MoT targeting motorcyclists for new restrictions [Archive]

Ixion

26th July 2006, 09:04

Yep. We're in their sights.

The MoT are ramping up to introduce a new round of restrictions , including lower speed limits and demerit points for speed cameras.

They're holding a series of fake stage managed "workshops", to provide a veneer of public consultation.

The handout booklet for the workshops shows that we're one of their targets

The greatest savings in lives have
taken place among the 15 to 24 year
old population, illustrated by the steep
drop in the top line of Figure 2.
Less improvement is evident among
the 0 – 14 year olds and those aged
between 40 and 70 years.
Fatalities for all user groups have declined
since 1990. However, the numbers of
motorcycle crash fatalities have fl attened
out over the last 5 years and there are
concerns that motorcycle crashes will start
increasing again given the rapid increase in
sales of motorised two wheel vehicles over
the last 18 months.

So, GET OFF YOUR ARSES AND GET INTO THOSE WORKSHOPS.And stick it to them.

The workshop dates and times are at
http://safeas.govt.nz/safeas-workshops.html

Yes. they ARE at the most inconvenient places and times. You don't think they're going to make it easy for you do you? And yes, the first ones HAVE been and gone. They did a good job of keeping them secret.

The propaganda booklets are here:
http://safeas.govt.nz/safeas-downloads.html

There are some interesting figures in them.

The main website is here:
http://safeas.govt.nz/index.html

And there is a forum here

http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/

Get posting on that!

Finn

26th July 2006, 09:10

I don't get it Ixion. How can they target bikes by lowering the speed limit and increasing demerit points? This won't go through. One set of laws for all motorists.

As for holding a series of fake stage managed "workshops", to provide a veneer of public consultation, this is how central & local government get most of their hair brained, ideoligy bullshit through. The punters don't get it. It's disgusting.

bobsmith

26th July 2006, 09:11

YEAH!!! let's take over their forum and tell them what we really think!!! just like we did with the americans re. white trash.

kickingzebra

26th July 2006, 09:17

Zukin

26th July 2006, 09:17

I think what they are doing is changing the rules for ALL motorists.

They admit that people arent paying their fines, so what they want to do, is change the rules

Speeding - Less of a fine, but more demerits
Public Holidays - Double demerits for speeding offences
Speed Cameras - Introduce Demerit points

And loads more ideas
Whilst I think that some ideas are good (cause I dont speed, I have a racecar for that :)) others wont make it past the draft stage.

James Deuce

26th July 2006, 09:25

Zukin, you dork (meant in a conversational, convivial pub atmosphere type way). Think about it.

Speed Camera demerits = The registered owner gets the demerits, not the driver. Registered owner and driver are not always the same thing.

Speeding - more demerits, lesser fines = huge numbers of unlicensed drivers.

Double Demerits for Holiday periods = potential loss of seasonal earnings for traditional Kiwi Holiday sites.

Motorcycle deaths are NOT going up with the increase in two wheeled regos. Their own damn stats show that. How come they can't analyse stats that don't provide the picture they want? The number of deaths will be greater than for the preceding lower number of registered bikes over time, but as a percentage of all road deaths, two-wheeled fatalities are plummeting.

Swoop

26th July 2006, 09:29

And loads more ideas
Whilst I think that some ideas are good (cause I dont speed, I have a racecar for that :)) others wont make it past the draft stage.
Unfortunately "the draft stage" is the issue. Consultation with the public and "interested parties or groups" is where they get their ammunition from. One person saying something silly at one of these meetings like "well technically I am against speeding, but in the right place and time it is perfectly safe" will be twisted around to "I support cracking down on speeders".

One these pencil-dicked public servants have a veneer of "support" they will have justification to reccommend changes to our laws.:nono:

EDIT: Bejeebers! What a load of lies in their documents!!! Lies, damned lies and statistics alright!

Lou Girardin

26th July 2006, 10:39

Thinking that fatals may increase is grounds for changing laws?
Is Clive Matthew-Wilson one of their policy makers?
They just get better all the time don't they?

u4ea

26th July 2006, 10:43

just added my 2cents worth ...........thanx for the insight

FzerozeroT

26th July 2006, 11:41

Well, I've just spammed every e-mail address I could get with details of the meetings, wonder how many people in car clubs etc will give a shit?

-I've already got 5 Delivery Status Notifications :(

emaN

26th July 2006, 11:58

Cheers Ix,
printing now...

been checking out the forums too. (here's hoping they get read & taken on-board!)

McJim

26th July 2006, 12:17

I think their real motive lies in Petrol Tax. 2 wheels use less than 4 as we all know. Tax is gathered at punitive levels on fuel in New Zealand funding many non - traffic related expenditures. If the trend towards 2 wheels continues the govt is looking at a big loss in Tax yield. If less fatalities is really their goal then they should look at straightening and widening the main roads. The government victimises Bikes in the UK too to the extent that most motorcyclists there are incredibly wealthy middle aged people. It's too much of a nanny state - what they are saying here is "we don't want you to harm yourself and your pillion passenger (where appropriate) - we'd rather you got a cheap high performance imported car to ensure that when you do have an accident you're guaranteed to wipe out at least eight people in a head on collision." Bikes rarely harm innocents - cars wipe out entire families.

madboy

26th July 2006, 12:22

Well since I ignore speed limits, seldom run a plate (can't post a ticket to the registered owner of a bike you can't identify) and even more seldom stop for a ticketing, I don't really see how any of this will affect me. Given that I MUST be a prime candidate for dying on a motorcycle before most of you, shouldn't they be targeting reckless lawbreakers like me? Go give the Highway Patrol 1000cc sportsbikes and a helicopter in Wgtn THEN watch my speed come down. Commodores, camera vans and overweight BMWs are no deterrent.

