Article: Drivers blamed for biker crashes

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/04/1088879372882.html
Drivers blamed for biker crashes
By Melissa Marino
July 5, 2004

New research shows drivers, not motorcyclists, are responsible for most
crashes involving motorbikes and other vehicles, a motorcycle insurer says.
Based on an analysis of all claims received over the three years to last
year, Swann Insurance general manager Duncan Brain said motorcyclists were
not to blame in 68 per cent of accidents in Victoria where they and other
vehicles were involved.
Nationally, more than 9100 claims showed that 70 per cent of accidents were
caused by the other driver, according to the research.
Mr Brain said the findings sent a clear message to all drivers to be aware
of motorcyclists, to check blind spots and to ensure it was safe when
changing lanes.
The results are in contrast to Victoria Police research released in March
that said motorcyclists were responsible for 64 per cent of accidents
involving other vehicles.
The police research was based on fatal or near fatal accidents from April
2002 to May last year. It showed alcohol and drug use as well as speed were
key factors contributing to serious motorcycle accidents.
Mr Brain said motorcyclists needed to understand the risks associated with
riding.
"By their nature, motorcycles are relatively exposed compared to cars, so
it's important riders remain vigilant, anticipate risks and above all, take
care of their bikes," he said.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:50:38 +1000

The difference being, I suspect, fatals compared to all crashes.

In that the fatals have a higher incidence of alcohol and higher speeds,
which does tend to indicate risk taking.

And why fatals are a bad measure really...

Zebee

 

How do those results look when you take out drunks, unlicensed, and open
road solo crashes?
I'm interested to see how the average licensed, sober rider fares in
comparison.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:46:06 +1000

I think there are stats on the mccofnsw.org.au/roadsafety site, but from
info on the Australian Transport Safety Bureau site, the answer is that
they fare quite well.

<rummage rummage>

Here we go
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/pdf/mgraph27.pdf

The risk of fatality per distance travelled
for responsible motorcycle riders was
53% lower than when the high-risk group
was included. For every 100 million
kilometres travelled, on average 5.25
responsible riders were killed. This rate
is still high, reflecting the exposed
position of motorcycle riders, but it also
demonstrates to what extent a minority
high risk group contributes to the overall
calculation of risk.

So half the riders killed were unlicenced or drunk (or both) but sure as
hell that isn't the proportion in the riding population!

That's risk of dying, rather than whose fault it was you karked it.
That monograph doesn't really address at fault in that way, doesn't
really divide the crashes into fault, rather than goodguy/badguy biker.

IT does say:

Around 41% of multiple vehicle crashes
were the fault of the motorcycle rider and
42% were the fault of another road user.
In 12% of cases, both road users were at
fault.
In multiple vehicle crashes where the
motorcyclist was judged to be at fault,
excess speed was a factor in nearly
half of the cases. Drugs were a
contributing factor in one in eight
cases.

I expect "drugs" includes booze.

I also note:

The typical responsible motorcycle rider
killed in a single vehicle crash was a
relatively inexperienced rider who lost
control on a bend on a rural road, while
riding too fast.

The monograph points out that young inexperienced riders seem
over-represented in the stats, "responsible" or no.


In 1992 and 1994, a total of 76% of
fatalities involving responsible
motorcycle riders occurred in multiple
vehicle crashes.
The average age of these motorcycle
riders was 29.6 years. Like the
responsible motorcycle riders killed in
single vehicle crashes, 42% of these
motorcyclists were aged under 25.


It's not clear if the Vic Police were using the same criteria as to who
was "at fault" as Swann do. You'd think so, crashes having to be
reported and all, but maybe the insurers make their own minds up from
the evidence presented, and maybe aren't so quick to note "excessive
speed" as cops are. And might have a different idea of "excessive
speed" especially at intersection crashes - was a guy on the Qld riders
list ages ago who was employed by an insurance company to use a radar
gun to monitor speed in various areas, presumably so they can get an
idea of how much people were lying on their claim forms...

Zebee