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.

Interesting article [vic]

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by [Freddy], Aug 23, 2008.

  1. Funny, I could have sworn the official figures I've got in front of me (giving info on each individual crash) from last week were 24 and that there's been no fatalities since then.

    Another pointless beat up.
  2. :evil:

    $100 levy may @$$

    It plain stupidity! Driver\rider awareness!

    Its OK to collect but not OK to Pay out?
    What the ?

    They are already collecting enough out of out pockets!

    I SAY no levy at all!
  3. Of course the TAC may be including off-road figures which should NOT be recorded in the actual on-road toll.

    The fatality rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles (figures presented at VMAC last week) is 4. Which is just over 4 times (not 34 times) higher than the overall fatality rate of 0.9 for all road users...
  4. "Mr Healy said new TAC research found motorcycle riders were 34 times more likely to be seriously injured for every 1km of travel than car drivers."

    Per 1Km! What the?

    Playing with figures that cannot be substantiated!

    Statistical Bull$H!T
  5. One issue I have, and I've brought this up at both VMAC and the Motorcycle Safety Consultative Committee in Canberra, is that there are no reliable figures for vehicle kilometres travelled for motorcycles and scooters.

    I've had major arguments with some road safety people about this and despite several requests I am still waiting for information about how these figures are actually derived!

  6. Why not? The $50 levy has been so successful.

    As far as the numbers go, obviously you can "massage" numbers to say whatever you want, especially when it comes to fringe groups.

    Also, if it is true that so many new people are turning to motorcycling as a result of fuel prices then surely an increase of 3 fatalities on the previous year is not all that significant?
  7. Why not? The $50 levy has been so successful.

    As far as the numbers go, obviously you can "massage" numbers to say whatever you want, especially when it comes to fringe groups.

    Also, if it is true that so many new people are turning to motorcycling as a result of fuel prices then surely an increase of 3 fatalities on the previous year is not all that significant?[/quote]

    If the $50.00 levy was so successful then why the increase in deaths?

    Your must be a beurocrat! with that sort of logic? None that is!

  8. Before some clown picks it up and we see something about "Levy Increase in Victoria?" in AMCN, lets just make it clear that the comment about $100 levy was obviously intended to be a sarcastic comment on the whole thing. :roll:
  9. If your figures are correct, Tony, I make that a 4.3% increase in fatalities for an 8.2% increase in the number of bikes on the road.

    To me, that looks like a pretty decent improvement in the crash rate. Which is the important number despite what simplistic government propaganda might claim.
  10. That's what I make it Pat. The really accurate indicator however is crashes per vehicle kilometres travelled - and getting those figures is really difficult. Most of the studies done in the past have been fatally flawed in their methodology.

    I've been promised that I will be given the details on how they arrive at this. I'm still waiting. :roll:

    edit: I've just been looking back at the figures per 10,000 registrations.
    (source - Dept of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government)

    2001 - 6.7.........7.7
    2002 - 5.4.........5.7
    2003 - 3.9.........5.9
    2004 - 3.6.........5.5
    2005 - 4.4.........5.7
    2006 - 4.1.........5.4
    2007 - 3.6.........4.7

    Apart from Qld which has gone from 3.9 to 5.8
    and the NT & ACT which are too small a base to use fatality figures and fluctuate from 0 to 15 from year to year, there's been a steady improvement for all states in deaths/10,000 registrations.

    IN terms of actual numbers, since 2002, Victoria has since been between 47-45 deaths a year (apart from 2004 when it shot up to 64) . The fatality numbers are really too small for intelligent comparisons. And since there were changes in police reporting a couple of years ago, we need to wait for a few years more to get any intelligent statistics around serious injury crashes (of which there are far higher numbers).
  11. Can anyone confirm that pedestrian deaths are included in teh total road tolls?

    Regards, Andrew.
  12. How hard would it be for insurance companies to submit total kilometres on all right off vehicles, not that it is an acurate stat on fatalities.

    If this method were used I am pretty certain that more bikes than 4 wheeled vehicles would have less KM travelled per right off.

    :? :? :?
  13. Thanks Tony, better work on my sarcasm, I thought I was a natural but obviously not.

    Didn't ACMN was quoting netrider now? Has it happened?
  14. Everyone from the media to the cops, the TAC, VicROads etc trawl the forums. I know they do this forum, MRA and the Kawasaki ones. I've had posts I've put up quoted back to me...
  15. TonyE

    Notwithstanding the fatal flaws to date, how do they attempt to measure statistics for kilometres travelled for various vehicle types? Survey samples????
  16. Firstly - from the paper presented by Nicola Fotheringham (VicRoads) at the 2007 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference

    Motorcycle exposure study
    . Whilst the exposure of drivers has traditionally been measured using kilometres travelled, vehicle registrations and licences, these measures are unreliable for motorcyclists. Without accurate and reliable measures of exposure, any change in crash numbers for motorcyclists over time can be difficult to interpret.

    From the 1993 report from the Parliamentary Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria

    However, in these surveys, the distance travelled by motorcycle riders is collected from special household surveys which all rely on individuals' assertion about the distances they and their vehicles travel in a year. These estimates are unlikely to be reliable. It is suggested that the accuracy of one-off surveys which estimate the distance travelled by individual motorcycle riders would be improved if estimates were based on motorcycle use in the three days prior to interview rather than for the whole year. This procedure for obtaining information has been successfully trailed and adopted in New Zealand surveys of driver exposure.

    Similarly, Victorian research projects especially designed to provide this information have led to reports of motorcycle or rider travel which range between 31 to 69 kilometres per week. This wide variation has made it impossible for the Committee to assess safety priorities for motorcycles in relation to exposure.

    The Committee is of the view that statistically valid surveys are required to determine the use of motorcycles and other vehicles. This information is essential to complement information on collisions and allow drawing of valid conclusions about risk associated with motorcycle use which is based on exposure.

    Interestingly the NSW Study Exposure Study by Motorcycle Make and Type by Christie and Harrison sounds more authoritative however the proposed sample of 6000 riders ended up being only around 800.

    It also produced a result which is totally at odds with accepted wisdom on exposure - the less exposure the more crashes.

    Crash rate was related to annual exposure, such that riders with low levels of annual exposure had substantially higher crash rates (per km) than those with higher levels of exposure. Riders with less than 1,000 km riding exposure per annum had a crash rate that was eight times that of the whole of the sample.

    There was a 1994 study conducted by Ove Arup for VicRoads which took place in July August 1994 which involved interviewing riders who were stopped at red lights. Given that this is the "off-season" for motorcycling I would totally discount the validity of this study.

    It appears that there are no really reliable base (or current) figures to show whether exposure has actually increased, decreased or remained the same. I believe that using this as a means of calculating crash rates is totally unreliable.

  17. So when I post that they are maliciously incompetent, self-serving, populace-oppressing f@ggots - it's not completely futile?

  18. Just because they read it, doesn't mean any of it sinks in. I've not noticed any real learning occuring. Maybe it needs more repitition so keep it up. :)
  19. Surely it'd be reasonably easy to collate a reasonable average of the total motorcycle distances travelled by looking at the vehicle transfer of registration database.

    I mean, you know when a bike is brand new, it has between 0-10kms on the clock. When the bike is sold later on the odometer reading has to be provided by law, and entered into the vehicle transfer database.

    Surely there's enough bikes getting sold in such a manner to provide a meaningul sample of the average motorcycle distances travelled per year of registered ownership.

    On the topic of less exposure means more crashes, that one is bleedingly obvious. 1000kms/year is nothing. Heck, I average that a fortnight and I don't even commute. You can always spot the low km riders though, 'cos they're the ones that are always wobbling around and nearly crashing with every corner. When it comes to bikes, experience counts a for huge amount when it comes to making someone a safer rider. I mean, it's like the whole 100hrs of L-plate training again, isn't it? 100hrs of training is around 5000kms of travel. If someone is doing less than 1000kms/year, it's like they never progress beyond the fresh out of the learner course riding stage.

    It's exactly as I've always trumpeted. Better training will save more lives than anything else. Stringent speed enforcement may save 1 or 2 rider's lives a year, but training riders properly will likely save at least 10-15.