Instead you lot who kinda sorta obey the laws, and often get caught for your usually minor offences, will pay the price. Thanks for taking the rap for me. Remind me I owe you a beer sometime.

Karma

26th July 2006, 12:24

52% of bike crashes in Auckland are caused by poor observation... by us or car drivers?

James Deuce

26th July 2006, 12:26

Thanks for taking the rap for me. Remind me I owe you a beer sometime.

You're welcome. Next KB drinks it's your shout you Ginga menace.

Ixion

26th July 2006, 12:27

Deano

26th July 2006, 12:38

Motorcycle deaths are NOT going up with the increase in two wheeled regos. Their own damn stats show that. How come they can't analyse stats that don't provide the picture they want? The number of deaths will be greater than for the preceding lower number of registered bikes over time, but as a percentage of all road deaths, two-wheeled fatalities are plummeting.

Yep - Look at Italy (Rome) where the majority of the population ride scooters and bikes without a great multitude of deaths and injuries.

With more people riding bikes, I would expect the average driver's skill level will increase also. You know, being more aware of your surroundings etc and not having a feeling of invincibility that some people get when surrounded by a tin battering ram.

Deano

26th July 2006, 12:40

They will be once they bring in the suggested power to weight limits for motorcycles. Bye bye sprotsbikes. Or did you miss that bit (and they're talking ALL motorcycles, not just learners/restricted)

Black bike fully worked and not traceable to anyone or anywhere - comes out of a secluded garage somewhere...is he a myth ?

There will be a lot more myths about I'd say.

Karma

26th July 2006, 12:40

Have they factored that it seems most new bike regos are for scootahs... meaning they're ridden within 1km of the CBD usually, I'd be surprised if most of them go more than 20km in a week.

madboy

26th July 2006, 12:48

They will be once they bring in the suggested power to weight limits for motorcycles. Bye bye sprotsbikes. Or did you miss that bit (and they're talking ALL motorcycles, not just learners/restricted)It's only going to enhance the "outlaw" brigade. They won't ban sportsbikes on the road, way too controversial. They won't ban the importation, the racers would be up in arms. So they can strap a restrictor onto it. Wahoo. Anyone had a jap import car? They cut out at 180k from factory. Not too many of the fast ones still cut out after the first week of my ownership. They may make mucking with the governor/restrictor illegal. Bugger. Add that to the speeding, lanesplitting that many of us ALREADY DO... What's another minor offence going to matter?

madboy

26th July 2006, 12:49

Black bike fully worked and not traceable to anyone or anywhere - comes out of a secluded garage somewhere...is he a myth ?

There will be a lot more myths about I'd say.Just so long as he doesn't put orange wheels and some really bright stickers on it, aye?

Deano

26th July 2006, 14:12

Just so long as he doesn't put orange wheels and some really bright stickers on it, aye?

There's at least one other Repsol in Welly area.

Must have been him.....:innocent:

Monsterbishi

26th July 2006, 14:28

Well, I think all this is highly irresponsible of the government, power:weight restrictions will result in rapid increase in cases of anorexia amoungst riders!

:gob: :nono:

Macktheknife

26th July 2006, 16:57

Just a thought here guys n gals, going on to the forum and blasting them for not telling us about it in the first place may not be the best use of your efforts.
Try and post actual useful suggestions that might be able to be pointed out to the powers that be later on as evidence of our input being given and then ignored.
And if things actually go to the next level then we can say hey look here are some good idea's, let's go investigate these things. You never know, there might actually be someone who takes some notice. (unlikely I admit but we gotta try)

James Deuce

26th July 2006, 17:28

Mack, they're not interested in input. We may as well vent.

Macktheknife

26th July 2006, 17:43

Mack, they're not interested in input. We may as well vent.

All Im saying is, even though you are almost certainly right, lets give them something constructive anyway. It is possible that someone might actually get to see the input and think about what has been said. not likely I grant you but possible.

Motu

26th July 2006, 17:45

Black bike fully worked and not traceable to anyone or anywhere - .

Sorta like having no fingerprints - totaly untraceable.....smart move.

James Deuce

26th July 2006, 17:46

Normally Mack I'm all for the moderate, considered approach. However the way this has been handled makes me think I need to kick the plans for a fascist revolution into high gear.

James Deuce

26th July 2006, 17:47

Sorta like having no fingerprints - totaly untraceable.....smart move.

Supaglue will do that. You can't feel anything with your fingrtips though.

The other thought is; it takes about 2 weeks for the skin to start sloughing off an amputated hand..

Squeak the Rat

26th July 2006, 17:49

I've just sent a letter to Anette King, cc Maurice whathisname regarding the process employed here AND the illogical strategies and conclusions.

I'll post the letter and reply if i get one back.....

Ixion

27th July 2006, 01:19

OK.It gets worse. Here's some more of their "initiatives"

Motorcycle safety:
• Motorcycling is a very high risk activity compared with other travel modes.
• Motorcycle registrations have increased recently in New Zealand.
• Motorcycling is often promoted by the lobby as being an economical and environmentally clean
form of transport. The cost of crashes shows that, in fact, it is a highly subsidised form of transport,
with other road users providing that subsidy.
• The Accident Compensation Corporation could consider significant increases in motorcycle and
moped premiums to more closely reflect their claims and in order to recoup their costs.
• The minimum age for access to moped and motorcycle learner permits should be increased from
15 to 17 years and engine size for novice drivers should be reduced from 250cc to 125cc in line
with international best practice.
• The fitment of twin dedicated daytime running lights using LED technology should be required on all
new two-wheeled motor vehicles in line with international best practice.
• Best practice in road environment treatments needs to be identified, particularly at junctions.

Fromthe MoT website
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Downloads/2010-Breen-report.pdf

Gremlin

27th July 2006, 03:13

Best practice in road environment treatments needs to be identified, particularly at junctions.
While most of that is isn't worth spank's mb's... does this mean they will stop amusing themselves by drawing everywhere in white paint at intersections??

Maybe one of the honchos themselves came a cropper and found it "dangerous". Perhaps they might also stop arranging manhole covers in stupid fashions, like, where my wheels are.

Pity the auckland one went past (like they wanted). Have a client tomorrow arvo, so doubt I'll ever even have a chance on the Hamilton event.

MoT's stupidity is beyond belief. I keep thinking they are bad, yet they manage to out-do my anticipations every time. As many have said, our fatalies and injuries, as a percentage are FALLING. Sometimes I think only workshops in dark alleys will work... :blip:

jazbug5

27th July 2006, 03:29

This stuff is insane... but do you suppose they're pulling a fast one here? That old politician's trick of coming out with a raft of absurdities that no-one wants & everyone gets in a fury about... at which point, they make a placatory gesture by conceding a couple of points but still screwing you over. (Just slightly less vigourously, and with a little more lube, so to speak.)

Lou Girardin

27th July 2006, 08:13

Ther's a raft of 'maybes' in there. Do we now create policy based on that?
Or do we follow international best practice and deal with real issues?

James Deuce

27th July 2006, 09:10

Has anyone contacted MAG and asked for help?

Squeak the Rat

27th July 2006, 09:49

Good question Jim2. Definitely worth seeking advice as they appear to have done some bloody good work in the UK.

On another note - does anyone know where the injuries stats come from in relation to road safety? Is this from ACC? and if so, aren't farm bikes included in the same group as road bikes?

cowpoos

27th July 2006, 10:24

And in that nasty little booklet, it advocates the use of controlling the power to weight ratio of motorcycles!!
I know this won't bother the honda riders too much, but I don't want to buy a 16 horsepower single cylinder gsxr 1000!!
Go to the websites, read the info, come along and argue!!
how the hell is a little NZ government gunna tell the all the factoryies to make bikes heavier....they will be told to get fucked...it won't happen!!

Blackbird

27th July 2006, 10:58

Pleased to see so many KB'ers making submissions on the website - well done:first:

vtec

27th July 2006, 11:07

Well, if they keep making up new and stupid rules, then there will be too many people out there doin' the runner, and the public might start to notice that the cops aren't catching most of them. If you are smart about it you can get away on a minichopper if you are mildly clever as one of the bikey cops on this site can attest to. Also it's easier to get away from a car.

James Deuce

27th July 2006, 11:16

Can I please have some contributions for an email I'm going to send to MAG about how to address these issues constructively?

I need details of the MoT discussion points, ideas that people have come up with counter the discussion points, and ideas for how to get motorcycles included in the general transport plan for NZ, specifically as congestion busters. I see that the discussion groups are looking to counter our argument that they are more ecologically friendly. That shouldn't be our main selling point as it is easy to prove that most modern motorcyles are not as fuel efficient as they should be.

24 hours at most please folks.

Please post in this thread. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=697835#post697835)

Ixion

27th July 2006, 11:28

how the hell is a little NZ government gunna tell the all the factoryies to make bikes heavier....they will be told to get fucked...it won't happen!!

Not how it will work. Any vehicle used on NZ roads has to pass compliance before it can be registered, They just impose a limit on power:weight. Check the manufacturers figures, if the bike is too powerful for its weight, it simply won't be allowed to be registered.

Which means they won't be imported

BMWs will probably be OK, GSXR - just won't be able to buy one.

Existing ones will no doubt be grandfathered in, until they crash and are written off

Ixion

27th July 2006, 11:31

Some source documents:

Cabinet briefing paper:

http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Cabinet-Paper-Road-Safety-To-2010-Strategy.pdf
2010 Startegy review paper
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Downloads/2010-Breen-report.pdf

Scarey stuff.

Ozzie

27th July 2006, 11:32

• The minimum age for access to moped and motorcycle learner permits should be increased from
15 to 17 years and engine size for novice drivers should be reduced from 250cc to 125cc in line
with international best practice.

That is complete bollox, and typical of them.

17 years might be international trend, but not coupled with engine size restrictions. OZ and a number of other countries have introduced a power to weight restriction on cars and bikes for L and P plate riders. Some learners in OZ are allowed to ride 400's, cause they are big fat buggers, and with them on a 250 it wont go anywhere near the 60k's residential speed limit.

What credentials do they have to supply for their so called "Facts and International Trends"?

Ozzie

27th July 2006, 12:07

I have added the first wave to the calendar, leaving 4pm, please indicate there if you will be coming with us.

If there is going to be a second wave (for after work people), someone start another event there so we can have a list/s of all attendees.

Lou Girardin

27th July 2006, 12:07

Don't panic people. They won't kill NZ's bike industry by banning bikes.
This is just a beaurocrats fantasy.

