Re: Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

[TimC]

On 2007-05-05, Plodder (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> As far as the training goes, it's not hard to set up mock intersections,
> traffic lights and other road conditions. I'm part of a voluntary group that
> goes to schools to present safety packages. One of these packages involves
> setting up a road crossing and having the kids role play - some go 'brrrmmm'
> and are drivers; some walk across the road and get 'run over', some ride
> bikes (role play, not real). The kids quickly pick up the rules and we've
> had excellent feedback from the schools in terms of the behaviour change
> observed in the kids who have been involved. Sheesh, it's not hard! Kids are
> smarter than we give them credit for.

He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.

A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.

Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
anyone think of the kids" lobbists.

--
TimC
CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent of 85
Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight. -- unk

 

[rdk]

As far as the training goes, it's not hard to set up mock intersections,
traffic lights and other road conditions. I'm part of a voluntary group that
goes to schools to present safety packages. One of these packages involves
setting up a road crossing and having the kids role play - some go 'brrrmmm'
and are drivers; some walk across the road and get 'run over', some ride
bikes (role play, not real). The kids quickly pick up the rules and we've
had excellent feedback from the schools in terms of the behaviour change
observed in the kids who have been involved. Sheesh, it's not hard! Kids are
smarter than we give them credit for.
Me

I might be wrong, but you're probably talking about primary school level stuff, which is good for that age group, and I wish my kids had it at their school.

When you go for your licence, though, I don't think "I passed cycling safety in grade four" will really make much difference. The talk about mandatory training has the goal of changing attitudes and behaviours, which can't be done in two or three lessons at school, and schools are not going to take it on.

 

[Plodder]

"rdk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Plodder Wrote:
>>
>> As far as the training goes, it's not hard to set up mock
>> intersections,
>> traffic lights and other road conditions. I'm part of a voluntary
>> group that
>> goes to schools to present safety packages. One of these packages
>> involves
>> setting up a road crossing and having the kids role play - some go
>> 'brrrmmm'
>> and are drivers; some walk across the road and get 'run over', some
>> ride
>> bikes (role play, not real). The kids quickly pick up the rules and
>> we've
>> had excellent feedback from the schools in terms of the behaviour
>> change
>> observed in the kids who have been involved. Sheesh, it's not hard!
>> Kids are
>> smarter than we give them credit for.
>> MeI might be wrong, but you're probably talking about primary school
>> level
> stuff, which is good for that age group, and I wish my kids had it at
> their school.
>
> When you go for your licence, though, I don't think "I passed cycling
> safety in grade four" will really make much difference. The talk about
> mandatory training has the goal of changing attitudes and behaviours,
> which can't be done in two or three lessons at school, and schools are
> not going to take it on.
>
>
> --
> rdk

You'd be silly to stop the training in grade four (or any other grade). I
see no mention of stopping then. In fact I've been advocating the idea that
one needs to pass bicycle training before applying for a learner's permit.
That tends to happen some time after grade four.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching kids road craft early and building
on that training as they grow up; it sort of increases their chances OF
growing up. Starting in scholl is just that - starting. Not finishing...

me

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.
>
> A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.
>
> Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
> anyone think of the kids" lobbists.

The best thing the Oz Gov't ever did was lower the voting age to 18. It's
the only time in your life that you know absobloodylutely everything.

I was personally stunned at how much knowledge, experience, and wisdom my
father gained between the time I turned 18 and the time I turned 21. I think
I was nearly 24 before I figured out what had happened.

Theo
PS- if you don't understand the previous paragraph you're probably 18.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.

> I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
> training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a
> controlled environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I
> think experience on the road would be ideal but I have trouble with
> the idea of forcing people to actually ride a bike (or drive a car,
> ride a horse, whatever). The idea is to promote and ensure (by
> training and testing) a higher degree of awareness of the rights,
> responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of different road
> users.

Then we're nearly in agreement.
And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as you grow
up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a driver's
licence, and continuing education by means of short TV public service ads as
I've seen in England and Europe.

Theo

 

[EuanB]

>> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
>> already
>> illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
>> encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
>> crosswalks), and
>> can injure people other than the participants.

> What particular law makes bunch riding illegal Theo?

Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you think
that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

From VicRoads, rule 255

Riding too close to the rear of a motor vehicle

The rider of a bicycle must not ride within 2 metres of the rear of a moving motor vehicle continuously for more than 200 metres.
Penalty: 1 penalty unit.Note Motor vehicle is defined in the Road Safety Act 1986.

​

So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?​

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
>> already illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous
>> practice, encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
>> crosswalks)
>
> eh? Other than the hell ride, bunches I see are *far* more likely to
> stop for red lights than individuals.
>
> In fact, I've never seen a bunch other than the hell ride run a red.
> Seen thousands of individuals though -- probably about a third the
> cyclists I've noticed.

And making riding a compulsory requisite for driving will thus make for
better drivers?

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
>> think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

> From VicRoads, rule 255
>
> RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/B]
>
> *THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF A
> MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
> *PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
> SAFETY ACT 1986.
>
> So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
> there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*

How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you run
up the back of someone.

Theo

 

[rooman]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
>> think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

> From VicRoads, rule 255
>
> RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/B]
>
> *THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF A
> MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
> *PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
> SAFETY ACT 1986.
>
> So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
> there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*

How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you run
up the back of someone.

Theo

you mean bikes behind bikes?...

they are not required to ride a prescribed distance from each other...its just MOTOR vehicles....

seems a certain maturer lady TT'er breaks that one each time (often) she motorpaces on Beach Rd ..

don't know of a case where a bicycle rider has been found guilty of negligent riding for running up the back of another bicycle...

experienced bunch riders can "hold a wheel" of another bicycle by a few cms...that is normal for many, scary for others, and avoided by some... it comes with learning...and training...(seems that word that has appeared here a bit lately).
Holding a wheel is necessary on the track, expected in road races and practiced in training, and then applied in most social rides with a lot more room between bikes than cms ( half a meter plus is comfortable) for most riders who ride in a group.

In any event, on the road, all riders have to keep a proper lookout. And amongst experienced responsible riders this is how they expect you to ride. The most difficult aspect for many riders when training or riding socially is the unpredictability of the unkown rider.
If you are known to a group and practiced with the them, in the normal course a cohesive ride will follow.
If you are unknown, they will not be able to predict what you will do in the event of an incident, nor you them. You may be the best rider and very skilled, but to them you are another (major) unpredictable element and to you so are they, thus a greater need to show more care, back off, slow down, chose another route, whatever is reasonable to ensure a margin to deal with it.

 

[beerwolf]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

snip

> We are becoming so legalistic that it has become too much trouble to
> prosecute/punish people for subjective misdeeds. It's easy to take
> someone to court if you have concrete evidence such as a black eye,
> several dead bodies, or a computer print-out that says that vehicle
> ABC123 was recorded at 61.5 in a 60 zone. Much more difficult for the
> prosecution to say "You honor, this moron was behaving like a
> ****-head". Hence most morons can act like ****-heads with impunity.

Amen**(8*i)

--
beerwolf

 

[TimC]

On 2007-05-07, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.
>>
>> A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.
>>
>> Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
>> anyone think of the kids" lobbists.
>
> The best thing the Oz Gov't ever did was lower the voting age to 18. It's
> the only time in your life that you know absobloodylutely everything.
>
> I was personally stunned at how much knowledge, experience, and wisdom my
> father gained between the time I turned 18 and the time I turned 21. I think
> I was nearly 24 before I figured out what had happened.

I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
out.

I wouldn't have the foggiest about it anymore.

QED, I really was smarter back then.

--
TimC
We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
what we were doing

 

[cfsmtb]

I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
out.

Shroedinger? Sp?

BTW, cat ok?

 

[TimC]

On 2007-05-07, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC Wrote:
>>
>> I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
>> systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
>> out.
>
> Shroedinger? Sp?

Correct, I can't even spell his name anymore. "Sch".

> BTW, cat ok?

Currently lost in a box. Not known if dead or alive.

--
TimC
Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.

 

[EuanB]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
>> think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

> From VicRoads, rule 255
>
> RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/B]
>
> *THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF A
> MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
> *PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
> SAFETY ACT 1986.
>
> So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
> there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*

How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you run
up the back of someone.

Of course, no different from a car there. All I have to do is maintain a gap with sufficient stopping distance. I'm not an experienced bunch rider but even I can do that, just because you're drafting someone doesn't mean that your bike has to be directly behind so in an emergency I can brake alongside the rider in front.

Bunch riding is not illegal Theo, you may wish it to be but it's not so don't go around saying it is.

 

[EuanB]

Plodder wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

>> Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.

> I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
> training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a
> controlled environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I
> think experience on the road would be ideal but I have trouble with
> the idea of forcing people to actually ride a bike (or drive a car,
> ride a horse, whatever). The idea is to promote and ensure (by
> training and testing) a higher degree of awareness of the rights,
> responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of different road
> users.

Then we're nearly in agreement.
And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as you grow
up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a driver's
licence, and continuing education by means of short TV public service ads as
I've seen in England and Europe.

That might work in Europe where bicycles are part of the furniture but not here in Australia. A casual pootle along your local bike track should be enough to persuade you that a significant number of occaisional cyclists haven't a clue what they're doing.

 

[Plodder]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Plodder wrote:
>> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
>
>>> Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.
>
>> I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
>> training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a
>> controlled environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I
>> think experience on the road would be ideal but I have trouble with
>> the idea of forcing people to actually ride a bike (or drive a car,
>> ride a horse, whatever). The idea is to promote and ensure (by
>> training and testing) a higher degree of awareness of the rights,
>> responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of different road
>> users.
>
> Then we're nearly in agreement.
> And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as you
> grow up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a
> driver's licence, and continuing education by means of short TV public
> service ads as I've seen in England and Europe.
>
> Theo

The bit that makes me uncomfortable is 'parents'. As recent studies have
found, one reason it takes so long to book in for a driving test is that so
many people fail after being taught by parents, friends, etc. and need to
re-book. The system's clagged up with people who learned from people who
can't drive properly.

People pass on their bad habits. For example, the L plater I saw driving
along the bus/bike lane on South Street yesterday evening. She squeezed past
a cyclist in the lane, forcing him into the gutter. I know that if I was to
teach someone to drive (and it's coming up soon - partner's 16 year-old)
I'll pass on some of the habits I've developed and normalised to the point
where I'm not conscious of those habits (good and bad). I'll try and be
aware but I'll still be imperfect. How many people teach their kids and
aren't even aware, let alone care?

Ideally, I'd love to think that parents are all ideal role models and are
able to teach their kids the life skills they need. Unfortunately, almost
all the parents I know think their job is to have kids. I think a parent's
job is to produce adults - aprt of that is an effective childhood (and all
the mistakes and fun that that brings). In reality, Johnny Bogan produces
little Harley Bogan. Johnny teaches Harley that the main thing to watch out
for when driving is cops - don't get caught. That might only apply to one in
five hundred drivers, but, given I'll be passed by, say, 5000 cars in an
hour, that's 10 people driving past me who are not looking out for my
safety. That's scary...

Better to put pre-drivers on the road on a bike. First, it exposes them to
the road in such a way that they are vulnerable and need to develop road
craft to look after themselves. Second, it gets more people on bikes, making
it safer for all of us. Third, it produces drivers who are aware of the
role, rights and duties of shared road use. Fourth, it means we're reading
from the same rulebooks, both legal and social. I think that's worth having.

Cheers,

Frank

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
> systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
> out.
>
> I wouldn't have the foggiest about it anymore.
>
> QED, I really was smarter back then.

I think you're confusing knowledge with wisdom. I'm sure you have more
wisdom now.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

EuanB wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:

>> Then we're nearly in agreement.
>> And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as
>> you grow
>> up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a
>> driver's licence, and continuing education by means of short TV
>> public service ads as
>> I've seen in England and Europe.

> That might work in Europe where bicycles are part of the furniture but
> not here in Australia. A casual pootle along your local bike track
> should be enough to persuade you that a significant number of
> occaisional cyclists haven't a clue what they're doing.

You have no disagreement from me on that, and you can probably add the
Sunday morning club rider in lycra to that as well. I went for a couple of
Sunday rides with a (non-racing) club a long time ago. Probably the most
dangerous time I've ever spent on the road. I agree that any road user
should have training including cyclists. Whether you can give 'formal'
training to all children with their first bike is dubious and mandation
would probably result in the kid not getting a bike at all. So tell me
again why bicycle training should be mandatory before getting a driver's
licence, for those people who have no wish to cycle.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Plodder wrote:

> Better to put pre-drivers on the road on a bike. First, it exposes
> them to the road in such a way that they are vulnerable and need to
> develop road craft to look after themselves. Second, it gets more
> people on bikes, making it safer for all of us. Third, it produces
> drivers who are aware of the role, rights and duties of shared road
> use. Fourth, it means we're reading from the same rulebooks, both
> legal and social. I think that's worth having.

Again, I agree with you. But where do these pre-drivers get their knowledge
of the "role, rights and duties of shared road use" from, if not their
parents, their peers, and their observation of other road-users? I don't
think a compulsory course sold with every 10" two-wheeler, fitted from the
shop with trainer wheels, is gonna fly.

Theo

 

[EuanB]

Whether you can give 'formal'
training to all children with their first bike is dubious and mandation
would probably result in the kid not getting a bike at all. So tell me
again why bicycle training should be mandatory before getting a driver's
licence, for those people who have no wish to cycle.

You're mixing up two arguments.

Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to ride a bike? No, because the benefits of an untrained rider outweigh the risks to society as a whole.

Mandatory training to anyone who wishes to get behind the wheel of a car? Yes, because understanding the limitations of cyclists is crucial in understanding how to co-exist with them.