Driver license test - questions about peds & cyclists?

[Terry Collins]

Ian George wrote:
>
>
>>No safe driver gets over 30kph in my local streets anyway.
>
> Where the speed limit is?
Now 50kms. Wish it was lower. Suburban where you'd have to floor the
accelerator to make 50.

BTW, 50km is the best speed to travel over the copious speed humps we
have here as well.

 

[Markus Imhof]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Ian George" <[email protected]> wrote:

> cfsmtb wrote:
> > This is probably a question that should be posed over at aus.cars.
> > Anyway for those of you with licenses, do you recall *anything* either
> > in handbooks or the computer tests that directly related to
> > pedestrians or cyclists?
> >
> > Today the media is full of depressing news about the Mildura deaths,
> > the police admit they're bewildered over the Vic road toll and there's
> > more defeatist pissing and moaning about aggressive road behaviour.
> >
> > At the Connecting Cycling Conference last Thursday, Dr John Pucher
> > demonstrated how in the German drivers license - 30 / 40% of the
> > questions directly pertaining to peds/cyclists interactions. Suburban
> > zones have a strict 30km limit, the Autobahns are quite another
> > matter!
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn
>
> Unless something has changed recently, the speed limit in built-up areas in
> Germany is 50kph, around 30mph. A 30kph/18mph speed limit would be
> impractical for a car.
>

Hate to barge in, since I'm not in .oz, but we have several speed limits:

General limit on Autobahn: none (but a lot of specific limits)
General limit outside cities: 100 kph
General limit inside cities: 50 kph
specific limit inside cities: often 30 kph on minor roads, i.e. roads
used by pass-through traffic are only subject to the general limit of 50
kph, but residential/side roads are often limited to 30 kph with a zonal
limit ('Tempo 30 Zone'; not sure about the wording - with an ordinary
limit, the signs are repeated along the road, with a zonal limit, all
roads entering the zone are marked accordingly with a special sign).
specific limit inside residential areas: occasionally, streets in
residential areas are also marked as 'quiet' streets
('Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich', again not sure about the translation; in
these areas, pedestrians and playing kids have right of way,
driving/riding is only allowed at walking speed).

On another note: although some percentage of the driving test questions
may be targeted at vehicle/ped/cycle interaction, a lot of drivers seem
to forget these very quickly :-(

Bye
Markus

 

[Markus Imhof]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote:

> dave wrote:
> > Euan wrote:
> > > "Bleve" <[email protected]> writes:
> > >
> > >
.....
> > > separating bikes from cars, especially as riding get safer as more per
> > > capita ride and there's more per capita riding.
> >
> > I do absolutely agree with Euan. And who says you are out of the
> > firing line?
>
> If bikes are not sharing the same space as cars, they cannot be hit by
> cars. There is no room for argument in that situation.


If you limit it to that situation, ok.

However, over here, things look a bit differently (and from what I
remember from my visit, your cities are similar):

Inside a city,

- car's don't stay on the road, they use the sidewalk (including bike
lane/path/...) for parking, crossing while driving in/out of parking
spaces,... - and every timne they do that, they usually ignore cyclist
in thir way.
- bikes (and peds) and cars must share space at least at every
intersection - at least as long as you stay in a single plane.

There are some research results (unfortunately, all those I know about
are either German or IIRC Danish, although there may be some stuff in
..uk) which come to the conclusion that under those circumstances, it is
riskier to ride on a seperate path than in in shared space. The increase
in risk is not marginal - one publication found roughly 10-fold risks
for sidewalk-based cycling paths as opposed to riding with the cars.

So, while you're right that, as long as there's no shared space between
bikes and cars, there's no risk to be run over by a car, the condition
for that if are rarely met unless you do track cycling.


Bye
Markus

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:59:12 +1100
Terry Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Trouble seldom comes out of nowhere, and when it does braking and
>> swerving is usually better.
>
> Absolutely no way. I fitted a bull bar to our van for that reason. I
> expect it to be used. Hit the ******* square on and in the middle.
>

I don't think a motorcycle or bicycle will go that well with a
bullbar.

