Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria

May 1993

Report

• CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT • CHAPTER 2 MOTORCYCLE USE IN VICTORIA • CHAPTER 3 MOTORCYCLE CRASHES IN VICTORIA • CHAPTER 4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCIDENT RISK AND

ENGINE CAPACITY • CHAPTER 5 LIGHT MOTORCYCLES • CHAPTER 6 MOTORCYCLE RIDER EDUCATION AND TRAINING • CHAPTER 7 CONSULTATION AND ADVISORY BODIES

APPENDICES

• Appendix A • Appendix B • Appendix C – Not Available • Appendix D • Appendix E • Appendix F

ATTACHMENTS

• ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP • CHAIRMAN'S PREFACE • PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ACT 1968 • RECOMMENDATIONS

2

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT • 1.1 INTRODUCTION • 1.2 PREAMBLE • 1.3 SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY • 1.4 CONTEXT OF THE INQUIRY • 1.5 THE COMMITTEE'S METHODOLOGY • 1.5.1 Public hearings and inspections • 1.6 REPORT OUTLINE

1.1 INTRODUCTION This is the First Report of the Road Safety Committee and completes the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria that was commenced in 1990 by the previous Social Development Committee. The Social Development Committee ceased to function and the Inquiry lapsed in August 1992 when the Parliament was dissolved prior to the State Election. Following the election, the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 was extensively amended and the Road Safety Committee was established. In December 1992 the Governor in Council referred this Inquiry to the Committee for completion.

The terms of reference as promulgated are identical to the original terms of reference issued to the Social Development Committee. In March 1992 the Social Development Committee tabled its only report on this Inquiry. This report addressed term of reference 7 which dealt with visibility and conspicuity issues. The report of the Road Safety Committee addresses the remaining terms of reference.

1.2 PREAMBLE The Road Safety Committee is unequivocal in its belief that motorcycling is a perfectly legitimate form of transport. This belief has guided the Committee throughout the conduct of this Inquiry.

Motorcycle riders are a clearly identifiable group of road users. They are a particularly noteworthy group of road users in that apart from pedestrians, they are more prone to injury on our roads than other road users. Furthermore, the injuries which are sustained are more likely to be of a severe nature with its resultant economic consequences for the community as a whole. Fatalities amongst this group of road users are also disproportionately high.

Thus motorcycle safety is an important road safety issue and deserving of attention by governments, the community and all road users.

3

Victoria is a community of 4.2 million people. Close to 175 500 motorcycle licences are currently held. That is, there is one motorcycle licence for every 24 people. There are about 72 200 registered motorcycles. [1] About 96% of motorcycle riders are also licensed to drive cars. However, only about 5% of licensed car drivers also hold motorcycle licences. [2]

Further, nearly 3 000 motorcycle riders a year in Victoria are involved in casualty crashes; that is crashes which involve either death or injury. [3] This number comprises 14% of all road fatalities and 2.5% of all road injuries in the State. [4] [5] These motorcycle collisions cost the community about $149 million per year.[6] [7]

In July 1989, the Motorcycle Riders' Association published Motorcycling is Magic and claimed that:

• The Victorian Government had a negative attitude towards motorcycling and no written policy about motorcycles; and

• Attitude was a major factor in road trauma and road user education could change attitudes. Therefore, VicRoads should adopt a written policy 'to encourage the use of VicRoads rider training facilities'. [8]

The Motorcycle Riders' Association also suggested that financial incentives should be introduced to encourage the use of the State's rider training facilities. For example a 30% discount on the Transport Accident Commission charge for one year should apply to riders who produce a certificate from an approved rider training school.

In January 1990, the then Minister for Transport, the Hon. J.H. Kennan, MP, committed the Government to referring the issue of motorcycle safety to the then Social Development Committee. The Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria was referred to the Social Development Committee by the Governor in Council on 20 November 1990.

The terms of reference were drafted after consultation with Mr Damien Codognotto, the President of the Motorcycle Riders' Association. They subsequently gained approval from the then Federal Minister for Land Transport, the Hon. Bob Brown, MHR, who said in evidence:

... I wish to commend the terms of reference adopted for the Committee's Inquiry into motorcycles. They are extremely comprehensive and I would not have added anything to them. They are couched in such terms as to make it possible for the Committee to consider all the areas members had in mind at the beginning of the inquiries as well as to investigate other matters directed to your attention during the course of the Inquiry. [9]

The Committee is aware of the negative attitude of many Victorians to motorcycles and motorcycle riders. It is of the view that this opinion has been engendered by the adverse publicity given to the non-riding behaviour of some motorcycle user groups, occasional irresponsible and frightening riding behaviour, the physical appearance of some motorcycle riders and the relatively small number of motorcycles on the road. This attitude has been reinforced by the natural emphasis of some road safety experts

4

on serious road injury and death without consideration for the economic and social benefits of motorcycle use for those who ride safely. [10] [11]

VicRoads also had a stated policy of not implementing any programs that could be construed as encouraging motorcycling. [12] This policy was officially retracted by the Director of Road Safety at VicRoads at a Committee public hearing on 17 February 1993. [13] The Committee is encouraged by this change in policy of VicRoads.

1.3 SCOPE OF THE INQUIRY The terms of reference of the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria are as follows:

To inquire into and make recommendations upon motorcycle safety having regard to social and economic issues and in particular to -

1. Report on the motorcycle accident situation in Victoria; 2. Investigate measures to improve the safety of motorcycling on Victorian

roads, including the role of information campaigns and public education, and having particular regard to all road users;

3. Investigate ways of reducing the cost to the community of accidents involving motorcycles;

4. Report on the status and effectiveness of motorcycle training programs and licensing practices operating in Victoria including investigating the merit of schemes to encourage participation in rider training,

5. Investigate the relationship between accident risk and engine capacity of motorcycles for Transport Accident Charge purposes;

6. Define a light motorcycle and report on any appropriate changes to existing driver licensing and registration requirements for the safe operation of such vehicles;

7. Investigate the potential of motorcycle conspicuity measures (including the mandatory operation of headlamps during daytime) to reduce the risk of accidents, to identify problems which might arise as a result of such measures,and in this regard to consider recent proposals to introduce an Australian Design Rule requiring daytime operation of headlamps;

8. Report on the efficiency and effectiveness of consultation between relevant Government road safety bodies and representative motorcycle rider and industry groups;

9. Assess the benefits from the creation of an advisory body on motorcycle safety issues and to consider the composition and constitution of such a body.

This Report addresses terms of reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Reference 7 was addressed in the Social Development Committee's First Report of the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria which was tabled in the Parliament on 25 March 1992. The Road Safety Committee could see little benefit in re-examining this term of reference as the Australian Design Rule requiring permanent hard wiring of headlights for all new motorcycles is now in force.

5

It is the Committee's opinion that this particular term of reference could have been excluded from this current Inquiry.

1.4 CONTEXT OF THE INQUIRY This Report is premised on the Committee's stated belief that motorcycles are a legitimate form of transport. Therefore, where possible, the Committee has given priority to developing recommendations which, upon implementation, are likely to reduce the number of motorcycle accidents per kilometre travelled.

Further, the Committee understands that over 90% of road crashes are caused by human error. [14] Therefore, in addressing the terms of reference of the Inquiry, the Committee has emphasised the roles of motorcycle riders and other drivers rather than vehicle and environmental factors which can also influence motorcycle safety.

1.5 THE COMMITTEE'S METHODOLOGY The previous Social Development Committee had conducted the Inquiry for nearly two years and had consulted widely with the community as well as with motorcycle users and road safety experts.

The Social Development Committee advertised the terms of reference in the major daily press and the motorcycle press, and invited submissions from interested groups and members of the general public. It received a total of 113 submissions, 25 from local government bodies, 11 from state and federal government agencies, 24 from non-government agencies and 53 from individuals. Details of submissions are listed in Appendix A.

The Road Safety Committee, under the provisions of s. 4S of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 was able to utilise all the submissions and evidence taken by the Social Development Committee and therefore did not consider it necessary to call for further submissions. As detailed in paragraph 1.4.1, the Committee did however undertake a number of inspections and conducted a public hearing.

The terms of reference of the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria specifically require the Committee to address the social and economic issues involved in motorcycle safety. Therefore the Committee has examined the evidence from all groups and individuals involved in the Inquiry to ensure that all points of view are given fair and equitable consideration.

1.5.1 Public hearings and inspections

A total of 62 witnesses gave evidence at hearings held by this Committee and the Social Development Committee. These hearings were held in Melbourne, Shepparton and Kilsyth. Appendix B lists those who gave evidence to this Inquiry.

• the motorcycle training complex in Hobart; • the Honda Australia Rider Training motorcycle training complex at

Tullamarine;

6

• the Driver Education Centre of Australia training complex at Shepparton; • the Victoria Police motorcycle rider training complex at Greenvale; • the Metropolitan Traffic Education Centre training complex at Kilsyth; and • the Driver Development Centre at Adelaide.

1.6 REPORT OUTLINE This Report focuses on the issues associated with the frequency of motorcycle collisions rather than the severity of motorcycle collisions. Therefore, it does not address the medical issues related to motorcycle injuries or the safety potential of protective clothing.

Footnotes to Chapter 1

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Motor Vehicle Registrations: Australia 1989-90, Catalogue No. 9304.0, Canberra, 1991, p. 21.

2. The Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia Inc., Motorcycling is Magic, Submission to the Victorian Government on 3rd Party Motor Insurance, July 1989, p. 7.

3. VicRoads, information provided to the Social Development Committee, 16 January 1992.

4. Federal Office of Road Safety, Road Fatality Statistics Australia, May 1992, p. 5.

5. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Road Traffic Accidents Involving Casualties Australia, Catalogue No. 9405.0, Canberra, 1990 .

6. The Committee is aware that there are problems with calculating the cost of motor vehicle collisions: e.g. D. Andreassen, T. Thorensen & M. Wigan, 'Review and Requirements of Costing and Valuation of Road Accidents', Australian Road Research, Vol. 18, 1988, p. 110. Estimations of cost in this Report are based on those submitted to the Inquiry by Dr D. Andreassen, Senior Research Scientist, Australian Road Research Board. They include present and future loss of productivity, loss to others, medical costs, in-patient costs, out-patient costs, funeral allowance, rehabilitation, ambulance, and pain and suffering. They exclude repair costs and incidental costs: D. Andreassen, Motorcycle Accidents: Accident-Types and Costs, Australian Road Research Board Working Document WD RS92/005, 1992, p. 13. (See Appendix C.)

7. D. Andreassen, Motorcycle Accidents: Accident-Types and Costs, Australian Road Research Board Working Document WD RS92/005, 1992, pp. 8-9.

8. The Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia Inc., op. cit. 9. The Hon. R. Brown, MHR, Minutes of Evidence, Inquiry into Speed

Limits in Victoria, 20 February 1991, p. 596. 10. Mr L. Kenningham, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, pp. 18-19. 11. Mr J. Fabre, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p. 32.

7

12. VicRoads, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, March 1991, p. ii.

13. Mr D. Anderson, Minutes of Evidence, 17 February 1993, p. 70. 14. B. Sabey & G. Staughton, Interacting Roles of Road Environment:

Vehicle and Road User, Proceedings 5th Conference, International Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine, London, 1975.

8

CHAPTER 2

MOTORCYCLE USE IN VICTORIA 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.2 MOTORCYCLE RIDER LICENCES2.3 MOTORCYCLE REGISTRATIONS2.4 MOTORCYCLE TRAVEL 2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Less than 2% of vehicle-kilometres travelled in Australia involve motorcycles and only about 4% of Victorians hold motorcycle licences. Motorcycle riding is clearly a minority pursuit, mainly used for commuting, agriculture, sporting and recreational use. This Chapter discusses the background of motorcycle use in Victoria against which the Inquiry has proceeded. It describes what is known about motorcycle riders and motorcycles used in Victoria, using the official statistics available to the Committee and includes:

• Information about licensed motorcycle riders; • Information about motorcycle registrations; and • Surveys of motor vehicle use.

2.2 MOTORCYCLE RIDER LICENCES

About 175 500 of Victorians hold a motorcycle licence.

The Committee was unable to determine whether any changes to the pattern of motorcycle licences occurred after 1987 when a combined licence system was introduced. The system as it operates is unable to provide routine information about the category of motorcycle licence held by car driver licence holders.

The Committee is of the view that this inadequacy in the VicRoads licence record system is unacceptable because it prevents objective determination of motorcycle policy and evaluation of motorcycle safety programs.

Before 1987, the number of licensed motorcycle riders increased consistently nearly every year between 1978 and 1986 (Figure 1).

9

In the same time period, the experience of licensed motorcycle riders changed because:

• The number of motorcycle learners permits declined between 1981 and 1986; • The number of probationary motorcycle licences increased between 1978 and

1983. It then declined; and • The number of full motorcycle licenses increased consistently each year.

Witnesses before the Inquiry allege that the following two factors could have contributed to this change:

1. The off-road skill test and associated training for learner permit applicants which was introduced in 1982 may have deterred potential learner riders from obtaining a licence. Ms M. Watts, Manager, Motorcycle Industry Division, Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, told the Social Development Committee that:

10

The reasons for the decline can be found to have arisen in the early 1980ís when the then Road Traffic Authority introduced a new system for rider licensing/learner permits and introduced training. It made it a lot more difficult to obtain a learner permit and motorcycle licence, and the Authority cut down on the number of motorcyclists.

However, the Committee is of the view that the training component of this allegation probably had only a small influence on the number of learner's permit applicants because it is not compulsory and is more expensive than the existing skills and written test requirements.

1. Lowering of the age at which people become eligible for a car driverís learnerís permit reduced the attraction of obtaining a motorcycle learnerís permit. The age at which motorcycle riders can obtain a learner's permit is 17 years and 9 months. Before 1990, this meant that motorcycle riders could drive solo before car drivers because learner car drivers must be accompanied by a licensed driver. In 1990, the minimum age for learner car drivers was lowered to 16 years while the age for motorcycle learners permit remained unchanged. Novice drivers may now prefer to drive a car at an earlier age accompanied by a licensed driver rather than wait for a motor cycle learnerís permit.

Surveys indicate that over 90% of motorcycles using Victorian roads in 1989 were ridden by riders holding a full motorcycle licence, a further 5% held learners' permits and 2% held probationary motorcycle licences. In 2% of cases the licence type was unavailable. However, difficulties in extracting relevant information from the VicRoads licence registration system mean that this survey information cannot be compared with official licence data. Consequently, the Committee has been unable to take the distance travelled by riders in different licence categories into account in calculating the relative risk of different categories of motorcycles or motorcycle riders.

2.3 MOTORCYCLE REGISTRATIONS

There are more than 300 000 motorcycles now registered in Australia and motorcycles comprise 3% of the total motor vehicle fleet. The number of registered motorcycles in Australia has declined consistently since 1985 and the motorcycle ownership rate has declined by 24% over the last six years.

In Victoria, trends in motor vehicle registrations are similar. Although the total motor vehicle ownership rate has increased by 2%, motorcycle ownership has declined by 19% since 1985 (Figure 2). There is now one vehicle registered in Australia for every 1.7 people in the resident population. This vehicle ownership rate is increasing. However, motorcycles in Australia, as with the rest of the world, comprise only 3% of the total motor vehicle fleet. The number of registered motorcycles in Australia has

11

declined consistently since 1985 and the motorcycle ownership rate has declined by 24% over the last six years.

New motorcycle registrations in Victoria have declined from a peak of 14 306 in 1982 to 4 786 in 1989-90. Ms. Watts, in evidence to the Social Development Committee, said that factors influencing this decline included:

• Increasing costs of motorcycles associated with changes in the Australian exchange rate, increased insurance premiums, Transport Accident Commission charges and registration fees; and

• Introduction of the new rider licensing system in Victoria in the early 1980s.

2.3.1 Age of motorcycles

New motorcycle registrations are more volatile than those for other vehicles but the motorcycle fleet has a consistently small proportion of vehicles over ten years old.

12

Over 60% of motorcycles registered in Victoria are over five years old and a further 33% have been on the road between three and five years. The average age of motorcycles is 7.6 years which is about half that of cars. This difference between cars and motorcycles fluctuates with the number of new registrations each year.

2.3.2 Make of motorcycles

All new motorcycles registered in Australia are imported from the United States, Japan or Europe. Over 70% come from Japan.

The market share for individual manufacturers and for different countries of manufacture has changed over the last five years. Although Japanese manufactured motorcycles such as Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki and Kawasaki have predominated during that time, European models such as BMW and Ducati have declined from about 20% to about 8% of the new motorcycle fleet. At the same time, American models such as Harley Davidson have increased from 1% to 5%.

Australia imports 100% of its motorcycles. This limits the ability of Australian policy makers to set engineering and safety standards independent of the rest of the world.

2.4 MOTORCYCLE TRAVEL

Statistics based on national surveys suggest that motorcycle travel in Australia is declining.

However, in these surveys, the distance travelled by motorcycle riders is collected from special household surveys which all rely on individuals' assertion about the distances they and their vehicles travel in a year. These estimates are unlikely to be reliable. It is suggested that the accuracy of one-off surveys which estimate the distance travelled by individual motorcycle riders would be improved if estimates were based on motorcycle use in the three days prior to interview rather than for the whole year. This procedure for obtaining information has been successfully trailed and adopted in New Zealand surveys of driver exposure.

Similarly, Victorian research projects especially designed to provide this information have led to reports of motorcycle or rider travel which range between 31 to 69 kilometres per week. This wide variation has made it impossible for the Committee to assess safety priorities for motorcycles in relation to exposure.

The Committee is of the view that statistically valid surveys are required to determine the use of motorcycles and other vehicles. This information is essential to complement information on collisions and allow drawing of valid conclusions about risk associated with motorcycle use which is based on exposure.

13

2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

1. The motor vehicle driver licence record system be changed to enable the clear identification of motorcycle licence holders and the category of their licences to facilitate policy development particularly in the road safety area.

2. VicRoads implement a research program to determine the distance travelled by motorcycle riders and other road users with different age and licence characteristics in order to correctly identify risk factors for road safety purposes.

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER 2

1. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Survey of Motor Vehicle Usage Australia, Catalogue No. 9208.0, Canberra, 1989, p. 11.

2. VicRoads, data provided to the Committee. 3. Victoria changed to a combined licence in 1990 so that it is now difficult to

determine how many people are licensed to ride motorcycles. 4. VicRoads, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria,

March 1991, p. 45. 5. Ibid., p. 44. 6. Ms M. Watts, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p. 12. 7. Mr G. Roff, Minutes of Evidence, 22May 1991, p.40. 8. J. Lechmus, Report: Motorcycle Conspicuity Study prepared for Road Traffic

Authority by Precision Research, Melbourne 1989, Appendix 3. 9. Federal Office of Road Safety, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle

Safety in Victoria, May 1991 p. 1. 10. Australian Bureau of Statistics, op. cit. 11. Ibid. 12. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Motor Vehicle Registrations: Australia 1989-

90, Catalogue No. 9304.0, Canberra, 1991, p. 21. 13. Ibid, p. 19. 14. However, these new registrations increased in number in 1988-89 and 1989-

90. They declined again in 1990-91. 15. Accident statistics suggest that the number of unregistered motorcycles is also

declining: Vicroads, op. cit., p. 47. 16. Ms M. Watts, op. cit., p. 12; Mr J. Fabre, Vicroads, personal communication

to Committee staff, 16 January 1992. 17. Ms M. Watts, op. cit., p. 12; 18. Social Development Committee, Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria,

First Report: Motorcycle Visibility, March 1992, Appendix D, pp.161-162. 19. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Motor Vehicle Census Australia 30 September

1988, Catalogue No. 9309.0, Canberra, 1989, p. 9. 20. Social Development Committee, op. cit.

14

21. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Motor Vehicle Registrations Australia, op. cit. pp. 15-18.

22. P. Rogerson, Accident Involvement and Exposure by type of Motorcycle, Vicroads Report GR 91-5, 1991, p. 13.

23. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Survey of Motor Vehicle Use Australia, op. cit. 24. J.B. Toomath & W.T. White, "New Zealand Survey of Driver Exposure to

Risk of Accidents' , Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 14, 1982, p. 407. 25. P. Rogerson, op. cit., p. iv, based on 30% response rate; Australian Bureau of

Statistics, Survey of Motor Vehicle Use Australia, op. cit; INSTAT, Day-to-Day Travel in Australia1985-86, Federal Office of Road Safety Report No. CR 69, Dept of Transport and Communications, Canberra, 1988.

15

CHAPTER 3

MOTORCYCLE CRASHES IN VICTORIA

• 3.1 INTRODUCTION • 3.2 MOTORCYCLE RIDERS INVOLVED IN CRASHES • 3.3 ROAD USER BEHAVIOUR INVOLVED IN MOTORCYCLE

CRASHES • 3.4 FINDINGS • 3.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 INTRODUCTION There are about 780 single vehicle motorcycle casualty crashes and 2 200 multi-vehicle motorcycle casualty crashes in Victoria each year. [1] Motorcycle riders are more likely than other drivers involved in crashes to be injured.

Motorcycle riders and their pillion passengers comprise 10% of all serious road casualties in Victoria.[2]

Those who are injured are likely to suffer more severe consequences. The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria noted that:

...motorcyclists are about twenty times more susceptible to being fatally injured than car drivers or car passengers for any given amount of travel. [3]

Further, in its submission to the Inquiry, the Transport Accident Commission claimed that the severity of injury suffered by motorcycle riders involved in crashes is higher than for injured car drivers. About 56% of injured motorcycle riders are either admitted to hospital or killed whereas only about 30% of other injured road users suffer these severe consequences.[4] The other people involved in casualty crashes are treated in the accident and emergency department of a hospital or by a general practitioner and then discharged.

National figures show that 178 riders and 18 pillion passengers were killed in motorcycle crashes during 1992. [5] In Victoria in 1992, 48 riders and 8 pillion passengers were killed and 701 seriously injured. [6]

16

Figure 3 shows the level of motorcycle injury from 1977 to 1991.

Road crashes involving injury and Transport Accident Commission compensation must be reported to police. [7] Therefore, the fact that motorcycle riders suffer more severe injuries than most other road users means they are also more likely to be recorded in the official statistics.

Learner and first year probationary riders are banned from carrying pillion passengers.[8] The fatality rate for injured motorcycle riders travelling alone is one in 33 but the fatality rate for injured riders carrying a pillion passenger is one in 18.[9] Evidence before the Committee suggests that this occurs because a rider carrying a pillion passenger may be pinned to the motorcycle by the forward moving weight of the pillion passenger. Without a pillion passenger, a rider is likely to be thrown away from the machine in a crash, thereby reducing the risk and severity of injury.

Nearly 30% of riders in collisions in which a pillion passenger was killed or injured were aged under 21 years.[10] The issue of safety of motorcycle riders who carry pillion passengers needs further research.

17

This Chapter describes the personal and behavioural characteristics of motorcycle riders which are associated with increased risk of injury or death in a road crash. It makes recommendations on the categories of motorcycle riders which should be targeted in motorcycle safety initiatives.

3.2 MOTORCYCLE RIDERS INVOLVED IN CRASHES

Inadequacies in the motorcycle licence record system have been discussed in Chapter 2. The Committee was also unable to find reliable data about the number of motorcycle riders who ride unlicensed. These problems mean that the Committee is unable to compare motorcycle riders involved in collisions with those who ride safely.

