OK aus.moto, here's where you get to do what you all do best, pontificate, argue
and kick around ideas:

As part of the MCC of NSW's activities, Guy Stanford attended the National Road
Safety Strategy panel meeting in Melbourne. One of the outcomes was that he got
some time with the new Commander of NSW Police Traffic Services Branch, John
Hartley. Seems the meeting went well and Hartley is keen to consider changes
that will help him achieve his goals. A cut and paste from Guy's report follows.

=========
Basically, he said that his job was to reduce the road toll and injury
involvement for motorcycle riders and he needed a plan by which he could achieve
that.

He said that if we could show him a basic methodology of policing motorcycles
that could be done by his troops and would result in reduced motorcycle rider
crash numbers, then he was prepared to go with it and they could back off in
other areas.

An offer like this comes once in a lifetime.

Get your thinking caps on.

There will be no overnight change, but a steady change into a new methodology,
trialling and refining, with a feedback loop through riders from the MCC of NSW.

We need more data and some reworking of data already in our hands, but start
thinking now, how would you see this done? What would be done differently, so
that Police would be clearly seen to be going out after safety related issues
only. This is a completely different head-space and requires the letting go of
old ideas. Yes, we know about leopards, with or without uniforms, but this is
new territory.

What would policing of motorcyclists look like if we actually regarded the
Police with respect as as our "partners" in keeping freedoms open for riders and
accepted certain types of policing as purely safety related. i.e. how do we set
this up so that the dickheads get nailed and the ordinary riders are given room
to move.

Like other areas of life, the actions of a small minority spoil the game for the
majority.

How do we proceed?

I need ideas, proposals, the whole raft of concepts posted to the group for open
discussion. There will be aspects where we want them to go after car drivers for
certain specifics, or assist us in getting pieces of road fixed, but we can't go
there immediately, we need to address the issues of "rider error" or "rider
attitude" and gain credibility.

Dunno about you lot, but I am a little tired of being labelled with dickheads
and treated as one on the roadside. I understand the "it's a fair cop" for
having done something a little less than reasonable and will cop that sweet, but
how do we change what is done to make it more effective in weeding out those at
risk of a serious crash and then dealing with them appropriately (this may be
training, re-education, or a fine.

e.g. there could be education with credible messages and reinforcement of that
message on the roadside

Can we do this?

We note that the "old" method is based upon getting rid of motorcycles to reduce
motorcycle crashes. We are here to stay, in bigger numbers, so something
different is needed.

I'm meeting him for a coffee later in the week to informally discuss the role of
Police in the EPA noise blitz and start the process of understanding their
current stance on policing of riders.

Additionally, I wish to speak to him about crash investigation. Of particular
note there is the crash two weeks ago at Tarago. I would like to be able to work
out a system with the Police whereby the riders who died in a crash like that,
are not just forgotten, but can contribute to our understanding of how to avoid
the same ocurring again.

I hope informal meetings can be turned into a proper community consultation
process. We need something to offer and can receive much in return, such as
credibility and respect for good riders. He has already agreed to provide Police
riders for Motorcycle Awareness Week.

Do think about this and speak up.
=====

"John Littler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:bise0s$cccrv$(E-Mail Removed)...
> riders for Motorcycle Awareness Week.
>
> Do think about this and speak up.
> =====
>
>
>
Just read this after I posted a new thread about what traffic
law to you break the most. In cars I rarely speed more then
10k's over the limit . With the bike I tend to speed a lot more
but since trading the Daytona for the R1150R it rarely gets
near let alone above the 160 mark, not good but not as bad.


And then there is the overtaking on double lines. While this is an
infringement it is not dangerous because basically its just a quick
spurt and you are around very easily .

So with these attitudes what chance to influence the police ? Not
much I am afraid. As for accidents, most of my accidents have resulted
from "lack of concentration" whilst travelling at a slow speed.

I am not a commuter just a "weekend rider"

First thing that has to be done is to modify the existing crash procedure of
labelling a crash as excessive speed, and get to the real cause. Bikes
handle, brake and accellerate differently to cars, and this has to taken
into consideration in any crash.

Whether or not this is correctly done, is a job for someone with the facts?

Also there needs to be less time and money spent chasing bikes without a
"Unleaded only" sticker and put it to a useful use. The excessive exhaust
issue is probably a little over covered, and could use a little re-aligning
with a policy of real work to 'saving' lives.

Good to see NSW police doing something, MRAVIC is still fighting with itself
too much last time I heard to do anything like this, although I know Mikey
is trying hard!

Nathan

John Littler wrote:

> OK aus.moto, here's where you get to do what you all do best, pontificate, argue
> and kick around ideas:
>
> As part of the MCC of NSW's activities, Guy Stanford attended the National Road
> Safety Strategy panel meeting in Melbourne. One of the outcomes was that he got
> some time with the new Commander of NSW Police Traffic Services Branch, John
> Hartley. Seems the meeting went well and Hartley is keen to consider changes
> that will help him achieve his goals. A cut and paste from Guy's report follows.


