Does 2-wheeler experience affect behaviours and attitudes to 2-wheelers as a car driver?

• Car-bicycle and car-motorcycle crashes often serious • Car driver mostly at fault, often because of failure to see (Schramm et al, 2010) • Car drivers with motorcycling experience less likely to be involved in motorcycle crashes or be at fault (Brooks & Guppy, 1990; Magazzu et al., 2006) and hold more positive beliefs about motorcyclists (Crundall et al., 2008) • Does bicycle riding experience have the same benefits?

Does experience with one type of two-wheeler affect behaviours and attitudes to other types?

Failure to give way by motor vehicles is a factor in many collisions with both powered and unpowered two wheelers (TWs). Motor vehicle drivers often report that they did not see the TW, but research has shown that motor vehicle drivers who have experience riding a motorcycle are less likely to fail to detect motorcycles. The research reported here examines whether this phenomenon extends to detection of bicycles and whether car drivers who have experience with one mode of TW show improved detection of the other mode. A driving simulator study was conducted in an Australian urban setting which incorporated some of the most common car-TW crash scenarios. Participants with car-only, car plus motorcycle, car plus bicycle, and car plus bicycle plus motorcycle experience operated a car simulator. Their interactions with both types of TWs were measured in terms of visual detection, lateral distance and speed when approaching and passing. The effects of different levels of colour and lighting of the TWs on driver responses were also examined. The attitudes of participants towards TWs were measured in a questionnaire.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - request for information

In Angus v Conelius [2007] QCA 190 the Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the obligations under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), and in particular s 45 of the Act (duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer), continue beyond the commencement of court proceedings

The employment effects of gender discrimination in Australia 1994-95

Interpreting the unexplained component of the gender wage gap as indicative of discrimination, the empirical literature to date has tended to ignore the potential impact wage discrimination may have on employment. Clearly, employment effects will arise if discrimination lowers the female offered wage and the labour supply curve is upward sloping. The empirical analysis employs the ABS Income Distribution Survey 1994–95 and finds evidence of both wage and associated employment effects. The analysis is replicated for the earlier period 1989–90. A comparison across time is of interest given the substantial deregulation of the Australian labour market over the period.

Second Caveats and the Land Title Act 1994

This article analyses the key features of s129 of the Land Title Act 1994 with reference to pre-existing Queensland law, and relevant case law on comparable provisions in Australia and New Zealand. Its aim is to provide a practical guide on the circumstances in which the provision will apply, and the considerations likely to be weighted by the Court in determining whether to grant leave to lodge a second caveat.

"Improper" caveats and compensation - section 130 of the Land Title Act 1994

This article examines some questions of statutory interpretation as they apply to section 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld)

Practice and procedure - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - duty of claimant to cooperate with insurer

In Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited v Brown [2004] QCA 325 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the extent of the duty of cooperation imposed on a claimant under s45 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld). The issue is an important one because it affects virtually all claims made under the Act.

Mandatory offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - with interest please!

In Windon v Edwards [2005] QDC 029 Robin QC DCJ considered the cost consequence of mandatory final offers under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Practice and Procedures - Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 ss 39 and 57

In Bermingham v Priest [2002] QSC 057 jones J considered the position of persons seeking to claim damages where the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 applies prior to its amendment by the Motor Accident Insurance Amendment Act 2000, and where proceedings are brought close to expiration of the statutory limitation period.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - obligation to disclose

In Turpin v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd (unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, S5216 of 2001), Mullins J, 17.10.2001) the plaintiff applied for a declaration that the respondent disclose pursuant to s47 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 copies of three statements referred to in a loss assessor's investigation report as "attached". The issue involved determination of whether the statements must be disclosed under s48(2) even though protected by legal professional privilege. The Court applied the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in James v Workcover Queensland.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - whether vehicle in question a vehicle "for which registration is required"

In Gideona v Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 261, the Queensland Court of Appeal reconsidered the question of what is the material time for determining whether registration of a motor vehicle is required. The Court declined to follow the decision in Kelly v Alford [1988] 1 Qd R 404; deciding that the material time was the time when the accident occurred.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s45 - whether obligation to co-operate may authorise order requiring commencement of proceedings by minor prior to expiration of limitation period

In Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v McPaul; Council of the City of Gold Coast v McPaul [2005] QSC 278 the applicant insurer sought an order requiring a claimant who had been injured in a motor vehicle accident some years earlier when he was five years old to commence a proceeding to determine the question of the applicant's liability to him. The applicant's interest in seeking the order was to avoid the prejudice which could follow from further delay, particularly delay until the respondent became obliged to commence proceedings to avoid a limitations bar.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - reasonable excuse for delay in giving notice under s37

The decisions in Perdis v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555, Miller v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 558 and Piper v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557 were handed down contemporaneously by the Queensland Court of Appeal on December 15 2003. They consider important issues as to the construction of key provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)