Vic Riders Buy the Police bikes..!!
Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:23 pm
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.
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.
