ACC bleating again

[awa355]

Unfortunately, they do have a point on some issues.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871305

[Road kill]

Unfortunately, they do have a point on some issues.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10871305

Get scumbags boys onto it.
Write some fucking tickets man.
Oh no we're all going to die but acc will save the day :killingme

[Katman]

If we didn't have the accidents it wouldn't be an issue.

[Scuba_Steve]

Wonder how many of those "non ACC guideline" results were skewed by MTA not considering some of the cargo pants or Jeans were actually armoured in someway?
I guarantee they saw cargo's or jeans & decided not protected.

Just really gotta wonder the MTA's motive behind this really


I'm not impressed by Mr Templeton's comments either!

[Smifffy]

If we didn't have the accidents it wouldn't be an issue.

I didn't have an accident today. Not planning on one tomorrow either.

[Katman]

I didn't have an accident today. Not planning on one tomorrow either.

I'm going to allow you to go riding tomorrow.

[Ocean1]

So, the MTA and a training provider would like us to buy more of their product.

Surprise! :rolleyes:

And mate Andrew reckons we orta be made to do it!

Surprise, surprise :sleep:

[Bald Eagle]

The usual "balanced" reporting we all expect from our 4th estate. Obvious really both MTA and Road safe have their own agendas. No point letting any sort of accuracy get in the way of a nice little sound bite.

Unfortunately unless the "statistics" improve expect safety gear legislation to be along soon. TPTB find legislation easier than actual problem solving.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Smifffy]

I'm going to allow you to go riding tomorrow.

Well that's just splendid! Hooray!

Sent from a Tapas bar using chorizo

[steve_t]

Is Andrew Templeton here on KB?

[Usarka]

The majority of people they stopped were scooter riders.


Motorcycle boots are also recommended by ACC, but tended to be more popular with larger capacity motorcycle riders, who generally wore better protective gear such as over all - `armoured' jackets, stout trousers, better helmets and proper gloves, Mr Stuart added.

[sinfull]

Death rates are generally higher for people who user motorcycles than other vehicles, said MTA, with 44 riders and one pillion passenger killed in the past year.

In 2011, 33 motorcyclists died and 1178 were injured in road crashes, accounting for 12 per cent of all road deaths, according the Ministry of Transport figures.


Ummmm 12 % is generally higher than what ?

[Katman]

Ummmm 12 % is generally higher than what ?

Than it should be?

[mashman]

Unfortunately, they do have a point on some issues.

Yup.


If we didn't have the accidents it wouldn't be an issue.

People make mistakes.


Unfortunately unless the "statistics" improve expect safety gear legislation to be along soon. TPTB find legislation easier than actual problem solving.

Yup.

[Katman]

People make mistakes.


Yup.

It would be nice to see an effort made in reducing them.

[mashman]

Yup.

It would be nice to see an effort made in reducing them.

Best leave it to computers then

[Katman]

Best leave it to computers then

What are they going to do?

[mashman]

What are they going to do?

Make less mistakes... as they don't have to do their makeup whilst driving.

[Katman]

Make less mistakes... as they don't have to do their makeup whilst driving.

I actually think it's sad that you have such a low opinion of human potential.

I also think it's sad that so many of us can't be arsed trying harder.

[mashman]

I actually think it's sad that you have such a low opinion of human potential.

I also think it's sad that so many of us can't be arsed trying harder.

:rofl:, yeah, that's the issue.

What for? Vehicles are safe.

[Katman]

:rofl:, yeah, that's the issue.

What for? Vehicles are safe.

99.9% of the time you don't make any sense.

[ducatilover]

You humans are the problem, I'm banning you from being.

Sent from my genocidal mind

[_Shrek_]

while Acc a full of shyte along with Templeton with the over 51% mc not wearing the right gear

it would be more like scooter 45% & mc 6% as I've seen in the towns & citys, ie hot day jandles, shorts, singlets etc... :facepalm:

but on the open road 1/2 % as most are wearing the right gear or armour of some sort in their gear

& most of us know that if over 2 1/3rds of the people in cadges looked there would not have been the deaths there were

but there are those who need to be treated like a pc & have the info :bash: in until they get it




sent from my crutches coz I can't walk

[mashman]

99.9% of the time you don't make any sense.

Only 0.1% to go and we can be twins

[Katman]

Only 0.1% to go and we can be twins

Like Arnie and Danny?

[mashman]

while Acc a full of shyte along with Templeton with the over 51% mc not wearing the right gear

it would be more like scooter 45% & mc 6% as I've seen in the towns & citys, ie hot day jandles, shorts, singlets etc... :facepalm:

but on the open road 1/2 % as most are wearing the right gear or armour of some sort in their gear

& most of us know that if over 2 1/3rds of the people in cadges looked there would not have been the deaths there were

but there are those who need to be treated like a pc & have the info :bash: in until they get it

sent from my crutches coz I can't walk

Praps we should be proactive and push slow moving scooter riders off to give 'em the learn.

[mashman]

Like Arnie and Danny?

Lloyd and Harry mebee

[_Shrek_]

Praps we should be proactive and push slow moving scooter riders off to give 'em the learn.

the thought has crossed my mined a fair bit of late & not just scoot riders & other times I've said something.... :brick:





sent from my desk top coz I can't walk

[mashman]

the thought has crossed my mined a fair bit of late & not just scoot riders & other times I've said something.... :brick:

Aye... I often marvel at the number of skirts on scooters cruising past during the day. Can always offer mouth to mouth then. Maybe a spiker strip is the way to go.

[Katman]

How much are the scooter riders costing us compared to the rest though?

[_Shrek_]

How much are the scooter riders costing us compared to the rest though?

where do ya get the info on that Km

[mashman]

How much are the scooter riders costing us compared to the rest though?

I would have thought that the number of incidents was more important.

[Katman]

I would have thought that the number of incidents was more important.

Not according to ACC.

[mashman]

Not according to ACC.

So Hi-Viz is for?

[Katman]

So Hi-Viz is for?

Dunno.

You're asking the question.

[mashman]

Dunno.

You're asking the question.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think they believe, albeit falsely imho, that it will reduce the number of incidents... so ACC probably are concerned (in some way or another) in regards to reducing the number of incidents.

[Katman]

I may be going out on a limb here, but I think they believe, albeit falsely imho, that it will reduce the number of incidents... so ACC probably are concerned (in some way or another) in regards to reducing the number of incidents.

Yeah, nah.

If they were more concerned with reducing accidents they would put more effort into supporting training rather than ATGATT.

Sent from first hand experience using painful memories of dealing with the fuckers.

