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.

Lies. Damn Lies, and Statistics.....

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by incitatus, Sep 1, 2006.

  1. Bike related in the sense that I consider 4WD's a major hazard to motorcyclists due to several factors, not least poor close-up rear and left hand side visibility, and the capacity to slide underneath in an off, which personally cost me three spinal fractures when a 4WD T-boned my Trophy3 and then ran over me.

  2. What a joke. I guess lots of politicians own 4wd's or the 4wd lobby is very strong.
    I suppose you can skew statistics however you want if you really try.

    Regards, Andrew.
  3. Well... I can understand why medical claims on 4WD's was lower on pedestrians....

    You can't claim if you're dead.
  4. I would imagine that this'll galvanise the 4WD'ers into spruiking the safeness of their vehicles...
  5. I can't find in the article anything that indicates a definition for 4WD. Maybe the research included the many lighter weight "soft-roaders" that are now popular. Or maybe it didn't. It would be extremely difficult to determine where the line would be in determining whether the vehicle qualified aas 4WD. Separate chassis and constant drive to all wheels? ride height? Or just if the vehicle has drive to both ends? The distinctions are now so blurred it would be a minefield.
    The only thing we do know is that most of the bigger 4WDs score very poorly on the ENCAP "aggressivity" index in safety testing. Maybe that would be a starting point.
  6. One of my cages is a 4wd and when I'm driving it I have to be very careful because sometimes, without any input from me whatsoever, it will chase motor cycles. If I have it in reverse it will run over kids on it's own, and sometimes it will just roll over...oooohhh scary 4wd :LOL:

    Come on guys. It's not about the vehicle. There's a few silly riders out there too but none of us blame the bike they're riding. There's a lot of young female hyundai drivers out there who do some stupid stuff too, but we don't crucify the cars. Blame the bad drivers of 4 wds, not the vehicles.
  7. Quote: "There were just 2.7 claims per 1,000 four-wheel drives compared with 3.3 claims per 1000 non-four-wheel drives and the injury severity inflicted was almost identical, the report found."

    If you are going to compare with specific catagories you can't bundle the rest of the vehicles in the in "non - 4 wheel drives" you need to state the group types in comparison.eg (sedans, station wagons, coups, vans, 2/3/4/5-door, light trucks, heavy ridgid, b-doubles .....)

    I think the Gov loves these 4wd bangers because they guzzel fuel and they are happy to collect the $$$.

    It's not the first time the Gov has manipulated stats to their benifit, take the census for example " don't count Scooters or motorcycles as a registered vehicle of the garaged property"

  8. Yep.. what Banjo said, my fourbie was a bastard too, I finished up fitting a set of 12" risers too it, that way anybody under 2' only got concussion when the diff hit em, unless of course I cleaned em up with my big oversize pedestrian thumping bullbar.

    Ok so now we've done
    Harleys, and

    Who wants to pick the topic for next week?

  9. Looked like a fairly balanced piece of journalism for a change, in fact it all made sense.

    how many times do you hear about 4WD drivers caught doing 200+ in an inappropriate area - NEVER!

    On the contrary how many ricers and commondores do you see each side of a power pole because of utter stupidity and dead motorcyclists due to treating every bit of curvy goat track like it's the goodwood festival of speed?
  10. I'm with banjo and nobby, along with driving a car, 4wd or a bike comes responsibilities and there are some people out there who don't even have a clue. Whether they drive a 16 wheeler or one of those Russian Niki's they are still going to cause serious damage. That is why my thoughts are more towards stricker licencing test.
  11. While generally agreeing with that comment, you can't ignore the fact that 'full size' 4WD's do have some specific issues. No matter how much you make light of it, here have been numerous cases of pedestrians and children killed and injured by 4WD's due to poor close-up rear and left side visibility. I don't own a 4WD, but I sometimes drive a Patrol belonging to the company, and I know that a splitting motorcycle is difficult or impossible to see when close up. The other issue is ground clearance. My own accident was a very low speed (<25kph), t-bone that was nearly fatal, because I slid underneath and the rear wheel went over my back. As has been said already, if they are including all the little 'soft roaders' in these stats, then they dont mean jack sh!t.
  12. Cyclists are on next weeks hit list :LOL:

    But seriously, even if 4wd are no more dangerous than cars on the road, why is it that more dickheads are attracted to them than normal cages, if we took the soccer mums out of their 4wd's and made them drive station wagons they would not drive them any better, 4wd are not the enemy, bad driving is, but more bad drivers seam to drive 4wd, remember this article

  13. i agree with you there duhast.
  14. Inci, who is to say that had it not been a 4WD, your accident could have been fatal anyway? While I see your point, it is totally hypothetical that you would not have been injured as severily if it had not been a 4wd. EVERY car is going to cause a different outcome in a given situation.

    I personally don't see the problem with 4wd's. They are no more 'visually impaired' than a courier van with no windows. As has been mentioned, this category probably includes ALL 4wd's which includes those with great vision i.e. Hilux tray.

    On the last part of the article, what is considered a catastrophic accident?
  15. The police, the state insurance commision, and the magistrate who awarded my damages for a start. The reason it came up was that the vehicle had been illegally modified by the owner (raised), and his insurance company refused to honor his claim. I had to sue him personally for the value of my bike.
  16. What do you agree with, and why?
  17. Statistics are not lies, just the people that mis-quote them.

    There were just 2.7 claims per 1,000 four-wheel drives
    compared with 3.3 claims per 1000 non-four-wheel drives and
    (does it matter that 98% of all registered Australian vehicles are not a 4WD, of course a 2% minority would have difficulty getting involved in any accidents let alone near keeping up wityh non-4WD's)

    I'm sorry you got involved with the 2% minority, but thier lies are nothing new. Polaticians lie because we have always let them lie, don't get all upset now you finally worked out they have been telling fibs.
  18. I think that this is the post that most of you guys aren't focusing on - what constitutes a 4WD v a non-4WD.

    Really, for these stats to make any sense they need to break them down further. For example, how do large pax vehicles, such as Commodores, Falcons and Camrys go? Or people movers such as Honda Odessys, Toyota Taragos and Chrysler Voyagers? Then look at smaller vehicles such as Corollas, Liberties (a "4WD") and the like.

    And where do motorcyclists come in, in all of this? How many claims have been made against riders, either by their pillions or pedestrians (I think that it's unlikely that many car occupants have been hurt by bikes in a collision, but I stand to be corrected).

    It would be interesting to view the data that led them to this "conclusion".
  19. Poor bastard, I bet he wished he had stuck in reverse.
  20. The full report is due out next week. Then we can crunch the numbers properly :)