-
Opinion | Features
Q&A with Adshel's Rob Atkinson
Online trading is the next big thing says Rob Atkinson in a piece that first appeared in Encore. Who is the most powerful person in Australian media and why?
Harold Mitchell because of his influence and the footprint he has left. He’s built a huge brand in Mitchells, offloaded it into Aegis, Aegis has obviously done extremely well to be then sold on to Dentsu. So if you think about it, he is very much a father figure of the industry.
Making it overseas
Is the best way of being successful in Australia not be here at all? In a feature that first appeared in Encore, Lee Zachariah speaks to Aussies making it big abroad.I always wanted to work in New York,” says Julian Cole. “I thought it was the number one place to work in advertising; a lot of the best campaigns were coming out of there. So I moved over and was lucky enough to have a couple of interviews in the first couple of weeks.”
Cole’s story is indicative of the somewhat contentious idea that the best way to be successful in Australia is to not be in Australia any more.
Got a book in you?
From journos to ad execs and PRs, these days everyone seems to have a book in them. But what does it take to get published and will you actually make any money? In a feature that first appeared in Encore, Brooke Hemphill finds out.Attention wannabe authors. Forget big fat advance cheques and living off royalties. The reality of having a book published today is another story altogether. There are only two reasons you should even consider sitting down at your computer to bash out a manuscript – passion or profile.
Savage counsel
In an article that first appeared in Encore, Chris Savage tackles your career and agency dilemmas in his weekly advice column.Hi Chris,
My clients seem to be demanding more and more from us. At the same time, it seems many of the younger people in our industry simply don’t have the client servicing skills my generation grew up with. How do we instill in our executives some of the good old-fashioned behaviours that would keep a client happy and loyal?
Fake it til' you make it... as an ad agency receptionist
From dressing the part to playing the gatekeeper, Leo Burnett Sydney’s Susie Henry tells us how to make it as the face of adland in a piece that first appeared in Encore.What does a receptionist in an ad agency actually do?
Well, there’s the frantic every-day, all-day stuff of deliveries, courier bookings, doing expenses for directors – always challenging – plus arranging all the travel. But one of my main jobs is counselling the account service people. I also keep up with all sports information to discuss with our sports-loving clients – because who wants to be bored while they’re waiting? And I know how they like their coffee. You need to know everyone – from accounting to HR. I’m also the go-to for all catering and sending flowers.
Whose views skew the news? Media chiefs ready to vote out Labor, while reporters lean left
Most journalists lean left-of-centre, says Folker Hanusch of the University of the Sunshine Coast, in a post first published on The Conversation.Most Australian journalists describe themselves as left-wing, yet amongst those who wield the real power in the country’s newsrooms, the Coalition holds a winning lead.
But while the media’s political leanings will no doubt be debated in the lead-up to September’s federal election, our study has also found other largely unscrutinised biases remain – particularly whose views disproportionately shape the news.
It's time for a new New Wave in the film world
Government funding bodies are lazy and decadent, says industry veteran Michael Thornhill but in a piece that first appeared in Encore, Ed Gibbs begs to differ.I vividly remember the time I first saw Animal Kingdom, David Michod’s breathtaking labour-of-love feature debut. The press screening was half empty, despite the film winning the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance just months earlier, in 2010. Yet its superb performances, stylistic flourishes and overall polish left me speechless. Could this really be a feature debut, an Australian one at that, I wondered, almost out loud? It seemed too good to be true.
Going cold turkey on an agency addiction
Life is sweet for freelance writer Max Kitchen, but in a feature that first appeared in Encore, he admits his struggle against returning to the agency fold.I’ve never taken heroin. But I suspect if I had, the temptation to try it again would not be too dissimilar to the lure of returning to agency life.
Can sport save Ten?
First there was the Grand Prix. Next came the reported $500m bid for cricket rights, then Ten secured the 2014 winter Olympics. So, can sport save the ailing network? In a feature that first appeared in Encore, Nic Christensen investigates.The television sports rights bidding process is a bit like a game of poker.
Check, fold or bet. Those were the options for the Ten Network last week when it had to finalise its bid for the cricket rights.
Andy Lark: good for the marketing of marketing
I can still remember the first story I wrote about Andy Lark, when it emerged that he was to be the new chief marketing officer of CommBank.
It was immediately clear that Australia was about to meet an interesting marketer, one who blogged and tweeted and thanks to his time at Dell in the US was digitally savvy. Even two years ago, that was a big deal. The fact that he also had a stint in public relations gave him an absolutely intriguing background before he even arrived.
Storming the media barricades - advice for young journalists
This week Mumbrella’s Nic Christensen, who began his career four years ago, gave the keynote address to would-be journalists at the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance’s Student Day. This is an edited version of his speech.Good afternoon, I can remember distinctly the last time I was in this room.
