Safer journeys document - safer for motorcyclists - or not? Thoughts please

[Tricia1000]

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/Safer%20Journeys%20First%20Actions.pdf

Interesting proposals towards making riders and drivers safer.
Page 5 is dedicated to motorcyclists.
What do you think of the changes - good and bad!

[Paul in NZ]

Waste of time...

Licensing mopeds? eh? If they mean getting rid of the 'can be ridden on a car license' thing then that will just kill the sales (which is in itself mabe not so bad) but they would be better off introducing a basic wof std.

Compulsary rider training? Who for? Some rider training is OK i suppose but I've seen shit loads of riders who have done all the training getting into accidents because they seem to think its somr kind of armour plating or something? (for what its worth I dont blame the training as such). (no I'm not giving examples as some have been fatalities or serious injury). I'm not convinced training is all the answer (other than the answer to un employment for the trainers)

Power to weight? Will result in many sales of HD 883 sportsters... All of which will get 1200 kits plus....

I dunno - didnt see much there to excite me...

[Pixie]

When I see them addressing road construction issues, such as cheap low temperature emulsion bitumen that lasts 4 weeks before it flushes to a polished finish and killer barriers,I will believe it is more than just lip service.

I contacted NZTA design office and the drone there told me Safer Journeys will have absolutely no effect on their choice of barrier design,despite it containing sections on unsafe roadside furniture.
He was quite pleased about it.

[Maha]

If rider training was directed at new riders or indeed become part of the licencing for learners , then surely that must be a positive yes?

[Paul in NZ]

If rider training was directed at new riders or indeed become part of the licencing for learners , then surely that must be a positive yes?

A trip through the crash ward or morgue would be better

[Maha]

A trip through the crash ward or morgue would be better

I have run a similar scenario passed my peers on another forum to no avail. Seems that most involved with motorcycles would rather not look straight in the face of the possible outcome of riding above one limits.

[James Deuce]

I have run a similar scenario passed my peers on another forum to no avail. Seems that most involved with motorcycles would rather not look straight in the face of the possible outcome of riding above one limits.

Or riding at all.

[Maha]

Or riding at all.

In some cases yes....
'A good rider has nothing to prove, a dead rider has even less''.
Mick Doohan advocates that ''The road is no place to race''.
Basically saying the same thing. The sooner that some riders wake up to that fact, the better.
The better for them , the better for anyone around them.

[James Deuce]

In some cases yes....
'A good rider has nothing to prove, a dead rider has even less''.
Mick Doohan advocates that ''The road is no place to race''.
Basically saying the same thing. The sooner that some riders wake up to that fact, the better.
The better for them , the better for anyone around them.

No you're missing the point. Prior to getting a 6L a visit to Burwood and ride in a rural ambulance during the first 2 weekends of December should give a person an idea if they're up for the consequences when it does go wrong.

You get hurt when things hit you. Many people still think it won't happen to them and anyone under 25 is absolutely 100% sure that it isn't going to happen to them.

The only place I've had high speed accidents is on the race track. Never got hurt apart from the bruising that goes with skipping across the surface of the tarmac.

Despite having road accidents at or under 100km/hr I've broken my neck and back in 4 places, my head, ruptured an ear drum, broken a wrist, broken 10 ribs, damaged my liver and a kidney and ruined an ankle. You cannot sit back revelling in the premise that, "I'm a good boy so I'll be all right".

You don the gear, you ride the bike, you get hurt when it goes wrong.

Understanding that is part of the joy of riding a bike.

[pritch]

Power to weight? Will result in many sales of HD 883 sportsters... All of which will get 1200 kits plus....

I think there is a proposed upper capacity limit less than 883?

Changing the cc limit to a power to weight formula doesn't strike me as achieving a whole lot. They are only copying what happens in (parts of?) Australia. Mind you it could have been worse, they might have gone with the Euro 125cc, 15bhp thing.

If moped riders are writing themselves off in droves I haven't read about it, but learning something about riding on two wheels might not be a bad thing for prospective buyers. Always assuming there would actually be some useful information in the study material, by no means a given.

I was interested to note that it is a definite proposal to introduce a power to weight rule for bikes but a power to weight rule for cars is only to be investigated.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the latter to be introduced. Although if that meant that people had to get their kids trained professionally instead of doing it themselves that would be a big plus.

[BMWST?]

and the motor cycle training is the only proposal to mention how it is to be funded

[dino3310]

and the motor cycle training is the only proposal to mention how it is to be funded

quote'
The NZTA and ACC will develop
an education programme. This can
be funded from motorcycle levies.

once again another increase.

i

[Paul in NZ]

quote'
The NZTA and ACC will develop
an education programme. This can
be funded from motorcycle levies.

once again another increase.

i

Shit! They will farm it out to the motorcycle hating AA - we are screwed...

[p.dath]

Licensing mopeds? eh? If they mean getting rid of the 'can be ridden on a car license' thing then that will just kill the sales (which is in itself mabe not so bad) but they would be better off introducing a basic wof std.

Yes, they are talking about bringing in a class 6M licence for those who want to ride Mopeds, but don't have a motorcycle licence.

There hasn't been much evidence (that I have seen) to suggest that a significant amount of Moped accidents have been caused through problems with the machine itself. Introducing a requirement for a WOF would add a lot of cost with little benefit.


Compulsary rider training? Who for? Some rider training is OK i suppose but I've seen shit loads of riders who have done all the training getting into accidents because they seem to think its somr kind of armour plating or something? (for what its worth I dont blame the training as such). (no I'm not giving examples as some have been fatalities or serious injury). I'm not convinced training is all the answer (other than the answer to un employment for the trainers)

I guess I have the exact opposite view of you - that well trained road users are less likely to have accidents. The head of the serious crash unit unit who recently retired said that 98% of accidents he investigated were due to driver error. 98%. I think training is the best way to reduce the number of errors that people make. A lot of errors only happen because the driver/rider doesn't know better. And I guess that is the crux - you don't know what you don't know - which is why training is needed.

