Police crackdown

[bogan]

What planet are you on?
Are you that much of a conspiracy theorist to believe that they are trying to ban motorcycles?

Well they are currently exaggerating the risk factor we face, and increasing the cost of riding based on inadequate statistics. So yeh, I don't think it's stretching logic very much to say they are trying to phase out motorcycling.

[ducatilover]

Well they are currently exaggerating the risk factor we face, and increasing the cost of riding based on inadequate statistics. So yeh, I don't think it's stretching logic very much to say they are trying to phase out motorcycling.

Would be "cheaper" for them I imagine, more jobs to cut....
Oh no, but, the gloriously massive amounts of revenue gathered must at least pay for the plants ACC hire for their offices? :facepalm:

[twinbruva]

Well they are currently exaggerating the risk factor we face, and increasing the cost of riding based on inadequate statistics. So yeh, I don't think it's stretching logic very much to say they are trying to phase out motorcycling.

Comments have been made on this site many a time regarding this theory. Tax and harrassment don't happen by accident. (Oh that's so lame.......:facepalm:)

[BoristheBiter]

Well they are currently exaggerating the risk factor we face, and increasing the cost of riding based on inadequate statistics. So yeh, I don't think it's stretching logic very much to say they are trying to phase out motorcycling.

Exaggerating the risk factor are they, so its just as bad to crash on a motorbike as it is on a car or truck?
If someone pulls out in front of me i would rather i be in my car (7 air bags 5* encap rating etc) than on my bike (brakes).
This will never stop me from riding as i know the risks i take and ride accordingly and we all know that any statistics can be changed to fit any point of view but taking this as a sign they will ban motorbikes is pushing it just a wee bit far.

[bogan]

Exaggerating the risk factor are they, so its just as bad to crash on a motorbike as it is on a car or truck?
If someone pulls out in front of me i would rather i be in my car (7 air bags 5* encap rating etc) than on my bike (brakes).
This will never stop me from riding as i know the risks i take and ride accordingly and we all know that any statistics can be changed to fit any point of view but taking this as a sign they will ban motorbikes is pushing it just a wee bit far.

yes, exaggerating as in 'you're 20x more likely to be injured on a bike', while the actual figure is around 3.5x. I'd say thats a bit of an exaggeration wouldn't you?

[StoneY]

yes, exaggerating as in 'you're 20x more likely to be injured on a bike', while the actual figure is around 3.5x. I'd say thats a bit of an exaggeration wouldn't you?

I was at the public conference Charles Lamb Phd from Lincoln university held to announce the true statistics as he and his graduate students had exposed using MOT's and NZTA's own crash database raw data in May

I have copies of his ppt and study papers at home and I am at work so have to rely on shaky brain cells

From memory, we are:
9x More likely to be seriously injured than other motorists in a COLLISION accident (thats fair, if we hit/get hit by cars it hurts, cant deny that)

4x more likely to be seriously injured in non collision accidents (eg fell off no car involved)

14x LESS likely to be seriously injured than Cyclists or pedestrians in any reported vehicular incident (ATGATT)

And I cannot recall the exact figure but it was a less likely to have a serious crash per 10,000km's travelled than cars or vans or cyclists by a 8-10%(ish)factor

the quote the government thrash and pisses me off so much is the '20x more likely to have a serious crash'

The MOTs own crash stats show we are crashing less than ever with 4.5 serious injuries per 10,000kms travelled, a huge improvement on 10 years ago...........

[BoristheBiter]

yes, exaggerating as in 'you're 20x more likely to be injured on a bike', while the actual figure is around 3.5x. I'd say thats a bit of an exaggeration wouldn't you?

Still doesn't mean they will ban bikes.

Statistics are a good way the check past trends and to see if a patten has formed.
they can be manipulated to fit any argument, i can even do it with Stoney's figures in the above post, but the fact still remains if i hit another vehicle i will come off second best.

[Scuba_Steve]

but the fact still remains if i hit another vehicle i will come off second best.

unless the 2nd vehicle is a deadly pedley, skateboard, Rollerblades, skates etc. etc. etc.

[BoristheBiter]

unless the 2nd vehicle is a deadly pedley, skateboard, Rollerblades, skates etc. etc. etc.

Not really classed as a vehicles.

[mashman]

but the fact still remains if i hit another vehicle i will come off second best.

Only if you believe the hype :)... It's more of a likelihood, but it's certainly not a fact.

[bogan]

Still doesn't mean they will ban bikes.

Statistics are a good way the check past trends and to see if a patten has formed.
they can be manipulated to fit any argument, i can even do it with Stoney's figures in the above post, but the fact still remains if i hit another vehicle i will come off second best.

Well obviously they aren't actually going to make it illegal to ride, but there are other ways of phasing it out, like taxing, and convincing people it's a bad idea to do it.
Put it this way, why are they trying to convince NZ'rs that riding is more dangerous than it actually is?

[Scuba_Steve]

Not really classed as a vehicles.

yes they are vehicles... Not motor vehicles, but vehicles :yes:

[ducatilover]

Put it this way, why are they trying to convince NZ'rs that riding is more dangerous than it actually is?

So all of us, the bike to live and stubborn fuckers, pay our taxes. We will whinge and moan more than an 80 year old giving a blowie on her knees, yet the general majority still pay the taxes. Good old ACC.
Don't get me started on the levy per vehicle shit either. :angry:

I myself have had two bike accidents, one serious and one pathetic. Yet, I've been involved in many accidents with cars, one of which was my fault, driving like a cock.
All I can do, is hope to win the ACC battle. I'm not too keen on paying over 1k a year to ride a few bikes....

[BoristheBiter]

Only if you believe the hype :)... It's more of a likelihood, but it's certainly not a fact.

sorry but thats just plain daft.
it is a fact that if i hit a car(or one hits me) while on the bike the driver of said car will be better off than me.

Well untill i stand back up

[BoristheBiter]

yes they are vehicles... Not motor vehicles, but vehicles :yes:

meaning of vehicle.n. 1,machine, esp.with an engine and wheels, for carrying people or objects.

[BoristheBiter]

Well obviously they aren't actually going to make it illegal to ride, but there are other ways of phasing it out, like taxing, and convincing people it's a bad idea to do it.
Put it this way, why are they trying to convince NZ'rs that riding is more dangerous than it actually is?

Again i can't see that ever happening.

[Scuba_Steve]

meaning of vehicle.n. 1,machine, esp.with an engine and wheels, for carrying people or objects.

vehicle—
(a) means a contrivance equipped with wheels, tracks, or revolving runners on which it moves or is moved; and
(b) includes a hovercraft, a skateboard, in-line skates, and roller skates; but
(c) does not include—
(i) a perambulator or pushchair:
(ii) a shopping or sporting trundler not propelled by mechanical power:
(iii) a wheelbarrow or hand-trolley:
(iv) [Repealed]
(v) a pedestrian-controlled lawnmower:
(vi) a pedestrian-controlled agricultural machine not propelled by mechanical power:
(vii) an article of furniture:
(viii) a wheelchair not propelled by mechanical power:
(ix) any other contrivance specified by the rules not to be a vehicle for the purposes of this definition:
(x) any rail vehicle

[bogan]

Again i can't see that ever happening.

not sure if sarcasm or not, but if not, how deep is your head in the sand, it's happening now :facepalm:

[BoristheBiter]

not sure if sarcasm or not, but if not, how deep is your head in the sand, it's happening now :facepalm:

No it wasn't I am just not a Conspiracy theorist.

[ducatilover]

No it wasn't I am just not a Conspiracy theorist.

Does that mean you won't have your own theme music? :innocent:

[BoristheBiter]

Does that mean you won't have your own theme music? :innocent:

No but i have been told to use this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44L-FrNfdNw

[ducatilover]

No but i have been told to use this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44L-FrNfdNw

Use it! I'm sure there's a dude standing in the crowd with his arse hanging out. Must be a fellow Honda rider

[BoristheBiter]

Use it! I'm sure there's a dude standing in the crowd with his arse hanging out. Must be a fellow Honda rider

Can't have been, i didn't see anyone waving.

[Max Preload]

yes, exaggerating as in 'you're 20x more likely to be injured on a bike', while the actual figure is around 3.5x. I'd say thats a bit of an exaggeration wouldn't you?Aren't they actually saying you're 16x to 20x (depending on who is repeating it) "more likely to be in a crash"? Not injured?

[MSTRS]

Aren't they actually saying you're 16x to 20x (depending on who is repeating it) "more likely to be in a crash"? Not injured?

They started out with 16x more likely to be injured. 'We' disputed that, and lately the line has been 20x more likely to be in a crash.

Based on the assumption of same distance travelled, MOT crash stats say 16x more likely to be injured.. We travel on average a quarter of the distance covered by the average car, so the reality is that we are up to 4x more likely to be injured.

I have no idea whether we are more/less/same likely to crash in the first place.

[mashman]

sorry but thats just plain daft.
it is a fact that if i hit a car(or one hits me) while on the bike the driver of said car will be better off than me.

Well untill i stand back up

If you hit each other and stop there and then, then maybe. BUT, if the car/driver has tried an evasive manouevre and the crash has still happened, the car could easily plough through a wall, or hit a lamppost, or mow a pedestrain down, or have a heart attack, or, or or or... That's what I mean by not a fact, it just isn't a foregone conclusion that the outcome of motorcycle v car incident, is gonna be yaw ass and not theirs... However "likely" and logical that would seem. Do you generate stats for ACC or somefink :shifty:

:rofl: I can imagine the driver may well have a heart attack at that point :yes:

[BoristheBiter]

If you hit each other and stop there and then, then maybe. BUT, if the car/driver has tried an evasive manouevre and the crash has still happened, the car could easily plough through a wall, or hit a lamppost, or mow a pedestrain down, or have a heart attack, or, or or or... That's what I mean by not a fact, it just isn't a foregone conclusion that the outcome of motorcycle v car incident, is gonna be yaw ass and not theirs... However "likely" and logical that would seem. Do you generate stats for ACC or somefink :shifty:

:rofl: I can imagine the driver may well have a heart attack at that point :yes:

you've been watching me ride my dirt bike again.

[Max Preload]

They started out with 16x more likely to be injured. 'We' disputed that, and lately the line has been 20x more likely to be in a crash.

Based on the assumption of same distance travelled, that figure becomes 16x. We travel on average a quarter of the distance covered by the average car. The reality is that we are up to 4x more likely to have a crash.Ahhh that explains it. I haven't been keeping up with the latest and greatest propaganda. You can't trust anything reported in the media either.

[Scuba_Steve]

Ahhh that explains it. I haven't been keeping up with the latest and greatest propaganda. You can't trust anything reported in the media either.

:gob: what's this? the propaganda machine can't be trusted???

[mashman]

Aren't they actually saying you're 16x to 20x (depending on who is repeating it) "more likely to be in a crash"? Not injured?

I could be a smidge wrong, but I find that VERY hard to believe, irrespective of who's been fudging the figures.

Straight maths.: There have been 20,000 Motor Vehicle incidents (illustration purposes only).

Number of Cars: 3,000,000
Number of Motorcycles: 100,000

30 cars to 1 motorcycle. Likelihood of being involved in one of those incidents (we all share the same road), erm, erm, erm...

I'd say you're 30x more likely to be involved in an incident whilst being in a car.

[Max Preload]

I could be a smidge wrong, but I find that VERY hard to believe, irrespective of who's been fudging the figures.

Straight maths.: There have been 20,000 Motor Vehicle incidents (illustration purposes only).

Number of Cars: 3,000,000
Number of Motorcycles: 100,000

30 cars to 1 motorcycle. Likelihood of being involved in one of those incidents (we all share the same road), erm, erm, erm...

I'd say you're 30x more likely to be involved in an incident whilst being in a car.Well, of course, without the specific details relating to the claim they've made you just know it's bullshit.

Bearing in mind there would be a much higher proportion of crashes involving motorcycles that would actually involve the attendance of some statistic recording government department - you don't usually get cops & ambos attending car vs car fender benders because the occcupants aren't anywhere near as likely to be injured. But given the exact same conditions but car vs bike there's almost certainly some injuries to record and therefore evidence of its occurence.

[MSTRS]

I could be a smidge wrong, but I find that VERY hard to believe, irrespective of who's been fudging the figures.

Straight maths.: There have been 20,000 Motor Vehicle incidents (illustration purposes only).

Number of Cars: 3,000,000
Number of Motorcycles: 100,000

30 cars to 1 motorcycle. Likelihood of being involved in one of those incidents (we all share the same road), erm, erm, erm...

I'd say you're 30x more likely to be involved in an incident whilst being in a car.

That makes sense on the surface. But knowing bikes to be less forgiving in 'certain situations' I'd say the reality is we are more likely to crash than any individual car. I have no idea what that figure is, but I wouldn't believe anything ACC or The Prick says....

[mashman]

Well, of course, without the specific details relating to the claim you kinow it's bullshit. Bearing in mind there would be a much higher proportion of crashes involving motorcycles that would actually involve the attendance of some statistic recording government department - you don't usually get cops & ambos attending car vs car fender benders because the occcupants aren't anywhere near as likely to be injured. But given the exact same conditions but car vs bike there's almost certainly some injuries to record and therefore evidence of its occurence.

Fair points. Yes we run the risk of being injured more easily than car drivers. But that's about as far as it goes.

After that, the majority of road risk belongs to the cars, just by their sheer weight in numbers. I'm not talking a proportional representation of a user group. You can't if you're talking about cars and bikes in the same incident, it could quite easily have been 2 cars and just a fender bender. We're just road users, using different modes of transport.

I'd love to see the REAL fender bender stats. I bet they are mindboggling. What if a quarter of the car v car fender benders had been car v motorcycle (and all the cars faults, 30x remember :lol:). There'd be nearly no motorcycles on the road, because it'd be too expensive for the majority to afford to ride anymore, and the ACC bill would be going through the ROOF. And the main culprit? CARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What does 30x more cars on the road do to our odds?

After all, cars and their passengers made up 78% of the reported road injuries for 2009. And motorcyclists are dangerous?????

[Max Preload]

I'd be happier just knowing the breakdown of the actual costs of motorcycle crashes attributable in part and full (individually) to those motorcyclists. I mean, that's the absolute minimum standard of information required to make the excessive ACC levy argument even begin stack up. But it just doesn't appear to exist.

[Gremlin]

I mean, that's the absolute minimum standard of information required to make the excessive ACC levy argument even begin stack up. But it just doesn't appear to exist.
Now don't let the lack of statistics get in the way of screwing a minority over huh? :facepalm:

[mashman]

I'd be happier just knowing the breakdown of the actual costs of motorcycle crashes attributable in part and full (individually) to those motorcyclists. I mean, that's the absolute minimum standard of information required to make the excessive ACC levy argument even begin stack up. But it just doesn't appear to exist.

I think there's a few who'd like access to that information. Either way it's not the way ACC should or could be run. Bloody shame really innit.

[BoristheBiter]

That makes sense on the surface. But knowing bikes to be less forgiving in 'certain situations' I'd say the reality is we are more likely to crash than any individual car. I have no idea what that figure is, but I wouldn't believe anything ACC or The Prick says....

going off what the stats from the ltsa i think it was;

.5% of the cars will have an injury crash each year, (bad math day)
13% of the bikes will have and injury crash each year.

Where it all falls down is the area of passengers,
The stats say 2 pillions died and 78 people died as a passenger of a car,
So they should ban passengers in cars because they are more likely to die than a biker.

[scumdog]

going off what the stats from the ltsa i think it was;

10% of the cars will have an injury crash each year,
13% of the bikes will have and injury crash each year.

Where it all falls down is the area of passengers,
The stats say 2 pillions died and 78 people died as a passenger of a car,
So they should ban passengers in cars because they are more likely to die than a biker.

Yup.

Maximum (non-ACC paying) 'passengers' a motocycle can carry and injure/kill? - ONE

Maximum/average of (non-ACC levy paying) passengers car can carry? - FOUR.


And that's not counting the pedestrians etc that said car could plough into.

[BoristheBiter]

I think there's a few who'd like access to that information. Either way it's not the way ACC should or could be run. Bloody shame really innit.

its all about ease of collection. imagine if they found a way to tax off road bikes and cycles.

[BoristheBiter]

Yup.

Maximum (non-ACC paying) 'passengers' a motocycle can carry and injure/kill? - ONE

Maximum/average of (non-ACC levy paying) passengers car can carry? - FOUR.


And that's not counting the pedestrians etc that said car could plough into.

38 pedestrians died last year so tax them aswell.

[riffer]

Yup.

Maximum (non-ACC paying) 'passengers' a motocycle can carry and injure/kill? - ONE

Maximum/average of (non-ACC levy paying) passengers car can carry? - FOUR.


And that's not counting the pedestrians etc that said car could plough into.


And don't forget what happens when a van full of people hits another van full of people. Especially as people in vans tend not to wear seat belts. Mass potential there.

[mashman]

going off what the stats from the ltsa i think it was;

10% of the cars will have an injury crash each year,
13% of the bikes will have and injury crash each year.


So out of 100,000 bikes there would be 1300+ injuries. Sounds about right according to the numbers. Out of, say 2 million cars, that's a minimum 200,000 injuries. There were under 15,000 reported injuries. That's a large difference.



its all about ease of collection. imagine if they found a way to tax off road bikes and cycles.

:rofl: yeah, cheaper levies for all... apart from those who drive, ride, ride, skate, walk, crawl, breathe... Not to mention the "profiling" system that's being put in place to distinguish risky car drivers from non-risky ones :blink:

[BoristheBiter]

So out of 100,000 bikes there would be 1300+ injuries. Sounds about right according to the numbers. Out of, say 2 million cars, that's a minimum 200,000 injuries. There were under 15,000 reported injuries. That's a large difference.

I cant find what i was looking at yesterday but the main problem is all light motor vehicles are put into one category so you have to put all there crashes in as well.
Just found it and it should have been .5% for cars and there is close to 3m light vehicles registered.



:rofl: yeah, cheaper levies for all... apart from those who drive, ride, ride, skate, walk, crawl, breathe... Not to mention the "profiling" system that's being put in place to distinguish risky car drivers from non-risky ones :blink:

Shouldn't post these things it will give them new policy.

[BoristheBiter]

the biggest problem i see with all the stats is what the vehicle is used for.
Out of all the vehicles my family have four are for fun, the rest are for work or the like so are driven completely differently to say my company cage which has spent more time in a traffic jam than moving forward and the truck which can't go over 80.

[mashman]

It's in the post (mail). (http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/papers_plans/wpc088977.pdf)


I cant find what i was looking at yesterday but the main problem is all light motor vehicles are put into one category so you have to put all there crashes in as well.
Just found it and it should have been .5% for cars and there is close to 3m light vehicles registered.


Page 11 Table item: "A. Expected number of full-year equivalent vehicles" same document

Current - 3,143,539
Proposed - 3,181,731 :woohoo:



Shouldn't post these things it will give them new policy.

Page 7 "Our plans for the Motor Vehicle Account" :facepalm:

• introducing a ‘distance-based’ levy for diesel-driven vehicles :woohoo:
• using driver and vehicle characteristics to tailor levy rates :woohoo:
• introducing a fleet safety levy discount programme. :facepalm:

Sounds like "current" policy to me :)

[HDTboy]

I just want to see cops pulling over a bunch of Riders For Christ. Then they can educate each other, while everyone else goes about their lives without interruptions from those with an evangelic bent.

[StoneY]

Aren't they actually saying you're 16x to 20x (depending on who is repeating it) "more likely to be in a crash"? Not injured?

Thats what i keep hearing, and thats the one that pisses me off as it is utter rubbish

Again, we are more likely to be SERIOUSLY INJURED is the correct wording to meet the true statistically proven facts

Less likely to be in a collision crash than a car/van/truck/bicycle is the true fact, in regards less or more likely to HAVE a crash well thats debatable, there are a lot of bike crashes that dont get reported apparently.......

[doko]

I got caught this weekend for wrong class of license... 14 days to obtain right class or $400 fine. :facepalm:

[MSTRS]

I got caught this weekend for wrong class of license... 14 days to obtain right class or $400 fine. :facepalm:

Specifics?

[Scuba_Steve]

in regards less or more likely to HAVE a crash well thats debatable, there are a lot of bike crashes that dont get reported apparently.......

I can't find the study now, I think it might have actually been in the AA mag or one run by them? not sure. But it showed in a car "bikers" (proper ones with engines) were the best drivers of anyone (general rule obviously) able to spot & avoid more hazards while maintaining greater control of the vehicle & less likely to panic. Also as this study was just about safety nothing about "speed" was not included so the "bikers" didn't lose points for failing to submit to propaganda (you know the thing that usually classes us as "unsafe").

Oh also the safest age group was mid-aged with 34 being the middle "safest"

[doko]

Specifics?

Quick ride with a friend who wouldn't fit a helmet.... Gang members started signaling the cops where turning around and coming back for us...

Hit the gas as I went around a corner. Cops randomly speed up a side street caught up.. realized my friend had no helmet and we where on a 250 with plates on.

Gave up. My friend got a $50 fine. :facepalm:

[bogan]

I can't find the study now, I think it might have actually been in the AA mag or one run by them? not sure. But it showed in a car "bikers" (proper ones with engines) were the best drivers of anyone (general rule obviously) able to spot & avoid more hazards while maintaining greater control of the vehicle & less likely to panic. Also as this study was just about safety nothing about "speed" was not included so the "bikers" didn't lose points for failing to submit to propaganda (you know the thing that usually classes us as "unsafe").

Oh also the safest age group was mid-aged with 34 being the middle "safest"

intersting, though not surprising, I am way more paranoid when driving as I feel way more detached from it all in the van. Let us know if you figure out where that study is from...

[BoristheBiter]

I can't find the study now, I think it might have actually been in the AA mag or one run by them? not sure. But it showed in a car "bikers" (proper ones with engines) were the best drivers of anyone (general rule obviously) able to spot & avoid more hazards while maintaining greater control of the vehicle & less likely to panic. Also as this study was just about safety nothing about "speed" was not included so the "bikers" didn't lose points for failing to submit to propaganda (you know the thing that usually classes us as "unsafe").

Oh also the safest age group was mid-aged with 34 being the middle "safest"

Shit yer. I used to be a lazy driver until i started riding on the road, now I'm very aware of whats going on.

[MSTRS]

Quick ride with a friend who wouldn't fit a helmet.... Gang members started signaling the cops where turning around and coming back for us...

Hit the gas as I went around a corner. Cops randomly speed up a side street caught up.. realized my friend had no helmet and we where on a 250 with plates on.

Gave up. My friend got a $50 fine. :facepalm:

So what you got done for was 'carrying a pillion = breaking licence condition'?
That's a $100 fine now. Not $400.
Or was there other things too?

[doko]

So what you got done for was 'carrying a pillion = breaking licence condition'?
That's a $100 fine now. Not $400.
Or was there other things too?

No no. I just had a learners car I have been driving my Audi on that for like 2 years now. I learnt to drive by just buying my own car and bike and driving. *sigh* *waits for moral shit storm about danger to the public even though I have never crashed*

[MSTRS]

Ah. Now I understand. No class 6 at all.
Your total disregard for the law explains your attitude towards the footpath-riding scroterist.

[riffer]

Wairarapa Police are extending November's Motorcycle Focus Month throughout the summer months, to continue education around safe riding practices.

Sergeant Chris Megaw, head of the Wairarapa Police Strategic Traffic Unit says the focus month throughout November was a good opportunity to educate local motorcyclists about correct riding gear and riding style, making sure motorcyclists know the basics before getting behind their bike.

"Our focus over the summer months is to educate motorcyclists who tend to ride recreationally in the weekends, including riders from out of town. Our focus is not on issuing tickets but to ensure the safety of riders is paramount."

Sergeant Megaw says it's well known that the risk of a motorcyclist being killed or seriously injured in a crash is about 18 times higher than for someone driving a car.

"With the warmer weather we're having, we know there will be more recreational riders on Wairarapa roads and Police are doing all we can to ensure we keep road users safe this summer."

Last year, there were eight serious crashes in the Wairarapa involving motorcyclists or moped riders and Police do not want motorcyclists to be 'just another statistic' this summer.

For media queries, please phone Sergeant Chris Megaw at the Wairarapa Police on (06) 370 0300.

You have a name people. You honestly don't like what they are doing - call Chris Megaw. Let him feel the love...

but have a good reason for your call. If you have an alternative method to reduce the serious crashes this year I'm sure they'd love to hear it. Because there's a shitload worse things they could be doing to us.

[Ronin]

Ah. Now I understand. No class 6 at all.
Your total disregard for the law explains your attitude towards the footpath-riding scroterist.


Hi,
A new news release is available for you to view on the Police website:
Title: Wairarapa Police continue focus on motorcyclists
Wairarapa Police are extending November's Motorcycle Focus Month throughout the summer months, to continue education around safe riding practices.
Sergeant Chris Megaw, head of the Wairarapa Police Strategic Traffic Unit says the focus month throughout November was a good opportunity to educate local motorcyclists about correct riding gear and riding style, making sure motorcyclists know the basics before getting behind their bike.
"Our focus over the summer months is to educate motorcyclists who tend to ride recreationally in the weekends, including riders from out of town. Our focus is not on issuing tickets but to ensure the safety of riders is paramount."
Sergeant Megaw says it's well known that the risk of a motorcyclist being killed or seriously injured in a crash is about 18 times higher than for someone driving a car.
"With the warmer weather we're having, we know there will be more recreational riders on Wairarapa roads and Police are doing all we can to ensure we keep road users safe this summer."
Last year, there were eight serious crashes in the Wairarapa involving motorcyclists or moped riders and Police do not want motorcyclists to be 'just another statistic' this summer.
ENDS

Oh joy ever un-con-fucking fined.

[riffer]

Ah you just got the email too Ronin...

[Ronin]

Ah you just got the email too Ronin...

ahhhh yup.

[mashman]

Again, we are more likely to be SERIOUSLY INJURED is the correct wording to meet the true statistically proven facts

Less likely to be in a collision crash than a car/van/truck/bicycle is the true fact, in regards less or more likely to HAVE a crash well thats debatable, there are a lot of bike crashes that dont get reported apparently.......

