MOTO-NZ finally come up with something for all our money

[James Deuce]

The results of research into H-Viz directly reflect the investment made by manufacturers in the research programme. If you get my drift.

[Pampera]

Wrong both times - we are looking at initiatives that may help raise the conspicuity of the bike and it's rider, mostly the bike. .

What sort of initiatives? Compulsory modifications or additions to the motorcycle and/or rider equipment? Stuff that motorcycllists have to buy, either directly or "NZ only" stuff added to the cost of a new motorcycle? Or stuff that, if we forget or don't want to do whatever it is, will result in further opportunities for police to ticket and fine us or issue demerit points? I rode with headlight on during the day for some 30 years of motorcycling. Now if I forget or have a bulb burn out I get a ticket and fine. More of the same?

Why are we left guessing when MotoNZ claim (on their website) to be reflecting the interests and ideas of the motorcyclist community?

Left, with every other motorcyclist, to decipher the smoke signals from afar, this looks to me also like a process for ACC and NZTA to be able to claim "motorcyclists support compulsory hi-viz clothing laws".

Michael

[Hitcher]

What is painfully clear is that Moto NZ has no ideas about things that can be done to sensibly improve the welfare and safety of motorcyclists. That's hardly surprising, given that it is a high risk endeavour and most things that work have already been implemented. Regrettably things like "idiot moments", of which we are all capable when we least expect them are beyond the scope of legislators, unless they ban motorcycling entirely or price it off the charts.

The Moto NZ cowshit campaign was an absolute waste of time, well the "dob in a trucker or a shitty road" website was. Effluent discharge from stock trucks could be sorted within weeks, if the Highway Patrol made it a priority. All they need to do is to follow laden stock trucks up hills and then prosecute the companies involved. It's so disturbingly simple to do, one wonders why it hasn't been.

Similarly diesel leaks. These only come from trucks. Trucks with poorly fitted fuel caps that have generally been overfilled. Again it's not hard to develop a standard and to enforce that. If the MTA are so hell-bent on six-monthly WOF inspections, I'm sure its members will be foaming at the bung to deal with a compliance issue that saves lives. It's a bit harder for the Highway Patrol to observe diesel leakage than it is for cowshit exudates, put I'm sure they wouldn't mind stopping trucks about half a km up the road from their depot or other points of refuelling, checking for seepage and then prosecuting the bejesus out of offenders. Word would get around. CB radio works well like that.

A fixation with hi viz apparel is also an absolute waste of time. If riders think that wearing it makes them safer, well bloody good show. Let them. However I believe that homoeopathy of the highway should not be legislated.

[Pampera]

Personally I'm pretty adamant that while hi viz has it's place it is not the panacea some make it out to be. Hi viz does not work that well at night unless it is reflective and even then reflective material requires another light source for it to work. Personally I think lighting options provide a wider range of benefits, especially at T intersections, and also lighting works both day and night.
.

Check out Page 62 of the NZTA Safer Journeys document, the bullets and the text below. It seems that:

Yellow headlights
An additional running light mounted on your helmet
Additional running lights spread out over your handlebars (or mounted on/in your fairing) and down your forks

could well be on the way.

Michael

[James Deuce]

The only certainties are that Moto-NZ is costing motorcyclists money to administer and in the future will find a way to impose more cost on motorcyclists. Publicly railing against being forced to comply with legislative madness makes motorcyclists look like ungrateful morons who not only paid money to be told they had to spend money, they also then reject "help" to make the road "safer" for themselves.

Horns of a dilemma.

It's completely mind-boggling that despite being warned, motorcycle lobby groups haven't put up a decent defense or have imploded rather than work as a team. Divide, conquer, spread misinformation. Make sure that the biggest case of active discrimination in NZ history looks like the Government were just trying to save the morons from themselves. Sort of similar to the way the Chinese were Ghettoised for 100 years in NZ society and despite the existence of the death penalty on the statute books the casual murder of first and second generation Chinese immigrants was quietly ignored. Unless you were stupid enough to kill a random OAP in Haining St, even then you'd end up in a mental institution rather than face the wrath of the law.

Kind of the way road death victims are perceived now. It's inevitable, excusable and motorcyclists especially deserve it.

[bogan]

It's completely mind-boggling that despite being warned, motorcycle lobby groups haven't put up a decent defense or have imploded rather than work as a team. Divide, conquer, spread misinformation. Make sure that the biggest case of active discrimination in NZ history looks like the Government were just trying to save the morons from themselves. Sort of similar to the way the Chinese were Ghettoised for 100 years in NZ society and despite the existence of the death penalty on the statute books the casual murder of first and second generation Chinese immigrants was quietly ignored. Unless you were stupid enough to kill a random OAP in Haining St, even then you'd end up in a mental institution rather than face the wrath of the law.

The problem here is there wasn't a binary event to kickstart such a movement. MOTONZ came into being with enough promises to placate 90% of bikers, so nobody could organise against it. Another 10% every few months might realise that they are just goverment lackies, but the preceding 10%s have either stopped paying regos, or given up and just accepted the levy, so there still isn't enough to organise against it.

I'd love to be proved wrong, and would make an effort to turn up to any organised actions, but I won't be making any more efforts to lead the charge.

[swbarnett]

Check out Page 62 of the NZTA Safer Journeys document, the bullets and the text below. It seems that:

Yellow headlights
An additional running light mounted on your helmet
Additional running lights spread out over your handlebars (or mounted on/in your fairing) and down your forks

could well be on the way.

Michael
There is only one appropriate response to both of these. Or, for that matter, any other bullshit "safety" device they try and shaft us with. I, for one, will be saying it publicly it they try - GET FUCKED!!!!

[MrKiwi]

What sort of initiatives? Compulsory modifications or additions to the motorcycle and/or rider equipment? Stuff that motorcycllists have to buy, either directly or "NZ only" stuff added to the cost of a new motorcycle? Or stuff that, if we forget or don't want to do whatever it is, will result in further opportunities for police to ticket and fine us or issue demerit points? I rode with headlight on during the day for some 30 years of motorcycling. Now if I forget or have a bulb burn out I get a ticket and fine. More of the same?

Why are we left guessing when MotoNZ claim (on their website) to be reflecting the interests and ideas of the motorcyclist community?

Left, with every other motorcyclist, to decipher the smoke signals from afar, this looks to me also like a process for ACC and NZTA to be able to claim "motorcyclists support compulsory hi-viz clothing laws".

Michael

I'm not into compulsory modifications, but there are some things many bikers would like to be able to do with their bikes to make them more conspicious, while others will choose not to. For example I currently run extra lights on my bike that I believe are not within the law. I'd like the option for them to be.

I've already commented on compulsory hi viz clothing - not if I can help it irrespective of whether not I choose to wear it. The thing about hi viz is you do not need a law change for a rider to wear it if the rider so chooses to do so.

[MrKiwi]

What is painfully clear is that Moto NZ has no ideas about things that can be done to sensibly improve the welfare and safety of motorcyclists. That's hardly surprising, given that it is a high risk endeavour and most things that work have already been implemented. Regrettably things like "idiot moments", of which we are all capable when we least expect them are beyond the scope of legislators, unless they ban motorcycling entirely or price it off the charts.

The Moto NZ cowshit campaign was an absolute waste of time, well the "dob in a trucker or a shitty road" website was. Effluent discharge from stock trucks could be sorted within weeks, if the Highway Patrol made it a priority. All they need to do is to follow laden stock trucks up hills and then prosecute the companies involved. It's so disturbingly simple to do, one wonders why it hasn't been.

Similarly diesel leaks. These only come from trucks. Trucks with poorly fitted fuel caps that have generally been overfilled. Again it's not hard to develop a standard and to enforce that. If the MTA are so hell-bent on six-monthly WOF inspections, I'm sure its members will be foaming at the bung to deal with a compliance issue that saves lives. It's a bit harder for the Highway Patrol to observe diesel leakage than it is for cowshit exudates, put I'm sure they wouldn't mind stopping trucks about half a km up the road from their depot or other points of refuelling, checking for seepage and then prosecuting the bejesus out of offenders. Word would get around. CB radio works well like that.

A fixation with hi viz apparel is also an absolute waste of time. If riders think that wearing it makes them safer, well bloody good show. Let them. However I believe that homoeopathy of the highway should not be legislated.

Apart from the first sentence, good post, I agree with much of what you say.

[GrayWolf]

james D is 100% correct... 'we deserve everything we get'... thats the public perception..no matter what we say or do, untill we enable a massive shift in public perception that 'bikes are dangerous'.... We 'deserve everything we get' as far as legislation goes in the eyes of 'joe public'.. and as has been pointed out innumerable times, Our 'Squiddish behaviour' seen by motorist's is never going to aid our cause.

Hi-Vis Vs bike mods? It's either got to be a huge market (like Euro market) so a 'Govt enacted requirement' has teeth to affect a change by manufacturers, OR, like France without the backing of the EEC body in this instance, has effected a law in their own country.. NZ govt requiring manufacturers to fit day lights etc? IF they factory fitted, manufacturers will pass on the full cost to the buyer, whereas in Europe? The market is so vast, the cost is reduced by sheer numbers. Yamahonsukasaki Will simply refuse to factory fit for just NZ, so the option is, legislate the end user 'Us'; smaller number and easier to 'control' to enforce the requirement.

Again referring to JD's post.... and I would like to ask any of the MAG reps who may read this to contact MAG uk, and ask if there is any information still around concerning the 'scrap' over the Leg protectors fight. It may bring a few to some realisation just how much that 'win' was only bought about by massive effort (on the part of MAG/FEM) and sheer cohesive weight of numbers protesting.

[Ocean1]

The Moto NZ cowshit campaign was an absolute waste of time, well the "dob in a trucker or a shitty road" website was. Effluent discharge from stock trucks could be sorted within weeks, if the Highway Patrol made it a priority.

Wonder what's going on here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7847302/Motorcyclists-fall-foul-to-slick-road

"Weather conditions" doesn't sound likely to be the primary variable if four went down.

Riding the new bike north out of Wgtn last Fri in light rain I was surprised how little traction was available on the shiny black stripes across the motorway. The front might as well hve been on ice, it just went straight ahead no matter what the steering head angle at the time.

Two weeks before that on the 1125 traversing the Rimutakas I had to damn near get off and park it, there was diesel from arsehole to breakfast.

Bike's have just the one track, but that makes us well more than twice as vulnerable to either inbuilt traction issues or trucks and busses spewing diesel everywhere. Time someone put their hand up, here.

[MrKiwi]

Wonder what's going on here: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7847302/Motorcyclists-fall-foul-to-slick-road

"Weather conditions" doesn't sound likely to be the primary variable if four went down.

Riding the new bike north out of Wgtn last Fri in light rain I was surprised how little traction was available on the shiny black stripes across the motorway. The front might as well hve been on ice, it just went straight ahead no matter what the steering head angle at the time.

Two weeks before that on the 1125 traversing the Rimutakas I had to damn near get off and park it, there was diesel from arsehole to breakfast.

Bike's have just the one track, but that makes us well more than twice as vulnerable to either inbuilt traction issues or trucks and busses spewing diesel everywhere. Time someone put their hand up, here.

I raised with the NZTA some weeks ago the strips across the motorway. I commute each day on my motorbike and those are very tricky in the wet. The NZTA said they were using a new more durable compound and it should become less slippery over time. I'm yet to see the evidence of that!

[bogan]

I raised with the NZTA some weeks ago the strips across the motorway. I commute each day on my motorbike and those are very tricky in the wet. The NZTA said they were using a new more durable compound and it should become less slippery over time. I'm yet to see the evidence of that!

Doesn't all get less slippery over time? And by getting more durable stuff it just makes that time take longer?
Definitely have to watch for them, especially when riding into the sun in wet conditions. Good plan to carry some polarised specs if that is a likely scenario.

[Ocean1]

The NZTA said they were using a new more durable compound and it should become less slippery over time.

That's nice, we'll wait until then shall we? If you can find some actual numbers to put alongside the words "NZ Standard #### requires a minimum coefficient of friction: ####" then I can tell you if they meet that after about 30 sec on site.

Actually, I can tell you now, the only thing preventing regular bloodshed is the fact that they’re not on much of a curve. I hit the first one changing lanes, I won’t be doing that again, they’re fucking lethal.

[MrKiwi]

That's nice, we'll wait until then shall we? If you can find some actual numbers to put alongside the words "NZ Standard #### requires a minimum coefficient of friction: ####" then I can tell you if they meet that after about 30 sec on site.

Actually, I can tell you now, the only thing preventing regular bloodshed is the fact that they’re not on much of a curve. I hit the first one changing lanes, I won’t be doing that again, they’re fucking lethal.

I wasn't impressed with their answer or that they seemed quite happy to ignore bikers less than happy experience riding over that shit

[Berries]

I wasn't impressed with their answer or that they seemed quite happy to ignore bikers less than happy experience riding over that shit
Doesn't go well with the whole Safe Roads and Roadsides and Safer Journey for Motorcycles does it? What is needed is some group that purports to represent motorcyclists to roll up its sleeves and sort it out. It might be one way of gaining some respect because so far, no offence, I haven't seen anything worthy of my $30 a year.

[MSTRS]

...What is needed is some group that purports to represent motorcyclists to roll up its sleeves and sort it out. ...

What a novel idea!!

[oneofsix]

I wasn't impressed with their answer or that they seemed quite happy to ignore bikers less than happy experience riding over that shit

But isn't that typical. Talk to cagers that have never ridden a 2 wheeler, pushie or motorised, about the white line issue and watch their eyes glaze over. Had a conversation with one that has 10 years experience over moi, mentioned that most cagers had understand the occasional squeal at the lights etc where there were painted lines was due to the paint and all of a sudden the light went on.
Four bikes went down at National park due to slick roads but how many cages got frights or left their lane slightly and have no understanding of why? All vehicles have to have minimum tread depth for the sake of grip but the road surface doesn't have to have minimum grip?! - really?
You drive/ride based on certain assumption about road grip, not sure what they are but you know them, you see a smooth patch you expect less grip but within certain parameters, you see newish road (clear of leftover chips) you expect good grip and ride accordingly. If NZTA are fucking with our learnt assumptions then they are playing a dangerous game.

[p.dath]

Doesn't all get less slippery over time? And by getting more durable stuff it just makes that time take longer?

Not necessarily. Any surface which becomes more polished generally offers less grip (tyre micro-hysteresis). The grit in the tar seal is a prime example - it does become more polished with use.


...All vehicles have to have minimum tread depth for the sake of grip but the road surface doesn't have to have minimum grip?! - really? ...

I'm not 100% sure, but I do think that the specifications given to contractors to build the roads does have a friction co-efficient specification.

[Conquiztador]

"Ride to the conditions" we will be told. I can not get my Pilot 2's to let go in the wet. And that makes me very happy. So then I start to trust the tyres and become a little more brave... until in an unexpected spot I come across a new piece of tarseal that creates havock and makes me go sideways in the corner. But the biggest proble is that I did not bring spare undies...

[oneofsix]

"Ride to the conditions" we will be told. I can not get my Pilot 2's to let go in the wet. And that makes me very happy. So then I start to trust the tyres and become a little more brave... until in an unexpected spot I come across a new piece of tarseal that creates havock and makes me go sideways in the corner. But the biggest proble is that I did not bring spare undies...

there's the rub. Ride to the conditions is all well 'n' good if the rider has a hope 'n' hell of knowing what the conditions are. Only works if you have consistent road surface and it starts to rain or if other traffic arrives but if the road looks normal but doesn't provide the grip of a normal road then ... :argh:

[Swoop]

It seems that: ... An additional running light mounted on your helmet ... could well be on the way.
Just a running light? Why not a rotating amber beacon, like on forklifts?

Which retard is coming up with these ideas, and where does he live?


I raised with the NZTA some weeks ago the strips across the motorway. The NZTA said they were using a new more durable compound and it should become less slippery over time.
Hopefully NZTA will be amenable when insurance companies are directed their way, to recover costs associated with accidents caused by their application of this product?

[Genestho]

I raised with the NZTA some weeks ago the strips across the motorway. I commute each day on my motorbike and those are very tricky in the wet. The NZTA said they were using a new more durable compound and it should become less slippery over time. I'm yet to see the evidence of that!

Hi Mr Kiwi.

You seem to be the guy to ask - I'm quite keen to know if there's any updates with your group.

I was involved in the Pilot group in New Zealand, in WBOP for Motorcycle Safety, working directly with ACC/NZ Police.
As I left, the group became stake holders in consultation with NZTA.

In the time we were together we ran campaigns for scooterists and gear promotions, also Watch out for Motorcyclist campaigns.

We worked with various people in the local Motorcycling Industry to bring together motorcyclists concerns directly to NZTA.

We put together an event that saw over 1000 Motorcyclists, Motorcycle clubs, Top Racers speaking, ACC and NZTA together, braking demos, the event was well received and feedback from a lot of riders said they appreciated the event. We achieved quite a bit and things looked liked they were heading somewhere.

I walked away for personal reasons, I have no axe to grind with anyone, everyone did their best, good people.

Now, there is this ministry appointed group. In the time you've been together I'm sorry but I really can't see anything happening.

I am genuinely interested. What exactly is happening. Also, is there an update on the Coro Loop ride and the findings on that?

And can you please confirm if Gareth Morgan is still the head of this group.

Cheers

[Conquiztador]

Just a running light? Why not a rotating amber beacon, like on forklifts?

Which retard is coming up with these ideas, and where does he live?



They will very soon go full circle... 272528

[MrKiwi]

Hi Mr Kiwi.

You seem to be the guy to ask - I'm quite keen to know if there's any updates with your group.

I was involved in the Pilot group in New Zealand, in WBOP for Motorcycle Safety, working directly with ACC/NZ Police.
As I left, the group became stake holders in consultation with NZTA.

In the time we were together we ran campaigns for scooterists and gear promotions, also Watch out for Motorcyclist campaigns.

We worked with various people in the local Motorcycling Industry to bring together motorcyclists concerns directly to NZTA.

We put together an event that saw over 1000 Motorcyclists, Motorcycle clubs, Top Racers speaking, ACC and NZTA together, braking demos, the event was well received and feedback from a lot of riders said they appreciated the event. We achieved quite a bit and things looked liked they were heading somewhere.

I walked away for personal reasons, I have no axe to grind with anyone, everyone did their best, good people.

Now, there is this ministry appointed group. In the time you've been together I'm sorry but I really can't see anything happening.

I am genuinely interested. What exactly is happening. Also, is there an update on the Coro Loop ride and the findings on that?

And can you please confirm if Gareth Morgan is still the head of this group.

Cheers

Hi, sorry I have not replied yet, will do so on Friday evening - am very busy with other matters at the moment.

Thought I would edit this post now that it is Friday night and I have moment to do your questions justice.

Yes Gareth has resigned from the Council, and while it isn't a secret we are expecting that the Minister will make a formal announcement shortly. Meanwhile, Deputy Chair, Paul Searancke is covering the Chair's duties, and he will continue to do so until a new Chair is appointed. All the other Council members listed on the website are current and active. I've discussed your post with Paul and he may also choose to reply to you.

This is the first Chair resignation from the Council, and it's taken ACC some time to develop a formal procedure for appointing a new Chair hence some delay in announcing the resignation. ACC has advised the Council that this procedure is in place now, so any future resignations from Council should be dealt with promptly. There will be a formal announcement in the media shortly about Gareth's resignation.

What is happening. The Chairman's update on the MotoNZ website had not been updated post Gareth's resignation as we were waiting for this to be formally announced. Eventually a less descriptive update was posted. We discussed on the Council our desire to make these both more detailed and more frequent. Servicing the website is through ACC.

Personally I'm conscious that to onlookers not a lot seems to have happened. However when the Council was formed there was considerable debate and discussion within the motorcycle community around the real cost of accidents with little shared view and considerable distrust from bikers of the ACC position. I was also of the view, based on previous work with the Crash Analysis System data on road accidents that there had not been much effort put into analysing what motorbikes accidents where happening, where and what the causal factors are. Again, anecdotally there are many views and opinions. As a council we agreed to spend most of last year getting a better understanding of the costs of accidents and what accidents where happening and why. This led to Gareth's articles on costs, the four part series put on the MotoNZ website earlier this year and also the broad analysis of accident causes. Understanding what accidents are happening and the frequency of these, along with what the causal factors are that contributed to the accidents is useful as it informs discussion on where to spend money to see if the poor accident trends can be reversed. None of us like paying the $30 levy, so if we have to pay lets see if we can focus where it is spent.

The news section of the MotoNZ website summarises some of our other work. The comments on the website are very brief and don't tell the full story but there are several areas where we are now focusing our attention, being:
- are there practical ways the conspicuity of bikes and riders can be improved - please note this is not about hi viz. It is about understanding why bikes are hard for others to see and what tools are there, if any, that could be made available to riders to use if they want to. We have commissioned a literature review of the science which is almost complete. This has taken longer than anticipated but the Council is of the view we want the review done carefully as the topic invokes a lot of discussion and debate, some informed and some based on opinions. We want to try and sort the facts from fiction.
- there are comments on the MotoNZ website about improving the design, construction and maintenance of roads, especially high use motorcycle routes, from a motorcyclist perspective
-we are interested in pushing the Authorities to further develop the design of road safety barriers that don't just work for cars, but must also work for motorcyclists. This initiative is one I am personally interested in and have been engaged in lots of discussions behind the scenes with some of my Council colleagues and with officials. It's slow and hard work but we are starting to gain some respect for our views. I have read the threads on this forum on wire rope barriers so am well versed on members views. There is some good information in those threads.
- We are interested in understanding the needs of scooter riders in urban settings to see if we can provide advice to road controlling authorities on practical measures to improve the safe passage for scooter riders.
- Behind the scenes are engaged in discussions with officials from ACC, NZTA and the Ministry of Transport to unashamedly lobby for motorcyclists and scooter riders, even though policy advocacy is not strictly in our terms of reference. However, these agencies know the Council exists and are keen to discuss safety initiatives.

What we as a Council have not been consistently good enough at is connecting with various rider communities on a regular basis. We have recently begun to discuss how we make this happen in a structured but easy to use way. Personally I have regularly come onto this forum to read the many varied views of members. I am a long time motorbike rider with an interest in transport safety and some professional experience in this field. However, it is impossible to be effective unless you can connect with fellow riders. I will respond to reasonable questions and am open to reasonable criticism and I am happy to agreed to disagree. I do, however, ignore the posts that are accusatory just because someone wants to rant and rave and call people names. It's sometimes amusing and sometimes sad but rarely affective.

You have asked me some direct questions, so I have tried briefly to provide you some answers. There is more I could say but will stop here for now. (and sorry for any disjointed logic in this post, I just learnt if you type for a long time your logon times out!)

[Genestho]

Hi, sorry I have not replied yet, will do so on Friday evening - am very busy with other matters at the moment.

Thought I would edit this post now that it is Friday night and I have moment to do your questions justice.

Yes Gareth has resigned from the Council, and while it isn't a secret we are expecting that the Minister will make a formal announcement shortly. Meanwhile, Deputy Chair, Paul Searancke is covering the Chair's duties, and he will continue to do so until a new Chair is appointed. All the other Council members listed on the website are current and active. I've discussed your post with Paul and he may also choose to reply to you.

This is the first Chair resignation from the Council, and it's taken ACC some time to develop a formal procedure for appointing a new Chair hence some delay in announcing the resignation. ACC has advised the Council that this procedure is in place now, so any future resignations from Council should be dealt with promptly. There will be a formal announcement in the media shortly about Gareth's resignation.

What is happening. The Chairman's update on the MotoNZ website had not been updated post Gareth's resignation as we were waiting for this to be formally announced. Eventually a less descriptive update was posted. We discussed on the Council our desire to make these both more detailed and more frequent. Servicing the website is through ACC.

Personally I'm conscious that to onlookers not a lot seems to have happened. However when the Council was formed there was considerable debate and discussion within the motorcycle community around the real cost of accidents with little shared view and considerable distrust from bikers of the ACC position. I was also of the view, based on previous work with the Crash Analysis System data on road accidents that there had not been much effort put into analysing what motorbikes accidents where happening, where and what the causal factors are. Again, anecdotally there are many views and opinions. As a council we agreed to spend most of last year getting a better understanding of the costs of accidents and what accidents where happening and why. This led to Gareth's articles on costs, the four part series put on the MotoNZ website earlier this year and also the broad analysis of accident causes. Understanding what accidents are happening and the frequency of these, along with what the causal factors are that contributed to the accidents is useful as it informs discussion on where to spend money to see if the poor accident trends can be reversed. None of us like paying the $30 levy, so if we have to pay lets see if we can focus where it is spent.

The news section of the MotoNZ website summarises some of our other work. The comments on the website are very brief and don't tell the full story but there are several areas where we are now focusing our attention, being:
- are there practical ways the conspicuity of bikes and riders can be improved - please note this is not about hi viz. It is about understanding why bikes are hard for others to see and what tools are there, if any, that could be made available to riders to use if they want to. We have commissioned a literature review of the science which is almost complete. This has taken longer than anticipated but the Council is of the view we want the review done carefully as the topic invokes a lot of discussion and debate, some informed and some based on opinions. We want to try and sort the facts from fiction.
- there are comments on the MotoNZ website about improving the design, construction and maintenance of roads, especially high use motorcycle routes, from a motorcyclist perspective
-we are interested in pushing the Authorities to further develop the design of road safety barriers that don't just work for cars, but must also work for motorcyclists. This initiative is one I am personally interested in and have been engaged in lots of discussions behind the scenes with some of my Council colleagues and with officials. It's slow and hard work but we are starting to gain some respect for our views. I have read the threads on this forum on wire rope barriers so am well versed on members views. There is some good information in those threads.
- We are interested in understanding the needs of scooter riders in urban settings to see if we can provide advice to road controlling authorities on practical measures to improve the safe passage for scooter riders.
- Behind the scenes are engaged in discussions with officials from ACC, NZTA and the Ministry of Transport to unashamedly lobby for motorcyclists and scooter riders, even though policy advocacy is not strictly in our terms of reference. However, these agencies know the Council exists and are keen to discuss safety initiatives.

What we as a Council have not been consistently good enough at is connecting with various rider communities on a regular basis. We have recently begun to discuss how we make this happen in a structured but easy to use way. Personally I have regularly come onto this forum to read the many varied views of members. I am a long time motorbike rider with an interest in transport safety and some professional experience in this field. However, it is impossible to be effective unless you can connect with fellow riders. I will respond to reasonable questions and am open to reasonable criticism and I am happy to agreed to disagree. I do, however, ignore the posts that are accusatory just because someone wants to rant and rave and call people names. It's sometimes amusing and sometimes sad but rarely affective.


You have asked me some direct questions, so I have tried briefly to provide you some answers. There is more I could say but will stop here for now. (and sorry for any disjointed logic in this post, I just learnt if you type for a long time your logon times out!)

Great thank you, I had seen your first reply but didn't realise you'd edited - only back here today with a coffee to reply to the first reply :)

Yes, I saw the press release regarding the resignation and can appreciate you not wanting to comment, until the announcement could be made public.

I understand the time it takes to set up shop, it just appeared that there's been a massive pause, considering the time this group has been together and I think it should be owed to Motorcyclists that they are connected with regularly, much more regularly than what's been happening.

Without being rude where you're at is is exactly where we were at, when I walked away and I additionally wondered if our model's been adopted? Interesting - not that it matters! Anyway...

Yes, there is a lot of mis-understanding and mis-information on here and I suppose this is the exact reason you have to find an efficient way to make sure information is regularly open, forth coming, factual and clear using a variety of ways and they need to know they're being listened to and more importantly widely consulted.

There's no point 'representing Motorcyclists' if there's none or, very little real time public consultations and interactions.. as example - the Coro Loop seems like over a year since the inception of the project..?

Anyway, good on you for fronting up!!

I wish you the best and thank you, for your time and reply :) :niceone:

[biker baz]

Doesn't all get less slippery over time? And by getting more durable stuff it just makes that time take longer?
Definitely have to watch for them, especially when riding into the sun in wet conditions. Good plan to carry some polarised specs if that is a likely scenario.

Maybe some court action would get their attention & get some action. On the other hand why bother, They don't need our help to look incompetent. But one could go for a low speed slide (with witnesses & a helmet cam) & the insurance coy could do the sue & carry the inevitable legal costs.

[James Deuce]

Maybe some court action would get their attention & get some action. On the other hand why bother, They don't need our help to look incompetent. But one could go for a low speed slide (with witnesses & a helmet cam) & the insurance coy could do the sue & carry the inevitable legal costs.

Err no, that would be your fault for not riding to the conditions. Insurance companies are not your friend. They're not going to collude in something that will potentially cost them money. They'll just turn down your claim for being incompetent.

[Conquiztador]

Err no, that would be your fault for not riding to the conditions. Insurance companies are not your friend. They're not going to collude in something that will potentially cost them money. They'll just turn down your claim for being incompetent.

And the "Ride To The Conditions" stance will always be tricky to counter. As riders we know that we are riding to the conditions, but when there is diesel in a corner or the new slippery tar seal is applied the argument will be that the conditions were different just there and we should have adjusted our riding to suit. Pushing shit uphill over diesel tarseal comes to mind.

[biker baz]

To be fair it does say motorcycle visibility. While the small frontal area of a motorbike and rider is an obvious factor that might contribute to crashes like this it does not explain why drivers etc

You hit the nail on the head. Lights on & hi vis are cheap political quick fixes that have been proven not to work. eg daylights on got tossed out in Oz.
The real problem is not a quick fix & even has a name- motion camouflage. The principle is used by the military & animals/insects hunting for food. There has now been some research reluctantly done in relation to road safety, but has been ignored by legislators or tossed in the too hard basket.
Basically a small object that stays in the same relative position to a background is not consciously seen even though an observer is looking. It is only when the observer moves & changes the relativity to the background that the object is seen consciously.
To translate & bearing in mind ya can't fix stupid. Mr motorcycle approaches an intersection where a cager wants to turn right. Cager looks & thinks the road is clear. Cager starts to make turn, but because the relative position of Mr motorcycle has now changed, cager realises there is a vehicle about to plant it's front tyre through the window & reflex reaction is to apply the brakes.
However Mr Motorcycle has been to a rider training day where this very scenario has been discussed. On seeing the cager start to move he looks past the front of the cager & avoids an accident. A very loud horn applied early may help things but a single vertical digit shown to the cager may not. Doncha love a happy ending?
Unfortunately this is a commonly occurring scenario for both parties & looking to legislators for a solution will result in another dept dedicated to spending shitloads & making sure nothing happens. Like elephants mating - lots of noise & nothing happens for 2 years.
More resourceful riders overseas get good use of their 9mm. A good incentive to be really careful.

[newbould]

I have come across this magic tar seal that wears in with time, around the Otago Harbour. Ride / drive to the conditions is raised each and every time a bike or car ends up in the harbour after a little rain. Finally - after about 18 months this new seal does start providing adeqaute grip, and then seems to last a long time. But it absolutely is slippery before that. This is not helping improve road safety.

When riding the SR Escapade this year I was amused to read the sign between Lake Hawea and Lake Wanaka warning motorcyclists that this piece of road was a high accident area for riders. Right around the corner was a series of cheese wire barriers. But I had been warned I guess.

then on the West coast there were many reminders to overseas travellers that we drive on the left. Great. A campervan coming round the corner on my side of the road is a real fear. But why put the arrows on a bend. Wet white paint is slippery. Put them on a straight. Simple.

[newbould]

You hit the nail on the head. Lights on & hi vis are cheap political quick fixes that have been proven not to work. eg daylights on got tossed out in Oz.
The real problem is not a quick fix & even has a name- motion camouflage. The principle is used by the military & animals/insects hunting for food. There has now been some research reluctantly done in relation to road safety, but has been ignored by legislators or tossed in the too hard basket.
Basically a small object that stays in the same relative position to a background is not consciously seen even though an observer is looking. It is only when the observer moves & changes the relativity to the background that the object is seen consciously.
To translate & bearing in mind ya can't fix stupid. Mr motorcycle approaches an intersection where a cager wants to turn right. Cager looks & thinks the road is clear. Cager starts to make turn, but because the relative position of Mr motorcycle has now changed, cager realises there is a vehicle about to plant it's front tyre through the window & reflex reaction is to apply the brakes.
However Mr Motorcycle has been to a rider training day where this very scenario has been discussed. On seeing the cager start to move he looks past the front of the cager & avoids an accident. A very loud horn applied early may help things but a single vertical digit shown to the cager may not. Doncha love a happy ending?
Unfortunately this is a commonly occurring scenario for both parties & looking to legislators for a solution will result in another dept dedicated to spending shitloads & making sure nothing happens. Like elephants mating - lots of noise & nothing happens for 2 years.
More resourceful riders overseas get good use of their 9mm. A good incentive to be really careful.

SMIDSY and SMIDSY avoidence techniques

[Ocean1]

And the "Ride To The Conditions" stance will always be tricky to counter.

There used to be a truck, fitted with wheels & tires on a frame amidships. These wheels could be turned like any normal front wheels and were set at a slight angle to the truck's centreline. The frame measured and recorded lateral load. It's a simple rig that tests the road surface friction coefficient on the fly, at or close to normal speed.

May be something like that in service but I haven't seen that particular one for years. If you had it in operation 40 hrs a week you could collect data from maybe 2000km of road. More inteligent scheduling would see any stretch with a hint of accident history surveyed within a week of an accident.

Anyone see a problem with such a scheme?

Edit: other than it doesn't fit with the above spending avoidance non-policy.

[newbould]

Anyone see a problem with such a scheme?

Edit: other than it doesn't fit with the above spending avoidance non-policy.

Nope. better than the police car skid test i've seen on tv shows

[MrKiwi]

You hit the nail on the head. Lights on & hi vis are cheap political quick fixes that have been proven not to work. eg daylights on got tossed out in Oz.
The real problem is not a quick fix & even has a name- motion camouflage. The principle is used by the military & animals/insects hunting for food. There has now been some research reluctantly done in relation to road safety, but has been ignored by legislators or tossed in the too hard basket.
Basically a small object that stays in the same relative position to a background is not consciously seen even though an observer is looking. It is only when the observer moves & changes the relativity to the background that the object is seen consciously.
To translate & bearing in mind ya can't fix stupid. Mr motorcycle approaches an intersection where a cager wants to turn right. Cager looks & thinks the road is clear. Cager starts to make turn, but because the relative position of Mr motorcycle has now changed, cager realises there is a vehicle about to plant it's front tyre through the window & reflex reaction is to apply the brakes.
However Mr Motorcycle has been to a rider training day where this very scenario has been discussed. On seeing the cager start to move he looks past the front of the cager & avoids an accident. A very loud horn applied early may help things but a single vertical digit shown to the cager may not. Doncha love a happy ending?
Unfortunately this is a commonly occurring scenario for both parties & looking to legislators for a solution will result in another dept dedicated to spending shitloads & making sure nothing happens. Like elephants mating - lots of noise & nothing happens for 2 years.
More resourceful riders overseas get good use of their 9mm. A good incentive to be really careful.

I agree with your comment about Hi Viz being seen as a quick political fix (in other countries) but I do not agree with lights on being a quick political fix, there are genuine safety reasons for lights on.

I've seen the articles on the military analysis and use for training pilots of motion camouflage, and have circulated these to my colleagues on MSAC. It's a challenging area to apply to the road, but one we should examine to see if something practical (and useful) might come of it.

[James Deuce]

Lights on works for every other motor vehicle except single track vehicles, e.g motorcycles.

During daylight hours it highlights the corners of a car,or truck or van, and makes it easier to gauge the approach speed of a vehicle. The wider the vehicle and the further apart the lights, the better.

On a motorcycle it is just a light of indeterminate speed, distance, and size and suffers from most of the issues that generate motion camouflage problems for unlit motorcycles.

[oneofsix]

Lights on works for every other motor vehicle except single track vehicles, e.g motorcycles.

During daylight hours it highlights the corners of a car,or truck or van, and makes it easier to gauge the approach speed of a vehicle. The wider the vehicle and the further apart the lights, the better.

On a motorcycle it is just a light of indeterminate speed, distance, and size and suffers from most of the issues that generate motion camouflage problems for unlit motorcycles.

Interesting point as a single light masks other factors that could clue distance and speed such as width of shoulders, length of bike etc. Many Bike manufacturers are trying to address the disadvantage of the lights on laws by providing dual lights, running lights etc but these are at best make do.

[Berries]

There used to be a truck, fitted with wheels & tires on a frame amidships. These wheels could be turned like any normal front wheels and were set at a slight angle to the truck's centreline. The frame measured and recorded lateral load. It's a simple rig that tests the road surface friction coefficient on the fly, at or close to normal speed.

May be something like that in service but I haven't seen that particular one for years.
Funny you mention it, but the truck that does the skid testing was parked in Mosgiel on Monday night.

Big yellow truck. (http://www.times-age.co.nz/news/monsters-task-to-make-our-roads-safer/1563225/)

[Ocean1]

Funny you mention it, but the truck that does the skid testing was parked in Mosgiel on Monday night.

Big yellow truck. (http://www.times-age.co.nz/news/monsters-task-to-make-our-roads-safer/1563225/)

Oh, right, nice.

So the assumption that the local councils and LTNZ don't know about the dangerous bits was a bit wrong. They just don't give a fuck.

[Conquiztador]

Funny you mention it, but the truck that does the skid testing was parked in Mosgiel on Monday night.

Big yellow truck. (http://www.times-age.co.nz/news/monsters-task-to-make-our-roads-safer/1563225/)

Anyone know what the action is if a stretch of road/spot is found that is too "skiddy"? And...how long does it take to get action as a result of the yellow trucks results?

[Berries]

The action will depend on what caused the road to be "skiddy" in the first place because the remedial work may well differ. How long might depend on when the results come out. In some areas the results come out early enough that the programme for that year can be rejigged to make sure the worst sites are treated, in other areas the results are too late in the sealing season to do anything physical for six months.

Google 'NZTA skid resistance' and have a look at the T10 spec if you are interested.

[p.dath]

Funny you mention it, but the truck that does the skid testing was parked in Mosgiel on Monday night.

Big yellow truck. (http://www.times-age.co.nz/news/monsters-task-to-make-our-roads-safer/1563225/)

Now that is really good to see! Proactively measuring the roading network and resolving issues, rather than waiting for an accident and an investigation to conclude that the road was a factor in the incident.

[Conquiztador]

Now that is really good to see! Proactively measuring the roading network and resolving issues, rather than waiting for an accident and an investigation to conclude that the road was a factor in the incident.

You got it wrong... the rider did not ride to the conditions, + speed and fatigue was also part of it. But the road...ha.

[MrKiwi]

Meant to post this a week or so back but I noticed those slippery lines across the motorway leaving Wellington are no longer that slippery, they have placed a chip seal on top of the original seal on the motorway joins.

[Ocean1]

Meant to post this a week or so back but I noticed those slippery lines across the motorway leaving Wellington are no longer that slippery, they have placed a chip seal on top of the original seal on the motorway joins.

Excellent.

Coincidence, shirly.

[MrKiwi]

Shirly - yep she manages to get a lot done...

[Bald Eagle]

Meant to post this a week or so back but I noticed those slippery lines across the motorway leaving Wellington are no longer that slippery, they have placed a chip seal on top of the original seal on the motorway joins.

Yep now they not slippery they just act like judder bars, which is almast as bad on the apex of a curve with a bit of lean on at mtorway speeds.

[MrKiwi]

Yep now they not slippery they just act like judder bars, which is almast as bad on the apex of a curve with a bit of lean on at mtorway speeds.

I guess that depends a little on what type of bike you are riding. My adventure bike tends to absorb those little bumps ok at 100kph, but I guess a sports bike might not do that so well.

[Ocean1]

I guess that depends a little on what type of bike you are riding. My adventure bike tends to absorb those little bumps ok at 100kph, but I guess a sports bike might not do that so well.

I haven't had occasion to check it out yet, but I don't generally have so much of a problem with lumps on either style of bike, perhaps because I've grown up with NZ roads.

Patches of near zero traction are definitely out of line, though, especially when there's little warning. Those strips might have been visibly different to the surrounding road surface but there was no warning in the appearance that the lack of grip might be so extreme. Good to see they've at least recognised there was a problem.

[MrKiwi]

I haven't had occasion to check it out yet, but I don't generally have so much of a problem with lumps on either style of bike, perhaps because I've grown up with NZ roads.

Patches of near zero traction are definitely out of line, though, especially when there's little warning. Those strips might have been visibly different to the surrounding road surface but there was no warning in the appearance that the lack of grip might be so extreme. Good to see they've at least recognised there was a problem.

I road over them this afternoon at 100kph and yes they do act a little like judder bars and I would imagine if you have a bike with firm sports suspension then you might get fractionally air born going over these. At speed in the wet I think that might cause a few unnecessary heart palpitations if you get momentarily, albeit fractionally, air born while in the middle of a corner.

How these behaved in the wet initially was in my view very dangerous and should never have been done like this. It created an unnecessarily dangerous situation for motorbikes. Careless in the extreme on behalf of the road owner. The current judder bar phenomena might reduce over time, but in the wet may still be hazardous, which is the point I think Bald Eagle is making.

[Ocean1]

I road over them this afternoon at 100kph and yes they do act a little like judder bars and I would imagine if you have a bike with firm sports suspension then you might get fractionally air born going over these.

Took the 1125 in for a new tyre this morning, made a mental note as I left to see what they felt like.

I was half way back up the Hutt motorway before I remembered. Can't have made much of an impression, eh?

[MrKiwi]

Took the 1125 in for a new tyre this morning, made a mental note as I left to see what they felt like.

I was half way back up the Hutt motorway before I remembered. Can't have made much of an impression, eh?

LOL. Well it took me several weeks to notice they had even been done. It wasn't until I road them in the rain I though - hey I'm not moving sideways any more. Constant cars driving over them are flatting them out.

[GrayWolf]

I road over them this afternoon at 100kph and yes they do act a little like judder bars and I would imagine if you have a bike with firm sports suspension then you might get fractionally air born going over these. At speed in the wet I think that might cause a few unnecessary heart palpitations if you get momentarily, albeit fractionally, air born while in the middle of a corner.

How these behaved in the wet initially was in my view very dangerous and should never have been done like this. It created an unnecessarily dangerous situation for motorbikes. Careless in the extreme on behalf of the road owner. The current judder bar phenomena might reduce over time, but in the wet may still be hazardous, which is the point I think Bald Eagle is making.


Took the 1125 in for a new tyre this morning, made a mental note as I left to see what they felt like.

I was half way back up the Hutt motorway before I remembered. Can't have made much of an impression, eh?

I think what comes to mind here is 'suitable vehicles' for the road? If you buy a sprotbike with what is almost semi race suspension? Then dont expect it to absorb bumbs etc in the same way 'standard' suspension does. Sorry Mr. Kiwi, there may well be some issue with how the repair has been executed, but even my MT with Ohlins and modified front suspension doesnt seem have a problem with it either. Yes I know the sprotbike is the 'big seller' but it's suspension isnt really a road friendly set up.

[SuperMac]

It's a challenging area to apply to the road, but one we should examine to see if something practical (and useful) might come of it.

Here you are: theory and practise:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/152467-Being-seen-at-intersections?p=1130386724#post1130386724

[MrKiwi]

Here you are: theory and practise:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/152467-Being-seen-at-intersections?p=1130386724#post1130386724

Thanks, yes have seen these links before in this thread...

[Conquiztador]

Funny you mention it, but the truck that does the skid testing was parked in Mosgiel on Monday night.

Big yellow truck. (http://www.times-age.co.nz/news/monsters-task-to-make-our-roads-safer/1563225/)

I passed the truck (I am almost sure it was the one in question) yesterday riding back from the Wairoa White Ribbon event to Napier at 5'ish pm. There was water spraying from the truck as it was doing it's work testing the roads. As the road yesterday was all day in direct sunlight there was quite a lot of soft tarseal and tar seeping up to the surface, I would be interested to find out what the readings were while going over the sun-affected bits of the road.

[MrKiwi]

I passed the truck (I am almost sure it was the one in question) yesterday riding back from the Wairoa White Ribbon event to Napier at 5'ish pm. There was water spraying from the truck as it was doing it's work testing the roads. As the road yesterday was all day in direct sunlight there was quite a lot of soft tarseal and tar seeping up to the surface, I would be interested to find out what the readings were while going over the sun-affected bits of the road.

So would I. I lost my front end a couple of years ago around a tight corner hitting melting tar. Left hand blind corner with a steepish downhill gradient carrying normal speed for my adventure bike (just less than 30km/hr around the bend) when bang the front end went! Melting tar!

[Conquiztador]

So would I. I lost my front end a couple of years ago around a tight corner hitting melting tar. Left hand blind corner with a steepish downhill gradient carrying normal speed for my adventure bike (just less than 30km/hr around the bend) when bang the front end went! Melting tar!

Can't find it, but I think it was in this thread(??) there was a comment re that issue having been solved in Oz. If that is correct, why have we not just copied what they are doing??

[caseye]

What'd they do over there then Con?

[Conquiztador]

What'd they do over there then Con?

Not sure. Only thing I got from the post was, that as Oz has hotter temperatures than we have here they have come up with a solution. But at the same time I would assume that we have that technology (or similar) here as I have never seen an airport melt under the sun? I do not know enuf about bitumen/tar seal/asphalt to know what is best and why.

[caseye]

Like you I don't know what was done over there. You are right about airport runways. Whats wrong with NZ Roads is simple. The tar seal guys are raping us! Our Emulsion contains upwards of 25% turpentine,simply, it's so fucking watered down that it melts at the drop of a hat.
I defy anyone who works in that industry to prove me wrong.
Fulton Hogan owns pretty much every tar sealing outfit in NZ, don't think I'm right? go take a look at who actually owns all the other names in road sealing, ultimately they all come under the Chinese owners of Fulton Hogan.
Roads made with the correct amount of everything, base metal, matting,lime where needed and of course either chip or hot mix are bloody near perfect.
Economics rules the making of our roads, not public safety, not an idealistic notion that our roads should be the best and safest in the world just money, it stinks.

[MrKiwi]

Like you I don't know what was done over there. You are right about airport runways. Whats wrong with NZ Roads is simple. The tar seal guys are raping us! Our Emulsion contains upwards of 25% turpentine,simply, it's so fucking watered down that it melts at the drop of a hat.
I defy anyone who works in that industry to prove me wrong.
Fulton Hogan owns pretty much every tar sealing outfit in NZ, don't think I'm right? go take a look at who actually owns all the other names in road sealing, ultimately they all come under the Chinese owners of Fulton Hogan.
Roads made with the correct amount of everything, base metal, matting,lime where needed and of course either chip or hot mix are bloody near perfect.
Economics rules the making of our roads, not public safety, not an idealistic notion that our roads should be the best and safest in the world just money, it stinks.

I can't verify this but I had heard we cut our tar so that it remains more viscous so they can transport it further in trucks from the plant when making roads. The only problem being the tar permanently has a lower pour point (melting point) as a consequence.

[Conquiztador]

Like you I don't know what was done over there. You are right about airport runways. Whats wrong with NZ Roads is simple. The tar seal guys are raping us! Our Emulsion contains upwards of 25% turpentine,simply, it's so fucking watered down that it melts at the drop of a hat.
I defy anyone who works in that industry to prove me wrong.
Fulton Hogan owns pretty much every tar sealing outfit in NZ, don't think I'm right? go take a look at who actually owns all the other names in road sealing, ultimately they all come under the Chinese owners of Fulton Hogan.
Roads made with the correct amount of everything, base metal, matting,lime where needed and of course either chip or hot mix are bloody near perfect.
Economics rules the making of our roads, not public safety, not an idealistic notion that our roads should be the best and safest in the world just money, it stinks.

So based on your comments, it seems that drivers/riders lives are exchanged for Chinese profit... and nobody is making any noise re this??

[Scuba_Steve]

So based on your comments, it seems that drivers/riders lives are exchanged for Chinese profit... and nobody is making any noise re this??

why would they? the Govt gets it's "cheapest tender" (or at-least biggest backhanders), the Chinese make profit & cut corners to improve this, & the general public is left ignorant.
Until it's cut enough to have a real effect on cars, no ones gonna investigate further

[Conquiztador]

why would they? the Govt gets it's "cheapest tender" (or at-least biggest backhanders), the Chinese make profit & cut corners to improve this, & the general public is left ignorant.
Until it's cut enough to have a real effect on cars, no ones gonna investigate further

The first thing would then be to find a specialist on this subject of asphalt/tar seal who would be able to inform how it all works, and then to provide information re what is done in NZ, so that there would be some credibility to this. Any one have any idea where we could find such a expert who would be prepared to give this info?

[MrKiwi]

why would they? the Govt gets it's "cheapest tender" (or at-least biggest backhanders), the Chinese make profit & cut corners to improve this, & the general public is left ignorant.
Until it's cut enough to have a real effect on cars, no ones gonna investigate further

The Government doesn't do back handers, but they do like cheap tenders that meet required specs.

[Bassmatt]

The first thing would then be to find a specialist on this subject of asphalt/tar seal who would be able to inform how it all works, and then to provide information re what is done in NZ, so that there would be some credibility to this. Any one have any idea where we could find such a expert who would be prepared to give this info?

Yeah, shouldn't our "guardians" be looking at this?
Oh wait... they might upset thier bosses AND actually do something effective, silly me.

[MrKiwi]

Yeah, shouldn't our "guardians" be looking at this?
Oh wait... they might upset thier bosses AND actually do something effective, silly me.

Remind me again - who are our guardians?

[Scuba_Steve]

The Government doesn't do back handers, but they do like cheap tenders that meet required specs.

Which Govt are you talking bout? Cause the NZ one most certainly does. Maybee not on this matter but there's NO way backhanders aren't present in Govt

[Bassmatt]

Remind me again - who are our guardians?

Your a smart guy you know what/who I'm referring to.

[MrKiwi]

Which Govt are you talking bout? Cause the NZ one most certainly does. Maybee not on this matter but there's NO way backhanders aren't present in Govt

I've worked in and out of government at senior levels for 20 years and have never seen backhanders. NZ is constantly rated as having the least corrupt government in the world. Maybe I'll stop short of being as emphatic as I was with my previous post, but I've simply not seen them.

[MrKiwi]

Your a smart guy you know what/who I'm referring to.

maybe I was trying to say something too?

[Berries]

Fulton Hogan owns pretty much every tar sealing outfit in NZ, don't think I'm right? go take a look at who actually owns all the other names in road sealing, ultimately they all come under the Chinese owners of Fulton Hogan.
Eh? I thought the biggest individual shareholder in FH was Shell followed by hundreds of smaller ones? Can you point me to anything that shows the Chinese have a hand in it?


The first thing would then be to find a specialist on this subject of asphalt/tar seal who would be able to inform how it all works, and then to provide information re what is done in NZ, so that there would be some credibility to this. Any one have any idea where we could find such a expert who would be prepared to give this info?
If you are serious try and get your hands on a copy of 'Chipsealing in New Zealand'. The conspiracists will quickly point out that it was published by Transit New Zealand but it will give you a good understanding of the subject. You can read the chapters online here. (http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/chipsealing-new-zealand-manual/chipsealing-in-new-zealand.html)

[Ocean1]

'Chipsealing in New Zealand]

Must have a wee look later. But having just traversed a fair portion of the south's roads I can assure you there's a huge difference in both application and quality between the islands. You can actually ride over freshly laid examples down here without throwing a strip of chips all over the landscape, it seems perfectly complete immediately, as compared to the road outside my workshop, which is still black rocky soup a month later. It's a joke.

[Bassmatt]

maybe I was trying to say something too?

You think i should have written it as The Guardians?

[MrKiwi]

The MotoNZ website has been updated following the recent Motorcycle Safety Levy Advisory Council meeting in early December. The Council has also released a literature review on conspicuity and is keen to hear your views.

See this link - http://motonz.org.nz/ bottom of the page.

[bogan]

The MotoNZ website has been updated following the recent Motorcycle Safety Levy Advisory Council meeting in early December. The Council has also released a literature review on conspicuity and is keen to hear your views.

See this link - http://motonz.org.nz/ bottom of the page.

Survey done, fuck there are a lot of words and bugger all figures in that report, might give it more than a skim through some other time...

[James Deuce]

The report is frankly horrible and the survey is very poorly constructed. Designed to give the responses they want. I have an issues with the Hi-Vis/Reflective gear answers because ALL textile jackets of any quality have built-in reflective patches, stripes, or panels, that aren't necessarily fluoro or even visible as being reflective to the naked eye. Most of the people who wear reflective vests tend to have big giant windjammer style fairings and top boxes or pack racks with a bag that never comes off the bike. So the reflective stripes never get to do their job and when you crash into them from the side you get a momentary flash of green, pink, or yellow before the bumping and scraping starts.

I reckon these have the best potential effect on allowing other road users to see you and judge your speed and distance:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Motorbike-LED-Handguards-Hand-Guards-Suitable-For-Yamaha-XJR-1200-XJR-1300-/180960164233?pt=UK_Motorcycle_Parts&hash=item2a2210f989
They are as far apart as you can get on a bike and aren't blindingly bright.

[Flip]

The MotoNZ website has been updated following the recent Motorcycle Safety Levy Advisory Council meeting in early December. The Council has also released a literature review on conspicuity and is keen to hear your views.

See this link - http://motonz.org.nz/ bottom of the page.


So this is what you have wasted my $30 doing?

I lost interest half way through the exec summary also.

[oneofsix]

I thought the main message was that all drivers had to first get the 6F

car drivers who also have experience as motorcyclists look in different places for motorcyclists at
junctions when compared with other experienced car drivers and with novices.

[Ocean1]

The MotoNZ website has been updated following the recent Motorcycle Safety Levy Advisory Council meeting in early December. The Council has also released a literature review on conspicuity and is keen to hear your views.

See this link - http://motonz.org.nz/ bottom of the page.

Not sure many here have time to wade through 54 pages.
And the summary is broken: http://motonz.org.nz/assets/Visibility-Project-background-and-summary2.pdf

[James Deuce]

It's a quiet week mate :)

[Ocean1]

It's a quiet week mate :)

While you're at it see if you can get your hands on the report brief.

And the first draft, I'd like to see what was edited.

Be interested in a synopsis of the research articles too.



Am I paranoid enough?

[James Deuce]

Not yet, but it's a very good effort.

I like the bits the grudgingly admit that reflective clothing is so dependent on external conditions in regard to effectiveness that it isn't that helpful. But we should all still wear it. The stuff that I've seen to be most effective is those reflective black bumps that some jackets have at shoulder level. I've got a photo Hitcher took of me when I turned up at his place on the R6 and I was wearing the jacket I had that was covered in them. Bugger me, what a light show when photographed with flash photography.

[MSTRS]

...
Am I paranoid enough?

Remember how hard (read that as impossible) it was to get the raw data from ACC a year or three back? They were babies compared to this lot for imparting facts that can be checked and cross-referenced...

[Ocean1]

Remember how hard (read that as impossible) it was to get the raw data from ACC a year or three back? They were babies compared to this lot for imparting facts that can be checked and cross-referenced...

You haven't seen one of my invoices.

[Zedder]

Not sure many here have time to wade through 54 pages.
And the summary is broken: http://motonz.org.nz/assets/Visibility-Project-background-and-summary2.pdf

Their web site has the background and summary available, it just can't be accessed via the link you posted for some reason.

[James Deuce]

It doesn't work from the website either.

[Zedder]

It doesn't work from the website either.

It's on my screen as I write now.

[Conquiztador]

When you, as I do, sit on the outside of all this and mind your own business, hate anything apart from black leather and have yet, after 45 years of riding, to have one accident as a result of not being seen, you really wonder what the fuck all this crap is about?

I am most probably of similar age to some of the old farts that portray them self as well educated in the subject and "experts" meaning that their word is the gospel. But that is probably where the similarity ends. I fix my own bikes. I modify and customize. I prefer old bikes w/o electronics. (A few days ago I spent 3 hours rebuilding my clutch on the forecourt of a petrol station after midnight). I ride fast when I think it is safe and needed (or I just want to). I don't tell others how to ride (ok, so at times someones riding annoys me and I will make that heard) But mainly I take responsibility for all my actions and no group of "better wisser" shall ever influence my riding.

This group is waisting their time, my money and are trying to solve issues that have no solutions.

But this is all my opinion and means nothing. Thou it will not change my sleeping habits.

[Ocean1]

It's on my screen as I write now.

Aye, is workong now.


Council is not looking to advocate mandatory changes to lighting on bikes or around hi‐vis/reflective gear.
Instead we want New Zealand riders to know the facts about the effectiveness of safety lights and highvis/
reflective gear, and make their own decisions about what they use to make themselves and their bikes
more visible and conspicuous to drivers.

Then probably the very best thing you can do to progress that end is to change the rules regarding parking/side lights WRT motorcycles to allow them to be used as running lights. Some of us have fitted them and use them anyway, we'd just prefer that the most efficacious and reasonably priced solution didn't make us 'ardened criminals, innit.

The second best thing you can do is bulk buy LED side light kits for, say $30:00, to pluck a completely random number, and give them to anyone registering a bike.

[MrKiwi]

Aye, is workong now.



Then probably the very best thing you can do to progress that end is to change the rules regarding parking/side lights WRT motorcycles to allow them to be used as running lights. Some of us have fitted them and use them anyway, we'd just prefer that the most efficacious and reasonably priced solution didn't make us 'ardened criminals, innit.

The second best thing you can do is bulk buy LED side light kits for, say $30:00, to pluck a completely random number, and give them to anyone registering a bike.

Thanks, useful thoughts. I have fitted led's to my bike as day time running lights and I use them in conjunction with my headlights so I am personally keen on seeing if the law can be changed to clarify that, if you want to fit them, this is not contrary to the law.

[MrKiwi]

When you, as I do, sit on the outside of all this and mind your own business, hate anything apart from black leather and have yet, after 45 years of riding, to have one accident as a result of not being seen, you really wonder what the fuck all this crap is about?

I am most probably of similar age to some of the old farts that portray them self as well educated in the subject and "experts" meaning that their word is the gospel. But that is probably where the similarity ends. I fix my own bikes. I modify and customize. I prefer old bikes w/o electronics. (A few days ago I spent 3 hours rebuilding my clutch on the forecourt of a petrol station after midnight). I ride fast when I think it is safe and needed (or I just want to). I don't tell others how to ride (ok, so at times someones riding annoys me and I will make that heard) But mainly I take responsibility for all my actions and no group of "better wisser" shall ever influence my riding.

This group is waisting their time, my money and are trying to solve issues that have no solutions.

But this is all my opinion and means nothing. Thou it will not change my sleeping habits.

personally you might not have had an accident because of a clack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents. Yes I have personally reviewed the CAS database to satisfy myself that the numbers are robust enough to make that statement.

[James Deuce]

personally you might not have had an accident because of a clack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents. Yes I have personally reviewed the CAS database to satisfy myself that the numbers are robust enough to make that statement.
Poor, deluded fool.

[James Deuce]

It's on my screen as I write now.
That's good.

[Ocean1]

if you want to fit them, this is not contrary to the law.

No? I thought they were deemed "parking lights", not allowed on otherwise, wording to the effect that headlight was to be the only fwd white light also.

Not that it made any appreciable difference to the speed mine were installed...

[James Deuce]

No? I thought they were deemed "parking lights", not allowed on otherwise, wording to the effect that headlight was to be the only fwd white light also.

Not that it made any appreciable difference to the speed mine were installed...

Well, so long as Mr Kiwi helps pay the court costs, I'm bunging these on after Christmas. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Motorbike-LED-Handguards-Hand-Guards-Suitable-For-Yamaha-XJR-1200-XJR-1300-/180960164233?pt=UK_Motorcycle_Parts&hash=item2a2210f989

I'm pretty sure that if a cop decides I've left my parking lights on and tickets me thusly, I won't have hope of challenging the judgement, though I'll give it a try. Also going to get an LED taillight. The later model XJR ones fit right in.

[Ocean1]

I'm bunging these on after Christmas. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Motorbike-LED-Handguards-Hand-Guards-Suitable-For-Yamaha-XJR-1200-XJR-1300-/180960164233?pt=UK_Motorcycle_Parts&hash=item2a2210f989

Nearly identical to the Acerbis items I put on the CR. Be very carefull with the hair-thin feed wires.

DAMHIK

[James Deuce]

Thank you for the warning.

[Conquiztador]

personally you might not have had an accident because of a clack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents. Yes I have personally reviewed the CAS database to satisfy myself that the numbers are robust enough to make that statement.

Good on you. But my research* tells me that the same idiots who crash in to police cars, ambulances and fire engines with their lights AND sirens on will not be helped in their: "Sorry I did not see you" bubble by a row of LED lights, a day-glow vest or lights on 24/7. I am no buddy of Katman's and I expect we will never share a beer. But I agree with one of his statements 100%. This is the one where he states that we are all fully responsible for all and anything that happens to us on the road while on our bike. If you crash in to a old lady who came out of a side road dayglow and lights has no meaning. (If you are interested I can provide you with my take on why. One day. Maybe...). You should have expected her to be there.

*In my years of riding I have avoided many idiots who "sorry, did not see you". In my home countris years ago the lights on all time rule was in place. Riders still died. They still did not see you. The reality is that you can legislate all you want, (And I am sure you are itching to do so) 100% of the issue still lies with the rider and his attitude.

[MrKiwi]

Poor, deluded fool.

If you are saying I am a poor deluded fool then we are going to have to agree to disagree. A deluded fool I am not. I take care to understand real world data, limitations and all, do you?

[MrKiwi]

No? I thought they were deemed "parking lights", not allowed on otherwise, wording to the effect that headlight was to be the only fwd white light also.

Not that it made any appreciable difference to the speed mine were installed...

Sorry my bad didn't make myself clear enough, they are contrary to the law at present, but I would like to see the law changed so it is not.

[Zedder]

Aye, is workong now.



Then probably the very best thing you can do to progress that end is to change the rules regarding parking/side lights WRT motorcycles to allow them to be used as running lights. Some of us have fitted them and use them anyway, we'd just prefer that the most efficacious and reasonably priced solution didn't make us 'ardened criminals, innit.

The second best thing you can do is bulk buy LED side light kits for, say $30:00, to pluck a completely random number, and give them to anyone registering a bike.

A bit of anti climax there but at least they're not forcing anything on us (yet). Yep, $30 is an interesting figure.

[Zedder]

That's good.

I thought so too.

[James Deuce]

If you are saying I am a poor deluded fool then we are going to have to agree to disagree. A deluded fool I am not. I take care to understand real world data, limitations and all, do you?
No, I'm far too thick for that. Sheep can't see in colour either.

[bogan]

No, I'm far too thick for that. Sheep can't see in colour either.

To be fair, all he said was factor, not causal factor. Unfortunately, these mean the same thing to most people, and tpb often take advantage of that.

[Kickaha]

I take care to understand real world data, limitations and all, do you?

My moneys on Jim

[Ocean1]

13,072 views, 356 replies

Normal ratio?

[Conquiztador]

13,072 views, 356 replies

Normal ratio?

Normally just below 1%. This is lower, but that is understandable as to post here you will be scrutinized. And that can at times hurt...

[swbarnett]

personally you might not have had an accident because of a clack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents. Yes I have personally reviewed the CAS database to satisfy myself that the numbers are robust enough to make that statement.
Have you considered that, although the rider and bike were not seen, the bigger problem might just be that the rider was not educated in ways to keep themselves alive under such circumstances?

[Zedder]

Have you considered that, although the rider and bike were not seen, the bigger problem might just be that the rider was not educated in ways to keep themselves alive under such circumstances?

That's a good point. A guy I knew used to ride around with a very casual "If it happens it happens and I'll deal with it" attitude which I could never understand. Not surprisingly, he had a few incidents.

[Berries]

personally you might not have had an accident because of a clack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents. Yes I have personally reviewed the CAS database to satisfy myself that the numbers are robust enough to make that statement.
I am surprised that you can use CAS to link being knocked off your bike to a lack of conspicuity, apart from the obvious fact that most people don't intend to pull out on you. Would it not be the exact same issue in a car vs car crash?

While CAS can record if a motorcyclist was wearing dark clothing it has only been used 22 times in the 4,000+ injury crashes involving a bike and another vehicle over the last five years. Considering black is the new black I don’t know why they bother. Out of the same 4,000+ crashes only 29 are recorded as the bike having inadequate or no headlights. With 26 of these being at night you could say they were the riders fault. CAS may be all we have, but the level of reporting and investigation generally finishes with “I looked but never saw them” rather than going that one step further and asking why, which is the six million dollar question. Or thirty dollar question depending on your viewpoint.

[MrKiwi]

I am surprised that you can use CAS to link being knocked off your bike to a lack of conspicuity, apart from the obvious fact that most people don't intend to pull out on you. Would it not be the exact same issue in a car vs car crash?

While CAS can record if a motorcyclist was wearing dark clothing it has only been used 22 times in the 4,000+ injury crashes involving a bike and another vehicle over the last five years. Considering black is the new black I don’t know why they bother. Out of the same 4,000+ crashes only 29 are recorded as the bike having inadequate or no headlights. With 26 of these being at night you could say they were the riders fault. CAS may be all we have, but the level of reporting and investigation generally finishes with “I looked but never saw them” rather than going that one step further and asking why, which is the six million dollar question. Or thirty dollar question depending on your viewpoint.

The evidence suggests lack of conspicuity is a significant factor in a small number of cases but it is one of a number of factors in many crashes involving multiple vehicles, especially intersection incidents. It's not a factor in loss of control.

[MrKiwi]

Have you considered that, although the rider and bike were not seen, the bigger problem might just be that the rider was not educated in ways to keep themselves alive under such circumstances?

Yes. And it's a good point you raise, one worth repeating to ourselves.

[MrKiwi]

Thanks for the comments, I'm finding the feedback useful.

[bogan]

The evidence suggests lack of conspicuity is a significant factor in a small number of cases but it is one of a number of factors in many crashes involving multiple vehicles, especially intersection incidents. It's not a factor in loss of control.

How do you get a significant factor in a small number of cases? Isn't the factor's significance measured by how well it correlates to the data? It is my understanding that CAS cannot effectively record if conspicuity was a contributing factor, only that said factor was present (and often even that will not be recorded).

[Katman]

personally you might not have had an accident because of a lack of conspicuity but it is a factor in a surprising number of accidents.

So is riders riding with their brain switched off.

[Hitcher]

So is riders riding with their brain switched off.

True. And drivers driving with theirs off too. Never assume about who may have seen what. I've learned that lesson the hard way.

[duckonin]

All sorts can b bad news at intersections/side roads/stop lights.. Regardless of what we wear, along with the headlight blaring out in front of us, a percentage of drivers will after even seeing you, will try and beat you . They play this game every day with whatever is on the road not just motorbikes . Drive defensively.

[MrKiwi]

How do you get a significant factor in a small number of cases? Isn't the factor's significance measured by how well it correlates to the data? It is my understanding that CAS cannot effectively record if conspicuity was a contributing factor, only that said factor was present (and often even that will not be recorded).

Put another way, a significant causal factor in a small number of crashes...

[MrKiwi]

So is riders riding with their brain switched off.

Sadly very true

[bogan]

Put another way, a significant causal factor in a small number of crashes...

And how do you tell the difference between a driver who didn't even bother to look, and one that didn't see because the rider was not conspicuous enough? Because I would imagine most drivers would exaggerate how much they actually looked.

By all means chalk them up as the driver failed to observe, and then say (if this is backed up by the studies) that with better conspicuity on the riders part, drivers are less likely to fail to observe.

[James Deuce]

People who scan traffic and actively spot motorcycles are much more likely to be motorcyclists or related to a motorcyclist. The psych component of spotting motorcycles and push bikes is hugely under rated in every conspicuity study I've ever read.

People who have no vested interest in not killing cyclists or motorcyclists simply don't look for them in and around traffic. It's not malicious, but it is negligent, however in their defense that stems from a system that places no emphasis in understanding how some forms of transportation can be camouflaged by their own size. Oddly enough, the two forms of transport most affected by motion camouflage are motorcycles and trains, both because they simply don't appear to be moving relative to the background until very close to viewer. Given that the average driver scans in any direction for only a 10th of a second, conspicuity is not the major issue. The major issue is training people HOW to look and WHAT to look for. Your subconscious deals very well with the expected. It interprets cars and trucks and their relative position to the observer very well without exercising much in the way of conscious thought. In that 10th of a second, your brain does not see in colour, your memory fills in the blanks and adds details after you've decided to look elsewhere. Again conspicuity has very little to do with the actual perceived reality of the viewer. The length of time spent observing simply isn't long enough to do anything other than react in your usual rote fashion, with memory providing expected motion and reaction patterns.

Changing that 10th of a second to 1 second via training will drop the intersection accident rate far more than a fluorescent gimp suit ever will.

[bogan]

People who scan traffic and actively spot motorcycles are much more likely to be motorcyclists or related to a motorcyclist. The psych component of spotting motorcycles and push bikes is hugely under rated in every conspicuity study I've ever read.

People who have no vested interest in not killing cyclists or motorcyclists simply don't look for them in and around traffic. It's not malicious, but it is negligent, however in their defense that stems from a system that places no emphasis in understanding how some forms of transportation can be camouflaged by their own size. Oddly enough, the two forms of transport most affected by motion camouflage are motorcycles and trains, both because they simply don't appear to be moving relative to the background until very close to viewer. Given that the average driver scans in any direction for only a 10th of a second, conspicuity is not the major issue. The major issue is training people HOW to look and WHAT to look for. Your subconscious deals very well with the expected. It interprets cars and trucks and their relative position to the observer very well without exercising much in the way of conscious thought. In that 10th of a second, your brain does not see in colour, your memory fills in the blanks and adds details after you've decided to look elsewhere. Again conspicuity has very little to do with the actual perceived reality of the viewer. The length of time spent observing simply isn't long enough to do anything other than react in your usual rote fashion, with memory providing expected motion and reaction patterns.

Very well put, I wonder if any of that was mentioned in the report.


Changing that 10th of a second to 1 second via training will drop the intersection accident rate far more than a fluorescent gimp suit ever will.

Yeh but whose pockets—be they high vis pockets or otherwise—is that going to line? :whistle:

[SuperMac]

People who scan traffic and actively spot motorcycles are much more likely to be motorcyclists or related to a motorcyclist. The psych component of spotting motorcycles and push bikes is hugely under rated in every conspicuity study I've ever read.

How does this new report cover that aspect?


Given that the average driver scans in any direction for only a 10th of a second

This suggests it's longer, more like 0.4s

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/conferences/congress2006/proceedings/day2/langham_labbett.pdf

[James Deuce]

How does this new report cover that aspect?



This suggests it's longer, more like 0.4s

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/conferences/congress2006/proceedings/day2/langham_labbett.pdf

The new report doesn't cover the psych aspect, and we can swap studies all night. 0.4s is still to short to make an informed, conscious decision to pull out of an intersection. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though.

[SuperMac]

People who scan traffic and actively spot motorcycles are much more likely to be motorcyclists or related to a motorcyclist. The psych component of spotting motorcycles and push bikes is hugely under rated in every conspicuity study I've ever read.

People who have no vested interest in not killing cyclists or motorcyclists simply don't look for them in and around traffic.


The new report doesn't cover the psych aspect,

Not this?

Another development in the field has been an appreciation of the role of aspects of conspicuity other than visibility. For example, Brooks and Guppy (1996) found that car drivers who had relatives who rode a motorcycle were less likely than average to be involved in a collision with a motorcyclist; one suggestion for this effect is that for these drivers, motorcyclists are more ‘cognitively conspicuous’ (i.e. expected). Recent data from Crundall, Crundall, Clarke and Sharar (2012) are also relevant here; car drivers who also have experience as motorcyclists look in different places for motorcyclists at junctions when compared with other experienced car drivers and with novices. Again the suggested mechanism for this is that their experience as motorcyclists gives them an appreciation of where to look, and this ‘cognitive conspicuity’ aids detection.

That seems to be exactly what you're saying :calm: :yes:

[Conquiztador]

Not this?

Another development in the field has been an appreciation of the role of aspects of conspicuity other than visibility. For example, Brooks and Guppy (1996) found that car drivers who had relatives who rode a motorcycle were less likely than average to be involved in a collision with a motorcyclist; one suggestion for this effect is that for these drivers, motorcyclists are more ‘cognitively conspicuous’ (i.e. expected). Recent data from Crundall, Crundall, Clarke and Sharar (2012) are also relevant here; car drivers who also have experience as motorcyclists look in different places for motorcyclists at junctions when compared with other experienced car drivers and with novices. Again the suggested mechanism for this is that their experience as motorcyclists gives them an appreciation of where to look, and this ‘cognitive conspicuity’ aids detection.

That seems to be exactly what you're saying :calm: :yes:

That's it then! We can now stop all this blaha and implement the following as the solution:
"Before a person can be considered for an Automobile Learners License he/she must hold a full motorbike license"

[MrKiwi]

And how do you tell the difference between a driver who didn't even bother to look, and one that didn't see because the rider was not conspicuous enough? Because I would imagine most drivers would exaggerate how much they actually looked.

By all means chalk them up as the driver failed to observe, and then say (if this is backed up by the studies) that with better conspicuity on the riders part, drivers are less likely to fail to observe.

To be fair, that is the inference. Less likely is a good way to put it.

[MrKiwi]

People who scan traffic and actively spot motorcycles are much more likely to be motorcyclists or related to a motorcyclist. The psych component of spotting motorcycles and push bikes is hugely under rated in every conspicuity study I've ever read.

People who have no vested interest in not killing cyclists or motorcyclists simply don't look for them in and around traffic. It's not malicious, but it is negligent, however in their defense that stems from a system that places no emphasis in understanding how some forms of transportation can be camouflaged by their own size. Oddly enough, the two forms of transport most affected by motion camouflage are motorcycles and trains, both because they simply don't appear to be moving relative to the background until very close to viewer. Given that the average driver scans in any direction for only a 10th of a second, conspicuity is not the major issue. The major issue is training people HOW to look and WHAT to look for. Your subconscious deals very well with the expected. It interprets cars and trucks and their relative position to the observer very well without exercising much in the way of conscious thought. In that 10th of a second, your brain does not see in colour, your memory fills in the blanks and adds details after you've decided to look elsewhere. Again conspicuity has very little to do with the actual perceived reality of the viewer. The length of time spent observing simply isn't long enough to do anything other than react in your usual rote fashion, with memory providing expected motion and reaction patterns.

Changing that 10th of a second to 1 second via training will drop the intersection accident rate far more than a fluorescent gimp suit ever will.

James - very well put, your description certainly mirrors my experience as I tour or commute. I've ridden about 30,000kms on my motorbike in the last two years and since I've fitted powerful led's on my crash bars (last Christmas) I've noticed people are now less likely to pull out in front of me, but it most certainly has not stopped the practice. I suspect nothing will stop the practice of those car drivers who don't give a flying **** about motorcyclists (or other road users for that matter).

The literature review was aimed at principally conspicuity and not at the psych component. The Council is interested in the psych component because this one of the areas we constantly hear about from riders and as riders we know about. There is another programme of work around SMIDSY (or in government speak LBFTS - looked but failed to see) where the Council is keen to get a better view of how to address the issues you raise. The challenge in deciding what to work on and when is that none of the issues are totally separate from one another but we can't tackle all the issues at once. </SPAN>

[swbarnett]

SMIDSY (or in government speak LBFTS - looked but failed to see)
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! LBFTS and SMIDSY are not the same thing.

The term "LBFTS" misses an important part of the SMIDSY, those that don't look in the first place. These are the ones that pull out in front of fire engines. Over the past year or two I have personally witnessed a number of emergency vehicles travelling, legitimately, against a red light. Almost without fail they had to avoid some blind cager that had no idea they were there.

[Ocean1]

I suspect nothing will stop the practice of those car drivers who don't give a flying **** about motorcyclists (or other road users for that matter).

If you want to change accident stat's then change the factors that you have some control over, it's pointless to blame humans for behaving like humans.


The Council is interested in the psych component because this one of the areas we constantly hear about from riders and as riders we know about. There is another programme of work around SMIDSY (or in government speak LBFTS - looked but failed to see) where the Council is keen to get a better view of how to address the issues you raise.

You don't need evolutionary psychologists to tell you why people aren't good at driving, you just have to know how they fail.

This was kicking around here a while ago, fairly succinct description of the problem: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

As to how you fix it? Outside of the measures you're already aware of you don't. Unless you adopt RAF pilot training regimes, complete with the 95% fail rate. Sucks to be responsible for a problem with no politically acceptable solution, eh?

[bogan]

To be fair, that is the inference. Less likely is a good way to put it.

"The inference" is not good enough, the only reason I can think of not to state it directly is to mislead people.

Although the report is aimed at motorcyclists, the main factor in conspicuity is still driver failed to observe, and the stats must be recorded as the later to ensure bias is not introduced. It might seem an insignificant change that doesn't matter, but it does change the way the report is read and interpreted.

[MrKiwi]

As to how you fix it? Outside of the measures you're already aware of you don't. Unless you adopt RAF pilot training regimes, complete with the 95% fail rate. Sucks to be responsible for a problem with no politically acceptable solution, eh?

some things are like this yes! But I'm prepared to give it a go for a while.

[Zedder]

some things are like this yes! But I'm prepared to give it a go for a while.

Well, you appear to be making some progress. Thanks.

[MrKiwi]

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!! LBFTS and SMIDSY are not the same thing.

The term "LBFTS" misses an important part of the SMIDSY, those that don't look in the first place. These are the ones that pull out in front of fire engines. Over the past year or two I have personally witnessed a number of emergency vehicles travelling, legitimately, against a red light. Almost without fail they had to avoid some blind cager that had no idea they were there.


Fair point, although looked but failed to see sort of says they looked first...

[cheshirecat]

I'll trade SIDSY for vehicles keeping to their side of the road.

[Berries]

For those who can't be arsed reading the report this little gem is contained in the acknowledgments at the end.


Special thanks are due to Cris Burgess for reviewing an earlier draft of this report. During the period of time when reviewing the draft, Cris was riding his motorcycle to work and was struck from behind by a bus. Thankfully, Cris sustained only minor injuries in the collision. The irony of the fact that at the time of the collision he was wearing a bright orange high-visibility jacket, and riding a motorcycle with daytime running lights, is not lost on the authors.

[GrayWolf]

Put another way, a significant causal factor in a small number of crashes...

This I think is the 'nub' of the for and against argument... IF conspicuity is a factor in only a small number of incidents, albeit a significant one. By percentages it is only a 'minor' factor in overall crashes.. BUT the minority figures are being manipulated into seemingly major proportions by rhetoric and exaggeration by groups like ACC.
Once again I will refer back to the 1980's and the Leg protector's attempted by Peter Bottomly (transport minister) using flawed and only partially accurate data... it was an ALMOST law, and I mean ALMOST....
without a concerted effort by all rider's and groups, in the end (even if in 10 years time) Hi Vis WILL become required.

[James Deuce]

Depends whether or not they decide to learn anything from France.

[mashman]

A wee while ago I was talking with a fella in chch. His primary ride was off the road and he noticed a remarkable difference in the number of near misses he was involved in, or was not involved in as it turned out. His main bike has headlights that are on by default and the other doesn't. We were both surprised by this given the conspicuity argument. Neither of us could put our fingers on why and meh'd it and put it down to "luck".

I'm all for part of drivers Ed being the Kiwi version of the CBT (Compulsory Bike Training). Even better to get the other learners driving around them in cars. For me that would be a win win. The driver learns how motorcycles can appear and disappear, where they will likely be positioned etc... and they'll also understand how "vulnerable" a motorcyclist is. It's no panacea, but it may well help them be more aware of motorcycles. Likely a logistical nightmare, but may help with the awareness.

[scracha]

NZ is constantly rated as having the least corrupt government in the world.
As usual, NZ is more concerned with it's image than actual reality. Just because corruption isn't reported, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. New Zealand is constantly PERCEIVED as having one of the least corrupt governments in the world.

Why is corruption not widely reported in NZ? From my experience, NZ is too small a pond and companies suffering from it are too scared to report corruption for fear of being blackballed. At the other end of the corruption see-saw, a lack of ethics is rife and therefore companies are more prone to being partners in the corruption (they obviously don't report it!)

The "lowest perceived corruption" rating you refer to is by Transparency International. Their metrics for measuring corruption is very limited. Their funding sources are also rather interesting.

http://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/transparency-international/

Here's what some other agencies think about NZ in relation to corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_New_Zealand#International_auditor.27 s_views

"In 2011, 4% of New Zealanders also admitted to paying a bribe - which is twice as high as the rate in Australia and four times the United Kingdom's rate"

[davereid]

As usual, NZ is more concerned with it's image than actual reality. Just because corruption isn't reported, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. New Zealand is constantly PERCEIVED as having one of the least corrupt governments in the world.

Why is corruption not widely reported in NZ? From my experience, NZ is too small a pond and companies suffering from it are too scared to report corruption for fear of being blackballed. At the other end of the corruption see-saw, a lack of ethics is rife and therefore companies are more prone to being partners in the corruption (they obviously don't report it!)

New Zealand is endemically corrupt.

Just follow the careers of Government CEOs. Failed in one job ? No problem, we will make you a nice job offer somewhere else just as soon as the shit dies down.

We also the champion of the uncontested lucrative monopoly contract. No bias of course.

We just aren't in the business of having to pay the local council guy to get a permit - we keep the corruption at a nice invisible management level.

[MrKiwi]

I don't agree with either of your assessments which imply NZ is rife with corruption. It just is not so. No country is corruption free, but I do not see the level of pork barrel politics in NZ that I do see and witness in Australia and the USA as examples. In my career I have worked both in private sector companies (small and large) and extensively across parts of government. I'm going on what I see and read and I have not experienced a particularly sheltered life...

[SuperMac]

Depends whether or not they decide to learn anything from France.

You mean with the on - off saga of compulsory hi-viz? If so, I understand (from MAG-UK, probably) that the French Govt were told by the EU that it would have to be EN471 or EN1150 (ie hi-viz for professionals or for non-professionals, with different levels of background fluorescent material and retro-reflective material for each standard), or nothing.

But . . . they've had compulsory daytime headlamps since the 70s and compulsory fluoro and retro-reflective patches on helmets for decades too.

* supposedly :)

[MSTRS]

Well - I've followed this thread with interest, in the expectation that there will be some sort of epiphany as regards what will keep us all as safe as houses as we ride our bikes.

And I had one!!
I WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY SAFETY WHILST RIDING, BECAUSE NOTHING AND NO-ONE ELSE WILL.

But hang on....that's not a new idea. And, frankly, it's hard work and I'm tired of doing all the work. Won't someone come up with something new that will take the responsibility off me for my safety? Oh - and also come up with something that means I don't have to be aware of tarmelt, tar snakes, metal grates, potholes, loose shingle, corners that tighten-up without warning...that sort of thing. I mean, I want to be able to go for a ride without having to watch out for ALL the things trying to kill me. I will watch out for low-flying UFOs.

[MrKiwi]

Well - I've followed this thread with interest, in the expectation that there will be some sort of epiphany as regards what will keep us all as safe as houses as we ride our bikes.

And I had one!!
I WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY SAFETY WHILST RIDING, BECAUSE NOTHING AND NO-ONE ELSE WILL.

But hang on....that's not a new idea. And, frankly, it's hard work and I'm tired of doing all the work. Won't someone come up with something new that will take the responsibility off me for my safety? Oh - and also come up with something that means I don't have to be aware of tarmelt, tar snakes, metal grates, potholes, loose shingle, corners that tighten-up without warning...that sort of thing. I mean, I want to be able to go for a ride without having to watch out for ALL the things trying to kill me. I will watch out for low-flying UFOs.

I don't normally enjoy cynicism, and this post is reasonably cynical. But I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or you are trying to make a point in an awkward way.

Why do some riders on here (not necessarily you) take the line that someone should come with the answer to make us safe. There's no such thing as one answer or even a few answers and I've never said nor intimated that is the case. It is incremental improvements we can make and a shared responsibility of all road users (vain hope at times this latter point). No one or even no few things working together is going to do it, rather it is a multitude of things. First and foremost we, as riders, need to take responsibility and accountability for our decisions and actions, including ensuring our bike is well maintained and set up, we decide what gear to wear to keep us safe while being comfortable, to be aware of others on the road and to understand not only our limits as riders but the limits of other road users. There are some things we can do that, all things being equal, that might (and I stress might) help to work in our favour. I've found a few for me, and the conspicuity of the bike (not me as a rider) is one that seems to work most, but not all, times. I try and even up the odds.

Mostly though, it is what is going through my head and how aware am I of what is going on around me and acknowledging that no matter how much riding I have done I have limits I need to stay within.

Cheers.

[James Deuce]

I've found a few for me, and the conspicuity of the bike (not me as a rider) is one that seems to work most, but not all, times. I try and even up the odds.


Yes, but how can you prove that without interviewing the driver who just avoided pulling out in front of you due to how conspicuous you were? In terms of staying safe (which is fundamentally impossible in any circumstance, let alone riding a motorcycle) relying even a tiny bit on being more visible than the average motorcycle is tantamount to suicidal behaviour.

The focus on safety is a mistake because it's just another cop out to avoid labeling the real issue which is the lack of driver/rider training NZers undergo, the refusal to admit that being above-average in NZ is actually still a dangerously poor standard. You're not safe, ever. What can be improved are the skills and capabilities of the average driver/rider in NZ and and raising of the lower thresholds that we're willing to accept to avoid Grandpa Joe driving up the wrong side of the Ngauranga gorge because he's still driving 20 years after he should have handed his license in.

Train people to see, train people to plan, train people in avoidance techniques that include combining planning and experience to recognise and avoid incidents many steps before they happen, train people in self-evaluation so they can make a call on actually getting the car/ute/bike out or not. A near miss is still a mistake on the part of everyone involved, but most of all never teach them techniques to improve their safety. There's no such thing.

[MrKiwi]

Yes, but how can you prove that without interviewing the driver who just avoided pulling out in front of you due to how conspicuous you were? In terms of staying safe (which is fundamentally impossible in any circumstance, let alone riding a motorcycle) relying even a tiny bit on being more visible than the average motorcycle is tantamount to suicidal behaviour.

The focus on safety is a mistake because it's just another cop out to avoid labeling the real issue which is the lack of driver/rider training NZers undergo, the refusal to admit that being above-average in NZ is actually still a dangerously poor standard. You're not safe, ever. What can be improved are the skills and capabilities of the average driver/rider in NZ and and raising of the lower thresholds that we're willing to accept to avoid Grandpa Joe driving up the wrong side of the Ngauranga gorge because he's still driving 20 years after he should have handed his license in.

Train people to see, train people to plan, train people in avoidance techniques that include combining planning and experience to recognise and avoid incidents many steps before they happen, train people in self-evaluation so they can make a call on actually getting the car/ute/bike out or not. A near miss is still a mistake on the part of everyone involved, but most of all never teach them techniques to improve their safety. There's no such thing.

Did I say anything about proving - NO. Did I say that I totally relied on it NO. Your comment about suicidal behaviour is in my view misplaced.

Did I say anything that suggested training was not ALSO useful, NO

Did I say something about riders skills and those of others on the road , YES

so what's your problem?

[James Deuce]

Did I say anything about proving - NO. Did I say that I totally relied on it NO. Your comment about suicidal behaviour is in my view misplaced.

Did I say anything that suggested training was not ALSO useful, NO

Did I say something about riders skills and those of others on the road , YES

so what's your problem?

Did you just retract your belief that you're more conspicuous than other riders? You keep insisting that you can improve your odds on the road by making your bike more conspicuous.

My "problem" is that there's no consistency of message from people we were made to give money to and that the focus still seems to be on making motorcyclists solely responsible for their "safety". My "problem" is that no one has actually simply just held their middle finger up to the insistence that everything is "our" fault and that by simply blaming motorcyclists and making them pay for absolutely nothing the Government can wash their hands of any negative press ranging from, 'Well, that achieved nothing", to, "We spent lots of their money on trying to fix their "problems" and all they did was argue with each other and we're going to make up this stat that "born-again" riders on large capacity bikes are the main reason that motorcycle related deaths have gone up."

[MSTRS]

You keep insisting that you can improve your odds on the road by making your bike more conspicuous.


Of course 'you' can. No-one ever collides with an ambulance under lights and siren, do they? :sarcasm:

FFS...nothing 'we' do will stop the idiots, oops I mean other motorists, from not seeing us. It is up to us to see them (and everything else) and ensure we avoid catastrophe.

What we can't avoid is the idiots in positions of 'authority' or influence who 'understand our problem/s and know how to fix them'...

[swbarnett]

FFS...nothing 'we' do will stop the idiots, oops I mean other motorists, from not seeing us. It is up to us to see them (and everything else) and ensure we avoid catastrophe.
And any efforts to the contrary are on a hiding to nothing. All we will end up with is a shifting of the legal fault from the idiot that didn't see us (or even bother to look) to any rider that's not lit up like a christmas tree.

If the $30 that's been stolen from us in the name of a "safety" levy is to mean anything it needs to go towards rider training initiatives. No matter how much they try it is not possible to remove all the hazards from the road. The only way to bring our toll down significantly is to improve rider competancy.

[GrayWolf]

Of course 'you' can. No-one ever collides with an ambulance under lights and siren, do they? :sarcasm:

FFS...nothing 'we' do will stop the idiots, oops I mean other motorists, from not seeing us. It is up to us to see them (and everything else) and ensure we avoid catastrophe.

What we can't avoid is the idiots in positions of 'authority' or influence who 'understand our problem/s and know how to fix them'...

I drive a 'vehicle' that has a bright yellow conspicuous colour, I have two powerful headlights that MUST be on full in daytime, i also have two low level WIDE SPACED spotlamps, My vehicle dimensions (head on) 3.5 mtrs high 2.7mtrs wide. I stay absolutely in my lane, I can with almost 100% certainty guarantee I will not deviate 1cm from my line of travel... I have an Audible warning device that has an absolute minimum of 95 decibels (used to be 139db till J/ville whingers started complaining) that should be sounded approaching all crossings. The use of audible warning device also triggers said low level spotlamps to flash alternately for several seconds.

No -one EVER collides (didnt see it) with these highly conspicuous vehicles...............insert Tui Ad

and yes mr Kiwi that post is highly cynical..... it's supposed to be just that!

[p.dath]

Conspicuity. I'm finding this gem a little tired but in the interests of people wanting to stay alive another day I can understand why it is discussed again.

I can accept that if you deliberately try and camouflage yourself and the motorbike that you'll eventually end up getting hurt.

I also believe that taking the other extreme and really making yourself stand out is not an assurance you also wont get hurt. I also believe that you can only really stand out if you are different to everyone else, and that if everyone stood out - no one would stand out.

I also consider the studies in human physiology (such as the blind gorilla experiment, selective attention, motion camouflage, etc), and the limitations of our own eyes (such as the eye's fovea not being able to process motion), and I keep finding myself coming back to the same place - you can't solve this issue with a $10 vest or by trying to change peoples behaviour. Our brains and eyes have been programmed to process motion and threats over many tens of thousands of years, and that is not going to change very quickly.


I don't think we'll solve this one for a long time, and when it is "addressed" I suspect this will be done with technology - technology that addresses the way the human brain and eyes work.
I don't know what form this technology will take, but for bigger vehicles like cars it could be something like object avoidance systems (like used in planes). For smaller vehicles (like motorbikes) perhaps it'll be a proximity warning system. More than likely, it'll be something that doesn't exist today.

[Katman]

Our brains and eyes have been programmed to process motion and threats over many tens of thousands of years, and that is not going to change very quickly.


Unfortunately, far too many are just too lazy to use their brains.

[Zedder]

Unfortunately, far too many are just too lazy to use their brains.

Or too impatient, or they're ok (safe) they're in a cage etc.

[Big Dave]

so what's your problem?

We think that the whole 'conspicuity' answer is based on flawed data.

Because the 'I didn't see him' on the accident report is a whole lot different to the 'I actually didn't look' of the event.

[GTRMAN]

I think the truth of the matter is it is not a question of 'or' but rather a question of 'and'

Consipicuity AND rider attention AND riding defensively AND riding to the conditions AND having a realistic idea of your ability...

If we focus on one thing without considering the others then nothing changes.

[Ocean1]

We think that the whole 'conspicuity' answer is based on flawed data.

Because the 'I didn't see him' on the accident report is a whole lot different to the 'I actually didn't look' of the event.

Yeah, little bit. I've been on both ends of a smidsy, though. Disturbing. So I took the time to find out how it works, and you can't fix it, short of filtering 90% of licence applicants out of action.

Maybe there is an element of excuse causing "didn't look" data to end up in "didn't see" data heap, and that bit you can fix more easily.

[swbarnett]

if you deliberately try and camouflage yourself and the motorbike that you'll eventually end up getting hurt.
I beg to differ. To be a bit extreme for a moment, it is possible to ride a bike that is completely invisible and still get to your destination in one piece. All it would take is a very high level of avoidnace skill and a willingness to give way to all other vehicles (including those behind you). Getting back to reality, I ride a bike that is almost totally black (silver grey scoop) in all black gear head to toe for around 25,000km a year in all weathers, both commuting and open-road. Yes, I've had my fair share of SMIDSYs; everyone of these I've been able to avoid with not so much as a sphincter moment.

This "problem" will be solved only when we as riders recognise that we are responsible* for our own safety.

*Note: "responsible" as distinguished from "at legal fault".


I also consider the studies in human physiology (such as the blind gorilla experiment, selective attention, motion camouflage, etc), and the limitations of our own eyes (such as the eye's fovea not being able to process motion), and I keep finding myself coming back to the same place - you can't solve this issue with a $10 vest or by trying to change peoples behaviour. Our brains and eyes have been programmed to process motion and threats over many tens of thousands of years, and that is not going to change very quickly.
Driving is like any other human activity. There are those that have an inate ability and those that don't (and a continuum in the middle). The only real problem we have is that those that shouldn't be driving still think they have a right to. If we had half decent public transport those that don't want the hassle of driving don't have to drive. This would weed out a lot of those with poor driving aptitude.

[Zedder]

I beg to differ. To be a bit extreme for a moment, it is possible to ride a bike that is completely invisible and still get to your destination in one piece. All it would take is a very high level of avoidnace skill and a willingness to give way to all other vehicles (including those behind you). Getting back to reality, I ride a bike that is almost totally black (silver grey scoop) in all black gear head to toe for around 25,000km a year in all weathers, both commuting and open-road. Yes, I've had my fair share of SMIDSYs; everyone of these I've been able to avoid with not so much as a sphincter moment.

This "problem" will be solved only when we as riders recognise that we are responsible* for our own safety.

*Note: "responsible" as distinguished from "at legal fault".


Driving is like any other human activity. There are those that have an inate ability and those that don't (and a continuum in the middle). The only real problem we have is that those that shouldn't be driving still think they have a right to. If we had half decent public transport those that don't want the hassle of driving don't have to drive. This would weed out a lot of those with poor driving aptitude.

I liken it to being able to walk the streets in reasonable safety. The streets are made as safe as practicable by the State and laws. However, I can't and shouldn't rely on that and keep a cautious lookout of my own plus have other tactics for ensuring I'm not a victim.

A guy I knew however, carelessly wandered (rode/drove) around and expected that all was well but was stunned (and often hurt) when harm came to him as it inevitably did. He only learnt after the negative experiences although he was always quick to blame others.

Some people just shouldn't be on the streets it seems and are better off, if untrainable, to go by public transport as you say.

[Flip]

We think that the whole 'conspicuity' answer is based on flawed data.

Because the 'I didn't see him' on the accident report is a whole lot different to the 'I actually didn't look' of the event.


As usual, NZ is more concerned with it's image than actual reality. Just because corruption isn't reported, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. New Zealand is constantly PERCEIVED as having one of the least corrupt governments in the world.

Why is corruption not widely reported in NZ? From my experience, NZ is too small a pond and companies suffering from it are too scared to report corruption for fear of being blackballed. At the other end of the corruption see-saw, a lack of ethics is rife and therefore companies are more prone to being partners in the corruption (they obviously don't report it!)

The "lowest perceived corruption" rating you refer to is by Transparency International. Their metrics for measuring corruption is very limited. Their funding sources are also rather interesting.

http://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/transparency-international/

Here's what some other agencies think about NZ in relation to corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_New_Zealand#International_auditor.27 s_views

"In 2011, 4% of New Zealanders also admitted to paying a bribe - which is twice as high as the rate in Australia and four times the United Kingdom's rate"


Yes, but how can you prove that without interviewing the driver who just avoided pulling out in front of you due to how conspicuous you were? In terms of staying safe (which is fundamentally impossible in any circumstance, let alone riding a motorcycle) relying even a tiny bit on being more visible than the average motorcycle is tantamount to suicidal behaviour.

The focus on safety is a mistake because it's just another cop out to avoid labeling the real issue which is the lack of driver/rider training NZers undergo, the refusal to admit that being above-average in NZ is actually still a dangerously poor standard. You're not safe, ever. What can be improved are the skills and capabilities of the average driver/rider in NZ and and raising of the lower thresholds that we're willing to accept to avoid Grandpa Joe driving up the wrong side of the Ngauranga gorge because he's still driving 20 years after he should have handed his license in.

Train people to see, train people to plan, train people in avoidance techniques that include combining planning and experience to recognise and avoid incidents many steps before they happen, train people in self-evaluation so they can make a call on actually getting the car/ute/bike out or not. A near miss is still a mistake on the part of everyone involved, but most of all never teach them techniques to improve their safety. There's no such thing.

You lot are entering into a discussion with a member of the ACC owned loby group MotoNZ, remember he is only representing the interests of ACC. MotoNZ have 3 million dollars of our money to fuck us over with. IMHO there is no quicker way into a dayglo gimp suit than to give any credability to the stupid ACC ideas than by enter into any discussions with Mr Kiwi.

If Acc had a clue they would train rather than blame. All I see to date from MotoNZ is blame, ie the ambulance is still at the bottom of the cliff.

[swbarnett]

If Acc had a clue they would train rather than blame. All I see to date from MotoNZ is blame,
Exactly.


ie the ambulance is still at the bottom of the cliff.
I think you've got your metaphore backwards. The ambulance belongs at the bottom of the cliff. What's needed at the top are the trainers. Teach those on the edge of the cliff how to recognise when it's about to give way and give them the skills required to avoid going with it.

[SuperMac]

I think you've got your metaphore backwards. The ambulance belongs at the bottom of the cliff. What's needed at the top are the trainers. Teach those on the edge of the cliff how to recognise when it's about to give way and give them the skills required to avoid going with it.

Trouble is, it's very difficult to prove that bike training (or driver training for that matter) has any safety benefit.

And I say that from a background of almost 30 years involvement with training! :weep:

[swbarnett]

Trouble is, it's very difficult to prove that bike training (or driver training for that matter) has any safety benefit.

And I say that from a background of almost 30 years involvement with training! :weep:
Yes, it's impossible to say what would've happened to an individual rider had they not been properly trained. However, if the law was changed to ensure that every rider got the appropriate intensive training required, a corresponding drop (or not) in the motorcycle road toll would at least be indicative.

[SuperMac]

Yes, it's impossible to say what would've happened to an individual rider had they not been properly trained. However, if the law was changed to ensure that every rider got the appropriate intensive training required, a corresponding drop (or not) in the motorcycle road toll would at least be indicative.

But that's the point! There's little evidence to show that 'training' actually improves safety! So there's no point in introducing a new, 'improved', training regime unless it's built on a very sound basis.

If it's simply machine control skills then that might achieve very little positive result and might even have a negative impact due to over-confidence . . .


Yes, it's impossible to say what would've happened to an individual rider had they not been properly trained.


What do you call 'properly'?

[madandy]

Compulary IAM for all motorists.
Make it part of the Learners test...yes a Practical test for Learners!

[Zedder]

But that's the point! There's little evidence to show that 'training' actually improves safety! So there's no point in introducing a new, 'improved', training regime unless it's built on a very sound basis.

If it's simply machine control skills then that might achieve very little positive result and might even have a negative impact due to over-confidence . . .




What do you call 'properly'?

Machine handling skills is one thing, training that involves an "attitude adjustment" component is another thing all together. The mind behind the throttle is a very critical factor.

I certainly would rather have the $30 "safety fee" get us something more than we have so far.

[Genestho]

Machine handling skills is one thing, training that involves an "attitude adjustment" component is another thing all together. The mind behind the throttle is a very critical factor.

I certainly would rather have the $30 "safety fee" get us something more than we have so far.
There are three ways of learning, by observation, by reading or by learning the fire is hot by touching it... still, I agree, there's a bit of money in the pot now. I'd have thought there should've been visible MotoNZ campaigns afoot by now, particularly in the summer season.

[SuperMac]

Compulary IAM for all motorists.
Make it part of the Learners test...yes a Practical test for Learners!

Ah, you have the advantage of me. As a limey I know very well the 'IAM method', good and bad (trust me, I have plenty of views there), but don't know what the NZ licencing system involves, either regime or content. Is there a good link or two to cover that?


Machine handling skills is one thing, training that involves an "attitude adjustment" component is another thing all together. The mind behind the throttle is a very critical factor.

Yup. :2thumbsup

Trouble is, how often do you hear "Go and do a track day" as 'good' advice on how to be safe on a bike . . . :weep: :bs: :angry2: :brick:


I certainly would rather have the $30 "safety fee" get us something more than we have so far.

Such as? :blank:

[Zedder]

There are three ways of learning, by observation, by reading or by learning the fire is hot by touching it... still, I agree, there's a bit of money in the pot now. I'd have thought there should've been visible MotoNZ campaigns afoot by now, particularly in the summer season.

Training also involves acquiring concepts and attitudes G.

[Zedder]

Such as? :blank:[/QUOTE]

Give me $30 per ripped off biker and I'll tell you.

[Genestho]

Training also involves acquiring concepts and attitudes G. That's what I'ma sayin' too, those that need to touch the fire to feel its heat, will never make good trainee's, ow!

[Subike]

More intensive training of motorcyclist would defiantly drop the incident rate,
But not because of the fact that riders would be better trained.
Rather the fact there would be less riders due to the cost being something many would see as the final thing to not make the choice to ride in the first place.
Yes, training is wonderful, but young Kiwi's would rather spend $300 on a car license, than $3000 on a bike license.
No mater what way it is put, Bike riding is heading for extinction, just as horse riding on public roads did 100 years ago.

[swbarnett]

But that's the point! There's little evidence to show that 'training' actually improves safety!
So then why do we have a driver's license at all? If training is pointless why do we care about the skill level of our drivers and riders?


So there's no point in introducing a new, 'improved', training regime unless it's built on a very sound basis.

If it's simply machine control skills then that might achieve very little positive result and might even have a negative impact due to over-confidence . . .
This has been said publicly by one of our top cops (I forget who). The training I'm talking about would involve machine control, yes. But it would go much further. Into attitude adjustment and a sense of one's own fragility. I know from my own history that the theory evening that I attended as part of my voluntary basic rider training did that for me. One of the few pictures I will never forget is that of the after effect of a jandle slicing a foot in half along the bone.


What do you call 'properly'?
See above.

[swbarnett]

Yes, training is wonderful, but young Kiwi's would rather spend $300 on a car license, than $3000 on a bike license.
Why do we have to treat motorcycles separately? We need intensive, attitude adjusting, training for ALL drivers and riders. And the cost must be kept the same no matter what type of vehicle. Afterall, the most important part of the training has nothing to do with what you happen to be operating at the time.


No mater what way it is put, Bike riding is heading for extinction, just as horse riding on public roads did 100 years ago.
Just wait until it's prohibitively expensive to run a car because of petrol prices. The motorcycle manufacturers will start selling much more efficient motorcycles and they'll make a comeback.

[James Deuce]

Just wait until it's prohibitively expensive to run a car because of petrol prices. The motorcycle manufacturers will start selling much more efficient motorcycles and they'll make a comeback.
Cars will be replaced with "telecommuting", public transport, and villages focused on a particular industry, not motorcycles.

[swbarnett]

Cars will be replaced with "telecommuting", public transport, and villages focused on a particular industry, not motorcycles.
I agree except for a couple of points:

1. Villages focused on a particular industry won't work unless every member of every family in that village is in the same industry.

2. Motorcycles will be part of the solution. There will always be those jobs that can't be done by tele-commuting (try picking up the rubbish over the phone)

Also, a point my wife just brought up, if we do go to single industry villages there will still be a long transition period where cars are too expensive and public transport can't cope with the demand. Fuel efficient motorcycles will be a large part of the solution in the interim.

[James Deuce]

I agree except for a couple of points:

1. Villages focused on a particular industry won't work unless every member of every family in that village is in the same industry.

2. Motorcycles will be part of the solution. There will always be those jobs that can't be done by tele-commuting (try picking up the rubbish over the phone)

Also, a point my wife just brought up, if we do go to single industry villages there will still be a long transition period where cars are too expensive and public transport can't cope with the demand. Fuel efficient motorcycles will be a large part of the solution in the interim.

I don't agree. I don't think people have quite cottoned on to the level that their lifestyle is going to change to over the next 50 years. Globalisation has had a detrimental effect both economically and ecologically and we are going to have to stop transporting food and goods so far. Personal transport won't factor into a society that doesn't need it.

Cars will be too expensive and public transport will cope because I think population growth has peaked in developed countries and the technologies to do the same for the developing world are being taken up quicker than some religious leaders would have us believe. As harsh as it sounds I think we're on the verge of infrastructural collapse within 96 hours at any given time and we only need one event for the population to go into freefall fairly rapidly - public transport becomes moot at that point, however, even doing it in managed way is going to cause a lot of pain and people's options will be initially restricted quite harshly. But it IS going to have to happen. To improve the quality of living of the bulk of the world, the "Western" economies are going to have to take a big hit. Or we just keep going the way we are and eat ourselves and have to start from scratch again, is the species survives.

A village of rubbish collectors is quite possible, along with the service equipment to manage rubbish collection and process garbage over a particular area - the permutations are quite extensive and eminently logical. I think we'll end up looking like we are living a semi-rural village lifestyle, managed by guilds, but with an information dissemination infrastructure that largely eliminates the need to travel vast differences. I think you'll find that bicycles become very expensive one day, because the industrial effort required to produce a modern pushie is enormous. Again, not sustainable.

[Berries]

1. Villages focused on a particular industry won't work unless every member of every family in that village is in the same industry.
You should go and have a look at Milton. They are on the way to this particular nirvana already.

[GrayWolf]

So then why do we have a driver's license at all? If training is pointless why do we care about the skill level of our drivers and riders?


This has been said publicly by one of our top cops (I forget who). The training I'm talking about would involve machine control, yes. But it would go much further. Into attitude adjustment and a sense of one's own fragility. I know from my own history that the theory evening that I attended as part of my voluntary basic rider training did that for me. One of the few pictures I will never forget is that of the after effect of a jandle slicing a foot in half along the bone.


See above.

Yes that does work.. on the first night of my 'advanced' training (RAC/ACU) The instructor had an industrial (benchtop) belt sander with 1grit?? (BIG grit) Swtiched it on, lifted a piece of Pork up and showed us, then 'jammed' it onto the belt for about 3-4 seconds and then simply lifted it again said " This is you at 50mph without a proper jacket (leather mostly back then) I do not want to see, and will not allow ANYONE to ride in the group without one". The amount of meat removed and the 'spray' from the sander was quite a graphic demonstration of high speed gravel rash. I've never forgotten it I can assure you.

[bogan]

I don't agree. I don't think people have quite cottoned on to the level that their lifestyle is going to change to over the next 50 years. Globalisation has had a detrimental effect both economically and ecologically and we are going to have to stop transporting food and goods so far. Personal transport won't factor into a society that doesn't need it.

Cars will be too expensive and public transport will cope because I think population growth has peaked in developed countries and the technologies to do the same for the developing world are being taken up quicker than some religious leaders would have us believe. As harsh as it sounds I think we're on the verge of infrastructural collapse within 96 hours at any given time and we only need one event for the population to go into freefall fairly rapidly - public transport becomes moot at that point, however, even doing it in managed way is going to cause a lot of pain and people's options will be initially restricted quite harshly. But it IS going to have to happen. To improve the quality of living of the bulk of the world, the "Western" economies are going to have to take a big hit. Or we just keep going the way we are and eat ourselves and have to start from scratch again, is the species survives.

A village of rubbish collectors is quite possible, along with the service equipment to manage rubbish collection and process garbage over a particular area - the permutations are quite extensive and eminently logical. I think we'll end up looking like we are living a semi-rural village lifestyle, managed by guilds, but with an information dissemination infrastructure that largely eliminates the need to travel vast differences. I think you'll find that bicycles become very expensive one day, because the industrial effort required to produce a modern pushie is enormous. Again, not sustainable.

Dude, what have you been smoking? There's plenty more resources to exploit once petrol gets too expensive. Consumers, politicians, scientists, engineers will not allow the shortage of one resource to completely rearrange our lives. There a far greater chance of nuclear war ending with mutually assured destruction than there is of a bicycle becoming too expensive.
And here I thought your 'motorcycling is doomed' posts in the other thread were ungrounded... this shit just kicks it up (or down is possibly more appropriate) a notch :rolleyes:

[davereid]

Dude, what have you been smoking? There's plenty more resources to exploit once petrol gets too expensive. Consumers, politicians, scientists, engineers will not allow the shortage of one resource to completely rearrange our lives. There a far greater chance of nuclear war ending with mutually assured destruction than there is of a bicycle becoming too expensive.
And here I thought your 'motorcycling is doomed' posts in the other thread were ungrounded... this shit just kicks it up (or down is possibly more appropriate) a notch :rolleyes:

NZ has adequate coal reserves to manufacture petrol for hundred of years to come, albeit at a current price of around $5 a litre.

We can always steal the poor mans food and turn it into biofuels for around the same cost.

The world first fusion reactor has now run several times, and as it burns one of the most common elements in the world, in almost perfect safety, it offers much promise for future electricity generation, although with a bit of work NZ possibly has hydro resources available.

Electric vehicles are hamstrung only by battery technology. But super capacitors and other battery developments may cure that, or if electricity is plentiful the hydrogen fuel cell may be viable.

We aren't back to the horse and cart just yet.

[SuperMac]

Yes that does work.. on the first night of my 'advanced' training (RAC/ACU) The instructor had an industrial (benchtop) belt sander with 1grit?? (BIG grit) Swtiched it on, lifted a piece of Pork up and showed us, then 'jammed' it onto the belt for about 3-4 seconds and then simply lifted it again said " This is you at 50mph without a proper jacket (leather mostly back then) I do not want to see, and will not allow ANYONE to ride in the group without one". The amount of meat removed and the 'spray' from the sander was quite a graphic demonstration of high speed gravel rash. I've never forgotten it I can assure you.

I used to teach with RAC/ACU :) and the subsequent BMF-RTS.

One of the 'props' I had was a lump of tarmac, chunky grit included. I'd ask "Who doesn't wear gloves?" Typically a few hands would go up. Then pick the meanest looking geezer, and ask him to put his hand, palm up, on the desk. "Why?" he would ask.

My answer "Because I'm going to hit it as hard as I can with this lump of tarmac" would usually result in me being told to 'go away'. So I'd ask what's the difference between 'tarmac hitting hand' and 'hand hitting road'? Result: dawning realisation.

[bogan]

I used to teach with RAC/ACU :) and the subsequent BMF-RTS.

One of the 'props' I had was a lump of tarmac, chunky grit included. I'd ask "Who doesn't wear gloves?" Typically a few hands would go up. Then pick the meanest looking geezer, and ask him to put his hand, palm up, on the desk. "Why?" he would ask.

My answer "Because I'm going to hit it as hard as I can with this lump of tarmac" would usually result in me being told to 'go away'. So I'd ask what's the difference between 'tarmac hitting hand' and 'hand hitting road'? Result: dawning realisation.

So how many people would would let you smash a gloved hand?

[SuperMac]

So how many people would would let you smash a gloved hand?

Luckily, no-one thought of that! :)

[GrayWolf]

I used to teach with RAC/ACU :) and the subsequent BMF-RTS.

One of the 'props' I had was a lump of tarmac, chunky grit included. I'd ask "Who doesn't wear gloves?" Typically a few hands would go up. Then pick the meanest looking geezer, and ask him to put his hand, palm up, on the desk. "Why?" he would ask.

My answer "Because I'm going to hit it as hard as I can with this lump of tarmac" would usually result in me being told to 'go away'. So I'd ask what's the difference between 'tarmac hitting hand' and 'hand hitting road'? Result: dawning realisation.

Yehhh I can just 'picture' the responses.... Seems to be a common 'thread' with the old RAC/ACU Instructors to use graphic props and various 'aids' to instil realisation and/or 'paranoia' about certain safety actions like the 'life saver'.... I didnt realise the RAC/ACU was now defunct, shows how long I've been gone from the UK. Maybe the Instructors were seen as too 'Politically Incorrect?' :2thumbsup:2thumbsup

[mashman]

Dude, what have you been smoking? There's plenty more resources to exploit once petrol gets too expensive. Consumers, politicians, scientists, engineers will not allow the shortage of one resource to completely rearrange our lives. There a far greater chance of nuclear war ending with mutually assured destruction than there is of a bicycle becoming too expensive.
And here I thought your 'motorcycling is doomed' posts in the other thread were ungrounded... this shit just kicks it up (or down is possibly more appropriate) a notch :rolleyes:

And what about when those resources have been used? Is the tech available to just roll out of the door when the oil runs out to replace ?8 billion? combustion engines? (no doomsday there, it is inevitable even if the timescale isn't quantifiable). I'm with JD, yeah go figure, as resources dwindle the price of everything (including bicycles) will rise to affordability status for most and we are nowhere near ready for that fallout. Even if the people you mention above did give a shit, they're not the decision makers, and even if they can demonstrate positive cost v sustainability returns you still have to "manufacture" your "new" solution without affecting the current state of the economy (i.e. without diminishing demand. We currently need growth growth growth and more consumption). When we fall, we're going to land with an explosion that'll mimic nuclear war. But by all means believe that she'll be right :facepalm:

Motorcycling will die because similar amounts of fuels can be used to shift more than 2 people at any given time, therefore motorcycling will be deemed inefficient and banned.

[bogan]

And what about when those resources have been used? Is the tech available to just roll out of the door when the oil runs out to replace ?8 billion? combustion engines? (no doomsday there, it is inevitable even if the timescale isn't quantifiable). I'm with JD, yeah go figure, as resources dwindle the price of everything (including bicycles) will rise to affordability status for most and we are nowhere near ready for that fallout. Even if the people you mention above did give a shit, they're not the decision makers, and even if they can demonstrate positive cost v sustainability returns you still have to "manufacture" your "new" solution without affecting the current state of the economy (i.e. without diminishing demand. We currently need growth growth growth and more consumption). When we fall, we're going to land with an explosion that'll mimic nuclear war. But by all means believe that she'll be right :facepalm:

Motorcycling will die because similar amounts of fuels can be used to shift more than 2 people at any given time, therefore motorcycling will be deemed inefficient and banned.

I'm not quite sure if the tech is available to roll out yet, hard to say as there isn't the demand yet either. Petrol isn't going to run out overnight, chances are it won't go up more than $1 per year over the next 10 years, gives plenty of time for a slower rollout of the new tech.

Motorcycling will live because it is a fuel efficient way to move one or two people, and large group transportation will never be a complete solution.

[mashman]

I'm not quite sure if the tech is available to roll out yet, hard to say as there isn't the demand yet either. Petrol isn't going to run out overnight, chances are it won't go up more than $1 per year over the next 10 years, gives plenty of time for a slower rollout of the new tech.

Motorcycling will live because it is a fuel efficient way to move one or two people, and large group transportation will never be a complete solution.

It's not necessarily the tech that's the issue. Sure it may become available (as long as it's financially viable), but you still have to retrofit 8 billion vehicles. How long would it take to re-train and then build the electric division for every bike in NZ, or at least those that we'd convert? You're right, to a degree, petrol won't just run out overnight but a whiff of it running out in a few years or a substantial decline in production will blow that $1 out of the water overnight and for some petrol will have run out. We're good, but not that good... 10 years is nowhere near enough time to produce what we need, especially when the raw materials are getting more and more expensive and more and more rare, harder to get at, more expensive to get at etc... We have to make a start and I'd rather it was sooner rather than later. I'll leave the tin foil hat alone tonight :).

As engines become more and more fuel efficient, the cost of fuel will rise in proportion to the value required to turn the profit. The efficiency is a bit of a red herring, but I can see the argument being used. A motorcycle takes only 2 people and a car can carry up to 7. Given that we do end up having to ration fuel, I can see motorcycles being removed by law as wastes of fuel, not the saviour of fuel that we're led to believe. Essentially you need to fuel 3 bikes to shift the same number of people. I know my bike is nowhere that efficient. Are any?

I'm quite happy to draw the parallel of where motorcycling is going and the topic of the thread, in that we know what the issue is, yet we keep throwing a band aid over the top, brushing our hand together and saying that that'll do for now. In both cases what needs to be done won't be, because of cost and not just the running cost, but the need to have drivers and riders to drive and ride vehicles... essentially supporting every industry that is used, from dtiver/rider training, pffft, to component manufacture to safety testing, to insurance, to fuel company's, to funeral directors etc...
Our $30 has done what? None of us can agree on what needs to be done and I can see that that's why MOTO-NZ, or whatever they're called, probably haven't thrown money at anything in particular yet. I'll be bitterly disappointed, albeit writhing around with laughter, if they believe in, support and fund Hi-Viz. Training is the best we can do... after that, the rest is in the hands of chance, bad shit n all.

[swbarnett]

A motorcycle takes only 2 people and a car can carry up to 7.
Ah, yes, but 7 bikes can shift up to 14 people to 7 differenct locations whereas the equivalent 2 cars can only go to two.

Car pooling to date is a massive failure. Even some people living in the same house and working in the same building still want their own transport.

[mashman]

Ah, yes, but 7 bikes can shift up to 14 people to 7 differenct locations whereas the equivalent 2 cars can only go to two.

Car pooling to date is a massive failure. Even some people living in the same house and working in the same building still want their own transport.

Very true, and 7 minibuses could carry 84 people to them 7 locations. Praps I'll build and patent a towable motorcycle crusher... wonder if I can get ACC motorcycle funding for that :shifty:. Car pooling will likely never exist without a change in working habits... amongst other things. Plus it's much safer to travel by a 4 wheeled vehicle :eek5:

[bogan]

It's not necessarily the tech that's the issue. Sure it may become available (as long as it's financially viable), but you still have to retrofit 8 billion vehicles. How long would it take to re-train and then build the electric division for every bike in NZ, or at least those that we'd convert? You're right, to a degree, petrol won't just run out overnight but a whiff of it running out in a few years or a substantial decline in production will blow that $1 out of the water overnight and for some petrol will have run out. We're good, but not that good... 10 years is nowhere near enough time to produce what we need, especially when the raw materials are getting more and more expensive and more and more rare, harder to get at, more expensive to get at etc... We have to make a start and I'd rather it was sooner rather than later. I'll leave the tin foil hat alone tonight :).

As engines become more and more fuel efficient, the cost of fuel will rise in proportion to the value required to turn the profit. The efficiency is a bit of a red herring, but I can see the argument being used. A motorcycle takes only 2 people and a car can carry up to 7. Given that we do end up having to ration fuel, I can see motorcycles being removed by law as wastes of fuel, not the saviour of fuel that we're led to believe. Essentially you need to fuel 3 bikes to shift the same number of people. I know my bike is nowhere that efficient. Are any?

I'm quite happy to draw the parallel of where motorcycling is going and the topic of the thread, in that we know what the issue is, yet we keep throwing a band aid over the top, brushing our hand together and saying that that'll do for now. In both cases what needs to be done won't be, because of cost and not just the running cost, but the need to have drivers and riders to drive and ride vehicles... essentially supporting every industry that is used, from dtiver/rider training, pffft, to component manufacture to safety testing, to insurance, to fuel company's, to funeral directors etc...
Our $30 has done what? None of us can agree on what needs to be done and I can see that that's why MOTO-NZ, or whatever they're called, probably haven't thrown money at anything in particular yet. I'll be bitterly disappointed, albeit writhing around with laughter, if they believe in, support and fund Hi-Viz. Training is the best we can do... after that, the rest is in the hands of chance, bad shit n all.

We're yet to hit peak oil aren't we? Gives us a lot longer than 10 years to change the fleet. Give it a few years and the price rise of oil will motivate the tech to change the fleet gradually (its already happening to a small degree, the R&D has begun anyway), and gradually will be all that is needed. An overnight fleet change will simply never be an issue. The same market dynamics will drive the slow shift to car pooling or public transportation. In saying that though, I still doubt it'll catch on, for those who wish to, or must, travel alone on their own schedule, bikes will still be the best option for fuel efficiency. I don't see them getting legislated out on efficiency issues, as they would have to legislate minimum occupancy for cars then as well, which simply isn't practical, and would probably damage the economy more than the fuel savings gained from car pooling would help anyway.

[mashman]

We're yet to hit peak oil aren't we? Gives us a lot longer than 10 years to change the fleet. Give it a few years and the price rise of oil will motivate the tech to change the fleet gradually (its already happening to a small degree, the R&D has begun anyway), and gradually will be all that is needed. An overnight fleet change will simply never be an issue. The same market dynamics will drive the slow shift to car pooling or public transportation. In saying that though, I still doubt it'll catch on, for those who wish to, or must, travel alone on their own schedule, bikes will still be the best option for fuel efficiency. I don't see them getting legislated out on efficiency issues, as they would have to legislate minimum occupancy for cars then as well, which simply isn't practical, and would probably damage the economy more than the fuel savings gained from car pooling would help anyway.

Peak oil eh. Some say we have, some say we haven't, who you gonna believe? It's a neither here nor there thing anyway. The point is we should be ready and moving now. We're simply not doing that. The tin foil hat says that there are some stunning technologies out there that are ready to be used. T'would seem odd that we aren't using them and granted that's a good argument for their non-existence... however peak oil isn't really the issue is it? It's the perception that peak oil has been reached that'll do the real damage. Armed with that little ditty, I doubt we'll have time to react, hence I'd rather we were proactive. How are you going to get the coal etc... from the mine to the power station if fuel costs become prohibitive for transportation? As I said, it's the perception that causes the fluctuation, not the fact. The last time oil prices went semi-potty was when Iran and the US were going to battle it out for the Straight of Hormuz. The perception was that there would be less oil, prices changed etc... multiply that by 1000 if the revelation that peak oil has been reached ever gets out. To that end, and with two hands on the tin foil hat, I can't see us ever being told that peak oil has ever been reached and as such if the need is the driver of the tech, we'll react too slowly... blah blah blah...

Agreed with the car pooling... but I can see motorcycles being legislated out just because cars can carry more people. Again, the reality may be something entirely different, but decisions these days aren't made on a realistic basis are they? It's the perception that something is being done about it i.e. removing motorcycles, perhaps the 1000cc band to start with. Likely efficiency won't be the only reason cited, but I reckon it'll be the main focus. The damage to the economy will be by far less to remove us, or so the spin will go. That maybe 50 years away, dunno, but I can see it happening in the "civilised" world.

[bogan]

Peak oil eh. Some say we have, some say we haven't, who you gonna believe? It's a neither here nor there thing anyway. The point is we should be ready and moving now. We're simply not doing that. The tin foil hat says that there are some stunning technologies out there that are ready to be used. T'would seem odd that we aren't using them and granted that's a good argument for their non-existence... however peak oil isn't really the issue is it? It's the perception that peak oil has been reached that'll do the real damage. Armed with that little ditty, I doubt we'll have time to react, hence I'd rather we were proactive. How are you going to get the coal etc... from the mine to the power station if fuel costs become prohibitive for transportation? As I said, it's the perception that causes the fluctuation, not the fact. The last time oil prices went semi-potty was when Iran and the US were going to battle it out for the Straight of Hormuz. The perception was that there would be less oil, prices changed etc... multiply that by 1000 if the revelation that peak oil has been reached ever gets out. To that end, and with two hands on the tin foil hat, I can't see us ever being told that peak oil has ever been reached and as such if the need is the driver of the tech, we'll react too slowly... blah blah blah...

Agreed with the car pooling... but I can see motorcycles being legislated out just because cars can carry more people. Again, the reality may be something entirely different, but decisions these days aren't made on a realistic basis are they? It's the perception that something is being done about it i.e. removing motorcycles, perhaps the 1000cc band to start with. Likely efficiency won't be the only reason cited, but I reckon it'll be the main focus. The damage to the economy will be by far less to remove us, or so the spin will go. That maybe 50 years away, dunno, but I can see it happening in the "civilised" world.

Peak oil is exactly the point, there will only be a systems crash if it abruptly runs out (which even at current rates will happen long after peak oil), otherwise we are free to make the gradual shift driven by a gradual market change. If there is alternative tech on the horizon, I can't see a massive price grab happening, why pay 10x the price for petrol when a third the price of electricity gets you the same mileage?

Problem is, bikes are perceived as being fuel efficient, tptb have to do a lot of work to first paint them as inefficient before they would get the public to see any benefit to removing them. And the only way they could paint them as inefficient is to assume high occupancy rates for other vehicles, and the only way that will stick is if they enforce (or at least encourage) those high occupancy rates.

[mashman]

Peak oil is exactly the point, there will only be a systems crash if it abruptly runs out (which even at current rates will happen long after peak oil), otherwise we are free to make the gradual shift driven by a gradual market change. If there is alternative tech on the horizon, I can't see a massive price grab happening, why pay 10x the price for petrol when a third the price of electricity gets you the same mileage?

Problem is, bikes are perceived as being fuel efficient, tptb have to do a lot of work to first paint them as inefficient before they would get the public to see any benefit to removing them. And the only way they could paint them as inefficient is to assume high occupancy rates for other vehicles, and the only way that will stick is if they enforce (or at least encourage) those high occupancy rates.

I'd say that that was a little short sighted, albeit not in a bad way :innocent:. When that point arrives, even if 50 years+ in the future, knowing that we've hit that point will spike oil prices. After all, when there are strikes or some form of crisis that has affected oil in the past (UK relatively recently), the price spikes as the demand heightens, the pumps run dry etc... What if the pumps aren't going to be filled til next tuesday? How will people get to work? How will food get to the supermarket? The price of food stuffs, mainly through transport cost, will rise also and all that jazz. Even if we have some other form of tech to take its place and say half of the vehicles on the road have that tech, it won't stop fuel prices from rising to 10x as it will be a precious commodity that will still very much be in use. It being in use will require all of the trappings that go with it to be paid for, exploration, drilling platforms, men to operate the wells etc... and all on a smaller budget. The demand will still be there, just not in the same quntities and as we know that which is "precious" holds a very high premium. Liquid gold if you will. After all, fuel will compete with car contruction materials, mainly oil based, along with every other product that is oil based. Ther perception will drive the price as it currently drives prices in the market place. The costs of elecrticity will also rise as the greater demand on the grid requires more and more investment in tech to meet that demand and it doesn't just fund itself. There are many industry's relying on oil and the electricity industry is one of them.

You only have to say that some motorcycles are inefficient, which mine is in comparison to our family car, to tar the rest. exactly the same way they do with ACC levies. The reality is that we all use a vehicle on the roads. Cars account for 78% (2009 figures) of major injuries, yet motorcyclists pay more because of a risk factor and some stupid calculations per k, or per capita etc... We've already been split from other motorvehicles on a perception, it won't take a great deal of imagination to drive the nail home in regards to efficiency. Again, it's a simple perception. When tptb say that in general motorcycles are more inefficient, who's going to deny that "fact"? Similarly with the compulsory Hi-Viz we've seen being implemented overseas. Tptb believe that Hi-Viz means less accidents and have ploughed forwards trying to make it law. Ask an reasonable person and you'd have to accept that Hi-Viz and conspicuity would be up there be virtue of it being brighter and therefore making the motorcycle more clearly visible. Headlights on all day too. Has it really made that much difference? Tptb are seen to be doing something, they are perceived to be doing it for the good of motorcyclists and the research that they have chosen has backed that up. Same goes for the ability to have high occupancy rates being more important than actually filling the car. If the argument is potential v's actual, then potential wins out every time if that's how it's spun. EDIT: That may not ring true for you, but what about those who just want to drive as cheaply as possible and have no knowledge about motorcycles? Low potential occupancy and high potential cost when divided by the great potential number of people in the car. Sounds vaguely familiar wouldn't you say?

[swbarnett]

Very true, and 7 minibuses could carry 84 people to them 7 locations.
And 42 motorcycles could carry those 84 people to 42 locations etc. etc. etc.


Plus it's much safer to travel by a 4 wheeled vehicle :eek5:
That depends very much on the rider (read the third line of mi sig.). More motorcyclists would inevibaly mean more demand for better training and therefore a lower proportionate motorcycle road toll.

[mashman]

And 42 motorcycles could carry those 84 people to 42 locations etc. etc. etc.

:killingme... we could be here a while.



That depends very much on the rider (read the third line of mi sig.). More motorcyclists would inevibaly mean more demand for better training and therefore a lower proportionate motorcycle road toll.

Not wholly the rider as you can only look in 1 direction at any given point in time, best not spend too much time looking at the speedo :whistle:. I take your point, but the flip side of that is proportionally even more cars. As the instructor fulla highlighted a few pages back, all of the training in the world may make you a more aware rider, but that is easily negated by the actions of others and a moment of inattention, be it changing the CD, checkin out the hotty in the car behind etc... It's often been flippantly remarked upon, but perhaps removing some of the safety features of cars would have a better impact, snigger, on accident stats... that and the spike sticking out of the steering wheel. Unfortunately it could go either way irrespective of training level. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't try though.

[swbarnett]

When tptb say that in general motorcycles are more inefficient, who's going to deny that "fact"?
The ever increasing number of car drivers that are turning to small CC scooters as cheap transport.

[mashman]

The ever increasing number of car drivers that are turning to small CC scooters as cheap transport.

I will wish them luck should the time come.

[bogan]

I'd say that that was a little short sighted, albeit not in a bad way :innocent:. When that point arrives, even if 50 years+ in the future, knowing that we've hit that point will spike oil prices. After all, when there are strikes or some form of crisis that has affected oil in the past (UK relatively recently), the price spikes as the demand heightens, the pumps run dry etc... What if the pumps aren't going to be filled til next tuesday? How will people get to work? How will food get to the supermarket? The price of food stuffs, mainly through transport cost, will rise also and all that jazz. Even if we have some other form of tech to take its place and say half of the vehicles on the road have that tech, it won't stop fuel prices from rising to 10x as it will be a precious commodity that will still very much be in use. It being in use will require all of the trappings that go with it to be paid for, exploration, drilling platforms, men to operate the wells etc... and all on a smaller budget. The demand will still be there, just not in the same quntities and as we know that which is "precious" holds a very high premium. Liquid gold if you will. After all, fuel will compete with car contruction materials, mainly oil based, along with every other product that is oil based. Ther perception will drive the price as it currently drives prices in the market place. The costs of elecrticity will also rise as the greater demand on the grid requires more and more investment in tech to meet that demand and it doesn't just fund itself. There are many industry's relying on oil and the electricity industry is one of them.

You only have to say that some motorcycles are inefficient, which mine is in comparison to our family car, to tar the rest. exactly the same way they do with ACC levies. The reality is that we all use a vehicle on the roads. Cars account for 78% (2009 figures) of major injuries, yet motorcyclists pay more because of a risk factor and some stupid calculations per k, or per capita etc... We've already been split from other motorvehicles on a perception, it won't take a great deal of imagination to drive the nail home in regards to efficiency. Again, it's a simple perception. When tptb say that in general motorcycles are more inefficient, who's going to deny that "fact"? Similarly with the compulsory Hi-Viz we've seen being implemented overseas. Tptb believe that Hi-Viz means less accidents and have ploughed forwards trying to make it law. Ask an reasonable person and you'd have to accept that Hi-Viz and conspicuity would be up there be virtue of it being brighter and therefore making the motorcycle more clearly visible. Headlights on all day too. Has it really made that much difference? Tptb are seen to be doing something, they are perceived to be doing it for the good of motorcyclists and the research that they have chosen has backed that up. Same goes for the ability to have high occupancy rates being more important than actually filling the car. If the argument is potential v's actual, then potential wins out every time if that's how it's spun. EDIT: That may not ring true for you, but what about those who just want to drive as cheaply as possible and have no knowledge about motorcycles? Low potential occupancy and high potential cost when divided by the great potential number of people in the car. Sounds vaguely familiar wouldn't you say?

I think you are confused about what peak oil means, it means production has peaked, not that it has run out. The pumps will not run dry, as the oil production at that point is the highest in history, the pumps will be filled at the same rate as the week before. If anything useage will only briefly spike as the wombles fill their car tanks and jerry cans, then decline as people try to limit their fuel useage. Supply and demand balance will temper consumer panic, with possible government interference to stop fuel price gouging causing a recession. Remember, peak oil only signifies production has peaked and will start to decline, it does not mean there is instantly not enough fuel for current demand. Sure, if nothing is done then demand will outstrip supply, at this point I still don't think we'll see more than $1 per year rise because there is so much unnecessary demand that will get pruned back in the early stages. Gradual changes, gradual adoption of new tech, tin-foil hats can go back on the shelves...

Those other things seem to make sense at a glance though, Bikers get hit, make em more visable, why not makes sense. Smallest vehicle using the most fuel, hang on, that one doesn't make sense. If they want to ban bikes for whatever reason, they'll simply do it under the guise of safety; I mean why push shit uphill on the fuel thing when safety just a much easier choice? Either way, I'll tell em to get fucked.

[mashman]

I think you are confused about what peak oil means, it means production has peaked, not that it has run out. The pumps will not run dry, as the oil production at that point is the highest in history, the pumps will be filled at the same rate as the week before. If anything useage will only briefly spike as the wombles fill their car tanks and jerry cans, then decline as people try to limit their fuel useage. Supply and demand balance will temper consumer panic, with possible government interference to stop fuel price gouging causing a recession. Remember, peak oil only signifies production has peaked and will start to decline, it does not mean there is instantly not enough fuel for current demand. Sure, if nothing is done then demand will outstrip supply, at this point I still don't think we'll see more than $1 per year rise because there is so much unnecessary demand that will get pruned back in the early stages. Gradual changes, gradual adoption of new tech, tin-foil hats can go back on the shelves...

Those other things seem to make sense at a glance though, Bikers get hit, make em more visable, why not makes sense. Smallest vehicle using the most fuel, hang on, that one doesn't make sense. If they want to ban bikes for whatever reason, they'll simply do it under the guise of safety; I mean why push shit uphill on the fuel thing when safety just a much easier choice? Either way, I'll tell em to get fucked.

Noooooooo, I understand what is meant by peak oil. The pumps will run dry, not right at that point in time (didn't realise it was reading that way), well, not all of the pumps anyway. That small spike when the wombles go banoonoos will only hasten the pumps running dry. I'm not saying it will happen overnight, but knowing that it has peaked will drive the cost up in its own right. As soon as you hit peak, demand will outstrip supply and it will continue to do so as we keep requiring our economy to grow. Which it won't be able to. If you're using 5 million barrels per day and that drops to 4.5 million barrels per day the following year, then where is that half a million barrels worth going to be cut and how will it be replaced? As you say it'll probably be put upon the "frivolous" users first (we have an alternative to cars in public transport). That's not the problem though. In year 2 you may be producing only 4 million barrels per day, year 3 3.5 million etc... Once it's past peak, it's alllllllll down hill. The demand will very much still be there as we won't want our expensive cars sitting collecting dust on the roadside, we'd like them filled etc... (cars will also start to lose value rapidly and to the point where it won't be cost effective to make any more). The market knows this and if they're told :shifty: that peak has been reached (how long will have elapsed before they confirm that we've passed peak?) it will react quite violently and we will be plunged into recession on the perception alone. The housing market caused a pretty decent recession, supposedly, and we still have the resources etc... to build houses. When oil is running out it affects many more industry's will be affected. We'll be fubar as the change won't be gradual in any way shape or form as govts/military's stockpile etc...

:rofl: aye, I'll join you in the get fucked yelling, although I'll be doubting that we'll get what we're after for some unknown reason. It may well be that we'll be knobbled by safety, but in the context of efficiency, per passenger, a car outstrips a bike without breaking a sweat. Not sure how close that calculation will be with a scoot, but I can see many many bikes failing the calculation of per person km fuel consumption rationale.

Example.
Scoot can travel 100mpg. It can carry 2 people so effectively has traveled 200mpg.
Car travels 30mpg: I can carry 7 people so effectively has traveled 210mpg.

Dunno what the averages are across "motorcycles" v's cars, but there are many less efficient "motorcycles" than the scoot above and many more efficient cars than the car above. I can't see us winning that one.

[swbarnett]

but in the context of efficiency, per passenger, a car outstrips a bike without breaking a sweat. Not sure how close that calculation will be with a scoot, but I can see many many bikes failing the calculation of per person km fuel consumption rationale.

Example.
Scoot can travel 100mpg. It can carry 2 people so effectively has traveled 200mpg.
Car travels 30mpg: I can carry 7 people so effectively has traveled 210mpg.

Dunno what the averages are across "motorcycles" v's cars, but there are many less efficient "motorcycles" than the scoot above and many more efficient cars than the car above. I can't see us winning that one.
When's the last time you saw a car with 7 occupants? And how many city commuters have someone else in the car? I think you're under estimating the driving public's love of their independance.

[bogan]

Noooooooo, I understand what is meant by peak oil. The pumps will run dry, not right at that point in time (didn't realise it was reading that way), well, not all of the pumps anyway. That small spike when the wombles go banoonoos will only hasten the pumps running dry. I'm not saying it will happen overnight, but knowing that it has peaked will drive the cost up in its own right. As soon as you hit peak, demand will outstrip supply and it will continue to do so as we keep requiring our economy to grow. Which it won't be able to. If you're using 5 million barrels per day and that drops to 4.5 million barrels per day the following year, then where is that half a million barrels worth going to be cut and how will it be replaced? As you say it'll probably be put upon the "frivolous" users first (we have an alternative to cars in public transport). That's not the problem though. In year 2 you may be producing only 4 million barrels per day, year 3 3.5 million etc... Once it's past peak, it's alllllllll down hill. The demand will very much still be there as we won't want our expensive cars sitting collecting dust on the roadside, we'd like them filled etc... (cars will also start to lose value rapidly and to the point where it won't be cost effective to make any more). The market knows this and if they're told :shifty: that peak has been reached (how long will have elapsed before they confirm that we've passed peak?) it will react quite violently and we will be plunged into recession on the perception alone. The housing market caused a pretty decent recession, supposedly, and we still have the resources etc... to build houses. When oil is running out it affects many more industry's will be affected. We'll be fubar as the change won't be gradual in any way shape or form as govts/military's stockpile etc...

:rofl: aye, I'll join you in the get fucked yelling, although I'll be doubting that we'll get what we're after for some unknown reason. It may well be that we'll be knobbled by safety, but in the context of efficiency, per passenger, a car outstrips a bike without breaking a sweat. Not sure how close that calculation will be with a scoot, but I can see many many bikes failing the calculation of per person km fuel consumption rationale.

Example.
Scoot can travel 100mpg. It can carry 2 people so effectively has traveled 200mpg.
Car travels 30mpg: I can carry 7 people so effectively has traveled 210mpg.

Dunno what the averages are across "motorcycles" v's cars, but there are many less efficient "motorcycles" than the scoot above and many more efficient cars than the car above. I can't see us winning that one.

Current predictions are show those sort of production drops over a much longer period. The 10% of frivolous useage might take 5 years to go, in which time 10% of the fleet could easily have converted to electric or whatever alternate fuels are around then. The next 10% of production might only take four years to drop, but now the conversion will be hitting its stride, with 20% of the fleet swapping, leaving enough fuel to go around and regulating its rate via supply and demand. This is a gradual time frame, I'm not sure where you are getting your catastrophe in a year figures from? Govt/military know they have a long time to stockpile, and that it will be cheaper for them to take longer; with supply assured for the next 5 years I don't see why anyone would pay inflated prices to stockpile it overnight.
The housing crash was different as it was in large part due to over leveraged loans, the money resource did run out, and this is a much more easily stockpile-able resource so people hoarded it and made the problem worse. Petrol is much harder to hoard, and it hasn't been over leveraged either; the doom and gloomers might be willing to pay more to fill some jerry cans, but the rest of us will be happy letting the actual supply and demand regulate the price.

[mashman]

When's the last time you saw a car with 7 occupants? And how many city commuters have someone else in the car? I think you're under estimating the driving public's love of their independance.

I don't see a full car very often at all. Like I was saying earlier, it's the perception that will win the day and whilst the driving public love their independence, are they going to be willing to risk it for motorcyclists? Is it a vote loser? I don't see it I'm afraid, especially if it's wrapped up in a drive to save fuel.

[mashman]

Current predictions are show those sort of production drops over a much longer period. The 10% of frivolous useage might take 5 years to go, in which time 10% of the fleet could easily have converted to electric or whatever alternate fuels are around then. The next 10% of production might only take four years to drop, but now the conversion will be hitting its stride, with 20% of the fleet swapping, leaving enough fuel to go around and regulating its rate via supply and demand. This is a gradual time frame, I'm not sure where you are getting your catastrophe in a year figures from? Govt/military know they have a long time to stockpile, and that it will be cheaper for them to take longer; with supply assured for the next 5 years I don't see why anyone would pay inflated prices to stockpile it overnight.
The housing crash was different as it was in large part due to over leveraged loans, the money resource did run out, and this is a much more easily stockpile-able resource so people hoarded it and made the problem worse. Petrol is much harder to hoard, and it hasn't been over leveraged either; the doom and gloomers might be willing to pay more to fill some jerry cans, but the rest of us will be happy letting the actual supply and demand regulate the price.

Current predictions eh. Coz we've never been wrong before. I can't see us being so civil about fuel running out. As mentioned it isn't just cars that use oil. Once the word is out that peak has been reached or has been passed, the price of fuel will most definitely rise more than $1 per year. Might be a good time to design a heavy duty fuel cap system... although you'll likely find that those who can't afford fuel will drill holes in a fuel tank to get their fuel. Fuel for vehicles is the tip of an iceberg. Less oil, less products, less jobs, less money in the economy, more on the dole, more in jail etc... The catastrophe, :rofl:, figures are asshat, however I class the fallout as inevitable. I highly doubt a model exists that can cater for human beings taking what they want. There are other levels other than fuel and product manufacture that will need to be taken into account, such as terrorism and war for instance. All of a sudden the lack of oil can bring about the collapse of the west, so some will attack it and some will defend it... and if we've peaked it will likely become more of a target. I see the catastrophe as very real. The when is an entirely different story. If we aren't proactive enough, then we'll be fucked, and we're nowhere near being proactive enough, more of a she'll be right.

Sorry, I lollied and lollied at the thought of the market controlling supply and demand. Liquid gold they call it. How much does the price of gold go up each year? $1? what industry does it float? Jewelery? Granted women will go into mass hyterics and ugly men will get laid on a less frequent basis, but it hardly serves much of a purpose. I can see similar price hikes happening with oil/fuel as it becomes precious and demand outstrips supply. The market is all about perception. We will have to agree to disagree here. ROI is king after all. Less funding means less oil, similar to the housing crisis.

[bogan]

Current predictions eh. Coz we've never been wrong before. I can't see us being so civil about fuel running out. As mentioned it isn't just cars that use oil. Once the word is out that peak has been reached or has been passed, the price of fuel will most definitely rise more than $1 per year. Might be a good time to design a heavy duty fuel cap system... although you'll likely find that those who can't afford fuel will drill holes in a fuel tank to get their fuel. Fuel for vehicles is the tip of an iceberg. Less oil, less products, less jobs, less money in the economy, more on the dole, more in jail etc... The catastrophe, :rofl:, figures are asshat, however I class the fallout as inevitable. I highly doubt a model exists that can cater for human beings taking what they want. There are other levels other than fuel and product manufacture that will need to be taken into account, such as terrorism and war for instance. All of a sudden the lack of oil can bring about the collapse of the west, so some will attack it and some will defend it... and if we've peaked it will likely become more of a target. I see the catastrophe as very real. The when is an entirely different story. If we aren't proactive enough, then we'll be fucked, and we're nowhere near being proactive enough, more of a she'll be right.

Sorry, I lollied and lollied at the thought of the market controlling supply and demand. Liquid gold they call it. How much does the price of gold go up each year? $1? what industry does it float? Jewelery? Granted women will go into mass hyterics and ugly men will get laid on a less frequent basis, but it hardly serves much of a purpose. I can see similar price hikes happening with oil/fuel as it becomes precious and demand outstrips supply. The market is all about perception. We will have to agree to disagree here. ROI is king after all. Less funding means less oil, similar to the housing crisis.

You're right its not just cars that use oil, but use is still the keyword. Comparing it to gold doesn't work because gold is not consumed like oil. Think about it, the actual production cost does not change at peak oil, so if consumers are paying more, they are just lining the petrol companies pockets. That's not a market crash, that just a monopoly, and I can't see TPTB allowing that to happen. Weren't they talking about regulating milk prices not long ago? Yes I understand how the current dependence on oil would cause a catastrophe if oil was quickly removed, but your only justification for its quick removal is a bunch of conspiracy theories.

[SuperMac]

I didnt realise the RAC/ACU was now defunct, shows how long I've been gone from the UK. Maybe the Instructors were seen as too 'Politically Incorrect?' :2thumbsup:2thumbsup

In 1981 the Gumment made some fairly dramatic changes to the UK's 'L' laws, to come into effect from 1982.

This included the introduction of a two-part test, where the rider had to take an off-road test prior to the existing road test. This off-road test was difficult (but not impossible) to pass without training, the Govt.'s intention being that riders would take a training course which included the training required for the test.

Unfortunately, the RAC said 'we don't want to play any more, and gave notice of their intention to quit any involvement with training.

Cutting a long story short, the BMF set up the BMF-RTS, a training body for any groups wishing to keep going 'under new ownership'. Also, RoSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) set up one too - to which Govt gave £100k. After a fuss, they gave the BMF-RTS £10k . . .

RoSPA's scheme eventually folded, and the co-existing 'Star Rider' organisation (which grew from STEP (Schools Training Programme) was taken down when its parent company (industrial training) went bust.

Compulsory Basic Training (typically one day) to validate a provisional licence was brought in in '92, and Direct Access (with, effectively, stepped licencing) arrived in '96. This final stage was the final nail in 'volunteer' trainng due to the massive investment needed to run training bikes at the various cc/power levels.

More recently, we've had a new off-road test. That, and other training/testing changes are driven by the EU Directives.


If anyone wants to know more about our current training and testing regime and its content, let me know and I'll post some links.

[Ocean1]

Current predictions eh. Coz we've never been wrong before. I can't see us being so civil about fuel running out. As mentioned it isn't just cars that use oil. Once the word is out that peak has been reached or has been passed, the price of fuel will most definitely rise more than $1 per year. Might be a good time to design a heavy duty fuel cap system...

Where DO you get such unmitigated drivel, I can't believe one guy can simply make that much up all on his lonesome.

Those nasty cars you reckon should be abandoned in favour of public transport actually cost less fuel per pasenger mile than busses. Trains are much worse.

As for petrol being thieved because it's worth so much, it was far more of a problem in the '70s, when fuel costs were comparitively higher than they are now.

For shitsake ask someone who actually knows something, anything at all, before you mouth off about the evils of whatever this week's fantasy might be.

[Ocean1]

This included the introduction of a two-part test, where the rider had to take an off-road test prior to the existing road test. This off-road test was difficult (but not impossible) to pass without training, the Govt.'s intention being that riders would take a training course which included the training required for the test.

This I approve of. No idea how you fund it, (which is presumably the issue that caused the subsequent demise of the scheme) but I'm in no doubt at all that such training would make for riders better equiped to handle emergency incidents on the road.

[mashman]

You're right its not just cars that use oil, but use is still the keyword. Comparing it to gold doesn't work because gold is not consumed like oil. Think about it, the actual production cost does not change at peak oil, so if consumers are paying more, they are just lining the petrol companies pockets. That's not a market crash, that just a monopoly, and I can't see TPTB allowing that to happen. Weren't they talking about regulating milk prices not long ago? Yes I understand how the current dependence on oil would cause a catastrophe if oil was quickly removed, but your only justification for its quick removal is a bunch of conspiracy theories.

"Use" is the keyword. If there's less to use, there's less profit to be made. If the production costs don't change, the profit will have to be generated by price rises as use will be less as there's less produced. It's all about lining the pockets isn't it? The market will crash on the perception that there will be less oil available for use. I understand what you mean by quick removal causing issues and I'm not saying that quick removal will happen at all, as the removal will happen quickly enough by virtue of the stuff vanishing in its own right, some through hoarding, some though being priced out of the market etc... We may, and I do mean may, have some replacement fuels, but how do you replace plastic in such a short space of time? So denying that the market won't throw a hissy fit on the announcement of peak oil is drastically underestimating just how fickle the market is. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't see the announcement of peak oil turning out well at all.

[bogan]

"Use" is the keyword. If there's less to use, there's less profit to be made. If the production costs don't change, the profit will have to be generated by price rises as use will be less as there's less produced.

Which doesn't happen at peak (the most there has ever been) oil!


It's all about lining the pockets isn't it? The market will crash on the perception that there will be less oil available for use.

Yeh I'm still not seeing how that will crash it; have a think about how the production/useage balance is affected by hoarding, and how the supply and demand price balance is affected by the market panic; then have a think about those same things one month furthur down the track. Maybe look up some figures while you're at it eh!


I understand what you mean by quick removal causing issues and I'm not saying that quick removal will happen at all, as the removal will happen quickly enough by virtue of the stuff vanishing in its own right, some through hoarding, some though being priced out of the market etc... We may, and I do mean may, have some replacement fuels, but how do you replace plastic in such a short space of time? So denying that the market won't throw a hissy fit on the announcement of peak oil is drastically underestimating just how fickle the market is. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't see the announcement of peak oil turning out well at all.

Again, have a think about what proportion of production can be hoarded, and what do you mean by being priced out of the market? Out of the ground is on the market. Plastic has current alternative (bioplastic), so it's no different from the fuel, gradual changes will encourage new tech adoption.

[Big Dave]

Edit: Nah fuck it. :-)

[AllanB]

Jesus I must have been working too hard. Compulsory hi-vis vests - Fark off. CHCH has so much hi-vis now that it has almost become invisible.


It is interesting that this is the suggestion. I have posted before and usually get flamed for it - you can wear shorts and jandels on your motorcycle (shit, add a pretty hi-vis vest too), and a helmet of course, fall off and ACC will pay for all your skin grafts etc for the next few months. Fall off wearing full protective gear, fuck up your gear but be physically unharmed and you pay for it's replacement or insurance excess.

Safety gear - helmets. You can wear a 30 year old one that you spent the last decade using as a plant pot and be 'legal'. No 'use-by' date? No WOF check as car seatbelts have ...........

Helmet colour - matt black is almost compulsory in some motorcycle circles ......... I suppose they can always order a high-vis vest with a big fucking skull on it. Actually thinking of that last comment it would probably have more impact to the general public than a single coloured vest due to the instantly anti-social image it may portray.

Day-time lights. I see a lot of cars having these fitted - they are obvious. Until every car has them and then your brain just adapts. I've seen some bikes with them too and they do stand out front on.


The stats are interesting - if half the accidents are our fault (probably fair...) then how will a high visibility vest stop us killing ourselves? Maybe the thinking is we will all ride more carefully if we can be seen more clearly by all?

Load of shit and a waste of money IMO.

[swbarnett]

I don't see a full car very often at all. Like I was saying earlier, it's the perception that will win the day and whilst the driving public love their independence, are they going to be willing to risk it for motorcyclists?
A lot are willing to risk scooters now and I don't see why that would change.


Is it a vote loser? I don't see it I'm afraid, especially if it's wrapped up in a drive to save fuel.
Getting rid of motorcycles may or may not lose votes (based on the sympathy expressed during the bikeoi it may well do). However, legislating people into car-pooling most likely will.

[mashman]

Where DO you get such unmitigated drivel, I can't believe one guy can simply make that much up all on his lonesome.

Those nasty cars you reckon should be abandoned in favour of public transport actually cost less fuel per pasenger mile than busses. Trains are much worse.

As for petrol being thieved because it's worth so much, it was far more of a problem in the '70s, when fuel costs were comparitively higher than they are now.

For shitsake ask someone who actually knows something, anything at all, before you mouth off about the evils of whatever this week's fantasy might be.

Oh there's much much much more, but I realise that simple human beings have difficulty grasping simple concepts and translate what is typed into anything they deem fit. I know this, coz i r one of um.

I never said that cars should be abandoned in favour of public transport fuel per passenger calcs... more I offered it as another excuse for tptb to get rid of motorcycles should they desire to do so. Keep up sunshine.

We woz talkin about the future... and as you have highlighted, it has happened before, imagine that we've peaked, how much worse do you think it'll become?

Try babelfish in future, or reading the posts in anything other than angry old man mode, before fappin, yes fappin, yer gums.

[mashman]

Which doesn't happen at peak (the most there has ever been) oil!

Yeh I'm still not seeing how that will crash it; have a think about how the production/useage balance is affected by hoarding, and how the supply and demand price balance is affected by the market panic; then have a think about those same things one month furthur down the track. Maybe look up some figures while you're at it eh!

Again, have a think about what proportion of production can be hoarded, and what do you mean by being priced out of the market? Out of the ground is on the market. Plastic has current alternative (bioplastic), so it's no different from the fuel, gradual changes will encourage new tech adoption.

I never said at peak... more once peak has been admitted and communicated to the world. I understand what you mean and to a degree we may, but only may, get lucky enough that the wonderful world of business will find a replacement for all of its oil based produced that will allow of the the oil reliant industry's to maintain their staff etc... What else can we produce in such quantity to replace oil? after all it's sucked out of the ground in huge quantities, so what's the replacement? Bioplastic? You're going to use the land that's currently used for food to produce bioplastics? You think that we'll be able to match current demand between oil and bioplastic? Sucking millions of barrels out of the ground per day v's generating the same amount of fuel from crops? Can you see why I might be a tad sceptical in regards to meeting supply? I highly doubt that I'm the only person that'll think along these lines, let alone when it comes down to the bean counters deciding whether or not they should pull their "investment" out of the oil industry.

People will be priced out of the market, as will business, when it fuel becomes prohibitively expensive. That may only be in small numbers to start with, but as the cost of living rises across the board via fuel shortage, how are you expecting that people and markets are going to react? It may take 10/20/30 years, but I can't see the market being able to regulate/settle itself where demand outstrips supply, which will happen given the quantity of fuel produced via different methods.

[mashman]

A lot are willing to risk scooters now and I don't see why that would change.

Getting rid of motorcycles may or may not lose votes (based on the sympathy expressed during the bikeoi it may well do). However, legislating people into car-pooling most likely will.

When there's only Scoots left as the bigger bikes have been legislated off the road, for arguments sake, how much is the resultant ACC levy gonna be?

I agree that car pooling may well fail and it'd be a logistical nightmare (I can think of ways) trying to implement a scheme that ensure car pooling... buuuuuut, how often would you not car pool if the fine is $1000 per missing passenger? Potentially car crushing? I agree that that's a tad extreme, but it all depends on what the goal is and it'd likely be a step that the Greens would back, likely Labours, in likely every political party would push for it to be law. Who ya gonna vote in then? Just sayin is all.

[bogan]

I never said at peak... more once peak has been admitted and communicated to the world. I understand what you mean and to a degree we may, but only may, get lucky enough that the wonderful world of business will find a replacement for all of its oil based produced that will allow of the the oil reliant industry's to maintain their staff etc... What else can we produce in such quantity to replace oil? after all it's sucked out of the ground in huge quantities, so what's the replacement? Bioplastic? You're going to use the land that's currently used for food to produce bioplastics? You think that we'll be able to match current demand between oil and bioplastic? Sucking millions of barrels out of the ground per day v's generating the same amount of fuel from crops? Can you see why I might be a tad sceptical in regards to meeting supply? I highly doubt that I'm the only person that'll think along these lines, let alone when it comes down to the bean counters deciding whether or not they should pull their "investment" out of the oil industry.

People will be priced out of the market, as will business, when it fuel becomes prohibitively expensive. That may only be in small numbers to start with, but as the cost of living rises across the board via fuel shortage, how are you expecting that people and markets are going to react? It may take 10/20/30 years, but I can't see the market being able to regulate/settle itself where demand outstrips supply, which will happen given the quantity of fuel produced via different methods.

You're getting your timeframes muddled up again. I've agreed that long term we're fucked if we continue to depend on oil. I don't agree that we're fucked once peak oil hits; you keep saying there will be a crash but only offer long term reasoning for it; or the panic theory which makes no sense due to market supply/demand regulation (not to mention TPTB price setting such as government and opec).

Once peak has been admitted and communicated is at peak oil, barring some dodgy book-keeping conspiracy theories of course.

[mashman]

You're getting your timeframes muddled up again. I've agreed that long term we're fucked if we continue to depend on oil. I don't agree that we're fucked once peak oil hits; you keep saying there will be a crash but only offer long term reasoning for it; or the panic theory which makes no sense due to market supply/demand regulation (not to mention TPTB price setting such as government and opec).

Once peak has been admitted and communicated is at peak oil, barring some dodgy book-keeping conspiracy theories of course.

Moi toimscales are foine ta... primarily because I don't have one. Although I reckon once announced and accepted as us never producing any more (which is where I'm coming from, not just that we're at peak oil) than we ever will, will cause the market to go doolally. I'm surprised that you think that long term reasoning won't have any affect. I'm sure the bean counters and risk managers will just say meh, we've got 10/20/30 years before it hits the fan, let's keep the price of fuel down. I can't see that happening. Such news will cause a shock on the market, I see the extent of that shock being really rather nasty in the short and long term, you don't... and as my crystal ball isn't working, I'll go with which I think will be more likely given the way we operate today and the available alternatives.

[Ocean1]

We woz talkin about the future... and as you have highlighted, it has happened before, imagine that we've peaked, how much worse do you think it'll become?

You should probably stop doing that, you're not good at it.

And as you said, it's happened before, fuckwits rabbiting on about running out of oil, DOOMED, WE"RE DOOOOOOOMED. So much so that when we eventually do reach the point where it's economically more beneficial to buy less fuel than we did last year nobody will bat an eyelid, they've heard the idiots calling wolif too many times already.

[mashman]

You should probably stop doing that, you're not good at it.

And as you said, it's happened before, fuckwits rabbiting on about running out of oil, DOOMED, WE"RE DOOOOOOOMED. So much so that when we eventually do reach the point where it's economically more beneficial to buy less fuel than we did last year nobody will bat an eyelid, they've heard the idiots calling wolif too many times already.

Yes I am.

I agree with you (although that's marketing for ya :))... my we're doomed we're doomed :rolleyes: is more, let's get the fuckin party started and not wait for the surprise. Oil is going to be nigh on impossible to replace SOMEDAY given the current usage. There's an obvious reason that we're slow out of the blocks and why we haven't, at the very least, started to produce new vehicles with alternative engines etc... you can call that a conspiracy if you like, but just because it may not happen in our lifetimes, doesn't mean that it won't happen. We are so far behind where we should be it's laughable.

[swbarnett]

When there's only Scoots left as the bigger bikes have been legislated off the road, for arguments sake, how much is the resultant ACC levy gonna be?
Sorry, can't see what your point is here?


how often would you not car pool if the fine is $1000 per missing passenger? Potentially car crushing?
Every fucken time and it'd be on my then illegal motorcycle. What you're talking about will only be accepted by those that grow up with it. There's a saying in Physics that new theories only get accepted once all the proponents of the old ones are dead.


I agree that that's a tad extreme, but it all depends on what the goal is and it'd likely be a step that the Greens would back, likely Labours, in likely every political party would push for it to be law. Who ya gonna vote in then? Just sayin is all.
In the industry I work in car pooling is just an impossible nightmare. No two individuals leave the office at the same time and noone leaves the office at a consistent time day to day. It all depends on what you're working on when it comes time to think about leaving (my own leaving time can vary by as much as three hours, and on more than one occasion I didn't leave til the next morning).

[mashman]

Sorry, can't see what your point is here?

ACC levels rise based on vehicle type * the all important risk calculation model etc... If scoots are the only "motorcycles" left on the road, their levy will be huge, which will eventually make them cost prohibitive.



Every fucken time and it'd be on my then illegal motorcycle. What you're talking about will only be accepted by those that grow up with it. There's a saying in Physics that new theories only get accepted once all the proponents of the old ones are dead.

:rofl: yow much be filthy rich iffen you can buy a new bike every time one gets crushed. Whilst I agree with the Physics saying, I don't think it'll hold should the goal be getting them nasty motorcycles off of the road and at the same time enforcing car-pooling for what some may see as logical reasons. They may not be a majority, but if they're those who make the decisions you'll capitulate (maybe not you, coz you sound well 'ard). If you need your car, you will change your work habits along with your co car sharers if the alternative is having it crushed or receiving a $1000 fine. I know I would.



In the industry I work in car pooling is just an impossible nightmare. No two individuals leave the office at the same time and noone leaves the office at a consistent time day to day. It all depends on what you're working on when it comes time to think about leaving (my own leaving time can vary by as much as three hours, and on more than one occasion I didn't leave til the next morning).

Ooooooooo you drew the lucky straw. I'm aware of the reasons that car pooling is nigh on impossible, but as stated above, if the decision has been made and the consequences are harsh enough, we'll change our working behaviour. I usually do the long hours from home, would love to permanently work from home, but hey, I'm not to be trusted.

[swbarnett]

ACC levels rise based on vehicle type * the all important risk calculation model etc... If scoots are the only "motorcycles" left on the road, their levy will be huge, which will eventually make them cost prohibitive.
I see what you're getting at now but I'm not sure that the levy would rise. Scooters may have the same crash rate as the rest of us (perhaps even a little higher), but I suspect, with the speeds involved (even in t-shirt and shorts) the injuries sustained in those accidents may be less costly. Then again, you may be right. Can't say for certain as I don't know the actual crash rate for scooters (does anyone?). Maybe it's even lower. Afterall, all we ever hear about are crashes involving "proper" motorcycles.


:rofl: yow much be filthy rich iffen you can buy a new bike every time one gets crushed.
Nah, just pissed off at everyone trying to save me from myself. Besides, if bikes are illegal, there won't be any bikes to buy. I'll admit this would only work until I got caught (which obviously wouldn't take long). With luck I won't be alone.


Whilst I agree with the Physics saying, I don't think it'll hold should the goal be getting them nasty motorcycles off of the road and at the same time enforcing car-pooling for what some may see as logical reasons. They may not be a majority, but if they're those who make the decisions you'll capitulate
The thing is, those making the decision to enforce car-pooling will be those most affected by it (and their mates) since when did a politician ever enact a law that was to their own immediate detriment?


(maybe not you, coz you sound well 'ard).
I won't capitulate. I'm not 'ard as you say. However, I've chosen my line in the sand I'll be sticking to it. It'll start with hi-vis if it becomes compulsary. Hopefully I'll have plenty of bikers joining me.


If you need your car, you will change your work habits along with your co car sharers if the alternative is having it crushed or receiving a $1000 fine. I know I would.
This is exactly the apathetic attitude that allows those that would control to have their way. If we as a population stand up and be counted they can't. remember "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing"


Ooooooooo you drew the lucky straw.
I think so. But, believe me, with the pressure I'm under sonmetimes it doesn't feel like it.


I'm aware of the reasons that car pooling is nigh on impossible, but as stated above, if the decision has been made and the consequences are harsh enough, we'll change our working behaviour. I usually do the long hours from home, would love to permanently work from home, but hey, I'm not to be trusted.
I can't change my working behaviour. Yes, my standard day could change to some degree (I could work from home except for the team interaction and the physical things I have to do - can't telecommute a screwdriver). However, I'm also on-call for work one week in five. I can be called out at all hours of the day or night. who do I car-pool with then? And I'll say it again "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing".


One further point that just popped in to my head. It'd be pretty hard to include electric bikes in a motorcycle ban based on emission levels and/or petrol consumption.


I might be persuaded to adapt to an electric bike if the exhaust note was reproduced accurately enough and it had equivelent range and torque. And it'd have to have a recharge time equal to that taken to fill my tank.

[Scuba_Steve]

Nah, just pissed off at everyone trying to save me from myself. Besides, if bikes are illegal, there won't be any bikes to buy. I'll admit this would only work until I got caught (which obviously wouldn't take long). With luck I won't be alone.

...

I won't capitulate. I'm not 'ard as you say. However, I've chosen my line in the sand I'll be sticking to it. It'll start with hi-vis if it becomes compulsary. Hopefully I'll have plenty of bikers joining me.

...

I might be persuaded to adapt to an electric bike if the exhaust note was reproduced accurately enough and it had equivelent range and torque. And it'd have to have a recharge time equal to that taken to fill my tank.

Don't worry you won't be alone in either case, I for one would be there too.
I'm sticking with my Henry T Ford colour scheme of "Any colour as long as it's black!" regardless of any moronic Hi-Vis laws that will* come about

As for electric bikes tho, I could only get one in the dirt variety at this stage. The charge time & range just isn't anywhere near enough to make it viable as my road bike. But as a dirt bike, done right, electric could be a good thing


* Educated speculation

[mashman]

I see what you're getting at now but I'm not sure that the levy would rise. Scooters may have the same crash rate as the rest of us (perhaps even a little higher), but I suspect, with the speeds involved (even in t-shirt and shorts) the injuries sustained in those accidents may be less costly. Then again, you may be right. Can't say for certain as I don't know the actual crash rate for scooters (does anyone?). Maybe it's even lower. Afterall, all we ever hear about are crashes involving "proper" motorcycles.


Dunno about the cost of injury for someone wearing a suit. 30kmh can still cause a serious injury though, especially when surrounded by other traffic. I guess that bit comes down to luck. Even if it is just cuts and scrapes etc... we must still be paying a small fortune for those incidents? I'd love to see how much those injuries cost, although I don't remember seeing the costs in any of ACC's breakdowns, although I think I saw some scoot stats somewhere, praps just less than 250cc stats (dead hard drive stopping play there).



Nah, just pissed off at everyone trying to save me from myself. Besides, if bikes are illegal, there won't be any bikes to buy. I'll admit this would only work until I got caught (which obviously wouldn't take long). With luck I won't be alone.

The thing is, those making the decision to enforce car-pooling will be those most affected by it (and their mates) since when did a politician ever enact a law that was to their own immediate detriment?

I won't capitulate. I'm not 'ard as you say. However, I've chosen my line in the sand I'll be sticking to it. It'll start with hi-vis if it becomes compulsary. Hopefully I'll have plenty of bikers joining me.

This is exactly the apathetic attitude that allows those that would control to have their way. If we as a population stand up and be counted they can't. remember "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing"

:rofl: with you all the way there. The downside is though, motorcyclists are persecuted with good reason, heh, and should such logical reasoning appeal to tptb that car pooling is needed, then arguing self-determination as a defence isn't going to win the day. Don't get me wrong, I'll be there to piss in the wind, I'm good at that, but there has to come a point where we have to cede some of our freedom for the greater good (the greater good, a la Hot Fuzz). Unfortunately choosing when to cede is not our decision any more and is done by the consensus of 121 people on our behalf... and where the mighty $ is concerned, it ain't our good that's at the core of the decision making.



I think so. But, believe me, with the pressure I'm under sonmetimes it doesn't feel like it.

I don't doubt it and if there had have been a sacrcasm icon available, it would have been used :).



I can't change my working behaviour. Yes, my standard day could change to some degree (I could work from home except for the team interaction and the physical things I have to do - can't telecommute a screwdriver). However, I'm also on-call for work one week in five. I can be called out at all hours of the day or night. who do I car-pool with then? And I'll say it again "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing".

That'll probably become your problem, not "theirs". Maybe you'll be licensed or permitted to do such things, dunno how it would be implemented and it probably is a ways off yet.



One further point that just popped in to my head. It'd be pretty hard to include electric bikes in a motorcycle ban based on emission levels and/or petrol consumption.

I might be persuaded to adapt to an electric bike if the exhaust note was reproduced accurately enough and it had equivelent range and torque. And it'd have to have a recharge time equal to that taken to fill my tank.

:niceone:... good call. I'd never considered that. We're saved :wari: until the oil runs out :shifty:. I'd be quite happy to have a wee electric bike for shunting in and out of town.

[bogan]

I might be persuaded to adapt to an electric bike if the exhaust note was reproduced accurately enough and it had equivelent range and torque. And it'd have to have a recharge time equal to that taken to fill my tank.

Have you had a go on one? The motors generally have a whine that is akin (albeit a lot quieter) to a turbine spooling up, I think people will easily get used to that and enjoy it once the more practical issues are sorted.

[Conquiztador]

Have you had a go on one? The motors generally have a whine that is akin (albeit a lot quieter) to a turbine spooling up, I think people will easily get used to that and enjoy it once the more practical issues are sorted.

If that is all there is then the new generation, that has no experience of a bike with a combustion engine, will easily accept them. For old farts like me it wont work.

[Zedder]

Have you had a go on one? The motors generally have a whine that is akin (albeit a lot quieter) to a turbine spooling up, I think people will easily get used to that and enjoy it once the more practical issues are sorted.

Turbine spooling up? I'm in, one of my favourite sounds. Great project you've done there too.

[bogan]

Turbine spooling up? I'm in, one of my favourite sounds. Great project you've done there too.

Yeh, reckon its one of those cases where its good by itself, but overshadowed by expectations when compared to the original, like Top Gear US. Dunno about great, if it were that I wouldn't have removed the batteries and put her in storage, but its a good start anyway...

[Zedder]

Yeh, reckon its one of those cases where its good by itself, but overshadowed by expectations when compared to the original, like Top Gear US. Dunno about great, if it were that I wouldn't have removed the batteries and put her in storage, but its a good start anyway...

Yep, it's a start. What was the original objective?

[bogan]

Yep, it's a start. What was the original objective?

Uni commuter, which it did, but I stopped going to uni, and would still quite like to throw it around with the buckets, hence the battery upgrade plan. I'm less about objectives and more about mucking around with interesting tech when it comes to hobbies anyway.

[swbarnett]

but there has to come a point where we have to cede some of our freedom for the greater good
While I agree in principle there will be great debate about whether the freedom is indeed being ceded for the greater good. Afterall, for a society to flourish each individual needs to feel valued by that society (or at least that's the ideal). As per the rallying cry of the three muskateers - "All for One and One for All".


Unfortunately choosing when to cede is not our decision any more and is done by the consensus of 121 people on our behalf...
We can influence that decision (or at least not give up without a fight).


and where the mighty $ is concerned, it ain't our good that's at the core of the decision making.
Is it ever?


I don't doubt it and if there had have been a sacrcasm icon available, it would have been used :).
Yep, we definitely need one of those.

[GrayWolf]

Where DO you get such unmitigated drivel, I can't believe one guy can simply make that much up all on his lonesome.

Those nasty cars you reckon should be abandoned in favour of public transport actually cost less fuel per pasenger mile than busses. Trains are much worse.

As for petrol being thieved because it's worth so much, it was far more of a problem in the '70s, when fuel costs were comparitively higher than they are now.

For shitsake ask someone who actually knows something, anything at all, before you mouth off about the evils of whatever this week's fantasy might be.

Sorry Ocean,
but the 2009 US figures do not agree with your statement
US Passenger transportation

The US Transportation Energy Data Book states the following figures for passenger transportation in 2009:[53]
Transport mode Average passengers per vehicle BTU per passenger-mile MJ per passenger-kilometre
Rail (Intercity Amtrak) 20.9 2,435 1.596
Motorcycles 1.16 2,460 1.61
Rail (Transit Light & Heavy) 24.5 2,516 1.649
Rail (Commuter) 32.7 2,812 1.843
Air 99.3 2,826 1.853
Cars 1.55 3,538 2.319
Personal Trucks 1.84 3,663 2.401
Buses (Transit) 9.2 4,242 2.781
Taxi 1.55 15,645 10.257

[4] Automobiles: The Bureau of Transportation Statistics has done the heavy lifting for us, calculating BTU per passenger-mile for cars, light trucks, and motorcycles. For cars, the latest (2008) data point is 3501 BTU / passenger-mile, or 0.028 gallons per passenger-mile, which equals 35.7 pmpg (BTS assumes 1.58 passengers on average, so this equates to 22.6 mpg). Using the same BTS data, average pmpg for light trucks is 31.4, and for motorcycles is 71.76. For max pmpg, we use a max passengers of 5 for cars and trucks, and 2 for motorcycles. To do this calculation from the BTS data, we first divide the avg. pmpg by the avg. passenger count, and then multiply by the max in each case.

[7] Trains: While all trains have similar underlying efficiencies, passenger trains in the US are much less efficient in practice because of poor utilization. BTS calculates Amtrak efficiency at 1745 BTU per passenger-mile, which equates to 71.6 pmpg. Amtrak traveled 267 million car-miles in 2007, which equals to 16 billion potential passenger miles if the average car holds 60 passengers. In 2007 Amtrak consumed 10.5 trillion BTU of fuel, or 659 BTU per available passenger mile. Amtrak’s max pmpg is therefore 189.7 (if somebody would just ride it).

[swbarnett]

Have you had a go on one? The motors generally have a whine that is akin (albeit a lot quieter) to a turbine spooling up, I think people will easily get used to that and enjoy it once the more practical issues are sorted.
Reminds me of Jay Leno on his MTT Y2K turbine superbike.

This is pretty amazing: Mission R (http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/motorcycles-1/electric-motorcyles/#item=243678). A true electric superbike. Still has a 2hr recharge time though and a realistic range of only about 160k

[Conquiztador]

Reminds me of Jay Leno on his MTT Y2K turbine superbike.

This is pretty amazing: Mission R (http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/motorcycles-1/electric-motorcyles/#item=243678). A true electric superbike. Still has a 2hr recharge time though and a realistic range of only about 160k

Now the plan of closing all the schools outside city limits make perfect sense!

[Ocean1]

Sorry Ocean,
but the 2009 US figures do not agree with your statement

Link to my data is broken, 2008 data here, though: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4740/is-public-transport-less-fuel-efficient-than-cars

Which shows buses, in particular cost considerably more.

Seems extremely unlikely that buses became far more patronised in one year, eh? Which probably indicates that you can't really trust data from teh internets at face value, especially data regarding public services, you never know who's grubby fingers have been all over it.

They might even have their equivalent of Nix Myth fiddling the books.

[GrayWolf]

Link to my data is broken, 2008 data here, though: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4740/is-public-transport-less-fuel-efficient-than-cars

Which shows buses, in particular cost considerably more.

Seems extremely unlikely that buses became far more patronised in one year, eh? Which probably indicates that you can't really trust data from teh internets at face value, especially data regarding public services, you never know who's grubby fingers have been all over it.

They might even have their equivalent of Nix Myth fiddling the books.

Not concerned over the buses, you commented trains are worse... they arent. If patronised fully and consistently, they are THE most efficient people movers vs fuel consumption.... but I agree that IS the issue, they ARE under patronised.

[Ocean1]

they ARE under patronised.

That's 'cause they cost too much. Chicken/egg.

You could possibly defend Wgtn's train costs if they provided a service as good as driving your car and paying parking fees. But they don't.

[davereid]

That's 'cause they cost too much. Chicken/egg.

You could possibly defend Wgtn's train costs if they provided a service as good as driving your car and paying parking fees. But they don't.

Daves Wellington test.

Take a sunday drive for a Samoan family of six, youngest 2 years from Porirua to get a burger at Wendys in Paraparaumu, then to the zoo at Newtown, then back to Porirua via cousins in Belmont.

Compare cost between public transport and toyota previa.

Do again comparing time of travel v time at destinations.

Public transport works for tidal flow traffic. The rest of the time its a dog. So you have to own the toyota anyway.

[GrayWolf]

That's 'cause they cost too much. Chicken/egg.

You could possibly defend Wgtn's train costs if they provided a service as good as driving your car and paying parking fees. But they don't.

Well seeing as obviously trains can only terminate at stations, there is always going to be a difficulty for localised transport.. hence the buses. BTW the crap train service with the new trains has now reached above 90% 'on time' arrivals. IF you think that the cost of fares charged in Wgtn is high, I would suggest you google the costs for similar networks EG; London Underground, NY metro,, We are actually extremely reasonable in fare pricing.
During peak hours the train IS faster. The main restriction to 'performance' (speed) is the NZ narrow gauge track. You are never going to get 200kph trains running on it, well not in the immediate (30yrs) future.
BTW WRC are looking to increase service regularity this year for Trains and rumour more bus services.... Instead of the 10's of millions wasted on transmission gully, electrifying to Palmy and Masterton would be far more long term constructive.

[swbarnett]

Public transport can work. I used Wellington trains and busses when we got stranded there for a week while the car was getting fixed. I've also used Swiss public transport (trains, busses, trams and ferries) when we lived there for two years. In Wellington, I was wanted the car back. In Switzerland it was "what do we need a car for?".

For public transport to work it needs three things :- regularity, reliability and reasonable cost.

Regularity - The Zurich buses/trams run every 10 minutes in the CBD and surrounds and every 20 minutes in the suburbs. You can get a bus or train to every town or city (including the smallest hamlet on the high mountain passes) every day (including Sunday).

Reliability - Only twice in two years did I find a train running late (never with a bus, tram or ferry). Once it was waiting for a connecting German train. Once there was enough snow on the rails to close the line.

Reasonable cost - For about 1200 (2300 for first class) swiss franks (about 1:1 with NZD at the time) you could get a card that included about 95% of all public transport for the entire country. If your spouse already has one you can get one for half price. For most people using public transport was a no-brainer compared to the cost of running a car.

[Scuba_Steve]

Trains cost ALOT more than roads, while roads are almost completely "user pays" trains are heavily subsidised, a ticket is less than half the true cost of operation. If they were a "user pays" system almost no-one would ever use them due to the extreme cost. As it stands now the trains would actually lose LESS money if they didn't charge to use them, but tickets are used for crowd control.
Trains are very restrictive, you don't get to choose times, places, or routes.
Off peak they are a complete waste in every sense they burn money & emissions. As you can't just shutdown off peak travel like you can with private this makes them overall less economical by a large percentage.
Electrifying the track is a HUGE waste of money. Electric tracks are a false economy, they actually cost no less & sometimes more than their Diesel-Electric counterparts to run but the track setup cost is way in excess of the diesel-electrics. The diesel-electrics also don't have the crippling failings like the electrics, they aren't stopped by power cuts or transformer problems, they are overall more reliable & thus the better option.

[Ocean1]

Well seeing as obviously trains can only terminate at stations, there is always going to be a difficulty for localised transport.. hence the buses. BTW the crap train service with the new trains has now reached above 90% 'on time' arrivals.

90% is nowhere near good enough, if I use the system every day it means I'm going to be late for work 30 times a year. Have you any idea what overall cost to the client that represents? The hit to the economy is huge.


IF you think that the cost of fares charged in Wgtn is high, I would suggest you google the costs for similar networks EG; London Underground, NY metro,, We are actually extremely reasonable in fare pricing.

I live here, I don't care what it costs there. When I did live there my income was 30% greater because I worked "in town", it was recognised as being an expensive option and every city industry paid extra. They paid enough, in fact that at the time I considered the 100% reliable transport costs negligable. I repeat, train fare in Wgtn isn't good value for money.


During peak hours the train IS faster. The main restriction to 'performance' (speed) is the NZ narrow gauge track. You are never going to get 200kph trains running on it, well not in the immediate (30yrs) future.

You don't need 200kph speeds to make the trains worthwhile, you just need to make them on time every day and better serviced in terms of downstream transport at Wgtn central. The cause of most of the loss of service isn’t the trains, it’s piss poor organisation.


Instead of the 10's of millions wasted on transmission gully, electrifying to Palmy and Masterton would be far more long term constructive.

With the tax and rates we pay I expect both.

I'll point out, though that it's well recognised that the limit to the size of the local commute is the size of the pipeline. Make the pipe larger and the number of people moving into and out of a city will grow until the pipeline efficiency drops to the old level. You can't fix it, you're better off getting all of the head offices moved out to satelite towns.

[swbarnett]

Trains cost ALOT more than roads, while roads are almost completely "user pays" trains are heavily subsidised, a ticket is less than half the true cost of operation. If they were a "user pays" system almost no-one would ever use them due to the extreme cost. As it stands now the trains would actually lose LESS money if they didn't charge to use them, but tickets are used for crowd control.
Trains are very restrictive, you don't get to choose times, places, or routes.
Off peak they are a complete waste in every sense they burn money & emissions. As you can't just shutdown off peak travel like you can with private this makes them overall less economical by a large percentage.
I suppose it takes someone like the Swiss to make it work. Yes, the trains there were heavily subsidised. They were also heavily utilised. You can't underestimate the savings to road maintenance that this brings. The other thing was that there were no (I mean none) heavy haulage trucks on Swiss roads. All freight went by train and was distributed by small trucks locally. Even cross European trucks had to get on a train at the Swiss border.

The thing is that there was an understanding by Government of the bigger picture. Money lost on the trains was offset by the reduced road maintenance due to having considerably reduced load. Not to mention the social and environmental gains.


Electrifying the track is a HUGE waste of money. Electric tracks are a false economy, they actually cost no less & sometimes more than their Diesel-Electric counterparts to run but the track setup cost is way in excess of the diesel-electrics. The diesel-electrics also don't have the crippling failings like the electrics, they aren't stopped by power cuts or transformer problems, they are overall more reliable & thus the better option.
The Swiss trains don't suffer from power outages. They understand the value of preventative maintenance and have a very reliable electricity supply.

[swbarnett]

I'll point out, though that it's well recognised that the limit to the size of the local commute is the size of the pipeline. Make the pipe larger and the number of people moving into and out of a city will grow until the pipeline efficiency drops to the old level. You can't fix it, you're better off getting all of the head offices moved out to satelite towns.
This is why I'd like to see Whenuapai turned into another CBD rather than a new airport when it finally gets decommissioned.

[Scuba_Steve]

I suppose it takes someone like the Swiss to make it work. Yes, the trains there were heavily subsidised. They were also heavily utilised. You can't underestimate the savings to road maintenance that this brings.


But rail maintenance costs alot more than road maintenance & must be performed more often. Laying tracks far exceeds cost of roading by a large margin. I don't see the saving in road maintenance being enough to justify trains.
There is apparently only 1 passenger network in the world that pays for itself & it's in India where they're allowed to overcrowd, sit on the roof & hang off the sides.


The other thing was that there were no (I mean none) heavy haulage trucks on Swiss roads. All freight went by train and was distributed by small trucks locally. Even cross European trucks had to get on a train at the Swiss border.


Freight is a different issue, freight is justifiable on trains & does pay for itself. Aside from that the trains are well capable of carrying heavy loads far in excess of it's road going counterparts.


The thing is that there was an understanding by Government of the bigger picture. Money lost on the trains was offset by the reduced road maintenance due to having considerably reduced load. Not to mention the social and environmental gains.

The Swiss trains don't suffer from power outages. They understand the value of preventative maintenance and have a very reliable electricity supply.

As above I still question that "offset". As for outages, power cuts happen alot of our more recent ones were due to morons running the show. But not all power cuts are preventable, like the ones where some dipshit drives their car into the substation & cuts power to sections of the track etc
Diesel-electrics are the better, more reliable & cheaper train option.

But regardless of all this private passenger vehicles still trump public transport IMO at-least until/if the UN get their "Agenda 21" we don't all work close to trains, as soon as you bring busses into the mix your've just killed off any arguable advantage of trains & over half of NZ doesn't even have train access, infact alot don't have any viable public transport (NZ as a country not NZ as population)

[GrayWolf]

Trains cost ALOT more than roads, while roads are almost completely "user pays" trains are heavily subsidised, a ticket is less than half the true cost of operation. If they were a "user pays" system almost no-one would ever use them due to the extreme cost. As it stands now the trains would actually lose LESS money if they didn't charge to use them, but tickets are used for crowd control.
Trains are very restrictive, you don't get to choose times, places, or routes.
Off peak they are a complete waste in every sense they burn money & emissions. As you can't just shutdown off peak travel like you can with private this makes them overall less economical by a large percentage.
Electrifying the track is a HUGE waste of money. Electric tracks are a false economy, they actually cost no less & sometimes more than their Diesel-Electric counterparts to run but the track setup cost is way in excess of the diesel-electrics. The diesel-electrics also don't have the crippling failings like the electrics, they aren't stopped by power cuts or transformer problems, they are overall more reliable & thus the better option.

Dont know where you get your information from... Yes the setting up of an electrified overhead sysyem IS massive, but once set up it is cheaper to run than a diesel passenger train,,, FYI The new Auckland Metro services are going to be ELECTRIC, rather than replacing the ageing diesel ones (DMU's)

EXTRACT:
Electric traction offers a lower cost per mile of train operation but at a higher initial cost, which can only be justified on high traffic lines. Since the cost per mile of construction is much higher, electric traction is less viable for long-distance lines with the exception of long-distance high speed lines. Electric trains receive their current via overhead lines or through a third rail electric system.

[Ocean1]

The new Auckland Metro services are going to be ELECTRIC, rather than replacing the ageing diesel ones (DMU's)

At a total cost, apparently of 'prox NZ$11 billion.