From: Elaine Hardy
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 5:37 PM
Subject: [Damien Codognotto OAM] New comment on NORTHERN IRELAND MOTORCYCLE STUDY - 2012.
I just picked up this "blog" and it seems to me you have issues which go far beyond reasonable critiquing.
Right To Ride is a small company of two people. Just to be crystal clear, I - Elaine Hardy received NO FUNDING from any organisation apart from £2000 from the BMF Foundation which is a branch of the British Motorcyclists Federation, a Riders' Rights organisation, after I had already completed the study.
Simply your analysis is sloppy, unprofessional and simply amateurish. You evidently didn't read the report or if you did you were very selective.
As an example you ask "How was crash scene data was collected?" -
The study which was an analysis of the Forensic Science Road Traffic Collision investigation team in Northern Ireland. But it's all in the report.
Pull your head in mate. You want to critique a report - at least have the courtesy of writing to the author to ask first to get answers.
Sheesh - amateurs - you people should be quarantined.
Posted by Elaine Hardy to Damien Codognotto OAM at 7 July 2014 00:37
Elaine Hardy has left a new comment on your post "NORTHERN IRELAND MOTORCYCLE STUDY - 2012":
and another thing.... My partner at Right To Ride, Trevor Baird was the General Secretary of the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG UK) and technical officer for the Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations (FEMA) for many years before returning to Northern Ireland where he's from. I was the Research Officer of MAG UK and then FEMA before coming to Northern Ireland. My credentials are intact.
But I guess you were too busy with your delusional diatribe of trying to demonstrate what an amazing analyst you are....
And... all the participants in the focus group with one exception were experienced riders - including the ex Chairman of MAG Ireland and the chairman of the All Ireland Chopper Club. There was a list of all the participants - which you evidently forgot to mention to your readers... I wonder why?
I am absolutely astounded and seriously hacked off that you bozos didn't take the time to read the report with a minimum of objectivity.
WTF does your comment "APPEARS" infer??
From an analytical perspective, it means simply that based on the evidence taking into consideration a series of factors - that car drivers appeared not to be expecting to see a motorcycle... and???
What seriously pisses me off is the inference that I'm some sort of government stooge. I take that personally.
Posted by Elaine Hardy to Damien Codognotto OAM at 7 July 2014 04:22
Dr Elaine Hardy.
Northern Ireland Motorcycle Study - 2012
Dear Dr Hardy.
When your paper came out the Australian motorcycle & scooter community was making submissions to a Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into bike safety (PIMS). My blog was more to point out that government departments here needed to be very careful when using overseas studies. The amount of valid motorcycle & scooter research done in this country is very small so when a paper like yours is presented during a PIMS, rider reps are interested.
To give you an idea of the quality of advice road authorities here rely on. We met Dr Alexandra Douglas in June 2014. She advises Roads Minister Mulder who proposes a lights-on law that could alter a rider's legal status after a crash. We oppose lights-on laws. PIMS did not recommend any conspiuity laws. Dr Douglas astounded us by justifying the lights-on law saying it was to stop novice riders switching their headlights off. Bikes have been sold in Australia without headlight switches for over 20 years! Bike laws in this country are rarely based on good science or quality local research.
Too often government departments here are selective with data they use to justify their policies and proposals. My blog pointed out that there were many factors in this environment that would not effect riders in Belfast and vice versa. Therefore, Australian road authorities need to be very careful when using overseas studies to support their theories. What may be valid in Belfast, may not be in Melbourne.
In Australia we have major problems with crash scene data collection and analysis. How crash scene data is collected was, and is, a legitimate question. The problem with crash scene data here is so serious that it was the number one PIMS recommendation. The link is above.
I put your statistics on the blog and identified (my bold italics). I put in appropriate links so readers could study your paper further. I think you got a fair go.
I also think you overreacted.
Damien Codognotto OAM
Independent Riders Group