On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:23:24 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski"
<kasper.kowalski@no-spam> wrote:
>> Well, why don't car drivers start 100% compliance first, then you may
>> collectively have a right to whinge about cyclists non-compliance..
>
>those of us that do comply have the right to complain about *anyone* that
>doesn't... car drivers and cyclists alike.
So you've never exceeded the speed limit or used your horn without a
valid safety concern?
>FFS, running red lights, failing to give way to pedestrians are serious
>offences. I see these things done every day by many cyclists as a matter of
>course. i don't often see drivers do them.....
I saw a small rigid truck get flashed at a red light camera at
Maribyrnong Road crossing Mount Alexander Road just two days ago.. I
see cars accelerate for the orange regularly.. I see cars fail to
stop at the red pedestrian signal coming out of moonee ponds
interchange southbound onto Mount Alexander Road once every week or
two, less so now than when I used the tram through there daily..
Really, car drivers in general are just as bad as cyclists in general,
but car drivers have way more potential to do serious harm than
cyclists do, are less manouverable, more isolated from localised
conditions, and two tonnes of steel hurts a LOT more than 50-180kg of
cyclist and bicycle..
>> Oh, wait, the Government is so sure that car drivers can't obey the
>> road rules that it is banking on the revenue to run the state.. I
>> guess car drivers are an awful long way off 100% compliance..
>
>and what do you suppose contributes primarily to this revenue? parking and
>speeding fines? technical breaches for the most part, little relevance to
>danger of the offence.
Perhaps..
Revenue from parking offences tends to go to councils though, and is
used to keep their little council area amenable.. One person hogging
a parking space for more than their fair share of time doesn't help
urban amenity..
Speeding is a problem, though I do feel that 3-10km/h should be a
points only offence, so if you get flashed, you lose say two points
but don't get fined, or get a $20 processing charge or similar.. That
said, the speed limits should be lower than they are in urban areas,
50 on arterials in pedestrianised parts of town (read the inner
suburbs), 40 on local streets in similar areas, though I wouldn't
support those lower limits if the fines kicked in as early as they do
today..
Meanwhile, car drivers do need to learn that the speed limit does not
mean that you have to drive at that speed.. 5-10km/h below should be
acceptable and should not cause people behind you to honk, drive
agressively, tailgate or overtake across unbroken lines.. Most of the
time, you catch up to people like that at the next red light anyway,
but it still happens..
PC
"PC" <get@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efe68b3.80409993@no-spam
> >those of us that do comply have the right to complain about *anyone* that
> >doesn't... car drivers and cyclists alike.
>
> So you've never exceeded the speed limit or used your horn without a
> valid safety concern?
I suspect I exceed the speed limit on many occasions... but, I look at the
road/traffic, not my speedo. Speed limits are largely irrelevant as they
dont take into account the many factors that govern a safe speed given a set
of conditions.
> Really, car drivers in general are just as bad as cyclists in general,
> but car drivers have way more potential to do serious harm than
> cyclists do, are less manouverable, more isolated from localised
> conditions, and two tonnes of steel hurts a LOT more than 50-180kg of
> cyclist and bicycle..
That makes no difference... if anything, a driver should be given more
leeway WRT running red lights as they are in a far better position to clear
the intersection safely. A cyclists lack of size is the only reason they can
ride thru a crossing while pedestrians are on it. But, I suggest you read
some medical textbooks, a cyclist at speed could potentially kill someone
also if they knocked a person down - head injuries are remarkably easy to
sustain, and their severity can be out of proportion with the size of
impact.
Having nearly been knocked down by a cyclist on a crossing (who thought I
should give way to him, based upon the abuse yelled at me as he rode right
in front of me), I will forcibly knock a cyclist down that does this in
front of me again.
Adelaide is a relatively bike-friendly city, lots of bike-lanes etc. That
still doesnt stop many of them ignoring road rules, and riding in a
downright dangerous manner. I'd probably have killed a handful of cyclists
this year alone if not for the fact that I was expecting them to do some
pretty stupid things. One has to wonder, given the complete lack of
protection afforded by a bike, why don't they practise self-preservation a
bit more often?
