Crash statistics

[swbarnett]

Its physical size that puts us more at risk than trucks and buses

My physical size (and maneuverability) when riding has allowed me to escape to safety where a car or truck could not. Only once since I started riding in 1982 has it gotten me into any kind of trouble.

its not rocket science.

No, rocket science is actually simpler.

[swbarnett]

Statistically, out of 107 billion people that have ever lived, 7 billion are still alive.

And that's about 6 billion or more too many. Why are we all so worried about losing a few more and doing the human race a favour? Besides, it's better to live a short, happy life than a long, safe and boring one.

[FJRider]

Its physical size that puts us more at risk than trucks and buses its not rocket science. We should not necessarily be paying higher ACC than other motorists because of it though.

Here was I thinking ... It was lack of physical size that does not help us .... And the lack of a steel cage around us ...

[FJRider]

... No, rocket science is actually simpler.

Yep ... light the fuse and hang on ..

Oh wait .... that does sound like a Group Race ... oop's RIDE ...

[eldog]

Agreed.


Probably. Would be good to see all categories broken down as much as possible.


Or.... We could make this whole discussion null an void and just evenly distribute the ACC cost via income tax. This is, of course, the main reason that most people are interested in these stats.

Of course there is the other salient point that it matters not if motorcyclists are 100 times more likely to kill themselves than car drivers. Charging motorcyclists more is just ideological prejudice. You don't see mountain climbers or sky divers charged according to the risk involved in their chosen activity.

We are an easy target......
easy to say we are unsafe, look at accident rate(not all accidents caused by mbikes but involve them, road, cars, drunks etc.)
easy to put cost in rego
Easy political & media target

need to make it harder for 'them' to pin stuff onto us.
maybe include cost in fuel tax, replace the upcoming tax reduction by increasing ACC part in fuel and keeping cost the same. (no one will notice aye)
reduce cost for multiple bike regos if 1 can be on road or make them day rego on line-got to think outside square a bit

[eldog]

Here was I thinking ... It was lack of physical size that does not help us .... And the lack of a steel cage around us ...

we could get a lot of air bags most new cars have 5 or 7 or more
increase penalty for at fault cage drivers who injure mbike riders

[swbarnett]

We are an easy target......
easy to say we are unsafe, look at accident rate(not all accidents caused by mbikes but involve them, road, cars, drunks etc.)
easy to put cost in rego
Easy political & media target

Only because we are small in number. If we get more people riding we won't be such an easy target.

need to make it harder for 'them' to pin stuff onto us.
maybe include cost in fuel tax, replace the upcoming tax reduction by increasing ACC part in fuel and keeping cost the same. (no one will notice aye)
reduce cost for multiple bike regos if 1 can be on road or make them day rego on line-got to think outside square a bit

Just put the cost ACC where it belongs - in income tax. Solves the problem of ACC related motorcycle prejudice.

[baffa]

I assume scooters are included in the Motorcycle stats?

I'd love to see some sort of No Claims Dicount applied to ACC.
Crash your dirt bike, your car rego rises slightly.
Drive and ride without injuries for a year or three, all your regos drop slightly.
That way they don't prejudice your chosen transport and entertainment choices, just what you cost the system.

[swbarnett]

... just what you cost the system.

Why do you have insurance? By your reasoning everyone should be paying 100% of their own accident costs.

The whole point of insurance (and ACC) is to spread the risk because of the detrimental affects on society if people are left to pick up their own pieces.

[baffa]

Why do you have insurance? By your reasoning everyone should be paying 100% of their own accident costs.

The whole point of insurance (and ACC) is to spread the risk because of the detrimental affects on society if people are left to pick up their own pieces.

Not at all. After all Insurance is to offset risk, as most cannot afford or justify covering their own.
ACC is just a State owned insurance Company.
If a private insurance company charged premiums solely on what they perceived as high risk, without taking into account historic data and claims history, they would be pretty inefficient. It is one of the few industries allowed by the Human rights act to assess people based on factors such as age, gender, etc. I highly doubt you'd be happy to pay the same premium on insurance for your vehicle that a 19 year old with a history of serious accidents would pay.

[swbarnett]

Not at all. After all Insurance is to offset risk, as most cannot afford or justify covering their own.

Which is exactly what I said.

ACC is just a State owned insurance Company.

It's not supposed to be.

If a private insurance company charged premiums solely on what they perceived as high risk, without taking into account historic data and claims history, they would be pretty inefficient. It is one of the few industries allowed by the Human rights act to assess people based on factors such as age, gender, etc. I highly doubt you'd be happy to pay the same premium on insurance for your vehicle that a 19 year old with a history of serious accidents would pay.

If the premiums were spread evenly across everyone I would have no problem with it. I know mine would go up but I don't see why someone that partakes in "risky" behaviour should be penalised for it.

I'd like to see all insurance scrapped in favour of a Government run scheme similar to what ACC is supposed to be. That way the whole country carries the risk and pays pro-rata based on income. Kind of like an Amish barn raising ala "Witness".

[eldog]

Just put the cost ACC where it belongs - in income tax. Solves the problem of ACC related motorcycle prejudice.

income tax, how does this cover children, beneficeries, crims and those who work under the table?

I would think increase in ACC petrol tax would be a far greater coverage and spreader of ACC levies.
High power and large cc bikes use more petrol - supposed higher risk compared to low power low cc bikes.

only problem is non oil based fuels/energy sources.

do we need to look at electric bikes? what sort of risk? because they dont have a cc rating
what ACC do they pay for?

like you i dont mind spreading it around evenly, just somethings seem to be a higher risk (eg offroad riding) and they dont seem to pay directly apart from fuel.

i dont think there is a silver bullet and i havent researched it enough to be any kind of expert.

I was only looking at it from a multiple bike owner perspective

[eldog]

I have been in a few accidents in my time mostly through work.
Not claimed any ACC, no time off or major injuries. just simple things gone wrong.
Apart from my mbike accident, I got back on the bike and rode it home.

Didnt even get an xray when visited doc. My ACC I didnt even take time off.
Maybe I should have and become a greater crash stat.

Suggest everyone who has an accident to goto doctor and get ACC number just in case something goes wrong-later.

from the OP looks to me that we need to either reduce the number of deaths/accidents OR increase the number of k's we drive. If more bikes on road then less ks the cagers will have driven. Should we include the number of ks offroad and farm bikes travel if they (those involved in mbike accidents also include these types?) this would reduce it too.

I say we should ride more ks and get more action about roads (conditions) and mbike awareness - more stuff on bikes to make them stand out, not just fluro jackets, soon there will be so many, people will become blase about them and not see them. Still wont save those knocked about by poor driving/riding

those smallpulsing LED lights are the go. they are a good start.

[swbarnett]

income tax, how does this cover children, beneficeries, crims and those who work under the table?

Children are covered in the same way that they are for other things. Beneficiaries are getting a handout anyway so no big deal there. As for crims, they're a drain on society anyway so again, no real difference.

The same same argument could be made for public hospitals. They're funded out of income tax. I still think this is the fairest alternative we have.

[rastuscat]

There's a critical mass point that folk need to know about.

When there are enough motorcycles on the road, people driving other vehicles will learn to factor them into their driving. Until that number is reached, people don't expect to see them.

It's kind of self defeating. Until there are enough, it's less safe. Coz it's less safe, less will take up the option of riding. If more took it up, it'd be more safe.

It's the same for cycling. The argument there is that if you build a safer infrastructure for urban cycling, it'll increase the safety, which will increase the numbers, which will increase the safety.

There's safety in numbers, but not so much in the pack riding around as a group. It's the general saturation of motorcyclists in the general motoring population.