Dangerous Drivers Idea

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "Anthony" == Anthony <[email hidden]> writes:

Anthony> But my idea would be, for organizations like Bicycle
Anthony> Queensland and Bicycle Victoria ect ect, who have some
Anthony> power, is to set up a Dangerous Drivers Database. We would
Anthony> then report any dangerous act to them, with Time Place and
Anthony> Rego, and incident, and they would log it in the database.

I think that's a terrible idea. That's nothing more than ``he said she
said'', where is your proof?

Anthony> When they get a few of the same drivers, which they will,
Anthony> because these drivers will always treat cyclists the same I
Anthony> am sure.

The proof would comes from that fact several independent witnesses
are prepared to go to court and describe different incidents where the
same driver did something to endanger a cyclist's life. The cyclists
probably won't know each other, or the driver, but are prepared to
testify about what happened to them.

Personally, I think it's quite a good idea, and something the State
Bicycle Organisations might even have the resources to manage. Ease
of access would be important. As well as being able to write or phone
in reports, incidents might be via the web. Details about motorists
with more than one offence would be sent to the relevant bicycle
organization, who would then decide whether to pass them to the
police, who would presumably talk to the driver. Reports of further
incidents after a police visit might lead to prosecution.

To avoid personal vendettas, cyclists would report incidents, but
not be permitted to search the database for reports of misdemenours.

Quoted message said:

Or it could have the opposite effect and turn many drivers against
cyclists. After all, what's their recourse when a cyclist runs a red
causing them to deviate from their course?

We are talking about incidents that put cyclists' lives in danger,
such as failing to yield to a circulating cyclist on a roundabout,
overtaking with half an inch to spare, starting to overtake a cyclist
then immediately turning left so the cyclist is forced to turn left as
well, pulling out of a side road straight into the path of a cyclist,
throwing an egg at the cyclist or blasting the cyclist with a
high-power water pistol.

We've all had most of the above happen to us, but we rarely bother
reporting them to the police. Sometimes the police don't bother to
act, or perhaps we don't think the driver will take any warning
seriously.

But if it became the norm report them to a database, really bad
motorists - the repeat offenders - could be identified and action
taken.

We are talking about behaviour that is far more serious than
drivers having to "deviate from their course". It would be worth
considering a trial for one area (e.g. Brisbane or Sydney) to see
whether cyclists would be prepared to report incidents and whether the
scheme was effective.

AFAIK, the air pollution hotlines are effective (and aren't
resented by the majority of law-abiding motorists), so this one might
be worthwhile too.

Regards,
Dorre

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Dorre" == Dorre <[email hidden]> writes:

Dorre> But if it became the norm report them to a database, really
Dorre> bad motorists - the repeat offenders - could be identified
Dorre> and action taken.

The problem is one of balance. Motorists are identifiable, cyclists are
not.

If cyclists can dob in motorists for endangering life then motorists
should be accorded the same right. If that's not the case then you can
bet your ass that there will be ill feeling towards cyclists, I can see
the headlines in the Herald Sun now.
--
Cheers
Euan

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dorre = <[email hidden]> writes:

Dorre> But if it became the norm report them to a database, really
Dorre> bad motorists - the repeat offenders - could be identified
Dorre> and action taken.

Quoted message said:

The problem is one of balance. Motorists are identifiable, cyclists are
not.

Quoted message said:

If cyclists can dob in motorists for endangering life then motorists
should be accorded the same right. If that's not the case then you can
bet your ass that there will be ill feeling towards cyclists, I can see
the headlines in the Herald Sun now.

Can't argue with the principle of equal rights.
How many motorists do you know who have been killed by cyclists,
compared to the number of cyclists killed by motorists?

Warm regards,
Dorre

[email hidden said:

"]>>>>> "Dorre" == Dorre <[email hidden]> writes:

The problem is one of balance. Motorists are identifiable, cyclists are
not.

Neither are pedestrians. a can of worms best left alone, me thinks.
More cost than benefit to register cyclsits, and the deterrent to ride would be shouted down. You can report someone for talking whilst driving on a mobile phone and if there is 3 or more written compalints about a particualr individual their name/licence is flagged for future reference (it only amounts to anything if charged with a related offence tho)

[email hidden said:

"]
Motorists are identifiable, cyclists are not.