James Deuce

27th July 2006, 12:13

No panic - time to get organised. BRONZ aren't doing shit.

MAG have a much better idea of how to approach the consultation process, so why reinvent the wheel?

The Stranger

27th July 2006, 12:19

BRONZ aren't doing shit.

Jim2 - Go fuck yourself.
I (and others here from/with BRONZ) put in a bloody lot of my time to try and help AH's like yourself who really don't bloody appreciate it.

James Deuce

27th July 2006, 12:20

Jim2 - Go fuck yourself.
I (and others here from/with BRONZ) put in a bloody lot of my time to try and help AH's like yourself who really don't bloody appreciate it.
Thanks for your constructive input.

kickingzebra

27th July 2006, 12:36

how the hell is a little NZ government gunna tell the all the factoryies to make bikes heavier....they will be told to get fucked...it won't happen!!

Of course it won't... Yet, but the insidious creep of state ownership of the private citizen will continue.

So we got's to get up, stand up.
Stand up for your rights...

The Stranger

27th July 2006, 12:45

Thanks for your constructive input.

It was a pleasure.

Zukin

28th July 2006, 11:39

Greetings

Observations from the Road!

As a Motorcycle rider, Car Driver, 4wd Driver, Race Car Driver, Crash Rescue Volunteer and Ex Volunteer Firefighter, I have experienced many near misses and seen a fair share of fatal and/or serious injury accidents on the roads of New Zealand.
Now whilst my views below aren't always involved in all near misses or accidents, they are becoming quite a scary trend.

Most of my near misses I have on the road are whilst on my Motorcycle!!
Now people often ask me "Why do you ride a motorbike after the wrecks you have seen, they are dangerous"
My answer is simple " I love riding, and why should I give up something I love, because of the actions of other road users", Motorcycles are not dangerous, nor are the riders normally, its the drivers of other road users that are dangerous to motorcycles.

Now whilst I understand and appreciate that the LTSA and Police have everyone's best interests and safety at heart, I think sometimes they cant see past their own gold medals.
It appears that from the outside looking in at these organisations that they make rules and/or regulations on the basis of pressure rather than factual information. (e.g. the new idea to increase the ACC levy for motorcyclists - Why? Because there are more of them on the road now!!??)

Whilst on the road I notice too often that most motorists (whether car, truck or even Bus drivers) dont look or even make an attempt to look for motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians to a degree as well.

Now some of these high powered officials appear to be introducing new rules/regulations to punish motorcyclists for things they have very little control over, or are in fact often the victims of these drivers. (Changing the licence requirements, looking at introducing more lighting requirements for motorcycles etc)
Now here is another idea with merit - Why dont you instead look at reducing these accidents involving motorcyclists by actually punishing the offending drivers harshly.
E.g. Anyone motorist that is involved in an accident with a motorcyclist/cyclists or pedestrian, where it it obvious they were at fault be given more severe punishment that having an accident with other cars?
Too often I hear 'I didn't see you"!!
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, we need to toughen up on this excuse, as I see it a legal way to kill someone without thinking about it.

Here is my idea to not only change, but to force motorists to change their driving habits.
After all Failing to look is a very bad habit, nothing less.

Now in this scenario I have mocked up a new charge.
I will refer to the new Charge as FTL (Failing to look)- This is for any accident involving a Motorcyclist/Cyclist or Pedestrian by other road users (cars, trucks etc)
FTL would only apply to 'Other Motorists involved in an accident with any Motorcyclist/Cyclist or Pedestrian" It would not apply to Car vs. Car etc

My ideas of a much harsher penalty for the offenders are;
Instant loss of licence for 28 days, with no provision for a work/temporary licence if they FTL
Double the Demerit Points - This will effectively mean that if they are charged with a FTL, they wont be able to do it again without loss of licence.
Cost Recovery - They will be responsible for paying all associated medical bills as a direct result of the accident - Very expensive if they dont have insurance

It might seem very drastic, but I the result would be two fold
1. I could guarantee you the accident rate would drop!!
2. Motorists may actually start to notice motorcyclists/cyclists and pedestrians, and always be aware of their presence.
3. Overall it would have a wider impact on the accident/injury rate, because if people are looking for the smaller things on the roads, then by default they should see cars, trucks etc.
4. The $$ saving alone would dramatically reduce ACC claims involving motorcyclists.
5. Having safer motorists on the roads of New Zealand, may take away some of the fear associated with riding of Motorcycles, therefore more people may actually take up riding, and this could be especially important in places with very high traffic flow.

Its time to give on all this PC rubbish and actually do things that WILL make a difference to peoples lives.

In saying all that, there are a number of accidents involving motorcyclists that are caused by their actions too (Speeding, Overtaking etc)
May need to consider increasing the penalties for their actions.

Now I am by no means a legal advisor, Police spokesman, or involved in Politics, just very passionate about my family, the families of other motorcyclists, and my passion for riding around New Zealand.

My thoughts anyway, sorry to Rant!!

Cheers Scott

The Stranger

28th July 2006, 12:00

Bloody well put.
That is the type of thing I feel you should post here (http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/).

Squeak the Rat

28th July 2006, 12:06

I agree, and also send it to the Annette King and Harry Duynhoven, and cc Maurice Williamson...

hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz
aking@ministers.govt.nz
maurice.williamson@national.org.nz

Rashika

28th July 2006, 12:16

100% agree, and as a cyclist as well, I triple echo those sentiments...
The number of times i have wanted to smack some idot driver in the mouth.

Zukin

28th July 2006, 12:35

I have edited my post above a little before I send it off
I will advise when I have sent it off?

The wait for the Flaming from the anti motorcycle gurus out there:wait:

Zukin

28th July 2006, 12:48

Bloody well put.
That is the type of thing I feel you should post here (http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/).

Done

Now wait for flaming :wait:

Zukin

28th July 2006, 12:49

I agree, and also send it to the Annette King and Harry Duynhoven, and cc Maurice Williamson...

hduynhoven@ministers.govt.nz
aking@ministers.govt.nz
maurice.williamson@national.org.nz

Done

Now wait for flaming :wait:

Jantar

28th July 2006, 19:18

Well done Zukin. Its been on the SafeAs site for over 6 hours now, and not one single flame. You obviously got it right. :yes:

Ozzie

29th July 2006, 00:48

of the 55 signed in members of safeas, i think 52 of them are KBers

Ozzie

29th July 2006, 18:24

Please view this thread here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=700111#post700111)

Grahameeboy

29th July 2006, 18:36

Why not give points for Cameras.....if you are the owner, there is a good chance that you were the driver and if you were not then you sort out who was and they get the ticket....I know someone with 5 camera tickets in 1 year who does not get disqualified....has to be a level playing field and stop using the 'owner' as an issue against.

Ixion

29th July 2006, 18:43

Grahameeboy

29th July 2006, 18:47

Because demerit points (and potentially loss of licence) should be used as penalty for road safety breaches.

There is not the slightest evidence that speed cameras have anything to do with road safety.

You might as well ask, why not demerits for parking tickets?

I agree...just making a point..........in some Counties in UK they have no cameras and have seen a drop in accidents.

We all know that speed in itself does not kill but then 80k in a 50k zone is a lot more dangerous than doing 130k in a 100k zone out in the country...............

Ozzie

29th July 2006, 19:32

I think this is complete BS!

How do you expect to gain support and credibility, and thereby prevent a decrease in the speed limit, by saying "hey, dude, fuck, don't lower it, raise it, cause us bikers are shit hot, we are awesome riders and judges of conditions, speed has FA to do with it."

Wake the Fuck up!

Yes, speed in issolation is not the cause, harsh reality is the majority of road users cannot travel safely at 50kph let alone 100, be it because they are incompetent or lack basic observation skills, but the fact is, for them, the temptation of speed is too much to resist, and logic goes out the window.

If I'm not wrong, we are trying to get the real issues addressed, right?

How are we going to achieve that by going on and fucking on about speed?

Speed, for whatever reason IS a road safety issue!

99% of the population cannot handle speed, it is a fact! Is the answer reducing the speed limit, no it isn't. Is speed the biggest single factor in road deaths, again, no it isn't. BUT, you cannot logically argue that speed is not a contributor, or a road safety issue, it IS.

We will not get anywhere by pulling the shit and arguing against every idea they have. The better way would be to give some suggestions, not idiotic impractical ones, but ones that can and will work.

To put it simply; "Be part of the solution, not part of the problem".

That way, we may actually be heard, and taken seriously.

Jantar

29th July 2006, 20:07

Ozzie, you have contradicted yourself.
Yes, speed in issolation is not the cause, but then
Speed, for whatever reason IS a road safety issue!
Are we more concerned about revenue collecting, or road safety? If the former, then speed is an issue. It is easily measured, and easily penalised.

But any particular speed is seldom the cause of an accident, and if we are really concerned about road safety then our primary focus should be on preventing accidents in the first place. Higher speeds just contribute to the effcts once an accident is already happening,

It is the enforcement authorities who have made speed into the issue it has become. I both agree and disagree with your statement "Is speed the biggest single factor in road deaths, again, no it isn't". I have said before, and I will repeat, that a vehicle that has NO speed cannot collide with anything. Some speed is esential for any accident to take place. But that means drivers and riders need to travel at an appropriate speed for their vehicle and for the conditions. A blanket speed limit penalises those who can travel faster safely, and encourages those who cant travel fast to do so. It comes back to education. Learn to read the conditions and drive or ride within the limits imposed by the circumstances. Make excessive speed a safety issue rather than a financial issue and we will see a big improvement in safety.

Grahameeboy

29th July 2006, 20:18

Ozzie, you have contradicted yourself. but then
Are we more concerned about revenue collecting, or road safety? If the former, then speed is an issue. It is easily measured, and easily penalised.

But any particular speed is seldom the cause of an accident, and if we are really concerned about road safety then our primary focus should be on preventing accidents in the first place. Higher speeds just contribute to the effcts once an accident is already happening,

It is the enforcement authorities who have made speed into the issue it has become. I both agree and disagree with your statement "Is speed the biggest single factor in road deaths, again, no it isn't". I have said before, and I will repeat, that a vehicle that has NO speed cannot collide with anything. Some speed is esential for any accident to take place. But that means drivers and riders need to travel at an appropriate speed for their vehicle and for the conditions. A blanket speed limit penalises those who can travel faster safely, and encourages those who cant travel fast to do so. It comes back to education. Learn to read the conditions and drive or ride within the limits imposed by the circumstances. Make excessive speed a safety issue rather than a financial issue and we will see a big improvement in safety.

:rockon: ....................................

Ozzie

29th July 2006, 21:31

I think you will find i did not, unless i got my words wrong.

Is speed a road safety issue, yes it is.

On it's own, does it cause accidents, no it doesn't.

It remains my point, speed should not be the focus, either by MoT or us, if we keep going on about it, it adds fuel to their fire.

What are the real issues? We all agree it isn't speed, so what is it? Let's focus on the issues, remove the focus on speed, and get the focus where it should be.

Context is the key, I think speed is a road safety issue, because so many can't handle it, not because speed is a cause of accidents.

Take a 25 kph corner, in a 100 kph zone, someone went through (not round) the corner at 40kph, was speed an issue in the accident, yes, was it the cause, no. The dumb fuck that thought he was bullet proof, missread the road, and the conditions, and died as a result.

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear, but the main point is apply the focus where it needs to be.

Ixion

29th July 2006, 21:50

I went for a ride today.

Much of that ride was on roads with a speed limit of 100kph.

But there were many corners on those roads which I could not safely ride round at 100kph. Some I had to reduce speed to 80kph. Some 60. A couple (signed at 35kph) I had to reduce speed to under 50kph.

If I had attempted to ride round one of those 50kph corners at 100kph, I would almost certainly have crashed (or run onto the wrong side of the road and hit an on coming vehicle).

I didn't. Despite the fact that the law ALLOWED me to go round that corner at 100kph, I USED MY JUDGEMENT and selected a suitable speed. If I had tried to go round at 100kph and crashed I would not have crashed because I was speeding (which I would not have been) but BECAUSE MY JUDGEMENT WAS FAULTY.

Now let us suppose that some of the time I actually rode at 130kph (which, of course, I would never do ). And one of those corners had a maximum speed of 90kph. If I tried to go round it at 130 , and crashed , I would not have crashed because I was speeding (though I was ) but BECAUSE MY JUDGEMENT WAS FAULTY.

Now why is it that the law is quite happy for me to use my judgement to select a suitable speed up to 100mph (even though faulty judgement may cause me to crash and be killed) ; but considers me incapable of making that SAME judgement at 130kph?

And can we not see that the actual PROBLEM is not breaking an arbitrary speed limit, but FAULTY JUDGEMENT.

And the cure for poor judgement? Is it to give me a ticket? Will that improve my judgement? If not, then the ticket does not achieve anything (except revenue); because my judgement is still poor , and I am still just as likely to misjudge the speed of one of those sub 100kph corners (even if I do not exceed 100kph), crash and die.

Is it not, rather, better training. Then with improved judgement I will select an appropriate speed for that 50kph corner.

Ozzie

29th July 2006, 22:18

Exactly, so get the focus where it needs to be, and forget about speed.

The sped limit is 100, if you don't want to contribute to the revenue grabing, don' t speed, simple isn't it?

Drugs!

Some people can handle drugs a lot better than me, it is my choice to follow the law but, they would argue to death that there is nothing wrong with it (and do). Who gives a crap, it is the law, you aren't above it, I'm not above it, they aren't above it, time to accept it.

The laws, including the speed laws, are not made with you or me, our driving ability, or cornering ability in mind. They take into account everybody, and face facts, the vast majority do not have the skill no aptitude to handle speed. Thereby, the speed issue, is infact as you say, a training and skills issue, but that is no reason to up the speed limit, any more than it is a reason to drop it.

Too many, particularily cagers in sub standard vehicles, see the speed limit as a target, neh a challenge, and because of their inability, they loose the challenge, kill themselves, and take a few of us with them.

So now i have contradicted myself, said forget speed, then go on about it myself, it is getting us nowhere. We all know speed is not the cause, but is there a point in keeping the focus on it?

Ixion

29th July 2006, 22:23

Ozzie

29th July 2006, 22:35

It is politically sound to generate as little discussion about speed limits as possible.

The police will obviously argue for lower limits. If we argue for higher ones, the ensuing debate validates "speed" as an important thing. And we cannot hope to win the argument against the police.

We need to try to move "speed" (ie, the argument about the actual number of kph) off the radar. Replace it with debate about judgement and police discretion (or anything else, really).

At last, I think you have realised my point.

I have yet to see a post from you on my thread about RRA, why?

ps. I enjoyed our ride back the other night, freekin cold, but good all the same. I like your lights, not sure how well they would go on the Katana tho.

Ixion

29th July 2006, 22:52

Uh, nobody in this thread was disagreeing with you? And noone suggested raising the speed limit that I can see ?

I'll wait and see where the RRA thing goes before I comment

I only had one third of von Klunkens main beams on last night, too much on coming traffic to use the long range lights, they're REALLY bright.

Ozzie

29th July 2006, 22:54

You don't need to wait to offer support.

candor

29th July 2006, 23:08

Can see both sides here. I don't think to necessary to avoid a scrap over speed. A bit of balance to the debate is good. NO need to argue for higher limits. But need not to let them away with stupid restrictions either.

The thing is to just refine your argument to a few simple logical point that people can take on board without much effort which will gel true to them.
Fight the buggers soundbites with better soundbytes. But don't get stuck on that bit - divert and move focus over to the really significant stuff.

And it does need to be made clear that speed reductions offer little benefit toll wise (if any) so are the wrong focus if we're genuinely interested in reducing the toll. Which WE ALL ARE - or need to make out is the primary interest. Make your motives highminded always. Its an easy point to score for credibility as they can rightly be criticised for budget minded ness.

They are the killers MOT / LTNZ - not speed or speeders. And given a few hundred thouand I'd sue them myself for lethal policies. I liked the point above that speed is no more dangerous than what u get parking tickets for. Yet no demerits for thaT! And your ideas here re a merit system are a winner to get the public supporting you. Also all the bike stuff you have on the safeas is overwhelming to the truly ignorant. I think at meetings if more are planned you best simplify your points. Get into detail / studies etc later in process.

