Riders welcome report on motorcycle safety, which asks TAC to avoid creating ‘negatives stereotypes’ of riders in its advertising

Great to see common sense sometimes does prevail

convenient how the TAC’s response completely ignored the 2 whole sections in the report that address the TAC’s misrepresentation of statistics and the inaccuracies of their statistics…. or the part in the report where they say the TAC hasn’t acted on the previous recommendations of the comittee in the last decade.

The TAC would be better served by acknowledging that an INDEPENDENT enquiry has judged them and found them lacking. Weasel words in their statement mean nothing but more of the same: there are none so blind that cannot see, and they have summed up yet again their intransigent attitude to all but their own opinion.

They and VicRoads have been severely chastised in the report, and for good reason. Inappropriate use of flawed data (“38 times more likely” was even rejected by MUARC) despite footnotes in the data provider highlighting the suspect figures will take a public acknowledgment to reverse public opinion.

There’s a long way to go before the damage is repaired.

There were essentially 5 groups involved in the Inquiry. Four were Govt Depts and the fifth was the motorcycle riding community. Only one of those groups emerged happy with the report – motorcycle riders. There certainly appear to be many changes of approach in the wind. I agree with John (the Helicopter driver) more than likely TAC won’t change. “We will work wit our safety partners” – wrong thing to say. They need to work with riders – not Govt Depts. Their so called Safety Partners – are part of their problem – the problem of failing to connect with motorcycle riders.

There are many great elements in this report and the best thing would be to remove the role now played by TAC from them and pass it to a more independent organisation – to which motorcycle riders will relate more favourably. The report noted that riders – using very little money produced an ad that exceeded the effectiveness of the TAC rubbish – TAC may take their time, but re-gaining rider respect may be a Bridge Too Far.

Dear TAC, in response to the Inquiry report, you’ve said you’re going to work with the road safety partners. Genuine question – how is that any different to what you’ve done before? The Parliamentary Inquiry report pretty clearly says that more of the same is not going to cut it. That’s not a criticism that can be easily brushed off – despite it being similar to criticisms levelled at you by motorcyclists. Let’s hope that this inspires a new path forward.

Motorcycle riders receive 20 percent of TAC payouts but contribute only 3.5 % of the premiums.

And lots of injuries occur because motorcycle riders choose to ride in dangerous off-road conditions.

Seriously guys. This is a joke. If you think the parliamentary inquiry means anything, look at who was on the committee. Politicians. They will say anything. And you’ve got lawyers involved too. Spare me.

Hold on to your wallet guys.

Lawyers at Work get a copy of the Inquiry report and read the section that talks about cross subsidies. Most riders own a car and up to several motorcycles – so they contribute for every vehicle they own. TAC is a no fault scheme. If fault were attributed then motorcycle riders would be seen in a different light – because those at fault would bear the cost of the injuries. Under a No Fault scheme – TAC are justified to lay the blame for a blowout in expenses on motorcycle riders.

Now take a step back, from your biased view, and take a lateral view. TAC have failed because they refused to change their approach. One only has to look at their pathetic effort at the recent Motorcycle Expo to see just how far out of touch they really are.

If you think that the Pollies say anything, then I think that you are mistaken. The Inquiry Report identifies a lack of research and evidence in many areas, as a result of a failure of Govt Depts to develop, share or collect the right data. Fortunately, riders were able to argue their case and back up their arguments with facts – assisted and guided by Lawyers Maurice Blackburn. Maurice Blackburn took advice from riders in the preparation of their submission.

The first thing that a member of the Inquiry told me when I spoke to him before he tabled it yesterday, was his disgust at just how bad things were in relation to the collection of data by the relevant Govt Depts. TAC are one of those and the quality of the information they provided was low in comparison to what it could have been, had they taken a different approach.

@Lawyers at Work…TAC is a no fault scheme. They get paid out they much because drivers keep hitting them.

You’re anecdotes don’t wash either. Read the statistics and stop listening to talk back radio.

IIRC pedestrians and cyclists combined receive about 30% of TAC payouts. What’s their premium contribution? The problem with the TAC looking at things from the point of view of their payout percentages, means that they don’t look at the picture from the point of the road system.

Up to two thirds of all motorcycle crashes involve a second vehicle, with the other vehicle at fault the majority of the time. That’s confirmed by local and international research. There’s not a lot that the current philosophy within the TAC can do with that statistic because they are driven by different metrics – like, percentage of payouts.

How much of TAC’s five pillared motorcycle safety strategy do you think was centred around reducing the frequency of incidence?

Lawyers at Work…

1) Small point, but motorcyclists represent 4% and growing registrations. As everybody acknowledges, there is almost always another one if not two registrations paid by each motorcyclist.

2) You are spouting the TAC trumpet by quoting that very shady “20% of all TAC payouts” figure. That has shown many times to be the sort of thing an insurance company would say, but not what a road safety agency should say. Here’s what you should do to that figure:

a) First halve it. TAC say this figure includes all costs, which means that it includes comman law payouts. What this all means is that TAC are including money paid out to compensate unfortunate people who have have severe and permanent injuries – whose lives will never be the same – because of a selfish car driver. Okay, so that takes out half (at least) of the “20%”. Those who are not at fault have no control over this cost to the system – ask anyone of them and they’d rather have their leg function, their vision, their cognitive function, etc, back than the pitiful money the TAC eventually pays out.

b) Now also take off all the “no fault” costs associated with the victims I have just been talking about. TAC pays “no fault” benefits to everyone injured in road trauma and during this early stage of the claim, no distinction is made between the two (at fault or not) clients. Of course, those who are not at fault have no control over preventing this cost to the system.

c) Take out all the legal costs associated with claims. This is something that the TAC and the TAC only have control over. Bascially if they stopped trying to “try on” the sorts of disgraceful things that they do, they would not have to pay out so much in legal costs that become payable when their petty resistance is corrected by legal processes. Again, those who are not at fault have no control over preventing this cost to the system.

So what does this all mean. Well, I’m going to hazard to guess that when the figures are corrected by reality and not skewed by overpaid TAC bureaucrats who get paid bonuses for cutting payments to trauma victims and making figures look good – I’d say that the 4% of motorcycle registrations matches pretty closely to the amount that the TAC system pays out in respect of at fault motorcyclists. Then there cross-subsidy considerations that others have already mentioned.

But you might notice something, or a few things. Firstly, what I’ve done is make some assumptions because nobody actually has the exact data on things like:
– what total amount of money TAC pays to motorcyclists due to common law;
– what cut of the “no fault benefits” figure is actually motorcyclists who were injured because of a car
– how much the TAC pays because of legal costs
– …and much, much more.

The reason why I’ve had to make those assumptions is because – as a key, number one finding of this inquiry pointed out – the raw data and evidence is being witheld by “road safety agencies” such as the TAC.

What the TAC would prefer is that people such as yourself, my friend, just listened to the flashy headline lies and swallowed them like an oyster, not chewing them once on the way down.

I would urge you to be a little more analytical and if you are very interested in road safety, add to the very reasonable pressure being put on the TAC to do what they are paid to do – share unadulterated information from which the community can base the best road safety decisions on.