The AA are lying about us.

[mashman]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1129827474

So in 49 fatalities 7 were caused by cars and 2 by trucks.

9 from 49 makes 81%, 9%.

"Rider at fault in 33 crashes, other vehicle/person at fault 11 crashes, shared fault three crashes and other (ie bike or road fault) two crashes"

wanna do yer figures again

[dipshit]

"Rider at fault in 33 crashes, other vehicle/person at fault 11 crashes, shared fault three crashes and other (ie bike or road fault) two crashes"

wanna do yer figures again

"Well we have failing to give way coming out of a driveway or intersection, turning right in front of riders, swinging wide on a curve, losing control on a curve and a u-turn on a corner accounting for seven crashes, then two where the blame was shared where the car was doing a u-turn which may have been safe if the motorbike hadn’t been speeding, in one case 50 over the limit. There were two involving trucks failing to give way."

7 cars at fault. 2 trucks and 2 partially responsible. 11.

Other vehicles *totally* at fault... 9

*Cars* at fault if counting the two partially responsible... 9

9 from 49 = 9% (oops... that should read 19%... forgot the ten)

[mashman]

"Well we have failing to give way coming out of a driveway or intersection, turning right in front of riders, swinging wide on a curve, losing control on a curve and a u-turn on a corner accounting for seven crashes, then two where the blame was shared where the car was doing a u-turn which may have been safe if the motorbike hadn’t been speeding, in one case 50 over the limit. There were two involving trucks failing to give way."

7 cars at fault. 2 trucks and 2 partially responsible. 11.

Other vehicles *totally* at fault... 9

*Cars* at fault if counting the two partially responsible... 9

9 from 49 = 9%

Ain't statistics grand ... but "Rider at fault in 33 crashes"... how can you translate that to mean anything other than 33 out of 49?

[shrub]

Ain't statistics grand ... but "Rider at fault in 33 crashes"... how can you translate that to mean anything other than 33 out of 49?

Using his maths, 33 from 49 - 9%.

[MSTRS:Me]

9 from 49 = 9%

18% on my calculator

[shrub]

18% on my calculator

Don't tell him about calculators, he's happy using his fingers.

[dipshit]

Ain't statistics grand ... but "Rider at fault in 33 crashes"... how can you translate that to mean anything other than 33 out of 49?

Out of the 49 fatalities other road users weren't the reason in 80% of the cases.

[mashman]

Out of the 49 fatalities other road users weren't the reason in 80% of the cases.

I make it 67.3469387755102%

[MSTRS:Me]

Don't tell him about calculators, he's happy using his fingers.

When I say 'calculator' I really mean 'abacus'.
Maths was never my strong point, but this is pretty basic arithmetic...

[Berries]

So in 49 fatalities 7 were caused by cars and 2 by trucks.
9 from 49 makes 81%, 9%. (oops... that should read 81%, 19%... forgot the ten)

I was trying to be brief in my description in that other post so the numbers are correct -

Rider at fault in 33 crashes, other vehicle/person at fault 11 crashes, shared fault three crashes and other (ie bike or road fault) two crashes.

I didn't go in to great detail of the other 11 crashes, but the actual breakdown is as follows -
33 crashes where the rider was at fault - 67%
7 crashes where a car was at fault - 14%
3 crashes where a truck was at fault - 6% (I said two were failing to give way, one other turned right across the path of a bike)
3 crashes where both the driver and rider share some of the blame - 6% (two were the u-turns, the other was turning left while being undertaken)
1 cyclist, 1 road and 1 tyre making up the rest.

Sorry for the confusion, but you can get hung up on fault. Based on these figures it is either 67% for just the rider or 73% if you include the shared fault. But again, we are only talking 49 crashes which isn't many so you can't take those figures and say they represent the true picture for all crashes. I only posted in this thread to show that the AA were wrong in their magazine.

[Katman]

I only posted in this thread to show that the AA were wrong in their magazine.

Only in the number that they attribute to car drivers.

Going by your figures, they've actually let us off the hook with one.

[shrub]

I was trying to be brief in my description in that other post so the numbers are correct -


I didn't go in to great detail of the other 11 crashes, but the actual breakdown is as follows -
33 crashes where the rider was at fault - 67%
7 crashes where a car was at fault - 14%
3 crashes where a truck was at fault - 6% (I said two were failing to give way, one other turned right across the path of a bike)
3 crashes where both the driver and rider share some of the blame - 6% (two were the u-turns, the other was turning left while being undertaken)
1 cyclist, 1 road and 1 tyre making up the rest.

Sorry for the confusion, but you can get hung up on fault. Based on these figures it is either 67% for just the rider or 73% if you include the shared fault. But again, we are only talking 49 crashes which isn't many so you can't take those figures and say they represent the true picture for all crashes. I only posted in this thread to show that the AA were wrong in their magazine.

Thank you, that is exactly the point of this thread.

Sadly a lot of people read it and decided for themselves that motorcyclists are a menace to everyone and the sooner they all die/bugger off, the better. It is my experience as a reasonably experienced and active motorcyclist that the overwhelming majority take riding seriously and have sufficient skill to survive. The biker at fault injuries and fatalities seem to be largely caused by ignorance (beginners especially) or in a small percentage through rider stupidity and autocide.

I see the solution to motorcyle crashes being a process of education. I understand that there are a number of factors (things like riding an unfamilar bike, riding too fast for the conditions, riding tired, rusty etc) that are present in most crashes, and if those factors are eliminated or managed, then the crash is avoidable. I am convinced that 99% of motorcyclists don't actually want to crash and will do anything to avoid it so let's work with TPTB to educate and inform these people. Let's get a hold of Nigel Noob and teach him to ride, teach him to recognise when a car isn't planning to stop, when the road is slippery etc.

The idiots who ride stupidly think they know better, and there is no point in wasting our time with them. They will always exist, just like there will always be people who think they are such good drivers they can drive pissed.

And while we're at it, let's educate and inform other road users about us, what we need from them and how we can all work together. A common attitude is to ride as though every other road user is a killer out to kill, but in my experience 99% of car and truck drivers would hate to hurt, let alone kill, a biker. Their role in crashes comes from ignorance not malevalence, and ignorance is a factor that is easily removed.

[Voltaire]

I too am sick of reading about motorcycles in AA Directions.....the latest issue they had a statement about the fairness of motorcycles paying the same as cars in the northern gateway tunnel...that was it for me.....I don't want to read this....so I emailed them and asked to stop sending me Directions Magazine....sorted....
Next I'm cancelling my Herald subscription.....mainly as I'm sick of reading bad news and I can better spend that $43.00 a month.

[Hanne]

...not some minimum wage journo working for AA.

Actually, I hear their rate for articles is well above the market rate and space on their pages is hotly contested ><

[shrub]

Actually, I hear their rate for articles is well above the market rate and space on their pages is hotly contested ><

Shame the quality of their content doesn't reflect that.