Easy to say but is it true?

Motorists are hidden within their vehicles, especially in jurisdictions that allow heavily tinted windscreens.
There are a lot more motor vehicles on the road, very few of them distinctive.
vs
Cyclists are completely visable, there are a lot less of them and how many distinct bikes are there these days?
ie If the authorities want to, it is much easier to identify a cyclist from their description and it is much easier to get a distinct description.
Yes, someone could keep changing their bike and their clothes but that would get quite expensive and a hassle.

aeek said:

Easy to say but is it true?

Motorists are hidden within their vehicles, especially in jurisdictions that allow heavily tinted windscreens.
There are a lot more motor vehicles on the road, very few of them distinctive.
vs
Cyclists are completely visable, there are a lot less of them and how many distinct bikes are there these days?
ie If the authorities want to, it is much easier to identify a cyclist from their description and it is much easier to get a distinct description.
Yes, someone could keep changing their bike and their clothes but that would get quite expensive and a hassle.

erm, identifying a motorist is rather easy once you record those strange markings on their fore and aft regions made of (usually) 3 letters and 3 numbers!

flyingdutch said:

erm, identifying a motorist is rather easy once you record those strange markings on their fore and aft regions made of (usually) 3 letters and 3 numbers!

I was indirectly making the point that you don't need plates to identify cyclists as much as you do need to identify cyclists. For that matter, any plate that can be safely attached to modern bicycles isn't going to be much help.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Dorre" == Dorre <[email hidden]> writes:

Dorre> How many motorists do you know who have been killed by
Dorre> cyclists, compared to the number of cyclists killed by
Dorre> motorists?

That's irrelevant.

When evaluating a course of action it's paramount to ascertain whether
the proposed course of action will have the desired result.

My contention is that far from making cycling safer, the reverse would
be true. Further motorists would have a justifiable claim that all
bicycles should be registered. Public opinion would certainly push that
through.
--
Regards
Euan

should have been

aeek said:

I was indirectly making the point that you don't need plates to identify cyclists as much as you do need to identify MOTORISTS. For that matter, any plate that can be safely attached to modern bicycles isn't going to be much help.

The good news is that the dangerous driver database is here now and ready for you to use. Your feedback is welcome, because it's only new.

[font=Verdana]ecofiles.orghome.htmlOpen ↗[font=Arial] [/font][/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]Regarding the valid issue of drivers then not getting reported to police - if you have enough evidence to go to police then definitely do!! To this end there is a link from this page to an article with tips on how to get the best possible results when reporting to police. We all know it's difficult and we've too often heard, "but it's your word against theirs and there's nothing we can do". Not true, but it takes persistance and determination. Failing that, or in addition, add them to the database.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]For the really keen beans: try helmet-cam. My helmet cam system records every journey to and from work. No more "my word against theirs" again, ever! Details on the website of the guy who built my system: wiradjuri.netindex.htmlOpen ↗ [/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial]See also: www.police.govt.nz/service/road/roadwatch.php - the New Zealand Police Community Roadwatch scheme which they believe has been successful at improving traffic compliance.[/font]
[font=Arial][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial]Happy to answer questions on this topic. [/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial][/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial]With wishes of safe and happy riding to everyone,[/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial]Fiona[/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial][/font][/font]
[font=Arial][font=Arial]ps. I concur with the comments from Adelaide and Melbourne - drivers there are just SO considerate compared with Sydney (and Brisbane).[/font]
[/font]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "aeek" == aeek <[email hidden]> writes:

aeek should have been aeek said:

Quoted message said:

I was indirectly making the point that you don't need plates to
identify cyclists as much as you do need to identify
MOTORISTS. For that matter, any plate that can be safely attached
to modern bicycles isn't going to be much help.

And that still doesn't make any sense.

