Australian Politics Forum - Nanny state dictating what we must wear

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Nanny state dictating what we must wear
Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:57pm

Quote:

Australia's 1.3 million motorcycle riders would be forced by law to wear fluoro jackets under proposals splitting the biker and scooter community.
A country policeman has started a national battle over the possibility of compulsory hi-visibility clothing as part of a bid to make riding safer and reduce the toll of about 200 deaths a year from motorcycle accidents.
One meeting of riders tonight is likely to start a national rebellion against forcing motorcycle licence holders, including the 750,000 who use their machines every week, into day-glo safety wardrobes.
Anger over the proposal for mandatory protective clothing is nearing the level of fury reached when daytime headlight use was pushed as a safety measure 25 years ago.
A Victorian Government road safety inquiry will consider the hi-viz option and, if adopted, other states could be expected to follow.
The public debate began when the fluoro idea was pushed by Senior Sergeant Bill Gore of the Wangaratta Highway Patrol, a 35-year police motorbike veteran.
Opponents now refer to it as "Gore's law", although it's a long way from being legally enforceable.
Sgt Gore recommended the measure at a June meeting of locals on motorcycle safety. He denies a report he told the meeting it would become law, but has not retreated from endorsing the idea.
"If a motorcyclist can make himself more visible he's less likely to be hit," Sgt Gore told ABC radio.
"I would encourage motorcyclist to wear as much high-visibility gear as they could. I wear it myself, and if it can be done, that should be the choice."
Damien Codognotto, Melbourne-based spokesman for the Independent Riders' Group, is fighting compulsory fluoro because it could affect the liability of a bike or scooter rider after an accident.
And there was no evident the jackets would add to safety.
"Gore's law is likely to change the legal standing of motorcycle and scooter riders and their liability after a crash regardless of who was at fault," Mr Codognotto told news.com.au.
"We went through all this about 25 years ago with the lights-on ADR (Australian Design Rules).
"Compulsory third party insurers are looking to reduce payouts for victims of road trauma who were on two wheels (who are) seen as easy targets for reduced compensation. That is not only unjust considering the premiums and taxes we pay, it is disastrous for riders' families."
He said there had not been much research into the issue and the collection of crash-site data had been patchy.
One bike rider named Pee Wee, from a Gold Coast Christian motorcycle club, says it's others on the road who need high visibility as they cause most accidents.
"Maybe we should fluoro all the pedestrians and P-plate drivers and riders," Pee Wee said.

I've got a better idea - how about drivers just pay attention?

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26460 Australia	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #1 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:14pm Haha well in a place where ppl want to ban the burka it opens the door to be told yourselves what to wear. SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #2 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:20pm I don't want to ban the burka either. I'd rather individuals have the right to refuse entry or service to anyone wearing them, if they so choose. But then, I have actual principles which apply to all, not just designated victim groups.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26460
Australia

Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear
Reply #3 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:32pm

... wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:20pm:

I don't want to ban the burka either.
I'd rather individuals have the right to refuse entry or service to anyone wearing them, if they so choose.

But then, I have actual principles which apply to all, not just designated victim groups.

I didnt mean you in particular but its the environment where if clothing can be banned it can be made mandatory too.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear
Reply #4 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 9:40pm

Dark skinned people in dark clothes are very hard to see, especially on a moonless night.

Fluoro burqas should be mandatory, to reduce the horrendous number of Muslim women killed on the roads:

Quote:

Saudi Arabia has recorded the highest rate of road accident fatalities at the Arab

and world levels

, according to a report issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

(Fluoro burqas - artist's impression)

Get with the program, Wes.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear
Reply #5 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 10:25pm

Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 9:40pm:

Saudi Arabia has recorded the highest rate of road accident fatalities at the Arab and world levels, according to a report issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO)

Didn't they just start letting women behind the wheel?

I wonder if thats got something to do with it....

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #6 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 10:40pm That and the old saying: women should be seen, not heard. It saves lives.
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear
Reply #7 - Aug 21^st, 2012 at 1:30am

... wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

Australia's 1.3 million motorcycle riders would be forced by law to wear fluoro jackets under proposals splitting the biker and scooter community.
A country policeman has started a national battle over the possibility of compulsory hi-visibility clothing as part of a bid to make riding safer and reduce the toll of about 200 deaths a year from motorcycle accidents.
One meeting of riders tonight is likely to start a national rebellion against forcing motorcycle licence holders, including the 750,000 who use their machines every week, into day-glo safety wardrobes.
Anger over the proposal for mandatory protective clothing is nearing the level of fury reached when daytime headlight use was pushed as a safety measure 25 years ago.
A Victorian Government road safety inquiry will consider the hi-viz option and, if adopted, other states could be expected to follow.
The public debate began when the fluoro idea was pushed by Senior Sergeant Bill Gore of the Wangaratta Highway Patrol, a 35-year police motorbike veteran.
Opponents now refer to it as "Gore's law", although it's a long way from being legally enforceable.
Sgt Gore recommended the measure at a June meeting of locals on motorcycle safety. He denies a report he told the meeting it would become law, but has not retreated from endorsing the idea.
"If a motorcyclist can make himself more visible he's less likely to be hit," Sgt Gore told ABC radio.
"I would encourage motorcyclist to wear as much high-visibility gear as they could. I wear it myself, and if it can be done, that should be the choice."
Damien Codognotto, Melbourne-based spokesman for the Independent Riders' Group, is fighting compulsory fluoro because it could affect the liability of a bike or scooter rider after an accident.
And there was no evident the jackets would add to safety.
"Gore's law is likely to change the legal standing of motorcycle and scooter riders and their liability after a crash regardless of who was at fault," Mr Codognotto told news.com.au.
"We went through all this about 25 years ago with the lights-on ADR (Australian Design Rules).
"Compulsory third party insurers are looking to reduce payouts for victims of road trauma who were on two wheels (who are) seen as easy targets for reduced compensation. That is not only unjust considering the premiums and taxes we pay, it is disastrous for riders' families."
He said there had not been much research into the issue and the collection of crash-site data had been patchy.
One bike rider named Pee Wee, from a Gold Coast Christian motorcycle club, says it's others on the road who need high visibility as they cause most accidents.
"Maybe we should fluoro all the pedestrians and P-plate drivers and riders," Pee Wee said.

