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.

NSW NSW Vulnerable Road user report: Motorcyclists to have lowered BAC

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. For those that haven't caught up with it, the NSW government has completed it's study of vulnerable road user groups - the most recent report relates to cyclists and motorcyclists.

    The report and media release can be found here:http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/9E5130ABDFD436A3CA2577ED0002DED3

    The media release touts the lowering of the BAC to 0.02 as a key plank of improving rider safety.

    I haven't read the report, but from a motorcycle point of view, scanning the recommendations shows that the first 2 recommendations are about gathering better data for analysis of crashes and fatalities. Good thing IMO.

    The other MC recommendations relate to strengthening the minister's advisory council along VMAC lines (LMAO! VMAC is about to be disbanded if rumors are right), better road engineering and reporting of road surfaces, more rider research into effects of fatigue, reporting on the analysis around novice riders, evaluation of the effectiveness of enforcement activities, reduction of BAC, education campaigns about road rules, including mobility scooters into motorcycle safety strategies, mandate ABS and linked brakes, and working more closely with local councils on safety strategies.

    NSW guys, what are your views?
  2. My view is that they can get fuuuuuurked with the reduced BAC and especially ABS and linked brakes...
  3. :rofl: Classic Yak. :LOL:

    On a serious note, full time traction control is a killer on motorbikes in low traction environments.
  4. Someone needs to teach these guys statistics. Mapping the number of fatalities per age group, rather than per-capita comparison, is pointless.

    The document is filled with these statistical errors, because they seek to draw a correlation between age and rate of accidents.

    Sounds like the older riders are more experienced in avoiding low-speed collisions because they've been on the road longer and are better prepared for the stupidity of other road users.

    But they are getting involved in accidents on the twisties.

    Speed limits should be reduced at intersections as it will reduce the energy going into collisions. But I'm sure there are plenty of viable alternatives, none of which Rob will suggest, but I'm sure they may include;

    - Taking everyone else but Rob off the road
    - Installing traffic lights at every intersection along with boom gates to physically stop people running red lights
    - Forcing EVERY road user in Australia to undertake 'give way' training and assume they will be magically able to drive in a manner considerate of other road users

    I wonder if they bothered to correlate this with the intersection accidents?

    Alcohol was allegedly involved 20% of the time then, unless they ****ed their statistics again and it was in fact 27%, but in any case, they also fail to disclose how alcohol 'impacts' - and at what level.

    WTF IS THIS? This makes ZERO SENSE. Like it was not proof read. THE ****?

    What's the bet dirt-bike riders were involved?

    Why are they seeking to regulate motorcyclists on the whole when it is in fact unlicensed riders causing problems in the high BAC range?

    So what is the lower range? It would logically be .05-.08 given the high range is 0.08 - 0.150 and higher. If this is the case, then there is no (misguided) statistical correlation basis for lowering the motorcyclist BAC to .02

    But what if it is in fact anything below .08? Given they love statistical inaccuracy and misuse, we'd be ****ed if that is the case, as arguing that certain BAC levels "don't mean shit to driving ability" has never resulted in any sort of success.

    We should use this to highlight the fact that training required for licensing is essential and working - and that training should be increased, along with Government subsidised post-license grant training. It would be a wonder if this could be paid for...and how...?

    But good luck ever getting them to target only unlicensed riders, they would rather regulate the masses because checking the license of every rider is going to be more difficult, in fact, impossible where we're dealing with dickheads on dirt bikes or mini bikes. This point highlights the problem definitively, it cannot be argued with.

    Page 16 describes the occurence of accidents versus BAC ranges. As expected a higher BAC results in higher percentage of accidents, but they've still found ~25% of accidents involve <.05BAC. We're ****ed on that point boys. They are too eager to make the correlation and will definitely move ahead with lowering the BAC limit.

    Not only did they **** up once but they ****ed up twice - the collection of data is only half the problem, no matter how you collect data, its use is the most important step.

    There I said it. LOL. There is no arguing with them. It will happen.

    How many of the first group are on scooters?

    How many of the 2nd group have been riding for 15 years + and so are out there seeking unknown roads, that are poorly maintained, and give a better 'twisty riding' feel?

    I would expect the third group are riding on farm service roads and non-signposted (speed limit 100) roads.


    I don't know how many vehicles you would count go through the Royal National Park every weekend, thousands in a very small 10 hour window, thousands, but the surface is ****ed in some places.

    Road spines 5-10cm high, ripped up layers, compacted surface, loose surface...

    I wonder if signage was also erected in areas where they just reduced the speed limit?

    They're targeting these areas;

    Risk lowered because we are riding slower, but THEY FAILED TO CORRELATE THIS. WHAT THE ****.

    Gee, I wonder why we ride slower? Because the rope will cut us into tiny ****ing pieces?

    There will be no convincing them otherwise.

    LOL. Go go funding our safety, because it is financially better to tax us off the roads rather than keep us on them.

    Like I said previously, there will be no convincing them otherwise that a BAC <.05, heck even .05-.065, has no effect on driving / riding ability. We're ****ed. There is no avoiding this change.

