This Guy Makes TWO Good Points

[Slim]

Check This Out (http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/autoindustry/11133/) and also the link to the "Open Letter to the Soccer Moms of America" at the bottom of the page.

I think the Editors comment in Two Wheels this month perhaps supported this theory (and it's one we've all heard) with references to riding a motorbike in Rome and having other traffic actually see them AND give way to them because simple economics meant that most drivers started their career on two wheels.

Dave Despain's comments about the lack of driver education are equally relevant down here and I thought keeping his suggestion to off-road experience only was restrained & well supported, perhaps making it more palatable to his intended audience (although what're the chances that a Soccer Mom will actually read it??? :spudwhat: )

[madandy]

That was a good read.Very true about the skills developed on dirt bikes.
Now if only the law makers understood what he was saying.

[RiderInBlack]

Yep he has a point or two there.

Because all my early driving was done on metal roads in a "cage", my "cage" handling skills are better when the shit hits the fan (my reflexs know how to control a skid). Just wish I had done dirt bike riding before getting into bikes (for the same reasons).
Riding bikes has improved my awarenious of road conditions and other road uses. It has got to the point that I often react to something on the road ahead of me before I get a chance to see it properly (eg. backing off, moving to oneside, or powering up to avoid a possible haszard, or sometimes just bracing myself and looking for a way out if things go to custard).

[FROSTY]

now if only we could raise the age of getting a car licence in NZ and have the same age for sub150cc bikes as stands at present. --wouldn't that just boost the biker population

[rodgerd]

now if only we could raise the age of getting a car licence in NZ and have the same age for sub150cc bikes as stands at present. --wouldn't that just boost the biker population

Why? I've had very few close calls with 17 year old in cars. Going on my experience, the best thing for bike safety would be to force all drivers to resit their practical every 10 years. That should clear some of the nitwits off the road.

Unfortunately, we're going the American route here, with the roads, roads, uber alles focus on transport funding (buses? trains? No, build more roads!); increasing agitation from the likes of Grey Power demanding that 80 years olds not have the "indignity" of proving they're still safe to drive.

And to top it all off, we allow anyone to drive here for a year on a foreign license, which is one of the most absurdly generous schemes around. We even accept licenses from countries which are banned in much of the rest of the world!

[FROSTY]

Nope dude ya miss my point. If kids couldn't legally drive till age 17 but could ride scooters or small bikes. Long term imagine the difference in driver awareness of motorcycles.

[Ghost Lemur]

Nope dude ya miss my point. If kids couldn't legally drive till age 17 but could ride scooters or small bikes. Long term imagine the difference in driver awareness of motorcycles.

I think the Two Wheels editorial discribed it best. He wrote about how when he started seeing his current gf/wife? her mother started on about how many more bikes were all of a sudden on the roads these days. It wasn't actually that there were more bikes on the road but rather she'd only just started noticing them due to an increased interest by association.

I agree it would be a brilliant idea to restrict say 15-17 year olds to under 100cc or maybe do it by hp as well (ie they could have a gutless 250 cb/gn etc). This would mean when these kids reach adult hood they "see" bikes because they have that association of having once been on them.

It'd also have the added benefit of preventing underage drink driving. Well not preventing per se, but rather hindering due to the fact it's "harder" to ride than to drive. They can't carry as many passangers, so where as before 4/5 teens were killed in one of these incidents at most it could only be 2. Also there chances of taking out other motorist is lessened too.

Another example for the two wheels editiorial would be when you get a new bike/cage the number of same vehicles on the road seems to increase. Of course it hasn't, but rather your interest in them and therefore awareness has.

[Big Dog]

Well thought out.
While a little general there are some undeniable truths, My driving has improved tenfold since I have been riding, and another twofold since I did My ht's. Get a different perspective and all of a sudden you know why my concrete truck can't see you.

I still consider myself a substandard / inexperienced driver, so imagine how bad I would be otherwise.