Will training prevent you from having an accident? No. Is it more likely to help prevent you from making a mistake? Yes.

Training is not all about machine control. If people doing training have the attitude they are bullet proof then the training has failed to teach a very important aspect - risk and self-preservation. But this is a fault of the training itself, and not an indication we should abandon training.


Power to weight? Will result in many sales of HD 883 sportsters... All of which will get 1200 kits plus....


The proposal is a restriction of 150 kw/tonne and must be less than 660cc. Personally I proposed that the LTSA be given the power to administer a list of permissible bikes for learners, and use the above as a guideline for the LTSA. Legislation takes a long time to change and I fear new technology, like electric bikes, may render it less and less usefull.

[fossil]

[QUOTE=Tricia1000;1129942989]http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/Safer%20Journeys%20First%20Actions.pdf

Interesting proposals towards making riders and drivers safer.
Page 5 is dedicated to motorcyclists.
What do you think of the changes - good and bad![/QUO

There needs to be an improvement in the testing (or lack of) of rider skills required to get a license. Its about time something was done about being able to ride on the road without any practical test (moped). Get rid of the "killer" 70kmh rule, you are either capable of riding on the road or not. The test requirements should reflect the skills required to ride on the open road. Bring in 5 yearly license testing?

[Spearfish]

[QUOTE=Tricia1000;1129942989]http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/Safer%20Journeys%20First%20Actions.pdf

Interesting proposals towards making riders and drivers safer.
Page 5 is dedicated to motorcyclists.
What do you think of the changes - good and bad![/QUO

There needs to be an improvement in the testing (or lack of) of rider skills required to get a license. Its about time something was done about being able to ride on the road without any practical test (moped). Get rid of the "killer" 70kmh rule, you are either capable of riding on the road or not. The test requirements should reflect the skills required to ride on the open road. Bring in 5 yearly license testing?


Currently there is no difference between the skill of a moped rider and a 6L, neither is tested on road craft. If any serious changes are to be made then no rider should be on the road untill they are at the level of a competent 6R.
The L phase should be under professional supervision not winging it with the right of passage being, "well I survived".

[MSTRS]

Currently there is no difference between the skill of a moped rider and a 6L, ...

Yes there is.
As much of a joke as it is, a 6L must be preceded by a Basic Handling course.
A 1L doesn't require a road test first, but at least it does require a 6F to accompany.
A 1L on a moped is just let loose...and we all know that car 'road skills' do not translate to two wheels

[Ocean1]

Waste of time...

Consider: the purpose of the document is to demonstrate to the very loud and demanding unwashed that "yes, we are doing something about the problem".

As such it's part of the proven political routine: identify a change you wish to make, create a problem by rarking up the press/lobby groups, collect/fabricate data to support the action you wish to take, publish "discussion documents" so you can tick off the consultation requirements, create legislation that enacts the changes.

Any attempt at interpretation of any of the middle steps as anything in any way meaningful merely serves to identify someone who doesn't actually know he's being shafted.

[dino3310]

Any attempt at interpretation of any of the middle steps as anything in any way meaningful merely serves to identify someone who doesn't actually know he's being shafted.

theres 2/3rds of NZ:facepalm:

[Taz]

[QUOTE=James Deuce;1129943099]
Despite having road accidents at or under 100km/hr I've broken my neck and back in 4 places, my head, ruptured an ear drum, broken a wrist, broken 10 ribs, damaged my liver and a kidney and ruined an ankle. QUOTE]

Geez mate that's not a good record. How much of that was due to you out riding yourself or the conditions or just doing stupid shit?

[James Deuce]

Geez mate that's not a good record. How much of that was due to you out riding yourself or the conditions or just doing stupid shit?

As I said all of them were at or less than the speed limit minding my own business. Drink Driver, Truck Driver and Sheep.

[Spearfish]

Yes there is.
As much of a joke as it is, a 6L must be preceded by a Basic Handling course.
A 1L doesn't require a road test first, but at least it does require a 6F to accompany.
A 1L on a moped is just let loose...and we all know that car 'road skills' do not translate to two wheels

A 1L on a moped doesn't even have car road skills to try and translate to two.
The difference maybe the power to weight ratio between a legal moped and the current CC only limit for a 6L.

[Taz]

As I said all of them were at or less than the speed limit minding my own business. Drink Driver, Truck Driver and Sheep.

Damn that's bad luck. :shit: Makes me feel real lucky that over the last 25 years I've only had 1 minor injury riding on the road. Had a few more from off road/ motoX but only one major injury to my ankle.

[James Deuce]

Damn that's bad luck. :shit: Makes me feel real lucky that over the last 25 years I've only had 1 minor injury riding on the road. Had a few more from off road/ motoX but only one major injury to my ankle.

That's not bad luck, that tends to point to me being a little less skilled than I need to be.

[p.dath]

Get rid of the "killer" 70kmh rule, you are either capable of riding on the road or not. The test requirements should reflect the skills required to ride on the open road.

They have proposed the removal of the 70km/h restriction. It just isn't in that particular document.


Consider: the purpose of the document is to demonstrate to the very loud and demanding unwashed that "yes, we are doing something about the problem".

As such it's part of the proven political routine: identify a change you wish to make, create a problem by rarking up the press/lobby groups, collect/fabricate data to support the action you wish to take, publish "discussion documents" so you can tick off the consultation requirements, create legislation that enacts the changes.

I guess my view is not as pessimistic as yours - or you perhaps you might regard me as already brainwashed - because I do regard there as being room to improve, and don't think that a problem has been manufactured.

A large chunk of accidents and fatalities occur in young drivers who have had their full licence less than 2 years. I do regard that as a problem. Something that can be improved. Doing nothing while watching others get hurt and killed is not acceptable.


