Sunday, 9 September 2012
MOTORCYCLE SURVEY DEBATE 1
Do this survey and encourage others to do it. I answered strongly against the questions on compulsory hi visibility clothing and should bikes have the same ID as other vehicles (front number plates)? Do nothing and you give road authorities across OZ the excuse to further restrict you as a road rider.
To understand the survey on road safety(?) that appeared in the Melbourne Herald Sun, Weekly Times and elsewhere, watch a couple of episodes of Yes Minister.
Saturday, September 8, 2012, 12:07:37 AM, you wrote:
You might find the maths of interest. Frankly, I don't have the time or energy … but might have to make an exception for this.
(In case you ask, feel free to circulate this.)
I hope you're well.
All the best
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 00:05:17 +1000
Subject: VicRoads Survey
Regardless of whether the club takes a united approach and/or individual submissions, I'd beware falling into the trap of answering VicRoads questions on its own terms. What it has done is seek to narrow the debate.
For example, it asserts that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous and bad. In many cases that is true, but it's also demonstrably untrue in many circumstances.
Another, from the document:
"Do you think that like other vehicles in Victoria, motorcycles should be identifiable to enable enforcement of speeding and other unsafe road use behaviour?"
That's a motherhood question (of course they should), which ignores the reality. They are identifiable, with fines handed out on a daily basis. The real question is, should we spend millions of dollars (which is what it will cost) to add front identifiers? And the next is, what's the benefit?
On that basis alone, the organisation is guilty of deceit and should be reminded of that.
This particular issue is a sensitive one for VicRoads as it wasted a lot of money (several hundred thousand dollars) from the 'safety levy' in its early years on prototyping this.
There is also a lot of half-truth out there. For example, Ray Schuey, then assistant police commissioner, was the greatest proponent of the reintroduction of front plates several years ago. He used to love being interviewed on the subject, because he could rightly say that 3000 motorcyclists a year avoided speeding fines most likely because of a lack of front identifiers. What he failed to add was that another 93,000 motorists did exactly the same for a variety of reasons.
Also, let's analyse the 3000 figure. At the the time, a few fixed camera locations shot front only – most notably in the old part of Citylink (Burnley tunnel).
Let's look at the number of working days per year, which is 48 weeks by five days = 240 working days. Take those 3000 fines and divide them by the number of working days = 12.5. If you go to work, you have to return home again, so divide that by two trips = 6.25. Which means the entire 3000 missed fines from fixed cameras (which sounds shocking) could have been caused by 6.25 motorcyclists who commute and ignore the cameras! Now (hopefully) you see why this is such a fake debate.
Another point: though it's called a survey, it is not. VicRoads is offering a position paper and inviting responses to a set of closed premises. It is in no way a survey (the poor access is a clue), and nor does it invite real debate. It wants you to respond on its terms and those alone.
So, if you feel it's worth a reply, beware replying/debating on their chosen ground. Analyse the issue, and not within VicRoads' set parameters, and then respond.
All the best,
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 22:29:55 +1000
Subject: FW: 998 News Flash - VicRoads Survey
Should we be doing something about this?
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012 7:09 PM
Subject: News Flash - VicRoads Survey
Fellow Victorian Section Members,
If you want to:
1. Be FORCED to wear high visibility clothing – standards yet to be determined;
2. Be forced to screw a numberplate onto the front of your bike – simply because VicRoads have their cameras facing the wrong way;
3. Be further restricted in riding you motorcycle, under the guise of policing unsafe behaviour;
4. Have you licence (car and bike) cancelled for LIFE on your 75th birthday; then
BUT if you have ANY objections to the above then PLEASE go to the website www.roadsafety.vic.gov.au and follow the links to complete the survey on road safety. In particular, take time to read and complete the sections relating to cyclists and motorcyclists.
Just remember – if you do not agree with the proposals or the “inferred” proposals, say NOTHING that could be taken as agreement.
From: Victorian Motorcycle Council [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, 6 September 2012 10:45 AM
Cc: Victorian Motorcycle Council
Subject: Urgent Vicroads Road Safety Stratergy
Dear VMC Club Member / Delegate,
URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT
Re: Road Safety Strategy.
The Vicroads safety strategy, which the Herald Sun is promotng, refers to the Vicroads road safety strategy.
The details of the strategy are at this site:
which is where you'll find the public comment document:
that includes the 60% lack of FNP bullshit stat, and it's also where they invite you to answer their highly biased survey found at:
Now the interesting thing is that they are taking submissions which are due by Oct 3rd which is NOT much time.
We (VMC) are going to cut and paste elements from the VMC's Inquiry submission and the NTC road rules submission, and include some blistering stuff about FNP's (and will probably include the whole Camera Commissioner letters as an appendix).
We would strongly encourage you folks to encourage your networks to submit stuff or do the survey with your own pro motorcycle biases guiding your answers. Ulysses and BMW club may wish to consider a substantive submission of their own.
United we stand, ....................
Chairman - VMC
0428 246 175