Bugger of a ride - Xmess spirit? (LONG)
Plodder
partner for lunch about 15km from Gosnells to Cannington.
Fremantle Road: On the shared path, cruising along at about 25km/h. Blue
Falcon pulls out of a driveway (forwards, not reversing), driver made eye
contact with me but decided to keep going anyway. No probs, but she stopped
across the path to get out and shut the gate. Hard braking to nose wheelie
ensued. While I was waiting I suggested she could have waited for me to pass
before blocking the lane. Was told to get on my toy and f#ck off. Strangely,
just then I needed to adjust my SPD sandal strap - right in front of her
car. Only took me about 30secs...
Spencer Road (1): Me heading North, still on shared path. Stopped at lights.
When lights turned, off I go. Dickhead in Camry pointing South decided she
wanted to turn left from the straight-ahead lane from the lights. There is a
slip road, but she'd missed it. OK, let's just turn left here - bugger the
bloke on the bike. Clipped my front wheel enough to nearly send me
sprawling. I managed to jump/unclip and land on my feet while holding my
bars. she didn't even acknowledge my presence and roared off. Too busy
keeping upright to get rego.
Spencer Road (2): Shared path goes past Thornlie Square shopping centre. On
both driveways white Commodores simply cut straight in front of me as they
turned into the entry. Slam on brakes again.
Spencer Road (3): Fed up of the way the shared path puts me in peril. On to
the road. Several cars have passengers that yell out to inform me that I'm a
loser and should get a car. Presumably like theirs (my bike is worth more
than the sh1theaps they were in). One OK car (newish Skyline) full of
Gosnells yobs decides to overtake, cut in and slam on brakes repeatedly.
Caught them at Yale Road lights passenger from rear left seat opens door at
me while I'm having a word to the occupants through the window. He now has a
pretty sore shin where I kicked the door closed again. Driver guns it when
lights turn green. One bright spot - Spacia driver behind me asks if I'm OK
and congratulates me. She worries about her kids riding bikes because of
hoons like that.
Spencer Road (4): Red Pajero beeping at revving behind me as I've taken the
lane. I duck into a bus stop lane to let cars past. He roars off. Caught him
at Nicholson Road lights and tried to have a word - big man wouldn't even
open his window.
Spencer Road (5): Truck backs out of a driveway on to Spencer Road right in
front of me. Driver sees me slamming on brakes and nearly falling. Truck
pulls back in to driveway and driver jumps out. I'm ready for a
confrontation, but he was concerned that I was OK. He couldn't see the road
while backing out and realised he should have backed in so he could drive
out forwards. Lots of apologies. OK - he stuffed up and learned from that.
Respect. I act as a spotter for him as he backs out. He offers me a lift -
bike on the truck bed. I decline...
Nicholson Road: Riding in middle of the lane. I tried to ride a bit to the
left to avoid riding on the oil strip but drivers kept cutting close to
squeeze past. Another one squeezed past, forcing the car in the right lane
to brake and let her through and clipping my right hand with her left
mirror. Caught her at Albany Hwy lights and asked how she thinks my family
would feel about visiting me in hospital or the morgue for Christmas simply
because of her impatience/ignorance. She reckons she didn't see me. I ask
why it is she didn't simply drive over me then - she took the trouble to
dodge me (mostly) you don't usually dodge things you don't see.
Albany Hwy: Nice broad path with no peds in sight - they're all in the
jammed cars, I guess - so I ride on the path. Quickly get fed up of drivers
cutting in front of me so move on to the road once past Carousel and the
traffic is moving again. Another car load of hoons (Lancer or similar-
they're much of a muchness to me) yelling and swerving at me. Had a gut full
by now. A Blackburn mini pump can be used as a panel-beating tool on the
roof of small cars like that :-) My turn to scoot off side road when lights
turned. Four yobs in the car who also wouldn't open any windows when
confronted. Funny, that - I'm such a placid type. I wasn't even ranting and
raving - I was very calm and quiet.
What irritated me is that this is not a particularly unusual riding
experience for me. Just yesterday I noted and responded more to what was
going on rather than putting up with it. I need to get involved in some
bicycle advocacy/education activities, but the focus here in WA (what I've
seen) is on infrastructure rather than changing driver behaviour. Out of the
incidents I've described, four were on paths, all potentially fatal and
avoidable if drivers behaved differently.
Yesterday I realised how much I (and, no doubt, others) have normalised this
sort of treatment while riding. It cheesed me off no end that I've been so
indoctrinated into accepting such treatment. No more (but I'm trying to hold
the aggression in check!).
I want to join an advocacy group that is less concerned with building more
paths (although there's a place for that) and more concerned with the
interactions between motorised vehicle drivers and pedestrians/cyclists. I'd
like to do some work that opens up the negotiating space between road users
and humanise drivers/cyclists/peds - anyone got any ideas where such a group
operates in Perth?
Cheers,
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Spencer Road (3): Fed up of the way the shared path puts me in peril. On to
> the road. Several cars have passengers that yell out to inform me that I'm a
> loser and should get a car. Presumably like theirs (my bike is worth more
> than the sh1theaps they were in). One OK car (newish Skyline) full of
> Gosnells yobs decides to overtake, cut in and slam on brakes repeatedly.
> Caught them at Yale Road lights passenger from rear left seat opens door at
> me while I'm having a word to the occupants through the window. He now has a
> pretty sore shin where I kicked the door closed again.
With SPD cleats, I hope :)
Geez, it be worth getting a helmet cam on your commute!
--
TimC
"Does bacteria culture in coffee cup qualify as pet? Have already
givink it name." -- Pitr Dubovich/User Friendly
Humbug
<snip>
> in some bicycle advocacy/education activities, but the focus here in
> WA (what I've seen) is on infrastructure rather than changing driver
> behaviour.
It's all really simple. Building new infrastructure, or promising to,
buys votes. Telling a section of the electorate that they need to have
their behaviour modified will lose votes. There's not a polly in the
known (and other possible unknown) universe that'll have a vote loser
as part of their platform.
Oh and just building new infrastructure is a WHOLE lot cheaper, a WHOLE
lot quicker and, MOST importantly, a WHOLE HEAP EASIER than completely
rewriting the "driving test". Currently we are NOT, and I repeat NOT,
taught to drive - we are taught to pass the test. Two totally different
things.
If I, and a large number of motoring advocates, had our way a driving
test would be an all day affair consisting of a regulations exam, a
driving theory exam, at LEAST an hour long practical exam taking in as
many different road and traffic conditions as possible and a circuit
exam (to demonstrate car control abilities when it all goes wrong). A
minimum of 85% "correctnes" in all sections is required to pass and a
failure means that you get another 6 months to brush up your skills.
Further, ANY collision means an automatic suspension of licence until
it's proven that it was not even a little bit your fault. If it was
even a little bit your fault you get to do the whole test after a
minimum of 6 months to brush up your skills.
>
> Yesterday I realised how much I (and, no doubt, others) have
> normalised this sort of treatment while riding. It cheesed me off no
> end that I've been so indoctrinated into accepting such treatment. No
> more (but I'm trying to hold the aggression in check!).
When you actually think about it it's shocking, isn't it ? My attitude
is to worry about the things you CAN control and deal with the rest as
best you can can.
Whatever you do DON'T just accept the underlying tenet that you're a
second class citizen merely because your chosen means of transport is a
bicycle.
<snip>
And yes, I'm a motoring enthusiast who likes FAST cars...:-) I only
wish I could afford one - even a slow one would do...:-( I firmly
believe, no I actually KNOW that my motoring skills are basically
competant AT BEST.
--
Humbug
BE A LOOF! (There has been a recent population explosion of lerts.)
cfsmtb
Plodder Wrote:
>
>
> I want to join an advocacy group that is less concerned with building
> more
> paths (although there's a place for that) and more concerned with the
> interactions between motorised vehicle drivers and
> pedestrians/cyclists. I'd
> like to do some work that opens up the negotiating space between road
> users
> and humanise drivers/cyclists/peds - anyone got any ideas where such a
> group operates in Perth?
>
Ok, kick off with:
WA Bicycle Transportation Alliance
http://www.multiline.com.au/~bta/
WA Bicycle User Groups:
http://www.multiline.com.au/~bta/advocacy/bug_page.htm
Sustainable Transport Alliance WA
http://www.stcwa.org.au/
http://www.stcwa.org.au/cycling/
Plenty there to keep you informed/entertained etc. I've always looked
towards WA as bit of a shining example, ie: your government abolished
the equivalent of VicRoads. Pity the drivers behave like bloody
trogolites.
--
cfsmtb
Tamyka Bell
I thought about that...
I wondered what reaction I'd get if I just put a small fake camera on my
bike, and wore a jersey with the following in big letters:
"SMILE! YOU'RE ON CYCLE-CAM!"
Tam
Tamyka Bell
Oooh, maybe I could wear a yellow and black one, with "baby on board"
Tam (no I am not pregnant... but THEY don't know that!)
Bleve
Humbug wrote:
>. Currently we are NOT, and I repeat NOT,
> taught to drive - we are taught to pass the test. Two totally different
> things.
Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
trully stupid or lazy off the road. The problem is attitude.
Motorcycle licences *are* hard to get, require multiple days of
training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
> If I, and a large number of motoring advocates, had our way a driving
> test would be an all day affair consisting of a regulations exam, a
> driving theory exam, at LEAST an hour long practical exam taking in as
> many different road and traffic conditions as possible and a circuit
> exam (to demonstrate car control abilities when it all goes wrong). A
> minimum of 85% "correctnes" in all sections is required to pass and a
> failure means that you get another 6 months to brush up your skills.
And this would make no real difference, I suspect.
> Further, ANY collision means an automatic suspension of licence until
> it's proven that it was not even a little bit your fault. If it was
> even a little bit your fault you get to do the whole test after a
> minimum of 6 months to brush up your skills.
Not workable, fair or just. Putting someone in a car shouldn't take
away the presumsion of innocence.
The problem, IMO, is that when we put people into cars, they turn into
arseholes. It's a bit like alcohol, get someone drunk, and you see
what they're really like, put them in a car and the same sort of thing
happens.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>. Currently we are NOT, and I repeat NOT,
>> taught to drive - we are taught to pass the test. Two totally different
>> things.
>
> Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
> trully stupid or lazy off the road. The problem is attitude.
> Motorcycle licences *are* hard to get, require multiple days of
> training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
Why is that? The hard-to-get-license thing? Presumably to keep
motorcyclists from injuring themselves, because if it was to keep them
from injuring others, surely the tests would be for car drivers
instead of motorcyclists?
Why is it that we always care more for the welfare of the driver, and
not the people he kills?
>> Further, ANY collision means an automatic suspension of licence until
>> it's proven that it was not even a little bit your fault. If it was
>> even a little bit your fault you get to do the whole test after a
>> minimum of 6 months to brush up your skills.
>
> Not workable, fair or just. Putting someone in a car shouldn't take
> away the presumsion of innocence.
What's the difference between guns and cars? When someone messes up
with a gun, they lose their ability to join (responsible) gun clubs,
and hence basically their license. Isn't that infringing on their
rights? OK, so they can live without a gun. And yet the average
person needs a car about as much as they need a gun. Shouldn't they
lose their car license if they mess up? Learn to become competant
again? In the meantime, they can go play with something a little less
dangerous in the hands of an proven incompetant.
> The problem, IMO, is that when we put people into cars, they turn into
> arseholes. It's a bit like alcohol, get someone drunk, and you see
> what they're really like, put them in a car and the same sort of thing
> happens.
I'm all for banning the Y chromosome. It causes so many problems.
--
TimC
Can you keep your witty comments shorter dude? I can't
make that my sig! --Hipatia
warrwych
Bleve Wrote:
>
> The problem, IMO, is that when we put people into cars, they turn into
> arseholes. It's a bit like alcohol, get someone drunk, and you see
> what they're really like, put them in a car and the same sort of thing
> happens.
Putting ourselves into personal magic transport boxes de-humanises us
- we become little boxes on a road going somewhere, rather than people
interacting with each other, even though that really is still what we
are doing. My little box is more important (bigger, smaller, newer,
more classic, more doof doof, more sporty, more bling,etcetc ) than
yours. I dont have to look at you, so can avoid responsibility for my
actions, by not acknowledging you as a person. We also drive at times
of day (ie early morning, late afternoon after work) when we are not
functioning at our best.
This has all been said before, but yes.. it's anthropologically and
sociologically interesting to see what impact sitting in the personal
magic transport box has on people. Its also interesting to see that
impact carry over to other forms of transport ie bicycles! ( am
thinking of the non-greeters compared to the greeters, or the white
line feverists for instance)
--
warrwych
Resound
>>> Further, ANY collision means an automatic suspension of licence until
>>> it's proven that it was not even a little bit your fault. If it was
>>> even a little bit your fault you get to do the whole test after a
>>> minimum of 6 months to brush up your skills.
>>
>> Not workable, fair or just. Putting someone in a car shouldn't take
>> away the presumsion of innocence.
>
> What's the difference between guns and cars? When someone messes up
> with a gun, they lose their ability to join (responsible) gun clubs,
> and hence basically their license. Isn't that infringing on their
> rights? OK, so they can live without a gun. And yet the average
> person needs a car about as much as they need a gun. Shouldn't they
> lose their car license if they mess up? Learn to become competant
> again? In the meantime, they can go play with something a little less
> dangerous in the hands of an proven incompetant.
>
The difference between cars and guns is that people can't run into the
bullet if you haven't actively fired it. If someone tailgates you and then
runs into the back of you despite your best efforts to make the situation
safer or pulls out in front of you from a side street or runs a red light
into the side of you etc then there's no good reason why you should in any
way be held accountable. The person who caused the accident most certainly
should be, but simply being in control of a car and being involved in an
accident does not indicate negligence. If some prat gumbied through a red
light in front of a car and got hit I wouldn't be blaming the motorist.
While I'd agree that in a great many cases, the motorist is at fault, that
isn't always the case, and we'll never start interacting with each other as
people if we start using phrases like "all motorists". Remember, "only the
Sith think in absolutes".
Bleve
TimC wrote:
> On 2005-12-20, Bleve (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> >
> > Humbug wrote:
> >>. Currently we are NOT, and I repeat NOT,
> >> taught to drive - we are taught to pass the test. Two totally different
> >> things.
> >
> > Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
> > trully stupid or lazy off the road. The problem is attitude.
> > Motorcycle licences *are* hard to get, require multiple days of
> > training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
>
> Why is that? The hard-to-get-license thing? Presumably to keep
> motorcyclists from injuring themselves, because if it was to keep them
> from injuring others, surely the tests would be for car drivers
> instead of motorcyclists?
>
> Why is it that we always care more for the welfare of the driver, and
> not the people he kills?
It matters that we (society, the state ... whatever) have a presumption
of innocence.
> >> Further, ANY collision means an automatic suspension of licence until
> >> it's proven that it was not even a little bit your fault. If it was
> >> even a little bit your fault you get to do the whole test after a
> >> minimum of 6 months to brush up your skills.
> >
> > Not workable, fair or just. Putting someone in a car shouldn't take
> > away the presumsion of innocence.
>
> What's the difference between guns and cars? When someone messes up
> with a gun, they lose their ability to join (responsible) gun clubs,
Missing word : "prove".
> and hence basically their license. Isn't that infringing on their
> rights? OK, so they can live without a gun. And yet the average
> person needs a car about as much as they need a gun. Shouldn't they
> lose their car license if they mess up?
If it makes a difference, and if we're sure they did mess up, then yes.
But not if either of the two criteria aren't met.
Zebee Johnstone
TimC <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2005-12-20, Bleve (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Motorcycle licences *are* hard to get, require multiple days of
>> training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
>
> Why is that? The hard-to-get-license thing? Presumably to keep
> motorcyclists from injuring themselves, because if it was to keep them
> from injuring others, surely the tests would be for car drivers
> instead of motorcyclists?
Because motorcycles are harder to control.
The problem with cars is that people don't want to be in them.
A car journey is an unavoidable waste of time that you have to undergo
to get from where you are to where you want to be. It's not fun, it's
not engaging, it is basically boring and unpleasant.
It doesn't need much skill for 99% of the journey. When things go bad
it does need skill, but people don't gain that skill because they don't
need it. And if they did gain it, they'd lose it from lack of use.
Compare that to two wheelers. The majority of motorcycle and bicycle
users are on their two wheels because they choose to be. They enjoy it,
they think the skills are worth getting, they pay a lot of attention to
what's going on.
And when they don't... well that's noticeable isn't it!
I don't think testing will help much. People will be in cars because
they have to be, you can test their traffic smarts as much as you like
but they won't improve because there's no reason for them to improve.
While the car is a necessity, then people will treat it as an unpleasant
chore to be got through with the least effort, while trying to make the
time spent doing it more pleasant.
Any road safety strategy that doesn't take account of that is doomed to
fail.
Zebee
Graeme Dods
> Had a sod of a ride yesterday. Day off, so I thought I'd ride to join my
> partner for lunch about 15km from Gosnells to Cannington.
<big snip>
Ah, Gosnells, you get some real yobs around there. I have the misfortune to
live there, in one of the nicer bits mind, but you still wake up to fresh
20 metre long burn outs marking the road. And then there's the police
helicopter that flys up the river behind us looking for fleeing crims
several times a week.
I've got that kind of abuse in that area more often than I can remember,
but I've always borne in mind that whilst many drivers would, like the ones
you encountered, cower in their car or ignore you when you respond to their
actions, there are plenty who would happily jump out and beat you to a pulp
(particularly if there's a group of them).
Graeme
SteveA
Plodder Wrote:
> Had a sod of a ride yesterday. Day off, so I thought I'd ride to join my
> partner for lunch about 15km from Gosnells to Cannington.
>
>
errands in preparation for a 2 week camping trip to Esperance. Drove
down Albany Highway from the City to Cannington and back.
1. Driving through intersection on ALbany Highway and lights change to
amber just as I cross the stop line. Idiot woman in shiny Honda four
wheel drive turns across the intersection in front of me. Much braking
and I manage to miss her.
2. In Bunnings car park, on the wide entrance road. Woman in small
car driving on the wrong side looking down at something on the
passenger seat. After much blowing of my horn she looks up and gets
back on the correct side of the road.
3. Waiting at a stop sign for a break in traffic to allow me to get
back out onto Albany Highway. Young woman in a soft top Jeep is right
up the back of my car, revving and when I look back, she is pounding
the steering wheel. I'm not a slow driver and the car I was in (an
Audi) is not a slow car. But I'm going to wait for a decent gap
despite her performance. When I take off, she comes with me,
tail-gates me then swerves around me and speeds off up the road. I
kept driving at the speed limit and pulled up next to her at the next
set of traffic lights.
4. I am driving in the left hand lane up Albany Highway. Idiot bloke
in Commodore turns left in front of me from right hand lane and
disappears down side road. FAAAARK.
Maybe Christmas/the warm weather/too much Christmas parting has got to
these people or maybe they are just FAAAARKING DANGEROUS all the time.
SteveA
--
SteveA
Tamyka Bell
<snip>
> 3. Waiting at a stop sign for a break in traffic to allow me to get
> back out onto Albany Highway. Young woman in a soft top Jeep is right
> up the back of my car, revving and when I look back, she is pounding
> the steering wheel. I'm not a slow driver and the car I was in (an
> Audi) is not a slow car. But I'm going to wait for a decent gap
> despite her performance. When I take off, she comes with me,
> tail-gates me then swerves around me and speeds off up the road. I
> kept driving at the speed limit and pulled up next to her at the next
> set of traffic lights.
Did you smile and wave at this one? I love smiling and waving in that
situation :D
Tam
byron27
Just treat them all like arseholes and trust them like you would trust
your daughters first date.
--
byron27
6'5", curly hair, bit like krusty the clown i spose
flyingdutch
Bleve Wrote:
>
>
> Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
> trully stupid or lazy off the road.
>
not sure he said 'make test harder'. that's just more of same
Bleve Wrote:
>
> The problem is attitude.
> Motorcycle licences *are* hard to get, require multiple days of
> training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
> [color=blue]
>
Yes, but 'generally' the skills base and awareness of a biker is far
superior to your average driver.
Perhaps the best solution would be to introduce compulsory redesign of
all road going vehicles so that driver is sitting on the front of the
car, like a hood ornament. no enclosing coccoon. Just some good ol'
'direct feedback' in their driving lives. :D
--
flyingdutch
flyingdutch
Plodder Wrote:
> Had a sod of a ride yesterday.
>
>
wot cfsmtb said.
question. Ho many of these incidents did you report?
I'm gonig to make a leap of assumption here and guess you didnt.
why not?
in (almost) every case you had opportunity to record rego
to get legislation/pollies/council/individual drivers and their circle
of influence you need to report it, get them charged (if appropriate)
and (sadly) most importantly longterm it becomes a statisitic.
Every traffic strategy, council decision, govt legislation is based
(sometimes solely) on these. No report. No stat.
So, be prepared to record details, etc next time and stay safe young
plodder
--
flyingdutch
Humbug
Getting (got) completely OT now...
<snip>
>
> Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
> trully stupid or lazy off the road. The problem is attitude.
> Motorcycle licences are hard to get, require multiple days of
> training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
It's NOT about making the "test" harder - it's about ensuring a much
higher degree of competance. Motorcycle licences are NOT hard to get -
sure, it's (not that much) harder than a car licence but it isn't hard.
The current testing regime ensures that basically incompetant motorists
are allowed to drive. Only AFTER you've passed the 'test' do you really
start learning to drive.
<snip>
> And this would make no real difference, I suspect.
It would - the motoring population would be a LOT more competant and
therefore much less likely to screw up. The current licence "testing"
regime is a joke - how many drivers can do a REAL emergency stop, mid
bend on a wet road AND keep control of the car. Very, very few I'd
suggest. Why ? Because they weren't taught those skills. Why wasn't
such a fundamental skill taught ? Because you don't need to demonstrate
that to pass the licence "test".
Example. Your motorcycle "episode" the other week on a wet freeway.
Your competance saved your life and the INcompetance of a motorist
nearly killed you. A less competant rider would've died and a more
competant motorist would never have had you in that situation.
<snip>
> Not workable, fair or just. Putting someone in a car shouldn't take
> away the presumsion of innocence.
It's only "Not "workable" because of the current 'right to drive'
attitude. Replace that with a 'privilege to drive' attitude and a whole
slew of problems get solved.
It's "fair" - currently anyone who MAY be guilty of any crime where the
penalty could be imprisonment MUST show good reason for bail. We have
no problem accepting that so what's the problem ?
It's "just" - if you stuff up and cause a collision you're probably
incompetant and before you can get back behind the wheel you must prove
competance.
>
> The problem, IMO, is that when we put people into cars, they turn into
> arseholes. It's a bit like alcohol, get someone drunk, and you see
> what they're really like, put them in a car and the same sort of thing
> happens.
No. The problem is that generally the issues that may arise while
you're driving are NOT understood. Neither are the consequences because
you're surrounded by a nice protective metal box with all sorts of
secondary safety stuff built in. Not understanding or not worrying
about what's going around you leads to stuff-ups and most people will
get aggressively defensive when their performance is questioned because
they screwed up. Only very few people are able to say "sorry - I
stuffed up. It won't happen again." and learn from the mistake.
Most, not all but the vast majority of cyclists are much more basically
competant than motorists. Any cyclist knows that if they fall off or
get hit it's going to result in pain and probably blood and broken
bits. Lock your front wheel in the wet and you're almost instantly on
the road on your face. Do the same thing in a car and you're generally
quite safe - the car may get a bit, or even a LOT, dinged when you
spear off the road but you are generally OK. There's no real incentive
to not lock front wheels in a car. Why do modern cars have traction
control and ABS ? Basic lack of car control skills.
Bleve
Humbug wrote:
> On 20/12/05 at 11:02:25 Bleve somehow managed to type:
>
> Getting (got) completely OT now...
heh :)
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
> > trully stupid or lazy off the road. The problem is attitude.
> > Motorcycle licences are hard to get, require multiple days of
> > training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
>
> It's NOT about making the "test" harder - it's about ensuring a much
> higher degree of competance.
How do you do that? You ... make the test harder! You may even add
more regular testing. Will this fix attitudes amongst drivers? maybe
... but I wouldn't bet on it.
> Motorcycle licences are NOT hard to get -
> sure, it's (not that much) harder than a car licence but it isn't hard.
> The current testing regime ensures that basically incompetant motorists
> are allowed to drive. Only AFTER you've passed the 'test' do you really
> start learning to drive.
IMO, (restating!) the problem is not skills or competancy, but
attitude.
> <snip>
>
> > And this would make no real difference, I suspect.
>
> It would - the motoring population would be a LOT more competant and
> therefore much less likely to screw up.
Again, IMO, your argument, while tempting, is based on a flawed
assumption :
you're assuming that skilled drivers are safe drivers. I suggest that
(again!) the problem is not skill (the ability to a. teach, and b.
retain these skills is also a challenging problem that would be
non-trivial to solve, but is, IMO, irrelevant).
> The current licence "testing"
> regime is a joke - how many drivers can do a REAL emergency stop, mid
> bend on a wet road AND keep control of the car. Very, very few I'd
> suggest. Why ? Because they weren't taught those skills. Why wasn't
> such a fundamental skill taught ? Because you don't need to demonstrate
> that to pass the licence "test".
Even if they were taught them, would they retain the skills? Would the
skills merely embolden them to drive faster because they think they can
stop/corner/drive better? The people I know who've done advanced
driving courses are often more dangeous drivers precicely because they
think their skills are great so they can use the old "I drive to the
conditions, not the speed limit" bullshit to justify their belting
along at 80 in 60 zones etc.
> Example. Your motorcycle "episode" the other week on a wet freeway.
> Your competance saved your life and the INcompetance of a motorist
> nearly killed you. A less competant rider would've died and a more
> competant motorist would never have had you in that situation.
I'd replace incompetant with unthinking, and I'd replace my compentancy
with my extreme caution and respect for the dangers of that road at
night in the wet, and then I'd agree with you here. I'm 34 and have
lived through my dangerous idiot phase I hope :)
> <snip>
>
> > Not workable, fair or just. Putting someone in a car shouldn't take
> > away the presumsion of innocence.
>
> It's only "Not "workable" because of the current 'right to drive'
> attitude. Replace that with a 'privilege to drive' attitude and a whole
> slew of problems get solved.
I'm not convinced, but I'd like to agree with you.
> It's "fair" - currently anyone who MAY be guilty of any crime where the
> penalty could be imprisonment MUST show good reason for bail. We have
> no problem accepting that so what's the problem ?
Maybe that's something that should be looked at? Perhaps it should
(and it's my understanding that it is anyway, but I could well be
mistaken) be that the police have to show a magistrate that an accused
is a risk rather than an accused have to show that they're not? I'm
not sure, and this is getting quite off-topic :)
> It's "just" - if you stuff up and cause a collision you're probably
> incompetant and before you can get back behind the wheel you must prove
> competance.
"if you stuff up", you *may* be incompetant. Neither you nor I are
talking in this case about stuffups though, we're talking about drivers
recklessly or intentionally driving to intimidate other road users (I
think we're on the same track?). I'm not worried about the random
mistakes everyone makes. Might get struck by lightening too ... C'est
la Vie ... I'm worried about the dangerous idiots. Train a dangerous
idiot, and you get a more dangerous idiot (I'm sure our posters who
have done time in the armed services will know that mantra only too
well ...)
> > The problem, IMO, is that when we put people into cars, they turn into
> > arseholes. It's a bit like alcohol, get someone drunk, and you see
> > what they're really like, put them in a car and the same sort of thing
> > happens.
>
>
> No. The problem is that generally the issues that may arise while
> you're driving are NOT understood. Neither are the consequences because
> you're surrounded by a nice protective metal box with all sorts of
> secondary safety stuff built in. Not understanding or not worrying
> about what's going around you leads to stuff-ups and most people will
> get aggressively defensive when their performance is questioned because
> they screwed up. Only very few people are able to say "sorry - I
> stuffed up. It won't happen again." and learn from the mistake.
>
>
> Most, not all but the vast majority of cyclists are much more basically
> competant than motorists.
I'd replace "most" with "some". I see a lot of cyclists (motor and
push) who are just as dangerous to themselves as a lot of car drivers
are to others. The ranks of motorcyclists tend to thin out quicker
though - the dangerous idiots end up dead pretty quickly, or they swear
off bikes because they're "too dangerous". (know any of these people?
"I used to ride, but it's too dangerous" when run through a good
bullshit filter translates to "I rode like a clown, gave myself a
scare/close call, and now blame bikes for my idiocy").
> Any cyclist knows that if they fall off or
> get hit it's going to result in pain and probably blood and broken
> bits. Lock your front wheel in the wet and you're almost instantly on
> the road on your face. Do the same thing in a car and you're generally
> quite safe - the car may get a bit, or even a LOT, dinged when you
> spear off the road but you are generally OK. There's no real incentive
> to not lock front wheels in a car. Why do modern cars have traction
> control and ABS ? Basic lack of car control skills.
Red herring alert :
I drove rally cars competively for a few years, and won a few events (I
wasn't a complete chump!) . I know that abs can stop a car on wet
bitumen better than I can without it. *especially* in real world panic
braking situations. It's easy to brake well when you're prepared, but
when the world goes pear-shaped ... not that it's relevant to this
thread, but as a point of interest.
Stuart Lamble
> Humbug wrote:
[snippage]
>> Why do modern cars have traction
>> control and ABS ? Basic lack of car control skills.
>
> Red herring alert :
> I drove rally cars competively for a few years, and won a few events (I
> wasn't a complete chump!) . I know that abs can stop a car on wet
> bitumen better than I can without it. *especially* in real world panic
> braking situations. It's easy to brake well when you're prepared, but
> when the world goes pear-shaped ... not that it's relevant to this
> thread, but as a point of interest.
I'll second that. When I was looking to buy a car, I wanted two things:
dual (driver/passenger) airbags, and ABS. Given the choice between one
or the other, I wanted ABS.
ABS has saved my bacon on two separate occasions. The first was
completely my fault; I had to slam on the brakes because I wasn't paying
enough attention to what was going on ahead of me, and managed to stop
-- in very wet conditions -- in time. The second was the other driver's
fault: I was moving from the right lane to the left lane (eastbound on
Waverley Road, just where it passes the nursery), and he interpreted my
signal as "I'm turning left into Bogong Avenue". Slammed on the brakes,
hit the horn, and stopped with inches to spare. He also slammed on the
brakes; I might have been able to swerve around him, but I didn't think
of that until later. (It was late enough that there was no other traffic
around at the time.)
I'm convinced that I would have had the car skidding in both cases, with
the consequence of a crash. Point of fact: the only time I'd not want to
have ABS would be if I were driving on gravel roads, where you *have* to
skid if you need to stop quickly.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
Bleve
Stuart Lamble wrote:
> the consequence of a crash. Point of fact: the only time I'd not want to
> have ABS would be if I were driving on gravel roads, where you *have* to
> skid if you need to stop quickly.
That's what the fuse is for :)
deejbah
My wife ( who is German) is always lamenting the skill and politeness of
Australian drivers and how easy it is for people to get their license
here.
--
deejbah
EuanB
Sadly, she's right.
--
EuanB
EuanB
Bleve Wrote:
> Humbug wrote:
> >. Currently we are NOT, and I repeat NOT,
> > taught to drive - we are taught to pass the test. Two totally
> different
> > things.
>
> Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
> trully stupid or lazy off the road. The problem is attitude.
> Motorcycle licences *are* hard to get, require multiple days of
> training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
>
http://www.german-way.com/driving.html
``
*This is understandable when you realize that a German driver’s
license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of
professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and such a license is
good for life.*
Cars marked “*Fahrschule*” (driving
school) mean a student driver may be at the wheel. However, you don't
have too much to worry about; in typical thorough German fashion,
-Fahrschule- cars are equipped with dual controls so that the
instructor can take over any time the student gets into serious
trouble. The practical, on-the-road training time has to include night
driving, autobahn experience, in-town driving, and a multitude of other
driving situations. The test for a German driver's license includes
questions about the mechanical aspects of an automobile, in addition to
the usual examination on the rules of the road. But once he or she has
passed the test, a German driver never ever has to be tested again to
keep his or her license, not even for vision!''
German drivers are far more competent and courteous than Australian
drivers; heck they're better than British drivers :-P
Sure the test is just part of the equation, personal liability is a
big deal in Germany. People visiting Germany are amazed when they see
people out the front of their houses gritting the pavements in winter;
there's good reason they do that. If someone has an accident on the
bit of pavement they're responsible for, they open themselves up to a
personal liability suit. Same thing with vehicle collisions etc. I
had liability insurance for a million Deutschmarks just to be safe.
Currently the TAC picks up the tab, a faceless non-adversarial process
with individual responsibility pretty much abdicated. I don't think
that's working.
--
EuanB
Grazza
If I was just starting out riding in Perth your catalogue of potential
disasters on a 15km ride might put the fear of God into me! You passed the
advanced cycling hazard test with flying colours! I hope this doesn't put
YOU off riding? I'm glad you're looking for a more pro-active response to
your experiences. Personally I find situations like those you described go
with the territory and I do what I can to reduce the risks. On the other
hand I aim to not draw such situations to me by focusing on them too much.
I realise this could sound a bit 'woo woo' to some people but I think that,
on the whole it works.
I've been doing a lot more riding around Perth in the last few weeks and can
count on one hand the number of potential problems I've encountered in that
time . Of course I cycle around less hoon-infested areas than Gosnells ;o)
so maybe I expect car drivers to be more considerate. Generally I find the
bike lanes safer than the bike paths, even allowing for all the glass and
badly designed drains etc. Of course there are pros and cons to using
either one.
The other day a ute went past me and this 'funny' guy in the passenger seat
decided to shout in my ear as he went past. I've come across a few clowns
around like him and this time I decided it was time to make a point.
Unfortunately for him, I caught them the lights and his window was still
wound down. Some people wind them back up, maybe to avoid the instant karma
they sense might ensue! As I went past him I yelled as loud as I could. I
didn't have the element of suprise he had, because I saw him watching me in
his wing mirror as I approached. After the lights turned green and they
passed me in absolute silence, and gave me a wide berth, so I think the
point was made. Maybe it pays to act a bit 'crazy' when out riding? OK OK,
I'm not naive enough to believe that such strategies always work as you can
never quite tell how people will react when the illusory safety of their
'personal magic transport box' is breached.
Several years ago I used to do a lot of riding around Melbourne and found
the same level of ignorance and shear bloody-mindedness amongst car and
truck drivers over there. At the risk of sounding like I accept such
behaviour, it seems to go with the territory, yet it hasn't put me off
riding.
Although not perfect, Perth has a pretty good bike-friendly network. And
the weather is MUCH more cycling-friendly than Melbourne's (ducking for
cover here). This seems to encourage a lot of people of all ages and sizes
to get out and enjoy cycling, either blissfully unaware or in spite of all
the potential 'negatives', whatever. Perhaps as more car drivers discover
the joys of recreational cycling, perhaps motivated by the increasing costs
of driving (not just financial), they will become more bike-friendly when
they jump back in their cars. Now don't tell me 'pigs might fly' cos I've
seen them with my own eyes! :op
Graeme
Bleve
EuanB wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> > Humbug wrote:
> > >. Currently we are NOT, and I repeat NOT,
> > > taught to drive - we are taught to pass the test. Two totally
> > different
> > > things.
> >
> > Making the test harder doesn't really solve anything except keep the
> > trully stupid or lazy off the road. The problem is attitude.
> > Motorcycle licences *are* hard to get, require multiple days of
> > training etc, and there's plenty of dangeous idiots on motorcycles.
> >
> My experience in Germany suggests otherwise. From this page:
> http://www.german-way.com/driving.html
>
> ``
> *This is understandable when you realize that a German driver's
> license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of
> professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and such a license is
> good for life.*
Does Amy Gillett's family agree with this?
I've a counter argument for you - I'm part-way through a pilot's
licence (GFPT, enroute to PPL, for those who know the jargon :) ).
Learning to fly is *expensive* and takes a *lot* of time. Are there
dangerous pilots? You bet ... Are there dangerous idiot pilots? You
bet ... Are there reckess idiots in planes? Yes ... I've seen
helecopter pilots do illegal, dangerous and reckless things around the
CTAF I fly at. Bear in mind that an angry palmtree licence costs about
the same or more than a house deposit to give that some weight. To
make it even more interesting, the odds of getting caught doing
dangerous and illegal things in GA are high, and the punishments
draconian. The personal cost of stuffing up is rather ... terminal too
... Still happens ...
Graeme Dods
> Plodder Wrote:
>> Had a sod of a ride yesterday. Day off, so I thought I'd ride to join my
>> partner for lunch about 15km from Gosnells to Cannington.
> Maybe Christmas/the warm weather/too much Christmas parting has got to
> these people or maybe they are just FAAAARKING DANGEROUS all the time.
>
> SteveA
Nah, the link seems to be Albany Highway in the above posts, both of which
lead to Gosnells. I suppose it's quite apt that you often hear "Highway to
Hell" blaring out of the bogan-mobiles along that road.
Graeme
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> licence (GFPT, enroute to PPL, for those who know the jargon :) ).
> Learning to fly is *expensive* and takes a *lot* of time. Are there
> dangerous pilots? You bet ... Are there dangerous idiot pilots? You
> bet ... Are there reckess idiots in planes? Yes ... I've seen
> helecopter pilots do illegal, dangerous and reckless things around the
> CTAF I fly at. Bear in mind that an angry palmtree licence costs about
Is that jargon?
--
TimC
Cult: (n) a small, unpopular religion.
Religion: (n) a large, popular cult.
David M
> Plodder
>
> If I was just starting out riding in Perth your catalogue of potential
> disasters on a 15km ride might put the fear of God into me!
I ride every day in Perth, as my recreation, commute, shopping, etc. I
must say that the OP has either had a very unusual day or isn't a
particularly defensive driver. My negative experiences are once on
Canning Hway in about 1990 when a bus brushed my sleeve with it doing
60 and me 30, once in maybe 1991 when I ran into a police woman who
stepped out of a shopfront without warning (but I WAS riding on the
footpath), once in about 2000 where a car turned left in front of me,
and once last year that a ped did an abrupt direction change on the
Causway cyclepath and I got up onto the front wheel to avoid her.
Thats 4 near misses in 20 years. And a couple of others that were my
fault (losing concentration at 35kph on my hybrid and riding into a
lampost that was actually encroaching onto the edge of the cyclepath,
and breaking wrist) and over the handelbars after my dog's lead got
tangled in the front wheel after she bolted for a cat.
My take is that Perth drivers are quite good, I'd say above average for
Australian cities, and our cycle path network is pretty well unmatched.
Adopt some defensive principles, stay alert and you're unlikely to have
many problems at all.
Cheers
David M
Graeme Dods
> ABS has saved my bacon on two separate occasions. The first was
> completely my fault; I had to slam on the brakes because I wasn't paying
> enough attention to what was going on ahead of me, and managed to stop
> -- in very wet conditions -- in time. The second was the other driver's
> fault: I was moving from the right lane to the left lane (eastbound on
> Waverley Road, just where it passes the nursery), and he interpreted my
> signal as "I'm turning left into Bogong Avenue". Slammed on the brakes,
> hit the horn, and stopped with inches to spare. He also slammed on the
> brakes; I might have been able to swerve around him, but I didn't think
> of that until later. (It was late enough that there was no other traffic
> around at the time.)
That sounds remarkably like a "my helmet saved my life" anecdote ;)
ABS won't always help you stop quicker even on normal (non-gravel) roads.
It's main advantage is that it enables you to steer whilst braking heavily,
e.g. to avoid the object that caused you to brake.
Then there's the fact that you know you've got ABS, so risk compensation
may negate the fact that you have it at all (unless your driving style
remains the same as when you didn't have ABS). How you get round this I
don't know, maybe the car manufacturers could leave you with some doubt -
"50% of these cars have ABS, but we're not telling you which ones". Not a
great selling point though.
Graeme
David M
> towards WA as bit of a shining example, ie: your government abolished
> the equivalent of VicRoads. Pity the drivers behave like bloody
> trogolites.
What are VicRoads? Did we have an equivalent that we abolished? Any
chance that you guys will see a niche and start exporting VicRoads as
you do BV?
Cheers
David M
Stuart Lamble
> Then there's the fact that you know you've got ABS, so risk compensation
> may negate the fact that you have it at all (unless your driving style
> remains the same as when you didn't have ABS).
I believe that it's the same, but don't quote me on that. The driver is
the worst person to be asking such questions. :) Generally speaking,
though, I try to leave a good gap between me and the car in front; the
hassle is the other drivers who see it as an opportunity to change
lanes. Mind you, I'm guilty of that myself at times; the difference is
that I try to leave at least *some* room behind me after changing into
the next lane (by making sure I can see the headlights of the car behind
in my rear vision mirror. Not my side mirror, my rear vision mirror --
it means more distance.)
I grant you that it does come across as a "helmet saved my life" type
story, but I am in absolutely no doubt that I would have locked my
wheels without ABS in those two situations. Locked wheels, with the room
I had, means collisions. Basic physics.
Stuart Lamble
> I believe that it's the same, but don't quote me on that. The driver is
> the worst person to be asking such questions. :) Generally speaking,
Tamyka Bell
>
> On 2005-12-20, Graeme Dods <gra...@gpdods.removethisbit.com> wrote:
> > Then there's the fact that you know you've got ABS, so risk compensation
> > may negate the fact that you have it at all (unless your driving style
> > remains the same as when you didn't have ABS).
>
> I believe that it's the same, but don't quote me on that. The driver is
> the worst person to be asking such questions. :) Generally speaking,
> though, I try to leave a good gap between me and the car in front; the
> hassle is the other drivers who see it as an opportunity to change
> lanes. Mind you, I'm guilty of that myself at times; the difference is
> that I try to leave at least *some* room behind me after changing into
> the next lane (by making sure I can see the headlights of the car behind
> in my rear vision mirror. Not my side mirror, my rear vision mirror --
> it means more distance.)
>
> I grant you that it does come across as a "helmet saved my life" type
> story, but I am in absolutely no doubt that I would have locked my
> wheels without ABS in those two situations. Locked wheels, with the room
> I had, means collisions. Basic physics.
As part of my defensive driving course, I had to brake and steer in a
car not fitted with ABS, then with ABS. I preferred the former. It's not
so hard to not lock up the wheels, it is pretty easy to feel what the
car is doing.
Tam
Bleve
Graeme Dods wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:42:31 GMT, Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
> ABS won't always help you stop quicker even on normal (non-gravel) roads.
I don't believe you're correct in the vast majority of cases.
Euan
>> `` *This is understandable when you realize that a German
>> driver's license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45
>> hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and
>> such a license is good for life.*
Bleve> Does Amy Gillett's family agree with this?
Take one incident and apply it to the German driving population? That's
a stretch Carl and IMO in incredibly poor taste. Accidents will happen,
no matter what you do.
My opinion is based on seven years of driving on German roads and I
stand by it. What are you basing your opinion of German driving
standards on?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
Euan
Tamyka> SteveA wrote: <snip>
>> 3. Waiting at a stop sign for a break in traffic to allow me to
>> get back out onto Albany Highway. Young woman in a soft top Jeep
>> is right up the back of my car, revving and when I look back, she
>> is pounding the steering wheel. I'm not a slow driver and the
>> car I was in (an Audi) is not a slow car. But I'm going to wait
>> for a decent gap despite her performance. When I take off, she
>> comes with me, tail-gates me then swerves around me and speeds
>> off up the road. I kept driving at the speed limit and pulled up
>> next to her at the next set of traffic lights.
Tamyka> <snip>
Tamyka> Did you smile and wave at this one? I love smiling and
Tamyka> waving in that situation :D
I prefer to ignore them. If they're the competitive sort that's far
worse :-)
Graeme Dods
>> ABS won't always help you stop quicker even on normal (non-gravel) roads.
>
> I don't believe you're correct in the vast majority of cases.
No, I'm correct. Perhaps you missed out the "always" bit of that sentence.
I didn't state whether it would help in 1% or 99.99% just that it isn't
helpful in 100% of cases. I saw a demonstration of a couple of these cases
a good few years back (I wish I could remember where, I'm pretty sure it
was a clip from the UK Transport Research Laboratory). The differences in
stopping distances weren't massive, but even a metre can be the difference
between hitting someone/something or not hitting it.
Graeme
Bleve
Graeme Dods wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 21:51:37 -0800, Bleve wrote:
>
> >> ABS won't always help you stop quicker even on normal (non-gravel) roads.
> >
> > I don't believe you're correct in the vast majority of cases.
>
> No, I'm correct. Perhaps you missed out the "always" bit of that sentence.
heh, ok :)
> I didn't state whether it would help in 1% or 99.99% just that it isn't
> helpful in 100% of cases. I saw a demonstration of a couple of these cases
> a good few years back (I wish I could remember where, I'm pretty sure it
> was a clip from the UK Transport Research Laboratory). The differences in
> stopping distances weren't massive, but even a metre can be the difference
> between hitting someone/something or not hitting it.
Sure, and seatbelts and airbags sometimes make things worse too, but
not usually.
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
And that's why whenever you are faced with being required to perform
an emergency stop, you should perform a quick mental calculation of
whether you will be better off without ABS, go pull the fuse if so,
and then start braking :)
--
TimC
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall
Bleve
Euan wrote:
> >>>>> "Bleve" == Bleve <carl.I...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> `` *This is understandable when you realize that a German
> >> driver's license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45
> >> hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and
> >> such a license is good for life.*
>
> Bleve> Does Amy Gillett's family agree with this?
>
> Take one incident and apply it to the German driving population? That's
> a stretch Carl and IMO in incredibly poor taste. Accidents will happen,
> no matter what you do.
That's very true. What's the difference between people in cars in
Europe, and here?
Is it the driving tests and training, or is it more of a village based
culture rather than a carcentric culture? I don't know, I'm asking
you. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think that driver
training makes a lot of difference to driver's attitudes. Young males
take risks (it's part of being a young male) etc. People here seem to
get into their cars and become dickheads. Why? Are they already
dickheads and the car just enables them to get away with it more? The
same person that if you were walking down the road and dropped your
wallet they'd bend down & pick it up for you, put them in a car and
they won't let you merge in front of them for zero cost to themselves.
Why is this? I don't believe (careful use of that word) that driver
training "fixes" attitudes. It's a cultural thing. Maybe I'm wrong,
but my experience of various activites that involve more or less
training suggests that it's not the training that makes a difference to
attitudes.
> My opinion is based on seven years of driving on German roads and I
> stand by it. What are you basing your opinion of German driving
> standards on?
I'm not basing it on anything, I'm asking you a question. As you
state, and as we all know, accidents happen everywhere. It's not
accidents that I thought we were discussing in this thread? It's
dangerous driving.
Bleve
Euan wrote:
> >>>>> "Bleve" == Bleve <carl.I...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> `` *This is understandable when you realize that a German
> >> driver's license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45
> >> hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and
> >> such a license is good for life.*
>
> Bleve> Does Amy Gillett's family agree with this?
>
> Take one incident and apply it to the German driving population? That's
> a stretch Carl and IMO in incredibly poor taste. Accidents will happen,
> no matter what you do.
I did a bit of poking around for some stats, and found this :
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/safer.shtml - extract below :
--- extract --
In a common variation on this myth, the road lobby points to the lower
road toll per capita in Germany, a country generously provided with
non-speed-restricted autobahns. It is certainly true that, according to
the OECD's International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD),
Germany's road toll of 8.5 per 100,000 population is lower than
Australia's road toll of 9 per 100,000 population. But the real reason
for this is that Germans simply do not drive as much as we do (even
though they own just as many cars). Sure enough, if one goes to the
IRTAD figures for deaths per billion vehicle kilometres (a better
measure of actual exposure risk), one gets the opposite story:
Germany's toll of 11.3 per billion veh-km actually exceeds Australia's
toll of 9.1 per billion veh-km.
-- end --
So, it seems that despite the German requirements for increased
training etc, they have more fatalities per km driven than we do here.
So, does training make roads safer?
Maybe, but also, maybe not. These stats seem to suggest that it
doesn't.
Bleve
Euan wrote:
> >>>>> "Bleve" == Bleve <carl.I...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> `` *This is understandable when you realize that a German
> >> driver's license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45
> >> hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and
> >> such a license is good for life.*
>
> Bleve> Does Amy Gillett's family agree with this?
>
> Take one incident and apply it to the German driving population? That's
> a stretch Carl and IMO in incredibly poor taste. Accidents will happen,
> no matter what you do.
See the raw data here :
http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/english/grafics.htm
Humbug
<snip>
>
> > It's NOT about making the "test" harder - it's about ensuring a much
> > higher degree of competance.
>
> How do you do that? You ... make the test harder! You may even add
I would hope that the test would only be harder if you aren't properly
prepared. Substitute 'much more comprehensive' for 'harder' and we
agree.
> more regular testing.
YES. YES. YES.
> Will this fix attitudes amongst drivers? maybe
Probably not, but it'll reduce the number of totally incompetant
'motorists'. I reckon that most of the bad attitude mob would fall into
the incompetant group. Increase competance and you'll probably decrease
bad attitude.
> ... but I wouldn't bet on it.
Well I wouldn't bet on it using MY money either, people are contrary
buggers...:-)
<snip>
>
> IMO, (restating!) the problem is not skills or competancy, but
> attitude.
Yes but my point is that a much more comprehensive test requires much
more comprehensive training which _should_ lead to a better attitude.
<snip>
> Again, IMO, your argument, while tempting, is based on a flawed
> assumption :
> you're assuming that skilled drivers are safe drivers.
No. I'm assuming that (properly) skilled drivers are safER drivers.
<snip>
> Even if they were taught them, would they retain the skills? Would
A retest every one or perhaps two years would sort the wheat from the
chaff. A 'standard' retest could be done on a sim.
> the skills merely embolden them to drive faster because they think
> they can stop/corner/drive better? The people I know who've done
> advanced driving courses are often more dangeous drivers precicely
> because they think their skills are great so they can use the old "I
> drive to the conditions, not the speed limit" bullshit to justify
> their belting along at 80 in 60 zones etc.
That's a REAL issue which draconian penalties will go some way towards
fixing.
<snip>
>
> I'd replace incompetant with unthinking, and I'd replace my
> compentancy with my extreme caution and respect for the dangers of
> that road at night in the wet, and then I'd agree with you here. I'm
> 34 and have lived through my dangerous idiot phase I hope :)
A better trained, more competant driver would be a lot less likely to
be as unthinking as (s)he undoubtedly was.
<snip>
> users (I think we're on the same track?). I'm not worried about
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yep.
> the random mistakes everyone makes. Might get struck by lightening
> too ... C'est la Vie ... I'm worried about the dangerous idiots.
Yep.
> Train a dangerous idiot, and you get a more dangerous idiot (I'm sure
> our posters who have done time in the armed services will know that
> mantra only too well ...)
The skydiving community knows that well too. The penalty for "dangerous
idiot" skydiving is about as draconian as you can get. ie. They die or
at least bust a femur. Equally, dangerous idiot driving should invite
draconian penalties. Perhaps not _quite_ as draconian as the skyding
penalty though...:-)
<snip>
> >
> > Most, not all but the vast majority of cyclists are much more
> > basically competant than motorists.
>
> I'd replace "most" with "some". I see a lot of cyclists (motor and
Perhaps:-
Most, not all but the vast majority of cyclists are much more
basically competant than most, not all but the vast majority of
motorists.
<snip>
> swear off bikes because they're "too dangerous". (know any of these
> people? "I used to ride, but it's too dangerous" when run through a
Yep. I'm one of 'em myself with one proviso. I don't consider my
motorcycling skills to be good enough for me to be safe hence I don't
have a motorbike. I did have a Kwaka Mach III and considered it far too
dangerous for me. Not anyone else - ME. In the eyes of others I was
most certainly a dangerous idiot but what I _really_ was was
underskilled. VASTLY...:-)
<snip>
> Red herring alert :
> I drove rally cars competively for a few years, and won a few events
I've played that game too both as a driver (not fast but safe-ish and
conservative and therefore uncompetitive) and as a navigator. Let me
tell you that calling the road in an Alpine A110 in the middle of the
night in the ACT forest is SCARY. BLOODY SCARY. Karting is FUN
though...:-)
> (I wasn't a complete chump!) . I know that abs can stop a car on wet
<snip>
ABS was a bad thing to throw in - I should've stopped at traction
control. Look at the latest generation of BMW's, you can do absolutely
STUPID things and the car will cover up your stupidity to a very large
degree without you knowing just how stupid you've just been. Why do we
'need' all that? Because the primary safety mechanism (aka the driver)
is all too prone to failure by stupidity.
We should get together some time and have a yak - could be bloody
interesting...:-)
AND to get a bit of on topic stuff in here - it was a damn hot ride
this arvo but it was really, really nice. Just a lazy cruise out
towards Clarkfield until I used up about half the time I had available.
A quick turnaround and an equally lazy cruise back home. Hmmmmmm
nice...:-) Got through a LOT of water though...:-)
Part 2 (actually riding decent distances) of my fitness campaign is
starting to happen. Part 1 (stopping smoking) has been in place for
just over a week now...:-)
--
Humbug
BE A LOOF! (There has been a recent population explosion of lerts.)
Euan
Bleve> Euan wrote:
>> >>>>> "Bleve" == Bleve <carl.I...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> `` *This is understandable when you realize that a German >>
>> driver's license costs about $1500-2000, after a minimum of 25-45
>> >> hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory, and
>> >> such a license is good for life.*
>>
Bleve> Does Amy Gillett's family agree with this?
>> Take one incident and apply it to the German driving population?
>> That's a stretch Carl and IMO in incredibly poor taste.
>> Accidents will happen, no matter what you do.
Bleve> That's very true. What's the difference between people in
Bleve> cars in Europe, and here? Is it the driving tests and
Bleve> training, or is it more of a village based culture rather
Bleve> than a carcentric culture? I don't know, I'm asking you.
Bleve> The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think that
Bleve> driver training makes a lot of difference to driver's
Bleve> attitudes. Young males take risks (it's part of being a
Bleve> young male) etc. People here seem to get into their cars and
Bleve> become dickheads. Why? Are they already dickheads and the
Bleve> car just enables them to get away with it more?
IMO because there are few deterrently. Personal accountability for
accidents in this country is a joke. Take that footballer who reversed
over his own daughter. Not his fault, oh no, it's all in the design of
the car.
In Germany, indeed in much of Europe, if you fsck someone up you're open
to heavy restitution. No TAC to bail you out, if you're smart you've
got personal liability insurance. If not, then you're ruined for life.
Consequences for one's actions. That's what gets results.
>> My opinion is based on seven years of driving on German roads and
>> I stand by it. What are you basing your opinion of German
>> driving standards on?
Bleve> I'm not basing it on anything, I'm asking you a question. As
Bleve> you state, and as we all know, accidents happen everywhere.
Bleve> It's not accidents that I thought we were discussing in this
Bleve> thread? It's dangerous driving.
Right, so why did you bring in the Amy Gillet accident? I wasn't
talking about accidents and haven't been talking about accidents. You
brought that in and IMO it was a cheap shot. How the hell am I supposed
to know what Amy Gillet's family think of the standard of German
driving?
Euan
Bleve> I did a bit of poking around for some stats, and found this :
Bleve> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/safer.shtml - extract below :
Bleve> --- extract -- In a common variation on this myth, the road
Bleve> lobby points to the lower road toll per capita in Germany, a
Bleve> country generously provided with non-speed-restricted
Bleve> autobahns. It is certainly true that, according to the OECD's
Bleve> International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD),
Bleve> Germany's road toll of 8.5 per 100,000 population is lower
Bleve> than Australia's road toll of 9 per 100,000 population. But
Bleve> the real reason for this is that Germans simply do not drive
Bleve> as much as we do (even though they own just as many
Bleve> cars). Sure enough, if one goes to the IRTAD figures for
Bleve> deaths per billion vehicle kilometres (a better measure of
Bleve> actual exposure risk), one gets the opposite story: Germany's
Bleve> toll of 11.3 per billion veh-km actually exceeds Australia's
Bleve> toll of 9.1 per billion veh-km. -- end --
Bleve> So, it seems that despite the German requirements for
Bleve> increased training etc, they have more fatalities per km
Bleve> driven than we do here. So, does training make roads safer?
Bleve> Maybe, but also, maybe not. These stats seem to suggest that
Bleve> it doesn't.
When accidents happen on autobahns, they really happen. That's what you
get when the average speed on an autobahn is 100 mph.
Can't remember where I read it, autobahns are far more dangerous than
urban roads in Germany.
Donga
>People here seem to get into their cars and become dickheads. Why? Are they already
>dickheads and the car just enables them to get away with it more?
Yes. That's why this list exists.
Donga
petulance
<snip>
> IMO because there are few deterrently. Personal accountability for
> accidents in this country is a joke. Take that footballer who reversed
> over his own daughter. Not his fault, oh no, it's all in the design of
> the car.
<dons flame suit>
Ahem! Without wanting to start a code war, it was a *rugby* player and
not a footballer who reversed over his own daughter.
Footballers chase round balls instead of egg shaped ones ...
OK, I better shut up now.
Donga
>Ahem! Without wanting to start a code war, it was a *rugby* player and
>not a footballer who reversed over his own daughter.
>Footballers chase round balls instead of egg shaped ones ...
>OK, I better shut up now.
That's probably a good idea - not the best thing to joke about (advice
from a father who has risked his children's lives before, out of being
an average male tool, who just happens also to prefer his own motor
over internal combustion). More so if his wife chose the car - and
plenty of women do like the 4WD 'feeling'.
Donga (ex South Australian who now loves the Lions AND thugby!
ritcho
deejbah Wrote:
> My wife ( who is German) is always lamenting the skill and politeness of
> Australian drivers and how easy it is for people to get their license
> here.
That's 'cos they're crap
Ritch
(The Aust drivers, that is...)
--
ritcho
Bleve
Perhaps. Perhaps there's a difference between accidents and reckless
behaviour? Perhaps there should be? I think so ...
> In Germany, indeed in much of Europe, if you fsck someone up you're open
> to heavy restitution. No TAC to bail you out, if you're smart you've
> got personal liability insurance. If not, then you're ruined for life.
So, the rich can get away with anything because they can afford the
insurance? Interesting argument :) I'm not sure it's a just one
though. TAC is not about taking away accountability, that's what we
have criminal laws for. TAC is about trying to take care of people
injured in accidents in the fairest way possible. Imagine if it all
came down to insurance or personal wealth - you get run over by someone
on the dole, and there's no TAC. They have no insurance and no money.
you get ... squat. Have fun buying that wheelchair. It's important to
seperate punishment for criminal behaviour, and compensation for
injury, I think, I think it's *very* important to do so.
> Consequences for one's actions. That's what gets results.
Agreed to a certain extent, but I think you're missing the point. In
your case, of consequences, the trick is, how do you catch the
dickheads and where do you draw the lines for both defining dickheads,
and standards of proof required? It's not easy to do. We as cyclists
see them all the time, but how do we prove anything? Seriously, if we
threw people in gaol for being dickhead drivers, we'd need a -lot- of
gaols.
I'd sugest that while consequences of actions is vital to controlling
(here we go!) antisocial behavior (case in point, drink driving, good
example for your argument, but also an easy one to impliment), as part
of a real fix, we need to alter the attitude of drivers towards their
use of the roads. Cyclists are often just as guilty of selfish road
use (witness the recent thread here about Beach Rd and trihardalon road
closures as a gem), but the consequences of "our" mistakes and selfish
actions are far less severe than the same when carried out in a car
doing 60+km/h.
> >> My opinion is based on seven years of driving on German roads and
> >> I stand by it. What are you basing your opinion of German
> >> driving standards on?
>
> Bleve> I'm not basing it on anything, I'm asking you a question. As
> Bleve> you state, and as we all know, accidents happen everywhere.
> Bleve> It's not accidents that I thought we were discussing in this
> Bleve> thread? It's dangerous driving.
>
> Right, so why did you bring in the Amy Gillet accident? I wasn't
> talking about accidents and haven't been talking about accidents. You
> brought that in and IMO it was a cheap shot. How the hell am I supposed
> to know what Amy Gillet's family think of the standard of German
> driving?
You mentioned that Germany was politer and it's been suggested that
this was because (partially) of "better" driving training. The amy
gillett incident is a very visable example of how better driving
training does not stop accidents, and may not even reduce the severity
of them. Presumably the driver was fully trained, and even fresh out
of the training that is being bandied about as a fix for Australian
driver attitudes. If you take the (reasonable, I think) angle that the
aim of driver training is to make roads safer, and that the German
example is a good one, then siting a recent graduate losing it in a
situation that theoretically such training should prevent I think is
perfectly valid. Raw nerves notwithstanding, it's a perfectly good
example of how this wonderful training didn't work in a particular
case, which *should* fit perfectly into the class of accident that
improved training should prevent. Ie: single car, cornering at speed,
losing it and crossing the road.
petulance
> Petulance wrote:
>
>>Ahem! Without wanting to start a code war, it was a *rugby* player and
>>not a footballer who reversed over his own daughter.
>>Footballers chase round balls instead of egg shaped ones ...
>>OK, I better shut up now.
>
>
> That's probably a good idea - not the best thing to joke about (advice
> from a father who has risked his children's lives before, out of being
> an average male tool, who just happens also to prefer his own motor
> over internal combustion). More so if his wife chose the car - and
> plenty of women do like the 4WD 'feeling'.
Sorry, it was never my intention to joke about the accident. I was just
making a point about football and rugby.
>
> Donga (ex South Australian who now loves the Lions AND thugby!
>
Lions as in Brisbane or British?
Bleve
Humbug wrote:
> On 20/12/05 at 14:31:08 Bleve somehow managed to type:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > > It's NOT about making the "test" harder - it's about ensuring a much
> > > higher degree of competance.
> >
> > How do you do that? You ... make the test harder! You may even add
>
> I would hope that the test would only be harder if you aren't properly
> prepared. Substitute 'much more comprehensive' for 'harder' and we
> agree.
It's the same thing, really.
> > Will this fix attitudes amongst drivers? maybe
>
> Probably not, but it'll reduce the number of totally incompetant
> 'motorists'. I reckon that most of the bad attitude mob would fall into
> the incompetant group. Increase competance and you'll probably decrease
> bad attitude.
I'd like to think so too, but I doubt it.
> > ... but I wouldn't bet on it.
>
> Well I wouldn't bet on it using MY money either, people are contrary
> buggers...:-)
heh!
> > IMO, (restating!) the problem is not skills or competancy, but
> > attitude.
>
> Yes but my point is that a much more comprehensive test requires much
> more comprehensive training which _should_ lead to a better attitude.
Understood, but as above, I doubt it. I think the key to attitude
change is cultural. Tricky to change - we get into social engineering
issues, and there be dragons.
> > Again, IMO, your argument, while tempting, is based on a flawed
> > assumption :
> > you're assuming that skilled drivers are safe drivers.
>
> No. I'm assuming that (properly) skilled drivers are safER drivers.
*nod*
> > Even if they were taught them, would they retain the skills? Would
>
> A retest every one or perhaps two years would sort the wheat from the
> chaff. A 'standard' retest could be done on a sim.
Again, all you're testing is skill. It's all you can test, really.
Anything else can be faked.
> > the skills merely embolden them to drive faster because they think
> > they can stop/corner/drive better? The people I know who've done
> > advanced driving courses are often more dangeous drivers precicely
> > because they think their skills are great so they can use the old "I
> > drive to the conditions, not the speed limit" bullshit to justify
> > their belting along at 80 in 60 zones etc.
>
> That's a REAL issue which draconian penalties will go some way towards
> fixing.
Maybe.
> > I'd replace incompetant with unthinking, and I'd replace my
> > compentancy with my extreme caution and respect for the dangers of
> > that road at night in the wet, and then I'd agree with you here. I'm
> > 34 and have lived through my dangerous idiot phase I hope :)
>
> A better trained, more competant driver would be a lot less likely to
> be as unthinking as (s)he undoubtedly was.
Maybe.
> > users (I think we're on the same track?). I'm not worried about
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Yep.
Maybe :)
> > Train a dangerous idiot, and you get a more dangerous idiot (I'm sure
> > our posters who have done time in the armed services will know that
> > mantra only too well ...)
>
> The skydiving community knows that well too. The penalty for "dangerous
> idiot" skydiving is about as draconian as you can get. ie. They die or
> at least bust a femur. Equally, dangerous idiot driving should invite
> draconian penalties. Perhaps not _quite_ as draconian as the skyding
> penalty though...:-)
Thus the old favorite steel spike poking out from the steering wheel,
aimed at the driver's chest. :)
> > > Most, not all but the vast majority of cyclists are much more
> > > basically competant than motorists.
> >
> > I'd replace "most" with "some". I see a lot of cyclists (motor and
>
> Perhaps:-
> Most, not all but the vast majority of cyclists are much more
> basically competant than most, not all but the vast majority of
> motorists.
Maybe (heh!). But then, a lot of dangerous dickhead riding happens
with rides like the Hell Ride. These are people who ostensably are
better skilled than the average commuter cyclist, and they take bigger
risks. Is this *because* they're more skilled (or believe they are?).
Another example : there's reasonably regular crashes on the BEach Rd
bunch rides (one every few weeks or so) - these are again, ostensibly,
riders with more skill than commuters, but they crash more often.
Skill people up, and they think that they can get away with more, I
think.
> > swear off bikes because they're "too dangerous". (know any of these
> > people? "I used to ride, but it's too dangerous" when run through a
>
> Yep. I'm one of 'em myself with one proviso. I don't consider my
> motorcycling skills to be good enough for me to be safe hence I don't
> have a motorbike. I did have a Kwaka Mach III and considered it far too
> dangerous for me. Not anyone else - ME. In the eyes of others I was
> most certainly a dangerous idiot but what I _really_ was was
> underskilled. VASTLY...:-)
It's the right wrist that makes a fast motorbike dangerous :)
> <snip>
>
> > Red herring alert :
> > I drove rally cars competively for a few years, and won a few events
>
> I've played that game too both as a driver (not fast but safe-ish and
> conservative and therefore uncompetitive) and as a navigator. Let me
> tell you that calling the road in an Alpine A110 in the middle of the
> night in the ACT forest is SCARY. BLOODY SCARY. Karting is FUN
> though...:-)
Renault Alpine? What year was this? My dad rallied an R10 in the 70's
with an Alpine Giordini engine in it .. it was a -rocket-, he was a
dangerous idiot on the roads too ... I was terrified of being in the
car with him driving to school. Fortunatly, he never killed anyone,
but he did push it ...
> > (I wasn't a complete chump!) . I know that abs can stop a car on wet
>
> <snip>
>
> ABS was a bad thing to throw in - I should've stopped at traction
> control. Look at the latest generation of BMW's, you can do absolutely
> STUPID things and the car will cover up your stupidity to a very large
> degree without you knowing just how stupid you've just been. Why do we
> 'need' all that? Because the primary safety mechanism (aka the driver)
> is all too prone to failure by stupidity.
Agreed, but it's very hard to prevent stupidity.
> We should get together some time and have a yak - could be bloody
> interesting...:-)
>
> AND to get a bit of on topic stuff in here - it was a damn hot ride
> this arvo but it was really, really nice. Just a lazy cruise out
> towards Clarkfield until I used up about half the time I had available.
> A quick turnaround and an equally lazy cruise back home. Hmmmmmm
> nice...:-) Got through a LOT of water though...:-)
I raced at Sandown tonight, but blew up after 35 mins . bloody hill!
None of my lads got a result either :( Next year!
>Part 1 (stopping smoking) has been in place for
> just over a week now...:-)
Stick at it!
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> to heavy restitution. No TAC to bail you out, if you're smart you've
> got personal liability insurance. If not, then you're ruined for life.
Mind you, if there is a no fault situation involving damage (they
exist), or the driver does a hit and run, your fux0red. I think I
quite like the TAC.
A lot of Americans are quite jealous of our no fault systems like
TAC. If you don't have anyone to sue in Yanky land, you are stuffed.
Hence why they are so litigious.
--
TimC
C Code.
C Code Run.
Run, Code, RUN!
PLEASE!!!! --unknown
cfsmtb
Bleve Wrote:
>
> I'd replace incompetant with unthinking, and I'd replace my
> compentancy
> with my extreme caution and respect for the dangers of that road at
> night in the wet, and then I'd agree with you here. I'm 34 and have
> lived through my dangerous idiot phase I hope :)
>
Nope, from a older perspective, you haven't. For a young fella, there's
big gaping holes in your knowledge regarding practical experience.
Utilising systems based theorising, and then arguing a point when you
have a very slender grasp of basic sociology is rather amusing to
observe.
--
cfsmtb
Resound
"Tamyka Bell" <t.b...@uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:43A792A5...@uq.edu.au...
With a skilled driver and current multi channeled ABS there's little to pick
although inconsistant road surfaces (patch of oil that only affects one side
of the car or something similar) will catch out the non-abs equipped car and
I believe that it's getting to the point where it'll beat a skilled driver
on a sealed road (something I'm loathe to admit, by the way). The thing to
bear in mind is that a skilled driver is one who is enthusiastic about and
interested in driving. They're the ones who pay attention to what they're
doing and who will modulate their braking appropriately even when surprised.
The dangerous ones are the ones who don't like driving and who therefore
aren't skilled and devote the least possible amount of attention to it.
These make up the majority of drivers on the road and these are the ones who
will just stand on the brakes, lock everything up, close their eyes and
shriek until the world stops moving. They are the people for whom ABS was
invented.
Plodder
--
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"Bleve" <carl.I...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135080022.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
BIG SNIP
> You mentioned that Germany was politer and it's been suggested that
> this was because (partially) of "better" driving training. The amy
> gillett incident is a very visable example of how better driving
> training does not stop accidents, and may not even reduce the severity
> of them. Presumably the driver was fully trained, and even fresh out
> of the training that is being bandied about as a fix for Australian
> driver attitudes. If you take the (reasonable, I think) angle that the
> aim of driver training is to make roads safer, and that the German
> example is a good one, then siting a recent graduate losing it in a
> situation that theoretically such training should prevent I think is
> perfectly valid. Raw nerves notwithstanding, it's a perfectly good
> example of how this wonderful training didn't work in a particular
> case, which *should* fit perfectly into the class of accident that
> improved training should prevent. Ie: single car, cornering at speed,
> losing it and crossing the road.
No - that's just lazy, binary thinking. Better driver training, including a
thorough knowledge of the econsequences of wrong actions will not eliminate
poor or mistaken driving. Better training reduces the liklihood of these
incidents. At some point the accident/injury rate will plateau no matter how
comprehensive the training. That plateau will be defined by the limit of
human imperfection.
I think road safety is a combination of many factors including social
(attitude, consideration, etc), training (licensing, knowledge), equipment
(vehicle standards and maintenance), infrastructure (roads and other 'hard'
accessories), rules (aiding predictability) and so-on. all intertwined. To
try and use an example of one behaviour to illustrate a single aspect is
just lazy. Many aspects influence the final behaviour - training only
highlights one aspect.
My experiences on the continent (many visits, driving, riding and walking,
in a lot of countries over 40 years) agrees wholeheartedly with Euan - they
are simply better drivers. European drivers (in the main - this isn't a
claim about ALL European drivers) display better control of their vehicles,
more consideration toward other road users and more restraint when things
don't go their way. That's in marked contrast to drivers here in Australia -
poor control, impatient and inconsiderate. The higher, more comprehensive
standard of training plays a part, as do social mores.
In my opinion, if we could breed in some consideration things would improve
markedly here. It's much less about infrastructure (paths segregate, not
integrate) and less about the quality of the roads - so many people blame
the roads for their lack of ability to drive to the conditions. Building
wider roads doesn't help either; too many drivers are incapable of holding a
straight line. Wider roads just gives more room to wander instead of
learning to drive properly.
Nuff - rambling again!
me
Plodder
--
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"cfsmtb" <cfsmtb...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:cfsmtb...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
> >
> >
> > I want to join an advocacy group that is less concerned with building
> > more
> > paths (although there's a place for that) and more concerned with the
> > interactions between motorised vehicle drivers and
> > pedestrians/cyclists. I'd
> > like to do some work that opens up the negotiating space between road
> > users
> > and humanise drivers/cyclists/peds - anyone got any ideas where such a
> > group operates in Perth?
> >
>
> Ok, kick off with:
>
> WA Bicycle Transportation Alliance
> http://www.multiline.com.au/~bta/
>
> WA Bicycle User Groups:
> http://www.multiline.com.au/~bta/advocacy/bug_page.htm
>
> Sustainable Transport Alliance WA
> http://www.stcwa.org.au/
> http://www.stcwa.org.au/cycling/
>
> Plenty there to keep you informed/entertained etc. I've always looked
> towards WA as bit of a shining example, ie: your government abolished
> the equivalent of VicRoads. Pity the drivers behave like bloody
> trogolites.
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb
Thanks for that - I'll do some poking around and see where I can do
something useful.
Admittedly WA is doing some good things. The paths that follow the freeways
and highways are very good for travelling between major centres. It's riding
in the 'burbs that's bloody dangerous, and that's where most people ride.
Not many will use the bike path network to get from A to B - cycling tends
to be restricted to local trips with enthusiasts using the network.
I'd like to do some work in making it safer to ride to the shop rather than
putting so many resources in to longer distances (~10km plus). Make it safer
locally and one can ride longer distances more safely too.
Cheers,
me
>
Resound
"SteveA" <SteveA...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
news:SteveA...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
>> Had a sod of a ride yesterday. Day off, so I thought I'd ride to join my
>> partner for lunch about 15km from Gosnells to Cannington.> I was off the bike yesterday and in the car after work to do some
> errands in preparation for a 2 week camping trip to Esperance. Drove
> down Albany Highway from the City to Cannington and back.
>
> 1. Driving through intersection on ALbany Highway and lights change to
> amber just as I cross the stop line. Idiot woman in shiny Honda four
> wheel drive turns across the intersection in front of me. Much braking
> and I manage to miss her.
>
> 2. In Bunnings car park, on the wide entrance road. Woman in small
> car driving on the wrong side looking down at something on the
> passenger seat. After much blowing of my horn she looks up and gets
> back on the correct side of the road.
>
> 3. Waiting at a stop sign for a break in traffic to allow me to get
> back out onto Albany Highway. Young woman in a soft top Jeep is right
> up the back of my car, revving and when I look back, she is pounding
> the steering wheel. I'm not a slow driver and the car I was in (an
> Audi) is not a slow car. But I'm going to wait for a decent gap
> despite her performance. When I take off, she comes with me,
> tail-gates me then swerves around me and speeds off up the road. I
> kept driving at the speed limit and pulled up next to her at the next
> set of traffic lights.
>
> in Commodore turns left in front of me from right hand lane and
> disappears down side road. FAAAARK.
>
> Maybe Christmas/the warm weather/too much Christmas parting has got to
> these people or maybe they are just FAAAARKING DANGEROUS all the time.
>
> SteveA
>
I swear I get that sort of thing far more driving than I do cycling. Now I'm
prepared to admit that this may point to my driving as much as anything else
but I'm a cautious (but not timid) type these days, unlike my idiot
behaviour 15 years ago. I think I can see more and have more maneuvering
options on the bike. I wound up driving to work a couple of times last week
for various reasons and it sucked big time. It also took over 15 minutes
longer than it does on the bike in the middle of the day!
Bleve
Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:
> --
> I think road safety is a combination of many factors including social
> (attitude, consideration, etc), training (licensing, knowledge), equipment
> (vehicle standards and maintenance), infrastructure (roads and other 'hard'
> accessories), rules (aiding predictability) and so-on. all intertwined. To
> try and use an example of one behaviour to illustrate a single aspect is
> just lazy. Many aspects influence the final behaviour - training only
> highlights one aspect.
Agreed completely.
> My experiences on the continent (many visits, driving, riding and walking,
> in a lot of countries over 40 years) agrees wholeheartedly with Euan - they
> are simply better drivers. European drivers (in the main - this isn't a
> claim about ALL European drivers) display better control of their vehicles,
> more consideration toward other road users and more restraint when things
> don't go their way. That's in marked contrast to drivers here in Australia -
> poor control, impatient and inconsiderate. The higher, more comprehensive
> standard of training plays a part, as do social mores.
Except that the statistics suggest that driving here is not so
dangerous, and that driving in, for example, Germany, is just as
dangerous, if not moreso. Euan suggests that this is due to autobarns
being particularly nasty .. maybe ...
>
> In my opinion, if we could breed in some consideration things would improve
> markedly here.
Of course. That's the main point I'm trying to make.
Plodder
--
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"Graeme Dods" <gra...@gpdods.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:12mmgywgxfqj6$.1nya1vj6e3pbe.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:53:08 +1100, SteveA wrote:
>
> > Plodder Wrote:
> >> Had a sod of a ride yesterday. Day off, so I thought I'd ride to join
my
> >> partner for lunch about 15km from Gosnells to Cannington.
>
> > Maybe Christmas/the warm weather/too much Christmas parting has got to
> > these people or maybe they are just FAAAARKING DANGEROUS all the time.
> >
> > SteveA
>
> Nah, the link seems to be Albany Highway in the above posts, both of which
> lead to Gosnells. I suppose it's quite apt that you often hear "Highway to
> Hell" blaring out of the bogan-mobiles along that road.
>
> Graeme
Got it in one!
Gosnells is one of those councils that tries to be seen to do the right
thing, They've painted cycle paths on many of the roads but fail to do
anything about people parking in the lane. They've installed some nice paths
along the river but it adds several km to the cycle or walking trips because
the path wanders around so much. They've designated shared paths that you'be
battling to stay straight on (two old concrete slabs wide - bumpy and
broken). They've built paths to places (like to shopping centres) but have
made getting off the path tricky - you have to ride through car parks - with
only one or two path exits. to get off the path anywhere else you'd have to
drop off a 6" kerb and bunnyhop a parking bay 'stop bar' immediately.
Gozzy - put in the infrastructure but fail to change people. The "Highway to
Hell" keeps on blaring and the flannies keep a-flapping!
me
Plodder
--
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"flyingdutch" <flyingdut...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in
message news:flyingdut...@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
> > Had a sod of a ride yesterday.
> >
> > snipparge
> >
>
> wot cfsmtb said.
>
> question. Ho many of these incidents did you report?
> I'm gonig to make a leap of assumption here and guess you didnt.
> why not?
> in (almost) every case you had opportunity to record rego
>
> to get legislation/pollies/council/individual drivers and their circle
> of influence you need to report it, get them charged (if appropriate)
> and (sadly) most importantly longterm it becomes a statisitic.
>
> Every traffic strategy, council decision, govt legislation is based
> (sometimes solely) on these. No report. No stat.
> So, be prepared to record details, etc next time and stay safe young
> plodder
>
>
> --
> flyingdutch
You're right, of course. The trouble was that I spent too much time staying
upright (and lost the opportunity to get regos) then got too wound up to
think beyond an aggressive response.
I'm working on keeping my usually placid demeanour...
"Young Plodder" Made my day!
me
^^^^^^
Humbug
<snip>
Motoring stuff taken to e-mail - it's just too far OT. (at long bloody
last I hear 'em say)
I'll get to it in the AM after I finish the last couple of assessments
that I _should've_ done this arvo rather than procrastinating by
playing usenet or going for a ride for a few hours...
>
> I raced at Sandown tonight, but blew up after 35 mins . bloody hill!
I would've blown up well and truly before 35m at racing effort,
probably at about 3.5m. This arvo was for nice relaxed cruisy riding
thanks very much...:-)
> None of my lads got a result either :( Next year!
>
> > Part 1 (stopping smoking) has been in place for
> > just over a week now...:-)
>
> Stick at it!
I have to - my brother and a mate are doing well on their new OCR3's
and I _HAVE_ to be fit enough and fast enough to at least stay with 'em
on the next ATB and the 2007 AAC which they've vowed and declared that
they're doing. I'm more than 10 years older than they are and I've been
cycling (touring, fun, commuting, etc.) for about 40 years or about 39
years and nine months longer than them...:-)
Plodder
--
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"Grazza" <graeme....@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:43a77f4f$0$14696$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Plodder
>
> If I was just starting out riding in Perth your catalogue of potential
> disasters on a 15km ride might put the fear of God into me! You passed
the
> advanced cycling hazard test with flying colours! I hope this doesn't put
> YOU off riding? I'm glad you're looking for a more pro-active response to
> your experiences. Personally I find situations like those you described
go
> with the territory and I do what I can to reduce the risks. On the other
> hand I aim to not draw such situations to me by focusing on them too much.
> I realise this could sound a bit 'woo woo' to some people but I think
that,
> on the whole it works.
>
> I've been doing a lot more riding around Perth in the last few weeks and
can
> count on one hand the number of potential problems I've encountered in
that
> time . Of course I cycle around less hoon-infested areas than Gosnells
;o)
> so maybe I expect car drivers to be more considerate. Generally I find
the
> bike lanes safer than the bike paths, even allowing for all the glass and
> badly designed drains etc. Of course there are pros and cons to using
> either one.
>
> The other day a ute went past me and this 'funny' guy in the passenger
seat
> decided to shout in my ear as he went past. I've come across a few clowns
> around like him and this time I decided it was time to make a point.
> Unfortunately for him, I caught them the lights and his window was still
> wound down. Some people wind them back up, maybe to avoid the instant
karma
> they sense might ensue! As I went past him I yelled as loud as I could.
I
> didn't have the element of suprise he had, because I saw him watching me
in
> his wing mirror as I approached. After the lights turned green and they
> passed me in absolute silence, and gave me a wide berth, so I think the
> point was made. Maybe it pays to act a bit 'crazy' when out riding? OK
OK,
> I'm not naive enough to believe that such strategies always work as you
can
> never quite tell how people will react when the illusory safety of their
> 'personal magic transport box' is breached.
>
> Several years ago I used to do a lot of riding around Melbourne and found
> the same level of ignorance and shear bloody-mindedness amongst car and
> truck drivers over there. At the risk of sounding like I accept such
> behaviour, it seems to go with the territory, yet it hasn't put me off
> riding.
>
> Although not perfect, Perth has a pretty good bike-friendly network. And
> the weather is MUCH more cycling-friendly than Melbourne's (ducking for
> cover here). This seems to encourage a lot of people of all ages and
sizes
> to get out and enjoy cycling, either blissfully unaware or in spite of all
> the potential 'negatives', whatever. Perhaps as more car drivers discover
> the joys of recreational cycling, perhaps motivated by the increasing
costs
> of driving (not just financial), they will become more bike-friendly when
> they jump back in their cars. Now don't tell me 'pigs might fly' cos I've
> seen them with my own eyes! :op
>
> Graeme
Naah - not turned off cycling - more determined, if anything. I'll be using
some energy positively rather than funnellingit into road rage each time I
jump on my bike.I do like the 'act a bit crazy' bit though... :)
Agree that Perth is better than some places, but it's still pretty bad. I
think I just notice it more after my recent cycle touring trip to Europe. It
made me realise how badly we behave here. I've cycled a fair bit in Europe
before but only locally where I'v been visiting. Touring gave me a much
broader perspective and very much highlighted our shortcomings.
I also agree that if more drivers were also cyclists we'd see big
improvements. Someone wrote here recently that people should ride bikes as a
prerequisite for a car licence. Not a bad idea...
As I wrote, it wasn't so much the incidents that bothered me. It was the
fact that I've considered that sort of treatment normal. There's all sorts
of things wrong with that. That normalising process is what I'd like to work
to change.
Cheers,
Frank
Bleve
Are you calling me a dangerous idiot, or throwing jargon around for
kicks?
I don't mind either way, but would like to know :) What would you
suggest would make our roads safer for us to ride on, apart from
vigalante efforts and occasional kneejerk protests when something very
visable crops up? And if you *are* calling me a dangerous idiot, I'd be
interested to know why. Last I checked, I'd never harmed anyone on the
road (or anywhere else, for that matter) and I drive, ride and
motorcycle in a manner that I at least, consider to be safe and
courtious. As you've never observed my control of any vehicle, you'll
just have to take my word for it, or make something up to suit :)
How do you explain the "get into a car, turn into an arsehole"
behaviour, and how would you suggest we engineer our society to fix (or
at least, reduce) this kind of behavior? Flex those well trained
sociology neurons and set me straight, please. In words I can
understand (be creative, I don't grok the jargon .. this may be a
challenge, but I'd like to learn!). Any good books I should read? Any
good resources online? Perhaps a definition of "normalising behaviour"
would be a good start, I've seen that tossed around a bit :)
If you've already got all the answers, can I have a link to your paper?
Euan
TimC> On 2005-12-20, Euan (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite,
TimC> entirely unlike tea:
>> In Germany, indeed in much of Europe, if you fsck someone up
>> you're open to heavy restitution. No TAC to bail you out, if
>> you're smart you've got personal liability insurance. If not,
>> then you're ruined for life.
TimC> Mind you, if there is a no fault situation involving damage
TimC> (they exist), or the driver does a hit and run, your fux0red.
TimC> I think I quite like the TAC.
No you're not. In such situations blame gets attributed as 50/50 with
the insurance companies footing the bill.
Euan
Bleve> You mentioned that Germany was politer and it's been
Bleve> suggested that this was because (partially) of "better"
Bleve> driving training. The amy gillett incident is a very visable
Bleve> example of how better driving training does not stop
Bleve> accidents, and may not even reduce the severity of them.
Bleve> Presumably the driver was fully trained, and even fresh out
Bleve> of the training that is being bandied about as a fix for
Bleve> Australian driver attitudes. If you take the (reasonable, I
Bleve> think) angle that the aim of driver training is to make roads
Bleve> safer, and that the German example is a good one, then siting
Bleve> a recent graduate losing it in a situation that theoretically
Bleve> such training should prevent I think is perfectly valid. Raw
Bleve> nerves notwithstanding, it's a perfectly good example of how
Bleve> this wonderful training didn't work in a particular case,
Bleve> which *should* fit perfectly into the class of accident that
Bleve> improved training should prevent. Ie: single car, cornering
Bleve> at speed, losing it and crossing the road.
Utter crap Carl. In that post I said it was only part of the solution,
not the whole solution.
cfsmtb
Bleve Wrote:
>
>
> Are you calling me a dangerous idiot, or throwing jargon around for
> kicks?
[waffle snipped]
No Carl, you're the only one here typing those words into the 'puter
and making those assumptions. Inadvertly, your response simply
highlighted a whole pile of insecurities. Funny that. :D
--
cfsmtb
Bleve
I wrote this :
> I'm 34 and have
> lived through my dangerous idiot phase I hope :)
You wrote this, everything else was removed :
>Nope, from a older perspective, you haven't
How does that mean anything except "you're a dangerous idiot"?
Bleve
You keep saying that Germany's a politer (and presumably, safer) place
to be a road user. I cite some hard stats that suggest that the place
isn't quite as safe as your experience there suggests, and an example,
but somehow that's "utter crap". The example is a simple one of a
conspicuous failure of recent driver training, despite the rigourous
training being promoted.
So what are you trying to say? The stats already show that Germany is
a dangerous place to be on the road (I'm sure autobahns skew the stats,
but then, so do our dark, dangerous bidirectional country roads and
trucks and kangaroos etc). The German system has more rigourous
licence requirements *and* subjectively is politer and nicer to travel
around, and yet they kill eachother at a greater rate than we do, per
km driven.
I dunno ... I'm going to go and ride my bike :)
Random Data
> IMO because there are few deterrently. Personal accountability for
> accidents in this country is a joke. Take that footballer who reversed
> over his own daughter. Not his fault, oh no, it's all in the design of
> the car.
He actually went forward over her because she couldn't be seen over the
bonnet. Impossible to see, not SMIDSY lack of attention, though he should
have confirmed it was clear and known where she was. Bloody easy mistake
to make in a big 4WD though, and not one he's going to forget in a hurry.
Yes, he screwed up big time. But how many people here honestly check right
in close every time they get in a car?
--
Dave Hughes | da...@hired-goons.net
"We have the concentration span of 10 year old ADD children who have
just eaten a tube of toothpaste." Dr Chris
Random Data
> The dangerous ones are the ones who don't like driving and who therefore
> aren't skilled and devote the least possible amount of attention to it.
I'm going to go a step further into generalisation city and say that there
are three major groups:
Enthusiasts: People who really like driving, and have taken the time to
actually better their skills - lots of twisty roads, lots of driving in
all sorts of conditions, and closed track events. You'll get some who
bring a track attitude to the road, but the majority know the track is for
racing and the road is there to share (awwww!). These drivers are often
at the fast end of the spectrum (say from speed limit -5 to speed limit
+10) , but pay attention and know to slow down when there are people
around or conditions are bad. I like to think I'm in this category, but I
guess we all do.
These people have a reasonable idea of the limits of their car and
themselves.
Boofheads: People who like driving, and know that the best drivers have a
heavy right foot. Fast in a straight line, no idea about cornering, road
position, or other people. The tools who cut up traffic non stop, and fang
off every light. These are the really dangerous ones, because they're
going fast and don't have the skills or attention to safely negotiate
anything going wrong. Speed anywhere from speed limit to car's max.
Dozers: As described above, people for whom driving is a chore. Don't
care, just want to get from A-B, preferably as quickly as possible.
Often not paying huge amounts of attention, but as a general rule not
going to quickly.
Obviously these are generalisations, and there's some overlap or further
divisions to be made. At the risk of restarting another war, exceeding
the speed limit by a small amount isn't necessarily dangerous in itself,
especially on a deserted road. Speed should be as close as possible to
other traffic while remaining within your own limits as the driver of the
car you're within.
Plodder
--
Frank
pang...@DACKSiinet.net.au
Drop DACKS to reply
"Bleve" <carl.I...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135085461.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There are several posts which cite deaths per million km travelled in
different parts of the world. I don't think that's all that significant in
terms of judging driver ability. Note: I used 'ability' in contrast to
'skill'. You can have a very skilled driver who, because of social or other
factors has a low ability as a road user. Conversely, an unskilled clot who
KNOWS they are not very skilled can be a very good, careful road user simply
because they knowingly compensate for their lack of driving skill with
social skill - consideration. There will be many shades in between.
Here in Aus it's easy to clock up thousands and thousands of km on almost
empty roads in fine, clear, dry weather. Damn sight harder in Europe! It's
relatively easy to drive safely with such low traffic density as here. Now,
imagine an Aussie driving style in Europe. How do you think that would
affect the 'deaths per million km travelled' stats?
I'd speculate that, given the same traffic densities and conditions,
European drivers would kill and injure far less people than us.
Me - still to caffienate so maybe not making much sense...
Theo Bekkers
> I'm going to go a step further into generalisation city and say that
> there are three major groups:
>
> Enthusiasts:
> These people have a reasonable idea of the limits of their car and
> themselves.
And drive as close as possible to those limits having no idea of or regard
for other drivers limitations.
> Boofheads:
> Dozers:
Driving a car is so damned boring I think I'll have to place myself in the
last group. The rest of you are, of course, all highly competent drivers of
all manner of vehicles, including bicycles.
I believe something like 80% of drivers think they are above average. I
suspect my wife is a better driver on the road than I. OTOH, I'm quite
competent in a fire truck, and the other guys prefer that it's me that's
driving that. I have trouble maintaining concentration when driving a car.
As Humbug said "Most, not all but the vast majority of cyclists are much
more basically competant than motorists.", then how come so many look like
idiots wobbling down the road?
I think traction control, ABS, proportional steering, brake load
compensation, zero offset steering, and a sunroof are all highly desirable
features to have in cars that most people never use (except for the
sunroof). We are told these features will make us safer, but they neglect to
tell us that they will make everyone else less safe due to our increased
confidence. Once every car is legislated to have all these features we will
all be far less safe.
Theo
LotteBum
Euan Wrote:
> Utter crap Carl. In that post I said it was only part of the solution,
> not the whole solution.
I have to agree with Chuan on the German way of driver training. Even
my parents were put through Driving School (ie. had to get x amount of
hours up and when their instructor thought they were competent, they
had the test, theory and practical etc.).
I must admit that I don't think it has as much to do with the skill of
Australian drivers (although most people here do lack even basic driving
skills) as it does the attitude of Australian drivers.... the German
girl responsible for Amy Gillet's death and injuring the other girls,
has at least shown some remorse - she didn't do the Austmerican (had to
be said) thing and run off, only to return with a lawyer.
As a country, we're not exactly moving forward, that's for sure.
Lotte (bloody northern European migrant)
--
LotteBum
Theo Bekkers
> cfsmtb wrote:
>> No Carl, you're the only one here typing those words into the 'puter
>> and making those assumptions. Inadvertly, your response simply
>> highlighted a whole pile of insecurities. Funny that. :D
>
> I wrote this :
>
>> I'm 34 and have
>> lived through my dangerous idiot phase I hope :)
>
> You wrote this, everything else was removed :
>
>> Nope, from a older perspective, you haven't
>
> How does that mean anything except "you're a dangerous idiot"?
I'm afraid your last line there reflects what cfsmtb said
"your response simply highlighted a whole pile of insecurities."
Don't sweat it, you're still young and you may grow out of it.
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> You mentioned that Germany was politer and it's been suggested that
> this was because (partially) of "better" driving training. The amy
> gillett incident is a very visable example of how better driving
> training does not stop accidents, and may not even reduce the severity
> of them. Presumably the driver was fully trained, and even fresh out
> of the training that is being bandied about as a fix for Australian
> driver attitudes. If you take the (reasonable, I think) angle that
> the aim of driver training is to make roads safer, and that the German
> example is a good one, then siting a recent graduate losing it in a
> situation that theoretically such training should prevent I think is
> perfectly valid. Raw nerves notwithstanding, it's a perfectly good
> example of how this wonderful training didn't work in a particular
> case, which *should* fit perfectly into the class of accident that
> improved training should prevent. Ie: single car, cornering at speed,
> losing it and crossing the road.
You're full of shit Carl and, when you get called on it, you try to justify
it with even more shit. It's that insecurity problem cfsmtb was laughing
about.
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> Except that the statistics suggest that driving here is not so
> dangerous, and that driving in, for example, Germany, is just as
> dangerous, if not moreso.
You want to share those alleged statistics or did you pull them out of your
arse? I've driven on Germany's autobahns and did not feel unsafe at any
time.
Theo
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Obviously these are generalisations, and there's some overlap or further
> divisions to be made. At the risk of restarting another war, exceeding
> the speed limit by a small amount isn't necessarily dangerous in itself,
> especially on a deserted road. Speed should be as close as possible to
> other traffic while remaining within your own limits as the driver of the
> car you're within.
My excuse why I was doing 67 km/h down the hill towards home lastweek.
I assumed I was doing 60, despite that lovely rarity of a very strong
tailwind, 'cause I was keeping level with the cars. Well, if I wanted
to merge safely into the right lane to turn right, I had to be doing
67!
--
TimC
But if I ever have a child, I will certainly be naming it "Sun
Microsystems". -- Hipatia
Theo Bekkers
> You keep saying that Germany's a politer (and presumably, safer) place
> to be a road user. I cite some hard stats that suggest that the place
> isn't quite as safe as your experience there suggests, and an example,
> but somehow that's "utter crap". The example is a simple one of a
> conspicuous failure of recent driver training, despite the rigourous
> training being promoted.
Your hard stats is one road incident? Or did I miss something?
Theo
Stuart Lamble
>
> Graeme Dods wrote:
>> ABS won't always help you stop quicker even on normal (non-gravel) roads.
>
> I don't believe you're correct in the vast majority of cases.
(Please be careful with your attributions.)
Yes and no. The way ABS works is to watch the wheels; when they lock up,
it the pressure pulls back until they're rotating again, then goes to
the verge of lockup. Which means that somebody who has adequate
experience can take the wheels to the verge of lockup, and hold them
there. In other words: you'll do *marginally* better by manual braking,
*if* you know what you're doing, and *if* you're skilled enough.
The vast majority cases don't have that skill ... but depending on how
pedantic you want to be, you could still argue that it's *possible*
(even if very unlikely.)
Personally? I know I don't have that level of skill, and don't
particularly want to acquire it the hard way. In the absence of
professional training (which would mean hours of practice to keep it
up), I'll take ABS, thank you very much.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
Theo Bekkers
> Yes, he screwed up big time. But how many people here honestly check
> right in close every time they get in a car?
We have a couple of dogs that mill around the car when we're coming in and
out. There's almost no way I could avoid running over one should it not be
smart enough to stay out of the way.
Theo
Theo Bekkers
> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/safer.shtml - extract below :
> --- extract --
> In a common variation on this myth, the road lobby points to the lower
> road toll per capita in Germany, a country generously provided with
> non-speed-restricted autobahns. It is certainly true that, according
> to the OECD's International Road Traffic and Accident Database
> (IRTAD), Germany's road toll of 8.5 per 100,000 population is lower
> than Australia's road toll of 9 per 100,000 population. But the real
> reason for this is that Germans simply do not drive as much as we do
> (even though they own just as many cars). Sure enough, if one goes to
> the IRTAD figures for deaths per billion vehicle kilometres (a better
> measure of actual exposure risk), one gets the opposite story:
> Germany's toll of 11.3 per billion veh-km actually exceeds Australia's
> toll of 9.1 per billion veh-km.
Ahh, that's what I missed, sorry about the rant. I personally felt much
safer on the German autobahns that I do on Perth's freeways.
Theo
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> improvements. Someone wrote here recently that people should ride bikes as a
> prerequisite for a car licence. Not a bad idea...
Oh, I don't know about that. You would also have to make sure you
educate the new cyclists. If you somehow mandate all drivers first
become cyclists, or if they do it out of their own free will because
of rising costs, then as long as they don't get educated about safe
riding, they will only ever ride on bike paths, and ride unsafely on
the road only when absolutely necessary. They will come away from it
with a bad impression of cycling, and by extension, cyclists. Go back
to the car, and when they hit a cyclist, assume the cyclists was to
blame because cycling is inherently dangerous.
Darn it, it always leads back to this edumucation thingy, and making
sure that anything they are told actually sticks with them (refresher
courses?). Not a very sexy topic, is it?
--
TimC
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
EuanB
Bleve Wrote:
> > Utter crap Carl. In that post I said it was only part of the
> solution,
> > not the whole solution.
>
> You keep saying that Germany's a politer (and presumably, safer) place
> to be a road user. I cite some hard stats that suggest that the place
> isn't quite as safe as your experience there suggests, and an example,
> but somehow that's "utter crap". The example is a simple one of a
> conspicuous failure of recent driver training, despite the rigourous
> training being promoted.
>
Asking what I think Amy Gillet's family's opinion of German driving
based solely on that accident *is* utter crap. That's my point.
You're either deliberately baiting me or just not seeing that.
Which is it?
--
EuanB
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>> Utter crap Carl. In that post I said it was only part of the solution,
>> not the whole solution.
>
> You keep saying that Germany's a politer (and presumably, safer) place
> to be a road user. I cite some hard stats that suggest that the place
> isn't quite as safe as your experience there suggests, and an example,
> but somehow that's "utter crap". The example is a simple one of a
> conspicuous failure of recent driver training, despite the rigourous
> training being promoted.
>
> So what are you trying to say? The stats already show that Germany is
> a dangerous place to be on the road (I'm sure autobahns skew the stats,
> but then, so do our dark, dangerous bidirectional country roads and
> trucks and kangaroos etc).
And if autobarns skew the stats, that suggest that drivers aren't
driving to the conditions, and hence are unsafe drivers.
Who woulda thunk?
--
TimC
An optimist thinks we are living in the best of all possible worlds. A
pessimist fears this is true. --unknown
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
Seems you missed a thread there somewhere...
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.bicycle/msg/5a06caa289d98570?dmode=source
msd-ig: 1135075090....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
--
TimC
If anyone tells me to work smarter, not harder, I will kick him
or her, hard, in a random body part. I will then kick him or her
a second time, "smarter, not harder," which is to say that on the
second strike, I'll use the same force, but target more carefully.
-- Catherine in Scary Devil Monastery
Resound
"Theo Bekkers" <tbek...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:43a8903c$1...@news.bekkers.com.au...
> Random Data wrote:
>
>> I'm going to go a step further into generalisation city and say that
>> there are three major groups:
>>
>> Enthusiasts:
>> These people have a reasonable idea of the limits of their car and
>> themselves.
>
> And drive as close as possible to those limits having no idea of or regard
> for other drivers limitations.
You seem to have missed the bit that said "[they] pay attention and know to
slow down when there are people around or conditions are bad." The ones who
don't are the boofheads who have found out how much fun corners can be if
you get them right. I used to be in that catagory.
Resound
they persist in wandering behind the car where there is absolutely no way I
can see them. I back up very slowly and put the car where I want it to be
and just hope the little sods will get out of the way. Which they do.
Graeme Dods
> And that's why whenever you are faced with being required to perform
> an emergency stop, you should perform a quick mental calculation of
> whether you will be better off without ABS, go pull the fuse if so,
> and then start braking :)
In that case, your best outcome would be as a result of realising that
you've left the fuse at home and have to turn back to go and get it, hence
avoiding the accident all together! :)
Graeme
Graeme Dods
> Ahem! Without wanting to start a code war, it was a *rugby* player and
> not a footballer who reversed over his own daughter.
And if you're going to be picky, he didn't reverse over her, he was going
forward at the time and I believe she tripped and fell under one of the
wheels. So all that hoo-ha about poor visibility whilst reversing on the
"news" was just the standard tenuous link journalism you see every day.
Mind you, it's better than the South African rugby player who killed his
daughter in a car in their driveway (*really* tenous link here -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1224059,00.html)
Graeme
mikeg
Tamyka Bell Wrote:
> TimC wrote:[color=blue]
>
> "SMILE! YOU'RE ON CYCLE-CAM!"
>
> Tam
"BEHAVE! YOU'RE ON CYCLE-CAM!"
Mike
--
mikeg
EuanB
Bleve Wrote:
>
> I did a bit of poking around for some stats, and found this :
>
> http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/safer.shtml - extract below :
> --- extract --
> In a common variation on this myth, the road lobby points to the lower
> road toll per capita in Germany, a country generously provided with
> non-speed-restricted autobahns. It is certainly true that, according
> to
> the OECD's International Road Traffic and Accident Database (IRTAD),
> Germany's road toll of 8.5 per 100,000 population is lower than
> Australia's road toll of 9 per 100,000 population. But the real reason
> for this is that Germans simply do not drive as much as we do (even
> though they own just as many cars). Sure enough, if one goes to the
> IRTAD figures for deaths per billion vehicle kilometres (a better
> measure of actual exposure risk), one gets the opposite story:
> Germany's toll of 11.3 per billion veh-km actually exceeds Australia's
> toll of 9.1 per billion veh-km.
>
> So, it seems that despite the German requirements for increased
> training etc, they have more fatalities per km driven than we do here.
> So, does training make roads safer?
> Maybe, but also, maybe not. These stats seem to suggest that it
> doesn't.
The statistics don't tell the whole story.
In general, roads in Austrlia are multi-laned, well controlled
highways. It's easy to cover thousands of kilometeres without entering
any challenging roads. This is the result of a much younger road
infrastructure which has been engineered for cars, not horse drawn
traffic as is the case with much of the underlying infrastrucutre in
Europe.
Also factor in much more adverse driving conditions in winter. For
two to three months of the year there is persistent snow and ice in
much of Germany, challenges which the average Australian driver never
encounters. Add in to that persistent fog, and we're talking less than
10M visibility being common here, and it's really not possible to
compare the stats on a per kilometer basis. Apples and oranges and all
that.
Take an Australian trained driver, drop them in to German roads and
I'd wager he won't fare too well. Drop a German trained driver in to
Australian roads and I'd wager that he'd fare very well.
But as you stated earlier, this thread's about attitudes, not accident
rates. The attitude of German drivers is much better than that of
Australian drivers.
--
EuanB
Bleve
nice doggy, wag tail for nice man huh?
She called me a dangerous idiot. Idiot I don't care about, dangerous I
take offence at.
Bleve
They never do.
> In general, roads in Austrlia are multi-laned, well controlled
> highways. It's easy to cover thousands of kilometeres without entering
> any challenging roads. This is the result of a much younger road
> infrastructure which has been engineered for cars, not horse drawn
> traffic as is the case with much of the underlying infrastrucutre in
> Europe.
But hang on a minute, wasn't there a thread recently discussing that
one way to make roads safer was to have narrow and confusing roads and
intersections?
> Also factor in much more adverse driving conditions in winter. For
> two to three months of the year there is persistent snow and ice in
> much of Germany, challenges which the average Australian driver never
> encounters.
That's true.
> Add in to that persistent fog, and we're talking less than
> 10M visibility being common here, and it's really not possible to
> compare the stats on a per kilometer basis. Apples and oranges and all
> that.
If we can't compare the stats, then we have no way to know if the
German experience is actually better than ours or not. It's more
expensive, but we can't know if it's better or not.
But I don't think it is an apples & oranges issue, if we can say that
this driver training in Germany *is* better, then it should prepare
drivers to better deal with the adverse conditions. Why are these well
trained drivers crashing and causing fatalities in fog and snow? Why
aren't they driving to the conditions? Why, given the improved
training, is the count worse than ours? Surely better training would
mean that drivers would be more careful when driving through 10m viz -
it's hard to kill someone at 20km/h or so, which is about as fast as
you'd ever want to drive in 10m viz, for example.
> Take an Australian trained driver, drop them in to German roads and
> I'd wager he won't fare too well. Drop a German trained driver in to
> Australian roads and I'd wager that he'd fare very well.
Maybe. Hard to tell though.
> But as you stated earlier, this thread's about attitudes, not accident
> rates. The attitude of German drivers is much better than that of
> Australian drivers.
That's entirely a subjective opinion, and that's fine, but it's what it
is. I guess a relevant question is do attitutes affect accident (and
fatality) rates? If the road toll here is one of the lowest in the
western world (which has been mooted in another thread, I don't know
the numbers though) and our attitude is so bad, according to the
popular mood here, then a naive interpretation of the numbers could
suggest that bad attitudes make roads safer! (of course, confusing
correlation with causation is a common mistake with statistics, I'm
only pulling your leg here :) )
Stuart Lamble
>
> EuanB wrote:
>> In general, roads in Austrlia are multi-laned, well controlled
>> highways. It's easy to cover thousands of kilometeres without entering
>> any challenging roads. This is the result of a much younger road
>> infrastructure which has been engineered for cars, not horse drawn
>> traffic as is the case with much of the underlying infrastrucutre in
>> Europe.
>
> But hang on a minute, wasn't there a thread recently discussing that
> one way to make roads safer was to have narrow and confusing roads and
> intersections?
Chalk and cheese. The thread in question is relating to suburban
streets: the sort that most people live on. This thread relates to the
sorts of roads that connect cities.
cfsmtb
Bleve Wrote:
>
> She called me a dangerous idiot. Idiot I don't care about, dangerous
> I
> take offence at.
Ah, Straw Man! Ad hominem response then falters to concluding with a OT
joke. Break in the weather, I'm off down the shops. :p
--
cfsmtb
EuanB
Bleve Wrote:
> > In general, roads in Austrlia are multi-laned, well controlled
> > highways. It's easy to cover thousands of kilometeres without
> entering
> > any challenging roads. This is the result of a much younger road
> > infrastructure which has been engineered for cars, not horse drawn
> > traffic as is the case with much of the underlying infrastrucutre
> in
> > Europe.
>
> But hang on a minute, wasn't there a thread recently discussing that
> one way to make roads safer was to have narrow and confusing roads
> and
> intersections?
>
The idea behind second generation traffic calming is to confuse the
pedestrian and vehicle areas so you're never quite sure if you've got
right of way or not. That's not how the roads in Europe are engineered,
hence the re-engineering that's going on in the Netherlands. The same
principles were applied to a notorious road in Hertfordshire, UK. The
accident rate dropped by a third in the first year. Sorry, haven't got
the cite handy and a quick google hasn't turned it up.
>
> > Also factor in much more adverse driving conditions in winter. For
> > two to three months of the year there is persistent snow and ice in
> > much of Germany, challenges which the average Australian driver
> never
> > encounters.
>
> That's true.
>
> > Add in to that persistent fog, and we're talking less than
> > 10M visibility being common here, and it's really not possible to
> > compare the stats on a per kilometer basis. Apples and oranges and
> all
> > that.
>
> If we can't compare the stats, then we have no way to know if the
> German experience is actually better than ours or not. It's more
> expensive, but we can't know if it's better or not.
>
> But I don't think it is an apples & oranges issue, if we can say that
> this driver training in Germany *is* better, then it should prepare
> drivers to better deal with the adverse conditions. Why are these
> well
> trained drivers crashing and causing fatalities in fog and snow? Why
> aren't they driving to the conditions? Why, given the improved
> training, is the count worse than ours?
> Actually the road toll is better in Germany, not worse. You've taken a
particular measure to back up your argument and that's fine, it's a
valid measure. But so is overall road toll.
The question you should consider is what would the road toll be if the
training wasn't so extensive. Again, an unknown so a pointless debate.
>
> Surely better training would
> mean that drivers would be more careful when driving through 10m viz
> -
> it's hard to kill someone at 20km/h or so, which is about as fast as
> you'd ever want to drive in 10m viz, for example.
> You haven't driven in Germany, have you?
On the autobahn the go is to hang on to the tail lights in front of
you ... at over 80 mph. Going slower is actually MORE dangerous in thos
conditions because drivers are not expecting slow traffic. That's what
nearly happened ot me the first time I drove in fog over there. I'm not
saying it's right, but that's the way they drive.
>
> > Take an Australian trained driver, drop them in to German roads and
> > I'd wager he won't fare too well. Drop a German trained driver in
> to
> > Australian roads and I'd wager that he'd fare very well.
>
> Maybe. Hard to tell though.
>
> > But as you stated earlier, this thread's about attitudes, not
> accident
> > rates. The attitude of German drivers is much better than that of
> > Australian drivers.
>
> That's entirely a subjective opinion, and that's fine, but it's what
> it
> is.
>
Yeah, it is what it is. An opinion backed up by seven years of drving
cars, trucks and riding bicycles in Germany. Like it or lump it I'm in
a better position to judge that than you are.
>
> I guess a relevant question is do attitutes affect accident (and
> fatality) rates? If the road toll here is one of the lowest in the
> western world (which has been mooted in another thread, I don't know
> the numbers though) and our attitude is so bad, according to the
> popular mood here, then a naive interpretation of the numbers could
> suggest that bad attitudes make roads safer! (of course, confusing
> correlation with causation is a common mistake with statistics, I'm
> only pulling your leg here :) ) If I had to pin it on anything it would be the lower speed limits on
the roads here.
Forgetting Germany, in my native UK roads which are commonly 80km/h
here would be 70 mph over there. That's about 140km/h? Someone does
140km/h over here it's front page news, in UK it's normal. in Germany
that's slow!
Slower speeds give you more time to react and mitigate the effects of
collisions.
--
EuanB
Euan
Random Data> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 11:25:34 +0000, Euan wrote:
>> IMO because there are few deterrently. Personal accountability
>> for accidents in this country is a joke. Take that footballer
>> who reversed over his own daughter. Not his fault, oh no, it's
>> all in the design of the car.
Random Data> He actually went forward over her because she couldn't
Random Data> be seen over the bonnet. Impossible to see, not SMIDSY
Random Data> lack of attention, though he should have confirmed it
Random Data> was clear and known where she was. Bloody easy mistake
Random Data> to make in a big 4WD though, and not one he's going to
Random Data> forget in a hurry.
Easy mistake, but still a mistake. The person behind the wheel is to
blame, not the design of the car.
Having driven 110 Landrovers with wheel on bonnet I know what I'm
talking about.
Random Data> Yes, he screwed up big time. But how many people here
Random Data> honestly check right in close every time they get in a
Random Data> car?
Me.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)