Albany ACC check point (27 February)

[superman]

14/21
-4 for no license on hand
-4 for no fluro
Can't remember what the 1 came from.

On second thought. How the fuck is not holding a license on your persons going to stop a car/van/truck/bike/magpie from tearing you asunder?

You want to see my license sir? Well I'd need to take off all my gear sir it's hiddin in a pocket around my thighs sir... hard to access sir.

Well in that case never mind.

[Blackshear]

You want to see my license sir? Well I'd need to take off all my gear sir it's hiddin in a pocket around my thighs sir... hard to access sir.

Well in that case never mind.

I gave him the 'got totally fucking smashed and lost all my clothes on friday' line but guess he heard that already.
Seriously though, read the card and figure out how your license is important.
"The main risk factors are decreased stability, lower level of occupant protection and less visibility to other road users."

/rantrant

[Bassmatt]

14/21
-4 for no license on hand
-4 for no fluro
Can't remember what the 1 came from.

On second thought. How the fuck is not holding a license on your persons going to stop a car/van/truck/bike/magpie from tearing you asunder?

No rego and no license = certain death.

[Taz]

No rego and no license = certain death.

Christ they're getting tough now - It used to be just a fine!!

[Deviant]

Didn't read the whole thread but I heard they were on Dominion Road tonight too.

As a former bike rider, I was right there with you guys in blaming car drivers. Since the bike got destroyed by a careless ute driver (who tried to blame it on me- Frank Allen Tyres Dom Road), I've stuck with my car- it was my 3rd crash, two being 100% car driver's faults and requiring over half the original cost in repairs or full payout (their insurance). The one that was my fault cost me $40 in parts, and a half day off to sulk.

To be fair to the cops and car drivers in general, you don't get anywhere near as much vision in a car, and less awareness and focus of anything smaller than a car.

Bikes move fast. It takes a split second for one to get so close you can hit it. It's your life at stake, so you need to take some of the responsibility for it.

Hi vis vests don't make me see you sooner, but when you enter my vision, I notice you far better than if you're wearing black.

Blame it on shitty drivers all you like. The fact is that motorbikes are dangerous and it's in your hands to reduce that risk or not.

Personally, I wont commute on Dominion Road on a motorbike any more but I will ride one for fun or inter-city travel. And I wouldn't wear a hi-vis for that.

EDIT: This was in response to people saying Hi Vis doesn't help much.

[James Deuce]

EDIT: This was in response to people saying Hi Vis doesn't help much.

It doesn't. The main reason they don't see bikes is this: Motion Camouflage

http://board.mcnews.com/Topic16871-4-1.aspx

http://www.qbi.uq.edu.au/professor-m...ivasan-faa-frs

Because of a motorcycle's small size relative to the background and other vehicles it appears to be motionless until it appears to grow rapidly in size just prior to hitting the vehicle that pulled out in front of it. This is why a major proportion of SMIDSYs follow that sentence with, "He was speeding!"

The hi-viz doesn't help at a distance because of the prevalence of bright colours in the background - vehicles, advertising hordings and so on. Couple that with the findings of a UK study into why Motorcycle Paramedics were getting mowed down at intersections and dispatch riders weren't and the findings were that most road users expect people wearing hi-viz vests to be on foot - road workers, cops, ambos and paramedics, council workers, rubbish men, etc etc, all move at a walking pace, again encouraging road users to pull out in front of a hi-viz vest because there's no way the hi-viz vest will accelerate up to 30mph rapidly. The average driver only checks in any given direction for a 10th of a second before making a decision about whether to go or not.

You can see where this goes. If you don't teach drivers about motion camouflage they don't know how to separate relatively close single track vehicles from the background. That's what's meant by "Look for bikes" but no one really explains why you have to look harder.

[Big Dave]

It doesn't---- snip ----

Brilliant. Now put that in 3 sentences.

[James Deuce]

Nothing like a challenge.

