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.

[AUS] 16 pages of rhetoric and no mention of motorcycles

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by hornet, Jul 21, 2009.

  1. The National Transport Commission recently presented a paper to the "Future City Transport Summit 2009"

    Read it for yourself, and ask, among all the rhetoric, where is any mention of motorcyles as a viable partial solution to pollution, traffic density, etc etc??

  2. The closest thing I can find to a reference to 2-wheeled transport is on page 11.
    This Nick Dimopoulos must be some kind of freakin' genius!

    You can leave feedback here http://www.ntc.gov.au/Feedback.aspx

    I'm leaving:
    ... as much as it pains me to plug the MRAVic.
  3. I love you Bonk
  4. he strings the odd good set of words together, does our bonk!!!

    nice of them to make "Company" a compulsory field, thereby preventing private citizens from providing feedback :roll: ....
  5. I noticed that, too. It's actually not a compulsory field, though.
    It has an asterisk, but I didn't put anything in there and it said the submission was successful.

    haha Dougz, I decided recently that whenever I see something stupid, instead of just bitching about it, I'd actually make the effort and write an e-mail or letter to see what happens.

    Hopefully good things happen.
  6. I wrote.....
    Regarding Mr Nick Dimopoulos' presentation to the "Sustainable transport for future cities", Monday 20th July 2009
    I find it astonishing in the extreme that in a paper with such a level or research, Mr Dimopoulos has failed utterly to mention, much less take into account, the impact (positive) of two-wheeled transportation, notably motorcycles and scooters, in presenting the current scenario, or addressing future solutions. How can he NOT have researched the booming sales of motorcycles and scooters, and made the obvious conclusions that come from those sales? Is he so unaware of the real world of transport that these factors do not even appear on his radar?
    Here's a suggestion; have Mr Dimopoulos step out of his office onto the street nearby, and see what's happening right before his and everyone else's eyes. The public is voting with its feet, and has been for years. Governments have neither the wit nor the will to provide viable public transportation; people are buying bikes and scooters, and getting to work sooner, with lower cost, and fewer anxieties. If the positive benefits of this cannot be factored into such an important study as your's, I really think that you are missing the boat entirely, and I question your viability as a National Transport Commission.
    Paul Hall
  7. That's totally it, Hornet.
    And what I have never, ever, ever, ever seen taken into account with any proposal or public transport upgrade solution which claims it will 'get cars off the road' is that it will take a long time for those people who SHOULD be using public transport, to overcome their massive distrust of a system that has been unreliable, and in many cases useless to them for so long.

    I think even if we because as good at Japan with trains; it'd still be 2-3 years before we saw less traffic on the roads.

    But seeing as 2-3 years is shorter than an election term there is actually a glimmer of hope for change, eh?! ;)
  8. It's been circulated around the Australian Motorcycle Council Members and I expect it to be on the agenda at the AGM in Brisbane a few weeks.

    I've actually responded with the following:

    I was extremely disappointed (but not surprised) to see that Powered Two Wheelers (PTWs) were not covered in Nick Dimopoulos' speech on Sustainable Transport. PTWs continue to be neglected in transport planning by all levels of government where it appears that they are still seen merely as a safety problem. This is extemely unfortunate as they have much to offer both environmentally and in the efficient use of road space.

    Usage continues to grow, (almost despite the efforts of some jurisdictions to discourage it) as more and more people have come to realise the efficiency of this mode of transport. The lower level of emissions, reduced fuel usage, reduction of congestion and the reduction of parking space are among the major contributions that PTWs can bring to any comprehensive future Transport Plan. In fact, any transport plan that does not include PTWs and give serious weight to the inherent advantages of these vehicles cannot be considered to be truly comprehensive.

    I draw your attention to Professor Marcus Wigan’s paper on "Powered Two Wheelers in Victoria" available at http://tinyurl.com/loj7qo and to the work of the UK Institute of Highway Engineers available at http://www.motorcycleguidelines.org.uk/

    The following quotes from Professor Wigan's paper serve to emphasise the advantages accruing from the comprehensive integration of PTWs into a real future transport strategy:

    PTWs need to be considered in a balanced manner and as alternatives to the car, public transport and nonmotorised transport. PTWs also need to be considered as users of road space (where they have excellent efficiency in some situations), and as users of parking space (where cars demand substantial areas in city centers) as well as emission sources.


    The performance envelope of motorcycles, mopeds and scooters has been shown in several ways in this report to be comparable to cars, and over a far longer range of distances and weather conditions (more usable) than all but the most dedicated and committed bicycle users.


    "Clearly any switch from car to motorcycle – or indeed from bicycle to motorcycle - will have a real and positive effect on scarce road and intersection capacity, and a very significant one in congested conditions, where one additional car contributes far more than it gains by continuing to travel on such a road."

