We have been pushing it hard in Central Otago!

[dipshit]

So, you got a reference to "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" in New Zealand yet?

You did say this to the press, so you must have some idea what you were talking about, yes..?

[davereid]

So, you got a reference to "most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" in New Zealand yet?

You are the one who cant find ANY data to support your argument. You keep on saying it is 40%.

Go on then. Either present your data or fuck off.

[dipshit]

HURT report was done in USA between 1976 and 1981 affect the results in comparison to NZ.

We can look at the population density - USA: 31/km², NZ: 16.1/km². Urban/rural mix is a bit harder to quantify,

The survey was conducted in the Los Angeles basin area only. (and roads leading into the surrounding hills) The survey started in 1976 and looked at accidents over a two-year period and was published in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report

I don't know how populated the Los Angeles basin was in the late 70's, but today it looks to be an extremely heavily populated area. So you basically have a survey that was conducted in a large metropolitan area. This will naturally show more car vs bike accidents than what you would see over NZ as a whole.

[dipshit]

You are the one who cant find ANY data to support your argument. You keep on saying it is 40%.

Go on then. Either present your data or fuck off.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

[Mikkel]

The survey was conducted in the Los Angeles basin area only. (and roads leading into the surrounding hills) The survey started in 1976 and looked at accidents over a two-year period and was published in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report

I don't know how populated the Los Angeles basin was in the late 70's, but today it looks to be an extremely heavily populated area. So you basically have a survey that was conducted in a large metropolitan area. This will naturally show more car vs bike accidents than what you would see over NZ as a whole.

That is a fair point. I went to the wikipedia page for the Hurt report - but only took the country and years from it.

Nonetheless, are you not willing to concede that the statistics are largely irrelevant as far as ACC, as a no-fault scheme, and the current registration levy increase goes? That the real issue at hand lies at a much more fundamental level...
We are in full agreement that motorcyclists presenting non-factual statistics to support our cause, aren't helping at all - but it's understandable insofar that unfairness is bound to invoke strong feelings.

[dipshit]

Nonetheless, are you not willing to concede that the statistics are largely irrelevant as far as ACC, as a no-fault scheme, and the current registration levy increase goes? That the real issue at hand lies at a much more fundamental level...

No. It is no surprise to me that this is happening. I have been trying to say many times in the past that precisely something like this will happen if our statistics continue the way they are.

They are relevant to the problem at hand.

[Mikkel]

No. It is no surprise to me that this is happening. I have been trying to say many times in the past that precisely something like this will happen if our statistics continue the way they are.

They are relevant to the problem at hand.

Fair enough. In that case, what do you suppose is the reasoning behind misrepresenting the statistics as ACC appear to be doing?

If the statistics were indeed, unambiguously, showing that motorcyclists were a huge burden to ACC - there should be no failings to be found in the information imparted by ACC in regards to the proposed ACC levy increase.

And even if there were no debating the statistics, it still doesn't harmonise with ACC being a no-fault scheme. Fair enough if we drop ACC and go for something somewhat more "american" - but is that what we want, it sure as hell isn't what I want.

[Winston001]

And even if there were no debating the statistics, it still doesn't harmonise with ACC being a no-fault scheme.

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

so... then the arguement comes down we are all subsidising pedisrians, cyclists, kids, teenagers & adults that play local club sport.

Targeting motorcyclists with this hike goes against everything ACC stands for. Sir Owen Woodhouse one of the founders of ACC says it breaches the principles of the scheme.

All the ACC i contribute, PAYE, rego, fuel etc, is to cover me as citizen no matter what I do... Most bikers also own cars, many own multiple cars, and bikes, we pay ACC via petrol as well as PAYE, which would be very difficult to calculate what the full levy's of ACC a biker actually pays. The general public don't really care that only X amount of dollars was collected and we are spending XY amount, we all know that, that is not the only ACC that person or group of persons have paid. The average New Zealander doesn't care about semantics of what pile the money comes from especially if the person or group has put money into all the piles.

Because I don't play sports, or any other high risk activity other than motorcycling according to ACC, then I shouldn't have to pay as much in my PAYE, because also don't have any kids I should, have to paye as much as those that do...

The high risk arguement can go in circles...

[FJRider]

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

With respect of high risk occupations paying high ACC levies, they may well do. But I think what is raising the ire of some, is that some high risk "activities" are not subject to any ACC levies. Not through (any form of) registration, nor included in attached fees included in the purchase price of equipment needed for those "high risk" activities.
Extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz motorcycles ... is seemed to be merely the easy way to gather extra revenue. Without the need for change in leglislation. Just the Ministers approval for the fees increase.

Well thats how I see it.

[Jantar]

The survey was conducted in the Los Angeles basin area only. (and roads leading into the surrounding hills) The survey started in 1976 and looked at accidents over a two-year period and was published in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report

I don't know how populated the Los Angeles basin was in the late 70's, but today it looks to be an extremely heavily populated area. So you basically have a survey that was conducted in a large metropolitan area. This will naturally show more car vs bike accidents than what you would see over NZ as a whole.

The Maids report was conducted in Europe. Different time frame, different countries (pl), different vehicle types etc, but came up with very similar results to the Hurt report. It is the New Zealand "facts" that are out of step with the rest of the world.

http://www.maids-study.eu/

MAIDS : Motorcycle Accidents In Depth Study
MAIDS is the most comprehensive in-depth data currently available for Powered Two-Wheelers (PTWs) accidents in Europe. The investigation was conducted during 3 years on 921 accidents from 5 countries using the OECD common research methodology

[davereid]

http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

Thanks for finding some data.

Here is the pie chart from your link.

It shows some interesting stuff.. actually a very close fit to the HURT report

71% of crashes were collisions, (HURT Report 75%)

They have added a section "single vehicle, no rider fault indentified" at 3%. We don't know what this is, as its not spelled out. It may be the cases in which a motorcyclist crashes after his right of way is violated, without hitting another vehicle.

If this is the case it takes us to 74% - not bad correlation really !

In 65% of collisions the motorcyclist was not primarily responsible (HURT Report 66%).

The 7% concept "not primarily responsible" muddies the waters a bit, but we have to assume it refers to situations where the biker had not allowed him self sufficient time to stop in the amount of clear road, or when the biker was speeding, or (surprisingly) the 23% of crashes where the biker was impaired by drugs or alcohol.

So I conceed that modern N.Z. figures dont support the claim that "Most" Motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" as we can only reach 48%.

Nonetheless, its still entirely accurate to claim that in 2/3rds of collisions the car driver is at fault, and that the most common cause of motorcyclist crashes is car driver error.

[Mikkel]

With respect the "no fault" means no blame. Not "no risk". High risk occupations pay high ACC levies. They propose extending that calculation to motorvehicles viz. motorcycles.

Who pays the ACC levy for workers? As I understand it, it's the employer. If something goes tits up at work it would be the employer who could be held liable for whatever personal injuries might result. As such the levy is extracted from the party that could potentially be held liable for the accident.

In parallel, if you were subject to physical injury as a result of a motorvehicle accident, and there was no ACC, the injured could sue the resposible party for damages.

Ultimately, extracting the ACC levy based upon who suffers the injury as opposed to who causes the injury is beyond reason and fairness.

[dipshit]

So I conceed that modern N.Z. figures dont support the claim that "Most" Motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers" as we can only reach 48%.

And that's only if you add the 'partial responsibility' and 'no rider fault identified'. Otherwise it is 39%.

Nonetheless, its still entirely accurate to claim that in 2/3rds of collisions the car driver is at fault

2/3rds is a bit of a stretch from a 60% 40% split.

and that the most common cause of motorcyclist crashes is car driver error.

The most common cause of a motorcycle crash is rider error. You have 51% rider error before even adding the 7% 'partial responsibility'. Whether you run wide on a corner and crash into a tree or crash into an oncoming car is largely academic.

[davereid]

And that's only if you add the 'partial responsibility' and 'no rider fault identified'. Otherwise it is 39%.

Why would you blame bikers when "no rider fault identified" ?
And as I pointed out, the "partial responsibility" is not spelled out, you may find that not having your headlight on puts you in this category.

2/3rds is a bit of a stretch from a 60% 40% split.

But its not far from 65%.

The most common cause of a motorcycle crash is rider error. You have 51% rider error before even adding the 7% 'partial responsibility'. Whether you run wide on a corner and crash into a tree or crash into an oncoming car is largely academic.

..think of it this way..

Almost 100% of car crashes are caused by car drivers. We are responsible for only 50% of our crashes...