The Lean - A statistical factsheet

[Berries]

Cheers for that..
Just to be sure, anything not classed as Moped is by default Motorcycle?

No. If vehicle type isn't checked then when coding the crash, make, model and engine size have to be looked at to decide what kind of vehicle it was. At a later date when on the system the rego number is checked which can lead to changes to what is recorded.

[Paul in NZ]

I'm over all this. I'm not a 'serious' motorcyclist so I suppose i shouldnt comment here but from what i can see, all this does is divide motorcyclists (who already dont like each other much) into haves and have nots.

Frankly I thinks its time to give it up...

[NONONO]

I like you Paul..Cheer up eh?

[Paul in NZ]

I like you Paul..Cheer up eh?

Well thanks but I think I'm serious. (yet oddly happy)

The inability to re register old bikes (restored old wrecks), proposed laws to prevent any modifications (at all) and the expense of keeping any vehicle on the road let alone an expensive tool are sucking the soul out of the motorcycling I enjoy, ie cheap mechanical fun.

Couple this up with the fights that go on around registrations etc means that like everything motorcycling changes and now it seems its heading into a place that holds very little attraction for me. I read threads like this and I start loosing the will to live.... (yes yes, go for a ride and stop reading but I also have other reasons why going for a ride this morning aint happening)

Anyway - stopping reading seems like the best option right now...

[mashman]

CAS records things by crash severity, fatal, serious minor and non. Serious should correlate with hospital treatment, minor shouldn't, but that may not always be the case. Hospital admission figures are kept at by the MOT. These are used to estimate crash reporting rates and I am not sure whether they even go to the most basic level of detail and state what kind of vehicle was involved. But if all you want is the comparative rate of hospitalisations then the comparative rate of serious injuries should be fairly close.

Still not 100% sure what you are after. The number of hospitalisations caused by all crashes where a car was involved and the number of hospitalisations caused by all crashes where a motorbike was involved ?

Do you want fries, sorry, mopeds with that ?

heh. I understand your frustration

Just how many hospitalisations there were, in total, from any accident that involved a car, even if it's car v bike:

Bike hits car, there are 3 people hospitalised (2 car, 1 bike) during the accident.
Bike by itself, 2 people hospitalised during the accident
car v car, 6 people hospitalised during the accident
car v pedestrian 1 person (the pedestrian (classed, for this purpose, as car))
bike v pedestrian 2 people (1 bike, 1 pedestrian (classed, for this purposes, as bike)).

The answer i would expect to see is 9 for cars, 5 for bike. Add mopeds in. We need the fullest picture possible given the data available. Any clearer?

[crazyhorse]

That was very interesting information - well researched

[Berries]

The answer i would expect to see is 9 for cars, 5 for bike. Add mopeds in. We need the fullest picture possible given the data available. Any clearer?

As clear as a very clear thing. Will post the answer tomorrow.

[mashman]

We have probably covered this over the last year... but we've, maybe, asked the wrong question.

Cars are cross-subsidising motorcyclists??? I beg to differ. After all, it's the person that requires hospital treatment, not the vehicle!

We all use the road? We all ride/drive a vehicle? Look at the figures below as a percentage of TOTAL drivers. The one thing we all have in common

taken from transport.govt

Injuries:

Cars: 8381 drivers, passengers 3277 = 11658
Motorcycles: 1396

We know this is why they have separate accounts. More cars to divide 11658 into to weight the levy. BUT, as a percentage of the TOTAL drivers/riders on the road what FACTS would you uncover when answering the below questions in regards to cross-subsidy?

Which vehicle type causes the highest percentage of accidents?
Which vehicle type has the higher risk of crashing?
Which vehicle type has the worst safety record?
"insert own question here"

Remember, cars can carry up to 8 people. If they are a higher risk... hmmmmm

It doesn't matter how many vehicle types we have on the roads. The FACTS show that, in all likelihood, Cars have the higher social cost and that it would seem that Motorcyclists are cross-subsiding Car drivers by approx 9:1... yet that's not the case according to Mr Smith and his slimey friends?

Good job we have the separate accounts eh I wonder why!

[Ocean1]

I read threads like this and I start loosing the will to live....

I know what you mean, however, I don’t think the soul sucking thing is motorcycling specific. I think it’s the cumulative effect of several decades of wee grey men taking liberties with the rules.

‘Er indoors rolled up to sit her full licence last Friday. Her friendly AA supplied tester took the $80something, glanced over the regulation 225 and declined to allow her to sit the licence on it. Somewhere in the 5 min between leaving our gargre and arriving at the AA office her freshly WOF’d and registered machine had blown a tail light bulb.

No Madam couldn’t come back in 5 min. Yes, even though Madam has paid for the full hour required by the booking system. No Madam couldn’t make another appointment next week, we’re booked out.

Comes a time, see when one gives up. The sheer quantity of good will, effort and energy required to meet the requirements of day to day rule compliance becomes more than one’s good-will budget can afford. This is the point at which you have a choice. You can laugh in their face and go live your life without their blessing. Or you can laugh in their face, force them to recant and go live your life with the blessing of a more reasonable regime.

I don’t care enough about rules to spend much time modifying them, can’t be fucked, much easier to simply ignore them. But if these dudes here want to take the time and make the effort to change the rules to something fairer and easier to live with then more power to them. I for one applaud them.

One other thing: the wee grey men don’t live in a vacuum. They need a bevy of moaning, whining sycophants making a deal of noise about how everyone needs to behave this way or that way. Without them there’s literally no call to make the rules more and more restrictive, constrictive. So, go check in the mirror, is that a beam in thine eye?

[NONONO]

Yep it gets tedious and repetitive and boring but the alternative is to give up and accept the lies and bullying, and in so doing, accept that the grey buggers have the power to do whatever they like to you.

Few of us where talking to a local MP yesterday and he gave us some words of wisdom.
"Only when you have repeated your message so often and for so long, you are sick of hearing yourself say it, is the message just, just, beginning to get to joe public......."
I call this "The Katman Premise"....

[Berries]

Could you find out, for 2009:

The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL car crashes (including pedestrians etc...).
The TOTAL number of people that required hospitalisation, for ALL motorcycle crashes. (including pedestrians etc...).

In 2009 there were 8793 crashes resulting in injury that involved a car (parked ones excluded) resulting in 1753 people being seriously injured.

In 2009 there were 1350 crashes resulting in injury that involved a moped or motorbike resulting in 474 people being seriously injured.

Note these are injuries recorded as serious in CAS, nothing to do with ACC records.

Noting the comments earlier about moped crashes being less likely to be serious, the severity ratio (proportion of fatal and serious crashes to all injury crashes) for mopeds was 19%. For motorbikes the figure was 41%. For cars it was 18%.

Ding ding. Round two

[Eyegasm]

One thing I would like to know is...

How many children have been run over while reversing a motorcycle out of a driveway?

Bloody SUVs

[mashman]

In 2009 there were 8793 crashes resulting in injury that involved a car (parked ones excluded) resulting in 1753 people being seriously injured.

In 2009 there were 1350 crashes resulting in injury that involved a moped or motorbike resulting in 474 people being seriously injured.

Note these are injuries recorded as serious in CAS, nothing to do with ACC records.

Noting the comments earlier about moped crashes being less likely to be serious, the severity ratio (proportion of fatal and serious crashes to all injury crashes) for mopeds was 19%. For motorbikes the figure was 41%. For cars it was 18%.

Ding ding. Round two

Let's see now, let's assume that these serious crashes are all serious enough and that the cost of rehabilitation is approximately the same (we'll never know without the figures)

That would mean, that as part of the road using fleet

74% of ALL serious injury crashes involve cars and 26% of all serious injury crashes are involve motorcycles.

I'd say that we're cross-subsising THE ACTUAL COSTS of rehabilitation 3:1, and not in our favour.

Car drivers, as a percentage of the car and motorcycle road going fleet, cause more accidents, by a ratio of approximately 9:1, and SERIOUS injuries 3:1. Why do motorcyclists pay more ACC levy than those vehicles that are most likely to be involved in an accident in the first place?

Who has the LARGEST risk group?
Does it look like we're cross-subsidising Car Drivers?

[bogan]

you gotta normalise for population size though, more cars on the road means they will be involved in more total accidents than bikes, doesn't mean they are riskier. Also factor in the rego fees paid, 100k bikes at average of 300? per rego, 3mil cars at bout 120? per rego, gives 30mil from bikes, and 360mil from cars, so yeh, using those figures we aren't subsidising em

[Swoop]

Couple this up with the fights that go on around registrations etc means that like everything motorcycling changes and now it seems its heading into a place that holds very little attraction for me.

Strange. I was reading an article about the same issues we face today (hideous taxes, being required to conform to some pen-pusher and their ideas, etc, etc) yet this was written in the 1950's.
As a human race, we are destined to repeat this time and time again. I believe the interdweeb simply makes this all to commonplace and it is better to simply ignore and just get on with living life to the fullest in whatever means necessary.