Cyclist accidents v motorcycle accidents

**Madmax** · 18th November 2010, 20:05

katmans here

**Oakie** · 18th November 2010, 20:10

Originally Posted by Oakie

Now hang on. Correct me if I'm wrong but the news item tonight reported $1.1 billion ACC cost for cycle accidents at about 4500 accidents per annum. That works out to $222,222 (like nearly a quarter million per accident). Doesn't sound right does it? The 1.1 billion probably includes ongoing costs from 20 year old accidents but jeez ... still sounds bloody high. Surely the ACC aren't playing games with the figures...

I was wrong. The 1.1 billion was the cost over the last 4 years. Still. Big numbers!

**shrub** · 18th November 2010, 20:10

Originally Posted by Oakie

Now hang on. Correct me if I'm wrong but the news item tonight reported $1.1 billion ACC cost for cycle accidents at about 4500 accidents per annum. That works out to $222,222 (like nearly a quarter million per accident). Doesn't sound right does it? The 1.1 billion probably includes ongoing costs from 20 year old accidents but jeez ... still sounds bloody high. Surely the ACC aren't playing games with the figures...

I don't have the stats to hand, but Charley Lamb showed me some data the other day that showed the average cost per ACC claim, and we're cheaper to fix than cyclists who are bloody expensive.

A lot of that comes down to gear - Phreak had a recent crash, and came away uninjured. if he had had the same crash on a pushbike he'd have been a mess. I came off my mountainbike about 5 years ago, had 40 stitches in my face, broke my nose and cheek bone, was in hospital for several days and off work for 2 weeks. I was doing about 10 kmh and faceplanted on a rocky track, and I watched a guy bin his treadly last week on a tram track and had to be ambulanced away. Basically he lowsided at about 20 kmh.

**mashman** · 18th November 2010, 20:21

Government figures for all reported road injuries 2009

Page 21

Cyclist Injuries - 825
Cyclist Deaths - 8

That's better than pedestrians and they have a WHOLE pavement to walk on. Cycle lanes, what feckin pish.

Pedestrian Injuries - 914
Pedestrian Deaths - 31

People just need to keep their eyes open.

**chasio** · 18th November 2010, 20:22

Originally Posted by shrub

Chilli sauce works for me.

It's common sense - most crashes are the outcome of a series of events and conditions, and changing those phenomena and conditions change the probability of the event occurring. Typically a bike crash is influenced to a greater or lesser extent by some or all of:

1. rider skill
2. Rider attitude
3. Machine condition
4. Road condition
5. Other road user behaviour
6. Weather conditions
7. Rider behaviour
8. Rider condition (tiredness, sobriety, fitness etc)

Some can be influenced by the rider, some can't, and some of the ones that can't can be mitigated against (not riding in the rain or on bad roads). If we take the model to its extreme we would only ever ride on perfect closed roads with a man walking in front of us with a red flag, and the only road fatalities would be people dropping dead.

The same applies to driving, cycling, walking and mobility scootering.

I wouldn't argue against your factors, but saying it's "common sense" is not the same as cycling advocacy groups saying that cyclists are at fault most of the time. Technically

And as a general point...

Some cyclists are annoying and break rules. Sound like any other group of road users we know?

**JudaBaker** · 18th November 2010, 20:25

Originally Posted by mashman

Government figures for all reported road injuries 2009

Page 21

Cyclist Injuries - 825
Cyclist Deaths - 8

That's better than pedestrians and they have a WHOLE pavement to walk on. Cycle lanes, what feckin pish.

Pedestrian Injuries - 914
Pedestrian Deaths - 31

People just need to keep their eyes open.

Well obviously there needs to be some type of user registration and acc fee pedestrians have to pay to use the sidewalks. Why should we have to pay for our crashes while they get to jump out in front of buses for free!?!

**NONONO** · 18th November 2010, 20:28

Originally Posted by chasio

I wouldn't argue against your factors, but saying it's "common sense" is not the same as cycling advocacy groups saying that cyclists are at fault most of the time. Technically

And as a general point...

Some cyclists are annoying and break rules. Sound like any other group of road users we know?

No, however, the way the numbers are gathered and turned into stats, is a very real concern.

**shrub** · 18th November 2010, 20:29

Originally Posted by chasio

I wouldn't argue against your factors, but saying it's "common sense" is not the same as cycling advocacy groups saying that cyclists are at fault most of the time. Technically

And as a general point...

Some cyclists are annoying and break rules. Sound like any other group of road users we know?

I'm talking about a couple of guys I know who are reasonably influencial in the cycling world you accept that most crashes are avoidable. Probably a little hyperbolic to claim that cycling groups accept that most crashes are avoidable, so I take it back. Probably a better way of saying it would have been to say "just as many, if not most, motorcycle crashes are preventable, so are most treadly crashes and some cycle groups accept that."

But what's important is that they still want to see changes so they face less risk, and I admire that. A lot better than our approach of "many motorcycle crashes are avoidable so we have no right to expect improvements in road conditions or driver behaviour".

**twinbruva** · 18th November 2010, 20:44

Cyclists!
Fuck them.

They use roads, they should obey road rules and pay for the use of the roads. They want cycleways? Fine; let them pay for the fuckin' things. Get the useless pieces of shit of the road. In this modern world roads are for motorised vehicles, the horse-lovers have realised that, why don't the dweebs on bicycles get the drift? I'll tell you why; they're all fuckwits, that's why. Bludging, tight-fisted, obnoxious, tree-hugging cockroaches.

Run the cunts off the road at every opportunity I say. Chuck rocks at them, spray their tyres and brakes with WD40, stab their tyres and bash them at will.

Open season on cyclists! Queer fucks.

**mashman** · 18th November 2010, 20:48

Originally Posted by shrub

1. rider skill
2. Rider attitude
3. Machine condition
4. Road condition
5. Other road user behaviour
5.1 Car driver skill
5.2 Car driver attitude
5.3 Car driver behaviour
5.4 Car driver condition
5.5 Pedestrian skill
5.6 Pedestrian attitude
5.7 Pedestrian behaviour
5.8 Pedestrian condition
5.9 Cyclist skill
5.10 Cyclist attitude
5.11 Cyclist behaviour
5.12 Cyclist condition
fuggit...
6. Weather conditions
7. Rider behaviour
8. Rider condition (tiredness, sobriety, fitness etc)

just needed to fix that, sorry.

**Adulf** · 18th November 2010, 20:57

So what the F%#€¥, a motor cyclist has an accident and the
Govenment taxs all motor cyclists. Five push bikers die on the
Roads over five days and its all about better roads!!! Lets
Start taxing the push bikers.

**shrub** · 18th November 2010, 20:58

Originally Posted by twinbruva

Cyclists!
Fuck them.

They use roads, they should obey road rules and pay for the use of the roads. They want cycleways? Fine; let them pay for the fuckin' things. Get the useless pieces of shit of the road. In this modern world roads are for motorised vehicles, the horse-lovers have realised that, why don't the dweebs on bicycles get the drift? I'll tell you why; they're all fuckwits, that's why. Bludging, tight-fisted, obnoxious, tree-hugging cockroaches.

Run the cunts off the road at every opportunity I say. Chuck rocks at them, spray their tyres and brakes with WD40, stab their tyres and bash them at will.

Open season on cyclists! Queer fucks.

Yes, quite.

Let me guess, you just bought a nice shiny new harley

and have all the regalia including a bad ass patch with HOG on your back?

Nice work.

**shrub** · 18th November 2010, 20:58

Originally Posted by mashman

just needed to fix that, sorry.

Yeah, that's better.

**chasio** · 18th November 2010, 21:04

Originally Posted by shrub

I'm talking about a couple of guys I know who are reasonably influencial in the cycling world you accept that most crashes are avoidable. Probably a little hyperbolic to claim that cycling groups accept that most crashes are avoidable, so I take it back. Probably a better way of saying it would have been to say "just as many, if not most, motorcycle crashes are preventable, so are most treadly crashes and some cycle groups accept that."

But what's important is that they still want to see changes so they face less risk, and I admire that. A lot better than our approach of "many motorcycle crashes are avoidable so we have no right to expect improvements in road conditions or driver behaviour".

I'm on the same page as you now