Follow by Email

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

HI VIZ VEST LAW 4


Good evening Damien

If you could post this it would be appreciated you can leave the id as i always stand by what i write

IRG, i am on your blog is there another as i thought that was IRG Independant Riders Group

my mistake if that is not correct i will support any group that tries to keep the Authorities honest

Cheers & Respect
Prickle


On 7/11/2012 8:45 PM, Damien Cognotto OAM wrote:


Many thanks.

Can I put your email on my blog? I can remove your ID if you like.

Hi Damien 

Its seems the greater rider community are angered, justifiable so, when statements such as Snr Sgt Gore made in this article say the way to reach Zero Fatalities is to remove the motorcyclists from the road. All that is achieved by the mandatory wearing of Hi-Vis is that there will be revenue raised. This is within lines of the police being seen as tax collectors and there history would be kept intact as was the case back at the Eureka Stockade days of the past. 

As has been stated, there is no evidence that that Hi-Vis would actually reduce the fatalities of motorcyclists, cause as the Government own statistics state the majority of motorcyclist fatalities are single vehicle accidents, so who there to see the Hi Vis, as always the Governments enact legislation without any credible evidence. 

Governments are encroaching into our personal lives with work place health and safety policy. BHP and other Companies have recommended removal of Hi-Vis vests in the work place as they have found that they have caused work place injurys with entanglement issues, which in the case of riders being made to  wear Hi-Vis Vests as mandatory which could lead to entanglement injuries so are we being made to endanger ourselves by this mandatory enforcement? So what then, can we lay the blame on whoever introduces this mandatory enforcement? 

Snr Sgt Gore states we as riders always find someone to blame. Well I say lay the blame at the feet of the cause, SORRY MATE I DIDNT SEE YOU the other part of that is BECAUSE YOU DIDNT LOOK (see link below). Below is a chart of what is used in the work place it seems the Government would like to introduce WH&S regulations in reverse and into our private lives.

What about the Governments showing the compensation claims of Australia Post in relation to how many riding posties are injured in the workplace as they are required to wear HI-VIS FLURO on there person and all off the saddle bags and have great long  fluro flag as well. 

As has been said by myself and many others that have reached our age and are still here to ride is that we must be doing something right, one of things we are doing right im sure is our attitude while on the road and after reading this article it shows the attitude out there is very bad and that is what needs changing before any mandatory band aid enforcement of Hi-Vis Fluro.

Yours Sincerely
Prickle
MRAQ VP

SMIDSY BIKER KILLER CLEARED         http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-...#ixzz1zb7SLg30
WH&S CHART

1 Elimination-----------------Most Effective
2 Substitution
3 engeneering
4 Administration/ Education
5 P. P. E. ---------------------Least Effective

The government going for the Least effective way of trying to  fix the problem. 

MOTORCYCLE  CONSPICUITY  AND TRAFFIC  ACCIDENTS 
M.  J.  WILLIAMS 
The  Australian  Road  Research  Board,  Vermont  South  3121,  Victoria,  Australia 
and E.  R.  HOFFMANN 
Department  of  Mechanical  Engineering,  University  of  Melbourne,  ParkviIle  3052,  Australia 
(Received  30 August  1978) 

Type  1. Driver  “did  not  see”  motorcycle.  No  obstruction  to  vision.  The  driver  stated  that  he 
did  not  see  the  motorcycle  prior  to  commencing  the  initial  movement  which  produced  a 
collision. There  was nothing  to  indicate  that  the driver’s  vision of  the motorcycle  was physically 
obstructed. 

Type  2.  Driver  “did  not  see”  motorcycle.  Vision  obstructed.  The driver  stated  that he did not 
see  the  motorcycle  but  it  was  possible  that  his  view  of  the  motorcycle  may  have  been 
physically  obstructed  when  he  decided  to  make  a  manoeuvre.  The  obstructions  included 
moving  or  stationary  vehicles  nearby,  parked  vehicles,  fixed  objects  or  a  crest  or  curve  in  the 
roadway,  glare  from  a  low  sun or  heavy  rain. 

Type  3. Driver  “did  not  see”  motorcycle.  Concentrating  on  another  vehicle.  The  driver 
stated  that  he  began  to  move  when  another  vehicle  yielded  right-of-way.  He  was  probably 
concentrating  on  this  other  vehicle,  and/or  his  view  of  the  motorcycle  may  have  been 
obstructed  at  the  time he decided  to manoeuvre. 

Type  4.  Driver  saw  motorcycle.  The  driver  stated  that  he  saw  the  motorcycle  but  still 
manoeuvred  his vehicle  into  its path,  usually  because  he  underestimated  its  speed. 

Type  5.  Aberrant  driving.  There  was  some  indication  that  at  least  one  of  the  operators  was 
driving  in  an  irresponsible  manner  or  his  faculties  were  impaired  by  alcohol.  Irresponsible 
driving  included  travelling  at a speed  exceeding  the  limit or  committing  some  serious  breach  of 
road  traffic regulations. 

No comments:

Post a Comment