It was 2009 and I was sitting where you are. I’d come to this event, a friend and myself — from memory we sat up the back — and I can remember at the time wondering if I’d ever get a job as a journalist.
It was only four years ago and then as now getting a job was ultra competitive but I’m not sure there was quite as much media ‘doom and gloom’ as there is now…
Paywalls will help fund campaigning journalism
In this guest post, News Limited’s group editorial director Campbell Reid responds to the views of ninemsn’s Hal Crawford that the company’s push into metered paywalls is about data rather than dollars.Hal Crawford is both right and wrong in his article which argued that our digital subscription plans are all about the data.
Fake it 'til you make it... as a features editor
Cosmo’s Kate Leaver tells us how to bluff it in her job in a feature that first appeared in Encore.What do you do, as a features editor?
Really, play with words and ideas all day. At any one time, we’re working across three issues of the mag – getting one on its way to the printers, pooling all the words together for another, and planning the issue after that. It’s busy but it’s a pretty magnificent process.
Savage counsel - JFDI
Hi Chris,I run a medium-sized agency that is doing pretty well. As the leader, I am finding my workload just seems to go up and up. I am struggling to stay motivated and particularly to tackle the bigger and tougher challenges I have to face every day. How do I keep up the energy when there just seems so much to do? How do you do it?
Productive, successful executives are those able to consistently tackle difficult and big challenges. It’s a constant struggle for me so I know how you feel. How do the successful leaders do it?
Q&A with Brett Clegg
Brett Clegg, group director – business media, Fairfax Media, in a Q&A that first appeared in Encore, on the journo who refuses to work with him – his wife.Who is the most powerful person in Australian media and why?
Hard to go past Rupert Murdoch. He controls the single largest and most diverse portfolio and is intent on leveraging its scale (and, of course, influence). He’s an innovator and his will to win is obvious to all.
TAC motorbike speeding ad draws complaints from angry bikers
An ad for the Transport Accident Commission that urges motorcyclists to slow down has received a barrage of complaints to the Ad Standards Bureau from bikers who say that the ad ignores the responsibility of car drivers on our roads.
The ad, which features a biker breaking his neck, has also drawn complaints for its graphic nature.
The advertising watchdog told Mumbrella that the ad has drawn 15 complaints so far – which is on a par for similar ads with confronting safety messages, according to the ASB. A determination has yet to be made.
The ad, created by Grey Melbourne, launched at the end of April and has attracted heated debate in the comment thread on Mumbrella between motorcyclists and car drivers.
-
-
Email Newsletter
Latest Jobs- Freelance Digital AM/SAM hybrid producer | Leading Automotive | Up to $350 pd – iknowho
- Junior – Mid Digital Designer
- Account Director Corporate $90k-$110k
- Account Manager
- Front End Developer
- Digital Art Director/Designer
- Junior Traffic Manager with a hint of Production Knowledge
- Project/ Traffic Manager
- Account Manager | Print & Design | Up to $65k inc
- Search Manager Up to $85K + Super Ref 6412
-
RSS
Comments
29 May 12
12:06 pm
What is wrong with that ad?! Less violent and graphic than plenty of previous TAC ads..
29 May 12
12:17 pm
No surprises there. The ad clearly implies that the accident is all the biker’s fault. In terms of the target audience, sure job done, bikers might slow down a little. But in terms of all of the car drivers who see this ad, they are more likely to think that it is always the bikers fault after seeing the ad, and thats not a good thing. We as bikers are already discriminated enough on the roads – this sort of shock horror advertising further reinforces the notion of “bloody dangerous bikers”. If you can’t understand this, then you are almost certainly an ignorant “cage driver”.
29 May 12
1:31 pm
I ride I motorcycle & I think it is a brilliant ad & radio campaign with a clear cut through message.
The campaign is aimed at bike riders, not at car drivers. I see enough motorcycle idiots on the road, & this campaign is directly aimed at them. However we are all prone to speeding, & there has been incidents when I have been travelling along St.Kilda road in Melbourne, and have sped up to get through some lights etc. Now because of this ad I don’t.
It is normally the motorcyclists fault when an accident involves a motorcycle & it is invariably due to speeding.
29 May 12
1:38 pm
Sorry Simon are we talking about motorcycles? The things that wieve their way between cars? Constantly lane split and accelerate faster than any other vehicle?
Or are you talking about something else?
You’re argument is a fallacy. Obviously the ad is telling motorcyclists to take greater care, the same things are said to women about avoiding dangerous situations with men. It in no way says its womens fault if they’re assaulted.
29 May 12
1:43 pm
@Simon.
I agree that this ad implies the biker is at fault, but on my drive to work and home every day, I see a big number of bikers weaving in and out of traffic, driving way too fast and generally causing no end of problems by keeping everyone else on edge because we have no idea what they are going to do next. Granted, the same can be applied to the big number of car drivers, who cause no end problems also! You get d1ckheads in every walk of life and they can drive both cars AND bikes.