    Tony Ellis

    Secretary MRA(Vic),
    Member: Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Council,
    Member:Motorcycle Safety Consultative Committee,
    Executive Member: Australian Motorcycle Council
  9. I should have mentioned, too, the obvious fact that 97% of cars on the road are using 5 people's amount of fuel, tyres, road wear and tear, etc etc...
  10. This is one agenda that has been on the boil in this country for about 10 years. Good on you for pointing out that its bs. I hope the greater population kicks this squa in the nuts like it deserves to be. There's already levies (tax) placed on parking and congestion tolling is almost a blank cheque considering it would be a variable fee. The "rich" won't give a shit about it but it is those who are forced to drive to the city (or nearby) because they bought a place way out somewhere because that's all they could afford who will be severely disadvantaged by it. The flow-on effect of congestion tolling will be that public transport would also rise in cost so you'd get caught by the tax one way or another. I'm vehemently opposed to congestion tolling. Its bs. There is no solution behind it and I doubt that 100% of the proceeds will be used towards improving the transport network like I'm sure they'll claim when they eventually introduce it. I think it will be introduced under the banner of climate change because I'm sure they'll be able to get as many people on side as they need by doing it this way. It was implemented in London either last year or the year before so unfortunately, its only a matter of time before those who get voted in and are constantly seeking new or additional forms of revenue (tax) will implement it here. It'll either be Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane to be first off the mark with it.

    It isn't a linear relationship in terms of (structural) damage/wear on the road of car v bike v heavy vehicle. Damage is estimated/calculated with a power relationship (anything from 4 to 12 depending on the pavement structure, material and the type of damage being analysed). Put simply/crudely take the weight of a bike, multiply that by a factor then raise that to the power of 4. There's your "damage". Take the weight of an axle of a truck (its moreso the pressure from the tyres but lets stick with weight - should be around 6 tonnes), multiply that by the same factor and raise that to the power of 4. There's the damage by one axle. The difference is enormous. Pick any road you like and the structural design will be based only on the count and type of heavy vehicles (so bus or larger) traversing it. Car and bike counts are not a consideration. Just one overloaded semi can do as much damage as 100,000 cars and a bajillion bikes. All a bike will do is add to the wear on linemarking. Structural damage is effectively nil. However, I suppose constant GP take-offs with high torque (i.e. litre) bikes could cause some surface damage by a bike over time.

    IMO, the one and only thing working against a bike when comparing to multi-occupant vehicles is that they use more petrol per 100 km when you take their weight into account. The thing working in a bike's favour in terms of an argument is that the majority of cars on the road during the morning and evening commutes are single occupant so there's a higher use of petrol (so more pollution) per person.
  11. While I agree in principle with the comments made so far, don't push the fuel economy barrow too far. There are micro cars in Europe using small 3 cylinder turbo diesels, carrying 4 people, and using about 2.5-3 l per 100km. Audi have an economy version of the A3 TDi that reaches into the high 3s, and that's a wagon. This is getting down into single passenger scooter territory, so I wouldn't push fuel economy per se, moreover comparing it with the typical cars that Australians drive.
  12. Which is why we say "Powered Two Wheeled vehicles".

    Coz that includes scooters, which lobbyists pretend everyone will buy instead of Rocket III's :p
  13. I am so shocked and suprised that motorcycles have not been taken into consideration by our competant road authorities... :roll:
  14. have you received your reply from the NTC?? Here's mine; I nearly fell off the chair laughing...

    and I DARE you to follow the link and read it all :rofl:

    A review of the national Performance Based Standards (PBS) reform has identified improvements to ensure the scheme realises the Council of Australian Government’s (COAG) objective for “continuous productivity gainsâ€.

    National Transport Commission Chief Executive Nick Dimopoulos said the position paper released today identifies a practical way forward for PBS to meet the needs of regulators, operators and manufacturers.

    For more information www.ntc.gov.au/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsId=00301

    Download the Performance Based Standards Review paper

    Kind Regards,
    Susie Barragans
    NTC Website Administrator
    - - - - -
  15. That's not actually a reply specific to your email Paul - once you respond you automatically go onto their mailing list for all stuff they release. Expect to get lots of heavy vehicle and train stuff from here on... :LOL:

    In my experience you have about a 50% chance of a reply - and it will be a standard "thanks for commenting" one if you do actually get a reply.
  16. I looked at it again this morning and thought the same thing myself :(.
  17. When sending an email insist that you do not get a form letter but a personal reply, if you do get a form letter reply to it with the form latter still in the body asking again where in this email do you address my concerns?
    Do it several times until you get an answer, be proactive and aggressive if need be.
    It's amazing how many replies you can get from people once they see you are serious.
    Citylink came to the party after i pointedly replied to them that their standard reply was no reply and for them to answer my direct question.
    I kept returning their form letter with ANSWER MY QUESTIONS PLEASE then the questions rewritten in bold.
  18. Smee, I'm currently having a running coversation with my local Federal member, Darren Chester (NP) over Free to Air television and the issue of Freeview.

    I wrote to him complaining about the way that the Freeview consortium is misleading the public with its advertising.

    I received a letter saying "thanks for your letter. I've made represenations to the Minister...".

    Then a month or two later I get back blurb from some pubic servant who "works" in the Dept of Comms. The letter has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the issues that I raised. SO, I scan that in and email it back to Chester. Then I get another letter, again, rabbiting on about irrelevant bullshit.

    Last one I wrote went along the lines of, "sorry to have to continually bother you about this FTA issue. My writing skills must be severely lacking as you and your colleague from the ACMA have totally missed the points that I was raising. Either that or one or both of you are illiterate and don't understand what I'm saying.

    I'm waiting on a response to that one...

    Is it any wonder that we piss so much money up against the wall in the form of taxes when we have bludgers like these twats giving us the runaround?
  19. Your's and smee's posts should be cut/pasted and sent to every bureaucrat and Government department in the country...

    several times.....