[mashman]

Yeah, nah.

If they were more concerned with reducing accidents they would put more effort into supporting training rather the ATGATT.

Sent from first hand experience using painful memories of dealing with the fuckers.

Yeah, nah... experience is no guarantee that you won't be in an accident... and mistakenly believing that being seen when people aren't looking doesn't help a damned thing. Gear can save that little trip to the hospital, but the only way to implement that is to make it law. Not something I agree with, but hey, what's the alternative? A crash detection device the destroys anything within a 2 metre radius when an accident occurs. The road would be littered with destroyed cars. I'd love to know how many "incidents" (injury or not) cars have in a day as I reckon they vastly outnumber the number that bikers have. Each one of those car v car smidsy's could quite easily be a car v bike. So whilst I take your point in regards to being vigilant, it ain't gonna happen without some form of threat. The best I've heard of is a spike instead of an airbag and maybe one shooting out of the seat :shit: of a bike.

[Katman]

and mistakenly believing that being seen when people aren't looking doesn't help a damned thing.

Whoever said it did help?

Assuming you're not seen and being ready (and able) to take avoiding action will pay far greater dividends.

[McFatty1000]

Would it be the worst thing if gloves for example became compulsary? I mean, sure, its unlikely they'd stop there but it'd make some sense for anyone on a bike to wear them.

And I've only seen one scooter wearing a proper jacket. Ever. Given at what they're like in traffic (Around the uni for example), I'd suspect they'd be well up there in incidents

[Brian d marge]

12 %

horrible , shocking . as for the other 88 % they must be ............... CAR drivers ,,,and we cant have THEM on the roads forcing our ACC through the roof can we

Stephen

[ajturbo]

So..... Only 12% of road deaths were on bikes......

therfore... It it far more dangerous ( 88%) using some other mode of transport ...???

[Paul in NZ]

I object to 'stout' trousers... Mine are 'large; and I'm well built for a man my age... Stout indeed....

[Berries]

Would it be the worst thing if gloves for example became compulsary?
We could go a couple of steps further and make a metal cage around the rider compulsory as well, and perhaps four wheels to make the things little more stable.

[Ocean1]

We could go a couple of steps further and make a metal cage around the rider compulsory as well, and perhaps four wheels to make the things little more stable.

That's the problem innit? Once you give someone else the responsibility for your fuckups they're eventually going to want to manage your life to control costs.

I thought it'd only take a couple of years, but it's been 30 since ACC was first floated. That means the system works just fine without them having to take those decisions on your behalf, they can get fucked.

[oneofsix]

We could go a couple of steps further and make a metal cage around the rider compulsory as well, and perhaps four wheels to make the things little more stable.

Four wheels might be a step too far. Doesn't seem to work well with quads according to the Chief coroner. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8422452/Coroner-frustrated-by-quad-bike-roll-toll

as for the cage??? yuk
279990

[Katman]

So..... Only 12% of road deaths were on bikes......



When we make up only 2% of the road going fleet.

[oneofsix]

When we make up only 2% of the road going fleet.

I guess the percentage of road deaths has to be pretty accurate but how accurate is the percentage of vehicle fleet figure? Wouldn't trust rego count. Bike sales? But what about rebuilds? They had a chance with the census but actually ruled out counting of motorcycles in the number of vehicles you own.

2% or 3% or even 5% does it matter?

Also doesn't factor in exposure to death when involved in a crash, the only bike I have heard of with airbags is the Goldwing. Does the percentage of crashes for percentage of fleet therefore have more bearing? Are the figures any better?

[Katman]

I guess the percentage of road deaths has to be pretty accurate but how accurate is the percentage of vehicle fleet figure? Wouldn't trust rego count. Bike sales? But what about rebuilds? They had a chance with the census but actually ruled out counting of motorcycles in the number of vehicles you own.

2% or 3% or even 5% does it matter?

Also doesn't factor in exposure to death when involved in a crash, the only bike I have heard of with airbags is the Goldwing. Does the percentage of crashes for percentage of fleet therefore have more bearing? Are the figures any better?

Whether or not it has actual bearing or not is not the issue. The reality is that the numbers make it a very easy exercise for TPTB to build a case against us.

The fact is that we are having far too many easily avoidable crashes.

(And yes, I believe the 2% figure would be quite accurate. It has been about that number since well before any motorcyclists stopped paying their rego as a form of protest.)

[oneofsix]

Whether or not it has actual bearing or not is not the issue. The reality is that the numbers make it a very easy exercise for TPTB to build a case against us.

The fact is that we are having far too many easily avoidable crashes.

(And yes, I believe the 2% figure would be quite accurate. It has been about that number since well before any motorcyclists stopped paying their rego as a form of protest.)

Yeah but take the case of SUV versus car, SUV driver is more likely to walk away so would they then target cars in the same way they do bikes. Because it is also more likely the SUV driver fucked up because they had a lower risk perception.

As to the 2% figure, with the reported increase of bikes on the road since the protest action I would have thought the percentage should have therefore increased.

Because we have the higher risk perception and the most to loose we generally do more to avoid the easily avoidable, doesn't always work and yes there are often lesson to learn. A minor bump of a car, that doesn't even rate insurance claim can be an ACC claim for us. But having had cars change into my lane on nearly every commute this week I am fucking sick of the bastards and wish they would take some responsibility for their shitty driving. FFS I was even allowing a car to change lanes when another shot past me to cut him off, all for one car length in stalled traffic :mad: felt like the bastard was trying to put me and my pillion in the hearse that had break down that caused the hold up. :lol:

Fine do our best to avoid being a stat but try and get others to share the road to. :shit: that sounds like the latest ad campaign just started on telly :shutup:

[Katman]

Of the 45 motorcyclists killed last year how many do you think could be attributed to ego overload, out-riding ones ability (or the conditions), or simply not paying enough attention?

[Asher]

ACC should use our high levies to subsidies protective gear. Yea right

[oneofsix]

Of the 45 motorcyclists killed last year how many do you think could be attributed to ego overload, out-riding ones ability, or simply not paying enough attention?

That is a rather broad brush. Of the 45 motorcyclists killed last year most if not all could be attributed to being involved in a crash, lets allow a little wiggle room in case someone died from a heart attack and then crashed.
"simply not paying enough attention" nice catch all. Generally you are taught to look where you intend to go, but just because, this one time, someone was doing that instead of looking at the object they were avoiding and that object then does something abnormal then they were "simply not paying enough attention". :niceone:

[Katman]

That is a rather broad brush. Of the 45 motorcyclists killed last year most if not all could be attributed to being involved in a crash, lets allow a little wiggle room in case someone died from a heart attack and then crashed.
"simply not paying enough attention" nice catch all. Generally you are taught to look where you intend to go, but just because, this one time, someone was doing that instead of looking at the object they were avoiding and that object then does something abnormal then they were "simply not paying enough attention". :niceone:

Spoken like someone who is too scared to give it any serious thought.

