Motorcycle accident myths - A public presentation on the facts

[bogan]

Interesting that the AA should come out with "solo accidents" and "selective analysis" when the Professor show how they selected only this first column from the data table, and if there was a motorcycle in that column they took that as a solo accident disregarding the following columns in the data.

Interesting that nobody seems to be able to do an unbiased report into motorcycle accidents, must say I was hoping for more from the prof.

I mean how hard can it be? fuck, someone point me at the relevant data and I'll do one

[Berries]

Ask the right questions and you can't get dud information. NZTA should provide that info free of charge if you speak to the right people. I could do it for you but my charge out rate is extortionate.

[JMemonic]

I guess there is really no point in anyone in this country doing research into motorcycle accidents as everyone knows the cause, because the AA and ACC tell them the right info. I took the time to go back through the post in this thread and I was a little bemused to re-read all the comments rubbishing Professor Lambs study.

I figure its easier to shoot the messenger on KB than actually read the info provided especially any that points out that the figure in NZ contraindicate international studies from the US and Europe, that can be found on pages two four and of the presentation. Even when someone can show how the figures have been skewed and can prove the AA's figures are wrong folks are so keen to support an organisation that has publicly stated they have no concern for motorcycles or motorcyclists and I guess those who didn't actually see the presentation of question the Professor know all that happened there.

I am going to enjoy riding my bike cause in a few years you will win and bikes will be banned from the roads here, when it happens you folks will be able to look back with pride in your achievements.

[Katman]

I took the time to go back through the post in this thread and I was a little bemused to re-read all the comments rubbishing Professor Lambs study.

They're all valid comments that any Professor worth his degree should have foreseen.

Or maybe he did and just figured we'd all be too dumb to notice.

[bogan]

Ask the right questions and you can't get dud information. NZTA should provide that info free of charge if you speak to the right people. I could do it for you but my charge out rate is extortionate.

hey at least you're honest maybe you should do the study! I can't be assed getting all that info, will re-summarize from the figures in the profs work as arbitrarily as possible instead.

Firstly 66% are multi vehicle, leaving 34% single vehicle accidents (2008).
Skipped through a bunch of pages which all looked pretty accurate, though the biker numbers and accident rates graph was misleading at first glance.
Rates and responsibilities table, 3 biggest factors are visibility 33.8% cager fault, agressive riding 13.2% biker fault, inattention 12.8% cager fault. Putting these into an overall context then gives; visibility 22.3% cager fault, agressive riding 8.7% biker fault, inattention 8.4% cager fault. As stated on the next page other motorists are respnsible for 40% of motorcyclists accidents, and of that 40% visibility is a factor in 22.3%(22.3/40 that is) and inattention in 8.4% (and I'm guessing there is likely to be a large overlap between these two groups). And taken from the 2009 stats here 28% of accidents were at fault single vehicle biker accidents, however it does not go into a comprehenisve breakdown of this; however full license holders only account for 51% of accidents.

Another factor is the fleet sizes, 40% caused by 3 million drivers, or 53% caused by 100,000 bikers (IIRC feel free to correct me on these figures). Putting that in perspective, as a driver, you have a 1.33e-5 % chance of causing a biker crash, as a rider you have a 5.3e-4 % chance of causing you own accident, so roughly 40x more likely per individual. I'm not sure whether this is relevant other than to illustrate why the government is quite keen to get us off the roads.

So in summary;
40% of accidents caused by cagers
53% of accidents caused by bikers
Visiblity the main factor in cager caused accidents 22.3%
Confirmend non-full licensed riders account for 20% (5% are unknown license status), 11% of this is learners (proportions of license holder type are similar for different accident causes).

Now taking off my impartial hat, and putting on my biker hat, it doesn't look good. Visibility is still the biggest single cause there, and should definely be worked on, whether it be the education of 3mil motorists, or increasing the visibility of biker (I for one am all for the legalization of headlight modulators) or both, something needs to be done. Learner riders are a worrying statistic, 11% of all accidents caused by learners (significant assumptions to get the 11% though), better training and tougher testing are th obvious choices for learner rider developement. This still leaves 33% of accidents biker fault though the exact cause is unknown.

Now puts on armoured hat and prepares for the flaming.

EDIT: it should also be noted that I'm still 110% against the bastards raising our levies cos its a no fault fucking system and the above means didly squat in that context!

[Berries]

And taken from the 2009 stats here 28% of single vehicle biker accidents were the bikers fault, however it does not go into a comprehenisve breakdown of this

Not quite. That pie chart shows that 28% of all motorbike crashes were bike only and the rider was at fault. It also shows that 29% of all motorbike crashes were bike only. Using those figures the rider was deemed to be at fault in 96% of bike only crashes. This is where any basic level analysis runs in to problems due to the way CAS calculates fault. It does this based on the cause codes given to the vehicles involved. So if the rider has the codes "lost control" and "run wide on bend" attributed to him he is going to be flagged as being at fault. Some would say he is, but it is a long way from being 100% accurate.

That same pie chart shows that 39% of crashes were multi vehicle and the other person was at fault, the same as the 40% stated by Professor Lamb.

Even when someone can show how the figures have been skewed and can prove the AA's figures are wrong folks are so keen to support an organisation that has publicly stated they have no concern for motorcycles or motorcyclists.