If everyone adopted your view than I guess you'd have to say that this correctable issue should be left as is, and accept the continual death of these road users as acceptable.

[Ocean1]

A large chunk of accidents and fatalities occur in young drivers who have had their full licence less than 2 years. I do regard that as a problem. Something that can be improved. Doing nothing while watching others get hurt and killed is not acceptable.

*Shrugs* If you think it’s a problem then you’ll be disappointed with the document in question because nothing in there is going to fix it. Two things that would improve the learner attrition situation: First, dismantle the various compliance barriers to the building of motorsport venues. Don’t just give ‘em money for a “skid pad”, but supply minimal funding to allow people to build tracks capable of generating self-sustaining revenue. All sorts of tracks. Hand out training accreditation to the ones that can establish and maintain competent learning facilities. Get the polytechs involved perhaps. Tie unit standards of riding skills to licence provisions and don’t give ‘em licences until they’ve proved they can ride.




If everyone adopted your view than I guess you'd have to say that this correctable issue should be left as is, and accept the continual death of these road users as acceptable.

You misunderstand me. Beyond the above I don't believe the issue is correctable. Certainly not short of far more significant changes than those being considered currently.

The ongoing clamour from the general public to "fix it" is based on the misapprehension that there's a serious problem. I'm an old fucker, I've seen the injuries and fatalities per mile travelled plummet over the years. In fact the overall fatalities p/a have dropped in spite of ballooning traffic density and travel times. Significant improvements have, without exception corresponded with the introduction of engineering solutions. I've never seen policy or enforcement changes have any effect whatsoever. Ever. So, given these historical improvements, is there a problem? Depends on how many injuries per mile travelled you consider OK.

As for acceptable… if you assume that, given the likely budget there’s little improvement likely then you don’t really have much choice but to accept it, do you?

[scumdog]

The ongoing clamour from the general public to "fix it" is based on the misapprehension that there's a serious problem. I'm an old fucker, I've seen the injuries and fatalities per mile travelled plummet over the years. In fact the overall fatalities p/a have dropped in spite of ballooning traffic density and travel times. Significant improvements have, without exception corresponded with the introduction of engineering solutions. I've never seen policy or enforcement changes have any effect whatsoever. Ever. So, given these historical improvements, is there a problem? Depends on how many injuries per mile travelled you consider OK.


As for acceptable… if you assume that, given the likely budget there’s little improvement likely then you don’t really have much choice but to accept it, do you?

IMHO: Most Kiwis appear to think the present injuries/deaths per mile are OK - or even too low when you consider their driving style and attitude.

And to measure the effect or lack off effect of a policy or enforecement change you would have to halt it for at least five years and try and notice any difference...and hopefully nothing else that could influence the result comes into play during that time.


As an aside: In NZ we're pretty good at killing ourselves despite car manufacturers making the safer - I wonder what it would be like at present if everybody drove around in FC Holdens and Ford Prefects instead of what we have at present???:blink:

[MSTRS]

- I wonder what it would be like at present if everybody drove around in FC Holdens and Ford Prefects instead of what we have at present???:blink:

They'd have to drop the open road limit - to make it achieveable...

[Ocean1]

And to measure the effect or lack off effect of a policy or enforecement change you would have to halt it for at least five years and try and notice any difference...and hopefully nothing else that could influence the result comes into play during that time.

Significant improvement, I said. If you look you can see the numbers drop in proportion to the national fleets uptake of vehicles with seat belts, air bags, side impact beams, abs, etc. Real differences. Can you point to a specific policy or enforcement change that resulted in those sort of dramatic improvements?




As an aside: In NZ we're pretty good at killing ourselves despite car manufacturers making the safer

Compared to who? I thought our numbers were pretty much on par with every other comparable country.


I wonder what it would be like at present if everybody drove around in FC Holdens and Ford Prefects instead of what we have at present???:blink:


Far worse than it was when those wagons were current. We’re spending far more time on the road and there’s far more shit to hit.

[pritch]

IMHO: Most Kiwis appear to think the present injuries/deaths per mile are OK - or even too low when you consider their driving style and attitude.


British Police say that research shows that a driver who has been at fault in a given type of accident is statistically more likely to have a similar accident in the near future. The reason being that they all consider themselves good drivers and make no attempt to improve their skills or knowledge and just continue with their bad habits.

I think it was a recent BIKE contained the comment that, unlike car drivers, most bike riders try to improve their skills. There is evidence of that in many KB threads. Not all of the skills may be socially acceptable, and there are the exceptions who appear to be striving to attain a higher level of incomprehension.
On balance though I think the comment is valid and that is one of the main differences between car drivers and bike riders.

Of course politicians wouldn't be interested in any of that because they are all good drivers. :whistle:

[p.dath]

*Shrugs* If you think it’s a problem then you’ll be disappointed with the document in question because nothing in there is going to fix it. Two things that would improve the learner attrition situation: First, dismantle the various compliance barriers to the building of motorsport venues. Don’t just give ‘em money for a “skid pad”, but supply minimal funding to allow people to build tracks capable of generating self-sustaining revenue. All sorts of tracks. Hand out training accreditation to the ones that can establish and maintain competent learning facilities. Get the polytechs involved perhaps. Tie unit standards of riding skills to licence provisions and don’t give ‘em licences until they’ve proved they can ride.


Safer Journeys, which I did make a submission on, wasn't really concerned with driver licensing or training specifically. Which is why there isn't much about that issue.
As a result, I am not disappointed with the document. Many of the conclusions mirror the submission I made on the issue.

At the moment I am also participating in a discussion paper that is solely about driver licensing.

FYI, when I first started the commenting on the discussion paper I asked what is a good road user. To me, to be able to produce better road users you first have to decide what is a good road user (I use that term, because I find, personally, the qualities are the same for a driver/rider/cyclist/pedestrian, etc).
Attached is what I came up with for what I personally consider to be a good road user.

