It's not an article. It's clearly headed up as opinion.Originally Posted by oldrider
Well, I ran off with mine ... worked for me!(getting kinda sick of running though)
The writer of that article is obviously an ACC Nick Smith stoogie!
It's not an article. It's clearly headed up as opinion.Well, I ran off with mine ... worked for me!
The writer of that article is obviously an ACC Nick Smith stoogie!
Tearing Choppa a new A'Hole
Lol. No, that's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear. And as you've well demonstrated, the statistics can be moulded to suit either side of the argument.No, they don't. Go take a look at the ACTUAL crash statistics. The only way to make motorcyclists seem like they have a higher accident rate is to isolate them from the rest of the road going fleet. Other than that, and from memory, car drivers cause 78% of ALL road accidents, and by default are responsible for approx 78% of ACC's costs. So no, they don't cost more per accident at all.
No they are not more likely to die in a road accident for exactly the same reasons as outlined above. An accident is just that, an accident, the number of accidents is finite irrespective of vehicle class... cars have by far more deaths than motorcyclists. You have to single motorcyclists out and compare them to the car population before you can get any unfavourable statistic. Oddly enough, as part of the road going fleet, motorcycles are less likely to be involved in an accident than cars are... but you don't want to hear that do you.
You're not using logic, you're using probability and a dataset skewed in favour of car drivers because of their superior numbers.
I just changed the statistics without thumbing the starter and by applying a simple one cap fits all... but again, you probably don't want to hear that.
What about this one.
Single vehicle accidents, motorcycle SVA versus car SVA. Which costs more to rehabilitate the operator? Per accident.
Vote David Bain for MNZ president
Hardcore Biker
what your missing here is there can be up to 7 people in a car and if they are all injured which one do you think
I dont have the figures in front of me but I think per accident there isnt much difference (all accidents) but motorcycles were cheaper IIRC.
The real issue is we have more per registered road rider.
PS the rehab costs are not everything the salaries paid while they recouperate are more significant.
--------------------------------------
Knowledge is realizing that the street is one-way, wisdom is looking both directions anyway
Aio ki te Aorangi
I wasn't dealing in the statistics, they are facts off of the transport.govt site(give or take
)... but they can be fixed to fit... I believe they call it data calibration.
Single vehicle accidents: There is no data on the transport.govt... but ... according to the same document and taking Cornering as the scenario, because Cornering has double the number of injuries of any other individual cause and is most probably a single vehicle accident:
2009 numbers:
There were 1961 serious crashes (total for 2009)
Total number of car operators injured: 8017
Total number of bike operators injured: 1369
Cornering numbers
Car Operators: 2173 (27.10%)
Motorcycle Operators: 337 (24.62%)
To answer your question, I'm going with cars again...
Loss of traction in a corner at say 100kmh is loss of traction, car or bike... the numbers are still higher for cars and therefore more than likely costing ACC more per operator.
I didn't think!!! I experimented!!!
Forum whore
I've seen you spout this shit before and it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. Using your reasoning:No, they don't. Go take a look at the ACTUAL crash statistics. The only way to make motorcyclists seem like they have a higher accident rate is to isolate them from the rest of the road going fleet. Other than that, and from memory, car drivers cause 78% of ALL road accidents, and by default are responsible for approx 78% of ACC's costs. So no, they don't cost more per accident at all.
No they are not more likely to die in a road accident for exactly the same reasons as outlined above. An accident is just that, an accident, the number of accidents is finite irrespective of vehicle class... cars have by far more deaths than motorcyclists. You have to single motorcyclists out and compare them to the car population before you can get any unfavourable statistic. Oddly enough, as part of the road going fleet, motorcycles are less likely to be involved in an accident than cars are... but you don't want to hear that do you
You're not using logic, you're using probability and a dataset skewed in favour of car drivers because of their superior numbers.
The percentage of road deaths each year that involve a driver wearing a blindfold is zero. There, I've proved it. It is absolutely safe to wear a blindfold while riding, you will have a 0% chance of dying.
He's not moulding anything, he's just making shit up.
Forum whore
The numbers being higher for cars show that it will cost ACC more in total for all car operators, not per operator.
Tearing Choppa a new A'Hole
Look. I'm pissed and I can still see the massive hole in your argument.
How many registered "cars" were there in 2009?
How many registered "motorcycles" were there in 2009?
Now give me the percentages.
Fact. Bikes crash. Bike riders get hurt.
YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO GET HURT RIDING A BIKE THAN DRIVING A CAR.
Vote David Bain for MNZ president
Aio ki te Aorangi
What doesn't make sense? got a question or just running your mouth off like me...
Here's the link to the source
Whore of the Forumz.
Unless you ride like Katman...
Highway Biker
Cool, a dickhead writes an article, and bikers implode on them themselves...
Aio ki te Aorangi
Total injuries for cars 2009: 8017 drivers, 3370 passengers (excluding deaths)
Total injuries for a bike 2009: 1369 riders and pillions combined (excluding deaths)
I disagree that I'm more likely to get hurt on a bike.
Forum whore
You seem to think it irrelevant that there are far more cars than motorcycles.
Whore of the Forumz.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...nd-crashes.pdf
First thing i noticed is the rider taking the wrong line for the corner.. probably why he crashed...
Tearing Choppa a new A'Hole
Far from imploding. More likely having a balanced discussion on an online forum.Cool, a dickhead writes an article, and bikers implode on them themselves...
Look, I hate these fucken ACC bullshit levies as much as any other biker. They're total shit and discriminatory. They affect my livelyhood, unlike the majority of you goons for whom it merely effects how much you pay to enjoy leisure passtime.
So what I'm suggesting, is perhaps we take a more active stance on swaying the figures (be they right or wrong) back in our favour. Holy shit, we may just save a life at the same time!
Vote David Bain for MNZ president
Forum whore
Total number of cars, number of km travelled by cars and accidents involving cars are all much higher. This is important.
Total injuries for dancing drunk on a steep roof 2009: 58 dancers, 2 observers (excluding deaths).
Do you think that you're more likely to get hurt driving a car than dancing drunk on a steep roof?
Last edited by Ender EnZed; 27th September 2011 at 19:40. Reason: typo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks