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.

VIC DRAFT petition to Vic parliament - feedback required

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by the_blacke, Sep 23, 2012.

  1. Please put your most constructive hats on and review this. I read all your comments and I take them all seriously so please give me your feedback and ideas on the following:

    • Like Like x 8
  2. I think you've pretty much covered it. Great work. Do you think it's worthwhile sending something like this to Federal parliament as well?
  3. Federal have no jurisdiction over these matters... so while it couldn't hurt, they're not in a great position to help out on the ground.
  4. It seems succint and covers many good points.
  5. I've changed the wording a little but that's only my preferences

    I understand what you mean in point 1 but I am worried that it could eassily be misinterpreted as saying we don't have the skills and should all be take off the road as we are dangerous.

    Point 3 is irrelevant. anyone who rear ends us or violates our right of way is already at fault using existing legislation. What exactly are you suggesting with this point?

    the other points are great

    not sure what you hope realistically to achieve, but I've got no problem signing this while it looks as though other issues are beginning at last to lean our way. Keep up the pressure.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Great job.

    Below are just some observations - nothing more.

    You are asking for a lot of major changes. All of them good and worthwhile, but I wonder if shooting the moon like this could just result in the whole lot being dismissed as a flight of fancy by idiots who think they know better. There is a lot of wisdom in asking for more than you realistically want so that individual items can be traded away as bargaining chips and maybe this is what's going on here. Any one of these points making it into legislation will be a major win.

    Having said that, you do a great job of pointing out the complete and utter failure of current legislation to keep motorcycles safe so I guess there is a lot of impact.

    I think the safety levy (point 5) doesn't really fit in as the petition is about safety where as the levy is about funding and despite it's name doesn't have a lot to do with actual safety of riders.

    My 2c... but I can appreciate you may want to give me back some change :D
  7. I've previously posted examples of where the person doing the rear ending is not at fault.

  8. And the tac repeatedly give examples of why cars aren't at fault for pulling out in front of bikes.... And boy hasn't that worked for them. Sadly "justice" seems to have lost touch with reality.
  9. I like it.. (y)

    Minor edit, but:

  10. As mentioned by others great work my only consideration would be in point 4 (explicity legalise), I would have Legalise and encourage lane filtering in stopped and slow traffic as a means to ease the already conjested roads ( or similar ) as the pollies etc are always looking for ways of easing congestion/traffic. nice work though :applause:
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Point 3 is irrelevant, but not for the reason you've stated - such legislation does not exist as you imply. Legislating for immediate 'at fault' judgements would never happen for obvious reasons (mentioned above and below).


  12. Does it make more sense to work on removing any sort of implication of contributory negligence in the case of right of way violations and rear enders?
  13. I'm not sure if point 5 is actually contradictory to points 1, 2 and 6. You're asking for certain things to be funded to increase motorcycle safety, but demanding the removal of the additional funding which could (should?) be used to pay for it. To me, it would seem more appropriate to petition for either the levy to be removed OR for the levy to be used appropriately in the ways described at points 1, 2 and 6.
  14. Thanks folks.

    I've removed the call to drop the levy. I still want it dropped but it lacks logical cohesion with the rest of the items.

    I'll put up another draft this evening.
  15. Great work with getting this going.

    However, everything stated in the petition should be supported by evidence otherwise its left open to be picked apart. Nothing is mentioned as to:

    • why high-visibility clothing is ineffective
      why why rider behaviour shouldn't be targeted; in fact, you've called for better training, which is a form of improving rider behaviour
    To avoid confusing the matter, unless it can be backed up by hard evidence, I'd leave this this out.
  16. To me, rider training is quite different from rider behaviour. One is about improving skills while the other is about reducing asshattery.

    You're absolutely right, though. The list of points is good as an executive summary, but each point will absolutely need evidence/detail to back it up. I just assumed that was going to be included but wasn't posted here.
  17. the catch is that the petition itself must be expressed in only a few paragraphs, must appear on the same page as the signatures (yes, every page of signatures needs to carry the same petition message), etc. In short, I need to keep it to half a page tops, in order to leave enough room for people to sign. I can't submit an appendix of studies, I don't think IP can even use footnotes. It has to be short, punchy, and yes ultimately defensible but not within the parameters of the petition itself.

    In short, the entire process is geared against you being able to present a thorough, documented and substantiate argument. The weight of the argument is found in the number of signatures rather than the substance... which alas seems like a tragic indictment of our whole democratic system, but that's another matter.

    Thanks all for the feedback, new draft is coming!
  18. Love it blacke.

    A possible suggestion for point 1:
    +1 :)

    This request is similar to the legislation that exists in the cycling nordic countries where any car/VRU collision has fault automatically attributed to the car. The driver must go to court to get a judgement that repositions blame.

    Your a legend Blacke. Top effort mate.
  19. I've been thinking for a while now.

    Can someone tell me what the lobbying laws (i.e. lobbying to enact laws) are in Australia? Is it legal? Are there any restrictions?


    Is there any noteworthy groups in Victoria who are currently actively lobbying for similar pro-motorcycle law changes?

    Any links will be appreciated.
  20. Lobbying in Australia... perfectly legal, effectiveness generally tied to the perceived size of the voting bloc you represent rather than the validity or broader public support for your views (an unmarried, atheist, female labor prime minister votes against gay marriage? go figure! www.acl.org.au)

    http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au and http://www.amc.asn.au/web/ are both involved in lobbying I believe. Not sure about MRA, others may know.
    • Like Like x 1