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 - Petition to stop Banning of motorsport on Private Land

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by chunkz, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. even if you dont give two shits, please sign anyway

    Recent changes to Victorian planning controls NOW PROHIBIT a "Motor Racing Track" statewide in new rural zones. The definition of a Motor Racing Track in the planning documents is as follows-

    "Land used to race, rally, scramble, or test, vehicles, including
    go-karts, motor boats, and motorcycles, and includes other competitive
    motor sports."

    This new law prevents any legally condcted events including rally,
    enduro, mototrials, grasstrack, tractor pulls, water ski and even private
    recreational vehicle use. In addition the prohibition extends to events
    not requiring any formed or constructed race track or infrastructure. It
    also includes one off competitions or training/practice days unless the
    land is re-zoned.

    While Government representatives agree it was not the intention of the
    changes they are not willing to fix the problem!

    To read about the petition and to sign it just visit

  2. I can't recall ever of hearing an internet based petition working. It is much more effective to get peoples signatures and get media exposure to the 'problem'.
  3. I signed the petiition.
  4. fcuking assholes. pitty most people dont give a shit enough to actualy pick up arms. :( if we had any left. fcuking assholes. twice.
  5. Yeah but that requires effort!
  6. I heard that the Baw Baw Shire Council have already introduced a ban on any bike (even the little 50's) being ridden on property under 7 acres. Apparently a local councillor got sick of hearing their neighbours kids riding their peewees on the weekends! :evil: I bet he mows his 5 acre lawn on a ride-on mower thats louder and more annoying to listen to than the kids on their bikes. :nopity:

    We purchased our 5 acres for this very purpose. Half our land is the kids motorbike track. It's nothing to see a half dozen kids here on the weekends riding cause there is nowhere else for them to go that doesn't cost $$$ for being a member. I would much rather have mine and the neighbours kids here all weekend than riding on public land or wandering the streets etc.

    Geez, some people really need to get a life and let the kids enjoy themselves constructively. :furious:
  7. I forgot to add, we are member of two motorcycle clubs.

    Some of their club days are held on private land...this might now be history as well :roll:
  8. That doesn't stop people taking off the exaust pipes, starting them up and revving the loudly though does it. :LOL:
  9. Stupid law that would never hold up in court, they are basically saying I can't ride up my driveway!

    Or have I mis-read it?
  10. This law is an absolute disgrace.

    All it takes is one incompetent beauracrat to make a crap law, and unfortunately it takes thousands of angry voices to get it repealed.

    Yes a written petition is a much more effective idea.

    The Aus MotoGP at Phillip is on in 2 months, you will not be able to buy enough reams of paper to cope with the signatures you would get down there.

    boxes upon boxes of petition papers dumped on the steps of parliament house are much more media-sexy than an internet petition.
  11. Signed it.
  12. Just to clarify things an outline of the changes can be found here. Motor Racing tracks are only being banned from zones classed as farming areas - tracks can still exist in "rural activity" zones and if they get approval can be built in "rural living" zones. So basically they're only banning racetracks from being built in areas where "activities are predominantly of an agricultural nature". Interesting though that racetracks are banned yet windfarms are fine if they get a permit, similarly churches are banned but a Circus is fine.
  13. Damn those churches! They are such a public nuisance!!! :grin:
  14. **blood reaches boiling point**

    Not content with deciding to TELL US - the citizens of this state! - how we are to treat our own health, how our children will be educated and what they will be taught, how we are to build our houses and what words are allowed to come out of our mouths...
    NOW they are going to tell us what recreational activities we can enjoy on our own property!!!!
    I don't give a rats arse if this only affects a small number of properties. The problem here is that there is NO mandate for politicians, let alone unelected bureaucrats, to unlaterally decide what can and cannot be done on those properties that are affected, unless there is proved to be a significant impact on non-users. Most outrageous of all, this is a total abuse of the whole rationale for creating legislation.
    Believe me, this is only a short step to some dweeb drawing up a list of prescribed activities for public recreation! Brave New World? It's well and truly here :evil:
  15. Well, there is, actually.

    We vote in politicians on broad policies. They then get to do whatever they seem fit to govern the place. Our only option is to vote someone else in the next time (you don't vote politicians out of office) if they don't respond to community concerns regarding their policies.

    Anyway, don't get your hopes up. Rob Hulls has allowed Fox to build his pleasure island down at PI by overriding the local shire, his own laws and policies regarding rural development, particularly along coastlines. If he is willing to do that, and go against duly elected councils, what hope would a few petition signers have regarding riding trailbikes on rural properties?

    You want to lobby polticians? Forget petitions. They require ONE response, despite how many sigs or pages. Has little effect on the MP or his staff.

    You get those same signatories writing in (and no I don't mean email), then said MP and his staff have to manually open, read and reply, stuff envelopes, lick stamps, etc. and mail off. This takes considerably more resources and time, and hence, has a bigger effect.
  16. Gee I hope you've got some pretty good Public Liability Insurance.

    The kids would be riding unregistered bikes and unlicensed so no TAC coverage BUT if one of them comes unstuck YOU COULD BE SUED as the property owner and knowingly allowing the activity to take place.

    Guys, please don't flame me as I don't agree with the principle (we are OH&S'ing the fun out of kids lives) but my understanding of the way the legal system works you could be liable for the medical costs as well as pain and suffering, loss of income and so on as the land owner in the case of an injury on your property. There have also been cases were intruders have sued property owners.

    Another problem is that even if you have a big sign pointing out the risks involved and stating you take no responsiblity and even get the kids & parents to sign a waiver they cannot sign away their common law right to sue even with the warnings. The warning on the back of a motorsport ticket is only a warning.
  17. Don't agree (obviously). Where did the incumbent government indicate that it intended to legislate private leisure activities? The principle of parliamentary democracy is not that you give a particular individual the right to make all the decisions. It is that you elect the representative whose stated policy and agenda most closely agrees with your wishes.
    The problem with this is that is impractical for candidates to publish a position of every conceivable circumstance that may arise. I understand the necessity of formulating specific responses to specific needs.
    However, this particular legislation is not a reaction to an arising circumstance. It's an example of an undisclosed agenda, and illustrates exactly how our democratic process has been corrupted by parties on both sides who choose not to inform the public on how they intend to proceed, once elected.
    To me, it's a simple principle. If you don't tell people you plan to change/make a law, and there are no changing circumstances that require legislative response for the common good, then you don't have the moral right to make a new law.
    That's my interpretion of the concept of "mandate".
  18. You don't have to (obviously).

    Unfortunately that's how it works. As you yourself said, we vote in a party whose policies we're the most happy with, or in most cases, the least unhappy with. From there, it's up to whatever the Parliament of the day will let through to become law.

    And our only option, other than lobbying, is to vote for someone else.

    With respect to this particular issue, if enough people jump up and down and lobby hard enough, it may get changed. But if people do not jump up and down, then nothing will change. It depends on how loud those who are affected are and how passionate they are about doing something about it. I'm tipping the other way - people will be too lazy to get off their arses and do something about it. But then, the number of people who live on such properties are in the minority, anyway...