Auckland Council agrees with SMIDSY (ish)

[NONONO]

Seems Auckland City Council agree, SMIDSY IS the problem
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/moving-around/road-safety/MotorcycleSafety/Pages/default.aspx
Loving this paragraph;
"Nearly 70 per cent of all collisions at intersections involving a motorcycle and a vehicle are the fault of the driver of the vehicle."
May just be time for breakfast with Auckland City Council.
Seems strange from a council that stated it did not want to engage with motorcyclists as they were too dangerous and cost too much money via rehab in the last roading policy document.

[NONONO]

Sorry to reply to my own thread but..
it raises an opportunity to make a point.
I know it's a daft time and place, but, d'you think we could get 10 Auckland bikers there, wearing T shirts that stated "INVISIBLE" to make the point?
Now just to be transparent here, I am not an ATGATT supporter, far from it. I do believe that any sane, decent, sober car driver should be able to see me and my bike no matter what I wear. The fact is, even from Auckland City Council's own research, that for some reason they can't.
I deplore the idea that Fluro, or white helmets is being pushed as a solution.
Can we make a small dent in this nonsense by turning up for the above?

[cheshirecat]

"it did not want to engage with motorcyclists" Without doing any research whatsoever aren't MC's stakeholders so a violation of their consultative policy ?

[Hitcher]

There's no such thing as Auckland City Council. Auckland Transport is a Council Controlled Organisation of the Auckland Council.

[Voltaire]

There's no such thing as Auckland City Council. Auckland Transport is a Council Controlled Organisation of the Auckland Council.

How very interesting...:yawn:

[pritch]

"Research has shown that wearing high visibility gear – fluorescent clothing, white helmets – reduces a motorcyclist’s risk."

I'd be interested to know who conducted that research, and when?

[rastuscat]

"Research has shown that wearing high visibility gear – fluorescent clothing, white helmets – reduces a motorcyclist’s risk."

I'd be interested to know who conducted that research, and when?

Professor Charlie Lamb, Lincoln University. A year or two ago.

He did the research, and found that contrast is more important than colour itself. A yellow vest and a yellow helmet is less visible than a yellow vest and a white helmet, due to the contrast.

Look at these terms on the interweb



looming and motion camouflage



conspicuity

I've spent too much time reading articles about this, and have given up trying to solve the problem. It's a natural human trait, inattention blindness. Trying to fix it is like trying to make Cantabrians support the Blues.

Interestingly, I'm attending a meeting tomorrow to canvas the issue of hi-viz gear for motorcyclists. If anyone is interested, I'll post a summary of hat happens.

Donuts.

[imac]

Interestingly, I'm attending a meeting tomorrow to canvas the issue of hi-viz gear for motorcyclists. If anyone is interested, I'll post a summary of hat happens.



Please do.
And Donuts to you too

[cheshirecat]

Ditto and donut heaven

[SMOKEU]

+1 to donuts.

[NONONO]

There's no such thing as Auckland City Council. Auckland Transport is a Council Controlled Organisation of the Auckland Council.

Corrected I stand.
Rastuscat, would love to see what you are presenting. Understood that the results of (the sparse amount of) research on the effectiveness of Hi Vis/Floro was neutral at best and could not show reduced accident rates, I can't find any that do.

[Bassmatt]

Corrected I stand.
Rastuscat, would love to see what you are presenting. Understood that the results of (the sparse amount of) research on the effectiveness of Hi Vis/Floro was neutral at best and could not show reduced accident rates, I can't find any that do.

Guaranteed to be made compulsory then

[Hitcher]

I'm attending a meeting tomorrow to canvas the issue of hi-viz gear for motorcyclists.

Who convened the meeting?

[rastuscat]

Corrected I stand.
Rastuscat, would love to see what you are presenting

My view on hi viz is kind of neutral.

SMIDSYs are the scourge of my life. I ride and don't want some numpty to pull out in front of me, so in that regard I think hi viz is a good idea. This applies equally to my cycle riding, and to my personal motorcycle time and patrol motorcycle time. Of course, da boos at work says I wear hi viz as a matter of course, so I do.

3 of 4 years ago I was riding a patrol R1200RT-P up Rutland Street near Rugby Park. I was wearing my hi viz, and the bike is dressed up like a blue and yellow cherry tree. And yet someone still pulled out in front of me.

The good that hi viz does is unquantifiable, and that's the issue. We each have personal views on it, caused by our personal experiences. I as in the Navy in a previous life, and we wore hi viz orange raincoats back then. Don't know what they wear now. In 1987 I was on a patrol craft (HMNZS Rotoiti), acting as guard ship for a sail training exercise. We saw a boat on the radar, right on the horizon. The crew had hi-viz orange coats on, and they stuck out like dogs nuts. Another boat as closer, but was invisible to us, apart from on radar.

I wear hi viz orange when on the bike, but with contrasting dark panels. It's the contrast that makes the difference to the SMIDSY drivers eye and cognition. IMHO.

A Popo rider in Wellytoon is riding with a hi viz Series 6 Beemer helmet just now. I'm told by other riders that from the back, he is less visible than a rider in the yellow vest but with a white helmet. It's the contrast that catches the eye.

Basically, that's what I'll be telling the folk tomorrow. Also that making it compulsory would be just one more bloody nail in the coffin of the relationship between Police and riders.

Like I said, I'll report back.

We're meeting at Maccas, I would have preferred Dunkin Donuts, not my choice.

259314

I see that the French are making it compulsory. I don't agree with that. I also don't agree with compulsory cycle helmets, but that's a story for another forum.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2012/January/jan0912-hi-vis-gear-compulsory-in-france-from-next-year/

[pritch]

Professor Charlie Lamb, Lincoln University. A year or two ago.




looming and motion camouflage



conspicuity


Interestingly, I'm attending a meeting tomorrow to canvas the issue of hi-viz gear for motorcyclists. If anyone is interested, I'll post a summary of hat happens.

.

Since this morning I have read about the Auckland research it was categorised "inconclusive"
"Incomplete" wouldn't be inappropriate either.

Still, I have to read some of this. I still believe the earlier research that found drivers react to perceived threats.
This belief is reinforced daily when drivers just look at the moped and pull out. "He can't hurt me."

[rastuscat]

Since this morning I have read about the Auckland research it was categorised "inconclusive"
"Incomplete" wouldn't be inappropriate either.

Still, I have to read some of this. I still believe the earlier research that found drivers react to perceived threats.
This belief is reinforced daily when drivers just look at the moped and pull out. "He can't hurt me."

You had me until you mentioned the word moped.........:baby: