The Australian Road Rules Maintenance Group (ARRMG)provides advice to the National Transport Commission on Road Rules.The NTC, as "manager", but not member of the ARRMG, submits changes to the Australian Transport Council, which includes the Minister of every State and Territory If voted upon and accepted by ATC, these changes will become law in every State and Territory
More on ATC, Click here
The ARRMG has proposed a raft of amendments to the Rules.
Several of these relate to motorcycle use.
The Amendments have been made open to public comment.
The deadline for comments has been extended to 4 February 2006
The Amendments are provided on the National Transport Commission site and may be downloaded here
National Transport Commission
A Regulatory Impact Statement was prepared. This document accompanies the Draft Amendments and provides the arguments for adopting the changes proposed.
Download it here
National Transport Commission
ARRMG has demonstrated :-
- A reliance upon unexamined assumptions, e.g. crash incidence of lane splitting
- failure to acknowledge safe practices by riders of bicycles and motorcycles when lane filtering/splitting
- a failure to realise the danger to motorcycle riders as a direct consequence of these Amendments
- a failure to consider international lane filtering practices
- a willingness to encompass bicycle lane filtering as a safe practice whilst claiming it "an inherently dangerous practice" for motorcycles to do exactly the same thing
- a lack of familiarity with modern motorcycle construction e.g. Rule 297 assumes the petrol tank is in front of the rider, yet many petrol tanks are below, or behind the rider (Suzuki Across, Harley V-Rod, BMW F650, etc)
- ingnoring the effects upon primary producers who must transport animals by motorcycle on "Road Related Areas"
- ambiguity in relation to mobile telephone use - does a Bluetooth device constitute "operating any other function of the phone" in accordance with 300 (2) (d) ?
We believe that many of these changes are poorly researched and poorly thought through with no valid case presented. The emotive language used is as disappointing as the lack of consultation and lack of any effort to research accident data or practices here or elsewhere in the world. We see "policy on the run", ill-considered and with major implications for safety of motorcycle riders. While the Amendments do include some useful changes, it is apparent that prejudice or ideologies are permitted to exist alongside the intelligent and useful changes.
This reduces the credibility of the Road Rules with the motoring public and consequently, will reflect badly upon the Police who must enforce them.Many riders have already made comments on the Amendments
You may view their comments here
Public Comments
The MCC of NSW has made a submission, downloadable from the box on the right in three parts
NTC_1 is the Cost Benefit Ratio calculations for Rule 151A, showing the congestion costs to the community.
NTC_2 illustrates the effects of some Rules that affect motorcycles
NTC_3 discusses lane filtering/splitting, proposes a solution and also discusses how she is done in Europe, mate.
The Australian Motorcycle Council (AMC) has also made a submission to NTC and that too , is available from the box on the right.
In the "further action" departrment, the MCC of NSW has written to the NSW Minister for Transport requesting a copy of the exact advice given to the NSW representative on the ARRMG committee.
We, the public have a problem with transparency. This committee is faceless and sits in the gap between State and Federal legal systems and has no authority in itself.
We cannot make this personal by asking WHO the individuals on this committee are, but we do have a right to know whether our State representative to the ARRMG was given advice from RTA or other NSW agencies to argue for these changes.
We need to see a copy of that advice to find out whether our State is at least partly responsible for this shabby work and why, with no supporting data or research, the NSW representative agreed with it. If they didn't agree with it, they had better tell us, loud and clear and support that with the written advice.
If there is no advice, that is clear evidence of sloppy policy.
We trust that other States will be asking the same questions so we may shed some light upon the processes of the ARRMG.
