It's all our fault, apparently

[Samray]

this thread is all about blaming the messanger when you dont like the message.

Given that the beeb is the messenger in this instance, and only the govt has more spin, I think the question is whether anyone ever believes the message.
It would be fair to blame this messenger for half the ills of this country.

[Firestarter]

but that doesnt mean that there is a media conspiracy against bikers. it doesnt mean that the stats are lies and that all accidents are caused by "cagers" etc etc.

You're right - it's not a conspiracy against bikers, it's about displaying a set of stats that show something "sensationlist" so that they can sell more papers/get more viewers. The fact that the stats don't tell a full story (IMO), is beside the point?

Again, you're right - I don't like the message - but more because I think it isn't based on all of the facts, and by being incomplete (again, my opinon), it leaves the reader to believe that bikes/bikers are the problem. Some are, some aren't and will be as a result of cagers, but we don't get enough evidence in that story to to see the balance.

[HowardQ]

I would agree with most of the comments so far, BG had a good point about messing up one bend and having no time to recover for the next, but there is something else to comment on that is the stats themselves.
These days they quote the number of deaths or serious injuries.
Most of us, (especially bikers), have a picture in our mind of "serious injury" is.
As far as the stats are concerned it means any acccident where an ambulance was called out and somebody was taken to hospital. If they got a slightly sprained wrist and were on the way home in a couple od hours that is classed as " Serious Injury".
It is just used to make their figures sound better and shock the public.
It's like the RED ROAD signs, where they state 456 killed and seriously injured on this road this year so far.
It sounds much worse than 2 killed this year.

[lazarus]

Most of us, (especially bikers), have a picture in our mind of "serious injury" is.
As far as the stats are concerned it means any acccident where an ambulance was called out and somebody was taken to hospital. If they got a slightly sprained wrist and were on the way home in a couple od hours that is classed as " Serious Injury".

Its inevitable that you can pick holes in the basis of any statistics but that doesnt make them valueless. For example, does the "killed" bit include only those who died on site, or those who died in hospital as well. And what about those accident victims who died in hospital from a hospital caught infection. Plus, as you point out, what is classed as serious will differ from one ambulance trust to another just as it would from biker to biker.

But so what? Does this mean that you dismiss all statistics and then either ignore a problem like road accidents or simply deal with the issue based on hunch? Course not - traffic management is like any other management. You deal with the problem on the basis of the info you have got however incomplete.

Anyway - all this is approaching an "angels on the head of a pin" type discussion - so I shall shut up!

[D-Rider]

Just about all data sets are flawed in some way but to draw meaningful conclusions it is necessary to understand the most significant limitations, deficiencies and inconsistencies so that the best use can be made of the data.
This also helps the design of future data collection to remove some of these limitations.

What I've seen here is people acknowledging some of these limitations and inconsistencies in order to help others to gain a better interpretation of the data - not to deny that issues exist.

[Samray]

Just about all data sets are flawed in some way but to draw meaningful conclusions it is necessary to understand the most significant limitations, deficiencies and inconsistencies so that the best use can be made of the data.
This also helps the design of future data collection to remove some of these limitations.

What I've seen here is people acknowledging some of these limitations and inconsistencies in order to help others to gain a better interpretation of the data - not to deny that issues exist.

When a visitor to a small town in Georgia came upon a wild dog attacking a young boy, he quickly grabbed the animal and throttled it with his two hands.

A reporter saw the incident, congratulated the man and told him the headline the following day would read, "Valiant Local Man Saves Child by Killing Vicious Animal."

The hero told the journalist that he wasn't from that town.

"Well, then," the reporter said, "the headline will probably say, 'Georgia Man Saves Child by Killing Dog'."

"Actually," the man said, "I'm from Connecticut."

"In that case," the reporter said in a huff, "the headline should read, 'Yankee Kills Family Pet'."

Cynical? Moi?