Letter in Saturday's Harold - Police to target motorcyclists

[Katman]

You don't have to be irresponsible or incompetant to make mistakes, just human.

Pull your head out of your arse.

I said most of those mistakes - not all.

[MarkH]

Indeed. Imagine if people really did keep as close to the left as possible. Lets be generous and allow them half a metre . So all the vehicles would be driving along 0.5 m from the gutter, pulling out to go around parked cars, then back into position 0.5 m from the gutter.

I think such driving would hardly be practicable! Just as well the road code doesn't say we have to drive/ride as far to the left as possible, God damn that would be stupid!

[MarkH]

I would start by making protective boots, gloves, jackets and pants compulsory (ATGATT).

Crap idea - imagine when they tell us that we should destroy all our existing gear and only use the stuff with the new NZ M/C safety approval tag on it.
I do think motorcyclists SHOULD wear ATGATT, but I don't think the cops should be out trying to find motorcyclists wearing sneakers to ticket.

I don't want to be forced to wear leather pants for around town riding in Summer either - I'll take the chance with my Dragin' Jeans and avoid passing out with heatstroke! I DO wear boots, gloves, helmet and jacket of course, but legislation for all the gear would be difficult to create and difficult to enforce.

[piston broke]

The basis of your argument makes as much sense as dropping your bottom lip, stamping your feet and crying "It's not fair - car drivers can drive like fuckwits and survive accidents - why can't we?"

get real.
there is no doubt that on a bike we are more vunerable.
the numbers don't make us all the antichrist you try to make us out to be

[cs363]

The above leads logically to the fact that the death and injury toll will always be higher for motorcycles. Get used to it.

Playing Devil's Advocate here a bit but;

I believe that the general concensus is that the accident and injury rates for cars overall (that is, not including the odd spike here and there) has dropped over the years despite many more vehicles being used on our roads, again the general belief is that this has arisen due to better designed/safer roads and safer vehicles (more passive and active safety features, allied with better tyres/brakes and so on). I don't have any fact and figures to back this up, just a general belief based on media reports and the like over recent years.

If I look at the average bike on the roads these days I think it would be fair to say that they are generally inherently safer than the bikes my friends and I grew up with in the late 70's -early 80's when we were in our 'at risk' years.
I mean, modern bikes by and large have good frames, excellent brakes, better power delivery, infinitely better tyres with larger contact patches and superb wet weather performance - all things that were fairly alien to us back then.
So I think it would be entirely plausible to claim that modern bikes are safer and even though we are enjoying a boom of sorts in sales and overall motorcyle usage of late I'm fairly certain that there aren't the numbers of motorcyclists on the roads now that there were back then....... so, if the accident rates are increasing then it does tend to point to an increase in incompetence on the riders part.....doesn't it?

Or am I missing something?


Discuss.....

[piston broke]

Playing Devil's Advocate here a bit but;

I believe that the general concensus is that the accident and injury rates for cars overall (that is, not including the odd spike here and there) has dropped over the years despite many more vehicles being used on our roads, again the general belief is that this has arisen due to better designed/safer roads and safer vehicles (more passive and active safety features, allied with better tyres/brakes and so on). I don't have any fact and figures to back this up, just a general belief based on media reports and the like over recent years.

If I look at the average bike on the roads these days I think it would be fair to say that they are generally inherently safer than the bikes my friends and I grew up with in the late 70's -early 80's when we were in our 'at risk' years.
I mean, modern bikes by and large have good frames, excellent brakes, better power delivery, infinitely better tyres with larger contact patches and superb wet weather performance - all things that were fairly alien to us back then.
So I think it would be entirely plausible to claim that modern bikes are safer and even though we are enjoying a boom of sorts in sales and overall motorcyle usage of late I'm fairly certain that there aren't the numbers of motorcyclists on the roads now that there were back then....... so, if the accident rates are increasing then it does tend to point to an increase in incompetence on the riders part.....doesn't it?

Or am I missing something?


Discuss.....

yes agreed,but,
there is way more traffic on those same roads.
so the risks are higher.
and the bikes and cars are way more powerful now.
still no more protection around a bike if the shite hits the fan tho

[cs363]

yes agreed,but,
there is way more traffic on those same roads.
so the risks are higher.
and the bikes and cars are way more powerful now.
still no more protection around a bike if the shite hits the fan tho

Agreed re: traffic volumes - BUT, if what I am led to believe is correct, there has been a sharp rise in single vehicle motorcycle accidents (i.e. assumed rider error as opposed to the usual U-turn/failure to give way etc we're all familiar with) particularly in the Thames/Coromandel region. This would lead me to believe that this translates to MotoGP wannabe's tossing it away on the Kopu-Hikuwai or similar having pushed the envelope beyond their skill level/bike-tyre-brake/realms of decency/whatever etc limits or some such?

[Ixion]

So I think it would be entirely plausible to claim that modern bikes are safer and even though we are enjoying a boom of sorts in sales and overall motorcyle usage of late I'm fairly certain that there aren't the numbers of motorcyclists on the roads now that there were back then....... so, if the accident rates are increasing then it does tend to point to an increase in incompetence on the riders part.....doesn't it?

Or am I missing something?


Discuss.....

But, they are not. The absolute NUMBER of accidents is increasing , because there are more bikes on the road. But the accident RATE is falling.

F'instance, if you had only 2 bikes in some area , and one crashed that would be one crash, and an accident rate of 50% . If the next district had e10 bikes, and 2 of them crashed that is two accidents (twice as many! ) but an accident rate of only 20% . Which is the safer district ?

Moreover much of the improvemnt in car casualties has been due to passive safety improvements. Crumple zones, side intrusion bars, seat belts, collapsible steering columns . Things that help save your life, reduce injury when you DO crash. Not so many have been active safety features, to stop crashes in the first place (there are some - ABS is an obvious one). Whereas almost all the improvements in bikes has been in active safety - things that make it less likely we will crash in the first place. But once the crash happens the Ancient Codger on his BSA is no better or worse off than Squidly McSquid on the CBSXZRRRRRR1000RRRRR. Helmets is about the only passive safety thing on bikes in the last 50 years, and in terms of surviveability they haven't changed anything to speak of in the last 30. And to make it worse, many of the improvements are not really safety improvements at all, they are just improvements that make it easier for riders to go faster. Modern tyres mean you can go round the corner faster than Ancient Codger on that BSA. But when you encounter gravel half way round your super sticky tyres are probably worse, certainly no better than his 400x18s

The car focus on passive safety reflects into the police attitide - of hammering on about speed because "it reduces the trauma" but ignoring the absolute shit quality of the driving in the first place. "We know you're going to crash, it's too hard to stop that, but we'll work on making it so you don't die when you do.".

But -- it doesn't work for bikes. We have no passive safety features. And no protection. So if we do crash, we probably die.Even if we are well under the speed limit. Ergo, the only message for bikers has to be "Don't crash. Ride safely". But it's a message ignored by TPTB.

[ntst8]

For my own amusement i looked up the NZ population and road toll for every year back to 1925 (as far as i could find both on the interweb thingy) and last year was the second lowest death per capita in that time - and the only year which was better was 1945, when those who were not on the roads were really risking life and limb. And these figures take no account of how average mileage (and so potential exposure to risk) has increased over the years.
I do tire of the govt manufactured hysteria on the road toll.

[Katman]

still no more protection around a bike if the shite hits the fan tho

So why do so many motorcyclists actively go searching for shit to throw at the fan?

[Katman]

Ergo, the only message for bikers has to be "Don't crash. Ride safely". But it's a message ignored by TPTB.

And by far too many motorcyclists.

[swbarnett]

Pull your head out of your arse.

I said most of those mistakes - not all.

This is where we differ. I believe that most mistakes are due to basic human falability.

[MotoGirl]

I don't know whether scooter accidents are included in the statistics for motorcycle accidents, but I'm picking they are. So, provided my assumption is correct...

Why are the Police not targeting the riders of scooters and encouraging them to wear protective gear? Are their spills not using ACC funds too? I'm constantly seeing people riding around (like fuckwits, might I add) wearing next to nothing and you know it's going to hurt when they come off.

I do know the gear isn't going to stop people riding like dicks; however, won't it help reduce the injuries when the rider's stupidity finally catches up with him/her?

If reducing motorcycle accidents (and the ACC funds being used) is a priority, maybe they should look at all groups included in those statistics.

[cs363]

But, they are not. The absolute NUMBER of accidents is increasing , because there are more bikes on the road. But the accident RATE is falling.

F'instance, if you had only 2 bikes in some area , and one crashed that would be one crash, and an accident rate of 50% . If the next district had e10 bikes, and 2 of them crashed that is two accidents (twice as many! ) but an accident rate of only 20% . Which is the safer district ?

Moreover much of the improvemnt in car casualties has been due to passive safety improvements. Crumple zones, side intrusion bars, seat belts, collapsible steering columns . Things that help save your life, reduce injury when you DO crash. Not so many have been active safety features, to stop crashes in the first place (there are some - ABS is an obvious one). Whereas almost all the improvements in bikes has been in active safety - things that make it less likely we will crash in the first place. But once the crash happens the Ancient Codger on his BSA is no better or worse off than Squidly McSquid on the CBSXZRRRRRR1000RRRRR. Helmets is about the only passive safety thing on bikes in the last 50 years, and in terms of surviveability they haven't changed anything to speak of in the last 30. And to make it worse, many of the improvements are not really safety improvements at all, they are just improvements that make it easier for riders to go faster. Modern tyres mean you can go round the corner faster than Ancient Codger on that BSA. But when you encounter gravel half way round your super sticky tyres are probably worse, certainly no better than his 400x18s

The car focus on passive safety reflects into the police attitide - of hammering on about speed because "it reduces the trauma" but ignoring the absolute shit quality of the driving in the first place. "We know you're going to crash, it's too hard to stop that, but we'll work on making it so you don't die when you do.".

But -- it doesn't work for bikes. We have no passive safety features. And no protection. So if we do crash, we probably die.Even if we are well under the speed limit. Ergo, the only message for bikers has to be "Don't crash. Ride safely". But it's a message ignored by TPTB.

Interesting point regarding accident rates vs actual numbers, yet another way statistics can be fudged.
I think you are being a bit dismissive of modern riding gear though - back in the day there wasn't really a lot of good gear to be had, leather jackets were an expensive luxury and even then rarely had any armour - if you were lucky there was a bit of padding that was good for bugger all in the event of a crash. Full face helmets were in their infancy, the normal riding gear for most was jeans and probably a jean jacket or something similar, and wet weather gear was PVC, yellow and bloody horrible in most cases!

Now even chap gear usually has some form of armour, with the more expensive stuff having proper CE approved armour, riders often wear back protectors and now chest protection is beginning to appear (a surprising number of deaths/serious injuries of motorcyclists is from chest impacts), helmets are lighter and more protective than ever, even gloves and boots have advanced dramatically. Sure, not everyone has really good gear but the difference is that it is readily available these days.

One of my thoughts is that modern bikes are so capable the limits of handling, tyres, brakes and so on is so much higher than the wobbly, underbraked, ground clearance limited shitboxes we used to ride that there is no artificial limit placed on the rider so those pushing the boundaries (as you do at a certain age) are much closer to the limits than we ever were and travelling at substantially higher velocities.

[cs363]

I don't know whether scooter accidents are included in the statistics for motorcycle accidents, but I'm picking they are. So, provided my assumption is correct...

Why are the Police not targeting the riders of scooters and encouraging them to wear protective gear? Are their spills not using ACC funds too? I'm constantly seeing people riding around (like fuckwits, might I add) wearing next to nothing and you know it's going to hurt when they come off.

I do know the gear isn't going to stop people riding like dicks; however, won't it help reduce the injuries when the rider's stupidity finally catches up with him/her?

If reducing motorcycle accidents (and the ACC funds being used) is a priority, maybe they should look at all groups included in those statistics.

Whilst I agree with our right to decide and would hate to see the use of gear enforced, I do think that Traffic Police taking a proactive approach and pointing out the errors of such riders ways to them might be a good idea.

For instance, as an experienced rider if I choose knowing the risks to ride down to the dairy wearing jeans and a t-shirt then that should be up to me. I think the really worrying thing is that many of the people you see on scooters and other bikes wearing bugger all gear (and often riding in a dangerous manner) simply don't realise what a danger to themslves they are.