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

[Zedder]

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

Or too impatient, or they're ok (safe) they're in a cage etc.

[Big Dave]

so what's your problem?

We think that the whole 'conspicuity' answer is based on flawed data.

Because the 'I didn't see him' on the accident report is a whole lot different to the 'I actually didn't look' of the event.

[GTRMAN]

I think the truth of the matter is it is not a question of 'or' but rather a question of 'and'

Consipicuity AND rider attention AND riding defensively AND riding to the conditions AND having a realistic idea of your ability...

If we focus on one thing without considering the others then nothing changes.

[Ocean1]

We think that the whole 'conspicuity' answer is based on flawed data.

Because the 'I didn't see him' on the accident report is a whole lot different to the 'I actually didn't look' of the event.

Yeah, little bit. I've been on both ends of a smidsy, though. Disturbing. So I took the time to find out how it works, and you can't fix it, short of filtering 90% of licence applicants out of action.

Maybe there is an element of excuse causing "didn't look" data to end up in "didn't see" data heap, and that bit you can fix more easily.

[swbarnett]

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

I beg to differ. To be a bit extreme for a moment, it is possible to ride a bike that is completely invisible and still get to your destination in one piece. All it would take is a very high level of avoidnace skill and a willingness to give way to all other vehicles (including those behind you). Getting back to reality, I ride a bike that is almost totally black (silver grey scoop) in all black gear head to toe for around 25,000km a year in all weathers, both commuting and open-road. Yes, I've had my fair share of SMIDSYs; everyone of these I've been able to avoid with not so much as a sphincter moment.

This "problem" will be solved only when we as riders recognise that we are responsible* for our own safety.

*Note: "responsible" as distinguished from "at legal fault".

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.

Driving is like any other human activity. There are those that have an inate ability and those that don't (and a continuum in the middle). The only real problem we have is that those that shouldn't be driving still think they have a right to. If we had half decent public transport those that don't want the hassle of driving don't have to drive. This would weed out a lot of those with poor driving aptitude.

[Zedder]

I beg to differ. To be a bit extreme for a moment, it is possible to ride a bike that is completely invisible and still get to your destination in one piece. All it would take is a very high level of avoidnace skill and a willingness to give way to all other vehicles (including those behind you). Getting back to reality, I ride a bike that is almost totally black (silver grey scoop) in all black gear head to toe for around 25,000km a year in all weathers, both commuting and open-road. Yes, I've had my fair share of SMIDSYs; everyone of these I've been able to avoid with not so much as a sphincter moment.

This "problem" will be solved only when we as riders recognise that we are responsible* for our own safety.

*Note: "responsible" as distinguished from "at legal fault".


Driving is like any other human activity. There are those that have an inate ability and those that don't (and a continuum in the middle). The only real problem we have is that those that shouldn't be driving still think they have a right to. If we had half decent public transport those that don't want the hassle of driving don't have to drive. This would weed out a lot of those with poor driving aptitude.

I liken it to being able to walk the streets in reasonable safety. The streets are made as safe as practicable by the State and laws. However, I can't and shouldn't rely on that and keep a cautious lookout of my own plus have other tactics for ensuring I'm not a victim.

A guy I knew however, carelessly wandered (rode/drove) around and expected that all was well but was stunned (and often hurt) when harm came to him as it inevitably did. He only learnt after the negative experiences although he was always quick to blame others.

Some people just shouldn't be on the streets it seems and are better off, if untrainable, to go by public transport as you say.

[Flip]

We think that the whole 'conspicuity' answer is based on flawed data.

Because the 'I didn't see him' on the accident report is a whole lot different to the 'I actually didn't look' of the event.

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"

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.

You lot are entering into a discussion with a member of the ACC owned loby group MotoNZ, remember he is only representing the interests of ACC. MotoNZ have 3 million dollars of our money to fuck us over with. IMHO there is no quicker way into a dayglo gimp suit than to give any credability to the stupid ACC ideas than by enter into any discussions with Mr Kiwi.

If Acc had a clue they would train rather than blame. All I see to date from MotoNZ is blame, ie the ambulance is still at the bottom of the cliff.

[swbarnett]

If Acc had a clue they would train rather than blame. All I see to date from MotoNZ is blame,

Exactly.

ie the ambulance is still at the bottom of the cliff.

I think you've got your metaphore backwards. The ambulance belongs at the bottom of the cliff. What's needed at the top are the trainers. Teach those on the edge of the cliff how to recognise when it's about to give way and give them the skills required to avoid going with it.

[SuperMac]

I think you've got your metaphore backwards. The ambulance belongs at the bottom of the cliff. What's needed at the top are the trainers. Teach those on the edge of the cliff how to recognise when it's about to give way and give them the skills required to avoid going with it.

Trouble is, it's very difficult to prove that bike training (or driver training for that matter) has any safety benefit.

And I say that from a background of almost 30 years involvement with training!

[swbarnett]

Trouble is, it's very difficult to prove that bike training (or driver training for that matter) has any safety benefit.

And I say that from a background of almost 30 years involvement with training!

Yes, it's impossible to say what would've happened to an individual rider had they not been properly trained. However, if the law was changed to ensure that every rider got the appropriate intensive training required, a corresponding drop (or not) in the motorcycle road toll would at least be indicative.

[SuperMac]

Yes, it's impossible to say what would've happened to an individual rider had they not been properly trained. However, if the law was changed to ensure that every rider got the appropriate intensive training required, a corresponding drop (or not) in the motorcycle road toll would at least be indicative.

But that's the point! There's little evidence to show that 'training' actually improves safety! So there's no point in introducing a new, 'improved', training regime unless it's built on a very sound basis.

If it's simply machine control skills then that might achieve very little positive result and might even have a negative impact due to over-confidence . . .

Yes, it's impossible to say what would've happened to an individual rider had they not been properly trained.

What do you call 'properly'?

[madandy]

Compulary IAM for all motorists.
Make it part of the Learners test...yes a Practical test for Learners!

[Zedder]

But that's the point! There's little evidence to show that 'training' actually improves safety! So there's no point in introducing a new, 'improved', training regime unless it's built on a very sound basis.

If it's simply machine control skills then that might achieve very little positive result and might even have a negative impact due to over-confidence . . .




What do you call 'properly'?

Machine handling skills is one thing, training that involves an "attitude adjustment" component is another thing all together. The mind behind the throttle is a very critical factor.

I certainly would rather have the $30 "safety fee" get us something more than we have so far.

[Genestho]

Machine handling skills is one thing, training that involves an "attitude adjustment" component is another thing all together. The mind behind the throttle is a very critical factor.

I certainly would rather have the $30 "safety fee" get us something more than we have so far.

There are three ways of learning, by observation, by reading or by learning the fire is hot by touching it... still, I agree, there's a bit of money in the pot now. I'd have thought there should've been visible MotoNZ campaigns afoot by now, particularly in the summer season.

[SuperMac]

Compulary IAM for all motorists.
Make it part of the Learners test...yes a Practical test for Learners!

Ah, you have the advantage of me. As a limey I know very well the 'IAM method', good and bad (trust me, I have plenty of views there), but don't know what the NZ licencing system involves, either regime or content. Is there a good link or two to cover that?

Machine handling skills is one thing, training that involves an "attitude adjustment" component is another thing all together. The mind behind the throttle is a very critical factor.

Yup.

Trouble is, how often do you hear "Go and do a track day" as 'good' advice on how to be safe on a bike . . .

I certainly would rather have the $30 "safety fee" get us something more than we have so far.

Such as?