My point is that we ALL need to respect each other on the road and stick to the road rules as best as we can. I broke 1 rule this morning coming to work, but had to because of a bus driver who had parked himself across 3 lanes of traffic without proper thought. I had to make a call on what I had to to, and I made sure that it was 99.9% safe if I did so, but there are so many drivers of both bikes and cars who are completely oblivious to how their actions affect everyone else.
We ALL need to take responsibility, get over our gripes about who is better (car or bike) and all start looking after each other on the road.
29 May 12
2:04 pm
In an accident between a motorbike and a car, it’s not who’s right that matters, it’s who’s left. I ride a bike and the only close calls I’ve had are either with another bike or at least half my fault – by that I mean all the usual stuff like speeding, lane swapping, driving on footpaths, driving the wrong way up a one way street, doing wheelies, jumping gutters, eating on the fly, using google maps on my phone…
29 May 12
2:13 pm
Ad was filmed in Fenton st Huntingdale which is clearly a 50km/h suburban st, not 60 as quoted incorrectly by the officer in the commercial. Small facts simply not right.
29 May 12
2:52 pm
Hmm so they have recieved at least 15 complaints. I sent mine in on the first day the ad was shown; now 4 weeks later it is still being played.
What I would like to know is if they make a call that it should not be shown because it breaches the standards what action can be taken?
29 May 12
2:52 pm
car driver pulled out from a STOP sign. Bike’s speed was 8km over the limit.
Sure going slower would have saved the day, but how slow do we have to go?
29 May 12
3:13 pm
There seems to be some feeling that motorcycles weaving in and out of traffic is dangerous. As a very experienced riders I would like to say that this is a fallacy. Bikes can weave in and out of traffic because they have excellent all round vision, no blind spots and they are much more able to predict driver behaviour than other road users. What looks dangerous to a non rider does not feel dangerous to a rider. I have ridden my motorcycle in the manner described frequently and to date have not experienced one near miss. I repeat – I have not experienced one near miss.
What I have experienced over the 40 years that I have been riding is discriminatory attitudes from those who do not ride a motorcycle, from the totally un-qualified masses who have simply no idea what they are talking about.
If you are not a motorcycle rider – you do not know and are not qualified to make a statement. You may think you know – but YOU do NOT.
This ad have caused friction and continues the belief that riders are always at fault. Just look what you non-riders have said – its there in your own words – you have all said – its the riders who are doing the wrong thing, its the riders who cause the accidents, its the riders speeding….
BLAME – its all about blame and negativity. This ad is an insult to riders. I ride a lot and this ad just makes my life on the roads more dangerous. Why? Because you non-riders now believe the propaganda that you don’t need to look for me, that you can tail gate me, that you can change lanes without looking for me, that if you fail to see me (because I am small etc) and fail to give way to me that you will not be blamed and will get off scot free.
Seriously, this TAC ad has missed it mark. Why is it so bad? Its so bad because it could have been made so much better. TAC failed to connect with Rider Experts, it failed the test in so many areas that it is now a joke with a majority of riders. Had they approached their task in a different manner we would not be here arguing with each other today.
Every rider I speak to hates the TAC ad and most have missed the message it is sending as a result.
29 May 12
4:03 pm
@JohnK
Your complete disregard for everyone else on the road is the reason why most people hate the bikers that weave in and out. In over 40 years if you haven’t experienced an accident then you’re very lucky, NOT because you are such a super awesome biker.
Your attitude is an embarrassment to the rest of the honest bikers.
29 May 12
4:36 pm
I ride a motorbike… and from NSW… when i saw this I was horrified that the car driver gets no blame… Imagine if it was one of those cyclists being knocked down! you would hear the end of the lycra bleating.
Bikes go between traffic, because they can. Research in Europe shows motorbikes (and lycra bikes) “filtering”, improves traffic.
“Lane splitting” on the other hand is dangerous.
Filtering = moving betweens stopped traffic
lane Splitting = moving between moving cars.
If you ride a bike, you are a better car driver. (if you haven’t ridden a motorbike in traffic, you can not dissagree)
If you ride a lycra bike… well.. be safe and ride on the footpath with the other kids.
29 May 12
4:58 pm
@ John K
You openly say you break the law.
Then you say you’re justified to do it because you have superior skill
and knowledge compared to the masses.
The fact that you think the rules don’t apply to you, is why people discriminate against you.
You’re living in a delusion.
29 May 12
5:18 pm
The point of the ad is to highlight the effect speed has to the outcome when a (common) situation outside the motorcyclist’s control happens….. Perhaps the motorcyclists complaining shouldn’t be on the road if their vision is so narrow to not see this.
29 May 12
6:02 pm
You are absolutely right John. Speed is the issue.
