MSL Council to be lead by Gareth Morgan

**Katman** · 28th January 2011, 14:37

Originally Posted by MSTRS

You are sure. But only because of what you believe. Being sure doesn't make you right.
Like the rest of us YOU DON'T KNOW.

Open your eyes John. The problems we are currently facing are due to our poor accident statistics - fact. If we dramatically reversed those stats the powers that be would have no ammo to use on us - fact.

**bogan** · 28th January 2011, 14:43

Originally Posted by Katman

Open your eyes John. The problems we are currently facing are due to our poor accident statistics - fact. If we dramatically reversed those stats the powers that be would have no ammo to use on us - fact.

The ammo they are using now is mostly blanks, you hear the bang, but there is no substance behind it.

Sure we can make it harder (and I hope we do, but for me these are separate issues) for them to twist the numbers to their own ends, but do you really think that'll stop them trying?

**admenk** · 28th January 2011, 14:47

Originally Posted by Katman

Open your eyes John. The problems we are currently facing are due to our poor accident statistics - fact. If we dramatically reversed those stats the powers that be would have no ammo to use on us - fact.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, you're making the mistake of thinking that politicians play by the rules. In an ideal world, if we reduced our accident stats, Mr Smith would be over the moon and reduce our levies accordingly. Unfortunatly in the real world, I suspect he would just find another excuse to penalize us, ie. you're too loud, or I don't like the look of you, or you didn't vote for me etc etc

Yes, let's be responsible and aim to get our stats down, that's got to be good for all of us (we'll still be alive for a start!), but let's not expect any thanks from politicians for doing so...or am I just an old synic?.. (and can I even spell synic?)

**Bald Eagle** · 28th January 2011, 14:48

Originally Posted by bogan

The ammo they are using now is mostly blanks, you hear the bang, but there is no substance behind it.

Sure we can make it harder (and I hope we do, but for me these are separate issues) for them to twist the numbers to their own ends, but do you really think that'll stop them trying?

They never stop trying, that's why economists and statisticians where created so the politicians could keep changing the 'facts' of the current argument to support their objectives.

**Katman** · 28th January 2011, 14:53

Originally Posted by bogan

The ammo they are using now is mostly blanks, you hear the bang, but there is no substance behind it.

No, the ammo they're using now is very real. If they were using blanks we'd be sitting back laughing at how stupid they're making themselves look. Instead, we're the ones hurting.

If we addressed the issue of accidents caused through rider stupidity and those due to lack of training, and then set about becoming the above average road-users that we seem to enjoy pretending to be by learning to compensate for the inadequacies of others, one day we might just find ourselves in a position of being able to demand changes that would lessen the risks that we face.

**Murray** · 28th January 2011, 14:58

Talking of stats - can someone clarify something for me. I believe its been quoted that there were 50 motorcycle deaths in 2010 and 30 in 2003??. What was the number of registered motorbikes for each of the years and was there an actual percentage decrease in deaths per bike when the 2 years are compared.

Just something thats been bugging me when I hear about the incresed this and increased that!

**Katman** · 28th January 2011, 15:01

Originally Posted by Murray

Talking of stats - can someone clarify something for me. I believe its been quoted that there were 50 motorcycle deaths in 2010 and 30 in 2003??. What was the number of registered motorbikes for each of the years and was there an actual percentage decrease in deaths per bike when the 2 years are compared.

Accidents stats per number of registered motorcycles means nothing. More and more motorcyclists are owning multiple bikes these days.

**yachtie10** · 28th January 2011, 15:05

Originally Posted by Katman

Accidents stats per number of registered motorcycles means nothing. More and more motorcyclists are owning multiple bikes these days.

You have quoted this before. Do you have any proof?
I think you are guilty of seeing what you want to see as of course the number of riders have increased and its very bad statistics the media (prompted by government) are using.

**Murray** · 28th January 2011, 15:06

Originally Posted by Katman

Accidents stats per number of registered motorcycles means nothing. More and more motorcyclists are owning multiple bikes these days.

Oh so if we had 1/2 the number of registered car owners and 1/2 the number of registered bike owners we would still have the same number of road deaths a year! silly me. how would people die on the roads if we had zero cars and zero bikes if the stats on the number of registered owners make no difference???

**MSTRS:Me** · 28th January 2011, 15:09

Originally Posted by Katman

Open your eyes John. The problems we are currently facing are due to our poor accident statistics - fact. If we dramatically reversed those stats the powers that be would have no ammo to use on us - fact.

My eyes ARE open. Those 'poor' stats you are so keen on referring to, are almost as low, in terms of injury and death, as they've ever been. The rate has been dropping since the unbelieveable highs of the 70s. Reduced number of bikes accounts for some of that drop in the 90s, coupled with generally better riding behaviours.
Yes, we can do better, but can you tell us how 144 injuries and 5.2 deaths per 10,000 regd bikes in 2008 is worse than 551/17.0 in 1973? In 2008 there were 97000 bikes compared to 77,000 in 1973.
In the intervening years, the numbers have fluctuated up and down, year by year, but on a generally declining plot.

If 30 years of DECLINING stats is enough to have The Prick screaming, do you honestly think that a year or two of 'improvement' will have him back off?
Get real.

**bogan** · 28th January 2011, 15:15

Originally Posted by Murray

Talking of stats - can someone clarify something for me. I believe its been quoted that there were 50 motorcycle deaths in 2010 and 30 in 2003??. What was the number of registered motorbikes for each of the years and was there an actual percentage decrease in deaths per bike when the 2 years are compared.

Just something thats been bugging me when I hear about the incresed this and increased that!

2003 - 56047 (don't think this includes unlicensed vehicles, but not 100%)
2010 - 88201 (not including unlicensed vehicles)
EDIT: actually those two are form different sources, the 2008 figure (same source as 2003) is for 96952

the deaths per licensed bike has remained pretty constant over the last ten years, and the last ten years have been the lowest ever recorded. For these stats and more, please go to http://www.mag-nz.org/campaigns/moto...ety/statistics

**blackdog** · 28th January 2011, 15:18

Originally Posted by Katman

Accidents stats per number of registered motorcycles means nothing. More and more motorcyclists are owning multiple bikes these days.

How about stats relating to number of licensed riders then.

**Katman** · 28th January 2011, 15:20

Originally Posted by theblackstig

How about stats relating to number of licensed riders then.

That is the comparison that holds relevance.

**bogan** · 28th January 2011, 15:23

Originally Posted by Katman

That is the comparison that holds relevance.

Won't that make our figures look even better? as I would estimate a higher proportion of bike license holders don't ride anymore, than car license holders who don't drive anymore.