I find it hard to believe that motorcycles are more likely to get seriously injured when the numbers say something entirely different.

Cars: 8017
Passengers: 3370
Above Combined: 11387
Motorcycles: 1369
Other: 1758
Total: 14541

According to here (Page 9) (http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/Land/landsafety/Documents/Social-cost-of-road-crashes-and-injuries-2010-update.pdf) there were 2,425 (reported) SERIOUS injuries for the road in 2009.

Even if every single motorcycle injury was serious, there'd still be 1056 to be accounted for. There were 914 pedestrians and 825 cyclist reported injuries. They wear a lot less protective clothing than us, so I would imagine, being part of the road injury stats, that they'd accoutn for a fair amount too...

Me smells more dark brown male cow poo poo's from TPTB.

[MSTRS]

Most of those peds and cyclists would have 'met' a car, so add them to the car stats = 13126.
Obviously making assumptions here, but that means that cars cause 10X the injuries that bikes do, but there are +20X the number of cars. In my book that makes motorcyclists 2x more likely to be hurt.

[Paul in NZ]

I dont generally get to riled up these days but what a bloody crock of shit. Safety my arse.... Whats the point in lecturing people (how ever nicely) who ARE riding safely? Wouldnt you be better in lecturing people who have just written off their motorcycle, got a speeding ticket or some such? Perferably before they get another one?

Personally I just wont go to the wairarapa on a motorcycle or for that matter any other vehicle and if I'm forced to it will be to travel through to some other place. I'd suggest you could tell that to the councils and cafe owners too. (erm, actually most of them will be happy that I'm not arriving I suspect)

[bogan]

Most of those peds and cyclists would have 'met' a car, so add them to the car stats = 13126.
Obviously making assumptions here, but that means that cars cause 10X the injuries that bikes do, but there are +20X the number of cars. In my book that makes motorcyclists 2x more likely to be hurt.

the way the quote is written it sounds more like if you are involved in a crash, a biker is 20x more likely to be hurt. Makes no mention of the rate at which the different classes crash.... but thats just my take on it

[BoristheBiter]

Most of those peds and cyclists would have 'met' a car, so add them to the car stats = 13126.
Obviously making assumptions here, but that means that cars cause 10X the injuries that bikes do, but there are +20X the number of cars. In my book that makes motorcyclists 2x more likely to be hurt.

You are missing the point of where the stats are coming from.
Registered cars/injury crashes is around .5%
registered bikes/injury crashes is around 10%

So therefore 20x more likely to be in a injury crash.

Its all just basic maths, its how they sell it thats the problem because if you use the formula its safer to be a pillion than a car passenger

Registered cars/injury passengers is around .11%
registered bikes/injury pillion is around .07%

so therefore nearly twice as likely to be injuryed as a passenger than a pillion.

[bogan]

You are missing the point of where the stats are coming from.
Registered cars/injury crashes is around .5%
registered bikes/injury crashes is around 10%

So therefore 20x more likely to be in a injury crash.

Its all just basic maths, its how they sell it thats the problem because if you use the formula its safer to be a pillion than a car passenger

Registered cars/injury passengers is around .11%
registered bikes/injury pillion is around .07%

so therefore nearly twice as likely to be injuryed as a passenger than a pillion.

where did those figures come from? cos they are well misleading/wrong.

[MSTRS]

Registered cars/injury crashes is around .5%
registered bikes/injury crashes is around 10%


Wrong.
Cars = .5%
Bikes = 1%

[Katman]

All this talk of stats is rather pointless.

The fact is that there are too many accidents happening. We need to work out how to reduce them.

[DMNTD]

All this talk of stats is rather pointless.

The fact is that there are too many accidents happening. We need to work out how to reduce them.

Now this I do agree with. Yes stats do have their place however what I deem is the real issue is working out how to minimise the accidents in the first place.

[MSTRS]

All this talk of stats is rather pointless.

The fact is that there are too many accidents happening. We need to work out how to reduce them.

Agreed.
However, when anyone starts quoting statistics, figures, percentages etc - and uses them to set $levies or policies- they should be correct. None of the bullshit TPTB are foisting on us, and calling it truth..

[Scuba_Steve]

All this talk of stats is rather pointless.

The fact is that there are too many accidents happening. We need to work out how to reduce them.

Stop speed scams
Less "pretty coloured lights" at intersections
police bad/slow/inconsiderate driving WITH discretion & warnings
Learners period to be done on 2-wheels
No automatics.
teach people how to merge!

This would be a HUGE step forward in reducing accidents & thus deaths... it aint gonna happen.

[Patrick]

I'd be happier just knowing the breakdown of the actual costs of motorcycle crashes attributable in part and full (individually) to those motorcyclists. I mean, that's the absolute minimum standard of information required to make the excessive ACC levy argument even begin stack up. But it just doesn't appear to exist.

I've asked about this exact thing, with ACC here in the Naki... no joy either...


the way the quote is written it sounds more like if you are involved in a crash, a biker is 20x more likely to be hurt. Makes no mention of the rate at which the different classes crash.... but thats just my take on it

At last... someone who gets it.....:woohoo:

IF you are in a crash, and you are on a motorbike, you are 20x more likely to be hurt..., than if you are in a car, and have a crash in that car....:facepalm:

And as for the conspiracy theorists... if they are wanting to be rid of bikes, why are they going down this path of refresher education, pamplet handouts etc - mainly aimed at those who think they are bullet proof and above all road laws and common sense....???

Even those that are absolutely certain that know it all and can't be taught anything, might pick up something from it all.... or not....:shutup:

[Katman]

Agreed.
However, when anyone starts quoting statistics, figures, percentages etc - and uses them to set $levies or policies- they should be correct. None of the bullshit TPTB are foisting on us, and calling it truth..

If we put as much effort into trying to reduce accidents as we seem to put into analysing stats we'd have half the problem solved by now and be in a position to start using our own stats against them.

[Patrick]

All this talk of stats is rather pointless.

The fact is that there are too many accidents happening. We need to work out how to reduce them.

Yay... two now.... who get it, that is...




Stop speed scams stop speeding - -leave it on the track... sorted.
Less "pretty coloured lights" at intersections - red means stop, orange means should stop, green = go... those coloured lights???? I'm usually glad they are there...
police bad/slow/inconsiderate driving WITH discretion & warnings - discretion and warnings for bad/slow/inconsiderate police drivers? Then what would KB bitch about then...?
Learners period to be done on 2-wheels - hell yeah - more attentive drivers, once in cars, then and only then!
No automatics.Hell yeah...! Autos are for lazy folk.
teach people how to merge! - They know - just won't let anyone get in front of their car, at any cost, how dare them think they could do such a heinous thing... that's all...
This would be a HUGE step forward in reducing accidents & thus deaths... it aint gonna happen.

Sad, but true....

[Bald Eagle]

It is a really basic situation folks. A lot of motorcycle riders need serious AA ( attitude adjustment ) as do an equal number of other vehicle operators.

When we all take responsibility for ourselves and stop driving/riding without any mantrol then the stats will all improve.

Simple really.

[mashman]

IF you are in a crash, and you are on a motorbike, you are 20x more likely to be hurt..., than if you are in a car, and have a crash in that car....:facepalm:


Based on what Information? There's a HUGE difference between 20x more likely and it actually happening. Take a look at the injury stats published, 78% of all reported road injuries are car related. Yet we're 20x more likely :rofl:... Can you explain that one?



And as for the conspiracy theorists... if they are wanting to be rid of bikes, why are they going down this path of refresher education, pamplet handouts etc - mainly aimed at those who think they are bullet proof and above all road laws and common sense....???


I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists, well not really... the education being handed out is, as per usual, shite (here, suck eggs), and judging by the stats, the education is being directed at the wrong "user" group :rofl:. That's a fact and not a conspiracy theory, they're published numbers. Sounds like a pathetic excuse to do something, may as well be getting the dirty dirty motorcyclists off the road...



Even those that are absolutely certain that know it all and can't be taught anything, might pick up something from it all.... or not....:shutup:

Well obviously not because TPTB are still using dodgy numbers to suit their own agenda... :killingme

[Scuba_Steve]

stop speeding - -leave it on the track... sorted.
-- yes if everyone went 0km/h crashes would be VERY hard to achieve. current speed laws are :bs: and speed scams endanger lives while increasing accident rates, scrap them & excessive speed will be charged with "dangerous driving" as will driving dangerously at any speed. safer roads, less crashes, harsher penalties for those who are actually dangerous. Simple.

Less "pretty coloured lights" at intersections - red means stop, orange means should stop, green = go... those coloured lights???? I'm usually glad they are there...
--"pretty coloured lights" make lazy drivers, lazy drivers are dangerous!

[Patrick]

Based on what Information? There's a HUGE difference between 20x more likely and it actually happening. Take a look at the injury stats published, 78% of all reported road injuries are car related. Yet we're 20x more likely :rofl:... Can you explain that one?