ECV dispatcher taking call from angry motorist>> What's that you say?
a cyclist swerved in
front of you causing
you to crash in to
another car? OK,
exchange insurance
details and let them
sort it out. Yes,
noted that the cyclist
was riding a road
bike, was wearing
bright pink polkadot
shorts and was not
wearing a helmet.

ECV dispatch taking a call from angry cyclist>> You've got the rego?
OK, let m look it up.

To police>> Yes, we've had a report
from a cyclist who was
run off the road, he
got the rego. Car
registered to >blah<
aged >blah<.
Registered owner has
outstanding warrant,
last seen heading
south.

See?
--
Cheers
Euan

bikesaint said:

The good news is that the dangerous driver database is here now and ready for you to use. Your feedback is welcome, because it's only new.

Great stuff Fiona, saw this info posted on the BFA list this afternoon. Hmmm, did this thread on cf/aus.bike have anything to do with actually developing the website?

Anyway,to you all, please pass on the website url around the cycling fraternity. 🙂 Good to see someone actually developing this website/database for the benefit of cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Dangerous Drivers Idea

ZBOXMAN94506

this was posted by AUSSIE AO TROLL [email hidden]

[email hidden said:

"]
a cyclist swerved in front of you causing you to crash in to another car?

Quoted post said:

a cyclist who was run off the road

not the same, if the cyclist had run the car off the road that would be different.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "aeek" == aeek <[email hidden]> writes:

aeek said:

Quoted message said:

a cyclist swerved in front of you causing you to crash in to
another car?

Quoted message said:

a cyclist who was run off the road

aeek> not the same, if the cyclist had run the car off the road that
aeek> would be different.

Look back at my previous post. Looking at it? Good. You will note
that at no point in the post did I claim that the two incidents were the
same. So what's your point?

In each case the cause and effect are the same though. The actions of
one vehicle causes the other vehicle to deviate from its intended course
with adverse consequences.

Difference is that the operator of one vehicle can positively identify
the other to the police. The reverse is not true.
--
Cheers
Euan

Quoted message said:

In each case the cause and effect are the same though. The actions of
one vehicle causes the other vehicle to deviate from its intended course
with adverse consequences.

And that is where you totally point went belly up because there isn't a
level playing field as far as one vehicle causing the other to deviate
from its course.

In fact, the law doesn't allow that as an excuse as you are suppossed to
drive a motor vehicle in such a way as to prevent that happening.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email hidden]> writes:

Terry said:

Quoted message said:

In each case the cause and effect are the same though. The
actions of one vehicle causes the other vehicle to deviate from
its intended course with adverse consequences.

Terry> And that is where you totally point went belly up because
Terry> there isn't a level playing field as far as one vehicle
Terry> causing the other to deviate from its course.

The point I'm making is that motorists are readily identifiable
(generally) through their rego whereas no such mechanism is in place to
identify cyclists (generally). Go back through the thread and you'll
see that's the case I've been making all along. At no point have I
stipulated that there is a level playing field with respect to one
vehicle causing another to deviate.

Terry> In fact, the law doesn't allow that as an excuse as you are
Terry> suppossed to drive a motor vehicle in such a way as to
Terry> prevent that happening.

Are you sure that shouldn't be "vehicle" rather than "motor vehicle"?
Cyclists have to take some responsibility, loathe though some may be to
admit it.
--
Cheers
Euan

Quoted message said:

The point I'm making is that motorists are readily identifiable
(generally) through their rego whereas no such mechanism is in place to
identify cyclists (generally).

That is correct. All dangerous weapons should be registered and the
owners easily identifiable so that when Cunstables pig and plod continue
to enforce the law discrimatively instead of fairly, the general public
can redress the matter.

Your premise that both vehicles are "equal" is a total falacy. Car
Troll.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email hidden]> writes:

Terry> [email hidden] wrote:

Terry> Your premise that both vehicles are "equal" is a total
Terry> falacy. Car Troll.

*sigh* Name calling does not win an argument, so let's cut the [censored]
shall we? Calling me a Car Troll's a bit rich, I commute by bicycle
every day, round trip of fifty KM.

Highett to East Burwood, up North Road and the delightful Springvale
road or straight down Nepean in the city (either the WTC or the Post
Office building). All on my Trek 1200 with Topeak rack, Ortlieb
panniers in which I carry my Dell laptop, in its bag, change of clothes,
food etc. The same 1200 which had a real lemon of a rear wheel out the
factory and I had to get rebuilt to stop the spokes breaking. Take a
trip to Google Groups, have a search on my author ID for my previous
posts. I cycle 250 KM a week, minimum, in peak hour traffic so I have a
vested interest making things better for me as a cyclist.

I never said the vehicles were equal either did I? Nor have I suggested
at any point that cyclists should be identifiable, because that is not
the case.

A recap of my position for those who's memory is short. I believe that
a ``dangerous drivers'' database is a bad idea. I believe this to be
true because it is far too open to abuse. If I wanted to create trouble
for someone, all I'd have to do is make numerous reports against that
person's rego.

I believe that as soon as the anti-bike lobby gets wind of such a scheme
it could well back-fire precisely because car drivers cannot report on
the wrong doings of cyclists. It certainly won't matter to the press,
who are generally against us (well at least the Herald Sun is) that the
crimes of cyclists are in the main victimless.

Rather than engendering a sharing attitude with car drivers, which is
the only way cyclists can safely use the road, this ``dangerous
drivers'' database has the potential of creating further division.

In summary I believe that the whole ``dangerous drivers'' database may
well make things *worse* for us cyclists rather than better.

So there you go, hopefully that's cleared up any confusion as to where
I'm coming from. Go ahead and argue me on those points but please,
stick to what I said and not what you think I said. And less of the
name calling, OK?
--
Cheers
Euan

[email hidden said:

"]>>>>> "Terry" == Terry Collins <[email hidden]> writes:

Terry> [email hidden] wrote:

Terry> Your premise that both vehicles are "equal" is a total
Terry> falacy. Car Troll.

*sigh* Name calling does not win an argument, so let's cut the [censored]
shall we? Calling me a Car Troll's a bit rich, I commute by bicycle
every day, round trip of fifty KM.

Highett to East Burwood, up North Road and the delightful Springvale
road or straight down Nepean in the city (either the WTC or the Post
Office building). All on my Trek 1200 with Topeak rack, Ortlieb
panniers in which I carry my Dell laptop, in its bag, change of clothes,
food etc. The same 1200 which had a real lemon of a rear wheel out the
factory and I had to get rebuilt to stop the spokes breaking. Take a
trip to Google Groups, have a search on my author ID for my previous
posts. I cycle 250 KM a week, minimum, in peak hour traffic so I have a
vested interest making things better for me as a cyclist.

I never said the vehicles were equal either did I? Nor have I suggested
at any point that cyclists should be identifiable, because that is not
the case.

A recap of my position for those who's memory is short. I believe that
a ``dangerous drivers'' database is a bad idea. I believe this to be
true because it is far too open to abuse. If I wanted to create trouble
for someone, all I'd have to do is make numerous reports against that
person's rego.

I believe that as soon as the anti-bike lobby gets wind of such a scheme
it could well back-fire precisely because car drivers cannot report on
the wrong doings of cyclists. It certainly won't matter to the press,
who are generally against us (well at least the Herald Sun is) that the
crimes of cyclists are in the main victimless.

Rather than engendering a sharing attitude with car drivers, which is
the only way cyclists can safely use the road, this ``dangerous
drivers'' database has the potential of creating further division.

In summary I believe that the whole ``dangerous drivers'' database may
well make things *worse* for us cyclists rather than better.

So there you go, hopefully that's cleared up any confusion as to where
I'm coming from. Go ahead and argue me on those points but please,
stick to what I said and not what you think I said. And less of the
name calling, OK?
--
Cheers
Euan

So there! 😉

I agree. the sentiment of the DB is OK but me thinks long term it could go pear-shaped way too easy in the wrong hands or beholder. car lobby will go ballistic if they see that (again). he advise about how to deal with police procedure and lodging complaints thru them re bad driver/s is good but the DB is just gonna fuel things. and if you wanna be anal, i aint sure its legit civil rights wise...