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 Summary of meeting with Ken Lay

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Wolve, Jul 20, 2010.

  1. Sorry for the wait guys. There is much process that happens to finalize these reports.

    Meeting Report is now available.

    Work and family commitments have been pretty busy this week. See you tomorrow night.

  2. Re: Riding Not Hooning. (Motorcycling in the Public eye)

    Not convinced he really understands or cares. ie frontal identification and filtering.
    He is a sock puppet and showed it up with his "enforcement" line.
    Time will tell.
  3. "The MRAV also pointed out that as speed, or to be more specific, excessive velocity was found to be a factor in a third of these fatalities" - you really need to get past this retoric (not play along with them on this) and get to the REAL CAUSE of accidents. Yes, speed is a factor as it increases risk of injury and fatalities but the underlying causes are what need to be addressed. rider training and also training for all road users and enforcement of the basic road rules (giving way etc) are more important.

    I understand the logic behind reducing and enforcing speed limits because obviously it reduces the probability of injuries and/or fatalities, however, the approach currently used does not help motorcyclists as they are vulnerable at any speed. If vicroads etc al are serious about reducing motorcycle injuries/fatalities, the focus on speed will not work. They need to address the underlying causes of accidents instead. Unfortunately, as stated, they don't keep accurate statistics (if any) of accidents that do not result in injury/fatalities. By "going back to basics" and looking at real causes of accidents, I believe this would impact ALL road users positively.
  4. #4 jdkarmch, Jul 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2014
    Re: Riding Not Hooning. (Motorcycling in the Public eye)

    Patience Smee at least MRA(Vic) is now back to talking with VicPol.

    Excellent report Grant=D>=D>=D>

    Note - the report mentions that only 1/3 are speed related and then drew Ken's attention to the other 2/3 that are not.....

    The forgotten 2/3 makes a nonsense of the speed argument sometimes and is a good point raised by Kerry and Grant. Certainly something which we all need to get behind them on.
  5. When quoting, perhaps use the complete sentence "The MRAV also pointed out that as speed, or to be more specific, excessive velocity was found to be a factor in a third of these fatalities - our contention that better education and training for riders would help for the other two thirds that could be attributed to rider error, but concede this change will take time." We discussed things not summarized here as explained in a section prior to this one because specific cases are still under investigation or before the Coroner's court.

    We spoke at length about the problems with the reporting data and how "rider fault" or "speed" is not always a cut and dry equation. Can we dumb down this massive debate into a catchcry as they have with "Speed Kills"? Is ours something like "Motorbikes are not cars"? All those that ride know that motion is part of the stability equation for motorcycles which is something not even considered in cars and this defines most of the ignorance shown by the likes of Radio shock jocks aka Neil Mitchell.

    We hope to raise more questions in our next scheduled meeting such as "how many rider experts are in the Accident Investigation Squad"? Since, as stated, this special investigative group is called in the case of a Fatality, I think it would be useful for the rest of us to know they have specific skill and knowledge to determine causality in unclear cases of riders coming off for no apparent reason.
  6. Good to hear theres a regular avenue for communication setup.
  7. #7 Chef, Jul 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2014
    So let's help him understand and then make him care.

    Mate I think you've nailed it 100%. I think the next time he asks "why aren't riders listening to me?" we need to have our answer prepared...

    "It's because your message is wrong Ken, plain ol' fashioned wrong."

    There's a few people in the background who are making good head way on digging through the evidence that will be able to provide him with enough proof to take that message on board.

    In the MUARC study they reported on the lack of braking evidence at motorcycle accidents scenes. What, did they expect to see skidmarks?

    What do they interpret a lack of skid marks to be? Poor rider skill or good good rider skill?

    It's interesting that they rely on skidmarks to determine the velocity of the vehicles involved in the accidents, how can they make an accurate assessment without the skidmarks being present?
  8. #8 titus, Jul 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 1, 2014
    Re: Riding Not Hooning. (Motorcycling in the Public eye)

    Here's a couple of things I'd like to see pointed out to KL at some point:
    - if he is a sock puppet, he's John Brumby's sock puppet, and he will go down with the ship at some point, sooner or later.
    - it's plain to everyone that covert surveillance and cameras have not done a damn thing to reduce the incidence of infringement. Just the opposite in fact. So if he really is serious about getting everyone to slow down he needs to drop the cameras and get out there in marked cars and earn some respect back for his forces.
    Or is it just too easy to collect the money long after the event?

    Helluva point. If they automatically assume that everyone just buries their foot on the brakes in an emergency like a numpty, how could they possibly make estimates about a the speed of a rider who knows very well NOT to hit the brakes in that situation?
  9. To say nothing of the fact that wet, oily or debris covered roads may not leave any skidmarks.

    His comments about FNPs and Singapore are interesting. Singapore has the older "fore and aft" numberplates. Somewhere I have an email from Singapore (which I've been looking for for a while) affirming that they are for side on identification only - they are not used for other photographic enforcement.

    Found one bit but I can't find the original it came from...

    1. Land Transport
    Government of Singapore
    The information that you have requested for: -
    Q1 I gather that you have front number plates in Singapore motorcycles - but that these are mounted longitudinally along the front mudguard, is this correct?
    A A motorcycle front registration number plate is either mounted longitudinally on the mudguard or facing forward on the front fairing of the motorcycle.
    Q2 Is the fitment of the plates done by the rider?
    A Vehicle registration number plates are fitted by the number plate makers or the motor agents.
    Q3 Do the mountings have to be approved by the Singapore government or the manufacturer?
    A Under the Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Registration and Licensing) Rules, vehicle identification marks (i.e. registration numbers) must be exhibited not more than one metre from the ground. A motorcycle front number plate, if mounted longitudinally, must be mounted such that from whichever side the motorcycle is viewed, the registration numbers are easily distinguishable.
    Q4 Are the resulting mounting used by frontal speed camera detection systems?
    A All our enforcement cameras (ERP, speed, red light) capture the view of the rear number plates

    Q5 What purpose do these longitudinal plates serve?
    A The motorcycle front registration number plates are for easy identification by enforcement officers or motorists traveling next to motorcycles.
  10. That's a part of their skidtest though, the viscosity of the road surface.

