Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Age article: "Bikers' fault in most crashes"

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by pepito, Mar 22, 2004.

  1. Lifted from The Age website:

    Bikers' fault in most crashes
    By Ian Munro
    March 22, 2004

    Motorcyclists were at fault in three-quarters of fatal or near-fatal crashes involving them, according to a detailed Victoria Police road crash investigation from May 2002 to April 2003.

    Excessive speed and alcohol and drug consumption were found to be key elements in causing serious motorcycle crashes.



    But the study, to be released today, also found left-hand bends with a downhill slope particularly lethal for riders.

    Unlicensed riders accounted for one in five motorcycle deaths. Learner and probationary riders were involved in a fifth of crashes. Almost half the crashes were at weekends.

    The major collision investigation group analysed 47 fatal or near-fatal motorcycle crashes amid criticism from motorcycle groups that police investigations were biased against riders. Thirty-nine crashes resulted in deaths and eight resulted in life-threatening injuries.

    Eleven riders found to be not at fault were killed in collisions with other vehicles, usually when the vehicle failed to give way or suddenly turned in front of the bike. Ten of those riders were not speeding and had no alcohol or drugs in their systems.

    The study raises the possibility of more interceptions and drug testing of riders in the early morning. This follows the finding that riders injured in all collisions between midnight and 6am tested positive for alcohol or drugs.

    The major collision group normally investigates crashes involving three or more fatalities, hit-and-run collisions or crashes where there is evidence of criminal negligence. But because of queries over police methods, the group examined all fatal or near-fatal motorcycle crashes between May 2002 and April 2003.

    The study concluded that motorcyclists were at fault in 77 per cent of those crashes, although in crashes involving other vehicles motorcyclists were at fault 64 per cent of the time.


    Riders who exceeded designated speed limits tended to be younger (as did) riders with alcohol in their blood.
    Crash report

    Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) Bob Hastings said the study was not intended to "belt people around the head - it's about setting a base line and looking into causal factors as to why these things occur".

    The study, the first of its type in Australia, suggests that improved road signs could improve motorcycle safety.

    Inspector Geoff Alway, from the major collision investigation group, said the findings would not necessarily hold true for less serious accidents.

    "With the 'at fault' we are talking about the major causative factor, but there's always more than one factor in accidents," Mr Alway said.

    He said bike crashes were far more frequent on left-hand bends than on right-hand ones. On average, riders who crashed in left-hand turns were going 23 km/h faster than those who crashed on right-hand bends.

    Of the crashes studied, 63 per cent involved collisions with another vehicle. The report noted that "those riders who exceeded designated speed limits tended to be younger. Riders with alcohol detected in their blood were also on average younger."

    Mr Alway said the motorcyclists not at fault had all been injured in the metropolitan area.

    The bikes were evenly divided between small, medium and large engine capacities.



    This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079823245290.html
     
  2. The article shows how much bias there is against motorcycle riders.

    And, its always my fault when everytime I ride my bike - a car will try and change lanes over the top of me....
     
  3. A whole 47 accidents? Woooooooo..impressive! And from that they come up with some dodgy statistics and extrapolate the "findings", or load of bullshit as I like to label it, to encompass all riders.
    Get. F#cked. :evil:
     
  4. Geee wizz, The Age newspaper, wonder who's political butt they have their nose up.
     
  5. And how about this:

    "The study, the first of its type in Australia, suggests that improved road signs could improve motorcycle safety."

    Gee let me think, it appears as though front number plates & improved road signs will save us all in the event of a crash. What a load of horseshit.

    Another Get F#cked from me :evil:
     
  6. What's your problem with this? I think it's horseshit to think they wouldn't! The report specifies that road sign were, in many case, non-existant or seriously inaccurate/inadequate. Of course better signage would help in these case.
     
  7. Jase-What I meant is that if we fall off it's not going to help us. Road signs won't protect you when you come off.

    I totally agree though that better signage would certainly help to prevent accidents.
     
  8. I think in places the article appears to sound a bit biased. But then again they show the target group as young riders, under the influence, inexperienced or unliscenced.

    They aren't making stupid blanket statements.

    I think the article is talking about preventing accidents more than anything. I think it would be a good step for the government to consider that there are vehicles other than cars on the road when putting up signs.
     
  9. Yes, remember that the police report is not about riders in general, but riders that are involved in fatalities and serious injuries. Naturally, the statistical group will have a large proportion of speeders, drinkers, drug users, etc. because it is those activities that give you a much larger chance of a fatality or serious injury.

    In essence, it is about the riding and environmental habits of riders that die and have serious injuries .. not about the riding and environmental habits of the large majority of riders.
     
  10. Ahh, got you now :)
     
  11. There has been two motorcycle deaths on a road nearby me. Both cause by a rider doing excessive speed, however the car that hit them failed to give way.

    "With the 'at fault' we are talking about the major causative factor, but there's always more than one factor in accidents," Mr Alway said.

    So you can see that although it was the car that started the accident, it was the motorcyclist that turned caused it to be fatal.

    Motorcyclists that go twice the speed limit and dart in and out of traffic can't complain if a car doesn't see them. There the ones riding like idiots.

    Ride safely and Be Aware. Get home to your loved ones in one piece.
     
  12. Amen to that!
     
  13. And this is likely to be the sort of accident that is then attributed to the rider - the driver would be 'innocent' because if the rider was going normal speed they would have had time to slow or the driver would have had time to accelerate out of the way.

    In the article is says '11 of the drivers not found to be at fault were killed when vehicles did not give way/turned in front'. Of them, 10 were not speeding, and not under the influence. Thus only in 1 case was no fault found with the rider when they were either speeding, drugs, or alcohol (or all 3). This makes it seem quite apparent that as long as there is another contributing factor (i.e. speed) then they will not place fault on the driver.
     
  14. The report is written in much the same way as the reasoning behind the new "It's Not an Accident" ads....
    basically, you don't have to give way to a speeding vehicle (even 1 or 2 k's over the limit) because it automatically becomes the speeding vehicle's "fault" - Which I think is just bullsh*t.
    Other accidents that are probably reported as being the riders "fault" would be accidents where a car has pulled out (or opened a door) in front of a rider, the rider has swerved and hit someone/something else.

    I am still of the opinion that SPEED doesn't CAUSE an accident - but it can CONTRIBUTE to an accident. Accidents are most often CAUSED by inattention, distraction, inexperience, road conditions (or signage/lack of), or obstacles in your path.
    JMO though. :)
     
  15. Other accidents that are probably reported as being the riders "fault" would be accidents where a car has pulled out (or opened a door) in front of a rider, the rider has swerved and hit someone/something else.

    This is exactly how Jenifer copped it recetly!
     
  16. The speeding vs. fail to give way is always an interesting question. A good one to think about after half a bottle of scotch and discussing the ramifications of time travel or the concept of where the universe finishes...
    Key problem here is that our minds often see what we are expecting (eg. car/bike approaching at an approriate speed) and thus quickly calculate we have enough time to pull out etc. Much more difficult if the bike/car is travelling excessively quickly. How often have you sat at a give way sign only to realise that you had plenty of time to join the traffic but didn't and the reason was the car/bike was travelling much slower than expected.
    Accidents are pretty grey at the best of times, the key question that is asked is what was the MAJOR contributing factor. Pretty sure had the situation been reversed and a speeding car hit a rider turning from a give way the result still would have been put down as a statistic due to speed not due to rider failing to give way. I would like to think so at least
     
  17. all comes down to no matter who causes the crash the motorcyclists comes off second best.