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.

RACV bias???

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by brokey, Jul 26, 2005.

  1. This is a short editorial in the 'Safer roads, save lives' section of the latest edition of the Royal Auto mag from the RACV.
    Looks like a typical rant from a non-rider considering the first part where the writer puts the onus of safety on riders and not other vehicle drivers. I have always been of the opinion that riders are more aware of safety issues and are more involved in these (through MC clubs) than non-riders given that many are active in improving their riding skills by attending advanced rider training courses.

    What infractructure do they envisage will improve both riders and drivers safety? Awareness training for drivers might be a start.
  2. I think your Right Col (how's things feeling mate?)

    I think most riders are only too aware of other road users. A lot of drivers however seem to be of the opinion that they are the sole occupant of the roads and therefore are not at risk of hitting anything.

    Awareness is a hard thing to test on though.
  3. Not bad....getting good with the crutches...

    Once they get in that protective shell they dont give a rats arse about anything else.......
  4. Mate of mine has a theory that if we can get every cager to ride a bike just for 6 months even woukd improve their driving ten fold. They'll soon learn about head checks and right of way and respect for other peoples space once they get on a bike I reckon.
  5. Yep, doesn't take long does it...... of course i started in the wheelchair and graduated up to crutches.

    I hear your getting a visit on Thursday night? Don't think I can make it though

    Yeah... guy who lives near my parents suffers frtom that. Lives at the end of a court and treats the whole street like his own personal drag strip. Both ways! How he never hit us when we were kids on pushies i don't know...
  6. Here's a safety improvement - let's put two more wheels on motorcycles, and enclose them in a safety capsule with four doors. :roll: I'm sure the RACV would love that one.

    Given half of those fatalities are caused by their members plowing into bikes, maybe they should look to themselves for some safety improvements.
  7. I dunno if it's actually biased, though. That quote sounds suspiciously famiiliar, like to the wording Vicroads and TAC used to justify the $50 levy. I wonder if they just lifted it from that source. It would explain the slight "feel" of blame inherent in it.
    But there is nothing wrong in the statement that motorcycles need specific consideration in regard to infrastructure. I'd like to see that!
  8. Yes, but I would like to the TAC have a good look at the levy and restructure it....AFAIK it isnt for infrastructure etc but for recouping money that is spent fixing broken riders....I know they have spent a bit on me....

    But what infrastructure can improve the safety of riders?? Do we want cotton wool barriers or drivers to be more responsible and more accountable?? I know which I prefer.
  9. What's the broader context of the quote? It seems quite fair to me - particularly if it's taken from a discussion of the need to spend money on road improvements.

    There's recognition that motorcyclists' needs are different from those of other road users. As Marty said, covers on WRBs would be a good start; how about looking at road furniture that obstructs vision at intersections? Or those red brick paved areas you get at some intersections that slow cars down but are slippery in the wet?

    You may have preferred the RACV to say something else (eg the need for bike-awareness training for drivers) but maybe the text was published in a different context?
  10. I think that given more riders are taken out by other road users and not roadside furniture, obstacles or road surface damage then how about a change of focus.
  11. Small point but what does the A in RACV stand for????
  12. Just looking at your original post, the quote's "a short editorial in the 'Safer roads, save lives' section of the latest edition of the Royal Auto mag"

    So if it's part of an editorial on making roads safer (as distinct from making drivers safer), the emphasis on infrastructure seems fair.

    (BTW, glad to see you're making progress Col :) )
  13. In france you can ride a scooter when 14 but cant drive a car until 17 and most 14 year olds have scooters. Go for a ride around Paris in the rush hour and see how people get out the way of a motorcycle and have great awareness of people on two wheels in general. Having a driving commuinty that has had a go of two wheels before ever driving a car really shows.
  14. The main article (actually titled 'Walking a fine line') deals with other road users, pedestrians and cyclists and devotes more space in the article to both of those (non registration paying and predominant non-protective gear wearing) groups.
    A section of the article states
    They are classified as a road user group? Well there ya' go...Making walking facilities safer, how about transit lanes for pedestrians!!!
  15. I think allowing people to use scooters at an earlier age than they can drive is a great idea.

    It'd be electoral suicide for any party that tried to introduce it here though. They'd be pilloried for recklessly encouraging our precious children to engage in life-threatening activities.

    You can imagine the current affairs programs having a field day - "the road toll is up [cut to shot of trolley being wheeled into trauma centre], there are more and more vehicles on our roads [cut to shots of bullbar-equipped LandCruisers and Kenworths], yet the XYZ party wants to put your teenage children on the roads on one of these [cut to shot of weedy 50cc scooter]".

    No chance.