MOTO-NZ finally come up with something for all our money

[Berries]

I guess the debate section got a bit too much for them and the home page doesn't get updated, but I see there has been an update of sorts here - http://motonz.org.nz/about-moto-nz/council-update/.

A bit of popcorn for the long weekend.

[bogan]

How did you hear about the update?

I am a little confused as to why the coromandal loop project findings are being applied to an urban project, isn't the loop a much different style rural road?

The rest isn't much better, just waffle about investigations and shit they plan to do, but will no doubt fall by the wayside before any significant progress is made. It almost makes you want to lodge an effluent spill report for all the bullshit that site dribbles

[Berries]

How did you hear about the update?

Oh, for being funded by my money they undertook to let me know when there are updates.



Not.

[James Deuce]

You mean a Quango is wasting tax-payer money? Nooooo, that couldn't possibly happen.

[Scuba_Steve]

I guess the debate section got a bit too much for them and the home page doesn't get updated, but I see there has been an update of sorts here - http://motonz.org.nz/about-moto-nz/council-update/.

A bit of popcorn for the long weekend.

I see they're still pushing forth with Hi-Vis plans (of a different name)

"SAFER VEHICLES
The Visibility Project <- aka Hi-vis
In April we contracted TRL Ltd. to review current literature about motorcycle visibility [read: hi-vis], and prepare a report that will allow us to identify specific visibility projects with demonstrated results in other countries. [read: hi-vis & how we've manipulated stats to show "it works"]

We’re currently reviewing their first draft. Once the report is finalised you’ll have an opportunity to read it and give us your opinion about the recommendations."

[Berries]

I see they're still pushing forth with Hi-Vis plans (of a different name)

In April we contracted TRL Ltd. to review current literature about motorcycle visibility [read: hi-vis]

To be fair it does say motorcycle visibility not motorcyclist visibility, (I am sure Mr Kiwi will be able to confirm), but I do wonder about priorities. Let's assume for the sake of argument that 1/3 of crashes are rider only, 1/3 are multi vehicle where the rider is at fault and 1/3 are multi vehicle where the other vehicle is at fault.

Let's further assume that in the majority of cases the rider was traveling towards the vehicle that nailed them. With their headlight hardwired on due to an early successful law change. I just don't believe that in those cases the clothing colour will make the slightest bit of difference. While the small frontal area of a motorbike and rider is an obvious factor that might contribute to crashes like this it does not explain why drivers of all types of vehicles pull out in to the path of bigger vehicles including cars, trucks and trains.

Trying to influence the behaviour of the second party in a minority of crash types seems like a big arse waste of my money. Every single rider in NZ could by now have been given a decent book/manual on defensive riding with the money that has been taken from us. Maybe most won't read it, but just possibly someone will and then they don't beome the statistic.

On a similar subject I see ACC have pulled out of funding a SMIDSY campaign yet MotoNZ are going to plough ahead anyway. Lovely.

[bogan]

On a similar subject I see ACC have pulled out of funding a SMIDSY campaign yet MotoNZ are going to plough ahead anyway. Lovely.

Idea for someone like Jono and Ben at Ten? Put on full leathers and just punch people in the face as they get out of their cars... not subtle, but I bet it'd be cheap publicity.

[MrKiwi]

I see they're still pushing forth with Hi-Vis plans (of a different name)

"SAFER VEHICLES
The Visibility Project <- aka Hi-vis
In April we contracted TRL Ltd. to review current literature about motorcycle visibility [read: hi-vis] (no] , and prepare a report that will allow us to identify specific visibility projects with demonstrated results in other countries. [read: hi-vis & how we've manipulated stats to show "it works"] [no]

We’re currently reviewing their first draft. Once the report is finalised you’ll have an opportunity to read it and give us your opinion about the recommendations."

Wrong both times - we are looking at initiatives that may help raise the conspicuity of the bike and it's rider, mostly the bike.

Berries - No we are not carrying on with the SMIDSY campaign without the ACC component. ACC approached the Council first on this initiative but did not adequately do their return on investment analysis so the Council is disinclined to proceed with a motorcycle component until ACC can get their car part organised. It's a watching brief from us.

[Scuba_Steve]

Wrong both times - we are looking at initiative that may help raise the conspicuity of the bike and it's rider, mostly the bike.

