Zebee, What Can the MCC Do About Something Like This?

http://www.mcnews.com.au/NewsArchives/2004/dec_finreview.htm

 

Just to add, the article is by Alan Mitchell, the AFR's economics editor,
making the conflations of and spurious extrapolations of statistics in the
article all the more galling.

He conveys the impression that the NSW government is "encouraging" the use
of motorcycles and scooters and that they are the transport of choice for
the outer-urban working poor...

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:24:42 +1100

Already sent to the mcc list by 2 different people

I expect an answer would be forthcoming. First job is to hammer the
stats - at least one is wrong, the one about older riders - then
get it into publishable shape.

As usual, volunteers to write the piece given the right stats are very
welcome.

Zebee

 

Gawd, who wrote this?

It reads like a poorly researched/written 1st year economics/public policy paper. Where do the stats come from?

Or based on spurious stats and assumptions, fed by some anti-bike bureaucrat.

alx

 

----- Original Message -----

Sent to the Fin as a letter to the editor 10 seconds ago (plenty
compartmentalised to allow for trimming):
-----
Alan Mitchell's call in today's edition for state governments to tax
motorcycles off the road as a way of drastically reducing the road toll is
breathtaking in the way it conflates and spuriously extrapolates statistics
to express what smacks of an innate bias against people who make a lifestyle
choice the dynamics of which he's demonstrably uninformed about.

He contends, for instance, that "In the United States, the average total
cost... of motorcycle accidents is about 11 times that for motor vehicles as
a whole. A similar ratio is likely in Australia." Is Mr Mitchell aware that,
unlike Australia, no state in the United States has either compulsory
pre-license rider training nor capacity restrictions for new riders, while a
number have no helmet laws, either? If he is, how can his readiness to make
the extrapolation that he has be anything other than duplicitous. If he's
not, can he say he's thought sufficiently about what he was about to write?

Does his impression that "At the moment, the NSW road authorities encourage
the use of motorcycles and scooters by allowing riders to use express and
transit lanes" take into account the fact that, despite the fact motorcycles
"use little petrol, cause no congestion, take up hardly any parking space,
and generally make few demands on the environment", total registration
charges for motorcycles are not actually any lower than for passenger cars?
In addition, tollway and parking charges are the same.

How can he state that "Young riders are disproportionately low-paid or
unemployed. Motorcycles are a 'cheap' form of transport." when even a
20-year-old motorcycle costs as much to buy and run as a 20-year-old car,
which these mythical young outer-suburban poor are far more likely to own?
Where does the data correlating vehicle ownership with income and age he's
used to base such statements on come from?

By musing along the lines of, "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", he makes it quite plain that
he's unaware of the fact that there are very few motorcyclists who don't
already own cars.

Not being an economist, I'm plainly unable to stringently scrutinise the
articles Mr Mitchell's written on purely economic matters. As a
motorcyclist, however, I can read this particular piece of his and instantly
find it to be nothing but misconceptions and misrepresented facts and
statistics. Begs the question, what sort of rigour does he apply to the rest
of his writing, and how much does the Fin care about the quality of the
opinion pieces it publishes?

 

In aus.motorcycles on Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:35:48 +1100

Excellent piece!

Zebee

 

If paulh comes back with a similar assessment, then I'll really start
peaking.

 

"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."

Statistics now show that most of these riders and pillions were killed or
injured by cars. So he's got the wrong end of the stick, for a start; the
best way to significantly reduce the road toll is to tax cars off the road.
But that isn't politically feasible, and wouldn't appeal to an 'economics
editor' as much as making us all buy cars.

Gary (might be good for motorcycle economics though)

 

<snip's marcos letter>

begs the question, has media watch finished for the year?

jase

 

Unfortunately, yes.
(he could always have written that while he was still hungover from the
off-the-leash party the previous night)

That said, leave it with me... a plan begins to form...

 

Ha! Who has a thesis to write, eh?

-----sharks

 

I type fast when I'm angry...

 

Biggus! Telephone!

 

3 letters that I know about from Ulysses so far (1 from me in that lot).
One from here (IK).

Sounds like a newspaper troll!

Stan

 

"Stan Gifford - APAC command centre manager"

Well? Le's 'av' it...

If it was a letter to the editor, then maybe... a former economics editor of
the rag in question, that's a little more serious, and a lot more
irresponsible.

 

Media Watch never sleeps....

They'll catch up.... feed them!

 

I'm coming in a bit late on this; no doubt the fin has been hit with a lot
of counter stats and opinion.
Me thinks that Mitchell has already done his job, and his receptive
audience who are unlikely to be biker friendly, won't be much interested
in considering counter arguments in the letters column, if they bother to
print them or a selected one.
I think that there is a need of someone of influence\position, to demand
of the editor, why the publication that is about "markets" and promotes
a "market philosophy", is using a dubious set of stats, to demand that an
industry be "TAXED" out of the market.
They might be also requested to explain why in a free and democratic(?)
society, the liberty of the citizen should be denied to satisfy the whim
of a politician, when it has not been demonstrated that in general, motor-
cyclists pose no threat to anyone else but themselves.
Rockit

 

<snippety snip>
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said something along the lines of why use a
big word when a little word will do?
Reminds me of India and the ad campaign of the time: "Graduate to the Times
(of India)". You needed an English major to understand half the stuff they
wrote ...

-sanbar

 

More ammo for writing to the Fin Review from the MCC list:


Refer to www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au and look under "Safer People" for
the real statistics.

He decries risk - so where do we stop? With investors and financial risk
too?

The public purse argument won't wash - what about youth suicide - one a day
for heavens sake


Maybe if he asked "WHY is motorcycling dangerous, he may discover that it
receives virtually no funding and hasn't for 30 years.

The first ever motorcycle safety programs run were from October 2002, funded
by your Greeenslip money from the MAA, who handed the money to RTA for
implemeting - resulting in the Cow, the drinking helmet, the car mirror
advert appearing on bus backs and more recently, the bus backs of "Blind
Spotted" - this is NOT RTA money, but YOUR greenslip money coming back via
MAA.

That first advertising program followed the release in June 2002 of
"Positioned for Safety" the motorcycle road safety Strategic Plan from the
MCC of NSW. i.e. it is riders who are dealing with safety and government is
starving us for funds and Alan Mitchell is blaming us.

Removing motorcycles is the same lazy argument as banning young drivers - it
avoids the problem instead of dealing with it.

Direct your letters to



Please write, everyone. The more letters, the greater we can use this
opportuinity to turn it to our advantage and pressure the government for
more funding.

This bloke is one of the most influential economics journos in the country,
so we need to make a point loud and large by volume of letters and the paper
will run with it.

Respond to someone elses letter and keep the ball rolling for as long as we
can

Guy

 

Just had a look at the rag - one letter printed (from Richard Gray).

I believe however the MCCnsw will have something printed v.soon.now

Stan