Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National AMC 2012 National Conference Minutes

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by jdkarmch, Oct 19, 2012.

  1. For those interested the minutes of the Australian Motorcycle Council 2012 Annual Conference held in Hobart recently are now online.

    The AMC Conference was attended by some notable observers:

    Bertrand Cadart Mayor Glamorgan Spring Bay Municipality (& cast member of original Mad Max movie)

    Kellie Buckley Deputy Editor Australian Motorcycle News

    Peter The Bear Thoeming Editor Road Rider magazine

    Neale Brumby Editor Heavy Duty magazine

    Malcolm Campbell Australian Superbike Champion Observer Campbell Racing
  2. TMC is a joke... so is lowering sealed road speed limits to 90kph and putting cheesecutter down the middle of the highway to prevent overtaking....

    it's nice to know that the bullshit AS1698 is under scrutiny though... people would be more inclined to get high end helmets if they cost the same as they do overseas.
  3. Please explain
  4. you may have forgotten this:

    any body claiming to represent motorcyclists and supporting putting cheesecutters down the middle of the highway and on every road side sure as hell doesn't represent me!

    edit: looking through phone to see if i still have pictures to show tasmanian "wire rope barriers" at WINDSCREEN HEIGHT.... taken from my car. (also have pics showing installation not conforming to standards and loose wires not maintained to standards) so basically they put the ****ers in there, they won't work for cars, they will decapitate some drivers, and they ****ing kill us! and the TMC comes out in support of them.

    this isn't my car but it does give you a good idea what might happen... and this is one of the LOWER fences.
  5. So we are going back to 2006, to make a judgement? Are you aware that their position has changed since then and that the Minister O'Byrne addressed the conference see page 15 of the minutes.

    Also the AMC has a Barriers Committee addressing your concerns.
  6. great... do you want some pictures of a road with it down the middle that opened last year?

    comitees are fantastic but clearly they're not getting results and if the TMC came out and supported this kind of lunacy (and now i note supports the drop to 90kph) back then, and the TMC has the same members (i notice how many were reappointed) then whats to say they're any less of a joke now?

    ALSO... from my previous correspondance with David O'byrne, and the three ministers in his position before him... he's a complete frigging incompetent! are we meant to be thankful he turned up? I'm not thankful that the TAC turned up to the parliamentary enquiry in Vic... i'd be thankful if they did something right for a change.
  7. So? Let me get this right. You live in Melbourne, but are concerned about an issue in Tasmania.

    David O'byrne is a Tasmanian MP. Why were you corresponding with a Tasmanian MP? How long ago was that? I assume that was when you lived in Tasmania.

    But TAC turned up at the Parliamentary Inquiry - and got trashed by VMC.....

    I'm a bit perplexed by your response - we do live in a democracy after all.

    My apology if my remarks sound critical - I'm more curious than anything else.
  8. lived in Tas, and Vic and WA and Qld...

    im sorry i confused you. as somehow the seriousness of the TMC hinges on my response rather than their public record i'll try and explain for you.

    The TMC took a public stance of supporting cheesecutters while claiming to represent Tasmanian motorcyclists which i have been - i still have a bike and a car registered there so i guess i still am! I go down there every month or two in general. I also have two bikes registered in Victoria.

    I also don't understand why the police minister turning up to the conference in any way determines whether or not the TMC has any relevence or why you brought him up. David O'byrne was handed the portfolio for police in the latest of a revolving door rotation of incompetents and as i've had numerous dealings with TasPol incompetence and illegal activity I've had to deal with several of them.... but i have to start again with every frigging one and things get lost so there's never any progress. If anything i would view an assosciation between him and the TMC as further cause for ridicule. My question was "are we supposed to be thankful?" bacause i couldn't think of why else you might have mentioned it, and to get it in context i tried to explain that im not thankfull to other people(TAC) just for turning up to things they damn well should turn up to, but i would be thankfull if they achieved something worthwhile.... inferring that they generally don't... so his presence makes no difference to whether or not the TMC is a joke (which it is)....

    i think far more pertinent to whether or not they're worth the hot air they belch would be the fact that they were on record supporting these measures, and while it may have been 2006 the TMC seems to be made up of the same people, with presumably the same intellects as when they supported these measures.... and the overall direction of the issue in the state has been a continued rollout of cheesecutters including this beauty rolled out just last year... on a brand new, straight highway designed with it in the middle to prevent overtaking rather than a divided road.

    perhaps if they weren't so supportive of this technology all those years ago new highways being built now wouldn't be getting designed with them as an acceptable hazard.

    similarly as they currently fail opposing the change to 90kph speed limits throughout tasmania, and are on the record supporting it, then every decent bike road in the state wil likely br dropped to 90 and monitored to make sure we all obey. What's the point in having a motorcycling body that just cow tows to every stupid idea when it's put forward, even if they wake up and change their mind later. Damage done.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. You note wrong in this case.

    Do not know about the other bits.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. happy to retract that.

    They oppose the overall plan but the best compromise is that "some" roads will stay at 100.

    my bet is this agenda will be set based on transport routes and all motorcycle roads will still go to 90. Can't blame TMC for the change, i discussed both issues with Vince Taskunas of the RACT a few years back and it was pretty clear the direction was already set. The speed signs in tas got changed over to "end of speed zone" a couple of years back in preparation..... it's a little late to be talking about it now....

    when did the TMC first state their opposition?
  11. By the way, just for a laugh here's my last letter to David O'byre and "saferspeeds" the study/foregone conclusion into dropping the tasmanian open speed limit. I wrote it back in Dec 2010 and David never sent me a response.... in fact David seems pretty piss poor at responding to any emails. At least his preprocessors replied... all be it with ficticious bullshit.
    here's the email:

    "Dear David and "Saferspeeds",

    I'm writing to express my absolute disgust and distain for the proposed changes to the rural speed limits. I believe this is a knee jerk popularist beurocratic decision with a side serve of revenue raising and reflects nothing more than the lack of fresh thinking generated by an insulated back-room council of self congratulating proponents with no more than one trick in their bag.

    I notice that, whilst claiming that "studies" were to be carried out in southern electorates, the speed signs around the state were simultaneously changed to "end speed zone" signs in preparation for this change, then the "trials" were extended after no measurable decline in their initial proposed period. Could this be because the results of the trial were pre-determined and the trials themselves were set up with the goal of ensuring the result of lowering the speed limits throughout the state? This sort of rigging of research results completely undermines the research itself, which is all being carried out with the use of tax payer money.

    Speaking of money, It seems the government will benefit from this reduction in speed limit as more money can be saved on the road maintenance that was never done and more slow moving trucks can be put on the road to compensate for the poor management of our rail system, not to mention the additional revenue that will be raised as less drivers follow the new speed limit which will now fall even further behind the 85th percentile rule for speed zoning. You know, the one that ensures most people travel at a common speed and most people adhere to the limit.

    I have no hesitation is stating that I, like most people, regularly speed, and I occasionally get tickets for it. In fact AAMI insurance's annual survey shows that around 80% of Australian regularly speed, why then does illegal speed figure in less than 10% of accidents in Tasmania by your own figures? (note the term illegal speed not excessive speed) If this is the case then the people who regularly speed must be severely disproportionately represented! Although, I can sympathise that these people may get in accidents whilst not speeding. Personally, I have been in three accidents and am very glad to have survived, all of these accidents have occurred well below the speed limit, and none have in any way been considered my fault. I would be very interested in hearing how your proposal will address the factors that nearly caused my demise given speed was not involved.

    Here are the situations:

    1) I was driving at 40-50kph in a 60kph zone. A vehicle coming the other way, piloted loosely by an international student turned in front of me at an intersection when I was about a car length away. I had no time to brake. The student believed that he had right of way when turning across traffic and that vehicles coming straight through must yield. Personally I would contribute this to a failure in Service Tasmania licensing the driver.

    2) Travelling at 40-50kph in a 60 zone on an arterial road a vehicle rushed out of a side street on the crest of a hill and I hit their side. I saw the roof of their vehicle so managed to brake and damage was light. I felt for the driver as they were trying to get out through heavy traffic at a peak time with a poor view, they couldn't see traffic coming the other way and took a chance. There has since been a roundabout put at the location, but the accident can be attributed to poor road design and the driver taking a chance.

    3. Travelling at 25kph in a 50 zone on gravel. A parked car pulled out and knocked me off my motorcycle. The driver then drove away without stopping and was later tracked down by police. He was 90 and hadn't seen me or noticed that he'd hit me with his drivers door, I couldn't avoid him because of the road surface and an upcoming blind corner. There is always going to be gravel roads, but why was a man who was so unobservant still licensed?

    I believe that your proposals would do absolutely nothing to make me safer, in fact, I believe as less people follow the speed limit, overtake unsafely or generally lose interest and fall asleep I will be at significantly greater risk while on rural roads where I prefer to do most of my riding/driving. Coupled with this, and as plainly obvious as the propagation of "end speed zone" signs at the start of a foe trial, is the continual degradation of our roads resulting in more liquid tar, that in summer acts like oil on the road when hit with a motorcycle, and more cheesecutter fences to dismember the unfortunate, both of which will be easy cheap fixes made more attractive by the reduced requirement for proper road surfaces.

    I am disturbed, disappointed, disgusted, depressed and disenfranchised by this desperate proposal. I will vote against it, but sadly I believe the decision has already been made and now the government are just puppeteers jiggling the strings of a false process of consultation.


    Jesse Miller

    Driver, Rider and it seems, soon to be part time political activist.
  12. TMC got a motorcycle safety levy to be turned into a roaduser safety levy.

    Can you show where TMC have supported the 2+1 WRB's?
    • Like Like x 1
  13. 2+1 wrb? do you mean 2 lane + 1 lane or 2 woven cables and a top guide cable?

    are you after something for research sake Rob or are you applying semantics to the topic to try and dull down the fact that they came out in support of WRB's in general?

    with the state of the Tasmanian state budget I'd suggest that the treasury got the levy applied to a larger potential revenue pool.
    I would also point out that the last time i compared, my bike was more expensive than my car to register and CTP in Tas.... so whether they call it a levy or not, someone is charging motorcyclists more for the priveledge of increased exposure.

    [MENTION=14652]robsalvv[/MENTION] I'd also like to point out their success on changing to a safety levy instead of motorcycle levy means instead of the proposed $15 per year on my license, i now pay $25 per year per vehicle registration... so $50 per year cause i have a bike and a car... like most riders. success!
  14. I think you need to stop going off half cocked and have a closer look.

    What was going to be a discriminatory $60 levy on bikes was reduced and applied across all vehicles fairly.

    As for the WRB's, I'm asking whether it's their position now.

    You're shouting like there's a self evident case that WRB's are anti motorcycling. Are they? Is there a self evident case?

    For the record, I'm against them and I've argued why, but what's your position because it sounds like an emotive stance at the moment.

    And by the way, many arguments live and die on semantics - so get your ducks in a row.
  15. I'm not going off half cocked, they went on the record in support of cheesecutters... do you deny that?

    Where do you get the $60 figure from Rob? I can only find mention of a $15 levy that was put to the legislative council and rejected.

    I don't know what their position is now, frankly i don't care... I am of the firm belief that they are ass hats and have worked hard to earn that title... and i'm entitled to my opinion.... I also don't know what Ivan Malats current stance on backpackers is.. he may be reformed like the TMC.... he may not... most people still wouldn't want to get a lift with him.

    you're right of course. Rows of metal poles and high tension cables are, of course, motorcycle friendly. I'm sure they'll appear on all the race tracks before long. There's nothing at all self evidently dangerous to a human being travelling at 100km/hr about colliding with a line of metal poles. genius. perhaps you mean "anti-motorcycling" in another semantic type of way, as in, of course they present a danger to motorcyclists, however they're not "anti-motorcycling" because they are not designed specifically to TARGET motorcycles.... they just happen to be less friendly to motorcycles than to other forms of transport. A pedantic differentiation, but none the less i suppose it's true.... they are self evidently a hazard to motorcyclists however they are not, of themselves, necessarily "anti motorcycling".

    emotive - yeah, but i'm not alone, there are a lot of emotive motorcyclists around. I have a lot of respect for your patience and the fact you seem to like the political games, beurocracy, semantics and wasted time in addressing these issues but the idea that you seem to dismiss my concerns because im emotive is a little scary... perhaps you've been hanging round the TAC too much you're starting to sound like them. Isn't their general stance that they know best and the whole motorcycling community is just being emotional and getting their backs up about a change, the same as how they faced opposition when pushing through the drink driving changes..... I'm paraphrasing, and im not trying to win an argument, but i think you know what im referring to about the TAC's attitude... even if you choose to deny it on semantic grounds to "win"
  16. That sarcasm was woeful and the milat clap trap means that your doomed to be a hater for the rest of your life. So be it. No skin of my nose. It just gives me a barometer on how to judge your opinion - given there's no room for adjustment once you've made up your mind.

    I had a big lol about being told I'm a TAC sycophant. Seriously, do you think an emotive stab at me like that was going to be effective?? lmao

    Seriously mate, pull apart Sean Lennard's statement from 2006 and tell me what your problem with it is and I might take your position more seriously. Find out what TMC's position is today and if you still have a problem with it, fine, that's your opinion. Pretty simple.

    Correctly outline the details of the tassie levy and how the levy went down, and I might take you seriously. The reality is that is was meant to be a slug on riders. TMC negotiated a smaller slug on everybody. Can you grasp that as a concept? Good.

    Anyway, prior to the derail, John posted up the minutes of the AMC national conference. This is a nationally networked group of motorcycle advocacy groups, sharing information and ultimately working towards national objective. That is one tiny semantic point that seems to have been missed. But that's ok. Cheers.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. name calling? really?
    if you go back i've already shown i'm willing to retract or change my mind re:the speed limit thing, so i don't know why you're making that accusation.
    I never said you were a TAC sycophant - i said you were behaving like them and it was concerning. Claiming some sort of high ground and dismissing what other people have to say because they're being emotive or getting hung up on semantics and so ignoring the bulk of a story because of a technicality.
    again with the emotive - as if emotive and factual are somehow mutually exclusive - ironic that you seem to be pretty emotive about defending the TMC.... does that make what you have to say any less valid?

    my problem is they claimed to be representing motorcyclists while coming out broadly in support of cheesecutters.

    I'll also state my distain over the fact that he said "cheesecutter" is an emotive misnomer. Semantics may have a place is formal legislative debate - plenty of people get off on technicalities of arguments, but if you are claiming to represent a body of people, and they use certain language which is accepted pretty universally by those that you represent... labelling it as a misnomer on a technicality that "it's the poles that do the damage not the cables like a cheesecutter" is pretty pathetic... it LOOKS like a cheesecutter, and it ****s you up if you hit it like a cheesecutter.... the TMC downplayed the communities concern, effectively saying people aren't worried about the poles just the cables...
    I know how emotive you get when i draw parallels with the TAC but this is a very similar tactic to them coming out and saying they did a survey and SMIDSY isn't a recognised term so they see no merit in building it into an advertising champagne... If you're there to represent people and their concerns your job should be to translate those concerns to your target audience, not to point out that the concerns are false cause of semantics.

    it's also worth noting as this is a tasmanian issue, the proportion of motorcycle road deaths from 2000-2006 involving barriers in tasmania was 16.7% and barriers were in place for approximately 13% of the road network.
    comparatively in victoria barriers were involved in 3.2% of deaths and are in place for approximately 8% of the road network.
    national average is about 6% of deaths and 6% of roads covered (this is used to claim barriers are a non-issue because they are statistically proportionate)
    you can see, then, that Tas and Vic are on opposite sides of the national norms and perhaps as a victorian it goes some way towards explaining why you have trouble with my stance on this.
    (to clarify i have pulled figures for barriers not just WRB because it offers a larger sample pool to even out statistical anomolies. I was able to find information on specific types of barrier however theres a number of factors than make a straight comparison pointless. you can decide for yourself what sort of barrier you'd rather hit)

    the TMC's general support for WRB's has helped the tasmanian government greatly expand their WRB coverage in the last few years, they now feature heavily in new roads with no run off areas being built in, but also can be found on straight sections of road preventing what might otherwise be a run off area onto grass. I would ESTIMATE but havent found the figures, that the WRB program has easily doubled since 2006 when the TMC announced their support.

    pretty emotive... again.

    as previously stated i don't know where you're getting the $60 thing from Rob. If it's true then please provide evidence as i i don't believe i should just take your word as "the reality". I did find that a $15 levy was supposed to be applied to riders and was dismissed and the legislative council stated at the time that a $1.50 levy to all motorists would achieve the same thing. As it turns out we got a $25 levy on all vehicles separate from any increases to motorcycles applied by the MAIB. Also as i said earlier, I believe that the treasury would have been more influential in this decision than the TMC. A $25 levy on all registrations is a LOT more money in the kitty than a levy on motorcyclists.

    if i've stuffed my figures and the resultant fee structure doesn't rake in more for the state then please correct me.

    also if you have any evidence to support your claims of the supposed $60 levy and the TMC's involvement that would be great too...
  18. :blah:

    Mate, you're lucky I'm snowed, or I'd be nitridering your arse. I CBF'd.

    I've pointed out some factual issues. You seem more interested in carrying on a hate vendetta. That catagorises you. All good.

    WRB's are emotive. I don't support them, I've argued against them, but the facts remain that in terms of dangers that riders have to deal with, WRB's are well down the list. South Australia has had some good results with PTW "friendly" covers. Where WRB's have been inappropriately placed and calls for their removal won't be actioned, then fitting the covers is the next best thing.

    Now just one more time for the record, this thread was about a national advocates network and them working together. Can you see a hint in that for yourself TRD?
    • Like Like x 1
  19. hey you asked me to explain why i said TMC is a joke, i would have left it at that.

    you claim to have pointed out factual issues and i've invited references but till i get them what you're saying is no more than hearsay. and no amount of "nitridering" namecalling or immature :blah:ing will change that.

    sorry i dont share your love and admiration of the TMC... i don't feel that i have to. I don't claim to represent anyone but myself... if i was interested in representing others and needed to come across as rational and respectful in order to best represent them then i would probably be a lot more careful about my wording.... i wouldn't want to appear immature.
  20. I don't claim to have a love of the TMC - that's just you being creatively emotive as per your MO.

    I asked you to justify your view that they are a joke and what we've established is that it relates back to one point in 2006. I asked you what was it about their decision (you pointed out the thread) and their reasoning didn't suit you and I asked you to highlight what their current position was (which was a guide for you to at least be able to work out whether your view was still relevant today)... and you failed on all counts.

    Since you're a single issue guy, I gave you another issue where they were almost universally applauded, but you've been happy to run with your own views, so be it.

    You might be right, they might be complete 'tards, but there's no chance any reasonable person could arrive at that view based on what you've shared so far - no matter how much conjecture and emotion you appeal to.