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

[Katman]

Yep. And same for car vs bike. Some causes cross over between the 2 types, but there are enough differences to require separate targetting.
Like I said, we don't know the terms under which Charley made the address...

Regardless of the terms under which Charles Lamb addressed the MOTO-NZ meeting, the fact is that his whole investigation only ever addressed multi vehicle accidents.

As far as I'm aware, he has never made public any investigation that he may have carried out of single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Charles Lamb certainly isn't addressing the bigger picture.

[MSTRS:Me]

Charles Lamb certainly isn't addressing the bigger picture.

And just who is? Apart from you, that is.

[Katman]

And just who is? Apart from you, that is.

I keep asking myself the same question.

[Bassmatt]

Regardless of the terms under which Charles Lamb addressed the MOTO-NZ meeting, the fact is that his whole investigation only ever addressed multi vehicle accidents.

As far as I'm aware, he has never made public any investigation that he may have carried out of single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Charles Lamb certainly isn't addressing the bigger picture.

Maybe he is of the Katman school of thought- if its only a bike involved its the bikers fault.

[GrayWolf]

Regardless of the terms under which Charles Lamb addressed the MOTO-NZ meeting, the fact is that his whole investigation only ever addressed multi vehicle accidents.

As far as I'm aware, he has never made public any investigation that he may have carried out of single vehicle motorcycle accidents.

Charles Lamb certainly isn't addressing the bigger picture.

There MOTO-NZ people, is where our ill gotten funding can be spent usefully.... as I suggested, researched by world accepted figures to give a full and even account of accident statistics.... then the figures will be either to our advantage, or, will reveal the truth that we are a bunch of loony morons who should be legislated off the road.....
We all think we get a raw deal, THAT level of research would show the whole and unadulterated truth.......

[Katman]

I would suggest that an in-depth investigation of single vehicle motorcycle accidents would make for rather sobering reading.

[Berries]

You can't diss the Professor for his report though as he did start off with this statement -

International evidence shows that the largest proportion of motorcycle accidents, involve another vehicle. In Europe, this was shown to be about 85 percent of all motorcycle accidents (ACEM 2008), whilst in the US, research indicates it is approximately 75 percent of all accidents involving motorcycles (Hurt et al 1981).

So for whatever reason he was looking at the bulk of crashes and there is nothing wrong with that. If you just read the conclusion though you wouldn't know that single bike crashes were excluded, and the focus on visibility meant that the biggest determinant in rider safety when it comes to multi vehicle crashes, defensive riding, didn't even get a mention.

I would suggest that an in-depth investigation of single vehicle motorcycle accidents would make for rather sobering reading.

It certainly would. An in-depth analysis of single bike crashes would find that farmers are wankers for having crap fences, roading authorities are cocks for giving us poor roads, the weather can be a bitch at times but primarily that motorbike riders are idiots for riding beyond their capabilities in the seconds leading up to the crash. I am not sure that we should push to have all that made official as it could quite easily be used to bring in draconian measures to improve 'our' safety.

At least the Lamb report didn't blame the rider.

[Katman]

At least the Lamb report didn't blame the rider.

Nobody could accuse the Lamb of being unbiased.

[bogan]

I would suggest that an in-depth investigation of single vehicle motorcycle accidents would make for rather sobering reading.

Why would you need one? Fairly obvious that at minimum the rider failed to anticipate conditions, and likely often caused the problematic conditions to begin with.

An in depth report which states the obvious isn't going to achieve fuck all. Mind you, with that sort of outcome, I guess we can expect motoNZ to get right on it

The point that stoney was making, is that motonz are the type of organisation that see what they want to see, and people like Charley are largely ignored as his conclusions (although backed up with stats) do not fit the party line. I think that sort of attitude should be changed, as they say, 'we own the options' right?

[Conquiztador]

Many of the bike accident's happen on weekends. So why not introduce a law stopping bikes from being ridden on weekends? Maaaaan I am brilliant!

