Car vs. Bike crashes and injuries etc.

**Badjelly** · 25th February 2008, 12:33

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

No I'm talking about the stats which are in terms of "injuries", what defines and injury?

No, you said

stats in general is pretty bullshit anyway,

so why should anyone bother looking for the stats you can't be bothered looking for?

And here was I thinking my first response was a bit rude!

**Ixion** · 25th February 2008, 12:40

Statistical figures on injuries are slewed, though, because so often when a bike goes down, some well meaning bystander will call an ambo." OMG there's a motorbike crashed he's in a hundred peices come quick". Whereas of course, two cars crash with no or minor injuries, no-one takes much notice.

Ambo rolls up, finds biker morosely trying to kick his bent bike straight enough to ride (or, kick the idiot of had him off). Biker either not injured or minor scratch. Wouldn't even go to the doctor if he'd been in a car. But, the ambo guys , being professional, want to check him out. Which they do, and that makes him a statistic.

And NO-ONE has been able to get a definative answer on the issue of off road and farm bike accidents shoing up in the motorcycle figures. I suspect they do, but can't prove it.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 12:55

Originally Posted by Badjelly

No, you said

so why should anyone bother looking for the stats you can't be bothered looking for?

And here was I thinking my first response was a bit rude!

Well sorry mate but top statisticians will tell you that nothing is definite in their answers ok? Even "38 motorcyclists killed in 2006", is this on road, does it include scooters, farm bikes, trikes, quads? How do you know they're even crashes? Maybe some were heart attacks but they just happened to be riding?

You tell me Badjelly.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 13:10

Originally Posted by MacD

All this is available at the Ministry of Transport Research site.

The MoT even produce a Motorcycle-specific Crash Statistcs publication.

The usual figure given is that motorcyclists are around 14 times more likely to be involved in an injury or fatal accident than a car driver for the same distance travelled.

Motorcycling is a risky pastime. Understanding the risks is one of the best things you can do for your own self-preservation.

In 2006, 38 motorcyclists were killed. That's one every 9.5 days on average. It's not surprising we see newspaper reports or RIP threads on KB as often as we do.

(edit: Beaten to it by BadJelly!)

Twice as many people were murdered in 2006 (63) than biker fatalities, with another 34 people who tried to be killed (attempted homicide). There were 4,116 grevious assaults on people and 17,729 serious assaults.

I'm just trying to put this all in perspective with the theme that maybe motorcycling isn't really THAT dangerous in the scheme of things. If you just look at the stats then we are TWICE as likely to be MURDERED in NZ than to die in a motorbike crash! And 575 TIMES more likely to be at least seriously assaulted than to die in a crash!

I'm just throwing the idea out there that motorcycling isn't any more dangerous (if not less) than just living life in NZ around murderers and the such.

**Badjelly** · 25th February 2008, 13:12

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

Twice as many people were murdered in 2006 (63) than biker fatalities, with another 34 people who tried to be killed (attempted homicide). There were 4,116 grevious assaults on people and 17,729 serious assaults.

I'm just trying to put this all in perspective with the theme that maybe motorcycling isn't really THAT dangerous in the scheme of things. If you just look at the stats then we are TWICE as likely to be MURDERED in NZ than to die in a motorbike crash! And 575 TIMES more likely to be at least seriously assaulted than to die in a crash!

I'm just throwing the idea out there that motorcycling isn't any more dangerous (if not less) than just living life in NZ around murderers and the such.

Well sorry mate but top statisticians will tell you that nothing is definite in their answers ok?

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 13:17

Originally Posted by Badjelly

Well sorry mate but top statisticians will tell you that nothing is definite in their answers ok?

Ah but you see it's the other way around now. Even if every little injury and type of bike is counted, we're still twice as likely to be murdered.

A murder is a murder, a biker death is a biker death, stats do not say whether it's only road bikes or what, but even if it's every bike in NZ I'm still right in saying we're more likely to be murdered than to die in a crash.

**Badjelly** · 25th February 2008, 13:31

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

A murder is a murder, a biker death is a biker death, stats do not say whether it's only road bikes or what, but even if it's every bike in NZ I'm still right in saying we're more likely to be murdered than to die in a crash.

What I'm objecting to is your cynicism about statistics, which I think is a cop-out. You ask, casually, about statistics and then dismiss them, casually. You're not going to get anywhere useful with that approach. Of course statistics have limitations, but then why start a discussion about statistics?

I could argue that some of the murders are might be misclassified, as might some of the motorbike fatalities. But yes, I agree that on average a member of the NZ population is more likely to be murdered than die in a motorbike accident.

On the other hand, I think that I am much more likely to die in a motorbike crash than be murdered, because: a) I ride a motorbike; b) I'm not in any of the groups at high risk for being murdered (young male, woman with abusive partner, etc). What I choose to do about this situation is up to me.

**Ixion** · 25th February 2008, 13:39

You are not properly defining your populations.

The number of motorcycle deaths must be considered as a percentage of the total number of motorcyclists. Not the population of the country as a whole *(maybe motorcyclists and pillions).

That is avery very hard number to determine, but it's way less than the population of the country

Logically, anyone can be the victim of murder. But you can only be killed riding a motorcycle if you ride a motorcycle.

But I agree with you that the damgerousness of motorcycling is over stated by the layman.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 13:44

Originally Posted by Badjelly

What I'm objecting to is your cynicism about statistics, which I think is a cop-out. You ask, casually, about statistics and then dismiss them, casually. You're not going to get anywhere useful with that approach. Of course statistics have limitations, but then why start a discussion about statistics?

I could argue that some of the murders are might be misclassified, as might some of the motorbike fatalities. But yes, I agree that on average a member of the NZ population is more likely to be murdered than die in a motorbike accident.

On the other hand, I think that I am much more likely to die in a motorbike crash than be murdered, because: a) I ride a motorbike; b) I'm not in any of the groups at high risk for being murdered (young male, woman with abusive partner, etc). What I choose to do about this situation is up to me.

Many people in the world ask for real life, well written statistics based on very well conducted surveys or experiments. Yet the statistics that gets thrown at them are either rubbish or yeah kinda there but not quite.

I don't think there's a problem in my asking for some reasonable stats but not fully agreeing with some given due to wording and methods of survey.

You told me to get off my lazy ass and search for the stats I'm after... Well pretty obviously there are no results that suit what my topic is after. There are results that are close, but have offputting factors such as "the driver of the car" and "motorbikes", results that don't specify what I'm after.

**Ragingrob** · 25th February 2008, 13:51

Originally Posted by Ixion

You are not properly defining your populations.

The number of motorcycle deaths must be considered as a percentage of the total number of motorcyclists. Not the population of the country as a whole *(maybe motorcyclists and pillions).

That is avery very hard number to determine, but it's way less than the population of the country

Logically, anyone can be the victim of murder. But you can only be killed riding a motorcycle if you ride a motorcycle.

But I agree with you that the damgerousness of motorcycling is over stated by the layman.

It's exactly results like these that I'm after, but can not find! You'd think all crash statistics should be proportional (ie motorcycle deaths as a ratio of motorcyclist as the percentage of road users, compared to car occupant deaths as a ratio of cars as the percentage of road users. With motorcycles being defined as road-registered as to not include farm accidents, and not including scooters.

Then and only then may we have a fair representation of how much more dangerous motorcycling is compared to sitting in a car.

Gosh, I was only just interested after all!

Just a bit sick of all this "biking is dangerous" mentality that the general public have, when even things like work related accidents occur just as often... At least we're enjoying our passion huh

**Badjelly** · 25th February 2008, 13:53

Yeah

**Ixion** · 25th February 2008, 14:07

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

It's exactly results like these that I'm after, but can not find! You'd think all crash statistics should be proportional (ie motorcycle deaths as a ratio of motorcyclist as the percentage of road users, compared to car occupant deaths as a ratio of cars as the percentage of road users. With motorcycles being defined as road-registered as to not include farm accidents, and not including scooters.

Then and only then may we have a fair representation of how much more dangerous motorcycling is compared to sitting in a car.

Gosh, I was only just interested after all!

Just a bit sick of all this "biking is dangerous" mentality that the general public have, when even things like work related accidents occur just as often... At least we're enjoying our passion huh

Not possible.

There is no legal definitioon of a scooter. nearest you could go is to exclude mopeds (though the justification for such exclusion seems debateable)

And we have no reliable figure for how many motorcyclists there are on the road.

We know how many people have a class 6x licence, but many (most ?) of those are people who got a bike licence years and years ago and haven't ridden for years and years (like Helen Clark).

And we know how many registered motorcycles there are, but we don't know how many people have more than one (though you'd think that the PTB could work that one out .)

**FROSTY:Me** · 25th February 2008, 14:07

Originally Posted by Ixion

And NO-ONE has been able to get a definative answer on the issue of off road and farm bike accidents shoing up in the motorcycle figures. I suspect they do, but can't prove it.

Dude I can tell you for a FACT my accident. ---Sports injury not on public roads was concidered to be a MOTORCYCLE accident

**avgas** · 25th February 2008, 14:27

Breathing is dangerous, but its one of those damned if you do, damned if you dont.
If you stop breathing you die, if you keep breathing you could inhale poisonous gasses. I take the same approach to riding.
When you have a big crash and have the big choice - you will understand. I will respect what ever choice you make as well. I have many friends that have stopped riding.
To fear riding is to fear death itself.

**swbarnett** · 25th February 2008, 15:42

Originally Posted by Ragingrob

You'd think all crash statistics should be proportional (ie motorcycle deaths as a ratio of motorcyclist as the percentage of road users, compared to car occupant deaths as a ratio of cars as the percentage of road users.

Even this would be wildly misleading. What is needed is deaths per km travelled or perhaps deaths per unit of riding time.