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.

another motorcycling survey

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by twistngo, Jul 24, 2009.

  1. Balanced and equitable new research study. Volunteers needed.

    Have you:

    a) Killed a puppy?
    b) Killed 2 puppies?
    c) Killed 3 puppies?
    d) Killed everything that moves (including yourself)?

    Answer: Suck my ***** MUARC.
  2. couldnt be bothered reading it, whats this survey for, as in what are they trying to get out of it?
  3. Like any "survey" using boxes. The questions have been put in a way which will point to the result desired by the author
  4. fcuk em.
  5. Gee, I wonder what would be the result of motorcyclists honestly answering the following questions:

    Oh, wait a second, I know!

  6. eat my shorts.
  7. too much information required that i dont give out, i.e. income levels, postcode, favourite tv show i.e. why dont i just give you my last 10 census results?? :p

    and how about one of those little counters that tell you how far you are through it.

    opened it, then closed it after answering some. way too much info wanted by these people

    the fact i have a degree and earn over $xxxxx p.a. does not equate to riding sensibilities/awareness and correct use of my bike. stop trying to data sample/profile people this way and just ask about their driving experience otherwise gf'd? :LOL: ( one mate of mine who is as dumb as a bricksh*thouse leaves us all for dead as the best and safest rider we all know )
  8. Of course not.

    It tells them the maximum they can increase common fines to, before your children starve.
  9. Emailed them to get fcuked and check out this thread.
  10. BLACKLIST MUARC a political brown nose wing of the government!
  11. I responded. My opinion may not be listened to but if I don't give my 2c worth, it can't be listened to.

    Besides if only people like me answer, then they will statistically establish what we all know, that the typical motrcyclist is a mature age rider on a BMW who never breaks the law. :LOL:
  12. I decided to bias their results by imaginative answers to their questions. But how do you deal with questions like:

    88. How often have these things happened to you over the last 12 months?
    "Raced away from traffic lights to be ahead of traffic"

    I mean, I accelerate away from lights to be ahead of traffic all the time, but I don't race. "Race" has connotations that just shouldn't be used in a survey like this. Many questions were also couched in biased terms:
    Done a wheelie (on purpose or when taking off) or stoppie (on purpose or when stopping quickly)
    I've unintentionally done wheelies away from lights when I needed to get away quickly, so as not to annoy or impede other drivers, but where do they get off in grouping an "on purpose" wheelie with a small wheelie "when taking off" quickly.

    Another one:
    Failed to notice or anticipate another vehicle pull out in front of you and had difficulty stopping
    So now we are supposed to anticipate that a car stopped at a stop sign is going to take off in front of us suddenly. At best any positive answer to this question assumes that we are less than competent riders! This question makes the errors and deliberate acts of others our fault, no matter how you answer it! :evil:

    For goodness sake, question 89 seems to be more about measuring your reading comprehension and patience rather than understanding motorcycling habits!

    I was going to suggest that everyone answer this survey to bias the results in our favour, but now I just agree with Smee. Blacklist MUARC as a biased and anti-motocycling toady of the government.

    MUARC if you read this, you have no credibility left, and you are seen to be a group more interested in maintaining your position through telling the government and police what they want to hear, rather than an independent group analysing road trauma statistics and making fair and reasonable comment on them.
  13. why not let them know?
  14. Because they already do. Their job is to justify whatever agenda the government is trying to fulfill.

    Which is why you shouldn't fill out the survey.

    Here is an example of a typical MUARC researcher.
  15. Quite right. I have sent them detailed feedback on the bias their questions showed in previous surveys, received no feedback or contact at all, and now this new survey has the same issues in it.

    It doesn't pay to keep hitting your head on the same brick wall. You get a bulldozer and remove it. Their survey is so bad this time it is a blatant attempt to get motorcyclists to admit their bad riding behaviour, and to quantify the consequences. It also implies blame on the motorcyclist no matter how the questions are answered, and completely ignores the role of other road users and their poor motoring actions.
  16. Roderick please post back if you get a response?

    I filled out the survey, and despite the previously-mentioned coloured language, took it in good faith and tried to answer as if the question had been objectively phrased (e.g. I do not 'race' away from lights, but I will accelerate quickly to the speed limit, which could be termed 'race', so occasionally).

    However looking at the questions, you do wonder what the real goals of the researchers are. Our more conspiratorially-minded friends may have a point, which I find aggravating.
    I guess I'll have to wait until the "findings" are released to see.
  17. I never received a response to previous inquiries, but being a stubborn optimist I did ask again about this survey, and received a response promptly. Unfortunately I have been too busy to analyse and reply to the response. However I can say that it still leaves me wondering how the questions, particularly those in the "Riding Attitudes & Behaviours" section, relate to the stated aim at the beginning of the survey, which was:

    "The project will help to determine whether there is a need for a targeted refresher course for riders who are returning to riding after a break, and what that course might contain."

    Of course that aim wasn't very thorough, so I asked for more informatoin. I don't believe it would be an issue to share the correspondence, so it is included below. I also have the PDF version of the survey, but I'll have to find a place to host it before I can post that. I'll try to do that later.

    My email:
    G'Day Christine,

    I have been made aware of your current Motorcycle Rider Survey ( http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/projects/mcyclesurvey.html ) and are considering participating. However, with a quick look at the questions, without completing the survey, I am not sure how the survey relates to the very specific brief objective outlined in the explanatory notes at the beginning. I would like to understand the motivation for the survey before completing it or recommending it to others.

    Could you please provide me with:
    1. The full Objective Statement for this survey.
    2. The Expected Outcomes of the survey.
    3. A full set of the questions used in the survey in Word or PDF format.
    4. A statement declaring for whom the survey is being undertaken, the sponsors, and any other funding.

    I trust that these documents are readily available and can be emailed to me promptly.

    If I find that all of these are in agreement I will participate in the survey and recommend it to my riding companions and acquaintances.

    Thank you in advance.

    Christine's response:
    Dear Rod,

    Thankyou for your interest in our survey and for passing on your queries.

    Here is a summary of why we are doing this research and what we are looking for.

    The project was commissioned some time ago to address an increase in the number of crashes involving 'older' (aged over 25) motorcyclists. As you probably know, newly licensed riders aged under 25 have higher crash rates than more experienced riders aged over 25 - a problem which exists worldwide and is also true for car drivers. However, in recent years, the number of older riders killed and seriously injured in crashes has increased while the number of younger rider fatalities and serious injuries has decreased. This pattern has been found not only in Australia, but also in other developed countries including Europe and the UK.

    We are using a number of methods to attempt to find out more about what might be causing this pattern. It may reflect an increase in the number of older riders returning to riding after a significant break (returning or born again bikers) or an increase in the number of older riders taking up riding for the first time. Perhaps the problem reflects inexperience - their skills may not be up to date, or they might not have had enough training or the right kind of training. Alternatively it may reflect where they ride (may riders take up riding for recreational purposes which is associated with a much higher crash risk than riding for commuting or general transport purposes). Or maybe they are graduating to larger capacity motorcycles too early. Maybe some of the increase is linked to a propensity in some riders to push their limits beyond what their skills allow. Finally, we also recognise the major contribution of car driver error in motorcycle crashes - this is evident in the high number of crashes involving motorcyclists at intersections.

    We are using the survey as one of a number of methods to find out why the number of older riders killed and seriously injured has increased so much. Older riders comprise those who are newly licensed, those who are returning after a break and those who have ridden for many, many years. We are also attempting to see if there are differences in the characteristics of these groups in terms of the factors described above (experience, training, riding patterns, bike ownership etc) that may justify development of a training program designed specifically for older rider groups. This is important because many returning riders may have different needs to those who are newly licensed and we don't want to lump them together as a single group.

    If this project identifies development needs that are specific to returning riders, there may be a need for well developed training programs to update and improve the skills of riders returning to riding to reduce their likelihood of being involved in a crash. The next stage of our research would then be to think about the best approach to improving safety - whether it be through training or some other countermeasure. The overall benefits include safer on-road riding by motorcyclists and reduced involvement in crashes.

    Of course, our focus is on how we can help motorcyclists improve their own safety, irrespective of who is causing these crashes. Other research may be investigating ways to teach car drivers to look out for motorcyclists.

    We won this research project through a competitive tendering process and have been working on it with Honda Australia Rider Training (HART). The research funding is coming from the Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Committee - a group of motorcyclists who provide advice to the Transport Minister through VicRoads on how the motorcycle safety levy money should be best spent. You might be able to find a sentence or two about it on the VicRoads website.

    I hope this gives you a little more insight into why we are conducting our survey. The survey as you will have noticed is very long - we have done this to try to get as much information as possible and in case there are factors associated with increased or decreased crash risk that we had not thought of. Of course, like all of our research projects, we are grateful for and value your input but remind you that you are under no obligation to take part in the survey or to answer questions you don't feel like answering.

    I have attached a pdf version of the survey for you.

    Wishing you well in your riding.

    Everyone can draw their own conclusions, at least until I get around to thinking about it! Do take note of the funding source though.
  18. For those of you who don't know who VMAC are ...

    VMAC board members as follows:

    10 Government or Government Funded Representatives
    Neil O'Keefe (Chairperson) - Ministerial appointment
    Cameron Cuthill - Ministerial appointment
    Rob Smith - Ministerial appointment
    Robert Freemantle - VicRoads
    David Shelton - VicRoads
    Samantha Cockfield - Transport Accident Commission
    Wendy Taylor - RoadSafe Victoria
    Detlef Lamp - Victorian Motorcycle Council
    Assistant Commissioner Ken Lay - Victoria Police
    Bruce Corben - Monash University Accident Research Centre

    3 Automotive Representatives
    Peter Dunphy - Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce
    Ray Newland - Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries
    Peter Daly - Royal Automobile Club of Victoria

    4 Motorcyclist Representatives
    Tony Ellis - Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia
    Hollie Black - Australian Scooter Federation
    Moira Stewart - Women's International Motorcycle Association
    Mark Collins - HART/Honda

    So, the discriminatory tax imposed on all motorcycle owners, the motorcycle "safety levy", is being spent by a government dominated body of people with minority motorcyclist representation, to fund a survey which asks information on the socio-economic position of motorcyclists and the frequency in which they break traffic law (a highly lucrative source of revenue), and the frequency in which they engage in behaviour which offends the lemming wowser community (the current government's strongest constituency).

    Nuff said, really.