Separate names with a comma.
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.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by firefling, Sep 26, 2005.
Article in The Age
One line of text in the article sums the whole thing up quite well...."In shades of comedy hit The Castle"!
Couldn't have put it better myself...............MRAA looking to undo what they failed to repel in the first instance!
Bows and arrows against the lightning
now that's just so damn funny!
In this case the VMAC voted against the retention of the levy, Only the Government appointed Chairperson from vic roads voted to keep the levy.
Yup like i said..........Bows and arrows against the lightning.
So we just lie on our backs and think of england , after blaming everyone else first.
"Under the Government's levy, an advisory group, which includes the riders' association, makes recommendations about the worst accident black spots for motorcycle riders and the proceeds of the levy are used to repair them."
Not really my issue (yet?), as I am in Perth, but out of curiosity, what is the makeup of this advisory group?
Sorry mate wasn't giving mother England a thought at the time!
"The Government says motorcyclists are more likely to have a road accident than other motorists and that the introduction of the levy had reduced motorcycle crash costs by $28 million and had paid for improvements to dangerous road stretches at 72 locations.
Under the Government's levy, an advisory group, which includes the riders' association, makes recommendations about the worst accident black spots for motorcycle riders and the proceeds of the levy are used to repair them."
My interpretation of the above.
Motorcyclists are being charged because either the original design of the road failed to provide adequate protection for motorcycles, or because the state cannot afford to maintain the roads adequately with the funds they have.
I could sort of understand if the levy was being used for training and education (TAC CD, for example), but I can't see the argument for using it for road repairs/ improvements. Perhaps I'm missing something, but after reading the above, I can't quite work out how this levy can possibly be justified.
Perhaps somebody could explain.
Extract from some correspondence with the TAC.
well working on this theory, trucks should be charge a levy as these are most the vechiles that cause the damage to the roads, as they are heavy and break up the road surface, so do cars... oh what the hell why not just a another road tax to rego and call it "because we can" and use that for so called repairs aswell
Thanks Tony, I decided that maybe I should get off my arse and so I went to the Vicroads website.
"The funds from this levy go directly to initiatives to improve the safety of riders.
Key features are:
- rider and motorcycle industry representatives have a major say in how the funds are used through the advice provided by the Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Council (VMAC)
- VMAC and motorcycle safety experts have developed the Strategic Guide for Expenditure of the Motorcycle Safety Levy Funding to achieve the greatest benefits for rider safety
- all critical areas that influence rider safety will receive support, e.g., motorcycle on-road crash locations, motorcycle technology, training and licensing, rider and driver education, crash research and information, and trialing of new programs."
Ok, apart from "motorcycle on-road crash locations" (which is a little vague and hints at road improvements which, in my mind, should be paid through normal channels) I can kind of understand the rest.
I don't want to pay, but so long as I am getting something back from my $50 then I can live with it.
I suppose this is the $50 question though ... :?
Let's hope the legal action is being paid for on a 'no win - no pay' contingency basis...
My understanding is that the VMAC reps have agreed as that long as it is collected then they should have a say in how it can be spent.
Basically the attitude as I understand it is we don't want the levy, but if you're going to collect it then motorcyclists should have some say in where it gets spent
The initial proposal on who should decide how it would be spent included all sorts of people - including those well known motorcycle entusiasts the RACV :roll:
The latest "Australian Road Rider" has a good article on the levy (and no, I had nothing to do with the article).
Yeah, but are you?
Mouth posted a link in another thread that lists all the roadworks that are supposedly being funded by the TAC Levy.
I printed it out and had a read through it. I then posted a reply back to the thread. I expressed my concerns that a lot of these works appear to be benefiting not only motorcyclists but all road users. There was also the concern that we're paying to have more road-side barriers installed.
Here is the link to that thread and the page in question.
And even if they do win, who pays the bill. All motorcyclists will get $37.52 returned after the fee for the lawyers is taken out...
I don't really want to pay the $50 but if it turns out we really must or have too (after legal action), I want to see accounting facts and figures that the money is actually being spent on motorcycle safety issues and not just being put into a consolidated pot that is used for all motorists or just provides a BS mail out leaflet and a CD/DVD.
If they lose they will be a laughing stock and it will be the death of the mra just in the legal costs alone.
btw who are these 8000 motorcyclists they purport to represent?
they don't even have 1000 members.
You must have stopped reading.
In other words, I don't know, but this is where we need somebody there to act on our behalf to help distribute the money. As Tony said:
Probably signatories to Unco Damian petition .. but said petition makes no mantion of such legal action, so any claim to have these people as members of a class action would be a lie.
At this point it is only being examined. It's really in a very very early stage and the article is a bit of a beat-up...
The lawyers stated that the normal discrimination laws don't cover this case but that there may be a case that it is unconstitutional and they might take it on on a no-win no-fee (unlikely though).
Before any decisions can be taken on how to proceed from there we need to know whether there is actually a case. It's entirely possible that it might not be worth doing but it's another avenue to be explored.
Of course the same people that complain because we do things are the same people who complain that we don't do anything.