[FROSTY]

I think the Two Wheels editorial discribed it best. He wrote about how when he started seeing his current gf/wife? her mother started on about how many more bikes were all of a sudden on the roads these days. It wasn't actually that there were more bikes on the road but rather she'd only just started noticing them due to an increased interest by association.

I agree it would be a brilliant idea to restrict say 15-17 year olds to under 100cc or maybe do it by hp as well (ie they could have a gutless 250 cb/gn etc). This would mean when these kids reach adult hood they "see" bikes because they have that association of having once been on them.

It'd also have the added benefit of preventing underage drink driving. Well not preventing per se, but rather hindering due to the fact it's "harder" to ride than to drive. They can't carry as many passangers, so where as before 4/5 teens were killed in one of these incidents at most it could only be 2. Also there chances of taking out other motorist is lessened too.

Another example for the two wheels editiorial would be when you get a new bike/cage the number of same vehicles on the road seems to increase. Of course it hasn't, but rather your interest in them and therefore awareness has.
um er --well yep that WAS my point :Punk: :wavey:

[Yamahamaman]

New drivers now just don't have the feeling of vulnerability. All their lives they have been driven to school - next thing you know, they are driving themselves to school without even having to know how to cross the road safely let alone ride a bicycle.

IMHO everyone should start their driving experience on a motorcycle.

Forget ACC. Where there is an accident, the person in charge of the bigger vehicle is automatically at fault. That should improve driving skills...

[Ghost Lemur]

um er --well yep that WAS my point :Punk: :wavey:

I know. I should have put an "I agree completely xjxjxj" at the start of my post, as ot was directed at rodgerd. :cool2:

[Skyryder]

New drivers now just don't have the feeling of vulnerability. All their lives they have been driven to school - next thing you know, they are driving themselves to school without even having to know how to cross the road safely let alone ride a bicycle.

IMHO everyone should start their driving experience on a motorcycle.

Forget ACC. Where there is an accident, the person in charge of the bigger vehicle is automatically at fault. That should improve driving skills...


Let me see if I understand your post. In your first pargraph you suggest that 'new drivers' are basicly incompetant. And in your last paragraph you claim that the persosn in charge of the larger vehicle should 'automaticly' be
at fault so as to 'improve their driving skills" So what you are saying is that the incompetant driver of a small vehicle is always right in the event of an accident with a larger vehicle simply because the driver of the larger vehicle has not improved their driving skills. :killingme :killingme :killingme Just love these icons. Better than words.

Skyryder

[rodgerd]

Nope dude ya miss my point. If kids couldn't legally drive till age 17 but could ride scooters or small bikes. Long term imagine the difference in driver awareness of motorcycles.

The main reason teens don't ride bikes anymore are (a) percieved danger and (b) cheap, powerful import cars being readily available.

If you try to force 17 year olds onto bikes, well, it'll never get past the parents.

It would be easier to force learner/restricted car drivers into the same sort of restrictions we have for learner/restricted bike riders - say a maximum of a normally aspirated 1600cc engine for any car being driven by a learner.

[rodgerd]

Forget ACC. Where there is an accident, the person in charge of the bigger vehicle is automatically at fault. That should improve driving skills...

Yeah, that'd encourage responsible behaviour on the road. I mean, cyclists and riders are *never* responsible for crashes. Neither are drivers of Subaru Imprezas; if there's a collision with a Land Rover, it's allways the Land Rover driver's fault, even if they were stationary!

[Slim]

... say a maximum of a normally aspirated 1600cc engine for any car being driven by a learner.
Make it 1300 and I'd be happy. And without power steering and braking and remove the damn stereo!

[wari]

I haveto start ereading more carefully ...

I thought ...

This guy makes two good PINTS ... :apint: :apint:

:wavey:

[rodgerd]

And without power steering


Well, I hate power steering, anyway. Good luck finding cars without it these days.

I think 1600 is a good compromise, given that most of us will learn on the family car, but I have to admit 1300 seems good, too. After all, a Toyota Trueno claims a bit under 160 HP out of a 1.6 litre engine, which seems a bit much for a learner.