[Devil]

Oh the horror! An article with valid points is posted to the interwebs and listen to the cries of foul by the poor widdle motorcyclists.

For fucks sake people, pull your heads in. While the best option is not to have a crash in the first place, we need to do what we can to minimize the results. It's the cost of the accidents that ACC gives a shit about, not how many there are.

This summer I have a seen an unusually high amount of people riding around in t-shirt and shorts - most of them have been on sports bikes, closely followed by large cruisers. Just plain stupid.

What a bunch of fucking whingers. Harden up you precious bastards.

[ducatilover]

Mandatory rider and driver training should be introduced. It would be cool to have a team of Katmans teaching situational awareness and it would be cool to have rider skills actually developed.

This, I think, will see a greater decrease in ACC than simply wearing gloves (chances are anyone educated is going wear gloves anyway...)

Why there is no complusary training for bikes/cars baffles me. Is there no real concern for public safety? Is it all about the money?


A fella buys a scoot and hops on it with only the need for a 1L licence and no training, what the fuck do you think will happen? Same goes for n00b bikers, 50hp GS500, no training. Sure a lot of us make it without training, but a lot do not.


Sent from Bethlehem on my ass

[Scuba_Steve]

Is there no real concern for public safety? Is it all about the money?


Yes & Yes (also votes)
But mandatory training won't help anything in-fact quite the opposite as the Govt never sponsors training of any worth while, at-least not when it comes to cages.
Those here who can actually drive would probably be appalled with what the Govt endorsed trainers are actually teaching.


Sent from a fucking keyboard attached to a laptop

[ducatilover]

Yes & Yes (also votes)
But mandatory training won't help anything in-fact quite the opposite as the Govt never sponsors training of any worth while, at-least not when it comes to cages.
Those here who can actually drive would probably be appalled with what the Govt endorsed trainers are actually teaching.


Sent from a fucking keyboard attached to a laptop

Get better trainers. Katman for being safe and intelligent, Drew for fast, OAB for the mad one arm stoppies :2thumbsup sorted. Ducatilover for president?


Sent from my throne of greatness using stuff

[McFatty1000]

Get better trainers. Katman for being safe and intelligent, Drew for fast, OAB for the mad one arm stoppies :2thumbsup sorted. Ducatilover for president?


Sent from my throne of greatness using stuff

I'd second this.

Thinking that annual (Or some form of regular) refresher training, both in the car and the bike should be implemented. Helps keep bad habits out and touches up skills along the way

[Ocean1]

Fuck, with the number of incompetent riders being discussed here by a clear majority of exerts it's amazing so few have been spotted posting. What're the chances, eh?

I reckon if all of the experts here focused on making sure their riding was up to their posting instead of minding everyone else's business we'd see a massive reduction in accidents.

[Glowerss]

Mandatory rider and driver training should be introduced. It would be cool to have a team of Katmans teaching situational awareness and it would be cool to have rider skills actually developed.

This, I think, will see a greater decrease in ACC than simply wearing gloves (chances are anyone educated is going wear gloves anyway...)

Why there is no complusary training for bikes/cars baffles me. Is there no real concern for public safety? Is it all about the money?


A fella buys a scoot and hops on it with only the need for a 1L licence and no training, what the fuck do you think will happen? Same goes for n00b bikers, 50hp GS500, no training. Sure a lot of us make it without training, but a lot do not.


Sent from Bethlehem on my ass

Problem is compulsory training would have to be setup properly to have any sort of tangible benefit.
I don't trust the government to be able to do that with any sort of competence.

Take the ACC approved trainer thingerbobbers they did in the last few months.

I'd love to take advantage of the ACC subsidized training they have, but the provider they picked is in bleeding Tauranga. So any money I would save from ACC subsidizing it, would be wasted on petrol there and back and either doing an extremely long and somewhat dangerous amount of riding training in 1 day, or on a place to stay the night.

There are lots of great riding instructors/companies in Auckland, and considering the largest amount of people is centered in and around Auckers, picking somebody in Tauranga (who does most of their training on the track :( ) reeks of idiocy.

That being said, the amount of people I see going in and out of the AUT bike parking section with shorts/jandals/teeshirt (and the way they ride before getting there) is scary as shit.

[Erelyes]

An interesting read as I just got into biking a month ago at the age of 28 and have gone with a nearly all-gear approach, viz. armoured jacket / boots / gloves and ofc a lid, but not pants. I wonder if I'd have done the same at 18yo.

ACC are of course interested in reducing the cost of accidents. They are an insurance company first and foremost. Any road safety prerogatives they have are secondary; and are at best lip service, at best, consulting / giving feedback to LTNZ or the Road Safety Trust.

I also don't think this has much to do with any accident over say 50kmh where gear is going to help but injury is still likely. I don't see many scooter users geared up; I also don't see many doing over 50. They are probably trying to get a quick win, that is, reducing the cost of people that scrape themselves up on under 50kmh spills (but don't get serious injuries). Which is probably a large proportion of accidents.
Hence the references to road rash in the article rather than fractures, internal bleeding, etc.

Personally I would have zero problems with simple legal requirements like;
-Full-fingered gloves of any sort
-Enclosed (non open toe) shoes
-Long sleeve top

But the only reason I'd have 0 problems with the above is cos I wouldn't ever ride without my gloves, boots, jacket (and jeans).

Or we could just bill people who come off and scrape themselves up without wearing the above. Several hundred/thousand bucks in medical bills might speak to them more than pain.

[ducatilover]

Problem is compulsory training would have to be setup properly to have any sort of tangible benefit.
I don't trust the government to be able to do that with any sort of competence.

Take the ACC approved trainer thingerbobbers they did in the last few months.

I'd love to take advantage of the ACC subsidized training they have, but the provider they picked is in bleeding Tauranga. So any money I would save from ACC subsidizing it, would be wasted on petrol there and back and either doing an extremely long and somewhat dangerous amount of riding training in 1 day, or on a place to stay the night.

There are lots of great riding instructors/companies in Auckland, and considering the largest amount of people is centered in and around Auckers, picking somebody in Tauranga (who does most of their training on the track :( ) reeks of idiocy.

