Newspaper wants motorcycles banned

[Smitty]

I think they are serious......
and its not April Fools day....

Newspaper calls for motorcycles to be taxed off the road
December 1st, 2004
Taken from The Financial Review

In NSW, the Carr government is bravely trying to cut the road toll, even at the risk of alienating young motorists. However, its discussion paper has overlooked one simple measure that could result in a significant reduction in the road toll, including among young road users.

NSW and the other states should tax motorcycles and motor scooters off the road.

At the moment, the NSW road authorities encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters by allowing riders to use express and transit lanes.

The authorities may be acting under the impression that bikes and scooters are a socially desirable form of transport: they use little petrol, cause no congestion, take up hardly any parking space, and generally make few demands on the environment.

But of course that kind of calculus grossly understates the true cost imposed by motorcycle riders on the community.

Statistics from studies in NSW and Victoria show that motorcycle riders and their pillion passengers are many times more likely to be killed or injured than other motorists.

The risk of being killed or injured (per distance travelled) is 16 to 18 times that of a car driver or passenger. If in an accident in Victoria, riders are 33 times more likely to be killed and 31 times more likely to suffer a serious injury.

Motorcycle fatalities have declined dramatically in the past decade and a half as the use of motorcycles has declined. Motorcycles were aggressively marketed to young men and women in the 1970s and 1980s. But everyone, including governments, soon learned about their dangers.

The number of people in NSW with motorcycle licences fell by about 40per cent in the 1990s, possibly because of more stringent training and licensing requirements introduced in the mid 1980s. As a result, the number of fatalities was halved.

Unfortunately, people forget, and motorcycles and motor scooters have come back into fashion, including among middle-aged men, who should know better.

Nationally, registrations increased by almost 20 per cent in the five years to 2004. This compares with a 10 per cent increase in the number of passenger cars. The number of fatalities has also started to rise again.

The big increase has been in the number of older riders. The proportion of motorcycles registered to people aged 40 or over is up by about 60 per cent.

Older owners tend to ride bigger American and European bikes. And while they are much less likely than younger riders to have an accident, the number of crashes involving older drivers has been rising faster than the number of licence holders.

In general, the severity of injuries suffered in motorcycle accidents tends to rise with the engine capacity of the motorcycle. The average size of third-party insurance claims for motorcycle accidents injuries is higher for riders and pillion passengers aged over 25.

In the United States, the average total cost (including medical costs, lost earnings, lost quality of life) of motorcycle accidents is about 11 times that for motor vehicles as a whole. A similar ratio is likely in Australia.

It is possible that people attracted to the speed and excitement of motorcycle riding will be accident prone in any form of transport. But their risks of serious injury, permanent disability and death would be lower in a car, and so would the cost to the community.

A registration tax high enough to deter people from riding motorcycles will be opposed on the grounds of equity. Young riders are disproportionately low-paid or unemployed. Motorcycles are a "cheap" form of transport.

For those young riders who live in the outer suburbs of the major cities, where public transport is poor, a bike may be essential to get to work or to look for a job.

A heavy tax on motorcycles would be regressive, in the sense that it would fall more heavily on those with low incomes.

However, like the heavy taxation of tobacco products, the equity consequences have to judged against their health outcomes.

History has shown that governments can save people's lives simply by deterring them from getting on motorcycles. A compromise solution may be to phase in the higher tax, to give existing bike and scooter owners time to buy a car in the normal course of replacing their bikes. At least with lower tariffs and the rise of the Korean car industry, the choices for those looking for an alternative means of cheap transport have widened.

Korean cars may be less exciting, but they last longer and, more importantly, so do both their drivers and their passengers.

[Colette]

Aaarrgghh!! That makes me so mad!!!

How about this for a novel idea...let's put more money into training DRIVERS, so that they don't go around hitting motorcyclists! Pity they didn't include the fact that most bikes are taken out as a result of a driver, not because of rider error (as a general rule, I mean).

[MickLC]

That would have to be the most moronic, biased and inflammatory piece of rubbish I have read since Boris's whine about helmets in a recent AMCN...and at least Boris has a sense of humour

Sadly some moronic and biased politician looking for something inflammatory to up their profile is likely to have it land on their desk and take it seriously.

[Wannabe]

Hmm... An interesting and highly amusing article. Who wrote this exactly?
There are some true gems of ideas in there and I could go on all day about how clever this person is but I won't.
I will just query this statement: A compromise solution may be to phase in the higher tax, to give existing bike and scooter owners time to buy a car in the normal course of replacing their bikes.
How exactly does the author think we are going to 'replace' our bikes? If they're taxed off the road, there won't be a market for them & therefore you won't be able to sell them or have any chance of getting a fair & reasonable return on our investments. What might be a $16,000 2nd hand ZX10R now, could be nothing more than a $5000 racebike.
Perhaps the government could introduce a motorcycle buy-back scheme. I can think of no better way to spend out tax $$$. Hell, they did if for those pesky firearms & that solved all our problems didn't it? After-all, no-one gets shot any more do they
My final comment ... to the author - GET A LIFE YA FU*KWIT

[Quarkz]

I thought this was a free freakin country?! That's the biggest pile of monkey poo I have read in a long time. Up your arse, biartch.

[MickLC]

From what I can find on their site he is the Economics Editor and his name is Alan Mitchell...

[MickLC]

...they also have a feedback page...

[icebreaker]

Wankers...

So rather than teaching Cage Drivers to use the road better, and to not pull out on people.. they'd rather penalise the minority.. It's so fuckinig typical...

They could implement driver training for those people involved in motor cycle accidents to increase their awareness..

There are so many bike riders out there, that it would be interesting to see what would happen if they tried anything to get rid of us.

These pricks don't even drive their own car, let alone a bike.. So what gives the the right to make any decisions regarding transportation... They wouldn't even use public transport, but their happy to make decisions affecting the public.... Another reason why Latham should stay in power, he's the most down to earth person in top end politics.

*sighs*

[MickLC]

Hey Yoda, do you think it would be worth forwarding the article on to the editors of the motorcycle magazines i.e. AMCN, Two Wheels etc? I'm sure they'd love to get their teeth into it...as long as they don't work for Fairfax of course

[Colette]

as long as they don't work for Fairfax of course

Hey Mick, not everyone who works for Fairfax is biased - take me for example

[MickLC]

hehe fair enough Collette


Anyway he pissed me off so I wrote this to him...

I have just read your "opinion" on how you think motorcyclists should be taxed off the roads. Please stick to subjects you know something about and keep this kind of poorly researched, inflammatory vitriol out of the publications that you write for. I hope that this is not some form of "road rage" that you are using your privileged position to take out on all motorcyclists. I urge you to take the time to contact people in the motorcycle industry, motorcycle journalists/editors and organisations such as the MRAA to clarify exactly where you have gone wrong in your statements. I am sure they will be only too pleased to take the time to help you.

I'll be interested to see what he says

[Colette]

Good stuff, Mick! Keep us posted as to his reply (if any)

[red_dave]

It would be interesting to know the ratio of bike accidents caused by dickheads in cages vs accidents caused by bike riders themselves...

And what if we already own cars??? If I had to sell my bike, that would buy a lot of "Supercharger" for my ute....

[Smitty]

From what I can find on their site he is the Economics Editor and his name is Alan Mitchell...

Mick...
thats the guy.....he might know Economics
but got no pharkin' commonsense, if you ask me..!

[Smitty]

Hey Yoda, do you think it would be worth forwarding the article on to the editors of the motorcycle magazines i.e. AMCN, Two Wheels etc? I'm sure they'd love to get their teeth into it...as long as they don't work for Fairfax of course

mate
already sent it to Netrider and the MRAA
will fling it at AMCN and 2Whls.....

cheers