Mike, are you Mikey?

[Katman]

Wont get dragged into a 'whats the real number' yet because we are still investigating what that number ACTUALLY is but its far from 75% my friend

That's all well and good Stoney, but until you can come up with irrefutable evidence to the contrary then you simply doing an ostrich impersonation.

You could start by trawling through all the Kiwibiker fatalities. I imagine they wouldn't be too far off 75%.

[Banditbandit]

How about (for a start), those who repeatedly have accidents pay more?

That idea was put to them - but more like a "no claims bonus" - no claims for two year - an reduction in Acc, no claims for five years - a further reduction ...

ACC didn't like it ...

[Deano]

That idea was put to them - but more like a "no claims bonus" - no claims for two year - an reduction in Acc, no claims for five years - a further reduction ...

ACC didn't like it ...

Why ? Because its actually more fair ?

[avgas]

[StoneY]

That's all well and good Stoney, but until you can come up with irrefutable evidence to the contrary then you simply doing an ostrich impersonation.

You could start by trawling through all the Kiwibiker fatalities. I imagine they wouldn't be too far off 75%.

I don't need to focus on Kiwibiker ones dude I get all of them, and it is not pleasant reading...every fatality this year I have read the crash report, and some going back a way too.

However, there have been more than a few where the rider has been the victim of a poor driver yet still its entered as 'rider fault' into the system.

The example of the 2500cc Kwaka I mentioned earlier.
When the reports are done its on two forms, form 1 for vehicle deemed by 1st on scene cop to be at fault, second one for victims details

Driver reverses out of driveway, knocks biker off, on a 50Kmh street lined with speed bumps
Initial report by on the scene copper rates cage driver at fault
Makes him vehicle 1 (blamed) and bike vehicle 2 (victim)

Post report analysis turns that over to 'rider fault' and the vehicles swap numbers, ergo the bike suddenly becomes a 2.5 liter (the car was a 2.5 ltr Volvo)

Mostly cos he failed to stop...yet he was t-boned by a reversing car, and the 1st cop on scene says he was killed by the negligent driving of the other vehicle...some office wally in the aftermath decides in the letter of the law interpretation he has of the diagram the bikes at fault for being behind a reversing car and (the bike) should have managed to stop, ergo he was speeding.... a ZZR250 between speedhumps...speeding???? T-Boned mid bike.....

Go figure

And mate, my head is nowhere near as in sand as many on here, that includes YOU! (don't take it personally)

You all have theories and beliefs, while I am wading through piles of FACT, documented and analyzed, mistakes and all....grim reading buddy, something I (in all honesty) was never prepared for and not something I hope anyone here ends up having to read every month either.........

[avgas]

Which raises the question.
Is a ZZR250 a REAL bike?
The press say yes, I say its a scooter.

[StoneY]

I say we get back on topic'

Who was that masked rider??????

[oneofsix]

I say we get back on topic'

Who was that masked rider??????

Zorro, the mask rider is always Zorro, right?

After trying to correct the police statement over the cause of one of my accidents just so they get their stats right and eventually going what the Fuck I accept it was my fault anyhow because they just didn't want to think, I don't trust their stats. i admit it is the best we have but it is like being given the choice between a $2 shop screw driver and a Warehouse Red Stamp screwdriver.

[Katman]

The example of the 2500cc Kwaka I mentioned earlier.
When the reports are done its on two forms, form 1 for vehicle deemed by 1st on scene cop to be at fault, second one for victims details

Driver reverses out of driveway, knocks biker off, on a 50Kmh street lined with speed bumps
Initial report by on the scene copper rates cage driver at fault
Makes him vehicle 1 (blamed) and bike vehicle 2 (victim)

Post report analysis turns that over to 'rider fault' and the vehicles swap numbers, ergo the bike suddenly becomes a 2.5 liter (the car was a 2.5 ltr Volvo)

So you've found one clerical error and suddenly their stats are all bullshit?

Fuck me, who put you in charge of data analysis?

[Banditbandit]

Why ? Because its actually more fair ?

Probably because it made too much sense for Nick Smith to accept

[Crasherfromwayback]

Probably because it made too much sense for Nick Smith to accept

Along with the fact that it's unfair to expect some poor cunt that has five bikes to have to pay the cunting tax 5 times over.

[StoneY]

So you've found one clerical error and suddenly their stats are all bullshit?
Fuck me, who put you in charge of data analysis?

If you MUST know Steve, yes, I am on a sub group tasked with exactly that duty - dig into the stats, find the flaws, seek a way to improve it. Any way we can. And we are.

A lesson in statistics for you:
Even ONE error like that in 50 records (and FYI we know of seven like this) is a huge difference, if you cant see past YOUR own severely blinded version of the truth to see the MATH behind this, then I pity you for being a zealot as opposed to a crusader.

This one instance can change the AVERAGE by hundreds of CC's, and in fact, this one did exactly that.
The MEAN for the years deaths in regards CC ratings was actually about 330cc's, but this one error pushed it to be 660cc's
601cc bikes and over are UNDER represented in the fatalities.... and immensely so!

If 7 x 250cc's and 2 x 1100cc bikes are in a periods reporting, how far out will that report be when one 250cc becomes a 2,500cc?
FUCKIN SHITLOADS! I rest my case.

This error as demonstrated here was uncovered by Charlie Lamb, a very respected researcher, world respected PHD in Business and marketing analysis, and head of Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies...wanna call him names or accuse him of making shit up?
Last Thursday he demonstrated to a group of MC representatives on statistics, focused on MVA incidents, and its extremely eye opening to see how ONE such error can lead to a very twisted view of the data

It makes the MEAN and the AVERAGE totally screwed for a start in a sample as small as 50, and that's the reality of this very example (which is in fact a real world situation that happened in our 09 stats)
As above, Dr Lambs researchers found 7 such errors, that one happens to be the most extreme case and he used it to show us why the data is CURRENTLY unreliable...that ok with you Steve????


Now can we get back to the thread topic?

[oneofsix]

This one instance can change the AVERAGE by hundreds of CC's, and in fact, this one did exactly that.
The MEAN for the years deaths in regards CC ratings was actually about 330cc's, but this one error pushed it to be 660cc's
601cc bikes and over are UNDER represented in the fatalities.... and immensely so!

If 7 x 250cc's and 2 x 1100cc bikes are in a periods reporting, how far out will that report be when one 250cc becomes a 2,500cc?
FUCKIN SHITLOADS! I rest my case.

Cool, now will Nick the prick please refund me on my 650? now there's a Tui ad.

[Katman]

Now can we get back to the thread topic?

What the fuck has cc rating got to do with it?

I'm talking specifically about where responsibility for fatal motorcycle accidents lies.

This error as demonstrated here was uncovered by Charlie Lamb, a very respected researcher, world respected PHD in Business and marketing analysis, and head of Australasian Institute of Motorcycle Studies...wanna call him names or accuse him of making shit up?

I already have.

[The Lone Rider]

I think the usefulness of fools like "Virago" start and finish well before they wake up and log online.

Quite clearly the online version gives a date and time of publication to their website. That is not necessarily the time it was broadcast. Some verification from someone who had seen the broadcast, was a simple request.

There seem to be far fewer people making an effort to help a wider community of two wheelers.

In a case of fools arguing; best not to attend lest you be confused as one of them. I'm outa here.