The AA are lying about us.

[jeffs]

all motorists have crashes

Yes Well to be exact "potentially could crash"

I am only responding to this thread because it was not about crashes, it is about deaths.

I am over the ACC saga and am just getting on with my life.

I choose to ride a powerful, potentially dangerous, low safety featured form of transport to commute to work. I do so because it gives me greater convenience and flexibility than any other form of transport given my working practices.

If I could traverse Auckland as easily in a car I would drive a car.

I have weighed up the odds, risks, lifestyle choices and practicalities.

The form of transport I have chosen just happens to be called motorbike.

[bogan]

Thanks. So the AA were, at best, disingenuous as "more than one party, motorbike no fault 15" is not "4".

yup, now is the time to complain then, though the first thing they will ask for is a reference to the data berries provided.

[Berries]

yup, now is the time to complain then, though the first thing they will ask for is a reference to the data berries provided.

It's a simple CAS output with a bit of explanation that they can request for free from either the MOT or NZTA. Or they can ask me to provide it but I'll be charging them.

[mashman]

Fault is an emotive subject, and if you simply quote what the analysis shows I don’t believe you will be correct. There are often underlying issues that may have contributed to the crash that are not coded. That’s my personal opinion based on 15 years of crash investigation anyway.

yet the govt, ACC, AA and various other institutes can use these figures to justify their levy/price increases... and as a byproduct, ignore the causes of crashes because the detail isn't known WTF!!!! sounds like a HUGE double standard to me...

What's the point in trying to stay safe on the road (other than to stay alive ), when the causes of incidents are not being given the analysis they require? Surely these institutes know this and if that's the case they're not giving a shit (i'll stop callin ya Shirley)...

[Berries]

What's the point in trying to stay safe on the road (other than to stay alive ), when the causes of incidents are not being given the analysis they require? Surely these institutes know this and if that's the case they're not giving a shit (i'll stop callin ya Shirley)...

Staying alive is all that is important isn't it ? Sod all the numbers that idiots like me throw around.

I’m looking at it from a different perspective though. Take an example given somewhere else in this thread. You are tootling along in the fast lane when a car pulls in to your lane without checking or indicating and knocks you off. Based on the crash codes given this is most likely to show up as no fault to the bike and prime fault to the car driver. It is my opinion that any rider that sits in a blindspot and gets taken out this way should share some of the blame, if not the fault. We can blame car drivers all we want for being idiots and not looking over their shoulder etc etc, but it is within our power, in many many cases, to avoid the crash happening. So I think that, certainly in multi vehicle crashes, riders are actually more at fault than the stats show. The opposite is true in single vehicle crashes where I think that too often the rider receives the sole blame and other contributing factors are overlooked.

[mashman]

Staying alive is all that is important isn't it ? Sod all the numbers that idiots like me throw around.

I’m looking at it from a different perspective though. Take an example given somewhere else in this thread. You are tootling along in the fast lane when a car pulls in to your lane without checking or indicating and knocks you off. Based on the crash codes given this is most likely to show up as no fault to the bike and prime fault to the car driver. It is my opinion that any rider that sits in a blindspot and gets taken out this way should share some of the blame, if not the fault. We can blame car drivers all we want for being idiots and not looking over their shoulder etc etc, but it is within our power, in many many cases, to avoid the crash happening. So I think that, certainly in multi vehicle crashes, riders are actually more at fault than the stats show. The opposite is true in single vehicle crashes where I think that too often the rider receives the sole blame and other contributing factors are overlooked.

I understand what you're talking about and understand that the information isn't there ON THE SYSTEM. Statistics aren't good enough, imho, when it comes to road safety, because they're relying on statistics to tell them why road users crash. I think we all know. To that end. Our time, our effort and our money is being wasted with policies and procedures developed on the basis of what the computer said. The computer tells them where to focus... You say yourself that to get a more accurate view of what the "real" stats are, you would have to look at the files, reclassify, recompile etc... if that isn't being done, and it doesn't look like it is, then it's likely that we're focussing our resources in the wrong place. It's funny, but until someone does the leg work we'll never really KNOW what the real causes are... we will only ever suspect... but it costs too much money to do that and the computer doesn't need to get paid...

[shrub]

I think we need to look beyond using blame because nobody sets out to have or cause a crash, and recognise that there is no black or white in most cases. I think motorcyclists, other road users, the people who set and police the laws and the people who design and maintain our roads need to recognise that road safety is a universal problem, and within all of our ability to solve.

One of my problems with the AA article was that it gave the impression (to me at least) that motorcyclists were responsible for the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities, when that is not the case.

As an aside, what if a a loud and powerful bike blasted past half asleep car driver and startled said driver causing them to run off the road - who would be at fault? And Berries example of the car and bike in blind spot is a good case of how we have to use different skills and attitudes to stay alive.

[davereid]

But when this whole thing kicked off last year, we were told, and I quote, "Motorcyclists are 18x more likely to crash than car drivers".

