So, wodda we going to do about? It's down to us

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

Why do we crash so much on corners?

• Could be many reasons from a learner over cooking and mis judge corner.
• Not reading the road correctly.
• squid being a typical squid,
• grit in mid corner un marker (have hit this many times and only knew it was there once you hit it.
• pot hole and a learner hits it on the apex.

How the hell can we have so many head on crashes?

• Mis judge of on coming cars distance
• squid being a typical squid,
• Other vehicle overtaking and not seeing biker... SMIDSYs
• Other vehicle overtaking and mis judging speed of bike and distance.
• car rams car in front into on coming traffic...
• Vehicles cutting or going wide on corners (especially blind corners)

Right turn - they'll be SMIDSYs.

oh that about covers that one

[yungatart]

I cocked it up on a corner...total inexperience and inability to interpret what I was seeing...a downhill decreasing radius left hander....

I was told "you just didn't read the corner right" but no matter who I asked, nobody could tell me how to do that...for three freaking months I agonised over it until a kind gentleman took me walking through corners, and showed me what exactly I should be looking for.

When we are helping riders to upskill we have to make sure they understand what we are saying!

Would advanced rider training have helped me...you betcha!

PS...Yes I did get ACC (and I'm grateful!)

[The Stranger:Me]

That's a very full report. It willt ake a while to read but may be worth it

Some interesting bits (as it relates to this thread)

Training, Experience and Familiarity Work for You

Riders who took some sort of rider training were more likely to try some sort of avoidance maneuver, such as braking or swerving. Untrained riders were more likely to sit there and crash without doing anything to prevent it. Riding experience--both total and on the bike being ridden-- worked in the rider's favor, in terms of fewer crashes. A quarter (24.2%) of the accidents studied involved riders with less than six months experience.

-------------------

How Hard Do You Hit?

The authors note that the typical accident speed was modest. In 70 percent of the crashes, the rider hit the car or other object at under 30 mph. Of course, the severity of injuries went up with crash speed. However, speed by itself didn't turn out to be a huge factor in crash causation. The report says: "There were relatively few cases in which excess speed was an issue related to accident causation," but notes that a speed differential--going either faster or slower than nearby traffic--was a contributing factor in 18 percent of the crashes.

---------------

What Kind of Bikes Crash Most?

The only type of bike that was over-represented in the MAIDS data was "modified conventional street motorcycles." Engine size also didn't show up as a risk factor, which checks with other studies that have used exposure data. There were not enough bikes equipped with anti-lock brakes to draw any conclusion about their effectiveness.

-------------

How About Old Guys?

Good news for typical cruiser riders: Riders aged 41 to 55 crashed less frequently than the exposure data said they should, but as with previous studies youth and enthusiasm were dangerous. Riders between 18 and 25 years of age crashed more than their fair share. In America, riders over 40 have been showing up as a larger percentage of the crash victims, and since there is no exposure data, there has been concern that they are over-represented. The MAIDS study suggests that issue is not their age, though there may be cultural or other differences that make the situation different. At least age by itself doen't make you unsafe.

[AD345]

Stop

Stop STOP STOP

Fuck you!

Stop giving away my rights as a New Zealand citizen.

Godfuckingdammit you prats are playing right into their hands.

Stop bloody well tying my or others behaviours into some conditional watering down of an existing entitlement.

Don't you get it??

ACC IS NOT ABOUT RISK!!
If you twats keep yammering on about proposals and promises to change behaviours then you are sacrifcing the war for the sake of one battle.

Why the fuck do you think we have to keep doing this every decade or so??

Did 1993 not teach you anything??

This is not a goddamned insurance scheme and every time we make little puppy dog noises about being good little boys and girls "we weally weally pwomise" we just sell another part of our collective souls.

Safety and training are good and valid issues - but they are NOT NOT what the issue is here.

