PDA

View Full Version : Tax motorcycles and motor scooters off the road



Hitcher
2nd December 2004, 09:49
[From the Australian Financial Review, Editorial, 1 December 2004]

[Be afraid. This is also how bureaucrats think. In a few years' time when you're sitting at home eating your fat-free, GM-free, organic tofu burger, and sipping your alcohol-free beer, "carefully" manufactured in New Zealand by unionised labour, remember that you were warned!]

In NSW, the Carr government is bravely trying to cut the road toll, even at the risk of alienating young motorists. However, its discussion paper has overlooked one simple measure that could result in a significant reduction in the road toll, including among young road users.

NSW and the other states should tax motorcycles and motor scooters off the road.

At the moment, the NSW road authorities encourage the use of motorcycles and scooters by allowing riders to use express and transit lanes.

The authorities may be acting under the impression that bikes and scooters are a socially desirable form of transport: they use little petrol, cause no congestion, take up hardly any parking space, and generally make few demands on the environment.

But of course that kind of calculus grossly understates the true cost imposed by motorcycle riders on the community.

Statistics from studies in NSW and Victoria show that motorcycle riders and their pillion passengers are many times more likely to be killed or injured than other motorists.

The risk of being killed or injured (per distance travelled) is 16 to 18 times that of a car driver or passenger. If in an accident in Victoria, riders are 33 times more likely to be killed and 31 times more likely to suffer a serious injury.

Motorcycle fatalities have declined dramatically in the past decade and a half as the use of motorcycles has declined. Motorcycles were aggressively marketed to young men and women in the 1970s and 1980s. But everyone, including governments, soon learned about their dangers.

The number of people in NSW with motorcycle licences fell by about 40per cent in the 1990s, possibly because of more stringent training and licensing requirements introduced in the mid 1980s. As a result, the number of fatalities was halved.

Unfortunately, people forget, and motorcycles and motor scooters have come back into fashion, including among middle-aged men, who should know better.

Nationally, registrations increased by almost 20 per cent in the five years to 2004. This compares with a 10 per cent increase in the number of passenger cars. The number of fatalities has also started to rise again.

The big increase has been in the number of older riders. The proportion of motorcycles registered to people aged 40 or over is up by about 60 per cent.

Older owners tend to ride bigger American and European bikes. And while they are much less likely than younger riders to have an accident, the number of crashes involving older drivers has been rising faster than the number of licence holders.

In general, the severity of injuries suffered in motorcycle accidents tends to rise with the engine capacity of the motorcycle. The average size of third-party insurance claims for motorcycle accidents injuries is higher for riders and pillion passengers aged over 25.

In the United States, the average total cost (including medical costs, lost earnings, lost quality of life) of motorcycle accidents is about 11 times that for motor vehicles as a whole. A similar ratio is likely in Australia.

It is possible that people attracted to the speed and excitement of motorcycle riding will be accident prone in any form of transport. But their risks of serious injury, permanent disability and death would be lower in a car, and so would the cost to the community.

A registration tax high enough to deter people from riding motorcycles will be opposed on the grounds of equity. Young riders are disproportionately low-paid or unemployed. Motorcycles are a "cheap" form of transport.

For those young riders who live in the outer suburbs of the major cities, where public transport is poor, a bike may be essential to get to work or to look for a job.

A heavy tax on motorcycles would be regressive, in the sense that it would fall more heavily on those with low incomes.

However, like the heavy taxation of tobacco products, the equity consequences have to judged against their health outcomes.

History has shown that governments can save people's lives simply by deterring them from getting on motorcycles. A compromise solution may be to phase in the higher tax, to give existing bike and scooter owners time to buy a car in the normal course of replacing their bikes. At least with lower tariffs and the rise of the Korean car industry, the choices for those looking for an alternative means of cheap transport have widened.

Korean cars may be less exciting, but they last longer and, more importantly, so do both their drivers and their passengers.

Drunken Monkey
2nd December 2004, 10:23
Scary stuff...and they call this the 'free' world. Every day we hear of something else what we aren't 'allowed' to do (or at least won't be allowed to do in the near future).

