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.

Draft National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by TonyE, Dec 1, 2010.

  1. Available at http://infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/national_road_safety_strategy/index.aspx

    It's been released for public comment.

    Some of the motorcycle suggestions (taken from the summary as I haven't had time to wase through the whole thing...)

    Investigate the potential for all motorcycles to be equipped with Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS).

    Greater use of effective helmets and protective gear by motorcyclists.

    Road improvements for motorcyclists, cyclists, pedestrians, older road-users and users of public transport will be a focus.

    Introducing motorcycle black spot and black link programs in all States and Territories, possibly funded by a levy for motorcyclists.

    Applying technology to ensure speeding motorcyclists are detected.

    Regulation to improve stability, traction and braking on motorcycles.

    a GLS for motorcyclists including those returning to motorcycling after some years

    Develop a national rating program to assess motorcycle helmets (and potentially other protective gear for safety) to promote market demand for safer helmets
  2. I have to say that there is not a lot in that list that doesn't cause me some concern.
    For example: Regulation to improve stability, traction and braking on motorcycles.
    Because the major manufacturers just haven't given a shit about this and neither have the riders? The entire industry, their R&D and their customers haven't given this any thought (!)... and a spot of 'regulation' will just fix that, will it?

    Sorry, but unless the detail is a whole lot better it smells suspiciously of 'car' people thinking they can simply apply their solutions to motorcycles.

    And what Star Wars tracking and surveillance system are they working on this time?
  3. Black spot = speed cameras & increased policing. Roadworks that are patchy and never finished. And we are to pay a fee. Wonderful.

    Completely ignore the massive number of other-driver-at-fault accidents involving motorcyclists. Urgh.
  4. Or the ones simply caused by poor decision making (when overtaking, for example).
  5. ??? :-s

    This attitude - "high level of intolerance" - having strong potential to flow through to how victims of road trauma are regarded/treated (creating social stigma)?

    And that in the 5-pronged approach, safe road usage (training & education etc) ranks lowest for potentially positive outcomes?

    wow. [-(
  6. And what was the increase in motorcycle registrations during that time? I hate half statistics.

  7. Pretty sure the number of registered motorcycles since 2000 has more than doubled, not just increased by 18%.
    I only spent a few mins searching but I found from 2005-2009 in south australia registrations went from 28,000 - 40,000..

    Found here:
  8. Tony, how about you (or someone appropriate) apply to use some of the Motorcycle Levy funds to pay some professional people to analyse the Strategy and write a formal response to it? That would seem to be good use of our funds.

    I know that funded projects are decided well in advance, but did we have warning well in advance of this strategy document being published? Perhaps some reshuffling is in order.

    BTW, I don't like any of those bullet points you listed, and the fact that training is totally absent (although it is implied in the GLS, which is also rubbish) shows that the people who wrote the strategy are not motorcyclists.
  9. I'm thinking the new policy will be that every motorcycle comes fitted with it's own personal Death Star.
  10. What's the point of this anyway? The states all do very different things on stuff like GLS and speed cameras and setting speed limits. Does anybody take any notice of a National strategy?
  11. We will when our TAC levy goes up to fund more speed cameras....

  12. I get that this is a draft for public response - i wonder if 'public' means individuals or public bodies, but let's assume the best for now...

    The very first order of business IMHO is this issue of 'technology to detect speeding motorcycles...".

    Why only motorcycles? Why not all speeding vehicles? Two possible answers: that speeding motorcycles have been identified as a high visibility public irritant in surveys and the lack of front number plates offends those seeking redress; and that motorcycles are a small enough user group to introduce snooping technology on without alarming the greater population until it's too late.

    It is very, very important that we do not allow electronic tracking and surveillance to be introduced ONLY for motorcycles. There are plenty of legal arguments to support us in this. And if it comes down to a choice between two evils, we may even have to consider how bad some form of front number plate might actually be...

    I see a serious battle looming.
  13. Filtering must be legitimised
  14. From meetings I have attended and conversations I have been a party to if front number plates (that can be read by ANPR and speed cameras) are not accepted by the motorcycling community, then RFID devices (as per Singapore et al) are the most likely "solution" to identifying motorcycles.

    The other "solution" I had heard of was the use of the toll transponders, however of late the use of such devices on motorcycles is being reduced, well in Queensland at least. Here we get free "video matching" of our registration plate with the toll account whereas car drivers do not.

  15. "...elimination of death and serious injuries on our roads..." are they serious? I fear the answer is yes. Ok, admirable goal, but do they realise they're talking about vehicles moving at human killing speeds controlled by fallible decision making humans in environments with other humans and uncontrolled variables ... what fairy land do the ATC occupy if they're targeting no deaths??

    Should make for an interesting read...
  16. ABS doesn't stop that car from pulling out in front of you or from going too hot into a corner. Training will help much more.

    We have mandatory helmet laws. Trying to introduce mandatory CE rated gear would be incredibly stupid and very nanny state (probably why they're so keen on it). Besides, no matter what you're wearing, if Soccer Mum doesn't look and pulls out right in front of you or merges into your, in her CX9/X5/RX350 it doesn't really matter if you're wearing leathers or nothing.

    Sweet - does that mean we can get motorcycle only lanes/roads like cyclists/pedestrians/buses? Doubt it.

    I've always wanted to pay for a speed camera to be set up along the Old Pacific Hwy... Not. ](*,) This is probably what they're thinking of doing in terms of 'safety'.. My CTP is already absolutely insane, another increase would be ridiculous. Probably aimed to tax riders off the road and set up financial disincentives to people considering starting.

    Here's a fun one :-s

    Guess all those bike manufacturers with billions spent in R&D over 30+ years haven't been doing this, it's up to the AU govt. to force them! ](*,) This is a clear indication that the writers don't actually ride as 2 wheels inherently has these problems compared to cars.

    Maaaaaybe a good idea to limit returning riders (ie last ride was in the 80's) for 6 months-1yr or so as bike power has increased quite significantly over the past 10 or so years, can now get an R6 which makes over 100kW 8-[ . How could you target these at risk riders though? Most will have kept their license valid during this time so how can you tell whether or not the last time they rode was yesterday or 30 years ago? Training would be far better though.

    AS1698 makes safety worse. People don't want to spend $600+ on a helmet that is $250 overseas because the manufacturer has to spend assloads to certify a helmet which meets and exceeds other comparable regulations... I can't imagine having an entire national rating system, similar to 1698 but for protective gear working at all. We are a far too small market and this has shown by helmet regulations (AS1698). If this goes in it will just drive up prices and make the market less competitive as the small companies cannot afford to certify their gloves/boots/jacket etc. This, and the fact there is already an INTERNATIONAL rating program (CE) which is on a lot of good gear already. It'd make no sense to suddenly make people's jackets they've been wearing for years illegal because they are missing a sticker...

    They spout all these retarded 'suggestions' and never mention motorcycle rider training? HUH!?!?!? Are they that ****ing dense or have they suffered brain damage from a motorcycle crash themselves? ](*,)
  17. #17 robsalvv, Dec 2, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    On the topic of ABS, I recently did a HART advanced I course where the instructors demonstrated emergency braking of both ABS and non ABS bikes. On the dry pavement the NON ABS bike pulled up at least 2 - 3m sooner than the ABS bike (ABS was active). The instructors did this several times.

    ABS may provide advantages in the wet, [media=youtube]-Zv3Sacl7JQ[/media] but not in the dry. If you only ride in the dry and on roads with good traction, ABS isn't an advantage as far as I can see.
  18. Absolutely number 1
  19. Technology to ensure motorcyclists are detected and yet another levy. Disgraceful they have the Opportunity to do something Positive and go down the same old road of hate ..

    Who are these people anyway ?
  20. The point is they have a view to making the state systems national. The things like the GLS are not as different as you may think. Most states (if not all) have stuff in the pipeline that brings them further into line with the other states (GLS, speed cameras, etc).