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.

RACT, WRB's, and public perception

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Iffracem, Sep 5, 2006.

  1. There's been a bit 'o stink in Tas lately, as the RACT came out in support of WRB's, saying how they are so cheap and effective and bike risers don't really count.

    I've told them off, and pointed out the European gum'nts enlightenment and banning of them.

    but to give you an idea of what we're up against.. here's the online "comments" with yours truly getting a few good shots in (IMHO)
    Read the comments from the bottom one up to keep it in chronological order

  2. Nice work Jim - pity about the RACT - almost feel ashamed that I had insurance and various other products with them for 9 years when I lived there. Jim Cox mentions in the article that WRBs are one of 'the options' - well if it is an option why do they continue to exercise it?
  3. Some interesting comments. Which ones are yours?

    I personally do not have real issues with WRBs, if they're not installed on roads where motorcyclists vulnerability, or exposure to risk is at its highest. Placement on freeways, for example, shouldn't be an issue. But say, on the Reefton, well, yeah, that would be a tad silly.

    That said, I have doubts that it's an effective cross-over measure, particularly with 4WDs and trucks.

    Some Vicroads official made a comment a couple of years back that they (WRBs) should be placed down the centre of undivided roads. The scary part about that is that our taxes and other charges go to paying the salaries of such people, and they get to advise on and implement policy. If this nutter could suggest this with a straight face, imagine what other lunatic fantasies that the guy has that we could be subjected to.
  4. My comments are the ones from Jim McCarthy in Snug :wink:

    The "oiptions" are Cox's pollie speak for
    "don't blame me, I just got this portfolio, blame the last bloke, I'll just wait and see if the stink blows over before sufacing to test the waters"

    The current options are WRB's or Nuffin... the test is "what is politically safer (ie lose less votes), that can be blamed on someone else (ie some nameless-faceless beaurocrat) and give him the most chances for swan trips (he's off to Sweden, on a "fact finding" visit soon)

    sooo.. WRB's win.

    The reference to the sports is a supposedly cash strapped gum'nt that can't afford to give a coupla grand to a womens refuge centre, or keep Doctors in the Royal Hobart Hospital has spent 23 million on a trotting/dung-bag/dishlickers track with heated concours area for the poor nags hooves, and 3 million a year is being thrown at the hawks to play AFL in launceston.

    What is the connection with roads/traffic ministers and Sweden FFS? what the hell has Sweden got in common with Aus in Roads and Traffic??? Every pollie and beaurocrat (Roads and Transport ) in Tas must have been to bleedin Sweden at least twice.

  5. WTF :?:

    They're dangerous or they're not dude! They are no less dangerous(actually they probably are due to the lower speed limit) on the spur than they are on the Western Hwy at 110kmh if you hit it brother.
  6. Triway, whatever roadside barrier they install, it will always be dangerous for us.

    What I'm saying is that we have less chance of hitting them on the freeway than we do on the Spur (if they were installed there), due to the nature of the roads and the traffic on them.

    And if we did hit them at 110 km/h, chances are we'd be Wallaby Ted (Roo Ted's brother) anyway, regardless of whether there was WRB, armco, concrete barriers or whatever. The only difference would be the amount of mess that the SES guys and firies would have to deal with, afterwards....