However, the Committee is able to comment on the personal characteristics of motorcycle rider casualties. Those which may influence crash risk include gender, age, licence type and use of alcohol.

All of the data in this Chapter must be qualified by the lack of information about exposure.

This lack of data means that there is insufficient information available about the time spent on the road and the distance travelled by riders in different gender, age and licence categories.

3.2.1 Gender

Males comprise over 95% of motorcycle rider casualties and 60% of car driver casualties in Victoria. [11][12] The proportion of women among car driver casualties is increasing, whereas there has been no change in their contribution to motorcycle casualties since 1974.

3.2.2 Age

About 51% of motorcycle rider and pillion passenger casualties are aged between 18 and 25 years. [13] [14] Crash victims in this age group are more likely than other injured motorcyclists to be men. [15]

Seven per cent of motorcycle rider casualties are aged under 18 years. [16] This number includes about 170 young motorcycle riders injured in road crashes and admitted to hospital each year. A further 220 motorcycle riders in this age-group are admitted to hospital each year from off-road accidents. [17]

Riders aged under 26 years are more than twice as likely as older riders to be admitted to hospital following a motorcycle crash. [18] When property damage to motorcycles is considered, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce stated that:

The claims experience of a leading Australian motorcycle insurance company is as follows:

• 17.12% of the under 21 age group will claim; • 12.81% of the 21 to 24 age group will claim;

18

• 6.96% of the over 24 age group will claim; and • 5.88% of the over 30 age group will claim (this remains consistent from that

age grouping up).[19]

The proportion of motorcycle rider victims aged under 25 years is still greater than that for other road accident victims. However, it has declined by 50% since 1974 (Figure 4).

The reduction in both the number of young motorcycle rider casualties and their proportion of the total motorcycle rider casualty population indicated above could be attributed to any or all of the following factors:

• Motorcycle helmets; • Reduced exposure (time and distance travelled); • 250cc limit for novice riders; and • Publicity campaigns.

19

The change in young rider casualties means that there has been an increase in the percentage of older motorcycle rider casualties, aged between 26 and 49 years, in the motorcycle casualty population. These mature riders now make a substantial contribution to the motorcycle rider casualty statistics.

3.2.3 Licence type

About 23% of riders injured or killed in road crashes hold a learner's permit and a further 8% hold a probationary licence. [20], [21] Motorcycle rider casualties are more likely than their car driver counterparts to hold learners' permits and less likely to hold full licences.

The extent of these differences has changed over time because:

• The proportion of learner motorcycle riders involved in motorcycle crashes increased between 1974 and 1977 and has since declined (Figure 5);

• The proportion of probationary motorcycle riders involved in casualty crashes has decreased consistently since 1974 (Figure 5); and

• These changes are not related in time to changes in the number of riders in these licence categories (see Figure 1).

20

Risk of admission to hospital is two times greater during the first year of riding than in subsequent years (Figure 6). [22][23] This high rate is not influenced only by exposure because full licence holders travel about 1.25 times further than learner and probationary riders. 24 The rate of motorcycle injury in each licence category declined consistently between 1977 and 1985. The crash rate for learner permit and probationary riders increased in 1986.

21

Reliable information about the number of licences in these categories has not been available since 1987 (see page 11). The Committee therefore shares the view of VicRoads that :

... conclusions about the relative risk of accident involvement, within each licence group, can only be tentative. [25]

The Committee notes that there is little difference between the proportions of learner permit holders and probationary riders involved in crashes in Victoria. [26]

Further, American research suggests that motorcycle riders differ from car drivers because, for them, youthfulness is at least as important as inexperience in increasing accident risk. [27]

Despite the inadequacy of the Victorian data, the Committee is of the view that it is reasonable to conclude that motorcycle safety measures directed at novice riders should target those aged under 25 years.

22

3.2.4 Alcohol

Blood alcohol statistics are so unreliable that it is difficult to make reliable conclusions based on them. In its submission to the Inquiry, VicRoads reported that the blood alcohol concentration is available for only 50% of injured motorcycle riders in Victoria, [28] but there are some useful findings from this data as:

• The proportion of Victorian motorcycle rider fatalities who have a blood alcohol reading exceeding 0.05g/100ml is similar to that for driver fatalities;

• Motorcycle rider fatalities with a blood alcohol concentration over 0.05g/100ml are more likely than those with lower blood alcohol concentrations to have been killed in single vehicle crashes or accidents on curves; [29]

• The times of day when alcohol-related motorcycle rider fatalities occur are similar to those for alcohol-related driver fatalities; [30]

• There is no relationship between the age of motorcycle rider fatalities and blood alcohol concentration; [31] and

• Further, in Adelaide, licence status and blood alcohol reading of motorcycle riders admitted to hospital are unrelated. [32]

VicRoads' submission to the Inquiry reported that 7% of motorcycle rider fatalities and 3.5% of driver fatalities between 1983 and 1989 had blood alcohol concentrations in the 0.011 to 0.05g/100ml range. [33] However, only two motorcycle riders were included in this category of drink-drivers. Therefore, the Committee rejects, on the basis of inadequate numbers, VicRoads' argument that the proportion of motorcycle rider fatalities with blood alcohol concentrations between 0.011 and 0.05g/100ml is twice that for driver fatalities. Therefore, VicRoads argument in favour of zero blood alcohol limits for all motorcycle riders is unjustified.

3.2.5 Summary

In the absence of data establishing the relative risk of different categories of motorcycle riders, the data available to the Committee indicates that male, novice riders aged less than 26 years are at high risk. These people should be the primary target for motorcycle safety measures.

3.3 ROAD USER BEHAVIOUR INVOLVED IN MOTORCYCLE CRASHES

In Victoria, 65% of motorcycle casualty accidents involve more than one vehicle. [34] This proportion is lower for motorcycle collisions than for those involving other vehicles. [35]

Single vehicle motorcycle accidents cost about $49 million per year in person and vehicle-related costs. [36] Two-vehicle collisions involving one or more motorcycles cost the Victorian community a further $100 million per year. This total cost of about $149 million is about 6% of the cost of all casualty crashes in Victoria. [37]

The directions from which vehicles approach each other and the road user movements involved in motorcycle collisions have been discussed in the Social Development Committee's First Report on Motorcycle Safety. [38] This section will discuss the cost

23

of motorcycle collisions which involve different road user movements and, on this basis, make recommendations with respect to their priorities for motorcycle safety measures.

3.3.1 Single vehicle crashes

Single vehicle accidents comprise 31% of those in which a motorcycle rider or pillion is injured or killed. In 86% of these crashes no object is hit. [39] In evidence before the Social Development Committee, Mr M. Scandrett-Smith, Manager, Driver Development, Driver Development Centre, Department of Road Transport, South Australia, described how these accidents can happen:

The Hell's Angel type found that riding a bike at high speed was a lot easier than riding one at low speed. When you go faster you acquire more stability and momentum.

Obviously there is a point beyond which it is not stable, but at a low speed it becomes difficult to control. Many of these blokes found that low speed manoeuvring does test out the skill of balance and control of the bike and things they have never learned, because they jump on, wind it up and off they go.

...(One guy said) the only time he stopped was when he fell off at the finish. He would come into the car park and fall off because he had never learnt how to manoeuvre the thing in a small car park. [40]

There may be some doubt about the categorisation of many of these accidents because they include those in which no other vehicle is known to have contributed. Data collected by the Motorcycle Riders' Association 4B's volunteers, when they visit injured members in hospital, suggests that many motorcycles involved in single vehicle accidents may have been run off the road by a subsequently unidentified vehicle.

Andreassen, in his study of reported collisions (Appendix C) , found that on average, single vehicle motorcycle collisions cost the community about $76 000 each. Single vehicle motorcycle crashes in rural areas cost about the same as urban crashes. Single vehicle crashes involving vehicles other than motorcycles cost about $59 000 each. [41] [42]

The cost of injuries from single vehicle motorcycle collisions varies for different road user movements (Table 1). The two most expensive types of single vehicle crashes are those in which the motorcycle leaves the carriageway on a curve and hits an object, and those in which the motorcycle goes out of control on a straight road. Between them, these two categories of motorcycle crashes cost the community $22.6 million per year.

Motorcycle collisions are not significantly different from accidents involving other vehicles, in the frequency with which the vehicle leaves the carriageway on a curve and hits an object. [43]

24

Table 1 Annual Injury Costs For Single Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes [44]

Accident Type Urban Collisions Rural Collisions Total Number Total Number Total Number Total (%) ($ m) (%) ($ m) (%) ($ m) Off carriage way 10.3 6.1 13.2 5.9 11.4 12.0 on curve, hit object Out of control, on 43.5 6.9 23.4 3.7 33.4 10.6 straight Off carriage way on 11.0 5.8 4.0 1.0 7.5 6.8 straight, hit object Hit animal 6.2 1.1 13.5 2.4 9.3 3.5 Off carriageway on 9.9 2.4 7.9 1.4 8.7 3.8 straight Off carriageway on 5.3 1.5 13.9 3.9 9.1 5.4 curve Out of control on 7.8 1.7 15.0 1.7 10.9 3.4 curve Other 6.0 1.1 9.1 0.7 9.7 1.8 TOTAL 100.0 26.6 100.0 20.7 100.0 47.3

However, crashes in which the motorcycle goes out of control on a straight road contribute to 34% of single vehicle motorcycle collisions and only 6% of other single vehicle crashes. [45] Further, the costs of these crashes are nearly twice as high in urban areas as in the country. The Committee is of the view that these collisions result from riders' lack of fundamental riding skills. Therefore, these collisions may be reduced by improved motorcycle rider training and experience, particularly in urban areas.

3.3.2 Two-vehicle crashes

Andreassen's study also reported that, on average, reported two vehicle crashes involving at least one motorcycle cost the community about $82 000. These costs for other two vehicle crashes are about $45 000. [46] [47]

Person and vehicle costs in rural two vehicle motorcycle crashes are 1.3 times urban collisions. [48]

The cost of two vehicle collisions involving at least one motorcycle is different for different road user movements (Table 2). The two most expensive types of these collisions are intersection crashes in which the vehicles approach each other from adjacent directions, or one vehicle is turning in front of the other approaching from the opposite direction. Between them, these collisions cost the community $47.8 million per year in injury costs alone.

25

There is no significant difference between motorcycle and other vehicle collisions in the frequency with which collisions involve vehicles approaching each other from adjacent directions at intersections. [49]

Collisions which occur when vehicles are turning right or left against approaching traffic at intersections comprise 20% of two vehicle motorcycle crashes and 13% of those involving other vehicles. Most of these occur in urban areas. [50]

Table 2 Annual Injury Costs For Two-Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes [51]

Accident Type Urban Collisions Rural Collisions Total Number Total Number Total Number Total (%) ($m) (%) ($m) (%) ($m) Intersection adjacent approach 26.6 22.8 20.2 3.0 26.1 25.8 Opposing vehicles turning 20.1 20.0 13.1 2.0 17.4 22.0 Head-on 3.8 5.1 21.7 6.3 5.8 11.4 Rear-end 13.6 9.2 13.3 1.7 12.4 10.9 Lane changes 6.0 2.3 5.4 0.3 5.4 2.6 Parallel lanes turning 6.6 4.9 8.1 1.1 6.2 6.0 U-turns 7.7 5.9 4.9 0.6 6.7 6.5 Vehicle leaving driveway 4.0 2.8 3.0 - 3.5 2.8 Overtaking 2.2 1.0 3.5 - 2.2 1.0 Hit parked vehicle 2.7 2.4 2.2 - 2.4 2.4 Other 6.7 1.7 4.6 - 11.9 1.7 TOTAL 100.0 78.1 100.0 15.0 100.0 93.1

Nearly 80% of urban intersection two vehicle motorcycle collisions occur at signalised intersections. [52] In 75% of these crashes the motorcycle had the right of way. [53]

In these cases, it is clear that road safety measures must be directed at car drivers. Right-turn phases in traffic control installations have been shown to reduce right-turn against accidents by 44%. [54] The Committee is of the view that these measures are a potential motorcycle safety device. However, in view of the evidence before it that some car drivers react deliberately and aggressively toward motorcycles, the effects of these right-turn against signals need to be evaluated specifically for motorcycle collisions to see if any adjustment to phasing is needed to ensure motorcycles reap the same benefits as other vehicles.

There is also anecdotal evidence that two-vehicle crashes between a vehicle and a motorcycle travelling in the same direction can occur because the vehicle driver has not seen the motorcycle in the rear vision mirror. This may be caused by the so-called 'blind-spot' in vehicle rear vision mirrors. Most rear vision mirrors in use are a flat rectangular design and, depending on the seating position of the vehicle driver, reflect

26

only a certain radius of rear vision to the driver. A motorcycle travelling in parallel but slightly to the rear of a vehicle can therefore be in the 'blind-spot' area and invisible to the driver. If the vehicle, with little warning, changes its position on the road (e.g., changing lanes) because the driver, having checked the rear vision mirror, considers it safe to do so, and there is another vehicle or motorcycle in this 'blind-spot', the likelihood of a crash increases.

Despite the evidence being anecdotal, the Committee believes the design of rear vision mirrors could be a contributing factor to some two vehicle crashes. Whilst not making a specific recommendation, the Committee considers that VicRoads should examine this issue.

The Committee supports public education programs like the 'Look Right, Look Left, Look Bike' campaign undertaken by VicRoads and the Federal Office of Road Safety in 1977 and later years. [55] These programs are targeted at the drivers who cause most multi-vehicle motorcycle collisions, rather than the motorcycle riders who come to notice as the victims of these drivers' mistakes.

3.4 FINDINGS

In order to minimise both the incidence and cost of motorcycle crashes to the Victorian community, the following issues emerged as critical in the Committee's deliberations. These are:

• The largest category of motorcycle rider casualties in Victoria comprises male, novice riders aged less than 26 years.

• There is a critical lack of data about the exposure of motorcycle riders with different characteristics (see Recommendations 1 and 2).

• The contribution of alcohol to motorcycle collisions is not different from its involvement in other road crashes and there is therefore no justification for imposing zero blood alcohol concentration on all motorcycle riders.

• Loss of control on a straight road is more frequent in single vehicle motorcycle crashes than in other single vehicle crashes. The costs of these crashes are nearly twice as high in urban areas as in the country. The Committee is of the view that these collisions result from riders' lack of fundamental riding skills. Therefore, these collisions may be reduced by improved motorcycle rider training and experience, particularly in urban areas.

• In three quarters of multi-vehicle motorcycle collisions, the other driver is at fault. In 21% of these crashes, the driver said he or she did not see the motorcycle until too late. [56]

• Nearly 80% of urban intersection two vehicle motorcycle crashes occur at signalised intersections. In 75% of these crashes the motorcycle had the right of way.

• Riders carrying pillion passengers suffer more severe injury than riders travelling alone. The reasons for this difference remain unclear.

27

3.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

3. VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission develop motorcycle safety measures to primarily target male, novice riders aged under 26 years.>

4. The Minister for Roads and Ports not introduce drink driving legislation which differentiates between motorcycle riders and other car drivers.

5. The Minister for Roads and Ports ensure that motorcycle rider training is given high priority in Government motorcycle safety policy.

6. VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission, in consultation with the motorcycling community and motoring organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, develop on-going public education programs which encourage car drivers to be aware of motorcycles.

7. VicRoads install more right-turn phase traffic control measures at intersections identified as high risk for motorcycle collisions and evaluate the safety benefits of adjusting the sequence of right-turn phase traffic control measures on motorcycle safety.

8. VicRoads undertake more research to identify the factors which contribute to the high risk of serious injury for riders who carry pillion passengers and are involved in crashes.

FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER 3

1. VicRoads, information provided to the Committee, 16 January 1992. 2. Serious casualties include fatalities and admissions to hospital. 3. Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd, Submission to the Inquiry

into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 8 March 1991, p. 4. 4. Transport Accident Commission, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle

Safety in Victoria, 15 August 1991, p. 3. 5. Federal Office of Road Safety,Road Fatality Statistics Australia, December

1992, p. 6. 6. Victoria Police, Road Traffic Collisions Analysis - Victoria 1992, p. 7. 7. Road Safety Act 1986, s. 61. 8. VicRoads, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria,

March 1991, p. 57. 9. Ibid., p. iii. 10. Ibid., p. 59. 11. Transport Accident Commission, Motorcycle Rider and Car Driver Casualties

1974-1990, 1992. 12. P. Cairney & J. Catchpole, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety

in Victoria, p. 5. 13. Transport Accident Commission, Motorcycle Rider and Pillion Casualties

1986-90, 1991. 14. The Committee heard evidence that couriers are likely to be in this age group

and to be travelling between 2 pm and 6 pm in the metropolitan area so they

28

form a special, high-risk group: Mr L. Kenningham, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p. 19.

15. Federal Office of Road Safety, Road Crashes Resulting in Hospitalisation 1988 Australia, April 1991, p. 40.

16. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit. 17. J. Ozanne-Smith, Child Accident and Injury Prevention Research in Other

than Road Accidents: Part II, Monash University Accident Research Centre, 1992, in press.

18. A.J. McLean, P.C.Y. Chen, T.W. Wong, T. Ukai,Comparative Study of Motorcycle Accidents, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, Adelaide, 1990, p. 8.

19. Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, February 1991, p. 8.

20. Transport Accident Commission, Motorcycle Rider and Car Driver Casualties 1990, 1992.

21. This information is based on police reports and is not subject to the errors inherent in the current licence record system.

22. VicRoads,op. cit., p. 45. 23. McLean et al, op. cit., p. 11. 24. P. Rogerson, Accident Involvement and Exposure by Type of Motorcycle,

VicRoads Report GR 91-5, 1991, p. 25. 25. Vic Roads,op. cit., p. 45. 26. Ibid. 27. A.J. McKnight & A.R. Robinson,The Involvement of Age and Experience in

Motorcycle Accidents, Proceedings of International Motorcycle Safety Conference, Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Vol. 1, 1990, pp. 1-13.

28. VicRoads, op. cit., p. 8. In Adelaide, blood alcohol readings are available for over 92% of motorcycle riders admitted to hospital: McLean et al,op. cit.,p. 9.

29. VicRoads,op. cit., pp. 10-11; McLean et al, op. cit., p. 10. 30. VicRoads,op. cit., p. 48. 31. Ibid. 32. McLean et al,op. cit., p. 9. 33. VicRoads, op. cit., p. 9. 34. Transport Accident Commission, Motorcycle Rider and Pillion Casualties

1986-90, 1991. 35. D. Andreassen,Motorcycle Accidents: Accident Types and Costs, Australian

Road Research Board Working Document WD RS92/005, 1992, p. 2. (Re-printed as Appendix C.)

36. The Committee is aware that there are problems with calculating the cost of motor vehicle collisions: e.g. D. Andreassen, T. Thorensen & M. Wigan, 'Review and Requirements of Costing and Valuation of Road Accidents', Australian Road Research, Vol. 18, 1988, p. 110. Estimations of cost in this Report are based on those submitted to the Inquiry by Dr D. Andreassen, Senior Research Scientist, Australian Road Research Board. They include present and future loss of productivity, loss to others, medical costs, in-patient costs, out-patient costs, funeral allowance, rehabilitation, ambulance, and pain and suffering. They exclude repair costs and incidental costs: D. Andreassen, Motorcycle Accidents: Accident-Types and Costs, Australian Road Research Board Working Document WD RS92/005, 1992, p. 13. (See Appendix C.)

37. Calculated from Andreassen, op. cit., pp. 5, 9.

29

38. Social Development Committee, Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, First Report: Motorcycle Visibility, March 1992, Appendix C, p. 87.

39. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., 1991. 40. Mr M. Scandrett-Smith, Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 1992, p. 372. 41. D. Andreassen, op. cit., p. 5. 42. D. Andreassen, Costs for Accident Types and Casualty Classes, Research

Report A.R.R.227, Australian Road Research Board, 1992, p. 16. 43. D. Andreassen, Motorcycle Accidents: Accident Types and Costs, op. cit., p. 3. 44. Calculated from D. Andreassen, op. cit. 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid., pp. 5, 9. 47. Ibid., p. 16. 48. Ibid., pp. 5, 9. 49. Ibid., p. 3. 50. VicRoads, op. cit., p. 4. 51. Calculated from D. Andreassen, op. cit. 52. VicRoads, op. cit., p. 5. 53. M. Williams & E. Hoffman, `Motorcycle Conspicuity and Traffic Accidents',

Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 11, 1979, pp. 209, 211. 54. VicRoads, op. cit., p. 5. 55. VicRoads, op. cit., p. 21; Federal Office of Road Safety, op. cit., Appendix E. 56. Social Development Committee, op. cit., p. 12.

30

CHAPTER 4

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCIDENT

RISK AND ENGINE CAPACITY • 4.1 INTRODUCTION • 4.2 ENGINE CAPACITY OF MOTORCYCLES IN VICTORIA • 4.3 CRASH RISK ASSOCIATED WITH MOTORCYCLE ENGINE CAPACITY • 4.4 RESTRICTIONS ON MOTORCYCLES AVAILABLE TO NOVICE RIDERS• 4.5 TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION CHARGES • 4.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Many motorcycle engines are very powerful in relation to the vehicle and rider weight, a situation which allows very high acceleration and high speeds with consequent impacts on road trauma.[1]

The volumetric capacity of a motorcycle engine is one determinant of its power output and hence the motorcycle's ability to accelerate. Acceleration affects its manoeuvrability. Other factors which determine the motorcycle's acceleration and manoeuvrability include:

• The power output of the engine; • Engine design and efficiency; • Fuel type; • The laden weight of the vehicle; • Design of the frame; • Friction between the tyres and the road surface; • The efficiency of the translation of engine power to the wheel; and • The skill of the rider.

About 90% of motorcycle accident victims own the vehicle involved in the crash [2]. Therefore, information about vehicle characteristics can be extrapolated to assess the personal risk of its owner.

The Committee is however aware that restricting the engine volumetric capacity alone is insufficient to ensure that motorcycles are safe for novice riders.

Since 1979, 250cc race replica style motorcycles with performance characteristics comparable to much larger machines have become available. The original rationale of restricting performance by restricting volumetric capacity is therefore no longer relevant [3].

31

A conclusion from this discussion is that imposing a restriction on the volumetric capacity of motorcycle engines has a negative as well as a positive influence on motorcycle safety. Engine capacity alone is not an indicator of the difficulty of a motorcycle to handle.

This Chapter discusses the relationship between accident risk and engine capacity with a view to making recommendations on:

1. The difference in crash risk of motorcycles with different engine capacities; and

2. The safety potential of limiting the power:weight ratio allowed for novice riders.

This information provides the background against which the Committee makes recommendations on the appropriate criteria for limiting the characteristics of motorcycles which novice riders can use and on Transport Accident Commission charges which differentiate between motorcycles of different characteristics.

4.2 ENGINE CAPACITY OF MOTORCYCLES IN VICTORIA

The distribution of motorcycles with different engine capacities has changed over time. The Committee was unable to obtain precise information about the engine capacities of motorcycles in the motor vehicle fleet in Victoria. New motorcycle registrations indicate that about 60% of motorcycles have engine capacities in the 51cc to 250cc range [4]. Issues involving motorcycles with engine capacities less than 50cc are discussed in Chapter 5.

Between 1979 and 1982, the proportion of 250cc motorcycles in new motorcycle registrations increased from 15% to 40% [5]. Between 1982 and 1986, registrations of motorcycles with engine capacities below 250cc declined from 66% to 57%. However, by 1990, the proportion of new motorcycles in the below 250cc category had risen again to 62% (Figure 7) [6]. Total new motorcycle registrations in Victoria declined by 65% between 1982 and 1990.

32

Of the motorcycles with engine capacities below 250cc, about 20% were owned by learner and first year probationary licensed riders [7]. Most experienced motorcycle riders find motorcycles with a small volumetric capacity adequate for their purpose. Within this 250cc category of motorcycles, there was no significant difference in the power of these motorcycles owned by learner or first year probationary riders as opposed to experienced riders [8].

4.3 CRASH RISK ASSOCIATED WITH MOTORCYCLE ENGINE CAPACITY

Most studies of motorcycle collision link accident frequency to the age, experience and skill of the rider. Few discuss the engine capacity or other indicators of a motorcycle's power [9].

The Transport Accident Commission used its data base to demonstrate that compensation for motorcycle casualties is greater than for other registered vehicles in Victoria:

33

... powerful motorcycles represent a higher risk to the TAC than a motor vehicle. [10]

VicRoads has published four relevant studies since 1984. Assuming that the power and engine capacity of motorcycles does not influence the distance ridden by motorcycle riders, these studies and other Victorian data indicate that:

• Restricting novice riders to motorcycles with engine capacities less than 260cc resulted in a 40% reduction in collisions involving learners and probationary motorcycle riders; [11]

• The average person cost to the Transport Accident Commission as a result of injuries sustained in a collision involving a motorcycle with an engine larger than 650cc is 3.92 times greater than that resulting from a car crash; [12]

• The crash risk of learner riders who own high powered 250cc Japanese motorcycles is greater than for learner riders who own less highly powered or two-stroke 250cc motorcycles; [13] [14]

• The crash risk of learner and first year probationary motorcycle riders who own low power or two-stroke, 250cc, Japanese motorcycles is greater than for other novice riders who own 250cc motorcycles with alternative engine configurations; [15] and

• 7.5% of learner riders and 35.5% of first year probationary riders involved in casualty crashes were illegally riding motorcycles with engine capacities over 260cc. [16]

Mr G. Roff, Editor, Royalauto, explained in evidence:

Manufacturers have responded to the challenge of marketing motorcycles. When the legislation was introduced and the 250 cc motorbike, which produced 25 or 26 horsepower became the limit, a lot of research went into producing motorcycles with approximately the same power output as 750 cc motorcycles had 10 years ago. By limiting motorcycles to 250 cc with no other controls on the way they were developed, a situation developed where bikes are actually quite difficult to ride. [17]

Legislation which merely restricts novice riders to motorcycles with engine capacities less than 260cc is now inappropriate because of engineering and design changes which have increased the performance of smaller motorcycles.

The Committee therefore considered practical alternatives to the existing 260cc restriction on learner and first year probationary riders.

4.4 RESTRICTIONS ON MOTORCYCLES AVAILABLE TO NOVICE RIDERS

Two viable alternatives to 260cc engine capacity restrictions on novice riders were presented in evidence to the Inquiry:

1. A learner-approved motorcycle scheme; and

2. Power-to-weight restrictions.

4.4.1 Learner-approved motorcycle scheme

34

A learner approved motorcycle scheme would require that some or all motorcycles are assessed for their suitability for use by novice riders before they come on the market. Legislation would then require learner and first year probationary riders to only use motorcycles which have been approved under the scheme. A learner-approved motorcycle scheme has been considered in various states in Australia.

The New South Wales Road Traffic Authority seriously considered introducing a learner-approved motorcycle scheme. It proposed establishing a Learner Approved Motorcycle Scheme Standing Committee with representation from government, rider organisations and motorcycle traders. This Committee would evaluate the suitability of each motorcycle with an engine capacity larger than 260cc for novice riders.

However, during public hearings the Social Development Committee became aware of a change in direction in the New South Wales policy regarding novice rider restrictions. The Manager of the Rider Training Unit, Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, Mr D. Hill, explained the changed position:

The Motor Traders Association and the Motorcycle Council of NSW put forward the concept of a learner approved motorcycle, whereby a committee would produce lists of the bikes it believed to be suitable to novice riders.

NSW had almost accepted the proposal when the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries and the manufacturers said they were unhappy with it and mounted an alternative proposal (of a multicylinder, two-stroke limitation). [18]

Mr Hill told the Social Development Committee that New South Wales was unlikely to introduce the learner approved motorcycle scheme:

The proposal was not initiated by the RTA, which was intending to do nothing about the perceived problem of race-replica motorcycles being available to novice riders. It had not seen that as a major priority even though in 1984 StaySafe recommended a (maximum) 17-brake horsepower for 250cc race replicas. [19]

In Tasmania, lobby groups have had a similar influence on legal restrictions on novice riders. Senior Constable A. Jerrim of the Tasmania Police explained:

We have a 250cc limit, not a 260cc limit. I think that has been in force since 1980. Motorcycle lobby groups in Tasmania do not really favour that and would prefer to see a horsepower limit. [20]

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria supported the development of a learner-approved motorcycle scheme to replace the existing 260cc capacity limit for novice riders in Victoria. [21]

In contrast, VicRoads has reservations about introducing a learner approved motorcycle scheme in Victoria. Mr J. Fabre, Principal Research Officer, told the Committee:

MR FABRE: It is our understanding that the learner approved motorcycle scheme in New South Wales is still in the formulation process. We believe there are some

35

conceptual weaknesses with that scheme. Largely it relates to the subjectivity that is involved in coming to a listing of motorcycles deemed to be safe for novice riders. ...

...

MR MAUGHAN, MP: ... do you support the existing 260 cc limit or do you support heading in the direction that New South Wales has taken with the learner approved motorcycle scheme?

MR FABRE: We support an alternative. ... We think there are other avenues worth pursuing which have not been addressed but which need to be addressed, and that is the highest on our priority list. [22]

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries discussed the relative benefits of the existing 260cc restriction and the proposed learner approved motorcycle scheme. The Chamber said it preferred the retention of the 250/260cc restriction:

We agree with the logic that the existing 250cc limit needs to be amended in some way and our submission includes a copy of our code of practice that was developed through the motorcycle managing directors' group which aims to base it on the retention of the 250cc limit.

... The problem we have with the (learner approved) scheme is with decisions about which motorcycles are suitable for novice riders being made by a committee consisting of government, motor trader associations and rider group reps. with no reps. from our manufacturing point of view.

... I guess what I am saying is that we support the 250cc limit as the basis but there needs to be another layer introduced. ... There is clear evidence to support an existing 250cc restriction but with that extra layer underneath, to remove those inappropriate bikes from novice riders.

...We are not supporting the learner approved motorcycle scheme. Although it aims to improve the safety of motorcyclists, it provides a greater market for our member companies to gain from. If we are in the business of trying to sell bikes we favour the learner approved scheme.

... although we all want to sell bikes to make a living, safety is the top of the priority list and that is why we have not supported the learner approved scheme. [24]

These divergent opinions involving subjective judgments and vested interest of important interest groups, who would need to contribute to a learner approved motorcycle scheme if it was to function effectively, have led the Committee to the view that the scheme would be too difficult to implement.

4.4.2 Power-to-weight ratio

Power delivery characteristics are defined in terms of engine type. VicRoads explained these characteristics in their submission:

36

The two-stroke motorcycles have a relatively high power output which is delivered within a relatively narrow band in the higher engine revolution range. The four stroke engines give a smooth increase in power delivery over a very broad engine revolution range. [25]

In a submission to the Inquiry, Mr C. Meredith, a motorcyclist, argued in favour of a power-to-weight ratio limit because he said it was a better indicator of safe handling characteristics than engine capacity alone. [26]

Further, the Social Development Committee heard evidence from The Age motorcycle writer, Mr D. Kingsbury, that motorcycles should be required to display power-to-weight ratios:

... let bikes simply have to state their power characteristics and output and have that as a ratio against their weight. Bikes that have a certain power to weight ratio should be considered inappropriate...that might mean that you have 650cc motorcycles that some people consider dangerous that are considered adequate learner bikes because they do not make as much power, they are simple to ride. It might mean that some 250cc motorcycles should be considered for experienced riders only. [27]

The power-to-weight ratio of itself does not necessarily provide an accurate safety indicator. For example, a physically large motorcycle, such as the Honda Goldwing, could be regarded as appropriate for novice riders because of its low power-to-weight ratio. However, it is too big for inexperienced riders to handle safely.

In Victoria, the Novice Rider Working Group, which included road safety, motorcycle rider, industry representatives and the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, recognised this dilemma in drafting its recommendations with respect to limits on motorcycles for novice drivers[28]. The Working Group agreed that learner and first year probationary riders should be restricted to motorcycles with the following characteristics:

• engine capacities under 260cc; and • power-to-weight ratio of less than 150 kilowatts per tonne (150 kW/Tonne).

It recommended that these measures be introduced with a two year run-in period to allow riders with current learner and probationary licences to clear the system. A review of the measures should be undertaken two years after its implementation.

This Committee supports these recommendations of the Novice Driver Working Group.

The Committee is of the view that the work of this Group was an excellent example of consultation between Government, industry and rider groups in reaching a consensus to find a sensible and pragmatic solution to a rider safety issue.

In 1990, the Staysafe Committee of the New South Wales Parliament recommended an upper limit of 125cc restriction and a 125 kilowatts per tonne power-to-weight ratio for learner and first year probationary motorcycle riders [29]. However, following the recommendations of this Working Group, the New South Wales

37

Minister for Transport has approved 250cc and 150 kilowatts per tonne restrictions for these riders to operate from 1 March 1993 with a review of the legislation within two years.

In evidence before the Committee on 17 February 1993, VicRoads advised that a research project had been completed which examined the effects of implementing a power to weight ratio limit concurrent with a 260cc capacity. The Director of Road Safety, VicRoads (Mr David Anderson) said:

The results of the research show that there would be a minor reduction in fatalities and serious injuries if the restriction were changed from 260cc to 150 kilowatts per tonne. What would be much more effective and what VicRoads intends to pursue is to ensure that there is greater compliance with the existing 260cc legislation and greater compliance with licensing.[30]

Mr Anderson added :

The results of that research report showed something that VicRoads did not seek to find when it started; that is that about 35 per cent of those killed or seriously injured on the roads were either not licensed or riding bikes that had capacities in excess of 260cc and which as novice riders they were not permitted to ride. [31]

The Committee supports the VicRoads intention to ensure greater compliance with the existing 260cc limit.

The Committee disagrees with VicRoads' intention not to endorse the 150 kilowatt per tonne limit.

VicRoads estimate that a 150 kilowatt per tonne limit would save about 21 casualty accidents (fatal/serious injury accidents) and therefore may not warrant a change in the legislation and the additional enforcement requirements. The Committee regards this position as inconsistent with VicRoads' argument in its submission for zero blood alcohol levels for all motorcyclists (i.e. requiring a change in the legislation and additional enforcement requirements) based on the fact that a very small number of fatal motorcycle accidents had high blood alcohol levels. (Refer to paragraph 3.2.4). Further the Federal Government introduced mandatory headlights-on for all new motorcycles based on the assumption that such a measure would save only a very small number of casualty accidents.

The Committee also understands that such a 150 kilowatt per tonne limit would effect only five current motorcycle models and therefore would not be unduly restrictive on the number of models available for purchase.

The Committee draws the attention of Victoria Police to the high number of novice rider casualties involving illegal motorcycles. Compliance with the proposed changes to legislation is an essential criterion for its success. The Committee encourages Victoria Police to develop appropriate briefing procedures for its operational members so that motorcycles which do not comply with novice rider restrictions are easily identified for enforcement purposes. These procedures should be followed by highly visible enforcement of legislative limits on motorcycles available to novice riders.

38

4.5 TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION CHARGES

No-fault[32] compensation for injury and death arising from police-reported transport accidents[33] in Victoria is governed by the Transport Accident Act 1986 and implemented by the Transport Accident Commission.

The Transport Accident Commission in its submission to the Inquiry showed that:

In the period 1987-1989 although only 2.9% of registered motor vehicles were motor cycles, motor cyclists accounted for:

• 6.1% of claims for injury under the TAC scheme. • 10.5% of no-fault compensation payments made by TAC. • 11.3% of hospitalised claims. • 6.8% of fatal claims.[34]

The premiums for Transport Accident Commission charges at 1 August 1991 are set out in Table 3[35].

Although motorcycles with different engine capacities attract different Transport Accident Commission charges, these charges are not directly related to their crash risk[36]. The higher premiums imposed on motorcycles with large engine capacities do not compensate for the greater average cost of injury compensation associated with their use[37].

39

Table 3

Transport Accident Commission Premiums for Motorcycles Volumetric Capacity of Motorcycle Premium as at 1 August 1991 HIGH RISK ZONE $ Engines up to and including 60cc 48 Engines 61 to 125cc inclusive 185 Engines 126 to 500cc inclusive 205 Engines greater than 500cc 294 MEDIUM RISK ZONE $ Engines up to and including 60cc 48 Engines 61 to 125cc inclusive 163 Engines 126 to 500cc inclusive 180 Engines greater than 500cc 258 LOW RISK ZONE $ Engines up to and including 60cc 48 Engines 61 to 125cc inclusive 141 Engines 126 to 500cc inclusive 155 Engines greater than 500cc 221 TOTAL VICTORIA $ Engines up to and including 60cc 48 Engines 61 to 125cc inclusive 161 Engines 126 to 500cc inclusive 180 Engines greater than 500cc 257

The Act provides that compensation for injury is not affected by other vehicle characteristics including roadworthiness and compliance with Australian Design Rules.

40

The Transport Accident Commission is also responsible for supporting accident prevention programs under the Transport Accident Act[38] 1986. In this role, the Commission funds extensive public information campaigns. It has also played an important part in providing funds to police for the purchase of 'Booze' buses and speed detection equipment.

In 1990, the Commission lowered the premiums for motorcycles with smaller engine capacities by introducing an under 125cc charge category. This reduction was designed to encourage use of safer vehicles[39]. Since then a new, under 60cc capacity class has been introduced[40]. (The implications of this change will be discussed in Chapter 5.)

Therefore, the Transport Accident Commission charges for motorcycle registration are subject to three conflicting objectives:

1. The provision of suitable and just compensation for road injury and death; [41] 2. The prevention of accidents;[42] and 3. The management of the transport accident scheme as economically as

possible[43].

Current Transport Accident Commission charges for motorcycle registration vary depending on the engine capacity of the machine and the address of its owner. On average, they are about 85% those of car registrations. However, motorcycles with engine capacities over 500cc carry higher Transport Accident Commission charges than cars [44].

Transport Accident Commission compensation for people involved in motorcycle collisions is, on average, three times higher than for those in other vehicles. Also, motorcycle riders are about 1.6 times more likely than car drivers to require that compensation [45].

However, the Committee is of the view that the following points are important in determining whether Transport Accident Commission charges for motorcycles should be linked to the high average cost of compensation for motorcycle collisions:

• Car drivers cause about 65% of multi-vehicle motorcycle collisions and 50% of all motorcycle collisions [46].

Therefore, the Transport Accident Commission charge for motorcycles is not directly related to riders' fault in sustaining injury.

• The severe injury suffered by motorcycle riders is a function of their lack of protection. In this aspect, they are similar to pedestrians who do not contribute to Transport Accident Commission funds but are also protected under the Transport Accident Act 1986. [47] Further, average compensation for pedestrian casualties is higher than for motorcycle casualties. [48]

Therefore, current Transport Accident charges are not necessarily linked to the average cost of collisions.

41

• Transport Accident Commission compensation for motorcycle rider casualties is 11.3% of the total cost of accepted direct compensation claims or $14 million per year. By comparison, pedestrian casualties cost 17.7% of these claims or about $22 million per year.[49] Collisions involving pedestrians comprise only 3% of motorcycle crashes. [50]

Therefore, the total cost of motorcycle rider casualties is small compared with pedestrians who pay no Transport Accident Commission charges.

• Engineering design changes have increased the performance of smaller motorcycles. It follows that engine capacity alone is no longer an appropriate basis for establishing Transport Accident Commission charges.

The likelihood of motorcycles becoming involved in a collision is not necessarily linked to the engine capacity (see page 37). Although the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce suggested the Transport Accident Commission continue to adopt engine capacity criteria in determining transport accident charges for motorcycles [51], the Committee does not consider that, of themselves, these criteria are still an appropriate means of distinguishing motorcycles on the basis of relative safety.

Mr D. Kingsbury commented on the relationship between Transport Accident Commission charges and types of motorcycles:

If motorcycle performance (and by association the risk of accident) is determined by power-weight ratios then setting TAC by engine capacity would seem to be equally inappropriate. Sliding scale of power-weight ratio costs would seem a far more sensible and fair system of determining TAC charges.

As a frequent tester of new motorcycles I often ride 750cc motorcycles which, because of their high power and relatively low weight, are capable of performance which allows them to be commonly used in production racing. These are finely made machines. My own motorcycle is an 850cc machine but is of a relaxed and sedate engine style and is infinitely slower than these high performance bikes and therefore, presumably, safer. Yet I am obliged to pay the same or greater TAC as these production racing bikes simply because of the engine capacity of my machine.

These charges have jumped exorbitantly since the end of the Third Party Insurance scheme, which itself was relatively expensive. This reflects the "no fault" premise behind the legislation. Perhaps consideration should be given to weighting such costs to take into account statistical cause of most injury in motorcycle accidents, ie, increase TAC charges for cars and proportionately lessen it for bikes.

TAC charges do in fact attribute blame, they blame the victim. If the proportion of accidents in which motorcyclists are injured that involve cars is say 70% then clearly motorcyclists are being asked to pay for car drivers' irresponsibility and that strikes me as being highly inappropriate. [52]

The Committee considers the Transport Accident Commission has an important role within the legislative framework of the Transport Accident Act 1986 in using its

42

registration fees to demonstrate that motorcycle collisions are not always caused by motorcycle riders. On the other hand, the Committee is also of the view that motorcycle riders should take some financial responsibility for their choice of an unprotected means of travel. Further, within the Act, the Commission should use its charges to influence the purchasing behaviour of novice motorcycle riders.

Determining the way in which this is achieved involves, first, deciding how much of the cost of motorcycle casualties it is fair and reasonable to expect motorcycle riders to bear and, second, how this is best administered to achieve a safety benefit.

The Committee has reached the view that, taking into account all the factors which contribute to the high risk of motorcycle use, Transport Accident Commission charges should continue to differentiate between cars and motorcycles. This differential should be determined on the basis of their contribution to causing casualty crashes as well as the average and total cost of their compensation.

The criteria for differentiation between categories of motorcycles should be consistent with the factors known to influence crash risk, that is:

• Low risk location; • Engine capacity; and • Power-to-weight ratio.

4.6 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

9. The Minister for Roads and Ports introduce legislation which limits learner and first year probationary licensed riders to motorcycles with engine capacities less than 260cc and power-to-weight ratios less than 150 kilowatts per tonne.

10. Victoria Police develop a highly visible enforcement program against novice riders who breach legislative controls on motorcycle use.

11. Transport Accident Commission charges for motorcycles with volumetric capacities less than 260cc and power-to-weight ratios less than 150 kilowatts per tonne registered by learner and first year probationary licensed riders be set at a rate to encourage their use relative to more powerful motorcycles.

12. The Transport Accident Commission impose charges for registration of motorcycles which are, on average, between 50% and 70% of those for registration of cars.

13. The Transport Accident Commission introduce charges for registration of motorcycles with engine capacities less than 260cc and power-to-weight ratios less than 150 kilowatts per tonne which are lower than registration fees for other motorcycles.

43

Footnotes to Chapter 4

1. P. Rogerson, P. Allen & J. Lambert, Motorcycle Involvement in Accidents by Power/Weight, Style and Rider Experience, VicRoads Provisional Summary Report, March 1992, p. 1.

2. P. Rogerson, Accident involvement and exposure by type of motorcycle, Vic Roads Report GR 91-5, 1991, p. 3.

3. Ibid., p. 5. 4. Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Submission to the

Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, February 1991, p. 12. 5. P. Rogerson, op. cit., p. 1. 6. Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 12. 7. P. Rogerson, op. cit., p. 8. 8. Ibid., p. 11. 9. Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 26. 10. Transport Accident Commission, Submission to the Inquiry into

Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 22 May 1991, p. 3. 11. M. King, S.E. Torpey and H.T. Wood, Engine Capacity Restrictions for

Novice Motorcycles: The Victorian Experience, Australian Road Research Board Proceedings Vol. 12, Part 7.

12. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., p. 3 13. Japanese motorcycle account for 87% of novice crashes and 90% of

1250cc motorcycle registrations in Victoria: P. Rogerson, op. cit., p. 16. 14. P. Rogerson, op. cit., p. 15. 15. Ibid. 16. P. Rogerson et al , op. cit., p. 6. 17. Mr G. Roff, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p.44. 18. Mr D. Hill, Minutes of Evidence, 24 July 1991, p. 264. 19. Ibid. 20. Senior Constable A. Jerrim, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p.72. 21. Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd. Submissions to the

Inquiry intoMotorcycle Safety in Victoria, March 1991, p. 12. 22. Mr J. Fabre, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, pp. 34-35A 23. Mr R. Scholar, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p.56 24. Ibid. pp. 57-58 25. Vicroads, Submissions to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria,

March 1991, p.25. 26. Mr C. Meredith, motorcycle rider and lawyer, Submissions to the

Inquiry, 1 April 1991, pp. 2-3. 27. Mr D. Kingsbury, Minutes of Evidence, 23 May 1991, p.99 28. Novice Rider Working Group, Record of Meeting, 20 March 1992 29. Staysafe 18, Steering Novice Drivers Towards Safety, Parliament of

New South Wales Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety, p.59. 30. Mr D. Anderson, Minutes of Evidence, 17 February 1993, pp.86-87. 31. Ibid. 32. Unless unliscenced or drink-driving contributed to the accident, or

driving with a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.05g/100ml, or the

44

accident occurred in the course of committing an indictable offence, or stealing a motor-car or where the injured partyseeks damages outside the Act in the $20,000 to $500,000 range to compensate for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life or loss of earnings.

33. Incidents caused by or directly arising out of the driving of a motor car or other motor vehicle include those covered by the Accident Compensation Act 1985.

34. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., p. 2. 35. Transport Accident Commission, Submission to the Inquiry into

Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 15 August 1991, p. 6. 36. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., 22 May 1991, p. 6. 37. Mr J. Stanway, Minutes of Evidence, 23 May 1991, p. 88. 38. ss. 8(a)(d), 11(c). 39. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., p. 4. 40. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., 15 August 1992, p. 6. 41. s. 8(b). 42. s. 8(d). 43. s. 11(b). 44. Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., p. 6. 45. Ibid. 46. Social Development Committee, Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in

Victoria, First Report: Motorcycle Visibility, March 1992, p. 12. 47. ss. 1, 3(1). 48. Transport Accident Commission, information provided to the

Committee. 49. Ibid. 50. Vicroads, information provided to the Committee, 16 January 1992. 51. Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 27. 52. Mr D. Kingsbury, op. cit., pp. 102-103.

45

CHAPTER 5

Light Motorcycles • 5.1 INTRODUCTION • 5.2 DEFINITION OF LIGHT MOTORCYCLE • 5.3 CRASH RISK OF LIGHT MOTORCYCLES • 5.4 LISCENCING MOPED USERS • 5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION Light motorcycles [1] have been a popular form of transport for all age groups, particularly teenagers, throughout Europe. In countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Holland and Germany mopeds are considered to be 'pedalled' motorcycles where the motor was an adjunct to a set of pedals. In other countries, mopeds do not need pedals and any small engine capacity motorcycles could be considered as mopeds. In Sweden, for instance, a 15-year-old can ride a moped without a licence, registration or helmet. In some countries they can carry a pillion passenger. However, all European countries, except Greece, ban them from travelling on freeways. [2]

In contrast, light motorcycles or mopeds are rare in Victoria. There are only about 700 registered motorcycles with engine capacities less than 60cc. [3] The number of new registrations of motorcycles with engine capacities less than 50cc declined from 298 in 1982 to 69 in 1990. [4]

Mopeds or light motorcycles have been the subject of three major investigations in Victoria in the last 20 years.

In 1979, the previous Road Safety Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, recommended that a 'moped only' licence category should be introduced with reduced registration and insurance premiums for these vehicles. It also recommended compulsory crash helmets for moped riders; that mopeds be prohibited on freeways and bicycle paths; and that moped riders be prohibited from carrying pillion passengers. [5] However, no legislation followed.

In 1986, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria concluded that there was no reason why mopeds should be discouraged. Their use offered an alternative mode of transport for road users and was consistent with the current policy on graduated licensing and pre-licence training. The study said that mopeds should be subject to registration and insurance at special rates to be determined. Further:

1. Full moped licence should be available at 18 years and a learner's permit at 17 years 9 months;

2. Moped riders should be required to wear protective helmets; 3. Moped riders should be forbidden to carry pillion passengers; and

46

4. Mopeds should be forbidden on freeways. [6]

Further, the study suggested that 12 months and then 24 months after the introduction of a special moped only licence, its effects should be evaluated to review the number of accidents and to decide whether to maintain this licence category.

These recommendations regarding mopeds were not implemented.

In Victoria mopeds are still classified as motorcycles for licensing and registration arrangements.

In the course of the Inquiry, the Committee heard evidence that mopeds are cheaper to run and have considerable safety and environmental advantages over larger motorcycles at least in the context of urban commuter travel. [7] Several submissions suggested that the Government should encourage the use of light motorcycles. The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce mentioned the following reasons:

• Less pollution. The moped is inexpensive to run, pollutes less and uses less of a diminishing resource.

• Ease of parking. A light motorcycle takes approximately one fifth of the parking space of a car.

• Reduced traffic congestion. Their size and manoeuvrability would significantly reduce traffic congestion if used by even a small percentage of commuters.

• Tourist transport. Light motorcycles are suited to the hire industry in such locations as the city centre and Phillip Island.

• Economy. Older and young people who cannot afford a car find light motorcycles small, inexpensive machines.[8]

Despite these assertions, moped and motorcycle use has been addressed only cursorily in the Traffic in Melbourne Study which suggests strategies to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of vehicles and the amount of fuel used.[9] The proposal in the study to include motorcycles in trials of the high occupancy vehicle lanes on the Eastern Freeway is an exception. [10] In this major study, VicRoads appears to have ignored the possibility that increased moped use might contribute significantly to ameliorating Melbourne's traffic and environmental problems.

There is some concern about moped use off-road, on farms and as recreational vehicles at the beach. These issues have not been addressed by the Inquiry because of difficulties in obtaining reliable information and the distinction between on-road and off-road travel made in the Victorian legislation. [11]

This Chapter addresses the Inquiry's term of reference 6. It makes recommendations on the definition of a light motorcycle and on registration, training and licensing requirements.

47

5.2 DEFINITION OF LIGHT MOTORCYCLE Controls on design and use of light motorcycles vary between Federal and state legislatures in Australia depending on how they differentiate between motorcycles, light motorcycles or mopeds and power-assisted pedal cycles.[12]

In Victoria, the Road Safety Act 1986 and Regulations make no distinction between mopeds, light motorcycles and other motorcycles. Under current regulations, all vehicles must comply with relevant Australian Design Rules in order to comply with State roadworthiness requirements. [13]

The Australian Design Rules distinguish between power-assisted pedal cycles, mopeds and motorcycles. They do not distinguish between light motorcycles and mopeds.

Power-assisted pedal cycles are defined as pedal cycles operated solely by human power to which is attached one or more auxiliary propulsion motors with a combined maximum power output not exceeding 200 watts [14] or the equivalent engine capacity of about 23cc. These power-assisted pedal cycles are not subject to further Federal regulations with respect to their lighting, braking or noise emission.

Motorcycles are two wheeled vehicles with an engine capacity greater than 50cc or a maximum speed greater than 50 km/h. [15]

Mopeds are two or three-wheeled motor vehicles, not being a power-assisted pedal cycle, with an engine capacity not exceeding 50cc and a maximum speed not exceeding 50 km/h. [16]

Under the Australian Design Rules, mopeds are subject to the same Australian Design Rules as motorcycles with respect to braking. [17] They are not subject to Australian Design Rule 19/01 which requires motorcycles to carry hard-wired daytime running lights, or 39/00 which governs noise emissions. Rather, they are required to comply with special Australian Design Rules which control specifications for moped headlamps [18] and noise. [19]

State legislation and regulations extend these basic criteria for mopeds in different ways.

The Queensland Traffic Regulations extend the distinction between mopeds and motorcycles to include the requirement for mopeds to have an automatic gear box, an unladen mass of less than 65 kg and a full capacity of lubricating oil, coolant and fuel. [20] Further, in Queensland, mopeds must comply with Australian Design Rule 39 which applies to motorcycle noise emission. [21]

The Western Australian Road Traffic Act 1974 increases the maximum speed of a moped to 60 km/h. [22]

The South Australian legislation does not define mopeds. However, motorcycles with characteristics defined under the Australian Design Rules as mopeds are treated

48

differently from other motorcycles in their licensing requirements if they also have a mass less than 65 kg. [23]

In Tasmania, there is no distinction in the legislation and regulations between motorcycles and mopeds.

In New South Wales a power assisted pedal cycle, defined using the Australian Design Rules criteria, is exempt from registration and licensing requirements. [24] A moped is a motorcycle with engine volumetric capacity less than 50cc, maximum speed less than 60 km/h and capability of being propelled as a pedal cycle. [25] These mopeds and motorcycles with similar engine capacities but without pedals must be registered and be fitted with a plate indicating compliance with Australian Design Rules for mopeds including moped light specifications. [26]

The Inquiry received several submissions which suggested that, for the purposes of registration and licensing, the definition of moped should differ from that in the Australian Design Rules.

The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce defined light motorcycles as:

• having a maximum engine capacity of 50cc; • having automatic transmission; and • of a step-through configuration.[27]

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries believes mopeds should be defined as:

• 50cc scooter type; • automatic (no gear change); • solo seating; and • maximum speed 60 km/h. [28]

In contrast, VicRoads proposed narrowing the distinction between mopeds and motorcycles. They suggested that mopeds were motorcycles with an engine capacity of approximately 90cc, unladen weight of approximately 86.5 kg, and a maximum speed of about 75 km/h.[29] They say mopeds should be distinguished from light motorcycles which should have engine capacities between 90cc and 250cc and should weigh between 86.5 and 160 kg. There should be subcategories within the light motorcycle classification depending on whether their engine capacities are greater or smaller than 125cc.[30]

The Committee is of the view that Victorian legislation which attempts to overrule Australian Design Rule definitions by distinguishing mopeds, light motorcycles and motorcycles into three separate categories should only proceed if the Australian Design Rule categories can be shown to have safety or other major practical disadvantages.

49

5.3 CRASH RISK OF LIGHT MOTORCYCLES The Inquiry heard conflicting evidence from witnesses about the benefits and disadvantages of light motorcycles or mopeds as commuting and recreational vehicles.

Overseas studies suggest that fatality and casualty rates for mopeds are far less than for motorcycles. However, these comparisons fail to take account of exposure rates, type of moped, licensing, training or differences in road networks in different countries.[31]

Further, Mr R. Christie, Manager, Road User Behaviour, VicRoads, said in evidence:

Without appearing to be flippant, one would need a larger cemetery in Melbourne for those killed on mopeds but I will not descend into flippancy...If you were to rank vehicles in terms of the risk of being killed or injured, the top of the list would be motorcycles; secondly, you have mopeds; thirdly, bicycles; and the fourth is passenger cars. [32]

In contrast, Mr D. Kingsbury, in a submission to the Inquiry, said that:

In Europe and Britain 16-year-olds are allowed to ride moped motorcycles after passing required tests. They are ideal for commuting purposes, miserly with fuel consumption and occupy little space. Perhaps greater consideration should be given to creating a new licence category such as in Europe for the use of mopeds.[33]

Mr Kingsbury is supported by data from VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission.

In Victoria in 1989, there were nine mopeds involved in accidents, and three of those riders were seriously injured. [34] Motorcycles with engine capacities less than 60cc were less likely than other motorcycles to be involved in reported casualty collisions. [35] Further, the severity of injuries sustained in moped crashes is less than for victims of motorcycle collisions. [36] The average cost to the Transport Accident Commission of reported collisions involving mopeds was less than 10% of those for larger motorcycles (Table 4). [37]

50

Table 4 Relative Average Cost of Motorcycle Crashes to the

Transport Accident Commission

Engine Capacity

Average Vehicles

Registered 1987-1989

Relative Accident

Involvement

Relative Accident

Cost

less than 61cc 766 0.22 0.04 61 to 125cc 3,621 0.64 0.53 126 to 500cc 36,610 1.62 2.57 greater than 500cc 26,557 1.81 3.80

The Committee is of the view that these differences between mopeds and other vehicles are influenced by the shorter distances travelled and slower speeds involved in moped use and their greater stability. Mopeds travel about 75% the annual distance travelled by other motorcycles. [38] The speeds of 50 or 60 km/h which are able to be achieved by mopeds are about the same as those legally allowed for motorcycles in the metropolitan area. The operation of mopeds requires less skill than the manipulation of a 3, 5 or 10-speed bicycle and they have greater stability. [39]

However, these factors alone are unlikely to be the only reasons for the greater safety record for mopeds which is reported by the Transport Accident Commission and VicRoads. Other contributory factors may include the characteristics of moped users and the reasons why they use mopeds.

The Committee is of the view that a firm distinction should be drawn between so-called mopeds and other motorcycles for the purposes of their registration and licensing. This distinction should be imposed to encourage use of mopeds for urban travel and provide incentives which favour choice of mopeds over motorcycles for commuting and local travel. Consequently, the Committee endorses the Transport Accident Commission's decision to lower registration fees for motorcycles with engine volumetric capacities less than 60cc.

Further, in line with VicRoads and Transport Accident Commission data and for the sake of consistency, this distinction should continue to follow the Australian Design Rule definition of moped which includes an engine capacity of less than 50cc and a maximum speed of less than 50 km/h. Although there may be some advantage in separating motorcycles with engine capacities between 61cc and 125cc from those with larger engine capacities, this distinction is less marked in road safety terms and so should remain within the ambit of motorcycle safety issues.

51

5.4 LISCENCING MOPED USERS Licensing of moped users varies between countries and from state to state in Australia. In some cases, moped users are subject to the same age and skill requirements as motorcycle riders. In others, moped riders only need to have a current motor car driver's licence. Other states treat mopeds riders as a special category of road users.

In Victoria, New South Wales [40] and Tasmania, [41] moped riders must meet the same age and skill requirements as motorcycle riders whereas riders of power assisted bicycles are exempt from these licensing requirements.

This means that, in Victoria moped riders must be 18 years old (17 years and nine months for a learner's permit) and have passed a written examination and motorcycle riding test.

South Australia and Queensland have distinguished between motorcycles and mopeds in their licensing requirements.

In South Australia, holders of full driver's licences may ride motorcycles which comply with the specifications described above without holding a motorcycle licence. [42]

In Queensland a person wishing to ride a moped which complies with their registration requirements must hold a full car driver's licence. [43] A person holding a learner's permit to ride a moped must ride under the direction of a person who has held a driver's licence for 12 months. [44] It has been recommended, however, that operators of a moped be required to hold a current 'B' class (motorcycle) licence or be separately tested and licensed for a moped. [45]

Western Australia has a special moped driving licence available to 16-year-olds. Seventeen-year-olds can get car licences which automatically entitle them to ride mopeds. [46]

The Inquiry received conflicting evidence about the way moped licences in Victoria should be changed.

The Royal Automobile Club of Victoria study claimed that a trade-off in accident risk would probably occur with the introduction of lower age and road experience requirements. The current high risk for people under the age of 18 might be offset by earlier road experience. However, there might still be some overall increase in the number of road accidents because of the increase in motorisation. [47] They were supported by VicRoads who recommended that licensing and testing of moped riders be the same as for motorcycle riders. [48]

In contrast, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce recommended that holders of motor car licences should be allowed to ride light motorcycles.[49]

52

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries took this recommendation further. They said that all licensed car drivers be allowed to rider mopeds and that a special moped licence be available to 16 year olds, on completion of a written and practical test. [50]

Mr P. Rollason, in an individual submission to the Inquiry, said use of light motorcycles by young road users should be encouraged because:

Unfortunately in Australia the average young rider has been 'brain-washed' by the motorcycle trade and journalists that 'small bikes are only for wimps'. The small bikes are usually much 'handier' in suburban traffic. [51]

Mr Rollason called for the following changes in the legal requirements for smaller types of light motorcycle:

• operation by a person holding a car driver's licence; • cycle-type helmets may be considered suitable (cost about $35, instead of

upwards of $150); and • use of cycle paths by powered cycles and mopeds.

Mr R. Deighton-Smith, in another individual submission, also argued that light motorcycles should be encouraged, noting:

In most parts of Europe ... they are treated as bicycles ... registration is not required, adolescents are able to ride them, and licensing is not required. [52]

He agreed that adopting a 'laissez-faire' attitude would provide major benefits in terms of government energy conservation policies.

The Camperdown and Districts Motorcycle Club believed light motorcycles were useful and cheap to run. However, the Club said some formof basic training and testing of riders was required noting that:

If a person already holds a car licence then the person upon purchasing the motorcycle should receive some skills training on the handling, cornering, counter steering to avoid our Victorian pot holes and wayward Tin -Tops (cars) is essential. The more people who ride these 'light motorcycles' the more people who will now be motorcycle aware, the better for us, because to ride one of these bikes from Dandenong to Broadmeadows through the C.B.D. of Melbourne in peak hour traffic would soon educate everybody as to the risks that cars present to the biker. It would also make more people aware of how vulnerable we are, that if a car driver makes mistakes, or makes up their own road rules or is not concentrating on what they are doing, then we are history. [53]

The Australian Motorcycle Trail Riders Association considered that there was a definite place for lightweight, economical, motorised transport for young people.[54]

The Committee is of the view that current licensing requirements for moped riders in Victoria could discourage their use. People who ride mopeds do not necessarily wish to graduate to motorcycles later on and therefore do not want a motorcycle licence.

53

Overseas, mopeds are often sold through bicycle shops rather than motorcycle dealers.

Mopeds are an economical, environmentally sound means of travel. They are no more dangerous to ride than multi-geared bicycles. There is no evidence that they fit into the same road safety category as other motorcycles. Moped use could provide inexperienced riders and drivers with a low-powered, relatively safe means of developing the skills required to handle motorised transport in the urban traffic situation. Therefore, rules which govern the licensing of mopeds users need to lie between those which already exist for motorcycles and those which apply to bicycles.

The Committee believes that moped riders should not be subject to the training and licensing requirements imposed on other motorcycle riders. Rather, individuals who have passed the written road law test required to obtain a car driver's learner's permit in Victoria should be able to ride a moped. In view of the low acceleration rates of these vehicles, these riders should not be able to ride on roads where bicycles are banned.

5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee recommends that:

14. The Minister for Roads and Ports act to have a definition of moped incorporated in the Road Safety Act 1986 and other appropriate legislation and that this definition be consistent with the definition for moped used in the Australian Design Rules.

15. The Transport Accident Commission continue to charge lower fees for mopeds.

16. The Minister for Roads and Ports introduce legislation which allows holders of a current car driver's licence to ride mopeds or requires unlicensed riders to obtain a car driver's learner's permit and to exempt moped riders from the further licensing requirements for motorcycle riders.

17. The Minister for Roads and Ports introduce legislation which bans moped use on roads where bicycles are also banned.

18. VicRoads examine the amenity and safety implications of permitting mopeds to use bicycle paths and make a recommendation to the Minister for Roads and Ports for incorporation in the Government's response to the Parliament on this Report.

19. VicRoads investigate the appropriate type of helmet to be worn by moped riders and make a recommendation to the Minister for Roads and Ports for incorporation in the Government's response to the Parliament on this Report.

54

Footnotes to Chapter 5

1 The Committee is of the view that attempts to distinguish between so-called light motorcycles and mopeds are arbitrary and generally unhelpful. For the purposes of this discussion, the two terms are considered synonymous unless otherwise stated.

2 B. Fildes, Mopeds for Victoria, RACV Report TS86/3, 1986, figure 1.

3 Transport Accident Commission, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 15 August 1991, p. 6.

4 Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, February 1991, p. 12.

5 Road Safety Committee, Mopeds, Parliamentary Paper D-No.5/1979.

6 B. Fildes, op. cit., p. 2.

7 VicRoads, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, March 1991, p. 80.

8 Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., pp. 31-2.

9 VicRoads, The Traffic in Melbourne Study: Comments on Strategies to Manage Melbourne's Traffic System, Bulletin No. 4, January 1992.

10 Ibid., p. 3.

11 Road Safety Act 1986, but the Crimes (Culpable Driving) Act 1992 extends the Road Safety Act with respect to dangerous driving to include both on-road and off-road offences.

12 B. Fildes, op. cit., p. 14.

13 VicRoads, 1991, Vehicle Standards Information, Vehicle Safety Branch Publication; Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 1988 made under s. 10 Road Safety Act 1986, Victorian Government Gazette, Notice No. S15 (1 March 1988), s. 302.

14 Australian Design Rule Definitions, Part 1: Vehicle Category Definitions, ADR Package 17, page 5 of 55.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Australian Design Rules 33 & 33A.

55

18 Australian Design Rule 54/00.

19 Australian Design Rule 56/00.

20 Queensland Traffic Regulations, r.4.

21 Queensland Traffic Regulations, r.94.

22 Western Australia Road Traffic Act 1974, s. 5.

23 South Australia Motor Vehicles Act, Regulation 50A(3).

24 Department of Motor Transport, New South Wales, Mopeds and Motor Assisted Bicycles, Automotive Information 19, p. 2.

25 New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority, Instructions to Motor Registry Branch, June 1986.

26 Department of Motor Transport, New South Wales, op. cit., p. 1.

27 Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 29.

28 Letter to the Social Development Committee from Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, 19 May 1992.

29 VicRoads, op. cit., p. 26.

30 Ibid., p. 27.

31 R. Quane, Moped Accident Data Collection: a Technique, Paper presented at the first National Moped Conference, May 1978;

B. Hodge and L. McIntosh, Moped Accidents in Select Southern California Communities, Presentation at the 22nd Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978;

R. James, Mopeds and Road Safety, Internal Report No. 18/10/21, Road Safety and Traffic Authority, Victoria;

K. Langwieder, Collision Characteristics and Injuries to Motorcyclists and Moped Drivers, Proceedings of the 21st Strapp Conference.

32 Mr R. Christie, Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 1992, p. 357.

33 Mr D. Kingsbury, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 28 January 1991, p. 5.

34 Vic Roads, op. cit.

56

35 Transport Accident Commission, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 15 August 1991, p. 6.

36 VicRoads, op. cit., p. 83.

37 Transport Accident Commission, op. cit., p. 6.

38 VicRoads, op. cit., p. 84.

39 C.J. Boughton, R.A. Budd & G.M.L. Quayle, Driver Training and Licensing, National Road Safety Symposium, Canberra, October 1984, p. 51.

40 Department of Motor Transport, New South Wales, op. cit., p. 2.

41 Tasmania Traffic Act 1925, s.4; D.J. Green, Power Assisted Bicycles, Transport Tasmania, 1980.

42 South Australia Motor Vehicles Act, Regulation 50A (3).

43 Queensland Traffic Regulations, r. 105.

44 Queensland Traffic Regulations, r. 109.

45 Queensland Department of Transport, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 13 February 1991, p. 4.

46 Information provided to the Committee by Mr. R. Stott, Road Safety Manager, Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia, 31 July 1992.

47 B. Fildes, op. cit., p. 8.

48 VicRoads, op. cit., p. 26.

49 Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, op. cit., p. 6.

50 Letter to the Social Development Committee from Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, 19 May 1992, p. 2.

51 Mr P. Rollason, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 1 March 1991, p. 5.

52 Mr R. Deighton-Smith, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 6 June 1991, p. 5.

53 Camperdown & Districts Motorcycle Club Inc., Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 23 July 1991, p. 14.

54 AMTRA Motorcycle Trail Riders Association, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, 13 March 1991, p. 3.

57

CHAPTER 6 MOTORCYCLE RIDER EDUCATION AND TRAINING

• 6.1 INTRODUCTION • 6.2 PRE-SCHOOL AND SCHOOL EDUCATION • 6.2.1 Inquiry into Road Safety in Victoria • 6.2.2. Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety • 6.2.3 Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria • 6.3 MOTORCYCLE RIDER TRAINING AND LICENSING • 6.3.1 Compulsory and non-compulsory training for novice riders • 6.3.2 Availability of motorcycle training courses • 6.3.3 Cost of motorcycle rider training • 6.3.4 Delegation of motorcycle training and testing • 6.3.5 Curriculum • 6.3.6 Training the trainers • 6.3.7 Motorcycle rider licensing • 6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 INTRODUCTION All young people should receive an education which enables them to participate fully in society. Full participation in the community includes the capacity to behave appropriately in the modern road environment.

Education is distinguished from training:

Of the two terms, education is the broader. Unlike training which is usually short-term, task-oriented and highly specific, education is concerned with preparation of individuals, over time, to live within a particular social system. In many aspects, training could be considered to be a highly specific component of the longer-term educational process. [1]

Schools are one of many sources of education which influence the behaviour of road users. Other factors which determine a person's subsequent knowledge, attitudes and behaviour include the role models provided by parents and other authority figures and peer influences:

Attitude development, of course, should be approached as early as possible because...by the time young people reach driving or motorcycling age their attitudes are pretty well formed. [2]

It is a lot easier to try to form values that you would like someone in the community to have than to try and change them. [3]

58

Formal education of children in Victoria begins before they are six years old. By then, most children have developed a basic understanding of road use and personal relationships. This has been largely influenced by the models provided for them by their parents, pre-schools and other care givers. The education provided in schools is therefore a fundamental, but not the only, component of traffic safety education.

By the time a person takes the decision to become a motorcycle rider, all these prior educational experiences are in place. Driver and rider training programs which are directed towards people aged 16 and 17 years who are ready to begin driving cars or riding motorcycles must build on, rather than act in isolation from the attitudes and skills which they have already learned as children.

This Chapter reviews and updates the recommendations and outcomes of previous Social Development Committee inquiries relating to traffic safety education in pre-schools and schools and discusses the issue of specific motorcycle training for Victoria.

