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.

Proposed amendments to ARR's... Tex and Bundy take note!

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by robsalvv, Jun 3, 2008.

  1. Like most other folks who protested the proposed anti splitting road rules, I'm now on the NTC's mailing list. I decided to have a look around tonights email offering which was about proposed amendments/adjustments to the ARR's.

    The email takes you here: http://www.ntc.gov.au/RFCList2004.aspx where you can click into the 8th amendment package discussion paper.

    The proposed amendments mostly make sense and are just fine tweaks, but there's one that relates to motorcyclists and animals between the rider and the handlebars. The famous Tex and Bundy should take note.

    The amendment tightens up the rule.

    Thought I'd share.

  2. I have never heard of, nor can I find: an instance where a motorcyclists carrying a dog has crashed.

    Any cop who ticketed someone for taking their canine mate for a ride is a prize scrotum.
  3. Not this bloody stupid idea again. Some of these rules seem to crop up out of the fertile minds of idiots. If that is so dangerous then why haven't we heard of crashes caused by this practice. I'm sure the media would have loved to publicise them if they existed.

    When we propose amendments they need to be "evidence based" but when they propose them we still have produce the evidence to oppose them... :evil:

    Here we go again, it's a never ending effing cycle with these characters...
  4. Tony, obviously do a little bit of research first to make sure you're right but couldn't a very poignant letter request oh, I dunno... 2 examples in the last decade of a pet-betwixt-bars-and-rider even being INVOLVED in an accident? let alone being a cause?

    I'm sure a follow up "There is zero justification for the proposed amendment besides an unqualified and unquantified assumption. Bin it, knobends." letter would be quite reasonable pending their reply to the first...
  5. None that I know of in Victoria in the past few years. Can't speak for other states. But yes, that's the way to do it - polite letter asking them to produce evidence then follow up with letters to all and sundry telling them they're knobheads. :twisted:
  6. Thanks Robsalv for bringing that to my attention, I will be fighting this stupid, ridiculous rule tooth & nail.
    Some misinformed dickhead Bureaucrat who is trying to save the world and has probaly never ridden a bike in his/her life. Having an animal, in this case a dog, on the petrol tank between the rider and the handlebars is far safer than carrying the said animal on the pillion seat. I could go on with many reasons, however I think the fact that I do 60 thousand K's a year on various motorcycles with my dog(s) and have done so for almost 10 years without any serious accident is testimonial to the safety of what I do.
    Anyway watch this space, I may be calling for support, either way I will be making my submissions and I will publish the outcome.

    Tex & Bundy
  7. Well I realise that's quite specific, but I'm really guided by my heart more than any actual lobbying experience... :p
  8. I think I can safely speak for the majority here, call for support on this one, and it will come. F**king pricks.
  9. These assholes need to get a life :roll:
    I can understand making changes to combat problems out there, but as klutu stated +1
  10. I just checked - it's already illegal... :evil:

    The Australian Road Rules 5th Amendment Package, approved by the Australian Transport Council in June 2006, inserted a provision that a rider of a motor bike must not have an animal on the petrol tank of the motor bike

    This amendment caters for bikes like BMW F650's, Acrosses etc where the petrol tank is under the seat by redefining the rule as "between the rider and the handlebars".
  11. Well, you'd normally tell them politely that they're knobheads... :wink:
  12. That is total bollocks. When you want a support army let me know I'll do what I can.
  13. Typical government public servant mentality:

    "That which is not explicitly allowed will be explicitly banned"

    In other words, if there's a grey area in the law that people are using and have been harmlessly using since the dawn of time, then unless it's vital to people's survival, we'll make a move to explicitly ban it rather than just let it be.
  14. Welcome to my world
  15. Welcome to the nanny planet compliments of the UN.
  16. WTF Does the UN Have to do with any of this?

  17. Arrrgh....

    Runs screaming from the room... :p :LOL:
  18. I'm with ya Tex.
  19. Apart from the fact that the animal could move ... how can this be any different than having a tank bag :?:
  20. I wonder what the general public responce would be if they tried to ban an animal from the front seats of a car or truck