Safer Journeys for Motorcycling

[Katman]

Right back at ya!

If the roles were reversed and the number of registered bike far outweighed that of cars it would be the car drivers that would have that title or some equally undeserved label. It's a matter of yet another minority being discriminated against.

I'll try to spell it out for you........

There is a huge number of motorcycle accidents that are caused through either stupidity, incompetance or inattention on the part of the motorcyclist.

Due to the nature of our increased vulnerability those accidents are made plainly noticeable to the general public.

It's not prejudice, it's fact.

If we set about addressing those accidents that need never have happened we'd be well on the way to fixing the problem.

[Owl]

He invented the word "sheeple" for goodness sake

No he didn't!

[James Deuce]

No he didn't!

Ok then. The BRONZ column in KR introduced the concept to motocyclists in NZ with special regard to motorcycling contextually.

[MSTRS:Me]

Except I don't recall in the past there being too much campaigning for a greater standard of motorcycling.

Your campaign on this subject has been utterly tireless. And I respect you for that...

I'll try to spell it out for you........

There is a huge number of motorcycle accidents that are caused through either stupidity, incompetance or inattention on the part of the motorcyclist.

Due to the nature of our increased vulnerability those accidents are made plainly noticeable to the general public.

It's not prejudice, it's fact.

If we set about addressing those accidents that need never have happened we'd be well on the way to fixing the problem.

There ya go, people. He has spelled it out. We know he's right.
Want we want to know is - how do you piss into the wind and not get your shoes wet?

[FJRider]

That's the problem. Human nature is to hold the "won't happen to me" attitude until it does. Because kids are no longer allowed to climb trees they still believe themselves to be invincible when they get on to motorised transport.

As the "wont happen to me" group, are closely related to the "not my fault" group .... not in the wrong, means they are/were doing it right.

In the "right" ... but dead ...

or ...

A change of "attitude" ... and ... alive ... ????

Individual choice ...

[MSTRS:Me]

Been here a bloody site longer than 5 minutes, and yes, after almost 40 years of riding bikes, and almost as many years in policy making roles I think i might know a thing or two about what needs to be done to get a collective, and heard, voice.

Just thought I would quote this little gem, to put the below in perspective...

We've got to be seen to be cleaning up our own back yard before we can complain about someone elses. I've said in the past thats it's pathetically easy to get a licence in this country and theres no followup or refreshers after that. Address that, and thats what Safer Journeys is proposing (at least in part) and the standard will improve over time. Only once the overall standard improves will we have a dogs show of being taken seriously, and that, unfortunately, will take legislation. No amount of rallies and meetings to try and convince riders to clean up thier act is going to make a blind bit of difference, because most of them dont think theres anything wrong with the way they ride, as is evidenced here on a daily basis.

MSTRS, you accuse me of wanting 'someone else to do it'. Sorry buddy but thats simply not true, but I dont have a silver bullet solution, anymore than anyone else does, and its clear that there isnt one. It's blatantely obvious that there will never be a consensus amonst motorcyclists untill all agree on one specific issue that affects them. My only wish here was, and still is, that as many as possible provide submissions to the Safer Journeys document on the table at the moment and show that at least some of still care about our destiny. I got shot down for that, and I came back fighting. Is there something wrong with that. If you've got all the experience here, then surely you'll know of at least one specific issue that can be targeted (for me it's the woeful lack of training and licence standards) to get the ball rolling properly. Wars are won One Battle at a Time.

The best you can come up with, despite your assertion that you know what needs to be done, is to make submissions?

Submissions to working papers are all very well. You'd think that it gives us a chance to be heard.
Eh!! Wrong!!
How much consideration was given to the record 3000ish subs made when ACC asked for opinions on their proposals? About none IS the correct answer.
Just like trick questionnaires that seem to give you a voice, but which are worded in such a way as to require specific answers, unless your submission agrees with one or more of the proposals - then it's not worth the time it takes to research and write.
But yes, despite knowing that, many of us will still take the opportunity to try and be heard.

