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 Let's discuss the VicPol submission to the RSC

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Oct 11, 2011.

  1. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/im...missions/44-67/52_VictoriaPolice_08092011.pdf


    I'm slowly working through the VicPol submission to the RSC. There are some aspects of it which have me seriously concerned and throwing virtual rotten tomatoes at my Lappy screen. Their view and take on the crash stats for one... ESPECIALLY THE FLAWED RISING PERCENTAGE MUST EQUAL RISING NUMBER OF FATALITIES!!!! That truly disappointed me... and I'd be happy to say that to any Police officer reading this right now. Please take a look at the VMC submission for a detailed discussion about the what the rising percentage actually means.

    I'm going to put that aside for the time being. One narrow aspect I immediately want to bring to light is the focus on the uninfringeable speeding motorcycle rider.

    The Police numbers are flawed. And their case is not even internally consistent with their logic - it's a purely them and us driven focus.






    The VicPol submission says that in 2010 (the entire 2010 not just part of 2010) 49% or 5876 infringements couldn't be levelled "due to an inability to effectively identify the rider"*. But then later it says "Of the unissued speeding fines, 81% (8795) were for low speeding". Is this a deliberate mistake to see whether we're awake?? How can you have 5876 unlevelled fines but then 81% of the unissued fines amounting to 8795 riders? That doesn't work. They quote other percentage stats too... so lets break them down.
    *Interesting language - this isn't talking about identifying the bike.


    • 49% unidentified fines totalling to 5876 riders equates to 11,992 total riders detected speeding.

    • 81% of unissued fines (low speeding), totalled to 8795 riders equates to 10,858 total unissued fines.??? (How's that work with the original number of 5876??)

    • 13% unissued fines (medium speeding), totalled to 1387 riders equates to 10,699 total unissued fines ???

    • 6% unissued fines (high level speeding) totalled to 627 riders equates to 10,450 total unissued fines??

    At least the last three totals are within rounding error of each other... but they apparently equate to UNISSUED fines, and are more than a 1000 out from the first stat which gives a total of 11992 detected speeding riders in 2010. What gives with that? (Are you following me so far?)

    The camera infringement table included in the submission for Jan-Sept 2010 has a total of 13629 detected speeding infringements! That's more than the numbers above for the whole 2010.

    The VicPol paper makes the point that the table shows 60% of detected speeding infringements couldn't be pegged because of unreadable plates or no frontal identification - that equates to 8051 bikes. That's not consistent with previous numbers!

    Anyway, 13629 riders sounds like a lot right?

    Well according to the Herald sun August 18th:
    1.3millions drivers were fined. Round that down to say an even million to filter out the red light fines (can't find how many red light fines there were)... that means that 1.4% of all speeding detections (the 13,629 riders) were motorbikes. (it'd be less if I took the Police percentage numbers for 2010... but I'll go with the more conservative number from the table).

    1.4%!!!

    We are 4% of vehicle rego's and according to the negative propaganda we're all hoons and need to be reigned in... how then could we possibly have been a measly 1% of detected infringements? This is even after almost doubling motorcycle kilometres travelled. Clearly, we are not living up to the propaganda!

    We are a bloody well behaved bunch of road users.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 9
  2. this is massive lolz worthy. surely they had a proof reader going over their submissions looking for these glaringly(not sure if its a word) obvious mistakes..

    i wish this was like a court case, where someone with some brains could put their argument up on a big screen and pick it apart, lie by lie, incorrect stat by incorrect stat, then charge all the fuckers with perjury
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Later in the VicPol report...
    "The traffic camera office reports that of the 19,131 speeding motorcycles captured for the year 2010, only 49% were able to be issued with fines..."

    So now we have a different number... and no, 49% of 19131 does not equal any of the previous numbers referred to.

    This is very confusing.
     
     Top
  4. Sounds like the MUARC approach of pages of gobbledegook then say whatever you want in the conclusion.
     
     Top
  5. Would be interesting to see what sort of response you received if you sent this to VicPol. Actually thinking about it as I typed it would just be some generic bullshit answer.
    Might be worth sending it to a few papers and see if they run with it, especially if any are in a period of government bashing.
     
     Top
  6. Rob I think it is worth pointing this sort of thing out simply as an example of the sort of misuse of statictics/lack of real information concerning motorcycle statistics that is peddled until it becomes unquestioned, and then used as the basis for policy... in this case, forward identifcation of motorcycles.

