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.

Motorcyclists 34 times more likely to be hurt

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by twainharte, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. in the news today:


  2. christ i hope i make to to 40 before someone bans bikes!
  3. Riding becomes safer as more people decide to leave their falcondores home and ride a motorbike/scooter. Look at Greece (and some other European countries), the car drivers in those countries actually look out for riders rather than the other way around here.

    As more drivers become aware of riders (i.e. they ride themselves or has a close relative/friend who rides) then the attitudes of Australian drivers will also change.

    With fuel costs on the rise, it only makes sense that people are upgrading from their redundant 4 wheel vehicles to 2 wheels
  4. Another demonstration of Government ability to state the bleeding obvious, and publish old data is if they had done new research. The Hurt Report had these figures over 30 years ago, as I recall.....

    That said, any motorcyclist with half a brain should know that you're more likely to get hurt off a bike than in a car. Does the quantifying this to a percentage value mean that I will ride more carefully, or give up riding? Of course not.....
  5. Nope! And it just demonstrates that the government has done bugger all to improve safety and awareness of motorcycles.
  6. I think the government does plenty...... lots of the time it is stupidity (speeding, riding above your skill level!!!!)

    Motorbike have a real bad name with motorists....... this is because of the STUPID crap they do on the roads.
  7. ...and as usual, cut that in half immediately if you're licensed, then cut it again if you're not drunk or stoned, again if you're wearing full gear, again if you're riding within your ability and the conditions, and again if you're riding defensively.
  8. those reports also stated that the majority of injured/killed riders were written up as single vehicle incidents. (This may not be completely true, but we have nothing else to work with).

    How then do you say that getting more people out of cars and onto bikes will solve the problem? If anything, my experience of Italy and Greece says that many people use scooters around town, but as soon as you go further than the local, everyone is in a car.

    In Australia, the studies show that we have a big problem with the weekend warriors doing too much and getting tired and falling off the road at the end of the day, or coming to grief after spending a day at the pub and then wobbling home. None of these big problems will be solved as long as riders are human. The inability of riders to wear suitable clothing no doubt also contributes to the injuries that hospitals see.
  9. You're normally very astute, G5, but that's a stupid statement. The research is about what happens WHEN a motorcyclist crashes, not what can be done, or is being done, to PREVENT crashes.

    And I dispute the statement anyway; motorcycle awareness campaigns are running in all states, and have been for a long time. My experience (not empirical research) tells me that motorists DO look in their mirrors when they see me coming, changing lanes, etc.

    And I certainly agree with Grant; we are our own worst enemies on the road a lot of the time :roll:.
  10. +!!
    And what is the point of comparing motorcycle riders to car occupants? One group is inside a tonne and a half of lethal weapon, and the other is unprotected!
    Maybe a more significant measure would be to compare with other unprotected users, like pedestrians and cyclists. That would be interesting, especially on a per kilometre basis :?
    Seriously, do the people who present this information in such meaningless form understand anything about active and passive involvement? Cause and effect?
    Pfahh! Dribble.
  11. you won't ever get funding for improved training, road markings and furniture reviews etc without comparing your injuries/cost of minority road users with majority.

    A number like 34 times is NOT dribble. It shows a big difference in protection and survivability of different modes of transport. Don't think for a minute that anyone but you and I think of cars and bikes as anything other than transport. Society as a whole has an input to what happens to its members and never forget that your mother has a vote in what happens to us! What you choose to do with that number however can be useful or a waste of time...
  12. Bonox I see your point, but I nonetheless believe that presenting statistics in this manner does nothing but drive public opinion in a direction that limits our choices rather than addresses the real problem.
    I may be making a leap without seeing the whole report, but if so, then so are the publishers of this article. For example, comparing motorcycles with cars with public transport etc. simply ignores the rationale for each user group's choice.
    Where we might agree is that the study no doubt contains accurate data that can be analysed in a number of practical ways, for potentially good outcomes. I suppose my real gripe (as always) is in the manner of it's release (or reporting) to the public, which is is always biased towards achieving a particular effect on public opinion.
  13. Well come and ride in Canberra, the land of oblivion. I think i've seen a motorcycle awareness campaign once, and the licensing requirements here are ridiculous - stay up right course for Ls, five minute test in first gear to get Ps. That is always going to generate a low quality rider who'll end up as the statistics. So yes, there is plenty more the government can do besides keep banging on about speeding.

    Maybe I'm a bit jaded by reports that keep saying the same thing over decades, i keep seeing them all the time at work here. It's one thing to commission reports, it's another thing to actually act on them.
  14. and what is your choice for riding a bike?

    Legislators, and indeed our own parents, can't usually see past cost. Lane splitting is illegal after all! :)))

    Thus, their usual response to your rationale for low cost transport choice is to say "we will make cheaper cars" or we will help you buy a car so you don't have to have a bike.

    Noone in power has the slightest idea that there are people who have cars and bikes that they use to go precisely NOWHERE! Therefore, all injuries are just a result of mind numbing transport only and need to be tackled as such.
  15. All valid points, but I can understand what GS is saying.

    If you do come off in NSW and hit one of the lovely new RTA barrier ends, you're fcuked. No two ways about it. I'm the first to say that the potential danger of motorbike riding is bleedingly obvious (and maybe even subconciously why I enjoy it) but the Government can do more to keep an eye out for us if we do have an off.

    I pay enough fcuking rego for my bike for it anyway!
  17. I read this in the sun yestererday and unfortunatly so did my parents. Its true in other countries where there are an abundance of bikes cars are more conscious of their surroundings. Unfortunatly in australia, a large proportion of people still drive around with the sole focus on the windscreen directly infront of them.
  18. Or the speedo...
  19. Or their damn mobile phone/ipod..
  20. Normal Australian cultural response, seeing as we're better than they are.