    I'd be more concerned with who interprets the data. Fine and well if it's the crash investigation unit, not so good if they don't understand they're not looking at a bloody car.

    The Singapore defense (as it will now be known) is brilliant, not much point getting on the radio and bleating on about it if it's not applicable to Australia.

    The MRAV desperately needs a media spokesperson and a war room.

  11. I think a more important question is that of 'speed' versus 'ability'. If somebody of greater ability could manage the same corner, at the same speed, on the same bike, by choosing a better line, leaning more, or whatever, then what was the cause of the crash: speed, or rider ability? Clearly it would have to be rider ability. In that case, improve the signage to allow riders to better judge the entry speed of a corner, or clear foliage away to allow riders to better judge the curvature of the road, or clear the debris from the corner to help riders maintain traction. All of these things would actually help the situation. Speed cameras won't.

    Another interesting thing I noticed while reading some of the MUARC literature. Riders are said to have contributed to a crash if they had chosen their lane position poorly, or failed to react to a threat appropriately - even if the driver of the other vehicle was legally at fault and had failed to give way, or ignored a traffic control device. So it is easy to see how riders could 'contribute' to 75% of all crashes in that case. If you had been in a different lane, or swerved earlier, or had done any of a thousand other things to avoid the accident in the first place, then you wouldn't have crashed. Ergo, you contributed to the crash. Or, to put it another way, the fact that you crashed is evidence that you didn't manage to avoid the crash, which means that you contributed to the crash.

    Given that circular logic I'm amazed that only 75% of riders 'contribute' to their crashes.

    The interesting thing is that in both of these cases rider ability is a far greater contributing factor than speed per se. The ability to take that bend at a certain speed, or hold your line, or swerve around that car that ran a red light, is the difference between being recorded as having caused your own crash. If ever there was an argument for subsidised rider training, I would have thought that would be it.
  12. And as such if you weren’t there at all there would not have been an incident. So the only way to not be a contributor is to take the train
  13. The important part of my previous post that's not being considered is training of OTHER road users too. I mean, riders wouldn't have to take evasive action and possibly not succeed if OTHER road users stick to the rules. As I pointed out, the focus on speed has meant that enforcement of the basic road rules has been neglected (because if everyone drives so slowly no one gets hurt in these types of accidents - except for vulnerable road users - get it?) e.g. not giving way, unsafe overtaking, changing lanes without indicating. I think it's important to stress this point in addition to rider training.
  14. You know what's funny (I agree with your post btw but you already knew that) the funny thing is Ken Lay's members ALL receive advanced driver/rider training to increase their safety. Go figure.
    If it didn't work why would they bother?

    You know a part of that training is to 'make headway' through traffic? That sounds suspiciously like something else I've heard of, can't quite put my finger on it though.

    Our problem is though, he's in charge of enforcement, Vicroads is in charge of training.

    The only reason any training is taking place is because it's coming out of our levy to begin with. we've paid for it, Vicroads will have final say over it.

    Imagine if we the riders had a more of a say in how our levy was being spent.

  15. LOL! I don't usually write LOL, but this time I literally laughed until I had coffee coming out of my nose.

  16. Absolutely mate spot on. However, there's also another way to look at it as well.

    As riders we know those other road users are out there and we have to account for them or suffer the consequences. A good question to put to Vicpol and Vicroads would be what's the difference between the riders who crash and the riders who don't crash?

    I'd love to see a study done into how many times a year riders avoid collisions caused by cars compared to how many we're involved in. Because my best guess is we avoid A LOT more than we don't. I believe it would give a much better perspective to our critics who ask loaded questions like "why are so many riders dying?"

    If we're involved in so many near misses then it stands to reason a percentage of those wont be misses. How do we reduce the percentages?

    If the decision makers want to continue to focus on speed instead of training then it's actually them who are making us vulnerable road users. There are plenty of riders out there who are less vulnerable because of the experience and skills they've acquired.

  17. What skids do ABS'd car wheels leave??

    I'm not perturbed by the 75% figure. For the most part, someone makes a mistake to be involved in a collision. A simple deflection would be "how many motorists are at fault in their collisions?". No what gets on my goat is how 75% are at fault and it's intimated that the fault is due to hooning or other unsafe road activity. It then paints every motorcyclist in a negative light by association. It's bullshit.

    Anyway, I must have a read and digest what was said.
  18. I apologise. I laughed too when I heard it, but mine was more of a WTF?kinda laugh.

    I mean honestly, how cheeky can they get?

  19. This study is not quite what you are after, but it is at least a comparison of riders who have crashed at specific locations compared to riders who have ridden through the same corner (or intersection or whatever) and not crashed. Unfortunately, what they can't measure is the rider behaviour of the person who crashed compared to the person who didn't crash. I agree with you that this would be a really important area to study.
  20. That's a bloody good question.

    Yeah I don't know mate, that one gets stuck in my claw. Does at fault mean they caused it? or does it mean they're at fault for not being able to avoid it?

    If it's the latter they can get fvcked. If they have the hide to pin the blame on the victim then I have a pretty big problem with that.

    Thanks mate :) Still leaves a lot to be desired doesn't it?