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 telephone survey enquiry???

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Chef, Jan 4, 2011.

  1. Has anyone here received a call recently from the TAC in regards to their opinions on key issues such as 'protective gear'...

    ...and whether 'payments should be reduced for people not appropriate wearing gear'.

    If you have, could you please post the questions you can remember (making a note of the ones you're not clear on)

    if you're contacted by the TAC to take this survey could you please take the time to interrupt them while you grab a pen and paper and make some notes on the questions please.

    Much appreciated,
  2. Let's get this straight - the TAC is asking people whether they want motorcyclists to receive a lesser rate of payout than any other road user group, based upon their choice of clothes?
    Or are they just talking about legally mandated protective equipment like a helmet?
  3. (EDIT) I'll just answer this bit.

    The lead up questions are all about the rider's attitudes to wearing protective gear, and how much, and how often.

    From the bit I heard It's a fully loaded dice. I'd be very interested to hear what the full survey is about. Unfortunately they wont be calling me :(
  4. Seems like a continuation of this:
    http://www.spokes.com.au/assets/whats-on/FULL REPORT Motorcycle Tracking Report 2010.pdf

    If you go to the last couple of pages you'll note they're claiming 2/3rds of motorcyclists support compulsory riding gear. Since that would be expensive to implement and enforce presumably they've moved on to the idea of not paying out as much for injuries.

    On an unrelated note I do like how on page 4 the use of quote marks in the phrase - The proportion of motorcyclists claiming to ‘never’ speed is considerably higher than the general population. Anyone would think they're trying to imply those surveyed weren't telling the truth.

    Edit: Oh and I'll make sure my phone is ready for recording calls just in case they choose to phone me.
  5. Thanks JD I'll have a look at that
  6. kunts are out to shaft us that's for sure.
    Until clothing is legally mandated they can't knock us back.
    Anyone conducting this survey must load up your answers so that it does not makes us look like tools like they usually end up doing.
  7. Would set a dangerous precedent though, up next might be reduced injury payouts for driving a car without airbags or ESC (or bikes without ABS).

    Edit: And of course what's the bet that even if they did bring it in the TAC premium would stay the same, and the money saved would simply be siPhoned off by the Government for other purposes.
  8. They've had a crack at it before. The problem is we don't how many they have 'gotten away with'.

    Absolutely. This isn't about 'saving lives', this is about saving money.
  9. Very true. If the money went towards developing an AS standard for riding gear, and heavily subsidising its cost, then I might be willing to support it.

    However, having seen how much of the speed camera and petrol tax revenue has gone into fixing roads it's obvious this would never happen.
  10. hey jd thanks(link to spokes) interesting read,very loaded questionare though as expected.
    happy to support a AS standed for clothing,but lets have some support in making the gear affordable.But cant see that happening,just shows how far tac still dont get it.
  11. Legal requirement to wear an approved helmet and done up properly,
    You must wear jocks to cover the indecency laws, exposure,
    Thats it,
    You dont have to wear any thing else, Thats Victorian law. nothing else is compulsory,
    But you would be Brain dead to ride with out Boots, jeans and a shirt Minimum,
    That will get you going, Hahahahahaha
  12. The TAC’s efforts have done nothing but increase harm to motorcyclists. It’s hard to believe the current board and management are still at the helm.

    Report after report, advert after advert and bullshit after bullshit. Now they are pedalling the EU’s f’cked up standards. The EU isn’t exactly a “world leader” with all their current problems.

    If they like the EU so much why don’t they just catch a taxi to Tullamarine airport and go live the dream in the EU.

    In this instance our levy could be put to good use. First Class baby one way!
  13. They have tried before to reduce payments to people without protective gear. When challenged they've generally pulled back. They almost always try and screw you down if you have any permanent injuries.

    This is about payouts for permanent injuries after a crash - not about medical expenses or lost wages. I flatly don't believe that 2/3 of riders want compulsory gear.

    The TAC was set up as a NO FAULT scheme. Now these pr1cks want to return it to a scheme which attributes the payout according to the blame. With apologies to the likes of Tramp - it will end up as another lawyers delight.
  14. Whats the legislation behind the tac say?
    If it was set up as a no fault system by legislation then they cant be doing what they are doing without government approval?
    What does their charter say?
  15. Hi Chef,

    Happy New Year!

    Is this regarding the article in the HS last Sunday? I noted the quote from Phil Reed in that, I took it to be about the Sweeney Research already hashed over last year.

    This is the full report.

    This was the TAC summary sent to the Media and quoted from.
  16. Unfortunately the 'no fault' scheme that has served us so well is not safe from the legislative amendment pen. Even worse, it can be undermined incrementally by moves like this, until it has no meaning.

    I'm not a supporter of an Australian standard for riding gear being established. Who in this country would you trust to develop it in riders' interests? It's an expensive exercise and costs will undoubtably be passed on to riders. If you do want accreditation there are useful standards in existence elsewhere that can do the job perfectly well (similar situation to MYKI in Victoria!).

    I believe the best way to answer the TAC's questions is to agree that protective gear is a good thing, but to assert that YOU are the best judge of which gear suits your needs. Even if some of it is not actually accredited. Nobody else knows how you ride and how best to cover your risk. I would be making that point very forcefully. Insist that your experience is the best test.

  17. HNY Wolve & Chef

    I received a call from Sweeney Research on 23rd Dec wanting to conduct a survey specifically of riders on behalf of TAC (so it seems that Vicroads is giving a third party my personal contact details???)

    I asked them if I could obtain a copy of the questions and answer options. Why? they asked. I said that I believed that based on past surveys I had heard of, the answer options seemed to be designed to provide a predetermined outcome.

    'I'm sure this is not the case, the survey has been created by professionals' was the answer of both the operator and her supervisor.

    They would not make the survey available, but said that TAC would publish the survey questions and the statistical interpretation (findings) of the results in due course.

    I declined to participate in the process.
  18. time to bombard sweeney research with our own "survey" questions
  19. yeah then netrider would be full of people complaining that they can get an overseas standard cheaper via the net LOL oh wait this already happens :)
  20. You're contradicting yourself Tony or perhaps I don't understand.

    These questions from the little I was told are about the surveyed rider's attitudes to wearing gear. The big question comes towards the end....

    "Do you believe payments should be reduced for not wearing protective gear?"

    That covers a lot of ground. Having a survey of the majority of riders agreeing to it opens a lot of pathways for them. But if they go for it, I'd expect the UMC to have a few things to say about it.

    Wolve - this is more recent than the articles you've linked to, as confirmed by Dazzler.

    Dazzler - if you've had a TAC claim they have you on there data base. Is this the case? Because I was assuming that's what they're working off.

    This has some far reaching implications for sure. My guess is they believe this is either a good back up plan if mandatory gear doesn't get up, or it's mandatory gear by stealth.......or once mandatory gear comes in, then they'll implement this to suit their agenda.

    The fact they're even asking is enough of a cause for concern.