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 World-first study on cause of serious motorbike accidents

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by smee, Feb 6, 2012.

  1. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...erious-accidents/story-fn7x8me2-1226263168517

    So the state government with it's usual cabal of spastics, namely the TAC and MUARC are finding more ways of making life difficult.
    If you look at my emphasis they will look at speed rather than lack of other driver awareness.
    What's the bet they will find that speed is the cause of most of these crashes and they will find more ways of making life tough.
    Why are no rider groups involved?

  2. Looks like we had the same idea, I'd delete mine but not sure how on taptalk,

    I'll jus repeat what I've stated.

    I'm not to sure how to take this, having know the rider from thomastown I welcome anything that could have help prevented his death, in just suspicious as to the agenda by the last sentence referring to speed.
  3. We can only hope that the 1100 riders they recruit aren't all easily manipulated and can see through the MUARC and their specific type of questioning.
  4. Snap

    What jumps out at me is the "experts will analyse factors such as speed, experience and the physical environment in accidents" element. What I'm not seeing (pardon the pun) is anything about driver awareness.

    At a cost of $1.3 million dollars that constitutes a staggering omission. All the more so given the repeated highlighting this issue received at the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into motorcycle safety late last year.

    If you have a study that is 100% focused on the motorcyclist as the source of all consequence relating to accident or injury you run the risk of releasing findings and action items tinged in this hue. Ipso facto the SMIDSY phenomena is relegated to being inconsequential. ](*,)

    My question is whether those in the know on Netrider are aware whether this study will involve analysis of driver inattention?
    • Like Like x 3
  5. So they're going to be talking to riders??
    But what's just or more important is that those or at least most, conducting the studies are too regular riders..
    But I doubt that'll happen as MURAC is full of experts due to studies and their own findings rather than out there riding experience..

    Here's a prediction...
    Loads of money will be spent gathering info and in the end, some bright spark will conclude that by reducing speed we'll lower the fatality rate..
    There will be no statement on what and why crashes occured in the first place because as usual, it'll be in the too hard basket and all those non riding experts will know more than experienced riders on what should be done..

    Sound familiar??
  6. As usual I would suggest riders groups are left in the dark. No mention of the new vmac being involved, maybe Tony can shed more light.
  7. My first thought is, participate in the study (if approached), or let them simply draw their own conclusions unhindered? I don't know.

    Given MUARC's habit of twisting responses to meet their agenda, I don't trust them. But refusing also lets them select the responses they might want.
  8. BTW, "38 times more likely" seems to have become "14 times more likely", based on km. :-k
    • Like Like x 1
  9. I suspect that Mr Hurt and a shitload of European researchers would be surprised to find out that this is a world first.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. I suspect the "world-first" is a piece of major research that starts with the conclusion and then goes fishing for evidence to justify it.
    • Like Like x 12
  11. Doesn't it strike anyone else as odd they've already stated the things they will be researching? As if they've already come to conclusion, now are just conducting the study to support it (MUARC has neeevverr done this before). If it were a proper study they would research what caused the crash WITH AN OPEN MIND and try to figure out what actually caused it, rather than just blaming speed/experience (funny how it's only the rider's experience they're interested in, anyone else think it's just an approach to increase the LAMS period?).

    It's just laughable that driver inattention and poor driving skills are not even discussed despite them saying the catalyst for the study was a SMIDSY type accident, or that the MCS Inquiry which stated this was a huge issue and is now being ignored totally.

    Not surprised to see MUARC involved in such a shit study.
  12. psssst: https://netrider.net.au/forums/showthread.php?t=129487

    This isn't about Politics or laws... not yet at least. (will merge the threads later)

    The study is a little overhyped given that there are at least two naturalistic studies on motorcycle crash causation going on in the world, but it does hold the promise of shining the spot light on the on road motorcycling experience.

    A few of us on NR and other riding bodies had some involvement recently in helping fine tune the study. It's not a perfect study. It's sure to cause riders consternation when they get approached, but given that the study is focussed on crashed riders, rather than deceased crashed riders, there's a chance for some real insight to come out. Riders will get to tell their story.

    On balance I think that this study is a positive thing.