That being said, the amount of people I see going in and out of the AUT bike parking section with shorts/jandals/teeshirt (and the way they ride before getting there) is scary as shit.
I'm thinking I'll go to the one in Tauranga when I'm up there if I can get my mitts on a bike

If I go to a training session, thingymabob I'll write a review

Sent from my Aston Martin using a cassete tape

[nerrrd]

I'm doing one of the subsidised Prorider courses on the road in South Auckland in a couple of weeks...so you don't necessarily have to go to Tauranga or a racetrack.

[f2dz]

Oh the horror! An article with valid points is posted to the interwebs and listen to the cries of foul by the poor widdle motorcyclists.

For fucks sake people, pull your heads in. While the best option is not to have a crash in the first place, we need to do what we can to minimize the results. It's the cost of the accidents that ACC gives a shit about, not how many there are.

This summer I have a seen an unusually high amount of people riding around in t-shirt and shorts - most of them have been on sports bikes, closely followed by large cruisers. Just plain stupid.

What a bunch of fucking whingers. Harden up you precious bastards.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[F5 Dave]

Yeah I quite agree with chap above, well written.

"While the best option is not to have a crash in the first place, we need to do what we can to minimize the results"

No gloves is just moronic. Oh but its too hot. Oh I need the extra control. Horseshit!

Look at how the article is written. The journo has a snippet of a story & for some balance has asked some riding instructor his opinion. But the double edged sword is it makes him look like he's cooking up this report. Clearly he's not attached to it, he just gave an opinion which would probably mirror anyone involved in training. Dress like you might have an accident today. its pretty fukn simple.

[James Deuce]

Yeah I quite agree with chap above, well written.

"While the best option is not to have a crash in the first place, we need to do what we can to minimize the results"

No gloves is just moronic. Oh but its too hot. Oh I need the extra control. Horseshit!

Look at how the article is written. The journo has a snippet of a story & for some balance has asked some riding instructor his opinion. But the double edged sword is it makes him look like he's cooking up this report. Clearly he's not attached to it, he just gave an opinion which would probably mirror anyone involved in training. Dress like you might have an accident today. its pretty fukn simple.

Amen. As Dave knows, Andrew's the last person to seek profit over his trainee's competence and safety (in that order, he's not stupid) and I'm surprised that he has appeared so calm as quoted, over the issues in the article published. He is somewhat impatient with obvious stupidity or arrogance in the face of superior knowledge, what with also being human and all. Bear in mind that a training business is a business, so it has to at least show some profit to allow for re-investment.

Pisspot helmets, no gloves or fingerless gloves, wife beaters, and especially jandals are all fecking stupid, but thank your lucky stars it's still a choice. The moment legislation kicks in, you'll have the choice of one or two manufacturer's products that meet specialist standards for NZ's potential legislation and it will be a seller's market.

I don't care what you wear on a bike even when I'm listening to you cry and blubber about how much it hurts to have the dirt scrubbed out of your skinless arse with a wire brush and no anaesthetic, but don't expect me to do anything except roll my eyes if you repeat the same mistake with the same consequence.

The no gloves thing is weird. I'm not wiping your arse while the skin grafts take and the bones heal, and I'm pretty sure that your Mum will be unhappy about doing it for you but probably won't complain. Or your partner, if they bother to stick around. Mum or partner will go on and fucking on about those dangerous fucking motorbikes though and that is ten times worse than ACC articles about how stupid people can be.

[kakapo76]

Yeah I quite agree with chap above, well written.

"While the best option is not to have a crash in the first place, we need to do what we can to minimize the results"

No gloves is just moronic. Oh but its too hot. Oh I need the extra control. Horseshit!

Look at how the article is written. The journo has a snippet of a story & for some balance has asked some riding instructor his opinion. But the double edged sword is it makes him look like he's cooking up this report. Clearly he's not attached to it, he just gave an opinion which would probably mirror anyone involved in training. Dress like you might have an accident today. its pretty fukn simple.

FWIW I am a funeral director with the largest geographic Police district in NZ (Canterbury) I and my team attend all Police fatalities in our area and have done so for the past 3 1/2 years (about 900 in all). Admittedly we dont attend non fatalities so the whole skin issue is moot and this is anecdotal so take it as you will.
The last 4 motorcycle fatalies I have attended (there were others) involved the following a) 1 adult scooter- (large horrible Honda thingame) older rider- too fast on a bend lost it lowside and wore the metal barrier no other vehicle involved. Full gear top to bottom. Instant death. b) Kawasaki zx10, going like hell country country road, failed to take a bend, hit a strainer post with head, shattered helmet. Dead. jeans and jacket, no gloves. c) Harley rider, impatient following too close on State HW 1, failed to see minivan indicating passed as the van turned right- t boned the drivers door, pushed the van some 60 meters into a ditch, broke everything you can imagine- full leathers etc etc, good thing for me as he was only intact becuase the leather hadn't torn. Dead. d) Urban street, sports bike, pulling a wheely in the early am, speeding, t boned a truck that did not see him. Helmet and jacket nothing else. Dead.

All of theses "accidents" were totally preventable BY THE MOTORCYCLIST, I ride a ZZR 1100- and just the other day took off after a bad day at work and attempted a stupid passing manouver, had to pull out, had it all locked up etc etc- basically had to give myself a mental slap to pull my head in- helmet, gloves and jacket- work pants no boots (even though I had them at work- was too lazy to put them on.) moral of this tale is we are the ones on the bikes- if we die we don't just hurt ourselves (contrary to the whole lone wolf myth perpetuated by many on mc blogs) so as a society a little collectiive responsibility doesn't actually hurt- I attended two ACC sponsored training days last year cost me $50 each time- Dan Ormsby helped me a lot- told me to bascially get the best kit you can buy and then ride like everyone else is an idiot- nothing new here but sound advice I think. My two cents.

[James Deuce]

In reference to the above, I've been horribly injured in motorcycle accidents over the years and have always been wearing what passed for "full", and "quality" gear at the time. I'm not convinced it works but I wear it to make sure that there's less of a mess when I "only" get hurt so my wife doesn't have too much extra to do in life. I'm not that concerned about the dying thing, that's a Funeral Director's "problem", however odds are if it is me killed, then I'll be in a neat and tidy leather, polycarbonate, ABS, faux-leather bag. So to speak. Hope that helps.

[F5 Dave]

FWIW I am a funeral director with the largest geographic Police district in NZ (Canterbury) I and my team attend all Police fatalities in our area and have done so for the past 3 1/2 years (about 900 in all). Admittedly we dont attend non fatalities so the whole skin issue is moot and this is anecdotal so take it as you will.
The last 4 motorcycle fatalies I have attended (there were others) involved the following a) 1 adult scooter- (large horrible Honda thingame) older rider- too fast on a bend lost it lowside and wore the metal barrier no other vehicle involved. Full gear top to bottom. Instant death. b) Kawasaki zx10, going like hell country country road, failed to take a bend, hit a strainer post with head, shattered helmet. Dead. jeans and jacket, no gloves. c) Harley rider, impatient following too close on State HW 1, failed to see minivan indicating passed as the van turned right- t boned the drivers door, pushed the van some 60 meters into a ditch, broke everything you can imagine- full leathers etc etc, good thing for me as he was only intact becuase the leather hadn't torn. Dead. d) Urban street, sports bike, pulling a wheely in the early am, speeding, t boned a truck that did not see him. Helmet and jacket nothing else. Dead.

All of theses "accidents" were totally preventable BY THE MOTORCYCLIST, I ride a ZZR 1100- and just the other day took off after a bad day at work and attempted a stupid passing manouver, had to pull out, had it all locked up etc etc- basically had to give myself a mental slap to pull my head in- helmet, gloves and jacket- work pants no boots (even though I had them at work- was too lazy to put them on.) moral of this tale is we are the ones on the bikes- if we die we don't just hurt ourselves (contrary to the whole lone wolf myth perpetuated by many on mc blogs) so as a society a little collectiive responsibility doesn't actually hurt- I attended two ACC sponsored training days last year cost me $50 each time- Dan Ormsby helped me a lot- told me to bascially get the best kit you can buy and then ride like everyone else is an idiot- nothing new here but sound advice I think. My two cents.


I've read your post a few time & it is interesting, but I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from it, but perhaps that wasn't the point.
You almost seem like the start is an argument that no matter the gear in a bad accident you're going to die. Yes valid.
Sorry if I've misconstrued.

I was more concerned with the skin on road & broken bones aspect.

Jims summary (2 posts back) is more my point & from own experience racing; falling off hurts. Upgrading your gear is more likely to make a crash non injury, but of course I have been injured in what I call decent gear. But even things like knuckle armour help stopping your hand swelling up like has happened in plain gloves.

I just can't imagine the grief you'd cause yourself ripping your hands up in chip seal, for the effort of slipping on some gloves.

[kakapo76]

In reference to the above, I've been horribly injured in motorcycle accidents over the years and have always been wearing what passed for "full", and "quality" gear at the time. I'm not convinced it works but I wear it to make sure that there's less of a mess when I "only" get hurt so my wife doesn't have too much extra to do in life. I'm not that concerned about the dying thing, that's a Funeral Director's "problem", however odds are if it is me killed, then I'll be in a neat and tidy leather, polycarbonate, ABS, faux-leather bag. So to speak. Hope that helps.

Sorry if I came across unfeeling- my only point is that it seems practical to do everything we can to look after ourselves on the road, whether thats good gear, a mechanically sound bike, good riding practice and generally smart choices on the road- me I dont always get it right and am the first person to put my hand up when I have been a muppet- in regards to your point about 'only getting hurt'- dying is not the worst outcome for some so lets be safe, love to ride and come home safe- not trying to preach here, just have more experience than most cleaning up the mess.

[ducatilover]

Sorry if I came across unfeeling- my only point is that it seems practical to do everything we can to look after ourselves on the road
Problem being we may as well not pilot vehicles if that's the case.

I think the issue here is what's a "reasonable" amount of gear?
I'm an ATGATT fella, but other people aren't really concerned and in some respects it is their responsibility. But then we have the problem of ACC and our rates going up.

So it comes back to Katman's point, crash less.
And my point, rider/driver awareness training


And boobies, because I cannot make a serious post

Sent from my desk using a well earned beer

[kakapo76]

[QUOTE=F5 Dave;1130516513]I've read your post a few time & it is interesting, but I'm not sure what conclusion to draw from it, but perhaps that wasn't the point.
You almost seem like the start is an argument that no matter the gear in a bad accident you're going to die. Yes valid.
Sorry if I've misconstrued.

QUOTE].

No not really- its the normal outcome for me in my profession- would be good to get some feedback from an ambo or two to see what injuries they commonly deal with. In the stats quoted above- out of 1100 odd accidents 44 were fatal so about 4% that indicates that the rest all suffered some form of injury- what we really need to know is how many of those resulted in permanent disability and then correlate those numbers with the gear the rider had on. if you fall off your motocross bike and break a wrist and in 6 weeks everything is back to normal is that injury even relevant to the discussion?

My point is only we have a wider duty of care and as adults who pay through the nose for our pleasures lets take a moment to seperate the "acc angst" from what on the surface of it seems a simple step- wear decent gear, its mandatory on the track why wouldn't it be on the road?

[James Deuce]

Sorry if I came across unfeeling- my only point is that it seems practical to do everything we can to look after ourselves on the road, whether thats good gear, a mechanically sound bike, good riding practice and generally smart choices on the road- me I dont always get it right and am the first person to put my hand up when I have been a muppet- in regards to your point about 'only getting hurt'- dying is not the worst outcome for some so lets be safe, love to ride and come home safe- not trying to preach here, just have more experience than most cleaning up the mess.

You're the last person who needs to apologise. I'm merely pointing out that I am now as fatalistic as the average Muscovite and my goal in riding motorcycles is to cause the least amount of hassle for the smallest number of people possible. If that includes tagging and bagging myself prior to every ride, so be it. If anything, I'm the unfeeling one.

I don't agree with compulsory ATGATT mainly because it will drive the number of riders down massively and a small market will be lumbered with a small number of "approved" suppliers who will be encouraged to gouge the remaining market to ensure that the market shrinks further. Either by design or simple Keynesian practice.

[willytheekid]

Remember Britney?...the road rash girl
http://media.motortopia.com/files/316/album_roadrash/4676d45029e9d/tn_full_image2.jpg
This was a result of sliding 522 feet down the highway at 120mph...with only a helmet on!

She and many friends have started up a new web site called "Rock The Gear" due to the above accident and the injuries she recieved.
http://www.rockthegear.org/


Thought this vid from neil summed it up nicely


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EhJ74f-MGak

Just wear the gear KBers...it CAN save your life...and the skin on your arse! (I know this due to loosing half an arse cheek when I was young and bullet proof...no gear...dog ran out...hit it, slide, grate, slide...LOTS of blood and pain...followed by months of rehab...dont learn the hard way like I did...it fucking hurts!!)


Ride smart, ride safe KBers :love:

[Zedder]

Different topic but relevant.

A mate of mine teaches Coastguard boating courses and told me one of the major reasons they were started was to stop Government legislating for boat licences and registration with attendant fees etc. These are purely voluntary courses.