Nor do I think big vans will bullbars can power out of trouble...

Zebee

 

[TimC]

On 2006-02-21, Terry Collins (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>> Trouble seldom comes out of nowhere, and when it does braking and
>> swerving is usually better.
>
> Absolutely no way. I fitted a bull bar to our van for that reason. I
> expect it to be used. Hit the ******* square on and in the middle.

I'm glad you'll never make mistakes when driving.

--
TimC
I am very new to programming drivers so if I sound un-knowledgeable then it's
because I am. -- first4internet's Ceri Coburn on writing Sony's DRM rootkit

 

[Trevor_S]

cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>

> the police admit they're bewildered over the Vic road toll and there's
> more defeatist pissing and moaning about aggressive road behaviour.

Until they stop their inane concentration on someone doing 62 in a 60 zone
as the reason for road deaths, nothing will change.

Hell my Dad drove around the block came back and was issued with a license,
the only think they were interested in for me was wheter I could reverse
park. I am not sure how many people die from not being able to reverse
park but I doubt the it's way up there, not once was I sent out on the
highway and shown how to pass, how to control a skid in loose gravel, how
to interact with motorcycles, cyclists or pedestrians etc etc etc.

I am not quite sure why they are "bewildered", in the past they usually say
they need more speed cameras to decrease the road deaths.... pffft...

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

 

[Resound]

> Hate to barge in, since I'm not in .oz, but we have several speed limits:
>
> General limit on Autobahn: none (but a lot of specific limits)
> General limit outside cities: 100 kph
> General limit inside cities: 50 kph
> specific limit inside cities: often 30 kph on minor roads, i.e. roads
> used by pass-through traffic are only subject to the general limit of 50
> kph, but residential/side roads are often limited to 30 kph with a zonal
> limit ('Tempo 30 Zone'; not sure about the wording - with an ordinary
> limit, the signs are repeated along the road, with a zonal limit, all
> roads entering the zone are marked accordingly with a special sign).
> specific limit inside residential areas: occasionally, streets in
> residential areas are also marked as 'quiet' streets
> ('Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich', again not sure about the translation; in
> these areas, pedestrians and playing kids have right of way,
> driving/riding is only allowed at walking speed).
>
> On another note: although some percentage of the driving test questions
> may be targeted at vehicle/ped/cycle interaction, a lot of drivers seem
> to forget these very quickly :-(
>
> Bye
> Markus

I'm curious now. How heavily is this enforced? (I don't recall ever seeing
speed cameras or police patrolling quiet suburban side streets in Melbourne)
Do you know what their attitude toward bicycles is with regards to this
limit? I know that I'd be well in danger of getting pulled over in a 30kph
zone as my bike's not fitted with a speedo. (no, I dont have a
computer...I'm a commuter)

 

[Terry Collins]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:


>
> I don't think a motorcycle or bicycle will go that well with a
> bullbar.

Swerving your bike is one thing, if you've practised it. Funnily, I can
do it far better on a loaded touring bike that unloaded. Also, if you
are running 1"-1.25" yep, but anything larger always feels
unsafe/unstable to me.

I must admit, I have wondered about building the front rack so it acts
as a bull bar (useful in long grass, fallen light timber), but on a
wedgie everything goes through the headstem anyway and that just seem a
futile effort.

besides, tyres act as a buffer anyway


> Nor do I think big vans will bullbars can power out of trouble...

Vans without bull bars cann't power out of trouble either {.

Actually, I can't power out of trouble on my bicycle either.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

BrettS wrote:

> Experience is one thing, but if your experience involves always doing
> the same thing wrong, like indicating right to exit a roundabout,

Who would indicate right to exit a roundabout?

> FWIW, how many roundabouts were there in WA in 1963? Or freeways? Or
> cycle lanes?

None, one and none. That obviously means that anyone in WA my age confronted
by a roundabout is totally confused. Is it safe to assume you have learnt
nothing since you got your driving licence?

Theo

 

[Terry Collins]

TimC wrote:


> I'm glad you'll never make mistakes when driving.

The problem with "mistakes" is that they are seen as a universal excuse
for what is largely stupid behaviour before hand. If you keep your own
stupid behaviour under control, then you only have to worry about the
other bozo.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Bleve wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> From my experience, I would rather ride on the road than on a shared
>> path. Or even a non-shared path.

> Most of the time, so do I. But, I choose to use shared paths at night
> in foul weather if I can, as I think in that instance that the risk of
> being hit by a car is greater than I want to accept. Every ride is a
> concious risk-management decision.

My experience of night-time riding is that the road is lit, paths are not
lit, paths are littered.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Resound wrote:

> I'm curious now. How heavily is this enforced? (I don't recall ever
> seeing speed cameras or police patrolling quiet suburban side streets
> in Melbourne)

There's no money in it. At best they could save lives.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2006-02-21, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> BrettS wrote:
>
>> Experience is one thing, but if your experience involves always doing
>> the same thing wrong, like indicating right to exit a roundabout,
>
> Who would indicate right to exit a roundabout?

When you turn right at an roundabout, do you flick your indicators
left just before leaving?

This was introduced into the unified road laws 5 years ago, and yet
virtually no-one does it.

My luser of an ex-housemate thought that the way you got around the
alleged (it wouldn't be if everyone obeyed the law) ambiguity of "are
you doing a right turn" vs "are you toing a U-turn" was to not use his
indicators at all when doing said U-turn at the roundabout. Like I
said, clueless fsckwit.

--
TimC
Speaker: They used an alcohol fog to visualize what's happening.
From the audience: That's always worked for me. -- From an astronomy talk

 

[EuanB]

but residential/side roads are often limited to 30 kph with a zonal
limit ('Tempo 30 Zone'; not sure about the wording - with an ordinary
limit, the signs are repeated along the road, with a zonal limit, all
roads entering the zone are marked accordingly with a special sign).
specific limit inside residential areas: occasionally, streets in
residential areas are also marked as 'quiet' streets
('Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich', again not sure about the translation; in
these areas, pedestrians and playing kids have right of way,
driving/riding is only allowed at walking speed).

Do you know what their attitude toward bicycles is with regards to this
limit? I know that I'd be well in danger of getting pulled over in a 30kph
zone as my bike's not fitted with a speedo.

Knowing the sort of roads where these limits are imposed (I spent some time in Germany) you'd be in little danger of breaking 20km/h. Any higher would be irresponsible cycling as the sight lines are poor and the environment unpredictable. Pedestrians, children etc are used to being able to just walk out on the street without looking and surprisingly it works very well.

In these environments vehicles are the intruders, not the other way around.

(no, I dont have a
computer...I'm a commuter)

I'm a commuter, I have a computer. It provides me with useful information, the most useful of which is the cadence I'm maintaining. That enables me to ride much more efficiently.

 

[Tamyka Bell]

TimC wrote:
>
> On 2006-02-21, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > BrettS wrote:
> >
> >> Experience is one thing, but if your experience involves always doing
> >> the same thing wrong, like indicating right to exit a roundabout,
> >
> > Who would indicate right to exit a roundabout?

A lot of international students at UQ. It's thrown me quite a few times.
Fortunately my driving instructor taught me to never trust an indicator,
and never pull out until the other person is committed to their action
(e.g. if inidicating to turn into a street you're turning out of, don't
pull out until they're already cornering).

> When you turn right at an roundabout, do you flick your indicators
> left just before leaving?

No. I indicate as soon as I've passed the "straight throug exit" and
leave it on until I've left the roundabout.

> This was introduced into the unified road laws 5 years ago, and yet
> virtually no-one does it.

That's because they tried to educate people by chucking brochures in the
mail box, instead of by making it compulsory for people to demonstrate
their understanding. So new drivers got taught how to do it (and
indicating on approach) but other drivers didn't.

A lot of people still think you have to indicate right if you're going
straight through, and then left (or not at all) on exit.

> My luser of an ex-housemate thought that the way you got around the
> alleged (it wouldn't be if everyone obeyed the law) ambiguity of "are
> you doing a right turn" vs "are you toing a U-turn" was to not use his
> indicators at all when doing said U-turn at the roundabout. Like I
> said, clueless fsckwit.

You should let his tyres down for him.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:40:34 +1100
Terry Collins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I don't think a motorcycle or bicycle will go that well with a
>> bullbar.
>
> Swerving your bike is one thing, if you've practised it. Funnily, I can
> do it far better on a loaded touring bike that unloaded. Also, if you
> are running 1"-1.25" yep, but anything larger always feels
> unsafe/unstable to me.

I suspect a well braked pushie has a very short stopping distance.
Providing the rider has practiced!

Does how hard it is to swerve depend on riding position?

A head down bum up motorcycle can be swerved as well at high speeds as
one with a more upright riding position, but at lower speeds I find
wide bars help a lot more.

> I must admit, I have wondered about building the front rack so it acts
> as a bull bar (useful in long grass, fallen light timber), but on a
> wedgie everything goes through the headstem anyway and that just seem a
> futile effort.
>
> besides, tyres act as a buffer anyway

And cats and dogs will go under it...

> Actually, I can't power out of trouble on my bicycle either.

UNless trouble is a rabid snail.

Zebee

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Bleve wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> >> From my experience, I would rather ride on the road than on a shared
> >> path. Or even a non-shared path.
>
> > Most of the time, so do I. But, I choose to use shared paths at night
> > in foul weather if I can, as I think in that instance that the risk of
> > being hit by a car is greater than I want to accept. Every ride is a
> > concious risk-management decision.
>
> My experience of night-time riding is that the road is lit, paths are not
> lit, paths are littered.
>
> Theo

I think I'm more visible on the road at night, than I am during peak
hour. Like Theo, I choose the roads at night because they're lit and
generally have a better surface.

Tam

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> BrettS wrote:
>
> > Experience is one thing, but if your experience involves always doing
> > the same thing wrong, like indicating right to exit a roundabout,
>
> Who would indicate right to exit a roundabout?
>
> > FWIW, how many roundabouts were there in WA in 1963? Or freeways? Or
> > cycle lanes?
>
> None, one and none. That obviously means that anyone in WA my age confronted
> by a roundabout is totally confused. Is it safe to assume you have learnt
> nothing since you got your driving licence?

Did you get the same bullsh!t brochure that they sent around in Qld,
that, in general, got thrown out with the Kmart catalogue, or just
misunderstood?

Tam

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Bleve wrote:
>
> Aeek wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:05:01 +0800, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >From my experience, I would rather ride on the road than on a shared path.
> > >Or even a non-shared path.
> >
> > I've had single vehicle accidents on both. Noone around to see or help on the path.
> > I haven't needed one, but ambulances are set up for the roads.
>
> True. But, you're not going to get hit by a car.
>
> > Never heard of a female cyclist being sexually assaulted on the road either.
>
> That usually doesn't result in death (neither does being hit by a car
> ... but maybe it's more likely?)

Death, maybe not, but in the case of more minor accidents, involving
cars... I think the psychological trauma associated with being hit by a
car (fear of cycling, fear of crossing roads, fear of cars) probably
doesn't quite match up to the psychological trauma of being thrown from
your bike and sexually assaulted (fear of people).

Tam

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> On 2006-02-21, Theo Bekkers wrote

>> Who would indicate right to exit a roundabout?

> When you turn right at an roundabout, do you flick your indicators
> left just before leaving?

Of course. What is getting confusing to me, the police and everyone is these
tiny roundabouts where there is no time or space to indicate. The Police
advice here in WA is now that, if you're tuning right at a roundabout
(taking the third exit) you should indicate right when you enter the
roundabout. i.e. treat it as if the roundabout isn't there, then indicate
left when you about to exit.

http://www.dpi.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/lic_driversafe_part3.pdf

see page 22 of 37.

Theo