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 Petition: TAC get real about rider safety

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by the_blacke, Apr 30, 2012.

  1. In the wake of the latest offering from TAC I've created a petition to collect as many names as we can get, with the view to forcing TAC to sit down with riders and work together on improving rider safety rather than wasting money on this crap.

    Please sign the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/tac-victoria-get-real-about-rider-safety

    Please like the facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/GetRealAboutRiderSafety

    Please get your friends and family members to do the same.

    I know there is a significant level of cynicism and skepticism about whether a petition like this will ever make any difference; it may not, but if nobody sticks their name on it, then it definitely will not, so please sign up and spread the word.
  2. But I don't want the TAC to get real on road safety. I want road safety to be removed from the Transport Accident Act 1986 completely, and to be passed to Vicroads.

    At least then there wouldn't be a conflict between being an insurer and delivering "road safety messages". Well, not directly, although I'm sure Vicroads management are measured on the road toll.
  3. Petitions don't usually achieve much and I suspect online petitions achieve even less

    If you really want to support the cause start a real compaign, write letters to your local member, write letter to your local paper. Write to TAC requesting answers and if they don't provide an adequate reply write again and again and then to the Ombudsman asking him to get an answer from them.

    A real campaign is hard work. But if you are serious about achieving results it will take hard work.
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Grey: I completely agree. The point of the petition is to get some real numbers of people who are concerned about TACs handling of motorcycle issues. In and of itself, it won't achieve anything; however when I write to my member of parliament and can say that I have the signatures of over 300 people (as of this morning, 36 hours after starting the petition) who are equally concerned, then they might start to listen, and help me to apply pressure upon TAC.

    How much more might they listen if instead of 300 names we had 500? 1000? Honestly who can say. But I do know that it doesn't cost people anything to sign it, and it's at least one step better than just sitting back and doing nothing or just complaining.

    I'm prepared to put in the hard yards to harass TAC over this, but I won't achieve anything if I am representing myself and seven of my mates. So for me to have any hope whatsoever of making any sort of difference on this issue, I need people to sign up.
  5. Roderick: I understand your position. I don't agree with it - at least, I'm very concerned about the knock on effects of what such a move could be - but I understand it.

    As insurer, TAC needs to ensure that they are collecting adequate premiums to cover the projected claims they will receive, and to not go broke in the process. Allowing them to have a role in road safety gives them a means of achieving that end by influencing driver / rider behaviour, and thereby hopefully reducing the number of claims lodged, which ultimately puts downward pressure on premiums.

    Take that ability away, and the only tool left in their arsenal is the pricing of the premiums. TACs current claim is that motorcycle injuries represent 20% of their payout; and I can guarantee that they don't represent 20% of the premiums collected. I don't like the direction that could lead.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. I'd rather just see TAC participation become optional. I'd much rather save the $500/yr or so.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. A task that would be made significantly LESS difficult if successive governments stopped STEALING all the money on an annual basis...:censored::censored:
  8. Not a good idea mate. Let me explain:

    Let's say you're father/brother/mother/sister etc. are a passenger in your car, and you're driving home from the movies one night. You've elected not to be a part of the TAC insurance scheme. Another motorist, who didn't elect to be a part of the TAC insurance scheme either, veers in to your lane and causes an accident. Your family member is left paralyzed, and with huge medial bills.

    That would present a massive burden on society, as your family member would be claiming massive amounts of compensation from a disability pension, and probably wouldn't have enough money to pay the medical bills, ambulance bills, or carers bills, let alone have enough money to survive with food, groceries and other general bills. Society ends up paying, one way or another. Society = tax payers.

    I'm not saying the system is perfect, and I am firmly against the TAC and their bullsh!t tactics when it comes to advertising and the road toll, but frankly, we'd all be pretty stuffed without a national personal injury insurance scheme like this. In my view, it's a reasonable way to collect premiums and provide cover for our whole population, many of whom aren't at fault in the accidents they're involved in.
  9. If we're assuming the other driver also didn't have liability insurance, that still leaves the private health insurance that I'm required to have.

    Also, appealing to the "the state has to pay" angle doesn't affect me at all. I always have, and always will, place individual choice over the financial wellbeing of governments. That $500/yr is a lot more useful to me as a "definitely have it" than a "might need it", especially as I already have the aforementioned private health insurance… with a $500 excess, ironically enough.
  10. Not that I want this thread to get too derailed (what? you haven't signed the petition yet? go do it! do it now!) but there's a slight ... complication here.

    Many of the health funds do not include covering injuries related to motor vehicle accidents, just as Ambulance Victoria membership doesn't cover you for ambulance travel after a road accident. Reason being that these expenses are *already covered* by TAC insurance.

    Hardly an insurmountable problem, but if one was theoretically to make TAC insurance optional, one would have to budget for Ambulance Victoria membership to increase accordingly - and probably your health fund membership also. Would they increase to the tune of $500 a year? I seriously doubt it. But they would go up.
  11. Private health insurance doesn't cover all costs by any means, and if you injure someone else, your insurance doesn't cover the injured party at all. Health insurance other than Medicare is not compulsory. There are just consequences and costs if you don't have it. So the other party may not have health insurance to cover their injuries. Not to mention, health insurance doesn't cover income support, modifications to a house and car so that the injured party still has mobility, and so on.

    The support that TAC provides is really quite good, regardless of fault or other insurance. Although they do seem to be trying to make it a little harder to get what an injured party is entitled to these days. Cost cutting.

    If you did not have TAC type insurance, and caused an accident, then you would be sued for all cost, pain and suffering of the injured party. That would lead us back down the slippery slope of assigning blame for accidents, and long settlement times during which the injured party cannot get treatment or other services, and will probably go broke. The TAC provides almost immediate support for an injured party, at the time they need that support, not months or years later.

    Basically, if you don't have TAC type insurance, and aren't filthy rich, and ever have an accident, whether your fault or not, and there is another injured party, you had better hope you died in the accident.
  12. When the company behind your health care is able to influence policies regarding your day to day life, I have a serious problem with that. This is why I'm not a fan of government health care in the first place, because it leads to a lot more "nanny state" behaviour because they don't want to spend the money they steal from us, so they start taking away liberties.

    The TAC is even worse in some ways because they do it in a discriminatory way.
  13. For you, no. For me, yes.

    The rest of your argument is more or less valid, but isn't that hard to fix as long as non-retarded people are behind it. That rules out the government.

    I wouldn't be as fundamentally opposed to the TAC if they didn't run at a profit, and if their assrаping fees weren't attached to vehicle registrations. They should be attached to driver licenses. Also of course their behaviour is reprehensible.
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Why would you expect ordinary licence holders to cover the costs of business owned fleet vehicles across the state? Look at the whopping amounts Taxis, Hire Cars, Trucks and emergency vehicles pay to TAC. If you spread the cost of all vehicles across all licence holders you could actually be worse off then paying for the combined car and bike charges you probably already pay..... People who own just the one vehicle or no vehicle would be shafted even further.

    This also would provide a huge incentive for people from overseas or interstate to NOT convert their licences to Victorian as well, which prevents their learning of local road rules (especially by foreigners).
  15. That's a good point, but with the current system people are getting raped for owning multiple vehicles even though they can only crash one at a time.
  16. I wouldn't say raped. You will pay TAC on both though, but I always thought you got a discount with 2 or more. When I owned 2 motorbikes, fully registered, one of them was really cheap to register cause I got a massive TAC discount.

    I think if you've rich enough to own 2 or more cars in your own name (not clapped out bombs, everyone can own them) then you can afford the TAC charge on your rego.
  17. In Victoria there is no discount for multiple vehicles.. The only time you'll see one rego cheaper than another for bikes is when you own 2 bikes over 125cc.. You will only get charged the "safety levy" on one of the bikes and not the other... So it will be approx $60 cheaper for the 2nd bike and any extra bike you may have..

    and there are still classes for bikes, so depending on cc, price will be different. Everything over 500cc is charged at the same rate.

    I pay 3 bike rego's a year and strangely the 2nd due in a year is the one I pay the levy on.
  18. Okay, I'll sign to show solidarity and build numbers.

    The problem is that they are using those means to attack all motorcyclists in an attempt to remove them all from the road. It is very simple; when a motorcyclist crashes at any reasonable speed, particularly if they hit something, they will be on the receiving end of ongoing TAC payments, if they survive. I can see their logic, that the ONLY way to reduce payments to motorcyclists is to get them off the road, as even at relatively low speeds there can be significant injuries. Especially as they haven't been able to mandate minimum standards for satey gear, yet.

    As they are only really concerned with their financial viability, they don't consider lifestyle issues, freedom of choice, recreation and fun, practical issues like commute time and cost, or anything else. Just; "Did we make enough money, cover costs, and will I get my bonus again this year/month". It is a very selfish, self centered, and narrow minded position. Just like most other people, but the TAC have the power to make everyone else's life a missery, if they need to use the roads.

    Actually they could work with Vicroads and still fund campaigns. Just not be in control of them. One degree of separation may add some sensible reviews and remove the ability to place ads without any external control.

    There are better ways to improve safety, and no one in Australia has really tried them properly yet. Just fine the buggers to bankruptcy, and then take their licence away. Throw in a little jail time for those who don't get the message. Make them criminals. An independent safety organisation may be able to try better ideas.

    So, I applaud the intent of your message, but I really want someone else to take over delivering the safety message. Not TAC, not Vic Police. In the mox available, Vicroads is a possible choice.

    Of course Vicroads may be just as bad . . .

    PS: Motorcycle injuries may represent 20% of their payout, but a very large portion of injuries are caused by other road user errors. It isn't the motorcyclists premium paying for their injuries, it is the other road user's premium, since they caused the accident. If we had an "at fault" insurer, this is the way it would be decided. How often does a motorcyclist injure another road user, pedestrian, or passenger when at fault? That is how premiums would be decided.
  19. Yeah that's a very sensible point (and I also take your point about VicRoads being potentially just as bad).

    My concern is about being pushed towards an "at fault" scheme of insurance, which would surely penalise motorcyclists much more severely than TAC does. There are so many faults with how motorcycle accidents are investigated and reported that unless another vehicle has stopped at the accident because they were involved, the police appear to universally conclude that the rider was at fault and that speed was a factor. The no fault nature of TAC is something that ought to be preserved in my opinion. But if your idea could be implemented without jeopardising that, I would have no objections at all.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Well, the clapped out bombs have the same TAC fees as the 911 Turbos.