Bike crash statistic thread for '09

[Ixion]

and the primary cause for crashes is not speed its stupidity often on the bikers part.

The tragic crash at Akaroa is a good example.

In what way could "speed" be said to be responsible?

Or, any lack of skill on the part of any of the riders? They may or may not have been proficient, but neither lack of technical skill, nor speed caused that crash . Going slower would not have helped, and what skill is involved in overtaking a stream of cars. The crash was simply the result of either arrant stupidity or great misfortune (I do not know the area so I forbear to judge, though I suspect that I know which it was) . 'Skill' doesn't compensate for stupid, nor does slow.

[arj127]

If theres fifty motorcycle fatals in a year and 75% of them were caused by cars not seeing the motorcycle, why the fuck should motorcycle ACC levies go up????

[mashman]

It is so pathetically shortsighted to look at accidents with the blinkered view of 'who's at fault'.

Accidents should be looked at with the attitude 'what could I have done to avoid it'.

Whilst I fundamentally agree, you can't have one without the other. You have a crash... what caused it wll generally accompany who was at fault as part of the analysis... I did this analysis in the UK years ago as I was privvy to the DVLA, Police and Insurance company data... You can draw certain conclusions, but the problem was incomplete data. Too many variants of "crashed" skewed the data and a cleanse would just skew it even more... Garbage in Garbage Out!!!

[Titanium]

It is so pathetically shortsighted to look at accidents with the blinkered view of 'who's at fault'.

Accidents should be looked at with the attitude - 'what could I have done to avoid it?'

That is where industry has been forced to go ....... for every 30,000 near misses there is 1 death .....

[Katman]

If theres fifty motorcycle fatals in a year and 75% of them were caused by cars not seeing the motorcycle, why the fuck should motorcycle ACC levies go up????

What fucking planet are you on?

[arj127]

What fucking planet are you on?

Same one as you. I don't think you get the point of my post

[Nasty]

With all this bullshit about motorcyclists being the highest ACC claimers in the news lately, i think there should be a thread on kiwibiker for any known motorcycle injuries in 2009 since they won't give us the full statistics. We don't need names, just a date and cause of crash wether it be rider error or genuine accident.

If we can keep a note of the accidents and how they were caused we would have a better idea of who is actually at fault. Keeping track of the dirt riding/ farm bike community would be impossible, but i'm sure they are being included into the statistics.

How can we do this???

You can not get statistics off this site ... you can not collect validated information in a way that is statistically safe as you can not verify the information ... and that is just starters on your idea. Sorry to burst your bubble but life really don't work like that.

[Katman]

Same one as you. I don't think you get the point of my post

If you are even suggesting that of 50 motorcycle fatalities there's the slightest chance that car drivers are responsible for 38 of them then you're certainly not on the same planet as me.

[arj127]

So your happy to have an increased ACC levy nowing that a lot of the crashes are not always rider error.

[FJRider]

If theres fifty motorcycle fatals in a year and 75% of them were caused by cars not seeing the motorcycle, why the fuck should motorcycle ACC levies go up????

Because they are motorcycle accidents...simple eh!!!

[arj127]

If you are even suggesting that of 50 motorcycle fatalities there's the slightest chance that car drivers are responsible for 38 of them then you're certainly not on the same planet as me.

So what do you think the variables are then? That is what i would like to know. That is what ACC are not telling us.

I know of many riders that have been cleaned out by turning cars. One purchased my previous bike after only having hers for eight weeks

[Katman]

So your happy to have an increased ACC levy nowing that a lot of the crashes are not always rider error.

Fuck me!

[mashman]

it's not crashes you should be looking at, it's incidents where there have been ACC claims involving motorcycles... but you'll still have to compare that to the incidents where ACC claims where made involving cars to get the sort of information you're after...

[Katman]

I know of many riders that have been cleaned out by turning cars.

Don't give me the shit that none of them were speeding or that there was nothing that they could have done to avoid the situation.

[Ixion]

To assign responsibility for a crash is often far more complex than it seems.

take Ms Natalie Noobie, f'instance. Tootling along on her GN250. It's a wet day, but she's going well. Then a car shoots through a red light directly in front of her. Natalie grabs the brakes (she's been driving cages for years, without mishap, BTW). And makes a commendable effort of slowing down, to the point that she avoids hitting the car, which shoots off into the distance. Unfortunately Natalie then rides over a painted white line on the road. Very slippery. The front wheel locks and turns in , and Natalie goes down.

Now , what caused that crash? It will be recorded as a single vehicle crash, with Natalie to blame. (Because, there IS no other vehicle involved).

So, what was the cause? Is there a single cause? Legally the car that shot the red light has no responsibility at all. But if he hadn't Natalie would not have crashed. But, maybe she wouldn't have crashed if the darn white paint wasn't so slippery. Or, if Natalie had a bit more experience , to control that lock up , or not rely on braking in the first place. Of course, if Natalie had been riding a BMW with ABS brakes she'd probably have been fine also. Or, again, if Natalie had more experience, her spidey sense might have whispered not to trust in that green light. Or, if Natalie had never learned to drive a cage she might have swerved behind the car instead of panic braking.

So, who do we blame? The car driver? The road designer who put that white paint there? Natalie? Inexperience? Vehicle design? The weather gods? Change any one of those things, and there would be no crash

(Oh, and by the way, Natalie died. The crash was nothing, only about 20kph. But the truck that was tailgating her couldn't stop and ran over her. The driver denied following too closely and said that he was blameless, she just fell under his wheels. So , whose fault ? )

EDIT : Oh, and someone has pointed out that Natalie was going 60kph in a 50 zone at the time. So it's all down to speeding, eh?