Quasievil
2nd December 2004, 10:32
mmmmmmmm disturbing I think, we can always go underground and form rebelion gangs:doobey:

kerryg
2nd December 2004, 10:33
Plainly written by some Daewoo-driving accountant who has never experienced the joy of motorcycling. Of course riding motorbikes is more dangerous than driving cars...and so what? Lots of such things are dangerous: scuba diving, rock climbing, skiing, rugby, dairy foods, skateboarding, too much sun, over-proof rum, under-cooked chicken...the list goes on. What next should the state stop people doing to prevent them from coming to harm I wonder?...... :spudwhat:

inlinefour
2nd December 2004, 10:37
From my experience from accidents on the road it friggin middle aged women that are the cause so THEY should BE taxed OFF the road. Bloody beurocrats(sp) :brick:

crazylittleshit
2nd December 2004, 10:50
Sometimes It feels like were all slowly being put into a small confined space were we can do anything. :angry2:
there's politicly correct and then there's stupidity. Everything fun can hurt you. (Take it all away) and all we become are consumers. :no:

TonyB
2nd December 2004, 10:53
Now that was frightening. I love the way the author puts forward his or her own opinions as 'facts'
The data for motorcycle accidents always seems to include farm bike/ ATV/ motocross accidents, which as I understand it is how the ACC managed to justify increasing the levy on bike regos.

crazylittleshit
2nd December 2004, 10:57
Now that was frightening. I love the way the author puts forward his or her own opinions as 'facts'
The data for motorcycle accidents always seems to include farm bike/ ATV/ motocross accidents, which as I understand it is how the ACC managed to justify increasing the levy on bike regos.

Its anoying how you can't check these facts you just need to take them as they are. :headbang:

BM-GS
2nd December 2004, 11:48
Now that article is total shite. Lots of opinion based on nothing verifiable, no references, just vague comments - who is that paper aimed at?

The UK (yeh, yeh, I'm an import) has seen a huge growth of bike use in the last 10 years or so as the "born -agains" return to bikes after getting rid of the kids & mortgage. Yes, they're over-represented in the accident stats, but they can now afford decent kit (lids, jackets, gloves) and are a bit out of practice after 20 years in a company Volvo. They're also most likely to be badgered (by their significant others, not the media) into taking some refresher training, as bikes have moved on and their families would like to see them again.

Actually riding in the UK, one notices a much greater awareness of bikes by the general driving public - either because they ride themselves, so are more aware of bikes; because they know people who ride, so are more aware of bikes; or because there are a lot more bikes around, so they're more aware of bikes.

The European Commission (the Executive arm of the European central government) tried enforcing a 100bhp limit on all bikes imported to Europe a few years ago, based on a single report. Fortunately, the happy coincidence of the European Parliament being engaged in a power struggle with the Commission, the European bike lobby finally getting itself together and report's author telling everybody that getting a result of "Big, powerful bikes are more dangerous than smaller ones." from his report was down to seriously flawed thinking, saved the day and we now get to play with 180bhp ZX-10Rs & such. But it was bloody close.

Any chance of that sort of coincidence happening in the Antipodes? Maybe we could suggest that EVERBODY should drive a Korean car and scrap all the WRXs, V8s and 4x4s? Not to mention bicycles. Or possibly the answer could be better driver training with specifically bike-related, hazard awareness segments?

Whatever makes a sensational headline - wankers.

Rant over,
Beemer bloke

manuboy
2nd December 2004, 11:50
I don't know if it's just me growing old and paying more attention to these things, or whether it has actually become okay for companies / governments to completely override any concerns in relation to issues like this, with the one overriding factor that is always Financial Cost.

Why does that always override say the cost to the environment if they forced us all to drive cages? Or the cost of our suffering and the significant loss of enjoyment of life to us all if they got their way?

And surely if you took Auckland as an example and made, i dunno, ten percent of those suburb dwellers ride pushbikes or scooters or m/c's to work, the cost of treatment to those who binned even over the long term would be less than the proposed cost of the roading solution?

Probably the saddest part of that article for me is that a large proportion of those people actually capable of passing laws and influencing us to any degree might hold some of the views expressed in that doc.


Unfortunately, people forget, and motorcycles and motor scooters have come back into fashion, including among middle-aged men, who should know better.

What sort of comment is that? The sort that would be made by some overweight, library raised, lacrose playing, pant peeing mummies boy who secretly always wanted a bike but never had the balls or the ability to ride one.

Bunch of ass lads. :mad:

kerryg
2nd December 2004, 11:56
Now that article is total shite. Lots of opinion based on nothing verifiable, no references, just vague comments - who is that paper aimed at?




I wonder if there are any statistics available regarding motorcycle accident rates in the USA. They don't have our cc restrictions for learners so far as I know (they can go straight to a 600cc I think or even bigger). It would be interesting to know whether they have greatly different accident rates among learner riders than here...I would guess that there's bugger all difference but coud be wrong of course

AMPS
2nd December 2004, 11:59
That was a rigorously researched article, judging from the number of tends, almosts, and likely's that he uses. Interesting that the accident risk is so much higher in Vic than NSW, Victoria is the model for our own draconian safety policies.
When is the author going to push for a ban on all contact sports?
Lou

Blakamin
2nd December 2004, 12:09
All we need now is the stupid fukkers email address

and dont think it will never happen... look at the "supercar" scare of the 70's... one journalist killed performance cars with a single article!

Motu
2nd December 2004, 12:32
That's a bullshit article,and I can tell from just one of his comments - he talks about putting young drivers into cheap Korean imports...no way! We are talking about Australia here,they are very,very protective about their so called car industry,anything that jepodises the sale of Holdens and Falcons wouldn't get off the ground.Now if he said he wants to put young drivers into Holden Astra's or Ford Laser's I would be worried....

Coldkiwi
2nd December 2004, 13:07
All we need now is the stupid fukkers email address

and dont think it will never happen... look at the "supercar" scare of the 70's... one journalist killed performance cars with a single article!


Allow me! (courtesy of Denill via the 'ultimate solution' thread)
Article published in Silver Bullet (http://www.silver-bullet.co.nz/news.php?id=3329)
Email the Editor (edletters@afr.com.au) of the Australian Financial Review -numpties who published the article written by Alan Mitchell. I've just sent my thoughts to them reminding them of the public embarrasement that the NBR suffered after involvement with the Dick Hubbard smear campaign

rodgerd
2nd December 2004, 13:54
Now that was frightening. I love the way the author puts forward his or her own opinions as 'facts'
The data for motorcycle accidents always seems to include farm bike/ ATV/ motocross accidents, which as I understand it is how the ACC managed to justify increasing the levy on bike regos.

Well, the biggest flaw is pulling in US stats. Helmets, anyone?

TonyB
2nd December 2004, 13:54
Just found a report published by the Oxford Ini traffic research unit. It's in pdf form here www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/motorcycles_final_report.pdf, but you can veiw it here http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=cache:0LpXUb-u2d8J:www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/research/motorcycles_final_report.pdf+motorcycle+accident+r ate+vs+capacity&hl=en as html.
I looked at it expecting some reasoned conclusions about bike safety, but even here the author is allowing public opinion to sway their judgement. For instance, they make a comment about statistics backing up the general veiw that born again bikers are a problem, because statistics show that while the highest accident rate used to be in a certain age group, it has now moved to the next age group. HELLO! The number of young people taking up riding is reducing, therefore motorcyclists have an 'aging population', therefore as time moves on, the group with the highest accident rate (because there are more of them) will get older and older. :angry2:

They do make a comment about other road users causing the bulk of fatalities though. Surely education of non bikers is the simplest answer?

As far as taxing bikes into oblivion goes. HA! How much does a set of tyres cost and how long do they last? Most bikers are used to a high price of ownership. How many people still smoke, despite being taxed heavily? Motorcycling is addictive, it ain't that easy to just 'give it up'.

rodgerd
2nd December 2004, 13:55
Any chance of that sort of coincidence happening in the Antipodes? Maybe we could suggest that EVERBODY should drive a Korean car and scrap all the WRXs, V8s and 4x4s? Not to mention bicycles. Or possibly the answer could be better driver training with specifically bike-related, hazard awareness segments?

An Aussie politician would never suggest action against V8s, methinks.

Hitcher
2nd December 2004, 14:01
I looked at it expecting some reasoned conclusions about bike safety, but even here the author is allowing public opinion to sway their judgement. For instance, they make a comment about statistics backing up the general veiw that born again bikers are a problem, because statistics show that while the highest accident rate used to be in a certain age group, it has now moved to the next age group. HELLO! The number of young people taking up riding is reducing, therefore motorcyclists have an 'aging population', therefore as time moves on, the group with the highest accident rate (because there are more of them) will get older and older.
Some people just don't "get" statistics. As demonstrated by the fact that half of the population has below-average intelligence...