I'm feeling too its hard to knw whether to go hard and alienate them (prolly too late to back up now for me), or whether to kiss butt then get little push in the long run. I was actually bribed at Welly meeting I do believe - funding offer made plus mention I should drop one of my goals! Uh...No way!

Jantar

29th July 2006, 23:15

Good points Candor. For these reasons I believe we need a KB presence at every meeting in NZ. We may not sway any opinion at this early stage, but we must be seen to be an interested party.

Ixion

29th July 2006, 23:25

The rebuttal on speed limits should be that focus on increased enforcement of speed limits will not progress road safety. That benefits from enforcement are in fact due to the elimination of dangerous speed differentials (that was well received last night by the MoT bint). And that LTSA figures show that this has plateaued now that traffic is mostly doing the same speed. Therefore we need to move on and consider options for (insert whatever )

scumdog

29th July 2006, 23:30

Now why is it that the law is quite happy for me to use my judgement to select a suitable speed up to 100mph (even though faulty judgement may cause me to crash and be killed) ; but considers me incapable of making that SAME judgement at 130kph?

Is it not, rather, better training. Then with improved judgement I will select an appropriate speed for that 50kph corner.

It is the same logic that says I cannot own a fully-automatic AK47 - because some retard might not be safe with one therefore I suffer that same judgement - just like you suffer it because the law says a retard is likely to be unsafe at over 100kph wheras you may well have sufficient good judgement to travel quite a bit faster than that and do so safely.

As far as education and training, I agree 100%, make the driving test more expensive and harder, toss in a bit of real training and make the penalties for driving without a licence severe.
And also up the penalties for passing on yellow lines etc, I mean, c'mon, $150 for an act that could result in fatalities - and frequently does - hardly a real deterent eh?

Jantar

29th July 2006, 23:33

As far as education and training, I agree 100%, make the driving test more expensive and harder, toss in a bit of real training and make the penalties for driving without a licence severe.
And also up the penalties for passing on yellow lines etc, I mean, c'mon, $150 for an act that could result in fatalities - and frequently does - hardly a real deterent eh?
I don't think anyone her would argue with any of those suggestions. :yes:

Ixion

29th July 2006, 23:36

scumdog

29th July 2006, 23:39

Hey, Mr Scumdog, what's a cop with a single large silver crown on each epaulette and a whole mess of silver braid on his cap peak? What rank I mean, is he a Big Cheese, we had one of them at the meeting last night, he was a right prat.

Dunno, we never see them down here, could be a Superintendant or sommat, but yeah, a Big Cheese, outrank me by about four levels.

They drive a flash office chair most of the time, probably got a gold star qualification for that too...

Ozzie

30th July 2006, 10:27

spudchucka

30th July 2006, 10:34

Hey, Mr Scumdog, what's a cop with a single large silver crown on each epaulette and a whole mess of silver braid on his cap peak? What rank I mean, is he a Big Cheese, we had one of them at the meeting last night, he was a right prat.
http://www.police.govt.nz/about/insignia.html

Take your pick.

Silver fern fronds on the caps peak only go to inspectors and above.

Ozzie

30th July 2006, 10:42

I would have picked Senior Seargant, if you were talkin about the load old fella behind me, but I didn't see his lid.

Pretty sure there were no stars on his shoulders.

Ixion

30th July 2006, 10:43

Ah. He was a superintendant. Superintendant TheSunShinesOutofmyArse . Guess that's why he got uppitty when I called him "dude"

candor

30th July 2006, 11:51

That censored post reappeared. A comp glitch? Just realised the other 20 found deleted could have been question 3. Which they removed from local sections after our bitching - just before u guys came on board.

Lou Girardin

30th July 2006, 17:58

Is speed a road safety issue, yes it is.

On it's own, does it cause accidents, no it doesn't.

Yes it does. International studies have shown around 7% - 8% of fatal/injury accidents are due to exceeding the speed limit.
Less than that caused by tiredness, inattention, in fact less than just about any other cause other than mechanical failure.

Karma

30th July 2006, 18:08

Yes it does. International studies have shown around 7% - 8% of fatal/injury accidents are due to exceeding the speed limit.

Ok... perhaps it should have been clearer...

Retards speeding causes accidents, people that don't know their limits cause accidents, but if speeding itself is the root cause of accidents then police wouldn't be allowed to chase people over 100k because it's dangerous.

Ozzie

30th July 2006, 18:08

Really?

No disrespect, but how?

i would think speed relative to the conditions would be a factor, but ultimately falling in the drive/rider error or ability side.

But speed alone?

Ozzie

30th July 2006, 18:20

Ok... perhaps it should have been clearer...

Retards speeding causes accidents, people that don't know their limits cause accidents, but if speeding itself is the root cause of accidents then police wouldn't be allowed to chase people over 100k because it's dangerous.

Well said that man, should have thought of that on Thursday!

Ixion

30th July 2006, 19:30

Yes it does. International studies have shown around 7% - 8% of fatal/injury accidents are due to exceeding the speed limit.
Less than that caused by tiredness, inattention, in fact less than just about any other cause other than mechanical failure.

Uh, no. 7%-8% of fatal/injury accidents are due to exceeding the safe speed for the conditions. Which in these cases happens, coincidentally, to be the speed limit.

scumdog

30th July 2006, 20:16

Scumdog, would there be any implications for you professionally, for you to join our ranks in a national body to have an increase presence in these such decisions?

