NTC: Review of the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules

Terryc

Graeme Dods wrote:

> Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
> motor vehicle driver?

Nope. We need to revert to the situation where the softest thing around
is the car driver. The "safer" cars areperceived to be, the worse the
driving and danger to others on the road.

Dorfus Dippintush

Terryc wrote:
> Graeme Dods wrote:
>
>> Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
>> motor vehicle driver?
>
> Nope. We need to revert to the situation where the softest thing around
> is the car driver. The "safer" cars areperceived to be, the worse the
> driving and danger to others on the road.

That's like a car driver saying cyclists deserve to be run over because
they don't belong on the road. You have to think about things a bit
more. Harsh statements are a dime a dozen.

Dorfus

Terryc

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:

>> Nope. We need to revert to the situation where the softest thing
>> around is the car driver. The "safer" cars areperceived to be, the
>> worse the driving and danger to others on the road.
>
>
> That's like a car driver saying cyclists deserve to be run over because
> they don't belong on the road.

You are going to have to explain that logic.

There are papers around that have said the same thing for decades.
People think cars are safer, so they drive them at higher speeds than
before.

They expect the car to save them should they have bad luck, aka an accident.

Dorfus Dippintush

Terryc wrote:
> Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
>>> Nope. We need to revert to the situation where the softest thing
>>> around is the car driver. The "safer" cars areperceived to be, the
>>> worse the driving and danger to others on the road.
>>
>>
>> That's like a car driver saying cyclists deserve to be run over
>> because they don't belong on the road.
>
> You are going to have to explain that logic.
>
> There are papers around that have said the same thing for decades.
> People think cars are safer, so they drive them at higher speeds than
> before.
>
> They expect the car to save them should they have bad luck, aka an
> accident.

You're attitude is we should make things dangerous for the driver so
as to cause bodily harm if he/ she makes a mistake. A car driver sees a
cyclist competing for space on the road, the cyclist has no protection
whatsoever except for maybe a foam helmet, what do you reckon the car
driver thinks?

Zebee Johnstone

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:51:11 +1000
rooman <rooman.2xm1pn@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>
> a steel spike mounted on the steering wheel , just might get their
> attention, they stuff up they soon know about it

well it might for a bit.

Then, because it is part of the furniture and not doing anything, it
will be forgotten.

Zebee

Fractal

Or maybe a slight delay when opening car door, with a little recorded
message saying "look in the #$%^^#@ mirror, there might be a cyclist
coming", or a beep like the seat belt not done up warning tone, irritating
but effective.

fb


>
> My 20 cents worth:
> 1, Hazard lights on cars should be hard-wired to flash whenever a door
> is open or ajar, and
> 2. The speed of the flash should be faster than normal turn indicator
> frequency to differentiate the different intended actions.
> It might give some warning just before idiot drivers fling open the door
> in a parking lane.

beerwolf

"Fractal" wrote:

> Or maybe a slight delay when opening car door, with a little recorded
> message saying "look in the #$%^^#@ mirror, there might be a cyclist
> coming", or a beep like the seat belt not done up warning tone,
> irritating but effective.

Or even better, a 2-stage door opening procedure where the door opens to
about a 3cm gap, then stops until a second control is pressed. Thereafter
the door should only open further with positive pressure at the outer end
of the door, thus preventing it being flung open by a push.

--
beerwolf

Terryc

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:

> You're attitude is we should make things dangerous for the driver so as
> to cause bodily harm if he/ she makes a mistake.

Yes, because making it safer for car drivers has made it more dangerous
for everyone else.

> what do you reckon the car driver thinks?

I know that car drivers don't think, so it is a pointless question.

Aeek

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:28:23 +1000, Terryc
<newsthreespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:

>Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
>> You're attitude is we should make things dangerous for the driver so as
>> to cause bodily harm if he/ she makes a mistake.
>
>Yes, because making it safer for car drivers has made it more dangerous
>for everyone else.

Not everything. Active aids like ABS and ESC help drivers maneuver
when they don't have the skills. The passive copouts are the problem.

TimC

On 2007-09-28, Aeek (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:28:23 +1000, Terryc
> <newsthreespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>>
>>> You're attitude is we should make things dangerous for the driver so as
>>> to cause bodily harm if he/ she makes a mistake.
>>
>>Yes, because making it safer for car drivers has made it more dangerous
>>for everyone else.
>
> Not everything. Active aids like ABS and ESC help drivers maneuver
> when they don't have the skills. The passive copouts are the problem.

ABS causes people to believe their car has more capabilities than it
really does. People drive *nuts* on gravel, because the car seems to
handle so well and they can brake when things are going well. Until
they hit some kind of rut or other slight anomaly. Give them back
their Mitsubishi Colt '81 hatchback, and then see them driving
stupidly everywhere.

--
TimC
bash awk grep perl sed df du, du-du du-du,
vi troff su fsck rm * halt LART LART LART!
-- the Swedish BOFH