Ride the loop for MSAC as part of our first major project

[bogan]

ACC's stats may include off-road accidents but I think you'll find that NZTA's stats are solely road accidents - the most damning of which is the one the says motorcyclists are involved in 10% of all road accidents while we only make up 2% of the road going fleet.

NZTA's stats include a number of unregistered bikes, as well as farm bikes. Location and type of bike are often all that is recorded, a honda accident on SH57 could be a firestorm, or it could be a quad just going between paddocks.

[Smifffy]

ACC's stats may include off-road accidents but I think you'll find that NZTA's stats are solely road accidents - the most damning of which is the one the says motorcyclists are involved in 10% of all road accidents while we only make up 2% of the road going fleet.

10% of all reported road accidents. I'd also posit that a detailed look at the statistics would also offer up more clues as to why this might be, rather than the politically advantageous reliance on correlating simple summary figures from mutually exclusive data sets.

The problem is that the statistics are not being used or analysed with a view to improving the process, they are simply being used to justify a pre-determined measure.

Surely of this 10% there must be more common factors than simply all of them involved motorcycles?

[Ocean1]

he's pretty much on the money about being responsible for our own well-being.

So why did the government decide to take responsbility for it?

And then backpedal when faced with above-average risk groups?

And then fuck with the rules to cut costs not associated with mainstream claims?

Sounds to me like we're not being allowed to take responsibility for ourselves.

[Blackbird]

10% of all reported road accidents. I'd also posit that a detailed look at the statistics would also offer up more clues as to why this might be, rather than the politically advantageous reliance on correlating simple summary figures from mutually exclusive data sets.

The problem is that the statistics are not being used or analysed with a view to improving the process, they are simply being used to justify a pre-determined measure.

Surely of this 10% there must be more common factors than simply all of them involved motorcycles?

I agree that the statistics warrant closer scrutiny particularly in the light of Professor Lamb's findings (http://geoffjames.blogspot.com/2010/...ruths-and.html) but they can also be a red herring.

With the best will in the world, looking at statistics are going to have far less impact than getting off our collective arses and taking responsibility for raising our own riding standards.

[Katman]

NZTA's stats include a number of unregistered bikes, as well as farm bikes. Location and type of bike are often all that is recorded, a honda accident on SH57 could be a firestorm, or it could be a quad just going between paddocks.

NZTA's stats (as far as I'm aware) pertain to accidents on NZ's public roading system.

Yes, there may be the occasional farm bike accident on a public road but I think that in the overall scheme of things that number would be negligible.

[Blackbird]

So why did the government decide to take responsbility for it?

And then backpedal when faced with above-average risk groups?

And then fuck with the rules to cut costs not associated with mainstream claims?

Sounds to me like we're not being allowed to take responsibility for ourselves.

1. Because it's a nanny state, despite Labour not being in power and probably more accurately and correctly, they don't trust the motoring public to sort their own driving standards out.

2. Of course you can take responsibility for yourself, no-one is stopping you from raising your game.

[bogan]

With the best will in the world, looking at statistics are going to have far less impact than getting off our collective arses and taking responsibility for raising our own riding standards.

The problem there, is it's a bit of an open ended message. How do you identify those at risk, and how do you ensure they realise this and take corrective action.

NZTA's stats (as far as I'm aware) pertain to accidents on NZ's public roading system.

Yes, there may be the occasional farm bike accident on a public road but I think that in the overall scheme of things that number would be negligible.

Not necessarily, an accident at a motocross may simply record the road address, and bike manufacturer. How will it be classified from there?

I have discussed this at length a year or two ago with somebody who processes this stuff. Basically because it is an error in data entry, without re-gathering the data, the extent of it is unknowable. One might hazard a guess that the amount per rego we pay for this is in the same vicinity as the MSL.

[Katman]

Not necessarily, an accident at a motocross may simply record the road address, and bike manufacturer. How will it be classified from there?

Do NZTA collect their data from ACC records or from the NZ police records?

[Smifffy]

Do NZTA collect their data from ACC records or from the NZ police records?

IMO it is the ACC ministry pushing the levy, and they should be doing so with their own data that they collect themselves and for which can vouch stands up to inspection.

Instead anyone seeking to question the veracity of the supporting information is given the typical bureaucratic run around.

At least now you are questioning some aspects of the data instead of the old "Don't ride like a dick and you won't get stung with high fees"

Do you really believe that the rise in your levies is a fair reflection of your own riding style/skill?

[Blackbird]

The problem there, is it's a bit of an open ended message. How do you identify those at risk, and how do you ensure they realise this and take corrective action.

