Laws making high visibility clothing compulsory for Victorian motorcycle
& scooter riders have their supporters among riders. I'm not one of them.
& scooter riders have their supporters among riders. I'm not one of them.
By all means wear hi viz gear if it makes you feel better on the road.
It's the law I oppose, not the gear. The law is based on emotion not
science and, while at first it may not be too much of a problem for most,
it is open to abuse down the track, like the TAC tax and WRB.
It's the law I oppose, not the gear. The law is based on emotion not
science and, while at first it may not be too much of a problem for most,
it is open to abuse down the track, like the TAC tax and WRB.
French riders will suffer a hi viz law from 2013. However, the French
law won't cover small motorcycles, scooters or bicycles. Lots of logic in that.
Target big bikes.
law won't cover small motorcycles, scooters or bicycles. Lots of logic in that.
Target big bikes.
http://www.benefiscal.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=10050.0
Here in OZ the Victoria Police have been pushing five types of COMPULSORY
protective clothing including reflective, hi viz areas. The five types are 1. helmet;
2. jacket; 3. gloves; 4. pants and 5. boots. If they get their way, a road authority
will supply a list of clothing you are allowed to wear and police will be happy
to pull you up to check you comply.
Victoria Police have put this plan on the record at the 2011 Parliamentary
Inquiry public hearings. They want front ID too and would be happy to see all
motorcycles & scooters fitted with tracking tags to facilitate enforcement and
"intelligence gathering". I kid you not. Read the Hansard transcripts from the inquiry at:
www.rsc@parliament.vic.gov.au
Now it may be that there are riders out there who can cover their rear number plate with
their foot but I can't. If those riders exist I'd say they are a tiny tiny minority.
Mr Walshe's quotes, above, would seem to me to be antibike propaganda.
Look for the Road Safety Committee motorcycle safety inquiry on the Parliamentary website.
There's more on this in earlier blogs.
But back to hi viz clothing. Here's a series of emails between me and he-who-shall-remain-nameless
about hi viz laws for riders.
Thursday, January 26, 2012, 9:54:13 PM, he wrote:
Here in OZ the Victoria Police have been pushing five types of COMPULSORY
protective clothing including reflective, hi viz areas. The five types are 1. helmet;
2. jacket; 3. gloves; 4. pants and 5. boots. If they get their way, a road authority
will supply a list of clothing you are allowed to wear and police will be happy
to pull you up to check you comply.
Victoria Police have put this plan on the record at the 2011 Parliamentary
Inquiry public hearings. They want front ID too and would be happy to see all
motorcycles & scooters fitted with tracking tags to facilitate enforcement and
"intelligence gathering". I kid you not. Read the Hansard transcripts from the inquiry at:
www.rsc@parliament.vic.gov.au
their foot but I can't. If those riders exist I'd say they are a tiny tiny minority.
Mr Walshe's quotes, above, would seem to me to be antibike propaganda.
Look for the Road Safety Committee motorcycle safety inquiry on the Parliamentary website.
There's more on this in earlier blogs.
But back to hi viz clothing. Here's a series of emails between me and he-who-shall-remain-nameless
about hi viz laws for riders.
Thursday, January 26, 2012, 9:54:13 PM, he wrote:
No big deal after riders dug in.
Anyway I'm all for it for night time visibility. Motorcyclists can't be seen at night with totally back
gear with no reflectors. There will never be peace while motorcyclists get killed. Eliminating the
"didn't see you" needs to be one factor in a motorcyclists arsenal.
If you wanted to get a quick read on France's hi viz rule, this
article gives a good run down:
http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/france-about-the-hi-viz-law-for-motorcycles.htm "
Regards
..........
Good morning ...
I'm surprised by your response.
Holding those who cause crashes responsible and enforcing the law would be a more effective
way to stop bike casualties but that won't happen when even the victims' reps are all for more
restrictions targeting riders.
Ways to eliminate the "I didn't see you" factor is to enforce existing laws and to gather quality
data from crash scenes then have it objectively evaluated. Those causing crashes should
be held accountable.
Restrictive laws on riders just makes them more outcast in the eyes of the majority of road users
and discourages police/courts from ensuring victims of a lot of crashes get justice. When
justice fails the victims lose their rights, stand to get less compensation and their rehab is
underfunded. This effects families, work places, social networks and more. This is why we
fought lights-on to a stand still. Same principle.
Sit thropugh a few court cases. Woodend's "cup cake killer" comes to mind as a massive
miscarriage of justice. Don't worry it's pretty much under the carpet now. But there's plenty more
if anyone's interested enough to sit in public galleries and observe.
Compulsory Hi Viz puts the onus on the rider to be seen, not the driver to look.
The hi viz rules start in France in 2013.
Damien Codognotto OAM
Independent Riders' Group
Melbourne
On 27/01/2012, at 7:07 AM, Damien Cognotto OAM wrote:
Read the article.
Several points:
1. Australian riders have shown they will not protest in numbers that
make a difference to the powers that be. EG the TAC antibike tax.
2. They are making hi viz clothing compulsory in France. That changes
the riders' legal status and in Australia would alter rights in court
and to compensation. The French law has the potential to be a legal
nightmare in our Australian context.
3. Once the hi viz law is in it can be manipulated, expanded. EG The
TAC antibike tax started as a $50 flat tax. Then it was indexed. Now
it goes up each year. A reflective arm band could become two then a
vest depending on road authorities and rider reps.
Damien Codognotto OAM
Independent Riders' Group
Melbourne
Friday, January 27, 2012, 9:47:42 AM, you wrote:
Yes yes yes but really mate I realise you have been without bike for a
while. Suggest you get out on the Guzzi day and night and experience
the real world of motorcycling. I'll be surprised if your not at what
actually goes on. My beliefs are based on what I see riding just about
every day.
Regards
...
From: Damien Cognotto OAM <d.codognotto.oam@bigpond.com>
Date: Friday, January 27, 2012, 3:47:47 PM
Subject: France's hi viz rule - linked article gives it a quick run down
Hello ...
When you run out of reasonable arguments supporting your case, you
can always get personal.
I suggest you have a look at casualty bike crash stats and try to work
out how many riders are hit by something at night. Visibility is about
crashes involving more than one vehicle. Then you might try to work
out how effective reflective armbands/vests are at night. Bikes
already have lights and reflectors facing all directions.
Then have a think about the damge enabling legislation/regulation will
do to riders standing in our legal/compensation system after a crash.
It's bad enough now. Get in to a few court rooms and ... But that's
not the real world is it?
"I didn't see the bike" is LEGITIMISED by compulsory hi visibility
clothing. If you'd been part of the lights-on struggle you'd know
that. If you'd sat through the Parliamentary Inquiry hearings as I did
you'd know that police pushed for compulsory hi viz clothing more than
once. Go to the website and read the Hansard.
Revs Magazine's lawyers published an opinion, years ago, on lights-on.
If the ADR had gone through the way the road authorities wanted
motorcycles would have been liable if a driver said "I did not see
him. He didn't have his light on." regardless if it was on or not. If
it was off the bike was unroadworthy, an offence with serious
insurance implications. Same principle.
TAC has already made noises about "contibutory negligence" where
protective clothing for riders is concerned.
The French law is dangerous.
Damien Codognotto OAM
Independent Riders' Group
Melbourne
No comments:
Post a Comment