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.

Slow speed accounts for most rider fatalities

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by Mouth, Jun 8, 2007.

  1. The ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) has released its annual statistical summary of fatal road crashes and road deaths in Australia.

    Whilst is shows that in 2006 rider fatalities are higher as a total from 2001, surprisingly (to me at least) is that it is the fatalities from slow speed crashes that have gone up, and the fatalities from high speed crashes that have gone down.

    Table 20 - Fatal crashes involving motorcyclist death by crash type and speed limit at crash site – Australia 2001 and 2006
    Speed limit at      Single vehicle    Multiple vehicle     All fatal
    crash site            crashes             crashes                crashes
    Up to 60 km/h
    2006                       47                      58                   105
    2001                       26                      52                   78
    65-95 km/h
    2006                       25                      32                   58
    2001                       18                      32                   50
    100 km/h or above
    2006                       32                      18                   50
    2001                       42                      35                   77
    All crash sites
    2006                       92                      135                  234
    2001                       79                      106                  212
    Why is it that we are more likely to have a fatal accident involving only ourselves at 60km/h or less, than we are at 100km/h and over? Unlicensed squids slamming into poles/tree's? Or is it twisties with 60km/h zones that is the cause?

    The multiple vs single vehicle accidents shows that other vehicles in urban speed environments are only slightly worse for us than when we are by ourselves.

    Quite surprising stats ...
  2. At high speed you are alert. At low speed you get sloppy. It's the same reason why there are fewer accidents on autobahns than on restricted speed highways; when you're doing 110mph on the autobahn you give it your full attention.

    That's my 2 cents; the ABC doesn't deserve it this quarter.
  3. Mate of mine calls me a statistic now :p

    Cant wait to see how i helped out next year!
  4. so,umm, yeah
    not a great deal to add here, but, umm statistics are for those who cant find answers within their own abilities...

    as an analytical kinda bloke, statistics are mere rubbish as they can be manipulated to suit any given cause ;)

  5. Still 105 had their last moments on a motorbike... could have been any of us...
    i understand that it can be manipulated but it does help to understand why/how the accident occured so be can prevent this from happening...
  6. dont forget, some norbert in a cage pulling out on you without looking and you ramming into a pole whilst trying to avoid them (with them driving merrily on thier way, blissfully unaware) is classed as a single vehicle accident too
  7. That report states nothing about how death occurs most frequently travelling at low speed.

    What it does show is that fatalities of bike riders occurs most frequently at locations where a 60km/h speed limit applies, it does not state (as it's impossible to measure after the fact) the speed riders were travelling at when death occured.

    Lots of accidents happen for example in the inner city of Sydney on 50/60km/h signposted roads where a rider would be exceeding the limit by 20+km/h as they accelerate through traffic, and someone say pulls out on them.

  8. I concur. Stats are BS. They prove anything these days and the things they should prove go unheard.


    Where are your stats on that Bracks? You money hungry stupid bastard.
  9. Could've been, but wasn't, what did you do differently?

    Stats won't tell you that, unless you have money to commision a study, in which case the results will reflect what you want them to. :oops: :p

    My guess would be that there are more hazards/distractions in 60kmh zones, shops, pedestrians, car doors, animals, speed signs etc, etc.... than there are on a 100kmh stretch of road generally.
  10. All this shows is we need more speed cameras, I know that I have cheated death both times I got caught going 3KMH over the speed limit :roll: :roll: :roll:
  11. though, in a more constructive reply to the stats-
    it needs to have a riders/m2 element to the equation. i suggest that the 60km/h areas are more densely populated by bikes at any given time therefore there has to be more accidents per classified speed zone
  12. Does it take into account that there are probably more people riding on the roads now compared to before? I'm just assuming because road bike sales are at an all time high
  13. Got any hard facts to back that up?

    statistics are one thing, anecdotal evidence is another.
  14. Higher number of fatalities in low speed zones could be explained by the fact this is simply where traffic is most dense - in the cities.

    What surprises me is that the increases in fatalities come largely from single-vehicle accidents; multi-vehicle accidents actually *declined* in some categories!
    With traffic increasing in general, I don't know how to explain that - the only explanation I could come up with is that road users are paying more attention to their environment but I think that can be safely dismissed as fantasy.
  15. These stats are based upon the speed limit where the accident happened, they are not the speed the rider was travelling. It is no secret that a majority of accidents occur in built-up areas, there are a lot more hazzards than out on an open highway.

    One wonders how many of the "single" vehicle accidents were actually caused by an evasive manuever to avoid another vehicle.
  16. Also add in the fact that there are more riders who ride in inner city/suburban 60kmh zones to get around everywhere than there are those who commute on hwys.
  17. They probably changed their categorisation of a "multiple vehicle" accident part way through the study.

    You know, it used to include any fatality where any other vehicle was involved, but now it only includes vehicles which get damaged in the accident. (Are the numbers sourced from insurance claims or police reports?) :twisted: :p

    Actually, to be serious, I believe there was a change in the definitions some time back, but I don't know if it was during the period of this study.
  19. Wasn't stating this is factual, simply hypothetical, I can say I have seen countless couriers in Sydney come off bikes in 50-60km/h zones where people have pulled out on them, however pre-accident speed cannot be determined.

    My comments were to point out that the number of fatalities that occur within a given speed limit zone do not demonstrate fatalities are more likely to occur at slower speeds as indicated by Op and the stats above.

    What they do point out is simply that more fatalities occur within the lower speed limit zones, however they cannot conclude that those who died were travelling at lower speeds.
  20. Not sure about the answers but something that was explained to me recently when visiting a mate in hospital may explain some of the deaths/impact.

    My mate fell off his KTM on the way to work at a speed estimated by witnesses to be 50 - 55km/h )was overtaking a car driver who verified the speed). He landed on his right shoulder and the damage basically was that he broke the ball joint off the shoulder and displocated it, whilst at the same time ripping every ligament and muscle he could find in that shoulder. The result was 6 hours plus of surgery, 2 plates, 10 screws and months of rehab.

    So, what is the relevance?

    The surgeon explained that this was obviously a slow speed injury as the damage caused would have been less at higher speed due to what he described as the 'glance factor'. Basically, at slow speed the body (this could easily be a head) slaps the road (think what caused David Hooke's death, it wasn't the punch but the impact with the road) whereas at higher speed it will bounce or as the DR put it, deflect off the road. This deflection absorbs forces and dissipates them better than an outright slap.

    This is often why a rider may fall off at speed and walk away uninjured but at lower speeds the rider is injured (of course, this only applies if no other object is struck.

    Not sure though, in the stats how many this may apply to but there would be some that fall within this category as it could be as simple (sorry, poor choice of word) hitting a car at 40km/h results in the 'slap effect' but at 60 km/h the 'deflection effect' comes into play.

    All hypothesis and no definitive knowledge, just throwing something out there.