Seven years of relative militancy and out-spokenness has me at the point where I agree with those that say storming the Bastille is the only way to get heard.

[Bald Eagle]

Regrettably in this country even outright civil disorder as seen in 1981 was not enough to change the political masters opinions. The Springbok tour was completed in spite of thousands taking violence to the streets.

A new way needs to be found to actually force the political masters to take notice and actually change their minds.

[Brian407]

Seven years of relative militancy and out-spokenness has me at the point where I agree with those that say storming the Bastille is the only way to get heard.

Well then you'd be wrong. Campaigning for change is one thing. Offering a serious and VIABLE alternative is quite another, and the viable alternative here is to put our hands up and say hey we know the skill level is shit and were prepared to do something about it, and we will contribute to and support any serious legislation that successfully addresses that. Do that, and the change will come over time, as will reduced costs. Stop the bloody protests and get on board with them. Fight from the inside.

[MSTRS:Me]

Well then you'd be wrong. Campaigning for change is one thing. Offering a serious and VIABLE alternative is quite another, and the viable alternative here is to put our hands up and say hey we know the skill level is shit and were prepared to do something about it, and we will contribute to and support any serious legislation that successfully addresses that. Do that, and the change will come over time, as will reduced costs. Stop the bloody protests and get on board with them. Fight from the inside.

I promote safe riding as much as Katman does, and like him I am a mentor on here, available to assist anyone who wants help with some aspect of riding. I 'have words' with scroterists being prats (and there's a million ways they do that, eh?), in the hope that they will think about what they are doing and if they ever transition to motorcycles they will get some advice on survival techniques.

Getting back to the submission process - remember the one NZTA put out re m/c daytime headlight use? They were flooded with subs on the subject. I don't know what most of them were, but mine simply asked if 95% of bikes already have theirs on, either voluntarily or because they're wired that way, then what difference will making it law achieve? We got the law.
Then, there was another one, asking re always on daytime lights for cars. My answer to that was ...

Obviously, being seen is highly desireable, but what motorcyclists would seem to experience is that 'other motorists' are not looking. For that reason it has long been a recommendation (and now law) that motorcycles have their headlights on at all times. There is little in the way of research to prove that lights-on makes a huge difference for motorcycles, because we are still so often not seen. Being small (non-threatening?) and difficult to gauge in terms of proximity, approach and speed are huge factors in accidents stats. But at least our headlights go some way towards helping to make us stand out better.

It is the call for car headlights on that worries me. Because that will remove the one point of difference that motorcyclists have.
Yes, motorcyclists make up only 2% of the vehicle fleet, but we have the same rights to be on the roads as anyone...it is what we can do to decrease our vulnerability that is being threatened here.

Perhaps then, if cars go lights-on at all times, then to keep the point of difference, motorcycles must go hi-beam-on at all times?

We haven't seen the outcome of that paper. Yet.

[Blackbird]

Well then you'd be wrong. Campaigning for change is one thing. Offering a serious and VIABLE alternative is quite another, and the viable alternative here is to put our hands up and say hey we know the skill level is shit and were prepared to do something about it, and we will contribute to and support any serious legislation that successfully addresses that. Do that, and the change will come over time, as will reduced costs. Stop the bloody protests and get on board with them. Fight from the inside.

Brian,
Totally agree with the sentiments. Can I ask you a question? What formal refresher training or upskilling have you voluntarily undertaken in (say) the last 5 years? The question isn't designed to embarrass or have any fishooks in it by the way.

Cheers,

Geoff

[James Deuce]

You'll not see "legislation" around extra training requirements for motorcyclists except to make it more difficult to get a license in the first place, thereby reducing the desire to get a motorcycle in the first instance.

To get such legislation introduced would require access to an MP, preferably at cabinet level who would be willing to table such legislation after doing the necessary politicking to ensure the legislation would be passed into law. For what political trade off? Bear in mind that when questioned about introducing voluntary or compulsory advanced driver and rider training in the media, all Senior Traffic Superintendents have responded the same way; "Advanced driver training causes drivers to have accidents at higher speeds in more inappropriate situations."

With that attitude from the Government body charged with enforcing road safety upon road users, I doubt there would be any political motivation strong enough to provide a legislative basis for imposing extra training upon road users, particularly as such an endeavour is likely to cost license holders money, both directly and indirectly.

[MSTRS:Me]

It also has to be said that, as far as submissions are concerned, it's a loaded game anyway.
The authorities carefully compare all submissions and any that take the same tack may be lumped together and counted as one. They've taken the cut'n'paste approach and extended it to include what they deem to be paraphrasing.
If that is truly what happens (and I'm led to believe it is a distinct possibility) then it truly is a waste of time making submissions. Individual responses countering a proposal don't carry a lot of weight, do they?

[Blackbird]

.....all Senior Traffic Superintendents have responded the same way; "Advanced driver training causes drivers to have accidents at higher speeds in more inappropriate situations."

Jim,
Have never seen this quoted. Curious to what circles it's been quoted in and what the basis for their claim is. Ironic considering that the police themselves are required to receive advanced training. Extending their presumed line of argument, there's a limit beyond which more training causes more accidents!!! Really stretching a point, you might just about be able to see a (bloody) weak correlation between trackday-type training and higher speed road accidents but that's not advanced roadcraft training which doesn't focus on speed per se.

Any authority who makes utterances of that kind is being nearly as irresponsible as stupid drivers.

[Genestho]

Well then you'd be wrong. Campaigning for change is one thing. Offering a serious and VIABLE alternative is quite another, and the viable alternative here is to put our hands up and say hey we know the skill level is shit and were prepared to do something about it, and we will contribute to and support any serious legislation that successfully addresses that. Do that, and the change will come over time, as will reduced costs. Stop the bloody protests and get on board with them. Fight from the inside.

As formally part of an unpaid group that has existed for 4 years, that has or held position on the NZTA stakholders consultation list, had open communication between ACC, Police, NZTA and reps from the local clubs and motorcycle community including the Motorcycle dealerships.

I can assure you that this approach has also been taken, we were doing what Msac were doing well before this group was assembled, on existing budgets.

We held a very successful event in March, supported by top racers in NZ who spoke on aspects of racing and road riding safety pointers, leatts neck brace display, bike rider magazine covered the event and we had just over 1000 motorcyclists attend, including local clubs, road safe attended and put on a braking display many clubs and riders attended. We were able to get questionnaires out to the public via NZTA on local roading issues.

As I already had communications I felt this group was a good approach to take alongside lobbying, especially at regional levels, to show tptb that as a community we were taking charge of own safety in the hopes that campaigns could be promoted on our behalf and legaslative advice would be heard, as well.

As said many times before on KB, govt will be 'improving safety' as part of a ten year plan.

Quite simply it will take stamina, cohesiveness and many forms of communication and spokespeople.
Belligerence and protests although not politically implicatative, create awareness and support.

Road safety aspects and the quiet lobbying are all formidable tools, each one is an important part of the jigsaw, but until there is a cohesive manifesto to promote, a media plan, collection of factual data, goals to commonly reach for in mass support in the thousands, what we have is what we've got.

However - I still believe that anything is possible..EDIT: Or is it...

[Katman]

Bear in mind that when questioned about introducing voluntary or compulsory advanced driver and rider training in the media, all Senior Traffic Superintendents have responded the same way; "Advanced driver training causes drivers to have accidents at higher speeds in more inappropriate situations."

I think that any advance in motorcycle training needs to be approached from a 'Defensive Riding' angle. (The current Defensive Driving Course provides very little in the way of real-world application for motorcyclists).

It appals me the number of motorcyclists who currently cannot adequately read road situations and formulate adequate defensive techniques.

All too often we hear "The bastard just pulled a U-turn in front of me" when in fact the U-turn could have been quite easily anticipated. All too often we hear "There was no-where for me to go" when in fact there was never even any consideration given to where a possible escape route might have lain.

Advanced training needs to take the form of convincing motorcyclists that there is no place for their brains to be switched off while riding.