Write off

[superjackal]

Hi

If you have an accident on your bike and it's too expensive to repair what are your options?

Can you remove personal add-ons like luggage panniers, top boxes, racks, tassles....?

I'd like to buy the bike back and fix it myself. Anyone done that?

Gutted.

(Not the the new one I just got).

GNJ

[Glowerss]

If you're quicker then they are sometimes:D I've had a few mates get shit off of it before the insurance co took it away from the shop. Depends how badly it's fucked I suppose. If it's in bits on the side of the road, you probably won't get anything back. IF it's still in the shop deciding if its financially viable to repair or not, you might have a shot.

and you can quite often find your bike on trademe after one of those insurance writeoff auctions come up. Some people do buy them back after the fact if they go cheap enough.

[Katman]

Hi

If you have an accident on your bike and it's too expensive to repair what are your options?

Can you remove personal add-ons like luggage panniers, top boxes, racks, tassles....?

I'd like to buy the bike back and fix it myself. Anyone done that?

Gutted.

(Not the the new one I just got).

GNJ

Once an insurance company writes off a vehicle you're not even allowed to remove the fuel from the tank.

[superjackal]

Once an insurance company writes off a vehicle you're not even allowed to remove the fuel from the tank.

Tanks not big but it was full...
Do you get a refund on your registration?

[superjackal]

Normally they give you the option to remove extra shit like carrying cases and the like.

and you can quite often find your bike on trademe after one of those insurance writeoff auctions come up. Some people do buy them back after the fact if they go cheap enough.

Do you have to re-register them etc?

[Glowerss]

Do you have to re-register them etc?

Yeah, if it's an insurance write off it becomes deregistered. You then have to go through the process to rereg the bike which is normally a 4-500$ endeavour assuming everything is working as it should. IE you have to get the brakes certified, but the brake cert only lasts like a few weeks I think it is.

IF your bike fails the inspection necessary for getting it back on the road (it's like a super super WOF check), then you have to fix the problem within the timeframe of your brake cert ect.

It's a bit of a hassle usually. You have to pay for 3? or 6 months rego when you get it rereg'd as well. Normally runs 350-500$ all up.

[nodrog]

I would have thought phoning your insurance company and asking them would have been a good idea.

[Katman]

Meh, what would the insurance company know?

[haydes55]

Pics and stories! How'd you total it?


My opinion it's a gn250, you could by a written off one and reregister it and repair it. Or you could buy a couple years old one in decent condition for a similar price. I know you have a man-crush on the gn but it's just a little shitter. Spend your money on turboing your new beast. Or you could use the insurance payout as a deposit on a hayabusa.

[tigertim20]

its a GN. I see GNs come up for around a grand from time to time, Id wait till a cheap already legal GN comes up on trademe.
It is a 6 month minimum rego when doing the reregistering thing. you can do the brake test yourself if you have the stuff for it. Its going to cost you $400-$500 just for the inspection and rego cost, and brake test. Add to that the cost of any parts you need to replace. and the cost of the bike itself.
Its probably not worth it for a GN. If it was a 3k + bike it could probably be economical, but I think youd be better off buying a cheap GN with your payout.

as for getting refunded the rego? no. Baically how it works is like you damage your bike, they insurance company buy it off you (your payout) and they derego it, so THEY get the rego money. YOu can argue with them the cost of your payout a little, so if you had 12 months rego on it still, I would twist their arm for a slightly higher payout. no guarantees though.

What exactl is the extent of the damage as you know at this stage?

[ducatilover]

Don't you need an engineers report if there was any suspension or frame damage?
I'm not sure on that though.

It's not economical to do, but who gives a shit? It's your money and your bike.
I've built my Kawasaki from the ground up, I probably could have another two ZZR600s for the money in it, but I couldn't care less, it's my bike and my money

[Katman]

you can do the brake test yourself if you have the stuff for it.

Actually, no you can't.

[ducatilover]

Actually, no you can't.

That was changed recently wasn't it? Pretty sure it used to be "performed by somebody competent", which didn't define what competent was? Bloody stupid

[superjackal]

Pics and stories! How'd you total it?


My opinion it's a gn250, you could by a written off one and reregister it and repair it. Or you could buy a couple years old one in decent condition for a similar price. I know you have a man-crush on the gn but it's just a little shitter. Spend your money on turboing your new beast. Or you could use the insurance payout as a deposit on a hayabusa.

Yeah, but it's my (was my) little "shitter". First bike in all. The damage seemed superficial, all the damage has added up, plus labour etc. I rode it from the accident to the repairer so it was still workingish.

It happened at the basin reserve in Wellington while changing lanes. They've f**ked around with the lanes so it's confusing the hell out of people and muppets that can't read road signs are panicking. A couple of 4x4s were in front of me. I indicated, looked over my shoulder to check safe to change, looked back and both 4x4s had stopped. Threw on the brakes and (again) the GN just dumped me onto the ashphalt. I ended up underneath the 4x4 in front. he was a good guy who stopped to help and didn't see any damage to his car. He made sure I was ok, flicked me his business card and left.

Both times I've emergency stopped it's dumped me on the ground. One of those "lovable" idiosycrasies of GNs? It's technically my fault as I couldn't stop in time. But, really, it's the dickhead in front who came to a complete stop because they couldn't figure out which lane to be in.

Good reminder to chill out on the commute.

I feel guilty-as towards the little shitter as it didn't deserve to be written off.

I'd have thought I could repair it myself, but then there could be all kinds of damage I don't know about.

I suspect it will be tidied and re-sold. Hope so.

[ducatilover]

:lol: Tucked the front eh?
That's pretty easy to do on a GN with nylon tyres.

If you want to buy it back etc, just do it.

[haydes55]

Get to an empty parking lot and practice some braking. The body is all fine and your gear wasn't damaged?

[Fast Eddie]

I would have thought phoning your insurance company and asking them would have been a good idea.

who needs good ideas?

[Fast Eddie]

:lol: Tucked the front eh?
progressive brake application anyone? brake in a straight line anyone?



Both times I've emergency stopped it's dumped me on the ground. One of those "lovable" idiosycrasies of GNs?

lol no, I would point the finger at the operator..

[bogan]

:lol: Tucked the front eh?
That's pretty easy to do on a GN with nylon tyres.

:whistle::whistle:

[ducatilover]

progressive brake application anyone? brake in a straight line anyone?


Go on, you know you want to try it
Good thing is when you're used to a Ginny, you can make it start to tuck, then lliterally man-handle the bastard back up. It's proper fun

[BoristheBiter]

Hi

If you have an accident on your bike and it's too expensive to repair what are your options?

Can you remove personal add-ons like luggage panniers, top boxes, racks, tassles....?

I'd like to buy the bike back and fix it myself. Anyone done that?

Gutted.

(Not the the new one I just got).

GNJ

When you put things onto your bike you should ring your insurance company and tell them so when you need to claim they will incorporate the cost of replacing repairing all damaged parts.

[Dogboy900]

I had a CBR 600 written off years ago, and the insurance company gave me the option of keeping it for a slightly smaller insurance pay out.
I went with this option stripped off what I wanted to keep and sold the wreck through Turners Auctions (A work mate bought it and street fightered it... Badly, bloody UGLY!)

It is worth arguing with the insurance company if the amount they offer is well below what you think the bike is worth. I did and eventually we settled somewhere in the middle. I think we were both unhappy with the result!

The wreck sold for more than the reduction in the pay out so all good for me :)

Glad you got off (so to speak) unhurt.

[superjackal]

:lol: Tucked the front eh?
That's pretty easy to do on a GN with nylon tyres.

If you want to buy it back etc, just do it.

It had City Demons on it? Never been comfortable with the GNs brakes.

[superjackal]

progressive brake application anyone? brake in a straight line anyone?

lol no, I would point the finger at the operator..

Not completely unfair. I have a lot to learn. It's was a swervey/brakey kinda stop. Locked and turning seems to mean "dump rider". One of those brake or smash harder crashes. There was no time to "progressively" brake.

Have been taking it reeeeeeeeal easy this week on the new bike. Really don't want to bin this one.

Work gave me the day off! :baby:

[ducatilover]

It had City Demons on it? Never been comfortable with the GNs brakes.

Crikey, you're doing pretty well to tuck it on proper rubber ;)
Gn brakes aren't...good. Mine's got a fresh system ont he front and it's like running two dicks on a dead parrot, not completely ideal and feels wrong.
Biggest problem with them is really the geometry ad the silly skinny tyres.

[tigertim20]

Don't you need an engineers report if there was any suspension or frame damage?
I'm not sure on that though.

It's not economical to do, but who gives a shit? It's your money and your bike.
I've built my Kawasaki from the ground up, I probably could have another two ZZR600s for the money in it, but I couldn't care less, it's my bike and my money
yes. Generally, if its a write off, you have to PROVE that there was no structural/frame/fork damage. there are a few ways to do this. If the intended repairer immediately after the crash assessed it, and wrote explicitly on the paperwork 'no structural/frame damage, cosmetic damage only' then you can use that bit of paper to prove it and avoid the cost of an engineers report.
the issue with that is that when buying a damaged bike at auction, you seldom get any paperwork other than the bill of sale or a receipt. Its uncommon for the assessor or intended repairer to actually state 'no frame damage' and even if they do, you as the eventual purchaser of the wreck are unlikely to get that paperwork anyway, unless you knew the previous owner and they go and get it for you. repairers etc won't just provide you with that paperwork due to 'privacy' etc.

bottom line is that its smart to get an engineers report regardless, if you are going to be riding the bike around you want to know its safe for yourself. I got an egineers report for the last bike had re-rego'd (was bought as a damaged bike) and thankfully, the engineers report confirmed that the damage was only cosmetic. Allow anywhere between $250 and $600 for the report, different places will charge differently.

Actually, no you can't.
actually, yes you can!

That was changed recently wasn't it? Pretty sure it used to be "performed by somebody competent", which didn't define what competent was? Bloody stupid
Correct. If I remember correctly the wording is 'a competent person' so anyone with the tools at home can do it - you can just ask at VTNZ, or at the certifiers for a copy of the paperwork, and fill it out, it isnt hard to do, but if you havent done much mechanical stuff yourself, youd be a fool to just go do it yourself anyway - its your brakes after all!!!

Yeah, but it's my (was my) little "shitter". First bike in all. The damage seemed superficial, all the damage has added up, plus labour etc. I rode it from the accident to the repairer so it was still workingish.

It happened at the basin reserve in Wellington while changing lanes. They've f**ked around with the lanes so it's confusing the hell out of people and muppets that can't read road signs are panicking. A couple of 4x4s were in front of me. I indicated, looked over my shoulder to check safe to change, looked back and both 4x4s had stopped. Threw on the brakes and (again) the GN just dumped me onto the ashphalt. I ended up underneath the 4x4 in front. he was a good guy who stopped to help and didn't see any damage to his car. He made sure I was ok, flicked me his business card and left.

Both times I've emergency stopped it's dumped me on the ground. One of those "lovable" idiosycrasies of GNs? It's technically my fault as I couldn't stop in time. But, really, it's the dickhead in front who came to a complete stop because they couldn't figure out which lane to be in.

Good reminder to chill out on the commute.

I feel guilty-as towards the little shitter as it didn't deserve to be written off.

I'd have thought I could repair it myself, but then there could be all kinds of damage I don't know about.

I suspect it will be tidied and re-sold. Hope so.

Sounds like you didnt give yourself enough following distance (had to say it before KM did!:mad:)

Well, you could wait and see what the damage is. If it is just cosmetic damage, and you dont mind riding a bike that has some dents and shit, then yeah, it could be economical to buy it back and just tidy it up over time.

[Haggis2]

Go on, you know you want to try it
Good thing is when you're used to a Ginny, you can make it start to tuck, then lliterally man-handle the bastard back up

Or not, as in this case....

[ducatilover]

yes. Generally, if its a write off, you have to PROVE that there was no structural/frame/fork damage. there are a few ways to do this. If the intended repairer immediately after the crash assessed it, and wrote explicitly on the paperwork 'no structural/frame damage, cosmetic damage only' then you can use that bit of paper to prove it and avoid the cost of an engineers report.
the issue with that is that when buying a damaged bike at auction, you seldom get any paperwork other than the bill of sale or a receipt. Its uncommon for the assessor or intended repairer to actually state 'no frame damage' and even if they do, you as the eventual purchaser of the wreck are unlikely to get that paperwork anyway, unless you knew the previous owner and they go and get it for you. repairers etc won't just provide you with that paperwork due to 'privacy' etc.

bottom line is that its smart to get an engineers report regardless, if you are going to be riding the bike around you want to know its safe for yourself. I got an egineers report for the last bike had re-rego'd (was bought as a damaged bike) and thankfully, the engineers report confirmed that the damage was only cosmetic. Allow anywhere between $250 and $600 for the report, different places will charge differently.

actually, yes you can!

Correct. If I remember correctly the wording is 'a competent person' so anyone with the tools at home can do it - you can just ask at VTNZ, or at the certifiers for a copy of the paperwork, and fill it out, it isnt hard to do, but if you havent done much mechanical stuff yourself, youd be a fool to just go do it yourself anyway - its your brakes after all!!!


Sounds like you didnt give yourself enough following distance (had to say it before KM did!:mad:)

Well, you could wait and see what the damage is. If it is just cosmetic damage, and you dont mind riding a bike that has some dents and shit, then yeah, it could be economical to buy it back and just tidy it up over time.

:2thumbsup Some very useful info in here


If you do buy it back I'll help you source parts

[GDOBSSOR]

Hm... I haven't had my GN very long. I have full insurance for $2000, but could my insurance company try and dick me around/not pay out the amount insured for if my bike is written off/damaged?

[bogan]

Or not, as in this case....

Yeh, I'll manhandle my dirtbike around from a tuck 9 times out of 10, but on the ginny, it was more like, progressively brake harder... why is everything now sideways? Dicks on a dead parrot is both a depraved, and accurate term for the GN's braking system.

[Dogboy900]

Hm... I haven't had my GN very long. I have full insurance for $2000, but could my insurance company try and dick me around/not pay out the amount insured for if my bike is written off/damaged?

Yes most definitely! They will try to pay out what they believe the bike is worth at the time of the accident. You can do an agreed value policy I believe which involves having the bike assessed every year. For $2K I think that would be too much of a hassle.

My experience is insurance companies ALWAYS dick you around and offer you less than you believe your vehicle is worth!

[tigertim20]

Hm... I haven't had my GN very long. I have full insurance for $2000, but could my insurance company try and dick me around/not pay out the amount insured for if my bike is written off/damaged?
Yes the most certainly will try to pay you less.
Its policy to pay out as little as possible if they can wrangle it.

When getting paid out, unless you are lucky, you usually have to take some time and haggle over the payout amount.
Last time I had this happen a few years ago, they offered me peanuts, I argued, then I went and got two other bike shops to do independent valuations (both if which were significantly higher than the insurance payout offer) and went back to them to argue. I eventually got pretty much what I wanted.
If you cant reach an agreement I think it goes to court.

