Synopsis of the motorcycling in NSW strategy forum, Jan. 23r

[lifeofcrimeguy]

The following is a list of issues and ideas forwarded at the meeting. This session was simply a brain storming activity. Any written below are being considered but are all at the argument stage. Please leave any all comments. I am not going there to present my own ideas but those of KSRC, as much as possible.

I think without exception, every single issue and point that had already been raised by you guys in the previous thread, was also on the mind of many people who attended. So everyone certainly seems to have a similar pulse when it comes to biking. There was a pretty good atmosphere and certainly everyone I was talking to took the job seriously, despite all the shit talk in between sessions, we were all there for the betterment of our chosen hobby/sport/religion. I don’t know if Rob Colligan is going to be sending out any kind of summary between now and the next meeting, but I’ll try to come up with the things that I can remember in no particular order. Going back over the 2007-2010 strategic plan, it is disappointing but not surprising to see that 99% of the issues back then are the same as now.

Recreational rego for dirt bikes was a resounding yes. I don’t recall seeing a single no comment. Greater use of national parks and generally making the sport more available was also a common theme.

Mandatory clothing and gear. There may have been one or two people who supported the enforcement of mandatory riding gear to be worn on the bike. The vast majority, including myself, did not want this to happen however, as it left the door open for more nanny state measures and targeting of bike riders because they were easier to spot than a cager talking on a phone. It was seen as a passive protection measure and more effort should be spent on finding ways not to come off in the first place. There were also concerns about what such measures would mean to the cost of gear and the gear that we already own but doesn’t carry a Aus Stds sticker. What was hugely supported, however, was an Aussie Standards and rating system, as well as education about what it all actually means. The aim being to allow people to make an informed choice of the level of protection that their gear is going to provide.

No/ reduced tolls for motorways was supported, which goes without saying.

The legalisation of lane filtering (cars not moving) was supported, as was the provision of ‘stop boxes’ at traffic lights, so that there was a designated place for the filtering bike to go. A similar measure exists in many Asian countries. Training should be introduced in some fashion so that people can filter safely. (how many people do you see indicate or look before they go up the middle?).

Addressing road hazards was a well talked about issue. This included everyhing surrounding how the design and maintance of the road impact upon motorcycling.

Transparancy in the RTA and policy makers was big. We want access to all raw data, not just what they deign to give us, as well as knowing where and how our monies are being spent and consultation of motorcycling group when designing new infrastructure and policies. There also exists an issue in the way accident data is collected and how useful it actually is in relation to analysising/ planning motorcycle related issues.

Training and education for ALL road users was another hot topic. Most people consider that the current Ls and Ps training and testing schemes are not good enough. More emphasis can be placed road attitudes for car driving whilst more could be placed on vehicle dynamics/control for bike riding, and real world experience teachings. Introduction of high school training for both bikes and cars like in USA. Promotion of orgs like HART and stay upright. Advanced/ track rider training (superbike school, etc) should be looked at positively by all parties. And a greater standard applied to both driving and riding teachers. Re-training and testing of repeat offenders was also mentioned.

The sharing of a number plate between different bikes, seeing as you can only ride one at a time. Removal of rego labels was another one.

The ability to ask the RTA to place an ‘In Case of Emergency’ or ICE number somewhere on your licence.

The recognition of motorcycles as a class of road user for policy purposes. Just like pedestrians, trucks, etc. No more simply under ‘vulnerable road user’.

More tracks and cheaper trackdays was raised. I also raised the issue of ECRD monopoly. Re-introduction of road racing. Use of professional racers as P.R. campaigners to help with addressing people attitudes towards motorcyclists/racing and appropriate street mentality, etc.

The issue of default neg driving charges was raised repeatedly, especially in light of role played by road conditions, etc.

All in all, a fairly productive day with lots of passionate arguments going back and forth. Now we get to chew on things for a while and start coming up with ideas about how these issues can be addressed and implemented. So everybody go and do your homework and come up with some approaches that can be used to address the issues.

[P4nza]

Can u summarise this?

[seiko1]

Can u summarise this?

I can mate...."you will all be screwed over and even pay for the priviledge"
That about sum's it up

[LachlanMann]

I am glad this sort of thing is happening. I do like the idea of riding schools, however, I do not like the idea of it being made mandatory for my licence. I will pay for a riding school because i want to learn how to be a better rider on the road and on the track, seperate to gaining my licence. If this is made mandatory (as in making it part of getting your licence), the cost of gaining a licence will go through the roof. While it may be necessary for some riders, as they do not yet have the required skillls, those of us who have been on bikes since we were kids shouldn't be slugged with an expensive course, just to cover skills we already have/ know.

The issue of default neg driving charges was raised repeatedly, especially in light of role played by road conditions, etc.

Sorry, could you explain this a bit further? I dont quite understand. Although, i am on night shift atm.. and nothing makes sense right now..

Thanks,

Lachlan

[waynemorgan]

The issue of default neg driving charges was raised repeatedly, especially in light of role played by road conditions, etc.

Sorry, could you explain this a bit further? I dont quite understand. Although, i am on night shift atm.. and nothing makes sense right now..

Thanks,

Lachlan

As an example: you ride thru a corner and hit an oil slick and crash the bike. If the police are involved you will receive a neg driving charge for losing control of your bike - despite the fact it was a road condition that actually caused it.

Thanks for attending and bringing us this summary. Great to see some talk on these matters and be even better to see some action from the relevant authorities

[lifeofcrimeguy]

The issue of default neg driving charges was raised repeatedly, especially in light of role played by road conditions, etc.

Sorry, could you explain this a bit further? I dont quite understand. Although, i am on night shift atm.. and nothing makes sense right now..

Thanks,

Lachlan

As an example: you ride thru a corner and hit an oil slick and crash the bike. If the police are involved you will receive a neg driving charge for losing control of your bike - despite the fact it was a road condition that actually caused it.

Thanks for attending and bringing us this summary. Great to see some talk on these matters and be even better to see some action from the relevant authorities

Yeah that about covers the kinda thing. You might get a nice officer who realises that it's just bad luck and doesn't charge you. Or you might get one who says that you should have been looking more carefully, seen and avoided it. The issue primarily about recognising that
a) things which aren't hazardous to four wheels can be hazardous on two
b) some hazards can't be foreseen of defended against, unless you do 20kph everywhere which causes its own hazards.

Of course the flip side of this argument is we are effectively arguing that bikes are too dangerous to be on the road... Which means we have to define our counter argument to that as well. Which is effectively 'bikes are safe enough if the proper mentallity and infrastructure exists at all levels from the street to the parliament.'