The Australian Government has decided to produce a new National Road Safety Strategy for 2011 - 2020.
They have released it for comment, I doubt that any comment will have any effect.
In typical fashion, in the opinion of this grumpy old bastard, they are just rehashing some more of the same.
That "same" is a disgusting love affair with the revenue from Speed Cameras. They would rather we call these devices "Safety Cameras". I refer to them as "Revenue Cameras". They also want to reduce speed limits.
In one breath they justify the use of "Revenue Cameras" by claiming a reduction in road trauma due to these devices. The next they tell us the road trauma rates aren't being reduced, so we need to use more.
Riiiiggghhhttt!!
The "statistics" used to prove either claim are subjective at best, completely dodgy at worst.
Yep, I've got a "conspiracy theory" that the Government (I use that word to cover both elected politicians, and the senior bureaucrats) are very selective in the information they use and provide for public consumption. Simply, they use only the "facts" that support the action that they had already decided upon.
For example, check out http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/safety/crash_statistics.
Notice, if you will, the information available for 2007 and 2008. Reasonably comprehensive.
2009 shows a bit of decline.
2010 is bloody sparse wouldn't you say?
I'm wondering if that's because some of the data just doesn't support the claims made by the government about Road safety.
All the information I could find on the wibbly wobbly web was similarly... selective.
They use examples from Europe to support lowering of the limits, but ignore the same countries removal of such things as too much road signage, Wire Rope Barriers (WRB) etc. Interstingly, one of the countries has also partially banned "Revenue Cameras", and seen a lowering in road trauma in the areas it has happened.
But that is ignored by our government. I did find other information that supported my assertions that lowering speed limits, and banning "Revenue Cameras" would do more to reduce trauma. But the data was similarly selective.
Oh well, I completed my submission to the National Road Safety Review anyway. I tried to show, by their own figures, that while Aust has slipped back in the quest to become death free on the roads, other countries have improved their position, without the use of speed cameras and lowered speed limits.
I didn't try to dispute all their "truths" by stats, ( how could you, when they are the collectors and keepers of the raw data?) but gave argument to hopefully show their errors in the solutions they have come up with.
It probably wont do anything, this is just a public consultation exercise on their part, but I gotta do something.
My head hurts, I've been reading reports, studies and proposals for the last 3 days.
I've come to the conclusion that fighting this using data, stats, and logic will not work.
They are saying people are doing dangerous things on the road, and they want to stop that.
We (Motorcyclists) are saying that we want to do dangerous things, as motorcycle riding is, relative to most other forms of transport, dangerous.
I am sure that they (government) want to ban motorcycles from the road. I do not doubt that. They cannot legislate against us, yet. It will not pass the legislature, yet.
But they will achieve it by a war of attrition, by reducing the pleasure, the appeal of motorcycling, by replacing the passion with beige.
We will lose for sure by trying to find enough stats to support our argument that the biggest danger to us is car drivers, WRB's and road design. Think about it, we're fighting their argument by saying these things are dangerous to motorcyclists.. easy fix, get rid of the motorbikes.
Plus other road users, for the most part do not care about us, and will not support us.
We hold the moral low ground. They hold the trump card of what I jokingly call "saving the children"(as in, "why doesn't someone think of the children?"). They promote us as selfish people, who create unsafe conditions.
Using emotive, passionate argument is a waste of time on these retards. BUT, is it a waste of time to use against the average road user?
I feel that the best way to maintain our right to be a Motorcyclist is to promote the fact that we are the thin end of the wedge. Appeal to the very thing in the road using population that these beige bureaucrats do not comprehend.
Passion.
More than any other consumer good, Aussies are passionate about cars, bikes and trucks. We have clubs devoted to them, races and events that venerate them. They are a part of the Aussie psyche.
I think we should try to appeal to the road using masses that we (as in all) road users are being attacked. All of us are being forced to give up individuality, passion, and "fun" for no valid reason.
We need to promote that their real agenda is the removal of civil liberty, freedom of choice, and the ability to self determine an acceptable level of risk.
Apart from that, we need to reinforce that while we may be a danger to ourselves, we are less danger to others than most road users.
We need to show that all the safety features being promoted are selfish, only concerned with the safety of the vehicle operator.
We need to tell the masses that we do care about the children, by using vehicles that are more likely to hurt us than others, that use less fuel, take up less space, do less damage to infrastructure, and less carbon emissions to build and run. We are, in fact, UNselfish in our choice. With the added bonus of individuality, enjoyment, and passion.
Promote, as "fact", that after motorcyclists have been controlled to death, they will attack convertible cars, then all sports cars, then high performance cars, then large cars. Until finally we all plod around in sensible little boxes that will need our names on the side to tell us which one is ours. That if all enjoyment and passion is removed from everyday life, the one thing that will increase is anti social behaviour as people try to find an outlet for their frustrations at being controlled to the point of bland.
We should promote that the speeding revenue will reduce and eventually dry up, so the gumbyment will need another source of revenue, alcoholic drinks will join cigarettes as the revenue of choice.
I'm going to focus on the unwashed masses that use the roads, write letters to the papers, motoring mags, hell even the womens' magazines.
I'll contact those ridiculous morning shows, ACA etc. to try and promote this point of view.
I will to try to convince as many as possible that their basic rights as individuals are under threat. Hopefully a chorus of others will join in. Not to support motorcycles, but to support their own passions, but the goal will be the same. Tell the beigists to fuck the hell off.
Am I wasting my time? Probably, but at least I'll be doing something.
It's a sunny day in North Tas today, I have been paid, I'm going for a ride to clear my head before the vultures empty my account again, and while I'm still allowed to.
No comments:
Post a Comment