6.2 PRE-SCHOOL AND SCHOOL EDUCATION In Victoria, the purpose of school education has been described as:

...ensure that all young people receive an education which enables them to participate fully in society....(the curriculum should include the information which is) most relevant to the lives and needs of particular students and groups of students. [4]

For the purposes of this Inquiry, this statement can be interpreted to mean that children should learn the skills and attitudes which enable them to handle the traffic system safely in both the short and long term. The Ministry of Education (now the Directorate of School Education) stated in its submission to the Social Development Committee Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety that:

The Ministry of Education recognises the importance of this aspect of education and seeks to fulfil its responsibilities through implementation of traffic safety education programs. [5]

The Social Development Committee considered the issue of traffic safety education in three previous inquiries:

• Inquiry into Road Safety in Victoria; • Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety; and • Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria.

The Road Safety Committee has taken the evidence and findings of these three previous inquiries into account in its pursuit of issues relevant to ensuring that motorcycle riders are adequately prepared for their role as part of the traffic system in Victoria. This section discusses the current status of traffic safety education in Victoria in the context of the recommendations from these other relevant inquiries.

59

6.2.1 Inquiry into Road Safety in Victoria

In 1983, the Social Development Committee commissioned RACV Consulting Services to assess existing and proposed road accident countermeasures. [6] The Committee recommended, as medium priority countermeasures, greater emphasis on pre-school pedestrian education [7] and accelerated introduction of the Bike-Ed bicycle safety program in schools. [8]

The Government response to these recommendations accepted the general thrust of pre-school traffic safety education and committed itself to providing additional resources in this area, stating:

This program of pedestrian education will complement existing activities of the Road Traffic Authority aimed at promoting the restraint of pre-school children when travelling in motor vehicles. [9]

Since 1983, VicRoads and the Federal Office of Road Safety, in conjunction with the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, have implemented a number of projects directed at young children. [10] These have been extensively supported in child care centres by specialist VicRoads consultants. A VicRoads survey of pre-schools in 1990 indicated only 24% had used these consultants. The materials developed by VicRoads were used in 55% of pre-schools. [11]

The Road Safety Committee endorses these initiatives. It is of the view that appropriate pre-school education is fundamental to establishing the attitudes which children need to be able to accept later specific education and training in traffic safety issues such as motorcycle riding.

In response to the 1983 Social Development Committee report, the Government also committed itself to providing resources and encouraging implementation of the Bike-Ed program. [12] This has not been fully achieved. Use of Bike Ed programs in primary schools was 38% in 1990. It did not change between 1988 and 1990. [13] Use of other primary school traffic safety education materials was 33% in 1990. [14]

The Road Safety Committee is of the view that the use of these traffic safety education materials in primary schools is too low. The reasons for this low figure seem to lie more with Directorate of School Education policy than VicRoads. These issues are discussed in more detail in the next section.

6.2.2. Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

In 1986, the Social Development Committee tabled its First Report upon the Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. This report included an extensive analysis of the roles of the (then) Ministry of Education and the (then) Road Traffic Authority in providing traffic safety education in schools. It recommended measures which confer a competitive advantage on the teaching of traffic safety, including expansion of in-service training for teachers, employment of traffic safety consultants in (then) Ministry of Education regions, establishing a Ministerial Advisory Committee on traffic safety education, and matching funds for community organisations or agencies operating off-road facilities. [15]

60

The Government responded to these recommendations by saying that:

• Extensive courses were already offered by the (then) Ministry of Education and the Road Traffic Authority. These cater for all teachers who apply.

• High levels of support were already offered to schools undertaking traffic safety education, including teachers seconded to VicRoads in the role of consultants.

• An advisory committee (not Ministerial) was being established to facilitate cooperation across Government and relevant external agencies.

• They would consider resources to provide matching grants within existing budgets and according to priority setting procedures already in place and those to be established. [16]

In 1985, the Joint Ministerial Taskforce of Traffic Safety Education recommended that the (then) Ministry of Education retain primary responsibility for providing traffic safety education in schools. [17] The Ministry seconded about 20 teachers to VicRoads to meet the Social Development Committee recommendations for consultants. At first these teachers were paid from Ministry of Education funds. They are now on the VicRoads payroll funded by the Transport Accident Commission. The Road Safety Education program costs $3.4m per year. [18] The Road Safety Committee is of the view that this funding must continue.

The Directorate of School Education offers three courses under the aegis of traffic safety education.

1. Traffic Safety Education is a general curriculum offered from Preparatory Grade to Year 12.

The Directorate resisted considerable pressure to incorporate traffic safety education as a discrete course of study within the Victorian Certificate of Education. Instead, traffic safety education remains within the Personal Development Curriculum:

All school students are to receive Traffic Safety Education as part of their Personal Development education in order to empower them with the knowledge, understanding and skills necessary to:

• function safely and independently as an individual road and traffic user,

• demonstrate responsible and cooperative attitudes and behaviour in road and traffic use,

• critically explore and examine society's needs for safety and use of transport,

• enhance their opportunities for personal and social development through safe travel in the community. [19]

This course is integrated into other teaching subjects. It is not compulsory. Inclusion of traffic safety education in the curriculum and its evaluation are at the discretion of each school council. [20] The decision to facilitate and resource traffic safety education is set at a regional level. [21]

61

Resources to support the traffic safety education curriculum are developed and distributed by VicRoads. The Transport Accident Commission has funded development of 'Getting Around: Issues of Mobility and Safety in Personal Transport' to extend the materials available to traffic safety education teachers in secondary schools. [22]

Witnesses from the then Department of School Education indicated that it was impossible, under the current arrangements, to determine the quantity and quality of traffic safety education delivered in schools. [23]

There was disagreement between the then Department of School Education, VicRoads and the Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers in their estimates about this issue. The Department says that, on their records, about 80% of schools are offering traffic safety education to their students.VicRoads reports surveys of schools which indicate traffic safety education is included in the curricula of 78% of primary schools [24] and 88% of post-primary schools. [25] The Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers believes that no more than 50% of post-primary schools offer traffic safety education in their curriculum. [26] An independent estimation of use of traffic safety education materials in post-primary schools has shown that the use of traffic safety education materials in post-primary schools ranges from 4%, for science materials, to 47%, for drink driving materials. [27] Use is higher in schools which include pre-driver education in their curriculum.

The Road Safety Committee is of the view that, given the resources used to develop traffic safety education materials and the importance of traffic safety education in ensuring the goals of the Directorate of School Education are met, accurate statistics about the availability, uptake and effect of traffic safety education in schools are essential.

2. Pre-driver Education is taught in years 10, 11 and 12.

This program may only be taught by teachers qualified in pre-driver education. [28] The required course is taught at Deakin University Rusden Campus according to a curriculum prescribed in consultation with the Directorate of School Education and VicRoads. [29]

Pre-driver Education has been evaluated in terms of its influence on student knowledge and attitudes. [30] The effect on the attitudes of males was weaker than its effect on females. [31] Its effect on knowledge was greater for males than females. [32] Skills were improved in Years 10 and 11 males and Year 11 females. There was no relationship between changes in attitude, knowledge and skills. [33]

3. Motorcycle Rider Education is taught in Years 8 to 12. [34]

The practical component of this program can only be taught by teachers qualified in motorcycle safety education. [35] In 1985, the course was withdrawn from the in-service training options offered to teachers. [36] [37] The Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers said, in their submission to the Inquiry, that this has occurred because:

62

• Training programs have not been offered by the Department of School Education [now Directorate of School Education];

• Increased difficulty by schools in obtaining time release for staff wishing to participate in such programs;

• Regional General Manager approval is required prior to implementation of a motorcycle program as well as school council approval; and

• Each school must demonstrate to the Regional Manager "the degree of `demonstrated need' for motorcycle safety education". [38]

The Committee is of the view that adequate school-based traffic safety education is fundamental to establishing the attitudes required to ensure safe road use including motorcycle riding. This view is supported by Ms L. Ivett, Manager of Education Programs, VicRoads, who stated in evidence:

...the types of attitudes we are trying to cultivate for the motorists of tomorrow equally apply for motorcyclists so although there may not be a strong emphasis on motorcyclists per se the material provided is looking at the general issue of appropriate attitude development for a road user, whether that person be a motorist, a motorcyclist a pedestrian or a cyclist. [39]

The Directorate of School Education has delegated to VicRoads responsibility for development of materials and providing consultancy services. The Road Safety Committee congratulates VicRoads for their practical commitment to traffic safety education in primary and secondary schools.

Despite VicRoads' activities in this area, developments in traffic safety education in the Directorate of School Education have led the Committee to the view that the priority for traffic safety education, sought in recommendations of the Social Development Committee and acknowledged in the Government response, has not survived administrative and resource changes since 1986 because:

• Budget and evaluation of traffic safety education have not been given appropriate priority;

• Teaching of traffic safety in 50% of post-primary schools is not sufficient to fulfil their commitment to ensuring that all children are adequately exposed to traffic safety education in the curriculum; and

• The special procedures needed to implement a motorcycle safety education course and the lack of training for motorcycle safety education teachers seem to indicate that the Directorate is not committed to continuing its existence.

The previous Social Development Committee heard evidence that a significant number of students have an interest in motorcycle safety. [40] Therefore, the Directorate should be assisting the interested schools to deliver the program. It has not delivered the training and other resources needed to maintain the motorcycle rider education program.

The Road Safety Committee expresses concern at the insufficient action by the Directorate of School Education which suggests a lack of commitment to implementing traffic safety education in schools.

63

6.2.3 Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria

In November 1991, the Social Development Committee tabled the Report of its Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria. In that context, the Social Development Committee expressed the view that an effective means of shaping driver attitude is through long-term education programs beginning at kindergarten and continuing throughout primary and secondary school. [41] The Social Development Committee recommended that:

• There be an evaluation of the Driver Education Centre of Australia's Careful Cobber program;

• There be an evaluation of VicRoads education programs; • Emphasis in road safety programs in schools be on attitude rather than skills; • Road safety be incorporated into relevant curriculum areas for all students,

particularly kindergarten and primary schools; and • There be an examination of all models of driver training in Australia, followed

by development of a suitable model for Victoria. [42]

The Government response to these recommendations supported the emphasis on attitude rather than skill development, stating that:

Both VicRoads and the (then) Ministry of Education and Training support and promote attitude development as the major focus of school based traffic safety education programs. This approach is promulgated through the Personal Development Curriculum guidelines published by the Ministry of Education and Training and is reflected strongly in traffic safety curriculum resources developed by VicRoads. [43]

The Government supported evaluation of VicRoads education programs advising that:

VicRoads currently evaluates the usage and perceived value of traffic safety education curriculum programs on a biennial basis. This incorporates data collection on the value of consultancy services provided by VicRoads to enhance the uptake and quality of school based traffic safety education programs. Whilst evaluation of some curriculum resources in relation to knowledge acquisition and attitude development has already been undertaken, it is intended that similar studies of more recent resources also be included. [44]

However, the Government denied responsibility for funding evaluation of private programs stating:

...the Government encourages private off-road facilities to evaluate their education and training programs. Public funding is not available for this purpose, however VicRoads has expertise in this area and will write to D.E.C.A. and other operators outlining the Government's Response to this recommendation and offering to assist with advice on methodology if required.[45]

The Road Safety Committee is of the view that the Government response to the recommendations in the Social Development Committee report has declined to acknowledge the importance of evaluation in improving the delivery and uptake of

64

traffic safety education in schools. It is critical of this lack of evaluation because it leads to wasted resources and inadequate preparation of young people before they are exposed to the skills training required to obtain a licence in driving a car or riding a motorcycle.

6.3 MOTORCYCLE RIDER TRAINING AND LICENSING Education has to start at the infant level. By the time a person is sixteen, his or her attitudes are pretty well cemented. They are still being moulded but their attitudes are probably in concrete by the time they are 25...Until there is some sort of strategy in place for an integration of different educational ideas...we are wasting our time.[46]

The inadequacies in the school-based education system and other community structures which influence the attitudes and general behaviour of young people must be taken into account when setting goals and designing curricula specifically to train motorcycle riders.

Motorcycle training is like other forms of education in that the community accepts and promotes it as a 'good thing' to do even when there is no conclusive evidence that the education has any direct influence on attitudes or behaviour.

Motorcycle rider training has suffered from a series of uncomplimentary evaluations which suggest that it has no effect on crash rates or, worse, that it increases the risk of riders becoming involved in a collision. [47] For example, the comprehensive study undertaken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States demonstrated no significant difference in the accident or conviction rates over two years between riders subjected to no formal rider training, riders who undertake three hours formal training and riders who undertake 20 hours formal training. [48] Rather, they found that age, motorcycle ownership, gender, marital status and income were statistically significant predictors of the accidents rate of novice riders. [49]

Despite the findings of these various studies, motorcycle rider training is offered in all Australian states. It is compulsory in Tasmania and South Australia. The government contributes to financing voluntary programs in Victoria, New South Wales, and Queensland. In these states, training courses are also run by private operators. In Western Australia, pre-licence training is not compulsory and not publicly funded.

The Social Development Committee heard evidence from Mr C. Cuthill, Manager/Chief Instructor, Honda Australia Rider Training, whether, based on his practical experience, it is possible to change the attitude of young adults:

MR. MAUGHAN, MP: Do you believe you can change the attitude of a person after the age of 18 years?

MR CUTHILL: I believe we can. People have come through our course who have never really looked at the issues of riding motorcycles. ...We show them bluntly how they should modify their attitude if they want to stay alive. [50]

65

In Victoria, training programs are well established and are a given component of the road safety environment. The Road Safety Committee has considered the way in which motorcycle training programs can be improved to ensure they achieve the greatest possible influence on road safety. This approach addresses issues such as availability of courses, curriculum, cost and evaluation.

6.3.1 Compulsory and non-compulsory training for novice riders

Motorcycle rider training in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia is not compulsory for riders who seek to obtain their learners' permits or motorcycle endorsement on their licences. In South Australia and Tasmania, training in a government controlled program is required before riders obtain their learners' permits and probationary licences.

The Committee heard evidence that the decision to make motorcycle rider training compulsory in South Australia was based on pragmatism rather than philosophy:

It was a pragmatic decision given that South Australia is a broad geographic area with isolated pockets of population. If we were to have an equitable program we had to establish training programs in various country areas as well as the metropolitan area. It would have been exceptionally costly and, to get some money back, we decided on a user pay system...so, if we could guarantee that throughput, we could come up with charges to amortise the fleet of motorcycles, the hiring of trainee teachers and so on. [51]

Other reasons given by witnesses for implementing a compulsory program included research which indicated that people who volunteer for training programs were more safety conscious than those who avoid training [52] and the possibility that training requirements will deter some people from riding a motorcycle. [53]

The Committee however has evidence to challenge the assertion that compulsory programs in Australia reduce the number of riders who attempt to obtain a licence. Introduction of compulsory rider training in South Australia in 1986 was preceded by a decline in the number of learner motorcycle permits but these numbers have been increasing since 1988 . There was no relationship in time between introduction of compulsory training, the number of learner permit holders, the number of registered motorcycles and the number of motorcycle rider casualties. (Figures 8, 9 and 10)

66

67

In Tasmania, there was no decline also in the number of licensed motorcycle riders when compulsory training was implemented in 1981 (Figures 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14).

68

69

70

71

72

The Committee is aware that the crash risk of riders is related to their age and their experience. It believes that training programs compensate to some degree for inexperience and therefore warrant continued encouragement. In the absence of education programs which ensure adequate attitude development at the age when this is most easily developed, the Committee is of the view that training programs should target those who are most at risk of crash involvement. Training is also less likely to affect the attitude and behaviour of mature riders. Therefore, the Committee sees training as more important for novice riders aged under, say 25 years, than for older riders.

Therefore, the Committee is of the view that motorcycle rider training programs in Victoria should be strongly encouraged for learner and probationary riders aged under 25 years. This encouragement should be supported by provision of incentives such as reduced registration fees or shortened licensing requirements for riders who undertake approved training.

The Committee does not advocate compulsory training because of the difficulty ensuring equal access to training facilities.

73

As is detailed further in this Chapter, training facilities are concentrated in the metropolitan area and are not uniformly available throughout country Victoria. To make training compulsory would require substantial Government funding either directly or through subsidy and this is not financially realistic. VicRoads also support voluntary training because it is felt that if a licence applicant who has not undertaken formal training can demonstrate the necessary competency skills to pass the licence tests then it is unfair to make that applicant undergo formal training prior to testing.

6.3.2 Availability of motorcycle training courses

Motorcycle rider training was implemented in Victoria in 1983 as a community program with the involvement of the Government and the Motorcycle Industry Division of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce. [54] It was anticipated that the Government's involvement would only be in the initial phases of establishment of the training centres with industry then assuming full responsibility. However:

The whole program was in danger of collapse during that fledgling stage. It was the old Road Traffic Authority [VIC ROADS' predecessor] that stepped in and took it under its wing and it has continued to subsidise and support it to this very day. [55]

Historically, then, motorcycle training was conceived as community-based training to operate in a decentralised way with part-time instructors. However, by default VicRoads inherited the role of motorcycle trainer. VicRoads has continued this philosophy, employing experienced riders as part-time instructors, conducting training at weekends, often at sites used for other purposes during the week.

Four providers of motorcycle training in Victoria made contact with the Committee. These were VicRoads and the private training organisations, Honda Australia Rider Training (HART), Motorcycle Motion and the Driver Education Centre of Australia. VicRoads provides training at seven sites in the metropolitan area and eight in country areas. HART offers training at its Tullamarine premises. Motorcycle Motion trains riders at Highett, Clayton and Waverley. The Driver Education Centre of Australia operates a small novice motorcycle rider training program at Shepparton as an agent for VicRoads. Therefore, novice rider training programs cover the metropolitan area but are not available uniformly throughout the rest of Victoria.

The situation is similar in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. In Queensland, the Department of Transport runs several motorcycle training programs but they are supported by a strong private enterprise involvement. In New South Wales, the Roads and Traffic Authority contracts out provision of motorcycle training programs to private organisations such as Stay Upright NSW and the New South Wales Traffic Education Centre. In these states, programs cover the main urban areas of the state but are not available to everyone in rural areas.

In contrast, government motorcycle training programs in both Tasmania and South Australia cover over 90% of the State. In Tasmania this is achieved by using a permanent facility at Hobart and a mobile training facility to access remote areas of the state. In South Australia, a permanent facility is located in Adelaide and in rural areas training is conducted at local government or community facilities such as tennis and netball courts. A mobile facility was found to be unnecessary.

74

The Committee is of the view that the Tasmanian and South Australian experience indicates it is feasible to offer motorcycle training programs which are accessible to most potential novice riders in Victoria.

6.3.3 Cost of motorcycle rider training

In coming to the view that motorcycle training should be encouraged and made available to all potential motorcycle riders, the Committee was concerned to balance three issues relating to cost. These are:

1. The concept of user pays has an inherent potential to discourage people from riding motorcycles or motorcycle riders from obtaining a licence;

2. The State should not bear all the cost of motorcycle rider training; and 3. The attraction of motorcycle rider training programs to commercial enterprise

will be influenced by profitability.

The Committee received evidence from several organisations describing how they coped with funding of novice rider training courses.

In Queensland, South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, government-subsidised training courses for novice motorcycle riders charge participants about $50 for a Level 1 course leading to a learner’s permit and $65 to $75 for a Level 2 course which leads to a probationary licence.

In Victoria, VicRoads offer two Level 1 courses leading to the issue of a learner's permit. A nine hour course for novice riders who have no motorcycle experience costs $80 and a six hour course for novice riders with some motorcycle experience costs $64. A six hour Level 2 course for skilled riders costs $22. Whilst training in Victoria is not compulsory the Committee understands that many of the applicants for the Level 2 course are learner permit holders wishing to undergo further training before being tested for their motorcycle licence endorsement.

In 1991 the fees charged by VicRoads accounted for about 15% of the overall cost of the VicRoads training courses. In 1993 VicRoads estimate that this recovery rate has increased to about 55%. VicRoads cite the reasons for this dramatic increase as:

• More efficient scheduling of courses by VicRoads, maximising utilisation of centres;

• a significant increase in the demand for training:

Learner Rider Courses 1991 Estimate - 40% of riders seeking a Learner Permit Current estimate - 52% of riders seeking a Learner Permit

75

Skilled Rider Courses 1991 estimate - 13% of riders seeking a Licence Current estimate - 25% of riders seeking a Licence

• a subsequent greater income from student fees due to the increase in demand; • minimal increase to VicRoads' costs for training and facilities. [56]

In Tasmania, cost recovery is about 60%. In South Australia, cost recovery is about 50%. [57] In New South Wales, the participants contribute about 60% of their Level 1 course and nearly all of the Level 2 course.

Private courses for novice motorcycle riders in Victoria charge their clients the full cost. For example:

• The HART course costs are $140 for a 2 day course leading to a learner's permit and $100 for a one day course leading to a motorcycle licence endorsement.

• Motorcycle Motion charges about $120 for the learner's permit course and between $175 and $310 for the motorcycle licence endorsement course, depending on whether the trainee provides his or her own motorcycle.

• Driver Education Centre of Australia charge their clients $70 for a six hour and $90 for a nine hour learner’s permit course. They charge $50 for a six hour, motorcycle licence endorsement course.

Whilst these latest figures from VicRoads are encouraging, the VicRoads courses are still more expensive to conduct than those operated by the private sector in Victoria. This inability to recover full costs therefore contributes to significant Government expenditure in this training. No other form of vehicle driver training receives any State Government subsidy and the Committee, whilst appreciating the historical reasons for this funding, believes it is now timely to review this arrangement.

The Committee sought to understand why motorcycle rider training programs in other states of Australia do not impose complete ‘user pays’ principles on novice motorcycle riders who seek training. In evidence before the Committee, the following reasons for subsidising the programs were expressed:

• The possibility that motorcycle riders would avoid training if it was too expensive leading to more unlicensed riders;

• The possibility that the cost will deter people from becoming motorcycle riders;

• The political problems which arise when the Government charges too much for the services it provides; and

• The cheaper cost of private programs on the market.

The Committee is of the view that, given the real cost of VicRoads training courses, all these arguments carry some validity. In its submission to the Inquiry, one option presented by VicRoads was to increase the cost recovered from trainee participants in their courses. [58] However, they did not address the reasons for the large disparity

76

between the costs of existing VicRoads programs and the costs of private programs in Victoria.

The first step toward cost-recovery is for VicRoads to delegate its responsibility to provide motorcycle training for novice riders to private organisations. Government funds for motorcycle training should be used to subsidise courses to ensure equity in access for this training. This will ensure that all novice riders who live outside the metropolitan area have the same access to training as their urban counterparts.

6.3.4 Delegation of motorcycle training and testing

VicRoads have recently implemented a policy of delegating rider training and testing to non-government agencies. In April 1993, VicRoads formally advertised for expressions of interest from suitable organisations to operate four or five training and testing establishments in the west, east and south east regions of Melbourne.

The Committee understands that there will be no Government funding to assist these applicants in the capital cost of establishing their facilities - a stance the Committee endorses. Honda Australia Rider Training received no government assistance in the construction and equipping of the facility at Tullamarine and for Government to now provide such funding to other organisations would be inequitable.

To assist the commercial viability of such centres however, VicRoads has undertaken to ensure that each centre will be suitably located so as to minimise competition between these centres and also existing VicRoads facilities.

VicRoads have developed comprehensive guidelines, specifications and standards for the accreditation of external providers for motorcycle training and testing. These requirements cover business reputation, types of vehicles, training facilities, administration support, quality assurance, instructor/trainer qualifications, codes of practice etc. Under the quality assurance specifications the providers must prepare and maintain a quality assurance manual in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and be subject to regular review and audit of their performance. (Copies if these guidelines and standards are attached to this Report as Appendices D and E.)

The Committee believes that these requirements will mean a sufficiently high barrier to entry that will ensure only competent organisations are accredited.

Honda Australia Rider Training have been granted approved provider status and VicRoads anticipates that the other establishments will be registered from July 1993 onwards. Whilst

the Committee supports these initiatives, the problem of equity in access to quality training and assessment by all novice riders remains an issue. As mentioned earlier in this Chapter, such access is not uniform across Victoria. The Committee considers that whilst the delegating of this training and licensing in the metropolitan area will save the Government considerable funding, some funding will still be needed to ensure that novice riders in rural Victoria are able to access this training and testing at no greater cost than that for riders in the metropolitan area. The Committee recognises that in reality VicRoads might be required to provide training and testing in some

77

country areas where it is commercially non-viable for a private organisation to operate.

6.3.5 Curriculum

In 1989, the Australian Transport Advisory Council agreed to a core syllabus for off-road pre-licence motorcycle training. [59] This core syllabus followed motorcycle rider training and licensing workshops in 1984 and 1987. [60]

Despite this attempt to develop a national standard for motorcycle rider training, no effort has yet been made to impose the core syllabus on motorcycle trainers. There remain fundamental differences between motorcycle training experts in the relative importance which should be given to skills and attitude development in the curricula offered to novice riders. The course content in different programs reflects the basic philosophy of those who designed it. The Committee notes however that the differences in philosophy between training and attitude contents of these courses is often more in the definition than in the practical training offered.

For example, Mr M. Scandrett-Smith, Manager, Driver Development, Driver Development Centre, Department of Road Transport, South Australia, told the Social Development Committee, in evidence:

We took the view that the training program should be based on skills...I have always had a leaning towards skills competency. People need a way of inculcating those skills and measuring the effects. The RiderSafe program is exactly that model. [61]

This model differs from that advocated by psychology researchers from the University of Armidale and adopted by the New South Wales Traffic Education Centre motorcycle training course. They emphasise the need for road users to accept control over the dangerous situations which confront them, stating that:

...young drivers normally approach driving task with a world view which has been derived from their past experiences, and which is therefore inappropriate in a number of ways...the only way to change this world view is to challenge it in some way and replace it with one which is more appropriate to the task at hand. This replacement view would place more emphasis on the controllable, modifiable aspects of the driver’s behaviour, so that the person is likely to learn from near misses and other forms of driving failures, rather than dismiss them as out of their control. [62]

In Tasmania, Senior Constable Jerrim, Tasmania Police, said:

The problem we face in implementing programs is to have an impact on the cultural behaviour and social issues...it has become increasingly clear that education-perhaps training-to develop psychomotor skills does not work. There has never been an integrated and thorough educational program tried anywhere in the world. The whole concept of education (motorcycle training in Tasmania) has to be extended through the classroom situation in relation to all issues of road safety, law enforcement and improving environmental character. [63]

78

In Victoria, Mr C. Cuthill, Manager/Chief Instructor, Honda Australia Rider Training program, believes:

The most important part of riding on the road is attitude and road craft. Skill forms only a small component of what one does to stay alive. An average person can ride with a low degree of skill but if that person has a good attitude and a lot of road craft skills it is possible to ride safely. [64]

VicRoads motorcycle instructors say skills are more important, advising that:

...all the indicators in the past suggest that skill is of the utmost importance to the motorcyclist...Those who undergo our training program (are better because) we dedicate a significant component to roadcraft discussion which enhances the rider’s ability to perform more adequately in the road mix. [65]

The Committee has the view that training of novice riders in Victoria must include a significant attitude component in order to compensate, where possible, for the inadequacy of school-based traffic safety education. The Committee further holds the view that trainers charged with the responsibility of the classroom component of motorcycle training be appropriately qualified trainers rather than just motorcycle skills and handling trainers.

Further the Committee believes that all existing and future motorcycle safety training programs should include a budget which allows for their components to be evaluated separately and improved. This approach will allow curriculum decisions to be based on objective information rather than opinion.

The Committee could find no evidence that any motorcycle training program in Australia has been objectively evaluated against road safety criteria such as crash involvement or, even, reported traffic offences. The evidence of success of which the Committee is aware comprises reports of user satisfaction like those administered by the Stay Upright program in New South Wales and anecdotal evidence from Tasmania about the small number of trained motorcycle riders who have died since particular courses began.

The Committee is aware that objective evaluation in Victoria is almost impossible because of the inadequacy of the State licence record system and the lack of reliable data about the distance motorcycle riders travel. However, the Committee repeats its recommendation that these data bases be improved and that evaluation become an important component of all motorcycle crash countermeasures including novice rider training programs.

As VicRoads progressively delegates responsibility for training and testing of motorcyclists, the Committee expects that a proportional amount of financial and personnel resources will become available within the VicRoads organisation. As a matter of priority these resources should be directed towards the evaluation of motorcycle safety training programs without which judgments about the effectiveness of existing or alternative programs are severely compromised.

79

This Committee endorses the findings and recommendations of the previous Social Development Committee that the lack of evaluation of various road safety initiatives and media campaigns is a flaw in the management of road safety in Victoria.

6.3.6 Training the trainers

There is no consistency between states in Australia or within Victoria in the standards required of motorcycle rider trainers. These issues were addressed in a seminar organised by the Federal Office of Road Safety and the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries in September 1992. The seminar concentrated on training standards and accreditation of trainers. [66] Arising from this seminar, the Australian Rider Trainers Association was formed with an aim to establish uniform rider trainer standards throughout Australia.

Concurrently, the National Road Transport Industry Training Council has commissioned a study to identify and document the core competencies required of driving/rider instructors and assessors, and submit the results for registration and promulgation by the National Training Board as national core competency standards. This project has been carried out by the Road Transport Training Council of Queensland and it is proposed that the draft standards will be reviewed by expert panels in each State. It is anticipated that this expert review will be completed by mid-year.

Currently in Victoria, VicRoads has approximately 85 part-time instructors. They are all casual employees with full-time jobs elsewhere. Originally, Victoria Police motorcycle instructors trained prospective VicRoads instructors. VicRoads now trains its own personnel. The selection process and criteria set by VicRoads for its instructors together with the instructor classification requirements are attached as Appendix F.

Private operators train their own instructors. For example, HART's chief instructors were trained in Japan at the Suzuka Traffic Education Centre and all HART instructors are trained to Honda's World Instructors Standard. HART estimates that the cost of training each instructor is approximately $10 000, not including their wages. [67]

In Tasmania, motorcycle instructors are trained by the senior part-time instructors who have been trained by senior Department of Transport personnel.

The South Australian program has a group of part-time instructors selected from the motorcycling population. The majority of instructors are members of the Motorcycle Riders Association. [68] They are trained at the Driver Education Centre. [69]

In New South Wales, trainers must be trained and licensed by the Chief Riding Instructor. [70] However, after trainers are licensed, control over the standard of training and curriculum delivered to participants is relegated to the agencies which provide the service.

80

The Committee strongly endorses the need for uniform competency standards for rider trainers and assessors. This need will become even more pressing with the delegation by VicRoads of its responsibilities for training and licensing.

6.3.7 Motorcycle rider licensing

VicRoads has the statutory responsibility for the issuing of drivers' licences in Victoria. These licences, of whatever type are issued only after the applicant has demonstrated certain competency levels. As mentioned in paragraph 6.3.4. current VicRoads initiatives with motorcycling are to delegate the training and testing of the competency skills to outside providers. These initiatives have the complete support of the Committee.

Motorcycle riders in Victoria may obtain their learner's permit when they are 17 years and nine months old. These riders are required to pass both written and skills tests. Testing for learner permits is currently provided at VicRoads, HART and the Driver Education Centre of Australia in conjunction with their learner permit training programs or separately at VicRoads testing stations. In South Australia, New South Wales and Tasmania, similar arrangements between the state licensing authority and the training organisations apply.

In Victoria riders with motorcycle endorsement of their driver’s licence must have passed the American Motorcycle Skill Test (MOST) to assess skills and the Motorcycle In Traffic Test (MITT) to assess on-road skills and in-traffic strategies. These tests are usually conducted by VicRoads personnel. HART instructors can administer the MOST test to their clients.

The MOST and MITT tests have not been evaluated in Australia. The VicRoads submission stated this was due to the labour intensive and costly process of matching each motorcycle accident with corresponding licence records. [71] American research suggests that riders who undertake the MOST test are no different from riders who undertake easier tests to obtain their licence in the number of accidents in the first two years of riding, when allowance is made for the distance ridden. [72]

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation in the United States has developed a new test as an alternative to MOST, called the Motorcyclist Licensing Skill Test (MLST). It requires a suitable area to carry out the test and less sophisticated equipment. This test is used in New South Wales.

VicRoads has been asked to trial the MLST. However, VicRoads has not sufficient funding to evaluate the test. [73]

HART and Victoria Police witnesses were critical of the current test for probationary riders. HART complained that current testing passed students whose skills were inadequate. In these cases HART instructors are required to be very open with students about their need for further training prior to venturing into the 'real world'. [74]

Senior Constable K. Ansell, a motorcycle instructor with the Victoria Police, was critical of roadcraft tests VicRoads conducted, stating in evidence that:

81

There is a skills riding test whereby you have to prove the ability to brake from around 23 km/h in a distance of 6 metres, which is ludicrously generous. You do not need to use both of the braking systems; either will stop you in that distance, either in or out of control at 23 km/h. It is just not realistic.

You also have to demonstrate going around a curve without running over two marked lines, and there is a slow riding test where you have to take at least ten seconds to cover a certain distance between two white lines without crossing them, which is hardly a life-threatening situation. That is basically the skills test.[75]

His superior, Inspector T. Peperkamp agreed, stating:

Unfortunately many people do these advanced courses in driving or in motorcycle riding and then they tend to get the Superman syndrome - 'I have done a course; I can do anything'! [76]

The Committee is of the view that, under the current licensing scheme, the type of skills test applied to motorcycle licensees has little influence on motorcycle safety in the longer term. Motorcycle riders can legally ride after having obtained a learner’s permit. They have to survive more than three months in order to obtain a motorcycle endorsement on their probationary licence. The MOST test has not been shown to influence riders’ potential safety in the United States. The main problem, which cannot be handled adequately in a test situation, remains that of rider attitude.

The Committee questions the logic of requiring a novice rider to pass a learner's test which, apart from a few restrictions, allows the rider to ride totally unsupervised at any time in any traffic. The rider is then required to undergo further testing before receiving a motorcycle endorsement on their licence. The Committee considers that this notion of a second test is a fallacy. Rather, as training is not compulsory, the Committee believes that a means whereby novice riders can receive strong encouragement to undergo training is to offer a full motorcycle endorsement at the completion of a combined basic and advanced course. Naturally this course would last longer than the existing novice course and, it is expected, ensure that riders have adequate skills to ride a motorcycle.

6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

20. In order that traffic safety education be an on-going program beginning with the very young, VicRoads and other relevant agencies continue to emphasise traffic safety education in pre-schools and provide consultants to encourage use of the relevant materials.

21. VicRoads road safety consultants continue to be funded by the Transport Accident Commission or its successor.

22. In order for the Directorate of School Education to be able to achieve its goal of ensuring that all young people receive an education which enables them to participate fully in society, accurate statistics about the availability, uptake and effect of traffic safety education in schools be

82

collected. 23. The Minister for Roads and Ports implement policies which ensure that

motorcycle training programs are accessible to potential novice riders in Victoria. These services should be delivered by private organisations except where the cost means they are not commercially viable.

24. The Minister for Roads and Ports strongly encourage motorcycle rider training programs in Victoria for learner and probationary riders aged under 25 years by providing incentives and ensuring availability of courses.

25. VicRoads eliminate the learner permit for riders who undergo appropriate training and pass the full motorcycle test.

26. The Minister for Roads and Ports ensure that VicRoads' budget includes specific funding for on-going monitoring and evaluation of the motorcycle rider training programs.

Footnotes to Chapter 6

1 Social Development Committee, First Report upon Road Safety in Victoria, 1984, Appendix I (Report from RACV Consulting Services), p. 15.

2 Ms L. Ivett, Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 1992, p. 353.

3 Mr R. Christie, Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 1992, p. 354.

4 Department of Education, Ministerial Paper Number 6, 1984, pp. 12-16.

5 Ministry of Education, Submission to the Social Development Committee Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, 1986, p. 12.

6 Social Development Committee: Interim Report on Road Safety in Victoria, 1983, Appendix I; First Report upon Road Safety in Victoria, 1984, Appendix I.

7 Social Development Committee, Final Report on Road Safety in Victoria, 1984, p. 19.

8 Ibid., p. 20.

9 Government Response to the Social Development Committee's Final Report on Road Safety, 1985, p. 8.

10 VicRoads introduced its 'Starting Out Safely' program in 1989. The Federal Office of Road Safety also introduced its 'Out and About' program. Both these programs are being updated.

11 S. Anthony and C. Wilcock, Traffic Safety Education in Victoria: Volume 1 Early Childhood Centres 1990, VicRoads Report GR 91-12, 1991.

83

12 Ibid., p. 9.

13 S. Anthony, A. Cavallo & J. Crowle, Traffic Safety Education in Victoria: Volume 2 Primary Schools 1990, VicRoads Report GR 92-1, p. 32.

14 Ibid., p. 17.

15 Social Development Committee, First Report on Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, 1986, p. vi.

16 Government Response to the Social Development Committee's Inquiry into Child Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, 1988, pp. 6-7.

17 Traffic Safety Education Working Party Report, Traffic Safety education in Victorian Schools, April 1985, p. 7.

18 Information provided by VicRoads, 6 August 1992.

19 Department of School Education, Policy Statement on Traffic Safety Education in Schools.

20 Mr R. Message, Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 1992, pp. 338-9.

21 Ibid., p. 334.

22 G. Hawthorne, Getting Around: Issues of Mobility and Safety in Personal Transport, TAC Insurance and the Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers, 1992.

23 Mr R. Message, op. cit., p. 331.

24 S. Anthony et al, op. cit.

25 S. Anthony, P. Allen, A. Cavallo & H. Haralam, Traffic Safety in Victoria: Volume 3 Secondary schools 1990, VicRoads Report GR 92-2, 1992.

26 Mr J. Bromilow, Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 1992, p. 347A.

27 G. Hawthorne, Pre-Driver Education: An Evaluation of a Traffic Safety Education Program for Senior Students in Victorian Post-Primary Schools, PhD thesis, Monash University, 1992, Vol. I, p. 365.

28 Ministry of Education, Administrative Guidelines: Traffic Safety Education, 1991, p.5.

29 Mr R. Message, op. cit., p. 339.

30 G. Hawthorne, op. cit.

31 Ibid., Vol. II, p. 664.

84

32 Ibid., p. 666.

33 Ibid., p. 670.

34 Ministry of Education, op. cit., p. 8.

35 Ibid., p. 5.

36 Ibid., p. 8.

37 Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, July 1992, p. 3.

38 Ibid.

39 Ms L. Ivett, op. cit., p. 353.

40 Mr J. Bromilow, op. cit., p. 348.

41 Social Development Committee, Report upon the Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria, 1991, p. 147.

42 Ibid., p. 152.

43 Government Response to the Social Development Committee's Inquiry into Speed Limits in Victoria, 1992, pp. 9-10.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Senior Constable A. Jerrim, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p. 67.

47 For review see R. McLaren, The Effectiveness of Formal Motorcycle Training and Practical Skill Testing Programmes: A Review of the Current Literature, Ministry of Transport, New Zealand, April 1990.

48 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Motorcycle Rider Education Evaluation Project, Volume I, Chapter 4, pp. 4-6.

49 Ibid., pp 4-33.

50 Mr C. Cuthill, Minutes of Evidence, 24 July 1991, p. 230A.

51 Mr M. Scandrett-Smith, Minutes of Evidence, 21 July 1992, p. 363.

52 Ibid., p. 364.

53 Ibid., p. 365.

85

54 Mr R. Newland, Minutes of Evidence, 24 July 1991, p. 300 55 Ibid., p. 301.

56 Letter to Road Safety Committee from Chief Executive, Vicroads, 2 April 1993.

57 Mr M. Scandrett-Smitt, op. cit., p. 371

58 VicRoads, op. cit., pp. 70-71

59 Federal Office of Road Safety, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, May 1991, Appendix H.

60 Federal Office of Road Safety, Development of Core Syallabus for Motorcycle Training, August 1992

61 Federal Office of Road Safety, op. cit., p. 365

62 D. Martin, I. Price & B. Fisher, The Impact of a Driver Training Course on the Causal Attributions of Young Provisional-License Holders, A Research project funded by the Federal Office of Road Safety, August 1991, p. 31

63 Senior Constable A. Jerrim, op. cit., p. 232

64 Mr C. Cuthill, op. cit., p. 230

65 Mr R. Newland, op. cit., p. 294

66 Letter to the State and Territory Road Safety Group members from P. Makeham, Director, Federal Office of Road Safety, 17 July 1992

67 Mr C. Cuthill, op. cit., p. 232

68 Mr M. Scandrett-Smitt, op. cit., p. 380

69 Ibid., p. 366.

70 New South Wales Driving Instructors Act 1992, Clause 6.

71 VicRoads, op. cit., p. 66

72 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, op. cit., pp. 4-29.

73 VicRoads, Supplement to the VicRoads Submission, 6 January 1992.

74 Honda Australia Rider Training, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, July 1991, p. 6.

75 Senior Constable K. Ansell, Minutes of Evidence, 9 July 1991 pp. 196-197.

76 Inspector T. Peperkamp, Minutes of Evidence, 9 July 1991 p. 197.

86

CHAPTER 7

CONSULTATION AND ADVISORY BODIES

• 7.1 INTRODUCTION • 7.2 EXISTING CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS • 7.3 INADEQUACIES OF CURRENT SYSTEM • 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 INTRODUCTION Motorcycle riders represent a broad spectrum of the Victorian population. Motorcycle riders range in age from less than 18 to over 70 years. Motorcycles are used for recreation, commuting, agriculture and general transport. Many motorcycle riders also drive cars. Motorcycle use is part of the accepted road transport system in this State.

7.2 EXISTING CONSULTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS In Australia, the paramount national advisory body on transport matters is the Australian Transport Advisory Council which comprises the Ministers for Transport of each state and territory and the Commonwealth. This is a consultative body which advises the Federal Minister for Transport, through the Ministers for Road Transport, about issues of national importance. For example, the Australian Transport Advisory Committee is responsible for negotiating Australian Design Rules but their approval lies with the Federal Minister for Land Transport. Motorcycle riders are represented on the Vehicle Standards Advisory Committee and the Licensing and Traffic Codes Committee which advise the Australian Transport Advisory Council.

The Australian Transport Advisory Council has established the National Road Trauma Advisory Council with specific responsibility for advising Federal and State governments, including the Australian Transport Advisory Council, on road safety issues. [1]

Some of the roles of the Australian Road Transport Advisory Council have been subsumed by the National Road Transport Commission which was established after the Special Premiers Conference of July 1991. The Commission's objectives include development of a national system of road regulations which promote safety and efficiency. The functions of the Commission are enshrined in the National Road Transport Commission Act 1991 (Cth). [2]

87

Within Victoria, the supreme road safety body is the joint Ministerial Taskforce comprising the Ministers for Transport and Police and Emergency Services supported by the Ministers for Health and Education.

The joint Ministerial Taskforce has established a Co-ordinating Council on Road Safety comprising a Chairperson and representatives of the Transport Accident Commission, VicRoads, Victoria Police, Monash University Accident Research Centre, the Department of Transport and the Department of Police and Emergency Services and Department of Health.

Two sub-committees of the Road Safety Co-ordinating Council have been established; one is responsible for the co-ordinated implementation of road safety communication and promotion programs, taking into account enforcement and other related activities. The other is responsible for identifying specific road safety measures and reviewing the scientific data in relation to the potential effectiveness of road safety measures covering:

• Road user behaviour; • Road and traffic engineering; • Vehicle safety; and • Other areas of activity (e.g. land use changes).

This second, New Countermeasures and Initiatives Consultative Committee, includes the President of the Motorcycle Riders Association.

Four further sub-committees have been established under the general umbrella of the Co-ordinating Council on Road Safety. These are:

• Safer Roads; • Safer Vehicles; • Safer Road Use; and • Trauma Management.

The Motorcycle Riders Association is represented on the Safer Road Use Sub-Committee.

The Subordinate Legislation Act 1983 provides further opportunity for motorcycle riders to express their views about regulations which affect them.

The motorcycle riders have their own set of representative agencies. At the federal level, there are two representative bodies, the Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia and the Australian Motorcycle Council. In Victoria, motorcycle riders have been represented at this Inquiry by the Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia, the Australian Motorcycle Council and specialist motorcycle user groups such as AMTRA Motorcycle Trail Riders Association, Antique Motorcycle Club of Australia, Bikers Rights, BSA Motorcycle Owners Club and Harley Owners Group of Victoria.

The motorcycle industry is represented by two bodies. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries represents the six motorcycle manufacturers who import

88

motorcycles into Australia. [3] The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce represents about 5 000 retail automotive industry employers.

The Committee is of the view that any special body established to co-ordinate motorcycle safety issues should fit into the existing structures. Drivers other than motorcycle riders are responsible for about 70% of multi-vehicle collisions in which a motorcycle rider is injured. Motorcycle rider safety should not be open to isolation from funding and other support available to other road safety issues. The Road Safety Co-ordinating Council sub-committee structure provides the opportunity to integrate motorcycle safety into mainstream programs.

7.3 INADEQUACIES OF CURRENT SYSTEM At the outset of the Inquiry, the Social Development Committee heard evidence which indicated that VicRoads and other government agencies needed to improve their capacity to listen to and communicate with the broad group of people who choose to ride motorcycles.

Mr J. Nelson, a member of the Motorcycle Riders Association and a VicRoads motorcycle instructor, in a submission to the Inquiry, amplified the frustration that motorcycle riders felt with the bureaucracy, stating:

Effective consultation does not exist. Government road safety bodies like to be seen to consult, but do not listen to rider representatives. Road safety authorities have dismissed calls by rider groups for a safe road environment. They have misled Transport Ministers into believing that motorcyclists do not know what is good for them. We have been described as a 'lunatic fringe'. There must be respect for the years of experience held by our representatives. There is only contempt and disregard for the ones who see the blood spilled on the roads. The 'safetycrats' are the ones with blood on their hands. Anyone who knows when a department is wrong, is silenced by the department, for the sake of departmental policy and the career of the person responsible. [4]

Similarly, the Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce complained about very poor consultation between Government and the motorcycle industry. Its submission stated:

The general opinion of the industry is that the Government has not been interested in its viewpoint and has often introduced proposals without any thought for the ramifications of such proposals on the industry. Too often, ill informed decisions are made by governments which could have been avoided if consideration was given to the expert opinions readily available through industry bodies. Unfortunately, changes in personnel often cause a breakdown in relations and communications between various government bodies and the industry. [5]

During the course of the Inquiry there has been a genuine effort by some people representing VicRoads to meet these needs. These efforts are acknowledged but they are isolated and not enough. Senior representatives of VicRoads do not seem to understand the problems which are faced by motorcycle riders in making their voice

89

heard in the bureaucracy. In May 1991, Mr P. Lowe, then Director of Road Safety, VicRoads, responded to a question from the Social Development Committee:

DR VAUGHAN. MP: Can we get an undertaking ... that all the consultations in a national forum be set in train?