[sunhuntin]

one thing they should do is bring in class 6 specific "scratchy" tests. when i did mine, i got questioned the speed limit to tow a trailer and others not relative to biking. they should have questions like how wide anything you carry can be etc.

[Spearfish]

Safer Journeys, which I did make a submission on, wasn't really concerned with driver licensing or training specifically. Which is why there isn't much about that issue.
As a result, I am not disappointed with the document. Many of the conclusions mirror the submission I made on the issue.

At the moment I am also participating in a discussion paper that is solely about driver licensing.



Your standards are high but not insurmountable.

[Ocean1]

Attached is what I came up with for what I personally consider to be a good road user.

Yes. Very nice. Reads a bit like a job description but there's some thought gone into it.

Couple of things. First, all that shit's qualitative, you can't apply numbers to it. If you don't got numbers then all you've got is an opinion. If you tried to asses my road user skills using that I'd tie you up in knots. If you need to decide who gets to use the road then you need quantitave measurements and while I could generate a quantative measuring tool there's currently no way to administer it. Hence my reference to off-piste training facilities and the introduction of unit standards to licencing systems.

Second, (and I think Pritch aluded to it), most mororcyclists see their means of transport as a lifestyle choice, not simply a means of getting from A to B. That means they're more likely to seek improvement in the skills that make that choice attractive to them. So it's usually comparitively easy to teach bikers, most of them want to learn. What you can't do is change anyone's core behaviour, and that includes their particular internal risk aversion policies. I's like trying to change the length of an arm, painful and pointless. So trying to legislate for or against certain behaviours is simply not going to achieve anything.

Now, if you could take the frustrations of having sat in a line of traffic for half an hour to a track of an evening...

[p.dath]

Couple of things. First, all that shit's qualitative, you can't apply numbers to it. If you don't got numbers then all you've got is an opinion. If you tried to asses my road user skills using that I'd tie you up in knots. If you need to decide who gets to use the road then you need quantitave measurements and while I could generate a quantative measuring tool there's currently no way to administer it. Hence my reference to off-piste training facilities and the introduction of unit standards to licencing systems.

I guess some context has gotten lost in presenting it on its own. Currently our licensing system is a pass/fail scenario. You have a licence or you don't.

I'd like the licensing system to be changed to a graduated scale - say like a trade. So when you first get your licence you might be the equivalent of an apprentice (this would be the same as our current full licence). Then if you *choose*, you can do the next level up, say the equivalent of a tradesman. Then if you *choose* you can do the next level up, a master tradesman. etc. You get the point.

The idea is to create a licensing system when you encourage people to voluntarily improve their skills, and recognising those skills with a "higher" qualification. I oppose forcing people to do something - but creating an environment where they want to self improve is great.

I also expect industries like insurance would reward higher qualified road users, and companies employing professional drivers/riders would prefer those with higher qualifications, etc.

I also want a system where drivers can reasonably asses how "good" they are. The vast number of road users think they are "good". But by having something to formally recognise this they may be able to more reasonably asses their actual skills. Hopefully someone of "apprentice" level can see what is required to get to "master" level, recognise they don't have that skill set yet, and realise how much they need to do to improve.

Some of the things I want a driver to have, especially the ethical qualities, are ones that I have proposed be started when children are around 12 and done via social media, competitions, games, etc.

Many of the other qualities can be established though psychometric testing - and are completely measurable. You just wont be able to use a scratchy any more ...

And you don't have to possess all these qualities to become an apprentice - you you need to develop all of these areas to become a master. The ideas in the PDF are more a life long training target for a road user, and a single point in time "test". Consider it something for a road user to aspire too.


Does it make more sense now in this context? I'm not talking about making a small change to the system, but a complete change in thinking about driver licensing. And I'm proposing training for life, not just when you turn 15.


Second, (and I think Pritch aluded to it), most mororcyclists see their means of transport as a lifestyle choice, not simply a means of getting from A to B. That means they're more likely to seek improvement in the skills that make that choice attractive to them. So it's usually comparitively easy to teach bikers, most of them want to learn. What you can't do is change anyone's core behaviour, and that includes their particular internal risk aversion policies. I's like trying to change the length of an arm, painful and pointless. So trying to legislate for or against certain behaviours is simply not going to achieve anything.


I think we can change core behaviour - but it needs to start early in life by embedding the ethics of being a good road user - and there needs to be a series of achievements to recognise how "good" they are (and that's an important bit - you need to recognise peoples improvements and strengths - and not their failures like the court or Police do).

[Spearfish]

I think we can change core behaviour - but it needs to start early in life by embedding the ethics of being a good road user - and there needs to be a series of achievements to recognise how "good" they are (and that's an important bit - you need to recognise peoples improvements and strengths - and not their failures like the court or Police do).

Changing core behaviour is probably the hardest part, a new rider has to be confident enough in themselves to to not be drawn into the "Rebel without an agenda" riders club that feature so prominently in the crash stats currently.(and to our shame, on TV)
Lack of formal training could be the reason why so many bikers find it hard to be "policed" as sadly the police are probably the first person to have ever pointed out a riders faults with the rider taking the view of how dare they I've done it all on my own so far and survived so what the fork do they know.
Also without good training many new riders get a bike, pass a simple test, hit the road, have a major scare then cant overcome the butterfly's in their guts and sell their bike after a year of it sitting in the garage (not that they would ever admit it) but then after seeing how some riders seem to become hyper before a ride it goes way further that just learners, probably an association from their learning days.

[baptist]

I'd like the licensing system to be changed to a graduated scale - say like a trade. So when you first get your licence you might be the equivalent of an apprentice (this would be the same as our current full licence). Then if you *choose*, you can do the next level up, say the equivalent of a tradesman. Then if you *choose* you can do the next level up, a master tradesman. etc. You get the point.

The idea is to create a licensing system when you encourage people to voluntarily improve their skills, and recognising those skills with a "higher" qualification. I oppose forcing people to do something - but creating an environment where they want to self improve is great.

I also expect industries like insurance would reward higher qualified road users, and companies employing professional drivers/riders would prefer those with higher qualifications, etc.



Wouldn't it be so much better with that type of system:yes:... has the government got the balls to push it through though :no: as most cage drivers think they are as good as they need to be, it seems to be hard enough to get them to use their mirrors:facepalm:

I guess we have to wait and see but I hope something like this is eventually accepted... hopefully insurance companies (and ACC) will reward a graduated system.

Personally I think upskilling should be a life long process, we all have so much to learn (maybe my teaching background coming through)


Changing core behaviour is probably the hardest part, a new rider has to be confident enough in themselves to to not be drawn into the "Rebel without an agenda" riders club that feature so prominently in the crash stats currently.(and to our shame, on TV) So true
Lack of formal training could be the reason why so many bikers find it hard to be "policed" as sadly the police are probably the first person to have ever pointed out a riders faults with the rider taking the view of how dare they I've done it all on my own so far and survived so what the fork do they know. You coiuld be right, personally I think it is more to do with general attitudes in many cases, this can be from peers, family or from previous experiences with police who need to learn people skills
Also without good training many new riders get a bike, pass a simple test, hit the road, have a major scare then cant overcome the butterfly's in their guts that was a concern I had so I went through a riders skill training ride before I went out on my own and sell their bike after a year of it sitting in the garage (not that they would ever admit it) but then after seeing how some riders seem to become hyper before a ride it goes way further that just learners, probably an association from their learning days.

[Ocean1]

Consider it something for a road user to aspire too.
To be honest, it sounds like something I’d go a long way to avoid...


I think we can change core behaviour - but it needs to start early in life by embedding the ethics of being a good road user

...because it’ got a distinct smell of animal farm about it.

Not to put too fine a point on it nobody’s got the right to tell me or any other adult what does and what doesn’t constitute ethical behaviour. It is not a basis upon which I would accept decisions be made regarding who should be allowed what access to our roads.

If I seem a tad touchy about people espousing specific behaviour I personally need to adopt it might be because I’m fookin’ sick of it. I’m particularly sick of government related interests telling me to be a good boy and save them money, because when it comes to backing up their policy changes they wouldn’t know shit from clay. We’ve been fed doctored data relating to government expenditure issues for so long now I don’t think anyone could find enough incorrupt data on which to base a genuine attempt at rational policy. It’s like a great steaming pile of idealistically tweaked dross trailing back decades and it reeks.

So how ‘bout instead blaming road users behaviour and cobbling up yet another idealistically driven piece of social engineering we use the road safety budget to make the roads safer? Let’s start with a search and destroy mission on the particular corner of that reeking pile of bullshit that is the justification for wire rope barriers’ with a view to destroying it’s credibility and forcing a roll-back eh? That orta account for next year’s budget too.

[p.dath]

To be honest, it sounds like something I’d go a long way to avoid...

And you could. I did say it would be voluntarily, and I oppose a system that forced people to do anything more than basic training. I will insist on drivers/rider having a basic level of training before getting a licence though.


So how ‘bout instead blaming road users behaviour and cobbling up yet another idealistically driven piece of social engineering we use the road safety budget to make the roads safer?

Because something like 98% of all incidents are due to driver error. Applying a lot of effort to the roading network will only have a small affect. Improving driver/rider training will have a big impact.


Let’s start with a search and destroy mission on the particular corner

Are you famailiar with KiwiRap? This has already been done.
http://www.kiwirap.co.nz/

[Katman]

So how ‘bout instead blaming road users behaviour and cobbling up yet another idealistically driven piece of social engineering we use the road safety budget to make the roads safer? Let’s start with a search and destroy mission on the particular corner of that reeking pile of bullshit that is the justification for wire rope barriers’ with a view to destroying it’s credibility and forcing a roll-back eh? That orta account for next year’s budget too.

Seriously, you're starting to sound ridiculous.

The day that the condition of our roads overtakes the appaling attitudes that New Zealanders drive/ride with as the number one causes of accidents then maybe your idea would have some merit.

We are a long, long way from that being the case.

[Tink]

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Documents/Safer%20Journeys%20First%20Actions.pdf

Interesting proposals towards making riders and drivers safer.
Page 5 is dedicated to motorcyclists.
What do you think of the changes - good and bad!


If rider training was directed at new riders or indeed become part of the licencing for learners , then surely that must be a positive yes?

I definitely have said this before, make cars for new drivers with less power a standard no modifications allowed, impound, crush cars if they abuse the roads. A car is a weapon, and if they choose to abuse it they should pay the price.

I have no rider training, I watch, I listen and I remember what riders who have experienced riding in all weathers, and conditions, and how they have come off, what they should have done, or what could be done, so far I have ridden in limited visibility weather, bad wind, gravel, and I will face all of this, I have come off and been lucky. I would like to see idiots that are inexperienced sit thru the australian tv ad recently out by the govt over there, and see what they then say. I have self preservation, I go over a hill or around a bend expecting a car doing 70km in front of me.

But I am old!!!! lol:scooter: and thats why I am on this site..... to listen to older more experienced people!

[Ocean1]

And you could. I did say it would be voluntarily, and I oppose a system that forced people to do anything more than basic training. I will insist on drivers/rider having a basic level of training before getting a licence though.

My main issue here is the cost, why not offset that against revenue from govt assisted recreational facilities? You’d turn up for a bit of fun and have the opportunity to gain points towards a unit standard.



Because something like 98% of all incidents are due to driver error. Applying a lot of effort to the roading network will only have a small affect. Improving driver/rider training will have a big impact.

What, 2% of incidents don’t involve drivers?

I’m not saying driver error doesn’t exist, I’m saying that short of excluding drivers with high error levels from the road there’s fuck all you can do about it. If you culled the worst 10% from the road you mighty well see an improvement of 30%. But it’s politically not do-able.


Are you famailiar with KiwiRap? This has already been done.

“Automobile Association and New Zealand government agencies: NZ Transport Agency, Ministry of Transport, Accident Compensation Corporation, and New Zealand Police.”

I’m already familiar with the relevant policies from this lot. That reeking pile of bullshit I mentioned? they’re all guilty of having contributed to it, I wouldn’t believe a word they said. What’s more, where, amongst their policies can you show me a commitment to dismantle or modify wire rope barriers?




The day that the condition of our roads overtakes the appaling attitudes that New Zealanders drive/ride with as the number one causes of accidents then maybe your idea would have some merit.

We are a long, long way from that being the case.


Your assessment of the attitudes in question says a great deal more about your own than those of the average kiwi. How about you concentrate on yours eh? And let everyone else mind their own business too.

[MSTRS]

Your assessment of the attitudes in question says a great deal more about your own than those of the average kiwi. How about you concentrate on yours eh? And let everyone else mind their own business too.

Live and let them kill themselves and others, huh?

TPTB have done a great job (for the most part) in brainwashing the braindead (average Kiwi) into believing speed is BAD. The message is delivered via simple repetition of "Don't speed or you will die".
Katman employs the exact same strategy - but his message is to modify the attitude to road use. That covers more than just speed, and history tells us that if he continues, eventually people will hear it enough to question themselves as far as their attitudes go - and moderate them. Much more useful for road safety.

[Tricia1000]

Here is an example of healthy debate. Keep it going..I am enjoying the different view points.

[Ocean1]

.

Live and let them kill themselves and others, huh?


Themselves? Who's fucking life is it?

Others? Have the same choice you do. If you don't like the fact that once in every million or so times you get into a vehicle you'll be involved in a serious accident then I suggest you don't do it.

If your exposure to the various political machinations of the past few years leaves you feeling desperate to “do something about it” then I suggest that you start by defining how much you’d be prepared to pay to change it. And then, (without reference to politically doctored data) define where the best place to spend that might be.

Don’t forget to ask those who’ll be paying the bill if it’s OK eh?



Katman employs the exact same strategy -


I know what he's doing. It might work in the short term for quantifiable variables with punitive consequences but it won't for an ill thought out message from someone with no political ability, no communications skills and questionable antecedents. Also, (even if one needs electronic help) he's way easy to ignore.

[p.dath]

Katman employs the exact same strategy - but his message is to modify the attitude to road use. That covers more than just speed, and history tells us that if he continues, eventually people will hear it enough to question themselves as far as their attitudes go - and moderate them. Much more useful for road safety.

+1. I support this view of Katman.

I accept that the road is a static non-moving object and is not dangerous on its own. I accept a machine is just a machine and is not dangerous on its own. Both of them represent little risk. It's not until you add a human that a sudden element of danger is added, and that it is us humans who need to regard ourselves at fault when something goes wrong, as opposed to the tools we are using - the road and a machine. Roads and machines do not cause incidents in the vast majority of cases.


But (and I'm not sure if Katman holds this view as well or not), I accept that no matter how well trained our road users are, they are still going to make errors of judgement. And for that reason, we need to improve our roads with a view of making them more forgiving of human error.

[MSTRS]

Themselves? Who's fucking life is it?

Others? Have the same choice you do. If you don't like the fact that once in every million or so times you get into a vehicle you'll be involved in a serious accident then I suggest you don't do it.

I don't give a toss if someone takes themself out through their own stupidity, But I do have a big problem with the idea that others are often killed by people who just don't care enough to be sensible on the roads.


I know what he's doing. It might work in the short term for quantifiable variables with punitive consequences but it won't for an ill thought out message from someone with no political ability, no communications skills and questionable antecedents. Also, (even if one needs electronic help) he's way easy to ignore.

The bullet-proof culture that was rife here on KB, not that long ago, is not as evident as it once was, and a huge number of those that shouted dear Steve down now agree and support his admittedly sometimes distasteful, fumbling efforts.

[Ocean1]

I don't give a toss if someone takes themself out through their own stupidity, But I do have a big problem with the idea that others are often killed by people who just don't care enough to be sensible on the roads.


Either you've got a differnt idea of what constitutes "often" than most people or you've bought into the propaganda that there's a huge problem with fatalities on our roads.

Gwarn, have a stab at the number of hours driving needed before someone karks it.


And I'm moderately sure you've got no idea whatsoever how much any given driver cares about their fellow drivers.

[scumdog]

I don't give a toss if someone takes themself out through their own stupidity, But I do have a big problem with the idea that others are often killed by people who just don't care enough to be sensible on the roads.


The bullet-proof culture that was rife here on KB, not that long ago, is not as evident as it once was, and a huge number of those that shouted dear Steve down now agree and support his admittedly sometimes distasteful, fumbling efforts.

Like what happend today @ Coromandel eh...

[Spearfish]

How do you make a road safe for those who don't like or want safe?
Mention "keep it on the track" and see the responses from that.
How far does it have to go before a road is safe?
Farmers have had seven strand post and batten cheese cutters for as long as NZ has been NZ.

[Smifffy]

http://www.dogandlemon.com/article/a-comedy-of-errors

[Spearfish]

http://www.dogandlemon.com/article/a-comedy-of-errors

Interesting read, seems the only thing that will stop people being reckless/careless is the fear of getting caught.

[Smifffy]

Interesting read, seems the only thing that will stop people being reckless/careless is the fear of getting caught.

My take was that the best way to improve safety was to improve the design of the roads, barriers etc, and add safety features to vehicles such as airbags and ABS etc. Getting rid of sharp edges also helped.

A sign saying "drive carefully" doesn't do much.

[p.dath]

How do you make a road safe for those who don't like or want safe?

