Culture of Protest

[James Deuce]

I just read Boris Mihailovic's column in AMCN Vol 55 No. 21.

Crikey.

Encapsulates the message a few people have been trying to communicate about professional lobbying in regard to motorcycling, and actually taking a stand, and saying, "Oi, Government, No!"

I joined in the Anti-Apartheid protests at 15 and it cost me an AFS scholarship to Sth Africa at 16 - photographic evidence you see, but I wouldn't change a thing. I've kind of lost the ability in subsequent years to give much of a shit about anything except the problems two inches from my nose, plus when I do get passionate about something adrenalin makes me look like a bulging-eyed, spittle spraying, fringe looney.

I'm not sure that a protest movement is what's needed. Times have changed and a corporatised government requires a different approach.

We really do need to do something to preserve a culture of freedom in "western" democracy. We've surrendered a truckload of "rights", privileges, and iconic behaviours to peculiar to New Zealand and Australia to forces that, at best, can be described as making Joe Averge average. Janet too.

Motorcycling fell from favour as transport when cars became cheaper, and the current increase in motorcycles on the road can traced to a trend in over 40-somethings getting back into something they gave up to have kids and develop careers. No disrespect intended, but that has cemented the ideal of the motorcycle as a leisure toy. The manufacturers and local motorcycle dealerships are more than happy to cater to this because it means sales, but the segmented nature of the types of motorcycles being sold means that both the seller and the buyer are concentrating on their own immediate satisfaction.

Thanks to cheap fuel and cheap 2nd hand import cars, and the leisure status of motorcycles, traffic congestion on has visited itself on NZ at levels that are only normally seen in "Mega-Cities", like London, Los Angeles, and Mexico City. Auckland in particular is buried under a needless weight of 4 wheeled, single occupant cars - and it's not that densely populated. Don't believe me? Hampshire in the UK has a population of 1,240,800 (2001 figures), is about the size of the Wairarapa, and yet in a year of living there, I never ever saw the M3 stop dead, except for the junction that fed Winchester and Eastleigh, and even then it only lasted for 30 minutes, morning and evening. Take Southampton; 221,000 people live in an area about the size of Devonport, Takapuna, Northcote, and Birkenhead, and yet I could drive through it at peak travelling times between 7am and 9am in about 30 minutes.

London is a bitch in peak our, but I could still do the North Circular in under 2 hours in 1998, between 7:30am and 9:00am. There's a variety of reasons, mostly to do with effective public transport. We don't have public transport in NZ, AND WE NEVER WILL. There are simply not enough people to make the investment required in rail, subway, light rail, and buses cost-effective in a lightly populated sprawl like Auckland. Unless we choose to pay for it.

The motorcycling industry in NZ needs a prod from someone like BRONZ to start actively marketing motorcycling to Government as a congestion buster, rather than continuing their ivory tower approach to let market forces and capitalism regualte sales and marketing direction. The myth of motorcycling being hugely dangerous needs to be challenged by co-opting trained researchers to present the same data that LTNZ uses in a different light. Very easy to to do, plus we need to challenge ourselves to perform better on the road, and to tell Government just what it is that we do to make ourselves safer. There isn't another segment of the "motoring public" doing more to train their participants than motorcycling, but we don't tell anyone. "They" aren't going to look at what we do with everything from track days, to junior motocross, to the training industry generated by the graduated license system unless we tell "them" to look.

There's no longer any sort of Motorcycle lobby group presence in Wellington. No industry led one, no enthusiast led one, no sales arm of motorcycling at all. I'm not putting myself up as "Der Fuhrer", as I can't commit the time, but I do have some ideas of what constitutes a professional voice. If there's a team, I'm willing to work in it.

Anyone else in, or have you all given up?

[Ixion]

Big Dave is working with BRONZ in Auckland.

I'm a starter for anything that's useful. I have some experience with prodding national and local government. (Only, if there's any dynamite involved, I bags first bang)

However, all the effort is split up, over different regions and groups. We need an overarching loby group, the recognised voice of motorcycling.

I think that the industry needs to play a much bigger part.

Look at the clout the treadleys can muster, and we're more than them. and we don't wear Lycra. So why are we ignored? (For a hint as to the answer to that, look at the recent Auckland congestion tax thread)

[Skyryder]

I like the cut o' ya cloth, Jim me lad. :yes:

There certainly needs some industy leadership in order to be an effective lobby group. Problem is that if it was, shall we say up front, then it could be construed as having a vested interest. I'm surprised that one of the leading dealers or in fact a brand has not developed a safety school if for no other reason than to promote it's interest in rider safety.

I'm of the opinion that a motocycle section attached to the AA might be the shortest and quickest rout.

I know that might sound an anathema to some but there are considerable advantages.

1 A reliable breakdown or trailer service throughout the country. (I'm on my bandwagon again i.e Inst Loss etc)

2 Bike checks for used bikes.

3 Lobbying on biker related issues etc

Plus additional benifits associated with AA membership.


Any thoughts on this line of reasoning??


Skyryder

[Karma]

I'll be up for protests... tell me where and when and I'm there.

[Ixion]

I like the cut o' ya cloth, Jim me lad. :yes:

There certainly needs some industy leadership in order to be an effective lobby group. Problem is that if it was, shall we say up front, then it could be construed as having a vested interest. I'm surprised that one of the leading dealers or in fact a brand has not developed a safety school if for no other reason than to promote it's interest in rider safety.

I'm of the opinion that a motocycle section attached to the AA might be the shortest and quickest rout.

I know that might sound an anathema to some but there are considerable advantages.

1 A reliable breakdown or trailer service throughout the country. (I'm on my bandwagon again i.e Inst Loss etc)

2 Bike checks for used bikes.

3 Lobbying on biker related issues etc

Plus additional benifits associated with AA membership.


Any thoughts on this line of reasoning??


Skyryder
Blue Wing Honda have a tie in with John Wright, they supply him loaner bikes and such .

The AA route is tempting, but the AA are such a bunch of fossilised geriatric antiquated conservative stick in the mud dull boring ancient has beens that I can't see them ever coming through with anything other than limp hand wringing about how dangerous bikes are, and why don't we all get a nice Honda Prius. If they won't support the sportscar clubs what chance do bikes have.

[oldrider]

BRONZ are already well established but there are only a few of NZ total bikers actually involved.

There are countless other bike groups and clubs already out there but they are all seemingly predisposed with their own specific activities.

Rather than reinvent the wheel I suggest that all of those "other" biker groups/clubs actively pledge their support of membership numbers behind BRONZ to give them more immediate clout.

I believe that there is enough organisational clout there now, we just have to unify it and make it work for us by officially "linking" with BRONZ.

I don't want to blather on, the gist of what I am trying to say should be obvious by now or it never will be.

The fastest way forward is to use what we have already got in place just modernise it so it is fit for purpose then attack the problem.

No problem can stand the assault of sustained thinking! (Voltaire)

I believe there are some great thinkers on KiwiBiker alone let alone the rest of the NZ biker world. Cheers John.

[Skyryder]

Rather than reinvent the wheel I suggest that all of those "other" biker groups/clubs actively pledge their support of membership numbers behind BRONZ to give them more immediate clout.

I could not agree more. But they are going to need a different rallying call to get my attention.

Just how do you justify leaving people stranded on the side of the road when neither they or their vehicles are impaired?

That's the question that needs to be asked on the steps of Parliment by the Biking community.

Skyryder

[Lou Girardin]

You're dead right Jim2, but the main problem here is apathy. It's endemic with our 'she'll be right' ethos.
As far as congestion goes, 70% of it in Auckland is down to the unbelievably bad motorway design of the 60's and 70's.
A city of only 1 million spread over the area of Auckland should not have the problems we have.

[Karma]

Really?

