New road safety measures

[Murray]

Announced today

The Government is looking at a swathe of changes to improve road safety including tougher motorcycle testing and more demerit points rather than fines for speeding.

Transport Minister Steven Joyce this morning released the Safer Journeys Action Plan 2011-12 at the global launch of the United Nations' Decade of Action for Road Safety.

Mr Joyce said the plan continued the approach set out in the Safer Journeys strategy.

"This is an across the board approach to road safety which means we're looking at all aspects of the roading system - road users, roads, vehicles and speed."

The plan includes:

* Investigating maximum time limits for learner and restricted licences.

* strengthening motorcycle licence testing.

* researching the impact of drivers under the influence of drugs and ways to combat drug-impaired drivers.

* further safety improvements on high risk roads.

* rebalancing speeding penalties in favour of demerit points, rather than fines.

* encouraging the use of child restraints.

The plan also seeks to implement changes passed by Parliament including a tougher restricted licence test, increased minimum driving age and a zero blood alcohol limit for youth. It seeks also to implement measures passed to target high risk drivers around using alcohol interlocks and a zero blood alcohol limit for repeat drink drivers.

"Research and experience tells us that progressing these actions and implementing the legislation passed last week over the next two years can add to the improvements we've already made and help reduce New Zealand's road toll," Mr Joyce said.

- NZPA

My question is that do demerit points mean more than the fines - seems to be so many people on the road now without correct license or suspended licenses anyway?

[Swoop]

I am perplexed with "tougher testing" for motorcyclists.


Why is there no need for tougher testing of all classes of vehicle drivers?

[Bald Eagle]

I am perplexed with "tougher testing" for motorcyclists.


Why is there no need for tougher testing of all classes of vehicle drivers?

Because it's motorcyclists that they want to get rid of. Stevie Wonder scool of driving graduates already have their diplomas.

[Swoop]

Because it's motorcyclists that they want to get rid of. Stevie Wonder scool of driving graduates already have their diplomas.
Their approach proves that they are truly not interested in getting better motorists' onto our roads.

[MrKiwi]

The 70km speed limit for learner riders is soon to go and the power to weight ration is soon to be implemented - both long overdue.

The driver testing for obtaining a motorbike licence is to be made tougher, something I think is long overdue as well.

[p.dath]

That all sounds fine to me.


I am perplexed with "tougher testing" for motorcyclists.


Why is there no need for tougher testing of all classes of vehicle drivers?

Call it personal responsibility - being responsible for accidents you are involved in. Making motorcycle riders better will result in them being involved in less accidents.

[JimO]

child restraints??

[Blackbird]

The 70km speed limit for learner riders is soon to go and the power to weight ration is soon to be implemented - both long overdue.

The driver testing for obtaining a motorbike licence is to be made tougher, something I think is long overdue as well.

Couldn't agree more with respect to tougher testing but a good question has been raised - why not make it tougher for car drivers too? All standards are lamentably low compared with some European countries.

Motorcycle basic training/testing/licensing in the USA is of particularly poor quality due to both pressure by some manufacturers connected with sales and also that quaint American notion of "freedom". However, their accident statistics reflect the price of poor standards, just like ours do.

But before we get all sanctimonious about basic testing, how many of us have done any roadcraft refresher training in the last 2 or three years? Much lower than 50% of the mature riders on this forum I'd warrant. That's fertile grounds for improvement too.

[p.dath]

Couldn't agree more with respect to tougher testing but a good question has been raised - why not make it tougher for car drivers too? All standards are lamentably low compared with some European countries.

I think if you compare the motorcycle GDLS to the car GDLS the motorcycle system allows you in control on your own much much faster - well before any real skills are learnt.

[bogan]

I am perplexed with "tougher testing" for motorcyclists.


Why is there no need for tougher testing of all classes of vehicle drivers?

They just passed a bit toughening up the cage restricted test iirc. What's good for one is good for the other I reckon. Bring on 10 year retesting for everyone :yes:

[Spearfish]

I does include cars..according to a driving instructor neighbour of mine.

[bogan]

I think if you compare the motorcycle GDLS to the car GDLS the motorcycle system allows you in control on your own much much faster - well before any real skills are learnt.

True, but the car system allows somebody with little skills to be in control of someone with even less!

[Bald Eagle]

True, but the car system allows somebody with little skills to be in control of someone with even less!

Parliament allows somebody with no skills to be in control of everybody.:sick:

[Waxxa]

what the fuck is up with demerit points on Registration?

The main component of Rego is ACC levies! How does non-payment of ACC levies constitute demerit points when demerit points are for road/saftey infractions, for example; if you run a red light, it should have demerit points attached to that!

Even a WOF is only an indication of how 'safe' a vehicle may be at that point in time and that isnt going to attract demerits.

Fucking bullshit policy!

[p.dath]

what the fuck is up with demerit points on Registration?

The problem was fines affected people differently depending on their income. A fine to one person may be a serious deterrent, while to another it was a minor inconvenience.

Demerits have a more equal effect on everybody.

[Swoop]

Making motorcycle riders better will result in them being involved in less accidents.
Correct, but why are car drivers not being held to higher levels?
CC/power/non-turbo limitations applied to learners on four wheels???

[AllanB]

but why are car drivers not being held to higher levels?
CC/power/non-turbo limitations applied to learners on four wheels???

Agree 100%.

It is because stupid 18 year old shits with pants hanging down under their butt cheeks and caps on backwards can vote at 18.

Having said that I do think it is coming.

[Ocean1]

The problem was fines affected people differently depending on their income.


Always with this fettish about not offending the poor people, no good will possibly come of it y'know.

[MrKiwi]

Parliament allows somebody with no skills to be in control of everybody.:sick:

Couldn't possibly comment - well I could and will - sadly so true :facepalm:

[MrKiwi]

Changes are being made for car drivers. The restricted licence test is going to be more more challenging. So changes are coming for both cars and motorbike drivers licencing. :yes:

[Ocean1]

Making motorcycle riders better will result in them being involved in less accidents.

Only if you define "better" as being involved in less accidents. It's not a realistic definition.

A more likely expectation of improved ability is that accident numbers will remain similar because what causes them is personal risk tolerance.

[DrunkenMistake]

Agree 100%.

It is because stupid 18 year old shits with pants hanging down under their butt cheeks and caps on backwards can vote at 18.

Having said that I do think it is coming.
Heh', The right to vote must be to blame!


child restraints??
Yeah, you can buy an add on for your Ventura pack rack, Just bungee the kid on and your good to go ;)

[ducatilover]

Ten bucks says the new systems will be useless and pointless.
I'm all for better education for riders and drivers alike. It would be very good to see subsidised practical training available, I for one would love more rider and driver training.

Make the step from 250cc bikes not so big too, it's fucked.
Make the younger drivers or learning drivers have a car restriction, 100hp per tonne max or perhaps less.
Car and bike control training must be mandatory.
Refresher courses.


The money ACC saves could be put towards making safer drivers.




Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that'll be the day...

[Berg]

Bring it on:niceone:
I tend to agree with the demerit points as there is already so much money owed in unpaid fines or written off fines and the courts are being clogged with recidivist offenders who will not pay.
At least with demerit points, offenders loose their licence after the accumulation of 100 points within 2 years and if they insist on continuing driving they will loose their cars or bikes. This frees up the court system for more serious offences that have in the past been held up in the backlog.
I also know the car testing regime has already got harder and is slated to have more pressure placed on it in the future.
The maximum time on learner/restricted licences is also a good idea as it works twofold. Firstly people have to get on with getting a licence rather than languishing on learner and restrict-eds usually forgetting what they have been taught and often breaching their conditions and secondly by forcing people who cannot pass the driving aspects of the licences to either abandon driving/riding or to go back and learn properly.
As for the drug testing and child retraints, thats just all good.
I bet people who are suspended or forbidden will be the major targets as they will have their mode of transported impounded for 28 days and then will have to pay before they are released.
Of course, if you behave you have nothing to worry about. 25 years of driving/riding and never had a ticket that stuck (touch wood)

[Milts]

Interesting about the increase in demerits for speeding...

We all know that in the correct conditions, with a capable vehicle and an aware driver, the speed limits can be safely exceeded to an extent. In fact an awake and capable driver doing 140 on a clear straight empty multi lane road is probably a lot safer than someone trying to control their kids while doing 80 in a 100 zone. A huge percentage of the crash stats caused by 'speed' are people who are not skilled/experienced/sober/aged over 18. However the police and government seem convinced that speed itself is the demon rather than the inexperienced and so choose to focus on this aspect, and thus adversely affect those who may know the difference between safe and unsafe speed.

The increase in demerits seems to show a genuine interest in reducing speeding. I'd be interested to see what the "it's just revenue gathering" brigade have to say. To be honest, I'm happier that they appear to be incompetent rather than malicious. Not that incompetence is a good thing in a governing body, but it could be worse. Explicitly giving police more discretion when pulling people over would be a step in the right direction.

I'm all for the improved lisence system though and at least they are paying some attention to this issue.

[riffer]

what the fuck is up with demerit points on Registration?

The main component of Rego is ACC levies! How does non-payment of ACC levies constitute demerit points when demerit points are for road/saftey infractions, for example; if you run a red light, it should have demerit points attached to that!

Even a WOF is only an indication of how 'safe' a vehicle may be at that point in time and that isnt going to attract demerits.

Fucking bullshit policy!

I thought the same thing at first, and went and read the relevant legislation. Because, as you do, I thought it was enshrined in legislation that demerits were only to be recorded for road/safety infractions. Well, it would appear that the amendment to the Act gives the Minister of Transport carte blanche to apply demerits and fines on ANY infringement.

And of course, we all know what's been happening to relicencing since last July.

[miloking]

Interesting about the increase in demerits for speeding.........

The increase in demerits seems to show a genuine interest in reducing speeding. I'd be interested to see what the "it's just revenue gathering" brigade have to say. To be honest, I'm happier that they appear to be incompetent rather than malicious..........


There are still fines for speeding and other traffic infringements not just demerits so its still revenue gathering...very simple!

Want to shut up the "revenue brigade"? Remove all fines and have only demerits....

[Milts]

There are still fines for speeding and other traffic infringements not just demerits so its still revenue gathering...very simple!

Want to shut up the "revenue brigade"? Remove all fines and have only demerits....

Agreed. But then on the flipside if it were purely about revenue gathering, they wouldn't bother with demerits and would instead just increase finds. Raising the demerits shows they are at least thinking about slowing people down as well as making money.

[swbarnett]

Raising the demerits shows they are at least thinking about slowing people down as well as making money.
Or it could just be a smoke screen to make you think this.

Even reducing fines wouldn't necessarily convince me it isn't about revenue. The important factor is how many dollars they receive, not how many they demand. Smaller fines will probably be paid more readily so the overall take may actually be larger.

[awayatc]

The problem was fines affected people differently depending on their income. A fine to one person may be a serious deterrent, while to another it was a minor inconvenience.

Demerits have a more equal effect on everybody.

I believe it is in Switserland (or some such eauro country) where the fine is based on your income

[Swoop]

Only if you define "better" as being involved in less accidents.
Quite so. We need to remember that this is all about licence testing. Nothing more.
It is entirely different to be considering driver/rider training, which still appears to be overlooked by the politicians.

[davereid]

This is all about gradual implementation of the safer roads strategy.

It is a set of ideas based around the precept that "people will make mistakes and crash".

So its sets out to reduce the effect of, and likely-hood of these crashes.

It has lots of road engineering ideas in it.

The idea of reducing speeds is simply to do with survivability. The reality is, that if we all drove at 20km/hr, any accidents we had would be quite survivable.

Even though you may be safe at speed, your survivability should an accident occur is lower.

Other techniques being introduced are centered around electronic enforcement. Cameras doing most of the speed and licensing related enforcement.

Electronic devices to stop you driving unless you demonstrate you are sober. Automatic speed control and electronic enforcement of driving hours by devices fitted to your vehicle are also proposed, and will implemented much sooner than many imagine.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/Pages/default.aspx

[Murray]

So demerit points will now be given on camera speeding fines - great!!

However if they do this it would be nice to expect them to use the camera's for the reason they were originally introduced and that was for use in black spot or accident area's. But no, we have them in area's where there are no accidents!! Great to have 2 of them within 2 kms on Te Rapa straight where I cannot remember any major accidents in the last 5 years.

revenue revenue revenue

And I love the comment "that police will rely more on speed cameras to free up more resources to focus on high risk drivers" (thank you Mr Joyce). What about using the time freed up to attend burglaries, assaults and other crime and catch the increasing low life scum being bred!!

[oneofsix]

So demerit points will now be given on camera speeding fines - great!!

!

so now you too can earn demerit points whilst your vehicle is in the mechanics :woohoo: If they bought in the Japanese and German system where they have to get a photo of the driver and ID them, that would be better.

[Ocean1]

This is all about gradual implementation of the safer roads strategy.

Wow. It feels really cool to be public enemy No1.

However, I have no plans to pay that game. I'll switch to something like burglary, embezzlement, car conversion, all much less likely to attract attention.



Just one question… who asked for this?
Only, I don’t remember hearing anybody saying “please can you tax the living fuck out of our arses when we go as fast as we want to, ‘cause we just can’t seem to help ourselves.”

[saltydog]

Basically sick of it all. The government and their desperate attempt(s) to get another term. The government departments who have been told to trim, cut, slash, invent and re-invent ways to justify their contiuned existence. And all the time we are going backwards. Dont get me started on the justice system and the lawmakers in this shithole. And lets get these bloody treaty claims sorted for once and all so we can get on being New Zealanders. One rule for all..... I doubt it. I'm sick of all that shit as well.
We are just victims to this fucked up namby-pamby PC shit that is being force fed through hasty, ill conceived leglislation.
On the bright side........ I have 50 dermerits coming off in July...I can start speeding again, not rego'ing my bike for 12 months at a time, running lights, stop signs, riding in bus lanes.......and then i have another 25 coming off in August....just watch out then.....I might run for parliment <_<

[MrKiwi]

Basically sick of it all. The government and their desperate attempt(s) to get another term. The government departments who have been told to trim, cut, slash, invent and re-invent ways to justify their contiuned existence. And all the time we are going backwards. Dont get me started on the justice system and the lawmakers in this shithole. And lets get these bloody treaty claims sorted for once and all so we can get on being New Zealanders. One rule for all..... I doubt it. I'm sick of all that shit as well.
We are just victims to this fucked up namby-pamby PC shit that is being force fed through hasty, ill conceived leglislation.
On the bright side........ I have 50 dermerits coming off in July...I can start speeding again, not rego'ing my bike for 12 months at a time, running lights, stop signs, riding in bus lanes.......and then i have another 25 coming off in August....just watch out then.....I might run for parliment <_<

Easy to complain, so what do you suggest. The idea of moving to a road strategy that looks at the total system and then factors in ways to be more forgiving when we make a mistake, which we occasionally do, is a better idea than a road safety strategy that basically assumes the rider/driver is always at fault.

And if you speed and get caught, that's tuff. You know the laws before hand...

[swbarnett]

And if you speed and get caught, that's tuff. You know the laws before hand...
You've got your head well and truly burried.

Let's say it was illegal to drink more than one glass of water a day. You drink your alotted glass in the morning and by the time you get home at night you're absolutely parched. Are you going to be a good little law-abiding boy and stick to the one glass rule? Oh, and BTW, there's plenty of water to go around. The only reason for the law is so that TPTB can charge more for water and feel powerful. And to enforce their water selling monopoly and their sense of superiority your tap is metered and you're fined a day's wages every time you go over one glass a day. Would you say "Tough!" to anyone caught?

It may seem a ridiculous example but most cases speeding are no more dangerous than having a second glass of water.



The real problemn is that the western world is getting far too prescious. The prevailing thought seems to be that any level of bodily harm is a tragedy. What utter bollocks! I'd rather a shorter time with life in the living (good and bad) than survive to a ripe old age having never lived. NOBODY has the right to protect me from myself! Read my Sig.

[MrKiwi]

You've got your head well and truly burried.

Let's say it was illegal to drink more than one glass of water a day. You drink your alotted glass in the morning and by the time you get home at night you're absolutely parched. Are you going to be a good little law-abiding boy and stick to the one glass rule? Oh, and BTW, there's plenty of water to go around. The only reason for the law is so that TPTB can charge more for water and feel powerful. And to enforce their water selling monopoly and their sense of superiority your tap is metered and you're fined a day's wages every time you go over one glass a day. Would you say "Tough!" to anyone caught?

It may seem a ridiculous example but most cases speeding are no more dangerous than having a second glass of water.



The real problemn is that the western world is getting far too prescious. The prevailing thought seems to be that any level of bodily harm is a tragedy. What utter bollocks! I'd rather a shorter time with life in the living (good and bad) than survive to a ripe old age having never lived. NOBODY has the right to protect me from myself! Read my Sig.

What a facile answer, sorry to be blunt. I did not say that going faster than the speed limit was unsafe, I implied in my post that the law is clearly stated and if you choose to break it you're more the fool - even if the law is considered to be foolish. The tendency by us motorcyclists to speed is legendary - and we have the collective arrogance to try and justify it away with the sort of tripe argument you've come up with, or worse still we complain that it is revenue gathering. Hell, if I was Police I'd gladly gather revenue all day long - easy money and at some point it's got to hurt. When I speed, and I do, and if I'm dumb enough to get caught then it's a fair cop. End of story. Doesn't stop me agitating to get the law changed though.

And there has been one speed limit changed recently that absolutely flabbergasted me. TPTB actually increased the limit on a stretch of road - bugger me! :shit:

[Ocean1]

What a facile answer, sorry to be blunt. I did not say that going faster than the speed limit was unsafe, I implied in my post that the law is clearly stated and if you choose to break it you're more the fool - even if the law is considered to be foolish.

So there's no real reason for the law? And yet you suggest we should not only tolerate it but accept censure for breaking it?

HIS reply is facile?


And there has been one speed limit changed recently that absolutely flabbergasted me. TPTB actually increased the limit on a stretch of road - bugger me! :shit:

The trend is otherwise, though, is it not? Taken to a natural and all too predictable conclusion we'll see speeds continuing to be reduced. Grays road is a shocker, down to 60k, now, "temporarily" (for the last year or so). There's nothing wrong with the road or the original limit, it's just a traditional hoon route and therefore a high accident road. How the fuck is reducing the speed to a crawl fixing that?

[MrKiwi]

So there's no real reason for the law? And yet you suggest we should not only tolerate it but accept censure for breaking it?

HIS reply is facile?



The trend is otherwise, though, is it not? Taken to a natural and all too predictable conclusion we'll see speeds continuing to be reduced. Grays road is a shocker, down to 60k, now, "temporarily" (for the last year or so). There's nothing wrong with the road or the original limit, it's just a traditional hoon route and therefore a high accident road. How the fuck is reducing the speed to a crawl fixing that?

On Grey's road it is not, 60km/hr is stupid in my view, and that is a view shared by most who drive/ride the road judging by their collective speed, including mine, but if I get caught I at least knew and it was my choice to speed. And yes the trend is otherwise, that's why I was flabbergasted.

My view is that by arguing we should be able to break the laws we don't agree with is akin to societal disorder on a massive scale - why have any laws at all. Some would like that I think. (and generally speaking I think we have too many laws on the whole).

[oneofsix]

On Grey's road it is not, 60km/hr is stupid in my view, and that is a view shared by most who drive/ride the road judging by their collective speed, including mine, but if I get caught I at least knew and it was my choice to speed. And yes the trend is otherwise, that's why I was flabbergasted.

My view is that by arguing we should be able to break the laws we don't agree with is akin to societal disorder on a massive scale - why have any laws at all. Some would like that I think. (and generally speaking I think we have too many laws on the whole).

If there was a way that the users of the roads could have meaningful in put then the arguments would be by that channel. Garys Rd is a good example, as you say nothing wrong with the original limit but some fuckers that decided to live around there and only use the road twice a day decided that they would prefer everyone else to use SH58, the way to achieve that is to make Garys unusable. Therefore you have a ridiculously low peed limit and those friking dangerous pole things in the middle of the road just where you need to be concentrating on the road and not some stupid roading furniture. The only people who can object are Porirua city residents, yeah like someone in Porirua East is going to give a fuk. BTW between Grays and SH58 I would have to say SH58 is the more dangerous.

[swbarnett]

What a facile answer, sorry to be blunt.
I wish more people would be, no offence taken.

I agree that the situation I talked about would be silly in the extreme. So are our speeding laws.


I did not say that going faster than the speed limit was unsafe, I implied in my post that the law is clearly stated and if you choose to break it you're more the fool - even if the law is considered to be foolish.
Yes, I know the law and if I get cought I'll be the last person to moan about it beyond cursing to myself. However, I read from your post that you would have no sympathy for those that are caught out by a stupid law. This is what I take issue with.



The tendency by us motorcyclists to speed is legendary - and we have the collective arrogance to try and justify it away with the sort of tripe argument you've come up with,
My justification is the principle that, as citezins, we have both the moral right and obligation to fight any law that is obviously counter to the interests of society and the rights of the individual. If more people were willing to stick their neck out the laws would soon be repealed. The cops would have a hard time of it if crowds of thousands of people actively went about destroying speed cameras.


When I speed, and I do, and if I'm dumb enough to get caught then it's a fair cop. End of story. Doesn't stop me agitating to get the law changed though.
If the law is inherently unjust there's nothing fair about it. Would you say it was fair for a black man sitting in the white section of the bus to be beaten nearly to death by the police?

[swbarnett]

My view is that by arguing we should be able to break the laws we don't agree with is akin to societal disorder on a massive scale
Now you've got it! This brings to mind the storming of the Bastille in 1789. I guarantee that that crowd could in no way be called law-abiding.

[Ocean1]

My view is that by arguing we should be able to break the laws we don't agree with is akin to societal disorder on a massive scale - why have any laws at all. Some would like that I think. (and generally speaking I think we have too many laws on the whole).

I don't see most people breaking any other law, most of us accept the need for most of the rules.

But traffic regulation in general and speed limits in particular represent a set of rules that 99% of the population break routinely. As in every day.

Just whose benefit are the rules for?

[Katman]

It may seem a ridiculous example but most cases speeding are no more dangerous than having a second glass of water.


How many deaths do you think can be attributed to excessive speed as compared to drinking too much water?

[oneofsix]

How many deaths do you think can be attributed to excessive speed as compared to drinking too much water?

from 1 glass about the same number that die from doing 5k over the speed limit on straight motorways. Water is dangerous!

[Virago]

How many deaths do you think can be attributed to excessive speed as compared to drinking too much water?

On average 105 NZers die each year as the result of too much water...

[Ocean1]

On average 105 NZers die each year as the result of too much water...

Fuckers are drinking that shit too fast.

[swbarnett]

How many deaths do you think can be attributed to excessive speed as compared to drinking too much water?
I'm not talking about excessive speed. On this I agree with you. I'm talking about speed above the legal limit that is not excessive for the conditions.

[MrKiwi]

Setting the speed limits is an exercise in average tolerance levels, or should be. No matter where you set it there are times where some can go faster safely. That does not negate the sensibility of setting speed limits.

However, speed limits are now being set to low in many areas, I get the feeling they are being set for the lowest common denominator - that's not good. Dumbing us down far too much.

I get damn confused driving through urban areas these days and with open road speeds. We have speed limits at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100km/hr. And some towns/cities use all these. How damn confusing is that:shit:

[MrKiwi]

Fuckers are drinking that shit too fast.

:facepalm: for shame, for shame. Way too fast :sick:

[swbarnett]

Setting the speed limits is an exercise in average tolerance levels, or should be. No matter where you set it there are times where some can go faster safely. That does not negate the sensibility of setting speed limits.

However, speed limits are now being set to low in many areas, I get the feeling they are being set for the lowest common denominator - that's not good. Dumbing us down far too much.
If a speed limit is set such that an "average" driver can drive safely at that speed then it is also true that some drivers cannot drive safely at that speed. This is the definition of an average.

Speed limits today are seen as a magic bullet. Under them you are safe, over them you probably aren't. This is bollox IMO but does explain the low setting that you mention.

At least on the open road, speed limits are counter to road safety. I say remove them completely and rely on the charges of dangerous or careless driving where it is deemed the speed is excessive for the conditions. Or better yet, just leave people alone and throw the book at anyone deemed to have caused an accident due to excessive speed.

[James Deuce]

That all sounds fine to me.



Call it personal responsibility - being responsible for accidents you are involved in. Making motorcycle riders better will result in them being involved in less accidents.

No it won't. They still won't see you, they'll still pull out of intersections without looking, drunk, with headlights off at 9:30pm, they'll still back out of driveways without looking, they'll still change lanes without looking, they'll still regard the centre line as optional, they'll still let teenagers in the throes of massive brain development drive cars, they'll still think that opening car doors on lane splitting bikes is acceptable, farmers will still let stock wander unsupervised and drive combine harvesters onto the road without looking, truck drivers will still spread effluent and diesel, old people who struggle to see to the end of their 3 metre driveway will still be allowed licenses, and roads will still be left to rot until they're poorly repaired.

But most of all the motorcyclists already with license in hand will still think they're impervious to all of the above (and the myriad other risks out there) and continue to ignore the centre line, speed limit, courtesy, and common sense and maintain that fatality and injury rate.

Worst of all though, these new measures simply shift the responsibility for accidents and deaths onto motorcyclists solely. "We trained them better but they still crash and burn."

Anyone who doesn't think this isn't a cynical ploy to develop a PR strategy to make motorcyclists culpable for everything bad that happens to them is an idiot. Steven Joyce doesn't give a crap about you personally or your hobbies or mode of transport. They can drop the road toll by 30-40 a year by banning bikes. That's an easy gain in the face of a plateaued road toll that's only improving (possibly) because petrol is too expensive to let people do anything except one shop a week and to and from the train station.

The other cynical result of this will be making it prohibitively expensive for the young uns to get involved in motorcycling as transport. Too dangerous so we'll make rego expensive and training drawn out and very expensive. Junior will go by an R32 Skyline instead and chop the springs and run little kids over on the footpath.

Where's MAG and BRONZ?

[Blackbird]

Making motorcycle riders better will result in them being involved in less accidents.


No it won't. They still won't see you,

Still a cantankerous old bastard then Jim? :innocent:

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, I can't agree with you overall. When I recently asked on the forum who among "experienced" motorcyclists had voluntarily attended a re-skilling/upskilling course in the last couple of years, there were precious few positive responses. That appears to support your contention that an awful lot of riders think they've nothing to learn.

The bit I don't agree with is that making riders better won't have any effect. There will still be other idiots on the road but improving your road positioning and situational awareness significantly reduces risk. I've started the IAM Advanced Observer (Instructor) course mainly for my own upskilling but also to voluntarily put back something back into motorcycling. I'm only part way through it but I can honestly say that my riding to survive has improved immensely.

Sorry to be blunt, but you make it sound like the whole thing is a lost cause but there's plenty that riders can do to help themselves if some of them were less complacent.

[James Deuce]

Sorry to be blunt, but you make it sound like the whole thing is a lost cause but there's plenty that riders can do to help themselves if some of them were less complacent.

It is a lost cause. Those that participate in IAM style training courses are generally speaking old cantankerous bastards and very few in number. There isn't any way to make the RoSPA medal system or IAM gradings attractive to people under 50 unless they're a bit odd to begin with.

There's a group of people that view advanced training as a good thing (I'm one of them) but they're at one end of a bell curve, and then there's a group who think that being able to go around corners really, really fast (superior bike handling skills) is a panacea for all potential problems, but they're at the other end of the curve.

The big bulge in the middle is exactly the same as their car driving counterparts - secure in the knowledge that they're "above average drivers/riders" and they don't need their skills reviewed or habits modified. How you engage the complacent people in the middle is something that has escaped the attention of TPTB - Deliberately, because if you tell someone they suck at driving you may lose votes. The Police perspective is interesting. They claim advanced rider/driver training just means that crashes happen at higher speed. So how do you not only engage the average complacent Harley riding lawyer AND the Police AND TPTB in a way that sells rider and driver training for all, but also make it a core part of an education system?

I don't think you can and I just think undertaking advanced skills training of any sort for motorcyclists just means you'll be highly trained and skilled as well as injured, maimed, or dead when one of the complacent morons who hasn't used his indicator for 30 years to change lanes on a motorway finally SMIDSY's you.

[MSTRS]

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)

[Blackbird]

It is a lost cause.

It sounds like life itself is a lost cause to you and I'm sorry if that is the case.

Let's square a few things away.... I'd have taken RoSPA because of the graded system but as there wasn't one in NZ, IAM was still an excellent choice as opposed to doing fuck-all and whinging. What drove me in this direction was that I am/was one of those average people in the middle you talk about but as I'm well over 60 and want to prolong my riding career, upskilling is one contributing factor. You know what they say about insanity... doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And I know at least 2 other "middle ground" people who are also refreshing and upskilling because I'm doing it. Not a bad result actually and I wasn't even trying to convert anyone:innocent:

I'd like to see where the police claim that training causes higher speed accidents, especially as IAM is based on their training methods. I won't comment about the average Harley rider.

I still think you're missing the point though about roadcraft training (as opposed to trackdays). Raising situational awareness through proper training reduces the risk of getting involved in an accident, whether it be avoiding a moronic car driver or a Gixxer squid who is riding inappropriately for the conditions.

[MrKiwi]

Well I for one don't think it is a lost cause and I for one do not think they can ever, nor will they ever want to, ban motorcyclists from our roads.

Sure there are a lot of risks with stupid idiosyncratic egotistical tin top drivers and their propensity to think and drive like the road is their own (unless there are other vehicles around that is bigger than theirs).

But there is also a lot to be said for us riders upskilling ourselves and riding within our limits.

With fuel prices increasing I predict motorbike/scooter sales will increase again. We're here to stay and the road is ours too.

[scumdog]

It is a lost cause.

Ah well, enjoy your riding while you still can...:rolleyes:



(And I guess there will be shit-loads of cheap bikes for sale soon then eh?)

[Kickaha]

It is a lost cause. Those that participate in IAM style training courses are generally speaking old cantankerous bastards

Sounds like you'd be perfect for it :whistle:

[p.dath]

No it won't. They still won't see you, they'll still pull out of intersections without looking, drunk, with headlights off at 9:30pm, they'll still back out of driveways without looking, they'll still change lanes without looking, they'll still regard the centre line as optional, they'll still let teenagers in the throes of massive brain development drive cars, they'll still think that opening car doors on lane splitting bikes is acceptable, farmers will still let stock wander unsupervised and drive combine harvesters onto the road without looking, truck drivers will still spread effluent and diesel, old people who struggle to see to the end of their 3 metre driveway will still be allowed licenses, and roads will still be left to rot until they're poorly repaired.
...

All good comments, but none of them negate my statement:


Making motorcycle riders better will result in them being involved in less accidents.

What your describing is related to multi-vehicle accidents. The biggest class of accidents involve a single rider - especially "loss of control on a corner". Hard to blame anyone else but ourselves for these accidents.

[MSTRS]

...- especially "loss of control on a corner". Hard to blame anyone else but ourselves for these accidents.

Shhh! You'll wake Katman. And the punters do so hate his inconvenient truth/s.

[scumdog]

All good comments, but none of them negate my statement:



What your describing is related to multi-vehicle accidents. The biggest class of accidents involve a single rider - especially "loss of control on a corner". Hard to blame anyone else but ourselves for these accidents.


Yup, my experience too :yes:

MOST bins seem to involve a rider 'somehow' running out of road.

SOMETIMES there's an oncoming car involved but often as not there isn't and the bike cart-wheels off the on wrong side of the road.

[MSTRS]

Those pesky corners. Always placed where a rider least expects one to be.
Best remove the lot (the corners, that is).

[MrKiwi]

Those pesky corners. Always placed where a rider least expects one to be.
Best remove the lot (the corners, that is).

then there would be a lot of cheap motorbikes for sale...:yes:

[Max Preload]

Bring on 10 year retesting for everyone :yes:Amen to that.

[MrKiwi]

10 year retesting for everyone? That sure would make us know the rules and be assessed on our driving/riding capabilities, but my guess is that it would not necessarily lead to safer roads. We humans are very good at doing what is right when we need to, ie to pass a test, but when we don't need to we revert.

Interesting thought though, ten year retesting that is.

[p.dath]

10 year retesting for everyone? That sure would make us know the rules and be assessed on our driving/riding capabilities, but my guess is that it would not necessarily lead to safer roads. We humans are very good at doing what is right when we need to, ie to pass a test, but when we don't need to we revert.

Interesting thought though, ten year retesting that is.

I have considered the concept of re-testing in the past. It would help make sure everyone met the academic requirement (as in, knew the current rules), but the practical test only measures an experienced rider/driver against a basic skills criteria.

I would be more in favour of *voluntary* advanced driver training with an officially recognised certificate, and make that voluntary qualification time limited. This is more like the IAM system in the UK. Something that is not straight forward, and takes 6 to 8 weeks to get, like the IAM course.
It is likely that very companies (such as insurance, employers of professional riders/drivers) would come to recognise such a qualification, thereby making people want to get it.

I would prefer a system that inspired people to improve their driver/riding training, rather than forced them to do it.

I would also like to see an avenue for the courts to order "drive education" instead of trying to fine a problem out of existence, and such a qualification would provide the courts with this avenue.

[Blackbird]

This is more like the IAM system in the UK. Something that is not straight forward, and takes 6 to 8 weeks to get, like the IAM course.
It is likely that very companies (such as insurance, employers of professional riders/drivers) would come to recognise such a qualification, thereby making people want to get it.

I'm part-way through IAM observer training here and it's anything but straightforward :shutup:. Did you actually mean 6-8 weeks? It generally takes a minimum time of 6 months and up to 2 years before you're ready for the final qualification test. I've got my second check ride by a qualified observer coming up shortly. I understand that IAM UK will shortly be introducing a graded system like RoSPA which might have much wider appeal to riders. Guess it will find its way here soon.

Got to agree with you that a reduction in insurance premiums for passing professional roadcraft training would be a great incentive. Maybe that will eventually flow on from the UK too.

[oneofsix]

A retest of some sort when you renew your licence plus p.dath's voluntary scheme (actually for a Cisco engineer he talks some sense, must be time for another Gin). With the ten year five question test, it only has to be a brief sample to get people to ensure they are aware of the rules.
Actually I would prefer a quick virtual drive that tests the common mistakes like round abouts. Then there are no excuses for not knowing the rules, virtual drives are quick and easy to set up and no 'sorry you have to rebook cause I don't like the look of your vehicle' and it more tests what they would do rather than what is the correct answer. With modern tech it could be quick and easily set-up with one terminal at each testing station, providing its only used for licence renewal one would be enough.