MR LOWE: I give that undertaking. I was not trying to dodge the undertaking. [6]

By March 1992, Mr Lowe had been replaced by Mr D. Anderson. Mr Anderson told the Committee:

The Working Party has not yet been established... Since I have attended the meetings (of the New Countermeasures and Initiatives Consultative Committee) that issue has not been raised; I can only say that I shall raise it and try to make progress. [7]

Given the importance of motorcycle safety in Victoria, VicRoads and other agencies still need to put a major effort into understanding the safety and other needs of motorcycle riders. The Committee believes that the current system of consultation between motorcycle riders and government is not yet able to deliver an assurance that motorcycle safety is being taken seriously and that motorcycle travel is being treated as a respectable means of travel by others involved in developing road safety policy.

The Committee suggests a three-pronged approach to extending further the consultation and advisory functions of VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission:

1. The Committee is of the view that the composition of all relevant consultative bodies in Victoria, including those which deal with road and vehicle design and traffic management, should be changed to ensure that motorcycle riders are represented and have an effective voice . This will not be easy to achieve because motorcycle riders are not usually in occupations which allow them to participate freely in government consultation mechanisms. Some consideration needs to be given to remuneration. Further, the balance may be easier to achieve by taking people who are antagonistic to motorcycles off some committees.

Representation of the motorcycle industry in the consultative process is different from that of riders because the industry has a direct, economic interest in the outcome of any policy decisions affecting motorcycle design. Therefore, industry representation is needed on committees which address vehicle design issues. This should not be at the expense of rider seats.

The Committee is also concerned about similar conflict of interest issues on other consultative road safety committees in Victoria. For example, the Monash University Accident Research Centre, which plays an important evaluative role in this state, sits on the Road Safety Coordinating Council with the organisations from whom it seeks funding in the competitive consultancy market and whose programs it seeks to evaluate.

90

2. The Committee suggests that a body of skill be developed within VicRoads with the brief to look at motorcycle safety. The work of this group would include reviewing all policy and operational decision-making as it affects motorcycling and would include such areas as road design, road furniture, traffic signals as well as public and school-based education and rider training.

To the extent that it is necessary, VicRoads should utilise experienced motorcycle riders to provide specialist advice. Their qualification is experience rather than education.

3. The Committee recommends that a new sub-committee be established under the Road Safety Co-ordinating Council to address the specific issues relating to motorcycle safety and regulation.

7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

27. The Ministers for Roads and Ports, and Police and Emergency Services ensure that motorcycle riders are represented on all relevant consultative bodies in Victoria including those which deal with road user behaviour, road and vehicle design and traffic management.

28. VicRoads develop a special unit with the brief to review the motorcycle safety implications of all policy and operational decisions which are taken within the organisation.

29. The Road Safety Co-ordinating Council establish a new sub-committee to address the specific issues relating to motorcycle safety and regulation.

Footnotes to Chapter 7

1 Federal Office of Road Safety, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, May 1991, p. 4.

2 National Road Transport Commission, Issues and Objectives Paper, January 1992.

3 These are: Yamaha Motors Australia Pty Ltd, Honda Australia Pty Ltd, Suzuki Australia Pty Ltd, Kawasaki Motors Pty Ltd, BMW Australia Ltd, and Harley Davidson International.

4 Mr J. Nelson, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, July 1991.

5 Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce, Submission to the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria, February 1991, p. 36.

6 Mr P. Lowe, Minutes of Evidence, 22 May 1991, p. 35.

91

7 Mr D. Anderson, Minutes of Evidence, 4 March 1992, p. 308.

Committee Room

11 May 1993.

92

Appendix A

APPENDIX A LIST OF SUBMISSIONS

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Australia Post - Victoria

Australian Road Research Board

City of Box Hill

City of Croydon

City of Footscray

City of Heidelberg

City of Kew

City of Oakleigh

City of Stawell

City of Sunshine

City of Whittlesea

Federal Office of Road Safety, Canberra

NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, University of Adelaide

Queensland Department of Transport, Road Safety Division

Shire of Buln Buln

Shire of Chiltern

Shire of Cranbourne

Shire of Daylesford & Glenlyon

Shire of Dunmunkle

Shire of Hastings

Shire of Healesville

93

Shire of Kilmore

Shire of Mildura

Shire of Pakenham

Shire of Rochester

Shire of South Gippsland

Shire of Swan Hill

Shire of Tallangatta

Shire of Walpeup

Shire of Wangaratta

S.A. Department of Road Transport, Office of Road Safety

Tasmania Police

Transport Accident Commission

Vic Roads

Victoria Police

Victoria State Emergency Service

NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATIONS

AMTRA Motorcycle Trail Riders Association

Antique Motorcycle Club of Australia Inc.

Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union - Victoria

Bell Electronics

Bikers' Rights

BSA Motor Cycle Owners Association

Camperdown & Districts Motorcycle Club Inc.

Community Road Safety Council, Central Victoria

Data Express Motorcycle Couriers

94

D J Graphic Productions

Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

Harley Owners Group of Victoria

Honda Australia Rider Training (HART)

Law Institute of Victoria (Road Trauma Committee)

Motorcycle Motion

Road Accident Prevention Research Unit,

Department of Medicine, University of Western Australia

Road Safety Council of the Northern Territory

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Road Trauma Committee (Victoria)

Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) Ltd

The Motorcycle Riders' Association of Australia Inc.

The Vintage Motorcycle Club of Victoria Inc.

Transport Workers Union

Victorian Association of Traffic Safety Education Teachers

Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce

INDIVIDUALS

Mr P.J. Aherne, Preston

Mr G. Allen, Ivanhoe

A. & M. Barnett and N. Allaz, Sunbury

Mr R. Blackburn, East Hawthorn

Mr P. Blackwell, Little River

Mr C. Blampied, Bulleen

Mr H Brakele, Frankston

Mr G. Brown, Croydon

95

Mr K. Bull, Bayswater

Mr D.J. Callahan, Ivanhoe

Mr A. Camilleri, Diamond Creek

Mr C. Cassells, Mitcham

Mr R. Collins, Mulgrave

Mr B. Coughlan, Morwell

Mr R. Deighton-Smith, Melbourne

Mr D. Fraser, Clifton Hill

Mr A. Fry, Mt Beauty

Mr C. Gatsios, Surrey Hills

Mr G.W. Glover, Bendigo

Mr R. Griffiths, Thornbury

Mr T.C. Groves, Tullamarine

Mr E.K. Hardie, Cheltenham

Mr L. Hatton, Bayswater

Mr M. Hedges, Maryborough

Mr G. Irvin, Swan Hill

Mr R.L. Irvine, Heidelberg

Mr G. Isaac

Mr A.A. Jerrim, Rokeby, Tasmania

Mr D. Kingsbury, Northcote

Dr W.H. Koschade, Bunyip

Mr J. Lane, Nunawading

Mr E.P. Lhuede, Mentone

Ms R. Lodge, Nunawading

96

Mr H. Long, Lilydale

Mr T.J. Ludeman, Inverloch

Mr L. May, Essendon

Mr J. McCormack, Fitzroy

Mr R.R. McGregor, Somerville

Warrant Officer T.G. McKell, Laverton

Mr C.B. Meredith, Mitcham

Mr A.R. Morrison, Morwell

Mr J. Nelson, Oakleigh

Mr D. Nicholson, Diamond Creek

Mr M.D. O'Brien, Geelong

Mr B. Osborne, Frankston

Mr J. Pater, Melton Industrial Park

Mr A. Percy, Newport

Mr I.E. Pettet, Maidstone

Mr P.J. Rollason, Burwood

Mr P.J. Shacklock, Glen Iris

Mr W.M. Smith, Bulleen

Mr G. Stenbo, Albert Park

Ms M. Stewart

Mr G.L. Wines, Warrnambool

97

Appendix B

APPENDIX B LIST OF WITNESSES

MELBOURNE 22 MAY 1991

Ms M. Watts )

Mr G. Tuttleby ) Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce

Mr D. Russell )

Mr L. Kenningham Transport Workers Union

Mr P. Lowe ) VicRoads

Mr J. Fabre )

Mr J. Sanderson )

Mr I. Greenwood ) Royal Automobile Club of Victoria Ltd

Mr G.Roff )

Mr R. Scholar )

Mr L. Urquhart ) Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

Mr N. Doyle )

Mr G. Laing )

Senior Constable A. Jerrim Tasmania Police

MELBOURNE 23 MAY 1991

Mr J. Stanway Transport Accident Commission

Mr D. Kingsbury Private Individual

Mr D. Codognotto )

Mr A. Bowden ) The Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia

Mr J. Nelson )

Mr R. Berriman ) Australian Motorcycle Trail Riders Association

98

Mr K. Freidrichson )

MELBOURNE 9 JULY 1991

Mr D. Codognotto ) The Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia

Mr J. Nelson )

Mr P.M. Makeham )

Mr E.K. Wheatley ) Federal Office of Road Safety

Ms W.D. Key )

Mr C.G. Brooks )

Mr R. Watts )

Mr C. Dixon ) Australia Post

Ms M. Canterbury )

Mr S.J. Coates Australian Postal and Telecommunications

Union

Inspector T. Peperkamp )

Sergeant S. Lomas ) Victoria Police

Senior Constable K. Ansell )

Mr G. Allen Private Individual

Mr C.B. Meredith Private Individual

Mr K. Bull ) Private Individuals

Mrs R. Bull )

MELBOURNE 24 JULY 1991

Mr C.R. Cuthill ) Honda Australia Rider Training

Mr P.A. McDonald )

Mr P.Y. Milne ) Victorian Road Trauma Committee,

Mr J.C. Lane ) Royal Australasian College of Surgeons

99

Mr D. Hill Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales

Mr W. Schuberg ) Stay Upright NSW

Mr S. Cudlin )

Mr R.J. Newland ) VicRoads

Mr R.A. Collins )

MELBOURNE 4 MARCH 1992

Mr D.T. Anderson )

Mr W.C. Bull ) VicRoads

Mr J. Fabre )

Mr R.J. Newland )

MELBOURNE 21 JULY 1992

Ms H. Praetz ) Department of School Education

Mr R. Message )

Mr J. Bromilow ) Victorian Association of Traffic Safety

Mr A. Camilleri ) Education Teachers

Mr R. Christie ) VicRoads

Ms L. Ivett )

Mr M. Scandrett-Smith Department of Road Transport,

South Australia

SHEPPARTON 23 JANUARY 1993

Mr C.E. Johnston )

Mr J.R. Bobbin ) Driver Education Centre of Australia

Mr R.G. Bushby )

TULLAMARINE 26 JANUARY 1993

Mr C. Cuthill Honda Australia Rider Training

100

Acting Inspector P. Jeffs ) Victoria Police

Sergeant P. McGuire )

KILSYTH 5 FEBRUARY 1993

Mr R.J. Newland VicRoads

MELBOURNE 17 FEBRUARY 1993

Mr N.J. Maughan, MP Former Chairman, Motorcycle Safety Inquiry

Sub-committee, Social Development Committee

Mr D. Anderson )

Mr R. Christie ) VicRoads

Mr J. Fabre )

Mr K. Blyth ) Royal Automobile Club of Victoria

Mr J. Sanderson )

Mr R. Scholar )

Mr S. Strickland )

Mr N. Doyle ) Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries

Mr G. Laing )

Mr J. Cooke )

Mr M. Preston )

Mr P. Makeham )

Mr C. Brooks ) Federal Office of Road Safety

Ms W. Key )

Mr P. Mount ) Australian Motorcycle Council

Mr A. Bowden )

Mr D. Codognotto )

Ms M. Buntine ) The Motorcycle Riders Association of Australia

101

Mr J. Nelson )

102

APPENDIX D

VICROADS GUIDELINES FOR ACCREDITATION FOR HEAVY

VEHICLES/MOTORCYCLES

Revision 0

Effective 12/3/93

VIC ROADS

ACCREDITED PROVIDERS APPLICATION CRITERIA

The criteria contained in this document must be met by all organisations seeking VIC ROADS accreditation for training and assessing competence of heavy vehicle drivers and motorcycle riders.

APPLICANTS ORGANISATION/STRUCTURE

Submissions by companies must include a photocopy of a current "Certificate of Incorporation" and/or "Registration of Business Name".

Submissions by individuals must include a photocopy of a current "Registration of Business Name"

Submissions by partnerships must include a photocopy of a current "Registration of Business Name" and a full list of partners.

All successful applicants are required to notify VIC ROADS immediately of any changes to Business Name, Directors or Partners.

BUSINESS REPUTATION

Applicants must supply the names and telephone numbers of at least five (5) independent referees who are willing to attest to the suitability of the applicant plus a comprehensive list of companies to which the applicant has provided driver training.

At least three referees will be contacted along with a random selection of applicants clients. All comments will be recorded and retained on record.

103

VEHICLES

All vehicles used on accredited courses must be maintained in a roadworthy condition, have current registration and comply with the requirements contained in the relevant VIC ROADS specifications document.

TRAINING FACILITIES (Range/Off-road area)

Accreditation will be dependent on the availability of an appropriate "off-road" training facility if required by the type of training and testing.

The facility must also provide a suitable classroom for lecture/discussion and video presentation.

ADMINISTRATION SUPPORT

Applicants must have administration support to provide immediate recording of enquiries, course results and course reports. The support staff should be trained in interpersonal skills and be experienced in dealing with private and government organisations. The ability to provide for quick and accurate briefing notes or reports to VIC ROADS or other State Government agencies within five working days is mandatory.

Quality recording methods, records maintenance, security and attention to detail is a high priority.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Applicants must furnish a Quality Manual which complies with Australian Standards for establishing quality systems. The manual must describe the organisations quality management system for assuring the quality of the product/service. It must also include security systems for controlling of security documents and preserving client/Government confidentiality.

INSTRUCTOR/TRAINER QUALIFICATIONS

Trainers nominated to be involved in the conduct of any accredited course must have completed a recent (within the past 5 years) "Train the Trainer" course recognised by the State Training Board. A re-fresher "train the trainer" course must be undertaken every five (5) years to retain accreditation. Trainers must also be current licensed Driving Instructors in their home State and must successfully complete Driving Instructor assessment every three (3) years.

A list of qualifications and experience of all training staff (identifying full or part-time) together with supporting evidence must also be provided.

VIC ROADS retains the "Right of Approval" for all trainers/instructors involved in an accredited course.

104

COURSE FREQUENCY

Accredited organisations will be required to provide at least 1000 student hours of training per year to retain accreditation.

BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY

The applicant must provide a clear statement of the company philosophy embracing sound business attitudes and practices. Integrity and professionalism is of the utmost priority in an accredited provider and the applicant must see training as a benefit rather than a burden.

OTHER AUTHORITIES APPROVAL

Copies of local or any other authorities approval regarding the adequacy of the administration and training premises with respect to fire safety, building approval, zoning law compliance, factories and shop registration (if applicable) must be provided by the applicant.

CODE OF PRACTICE

A "Code of Practice" statement must be shown to VIC ROADS which contains details on the applicant's compliance with the following points:

• Standards - how full compliance with the applicant's Quality Manual is achieved.

• Marketing - that the applicant will market courses with integrity and accuracy in an ethical and professional manner.

• Course Information - that sufficient and accurate information be provided to the students which sets out details of the total costs/fees, course objectives, assessment procedures, competency standards and the outcomes to be achieved by students.

• Student Recruitment - that recruitment of students will be conducted at all times in an ethical and responsible manner. Recruitment decisions are the responsibility of the applicant with an emphasis on the aspirations, proficiencies and qualifications of the student in line with the competency standards and course outcomes.

• Refund Policy - that the requirements listed below are followed:

a. Fees kept in a separate trust account; b. fees not to be used for any other purpose; c. fees accessed only when the service is rendered.

105

SANCTIONS

Accredited providers who do not implement and abide by a Code of Practice which reflects these guidelines will have accreditation withdrawn.

AUDIT ARRANGEMENTS

Accredited providers must enable VIC ROADS officers free and full access to conduct audits of Quality Assurance and other procedures.

106

APPENDIX E

VICROADS DRIVER TESTING/TRAINING STANDARDS

• APPROVED TRAINING AND ASSESSMENT PROVIDERS • SPECIFICATIONS FOR MOTORCYCLES

Revision 0

Effective 12/3/93

CONTENTS

PART 1: GENERAL

QUALIFICATION of APPROVED PROVIDER

APPLICATION CRITERIA

QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

AMENDMENTS

SANCTIONS

PART 2: SPECIFICATIONS/STANDARDS

TRAINING

107

• Facilities

• Skills

• Knowledge

ASSESSMENT

• Knowledge

• Skills

PART 3: DEFINITIONS

PART 1

GENERAL CONDITIONS

PURPOSE

The purpose of these specifications is to clearly establish the minimum standards and the specific requirements for Motorcycle Rider Training and Assessment accredited courses provided by Approved Providers.

SCOPE

108

These specifications will cover all motorcycle learner permit and licence levels.

PROVIDER QUALIFICATIONS

The approved provider will qualify by meeting the entry criteria as detailed in the Form "Accreditation Guidelines" following a submission that clearly states the intended course(s) to be provided.

The approved provider shall plan, develop and maintain a documented Quality System in accordance with this specification and with an Australian Standard for Quality Systems as specified below:

* AS 3901 1987 or;

* AS 3902 1987 or;

* AS 3903 1987 or;

* AS 3904.2 1992.

The Quality System shall cover all training and assessment under the Service Agreement.

QUALITY SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (Additional)

The approved provider shall comply with the specified Australian Standards for Quality Systems and in addition must include system elements covering the following:

* training/assessment course, specific quality plan (including the course curriculum) and method of assessment;

109

* course program/timetable;

* traceability of course attendance, participant identification and assessments;

* management of occupational health and safety.

AUDITS AND SURVEILLANCE

Audits and field surveillance will be arranged by the Manager Driver Testing/Training Standards.

The Approved Provider shall upon being given reasonable notice by the Manager Driver Testing/Training Standards, make or arrange to be available all facilities, documentation, records and personnel including sub-contractors that are reasonably required for the audit or surveillance to be undertaken.

AMENDMENTS

(Reserved)

SANCTIONS

The Approved Provider shall at all times be responsible for adherence to the identified standards and conditions of the service agreement and will be accountable for any wilful release or lapse of security of any VIC ROADS Knowledge Test paper or associated documents.

A breach of the service agreement conditions may result in the suspension or cancellation of service agreement. This action may be initiated by the Manager Driver Testing/Training Standards, Regional Managers or the Director Operations Metro. and Rural.

In particular, any wilful breach of VIC ROADS requirements for security of written test question papers or answer sheets will result in stringent action being taken by VIC ROADS including the possible laying of criminal charges.

110

The release of a service agreement from suspension/cancellation may only be authorised by the Regional Manager in consultation with the Manager Driver Testing/Training Standards.

The decision to suspend or cancel a service agreement will be final without further notification required by VIC ROADS. A suspension may be lifted or result in cancellation and will apply during any investigation deemed necessary.

Where suspension/cancellation is applied, course participants (clients) who are disadvantaged by this action must have all pre-paid course fees refunded within 7 days of the notification of the suspension/cancellation of the service agreement. Failure to comply with this procedure may result in legal action being pursued by VIC ROADS on behalf of the client.

PART 2

SPECIFICATIONS/STANDARDS

The following criteria details the minimum competency standards required for a "Motorcycle Learner Permit" and a "Motorcycle Operator Skill Test" (MOST) Certificate issued to a participant of an accredited training and assessment course provided by an approved provider.

These standards reflect the minimum level of competence required to be assessed and only offer assessment examples rather than precise detail or demands.

All assessments must OBJECTIVELY measure performance against pre-determined criteria.

MOTORCYCLE LEARNER PERMIT - TRAINING

OFF-ROAD RANGE

111

Due to the fact that learner permit applicants are not legally entitled to ride on public places or highways the skills training must be conducted at a safe off-road facility.

These off-road training areas must be reasonably level, be sealed with bitumen or concrete and be fenced or similarly bounded so as to prevent access by unauthorised persons or vehicles when training is in progress.

The sealed area must measure 70m x 40m minimum and have adequate safety run off for riders experiencing difficulty.

CLASSROOM FACILITY

This should be of a size to accommodate up to 12 students and must have adequate lighting, heating and ventilation.

It must have audio visual equipment (e.g. overhead projector/video player and monitor/whiteboard) and comply with fire regulations/requirements.

The classroom must also have adequate security/storage for official paperwork and written test papers.

The training facility must have toilets and a storage garage for training motorcycles and range equipment e.g. traffic cones etc.

CURRICULUM

The basic operating skills training must include:

• Identification/location of controls • Mounting dismounting techniques • Manoeuvring the motorcycle by hand • Starting/stopping engine • Friction zone - getting underway • Gear changing • Turning corners • Slow riding techniques • Riding curves • Braking - normal stop/quick stop

In addition to riding skills, "Roadcraft knowledge" sessions (video and discussions) must be included which cover the following:

• Protective clothing • Visibility/conspicuity of riders

112

• Braking and steering techniques • Traffic riding situations/strategies

- lane positioning

- communication

- speed regulation

- following distance

The training required for an acceptable understanding of safe motorcycle operation shall equate to the knowledge contained in the Victorian Rider handbook, the standard of which is measured by VIC ROADS Knowledge Test 1 (KT1)

MOTORCYCLE LEARNER PERMIT - ASSESSMENT

In order for students to be issued with a learner permit at the end of the training course each student must be individually and objectively assessed for both knowledge and riding skills.

All assessments must OBJECTIVELY measure performance against pre-determined criteria.

KNOWLEDGE ASSESSMENT

The assessment of knowledge shall be the standard required by VIC ROADS Knowledge Test (KT1).

Where the KT1 is conducted by the approved provider it shall be conducted in accordance with VIC ROADS written test procedures. Appropriate security of the test papers, correction templates and completed answer sheets is mandatory.

RIDING SKILL ASSESSMENT

The assessment of riding skill shall equate to the standard required to pass the current VIC ROADS motorcycle learner permit riding skill test.

Students must be objectively assessed in the following riding skills.

113

Location/identification of Controls

Should be able to locate and identify major and ancillary controls on command without looking when seated astride the motorcycle.

Starting, Stopping and Gear Changing

Must be able to ride forward from a standing position change up to at least 2nd gear, change down to 1st gear and stop at a pre-determined point.

Key points:

o moves off and changes gear smoothly; o operates both brakes when stopping; o stops at given point; o locates neutral when stopped.

Low Speed Operation

Must be able to maintain balance while riding slowly at a steady speed through a prescribed straight pathway of a least 18 metres.

Key points:

o takes at least 10 seconds to complete the task; o maintains balance throughout task; o maintains path throughout task; o maintains engine operation throughout task.

Turning

Must be able to undertake a set of turning manoeuvres at a low speed (15-20 km/h) while simultaneously demonstrating an ability to perform associated activities.

Turns should include 90 degree left and right and be on both gentle and sharp radii.

Associated activities are:

o signalling; o visual checks (especially shoulder checks);

- speed regulation.

Key Points:

114

o maintains balance; o maintains path; o performs associated activities accurately; o selects appropriate gear and speed.

