The ACC saga - a new approach.

[dipshit]

I would disagree that "most motorcyclists realise this" as that figure was also quoted on here more times than the correct figures

And in the local press down this way too...

"The accident statistics were "bent" and he said it was usually car drivers who caused accidents and motorcyclists who were injured."

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/78...-crashes-rider


"Most accidents are caused by car drivers on phones, not looking properly or being complacent."

http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/wanak...otorcycle-club

[shrub]

It was quoted by several people including a Christchurch motorcycle shop owner in a radio interview that 75% of motorcycle accidents were caused by "someone else"

I would disagree that "most motorcyclists realise this" as that figure was also quoted on here more times than the correct figures

Some people, including some Christchurch motorcycle shop owners, shouldn't be taken all that seriously about anything. Check out the poll I'm running, and you'll see that the majority of respondents either believe that motorcyclists are the cause of bike accidents or that the cause of crashes is a combination of factors.

[warewolf]

One of the most prevalent phrases uttered by motorcyclists for as long as I can remember has been "but most of our accidents are the fault of the car driver" - when, in fact, the very opposite is the case.

So you keep saying, which may technically be the case, but 48% are the fault of the other vehicle according to the latest analysis I can find. (the 2008 numbers analysed by Dr Lamb). That 2% I really don't think is worth splitting hairs about.

The unfortunately reality is that other road users DO collide with us when they violate our right of way, and we are not always going to be able to avoid them. Yes, this latter is an admirable goal, but it's unrealistic. Sure, we can be better, smarter riders. Big whoop. Most of us already strive for that. We still won't avoid every single accident that's the fault of the other driver. Just ain't gonna happen, no matter how well trained or expert or "safer" we become. There has to be some acknowledgement that the other side needs work, too. The tighter the screws are turned down on us, the harder we push back - hence the finger pointing at the other side.

As far as "working with" the ACC etc goes. Well, maybe they should change their tune and work with US! Motorcyclists are usually forgotten, ignored, or flatly refused a seat at the table when it comes to roading & traffic policy decisions etc. It's not like we're not trying. An example? See how ACC treated BRONZ wrt the numbers they used to justify this last round of increases. Surely if ACC were above-board they would have presented the numbers to BRONZ quick smart and said, "See!" but they've done nought but filibuster AFAIK.

[Katman]

So you keep saying, which may technically be the case, but 48% are the fault of the other vehicle according to the latest analysis I can find. (the 2008 numbers analysed by Dr Lamb). That 2% I really don't think is worth splitting hairs about.

Quite frankly, Professor Lamb's report is so seriously flawed it stands to do us more harm than good if it is subject to too close a scrutiny.

As far as "working with" the ACC etc goes. Well, maybe they should change their tune and work with US! Motorcyclists are usually forgotten, ignored, or flatly refused a seat at the table when it comes to roading & traffic policy decisions etc. It's not like we're not trying. An example? See how ACC treated BRONZ wrt the numbers they used to justify this last round of increases. Surely if ACC were above-board they would have presented the numbers to BRONZ quick smart and said, "See!" but they've done nought but filibuster AFAIK.

You're a slow learner, aren't you?

We have beaten ourselves senseless against the brick wall that is The Powers That Be. Where has it gotten us?

There is a very real reason why we are not being listened to.

[fossil]

So you keep saying, which may technically be the case, but 48% are the fault of the other vehicle according to the latest analysis I can find. (the 2008 numbers analysed by Dr Lamb). That 2% I really don't think is worth splitting hairs about.

The unfortunately reality is that other road users DO collide with us when they violate our right of way, and we are not always going to be able to avoid them. Yes, this latter is an admirable goal, but it's unrealistic. Sure, we can be better, smarter riders. Big whoop. Most of us already strive for that. We still won't avoid every single accident that's the fault of the other driver. Just ain't gonna happen, no matter how well trained or expert or "safer" we become. There has to be some acknowledgement that the other side needs work, too. The tighter the screws are turned down on us, the harder we push back - hence the finger pointing at the other side.

As far as "working with" the ACC etc goes. Well, maybe they should change their tune and work with US! Motorcyclists are usually forgotten, ignored, or flatly refused a seat at the table when it comes to roading & traffic policy decisions etc. It's not like we're not trying. An example? See how ACC treated BRONZ wrt the numbers they used to justify this last round of increases. Surely if ACC were above-board they would have presented the numbers to BRONZ quick smart and said, "See!" but they've done nought but filibuster AFAIK.

You need to catch up with the news Colin. Try this link http://krnewsroom.blogspot.com/2010/...ion-group.html

I am surprised that you place so much faith in a club that has under 300 members(Auckland) and doesn't even have a national body.

[warewolf]

Quite frankly blah-de-blah

Meh, forget it. Can't be bothered.

[miloking]

One of the most prevalent phrases uttered by motorcyclists for as long as I can remember has been "but most of our accidents are the fault of the car driver" - when, in fact, the very opposite is the case.

The sooner we come to terms with that concept, the sooner we'll start making moves to change it.

Umm do you even ride motorcycle? Because from some of the shit you say, i wonder sometimes...

Are you sure you are not on ACC payroll or something?

[warewolf]

You need to catch up with the news Colin. Try this link http://krnewsroom.blogspot.com/2010/...ion-group.html

Bad link, try: http://krnewsroom.blogspot.com/2010/...ion-group.html

... and to that I say, HOLY SHIT!!! Wonders will never cease.

I am surprised that you place so much faith in a club that has under 300 members(Auckland) and doesn't even have a national body.

Not faith, just an example.

[shrub]

Quite frankly, Professor Lamb's report is so seriously flawed it stands to do us more harm than good if it is subject to too close a scrutiny.

