Top cop says bikers are incompetant and pissed

[candor]

It's just the timing of them.... that's objectionable. Well he's got people thinking. Usually Tooman talks a bit more sense than other mouthpieces I've noticed.

[Ocean1]

Aggreed.

Moreover it has been reported in the last few years that some older riders getting back into biking have had crashes due to the rider not realising that their skill level is what it once was, and that modern bikes are more powerful and accelerate faster than bikes of previous generations.

As for the beer, "stopping at the odd cafe to enjoy a beer, can be a recipe for disaster". Drinking and driving is a bad idea, no matter what vehicle you are piloting.

His comments are valid, what's the big deal?

"It has been reported"? Fer fuck's sake, if you can't express it in numbers what you've got is an opinion, not a fact.

The problem I've got, (yes it's a big list but I do keep track), is the headline, the only FACT in the article relates to drivers being on the wrong side of the road in two crashes, and yet the headline is "Concern at danger of born again bikies"

Mr Tooman may well be concerned about a particular flavour of "bikies" but the general tone of the article ties "danger" to "born again bikies".

As Mr Ixion points out:

Such generalised coments, if not refuted, very quickly enter the corpus of received wisdom, the things "that everybody knows", and all too frequently lead to quite particular regulations and restrictions.

[mstriumph]

You bunch of cry babies seem to have an uncanny ability to take what is obviously a generalised comment very personally.

c'mon - how about the breastbeating that goes on on here when someone makes a sweeping generalisation about - gasp - the cops??

PC is a double-edged sword methinks!

[mstriumph]

Aggreed.

Moreover it has been reported in the last few years that some older riders getting back into biking have had crashes due to the rider not realising that their skill level is what it once was, and that modern bikes are more powerful and accelerate faster than bikes of previous generations.

As for the beer, "stopping at the odd cafe to enjoy a beer, can be a recipe for disaster". Drinking and driving is a bad idea, no matter what vehicle you are piloting.

His comments are valid, what's the big deal?

mebbe the 'big deal' is that his comments are valid GENERALLY but he has targetted one sector of road users with them SPECIFICALLY

ie ...... it could just as truthfully be said that some DRIVERS [of any age or gender] have had crashes due to the driver not realising that their skill level is woefully inadequate for the power of the CAR they are driving .........

but let's not let the wider truth get in the way of re-enforcing a prejudice in the minds of the non-riding public ......... and let's not miss an opportunity to deliver a nice little homily on the dangers of the demon drink as though it's applicable to only ONE sector of road-users

sheesh!! "what's the big DEAL?" he asks ...........

[Genestho]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/...ectid=10445028

I just wanted to show where I quoted my "facts" from in an earlier post, not that its important, but I remember at the time bollicking the reporters over the headline, and asking a few questions in relation to the number sourced to get the stats

Motorcyclists are getting nailed, facts, figures, whatever, whoever.

What else can you do? Send a pilot vehicle ahead? Flashing Neon signs?

It comes down to both "parties" looking out

Im really intrigued to see what comes back via BRONZ

Cheers

[zooter]

Makes sense as the 75% statistic the Auckland city cop quoted referred to car vs bike urban crashes where it is more often the car's fault. Overall though it implies the open road record of bikers must be pretty lousy to drop the figures to 65% biker at fault.

I would like to know the figure for "biker crashes out due to unforseen hazard on corner which would have otherwise been sucessfully rounded"

[Bass]

"It has been reported"? Fer fuck's sake, if you can't express it in numbers what you've got is an opinion, not a fact.


Mr Tooman may well be concerned about a particular flavour of "bikies" but the general tone of the article ties "danger" to "born again bikies".

I can't supply numbers either and you are right, without them it is just an opinion, but that per se does not make it incorrect.

[Bass]

I would like to know the figure for "biker crashes out due to unforseen hazard on corner which would have otherwise been sucessfully rounded"

Me too.
It's a generalisation, but I think it would be true to say that we all thrash it into blind corners in the belief that the way out is clear or that we will be able to dodge anything unexpected that we encounter. I know that I do and I'm by no means a quick rider. Pushing the corners is one of the major attractions of biking when all's said and done.

However the law requires us to travel at such a speed as to be able to stop in half the clear road ahead.

The implications of that are substantial.
I have encountered such things as tourists stopped taking photos in the middle of the road, loose stock, badly parked trucks etc etc and so far I have been lucky - not skilful, just lucky - and in law at least, if I had collected any one of them, I would be at fault.
Consequently, I look forward to the police report concerning the U-turning plod and the bikers in the Buller recently

[Ocean1]

I would like to know the figure for "biker crashes out due to unforseen hazard on corner which would have otherwise been sucessfully rounded"

Me also, but at the risk of attempting an outright guess I'd say the 27% of single vehicle bike incidents would be almost exclusively on corners, and a bunch of the others as well. What's more It seems likely that most of them had speed as a contributing factor. Whether they occured through unforseen hazards is moot, it's comforting to blame road surface conditions but the fact remains they're a controlable variable. I'd roll out the well-beaten "ride to the conditions" except karma would make fuggen sure I paid for it next weekend, and we've all encountered fucking great potholes at an apex, all but invisible until you're on top of them...

