MOTO-NZ finally come up with something for all our money

[SuperMac]

So how many people would would let you smash a gloved hand?

Luckily, no-one thought of that!

[GrayWolf]

I used to teach with RAC/ACU and the subsequent BMF-RTS.

One of the 'props' I had was a lump of tarmac, chunky grit included. I'd ask "Who doesn't wear gloves?" Typically a few hands would go up. Then pick the meanest looking geezer, and ask him to put his hand, palm up, on the desk. "Why?" he would ask.

My answer "Because I'm going to hit it as hard as I can with this lump of tarmac" would usually result in me being told to 'go away'. So I'd ask what's the difference between 'tarmac hitting hand' and 'hand hitting road'? Result: dawning realisation.

Yehhh I can just 'picture' the responses.... Seems to be a common 'thread' with the old RAC/ACU Instructors to use graphic props and various 'aids' to instil realisation and/or 'paranoia' about certain safety actions like the 'life saver'.... I didnt realise the RAC/ACU was now defunct, shows how long I've been gone from the UK. Maybe the Instructors were seen as too 'Politically Incorrect?'

[mashman]

Dude, what have you been smoking? There's plenty more resources to exploit once petrol gets too expensive. Consumers, politicians, scientists, engineers will not allow the shortage of one resource to completely rearrange our lives. There a far greater chance of nuclear war ending with mutually assured destruction than there is of a bicycle becoming too expensive.
And here I thought your 'motorcycling is doomed' posts in the other thread were ungrounded... this shit just kicks it up (or down is possibly more appropriate) a notch

And what about when those resources have been used? Is the tech available to just roll out of the door when the oil runs out to replace ?8 billion? combustion engines? (no doomsday there, it is inevitable even if the timescale isn't quantifiable). I'm with JD, yeah go figure, as resources dwindle the price of everything (including bicycles) will rise to affordability status for most and we are nowhere near ready for that fallout. Even if the people you mention above did give a shit, they're not the decision makers, and even if they can demonstrate positive cost v sustainability returns you still have to "manufacture" your "new" solution without affecting the current state of the economy (i.e. without diminishing demand. We currently need growth growth growth and more consumption). When we fall, we're going to land with an explosion that'll mimic nuclear war. But by all means believe that she'll be right

Motorcycling will die because similar amounts of fuels can be used to shift more than 2 people at any given time, therefore motorcycling will be deemed inefficient and banned.

[bogan]

And what about when those resources have been used? Is the tech available to just roll out of the door when the oil runs out to replace ?8 billion? combustion engines? (no doomsday there, it is inevitable even if the timescale isn't quantifiable). I'm with JD, yeah go figure, as resources dwindle the price of everything (including bicycles) will rise to affordability status for most and we are nowhere near ready for that fallout. Even if the people you mention above did give a shit, they're not the decision makers, and even if they can demonstrate positive cost v sustainability returns you still have to "manufacture" your "new" solution without affecting the current state of the economy (i.e. without diminishing demand. We currently need growth growth growth and more consumption). When we fall, we're going to land with an explosion that'll mimic nuclear war. But by all means believe that she'll be right

Motorcycling will die because similar amounts of fuels can be used to shift more than 2 people at any given time, therefore motorcycling will be deemed inefficient and banned.

I'm not quite sure if the tech is available to roll out yet, hard to say as there isn't the demand yet either. Petrol isn't going to run out overnight, chances are it won't go up more than $1 per year over the next 10 years, gives plenty of time for a slower rollout of the new tech.

Motorcycling will live because it is a fuel efficient way to move one or two people, and large group transportation will never be a complete solution.

[mashman]

I'm not quite sure if the tech is available to roll out yet, hard to say as there isn't the demand yet either. Petrol isn't going to run out overnight, chances are it won't go up more than $1 per year over the next 10 years, gives plenty of time for a slower rollout of the new tech.

Motorcycling will live because it is a fuel efficient way to move one or two people, and large group transportation will never be a complete solution.

It's not necessarily the tech that's the issue. Sure it may become available (as long as it's financially viable), but you still have to retrofit 8 billion vehicles. How long would it take to re-train and then build the electric division for every bike in NZ, or at least those that we'd convert? You're right, to a degree, petrol won't just run out overnight but a whiff of it running out in a few years or a substantial decline in production will blow that $1 out of the water overnight and for some petrol will have run out. We're good, but not that good... 10 years is nowhere near enough time to produce what we need, especially when the raw materials are getting more and more expensive and more and more rare, harder to get at, more expensive to get at etc... We have to make a start and I'd rather it was sooner rather than later. I'll leave the tin foil hat alone tonight .

