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 VMC Motorcycle Protective apparel policy

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by robsalvv, May 23, 2016.

  1. VicPol put mandatory protective gear on the radar with Operation Motus recently. The linking to the fatality spike was spurious at best, but many don't critically analyse this stuff and as discussed before, some people, riders included, think gear has magical protective properties.



    VicPol wants a public discussion on the topic, so to that end, VMC has drafted and released a position statement on mandatory motorcycle protective apparel.

    http://victorianmotorcyclecouncil.org.au/uploads/INFO/VMC Policy on Mandatory Clothing 2016.pdf
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 11
  2. Beer and popcorn time. flames may be used in this thread you have been warned
     
     Top
  3. I can only applaud, and agree with, the VMC's policy statement.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. So the VMC hasn't got a policy but feel they should say something
     
     Top
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. To yourself, Rob and others involved, it reads well and I agree with VMC's position statement - The position summarises as: “Promotion of gear through education, not mandation”.

    It might be too much common sense for some though....
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  6. You have to respond when the safetycrats say something stupid. The VMC has a policy that riders should make decisions for their circumstances. I applaud that ideal. Otherwise if something is to be mandated, the facts of the matter, the evidentiary science and studies need to be presented. We have too much shooting from the hip by govpol because it sounds good in a 3 second soundbite.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 5
  7. It might be worth adding more about a purpose of gear is to protect from the environment during normal riding. This could help readers to understand that warm weather ridding is different to cold, that bright conditions need tinted visors etc.
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  8. My interpretation of their statement was if you don't wear gear and slide you get scuffed up if you do you shouldn't get scuffed up and have little impact resistance but if you hit something solid your dead. Point 2 if the government if is going to legislate on gear they will make absolute mess of it
     
     Top
  9. Try using English mate. How is "a riders right to choose gear" not a policy statement?


    Good point. It was considered, but the context of the current discussion was solely around the life and injury saving properties of gear. A rev 2 might expand on the environmental aspects.
     
     Top
  10. well worded and I particularly like the comments on complexity of enforcement :)

    I lament that riders have the right to make uneducated choices, but that's more about lack of education than the right (or not) to make choices.

    does the new VIC GLS have any focus or component on gear selection?
    in NSW my instructors spent some time going through different gear available and why (leading to one guy looking at his helmet and saying.. "well that was a fking waste then" :p )
     
     Top
  11. Just signed up for VMC, fully agree with the stand and points

    I need protection and enforcement against other idiots on the road, not myself.
    If the police and state want to educate and support me in becoming a 'better, safer' rider then by all means they have my fall support and compliments
     
     Top
  12. I concur. Well intended document. Hopefully, if vic is the test case oz wide, they get it right. Unlike the dumb arsed vlad laws....
     
     Top
  13. Yay! More rules!
     
     Top
  14. I thought it was really good.
    However but this sentence irked me...

    "However the wearing of protective gear (gloves, jacket, pants, boots) on every ride is strongly encouraged but a rider....."

    Lol there had to be something however but.

    The gear for conditions thing is a good thought, I hadn't thought of it, why not take the lead and be proactive rather than reactive however but.
     
     Top
  15. The VMC isn't advocating more rules.. This is the opening sentence - "The mandating of a minimum level of motorcycle and scooter1 protective apparel or “gear” is not supported by the Victorian Motorcycle Council".

    They are attempting to have common sense applied through education.

    I fully believe what ever you do is your own responsibility, and no one else's. I agree, we do not need the government forcing more laws on us, to protect us from ourselves.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Wearing of gear is an almost universal motorcycle rider position - some are even religious fanatical about it - witness Gabriel above and throughout his posts on NR.

    We just have very good reasons not to mandate it and to encourage educated choices instead. Environmental factors are one of the good reasons to make an educated choice.
     
     Top
  17. Good work robsalvvrobsalvv, and the others at the VMC. Love your work, well for the most part lol.....
     
     Top
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Yeah, I like it. For an expanded future version, perhaps talk about the very real risks associated with dehydration, heat stroke and hypothermia, both in themselves and how they contribute to crashes. It massively complicates the argument, in a good way.
    Govt. needs to understand that there is no silver bullet in legislation.
     
     Top
    • Like Like x 1
  19. There is mention of these factors in the policy, but they weren't expanded on.
     
     Top
  20. I like the idea of the subsidising the gear with levy funds, if the Government thinks it is that critical!
     
     Top
    • Agree Agree x 1