Motorcycle accident myths - A public presentation on the facts

**p.dath** · 21st May 2010, 10:55

Facts and figures are just that, facts and figures. To apply meaning to them they require manipulation to try and spot that nugget of gold.

Sure ACC manipulate the figures. Sure Professor Lamb manipulated the figures. It's just what you do.

**bogan** · 21st May 2010, 11:03

Originally Posted by p.dath

Facts and figures are just that, facts and figures. To apply meaning to them they require manipulation to try and spot that nugget of gold.

Sure ACC manipulate the figures. Sure Professor Lamb manipulated the figures. It's just what you do.

and why do they do it? cos they have already taken sides, think about it, if you don't take sides (or at least put your side, aside) and summarize the stats, it's going to be a better summary.

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st May 2010, 11:27

Originally Posted by dipshit

People believed BRONZ's bullshit so much that they didn't believe the real MoT stats when it was put to them.

And strangely enough, few if any of us believed ACC's bullshit stats either. The ones they said they got from MoT. Which did not agree with the same figures 'we' got from Mot. Somebody was lying...and I doubt it was 'us'.

Compiling numbers is grunt work. 'Iinterpreting' them is statistician's work. People with an agenda twist the interpretation for their own ends.

All I'm saying is, don't accuse one man/group of doing that, when we are in a situation created by another doing the twisting (and lying too).

**Katman** · 21st May 2010, 11:30

Originally Posted by bogan

and why do they do it? cos they have already taken sides, think about it, if you don't take sides (or at least put your side, aside) and summarize the stats, it's going to be a better summary.

Precisely. A totally unbiased investigation and summary of the statistics is the only one that is of any value.

I suggested back at the start of the ACC saga that ACC's motorcycle accident records should be obtained (through the OIA if necessary) and be subjected to study by an independant body. BRONZ consigned the idea to the 'too hard' pile.

I wonder why?

**Swoop** · 21st May 2010, 11:31

Originally Posted by dipshit

I myself have seen more bullshit coming from motorcyclists than anything.

Are you including or excluding yourself from that statement?

Most of your posts are the former.

**Usarka** · 21st May 2010, 11:32

Just as an aside, has anyone contacted their MP with this research?

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st May 2010, 11:36

Originally Posted by Katman

Precisely. A totally unbiased investigation and summary of the statistics is the only one that is of any value.

I suggested back at the start of the ACC saga that ACC's motorcycle accident records should be obtained (through the OIA if necessary) and be subjected to study by an independant body. BRONZ consigned the idea to the 'too hard' pile.

I wonder why?

I remember ACC demanding $10,000 for some section of information...

**Katman** · 21st May 2010, 11:50

Originally Posted by MSTRS

I remember ACC demanding $10,000 for some section of information...

If cost was the only thing stopping BRONZ obtaining that information then a campaign to get $1 each from 10,000 motorcyclists is all it would have taken.

I think they chose not to obtain the information because deep down they knew that they wouldn't like the results of an independent study.

**bogan** · 21st May 2010, 11:52

Originally Posted by Katman

If cost was the only thing stopping BRONZ obtaining that information then a campaign to get $1 each from 10,000 motorcyclists is all it would have taken.

I think they chose not to obtain the information because deep down they knew that they wouldn't like the results.

i thought they did obtain a rather large amount of information though? I'm sure Ixion can confirm one way or another

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st May 2010, 12:09

What Ixion was after was the 'raw data'. I believe he got it in the end (without having to put out...). What he found was that what ACC was telling everyone, was bullshit that could not be substantiated by their own raw figures.

**JMemonic** · 21st May 2010, 12:11

Originally Posted by dipshit

People believed BRONZ's bullshit so much that they didn't believe the real MoT stats when it was put to them.

SO your saying you now believe the figures put forward by Professor Lamb as they are drawn off the MoT accident database, although there were some inconsistencies noted in the data such as the cc rating of the bikes were not in about 25% of cases still recorded and that is after a recent look at the data from 2008.

**Katman** · 21st May 2010, 12:13

Originally Posted by MSTRS

What he found was.......

Les is hardly an independent (read - unbiased) body.

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st May 2010, 12:16

Originally Posted by Katman

Les is hardly an independent (read - unbiased) body.

No such animal. He was using the same data that ACC apparently used, yet got a totally different result. Some, but not all, of that can be put down to bias.

**MSTRS:Me** · 21st May 2010, 12:22

Who remembers ACC telling us that 'big' bikes were in more and worse accidents, and that was why a cc-based scale of levies was necessary?
We didn't believe that and looking at the same data told us that any greater cost was due to income compensation. And set about including that in our submissions.
Their justification was bullshit, but now they use our reasoning to keep on with the cc split.
It's taken 6 months or more, but only a week or two ago, one of the ACC talking heads was telling the country that it was IC to blame.

Their agenda is clear. Raise levies for motorcyclists anyway they see fit. And when their 'reason' is exposed as bullshit, they simply change their reason by using our collective efforts...