Who causes the most crashes?

[shrub]

So who causes the most crashes? Car drivers? Mad bike riders? Dodgy roads? Or is the blame for bike crashes something that can be attributed to all of the factors?

[Katman]

So who causes the most crashes? Car drivers? Mad bike riders? Dodgy roads? Or is the blame for bike crashes something that can be attributed to all of the factors?

Obviously we'll assume you're specifically talking about motorcycle crashes.

You mention mad bike riders. Can we assume you're also including inattentive bike riders and poorly skilled bike riders?

As far as the "dodgy roads" go, surely the responsibility ultimately falls on us to ride to the conditions.

[MSTRS:Me]

There is one leading cause for all crashes.
People.

[shrub]

Obviously we'll assume you're specifically talking about motorcycle crashes.

You mention mad bike riders. Can we assume you're also including inattentive bike riders and poorly skilled bike riders?

As far as the dodgy roads go, surely the responsibility ultimately falls on us to ride to the conditions.

No, I meant unicycle crashes. Of course I meant motorcycle crashes, and while we all need to ride to the conditions everyone has come round a corner and found unmarked roadworks, ice grit etc and had a major sphincter tightening experience.

[Katman]

No, I meant unicycle crashes. Of course I meant motorcycle crashes,

No need to get upset about it - you've just asked the question rather poorly.

[Katman]

And btw, suggesting that there is no leading cause is nothing short of burying your head in the sand.

[shrub]

No need to get upset about it - you've just asked the question rather poorly.

Sorry, would you have been happier if i had said "powered two wheeler vehicles"? Or would you have expected me to specify that they required a human rider, on NZ roads and were not remote controlled or ridden by space aliens in Uzbekistan?

[shrub]

And btw, suggesting that there is no leading cause is nothing short of burying your head in the sand.

No, it's nothing short of recognising that there is no single cause of the majority of crashes, and even when there is an acknowledged cause, that other issues influenced the crash. For example, last year I was involved in a fatal where a guy binned his bike. The offiial cause was rider inattention, but I know from having watched the whole thing unfold in front of me that there were several factors involved and if any one of them had been removed the guy concerned may well have finished his ride with a beer.

[Milts]

Surely a more relevant question would be 'serious injury/death crashes'? Because the number of new riders, inexperienced riders, or even more experienced riders who 'drop' their bike on their own at low or very low speed and just scratch paint, maybe scrape of a mirror.

I went over a whole bunch of road crash stats a few months ago and IIRC the majority were caused by the motorcyclist. This will always be the case, as motorcycles are naturally more difficult to ride than a car is to drive (I'd like to see someone highside a car...) Bikes require more effort + skill to keep stable, and require less of a change in traction to make them unstable. Once something goes wrong on a bike it is also much harder to recover from than in a car.

However, the majority of multi-vehicle accidents are caused by car drivers. While this may be due to a skill deficiency, it remains a fact that bikes are harder to spot, less predictable (can be in any part of the lane), and people don't look out for us as much as they should. To be honest the issue of motorcycle accidents is far too complicated to be boiled down into one simple 'us or them' question.

EDIT: As for dodgy roads, you need a clearer definition. Some crashes caused by 'dodgy roads' are nearly unavoidable (eg deep gravel mid corner in poor light), but some 'dodgy roads' are known to be so and crashes could be avoided by riding to the conditions. Classic example would be the road out past Makara - if you went through every corner at the speed limit you would have a very high chance of a crash, and could possibly claim it's due to the 'dodgy' road conditions - but the roads along there have never been good and regularly have rockfalls etc all over the place. Anyone pootling along should be fine or at worst damage some paint.

[Katman]

No, it's nothing short of recognising that there is no single cause of the majority of crashes,

No, it's actually just you giving people a straw to clutch at in order to steer your poll away from the result you're so dreading.

How highly scientific of you. Your esteemed professor friend would be proud.

[jeremysprite]

In my experience most bike crashes (this including offs, drops, spills) have been caused by rider error.

But maybe I'm just a terrible rider.

[shrub]

Surely a more relevant question would be 'serious injury/death crashes'? Because the number of new riders, inexperienced riders, or even more experienced riders who 'drop' their bike on their own at low or very low speed and just scratch paint, maybe scrape of a mirror.

I went over a whole bunch of road crash stats a few months ago and IIRC the majority were caused by the motorcyclist. This will always be the case, as motorcycles are naturally more difficult to ride than a car is to drive (I'd like to see someone highside a car...) Bikes require more effort + skill to keep stable, and require less of a change in traction to make them unstable. Once something goes wrong on a bike it is also much harder to recover from than in a car.

However, the majority of multi-vehicle accidents are caused by car drivers. While this may be due to a skill deficiency, it remains a fact that bikes are harder to spot, less predictable (can be in any part of the lane), and people don't look out for us as much as they should. To be honest the issue of motorcycle accidents is far too complicated to be boiled down into one simple 'us or them' question.

Absolutely, and that's my argument. Katman et al are convinced that bike riders are the problem, whereas I believe they are merely part of the problem, and that trying to say "bike riders are mostly at fault" is as futile as saying "car drivers are mostly at fault'. If we want to address motorcycle safety effectively we need to look at all the factors at play and stop trying to assign blame.

As an aside, where does inexperience/lack of skill come in? Is it Johnny GN's fault that he doesn't know how to counter steer? or that the back brake is not his best friend when he comes into a corner overcooked? Or if we were to assign fault, would it in fact be the fault of the legislative authorities that think being able to ride around cones in a warehouse means a rider has the skill to ride a bike in traffic?

[Katman]

Absolutely, and that's my argument. Katman et al are convinced that bike riders are the problem, whereas I believe they are merely part of the problem, and that trying to say "bike riders are mostly at fault" is as futile as saying "car drivers are mostly at fault'. If we want to address motorcycle safety effectively we need to look at all the factors at play and stop trying to assign blame.

I don't think anyone (least of all me) has ever suggested that accidents are the result of only one factor.

But it is very important to identify the leading factor within accidents, as that is where the greatest improvement can be made.

[shrub]

No, it's actually just you giving people a straw to clutch at in order to steer your poll away from the result you're so dreading.

How highly scientific of you. Your esteemed professor friend would be proud.

I hardly think a poll on KB could be called scientific. If I'm looking for any result it's to counter your argument from another thread that most motorcyclists think car drivers are the problem, and that the polling is reasonably evenly split between motorcyclists only and a range of causes suggests you were wrong, and in fact most of us take responsibility and are not idiots.

[p.dath]

There is one leading cause for all crashes.
People.

I thought you were going to say "motorcycles", but people is good.