ACC calls for “greater awareness of motorcyclists”

[Little Miss Trouble]

Anyone else spot this one?

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/070611/3/lzw.html

what are your thoughts?
I think any driver education thingame aimed at making people more aware of us is good, of course whether it actually works is another matter entirely.

glad to see this bit though "In three-quarters of cases, the motorcyclist was not at fault, she said." nice change from the usual media portrayal:bleh:

[MSTRS]

Posters in bus shelters?? That'll be effective.
Should pass a law making it legal for us to intentionally damage cars etc in retaliation for being treated like we're not there.

[Reckless]

quote Auckland City road policing manager Inspector Heather Wells said 41 per cent of injury motorcycle crashes occurred in situations where other motorists didn't see the motorcycle. In three-quarters of cases, the motorcyclist was not at fault, she said.

Aint that the truth! you really gota watch out for the red light runners now if your between cars at the lights. Aucks getting really really bad.
I got one guy, one day, he was goin slow enough 4 me to play with! I pulled out just enough for him to have to stop, then rode around the front of him and left him stranded in the middle of the intersection with all the traffic bearing down on him!! "oh lifes good some days"

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Making drivers aware of motorcycles is great but I think that generally the poor standard of driving here is to blame.

I'm from London and have been riding for 20 years in many different countries but I have never come across such bad standards of driving as I witness here on a daily basis on my 40k round trip commute. It's literally disgraceful!

Motorcycle awareness should be part of the driving test but also that same driving test should be difficult enough that if you are not a good enough driver to be released on to the roads at the end of it then you fail.

[MSTRS]

....I think that generally the poor standard of driving here is to blame.

I'm from London .....

Personally, I think it's all the foreigners that are the problem:dodge:
(I agree with you - driving standards are appalling here)

[Macktheknife]

This sounds suspiciously like the same "look out for bikes' campaign from last year.....
'that was not very sucessful so lets do it again.'
I suppose we should be grateful that they are doing anything at all.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Personally, I think it's all the foreigners that are the problem:dodge:
(I agree with you - driving standards are appalling here)

That's definitely something to do with it. I am able to swap my UK license for an NZ one by answering a couple of easy theory questions. I'm happy with this for me personally, however, I don't think this should be the case.

But I think we all know it's not just the foreigners (mentioning no specific races here) who can't drive.....

Of course there's bad driving where ever you go but I've not seen such a majority in any other "developed" country.

[mazz1972]

Nice to see some "effort" being made. There seem to be so many accidents where a driver hasn't seen a bike and whammo.

From a personal point of view I feel that there are some riders that need educating too. Many a time I have been in my car and given a fright by a biker zooming past me out of nowhere from somewhere they weren't supposed to be....doesn't help the cause and can't blame a driver for not looking where a bike isn't supposed to be. Same with cyclists.

[Blackbird]

A number of us either attended or made submissions last year to the Ministry of Transport "roadshows". There was heavy emphasis from us on education, not legislation. I think most of us meant raising driving skills, not a bloody poster campaign.

I do hope it's not going to be a case of "Well, education failed, so let's legistlate - perhaps we should drive bikes off the road as they are over-represented". I don't trust M of T to do a decent cause and effect analysis.

[Sanx]

glad to see this bit though "In three-quarters of cases, the motorcyclist was not at fault, she said." nice change from the usual media portrayal:bleh:

I'm surprised the figure is as low as that. The UK's Department Of Transport released a pretty comprehensive report entitled "In-depth Study of Motorcycle Accidents" in November 2004. They claimed that 38% of accidents were Right-Of-Way Violations; basically, the classic "Sorry mate, I didn't see you" manouver. They found that less than 20% of these accidents (of 681 studied) were fully or partially the fault of the biker.

Over 65% of these accidents involved a driver who failed to see the biker who was in clear view, and was in clear view to witnesses. 12% of these accidents happened when the rider was verifiably using visibility aids such as daytime running lishgts and high-vis vests; though use of such aids is felt to be under-reported by the cops.

Should anyone be so inclined, the report makes for very interesting reading. You can download the full version here (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/indepthstudyofmotorcycleacci4784).

As an aside, the study also surveyed bikers' attitudes to what constituted important safety measures. The options included "Mainting the motorcycle", "being visible", "observing the speed limit", "Not riding whilst drunk / drugged", "using correct observation techniques", "correctly positioning motorcycle", "not riding whilst tired" and "wearing pretective clothing". Three guesses which of these was rated as "most important" by just 1.2% of people and "least important" by 29.6%.


Posters in bus shelters?? That'll be effective.
Should pass a law making it legal for us to intentionally damage cars etc in retaliation for being treated like we're not there.

No no no. It would make the motorist concerned resent bikers. Having the driver strung up from the nearest tree would be much simpler.

[Drum]

Let them have their silly poster campaign. At least they're not requiring us to wear flouro (yet).

[MSTRS]

Having the driver strung up from the nearest tree would be much simpler.

Steady on. That's a bit harsh. Unless you meant foreigners only?:devil2:

[Sanx]

I do hope it's not going to be a case of "Well, education failed, so let's legistlate - perhaps we should drive bikes off the road as they are over-represented". I don't trust M of T to do a decent cause and effect analysis.

Well, to give you an indication of how important Land Transport rate motorcyclists and their concerns, do a quick study of the Research Papers carried out by or commissioned by LTNZ. You can find the lists here (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/reports/index.html).

Not one instance of the words "motorcycle", "motorcycles", "motorbike" or "motorbikes". Not a single study looking at how bikes are affected by blind cagers or abysmal roads. However, good to know the mad mullahs in charge are concerned with important matters such as "Measuring and enhancing roadside biodiversity" and "Personalised marketing demonstration study for Birkenhead, Auckland". Useless fuckers, the lot of them.

[avgas]

98% of statistics are made up.

[WRT]

"The problem seems to be worse at intersections and on major roads. For example, in Auckland, five roads accounted for the majority of motorcycle accidents," she said.

Could at least have let us know which roads those five are so we can avoid them!

[riffer]

You can all go and get fucked. :angry:

I was the Studio Manager of the Advertising Agency approached to create this campaign earlier this year, and approached a number of people on KB and elsewhere to try and get some buy-in from the general motorcycling populace and some consultation in order to get some of our opinions and ideas across.

Response? Apathy and negativity.

You reap what you sow.

Don't complain about how they try and talk to motorcyclists if you don't want to get involved.

At least they know you exist.

Sheesh.

[avgas]

Could at least have let us know which roads those five are so we can avoid them!
I know that Dominion and Sandringham roads are 2 of em.

[Drum]

I'll wager Symonds Street is one too.

[Blackbird]

You can all go and get fucked. :angry:

I was the Studio Manager of the Advertising Agency approached to create this campaign earlier this year, and approached a number of people on KB and elsewhere to try and get some buy-in from the general motorcycling populace and some consultation in order to get some of our opinions and ideas across.

Response? Apathy and negativity.

You reap what you sow.

Don't complain about how they try and talk to motorcyclists if you don't want to get involved.

At least they know you exist.

Sheesh.


Errr.... You approached a NUMBER of people on KB? Does this mean that you did or didn't actually make a post about it or was this a private approach? Let's have some context to see if you blowing a gasket is justified:innocent:

[Drum]

You can all go and get fucked. .....

Noone commented on the quality of the posters Riffer. I'm sure they are highly professional (although I have not seen any).

My point is - is a driver really going to look at a poster and think "gosh - you know I should look out for motorcycles".

[MSTRS]

I'm surprised at you, Riffer. Nobody approached me:weep:
The tactile method really would be the best. With us doing the tactiling :innocent:

[slinky]

Didn't they already do a "look for bikes" campaign??

they should make car Reg's pay a high ACC levy(and get rid of the bike one)... that would open their eyes!!

[Sanx]

I was the Studio Manager of the Advertising Agency approached to create this campaign earlier this year, and approached a number of people on KB and elsewhere to try and get some buy-in from the general motorcycling populace and some consultation in order to get some of our opinions and ideas across.

I didn't see a post on here or Sportsbike. Whilst it's easy to miss on here, depending what forums you trawl regularly, I would have seen it on SB or if it had been made a front-page announcement.

[Griff]

Posters in bus shelters?? That'll be effective. .

Yes really bright Eyecatching Posters! Espescially near Junctions.......
That will make it MORE fun.

[Slingshot]

98% of statistics are made up.


Yeah....it would seem so in this case


The number of ACC claims for motorcycle accidents has nearly doubled since 2001, and annual ACC claim costs now exceed $52 million, not including treatment in public hospitals.

$52 million...not including treatment in public hospitals....exactly what are the annual costs for? This is propaganda that will lead to an increase in the ACC levy on motorcycle registration.





ACC programme manager Phil Wright said motorcyclists made up only two percent of vehicles on the road, but accounted for 18 percent of ACC claims received.

Again...bullshit I would think. So nearly 1 in 5 ACC claims relate to motorcycle accidents. What the fuck ever!
I don't know how many claims they deal with in a year.....but I bet ya that most of them are work place injuries or sporting injuries (rugby, etc.)

[Shadows]

That's definitely something to do with it. I am able to swap my UK license for an NZ one by answering a couple of easy theory questions. I'm happy with this for me personally, however, I don't think this should be the case.

But I think we all know it's not just the foreigners (mentioning no specific races here) who can't drive.....

Of course there's bad driving where ever you go but I've not seen such a majority in any other "developed" country.

Hence why your swap was so easy. If you hold license from the UK then you are probably already a better driver than 95% of the fucktards on our roads and may just need to brush up on our silly give way rules.
They know the standard required to pass the driver's license test is a lot higher in the UK (and probably most other countries in The World) than it is over here, they just hate to admit it because if they did then they might have to do something about it.

[riffer]

Okay...

calmed down now.

Yes, I approached a few select members on KB whom I believed would be representative of the site.

I was wary of throwing the whole thing on to the site as, a) I didn't really have the authority to do so, and b) it would have probably ended up in PD.

My apologies for nutting off. It's a sore point with me; one of the reasons I packed in the work with Advertising.

[riffer]

Again...bullshit I would think. So nearly 1 in 5 ACC claims relate to motorcycle accidents. What the fuck ever!
I don't know how many claims they deal with in a year.....but I bet ya that most of them are work place injuries or sporting injuries (rugby, etc.)

It's a bad quote. Looks like a journo didn't listen properly.

1 in 5 ACC motoring accident claims are for accidents which INVOLVE motorcyclists.

sigh. :(

[riffer]

$52 million...not including treatment in public hospitals....exactly what are the annual costs for? This is propaganda that will lead to an increase in the ACC levy on motorcycle registration.

Mainly rehabilitation costs:

physiotherapy, supply of crutches, paying 80% motorcyclists wages while they can't work...

[Slingshot]

It's a bad quote. Looks like a journo didn't listen properly.

1 in 5 ACC motoring accident claims are for accidents which INVOLVE motorcyclists.

sigh. :(

You and I are both smart enough to know that....but Joe Average public would skim read the article and not give a second thought...until it came up in conversation at a party...then they'd think they were an expert on the subject and start quoting the figures willy nilly.

[MacD]

I suspect the 18% figure is only related to Motor Vehicle Account claims, which are funded separately from work-related and other recreational claims.

(Riffer got there first...)

Most of these statistics are published and fairly easy to find on the ACC site (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/acc-injury-statistics-2006/SS_WIM2_062809).

If the comparison is between Cars and Motorcycles only then looking at the 2005-2006 figures the percentage of claims is actually slightly higher.
- new Car driver/passenger claims: 3436
- new Motorcycle rider/passenger claims: 1047
which is ~23% of total car & motorcycle new claims.

Another way of looking at the figures is that new car-related claims are about 3 times the number of new motorcycle-related claims, while the number of cars registered in NZ (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2006/table-31.html) is about 50 times the number of motorcycles.

The reality is that you have a far higher risk of being injured and making an ACC claim riding a motorcycle than driving a car. Accept the risk and manage it.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Hence why your swap was so easy. If you hold license from the UK then you are probably already a better driver than 95% of the fucktards on our roads and may just need to brush up on our silly give way rules.
They know the standard required to pass the driver's license test is a lot higher in the UK (and probably most other countries in The World) than it is over here, they just hate to admit it because if they did then they might have to do something about it.

Fair enough, but is it as easy to swap to an NZ license regardless of which country you got your drivers license?

If it is then this is a serious problem.

[Shadows]

Fair enough, but is it as easy to swap to an NZ license regardless of which country you got your drivers license?

If it is then this is a serious problem.

Probably but they would need to learn the phrase "can I have a ricense prease?" as well.

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Probably but they would need to learn the phrase "can I have a ricense prease?" as well.

Mate, I hear you.....

[rainman]

From http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200706111610/acc_motorbike_claims_double_since_2001


The Accident Compensation Corporation and the police are urging drivers to be more aware of motorcyclists, after a huge increase in the number of ACC claims for motorbike accidents.

ACC says since 2001, claims involving motorbikes have almost doubled and annual claim costs are now more than $52 million. Its spokesperson, Phil Wright, says in most cases motorcyclists are not at fault in an accident and motorists need to take more care.

He says motorcyclists can also help to keep themselves safe by wearing high visibility vests and keeping lights on even during the day.

(Emphasis is mine)

Is ACC getting more bike-friendly these days?

Ride safe out there.

[James Deuce]

Motorcyclists are massively over-represented in non-injury single vehicle accidents too.

Might want to work on that as well people.

I wouldn't rely on an ACC campaign to change attitudes to those ratbag, dangerous motorcyclists either.

"I'm from the Government, I'm here to help you."

[mikey62]

Ok, we've got Dominion Rd, Sandringham Rd, and prolly Symonds St. Any one know with a little more certanty which roads to stay off of ? And surely they can't be taking the motorways into this.

[El Dopa]

Fair enough, but is it as easy to swap to an NZ license regardless of which country you got your drivers license?


As far as I am aware, yes.

As I understand it, there is an international treaty. If your country of nationality is signed up to it, then if you go and live in another of the signatory countries, they are required to do the 'swap' thing.

So a kiwi going to live in the UK can get a UK licence. A pom moving here can answer a few pissant theory questions and get a licence. And so on.

Works fine if the parent country has a reasonable training and test standard (like Japan and the UK do). Doesn't work so well if the driving test in the parent country consists of getting in a car and driving 50m in a straight line (yes, there is a country where this is the sum total of the test, and yes, they are a signatory to this treaty).

I got my car license in the UK years ago. The training/test was reasonably difficult even then, and its harder now.

I've been through the bike test system over here, and frankly, it's shit. You learn more in one day at (the unofficial) Ride Right, Ride Safe course than you do going through three stages (basic, restricted, full) of the official system.

They might as well give the licences away when you send in a certain number of Weet-bix tokens.

[Hitcher]

Wearing reflectorised jackets? Have these people got no... taste?

[ali]

Hoping I'm not taking this off topic.

After 15 years of not riding, I was allowed to buy and ride a 1000cc motorcycle ( which I promptly binned a year later ).

Is this a good practise ( both mine and the LTNZ ) ?

Where was the requirement to resit a driving test ? ( yes, I know most of the responsibility lies with me).

I travel 12-1500 km per week as a rep ( in a car ) and consider myself fairly competent behind the wheel , but on occasion get it wrong.

Education needs to involve all road users, not just car drivers.

[Drum]

........yes, I know most of the responsibility lies with me............

Most? It's your life. All of the responsibility lies with you.

[riffer]

Wearing reflectorised jackets? Have these people got no... taste?

I seem to recall this argument being used in the States regarding helmets...

but it comes down to personal choice in the end. I wear one when commuting as the cagers seem to be more asleep. It seems to work with the Cordura. But it looks crap over my leathers.

Of course you don't want to get lulled into a false sense of security that they actually SEE you ... or you'll end up like the possums on River Road.

[Sanx]

Ok, we've got Dominion Rd, Sandringham Rd, and prolly Symonds St. Any one know with a little more certanty which roads to stay off of ? And surely they can't be taking the motorways into this.

Dominion Road would certainly be one of the candidates. Bus lane down most of it, and cars simply don't think there's going to be anything going past the stationary line of traffic on the inside. The two times I've been the nearest to being taken out by a car were on Dominion Road. First time the car simply pulled out in front of me - I pulled a really good stoppie to avoid it, and the driver gave me a guilty limp-wristed wave to say sorry.

500m down the road, the very same driver suddenly swerved into the bus lane to avoid the traffic and sideswiped me. I stayed on, got in front of him, braked, stopped, put bike on stand, walked back to the car and proceeded to swear very loudly at him whilst banging on his window.

The driver wouldn't even look at me, but the passenger got out and threatened, nicely, to arrest me if I carried on. Did I mention it was a cop car? The driver was reported back to his station, but - funnily enough - no further action was taken. If I see that cop again, I'll make sure I give him a wide berth, the blind fucker.

[Bob]

The ACC and police have called for drivers to be more aware of motorcyclists, following statistics that show claims involving bikes have ‘almost doubled’ since 2001.

Annual claims costs are now standing at more than NZD 52 million. ACC spokesperson Phil Wright said “In most cases motorcyclists are not at fault in an accident and motorists need to take more care. Motorcyclists can also help to keep themselves safe by wearing high visibility vests and keeping lights on even during the day.”

It should be borne in mind that there has been a five-fold increase in motorcycle registrations since 2001. So the ratio of claims to bikes owned is actually IMPROVING. However, it is good to see that car drivers are being asked to take more care – in the UK, all that seems to happen is they make the bike test harder.

[Sam I Am]

yes they say Auckland is the worst and on 5 roads >>> but which are the fucking roads !!!!

[Brian d marge]

thats because NZ has ACC, its coming out of the governments coffers ,,, hence they are try ing to stop the bad before it happens ( a good thing )

Here its insurance , who cares if you need a new leg/ arm or skin ,, you dont get if you dont have insurance ( Or you pay the FULL amount ,,,, )

if you dont pay then its the courts ,,,( we are not to clear on that cause we have never heard of it happening !

Stephen

[Karma]

ACC spokesperson Phil Wright said “In most cases motorcyclists are not at fault in an accident


Then who is?

In this no-blame culture it couldn't possibly be the car drivers... couldn't be the governments complete lack of ability testing... couldn't be the police focus on speed as opposed to dangerous and careless driving.

Must be mercurys fault.

[caesius]

Motorcyclists bleed taxpayer (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10445028)


Since 2001 the number of people claiming for motorcycle accidents around the country has nearly doubled to the point where the crashes are now costing ACC more than $52 million a year.
And how much are boyracers/obese families etc etc costing?


That cost does not include treatment injured motorcyclists receive in public hospitals.
For some reason, that reads like they're saying we shouldn't receive treatment.



In 75 per cent of the accidents the motorcyclists were not at fault.
And finally, at the very end of the article, they allocate one sentence that doesn't demonise evil, malevolent motorcyclists. I bet the writer was having a dilemma whether to include this and ruin a perfectly good "motorcyclists = tax thieves" article.

[BigB]

The headline sucks, but at least they're trying to do something about the Auckland drivers who drive around with blinkers on.

I commute every day from Onehunga to College Hill Ponsonby (have been for the last 4 years) and I'v lost count of the amount of near misses I've had.

I'm not on a small bike, but I've got to say since I put 100w bulbs in there have been less near misses.

Cheers

B

[Cibby]

good on you for bring this to light, being out of NZ i miss a lot of the media hype.

It is simply unbelievable that they would put such a slanderous headline on an artical and then include one sentense at the end.

It is almost like, we choose to ride therefore it is our own problem if we get hit and hurt..

how rude

[sAsLEX]

Since 2001 the number of people claiming for motorcycle accidents around the country has nearly doubled to the point where the crashes are now costing ACC more than $52 million a year.


Maybe if they engaged their brain they would follow this up with....

" During the same period new registrations of Motorcycles, Scooters and Mopeds has matched if not exceeded this doubling"


But Lies, Damned Lies and Andy Dickhead and his loons.

[NighthawkNZ]

Someone really needs to write an article in response really and get the the papers to publish it... :scratch:

sorry it was a tui moment... yeah right

[sAsLEX]

Someone really needs to write an article in response really and get the the papers to publish it... :scratch:

sorry it was a tui moment... yeah right

Calling Batman.... opps I mean BRONZ.... there are/where a few members on this site and maybe pointing out say the dramatic increase of relatively inexperienced riders on commuter scooters etc would be a logical way to fight back at the bureaucracy

[Delerium]

Motor cycle accidents have increased....ohhhhhh the boogey man might get you too. Doesnt state how many more bikes are registered than in 2001 though does it. I bit the increases are similar.

[xwhatsit]

Shit you guys are negative.

OK the headline sucks, but did you actually RTFA?

It's talking about how they're launching a new advertising campaign for us, to tell cagers to look more closely for us. They're even pulling stunts like dropping bikes from cranes. This is a good thing you dumb twats.

[James Deuce]

Two points:

1. They're right. We do.

2. An advertising campaign to watch out for motorcyclists and cyclists is annual ACC/LTNZ round robin event.

[Calo]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10445028

I don't like the headline - 'Motorcyclists bleed taxpayer' - when 75% of accidents aren't our fault. Besides, we're taxpayers too! :angry:

[Drum]

And tehre you go. We were all wrong.................

Great North Rd, Great South Rd, Karangahape Rd, Newton Rd and Ponsonby Rd.

[RC1]

:shit: :Police: :Police: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=51648 suprised the repost police arent out this morn :dodge:

[James Deuce]

I am - just you wait.

[Drum]

[url].....I don't like the headline - 'Motorcyclists bleed taxpayer' - when 75% of accidents aren't our fault. Besides, we're taxpayers too! :angry:

I tried to email her to have her up about her headline, but the email link doesn't seem to work. Can anyone else get it to work? (see bottom of the Harold article).

[yungatart]

For some reason, that reads like they're saying we shouldn't receive treatment.









It is almost like, we choose to ride therefore it is our own problem if we get hit and hurt..

how rude

Many years ago, my brother came off his trail bike, broke his arm and his leg, sometime later, when he was on his road bike an idiot cager pulled out in front of him, resulting in a broken arm and leg for him again. He had the same orthopaedic surgeon both times. He was told, if you break bones on your bike again, don't come back to this hospital, you aren't welcome! That was in the early 80's, doesn't seem like much has changed.

[Drum]

..........

[Grahameeboy]

Shit you guys are negative.

OK the headline sucks, but did you actually RTFA?

It's talking about how they're launching a new advertising campaign for us, to tell cagers to look more closely for us. They're even pulling stunts like dropping bikes from cranes. This is a good thing you dumb twats.

I agree.....better than no campaign at all........

[Calo]

:shit: :Police: :Police: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=51648 suprised the repost police arent out this morn :dodge:

Oops, I would have been locked up. :yes:

[James Deuce]

See here for discussion:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=51648

[Grahameeboy]

You can all go and get fucked. :angry:

I was the Studio Manager of the Advertising Agency approached to create this campaign earlier this year, and approached a number of people on KB and elsewhere to try and get some buy-in from the general motorcycling populace and some consultation in order to get some of our opinions and ideas across.

Response? Apathy and negativity.

You reap what you sow.

Don't complain about how they try and talk to motorcyclists if you don't want to get involved.

At least they know you exist.

Sheesh.

Yep that seems to me the mentality of some KBers these days......anything trying to help is not going to work..

[craigs288]

Everyone should be made to cycle on Auckland roads before being allowed to drive or ride any vehicle.
You think it's bad being a motorcyclist. The only cagers that seem to show any consideration are one's who also ride and cycle.
If I had a dollar for every cager that looked at me on my bicycle and pulled out anyway like I wasn't there, or decided that I can't have been doing 50+km/h and pulled out, I would be rich instead of having my smashed up hip.
When I'm driving my cage, I deliberately impede other cagers at times to create gaps for cyclists and motorcyclists just to keep them safe from the other f$%ckers on the roads.

