Why the WRB campaign is going nowhere.

[Maha]

Nah, I think you'll find it was mainly diseases, infections, etc that have killed most soldiers. Sad but true.

I have no idea what relation that has to this thread.

You totally missed the point, clear your head and I will explain.

Katman beleives that the actions of a biker killed him, not the fact that the biker died as a result of coming into contact with a WRB.
With me so far?
I used the analogy that, It wasnt the act of going to war that killed soldiers (not all of them) it was (in most cases) bullets.. WWI and WWII.
Didnt really think I had to spell it out but just for you...I did.

[Katman]

Katman beleives that the actions of a biker killed him, not the fact that the biker died as a result of coming into contact with a WRB.

Close.

Katman believes that the actions of a biker contributed to the cause of his death.

If you want to take it to it's base level, his injuries caused his death - the WRB and his actions contributed to his death.

[Maha]

Close.

Katman believes that the actions of a biker contributed to the cause of his death.

If you want to take it to it's base level, his injuries caused his death - the WRB and his actions contributed to his death.

Certainly.....they call that....'The sequence of events'


Yeah not much chance of survival when you are in two piece's I guess.
So if we can eliminate the 'contributing factor' in any accident, would it be fair to say that, most would have real chance of seeing another day?

[ManDownUnder]

Surely there's 2 bases of risk. Intrinsic and extrinsic.

We do what we can to reduce both types... which includes raising awareness of external factors that increase the chances of a fatal outcome (with the aim of getting the f'kin' things removed or made safer)

... no?

[Katman]

So if we can eliminate the 'contributing factor' in any accident, would it be fair to say that, most would have real chance of seeing another day?

Which contributing factor are you talking about though?

If you're talking about the "sequence of events" - by eliminating the first contributing factor all other factors are therefore automatically eliminated.

[Headbanger]

You didn't read it. You can't have if you keep saying things like that. You've got to stop misquoting and paraphrasing me.

Obviously then its just well beyond my scope.

The way I read it your attributing far to much blame on a minor contributing factor in your accident, a factor so minor that it wouldn't even get a reference (and appears it didn't get a reference). Taking the event as you have outlined it then the fact you didn't see the car is no more a contributing factor then being alive and capable of starting your bike.

It's unreasonable to expect even the most experienced and cautious of riders to take the blame for being run over by a car breaking nearly every road rule ever written.

You appear to be basing your point of view on hind-sight, Which doesn't alter a course already taken.

The rest of your waffle about what you claim everyone else doesn't realise, if it was directed at me then its just a little mis-guided. Though if you ever see me cause an accident and then blame it on Transit I'll come and talk to ya.

That aside, My apologies if you think I'm a little harsh or just incapable of getting your point. Perhaps your right on both counts.

[Headbanger]

Which contributing factor are you talking about?

If you're talking about the "sequence of events" - by eliminating the first contributing factor all other factors are therefore also eliminated.

Stay in bed?

[Mom]

Which contributing factor are you talking about though?

If you're talking about the "sequence of events" - by eliminating the first contributing factor all other factors are therefore automatically eliminated.

You are so right! If the first contributing factor was removed nothing else would have happened. Sadly for Daniel he decided to go for a ride on his motorbike. If he had not done that on the night in question the accident would not have happened.

[Katman]

You are so right! If the first contributing factor was removed nothing else would have happened. Sadly for Daniel he decided to go for a ride on his motorbike. If he had not done that on the night in question the accident would not have happened.

The difference being that some of us are actually trying to discuss the issue sensibly.

[Maha]

Which contributing factor are you talking about though?

If you're talking about the "sequence of events" - by eliminating the first contributing factor all other factors are therefore automatically eliminated.

The contributing factor (which ended his life) in this case would be a length of WRB. If it had been a section of Concrete Barrier, he would have stood a better than even chance and been able to reflect on the stupidity on why he ended up there in the first place. Fact is, that didnt happen.
My view is.
The wheelie (at whatever speed) didn't kill him
The landing didn't kill him.
The slide along the road that followed, didn't kill him.
Coming into contact with the WRB did kill him.

Now, (just like you) I wasn't there at the time/scene and I am under no illusion that the events on that night were avoidable.

[Katman]

The contributing factor (which ended his life) in this case would be a length of WRB. If it had been a section of Concrete Barrier, he would have stood a better than even chance and been able to reflect on the stupidity on why he ended up there in the first place. Fact is, that didnt happen.
My view is.
The wheelie (at whatever speed) didn't kill him
The landing didn't kill him.
The slide along the road that followed, didn't kill him.
Coming into contact with the WRB did kill him.

I suppose it comes down to where you want to try and introduce the change in that sequence of events. I'm trying to take it one step backwards from the WRB stage and if a change can become more widespread at that level there'd be a whole lot more lives saved than if we just concentrate at the WRB stage.

[Mom]

The difference being that some of us are actually trying to discuss the issue sensibly.

Meow! I am actually agreeing with you, and you come back telling me I am not being sensible?

I quote below your exact words to refresh your memory.

Which contributing factor are you talking about though?

If you're talking about the "sequence of events" - by eliminating the first contributing factor all other factors are therefore automatically eliminated.

I have bolded the words for your clearer recollection here.

[Katman]

I have bolded the words for your clearer recollection here.

Ok, for your clearer understanding I'll give you a sequence of events in reverse order.

Accident involving WRB - irresponsible behaviour - getting on bike to go for a ride - waking up in the morning - learning to tie shoe laces................

Now where do you think it would be sensible to start addressing that sequence of events?

[Mom]

Ok, for your clearer understanding I'll give you a sequence of events in reverse order.

Accident involving WRB - irresponsible behaviour - getting on bike to go for a ride - waking up in the morning - learning to tie shoe laces................

Now where do you think it would be sensible to start addressing that sequence of events?

This post is pathetic. You are ranting.

For the last time mate, read this!
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=59748

Nothing has changed since this thread was posted. Please respect this mans wishes and stop speculating about what happened.

I am yanking your chains and you are biting beautifully.

Is this a case of being able to dish it, but unable to take a bit back again?

[Katman]

You can bury your head in the sand if you like.

There's something that needs to be learnt from tragedies like this.

(In just the same manner as Bruce and Darryls deaths need to be used to educate riders).