OK. I call bullshit on the AA

**scumdog** · 9th September 2005, 09:14

Good on you!!
Plus point out the liklihood of a motorcyclist killing three of his passenger and self in a crash....
And two cars can have a head-on, injuring eight people but only two lots of ACC levy have been paid (assuming both cars are registeres) -Yet we pay more in our ACC levy when in a worse-case scenario we could have two bikes colliding and four injured people???

**Lou Girardin** · 9th September 2005, 09:20

Originally Posted by Postie

its good to see you have put in the time to check up and look into some other stats, just a point though. The AA said that motorbikes are 80 more dangerous, not that they cause 80 times more fatalities, they were taking it to account injurys as well. I'm not supporting the AA, just wanted to point that out, as thats what the AA are gonna come back with.

that being said, give em hell

They didn't say either. They said more dangerous, which is meaningless.

**R1** · 9th September 2005, 09:26

Nice 1, fucken them up with there own stats.....I like it...

**WRT** · 9th September 2005, 09:47

Just remember, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Well, that and 76.5% of all statistics are made up.

And I think that comes with a margin of error of +/- 78%.

ANYWAY . . . Give 'em heaps . . . if we need to do another letter/email campaign to drive (err, ride) this home, then sing out!

**Lou Girardin** · 9th September 2005, 10:24

Those AA members here should be speaking to the AA now. (or have they?)

**SuperDave** · 9th September 2005, 10:30

Ixion Ixion Ixion!

Good Work

would love to hear what they have to say in response.

**zadok** · 9th September 2005, 10:34

Originally Posted by Ixion

The AA claimed today that motorcycles are 80 times as dangerous as cars (see the other threads on this for details)

Wot a cheek! Even without giving it a lot of thought, it sounds like an outrageous claim.

**Wolf** · 9th September 2005, 10:51

Originally Posted by zadok

Wot a cheek! Even without giving it a lot of thought, it sounds like an outrageous claim.

It's what we who have studied statistics call a "WAG" - Wild-Arsed Guess - just pick a number at random and use it.

An interesting statistic is that 94% of people would choose a more realistic sounding figure than 80.

**zadok** · 9th September 2005, 10:55

Originally Posted by Wolf

An interesting statistic is that 94% of people would choose a more realistic sounding figure than 80.

I think 99.9% of K.B's would agree.

**DemonWolf** · 9th September 2005, 10:59

Well as a AA member.. I've sent a email to ghunting@aa.co.nz with my concerns over the "80 times...'blah" comment.

Will be interesting to see if I get a response.

**Sniper** · 9th September 2005, 11:06

You won't. AA head office are a bunch of Wankers!! Often they find the need to "lose" or membership with them. How do you "lose" a $300000 membership when we need you to help us out? You never lose it when you want payement. Arsebeggers!

**chickenfunkstar** · 9th September 2005, 11:43

Good onya Ixion, nice findings.

As other people have said however, observational sutdies in statistics can show pretty much what you want them to show. It would be impossible to get accurate findings in a study like this as you'd never be able to control all the variables anyway.
Give me some accident data and i'm pretty sure I could 'prove' that having a moustache made you a safer driver / rider.

**scumdog** · 9th September 2005, 11:51

Originally Posted by chickenfunkstar

Good onya Ixion, nice findings.

Give me some accident data and i'm pretty sure I could 'prove' that having a moustache made you a safer driver / rider.

I have and it does....