That particular statistic can be discounted, as no one collects crash data, only injury data.

But the "More Likely" tag is another flag of a statistical "fiddle".

ie.

A single line on my lotto card gives me a 1 in 36,000,000 chance of winning.

2 lines makes me twice as likely to win.


The bank still doesn't think I have any money, even when I tell them I intend buying an entire card.

[Katman]

One of my problems with the AA article was that it gave the impression (to me at least) that motorcyclists were responsible for the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities, when that is not the case.

So you keep saying. But for every fatality you can come up with that was not the responsibility of the motorcyclist I can guarantee I could list you four that were.

[davereid]

So you keep saying. But for every fatality you can come up with that was not the responsibility of the motorcyclist I can guarantee I could list you four that were.

That is because water finds its own level.

Your friends and associates may meet your 5:1 criteria.

My friends and associates have it the other way around.

I have been motorcycling for 40 years, and have no fatalities in my peer group, and only 1 friend or associate who was responsible for his accident.

Don't discredit me and my mates, with the skills or mindset of those you associate with.

[shrub]

So you keep saying. But for every fatality you can come up with that was not the responsibility of the motorcyclist I can guarantee I could list you four that were.

I shouldn't dignify your post with a reply, but maybe, just maybe you'll actually pay attention to what I'm saying and get off your tedious little bandwagon.

I accept that a reasonable percentage of motorcycle crashes are either caused by the rider or are avoidable if the rider used the correct strategies. In simple terms that you might understand, some bikers deserve to crash because they ride dangerously and some crashes are avoidable by defensive riding, so motorcyclists are the best people to improve their safety. Do you get that? I actually agree with you.

But unlike you, I can see the bigger picture, and if we look at the LTSA crash statistics, around 40% of motorcycle crashes are caused by another road user, so the bigger picture has an ambulance and a crashed bike in it with another vehicle that caused the crash. What I keep trying to say is that we need the other people involved in causing and influencing the crashes to take responsibilty for their part. The trouble is that articles like the offending document don't help because they dump the overwhelming majority of the responsibility in the motorcyclists laps and make it quite clear that little or no fault lies anywhere else, so they have no part to play. Your message I believe.

They paint us as irresponsible, reckless and foolhardy, and before you bang on about that is how all motorcyclists are, maybe you should spend less time here and more time on the road. When I ride I find that 95% of the riders I see on the road are responsible, careful and competent 99% of the time. Everyone I know takes their safety very, very seriously from owning the best gear they can to doing rider training every chance they can and having highly maintained bikes with superb brakes and handling. And I could talk about the braking and handling technology of a 1980s bike, but I used to ride the things and I take my personal safety too seriously to trust archaic technology like that. I owned a 1981 GSX1100 briefly a few years ago but the thing had no brakes and weaved like a drunk fat chick on the dancefloor so I stuck it in the shed and sold it as soon as I could.

Now if you can't add anything more than "motorcyclists are their own worst enemies and deserve everything they get", find another thread.

[Katman]

It's ok shrub - you're just in denial.

[dipshit]

One of my problems with the AA article was that it gave the impression (to me at least) that motorcyclists were responsible for the overwhelming majority of bike fatalities, when that is not the case.

Even the breakdown of numbers Berries has tabled here makes 70% rider at fault. (not counting the 8 partial fault)

That is consistent with what the MOT has been saying. (about our fatal accidents)

[Katman]

Now if you can't add anything more than "motorcyclists are their own worst enemies and deserve everything they get", find another thread.

That's a bit rich. I've been here since post #1 - remember?

I know Katman probably believes that motorcyclists were responsible for 44 of the 43 deaths, but the good Prof Lamb's stats showed culpibility was pretty evenly divided between us and car drivers, and Prof Lamb doesn't use the word "about" in his research. Which is how come he's a professor, not some minimum wage journo working for AA.

[riffer]

I find it interesting that I've been attacked by Pixie for my opinion.

I'll try and explain it real slow for the likes of Pixie.

It doesn't make one god-damned bit of difference whether the road is good or bad or whether the roading staff was incompetent.

I'm not talking fault; I'm talking responsibility.

If we crash we get hurt easily. Like it or not the roading system is geared towards four-wheeled (and greater) vehicles which have the dual advantages of better inherent stability and greater protection in a crash.

Bearing those two factors (which override ANYTHING ELSE since they have the potential to kill us) it behooves us to take a HUGELY greater responsibility for our own safety.

I don't expect anyone else to take responsibility for my own safety. I expect that road conditions will change. I don't trust other road users. 31 years of riding will do that. My spidey-senses are getting pretty damn well honed now. Now every so often (about every 50,000 kms it would seem) I stuff up and it costs me, both in pain and money.

But no matter whose fault it was, it is ALWAYS my responsibility to ensure MY own safety.

How hard is that to understand?