Motorcycle accident myths - A public presentation on the facts

[JMemonic]

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...

On the CC rating issue Professor Lamb in his presentation shows a particular day, here in Christchurch where one Rocket III was in an accident, on the same day in Christchurch four 250's shared a similar fate, the way ACC and the AA determined the CC rating for that day was to add up the total capacity of the bikes combined and divide by the number of bikes involved on the day so a figure of 660cc was derived, that is what they based the cc rating on not real world figures that actually showed the 250cc bike was more likely to have a collision.

[Spearfish]

On the CC rating issue Professor Lamb in his presentation shows a particular day, here in Christchurch where one Rocket III was in an accident, on the same day in Christchurch four 250's shared a similar fate, the way ACC and the AA determined the CC rating for that day was to add up the total capacity of the bikes combined and divide by the number of bikes involved on the day so a figure of 660cc was derived, that is what they based the cc rating on not real world figures that actually showed the 250cc bike was more likely to have a collision.

And then they add the "per km travelled equation" rather than the % of the fleet

[MSTRS:Me]

Like I said...Bullshit.

[Ixion]

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.

There was a whole thread on it. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...-Data-from-ACC Splenetic biker-phobic posters could do well to check their propaganda before posting.

[MSTRS:Me]

Thanks Les. Reading through, posts from #64 are VERY telling. Just as I was saying earlier.

[dipshit]

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.

Right, first the MoT claim...

"A higher proportion of crashes involving large bikes (500 cc or bigger) result in death rather than injury – riders of large motorcycles make up 32 percent of all casualties but 52 percent of deaths. This is, at least partly, a result of riding patterns. Small motorcycles and scooters tend to be used for „around-town‟ riding, where speeds are low, whereas large bikes spend a much greater proportion of time on the open road and travelling at higher speeds. For bikes of 500 cc or bigger, over half (56%) of all reported injury crashes are on the open road. This compares to only 8 percent for small bikes with an engine size under 125 cc and nearly a third (30%) for bikes with engine sizes of 125-499 cc." From...
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf

The MoT is pointing out larger capacity bikes tend to have the more serious injury accidents. They are not talking about the total number of accidents that include more minor injuries.

So where is Lamb's breakdown between all accidents and the more serious and fatal accidents the MoT is more concerned about... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1129758383 ..??? He appears to be talking about all minor and serious accidents and has sidestepped the MoT's main point.

Then we have Ixion's analysis... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1129485659

I have ordered the cc ratings to make it easier to follow...

ccrating...........cost .........numberofclaims .........avgperclaim
0-50..............2520662.53..........84............ ......... 30007.
51-125..........1290834.84..........19............... .......67938.
126-250........2899501.65.........88.................. .....32948.
251-400..........193110.42...........10 .................... 19311.
401-600..........974371.70..........16............... .....123398.
601-750........1039516.43..........35................. .....29700.
751-900........4137470.95..........36................. .....14929.
901-1000......6460741.68..........57.................. ..113346.
1001-1340....2866583.22...........44................... ..65149.
Unknown.......5981107.39......... 29.................... 206245.

This shows that while 50cc scooters and 250cc bikes are indeed having a lot of accidents, their average cost to the taxpayer is around the $30,000. per accident, while both 600cc and 1000cc are around four times that at $120,000. average per accident.

This coincides with the MoT's original claim of 500cc and up are having the more serious accidents. (go read the bit in red again)

[Ixion]

Right, first the MoT claim...

Then we have Ixion's analysis... http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1129485659

I have ordered the cc ratings to make it easier to follow...

ccrating...........cost .........numberofclaims .........avgperclaim
0-50..............2520662.53..........84............ ......... 30007.
51-125..........1290834.84..........19............... .......67938.
126-250........2899501.65.........88.................. .....32948.
251-400..........193110.42...........10 .................... 19311.
401-600..........974371.70..........16............... .....123398.
601-750........1039516.43..........35................. .....29700.
751-900........4137470.95..........36................. .....14929.
901-1000......6460741.68..........57.................. ..113346.
1001-1340....2866583.22...........44................... ..65149.
Unknown.......5981107.39......... 29.................... 206245.

This shows that while 50cc scooters and 250cc bikes are indeed having a lot of accidents, their average cost to the taxpayer is around the $30,000. per accident, while both 600cc and 1000cc are around four times that at $120,000. average per accident.

