Motorcycle Crash Stats

[riffer]

I've been thinking about another thing.

Looking at the statistics in age group of crashing riders.

There's one group that's increasing in crashes lately - the over 35s.

And 20 years ago it was the 17-25s crashing all the time.

It's my generation guys. Those of us that didn't kill ourselves in the 80s are coming back to biking and bringing those same attitudes back with us.

And surprise, surprise - same result.

[Jantar]

Very interesting. The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows that between 2002 - 2006, in crashes involving motorcycles, the rider was primarily responsible in more than half the cases.

Sure motorcycling is dangerous but I don't know how many times I've been told that usually the rider is taken out and wasn't at fault. That assertion is clearly wrong according to these stats. Go figure

Like all statistics, the conclusion drawn depends on how the data is presented. Note that in the graph, single vehicle and multiple vehicle crashes are lumped together. It is Police and ACC policy to call ALL single vehicle accidents driver/rider fault unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. So almost all single vehicle motorcycle accidents are the fault of the rider. Of course it is hard to blame these on the other vehicle if there is no other vehicle involved. Once those single vehicle accidents are removed from the table, then we find that motorcyclists are fully to blame in less than 35% of the accidents.

It does seem strange that motorcyclists in NZ are more to blame than in Brittain where a similar analysis showed motorclists were to blame in around 22% of multi vehicle accidents.

[RiderInBlack]

And add to that, that Jap bikes went through their fat ugly stage in the late 80s', ealy 90s'.

CBR1000/600... GSX600 teapot... GPX750... So much plastic everwhere. Who would want one?

I did ("Roxanne" CBR1000FL) And still love the look of the CBR1000F's Would love ta see them back and up dated. Better rider position than the Blackbird IMHO.

[dipshit]

Once those single vehicle accidents are removed from the table, () then we find that motorcyclists are fully to blame in less than 35% of the accidents.

??????

Are you a member of BRONZ???

[Jantar]

??????

Are you a member of BRONZ???

No I'm not. But I do know how to weed the false assumptions out of statistics.

[dipshit]

No I'm not. But I do know how to weed the false assumptions out of statistics.

By ignoreing them???

[Jantar]

No, by not including irellevant data in the first place.

By including single vehicle accidents in any statement about accidents involving a second vehicle is similar to claimimg that 100% of drug addicts started by drinking milk.

[Coyote]

Or maybe motorcycle prices are to high now for the young fella to afford...Hold on, when did the 250cc rule come in for learners??? That could have something to do with it .....

Don't know about that. The cars that people my age tend to go for are more expensive than my bike. What's more all the money they then put into their car (stereo, mags, etc.) is worth another bike. I'm inclined to say it's the banks fault for playing on my generations attitude of "I want it now!!! FUCKING NOW!!!", and there's a multitude of reasons why they've been brought up to be such a way, but of course my generation are idiots for being like that anyway.

I'd put money on the impact of deregulation of imported cars, making more youngsters choose cars over motorcycles as first transport.

There's also a huge push by everyone around you to get a car. A car is needed to be part of society. You need to be able to carry mates around, and a bike is being selfish. It's a waste of money just for a 'toy'. And bikes are gay, like everything else. It's only the bikers (and a few others that strongly want one but can't afford it) that actually understand why. Even then a few biker mates have been selling their bikes to get a car.

What's more everyone is convinced you can only have sex in a car. They're just not being imaginative.

[dipshit]

By including single vehicle accidents in any statement about accidents involving a second vehicle is similar to claimimg that 100% of drug addicts started by drinking milk.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...87&postcount=8

Who says we are olny talking about multi vehicle accidents?

Thanks to dicks like BRONZ, a lot of riders really do think that the majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by other road users and that their shit don't stink.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Jantar]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...87&postcount=8

Who says we are olny talking about multi vehicle accidents?

Thanks to dicks like BRONZ, a lot of riders really do think that the majority of motorcycle accidents are caused by other road users and that their shit don't stink.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

How can we not be talking about multi vehicle accidents when discussing causes involving "other" road users?

[dipshit]

How can we not be talking about multi vehicle accidents when discussing causes involving "other" road users?

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...87&postcount=8

"Very interesting. The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows that between 2002 - 2006, in crashes involving motorcycles, the rider was primarily responsible in more than half the cases."

[Jantar]

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...87&postcount=8

"Very interesting. The graph at the bottom of page 4 shows that between 2002 - 2006, in crashes involving motorcycles, the rider was primarily responsible in more than half the cases."

The graph quoted on the motorcycle accident statics does indeed take into account ALL motorcycle accidents, not just multi vehicle accidents, but the claim from BRONZ is a follow on from what used to be printed on NZACU material and refers to multi vehicle accidents. That is why I contend that if you are commenting on accidents caused by other vehicles then you must remove the single vehicle accidents from the data. Alternatively you could include all single vehicle car accidents and all multi vehicle accidents that do not include bikes for a more comprehensive picture.

But I will leave you with this by Landon Prescott:

Motorcycle riders often get an unjustified reputation as being reckless, risk takers, and that they generally disobey traffic laws. This perception is unfounded and there are many statistics that back up the fact that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of the motorcycle rider, but that of another driver.

A major study conducted by the University of Southern California (USC) found that approximately three-fourths of motorcycle accidents involved a collision with another vehicle, usually a passenger automobile. It was also found that in the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents. Further the study by USC found that the failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

[Katman]

The graph quoted on the motorcycle accident statics does indeed take into account ALL motorcycle accidents, not just multi vehicle accidents, but the claim from BRONZ is a follow on from what used to be printed on NZACU material and refers to multi vehicle accidents. That is why I contend that if you are commenting on accidents caused by other vehicles then you must remove the single vehicle accidents from the data. Alternatively you could include all single vehicle car accidents and all multi vehicle accidents that do not include bikes for a more comprehensive picture.

But I will leave you with this by Landon Prescott:

Must be very comfortable for you living in Lahlahland.

(What about all the single vehicle accidents that don't get reported)?

[Skyryder]

Must be very comfortable for you living in Lahlahland.

(What about all the single vehicle accidents that don't get reported)?

I've been riding for most of my life and can honestly say that most of my 'near misses' have been caused by vehicles that have performed an unexpected manouvre. The fact that I ride with this in mind is what has saved me more times than I care to remember.

Skyryder

[Hoon]

I'd put money on the impact of deregulation of imported cars, making more youngsters choose cars over motorcycles as first transport.

Yep first thing that popped into my mind too. Back in the 80's a motorbike was the cheapest way to get on the road. You could pick up a bike for a few hundred. Also policing, licensing was pretty lax and no wof/reg/license fines were only $40 a piece. The 15-19 yo casualties graph during that time backs this up.

Then Jap imports came along, teenagers stop buying bikes and get cheap cars instead for their first vehicle. Fines, policing and licensing tighten up and all the shitter bikes are forced off the roads.

These days a learners bike is $4K plus, the price of a decent car.