The AA are lying about us.

[shrub]

We did. The whole thing is as good as can be expected from volunteers.

To make anything work fully would need to re-brand bikers.

That is impossible, they are too flexible and variable an entity.

Can I help with BRONZ? I have a truckload of marketing experience including marketing services and not for profits.

[Big Dave]

That is impossible. Can I help? I have a truckload of marketing experience including marketing services and not for profits.

Sure - The problem to solve is increase membership - ergo finance - to do some marketing.

100,000 vehicles yields a few hundred members.

[oldrider]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter!

Relentlessly anti motorcycle!

[Katman]

Who causes the crash ?

As this thread is primarily about fatal accidents you might like to take note that, from the Ministry of Transports figures, about 75% of these accidents are primarily the fault of the motorcyclist - which actually ties in quite closely with the figures the AA is using.

I have a truckload of marketing experience including marketing services and not for profits.

I hope you're better at that than you are at interpreting statistics.

[bogan]

It's more a case that I have faith in the data he has access to, and his last report was fine.

Of course he is biased, he's a motorcyclist, but he's also the consumate professional. While a few people didn't agree with some of his findings, I have read the whole paper and looked at much of the raw data he used as well as the data analysis methods he engaged in, and I have confidence that what he presented was pretty well on the money.

Charley is currently looking up the crash data on the NZTA database, and that is the most complete and accurate information available. I would be very, very surprised if 81% of motorcycle fatalities were the fault of the rider and that only 9% were caused by car drivers given that international statistics show that the other road user was primarily at fault in between 50 and 65% of accidents and road conditions were at fault in 12 - 20% of cases (depending which country you look at). The figures the AA use would suggest that Kiwi bikers are predominantly appalling riders, NZ roads are unbelievably good and Kiwi drivers are the best in the world.

None of which is true.

ok, playing devils advocate here so we don't jump to any erroneous conclusions. Sampled stats don't always conform to the average, it could have just been a bad year. I just don't think we have any evidence that AA are lying to us, and claiming it makes us guilty of that which we accuse AA.

And charley just decided to ignore about 40% of the stats in his last report didn't he?

[shrub]

ok, playing devils advocate here so we don't jump to any erroneous conclusions. Sampled stats don't always conform to the average, it could have just been a bad year. I just don't think we have any evidence that AA are lying to us, and claiming it makes us guilty of that which we accuse AA.

And charley just decided to ignore about 40% of the stats in his last report didn't he?

I think it is easy to show that there were not "about" 43 deaths, of which only 4 were caused by the car driver.

[bogan]

I think it is easy to show that there were not "about" 43 deaths, of which only 4 were caused by the car driver.

then why am I still waiting for you to do that?

[shrub]

then why am I still waiting for you to do that?

I refer you to post 26

[Katman]

This thread here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...und-the-ankles! is a clear indication of one of the problems we are facing. (Gets interesting about page 4).

Those who are fighting the cause on our behalf appear more guilty of mis-interpreting figures than those fighting against us.

[davebullet]

On the AA - "automobile" is typically defined as a passenger vehicle with 4 wheels. Therefore they can be excused for focussing on one road user segment. (PS: I've been a member for 19 years and I find their motorcycle support woeful).

I think at fault is interesting.

I've seen many threads on here about motorcyclists t-boning car drivers that do u-turns.

Was the motorcyclist travelling at a safe speed? I differentiate from legal speed. I believe the legal speed is way to high in built up areas / suburbia in pouring rain etc...... and way too low on the foxton straights (for example). Dont' tell me 50kph in busy traffic, all parks used scenario is a safe speed.

Was the motorcyclist making himself visible?

Was the motorcyclist in a good road position?

Did the motorcyclist have emergency braking / swerving avoidance skills? (nothing mandates we need to develop these - and don't tell me its part of the BHS / learners test - it isn't).

I could be traveling at 50kph (by witness accounts) in a blind spot on the road (too far to the left), in all black gear on a rainy day, have been daydreaming or missed the turning motorist - wham I t-bone him and the car driver is at fault? Well - I could believe that and remind myself the next time it happens and I'm in hospital - yup that would make it all better eh?

I actually agree with Katman. Fault is not a binary factor (yes or no). Fault is shared. I bet the number of purely and squarely 100% the fault of only one party are very few. Those that are, you could find things that could have been done by the other party to minimise the impact.

Rather than raw statistics, I'd like to see the nature of the accidents to see a "top 10" rider training and legislation could be used to mitigate these. I'd love to have the data / see what is being collected to analyse (I'm a much better data analyst than a rider )

[bogan]

I refer you to post 26

last year was 2009 dude, is not in post 26

[Brian d marge]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter!

Relentlessly anti motorcycle!

+1 on that even The Venerable Bede writing under the pen name of Ixion has if I remember, suggested so

Snip
There were about 43 motorcyclist deaths, of which motorcyclists themselves were responsible for 35. Car drivers were responsible for four. Young men and men in their 40s and 50s predominated.

Now I follow the Stats but where the ell did this ones come from ? I mean,, I do agree with the over 40 born again, but those numbers are odd to me

Otherwise I thought it was a reasonable article
Stephen

[shrub]

last year was 2009 dude, is not in post 26

OK, but I doubt the stats will be significantly different. I don't have access to the latest LTSA stats and have asked Charley to look them up, but he's busy as buggeree at the moment so I'm not holding my breath. If I get a chance this afternoon I'll pop in to the local office and see what I cam get.

[bogan]

OK, but I doubt the stats will be significantly different. I don't have access to the latest LTSA stats and have asked Charley to look them up, but he's busy as buggeree at the moment so I'm not holding my breath. If I get a chance this afternoon I'll pop in to the local office and see what I cam get.

I doubt they will be too different either, but I wouldn't go making slanderous accusations until I am sure.

[BoristheBiter]

On the AA - "automobile" is typically defined as a passenger vehicle with 4 wheels. Therefore they can be excused for focussing on one road user segment. (PS: I've been a member for 19 years and I find their motorcycle support woeful).

I think at fault is interesting.

I've seen many threads on here about motorcyclists t-boning car drivers that do u-turns.

Was the motorcyclist travelling at a safe speed? I differentiate from legal speed. I believe the legal speed is way to high in built up areas / suburbia in pouring rain etc...... and way too low on the foxton straights (for example). Dont' tell me 50kph in busy traffic, all parks used scenario is a safe speed.

Was the motorcyclist making himself visible?

Was the motorcyclist in a good road position?

Did the motorcyclist have emergency braking / swerving avoidance skills? (nothing mandates we need to develop these - and don't tell me its part of the BHS / learners test - it isn't).

I could be traveling at 50kph (by witness accounts) in a blind spot on the road (too far to the left), in all black gear on a rainy day, have been daydreaming or missed the turning motorist - wham I t-bone him and the car driver is at fault? Well - I could believe that and remind myself the next time it happens and I'm in hospital - yup that would make it all better eh?

I actually agree with Katman. Fault is not a binary factor (yes or no). Fault is shared. I bet the number of purely and squarely 100% the fault of only one party are very few. Those that are, you could find things that could have been done by the other party to minimise the impact.

Rather than raw statistics, I'd like to see the nature of the accidents to see a "top 10" rider training and legislation could be used to mitigate these. I'd love to have the data / see what is being collected to analyse (I'm a much better data analyst than a rider )

Where i agree with what you are trying to say i can't see how someone pulling out in front of me is my fault. It is done to me all the time in my car so if they can't see me or judge my speed while i am in a car how the fuck could they do it while I am on my bike.

What you are getting at is defencive driving, thats what stops me from hitting these tossers.
Someone fails to give way, their fault end of story.