You could be really good to ensure we don't say something out and out easily proved wrong.

Are you involved with traffic or sumthin else?

No implication at all that I can think of.

People like Lou and a few others say things that are not going to be easily proved wrong but unfortunately there's a shitload of political/financial stuff thrown in which he's not privy to, hence while he says stuff that makes sense (Yeah well most of the time LOu:nya: ) the rest tangle things up so what appears as common sense has to take a back seat. (hope that lot makes sense).

And I'm MEANT to be traffic but also relieving, - spend most of my time doing general policing but a week or so back the boss said 'We'll see if we can't get you out on the road a bit more this year' (i.e. the new financial year). so I'll wait and see.

Grahameeboy

30th July 2006, 20:21

It is the same logic that says I cannot own a fully-automatic AK47 - because some retard might not be safe with one therefore I suffer that same judgement - just like you suffer it because the law says a retard is likely to be unsafe at over 100kph wheras you may well have sufficient good judgement to travel quite a bit faster than that and do so safely.

As far as education and training, I agree 100%, make the driving test more expensive and harder, toss in a bit of real training and make the penalties for driving without a licence severe.
And also up the penalties for passing on yellow lines etc, I mean, c'mon, $150 for an act that could result in fatalities - and frequently does - hardly a real deterent eh?

plus 35 points................

scumdog

30th July 2006, 20:50

plus 35 points................

Yep, wot you sed.

But most people don't know they're getting a 35 demerits when they get their $150 ticket so it does not come into the 'deterent' equation.

Only speed tickets have the demerits marked on them ,- no I don't know why the others don't)

Ozzie

30th July 2006, 23:40

So Scumdog, would you consider supporting the cause and joining the ranks?

scumdog

31st July 2006, 07:55

So Scumdog, would you consider supporting the cause and joining the ranks?

Wot cause, wot ranks?

PM me with more detail eh?:yes:

Lou Girardin

31st July 2006, 08:12

Uh, no. 7%-8% of fatal/injury accidents are due to exceeding the safe speed for the conditions. Which in these cases happens, coincidentally, to be the speed limit.

The studies differentiated between the two.

Ixion

31st July 2006, 09:22

? So you are saying that the study said that 7%-8% of fatalities occured because motorists exceeded the speed limit even though the (excessive) speed was quite safe? That doesn't make sense. If the speed was not unsafe why was there an accident. Or do you mean that 7% of accidents occured when exceeding the speed limit, for reasons unrelated to speed?

Lou Girardin

31st July 2006, 09:53

The cause of the accident was put down to exceeding the speed limit. The speed travelled at was patently unsafe. From memory, some of the other causes were; inattention, drink/drugs, looked but didn't see, too fast for the conditions.
They are obviously differentiating between travelling too fast yet under the limit and just plain too fast.

Fat Tony

1st August 2006, 01:39

Jeeeees, and there was me hoping that our move to NZ would be a move away from a focus on speed cameras and targetting bikes in particular for minor offences like noisy cans and smaller-than-legal number plates... doesn't look like it will be :(

In the UK we've seen the number of speed cameras increase year upon year, with no real reduction in the number of accidents. Personally I don't understand the mentality of government bodies who know that more vehicles on the roads WILL increase the number of accidents, yet they still keep implementing new laws/more cameras/less traffic police in an attempt to further reduce the number of accidents. It's just not going to happen while the majority of motorists on the road don't actually give a sh*t about their own standard of driving.

Punishment alone, be it fines or points, is not the way forward, neither is a blanket reduction in speed limits. Take my commute in to work as an example: they reduced the speed limits from 60mph to 50mph in one area, and from 40mph to 30mph in another (60 and 40 are a safe speed for this road). At the same time they amended the markings on much of the road to a solid white line which means that vehicles can not overtake. The number of accidents has actually increased on this stretch of road because drivers get impatient, stuck in a queue of traffic doing a speed limit that is below what it should be, and as soon as they reach an area that they can overtake, they pull all sorts of stupid moves to get past the vehicle that had been 'holding them up'.

All along the road are signs stating 'Slower Speeds, Safer Roads' - it's just not the case. The signs should read 'Better Drivers, Safer Roads' and the focus should be on driver education, not on issuing fines and points.

Do the government see this? Do they hell. They've spent years following the 'speed kills' mantra, they know damn well that it isn't working but keep trying the same approach.

Ozzie

1st August 2006, 11:21

As with anything, I believe it is a lack of credible enforcement that is the root issue.

People get fines, they don't pay them, people rack up points, get their license cancelled (if they have one), but still drive.

Why?

Same reason why people drink drive, over and over and over.

Because, in all reality, unless they are driving all over the show, on a back road, they are not going to get stopped.

Even when they are doing warrant checks, or even breatho, they don't ask for your license, whereas they should.

Speed cameras (IMHO) should have demerits, they should also have instant warrant for arrest / siezure if the vehicle is owned and opperated by a disqualified driver. If the vehicle is owned by an unlicensed person, print the photo, knock on their door, if they look like the person in the picture, lock them up for a month.

If fines aren't paid, the vehicle owned by the person should be impounded.

There is too much focus on getting money, not actually enforcing the law, which makes the whole thing a joke. If the cops aren't going to follow up on these pricks and hold them accountable and actually enforce the law, how is it ever going to get any better?

The system is too soft all the way round, as such, most of these reoffenders and youngsters do not have any respect for the laws, as essentially, their are no implications to them if they drive anyway.