[craigs288]

I've just been wondering.
Have any of the police officers on here ever had a cager do the big 'I haven't seen you so I am pulling out anyway' on them, either on their own motorcycle, or even on a police bike.
I can't recall any reports of any police bikes t-boning the side of a car.
Maybe it's selective blindness. They have no trouble seeing a police bike due to the massive pile of shit they would be in if they just chose to pull out.
However, average joe biker, look the f%^k out.

[Grahameeboy]

Everyone should be made to cycle on Auckland roads before being allowed to drive or ride any vehicle.
You think it's bad being a motorcyclist. The only cagers that seem to show any consideration are one's who also ride and cycle.
If I had a dollar for every cager that looked at me on my bicycle and pulled out anyway like I wasn't there, or decided that I can't have been doing 50+km/h and pulled out, I would be rich instead of having my smashed up hip.
When I'm driving my cage, I deliberately impede other cagers at times to create gaps for cyclists and motorcyclists just to keep them safe from the other f$%ckers on the roads.

I agree although I see a lot of dumb cylists who seem to be colour blind when it comes to traffic lights.

When I moved to NZ I used to cycle but bought a bike instead because it was just too dodgy.

It is surprising how fast you can travel on a cycle eh...used to cycle to London and was often overtaking traffic..safer than undertaking.

[MSTRS]

I've just been wondering.
Have any of the police officers on here ever had a cager do the big 'I haven't seen you so I am pulling out anyway' on them, either on their own motorcycle, or even on a police bike.
I can't recall any reports of any police bikes t-boning the side of a car.
Maybe it's selective blindness. They have no trouble seeing a police bike due to the massive pile of shit they would be in if they just chose to pull out.
However, average joe biker, look the f%^k out.

Strange you should ask that. YT was having a chat the other day to a traffic cop (on the phone, complaining about being cut up at a particular roundabout by dickheads on a daily basis). They guy said he seldom-to-never sees dodgy manouevres when on his copbike, but when riding as JoePublic.....
He said he would love to target poor driving, but orders is orders

[vifferman]

Well, if "they" decide we have to be more visible, and wear fluoro etc, I'm not.
In all the incidents I've experienced in D'Auckland, I think only two (3) of them were to do with visibility: the first was the one where I was on my VF500 (in Ponsonby) and a scooter was coming from the right and I didn't see it the first time I looked. :shit:
That made me aware how easy it is to not see bikes'n'scooters. (I'm glad I saw it the second time!)

The other one (2) were a scooter and a car colliding at an intersection (again in Ponsonby!) where the car's windows were fogged up, and so was the driver's brain.

The last of these two (3) was also a car with fogged-up windows (and driver's brain), and I thought the driver hadn't seen me, and my first instinct was to tootel him non-melodiously, but I didn't, as he acted in a way that I interpreted as him having seen me.
Guess what? It was in Ponsonby!


This morning, nearly at work, I went to turn right. There was a stream of traffic, so I waited in the flush median with my blinker doing the blinking thing.
Finally, there was only one car coming.
Ms Dopey slows down, indicates a left turn, moves to the left, so I start moving. When I'm committed, and on the other side of the road, she changes her mind, turns her confirminator off, pulls out, and starts to accelerate!:shit: So, I go to stop (I'm kinda fucked coz I'm right in her path), and she realises she's being a fuckwit, stops, waves her hands in an "I'm so confused! I think I forgot to put my brain in this morning!!" sorta way, and lets me go.

[Cynos]

Motorcyclists bleed taxpayer (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10445028)


And how much are boyracers/obese families etc etc costing?


For some reason, that reads like they're saying we shouldn't receive treatment.


And finally, at the very end of the article, they allocate one sentence that doesn't demonise evil, malevolent motorcyclists. I bet the writer was having a dilemma whether to include this and ruin a perfectly good "motorcyclists = tax thieves" article.

Don't blame the reporter. She doesn't choose the headline. Here's my email sent to her.



I know reporters don't choose the headline, so if you can forward this to whoever did:

In my opinion the headline totally distorts the point of Ms Binning's article, which is "stop driving into motorcyclists please". I'm surprised you couldn't fit references to forming vicious gangs and committing pack rapes into your headline as well.

Can we expect a headline saying "Motorcyclists use less fuel, produce less emissions and create less congestion" anytime soon? I imagine it wouldn't move copy.

I eagerly look forward to your next headlines "Rape victims bleeding ACC" and "Cancer patients rorting Work and Income".

I used to think the Herald was a decent newspaper too, now you're getting as bad as the Fairfax papers.

Better luck next time,

Cynos

[MSTRS]

How about sending a copy to Letter to Editor section - you never know - it could get printed

[Blind spot]

So whats the big deal in wearing a fluoro vest or jacket?
do you think you look like a sissy?
I wear one and don't feel it hinders me in any way, i see a few guy's on my commute to work who wear them and feel we stand out a bit better.
One rider on the greenhithe rd i see every day has a real bright yellow bike and yellow patches on his/her ride gear, stands out like dog's ball and looks pretty cool as well.
I am pleased to see any campaign that makes people aware of looking out for bikes.
Have a nice safe day anyway people.

[discotex]

Don't blame the reporter. She doesn't choose the headline. Here's my email sent to her.

I was thinking of emailing them to suggest that they change the paper format to tabloid.... The sensationalist headlines that don't stack up aren't limited to motorcycling.

$52 million is small change to ACC. They normally talk in hundreds of millions. What would be far more interesting is the comparative cost between groups. Say rugby vs bikers vs roofing workers vs etc.

Of course expecting balance from the Herald is like expecting Bush to admit Iraq isn't a success.

..Matt

[Cynos]

How about sending a copy to Letter to Editor section - you never know - it could get printed

Lol, give it a shot.

Ah man, do I have to do it snail mail?

[clint640]

Don't blame the reporter. She doesn't choose the headline. Here's my email sent to her.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That was terrific, sarcasm at it's finest! I was going to write in about that headline too but you've done it so much better, please make sure a version goes to the editor also.

Hey craigs288, one of the bike cops on here gleefully related the story a while back of how someone pulled out on him while he was on his (huge, fluoro) cop bike, he avoided being hit but needless to say a bit of book-throwing went on:Punk:

Cheers
Clint

[scumdog]

I've just been wondering.
Have any of the police officers on here ever had a cager do the big 'I haven't seen you so I am pulling out anyway' on them, either on their own motorcycle, or even on a police bike.
I can't recall any reports of any police bikes t-boning the side of a car.
Maybe it's selective blindness. They have no trouble seeing a police bike due to the massive pile of shit they would be in if they just chose to pull out.
However, average joe biker, look the f%^k out.

Have crashed into the side of a red-light runner.

In a marked 'work' car too.

Have had to hit the brakes hard to stop from running into the rear of a 'people-mover' that pulled out of a side street right on front of me.

Again in a marked 'work' car.


Had some minor scares on the bike but make myself really visible on it and ride like they're all out to get me.:yes: and don't ride in cities much except to pass through them.

[Reckless]

Shit you guys are negative.

OK the headline sucks, but did you actually RTFA?

It's talking about how they're launching a new advertising campaign for us, to tell cagers to look more closely for us. They're even pulling stunts like dropping bikes from cranes. This is a good thing you dumb twats.

Here here! you tell them 10/10!


Have crashed into the side of a red-light runner.

In a marked 'work' car too.

Hey Scumdog, when are you and your work buddies gonna do something about the red light runners. If i'm on the bike or out in the car its becoming a blatant and common sight now. One 30 minute trip I saw 3 really bad red light runners. We need camera's and those steel thingy's in the road like in Aussy. I know the crap Auckland traffic problems don't help but its gettin really dangerous.

[James Deuce]

So whats the big deal in wearing a fluoro vest or jacket?
do you think you look like a sissy?
I wear one and don't feel it hinders me in any way, i see a few guy's on my commute to work who wear them and feel we stand out a bit better.
One rider on the greenhithe rd i see every day has a real bright yellow bike and yellow patches on his/her ride gear, stands out like dog's ball and looks pretty cool as well.
I am pleased to see any campaign that makes people aware of looking out for bikes.
Have a nice safe day anyway people.

No dramas at all. Except if it becomes compulsion.

Then I'll just collect tickets, because I'm not wearing one. They have no appreciable impact on motorcycle accident statistics and you see them because you are subconsciously spotting motorcycles, and subconsciously spotting fluoro vests to validate your decision.

[Cynos]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That was terrific, sarcasm at it's finest! I was going to write in about that headline too but you've done it so much better, please make sure a version goes to the editor also.

Hey craigs288, one of the bike cops on here gleefully related the story a while back of how someone pulled out on him while he was on his (huge, fluoro) cop bike, he avoided being hit but needless to say a bit of book-throwing went on:Punk:

Cheers
Clint

Okay, final copy before I submit it, any suggestions?



Dear Sir,

I write with regards to the recent article "Motorcyclists bleed taxpayer", by Elizabeth Binning.

In my opinion the headline totally distorts the point of Ms Binning's article, which is "stop driving into motorcyclists please". I'm surprised you couldn't fit references to forming vicious gangs and committing pack rapes into your headline as well.

I eagerly look forward to your next headlines "Rape victims bleeding ACC" and "Cancer patients rorting Work and Income". Motorcycling is inherently risky yes, but then, one could argue the same for going into town on a Saturday night scantily clad, or smoking and eating too much red meat – yet I don't see your publication casting aspersions on rape or cancer victims, merely the victims of inconsiderate Kiwi drivers.

In the interests of balance, can we expect a headline saying "Motorcyclists use less fuel, produce less emissions and create less congestion" any time soon? I imagine it wouldn't move copy, although it does touch on Auckland's traffic woes, a perennial favourite.

Better luck next time,

Cynos


I added the bit acknowledging that "riding is riskier, but so what?" in the hopes that it'd increase my chances of getting it published, because it gives the usual cynics something to tear me to pieces over.

So yeah, any thoughts before I submit?

[Grahameeboy]

The Media title was the medias not that given by the Police / Ltsa.

If you divide $52 million by estimated number of registered motorcycles it works out at $100-120 each which is less than the actual ACC levy on Licensing fees so we more than pay for ACC to cover injured motorcyclist and I guess the residue helps pay for injured cagers too.

Yep number of motorcycles has increased out of proportion to increase in accidents. Number of cars I guess has increased too.......so in effect accident rate has reduced by a third, however, saving lives is more important than debating stats....motor cylists still get killed by cagers so anything to increase awareness, even if it is Media hype has to be good.

[Grahameeboy]

No dramas at all. Except if it becomes compulsion.

Then I'll just collect tickets, because I'm not wearing one. They have no appreciable impact on motorcycle accident statistics and you see them because you are subconsciously spotting motorcycles, and subconsciously spotting fluoro vests to validate your decision.

So if it became complusory how would it affect your enjoyment of riding your bike?

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Aahhhhh....it's all making sense now as to why my daily commute has been so hazardous since arriving in NZ: my journey is from the North Shore to the top of Newton Road, via Ponsonby Road and across K road junction. Seems like I get 3 of the most dangerous/notorious roads every day.

Maybe I need to get a contract on the shore.....

[more_fasterer]

Dear Sir,

I write with regards to the recent article "Motorcyclists bleed taxpayer", by Elizabeth Binning.

In my opinion the headline totally distorts the point of Ms Binning's article, which is "stop driving into motorcyclists please". I'm surprised you couldn't fit references to forming vicious gangs and committing pack rapes into your headline as well.

I eagerly look forward to your next headlines "Rape victims bleeding ACC" and "Cancer patients rorting Work and Income". Motorcycling is inherently risky yes, but then, one could argue the same for going into town on a Saturday night scantily clad, or smoking and eating too much red meat – yet I don't see your publication casting aspersions on rape or cancer victims, merely the victims of inconsiderate Kiwi drivers.

In the interests of balance, can we expect a headline saying "Motorcyclists use less fuel, produce less emissions and create less congestion" any time soon? I imagine it wouldn't move copy, although it does touch on Auckland's traffic woes, a perennial favourite.

Better luck next time,

Cynos

That is a top effort mate. Bling sent. Now send that letter off!

