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 Wtf - MUARC says Fear ads don't work

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by twistngo, Dec 3, 2011.

  1. Professor Max Cameron, of the Monash University Accident Research Centre, says research has constantly shown fear appeals don't work. A better investment in road safety is improving road systems, he says, such as lowering speed limits and increasing speed enforcement.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/e...er-40-years-20111202-1obd6.html#ixzz1fPps54Jt

    So with their tame researchers telling them this why do TAC keep at it?

    Struggle to see how lower speed limits and more enforcement improves road systems. Can't win them all with these nutters.
  2. Maybe that bloke who work's on MURAC's team who drives a cage 6k to work and back wearing a bicycle helmet has left and some normal person joined the team....:LOL:

    Or I'll just keep it as the title thread name.
    WTF - some common sence - WTF

    Seriously though, some good points about the article....

    But I do blame the TAC and VicPol with this dangerous mentality they've created where so many believe they are safe and don't expect anything to (or will) happen to them because they don't drive/ride over any speed limit...
    This is one of their biggest FAILs and the proof is where 70% of accidents have occured and DRIVING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT WAS NOT a factor...
  3. ...can I be cynical and say that the prof said that because he wants more money for MUARC and because the ad campaigns work against his pet love of lower speeds and greater enforcement?
  4. He is still a twat for suggesting lower speeds and greater enforcement.
    HOW ABOUT EDUCATION YOU FUKWIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By Education I mean better driving skils!!!!
  5. I was at a seminar Thursday night about a big EU motorcycle project... no training in sight there too, all technology and road treatments. Like WTF?!
  6. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000........

    What Smee said....
  7. I posted this link elsewhere... I'd love to now the research which his comments are based upon and the stakeholders in that research.

    It wouldn't surprise me if:
    1) The research is loosely/barely related and twisted in opinion to adapt
    2) The research is in direct response to a stakeholder funding it
    3) There *appears to be* a statistical relation for unrelated reasons, however it there is no actual causal link

    In fact... those 3 principles apply to most illogical conclusions supposedly based on research... In particular #3. Causality is often an assumption, or unprovable which means outcomes are often based on subjective opinion. i.e. Just because statistics show a link, does not imply that is the causation for the link. Using MUARC's normal logic we could say... There have been fear campaigns in the last 15 years. There has also been an appreciable decrease in he road toll. Ergo, the fear campaigns must work... This is exactly the sort of logic they use... Pick and choose the factors that they want to show were responsible depending on who the funding stakeholder is at the time..
  8. In another perspective, when they eventually reduce all speed limits to 0, as is the inevitable outcome here - what are they going to do when someone dies in a car somehow, thus meaning they still fail to achieve their goal? This guy is seriously out of touch, along with all of MUARC. Through Vision Zero and the flawed premise that it is an 'ethical approach', they completely miss the point, actually harming safety on our roads while completely ignoring what anyone who disagrees with them thinks, on the basis that they have the ethical high ground. Unfortunately, being a bunch of academics they completely fail to take into account real world circumstances or practicality into their research. Don't get me wrong, I think there are some very good research groups. However, MUARC is not one of these. MUARC produces stakeholder driven (read: grant driven) research for stakeholders which are not impartial to the outcome of that research. If they were truly ethical, they would take into account human behaviour, what people actually want, whether people will even accept the ever increasing limits etc...

    A simple question What do MUARC propose to do once the limits have been tightened to a point where they can't be any more, yet the road toll is equivalent, or equal to what it is now? I am not joking - its a serious question because over the last 15 years they have provided no appreciable difference to road safety, that can be proven to have caused the benefits we have seen.

    As a result we see lots of papers come out of MUARC, however largely flawed, or making illogical links and not properly tested. They claim the fact that they are 'peer reviewed' is the holy grail - however in reality a dirty little secret all academics know is that you always get your research peer reviewed by someone who you know will not reject it. Thus you get the facade of impartiality without it existing. As a parallel, you get a lot f management consulting firms in big business.. Some are very good and provide a measurable benefit... However, there are some others who produce a lot of documentation, appear to do a lot while charging an awful lot of hours, but in reality the outputs they are producing is a lot of fluff which isn't really useful. Basically putting on the facade of producing useful outcomes, while in reality it just serves to obscure what the business they are consulting to is really trying to achieve and simply costing them a lot of money for services which leaves them no better off, and in some cases worse.

    I propose MUARC is akin to the extremely poor consulting company...
  9. Would have thought the answer to that is simple. TAC are d!ckheads.
  10. MUARC. Where are they now?
  11. I thought the point of these ads were so that the tv stations get all this revenue from the government of the day so the tv stations will say nice things about the government. The ads work if they get reelected.