Safer Journeys for Motorcycling

[Big Dave]

Thanks - I've posted it on the KR site too.

[martybabe]

The Safe System approach



What about other road users? Do they not have to share in the responsibility?

Exactly, I spotted that glaring omission straight away. If the compilers of this document can miss from the outset the fundamental premise that other road users have an effect on Motorcycle safety then the whole study is flawed and of little worth. Better driving standards across the board are an essential part of safer motorcycle journeys.

Im getting worried now...
devices such as intelligent speed assist

Another total lack of understanding IMO. This once again illustrates the school of thinking that we crash because we go to fast, for to fast read 'over the speed limit'

Anecdotal of course, I am not the government and therefore do not have lots of statistics at my disposal to manipulate or lie about , but: in 34 years as a motorcyclist, truck driver,advanced emergency vehicle driver and attender to more vehicle accidents than nick smith has had hot dinners, On roads across the world, I have never seen one accident happen solely because a speed limit has been exceeded, never. This is all an intelligent speed assist device will detect and as such it's effect on reducing fatal motorcycle accidents would be negligible at best.

Inattention, poor risk assessment, inappropriate speed, poor road and weather conditions, risk taking (especially overtaking or pulling out of junctions),poor skills and on and on and on. In short better driving/riding and improved road quality design and maintenance is where gains can be made in road safety.

On a fairly regular basis I legally drove at up to 224 KPH in the UK without killing myself or anyone else, the view that all our problems on the road stem from people breaking the speed limit is ignorant stupid and blinkered and the constant focus on that aspect is frustratingly drawing attention away from the real cause of fatal accidents 'bad driving'.

[riffer]

I've been spending a number of hours pouring through this document (as part of my BRONZ role), and haven't made my mind up about it yet.

Yes, there are some points that need to be raised and you SHOULD raise them with NZTA.

Some interesting points as well to note:

Suggesting the we phase in "limiting travel to roads where there is segregation from heavier vehicles or where the travel speeds of those vehicles, and motorcyclists is below a survivable limit - probably on the order of 40-50 km/hr with current protective technologies."

Figure 3.6 New motorcycle/moped registration numbers vs. crash numbers. Motorcycle and moped sales plummeted by 50% over 18 months. I would be keen to see relicensing figures too, but I imagine it's followed a similar trend. Therefore completely eliminating any possible extra income from ACC (which is what the rego increases where supposed to do) with at beast a 5% reduction in crashes. This is the smoking gun to prove the FAILED POLICY.

There is also some great recommendations in this report too - in fact it well outweighs the negative.

From what I've read so far, it's better than what I expected. We do need to be vigilant though.

[riffer]

Another thing.

If you want to know the ACTUAL crash data they are using,

The road safety reporting tool (BETA test version) is available. It:

• looks at fatal and serious crashes right down to suburb level
• is based on the last 5 years of comprehensive data crash from CAS, the Crash Analysis System
• provides visibility of crash factors, road type, light and weather conditions
• generates a table or a chart that may be downloaded

You can find the page here:

http://www.smartmovez.org.nz/references/refs/data/road_safety_wizard?SQ_PAINT_LAYOUT_NAME=order_form

This is an Excel spreadsheet with macro front end that lets you search through all the data with quite clever sorting. Try it out.

[riffer]

... I have never seen one accident happen solely because a speed limit has been exceeded, never. This is all an intelligent speed assist device will detect and as such it's effect on reducing fatal motorcycle accidents would be negligible at best.

Agree, and disagree with you.

Speeding is not a causative factor in accidents; it's an aggravating factor.

I don't see Speeding as a Cause of Accident mentioned in the report at all.

But plenty to suggest that it makes things worse if things go bad.

I think people need to lose the chip on the shoulder over this one. Some bad ads have left a nasty impression on all of us.

And I include NZ Police in that as well.

[Berries]

And the first thing that will happen when electronic speed control is introduced, many many years from now, is that they will drop the speed limits closer to what they are calling harm minimisation and harm reduction speeds. And that would make a dent in the road toll. Be boring as hell though.

[riffer]

And the first thing that will happen when electronic speed control is introduced, many many years from now, is that they will drop the speed limits closer to what they are calling harm minimisation and harm reduction speeds. And that would make a dent in the road toll. Be boring as hell though.

40-50km/hr?

They've stated quite specifically in the report that the country cannot afford the hit on productivity.

[davereid]

This is much simpler than you imagine.

First they will rate vehicles in terms of accident survivability.

So 5 star, 4 star, 3 star, 2 star, 1 star, cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist in order of survivability.

Then they will tax (acc) vehicles that are less safe in a crash in the same order except cyclists and pedestrians are free

Then they will introduce variable road rules based on survivability.