TonyB
2nd December 2004, 14:59
Some people just don't "get" statistics. As demonstrated by the fact that half of the population has below-average intelligence...
:lol: Say that to a politician and they'll have a fit, then they'll advocate that millions more must be spent on educating the general public. Of course, once it's done he'll no doubt be totally bewildered when statistics show that half of the population still has below-average intelligence. Wonder how long it would take him to realise that it can't be any other way?

Blakamin
2nd December 2004, 17:04
Allow me! (courtesy of Denill via the 'ultimate solution' thread)
Article published in Silver Bullet (http://www.silver-bullet.co.nz/news.php?id=3329)
Email the Editor (edletters@afr.com.au) of the Australian Financial Review -numpties who published the article written by Alan Mitchell. I've just sent my thoughts to them reminding them of the public embarrasement that the NBR suffered after involvement with the Dick Hubbard smear campaign
Thank You!!!!!! :niceone: :not:
Now, as an Australian, he will feel my wrath... (he's probably a pom anyway!) :angry2:

Blakamin
2nd December 2004, 17:07
An Aussie politician would never suggest action against V8s, methinks.
It happened in 1971!
hence no XU-2
no real XA-GT
no V8 cortinas
and it could happen again!
try a google (i havent coz its a fact I've lived with) on "supercar scare 1971 australia"

[edit] just googled that :weep:

Yokai
2nd December 2004, 17:19
Some people just don't "get" statistics.

Stats ... Heh. I notice that there was no comparative stat here

Numbers I would like to see:

Total Bike Accidents - (Bike vs Car)
Bike vs Bike
Car vs Car
Total Car - (Bike vs Car)

expressed as percentages of total number of cars and total number of bikes.

Really steams me that people don't "do the math" ...

Drunken Monkey
2nd December 2004, 21:54
I wonder if there are any statistics available regarding motorcycle accident rates in the USA. They don't have our cc restrictions for learners so far as I know (they can go straight to a 600cc I think or even bigger). It would be interesting to know whether they have greatly different accident rates among learner riders than here...I would guess that there's bugger all difference but coud be wrong of course

Summary of 'The Hurt Report'

http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html

TonyB
3rd December 2004, 08:57
Really steams me that people don't "do the math" ...
I don't think buerocrats ever do the math- it's far easier to jump to conclusions, prey on the misconceptions of the general public, and then slap on some nice big taxes and fines to get some more revenue.

rodgerd
3rd December 2004, 09:01
Stats ... Heh. I notice that there was no comparative stat here

Numbers I would like to see:

Total Bike Accidents - (Bike vs Car)
Bike vs Bike
Car vs Car
Total Car - (Bike vs Car)

expressed as percentages of total number of cars and total number of bikes.

Really steams me that people don't "do the math" ...

Have a look at the LTSA thread for the numbers for New Zealand. They aren't too flattering on riders, since the number of single vehical, rider at fault fatalitites alone is out of line with the number of bikes on the road.

TonyB
3rd December 2004, 11:17
2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

3. Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat.

4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

5. Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

66% for rider error + 3% for vehicle failure + 2% for road defects + 1% for animals = 70% So if I'm not missing something, there's 30% missing. What happens, do the bikes just magicaly crash all by themselves? Road defects would be much higher than 2%

Yokai
3rd December 2004, 12:04
66% for rider error + 3% for vehicle failure + 2% for road defects + 1% for animals = 70% So if I'm not missing something, there's 30% missing. What happens, do the bikes just magicaly crash all by themselves? Road defects would be much higher than 2%
Define road defect? Diesel spillage? Not a road defect, not a vehicl failure, not animal ....

All of this equates to 25% of motorcycle accidents

So ...
0.75% total MC Accidents were vehicle failure (mostly flats)
16.5% total MC Accidents were rider error
0.5% total MC Accidents were road defects
0.25% total MC Accidents were animal involved
7.5% total MC Accidents were unaccounted for.
49.5% total MC Accidents were caused by the driver of the other vehicle
24.5% total MC Accidents were multi vehicle Motorcyclist "at-fault".

I've read what the other stats are for cars and unless I am much mistaken I cannot find on LTSA Car'n'Van vs Bike. Nor can I find the nice breakdown of Bike stats....