Look, why don’t we just bite the bullet and get a man with a flag and a whistle walking in front of cars as they travel along. Accidents will be a thing of the past. Never mind that cars and bikes now have ABS, traction control, AWD… it’s all useless if we keep crashing into each other.
I’m being stupid and extreme you say? But the motorcycle in the video was doing 8kmh over the limit, yes, if he’d been doing 60 his survival would’ve been ensured. But if he’d been doing 120, he would’ve passed the intersection before the car had even got there. Or if he’d spent an extra half a second kissing his wife goodbye when he left home, and done the speed limit, he probably still would have been hit by the car that ran the stop sign.
These “if only” arguments are nonsense!
29 May 12
6:25 pm
Is this argument serious? The ad is created to change people’s behaviour on Victorian roads (over 300 deaths in Victoria alone last year). I recall recent TAC advertisements that take an alternative tact & inform car drivers to be more aware of motorcycles. All these ads are developed to make the roads a safer place and SAVE LIFES. End of story. What could possibly be more important then that? Are some motorcyclists so precious that they’re more worried about how they might be portrayed to others, then the issue of road safety?
If so, I find that simultaneously amazing and pathetic.
29 May 12
6:43 pm
@AJ – Wrong, I am not breaking the law. Its got nothing to do with superior skill. Its completely legitimate to change lanes in the manner that I do – that you would term as dangerous. I do obey the rules. But, from a car drivers view that may not appear to be the case.
If you don’t ride a bike – then as I have said already – you are not qualified to comment. In my experience car drivers all seem to have the same crazy view about motorcycle riders, and you have just re-enforced that truth.
Face the facts – the TAC failed the test with riders. Have a look at this survey conducted with riders to determine the effectiveness of the TAC ad http://twowheelthrive.blogspot.....-part.html
Speed is important to my riding. Why? Because without speed my bike would simply fall over. Speed is what keeps my upright. Don’t understand what I’m saying? Don’t talk to riders using the word “speed”. If you want them to ride safely, there are many other easy to achieve that goal.
The problem with all the non-rider experts is that they can’t see any other way than the stupid way the TAC has chosen to approach the problem. If you want motorcycle riders to listen to you and do what you want them to do, then you need to lead them by making yourself relatable and talking in their language. AJ, you and your ilk are not talking our language and that is why TAC got it wrong….. I’m sorry if that upsets you and your non motorcycle rider peers…..
29 May 12
7:50 pm
Coming from the UK and having ridden there for anumber of years; where filtering is legal and cars make room for you to get throughits always amusing to see non riders jumping up and down waving the dangerous flag here in Australia.
For riders its a much safer option and for cars it decreases congestion.
granted theres numpties in cars and on bikes.
29 May 12
8:27 pm
This advertisement is supposed to talk to motorcyclists, not car drivers. It’s supposed to say to motorcyclists “hey this could happen to you, slow down”. It shows a completely plausible situation, where a car turns out of a street in the path of a rider, and that rider does exactly what every car driver would expect. He stomps on the brake pedal and tries to stop. Wait! What? As a motorcyclist who has undertaken more than the minimum training required to obtain a licence, I see that advertisement and say “yes, change just one little thing… but it’s not the speed. If that rider had braked correctly, using the front brake rather than merely stoming on the rear brake pedal, he would have easily stopped in time to avoid a collision.”. This advertisement does not speak to motorcyclists, because it is obvious to motorcyclists that this was not created by motorcyclists or aimed at motorcyclists. Its reinforces in the mind of car drivers who know no better, that motorcyclist who speed deserve to die when cars get in their way. It’s a huge TAC FAIL. It will not save any lives. Their money would be much better spent actually training any motorcyclist who watches that advertisement and does not see the terrible job the rider did of trying to stop.
29 May 12
8:52 pm
@Rich You are not quite on the right track. Its not motorcycle riders being precious, its the way that TAC went about presenting their ad to riders. They simply did it the wrong way. They didn’t engage riders properly from the very start of the process. They excluded a group of Rider Experts, and designed something they thought would be relatable to riders.
The fact is that it is relatable – but Only to non motorcycle riders. Get it? You like it, we riders don’t relate to it. Why? Because it doesn’t match our real life experience.
This month Australian Motorcycle News magazine, did a re-enactment of the ad. And, guess what? They discovered exactly where and why the TAC cocked it up. How about that??????? Get a copy and read their article for yourself, and then come back and talk to me here.
