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