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 Response to TAC Motorcycle Safety Ad

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by BulletProof, Aug 21, 2012.

  1. Saw this clip today. Looks like the word is getting out!


    • Like Like x 14
  2. THAT is a beautiful thing :applause:
    On so many levels.
  3. Crap!!, the web filter at work doesn't let it play....
  4. Just came to post this as well. Take that TAC!
  5. Good job for the age to publish this. Using TAC's own statistics against them :)
  6. I wouldn't mind betting that those are not statistics are not from TAC-funded research, but I'd definitely suspect TAC of having seen them, and decided to cover them up.
  7. Where the hell did they get those stats from? 38 out of 45 motorcyclists killed over the last 5 years? Isn't going to take TAC long to argue down that one. :(

    Kudos to VMC and all involved in getting this story into mainstream media though - Take a bow, you've done very, very well!!!
    • Like Like x 1
  8. And that is the big thing that really matters here. Bogging down the argument in conflicting stats is not going to do any harm (might even help). But getting the alternative view into a headline, in the face of official pressure to silence dissent, is a huge achievement and deserves a lot of respect.
    I'm just delighted.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I feel its very shallow and doesn't really do all that much to dispell the myth other than some raw numbers (where ever they come from).

    Either way its good to have the media singing our tune
  10. We can only hope this is the start of lobby groups pushing back the TAC garbage.

    Well done.
  11. I think they mean one year, not five years?

    Having said that, I'm very happy to see a link to this video on the front page of TheAge.com.au.

    Attached Files:

  12. Two thumbs up for the age on this one.. :thumbup::thumbup:
  13. Saw the link this morning while browsing TheAge, didn't get a chance to watch it yet, but just read the heading:
    "Contrary to a recent TAC advert blaming a speeding motorcyclist, the vast majority of fatal motorbike accidents are the fault of car or truck drivers."

  14. The Age were making inquiries about TAC and their approach to riders some months back.

    I'm a bit perplexed by the stat too but can't see the context since the site is blocked at work - can someone fill me in a bit further? If they're looking at intersection fatalities then that stat makes sense. That crash type is a subset of the fatality data and within that crash type other vehicles are well and truly at fault. Even the TAC's own public information agrees that the vehicle is at fault in 80%+ fatalities in such circumstances.

    Just regarding intersection/turning type crashes, TAC are on record as saying that ~20% of MC fatals occur between a turning vehicle and a bike. 80%+ of these are the other vehicle's fault (i.e., SMIDSY). If the article is in context of that kind of stat, then the Age are probably right.

    If they're looking at two vehicle MC crashes in general, resulting in injury or death, then IIRC Vicroads data says that the majority of crashes are with other vehicles. I had a couple of posts about it in the TAC focus group thread. But that's at odds with the fatality numbers Age appear to have quoted.

    In regards to the data comment, the only official data that tracks fatalities and injuries is effectively TAC/Vicroads/VicPol. There's isn't another set of data.

    I'll have to get onto a PC that has access before commenting further.
  15. ...I think the Age have fluffed the numbers. I've just seen the bit.

    It looks like they've used the turning vehicle stat and mistaken it for explaining the total fatality stat. But even the most cursory glance at the tacsafety stats pages should have alerted the journo that in the last three full years we've had just under 140 fatals, not fortysomething.

    I'm kinda disappointed.

    There's easily evidence around that speed isn't as major a contributor as TAC says... it wouldn't take much to cast more than reasonable doubt on this simply because police accident reports have a tick the box approach to listing speed as a contributor, and that there is so little root cause analysis that goes on - only enough to lay legal blame.

    No, I am disappointed.
  16. D'oh.. :(
  17. The VMC soundbite still makes it worthwhile IMO
  18. Yeh actually, great on the spot sound bite from Pete.
  19. Politics is not science. In fact it's almost the opposite. TAC have been 'fluffing' the numbers for years and nobody in authority gives a damn.
    The newspaper knew exactly what it was doing here, and that's stirring up controversy. If TAC decides to challenge them, that's more controversy. Win for the newspaper. It's also an opportunity to have a real debate about the truth behind the figures and the way they are collected. All of that is bad news for the status quo.
    So no, nothing to be disappointed about IMO.
  20. It's a start. That's the main thing. Good work VMC.