[Grahameeboy]

Aahhhhh....it's all making sense now as to why my daily commute has been so hazardous since arriving in NZ: my journey is from the North Shore to the top of Newton Road, via Ponsonby Road and across K road junction. Seems like I get 3 of the most dangerous/notorious roads every day.

Maybe I need to get a contract on the shore.....

And like me you are still alive........

[Grahameeboy]

Okay, final copy before I submit it, any suggestions?



I added the bit acknowledging that "riding is riskier, but so what?" in the hopes that it'd increase my chances of getting it published, because it gives the usual cynics something to tear me to pieces over.

So yeah, any thoughts before I submit?

Don't send it.......

[Cynos]

Don't send it.......

Oops, too late.



Your letter has been successfully sent to The Editor.


But I'm interested as to your reasoning?

Incidentally, can Aucklanders keep an eye out for it, see if it makes it in? They don't publish them online.

[vifferman]

Aahhhhh....it's all making sense now as to why my daily commute has been so hazardous since arriving in NZ: my journey is from the North Shore to the top of Newton Road, via Ponsonby Road and across K road junction. Seems like I get 3 of the most dangerous/notorious roads every day.

Maybe I need to get a contract on the shore.....
Don't expect much improvement...<_<
For nearly seven years I commuted from Birkenhead to Ponsonby, and now for the last 12 months (today!!:gob:) I've been commuting from Birkenhead to Albany. Can't say it's much more betterer; there seem to be the same number of eejits. D'Aucks are found everywhere in D'Auckland, not just the CBD.

[Drum]

So whats the big deal in wearing a fluoro vest or jacket?......

No big deal. As long as it's your own choice. I do have a problem with the Government telling me what to wear.

[Grub]

I do have a problem with the Government telling me what to wear.

So if you ride a black bike in black gear ans as ACC says, a car doesn't see you and puts you in horsepittle, whose fault is it? Who cares? The car driver is having another latte while you're sipping from a straw

If someone is too stupid to look out for themselves then the Nanny State has to step in and do it for them

[Grahameeboy]

Oops, too late.



But I'm interested as to your reasoning?

Incidentally, can Aucklanders keep an eye out for it, see if it makes it in? They don't publish them online.

Never mind.

I sent one but used facts to point out the flaws whereas your letter is taking a cynical approach to what she has said which is fine and I understand this approach, just that she is using facts so we need to reply using facts.

Basically you are just telling her she is a stupid cow and I am giving her facts and she does not know I am telling her she is a silly old cow.....:innocent:

[Sanx]

I ride a black bike and, when not in my leathers, I wear a full black cordura suit (with reflective piping, which doesn't show up during the day). My helmet's about 50% black from the front, with white and red bits (Shoei Patriot, if you're interested). However, I ride a late model sports bike where I can't turn the headlight off even if I wanted to (which I wouldn't). There is simply no excuse for not seeing me in daylight. The bike's a big black loud object (like Hone Harawira, but better looking) with a bright headlight in the middle. Considering I'm half crouched over the bike anyway, and the bike's got a dark smoke screen on it, there'd be very little of any high-vis vest visible.

I'm against nanny legislation at the best of times. However, I understand why the major Jap manufacturers have made it that headlights on road bikes cannot be turned off. But forcing everyone to wear a high-vis vest would be daft. Though ... thinking about it ... when it came to people trying to describe that bike who'd done a runner: "Yes officer, it was a bike loud bike, and the rider was wearing a flouro vest". Hmmm :yes:

[craigs288]

I agree although I see a lot of dumb cylists who seem to be colour blind when it comes to traffic lights.

When I moved to NZ I used to cycle but bought a bike instead because it was just too dodgy.

It is surprising how fast you can travel on a cycle eh...used to cycle to London and was often overtaking traffic..safer than undertaking.

Completely. There are as many 'bad' cyclists out there, as any other group of road users, ignoring the road rules and then complaining bitterly that other people broke the same rules that they did.
Maybe it is just a human thing to blame everyone else, and then much later look in the mirror and accept your own part in the big scheme of things.
However, there is always going to be a certain number of unsuspecting and undeserving victims.

[James Deuce]

So if it became complusory how would it affect your enjoyment of riding your bike?

You can't enjoy it if you can't ride it can you?

Contrary to popular leftist ideology, making something compulsory does not give you a +1 force field of not being run into by blind road users.

[MSTRS]

So if you ride a black bike in black gear ans as ACC says, a car doesn't see you and puts you in horsepittle, whose fault is it? Who cares? The car driver is having another latte while you're sipping from a straw

If someone is too stupid to look out for themselves then the Nanny State has to step in and do it for them

If drivers can't see a headlight (even one on high beam) then a fluoro jacket is not gonna do it either. Wear one through your own choice - that's fine. Forced wearing is not a valid option. Because, with the riot of colour that is today's roads and roadsides, what makes you think that (yet another) bright colour is going to be noticed?
Besides, black is perceived to be more threatening than (pretty) colours...

[Albino]

I'm one of the ones who are obviously "too stupid" to wear fluoro, and like hell I think the government should try to save me from myself.

That logic really isn't that far from saying bikes are dangerous and that we shouldn't be allowed to ride them.

[MSTRS]

Maybe it is just a human thing to blame everyone else,

Probably, and exacerbated by nanny state policies. Want some more? Just vote Hellon Earth...

[craigs288]

Have crashed into the side of a red-light runner.

In a marked 'work' car too.

Have had to hit the brakes hard to stop from running into the rear of a 'people-mover' that pulled out of a side street right on front of me.

Again in a marked 'work' car.


Had some minor scares on the bike but make myself really visible on it and ride like they're all out to get me.:yes: and don't ride in cities much except to pass through them.

I figured it happens too often for it not to have happened to some officers.
I was about to type that I would love to see it happening but that might be misconstrued as me wanting to see a police officer injured because of some numbnuts.
What I would like to see is some useless unobservant twat getting an earful ( plus tickets )for their piss poor driving skills. That would cheer me up on the way to work.


Someone else made a reference to metal poles to stop red light runners (I think).
I reckon automated tyre spikes that operate 2 seconds after your light goes red. If you commit to leaving your side of the intersection after the light has turned red then you will face the consequences.
It would sure make it easy for the first police on the scene to catch the bastards.

[James Deuce]

So if you ride a black bike in black gear ans as ACC says, a car doesn't see you and puts you in horsepittle, whose fault is it? Who cares? The car driver is having another latte while you're sipping from a straw

If someone is too stupid to look out for themselves then the Nanny State has to step in and do it for them

Colour has nothing to do with it.

Motion camouflage is the issue, followed by relative personal threat assessment. The "average" "driver" spends 1/10th of a second checking each option at an intersection and is not told to look specifically of motorcycles, nor are they trained that motorcycles essentially act like a dragonfly in regard to their surroundings and require specific techniques for spotting.

Human beings estimate size by triangulating recognisable features, such as headlights, and then calculate relative velocity and trajectory accordingly. Motorcycles are bereft of reference points for triangulation and just like trains approaching level crossings, they appear to remain motionless in regard to the background until almost on top of you, giving rise to the myth that all motorcyclists speed everywhere, all the time.

A poster campaign won't help, nor will fluro vests (particularly those in the red end of the colour spectrum - all males have a degree of red-green colour blindness), lights-on in the daytime, leg protectors, speed limiters, tougher licensing, and cc restrictions.

Driver training with specific educational goals will.

The Nanny state has no obligation to step in, and there is a quiet philosophical argument developing that says that removing risk taking from society is a surer way to destroy it than nuclear weapons.

[Gremlin]

So if you ride a black bike in black gear ans as ACC says, a car doesn't see you and puts you in horsepittle,

Besides, black is perceived to be more threatening than (pretty) colours...
I go with the threatening idea... bike is black, gear is black, same with helmet, smoked visor etc. Also helps that I never look small on the bike.

Never had anyone directly take me on (in car, whatever), but do see plenty of idiots. Barely get angry any more... just sigh, and wish a cop had seen it :mellow:

[Hitcher]

and there is a quiet philosophical argument developing that says that removing risk taking from society is a surer way to destroy it than nuclear weapons.

I, for one, wish that this philosophical argument would get a whole lot fucking noisier.

[Dave Lobster]

So if you ride a black bike in black gear ans as ACC says, a car doesn't see you and puts you in horsepittle, whose fault is it? Who cares? The car driver is having another latte while you're sipping from a straw

If someone is too stupid to look out for themselves then the Nanny State has to step in and do it for them

No, they don't. It's none of their damn business. They're in place for our BENEFIT, not the other way around.

[MSTRS]

No, they don't. It's none of their damn business. They're in place for our BENEFIT, not the other way around.

Can you think of a way to convince them ??

[ManDownUnder]

98% of statistics are made up.

Exactly - and another 12% are meaningless...

[Cynos]

Never mind.

I sent one but used facts to point out the flaws whereas your letter is taking a cynical approach to what she has said which is fine and I understand this approach, just that she is using facts so we need to reply using facts.

Basically you are just telling her she is a stupid cow and I am giving her facts and she does not know I am telling her she is a silly old cow.....:innocent:

Did you even read my letter? It's entirely about their choice of headline. Because it twists the tone of the whole article - and from reporters I've talked to, chances are Ms Binning is pissed about it.

Seriously, look at the angry responses it got on here initially. Why? Because of the tone set by the headline. If you read the article without the headline, it's neutral, pretty much a reworded ACC press release. With the headline? We're the dole bludgers of ACC.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Motorcyclists are massively over-represented in non-injury single vehicle accidents too.

Might want to work on that as well people.

I wouldn't rely on an ACC campaign to change attitudes to those ratbag, dangerous motorcyclists either.

"I'm from the Government, I'm here to help you."




I've recently been involved in an ACC funded motorcycle training film, which I believe is going to be given out free with Kiwi Rider. While it's off the beaten track for this thread (sorry)......I think it's great to see ACC making an effort.

Even if the posters save one life, or serious injury....it's worth it as far as I'm concerned.

Oh yeah......you can all have a good laff at me in the film.....we had to be ever so 'proper', and I was told off more times than I can remember for my use of 'colourful' language!

[MSTRS]

Whereas some of us here prefer 'black' humour....:innocent:

[craigs288]

That logic really isn't that far from saying bikes are dangerous and that we shouldn't be allowed to ride them.

Cars are far more dangerous. Look at the number of motorcyclists and other road users they injure through crashes.

I'm going out on a limb here with no statistics to back me up at this stage (I'm sure someone will enlighten me if I am wrong).

If you were to compare the number of motorcycle accidents involving a motorcycle being the only vehicle on the road, and they crash and are injured due to their poor skills, poor road condition, poor bike condition etc, and compare that to the number or car accidents involving the car being the only vehicle on the road, and they crash and are injured due to their poor skills, poor road condition, poor car condition etc, I believe motorcyclists would fare better statistically, as in lower numbers.

Likewise if you compare accidents where a car, for whatever reason, crashes into and injures a motorcyclist, with the opposite situation.
I mean really, how often do you hear of a cager minding their own business and a reckless and dangerous motorcyclist slams into them and puts the cager in a hospital. I am sure it happens. Just not often.

[Max Preload]

This sort of 'reporting' pisses me off. Who do they think causes the crashes? This is the problem with the so-called "no-fault" ACC system - the blame gets given to the wrong people. :angry:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10445028

[Ewan Oozarmy]

Possibly compulsory 3rd party insurance for all road users could also help as the drivers who currently don't have insurance (and I've no idea what the number is) may be a little more careful if they risk an insurance premium increase each time they have a smash.

Just a thought.....

[Disco Dan]

What a prat.

Auckland City police roading manager Inspector Heather Wells said most of the district's motorcycle accidents occurred on five major roads in the city - Great North Rd, Great South Rd, Karangahape Rd, Newton Rd and Ponsonby Rd.

The tour will take place after a Motorcycle Crash Investigator training session this morning at the ASB Showgrounds, where motorcycles will be dropped from a crane to simulate varying speeds of impact.

This morning??? did anyone hear about this??? nooooooo...... dont think so!

Crashes double, but amount of cars and bikes on the road has just about tripppled... meaning the rate has actually gone DOWN... who are we to say... geee were only tax payers..... :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

So many idiots (read: car drivers) should have just been shot at birth....

Had an idiot this morning overtaking line of cars along greenhithe bridge..... just about caused at least 3 accidents... when the (pacific islander driver) had to stop because he could not fit through any more gaps.... gave him the "wanker" signal ......was a bit close to his car though.... ...yeah hes prob off to pick-a-part for a new antenna. Complete pillock.... i kept checking the power poles on my way back.... i was convinced he was going to get taken out....

[marty]

Ms Wells said 41 per cent of injury motorcycle crashes occurred in situations where drivers did not see the motorcycle.
In 75 per cent of the accidents the motorcyclists were not at fault.


thought this was pretty fair. they only missed out

'the other 25% were gixxer riders....'

[Max Preload]

Ms Wells said 41 per cent of injury motorcycle crashes occurred in situations where drivers did not see the motorcycle.
In 75 per cent of the accidents the motorcyclists were not at fault.

So 34% saw the motorcyclist, and crashed into them anyway. What a nation of munters.

[The Stranger]

This sort of 'reporting' pisses me off. Who do they think causes the crashes? This is the problem with the so-called "no-fault" ACC system - the blame gets given to the wrong people. :angry:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10445028

This is the part that really pisses me off.

"Ms Wells said 41 per cent of injury motorcycle crashes occurred in situations where drivers did not see the motorcycle."

The closest calls I have had have been where the driver is looking right at me, I always check their eyes (where it is possible to see them) and they have pulled out anyway. Where I can't see their eyes I tend to expect the unexpected.

It has nothing to do with if the driver saw the bike or not, that is just a convenient excuse, no point in targetting that as that is not the cause of the problem.

[peasea]

I've recently been involved in an ACC funded motorcycle training film, which I believe is going to be given out free with Kiwi Rider. While it's off the beaten track for this thread (sorry)......I think it's great to see ACC making an effort.

Even if the posters save one life, or serious injury....it's worth it as far as I'm concerned.

Oh yeah......you can all have a good laff at me in the film.....we had to be ever so 'proper', and I was told off more times than I can remember for my use of 'colourful' language!


I've got a DVD entitled 'Motorcycling in New Zealand/Riding in Groups' and I think I got it from either the LTNZ site or ACC, I'm sure either will have it. This DVD was free and it's a positive thing; you're never too old to learn or brush up. (Yes, some of it's funny, watching everyone being so 'good' etc) At least these campaigns and DVD's are something, not nothing. Some of the comments here are quite valid and made by seemingly intelligent people with the best interests of motorcycling at heart, BUT, you're preaching to the converted. If you have something constructive to add to the LTNZ/ACC campaigns then tell them. I can pretty much gaurantee that 99% of the pen-pushers in those two organizations have never sat their arse on a motorcycle and as such have never experienced the things we experience on pretty much a daily basis.

What about a sensible thread of ideas to put to them. I'm happy to collate it and submit it. If you think you're idea might get mocked in the public arena, PM me; I'll mock you personally. In fact, I'll start it.

Seriously; if anyone can help bikers on the road, it's other bikers. Nobody else would understand, right?

[Grahameeboy]

Did you even read my letter? It's entirely about their choice of headline. Because it twists the tone of the whole article - and from reporters I've talked to, chances are Ms Binning is pissed about it.

Seriously, look at the angry responses it got on here initially. Why? Because of the tone set by the headline. If you read the article without the headline, it's neutral, pretty much a reworded ACC press release. With the headline? We're the dole bludgers of ACC.

Yes I did..........it was a good letter, not saying it wasn't.

No point getting angry with headline.....just accept it is Media hype.

[Grahameeboy]

So 34% saw the motorcyclist, and crashed into them anyway. What a nation of munters.

It is because they misjudge velocity.........it's how accidents happen.

[James Deuce]

Done repeatedly peasea.

Not about to go there again.

[Grahameeboy]

You can't enjoy it if you can't ride it can you?

Contrary to popular leftist ideology, making something compulsory does not give you a +1 force field of not being run into by blind road users.

I was not saying that......just saying that if we were made to wear a dayglow vest, it would not make riding any less enjoyable, did not say it would make us invincible.

[Grahameeboy]

Can you think of a way to convince them ??

The problem is often within rather than outside......

[Max Preload]

So lets get this straight...

Motorcycle accidents cost $52M per annum. 75% of them are not the motorcyclist's fault. So, 25% of $52M is $13M. In 2006 there were over 43,000 vehicle license paying motorcycles on the roads, at $166.20 each per annum for the ACC levy portion of the license. That's about $72M.

So we motorcyclists are, in effect, subsidising others to the tune of $59M per annum. Whom is bleeding whom?

[ManDownUnder]

The closest calls I have had have been where the driver is looking right at me, I always check their eyes (where it is possible to see them) and they have pulled out anyway. Where I can't see their eyes I tend to expect the unexpected.

It has nothing to do with if the driver saw the bike or not, that is just a convenient excuse, no point in targetting that as that is not the cause of the problem.

As a generalisation I concurr - and I hasten to add Mr Airhorn does wonders in terms of raising awareness of the incident.

[ManDownUnder]

I was not saying that......just saying that if we were made to wear a dayglow vest, it would not make riding any less enjoyable, did not say it would make us invincible.


Nothing personal but I liken it to painting my hair green. No less comfortable but it takes some getting used to...

[breakaway]

Saw this on the way home today. Sorry for low quality pic.

[Grahameeboy]

So lets get this straight...

Motorcycle accidents cost $52M per annum. 75% of them are not the motorcyclist's fault. So, 25% of $52M is $13M. In 2006 there were over 43,000 vehicle license paying motorcycles on the roads, at $166.20 each per annum for the ACC levy portion of the license. That's about $72M.

So we motorcyclists are, in effect, subsidising others to the tune of $59M per annum. Whom is bleeding whom?

Yep, I raised that point in an earlier post....works out that $52,000 divided by 43,000 is around $123 so we pay our way.

But we live in a non-fault compensation society remember so even taking away the issue of blame we still contribute $20 million extra.

[peasea]

So lets get this straight...

Motorcycle accidents cost $52M per annum. 75% of them are not the motorcyclist's fault. So, 25% of $52M is $13M. In 2006 there were over 43,000 vehicle license paying motorcycles on the roads, at $166.20 each per annum for the ACC levy portion of the license. That's about $72M.

So we motorcyclists are, in effect, subsidising others to the tune of $59M per annum. Whom is bleeding whom?

I wouldn't mind getting to the nitty gritty of those figures, good point.

[Grahameeboy]

Nothing personal but I liken it to painting my hair green. No less comfortable but it takes some getting used to...

I dyed my hair red, white and blue when I was a punk and no one recognised me at a party.............I guess a cager may not recognise me wearing a green vest then...

[ManDownUnder]

I dyed my hair red, white and blue when I was a punk and no one recognised me at a party.............I guess a cager may not recognise me wearing a green vest then...

LOL - but did they SEE you?

[The Stranger]

So lets get this straight...

Motorcycle accidents cost $52M per annum. 75% of them are not the motorcyclist's fault. So, 25% of $52M is $13M. In 2006 there were over 43,000 vehicle license paying motorcycles on the roads, at $166.20 each per annum for the ACC levy portion of the license. That's about $72M.

So we motorcyclists are, in effect, subsidising others to the tune of $59M per annum. Whom is bleeding whom?

Well it actually gets worse than that.
The doctor is responsible for ticking the motorcycle box on the ACC form. If a rider of an off road bike has an accident off road it should NOT be classed as a motorcycle accident, but a recreational or work related one instead as the case may be with say a farmer.
However as the doctor simply hears motorcycle and as there is a space for motorcycle it gets lumped in there. They then divide the cost of motorcycle accidents by the number of registered motorcycles to come up with the horrendous figures.
So take all the off road motorcycle accidents out of the $52 mil before you start.

[Grahameeboy]

LOL - but did they SEE you?

Yes is the answer...was wearing bondage gear, the whole works....the 70's were good times.

On a serious note I tried a green headlight protector on my RF and it was amazing that I had less cagers giving me grief.....just got pulled up by cops.

What we need is something that makes cagers think twice and makes them think "what is that"....exactly what the green protector seemed to do.

[Dave Lobster]

On a serious note I tried a green headlight protector on my RF and it was amazing that I had less cagers giving me grief.....just got pulled up by cops.


I used to have a purple one on my Thunderarse. With a pair of 160w main beams.
An excellent way to clear the outside lane of a motorway..

Again, PC Pork Dripping wasn't very impressed.

[Grahameeboy]

I used to have a purple one on my Thunderarse. With a pair of 160w main beams.
An excellent way to clear the outside lane of a motorway..

Again, PC Pork Dripping wasn't very impressed.

I think green is what Doctors use hence my being stopped but what is wrong with purple eh...

[Max Preload]

Yep, I raised that point in an earlier post.

Sorry about that - some mongrel merged the threads as I was posting it.

[Dave Lobster]

Against the law.. apparently. I had red ones on my R6. Seems that's illegal too. No pleasing some people!

[Hitcher]

No pleasing some people!

That's what Jesus said!

[Dave Lobster]

That's what Jesus said!

ACC probably wouldn't have covered his problems..

[peasea]

ACC probably wouldn't have covered his problems..

I think you're wrong there. I can't recall anyone not getting paid out for injuries sustained at a crossing.

[James Deuce]

I was not saying that......just saying that if we were made to wear a dayglow vest, it would not make riding any less enjoyable, did not say it would make us invincible.

I was saying I wouldn't ride if compelled to wear yet another piece of "safety" gear because I'm considered stupid by the people who are supposed to be our servants.

Well I wouldn't be riding in NZ anyway, because I wouldn't be living here.

[Max Preload]

If you divide $52 million by estimated number of registered motorcycles it works out at $100-120 each which is less than the actual ACC levy on Licensing fees so we more than pay for ACC to cover injured motorcyclist and I guess the residue helps pay for injured cagers too.

I've just realised we've both made the same mistake. $52M divided by 43 000 motorcyclists x 25% = $300 ea. Eeeeek!

[peasea]

I was saying I wouldn't ride if compelled to wear yet another piece of "safety" gear because I'm considered stupid by the people who are supposed to be our servants.

Well I wouldn't be riding in NZ anyway, because I wouldn't be living here.

I can't help but agree here, to a certain extent. EG; If I didn't have to, I probably wouldn't wear a helmet all the time; I think (because of the number of idiots) in the cities it's a damn good idea, and, for the most part coz of bugs and stones etc, on the highways too, but there are occasions when I like to go without. (Riding the hydro causeways down south for example, sheer brilliance lidless, bugger all traffic, great roads) I also get a bit miffed with GST being applied to compulsory safety items. If this wasn't the case many, I'm sure, would go to better equipment because they can. It's sometimes hard to juggle the cash on that fine line to be legal/safe.

[Dave Lobster]

There's something on TV3 about it in a minute.. after the adverts.

[Dave Lobster]

No useful facts. Fucking shock..

[Slingshot]

Saw this on the way home today. Sorry for low quality pic.

Is that a Magic Eye poster?



No useful facts. Fucking shock..

I recorded it...if anyone missed it and really wants to see it I'll upload it.

[Steam]

AArg, my mum just saw that Crash Test thing on the TV, called me to nag me to be careful... But I guess all awareness is good.

[MD]

Saw the TV3 story. You Auckland riders are..f@*#ed!. Take the bus.

[El Dopa]

Saw a biggish convoy of police-escorted bikes cruise past work about 12.15 today.

Looks like it was part of some publicity thing for this.

[riffer]

I've just realised we've both made the same mistake. $52M divided by 43 000 motorcyclists x 25% = $300 ea. Eeeeek!

Your maths is still dodgy.

If you're trying to say that only the 25% of crashes actually caused by motorcyclists should be assessed in terms of true costs to ACC (which is bollocks) then it would come out as:

$52,000,000 /(.25*43,000) = $4837.29 per naughty motorcyclist.