Yes.

As a motorbike rider, if you are involved in a crash, YOU, as a motorbike rider, are 20 times more likely to be injured.... Doesn't matter who is at fault... Dunno how to make it any clearer.

I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists, well not really... the education being handed out is, as per usual, shite (here, suck eggs), and judging by the stats, the education is being directed at the wrong "user" group :rofl:. That's a fact and not a conspiracy theory, they're published numbers. Sounds like a pathetic excuse to do something, may as well be getting the dirty dirty motorcyclists off the road...

Again, why bother... Who says it is the wrong user group? Too many Motorbike riders can bring misery onto themselves... apparently... This is something that is hard to comprehend, I know... but.....

Well obviously not because TPTB are still using dodgy numbers to suit their own agenda... :killingme

Sigh... :facepalm:


stop speeding - -leave it on the track... sorted.
-- yes if everyone went 0km/h crashes would be VERY hard to achieve.

True - but 0km/h isn't what the signs say. Ones round here say 50 and 100 - not 237....

current speed laws are :bs: and speed scams endanger lives while increasing accident rates, scrap them & excessive speed will be charged with "dangerous driving" as will driving dangerously at any speed. safer roads, less crashes, harsher penalties for those who are actually dangerous. Simple.

This doesn't make sense... do away with "speed scams" and then saying charge them with dangerous driving?:blink:

Less "pretty coloured lights" at intersections - red means stop, orange means should stop, green = go... those coloured lights???? I'm usually glad they are there...
--"pretty coloured lights" make lazy drivers, lazy drivers are dangerous!

True. Just have a look what happens when any set of traffic lights goes out for any reason... The sheer look of horror on drivers faces when they have to "think" what to do....

[BoristheBiter]

where did those figures come from? cos they are well misleading/wrong.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/NZ-Vehicle-Fleet-Graphs-2009-v2.xls

other than the decimal point in the wrong place they are correct.
It is the way it is looked at that changes.


All that the stats tell us that in 2009 a % of cars had injury crashes and a % of bikes had injury crashes and % wise more bikes had injury crashes.

[bogan]

True. Just have a look what happens when any set of traffic lights goes out for any reason... The sheer look of horror on drivers faces when they have to "think" what to do....

no crashes though cos nobody moves! Was glad I was on my bike that day an could just split through it.

As always you got balance the efficiencies, causes of crashes such as speed or inattention have to balance out with efficiency of transport, slow is safer but it's not exactly efficient travel.
The speed limits are to balance safety with efficiency, it's not some arbitrary number where things magically get dangerous. Seems to me you can balance speed with some extra attention (over a journey, not a lot can balance doing 75 through a 30kmhr corner!) and gets you extra efficiency too; and we all know your average biker pays more attention than your average cager...

[bogan]

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/NZ-Vehicle-Fleet-Graphs-2009-v2.xls

other than the decimal point in the wrong place they are correct.
It is the way it is looked at that changes.


All that the stats tell us that in 2009 a % of cars had injury crashes and a % of bikes had injury crashes and % wise more bikes had injury crashes.

other than the decimal point :lol: cos an order of magnitude error is pretty minor? please tell me you ain't an engineer :facepalm:

[Scuba_Steve]

True - but 0km/h isn't what the signs say. Ones round here say 50 and 100 - not 237....

237 would be excessive speed in most situations (not all) & thus dangerous driving. 120km/h is perfectly acceptable on free flowing motorways/highways
but also 50km/h I would also consider excessive speed through a heavily packed CBD even if the sign reads 50km/h

its driving to conditions NOT a sign!.
The ACC poster I've just seen also points out in 3 seconds you can travel the length of a rugby field, the average person takes 2-4secs to check that insignificant needle on the insignificant dial meaning they could travel 55-100m before looking at the road again thats a hell of a distance not to be watching the road.

[ducatilover]

So it's 20x more likely to be INJURED in a crash? Not 20x/18x/16x (depending on the retard quoting the stats) more likely to CRASH?


That sounds more like it, also.... Somewhat obvious isn't it? Yet in the Joe Publics mind, this has been twisted into "fuck, that bike is going to crash. Wait for it...., yeah just a wee bit longer, dirty baby killing, lemur murdering, fish raping bike-o-holic fuckers":facepalm:

[BoristheBiter]

other than the decimal point :lol: cos an order of magnitude error is pretty minor? please tell me you ain't an engineer :facepalm:

How did you guess:innocent:

[Katman]

the average person takes 2-4secs to check that insignificant needle on the insignificant dial meaning they could travel 55-100m before looking at the road again thats a hell of a distance not to be watching the road.

You're kidding me, right? :blink:

If someone has to take longer than a second to flick their eyes down to the speedo and back up again they shouldn't be in charge of any vehicle.

[MSTRS]

You're kidding me, right? :blink:

If someone has to take longer than a second to flick their eyes down to the speedo and back up again they shouldn't be in charge of any vehicle.

I think he's kidding about 'the average...' but don't be fooled, they're out there.

[mashman]

As a motorbike rider, if you are involved in a crash, YOU, as a motorbike rider, are 20 times more likely to be injured.... Doesn't matter who is at fault... Dunno how to make it any clearer.


Erm, making it clearer by proving it would help, if you can find the numbers that is :)... Perhaps finding the calculation that says we're 20x times more likely to get the splat would help. Do it exist? Or is it just something the boys in blue take as red from government of the day? Looks like a few of us have been trying to find the source for that, but to no avail... You obviously have the figures as you know better than the know all's :shifty:



Again, why bother... Who says it is the wrong user group? Too many Motorbike riders can bring misery onto themselves... apparently... This is something that is hard to comprehend, I know... but.....


:killingme... very few cars seem to be bringing MASSES of misery to every road user FACT, including themselves, but it looks like that's being ignored, if not actively accepted by ACC, Politicians and the Police! Why? Because there's lots of them so it's to be expected... P A T H E T I C excuse considering the published figures of death and injury that these vehicles bring to the road! Yet motorcyclists need to clean up their act because some invisible person says they're 20x more likely to be injured in a crash... :facepalm: and you accuse me of being blind :killingme

[Scuba_Steve]

You're kidding me, right? :blink:

If someone has to take longer than a second to flick their eyes down to the speedo and back up again they shouldn't be in charge of any vehicle.

it takes about 2secs to look down, focus, look up, re-focus & acknowledge.
while you may still be seeing to road during some of the process you are NOT fully acknowledging it (like hearing someone vs listening to them, or using a cellphone) & thus you have travelled a fair distance not paying attention & some people do take upto 4secs to complete this process but god would you start a shit storm if you ever tried to stop them driving due to being "slow".

[scumdog]

All this talk of stats is rather pointless.

The fact is that there are too many accidents happening. We need to work out how to reduce them.

Going by the way some of them rode going to/from the Burt Munro I doubt we ever will...I'm sure that the only law/road rule/safe riding practise some adhered to was wearing their helmet.:yes:

[ducatilover]

Going by the way some of them rode going to/from the Burt Munro I doubt we ever will...I'm sure that the only law/road rule/safe riding practise some adhered to was wearing their helmet.:yes:

:facepalm: Hence, we get a bad name. It's just giving the media it's proverbial milk filled mammary to suckle. :shutup::shutup:

[twinbruva]

Going by the way some of them rode going to/from the Burt Munro I doubt we ever will...I'm sure that the only law/road rule/safe riding practise some adhered to was wearing their helmet.:yes:

We also saw some pretty stupid shit heading north after the Jokers show in Ashburton. Not naming names but there were members of certain NI groups that were undertaking at high speed in 50kph zones and shit like that.

Gotta be tough buggers eh?

[racefactory]

So has anyone been caught down there yet? Still another 15 days to go.

Are they going pretty intense or what?

[BoristheBiter]

Erm, making it clearer by proving it would help, if you can find the numbers that is :)... Perhaps finding the calculation that says we're 20x times more likely to get the splat would help. Do it exist? Or is it just something the boys in blue take as red from government of the day? Looks like a few of us have been trying to find the source for that, but to no avail... You obviously have the figures as you know better than the know all's :shifty:



:killingme... very few cars seem to be bringing MASSES of misery to every road user FACT, including themselves, but it looks like that's being ignored, if not actively accepted by ACC, Politicians and the Police! Why? Because there's lots of them so it's to be expected... P A T H E T I C excuse considering the published figures of death and injury that these vehicles bring to the road! Yet motorcyclists need to clean up their act because some invisible person says they're 20x more likely to be injured in a crash... :facepalm: and you accuse me of being blind :killingme

As said it is the way you look at the stats and if you can't see it by now there is no point in trying to show you, again.

You just go on believing thats its safer to ride bikes and we will just leave it there.

[mashman]

As said it is the way you look at the stats and if you can't see it by now there is no point in trying to show you, again.

You just go on believing thats its safer to ride bikes and we will just leave it there.

:killingme... yeah, i really don't get it :facepalm:. My "argument" isn't that we crash less than other vehicles. I FULLY understand, and have written so on KB, that we have more injuries per motorcycle user than a car does per car user. They have a larger user base to spread their injuries across, it is to be expected.

My "argument", is that motorcyclists have nowhere near the ACTUAL crash, injury, or death stats that cars have (irrespective of their risk :yes:). Excusing it by saying that you expect it to happen, based on their larger numbers, is jamming ones head in the fuckin sand and accepting that nothing can be done. I'd love to see the number of incidents they cause, as i believe they will be huge numbers. That drastically reduces a motorcyclists "safety" on the road. Tis just a person, in a vehicle that hasn't paid attention, has pushed too hard, has understeered the corner etc... The choice of vehicle has next to fuck all to do with it other than shaping some of the incident outcome. But sure, go ahead and pin it on motorcyclists :rofl:

You just go on believing thats its safer to drive cars and we will just leave it there. :)

[steve_t]

I FULLY understand, and have written so on KB, that we have more injuries per motorcycle user than a car does per car user.

......

You just go on believing that it's safer to drive cars and we will just leave it there. :)

:blink::innocent:

[BoristheBiter]

:killingme... yeah, i really don't get it :facepalm:. My "argument" isn't that we crash less than other vehicles. I FULLY understand, and have written so on KB, that we have more injuries per motorcycle user than a car does per car user. They have a larger user base to spread their injuries across, it is to be expected.

My "argument", is that motorcyclists have nowhere near the ACTUAL crash, injury, or death stats that cars have (irrespective of their risk :yes:). Excusing it by saying that you expect it to happen, based on their larger numbers, is jamming ones head in the fuckin sand and accepting that nothing can be done. I'd love to see the number of incidents they cause, as i believe they will be huge numbers. That drastically reduces a motorcyclists "safety" on the road. Tis just a person, in a vehicle that hasn't paid attention, has pushed too hard, has understeered the corner etc... The choice of vehicle has next to fuck all to do with it other than shaping some of the incident outcome. But sure, go ahead and pin it on motorcyclists :rofl:

You just go on believing thats its safer to drive cars and we will just leave it there. :)

But we are not talking crash stats, we are talking about injury crash stats.

[mashman]

:blink::innocent:

:rofl: no i don't see the irony :shifty:

[mashman]

But we are not talking crash stats, we are talking about injury crash stats.

Can you have an injury without a crash?

[BoristheBiter]

:

You just go on believing thats its safer to drive cars and we will just leave it there. :)

It has to be, its plain to see.

If a car rear-ends you, what would you rather be in/on, a car or a bike?

[mashman]

It has to be, its plain to see.

If a car rear-ends you, what would you rather be in/on, a car or a bike?

:rofl: we could do this one for a while. They both have their merits. If i see the car in my mirrors, i'd rather be on a motorcycle. At least I have a chance of getting away injury free. Much easier to drop a bike and dive out of the way than it is to unbuckle the seat belt, reach for the door handle, open the door, drag my ass out of the car and then leap to safety. There's no way out for the car driver, so in the car i'd have to absorb the rear-ending and keep my fingers crossed that I don't end up with whiplash or worse :lol:

[ducatilover]

Can you have an injury without a crash?

Yeh, I spilled coffee on myself this morning while walking past my bike :angry: Didn't spill it when I was by the Hilux or kayak. So, I have proven ACC is correct.

[StoneY]

You lot wil enjoy this....
I got a ticket on Nov 7th 2010

Cop wrote date of offence as 7/10/11

Now the 0800 number to the enforcment service claim its ENFORCABLE!

Attached is a PDF of the tisket, and my reminder notice for a ticket issued in the wrong town, on th ewrong date, and my letter to the enforcement bureau

have a giggle, I am

224928

[mashman]

Yeh, I spilled coffee on myself this morning while walking past my bike :angry: Didn't spill it when I was by the Hilux or kayak. So, I have proven ACC is correct.

ha ha ha haaaaaa, ya dopey bugga... now they'll ban coffee! unless you say it was the kayaks fault :)

[mashman]

Cop wrote date of offence as 7/10/11


Actuaries, getting you today for the things you're going to do tomorrow :killingme... or next year in this case...

[scumdog]

:rofl: we could do this one for a while. They both have their merits. If i see the car in my mirrors, i'd rather be on a motorcycle. At least I have a chance of getting away injury free. Much easier to drop a bike and dive out of the way than it is to unbuckle the seat belt, reach for the door handle, open the door, drag my ass out of the car and then leap to safety. There's no way out for the car driver, so in the car i'd have to absorb the rear-ending and keep my fingers crossed that I don't end up with whiplash or worse :lol:

"IF I see" - few people rear-ended actually realise they are about to be.

And most who did only realised it at the last second.

Good luck with the 'dive out the way' thing if it ever happens to you.

[ducatilover]

ha ha ha haaaaaa, ya dopey bugga... now they'll ban coffee! unless you say it was the kayaks fault :)

I'll blame the kayak. I'm not going without coffee, I'd get my murder face on!

[Gremlin]

Attached is a PDF of the tisket, and my reminder notice for a ticket issued in the wrong town, on th ewrong date, and my letter to the enforcement bureau
Word has helped you typo your own letter too. When you mention Carterton, you write the date as 7th October 2010-11-30...

muahahahahhahahaha :facepalm:

[Scuba_Steve]

You lot wil enjoy this....
I got a ticket on Nov 7th 2010

Cop wrote date of offence as 7/10/11

Now the 0800 number to the enforcment service claim its ENFORCABLE!

Attached is a PDF of the tisket, and my reminder notice for a ticket issued in the wrong town, on th ewrong date, and my letter to the enforcement bureau

have a giggle, I am

224928

well if its "enforceable", which under a justice system it would not be (shame we don't have one of them) you've got a year to save up :killingme:

[ducatilover]

"IF I see" - few people rear-ended actually realise they are about to be.



I had a girl friend who could say that......:yes:

Giggity giggity.

[mashman]

"IF I see" - few people rear-ended actually realise they are about to be.

And most who did only realised it at the last second.

Good luck with the 'dive out the way' thing if it ever happens to you.

That doesn't surprise me :). Again though, that doesn't mean I wouldn't see it either or be able to get out of the way too... however unlikely it seems...

Thanks for the luck... With all that denial i'm oozing and with the amount of cars on the road, causing the amount of CARnage that they do, I reckon i'll need it... I must be due for a smash :yes: if the stats are anything to go by :shifty:

[StoneY]

Word has helped you typo your own letter too. When you mention Carterton, you write the date as 7th October 2010-11-30...

muahahahahhahahaha :facepalm:

yeah saw that, fixed it before mailing the signed copy off
rely too much on auto spekll check LOL

[swbarnett]

Just have a look what happens when any set of traffic lights goes out for any reason... The sheer look of horror on drivers faces when they have to "think" what to do....
Maybe in your neck of the woods. A while back the whole of Auckland's North Shore lost power. My observation from my morning commute was that the intersections ran better than they ever have before. No panick and plenty of courtesy.

[swbarnett]

"IF I see" - few people rear-ended actually realise they are about to be.
This is one reason I'll split to the front of the queue even when there's only one car in it.

[Ocean1]

Maybe in your neck of the woods. A while back the whole of Auckland's North Shore lost power. My observation from my morning commute was that the intersections ran better than they ever have before. No panick and plenty of courtesy.

I understood that the installation of traffic lights at otherwise un-modified intersections resulted in both increased accidents and increased injuries. Certainly the case with a couple I know of.

They do tend to have the effect of relieving responsibility from the great unwashed.

[Patrick]

...My "argument", is that motorcyclists have nowhere near the ACTUAL crash, injury, or death stats that cars have (irrespective of their risk :yes:). Excusing it by saying that you expect it to happen, based on their larger numbers, is jamming ones head in the fuckin sand... You just go on believing thats its safer to drive cars and we will just leave it there. :)

Being encased in steel, with crumple zones, reinforced struts, airbags and seatbelts, is not safer than straddling a bike, coz you have a helmet on? OK then....:shutup:


:rofl: we could do this one for a while. They both have their merits. If i see the car in my mirrors, i'd rather be on a motorcycle. At least I have a chance of getting away injury free. Much easier to drop a bike and dive out of the way ...

What movie was that one on...??? How did the re-set button work...???


Maybe in your neck of the woods. A while back the whole of Auckland's North Shore lost power. My observation from my morning commute was that the intersections ran better than they ever have before. No panick and plenty of courtesy.

My neck of the woods? Nope. That was on the Shore too.... I've been around....

[mashman]

Being encased in steel, with crumple zones, reinforced struts, airbags and seatbelts, is not safer than straddling a bike, coz you have a helmet on? OK then....:shutup:


It is published fact that 78% of the total of ACTUAL road injuries for 2009, were cars and passengers. Fuck me they have an awful lot of injuries :yes: especially when you consider that they're so well protected by the things you have outlined above :yes: :blink:.

We ALL share the same road. Just because you're better protected by steel and bags, doesn't mean you're not going to suffer an injury. The FACTS above prove that to me beyond a doubt. Hence i feel safer riding a motorcycle. As a percentage of the total number of ACTUAL injuries, i'm 11% likely to sustain a road injury. Car 78% or Motorcycle 11%... erm erm... bucket of sand Sir? Yes i understand the risks of motorcycling.



What movie was that one on...??? How did the re-set button work...???


So it's impossible. It will not and never will happen? Spade for your sand Sir?

[Edbear]

It is published fact that 78% of the total of ACTUAL road injuries for 2009, were cars and passengers. Fuck me they have an awful lot of injuries :yes: especially when you consider that they're so well protected by the things you have outlined above :yes: :blink:.

We ALL share the same road. Just because you're better protected by steel and bags, doesn't mean you're not going to suffer an injury. The FACTS above prove that to me beyond a doubt. Hence i feel safer riding a motorcycle. As a percentage of the total number of ACTUAL injuries, i'm 11% likely to sustain a road injury. Car 78% or Motorcycle 11%... erm erm... bucket of sand Sir? Yes i understand the risks of motorcycling.

So it's impossible. It will not and never will happen? Spade for your sand Sir?

Ummm, what about the percentage of cars on the road compared to motorcycles? You need to consider the percentage in proportion to the number of vehicles and kilometers travelled to have any chance of an accurate comparison.

As an example of accidents and injuries. My accident back in May was preceeded by about half and hour by another accident on the same corner. Difference? The first crash was a biker coming off and he broke his leg. I spun out on the same corner apparently for the same reason of oil on the road, (Police report), and probably around the same speed, ie: less than 50km/h, driving my Toyota Estima van. Result?I broke my back. Van a write off as they had to cut the roof off to get me out.

So you might say, "Ahah! You are not safer in a cage, even one as solid as an Estima!" What the statistics won't tell you is that I have Osteoporosis, discovered as a result of the accident, and that was probably the reason for breaking my back. Had my bones been stronger and I fitter, I may have well climbed out without a scratch despite the van not having air-bags.

Statistics tell some of the story and are useful, but they don't tell all the story. I ask myself, if I had been on my bike that day, (as I did nearly take it instead), how badly would I have been hurt due to the Osteo? I wonder about that and worry about the fact that I was riding happily around in a greatly weakened state. My bone density is so low that I have had to get special medical approval for a specific treatment that my GP could not prescribe and it's going to be two or three years before I see much improvement.

[mashman]

Ummm, what about the percentage of cars on the road compared to motorcycles? You need to consider the percentage in proportion to the number of vehicles and kilometers travelled to have any chance of an accurate comparison.


If that's the way you wish to view the statistics, then you're more than welcome to interpret them that way, because they back up your argument, same as the TPTB. I think along the lines of a road user being a road user and an injury being an injury. And if you think about it that way, then cars and their passengers are at the greater risk of injury... Cars and their passengers accounted for 78% of the injuries for 2009. How else can you interpret that fact?, other than cars are bloody dangerous and have a higher risk of injury. Their large numbers are a factor, but does it really matter how many cars there are? We (ALL road users) should all be able to miss each other on the road right?, or be able to navigate a corner safely?, or ride/drive to the conditions? etc... That 78% highlights a problem area to me... but lets focus on the user group stats instead :facepalm:



As an example of accidents and injuries. My accident back in May was preceeded by about half and hour by another accident on the same corner. Difference? The first crash was a biker coming off and he broke his leg. I spun out on the same corner apparently for the same reason of oil on the road, (Police report), and probably around the same speed, ie: less than 50km/h, driving my Toyota Estima van. Result?I broke my back. Van a write off as they had to cut the roof off to get me out.

So you might say, "Ahah! You are not safer in a cage, even one as solid as an Estima!" What the statistics won't tell you is that I have Osteoporosis, discovered as a result of the accident, and that was probably the reason for breaking my back. Had my bones been stronger and I fitter, I may have well climbed out without a scratch despite the van not having air-bags.

Statistics tell some of the story and are useful, but they don't tell all the story. I ask myself, if I had been on my bike that day, (as I did nearly take it instead), how badly would I have been hurt due to the Osteo? I wonder about that and worry about the fact that I was riding happily around in a greatly weakened state. My bone density is so low that I have had to get special medical approval for a specific treatment that my GP could not prescribe and it's going to be two or three years before I see much improvement.


I remember reading the thread. It didn't sound like much fun, well the discomfort bit. The above 78% fact is why I say you're not safer in a cage. But we're all entitled to our own readings of the facts.

[Edbear]

If that's the way you wish to view the statistics, then you're more than welcome to interpret them that way, because they back up your argument, same as the TPTB. I think along the lines of a road user being a road user and an injury being an injury. And if you think about it that way, then cars and their passengers are at the greater risk of injury... Cars and their passengers accounted for 78% of the injuries for 2009. How else can you interpret that fact?, other than cars are bloody dangerous and have a higher risk of injury. Their large numbers are a factor, but does it really matter how many cars there are? We (ALL road users) should all be able to miss each other on the road right?, or be able to navigate a corner safely?, or ride/drive to the conditions? etc... That 78% highlights a problem area to me... but lets focus on the user group stats instead :facepalm:



I remember reading the thread. It didn't sound like much fun, well the discomfort bit. The above 78% fact is why I say you're not safer in a cage. But we're all entitled to our own readings of the facts.

I doubt you'll find many who see it your way. For example if, say, cars also made up 78% of traffic the ratio is even, one for one. If cars are 80% of road traffic they are safer. All official stats are based on the ratio of users and kilometers travelled for an accurate picture. Now again using my stats, I've been riding bikes for 40 years and driving cars for 39 years. I've fallen off my bike twice, both times below 5km/h and have never been badly hurt. I've crashed a four-wheeled vehicle twice, putting my Mum's 1800 Morris into a farm fence after being run off the road by a truck. I was doing about 20mph and again no injury, just a dented front guard. Second was my accident last May. Statistically I have had a better run on bikes, but I could possibly have suffered much more or even died had I been on the bike last May due to my Osteo. Who knows for certain? But your reasoning is biased, not factual.

I love bikes and love riding them, but I'm very realistic.

[Edbear]

Oh, just had a thought! I've done 100's of thousands of Kilometers more in cars than on bikes, so per k's travelled, my record means I'm safer in a car... :innocent:

[mashman]

I doubt you'll find many who see it your way.

IFS... But your reasoning is biased, not factual.

I love bikes and love riding them, but I'm very realistic.


Some people go through their lives without an injuries at all. But TPTB still use averages for their stats, irrespective of how flawed they are. Personal stats don't, yet, come into it.

The funny thing is, is that "my way", is nothing more than the truth, using the reported numbers :yes:. :killingme My reasoning is biased? My conclusion has been reached using simple mathematics :yes: A bit old fashioned I know, actuarials looking into the future is much more today :blink: but...

Page 21. (http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motor-Vehicle-Crashes-in-New-Zealand-2009.pdf)

Drivers of motor vehicles: 8017
Passengers in motor vehicles: 3370
Motorcyclist and pillion passengers: 1369
Total Injuries: 14541

Car and passenger injuries as a percentage of the total number of reported injuries for 2009 = 78.30960731724091%
Motorcycles as a percent blah blah blah

Sorry, I did bias against motorcycles :shit:, not 11%, 9.414758269720102e-4%

No tell me how I have biased my reasoning?

Safer in a car? I think not.

Do the death percentages. They're very similar. We're all just people on the road Ed.

[rastuscat]

Stopped a bloke on a CBR1000 tonight, coz he was riding just a bit too aggressively in traffic.

No reg and no warrant. On a learners bike licence.

I'm a bike cop with a sense of humour, so I asked him how big the engine was on his bike. He started to tell me it was a 250, then he said that it was okay, as he had a learners licence which meant that he could ride a thousand cc bike 4 times.

He rode away with significantly less in fines than he was due, and we both smiled. All was well with the world.

Donuts.

[Brian d marge]

Stopped a bloke on a CBR1000 tonight, coz he was riding just a bit too aggressively in traffic.

No reg and no warrant. On a learners bike licence.

I'm a bike cop with a sense of humour, so I asked him how big the engine was on his bike. He started to tell me it was a 250, then he said that it was okay, as he had a learners licence which meant that he could ride a thousand cc bike 4 times.

He rode away with significantly less in fines than he was due, and we both smiled. All was well with the world.

Donuts.


your a marked man

next time you see a chopped Enfield being aggressively lane split remember I wont charge for sexual favours and Ive eaten the donuts

Stephen

and you man admire my beer can holder I have just installed ...

