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 Victorian Parliament RSC Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety - All Submissions are now online - Time to s

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by jdkarmch, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. All the Player submissions are now up.

    I have had a quick scan. The normal propaganda from the Govt agencies. Hopefully, those non-govt bodies will be able to counter this onslaught....

    If your blood isn't already starting to boil, then it will by the time you have read the latest ones published....

    Here is one remark made by someone sent to me tonight:

  2. Going to start reading through them. I have a bad feeling about this.


    44 Australian Drug Foundation - want to reduce drink driving by having clubs join their program.

    46 Road Safe

    It's good that they recognise that motorcycles are often not given right of way and cars keep on running us down but hi vis is not the answer. At least they don't quite want it mandated.

    47 CARRS-Q

    Well researched and referenced. They recognise that we're a fast growing road user group. Don't have time to read their articles though. I think they would be very interesting though.

    49 Maurice Blackburn - fighting for us.

    50 Honda - Another great submission. Fighting for us and not trying to sell anything with that submission.

    51 Select Scootas - Mostly focussed on mopeds and scooters, makes sense. A good submission though.

    52 Vicpol - oh god... Their stats are so biased too, if anyone tried to use stats like that in a scientific journal it would be thrown out. Speed is the only section in the cause of major collisions section.... Lanesplitting/filtering is unlawful, at least they mention that there should be further evidence based research, though if it's anything like the "research" they do...

    53 Wangaratta and Roadsafe - starts off quoting that BS vicopol "study" great...

    54 alfred - too long to read tonight, but it's done in partnership with MUARC...

    55 VMC - brilliant submission, one of us! Almost like it's pre-emptively rebutting all the FUD.

    58 Marcus Wigan - brilliant, he already has my vote for RACV directorship, this guy is a gun. One of the best submissions so far, I'm glad we have someone like this.

    I'm happy now so I might go to sleep, no use reading more and raging all night.
  3. Have got as far as VicPolice and my eyes are glazing.
    think I will leave the rest for tomorrow.

    The 38 times more likely keeps coming through though.
  4. From the TAC submission. "When asked about mandating the wearing of protective gear, 69% of riders agreed it should be compulsory for motorcyclists to wear protective gear while riding."

    ??? Really?
  5. Yep. Riders are their own worst enemy, they answer surveys without thinking about what they're doing.

    Someone threw up the questions of a phone survey being conducted, I wouldn't even know where to look for it, but it's loaded to the hilt with bias to get answers like the one above.

    It's a sad fact that 69% of riders out there are stupid beyond belief. Bit hard to fight for them when they're fighting for the TAC.
  6. Rather than risk a derailment -> https://netrider.net.au/forums/showthread.php?p=2227625
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Cheers :)

    As people are reading through the submissions, we need them to highlight all of the 'Anti-motorcycling counter measures' by the credible authorities and organisations. Don't worry about the extremists or muppets, we'll get to them later.
  8. See other thread... the whole submission is worth scrutiny.

    I like it too. :)

    Prof Marc makes a very bloody good point in amongst a few... why are bicycles treated so differently from motorbikes?? Because bicycles have convinced the authorities to treat them as a legitimate road modality which includes safety as part of the big picture. There was a report earlier this year or late last year that showed motorcycles and bicycles were both 38times more likely... yet motorbikes are treated entirely as a safety issue.
  9. VACC submission looked good too.
  10. No - it's 69% of riders that responded to the TAC surveys. Now given they only had 2 entries to the video comp - and a whole 118 people voted on the entries, that doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their sample sizes.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. I've had a quick look at VicRoads recommendations. Out of the VicPol, TAC etc theirs seems to be by far the most sane and reasoned.

    They mention encouraging more wearing of boots - no mention of manddating.

    They reject Radio Frequency Id (RDID) as not workable.

    They reject front numberplates as not feasible and suggest other camera technology.

    They also mention safety and transport aspects of filtering, bus lanes and overall road space usage.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. It would please me greatly if someone, somehow, managed to point out to the Inquiry that the vast majority of motorcyclists will not deal with or respond to TAC after their repugnant advertising campaign, and that TAC have no credibility at all as a source of rider opinion statistics.
  13. You're talking about the puppeteer and the muppet show Tony. Don't be bluffed.
  14. I'm talking about areas in particular where they directly contradict what VicPol et al are claiming.
  15. Yes. Now all we have to do is figure out why. They don't work independently from each other.
  16. Out of the three authorities, Vic Roads has the most smarts the most interest in genuine road system solutions. From where I stand, they aren't as politically motivated as the other two... I haven't read Vicroads submission yet... tonight's homework.
  17. Try the fact that there are 3 separate Ministers involved - Vic Pol report to the Minister for Police. Vic Roads to Minister for Roads/Transport and TAC to Minister for TAC.

    In each case each separate body is accountable to different individuals - each with their own agenda.

    Tony and I have noted in the past that Ministers don't tend to talk to each other very much, and there is often little cross pollination.

    We worked that out some time ago Chef. No need to try to re-invent the research wheel here.....
  18. The RACV one is rather distressing - they want an increase in TAC charges for motorcycles and basically suck up to the TAC and VicPol.

    What is it that they don't understand about a no fault system? Before the no fault system was introduced I don't recall them asking for a reduction in motorcycle premiums because under that system we were subsidising cars.

    Perhaps we should be calling for a boycott of RACV products - since there's no competition for the roadside service it might not be practical to boycott that if you have a car - but asking riders to consider before they use any of their insurance products or other services might be an idea.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. I think you'll find the wheel is missing some wheel nuts.

    There's no surprise that the RACV's submission would be distressing because it should reflect Vicroads REAL position. I haven't traced the family tree as yet but intend to do just that. There's information that shows when the CEO's etc leave the public sector they enter the private sector and join the RACV.

    If they're anti-motorcycling in Vicroads then it stands to reason they're anti-motorcycling in the RACV.

    The bottom line is, boycott the RACV.
  20. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the confidence we have in their sample size doesn't matter in the slightest. If we can't prove their data is wrong or based on a biased sample, then they will continue to succeed in presenting their data as "facts".