Of course, you spread the risk over all licence payers, which means the cost to ACC averaged over EVERY motorcycle licence payer is:

($52,000,000 /43,000)-$166.00 = $1043.30 per motorcyclist.

So, maybe, just maybe, we ARE costing ACC a hell of a lot more than we bring in? The cagers are subsidising us to the tune of more than a grand per motorcyclist. How many car ACC licence fees is that?

Still think they're arseholes for trying to inform the public to look out for you? :mellow:

[Kinje]

Saw a short (25 second) artical on this on the TV1 news this evening. Like the headline from the Herald article mentioned earlier, the TV report was miles off the point.

They reported "a motorbikes plunge from above, today, to demonstrate the dangers of being on two wheels" and "43 motorcycle accidents have occured in blackspots around Auckland in the past five years. The crashes are reported to have cost the taxpayer nearly a million dollars".

What they completely missed was the launch of the ACC campaign about looking out for bikes and how the crash display and motorcycle convoy through Auckland were a part of the educational campaign.

Poor form :nono:

[Grahameeboy]

I was saying I wouldn't ride if compelled to wear yet another piece of "safety" gear because I'm considered stupid by the people who are supposed to be our servants.

Well I wouldn't be riding in NZ anyway, because I wouldn't be living here.

Okay but a shame..............

[Max Preload]

Your maths is still dodgy.

If you're trying to say that only the 25% of crashes actually caused by motorcyclists should be assessed in terms of true costs to ACC (which is bollocks) then it would come out as:

$52,000,000 /(.25*43,000) = $4837.29 per naughty motorcyclist.

Of course, you spread the risk over all licence payers, which means the cost to ACC averaged over EVERY motorcycle licence payer is:

($52,000,000 /43,000)-$166.00 = $1043.30 per motorcyclist.

So, maybe, just maybe, we ARE costing ACC a hell of a lot more than we bring in? The cagers are subsidising us to the tune of more than a grand per motorcyclist. How many car ACC licence fees is that?

Still think they're arseholes for trying to inform the public to look out for you? :mellow:

Not quite... your equation spreads the $52 million across 1/4 of motorcycles, not 1/4 of the $52M across all 43 000 motorcycles.

[McJim]

FFS can no one see sense?

BAN CARS - we'll all be safer.

[scumdog]

Your maths is still dodgy.

If you're trying to say that only the 25% of crashes actually caused by motorcyclists should be assessed in terms of true costs to ACC (which is bollocks) then it would come out as:

$52,000,000 /(.25*43,000) = $4837.29 per naughty motorcyclist.


Still think they're arseholes for trying to inform the public to look out for you? :mellow:


Since when has a ACC type claim for a motorbike crash ONLY cost $4,337????

[Max Preload]

Since when has a ACC type claim for a motorbike crash ONLY cost $4,337????

Probably never. But that's not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is how much they take in from levies on motorcyclists, and how much it costs in payouts because of them.

The irony that they call it a no-fault system and then go about penalising different groups differently, is not lost on me. If it was actually no fault, t every person would simply be charged the same premiums, across the board.

[dank]

Make car drivers complete the first section of their license on a motorbike. No need for empathy, they'll actually know what it feels like when someone does a "sorry mate".

[Cynos]

Your maths is still dodgy.

If you're trying to say that only the 25% of crashes actually caused by motorcyclists should be assessed in terms of true costs to ACC (which is bollocks) then it would come out as:

$52,000,000 /(.25*43,000) = $4837.29 per naughty motorcyclist.


You've just stated that

T = Total cost of motorcycle accidents
P = Proportion of cost resulting from motorcyclists
M = Number of motorcyclists
C = Cost to ACC per negligent motorcyclist (that is, per P*M)
T / (P * M) = C

You're making some extrapolations from that I don't quite understand. Can you explain? I'm a statistics newbie.

[Sam I Am]

And change the oh so fucking stupid give way rules !!!
The amount of times i have nearly been taken out by cars that overtake a car that had stopped to give way for me when they were turning left.... the mind boggles....

[Sam I Am]

Well, if "they" decide we have to be more visible, and wear fluoro etc, I'm not.
In all the incidents I've experienced in D'Auckland, I think only two (3) of them were to do with visibility: the first was the one where I was on my VF500 (in Ponsonby) and a scooter was coming from the right and I didn't see it the first time I looked. :shit:
That made me aware how easy it is to not see bikes'n'scooters. (I'm glad I saw it the second time!)

The other one (2) were a scooter and a car colliding at an intersection (again in Ponsonby!) where the car's windows were fogged up, and so was the driver's brain.

then we all need a compulsory Loud Pipe so people hear you !!!

[candor]

ACC recently employed a bike specialist. Name Phil Ryan from memory (but my memories like a sieve - the Ryans right anyway pretty sure.

He seems not burnt out and is quite helpful. Is approachable - so why not give him a ring. He's in the road safety section of injury prevention. And quite happy to chat on a range of road safety things unlike some civil servants most notably LTNZ ones. Speed....speed....speed....

[riffer]

Not quite... your equation spreads the $52 million across 1/4 of motorcycles, not 1/4 of the $52M across all 43 000 motorcycles.

That's because I'm comparing costs of motorcycle victim rehabilitation to actual registrations, which I feel is a more valid comparison.

Your original comparison produced a skewed result. :mellow:


You've just stated that

T = Total cost of motorcycle accidents
P = Proportion of cost resulting from motorcyclists
M = Number of motorcyclists
C = Cost to ACC per negligent motorcyclist (that is, per P*M)
T / (P * M) = C

You're making some extrapolations from that I don't quite understand. Can you explain? I'm a statistics newbie.

I was trying to illustrate that if we looked at costs based on only at-fault motorcyclists it cost a lot. Yes I know ACC is no-fault.


Since when has a ACC type claim for a motorbike crash ONLY cost $4,337????

Scumdog - the $52M was for rehabilitation costs, not total costs. We'd look a lot worse if we included ALL costs.

[NighthawkNZ]

Ban all vehicles on the road (including bikes :gob: ) they are all dangerous and should be banned.

[riffer]

Ban all vehicles on the road (including bikes :gob: ) they are all dangerous and should be banned.

Yes, but human beings are very resourceful. We'd find another way to hurt and kill ourselves that would be just as efficient.

[Grahameeboy]

And change the oh so fucking stupid give way rules !!!
The amount of times i have nearly been taken out by cars that overtake a car that had stopped to give way for me when they were turning left.... the mind boggles....

Well if the following car is going straight the car turning left should not stop and the following car is allowed to overtake the car turning left........unless to do so will impinge on other road users......so if you turn right and there is a following vehicle you should not have turned but if you are stationary and the following car crossed the centre line then that is wrong.

What's the problem....this has to be the most misunderstood part of this rule which is why I agree it should be removed............

Just make all intersections "Stop" and have no "Give Way".

[Grahameeboy]

FFS can no one see sense?

BAN CARS - we'll all be safer.

and our kids will be fitter..................

[idleidolidyll]

My question, after seeing the article on TV3, is this:
"Given that it is now acknowledged that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of motorcyclists, why the fuck is the ACC penalising us with massively high ACC levies in our registration?"

A further question:
"If the accident rate is largely attributable to pitifully incompetant road works, when is the LTSA going to penalise criminally negligent road works that are obviously costing life and limb?"

[idleidolidyll]

Not quite... your equation spreads the $52 million across 1/4 of motorcycles, not 1/4 of the $52M across all 43 000 motorcycles.

43000 bikes?

the TV news article stated there were some 75,000 registered motorcycles.

who's right?

[MotoGirl]

What rips my nightie is that we're subsidising people who don't even contribute to the ACC pool.

I heard statistics recently that said horse riding and mountain biking were some of the top recreational activities that result in ACC claims. Neither of these groups (directly) pay ACC levies. You don't register a mountain bike, yet you get paid out for hurting yourself on one - how the hell is this fair?

Instead of targeting motorcyclists (once again...) maybe they should target people who use the funds but don't contribute to them?

Bleet little lamb, bleet...

[riffer]

How do you propose they levy mountainbikers?

Or people who want to ride their own horse privately on their own property, in the absence of any riding club?

They aren't levied because its a difficult system to implement.

If you have a child that falls off their bicycle, would you prefer if A&E charges you as they have no "accident insurance". As part of our socialist society, we accept the fact that some will subsidise others.

Motorcyclists pay high ACC levies because, like it or not, there is an element of "user-pays" in ACC and, as it's a no-fault system, user-pays is the only way to administer it.

Of course, we did have competition for work levies, but the incoming Labour government was pretty quick to get rid of that. I can't help but wonder if a private system would be better. Unfortunately, I don't believe it would be so.

I'm just very grateful that we have ACC. :mellow:

[Albino]

MotoGirl, maybe an an even bigger bleat should be about the bikers amongst us who ride dedicated off-road bikes (farmers, mototcross etc) and have injuries. They don't pay any ACC levies AND they also add to the general "motorcycle" injury statistics which get reported in the news and contribute to your higher levies.

[Grahameeboy]

What rips my nightie is that we're subsidising people who don't even contribute to the ACC pool.

I heard statistics recently that said horse riding and mountain biking were some of the top recreational activities that result in ACC claims. Neither of these groups (directly) pay ACC levies. You don't register a mountain bike, yet you get paid out for hurting yourself on one - how the hell is this fair?

Instead of targeting motorcyclists (once again...) maybe they should target people who use the funds but don't contribute to them?

Bleet little lamb, bleet...

True but would be hard to register horses and mountain bikes plus the riders would need the use of a car to get to where they ride so they are actually paying ACC.

Remember ACC is a pool which we pay into and pays for non motor accidents too.

I mean it could get to the level of saying that pedestrians should be registered....slightly tongue in cheek I know but most people pay ACC in one shape or form.

[MSTRS]

And change the oh so fucking stupid give way rules !!!
The amount of times i have nearly been taken out by cars that overtake a car that had stopped to give way for me when they were turning left.... the mind boggles....

It certainly does. You appear to think that you are exempt from the rules....

[Grahameeboy]

It certainly does. You appear to think that you are exempt from the rules....

I agree Rules and Laws should be abided by eh?

[MotoGirl]

Motorcyclists pay high ACC levies because, like it or not, there is an element of "user-pays" in ACC and, as it's a no-fault system, user-pays is the only way to administer it.

I'm not suggesting that we actually charge the farmer who rounds up his sheep on horseback. I'm simply pointing out that the government carry on about motorcyclists using a large portion of the ACC funds, yet we're not the only ones using them.

[MacD]

43000 bikes?

the TV news article stated there were some 75,000 registered motorcycles.

who's right?

The latest figures for motorvehicle registration (June 2006) on the LTSA website (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2006/table-31.html)list:

motorcycles: 43513
mopeds: 14171
combined: 57684

So it looks like the TV report was incorrect.

As a number of other have pointed out, the ACC isn't targeting motorcyclists, its targeting drivers as it recognises that motorcyclists aren't at fault in the majority of intersection accidents (by the way this is not true for open road accidents, where most are of the "single vehicle, lost control on a corner" type).

The media, both print and TV, have misrepresented the campaign. Then again, dropping a motorcycle from a great height doesn't actually convey the message very well. Why didn't they drive a car into a motorcycle if that's what the campaign is about?

Also, ACC operates separate funds for different types of accident. There is a separate motor vehicle fund, so work-related, rugby, mountain biking etc accidents don't affect that fund. As Riffer pointed out, motorcyclist ACC costs are subsidised by other vehicle users at present, which is why ACC proposed increasing the m/c levy some years ago. Given that ACC recognises that motorcyclists are not primarily at fault in a significant number of these accidents that seems fair, however doesn't sit well with the no fault concept of ACC.

What would be interesting to know is how much does private personal & 3rd party injury insurance cost for motorcyclists in countries like Australia, the UK and USA? That would be a useful comparison with our current ACC fees. Any Aussies like to comment?

[craigs288]

FFS can no one see sense?

BAN CARS - we'll all be safer.

But if you ban cars, who will buy petrol and give the government millions in petrol levies and road taxes.
What could the government do to recover that massive loss other than raise income tax and maybe increase GST.
You have to realise they are never going to allow any loss of income.

And there is only one place the government gets money from - YOUR POCKET

[MSTRS]

I agree Rules and Laws should be abided by eh?

Within the bounds of commonsense:stupid:

[Grahameeboy]

Within the bounds of commonsense:stupid:

Aways a catch eh...........

[MSTRS]

Of course. I'm known for it.

[Max Preload]

43000 bikes?

the TV news article stated there were some 75,000 registered motorcycles.

who's right?

That's the figure from a LTSA statistics for 2006 for total registered motorcycles (excludes mopeds I think). I'll find the link again and post it.

[Max Preload]

The latest figures for motorvehicle registration (June 2006) on the LTSA website (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2006/table-31.html)list:

motorcycles: 43513
mopeds: 14171
combined: 57684


Here it is lol :innocent:

[Max Preload]

I agree Rules and Laws should be abided by eh?

Only just ones. :yes:

[Reckless]

What's the problem....this has to be the most misunderstood part of this rule which is why I agree it should be removed............

Just make all intersections "Stop" and have no "Give Way".

Na! The most supid, misunderstood, with a totally failed education program is the new indicating at round-a-bout law. Its so badly misunderstood that every one has automatically fallen back to the "wait and see what they do" method as you can't even trust cars that are actually indicating. Another LTSA fuck up!!


My question, after seeing the article on TV3, is this:
"Given that it is now acknowledged that most motorcycle accidents are not the fault of motorcyclists, why the fuck is the ACC penalising us with massively high ACC levies in our registration?"

A further question:
"If the accident rate is largely attributable to pitifully incompetant road works, when is the LTSA going to penalise criminally negligent road works that are obviously costing life and limb?"

Point 1: Totaly Agree. They say publicly, not our fault but charge us anyway.
Point 2: I think the roads have a great deal to do with the accidents especially state highways. I wonder how that glossy tar stuff, when the chip is punched through contributes to Highway accidents. They go on about an extra 20k kills etc but no one seems to want to evaluate how much the roads contribute. Poor maintenance of our open highways that take away 90% of the grip on a wet day. We have hard rubber tyres designed by the manufacturers to last on coarse chip, then they let the open roads go all glossy. Very bad combination hard rubber/slick road. We have no choice but to ride on the left hand glossy strip, or the bit in the middle where all the oil is, or the right hand glossy strip. Bad roads = bad accidents. I know you should drive to the conditions but most cars have no idea of how bad they are until they have riden a bike in the wet or their car suddenly slides out. There must come a point where the roads have to be atributed some blame or we might as well go back to mud tracks.


MotoGirl, maybe an an even bigger bleat should be about the bikers amongst us who ride dedicated off-road bikes (farmers, mototcross etc) and have injuries. They don't pay any ACC levies AND they also add to the general "motorcycle" injury statistics which get reported in the news and contribute to your higher levies.

oh us MX boys never fall off, or get hurt!!:innocent: Actaully a very large proportion of us have road bikes so we pay anyway. And the large cost accidents (like mine) happen on the road. And as I work for myself the ACC gave me stuff all. I usually put up with my MX pains and work on anyway.


But if you ban cars, who will buy petrol and give the government millions in petrol levies and road taxes.
What could the government do to recover that massive loss other than raise income tax and maybe increase GST.
You have to realise they are never going to allow any loss of income.

And there is only one place the government gets money from - YOUR POCKET


And as the Automobile Assoc has been saying for many years if all the road taxes had been going into roading we would have far better roads, less congestion, accidents, medical costs, time loss expense to the country.

[Max Preload]

The most supid, misunderstood, with a totally failed education program is the new indicating at round-a-bout law.

That's a falsehood. There's nothing new about it - it's always been there, it's just never been enforced, and now, to prevent themselves looking stupid and/or upseting the dopey public who were never taught to indicate properly since they were not professionally taught to drive, they're saying it's new. I was taught to indicate exactly as they're saying to now and always have done.

[Grahameeboy]

Only just ones. :yes:

But I guess that is subjective eh?

[Cynos]

But I guess that is subjective eh?

Unfortunately so, but obeying the law for the sake of it being law is how you end up living in tyranny - it is a requirement of being a citizen of a nation state that one continually evaluate the laws, which are, after all, passed by a government comprised of other humans, not a benevolent and just deity.

[peasea]

Well if the following car is going straight the car turning left should not stop and the following car is allowed to overtake the car turning left........unless to do so will impinge on other road users......so if you turn right and there is a following vehicle you should not have turned but if you are stationary and the following car crossed the centre line then that is wrong.

What's the problem....this has to be the most misunderstood part of this rule which is why I agree it should be removed............

Just make all intersections "Stop" and have no "Give Way".

If the person turning left stops when there is a vehicle behind them going straight through then that person shouldn't stop, quite right but that person has to use their rear vision mirror and THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM! I have struck it on numerous occassions, I've indicated left, seen vehicles behind me that aren't indicating, continued with a smooth left turn and seen the on-coming right turning vehicle nearly take out the straight-through vehicle, while giving me a dirty look for not stopping during my left turn. There are none so blind......

[Cynos]

That's because I'm comparing costs of motorcycle victim rehabilitation to actual registrations, which I feel is a more valid comparison.

Your original comparison produced a skewed result. :mellow:



I was trying to illustrate that if we looked at costs based on only at-fault motorcyclists it cost a lot. Yes I know ACC is no-fault.



Scumdog - the $52M was for rehabilitation costs, not total costs. We'd look a lot worse if we included ALL costs.
I get that, it's how you extrapolated that to motorists subsidising all motorcyclists. Would it not be more accurate to say that all motor vehicle users subsidise users with poor skills?

[Grahameeboy]

Na! The most supid, misunderstood, with a totally failed education program is the new indicating at round-a-bout law. Its so badly misunderstood that every one has automatically fallen back to the "wait and see what they do" method as you can't even trust cars that are actually indicating. Another LTSA fuck up!!





To be honest drivers over here have never understood how to negotiate roundabouts so no change by the looks of it.

It is simple.

Single lane approach.

Turning Left before 12 o'clock position- Keep to outside of roundabout and indicate Left
Going straight ahead - no need to indicate.
Turning right ie past 12 o'clock position - Indicate right, keep to inside of roundabout and when you get near to exit indicate left.

Dual lane approach.

Turning left before 12 o'clock position - same as above but stay in left lane etc
Going straight ahead - enter by left lane, keep / exit in that lane. Enter by right lane, keep / exit in that lane.
Turning right ie past 12 o'clock position - enter by right lane, stay in inside lane and indicate peel off at exit.

At all times checking for any cars that may have entered whilst negotiating roundabout, say a car entering just before your intended exit.

It is not rocket science..............

[Grahameeboy]

If the person turning left stops when there is a vehicle behind them going straight through then that person shouldn't stop, quite right but that person has to use their rear vision mirror and THEREIN LIES THE PROBLEM! I have struck it on numerous occassions, I've indicated left, seen vehicles behind me that aren't indicating, continued with a smooth left turn and seen the on-coming right turning vehicle nearly take out the straight-through vehicle, while giving me a dirty look for not stopping during my left turn. There are none so blind......

I agree which just shows how dumb drivers here are.........it is so obvious but I am afraid Kiwi's often take things too literally and when it comes to driving do not think outside the box.

When I am waiting to turn right and there are following vehicles, I actually point this out to the driver turning left with a polite gesture and even then they give me a quizicle look.

However, although drivers should work it out the Lsta are at fault here because it just says 'Give Way' in the Road Code hence my earlier comment.

[MSTRS]

On any ordinary suburban T intersection, the leg of the T is either Giveway or Stop. How can you install the same on the bar?? Which in most cases is a straight through jobby. This is where the right hand rule applies. Whether you agree with this rule or not, it aint rocket science.

[MSTRS]

To clarify the right hand rule....
You are in your car (for sake of illustration) - if the other vehicle can hit your drivers door, then YOU GIVEWAY.

[riffer]

I get that, it's how you extrapolated that to motorists subsidising all motorcyclists. Would it not be more accurate to say that all motor vehicle users subsidise users with poor skills?

Yeah probably, but it wouldn't have suited my point. :mellow:

Of course, we haven't solved the main issue which is, of course, the fact that motorcyclists pay a disproportionate amount of ACC fees in what is supposed to be a no-fault system.

It would appear that ACC punishes the victim, rather than the perpetrator. No-fault obviously doesn't mean no-responsibility.

[Grahameeboy]

To clarify the right hand rule....
You are in your car (for sake of illustration) - if the other vehicle can hit your drivers door, then YOU GIVEWAY.

No 'Stop'..........trouble with 'Give Way' is that you give drivers a choice and they cannot make the right choice whereas 'Stop' gives them no choice which is why I feel that we should scrap the turning left rule and put stop signs / road markings (in yellow, not white), maybe even mark the road for say 5 metres or so before the end of the intersection with spaced out lines across the road to make it more obvious.

[Max Preload]

That's because I'm comparing costs of motorcycle victim rehabilitation to actual registrations, which I feel is a more valid comparison.

That's not at all what you demonstrated. The equation you gave was wrong because you were laying the total cost, of all $52M in claims, at the feet of 1/4 of motorcyclists. My figure of $300 per motorcycle is correct, when 75% of the costs belong to the people whose fault it was that the cost incurred, that weren't the motorcyclist. The correct equation is:

(($52,000,000 *25% fault cost) /43,000 motorcycles per annum) = $300 faultcost/motorcycle per annum. (note the units...)

[Max Preload]

I was trying to illustrate that if we looked at costs based on only at-fault motorcyclists it cost a lot.

But your formula is wrong, whereas all I did was count too many digits in my result.

[MSTRS]

No 'Stop'..........trouble with 'Give Way' is that you give drivers a choice and they cannot make the right choice whereas 'Stop' gives them no choice which is why I feel that we should scrap the turning left rule and put stop signs / road markings (in yellow, not white), maybe even mark the road for say 5 metres or so before the end of the intersection with spaced out lines across the road to make it more obvious.

There is no choice - the law is clear. 9/10 times there is not enough road width to have a Stop bay on a T intersection like I described.
Going on your scenario, I/we have a choice to speed, so all vehicles should be governed.
:sick:

[Max Preload]

To clarify the right hand rule....
You are in your car (for sake of illustration) - if the other vehicle can hit your drivers door, then YOU GIVEWAY.

Not if you're going straight through or the other vehicle is on a greater heirachy of sign (ie. they're on a stop, you're on a give way or they're on a give way and you're on nothing).

The actual rule for uncontrolled intersections is "If turning, give way to all traffic not turning. In all other situations give way to traffic crossing or approaching from your right".

[Max Preload]

I don't think that controlling every intersection with a stop sign is going to do anything but encourage people to take more risk because they've been forced to miss a gap that would have been perfectly safe.

What should be done is raise the standard of driving. At present, driver license testers must pass 75% of all applicants. So you ony have to be better than 25% worst to get a license. How ridiculous is that?

[Krayy]

Saw the TV3 story. You Auckland riders are..f@*#ed!. Take the bus.
I particular liked the way that Carly Kirkwood (or whatever her name is) started the intro with "Let's find out about what's being done to save this endangered species".

Oh, your wit is just so bitingly sharp. Why don't you just throw in a reference to "Temporary NZers" rather than doing some cunning story on what a SMIDSY is.

[Grahameeboy]

There is no choice - the law is clear. 9/10 times there is not enough road width to have a Stop bay on a T intersection like I described.
Going on your scenario, I/we have a choice to speed, so all vehicles should be governed.
:sick:

Bay? No just need to replace the signs and change the road markings.

[riffer]

But your formula is wrong, whereas all I did was count too many digits in my result.

LOL. I'll give you this one. Let's get back to worrying about what we're going to do about the blind cagers eh?

[Grahameeboy]

I don't think that controlling every intersection with a stop sign is going to do anything but encourage people to take more risk because they've been forced to miss a gap that would have been perfectly safe.

