Vic Riders Buy the Police bikes..!!

[MadKaw]

Words - Guy Allen

BikePoint


Extraordinary use of 'safety' levy


Victoria's Motorcycle Advisory Committee (VMAC) has voted in favour of using the state's unique $56 motorcycle tax, called a safety levy, to buy police ten new patrol bikes at an estimated cost of over $30,000 each.

Details have yet to be released, but Bikepoint is told the police lobbied for the money as part of a promised wider motorcycle safety campaign.

However the idea of using the levy to purchase what is essentially an enforcement tool is being greeted with a great deal of cynicism among the riders we have so far spoken to.

Bikepoint has so far seen no evidence of protest from the two motorcycle groups attached to VMAC - the Motorcycle Riders Association and the Ulysses Club - and in fact understands they voted in favour of the proposal.

We understand that this scheme, from the Thames Valley Police in the UK, is one of the enforcement options being canvassed, but does not represent the current proposal.

QUESTIONS
These are the questions Bikepoint asked of Mr Neil O’Keefe, Chair of VMAC:
1. When are the full details of the campaign to be released;
2. What is the total cost;
3. Does VMAC acknowledge that, safety campaign or not, using the tax to buy enforcement equipment for the police is likely to permanently damage the credibility of the tax and VMAC;
4. What, if any, is the involvement of the former Assistant Commissioner for Traffic, Mr Ray Schuey;
5. Why does VMAC insist on secrecy surrounding its meetings;
6. Does it intend at any stage to provide a regular and full statement of how [much] money is being collected and how it is being used.

This is the initial response:
"I have sent a comment on this to Tony Ellis (MRA) – and authorized him to release my views broadly if he thinks it is useful. I have included a copy of this for you now – this is the extent of my comment on the project for the moment. I think it covers most of the important bits of what you are raising at present – the rest will become clearer as we develop the concept more fully.
"You may choose to report that I have refused to answer your questions (which seems to be the case -- Ed) – be that as it may – but I think this is the best way of progressing at the moment. I think you also know that I have never had any difficulty with being accessible or open and forthright on policy issues and projects during my time in politics ( and now) – it’s just that it is far too premature to begin the public debate over this project (and it will be controversial) as far as I am concerned."

This is the comment referred to:

"As VMAC Chairman I am ignoring for now this early kickback - for me it is an anticipated response - I didn't for one moment expect that the proposal would remain "in house" - and in some ways I prefer that we didn't try. I would hate riders to think we were trying to cook up something in secret from them. I would have preferred to begin the broader consultation once we had the concept more truly defined and could answer questions more directly at that point - but obviously we didn't get that extra "comfort" zone - so there will be an "angry" period from some.

"The key to this from my point of view is that riders continually complain and assert that the biggest problems on the road for riders is car drivers who do not see motor bikes - or who talk on mobile phones and are distracted and become a danger to motorcyclists. As a rider I agree with these things - and would add that they also don't stop for red lights and they pass trams while they are stopped - all dangers to "vulnerable" road users.

"If the statistic is true that only 2 per cent of road users are motorcyclists and scooter riders it follows logically that the people who have most to fear from enforcement from extra police motorcyclists on the road are the 98 per cent of road users who are most likely to come across them - car drivers.

"I also think that having more police motorcyclists on constant view on the roads will increase the visibility and awareness of motorcyclists for drivers - they will be "looking our for them" -and that is probably likely to be more effective as a long term proposition than the TAC advertisement pointing out to drivers that they need to be on the lookout for motorcyclists at intersections that we are planning to run ( which is fully supported by the rider groups).

"As we work up the policing proposal we are also aiming at a new "community policing" and "educational" style of approach to the way police officers directly relate to enforcement of errant motor cycle rider behaviour. I would have thought this would be pretty easy to defend as a policy approach - in any forum!

"At the moment the whole concept is in 'development phase' and is subject to ongoing consultation - sensible input will get a good hearing from me - emotive rubbish won't."

EDITORIAL
So some of the money collected by the $56 motorcycle tax in Victoria (laughingly called a safety levy) might be spent buying the police 10 new patrol bikes.


Try telling this to another rider and they either laugh a little hysterically, or simply stare at you in disbelief. Then mention that it’s part of a broader safety campaign. They don’t hear the second part, as they’re too busy digesting the first bit of the news.


That this ludicrous idea was approved by the VMAC – the motorcycle advisory council – simply beggars belief. So far as I’m concerned, the organisation is risking its credibility and may as well sign on as an extension of government rather than maintain a pretence of independence.


Various folk will protest that the ten bikes is part of a more sophisticated safety campaign and should be seen in that light. The detail of the scheme, if or when it’s released, may go some way towards supporting that view. But no amount of camouflage will change the underlying facts.


Patrol bikes are enforcement tools and, when push comes to shove, that’s how police command will view them.
And here’s the thing which cannot be denied. Poison coated in sugar is still poison.


(It’s worth reinforcing that the issue here is not new enforcement proposals, but the idea of an already unjust tax being used to buy police equipment. Who or what is being held to ransom here?)


Nevertheless, perhaps we’re on to something. Maybe we should slap a ‘safety levy’ on gun clubs and use the money to buy police new weapons. Of course we could justify it as part of a broader enforcement campaign...


You’re always welcome to get in touch via email at this email link.

[MickLC]

..."If the statistic is true that only 2 per cent of road users are motorcyclists and scooter riders it follows logically that the people who have most to fear from enforcement from extra police motorcyclists on the road are the 98 per cent of road users who are most likely to come across them - car drivers...

This line stood out for me...if I was paying $56 a year on a "motorcycle safety levy" I would be pretty pissed if it was going to be used for enforcement of car drivers, despite any other issues around the concept.

[Smitty]

hmmm....seems crazy
but I am not sure
Is an EXTRA 10 mudderboike plod gunna be really that effective...???
seems a bit fatuous that these 10 extra bikes will change motorists behaviour

at least they also didn't buy 10 Highway Patrol cars as well

[z900/zx9]

What a crock of shit This money should be used for roadworks in high risk areas eg.shoulders of roads and motorcycle friendly road sighns and barriers.If they reckon that 10 more bikes is i good idear thats also shit as they will probably sell of the old ones therefore increasing presence by zero.If they were specificly used for tailgating car drivers,mobile useing fugwits and booking cagers for cutting corners in hazadas motorcycle areas i might think that it was a good idear.Instead they will probably be used as transport to the camo wearing coppers hideing in the bushes up the spurs

[aardvark]

I reckon it's a GREAT idea!!

Where do I sign up for mine?

[photomike666]

This money would have been better spent in the safe construction and repair of roads. Putting gravel all over a road and expecting motorists to slip and slide in it until their paint, windscreens and visors are chipped and the stones finally get rolled in, is both costly and dangerous to motorists. More so for motorcycles who are at a greater risk from accident and injury.

To fund raise in the name of saftey and then spend the money to fund another form of fund raising is unjust and immoral. How do givernments expect us to 'respect' the law, when they treat us like this. It instantly makes the law an enemy by using 'saftey funding' against us.

[Smitty]

I reckon it's a GREAT idea!!

Where do I sign up for mine?

ya better immigrate Jase

[SnypR]

l don't understand why we pay a levy because motorcycles are dangerous, therefore they need more safety, so they go and buy motorcycles with the money!!

They will have a big piss up with the money form the new mixed drink tax too...

[mick_dundee]

I've said previously, whilst i'm not "rapt" with the levy I have no problems with it in principle as it's only $1 a week, what my objection to the levy is the fact that it's prejudiced against us, make it across the board, cagers, pushbikeers et al. Also use the money to "educate" cagers and motorcyclists alike, develop a course (if one doesn't already exist) that teaches motorcyclists awareness, defensive riding type shit, teach cagers to LOOK for things other than cages and trucks, as they are't the only things on the road...

[lifeofcrimeguy]

The simple fact that there are ANY levies is ludicrous. Our standard registration and fees are meant to be paying for "safety iniatives". Simply put, it's another example of politicians having no idea about how to deal with problems other than sending money at them. Frankly I roll my eyes and tend to gloss over these kinds of news bits because they are so common and evoke the same response each time.

Maybe we should slap a ‘safety levy’ on gun clubs and use the money to buy police new weapons.

The only thing that made me actually read this post was that it included 2 of my favourite ranting topics, prejudices against bikes and guns. Hmmm... time to go find my favourite ranting buddy and a nice little bottle of Bundi, and reminisce about how simple life used to be

[daffy67]

A new saying
"They can take my guns (and motorcycles) from me when they remove them from my cold, dead, hands"

[javaman]

Maybe they will soon buy cameras and install WRB too with the levies

[holly]

MRA finally responded. they are one of the groups representing riders on VMAC.

Motorcycle Riders Association (Victoria) President John Karmouche today stated that the MRA(Vic) is opposed to any proposal to purchase 10 Police motor cycles from TAC Safety Levy funds.

MRA(Vic) President John Karmouche said today, “As a result of rumours going the rounds, we need to make it clear that the MRA(Vic) is opposed to having any part of the TAC Safety levy spent on purchasing Police assets. We believe that any such purchase should come out of General Government Revenue.”



Background

This matter surfaced over the last week, as a result of rumours arising from a Community Policing proposal put to the Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Council which recently voted “in principle” to develop a Community Policing and Education Strategy. The MRA (Vic) understands that this Strategy, which has been under consideration for some time is still under development and no decisions have yet been made as to the contents of the strategy.

[icebreaker]

Great....


Lets completely ignore the cheese grater guard railing that is now dominating our roads and put more bike cops out there to raise more revenue funded by the guys on bikes as part of a road safety levy...

Is all revenue raised to booking cars going to go back into the Bike Road Safety kitty??? I think not...

Bike cops are just another great why to stealth and catch more ppl out and make more money...

[craig]

we should be happy to have our levy spent on enforcement