MAG NZ Taking Action

[TheDemonLord]

Given the round and round the mulberry bush this topic gets, I'm going to be completely off topic and say to "g-force enforcement "

I completely misread that as 'G-Spot Enforcement'

And then my mind went wandering off on that theme and I didn't read the rest of what you wrote.

[James Deuce]

Fuck these guys are a bunch of wankers.

Also I'd like to know how they consider the ACC levy "unfair". I hate paying it as much as the next guy, but motorcyclists are statistically extremely expensive. Wouldn't it be more unfair for people who don't ride to subsidise our hobby?

You subsidise DIYers far more than they subsidise motorcyclists.

It still boggles my mind that people don't get the point of ACC. It's only been around for 40 years.

I hope like fuck some other hobby of yours, like cross-stitch gets targeted for an arbitrary increase due to unreasonable levels of tetanus infection among cross-stitchers.

[James Deuce]

S
And in reality if 100% of riders simply stopped paying there's no way they'd continue fining them, they'd recognise that civil disobedience at that level means they'd simply got the policy wrong.

No "they" wouldn't.

They'd retrospectively make levy non-payment a criminal offence with substantial jail time as a penalty. After sitting in urgency and only gathering the minimum for a quorum.

Because after all, people who don't pay their bills in NZ are drug users. The PM said so.

[Bass]

You subsidise DIYers far more than they subsidise motorcyclists.

It still boggles my mind that people don't get the point of ACC. It's only been around for 40 years.

I hope like fuck some other hobby of yours, like cross-stitch gets targeted for an arbitrary increase due to unreasonable levels of tetanus infection among cross-stitchers.

I don't always agree with you but you do have a knack of getting to the heart of the matter.

For my own part, I could never find any logical justification for risk-rating ANY of the contributors to ACC funding when there are so many groups who are large consumers of ACC funds but are not contributors at all.

I don't have too much problem with the way ACC was originally set up - it wasn't especially fair but was pragmatic and good enough. It's how it has been bastardised since that I don't like.

[swbarnett]

The Police use " The faster you go the bigger the mess" as a simple message that the majority can understand.

The trouble is that this message is blatantly wrong. it is not supported by basic physics. If it were true then the universe would be one big dust cloud as anything that got up any kind of speed would spontaneously disintegrate. In fact, even the dust would spontaneously disintegrate into ever smaller particles.

re non coffee drinkers debt free?

No, we spend our money on Coke^* instead.



^*The liquid kind.

[Big Dog]

The more G forces you experiance, the Bigger the Mess.

We need G-force enforcement.

That would be retrospective policing. Do you prefer retrospective or proactive?

What about other fucknuckles driving poorly around your progeny? Should they also be retrospectively policed?

Gs are incredibly subjective and difficult to measure.
Speed is easy to measure and constant in that 90kmph is always 40kmph higher than 50kmph.

Ergo policy is to target those likely (by the laws of averages and past data) to convert the relatively harmless speed into other more devastating forces, actions and reactions.
Do you prefer this or for them to wait until Mr 4x4 punts into a people mover so they can say here's a ticket for transferring in excess of 70gs to another vehicle?
They couldn't do it preemptively because Gs transferred is an equation contributed to by speed, mass, spèd and mass of opposing object, resilience of the two objects, directionality and many other variables.

No doubt you are going to say I am going all straw man on you but seriously if not speed then what measurable constant or variable can we use?



Sent via tapatalk.

[TheDemonLord]

That would be retrospective policing. Do you prefer retrospective or proactive?

What about other fucknuckles driving poorly around your progeny? Should they also be retrospectively policed?

Gs are incredibly subjective and difficult to measure.
Speed is easy to measure and constant in that 90kmph is always 40kmph higher than 50kmph.

Ergo policy is to target those likely (by the laws of averages and past data) to convert the relatively harmless speed into other more devastating forces, actions and reactions.
Do you prefer this or for them to wait until Mr 4x4 punts into a people mover so they can say here's a ticket for transferring in excess of 70gs to another vehicle?
They couldn't do it preemptively because Gs transferred is an equation contributed to by speed, mass, spèd and mass of opposing object, resilience of the two objects, directionality and many other variables.

No doubt you are going to say I am going all straw man on you but seriously if not speed then what measurable constant or variable can we use?



Sent via tapatalk.

I'm actually going to say that I was being facetious....

[Big Dog]

I'm actually going to say that I was being facetious....

Poo.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Fatt Max]

Is there anyone out there from the MAG commitee who wishes to comment on what your group sees as the issues and how you as a group are working towards your goal?

[swbarnett]

That would be retrospective policing. Do you prefer retrospective or proactive?

Retrospective is always preferable. It's pretty arrogant of anyone to say that they know the mind and skills of any given driver/rider better than they do.

At the very least a near-miss is required to draw any conclusions. Speed alone is certainly not enough.




Oh, and while I think of it, velocity is far more important than speed in determining the likely "mess" that will result from any given collision.

[Big Dog]

Retrospective is always preferable. It's pretty arrogant of anyone to say that they know the mind and skills of any given driver/rider better than they do.

At the very least a near-miss is required to draw any conclusions. Speed alone is certainly not enough.




Oh, and while I think of it, velocity is far more important than speed in determining the likely "mess" that will result from any given collision.

The only means they have of judging your driving is observing your ability to remain within the laws of the land you agreed to observe when you got a licences.

Retrospective policing is to late to influence people's behaviour,only punish them for having already ducked up.

Sent via tapatalk.

[swbarnett]

The only means they have of judging your driving is observing your ability to remain within the laws of the land you agreed to observe when you got a licences.

Staying within the law is no judgement of driving ability. Especially when a number of said laws are fundamentally flawed.

Retrospective policing is to late to influence people's behaviour,only punish them for having already ducked up.

Retrospective policing has a far better chance of moderating behaviour than pro-active policing. If the driver caused an accident then the driver is more likely to take it on the chin and say "shit, won't do that again". Pro-active policing will more often than not illicit the "fuck you, I know what I'm doing" response.

[Swoop]

So if yes is your answer to the better way of making the point question then what is it?.Or have I missed that part?.

The same that I have been doing for three(?)+ years now. Since you're new here, I'll repeat the message.
I can only operate one vehicle at a time, so one of my vehicles is regoed.
The rest = no.
W.o.F'ed = yes.
Insured = yes.

You might have missed several other vital viewpoints of mine:
Ride to the conditions. "speed limit signs" are not part of this process.
Licencing standards are too low. People are taught how to pass a test, not being taught how to "drive".
Katman shouldn't be allowed out in public, or on the interdweeb, without the supervision of a psychiatric doctor.
Katman's cock does not need to be sucked by me, no matter how many times he asks.

The faster you go ... the bigger (risk of) a mess ...

"The faster you go, the sooner you get there".

[RGVforme]

The same that I have been doing for three(?)+ years now. Since you're new here, I'll repeat the message.
I can only operate one vehicle at a time, so one of my vehicles is regoed.
The rest = no.
W.o.F'ed = yes.
Insured = yes.

You might have missed several other vital viewpoints of mine:
Ride to the conditions. "speed limit signs" are not part of this process.
Licencing standards are too low. People are taught how to pass a test, not being taught how to "drive".
Katman shouldn't be allowed out in public, or on the interdweeb, without the supervision of a psychiatric doctor.
Katman's cock does not need to be sucked by me, no matter how many times he asks.

"The faster you go, the sooner you get there".

Ahhh yes i see thank you.I did miss those very good points due to this thread being very busy.

Good your still standing your ground on the whole cock sucking thing there lol

[Big Dog]

Staying within the law is no judgement of driving ability. Especially when a number of said laws are fundamentally flawed.


Retrospective policing has a far better chance of moderating behaviour than pro-active policing. If the driver caused an accident then the driver is more likely to take it on the chin and say "shit, won't do that again". Pro-active policing will more often than not illicit the "fuck you, I know what I'm doing" response.

It is reasonably difficult to be subjective and honest when assessing your own riding.
Most will lean towards over rating their ability. I am fairly sure if you took a pole over 3/4 of males think they are better than the average male driver.


Sent via tapatalk.