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 Licences to cost $14k - The good/bad of the GLS discussion

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Sep 7, 2010.

  1. Vic roads have released a discussion paper for proposed changes and improvements to the motorcycle graduated licensing scheme (GLS). Read about it and down load the paper here:


    The apparent goal of the proposal is to produce better noob (aka novice) riders. The most conservative proposed changes however will see a P plate license cost well over $14000, with L plate riders only allowed to ride in daylight, with mandatory safety and high viz gear whilst being supervised by an accredited rider. Yes, you read that right. And the net benefit is questionable - it even says so in the paper. So it's in your best interests to get reading the paper and make your comments to help guide the learner system that will be used by your brother, sister, mate, son, daughter, mother in the near future.

    Do it.

    This is a new discussion thread solely to discuss the flaws and strengths of the GLS proposals and perhaps propose alternative suggestions. There clearly are points on both sides of the flaw/strength ledger.

    You have until Friday 29 October 2010 to get your feedback to Vicroads via snail mail (no stamp required):

    Motorcycle GLS Discussion Paper
    Reply Paid 72780
    KEW VIC 3101

    or use the online feedback form at: www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/motorcycleGLS

    So get cracking. Drop your thoughts here to help them coalesce if you wish. Just get cracking.

    Did I mention, get cracking!!

    Fine print: The views expressed herein by me are my views only and do not represent the views of any organisation.
  2. After reading the discussion paper, I see five critical flaws.

    First flaw: Predetermined outcome!
    Do not gloss over the first 15pages. They have been carefully crafted to drive the uncritical reader to a predetermined conclusion. This is a terrible discussion paper from that point of view alone. They cherry pick stats from papers around the world and use them in a disputable way to make a case for their proposals.

    Second flaw: It doesn't make the case about what's wrong with the current GLS!
    Though this is a paper about the improvements to the current Vic motorcycle GLS, they spend no time actually showing how the current scheme is actually failing. To me this is truly a flaw.

    EDIT:[They actually describe the current GLS in detail then absolutely fall flat on their face by stating that a 19 yo can become fully licenced to ride an unrestricted bike in the current scheme. This is flat wrong.] Incorrect statement removed.

    Third flaw: They're foisting the car model onto bikes!
    The basic premise is that motorcyclists crash and die more than car drivers/occupants and this is bad. The inference is that car like stats are the only acceptable stat.

    The discussion paper also refers to driver GLS schemes and it models it's key proposals on these car driver GLS schemes. It does this, despite questioning their direct relevance and applicability to motorcycling.

    Fourth flaw: Fatality/Injury stats are flawed!
    Figure 2 shows that more riders are being seriously injured - and it's this that drives their case. Yes it's true, but the chart actually reflects an increase in the numbers of riders that by the paper's own reckoning, are crashing at a lower rate. (see last column of table 1). In fact, if you crunch out the number of fatalities per 10000 registrations (you'll have to break out the calculator) the reduction is stark! However, the paper powers on regardless. There are a host of other statistical flaws but I'll expand on this later.

    Fifth flaw: Biased survey questions!
    The discussion paper asks for feedback via answering their specifically structured and targeted questions. I'm not well versed in reverse engineering the bias in survey questions, but to my eye, the bias is pretty clear. So answer them carefully and include detailed comments in the space allowed.
  3. the online feedback sucks. a few of us have been thrown off after completing it without it being submitted. SQL error or some bullshit. maybe its vetting for the answers it wants?
  4. Good to see consultation with the riders bodies is alive and well
  5. 1. Acknowledge genuine, well founded concerns about safety exist
    2. ?????
    3. No change is proposed
  6. #6 robsalvv, Sep 7, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2014
    Ok, so it's not all about flaws (though they're plentiful) - one of the key strengths of the GLS proposal is the suggestion of a more rigorous "on range" license training curriculum. There's even a suggestion to consider whether there should be an on road training component.

    I'm actually fully supportive of both suggestions but think that the key lies with the first.

    To my mind, the main pitfall of the current GLS scheme is that it releases undercooked novices out onto the road so it's this aspect that needs to be addressed and I think it can be simply addressed:

    Make it a requirement that in addition to the current (or improved) testing and licensing regime, all riders must competently complete an additional intermediate type skills course. The course must include road craft and hazard perception components, be appropriately targetted at the skill level and it must be done separately after first obtaining an L or P level license... You wouldn't be endorsed for the L or P though until the course was competently completed.

    Happy to take criticism.

    hahaha, I think my paper copy of the paper has an annotation to the same bolded bit... it says, "No shit sherlock!". LOL
  7. This is clearly one of the worst discussion papers ever submitted and seriously questions the level of incompetency and/or corruption within the department.

    The discussion paper is so flawed that it warrants an immediate inquiry.

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current licensing system in Victoria and there is no proven case to alter it. In fact Victoria has a very well balanced licensing system.

    It seems that profit is the main reason for this paper. The ones who are pushing it will be exposed during the discussion period and will not make one red cent from this.
  8. can you tell me where it says $14K to get a MC licence? not saying it doesn't but am curious as to where you got that.

    I love the bluetooth section....how would they check you aren't using blue tooth on your phone to talk with a full face helmet....that point is very ridiculous....
  9. Page 53 evelk. 120hrs of supervised riding by an accredited trainer. $13,763. That doesn't include whatever increased costs there would be with the revised rigorous course and the possibility of mandatory safety gear.

    Just on the topic of mandatory safety gear - that opens up a can of worms. It will need to meet a standard and typically a local standard, so that will drive up costs for importers to make sure any gear they import meets whatever is the local standard... as they have to for helmets. If I take the MRAV at face value on this point, you can expect gear prices to go up by up to 400%. Cop that!

    Yes, there are a few other internal inconsistencies beyond the bluetooth bit.
  10. fark its a mc license not a uni degree for gawds sake $14000
  11. Ok, where do YOU see the flaws?

    Well... there's always room for improvement SRA. I agree there's no clear case to alter it, the discussion paper certainly doesn't make one, but ok, why do you believe the current regime is fine?
  12. It could be worse, Rob! VIC could have proudly announced that in order to reduce the P-plater fatality rate, they were going to extend the P-plate period by a couple of years. Like NSW did.

    No research, no discussion, no justification or reasoning, no additional training or testing. Just another year on P's and nobody dies. Like magic!

    Now, let's have a squiz at this discussion paper...
  13. It's certainly an attention grabbing number... and right now, it's in the realms of possibility. When you chat with your non NR or forum friendly riders, you should encourage them to download the paper and comment on it.
  14. Still trying to get it to download (](*,)), not sure if It actually says that in as many words (maybe deliberately?). Will continue to try, but I have to say that if you are right, Rob, it would be a deliberate plan to kill the entire industry STONE DEAD. It'll do it, too.
    And if that's the case, maybe it's the INDUSTRY that needs to be doing some commenting...

    Edit: BTW, how of us do you reckon could get 'accredited' by the time they could bring this in?
  15. Rob regarding the flaws there is no perspective. Percentages, consistent comparisons and consistent time frames are not present. Your analysis proves this.

    As for the problem where is it? I have yet to see any evidence that a problem exists.

    Where is the PROVEN evidence that any of the proposed changes will produce the desired outcome as opposed to lining the pockets of certain sections of the business community?

    The current data shows that motorcyclists are one of the best road users in Victoria. Your own analysis lately is beginning to show this and I hope to hell it is used to destroy their argument.

    I sit here gob smacked when I hear the opposite.

    This Brumby Labor government has tried everything to make people that ride motorcycles look bad in the lead up to this. Remember the hoon thing? That was all part of the strategy to attempt to say there is a problem with motorcycles when in fact there wasn’t.
  16. Even a LAMS bike can do 0-100kph in 5-7 seconds, despite having a top speed of only ~150-160kph. My VTR250 topped out at 146 indicated, and that's not accounting for speedo error.

    Any learner-friendly car with 120hp can reach about 193-200kph. My 1984 MR2 can do that. A Suzuki Liana can do that. A Daewoo Lacetti can do it. Dad's 'Big Aussie Six' sedan will easily kiss 210, 220 or more. Accelerations in the 7-10 second range to 100kph.

    There's an acceleration discrepancy, sure, but even learner-friendly cars have tremendous terminal velocities (and have tremendous amounts of energy behind 'em when doing so). Not sure what their point is, exactly? "OMG, BIKES ACCELERATE QUICKLY!!" No shit, sherlock. So does the Lotus Elise and it only has a top speed of 200.
  17. #17 robsalvv, Sep 7, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 8, 2014
    Spots you just quoted the paragraph that is totally at odds with the current GLS. How is it possible for a 19yo rider to get off their LAMS restrictions?? That WAS possible before the current version of the GLS... it certainly was when I got my licence 10 years ago, but it's NOT possible now. It's an example of a factually incorrect statement that is driving some of the potential GLS direction.

    Your additional comments just highlight the general feeling I get that the authors do not seem to have much motorcycle awareness or smarts and seem to be missing a pragmatic and practical view point.

    SRA, I love your positive spin on riding and riders :)

    There are definitely flaws in the stats. I was asking what YOUR take on the flaws were.

    So your NR experience hasn't shown you that noobs graduate L's without understanding countersteering or appreciating the dangerousness of the back brake or understanding basic cornering or survival reactions? I can't agree with you that the current curriculum teaches a rider how to ride.

    There's no proof - just lots of cherry picked stats from mostly statistical papers, which I must stress ARE MOSTLY NOT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES. I'm not sure what business sections you're considering, but if the GLS comes through in it's most conservative position, the MC industry is dead.

    Actually I have to disagree with you. The current stats show that we are much more involved in incidents than car drivers. The question to ask is, is that a relevant comparison? My analysis has shown that the stats CONFIRM there are more of us crashing less.

    In my view, the strategy is far from dead and there is an undercurrent in motorists that it's ok to villify riders. This is not good.

    You need to get a cert IV TAA qualification and then be affiliated with an RTO to be considered as a motorcycle instructor - however, you won't be accredited to run the licensing tests until you get a further license from Vicroads... so whatever "accredited trainer" actually means in the context of the GLS isn't really clear.

    Edit: I hope you're not pushing for a sideline hobby trainer business there titus?!
  18. I also noted the discrepency and I cringe to think of how many more I will discover whilst going through the paper. I also look forward to checking the referencing points that have been cited at the end of the paper to see how relevant/true they are and how they can be intrinsically tied into the subject matter.
    I for one think that the learners/probationary system can be improved after getting my licence at the start of this year. I will read through what the paper proposes and then make my comments on both this forum and in the consultaion response.

    Now, let the indepth reading begin............................
  19. Rob I found the learners and licence test adequate. Many of the people including myself did not find it easy at all. To jump on a manual bike and do the slow test and counter steer test is not as easy as some people make it out to be. Sure it is easier for the experienced but not for the newbies.

    Who are we to make it harder for people to enjoy the freedoms we had.

    As for the flaws I am a big fan of the percentages for example 310,000 licensed riders with 34 deaths gives a figure of point zero one percent (.01%). Where in the report does it show this figure?

    Then we have ten year data until page 9 where it goes to 4 year data. Regardless of the reason this is inconsistent data.

    The motorcycle training industry will thrive. The discussion paper deliberately sets out to scare everyone with an extreme outcome knowing full well that they are chasing the middle ground.

    EDIT: Even the online feedback form has some loaded questions that assume that a certain outcome has already been reached.
  20. If you get into a statistics game, chances are you are going to lose. These guys build their careers on statistics and 'factual' math.

    Fighting the government and the think tanks is a losing game. They won't listen to you.

    Why not try to get the industry on side?

    Under this scheme, motorcycle sales will drop, gear purchases will drop, servicing will drop etc.

    Who wants to ride a bike (legally) when it's this strict? Nobody.

    What do Honda, Kawasaki, Peter Stevens, your local bike shop etc. need to stay afloat in the market? Gullible learners with big wallets.

    They'll lose it all to the car market.