> Speeding is a problem, though I do feel that 3-10km/h should be a
> points only offence, so if you get flashed, you lose say two points
> but don't get fined, or get a $20 processing charge or similar.. That
> said, the speed limits should be lower than they are in urban areas,
> 50 on arterials in pedestrianised parts of town (read the inner
> suburbs), 40 on local streets in similar areas, though I wouldn't
> support those lower limits if the fines kicked in as early as they do
> today..
Speeding is a far smaller problem than you think.... grossly
over-emphasised, for little more than justifying the dependence on the
revenue it generates.
> Meanwhile, car drivers do need to learn that the speed limit does not
> mean that you have to drive at that speed.. 5-10km/h below should be
> acceptable and should not cause people behind you to honk, drive
> agressively, tailgate or overtake across unbroken lines.. Most of the
> time, you catch up to people like that at the next red light anyway,
> but it still happens..
Should be acceptable by whom? Most people are doing 5-10kmh over the limit.
They are driving at a speed they feel comfortable with, a speed they feel is
suitable for the conditions. Why is 5-10 below any more acceptable, given
there is no proof going slower has any effect on road safety?
KK
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:34:31 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski"
<kasper.kowalski@no-spam> wrote:
>Having nearly been knocked down by a cyclist on a crossing (who thought I
>should give way to him, based upon the abuse yelled at me as he rode right
>in front of me), I will forcibly knock a cyclist down that does this in
>front of me again.
He'll still be gone before you can make the conscious decision to
actually do it next time it happens..
>Adelaide is a relatively bike-friendly city, lots of bike-lanes etc. That
>still doesnt stop many of them ignoring road rules, and riding in a
>downright dangerous manner. I'd probably have killed a handful of cyclists
>this year alone if not for the fact that I was expecting them to do some
>pretty stupid things. One has to wonder, given the complete lack of
>protection afforded by a bike, why don't they practise self-preservation a
>bit more often?
*shrug*
I actually wonder if it's safer to be a little silly in an effort to
be visible, on the assumption that other road users are more likely to
see you if you're in front of them and are being visible..
>Speeding is a far smaller problem than you think.... grossly
>over-emphasised, for little more than justifying the dependence on the
>revenue it generates.
Perhaps, and I used to think exactly that way too.. Then I realised
that while it may be perfectly safe for me as a motorcyclist to drive
around at 76 in a 60 zone (which I got fined for a few years back), it
sure isn't safe for those ahead of me who expect me to approach
slower.. Pedestrians, those pulling out of parking spaces or turning
out of side streets etc..
And then what if you need to stop suddenly - your reaction time is the
same but the extra speed means you travel further and a slight prang
can become much worse..
>Should be acceptable by whom? Most people are doing 5-10kmh over the limit.
>They are driving at a speed they feel comfortable with, a speed they feel is
>suitable for the conditions. Why is 5-10 below any more acceptable, given
>there is no proof going slower has any effect on road safety?
Yeah, same deal, but isn't that a rather selfish attitude?
PC
"PC" <get@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efe78c2.84521074@no-spam
> >Having nearly been knocked down by a cyclist on a crossing (who thought I
> >should give way to him, based upon the abuse yelled at me as he rode
right
> >in front of me), I will forcibly knock a cyclist down that does this in
> >front of me again.
>
> He'll still be gone before you can make the conscious decision to
> actually do it next time it happens..
No, it's pretty obvious when a cyclist doesn't intend to stop... and they're
not nearly as maneuvrable as you think.
> I actually wonder if it's safer to be a little silly in an effort to
> be visible, on the assumption that other road users are more likely to
> see you if you're in front of them and are being visible..
Do you consider bike couriers riding *against* traffic flow, weaving around
cars, an effort to be visible, or an effort to be dead?
> Perhaps, and I used to think exactly that way too.. Then I realised
> that while it may be perfectly safe for me as a motorcyclist to drive
> around at 76 in a 60 zone (which I got fined for a few years back), it
> sure isn't safe for those ahead of me who expect me to approach
> slower.. Pedestrians, those pulling out of parking spaces or turning
> out of side streets etc..
Looking rather than glancing tends to fix that ... I've never come close to
being hit whether as a pedestrian or as a driver. Perhasp they should
reconsider giving licenses to those that can't just speed?
> And then what if you need to stop suddenly - your reaction time is the
> same but the extra speed means you travel further and a slight prang
> can become much worse..
I've never hit anyone. I drive in a manner that allows me stop in time,
regardless of limit. Part of that involves looking around you and reading
the traffic for potential bingles.
> >Should be acceptable by whom? Most people are doing 5-10kmh over the
limit.
> >They are driving at a speed they feel comfortable with, a speed they feel
is
> >suitable for the conditions. Why is 5-10 below any more acceptable, given
> >there is no proof going slower has any effect on road safety?
>
> Yeah, same deal, but isn't that a rather selfish attitude?
It's not slefish when that is the way the majority behave... efforst to try
and get people to slow to below a speed they feel comfortable with does more
harm than good.
KK
<snip>
> ride thru a crossing while pedestrians are on it. But, I suggest you read
> some medical textbooks, a cyclist at speed could potentially kill someone
> also if they knocked a person down - head injuries are remarkably easy to
> sustain, and their severity can be out of proportion with the size of
> impact.
How many people die each year from this sort of accident? Potentially a
tree could kill someone if it landed on them. In practice, the risk is very,
very small, as is the chance of being killed by a cyclist.
---
DFM
"Deep Floyd Mars" <deepfloydmars@no-spam> wrote in message
news:tFvLa.8011$eE.90538@no-spam
> <snip>
> > ride thru a crossing while pedestrians are on it. But, I suggest you
read
> > some medical textbooks, a cyclist at speed could potentially kill
someone
> > also if they knocked a person down - head injuries are remarkably easy
to
> > sustain, and their severity can be out of proportion with the size of
> > impact.
>
> How many people die each year from this sort of accident? Potentially a
> tree could kill someone if it landed on them. In practice, the risk is
very,
> very small, as is the chance of being killed by a cyclist.
it's the cyclists in trees that are the real problem..
Kasper Kowalski <kasper.kowalski@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1056868336.185538@no-spam
>
> "Deep Floyd Mars" <deepfloydmars@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:tFvLa.8011$eE.90538@no-spam
> > <snip>
> > > ride thru a crossing while pedestrians are on it. But, I suggest you
> read
> > > some medical textbooks, a cyclist at speed could potentially kill
> someone
> > > also if they knocked a person down - head injuries are remarkably easy
> to
> > > sustain, and their severity can be out of proportion with the size of
> > > impact.
> >
> > How many people die each year from this sort of accident? Potentially a
> > tree could kill someone if it landed on them. In practice, the risk is
> very,
> > very small, as is the chance of being killed by a cyclist.
>
> it's the cyclists in trees that are the real problem..
>
Nah, its the trees fault for leading them on.
---
DFM
In article <1056863086.341013@no-spam>, Kasper Kowalski wrote:
> suitable for the conditions. Why is 5-10 below any more acceptable, given
> there is no proof going slower has any effect on road safety?
You know nothing about physics, do you?
--
Jeremy Lunn
Melbourne, Australia
Homepage: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - the next generation of Instant Messaging.
Kasper Kowlaski krapped on:
> <snip>
>> ride thru a crossing while pedestrians are on it. But, I suggest you read
>> some medical textbooks, a cyclist at speed could potentially kill someone
>> also if they knocked a person down - head injuries are remarkably easy to
>> sustain, and their severity can be out of proportion with the size of
>> impact.
You probably don't want to know the figures, because they make your argument
look like the piece of crap that it actually is. Here are some actual
statistics from Victoria. If you want to verify them, go to:
http://crashstat1.roads.vic.gov.au:10243/crashstats/crash.htm
Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. That's right --
three! In the same time, the number of peds killed by cars was *887*. And
since there are 25 times more car trips than bike trips (source: VicRoads)
this means that cars are on average 11.8 times more deadly than bikes.
