Professor Charles Lamb knows his motorcycles and statistics. On Tuesday, 18 May 2010, he held a seminar in Christchurch on the actual facts about motorcycle accidents and the conclusions that should be drawn.
Professor Lamb addressing the audience.
It was a cold damp Christchurch evening but still at least 80 bikers attended and heard a thorough and very credible analysis of the facts.
The crowd of Bikers listening to Professor Charles Lamb.
The projected wisdom, is that:
- Motorcycle accidents are soaring
- That its bigger bikes, over 600cc that are the problem
- That its older riders particularly those who are returning to riding after a period of riding, who are having the accidents
Charles started his presentation by explaining how road statistics were gathered and how easily it was to draw completely mistaken conclusions if all of the details in the crash reports were not considered. A pointed example was the AA, which in the opinion of Charles has erroneously claimed that in 87 per cent of Motorcycle accidents the motorcyclist is at fault. This is simply not true. Any Motorcyclist will tell you that a car on bike accident, just as it is for cyclists, the most probable cause is the driver of the car simply does not see the bike. The car is at fault. Of course this is not what the AA wants to hear or have people believe.
Firstly, the number of motorcycles registered has risen quite steeply from approximately 45,000 in 1996 to approximately 115,000 in 2008. Not only expectedly the number of motorcycle accidents has increased in absolute terms but for example, the number of fatalities per 10,000 motorcycles has fallen quite dramatically from 17 per 10,000 in 1973 to 4.4 per 10,000 in 2009. So the rate of accidents has actually fallen, and fallen a lot.
Secondly the average age of motorcyclists has increased. Not unexpectedly from 22 years in 1980 to 33 years in 2005, and a study in 2007 has estimated the mean age for motorcyclists in Christchurch to be about 45 years. Consequently there is an increase in the average age of motorcyclists involved in multiple vehicle motorcycle accidents (MVMA). Charles’ figures show that the average age of those involved in motorcycle accidents with another vehicle was 37. This analysis shows that while the mean age was 37, the mode (i.e. the most common) was actually just 21.
So the average is deceiving with the oldest motorcycle rider involved an MVMA being 89. The mean has been skewed upwards. The predominant age of those involved of those involved in motorcycle accidents is in their late teens and early twenties so it isn’t older motorcyclists driving the averages up. The accident rate isn’t specifically an older rider issue. Charles’ statistics also show the average age of the driver of the other vehicle in a MVMA was 39.
Thirdly, is it large motorcycles which are causing the problem? An analysis of the statistics shows this assertion is incorrect too. The engine capacity statistics involved in MVMA has a mean of 607cc’s while the mode is in fact 250cc’s. The combing through the statistics found an interesting example to highlight this.
On one day there were 5 recorded multi vehicle motorcycle accidents. One of the bikes was a 2.3L bike and the other four bikes with 250cc’s. The wizards who did the statistics added the cubic capacity of all 5 bikes and got 3.3 litres dividing by 5, which produced that the average size of the motorbikes involved was 660cc’s/. No manufacturer produces a 660cc motorbike.
Charles’ stats show that the preponderant size of the motorcycle involved in a MVMA in fact is 250cc’s.
The statistics get even more interesting. It’s also asserted that speeding motorcyclists are cause for of the increase in motorcycle accidents. 70 per cent of all MVMA occur at speeds of 50km an hour or less. Only 18.2% of the accidents occurred at 100km an hour.
Charles’ presentation had enough statistics to keep at cricket aficionado happy but the sum of the situation is that;
- Its not older riders getting back into motorcycling which is driving up the absolute number of accidents, its younger riders.
- The method by which the statistics have been calculated, collected and computed is giving a false impression of the size in bikes involved in accidents; its 250cc learner type bikes which are most common bike that are involved in MVMA’s.
- That by far and away the largest risk to a motorcyclist is a driver of a car who simply does not see the motorcyclist.
Agreed, drivers have to be more vigilant!
If you crash on a bike, your chance of being injured is greater than that of being in a car. Bikes are more hazardous than cars. If you ride one your should take on the extra risk, it’s that simple.
“No manufacturer produces a 660cc motorbike”
Agree with everything you say about statistics as i have ridden and raced motorcycles my whole life, but there are a couple of 660’s out there:
Yamaha XT 660R
Aprilia Pegaso
The Aprilia is called a 650, but the cc rating is in fact 660.
hellonearth: So its the victims fault if they get injured/killed/whatever by someone and they should pay for putting themselves at risk? Next you will be saying we should charge owners of small cars more, as they should have bought large SUVs to avoid being injured. But then SUVs might come out worse out vs large trucks. So hmm, everyone should just drive a huge truck. If they don’t charge them extra to make sure they pay full costs of the risky behaviour of using such vehicles.
Drivers of motor vehicles should indeed be alert, but are motorcyclists taking all prudent measures to make themselves visible?
I don’t see a lot of hi-vis vests over the top of motorcyclists’ leather jackets when I’m on the road (in my car), but I don’t see any reason why they can’t wear them.
I agree that people in cars cannot see motorcyclists…its pretty hard to see them in your rear view mirror blind spots when they drive between the lanes or over the lane markings instead of directly behind the car in the clearly marked lanes. Yep, always the car drivers fault.
Interesting how numbers can be cut differently to suit different agendas. A complete, fair view of the full facts is very helpful to all.
Hmmmm except those pushing specific agendas of course :p
Drivers do need to be more vigilante but the survival of the fittest can’t help but dictate that should driver & rider collide, the rider will be worse off.
Same goes for road cyclists.
This means that the motorcyclist needs to take all necessary precautions to minimize the risk such as obeying the road rules, riding a road worthy bike, not exceeding the speed limit, riding to the conditions, keeping their headlight on at all times, not tailgating/darting between lanes to beat the traffic & wearing high visibility gear.
In terms of the ACC levies – they, like the road freight ones are in relation to trucks, are concocted.
Like trucks, motorcyclists have always paid their fair share according to the number of accidents they are involved in, are deemed to be at fault in vs the level of levies they pay.
Of course the hard thing to measure is all those motorcyclists who ride an unregistered bike and are involved in accidents. They are not paying their fair share and I would imagine irresponsible people like this, just like car crashes, are the ones that drive the claims up.
Apologies meant vigilant not vigilante!!!
Though vigilante could be kinda interesting
There are a couple of dodgy conclusions in this report. Is there a transcript of the actual presentation available?
For example…
“the number of fatalities per 10,000 motorcycles has fallen quite dramatically from 17 per 10,000 in 1973 to 4.4 per 10,000 in 2009. So the rate of accidents has actually fallen, and fallen a lot.”
Actually, that could just mean more riders are surviving what would otherwise have been a fatal accident. You have to compare number of accidents with number of accidents to reach that conclusion.
“It’s also asserted that speeding motorcyclists are cause for of the increase in motorcycle accidents. 70 per cent of all MVMA occur at speeds of 50km an hour or less. Only 18.2% of the accidents occurred at 100km an hour.”
The way this is presented makes it look like the numbers are from the posted limit in the places accidents happened rather than the actual estimated speed of the participants.
The problem is not that motorcyclists need to be more visible – it’s that motorists need to drive with their brains turned on.
Given that we kill ourselves on the road at double the rate of Europeans and 50% more often than Australians, it would seem the issue is simply incompetent drivers. Especially when you read that there have been three hit and run incidents involving motorists in the South Island this month. There don’t seem to have been any hit-and-runs caused by motorcyclists (or regular cyclists, or pedestrians) in the same period.
We need to stop giving out licenses to anyone who can mist a mirror, and we need to start prosecuting drivers who kill people with cars in the same way as anyone else guilty of manslaughter.
Modern traffic control approaches encourage people to turn their brains off and go on autopilot. European trials taking away traffic lights appear to greatly reduce the number of accidents – because drivers have to come back from their far away place and start paying some situational attention.
And in Dunedin here we have had very major sets of traffic lights down for maintenance over the last 6 months, for days at a time. People slow down, pay attention, and get through without catastrophe, and without some guy in the middle directing traffic. Amazing what people can do when you ask them to apply themselves.
Spud is right, drivers need to take more care. A comment by Charles has a lot of merit, we learn to pass a driving test in NZ, rather than learn the skill of driving to pass a test.
Andrew, I thought carefully about that line, couln’t think at the time of a 660cc bike, threw caution to the wind knowing that if I was wrong, someone would pick it. You were quick and correct
hellonearthis, this is a similar line that used to be put in court cases, the victim shoudln’t have been in the area, or walking alone, they knew the risk and therefore have to cop some of the blame. Its not an accpetable argument there or in this case either. Further, what about walkers, push bikers, they get hit too, is it their fault some how too. Is the real answer to your approach to have all movements on our roads to be in 3 tonne SUV’s with bars front and back to reduce the risk. Not an acceptable answer either. Finally the point is, that a car is the most likely cause of a bike accident and most probably the driver simply did not see the biker, perdestrian, or push biker and in this case why should the victim of the accident, an accident they didn’t cause carry both the consequneces and the financial burden in a ‘no fault scheme’
grist, the report is available. The raw figures come from the Ministrys own data. Look for yourself and a casual scan over the figures will lead you to the conclusion that the final figures are correct. The toal number of accidents has indeed gone up but the number of bikes registerd on the road has risen much faster and the actual accident rate per 10 000 bukes has fallen
Clarke, interestingly Charles found from his reasearch, which is inline with overseas research, that bike riders are less likely to have a car on bike accident than drivers who do not hold a bike licence. Obvious conclusion, bikers who drive are more alert in looking for bikes
Loota, I agree. When the road conditions require attention drivers are alert. A good Dunedin example when I lived there was the intersection at the top of Stuart St, going onto Roslyn or to Maori Hill, a complicated piece of roading and all drivers were cautious and alert, consequently fewer accidents than the intersection would lead you believe. Simple pieces of roads by contrast can have lots of accidents.
having driven in both the UK and NZ I have to say that NZ drivers are not nearly as aggressive (presumably as traffic is much lighter here) but their inattentiveness is staggering – they pull out, change lanes etc without looking. I’ve never seen anything like it!
Someone suggested to me just this week that the Learner Licence Theory test should incorporate IQ and Attitude testing questions as well as the rules of the road. Would that help to determine who is fit to drive?
And a circuit test on PlayStation’s Gran Turismo
@Renee – but how does one accurately measure IQ? I think that a “smarter” person may not necessarily be a better driver – I know a guy with a mild intellectual disability who operates heavy duty vehicles as part of his forestry job. He couldn’t pass high school but he’s damn good and safe at his job.
@Loota LOL
Tougher driving tests maybe.
@Spud – so do I know someone who struggled to learn at school, and now holds several licences including P, and who drives ambulances. I think the man I spoke to, who is a driving instructor, meant more we should be testing the ability to apply logic, understand action & consequence, risk taking & attitude to others, the big picture stuff. He reckoned he could tell which of his students would make good drivers despite being unable to read & write for example, and which would likely be a menace on our roads by their attitudes.
Apparently about 70% of all drivers think they are good drivers YET most accidents can be attributed to speed, excess alcohol, driver inattention, failing to indicate properly, look over your shoulder when changing lanes, judge the speed of an oncoming car, drive to the conditions etc and most people have committed most of these offenses at one time or another.
And most motorcyclists are car drivers too.
So crashes are often down to bad luck more than anything – wrong time wrong place as chances are the same offense has been committed by someone else but they were just lucky enough to avoid hurting themselves or others.
Therefore, it is not one vs the other in terms of fault as chances are, the motorcyclist who was in the right when involved in a car crash has most likely committed most of the above offenses at some time or another.
It is about all road users taking personal responsibility to drive/ride properly, to drive/ride according to the conditions etc and most importantly, drive/ride a road worthy vehicle.
It is also about accepting the risk you personally face: a road cyclist will come off worse against a motorcyclist, a motorcyclist will come off worse against a car & a car will come off worse against a truck.
Yes ACC have concocted the figures against the motorcyclist but this is hardly a new thing and is far less deserving of all the outrage – particularly where the Labour party is concerned, than the ACC levy hikes imposed against the transport industry by the Labour party in 2007.
@Rebecca – agreed and people not following the road rules.
@Renee – it sounds like the driving instructor is talking about common sense.
The “they did it too” excuse applied to excuse the increase in ACC charges for motorcyclists who, the evidence says, were generally in the right and that the other vehicles drivers were in the wrong.
Draco ACC will always concoct up whatever stats it can in order to raise levies and the government of the day will always sign off on them….that has been the vicious cycle since day one. And they do this but choosing one target at a time.
Not much we can do about that unless a government is prepared to give the organisation a massive overhaul.
What annoys me is that everyone is up & arms about the motorcyclists yet no one blinked an eye when the did it to the truckies – a cost we have ALL born the brunt of.
Bottom line ACC has plenty of money; how they spend and whether they need to be fully funded until 2020 is the issue.