ACC - Here we go again

[Berries]

Nice work Berries must spread rep although your cc breakdown is a little biased as all other groups stepped by 100cc ish although it’s prob correct that the big baggers are over represented.
Just thinking of making a sudden direction change or effective emergency braking with the mass and geometry of that style of bike mitigates the desire to own something like that purely to experience the big cc twin torque outputs.
Yes perhaps we argue a bigger cc bracket to seperate that lot but trouble is the likes of your big ktms and Africa twins keep sneaking up in cc to pass emissions tests so we’d end up penalising some slightly safer riders also.
Is there any data on riders type and quality of protective wear?

They might record 'restraint use' for a car occupant but there is no field for helmet use. Certainly nothing in the crash data about clothing.

The cc breakdown was just because that is what I was interested in, so bias was intended. With a couple of Triumph Rockets in there it would have doubled the number of columns required to split everything by 100cc.

One issue shown on this ACC graph is that the actual number of claims isn't that much different between bike sizes, it is just that the average cost per claim goes up with engine size. I don't really get why that is given that if you come off a bike at 100km/h it doesn't really matter what bike you were sitting on a few seconds earlier.

changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles

[jellywrestler]

One issue shown on this ACC graph is that the actual number of claims isn't that much different between bike sizes, it is just that the average cost per claim goes up with engine size. I don't really get why that is given that if you come off a bike at 100km/h it doesn't really matter what bike you were sitting on a few seconds earlier.

changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles

older riders taking longer to rehabilitate?

[Berries]

This table shows age and engine size. You can interpret it in many ways but you are probably right. Old bones etc.

[SaferRides]

One issue shown on this ACC graph is that the actual number of claims isn't that much different between bike sizes, it is just that the average cost per claim goes up with engine size. I don't really get why that is given that if you come off a bike at 100km/h it doesn't really matter what bike you were sitting on a few seconds earlier.

changing-the-classification-of-motorcycles

It does matter what protection you have, and the typical cruiser rider dresses more for style than protection. One simple example is helmet type, as I've damaged the front of two full face helmets in crashes over the years. There could have been significant treatment costs otherwise.



Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

[R650R]

Bigger engine size could be behind more complex injury. Even a low speed fall becomes nasty if you have an ankle smasher due to bigger bike size. Seems a common theme in ADV circles.
Then there’s the increased likelihood of high side style crashes with more horsepower.

[onearmedbandit]

Then there’s the increased likelihood of high side style crashes with more horsepower.

Even on a cruiser? Maybe torque related lower speed incidents I guess (slippery roundabouts etc).

[pete376403]

older riders taking longer to rehabilitate?

But old riders will die sooner (aging out, not crash injury) so wont need to be supported by ACC for so long.

[Racing Dave]

I have several mates who are in the low km bracket for various reasons work hours/money/wife/kids etc and I think a lack of kms is higher risk. Although they are exposed less they are not keeping their eye in and maintaining skill level. There’s a reason why the USAF wastes thousands of tons of jet fuel on training when pilots are already at top gun level.

You may THINK that lack of km is an aggravating factor, but is there any data to back that up? I'm not aware that annual distance traveled is recorded anywhere in the crash statistics. Anecdotal evidence isn't the same as actual evidence.

The top gun analogy is a red herring. It's like saying that riders should have racetrack experience at the highest level.

[rastuscat]

You may THINK that lack of km is an aggravating factor, but is there any data to back that up?

Police re-certifications tend to prove this premise.

Police riders have to recertify each year to remain operational. If they don't ride much through the year, they have to do practise runs before trying the test.

Because riding skills are decaying skills. I know that myself, it takes a few kms to get back to the sharpness I once had.

Of course. I could be wrong. It's the interweb, after all.

[SpankMe]

Getting sick of this.

ACC is to pay to fix the person, not the vehicle, so why is it on the vehicle registration? Why not associate it with the person's driver's license. That way everyone just pays once and pays the same amount no matter what modes of transport they use through the year. Car, truck, motorbike, bicycle, electric scooter, half track, steam roller, whatever.

