Bugger of a ride - Xmess spirit? (LONG)

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" bull**** 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
bull**** 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.

On 2005-12-20, Bleve wrote:
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".

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

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! p

Graeme

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 ...

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

On 2005-12-20, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is that jargon?

--
TimC
Cult: (n) a small, unpopular religion.
Religion: (n) a large, popular cult.

Grazza wrote:
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

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:42:31 GMT, Stuart Lamble wrote:

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

cfsmtb wrote:
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