Safer journeys document - safer for motorcyclists - or not? Thoughts please

[p.dath]

*Shrugs* If you think it’s a problem then you’ll be disappointed with the document in question because nothing in there is going to fix it. Two things that would improve the learner attrition situation: First, dismantle the various compliance barriers to the building of motorsport venues. Don’t just give ‘em money for a “skid pad”, but supply minimal funding to allow people to build tracks capable of generating self-sustaining revenue. All sorts of tracks. Hand out training accreditation to the ones that can establish and maintain competent learning facilities. Get the polytechs involved perhaps. Tie unit standards of riding skills to licence provisions and don’t give ‘em licences until they’ve proved they can ride.

Safer Journeys, which I did make a submission on, wasn't really concerned with driver licensing or training specifically. Which is why there isn't much about that issue.
As a result, I am not disappointed with the document. Many of the conclusions mirror the submission I made on the issue.

At the moment I am also participating in a discussion paper that is solely about driver licensing.

FYI, when I first started the commenting on the discussion paper I asked what is a good road user. To me, to be able to produce better road users you first have to decide what is a good road user (I use that term, because I find, personally, the qualities are the same for a driver/rider/cyclist/pedestrian, etc).
Attached is what I came up with for what I personally consider to be a good road user.

[sunhuntin]

one thing they should do is bring in class 6 specific "scratchy" tests. when i did mine, i got questioned the speed limit to tow a trailer and others not relative to biking. they should have questions like how wide anything you carry can be etc.

[Spearfish]

Safer Journeys, which I did make a submission on, wasn't really concerned with driver licensing or training specifically. Which is why there isn't much about that issue.
As a result, I am not disappointed with the document. Many of the conclusions mirror the submission I made on the issue.

At the moment I am also participating in a discussion paper that is solely about driver licensing.

Your standards are high but not insurmountable.

[Ocean1]

Attached is what I came up with for what I personally consider to be a good road user.

Yes. Very nice. Reads a bit like a job description but there's some thought gone into it.

Couple of things. First, all that shit's qualitative, you can't apply numbers to it. If you don't got numbers then all you've got is an opinion. If you tried to asses my road user skills using that I'd tie you up in knots. If you need to decide who gets to use the road then you need quantitave measurements and while I could generate a quantative measuring tool there's currently no way to administer it. Hence my reference to off-piste training facilities and the introduction of unit standards to licencing systems.

Second, (and I think Pritch aluded to it), most mororcyclists see their means of transport as a lifestyle choice, not simply a means of getting from A to B. That means they're more likely to seek improvement in the skills that make that choice attractive to them. So it's usually comparitively easy to teach bikers, most of them want to learn. What you can't do is change anyone's core behaviour, and that includes their particular internal risk aversion policies. I's like trying to change the length of an arm, painful and pointless. So trying to legislate for or against certain behaviours is simply not going to achieve anything.

Now, if you could take the frustrations of having sat in a line of traffic for half an hour to a track of an evening...

[p.dath]

Couple of things. First, all that shit's qualitative, you can't apply numbers to it. If you don't got numbers then all you've got is an opinion. If you tried to asses my road user skills using that I'd tie you up in knots. If you need to decide who gets to use the road then you need quantitave measurements and while I could generate a quantative measuring tool there's currently no way to administer it. Hence my reference to off-piste training facilities and the introduction of unit standards to licencing systems.

I guess some context has gotten lost in presenting it on its own. Currently our licensing system is a pass/fail scenario. You have a licence or you don't.

I'd like the licensing system to be changed to a graduated scale - say like a trade. So when you first get your licence you might be the equivalent of an apprentice (this would be the same as our current full licence). Then if you *choose*, you can do the next level up, say the equivalent of a tradesman. Then if you *choose* you can do the next level up, a master tradesman. etc. You get the point.

The idea is to create a licensing system when you encourage people to voluntarily improve their skills, and recognising those skills with a "higher" qualification. I oppose forcing people to do something - but creating an environment where they want to self improve is great.

I also expect industries like insurance would reward higher qualified road users, and companies employing professional drivers/riders would prefer those with higher qualifications, etc.

I also want a system where drivers can reasonably asses how "good" they are. The vast number of road users think they are "good". But by having something to formally recognise this they may be able to more reasonably asses their actual skills. Hopefully someone of "apprentice" level can see what is required to get to "master" level, recognise they don't have that skill set yet, and realise how much they need to do to improve.

Some of the things I want a driver to have, especially the ethical qualities, are ones that I have proposed be started when children are around 12 and done via social media, competitions, games, etc.

Many of the other qualities can be established though psychometric testing - and are completely measurable. You just wont be able to use a scratchy any more ...

And you don't have to possess all these qualities to become an apprentice - you you need to develop all of these areas to become a master. The ideas in the PDF are more a life long training target for a road user, and a single point in time "test". Consider it something for a road user to aspire too.


Does it make more sense now in this context? I'm not talking about making a small change to the system, but a complete change in thinking about driver licensing. And I'm proposing training for life, not just when you turn 15.