Stop letting the fucking politicians set the terms of the argument. Stay on message. ACC is universal
End
Of
Story

Les - we haven't met yet (the crowds have been too big) but you have had my admiration and support.....

....but now you are going to betray us.

[Katman]

Les - we haven't met yet (the crowds have been too big) but you have had my admiration and support.....

....but now you are going to betray us.

Fuckin' hell.

And I copped shit just for saying he had shifty eyes!

[Kiwi Graham:Me]

I'm not comfortable with the idea of track training for road riders...the two scenarios are so far apart...I personally don't see the use...no oncoming vehicles, no shitty road surface, just how does riding around a track make me a better rider?
I personally prefer RRRS courses and the like...teaching real road skills in a real situation.

I cocked it up on a corner...total inexperience and inability to interpret what I was seeing...a downhill decreasing radius left hander....

I was told "you just didn't read the corner right" but no matter who I asked, nobody could tell me how to do that...for three freaking months I agonised over it until a kind gentleman took me walking through corners, and showed me what exactly I should be looking for.

When we are helping riders to upskill we have to make sure they understand what we are saying!

Would advanced rider training have helped me...you betcha!

PS...Yes I did get ACC (and I'm grateful!)

I am slightly biased here but.

All the feed back from riders I get from those I have worked with on road and more so from those I've worked with on track indicates they get huge benefits from advanced training.

Spending time looking at a corner, breaking it down into sections, evaluating the surface and changes in that surface, the effect roadside structures would have on that surface, tempretures and camber to name but a few topics for discusion on any particular corner.

Braking is another massive subject, the effect body position has on a motorcycle etc etc the list is huge.
The ART days currently held at Pukekohe cover these and more aspects of the craft of motorcle riding , we use the circuit to do this on because it is a safer and controllable enviroment in which to teach and practise.
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...d.php?t=109823

Training improves the skill (with practise) of the participant and provides insight into this black art of motorcycle control.

[Ixion]

Stop

Stop STOP STOP

Fuck you!

Stop giving away my rights as a New Zealand citizen.

Godfuckingdammit you prats are playing right into their hands.

Stop bloody well tying my or others behaviours into some conditional watering down of an existing entitlement.

Don't you get it??

ACC IS NOT ABOUT RISK!!
...

Dude, relaxicate. I'm the guy who doesn't even agree with helmets being compulsory. And the R in BRONZ stands for rights, I ain't about to go giving any of them away.

I hear what you are saying, and , strictly you are right.

But we have to live in the world of the practical and politics is the art of the possible.

First off, go read the Manifesto thread. That's going to be our position. And our base line demand (don't expect to get it straight off mind) is that bikes should not be in a separate classifcation at all. Same as cars, light passenger vehicles.

But we can't go into battle just saying " Acc isn't about risk, so forget this idea and let us all go on as we are". We will certainly be saying that ACC isn't about ASSIGNMENT of risk. Everybody takes risks in one way or another . Only motorcycles have their risk cited aginst them. However, ACC *have* cited it against us. we can't just ignore that. And in fairness ACC could quite legimately point out that certain groups or activities are unduly costly without any breach of the Woodhouse principles. They've done it with other groups- remember the "don't use your back like a crane " campaign. And they did one a while ago for caregivers in rest homes, because back injuries there were costing them.

What *is* invidious and unacceptable is then saying that because we cost more we must pay more. We will not accept that

But, just saying "stay true to the Woodhouse principles" will lose us the battle. If National were willing to listen to that argument we wouldn't be having this fight.

So we need to be able to say "Look Minister, this selective targeting of a minority group isn't on. It's contrary to the whole principle of ACC - as per our manifesto. Now if you are genuinely concerned about motorcycle injury rates, and ACC are concerned about the cost of them , then *here's* a list of things that , in the opinion of thousands of motorcyclists with millions of kilometres of experience, would cut that injury rate. We respectfully suggets that you pull finger and get stuck into that list, and until you've done that, leave us alone". We *have* to take the argument into his court not just stand there and say "It isn't fair". He doesn't care that it isn't fair, and he doesn't care about the Woodhouse principles.

