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.

N/A | National New StopSMIDSY motorcycle awareness video

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by robsalvv, Oct 15, 2014.

  1. This video is encouraging riders to get more riders on the road, given MUARC research that shows that there is safety in numbers.

    The more riders on the roads, the safer it is for riders.

    What do you think?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Kind of convincing people to be cannon fodder isn't it?

    There's lots of reasons to convince others to ride. Because it makes me safer is not one that would ever make me actively recruit.
  3. If you step out of your selfish box for a second...

    ...it makes MOTORCYCLING safer not just you.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Nicely done!!!
  5. Hey friend do you want to take up a form of transport that will significantly increase your risk of premature death so that it slightly decreases ours?

    More riders does make it safer. So yes it would be good for us to actively recruit more riders. But to actively recruit we should be using the selling point that riding is freaking awesome and really fun to do with friends.

    A few shots of group rides with stops at pie shops and people laughing their tits off over coffee in riding gear with a voice over saying "Keep the rider lifestyle growing, keep telling your mates to get their license already". Would be a shit load more effective.

    Using the safety angle to recruit seems to ask people to be morally bankrupt to me.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  6. I don't like it.

    People won't take up riding to make motorcycling safer, that's just an absurd assumption.

    It also re-inforces motorcycles as a dangerous mode of transport.
  7. #7 robsalvv, Oct 15, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
    How's that message work when trying to encourage the powers that be to set policy which encourages motorcycling?

    It doesn't.

    Hmmm, you'd think that a group who understands that getting the knee down is one of the outcomes of performance cornering, not the objective, would appreciate that if there were more bikes on the road, it would be safer for biking.

    How you get them encouraged to take up riding is not at all answered by the PSA.

  8. #8 smileedude, Oct 15, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2014
    So is this ad aimed at the powers that be or the riders and their friends?

    I can't really ever see the powers that be want to actively encourage motorcycling for the point of safety. More riders = more road fatalities. Whether it reduces the fatality rate of riders is irrelevant. Safety doesn't sell motorcycling. Just about everything else does. Safety doesn't.
  9. Both.

    So the ad won't appeal to those that have a hankering for the old days when riding was a way of life/a life style choice and a purist pursuit. The concept is the antithesis of this end of the rider spectrum.
  10. If an ad about surfing came out talking about safety in numbers against shark attacks, I wouldn't feel the least bit inclined to take up surfing. If an ad showed beautiful surf and sand, then I might.

    People will take up riding because they want to, not this "greater good of mankind" crap.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. So I've got several mates that have said they are interested in riding but too lazy to get their license. You want to convince me to nag them more to get their riding license.

    The "it makes us all safer" to me is very unlikely going to motivate me at all in making me nag my mates to get their license.

    Remember I've chosen to take up the worlds most dangerous form of personal transport. You know straight from the get go that safety is less of an important selling point then many other factors.
  12. Wow.


    Best we let the powers that be tax us off the roads then if it's too dangerous.

  13. Sorry, the video doesn't work.
    Non riders are the target audience. The message is too fast, and isn't clear. There's no oomph, and no real take away.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. It's not too dangerous. But it is more dangerous. If you want to convince the PTBs that they want to encourage more riding, safety is simply a ludicrous angle. More riders = more road deaths no matter how you try to angle it.

    Traffic congestion, climate change, parking and economy are the winning points that will convince the PTBs to want to encourage riding. Safety is the scuff mark we are trying to hide.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. It's an ad to make us see the Maurice Blackburn logo again, and to once again link it with motorcycles, so that when we fall off, we call them. Community Engagement Marketing 101. But I won't go down that path again.

    I know what the report being referenced says. But if anyone thinks people who run road safety bureaucracies think that report is justification for lowering the costs involved with owning a motorcycle, then you're living on another planet. There are far more influential factors at play than a study that suggests more bikes = lower crash rate.

    Let me give you their response... before they even give it to you. If you reduce the crash rate marginally, but increase the number of riders substantially, then the total crash number still increases = bad. And we won't even mention the fact that you are almost saying riding is dangerous now, but if there's more of us it won't be as bad. It's all a matter of perception.

    Besides all that, the number of registered bikes is increasing anyway, thanks to economic necessities and space issues in our cities. Whether the public servants like it or not, bikes are growing. In NSW we are growing faster than any other road user group, with the possible exception of cyclists, but they are coming off a very low base. Governments see us as a problem that needs to be managed, rather than a problem that needs to be encouraged. Nothing in this video is going to change that. But hey, it got us talking about the lawyers again, and that's what's really important.

    Yes, I'm having a cynical day.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Following on from Dave, then it only takes 1 car to clip the group of riders to skew the numbers.
  17. #17 robsalvv, Oct 16, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
    Despite our push to put motorcycling firmly in the transport policy framework, there's still a huge safety focus, and that's despite the riders reducing their fatality rate MORE then drivers in the last 5 years. (True for Victoria)

    Any additional safety straws on the camel's back all help.

    Um I've argued the first sentence plenty. And have not hidden from the second sentence if you want to be taken credibly by the PTB.

    Number are increasing. Riding is the fastest growing road user group. The prevalence effect is inherently at play/developing, but the research is one extra tool in the bag to use against any forces that are trying to put a cap on growth.

    In Victoria, riding has doubled in the last 15 or so years. The serious injury count has bounced between 800 to 1200 the entire time. Fatality count has dropped. It's easy to dispatch with concerns that more riders = more KSI's.

    The reality is that riding has more risks than driving. None of us shies away from that. The PTB hold perceptions about this that are worse than what we accept and understand... this ad isn't adding any fuel to that fire.

    There are no free lunches, MB gets exposure for supporting a cause. In three years they've put out messages on SMIDSY, Filtering and now encouraging more riding. Each in isolation has flaws - none are the silver bullet or strawman that collapses the negative forces against riding (which is the typical theme of the negative discussion when you stand back and look at it in toto). Together they start building a bigger picture and the overall message starts colouring the picture between the lines. Yes the message includes MB.

    As I've said in the past, the association with MB has had more positives than negatives. Happy to discuss over a beer one day.
  18. Imagine you are trying to sell a really nice house. It has one room that gets a little musty in Autumn but it's alright if you leave the Window open a crack.

    This ad is the equivalent of the title of the ad for that house being "2nd bedroom won't get so musty if you leave a window open".

    Meetings with the prospective buyers is where you try to polish the turd away, not the campaign.
  19. LOL

    Let my buy you some Cottonelles lol

  20. I'm conflicted. I'd like it to be a positive but like Mr Cooke I cannot see the authorities viewing it as a positive (net negative outcome).
    There may have been a better way. IIRC correctly the MUARC report also covered cyclists and pedestrians. If an ad linked them all together (VRUs) then a position that more motorcyclists also benefits cyclists and pedestrians would be more likely to be viewed favourably.