Auckland Transport regional campaign

[FastBikeGear]

From: Bailee.Florence@aucklandtransport.govt.nz
Subject: FREE Motorcycle Breakfast
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:18:04 +0000
To:
Hi there,

As part of a regional campaign, Auckland Transport is currently planning a breakfast event for motorcyclists around Auckland. The date is 22nd March from 6am – 9am.

We are emailing a few motorcycle clubs around Auckland to see if they would like to be a part of the event. It is a chance for Auckland Transport to remind motorcyclists to be safe on the road and motorists to look out for motorcyclists.

We hope this will be a fun morning for people attending. ACC will also be involved in giving away some information and subsidised training for motorcyclists who are looking to get more training, as well as some fun interactive activities and giveaways.

Would you like to be a part of this event and more importantly, would you like to help us spread the word to your members to come and join us for breakfast? If so please find attached e-flyers which can easily be emailed out.

Please let us know if you would like to get involved in any way or even if you have some motorbikes you would like to display on the day.

We’ve also got more leaflets for distribution so if you need any hard copies, do let us know.

Hope to see you there
Best regards


WARNING This email contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and may be subject to LEGAL PRIVILEGE. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not peruse, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this email or attachments. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately by return email, facsimile or telephone (call us collect) and delete this email. Thank you. Phone: +64 9 355 3553 or Fax: +64 9 355 3550. AUCKLAND TRANSPORT ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHANGES MADE TO THIS EMAIL OR TO ANY ATTACHMENTS AFTER TRANSMISSION FROM AUCKLAND TRANSPORT. Nothing in this email designates an information system for the purposes of section 11(a) of the New Zealand Electronic Transaction Act 2002, unless expressly stated otherwise.

[FastBikeGear]

I have sent the following email response I sent to Bailee Florence. It's just my thoughts which as I point out are not based on research and I know much of what I say is controversial.


Good grief who comes up with this stuff!

I have put some time into this email, I hope that it stimulates some fresh thinking, because the current plan is clearly not working) please pass it on to the relevant people.

"We are emailing a few motorcycle clubs around Auckland to see if they would like to be a part of the event. It is a chance for Auckland Transport to remind motorcyclists to be safe on the road and motorists to look out for motorcyclists."

Seems a bit strange to invite motorcyclists so that they can remind motorists to lot look out for motorcyclists?

It's good that they are going to "remind motorcyclists to be safe on the road" because now that I am a big boy and I have left home mommy is no longer around to remind me and I keep on forgetting to keep safe!

Good grief are these people morons?

But it's nice to know you are thinking of us.

It's almost like you want to be seen to be doing stuff but actually don't have a clue what you should really be doing.

Some of the facts may be as below....(But as we don't have genuine research it's just common sense and speculation...which we should not rely on!!)

Despite the "look for....cyclists/motorcyclists' campaigns being popular around the world the reality is that nowhere have they proven to have any effect on reducing injuries. Telling people via adverts to look for bikes does not change behaviour and is a total waste of money better spent elsewhere. What does probably work is encouraging motorcyclists to be more visible e.g. 1. headlights on, 2. fluro vests, 3. white helmets and 4. Day Time Running lights. Well done on the recent campaigns on 1 and 2. I will come back to Day Time Running Lights which you have made illegal on bikes.

That a large proportion of motorcyclists take to many risks (many of these don't relate to breaking the speed limit) and yet there seems to an over reliant emphasis on reducing speed rather that reducing risk taking.

The new 90km 'safer speed' initiative on state highway 2 will reduce deaths on this highway because even if we have the same number of accidents the average speed and impact will be less. If this pans out to be the case then there is a case to further reduce the speed limit to 80km...50km ...30km...0km. Also motorcyclists are now avoiding state highway 2 and using the back roads to Miranda etc so less motorcyclists on state highway 2 will mean less motorcycle fatalities on state highway 2 ...but more elsewhere. Why didn't you reduce the speeds on the roads that motorcyclist enjoy pushing the limits on rather than state highway 2? ...the answer is obvious...but I am guessing some people won't take the time to consider why?. The other problem with a 90km speed limit is that you don't need to engage your brain in the act of driving a vehicle so it's now free to wander off and think about things other what's unfolding on the road ahead and around them. At 90km/h it takes huge discipline to keep the mind focused on what should be the most important activity.

A large proportion of motorcyclists (particularly new riders) are not dressed for their next accident. I see people every day in sport shoes, shorts and no gloves in summer. Also motorcyclists are switching form leather to denim/Kevlar and Cordura woven fabric riding gear that gives the illusion of safety...yet you are not allowed on a motorcycle track with this stuff anywhere in the world. Motorcyclists need to be told the truth...yes that stuff is better than sports shoes and normal jeans but it offers nowhere near the safety of thick leather. An advisory campaign on the best safety wear would be much more productive than a campaign to remind motorists to look for cars! BTW there is no self interest here as I don't sell safety apparel of any kind.