It also serves a couple of other purposes

It gives him a face saving avenue to go back to ACC , if he wants to "Look, we're not just ignoring how much they cost. See, we have things we're going to do"

And, I'm told that Ulysses (and probably industry groups) are going to be taking a similar stance , perhaps without the adherence to Woodhouse. If they come in with proposals that DO take away our rights, and we have nothing to counter that, guess awhat the minister will do?

As a clarification of where I, personally stand :

Yes, the ultimate requirement is down to every motorcyclist to keep upright. But there's no point going in with that as an argument, it just comes down to "Hey Minister, I've spoken to the bros and we promise to be good in future , OK". Meaningless.

I'm not keen on things like compulsory ATTGATT. Firstly, it DOES cut into peoples' rights. Secondly it probably isn't going to do very much good. Most riders are already well geared up. The exceptions are just that, exceptions. So it's like compulsory headlamps , a waste of time. And passing laws about it would be pointless. Poeple who aren't wouldn't do so because of a law.

I wpouldn't really expect anyone to come up with anything that riders can do on their own. Bikers have a very strong interest in not getting hurt. If there was anything that could help prevent it, they'd already be doing it.

But some things we can't do on our own. Gravel in corners. No reason why a Minister of ACC shouldn't sort out the contractors and make them leave the roads in a decent state.I don't see that impinging on our rights

Likewise, making driving tests (all, not just motorcycle). I guess it does impact somewhat on someone's rights, but even I'm not old enough to remember the days when you didn't have to sit a test. And if inexperienced riders are being hurt because they'r moving up to big bikes too soon, then I think any extra sacrfice would be worthwhile . And if cage licences become harder to get, jolly good I say.

Trying to "tie your behaviour", or anyone elses into a "watering down" would be a waste of time. How are we to enforce it? Unless that behaviour is irresponsible - the R in BRONZ also stands for Responsibility. That comes with rights. Which I am sure it isn't

[AD345]

Dude, relaxicate.

........

A'ight.

I get where you're coming from, but it's a thin piece of ice you contemplate wandering on to.

I'm well aware of the political "realities" and the mind sets of those currently on the Treasury benches and what their end game is as well.

I genuinely don't think that there is anything we can give Nick that would help him save face, mainly cos he doesn't think he needs to. He thinks his position is golden and striking allll the right chords with his ideological base.

We may well lose this battle but it could spark something that wins the war. The future of ACC is well overdue for a proper debate but our parliamentary dictatorship system means that ALL of the parties can keep avoiding it. They just yank ACC back and forwards as they please when they get in.

Ulysses is calling for a Royal Commission. As much as I think their tactics suck, an RC might actually be the real goal to aim for

How many more times can we go to the well on "unfair increases"?

[scissorhands]

Having the awareness of a deer surrounded by creatures that want to eat you.

If you can stay in the zone of hyper awareness, not falling or seing the car about to kill you, improves dramatically.

Either meditate like a ninja, drink 10 espressos before you ride, or stay focused!

I wonder how many accidents could be put down to low tyre pressures?

And excessive speed, plain and simple.

In the animal world when attention and intelligence of your surroundings drops off, you die. Be alert. The world needs more lerts.

[BOGAR]

Some great ideas so I wont repeat them. The one thing that has got me is the fact you only need to pay a fee to get your license again for another 10 years. Surly it would be the time to re test if people still know the rules at the bare minimum (the scratchy test). Sure taking a full driving test again is a big pain but at least you know they are still capable of driving and don't have any bad habits. To go with that needs to be better enforcements and punishments for driving while disqualified or without a license. There needs to be the deterrent to make the majority think about it and to help get the ones who just don't care off the roads.
Common sense just isn't that common any more.

[NinjaNanna]

And you would wish for that to be subsidised? By whom? Me?
Why should I pay for you to go have a fang on the track?