This coincides with the MoT's original claim of 500cc and up are having the more serious accidents. (go read the bit in red again)

No it doesn't. Or not entirely. They may be having more 'serious' accidents (whatever that may mean) but the main reason the bigger bikes cost more is that the ACC payment for earnings compensatrion is MUCH higher on big bike crashes. Which means that people who ride big bikes have higher incomes than people who ride small bikes. Gee, who'd have thought.

I deduced this by examing the relativities, per claim of earnings compensation, rehabilitation,(mainly medical treatment) and other costs. Read the threads further.

The earning cost was MUCH higher (higher incomes). The rehabilitation cost was a bit higher (not much) , which may mean more serious crashes, or may mean that big bikes are ridden by older riders who don't bounce as easily. Or, both may point to bigger bikes being ridden by more experienced riders who have fewer minor 'whoopsie' accidents, but the same ratio of major ones, thus pushing up the average.

Charging riders of big bikes more because they earn more is only fair if ACC charge Mercedes and Rolls-Royce and Lexus owners more, too

You also ignore the fact that 50-125cc costs less than 1001-1340cc. And 751 to 900 cc costs only a QUARTER of 50 to 125cc. carefull riders, those ZX9 guys, eh

See, you are playing the same game as ACC, taking data out of context, ignoring what doesn't fit your predetermined hobby-horse and assuming simplistic causes. You don't work for ACC , do you? You're doing an awfully good job as their spokesperson, and pushing their propaganda line.

[avgas]

Here's a challenge for you.

If you can point me to one post where I have ever said "All motorcycle accidents are the motorcyclist's fault" I will not post on Kiwibiker ever again.

You keen? Or are you just full of shit?

That one. Do I win a prize.
FYI Its your own fault that I got to post this. lol

[avgas]

That 'most' don't generally pose a problem for riders either. It's the other ones that are the problem. If they don't see or perceive a B-train as a threat to them, nothing we do will make them see us. So, forget the visibility thing, we must hone our 'spidey senses' to avoid them.

But i turn them off when the wife is in the car. She bores me.

[Katman]

There was a whole thread on it. http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...-Data-from-ACC Splenetic biker-phobic posters could do well to check their propaganda before posting.

TL,DR

So have you learnt how to read a pie chart yet Les?

[dipshit]

You also ignore the fact that 50-125cc costs less than 1001-1340cc.

They only cost more on the average for each claim (just). There are far fewer accidents with them and much less total cost.

And 751 to 900 cc costs only a QUARTER of 50 to 125cc. carefull riders, those ZX9 guys, eh

An oddball not so common cc rating these days. Still 36 claims for that category as opposed to 19 for the 125's.

See, you are playing the same game as ACC, taking data out of context, ignoring what doesn't fit your predetermined hobby-horse and assuming simplistic causes.

Shall we talk about your "amazing skills of unbiased analysis" from that thread yesterday shall we.?

You don't work for ACC , do you? You're doing an awfully good job as their spokesperson, and pushing their propaganda line.

Like I said, I have heard more BS coming from motorcyclists than anyone else. We need to make sure our arguments our watertight before trying to win the public over with them.

But no... keep telling them most motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers then deny everything else... that'll work.

[MSTRS:Me]

We need to make sure our arguments our watertight before trying to win the public over with them.

Sure, some of our argument/s is emotive, due to not wanting more of our hard-earned gouged. However, there wasn't a single so-called fact put forward by ACC or Nick the Prick that stood up to scrutiny. Yet the public lapped them up, didn't they?

[Katman]

Sure, some of our argument/s is emotive, due to not wanting more of our hard-earned gouged. However, there wasn't a single so-called fact put forward by ACC or Nick the Prick that stood up to scrutiny. Yet the public lapped them up, didn't they?

I've said it time and time again..........

If we were seen to be making a concerted effort to clean up our own backyard it would go further toward securing us a favourable ear than anything the ACC or WRB campaigns have achieved thus far.

[RiderInBlack]

I've said it time and time again..........

If we were seen to be making a concerted effort to clean up our own backyard it would go further toward securing us a favourable ear than anything the ACC or WRB campaigns have achieved thus far.

So have ya got started at ya placeJust another Tuis moment kindly brought to you from our favorite Poster.

[rocketman1]

I still think that all car drivers should have to ride a push bike and a motor scooter around town for half an hour before they get a car licence
They would have one big appreciation for the real people that ride on two wheels.