Damien,
you may be interested in
this (if you haven't already seen it). It's a copy of the questionnaire being
distributed by VicRoads on motorcycle safety - for the purposes
of the crash study being carried out by the Monash University Accident Research
Centre. One was sent to a mate of mine recently for him to complete. Apparently
he rode through one of the crash sites they are studying and they have taken a
pic of his bike and sent this questionnaire to him to complete.
If you read through it, you will see that many questions relate to speed and protective clothing (including whether the clothing was bright etc). Many of the questions seem designed to produce responses that suggest that the motorcycle rider is at fault and that motorcyclists are an inherently dangerous and risky type of individual.
See the questions on pages 28 and 30, in particular. Nearly half of the 16 questions on page 28 relate to speed, and almost all involve what could be described as bad behaviour by the motorcyclist. Some of the questions on page 30 are just ridiculous - see, for example, the question about whether you own a gun. I think they have been watching too much Sons of Anarchy. Others are just irrelevant - "do you have a high fat diet?" I bet a lot of academics have high fat diets. Probably a lot of bureaucrats too. Who cares? How's it relevant to working out what factors contribute to motorcycle crashes?
As a rider, I do not like the tone of this questionnaire at all. It is hostile and antagonistic, and the questions appear designed to put the motorcyclist fairly and squarely in the picture when it comes to taking the blame for crashes. It is also hard to see how many of the questions could possibly help in identifying how particular crash occurred. The survey asks nothing about whether the rider observed any risks present at the accident site, for example, or what sorts of things they considers present the highest risk or danger on the road. Or whether the rider thinks anything could or should be done to address these risks or dangers.
It is extremely disappointing, especially as this exercise is being partly funded through the motorcycle tax. Not really surprising though.
Contrast this with the approach taken in the bicycling survey that is on the interweb at the moment. It basically invites cyclists to re-write the road rules to suit themselves. I did not see any questions in there about whether cyclists own guns or refuse to wear sunscreen.
If you read through it, you will see that many questions relate to speed and protective clothing (including whether the clothing was bright etc). Many of the questions seem designed to produce responses that suggest that the motorcycle rider is at fault and that motorcyclists are an inherently dangerous and risky type of individual.
See the questions on pages 28 and 30, in particular. Nearly half of the 16 questions on page 28 relate to speed, and almost all involve what could be described as bad behaviour by the motorcyclist. Some of the questions on page 30 are just ridiculous - see, for example, the question about whether you own a gun. I think they have been watching too much Sons of Anarchy. Others are just irrelevant - "do you have a high fat diet?" I bet a lot of academics have high fat diets. Probably a lot of bureaucrats too. Who cares? How's it relevant to working out what factors contribute to motorcycle crashes?
As a rider, I do not like the tone of this questionnaire at all. It is hostile and antagonistic, and the questions appear designed to put the motorcyclist fairly and squarely in the picture when it comes to taking the blame for crashes. It is also hard to see how many of the questions could possibly help in identifying how particular crash occurred. The survey asks nothing about whether the rider observed any risks present at the accident site, for example, or what sorts of things they considers present the highest risk or danger on the road. Or whether the rider thinks anything could or should be done to address these risks or dangers.
It is extremely disappointing, especially as this exercise is being partly funded through the motorcycle tax. Not really surprising though.
Contrast this with the approach taken in the bicycling survey that is on the interweb at the moment. It basically invites cyclists to re-write the road rules to suit themselves. I did not see any questions in there about whether cyclists own guns or refuse to wear sunscreen.
Queensland
is reviewing its road rules for motorcyclists but in Victoria there is action
only for cyclists and this offensive and poorly designed questionnaire for
motorcyclists, the bike tax and new high vis. laws for learners and more
restrictions for new riders.
Riders should be very careful about how they respond to the survey, as there is no doubt that this information will be used to justify more restrictive and punitive laws for riders. That is clearly its purpose.
Riders should be very careful about how they respond to the survey, as there is no doubt that this information will be used to justify more restrictive and punitive laws for riders. That is clearly its purpose.
Name
supplied
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: MONASH MC CRASH STUDY
Many of those questions are useful to ask... but they will probably
misuse the answers to push for hi-vis or to label riders as
irresponsible.
They really ought to do an investigation into high mileage riders to see
what they're doing right?
Subject: Re: MONASH MC CRASH STUDY
Many of those questions are useful to ask... but they will probably
misuse the answers to push for hi-vis or to label riders as
irresponsible.
They really ought to do an investigation into high mileage riders to see
what they're doing right?
Michael Czajka
Road Safety & Research
Officer
Independent Riders'
Group
The questions are oddly framed and coupled in some cases and do not appear to pick up any vulnerability issues only aggressive ones.
No questions about cycling use etc.
Definitely slanted but originally aimed at exposure.
NAME SUPPLIED
No comments:
Post a Comment