    However for me the real statistic we need to be concerned about is the "38 times more likely". It features regularly throughout many (most?) of the reports and is regularly quoted as the prime reason for restricting motorcycling.

    Interestingly I thought the police submission left the way open for a trial of filtering, although they were quick to define filtering correctly and then use it in the context of using bus lanes. They did however say, if the trial proved negative consideration should be given to making filtering a specific offence.
     
     Top
  7. Excellent Rob. I'm glad you are presenting at the Hearing=D>

    Seeing their submission is giving you the information you need to make at the Hearing where you will counter them. They come and spout their lies on Day One - you get to come and tear their paper to shreds a day or so later.

    I'm looking forward to that. TAC, VicRoads and VicPol should be toast by the time you, Marcus, Ulysses, Honda et al get finished with them..
     
     Top
  8. This is good analysis. I don't mean to criticise but I would expect that their argument against this is that we do less kms, so maybe you should considering using the km percentage.

    It's up to you, I just wouldn't want this important stat shot down in a dismissal because you used registrations rather than km.

    Edit: We are 1% of kms so we are no better or no worse. Maybe it isn't good to point out the kms then. Ignore the above then.
     
     Top
  9. Not sure if as a whole bike riders do less km's then cars.
    There would have to be a large number of riders that commute by bike then just rec. I know I ride about 50% less km's on a bike but as a rep I live in the car so I can understand the difference.
     
     Top
  10. The 5 piece requirement means that you cannot wear one piece leathers as that is only 4 pieces (assuming you can get hi-vis leathers) - boots, suit, gloves, helmet = 4.

    So the safest piece of clothing is banned?

    Edit: I would also question the benefit of having hi-vis boots and gloves, they are small and limiting it to hi-vis would limit the available items on the market.
     
     Top
  11. We definately do less kms, remember you have all the dirt bikes in there that can only do a few trips a year and probably less than 1000kms. The vicpol submission has it at 1%.

    Its why the 38 times per km is so dodgy. The dirt bikers skew it.
     
     Top
  12. This almost sounds like a gift. If VP really have stuffed up the figures that badly, their submission ought to be thrown out on its ear. My guess is there will be an unintelligible 'explanation' if they are pushed, so the it will take a professional statistician to nail them down ASAP.

    Rob, Your final point is pure gold.

    +100. Discredit that, and all the anti-bike submissions start to fall apart. Hugely important.

    Surely they wouldn't want their noses wiped in that shit again? Hope that you're right about being on board with filtering, although I'm sure their only interest is to get a clear ruling to expedite as many prosecutions as possible.
     
     Top
  13. The 38 times figure is based on actual data. The VKT figures are rubbery though - the paper that states the number even says to take the VKT with an up to 25% error grain of salt. That's very rarely stated anywhere! In WA the equivalent is something like 23 times. In QLD it's 30 times... it all depends on what's going on in the traffic demographic.

    But let's get real, it's a comparison between apples and oranges. It's not a surpise nor should it be that motorcyclists experience more injuries than car drivers. We're not coccooned in crumple zones, air bags, survival cells etc etc etc. As cars have gotten more protective, total car driver fatality and injury figures have dropped as a result. Is it any wonder that awhen doing a comparison, that motorcyclist kilometre for kilometre have a higher injury rate? Relatively we do. Why is it a good comparison to make? Why is it that even though we've halved the fatality rate we hear nothing but misinformation about likelihood of injury and straight and vertical motorcycles losing control for no good reason?

    Motorcyclists have HALVED their fatality rate without the benefit of crumple zones, ESC, air bags etc... purely by becoming better motorcyclists... and even then, we all appreciate that there's a world of improvement to be made.

    We don't ride in a cage so we are intrinsically more prone to injury. That's a reality. Half of all deaths though are due to another vehicle failing to give way. A significant proportion of injuries are for the same reason. If we get better more aware drivers then we will have a safer road system.

    Better riders and better drivers will see our KSI rate drop through the floor.

    It's not a hard thing to comprehend.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Are we going to suddenly increase the number of kilometres per rider? Motorcycles do less kilometres for reasons not dissimilar to bicycles - because that's their nature.
    The right measure is per user, not per kilometre. Anything else is misrepresentative.
     
     Top
  15. Go and tear the liars with a new arsehole Slav.

    Remember, Simon Wonderland had to cough up his job because he was spinning the numbers with 'violent street crime'. Four separate Governmental inquiries into systemic corruption and misreporting.

    Maybe it should be put to the parliamentary inquiry that Vicpol are spinning the numbers with motorcycle safety? That an effective inquiry into motorcycle road safety needs to include an inquiry into the practices of Victoria Police. If Vicpol cannot adequately demonstrate a problem, how can they possibly profess to understand or provide a solution?


    After all, isn't that what Parliamentary privilege is for?
    http://apo.org.au/research/introduction-parliamentary-privilege

    You know how the meeting went with gateway crimes, they're not interested in us. Don't be shy now, step it up a notch.
     
     Top
  16. Let's not forget who we're dealing with here...
    ...they'll happily put riders lives at risk.


    .
     

    Attached Files:

     Top
  17. Wow this high-visibility thing is absolute bullshit. Makes the riders out to be the problem - if they aren't wearing the high-vis how could anyone see them HURR DURR. Reading page 11 of the report is just infuriating. 5 pieces of high-visibility gear mandatory? Do I now have to bin my one-piece suit because it doesn't reflect light? What the flying ****.
     
     Top
  18. the other thing to be noted about the 38x statistic is that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the calculation method this figure is the national number.

    this submission is a Victorian submission, and the same paper that quotes the 38x also states that it is only 32x for Victoria. Nit picking I know, but it's another nail in VicPols submission

    the 38x also only compares bikes to cars. If you compare bikes to cars + pickups it drops to 35x nationally (29x in Vic) and if you compare bikes v all other road transport it drops to 16x nationally and 14x for Vic. Taking the extremes of the ranges quoted in the report this drops to 11x for victoria

    don't you just love statistics.....
     
     Top
  19. It also includes unregistered etc.... Dirt bikes and so on...
     
     Top

  20. That's an interesting statement Cheffie. By enforcing the laws that make riders behave as cars, they are in some respects helping put riders lives at risk - but I don't think that they want to put riders lives at risk intentionally. Some do have a thing aganst riders though, no doubt. The police are as prone to prejudice as the every day person.


    Anyway, folks have a look at this:
    VicPol capture pg 8.

    Let's take the highlighted items. The increase in registrations HAS NOT LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN RIDER FATALITIES. There's a decreasing trend - and on top of that the peak last year was well less than the highest peak in 2001, despite there being some 60% more riders on Victoria's roads last year compared to that high peak. That's a real terms reduction. Injuries have increased though - as it has for motorvehicles. More cars = more drivers = more injuries. Why are riders being especially singled out?

    The roads have become more crowded in city and big metropolitan areas. The police make a statement that rider injuries have risen out of proportion with the increase. What's the basis? I don't believe this is the case and the 38times figure has NOTHING to do with the point they make. The safer you make cars, the higher this figure is going to be. It's NOT a fair/good comparison. Yes you're safer in a car... you're also more likely to experience mental health and stress issues in a car on the way to work.


    It's stated that in 2010 29% more riders died compared to 2009. What the Police do not say is that 2009 was one of the LOWEST FATALITY NUMBERS on record - so any bounce was always going to look bad and it's another unreasonable statistically insignificant conclusion. 2010 (as bad as it seemed) had a fatality number 5 more than the 5 year average - that's not a disaster.

    What's interesting about last year is the high proportion of spontaneous spur of the moment fatalities - i.e., the unregistered and unlicensed. 19 riders! We're not privvy to these details - the coroners reports are not public. Hard to delve into their statement of stats from one year period. The best comment to make is that they have fatality data going back to 1988 - they can draw some solid conclusion based on extensive data, but elect not to.

    The part that really got up my nose is the last part - "the increase in deaths of motorcycle riders has slowly increased over the years to a point where these road users now represent 17percent of the states fatalities". This is an OUTRAGEOUS LIE!

    VicPol discussion percentage capture.

    The bottom line is the motorcycle fatality number. The top dashed line is the state's fatality number. The percentage is simply that, a percentage of one number versus the other. The smaller number us is steady to slightly decreasing. The bigger number is decreasing significantly therefore THE PERCENTAGE IS INCREASING AS A RESULT! The increasing trend is a function of the total number of deaths dropping.

    In simple terms, the size of the pie is getting smaller while the size of the motorcycle slice of the pie is roughly the same. That means the motorcycle slice is a bigger proportion... it's NOT A BIGGER SLICE.

    These untruths do my head in... and the pollies make STRATEGIC DECISION BASED ON THESE FACTUAL ERRORS!
     
     Top