Second, (and I think Pritch aluded to it), most mororcyclists see their means of transport as a lifestyle choice, not simply a means of getting from A to B. That means they're more likely to seek improvement in the skills that make that choice attractive to them. So it's usually comparitively easy to teach bikers, most of them want to learn. What you can't do is change anyone's core behaviour, and that includes their particular internal risk aversion policies. I's like trying to change the length of an arm, painful and pointless. So trying to legislate for or against certain behaviours is simply not going to achieve anything.

I think we can change core behaviour - but it needs to start early in life by embedding the ethics of being a good road user - and there needs to be a series of achievements to recognise how "good" they are (and that's an important bit - you need to recognise peoples improvements and strengths - and not their failures like the court or Police do).

[Spearfish]

I think we can change core behaviour - but it needs to start early in life by embedding the ethics of being a good road user - and there needs to be a series of achievements to recognise how "good" they are (and that's an important bit - you need to recognise peoples improvements and strengths - and not their failures like the court or Police do).

Changing core behaviour is probably the hardest part, a new rider has to be confident enough in themselves to to not be drawn into the "Rebel without an agenda" riders club that feature so prominently in the crash stats currently.(and to our shame, on TV)
Lack of formal training could be the reason why so many bikers find it hard to be "policed" as sadly the police are probably the first person to have ever pointed out a riders faults with the rider taking the view of how dare they I've done it all on my own so far and survived so what the fork do they know.
Also without good training many new riders get a bike, pass a simple test, hit the road, have a major scare then cant overcome the butterfly's in their guts and sell their bike after a year of it sitting in the garage (not that they would ever admit it) but then after seeing how some riders seem to become hyper before a ride it goes way further that just learners, probably an association from their learning days.

[baptist]

I'd like the licensing system to be changed to a graduated scale - say like a trade. So when you first get your licence you might be the equivalent of an apprentice (this would be the same as our current full licence). Then if you *choose*, you can do the next level up, say the equivalent of a tradesman. Then if you *choose* you can do the next level up, a master tradesman. etc. You get the point.

The idea is to create a licensing system when you encourage people to voluntarily improve their skills, and recognising those skills with a "higher" qualification. I oppose forcing people to do something - but creating an environment where they want to self improve is great.

I also expect industries like insurance would reward higher qualified road users, and companies employing professional drivers/riders would prefer those with higher qualifications, etc.

Wouldn't it be so much better with that type of system... has the government got the balls to push it through though as most cage drivers think they are as good as they need to be, it seems to be hard enough to get them to use their mirrors

I guess we have to wait and see but I hope something like this is eventually accepted... hopefully insurance companies (and ACC) will reward a graduated system.

Personally I think upskilling should be a life long process, we all have so much to learn (maybe my teaching background coming through)

Changing core behaviour is probably the hardest part, a new rider has to be confident enough in themselves to to not be drawn into the "Rebel without an agenda" riders club that feature so prominently in the crash stats currently.(and to our shame, on TV) So true
Lack of formal training could be the reason why so many bikers find it hard to be "policed" as sadly the police are probably the first person to have ever pointed out a riders faults with the rider taking the view of how dare they I've done it all on my own so far and survived so what the fork do they know. You coiuld be right, personally I think it is more to do with general attitudes in many cases, this can be from peers, family or from previous experiences with police who need to learn people skills
Also without good training many new riders get a bike, pass a simple test, hit the road, have a major scare then cant overcome the butterfly's in their guts that was a concern I had so I went through a riders skill training ride before I went out on my own and sell their bike after a year of it sitting in the garage (not that they would ever admit it) but then after seeing how some riders seem to become hyper before a ride it goes way further that just learners, probably an association from their learning days.

[Ocean1]

Consider it something for a road user to aspire too.

To be honest, it sounds like something I’d go a long way to avoid...

I think we can change core behaviour - but it needs to start early in life by embedding the ethics of being a good road user

...because it’ got a distinct smell of animal farm about it.

Not to put too fine a point on it nobody’s got the right to tell me or any other adult what does and what doesn’t constitute ethical behaviour. It is not a basis upon which I would accept decisions be made regarding who should be allowed what access to our roads.

If I seem a tad touchy about people espousing specific behaviour I personally need to adopt it might be because I’m fookin’ sick of it. I’m particularly sick of government related interests telling me to be a good boy and save them money, because when it comes to backing up their policy changes they wouldn’t know shit from clay. We’ve been fed doctored data relating to government expenditure issues for so long now I don’t think anyone could find enough incorrupt data on which to base a genuine attempt at rational policy. It’s like a great steaming pile of idealistically tweaked dross trailing back decades and it reeks.

So how ‘bout instead blaming road users behaviour and cobbling up yet another idealistically driven piece of social engineering we use the road safety budget to make the roads safer? Let’s start with a search and destroy mission on the particular corner of that reeking pile of bullshit that is the justification for wire rope barriers’ with a view to destroying it’s credibility and forcing a roll-back eh? That orta account for next year’s budget too.

[p.dath]

To be honest, it sounds like something I’d go a long way to avoid...

And you could. I did say it would be voluntarily, and I oppose a system that forced people to do anything more than basic training. I will insist on drivers/rider having a basic level of training before getting a licence though.

