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.

[SA]: Safety debate - think you can do better than MUARC?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Minderbinder, Nov 18, 2009.

  1. I noticed an advertisement in The Australian (November 18, Higher Education, p.27): The University of Adelaide is offering a postgraduate scholarship - $26,669 p.a. for 3 years, tax free - to undertake a PhD in the area of motorcycle safety, with the Centre for Automotive Safety Research.

    I've noticed a tendency on this forum to blame unpopular road safety decisions on the academics for their research, rather than the politicians who pick and choose from a wide range of recommendations only those that suit their narrow agenda.

    So for those research bashers out there who think that gut feeling trumps scholarly work and peer review (and I don't mean to implicate any specific individuals), here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is and prove them wrong. If you're sick of car drivers making recommendations on your behalf, here's your chance to put a motorcyclist's spin on it.

    If you have a background in psychology, public health or statistics, get an application form at <http://www.adelaide.edu.au/graduatecentre/scholarships/postgrad/pgforms.html> and submit it before Friday the 18th December. Anything else is just meaningless chest beating.
  2. Really? Because I've noticed the complete opposite?:-s
  3. Last time I posted statistics in response someone talking complete rubbish, multitudes of posters chimed in to say that the figures weren't credible because they came from MUARC. Apparently, MUARC just makes stuff up because the Victorian government tells them to.
  4. Now thats harsh! I'd say they "interpret" figures according to a set criteria myself....8-[

    Having said that MUARC are doing themselves no favours in that whatever the "truth" is, they are now being seen to be partisan and non independant.
    As such they should be ignored or at least treated with suspicion.
    The next Govt should find another source for information.