The only thing pathetic here is the initial approach taken by TAC. By excluding the right expert riders from the very start, they headed in the wrong direction, one that resulted in their losing all credibility with the motorcycle community. : (
Its not the message – its the way they went about engaging the rider community that was their reason for failure. If they had engaged us properly from the start, then we would be cheering for them – but we are not…. : (
Way back in 2002, TAC took a different approach, using Grey and a group of expert riders from the very start. I was one of those riders. What resulted was the “Put yourself in their shoes” campaign. It was designed by riders, and hit all targets – both drivers and riders. It was so good that they used it again this year. How about that ? : )
But in 2002, TAC had a different person managing the process – one that recognised the right way to go about it. It looked like TAC were going to make some great leaps after that, but they didn’t. Why? I put it down to the fact that the person who led that campaign was not allowed to move to the next stage – by the very person who now heads up the current ads being made by TAC. The person in 2002, left TAC in disgust because I know they felt hamstrung by some forces inside TAC….
There needs to be a change in leadership at TAC. Or they need to hand the task over to some other organisation. Why? Because I simply don’t believe they are qualified to do the job properly, nor do they have anyone properly qualified in the area of motorcycle safety….. You need people with the right qualifications to design the ad – I would start with riders who understand the mechanisms involved, because the person who is currently in charge certainly does not. Hopefully, my remarks are being read by someone who can make that change happen…….
29 May 12
10:06 pm
Interesting that none of these armchair eggsperts who are so quick to criticise motorcyclists comment on one of the most dangerous issues, at least equivalent to being over .05, namely drivers answering their phones while driving, or texting, or numerous other distractions. How convenient to mention those ‘speeding weaving bikers’ if it takes attention away from some of the most apalling drivers I have seen ANYWHERE in the world. What is needed is courtesy and respect, from ALL road users. Come with me on the back of my bike for ONE day, before you sit in smug judgement of the issues we face as riders every single day, and then you will understand WHY we want to be ahead of traffic in Melbourne. Like John, I have been riding for nearly 40 years since one very minor accident (not my fault) I have learnt to watch out for the unexpected everywhere. I wrote to the TAC suggesting that advanced rider training would have helped so much for the rider in the ad, who did EVERYTHING wrong. Their response was that there are NO indications that advanced rider training helps save lives! THIS is the sort of ignorant nonsense that as a biker and a taxpayer I fiercely resent. That is why bikers are apalled by this ad. It is an abject failure of the TAC, through a lack of courtesy and respect. (They did NOT consult with the Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Group by the way, as they falsely claim)
29 May 12
10:17 pm
@TonyM Rightly or wrongly, there’s a perception amongst motorcycle riders that the TAC campaigns have contributed to the angst from the general populace that is and has been directed at motorcyclists. I absolutely 100% agree with you that we all need to be looking out for each other on the road. 100%. To reach that goal though, I believe that a common understanding has to be achieved.
Why do motorcyclists behave like they do? Are there any benefits to either themselves or other motorists from their actions? Why might filtering to the front of a queue be good for their safety? Are there peripheral benefits for traffic flow or congestion? Why might it be a good idea for a motorcyclist to maintain a gap between themselves and other traffic? Is speeding a little occasionally to create that gap really that evil? What can a motorcyclist do to improve their visibility? Is weaving a little in a lane an acceptable way to ensure you’re seen? In order to create an ad for motorcyclists, you really need to understand motorcyclists. If you’re publishing that ad on a medium that targets a wider audience than just motorcyclists, you ought to be sure you’re not going to be sending any unwanted messages.
The thing that I find most offensive about the current campaign is the fact that the TAC have gone out of their way to cite (unspecified) case law that says that “you cannot be expected to give way to something that you cannot see” (see the spokes.com.au website for more info). I find that incredibly dangerous and offensive, and find that it speaks to the tacit message that the ad has been designed to deliver.
29 May 12
11:30 pm
The message in the advert applies solely to the contrived scenario. The same collision would occur with presumably the same outcome if the rider approached at 60kmh but the car leaves 0.54seconds later. So half a second’shesitation, dithering or blindness by the car driver and there’s still a dead rider. So hows the slow down message helped with rider safety? If its not a generally applicable message then is it a worthwhile one? No.
Most riders agree, it’s the wrong message. TAC’s paradigm is about speed, so they wouldnt know a good motorcycle safety message if they fell over one. In their contrived scenario, more speed could have helped. Braking skills could have helped. Better roadcraft could have helped. Getting drivers to be more aware of bikes could have helped. Plenty of other messages here.
Riders that take away a “you can be dead and right” type message are applying their own understanding on the ad, not taking the ad’s message away from it. So the ad is a failure.
Similarly riders taking away a slow down message, are buying into a moralistic legal argument that doesnt satisfy rider safety in all circumstances. If they take that message from the ad and apply it to traffic, then they are missing the fact that riders who ride at the speed of the traffic are not actually managing their survival space. They are leaving it to drivers to manage and look how good drivers are… Evidence:- see the ad. The ad therefore is a failure.
Car drivers who ride a bike with car driver centric thinking are not riders, they are a car driver on a bike. BIG difference. They look at the ad through car driver eyes and see a rider that got his just deserts. That’s appalling. It vilifies riders. The ad is a failure
The ad is a failure.
30 May 12
12:10 am
I have been riding all my adult life, both here and overseas. In my opinion, there is only one thing that saves my life and that is me. Having said that, in my experience I find that the issue of SMIDSY’s in Australia is the worst in the world. Car drivers do not see a Motorcyclist, because they aren’t interested in them and they pose no threat. It has nothing to with our “visibility”, because they do not see us with their “minds eye”, ie: they may see us, but it doesn’t register. For the TAC to give car drivers an excuse to do it is unforgivable and will result in deaths. This amounts to legalised manslaughter. That is the reason we are so offended by the suggestion that not seeing a motorcyclist is alright! It is not and to legitimise is is a breach in their duty of care to all motorcyclists.
When taken to the logical conclusion, the absurdity becomes patently clear. If we are hard to see because we are so small, then smaller targets are even more acceptible. Where do I start, pushbikes, pedestrians, and hitting a child is clearly completely forgivable, because they are so tiny and therefore invisible.
SMIDSY’s are unacceptable and need to be dealt with for what they are, an admission of incompetence. They need to charged as “drive dangerous” charges. No more excuses!
30 May 12
9:19 am
@ John K
I accept your points on the effectiveness of the ads. I agree they should look at the language they use and they should have included bike experts. Drivers are just as culpable as motorcyclists. So yes why not talk to them and warn them?
As to your approach to riding, well I can only comment on the law in NSW – and Lane filtering is not generally allowed. I stand by my comments on your riding approach being dangerous, foolish and pretty much illegal.
This is an email I received from the RTA (when I emailed them about bicycle riding) and their comments on motorcycles:
‘Lane Filtering’ is where a vehicle passes a stationary vehicle or queue of vehicles. This is not specifically allowed under the road rules and is usually deemed illegal by the Police when performed by a motor bike. However bicycles are allowed to overtake to the left of another vehicle which is usually stationary under rule 141.
‘Lane-sharing’ is where vehicles share the same lane. Rule 151 prohibits a rider of a motor bike or a bicycle from riding alongside more than 1 other rider unless the rider is overtaking the other riders. This applies to marked lanes or unmarked roads.
30 May 12
10:58 am
Riding in this morning, I was reflecting on the TAC ad and it’s clear they have such a narrow focus that makes it so clear they do not ride no do they consult with those who do.
My ride to work (sans lane splitting) requires a multitude of skills, vision forethought and yes- a little luck.
My speed (whether legal or nowt) is such a small component that it’s not worth focusing on.
In this ad what I say cost the rider his life (if this actually happened) is not the 68 km/h (what if it were a 70 zone?) but a number of other factors:
- Did not position himself closer to the centre line to maximise the vision for the cars coming out of the side street)
- Inadequate emergency response- rear brake knock up? As a racer I know said “we don’t use them, why do you?”
- Bike Choice. If this rider had less developed skills, then a Yamaha R1 was and is an appalling choice. A bike with dual linked brakes and or ABS is a much better choice.
These are things that will keep you alive, not knocking off 8km/h.
30 May 12
11:36 am
@AJ You just have no idea do you? Was I referring to either of the examples you cited? No I was not.
You and your ilk do not understand what it is like to ride a motorcycle. You do not understand what it is like to be a motorcycle rider, one who has to suffer the prejudice which is so often inflicted on us by those who do not ride.
Why is Lane Filtering legal in the UK, and California and other places? In fact in the UK they actively encourage it. Why is that so? Read this article and then come back and talk to me http://www.telegraph.co.uk/mot.....ryone.html
Understand what you are talking about before you make judgement. Clearly, you think you know – but you do not. Speak to me when you have had the experience and can prove to me that you are qualified. I am both – and I understand that they have got it right in the UK and in other jurisdictions where that which you claim is so dangerous is legalised. I just hope that Australia catches up soon.
30 May 12
11:40 am
We have to remember the simple truth in the advertisement.
It is aimed at Bikers. There are multiples of advertisements targeted ad car drivers. Drugs, Hooning, Speeding, Fatigue…
The reason for this advertisement is to simply remind the BIKERS out there that they too are responsible for their actions.
Take any TAC advertisement, that has a person driving a car and put it into context – they are simply implyign BE RESPONSIBLE. This advertisement is not telling car drivers that ‘all motorbike riders are idiots’ (Do all the Car advertisments state that all driver are idiots?) but they must be mindful of themselves on the road because they are more vulnerable.
30 May 12
12:24 pm
@Laura If only it was that simple. What looks to you as a pretty straight forward argument actually isn’t being received by riders that way. The ad is actually so bad, and so flawed that it has now become the butt of many rider’s jokes. The message is being ignored, and questioned by riders. Why? Because it is not 100% correct. Because it is full of inaccuracy that riders can readily identify. That so many – like you, can not see that is a worry.
