FYI - MOTO NZ impending RFP

[ckai]

Further proof of how well they work - Hi-vis Fail

haha Love it how they made very special mention of the vest very early on in the piece. I like what they were implying

[GrayWolf]

Good luck with getting other motorists to change their behaviour.

It is infinitely easier (and safer) to modify our own behaviour than to rely on the consciences (or consciousness) of others.

I agree that is true if we have to perform the modified behaviour.

What will work admirably would be regulations with teeth in the event of accidents etc, "sorry i didnt see him" type accident"? Automatic eye test and licence suspended untill the results are seen. If you needed glasses then appropriate action to be taken legaly.
Drunk driving? Mate you took the car to bar/party, and had a drink, the loss of cognitive process in the frontal lobes due to alcohol is NOT a defence.. you made a choice to drive to the place and drink. 1 year minimum ban.
Causing death or injury? A mandatory minimum ban of a year? to lifetime ban and a resit of your test, an extensive resit! (I believe Denmark/Sweden will lifetime ban on a 3rd DD offence) Funny how they have such a low DD rate.
This taps into the 'percieved' threat in the human psyche... If you know there will be a direct concequence, the behaviour will be modified, generaly speaking,,, recidivist's? maybe 6 with the rattan cane or jail time, and your wife/husband joins you! like in malaysia.
Most bad behaviour of this type has been seen as 'socially condoned' for so many years it is almost 'acceptable' till recent times. If you waved a gun about drunk and killed someone 'by accident', intoxication would not be seen as an 'excuse'.. but the penalty for death though drunk driving is pitiful to say the least, and the penalty(s) diminish from there as the act lessens. So ACC will pay for my broken leg(s)... a no fault scenario.. Allow me to claim for the loss of earnings (the 20% acc dont pay),, the pain and suffering, the emotional distress to family etc.... If drivers and riders are HIT with the reality of their actions in the event of accident? There will be a marked improvement of behaviour on the roads.

[p.dath]

What will work admirably would be regulations with teeth in the event of accidents etc, "sorry i didnt see him" type accident"? Automatic eye test and licence suspended untill the results are seen. If you needed glasses then appropriate action to be taken legaly.

Punishment works as a deterrent when people have a choice to make. A car driver hitting a motorcyclist is not usually the result of the car driver choosing not to see the motorcyclist. Their brain simply doesn't process the information in a way that presents the motorcyclist as something needing cognitive thought. I'm not saying it makes the incident right - it's just the way the human brain works.

Drunk driving? Mate you took the car to bar/party, and had a drink, the loss of cognitive process in the frontal lobes due to alcohol is NOT a defence.. you made a choice to drive to the place and drink. 1 year minimum ban.

Yep, if the person can control their drinking then punishment may have some impact. The problem with recidivist drink drivers is that they can't control their drinking - and then driving. And if they can't control it, then it doesn't matter how severe you make the punishment.

Causing death or injury? A mandatory minimum ban of a year?

I'm pretty sure this carries a jail term ... so you kinda do get a ban from driving.

[GrayWolf]

Punishment works as a deterrent when people have a choice to make. A car driver hitting a motorcyclist is not usually the result of the car driver choosing not to see the motorcyclist. Their brain simply doesn't process the information in a way that presents the motorcyclist as something needing cognitive thought. I'm not saying it makes the incident right - it's just the way the human brain works.

Agreed and that is where the 'percieved threat' part of the human brain comes into effect. If lack of recognition brings about a 'stiff' penalty after investgation proves you just didnt act correctly? The fact of a 12-18 momth ban brings the threat into a higher level of conciousness... as pointed out with Police bikes, they recognise the 'high threat' those colour schemes represent.


Yep, if the person can control their drinking then punishment may have some impact. The problem with recidivist drink drivers is that they can't control their drinking - and then driving. And if they can't control it, then it doesn't matter how severe you make the punishment.

Again, agreed, so you remove the licence for life and imprison/home detention every time they are caught therafter. There are recidivist drunk drivers in Denmark/Sweded but they are considerably lower numbers than the potential habitual drink driver who will not take the risk of the high penalties concerned.