I know I haven't been on KB for long but I have yet to see anyone support the AA. (Excluding the 12 steppers obviously). That 87% figure quoted in the abstract for the paper is quite clearly rubbish and could have been countered with the most simple CAS analysis.

I am going to enjoy riding my bike cause in a few years you will win and bikes will be banned from the roads here, when it happens you folks will be able to look back with pride in your achievements.

Get real. You are deluded if you think this paper, or any data produced by third parties from the national database, including the AA, is going to change anything.

As pointed out earlier, this presentation was advertised as -

Motorcycle accident myths - A public presentation on the facts

A detailed analysis of the New Zealand Ministry of Transport accident data questions the commonly held view of what is causing New Zealand’s motorcycle accidents.

I think the reason you think it is being rubbished is that people are pointing out that the paper was overhyped in that one sentence. Clearly, it was a detailed analysis of certain crash types in certain areas of the country over a certain period of time, but because of that it can not, and should not, be used to imply any kind of national results or presentation of national facts.

[bogan]

Not quite. That pie chart shows that 28% of all motorbike crashes were bike only and the rider was at fault. It also shows that 29% of all motorbike crashes were bike only. Using those figures the rider was deemed to be at fault in 96% of bike only crashes. This is where any basic level analysis runs in to problems due to the way CAS calculates fault. It does this based on the cause codes given to the vehicles involved. So if the rider has the codes "lost control" and "run wide on bend" attributed to him he is going to be flagged as being at fault. Some would say he is, but it is a long way from being 100% accurate.

true, thats what i meant but it was worded poorly.

[Katman]

Ah. I forgot about the AA. Yes, they *are* trying to ban bikes.

And who do you think has the more direct path to the governments ear, Einstein?

The AA or BRONZ?

Perhaps it's time BRONZ pulled it's head out of it's arse.

[oldrider]

Explain to me why this is regarded as being more important that actually surviving on a day to day basis? To my mind this is much moreimportant, and logically should be how EVERYONE should ride from day one (not just now).

Not sure whether I am reading the intention of your post correctly or not but here goes.

I have been riding aggressively for 56 years, because I always believed that's the way you stay on your wheels and out of trouble!

Things like, when in doubt blast out, right or wrong see the gap take it, nutter signs, flipping the bird, wanker signs, are you fucking blind eye signs, etc etc etc!

Altogether not good advertising or marketing for motorcyclists per se.

I also was pointing out that the only thing we have control over is, "our own behaviour".

I may also have been guilty of unwittingly helping to form some negative attitudes by other motorists toward us, if in fact there are any and if it is as bad as Katman believes.

I also think I could consciously make a bigger effort to build more harmonious attitudes and relationships between other road users and motorcyclists by riding in a more respectful manner towards them.

My own behaviour is the only thing that I and I alone can influence and control, so I have resolved to try to make a difference in the future, if I can!

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that it really should be like that for "everyone" all the time from day one!

Well true, I don't think anyone can argue with that!

Friends in need are friends indeed and we (motorcyclists) currently need all the friends and supporters that we can get!

Hey look kids, see the nice motorcycle, wave to him/her, that might be you one day if you behave!

[Katman]

If more riders took a similar attitude John we'd be a real force to be reckoned with.

[_Shrek_]

I still ride with the atitude they're out to get me, but have layed off the "deaf sign language" (well most of the time) & sit back a bit futher than I used to & wait for the gap thats not going to piss them off, over the past 12 months Mrs S & I have noticed a change in traffic behavour ie: camper vans, cars towing & general public have been moving to the left & letting us through, I found truckies the best as they give a flick on the LH indercator to say it's clear maybe some of that is an atitude change in me & the way I ride or there is more bike awarness out there

[Katman]

I believe that New Zealand motorcyclists would be better served if BRONZ were to drop the 'demanding rights' attitude and started petitioning the government for a better standard of motorcycle training and licensing.

They should also be focusing on improving the attitudes of motorcyclists rather than continuing along the path of trying to blame our misfortunes on everyone and everything else.

Maybe BRONZ should consider working with ACC rather than against them.

[p.dath]

I believe that New Zealand motorcyclists would be better served if BRONZ were to drop the 'demanding rights' attitude and started petitioning the government for a better standard of motorcycle training and licensing.

Excuse me for butting in; but do you have ant specific ideas how we could improve motorcycle training and licencing?

I quite like the German model, bu I doubt NZ would tolerate it. In the german model you hace to do a certain number of hours in all different kinds of traffic conditions (e,g. 10 hours on a highway, 10 hours on urban roads, 10 hours at night time, etc). However this has to be surpervised by a licenced instructor, so it costs a lot of money. At the end you get a certificate to say you have completed the supervised hours, and then you take that along when you apply for your licence.

[p.dath]

I believe that New Zealand motorcyclists would be better served if BRONZ were to drop the 'demanding rights' attitude and started petitioning the government for a better standard of motorcycle training and licensing.

ps. You might be interested to know that the failure rate has gone way up recently since they moved away from the scartchy cards to computerised testing where the candidates get the same questions - but in a random order.

[peasea]

Hey look kids, see the nice motorcycle, wave to him/her, that might be you one day if you behave!

Plant the seed. I was spoken to just yesterday outside the Four Square by a youngster (4 or 5)on a scooter. "Is that your motorbike?" (Only guy in leather for miles says...) "Yes, it sure is"
"How fast does it go?" To which I replied "As fast as I want it to but it's not about how fast you go, it's how cool you look." I hope he took it in.