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.

How the TAC decides on safety initiatives... (Comic Strip)

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by robsalvv, Jun 19, 2012.

  1. 19-06-2012 2-14-10 PM.  

  2. I'm reminded of a different but related situation I encountered shortly before I ceased to be a Public Servant in transport.

    We were hosting a delegation from the NTC. I forget what the primary purpose of the event was, but discussions got around to truck braking systems. One of the more senior members had been disturbed by the number of truck skidmarks he was seeing on the road on his daily commute and, as a result, had persuaded himself and a number of others that a thorough overhaul of truck braking system requirements was required. When it was pointed out, by some of us with some capacity for evidence based thought, that there was no way of knowing, simply from the skid marks, whether the trucks making them actually complied with current standards or whether they were knackered, badly maintained, non-compliant death-traps, the metaphorical fingers went in the ears. When we tried to draw attention to the fact that, if the braking problems were a maintenance issue rather than a design issue, mandating more complex (and hence more failure prone) designs would almost certainly make the problem worse, the LALALALALALALAALAAAA started. So there really wasn't much point pursuing the argument that maybe it was worth brake-testing a decently sized random sample of in-service trucks to find out whether overhauling the standards or better enforcement of existing standards would provide better bang for the buck.

    And these guys are major players in national road and vehicle policy. F'kin great.
  3. A little OT, but along the same lines... Many, MANY years ago, when I was just a noob at the company I've now been at for 23 years, they produced a pressed, solid clay house brick - something they hadn't been able to do for some time, and not, until then, with the efficiency that other companies were able to do. The production manager of the time brought a sample to the sales meeting and everyone ooo'd and aaahhh'd over this thing. I took one look - it was orange (supposed to be red), swollen, cracked, and generally underfired and shitty. Being the noob I was, instead of keeping my mouth shut I said, "But that's a terrible brick; we can't sell that." I was then firmly told it was just as good as our opposition was producing, so we COULD sell it.

    WTF? So it's OK to sell shit as long as it's no worse than the opposition's shit?
  4. Also major players in supplying these more-complex systems?
    (nah, that would be Victoria).
  5. First rule of marketing isn't it?

    Or is that the one that says it's OK to sell shit as long as it's cheaper than the opposition?
  6. Sounds like the way cops here in NSW investigate accidents...
  7. - BEGIN RANT-^^^^^^This bit here is your problem Pat, the only time I would not happily piss on the NTC is if they were on fire. They are one of the main reasons there have been so few innovations in the transport industry for the last 15 years. -END RANT- Anyhow the system of bureaucracy we have now ensures that decisions are not made by those with practical experience or even theoretical knowledge (I haven't met anyone in government with both for quite some time) but those with neither, this system applies to every government department I have had the misfortune of dealing with.
  8. i love non sequitur :)