Motorcycle Crash Stats

[Henk]

My guess is that in the 80s (when I started riding) the reason most of my mates had bikes was that it was about the only economic way to get something fast. That changed with the flood of cheap, quick, jap import cars. The risk taking nutters that once had the choice between litre bikes and clapped out Hillman Hunters suddenly had another option. As for the blame game in accident statistics, I've crashed a number of times over the years and in every case I have been at least partly to blame, even if only through a temporary reduction in the required paranoia index.

[Patar]

The statistic that I find the most interesting is that the risk for motorcyclists to be involved in a fatal or injury crash is more than 14 times that of a car, and this leads to motorcyclists contributing 10% of all deaths and 7% of all injuries which isn't all too disproportionate to the amount of motorcyclists on the roads today.

And given that motorcyclists are primarily at fault 25% of the time in multi-vehicle crashes (note I'm ignoring single-vehicle rider-at-fault crashes) I would say that, generally, motorcyclists are safer than cars and if the govt. wants to do something about road tolls they should encourage two wheeled transport and educate car drivers.

[swbarnett]

The statistic that I find the most interesting is that the risk for motorcyclists to be involved in a fatal or injury crash is more than 14 times that of a car

I read an article recently (If I could find it I'd put up a reference) that suggested that this figure is wildly inaccurate. The logic was basically that they are not comparing like with like. For example, most motorcyclists are between 15 and 40, whereas car drivers are more evenly spread over a wider age range. So a more accurate comparison can be drawn if you only consider drivers in this age group for both car and bike statistics. The comparison then starts to look more favourable towards bikes. Other demographics were talked about as also slanting the statistics.

[swbarnett]

Found the article - it's Hash's column in Two Wheels 06/08.

Other factors mentioned include sex (not while riding...) (more than 90% of riders are male while car drivers are 60:40 male:female) and the fact that riders are already generally risk takers (no data exists that compares accident rates of those that ride and drive).

[Badjelly]

Found the article - it's Hash's column in Two Wheels 06/08.

I'll have another look at that article tonight. I read it a month or 2 ago and I must say it seemed to me he was pushing shit uphill with a small shovel. Sure, male:female ratios, age differences, blah, blah, blah but can you really explain away a factor of 14?

I'm sure that I have a greater risk of being injured or killed while riding my bike than while driving my car over the same route at the same time of day, because:

• The bike has 2 wheels instead of 4 and consequently tends to fall over when it loses traction
• On the bike I'm not surrounded by sheet metal as I am in the car

The statistics, such as they are, tend to confirm this. It's going to take some solid analysis of solid data to convince me otherwise.

[awayatc]

If you would put pure testosterone and stupidity aside.....

On a bike you have NOT got:
A stereo to fiddle with
A fone to talk/text with
A nicotine habit to feed
A passenger you got turn and talk to
An "autopilot".....( steer with knees while you........)

So If you are a sensible commuter who can keep the ponies in check......Yes then as a biker you ride with 100x more concentration and defensive riding skills then any Cage driver......

You sit on the engine with the fueltank between your knees, and nothing between you and the outside world apart from what you wear......

If that can't keep you concentrated..........

[Badjelly]

If you would put pure testosterone and stupidity aside.....

At my age, I need all the testosterone I can get!

[Patar]

One thing i hate about statistics is that how they gather and interpret their data isn't always very clear.

The way that I see it is that single-vehicle accidents can be somewhat ignored, as they can be eliminated by not taking unnecessary risks (i.e weekend rides, which is where most bikes crash in a single-vehicle accident). Single-vehicle crashes account for 29% of all bike crashes and only 3% of that 29% the rider is not at fault leading to ~10% of all single-vehicle crashes involving bikes where the rider is not at fault.

So anyway, for multi-vehicle crashes it can be said that x% of crashes involve motorcycles ( lets assume 8% of all multi-vehicle crashes involve motorcycles, although i have no idea on this number) it can then be said that 100% of multi-vehicle crashes involve cars (lumping trucks and all vehicles with 4 wheels) and going by the statistic that in multi-vehicle accidents involving bike the rider is fully at fault 36% of the time, that would lead to bikes being the cause of 3% of all multi-vehicle accidents (assuming 8% is correct) and cars being fully at fault 57% of the time, leading to cars causing 97% of multi-vehicle accidents.
These numbers have been rounded up, there is about 1% of all multi-vehicle accidents where both motorcyclists have partial blame.
(note: this is total multi-vehicle accidents including bike-bike (never heard of one of these in nz), bike-car and car-car)


So, in summation,

[xwhatsit]

Must be very comfortable for you living in Lahlahland.

Not really -- if you ask me, it's a far scarier world if indeed car drivers are usually at blame. If instead motorcyclists are usually the problem, then at least I have more responsibility and control over whether I end up toast or not.

But anyway. These graphs were in the Sunday Herald I think -- waffling on about rising ACC costs. Probably based on a press release designed to mitigate forthcoming resentment about higher levies...?

[swbarnett]

I'll have another look at that article tonight. I read it a month or 2 ago and I must say it seemed to me he was pushing shit uphill with a small shovel. Sure, male:female ratios, age differences, blah, blah, blah but can you really explain away a factor of 14?

I think the point of the article was that, yes motorcycles are more dangerous than cars but how much is probably exaggerated by not comparing like with like.

I'm sure that I have a greater risk of being injured or killed while riding my bike than while driving my car over the same route at the same time of day, because:

• The bike has 2 wheels instead of 4 and consequently tends to fall over when it loses traction
• On the bike I'm not surrounded by sheet metal as I am in the car

The statistics, such as they are, tend to confirm this. It's going to take some solid analysis of solid data to convince me otherwise.

I'd tend to agree that one is safer in a car than on a bike (this is part of the point of riding for some). The question is whether, on a population basis, the extreme comparisons can be supported.

[mouldy]

If statistics show that 24 percent of riders crash while under the influence and 76 crash while straight does that mean its safer to ride toasted ?

[1 Free Man]

If statistics show that 24 percent of riders crash while under the influence and 76 crash while straight does that mean its safer to ride toasted ?

It would appear that way wouldn't it. Must get a quart of burbon to carry under the seat just to ensure I'm properly tanked before I ride. LOL

[swbarnett]

If statistics show that 24 percent of riders crash while under the influence and 76 crash while straight does that mean its safer to ride toasted ?

No.

You may find that the other 76% all had bald tyres on an oily road. In this case it would be possible to say that riding toasted with good tyres on a dry road may indeed be safer, but riding toasted with bald tyres on an oily road is not.

All this statistic really shows is that the issue requires more study.