The bottom line is – the ad could have been done better. It could have been done properly – using the right expertise. Its not the message – see past that and listen to what we are complaining about – its the way it was produced and the people who produced it that is the problem, and which is the basis for our complaint… : (
I have no argument with any of the safety messages you have cited. I just want to see it presented to riders in a credible manner, one which will work effectively and not result in any un-intended consequences such as telling car drivers that they don’t need to look for riders or that its always the riders fault…. Its time to end the blame game and its time to end Scare Campaign ads.
30 May 12
12:42 pm
@JohnK
Your attitude really stinks here John, using lines like “you and your ilk” really isn’t getting you anywhere, and “one who has to suffer the prejudice…” oh the horror!! We ALL suffer prejudice every day in some form, so please….get over it.
The simple message is WE ALL need to look after each other on the road. But having an attitude of “them” and “us” is never going to help.
30 May 12
1:44 pm
@TonyM Sorry if you don’t like my attitude. Bur, my attitude is shared by many other riders. It is an “us vs them” type of world that we feel we are in. You and your ilk appear to be members of that fraternity… : ( If you don’t like the us vs them world, then how about you do something to get that situation changed? Because from where I sit, as a motorcycle rider, the prejudice is loud and deafening. You aren’t experiencing it because maybe you aren’t a motorcycle rider like me. Could that be the problem here?
30 May 12
2:37 pm
If you cannot confidently share the road with motorcycles (and become “on edge” when a bike lane filters, as one commenter mentioned), you have absolutely no business driving a car & should hand in your license immediately.
I’m a car driver, the ad is woeful. In my experience bike riders are better skilled, safer, more vigilant and generally have better roadcraft than your average car driver by a factor of about 100. They’re also generally operating better performing, better maintained vehicles than most, which all contributes further towards safety.
The TAC ad is completely misguided & complaints are justified IMO.
They would be far better placed to reduce the excessive emphasis on speed & speed alone, and ramp up the focus on roadcraft, driver awareness, vehicle maintenance, and so on.
30 May 12
3:11 pm
@JohnK
there you go again – me and my ilk??? Are you serious with this delusional attitude?
I have not mentioned in any comment that car drivers are better than bikers or that bikers are the main issue on our roads – what I have said constantly throughout all my posts is that WE ALL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK AFTER EACH OTHER. Car drivers make just as many mistakes as bikers – we are all human after all. But having an attitude is not doing you any favours – you sound like the kid who was picked last for the team and ended up taking your ball home. May I suggest a cup of tea and a sit down to calm your angst before you ride home tonight?
You mentioned: “If you don’t like the us vs them world, then how about you do something to get that situation changed?” – Well I am trying to do something about it by sharing my view that we all need to work together to make the roads a safer place and even agreeing with you that the ad may be misleading. So this part of your argument is flawed.
You also mentioned: “You aren’t experiencing it because maybe you aren’t a motorcycle rider like me.” I actually am & used to be so that throws your argument in the bin. I used to ride motorbikes back in the day (granted not for about 8 years now), but I now ride a bicycle in the attempt to keep myself fit, so I fully understand what is necessary to ride a bike & how bad car drivers can be. That also gives me an understanding of how careful I have to be on the road when bikers are around, and again before you jump to conclusions that I’m calling bikers dangerous, I am careful because I know how bad the car drivers can be and I want to personally do my best to ensure we can all use the roads safely.
I’m not going to waste any more time on your comments as it is clear you have your blinkers on and a chip on both shoulders which would require scaffolding and a crane to remove. Thanks for the debate, and safe trip home today
)
30 May 12
4:02 pm
@TonyM Thank you for taking the time to waste more time on this delicate subject.
So? You say, “I used to ride motorbikes back in the day (granted not for about 8 years now), but I now ride a bicycle in the attempt to keep myself fit, so I fully understand what is necessary to ride a bike & how bad car drivers can be.”
That’s nice to hear. But, you are not motorcycle rider today. By the tone of your remarks you clearly may have ridden a bike, but not long enough to qualify……
Again, I ask that you go back to the point I have been trying to make about people who don’t ride making the decisions as regards communicating with motorcycle riders. You appear offended by the description I give them. I frequently talk to people who know nothing about motorcycles – they think they know – but they don’t. Just as I’m sure you speak to many people about bicycle riders – who think they know – but they don’t.
If I and many other riders, who have the knowledge and qualifications, were allowed to contribute to the ads being produced by TAC, then I would be a very happy rider. There are quite a few of us who want to be involved, but for one reason or another are locked out of the process. Its not about money – its about being able to contribute to making a difference that will make both motorcycle riders and the roads they ride on safer. Reducing the toll is what is most important. My complaint is about the people heading up the process…. and thanks for the debate
30 May 12
7:13 pm
@John K I’m a rider too, and I think you’re losing sight of the fact that these people _are_ pretty much _on_ _our_ _side_. TonyM has already acknowledged that we all ought to be courteous and respectful of each other on the road. That sounds like a good starting point for a rational conversation.
