Hi-Viz - I do not think that word means what you think it means (Princess Bride ref)

[RDJ]

I have long thought the cult of Hi-Viz is a Waste Of Time (tm)

People who don't look, don't look. So if you're wearing glaring colors right up there in the high visibility spectrum, it doesn't matter, because they, don't look.

On my afternoon commute, I came upon a Give Way sign to my left, I had the straight through road. A car roared up to the give way sign, paused briefly, and pulled out in front of me with no hesitation. Covering the brakes as I often do, I was able to stop about a meter before I would have impacted the clown's driver's door, when he panicked and jammed on the brakes as he pulled out in front of me.

I don't know how much more visible this bike could be... Must I now add neon? Dancing girls? A strobe?

319286

[Moi]

I can see a ladder, back of a vehicle, some wooden framing... but no bike... :wacko:

Perhaps a death laser might be a good addition?

BTW - do like the jaws... :eek5:

but, agree, if they don't look then they won't see...

[RDJ]

Right. So you are like many cagers. You see just what you want to see (yeah I know, you're probably being sarcastic).

[caspernz]

All I can see is one big oil stain with some faint lights emanating from it...:innocent:;)

[Berries]

And stickers, don't forget the stickers.

[RDJ]

All I can see is one big oil stain with some faint lights emanating from it...:innocent:;)

I understand, really. You're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[bogan]

Tassels, hehehehehehehehe.

[RDJ]

Also - I think y'all are ignoring the Deathproof Duck.

[Oakie]

With all those stickers he must have thought you were a billboard.

[RDJ]

That's a (remote) possibility...

[eldog]

just chuck some of those red and blue flashing lights on and you should be OK, stops most people......

Speaking of which had similar last night, not as bad as you, driver saw his mistake bowed his head, oh no.
He only stopped because of the ankle bracelet me thinks.


On the way home, stuck in the usual Friday traffic - saw a couple of these as per above.
Wondered if often it's because people at certain times 'don't expect' there to be any one and so don't look for anyone - just a casual glance because that's automatic. Sometimes it's after revisiting a dramatic event location - as wel will see shortly below.
Most people never think about mbikes - makes them invisible

[PistonBlown]

A few months ago a saw a car pull straight out in front of a HGV that had more lights on it than a Christmas tree - road was straight, it was daylight and weather was clear.

The car driver had been parked sideways on the verge while leaving some flowers at a white cross - obviously bad driving was a family trait.

To this day I have no idea how the HGV driver kept control and managed to go from 100 to 0 in the space available.

[Gremlin]

Headed down to Rotorua last Saturday for a mates wedding. Other friends had a slightly more eventful trip down.

They're on a straight, cruise dialed in at 95 in one of those 4WD Holden Adventra wagons. Car from side road pulls straight out in front of them, gap probably 20m. Friend decides the best place for the brake pedal is the floor, sees the oncoming is clear and while braking steers around the car missing it by something like a ruler length. Pulls off to the side to re-collect thoughts before going to the other driver (who also pulled over). Friends wife had been on her mobile, so only saw the bonnet of the other as they swerved around and didn't really know what was going on, daughter had seen the whole lot and in tears (then hugging mum and declaring love etc).

Friend decides yelling is no good, but simply says to the other driver, I'm a medic, I know what would have happened. I would have torn your car in half, killed you both, and my family would all be hospitalised with serious injuries at the least...

Driver of the other car looked left when pulling out... instead of right...

[pete-blen]

If they don't look... not alot yer can do about that...
but wearing a hi viz an't going to make some A hole pull out
in front of yer....

those that do wear them will never know how many times it may have saved there ass...


just a thought.......
The real prob with hi viz now could be it has become so common that yer brain
no longer picks up on it as it once did....

[george formby]

I would not sweat it to much. Every little helps but when someone is not registering what they see....
I'm following a broadly similar thread on another forum and the clincher was a Popo on a bike, lights and sirens on, hi viz to the max, riding slowly, getting knocked off his bike by a driver exiting a junction. Excuse was SMIDSY.

[Berries]

To be fair, the driver may have seen the bike and thought it had been in a crash already.

[caspernz]

Tassels, hehehehehehehehe.

Them is very purdy huh...:drool:

[AllanB]

Previous bikes have been dominantly black.

Ducati is, well Ducati red.

Early days but I appear to have had less 'opps' occasions on the red one.

[Swoop]

Hi-Viz black is the only option that works.

Gay faggotry cuntflap shit like yellow/orange/pink is for spastics.

[AllanB]

Either:

Mo-fo loud Harley and gang patch on your leathers

or

Police colours and gear.

Car drivers appear to see both of the above every time. The rest of us and road fodder.

[eldog]

Hi-Viz black is the only option that works.

Gay faggotry cuntflap shit like yellow/orange/pink is for spastics.

Just as well you didn't say Green, or you will be surrounded by the PC Greenies.

[eldog]

Mo-fo loud

Is all you need:shifty:

[Swoop]

Just as well you didn't say Green, or you will be surrounded by the PC Greenies.

Bring it on, bitches!
I have meat, roasted, grilled and BBQ'ed. I'll wave that at them and it will burn like kryptonite to superman or bacon to a mussie-wuzzie!
:headbang:

[awa355]

IMHO the most effective "See Me" protective gear are the silver reflective bands on jackets when picked up by headlights at night. These do stand out.

[Berries]

IMHO the most effective "See Me" protective gear are the silver reflective bands on jackets when picked up by headlights at night. These do stand out.
How effective are they when a car pulls out of a side road when the sun is out like the OP?

This whole hi-viz/lights on thing is a crock of shit if you ask me. It gives the user a false sense of security and then suddenly hey presto they are so surprised when someone pulls out on them they have to run home and tell the world about it.

[Topes]

If they don't look... not alot yer can do about that...
but wearing a hi viz an't going to make some A hole pull out
in front of yer....

those that do wear them will never know how many times it may have saved there ass...


just a thought.......
The real prob with hi viz now could be it has become so common that yer brain
no longer picks up on it as it once did....

Agree with you here Pete, will never know those who sees it and think OK a bike or a cop. I wear vis on longer trips when I know I will tire and my wet gear is Fluro. I've also seen riders who don't notice the marked cop car or bike as the speed off too so not restricted to cage dwellers.

Am considering a slow phasing strobe like the trains from low to high beam because you get lost in all of the car daytime running lights when filtering in traffic even with high beams on. Just something to break up the pattern.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[eldog]

How effective are they when a car pulls out of a side road when the sun is out like the OP?

This whole hi-viz/lights on thing is a crock of shit if you ask me. It gives the user a false sense of security and then suddenly hey presto they are so surprised when someone pulls out on them they have to run home and tell the world about it.

Its not the holy grail of safety measures by any means and more and more people use it, the less effective it will become.

Its just another thing riders can do that may help them, it shouldn't become compulsory, but knowing the PC brigade it most likely will....

awa355 "IMHO the most effective "See Me" protective gear are the silver reflective bands on jackets when picked up by headlights at night. These do stand out. "

If you read AWA's little note its about at night, the jacket doesn't really standout at all, as you say because there is little light. The silver parts can shine up - these are the bits which are reflective.
On one of my bikes the lights shine on me and pickup those bands.

Most often I ride with the HiVis jacket undone, it flaps about and makes it more noticeable - Motorbikes appear to be far away and almost stationary when approaching a vehicle - a done up jacket blends in as you say and isn't very effective in low light, a flapping jacket grabs people attention.

This wont help if the sun is behind you as you approach someone pulling out, the just wont see you.

As you say they are worthless in this condition, we have to ride to the conditions and EXPECT someone to pull out, even if it means breaking the law to protect ourselves - its your life to protect. Don't expect anyone else to do it.

[pritch]

Am considering a slow phasing strobe like the trains from low to high beam because you get lost in all of the car daytime running lights when filtering in traffic even with high beams on.


Not so slow perhaps, but kits are available. A previous thread hereabout, however, indicated that use of such in Godzone was illegal. Research would be required.

http://www.roadrunner.travel/2015/10/21/motomojo-safety-lighting/

[Bren]

As a forklift driver at times I have the pleasure of trying to see everything at once. I recently did a stint at a cherry packhouse....those who wore hi vis vests on the floor were more noticeable to me in my peripherial vision than those that didnt....Hi vis helps, but only if they are looking out for you.

[RDJ]

To be fair, the driver may have seen the bike and thought it had been in a crash already.

It has - a tuktuk in southern Thailand bounced off it about 10 years ago, and a reversing BMW (sedan) knocked it over in Wgtn while it was lurking quietly in a carpark (the BMW came off expensively worse). But hey, black bodywork is easy to rattle-can repair :2thumbsup

[RDJ]

Not so slow perhaps, but kits are available. A previous thread hereabout, however, indicated that use of such in Godzone was illegal. Research would be required.

http://www.roadrunner.travel/2015/10/21/motomojo-safety-lighting/

I brought a strobe headlight unit back with me from the US once upon a time (not expensive and easy plug-in to existing wiring harness) and promptly got pulled over within a fortnight as no-no not allowed to have any flashing lights up front - apparently 'they' don't like competition.

[TheDemonLord]

I commute daily - I always wear a Hi-Viz.

Does it stop people from not seeing me - No.
Does it prevent people from trying to Kill me - No.
Do I think it will be a magic Cloak protecting me from harm - No.

Do I think that for a particular scenario, for a particular driver that it will tip the odds in my favour and be the difference between life and Death? Well, I hope so.

[Bass]

This whole hi-viz/lights on thing is a crock of shit if you ask me. It gives the user a false sense of security and then suddenly hey presto they are so surprised when someone pulls out on them they have to run home and tell the world about it.

Usually agree with you but not this time.
I had read this opinion so many times that I thought I would do some personal research - so I asked everybody I knew who wore hi-viz while riding, what they thought about it.
The almost universal response was that they didn't know whether it did any good or not, but wore it on the chance that it might. No-one regarded it as some magic suit of armour or even vaguely like it.
So sorry mate but having asked the questions, I come to the conclusion that you're wrong.
Having said that, I guess I should add that those asked were almost entirely old farts like me. So I have to admit the possibility that they had enough experience to be sceptical of such things anyway.

[OddDuck]

Hi-Viz black is the only option that works.

Gay faggotry cuntflap shit like yellow/orange/pink is for spastics.

Red Ducati, mega bass exhaust, black leathers plus black helmet. I keep the headlight on, at distance on a country road it's about the only thing visible to an onlooking car about to pull out.

My position on hi-vis is that it makes the wearer look like someone honest, honorable, and law-abiding... and easy to walk all over. I'm keeping the black.

Generally it works, but it's not 100%.

[Moi]

I commute daily - I always wear a Hi-Viz.

Does it stop people from not seeing me - No.
Does it prevent people from trying to Kill me - No.
Do I think it will be a magic Cloak protecting me from harm - No.

Do I think that for a particular scenario, for a particular driver that it will tip the odds in my favour and be the difference between life and Death? Well, I hope so.

+ 1

My reasons for wearing hi-viz, it just might make a difference... meantime I treat all other road users as if they are driving by braille...

[Moi]

Usually agree with you but not this time.
I had read this opinion so many times that I thought I would do some personal research - so I asked everybody I knew who wore hi-viz while riding, what they thought about it.
The almost universal response was that they didn't know whether it did any good or not, but wore it on the chance that it might. No-one regarded it as some magic suit of armour or even vaguely like it.
So sorry mate but having asked the questions, I come to the conclusion that you're wrong.
Having said that, I guess I should add that those asked were almost entirely old farts like me. So I have to admit the possibility that they had enough experience to be sceptical of such things anyway.

What does is riding a white fully faired bike with a dark blue jacket and hi-viz vest... is he or isn't he?? Really messes with the minds of other drivers... especially if sitting on speed limit in lane 1 of motorway...

[swbarnett]

I commute daily - I always wear a Hi-Viz.

...

Do I think that for a particular scenario, for a particular driver that it will tip the odds in my favour and be the difference between life and Death? Well, I hope so.
I seriously doubt it. If they see you with the hi-viz they're more than likely to see you without it. If the problem is that people don't look, which I believe it is, then a hi-viz vest is not going to make any difference to anyone that does look.

[swbarnett]

My reasons for wearing hi-viz, it just might make a difference...
So might driving a car instead. Each to their own as to where to stop with the "safety" measures. I don't wear hi-viz and my wets are green (darkest I could get).

[Moi]

I seriously doubt it. If they see you with the hi-viz they're more than likely to see you without it. If the problem is that people don't look, which I believe it is, then a hi-viz vest is not going to make any difference to anyone that does look.

Agree... if they don't look they won't see you... even if you're a Kenworth.

However, if wearing hi-viz just makes you a bit more visible to some then it is worth it, even for those who do look and see...

[TheDemonLord]

I seriously doubt it. If they see you with the hi-viz they're more than likely to see you without it. If the problem is that people don't look, which I believe it is, then a hi-viz vest is not going to make any difference to anyone that does look.

I agree if someone doesn't look, then its of no help completely.

[Trade_nancy]

"If they don't look.." - Well I guess you may as well not have headlight(s) on either eh?
Hi-viz may make you look conformist and in some eyes dorkish..but it improves your odds...it doesn't lessen them. While I decline to wear them myself ...I accept they improve potential for safety in many applications.

[swbarnett]

if wearing hi-viz just makes you a bit more visible to some then it is worth it, even for those who do look and see...
This is really what I have issue with. If you think this and want to wear it then I have absolutely no objection (and have no right to object anyway). The trouble is that this thinking all too often leads to an erosion of personal choice through legislation. Even when the benefits are not proven.

I don't wear hi-viz for the same reason that I don't wear a back or chest protector (which I believe are proven beyond doubt to work when needed). I've chosen my own level of risk/protection and these, for me, don't fit within that. All I want to see happen is that this personal choice is maintained. If conclusive proof of the benefit of hi-vis is produced then I might reconsider, but I highly doubt it.

[Moi]

This is really what I have issue with. If you think this and want to wear it then I have absolutely no objection (and have no right to object anyway). The trouble is that this thinking all too often leads to an erosion of personal choice through legislation. Even when the benefits are not proven.

I don't wear hi-viz for the same reason that I don't wear a back or chest protector (which I believe are proven beyond doubt to work when needed). I've chosen my own level of risk/protection and these, for me, don't fit within that. All I want to see happen is that this personal choice is maintained. If conclusive proof of the benefit of hi-vis is produced then I might reconsider, but I highly doubt it.

I agree with you on the personal choice for "safety items" that have yet to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are of value. I believe hi-viz does give me an advantage when it comes to being seen however, I know that wearing appropriate gear gives me an advantage should I have the misfortune to have an off. At the same time I know that I have still to ride as if every one else on the road can't see me. So it is the difference between believing and knowing.

As for legislation eroding personal choice: if the evidence is there then I'd tend to agree with legislation, but I want to see sound evidence.

[Berries]

As for legislation eroding personal choice: if the evidence is there then I'd tend to agree with legislation, but I want to see sound evidence.
I think you will find clear evidence that if you are involved in a crash on a bike you will end up getting more severe injuries than if you were wrapped up in a steel cage. Where are you going to draw the line?

[Moi]

I think you will find clear evidence that if you are involved in a crash on a bike you will end up getting more severe injuries than if you were wrapped up in a steel cage. Where are you going to draw the line?

Very true... when are you selling your bike? Probably, like me, not in the foreseeable future...

I did say "tend to agree"... that allows for me to either support the legislation or not. Would be happy to see people given the information and the reasons for do something, eg wearing gloves at all times, and being encouraged to wear them.

However, can also see the other side of the argument, if ACC is paying for the "fixing" then they may be in a strong position to expect legislation to make wearing gloves compulsory.

[swbarnett]

if ACC is paying for the "fixing" then they may be in a strong position to expect legislation to make wearing gloves compulsory.
That old chestnut. NOONE has the right to tell any individual what level of personal risk they are allowed to engage in. No matter who picks up the pieces if they come to grief. Down that path lies the complete and utter control of all homo sapiens to an extremely narrowly defined set of activities that are deemed "safe" by an ever smaller group of zealots.

Besides, ACC is not paying for squat. We are. ACC is only the conduit for our money. At no time can they rightly claim that the money they control belongs to ACC. Ipso facto, they have no right to tell us that spending money on a given injury is a waste because it could've been prevented.

[AllanB]

Here's a thought.

Christchurch post earthquakes is Hi-viz city. Anyone and everyone who is remotely building trade, road repair, inspector of some sort wears a hi-viz jacket or vest. I shit you not there is a old bloke who walks his little dog every day around my home and they both wear hi-viz.

Problem is we are so saturated with bright orange/green/yellow that it absolutely lessens the intended impact of it - blurs in with all the other hi-viz.

The risk for motorcycledom is it is made compulsory and hi-viz becomes the new black and we get lost to the rest of the road users again.

[TheDemonLord]

This is really what I have issue with. If you think this and want to wear it then I have absolutely no objection (and have no right to object anyway). The trouble is that this thinking all too often leads to an erosion of personal choice through legislation. Even when the benefits are not proven.

I 100% agree - if ever the law makers were to try and mandate Hi-Viz Wearing, I would be up in arms against it, not only for the personal freedom part, but also because IF I were to forgo the personal freedom part in favour of the greater good, there are other things to be made mandatory first (like Gloves) and perhaps most importantly - can you imagine where a Motorist hits a Motorcyclist (because the Motorist didn't look) - it would only be a matter of time before a Lawyer made the argument that his client couldn't see the Motorcyclist because they weren't wearing a Hi-Viz....

Legal Murder for want of a Hi-Viz.

[RDJ]

I 100% agree - if ever the law makers were to try and mandate Hi-Viz Wearing, I would be up in arms against it, not only for the personal freedom part, but also because IF I were to forgo the personal freedom part in favour of the greater good, there are other things to be made mandatory first (like Gloves) and perhaps most importantly - can you imagine where a Motorist hits a Motorcyclist (because the Motorist didn't look) - it would only be a matter of time before a Lawyer made the argument that his client couldn't see the Motorcyclist because they weren't wearing a Hi-Viz....

Legal Murder for want of a Hi-Viz.

This is already taking place in other jurisdictions.

And not entirely related to high viz, but definitely related to safety; in Arizona where helmets are not compulsory, a little-publicized piece of judicial activism has resulted in riders who when hit by a motorist, even when the car driver is at fault, losing 80 or 90% of their payout because they were not wearing a helmet... even though it is not legally required. The judicial argument is that "their injuries should have been less". go down that route, metaphorically speaking, and next thing you lose the right to ride. And I think the same thing will happen with high viz wear if it is compulsory. Interestingly, read a study which purports to show that the single most visible item on the motorcyclist is a 'bright' helmet... and yet, the same study could not find any difference between SMIDSY collisions for daytime riders wearing black versus daytime riders wearing hi-vis.

[SuperMac]

+ 1

My reasons for wearing hi-viz, it just might make a difference...

And what if the difference is a reduction in your conspicuity (since, partly, it relies on contrast against the background - which you can't control situation by situation)?

[Ocean1]

And what if the difference is a reduction in your conspicuity (since, partly, it relies on contrast against the background - which you can't control situation by situation)?

Weave. I'd heard of he practice of weaving when approaching an intersection containing potential smidsy culprits, but never actively employed the technique. Until someone did it to me. Initially I thought "Racerboi warming up his tyres :rolleyes:". But it then occurred to me that I hadn't, in fact seen him until he did it. So I'm a convert, just for those intersections that have that "feel bad" thing going on up ahead, there.

Oh, and fuck hi-vis, probably the least useful safety measure ever foisted on us by an ill qualified and over indulged safety industry.

[george formby]

Weave. I'd heard of he practice of weaving when approaching an intersection containing potential smidsy culprits, but never actively employed the technique. Until someone did it to me. Initially I thought "Racerboi warming up his tyres :rolleyes:". But it then occurred to me that I hadn't, in fact seen him until he did it. So I'm a convert, just for those intersections that have that "feel bad" thing going on up ahead, there.

Oh, and fuck hi-vis, probably the least useful safety measure ever foisted on us by an ill qualified and over indulged safety industry.

Yeah. I move within my lane. Not an exaggerated weave but enough to catch someones eye. Certainly seems to get attention and causes truckies to wave.

[swbarnett]

Interestingly, read a study which purports to show that the single most visible item on the motorcyclist is a 'bright' helmet... and yet, the same study could not find any difference between SMIDSY collisions for daytime riders wearing black versus daytime riders wearing hi-vis.
Do you have a link?

[RDJ]

Apparently the most recent burglary tactic from criminal ferals (but I repeat myself) is to burgle houses in broad daylight with Hi-Viz vest and construction helmet and walkie talkie. Neighbors never call cops, because Hi-Viz apparently signals legitimacy.

(And yep I'm looking for the link for that study...)

[Moi]

Do you have a link?

This is from research undertaken in NZ some years ago: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387473/

and another which points to further research: http://smarter-usa.org/all-gear/high-viz/index.html

and this one: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr/hurt.html

[Moi]

I would not support the mandating of hi-vis as I don't believe there is sound evidence for it, there is certainly anecdotal evidence to support hi-vis but no sound evidence that I have seen yet - if there is some, would like to see it.

Making it mandatory to wear gloves, as an example, would have my support as I believe there is sound evidence that appropriate gloves reduce the incidence of damage to hands - http://www.georgeinstitute.org/sites/default/files/documents/motorcycle-protective-clothing-protection-from-injury-or-just-the-weather-the-gear-study.pdf

As for blending in when wearing hi-vis, can see the issues with the amount of hi-vis being worn in Christchurch and around road construction sites - the north-western motorway in Auckland is one such site - however, in other areas if you are wearing hi-vis you may well be the only person doing so. The "weaving about" that has already been mentioned is a method to counter the possibility that you have become "camouflaged" against the background - there are a number of videos on youtube about it.

[eldog]

Apparently the most recent burglary tactic from criminal ferals (but I repeat myself) is to burgle houses in broad daylight with Hi-Viz vest and construction helmet and walkie talkie. Neighbors never call cops, because Hi-Viz apparently signals legitimacy.

(And yep I'm looking for the link for that study...)

3 strikes and your dead

[swbarnett]

Making it mandatory to wear gloves, as an example, would have my support as I believe there is sound evidence that appropriate gloves reduce the incidence of damage to hands
There is also sound evidence that crashing a car is less injurious to your health then crashing a motorcycle. I know you have said that your support for mandated "safety" is not absolute. The problem is with people who support ANY safety device being mandated to the point that they would mandate car use over motorcycles.

While I firmly support the assertion that gloves save your hands*, I still think it is morally wrong to legislate their use. In the same way that I believe mandatory helmet use is amoral. Simply put, my body, my risk.


*My wife had a truck run over her hand last year. Not one area of normal skin was visible (all scrapes and bruises). Within a week it was almost entirely back to normal. I shudder to think what would've happened had she not been wearing gloves.

[RDJ]

This is from research undertaken in NZ some years ago: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC387473/

and another which points to further research: http://smarter-usa.org/all-gear/high-viz/index.html

and this one: http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr/hurt.html

Thank you for those links. Unfortunately, and absolutely no disrespect intended to the author, the Hurt report is now 34 years old (not hat there is anything wrong with that, I'm heading close to being double its age) but having ridden bikes on the road since I was 15, I really don't think we can keep assuming it applies without more recent research to validate it. In particular, when I started riding in New Zealand, far more car drivers had ridden motorbikes in their past because of lack of overseas funds to purchase cars until they got a lot older, so there was a lot more awareness of the vulnerability of motorcyclists and a lot more fellow feeling amongst road users.

The study I wanted to link to is one cited relatively recently on Visordown the UK forum.

If I was able to design and fund an updated study, I'd want to do the type of one most commonly associated with lack of evidential bias... i.e. a study where you recruit riders with similar demographics, age, machinery and safety records, on a similar commute or route on a regular basis, assign one group to wear high viz, one group to wear all black, but the same level of protection being offered by either set of gear; wire in a recorder which updates a central server with their riding pattern, and follow them up directly if the trip recorder senses an impact (either single or multiple vehicle) for objective result analysis; and interview them say once a quarter to see what their subjective impression is of how surrounding traffic behaves. Even then it would be flawed...

Pity we can't get the manufacturers of Hi-Viz DayGlo and Harley Black respectively to fund it an up-to-date useful study here in New Zealand. (Bearing in mind that ACC funding just means our registration levy is going to fund it, ACC has no money that it doesn't expropriate).

As a purely anecdotal comment, I have a black Sportster and a black Dyna with close to the same front profile and exactly the same front lighting, with the exception that the Dyna has a shark mouth and eyes on the fairing (and, yeah, screen decals :-) ). Riding them - wearing the same gear - around the city, it's my individual impression that people in cars see the Dyna in their general background easier and sooner than the Sporty.

[Moi]

There is also sound evidence that crashing a car is less injurious to your health then crashing a motorcycle. I know you have said that your support for mandated "safety" is not absolute. The problem is with people who support ANY safety device being mandated to the point that they would mandate car use over motorcycles.

While I firmly support the assertion that gloves save your hands*, I still think it is morally wrong to legislate their use. In the same way that I believe mandatory helmet use is amoral. Simply put, my body, my risk.


*My wife had a truck run over her hand last year. Not one area of normal skin was visible (all scrapes and bruises). Within a week it was almost entirely back to normal. I shudder to think what would've happened had she not been wearing gloves.

This whole issue of "mandated safety" is not black and white but a continuum and there are 'zealots' at both ends of that continuum - those who would ban all motorbikes to those who say my choice what and how and when I ride. I stand somewhere in the middle of that continuum - I suspect that you stand almost at one end of it - which is why I expect to see sound evidence to be presented in support of any legislation, but would rather see education than legislation.

[Moi]

Thank you for those links...

Agree, Hurt's research is old, probably some of the seminal research undertaken and agree that those who have ridden - here I'd include those who rode push bikes as well as motor bikes - tend to be more aware of two-wheel riders on the road.

Have looked for that report you read, but no luck. However, did find this one: http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago033316.pdf

[AllanB]

Be interested to see how the police react to 'weaving' .... I comment as some years back I was doing the bored wiggle behind a long row of cars and got the razz lights and pull over. Comment was passed along the lines of 'loss of vehicle control bla bla' I did point pout that any instance of loss of vehicle control on a motorcycle generally results in the motorcycle lying on it's side......

Left with a 'warning'.

On a counter note I was pulled over last weekend (speed only) and told to slow down and get home safely, given the speed he indicated he had buzzed me at I should have been walking. Nice chap. He liked my bike too. :2thumbsup


Back to safety.


You have been able to purchase a rear brake modulator in the USA for years - basically the longer you are braking the faster the rear brake light flashes. Designed to grab the immediate attention of knobs following you who are not paying attention. A bloody good idea too as current motorcycle fashion is minimalism of brake lights sizing (piddly one on my Ducati but bright as LED).

I was going to order one some years back and checked first with the LT crowd who told me any flashing light other than turn signals would be illegal, fail a WOF and be open for a fine.

Same with those flashy LED plug leads that were fashionable on HD's in the USA customs scene.

Another though pops to my mind - way back in the 80's my brother had a cool wee Z200 Kawasaki and he had set up a small white driving light at the front of the lower engine pointing to the ground. It lit up the road below the bike at night and he was very visible.

[eldog]

Be interested to see how the police react to 'weaving' .... I comment as some years back I was doing the bored wiggle behind a long row of cars and got the razz lights and pull over. Comment was passed along the lines of 'loss of vehicle control bla bla' I did point pout that any instance of loss of vehicle control on a motorcycle generally results in the motorcycle lying on it's side......

You have been able to purchase a rear brake modulator in the USA for years - basically the longer you are braking the faster the rear brake light flashes.

Another though pops to my mind - way back in the 80's my brother had a cool wee Z200 Kawasaki and he had set up a small white driving light at the front of the lower engine pointing to the ground. It lit up the road below the bike at night and he was very visible.

I do a lot of weaving on the road, first - when I am starting off on my ride to warm up the tyres, when I feel bored - I use it to increase concentration, when I feel that after too many straights the tyres are cooling down on the sides, when some one may cross in front of me I use it to make myself more visible.
I did the Bronze ACC course, they suggested that we weave when we are coming upto an intersection to make our selves more visible.
Not talking massive weaves just 1/4-1/2 of the lane - easy long weave.
Weaving has 'saved me' a few times - sudden driver realisation of my presence.

I have fitted a brake light modulator on a bike www.bikevis.com (http://www.bikevis.com) they really make a difference.
they flash when you put the brakes on and become solid after a second or 2. If you repeatedly put the brake on in a short time, (like at a stop) they don't flash they just act as a brake light.

I also fitted positioning lights (bullets) that had a modulator it never went to off just slowly when from 70% to full -from memory, but they need to be positioned away from the main headlight, I found a triangle pattern best.

I have also seen some of those coloured LED strips on bikes at night they really make a difference.

I don't have a problem with adding stuff that some people might deem illegal, as long as it doesn't affect other road users. It's my life I am playing with.

[haydes55]

Hi vis is like religion. People believe it helps without evidence that it's true. Yet millions swear by it.

The only defense of religion is you can't prove it isn't true. Well, we can't prove hi vis doesn't work either.

Funily enough, I don't think is there any proof that speed limits save lives or reduce crashes at all. But that's another shit storm entirely.

[Tazz]

Be interested to see how the police react to 'weaving' .... I comment as some years back I was doing the bored wiggle behind a long row of cars and got the razz lights and pull over. Comment was passed along the lines of 'loss of vehicle control bla bla' I did point pout that any instance of loss of vehicle control on a motorcycle generally results in the motorcycle lying on it's side......

Left with a 'warning'.

On a counter note I was pulled over last weekend (speed only) and told to slow down and get home safely, given the speed he indicated he had buzzed me at I should have been walking. Nice chap. He liked my bike too. :2thumbsup


Back to safety.


You have been able to purchase a rear brake modulator in the USA for years - basically the longer you are braking the faster the rear brake light flashes. Designed to grab the immediate attention of knobs following you who are not paying attention. A bloody good idea too as current motorcycle fashion is minimalism of brake lights sizing (piddly one on my Ducati but bright as LED).

I was going to order one some years back and checked first with the LT crowd who told me any flashing light other than turn signals would be illegal, fail a WOF and be open for a fine.

Same with those flashy LED plug leads that were fashionable on HD's in the USA customs scene.

Another though pops to my mind - way back in the 80's my brother had a cool wee Z200 Kawasaki and he had set up a small white driving light at the front of the lower engine pointing to the ground. It lit up the road below the bike at night and he was very visible.

Pulsing settings on LED driving lights are getting more popular too. Very noticeable even during the day, but alas, also illegal.

[TheDemonLord]

There is also sound evidence that crashing a car is less injurious to your health then crashing a motorcycle. I know you have said that your support for mandated "safety" is not absolute. The problem is with people who support ANY safety device being mandated to the point that they would mandate car use over motorcycles.

While I firmly support the assertion that gloves save your hands*, I still think it is morally wrong to legislate their use. In the same way that I believe mandatory helmet use is amoral. Simply put, my body, my risk.


*My wife had a truck run over her hand last year. Not one area of normal skin was visible (all scrapes and bruises). Within a week it was almost entirely back to normal. I shudder to think what would've happened had she not been wearing gloves.

Out of Curiosity - what is your position on the argument that mandatory helmet use dissuades those either too thick to understand the benefits of helmet use or the blase attitude 'Oh, I'm just popping it for a minute'

I agree on your principle - but interested to hear your thoughts on the counter argument

[eldog]

Hi vis is like religion. People believe it helps without evidence that it's true. Yet millions swear by it.

The only defense of religion is you can't prove it isn't true. Well, we can't prove hi vis doesn't work either.

Funily enough, I don't think is there any proof that speed limits save lives or reduce crashes at all. But that's another shit storm entirely.

Religion makes people feel good, they have a purpose, it can also relieve their conscience when they do something good or bad.

Speed limits are indicators to help most people.
I would be interested if we changed the open road speed limit to any speed and what would happen.

I would expect the number of bad crashes to increase then decrease to more or less what we have now. Just the outcomes would be more dramatic. (Crashes/accidents/deaths)
Not all crashes/accidents and deaths are caused by road conditions or others on the road.

[swbarnett]

This whole issue of "mandated safety" is not black and white but a continuum and there are 'zealots' at both ends of that continuum - those who would ban all motorbikes to those who say my choice what and how and when I ride. I stand somewhere in the middle of that continuum - I suspect that you stand almost at one end of it - which is why I expect to see sound evidence to be presented in support of any legislation, but would rather see education than legislation.
Sorry, but there's no grey area in this*. It's about the sanctity of one's own body and mind. NO-ONE has any right whatsoever to try and save me from myself. The law prohibiting suicide is a perfect example. If I want to put a bullet through my head no government has the right to say I may not. My body and mind belong to ME and no-one else. Even my wife doesn't have the right to tell me that anything I do is too risky and expect me to desist (she respects that and gets the same from me).

On the flip side I'm all for education leading to informed choice. As long as it's still a choice.



*In practical terms I agree that there is when it comes to legislation.

[swbarnett]

Out of Curiosity - what is your position on the argument that mandatory helmet use dissuades those either too thick to understand the benefits of helmet use or the blase attitude 'Oh, I'm just popping it for a minute'

I agree on your principle - but interested to hear your thoughts on the counter argument
Not sure I understand the question.

Mandatory helmet use has probably saved a life or two. As far as I'm concerned that is insufficient justification to make the law a moral thing to do. We've probably all done things out of ignorance that could've been fatal and probably have been for some. That doesn't mean they should be outlawed.

[rastuscat]

I've not read the whole lot of this thread but I have some thoughts on the OP.

I started looking into this when I wore the blue suit. Spent ages making submissions on DRLs for bikes, considering all sides of the argument.

Some observations. More people pulled out in front of me when I was on the work bike than when I was on my own bike. Same model, different colours. I have fitted auxiliary fog lights to my own one, and I forget to turn them off. Yup, people pull out in front of troll bikes.

WTF I thought. Until I read about looming, motion camouflage, saccading etc.

Humans are simply programmed in a way which means you won't be seen all the time, by everyone.

The biggest part of the equation was addressed by Prof Charlie Lamb in his piece on Conspicuity. It's not the colour itself that matters, but the contrast.

For me, even the contrast is only a small part. Positioning is the key. Not putting yourself in a position where's it's hard to be seen. And moving across both axis of someone's vision, where possible.

I'd love to sit and discuss this over a beer with anyone. Nothing would change, but at least we would have had a beer.

I don't always wear hi viz, I'd hate to see it legislated. Totally against compulsory cycle helmets too actually.

[Ocean1]

Agree, Hurt's research is old, probably some of the seminal research undertaken and agree that those who have ridden - here I'd include those who rode push bikes as well as motor bikes - tend to be more aware of two-wheel riders on the road.

Have looked for that report you read, but no luck. However, did find this one: http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago033316.pdf

"A study performed in Israel indicated that
rather than just wearing bright colours and high visibility gear it was more important to
wear something that provided contrast with the background in order to maximise
chances of being seen (13). It was found that reflective and white outfits increased
visibility in urban areas where the background was more complex and multi-coloured.
However, black clothing had an advantage on inter-urban roads where the background
was solely bright sky. This suggests that conspicuity can be improved by wearing
appropriate clothes that will distinguish the rider from the background environment".

So, the current high-vis white helmet and high-vis black jacket are looking pretty much like what common sense might suggest is good idea.

Excellent, can we now get back to blaming the fuckwits that fail to see shit that's perfectly bloody obvious? :D

[Ocean1]

Be interested to see how the police react to 'weaving' .... I comment as some years back I was doing the bored wiggle behind a long row of cars and got the razz lights and pull over. Comment was passed along the lines of 'loss of vehicle control bla bla' I did point pout that any instance of loss of vehicle control on a motorcycle generally results in the motorcycle lying on it's side......

Left with a 'warning'.

Safe to say it was a 4 wheeled policeman?

In which case I'd be questioning his qualification to comment.


You have been able to purchase a rear brake modulator in the USA for years - basically the longer you are braking the faster the rear brake light flashes. Designed to grab the immediate attention of knobs following you who are not paying attention. A bloody good idea too as current motorcycle fashion is minimalism of brake lights sizing (piddly one on my Ducati but bright as LED).

I was going to order one some years back and checked first with the LT crowd who told me any flashing light other than turn signals would be illegal, fail a WOF and be open for a fine.


I bought one ex US and fitted it to one of my Buells. The difference in behaviour of those following even fairly conservatively was dramatic, you'd pull up at lights checking in your mirrors to see the nearest car waaaayyy back.

[Moi]

Be interested to see how the police react to 'weaving' .... I comment as some years back I was doing the bored wiggle behind a long row of cars and got the razz lights and pull over. Comment was passed along the lines of 'loss of vehicle control bla bla' I did point out that any instance of loss of vehicle control on a motorcycle generally results in the motorcycle lying on it's side...

I move about in my lane when in traffic - you could say I'm weaving from left side of left wheel track to right side of right wheel track - in order to see what is happening up ahead... especially important when following anything, other than a sedan - can see over them, that has tinted windows.

[Stevee2]

This thread reminded me of this article which I found quite disturbing:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/75224886/hamilton-crash-leaves-motorcyclist-with-lifechanging-injuries



Police suggest high-visibility clothing could have prevented the crash

It scares me that when someone pulls out in the path of a bike the police blame the biker for not wearing high-vis (victim blaming?).

[rastuscat]

Further re positioning, I've found that life is better with my wife when we try different positions.

[eldog]

Further re positioning, I've found that life is better with my wife when we try different positions.

like when she wears the blue suit and your doing the housework :innocent:

must be the beer?

[TheDemonLord]

Not sure I understand the question.

Mandatory helmet use has probably saved a life or two. As far as I'm concerned that is insufficient justification to make the law a moral thing to do. We've probably all done things out of ignorance that could've been fatal and probably have been for some. That doesn't mean they should be outlawed.

I'd say you've answered the question. Although I'm not a fan of the legislation, I always have a mental debate about the benefits of legislating for the lowest common denominator, especially when there is little negative impact.

Oh and Ras:


I'd love to sit and discuss this over a beer with anyone. Nothing would change, but at least we would have had a beer.

So long as you are buying :msn-wink:

[swbarnett]

I'd say you've answered the question. Although I'm not a fan of the legislation, I always have a mental debate about the benefits of legislating for the lowest common denominator, especially when there is little negative impact.
In my mind there is no debate. The "lowest common denominator" has as much right to make their own decisions about their body and mind as you or I. It's not our place to decide for someone else how much negative impact there is.

Efforts to make that an informed decision are another matter entirely.

[haydes55]

Can we please let stupid people collect their Darwin awards before they breed more stupid people. The best long term health and safety strategy would be to less legislation.

[nzspokes]

Riding in pink Hiz viz with a flashing light on your head will make fuck all difference when the driver is updating FB on the phone while driving.

As we dont have an effective traffic policing system the only thing we can do is look out for the stupid drivers, which is most of them.

[AllanB]

Most are not stupid. Just making poor choices.

Back when I was 15 and started driving they used to add window banners to cars in car yards stating things like '5 speed' or 'heater' on the used cars. Hi-tech was a decent FM radio with a cassette slot (ask Dad if you don't know what that is).

Now days they advertise new cars on TV as 'bluetooth' 'satnav' 'rear passenger DVD players' and shit like that. We are so electroniced to fuck every day that being told not to use such devices in the car feels just wrong. Good luck telling the current generation they cannot.

Surely each vehicle could be fitted with a proximity jamming device for your phone. But it would probably stuff up your sat-nav too. Make them band specific?

Riding through town yesterday on my way to see the folks the 20 year olds in the car in front of me were emptying the fast-food bags and wrappers out their windows while sitting at the traffic lights. Bloody inner city is broken enough without the public littering. So with people having the mentality of that action they are not giving a shit morally about the rest of us and a hi-viz jacket will only give them something to aim at when hurling the next lot of rubbish.

[Old Steve]

I'd like to introduce something from the world of vehicle mechanics. An engine operates on oil flow, not oil pressure (earings and sliding components operate under a wedge of oil, google hydrodynamic lubrication). To prove this, imagine an oil system with a valve fitted just after the oil pressure gauge. Close the valve, oil flow becomes zero, oil pressure reads the maximum, engine quickly stops. So why are vehicles fitted with oil pressure gauges? Because of the cost of an oil flow meter - an oil gauge is the cheaper option.

Same with policing speed. It's not speed that's the problem, it's dangerous driving. OK, some dangerous driving involves excess speed. But it's easier to measure speed and say, "You were travelling at 120 km/hr" than to make a case for dangerous driving. Dangerous driving is a qualitative measure, how dangerous, what is the skill level of the driver, and who's opinion defines it as dangerous. Speed is a quantitative measurement, this approved speed gun measured your vehicle travelling at 120 km/hr.

So measuring speed is an easier option, and the police have perhaps come to focus on speed as the be all and end all of road safety. Do they in fact look for dangerous driving? A car being driven dangerously (and SMIDSY is an absolute admission of dangerous driving, it means they weren't looking for other road users). Maybe not dangerous driving per se, careless driving that is dangerous, driving without due care and attention. But still potentially lethal below most posted speeds.

But it's easier to measure speed than to verify dangerous driving, so that is (and will continue to be) what the police focus on.

On the matter of Hi-viz, I don't know if it makes a difference or not. I've seen cars pull out despite my best efforts of doing the happy biker weave before a potential SMIDSY intersection and wearing hi-vis and a white helmet. But it just might, so I'll continue to wear hi-vis. And continue to watch other road users, watch hands on steering wheels and the movement of front wheels, check if parked cars have a driver in them, have a "what if" plan at all times and all the other personal awareness tricks. Hi-viz might not make a difference but I'll wear it just in case it does that one time that it matters.

[TheDemonLord]

I'd like to introduce something from the world of vehicle mechanics. An engine operates on oil flow, not oil pressure (earings and sliding components operate under a wedge of oil, google hydrodynamic lubrication). To prove this, imagine an oil system with a valve fitted just after the oil pressure gauge. Close the valve, oil flow becomes zero, oil pressure reads the maximum, engine quickly stops. So why are vehicles fitted with oil pressure gauges? Because of the cost of an oil flow meter - an oil gauge is the cheaper option.

Same with policing speed. It's not speed that's the problem, it's dangerous driving. OK, some dangerous driving involves excess speed. But it's easier to measure speed and say, "You were travelling at 120 km/hr" than to make a case for dangerous driving. Dangerous driving is a qualitative measure, how dangerous, what is the skill level of the driver, and who's opinion defines it as dangerous. Speed is a quantitative measurement, this approved speed gun measured your vehicle travelling at 120 km/hr.

So measuring speed is an easier option, and the police have perhaps come to focus on speed as the be all and end all of road safety. Do they in fact look for dangerous driving? A car being driven dangerously (and SMIDSY is an absolute admission of dangerous driving, it means they weren't looking for other road users). Maybe not dangerous driving per se, careless driving that is dangerous, driving without due care and attention. But still potentially lethal below most posted speeds.

But it's easier to measure speed than to verify dangerous driving, so that is (and will continue to be) what the police focus on.

On the matter of Hi-viz, I don't know if it makes a difference or not. I've seen cars pull out despite my best efforts of doing the happy biker weave before a potential SMIDSY intersection and wearing hi-vis and a white helmet. But it just might, so I'll continue to wear hi-vis. And continue to watch other road users, watch hands on steering wheels and the movement of front wheels, check if parked cars have a driver in them, have a "what if" plan at all times and all the other personal awareness tricks. Hi-viz might not make a difference but I'll wear it just in case it does that one time that it matters.

This.

X1,000,000,000,000,000,000

[rambaldi]

Pulsing settings on LED driving lights are getting more popular too. Very noticeable even during the day, but alas, also illegal.

Wish that enforcement would spread to the lycra brigade. I don't need a seizure to go with my blindness thank you very much.

[Swoop]

Hi-tech was a decent FM radio with a cassette slot (ask Dad if you don't know what that is).

Funnily enough...

I have been driving a car recently, which not only HAS a cassette deck AND FM stereo... it also has a selection of tapes. Billy T's greatest hits and other goodies!
Luckily, it is also equipped with a 5-speed manual transmission.



I have come to the conclusion that automatic transmission cars need to be banned. Immediately.
Playing (who said raping?) around with a gearshift keeps the hands OFF of the cellphone.
"Yoof" might learn a thing or two about "driving" a car.





(I'm still sorely tempted to biff the tape reel out of the window, just for old time's sakes!)

[RDJ]

Funnily enough...

I have been driving a car recently, which not only HAS a cassette deck AND FM stereo... it also has a selection of tapes. Billy T's greatest hits and other goodies!
Luckily, it is also equipped with a 5-speed manual transmission.



I have come to the conclusion that automatic transmission cars need to be banned. Immediately.
Playing (who said raping?) around with a gearshift keeps the hands OFF of the cellphone.
"Yoof" might learn a thing or two about "driving" a car.





(I'm still sorely tempted to biff the tape reel out of the window, just for old time's sakes!)

Many people do not know how to drive any more, they just inhabit the mobile platform. Especially, Glendowie and Thornton. But do add your own.

[James Deuce]

Oh, and fuck hi-vis, probably the least useful safety measure ever foisted on us by an ill qualified and over indulged safety industry.
Who didn't do any research to even vaguely try to understand the visual cortex and how it functions. Humans can't see for shit quite frankly. We have a standard model of visual perception that we hold in our brain, made up from experience. We modify that model to suit changing circumstance. Our eyes see smoothly by turning off when we move our head. Think about that for a second. Our eyes turn off many times a second so we experience a smoothly panning modification to our standard model.

Fighter Pilots and special forces people are trained to really look, to observe and modify their standard model via visual input by really studying their environment and perceiving the changes rather than the standard model. This can only be learned via training and is the first thing that needs to smashed into any road user's brain. Won't matter soon, because personally-piloted transport will be banned and the car you own will drive itself. There is simply no point to a motorcycle-like form of transport in that world.

Enjoy it while you still have it.

[nzspokes]

Funnily enough...

I have been driving a car recently, which not only HAS a cassette deck AND FM stereo... it also has a selection of tapes. Billy T's greatest hits and other goodies!
Luckily, it is also equipped with a 5-speed manual transmission.



I have come to the conclusion that automatic transmission cars need to be banned. Immediately.
Playing (who said raping?) around with a gearshift keeps the hands OFF of the cellphone.
"Yoof" might learn a thing or two about "driving" a car.





(I'm still sorely tempted to biff the tape reel out of the window, just for old time's sakes!)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I started driving in a Series 1 landrover in a field. After learning that I can drive pretty much anything with gears. None of my staff can drive a manual.

[AllanB]

Call post above re speed. Ironically this long wekend I have on two occasions come across very dangerous driving that involved to slow a speed for the open road ....... you know the arses - doing 70 max in a 100 zone - twenty irritated vehicles behind them.........

[Ocean1]

Won't matter soon, because personally-piloted transport will be banned and the car you own will drive itself. There is simply no point to a motorcycle-like form of transport in that world.

Enjoy it while you still have it.

I am. :banana:

And while it's a bit of a race as to whether advancing personal infirmity or advancing political infirmity deprives me of my motorbike I'm preparing for the occasion by collecting the necessary components for mobility scooter.

This caught my eye last week: http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-1024878987.htm but I'm not sure if I can integrate the ABS etc...

[Bass]

I am. :banana:

And while it's a bit of a race as to whether advancing personal infirmity or advancing political infirmity deprives me of my motorbike I'm preparing for the occasion by collecting the necessary components for mobility scooter.

This caught my eye last week: http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/motorbikes/motorbikes/sports/auction-1024878987.htm but I'm not sure if I can integrate the ABS etc...

Neighbour's oldest lad dropped a Honda 250 donk into a 3 wheel mobility scooter. It is a truly evil machine. Keeping the front wheel on the ground is the biggest problem - short wheelbase and high C of G.
Fastest anyone has been game to ride it (one piece leathers and all the other safety gear) is 99 kph.

[Berries]

Further re positioning, I've found that life is better with my wife when we try different positions.
Her favourite is when you are in Wellington.

[Ocean1]

Neighbour's oldest lad dropped a Honda 250 donk into a 3 wheel mobility scooter. It is a truly evil machine. Keeping the front wheel on the ground is the biggest problem - short wheelbase and high C of G.
Fastest anyone has been game to ride it (one piece leathers and all the other safety gear) is 99 kph.

I must admit that while I had ambitions along those lines I've since gained some inspiration from these:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7KdGLMzrc2Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1z43muPetNc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Needs to be a sleeper, though, for, um, reasons.

[caspernz]

Call post above re speed. Ironically this long wekend I have on two occasions come across very dangerous driving that involved to slow a speed for the open road ....... you know the arses - doing 70 max in a 100 zone - twenty irritated vehicles behind them.........

Yup, we were behind one of these DWA pilots, included them slowing to maybe 45-50 on gentle 85 corners....:facepalm::shutup::innocent:

[swbarnett]

There is simply no point to a motorcycle-like form of transport in that world.
There will always be a point as long as there are people alive that understand them.

[Daffyd]

Okay, we know it's illegal to have flashing lights, (other than direction indicators), on our bikes, but can they prosecute for having flashing lights on your jacket, crash helmet, etc? I've seen jackets here with LED strips on both sleeves, seem to work quite well.

[Jin]

disco dan would approve

[pritch]

Perhaps headlight modulators could be brought to the attention of the committee that sits in Wellington at our expense, as something they could investigate to the benefit of motorcyclists. The law enforcement types tend to be not much interested in our welfare though. When ABS first appeared their only concern was that there would be no skid marks to measure. Never mind that the technology might actually prevent accidents happening.

[Moi]

Funnily enough... I have come to the conclusion that automatic transmission cars need to be banned. Immediately.

NO! I like my slush box toymotor... But, if we have to have a manual, can it be 4-speed on the column? :2thumbsup


Many people do not know how to drive any more, they just inhabit the mobile platform. Especially, Glendowie and Thornton. But do add your own.

They know how to start the thing, to steer [vaguely] and to stop [I hope]... :eek5:


Perhaps headlight modulators could be brought to the attention of the committee that sits in Wellington at our expense, as something they could investigate to the benefit of motorcyclists...

Said it before... if those people, like NZTA and ACC, don't actually have a look here and think about what is being said by people on here...

[rastuscat]

The law enforcement types tend to be not much interested in our welfare though. When ABS first appeared their only concern was that there would be no skid marks to measure. Never mind that the technology might actually prevent accidents happening.

Bollocks. I was one of them law enforcement types, and no such point of view was ever expressed.

Still, this is KB, making shit up it pretty much okay.

[pritch]

Bollocks. I was one of them law enforcement types, and no such point of view was ever expressed.

Still, this is KB, making shit up it pretty much okay.

Not bollocks at all. That's exactly what happened here. The Transport Dept and staff from the then local BMW dealer had a get together at the port (private road?) for demonstration purposes. The cops were impressed by the riding skills demonstrated, and said so. As already mentioned though, the primary topic was concern at the lack of skidmarks as evidence.

I'm assuming it was the Transport Dept as it was probably long enough ago to be pre the Banks/Storey merger.

[rastuscat]

Not bollocks at all. That's exactly what happened here. The Transport Dept and staff from the then local BMW dealer had a get together at the port (private road?) for demonstration purposes. The cops were impressed by the riding skills demonstrated, and said so. As already mentioned though, the primary topic was concern at the lack of skidmarks as evidence.

I'm assuming it was the Transport Dept as it was probably long enough ago to be pre the Banks/Storey merger.

Ah yes, pre 1992. Of course, that still applies today.

And those individuals opinions are those of all the enforcement officers you mention.

Good work, keeping KB alive.

[AllanB]

To be fair in the incidents when I have been in motorcycle panic mode the skid-marks have been in my undies.

The police are very welcome to measure them, but they also need to take into account factors such as the food I have eaten, hemorrhoids and age.....

[rastuscat]

To be fair in the incidents when I have been in motorcycle panic mode the skid-marks have been in my undies.

The police are very welcome to measure them, but they also need to take into account factors such as the food I have eaten, hemorrhoids and age.....

Their fingerprint team might find a reason for an internal exam.....

[RGVforme]

Her favourite is when you are in Wellington.

:killingme :clap:

[Old Steve]

Their fingerprint team might find a reason for an internal exam.....

Get the Aussie cricketer, Usman Khawaja, to do the job!