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

[bogan]

I'd say that that was a little short sighted, albeit not in a bad way . When that point arrives, even if 50 years+ in the future, knowing that we've hit that point will spike oil prices. After all, when there are strikes or some form of crisis that has affected oil in the past (UK relatively recently), the price spikes as the demand heightens, the pumps run dry etc... What if the pumps aren't going to be filled til next tuesday? How will people get to work? How will food get to the supermarket? The price of food stuffs, mainly through transport cost, will rise also and all that jazz. Even if we have some other form of tech to take its place and say half of the vehicles on the road have that tech, it won't stop fuel prices from rising to 10x as it will be a precious commodity that will still very much be in use. It being in use will require all of the trappings that go with it to be paid for, exploration, drilling platforms, men to operate the wells etc... and all on a smaller budget. The demand will still be there, just not in the same quntities and as we know that which is "precious" holds a very high premium. Liquid gold if you will. After all, fuel will compete with car contruction materials, mainly oil based, along with every other product that is oil based. Ther perception will drive the price as it currently drives prices in the market place. The costs of elecrticity will also rise as the greater demand on the grid requires more and more investment in tech to meet that demand and it doesn't just fund itself. There are many industry's relying on oil and the electricity industry is one of them.

You only have to say that some motorcycles are inefficient, which mine is in comparison to our family car, to tar the rest. exactly the same way they do with ACC levies. The reality is that we all use a vehicle on the roads. Cars account for 78% (2009 figures) of major injuries, yet motorcyclists pay more because of a risk factor and some stupid calculations per k, or per capita etc... We've already been split from other motorvehicles on a perception, it won't take a great deal of imagination to drive the nail home in regards to efficiency. Again, it's a simple perception. When tptb say that in general motorcycles are more inefficient, who's going to deny that "fact"? Similarly with the compulsory Hi-Viz we've seen being implemented overseas. Tptb believe that Hi-Viz means less accidents and have ploughed forwards trying to make it law. Ask an reasonable person and you'd have to accept that Hi-Viz and conspicuity would be up there be virtue of it being brighter and therefore making the motorcycle more clearly visible. Headlights on all day too. Has it really made that much difference? Tptb are seen to be doing something, they are perceived to be doing it for the good of motorcyclists and the research that they have chosen has backed that up. Same goes for the ability to have high occupancy rates being more important than actually filling the car. If the argument is potential v's actual, then potential wins out every time if that's how it's spun. EDIT: That may not ring true for you, but what about those who just want to drive as cheaply as possible and have no knowledge about motorcycles? Low potential occupancy and high potential cost when divided by the great potential number of people in the car. Sounds vaguely familiar wouldn't you say?

I think you are confused about what peak oil means, it means production has peaked, not that it has run out. The pumps will not run dry, as the oil production at that point is the highest in history, the pumps will be filled at the same rate as the week before. If anything useage will only briefly spike as the wombles fill their car tanks and jerry cans, then decline as people try to limit their fuel useage. Supply and demand balance will temper consumer panic, with possible government interference to stop fuel price gouging causing a recession. Remember, peak oil only signifies production has peaked and will start to decline, it does not mean there is instantly not enough fuel for current demand. Sure, if nothing is done then demand will outstrip supply, at this point I still don't think we'll see more than $1 per year rise because there is so much unnecessary demand that will get pruned back in the early stages. Gradual changes, gradual adoption of new tech, tin-foil hats can go back on the shelves...

Those other things seem to make sense at a glance though, Bikers get hit, make em more visable, why not makes sense. Smallest vehicle using the most fuel, hang on, that one doesn't make sense. If they want to ban bikes for whatever reason, they'll simply do it under the guise of safety; I mean why push shit uphill on the fuel thing when safety just a much easier choice? Either way, I'll tell em to get fucked.

[mashman]

I think you are confused about what peak oil means, it means production has peaked, not that it has run out. The pumps will not run dry, as the oil production at that point is the highest in history, the pumps will be filled at the same rate as the week before. If anything useage will only briefly spike as the wombles fill their car tanks and jerry cans, then decline as people try to limit their fuel useage. Supply and demand balance will temper consumer panic, with possible government interference to stop fuel price gouging causing a recession. Remember, peak oil only signifies production has peaked and will start to decline, it does not mean there is instantly not enough fuel for current demand. Sure, if nothing is done then demand will outstrip supply, at this point I still don't think we'll see more than $1 per year rise because there is so much unnecessary demand that will get pruned back in the early stages. Gradual changes, gradual adoption of new tech, tin-foil hats can go back on the shelves...

