The bigger picture.

[Katman]

course we dont need to drive cars, but thats what it would take not to be targeted i reckon.

Of course it wouldn't take that.

All it would take is to be able to be seen, as a whole, as responsible road users.

At the moment, the acts of the minority tar the acts of the majority.

[DMNTD:Me]

You do come across to me as very anti Motorcyclist IMHO!

I don't see it as that at all...more of a case of anti "road-racers".

[YellowDog]

So how many on here are prepared to consider why we find ourselves in the current situation that we do?

Will those who, in the past, have seen no problem with groups of motorcyclists treating public roads as racetracks, sit there scratching their heads wondering why we are being singled out or will they see this current ACC furore as a 'wake up call' to modify their behaviour?

Regardless of what degree of success we have from Tuesday's protest ride (and any subsequent protest action), if there is not a visible attempt to clean up our own backyard then we will find ourselves being targeted over and over again.

Katman mate, your post tells me that you don't have a good handle on the problem on NZ roads. Perhaps you should work for the government as they seem to have no idea either; so let me help you.

The problem on NZ Roads is almost entirely down to generally poor driving standards for all road users. Your example of some using the public highway as a racetrack also falls into this category.

Here are some of the problems I see:

Kids being able to drive at 15.
No compusary insurance requirement.
Failure of Police to Police.
A driving test of a very low standard.

The NZ government indicates that it is happy with the number of serious accidents and deaths on its roads however it would like some more money to fund this growth industry.

Police not Policing and saying 'Speed Kills' is a negative contributor to the problem. I find the 'easy money' mentality quite negative. Driving or riding at 50kph around a blind bend (like the TV ad) is perfectly legal.

IME - what the government should be doing is raising the bar and in so doing, increasing the general standards on the road (this may take 20 years).

Preventing new motorcyclist riding a powerful motorcycle on the road (250cc can be very powerful) without first showing proficiency in the necessary skills would be a major step in the right direction.

The same should go for car driving. If you don't indiacte more than 3 seconds before the manouevre, then you fail. If you don't look over you shoulder before changing lanes you fail. etc.etc.

Perhaps Police should be able to make bad drivers sit a retest for a new and higher standard test OR lose their licence.

The present system allows 15 year old kids drive 3-Litre turbo charged car with no insurance.

Perhaps this is time to get real and change from the 'Head in the Sand' approach!

[Reckless]

I don't see it as that at all...more of a case of anti "road-racers".

Fair enough ! Perhaps the comment was a bit harsh but I've seen some awfully nasty katman threads here.

[davereid]

All it would take is to be able to be seen, as a whole, as responsible road users. At the moment, the acts of the minority tar the acts of the majority.

On the whole bikers are good drivers.

From A.C.Cs own dataset.

a) Motorcyclists are not primarily responsible for 65% of collisions

b) Motorcyclists are not primarily responsible for 49% of all the accidents they have.

Pretty clearly, bikers are performimg well above average in collisions. But even statistic (b) showing we are responsible for 51% of all our accidents is actually a very good figure, although at first glance it may not seem so.

Heres why.

If there are 100 vehicles on the road and they all crash into a lamp-post, then they are 100% liable for those accidents.

If they all crash into another vehicle, in each crash, one vehicle will be primarily responsible. So they are 50% liable for those accidents.

ALL ACCIDENTS will fall between the best figure of 50%, and the worst figure of 100% liability for a normal vehicle sample group.

(The only way you can get less than 50% for the sample group as a whole, is if a high number of accidents are caused by "acts of god".)

As a group then, you would expect the liability figure to lie between 50-100%, with the actual number really representing the type of accident that the vehicles have.

Only after you divide the group up into say red cars (or motorcycles) and blue cars can you start to get some data other than the type of accident that is being had.

This is where the red car is looking good, peforming close to theoretical best in all accidents, and not at fault in 2/3rds of collisions.

[puddy]

No, you are wrong.

If we, as a whole, had an exemplary record of public road usage there is no way that we would be facing the situation that we are now.

Yeah, but if not one single accident that involved a motorcyclist was caused by a motorcyclist, our record would still be pretty average.

Pretty sure it's all BEYOND'S fault!

[Katman]

Fair enough ! Perhaps the comment was a bit harsh but I've seen some awfully nasty katman threads here.

Awww, you poor petal.

[Katman]

(The only way you can get less than 50% for the sample group as a whole, is if a high number of accidents are caused by "acts of god".)

What a load of shit.

To obtain favourable statistics only requires a favourable change of attitude towards sharing the roads with all other road users.

[Reckless]

Awww, you poor petal.

LOL!! I won't respond I can see this will get us know where!!

Thank goodness we have someone like Les to speak for us!!

[Ronin]

No, we are being targeted because we are over represented in accident statistics (and we are an easy target to have the cost of our mode of transport increased).

Many motorcyclists believe that we are the 'elite' of road users. I'd like to see some proof that we deserve to consider ourselves so highly.

Provide the proof that we as a group are over represented in crash statics.

ACC can't do it with out fudging the numbers.

Anyone who pretends that our chosen pastime isn't dangerous is deluded. Almost as deluded as someone that thinks we should all ride the same way they do.

[Katman]

Katman mate, your post tells me that you don't have a good handle on the problem on NZ roads.

Perhaps my posts should instead tell you that I have a reasonable handle on the general attitude of New Zealand motorcyclists based on more than half my life time being one of those New Zealand motorcyclists.

[MSTRS:Me]

There's numbers. And then theres' percentages.
At it's extreme (low) end...1 bike crashes through rider fault = 100%. 2 crashes either way = 50%.
The actual numbers of real crashes are fairly low, regardless of what the percentages are suggesting. But I'd agree that they are still too high. Only a shift in attitude is going to whittle that down - albeit slowly. As has been happening since the 90s.

[Ronin]

Steady on Les - it you truly think I'm against Motorcycling you are clearly a couple short of a six pack.

No your just against motorcyclists. You are today, on a public forum being followed by the media, ACC and the Police saying "Yup, motorcyclists are to blame, the hikes are vindicated"

With friends like you, who needs Nick Smith.

Lets be honest and be done with it. You are pissed off because the majority of people here disagree strongly with your narrow minded views. I would suggest that if you started working with and for the community in a positive way that you might just get some of the recognition and respect you crave.

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Perhaps my posts should instead tell you that I have a reasonable handle on the general attitude of New Zealand motorcyclists

only the very few you have met

[Katman]

Provide the proof that we as a group are over represented in crash statics.

Why should I provide you with anything?

The figures speak for themselves.