So, wodda we going to do about? It's down to us

[Ixion]

So, ACC want to put up our levies.

It's not fair and it's not justified

And we are going to fight them all the way

No doubt about that

But- crunchy time here, the reality is that the fundamental problem, and the one that gives the ACC the ability to attack us, is that we, collectively are falling off our bikes far too often. And smashing ourselves up far too much

When we go to see the Minister, and even more later when we really start fighting (it's all just gentle tickling until the 17th), we need more than "Wah, it's not fair we don't want to pay".

We need some solidly based initiatives that we can put forward to seriously keep bikes upright. Maybe not just things e do, things that we can say that other road users ought to do count also. Maybe things we need to do ourselves.

But they need to be more than airy fairy ideas. They need to be solid, researched, feasible ideas.

So. if your 16 year kid came along and said "Mum, Dad, I'm going to get a motorbike". You love him (gawd knows why, no 16 year old kid is loveable, but somehow parents manage it). You don't really want to see him mangled on a slab.

So, if you were dictator , what would you do to give him a better chance of staying alive?

And bear in mind please that it's not possible to change human nature. Idiots will continue to be idiots. And it's not always the other guy's fault.

Sensible ideas please.

I'll extract what is worthwhile from the train wreck and put it into the manifesto social group.

[kave]

Better training and stricter licence requirements. Licence testers should hold motorcycle licences or the whole process is a joke.

[MSTRS]

More gear requirement. I wear all the gear etc, to mitigate severity of injury. Why should I 'subsidise' the plonker in t-shirt, shorts and jandals?

[crazyhorse]

Well, all you gotta do is look at the Stuff.co.nz website and take notice of the amount of road deaths in the last couple of days, to realise that they are all cars (haven't seen any bikes, so if I'm wrong, sorry).

Teenagers are even more likely to get smashed up in cars than on a bike. Reason, you ask? Well, they either ride alone enroute somewhere, or ride with groups - normally slightly older people, who are not idiots when there are young people around, and encourage all the good behaviour on rides. ( I sure did)

My kids both ride bikes, and have cars. I would much rather my son goes on the bike than in his car - it has too much power, and he likes to show off to his mates etc. And they can take passengers, who encourage the "lets go faster" or they drink while he drives etc.

I encourage kids to have bikes :done: :scooter:

[k2w3]

A 1/2-day basic rider training session on small bikes or scooters should be mandatory for ALL driver licence applicants, like the verbal and written tests are mandatory.

[Marmoot]

Stricter license requirements, increase licencing age to 17, driver test for every license extension, driver licensing every 5 years instead of 10, compulsory defensive riding course (theory and practical) before going full license.

[Ixion]

Would we (the biker community generally) wear a professional trainer requirement? So many hours of professional (ie paid for) training to get a licence.

At present any random can buy a bike , do the BHS, which a myoptic crippled granny could pass , and wobble around until he can pass the R test. May never have spoken to anyone who knows how to ride? Let alone had anything that could really be called training.

Just floating the idea mind, not saying I support it.

Motorcycle test by motorcyclist is a given

But bear in mind, all this makes it harder for new riders to get started. make it too hard and they just sya 'stuff this I'm getting a car"

or do you mean tougher licence tests for everyone. In which case are we as motorcyclists willing to lead the way ?

[mister.koz]

This may make me even less popular :innocent:

Amongst other things my suggestions to ACC were:
change the licensing:

Extend the learner and restricted licence periods
Defensive driving and advanced driving should be a required part of the licensing scheme.
Require more training for all licence holders
Require that people sit a practical test every couple of years to keep their licence - some people really shouldn't be on the road
Require that motorcyclists wear more than an approved helmet
- Helmet - perhaps closed face
- Jacket - with armour
- Gloves - with armour
- Boots - with armour


I came off a few weeks back [my fault, greasy road, not paying attention & following too close] I hit the road somewhere between 80km/h & 60km/h if I wasn't wearing good gloves, jacket and boots (all armoured) I would have broken a few body parts. Because I was wearing my gear all I got was a couple of bruises.

I think the biggest problems on the road are: lack of ability, apathy, ignorance and arrogance. All but the last one could be improved by training and awareness.

How many 40+ year old drivers who have never written a road code indicate badly?

How many people buy a road code every year and re-hash their knowledge?

[Marmoot]

From road safety: reduce the use of loose seal as road renewal method, reduction of blind corners, tighter control over alcohol-influenced drivers, harsher penalty to drink driving (crush the car after 3 repeat offense).

[Ixion]

A 1/2-day basic rider training session on small bikes or scooters should be mandatory for ALL driver licence applicants, like the verbal and written tests are mandatory.


But if someone has never ridden a pushbike or a manual transmission car that half hour is going to be pretty mechanical. Learning clutch and balance and stuff. Probably come away thinking that motorbikes are REALLY hard to ride, but with no insight into the issue swe face on the road.

[The Stranger]

Insist that all diesel vehicles have a flap in the filler neck of the tank (as many holdens do standard) to act as a one way valve so when numpties forget to put the cap on we don't get the blame?

[Varkp]

To quote from the "The Dominion Post" dated Thuesday 3 November 2009, page A3 "Wellington toll hits decade high" bullet point 3

"A cyclist is 30 times more likely to be injured then someone in a car"

and they don't pay a cent toward acc levies ....

I WANT a reduction in my motorcycle levies as i find it VERY unfair to subsidise the pedal cyclists.

[mister.koz]

PS my licence suggestions are across the board, including cars, bikes and international drivers etc etc

I once got beeped and waved at by a camper van because they thought I was on their side of the road... bloody tourists!!!

[mashman]

Tougher penalties for getting it wrong... irrespective of age... If you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to suffer the consequences... crushed cars, jail time, testicular electro shock therapy for men and 20 minutes with the ugliest biker in the world for women (that'll last a lifetime)... Lack of personal responsibility is a killer on the roads...

[The Stranger]

Would we (the biker community generally) wear a professional trainer requirement? So many hours of professional (ie paid for) training to get a licence.



Age old question - does training translate into safety?
The govt don't believe so. So how you going to sell this one?

[mister.koz]

Age old question - does training translate into safety?
The govt don't believe so. So how you going to sell this one?

The government believes in band-aids rather than safety.

[brendonjw]

Increase the standards for getting your restricted and full (im talking about car license here) I sat my restricted under the old system (everyone remember a few years ago when they changed it) and that test was a lot harder than the one i had to sit to get my full under the current system (and no it wasn't just my perception as i had more experience then but more the things i had to do. I mean under the current full test i didnt even have to go on the motorway, no 3 point turns or anything like that which i had to do under the old restricted)

Last year I even had a friend who was failing her restricted, the tester was telling her how she had failed and so she started crying so he passed her :gob:

Bigger fines or penalties for people driving outside their conditions or under the influence, both car and bike, they are there for a reason.

For cars look into a power cap on the cars that learners and restricted can drive, just like Bikes (i think they do something like this in Aus but may be wrong)

[DidJit]

Align licence standards and training for both cars and motorcycles closer to the European models.

[Ixion]

I'm not convinced it does beyond a certain point. Or, rather, I think that a rider needs training. Then a period of experience. Then some more training. More experience. etc.

'training' isn't a magic wand that solves all problems.

But to some extent we don't have to 'sell' it.

What I want to do is to have a solid body of proposals that we can put before the minister and the public to say "We are not just whinging about paying more. We have worked on this, and , in the opinion of experienced motorcyclists with hundred of millions of kilometres of experience between them, if the government implement these proposals there will be a marked drop in the motorcycle casualty rate".

If the Minister then says "Piss off, I don't care about reducing the casualty rate and the police say it won't work", well, that's sort of OK. That then becomes a different argument. We've stepped up to the plate , TPTB haven't.

[Ixion]

Align licence standards and training for both cars and motorcycles closer to the European models.

which are? I know (sort of) UK. Don't know others.

[k2w3]

If I was feeling harsh, Ixion, then a fail on the 1/2-day basic training would be a fail of the test, and no licence given to the applicant.

Look, the written and oral test questions are a joke. So the buck stops with the practical test, and you wonder how some people passed that. It's not asking too much to do a test on a scooter to get a feel for how other road users operate.

Christ, if you are allowed to ride a scooter with a car licence then surely you should prove that you can!

I think it's good that you are considering these dangling carrot options, but what about the stick approach.

Should these charges come into law, what then? By all means, promote the positive but make no bones about what will likely happen should these changes come in. Threaten them with mass protests, dropped income owing to bikers refusing to pay or offroading their bikes etc.

[yungatart]

Definitely in for more training....
Maybe discounted ACC levies on production of a RRRS certificate...it would encourage more to do a refresher course every so often.
The BHS is far too easy, as is the restricted. I have never been required to do a hill start or a u turn as part of the testing procedure...and, yes, I do have my full!

[Ixion]

..

Christ, if you are allowed to ride a scooter with a car licence then surely you should prove that you can!

...

Should you be able to ?

And, for the avoidance of doubt, this is EXTRA to all the other stuff, not instead of.

[mister.koz]

Definitely in for more training....
Maybe discounted ACC levies on production of a RRRS certificate...it would encourage more to do a refresher course every so often.
The BHS is far too easy, as is the restricted. I have never been required to do a hill start or a u turn as part of the testing procedure...and, yes, I do have my full!

Yeah that hamtpon downs training day is going to be the shiz!

I wouldn't have an issue paying more for ACC if it included more things like this training day and perhaps discounts for approved training.

I think the initial training is pretty crappy but the required training after you get your full licence is non-existant.

[The Stranger]

Increase the standards for getting your restricted and full (im talking about car license here) I sat my restricted under the old system (everyone remember a few years ago when they changed it) and that test was a lot harder than the one i had to sit to get my full under the current system (and no it wasn't just my perception as i had more experience then but more the things i had to do. I mean under the current full test i didnt even have to go on the motorway, no 3 point turns or anything like that which i had to do under the old restricted)

Last year I even had a friend who was failing her restricted, the tester was telling her how she had failed and so she started crying so he passed her :gob:

Bigger fines or penalties for people driving outside their conditions or under the influence, both car and bike, they are there for a reason.

For cars look into a power cap on the cars that learners and restricted can drive, just like Bikes (i think they do something like this in Aus but may be wrong)

Is any of that going to reduce the number of motorcycle ACC claims? If so, by how much?

[The Stranger]

Yeah that hamtpon downs training day is going to be the shiz!



What Hampton Downs training day are you referring to please?

[mister.koz]

What Hampton Downs training day are you referring to please?

The on that's on this weekend, its organised by the hamilton motorcycle club and I heard that it was part-funded by ACC but under closer observation there's no mention of ACC on this page (http://www.hamiltonmcc.org.nz/news.php?id=anytime479e7f9db8f86).

[DidJit]

which are? I know (sort of) UK. Don't know others.

I'm not suggesting the hp limits described below; more the amount of training and knowledge required.

Taken from:
http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/Lessons-France.htm


Getting Your Motorcycle License in France
21 June 2006

Author: Mike Werner
Location: Normandy, France

The Licence

In France, as in the rest of Europe, you need to have a motorcycle licence (type A) to be able to ride a motorcycle with more than 125 cc (if you have had a car licence for more than 2 years, you are allowed to ride a 125 cc motorcycle with less than 15 hp).

If you're between 18 and 21 years old, you can get the "Progressive" A, meaning your motorcycle is not allowed to have more than 34 hp, and the weight/power ration may not exceed 0.16 kW/kg.

After two years riding with a "Progressive" A license, or if you are older than 21 years, you can get the "Direct" A license, that allows you to ride any motorcycle (in France all motorcycles are restricted to 100 hp maximum).

Rules of the Road

First, you need to learn the general rules of the road (unless you got your car license within the last 5 years). This means learning either in a classroom, or from self teaching.

When you're ready, you need to pass an exam. The exam is a multiple choice style, with a video projector displaying photos and/or videos. The test is timed, and you're allowed to have 5 errors for the 40 questions. Oh yeah... the test is in French.

Motorcycle Control

After you pass the rules of the road test, you need to go to a driving school. This is mandatory, as there are minimum hours you need to be "taught" how to ride. The minimum number of hours you need to train is 8 hours !

The first portion is controlling your motorcycle. This is held in a non-traffic environment, usually on an abandoned parking area. You'll learn how to ride a, usually, 600 cc modified Honda, Suzuki or Kawasaki. The modification consist of a lower power, and crash bars all around the bike.

The training is obviously in harmony with the exam. When you're deemed ready by your instructor, you need to pass the first motorcycle exam.

Motorcycle Control Exam

When you're ready, you need to reserve your first set of tests. At the exam place, you will need to do the following exams.

Motorcycle Training
1. Non Driving Exercise.

The examiner will ask you to do one of several exercises. They can be "walking" your motorcycle through a pylon slalom, forwards or backwards (smaller people often have problems with this), putting your motorcycle on a center stand, etc.

You need to demonstrate that you are able to control the motorcycle even when the engine is not running.

Failure to comply, dropping your motorcycle results in an automatic disqualification, and you need to re-apply for the exam.

2. Mechanical Quiz.

Next on the list are several questions about the mechanical abilities of your motorcycle. They're not very detailed, but you'll be asked how you verify your oil level, tire pressure, chains, etc.

You don't need to be mechanically apt, but you need to know the basic parts of your motorcycle.

Failure to comply, results in an automatic disqualification, and you need to re-apply for the exam.

3. Oral Motorcycle Quiz.

The examiner will ask you, more or less in a conversation mode, specific questions on your ability to understand the differences between riding a motorcycle and driving a car. The questions are on specific motorcycle related laws. Failure to comply, dropping your motorcycle results in an automatic disqualification, and you need to re-apply for the exam.

4. Control at Low Speed.

You need to maneuver your motorcycle through a slalom consisting of pylons in first gear. You are not allowed to touch the ground with your feet, drop a pylon or gasp, drop your bike. They check to see if your posture is correct. If you think that's easy, try it....

Failure to comply, dropping your motorcycle or hitting a pylon results in an automatic disqualification, and you need to re-apply for the exam.

5. Control at Low Speed with Pillion.

Next after point 4, your instructor gets behind you, and then you need to ride another track with pylons at low speed (1st gear). The instructor is not allowed to talk to you to give you advice (but usually they use their legs to signal to you what you need to do).

Failure to comply, dropping your motorcycle results in an automatic disqualification, and you need to re-apply for the exam.

6. High Speed Control.

Now you need to run a fast slalom. This involves you riding your motorcycle at about 40-50 kph through several pylons, U-turn and a fast return. The whole track needs to be done between 18 and 21 seconds! If you go too fast, or too slow you disqualify ! Too fast is rare, but too slow happens all the time.

Failure to comply, dropping your motorcycle results in an automatic disqualification, and you need to re-apply for the exam.

7. Emergency Control.

At the end of #6, you are required to show that you are able to perform an emergency operation. This is either an obstacle avoidance (like a car door opening - not a real one, just a pylon) followed by emergency braking, or emergency braking by using your engine. Usually the speed is about 70 kph.

You must start the maneuver at a certain point, AND you need to stop before a certain spot. If not, you're out! Failure to comply, dropping your motorcycle results in an automatic disqualification, and you need to re-apply for the exam.

8. Oral Exam.

Once you've reach this stage you're almost done. Now you get to sit in an office, where they're going to quiz you for all the specific laws that apply only to motorcycles. It's usually in a more easy going environment, and often, at this stage, they are more or less easy going. Unless you're really stupid and answer all questions wrong, you'll pass this bit.

Traffic Riding

Although the traffic riding can be done concurrent with the motorcycle control, most schools choose to do this after the control exams (at least they know you'll not drop their precious motorcycle). You'll be riding your motorcycle equipped with an ear-piece in your helmet so you can hear your instructor talking to you via a walkie-talkie. Usually the instructor is in a car.... You need to spend at least 12 hours riding in traffic to be allowed to do your next exams.

Once your instructor deems you ready, you need to do your exam. Using the same walkie-talkie technique, the examiner drives behind you telling you which way to go. The exam lasts 30 minutes, and not complying with ANY traffic rule disqualifies you!

Points

Once you get your precious motorcycle license, you get 6 points (normally you get 12). Any infraction, speeding or rules of the road, points get deducted. Once you've got 0 points, you lose your license and you need to start from scratch, often after 3 years!

If you've managed to ride without a loss of points for 2 years, you get the full 12 points!

The whole process can last about one year! There are accelerated schools, where you can try to get your permit in a few days by a concentrated education.

So, you can assume one thing. A French biker knows how to ride!

[Ixion]

What are French motorcycle crash rates like? (asking cos I don't know). No point just having tougher tests if they don't actually mean fewer crashes.

[DidJit]

Hmmm... Good point. I'll see if I can hunt some out.

[k2w3]

They usually end with "merde"

[kave]

You need to know the crash stats of people with French licences. Odds are if its one of the hardest places to get a Motorbike licence in europe then plenty of people there will be riding on international licences.

[k2w3]

Agree. I know lots of guys that ride into or thru France from the UK on their way to somewhere nice. Most begrudge the ride home, though.

[Waxxa]

1) I would like to see the conditions of our roads improved.
2) Better training for cars towards motorbikes awareness
3) cc restriction for new car drivers like we have restrictions on bikes for a time period
4) Seperate the non-road motorbike accidents from road motorbike accidents for true statistics about road accidents
5) A change in attitude for ALL road users in NZ

I havent mentioned extra training for motorbikes because the cost of defensive driving courses are too prohibitive for most of Joe Public to absorb and besides not all the emphasis should be placed on motorbike riders too, because the problem has to be shared with road users (of all vehicles), councils, government, LTNZ, ACC etc.

[The Stranger]

The on that's on this weekend, its organised by the hamilton motorcycle club and I heard that it was part-funded by ACC but under closer observation there's no mention of ACC on this page (http://www.hamiltonmcc.org.nz/news.php?id=anytime479e7f9db8f86).

You're right it does look interesting. Thanks for that.

[JohnR]

ATGATT is to motorcycling what seat belts and airbags are to cars...
so why not make it compulsory and part of the WOF?

Before anyone says "But you can't make people wear it.", you can't make people wear seat belts either...but it can be policed.:Police:

At the risk of sounding like Katman (no offense) but I can't help but find it more than moderately amusing that many of the suggestions (tougher penalties, stricter license conditions...) are all things that we normally bitch and moan about there being too much of!:doh:

[MSTRS]

At the risk of sounding like Katman (no offense) but I can't help but find it more than moderately amusing that many of the suggestions (tougher penalties, stricter license conditions...) are all things that we normally bitch and moan about there being too much of!:doh:

Ah, but the thinking on that, right now, is that it will be cheaper than the levy hikes, and a certain amount of 'I've got my full, so it won't apply to me'.
The howls will start if and when such a scheme is imposed, across all licence levels, and at a cost to the person.
However, that's a bitchfest for another day.

[NinjaNanna]

Heavily subsidised track days run fortnightly through-out the country.

If you get weekend warriors like me off the roads and onto "safe" tracks where we got our adrenilin rush cheaply then presumably we'd chill out on the road.

I know personally I'd all but abandon the roads if track days were more affordable ie $50 for the day rather than $120.

[carl freimann]

make the roads safer for all by making it compulsory to do your first two years for any licence on a motorcycle of not more than 20 Hp . then the idiots will only take themselves out instead of all their mates and the innocent .(this idea derived from my experience in the fire service scraping up the dickheads of the country):bash::scooter::stupid::Police:

[ManDownUnder]

Before the accident happens - do what can be done to prevent it. Lower the chances of having one through:
* Motorcyclist Training
* Intensive and enduring campaigns raising the awareness of m/cs to the public
* Tougher penalties for the guilty party in a M/C accident.
* Lower Alcohol levels for motorcylists
* Mandatory headlight on full time (done now of course - but thank them for it)
* Simplification of rules around bus lanes. We're either allowed to use them - or not. Not the present system which confuses motorists and potentially increases the odds of an "I didn't see you"
* Get rid of cheesecutters
* Tougher penalties for leaving slutter on the road (loose gravel, oil, diesel etc)
* Requalify on a practical test every 5 years. Make the test tougher for bigger/more powerful bikes to pick up the "born again bikers"

If an accident happens, mitigate costs and injuries
* Have the guilty party pay an elevated ACC premium
* Mandatory lid, footwear, gloves and jacket of an acceptable standard, and High Vis

[mister.koz]

The education needs to be across the board I reckon and not restricted to new riders/drivers - its completely silly to expect that people learn all they need to know when they start out. I can honestly say that I have done allot more learning since I got my full and onto a 1000cc bike...

I have to say that the average skill of the riders I have seen easily outweighs the average skill of car drivers, that fact may be smoothed off and left pointless though because the average speed is equally different.

[mister.koz]

And yeah definitely more requirements for safety equipment.....

Its quite ridiculous to only require "an approved" helmet wtf!

It would be interesting to see the average cost of a knee/ankle/shoulder/wrist/etc injury that is protected by gear compared to the average cost of those injuries that is protected by nothing.

[ManDownUnder]

Age old question - does training translate into safety?
The govt don't believe so. So how you going to sell this one?

I don't know if it's available or if the data supports the hypothesis... but I'd suggest looking at accident frequency as a function of time ridden... however the fuck that could be derived.

[DidJit]

What are French motorcycle crash rates like? (asking cos I don't know). No point just having tougher tests if they don't actually mean fewer crashes.

Difficult to find accurate stats regarding crash rates in Europe... (a problem the world over?) Bugger.

[mister.koz]

I don't know if it's available or if the data supports the hypothesis... but I'd suggest looking at accident frequency as a function of time ridden... however the fuck that could be derived.

I think that allot of the statistics available (including the once ACC has posted as evidence) aren't really sufficient enough to prove anything, statistics are often recorded based on the ideals that were required before rather than the information we require now. I heard that of the accident statistics less than half of them had the motorcycle's cc rating, the type of bike (road/offroad etc) or noted the license held by the rider.

I think that the training thing is simple logic though, if we are educated in anything we are better prepared to handle the event - think about trigonometry & contraception; its easy when you know how but a reasonable proportion of idiots will never be able to understand either.

Same goes with the gear question, get someone to punch a brick wall with a boxing glove on and then ask them if they would be prepared to take the glove off and do it again.

[yungatart]

Heavily subsidised track days run fortnightly through-out the country.

If you get weekend warriors like me off the roads and onto "safe" tracks where we got our adrenilin rush cheaply then presumably we'd chill out on the road.

I know personally I'd all but abandon the roads if track days were more affordable ie $50 for the day rather than $120.

I'm not comfortable with the idea of track training for road riders...the two scenarios are so far apart...I personally don't see the use...no oncoming vehicles, no shitty road surface, just how does riding around a track make me a better rider?
I personally prefer RRRS courses and the like...teaching real road skills in a real situation.

[Pixie]

I'm not convinced it does beyond a certain point. Or, rather, I think that a rider needs training. Then a period of experience. Then some more training. More experience. etc.

'training' isn't a magic wand that solves all problems.

But to some extent we don't have to 'sell' it.

What I want to do is to have a solid body of proposals that we can put before the minister and the public to say "We are not just whinging about paying more. We have worked on this, and , in the opinion of experienced motorcyclists with hundred of millions of kilometres of experience between them, if the government implement these proposals there will be a marked drop in the motorcycle casualty rate".

If the Minister then says "Piss off, I don't care about reducing the casualty rate and the police say it won't work", well, that's sort of OK. That then becomes a different argument. We've stepped up to the plate , TPTB haven't.
"Driver Training just makes drivers over-confident" -Dave Cliff,former head of Road Policing,at the "Safe As" meeting in Whangerei.
He must be right-he's a policeman
and a cockhead

[mashman]

Difficult to find accurate stats regarding crash rates in Europe... (a problem the world over?) Bugger.

that's not strictly true. I have had this data for the UK before. The data comes from the insurance companies (ABI, all the claims from all insurers) and the police data (crash and accident categories, fault etc...) along with DVLA data (vehicle statuses i.e. dinged, crashed, written off etc...) but it costs approximately 12 thousand pounds a month!!! You need a combination of data sources to get the complete picture... This may not exist over here... although there was an article on stuff a few weeks ago about some research that had been done at Otago university (i think it was) using Police Accident Reports to derive their figures and highlighted that 250's are the bad boys of the road over here... pretty much the same as i found back in the UK for 125's... oddly enough the learning bikes!!!

[Howie]

The on that's on this weekend, its organised by the hamilton motorcycle club and I heard that it was part-funded by ACC but under closer observation there's no mention of ACC on this page (http://www.hamiltonmcc.org.nz/news.php?id=anytime479e7f9db8f86).

The mention of ACC is on the Application form, along with a lot of the city councils up that way. It looks like the Hamilton Motorcycle club has put a bit of work into organising the days. Well done, hope the days go well.

[davereid]

Its true that ATGATT will help reduce the cost to ACC, but actually not by much.

Go for a ride, you will find an amazingly high number of biker already well kitted up.

So ATGATT rules wont improve anything except the small number of bikers who dont wear protective gear.

As well meaning as the idea is, the BRONZ idea of education before legislation has already worked well in this regard.

It will just be another rule, that has little or no effect on actual outcomes.

71% of our accidents are collisions, and the other driver is responsible for 65% of those.

The motorist needs to be hammered with the education here.
No amount of making it hard to get a licence will stop an idiot failing to give right of way.

So far. I also see that as bikers we are really trying hard ourselves to make biking safer.

Just here on KB we have training systems and mentors, its my opinion that we are actually managing ourselves bloody well !

The key things we can do are to :

Educate drivers not to run us over, and get good at dodging them even when they try
Educate ourselves not to just fall off - and I think we are trying hard
and turn the 33% of collisions we are responsible for into 3%

Remember, motorcycling is already getting safer every year, we don't need to self flaggelate to much..

[Ixion]

That's a good point. it's like laws to make us have headlamps on. Sure, there is a significant difference between crash rates for bikes with headlamps on and not on. But a law requiring bikes to have them on won't make any measuraeable difference to our casualty rates. because almost everyone has them on, law or no law.

So, likewise, I suspect the ATTGATT thing is overplayed. The odd rider who is way under protected gets a lot of mention here simply because he IS the exception.

We need to try to make some quantification , even if only gut feel , on what effect a proposal will ahve.

[DidJit]

Difficult to find accurate stats regarding crash rates in Europe... (a problem the world over?) Bugger.

I have found this (http://www.maids-study.eu/), though, for the statisticians. Summarised here (http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/newsandupdates/european_motorcycle_crash_study/index.html).

[Ixion]

What about a schme whereby if you have x crashes sin y years you go abck to an R class 9and a 250) ?

Is the recidivist crasher part of our problem? or not. I don't know.

Do we have a lot of people crashing once (and sometimes a crash is just a shit happens thing we can't control everythign). or do we have a few (fewer anyway) people having lots of crashes (I think over a 10 year period or so here).

What's the biggest fundamental crash cause?

Inexperience?

Doing stupid shit ?

Booze?

Roads ? (be real here. I know that everybody that crashes on a corner , it's cause of diesel, so lets ignore that one, eh)

Mechanical failure (don't reckon it myself, but, for completeness)

Simple speeding. To fst for conditions.

fatigue (I suspect that one is underrated)

what else

What's the most common cause?

What doesn't need to be included ?

[Ixion]

I have found this (http://www.maids-study.eu/), though, for the statisticians. Summarised here (http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/newsandupdates/european_motorcycle_crash_study/index.html).

That's a very full report. It willt ake a while to read but may be worth it

[NinjaNanna]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of track training for road riders...the two scenarios are so far apart...I personally don't see the use...no oncoming vehicles, no shitty road surface, just how does riding around a track make me a better rider?
I personally prefer RRRS courses and the like...teaching real road skills in a real situation.

My suggestion has nothing to do with rider training - it has everything to do with taking the sports out of sports rider whilst they are on public roads.

If I get my jolly's on the track, I'm more than happy to cruise on the road.

If you question the logic, then consider any 2-3 day ride you may have been on, for me days 1 and 2 are very much about the buzz come day 3 I'm buzzed out and happy to cruise home.

Likewise for those that have riden to track days, I hazzard to bet that the ride to the track is more spirited than the ride home.

Make these opportunities more accessible and you will notice a real difference on the road.

Of course this won't fix those guys crashing cruisers, but I doubt they're highly represented in the stats anyway.

For the born agains - the only solution is resitting licenses that they haven't used in 20yrs. No other solution really.

[The Stranger]

Roads ? (be real here. I know that everybody that crashes on a corner , it's cause of diesel, so lets ignore that one, eh)



Why ignore diesel?
Diesel and similar contaminants are the single biggest cause of accidents that I have had actual experience with (not referring to reported accidents I have read or heard of). This also includes one in a straight line which caused the motorcyclist to slide for about 50m on the wrong side of the road. He was gasing up to overtake at the time and hit a patch about 6" in diameter.

[MSTRS]

My suggestion has nothing to do with rider training - it has everything to do with taking the sports out of sports rider whilst they are on public roads.
.

And you would wish for that to be subsidised? By whom? Me?
Why should I pay for you to go have a fang on the track?

Training day....different story!

[Ixion]

Why ignore diesel?
Diesel and similar contaminants are the single biggest cause of accidents that I have had actual experience with (not referring to reported accidents I have read or heard of). This also includes one in a straight line which caused the motorcyclist to slide for about 50m on the wrong side of the road. He was gasing up to overtake at the time and hit a patch about 6" in diameter.

Yes , but so often "diesel" is the universal catch cry. Too vague. "we want the government to stop diesel getting on the raod" . How ?

Gravel, in contrast (still never been convinced that an experienced rider outght not to be able to cope with gravel on the road, mself, but that's just me), does sort of fall within something we could reasonably expect the government to do something about.

There was a sensible suggestion about diesel vehicles being required to ahve a one way vale to stop sloshing.

[Mom]

I am an ATGATT sort of person, but I have a fundemental issue with being legislated into wearing it.

Certainly a helmet as a base line, but the real rebels in us will revolt if we are legislated into being made to wear leather or what have you all the time. This is an expensive thing to get into, the last thing we need to do is also price ourselves out of the market to new riders. When I first started riding I had NO money (a bit like now really) and I certianly could not afford an expensive bike, let alone expensive gear to boot. So I bought what I could afford on both fronts. We want to encourage our kids into riding for the pleasure it gives, the money it saves, the congestion it helps to eliminate. I think we should really go out on a limb and lead the way here about driver education.