I hope you're not inferring that you don't feel the need for re-skilling or upskilling! I might have my tongue slightly in my cheek regarding that statement but the truth of the matter is that we are ALL at risk if we don't periodically get our skills checked by a competent 3rd party. As I mentioned in another post, I've ridden for 40+ years and considered myself "experienced". It wasn't until I joined the IAM this year and was evaluated against UK police motorcycle training standards that my ego came to understand the big difference between "experienced" and "advanced"! I think that identifies all of us!

[Katman]

IMO it is the ACC ministry pushing the levy, and they should be doing so with their own data that they collect themselves and for which can vouch stands up to inspection.

I'm specifically referring to NZTA's 2% v 10% figures mentioned earlier which as far as I'm aware stem from the NZ police records as opposed to any ACC records.

At least now you are questioning some aspects of the data instead of the old "Don't ride like a dick and you won't get stung with high fees"

When have I ever said that?

Do you really believe that the rise in your levies is a fair reflection of your own riding style/skill?

Why do you think I'm sick and fucking tired of motorcyclists riding in a manner that makes them an accident waiting to happen?

[bogan]

I hope you're not inferring that you don't feel the need for re-skilling or upskilling! I might have my tongue slightly in my cheek regarding that statement but the truth of the matter is that we are ALL at risk if we don't periodically get our skills checked by a competent 3rd party. As I mentioned in another post, I've ridden for 40+ years and considered myself "experienced". It wasn't until I joined the IAM this year and was evaluated against UK police motorcycle training standards that my ego came to understand the big difference between "experienced" and "advanced"! I think that identifies all of us!

I've yet to get to a training day, but I am certainly on the lookout for any potential improvements to be had.

So if you have identified that all bikers are at risk, how do you convince them to realise the same, and take corrective action?

Do NZTA collect their data from ACC records or from the NZ police records?

My conclusion are drawn from the CAS database, I believe police (and possibly others) are responsible for the data entered into this. I don't think we have ever been made aware of how ACC obtains their figures; unless there is a separate and more detailed form all injured must fill out I can't see how they could get more accurate figures.

I'm specifically refering to NZTA's 2% v 10% figures mentioned earlier which as far as I'm aware stem from the NZ police records as opposed to any ACC records.

Those ones are in the vicinity of what we found from NZTA figures as well. However for the 2008 year (last one I have) it is 3.1% and 10.1% From what I can tell, it has never been 2% and 10% in the same year. But the relative risk got close to 5x in the early 90s, which is the same result (with a little rounding) as a 2% 10% distribution.

[Ocean1]

1. Because it's a nanny state, despite Labour not being in power and probably more accurately and correctly, they don't trust the motoring public to sort their own driving standards out.

Can not you see the implication here? In offering to pay for our mistakes they must then either attempt to control our behaviour or fail to deliver on the promise of payment for some mistakes.

For that reason when ACC was first introduced I didn't believe it could work. And yet, for years it did, fueled by extremely reasonable charges and much improved economies of scale. It's taken a couple of decades, but the system finally sees the need to control our behaviour in order to manage it's spending.

The price is still very reasonable, I wouldn't mind paying more. But I decline to allow myself to be manipulated simply because my passtime carries a greater than average risk.

2. Of course you can take responsibility for yourself, no-one is stopping you from raising your game.

The point is moot, in fact it's not possible for anyone other than me to be responsible for my actions. Why, then should anyone else attempt to put a price on them?

[Blackbird]

Ocean,

I think we're pretty aligned in our thinking actually. If sections of the motoring public whether on 2 wheels, 4 or more become a burden on the taxpayer because of their actions, then the state must intervene in some form or other. In that respect, it's no different from controlling other forms of "antisocial" behaviour. I guess that it's also putting a price on an individual's behaviour. The real worry of course is when it becomes too heavy-handed.

However, I've said my piece, put my money where my mouth is and am doing some on-going training to lift my game.

[Smifffy]

That's really great, and my point is that you could do all of that, and more, but the next couple of years worth of squids coming through could still have your rego fee increasing unreasonably. Is that fair?

The other point is that the committee set up with theses funds to address the root cause, hasn't even identified a root cause, and so far has done SFA with the money allocated to them. As the thread title states, riding the loop was their first major project. I wonder what the budget was, and where the results are.

I notice since the esteemed biker's representative was slung off the committee for having the temerity to actually inform bikers of what was being done on their behalf, that the 'avid motorcyclist' from the AA has been quite quiet.

---snipped---

However, I've said my piece, put my money where my mouth is and am doing some on-going training to lift my game.