The AA are lying about us.

[Banditbandit]

It also shows your average motorcyclist is as thick as pig shit when it comes to understanding statistics. Jesus Christ.

Yeah mate ... the only figures I care about are the ones on the left clock (rpm) and the ones on the right clock (speed) and I don;t often give a FF about the ones on the right ...

[jeffs]

But to the car-driving reader, there is no such distinction = bikers are bad.

Just splitting hairs here

Bikers are not all bad. We all know that because we are bikers

It's just that we die more often from crashes.

If you fall from a building on to a stunt crash mat, stunt men generally don't die.

But if you fall from a building onto concrete they would.

So to reduce death rates you use a Crash mat.

That is one of the reasons for Airbags in cars.

My bike does not have a Airbag.

One of the main reasons car death rates have reduced is the introduction of better safety features, not better driving.

Apart from ABS brakes what advance has there been in bike safety features to assist with
survivability ?

The emphasis has been totally on " the rider died because he is at fault"

In a car crash it would have been " He died because his car did not have the modern safety features, and if he was driving a Ncap 5 car he would have probably survived"


My comments are about the number of deaths not the number of crashes. There is a difference.

The only way to reduce the number of crashes is to alter your riding styles as Katman says.

[jeffs]

If I crash and burn - I don't give a fuck ... I never expected to live to be this old ... every day is a bonus ...

I know the risks - who gives a shit ?

I'm with you, I know the risks and I still ride, I just would have put it differently

[MSTRS:Me]

One of the main reasons car death rates have reduced is the introduction of better safety features, not better driving.

What we really need to know is what is the crash rate (forget injury or death for the moment) per 10,000 vehicles itemised by all types of vehicle, over a long period. Only then do we have a stat that can be correlated with the injury/death rates over the same period.
Then what you say above could be shown to have real meaning.
Bikers are not crashing more than in years past. It is probable that we are crashing less. This is per bike on the road. But those crashes that do happen still tend to hurt/maim/kill us, just as was the case 100 years ago.

[davereid]

In a car crash it would have been " He died because his car did not have the modern safety features, and if he was driving a Ncap 5 car he would have probably survived"

Great Post Jeff.

AA are mentioning the issue of "blame" because they feel some level of sympathy from amongst their own membership to bikers, and the targeted ACC system.

This is just part of a quiet campaign of cherry picked or simply misleading information, to reduce public sympathy for biker before the next round of ACC increases.

KM and DS are right, lots of bikers do dumb stuff. Many of them probably do equally dumb shit in their cars.

We are allowing TPTB to divide us into two groups, the motorcyclist and the motorist. That is what we have to stop.

Its a bit like helmet laws.

When proposed for NZ some said great idea. Some opposed it.

But those who opposed it did so arguing against the statistics, and discussing how those with scalp conditions, migraines etc would cope.

In the USA, some said great idea. Some opposed it.

But those who opposed it said - hey its my life. Get out of my face, and go and be someone else's Nanny.

The Result ?

Americans are still fighting helmet laws, and are still ridng, exactly as they were in 1970. We face punitive taxes, restrictive licensing systems designed to ensure young people don't ride, and in the near future ATGATT laws, ABS laws and the eventual demise of biking.

[dipshit]

I very much doubt it's anywhere near the truth if I look at the MOT stats for accidents that you found (thank you), 39% of crashes were multi-vehicle and no rider fault, 3% were single vehicle no rider fault. In other words 42% of crashes were NOT the rider's fault. The AA claim that 82% of fatalities were the rider's fault, and I find that very hard to believe.

Do you understand the difference between all crashes and just the fatal ones...???

The AA brought up the fact that the majority of *fatal* motorcycle accidents were the fault of the rider. Not other road users like spokesman for motorcyclists keep telling everybody.

This MOT graph has remained pretty constant over the last few years...

[MSTRS:Me]

Too late to fight on those grounds. Nanny State is well entrenched here, and isn't listening.

[Katman]

I very much doubt it's anywhere near the truth if I look at the MOT stats for accidents that you found (thank you), 39% of crashes were multi-vehicle and no rider fault, 3% were single vehicle no rider fault. In other words 42% of crashes were NOT the rider's fault. The AA claim that 82% of fatalities were the rider's fault, and I find that very hard to believe.

Read page 4. http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...rcycles_09.pdf

From the Ministry of Transports own 2008 factsheet it states - 'The motorcycle rider had primary responsiblity for nearly three-quarters of all fatal motorcycle accidents'.

Until Berries gets back to us with the 2009 figures then we will have to assume that they may well be quite similar to the 2008 figures. Hell, they might even work out to 81%.

Edit: Way too slow. Dipshit beat me to it.

[Berries]

From the MOT database, the same one used by NZTA and the AA.

49 fatal crashes in 2009 involving motorbikes and mopeds.

19 crashes involved the bike only
29 involved another vehicle
1 involved a cyclist

In all but six crashes the only fatality in the crash was the rider. Those other six were –

Two riders in the same crash
Rider and pillion
Pillion only
A car passenger
A cyclist
A pedestrian

So in the 49 crashes 51 people died, 46 of them riders.

