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 reducing payouts -untrue!

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by TonyE, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. There's a rumour going around the traps - and published in the latest issue of the Ulysses Club magazine - that the TAC will reduce payments to riders by 50% if they are not wearing protective clothing.

    I spoke to Samantha Cockfield (TAC's Manager Road Safety) last night at VMAC and asked about this.

    She had no knowledge whatsoever of this whatsoever. As far as she knows it's never even been mentioned (and she is relatively senior).

    She'll follow it up and ask their Senior Legal Counsel (who is also a Ulyssian) to contact Ride On about this. To my mind when I read the article it appears to be an attempt by a legal firm to drum up some business. It's full of weasel words like "could" and "might" and "perhaps" - it looks to be aimed at spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt so people will seek legal advice from this firm.

    Of course there is another fact which the dummies spreading this forget - since there are no standards or definition of protective clothing you can't force it anyway.

    I would have expected a higher standard from the Ulysses Club. If people had actually bothered to contact the TAC before they started spreading rumours then a lot of time, effort and worry would be saved. :evil:
  2. Care to post a scanned copy of the article?
    I'd be interested in seeing who they were.
  3. Not having sunk so low as to be a Ulyssian :LOL:

    I don't have the article - although I read someone else's. I'll try and get someone to scan it for me. The lawyers quoted in the article were Maurice Blackburn.
  4. Thanks i'd like a look.
    I'd totally disregard it however and suggest to the Ulysses they should find better material.
  5. Bit of an indictment on the 'powers that be', that such a rumour is so easily believed :/

    Our CTP system penalises riders for being vulnerable road users, when it's an at-fault system and there are bugger all claims against riders' insurance for injuries to other parties [compared with the other way round].
  6. I think it's more the case that there are people who actively WANT to believe stuff like this. I'm still getting people this morning telling me that the TAC are lying and that they really will do this.

    Fine! We can address that if it happens but when someone denies it and goes on the record then I'm happy to believe her. If that is not the case then we crucify her.
  7. Also

  8. :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
  9. TAC is NOT an at fault system. Victoria sucks in so many ways, but their accident system is second to none.
  10. Ceej, Bonk is in NSW.

    As for the poster with the cartoon, I know that I'm not the brightest globe in the chandelier, but even that one went "whoosh"...

    What's the point of the joke?
  11. I know, but this post is about the TAC. I took 'our' to be a general reference to the systems in place.
  12. The rumours seem to have emanated from NSW - :p
  13. What the frik would they know or care about the TAC? Some people really have nothing better to do?
  14. #14 smee, Aug 14, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Showing your age there Martin
    Beavis and Butthead laugh at anything remotely sexual.

  15. I just read the article in question and I have to agree; it appears to be the opinion of one "Geraldine Collins", who is (so they state in the article) a personal injuries law specialist at "Maurice Blackburn" rather than anything originating from the TAC.

    Not being an expert I'll leave commenting upon the value of that opinion to others.

    I do have the article but I'm at home at the moment and won't be able to scan it until next monday when I'm at work, but if anyone is still interested then I can do so.

    Let me know by pm with an email address if anyone wants a scanned copy.
  16. Read the article and thought it should come with the disclaimer "Paid Advertisement".

    Seemed to be a way to drum up business and scare people.
  17. I know.
    But the insurance principle of CTP in NSW is. I was pointing this out, because you have a precent of a state putting cost on the victims, as this TAC rumour was supposed to be doing.