The Lean - A statistical factsheet

**mashman** · 30th October 2010, 16:54

Originally Posted by NONONO

Would be interesting to know..but,
"ALL Motorcycle Crashes" would include all moped and scooter crashes, as well as all the 49cc and below vehicles which do not even need to be registered or WOF'ed.

True. But not all of the scooter riders etc... will require hospital treatment as they're generally slow offs with just cuts and grazes... granted that's not always the case, but you can find that out through the CAS data. How many bikes mow people down? not many, but cars??? it may well be that they offset each other, dunno, but it's a simple question that "could" give some quite interesting results.

If you can nail them on the cross-subsidy argument, well, that's the door open to question everything else. After all, TPTB say that it's the hospitalisation and long term rehabilition that's the reason for our higher levies and that we're still being cross-subsidised. Now i doubt that very VERY much after seeing some of the driving and as we're constantly reminded, there are more cars on the road

, therefore a higher likelihood of accidents. The CAS data should be able to highlight this.

ACC don't care if you're reg'd/wof'd/licensed etc... because someone has still been hospitalised. So why bother worrying about it. It'll be interesting to see the figures. The cross-subsidy argument is used to raise our levies further and drive the "political" wedge between drivers and riders. What if that isn't true? It may well be another, well we thought it was mainly the cars faults, but what if this one isn't?

This is not a statistical question, well not really, it's based on hospitalisation, not per km travelled, not vehicle type and certainly not as a ratio of the number of vehicles on the road, because that info taints the FACTS. Just a simple, how many people were ACTUALLY hospitalised cars v's bikes. If there's 5 or 10 times more people in the cars category, well...

**Berries** · 30th October 2010, 16:59

Originally Posted by mashman

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...).

I can, making the assumption that serious injuries require hospital treatment whereas minor injuries don't. But........ car vs motorbike. Which category should that be in ?

Originally Posted by NONONO

Would be interesting to know..but,
"ALL Motorcycle Crashes" would include all moped and scooter crashes, as well as all the 49cc and below vehicles which do not even need to be registered or WOF'ed.

'All motorcycle crashes' would include all bikes not classed as mopeds, ie over 50cc. You have to specifically include mopeds to get that info. It would include 250cc scooters, and those Burgerman things as well.

**NONONO** · 30th October 2010, 18:58

Mashman, go for it..another angle, not as far as I know yet explored. Cool.

Berries...So on the crash report form (filled out by the police) is there a tick box that states Moped, under 50cc and one for Motorcycle?

**Katman** · 30th October 2010, 19:08

At the end of the day the "Was it a moped or a motorcycle - did they pay any registration or not" argument means jack shit.

If the powers that be want to paint any motorised two wheeled transport as dangerous and deserving of being legislated off the road, the general public will swallow it without question.

The only hope we have is by reversing the statistics that are being used against us.

Stop having so many accidents - it's that simple.

**bogan** · 30th October 2010, 19:15

Originally Posted by Katman

At the end of the day the "Was it a moped or a motorcycle - did they pay any registration or not" argument means jack shit.

If the powers that be want to paint any motorised two wheeled transport as dangerous and deserving of being legislated off the road, the general public will swallow it without question.

The only hope we have is by reversing the statistics that are being used against us.

Stop having so many accidents - it's that simple.

but the stats they use are bollocks, we already have a low enough accident rate to disprove them

and are working on doing so, ACC's new spin doctor got given the learn in the HB today, yesterday

**Katman** · 30th October 2010, 19:17

Originally Posted by bogan

we already have a low enough accident rate to disprove them

Are you serious?

We are having waaaay too many accidents that could have easily been avoided.

Sometimes you need to take a step back in order to take two steps forward.

**Ocean1** · 30th October 2010, 19:51

Originally Posted by Katman

Are you serious?

We are having waaaay too many accidents that could have easily been avoided.

Sometimes you need to take a step back in order to take two steps forward.

We?

You?

How 'bout We let these fine gentlemen do the job properly and You fuck off somewhere your silly little game might find an amused audience.

The kindy down the road might not have heard it yet...

**Katman** · 30th October 2010, 20:14

Originally Posted by Ocean1

We?

You?

How 'bout We let these fine gentlemen do the job properly and You fuck off somewhere your silly little game might find an amused audience.

The kindy down the road might not have heard it yet...

**NONONO** · 30th October 2010, 20:21

Originally Posted by Katman

At the end of the day the "Was it a moped or a motorcycle - did they pay any registration or not" argument means jack shit.

If the powers that be want to paint any motorised two wheeled transport as dangerous and deserving of being legislated off the road, the general public will swallow it without question.

The only hope we have is by reversing the statistics that are being used against us.

Stop having so many accidents - it's that simple.

Yes we can reduce the accident rate, stuff in process as we speak. BUT we should not have to pay the government the levy hikes while we do so.
The government justify the hikes by their shonky stats, I oppose this, others do too. So we keep looking for the slight of hand and the statistical party tricks that they have used to fool the public, and we expose them.
The levy hikes remain unjust, discriminatory and unnecessary.
They are in fact Theft by Deception.
Keep on going Bogan...

**Berries** · 30th October 2010, 22:07

Originally Posted by NONONO

Berries...So on the crash report form (filled out by the police) is there a tick box that states Moped, under 50cc and one for Motorcycle?

Yes, see attached.

Click image for larger version.

Name: grab3.jpg
Views: 15
Size: 49.9 KB
ID: 222445

**bogan** · 30th October 2010, 22:44

Originally Posted by Katman

Are you serious?

We are having waaaay too many accidents that could have easily been avoided.

Sometimes you need to take a step back in order to take two steps forward.

read what I said, thier stats already overstate our accident rate, if we lower it will they stop overstating it? I'm thinking not. Imo the ACC issue will not be won by trying to lower our accidents (take years to get any measurable results). However, this doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to reduce accidents as well, reducing them is reward enough in itself.

**Winston001** · 30th October 2010, 23:26

Pardon me for being a pedant but the word "Lean" for most motorcyclists means the angle they adopt going through a corner. I thought this thread was going to be about leaning angles and tyre adhesion and the effect of mass.

If you want to establish there is a "bias", simply say so.

Then again, tyres have bias so........

**mashman** · 30th October 2010, 23:53

Originally Posted by Berries

I can, making the assumption that serious injuries require hospital treatment whereas minor injuries don't. But........ car vs motorbike. Which category should that be in ?

I'm a little pissed up at the mo, good party

, so may have read your category thing wrongly, but i'm not looking to assign fault. The car v motorbike is road based, the result of all hospitalised accidents for cars and motorbikes, irrespective of how where when and why, just the base numbers. Whether it's a bike crash that was caused by a car or a car crash cause by a bike is neither here nor there for the question I was looking to get answered. Just what the hospitalisation numbers for each was. Is it possible without further definition? I'm no looking to split them between serious and "cosmetic" accidents, as one of my assumptions is that if you're admitted it may just be for a check up... that still costs money. However, if there is that distinction, it may be worth exploring at a later date.

Please correct me if ive read you wrongly, bloody interweb and alcohol... gawd that took a long time to type up

**Berries** · 31st October 2010, 06:48

Originally Posted by mashman

I'm a little pissed up at the mo, good party

, so may have read your category thing wrongly, but i'm not looking to assign fault. The car v motorbike is road based, the result of all hospitalised accidents for cars and motorbikes, irrespective of how where when and why, just the base numbers. Whether it's a bike crash that was caused by a car or a car crash cause by a bike is neither here nor there for the question I was looking to get answered. Just what the hospitalisation numbers for each was. Is it possible without further definition? I'm no looking to split them between serious and "cosmetic" accidents, as one of my assumptions is that if you're admitted it may just be for a check up... that still costs money. However, if there is that distinction, it may be worth exploring at a later date.

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 ?