I blame the neverending roadworks all over the place, and the stupid way the lights filter.

[Hitcher]

I'd be a starter for a "think tank". I know a bit about thinking and tanks are way cool...

[oldrider]

I like the cut o' ya cloth, Jim me lad. :yes:

There certainly needs some industy leadership in order to be an effective lobby group. Problem is that if it was, shall we say up front, then it could be construed as having a vested interest. I'm surprised that one of the leading dealers or in fact a brand has not developed a safety school if for no other reason than to promote it's interest in rider safety.

I'm of the opinion that a motocycle section attached to the AA might be the shortest and quickest rout.

I know that might sound an anathema to some but there are considerable advantages.

1 A reliable breakdown or trailer service throughout the country. (I'm on my bandwagon again i.e Inst Loss etc)

2 Bike checks for used bikes.

3 Lobbying on biker related issues etc

Plus additional benifits associated with AA membership.


Any thoughts on this line of reasoning??


Skyryder

The AA is a good suggestion Skyrider but arent they as big an enemy to us as all the rest of the anti-motorbike Nazis in NZ? :shit: Could we trust them? John.

[riffer]

Nope, you can't trust AA.

I'd rather go with Bronz. Perhaps we need to create a Wellington chapter?

[Skyryder]

The AA is a good suggestion Skyrider but arent they as big an enemy to us as all the rest of the anti-motorbike Nazis in NZ? :shit: Could we trust them? John.

I'm not sure that the AA as such are the enemy. Some of their members as cage drivers might be, but that's a different story.

To me I see two prime advantages. They are on board through the New Zealand Road Safety Council (I think that is the correct name. I Google searched and could not find a site so it may have changed, or perhaps they don't have one) and as such could raise concerns that are 'more' applicable to motor cyclists.

The second is servcing motor cyclists needs. Break down, pre purchase checks etc.

There is no equivilent organisation for bikers as there is for cages. If AA saw or was made aware of the potential for increased membership they may take a serious look.

Just my thoughts on this aspect.


Skyryder

[Motu]

AA is all about money and control.....if they can see a way to tie it all up under their control and make mega profits out of motorcyclists,then we'd have them on board working for us no problem.

[terbang]

Its an issue of leadership, there is none. We are all out there wracking about the place on our bikes and enjoying ourselves as individuals or small groups but as a community we have a very weak voice. If BRONZ were/had been worth their salt and the MC community had been more proactive in BRONZ then we wouldn't be having these discussions. We either need to all get behind someone like BRONZ and give them the rocket they need or start again or improve. Personally I think BRONZ is a good platform to start with and perhaps this Web site being a meeting place or voice to get the ball rolling and nut out a direction. Of course it doesn't come cheap so we all have to be prepared to put hands in pockets.

[Pixie]

I'd be a starter for a "think tank". I know a bit about thinking and tanks are way cool...
Cool!
A tank with an AI.Probably made by some corp. called CyberDyne Systems.
And then we can make a defence system called SkyNet.
What a good idea!

[Hitcher]

There is little value in creating "another" biker lobby group -- too many brands in the marketplace, etc. Unless the fundamental objectives of the organisations are poles apart.

AA is about commercial objectives based on swelling its coffers from insurance, travel, advertising revenues, etc. Forget them.

BRONZ? I know little about it, other than it's supposed to be about "biker's rights", whatever those are. But it seems like a good place to start, unless its charter and value offering are something that are incapable of generating a groundswell of interest sufficient to secure a strong membership base.

[oldrider]

If every bike club/association/etc member paid one extra dollar per member and that club provided 1 or 2 delegates per branch to the closest active BRONZ, we could have a ready vehicle to stage a stand against negative bureaucracy.
The delegates would have to make sure that the clubs contributions and interests were well represented and not just used for trivial pursuits.
The backing of all the clubs memberships would give BRONZ a bit of extra clout numerically/financially and it's all there without reinventing the wheel.
Uniting motorcyclists is a bit like trying to unite Arabs or Maori tribes but by remaining in established clubs and pledging support to BRONZ we might just about make it. :headbang:
Just thinking out loud for you guys to consider the option. :confused: Cheers John.

[TwoSeven]

My question is with lobby groups is what process are you going to use to ensure what you lobby for is in the members best interest and is based on correct information and not assumptions, vested interest or value sets.

For example, lets say you want to lobby for a reduction in ACC levies. Is this a vested interest in that you dont want to pay so much, or based on some sound research that there is no justification for it being so high, or a value set that you dont believe people should have to pay that kind of thing and the government should. How did the lobby group reach the conclusion that ACC levy reduction was the correct thing to target and invest resources in, and not say perhaps a systemic lack of driver training leading to a higher accident rate. Perhaps lobbying for increased driver ed, may reduce the ACC levey indirectly ?

The other thing, its alright saying lets increase the number of delegates, but if the delegates are as clueless of the rest of us, is that not the blind leading the blind.

[James Deuce]

Yeah, I thought about that too John, but having been involved with BRONZ in the past in just that capacity I'm not keen to repeat it.

This isn't about representing a particular club's interests with BRONZ, it is about trying to ignite a professional lobby group, one that follows up the inarticulate, impassioned grunting of protest groups on Parliament's steps with a consistent communications strategy, a consistent vision for the future of motorcycling in NZ, and a marketing strategy that ensures the accessibility of product, riding gear, and road user training.

I have issues with BRONZ, in particular that "Rights" bit in the title. It's evocative of a long dead era, it's confrontational, and it sets the tone for any communication with the organisation. The word "Rights" is a virtual table thump, and I react badly to confrontation from people I trust, let alone from and organisation that, if I were the LTNZ/ACC cabal, I would like to see out of a job thanks to there being no bikes on or off the road.

I'd much rather see professional negotiators, marketing people, communications people, and outright politicians arguing the case for motorcycling than a bunch of amateurs with no resources trying to do a half-arsed job, and in the end only embittering themselves. Believe me, that is what happens when people of conscience debate with politicians.

The very first thing that needs to happen is for the, Squids, Sprotbike "professionals", dirt bike riders, HOG, RAT, and MANZ cliques to get their heads out of their collective arses and stop treating each other like aliens. We need leadership with a vested interest in the survival of motorcycling, and who can speak softly, even when carrying a big stick. Or make a little stick seem bigger than it is.

[James Deuce]

My question is with lobby groups is what process are you going to use to ensure what you lobby for is in the members best interest and is based on correct information and not assumptions, vested interest or value sets.

It has to be based on vested interests or there is no point. That is the whole point of a lobby group - to push the case for one issue/value/lifestyle to the forefront of policy makers minds.



For example, lets say you want to lobby for a reduction in ACC levies. Is this a vested interest in that you dont want to pay so much, or based on some sound research that there is no justification for it being so high, or a value set that you dont believe people should have to pay that kind of thing and the government should. How did the lobby group reach the conclusion that ACC levy reduction was the correct thing to target and invest resources in, and not say perhaps a systemic lack of driver training leading to a higher accident rate. Perhaps lobbying for increased driver ed, may reduce the ACC levey indirectly ?

That battle has already been won. The Ulysses Club used some of their influential membership to stymie the last attempted raise in ACC levies from within the Government, using Govt. stats to show that the majority of motorcyle injuries were actually in the off-road arena and on vehicles that were unregistered.



The other thing, its alright saying lets increase the number of delegates, but if the delegates are as clueless of the rest of us, is that not the blind leading the blind.

Yes, I'm very shy of that too. The collective IQ of any group is the IQ of the "least smart" member, divided by the number of legs. The ideal number of lobbyists for any group is one. Sure every person relying on that lobbyist will probably be pissed of at some point, but a dictator with his eye on the big picture is usually far more successful at establishing a particular culture than a support group comprised of hippies.