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.

QLD: RACQ Road Safety Priorities

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by John_M, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. An article appears in the recently issued RACQ magazine "The Road Ahead" on their road safety priorities. Last year in July they ran their annual "Pet Peeves survey". I believe the results of that survey have contributed to their priorities. Next year we must have more riders in Qld submit their views.

    More important than the article are the details on each priority fleshed out on their website: http://www.racq.com.au/about_us/lobbying_for_road_users/safety/road_safety_priorities

    It is positive to note that the RACQ only uses the 3 headings of the safe system approach: roads, vehicles & road users, rather than raising "Speed" as a separate fourth heading (they embed "speed" into the others where it should be).

    Unfortunately not all is good about their priorities: Fact sheet 18 deals with motorcyclists and scooters: http://www.racq.com.au/__data/asset..._-_Motorcyclists_and_motor_scooter_riders.pdf
    It's all a bit of a summary of everything that's been stated previously, but the devil is in a couple of the details. A couple of their priorities for us are a worry:

    I believe motorcycling groups will have a common view in response to each of these and it doesn't necessarily align with the RACQ's view ;) . RACQ represents its members and the majority of them are car drivers. Membership surveys like "Pet Peeves" produce data for the RACQ to develop their priorities. Its now the task of motorcylcling groups to reinforce alternative views.

  2. cheers for the heads up... i do remember filling out this survey at the time.. was posted here on NR if i remember correctly...
    we do need to make some noise about these things if we don't want them to happen..
  3. Yup, that looks exactly like a list of motorcycle road safety priorities put together by car drivers :evil:.
  4. Excellent post.
    There is no doubt in my mind, from that quote, that RACQ has adopted a position of open hostility to motorcyclists. The question is, are they a private old boys club like RACV, or can they be influenced by their membership if motorcyclists get involved?
    How much notice of them does the state government take?

    It strikes me that they are remarkably naive if they think that they have the power to impose FNPs and discriminatory legislation, when those moves have recently been defeated on a national level.
  5. I responded to that after an email from the MRAQ. I won't post the whole thing here but I commented on the FNP nonsense and the protective gear items.

    I did finish the comments off with :

    I would suggest that your work producing a motorcycle safety document based on the opinions of your members, the vast majority of whom do not ride - is akin to non-driving cyclists producing a safety policy for car drivers.
  6. I doubt any non-senior motorcycle rider will want any of those priorities made into laws. Sounds like it was all made by car drivers... especially the lane splitting rule... pure jealousy!
  7. yea, i remeber doing this survey aswell. I think at the end of it, you had to moninate if you are a bike or car driver.

    Would be interesting to see what the bike riders thought of car drivers.
  8. Well, if this meant filtering when stationary was legal I'd be for that.
  9. Interesting point. It would, in effect, make filtering stationary traffic wholly legal. I overlooked that.
    (Bet they did, too.)