FYI - MOTO NZ impending RFP

[MrE_MaN]

Just a heads up to those that don't do business with the big govt machine, could be a good initiative if not funded by a hi-vis vest manufacturer....


Services to Investigate and Report on Options to Improve Motorcyclist Visibility

General Information
The Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council (MSAC) (also known as MOTO NZ) oversees the operation of the programme of initiatives funded by the Motorcycle Safety Levy.

MSAC’s role is to identify initiatives to improve on-road motorcycling safety that generate a positive response from all road users and relevant authorities.

The MSAC wishes to notify potentially interested respondents that it will shortly release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to identify a suitably experienced supplier to undertake a project to investigate and report on options for improving motorcyclist visibility and conspicuity.

The services will be undertaken in a staged manner and may include:

• a literature review of likely effective interventions;
• validating (road testing) selected interventions for the New Zealand context (if required); and
• developing a business case for funding priority interventions.

[Katman]

You can bet your last dollar that this is heading us toward compulsory hi-viz.

We all better start opening our eyes and using our brains if we are to have any hope of not having another law imposed upon us.

[bogan]

You can bet your last dollar that this is heading us toward compulsory hi-viz.

We all better start opening our eyes and using our brains if we are to have any hope of not having another law imposed upon us.

No thanks, I just paid my rego yesterday so I'm already down to my last dollar:facepalm:

That is one of the main problems with high vis legislation, it sends the wrong message. Car drivers should have a good look for us no matter what we wear, and we should never assume we have been seen based on what we are wearing. Don't forget there are many reasons why high vis is not a cure all, attached is some info.

[Katman]

Don't forget there are many reasons why high vis is not a cure all, attached is some info.

Not much point preaching to me.

I'm already converted.

[bogan]

Not much point preaching to me.

I'm already converted.

Really? I never would have guessed :innocent:

Maybe other bikers or even MOTONZ (of whom only one may be considered wearing high vis on their site banner) might read this and learn a thing or two.

[Pseudonym]

Jump on your bike with your vest on and have someone take a photo of you from front on.
Lights up nicely don’t it?
Now go for a ride and have someone take a photo from the front while you are moving…
The police can provide this service for a small fee via their vans.
If you’re on a sports bike you can see the tops of the shoulders and little else of the vest.
Totally worth it.
Side on you light up, but then you’re past them so what’s the point?
From behind, for those without packs, you can be seen also…
So they won’t hit you from the rear?
Better idea; don’t be in a position where they can run into you.

If they can’t see our now compulsory headlights then why would they see the vests?
And will it lull people into a false sense of security thinking that they can be seen?
Like the bloke I saw the other day in his shorts and t-shirt trundling down the motorway.
But he had a vest…
Safe…

[nodrog]

My motorcycle is bright fucken green and cunts still pull out in front of it.

Test complete, who do I send an invoice to?

[MSTRS]

It's the old story - those that think they know, legislate.
For the rest of us, who DO know, it wouldn't matter how many lights we have on or what colour we wear. A bubble light on our helmet wouldn't help either. For us to be seen, the other party has to be looking.
These braindead SMIDSYs pull out on B-trains too...
Try as they might, TPTB can't legislate against stupidity.

[Berries]

MSAC’s role is to identify initiatives to improve on-road motorcycling safety that generate a positive response from all road users and relevant authorities.

• a literature review of likely effective interventions;
• validating (road testing) selected interventions for the New Zealand context (if required); and
• developing a business case for funding priority interventions.
Hmmm. Well, we have no manufacturing and a small sales volume so bike equipment such as strobe lights are a non-starter, it will have to be related to rider equipment. "A positive response from all road users" means they can dress up a rider and ask ten car drivers if they can see him. A literature review will show research that wearing a white helmet means you are less likely to be hit by someone else (as I recall), so we can start there by selling nothing but plain white helmets. The only other possible options are Sam Browne belts or full on hi-viz vests. A 'selective' literature research will show they have benefits as well. They will all be seen by other road users, in testing, so the results will show they will have a massive benefit/cost ratio. They could fund a hi-viz for every licenced rider in the country based on the crash savings. Obviously they wouldn't, they'd make the filthy bikers pay for their own - oh hang on, we've already been putting in $30 per bike to the fund haven't we?

They will bring in a Rule change knowing that we are only motorcyclists and nobody cares, look at how they got the ACC levy through. Other road users will support it. MotoNZ will support it. The non reduction in crashes will no doubt be blamed on the lack of compliance that will surely ensue, so then they bang 50 demerit points on it. They then start to see a reduction in crash numbers, yay, failing to take in to account the dwindling number of riders. Although the reduction in crashes may not occur if the ever increasing number of disqualified riders keep riding and start doing more runners from the Police.

Call me a cynic, but I don't see compulsory hi-viz making things safer although it looks like a foregone conclusion to me. Cars pull out on trains FFS.

[Katman]

They then start to see a reduction in crash numbers, yay, failing to take in to account the dwindling number of riders.

And as the numbers dwindle it gets easier to pass more legislation because there's less of us to fight it.

The answer........?

1. Stop riding like twats.
2. Engage brain before riding.

[pete376403]

Go to a building site - every man and his dogs wears hi-vis - after a while you just don't see it

[MSTRS]

Go to a building site - every man and his dogs wears hi-vis - after a while you just don't see it

Plus 'most' hi-vis wearers that drivers encounter are road gangs. And we all know they don't move all that fast....

The logical extension to legislating use of hi-vis, when it fails to result in a big improvement in SMIDSY stats, is something else foisted on bikers, and then something else, and so on.
And all the while, the answer is right there. DRIVER training.
Oh - and riders being a bit smarter too. (OK, Katman?)

[Pseudonym]

Call me a cynic, but I don't see compulsory hi-viz making things safer although it looks like a foregone conclusion to me. Cars pull out on trains FFS.

That’s because train drivers don’t wear the vests…

[Gremlin]

Go to a building site - every man and his dogs wears hi-vis - after a while you just don't see it
And that is going to be a very large problem (if it isn't already). They are there to make something stand out, draw attention to it etc. Paint everything in it, and it no longer stands out.

But no, we'll just keep on thinking that if we paint everything in a haz colour it will fix it... <_<

Road workers etc really should have them, and they're going to end up in more danger when people grow haz blind.

[MSTRS]

Road workers etc really should have them, and they're going to end up in more danger when people grow haz blind.

That is a good point.
Right now, I suspect that those motorists who do see the hi-vis, are used to seeing them on road gangs and basically 'switch off' to the warning, since said road gangs are invariably off the road and out of harm's way. So, having discounted the hi-vis as being pertinent to their driving/attention, MrLulledIntoInattention Motorist will simply do the same to any rider in hi-vis that he may notice.
So the plethora of hi-vis competing for the motorist's attention, will simply cease to be a factor for him. Putting ALL who wear them at greater risk.

[Madness]

I'd feel safer on the road wearing a gang patch than a hi-viz.

[Fatt Max]

Anyone that cannot see a fat bastard like me on the road is fucking blind and should not be driving

mark my words, it will be compulsory waving next.....

[davereid]

The levy was supposed to fund ACTUAL safety initiatives, not merely be blown on researching theories. ACC and the NZTA has just saved some of its research budget. Havent we spent our levy wisely, lucky I have never paid it.

[Kickaha]

You can bet your last dollar that this is heading us toward compulsory hi-viz.
.

Why would we need hi vis when compulsory headlight use fixed all the problems with people not seeing us? :whistle:

[nosebleed]

Just a heads up to those that don't do business with the big govt machine, could be a good initiative if not funded by a hi-vis vest manufacturer....


Services to Investigate and Report on Options to Improve Motorcyclist Visibility

General Information
The Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council (MSAC) (also known as MOTO NZ) oversees the operation of the programme of initiatives funded by the Motorcycle Safety Levy.

MSAC’s role is to identify initiatives to improve on-road motorcycling safety that generate a positive response from all road users and relevant authorities.

The MSAC wishes to notify potentially interested respondents that it will shortly release a Request for Proposal (RFP) to identify a suitably experienced supplier to undertake a project to investigate and report on options for improving motorcyclist visibility and conspicuity.

The services will be undertaken in a staged manner and may include:

• a literature review of likely effective interventions;
• validating (road testing) selected interventions for the New Zealand context (if required); and
• developing a business case for funding priority interventions.

So who are you, and how do you know all this?

Iirc StoneY was booted out of MSAC for using using Kiwbiker to inform bikers of what was going on.
What makes you above reproach?

Just asking.

[Brian d marge]

It's the old story - those that think they know, legislate.
For the rest of us, who DO know, it wouldn't matter how many lights we have on or what colour we wear. A bubble light on our helmet wouldn't help either. For us to be seen, the other party has to be looking.
These braindead SMIDSYs pull out on B-trains too...
Try as they might, TPTB can't legislate against stupidity.

here the trend is towards neon light on these scooter thing, they are lit up like Christmas trees.. some look good actually, saw one., black bike but chrome wheels, with red neon that came on when the wheel started to move, and when it braked
normally I don't like this sort of thing, but this looked good
oh btw they still get squashed by the funny I didn't see you brigade!!!
I'll stick to me defensive riding thank, its seems to worked so far......
stephen

[swbarnett]

And as the numbers dwindle it gets easier to pass more legislation because there's less of us to fight it.

The answer........?

1. Stop riding like twats.
2. Engage brain before riding.
This would certainly help.

However, a better solution is to just say 'fuck you' to any stupid git in power that tries to legislate away our freedoms for no good reason. If a good percentage of us did this (and I don't just mean bikers) we might just take back some of the power that's been stolen from us by those that are supposed to be serving us.

[awa355]

No thanks, I just paid my rego yesterday so I'm already down to my last dollar:facepalm:

That is one of the main problems with high vis legislation, it sends the wrong message. Car drivers should have a good look for us no matter what we wear, and we should never assume we have been seen based on what we are wearing. Don't forget there are many reasons why high vis is not a cure all, attached is some info.

What does 'Modulated headlight beams ' mean?

[davereid]

StoneY was booted out of MSAC for using using Kiwbiker to inform bikers of what was going on.

Stoney got the chop because he is a good buggar who would not toes the line. The kiwibiker thing was just a smokescreen.

The information published above is public. Its a request from MOTO NZ for replies. THEY published it.

[MSTRS]

What does 'Modulated headlight beams ' mean?

They 'flicker' - bit like those red/white ones you see on treadlies.
Illegal on powered vehicles.

[CHOPPA]

hahahaha I hope they make Hi Viz compulsory!!

[swbarnett]

hahahaha I hope they make Hi Viz compulsory!!
Why?


10 f'n chars

[MSTRS]

hahahaha I hope they make Hi Viz compulsory!!


Why?


Indeed. I have just sent this submission to MotoNz. For all the good it'll do...

Please please please - don't go down the road of recommending hi-vis for riders.
I know that study after study appear to show it makes the wearer more visible. And that stats may appear to show this to be true.
However -

In the real world, voluntary wearers tend to be the more cautious type anyway, so would feature less in the accident stats with or without the hi-vis.

In the real world, we are surrounded by these day-glo colours already, and having become so used to seeing it, we don't. Or we associate its use with road workers, who are usually away from the direct path of vehicles and who also move slowly. The subliminal message to drivers is that a rider is moving slowly.

In the real world, many bikes prevent clear sight of a hi-vis vest - packs on backs or packracks, windscreens or the sportsbike crouch all block or limit it's visibility.

Still on the subject of visibility. A motorcycle does not appear, to a driver, to be moving because it's narrow profile resists triangulation and is also subject to motion camouflage depending on the background. The attempt to increase our visibility through always-on headlights has not been a resounding success (which I predicted in my submission to the Safer Journeys panel). A single light gives no indication of proximity or movement relative to the viewer. And with the increasing use of daytime lights on cars - well, you get the picture.

In the real world, rapid movement (or the perception if it) is what attracts attention. If the focus is on making motorcycles more visible, I suggest a close look at modulated headlights. The flicker they feature does get attention, due to the apparent movement. Although epileptics may not be so keen!

In summary, I suspect that any initiative to make us more visible will be doomed to failure. Drivers that pull out on B-Trains, that change lanes or open their door without looking, or simply believe they have plenty of room/time to enter that roundabout are not going to stop doing those things because riders have a hi-vis on.

Good luck finding what the real answer is...

[misterO]

I think that when a driver claims "I didn't see him" they are lying. It is just a way to shift responsibility away from their error. Do police really believe them? Imagine a breath test checkpoint- have you had anything to drink? "Yep- just two beers". Oh, OK, on your way then. I-didn't-see-him really means: I saw him but I just didn't care enough, or- I failed to look properly (but they'll never actually say THAT). Hi-Viz vests for riders will not fix driver carelessness.

[MrE_MaN]

So who are you, and how do you know all this?

Iirc StoneY was booted out of MSAC for using using Kiwbiker to inform bikers of what was going on.
What makes you above reproach?

Just asking.


Fair call; I am a long time lurker and nobody important in the grand scheme of things. The information posted comes direct from the GETS website (Government Electronic Tenders Service), where the Gubbermint goes to offer commercial opportunities to the market. This is public(ish) information, requiring signup to access but is available to any NZ company I believe.

[bogan]

Why would we need hi vis when compulsory headlight use fixed all the problems with people not seeing us? :whistle:

That's a good point, and it would certainly make sense for the effectiveness of that law change to be evaluated, before putting through another visibility law change. If that didn't make a difference, figure out why not, and don't make the same mistake!

[Swoop]

The helicopter that crashed in Auckland's Viaduct this morning... Did anyone notice what the pilot was wearing?

Yup, you guessed it.:facepalm:

[caspernz]

And as the numbers dwindle it gets easier to pass more legislation because there's less of us to fight it.

The answer........?

1. Stop riding like twats.
2. Engage brain before riding.

Now I don't know Katman, but I agree with the sentiments. The argument that fluoru vest wearers feature less in accident stats on account of being more risk averse is open to debate.
Up until six months ago I didn't wear a shiny vest. Then I thought why not? Can't say whether it's because tintops wonder if I'm a cop or whether I really do stand out more, but I'm treated differently on the road. Mind you, I follow Katmans' 1 & 2 points mentioned above...most of the time.

[oneofsix]

Now I don't know Katman, but I agree with the sentiments. The argument that fluoru vest wearers feature less in accident stats on account of being more risk averse is open to debate.
Up until six months ago I didn't wear a shiny vest. Then I thought why not? Can't say whether it's because tintops wonder if I'm a cop or whether I really do stand out more, but I'm treated differently on the road. Mind you, I follow Katmans' 1 & 2 points mentioned above...most of the time.

This was a peddley but if the cager can claim she didn't see him when he has lights on and is full in her headlights I don't see how hi-vis add to my bike lights and reflective bike gear will help
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6018234/Dead-cyclist-should-ve-been-in-headlights

Not only do we have to engage brain but somehow the message has to be brought home to the cage drivers. Perhaps the airbags in the A pillars obscured her vision (insert tui logo)

[bogan]

This was a peddley but if the cager can claim she didn't see him when he has lights on and is full in her headlights I don't see how hi-vis add to my bike lights and reflective bike gear will help
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6018234/Dead-cyclist-should-ve-been-in-headlights

Not only do we have to engage brain but somehow the message has to be brought home to the cage drivers. Perhaps the airbags in the A pillars obscured her vision (insert tui logo)

And this one (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6013264/Driver-oblivious-to-police-chase) boggles the mind a bit. Didn't realise the police wanted her to stop until the spike-strip she didn't notice she had run over caused her car to stop.

[Paul in NZ]

The helicopter that crashed in Auckland's Viaduct this morning... Did anyone notice what the pilot was wearing?

Yup, you guessed it.:facepalm:

Mind you - that wire rope did prove to be a pretty effective barrier....

[swbarnett]

The argument that fluoru vest wearers feature less in accident stats on account of being more risk averse is open to debate.
All we can be sure of is that "Correlation does NOT mean causation" i.e. at best these studies are inconclusive.


Up until six months ago I didn't wear a shiny vest. Then I thought why not? Can't say whether it's because tintops wonder if I'm a cop or whether I really do stand out more, but I'm treated differently on the road.
Maybe the way you ride has changed slightly since you started wearing it?

I tried something similar a while back. Spent a week with my headlight off during the day. Nothing changed. The proportion of people that saw me stayed near as can be judeged to exactly the same.


Mind you, I follow Katmans' 1 & 2 points mentioned above...most of the time.
Exactly, you're already a safer rider.

[GrayWolf]

That’s because train drivers don’t wear the vests…

yes we do.......

[GrayWolf]

One of the frequently overlooked psychological 'safety' factors that researchers completely overlook is 'percieved threat'
The human brain gives greater attention to things it percieves as threatening or a danger to us.
We can have headlights on, and hi vis vests.. bikes with fairings, day riding lights etc. A car is larger than us, so they are the 'threat'... Car drivers tend to be more circumspect when they are dealing with a larger vehicle. (yes I know that isnt a 100% accurate statement, you are dealing with generalities here)
it was realised some time ago, that motorists DO see the bike but it registers 'low' in the threat scale... put POLICE stripes on one? Instant HIGH threat... they see the police bikes, even allowing for the fact the police rider is probably positioned in the correct road place.

[howdamnhard]

I agree with graywolf regarding " percieved threat" . Car drivers drift off to la la land when doing repetitive tasks and are only brought out of it when certain risk factors alert them, such as brakes lights ,etc. Bikes are smaller and simply don't rate high on the average drivers threat scale. Hence I looked straight at him and didn't see him "as a threat" and went anyway.
I used to wear a hi-vis jacket but found it lulled me into a false sense of security that cage drivers could actually see me. I now know they don't and ride accordingly. If they cant see me on a bright red bike with my lights on ,they sure aint going to see me much better with a hi-vis jacket on.

[awa355]

I used to wear a Hi Viz vest, untill I realised that drivers who drive with their eyes shut can not see the vests anyway.

Now it sits in the cupboard.

If you want to be seen, wear an ' Outlaw type Gang' patch, put apehangers and loud exhausts on your bike. If one of these clowns rides through an intersection in front of us, our eyesight always zooms in on him. percieved threat?

[Katman]

Car drivers drift off to la la land when doing repetitive tasks and are only brought out of it when certain risk factors alert them, such as brakes lights ,etc.

Much the same could be said about a large percentage of motorcyclists.

The trouble is, that while in la la land, far too many motorcyclists don't see the car stopped at a give way sign as a risk factor.

After all, they have to give way - right?

[CHOPPA]

Why?


10 f'n chars

I just think all those riders that wear all black and think they are ghost rider are gonna look f'n funny with there orange glow vest.

In all the road riding I did I never had a single car pull out in front of me or even come close because you could actually see me.

[MSTRS]

In all the road riding I did I never had a single car pull out in front of me or even come close because you could actually see me.

Either you were lucky, or it was the way you were riding. I know which one my money is on.
Because I also know we can all be seen. And it's nothing to do with what we are wearing.

[ckai]

We have fluro vests in the cupboard. Wifey used to wear hers mostly for at night only because she didn't have any reflective stuff at the back of her jacket. She has a pink mohawk on her helmet, a pink jacket, and a vest...I witnessed on 3 occasions people pulling out in front of her. 1 was looking directly at her. But she was riding as all bikers have too, so knew every time what useless drivers will do. Like has been said, if every bike as fluro, people will stop seeing it. Simple fact.

You wanna be seen, let's throw on bike specific flashers. Green and blue I say. :niceone:

If they introduce fluros, does that mean that if a bike gets hit from "didn't see you" muppets, does that mean they can get their licence cancelled because they shouldn't be driving? Only fair isn't it?

God, it pisses me off when the majority of NZ thinks the best way to fix the deaths/accidents on the road is to introduce more shit. For fuck sake - start fucken educating better! Introduce 5 yearly resits for all I care, but for god sakes, we need to stop testing just on road rules and start testing on being courteous to fellow road users.

[oneofsix]

We have fluro vests in the cupboard. Wifey used to wear hers mostly for at night only because she didn't have any reflective stuff at the back of her jacket. She has a pink mohawk on her helmet, a pink jacket, and a vest...I witnessed on 3 occasions people pulling out in front of her. 1 was looking directly at her. But she was riding as all bikers have too, so knew every time what useless drivers will do. Like has been said, if every bike as fluro, people will stop seeing it. Simple fact.

You wanna be seen, let's throw on bike specific flashers. Green and blue I say. :niceone:

If they introduce fluros, does that mean that if a bike gets hit from "didn't see you" muppets, does that mean they can get their licence cancelled because they shouldn't be driving? Only fair isn't it?

God, it pisses me off when the majority of NZ thinks the best way to fix the deaths/accidents on the road is to introduce more shit. For fuck sake - start fucken educating better! Introduce 5 yearly resits for all I care, but for god sakes, we need to stop testing just on road rules and start testing on being courteous to fellow road users.

its not just do you know them it is will you follow the rules. Can be done with computer sims. Have to sit the sim test every license renewal, instead of just the dodgy eye test. An advantage of using sims is the candidate isn't as aware of the testers presence and so more likely to 'drive' normally, it is amazing how the idiots can do it right when someone with authority is present. They are also one off set up and no waiting on a tester being on site or available.

[swbarnett]

I just think all those riders that wear all black and think they are ghost rider are gonna look f'n funny with there orange glow vest.
Indeed.

As one of those riders in all black* (well, I would be if I could afford to replace a perfectly good helmet). I would have to agree. That's one of the reasons (but by no means the only one) I won't wear one, even if it does become legally mandatory.


In all the road riding I did I never had a single car pull out in front of me or even come close because you could actually see me.
I have the same on my current ride - All black (except for silver scoop and whiteish graphic helmet). Every time I've had an issue with someone not seeing me it's been when I've been behind them or to the side (travelling in the same direction), never coming up to an intersection.



*Although I don't think I'm ghost rider

[DangerMice]

They will probably decide to differentiate riders from road workers etc by making riders wear day-glo pink, rather than yellow/green/orange :crazy:

[swbarnett]

They will probably decide to differentiate riders from road workers etc by making riders wear day-glo pink, rather than yellow/green/orange :crazy:
All the more reason to refuse to wear one.

You don't see black cars on the road wearing day-glo pink stripes.

[jasonu]

They 'flicker' - bit like those red/white ones you see on treadlies.
Illegal on powered vehicles.

It is used here, mandatory in some states. An on coming bike with the modulated headlight is almost totally impossible NOT to see as the affect on your eyes is actually really annoying.

[blackdog]

They will probably decide to differentiate riders from road workers etc by making riders wear day-glo pink, rather than yellow/green/orange :crazy:

You will find that for all road workers the mandatory colour is orange. Green/Yellow is generally reserved for emergency services or other non-road related applications (construction for example).

[Berries]

Weird isn't it. You used to wear yellow on the roads and to me it stuck out like dogs balls. I can't easily differentiate orange from the background due to being quite badly colour blind. Even with cones it is the stripe I see first, if they have one.

Well, that'll be my excuse for knocking down someone on the stop/go paddle.

[blackdog]

Weird isn't it. You used to wear yellow on the roads and to me it stuck out like dogs balls. I can't easily differentiate orange from the background due to being quite badly colour blind. Even with cones it is the stripe I see first, if they have one.

Well, that'll be my excuse for knocking down someone on the stop/go paddle.

Mine is so covered in oil, grease and dirt that any hi-vis properties it once had have long since disappeared. I'd be happy to wear it over my bike jacket if it was mandatory, looks more like an oilskin vest anyway.

[Pseudonym]

Have any of you stopped to think on why else we aren’t being seen?
Drivers are blind, yea true but it can’t always be that or the perceived threat reasoning on why we get hit.

Rider position will have a bit to do with it, we all know cars have blind spots so why do so many riders sit in them?

At T intersections where you’re going straight through but the car in front is turning left with a car waiting to turn right into your lane from the joining road, how many times do you just throttle off and end up sitting off the cars right rear quarter totally hidden from the waiting car?

On country roads riding in the staggered formation with our lights on like the good law abiding bikers that we are, at a quick glance we look like an approaching car further away.
Two lights but closer together… It’s a car at 500 meters not two bikes at 150 meters.

Lights on coming out of the sun in the morning or evening and we have filled our silhouette.
Not that you can turn them off on 90% of bikes, and sun strike may over power the shadow regardless.

Of the four above, where will the vest help?
And with the light on, wouldn’t that over-ride the vest anyway?

If you are happy wearing one then sweet, but to make it mandatory?
Will that make us at fault regardless if we’re not wearing them?
And if that’s the case will the other party be liable for all costs if we are?
We can’t sue, but can the ACC if we have toed the line?
Would the chance of a $20,000+ medical bill put us in the “threat” category?

[swbarnett]

Have any of you stopped to think on why else we aren’t being seen?
Drivers are blind, yea true but it can’t always be that or the perceived threat reasoning on why we get hit.
Hear, hear!

Except for one ten year period I've been riding daily in Auckland traffic since 1983 and the only time I have been even tapped by a car it was totally my fault.


Rider position will have a bit to do with it, we all know cars have blind spots so why do so many riders sit in them?

At T intersections where you’re going straight through but the car in front is turning left with a car waiting to turn right into your lane from the joining road, how many times do you just throttle off and end up sitting off the cars right rear quarter totally hidden from the waiting car?
I will often weave when approaching intersections - first to put myself in the best position be seen and, second, to put myself as far as is practible away from driver. This has the added affect that I am moving perpindicular to the driver's line of sight.


On country roads riding in the staggered formation with our lights on like the good law abiding bikers that we are, at a quick glance we look like an approaching car further away.
Two lights but closer together… It’s a car at 500 meters not two bikes at 150 meters.
This also holds true for dual-headlight bikes. Mine had two headlights but the parking light sits between and above them and makes it clear I'm not a car.


Lights on coming out of the sun in the morning or evening and we have filled our silhouette.
Not that you can turn them off on 90% of bikes, and sun strike may over power the shadow regardless.
Another time when weaving can be advantagous.


Of the four above, where will the vest help?
And with the light on, wouldn’t that over-ride the vest anyway?
Not to mention my fairing in front and Givi top box in the rear.

Once again, training is the answer. Not more draconian applicaion of legislation with no respect for individual responsibility.

[Swoop]

For fuck sake - start fucken educating better!
That is the soulution, as we know, but NZ will persist with the "licence in every cornflakes packet" approach that has been used for years.

Having recently having to go through this process twice within a month (renewal and then adding another class) it didn't surprise me that there was no sort of testing process whatsoever, but it certainly is another form of tax grab.

[pete376403]

I wonder what the stats are on cop bikes that have been taken out by smidsys?

[swbarnett]

I wonder what the stats are on cop bikes that have been taken out by smidsys?
From what I understand they don't because drivers see them, if only subconsciously, as a threat.

[Gremlin]

From what I understand they don't because drivers see them, if only subconsciously, as a threat.
Nope, I've heard of two cops hit by cars. One was sideswiped, the driver didn't even realise they'd brushed against the bike (luckily he wasn't taken out) until the bike was behind with flashing blue and reds. Another was taken out I think, by a smidsy lane changing.

Oh, and this one time, there was a tree, but it didn't like bikers I hear. :innocent:

[pete376403]

From what I understand they don't because drivers see them, if only subconsciously, as a threat.


My old GS1100GK has a biggish barn door fairing, panniers and top box, and the two (fairly large) front indicators have dual filament bulbs, like a stop/tail light, so they are on all the time as running lights.
The whole thing tends to appear, at first glance, like a cop bike, plus I tend to use a plain white helmet.
I did notice cars would move over a bit when I approached from behind. Threat perception?

They sure dont do that when I'm on the KLR.

[swbarnett]

Nope, I've heard of two cops hit by cars. One was sideswiped, the driver didn't even realise they'd brushed against the bike (luckily he wasn't taken out) until the bike was behind with flashing blue and reds. Another was taken out I think, by a smidsy lane changing.

There will always be some drivers that won't see anything*. I do wonder if the SMIDSY rate for cops is lower than mere mortals.


Oh, and this one time, there was a tree, but it didn't like bikers I hear. :innocent:
Was that the one that keeps jumping in front of cars (and bikes it seems)?



*A driver in front of me on the way home today tried to change lanes into another car. The worst of it was that the other driver just ignored them - no evasive action and no horn. They swerved back when I sounded my horn. I honestly think they would've collided if I hadn't

[swbarnett]

My old GS1100GK has a biggish barn door fairing, panniers and top box, and the two (fairly large) front indicators have dual filament bulbs, like a stop/tail light, so they are on all the time as running lights.
The whole thing tends to appear, at first glance, like a cop bike, plus I tend to use a plain white helmet.
I did notice cars would move over a bit when I approached from behind. Threat perception?

They sure dont do that when I'm on the KLR.
Similarly with my Katana. While lane splitting on the Auckland motorway most drivers actually move over to let me through. Could be the full fairing all in black, three black Givis and hazards lights. Could also be the Yoshi, I'm told I can be heard coming from a mile off.

[Flip]

I used to have a real old school matt black shovel with semi apes, it used to part the traffic like Moses parting the red sea. I fixed a girlfriends Vespa and took it for a road test, in 5 miles I had 3 smidnsy's fail to give way and otherwise cut me off. I don't know how you "non biker" types stay on the road.

[Fast Eddie]

oh man, compulsary hi-viz? everyone on bikes would look so gay...
can't they just give us flashing lights like on an aeroplane. couple that flash at intervals. at various points.

[Kickaha]

oh man, compulsary hi-viz? everyone on bikes would look so gay...
You ride a Honda so you already look gay

[Luckylegs]

oh man, compulsary hi-viz? everyone on bikes would look so gay...
can't they just give us flashing lights like on an aeroplane. couple that flash at intervals. at various points.

Imagine how far you could travel between said intervals.

[Fast Eddie]

You ride a Honda so you already look gay

then you can understand why I can't afford to add a hi-viz to the mix. Mrs would leave me for sure.

[Fast Eddie]

Imagine how far you could travel between said intervals.
:scooter: Done.

[Luckylegs]

Imagine how far you could travel between said intervals.


:scooter: Done.

You missed the point huh?

...maybe your username might be better suited to just "eddie" eh?

[Kickaha]

You missed the point huh?

...maybe your username might be better suited to just "eddie" eh?

You'll have to excuse him, he is university educated :bleh:

[Headbanger]

Go to a building site - every man and his dogs wears hi-vis - after a while you just don't see it

well, you do, but only if you are looking for them.

This just reinforces what has already been said, But when you are on a site try and do a head count, very easy when people are in vests,even over large distances or on busy cluttered sites, then try the same in a populated area of non-hi-vis-wearing-persons....damn near impossible.

But, if you ain't already looking for a specific item (be it a person or a person on a bike) then its entirely pointless.

[Swoop]

Seriously. Why the fuck are this crowd wasting time and resources on fucking fluoro vests?

Spend the money by providing FREE California Superbike School level 1 training for ALL motorcyclists.

When are these weirdos going to pull their head out of the sand and realise that EDUCATION is the key?

[Katman]

When are these weirdos going to pull their head out of the sand and realise that EDUCATION is the key?

When are motorcyclists going to pull their heads out of the sand and realise that only when we look at addressing our own vulnerability and culpability will we see any improvement for our cause.

Whether or not it is too late to escape the clutches of compulsory hi-viz is yet to be seen.

If we continue to crash into other vehicles at the rate we are we can kiss our fashionable black goodbye.

[Katman]

It's like the poor battered wife that sits at home crying that it's not her fault that her drunken husband comes home each night and beats her.

It may not be her fault, but she can sure as fuck do something about it.

[Headbanger]

It's like the poor battered wife that sits at home crying that it's not her fault that her drunken husband comes home each night and beats her.

It may not be her fault, but she can sure as fuck do something about it.

I'm confused, is it the drunken husband or the battered wife who has to wear the vest?

[Katman]

I'm confused

Don't worry - that sounds normal.

[MSTRS]

If we continue to crash into other vehicles at the rate we are we can kiss our fashionable black goodbye.

And wearing hi-vis will do that? Stop us crashing into other vehicles?

[Katman]

And wearing hi-vis will do that? Stop us crashing into other vehicles?

Where did I suggest that John? :scratch:

Opening our eyes and using our brains are what will stop us crashing into other vehicles.

[Swoop]

Opening our eyes and using our brains are what will stop us crashing into other vehicles.
Education will do that for ya.
It would also help drivers of other vehicles on our roads as well.

[MSTRS]

Where did I suggest that John? :scratch: In your quoted post, Steve me lad

Opening our eyes and using our brains are what will stop us crashing into other vehicles. Of course. Same is true of ALL motorists

Gotta be careful with how something is written. Otherwise some prick will come all along and point the finger of derision...:bleh:

Thing is, hi-vis WON'T make us ride 'better' and nor will it mean that we are seen.

[Katman]

Good luck with getting other motorists to change their behaviour.

It is infinitely easier (and safer) to modify our own behaviour than to rely on the consciences (or consciousness) of others.

[MSTRS]

Good luck with getting other motorists to change their behaviour.

It is infinitely easier (and safer) to modify our own behaviour than to rely on the consciences (or consciousness) of others.

Correct.
The point is that a correlation between us crashing into things being improved by us wearing hi-vis is erroneous.
The correlation between things crashing into us being improved by us wearing hi-vis is somewhat less tenuous - but probably falls into the category of wishful thinking.

I agree that our behaviour/s and attention skills are the only things we can expect to have any real effect on our safety outcomes.

[Fast Eddie]

You missed the point huh?

...maybe your username might be better suited to just "eddie" eh?

haha :bleh: go ride your bike man.


You'll have to excuse him, he is university educated :bleh:

Shhhh :msn-wink: people get jealous when they find out I get nearly 4 months holiday a year :devil2:

[pritch]

I didn't read all of the thread; too predictable.

Don't waste time posting here, email your MP.

[misterO]

Though your suggestion has merit it contravenes the spirit of KB: tis better to curse the darkness than to light a candle (more fun, anyway).

[swbarnett]

If we continue to crash into other vehicles at the rate we are we can kiss our fashionable black goodbye.
Only if we sit by and let it happen.

[Flip]

It's like the poor battered wife that sits at home crying that it's not her fault that her drunken husband comes home each night and beats her.

Once again Ka(r)tman fires from the lip and misses his target. Where do you get these ideas from?

Nice one!

[Berries]

Further proof of how well they work - Hi-vis Fail (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/189513/another-day-another-dunedin-cycle-crash)

[Katman]

The fact of the matter is that the powers that be won't particularly care if compulsory hi viz doesn't end up reducing the accident rate.

For very little cost they'll be able to sit back and say "Oh well, we had to try something" and in the meantime hi viz will be here to stay.

[Brian407]

We have fluro vests in the cupboard. Wifey used to wear hers mostly for at night only because she didn't have any reflective stuff at the back of her jacket. She has a pink mohawk on her helmet, a pink jacket, and a vest...I witnessed on 3 occasions people pulling out in front of her. 1 was looking directly at her. But she was riding as all bikers have too, so knew every time what useless drivers will do. Like has been said, if every bike as fluro, people will stop seeing it. Simple fact.

You wanna be seen, let's throw on bike specific flashers. Green and blue I say. :niceone:

If they introduce fluros, does that mean that if a bike gets hit from "didn't see you" muppets, does that mean they can get their licence cancelled because they shouldn't be driving? Only fair isn't it?

God, it pisses me off when the majority of NZ thinks the best way to fix the deaths/accidents on the road is to introduce more shit. For fuck sake - start fucken educating better! Introduce 5 yearly resits for all I care, but for god sakes, we need to stop testing just on road rules and start testing on being courteous to fellow road users.

Now there's a man with a clue. Buy him a beer. This is the most pathetically easy country in the world to get a friggen licence, and once you've got it no further training is required. What a load of crap that is. Most trades have refresher courses, first aiders have refresher courses, fucken office workers have refresher courses sometimes, yet we licence someone to take out half a ton (or more) of steel that kills, and send them on thier merry way till thier seventy with no followup whatsoever and wonder why people are dying on our roads. What sort of dumbass came up with that idea. Get a friggen grip people. Education saves lives, not legislation.

We have one of the highest accident rates in the world, yet we have some of the most restrictive legislation in the world around driving. What does that tell you. Countries that have tried the HiViz thing have all said the same thing. It makes no appreciable difference. What works is rider/driver education. Hell, in some parts of the US they dont even have routine safety inspections (WOF) on vehicles, yet they have considerably lower accident rates than us. Why??? Because thier rider/driver training is better.

[ckai]

Further proof of how well they work - Hi-vis Fail (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/189513/another-day-another-dunedin-cycle-crash)

haha Love it how they made very special mention of the vest very early on in the piece. I like what they were implying :)

[GrayWolf]

Good luck with getting other motorists to change their behaviour.

It is infinitely easier (and safer) to modify our own behaviour than to rely on the consciences (or consciousness) of others.

I agree that is true if we have to perform the modified behaviour.

What will work admirably would be regulations with teeth in the event of accidents etc, "sorry i didnt see him" type accident"? Automatic eye test and licence suspended untill the results are seen. If you needed glasses then appropriate action to be taken legaly.
Drunk driving? Mate you took the car to bar/party, and had a drink, the loss of cognitive process in the frontal lobes due to alcohol is NOT a defence.. you made a choice to drive to the place and drink. 1 year minimum ban.
Causing death or injury? A mandatory minimum ban of a year? to lifetime ban and a resit of your test, an extensive resit! (I believe Denmark/Sweden will lifetime ban on a 3rd DD offence) Funny how they have such a low DD rate.
This taps into the 'percieved' threat in the human psyche... If you know there will be a direct concequence, the behaviour will be modified, generaly speaking,,, recidivist's? maybe 6 with the rattan cane or jail time, and your wife/husband joins you! like in malaysia. :clap:
Most bad behaviour of this type has been seen as 'socially condoned' for so many years it is almost 'acceptable' till recent times. If you waved a gun about drunk and killed someone 'by accident', intoxication would not be seen as an 'excuse'.. but the penalty for death though drunk driving is pitiful to say the least, and the penalty(s) diminish from there as the act lessens. So ACC will pay for my broken leg(s)... a no fault scenario.. Allow me to claim for the loss of earnings (the 20% acc dont pay),, the pain and suffering, the emotional distress to family etc.... If drivers and riders are HIT with the reality of their actions in the event of accident? There will be a marked improvement of behaviour on the roads.

[p.dath]

What will work admirably would be regulations with teeth in the event of accidents etc, "sorry i didnt see him" type accident"? Automatic eye test and licence suspended untill the results are seen. If you needed glasses then appropriate action to be taken legaly.

Punishment works as a deterrent when people have a choice to make. A car driver hitting a motorcyclist is not usually the result of the car driver choosing not to see the motorcyclist. Their brain simply doesn't process the information in a way that presents the motorcyclist as something needing cognitive thought. I'm not saying it makes the incident right - it's just the way the human brain works.


Drunk driving? Mate you took the car to bar/party, and had a drink, the loss of cognitive process in the frontal lobes due to alcohol is NOT a defence.. you made a choice to drive to the place and drink. 1 year minimum ban.

Yep, if the person can control their drinking then punishment may have some impact. The problem with recidivist drink drivers is that they can't control their drinking - and then driving. And if they can't control it, then it doesn't matter how severe you make the punishment.


Causing death or injury? A mandatory minimum ban of a year?

I'm pretty sure this carries a jail term ... so you kinda do get a ban from driving.

[GrayWolf]

Punishment works as a deterrent when people have a choice to make. A car driver hitting a motorcyclist is not usually the result of the car driver choosing not to see the motorcyclist. Their brain simply doesn't process the information in a way that presents the motorcyclist as something needing cognitive thought. I'm not saying it makes the incident right - it's just the way the human brain works.

Agreed and that is where the 'percieved threat' part of the human brain comes into effect. If lack of recognition brings about a 'stiff' penalty after investgation proves you just didnt act correctly? The fact of a 12-18 momth ban brings the threat into a higher level of conciousness... as pointed out with Police bikes, they recognise the 'high threat' those colour schemes represent.


Yep, if the person can control their drinking then punishment may have some impact. The problem with recidivist drink drivers is that they can't control their drinking - and then driving. And if they can't control it, then it doesn't matter how severe you make the punishment.






Again, agreed, so you remove the licence for life and imprison/home detention every time they are caught therafter. There are recidivist drunk drivers in Denmark/Sweded but they are considerably lower numbers than the potential habitual drink driver who will not take the risk of the high penalties concerned.

[p.dath]

Agreed and that is where the 'percieved threat' part of the human brain comes into effect. If lack of recognition brings about a 'stiff' penalty after investgation proves you just didnt act correctly? The fact of a 12-18 momth ban brings the threat into a higher level of conciousness... as pointed out with Police bikes, they recognise the 'high threat' those colour schemes represent.

It's a shame your not in Auckland, otherwise you could come along to NASS and speak to some of the Police Officers who have been knocked off their bikes, or here their stories of countless near misses.

I'd like to recommend a book to you, "The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us":
http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Gorilla-How-Intuitions-Deceive/dp/0307459667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323715311&sr=8-1

It details a famous experiment called the "Invisible Gorilla" (their are several You Tube examples as well), and it goes on to explain why human brains often fail to perceive things.

People don't usually "choose" to have a lack of recognition. If your brain is not expecting to see something, even though your eyes actually see it, your brain won't process it. It's a subconscious decision that the brain makes, because the eyes supply more information than the brain is capable of processing. So the brain, constantly, has to choose to ignore input that is coming into it.

You can train the brain to be more observant to specific things, but it isn't easy. And it's not something someone can decide one day to suddenly be more observant too because of the threat of a large fine.


I really wish I could decide tomorrow to be even more observant on the road. But alas, I don't have that choice, no matter how big of a fine there may be for missing something. Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?

[MSTRS]

If your brain is not expecting to see something, even though your eyes actually see it, your brain won't process it.
I would question how it is that anyone could not expect to see another vehicle (of any type) on the road. After all, that is what roads are for - vehicles.


Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?
That depends on the level of observation to start with...
But even an improvement across the board would lead to better driving skills.
If drivers are paying more attention (than they seem to today), they will see us more often, with a subsequent reduction in the number of SMIDSYs.

[Katman]

I really wish I could decide tomorrow to be even more observant on the road. But alas, I don't have that choice, no matter how big of a fine there may be for missing something. Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?

Actually, yes.

My hazard awareness and observation skills improved hundredfold almost over night when I started couriering in London. They had to.

The difference being the desire to ensure my own safety. The average car driver isn't that bothered whether their observation skills aren't as good as they could be. They're not the one most likely to come off second best.

[GrayWolf]

It's a shame your not in Auckland, otherwise you could come along to NASS and speak to some of the Police Officers who have been knocked off their bikes, or here their stories of countless near misses.

I never said they DON'T have a lot of near misses, but they seem to be seen more readily (percieved) than a non Police bike, and also the amount of near misses also needs to be calculated against the number of miles/hours spent on the road to make a fair correlation of statistics.


People don't usually "choose" to have a lack of recognition. If your brain is not expecting to see something, even though your eyes actually see it, your brain won't process it. It's a subconscious decision that the brain makes, because the eyes supply more information than the brain is capable of processing. So the brain, constantly, has to choose to ignore input that is coming into it.

I would agree to some extent, however my particular job require a state of high vigilance, and yes there are 'incidents' which freuquently are the direct result of distraction from the task at hand for a miriad of reasons. However the 'not seeing' on the road is often really due to a lazy mind, usualy a GLANCE along the carriageway, into the mirrors, before manouvering; rather than a proper look.

You can train the brain to be more observant to specific things, but it isn't easy. And it's not something someone can decide one day to suddenly be more observant too because of the threat of a large fine.

Agreed it requires effort, but it IS possible, and a stiff penalty may not cure overnight, it is more using it as an 'aversion' penalty, if the penalty is high enough to warrant the effort needed to improve vigilance.




I really wish I could decide tomorrow to be even more observant on the road. But alas, I don't have that choice, no matter how big of a fine there may be for missing something. Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?

YES, if as you say, you started to train yourself to BE more observant, it is the 'simple' matter of repetitive 'conscious effort' to become embedded behaviour. I believe it is called cognitive retraining.



one of the new technologies starting to be available for cars, (Mercedes developed it I believe) is a 'log' that can store steering input, speed, gear, brake rate, G force, ABS/traction control responses etc for about 15 seconds prior to an impact. I think they also 'played' about with a sensor on the dash that monitored 'eye position and movement' You want an 'incentive'? to improve..
If you watch the UK police prog's on Sky tv, they can take your cell phone and check it roadside to see if it was in use at about the time of an accident. I still see muppets driving on the Hutt M/way with a cell Ph glued to an ear.

[StoneY]

Now I don't know Katman....

You lucky, lucky bugger. Keep it that way. Highest horse in country, with the smallest rider.
A sycophant on a crusade, and a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Back to the hi viz issue
Its a fucking waste of our levy money, when there are hundreds of completed studies out there.

MOTO NZ has turned into a fucking joke.
This is almost as much a waste of money as the coro loop event was.
The only value out of that was meeting the chaps from Vic Roads and Monash University.

We would be better off simply adapting the engineering recommendations that Ken Beers demonstrated at that event and killing off the levy altogether.
Just add 30$ to EVERY vehicles on our roads to add to fixing em and stop targeting victims while encouraging discrimination.

That Coro Loop event invoices would have been something like this:

ACC officials salary (2 people 2 days + mileage)
8 air fares return
1 rental car (people mover)
Food for 300 people (real fuckin posh food to, not sausage rolls and pies)
Camera kit out on bike (I asked how much - 800$)
Consultant fee - 2 days each councillor attending

Do the math

Some of these costs came out of ACC's ops budget, not sure if all of it did or if some was from the levy.
However, i reckon there was easilly 10k - 20k spent and regardless how it was collected this is an example of the way the cash id being wasted

Wasted why?

6 fuckin people came

[Pussy]

You lucky, lucky bugger. Keep it that way. Highest horse in country, with the smallest rider.
A sycophant on a crusade, and a hypocrite of epic proportions.



You've just described yourself perfectly.

[Katman]

Wasted why?

6 fuckin people came

Everyone else knew you were going to be there.

[Pixie]

You lucky, lucky bugger. Keep it that way. Highest horse in country, with the smallest rider.
A sycophant on a crusade, and a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Back to the hi viz issue
Its a fucking waste of our levy money, when there are hundreds of completed studies out there.

MOTO NZ has turned into a fucking joke.
This is almost as much a waste of money as the coro loop event was.
The only value out of that was meeting the chaps from Vic Roads and Monash University.

We would be better off simply adapting the engineering recommendations that Ken Beers demonstrated at that event and killing off the levy altogether.
Just add 30$ to EVERY vehicles on our roads to add to fixing em and stop targeting victims while encouraging discrimination.

That Coro Loop event invoices would have been something like this:

ACC officials salary (2 people 2 days + mileage)
8 air fares return
1 rental car (people mover)
Food for 300 people (real fuckin posh food to, not sausage rolls and pies)
Camera kit out on bike (I asked how much - 800$)
Consultant fee - 2 days each councillor attending

Do the math

Some of these costs came out of ACC's ops budget, not sure if all of it did or if some was from the levy.
However, i reckon there was easilly 10k - 20k spent and regardless how it was collected this is an example of the way the cash id being wasted

Wasted why?

6 fuckin people came

Did you get kicked off msac stoney?
No I not rubbing your nose in it - I would just like to show you the silver lining : considering the adage "if you lie down with dogs,you get up with fleas" You just avoided a future that involves calamine lotion.

Here's two posts I made to the moronz.org "debate".They won't get accepted so I will post them here too.


"Typical Government BS.Morgan does his "research" but does not include that done by the most knowledgeable researcher in the country: Charles Lamb.Morgan uses the data from the police and ACC! The Govt stooges.Another case of use the statistics that fit the Govt. agenda.
So how many million dollars have these parasites collected off motorcyclist to produce a pamphlet to be distributed in our registration notifications?
What do we expect from a group that includes at least one member that boasted of having a confidentiality agreement with the Govt?
I don't expect this post to be allowed so I will copy and distribute it elsewhere."

"So Morgan says our stats are fantasy.Good.
I suggest that all readers of this debate.
Strongly consider riding unlicenced vehicles.
The savings are amazing.
I've believe recent reports show that the revenue from motorcyclists has dropped enormously since the levy was inflated."

[StoneY]

Everyone else knew you were going to be there.

Well then, we know why you didn't show don't we?

[MrKiwi]

Along with the official statistics Lamb's report along with others was indeed considered in compiling this review.