As engines become more and more fuel efficient, the cost of fuel will rise in proportion to the value required to turn the profit. The efficiency is a bit of a red herring, but I can see the argument being used. A motorcycle takes only 2 people and a car can carry up to 7. Given that we do end up having to ration fuel, I can see motorcycles being removed by law as wastes of fuel, not the saviour of fuel that we're led to believe. Essentially you need to fuel 3 bikes to shift the same number of people. I know my bike is nowhere that efficient. Are any?

I'm quite happy to draw the parallel of where motorcycling is going and the topic of the thread, in that we know what the issue is, yet we keep throwing a band aid over the top, brushing our hand together and saying that that'll do for now. In both cases what needs to be done won't be, because of cost and not just the running cost, but the need to have drivers and riders to drive and ride vehicles... essentially supporting every industry that is used, from dtiver/rider training, pffft, to component manufacture to safety testing, to insurance, to fuel company's, to funeral directors etc...
Our $30 has done what? None of us can agree on what needs to be done and I can see that that's why MOTO-NZ, or whatever they're called, probably haven't thrown money at anything in particular yet. I'll be bitterly disappointed, albeit writhing around with laughter, if they believe in, support and fund Hi-Viz. Training is the best we can do... after that, the rest is in the hands of chance, bad shit n all.

[swbarnett]

A motorcycle takes only 2 people and a car can carry up to 7.

Ah, yes, but 7 bikes can shift up to 14 people to 7 differenct locations whereas the equivalent 2 cars can only go to two.

Car pooling to date is a massive failure. Even some people living in the same house and working in the same building still want their own transport.

[mashman]

Ah, yes, but 7 bikes can shift up to 14 people to 7 differenct locations whereas the equivalent 2 cars can only go to two.

Car pooling to date is a massive failure. Even some people living in the same house and working in the same building still want their own transport.

Very true, and 7 minibuses could carry 84 people to them 7 locations. Praps I'll build and patent a towable motorcycle crusher... wonder if I can get ACC motorcycle funding for that . Car pooling will likely never exist without a change in working habits... amongst other things. Plus it's much safer to travel by a 4 wheeled vehicle

[bogan]

It's not necessarily the tech that's the issue. Sure it may become available (as long as it's financially viable), but you still have to retrofit 8 billion vehicles. How long would it take to re-train and then build the electric division for every bike in NZ, or at least those that we'd convert? You're right, to a degree, petrol won't just run out overnight but a whiff of it running out in a few years or a substantial decline in production will blow that $1 out of the water overnight and for some petrol will have run out. We're good, but not that good... 10 years is nowhere near enough time to produce what we need, especially when the raw materials are getting more and more expensive and more and more rare, harder to get at, more expensive to get at etc... We have to make a start and I'd rather it was sooner rather than later. I'll leave the tin foil hat alone tonight .

As engines become more and more fuel efficient, the cost of fuel will rise in proportion to the value required to turn the profit. The efficiency is a bit of a red herring, but I can see the argument being used. A motorcycle takes only 2 people and a car can carry up to 7. Given that we do end up having to ration fuel, I can see motorcycles being removed by law as wastes of fuel, not the saviour of fuel that we're led to believe. Essentially you need to fuel 3 bikes to shift the same number of people. I know my bike is nowhere that efficient. Are any?

I'm quite happy to draw the parallel of where motorcycling is going and the topic of the thread, in that we know what the issue is, yet we keep throwing a band aid over the top, brushing our hand together and saying that that'll do for now. In both cases what needs to be done won't be, because of cost and not just the running cost, but the need to have drivers and riders to drive and ride vehicles... essentially supporting every industry that is used, from dtiver/rider training, pffft, to component manufacture to safety testing, to insurance, to fuel company's, to funeral directors etc...
Our $30 has done what? None of us can agree on what needs to be done and I can see that that's why MOTO-NZ, or whatever they're called, probably haven't thrown money at anything in particular yet. I'll be bitterly disappointed, albeit writhing around with laughter, if they believe in, support and fund Hi-Viz. Training is the best we can do... after that, the rest is in the hands of chance, bad shit n all.

We're yet to hit peak oil aren't we? Gives us a lot longer than 10 years to change the fleet. Give it a few years and the price rise of oil will motivate the tech to change the fleet gradually (its already happening to a small degree, the R&D has begun anyway), and gradually will be all that is needed. An overnight fleet change will simply never be an issue. The same market dynamics will drive the slow shift to car pooling or public transportation. In saying that though, I still doubt it'll catch on, for those who wish to, or must, travel alone on their own schedule, bikes will still be the best option for fuel efficiency. I don't see them getting legislated out on efficiency issues, as they would have to legislate minimum occupancy for cars then as well, which simply isn't practical, and would probably damage the economy more than the fuel savings gained from car pooling would help anyway.

[mashman]

We're yet to hit peak oil aren't we? Gives us a lot longer than 10 years to change the fleet. Give it a few years and the price rise of oil will motivate the tech to change the fleet gradually (its already happening to a small degree, the R&D has begun anyway), and gradually will be all that is needed. An overnight fleet change will simply never be an issue. The same market dynamics will drive the slow shift to car pooling or public transportation. In saying that though, I still doubt it'll catch on, for those who wish to, or must, travel alone on their own schedule, bikes will still be the best option for fuel efficiency. I don't see them getting legislated out on efficiency issues, as they would have to legislate minimum occupancy for cars then as well, which simply isn't practical, and would probably damage the economy more than the fuel savings gained from car pooling would help anyway.

Peak oil eh. Some say we have, some say we haven't, who you gonna believe? It's a neither here nor there thing anyway. The point is we should be ready and moving now. We're simply not doing that. The tin foil hat says that there are some stunning technologies out there that are ready to be used. T'would seem odd that we aren't using them and granted that's a good argument for their non-existence... however peak oil isn't really the issue is it? It's the perception that peak oil has been reached that'll do the real damage. Armed with that little ditty, I doubt we'll have time to react, hence I'd rather we were proactive. How are you going to get the coal etc... from the mine to the power station if fuel costs become prohibitive for transportation? As I said, it's the perception that causes the fluctuation, not the fact. The last time oil prices went semi-potty was when Iran and the US were going to battle it out for the Straight of Hormuz. The perception was that there would be less oil, prices changed etc... multiply that by 1000 if the revelation that peak oil has been reached ever gets out. To that end, and with two hands on the tin foil hat, I can't see us ever being told that peak oil has ever been reached and as such if the need is the driver of the tech, we'll react too slowly... blah blah blah...

Agreed with the car pooling... but I can see motorcycles being legislated out just because cars can carry more people. Again, the reality may be something entirely different, but decisions these days aren't made on a realistic basis are they? It's the perception that something is being done about it i.e. removing motorcycles, perhaps the 1000cc band to start with. Likely efficiency won't be the only reason cited, but I reckon it'll be the main focus. The damage to the economy will be by far less to remove us, or so the spin will go. That maybe 50 years away, dunno, but I can see it happening in the "civilised" world.

[bogan]

Peak oil eh. Some say we have, some say we haven't, who you gonna believe? It's a neither here nor there thing anyway. The point is we should be ready and moving now. We're simply not doing that. The tin foil hat says that there are some stunning technologies out there that are ready to be used. T'would seem odd that we aren't using them and granted that's a good argument for their non-existence... however peak oil isn't really the issue is it? It's the perception that peak oil has been reached that'll do the real damage. Armed with that little ditty, I doubt we'll have time to react, hence I'd rather we were proactive. How are you going to get the coal etc... from the mine to the power station if fuel costs become prohibitive for transportation? As I said, it's the perception that causes the fluctuation, not the fact. The last time oil prices went semi-potty was when Iran and the US were going to battle it out for the Straight of Hormuz. The perception was that there would be less oil, prices changed etc... multiply that by 1000 if the revelation that peak oil has been reached ever gets out. To that end, and with two hands on the tin foil hat, I can't see us ever being told that peak oil has ever been reached and as such if the need is the driver of the tech, we'll react too slowly... blah blah blah...

Agreed with the car pooling... but I can see motorcycles being legislated out just because cars can carry more people. Again, the reality may be something entirely different, but decisions these days aren't made on a realistic basis are they? It's the perception that something is being done about it i.e. removing motorcycles, perhaps the 1000cc band to start with. Likely efficiency won't be the only reason cited, but I reckon it'll be the main focus. The damage to the economy will be by far less to remove us, or so the spin will go. That maybe 50 years away, dunno, but I can see it happening in the "civilised" world.

Peak oil is exactly the point, there will only be a systems crash if it abruptly runs out (which even at current rates will happen long after peak oil), otherwise we are free to make the gradual shift driven by a gradual market change. If there is alternative tech on the horizon, I can't see a massive price grab happening, why pay 10x the price for petrol when a third the price of electricity gets you the same mileage?

Problem is, bikes are perceived as being fuel efficient, tptb have to do a lot of work to first paint them as inefficient before they would get the public to see any benefit to removing them. And the only way they could paint them as inefficient is to assume high occupancy rates for other vehicles, and the only way that will stick is if they enforce (or at least encourage) those high occupancy rates.

[mashman]

Peak oil is exactly the point, there will only be a systems crash if it abruptly runs out (which even at current rates will happen long after peak oil), otherwise we are free to make the gradual shift driven by a gradual market change. If there is alternative tech on the horizon, I can't see a massive price grab happening, why pay 10x the price for petrol when a third the price of electricity gets you the same mileage?

Problem is, bikes are perceived as being fuel efficient, tptb have to do a lot of work to first paint them as inefficient before they would get the public to see any benefit to removing them. And the only way they could paint them as inefficient is to assume high occupancy rates for other vehicles, and the only way that will stick is if they enforce (or at least encourage) those high occupancy rates.

I'd say that that was a little short sighted, albeit not in a bad way . When that point arrives, even if 50 years+ in the future, knowing that we've hit that point will spike oil prices. After all, when there are strikes or some form of crisis that has affected oil in the past (UK relatively recently), the price spikes as the demand heightens, the pumps run dry etc... What if the pumps aren't going to be filled til next tuesday? How will people get to work? How will food get to the supermarket? The price of food stuffs, mainly through transport cost, will rise also and all that jazz. Even if we have some other form of tech to take its place and say half of the vehicles on the road have that tech, it won't stop fuel prices from rising to 10x as it will be a precious commodity that will still very much be in use. It being in use will require all of the trappings that go with it to be paid for, exploration, drilling platforms, men to operate the wells etc... and all on a smaller budget. The demand will still be there, just not in the same quntities and as we know that which is "precious" holds a very high premium. Liquid gold if you will. After all, fuel will compete with car contruction materials, mainly oil based, along with every other product that is oil based. Ther perception will drive the price as it currently drives prices in the market place. The costs of elecrticity will also rise as the greater demand on the grid requires more and more investment in tech to meet that demand and it doesn't just fund itself. There are many industry's relying on oil and the electricity industry is one of them.

You only have to say that some motorcycles are inefficient, which mine is in comparison to our family car, to tar the rest. exactly the same way they do with ACC levies. The reality is that we all use a vehicle on the roads. Cars account for 78% (2009 figures) of major injuries, yet motorcyclists pay more because of a risk factor and some stupid calculations per k, or per capita etc... We've already been split from other motorvehicles on a perception, it won't take a great deal of imagination to drive the nail home in regards to efficiency. Again, it's a simple perception. When tptb say that in general motorcycles are more inefficient, who's going to deny that "fact"? Similarly with the compulsory Hi-Viz we've seen being implemented overseas. Tptb believe that Hi-Viz means less accidents and have ploughed forwards trying to make it law. Ask an reasonable person and you'd have to accept that Hi-Viz and conspicuity would be up there be virtue of it being brighter and therefore making the motorcycle more clearly visible. Headlights on all day too. Has it really made that much difference? Tptb are seen to be doing something, they are perceived to be doing it for the good of motorcyclists and the research that they have chosen has backed that up. Same goes for the ability to have high occupancy rates being more important than actually filling the car. If the argument is potential v's actual, then potential wins out every time if that's how it's spun. EDIT: That may not ring true for you, but what about those who just want to drive as cheaply as possible and have no knowledge about motorcycles? Low potential occupancy and high potential cost when divided by the great potential number of people in the car. Sounds vaguely familiar wouldn't you say?

[swbarnett]

Very true, and 7 minibuses could carry 84 people to them 7 locations.

And 42 motorcycles could carry those 84 people to 42 locations etc. etc. etc.

Plus it's much safer to travel by a 4 wheeled vehicle

That depends very much on the rider (read the third line of mi sig.). More motorcyclists would inevibaly mean more demand for better training and therefore a lower proportionate motorcycle road toll.

[mashman]

And 42 motorcycles could carry those 84 people to 42 locations etc. etc. etc.

... we could be here a while.

That depends very much on the rider (read the third line of mi sig.). More motorcyclists would inevibaly mean more demand for better training and therefore a lower proportionate motorcycle road toll.

Not wholly the rider as you can only look in 1 direction at any given point in time, best not spend too much time looking at the speedo . I take your point, but the flip side of that is proportionally even more cars. As the instructor fulla highlighted a few pages back, all of the training in the world may make you a more aware rider, but that is easily negated by the actions of others and a moment of inattention, be it changing the CD, checkin out the hotty in the car behind etc... It's often been flippantly remarked upon, but perhaps removing some of the safety features of cars would have a better impact, snigger, on accident stats... that and the spike sticking out of the steering wheel. Unfortunately it could go either way irrespective of training level. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't try though.

[swbarnett]

When tptb say that in general motorcycles are more inefficient, who's going to deny that "fact"?

The ever increasing number of car drivers that are turning to small CC scooters as cheap transport.

[mashman]

The ever increasing number of car drivers that are turning to small CC scooters as cheap transport.

I will wish them luck should the time come.