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 are 23% safer behind the wheel of a car

Discussion in 'Research, Studies, and Data' at netrider.net.au started by creampuff, Nov 13, 2013.

  1. http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle...3-better-behind-the-wheel-of-a-car/23971.html

    MOTORCYCLISTS are 23% safer behind the wheel of a car than non-motorcyclists, according to a leading insurer.
    Equity Red Star compared car drivers to car users who also have an insured motorcycle, and found the latter 23% less likely on average to make a claim on their car policy.
    The firm also adjusted the figures to take into account the different typical ages of car drivers and motorcyclists, and still found the riders to be 21% better behind the wheel. The results showed motorcyclists were 20% less likely to make a bodily injury claim on their car policy.
    The insurer examined 200 million policies between 2007 and 2012.
    Rob Clark, Equity Red Star’s Head of Retail Motor, said: “A motorcyclist could, behind the wheel of a car, be said to be 23% better.”
    Clark presented the data yesterday at a conference organised by the Motorcycle Industry Association to examine evidence that increasing the number of motorcyclists on the road could actually improve safety.
    The conference was held in the offices of the Department for Transport in London.




     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Except if I own a motorcycle and a car I'm probably driving the car a lot less than your average punter and less likely to make a claim.
     
     Top
  3. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

    Now with 23% more possum in every press release!
     
     Top
  4. Please can you tell me how you know they are lies?
     
     Top
  5. Maybe cuz we actually use our brains now when driving? :p

    Or like someone else said, we drive less.
     
     Top
  6. Show us the evidence for that? A lot of riding miles are purely for fun which the car driver won't do.

    You are making the assumption that total miles travelled by both groups are the same and the riding deducts from the car miles. I would say that is not accurate. I do a lot more kms than my driving friends by 5 times.
     
     Top
  7. Good point, ever since i have owned my bike i fill the car up once a month if that, used to fill every 2 weeks or so
     
     Top
  8. It's a fairly common expression. Perhaps you may have heard it used? It's often used to indicate one's "suspicion" of statistical information used as supporting evidence of a point of view.

    Sheesh.
     
     Top
  9. More the point I was making is the study makes a strong assumption on what has been reported. Less claims is not a simple conversion to safer drivers.

    I don't have any trouble believing motorcyclists are safer drivers. I just don't think this is a good method.

    Of course if the study was worth anything it would not be hard to correct for milage. And this may have been done and not reported here.
     
     Top
  10. I just thought you had extra information that was used in the study and you saw that a spin had been put on it. But I see that what ever conclusion was drawn and highligted then different people would scream lies, damn lies etc.

    Was thinking this could have been a positive conclusion for us motorcyclists. Obviously I am wrong.
     
     Top
  11. FWIW it's worth Slow Coach - I don't think you're wrong. That's the thing though, definitive "proof" is so difficult to achieve, so much can be assumed as potentially dubious.

    Heck, open any packet of medication you might have and take out the information leaflet. It will probably say something like "XYZ is believed to act upon the...". "Believed". Not "We KNOW this is how the thing works".

    In medicine, it is nigh-on impossible to talk about absolutes, but in other fields, absolute terms are thrown around like so much old news.

    That's all I'm saying mate.
     
     Top
  12. I think people should realise that this is an extract short report of a more in depth research project.

    They may have taken the mileage into consideration etc and having more than one mode of transport available. For example people who own cars but use PT to get to work. As with all presentation to conferences you cannot always go into all the detail and points addressed in the research. Peer review will take place and I am sure you can get copies of the complete research project.
     
     Top
  13. If local conditions are anything to go by, then the reality is that the motorcycle is considered to be the second vehicle. Local research by Prof M Wigan confirmed this.

    Elsewhere I've seen that the average kms for a car is 20,000 km/yr, while for a bike it's between 4 - 8,000 km/yr. Report after report confirms that bikes in Australia don't see the same kind of transport miles that cars do - and the UK and Aus share a lot of similarities, so I'd guess it's the case over there too.

    Local MUARC research showed that experienced riders picked up hazards up to 4 seconds before experienced drivers - so I suspect the report has found something - even if it's skewed by the population being its own policy holders.


    You're right, the extract doesn't allow for possible confounds, but even if all they've found is a correlation, I suspect it's a truthful one if my own experience and that of many friends is anything to go by.
     
     Top
  14. #14 Vertical C, Nov 13, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
    I don't get it, why assume that you think that they haven't taken mileage into account when you have no evidence that they didnt include it? Sure they didn't report it, but surely they can't report everything.

    Maybe they did do it right? Especially since it came to the conclusion that most of us suspected.

    jump-to-conclusions-mat.
     
     Top
  15. It's a stretch to say that 23% less claims = 23% better driver.
    I'd have left it at 'motorcyclists are 23% less likely to be involved in an at fault car collision.'
    Which would be attributable to a range of factors.
     
     Top
  16. Of course it also depends on your definition of better. The word better is very subjective.
     
     Top
  17. Kilometerage is only a secondary consideration IMO. It's a UK study and in the UK you are required to undergo training to ride a motorcycle.

    After that, there would be the generally alertness that is learned as a motorcyclists.

    Only after that would bike kilometerage affect the results due to practiced response time and the mathematics of time away from the car.
     
     Top
  18. Because of the way the report reads. Had they taken milage in to account the current report would be wrong. It would say claims per km traveled not claims per policy.

    Also from an insurance stand point claims per policy is more important than claims per km as it shows what the risks of a policy holder are.
     
     Top
  19. I agree but surely the reason is irrelevant? I would quite like 20% off my car insurance...
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Whilst I haven't anything solid to back it up, my experience in both countries suggests to me that bikes in the UK see significantly more transport miles than bikes in Australia. Maybe not the Gixxer Thous but the UK has a substantial "utility" bike population with which the scooter boom here is only just catching up. Even then, most (well, a lot anyway) of the PTWs in Perth disappear in winter, leaving what appears to be two hardcore scooterists and me :D. In the UK, even in the worst weather, city centre bike parks are well filled.

    I dunno about putting a figure on it but I'd believe an extra 50% transport duties there over here.
     
     Top