So how ‘bout instead blaming road users behaviour and cobbling up yet another idealistically driven piece of social engineering we use the road safety budget to make the roads safer?

Because something like 98% of all incidents are due to driver error. Applying a lot of effort to the roading network will only have a small affect. Improving driver/rider training will have a big impact.

Let’s start with a search and destroy mission on the particular corner

Are you famailiar with KiwiRap? This has already been done.
http://www.kiwirap.co.nz/

[Katman]

So how ‘bout instead blaming road users behaviour and cobbling up yet another idealistically driven piece of social engineering we use the road safety budget to make the roads safer? Let’s start with a search and destroy mission on the particular corner of that reeking pile of bullshit that is the justification for wire rope barriers’ with a view to destroying it’s credibility and forcing a roll-back eh? That orta account for next year’s budget too.

Seriously, you're starting to sound ridiculous.

The day that the condition of our roads overtakes the appaling attitudes that New Zealanders drive/ride with as the number one causes of accidents then maybe your idea would have some merit.

We are a long, long way from that being the case.

[Tink]

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjo...%20Actions.pdf

Interesting proposals towards making riders and drivers safer.
Page 5 is dedicated to motorcyclists.
What do you think of the changes - good and bad!

If rider training was directed at new riders or indeed become part of the licencing for learners , then surely that must be a positive yes?

I definitely have said this before, make cars for new drivers with less power a standard no modifications allowed, impound, crush cars if they abuse the roads. A car is a weapon, and if they choose to abuse it they should pay the price.

I have no rider training, I watch, I listen and I remember what riders who have experienced riding in all weathers, and conditions, and how they have come off, what they should have done, or what could be done, so far I have ridden in limited visibility weather, bad wind, gravel, and I will face all of this, I have come off and been lucky. I would like to see idiots that are inexperienced sit thru the australian tv ad recently out by the govt over there, and see what they then say. I have self preservation, I go over a hill or around a bend expecting a car doing 70km in front of me.

But I am old!!!! lol and thats why I am on this site..... to listen to older more experienced people!

[Ocean1]

And you could. I did say it would be voluntarily, and I oppose a system that forced people to do anything more than basic training. I will insist on drivers/rider having a basic level of training before getting a licence though.

My main issue here is the cost, why not offset that against revenue from govt assisted recreational facilities? You’d turn up for a bit of fun and have the opportunity to gain points towards a unit standard.

Because something like 98% of all incidents are due to driver error. Applying a lot of effort to the roading network will only have a small affect. Improving driver/rider training will have a big impact.

What, 2% of incidents don’t involve drivers?

I’m not saying driver error doesn’t exist, I’m saying that short of excluding drivers with high error levels from the road there’s fuck all you can do about it. If you culled the worst 10% from the road you mighty well see an improvement of 30%. But it’s politically not do-able.

Are you famailiar with KiwiRap? This has already been done.

“Automobile Association and New Zealand government agencies: NZ Transport Agency, Ministry of Transport, Accident Compensation Corporation, and New Zealand Police.”

I’m already familiar with the relevant policies from this lot. That reeking pile of bullshit I mentioned? they’re all guilty of having contributed to it, I wouldn’t believe a word they said. What’s more, where, amongst their policies can you show me a commitment to dismantle or modify wire rope barriers?

The day that the condition of our roads overtakes the appaling attitudes that New Zealanders drive/ride with as the number one causes of accidents then maybe your idea would have some merit.

We are a long, long way from that being the case.

Your assessment of the attitudes in question says a great deal more about your own than those of the average kiwi. How about you concentrate on yours eh? And let everyone else mind their own business too.

[MSTRS:Me]

Your assessment of the attitudes in question says a great deal more about your own than those of the average kiwi. How about you concentrate on yours eh? And let everyone else mind their own business too.

Live and let them kill themselves and others, huh?

TPTB have done a great job (for the most part) in brainwashing the braindead (average Kiwi) into believing speed is BAD. The message is delivered via simple repetition of "Don't speed or you will die".
Katman employs the exact same strategy - but his message is to modify the attitude to road use. That covers more than just speed, and history tells us that if he continues, eventually people will hear it enough to question themselves as far as their attitudes go - and moderate them. Much more useful for road safety.

[Tricia1000]

Here is an example of healthy debate. Keep it going..I am enjoying the different view points.

[Ocean1]

.

Live and let them kill themselves and others, huh?

Themselves? Who's fucking life is it?

Others? Have the same choice you do. If you don't like the fact that once in every million or so times you get into a vehicle you'll be involved in a serious accident then I suggest you don't do it.

If your exposure to the various political machinations of the past few years leaves you feeling desperate to “do something about it” then I suggest that you start by defining how much you’d be prepared to pay to change it. And then, (without reference to politically doctored data) define where the best place to spend that might be.

Don’t forget to ask those who’ll be paying the bill if it’s OK eh?

Katman employs the exact same strategy -

I know what he's doing. It might work in the short term for quantifiable variables with punitive consequences but it won't for an ill thought out message from someone with no political ability, no communications skills and questionable antecedents. Also, (even if one needs electronic help) he's way easy to ignore.