Safer Journeys for Motorcycling

[James Deuce]

Sorry, ATTGATT doesn't do anything. The only thing it can help with is abrasion, and a helmet may prevent instantly fatal head injuries in very limited circumstances. Which is nice if you don't like skin grafts and a stupidity upgrade mod. I don't rely on gear to prevent life-threatening injuries because it simply doesn't work. I'm barely living proof.

Before the argument starts, you can't quantify if "high quality leather" gear prevented injury. I can prove that it causes injury.

[NONONO]

This morning I was passed on the harbour bridge by a guy on a late model BMW 1300, the one with the Orangutan bum tail light. Rider was wearing helmet, gloves,short sleeve shirt,shorts, boat shoes. A ' Safer Journey ' begins with ATGATT . Wailing that individually we can't do anything is rubbish or would you rather ATGATT was enforced by legislation .

Don't start me on scooter riders & their gear.

Been 34 years on a bike, never done the ATGATT thing, would be one of the few things that would probably stop me riding to be honest.
As for those who would pile more and more compliance on bikers; frequent testing, re testing, ATGATT, medicals, training, retraining, hi viz, floro, extra lights, super test centers, blah blah blah, kiss my arse.
Oh, and before the piss poor bleating starts..not one major off, not one ACC claim, not one attempt at "bleeding the country dry...lol'ed". Just ride my bike in the sure and certain knowledge that I am being ripped off, lied to and stolen from.
And the saddest thing is, those who continue to push the Smith and Joyce line of "it's all your own fault" and "it's for your own good"...pfffft.
And those of you who repeat and repeat and repost the message;
http://youtu.be/Ow0lr63y4Mw
Jeez, I lol'ed.....

[Qkchk:Me]

Alright fucktard.
This is the way you want it to play out, I'm happy to stoop to your pathetic levels of personal attack in public, and in fact in person if you ever have the guts to be in when I call past again. Your shop was conveniently closed when I last passed through Taupo....what a shame.

Got the balls you gutless little creep?

Nice rant Stoney.

The reality is that you were given the arse because a number of people saw you as a liability - someone whose sense of self-importance over-rode their ability to think before opening their mouth.

As for your threats - you remind me of that dpex character. He turned out to be full of piss and wind also.

Seems I haven't missed much on here.......

[Qkchk:Me]

Dunno if this has already been posted or not but I can't be fagged sifting through 10 pages of name calling crap! When I come back on here and see this bitch fighting going on, it reminds me why I stay off KB these days!


Anyway, here is the DRAFT for the Safer Journeys for Motorcycling for the guys and gals who ride and don't

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation...cycling-guide/

[Virago]

Dunno if this has already been posted or not but I can't be fagged sifting through 10 pages of name calling crap! When I come back on here and see this bitch fighting going on, it reminds me why I stay off KB these days!


Anyway, here is the DRAFT for the Safer Journeys for Motorcycling for the guys and gals who ride and don't

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/consultation...cycling-guide/

The link given in post 1...?

[Qkchk:Me]

The link given in post 1...?

I think that was referring to consultation?

It has now been 'updated' as stated 10 Jan 2012.

Not sure what changes have been made from the original.

[blue rider]

quote from http://www.nzta.govt.nz/about/who-an...safer-journeys

How will the pilot project inform the Motorcycling Safety Guide?
The purpose of the Thames-Coromandel pilot project is to determine and implement suitable interventions and road safety improvements for motorcyclists using the Safe System approach, with the intent of enhancing road safety and minimising motorcycle crash risk.

This pilot route is a 130 km loop of state highways popular amongst recreational motorcyclists. This includes SH 25A Kopu to Hikuai, SH 25 Hikuai to Waihi, SH 2 Waihi to Paeroa and SH26 Paeroa to Kopu.

Safety enhancements to the roads and roadsides along the route are expected to include interventions such as surface treatments, signage, markings, hazard removal/protection.
The safe speed component of the project is expected to be investigated at a later
date. However, there may be a speed management trial included in the project and
will be based around ‘perceptual countermeasures’, using road marking and differencial length edge marker posts.

So thats what the 90 km/hr new Safety Speed Zone is about on SH2 - i thought it was there to increase Road Rage amongst the four wheeled drivers. Silly me - got confused again.

[Conquiztador]

So thats what the 90 km/hr new Safety Speed Zone is about on SH2 - i thought it was there to increase Road Rage amongst the four wheeled drivers. Silly me - got confused again.

Well see... if these measures are done properly there is a good probablility that the result can cover more than one outcome. In this instance I can see the following ones as possibilities (please note, the writer is at no time stating that this list is comprahensive):
- Increase in overtaking without required 100m free visibility. (Can provide additional income for the government)
- Increase in tailgating and less than required distance betweeh vehicles. (Can provide additional income for the government)
- A higher likelyhood that the speed limit is breached. (Can provide additional income for the government)
- Increase in accidents as a result of more frustrated drivers taking more risks. (Can provide additional income for the government)

[Katman]

Well see... if these measures are done properly there is a good probablility that the result can cover more than one outcome. In this instance I can see the following ones as possibilities (please note, the writer is at no time stating that this list is comprahensive):
- Increase in overtaking without required 100m free visibility. (Can provide additional income for the government)
- Increase in tailgating and less than required distance betweeh vehicles. (Can provide additional income for the government)
- A higher likelyhood that the speed limit is breached. (Can provide additional income for the government)
- Increase in accidents as a result of more frustrated drivers taking more risks. (Can provide additional income for the government)

I think you'll find that last example would provide the direct opposite for the government.

[Ocean1]

And the saddest thing is, those who continue to push the Smith and Joyce line of "it's all your own fault" and "it's for your own good"...pfffft.

Welcome to the ranks of the rational anarchist.

Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws — always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good.

[Conquiztador]

I think you'll find that last example would provide the direct opposite for the government.

My logic has at a very few occasions proven to be faulty, thou here the angle was that accidents would be caused and therefore the drivers be charged and end up paying fines. I do recognise that, depending on the severity of the accident, there might be a cost to the government assiciated with this. However, I am fully expecting the next step to be that the one causing the accident would be held fully liable for any costs as a result (including police time and mileage for their vehicles, emergency crews, repairs to road, hospital costs, and list goes on) as part of the National "user pay's" strategy they are adapting.

So the really cynical bit of me sees this all as a small part of getting the country out of financial trouble...

[riffer]

So the really cynical bit of me sees this all as a small part of getting the country out of financial trouble...

Doesn't really work that way. You take money from one sector of the economy it depresses another sector.

[blue rider]

Doesn't really work that way. You take money from one sector of the economy it depresses another sector.

And does this matter? The economy is depressed one way or another. For the government in our current times what is of importance is the amount of tax paid.

Were the current government to legislate compulsory vehicle insurance (incl. 3 party) on any motorized vehicle (incl. the moped at only 25 km/hr) than at first sight your assumption is correct. Money will be taken, and given to an insurance instead of being spent elsewhere in the economy.

However, if every vehicle owner has to buy insurance than this will pretty much immediately result in two sources of earnings for the state.

A. GST on any policy purchased - a very convenient Tax if ever there was one, every time your policy goes up, so goes the Tax component paid and the revenue gathered by the State. A silent tax, that is not often debated.

B. reduced spending on the points raised by Conquiztator, and why would the government not charge Rescue Costs etc to the Insurance that holds your policy.....third party n all.

[Conquiztador]

Doesn't really work that way. You take money from one sector of the economy it depresses another sector.

Allow me to clarify: Our government is spending more than they make. Their income is mainly taxing us. In all the different ways they can come up with. Increasing GST takes money not from companies, but the families of this country. And why was the GST increased... not to give us more money to spend but to help our Government pay their bills (yeah OK, "our" bills if you like). So fines are same logic (yeah OK, we know that they are not revenue gathering...hmphhh). So you see, even if I fully understand your point (and it has some merit), the reality is that fines are not just taking money from one sector of the economy that then depresses another sector.

[Berries]

Not sure what changes have been made from the original.

The document is the same, consulting on two different versions would be a bit daft. But I see the deadline has been extended from January 22nd to the 27th, five extra days to see how off topic this thread can get.