bike. It's always been mixed, day, night, fast, slow, town, open road, off road, loaded, two up, solo, all weather... a lot of miles over the 27 years and not one emergency stop....? Do people generally find themselves having to slam on the anchors on a regular basis, or at least on a speaking-terms basis?

I don't know who the chap was that pointed out that it is also about taking complete responsibility for ourselves - he said he was an instructor. I concur: I'd have to add that on the Bikesafe ride the police made it abundantly clear that it's all about getting the skills and having the attitude to be totally in control, it's about using a system, not rules, about assuming responsibility not assuming what anyone else is going to do.

There will always be bad drivers, and people will always fail to see. However, If we can all use these stats, and persuade people in positions of authority, and refute the falsehoods and change the perception of bikers, and the perception of the nature of the problem with biker accidents then perhaps we can get some meaningful action, like training to teach people to drive not to sit the test, like having young riders on two wheels before they can access cars (because experience - or at least Charlie said a license - on a motorcycle reduces the chance of said driver having a car accident involving a motorcycle) and other such things, then we can get progress.

It occurs to me that folks always like to have a bogey man though, and it will be a bit of a battle!

PRISM Motorcycle Club was mentioned, of whom I was not aware.
Charlie agitated a little for a National Motorcycle lobby / advocacy. I'd be all for that.

Unfortunately it looked like most came by car - I saw less than a dozen bikes there, and the room was full of the older rider stereotype with not a one looking under 30, most over 40 or more. Possibly preaching to the converted.

Someone asked on behalf of those here on KB if they could get the presentation slides / data, so we could all get a good butchers. So, perhaps that will be posted.

[Squiggles]

PRISM Motorcycle Club was mentioned, of whom I was not aware.

PRISM = Promote Responsiblity In Safe Motorcycling
They run the Bikers Against ACC Levies site

[oldrider]

Thank you for posting, I wanted to be there but it was just not a goer!