So far, they've held off the money grubbers since 1989.

[Scuba_Steve]

Remember Britney?...the road rash girl

This was a result of sliding 522 feet down the highway at 120mph...with only a helmet on!

She and many friends have started up a new web site called "Rock The Gear" due to the above accident and the injuries she recieved.
http://www.rockthegear.org/



No I don't.
Doesn't look as bad as I'd expect from 120Mph or almost 200Kph. Also shoulsn't she be dead? or was she not in an artificial death speed area when it happened?

But "Rock The Gear" seems like a good tag the great propaganda machine should be pushing. Again it should NOT be legislated but a propaganda push with "Rock The Gear" (& appropriate visuals/narrators) I think would be a good thing, probably get the message through to a few

[Swoop]

Pisspot helmets, gloves or fingerless gloves, wife beaters, and especially jandals are all fecking stupid, but thank your lucky stars it's still a choice.
Well said Jim2.


Article: More than half of motorcycle and scooter users are ignoring warnings about wearing safety gear, risking horrific preventable injuries, experts say. A Motor Trade Association (MTA) survey of 338 riders on busy Wellington roads during the last two weeks found 51 per cent failed to meet basic ACC guidelines by not wearing items such as gloves, or appropriate footwear, trousers or jackets. The results were disappointing, said MTA spokesman Hamish Stuart who was "surprised at the lack of safety equipment worn by this particularly vulnerable group of road users''.



Seems that quite a few around here (and particularly the writer of the article) have yet to realise that ONLY a helmet is legally required.
Nothing more.

Stupid, but thank fuck people still have the individual choice in the matter.

Stop whining.

[Ocean1]

what we really need to know is how many of those resulted in permanent disability and then correlate those numbers with the gear the rider had on.

Be a nice simple excercise, eh? I wonder what sort of condition the data's in and whether anything usefull can be pulled from it. I'm not hopeful, given the number of times one or another interested official entities have been caught grooming data collection tools. Still, it'd be interesting to see if some broad generalisations could be drawn regarding equipment performance...

[rustic101]

ACC and others seem to have a flawed thinking around safety imho.

I purchased a new Stihl chainsaw recently and looked at chaps and eye screen etc. The guy said if I waited till May ACC would subsidise the purchase of the safety items.. So I got hold of ACC who said yes thats correct but I needed to wait till then but if I purchased safety equipment before or after they would not pay a subsidy...:brick:

They could not give me a reason why it was for only one month and I'm buggered if I know why too.

I bought the stuff anyway, but really!! If they were serious imho they would do it all year round to encourage a safety approach.

It raises a question around M/C gear too, again if they were serious and wanted to encourage riders to be safer or more visible then they should or could offer a subsidy.

[Ocean1]

Again it should NOT be legislated but a propaganda push with "Rock The Gear" (& appropriate visuals/narrators) I think would be a good thing, probably get the message through to a few

How long have you been riding? The difference in riding gear typically worn over the last 20 years is huge, mostly on the back of industry advertising. At least out of the city centres.

And I'd keep ACC out of it, given their success with publicity campaigns over the years we'd probably see a return to Jeans, tee shirts and open helmets again.

[Edbear]

I didn't have an accident today. Not planning on one tomorrow either.

I haven't crashed a bike in 43 years of riding. Not planning to either assuming I am allowed back on one in the future... crashing the van was painful enough...

[F5 Dave]

Pisspot helmets, gloves or fingerless gloves, wife beaters, and especially jandals are all fecking stupid, but thank your lucky stars it's still a choice.
Well said Jim2.. . . .
. . . .
Seems that quite a few around here (and particularly the writer of the article) have yet to realise that ONLY a helmet is legally required.
Nothing more.

Stupid, but thank fuck people still have the individual choice in the matter.

Stop whining.
25 odd years back (& they were odd years) I did a pretty lame study for some schoolastic reason I can't remember, & chose motorcycle safety as the topic. It became pretty apparent that the only time legislation had caused a reduction of the road toll as a whole was after the copulsary introduction of seatbelts in Cars. & some marked movement in drink driving, but this was 25 years back.

I think I got a C, but thats another story.


Obviously there was an increasing road use over the sample timeframe but still there was marked drop as people started using their seatbelts.

Before that people had a choice, . . . but made dumb choices.

So one can ask the age old question: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

[Ocean1]

Article: More than half of motorcycle and scooter users are ignoring warnings about wearing safety gear, risking horrific preventable injuries, experts say. A Motor Trade Association (MTA) survey of 338 riders on busy Wellington roads during the last two weeks found 51 per cent failed to meet basic ACC guidelines by not wearing items such as gloves, or appropriate footwear, trousers or jackets. The results were disappointing, said MTA spokesman Hamish Stuart who was "surprised at the lack of safety equipment worn by this particularly vulnerable group of road users''.

Now, the way I read that is that 51% were missing one or more of ACC's recommended safety articles. Personally, I was surprised that 49% WERE wearing the full list of required items. I'd like to see exactly what that list of "such items" represented, and how accurately the survey was carried out. In who's opinion was the kit "appropriate", for example?


Seems that quite a few around here (and particularly the writer of the article) have yet to realise that ONLY a helmet is legally required.
Nothing more.

Stupid, but thank fuck people still have the individual choice in the matter.

Stop whining.

Aye. They'd like to change that, though. So it's appropriate to be somewhat suspicious of data collected by interested parties on compliance to another interested party's recommended list of kit. 'Cause, y'know they've got a bit of history in fucking with data to suit themselves.

[Scuba_Steve]

How long have you been riding? The difference in riding gear typically worn over the last 20 years is huge, mostly on the back of industry advertising. At least out of the city centres.

And I'd keep ACC out of it, given their success with publicity campaigns over the years we'd probably see a return to Jeans, tee shirts and open helmets again.

Not long enough to see that.
Yea well I did say they had to get the formula right & was probably thinking more NZTA. But then they're probably no better

[cheshirecat]

Be good to have some real data on this. All I know from anecdotal evidence is I hear far more of riders (who are presumably togged up), binning it on jounts over the 'rappa' than of actual riders binning it without full gear on.

[James Deuce]

You can't generalise about jeans or cargo pants either, as it is likely that they are kevlar weave lined and the seams are stitched better than Jeffrey Chandel leathers from 25 years ago. A lot of people wear armour under those sorts of trousers too, armour separate to the trousers themselves but more importantly correctly fitted to the exact areas that are problematic in accidents, like knees for instance. Knox impact foam knee protectors from Draggin Jeans are much better than the upholstery foam in the knees of some leather pants and certainly better than the no armour in my leather jeans.

The only way to tell is to order a down trou on the side of the road.

[Smifffy]

You can't generalise about jeans or cargo pants either, as it is likely that they are kevlar weave lined and the seams are stitched better than Jeffrey Chandel leathers from 25 years ago. A lot of people wear armour under those sorts of trousers too, armour separate to the trousers themselves but more importantly correctly fitted to the exact areas that are problematic in accidents, like knees for instance. Knox impact foam knee protectors from Draggin Jeans are much better than the upholstery foam in the knees of some leather pants and certainly better than the no armour in my leather jeans.

The only way to tell is to order a down trou on the side of the road.

Or a little $300 label tag stitched in to an easily accessible location that the manufacturer has bribed NZTA/ACC/NZGovt for with some kind of 'application fee', more than likely forcing local bespoke manufacturers out of business due to cost of compliance....

[James Deuce]

Or a little $300 label tag stitched in to an easily accessible location that the manufacturer has bribed NZTA/ACC/NZGovt for with some kind of 'application fee', more than likely forcing local bespoke manufacturers out of business due to cost of compliance....

I've said that in two preceding posts.

[Smifffy]

I've said that in two preceding posts.

Yeah, and I'm agreeing with you, and trying to phrase it slightly differently, because some just don't seem to get it.

[Berries]

Remember Britney?...the road rash girl
Am I right that her surname is Darwin?

[Voltaire]

How much are the scooter riders costing us compared to the rest though?

Be more useful for them to supply a better breakdown of the figures, injuries as opposed to fatalities.

Given that 50cc scooters can be ridden on a car licence, then there is an under 600cc and over 600 cc ACC rate surely they must be able to supply that sort of info?

some sort of "no claims' bonus might work.....

[kinger]

From what I read in the report, small capacity machine riders were a high proportion of the miscreants as far as gear was concerned. High capacity/sports bikes were picked out as being more likely to be properly attired.
Assuming the concern in this here thread (going by it's title) is ACC injury payout costs as opposed to funeral costs, shouldn't the smaller machines be paying the higher levies? And would it be unreasonable to ask for a levy reduction with proof of satisfactory performance at one of them training/awareness sessions? (Open to the threat of abuse, but what isn't?)

[Ocean1]

shouldn't the smaller machines be paying the higher levies?

Depends. Do scooter riders have more cash? 'Cause there's no point in taxing the shit outa the fuckers if they ain't got no cash, innit.

[davereid]

From what I read in the report, small capacity machine riders were a high proportion of the miscreants as far as gear was concerned. High capacity/sports bikes were picked out as being more likely to be properly attired.

So what.

There seems to be this idea occurring here.

I'm a socialist and I love you and all mankind.
I want to help you. So I'm going to look after you with accident care.
Opps and I'm going to make you pay for it sorry I forgot to mention that.
EEEK. Some people do unsafe things.
It means WE ALL SUBSIDISE THEM.

So lets make them safe. Lets BAN the unsafe thing, for the public good, and our wallets.

Currently the unsafe thing is officially the unhelmeted biker or cyclist.
And the guy without his light on. Must have a deathwish and be a Darwin candidate.
Soon it will include the non ATTGAT guy.
Then the hi viz guy will be the only approved fella.

Eventually they will be able to convince enough people that the motorcycle is just inherently unsafe. And therefore should be banned (or democratically have its actual costs inflated by statistical cherry picking, until it can be fairly taxed out of existence.)

And most people wont even notice.

Me, It's a bit cooler here, insects have gone away for the day. I took my helmet off, and rode the 14km down my back road in my jeans and T shirt. Having a bit of a taste of my life, albeit at increased risk.

Now i'm having a beer, and later I will have unprotected sex.

Me, I'm a risk to everyone else's wallet. I'm not interested in being told that "You can't do that it might cost society money" as that's easy solved.

Don't tax me, and I will make my own arrangements.

Its my head, arse, cock, liver, heart and skin. I will make my own decisions, and maybe die early, but at least I will have a bit of fun.

[Zedder]

So what.

There seems to be this idea occurring here.

I'm a socialist and I love you and all mankind.
I want to help you. So I'm going to look after you with accident care.
Opps and I'm going to make you pay for it sorry I forgot to mention that.
EEEK. Some people do unsafe things.
It means WE ALL SUBSIDISE THEM.

So lets make them safe. Lets BAN the unsafe thing, for the public good, and our wallets.

Currently the unsafe thing is officially the unhelmeted biker or cyclist.
And the guy without his light on. Must have a deathwish and be a Darwin candidate.
Soon it will include the non ATTGAT guy.
Then the hi viz guy will be the only approved fella.

Eventually they will be able to convince enough people that the motorcycle is just inherently unsafe. And therefore should be banned (or democratically have its actual costs inflated by statistical cherry picking, until it can be fairly taxed out of existence.)

And most people wont even notice.

Me, It's a bit cooler here, insects have gone away for the day. I took my helmet off, and rode the 14km down my back road in my jeans and T shirt. Having a bit of a taste of my life, albeit at increased risk.

Now i'm having a beer, and later I will have unprotected sex.

Me, I'm a risk to everyone else's wallet. I'm not interested in being told that "You can't do that it might cost society money" as that's easy solved.

Don't tax me, and I will make my own arrangements.

Its my head, arse, cock, liver, heart and skin. I will make my own decisions, and maybe die early, but at least I will have a bit of fun.

ACC in its present form is the problem. The legislating and banning route is only the method to stop having to pay out money while still collecting it.

Similar to the scam on avoiding medical payouts: "It's a pre existing medical condition" seems to be their slogan.

[Ocean1]

ACC in its present form is the problem. The legislating and banning route is only the method to stop having to pay out money while still collecting it.

Similar to the scam on avoiding medical payouts: "It's a pre existing medical condition" seems to be their slogan.

Yeah, it's not as if cashflow issues are a a believable reason for that sorta bullshit, they, (we) can afford to give the service the system's intended to supply.

There's a lot of good things about how we manage accident compensation, though and some proposed changes risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Banditbandit]

Spoken like someone who is too scared to give it any serious thought.

Naaa .. we're just blaize about it all ...


ACC are of course interested in reducing the cost of accidents. They are an insurance company first and foremost. Any road safety prerogatives they have are secondary; and are at best lip service, at best, consulting / giving feedback to LTNZ or the Road Safety Trust.

They are putting SOME (bugger all actually) of the registration money into campaigns for motorcycle safety - it's not all about profit ...