The driver license and car license tests do no test vehicle control skills. (the advantage of doing so is that in practicing for the test in appropriately prepared training vehicles teaches people what they don't know and can't do.

We have several dangerous laws. e.g. It's now illegal to have Daytime Running lights on a motorbike! This was probably inadvertent but because it is illegal to have DRLs on at the same time as headlight/s on a vehicle and motorcyclists must have headlights on during the day...well you can see the problem. It means motorcyclists can not legally take advantage of the modern and very effective LED lights designed specifically to make a vehicle more visible during day light hours. It's just another indication that the safety needs of motorcyclists are not at the forefront when writing road rules.

Thank goodness you finally and belatedly got rid of the learner speed restrictions after years of evidence from Monash University had shown how dangerous this was. Harry Duynhoven proposed this change years ago!

The new right turn laws are going to leave motorcyclist giving way to left turning traffic exposed in the middle of the road to following traffic. Unlike cars Motorbikes have no rear crumple zones and typically less vision behind them. Under the existing right turning/left turning rules it is much safer for motorcyclists to be giving way to right turning traffic while waiting on the left hand side of the road. Did anyone consider or discuss this aspect when thinking about the new rule changes? Is it true that this rule has now been rescheduled to be introduced on April Fools Day. I understand that this rule change was heavily promoted by the Automobile Association - good one guys!

You fail to collect and collate the right meaningful crash statistics and you extrapolate from the scantiest info. e.g. Dangerfields was quoted the other day that motorcyclists are 18 times more likely to be involved in a serious accident per km traveled than car drivers - how on earth did he come up with this figure and manage to state it as fact from the information available. The only place that distance traveled per vehicle is collected is when getting a warrant of fitness - was this taken into account when Dangerfield came up with this figure....go on surprise me and tell me it was.

You then use the scant statistics you have to try and determine safety policy rather than actually funding and conducting research. Statistical analyses is no substitute for research. e.g research shows that motorcyclists who voluntarily attend safety training have no lower accident or injury rate that motorcyclists who don't. Seems reasonable on the face of it? But research would probably show that the vast majority of motorcyclists who voluntarily attend safety training are males aged between 18 and 30 and learner riders and guess what they are probably the accident prone group. Where is your research comparing the same demographics?

In fact there is a complete lack of traffic safety research in New Zealand all we have is very rudimentary statistical analysis performed by untrained administrators and politicians from very poor quality statistics. GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out.

The LTSA, Ministry of Transport and ACC have no credibility with motorcyclists after the silly nonsense with the ACC levies and the misinformation published at that time, consequently nothing you do is trusted or believed. They see an us and them situation and do not believe that you have any genuine concern for their safety.

As you can see I have spent some time thinking about motorcycle safety. My ideas are not backed by road safety research only 'my opinion and my commonsense" which falls well short of what is morally required by everyone making a living from road safety.

I have put some time into this email, I hope that it stimulates some fresh thinking, because the current plan is clearly not working and the emperor is clearly not wearing any clothes and all of us motorcyclists know that he is naked. Please pass it on to the relevant people.

This is a plea for the LTSA and ACC to please invest in some genuine motorcycle safety research in New Zealand rather than mindless and morally irresponsible statistical inference.
Many thanks

Liam Venter
Liam@FastBikeGear.co.nz

[rickstv]

If only motorcyclists are invited, how do you get the message to motorists to look out for motorcycles?
Rick.

[Bassmatt]

Sounds like a load of bollocks and when bugger all turn up they will point the finger and tell us we arent interested in our own safety etc etc

[nodrog:Me]

Nek Minut,

the speed limit is reduced on the Miranda road.

[FastBikeGear]

Ixon has correctly corrected me. You are allowed Day Time Running Lights on your motorbike as long as you do turn off your headlights Ref http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regul...html#DLM303647

This is of course in contradiction to what is written here on the LTSA web site http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/ge...hts-right.html however I am guessing the legislation takes legal precedence over what's reported on the LTSA site.

Of course I think we should be allowed both our headlights and DRLS on during the day. Anything that makes us more visible is good!

Thanks for the heads up Ixon.

[MrKiwi]

Not sure I like the way Auckland Transport is pitching this as well, seems overly paternalistic.

On the question of daytime running lights. I am running a set of LED's with my headlights which is probably illegal as you say. Interestingly although I have gone past many police (done quite a few miles with these fitted) no one has yet pulled me up to say I shouldn't be, even when passing police sitting in cars monitoring speed. I hope this is the police taking a pragmatic view.

