LTSA Stats....

[wkid_one]

Guys & Girls - I have been doing some research as I tend to take the Police and LTSA to taks on some important things...Yes - I have too much time on my hands!!!

Read this in conjuction with the attachment...

Some interesting stats here...(rolling 12 month av to January 31st 2003)

Mode of Transport	Deaths		Injuries
Car	316	(78%)	10847	(82%)
Bikes	28	(7%)	723	(5.5%)
Cyclists	14	(3.5%)	730	(6%)
Pedestrians	47	(12%)	993	(7.5%)
NZ Totals	405	(100%)	13316	(100%)

What is wrong with these figures if you are a motorcyclist.

• LTSA says motorcycle registrations are hitting all time high! - yet we make up the 2 lowest group of fatalities on the road after CYCLISTS AND BEFORE PEDESTRIANS!
• We are being taxed the highest for vehicle useage yet with have a lower injury percentage than any other form of transport (this doesn't factor in severity of injury) - indicating we are no more likely to get injured than any other mode of transport!  Why do we pay 50% more to register our bikes - these stats don't support the necessity??  We also tend to use our bikes less and use less roading resources.
• Why the hell aren't we taxing pedestrians - they almost have twice as many deaths as motorcyclists and more injuries??  Maybe they should wear helmets
• What is all the fuss about motorcycles being dangerous, as we make up but a small proportion of accidents and deaths.
• Of the car stats - 1/3 we attributeable to passengers - something we largely don't have an issue with on bikes.  Think you can have one car accident and kill 5 people, or worse, kill none, but permanently maim all five......you'd be one wicked stunt rider to pull that off on a bike!
• Cyclist have more injuries than motorcyclist, yet any pleb can get a bike?  Where are the efforts to regulate cycle traffic on NZ roads?  You don't have to register a cycle or get a WOF, hell you don't even have to be over 15?
• These stats also don't reflect the cause of injury - ie cars not giving a stuff about bikes!  Where is the education of car drivers to inform them that we, as motorcyclists, actually have a right to be on the road!
• I can find no stats as to Lane Splitting injuries or deaths (sorry, I am on that soap box again I know)
• Also, injuries aren't split out by group and cause - but roading quality accounted for almost 10% of OPen Road Accidents - it would be interesting to see what percentage of these were motorcyclists

This is all just food for thought - but I believe it makes a convincing argument....my conclusions:

• Motorcycling is a shit load safer than the authorities have as believe
• The LTSA should be focused on other modes of transport before bikes
• Given the risk of injury, no motorbiker puts him or herself at risk - yet car drivers seem to drive with reckless abandon - knowing the risk to them is usually limited to panel damage and an insurance claim (if they bloody have it)
• There are no stats to validate the present 'anti-biker' mentality of police and goverment - in fact on the figures above - they should be proud of how we ride.
• Yes we speed - but we appear to be able to do it a lot safer than others

Well my tirade over, I go now to present this to my MP and send to the LTSA and Police for comment!  Fat chance I will get a reply - but I will feel betta

Dan

 

[bluninja]

WKID, amazing what you can do with stats

BTW if you look at accident/deaths per KM travelled cycling and walking come out to be extremely dangerous forms of transport. Sadly I have looked at LTSA stats from time to time. Without a consistent way of objectively recording data these stats will always be a political tool. After all speed is a contributary factor in every vehicle accident (one vehicle al least has to be moving at speed to cause the accident).

One interesting thing thing was the number of open road motorbike accidents on bends. Clearly we have an opportunity to reduce these by improving cornering skills.......OR remove bikes that don't corner well (Harley's anyone?)....educate the car drivers who insist on cutting across the bends....OR stop them tipping piles of metal on the road surafce without addequate signage.

TTFN

[What?]

Be careful who you give that info to, Wkid. Stuffed if I want to pay rego and ACC levies on my jandals

Imagine air bags on a pushy...

[MikeL]

I'm confused If these are valid LSTA statistics, what was the basis for upping the rego/ACC levy?? Have we been conned?
Or is there more to it?
As Mark Twain said, there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Hoon]

You can't make those conclusions as you are comparing different sized groups.  If the group populations were equal (i.e. same number of motorcylists, car, peds and cyclists) then you could make valid comparisons.

You need to know the total users of each mode and convert all the above data into a "percentage of total users".

At the moment, say you have a sample set of 100 people, 90 of them drive and 10 ride bikes.  You are comparing the results of 90 drivers to only 10 bikers.  If say 8 drivers and 1 biker die, driving would still be safer than biking (8.8% fatality rate compared to 10% for bikers).

Hence the reason pedestrians rate highly because almost everyone in NZ walks along the street whereas only say 10% ride bikes.

Accident/deaths per KM travelled are not fair comparisons either as the average cars/bike trip is a lot further than your average cycle or walk.

[wkid_one]

Realise all that information, and have to look at miles done etc - however on the face of it (this is data from the LTSA Website) we ARE being conned.

I am well aware of the statistic merits of the comparisons I have done, however based on the statistic sample size (this is a 12 month rolling average - with over 13,000 injuries) the information is statistically valid based on the information I have.

You are correct in that further information is required to break this down - which I have - however given it is a document about 97 pages long - I thought you could all have the condensed version!

In essence, Motorcyclists are not as dangerous as a unit on the road as we are both led to believe and legislated against.  We, by the very nature of the fact we ARE more likely to be injuried if we come off, are more cautious and safer in the nature of our driving.  We tend to be better trained and seek more 'advanced training' the car drivers.

The basis for the information provided as to number of accidents, still doesn't validate an increase in ACC premiums on our registration - as a percentage, our accident rates have actually been declining (or at worst stable) - yet our registration numbers are increasing!

 

[Slim]

Interestingly enough, I was just looking at this last week in response to a comment from a Canadian re: statistics from accidents, from a Canadian motorcycle site.

Here's what I found on the ACC Site :

"ACC has increased the motorcycle levies to more closely reflect the higher degree of crash involvement and subsequent cost of motorcyclists injuries," and "Motorcycles represent about 3% of the motor vehicle fleet. However, entitlement costs for people injured in crashes involving motorcycles represent about 30% of the total motor vehicle account costs." and, just to really stump you, "Motorcycles do not consume as much petrol as a standard vehicle and are therefore not bearing the full costs of injuries for their class."

Huh? And I always thought petrol tax was meant to be spent on roading & policing & education and stuff. I had no idea that part of my petrol tax was another ACC levy!


I still reckon accident statistics should be attributed by blame, not involvement.

[wkid_one]

Yea, ACC is made up as a component of Petrol Tax.  We are the highest company for tax on Petrol in the Western World - ie of each dollar we spend on petrol we have the highest gross percentage that is attirbutable to tax.  Every time we get a price drop that is sustainable, the government taxes petrol even heavier - yet when we have a sustained price rise - there is no commensurate reduction in this tax!

Yes we use less petrol, however we also only use 2 and 4/3 square inches of road when we ride, we generally ride our bike less, we require less parking facilities, we generally have lower emmissions, we are a more efficient user of petrol, and we don't contribute to motorway and inner city congestion - all things that the so-called LTSA tax is for on petrol.

If you also look at something else - Diesel is so cheap in NZ, because the tax is paid seperately - in the form of Road Users Charges - yet, how many Diesels vehicles in NZ are NOT paying this tax, and thereby getting away with driving their vehicle 'tax free' to a point.  And if they get caught - $400 - whoopee!  Why haven't they included the tax at the pump for 'non-commercial' diesel vehicles!.

Why don't we tax vehicles the MORE they use the road!  Why are commercial trucking firms etc not taxed more - they have a heavier impact on the road......why is NZ a one size fits all economy when it comes to tax!

[bluninja]

Errr...WKID petrol in the UK is round the $2 a litre mark.....since the petrol is the same price...the difference must be tax...so I would disagree that NZ has the highest fuel tax.

Great thought provoking post though, sorry if people took my comments about per km accident rates literally.......it was merely an example of how things can be skewed if people ask the wrong questions.

TTFN

[What?]

On the button, bluninja. You can make statistics say what ever you want them to. In fact, it is often simplest to use them to disprove the facts that generated them.(?)

So here is a dilemma for you all... The LTSA, and similar bodies around the world, tell us that the majority of crashes happen close to home. On the surface, this would indicate the "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome; people when near home relax too much, or take risks because "they know the road".

 But, what if the close to home crash rate is attributable to those drivers who do very little mileage, i.e. never venture far from home and/or don't drive much? What would they do to us if it was proved that your crash likelyhood actually decreased as your average weekly mileage increased?

If we all think back to our learner days, is this scenario too difficult to imagine? Personally, I believe my skill level rose with experience, therefore I should think my crash likelyhood, as a result of my own actions at least, has correspondingly decreased.

Argh - my head hurts. Mark Twain was right.:bigthumb:

[Hoon]

The close-to-home stats also cannot be trusted without considering the overall percentage of travel time spent "close to home" (likeWhat? says)

Without even looking at the numbers I would expect a higher number of accidents to occur close to home because the average driver spends a larger portion of their seat time driving locally (shopping, visiting, going to work, taking the kids to school etc).  Even far-from-home trips include the close-to-home component when leaving and returning home.

I travel to AKL CBD everyday, whereas my mum rarely goes more than 5 kms from her home.

Even if the average kiwi driver spent 60% of their wheel time locally this would skew the results in that favour.

[Coldkiwi]

I'm not sure about bikers taking less risks than car drivers. there are some bikers out there who are intent on taking risks with their tyres.... and desires to point their bikes in the wrong direction to see what happens when it all goes west -nudge nudge,wink wink,say no more, say no MORE!! (specially not about turbo kwakas....)

but I should think the percentage might be about the same given the large numbers of riders who only pull the bike out in the weekend for a leasurely cruise.

howver I have no idea of the numbers so I'll stop wasting webspace with my uninformed dribble

[merv]

Relating the crash rate vs cars etc is probably not what ACC look at. They are like an insurance company and their real issue is cost of payouts. So they will have put our rates up based on the number of bikes registered versus the costs still going out the door and expected to go out the door to injured bikers. The dead ones probably don't worry ACC too much, but the legacy of injured ones would.

The hard part is comparing registered vehicles to cyclists and pedestrians where there is no additional recovery of costs. So no doubt we are paying for them overall in our earnings related ACC charges then we are paying on top as drivers and bikers.

I don't think they should differentiate registered motor vehicles for extra charges because the same doesn't apply to jetskis, rugby playing or any other activity that has no registration type fee that can be levied.

It justs seems they try to suck money from wherever it can be sucked.

The LTSA website shows detailed stats regarding types of crashes etc and for sure, bikers have too many single vehicle, crashing on straight roads and failing to take a corner type accidents. This has happened on some of our Ulysses rides in the past where I have been amazed that some people have just run off the road and generally when they are not going that fast. I do wonder are we all getting too bloody old and our eyesight is failing. I can't see age related stats on the LTSA site so I am not sure if that is an issue. On average though the age of bikers is probably greater than 30 years ago. Most young guys buy a boy racer type car these days.

Ride safely and with time that is the only way the premiums will come down if their are less injuries to pay for.

[MikeL]

Merv
That was an unwarranted slur on fellow Ulyssians We are not too old and our eyesight is still good enough to see the white lines. If some of us are wandering off the road it must be because of distractions or the sudden urgent need to empty our bladder.
If age is relevant, I think it's more likely to be a positive factor. From my observations there are definitely fewer younger riders proportionally than when I first started riding 30 years ago - at that time it was predominantly a young person's sport (late teens to late twenties) and it was relatively rare to see anyone in their forties or older. Considering the statistics for young male car drivers, I believe the motorbike injury/fatality rate would be much higher if the average age had not shifted so much. Experience must count for something!
Anyone seen any statistics for motorbike accidents/deaths by age group?

[bluninja]

Hmmmm, my only ride out with Ulysses one person ran off at a corner and up a path almost coming off.....apparently desperate for a pee . Another was riding a 955i without even a restricted license and was pretty wobbly come the twisty bits. Now I'm old enough to ride with them (officially) I'm not sure I would want to....they may feel the same way about me.

Yes I've seen the stats for age related deaths it's actually in the attachment WKID put in. Yes they do drop off after age 35 and then again at 44 (perhaps Ulysses should increase their membership age ). Again without knowing the number of riders of varying age the information is pretty much useless. In fact on the anecdotal observances of the previous posters (removes dictionary from mouth) of more mature riders than young guns; it could appear that young riders are even more at risk of death and injury riding a bike.

What annoys me the most is that the ACC is not investigating the causes of the higher (pedestrian/cyclist/motorcyclist) death and injury rate and making an effort to reduce the payouts by working on the causal factors. This has bugger all to do with blame or liability, so they should be ploughing some of this cash into reducing the accidents in the first place.

Instead of running prime time TV ads of mums tripping over kids toys, men stepping out of a shower(in an unfeasibly large shower room) and smacking their head, and not to cook chips at the end of a night out.....why not work on the government to get some decent driver training and education before they are allowed on the roads with an emphasis on vunerable road users.

TTFN