I am not smart enough to spout on about Horse Power to weight ratios, but I would have to say the current system for motorcyclists is a joke. We should be looking at a system where the output of your bike is the measure of what kind of bike you are able to legally start on. This equally applies to cars as well. All new riders/drivers should have to complete a number of hours of professional, approved training. The test to step up a level should be really strengthened so it is actually difficult to obtain that next step. None of this being followed in a car with someone that says look where I am indicating and do that, or a crappy ear piece that you only hear half of what comes out of it, or worse, the ride to the next intersection and turn right and stop I will tell you where to go from there sort of testing we currently have. The 20 min test of skills that allow you to go and buy any bike you fancy is frankly a joke IMO.

But apart from all that stuff, I fundamentally think targeting motorists by way of rego is wrong :yes: The no-fault system has already been eroded to the point that these bastads think it is ok to hammer us like they are proposing.

The ACC structure and system is where we should be looking, it is that that is actually being manipulated far away from its original intent.

[FastBikeGear]

This may make me even less popular :innocent:

Amongst other things my suggestions to ACC were:
change the licensing:

Extend the learner and restricted licence periods
Defensive driving and advanced driving should be a required part of the licensing scheme.
Require more training for all licence holders
Require that people sit a practical test every couple of years to keep their licence - some people really shouldn't be on the road
Require that motorcyclists wear more than an approved helmet
- Helmet - perhaps closed face
- Jacket - with armour
- Gloves - with armour
- Boots - with armour



How many people buy a road code every year and re-hash their knowledge?

+1

Oh and start ticketing for more than just speed, not indicating, etc

[oldrider]

To me Motorcycling has always given me a sense of freedom and self expression, thank god I was born when I was!

Motorcycling is being smothered by bureaucracy and fuckwits, no matter what the outcome, it will still mean a loss of quality to motorcycling!

The bit that pisses me off most is that the old fogies of the AA are going to win! (they have always hated motorcycles)

I hate those bastards more than I hate stupid unnecessary rules and regulations!

Goodbye freedom, you have been a fantastic companion throughout "my" life, till we meet again, auf Wiedersehen!

And Katman I salute you, you saw it coming and at least you tried to combat it the only way you knew how but at least you tried, thank you!

[davereid]

To me Motorcycling has always given me a sense of freedom and self expression, thank god I was born when I was!
Motorcycling is being smothered by bureaucracy and fuckwits, no matter what the outcome, it will still mean a loss of quality to motorcycling!
The bit that pisses me off most is that the old fogies of the AA are going to win! (they have always hated motorcycles) I hate those bastards more than I hate stupid unnecessary rules and regulations!

Goodbye freedom, you have been a fantastic companion throughout "my" life, till we meet again, auf Wiedersehen!

We havent lost yet.. I must admit, I was seriously down when I first heard the proposal.

But, I have turned around. Now I think we can win - with the right approach parity with cars is a do-able goal. We might not get it this round, but I think bikers are not going to let this go.

ACC may regret this, they could have simply raised the levy $50 bucks a year to get what they wanted, but they got clever.

Now we have set parity as goal, we can keep pushing and pushing.

ACC can rave all they like about the "subsidy" but its a weak argument, in reality they are hard pushed to even justify why hey measure bikers differently.

[paturoa]

There are no silver bullets, and a combo of changes would make a couple of percent here and a couple of percent there so what about these:

1) Graduated power to weight licensing WITH competency tests to advance classes - for BOTH noobies and return bikers

Riding bikes, is a skill that requires recent and regular reinforcement until a rider becomes unconsciously competent. Having a sprots bike encourages people to fang before their skill levels are adequate. Resticting riders to "nana" bikes will reduce the tendacy for some to fang and hence reduces the risk of the bike exceeding the riders skills.

The competency testing could entail a tester following a bikers and looking for demonstrated skills.

2) Legalise Headlight modulators and/or modulated acessory lights.

Light me up like a friggen christmas tree and try to say SMIDSY? Most riders already ride with headlights, yet the SMIDSY rate is still too high. I've seen modulators overseas and they stood out more than Fat Max's belly at a pie eating contest!

3) Treble, quadruple, whatever failure to give way penalties to near automatic license suspension level.

We know that failure to give way (SMIDSY) is also a significant contributor to statistics. Wont make a blind bit of difference to some road users cos they are brain dead. Follow me here.... so for those that aren't brain dead the consequences of being lazy lookers are significant, and some will change their behaviour. For rest including the brain dead / incompetents then they are off the road anyway.

[nico]

de-regster and run the risk sounds like a blody good idea to me so mr acc just gna miss out aint he , if any thing ever hapens umm i musta fell of my motocross bike on the farm good on ya acc

[NighthawkNZ]

de-regster and run the risk sounds like a blody good idea to me so mr acc just gna miss out aint he , if any thing ever hapens umm i musta fell of my motocross bike on the farm good on ya acc

due to you paying acc via other relms of collection you are still covered

[Katman]

Only allow motorcyclists to go watch the motorcycle Street Races if they get there by car.

[JohnR]

ACC to Motorcyclist: You cost us $62 million last year, and, you only paid us $12 million. We want another $500 from you this year and forever to pay for this.

MC to ACC: Hmmmm... OK tell you what. We won't pay you any extra and you give us subsidised or free professional training to minimise the risk of us falling off.:done:

ACC to MC:...TUI:finger:

[NighthawkNZ]

ACC can rave all they like about the "subsidy" but its a weak argument, in reality they are hard pushed to even justify why hey measure bikers differently.

ACC was designed to cross subsidise... the bigger the pool of money the better it works and the lower levy's can be... the smaller seperate accounts they have now simply means higher fees and at the end of the day doesn't need to be, and was not designed to do this

[Ixion]

Ok

According to MoT (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motor%20vehicle%20crashes%202008_Section%204%20Mot orcycle%20casualties%20and%20crashes.pdf)the biggies for biker injuries and deaths are

Loss of control when cornering . Shitloads of injuries and lots of deaths
Head ons . Not so many injuries but a lot of deaths (go figure)
Right turn intersection crashes.
EDIT vehicle manoevouring . Dunno what it means . U turn maybe.

All the rest are under 5%.

So, what can bikers do (apart from "ride carefully" !) to reduce those.

Why do we crash so much on corners?
How the hell can we have so many head on crashes?
Right turn - they'll be SMIDSYs.

Interestingly all the others were a wide assortment of stuff.

[oldguy]

ATTITUDE are we putting the blame on a certain group, the current licensing for new riders is fine, we also blame road conditions,
car drivers, don't forget some of us also drive cars, so we become what we hate.
Trouble is we are so busy blaming every other road user, we forgot to look at our selfs.
True some accidents are coursed by careless car drivers, but in some cases maybe they could have been avoided, its all about being alert, reading traffic, thinking what if, can I stop in time etc...
Same thing apply's out on your favourite back road, its been a week since you last rode this stretch of road, things may have changed, metal/diesel down on a corner, car or truck parked just over a rise you can't see till its too late.

I don't know if it is a good thing, but I ride with a "What If" when out on the road,

We talk about educating other road user, but neglect too change our own
ATTIDUDE and adjust accordingly


John

[Qkchk]

Can't be bothered rolling through 5 pages.

These are the changes I would like to see:

1. I believe all persons wanting to get any licence must spend at least 6 months first on a class 6 (Motorcycle).


2. Classes 1 and 6 to have an amount of logged hours with a training provider to earn the right to sit the restricted and full licence tests.


3. Education IS the key for the other road users - Need more hard hitting advertising like the drink drive ones / spin the wheel of fate at intersections etc but focused on looking for bikes / understanding motorcycles. (But if we stuck to no.1 we wouldn't have any problems eh?)


4. Returning riders need to do a Ride Right style course before getting back on a bike. This could be policed by purchase of a licence that lasts for 5 years (just like endorsements - P,F,V,I,O,W,T,R,D...)


5. As above, all licence holders to attend some sort of education / training every 5 years. The problem with NZ road law is, once you have your full licence that's the end of the training. Majority of public do not spend any time updating themselves with the latest rules / regs and think they don't have any bad habits and think they are a good driver (I see this everyday with work..) Most truckies are damn well good though... :yes:

[nico]

[QUOTE=mister.koz;1129493875]This may make me even less popular :innocent:

Amongst other things my suggestions to ACC were:
change the licensing:

Extend the learner and restricted licence periods
Defensive driving and advanced driving should be a required part of the licensing scheme.
Require more training for all licence holders
Require that people sit a practical test every couple of years to keep their licence - some people really shouldn't be on the road

helll yes to above


Require that motorcyclists wear more than an approved helmet
- Helmet - perhaps closed face
- Jacket - with armour
- Gloves - with armour
- Boots - with armour


alough I wear all the above just a thaught? would making all this motobike gear compulsry put the price up even more??????? i know you cant put a price on good gear BUT.... welll you know what im saying any other thaught on this :blink:

[Qkchk]

Ok


EDIT vehicle manoevouring . Dunno what it means . U turn maybe.


Could be lane-splitting.......

[Ixion]

It's classified under intersections and driveways. 5% is about 70 crashes per year. Don't think that many happen lane splitting. Actually, driveways, maybe cars backing out?

[JohnR]

[/quote]alough I wear all the above just a thaught? would making all this motobike gear compulsry put the price up even more??????? i know you cant put a price on good gear BUT.... welll you know what im saying any other thaught on this :blink:[/QUOTE]

According to the laws of supply and demand the price should come down.

[NighthawkNZ]

Why do we crash so much on corners?


Could be many reasons from a learner over cooking and mis judge corner.
Not reading the road correctly.
squid being a typical squid,
grit in mid corner un marker (have hit this many times and only knew it was there once you hit it.
pot hole and a learner hits it on the apex.



How the hell can we have so many head on crashes?


Mis judge of on coming cars distance
squid being a typical squid,
Other vehicle overtaking and not seeing biker... SMIDSYs
Other vehicle overtaking and mis judging speed of bike and distance.
car rams car in front into on coming traffic...
Vehicles cutting or going wide on corners (especially blind corners)



Right turn - they'll be SMIDSYs.

oh that about covers that one

[yungatart]

I cocked it up on a corner...total inexperience and inability to interpret what I was seeing...a downhill decreasing radius left hander....

I was told "you just didn't read the corner right" but no matter who I asked, nobody could tell me how to do that...for three freaking months I agonised over it until a kind gentleman took me walking through corners, and showed me what exactly I should be looking for.

When we are helping riders to upskill we have to make sure they understand what we are saying!

Would advanced rider training have helped me...you betcha!

PS...Yes I did get ACC (and I'm grateful!)

[The Stranger]

That's a very full report. It willt ake a while to read but may be worth it

Some interesting bits (as it relates to this thread)

Training, Experience and Familiarity Work for You

Riders who took some sort of rider training were more likely to try some sort of avoidance maneuver, such as braking or swerving. Untrained riders were more likely to sit there and crash without doing anything to prevent it. Riding experience--both total and on the bike being ridden-- worked in the rider's favor, in terms of fewer crashes. A quarter (24.2%) of the accidents studied involved riders with less than six months experience.

-------------------

How Hard Do You Hit?

The authors note that the typical accident speed was modest. In 70 percent of the crashes, the rider hit the car or other object at under 30 mph. Of course, the severity of injuries went up with crash speed. However, speed by itself didn't turn out to be a huge factor in crash causation. The report says: "There were relatively few cases in which excess speed was an issue related to accident causation," but notes that a speed differential--going either faster or slower than nearby traffic--was a contributing factor in 18 percent of the crashes.

---------------

What Kind of Bikes Crash Most?

The only type of bike that was over-represented in the MAIDS data was "modified conventional street motorcycles." Engine size also didn't show up as a risk factor, which checks with other studies that have used exposure data. There were not enough bikes equipped with anti-lock brakes to draw any conclusion about their effectiveness.

-------------

How About Old Guys?

Good news for typical cruiser riders: Riders aged 41 to 55 crashed less frequently than the exposure data said they should, but as with previous studies youth and enthusiasm were dangerous. Riders between 18 and 25 years of age crashed more than their fair share. In America, riders over 40 have been showing up as a larger percentage of the crash victims, and since there is no exposure data, there has been concern that they are over-represented. The MAIDS study suggests that issue is not their age, though there may be cultural or other differences that make the situation different. At least age by itself doen't make you unsafe.

[AD345]

Stop

Stop STOP STOP

Fuck you!

Stop giving away my rights as a New Zealand citizen.

Godfuckingdammit you prats are playing right into their hands.

Stop bloody well tying my or others behaviours into some conditional watering down of an existing entitlement.

Don't you get it??

ACC IS NOT ABOUT RISK!!
If you twats keep yammering on about proposals and promises to change behaviours then you are sacrifcing the war for the sake of one battle.

Why the fuck do you think we have to keep doing this every decade or so??

Did 1993 not teach you anything??

This is not a goddamned insurance scheme and every time we make little puppy dog noises about being good little boys and girls "we weally weally pwomise" we just sell another part of our collective souls.

Safety and training are good and valid issues - but they are NOT NOT what the issue is here.

Stop letting the fucking politicians set the terms of the argument. Stay on message. ACC is universal
End
Of
Story

Les - we haven't met yet (the crowds have been too big) but you have had my admiration and support.....

....but now you are going to betray us.

[Katman]

Les - we haven't met yet (the crowds have been too big) but you have had my admiration and support.....

....but now you are going to betray us.

Fuckin' hell.

And I copped shit just for saying he had shifty eyes!

:blink:

[Kiwi Graham]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of track training for road riders...the two scenarios are so far apart...I personally don't see the use...no oncoming vehicles, no shitty road surface, just how does riding around a track make me a better rider?
I personally prefer RRRS courses and the like...teaching real road skills in a real situation.


I cocked it up on a corner...total inexperience and inability to interpret what I was seeing...a downhill decreasing radius left hander....

I was told "you just didn't read the corner right" but no matter who I asked, nobody could tell me how to do that...for three freaking months I agonised over it until a kind gentleman took me walking through corners, and showed me what exactly I should be looking for.

When we are helping riders to upskill we have to make sure they understand what we are saying!

Would advanced rider training have helped me...you betcha!

PS...Yes I did get ACC (and I'm grateful!)

I am slightly biased here but.

All the feed back from riders I get from those I have worked with on road and more so from those I've worked with on track indicates they get huge benefits from advanced training.

Spending time looking at a corner, breaking it down into sections, evaluating the surface and changes in that surface, the effect roadside structures would have on that surface, tempretures and camber to name but a few topics for discusion on any particular corner.

Braking is another massive subject, the effect body position has on a motorcycle etc etc the list is huge.
The ART days currently held at Pukekohe cover these and more aspects of the craft of motorcle riding , we use the circuit to do this on because it is a safer and controllable enviroment in which to teach and practise.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=109823

Training improves the skill (with practise) of the participant and provides insight into this black art of motorcycle control.

[Ixion]

Stop

Stop STOP STOP

Fuck you!

Stop giving away my rights as a New Zealand citizen.

Godfuckingdammit you prats are playing right into their hands.

Stop bloody well tying my or others behaviours into some conditional watering down of an existing entitlement.

Don't you get it??

ACC IS NOT ABOUT RISK!!
...

Dude, relaxicate. I'm the guy who doesn't even agree with helmets being compulsory. And the R in BRONZ stands for rights, I ain't about to go giving any of them away.

I hear what you are saying, and , strictly you are right.

But we have to live in the world of the practical and politics is the art of the possible.

First off, go read the Manifesto thread. That's going to be our position. And our base line demand (don't expect to get it straight off mind) is that bikes should not be in a separate classifcation at all. Same as cars, light passenger vehicles.

But we can't go into battle just saying " Acc isn't about risk, so forget this idea and let us all go on as we are". We will certainly be saying that ACC isn't about ASSIGNMENT of risk. Everybody takes risks in one way or another . Only motorcycles have their risk cited aginst them. However, ACC *have* cited it against us. we can't just ignore that. And in fairness ACC could quite legimately point out that certain groups or activities are unduly costly without any breach of the Woodhouse principles. They've done it with other groups- remember the "don't use your back like a crane " campaign. And they did one a while ago for caregivers in rest homes, because back injuries there were costing them.

What *is* invidious and unacceptable is then saying that because we cost more we must pay more. We will not accept that

But, just saying "stay true to the Woodhouse principles" will lose us the battle. If National were willing to listen to that argument we wouldn't be having this fight.

So we need to be able to say "Look Minister, this selective targeting of a minority group isn't on. It's contrary to the whole principle of ACC - as per our manifesto. Now if you are genuinely concerned about motorcycle injury rates, and ACC are concerned about the cost of them , then *here's* a list of things that , in the opinion of thousands of motorcyclists with millions of kilometres of experience, would cut that injury rate. We respectfully suggets that you pull finger and get stuck into that list, and until you've done that, leave us alone". We *have* to take the argument into his court not just stand there and say "It isn't fair". He doesn't care that it isn't fair, and he doesn't care about the Woodhouse principles.

It also serves a couple of other purposes

It gives him a face saving avenue to go back to ACC , if he wants to "Look, we're not just ignoring how much they cost. See, we have things we're going to do"

And, I'm told that Ulysses (and probably industry groups) are going to be taking a similar stance , perhaps without the adherence to Woodhouse. If they come in with proposals that DO take away our rights, and we have nothing to counter that, guess awhat the minister will do?

As a clarification of where I, personally stand :

Yes, the ultimate requirement is down to every motorcyclist to keep upright. But there's no point going in with that as an argument, it just comes down to "Hey Minister, I've spoken to the bros and we promise to be good in future , OK". Meaningless.

I'm not keen on things like compulsory ATTGATT. Firstly, it DOES cut into peoples' rights. Secondly it probably isn't going to do very much good. Most riders are already well geared up. The exceptions are just that, exceptions. So it's like compulsory headlamps , a waste of time. And passing laws about it would be pointless. Poeple who aren't wouldn't do so because of a law.

I wpouldn't really expect anyone to come up with anything that riders can do on their own. Bikers have a very strong interest in not getting hurt. If there was anything that could help prevent it, they'd already be doing it.

But some things we can't do on our own. Gravel in corners. No reason why a Minister of ACC shouldn't sort out the contractors and make them leave the roads in a decent state.I don't see that impinging on our rights

Likewise, making driving tests (all, not just motorcycle). I guess it does impact somewhat on someone's rights, but even I'm not old enough to remember the days when you didn't have to sit a test. And if inexperienced riders are being hurt because they'r moving up to big bikes too soon, then I think any extra sacrfice would be worthwhile . And if cage licences become harder to get, jolly good I say.

Trying to "tie your behaviour", or anyone elses into a "watering down" would be a waste of time. How are we to enforce it? Unless that behaviour is irresponsible - the R in BRONZ also stands for Responsibility. That comes with rights. Which I am sure it isn't

[AD345]

Dude, relaxicate.

........

A'ight.

I get where you're coming from, but it's a thin piece of ice you contemplate wandering on to.

I'm well aware of the political "realities" and the mind sets of those currently on the Treasury benches and what their end game is as well.

I genuinely don't think that there is anything we can give Nick that would help him save face, mainly cos he doesn't think he needs to. He thinks his position is golden and striking allll the right chords with his ideological base.

We may well lose this battle but it could spark something that wins the war. The future of ACC is well overdue for a proper debate but our parliamentary dictatorship system means that ALL of the parties can keep avoiding it. They just yank ACC back and forwards as they please when they get in.

Ulysses is calling for a Royal Commission. As much as I think their tactics suck, an RC might actually be the real goal to aim for

How many more times can we go to the well on "unfair increases"?

[scissorhands]

Having the awareness of a deer surrounded by creatures that want to eat you.

If you can stay in the zone of hyper awareness, not falling or seing the car about to kill you, improves dramatically.

Either meditate like a ninja, drink 10 espressos before you ride, or stay focused!

I wonder how many accidents could be put down to low tyre pressures?

And excessive speed, plain and simple.

In the animal world when attention and intelligence of your surroundings drops off, you die. Be alert. The world needs more lerts.

[BOGAR]

Some great ideas so I wont repeat them. The one thing that has got me is the fact you only need to pay a fee to get your license again for another 10 years. Surly it would be the time to re test if people still know the rules at the bare minimum (the scratchy test). Sure taking a full driving test again is a big pain but at least you know they are still capable of driving and don't have any bad habits. To go with that needs to be better enforcements and punishments for driving while disqualified or without a license. There needs to be the deterrent to make the majority think about it and to help get the ones who just don't care off the roads.
Common sense just isn't that common any more.

[NinjaNanna]

And you would wish for that to be subsidised? By whom? Me?
Why should I pay for you to go have a fang on the track?

Training day....different story!

It should be subsidised out of the ACC levy imposed on motorcycles. The thread asked what would you do to stop riders crashing and claiming ACC

We can continue to play the blame game that 65% of accidents are caused by a car driver, but that ignores the fact that in probably 90% of these instances if we had been riding more conservatively (perhaps a wider/tighter/slower line around that corner) then the accident could have been avoided. So if we accept that, then in truth we contribute to 93.5% of our own crashes.

Our sport/recreation/passion, call it what you will, has a high risk vs reward ratio, yet we all voluntarily accept the risk because we are happy the reward.

If trackdays were more affordable then the Risk vs Reward of road riding would be a whole lot less appealing than that available on a track. I whole heartedly beleive that this would lead to more conservative riding on the road which would directly relate to less accidents for ACC to cover.


ACC have a choice, sponsor 316 trackday spots @$60ea, or put one rider back together for $19,000


Obviously the overall solution to motorcycle crashes is multiheaded, training, gear, roads, education not a single one of these alone will have a major impact, combined together they should have a notable impact.

Coupling that with cheap track days to make road riding even less attractive and I beleive we are onto a winner.

[mister.koz]

And you would wish for that to be subsidised? By whom? Me?
Why should I pay for you to go have a fang on the track?

Training day....different story!

I definitly agree with you on the training day thing :) I will attend as many as humanly possible!!

But I think anyone saying that they are subsidising other people's (insert something to do with acc) is a bad move.



alough I wear all the above just a thaught? would making all this motobike gear compulsry put the price up even more??????? i know you cant put a price on good gear BUT.... welll you know what im saying any other thaught on this :blink:

I think that requiring more gear is a good thing, not necessarily all of it. I just know that the cost to ACC (and therefore society) was pretty minor, as in zero, in my last bin because I had the gear on. My accident may be out of the ordinary (was my fault, I didn't read the conditions because I was quite weathered).

I think that National/ACC/whoever was expecting a backlash of bandana wearing thugs who's complete defense would be "Na you guys suck". The level of organisation that we are fighting this on is quite impressive.

One of the most important things in an argument like this is to accept our shortfalls, it not only shows integrity but it destabilises their defences and takes away some of their ammunition.

Ixion makes a really good point that the problem is the changes to the ACC structure and that we shouldn't be categorised separately.

So I say pool all vehicles by classification (private, commercial etc) and divvy up the result evenly. Put each person's levy up by $10 more and put initiatives like training day's, greater subsidy on training and require regular training.

[MSTRS]

It should be subsidised out of the ACC levy imposed on motorcycles.


I do hear what you are saying. However, in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?
But, as I said, if that subsidy was for training days, proper ones at that, I'm all for it.

[phred]

Definitely in for more training....
Maybe discounted ACC levies on production of a RRRS certificate...it would encourage more to do a refresher course every so often.
The BHS is far too easy, as is the restricted. I have never been required to do a hill start or a u turn as part of the testing procedure...and, yes, I do have my full!

I agree with an incentive to complete regular RRRS training or something similar. There should be a benefit other than wanting to learn and stay safe. I wonder how many car drivers invest in their own skills improvement training?

I was required to do a U Turn and a hill start as part of my motorcycle test so it appears there may be some inconsistency in the application of the test.

I think the single most useful way to reduce the quantity of car vs bike accidents is to make all car drivers ride a bike to experience the "excitement" of sharing a road with them.

[NinjaNanna]

in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?

Regardless we still pay for the "ride like Rossi" brigade, so its the lesser of 2 evils - $60 trackday subsidy or $19,000 repair bill.

If by chance they still crash on the track at least its going to be a whole lot cheaper to fix them.

[mister.koz]

I do hear what you are saying. However, in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?
But, as I said, if that subsidy was for training days, proper ones at that, I'm all for it.

I agree with you. Training days definately! (like this weekend :wari: - yes i am excited!) but not so much track days. Track days are pretty cheap anyways (<$200 from memory).

[MSTRS]

Regardless we still pay for the "ride like Rossi" brigade, so its the lesser of 2 evils - $60 trackday subsidy or $19,000 repair bill.

If by chance they still crash on the track at least its going to be a whole lot cheaper to fix them.

It seems like we are missing something in understanding...
I don't want to pay more because squids are crashing. I also don't want to pay more so they can have cheap track time.
Is that clear enough?

[vtec]

Compulsory kilometres/time for all road users on a scooter or bicycle before they are issued a full licence of any kind in this country. You would be amazed how much that would increase driver awareness.

Also, subsidised track time for increasing riders/drivers skills, and for teaching people the limits of their motorcycles. Having track time personally makes me far less likely to try anything stupid on the roads. It settles me down, and it teaches vital riding skills.

Otherwise, leave it as it is, currently I feel safe with my own abilities and judgement. It's just looking back on the period where I was learning and gaining experience I wonder how I survived.

Not just squids getting subisidised track time... everybody. Should include car drivers getting track time in cars.

However to counter the ACC subsidy personally, I will be putting my motorcycle rego on hold. My father has 3 over 1000 cc bikes a Landcruiser and a van, he will be putting those 3 motorcycles on hold also, a saving of over $2000. We just bought a pro-twin between us $2500 each ($5000 total), that rego saving will buy the pro twin in just over two years.

I also love the idea of making the licencing for cars and motorbikes one and the same. Just make it harder to get than currently it is to get one individually, focussing more on rider/driver ability and awareness.

[NinjaNanna]

It seems like we are missing something in understanding...
I don't want to pay more because squids are crashing. I also don't want to pay more so they can have cheap track time.
Is that clear enough?


Ok that's fine - let's drop it for now - lets talk about it when we are paying more.

Once we are paying more then we can have the discussion about how we can decrease the crash rate and perhaps even get better value for money.

But of course by then they'll have our money and won't give a rats arse.

[MSTRS]

Ok that's fine - let's drop it for now - lets talk about it when we are paying more.

Once we are paying more then we can have the discussion about how we can decrease the crash rate and perhaps even get better value for money.

But of course by then they'll have our money and won't give a rats arse.

What's this 'when'? That's defeatist talk. And we won't have that round here.
That last line has the ring of all the church bells in the world at once about it.

[phred]

The ACC structure and system is where we should be looking, it is that that is actually being manipulated far away from its original intent.

I agree. Everyone keeps banging on about how they shouldn't subsidise anyone else and please make it cheap for me. This is the attitude that successive governments have used to pervert the intent of a scheme that was predicated on the basis that if society as a whole believed it would benefit by providing compensation and injury recovery then society as a whole would get to foot the bill equally.

As many people have highlighted not all people are paying at present and this would go a long way to sharing the load. It is time for ACC to include off road motorcycles, cyclists and other freeloaders in the catchment pool.

We may not get the ACC structure repaired however the issue of equally shared cost should be raised when addressing the outrageous levy increase for motorcyclists as it is a fundamental deviation from the intent of the scheme.

The current government strategy is to divide and rule. Interestingly it appears to have been the strategy of both socialist and capitalist governments.

[mister.koz]

I agree. Everyone keeps banging on about how they shouldn't subsidise anyone else and please make it cheap for me. This is the attitude that successive governments have used to pervert the intent of a scheme that was predicated on the basis that if society as a whole believed it would benefit by providing compensation and injury recovery then society as a whole would get to foot the bill equally.

As many people have highlighted not all people are paying at present and this would go a long way to sharing the load. It is time for ACC to include off road motorcycles, cyclists and other freeloaders in the catchment pool.

We may not get the ACC structure repaired however the issue of equally shared cost should be raised when addressing the outrageous levy increase for motorcyclists as it is a fundamental deviation from the intent of the scheme.

The current government strategy is to divide and rule. Interestingly it appears to have been the strategy of both socialist and capitalist governments.

Bang on, one of the creators of ACC talked to the papers and said that what is going on is wrong and that ACC was designed as a blameless and relatively uncategorised social welfare system - I think this is the most important point.

The sports and leisure subsidisation is a tricky one, you can't really put it on the buy price of pushbikes/trail bikes etc... I think it should really be put onto the whole of society in the employer's and/or fuel side of things... Or the sporting unions (commercial ones maybe?). Drunken injuries should be represented in alcohol tax, thats a given.

Most of all I think that the whole re-think about ACC should stick to the origonal ideas it was created with and re-visit the costs involved including the salary of the employees etc etc... Where's the pay drop for the people who lost all that money from poor estimates in investments.

The safety, awareness and training initiatives (for cars and bikes) should be a given really.

[JohnR]

I do hear what you are saying. However, in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?
But, as I said, if that subsidy was for training days, proper ones at that, I'm all for it.

My sentiments exactly.

I for one am not interested in trackdays, proper training sessions...hell yes.

Riding on a track does not represent road conditions in any way, shape or form. No opposing traffic, no vehicles entering the track from intersections, a relatively clean, uniform surface and no blind brows or corners.

I can not see ACC subsidizing an activity (Trackdays) that is inherently more risky than what we do now.
Of course the chances of a crash are greater! Riders pushing themselves and their bikes to the limit at great speed must have more risk of ending in tears.:crybaby:

[Bounce001]

Subsidised rider training is a good starting point. The time spent during learners & restricted licences should be based on kilometres done not time. Too many people sit their learners and just wait out the time without doing any actual riding. When I sat my full licence, my time was cut down because I did a defensive driving course 20 years ago. Driving a car has no bearing on how I ride. This should be an advanced rider training.

Fix the roads - or at least to a better standard and sweep the gravel off them properly. Alternatively, at least put signs out notifying the public.

Driver awareness campaigns. There are so many different road safety campaigns, why have they left 'Look ot for Motorcyclists' out. How about big signs on the roadside saying: "Have you looked in your rearview mirror recently?"

Mandatory safety gear is a curly one. I agree with gloves, helmet, boots and jacket. and all should meet safety standards. Full face helmet should be optional. I disagree with compulsory Hi-vis. I have read posts on this site that people have stated bright gear and Hi-vis don't make a lot of difference to bikers visibility. Often wearing all black makes you 'intimidating' and drivers actually take more notice of you.

If ACC levies were put onto petrol, everyone would pay and it would be a fairer system. The more you are out on the road, the more at risk you are, the more petrol you buy, the more ACC levies you pay.

Just my 2 cents worth!