But definitely not the Aussie "Power/Weight ratio" that makes it legal to drive Ford Falcons but would bar some Corollas (hmm, protectionism under another guise?)

[wkid_one]

Nope dude ya miss my point. If kids couldn't legally drive till age 17 but could ride scooters or small bikes. Long term imagine the difference in driver awareness of motorcycles.Yup - and imagine the impact on our ACC premiums as they all fall off on a regular basis!

I don't think it is a question of which vehicle they drive to start with - I think it is just a general case of driver education. Any moron in NZ can get a license. And once you have it - see you again in 10 years time - wicked!

Take the punishment of the Asian guy who had pulled 4 times and then still got behind the wheel and killed someone! Our transport system is largely toothless.

We test someone for probably a grand total of 90 mins max - and then say they are competent to drive for 10 years! And then at the end of that 10 years they pay a fee and get another 10 years - and so the cycle continues.

Regardless of what vehicle someone learns to drive - if they are incompetent - they are incompetent.

Putting learners in bikes first - under what logic is that a good idea? Restricting horsepower? Again why?

Teach a man to fish rather than give a man a fish. How many times have you come to a roundabout only to be stuck there because the person in the front of the queue doesn't know how a roundabout works? What does this have to do with what vehicle people drive.

The 'Great NZ Driving Challenge' showed NZers have a general and significant lack of understanding and knowledge of NZ Road Rules - this won't change regardless of what vehicles they drive - and it appears it was the OLDER generation who were more at fault.

I know - I personally on a bike would rather face an asian in a 300HP WRX who knows the road rules - than a 72 year old Kiwi Male who doesn't when I come to an intersection!

[RiderInBlack]

Luxury, when I was a lad (sorry been reading the Monty Python Thread:killingme ) my first car (if you could call it a car, more like a pregant rollerskate, sorry won't happen again) was a Fiat Bambina (with a throbbing all powerful 500cc twin engine). Manage to roll it up hill 1 1/4 turns first week of owning it. Later jumped a full fence with it (so much for power restrictions).

Still power restrictions for learner "cage" liciences might be a dam good Idea (Boy Racers beware):confused:

[pete376403]

<thread hijack> a guy I worked with when doing my apprenticeship had a Bambina. His had the Nardi 650 conversion (a VW1300 barrel and head) F*ckin thing went like stink, however Nardi never uprated the brakes (Bambinas, like Bugattis, were made to go, not stop...)

[Big Dog]

Make it 1300 and I'd be happy. And without power steering and braking and remove the damn stereo!
Good luck, that would put every pizza joint in nz out of the delivery game.

[Big Dog]

Make it 1300 and I'd be happy. And without power steering and braking and remove the damn stereo!
What are you going to do with 6 footers?

The only way I get in a modern cage let alone a jappa 1300 is with the seat right back and leaned back homy style.

[RiderInBlack]

What are you going to do with 6 footers?

The only way I get in a modern cage let alone a jappa 1300 is with the seat right back and leaned back homy style.
The old VW Beatle 1300, Mate. It was one of the only cars that my Grandfather at 6'10" could drive comfortably:niceone: We still have it. Just needs a COF so it can be reg'ed:whistle:
Or a old Morry Thou.

[rodgerd]

I don't think it is a question of which vehicle they drive to start with - I think it is just a general case of driver education. Any moron in NZ can get a license. And once you have it - see you again in 10 years time - wicked!


Actually, I don't know about when you got your license, but it's a damn site tought now than when I got my car license ('86) and that in and of itself was a huge step up from the pre-graduated days.



We test someone for probably a grand total of 90 mins max - and then say they are competent to drive for 10 years! And then at the end of that 10 years they pay a fee and get another 10 years - and so the cycle continues.


Which is a good reason to retest every 10 years, and to invest in decent public transport so we don't, as in the States, refuse to license people because it would make their lives too difficult.



Restricting horsepower? Again why?


Because it gives an opportunity to learn in a less dangerous vehicle. Or are you seriously telling me there's no difference in the learning experience and likelhood of death by auto in a learner rider on a GN250 and a GSX-R1000? Or a Corolla sedan and a Lotus Elise?



The 'Great NZ Driving Challenge' showed NZers have a general and significant lack of understanding and knowledge of NZ Road Rules - this won't change regardless of what vehicles they drive - and it appears it was the OLDER generation who were more at fault.


Yes. Ask some 50 years olds how many of them got their licenses by just showing up and going around the block. Drivers' licensing has improved massively as a result of graduated schemes. The missing link is that there's still no reason to study up on the rules again until you're 75, and the people who got their license from the Weetbix packet days won't be retested until then.

Or if Grey Power have their way, never.

[rodgerd]

What are you going to do with 6 footers?

The only way I get in a modern cage let alone a jappa 1300 is with the seat right back and leaned back homy style.

Trying the wrong cars then. I fit comfortably in every Toyota, Nissan, or Mitsi I've gotten into, from 1300 cc Corollas up to Skylines. I'm cramped in Falcons and Commodores, that seem to suffer from some wierd reverse-Tardis effect, and have never fit into a Honda happily.

Perhaps you should try some "Jappas" instead of just dissing them.

[Big Dog]

Trying the wrong cars then. I fit comfortably in every Toyota, Nissan, or Mitsi I've gotten into, from 1300 cc Corollas up to Skylines. I'm cramped in Falcons and Commodores, that seem to suffer from some wierd reverse-Tardis effect, and have never fit into a Honda happily.

Perhaps you should try some "Jappas" instead of just dissing them.
Love the fit of a 'coon, hate the fit of almost every jap 1300 except civic type r's and MR2 funnily enough both have a lot of legroom.

[Big Dog]

Perhaps you should try some "Jappas" instead of just dissing them.
Much respect for the 2l+ but sub 1300 can be a bit of a joke. I have owned more cars than I can count and only 7 of them were not jappa's. I have also driven more cars than most people have or will ever be in, having worked for car yards, valets, mechanics etc.

[vifferman]

Putting learners in bikes first - under what logic is that a good idea?

If every would-be driver had to ride a small bike or scooter for 6 months or a year before progressing to a car (or bigger bike), it would be a good idea because:

1. The truly incompetent would be removed from the gene pool.
2. It would give them a better appreciation of the dangers associated with negotiating our roads (when not coccooned in a nice safe, warm car)
3. The roads wouldn't be clogged with so many 1-passenger cars.
4. Some of them might actually enjoy the experience and become bikers.
5. Motorists would have more sympathy/respect/courtesy/warm-fuzzy-feelings towards motorcyclists (as in Italy).

[Lou Girardin]

No power steering or brakes? I spent a third of my driving career with that, no thanks.
Learners need to learn car control, muscling it through corners or wondering if it'll stop won't help that.
Did you know that it is possible to get a full car licence without knowing how to start on a hill, do a three point turn or parallel park? The LTSA hopes that instructors will teach these skills. But then, some instructors don't even teach correct seating position.
The full driving test is another initiative developed by Monash university. It was designed to remove all subjective evaluation by the tester and replace it with a standard series of test situations. As a side benefit, this allowed the testing companies to employ testers who had no experience of advanced driving skills, but could administer the test according to the book. Unfortunately it is also possible to learn this test by rote which will enable a pass but still hides some basic deficiencies in the learners skills. I lost count of the number of immigrant drivers that used to follow us around while on a test, trying to learn what to do. (Cheaper than an instructor)
The best driving test was the old advanced driving test. You drove for 45 minutes, the instructor gave you directions only and observed your performance. It was a very subjective test. But it revealed a great deal to an experienced tester.
As for requiring learners to ride bikes first, the LTSA, ACC, OSH, etc. don't even want us on bikes, let alone new recruits. In contrast, Europe encourages 2 wheel transport.
There must be some deep, Calvanistic urge in our authorities to ensure we don't enjoy ourselves too much.