    So not only are they refusing to recognise that additional training will result in more skill applied to the existing confidence riders have in their ability, they will on this basis, refuse all suggestions for funding additional rider training.

    Oh right, how are they going to insure this? How the **** can you manage the risk involved? They won't be able to cover half the drills as addressed in current track-based courses.

    Be prepared for all motorcycles to be $2000 more expensive...

    Oh right forget the problems that are identified...

    Pay attention to their closing recommendations.

    What about motorcycles FFS!?

    Yeah, more signals will totally mean cyclists will pay attention to them, just like they do already. The ****ing logic...

    Then why not also investigate this category in terms of accidents?

    In short there is not a single recommendation there to the benefit of motorcyclists, there is still a huge focus on pedal cyclists..
  5. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)
    Who the **** is "The NSW Police Force Commander of Traffic Services"?
    Read what this beige **** actually believes:
    That's right, 60-odd percent of fatals were over the current legal BAC.

    Yep, this stupid old ****er actually thinks that while Blondie is tootling down Pitt Street on her Vespa wearing skirt and heels, she really has a Berik one-piece in the wardrobe at home!!

    ****ing stupid ****ing wastes of ****ing oxygen, these ****s.
  6. couldnt have said it better myself.

    boffins in the basement at maquarie st so detatched from the real world making up rules as they go along for the sole purpose of legitimising their own employment :jerk:
  7. The option of ABS and linked brakes should be there for those who want them, but it shouldn't be mandatory.
  8. You know in the big smoke (where I live), there's an intersection every 100 metres, should we be slowing down for all of those? Is there much point in speeding up again between them? What would you recommend as a good speed? 30kp/h perhaps?
  9. 0.02?
    One beer and your over,so why not just make it zero.

    Unless the revenue is needed from the masses.

    I can certainly have a couple of beers and still ride fine.
    0.02 be buggered.I've been on a high "carb" diet for years,and enjoy " working out"--****s.
  10. ](*,)](*,)](*,)

    Linked brakes and traction control?
    Get farked!

    I won't even buy a bike with ABS if it can't be switched of... and good luck enforcing any of that cr*p on my bikes ya w*nkers!
  11. There are some old blokes south of Sydney whom don full leathers and hi-vis vests.
  12. I can so see me falling off when cranked over... and it decides to cut down the power to the rear wheel... SPLAT SLIDE...
  13. For the average bloke, 3 standard beers in the first hour will get you to 0.05. One per hour thereafter will keep you there... buggered if I know what the system is for a 0.02 BAC

    Smokae, are you sure you're not a petty man? lol.

    You've said a whole bunch of stuff that makes sense. I don't agree with your take on the "safe system" principles, but it's not personal mate. Don't make it personal with the unnecessary jibes.

    Anyway, I see that you're now seeing the reality of the beigefluenza that's infecting the authority structures in our society and the consequences this will have on your riding. Great write up. Time to let your local parlimentary member know about the statistical errors you've found and ask them to justify the setting of policy on flawed evidence. Follow the guidelines described here: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/12/16...waste-theirs-a-guide-to-writing-to-ministers/
  14. 0.02 is 1 light beer / hour iirc.
  15. So far its only got passed study phase. Considering it will probably take them more than two months to put through, which is all they have, chances are it wont be happening to soon.
  16. Policeman: "excuse me sir, I noticed you had turned off your ABS.
    Rider: "sorry sir, where do I pay the $250 fine, I promise I will not do it again.
  17. won't be happening before the election, so we need to know what the current opposition's stance is on it.

    Seems to me we paid for a study and they just came to a conclusion they would have come to without the study.
  18. Actually it used to be 2 standard drinks in the first hour for men to get to 0.05, and 1 drink every hour after to maintain it (remember the old "rethink your third drink" campaign). Now though they don't give a X number of drinks recommendation as studies have shown huge variations not only in body size/shape, but also the type of drink.

    Having once been stuck on a minesite where the only entertainment was a bar and a breathalyzer it's amazing how little, or how much, some people need to drink to get over 0.05 (and how long some people take to drop back below it).
  19. This is also a proposal in the National Road Safety arena. As is ABS brakes.
    ABS brakes are being proposed as mandatory in Europe - if that happened then we would see the manufacturers respond and there's nothing we could do about it - all bikes would come standard with ABS.

    Making it mandatory just for NSW or just for Australia would mean there'd be very few small bikes on the Australian market because at the moment I don't think there are any manufacturers suppling ABS braked scooters (although they are the segment that would possibly benefit the most from it).

    ABS braked bikes through an evolutionary process with the manufacturers is one thing (it does need be switchable for anyone who rides on dirt roads though) - unilateral decisions about mandating it can't be made in the context of the small Australian market place.

    The low BAC laws are a reaction that they think will go down well wi the idiots who write letters about 'hoons" to newspapers. This sort of law has never worried about statistical evidence or scientific method - it's a stupid knee-jerk populist reaction that appeals to a certain type of in-bred politician (and it is immaterial which party they belong to).
  20. ABS is always switchable - just pull the fuse.