Friday, 2 May 2014


Earlier posts on 

MAY 1, 2014. Damien IRG wrote. "The Independent Riders Group (IRG) has not been involved in any stakeholder consultation or research nor were we told the GLS would be launched in Victoria today." 

Rob Salvatore, Victorian Motorcycle Council (VMC) replied. "For the record, neither was the VMC." 

Then Salvatore wrote. "These elements of the GLS (Refering to the discriminatory & restrictive conspicuity laws hidden in the GLS) have been in the open since the 2010 public discussion document and were reiterated again in the Victorian Road Safety Strategy." So the VMC has been aware of the conspicuity proposals ie compulsory dayglo clothes for novice riders and a lights-on law beyond the ADR for years. 

The VMC can hardly havebeen ignorant of the fact that Parliamentary Inquiries (2012 & 1992) looked at conspicuity issues but did not recommended compulsory flouro clothes for any riders nor did they recommend lights-on laws on top of the ADR.

The VMC must have known about the outcry against compulsory hi viz gear when the police sgt told the Wangaratta Chronicle in 2012 that dayglo vests would be law for riders within 18 months. So why didn't the VMC reps stand up for riders and strongly and publicly oppose any form of compulsory conspicuity when it had this information and was on the Motorcycle Advisory Group (MAG) at VicRoads? These elements of the GLS can be expanded to cover more riders reducing their legal standing in court after a crash, reducing their freedom of choice, making riding legally more expensive and making them targets for more police blitzes. "Your jacket does not have X square centimetres of dayglo and it's not reflective enough. Here's a hefty fine." 

Vic Roads estimates ther GLS will increase the cost of getting a bike licence by $300. Great for students and job seekers.

After the backlash from the Chronicle dayglo story, the AMC's (The AMC is the VMC's parent body) Shaun Lennard told us that compulsory hi viz gear was not on the agenda. It wasn't believable then and it's proved to be on the agenda all along. Which state or territory will be next? 

The VMC supported the GLS in its' current form. The IRG is certainly not against better road user education. But the GLS is not that. The VMC claims to represent the majority of Victorian riders, including the patch clubs, but it does not. Not all clubs are in the VMC and 80% of riders are not club members. 

I think the VMC has let Victoria's 326,000+ bike licence holders, and those who may want to ride in the future, down badly. As for spreading the word about the negative aspects of the GLS Trojan Horse the VMC seems to have failed. If Salvatore has been vocal about GLS problems in other forums, why not here (The IRG facebook page) and at MAG too? The VMC did not raise the GLS at the recent VicRoads forum. No one did. I've heard minimal disquiet on the GLS from others on committees, but nothing from VMC. 

MAY 1. Salvatore wrote. "... If regulation and law is being made based on shoddy evidence, it provides a stronger argument for making the case both directly and in the public arena." It's a bit late now. The GLS is law. The evidence was just as shoddy a year ago. If a group takes on the role of rider rep it must behave in the best interests of the majority of riders. Rider reps or VicRoads rubber stamp? The point of lobbying for riders safety and rights is to PREVENT bad laws & taxes, not whine about then after they are in place. 

The Victorian TAC tax is an example of an elite group (Ulysses NATCOM & MRAV) doing a deal with bureaucrats that we all pay for. 

The GLS has done a lot of things. One of them is to significantly reduce the VMC's credibility for a lot of motorcycle & scooter riders. 

Go see your MP and local media.

No comments:

Post a Comment