Or, to use another example, let's look at Chapel St, which is one of
Melbourne's busiest strip shopping centres. Since 1991, there have been 127
pedestrian accidents involving cars -- 54 of these were serious injuries to
the ped, and 3 were fatal. In the same time period, there have been -- wait
for it! -- only 4 bike/ped crashes, with only 2 serious injuries, none
fatal.
But hey? What are real data & statistics when you want to go on a mindless
rant like Kasper?
"Jeremy Lunn" <spammers-must-die@no-spam> wrote in message
news:slrnbft3n0.151.spammers-must-die@no-spam
> In article <1056863086.341013@no-spam>, Kasper Kowalski wrote:
> > suitable for the conditions. Why is 5-10 below any more acceptable,
given
> > there is no proof going slower has any effect on road safety?
>
> You know nothing about physics, do you?
Physics is not really relevant when weighed up against all the other
factors. It's why our fastest roads are also our safest.
There's more to road safety than stopping distance. Only complete morons
limit their thinking to that.
KK
"David Sutton" <david@no-spam> wrote in message
news:BB24D3F6.59B8%david@no-spam
> >> ride thru a crossing while pedestrians are on it. But, I suggest you
read
> >> some medical textbooks, a cyclist at speed could potentially kill
someone
> >> also if they knocked a person down - head injuries are remarkably easy
to
> >> sustain, and their severity can be out of proportion with the size of
> >> impact.
>
> Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. That's right --
> three! In the same time, the number of peds killed by cars was *887*. And
> since there are 25 times more car trips than bike trips (source: VicRoads)
> this means that cars are on average 11.8 times more deadly than bikes.
A bit simplistic... you assume the same distance is covered in a trip be it
in a car or on bike.
In any case, you made my point - the assumption that pedestrians can't be
injured by careless cyclists is a fallacious one.
KK
>
> Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists.
3 whole pedestrians in over 12 years??? These bicycles things are killers.
Ban the lot of 'em, I say...
BTW, nice searching. I looked for those stats for ages and couldn't find
them!
---
DFM
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:15:36 +1000
PC wrote:
...
>> Having nearly been knocked down by a cyclist on
>> a crossing (who thought I should give way to him,
>> based upon the abuse yelled at me as he rode right
>> in front of me), I will forcibly knock a cyclist
>> down that does this in front of me again.
...
> He'll still be gone before you can make the
> conscious decision to actually do it next
> time it happens..
...
Well, I won't mow another person down if I can avoid it; I'd
feel like shit if I killed some cyclist that ran a red
light, even though it's their fault. I suspect this is
exactly the attitude they're banking on when they run reds
without looking, which is pretty despicable when you think
about it.
--
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)
"...
this crazy Forg surrounds me
..."
[Live - "When Dolphins Cry"]
In article <1056872420.393085@no-spam>, Kasper Kowalski wrote:
>> You know nothing about physics, do you?
>
> Physics is not really relevant when weighed up against all the other
> factors. It's why our fastest roads are also our safest.
Not quite. Accidents that occur at 100km/h are far more fatal than
those that occur at 20km/h.
--
Jeremy Lunn
Melbourne, Australia
Homepage: http://www.austux.net/
http://www.jabber.org.au/ - the next generation of Instant Messaging.
"Jeremy Lunn" <spammers-must-die@no-spam> wrote in message
news:slrnbftpjd.151.spammers-must-die@no-spam
> In article <1056872420.393085@no-spam>, Kasper Kowalski wrote:
> >> You know nothing about physics, do you?
> >
> > Physics is not really relevant when weighed up against all the other
> > factors. It's why our fastest roads are also our safest.
>
> Not quite. Accidents that occur at 100km/h are far more fatal than
> those that occur at 20km/h.
BUT, there are far less accidents at 110 zones than 60-70 for example.
Go look up probability, risk ... there is no correlation between speed and
accident rate.
KK