Zebee, What Can the MCC Do About Something Like This?

Working on that, I've just sent an email to the Dean of Stats at AGSM
(who also happens to be my lecturer this semester) asking him if he was
willing to comment. He was in the AFR only the other week with a nice
blurb about him being Australia's leading statistician.... <fingers crossed>

Media Watch angle is well worth pursuing as well

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:24:42 +1100

Some stats from the MCC roadsafety site www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au


"Riders aged over 40 are involved in 28% of crashes but own some 48%
of all motorcycles."

"The graph below compares the crash rate for young riders (under 26) in
1995 to 2003. Their crash rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles has
decreased from 871 to 676 crashes."

If you remove unlicenced riders from the stats, the young rider crash
rate changed a lot. "Over the past 4 years (2000-03), 545 unlicensed
riders have been involved in motorcycle crashes in NSW. The majority
(59%) were under 26 years of age."

He had an 11% figure from the US, which as IK pointed out is not
comparable to Oz stats. Also "Each year there are over 2,200 motorcycle
crashes reported in NSW. They are only 4% of all road crashes, but
account for 10% of all deaths and 7% of all injuries on our roads."

"The good news is that although the number of motorcycles on the road
has increased by 42% since 1995, this has not led to a comparable
increase in crashes. The number of reported motorcycle crashes has
actually reduced slightly from 2,240 in 1995 to 2,154 in 2003."

"The sheer number of motorcycle casualties has decreased by 27% in the
10 years since the introduction of compulsory training in 1990. The
greatest benefit has been amongst young riders under the age of 26 for
whom casualties are now 57% lower, reduced from 1664 in 1990 to 719 in
2000."

Which, when you add in "Almost two thirds (61%) of motorcycle crashes
involve collisions with another vehicle and are usually the fault of the
other driver. The key vehicle is a term used for the vehicle whose action
led to a crash. Over the past four years in NSW, the other driver was
the key vehicle in 60% of all collisions involving a motorcycle; it was
the rider in 40% of collisions." does seem to imply that the way to
decrease motorcycle injuries is to train drivers not to hit things.

After all... how many fatalities and injuries in road crashes are due to
car drivers hitting things? If we are serious about reducing the cost
of road trauma the *obvious* solution is to tax *cars* off the road.
What's hurting bike riders is cars hitting them. What hurts pedestrians
and cyclists and other car drivers is cars hitting them. So get cars
off the road, and encourage people to use bikes for all single and two
person trips that don't involve lots of goods. If someone's hit by a
bike a 50 I bet they survive a lot better than being hit by a car!

Zebee

 

Here's what I sent:

===
As an MBA student at the AGSM studying stats, I was appalled by Alan
Mitchell's misuse of basic analytical principles, as an Economics
undergrad, I was surprised an eminent economic commentator could so
misunderstand the elasticities of demand and the shape of the utility
curves in question. As a motorcyclist I was amused by the wildy
inaccurate socio-economic stereotyping. There isn't a single assertion
in the article which stands up to scrutiny in the context in which it
was used, a level of journalism I would expect from the Daily Telegraph
not the AFR.

The vast majority of motorcycle users (excluding your local postie) do
so as a recreation, not for commuting. Taxing inelastic goods has
marginal impact on consumption, as we have found with cigarettes - anti
smoking advertising campaigns and removal of smoking advertising had a
far more significant impact on consumption than taxes did.

70% of urban motorcycle crashes are the legal fault of the other driver,
blaming the victim is poor form and poor law.

=====

 

Please note guys, sending a letter to the editor is seperate to sending
feedback to the journalist - if you click on feedback to Alan Mitchell
your note will undoubtably end up in the bit bucket (although it could
worth submitting it in both areas so he gets to see how pissed of we are

JL

 

Where's the 74% of Urban crashes involve another vehicle at fault.

The all number is watered down by single vehicle crashes of people
failing to take bends. If we're going to play damn lies and statistics
let's use the one's that look best !!!

