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

[mashman]

A wee while ago I was talking with a fella in chch. His primary ride was off the road and he noticed a remarkable difference in the number of near misses he was involved in, or was not involved in as it turned out. His main bike has headlights that are on by default and the other doesn't. We were both surprised by this given the conspicuity argument. Neither of us could put our fingers on why and meh'd it and put it down to "luck".

I'm all for part of drivers Ed being the Kiwi version of the CBT (Compulsory Bike Training). Even better to get the other learners driving around them in cars. For me that would be a win win. The driver learns how motorcycles can appear and disappear, where they will likely be positioned etc... and they'll also understand how "vulnerable" a motorcyclist is. It's no panacea, but it may well help them be more aware of motorcycles. Likely a logistical nightmare, but may help with the awareness.

[scracha]

NZ is constantly rated as having the least corrupt government in the world.

As usual, NZ is more concerned with it's image than actual reality. Just because corruption isn't reported, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. New Zealand is constantly PERCEIVED as having one of the least corrupt governments in the world.

Why is corruption not widely reported in NZ? From my experience, NZ is too small a pond and companies suffering from it are too scared to report corruption for fear of being blackballed. At the other end of the corruption see-saw, a lack of ethics is rife and therefore companies are more prone to being partners in the corruption (they obviously don't report it!)

The "lowest perceived corruption" rating you refer to is by Transparency International. Their metrics for measuring corruption is very limited. Their funding sources are also rather interesting.

http://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/tr...international/

Here's what some other agencies think about NZ in relation to corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrupt...itor.27s_views

"In 2011, 4% of New Zealanders also admitted to paying a bribe - which is twice as high as the rate in Australia and four times the United Kingdom's rate"

[davereid]

As usual, NZ is more concerned with it's image than actual reality. Just because corruption isn't reported, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. New Zealand is constantly PERCEIVED as having one of the least corrupt governments in the world.

Why is corruption not widely reported in NZ? From my experience, NZ is too small a pond and companies suffering from it are too scared to report corruption for fear of being blackballed. At the other end of the corruption see-saw, a lack of ethics is rife and therefore companies are more prone to being partners in the corruption (they obviously don't report it!)

New Zealand is endemically corrupt.

Just follow the careers of Government CEOs. Failed in one job ? No problem, we will make you a nice job offer somewhere else just as soon as the shit dies down.

We also the champion of the uncontested lucrative monopoly contract. No bias of course.

We just aren't in the business of having to pay the local council guy to get a permit - we keep the corruption at a nice invisible management level.

[MrKiwi]

I don't agree with either of your assessments which imply NZ is rife with corruption. It just is not so. No country is corruption free, but I do not see the level of pork barrel politics in NZ that I do see and witness in Australia and the USA as examples. In my career I have worked both in private sector companies (small and large) and extensively across parts of government. I'm going on what I see and read and I have not experienced a particularly sheltered life...

[SuperMac]

Depends whether or not they decide to learn anything from France.

You mean with the on - off saga of compulsory hi-viz? If so, I understand (from MAG-UK, probably) that the French Govt were told by the EU that it would have to be EN471 or EN1150 (ie hi-viz for professionals or for non-professionals, with different levels of background fluorescent material and retro-reflective material for each standard), or nothing.

But . . . they've had compulsory daytime headlamps since the 70s and compulsory fluoro and retro-reflective patches on helmets for decades too.

* supposedly

[MSTRS:Me]

Well - I've followed this thread with interest, in the expectation that there will be some sort of epiphany as regards what will keep us all as safe as houses as we ride our bikes.

And I had one!!
I WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY SAFETY WHILST RIDING, BECAUSE NOTHING AND NO-ONE ELSE WILL.

But hang on....that's not a new idea. And, frankly, it's hard work and I'm tired of doing all the work. Won't someone come up with something new that will take the responsibility off me for my safety? Oh - and also come up with something that means I don't have to be aware of tarmelt, tar snakes, metal grates, potholes, loose shingle, corners that tighten-up without warning...that sort of thing. I mean, I want to be able to go for a ride without having to watch out for ALL the things trying to kill me. I will watch out for low-flying UFOs.

[MrKiwi]

Well - I've followed this thread with interest, in the expectation that there will be some sort of epiphany as regards what will keep us all as safe as houses as we ride our bikes.

And I had one!!
I WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY SAFETY WHILST RIDING, BECAUSE NOTHING AND NO-ONE ELSE WILL.

But hang on....that's not a new idea. And, frankly, it's hard work and I'm tired of doing all the work. Won't someone come up with something new that will take the responsibility off me for my safety? Oh - and also come up with something that means I don't have to be aware of tarmelt, tar snakes, metal grates, potholes, loose shingle, corners that tighten-up without warning...that sort of thing. I mean, I want to be able to go for a ride without having to watch out for ALL the things trying to kill me. I will watch out for low-flying UFOs.

I don't normally enjoy cynicism, and this post is reasonably cynical. But I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse or you are trying to make a point in an awkward way.

Why do some riders on here (not necessarily you) take the line that someone should come with the answer to make us safe. There's no such thing as one answer or even a few answers and I've never said nor intimated that is the case. It is incremental improvements we can make and a shared responsibility of all road users (vain hope at times this latter point). No one or even no few things working together is going to do it, rather it is a multitude of things. First and foremost we, as riders, need to take responsibility and accountability for our decisions and actions, including ensuring our bike is well maintained and set up, we decide what gear to wear to keep us safe while being comfortable, to be aware of others on the road and to understand not only our limits as riders but the limits of other road users. There are some things we can do that, all things being equal, that might (and I stress might) help to work in our favour. I've found a few for me, and the conspicuity of the bike (not me as a rider) is one that seems to work most, but not all, times. I try and even up the odds.

Mostly though, it is what is going through my head and how aware am I of what is going on around me and acknowledging that no matter how much riding I have done I have limits I need to stay within.

Cheers.

[James Deuce]

I've found a few for me, and the conspicuity of the bike (not me as a rider) is one that seems to work most, but not all, times. I try and even up the odds.

Yes, but how can you prove that without interviewing the driver who just avoided pulling out in front of you due to how conspicuous you were? In terms of staying safe (which is fundamentally impossible in any circumstance, let alone riding a motorcycle) relying even a tiny bit on being more visible than the average motorcycle is tantamount to suicidal behaviour.

The focus on safety is a mistake because it's just another cop out to avoid labeling the real issue which is the lack of driver/rider training NZers undergo, the refusal to admit that being above-average in NZ is actually still a dangerously poor standard. You're not safe, ever. What can be improved are the skills and capabilities of the average driver/rider in NZ and and raising of the lower thresholds that we're willing to accept to avoid Grandpa Joe driving up the wrong side of the Ngauranga gorge because he's still driving 20 years after he should have handed his license in.

Train people to see, train people to plan, train people in avoidance techniques that include combining planning and experience to recognise and avoid incidents many steps before they happen, train people in self-evaluation so they can make a call on actually getting the car/ute/bike out or not. A near miss is still a mistake on the part of everyone involved, but most of all never teach them techniques to improve their safety. There's no such thing.

[MrKiwi]

Yes, but how can you prove that without interviewing the driver who just avoided pulling out in front of you due to how conspicuous you were? In terms of staying safe (which is fundamentally impossible in any circumstance, let alone riding a motorcycle) relying even a tiny bit on being more visible than the average motorcycle is tantamount to suicidal behaviour.

The focus on safety is a mistake because it's just another cop out to avoid labeling the real issue which is the lack of driver/rider training NZers undergo, the refusal to admit that being above-average in NZ is actually still a dangerously poor standard. You're not safe, ever. What can be improved are the skills and capabilities of the average driver/rider in NZ and and raising of the lower thresholds that we're willing to accept to avoid Grandpa Joe driving up the wrong side of the Ngauranga gorge because he's still driving 20 years after he should have handed his license in.

Train people to see, train people to plan, train people in avoidance techniques that include combining planning and experience to recognise and avoid incidents many steps before they happen, train people in self-evaluation so they can make a call on actually getting the car/ute/bike out or not. A near miss is still a mistake on the part of everyone involved, but most of all never teach them techniques to improve their safety. There's no such thing.

Did I say anything about proving - NO. Did I say that I totally relied on it NO. Your comment about suicidal behaviour is in my view misplaced.

Did I say anything that suggested training was not ALSO useful, NO

Did I say something about riders skills and those of others on the road , YES

so what's your problem?

[James Deuce]

Did I say anything about proving - NO. Did I say that I totally relied on it NO. Your comment about suicidal behaviour is in my view misplaced.

Did I say anything that suggested training was not ALSO useful, NO

Did I say something about riders skills and those of others on the road , YES

so what's your problem?

Did you just retract your belief that you're more conspicuous than other riders? You keep insisting that you can improve your odds on the road by making your bike more conspicuous.

My "problem" is that there's no consistency of message from people we were made to give money to and that the focus still seems to be on making motorcyclists solely responsible for their "safety". My "problem" is that no one has actually simply just held their middle finger up to the insistence that everything is "our" fault and that by simply blaming motorcyclists and making them pay for absolutely nothing the Government can wash their hands of any negative press ranging from, 'Well, that achieved nothing", to, "We spent lots of their money on trying to fix their "problems" and all they did was argue with each other and we're going to make up this stat that "born-again" riders on large capacity bikes are the main reason that motorcycle related deaths have gone up."

[MSTRS:Me]

You keep insisting that you can improve your odds on the road by making your bike more conspicuous.

Of course 'you' can. No-one ever collides with an ambulance under lights and siren, do they? :sarcasm:

FFS...nothing 'we' do will stop the idiots, oops I mean other motorists, from not seeing us. It is up to us to see them (and everything else) and ensure we avoid catastrophe.

What we can't avoid is the idiots in positions of 'authority' or influence who 'understand our problem/s and know how to fix them'...

[swbarnett]

FFS...nothing 'we' do will stop the idiots, oops I mean other motorists, from not seeing us. It is up to us to see them (and everything else) and ensure we avoid catastrophe.

And any efforts to the contrary are on a hiding to nothing. All we will end up with is a shifting of the legal fault from the idiot that didn't see us (or even bother to look) to any rider that's not lit up like a christmas tree.

If the $30 that's been stolen from us in the name of a "safety" levy is to mean anything it needs to go towards rider training initiatives. No matter how much they try it is not possible to remove all the hazards from the road. The only way to bring our toll down significantly is to improve rider competancy.

[GrayWolf]

Of course 'you' can. No-one ever collides with an ambulance under lights and siren, do they? :sarcasm:

FFS...nothing 'we' do will stop the idiots, oops I mean other motorists, from not seeing us. It is up to us to see them (and everything else) and ensure we avoid catastrophe.

What we can't avoid is the idiots in positions of 'authority' or influence who 'understand our problem/s and know how to fix them'...

I drive a 'vehicle' that has a bright yellow conspicuous colour, I have two powerful headlights that MUST be on full in daytime, i also have two low level WIDE SPACED spotlamps, My vehicle dimensions (head on) 3.5 mtrs high 2.7mtrs wide. I stay absolutely in my lane, I can with almost 100% certainty guarantee I will not deviate 1cm from my line of travel... I have an Audible warning device that has an absolute minimum of 95 decibels (used to be 139db till J/ville whingers started complaining) that should be sounded approaching all crossings. The use of audible warning device also triggers said low level spotlamps to flash alternately for several seconds.

No -one EVER collides (didnt see it) with these highly conspicuous vehicles...............insert Tui Ad

and yes mr Kiwi that post is highly cynical..... it's supposed to be just that!

[p.dath]

Conspicuity. I'm finding this gem a little tired but in the interests of people wanting to stay alive another day I can understand why it is discussed again.

I can accept that if you deliberately try and camouflage yourself and the motorbike that you'll eventually end up getting hurt.

I also believe that taking the other extreme and really making yourself stand out is not an assurance you also wont get hurt. I also believe that you can only really stand out if you are different to everyone else, and that if everyone stood out - no one would stand out.

I also consider the studies in human physiology (such as the blind gorilla experiment, selective attention, motion camouflage, etc), and the limitations of our own eyes (such as the eye's fovea not being able to process motion), and I keep finding myself coming back to the same place - you can't solve this issue with a $10 vest or by trying to change peoples behaviour. Our brains and eyes have been programmed to process motion and threats over many tens of thousands of years, and that is not going to change very quickly.


I don't think we'll solve this one for a long time, and when it is "addressed" I suspect this will be done with technology - technology that addresses the way the human brain and eyes work.
I don't know what form this technology will take, but for bigger vehicles like cars it could be something like object avoidance systems (like used in planes). For smaller vehicles (like motorbikes) perhaps it'll be a proximity warning system. More than likely, it'll be something that doesn't exist today.

[Katman]

Our brains and eyes have been programmed to process motion and threats over many tens of thousands of years, and that is not going to change very quickly.

Unfortunately, far too many are just too lazy to use their brains.