[p.dath]

Agreed and that is where the 'percieved threat' part of the human brain comes into effect. If lack of recognition brings about a 'stiff' penalty after investgation proves you just didnt act correctly? The fact of a 12-18 momth ban brings the threat into a higher level of conciousness... as pointed out with Police bikes, they recognise the 'high threat' those colour schemes represent.

It's a shame your not in Auckland, otherwise you could come along to NASS and speak to some of the Police Officers who have been knocked off their bikes, or here their stories of countless near misses.

I'd like to recommend a book to you, "The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us":
http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Gori...3715311&sr=8-1

It details a famous experiment called the "Invisible Gorilla" (their are several You Tube examples as well), and it goes on to explain why human brains often fail to perceive things.

People don't usually "choose" to have a lack of recognition. If your brain is not expecting to see something, even though your eyes actually see it, your brain won't process it. It's a subconscious decision that the brain makes, because the eyes supply more information than the brain is capable of processing. So the brain, constantly, has to choose to ignore input that is coming into it.

You can train the brain to be more observant to specific things, but it isn't easy. And it's not something someone can decide one day to suddenly be more observant too because of the threat of a large fine.


I really wish I could decide tomorrow to be even more observant on the road. But alas, I don't have that choice, no matter how big of a fine there may be for missing something. Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?

[MSTRS:Me]

If your brain is not expecting to see something, even though your eyes actually see it, your brain won't process it.

I would question how it is that anyone could not expect to see another vehicle (of any type) on the road. After all, that is what roads are for - vehicles.

Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?

That depends on the level of observation to start with...
But even an improvement across the board would lead to better driving skills.
If drivers are paying more attention (than they seem to today), they will see us more often, with a subsequent reduction in the number of SMIDSYs.

[Katman]

I really wish I could decide tomorrow to be even more observant on the road. But alas, I don't have that choice, no matter how big of a fine there may be for missing something. Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?

Actually, yes.

My hazard awareness and observation skills improved hundredfold almost over night when I started couriering in London. They had to.

The difference being the desire to ensure my own safety. The average car driver isn't that bothered whether their observation skills aren't as good as they could be. They're not the one most likely to come off second best.

[GrayWolf]

It's a shame your not in Auckland, otherwise you could come along to NASS and speak to some of the Police Officers who have been knocked off their bikes, or here their stories of countless near misses.

I never said they DON'T have a lot of near misses, but they seem to be seen more readily (percieved) than a non Police bike, and also the amount of near misses also needs to be calculated against the number of miles/hours spent on the road to make a fair correlation of statistics.


People don't usually "choose" to have a lack of recognition. If your brain is not expecting to see something, even though your eyes actually see it, your brain won't process it. It's a subconscious decision that the brain makes, because the eyes supply more information than the brain is capable of processing. So the brain, constantly, has to choose to ignore input that is coming into it.

I would agree to some extent, however my particular job require a state of high vigilance, and yes there are 'incidents' which freuquently are the direct result of distraction from the task at hand for a miriad of reasons. However the 'not seeing' on the road is often really due to a lazy mind, usualy a GLANCE along the carriageway, into the mirrors, before manouvering; rather than a proper look.

You can train the brain to be more observant to specific things, but it isn't easy. And it's not something someone can decide one day to suddenly be more observant too because of the threat of a large fine.

Agreed it requires effort, but it IS possible, and a stiff penalty may not cure overnight, it is more using it as an 'aversion' penalty, if the penalty is high enough to warrant the effort needed to improve vigilance.




I really wish I could decide tomorrow to be even more observant on the road. But alas, I don't have that choice, no matter how big of a fine there may be for missing something. Do you think you could suddenly be twice as observant on the road from tomorrow onwards, constantly?

YES, if as you say, you started to train yourself to BE more observant, it is the 'simple' matter of repetitive 'conscious effort' to become embedded behaviour. I believe it is called cognitive retraining.



one of the new technologies starting to be available for cars, (Mercedes developed it I believe) is a 'log' that can store steering input, speed, gear, brake rate, G force, ABS/traction control responses etc for about 15 seconds prior to an impact. I think they also 'played' about with a sensor on the dash that monitored 'eye position and movement' You want an 'incentive'? to improve..
If you watch the UK police prog's on Sky tv, they can take your cell phone and check it roadside to see if it was in use at about the time of an accident. I still see muppets driving on the Hutt M/way with a cell Ph glued to an ear.

[StoneY]

Now I don't know Katman....

You lucky, lucky bugger. Keep it that way. Highest horse in country, with the smallest rider.
A sycophant on a crusade, and a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Back to the hi viz issue
Its a fucking waste of our levy money, when there are hundreds of completed studies out there.

MOTO NZ has turned into a fucking joke.
This is almost as much a waste of money as the coro loop event was.
The only value out of that was meeting the chaps from Vic Roads and Monash University.

We would be better off simply adapting the engineering recommendations that Ken Beers demonstrated at that event and killing off the levy altogether.
Just add 30$ to EVERY vehicles on our roads to add to fixing em and stop targeting victims while encouraging discrimination.

That Coro Loop event invoices would have been something like this:

ACC officials salary (2 people 2 days + mileage)
8 air fares return
1 rental car (people mover)
Food for 300 people (real fuckin posh food to, not sausage rolls and pies)
Camera kit out on bike (I asked how much - 800$)
Consultant fee - 2 days each councillor attending

Do the math

Some of these costs came out of ACC's ops budget, not sure if all of it did or if some was from the levy.
However, i reckon there was easilly 10k - 20k spent and regardless how it was collected this is an example of the way the cash id being wasted

Wasted why?

6 fuckin people came

[Pussy]

You lucky, lucky bugger. Keep it that way. Highest horse in country, with the smallest rider.
A sycophant on a crusade, and a hypocrite of epic proportions.

You've just described yourself perfectly.

[Katman]

Wasted why?

6 fuckin people came

Everyone else knew you were going to be there.

[Pixie]

You lucky, lucky bugger. Keep it that way. Highest horse in country, with the smallest rider.
A sycophant on a crusade, and a hypocrite of epic proportions.

Back to the hi viz issue
Its a fucking waste of our levy money, when there are hundreds of completed studies out there.

MOTO NZ has turned into a fucking joke.
This is almost as much a waste of money as the coro loop event was.
The only value out of that was meeting the chaps from Vic Roads and Monash University.

We would be better off simply adapting the engineering recommendations that Ken Beers demonstrated at that event and killing off the levy altogether.
Just add 30$ to EVERY vehicles on our roads to add to fixing em and stop targeting victims while encouraging discrimination.

That Coro Loop event invoices would have been something like this:

ACC officials salary (2 people 2 days + mileage)
8 air fares return
1 rental car (people mover)
Food for 300 people (real fuckin posh food to, not sausage rolls and pies)
Camera kit out on bike (I asked how much - 800$)
Consultant fee - 2 days each councillor attending

Do the math

Some of these costs came out of ACC's ops budget, not sure if all of it did or if some was from the levy.
However, i reckon there was easilly 10k - 20k spent and regardless how it was collected this is an example of the way the cash id being wasted

Wasted why?

6 fuckin people came

Did you get kicked off msac stoney?
No I not rubbing your nose in it - I would just like to show you the silver lining : considering the adage "if you lie down with dogs,you get up with fleas" You just avoided a future that involves calamine lotion.

Here's two posts I made to the moronz.org "debate".They won't get accepted so I will post them here too.


"Typical Government BS.Morgan does his "research" but does not include that done by the most knowledgeable researcher in the country: Charles Lamb.Morgan uses the data from the police and ACC! The Govt stooges.Another case of use the statistics that fit the Govt. agenda.
So how many million dollars have these parasites collected off motorcyclist to produce a pamphlet to be distributed in our registration notifications?
What do we expect from a group that includes at least one member that boasted of having a confidentiality agreement with the Govt?
I don't expect this post to be allowed so I will copy and distribute it elsewhere."

"So Morgan says our stats are fantasy.Good.
I suggest that all readers of this debate.
Strongly consider riding unlicenced vehicles.
The savings are amazing.
I've believe recent reports show that the revenue from motorcyclists has dropped enormously since the levy was inflated."

[StoneY]

Everyone else knew you were going to be there.

Well then, we know why you didn't show don't we?

[MrKiwi]

Along with the official statistics Lamb's report along with others was indeed considered in compiling this review.