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 Its happened again. Time to Name and Shame Drivers who don't look?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by jdkarmch, Sep 11, 2011.

  1. If you missed it there was another rider killed yesterday, in yet another "sorry I didn't see him", accident.

    And to make things worse, the rider is already being blamed by the cops for the accident - on 7 News, one said speed was probably a factor.

    My question - Is it time to "out" car drivers who fail to look for motorcycle riders. My assertion that this is something to be considered is based on the fact, that the message is just not being heard by drivers, car manufacturers, the police, the Govt, the Judges etc.

    If we don't make a hullabaloo about this, then it will just go, "straight through to the keeper." It will be forgotten and there will be no message re-inforced to car drivers. The message that need to be sent is that if they don't look out for us, then they will suffer public humiliation by us. I know its a tough call - but, IMHO its time to get tough on drivers who just don't look.

    This individual accident is not what I want to discus. Its the pattern. Here are a few comments made attached to this article:
    To Mathew of Melbourne - If I knew who you were, I would be the first one to want to get behind you, and I guarantee that there are thousands of us out there who will join your cause.

    • Like Like x 11
  2. Thanks for posting that JD, had a thread ready to go last night re this article.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Reading this just pisses me off, there would be more to answer for had the driver pulled out and hit a pedestrian
    • Like Like x 1
  4. I've been keeping track of the comments on this accident and you really have to shake your head sometimes...

    In fact, it came up last night amongst some relos and I really felt like shaking the crap out of a couple of them as they really pissed me off with their views..

    You know the anti bike bullsh&t without getting into the details of the discussion.
    Attitudes need to change out there and it can be done via correct marketing.
    But only when we get some genuine motorcycle people in places like MURAC, Vicroads, TAC, etc will that happen..
  5. Don't you think we had better wait for the transcripts?
  6. **sigh**

    What will it take to get enough riders to be on the same track...:(

    Agree final conclusion has not been reached in this accident but I don't think thread is about this particular accident alone..
    I does seem clear however that a car pulled out of car parking, so yes you can say it was a smidsy regardless of what speed the moto was doing...

    I for one understand that extra caustion we as motorcycles have to take to help avoid a smidsy but FFS, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't push towards making efforts to put the smidsy in the minds of as many car drivers as we can...
    Ask car divers if they've heard of smidsy and I bet most wouldn't have a clue.

    Think about it guys, there are more adds out there showing us as hoons rather than the victim and it paints very wrong sub concious attitude towards us amoungst car drivers, road authorities, police, etc...
    Adds need to change..
    Every time there's a moto accident, there's an automatic thinking out there that it's likely the moto's fault even before any investigation..
    Particularly with single vehicle moto accidents where there's no evidence of another vehicle thus it ends up with rider failing to ..............
    Recent popular video proves many finding may most likely be wrong.
    • Like Like x 7
  7. You are right, SMIDSY's will always happen by nature that we are smaller, harder to see etc, however that is no argument against increasing awareness.

    The issue I see, is that we are always too quick to jump into the us vs them argument... i.e. the standard line trotted out is that we are the victims and everyone is against us. By taking that attitude, it only propagates the mentality that it is an us vs them thing rather than working with other road users.

    I admit that "working with" other road users is a slightly utopian thought and it isn't that easy - however the image is an issue with getting other road users to empathise with us at all. They currently see us as not like them, when in reality it is only a small amount of riders creating that perception.

    I drive and I ride regularly for various reasons. As a driver, I am now far more aware of bikes, but I still don't always see them for various reasons. Using this experience, and my perspective from the car, I try and use this on the bike and cater for the fact that despite their best efforts, the cars won't always see us.

    It's about understanding each other, rather than trying to ram the concept down throats. If we aren't empathetic to drivers, they won't be to us. Motorcycles do have an image problem. I suspect that may never change, because they always attract an element which you could say is non conformist and the riders enjoy that side of it.

    Sometimes I think that despite the negative media etc, coming out and blaming others will just contribute to the problem. What would the outcome be if we instead came from an empathetic position - i.e. "We know we are hard to see sometimes, and there is an unappealing element to some motorcyclists..." so you get people listening from the same side to begin with, and then seed the idea of looking out more, being more aware of motorcyclists and generally understanding some of the battles we face on the road too. A bit idealist I realise, but the current strategies aren't working.

    My own family only became more aware of motorcyclists after one of their own, i.e. me became one and the perception that motorcyclists is "them" changed because one of "us" was now a motorcyclist. Breaking down the us vs them barrier is essential to get on road understanding.
    • Like Like x 5
  8. #8 jdkarmch, Sep 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Mate I love what you post=D>=D>=D>

    So true.