Then quoted Guy S. paraphrasing new Commander of NSW Police Traffic
Services Branch, John Hartley:-


> Basically, he said that his job was to reduce the road toll and injury
> involvement for motorcycle riders and he needed a plan by which he could achieve
> that.
>
> He said that if we could show him a basic methodology of policing motorcycles
> that could be done by his troops and would result in reduced motorcycle rider
> crash numbers, then he was prepared to go with it and they could back off in
> other areas.


Then, back to Guy..

> An offer like this comes once in a lifetime.

This is not a "once in a lifetime" offer.

This is the standard reply from the police when a complaint is made to
them about heavyhanded policing.

There is a basic problem here.

We, as motorcyclists, consider (rightly or wrongly) that we are somehow
entitled to select those bits of law that we are prepared to put up
with, and ignore those bits of law that we don't like.

Assume, just for the sake of the argument, that we _did_ come up with
some magic incantation which resulted in no motorcycle crashes at all.

Do any of you think that the cops wouldn't continue to issue speeding
tickets to motorcyclists?

Do any of you think they'd stop pulling folk for loud exhausts?

Do any of you really think they'd allow the Old Road to be closed to
other traffic each sunny Sunday?

The police would still have various laws which, often in response to
pressure from the public, or the government, they'd have to try to enforce.

The "offer" is a red herring.

regards,
CrazyCam

John Littler wrote:

> Do think about this and speak up.

Maybe I'm an exception, but I'm tired of being pulled over for a license
inspection and rego check. Since I bought the ZX9 just over a year ago, I
have been pulled over for the above purpose no less than 5 times, twice in
the same 30 minute period on one occasion. The police have said unlicensed
riders are disproportionately represented in the fatality/crash stats, but
surely there is a more directed approach to this, rather than pulling over
an obvious commuter (full set of Dri-rider gear, wet day, ventura bag,
obeying the rules and minding my own business) at random.

The second irritation is the constant tirade about the danger of speed.
Speed doesn't kill, bad driving/riding kills, and speed MAY be a factor in
that. To blindly call most accidents 'speed related' is about as narrow as
saying that accidents are 'vehicle related' - it serves no-one (except the
treasury maybe). As Nathan Smith pointed out, better investigation and
reporting needs to be done to help identify dangerous attitudes and
behaviours before an 'action plan' is drawn up.

My 5c worth (since 2c coins aren't in circulation any more)

--James
ZZR250==>ZX9R
__________________________________
A random quote of nothing:

Don't plan any hasty moves. You'll be evicted soon anyway.

Cameron <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> John Littler wrote:
...snip
> Then quoted Guy S. paraphrasing new Commander of NSW Police Traffic
> Services Branch, John Hartley:-
>
>
> > Basically, he said that his job was to reduce the road toll and injury
> > involvement for motorcycle riders and he needed a plan by which he could achieve
> > that.
> >
> > He said that if we could show him a basic methodology of policing motorcycles
> > that could be done by his troops and would result in reduced motorcycle rider
> > crash numbers, then he was prepared to go with it and they could back off in
> > other areas.
>
>
> Then, back to Guy..
>
> > An offer like this comes once in a lifetime.
>
> This is not a "once in a lifetime" offer.
>
> This is the standard reply from the police when a complaint is made to
> them about heavyhanded policing.
>
> There is a basic problem here.
>
> We, as motorcyclists, consider (rightly or wrongly) that we are somehow
> entitled to select those bits of law that we are prepared to put up
> with, and ignore those bits of law that we don't like.
>
> Assume, just for the sake of the argument, that we _did_ come up with
> some magic incantation which resulted in no motorcycle crashes at all.
>
> Do any of you think that the cops wouldn't continue to issue speeding
> tickets to motorcyclists?
>
> Do any of you think they'd stop pulling folk for loud exhausts?
>
> Do any of you really think they'd allow the Old Road to be closed to
> other traffic each sunny Sunday?
>
> The police would still have various laws which, often in response to
> pressure from the public, or the government, they'd have to try to enforce.

True, but, it must be agreed that the bleeding idiots make the cops
more likely to focus on bikes generally.

Here's my opinion: focus on licence checks. A lot of bikes are being
ridden by "un riders" as someone coined the phrase in here.

JL

>
> He said that if we could show him a basic methodology of policing motorcycles
> that could be done by his troops and would result in reduced motorcycle rider
> crash numbers, then he was prepared to go with it and they could back off in
> other areas.
>

So what he's looking for is a way of thinking. Not a few odd "turn a
blind eye to this" but a methodology.

The first thing I'd put forward is training of police in what bikes are
capable of doing safely.

So they can see someone doing a manouvere and have a damn good idea if
that was unsafe or not. Someone else mentioned overtaking, there are
places where it's safe on a bike where it's not on a car. A cop who
had a decent understanding of bikes would have a better idea of a bike
was overtaking safely. And, just as importantly, when not.

This is a major mindset change, and another aspect of it is important:

They need to spend more time and effort and energy in cracking down on
all unsafe behaviour, and in telling people they are.

That's not just a cop thing of course, the telling people is a government
thing. However, the cops can do it, and can let people know they are
doing it.

Fatal and serious injury bike crashes are (I believe) mostly
multi-vehicle. That's cos you have more chance of hitting something
solid, if the something solid is hitting you! So to deal with that,
the cops have to know what general behaviour on the part of both drivers
and riders is causing these crashes.

Then they need to visibly police that behaviour.

I believe most of the smashes are carelessness offences, people who are
in a hurry, aren't really paying attention, and get it wrong. So they
need to work hard on carelessness and rushing offences. Both cars
*And* bikes. Because although we like to think we are, we aren't totally
innocent in all this

A very good way to find the particular offences that are causing problems
for bikes is to have officers on unmarked bikes, who are looking for
carelessness and inattention offences. They aren't there to get speeders
unless the speed is coupled with carelessness or serious chance-taking.
They are there to catch people who are doing stupid things, and there
to be *seen* to catch people who are doing stupid things.

This gets the careless drivers either paying attention, or off the road.
It also gets more people looking for bikes. One of the most seen vehicles
on the road now is a police bike, if the cops are using unmarked bikes,
then the average driver will rather quickly learn to see bikes and not
be careless around them.

So my candidate for a methodology change is this:

De-emphasise speed as a factor, it's been hammered to death and any
gains to be made have been made. That's not to say that people with a
large speed differential (either way...) shouldn't be dealt with, but
it should be large, and speed per se shouldn't be focused on.

Instead, police should be visibly and heavily dealing with carelessness
and inattention. They should be aiming to get drivers who are unwilling
to pay attention either woken up, or off the road.

Those will have a good effect on all crashes, to deal specifically with
motorcycle crashes, they should make sure the police who are dealing
with such offences have a good understanding of motorcycles, so they know
what's dangerous and what isn't. They should be dealing with riders who
do stupid things, but should know what's stupid and what isn't. Most know
about cars from their own experience, they need to know about bikes.

There should also be a publicised fleet of unmarked bikes who are looking
for careless drivers and booking them.. This will have the effect of
increasing bike "visibility" and making drivers far less likely to commit
carelessness offences around bikes.

Yes, some bikes *will* be caught by this. That's inevitable. Some of
those caught will be prats, some will be people taking a bit more of a
risk than other people, but not prats. I don't think there's any way
around that.

Zebee

Centurion wrote:

> Maybe I'm an exception, but I'm tired of being pulled over for a license
> inspection and rego check. Since I bought the ZX9 just over a year ago, I
> have been pulled over for the above purpose no less than 5 times, twice in
> the same 30 minute period on one occasion. The police have said unlicensed
> riders are disproportionately represented in the fatality/crash stats, but

In Victoria 30% of all motorcycle fatalities in 2002 were riders either
without a motorcycle licence or were riding a bike which their motorcycle
licence restrictions did not allow.

> surely there is a more directed approach to this, rather than pulling over

More direct than stopping people and asking them? Perhaps they could ask all
un-riders to wear a special plate on their bike to make them more
identifiable. I personally don't have a problem with being stopped for
licence checks (and not issued with any tickets) because it gives you a chance
to chat to the police and has the effect of personalizing riders. The greater
the cross-section of riders which the police have day to day contact with in a
non-ticketing situation, probably the less likely they are to assume that all
riders are clones of the GIxxeR1busaZXR riders they meet every Sunday
afternoon.

Nev..
'02 CBR1100XX #2

"Nev.." <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> In Victoria 30% of all motorcycle fatalities in 2002 were riders either
> without a motorcycle licence or were riding a bike which their motorcycle
> licence restrictions did not allow.
>
> More direct than stopping people and asking them? Perhaps they could ask
all
> un-riders to wear a special plate on their bike to make them more
> identifiable. I personally don't have a problem with being stopped for
> licence checks (and not issued with any tickets) because it gives you a
chance
> to chat to the police and has the effect of personalizing riders. The
greater
> the cross-section of riders which the police have day to day contact with
in a
> non-ticketing situation, probably the less likely they are to assume that
all
> riders are clones of the GIxxeR1busaZXR riders they meet every Sunday
> afternoon.
>
> Nev..
> '02 CBR1100XX #2

Ride a BMW and the cops automatically assume you are a licensed old fart,
don't know why?

Boxer

"Boxer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JjF4b.76586$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> Ride a BMW and the cops automatically assume you are a licensed old fart,
> don't know why?

Why would someone take the risk of breaking their licence restrictions just
to ride a Bimmer?

;-)

Moike
Ride daily, never been pulled over for a licence check.