[avgas]

Many of the bike accident's happen on weekends. So why not introduce a law stopping bikes from being ridden on weekends? Maaaaan I am brilliant!

Or we could use a system determining which vehicles can use the road on certain days. We could attach a label on the vehicle so it easily visible.

SSDD

[StoneY]

Addressing "Bike VS Other vehicle stats ONLY" is rather pointless though considering they only make up little more than half the total motorcycle accidents.

WRONG
Gonna come here with numbers pal get em accurate. Less single vehicle motorcycle accidents occur than coillisions, not to mention the bikes that come off avoiding a car/van/truck thats doing something to cause a rider to take sudden action then the rider comes off as a result of such action.

Not every single motorcycle incident is coz of a stupid squid no matter what poisin you try to seed within your own community.

REPORTED accidents involving multiple vehicles, resulting in an injury farsingle bike accidents, in NZTA and Police stats.
I have the stats in a folder here somewhere, can't be arsed digging em out, but single bike accidents are about 39% -45% annually the last 15 years or so, increasing as we got into the mid 00's

You should have a read of Dr Lambs reports. It does cover that factor, then drills inot the bike vs situation as it is OBVIOUS that most single bike accidents are rider fault (most, not ALL)

[StoneY]

Yep. And same for car vs bike. Some causes cross over between the 2 types, but there are enough differences to require separate targetting.
Like I said, we don't know the terms under which Charley made the address...

Yes we fuckin do I posted the presentation and his reasons here on KB, and THAT is why Morgan sacked me, despite the fact that Charley presented that data in May 2010 in the Cshemere club in Chch to Ullysses, HOG, BRONZ and a bunch of press and politicians.
He aslo did the same for BRONZ, WIMA, HOG, Police, and more polliticians in Wellington the same day as he presented to MOTO. It was no fuckin secret.

It was a public address and he presented to MOTO exactly what he presented to everyone else. Just shortened it to meet the 15 minutes Lord Morgan demanded it be limited to.

I will again re-itterate what bugs ME the most.
I do not contest some riders are our worst enemies and that we need to pick up our own end of the rope and start pulling.

BUT the stats are NOT accurate. Big Bikes got the blame for the high price the country pays, when over 75% of the serious crashes happen to 250's with under 25 riders.
Charley BUSTED the aged returning rider myth wide open
It does happen yes, but it is a drop in the bucket by comparison to the carnage happening to new riders.
Further, there are several mistakes made in the sample of 50 fatalaities for 08/09 that skew it totally
7,100 cc (was a 71cc old honda thing)
4,500 cc (was a GS450)
2,500 cc (was a ZZR 250)

These three alone moved the average cc rating in fatalities to 685cc for that year
THAT was the justification for the differential of over 601cc's
Take them out and the average was about 420cc's

THAT is what fucke me off the most - the utter refusal by TPTB to rectify that data and recalculate the stats.

[MSTRS:Me]

[B]... Just shortened it to meet the 15 minutes Lord Morgan demanded it be limited to...

I don't and can't remember everything I see/hear, but my claim in the exchange with KM seemed logical...

OK. So Charley was operating under IMPOSED terms, which would mean reduced content and maybe greater focus on parts of the overall picture. Or he just culled *unnecessary* detail from parts or across the whole. Either way, McSAC got EXACTLY what they wanted...a report that they could ignore if they didn't like it (perhaps on the basis of it's being incomplete).
Further proof that McSAC (or more properly - MoroNZ?) is not there for 'us'.

[Katman]

Why would you need one? Fairly obvious that at minimum the rider failed to anticipate conditions, and likely often caused the problematic conditions to begin with.

Yeah, heaven forbid that motorcyclists should be given irrefutable proof that a huge chunk of their woes stem from their own failings.

I mean, that wouldn't fit very well with the "fucking cager" theory, would it?