JL

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:45:34 +1100

*snorfle*

Zebee

 

Errrm I hope that's a good thing ! <baffled and bemused look>

I updated the letter and resubmitted, here's the alternate (1st
paragraph unchanged):

As an MBA student at the AGSM studying stats, I was appalled by Alan
Mitchell's misuse of basic analytical principles, as an Economics
undergrad, I was surprised an eminent economic commentator could so
misunderstand the elasticities of demand and the shape of the utility
curves in question. As a motorcyclist I was amused by the wildy
inaccurate socio-economic stereotyping. There isn't a single assertion
in the article which stands up to scrutiny in the context in which it
was used, a level of journalism I would expect from the Daily Telegraph
not the AFR.

The vast majority of motorcycle users (excluding your local postie) do
so as a recreation, not for commuting. Taxing inelastic goods has
marginal impact on consumption.

74% of urban motorcycle crashes are the legal fault of the other driver,
blaming the victim is poor form and poor law. On the other hand using
Mitchell's logic; given that 1 in 5 road deaths are pedestrians and 70%
of pedestrian accidents are the fault of the pedestrian, perhaps we
should raise the tax on cars ?

===
This is an update to the one I posted via your website earlier

....snip address etc details


Notes:
- 1 in 5 stat from NRMA study
http://www.mynrma.com.au/saferroads/facts_figures.asp
http://www.mynrma.com.au/releases2004_162.asp

- As reported SMH 28th September 1995 "Jaywalk Deaths Rise" (note the
SMH online archive has it dated 27th Sept)

- 61% of *all* and 74% of *Urban* motorcycle crashes are the fault of
the other vehicle. Numerous studies - see http://mccofnsw.org for the facts

And I even footnoted

 

I like that John - perhaps you can then expand it to imply doubt in the
rest of the financial analysis in AFR! (Which is seen as a bible in the
financial community!)

(Not that they would ever print it......).


Stan

 

Yes, that's some really fancy footwork there, John...

Nice work causing the little robotic arm in my cranial backup room to go
fetch the tape with the HSC material pertaining to the concepts of elastic
and inelastic goods.

(I had a good economics teacher in highschool)

 

See there ya go - you have the advantage - I did do nuclear physics at
HSC but I doubt it would help me understand a word you had to say :-0

JL
(although i could relate to the strong force weak force thing <grin> )
PS check your yahoo email

 

Which is exactly why I didnt do so - I'm going to send a letter to
Mitchell directly tearing his craps stats and analysis apart - but not
until AFTER I've done my stats exam this saturday.

I'm outta here now I've wasted the whole morning on this. Gotta study or
I'll be doing the bloody subject again.

JL

 

Precisely! I got hit by my mate on his XR600 when he was travelling at
about 70km/h with the front wheel in the air. Some nasty bruising and a
few aches and pains was all I got.

Now for those who want to know HOW I got hit, here's the story.

We were trying to see who could pull the longest/fastest wheelie on the
XR600 out on my mate's farm one day. I happened to be standing in the
"line of fire" by accident and thought "if I jump left or right, I
guarantee he'll flinch in the same direction and I'll get hit! I know,
I'll stay where I am and he'll put the front wheel down, then swerve and
miss me." Guess what my mate was thinking?? Yep, same thing! So we had a
prang, then a little shouting match, followed by a minor punch-up, then we
both sat down and pissed ourselves laughing

We're still best mates too!

James
ZZR250->ZX9R

 

I concur.

See? you can put together a cogent argument based on a rational
assessment of the facts!

Well done.

Moike

 

It's not just his use of statistics which is questionable, but also his
choice. He uses movements in the number of licence holders as if it was a
meaningful figure, and even then chooses when and where to use it.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 02 Dec 2004 12:58:54 +1100

yes it is. It's the noise whatever you are drinking makes as it comes
out your nose...

Zebee

 

And you're still being a patronising bastard. Not so well done.

JL
(and just for you Smee I refrained from saying what I was really thinking)

 

Thanks for the translation !

JL
(that's a new one)

 

Err, all of them?

Theo

 

In aus.motorcycles on Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:58:25 +0800

No, some are due to truck drivers hitting things that aren't cars, buses
running off the road, bikes running off the road, bikes hitting other
bikes, and so on.

Zebee

 

Stands to reason; you're MADE for eachother!
Clem