Me too.
It's a generalisation, but I think it would be true to say that we all thrash it into blind corners in the belief that the way out is clear or that we will be able to dodge anything unexpected that we encounter. I know that I do and I'm by no means a quick rider. Pushing the corners is one of the major attractions of biking when all's said and done.

However the law requires us to travel at such a speed as to be able to stop in half the clear road ahead.

The implications of that are substantial.
I have encountered such things as tourists stopped taking photos in the middle of the road, loose stock, badly parked trucks etc etc and so far I have been lucky - not skilful, just lucky - and in law at least, if I had collected any one of them, I would be at fault.
Consequently, I look forward to the police report concerning the U-turning plod and the bikers in the Buller recently

All true, and I got no halo to polish, however that particular risk/benefit calculation that we all do at every corner is different for every one of us. If we all rode at a pace guaranteed to avoid every conceivable eventuality there’d be little point riding at all. Statistics and apocrypha both serve to modify our perceptions of where the risk lies, but no one set of rules can cover the vast unconscious dataset that's called experience.

I agree with those who call for more training, I'd like to learn more myself, honest. I'd also like to see less arguably politically motivated bullshit about bikers and riding from those who's job it is to not only know better but to actively encourage education based on accurate data. And in case the dude was quoted inapropriately, (maybe he said "pissed and incontinent") I'd like to see the press all lined up and shot. Fuckit, shoot 'em on suspicion anyway, no great loss.

[Ixion]

...

However the law requires us to travel at such a speed as to be able to stop in half the clear road ahead.
...

Not quite. The actual Road Code requirment is to be able to stop in half the clear distance on a one lane (no centre line) road, but only in the clear distance on a two lane (or more ) road. The rationale being that on a one lane road the thing you have to stop for may itself be tootling toward you (so you can't have the whole distance , it needs some to stop also),whereas on a two lane road anything moving SHOULD be on it's own side (Hah. Hah) . So you only need consider non moving obstacles (or very slow moving , like a cow). And thus may have the whole distance for yourself.

Is this whole "born agains can't cope with the technology of modern bikes" thing a nonsense anyway ?

Sure, modern bikes are more whizz bang than older ones. But the differences between a 2007 and a 1997 are not THAT great. And the difference between a 2007 and a 1967 are much greater, but (a) how many born agains are coming back after that big a gap anyway , and (b) even in 1967 bikes were gnerally faster than riders. A Triumph T120 may not be as fast as a GSXR750. But, few people rode the Triumph flat out all the time anyway, and what difference does it make whether one has 40kph unused or 140kph. And given the better breaks and handling on modern bikes, 100kph or 140 kph must be safer on the modern bike. I don't believe that any significant number of born agains are jumping on modern big bikes and thrashing them as hard as they'll go.

If there is a "born again crashing" phenonomen (I'm not convinced) I'd say it is simply that a born again will have spent the last X years driving a cage. So he jumps back on a bike and rides it like driving a car. He's forgotten that everyone's out to kill him, he's lost his spidey sense.

[Mom]

Is this whole "born agains can't cope with the technology of modern bikes" thing a nonsense anyway ?

If there is a "born again crashing" phenonomen (I'm not convinced) I'd say it is simply that a born again will have spent the last X years driving a cage. So he jumps back on a bike and rides it like driving a car. He's forgotten that everyone's out to kill him, he's lost his spidey sense.

I think that the "born again" thing is a crock of shit! The bikes I learned to ride on and then rode back in the mid 70's were basic, interesting, challenging 2 wheeled fun! You needed to be able to ride, as in my case most of my bikes were poor handling, they were mechanically unreliable, so a bit of spanner sense was important too. Modern bikes have for the most part, good suspension/engine reliability. Before I get jumped on here, I am talking about the avergae Joe on a bike, not someone looking for total performance specs.

They are "good" to ride. I am not convinced there is a "born again crashing" phenonomen either. I have been riding off and on for 30 odd years now (had a break for children raising, but rode pillion a lot of that time) so I guess I would fit the born again description. Have been back on 2 wheels for the last 5 years or so, only come off once in that time. Was at slow speed, on gravel, rounding a bend, avoiding a dog! Shit happens!

[spudchucka]

c'mon - how about the breastbeating that goes on on here when someone makes a sweeping generalisation about - gasp - the cops??

PC is a double-edged sword methinks!

Fair comment. However in almost all cases the cop bashers are completely off the mark and when they are corrected or offered the truth it inevitably turns into a shit fight, which is why I can't be bothered attempting a diplomatic approach any longer.

[mstriumph]

'born again'



i have no words to describe how much i despise cute, marginally-derogatory catch-phrases like that

OR those in power that use them to somehow imply they have some sort of sense of humour/common touch whilst simultaneously reconfirming, to themselves, their own unwarranted sense of superiority

sorry - prolly low bloodsugar ....

[mstriumph]

Fair comment. .........when they are corrected or offered the truth it inevitably turns into a shit fight, ...........

erm like now, when the boot's on the other foot, you mean?

diplomacy? for wimps ......

[Daffyd]

Me too.


However the law requires us to travel at such a speed as to be able to stop in half the clear road ahead.

Not strictly correct. On a 2 lane road with a centre line we are required to be able to stop 'in the clear road ahead'. on a road without a centre line we are required to be able to stop 'in half the clear road ahead'.