Qld Riders. Motorbike Safety Consultation Paper

[kawadoug]

The following link is to a consultation paper which the Qld government has put online for discussion. Please read the paper and then fill out the online feedback form if you want to have a say in the future direction for motorcycle licenseing and safety programs in Queensland.

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/Home/Sa ... sultation/

[Lone Wolf]

Done

[NortikittyKat]

Done

[red_dave]

Done...

Intersting the article in Saturdays paper. Bloke was saying the current 250cc bikes could be dangerous for anyone over 100kgs...

[graemec]

Done, interesting and total bullshit.

That questionnaire is couched towards raising revenue and looking for more ways to fine people for speeding.

Its complete crap. Speeding is directly responsible for 6 to 10 % of accidents. Fatigue, distraction and tailgating are all far greater causes.
We need more Police, less cameras and tougher action on the above reasons. NOT ANOTHER LEVY under a so called "safety" levy.
Making roads safer will happen alot faster if they address those issues and a few others on road design and repair & reducing the amount of single occupant cars moving about in the morning. Increasing tax on bloody 4wd's that never see a bit of bush along with better rider AND more to the point car driver training.

[QLDZX6R]

Done,
I agree graeme,seems if they had their way we'd all be wearing Hi-Vis vests and paying huge road taxes to support their failure to plan for us in the first place!Anyway i had my say ...

[Black Magic]

Done!

[Rusty]

Its complete crap. Speeding is directly responsible for 6 to 10 % of accidents. Fatigue, distraction and tailgating are all far greater causes.

Mate, have you got a source for that statistic? I'd like to be able to cite something in my response.

[Blurr]

Done...

Intersting the article in Saturdays paper. Bloke was saying the current 250cc bikes could be dangerous for anyone over 100kgs...

done and agree.

[Felix]

Ok, so here's my responses:

Part A

I assume the question meant "motorbike safety".

The QRide system was great on paper, but I don't know that it has worked as intended. I think there was inherent risk in allow the people instructing the course to do the assessment, especially where those providers were bike shops focussed on gaining more potential customers. More rigorous auditing of standards, or in fact testing by Qld transport employees would probably increase standards of this kind of training.

Part B

It is interesting that the statistics seem to point to an apparent increase in the road toll for riders compared to drivers of cars. What makes more sense is that survivability of drivers has increased due to advancements in technical and engineering solutions. Quoting direct numbers of accidents and fatalities from year to year is quite meaningless, as the population grows, so too will that number. Even the comparison percentage of accidents between cars and bikes is quite a useless measurement for the reasons previously mentioned. I would argue that riding bikes in and of itself is no more dangerous now than at any time in the history of motorcycling.

It is also interesting that there seems to be a push to save riders from themselves. There are many fields of human endeavour and recreation that result in death or injury that don't seem to gain any real attention from government.

Statistics have shown a large percentage of motorcycle accidents happen at 40kph or less. Why therefore the emphasis on speed detection? In my experience as a daily road user, I see people running red lights as a regular occurrence - and quite a few near misses as a result - yet this receives little to no attention by government or enforcement officials.

The idea of using high visibility garments or devices is quite silly. Commuting on some of Brisbane's motorways by car for approximately 14 months highlighted that people don't see cars either - they simply don't look. This has been the same story since I got my licence some 15 years ago. It would probably make more sense, and send a stronger message to all motorists to bring mandatory charges against any person involved in an accident where they use the excuse, and that's what it is - an excuse, "I didn't see them".

Similarly safety levies and extra licencing fees are equally farcicle. They do not reduce incidence or severity of accidents nor does the money ever seem to get spent on the things it is supposed to be spent on and collected for.

The only proposal put forth so far that has much merit would be something along the lines of a LAMS system - wouldn't it be good to have a nationalised LAMS system? Many riders think it is a good system, and it makes more sense than a blanket restriction based on engine capacity.

Any solution that is a bureaucratic solution is doomed for failure. It is time that we stopped thinking in terms of two separate road users - ie drivers and riders. Not all drivers ride, but nearly all riders drive. What needs to be achieved is that the "us and them" mentality ceases, and it needs to cease from the top down. All road users need to accept riders as legitimate road users that have a legitimate and positive effect on road usage, congestion, environmental impact and parking. The more government policy seems to be divisive and discriminatory, the more it enacts a negative attitude amongst other road users to the detriment of rider safety.

I would greatly welcome an opportunity to become more involved in this issue, and to work towards developing sensible measures to improve road safety in general.

...and I added my email and phone number at the end.

I had been stewing over this for a couple of days, and frankly I am quite sick of typing...anyhow, it'll be interesting to see if they ever actually contact me. I don't care whether anyone agrees or disagrees with my comments (and I don't care to discuss them either), but I would encourage any Qld to actively participate and have a proper go at putting forth some solutions lest some committee of dead head bureaucrats decides it all for us.