If you are telling me we have road users who don't like safe roads then I think I have a personal problem with those road users. That means they want unsafe roads, which can only promote greater injuries for everyone else. That is not the kind of attitude I want instilled in road users - they are going to hurt you and me.


How far does it have to go before a road is safe

Lets clear up one fallacy straight away - a road will never be safe. It's primary the driver/rider that represents the danger, and not the a non-moving static piece of surface they choose to use. However we can make a road more forgiving of human error, and that is what the KiwiRap program was about.
http://www.kiwirap.co.nz/

[Berries]

Lets clear up one fallacy straight away - a road will never be unsafe.
Corrected that for you. There is no such thing as an unsafe road, just road users using it in an unsafe manner.

[MSTRS]

Either you've got a differnt idea of what constitutes "often" than most people or you've bought into the propaganda that there's a huge problem with fatalities on our roads.

Gwarn, have a stab at the number of hours driving needed before someone karks it.


And I'm moderately sure you've got no idea whatsoever how much any given driver cares about their fellow drivers.

I don't buy into the propaganda...but I can figure out that if 2 vehicles have a headon, chances are that one of them wasn't being controlled with due care and attention, and those in the other vehicle also pay the price.
The collective kilometres travelled per road death is also immeasureable, but it also has to be highly variable from one day to the next - we can go weeks without a fatality and then have 10 in a single day (and not necessarily in a single prang either).
'Observed behaviour' can go a long way in determining motorists' attitude to operating a vehicle. Indeed, attitude and behaviour after an incident they've caused can be very telling. Of course, most are simply unthinking - no 'malice' as such - but if they cared more, they'd maybe be a bit smarter in how they drive.


Like what happend today @ Coromandel eh...

Yeah. Bad memories...

[Katman]

Either you've got a differnt idea of what constitutes "often" than most people or you've bought into the propaganda that there's a huge problem with fatalities on our roads.

Gwarn, have a stab at the number of hours driving needed before someone karks it.

I'm sure that's of great comfort to the families of the innocent victims of fuckwits on our roads.


And I'm moderately sure you've got no idea whatsoever how much any given driver cares about their fellow drivers.

Society has increasingly become one whereby we don't seem to give a fuck about how our actions impact upon others. If that's an ideal that sits happily with you then it speaks volumes about yourself.

[BMWST?]

To be honest, it sounds like something I’d go a long way to avoid...



...because it’ got a distinct smell of animal farm about it.

Not to put too fine a point on it nobody’s got the right to tell me or any other adult what does and what doesn’t constitute ethical behaviour. It is not a basis upon which I would accept decisions be made regarding who should be allowed what access to our roads.

If I seem a tad touchy about people espousing specific behaviour I personally need to adopt it might be because I’m fookin’ sick of it. I’m particularly sick of government related interests telling me to be a good boy and save them money, because when it comes to backing up their policy changes they wouldn’t know shit from clay. We’ve been fed doctored data relating to government expenditure issues for so long now I don’t think anyone could find enough incorrupt data on which to base a genuine attempt at rational policy. It’s like a great steaming pile of idealistically tweaked dross trailing back decades and it reeks.

So how ‘bout instead blaming road users behaviour and cobbling up yet another idealistically driven piece of social engineering we use the road safety budget to make the roads safer? Let’s start with a search and destroy mission on the particular corner of that reeking pile of bullshit that is the justification for wire rope barriers’ with a view to destroying it’s credibility and forcing a roll-back eh? That orta account for next year’s budget too.

i dont agree our core behaviour(the royal our) has been changed re speeding and drink driving .The general attitude/behaviour HAS changed in those regards albeit a slow change

[Ocean1]

The collective kilometres travelled per road death is also immeasureable, but it also has to be highly variable from one day to the next - we can go weeks without a fatality

Ministry for the Environment: “In 2007, the total distance travelled on New Zealand roads by all types of vehicle was 40.2 billion kilometres. This equals travelling from the Earth to the Sun and back 135 times.”

NZTA: “Road deaths, year from Jan 1 2010: 329”

You get to travel, on average, 12 million, two hundred and eighteen thousand, eight hundred and forty four point nine eight kilometres to parity.

Didn’t try very hard, did you?


I don't buy into the propaganda...but I can figure out that if 2 vehicles have a headon, chances are that one of them wasn't being controlled with due care and attention, and those in the other vehicle also pay the price.

Wanna try to work out how many milliseconds of careful attentive behavior is required by two separate parties to avoid the driver error part of that statistic?
I’m all arithmeticed out, but that sounds like whole bunch of due care and attention to me.


'Observed behaviour' can go a long way in determining motorists' attitude to operating a vehicle. Indeed, attitude and behaviour after an incident they've caused can be very telling. Of course, most are simply unthinking - no 'malice' as such - but if they cared more, they'd maybe be a bit smarter in how they drive.

Pure snake oil. Either put numbers on it or try selling it at the circus.


I'm sure that's of great comfort to the families of the innocent victims of fuckwits on our roads.

You mean the ones, presumably, with loved ones still alive and using the road? I should think it would be.


Society has increasingly become one whereby we don't seem to give a fuck about how our actions impact upon others. If that's an ideal that sits happily with you then it speaks volumes about yourself.

Yeah yeah, everyone’s a cunt except you. Society has simply become one that drives a shitload more than it used to. And in spite of that the road toll has dropped dramatically in the last couple of decades.

And yeah, I’ll take some small credit for that, cheers.


i dont agree our core behaviour(the royal our) has been changed re speeding and drink driving .The general attitude/behaviour HAS changed in those regards albeit a slow change

Yeah. Maybe less people call in to the pub of a Friday night and have a beer or two before going home than once did. But, as always, the real killers aren’t the ones that transgress slightly, and they’re in no shorter supply than they’ve ever been.

[MSTRS]

Yeah yeah - statistically I'm more likely to win lotto (if I buy a ticket).
I'm done 'discussing' shit with you...you've become quite obnoxious. Your posts don't seem to actually have a point, other than to waggle the finger of derision at those who actually have feelings and sensibilities re the standard of driving/riding that feeds the road toll.
Obviously the hairs on your arse have turned to fish-hooks...

[Ocean1]

...you've become quite obnoxious.

I blame decades of attempts at "managing" my behaviour by fucking near every political lobby group in the country. To a man they lie, like sausages in fat.


Your posts don't seem to actually have a point, other than to waggle the finger of derision at those who actually have feelings and sensibilities re the standard of driving/riding that feeds the road toll.

It’s not obvious? My posts attempt to argue against a pervasive culture of blame. That’s it. I’m just sick of it all being the fault of the average Kiwi driver/rider. A view enlightened by the numbers above, rather than vague feelings of indignation, (reinforced no doubt by the vastly morbid press sensationally swooping on every shock-horror morsel) against a purely contrived "evel" might be that there’s a natural limit to how “careful” a human can continually be, and that downright repeatedly dangerous behaviour is relatively rare. It must be, the enforcement focus is all on those 5% outside the law.

Although I must admit I was given some slight benefit of the doubt by a constable of the female persuasion the other day, a very cute person who merely castigated me for careening up the road at 55k. I suspect that if she’d noticed the non legal knobby on the back of the KTM things might have very well turned out far darker.

[MSTRS]

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8588630/holiday-road-toll-climbs-to-11/



A 48-year-old motorcyclist who died after a collision with another rider has been named by police as the holiday road toll rises to 11.

Mark Gerard Egbers, 48, of Auckland, was killed when his Honda motorcycle collided with a Suzuki motorcycle about 12.55pm yesterday on the winding SH25 which crosses the Coromandel Peninsula.

The police serious crash unit was still investigating but it appeared the Suzuki, ridden by a 31-year-old Auckland man, crossed the centre line on a corner, hitting Mr Egbers head-on, Waikato police communications manager Andrew McAlley said.

The Suzuki rider was flown to Auckland's Starship Hospital in a critical condition.

This is what we're talking about. Roaduser behaviour that kills others.
And yes, blaming the rider who crossed the centreline is appropriate...who else was controlling his riding?

[Spearfish]

http://www.kiwirap.co.nz/


Thanks for the link it cleared up a few things.
At least there is a limit to how far a road can be "fixed" its not perpetual.

Bikes are different to other vehicles and require higher standards of skill and personal responsibility therefore more training in what ever form that takes.
I might be a bit over the top but riding it probably on par with pilots.

If I just rely on the roads being "fixed", other road users being "fixed" them I'm not going to last long on my dream re-run of mondo enduro.

[p.dath]

It’s not obvious? My posts attempt to argue against a pervasive culture of blame. That’s it. I’m just sick of it all being the fault of the average Kiwi driver/rider. A view enlightened by the numbers above, rather than vague feelings, (reinforced no doubt by the vastly morbid press sensationally swooping on every shock-horror morsel) of indignation against a purely contrived evel might be that there’s a natural limit to how “careful” a human can continually be, and that downright repeatedly dangerous behaviour is relatively rare. It must be, the enforcement focus is all on those 5% outside the law.

I think myself, MSTRS and Katman are going to have to agree to disagree with you on this one [we believe that drivers/riders need to take personal responsibility and blame for the incidents they get themselves into].

Apart from that, your view is not that far apart from mine.

I will agree with you to the extent that I personally believe that humans will make mistakes, and we need to try and develop a [roading] system that doesn't kill those who do make mistakes - but our view diverges because I think that the roading network itself is a secondary focus, and the primary focus needs to be on improving drivers/riders so they don't make as many mistakes in the first place. Treat the cause, not the symptom.

I personally agree with you that the enforcement focus, that being primarily of speed, is mis-directed.

[Ocean1]

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8588630/holiday-road-toll-climbs-to-11/

This is what we're talking about. Roaduser behaviour that kills others.
And yes, blaming the rider who crossed the centreline is appropriate...who else was controlling his riding?

I know exactly what you're talking about, repeating it ad nausium doesn't make it any clearer.

Keeping it in proportion: Most of our population used a vehicle today, over 10 million kilometres worth. One of them fucked up.

The whole holiday road toll thing seems to me to be a gratuitous, ghoulish irrelevancy. The fatalities are statistically pretty much the same as the rest of the year.

[Ocean1]

we believe that drivers/riders need to take personal responsibility and blame for the incidents they get themselves into.

As do I. I just don’t think that all the “education”, ranting and blame in the world will reduce the number of incidences.



I will agree with you to the extent that I personally believe that humans will make mistakes, and we need to try and develop a [roading] system that doesn't kill those who do make mistakes - but our view diverges because I think that the roading network itself is a secondary focus, and the primary focus needs to be on improving drivers/riders so they don't make as many mistakes in the first place. Treat the cause, not the symptom.


We’ve done this before. You can teach skills, (and please, do), but only experience teaches good judgement.

As for roading? You don’t need much budget, (and not many clues either) to not put fucking barriers where motorcyclists might need an escape route.

[MSTRS]

...You don’t need much budget, (and not many clues either) to not put fucking barriers where motorcyclists might need an escape route.

Amen to that. We can agree on something afterall...

Trouble is, TPTB apparently firmly believe that WRB save lives. Maybe that's so, but it doesn't stop StupidShit TM.
Motorists do StupidShit TM ALL the time. Usually they get away with it. Sometimes they get pinged for it. Every now and then, they have a little whoopsy because of it. And quite rarely (in the scheme of things, as you point out) they or someone-else pays a heavy price for it.
Since they USUALLY get away with it, and so many apply the 'no harm - no foul' theory IF they actually process/think about whatever StupidShit TM they just did, then where is the incentive for those drongos to lift their game?
TPTB play right into perpetuating this bullshit by 'improving the roads'.