[miloking]

Stopped a bloke on a CBR1000 tonight, coz he was riding just a bit too aggressively in traffic.

No reg and no warrant. On a learners bike licence.

I'm a bike cop with a sense of humour, so I asked him how big the engine was on his bike. He started to tell me it was a 250, then he said that it was okay, as he had a learners licence which meant that he could ride a thousand cc bike 4 times.

He rode away with significantly less in fines than he was due, and we both smiled. All was well with the world.

Donuts.

Haha sounds familiar....but i wouldnt try that "250cc" on you....since CBR has ton of "1000" badges all over :)

[Edbear]

Stopped a bloke on a CBR1000 tonight, coz he was riding just a bit too aggressively in traffic.

No reg and no warrant. On a learners bike licence.

I'm a bike cop with a sense of humour, so I asked him how big the engine was on his bike. He started to tell me it was a 250, then he said that it was okay, as he had a learners licence which meant that he could ride a thousand cc bike 4 times.

He rode away with significantly less in fines than he was due, and we both smiled. All was well with the world.

Donuts.

I appreciate your sense of humour, mate, but wasn't that exactly the description Patrick gave of the majority of fatals he's attended...?

[Owl]

Stopped a bloke on a CBR1000 tonight, coz he was riding just a bit too aggressively in traffic.

No reg and no warrant. On a learners bike licence.

What a naughty bugger! At least I had a "restricted" and my bike was only a 750cc:innocent:

[Berries]

Stopped a bloke on a CBR1000 tonight.......
No reg, no wof, no licence. No awareness of a bike cop when riding aggressively through traffic. He obviously doesn't give a shit about any rules, I don't know why you'd want to give him the benefit.

[Shadowjack]

Been reading this thread for a while and, at least as far as the Police and "Police Crackdowns" (and the last handful of posts) are concerned, have come to the following conclusion:

Kiwibiker - The Rock AND the Hard Place.

[rastuscat]

No reg, no wof, no licence. No awareness of a bike cop when riding aggressively through traffic. He obviously doesn't give a shit about any rules, I don't know why you'd want to give him the benefit.


Forgot to mention. I will be checking online in a couple of weeks to see that he has updated his reg, WoF and licence. If he hasn't he has a zillion dollars in fines heading his way.

Basically I'd rather he spent his money on getting legal, than paying fines.

Anyone got an issue with that?

Donuts out.

[Owl]

Basically I'd rather he spent his money on getting legal, than paying fines.

Anyone got an issue with that?

That seems more than fair!:yes:

[rastuscat]

Just checked. He already has a new WoF. He got it the day after I stopped him. Now just the reg and licence to sort.

Cool.

Donuts.

[Owl]

Cool.

The WoF or the donuts?:confused:

[rastuscat]

Cool donuts aren't my favourite. Always better heated.

[StoneY]

Cool donuts aren't my favourite. Always better heated.

Not if theyre a cream donut........:facepalm:

[Gremlin]

Basically I'd rather he spent his money on getting legal, than paying fines.

Anyone got an issue with that?
:blink: If I said I loved that attitude, would I be re-inforcing the Honda stereotype? :shutup:

[Patrick]

No reg, no wof, no licence. No awareness of a bike cop when riding aggressively through traffic. He obviously doesn't give a shit about any rules, I don't know why you'd want to give him the benefit.

Yeah... all that quota and revenue collecting lost forever, what was he thinking... :angry2::mad::innocent:


Forgot to mention. I will be checking online in a couple of weeks to see that he has updated his reg, WoF and licence. If he hasn't he has a zillion dollars in fines heading his way.

Basically I'd rather he spent his money on getting legal, than paying fines.

Anyone got an issue with that?

Donuts out.

As you were... :shutup::yes:

[ducatilover]

How many people have received these pamphlets?

[StoneY]

How many people have received these pamphlets?

Ive had 2 mate
One from mr Plod and one with the handouts at a recent charity ride
:-)

[ducatilover]

Ive had 2 mate
One from mr Plod and one with the handouts at a recent charity ride
:-)

Cool, are they very good? I'm interested, but, I've been riding like a nana through all my favourite back roads everywhere getting used to the new toy so have rarely seen any Police :yes:

[98tls]

Got pulled over today on my way down to the bike shop,all legal except i forgot to put my wallet in my pocket so no licence,told him i would shoot back home and grab it but after doing a check on the radio sent me on my way with a friendly "remember to grab ya wallet".Fair enough.

[Edbear]

Got pulled over today on my way down to the bike shop,all legal except i forgot to put my wallet in my pocket so no licence,told him i would shoot back home and grab it but after doing a check on the radio sent me on my way with a friendly "remember to grab ya wallet".Fair enough.

And your whole day wasn't ruined and you didn't blow a fuse and you don't hate him for pulling you over...? :gob: Are you sure you're a bonafide KB'r..? :blink:

[scumdog]

Got pulled over today on my way down to the bike shop,all legal except i forgot to put my wallet in my pocket so no licence,told him i would shoot back home and grab it but after doing a check on the radio sent me on my way with a friendly "remember to grab ya wallet".Fair enough.

Fuck up Mike - you'll be giving cops a good name....;)

[98tls]

And your whole day wasn't ruined and you didn't blow a fuse and you don't hate him for pulling you over...? :gob: Are you sure you're a bonafide KB'r..? :blink:

:facepalm:Fuck it,let the side down eh:shit:

[rastuscat]

Yeah, for gods sake, what were you thinking?

Find something to complain about.

Donuts.

225659

[98tls]

Fuck up Mike - you'll be giving cops a good name....;)

Yea sorry T wasnt thinking.:facepalm:

[StoneY]

Yea sorry T wasnt thinking.:facepalm:

Does anyone on KB?
:innocent:

[Bonez]

I think I've missed the crackdown. What am I doing wrong? Used the bike every day for the last month. Absolutely shocking.

[Gremlin]

I rode all the way down to Wellington and back a couple of weeks ago. Then I rode all the way back the same day, and I STILL couldn't find them.

ok... so I did some work in between the trips

[ducatilover]

I think I've missed the crackdown. What am I doing wrong? Used the bike every day for the last month. Absolutely shocking.


I rode all the way down to Wellington and back a couple of weeks ago. Then I rode all the way back the same day, and I STILL couldn't find them.

ok... so I did some work in between the trips

There's bugger all around! Can't see all the fuss. I've been extra careful lately and have not seen many, all the ones I see don't even notice me.

[tri boy]

Waikato highway patrol blocked off the new Te Awa shopping precinct a few days ago, (right on peak time, hundreds of cars/shoppers) to do "road safety awareness" checks.
Can't remeber when their was a high speed fatality at a shopping centre last?
Fucking cockcroaches.

[scumdog]

Yup, rode all over the place on two different bikes over the last month or two and never got stopped - or saw a 'motorbike targetting' checkpoint.

"The paranioa is strong in you"

[bogan]

yeh seems odd to do some press releases, then do bugger all checkpoints. Guess it was more of a media campaign than a revenue gathering or safety one.


Waikato highway patrol blocked off the new Te Awa shopping precinct a few days ago, (right on peak time, hundreds of cars/shoppers) to do "road safety awareness" checks.
Can't remeber when their was a high speed fatality at a shopping centre last?
Fucking cockcroaches.

Ahh, they may not have high speed fatalities, but do they have donuts?

[MSTRS]

Ahh, they may not have high speed fatalities, but do they have donuts?

Aren't donuts limited to intersections? Usually in suburbia?

[bogan]

Aren't donuts limited to intersections? Usually in suburbia?

depends how well lit the shopping center's car parks are :shifty:

[tri boy]

Yup, rode all over the place on two different bikes over the last month or two and never got stopped - or saw a 'motorbike targetting' checkpoint.

"The paranioa is strong in you"

But you live in a one horse town/area.
Nobody is coming to target such an area. Be like trying to shoot carp/gold fish with a slug gun in a masive lake.
Better they use explosive tactics in built up aquariums.
They, (the head sherrif, and his/her bum lickers, are as corrupt as any gang in NZ) MHO.
Genuine rozzas are buried under the trotters of the heavy feeders at the trough.

[scumdog]

But you live in a one horse town/area.
Nobody is coming to target such an area. Be like trying to shoot carp/gold fish with a slug gun in a masive lake.
Better they use explosive tactics in built up aquariums.
They, (the head sherrif, and his/her bum lickers, are as corrupt as any gang in NZ) MHO.
Genuine rozzas are buried under the trotters of the heavy feeders at the trough.

Ah, your choice to live up in the fancy vibrant go-ahead and exciting 'norf' aquarium!

One horse towns have their advantages it seems...:whistle:

[MIXONE]

Ah, your choice to live up in the fancy vibrant go-ahead and exciting 'norf' aquarium!

One horse towns have their advantages it seems...:whistle:

Except when you have to line up to ride the horse.Bloody peak hour.:shit: