This is part of the BMFs reply to the latest round of government bollocks about the rise in motorcycle accidents in the London area, I've seen the Ads and they are quite misleading.

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE BRITISH MOTORCYCLISTS FEDERATION

23 January 2003

CONGESTION CHARGING - THE BIKING SCARE FACTOR

The British Motorcyclists Federation, Britain's biggest biker group, has accused Mayor Ken Livingston's safety pundits of a scare campaign in the face of the increased use of congestion-charge beating motorcycles and scooters.

The 140,000 strong BMF, Britain's most influential rider group, are concerned that the shock tactics applied to a current cinema advertising campaign funded by Transport for London (TfL) are designed more to deter people from taking up PTWs (powered two wheelers) than it is to reduce accidents.

The advertising campaign, costing a reputed #1.2 million, uses live actors within the audience to dramatise the report of a crash involving a motorcycle and then shows a short film of a car/motorcycle collision. It does nothing positive to educate drivers or riders say the BMF, it simply records the incident and dramatises it.

The BMF are also critical of the casualty figures used to justify the cinema campaign.  Figures quoting a 111% increase in PTW deaths since 1995 (25 to 52) are totally misleading say the BMF as they completely ignore the fact
that usage has increased massively over that same period. Registration figures for London show that moped registrations alone increasing by over one thousand percent (1007%) from a1995 level of 668 to a level of 7,397 in 2000.

The BMF see this blatant manipulation of figures designed to scare off potential new riders.  Such a massive increase in usage has to be taken into account when quoting casualty figures. Not to do so is a gross misrepresentation of the facts say the BMF.

The BMF have been encouraged by what was seen as an enlightened view by TfL of the contribution PTWs can make in reducing congestion, (with the wider use of bus lanes by PTWs being a case in point), but now suspect exemptions
were agreed more for practical administrative reasons than anything else.

'We are deeply concerned that personalities within TfL's road safety division are using the introduction of congestion charging to pursue an anti motorcycling agenda" said the BMF's Assistant Government Relations Executive, Richard Olliffe.  

"The cinema campaign purports to be aimed at reducing junction crashes yet seems to be saying that it is up to motorcyclists and scooter riders to avoid such crashes.  By TfL's own admission, in the majority of junction crashes, the motorcyclist or scooter rider is the innocent victim of
incompetent car driving therefore the campaign should be aimed at the motorist, not the motorcyclist" he said.

Summing up, Richard said: "The BMF believes that road safety practitioners should deliver road safety regimes that protect vulnerable road user groups like motorcyclists and scooters riders. This campaign begs the question; is the TfL road safety division capable of delivering safer roads for London's
growing number of motorcycle and scooter users?  If this exercise is anything to go by, I don't think so!"

 :angry:  :angry:  :angry:

In a similar vein, Dorset County council's newsletter has a piece about "safety cameras" with a questionnaire about attitudes to the cameras that also invites 'other comments'.

The article begins with a statement on the lines of "excess speed is a factor in one third of serious road accidents"

My 'other comment' is to ask - What are they doing about the other two-thirds, ie the majority, where speed is NOT a factor?

And I guess I should also ask what the other factors in the one third are, and what they are doing about them?

Looking at it like that it makes speed seem a very small factor doesn't it?

I haven't seen the ads but they sound a bit weird. Live actors in the audience, what next. Although if Sandra Bullock wants to sit beside me and take a bite of my hotdog, she's more than welcome.  :O

Its strange targeting the bikers as being responsible for avoiding accidents at junctions. There was talk of making cyclists exempt from fault at traffic accidents a while ago, if I remember correctly.  So why should bikes be a different case. I didn't agree with the cyclist stuff, I'm just using it as an example.

It seems that we always talk about defensive riding, whenever advanced motorcycling is mentioned. I suppose for new riders, its worth emphasizing that they should be careful but doing it at the cinema is not the best venue. With so many cage drivers paying attention to whats in front of them for once. Surely its an ideal opportunity to remind them to look out for bikes.

All IMHO of course.

There is, of course, my fave old theory:
"Every crash happens because you're not going fast enough.  If you'd been going faster then the crash would have happened somewhere else, or to someone else."

However, there is some truth in the 'third of all crashes' thing.  The figures were compiled from acc. stats./police reports, but - as you predict - there are many more factors involved.

What's being done about those other factors?

Well, twenty years ago drink driving was road safety flavour, now it's speed.  Exactly the same third/two thirds ratio applied with drink driving crashes!

Someone once said "there are lies - there are DAMN lies - and then there are statistics".

i hate when statistics get quoted as 'evidence' of anything because they are so open to interpretation and to fully understand what they're supposed to show we would need to know every aspect of their 'gathering'.

What im trying to say is that if i spent £500 on a holiday last year and a a holiday this year cost me £1000 I could say that my annual holiday costs, on average, 100% more than it did this time last year.  this would be statiscally true but doesnt show anything really as the two holidays would have to be compared and it could in fact show that i had a better holiday this year and not that holidays cost twice as much as they used to.  This is a bit of a lame example but I hope you get what I mean.

The fact that accidents have doubled in the staistcal example given sounds bad but sounds great if you compare the usage statistcs.  1000% more riders and only 100% more accidents - not bad really.

Politicians love statistics because they mean nothing and can be manipulated to apparently prove anything you like them to.

i havent seen the advert but Im sure the reduction in tax revenue is really behind it all.  If these arriss were bothered about our safety they allow darker visors. If they wanted us to use less polluting and congesting vehicles they would not have reduced car tax and increased bike tax.

Posted on Jan. 24 2003,12:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone once said "there are lies - there are DAMN lies - and then there are statistics".
-----------------------------------------------------------------


"It takes 2 to lie, 1 to lie & one to listen"   quote  Homer J Simpson

Just come back today from a BMF meeting, amongst other issues debated was our response to the london ads, seems like the Transport for London organisation have been reported to the Advertising council over this issue!!!  :nod:  :nod: