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 Three Rider Roundabout Fatalities

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by jdkarmch, Apr 8, 2007.

  1. The media picked up on this release from the MRAA fairly quickly yesterday. But, the news at the end of the day still focussed on "speed" as the main contributory factor.

    Does anyone have any ideas, as to how we could make Vic Roads (and the public) take notice of the recommendation to replace all steel chevron directional signs with plastic alternatives? Does this idea have merit?

  2. Looks like a good press release John. Pity the media focused on speed. Have you got those cuttings you can share?
  3. Re: Three Rider Roundabout Fatalities – One Common Factor

    Good press release. The only way to get them to shift focus away from speed is to take the coroners finding, if it isn't related to speed, and make a lot of noise about it.

    As for your merit Question, how many times do you need the public to tell you that you are a good idea?
  4. Two things stand out for me in this press release. The first is it's fact based and non emotional content, the second that we're being asked.

    As for merit, roadside furniture should be made as safe as it can. Have we contacted any organisations in the UK who face similar issues with WRB and signage? I know that there are efforts to replace some sign posts with a honeycomb collapsible structures. There may be some collateral to show a cost comparison.
  5. Thanks for the comments so far all.

    The issue that is of most concern is lack of action by Vic Roads.

    In response to the request to see what correspondence took place, the history is:

    MRAA met with Vic Roads last year and gave them a presentation on Roadside Furniture Hazards.

    The following represents some of the communication which has taken place:

    And this earlier one, in particular where I, via Dale, tried to point out to Vic Roads a suiatble course of action:

    Note: Lynda Ivett is the Head of Vic Roads Vulnerable Road Users Section and Jill Earnshaw is VMAC Secretary

  6. this should be done anyway, as a matter of risk management. they are not fulfilling their duty of care if they dont IMO.
    however, any argument that involves the mention of a sliding rider will be scoffed at because once they are sliding, there is a general assumption that rider error has occurred.

    They will NEVER removed them, but if you can provide them with a suitable replacement i am sure they will consider erecting them as trials at new locations. the cost of replacing existing signage would be astronomical, so what needs to happen is prove that new (flexible) signage functions as well as rigid signage and then hope like hell that kids decide to target them for vandalism and destroy all the old rigid ones ;)

    short answer, yes, the arrow signs need to be there. here in NSW we have blow-moulded cylindrical plastic arrow signs. they are fixed to the concrete with 4 dynabolts and if you ran in to it with your pushbike, it would pop off the concrete and make room for you. these are a great idea IMO.
    the function of the arrows is to delineate traffic, to show them where to go. signage has to assume that every road user has the mentality of a 4yo child.....this is part of risk management. if the arrow signs werent there, and only painted concrete and a road user ploughed through.....guess where the liability lies?!

    dont get me wrong, i am all for safer methods of delineation etc. but i just thought i would bring some "real world" back to the debate.
  7. Personally, I'd like to see UNIFORM road design Australia wide, that means dimensional standards for feeder lanes/ intersections/lighting, consistent signage placed teh same distance away from the intersection every time etc.
    It would make a huge difference, knowing that you have the exact same corner at every intersection, and that sign is 50m from teh roundabout for example.
    Inconsistencies I think are a huge factor in such accidents.
    What really annoys me is when they design a roundabout with a really shallow or sharp curving approach to it, and then expect the average punter to be able to smoothly and safely change from having the car/bike loaded up in say a left hander, then flick across to a right hander, whilst scanning for oncoming traffic and potentially braking. It's a lot of things to be doing at once, and in the rain, or with an inexperienced rider/driver, very difficult. Yes, we all should slow down approaching intersections, but that brings up the consistent signage issue......
    As for teh signage in the roundabout itself, I don't see a need for it. Paint the kerbs, paint some edge lines. Seriously, if you need the arrows to tell you which way to enter and go around a roundabout, you should not have a licence..........

    Regards, Andrew.
  8. i dont know anybody who would disagree with that, but dont let logic and sensibility cloud your judgement of the average road user :p
  9. Yeah I know....
    " O.K, you'd like your licence. This will allow you to drive at 110 km/h on busy multi lane roads, and encounter many very difficult traffic intersections. So, we'll just test you tooling around suburban streets at a maximum of 60 km/h (that you've probably been driving for months by now), have you reverse park in a spot you could fit a semi in. As for teh knowledge test, we want you to recite how bad speed is, will NOT ask you any questions that require you to use logical thought patterns or commonsense. As long as you can rote learn, you will be fine. Basically, we got complaints about how hard it was for mouth breathers to get their licence, so we've tailored the tests so your dead grandmother could pass!"

    Regards, Andrew.
  10. Code:
    I trust that those at Vic Roads who read this email will act on the advice I am giving here.
    Good letter till you get to that bit.

    Any qualified engineer at PrickToads will look at that line and go "piss off wanker"

    Whilst you may think that you have all the answers/solutions to road safety, when you cap off with that garbage, any advise that you offer is going to be ignored.

    Try it with a lot less "i love me" in the letters ;)

    As for the signs, you cannot remove them, they need to be there, when seen from a distance they can give you enough time to set up for the obstruction.
    Sure redesign them so they break away when hit or they distort to absorb energy but don't remove them.

    Most of Asia have their roundabouts painted in zebra pattern all the way around, that has merit.
  11. there is no way that the green car indicated 30m prior to that turn :LOL:
  12. Guys I absolutely agree with improving the safety of roadside furniture, however. . .