[GDOBSSOR]

Yes the most certainly will try to pay you less.
Its policy to pay out as little as possible if they can wrangle it.

When getting paid out, unless you are lucky, you usually have to take some time and haggle over the payout amount.
Last time I had this happen a few years ago, they offered me peanuts, I argued, then I went and got two other bike shops to do independent valuations (both if which were significantly higher than the insurance payout offer) and went back to them to argue. I eventually got pretty much what I wanted.
If you cant reach an agreement I think it goes to court.

So... Say some idiot crashed into my ginny and totally fucked it up, then drove off? The bike would obviously be worth fuck all AFTER the accident, but it would have been worth around 1500-2000 before the accident, so if they say, "Your bike is only worth $500 now" then what the fuck is the point of comprehensive insurance? I thought the whole point of insurance was so that you could get back on the road with a new or repaired vehicle, with peace of mind in the meantime. I'm obviously missing something big.

[superjackal]

So... Say some idiot crashed into my ginny and totally fucked it up, then drove off? The bike would obviously be worth fuck all AFTER the accident, but it would have been worth around 1500-2000 before the accident, so if they say, "Your bike is only worth $500 now" then what the fuck is the point of comprehensive insurance? I thought the whole point of insurance was so that you could get back on the road with a new or repaired vehicle, with peace of mind in the meantime. I'm obviously missing something big.

With "Agreed value" it should be pretty straight forward. From experience of getting dicked around by Classic Cover and Vero, my hopes aren't high. We'll see and I'll report. I had mine isured for $1800 which is what I paid for it. They might try depreciate it but $1800 is still about market price for a good condition GN...?

[Katman]

actually, yes you can!

Correct. If I remember correctly the wording is 'a competent person' so anyone with the tools at home can do it - you can just ask at VTNZ, or at the certifiers for a copy of the paperwork, and fill it out, it isnt hard to do, but if you havent done much mechanical stuff yourself, youd be a fool to just go do it yourself anyway - its your brakes after all!!!


Well now you have me intrigued Tim.

I shall ring NZTA on Monday and get their opinion on it.

[tigertim20]

So... Say some idiot crashed into my ginny and totally fucked it up, then drove off? The bike would obviously be worth fuck all AFTER the accident, but it would have been worth around 1500-2000 before the accident, so if they say, "Your bike is only worth $500 now" then what the fuck is the point of comprehensive insurance? I thought the whole point of insurance was so that you could get back on the road with a new or repaired vehicle, with peace of mind in the meantime. I'm obviously missing something big.

thats the fun of insurance. They assessor is supposed to look at the bike and figure out its pre-accident value from the wreckage. as mentioned there is the agreed value thing to lessen any headaches, but I guess the reason is that if youve been with your insurance company for ages and ages, then how do they know the state of te vehicle hasnt degraded from brake fluid spills, dings and nicks from wayward carpark trolleys etc etc etd

[Tigadee]

Get the stuff you want off the bike ASAP before it's towed away or left at the insurers. Once there, you officially cannot remove anything, the bike is deregistered and you can't have the bike back once it's written off. If you try to buy it back, it may not be worth doing it up. If you're lucky like I was, your contact at the insurance company may let you come by to pick up something, in my case it was the plate for the top box [I'd already taken the top box off].

If it's light damage and you can still ride the bike, see about fixing it yourself and not involve the insurance company if you can, otherwise there's no turnng back and your premium payment for the next year/bike goes up by 100 dollars [in my case anyway] for one year after which if you are accident-free, it will come back down to where it was before.

For my 1992 XJ400, the insurance company decided to write it off only because cost of replacing the fairings would have been too expensive but to their credit, they did pay out the full amount insured minus the whatever-you-call-it deduction.

[\m/]

If it's not already written off you can ask the repairer to do what they can to save it, if it has been written off you could buy it back. If the frame, forks or swingarm are bent/cracked I'd let it be written off though.

[argada]

Yep, first hand experience, absolutely nothing comes off the bike after insurance company takes hold of it for assessment. I asked a nice lady at the insurance company if I could have my L plate back, (the dealer the insurance company used is on the way to work) and was told, "No, taking any accessories on the bike would change its value!"

Bike went for a wee slide on gravel, scratches on bodywork, couple cracks on the right side fairing where the indicator broke off, missing reflector and bent levers. Other than that, bike was fine. Picked it up, started right back up, rode it back home (~60 km distance wise) everything felt the same as before, although reflection from shop mirrors not as pretty. Assessment came back and it was a write off (6k worth of damage), I couldn't believe it! I asked them for a detailed breakdown, turned out they quoted replacement parts for the entire right side of the bike and it all added up. (did you know the stock muffler of a ninja250 cost $923.14?!) Estimated wreck value was $2500.

I reckon it would have been a great bargain at that price, thought about buying it back myself, fix the compulsory bits and live with the rest of the cosmetic damage. But as it turned out, the insurance company ended up paying me slightly more than I paid for the bike, so I decided not to bother.

[Mushu]

Bike went for a wee slide on gravel, scratches on bodywork, couple cracks on the right side fairing where the indicator broke off, missing reflector and bent levers. Other than that, bike was fine. Picked it up, started right back up, rode it back home (~60 km distance wise) everything felt the same as before, although reflection from shop mirrors not as pretty. Assessment came back and it was a write off (6k worth of damage), I couldn't believe it! I asked them for a detailed breakdown, turned out they quoted replacement parts for the entire right side of the bike and it all added up. (did you know the stock muffler of a ninja250 cost $923.14?!) Estimated wreck value was $2500.

I had a similar drop with my Ninja (well documented across a couple of threads on this forum) 5k was the estimate, which was pretty much the whole right side of the bike. Aparantly I just scraped in under the write off cost. And that was from dropping the bike at about walking pace. None of my riding gear was damaged except a small scuff on the shoulder of my dririder jacket but I did snap the right peg and rear brake master cylinder mount.

(I noticed the ridiculous price for a replacement muffler too, and the old one only had tiny scratches the new one actually looks worse now)

I drop my dr650 at least twice as hard as that almost every time I take it trail riding

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[sinfull]

It had City Demons on it? Never been comfortable with the GNs brakes.

They obviously worked, no ABS there my friend !

I hope you get the suspension sorted on your new bike before you do the same again and think "wow i don't trust any bikes brakes now"

[superjackal]

They obviously worked, no ABS there my friend !

I hope you get the suspension sorted on your new bike before you do the same again and think "wow i don't trust any bikes brakes now"

What would I do to the suspension?

[FJRider]

If it's not already written off you can ask the repairer to do what they can to save it, if it has been written off you could buy it back. If the frame, forks or swingarm are bent/cracked I'd let it be written off though.

Bikes are written off if repair cost is over a percentage of insured price. The percentage involved is from memory ... not that high. And if second hand parts are used (as opposed to new parts) rebuild wont cost as much. And rego/Re-VIN costs wont come into it. In which case ... withdraw your claim and keep the bike.

[sinfull]

What would I do to the suspension?

Just so happens i have an ER 5 here, the front is like "wow" bouncy, soft as putty !

How's yours ?

Most dealerships (or small bike shops) would have access to the Racetech program that will work out the standard spring rate + your weight = spring rate change required to stop it bottoming out !

How heavy are ya ? Bet the GN had a soft front end yeah ?

I'm picking i could stand over a standard GN and nearly make it bottom out in the front by heaving down on it ! Add 50 KPH to that then grab a fist full of lever and them forks are gonna go all the way to the stoppers !

Physics experts will step in now with accuracy, but roughly

120 kg of bike
+ 80 kg rider and gear
+ fist full of brake
Then add---- (after first dive of forks)
+ hitting stoppers in the front end

Equates to 180 kg
+ momentum
forced onto 1 1/2 sq " of rubber !

You were owned by a lack of knowledge !

[sinfull]

Here read this (http://www.gostar-racing.com/information/motorcycle_suspension_set-up.htm), it may help get you started on that learning curve !

There are other things if (if i remember rightly without going to look in the shed) the front end of the ER5 don't have sufficient compression or rebound dampening (like my HD, You know, 350 kg of bike with 120 kg rider, add a shit front end, travelling way too fast, fist full of brake etc etc), for instance i have put racetech emulators in my forks which allows me to control the flow of oil in the compression side (downward) of it all ! Bad luck with the rebound lol !

Have learnt as much as i can and i think i have done as much as i can without spending a fortune on my standard front end to have it handling the best it will !

Roll on mothers day races !

[BuzzardNZ]

So... Say some idiot crashed into my ginny and totally fucked it up, then drove off? The bike would obviously be worth fuck all AFTER the accident, but it would have been worth around 1500-2000 before the accident, so if they say, "Your bike is only worth $500 now" then what the fuck is the point of comprehensive insurance? I thought the whole point of insurance was so that you could get back on the road with a new or repaired vehicle, with peace of mind in the meantime. I'm obviously missing something big.

After getting dicked around countless times by various insurance companies, I've come the conclusion that your point "<b>then what the fuck is the point of comprehensive insurance?</b>" is true.

My view on insurance is get 3rd party only. They used to do a 3rd party fire and theft policy, but I've not seen that in years, if it was , I'd get that.

Getting 3rd party only is a bit of a gamble. One way to think of it is that over the years, the amount of money you save for not paying full insurance you can use if you ever have an off etc. Also, if one ever ever totally writes off their bike, I wonder what the odds are that they'll still be around to make a claim.

Full insurance is a rip off.

[superjackal]

thats the fun of insurance. They assessor is supposed to look at the bike and figure out its pre-accident value from the wreckage. as mentioned there is the agreed value thing to lessen any headaches, but I guess the reason is that if youve been with your insurance company for ages and ages, then how do they know the state of te vehicle hasnt degraded from brake fluid spills, dings and nicks from wayward carpark trolleys etc etc etd

Last few insurance claims I've had the assessor hasn't even bothered to view the bike and this is true of my latest claim. Got the estimate from the repairer and decided it wasn't worth his time. Still to find out what I'll be offered...

[superjackal]

Just so happens i have an ER 5 here, the front is like "wow" bouncy, soft as putty !

How's yours ?

Most dealerships (or small bike shops) would have access to the Racetech program that will work out the standard spring rate + your weight = spring rate change required to stop it bottoming out !

How heavy are ya ? Bet the GN had a soft front end yeah ?

I'm picking i could stand over a standard GN and nearly make it bottom out in the front by heaving down on it ! Add 50 KPH to that then grab a fist full of lever and them forks are gonna go all the way to the stoppers !

Physics experts will step in now with accuracy, but roughly

120 kg of bike
+ 80 kg rider and gear
+ fist full of brake
Then add---- (after first dive of forks)
+ hitting stoppers in the front end

Equates to 180 kg
+ momentum
forced onto 1 1/2 sq " of rubber !

You were owned by a lack of knowledge !

Still new to riding, the front just feels like the front, but now you mention it it is pretty "spongey". There's not a lot of rear brake either. The front brake's not bad but not hugely confience inspiring. I plan to get the brakes looked at asap.

I'm 100kg.

[superjackal]

Great outcome. Well, ruined bike n’ all… State have been excellent the whole way through, no arguing, no haggling, have paid out the full amount insured less excess.

Would rather have sold the bike but imagine it will be salvaged anyway.

Also, rang a few insurers and they gave me grief about the accident. Insurance quotes up to $600. State insured my new bike for $242.

Big thumbs up for State Insurance.

[SPman]

I've pulled stuff off write-offs - but before the bike went to the shop to be assessed!

[Ender EnZed]

They used to do a 3rd party fire and theft policy, but I've not seen that in years

Most insurance companies still offer this.

[Katman]

actually, yes you can!



Well, having just spoken to a guy at NZTA.......

....actually, no you can't.

[ducatilover]

Well, having just spoken to a guy at NZTA.......

....actually, no you can't.

As long as he was an NZTA rule maker. I had a shit load of retarded opionions regarding road registering an e30 M3 import from VTNZ, VINZ and all them chaps that do the rego process. I went to NZTA themselves and talked with some rule making type chaps and well, my interpretation of the rules was correct and the 5 or 6 inpectors I chatted to were incredibly wrong. :(

Sent from Purgatory on a flaming doom keyboard

[superjackal]

As long as he was an NZTA rule maker. I had a shit load of retarded opionions regarding road registering an e30 M3 import from VTNZ, VINZ and all them chaps that do the rego process. I went to NZTA themselves and talked with some rule making type chaps and well, my interpretation of the rules was correct and the 5 or 6 inpectors I chatted to were incredibly wrong. :(

Sent from Purgatory on a flaming doom keyboard

That sounds like NZTA. When I brought my car back from the UK I had 20 different opinions on what I could do. Best advice, get a name to quote and an email.

[tigertim20]

Well, having just spoken to a guy at NZTA.......

....actually, no you can't.

Best you try ringing the guys at somewhere like VINZ where they actually do the job and are up top date with the rules instead of a muppet at a desk then.

Done it myself more than once - been up front about it, never been an issue at all.

[Katman]

Best you try ringing the guys at somewhere like VINZ where they actually do the job and are up top date with the rules instead of a muppet at a desk then.

Done it myself more than once - been up front about it, never been an issue at all.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then Tim.

The reality is though that NZTA are the bottom line when it comes to vehicle licensing legislation and the likes of VINZ and VTNZ are beholden to the rules that NZTA put in place.

Perhaps it's the guys at your local VINZ who don't really know what they're talking about.

[tigertim20]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then Tim.

The reality is though that NZTA are the bottom line when it comes to vehicle licensing legislation and the likes of VINZ and VTNZ are beholden to the rules that NZTA put in place.

Perhaps it's the guys at your local VINZ who don't really know what they're talking about.

You mean, you're putting your faith in the bureaucracy of a govt department? have fun with that.

[Mushu]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then Tim.

The reality is though that NZTA are the bottom line when it comes to vehicle licensing legislation and the likes of VINZ and VTNZ are beholden to the rules that NZTA put in place.

Perhaps it's the guys at your local VINZ who don't really know what they're talking about.

NZTA can make and change the rules all they want, it's the testing officer that looks at the vehicle, it's him that will pass/fail it. So I figure go ask the guy you intended to have inspect it.

Although I have never done it so not really sure on the process (I would have if the ninja had been written off)

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[jellywrestler]

Both times I've emergency stopped it's dumped me on the ground. One of those "lovable" idiosycrasies of GNs? It's technically my fault as I couldn't stop in time. But, really, it's the dickhead in front who came to a complete stop because they couldn't figure out which lane to be in.

or a small child had run out in front of them.....
cars still stop and it's their perogative to do so

[FJRider]

NZTA can make and change the rules all they want, it's the testing officer that looks at the vehicle, it's him that will pass/fail it. So I figure go ask the guy you intended to have inspect it.

Although I have never done it so not really sure on the process (I would have if the ninja had been written off)

Sent from my XT535 using my ridiculously small penis

Actually they can't change them all they want. Their regulations are written in legislation. It requires a Governmental minister to change policy, and an act of Parliament to change the rules.

You at least admit you don't know what you're talking about.

[FJRider]

That sounds like NZTA. When I brought my car back from the UK I had 20 different opinions on what I could do. Best advice, get a name to quote and an email.

Should've come to KB sooner ..... 100 different opinions is about normal.

And that's just from the first half dozen that reply ...

[superjackal]

cars still stop and it's their perogative to do so

Uh, no it's not. There are roads rules. Appreciate what (I think) you're trying to say but last I checked stopping in the middle of the road because it's your "perogative" isn't legal.

[FJRider]

Uh, no it's not. There are roads rules. Appreciate what (I think) you're trying to say but last I checked stopping in the middle of the road because it's your "perogative" isn't legal.

It all depends on which rules they want to obey ... and which ones they choose to ignore.

Just like motorcyclists ... it is a free country after all ... !!!

[Mushu]

Uh, no it's not. There are roads rules. Appreciate what (I think) you're trying to say but last I checked stopping in the middle of the road because it's your "perogative" isn't legal.

ALWAYS expect the unexpected on the road cos people do some crazy shit out there.

Perhaps it's not legal but it's still done and should be expected, you can't necessarily see if he is trying to avoid something with him in the way. I have, on a number of occasions done it myself in the cage as a way to tell the guy behind he was way too close. (even better was the bluebird I had had the reverse lights on a switch, great fun at lights when the guy behind has been tailgating)

A couple of months ago I slowed to walking pace down qe2 Dr because some old guy in a commodore was following incredibly close, he got between me and the learner in front and rode his rear tyre until I got in between them and forced him to slow down or run me over. This affected my friends confidence on the day (which happened to be his first decent ride, luckily we were on the way home or he could have ruined a good ride)

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[jellywrestler]

Uh, no it's not. There are roads rules. Appreciate what (I think) you're trying to say but last I checked stopping in the middle of the road because it's your "perogative" isn't legal.

yep and they may go to court for it, while you're sitting in a hospital bed or worse, fact is it happens and that's why it pays to treat everyone every where as fuckwits

[superjackal]

yep and they may go to court for it, while you're sitting in a hospital bed or worse, fact is it happens and that's why it pays to treat everyone every where as fuckwits

No argument there. New bike's great for riding around problems. With the GN I was stuck with whatever was in front on the motorway. A colleague was nearly killed last Friday when a car decided to change lanes with no warning. Caused her to smack into the barrier and the other car just floored it out of there. Must have been drunk or unlicenced or just a w*nker.

[Katman]

No argument there. New bike's great for riding around problems. With the GN I was stuck with whatever was in front on the motorway.

Are you blaming the bike for your own inadequacies?

[Mushu]

Are you blaming the bike for your own inadequacies?

That seems to be the subject of this thread, blaming the most basic bike on the road for having basic brakes and using it as an excuse for dropping them.

If you got shit brakes, take that into account when you decide your following distance or you deserve to wind up on your ass.

(Darwins theory at work?)

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[superjackal]

Are you blaming the bike for your own inadequacies?

Yes and no. I'm not a great rider, I admit that, but a better braked bike probably would have stopped in time and upright. Yes, it turns out I was following too closely - hence the accident. Don't really understand your motivation for your post except to make me feel worse. :(

[superjackal]

That seems to be the subject of this thread, blaming the most basic bike on the road for having basic brakes and using it as an excuse for dropping them.

If you got shit brakes, take that into account when you decide your following distance or you deserve to wind up on your ass.

(Darwins theory at work?)

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

Again, not really helpful. Accidents are unintended incidents and we all have them. Hindsight's awesome. I hope you don't end up on your arse when YOU make a mistake. I'd never wish that on anyone or believe they deserve an accident.

If you've seen any of my posts you'll see I have lots of praise for GNs. Doesn't change that they have shit brakes and poor stability under braking. Fact. Perhaps only riders with godlike riding prowess and an ability to foresee and prevent accidents through their own awesomeness should ride GNs?

[Katman]

Don't really understand your motivation for your post except to make me feel worse. :(

Suck it up pal - it wasn't the bike's fault.

[ducatilover]

Don't really understand your motivation for your post except to make me feel worse. :(

That's just how we roll.
You humans and your errors amuse us.

Sent from a galaxy far, far away using a black lady on a phone

[Katman]

Doesn't change that they have shit brakes and poor stability under braking.

No they don't.

GN250s have been around in enormous numbers and virtually unchanged for over 30 years.

Blaming the brakes and stability for your accident is just making you look worse.

[ducatilover]

No they don't.

GN250s have been around in enormous numbers and virtually unchanged for over 30 years.

Blaming the brakes and stability for your accident is just making you look worse.

I want an '82 front end on mine, because it has the drum. Sexy.
The brakes do feel shit and they do lock up pretty well on small angles, but with practise one can haul a GN up relatively fast (until they start fading...)
Sadly, humans do panick, especially new to riding ones

Stop being right damn you.

Sent from the bush by your window using a flick of the wrist

[superjackal]

No they don't.

GN250s have been around in enormous numbers and virtually unchanged for over 30 years.

Blaming the brakes and stability for your accident is just making you look worse.

Yeah, they do. I owned one for a year and NEVER felt good about the brakes. Over that 30 year period how many accidents might have been prevented by better parts and brakes? Every other bike I've ridden has been much better.

HOWEVER!!!!!!

I w-a-s f-o-l-l-o-w-i-n-g t-o-o c-l-o-s-e f-o-r t-h-e b-r-a-k-e-s t-h-a-t c-a-m-e w-i-t-h m-y f-o-r-m-e-r b-i-k-e, h-e-n-c-e m-y a-c-c-i-d-e-n-t.

I was completely at fault and I am a bad rider. Happy?

[jellywrestler]

Yeah, they do. I owned one for a year and NEVER felt good about the brakes. did you ever think to get them checked?

[superjackal]

did you ever think to get them checked?

Yep, right after my first accident by Red Baron. :scratch:

[nodrog]

did you ever think to get them checked?

apparently you can just check them yourself.

[Mushu]

Again, not really helpful. Accidents are unintended incidents and we all have them. Hindsight's awesome. I hope you don't end up on your arse when YOU make a mistake. I'd never wish that on anyone or believe they deserve an accident.

If you've seen any of my posts you'll see I have lots of praise for GNs. Doesn't change that they have shit brakes and poor stability under braking. Fact. Perhaps only riders with godlike riding prowess and an ability to foresee and prevent accidents through their own awesomeness should ride GNs?

Read my newby thread, I have gone down and despite the fact a wayward 4x4 was a major factor, I owned my accident, never blamed my bike, this allowed me to work on some things and improve.

By blaming the bike you're just as stupid only on a bigger (I assume, I don't really care though) bike and potentially an even bigger accident. I'm glad you finally admit fault. Don't blame the bike there are design rules that state the brakes must be adequate, and I'm sure Suzuki wants you to make it through your L so you can provide more business for them when you upgrade. Not to mention the thousands of ginny riders around, if it were the bikes fault they'd be going down all over the place.

Katman, stop making sense, it's really painful quoting you and agreeing with it.

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[superjackal]

Read my newby thread, I have gone down and despite the fact a wayward 4x4 was a major factor, I owned my accident, never blamed my bike, this allowed me to work on some things and improve.

I'm pretty sure there was a "despite", "wayward" and "major factor" in my accident too.

[Mushu]

I'm pretty sure there was a "despite", "wayward" and "major factor" in my accident too.

There always is, but the trick is to be prepared. I was pointing out that I could have blamed the 4x4 and carried on learning nothing, but I chose to look for a way I could have avoided it and incorporated that new skill into my riding.

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[superjackal]

There always is, but the trick is to be prepared. I was pointing out that I could have blamed the 4x4 and carried on learning nothing, but I chose to look for a way I could have avoided it and incorporated that new skill into my riding.

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

Let me reassure you my accident has been very sobering and I have taken many lessons from it. Good advice to look at the silver lining, thank you.

[oneofsix]

Read my newby thread, I have gone down and despite the fact a wayward 4x4 was a major factor, I owned my accident, never blamed my bike, this allowed me to work on some things and improve.

By blaming the bike you're just as stupid only on a bigger (I assume, I don't really care though) bike and potentially an even bigger accident. I'm glad you finally admit fault. Don't blame the bike there are design rules that state the brakes must be adequate, and I'm sure Suzuki wants you to make it through your L so you can provide more business for them when you upgrade. Not to mention the thousands of ginny riders around, if it were the bikes fault they'd be going down all over the place.

Katman, stop making sense, it's really painful quoting you and agreeing with it.

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

I feel for you but it isn't that katman makes sense sometimes, he often does, it is often the delivery, your delivery was much better. :lol: Then there are the times he sometimes seem to dream up as outlandish ways to blame the rider as the riders do excuses. :killingme

[Katman]

Then there are the times he sometimes seem to dream up as outlandish ways to blame the rider as the riders do excuses. :killingme

Name even one.

[oneofsix]

Name even one.

how about the one where the rider was meant to have seen the head movement of the SUV driver when if the SUV driver had moved her head she wouldn't have pulled the U-turn in the first place. But like the riders stories it was said with no facts, no idea if the SUV windows were tinted or clear or anything. Looking for head movement is a good thing but the blame the rider because they didn't see it is going too far. At least Mushu's was his own story and not finger pointing at another biker with half the facts. :lol: I don't think we can white wash our actions but blaming us needlessly and therefore feeding the haters is not good either. No wonder you don't believe in the brotherhood. :shutup:

[FJRider]

Name even one.


I liked this one ...


........my advice is, beat yourself up over it. It sounds like a totally avoidable accident.

[Katman]

how about the one where the rider was meant to have seen the head movement of the SUV driver when if the SUV driver had moved her head she wouldn't have pulled the U-turn in the first place. But like the riders stories it was said with no facts, no idea if the SUV windows were tinted or clear or anything. Looking for head movement is a good thing but the blame the rider because they didn't see it is going too far. At least Mushu's was his own story and not finger pointing at another biker with half the facts. :lol: I don't think we can white wash our actions but blaming us needlessly and therefore feeding the haters is not good either. No wonder you don't believe in the brotherhood. :shutup:

Really? I think your selective memory has let you down again.

If you go back and find that thread (I wouldn't know where to start looking) you'll see that I certainly never "blamed" the rider for the crash. All I ever said was that vital clues were clearly missed that could have possibly prevented the crash from occurring.

My main point about U-turning vehicles has always been that the vehicle cannot perform the U-turn without it's front wheels turning out to the right. Other clues include, possibly noticing exhaust fumes (indicating that the vehicle is in fact running), possibly noticing a person in the driver's seat and possibly seeing a head movement from the driver.

As I've always said, it's not so much about apportioning 'blame' but rather about the lessons that can be learned.

It's people like yourself that are perpetuating our piss poor crash statistics by immediately throwing your hands up and claiming "there was nothing you could do about it" instead of insisting that we examine crashes dispassionately in order to look for ways of improving our game.

So, any other examples of me "outlandishly blaming the motorcyclist" that you'd like to put forward?

:wait:

[Banditbandit]

Really? I think your selective memory has let you down again.

If you go back and find that thread (I wouldn't know where to start looking) you'll see that I certainly never "blamed" the rider for the crash. All I ever said was that vital clues were clearly missed that could have possibly prevented the crash from occurring.

My main point about U-turning vehicles has always been that the vehicle cannot perform the U-turn without it's front wheels turning out to the right. Other clues include, possibly noticing exhaust fumes (indicating that the vehicle is in fact running), possibly noticing a person in the driver's seat and possibly seeing a head movement from the driver.

As I've always said, it's not so much about apportioning 'blame' but rather about the lessons that can be learned.

It's people like yourself that are perpetuating our piss poor crash statistics by immediately throwing your hands up and claiming "there was nothing you could do about it" instead of insisting that we examine crashes dispassionately in order to look for ways of improving our game.

So, any other examples of me "outlandishly blaming the motorcyclist" that you'd like to put forward?

:wait:

I'm with Katman on this one - I hate vehicles on the side of the road, running and with a driver in the seat ... I never know what the silly fuckers are going to do ... and they can do some very stupid things ... so I watch them very carefully ... and I have never hit one which has done something stupid in front of me ...

(I've hit other cars which have done stupid things ... both of them completely the drivers' fault ... one I could have avoided if I had been more aware at the time and not so focussed on getting to work on time ... the other if I had a bike wth better brakes)

It's about awareness of what is happening around us on the roads ... that gives a rider the edge to avoid bad situations that lead to accidents ...

Bottom line - dead is dead no matter who's fault it was - so I'd rather live to tell a driver that he or she has completely fucked up and should not have a licence ...

[Mushu]

To be watching for tyres turning, exhaust fumes and heads in parked cars I think would detract from actually watching the road it front when you have a street full of parked cars, my suggestion is that if you sit on the right wheel track and get comfortable with your horn button. This has proven to leave enough room on a couple of occasions and look for actual movement of the car (most people creep out of the park a bit before they actually join traffic or swing a u turn)

Also, small cars such as my Levin burns clean enough you can't see the exhaust unless it's a cold day (and impossible to see at night) and anyone that learned to drive in a car without power steering won't turn their wheels until they are moving anyway, also often headrests in cars make it very difficult to see if there's anyone in the car (extremely difficult with tints and once again impossible at night.)

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[Banditbandit]

Town riding (which I do fuck all off if I can help it - I don't live in a town ... just have to work in one) is the pits - you need eyes in the back of your head ... Yeah I don't look at cars on the side of the road quite so much ... there's to much happening ...

But it's still a good idea to maintain a high level of awarensss of what is happeing all around you ... everything you say is true .. but it's no excuse not to try ... and practice improves things ... 39 years on bikes and I'm still alive ... despite the best efforts of a few car drivers ...

And what the fuck is an XT535 using Tapatalk 2? Some new breed of yamaheehaa?

[Katman]

To be watching for tyres turning, exhaust fumes and heads in parked cars I think would detract from actually watching the road it front when you have a street full of parked cars, my suggestion is that if you sit on the right wheel track and get comfortable with your horn button. This has proven to leave enough room on a couple of occasions and look for actual movement of the car (most people creep out of the park a bit before they actually join traffic or swing a u turn)

Also, small cars such as my Levin burns clean enough you can't see the exhaust unless it's a cold day (and impossible to see at night) and anyone that learned to drive in a car without power steering won't turn their wheels until they are moving anyway, also often headrests in cars make it very difficult to see if there's anyone in the car (extremely difficult with tints and once again impossible at night.)



I would suggest you work at increasing your awareness level.

It is quite possible to be aware of cars parked on the side of the road as well as other moving traffic.

If the vehicle is moving before the driver starts turning their wheels then you should have become aware of the vehicle moving.


Sent from my enormous databank of vastly superior knowledge using a great fucking hammer. :bash:

[ducatilover]

Town riding (which I do fuck all off if I can help it - I don't live in a town ... just have to work in one) is the pits - you need eyes in the back of your head ... Yeah I don't look at cars on the side of the road quite so much ... there's to much happening ...

But it's still a good idea to maintain a high level of awarensss of what is happeing all around you ... everything you say is true .. but it's no excuse not to try ... and practice improves things ... 39 years on bikes and I'm still alive ... despite the best efforts of a few car drivers ...

And what the fuck is an XT535 using Tapatalk 2? Some new breed of yamaheehaa?

I spend a bit of time in the BOP and I really wouldn't want to be riding around Tauranga/Te Puke, people are scary up there :(

Sent from a ram using a Lithuanian's feet

[Mushu]

I would suggest you work at increasing your awareness level.

It is quite possible to be aware of cars parked on the side of the road as well as other moving traffic.

If the vehicle is moving before the driver starts turning their wheels then you should have become aware of the vehicle moving.


Sent from my enormous databank of vastly superior knowledge via a great fucking hammer. :bash:

Everyone only has a certain amount of attention to give so if you put huge importance on looking inside parked cars or trying to see every exhaust etc.... At 60 kays on a street lined with parked cars how many do you pass in a second and you want to look that close at every single 1? (60k=16m/s at 4m between cars that's 4 cars a second)

There are plenty of other signs not mentioned like spotting the driver get in the car, or windows down etc.

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[Katman]

Everyone only has a certain amount of attention to give so if you put huge importance on looking inside parked cars or trying to see every exhaust etc.... At 60 kays on a street lined with parked cars how many do you pass in a second and you want to look that close at every single 1? (60k=16m/s at 4m between cars that's 4 cars a second)

There are plenty of other signs not mentioned like spotting the driver get in the car, or windows down etc.


Believe me, you ain't got nothing you can teach me about situational awareness in congested traffic.

Like I said, best you start learning to increase your awareness.

[Mushu]

Believe me, you ain't got nothing you can teach me about situational awareness in congested traffic.

Like I said, best you start learning to increase your awareness.

So you're saying there's nothing left for you to learn?
Speaks to your attitude don't you think.

I do all I can to increase my awareness but you'd be surprised how little detail your eyes actually see, most of what you see is imagined from experience and peripheral vision is only good at detecting movement of large objects (ie animals that would be a danger to early man, the motor vehicle in any form isn't much over 100 years old, evolution doesn't happen that fast) All of this means that you have to look directly at things to identify the small movements you suggest, therefore if you pass four cars and look for three details on each that's 12 different things you have to look directly at each second, and you don't think that detracts from identifying other hazards.....
Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[Maha]

So you're saying there's nothing left for you to learn?
Speaks to your attitude don't you think.

I do all I can to increase my awareness but you'd be surprised how little detail your eyes actually see, most of what you see is imagined from experience and peripheral vision is only good at detecting movement of large objects (ie animals that would be a danger to early man, the motor vehicle in any form isn't much over 100 years old, evolution doesn't happen that fast) All of this means that you have to look directly at things to identify the small movements you suggest, therefore if you pass four cars and look for three details on each that's 12 different things you have to look directly at each second, and you don't think that detracts from identifying other hazards.....
Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

You should try Hauraki, they play different tunes over there......:yawn:

Sent from D Block

[Mushu]

You should try Hauraki, they play different tunes over there......:yawn:

Sent from D Block

The cage is set to hauraki......

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[Katman]

So you're saying there's nothing left for you to learn?
Speaks to your attitude don't you think.



No, I'm saying that clearly from your posts you have nothing you can teach me.

Do you have any concept of what riding for 12 hour days in London is like?

If you think Auckland is congested, you're dreaming.

[Mushu]

No, I'm saying that clearly from your posts you have nothing you can teach me.

Do you have any concept of what riding for 12 hour days in London is like?

If you think Auckland is congested, you're dreaming.

I've yet to see you concede you have anything to learn from anyone so I'm not surprised you have nothing to learn from me.
On the other hand everything said by you is, I find, a source of entertainment, not information.

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[Katman]

I've yet to see you concede you have anything to learn from anyone so I'm not surprised you have nothing to learn from me.
On the other hand everything said by you is, I find, a source of entertainment, not information.


Oh, I've got plenty to learn about tolerance.

[Maha]

No, I'm saying that clearly from your posts you have nothing you can teach me.

Do you have any concept of what riding for 12 hour days in London is like?

If you think Auckland is congested, you're dreaming.

Must feel like the after effect of drinking 12 pints of Guinness....:sleep:

Sent from a Bar Africa.

[Katman]

All of this means that you have to look directly at things to identify the small movements you suggest, therefore if you pass four cars and look for three details on each that's 12 different things you have to look directly at each second, and you don't think that detracts from identifying other hazards.....


I'm not asking you to be able to identify the driver in a police line up.

[chasio]

Everyone only has a certain amount of attention to give so if you put huge importance on looking inside parked cars or trying to see every exhaust etc.... At 60 kays on a street lined with parked cars how many do you pass in a second and you want to look that close at every single 1? (60k=16m/s at 4m between cars that's 4 cars a second)

There are plenty of other signs not mentioned like spotting the driver get in the car, or windows down etc.

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

Personally, if I don't feel like I can process enough information to proceed with a high level of confidence at my current speed, I slow down. I wouldn't do 60kmh on a street lined with parked cars, for example. There is a change in "feel" when I know I am going too fast for my cognition level. It's a little bit like tunnel vision, but not as simple as that. If I feel that, I back off.

On a steet with cars parked lining both sides, that may mean I slow to 40kmh or even less if it is narrow or near a school at days' start or end, etc.

[Mushu]

Personally, if I don't feel like I can process enough information to proceed with a high level of confidence at my current speed, I slow down. I wouldn't do 60kmh on a street lined with parked cars, for example. There is a change in "feel" when I know I am going too fast for my cognition level. It's a little bit like tunnel vision, but not as simple as that. If I feel that, I back off.

On a steet with cars parked lining both sides, that may mean I slow to 40kmh or even less if it is narrow or near a school at days' start or end, etc.

I'm the same in that if I feel uncomfortable I'll back off until I'm back in my comfort zone but to slow to 40 on a busy road when the traffic is doing 60 can be more dangerous (I had to brake hard yesterday when the car I was following unexpectedly changed lanes to reveal a step thru doing about 40 down Linwood ave, if I had been following close it could have been a bad situation, yes I was speeding at the time and in the cage but I was doing the speed of the traffic I could see around me)

The point of my post is not to become too involved in one prospective danger or you risk missing something else, or even running into it through target fixation (if you're spending all your time looking left at the cars you will veer left without realising it unless you are actively aware of it)

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[Katman]

The point of my post is not to become too involved in one prospective danger or you risk missing something else, or even running into it through target fixation (if you're spending all your time looking left at the cars you will veer left without realising it unless you are actively aware of it)


Nobody has suggested focusing on only one prospective danger. The idea is to constantly scan the environment around you, identifying potential hazards and then assigning sufficient attention to them until they are no longer a hazard.

How much is 'sufficient' will depend entirely on the individual situation.

[FJRider]

Personally, if I don't feel like I can process enough information to proceed with a high level of confidence at my current speed, I slow down. I wouldn't do 60kmh on a street lined with parked cars, for example. There is a change in "feel" when I know I am going too fast for my cognition level. It's a little bit like tunnel vision, but not as simple as that. If I feel that, I back off.

On a steet with cars parked lining both sides, that may mean I slow to 40kmh or even less if it is narrow or near a school at days' start or end, etc.

The big flaw in that plan is ... you still only focus on problems you can see. As most accidents are caused due to a number of factors (seldom just one), all contributing to that one accident ... there will only be some factors you may be actually aware of. Thus give possible problem factors little weight ... until it's a little to late.

The good trick ... is being able to figure out how many factors are needed ... to make your next crash happen. Is it 1, 2, 3, .... or 4 or more. (and how many more .. ???)

[superjackal]

Believe me, you ain't got nothing you can teach me about situational awareness in congested traffic.

I lived in Caracas for 2 years. 24 hour traffic jams, 8 lines of cars on 4 lane highways, regular deaths and corpses on the side of the road, complete and utter disregard for traffic signals and crossings, highly unsafe cars with no such thing as a WoF check, between 8-20 million people (no one's really sure), drunks, stoners, kidnappers, murderers, pissed off poor people. I lived and worked in London as a sales rep for 5 years and the standard of driving (while sometimes jaw-droppingly bad) was far, far superior.

[Katman]

I lived in Caracas for 2 years. 24 hour traffic jams, 8 lines of cars on 4 lane highways, regular deaths and corpses on the side of the road, complete and utter disregard for traffic signals and crossings, highly unsafe cars with no such thing as a WoF check, between 8-20 million people (no one's really sure), drunks, stoners, kidnappers, murderers, pissed off poor people. I lived and worked in London as a sales rep for 5 years and the standard of driving (while sometimes jaw-droppingly bad) was far, far superior.

Presumably you didn't ride a motorbike in either of the places.

[Banditbandit]

I spend a bit of time in the BOP and I really wouldn't want to be riding around Tauranga/Te Puke, people are scary up there :(

Sent from a ram using a Lithuanian's feet

Yes - I don't like riding in that area either ... I only pass through to somewhere else ..

[Banditbandit]

Everyone only has a certain amount of attention to give so if you put huge importance on looking inside parked cars or trying to see every exhaust etc.... At 60 kays on a street lined with parked cars how many do you pass in a second and you want to look that close at every single 1? (60k=16m/s at 4m between cars that's 4 cars a second)

There are plenty of other signs not mentioned like spotting the driver get in the car, or windows down etc.

See - you do know what we mean - your just being deliberately argumentative .. (but 60ks in a busy city street? Naaa bro .. that is just wrong ... )


Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

Pretentious bullshit - not impressed.


All of this means that you have to look directly at things to identify the small movements you suggest, therefore if you pass four cars and look for three details on each that's 12 different things you have to look directly at each second, and you don't think that detracts from identifying other hazards.....
Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

Naaa ... you don't focus on individual events like that ... you are right - that is dangerous becuase it is exclusive of other events .. it's really about having a good awareness of what is happening aroudn you on the road ..


Personally, if I don't feel like I can process enough information to proceed with a high level of confidence at my current speed, I slow down. I wouldn't do 60kmh on a street lined with parked cars, for example. There is a change in "feel" when I know I am going too fast for my cognition level. It's a little bit like tunnel vision, but not as simple as that. If I feel that, I back off.

On a steet with cars parked lining both sides, that may mean I slow to 40kmh or even less if it is narrow or near a school at days' start or end, etc.

Yes - exactly ..


I'm the same in that if I feel uncomfortable I'll back off until I'm back in my comfort zone but to slow to 40 on a busy road when the traffic is doing 60 can be more dangerous (I had to brake hard yesterday when the car I was following unexpectedly changed lanes to reveal a step thru doing about 40 down Linwood ave, if I had been following close it could have been a bad situation, yes I was speeding at the time and in the cage but I was doing the speed of the traffic I could see around me)

Yes in that you are right - Linwood avenue is not a good place to be doing 40ks .. but then, it's an arterial route - it's not a city street with cars parked on both sides like say Armargh Street.


The point of my post is not to become too involved in one prospective danger or you risk missing something else, or even running into it through target fixation (if you're spending all your time looking left at the cars you will veer left without realising it unless you are actively aware of it)

Yeah .. see now you are slowly moving from your argumentative position to see the reailties we are talking about ..


Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

Still pretentious crap ..

[Smifffy]

I'm the same in that if I feel uncomfortable I'll back off until I'm back in my comfort zone but to slow to 40 on a busy road when the traffic is doing 60 can be more dangerous (I had to brake hard yesterday when the car I was following unexpectedly changed lanes to reveal a step thru doing about 40 down Linwood ave, if I had been following close it could have been a bad situation, yes I was speeding at the time and in the cage but I was doing the speed of the traffic I could see around me)

The point of my post is not to become too involved in one prospective danger or you risk missing something else, or even running into it through target fixation (if you're spending all your time looking left at the cars you will veer left without realising it unless you are actively aware of it)

Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

There's been a couple of times that I've had a short discussion with Mr Popo, in which I explained "Yes, sir, I was speeding, but I was just doing the speed of the traffic all around me", even when I was on a little 2 pot 125 commuter on an arterial route in Aucks. Mr Popo would have none of it and wrote me up. If you have an accident and happen to have been speeding at the time, then there aren't really any mitigating circumstances.

[Dragon]

every body sees and processes info differently and while you may try and teach someone how to be aware of whats going on alot of the time they have to pick it up on there own

Im always looking 12 secs ahead and I can tell you every hazard/ danger or up coming part of the road ill have to react to for that 12 seconds from the front of my bike onwards

I may not be able to give you a huge amount of detail depending on what level I class the hazard etc to be but I know its there

For example there is a car coming out of a driveway its a dark colour station wagon, could I tell you the make and model possibly not but I know its there and at the same time I can tell you I have a bike behind me a narrow blind corner coming up etc etc

Hell I had a kid run out at me last sunday and I had slowed right down already because I had noticed her but the way she ran out even if I had locked the brakes I couldnt have stopped in time only reason I avoided her is because the car that was right next to me had gotten far enough past me that I could serve

I knew she was there and i had nodded to her when she waved so she knew I was there, also she was quite far from the road but it still scared the hell out of me

Its all about risk assement and some people are better at it then others

[ducatilover]

I just pin it and plow everything out the way.
The joys of Volvo.


Sent from prison using my lover's chest hair as a harpsichord.

[Mushu]

I never said to do 60k no matter what, 60 is just the average traffic speed around Christchurch (yes that includes in 50 zones), the fact my story occurred on Linwood ave and not Armagh St (and you'd be crazy to do 60 down most of Armagh St) is redundant as there were cars parked along the left where it happened. Identifying hazards is part of the licence test for cagers you are asked to tell the testing officer every hazard you can see, obviously it's more important on a bike, my whole point is that you need to be smart about where you place your attention in the road, as stated above by someone it's very rare for an accident to be the result of 1 problem, more likely to be a combination of events.

Sent from my galaxy s17 using Tapatalk 2 - are you impressed yet?

[chasio]

The big flaw in that plan is ... you still only focus on problems you can see. As most accidents are caused due to a number of factors (seldom just one), all contributing to that one accident ... there will only be some factors you may be actually aware of. Thus give possible problem factors little weight ... until it's a little to late.

The good trick ... is being able to figure out how many factors are needed ... to make your next crash happen. Is it 1, 2, 3, .... or 4 or more. (and how many more .. ???)

Not sure your reply was to my post, there! I was saying that if I didn't feel like I could take enough relevant environmental information in, I slow down. I'm not enumerating how many factors are present per se, I'm recognising a sense of potential overload and trying to mitigate it. Unless I have an angry driver of a large vehicle positioned for rear-entry and nowhere to pull over, slowing down seems quite a good generic risk reduction strategy to me. That doesn't mean I always ride slowly by any means (although some might think so) nor that I never make mistakes, just that "if in doubt, slow down" works for me. YMMV.

[superjackal]

Presumably you didn't ride a motorbike in either of the places.

You'd have to be nuts in Caracas but motorcycling was very popular.

They used to joke in London the life expectancy of a motorcyclist was 2 years. My father in law got sandwiched three times in the Blackwall Tunnel on his motorbike. Two of the occasions on the same day, at the same time, in the same place, one year apart. How's that for luck? Still kept riding though.