What should be done is raise the standard of driving. At present, driver license testers must pass 75% of all applicants. So you ony have to be better than 25% worst to get a license. How ridiculous is that?

Why would a stop sign make drivers take more risks.........just the sign may make them think about checking properly so in practice what may happen is that not all drivers will actually stop but they make look properly rather than shooting up to an intersection which says 'Give Way', overshoot, either carry on and causing other car to brake or they see the other car, stop (well over the line) giving the driver a fright.

You see I think drivers here think that the 'Giveway' signs are for the other drivers, you know, the 'they should stop for me syndrome' so perhaps with a 'Stop' sign they may be more careful cause, a bit like reverse physcology, because they cannot be sure that the other driver will stop so will be more cautious.

[Max Preload]

Let's get back to worrying about what we're going to do about the blind cagers eh?

A bit of vigilante justice never goes unappreciated... :innocent:

[Grahameeboy]

LOL. I'll give you this one. Let's get back to worrying about what we're going to do about the blind cagers eh?

They are not blind......just do not look.........a blind driver is more likely to stop.

[Griff]

They are not blind......just do not look.........a blind driver is more likely to stop.


Blind Car drivers are EASY to spot..... They are usually preceded by a harnessed Labrador running like fuck, about 2 feet in front.

[Max Preload]

Why would a stop sign make drivers take more risks...

There's a T-junction onto Gt South Road that I go through every day. I come from the side road through a stop sign, turning left. Often, because I have to come to a complete stop, I miss a gap I could easily and safely use if it was a Give Way. And because I'm having to completely stop, it takes more time to get moving again, so smaller gaps become more unrealistic than had I already been rolling.

[Grahameeboy]

Blind Car drivers are EASY to spot..... They are usually preceded by a harnessed Labrador running like fuck, about 2 feet in front.

with a red flag attached to it's tail eh.......

[riffer]

I would have thought its bright red tongue hanging out woud have served as enough of a red flag...

huh... you learn something every day. :mellow:

[Grahameeboy]

There's a T-junction onto Gt South Road that I go through every day. I come from the side road through a stop sign, turning left. Often, because I have to come to a complete stop, I miss a gap I could easily and safely use if it was a Give Way. And because I'm having to completely stop, it takes more time to get moving again, so smaller gaps become more unrealistic than had I already been rolling.

Whats the rush....on your bike you can easily squirt into a gap and even in a car you can put your foot down so you don't interfere with traffic and merge.....works in London.....either way a gap will turn up...honest....

Sorry poor excuse.........:innocent:

[Griff]

with a red flag attached to it's tail eh.......

I think it is more of a brownish-Red Flag.

[Grahameeboy]

I think it is more of a brownish-Red Flag.

Indeed considering the fact that drivers ignore red anyway.....poor dog

[Max Preload]

Whats the rush....on your bike you can easily squirt into a gap and even in a car you can put your foot down so you don't interfere with traffic and merge.....works in London.....either way a gap will turn up...honest....

Sorry poor excuse.........:innocent:

But the problem is the bad choice of control sign. It's also an uphill grade (minor, admittedly). Further down, on the same road, is a Give Way at a crossroad, which you cannot realistically only slow for - I find I always come to a complete stop there.

[Grahameeboy]

But the problem is the bad choice of control sign. It's also an uphill grade (minor, admittedly). Further down, on the same road, is a Give Way at a crossroad, which you cannot realistically only slow for - I find I always come to a complete stop there.

No, the problem is the bad choice of 'driving' decisions.

At end of day you drive according to conditions so cannot blame bad roads, signs etc.......

[Max Preload]

No, the problem is the bad choice of 'driving' decisions.

At end of day you drive according to conditions so cannot blame bad roads, signs etc.......

Yes, but the signs play an advisory role as much as a regulatory role. A STOP sign says "there may be hazards you're not immediately aware of" whereas GIVE WAY's are usually added to override the give way rule. On the particular road I'm referring to, they're the wrong way around - the GIVE WAY should be where the STOP is, and vice versa.

[MSTRS]

Not if you're going straight through or the other vehicle is on a greater heirachy of sign (ie. they're on a stop, you're on a give way or they're on a give way and you're on nothing).

The actual rule for uncontrolled intersections is "If turning, give way to all traffic not turning. In all other situations give way to traffic crossing or approaching from your right".

Thank you. You are right. I was using the scenario to illustrate that only the turning vehicle(s) on an uncontrolled intersection would be subject to giving way.

[MSTRS]

Why would a stop sign make drivers take more risks.........just the sign may make them think about checking properly so in practice what may happen is that not all drivers will actually stop but they make look properly rather than shooting up to an intersection which says 'Give Way', overshoot, either carry on and causing other car to brake or they see the other car, stop (well over the line) giving the driver a fright.

You see I think drivers here think that the 'Giveway' signs are for the other drivers, you know, the 'they should stop for me syndrome' so perhaps with a 'Stop' sign they may be more careful cause, a bit like reverse physcology, because they cannot be sure that the other driver will stop so will be more cautious.

Riiiight...put in a Stop sign in the hope that some will actually follow instructions....
Like everyone stops at red lights.
Picture this...I am hitting you with a hammer. You tell me to desist. Should I slow down or stop??
It is well past the time when the bloody traffic law policy dorks turn a major part of their focus on frikken intersection/roundabout (mis)use

[ManDownUnder]

Very cool - the signs are hard to spot and they're in bus stops around the place so...

1) Passengers getting on the bus will see them (but not be able to do anything about it - they're on a bus for God'sake... not in control of the thing)
2) Bus drivers will be straining to see it as they pull up, increasing the odds of them running over anyone between them and the curb (aka bus lanes, and the motorcyclists contained therein)
3) Car drivers will be straining to see it as they go past and drift towards the bloody things (aka bus lanes, and the motorcyclists contained therein)

And this is a good thing... HOW?????????????

[ManDownUnder]

Picture this...I am hitting you with a hammer. You tell me to desist. Should I slow down or stop??

Jesus - you threatened me last time I looked furtively at your (far more attractive) second half... I ain't trusting you with a hammer...:shutup:

[MSTRS]

not even a little one?

[ManDownUnder]

not even a little one?

That's what I asked her - and she said no... Something about being married?

Go figure

edit.... aaaaaaaahhhhhh... a hammer...sorry - wires crossed.

[MSTRS]

Wires crossed eh? Never mind...you hold these two while I go and flick that little switch down....

[Genestho]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=663&objectid=10445028

Check this link out^

And heres an email I sent to a reporter at the Herald tonight that has been reporting bits and pieces of my husbands murder by a drunk driver, 6 weekends ago.





And my reply...
SUBJECT:Motorcyclists bleed taxpayer but....

In 75% of the accidents the motorcyclists were not at fault?

Hello Juliet

I would like to make the following points and you can quote me if you like...

Juliet could you ask Elizabeth why the headline to that story did not reflect the story?
Obviously this Elizabeth Binning does not have the love of bikes hmmmfff, bleed? Is that because Motorcyclists are killed by motorists? Or drunk or disqualified, or unlicenced drivers and bleed? Or was it a figure of speech?
That headline will antagonise the biking community! Especially locally after the triple fatality of the motorcyclists killed at Okere Falls.

And can we ask why are the ACC levies so high for Motorcyclists when 75% of their accidents are caused by Motorists?
You cant quote a table on regional accidents if you dont also have the figures for motorcycles registered in those years as well!

Talk about misleading!!!



Im happy for you to pass on...or quote me, which ever you decide."

Jos
www.badd.co.nz

[Genestho]

Also in the Herald tonight - A letter to the editor in regards to that headline. Well written by Roger Bourne in Ellerslie. Good on ya mate!

[deanohit]

yea,I saw this article today and another similer to it earlier this week.both along similer lines and facts.good to read that the police are actually trying to do SOMETHING to try and raise awareness.please keep us updated on any replies you get to your email.very sorry to hear about your husbands death.there have been just too many deaths with motorcyclists lately.

[Genestho]

Thanks Mate, I will leave an update for sure.
Well hopefully the Cops and ACC really are getting into it. I have been liasing with Western BOP Traffic Manager about a couple of points and had infact tried to contact ACC (Not aheck of a lot of luck and have enlisted Tony Ryall for a bit of help on this...)in regards to doing a couple of preventitive things as the cost of carnage- particularly in unlicenced/disqualified and repetitive drink driving fatalitys have cost $660 million since 2005, looks like the cops and ACC have already got together on this. Good saves me a job! As long as they do what they say theyll do.
Ride on..

[Grumpy Gnomb]

if they say three quarters were not our fault does that mean the rest were?

[peasea]

if they say three quarters were not our fault does that mean the rest were?


Not in the world of ACC; it's a no-fault world in their eyes.

Go hard, crash heaps, they'll fix you up and you'll probably get a cash lump-sum for your troubles.

[Genestho]

To anyone whose still keeping an eye on this thread
Heres the update:

I spoke to my reporter at the Herald this morning, and she said there was a huge outrage (Of Course!?) in reponse to the Heading of Motorcyclists Bleed TaxPayers.
I just informed her that Motorists probably wouldntve read that story, but just observed the Headline and agreed.
She said its not the reporter that picks the Headline, a story goes through 3 processes there and it all comes down to amount of space and the wording they can fit
Still no excuse though.
Shes been a good lady to me and the story of my husband and his mates murders, she reported accurately and on the side of good.
So I didnt rev her up, and thanked her for following this up for me.
I believe its good to have friends in the right places.
I also discussed Motorcyclists ACC Levies being the main cost of a registration and if 75% of Motorists are causing the accidents then why are Motorcyclists fitting the bill and then ACC whinging that there are too many claims?
As if its Motorcyclists at fault!?
Also the link I gave to the story on here, did not show the table that was physically in the paper, basically it was amount of claims in different regions in 2001 and 2006, and so I asked again where were the registration figures, for those regions in those same years?
So those figures are to be chased up and shown more accurately, theres another story coming up either today or tomorrow, I can post a link or if anyone spots the link please post. :rockon:
Cheers
Jos Mason
www.badd.co.nz

[MSTRS]

Thanks for the update.

[xgnr]

Thanks Jos

I sent an email to the Author. Quite a snotty reply which indicates that she has been getting some hassle about it which might have her asking for some future review of the Sub's editing. (I know she probably cant but hey if you put your name to it then expect to get the flak)

Just for the record reporters don't write headlines, that is done by our subs. I'll pass your message on.

Elizabeth Binning,
Emergency Services Reporter,
New Zealand Herald.
Ph: 09) 373 6045
Mb: 021 626 778




13/06/2007 21:43


To
elizabeth.binning@nzherald.co.nz


cc



Subject
Feedback from the nzherald.co.nz website




This message has been sent via the NZ Herald Website
------------------------------------------------------


Hi Elizabeth

Not a bad article... crap headline that ruined a balanced piece.

I am not a radical mad bugger on a bike. I am 45, have two teenage girls, live in Meadowbank, drive a late model car and also a Pushbike and ... curse me... a Motorbike.

Have been riding for 30 years on and off and every day can have its challenges and excitement.

"We" do not bleed taxpayers... The dipsticks that knock us over (75% their fault by your stats) do so by driving without paying due care and attention.

We get a bad press (Bikes and Pushbikes) so some care when getting emotive would be appreciated.

I should be getting some carbon credits at least!

[Genestho]

Yea good on you mate, I was straight on the email jobby when I read that too, I was so wild. And its good that we stick up for this and other issues regarding Motorcyclists safety, and how Motorcyclists always get the bad rap - everytime a coconut!
Ride on...

[candor]

That headline was sickening. Good on the complainers. Theres a lot of sensationalising and bull with road toll reporting. If and when it gets really bad then its time to take it to the Press council. Looking at doing that right now re a crash that has been badly misreported (to fit certain stakeholders agendas) not once but three times, even after we've contacted the reporters and editor. The word is "disinformation" for deliberate twisting and leaving out important info that is needed to get a story in perspective. My new word for the week.

[smoky]

Did any one see the articals carried by a lot of the main newspapers and radio last tuesday?

obviously yes you did - I did a search but still couldn't find this thread.