[kiwi cowboy]

lf you want to wear a t-shirt and jandals and as long as you have your helmet legally they can not make you wear anything else as it is not law that you have too...


Personally if I would be asking am I getting a ticket for anything if yes please write it out now... and stop yabber mouthing to me... if no... good bye... and I doin't give a rat arse about your silly little score...

Again having a rego on your bike has nothing to do with safety what so ever it is a money gathering thing only... if the are wanting safety then your W.O.F is more important.

Rego is Road Fees, ACC and GST... pure money making nothing else what so ever...

Well said that man

[MaxB]

ACC haven't done much recently to make us trust them. Don't know why this should be any different.

Telling an ACC grunt at the roadside won't achieve anything. Another ride to Wellington in election year might.

If we don't jump up and down we'll be wearing hi-viz vests before we know it.

[oneofsix]

It doesn't. The main reason they don't see bikes is this: Motion Camouflage

http://board.mcnews.com/Topic16871-4-1.aspx

http://www.qbi.uq.edu.au/professor-m...ivasan-faa-frs

Because of a motorcycle's small size relative to the background and other vehicles it appears to be motionless until it appears to grow rapidly in size just prior to hitting the vehicle that pulled out in front of it. This is why a major proportion of SMIDSYs follow that sentence with, "He was speeding!"

The hi-viz doesn't help at a distance because of the prevalence of bright colours in the background - vehicles, advertising hordings and so on. Couple that with the findings of a UK study into why Motorcycle Paramedics were getting mowed down at intersections and dispatch riders weren't and the findings were that most road users expect people wearing hi-viz vests to be on foot - road workers, cops, ambos and paramedics, council workers, rubbish men, etc etc, all move at a walking pace, again encouraging road users to pull out in front of a hi-viz vest because there's no way the hi-viz vest will accelerate up to 30mph rapidly. The average driver only checks in any given direction for a 10th of a second before making a decision about whether to go or not.

You can see where this goes. If you don't teach drivers about motion camouflage they don't know how to separate relatively close single track vehicles from the background. That's what's meant by "Look for bikes" but no one really explains why you have to look harder.

Good post the only bit I will comment on is the last couple of words. The "Look for bikes" works best if they look twice rather than harder. They are more likely to notice the bike on the second look because it has moved from where they first saw, but didn't notice, it. It also therefore gives them an indication of speed.

[bogan]

Good post the only bit I will comment on is the last couple of words. The "Look for bikes" works best if they look twice rather than harder. They are more likely to notice the bike on the second look because it has moved from where they first saw, but didn't notice, it. It also therefore gives them an indication of speed.

and to identify blind spots and verify they are empty before going. Good writeup James Deuce, interesting point about seeing other thing they expect from the high vis colors, rather than what is actually there.

[avgas]

Christ they're getting tough now - It used to be just a fine!!

Ever been tazered at 200kmh.

And thats when they are nice to you. Otherwise they kill the people whom do runners.

[Ocean1]

interesting point about seeing other thing they expect from the high vis colors, rather than what is actually there.

Pattern recognition. You're brain uses shorthand wherever possible. If you know the area you're looking at you're much more likely to fail to see transient artifacts. Your brain sees a very rough outline of the scene it expects to see and pulls the rest from memory. Only... there wasn't a bike there when the memory was recorded.

The mechanisms of visual perception and recognition are nowhere near the straight acquisition of real data that many believe.

[bogan]

Pattern recognition. You're brain uses shorthand wherever possible. If you know the area you're looking at you're much more likely to fail to see transient artifacts. Your brain sees a very rough outline of the scene it expects to see and pulls the rest from memory. Only... there wasn't a bike there when the memory was recorded.

The mechanisms of visual perception and recognition are nowhere near the straight acquisition of real data that many believe.

yup, done a few pages on that for my thesis, it just never occurred to me that a blob of such color would be recognized that way, especially when there is a big headlight under it!