    [URL="]Here is a good example of why cars drives don't see us.[/URL]

    To quote someone else described it like this:

  9. The question I was posing was - Is it time to remind (send a loud message) car drivers that if they fail to look properly that they may suffer the following consequences if a rider hits them:

    A. They will be charged by the police and have to face a Judge,

    B. As a result, there will be awareness generated within the motorcycle community, that will bring their name out in lights.

    C. They will have to live with the fact that because they didn't look properly that they killed someone.

    I'm sure that we could all add to this list.

    I guess what I am asking is - how do we get the message across. Is there a better way? Do we push for heavier sentences? Or do we just publicaly shame them?

    Maybe, we should return to the Driver Awareness Ride concept. A memorial ride to all the riders who we have lost over the years.....
  10. Joey you can steer this back mate I have confidence in you.

    It should never have been about the accident in the first place, or it becomes just another rider down thread. Which it pretty much has.

    You simply can't say that Joe. If the rider was at warp factor then nobody would be expected to see him. Rider, driver, pedestrian, God.....he'd be invisible.

    Now granted that's not likely to be the case. But I will draw your attention to all of the ifs, buts, likely, unlikely type language that has to be used so as to not draw false conclusions. It is ALL speculation.

    So we have a problem. The filth are happy to speculate in the press that 'speed could have been a factor'. Frankly I'm of the opinion that if they don't know they should shut the fuck up until they do. Just as the speculation on here makes us look stupid, so it does with them. However nobody is calling them on it. This needs to be remedied.

    This is all quoted for truth and requires no further comment from me. Except to add one thing, going by anecdotal evidence it appears cagers are becoming not only more aggressive towards riders, but also more threatening in their attitudes and behaviours. This does not bode well for the future. This also needs to be remedied.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. That is an approach reflected in current TAC advertising. To focus on/start with a negative. One of the reasons the UK advertising is so successful at striking a chord is that it humanizes riders instead of focusing on image, such as the human example you give below.

  12. ok cleaned up the accusations, finger pointing, sooking, point scoring point making and speculating, any more and I will delete this thread.
    BEHAVE ALL OF YOU. Anyone making smart arsed replies to this will be banned for trolling.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Weird. posts have been removed?
  14. I was pissed off when I read the usual "motorcyclist killed when collides with car" headline. I've ranted before about how this headline suggests the motorcyclist was at fault, when further examination of the facts typically shows the car driver failed to give way and killed the motorcyclist.

    This case seems to be no different. I was going to abuse the author of this article in The Age before I realised he probably got the information from the VicPol Media unit here. I think police incompetence and bias is central to this issue, as further illustrated by Matthew of Melbourne's comments in John's OP.

    I think it would go a long way to shocking the motoring community's sense of apathy and lack of responsibility on the roads towards motorcyclists if we were able to force or persuade VicPol and the media to report collisions of these types as "Motorist collides with and kills motorcyclist" rather than "Motorcyclist killed when collides with car".
    • Like Like x 1
  15. What may be very useful, is digging through some of these stories and then matching them to official reports such as coroners reports. If it could be shown clearly that there is an unwarranted media bias it may be possible to do something about it. Like if the report into this incident finds that the motorcyclist probably / definitely was not speeding...
  16. I made this...


    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 4
  17. ...oh yes. I did try out the above except I hit the back of the car. The little princess who failed to give way got a $163 slap on the wrist. I got a dislocated shoulder that will forever be disfigured and give me pain on the cold days.

    But hey, I get to ride a bike and she gets to be a muppet. So fair trade.
    • Like Like x 1

  18. 100%. It "could" have been an act of terrorism. It "could" have involved a government agent assigned to kill a motorcyclist. It "could" have been because the car driver was thinking of how much he/she/it needed an excuse to be late to something and decided to cause an accident. We cannot prove it wasn't any of those, but we don't spout off with that rubbish.
  19. Herald Sun today

    I got called by Maurice Blackburn to take John Voyage out for a ride, so that he could see what it is like from a riders point of view. During that ride, I explained many things to him and was able to demonstrate what I was talking about, as he sat behind me as the passenger. Interestingly, a lot of what I told him is in his submission=D>=D>

    Interestingly, this is what happens when you take people out for Harley Rides. I get to demonstrate reality, as opposed to myth. John ended the ride saying that he thought that the Members of the Inquiry should go for a ride to have the same experience. BTW - I did the ride with John at no charge. I saw it as my submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry.