MotoNZ position on wire rope barriers

**MrKiwi** · 9th February 2012, 19:35

MotoNZ has established a position on wire rope barriers - http://motonz.org.nz/news/council-sp...rope-barriers/

**James Deuce** · 9th February 2012, 19:50

Yay for pointless posturing!

They really need to talk to the countries where WRBs are being clad in waste plastic.

**GrayWolf** · 9th February 2012, 20:13

So the rider in NZ who got sliced in half, as well as the instances of limb loss etc on Europe do not indicate a higher risk?
Guess they'll insist on 'airbag' jackets after the compulsory Hi vis has failed??

**Smifffy** · 9th February 2012, 20:21

So, does this mean:

a. MOTO NZ wants to go back to being called M(c)SAC?

b. The position was formulated in Feb 2011, and you've waited until now to release it.

c. McSAC doesn't even know what day of the week (or even year) it is

d. Anything at all

Also, which part of that qualifies as the Council "acting on WRBs"?

**MrKiwi** · 9th February 2012, 20:52

Originally Posted by GrayWolf

So the rider in NZ who got sliced in half, as well as the instances of limb loss etc on Europe do not indicate a higher risk?
Guess they'll insist on 'airbag' jackets after the compulsory Hi vis has failed??

who is they?

**Smifffy** · 9th February 2012, 21:29

Originally Posted by MrKiwi

who is they?

Probably anyone that thinks they have a mandate to make rules or submissions on rules in the name of motorcycle/road safety.

There are a lot of them.

**Pixie** · 10th February 2012, 08:24

Moronz = govt. apologist parasites

**MSTRS:Me** · 10th February 2012, 09:05

Originally Posted by MrKiwi

MotoNZ has established a position on wire rope barriers -

"We" have had a position on WRB for years. And on Armco. Congratulations on coming up with what "we've" been saying for years.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 10th February 2012, 09:22

Originally Posted by Smifffy

d. Anything at all

Is the correct answer.

**Drew** · 10th February 2012, 09:45

Originally Posted by GrayWolf

So the rider in NZ who got sliced in half, as well as the instances of limb loss etc on Europe do not indicate a higher risk?
Guess they'll insist on 'airbag' jackets after the compulsory Hi vis has failed??

I thiink they subtract the number of head on collisions not happening, from the equation, before they add the amputations and fatalities.

Originally Posted by Smifffy

So, does this mean:

a. MOTO NZ wants to go back to being called M(c)SAC?

b. The position was formulated in Feb 2011, and you've waited until now to release it.

c. McSAC doesn't even know what day of the week (or even year) it is

d. Anything at all

Also, which part of that qualifies as the Council "acting on WRBs"?

Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback

Is the correct answer.

I concur.

**NONONO** · 10th February 2012, 20:07

Originally Posted by MSTRS

"We" have had a position on WRB for years. And on Armco. Congratulations on coming up with what "we've" been saying for years.

MAG-NZ had a position on the establishment of this quango from before it was established.
Funny how MAG-NZ got accused of splitting the vote, downgrading the message, weakening the argument...while McSAC got the majority vote on this forum.
Pffft!
Swear to god MSTRS we may as well give the fuck up.

**flyingcrocodile46** · 12th February 2012, 09:42

Originally Posted by NONONO

MAG-NZ had a position on the establishment of this quango from before it was established.
Funny how MAG-NZ got accused of splitting the vote, downgrading the message, weakening the argument...while McSAC got the majority vote on this forum.
Pffft!
Swear to god MSTRS we may as well give the fuck up.

Good idea! Motorcyclists face enough hazards as it is.

Don't want to add drowning in our own tears to them.