But it will same as last time. We have our little protest ride and the National party fucks us anyway.

[Hoonicorn]

​Engine size is probably because the rider goes out on the open road more. Smaller CC bikes like 250s are mostly owned by learners who stick to urban and suburban environments. There is possibly a link to aggressive rider behaviour on bigger cc bikes too (read: more likely to speed, do risky over-takes).

I definitely get the message that half the accidents don't involve other road users, ACC never fail to remind us of that stat. That still leaves a huge number of accidents being caused by car drivers. In fact, car drivers are so negligent, we've been spending hundreds of millions nationwide to create safe cycle lanes with cycle cam footage showing cars turning in front of cyclists and cutting them off.

If ACC were like an insurance policy based on liability, I think splitting the levy between drivers and riders seems fair until the government pushes for a higher standard of driver education.

[rastuscat]

​

If ACC were like an insurance policy based on liability, I think splitting the levy between drivers and riders seems fair until the government pushes for a higher standard of driver education.

That's a can of worms, right there.

Everyone thinks driver education is the answer, but they don't go and get driver education themselves.

And if they do, nobody wants to pay $300 for a day of being told how to keep left, how to not drive while using a phone or intoxicated, how to stop at stop signs, and how to indicate. Those who pay fro driver training get skid control, hazard avoidance sort of stuff, which they enjoy, and talk it up.

Take Ride Forever. ACC pays most of the cost of the attendance at Ride Forever courses. It's because ACC knows that Ride Forever courses reduce the injury risk (by up to 50%) for those riders who attend. But there are many who don't think they need it. Or who don't think it's necessary. Most, actually.

So yes, driver education is the key. But it's in a locked box at the bottom of a very deep ravine.

[nerrrd]

Been doing a bit more driving around Auckland city lately, I'd have to say that by far the majority of drivers are good, don't know if that's due to the lower speed limits around town calming things down (I guess we'll find out when they go back up again), but instances of people tailgating or trying to push others along seem to be rare. I have however noticed many pedestrians not checking for traffic before walking out onto the roads in the city, that's something you need to be on constant alert about, going back to the higher limits are going to make that a lot harder.

Road works are a different story, there are a lot of major road closures around the place at the moment, and the longer they're there, the less notice we seem to be able to take of the lower limits around them. I've noticed a few strategically placed 'your speed' signs popping up to remind people. If AT wanted to put some speed cameras around those sites, it'd be a bonanza for them.

So familiarity with the driving environment seems to be a big factor in driver behaviour, I'm not sure how you can 'educate' that out of people, especially given we tend to learn from experience, and the more often we push the limits without any adverse consequences, the less attention we pay to those limits.

[R650R]

You can educate but it’s a shift in attitude that is prob more important. There’s still too much of a culture of cats do this trucks do this instead of hey, here’s a risk how do I limit my exposure to that risk?
It seems ride forever participants reduce crash incidents by 27% and injury claims by 45%and that injury/death rates have levelled off since bad days of 90’s despite more bikers.
One thing worthy of note while browsing stats though is less injury accidents happen on open road and not for a good reason. It seems with higher speed it’s more likely a fatal outcome for motorcyclist interacting with roadside scenery or a moving object no matter whose fault it is. And of course ACC ends up paying out zero in that outcome.
The only clear thing from stats is life experience known as age seems to be a reduced risk group most likely as our health slowly deteriorates and we visit others in hospital our awareness of the need to avoid being there seems to rise exponentially.

[jellywrestler]

Cheers mate, Can't drive at the mo after new knee.Wife drove me to Palmy Hosp this morning.
Tell ya what, no way she'd be driving a Patrol car if she was a recruit !!!!!!!!!! Fail !!!
I just sat with my gob shut hahahahahahahahaha

it was only a few posts ago how you were saying how wonderful you were as a teacher and a role model on the road, what happened?