SMIDSY - is there such a thing?

[James Deuce]

You're talking about learned behaviour. Same as the prick in his Landrover alluded to earlier (except his actions were deliberate and malicious).
No reason to accept it and not expect that something be done to counter it.

If you were trying to teach granny to not run over Girl Guides then you've probably got a point.

Motorcyclists? No hope. We need to look out for Granny. There's nothing you can do to fix that.

[shrub]

I whipped this up

[Pascal]

How many motorcycle deaths on our roads are single vehicle, and how many of those are caused by circumstances that are truly beyond anyone's control or prediction. I would suggest amongst the bike riders of NZ their are a number who also could benefit from being made to be more aware as we ask car drivers to be.

MAG-NZ has a statistics sheet with some discussion on their site. You can find it here.

From the chart motorcyclists were at fault for 53% of the accidents in the 4 year period, and not at fault for 40%. 7% partial fault of the motorcyclist.

Even more interesting.

52% of the riders in accidents had a full license, 21% Learner and 7% restricted.

[James Deuce]

I disagree. Over the last couple of decades we have seen a major attitudanal shift towards speeding and drink driving simply through very effective marketing. Why can't we do the same towards driver inattention?

The issue you face is that the target audience doesn't care about the people they're knocking off motorcycles. We're portrayed as bad guys by every arm of the Government and every type of media reporting labels any accident as "Motorcycle/Motorcyclist collides with (something what did him in)".

Thanks to that Marlon Brando movie there's been 60 years of dedicated misinformation about who motorcyclists are. Good luck changing that perception. You're talking ingrained institutionalised beliefs that motorcyclists deserve it.

I've not seen a shift in attitudes to speeding, particularly amongst motorcyclists, so I don't think you have a point there and drink driving? Really? I think it's got worse, not better.

[Clockwork]

I'd agree with James on this. It's quite easy to not see things you don;t expect to be there, I do it all the time in the domestic situation (much to my wife's amusement)

I'd also admit that there have been occasions (when driving) when I simply haven't seen a vehicle approaching from my left while preparing to turn right at the end of a T junction, because the approaching vehicle was obscured by the window pillar and the relative speed of both vehicles meant that from my POV it didn't appear from behind the pillar.

My fault entirely. I consider myself a pretty good and considerate driver/rider with only one minor accident in nearly 30 years. (as above) but the fact remains that on that occasion "Sorry Mate, I didn't see you"

[shrub]

I've not seen a shift in attitudes to speeding, particularly amongst motorcyclists, so I don't think you have a point there and drink driving? Really? I think it's got worse, not better.

yeah, among motorcyclists there is still a cavalier attitude to speeding but from what I understand the research shows speeding and drink-driving are now seen as not normative behaviour by the majority of people. if attitudes couldn't be changed I'd be out of work and there would be no such thing as an advertisement.

[Edbear]

I whipped this up

Nice bike! Still running the original Bing carbs too by the looks. Some changed them as they could give trouble.

[James Deuce]

yeah, among motorcyclists there is still a cavalier attitude to speeding but from what I understand the research shows speeding and drink-driving are now seen as not normative behaviour by the majority of people. if attitudes couldn't be changed I'd be out of work and there would be no such thing as an advertisement.

You think marketing changes attitudes? I can see where you delusion came from now.

[shrub]

MAG-NZ has a statistics sheet with some discussion on their site. You can find it here.

From the chart motorcyclists were at fault for 53% of the accidents in the 4 year period, and not at fault for 40%. 7% partial fault of the motorcyclist.

Even more interesting.

52% of the riders in accidents had a full license, 21% Learner and 7% restricted.

the stats are interesting. Only 52% of crashing motorcyclists had a full license - I'd be interested to know what percentage of motorcyclists in total have a full license, and of the multiple vehicle accidents (which is what is in discussion here) 55% were the fault of the other driver, 10% shared fault and 35% motorcycle fault.

if we remove the shared fault it changes to 61% other vehicle and 39% motorcycle. In other words, where blame can be clearly attributed to one party it's nearly 2/3 more likely to be the other road user. Is that something we should tolerate?

[shrub]

You think marketing changes attitudes? I can see where you delusion came from now.

People ride Harleys, eat McDonalds and drink Tui - that's all the proof I need that marketing changes attitudes.

[MSTRS:Me]

You think marketing changes attitudes? I can see where you delusion came from now.

Marketing only goes so far. And may be resisted...
Maccas can spend as many millions as they like on marketing and sales campaigns...it'll be a cold day in hell before I would willingly eat any of their garbage.

But if the alternative was worse...well, perhaps I'd be grateful to old Mr Kroc...

[Edbear]

People ride Harleys, eat McDonalds and drink Tui - that's all the proof I need that marketing changes attitudes.

Although they wouldn't if they didn't enjoy it. Marketing works but the products have to meet the expectations or they won't last. In other words, marketing will get people to buy once, the product will get them to buy it again.

Safety is a bit different in that people have to appreciate the value to them of heading the message and the message has to be continually visible and heard.

[Pascal]

if we remove the shared fault it changes to 61% other vehicle and 39% motorcycle. In other words, where blame can be clearly attributed to one party it's nearly 2/3 more likely to be the other road user. Is that something we should tolerate?

If you look at the actual source data things look different though. Quote:

For more serious crashes, the motorcyclist was more likely to have the primary responsibility for the crash. The motorcycle rider had the primary responsibility for nearly three-quarters of fatal motorcycle crashes, but the comparable figure for minor injury crashes was about half (48%).

You can see the differentiation between single / multi-vehicle here on page 4.

Some rather interesting crash type analysis on page 6 as well.

[shrub]

If you look at the actual source data things look different though. Quote:



You can see the differentiation between single / multi-vehicle here on page 4.

Some rather interesting crash type analysis on page 6 as well.

The problem I have with that data is that the number of motorcycle fatalities was statistically too small to build a credible inference, however I take your point and let's assume that the fault is evenly split - doesn't that mean we can save lives by changing the attitudes of BOTH parties? If it was 90% motorcyclist at fault it would be a big ask to change anything, but even if we're equally responsible (which i don't believe we are) then it's important for both parties to change, not just one.

[hellokitty]

There's nothing wrong with it.

But while you're busy 'demanding' things, motorcyclists will continue to be needlessly killed or maimed.

If we start looking at ourselves, change can be effected immediately.

True - you have to look out for yourself because no one else will look out for you.
Yes people need to be educated, but you can't make people give a damn - some people just don't care.
The landrover guy I spoke of before lives his whole life like a prick and treats everyone like crap = and he rides a motorbike as well.