    A VMAC subcommittee had input in the early days.

    The focus on speed was very clearly pointed out as a negative, but since the study is focussed on also talking to riders who have ridden through the crash locations without crashing, speed could come out as a non event. SO basically, crashed riders and non crashing riders will get to tell their story about their crash/non crash without fear of policing. The study wants to try to understand why rider X crashed and rider Y didn't. They want to know the causes and protective factors. The funding partners are focused on speed though so speed is a key metric. Yes, we pointed out the potential bias of this model.

    One of the biggest flaws that I see is that next to nothing is going to be learned about the other vehicles involved in the collisions. This is a massive oversight IMO. And it's not the only flaw or deficiency. But as it was pointed out to us, the spectrum related to motorcycle safety is large and this study is looking at one part of the spectrum. There will need to be other studies.

    I can't speak for the VMAC reps who helped with the initial design of the study, but the fine tuning team had some significant nouse and mental horsepower and MUARC admitted that they should have done this upfront and will look at this in the future. Unfortunately this time the horse had already bolted.

    This one at least will focus on riders. Over 18 months about 1600 of us will have serious injury crashes. There'll be between 1600 to 8000 riders asked to share how they didn't crash at the same locations. There are a crap load of protocols surrounding privacy of crashed and case control riders. The key investigating personnel are riders.

    Like I said on balance I think that this study is a positive thing.

    Just between you and me, if you're a highly skilled rider and you didn't prang at the crash site and you get asked why, don't be scared to say why.

    One of the positives out of this is that Vicroads facilitated MUARC and the key rider reps to get together to talk about the study. Vicroads might have had an ofifical policy 20 years ago to not encourage motorcycling, but I think the congestion writing is on the wall and the potential benefits of riding are appreciated... Thing is that they are starting behind the 8 ball though trying to come up to speed to understand this motorcycling animal. TAC is in the same boat. You can be assured there are many more surveys, studies, stats and investigations ahead.
    • Like Like x 7
  13. That's a positive.

    ... whether we like it or not. So it it might be the case that if you don't speak, someone else will speak for you.

    Just think about the questions before you answer.
  14. Informative post Rob, thanks.

    If they're interviewing riders who have crashed/been in an incident and NOT crashed, and there is a bias towards other road users, surely that's going to come out? Not that we all crash b/c of other road users; suprise suprise, sometimes it IS our fault, but the inclusion of other road users in the cause of motorcycle crashes is surely not insigificant, particularly when it is, for a change, the RIDER'S input being sought?

    Or am I being too optimistic for my own good?
  15. I don't follow. No other involved roads users will have their input sought.

    Only randomly selected riders who ride through the crash site and DON'T crash will get their input sought, primarily to find out the factors that perhaps kept them from crashing.

    There are a whole host of complicating and confounding factors in that "case controlled rider" selection process believe me... the study would need to be >>$5m+ to remove the factors.
  16. This is one of the problems with almost every approach I've seen so far. This desire to isolate individual variables only works to a certain degree. Eventually, there are some things you just CAN'T understand unless you look at all the variables together.

    If you do a report that in the end must state that X was found to be the major factor in Z, but you limit the potential variables to a select few, 1 of them will come out as the major player. By limiting their research, and so obviously focusing on speed, I think the chances of that NOT being the major finding is slim. Even if they do interview decent people with good things to say, they only need to include that which the want to hear.

    "I was coming through xxx and noticed that there was this car doing zzz so I slowed down a little to do vvvv".

    stat goes in as slowing down was the major factor in why they stayed safe.

    Perhaps I'm just too cynical. I just CAN'T trust MUARC. I REALLY hope I'm wrong.
  17. Good point. Who's going to out themselves as speeding, even if they are assured of indemnity?
    Do you tell them that you held an inappropriate limit in contempt and ignored it? How will they report that?
  18. Will it be peer-reviewed?

    Oh wait, MUARC. Nope.
  19. I don't trust the muarc, they have a proven record of making the facts fit their agenda
  20. The design and purpose of the study was peer reviewed. I believe the output will be as well.

    Smee, I highlighted to them that riders are very suspicious of MUARC and it's something that they already know about themselves.