Those other things seem to make sense at a glance though, Bikers get hit, make em more visable, why not makes sense. Smallest vehicle using the most fuel, hang on, that one doesn't make sense. If they want to ban bikes for whatever reason, they'll simply do it under the guise of safety; I mean why push shit uphill on the fuel thing when safety just a much easier choice? Either way, I'll tell em to get fucked.

Noooooooo, I understand what is meant by peak oil. The pumps will run dry, not right at that point in time (didn't realise it was reading that way), well, not all of the pumps anyway. That small spike when the wombles go banoonoos will only hasten the pumps running dry. I'm not saying it will happen overnight, but knowing that it has peaked will drive the cost up in its own right. As soon as you hit peak, demand will outstrip supply and it will continue to do so as we keep requiring our economy to grow. Which it won't be able to. If you're using 5 million barrels per day and that drops to 4.5 million barrels per day the following year, then where is that half a million barrels worth going to be cut and how will it be replaced? As you say it'll probably be put upon the "frivolous" users first (we have an alternative to cars in public transport). That's not the problem though. In year 2 you may be producing only 4 million barrels per day, year 3 3.5 million etc... Once it's past peak, it's alllllllll down hill. The demand will very much still be there as we won't want our expensive cars sitting collecting dust on the roadside, we'd like them filled etc... (cars will also start to lose value rapidly and to the point where it won't be cost effective to make any more). The market knows this and if they're told that peak has been reached (how long will have elapsed before they confirm that we've passed peak?) it will react quite violently and we will be plunged into recession on the perception alone. The housing market caused a pretty decent recession, supposedly, and we still have the resources etc... to build houses. When oil is running out it affects many more industry's will be affected. We'll be fubar as the change won't be gradual in any way shape or form as govts/military's stockpile etc...

aye, I'll join you in the get fucked yelling, although I'll be doubting that we'll get what we're after for some unknown reason. It may well be that we'll be knobbled by safety, but in the context of efficiency, per passenger, a car outstrips a bike without breaking a sweat. Not sure how close that calculation will be with a scoot, but I can see many many bikes failing the calculation of per person km fuel consumption rationale.

Example.
Scoot can travel 100mpg. It can carry 2 people so effectively has traveled 200mpg.
Car travels 30mpg: I can carry 7 people so effectively has traveled 210mpg.

Dunno what the averages are across "motorcycles" v's cars, but there are many less efficient "motorcycles" than the scoot above and many more efficient cars than the car above. I can't see us winning that one.

[swbarnett]

but in the context of efficiency, per passenger, a car outstrips a bike without breaking a sweat. Not sure how close that calculation will be with a scoot, but I can see many many bikes failing the calculation of per person km fuel consumption rationale.

Example.
Scoot can travel 100mpg. It can carry 2 people so effectively has traveled 200mpg.
Car travels 30mpg: I can carry 7 people so effectively has traveled 210mpg.

Dunno what the averages are across "motorcycles" v's cars, but there are many less efficient "motorcycles" than the scoot above and many more efficient cars than the car above. I can't see us winning that one.

When's the last time you saw a car with 7 occupants? And how many city commuters have someone else in the car? I think you're under estimating the driving public's love of their independance.

[bogan]

Noooooooo, I understand what is meant by peak oil. The pumps will run dry, not right at that point in time (didn't realise it was reading that way), well, not all of the pumps anyway. That small spike when the wombles go banoonoos will only hasten the pumps running dry. I'm not saying it will happen overnight, but knowing that it has peaked will drive the cost up in its own right. As soon as you hit peak, demand will outstrip supply and it will continue to do so as we keep requiring our economy to grow. Which it won't be able to. If you're using 5 million barrels per day and that drops to 4.5 million barrels per day the following year, then where is that half a million barrels worth going to be cut and how will it be replaced? As you say it'll probably be put upon the "frivolous" users first (we have an alternative to cars in public transport). That's not the problem though. In year 2 you may be producing only 4 million barrels per day, year 3 3.5 million etc... Once it's past peak, it's alllllllll down hill. The demand will very much still be there as we won't want our expensive cars sitting collecting dust on the roadside, we'd like them filled etc... (cars will also start to lose value rapidly and to the point where it won't be cost effective to make any more). The market knows this and if they're told that peak has been reached (how long will have elapsed before they confirm that we've passed peak?) it will react quite violently and we will be plunged into recession on the perception alone. The housing market caused a pretty decent recession, supposedly, and we still have the resources etc... to build houses. When oil is running out it affects many more industry's will be affected. We'll be fubar as the change won't be gradual in any way shape or form as govts/military's stockpile etc...

aye, I'll join you in the get fucked yelling, although I'll be doubting that we'll get what we're after for some unknown reason. It may well be that we'll be knobbled by safety, but in the context of efficiency, per passenger, a car outstrips a bike without breaking a sweat. Not sure how close that calculation will be with a scoot, but I can see many many bikes failing the calculation of per person km fuel consumption rationale.

Example.
Scoot can travel 100mpg. It can carry 2 people so effectively has traveled 200mpg.
Car travels 30mpg: I can carry 7 people so effectively has traveled 210mpg.

Dunno what the averages are across "motorcycles" v's cars, but there are many less efficient "motorcycles" than the scoot above and many more efficient cars than the car above. I can't see us winning that one.

Current predictions are show those sort of production drops over a much longer period. The 10% of frivolous useage might take 5 years to go, in which time 10% of the fleet could easily have converted to electric or whatever alternate fuels are around then. The next 10% of production might only take four years to drop, but now the conversion will be hitting its stride, with 20% of the fleet swapping, leaving enough fuel to go around and regulating its rate via supply and demand. This is a gradual time frame, I'm not sure where you are getting your catastrophe in a year figures from? Govt/military know they have a long time to stockpile, and that it will be cheaper for them to take longer; with supply assured for the next 5 years I don't see why anyone would pay inflated prices to stockpile it overnight.
The housing crash was different as it was in large part due to over leveraged loans, the money resource did run out, and this is a much more easily stockpile-able resource so people hoarded it and made the problem worse. Petrol is much harder to hoard, and it hasn't been over leveraged either; the doom and gloomers might be willing to pay more to fill some jerry cans, but the rest of us will be happy letting the actual supply and demand regulate the price.

[mashman]

When's the last time you saw a car with 7 occupants? And how many city commuters have someone else in the car? I think you're under estimating the driving public's love of their independance.

I don't see a full car very often at all. Like I was saying earlier, it's the perception that will win the day and whilst the driving public love their independence, are they going to be willing to risk it for motorcyclists? Is it a vote loser? I don't see it I'm afraid, especially if it's wrapped up in a drive to save fuel.

[mashman]

Current predictions are show those sort of production drops over a much longer period. The 10% of frivolous useage might take 5 years to go, in which time 10% of the fleet could easily have converted to electric or whatever alternate fuels are around then. The next 10% of production might only take four years to drop, but now the conversion will be hitting its stride, with 20% of the fleet swapping, leaving enough fuel to go around and regulating its rate via supply and demand. This is a gradual time frame, I'm not sure where you are getting your catastrophe in a year figures from? Govt/military know they have a long time to stockpile, and that it will be cheaper for them to take longer; with supply assured for the next 5 years I don't see why anyone would pay inflated prices to stockpile it overnight.
The housing crash was different as it was in large part due to over leveraged loans, the money resource did run out, and this is a much more easily stockpile-able resource so people hoarded it and made the problem worse. Petrol is much harder to hoard, and it hasn't been over leveraged either; the doom and gloomers might be willing to pay more to fill some jerry cans, but the rest of us will be happy letting the actual supply and demand regulate the price.

Current predictions eh. Coz we've never been wrong before. I can't see us being so civil about fuel running out. As mentioned it isn't just cars that use oil. Once the word is out that peak has been reached or has been passed, the price of fuel will most definitely rise more than $1 per year. Might be a good time to design a heavy duty fuel cap system... although you'll likely find that those who can't afford fuel will drill holes in a fuel tank to get their fuel. Fuel for vehicles is the tip of an iceberg. Less oil, less products, less jobs, less money in the economy, more on the dole, more in jail etc... The catastrophe, , figures are asshat, however I class the fallout as inevitable. I highly doubt a model exists that can cater for human beings taking what they want. There are other levels other than fuel and product manufacture that will need to be taken into account, such as terrorism and war for instance. All of a sudden the lack of oil can bring about the collapse of the west, so some will attack it and some will defend it... and if we've peaked it will likely become more of a target. I see the catastrophe as very real. The when is an entirely different story. If we aren't proactive enough, then we'll be fucked, and we're nowhere near being proactive enough, more of a she'll be right.

Sorry, I lollied and lollied at the thought of the market controlling supply and demand. Liquid gold they call it. How much does the price of gold go up each year? $1? what industry does it float? Jewelery? Granted women will go into mass hyterics and ugly men will get laid on a less frequent basis, but it hardly serves much of a purpose. I can see similar price hikes happening with oil/fuel as it becomes precious and demand outstrips supply. The market is all about perception. We will have to agree to disagree here. ROI is king after all. Less funding means less oil, similar to the housing crisis.