But people don't always "get" the promos - people still smoke - despite all the warnings and knowledge of how dangerous that is ... and dying of cancer can be pretty nasty ..

So why does ACC expect their safety campaigns to have an immediate and major effect? Years of experience of human nature should tell the silly fuckers that safety advertising alone is never going to solve the issue ... and some people will react against the safety messages ...


I also don't think this has much to do with any accident over say 50kmh where gear is going to help but injury is still likely.

I've walked away from quite a few offs because I was wearing the right gear ... several times at more than 50 klicks .. and once at more than 100 klicks .. (I limped away from that one .. but still stood up and got the bike off the road myself ..) So experience tells me the right gear works ...

[Katman]

So why does ACC expect their safety campaigns to have an immediate and major effect? Years of experience of human nature should tell the silly fuckers that safety advertising alone is never going to solve the issue ... and some people will react against the safety messages ...


It seems that safety gear is all they are focused on.

A while back when Kiwifruit and I were organising a Gymkhana event here we had a meeting with a representative from ACC and asked them for some funding.

They were only interested if we pushed the ATGATT message.

We declined.

[Smifffy]

So in order to address one aspect of the debate in this thread, the question must be asked:

Were you riding free on the bandit or the moped?

:innocent:


So what.

There seems to be this idea occurring here.

I'm a socialist and I love you and all mankind.
I want to help you. So I'm going to look after you with accident care.
Opps and I'm going to make you pay for it sorry I forgot to mention that.
EEEK. Some people do unsafe things.
It means WE ALL SUBSIDISE THEM.

So lets make them safe. Lets BAN the unsafe thing, for the public good, and our wallets.

Currently the unsafe thing is officially the unhelmeted biker or cyclist.
And the guy without his light on. Must have a deathwish and be a Darwin candidate.
Soon it will include the non ATTGAT guy.
Then the hi viz guy will be the only approved fella.

Eventually they will be able to convince enough people that the motorcycle is just inherently unsafe. And therefore should be banned (or democratically have its actual costs inflated by statistical cherry picking, until it can be fairly taxed out of existence.)

And most people wont even notice.

Me, It's a bit cooler here, insects have gone away for the day. I took my helmet off, and rode the 14km down my back road in my jeans and T shirt. Having a bit of a taste of my life, albeit at increased risk.

Now i'm having a beer, and later I will have unprotected sex.

Me, I'm a risk to everyone else's wallet. I'm not interested in being told that "You can't do that it might cost society money" as that's easy solved.

Don't tax me, and I will make my own arrangements.

Its my head, arse, cock, liver, heart and skin. I will make my own decisions, and maybe die early, but at least I will have a bit of fun.

[awa355]

It seems that safety gear is all they are focused on.

A while back when Kiwifruit and I were organising a Gymkhana event here we had a meeting with a representative from ACC and asked them for some funding.

They were only interested if we pushed the ATGATT message.

We declined.



They also eat well. especially if your on your way out.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/acc/news/article.cfm?o_id=3&objectid=10864302

[Katman]

They also eat well. especially if your on your way out.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/acc/news/article.cfm?o_id=3&objectid=10864302

Yep, I'm well aware of their love of good food.

There's a thread on here somewhere documenting their gross wastage of money on food for a ride around the Coro Loop that virtually no-one attended.

[davereid]

So in order to address one aspect of the debate in this thread, the question must be asked:Were you riding free on the bandit or the moped?:innocent:

I do it regularly. I live many miles down a country lane. The moped is the best as the helmet fits under the seat. The harley it goes on my elbow, ok as long as I dont need a left turn. The sukuki it fits in the top box.

But it makes no difference. Its still my head.

And if you are worried about paying for it, I have an instant solution. Stop taxing me. And I will pay my own way. Otherwise, just swallow.

[Universal48]

MTA carried out this survey by observing riders over a period here in and around Wellington. It was not a scientific survey. It did show that too many riders were out there without proper safety gear on - lots of jandals, bare arms, no gloves etc. Can't think of anyone that'd think that was a good idea?

Our agenda is simple. If too many people have a poor experience as a rider - that is they have an accident of some sort and suffer more injury than they might otherwise have because they weren't wearing proper safety gear - then they are probably less likely to want to continue as a rider.

It was designed to show that despite all the messaging from Govt. it didn't appear to be getting through. Irrespective of who is in the right and who is in the wrong, when it comes to motorcycle accidents, the rider (and pillion) invariably end up with more injuries than anyone else involved. If they wear the right gear, then that lessens the chances of injury. Pretty simple really.

Cheers

[Ocean1]

It was designed to show that despite all the messaging from Govt. it didn't appear to be getting through. Irrespective of who is in the right and who is in the wrong, when it comes to motorcycle accidents, the rider (and pillion) invariably end up with more injuries than anyone else involved. If they wear the right gear, then that lessens the chances of injury. Pretty simple really.

Cheers

It was designed poorly. It completely ignores the fact that a helmet is all that's legally required and it ignores the fact that the use of safety equipage is ethically entirely the user’s choice.

So whether "the message" is getting through or not is pretty much irrelevant, the Govt. don't have a say in that decision, and nor should they.

[Berries]

Our agenda is simple. If too many people have a poor experience as a rider - that is they have an accident of some sort and suffer more injury than they might otherwise have because they weren't wearing proper safety gear - then they are probably less likely to want to continue as a rider.
Good. Perhaps they should then take the hint that they should not be on two wheels causing the rest of us to pay inflated ACC levies to cover for their spill, regardless of whether they were wearing 'proper' clothing or not.

[Ocean1]

causing the rest of us to pay inflated ACC levies

Now, who's causing you to pay inflated ACC levies?

[Berries]

Farmers playing at running of the bulls, rugby players with odd shaped balls, cyclists, drivers over the age of 80 and people who fall off motorbikes because they aren't paying the necessary attention. And the bastard government.

[Katman]

MTA carried out this survey by observing riders over a period here in and around Wellington. It was not a scientific survey. It did show that too many riders were out there without proper safety gear on - lots of jandals, bare arms, no gloves etc. Can't think of anyone that'd think that was a good idea?

Our agenda is simple. If too many people have a poor experience as a rider - that is they have an accident of some sort and suffer more injury than they might otherwise have because they weren't wearing proper safety gear - then they are probably less likely to want to continue as a rider.

It was designed to show that despite all the messaging from Govt. it didn't appear to be getting through. Irrespective of who is in the right and who is in the wrong, when it comes to motorcycle accidents, the rider (and pillion) invariably end up with more injuries than anyone else involved. If they wear the right gear, then that lessens the chances of injury. Pretty simple really.

Cheers

Adequate training would trump that.