NTC: Review of the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules

[cfsmtb]

Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.

***

Review of the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules

NTC is interested in your views on the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules. You are invited to complete a brief online questionnaire.

Click here: Review of the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules
http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?page=A02215508300830020

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Sep 28, 8:33 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2xl...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are
> interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and
> other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.

Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
motor vehicle driver? The biggest thing that would influence safety
for more vulnerable road users would be a redesign of the attitude/
skills of most drivers. Simple answer, bloody difficult to implement
though

Graeme

 

[Dorfus Dippintush]

Graeme Dods wrote:
> On Sep 28, 8:33 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2xl...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are
>> interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and
>> other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.
>
> Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
> motor vehicle driver? The biggest thing that would influence safety
> for more vulnerable road users would be a redesign of the attitude/
> skills of most drivers. Simple answer, bloody difficult to implement
> though
>
> Graeme
>

It's not impossible though. Changes I've seen in my time include
compulsory wearing of seat-belts, smoke free areas, helmets on motor
bikes and bicycles, some form of gun controls. All of these were
considered unthinkable at one time.

Dorf

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:12:38 -0700
Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 8:33 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2xl...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are
>> interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and
>> other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.
>
> Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
> motor vehicle driver? The biggest thing that would influence safety

yes. For example, they already require front ends that are more
likely to deflect someone they hit rather than impale or slice the
poor sod.

However a quick look at the "survey" seems to be more like "we think
national standards are a good thing, you do too, right?" rather than
letting you say "bullbars in the city are stupid, and while we are at
it what's with the foglights?"

Zebee

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Sep 28, 10:30 am, Dorfus Dippintush
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It's not impossible though. Changes I've seen in my time include
> compulsory wearing of seat-belts, smoke free areas, helmets on motor
> bikes and bicycles, some form of gun controls. All of these were
> considered unthinkable at one time.

But those are all pretty much telling people to do or not do something
fairly basic. Telling people, for example, "you must be more aware of
other road users" is far more complex and virtually unenforceable. To
even get this happening in the first place would take considerable
training rather than something as black and white as "you must put on
your seat belt/not smoke here/not have this type of gun etc." which
can be reinforced by simple repetition/policing.

Graeme

 

[PeteSig]

"Dorfus Dippintush" wrote:
> Graeme Dods wrote:
>> On Sep 28, 8:33 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2xl...@no-
>> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>>> Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are
>>> interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and
>>> other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.
>>
>> Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
>> motor vehicle driver? The biggest thing that would influence safety
>> for more vulnerable road users would be a redesign of the attitude/
>> skills of most drivers. Simple answer, bloody difficult to implement
>> though
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>
> It's not impossible though. Changes I've seen in my time include
> compulsory wearing of seat-belts, smoke free areas, helmets on motor bikes
> and bicycles, some form of gun controls. All of these were considered
> unthinkable at one time.

Motor cars with a large spike protruding from the steering wheel??

Handlebar mounted scimitars??

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Sep 28, 11:24 am, Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:12:38 -0700
>
> Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 28, 8:33 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2xl...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> >> Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are
> >> interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and
> >> other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.
>
> > Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
> > motor vehicle driver? The biggest thing that would influence safety
>
> yes. For example, they already require front ends that are more
> likely to deflect someone they hit rather than impale or slice the
> poor sod.
>
> However a quick look at the "survey" seems to be more like "we think
> national standards are a good thing, you do too, right?" rather than
> letting you say "bullbars in the city are stupid, and while we are at
> it what's with the foglights?"


I'm not sure how much effect national standards would have on the car
manufacturers. Lots of the safety features currently included in
modern cars have come from the manufacturers themselves and then been
mandated some years later once there is enough market saturation. If
somewhere as small (in terms of car sales) as Australia mandates
Feature X and Feature X does not already exist then the car
manufacturers are going to tell them where to go.

Graeme

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:42:19 -0700
Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure how much effect national standards would have on the car
> manufacturers. Lots of the safety features currently included in
> modern cars have come from the manufacturers themselves and then been
> mandated some years later once there is enough market saturation. If
> somewhere as small (in terms of car sales) as Australia mandates
> Feature X and Feature X does not already exist then the car
> manufacturers are going to tell them where to go.

As they already do with some items.

How many things were offered only in high end gear, then mandated in
Europe and suddenly every model gets them?

Zebee

 

[Dorfus Dippintush]

Graeme Dods wrote:
> On Sep 28, 10:30 am, Dorfus Dippintush
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's not impossible though. Changes I've seen in my time include
>> compulsory wearing of seat-belts, smoke free areas, helmets on motor
>> bikes and bicycles, some form of gun controls. All of these were
>> considered unthinkable at one time.
>
> But those are all pretty much telling people to do or not do something
> fairly basic. Telling people, for example, "you must be more aware of
> other road users" is far more complex and virtually unenforceable. To
> even get this happening in the first place would take considerable
> training rather than something as black and white as "you must put on
> your seat belt/not smoke here/not have this type of gun etc." which
> can be reinforced by simple repetition/policing.
>
> Graeme
>
>

I used those examples because they show where a change in attitude of
the public was required. If you're old enough to remember before anti-
smoking campaigns started if you asked someone in your office to stop
smoking they'd laugh in your face and tell you to **** off.
Other good examples are anti-littering campaigns and the very successful
Life-be-in-it campaign which started off most off the existing fun
runs from which triathlon is a descendant.
Attitude changes are possible but they take time and persistence. Even
the Liberal (?) party has been convinced of the need for action on
climate change.

