Ray Shearman - whaaaaaaaaat?

[RantyDave]

So Motorcycling has a PR problem. For some reason the public thinks we keep killing ourselves. In the midst of this the press ask Ray Shearman, Canterbury co-ordinatior for MNZ, for his opinion...

I've been cut off by bloody car drivers and they're friggin' females (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4804914a11.html)

...and he blames women. Great.

Now I'm sure that Ray does a lot of great work for Motorcycling in general but, seriously, should we find the people who are going to be asked for soundbites and get them some media/PR training because that shit is not helping.

Dave

[Grahameeboy]

So Motorcycling has a PR problem. For some reason the public thinks we keep killing ourselves. In the midst of this the press ask Ray Shearman, Canterbury co-ordinatior for MNZ, for his opinion...

...and he blames women. Great.

Now I'm sure that Ray does a lot of great work for Motorcycling in general but, seriously, should we find the people who are going to be asked for soundbites and get them some media/PR training because that shit is not helping.

Dave

Well in this PC world of ours it is refreshing to hear people saying it how they see it...I don't necessarily agree re females although they tend to be the texting / make up at wheel offenders.

Maybe the Public is right...at least this creates a debate...

[James Deuce]

What's happening here chap, is that ACC are leveraging public opinion to increase our levies to around the $400-$600 mark.

There will have been people trained to give sound bites consulted but their particular sound bites will have been culled in favour of someone who will have no doubt have done great service for motorcycling in Canterbury over the last 50 years but is a little anachronistic in his attitudes (it will happen to you too) to life in general and has produced a sound bite that helps support the argument that motorcyclists are idiots and deserve to have their ACC subsidies removed.

Mr Shearman will be feeling like an idiot after reading that piece of cynically edited propaganda.

I suspect that proportionally (ratio of motorcycle accidents to number of active motorcyclists) motorcycle accidents are not as bad as they were in the '80s. However its a slow news week and the Ministry of Transport can go to town with their anti-motorcycle campaign ( "Gilbert said motorcyclists should not be on the road if they did not have the skill to operate the bikes.").

There's no Government will to upskill riders or to help make training readily available nationwide.

Those of you who think their individual actions only affect themselves are going to have to pick their game up. We need to help each other or motorcycling is going to become the preserve of the comparatively wealthy until it dies a natural death through attrition.

Don't have accidents, don't get pinged doing anything illegal. See if you can do it for a couple of months, so you don't screw up the next couple of decades.

[RantyDave]

What's happening here chap, is that ACC are leveraging public opinion to increase our levies to around the $400-$600 mark.

Oh, hell yes. If I were cynical I'd suggest that our ACC levies were being used to fund a PR campaign to raise our ACC levies. But then I read the bad into every situation, eh?

Mr Shearman will be feeling like an idiot after reading that piece of cynically edited propaganda.

Well ... I hope so. It's a shame the thing about women got in there because he also blamed phoning-while-driving, which *should* be illegal.

There's no Government will to upskill riders or to help make training readily available nationwide.

Well, it'd be really really expensive. The ACC do promote Motorcycle safety (http://www.rideforever.co.nz/) but are ultimately beholden to their spreadsheets.

Those of you who think their individual actions only affect themselves are going to have to pick their game up.

Couldn't agree more. This Akaroa crash was (neither speculation nor insider chit chat, this was in the paper) a biker-hits-biker crash caused by a long pass on a presumably blind sweeper. Entirely avoidable, even more so than usual.

Don't have accidents, don't get pinged doing anything illegal. See if you can do it for a couple of months, so you don't screw up the next couple of decades.

I believe I have a clean license these days. Nil points. None the less I think spending some time with either RRRS or Mr Templeman might be a very good idea.

Dave

[Grahameeboy]

Why do we complain about ACC when it provides a non-fault insurance policy for a few hundred bucks...

Health Insurance would not cover everything like ACC does.

Basically even if the put up levies to say $500 pa, this works out at less than $50 a month...

Do we complain that higher earners should not contribute higher taxes? So why complain that higher users of ACC should not contribute more when after all we live in a non-fault society...tell you want if I got knocked off and was seriously injured I would be glad I paid $500 pa and I would not care that it may not have been my fault because that is not important in the whole scheme of things.

A trip to A & E in the States is US$600 so we should not complain...

Car drivers contribute a lot more to ACC than we do and this benefit's us too.

Perspective

[Ocean1]

...and he blames women. Great.

Wonder if he might have a point, there. Useless for the PR value, I know, and statistically irrelevant, but twice I've had hard contact with cars. Both of them pulled out in front of me, I went over both of them and both of them contained women with kids.

What's happening here chap, is that ACC are leveraging public opinion to increase our levies to around the $400-$600 mark.

How's that work dude? In this particular case, where did ACC get to play editor?

[James Deuce]

Well, it'd be really really expensive. The ACC do promote Motorcycle safety (http://www.rideforever.co.nz/) but are ultimately beholden to their spreadsheets.

You want cynical? That was simply a move to make "us" (not that we're an amorphous blob, hell Harley and BMW riders won't wave to anyone FFS) thnk "they" knew how "we" felt and were trying to help. Now that "we've" relaxed about "them", "they" are going to nail us.

Nothing except exemplary road user behaviour from motorcyclists is going to help change the perception that we're just a bunch of hedonistic dickwads.