If your vehicle protects you from a head on at a combined speed of 200 km/h you may use highways without a median barrier.
If your vehicle protects you from a head on at a combined speed of 100 km/h you may use 50 km/hr roads without a median barrier.
If you have a separate path ie cycleway or footpath you may travel without that restriction

etc

Safer journeys is about accepting accidents will occur, and eliminating forms of transport that cant protect you from the inevitable accident.

[BMWST?]

The Safe System approach

This requires a shared responsibility among road controlling authorities, policy makers, motorcyclists, the vehicle industry, and central and local governments.

What about other road users? Do they not have to share in the responsibility?

It is a document about motorcycling.Thats why other vehicles are not mentioned

[riffer]

Safer journeys is about accepting accidents will occur, and eliminating forms of transport that cant protect you from the inevitable accident.

FFS. No it's not.

How many of you trolls have even bothered reading the report?

[riffer]

It is a document about motorcycling.Thats why other vehicles are not mentioned

Thank you. Sounds like you may have read it.

[martybabe]

Agree, and disagree with you.

Speeding is not a causative factor in accidents; it's an aggravating factor.

I don't see Speeding as a Cause of Accident mentioned in the report at all.

But plenty to suggest that it makes things worse if things go bad.

I think people need to lose the chip on the shoulder over this one. Some bad ads have left a nasty impression on all of us.

And I include NZ Police in that as well.

Yeah, I was simply trying to point out that believing that physically restricting vehicles to the speed limit is or maybe a cure all is pure folly, there are much bigger and more important issues involved in improving road safety and that is where the focus should be.

I welcome the study and am an advocate of safer roads for us all, I'm just hoping it's done intelligently and without prejudice.

Some good/informative posts there mate.

[BMWST?]

"

• 'Safer Journeys for Motorcyclists' will:
• provide guidance on the implementation of safety treatments on high-risk motorcycling routes
• reflect international best-practice, input from stakeholders, and the results of pilot projects, and
• provide advice on how to identify, assess and prioritise high-risk routes using crash data and input from riders and other key stakeholders.

The guide has been developed with input from stakeholders who represent a variety of interests and perspectives. This not only includes delivery agent NZ Transport Agency, but also key stakeholders such as MOTO NZ (Motorcyclists Own The Options), road controlling authorities, and ACC.The safety guide is intended for all audiences interested in increasing motorcycling safety, but does focus primarily on safe roads and roadsides, and so would be of particular interest to road controlling authorities.Our goal
While we ideally want to achieve a zero fatality rate for motorcyclists, we’ve set a goal to bring NZ into line with overseas jurisdictions which have the best safety record, such as the Australian state of Victoria."

[dmc]

I think there is alot of positive things in there, whether it will achieve anything who knows?

Trying to get the muppets that ride like complete idiots or don't wear suitable protective gear to comply maybe a stretch but atleast they are talking about it. I reckon most people serious about riding do their best to make themselves safe but a ride to Little River on the weekend showed that the percentage of moron's on bikes and cars is still pretty high

They may also have their work cut out for them around the goals they have on road surface in Canterbury, I can drive 5kms in any direction and find every issue they list and thats a good road

[Hitcher]

This is much simpler than you imagine.

First they will rate vehicles in terms of accident survivability.

So 5 star, 4 star, 3 star, 2 star, 1 star, cyclist, pedestrian, motorcyclist in order of survivability.

Then they will tax (acc) vehicles that are less safe in a crash in the same order except cyclists and pedestrians are free

Then they will introduce variable road rules based on survivability.

If your vehicle protects you from a head on at a combined speed of 200 km/h you may use highways without a median barrier.
If your vehicle protects you from a head on at a combined speed of 100 km/h you may use 50 km/hr roads without a median barrier.
If you have a separate path ie cycleway or footpath you may travel without that restriction

etc

Safer journeys is about accepting accidents will occur, and eliminating forms of transport that cant protect you from the inevitable accident.

Sadly I agree with this. Motorcyclists are in the unenviable position of having to play a game that has been shaped by professional policy wonks. Play and we lose. Choose not to play, we still lose.

Also I think a major oversight in this report is that it just doesn't get why motorcyclists ride motorcycles. While we don't do it with the expectation of getting injured, maimed or dead, those are risks that we accept. Throwing safety statistics around, irrespective of how accurate or realistic they may be, only supports the case for those who would like to see motorcycling, and indeed any avoidable dangerous activity, banned or massively restricted. Look at tobacco and the consumption thereof.

There's a freedom of informed choice argument that needs to be made here. It's an argument I am currently crafting. It's an argument that will go nowhere at all in this debate but it's one that I need to advance. No other contrary view is going to go anywhere either but that's no reason not to make a point.

Ultimately I think that we motorcyclists are about to be seriously done to. Any contrary view about road safety, speed, rider skills, motorcycle safety features, Smidsys, whatever, is an unwinnable one. Let's enjoy our remaining days of freedom while we can.