No, it just doesn't fit your argument therefore you have decided it's incorrect. Charley is a highly intelligent and very well resourced man who worked very closely with a graduate student who spent some 400 hours researching his paper and it has been checked and double checked by several other academics who have ironed out any inconsistencies and flaws.

And Charley is doing a lot for motorcycling and motorcycle safety, no doubt the reason he gets so readily attacked from the anonymity of a computer keyboard.

[shrub]

So you keep saying, which may technically be the case, but 48% are the fault of the other vehicle according to the latest analysis I can find. (the 2008 numbers analysed by Dr Lamb). That 2% I really don't think is worth splitting hairs about.

The unfortunately reality is that other road users DO collide with us when they violate our right of way, and we are not always going to be able to avoid them. Yes, this latter is an admirable goal, but it's unrealistic. Sure, we can be better, smarter riders. Big whoop. Most of us already strive for that. We still won't avoid every single accident that's the fault of the other driver. Just ain't gonna happen, no matter how well trained or expert or "safer" we become. There has to be some acknowledgement that the other side needs work, too. The tighter the screws are turned down on us, the harder we push back - hence the finger pointing at the other side.

As far as "working with" the ACC etc goes. Well, maybe they should change their tune and work with US! Motorcyclists are usually forgotten, ignored, or flatly refused a seat at the table when it comes to roading & traffic policy decisions etc. It's not like we're not trying. An example? See how ACC treated BRONZ wrt the numbers they used to justify this last round of increases. Surely if ACC were above-board they would have presented the numbers to BRONZ quick smart and said, "See!" but they've done nought but filibuster AFAIK.

Very well put, thank you. It's interesting to see that in my highly scientific poll it shows that over 80% of participants believe motorcycle crashes are either caused by the rider or by a combination of factors.

[Katman]

No, it just doesn't fit your argument therefore you have decided it's incorrect.

I didn't say it was incorrect.

It is however, highly misleading.

[bogan]

I didn't say it was incorrect.

It is however, highly misleading.

It depends on what you were expecting, it was a decent report on causes of multiple vehicle accidents with a motorcycle. But it was a shit report on motorcycle accident causes cos he ignored single vehicle ones. Some sort of intro outlining that the report only focused on around (60% iirc) of motorcycle accident and the other 40% were not due to other drivers at all, would have cleared up some confusion and made it a lot less misleading.

[Katman]

It depends on what you were expecting, it was a decent report on causes of multiple vehicle accidents with a motorcycle. But it was a shit report on motorcycle accident causes cos he ignored single vehicle ones. Some sort of intro outlining that the report only focused on around (60% iirc) of motorcycle accident and the other 40% were not due to other drivers at all, would have cleared up some confusion and made it a lot less misleading.

I believe the single vehicle accidents were deliberately ignored by Professor Lamb because they are almost impossible to pin the blame on someone else. Not the degree of reason required to make the report entirely credible.

The fact that the report only covered multi-vehicle accidents in two of New Zealands major cities means that it was not representitive of the broad spectrum of motorcycle accidents.

And his reference to the drop in the number of accidents per 10,000 motorcycles is so poorly thought out it beggars belief that it could be the work of a professor. (And in fact it wasn't - he plucked that graph straight from the Ministry of Transport's factsheet because it made us look good). It should be obvious to anyone that the number of motorcycles is increasing at a completely different rate to the number of motorcyclists riding them.

Very well put, thank you. It's interesting to see that in my highly scientific poll it shows that over 80% of participants believe motorcycle crashes are either caused by the rider or by a combination of factors.

Ah yes, the Clayton's poll.

My poll shows a rather more telling tale.

[warewolf]

It is however, highly misleading.

Wow, so unlike your assessment???

He didn't ignore single-vehicle crashes, he just didn't go in to detail. They were referenced to put the MVMA ones in to context of overall.

He might have used detail on the nation's largest city with over 25% of the nation's population, and another large regional capital which is the nation's second-largest city, but he also compared those numbers to the national totals. Not representative? Seems a pretty large slice of the pie to me. Where's your better data? Beats the hell out the Tasman police district using a mere 9 fatalities - which are patently a statistical outlier - to set/justify policy.

It should be obvious to anyone that the number of motorcycles is increasing at a completely different rate to the number of motorcyclists riding them.

Why should it? Where's the data?

C'mon katman, you keep saying the guy is wrong (or worse), so show us why rather than being snide, and front up with your supposed correct data & analysis. If you really do have better data, table it.

[R-Soul]

Wow, so unlike your assessment???

He didn't ignore single-vehicle crashes, he just didn't go in to detail. They were referenced to put the MVMA ones in to context of overall.

He might have used detail on the nation's largest city with over 25% of the nation's population, and another large regional capital which is the nation's second-largest city, but he also compared those numbers to the national totals. Not representative? Seems a pretty large slice of the pie to me. Where's your better data? Beats the hell out the Tasman police district using a mere 9 fatalities - which are patently a statistical outlier - to set/justify policy.

Why should it? Where's the data?

C'mon katman, you keep saying the guy is wrong (or worse), so show us why rather than being snide, and front up with your supposed correct data & analysis. If you really do have better data, table it.

To be fair, even if he looked at ALL the accidents in cities only (not just double vehicle accidents) they would skew the statitstics on m/c riders responsibility. Yes, Tasman may only have 9 accidents, but if they are all motorcyclists having fatal accidents by themselves because they cant control ther vehicles, then they are statistically significant. And whats more, if ots not just Tasman, but 10 (hey I have no idea how many others there are in total - there are about 10 rugby areas) other rural areas with similar statistics, then it really is just cherry picking stats to support your case. "Scientific interference" I think its called.