Great to see that this has been posted up on KSRC. Your not the only ones who have reported an SQL error trying to give comments.
I'm mostly on NR and I've been trying to generate some interest in this paper... I strongly encourage you to spread the word and get out there amongst your non forum savvy rider friends... this discussion paper has some serious negative possibilities for riding.
The apparent goal of the proposal is to produce better noob (aka novice) riders. That's a worthy goal. The most conservative proposed changes however will see a P plate license cost well over $14000, with L plate riders only allowed to ride in daylight, with mandatory safety and high viz gear whilst being supervised by an accredited trainer. Yes, you read that right. And the net benefit is questionable - it even says so in the paper. So it's in your best interests to get reading the paper and make your comments heard. Change is coming. Help guide the learner system that will be used by your brother, sister, mate, son, daughter, mother in the near future.
You have until Friday 29 October 2010 to get your feedback to Vicroads via snail mail (no stamp required):
Motorcycle GLS Discussion Paper
VICROADS
Reply Paid 72780
KEW VIC 3101
or use the online feedback form (if it fracking works) at:
http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/motorcycleGLS
There are some good things in it, but on the whole, the document has FIVE critical flaws:
First flaw: Predetermined outcome!
Do not gloss over the first 15pages. They have been carefully crafted to drive the uncritical reader to a predetermined conclusion. This is a terrible discussion paper from that point of view alone. They cherry pick stats from papers around the world and use them in a disputable way to make a case for their proposals.
Second flaw: It doesn't make the case about what's wrong with the current GLS!
Though this is a paper about the improvements to the current Vic motorcycle GLS, they spend no time actually showing how the current scheme is actually failing. To me this is truly a flaw. They actually describe the current GLS in detail then absolutely fall flat on their face by stating that a 19 yo can become fully licenced to ride an unrestricted bike in the current scheme. This is flat wrong.
Third flaw: They're foisting the car model onto bikes!
The basic premise is that motorcyclists crash and die more than car drivers/occupants and this is bad. The inference is that car like stats are the only acceptable stat.
The discussion paper also refers to driver GLS schemes and it models it's key proposals on these car driver GLS schemes. It does this, despite questioning their direct relevance and applicability to motorcycling.
Fourth flaw: Fatality/Injury stats are flawed!
Figure 2 shows that more riders are being seriously injured - and it's this that drives their case. Yes it's true, but the chart actually reflects an increase in the numbers of riders that by the paper's own reckoning, are crashing at a lower rate. (see last column of table 1). In fact, if you crunch out the number of fatalities per 10000 registrations (you'll have to break out the calculator) the reduction is stark! However, the paper powers on regardless. There are a host of other statistical flaws but I'll expand on this later.
Fifth flaw: Biased survey questions!
The discussion paper asks for feedback via answering their specifically structured and targeted questions. I'm not well versed in reverse engineering the bias in survey questions, but to my eye, the bias is pretty clear. So answer them carefully and include detailed comments in the space allowed. Actually, I'd encourage writing a free form critique instead as answering their questions plays into their predetermined proposals.
So a document that is pretty critically flawed is going to be used to design a new licensing scheme which may very well discourage new riders from taking up riding... that's NOT a good outcome. Hope you guys take the time to resubmit your comments.
Cheers.
Rob
)