Well I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen the "solutions" of too many Govt depts to be putting my bet on anything else at this stage

[MrKiwi]

Well I hope I'm wrong, but I've seen the "solutions" of too many Govt depts to be putting my bet on anything else at this stage

Personally I'm pretty adamant that while hi viz has it's place it is not the panacea some make it out to be. Hi viz does not work that well at night unless it is reflective and even then reflective material requires another light source for it to work. Personally I think lighting options provide a wider range of benefits, especially at T intersections, and also lighting works both day and night.

I've seen government's in Europe mandate hi viz. I'm not sure on what basis, the research is pretty varied on its usefulness.

[James Deuce]

The results of research into H-Viz directly reflect the investment made by manufacturers in the research programme. If you get my drift.

[Pampera]

Wrong both times - we are looking at initiatives that may help raise the conspicuity of the bike and it's rider, mostly the bike. .

What sort of initiatives? Compulsory modifications or additions to the motorcycle and/or rider equipment? Stuff that motorcycllists have to buy, either directly or "NZ only" stuff added to the cost of a new motorcycle? Or stuff that, if we forget or don't want to do whatever it is, will result in further opportunities for police to ticket and fine us or issue demerit points? I rode with headlight on during the day for some 30 years of motorcycling. Now if I forget or have a bulb burn out I get a ticket and fine. More of the same?

Why are we left guessing when MotoNZ claim (on their website) to be reflecting the interests and ideas of the motorcyclist community?

Left, with every other motorcyclist, to decipher the smoke signals from afar, this looks to me also like a process for ACC and NZTA to be able to claim "motorcyclists support compulsory hi-viz clothing laws".

Michael

[Hitcher]

What is painfully clear is that Moto NZ has no ideas about things that can be done to sensibly improve the welfare and safety of motorcyclists. That's hardly surprising, given that it is a high risk endeavour and most things that work have already been implemented. Regrettably things like "idiot moments", of which we are all capable when we least expect them are beyond the scope of legislators, unless they ban motorcycling entirely or price it off the charts.

The Moto NZ cowshit campaign was an absolute waste of time, well the "dob in a trucker or a shitty road" website was. Effluent discharge from stock trucks could be sorted within weeks, if the Highway Patrol made it a priority. All they need to do is to follow laden stock trucks up hills and then prosecute the companies involved. It's so disturbingly simple to do, one wonders why it hasn't been.

Similarly diesel leaks. These only come from trucks. Trucks with poorly fitted fuel caps that have generally been overfilled. Again it's not hard to develop a standard and to enforce that. If the MTA are so hell-bent on six-monthly WOF inspections, I'm sure its members will be foaming at the bung to deal with a compliance issue that saves lives. It's a bit harder for the Highway Patrol to observe diesel leakage than it is for cowshit exudates, put I'm sure they wouldn't mind stopping trucks about half a km up the road from their depot or other points of refuelling, checking for seepage and then prosecuting the bejesus out of offenders. Word would get around. CB radio works well like that.

A fixation with hi viz apparel is also an absolute waste of time. If riders think that wearing it makes them safer, well bloody good show. Let them. However I believe that homoeopathy of the highway should not be legislated.

[Pampera]

Personally I'm pretty adamant that while hi viz has it's place it is not the panacea some make it out to be. Hi viz does not work that well at night unless it is reflective and even then reflective material requires another light source for it to work. Personally I think lighting options provide a wider range of benefits, especially at T intersections, and also lighting works both day and night.
.

Check out Page 62 of the NZTA Safer Journeys document, the bullets and the text below. It seems that:

Yellow headlights
An additional running light mounted on your helmet
Additional running lights spread out over your handlebars (or mounted on/in your fairing) and down your forks

could well be on the way.

Michael

[James Deuce]

The only certainties are that Moto-NZ is costing motorcyclists money to administer and in the future will find a way to impose more cost on motorcyclists. Publicly railing against being forced to comply with legislative madness makes motorcyclists look like ungrateful morons who not only paid money to be told they had to spend money, they also then reject "help" to make the road "safer" for themselves.

Horns of a dilemma.

It's completely mind-boggling that despite being warned, motorcycle lobby groups haven't put up a decent defense or have imploded rather than work as a team. Divide, conquer, spread misinformation. Make sure that the biggest case of active discrimination in NZ history looks like the Government were just trying to save the morons from themselves. Sort of similar to the way the Chinese were Ghettoised for 100 years in NZ society and despite the existence of the death penalty on the statute books the casual murder of first and second generation Chinese immigrants was quietly ignored. Unless you were stupid enough to kill a random OAP in Haining St, even then you'd end up in a mental institution rather than face the wrath of the law.

Kind of the way road death victims are perceived now. It's inevitable, excusable and motorcyclists especially deserve it.