[bogan]

Current predictions eh. Coz we've never been wrong before. I can't see us being so civil about fuel running out. As mentioned it isn't just cars that use oil. Once the word is out that peak has been reached or has been passed, the price of fuel will most definitely rise more than $1 per year. Might be a good time to design a heavy duty fuel cap system... although you'll likely find that those who can't afford fuel will drill holes in a fuel tank to get their fuel. Fuel for vehicles is the tip of an iceberg. Less oil, less products, less jobs, less money in the economy, more on the dole, more in jail etc... The catastrophe, , figures are asshat, however I class the fallout as inevitable. I highly doubt a model exists that can cater for human beings taking what they want. There are other levels other than fuel and product manufacture that will need to be taken into account, such as terrorism and war for instance. All of a sudden the lack of oil can bring about the collapse of the west, so some will attack it and some will defend it... and if we've peaked it will likely become more of a target. I see the catastrophe as very real. The when is an entirely different story. If we aren't proactive enough, then we'll be fucked, and we're nowhere near being proactive enough, more of a she'll be right.

Sorry, I lollied and lollied at the thought of the market controlling supply and demand. Liquid gold they call it. How much does the price of gold go up each year? $1? what industry does it float? Jewelery? Granted women will go into mass hyterics and ugly men will get laid on a less frequent basis, but it hardly serves much of a purpose. I can see similar price hikes happening with oil/fuel as it becomes precious and demand outstrips supply. The market is all about perception. We will have to agree to disagree here. ROI is king after all. Less funding means less oil, similar to the housing crisis.

You're right its not just cars that use oil, but use is still the keyword. Comparing it to gold doesn't work because gold is not consumed like oil. Think about it, the actual production cost does not change at peak oil, so if consumers are paying more, they are just lining the petrol companies pockets. That's not a market crash, that just a monopoly, and I can't see TPTB allowing that to happen. Weren't they talking about regulating milk prices not long ago? Yes I understand how the current dependence on oil would cause a catastrophe if oil was quickly removed, but your only justification for its quick removal is a bunch of conspiracy theories.

[SuperMac]

I didnt realise the RAC/ACU was now defunct, shows how long I've been gone from the UK. Maybe the Instructors were seen as too 'Politically Incorrect?'

In 1981 the Gumment made some fairly dramatic changes to the UK's 'L' laws, to come into effect from 1982.

This included the introduction of a two-part test, where the rider had to take an off-road test prior to the existing road test. This off-road test was difficult (but not impossible) to pass without training, the Govt.'s intention being that riders would take a training course which included the training required for the test.

Unfortunately, the RAC said 'we don't want to play any more, and gave notice of their intention to quit any involvement with training.

Cutting a long story short, the BMF set up the BMF-RTS, a training body for any groups wishing to keep going 'under new ownership'. Also, RoSPA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents) set up one too - to which Govt gave £100k. After a fuss, they gave the BMF-RTS £10k . . .

RoSPA's scheme eventually folded, and the co-existing 'Star Rider' organisation (which grew from STEP (Schools Training Programme) was taken down when its parent company (industrial training) went bust.

Compulsory Basic Training (typically one day) to validate a provisional licence was brought in in '92, and Direct Access (with, effectively, stepped licencing) arrived in '96. This final stage was the final nail in 'volunteer' trainng due to the massive investment needed to run training bikes at the various cc/power levels.

More recently, we've had a new off-road test. That, and other training/testing changes are driven by the EU Directives.


If anyone wants to know more about our current training and testing regime and its content, let me know and I'll post some links.

[Ocean1]

Current predictions eh. Coz we've never been wrong before. I can't see us being so civil about fuel running out. As mentioned it isn't just cars that use oil. Once the word is out that peak has been reached or has been passed, the price of fuel will most definitely rise more than $1 per year. Might be a good time to design a heavy duty fuel cap system...

Where DO you get such unmitigated drivel, I can't believe one guy can simply make that much up all on his lonesome.

Those nasty cars you reckon should be abandoned in favour of public transport actually cost less fuel per pasenger mile than busses. Trains are much worse.

As for petrol being thieved because it's worth so much, it was far more of a problem in the '70s, when fuel costs were comparitively higher than they are now.

For shitsake ask someone who actually knows something, anything at all, before you mouth off about the evils of whatever this week's fantasy might be.

[Ocean1]

This included the introduction of a two-part test, where the rider had to take an off-road test prior to the existing road test. This off-road test was difficult (but not impossible) to pass without training, the Govt.'s intention being that riders would take a training course which included the training required for the test.

This I approve of. No idea how you fund it, (which is presumably the issue that caused the subsequent demise of the scheme) but I'm in no doubt at all that such training would make for riders better equiped to handle emergency incidents on the road.

[mashman]

You're right its not just cars that use oil, but use is still the keyword. Comparing it to gold doesn't work because gold is not consumed like oil. Think about it, the actual production cost does not change at peak oil, so if consumers are paying more, they are just lining the petrol companies pockets. That's not a market crash, that just a monopoly, and I can't see TPTB allowing that to happen. Weren't they talking about regulating milk prices not long ago? Yes I understand how the current dependence on oil would cause a catastrophe if oil was quickly removed, but your only justification for its quick removal is a bunch of conspiracy theories.

"Use" is the keyword. If there's less to use, there's less profit to be made. If the production costs don't change, the profit will have to be generated by price rises as use will be less as there's less produced. It's all about lining the pockets isn't it? The market will crash on the perception that there will be less oil available for use. I understand what you mean by quick removal causing issues and I'm not saying that quick removal will happen at all, as the removal will happen quickly enough by virtue of the stuff vanishing in its own right, some through hoarding, some though being priced out of the market etc... We may, and I do mean may, have some replacement fuels, but how do you replace plastic in such a short space of time? So denying that the market won't throw a hissy fit on the announcement of peak oil is drastically underestimating just how fickle the market is. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't see the announcement of peak oil turning out well at all.

[bogan]

"Use" is the keyword. If there's less to use, there's less profit to be made. If the production costs don't change, the profit will have to be generated by price rises as use will be less as there's less produced.

Which doesn't happen at peak (the most there has ever been) oil!

It's all about lining the pockets isn't it? The market will crash on the perception that there will be less oil available for use.

Yeh I'm still not seeing how that will crash it; have a think about how the production/useage balance is affected by hoarding, and how the supply and demand price balance is affected by the market panic; then have a think about those same things one month furthur down the track. Maybe look up some figures while you're at it eh!

I understand what you mean by quick removal causing issues and I'm not saying that quick removal will happen at all, as the removal will happen quickly enough by virtue of the stuff vanishing in its own right, some through hoarding, some though being priced out of the market etc... We may, and I do mean may, have some replacement fuels, but how do you replace plastic in such a short space of time? So denying that the market won't throw a hissy fit on the announcement of peak oil is drastically underestimating just how fickle the market is. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't see the announcement of peak oil turning out well at all.

Again, have a think about what proportion of production can be hoarded, and what do you mean by being priced out of the market? Out of the ground is on the market. Plastic has current alternative (bioplastic), so it's no different from the fuel, gradual changes will encourage new tech adoption.

[Big Dave]

Edit: Nah fuck it. :-)

[AllanB]

Jesus I must have been working too hard. Compulsory hi-vis vests - Fark off. CHCH has so much hi-vis now that it has almost become invisible.


It is interesting that this is the suggestion. I have posted before and usually get flamed for it - you can wear shorts and jandels on your motorcycle (shit, add a pretty hi-vis vest too), and a helmet of course, fall off and ACC will pay for all your skin grafts etc for the next few months. Fall off wearing full protective gear, fuck up your gear but be physically unharmed and you pay for it's replacement or insurance excess.

Safety gear - helmets. You can wear a 30 year old one that you spent the last decade using as a plant pot and be 'legal'. No 'use-by' date? No WOF check as car seatbelts have ...........

Helmet colour - matt black is almost compulsory in some motorcycle circles ......... I suppose they can always order a high-vis vest with a big fucking skull on it. Actually thinking of that last comment it would probably have more impact to the general public than a single coloured vest due to the instantly anti-social image it may portray.

Day-time lights. I see a lot of cars having these fitted - they are obvious. Until every car has them and then your brain just adapts. I've seen some bikes with them too and they do stand out front on.


The stats are interesting - if half the accidents are our fault (probably fair...) then how will a high visibility vest stop us killing ourselves? Maybe the thinking is we will all ride more carefully if we can be seen more clearly by all?

Load of shit and a waste of money IMO.

[swbarnett]

I don't see a full car very often at all. Like I was saying earlier, it's the perception that will win the day and whilst the driving public love their independence, are they going to be willing to risk it for motorcyclists?

A lot are willing to risk scooters now and I don't see why that would change.

Is it a vote loser? I don't see it I'm afraid, especially if it's wrapped up in a drive to save fuel.

Getting rid of motorcycles may or may not lose votes (based on the sympathy expressed during the bikeoi it may well do). However, legislating people into car-pooling most likely will.