I agree that there’s room to expand on some of his comments, but.. telling someone that “they’ll never understand” isn’t a good way to start engaging them. You should be aiming to explain things in a way that others can understand and relate to, and if you can’t do that, then maybe you should just remove yourself from the keyboard for a while and think about what you’re trying to communicate. Telling someone that “they’ll never understand” simply creates an us/them divide where none exists (or ought to). You’re making things worse for yourself by adopting a negative attitude towards others here, and then questioning their intelligence, experience or motives without really knowing about any of those. Sorry. I had to get that out of the way.
Now, a message to all the non riders out there:
Riders, generally speaking, are pretty reasonable people. We’re just feeling a tad unloved at the moment, and are probably a little sensitive because of that. We tend to think that we behave rationally, and that if only the non riders could see the world through our eyes, then you might understand us and our behaviour a little better. Understanding leads to acceptance, and acceptance leads to respect. And ultimately, a little bit of respect is all that we would like to see from the likes of the TAC and other motorists.
I think some of John’s message has been lost in translation (and the red haze), but his core messages to me are “what appears to be ‘dangerous’ may have a mundane and perfectly safe and rational explanation”, “the ad appears to be a continuation of an anti-motorcycling theme from the TAC”, “The ad wrongly excused the party guilty causing the accident”, and “The ad could have been re-written with the help of riders to better engage the riding community”.
The slow-down to avoid being hurt message is sound, but there are less offensive examples that could have, and should have, been used.
31 May 12
7:17 am
Fascinating that some argue that the take home message is that we need to share the road and be courteous. Can those folks point out where that is the key message in the advert???
The police officer in the advert has recently called for 80kmh maximum speed limit. The anti speed paradigm clouds all judgement. 80kmh is still a killing speed. Where is the call for better road users?
Let’s make all road users better and safer and get along… Now that would be a safety message – not one delivered by this advert mind.
And just one more time, if the rider approached at 60kmh as requested and the car left half a second later, the outcome would still be the same. The key message of the ad has failed. The ad is a failure.
31 May 12
10:20 am
LOL – I said I would leave this discussion yesterday but…
@A.Rider – thank you for being rationale and understanding my comments without the red mist descending like JohnK – let’s hope he got home yesterday without incident! Happy to expand on my comments if you have any specific questions, as long as it is discussed in the correct manner
@Rob – I would have assumed that the clear and obvious message, using common sense and decency as human beings is that we should all look after each other on the roads, regardless of whether it is directly or indirectly applied in the ad?!?!?! Do you not think the same way when you get on your bike / in your car every time you go out?? In an earlier post I think I even agreed that the messaging in the ad may be suggesting something that is incorrect or misleading, so I get everyone’s gripes here. But as I mentioned, regardless of who is to blame in the fictional ad – we all need to work together to support each other on the road, then hopefully in an ideal world, we wouldn’t need any of these ads!! It will never happen I know, but as A.Rider mentioned – it’s a start, and if it saves even one life then it has been worth it.
31 May 12
11:29 am
@TonyM I think you paint a far too utopian picture of what goes on out there.
The use of phones in cars, for instance, is at epidemic levels.
Is someone texting or talking on their phone looking after other road users?
Don’t think so.
31 May 12
12:17 pm
It is usually the motorcyclists fault driving dangerously in the first place. Speed limits are speed limits and line splitting IS illegal. If everyone drives safely, you wouldn’t have any issues and our rego will go down since TAC payouts would be rare. I have a lot of mates who ride bikes, and out of 5, only one is not a walking mechano set. One also lost his leg. Drive safely please please.
31 May 12
12:41 pm
Right my very last comment!
@Pet – texting and talking on the phone is not safe I agree with you. I don’t think I’ve ever said in any comment that it is safe?? And the last thing I heard on the news was that it is still illegal to do this, so the onus is on the police to take it more seriously and fine people who do it, because I see people every day doing it!
31 May 12
4:26 pm
It’s simply not true that invariably it’s the rider’s fault. That is utter bollocks. Even at VicPol’s most biased accident reporting, MC crashes above the speed limit is in the vast minority. In VicPol’s most prejudicial assessment, speed is a factor in about 30% of crashes… In other words, the speed of the bike rather than speeding.
The ad’s message was for riders to slow down. It was not about cooperation. Despite what I think about cooperation, I’m judging the ad. Anyone applying their broader understanding on the ad is confirming the failure of the ad to deliver it’s key message.
13 Jun 12
8:17 pm
I E-Mailed these TAC clowns. The response they sent back, among other anti biker crap, said that if the driver at the stop sign fails to stop because he can’t see(othercars in the way) then there is legal argument that all blame moves to the bike rider.
Tipical anti biker TAC Crap