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 TAC reconstruction - Sen SGT Peter Bellions transcript is up

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by trd2000, Oct 11, 2012.

  1. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/rsc/article/1407

    posted as of this morning.

    SO from what he's saying, because of "site triangles" the speed limit is tied to stopping distance and field of vision and if you dont speed then you will always stop in the distance you can see.

    1. the ad was filmed in a 50 zone where the ksite triangle wouldn't work for doing 60kph and the rider would crash and die anyway.

    2. IF it was a 60 zone there would not be parking up to the corner like there was so the advertisement completely ignores the illegally parked ute AND the driver who pulls out.

    now we have a situation where drivers can just do any damn thing they want and it's all the motorcyclists fault. nice one.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. ok just got through reading it....

    i like how they biatch that the motorcycling community is too diverse and not unified under one umbrella..... and how a part of that is it has a large recreational component that doesn't apply to cars.

    it USED to apply to cars... till the RAC stopped being an enthusiast thing and started solely representing commuters... the safety fraternity have KILLED the recreational car scene and now they biatch cause they can't kill the motorcycle scene easily cause we're not all united. SUCKED IN!

    in fact, i wonder how many people have taken up biking just because the recreational car scene is so screwed up?.... and i LOVE my car and used to love driving/socialising etc. These days, car club runs just aren't the same as a blat on the bike with good company. getting to a decent road takes forever, and with everyone wiping off 5 more each year it's too easy to get stuck behind traffic... plus car enthusiasts get mixed up with bogans (they were successfully demonised years ago)
  3. Makes for some interesting reading.
    I would like to see what the TAC had to say after all of that.
    More importantly I would like to see the TAC change it's tune and get involved in actually reducing the risks for riders on the road.
  4. in Aus they aren't interested in reducing accident frequency... our Road Safety Experts Fraternity dont seem to place any importance or relate accident frequency to road trauma, as can be seen by the ANCAP model. We pay them a bunch of money so they can come up with seperate standards and when they do it doesn't take into account accident avoidance technologies that are in NCAP.

    Read up on the Jeep Compass for a bit of a run down... it scored 2 stars in europe but 5 in Australia because in europe they place importance on seat belt reminders, collision warning systems like blind spot monitoring etc... Not that i'm a fan of all these electronic aids (and i think thats a seperate debate) but it does give some insight into the values of our local safety experts when compared to experts overseas.... and that in turn sheds some light on why they have no interest in anything we say about cars not looking for us. they seem to take the opinion that accidents are going to happen at the same rate irrespective of anything else, and that the best thing they can do to reduce the damage is put us all in cages going as slow as possible.

    hey i'm not necessarily opposed to this either, I love driving dodgem cars!
  5. Amen brother. & we're all a bunch of squids in a world filled with crustaceans.
  6. If any of you rider readers are in any doubt as to how 'They' percieve us and the relative value of our lives compared to other road users, this is the quote that sums it all up. . .

    Mr CHAIR; Yes. One further question, in the context of the commercial that we have been analysing today, would you have recommended a prosecution brief for the driver of the motor vehicle to be charged for failing to give way?

    Det. Acting Sr Sgt BELLION; Certainly you would put in a brief in regard to that charge, failing to give way. Then the ultimate decision would be on, given it is a fatality, the officer in charge of the major collision investigation group to decide whether that prosecution should be launched or not. He may then take the advice from somebody from the Director of Public Prosecutions, some legal advice in regard to that, to see whether that would go ahead or not. So there are a number of avenues. You might speak to the people at the road policing investigators course; look up the text in regard to- for example, the Lombard, Marquis and Walsh-Buckley text; we have got one which is titled Motor and Traffic Law Victoria, and look at the case law decisions in there to see whether you are likely to be successful or not. One of the things that we have to look at in terms of whether you are going to be successful or not is, if you are not, in this day and age, if you lose a case at court, those costs come back onto Victoria Police. They are all factors that have to be looked at in terms of whether you prosecute or not prosecute.

    Mr CHAIR; Yes. But just coming back to the facts of the case a motorist failed to give way to the right. The Reconstruction focuses more or less exclusively on the rider approaching speed

    Det. Acting Sr Sgt BELLION; If it can be established that the motorcycle was out of the line of sight of the car driver when they made their decision to go, it would be unlikely.

    Mr CHAIR; Right.
  7. So if the driver cant see traffic before entering, they can enter ?

    Or maybe the traffic design is at fault, in which case, there should be no parking close to the intersection.

    However, entering the road if you cant see oncoming trafic is showing due care?

    In all the above cases, the motorcyclist is the victim, so why is the motorcyclist being blamed?
  8. our only hope is that before they "don't see" us, they "don't see" a truck.
  9. i'd like them to stick to their day jobs.
  10. Most disgraceful of all is the item about the costs. Apparently the decision on whether or not to prosecute a cager for killing a rider is a budgetary one.
  11. Once again the protocols are deliberately held down to the level of the lowest common denominator. If TAC and VP weren't so wilfully blind and hostile to skills training, they would understand that there are many ways to avoid a collision. Other than just skidding to a stop, that is.
  12. ...Pencil pushers and been counters... GAH!
    Disgusted, but not surprised.
  13. Why? The budgetary decision is linked to the probability of success in prosecution. If there is a low chance of success - then there is little point in wasting public money going ahead with it.

    The real issue is the interpretation of the appropriate laws in this circumstance.

    Either way, as Justus says above there are multiple other factors.

  14. That doesn't seem to be the case when they are charging people involved in SVA's at the TAC's behest.

    Our barrister laughed at the brief and sure enough at the contest mention the police prosecutor dropped the charge, providing we didn't pursue costs. It still involved us reaching into our pocket for near enough $2k for his giggles though.

    In that case they were quite happy to waste public money on a going nowhere case and to make it worse we had to cough up to defend it!
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Think of the cupcakes too.
  16. No doubt consistency is an issue in those sort of cases. If it was so ridiculous, why not take it to court and pursue costs?
  17. We considered it but to do so would have cost in the vicinity of 6.5k to "maybe" be awarded some not all of your costs, not to mention time off, stress etc. Sometimes it's better to cut your losses.

  18. Because this broken piece of shit system doesn't get you your REAL costs, I'd guess.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. The anti system propaganda gets a bit old after a while. You can always go and live elsewhere if you don't like it.
  20. Do you think that it's reasonable that "costs" reflect only a fraction of what someone will spend on their legal representation? I mean, I know it's all buddy-buddy and the judges all used to be lawyers and want to make sure everyone makes their Benz payments, but for those of us getting cleaned out it sucks.