Keep working on it.

Dorf

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> However a quick look at the "survey" seems to be more like "we think
> national standards are a good thing, you do too, right?" rather than
> letting you say "bullbars in the city are stupid, and while we are at
> it what's with the foglights?"

Judging by their preponderance, I'm beginning to think foglights are for dim
people.

Theo

 

[rooman]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:42:19 -0700
Graeme Dods <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not sure how much effect national standards would have on the car
> manufacturers. Lots of the safety features currently included in
> modern cars have come from the manufacturers themselves and then been
> mandated some years later once there is enough market saturation. If
> somewhere as small (in terms of car sales) as Australia mandates
> Feature X and Feature X does not already exist then the car
> manufacturers are going to tell them where to go.

As they already do with some items.

How many things were offered only in high end gear, then mandated in
Europe and suddenly every model gets them?

Zebee

It also relates to other vehicles not just cars.

HGVs are a concern and the provision of skirts to semi trailers and the like is an aim by many. And B-Triples, (worry about them please).

We have an opportunity for input, they may ignore one or two, but they can't ignore thousands, so give them input. Tell them in the comments section for each question, where they can do better, ( they do ask you to afterall)

 

[TimC]

On 2007-09-28, Graeme Dods (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Sep 28, 8:33 am, cfsmtb <cfsmtb.2xl...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are
>> interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and
>> other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.
>
> Is this possible without decreasing safety (perceived or real) for the
> motor vehicle driver? The biggest thing that would influence safety
> for more vulnerable road users would be a redesign of the attitude/
> skills of most drivers. Simple answer, bloody difficult to implement
> though

A steel spike through the steering wheel doesn't decrease driver
safety that much, and is more than outweighed by increased safety
to everyone but the driver.

--
TimC
"Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There's
something wrong with a society that drives a car to workout in a gym."
- Bill Nye, the Science Guy

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Sep 28, 2:59 pm, TimC <[email protected]
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> A steel spike through the steering wheel doesn't decrease driver
> safety that much, and is more than outweighed by increased safety
> to everyone but the driver.

That statement may well be true [1] but it doesn't do much to win
people over to your argument. It's akin to a religious zealot saying
"join us or you're going to burn in hell for all eternity". Extreme
statements turn people off, they may grab attention but the reaction
is usually strongly negative rather than "that's interesting, tell me
more."

I heard that comment from someone about 15 years ago and my reaction
was incredibly negative. He may have gone on to say something
worthwhile after that but it was hard not to discount him as a raving
lunatic (the electric shock hair-do and the wild staring eyes may also
have influenced my opinion though). It was only years later after more
background reading that I understood the reasoning behind the
declaration, but we don't want to take that long to convince people

Graeme

[1] this is where someone screams "References?"

 

[rooman]

On Sep 28, 2:59 pm, TimC <[email protected]
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> A steel spike through the steering wheel doesn't decrease driver
> safety that much, and is more than outweighed by increased safety
> to everyone but the driver.

That statement may well be true [1] but it doesn't do much to win
people over to your argument. It's akin to a religious zealot saying
"join us or you're going to burn in hell for all eternity". Extreme
statements turn people off, they may grab attention but the reaction
is usually strongly negative rather than "that's interesting, tell me
more."

I heard that comment from someone about 15 years ago and my reaction
was incredibly negative. He may have gone on to say something
worthwhile after that but it was hard not to discount him as a raving
lunatic (the electric shock hair-do and the wild staring eyes may also
have influenced my opinion though). It was only years later after more
background reading that I understood the reasoning behind the
declaration, but we don't want to take that long to convince people

Graeme

[1] this is where someone screams "References?"

heh heh ... it came up last year when on these forums when we had discussion on driver distraction and what would it take to get a driver to actually concentrate on driving...its not about driver safety, it was an ironic statement about driver awareness and "waking" drivers up to what is going on around them, they drive in a cocoon of soundproofed distractions with Stereo blaring, handsfree phone conversations going on ( or hand held phone conversations going on more likely) , drinking coffee handy in cup holders, doing make up or hair do when driving, with CDs to select, and now DVD,s to insert and the new Ford Sync toy to distract them, those distractions , plus impatience and aggression towards vulnerable road users caused us to think of the thing that might actually get them to think about driving safely and being alert...

a steel spike mounted on the steering wheel , just might get their attention, they stuff up they soon know about it

 

[20cents]

In article <[email protected]>,
cfsmtb <[email protected]> wrote:

> Have opinions about Australian Vehicles Standards Rules? If you are
> interested in making motor vehicles safer for pedestrians, cyclists and
> other road users, here is an opportunity to have a say.
>
> ***
>
> Review of the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules
>
> NTC is interested in your views on the Australian Vehicle Standards
> Rules. You are invited to complete a brief online questionnaire.
>
> Click here: Review of the Australian Vehicle Standards Rules
> http://www.ntc.gov.au/ViewPage.aspx?page=A02215508300830020

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.

 

[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 <[email protected]> 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