If you’re reading this as a new rider, you may not be familiar with the work of the Victorian Motorcycle Council (VMC).
To find out who they are, what they do, how they do it, where they do it, when th...well, you get the idea, this is them.
The following is taken from their website and examines the many problems with the Victorian Road Safety Strategy 2013-2022.
As is so often the case with decisions made by our fearless elected officials, rather than actually listening to the people they purport to represent or those who are experts in the field of road safety such as Monash University Accident Research Center, motorcyclist advocacy groups like the Victorian Motorcycle Council to name but one and their own Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety 2012, the Victorian State Government chose to listen to their advisors, driver advocacy groups and their own pollsters.
The result? Well, the following explains it better than I could and considering this kind of stuff is what the VMC is all about, there's no reason to paraphrase what has already been succinctly spelled out by the good people at the VMC. I'd recommend every rider, Learner or otherwise read the following. It makes for sobering reading.
The Victorian Government’s Road Safety Strategy web page for motorcyclists makes several claims in an attempt to justify its proposed motorcycle strategies. Interestingly, none of the proposed recommendations reflect the findings of the Government’s own Road Safety Committee Parliamentary Inquiry into motorcycle safety. This is a damning observation, given that the inquiry reflects considered and up to date research whilst the strategy reflects an online survey and the agenda of the contributing agencies.
Let’s examine the claims in detail:
Motorcyclists are four times more likely to be killed than other people on Victoria’s roads.
There are no references to where this likelihood figure comes from, but given the TAC’s use of the (discredited) 38 times likelihood figure, one could ask, has there been a seismic improvement in rider safety, with risk falling to just 4 times more likely? It’s clearly confusing. The figure is simply a comparison of rider injuries to driver injuries related by some parameter (i.e: time, registration, kilometers). It may seem to be a reasonable statistic to use, but it is not a good or reliable measure of motorcycle safety, since a reduction could result if there were fewer riders or more drivers being injured. But taken at face value, if risk genuinely reduced down from 38 to a paltry 4 times, then why is there such a strong safety push? In truth, this kind of statistic should not be used. All it does is promote motor vehicles – however that may in fact be the intent.
The statistic highlights that riders are an exposed road user group and are more likely to sustain an injury in a crash – not a big surprise considering that drivers are well and truly enclosed and protected. This is the nature of riding which riders intrinsically understand. This doesn’t mean that any injury is acceptable, but using such statistics to land messages on the riding demographic is at best unproductive. It’s interesting that the same kind of statistic is rarely ever quoted for pedestrians and cyclists, but then, there is not the same obvious push to get pedestrians and cyclists into cars.
The Parliamentary inquiry had a lot to say about the use of and manipulation of statistics by the agencies, which almost always created a negative motorcycling image. Sadly, that still seems at play here, so let’s look at some facts.
1. The motorcycle fatality and serious injury
RATES have more than halved in the last 15
years and have come down steadily in absolute
terms.
2. In 2012, rider fatality statistics showed a 10%
reduction nationally.
3. In 2012 Victoria had one of its lowest rider
fatality counts on record.
All this is good news and speaks volumes about improvements in safer motorcycling. Given these facts, it’s not hard to start seeing the anti-motorcycling bias in the propaganda material.
Are motorcycles over represented in the Road Toll?
The popularity of motorcycling has increased, with a 62 per cent rise in the number of motorcycle and scooter registrations in Victoria between 2003 and 2011. This increased popularity in motorcycling is a worldwide phenomenon, due to increasing congestion, environmental considerations and fuel economy issues. Powered Two Wheelers (PTW’s) are a practical transport solution providing cost effective and fuel efficient mobility, certainly more practical than cycling and public transport.
In less affluent countries, motorcycles form the back bone of primary transport for the populace – imagine Hanoi with every PTW replaced with passenger vehicles as some safety proponents would like to do in Australia. The city would be strangled and its economy dealt a mortal blow. PTW’s are that city’s lifeblood.
In affluent countries, motorcycles cover a spectrum of uses and purposes, from utilitarian: commuting and farm work, through to discretionary: recreation or individual expression. The sector defies being neatly fitted into a specific box. PTW’s are Australia’s fastest growing transport segment and this doesn’t look like stopping any time soon. This is not something to be feared.
Motorcyclists represent 20 per cent of the TAC claims, with costs about four to five times higher per vehicle than for all other vehicles.
This kind of statistic is used often by the agencies as some self-evident measure of the riskiness of motorcycling. It suggests that riders are a risk to themselves, when in truth, the figure means something else. TAC cost not only include direct medical expenses, but also common law payouts, which for the most part reflect a loss caused to someone by some other party. A fair proportion of that 20% figure is a rightful payout to the victim of a crash where they were not at fault. It reflects what research studies have proved for many years. Prof N Haworth from CARRS-Q recently confirmed on ABC radio that 60 - 70% of rider injuries are due to a crash with another vehicle, with the other vehicle at fault the majority of the time. This kind of statistic is repeated in studies the world over. Even the TAC’s own data points out that in rider fatalities involving a right turning car, the car was at fault a whopping 84% of the time. The conclusion that can be drawn here is that the majority of the 20% payout figure actually represents the medical and common law costs for injuries caused by other parties. Why isn't this public knowledge?