[Gremlin]

On the question of daytime running lights. I am running a set of LED's with my headlights which is probably illegal as you say. Interestingly although I have gone past many police (done quite a few miles with these fitted) no one has yet pulled me up to say I shouldn't be, even when passing police sitting in cars monitoring speed. I hope this is the police taking a pragmatic view.

Since I've seen cars with the same thing, I think it's simply a case of a more subtle rule the police aren't really targetting yet, ie, a technicality not really widely known.

As for the breakfast, I think the money would be better spent on getting motorcyclists into training and subsidising it. Yes, they do it already, just do it more.

[Berries]

I will come back to Day Time Running Lights which you have made illegal on bikes.

Just a small point on the above and a couple of other things in your email response like learner restrictions and state highway speed limits. It wasn't Auckland Transport who made those decisions, it was either the Ministry of Transport or NZTA.

And being pedantic, the LTSA were snuffed out over six years ago, so best refer to NZTA.

[FastBikeGear]

On the question of daytime running lights. I am running a set of LED's with my headlights which is probably illegal as you say. Interestingly although I have gone past many police (done quite a few miles with these fitted) no one has yet pulled me up to say I shouldn't be, even when passing police sitting in cars monitoring speed. I hope this is the police taking a pragmatic view.

As Ixon pointed out see my links above you can use DRLs during the day as long as you turn your headlight off. Another option if you want to use them with your headlight on is to claim they are positioning lights.

The point is we shouldn't have to find loop holes to do the safest thing which is to have our DRLs on at the same time as our headlight during the day. We have administrators who don't ride bikes or research safety making stupid rules for us.

[baptist]

We have administrators who don't ride bikes or research safety making stupid rules for us.

Now, now play nice, nanny knows best

By the way is it a big cooked breakfast and can I tell the ACC man to sod off if he comes near me?

[NONONO]

"2. fluro vests, 3. white helmets"
Good grief who comes up with this stuff!
Please stop emailing TPTB until you have some facts, PLEASE.

[MrKiwi]

As Ixon pointed out see my links above you can use DRLs during the day as long as you turn your headlight off. Another option if you want to use them with your headlight on is to claim they are positioning lights.

The point is we shouldn't have to find loop holes to do the safest thing which is to have our DRLs on at the same time as our headlight during the day. We have administrators who don't ride bikes or research safety making stupid rules for us.

I never turn my headlights off, they are on all the time, hard wired that way and will remain so. I turn the LED's on or off as I please. But I do agree we should not have to find the loopholes. Personally I would like the law changed to allow motorcyclists the option, if they so choose, to install and run LED day time running lights in addition to the headlight, not in place of.

[Marmoot]

Get off your high horse, Fastbikegear. It only sounds like you're just trying to sell your gears.
And it's very ironic to talk about risks when you call yourself FAST BIKE gear.

[FastBikeGear]

"2. fluro vests, 3. white helmets"
Good grief who comes up with this stuff!
Please stop emailing TPTB until you have some facts, PLEASE.

Incidentally I have just finished reading a really fantastic and free downloadable book called ''Testing Treatments' that details how to go about conducting fair RCTs (Randomised Controlled Trials) to test the effectiveness of medical treatments. The same approaches can be applied to testing things like the efficacy of white helmets and Hi-Viz vests. I wear both but I am not sure that I would like to see compulsory laws for protecting yourself. I think what you do to protect yourself should be your own choice - but I would like to see the info widely disseminated so people can make up their own minds on what steps they want to take. We have enough laws with out creating more of them.


The results of research on white helmets is interestingly not convincing one way or the other.

See:

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7444/857.full

"After adjustment for potential confounders, drivers wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.94) than other drivers. Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.76, 0.57 to 0.99). Self reported light coloured helmet versus dark coloured helmet was associated with a 19% lower risk. Three quarters of motorcycle riders had their headlight turned on during the day, and this was associated with a 27% lower risk (multivariate odds ratio 0.73, 0.53 to 1.00). No association occurred between risk and the frontal colour of drivers' clothing or motorcycle. If these odds ratios are unconfounded, the population attributable risks are 33% for wearing no reflective or fluorescent clothing, 18% for a non-white helmet, 11% for a dark coloured helmet, and 7% for no daytime headlight operation"


and for a counter indicative view:

http://www.maids-study.eu/

The maids study didn't look at helmet cover but it did find that white PTW (Powered Two Wheelers) were over presented in the accident statistics. I am guessing that they are also over represented in scooter colours which were also over represented in the accident data!

At the end of the day it should be our choice what risks and remedies.