MoT targeting motorcyclists for new restrictions

[Grahameeboy]

Why not give points for Cameras.....if you are the owner, there is a good chance that you were the driver and if you were not then you sort out who was and they get the ticket....I know someone with 5 camera tickets in 1 year who does not get disqualified....has to be a level playing field and stop using the 'owner' as an issue against.

[Ixion]

Because demerit points (and potentially loss of licence) should be used as penalty for road safety breaches.

There is not the slightest evidence that speed cameras have anything to do with road safety.

You might as well ask, why not demerits for parking tickets?

[Grahameeboy]

Because demerit points (and potentially loss of licence) should be used as penalty for road safety breaches.

There is not the slightest evidence that speed cameras have anything to do with road safety.

You might as well ask, why not demerits for parking tickets?

I agree...just making a point..........in some Counties in UK they have no cameras and have seen a drop in accidents.

We all know that speed in itself does not kill but then 80k in a 50k zone is a lot more dangerous than doing 130k in a 100k zone out in the country...............

[Ozzie]

I think this is complete BS!

How do you expect to gain support and credibility, and thereby prevent a decrease in the speed limit, by saying "hey, dude, fuck, don't lower it, raise it, cause us bikers are shit hot, we are awesome riders and judges of conditions, speed has FA to do with it."

Wake the Fuck up!

Yes, speed in issolation is not the cause, harsh reality is the majority of road users cannot travel safely at 50kph let alone 100, be it because they are incompetent or lack basic observation skills, but the fact is, for them, the temptation of speed is too much to resist, and logic goes out the window.

If I'm not wrong, we are trying to get the real issues addressed, right?

How are we going to achieve that by going on and fucking on about speed?

Speed, for whatever reason IS a road safety issue!

99% of the population cannot handle speed, it is a fact! Is the answer reducing the speed limit, no it isn't. Is speed the biggest single factor in road deaths, again, no it isn't. BUT, you cannot logically argue that speed is not a contributor, or a road safety issue, it IS.

We will not get anywhere by pulling the shit and arguing against every idea they have. The better way would be to give some suggestions, not idiotic impractical ones, but ones that can and will work.

To put it simply; "Be part of the solution, not part of the problem".

That way, we may actually be heard, and taken seriously.

[Jantar]

Ozzie, you have contradicted yourself.

Yes, speed in issolation is not the cause,

but then

Speed, for whatever reason IS a road safety issue!

Are we more concerned about revenue collecting, or road safety? If the former, then speed is an issue. It is easily measured, and easily penalised.

But any particular speed is seldom the cause of an accident, and if we are really concerned about road safety then our primary focus should be on preventing accidents in the first place. Higher speeds just contribute to the effcts once an accident is already happening,

It is the enforcement authorities who have made speed into the issue it has become. I both agree and disagree with your statement "Is speed the biggest single factor in road deaths, again, no it isn't". I have said before, and I will repeat, that a vehicle that has NO speed cannot collide with anything. Some speed is esential for any accident to take place. But that means drivers and riders need to travel at an appropriate speed for their vehicle and for the conditions. A blanket speed limit penalises those who can travel faster safely, and encourages those who cant travel fast to do so. It comes back to education. Learn to read the conditions and drive or ride within the limits imposed by the circumstances. Make excessive speed a safety issue rather than a financial issue and we will see a big improvement in safety.

[Grahameeboy]

Ozzie, you have contradicted yourself. but then
Are we more concerned about revenue collecting, or road safety? If the former, then speed is an issue. It is easily measured, and easily penalised.

But any particular speed is seldom the cause of an accident, and if we are really concerned about road safety then our primary focus should be on preventing accidents in the first place. Higher speeds just contribute to the effcts once an accident is already happening,

It is the enforcement authorities who have made speed into the issue it has become. I both agree and disagree with your statement "Is speed the biggest single factor in road deaths, again, no it isn't". I have said before, and I will repeat, that a vehicle that has NO speed cannot collide with anything. Some speed is esential for any accident to take place. But that means drivers and riders need to travel at an appropriate speed for their vehicle and for the conditions. A blanket speed limit penalises those who can travel faster safely, and encourages those who cant travel fast to do so. It comes back to education. Learn to read the conditions and drive or ride within the limits imposed by the circumstances. Make excessive speed a safety issue rather than a financial issue and we will see a big improvement in safety.

....................................

[Ozzie]

I think you will find i did not, unless i got my words wrong.

Is speed a road safety issue, yes it is.

On it's own, does it cause accidents, no it doesn't.

It remains my point, speed should not be the focus, either by MoT or us, if we keep going on about it, it adds fuel to their fire.

What are the real issues? We all agree it isn't speed, so what is it? Let's focus on the issues, remove the focus on speed, and get the focus where it should be.

Context is the key, I think speed is a road safety issue, because so many can't handle it, not because speed is a cause of accidents.

Take a 25 kph corner, in a 100 kph zone, someone went through (not round) the corner at 40kph, was speed an issue in the accident, yes, was it the cause, no. The dumb fuck that thought he was bullet proof, missread the road, and the conditions, and died as a result.

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear, but the main point is apply the focus where it needs to be.

[Ixion]

I went for a ride today.

Much of that ride was on roads with a speed limit of 100kph.

But there were many corners on those roads which I could not safely ride round at 100kph. Some I had to reduce speed to 80kph. Some 60. A couple (signed at 35kph) I had to reduce speed to under 50kph.

If I had attempted to ride round one of those 50kph corners at 100kph, I would almost certainly have crashed (or run onto the wrong side of the road and hit an on coming vehicle).

I didn't. Despite the fact that the law ALLOWED me to go round that corner at 100kph, I USED MY JUDGEMENT and selected a suitable speed. If I had tried to go round at 100kph and crashed I would not have crashed because I was speeding (which I would not have been) but BECAUSE MY JUDGEMENT WAS FAULTY.

Now let us suppose that some of the time I actually rode at 130kph (which, of course, I would never do ). And one of those corners had a maximum speed of 90kph. If I tried to go round it at 130 , and crashed , I would not have crashed because I was speeding (though I was ) but BECAUSE MY JUDGEMENT WAS FAULTY.

Now why is it that the law is quite happy for me to use my judgement to select a suitable speed up to 100mph (even though faulty judgement may cause me to crash and be killed) ; but considers me incapable of making that SAME judgement at 130kph?

And can we not see that the actual PROBLEM is not breaking an arbitrary speed limit, but FAULTY JUDGEMENT.

And the cure for poor judgement? Is it to give me a ticket? Will that improve my judgement? If not, then the ticket does not achieve anything (except revenue); because my judgement is still poor , and I am still just as likely to misjudge the speed of one of those sub 100kph corners (even if I do not exceed 100kph), crash and die.

Is it not, rather, better training. Then with improved judgement I will select an appropriate speed for that 50kph corner.

[Ozzie]

Exactly, so get the focus where it needs to be, and forget about speed.

The sped limit is 100, if you don't want to contribute to the revenue grabing, don' t speed, simple isn't it?

Drugs!

Some people can handle drugs a lot better than me, it is my choice to follow the law but, they would argue to death that there is nothing wrong with it (and do). Who gives a crap, it is the law, you aren't above it, I'm not above it, they aren't above it, time to accept it.

The laws, including the speed laws, are not made with you or me, our driving ability, or cornering ability in mind. They take into account everybody, and face facts, the vast majority do not have the skill no aptitude to handle speed. Thereby, the speed issue, is infact as you say, a training and skills issue, but that is no reason to up the speed limit, any more than it is a reason to drop it.

Too many, particularily cagers in sub standard vehicles, see the speed limit as a target, neh a challenge, and because of their inability, they loose the challenge, kill themselves, and take a few of us with them.

So now i have contradicted myself, said forget speed, then go on about it myself, it is getting us nowhere. We all know speed is not the cause, but is there a point in keeping the focus on it?

[Ixion]

It is politically sound to generate as little discussion about speed limits as possible.

The police will obviously argue for lower limits. If we argue for higher ones, the ensuing debate validates "speed" as an important thing. And we cannot hope to win the argument against the police.

We need to try to move "speed" (ie, the argument about the actual number of kph) off the radar. Replace it with debate about judgement and police discretion (or anything else, really).

[Ozzie]

It is politically sound to generate as little discussion about speed limits as possible.

The police will obviously argue for lower limits. If we argue for higher ones, the ensuing debate validates "speed" as an important thing. And we cannot hope to win the argument against the police.

We need to try to move "speed" (ie, the argument about the actual number of kph) off the radar. Replace it with debate about judgement and police discretion (or anything else, really).

At last, I think you have realised my point.

I have yet to see a post from you on my thread about RRA, why?

ps. I enjoyed our ride back the other night, freekin cold, but good all the same. I like your lights, not sure how well they would go on the Katana tho.

[Ixion]

Uh, nobody in this thread was disagreeing with you? And noone suggested raising the speed limit that I can see ?

I'll wait and see where the RRA thing goes before I comment

I only had one third of von Klunkens main beams on last night, too much on coming traffic to use the long range lights, they're REALLY bright.

[Ozzie]

You don't need to wait to offer support.

[candor]

Can see both sides here. I don't think to necessary to avoid a scrap over speed. A bit of balance to the debate is good. NO need to argue for higher limits. But need not to let them away with stupid restrictions either.

The thing is to just refine your argument to a few simple logical point that people can take on board without much effort which will gel true to them.
Fight the buggers soundbites with better soundbytes. But don't get stuck on that bit - divert and move focus over to the really significant stuff.

And it does need to be made clear that speed reductions offer little benefit toll wise (if any) so are the wrong focus if we're genuinely interested in reducing the toll. Which WE ALL ARE - or need to make out is the primary interest. Make your motives highminded always. Its an easy point to score for credibility as they can rightly be criticised for budget minded ness.

They are the killers MOT / LTNZ - not speed or speeders. And given a few hundred thouand I'd sue them myself for lethal policies. I liked the point above that speed is no more dangerous than what u get parking tickets for. Yet no demerits for thaT! And your ideas here re a merit system are a winner to get the public supporting you. Also all the bike stuff you have on the safeas is overwhelming to the truly ignorant. I think at meetings if more are planned you best simplify your points. Get into detail / studies etc later in process.

I'm feeling too its hard to knw whether to go hard and alienate them (prolly too late to back up now for me), or whether to kiss butt then get little push in the long run. I was actually bribed at Welly meeting I do believe - funding offer made plus mention I should drop one of my goals! Uh...No way!

[Jantar]

Good points Candor. For these reasons I believe we need a KB presence at every meeting in NZ. We may not sway any opinion at this early stage, but we must be seen to be an interested party.