MOTO-NZ finally come up with something for all our money

[MrKiwi]

Anyone interested... - https://careers.acc.co.nz/jobdetails?ajid=oswca

[oneofsix]

Anyone interested... - https://careers.acc.co.nz/jobdetails?ajid=oswca

Can we have a joint chair, Stoney and Katman




Talk about ensuring nothing is ever achieved but by hell the meeting would be fun to watch.

[Katman]

The facts are:


Motorcyclists are victims of crashes not the cause. Blame should not be apportioned in a no fault system but if it is, it shouldn't be placed on the victim. (Would we charge women an extra ACC fee to cover the costs of rape ?)

71% of crashes were collisions
Motorcyclist primarily responsible for 35% or 1/3 of collisions
ie 2/3rds of collisions are caused by the motorist not the motorcyclist
Of all crashes including single vehicle ones, the motorcyclist was primarily
responsible for 51%. That's way better than car drivers.
Source http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...orcycle-Crash-
Factsheet.pdf

You seem to struggle with figures in the same way that Ixion did.

The pie chart on this page http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...facts-2012.pdf indicates that of all motorcycle accidents, about a third are single vehicle accidents i.e. the motorcyclist cannot point the blame at any other road user. Of the other two thirds, which are multi vehicle accidents (i.e. collisions), the motorcyclist has the responsibility (full or at least partial) in about half the number.

That would therefore indicate that motorcyclists bear the responsibility for about 66% of the crashes they have.

[davereid]

You seem to struggle with figures in the same way that Ixion did.

The pie chart on this page http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...facts-2012.pdf indicates that of all motorcycle accidents, about a third are single vehicle accidents i.e. the motorcyclist cannot point the blame at any other road user. Of the other two thirds, which are multi vehicle accidents (i.e. collisions), the motorcyclist has the responsibility (full or at least partial) in about half the number.

That would therefore indicate that motorcyclists bear the responsibility for about 66% of the crashes they have.

And car drivers are responsible for what percentage of the accidents car drivers have ? 99%?

[mashman]

about a third are single vehicle accidents i.e. the motorcyclist cannot point the blame at any other road user

What percentage of that third can point the blame to road conditions... just to clarify, effluent, loose chip, fluids on the road etc...?

[Ocean1]

What percentage of that third can point the blame to road conditions... just to clarify, effluent, loose chip, fluids on the road etc...?

He doesn't know.

He doesn't actually know jack shit. Gwarn, ask him.

[mashman]

He doesn't know.

He doesn't actually know jack shit. Gwarn, ask him.

I thought I did ask him... he might know.

[davereid]

What percentage of that third can point the blame to road conditions... just to clarify, effluent, loose chip, fluids on the road etc...?

The entire "partial responsibility - full responsibility" thing is an old statistical trick to make a group seem to be more at fault than they really are. When I did math we called it "shifting the denominator". Its a cunning trick to give you the result you want.

Look at a simple case.

Say there are two types of cars, blue and red. There are equal amount of blue cars and red cars, and they travel identical distances and have identical crash rates.

Say I then divide accidents up.

Blue car hits blue car. Red car hits red car. Red car hits blue car.

We already know that the accident rate is identical, as we invented the entire scenario.

But my headline will scream "Red cars are only 50% of the vehicles on the road, but we see them in 66% of two car collisions".

Katman will then tell me I need a blue car.

[Scuba_Steve]

Katman will then tell me I need a blue car.

And it was the bikes fault

[Katman]

What percentage of that third can point the blame to road conditions... just to clarify, effluent, loose chip, fluids on the road etc...?

See, the thing is, I actually don't give a fuck what percentage it might be.

The reality is, if it were only 5% of single vehicles crashes that could be blamed on road conditions then we're clearly not very good on two wheels.

If 95% of single vehicle crashes could be blamed on road conditions then we'd clearly be piss poor at reading road conditions.

Either way, we'd have vast room for improvement.

[mashman]

See, the thing is, I actually don't give a fuck what percentage it might be.

The reality is that if it were only 5% of single vehicles crashes that could be blamed on road conditions then we're clearly not very good on two wheels.

If 95% of single vehicle crashes could be blamed on road conditions then we'd clearly be piss poor at reading road conditions.

Either way, we'd have vast room for improvement.

You don't give a fuck about accidents that can't be avoided like mechanical failure or acts of god? Seems a little short sighted to me, surely even the most ardent osh inspector accepts that there is the probability for accident?

[Katman]

You don't give a fuck about accidents that can't be avoided like mechanical failure or acts of god?

Crashes that truly "can't be avoided" are so rare that they should be considered of no statistical value.

[mashman]

Crashes that truly "can't be avoided" are so rare that they should be considered of no statistical value.

In which case they should not exist in the numbers and should be recorded as no fault found for that purpose.

[MrKiwi]

Can we have a joint chair, Stoney and Katman




Talk about ensuring nothing is ever achieved but by hell the meeting would be fun to watch.

... well now that would be interesting!

[avgas]

Now they are advertising for the role of chair person - who wants to work 60 days (20 days of meetings + prep) of the year and get paid $60,000.
Sounds pretty good to me - I wouldn't mind taking the small pay cut to get most of the year off work.