Braking-Quick Stops

Must be able to demonstrate competency in stopping quickly from a steady speed of 20-25 km/h.

Key Points:

o maintains steady 20 - 25 km/h until signalled to stop; o uses both brakes; o maintains balance; o comes to a complete stop within 7 metres after signal,

Approved providers may choose to develop their own objective method for assessing these riding skills or adopt the current VIC ROADS learner permit Riding Skills Test. Specifications of the range layout for this test are contained in attachment A.

Riding skill test administration procedures and instructions are available on request from VIC ROADS Driver Testing/Training Standards.

Where the approved provider chooses to develop their own assessment method the assessment will be subject to VIC ROADS approval before implementation.

MOTORCYCLE LICENCE - TRAINING

OFF-ROAD RANGE

Learner riders displaying L plates are entitled to ride on the road however, the training at licence level and assessment for the Motorcycle Operators Skill Test (MOST) should be conducted on the same type of off-road facility as that specified for learner permit applicants.

The sealed area must measure 70m x 40m minimum and have adequate safety run off for riders experiencing difficulty.

CLASSROOM FACILITY

This should be of a size to accommodate up to 12 students and must have adequate lighting, heating and ventilation.

It must have audio visual equipment (e.g. overhead projector/video player and monitor/whiteboard) and comply with fire regulations/requirements.

115

The classroom must also have adequate security/storage for official paperwork and written test papers.

The training facility must have toilets and a storage garage for training motorcycles and range equipment e.g. traffic cones etc.

CURRICULUM

The riding skills in the licence level of training must include:

• Countersteering techniques

- application to U turns

- application to swerving around obstacles

• Riding curves

- progressively tightening curve

(gentle to sharp radii)

• Braking

- quick stops straight

- quick stops in a curve

In addition to the riding skills, Roadcraft sessions must be included which cover the following:

• Setting-up motorcycle controls

- to suit individual riders

• Principles of Countersteering techniques

• Principles of riding curves

- single vehicle accident statistics

• Principles of emergency braking

116

- straight

- in a curve

• Traffic riding situations/strategies

MOTORCYCLE LICENCE ASSESSMENT

In order for students to be issued with a Certificate for the Motorcycle Operator Skill Test (MOST) at the end of the training course, each student must be individually and objectively assessed.

RIDING SKILL ASSESSMENT

The assessment of riding skill shall equate to the standard required to pass the first part of the current VIC ROADS licence test - MOST.

All assessments must objectively measure performance against pre-determined criteria preferably using electronic equipment.

Students must be objectively assessed in the following riding skills.

Riding Curves

Must be able to match lean angle and speed to maintain path and smoothly negotiate a progressively changing curve (gentle to sharp) at approx 30 km/h.

Braking Suddenly - Straight

Must be able to stop the motorcycle in 5½ metres from approx 30 km/h when signalled.

Braking Suddenly - Curve

Must be able to maintain the curved path and stop the motorcycle in 5½ metres from approx 25 km/h when signalled.

Swerving Around Obstacles

117

Must be able to apply countersteering techniques to swerve around an obstacle when signalled and resume original direction from an approach speed of approx 25 km/h.

Approved providers may choose to develop their own objective method for assessing these riding skills or adopt the first part of the current VIC ROADS licence test - MOST. Specifications of the range layout for this test are contained in attachment B.

MOST test administration procedures and instructions are available on request from VIC ROADS Driver Testing/Training Standards.

Where the approved provider chooses to develop their own assessment method the assessment will be subject to VIC ROADS approval before implementation.

Attachment 'A'

118

Attachment 'B'

119

APPENDIX F

VICROADS MOTORCYCLE RIDER TRAINING PROGRAM:

SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR

INSTRUCTORS

&

INSTRUCTOR CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND

TRAINING

VIC ROADS

MOTORCYCLE RIDER TRAINING PROGRAM

SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA

FOR

INSTRUCTORS - LEVEL 1 (Basic Operating Skills)

"The success of any motorcycle rider training program depends primarily on the nature, quality and credibility of its instructors. Instructor selection and training must be given the highest priority to ensure that the training program establishes and maintains a high degree of credibility."

Jack L. Ford

Consultant - Motorcycle Safety

Report to: Motorcycle Rider

Training and Licensing Committee

March 1981

The criteria contained in this document have been designed in accordance with the above statement and will be applied in all aspects of the selection, training and qualifying process for all instructors in the VIC ROADS rider training program.

120

Components of this process are:

1. Prerequisites 2. Interview 3. Test of riding skill (MOST) 4. Instructional training

• Curriculum familiarisation

• Observation of training course

• Assistant instructor

5. Solo instructing - Supervised

Attendance at all sessions is essential.

1. PREREQUISITES

Applicants must be experienced motorcyclists and comply with the following criteria.

Must be: - a current "on road" rider

- the holder of a current licence

- on a "full" licence (not probationary)

2. INTERVIEW

On satisfying the prerequisite criteria, applicants will be scheduled for interview by a panel comprising, where possible;

• the Chief Instructor

• a Supervising Instructor

• a representative of VIC ROADS management or personnel

During interview the use of recognised interviewing skills will be employed to ascertain an initial impression of the applicants qualities and attitudes in respect of the following items:

121

- presents a socially acceptable appearance

- communicates clearly and confidently

- possesses a tolerant attitude toward other road users

- accepts and abides by road laws affecting motorcyclists

- prepared to work on weekends

- prepared to undergo 40 hour instructor training program

- reaction to conspicuity measures

- reaction to drinking and riding

Interview panel to indicate acceptability of applicant.

Successful applicants to be scheduled for test of riding skill.

3. TEST OF RIDING SKILL - Motorcycle Operator Skill Test (MOST)

This riding skill test provides an accurate and consistent measure of motorcycle riding skills. It can be uniformly administered to every applicant and uses totally objective criteria for assessment.

The criteria is comprehensively documented in the MOST Examiners Manual which is available for perusal on request.

Applicants scoring 5 or less penalty points in the riding skill test will continue with the training program. Those who score more than 5 penalty points will be eliminated.

4. INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING 1. Curriculum Familiarisation - comprises 3 x 2 hour sessions during

which the following items will be identified, emphasised or demonstrated.

o research basis of the curriculum o curriculum design and layout o suggested instructional strategies o adult learning characteristics o course and task objectives

122

o use of audio visual equipment/materials o required instructor competencies o performance techniques of manipulative skills o importance of instructor modelling

The final 2 hour session will focus on simulated instruction (role playing) with group feedback on individual performances.

4.2 Observation of Training Course - requires each trainee to observe a complete rider training course with actual 'learner' riders at a nominated training centre.

Trainees should identify and make notes of valuable instructional techniques observed during the course and discuss highlights/features with the instructor after each session.

4.3 Assistant Instructor - Each trainee will be individually assigned to a training centre to work as assistant to a selected supervising instructor.

Supervisor and trainee will work as a team in conducting the course with the trainee responsible for "teaching" specifically nominated parts of the curriculum.

The supervising instructor will observe these performances and provide verbal and written feedback at the conclusion of each course session.

At the conclusion of the course the supervising instructor will report to the Chief Instructor on the trainee's suitability to proceed to the final stage or repeat the assistant role.

Such assessment will be based on the trainee's ability to show acquisition of fundamental instructional competencies as listed in attachment A.

5. SOLO INSTRUCTING - SUPERVISED

In this segment the trainee will be scheduled as the instructor responsible for conducting the entire student training course at a nominated centre.

Ibis will be performed under the supervision of the Chief Instructor or an approved senior instructor who will provide verbal and written feedback to the trainee at the conclusion of the course.

123

The senior instructor will report to the Chief Instructor on the trainee's suitability for approval as a qualified instructor or recommending that the trainee repeat the SOLO segment.

Such assessment will be based on the trainee's demonstrated possession of instructional competencies as listed in attachment B.

any dispute or disagreement will be referred to the Chief Instructor for investigation and settlement.

Trainee is QUALIFIED as a LEVEL 1 Instructor on successful completion of this segment.

MOTORCYCLE INSTRUCTOR TRAINING

INSTRUCTOR ...................................................................

Lesson/ Task …………………………………………………………………..DATE ……………………….

COMPETENCIES AND RELATED TASKS LOW HIGH N/A

INTRO/PREPERATION 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Stated objective

Positioned students correctly

Used correct range layout

RELATIONSHIPS/COMMUNICATION

Developed comfortable relationship

Presented relaxed image

Used good eye contact

Talked too fast

Talked too slow

Talked too much

Gave positive feedback

DEMONSTRATION

124

Gave clear, precise instruction

Demo clear and correct

Emphasised important points

Familiar with content Involved all students in lesson

STUDENT PRACTICE

Positioned correctly for supervision

Gave supervision to all students

Pointed out student errors

Repeated instruction/demo as needed

Praised good performances

Maintained safe situations

TIME MANAGEMENT (kept to time)

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

*Trainee should NOT be qualified if 5 or more competencies/tasks are rated below 3.

SUPERVISOR ..................................................

MOTORCYCLE INSTRUCTOR TRAINING

REPORT

SOLO PERFORMANCE

OF

TRAINEE INSTRUCTOR

Trainee Instructor ………………………………………………..Training Centre ……………………………….

Date…………. / ……………..

Praiseworthy Performance (good things)

125

Observed Discrepancies (not so good things)

Suggested Alternatives/Improvements

Recommendation: Qualified Repeat SOLO

126

Trainee Instructor Supervising Instructor

Signature …………………………… Signature …………………………..

Date …….. /………… Date ……………/…………..

MOTORCYCLE INSTRUCTOR TRAINING

Name ……………………………………………………Session …………………………………………………

Group ……………………………………………………Date ………………………………………………..

Topic ......................................................

Compentencies

Knowledge of content 1 2 3 4 5

Clarity of instruction

Accuracy of demo

I.D. incorrect prac.

Feedback to students

Time management

Comments:

127

Concerns:

*Trainee should NOT PROCEED if any 3 competencies are rated below 3.

Supervisor ....................................................................

INSTRUCTOR CLASSIFICATION

REQUIREMENT AND TRAINING

128

INSTRUCTOR CLASSIFICATION

INSTRUCTOR CLASSES

There shall be the following classes of Instructor in the motorcycle Rider Training Program.

Class 3 Instructor

Qualified to conduct 6 hour Learner Permit Courses as paid instructor without supervision.

Class 2 Instructor

As Class 3 Instructor, and in addition qualified to conduct 9 hour Learner Permit Courses as paid instructor without supervision.

Class 1 Instructor

As Class 2 Instructor, and in addition qualified to conduct Skilled Rider Courses as paid instructor without supervision.

SENIOR INSTRUCTOR

There shall be Senior Instructors appointed by the Chief Instructor as and when required.

Senior Instructors will perform higher duties such as:

1. Course design

2. Curriculum development

3. Instructor training

4. Centre development

SUPERVISING INSTRUCTORS

Persons qualified to at least Class 2 Instructor may, on occasions, be requested to act as a supervising instructor for a course. A Supervising Instructor will have the overall responsibility for a course where a trainee instructor is operating.

129

The supervising Instructor will be required to closely monitor the trainees performance and provide feedback to the trainee instructor and the Chief/Senior Instructor.

INSTRUCTOR TRAINING

PHASES OF TRAINING

Observation Phase to attend at least one course for the purpose of observing and notetaking.

Assistant Phase to assist in at least one course, and until both trainee and supervisor are satisfied with performance.

Probation Phase to perform as the nominated instructor for an entire course while under the supervision of a Senior Instructor.

SYLLABUS OF TRAINING

INTRODUCTORY SESSION

To introduce applicants to foundation material

for rider training programs, and begin the 2

selection process.

130

TEST OF RIDING SKILL

To provide an accurate and consistent objective

measure of motorcycle riding skill.

The Motorcycle Operator Skill Test (MOST) is used

for this purpose.

Applicants successfully passing the riding skill test

will continue training, whilst those who fail will

be eliminated. 0.5

PERSONAL INTERVIEW (optional)

To be used where further information is required

from applicant. 0.5

CURRICULUM FAMILIARISATION (2 X 3 FIRS)

• background

• content

• modelling

• teaching methods

• facilities, equipment, resources 6

WRITTEN TEST ADMINISTRATION 1

131

CLASS 3 TRAINING

'LIVE' ON SITE - 6 HOUR LEARNER PERMIT COURSE

• Observation Phase 7 • Assistant Phase 7 • Probation Phase 7

On successful completion of Probation Phase to be

qualified as a Class 3 Instructor. Sub Total 21 31

RECOMMENDED CONSOLIDATION PHASE

Newly qualified Class 3 Instructors should consolidate their instruction skills by conducting one or two 6 hour Learner Permit Course at the earliest opportunity, and in any event before arriving at the Probation Phase of Class 2 Instructor training.

132

CLASS 2 TRAINING

'LIVE' ON SITE - 3 HOUR PRELIMINARY COURSE

• Observation Phase 3.5 • Assistant Phase 3.5 • Probation Phase 3.5

On successful completion of Probation Phase to be

qualified as a Class 2 Instructor. Sub Total 10.5 42

MANDATORY CONSOLIDATION PHASE

Qualified instructors must conduct at least eight Learner Permit Course (6 hr or 9 hr) and attain a Class 2 qualification before arriving at the Probation Phase of Class 1 Instructor training.

CLASS 1 TRAINING

'LIVE' ON SITE - SKILLED RIDER COURSE

• Observation Phase 7 • Assistant Phase 7 • Probation Phase 7

On successful completion of Probation Phase to be

qualified as a Class 1 Instructor Sub Total 21 63

133

Attachment 1

ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Mr John I. Richardson, MP Chairman

Mr David J. Cunningham, MP Deputy Chairman

The Hon. Ronald A. Best, MLC

The Hon. Burwyn E. Davidson, MLC

Mr. F. Peter McLellan, MP

Mr Bruce A. Mildenhall, MP

The Hon. E. Graeme Stoney, MLC

The Hon. Douglas T. Walpole, MLC

The Hon. Sue deC. Wilding, MLC

Mr G.H. Westcott, Executive Officer

Dr J. Hendtlass, Senior Research Officer (until 28 February 1993)

Mrs L.J. Grogan, Office Manager

The Committee\rquote s address is:

19th Level, Nauru House

80 Collins Street

Melbourne 3000

Telephone: (03) 655 6644

Facsimile: (03) 655 6858

134

Attachment 2 CHAIRMAN'S PREFACE

With the tabling of this Report, the Road Safety Committee completes its first Inquiry since the Committee was established in November 1992.

The Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria was commenced in 1990 by the previous Social Development Committee. In March 1992 the Social Development Committee

tabled its only report on this Inquiry which dealt with the issues of motorcycle visibility and conspicuity. The Inquiry then lapsed when the Parliament was dissolved in August 1992 prior to the State Election.

Following the Election the Road Safety Committee was established and the Committee saw as its first priority the need to complete the Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety.

The Committee is unequivocal in its belief that motorcycling is a legitimate form of transport and that it is incumbent upon Government and the community to make motorcycling as safe as possible. Costs of motorcycle accidents in human terms and in economic cost to the community are disproportionate to the number of motorcyclists on the road.

The Committee, in tabling this Report, makes a number of recommendations which it believes will assist the safety and amenity of motorcyclists in Victoria.

} Whilst not recommending that training of novice motorcyclists be made mandatory the Committee strongly endorses the concept of training and makes recommendations to assist the Government in encouraging training. The Committee also recommends that motorcycle safety campaigns should be targeted at male novice riders under 26 years of age. It is this group which has the unhappy distinction of appearing most often in road casualty statistics.

The Road Safety Committee also comments upon and makes recommendations about the inadequacies of the current VicRoads licence data base system. Because of the current system it is very difficult to examine travel exposure and risk to motorcyclists and to plan and evaluate road safety programs.

The Committee also makes recommendations regarding the riding and licensing of mopeds (light motorcycles) and the need to restrict access to certain types of motorbikes by novice riders.

Finally, the Committee believes there is a strong need for Government agencies and the motorcycling community to work together in a co-operative and dedicated manner to address the various road safety issues.

135

One of the key areas is to ensure better education of the car driving community as it is estimated that in more than 60% of motorcycle casualty accidents the fault lies with the other driver - not with the motorcycle rider.

I take this opportunity on behalf of the Road Safety Committee to congratulate the previous Social Development Committee for the numerous inquiries it conducted into road safety. In particular I would like to thank Mr Noel Maughan, MP, who chaired the Motorcycle Safety Inquiry Sub-committee of the previous Social Development Committee.

I would also like to thank all the Government and non-government agencies, motorcycle groups and individuals who happily co-operated with the Road Safety Committee in completing this Inquiry.

I also wish to thank the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, Mr David Cunningham, MP, for his support and the members of the Committee for their work and dedication in completing this Inquiry.

No Parliamentary committee would be able to complete its tasks without the assistance of a dedicated and professional staff. On behalf of the Road Safety Committee, I express thanks to the Committee's Executive Officer, Mr Geoff Westcott, Senior Research Officer, Dr Jane Hendtlass, and Office Manager, Mrs Lois Grogan.

John I. Richardson, MP

Chairman

136

Attachment 3 PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES ACT 1968

FUNCTIONS OF THE ROAD SAFETY COMMITTEE

The functions of the Road Safety Committee are to inquire into, consider and report to the Parliament on any proposal, matter or thing concerned with road trauma or safety on roads and related matters, if the Committee is required or permitted so to do by or under this Act. Parliamentary Committees Act 1968

Reference to the Parliamentary Road Safety Committee

Inquiry into Motorcycle Safety in Victoria

The Governor in Council under section 4F of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1968 refers the following matter to the Parliamentary Road Safety Committee to inquire into and make recommendations upon mot

orcycle safety having regard to social and economic issues and in particular to

1. Report on the motorcycle accident situation in Victoria;

2. Investigate measures to improve the safety of motorcycling on Victorian roads, including the role of information campaigns and public education, and having particular regard to all road users;

3. Investigate ways of reducing the cost to the community of accidents involving motorcycles;

4. Report on the status and effectiveness of motorcycle training programs and licensing practices operating in Victoria including investigating the merit of schemes to encourage participation in rider training;

5. Investigate the relationship between the accident risk and engine capacity of motorcycles for Transport Accident Charge purposes;

6. Define a light motorcycle and report on any appropriate changes to existing driver licensing and registration requirements for the safe operation of such vehicles;

7. Investigate the potential of motorcycle conspicuity measures (including

the mandatory operation of headlamps during daytime) to reduce the risk of accidents, to identify problems which might arise as a result of such measures, and in this regard to consider recent proposals to introduce an Australian Design Rule requiring day

time operation of headlamps;

137

8. Report on the efficiency and effectiveness of consultation between relevant Government road safety bodies and representative motorcycle rider and industry groups;

9. Assess the benefits from the creation of an advisory body on motorcycle safety issues and to consider the composition and constitution of such a body.

Dated 22 December 1992

Responsible Minister:

W.R. BAXTER

Minister for Roads and Ports

138

Attachment 4 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends that:

1. The motor vehicle driver licence record system be changed to enable the clear identification of motorcycle licence holders and the category of their licences to facilitate policy development particularly in the road safety area.

2. VicRoads implement a research program to determine the distance travelled by motorcycle riders and other road users with different age and licence characteristics in order to correctly identify risk factors for road safety purposes.

3. VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission develop motorcycle safety measures to primarily target male, novice riders aged under 26 years.

4. The Minister for Roads and Ports not introduce drink driving legislation which differentiates between motorcycle riders and other car drivers.

5. The Minister for Roads and Ports ensure that motorcycle rider training is given high priority in Government motorcycle safety policy.

6. VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission, in consultation with the motorcycling community and motoring organisations such as the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, develop on-going public education programs which encourage car drivers to be aware of motorcycles.

7. VicRoads install more right-turn phase traffic control measures at intersections identified as high risk for motorcycle collisions and evaluate the safety benefits of adjusting the sequence of right-turn phase traffic control measures on motorcycle safety

8. VicRoads undertake more research to identify the factors which contribute to the high risk of serious injury for riders who carry pillion passengers and are involved in crashes.

9. The Minister for Roads and Ports introduce legislation which limits learner and first year probationary licensed riders to motorcycles with engine capacities less than 260cc and power-to-weight ratios less than 150 kilowatts per tonne.

10. Victoria Police develop a highly visible enforcement program against novice riders who breach legislative controls on motorcycle use.

11. Transport Accident Commission charges for motorcycles with volumetric capacities less than 260cc and power-to-weight ratios less than 150 kilowatts per tonne registered by learner and first year probationary licensed riders be set at a rate to encourage their use relative to more powerful motorcycles.

139

12. The Transport Accident Commission impose charges for registration of motorcycles which are, on average, between 50% and 70% of those for registration of cars.

13. The Transport Accident Commission introduce charges for registration of motorcycles with engine capacities less than 260cc and power-to-weight ratios less than 150 kilowatts per tonne which are lower than registration fees for other motorcycles.

14. The Minister for Roads and Ports act to have a definition of moped incorporated in the }{\b\i\f16 Road Safety Act 1986 and other appropriate legislation and that this definition be consistent with the definition for moped used in the Australian Design Rules.

15. The Transport Accident Commission continue to charge lower fees for mopeds.

16. The Minister for Roads and Ports introduce legislation which allows holders of a current car driver's licence to ride mopeds or requires unlicensed riders to obtain a car driver's learner's permit and to exempt moped riders from the further licensing requirements for motorcycle riders.

17. The Minister for Roads and Ports introduce legislation which bans moped use on roads where bicycles are also banned.

18. VicRoads examine the amenity and safety implications of permitting mopeds to use bicycle paths and make a recommendation to the Minister for Roads and Ports for incorporation in the Government's response to the Parliament on this Report.

19. VicRoads investigate the appropriate type of helmet to be worn by moped riders and make a recommendation to the Minister for Roads and Ports for incorporation in the Government's response to the Parliament on this Report.

20. In order that traffic safety education be an on-going program beginning with the very young, VicRoads and other relevant agencies continue to emphasise traffic safety education in pre-schools and provide consultants to encourage use of the relevant materials.

21. VicRoads road safety consultants continue to be funded by the Transport Accident Commission or its successor.

22. In order for the Directorate of School Education to be able to achieve its goal of ensuring that all young people receive an education which enables them to participate fully in society, accurate statistics about the availability, uptake and effect of traffic safety education in schools be collected.

23. The Minister for Roads and Ports implement policies which ensure that motorcycle training programs are accessible to potential novice riders in Victoria. These services should be delivered by private organisations except where the cost means they are not commercially viable.

140

24. The Minister for Roads and Ports strongly encourage motorcycle rider training programs in Victoria for learner and probationary riders aged under 25 years by providing incentives and ensuring availability of courses.

25. VicRoads eliminate the learner permit for riders who undergo appropriate training and pass the full motorcycle test.

26. The Minister for Roads and Ports ensure that VicRoads' budget includes specific funding for on-going monitoring and evaluation of the motorcycle rider training programs.

27.The Ministers for Roads and Ports, and Police and Emergency Services ensure that motorcycle riders are represented on all relevant consultative bodies in Victoria including those which deal with road user behaviour, road and vehicle design and traffic management.

28. VicRoads develop a special unit with the brief to review the motorcycle safety implications of all policy and operational decisions which are taken within the organisation.

29. The Road Safety Co-ordinating Council establish a new sub-committee to address the specific issues relating to motorcycle safety and regulation.