It’s easier to blame the victim, in this case the rider. The TAC is an insurance company and as such is more focused on measuring where their money goes and mitigating their overall costs, than it is in determining the root cause of that expenditure. In TAC's eyes, riders are the problem, so that’s what should be tackled. The Victorian Government road safety strategy does not include proposals to address the risk posed to riders by other road users – that is telling. The proposals are essentially focused on injury mitigation and in effect are saying, “It’s OK for riders to crash and be crashed into, but they should crash in a way that doesn't hurt them so much.” That’s not making roads safer for riders. That’s not spelling out that road safety is a shared responsibility between all road users.
When common law payouts are removed, pedestrians, cyclists and riders roughly cost the TAC about the same amount, i.e., they represent a similar percentage cost to the TAC. Pedestrians and cyclists however, spend less time as a direct part of traffic flow, so it could be said then that being a rider is a much safer prospect per hour on the roads. Pedestrians and Cyclists do not contribute funding to the TAC.
Although the number of seriously injured riders has reduced over time, direct costs have gone up with increasing medical costs. Would an injury mitigation strategy help keep these costs in check?
Could such a strategy keep driving down injury severity in balance with rising medical costs? The answer is – unlikely. That’s not to say that protective gear won’t provide a benefit, but it can’t hope to provide the required reductions that would be achieved if crash frequency was reduced significantly. The message is clear. The better strategy is to educate road users to share the road and thereby reduce the incidence of rider crashes.
Although riders are at fault in a proportion of their crashes (just as a thought exercise, how many drivers are at fault in their crashes?) and there is clearly a road safety message for riders, the above makes something very clear: The majority of the TAC payouts actually reflects the danger that other road users and the road system represents to riders. The agencies need to tackle this barrage rather than wrap them in armour to withstand it. Once again, it goes without saying, that road safety is a shared responsibility between all road users.
Motorcyclists who wear protective clothing are at a significantly reduced risk of being seriously injured.
The VMC supports riders wearing protective gear and gear will mitigate injury should a rider be unfortunate enough to be involved in a crash. “Never hit the road without it”, is a great slogan, but note that the above claim does not relate to reducing crash risk, only injury severity. True road safety should be working at the root cause level, not at the personal protective equipment level.
Many people elevate gear to the exalted protective capability of air bags and crumple zones, however it is nothing like that. Its primary purpose is to resist road abrasion and to distribute impact forces via the contained armour. Research shows that a direct impact of 59km/h or higher, will almost always result in fatality or serious injury – irrespective of worn gear. It’s a sobering truth. What this suggests then is that riders should elevate their skill a greater safety asset than their gear. Riders should aim to be the best rider they can be, keeping their skills sharp and developing exceptional hazard awareness. This is what will fundamentally keep riders safe. This is PROACTIVE safety, rather than passive safety as provided by gear. Gear comes into its own when things go wrong, but true safety is reducing how often things go wrong.
The road safety strategy is using the above claim as a basis for mandating motorcycle boots. Research shows that upwards of 80% of riders have boots and they wear them most of the time. This could leave riders thinking, “So what, let them put the rule in, it makes no difference to me.” The parliamentary inquiry did not support mandatory gear for very good reason, preferring to follow an educative path. This is still the best and most effective path forward as mandation not only removes choice, it’s likely to also cause significant legal confusion without there being suitable standards. Having a standard drives up the cost of gear, which in turn works against the promotion and uptake of gear – which is contrary to the intent of the proposal.
In short the best approach is education and this has been recognised by the TAC, the author of research quoted by the strategy - Prof. Liz Derome, the internationally recognised protective gear expert Paul Varnsverry and the government’s own Parliamentary inquiry. The proposal to mandate boots is not a good evidence based proposal, but rather reflects the isolated cherry picking of Prof Liz DeRome’s research.
Nearly 60 per cent of speeding motorcyclists avoid infringements as they do not have a front number plate.
As written, that is categorically false statement. It’s been stated and corrected before, however the Department of Justice continues to claim it is true, which must bring their credibility into disrepute.
The Victoria Police submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry included a sample set of Traffic Camera Office data, categorically disproving the above statistic. This was corroborated by more extensive data that the VMC obtained from the Road Safety Camera Commissioner. Why is this emotive claim continuing to be made?
The data shows that just as many motorcycles fail identification from the front as they do from the rear – this is despite motorcycles having perfectly legal identification to the rear. The apparent identification failure rate is in no way the fault of riders. It is entirely a design flaw of the camera enforcement system. If photos from the rear have an error rate, then it’s logical to assume that photos from the front will too. FNP’s will not plug the identification gap, but contrary to the claims, it will reduce road safety for riders.
Once upon a time, motorcycles had front number plates. It’s not well understood however that motorcycle safety issues required the removal of these plates. The compromises in front end design that were required to fit a plate, resulted in unstable motorcycles at highway speeds. Plates also broke off either striking the engine or rider, and would inflict greater injury in collisions with pedestrians. The removal of plates in the 70’s/80’s provided a step improvement in motorcycle safety and any call for their reintroduction is a totally backward step utterly inconsistent with road safety.
The agencies claim that riders aren't being brought to heel due this missing identification, however traffic camera office data clearly shows no increase in the number of detected speeding motorcycles in the last three years, despite a 10% increase in registrations. The rhetoric suggests otherwise! The data also show a rise in detected passenger vehicles speeding despite them having both front and rear plates, clearly the identification argument is flawed.
How big a problem is it anyway? Failed identifications from the front amount to 0.4% of all motorcycle and passenger vehicle speeding detections. To plug this “leakage”, estimates show that fitting FNP will cost to the community $30m dollars. That’s money better spent on pot holes and public services. The call for FNP’s is clearly out of balance with community expectations and road safety priorities.
Agencies also argue that riders must be slowed down to legal speeds for their safety, however legal city and highway speeds are already potentially fatal speeds, so even that argument falls over. In a nutshell, there is no demonstrable road safety benefit from FNP’s.
In terms of comparing road user groups, the annual number of speeding motorcycles represents about 15% of the registered motorcycle fleet, whilst the annual number of speeding passenger vehicles represents almost 40% of the registered passenger vehicle fleet. What’s clear is that despite the rhetoric, riders are generally well behaved and if speed is the single most important lead indicator of road safety, as the agencies would have you believe, then riders are leading the way!
The final point about the calls for FNP’s is that they obstinately ignore the millions of dollars spent and several years of research conducted by VicRoads into the practicality and logistics of refitting FNP’s to motorcycles. VicRoads concluded that it was totally impractical. Why then are Victoria Police and the Department of Justice still pushing for FNP’s against the overwhelming evidence?
Research into motorcycle ABS found that fatal motorcycle crashes per 10,000 registered vehicles were 37 per cent lower for ABS models than non-ABS models.
Look up the terms "confounded study, self selection bias, unrepresentative sample, unscientific study and flawed survey design" and you’ll be defining the study that has been referenced here. However this hasn't stopped it being the most quoted be all and end all statement on the matter of motorcycle ABS. In a word, the study is flawed.
The study compared the fatality statistics of touring bikes and cruisers, by comparing bikes with ABS to the same model of bike without ABS. The study not surprisingly found a reduced incidence of fatality for motorcycles with ABS. Surely that’s the final word on ABS then? Well, no. The study didn't account for any confounding factors, such as the impact of conservative riders who chose the ABS option by nature of their conservativism – conservative riders ride more conservatively and crash less, or the impact of distances traveled, age, experience or geography, or the total lack of a control group or the fact that there were no in-depth crash reconstructions to determine actual causes of crashes, or finally that they drew conclusions for all motorcycles despite a limited data set.
There is no aspect of this study which can draw a causal conclusion that ABS reduces fatality. At best they found a correlation. Some of the 37% reduction may be due to ABS, however given that the venerable HURT study and the more recent MAIDS study cannot be reinterpreted to show how ABS would have made a significant causal difference to the studied crashes, and given two recent case controlled studies out of the US and Ireland that did not find any significant fatality reduction benefit from ABS, clearly much of the hype around ABS is simply propaganda.
There’s no doubt though that ABS will avoid a motorcycle skidding due to over braking, thus maximising its chances of staying upright. Without doubt, this is a brilliant benefit of ABS, however despite this central potential benefit, ABS isn't exactly a no brainer. It cannot replace good braking skill and indeed, to get the most out of ABS a rider must brake well. If the technology encourages riders to stop practicing, brake lazily or panic grab in an emergency, then stopping distances will increase – particularly on the simple ABS systems typical of LAMS bikes.
Not all ABS’s systems are the same and they can impact the motorcycle dynamically in different ways. Riders that like downhill twisty performance riding won’t want a system with anti stoppie programming. Riders who like dirt riding won’t want a system that can’t be turned off. Riders who brake deep into corner won’t want a simple or differential wheel speed ABS system. Riders who enjoy spirited riding at the track won’t want anything other than the sophisticated flagship ABS packages. Despite the apparent simpleness of ABS in motor vehicles, it’s another matter altogether for riding.
One final note, it’s taken almost 30 years for ABS packages to get to the sophistication required for performance sports riding. The systems you’ll find on the flagship bikes from BMW, Ducati, Honda etc are so good that they are almost undetectable, even in performance riding, and are very hard to fault.
It took 30 years to achieve an ABS consistent with sports bikes, due to the sophistication required to automatically dial back the amount of ABS the higher up the performance curve the bike goes. This is telling. If you have one of these systems, you can be sure that it’s almost fool proof and will serve you well.
The VMC certainly isn't against motorcycle ABS, however, riders are recommended to understand how their ABS works, to remain within the programming’s performance envelope at all times and to maintain their braking skills. This is the only way to ensure that the ABS will benefit them. Bottom line is, don’t assume ABS is a safety no brainer, make a considered choice.
An interesting read eh? But what do you think? Leave a comment below and share your views.
No comments:
Post a Comment