Fault is a hard one to comment on without looking at each individual crash report, even then, a serious crash unit report or inquest may reveal other information that is not on the TCR and may not have made it on to the database. The most simplistic analysis uses the database to look at the codes given to all parties involved and from that determines fault. Using that method gives us this -

Motorbike only, rider at fault 19
More than one party, motorbike no fault 16
More than one party, motorbike part fault 8
More than one party, motorbike prime fault 15

Those figures don’t add up. That’s because in five crashes more than one bike was involved. In the first post the AA quote that the riders were responsible for 35 of these crashes, which is close to the 34 where is was deemed prime fault and bike only. They also said that car drivers were only responsible for four, but the same analysis shows that cars were prime fault in nine crashes and then SUV’s, trucks and vans were prime fault in four others. (That doesn’t add up either because you can have two part fault vehicles in the same crash).

Fault is an emotive subject, and if you simply quote what the analysis shows I don’t believe you will be correct. There are often underlying issues that may have contributed to the crash that are not coded. That’s my personal opinion based on 15 years of crash investigation anyway.

[jeffs]

I think people are reading too much into the AA web page.

If I was not a biker I would read it as " People are concerned about bikers dieing"

2 years ago I lost my nephew in a bike crash.

It was his fault, no one else was to blame.

Given the circumstances he was just as likely to have crashed in a car.

AND I AM 100% CERTAIN IF HE HAD BEEN DRIVING A CAR HE WOULD HAVE SURVIVED.

All this tells me is bikes and cars crash, but if I ride a bike my chances of the same crash being a fatal are higher.

It does not tell me that he crashed because he was riding a bike.

[shrub]

Do you understand the difference between all crashes and just the fatal ones...???

The AA brought up the fact that the majority of *fatal* motorcycle accidents where the fault of the rider. Not other road users like spokesman for motorcyclists keep telling everybody.

This MOT graph has remained pretty constant over the last few years...

How many times do I have to say it? While we have the majority of influence over our safety, other road users and the people who build and maintain our roads have a significant part to play. Absolving them of all responsibility is as ridiculous as blaming them for everything, yet the powers that be are doing just that.

[Katman]

How many times do I have to say it? While we have the majority of influence over our safety, other road users and the people who build and maintain our roads have a significant part to play. Absolving them of all responsibility is as ridiculous as blaming them for everything, yet the powers that be are doing just that.

Good luck with that focus on shifting the blame.

Motorcyclists have been doing it since forever and look where it's got us.

[MSTRS:Me]

It does not tell me that he crashed because he was riding a bike.

Sorry about your nephew.
But when this whole thing kicked off last year, we were told, and I quote, "Motorcyclists are 18x more likely to crash than car drivers". I was never convinced that this was the case, unless you add in the words 'to be hurt/killed'. I would think that car drivers WILL believe that figure.
But at the end of the day, all motorists have crashes, the major portion will be single vehicle crashes (so driver/rider fault*) and riders will feature much higher in the injury/death stats. So we need to crash less than we are.

*at least bears responsibility

[shrub]

From the MOT database, the same one used by NZTA and the AA.

49 fatal crashes in 2009 involving motorbikes and mopeds.

19 crashes involved the bike only
29 involved another vehicle
1 involved a cyclist

In all but six crashes the only fatality in the crash was the rider. Those other six were –

Two riders in the same crash
Rider and pillion
Pillion only
A car passenger
A cyclist
A pedestrian

So in the 49 crashes 51 people died, 46 of them riders.

Fault is a hard one to comment on without looking at each individual crash report, even then, a serious crash unit report or inquest may reveal other information that is not on the TCR and may not have made it on to the database. The most simplistic analysis uses the database to look at the codes given to all parties involved and from that determines fault. Using that method gives us this -

Motorbike only, rider at fault 19
More than one party, motorbike no fault 16
More than one party, motorbike part fault 8
More than one party, motorbike prime fault 15

Those figures don’t add up. That’s because in five crashes more than one bike was involved. In the first post the AA quote that the riders were responsible for 35 of these crashes, which is close to the 34 where is was deemed prime fault and bike only. They also said that car drivers were only responsible for four, but the same analysis shows that cars were prime fault in nine crashes and then SUV’s, trucks and vans were prime fault in four others. (That doesn’t add up either because you can have two part fault vehicles in the same crash).

Fault is an emotive subject, and if you simply quote what the analysis shows I don’t believe you will be correct. There are often underlying issues that may have contributed to the crash that are not coded. That’s my personal opinion based on 15 years of crash investigation anyway.

Thanks. So the AA were, at best, disingenuous as "more than one party, motorbike no fault 15" is not "4". And I agree, attributing blame is a moving target and even deciding whether the crash involved another vehicle is a challenge. Last year I watched a guy die on the side of the road. He binned his bike and after he had come off hit my son's bike from behind - he was well and truly off when they hit, yet that has been recorded as a muliple vehicle crash.

[BoristheBiter]

Sorry about your nephew.
But when this whole thing kicked off last year, we were told, and I quote, "Motorcyclists are 18x more likely to crash than car drivers". I was never convinced that this was the case, unless you add in the words 'to be hurt/killed'. I would think that car drivers WILL believe that figure.
But at the end of the day, all motorists have crashes, the major portion will be single vehicle crashes (so driver/rider fault*) and riders will feature much higher in the injury/death stats. So we need to crash less than we are.

*at least bears responsibility

And most of the minor car v car crashes go unreported.