I'm actually gonna do some research on this to try and get:

1 - Single Vehicle accident breakdowns for Bike and Car
2 - Multiple Vehicle accident breakdowns for Car vs Bike

But *shrug* - I like my bike!

NOTE: 10. Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

TonyB
3rd December 2004, 12:22
Saw a beaut diesel spill a while back. On every left hand bend from Diamond Harbour to Lyttleton there was so much diesel you could actually smell it. The spill took up about a third of the lane most of the way round each corner. I was heading to Lyttleton from Gebbies pass, so I first came across it on an uphill left hander at around 100k's, I could smell it before I saw it. After dithering for a bit, I rode to the Lyttleton police station to let them know- they already knew (but they thought it was confined to Diamond Harbour) and had a road crew going to Diamond Harbour. When I tried to explain how serious it was the officer didn't seem too bothered. Infact from what he said I got the impression he thought it would be a great way to teach a few bikers a lesson.

Zapf
3rd December 2004, 23:08
What about taxing the big / gas guzzing 4x4's off the road as well?

Bob
4th December 2004, 04:37
I wonder if there are any statistics available regarding motorcycle accident rates in the USA. They don't have our cc restrictions for learners so far as I know (they can go straight to a 600cc I think or even bigger). It would be interesting to know whether they have greatly different accident rates among learner riders than here...I would guess that there's bugger all difference but coud be wrong of course

Oddly enough, there is something out at the moment, but that is a 20 year study of booze level to accident ratios...

US stats are never good ones to use - no, they don't have a 'learner limit' - but they also don't have any kind of law forcing you to wear protective kit such as helmets either in many states. So a US accident is more likely to be a fatal one.

In the UK, there is often reference to (numbers off the top of my head) a 15% increase in accident rates, comparing 1992 to 1980. But the 37% increase in the number of bikes on the road is usually ignored...

The EU thing about the 100bhp limit was a close run thing - as BM-GS said, if the bike lobby hadn't got it's act together in time, that could have been a real threat.

And we suffer other loonies like that - like the Dutch MP who put forward a serious proposal to ban bikes in Holland. There are still rumblings of "zero tolerance" in places like Sweden - in other words, ban bikes. And Switzerland recently tried to impliment an 80kmph limit on bikes!

Without our lobbying groups, I dread to think what might get through...

Back to that paper - it is sensationalism of the worst kind. It needs challenging with facts - which your department of transport should be able to provide. Do you have a bike lobbying group, such as our BMF, MAG? If so, I think someone needs to bring this to their attention and get them challenging it - and fast.

Quasievil
4th December 2004, 08:48
What about taxing the big / gas guzzing 4x4's off the road as well?
Nope not a good idea cause some of us have families and I would have a 4x4 over a Van anyday

scumdog
4th December 2004, 09:34
Have a look at the LTSA thread for the numbers for New Zealand. They aren't too flattering on riders, since the number of single vehical, rider at fault fatalitites alone is out of line with the number of bikes on the road.

Ahh! I was wondering when somebody was going to bring that up!
It's a myth that most m/c crashes are caused by Vovlo drivers or mums in their Remuera tractor, unfortunately most crashes are directly linked to the (non) riding abilities of the rider involved. :o

scumdog
4th December 2004, 09:41
BTW the thread "The Ultimate Solution" in General biker ravings looks somewhat familiar, or is it just me and my goldfish memory span? ;)

Bob
5th December 2004, 01:23
Ahh! I was wondering when somebody was going to bring that up!
It's a myth that most m/c crashes are caused by Vovlo drivers or mums in their Remuera tractor, unfortunately most crashes are directly linked to the (non) riding abilities of the rider involved. :o

I recall some statistics from a major insurance broker called Carole Nash a few years back. In that they showed 67% of accidents involving bikes were a result of car drivers pulling out of side turnings. That said, the actual apportionment of blame is about 50/50 in accidents involving two parties.

Now... if you add up 50% of 67%, you get (gets out calculator...) 33.50% - add that to the 33% of accidents not involving another vehicle... and that is a heck of a lot of accidents where the biker has to take a fair amount/all the blame.

OK these are UK figures, but I'd guess the proportions aren't massively different in NZ.

(From personal experience - 4 times on the deck in 10 years - 3 were proved to be other parties fault, the other time I had no-one to blame but myself)

avgas
5th December 2004, 04:52
Nope not a good idea cause some of us have families and I would have a 4x4 over a Van anyday

Thats the sad side of things these days - 4wd has been allowed on to the road. Where it was never designed for that purpose (well according to the original Land Rover designer....who now drives a mini)
Next i think we should design trains that jump tracks to change course - so we dont have to have busses :first: Or convert ride on mowers to be wof certified so that people can have cheap transport and a lawn mower

avgas
5th December 2004, 04:57
Also in reference to this topic, be prepared to become some kind of scapegoat. In political eyes, 220% of motorcyclists cause accidents involving a motorcyclist - 120% of that being car drivers
I say let all the law an abolising take place, then i can spray my bike matt black, and motorcycling will go underground :moon:
Something this good should be illegal :innocent:

Skyryder
5th December 2004, 11:00
The answer to that load of codswallop is to ban cars. That would bring the road toll down as there would be none of the road to kill or maim us.

The reality of that diatribe is just a speil for the Korean car makers.

Skyryder

Deano
5th December 2004, 11:18
From my experience from accidents on the road it friggin middle aged women that are the cause so THEY should BE taxed OFF the road. Bloody beurocrats(sp) :brick:


Middle aged women should be friggin at home, not while driving. ;)

The answer I got from an LTSA employee was that accidents involving other vehicle vs bike were about 50/50 in terms of fault.

Skyryder
5th December 2004, 11:21
Allow me! (courtesy of Denill via the 'ultimate solution' thread)
Article published in Silver Bullet (http://www.silver-bullet.co.nz/news.php?id=3329)
Email the Editor (edletters@afr.com.au) of the Australian Financial Review -numpties who published the article written by Alan Mitchell. I've just sent my thoughts to them reminding them of the public embarrasement that the NBR suffered after involvement with the Dick Hubbard smear campaign


just emailed this

Dear Sir/Madam.

If Alan Mitchell the writer of the article is serious about reducing the Australian road toll perhaps he should do some research into the causes of Motor bike related accidents. I could give some stats on this subject but as you know most statistics can be questioned so will not wast my time or yours.

May I suggest that if the writer is serious about reducing the Australian road toll he should advocate the taxing of all non commercial vehicles off the road. You do not have to be a maths wiz kid to understand the financial savings this would policy would accrue. Reduced pollution, energy costs not to mention insurance costs in all related fields, including medical bills both for the state and the individual etc. Such a simple solution remove the cars from the road and put everyone of two wheels.

(Personal name ) Skyryder

ResidentAngel
6th December 2004, 09:58
just emailed this

Dear Sir/Madam.

If Alan Mitchell the writer of the article is serious about reducing the Australian road toll perhaps he should do some research into the causes of Motor bike related accidents. I could give some stats on this subject but as you know most statistics can be questioned so will not wast my time or yours.

May I suggest that if the writer is serious about reducing the Australian road toll he should advocate the taxing of all non commercial vehicles off the road. You do not have to be a maths wiz kid to understand the financial savings this would policy would accrue. Reduced pollution, energy costs not to mention insurance costs in all related fields, including medical bills both for the state and the individual etc. Such a simple solution remove the cars from the road and put everyone of two wheels.

(Personal name ) Skyryder


and I just emailed this:


It is with some concern as a born-again
post-40's-female-motorcycle-rider that I read Alan Mitchell's diatribe
against motorcycles in your supposedly informative newspaper. It would
be nice if Alan had referenced the sources of his information but of
course, that would have required that he had done some research.
Assuming that motorcyclists were the source of their own misfortunes
regarding accidents would be one thing, but to equate the motorcycle
statistics with the concept of 'fault' is a bad argument - a high
quality financial newpaper should know the difference between lies and
statistics, but in this case, it would appear that analysis got lost
in prejudice and mis-information.

Perhaps Alan Mitcell would like to do some real research, and find out
who causes most of the motorcycle accidents, instead of assuming that
removing motorcycles will remove the causes of accident.
Alternatively, to be even handed, perhaps Alan Mitchell could suggest
that because riding horses is such a high risk activity, that horses
should be taxed out of existence as well, and then, perhaps he should
also suggest that diving gear could be taxed out of existence as well.
And then, as there is an almost 100% correlation between humans
walking, and eventual death, we should tax shoes out of existence.

Or, perhaps it might just be a good idea to suggest that Alan Mitchell
might put his brain into gear before he puts pen to paper ..

Coldkiwi
6th December 2004, 12:51
nice email residentangel!

SpankMe
11th December 2004, 14:53
I can't believe this shit. (http://www.sv-portal.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9850)

A quote from the article.

"The authorities may be acting under the impression that bikes and scooters are a socially desirable form of transport: they use little petrol, cause no congestion, take up hardly any parking space, and generally make few demands on the environment.

But of course that kind of calculus grossly understates the true cost imposed by motorcycle riders on the community."

and some more of his bullshit.

"History has shown that governments can save people's lives simply by deterring them from getting on motorcycles."

Coyote
11th December 2004, 14:59
:angry2: Aussie Dickhead


Statistics from studies in NSW and Victoria show that motorcycle riders and their pillion passengers are many times more likely to be killed or injured than other motorists.

No bloody wonder. Cars plow through us cause 'they didn't see you'

SPman
11th December 2004, 15:47
I can't believe this shit. (http://www.sv-portal.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9850)


and some more of his bullshit.

"History has shown that governments can save people's lives simply by deterring them from getting on motorcycles." History has shown, that twats spouting this crap,have the IQ of a retarded gnat, and the political clout of a bull elephant's penis!

Unfortunately, everything they say is taken to heart by our own incompetents, the LTSA!

Coyote
11th December 2004, 16:01
[/i]Unfortunately, everything they say is taken to heart by our own incompetents, the LTSA![/color]
AHH CRAP! Your right. The LTSA can't think for themselves and rely on Australia. We're doomed! Doomed! Doomed I tell you!

Riff Raff
11th December 2004, 16:42
AHH CRAP! Your right. The LTSA can't think for themselves and rely on Australia. We're doomed! Doomed! Doomed I tell you!

Sheeeeeeit! :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:
:bash: the :tugger:

James Deuce
11th December 2004, 17:10
I believe we've had a couple of threads on this already.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=6918&highlight=Tax+Motorbikes

SpankMe
11th December 2004, 17:44
I believe we've had a couple of threads on this already.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=6918&highlight=Tax+Motorbikes


:doh: Should have searched first

2_SL0
1st January 2005, 09:58
Ahh! I was wondering when somebody was going to bring that up!
It's a myth that most m/c crashes are caused by Vovlo drivers or mums in their Remuera tractor, unfortunately most crashes are directly linked to the (non) riding abilities of the rider involved. :o

Just a newbie road riders opinion here, you may or may not agree. But what I have noticed on my rides is (Im stating the obvious here) To put it bluntly people on fast bikes going very fast. Im guessing sooner or later these people have an off, purely down to speed, inability, road condition+speed. I have absolutely nothing against this but to me it appears to be the real cause of a high rate of accidents on bikes. You buy a fast bike to go fast, whether its fast round corners or on straights. Bikes have a high accdent rate because people ride fast.
I mean no disrespect or judgement on anyone, but really thats how I see the problem. I would like to see the stats for say the average rider 30-50 yrs old, been riding bikes for 3yrs +, Rides a cruiser/sports bike etc. I would basically like to see the bikes broken down into their catagories (Sports, Sports/Cruiser, Full on Cruiser, Dirt.) matched to the accident rate etc.)
I imagine the bike cruising along with the 40yr wh has ridden for 3yrs plus may well have good stats with regards to a low accident rate. :)

If not then we are all doomed. :gob:

betti
1st January 2005, 12:23
dunno the figures over here, but in the Uk its born again over 40 year olds that are putting themselves through the scenery at a frightenin rate!
mainly due to havin ridden say gsthou's cb750's etc years ago, then gettin back into bikin in middle age buyin an r1 or fireblade and not realisin how quick they are worryingly the cruiser figures for the same age group are nearly as bad.
its these figures that are makin the government over there tighten up training, including considering doing away with the direct access scheme, (10 hours one to one instruction on a 500cc bike and a test gives ya your full license) and introducing a restricted license for two years.
since c.b.t was introduced in 1990 acident figures for the age groups who were made to take basic training have dropped massively, so it seems training does work, I hope the safety craze doesnt catch on to the same scale over here, but these things seem yo have a way of filterin thru :wacko:

2_SL0
1st January 2005, 13:51
Born agains are lethal, "I use to ride ........, that R1 should do the trick I can handle the power." SPLAT. Im meaning more the average rider 30-50 on the average bike. AAAR rr F@#$, we screwed. :2thumbsup