I've got a better idea - how about drivers just pay attention?

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear
Reply #8 - Aug 21^st, 2012 at 1:33am

... wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

Australia's 1.3 million motorcycle riders would be forced by law to wear fluoro jackets under proposals splitting the biker and scooter community.
A country policeman has started a national battle over the possibility of compulsory hi-visibility clothing as part of a bid to make riding safer and reduce the toll of about 200 deaths a year from motorcycle accidents.
One meeting of riders tonight is likely to start a national rebellion against forcing motorcycle licence holders, including the 750,000 who use their machines every week, into day-glo safety wardrobes.
Anger over the proposal for mandatory protective clothing is nearing the level of fury reached when daytime headlight use was pushed as a safety measure 25 years ago.
A Victorian Government road safety inquiry will consider the hi-viz option and, if adopted, other states could be expected to follow.
The public debate began when the fluoro idea was pushed by Senior Sergeant Bill Gore of the Wangaratta Highway Patrol, a 35-year police motorbike veteran.
Opponents now refer to it as "Gore's law", although it's a long way from being legally enforceable.
Sgt Gore recommended the measure at a June meeting of locals on motorcycle safety. He denies a report he told the meeting it would become law, but has not retreated from endorsing the idea.
"If a motorcyclist can make himself more visible he's less likely to be hit," Sgt Gore told ABC radio.
"I would encourage motorcyclist to wear as much high-visibility gear as they could. I wear it myself, and if it can be done, that should be the choice."
Damien Codognotto, Melbourne-based spokesman for the Independent Riders' Group, is fighting compulsory fluoro because it could affect the liability of a bike or scooter rider after an accident.
And there was no evident the jackets would add to safety.
"Gore's law is likely to change the legal standing of motorcycle and scooter riders and their liability after a crash regardless of who was at fault," Mr Codognotto told news.com.au.
"We went through all this about 25 years ago with the lights-on ADR (Australian Design Rules).
"Compulsory third party insurers are looking to reduce payouts for victims of road trauma who were on two wheels (who are) seen as easy targets for reduced compensation. That is not only unjust considering the premiums and taxes we pay, it is disastrous for riders' families."
He said there had not been much research into the issue and the collection of crash-site data had been patchy.
One bike rider named Pee Wee, from a Gold Coast Christian motorcycle club, says it's others on the road who need high visibility as they cause most accidents.
"Maybe we should fluoro all the pedestrians and P-plate drivers and riders," Pee Wee said.

I've got a better idea - how about drivers just pay attention?

Good luck with that....people simply WON'T..unless it affects them...
Only people who have family members that ride, even notice bikes or scooters...

My father always said that every driver should, during their L or P plate years, be forced to ride a bike, and drive a truck.....just so they'd have some hope of understanding other road users.....I don't think he was wrong.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #9 - Aug 21^st, 2012 at 5:18pm Yeah. I know...but I can still dream.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

bobbythefap1 Gold Member Offline Posts: 7026 Listen now to the rain	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #10 - Aug 21^st, 2012 at 8:08pm Soren wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 9:40pm: [quote]Saudi Arabia has recorded the highest rate of road accident fatalities at the Arab and world levels ,
Back to top	A day without sunshine is like night. IP Logged

JC Denton Gold Member Online Posts: 5193 Gender:	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #11 - Aug 21^st, 2012 at 11:24pm f*ck yeah!
Back to top	IP Logged

bobbythefap1 Gold Member Offline Posts: 7026 Listen now to the rain	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #12 - Aug 22^nd, 2012 at 11:39am JC Denton wrote on Aug 21^st, 2012 at 11:24pm: f*ck yeah! Fancy doing that to a statesman.. 0.58 seconds looks like 200km as in the title Then straight after the reasonably priced car from top gear
Back to top	A day without sunshine is like night. IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear
Reply #13 - Sep 11^th, 2012 at 12:21am

Nanny state needs to take a step back and re-assess it's own long term targets IMO. It's become a victim to it's own methods.

As an example of what I'm saying:

If you point yourself to a known destination far off into the distance, then you automatically know the path that you must take and adjust accordingly.

It's nigh on impossible to be pushed and shoved at every point along a journey towards a pre-determined destination and be expected to make it there in one piece.

A little guidance can be helpful, but most times, nobody really cares to hear the advice of others.

So save your advice Nan and show me something of general use to me.

Our nanny state will only show the general public how to be incompetent, and then they'll wonder why they keep trying to wipe the blood from their useless enslaved control-ass hands.

Those who will not allow human nature as it is, are more guilty for every death than one who was not capable of being bounced around from his/her objective and forced into mistakes which most probably would not have happened when left to their own devices.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 11^th, 2012 at 12:39am by Amadd »

IP Logged

Kat Gold Member Offline Socialism IS the answer. Posts: 17709 Everywhere and no-where Gender:	Re: Nanny state dictating what we must wear Reply #14 - Sep 11^th, 2012 at 8:59am It's not new. The more foolhardy of our politicians have been pushing for this since the 1970s. Well past time we told these mofos in no uncertain terms that enough is enough!!!
Back to top	IP Logged