Training day....different story!

It should be subsidised out of the ACC levy imposed on motorcycles. The thread asked what would you do to stop riders crashing and claiming ACC

We can continue to play the blame game that 65% of accidents are caused by a car driver, but that ignores the fact that in probably 90% of these instances if we had been riding more conservatively (perhaps a wider/tighter/slower line around that corner) then the accident could have been avoided. So if we accept that, then in truth we contribute to 93.5% of our own crashes.

Our sport/recreation/passion, call it what you will, has a high risk vs reward ratio, yet we all voluntarily accept the risk because we are happy the reward.

If trackdays were more affordable then the Risk vs Reward of road riding would be a whole lot less appealing than that available on a track. I whole heartedly beleive that this would lead to more conservative riding on the road which would directly relate to less accidents for ACC to cover.


ACC have a choice, sponsor 316 trackday spots @$60ea, or put one rider back together for $19,000


Obviously the overall solution to motorcycle crashes is multiheaded, training, gear, roads, education not a single one of these alone will have a major impact, combined together they should have a notable impact.

Coupling that with cheap track days to make road riding even less attractive and I beleive we are onto a winner.

[mister.koz]

And you would wish for that to be subsidised? By whom? Me?
Why should I pay for you to go have a fang on the track?

Training day....different story!

I definitly agree with you on the training day thing I will attend as many as humanly possible!!

But I think anyone saying that they are subsidising other people's (insert something to do with acc) is a bad move.

alough I wear all the above just a thaught? would making all this motobike gear compulsry put the price up even more??????? i know you cant put a price on good gear BUT.... welll you know what im saying any other thaught on this

I think that requiring more gear is a good thing, not necessarily all of it. I just know that the cost to ACC (and therefore society) was pretty minor, as in zero, in my last bin because I had the gear on. My accident may be out of the ordinary (was my fault, I didn't read the conditions because I was quite weathered).

I think that National/ACC/whoever was expecting a backlash of bandana wearing thugs who's complete defense would be "Na you guys suck". The level of organisation that we are fighting this on is quite impressive.

One of the most important things in an argument like this is to accept our shortfalls, it not only shows integrity but it destabilises their defences and takes away some of their ammunition.

Ixion makes a really good point that the problem is the changes to the ACC structure and that we shouldn't be categorised separately.

So I say pool all vehicles by classification (private, commercial etc) and divvy up the result evenly. Put each person's levy up by $10 more and put initiatives like training day's, greater subsidy on training and require regular training.

[MSTRS:Me]

It should be subsidised out of the ACC levy imposed on motorcycles.

I do hear what you are saying. However, in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?
But, as I said, if that subsidy was for training days, proper ones at that, I'm all for it.

[phred]

Definitely in for more training....
Maybe discounted ACC levies on production of a RRRS certificate...it would encourage more to do a refresher course every so often.
The BHS is far too easy, as is the restricted. I have never been required to do a hill start or a u turn as part of the testing procedure...and, yes, I do have my full!

I agree with an incentive to complete regular RRRS training or something similar. There should be a benefit other than wanting to learn and stay safe. I wonder how many car drivers invest in their own skills improvement training?

I was required to do a U Turn and a hill start as part of my motorcycle test so it appears there may be some inconsistency in the application of the test.

I think the single most useful way to reduce the quantity of car vs bike accidents is to make all car drivers ride a bike to experience the "excitement" of sharing a road with them.

[NinjaNanna]

in the scheme of things, few bikers crash and an equal few want to 'ride like Rossi'. We are all up in arms about being asked to pay more because of the few who crash...in equal measure, why should we pay to subsidise the few that want to let rip?

Regardless we still pay for the "ride like Rossi" brigade, so its the lesser of 2 evils - $60 trackday subsidy or $19,000 repair bill.

If by chance they still crash on the track at least its going to be a whole lot cheaper to fix them.