SMIDSY - is there such a thing?

[Pascal]

If a driver's actions lead to pain for someone else....well, the driver may not even care. Because the pain wasn't his.

That sounds a lot like Monkeyspheres.

[MSTRS:Me]

And this post

[mashman]

It is not just the cost, where am I going to fit a Milan fly by wire anti tank missile to my scorpio? .... or was that not what you meant

Just gotta make smaller missiles

short of ad campaigns and a better standard of driving instruction/licencing

Ad campaigns aren't good enough, 20 - 30 seconds to get what across? That you could kill someone... pretty sure we all understand that yet carry on regardless.

I still maintain that TV is the "only" real way of grabbing the attention. If people are given an entertaining "show" and part of that show contains the top 10 accidents for the month, perhaps drivers/riders will pay a little more attention when they come to a known "danger" situations, such as T-Junctions. If you don't tell people what to look out for, how can you expect them to take care?

Think of it along the same lines as those guys who only ever stay in a Hotel on the 6th floor or lower. They're chances if living, in case of fire, rise hugely because they have mitigated the risk. Sure some may well still die, but most will, likely, escape with their lives...

You have to let the people know in order for them to realise the risk . Not just some baldy twat on a chair spinning a wheel and hoping for the best... kinda sums up the govt policy on injury prevention

[MSTRS:Me]

I still maintain that TV is the "only" real way of grabbing the attention. If people are given an entertaining "show" and part of that show contains the top 10 accidents for the month, perhaps drivers/riders will pay a little more attention when they come to a known "danger" situations, such as T-Junctions.

So - something like the current 'show' with Murphy? But remove the naff, patronising approach, and replace the amateur staged stuff with real prangs, real blood and broken people?

If you don't tell people what to look out for, how can you expect them to take care?
You have to let the people know in order for them to realise the risk

Isn't that stuff taught at licence level? I'm doubting it...but it should be a major component.

Not just some baldy twat on a chair spinning a wheel and hoping for the best... kinda sums up the govt policy on injury prevention

Trouble is, people are so accustomed to being told what to do at every turn, they've lost the ability to think for themselves.

[mashman]

So - something like the current 'show' with Murphy? But remove the naff, patronising approach, and replace the amateur staged stuff with real prangs, real blood and broken people?

Pretty much (although i'd quite like Clarkson and mob to do it in their "style" ). I'd certainly throw in some real life testimony from all walks of life, chuck in real photos of people in various states etc... Show people what's real, not what could happen to someone.

Isn't that stuff taught at licence level? I'm doubting it...but it should be a major component.

Not really, No. Conceptualising something that is being explained is no substitute for pics and the experiences of others, we know that. For instance.

Watch out for T-Junctions, they're really bad.
or
Watch out for T-Junctions, they've already caused X incidents, Y Deaths and Z Injuries, that costs A amount of money and adds an extra B in terms of ACC levy...

Which of the above two would you prefer? Which of the two above are explained to you when "learning"?

Trouble is, people are so accustomed to being told what to do at every turn, they've lost the ability to think for themselves.

I agree, 100%... Thing is, we all switch or get distracted at some point or other... and as has been mentioned before, being wrapped in a safety cocoon does noone any good...

[scumdog]

Isn't that stuff taught at licence level? I'm doubting it...but it should be a major component.

It SHOULD be, and at a cost.

But boy, listen to the whinging and screaming if mandatory pre-licence training was introduced and a test was required to be passed BEFORE being able to apply for a licence. ("not fair, I'm too dumb to pass")

[MSTRS:Me]

... ("not fair, I'm too dumb to pass")

Instead, we have the inclusive, no winners, no losers, as long as you participate, system. Here's your licence...

[slofox]

("not fair, I'm too dumb to pass")

To which the reply should be "If you're too dumb to pass, you're too dumb to drive. Tough shit, sonny - no licence for YOU!"

[slofox]

Re-reading the OP just now...

It's not just bikes that some people "don't see as a threat". Some people take the same approach with a car. And just plain "don't see" it. Deliberately I think at times.

example:

On the way to work this morning in the cage, passing round a roundabout and a little old lady in her car decides she doesn't have to stop for me and drives into the circle right in front of me - necessitating a complete stop from me to avoid hitting the stupid old bitch. Interesting thing was, she DID NOT LOOK AT ME AT ALL. Even when I blasted the Stebel Nautilus at her, she studiously avoided looking. I presume on the premise that "if I don't see it, it isn't there".

I see that behaviour all the time no matter what my conveyance is.

[steelphoenix]

Re-reading the OP just now...

It's not just bikes that some people "don't see as a threat". Some people take the same approach with a car. And just plain "don't see" it. Deliberately I think at times.

example:

On the way to work this morning in the cage, passing round a roundabout and a little old lady in her car decides she doesn't have to stop for me and drives into the circle right in front of me - necessitating a complete stop from me to avoid hitting the stupid old bitch. Interesting thing was, she DID NOT LOOK AT ME AT ALL. Even when I blasted the Stebel Nautilus at her, she studiously avoided looking. I presume on the premise that "if I don't see it, it isn't there".

I see that behaviour all the time no matter what my conveyance is.

I could not agree with this statement more. I drive a dark grey Ford Festiva (tiny little cage, in a not very noticeable colour) around Auckland, and at least once every two months I come to a screeching halt because some idiot in an SUV "didn't notice me". More than once I've had to leap lanes on the motorway in a very unsafe manner in order to not be run into by SUVs/BMWs/trucks - and I was pootling along in the same lane for the last two minutes!

Re-reading the OP's post, I agree that increasing trained responses and understanding will help reduce injuries and fatalities - we need to spread the message.

I've recently taken a defensive driving course, and will be taking defensive riding courses. I want to be a better road user, and I see no reason why other road users shouldn't raise their game too. Training and education FTW.

[James Deuce]

p reduce injuries and fatalities - we need to spread the message.

I've recently taken a defensive driving course, and will be taking defensive riding courses. I want to be a better road user, and I see no reason why other road users shouldn't raise their game too. Training and education FTW.

What incentive is there? None that I can see. Injuring or killing a motorcyclist is a win-win for the Govt and a seemingly co-opted media, and the person driving the "x" in "A motorcycle collided with an "x" and killed the silly rider" will most often not suffer any injuries except for the indignity of lodging an insurance claim.

It's simpler to just ban bikes than it is to expect anyone to fork money out to train people to look for motorcycles.

In regard to training motorists every Police Traffic Superintendent for the last 10 years has publicly denounced rider and driver training as simply promoting faster, more deadly accidents. Both the Police and the Government have been steadfast in refusing to fund or promote rider or driving training beyond that necessary to earn a scratchy licence.

[slofox]

What incentive is there?

How about "not getting squashed"..? That's why I ride and drive defensively - purely for self preservation.

And possibly the fact that if I killed someone on the road - at fault or not - I would have trouble living with myself for the rest of my natural...

[James Deuce]

How about "not getting squashed"..? That's why I ride and drive defensively - purely for self preservation.

And possibly the fact that if I killed someone on the road - at fault or not - I would have trouble living with myself for the rest of my natural...

You silly old bugger. I was meaning, "What incentive is there for other motorists to get their skills up so there are less SMIDSYs?"

Mmmkaaay?



Plus having been on the receiving end of life threatening injuries at the hands of both a SMIDSY and a lazy farmer, people can and do live with themselves and are quite happy to blame a motorcyclist for their injuries simply because the riders are silly enough to get on a bike in the first place.

[Katman]

In regard to training motorists every Police Traffic Superintendent for the last 10 years has publicly denounced rider and driver training as simply promoting faster, more deadly accidents. Both the Police and the Government have been steadfast in refusing to fund or promote rider or driving training beyond that necessary to earn a scratchy licence.

That's why any training scheme that we as motorcyclists push for in our own interest has to be designed solely as a defensive riding course.

[slofox]

You silly old bugger. I was meaning, "What incentive is there for other motorists to get their skills up so there are less SMIDSYs?"

Mmmkaaay?

Fair enough...