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.

N/A | National What is C-ITS? How does motorcycling fit in? VMC submission to the NTC.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by robsalvv, Apr 10, 2013.

  1. The National Transport Council not long ago released a discussion paper which sets the policy framework discussion around C-ITS implementation in Australia.

    C-ITS is about vehicles being loaded with technology so that they can talk to each other and talk to the infrastructure. It's believed that massive improvements will be made in road safety through use of technology that will allow cars to brake for themselves in certain circumstances, warn drivers when adjacent vehicles are in blindspots, when vehicles are on collisions paths, when vehicles automatically slow down when entering new speed zones, when vehicles link up with common destinations and platoon drive etc etc.

    Problem is, much of this carcentric technology doesn't transfer well to motorcycling and the discussion paper had exactly zero relevant discussion about this technology with respect to motorcycling. There are some dangers for riding and some serious privacy implications for all.

    The NTC helps sets the national framework for all road and transport ministries in all states. In terms of road politics, if the NTC sneezes, all road users catch the cold 10, 15, 20 years later. This technology will ultimately trickle down into local implementations we can't even think of yet.

    How could such a national body with a national focus, ignore a legitimate road user - PTW's??

    The Victorian Motorcycle Council were the only Australian Motorcycling advocacy group that prepared a submission to the NTC on this issue. Notably, Professor M Wigan, a friend of PTW's, also prepared a submission. I have had a subsequent follow up meeting with the NTC to offer assistance with C-ITS and motorcycling and to raise concerns face to face.

    Now that the submissions are up, it's worth having a look through some of the other submissions. One writer is promoting all road users, include pedestrians and cyclists carry some kind of mobile emitter so that they are also tracked and vehicles can communicate to them... this is potentially big brother stuff.

    Anyway, you can find the policy framework paper here: http://www.ntc.gov.au/viewpage.aspx?AreaId=35&DocumentId=2348

    You can find the submissions here: http://www.ntc.gov.au/RFCCommentsView.aspx?DocumentId=2347

    The VMC's submission consists of a bonafide submission plus the FEMA's position paper on C-ITS. (Link 28 and link 4 in the submissions page).
  2. I'll play devil's advocate here. It may be better for us if NTC do ignore PTWs. There is good reason for them to do so (difficulty of implementation, etc.) and the attempt to integrate C-ITS into bikes might prompt an over-reaction to failure.

    They aren't going to impose C-ITS on pedestrians and cyclists, and these groups will be better off because of it. Are we better off being part of the VRU community this time?

    Lastly, listen to what MUARC have to say about C-ITS and you'll hear them espousing it's benefits in dealing with all manner of non-safety-related issues such as climate change, congestion and crime. Once you are in the system...
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I wouldn't want C-ITS on ANY of my vehicles...what ever happened to training people to drive for fcuks sake...Technology is not always the answer.
    • Like Like x 1

  4. Goodness, what a radical concept, it will never catch on.
    • Like Like x 3
  5. The submission actually has has a section on training. Talking to the choir!
  6. Lol are they going to tie them to kangaroos as well.
  7. Many, or perhaps even most people don't enjoy driving and would love nothing more than to have a chauffeur or self-driving car take them to wherever they're going. Technology is progressing in this direction and it's pointless to try to fight it. In many ways it's a good thing, because it should help to make the roads safer for the rest of us.

    Only problem is, policy makers seem to have a hard time understanding the perspective of those who see their transport as more than just a means to an end. Especially if that transport has two wheels.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. I see it the reverse. The less people driving that don't want to be the better. Roll on automated transport.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Problem is it will be mandatory so no more double the corner advisory on your favorite road, your movements will be tracked, Any indiscretions instantly detected and the fine in your inbox within mintutes... No thanks
    • Like Like x 2
  10. They can only make it mandatory about 20 years down the track.
  11. Nah they will simply deduct it automatically and send a txt to immediately notify you ... but you will be able to read the txt on the go without worrying about crashing.

    It's a damn fool idea but the car manufacturers will make sqillions selling it to sheeple.
  12. Can you be booked for exceeding the corner advisory?
  13. I'd say no, but only because if you could then Victoria would already be using it as a revenue source.
    • Like Like x 3
  14. You answered your own question.
  15. Actually Lilley, while you can't get booked for going faster than the advisory speed, could a real life copper possibly book you for something like dangerous driving.
  16. He could give you the piece of paper. Watching him prove it would be another matter.
  17. They can make it mandatory on brand new cars as soon as most manufacturers are offering it as an option. In Victoria they've already started requiring ABS and ESP. The original article mentioned encouraging people to get it by offering discounts in rego, so it wouldn't surprise me they make it mandatory as soon as they can get away with it.

    Re. automated enforcement of road rules: that wasn't mentioned as one of the benefits, and they seemed pretty keen to ensure a decent level of privacy on the data that these systems would generate. It seems more likely that you'd end up with a car that would just refuse to accelerate beyond the speed limit, not one that would dob you in to the police whenever you did. (Technology to do that already exists based on a GPS that knows the speed limit on each road, and I think it's available as an option on some high-end cars now, although possible for the driver to override it.)
  18. They seem to have very little trouble 'proving' someone was 'hooning'.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Thanks

    I was just confused because people were worried about getting booked for doubling the advisory. Maybe they meant they were speeding as well.
  20. A computer that knows the advisory speed, could automatically apply your brakes or cut the throttle for you, for your own safety, if you were faster than advised.

    This is current technology.

    Completely incompatible with safe cornering but being considered.
    • Like Like x 1