    Does anyone actually know why this rider apparently rode straight through the roundabout. I ask because one of the valid explainations is that he was going too fast, and that doesn't help your arguement. If it turns out, in time, that he was speeding, using this accident as an example would be very damaging.

    I agree proper analysis of accidents is a key to reducing them, but it is also critical before using an accident to further your particular cause. After all, he died because he hit the roadside furniture (probably), but he had an accident because. . . . ?

    The answer is not the roadside furniture. Signage? Unexpected / Changed road conditions? New roundabout for the rider? Ripple strips or curves into entrance? Pillion who panicked? Brake failure? Oil or other contaminent on road? Brain fade? Distraction? You get the idea.

    Good work in keeping up the pressure for change though. :cool:
  13. I agree with the reference to speed, but there are ways and means to make roadside furniture safe for when errors occur.

    I saw reference to this on a UK import motoring program.

    John and the guys from MRA may want to review the 'Further Reading' at the end of the article. It might help when debating the relevance of suggestions with Vicroads.
  14. Couldn't agree more, do we know the actual, factual reason for the rider leaving the road? As for changing the perception of speed is the root of all evil, good luck with that, trying to change the beliefs that a multi million dollar advertising campaign that is ongoing has instilled in the public, would not be an easy task, and could quite possibly be a fruitless one.
  15. I couldn't agree more and I suspect the rider was going above the posted speed limit.

    But, the fact is - cars spear through roundabouts all the time - speed and sometimes no speed..... or brake failure, late braking, excessive braking on a slippery surface........

    So - its OK for a car to take out the signs - but if a bike hits them, then Who Gives A F*#k? :(

    At night, the road gets damp and slippery and someone who rides that stretch in the daytime will find it vastly different to the night time. Its not the speed which kills - its what a rider hits that kills.

    MotoGP riders come off their bikes at way in excess of anything this rider or any other rider could have done - and frequently stay alive....

    In the case of the Braeside accident - it involved a pillion - the rider may not have been experienced enough to cater for the extra weight and may have locked up the front wheel unexpectely on the possibly damp surface.

    In the end only the Coroner will be able to decide what happend. Hopefully, the pillion who is still alive will be able to shed some light on this one.
  16. JD is correct. If the technology exists to make accidents such as this just 'serious' as opposed to 'fatal' then it should be used. This sort of accident is not a new phenomenon as is shown if you read the document in the link.
  17. Interesting comments.

    While some have focused on why the rider crashed in the first place, others have focused on the aftermath - what actually killed the guy. What do you do? Look at the events leading up to the crash, or what happened afterwards, or both? And if both, how do you balance it?

    The roadside furniture issue is easily resolved - spend more bux on items that are more friendly to road users. The cause of the crash, well, you can only educate the masses so much. We all get more or less the same education when we go to school, but some go onto uni, others drop out. In the case of road safety, you can only belt into the road users' heads that "speed kills" or " a microsleep can kill" and so on. People will continue to drive or ride at inappropriate speeds or extend themselves in long stints on the road.

    I'd say, fix the roundabouts and other roadside signs first. Then look at, or continue to look at why people lose control of their vehicles in the first place. Start with the licensing standards.
  18. Well I agree entirely, but what you shared in the posts earlier was:
    It is the confusion of arguments that leads to people ignoring them. When most people hear of a motorcyclist running through a roundabout and dying as a result, and then hear other motorcyclists saying the accident was the result of using metal signs, they totally dismiss the argument. The lack of cause and effect is obvious to anyone.

    The main contributing factor to the accident may have been speed, but you objected to that in your first post.

    The main contributing factor to the death may have been (almost certainly was) metal roadside furniture. I am not making a critisism, I am pointing out an inconsistency in your argument, in the hope to improve them in the future.

    In fact your last post was a much better example. We should be willing to stand up and say, "the motorcyclist made an error of travelling too fast / bad judgement / distraction and as a result died, while in a similar situation the driver of a car would just get a repair bill", or something to that effect.

    Our arguments, and press releases, should try to move the headline away from "why did the accident happen" to "why did this rider who crashed die." The MRAA Press Release did sort of do this, but not explicitly.

    Statisics on crashes publicised by the media tend to be all about fatalities. I don't see much about the total number of fender benders that occur, or the percentage of fender benders that result in no injury, or injury, versus fatalities. I'm sure with riders the percentage of crashes that result in injury or fatality are higher, and that is the leverage to improve roadside furniture, where it is a contributor.

    Sorry, I'm not being very concise. I guess my opinion is that crashes will happen, for what ever reason. We need to focus on minimising the adverse consequences of those crashes. We need to make our messages very clear and consistent to the general public and the authorities. Acknowledge the accident, don't defend the rider or his actions where s/he was at fault. Focus on the different consequences for a driver compared to a rider who made the same mistake. . . maybe. For example, we could have steel pillars in the middle of every roundabout, with sharp edges, and some leaning over facing toward oncoming traffic, but we don't. Why? Because that would contribute to a much higher fatality rate for cars that run over roundabouts. Okay, so we make an effort to remove dangerous obstacles for drivers, why not do the same for riders?

    Anyway, you have my support for highlighting the issue. If it contributes to getting rid of Wire Rope Barriers, I'll applaud loudly. I worry about them much more than signs on roundabouts.
  19. yes let the coronor make his/her finding. maybe this maybe that is an insult and unprofessional. stick to the facts only!!
  20. Yeah, I saw that too. The picture needs a little cop car to drive up and book him :grin: