Motorcyclists 23% safer behind the wheel - no surprises there?

[pritch]

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-...car/23971.html

[Scuba_Steve]

What's that trendy interwebbery thing? something like #ACC

[SMOKEU]

I have noticed that I'm much more weary of hazards when driving since I started riding compared to when I was just a cager.

[caspernz]

Funnily enough, when I was doing driver training for truck drivers...I found most bikers to be better truckers than non-riders. Not all of course, but enough to see a trend. Now how do I submit those findings to ACC? Basically better situational awareness and anticipation, which seems logical when you think about it.

[bogan]

23% safer, or 23% deader from riding those pesky PTWs into trees?

Or just riding the bikes so car use is only 23% what is was...

[Maha]

So bikers that also drive a car, still have accidents, and less than 1/4 of those who also drive are less likely (on average) to make a claim on their car policy? The figures would stack better if the percentage was above 50%.

[Zedder]

I have noticed that I'm much more weary of hazards when driving since I started riding compared to when I was just a cager.

If you're weary of hazards, you probably need a break from driving.

[Zedder]

Funnily enough, when I was doing driver training for truck drivers...I found most bikers to be better truckers than non-riders. Not all of course, but enough to see a trend. Now how do I submit those findings to ACC? Basically better situational awareness and anticipation, which seems logical when you think about it.

Submit your findings to ACC?!? They only want data that shows motorcycling is dangerous.

[imdying]

Of course they are less likely to claim on their car policy, they're riding their bike.

Another way to twist that data is that a motorcyclist with both a car and bike policy is 100% more likely to make a claim on their motorcycle insurance policy than somebody who only drives a car.

Lies damned lies and statistics.

[Zedder]

Of course they are less likely to claim on their car policy, they're riding their bike.

Another way to twist that data is that a motorcyclist with both a car and bike policy is 100% more likely to make a claim on their motorcycle insurance policy than somebody who only drives a car.

Lies damned lies and statistics.

I tried finding more info on it but there's nothing available. Like Bogan, you and Maha write, it's more about what isn't given as data than what is.

[imdying]

Correlation is not causation I think sums it up. This is an insurance company, not a statistical analysis company. In other words, you can basically consider anything they have to say to be a twisting of the truth, or perhaps in the case just straight up ignorance.

[baffa]

You're not reading this properly. That is a huge margin.

Claims include anything from theft, to claiming for damage caused by others (known or unknown) as well as where the insured is at fault.

Obviously owning a bike doesnt stop your car from being stolen, so the only difference here will be the at fault claims, and say if we assume that is 50% of the claims an insurance company receives, that percentage alludes to bikers having almost half as many at fault claims as non riders, which is fking massive.

Also, the other part of the story it doesnt tell is why the bikers are having less claims. Obviously the logic is because they are more aware of their surroundings, and more pro active with their driving, and avoiding accidents.

So think about this. If I hit someone at 100 kph, or 20 kph, its still a claim.
So its not just that the bikers claim less, but one could argue, that the claims they do have, are likely to be smaller.

[SPman]

The insurer examined 200 million policies between 2007 and 2012.

That's a lot of corelation......

[Ocean1]

I tried finding more info on it but there's nothing available. Like Bogan, you and Maha write, it's more about what isn't given as data than what is.

Correlation is not causation I think sums it up. This is an insurance company, not a statistical analysis company. In other words, you can basically consider anything they have to say to be a twisting of the truth, or perhaps in the case just straight up ignorance.

Aye, they lie like sausages in fat, but in this case we're looking at raw data, they've made no inference at all.

So let's do it for them, eh? A difference that size is fairly easilly explained by the likely difference in the distance licenced riders travel in cars. If it was 75% of the average car-only driver you'd expect that result.

It's also possible bike riders make fewer claims in both car and bike classes...

[baffa]

Ever get the feeling you're talking to yourself?

I feel like a beer.