The AA are lying about us.

[Okey Dokey]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter!

Relentlessly anti motorcycle!

Yes, I get that impression as well, oldrider.

[p.dath]

I read through the 1 minute pause called Directions that the AA put out, and in an arFor a start "about 43" deaths? Is their data collection so poor that they were unable to get an exact figure on motorcycle fatalities, yet were able to accurately attribute the exact number of deaths to bike riders and car drivers? Or are motorcyclists of such low value that nobody really knows how many die?

I know Katman probably believes that motorcyclists were responsible for 44 of the 43 deaths, but the good Prof Lamb's stats showed culpibility was pretty evenly divided between us and car drivers, and Prof Lamb doesn't use the word "about" in his research. Which is how come he's a professor, not some minimum wage journo working for AA.

The problem with Professor Charles Lamb's report is it only considered MVMA's. I think the above numbers will be related to all accidents involving motorcycles - the vast majority of which involve a single motorcycle loosing control around a corner.

[p.dath]

Mike Noone of the AA is the most dangerous obstacle motorcyclists could ever encounter!

Relentlessly anti motorcycle!

Having taken the time to personally meet with Mike, I can assure you this is not the case. But if you don't believe me, I invite you to go talk to him as well.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The AA have no Credibility.

actually with our beastly overlords (John Key the smiling assassin and his lumpy minions) i would suggest they have significantly more credibility than a bunch of disorganised dishevelled bikers.

[Genestho]

Having taken the time to personally meet with Mike, I can assure you this is not the case. But if you don't believe me, I invite you to go talk to him as well.

I'm inclined to agree, he's always made time for me and sent me a few studies off his own back that he thought I'd rightly be interested in, although I missed a chance to meet with him, he's approachable and a passionate bloke about what he does, not sure if he still is, but headed or was apart of the national S.A.D.D committee.

I encourage Shrub to make contact and ask about the statistics if you feel them questionable.

[Katman]

Where i agree with what you are trying to say i can't see how someone pulling out in front of me is my fault. It is done to me all the time in my car so if they can't see me or judge my speed while i am in a car how the fuck could they do it while I am on my bike.

What you are getting at is defencive driving, thats what stops me from hitting these tossers.
Someone fails to give way, their fault end of story.

Reducing motorcycle accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist and reducing motorcycle accidents where the motorcyclist has an influence over the outcome or severity of the accident, are both areas that are equally required of addressing.

As has been said many, many times before - it means jack-shit whether you were in the right or wrong when they're putting you in a hole in the ground.

[MSTRS:Me]

Reducing motorcycle accidents that are the fault of the motorcyclist and reducing motorcycle accidents where the motorcyclist has an influence over the outcome or severity of the accident, are both areas that are equally required of addressing.

As has been said many, many times before - it means jack-shit whether you were in the right or wrong when they're putting you in a hole in the ground.

Certainly 'we' can work on the problem of increasing rider awareness of defensive strategies. However, it is also fair to say that even if lack of those abilities by a rider means s/he fails to avoid some prat who's not looking...doesn't remove the fault from said prat. And in the stats, that's all that counts.

[Katman]

However, it is also fair to say that even if lack of those abilities by a rider means s/he fails to avoid some prat who's not looking...doesn't remove the fault from said prat.

And I don't think the statistics suggest it does.

That's why there's a percentage of motorcycle accidents that are attributed to the other person.

I still maintain that it is in our best interests to do all we can to reduce even those accidents that are not our fault.

Greater situational awareness and better training will achieve this.

[MSTRS:Me]

Greater situational awareness and better training will achieve this.

Agreed.
As long as it does not remove the onus on other drivers to take care.
See - the danger is that increasing motorcyclist's god-like ninja skills will mean the aforementioned prats can relax even more.

[Banditbandit]

There are plenty of threads on here that, while not necessarily providing much in the way of concrete research data, clearly offer enough information to show the rider at fault.

I'd suggest you're just too scared to allow yourself to be confronted by the ugly truth.

I'd kinda have to admit that I agree with Katman ... I've been off about eight times .. only twice was another vehicle involved - and both times it was a car ... Only twice (not involving the cars) did I have to make any sort of ACC claim following the offs ... and only the two involving cars also involved cops - so there was no report of the other six offs ... five of those were probably my fault - the other one I won't have a clue - major tank slapper in a sweeping right hander about 110 klicks ... then I was lying down coming back to consciousness. Last time I was off was 10 years ago ... so I've either learnt more or just got lucky - I certainly haven't slowed down or I woouldn't be walking now ...

Yeah - I know - I hate to give Katman ammunition - but riders are responsible for many offs ...

But I remember looking at the ACC stats last year, and a major increase in "motorcycle" accidents was an increase in the little commuter junk that putts around and are involved in accidents - you can ride one with only a car licence, but it is counted as a "motorcycle accident". Dickheads are riding these things and getting hit by cars, stuffing up themselves and getting hurt - the point has never been made ... it's not the serious riders in many cases pushing up the stats - it's the commuter suits on mopeds ...

[Banditbandit]

I The number of motorcycles still in existence has risen considerably faster than the number of motorcyclists.

That's true ... but there are lot of little commuter scooters out there which accounts for quite a sgnificant proportion of the increase in bikes on the road.

[davereid]

But I remember looking at the ACC stats, and a major increase in "motorcycle" accidents was an increase in the little commuter ju8nk that putts arouind - you can ride one with only a car oicence, but it is counted as a "motorcycle" accident. Dickheads are riding these things and getting hit by cars, stuffing up themselves and getting hurt - the point has never been made ... it's not the serious riders in many cases pushing up the stats - it's the commuter suits on mopeds ...

I never saw that bit... do you have a reference ?

I think I have data somewhere that contradicts that, in fact Moped reg bikes are statistically very safe. I'll dig up the actual figures.

[Banditbandit]

I never saw that bit... do you have a reference ?

I think I have data somewhere that contradicts that, in fact Moped reg bikes are statistically very safe. I'll dig up the actual figures.

No, sorry. I was involved in putting together a submission. I think it was in the LTSA's figures - they had a breakdown by cc rating - and there was a big climb in the numbers of small commuter bikes - with a subsequent climb in the number of accidents .. which were generally caused by said riders. There was a reduction, or maybe static, in the bigger ccs - except for the older riders returning to biking, and buying big cruisers . They're right about that.

I dumped the documetns when I shifted towns - unnecessary baggage.

[jeffs]

If I crash my motorbike riding at 100kmh I am more likely to die than if I have a crash in the exact same circumstances while driving a car.

The problem is not who or why the crash happened, its what margin of error and crash protection do I have.

In a car my margin of error and crash protection is greater than on a bike.

What ever the reasons or faults the question is ,

will you stop riding your bike because it is potentially dangerous ?

If the answer is yes, then stop riding and get on with your life.

If the answer is maybe, then just ride the best you can and increase your margin of error by changing your style to suite the conditions.

If your answer is " I'm a speed god and immortal" Then you will never change, no matter what anyone does or says and you will always be immortal right up to the time you die of a bike crash or old age.

Yes the figures are probably wrong, but be certain who ever wrote the article does not give a shit, it just makes good copy.

Bad news sells papers...

Telling people smoking kills rarely stop people smoking.

[dipshit]

BRONZ And Prof Lamb are the ones trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. (no pun intended)

Prof Lamb looked at Auckland and Christchurch figures only. That will create a sampling bias of more multi vehicle accidents.

The AA figures on the fatals are indeed a reality. The MOT put fatal motorcycle accidents at about 75% as rider at fault http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...-Factsheet.pdf (bottom of page 4)

This does quite often come as a surprise to those who keep listening to BRONZ's bullshit.