Stop filtering, stop lane splitting, stop flipping the bird to people, stop smacking their mirrors off, stop speeding, stop stunting on public roads, stop over taking in places that the average non-motorcyclist can't concieve of as safe, stop riding with your high beams on, get rid of your mirrored visor, stop wearing all black, stop wearing hi-vis vests, stop riding white motorcycles, stop putting ear-splitting after market exhausts on bikes, stop riding in giant groups that look like a gang outing. Don't bag other motorcyclists to non-motorcyclists.

Do use your bike to commute, shop, travel, and for pleasure.

From a cultural perspective we're alien. Non-motorcyclists only go on drives in separate cars together in a funeral cortege.

Just a couple of months. Ride like Policeman for two months. The death and injury toll will plummet well below the vehicle average of 1.4 fatalities per day.

Bear in mind that the holiday stats are total rubbish, and always have been. They are close to the national yearly average of 1.4 fatalities per day and seldom exceed that unless some clueless muppet crashes a minivan.

[Oakie]

A very relevant point is made near the start of the story :

The growth in motorcycle accidents was directly related to the number of new motorbike registrations, with about 16,000 more motorbikes registered in 2007.

If you have more vehicles of a particular type on the road then you are naturally going to have more accidents involving that type of vehicle. It's basic maths!

Unfortunately, the focus will be on the apparent increase in 'motorcycle carnage' without regard to the basic maths behind it. Speaking of maths ... to make this story a little more useful it would be good to know stuff like:
> the number of scooter and farm bike accidents that make up the total accident figures
> the ratio of motorcycle accidents caused by other road users
> the experience levels of those riders involved in accidents.

[James Deuce]

Wonder if he might have a point, there. Useless for the PR value, I know, and statistically irrelevant, but twice I've had hard contact with cars. Both of them pulled out in front of me, I went over both of them and both of them contained women with kids.



How's that work dude? In this particular case, where did ACC get to play editor?

As has been pointed out by Paul in NZ earlier, all government agencies including MoT, ACC, and the Hydra that is the amalgamated LTNZ/Transit beast are looking very closely at how to make motorcycling "safer". ACC have been threatening to raise motorcycle levies and have promised a raise very soon in the New Year already. Those agencies do talk to each other and will use each other to justify changes in policy and pricing. They, unlike motorcyclists, don't work in a vacuum.

[James Deuce]

A very relevant point is made near the start of the story :

The growth in motorcycle accidents was directly related to the number of new motorbike registrations, with about 16,000 more motorbikes registered in 2007.

If you have more vehicles of a particular type on the road then you are naturally going to have more accidents involving that type of vehicle. It's basic maths!

Unfortunately, the focus will be on the apparent increase in 'motorcycle carnage' without regard to the basic maths behind it. Speaking of maths ... to make this story a little more useful it would be good to know stuff like:
> the number of scooter and farm bike accidents that make up the total accident figures
> the ratio of motorcycle accidents caused by other road users
> the experience levels of those riders involved in accidents.

They anecdotally brush over the accidents involving "older" riders. The socio-economic side of motorcycling has been ignored entirely. Motorcycling isn't a cheap hobby, pastime, or form of transport any more. It is a very fair point they make in regard to the age of riders, many of them are people who have held a motorcycle license contiguously since they were licensed, but haven't owned a bike and ridden on the road for a long time. That should be easy to check.

Most BABs I know aren't crashers, so I wonder where that piece of mythology comes from?

[James Deuce]

Now in keeping with the scientific nature of this investigation of how dangerous motorcyling is, there is now a poll on Stuff asking whether motorcyclists take more risks than other road users.

You see where this is going folks, right?

This isn't an argument we can "win". The average road user's perception of what constitues a risk is vastly different from ours because they are completely unaware of how a motorcyle works. Except from that time when they crashed Uncle Ben's C90 into a tree because they panicked and forgot to let go of the throttle.

[Goblin]

Wonder if he might have a point, there. Useless for the PR value, I know, and statistically irrelevant, but twice I've had hard contact with cars. Both of them pulled out in front of me, I went over both of them and both of them contained women with kids.

On the flip side...both times I've had contact with cars on the road, it's been men. Dude opened his car door on me the first time. Second time, an old fart who'd never had a ticket or an accident in 50 years driving, pulled out of the long line of traffic and hit me head on. Ive had men try to run me off the road then flip me the bird! The only time women have pulled out or not seen me theyve been very sorry and apologetic. The men, however, have all been agressive and nasty about it.

[Tank]

Now in keeping with the scientific nature of this investigation of how dangerous motorcyling is, there is now a poll on Stuff asking whether motorcyclists take more risks than other road users.

so far sitting at 80% yes.

What do they mean by taking more risk?

Is that risky maneuvers of our own making, or taking risk, simply by being on the road with cell phone texting, 45 yo menopausal drivers in 4x4's?

[James Deuce]

so far sitting at 80% yes.

What do they mean by taking more risk?

Is that risky maneuvers of our own making, or taking risk, simply by being on the road with cell phone texting, 45 yo menopausal drivers in 4x4's?

It's a Stuff poll. They're asking an open ended question of people ignorant of the risk factors in motorcycling.

You figure it out.

[Ocean1]

Now in keeping with the scientific nature of this investigation of how dangerous motorcyling is, there is now a poll on Stuff asking whether motorcyclists take more risks than other road users.

Which we're all about to hammer with millions of negative responses, right?

Check.

Except from that time when they crashed Uncle Ben's C90 into a tree because they panicked and forgot to let go of the throttle.

I did NOT forget to let go the throttle.

I was bashing that berm perfectly, the fookin' tree leapt out and mugged me.