Report: Deaths of cyclists due to road crashes ATSB Jul'06

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:27:55 GMT
Friday <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A fact to a university graduate is a reference to a dusty document on a
> dusty shelf. A fact to anyone else is something that happens in front of
> your eyes.
> Strangely enough, one doesn't acknowledge the facts of the other.

Because they aren't of the same value as any conjuror or scam artist
can tell you.

Zebee

 

[Euan]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:27:55 GMT
> Friday <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A fact to a university graduate is a reference to a dusty document on a
>> dusty shelf. A fact to anyone else is something that happens in front of
>> your eyes.
>> Strangely enough, one doesn't acknowledge the facts of the other.
>
> Because they aren't of the same value as any conjuror or scam artist
> can tell you.

Bingo.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Euan]

cfsmtb wrote:
> Rightwing death beasts are such amusing creatures.
> http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.2cbe6045
> http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/727339/posts

See dewatf? It's not that hard. Now we've got something concrete to
talk about instead of each other's opinions.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Tamyka Bell]

Euan wrote:
>
> dewatf wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:19:44 +1000, EuanB wrote:
> >
> >> Please back up with refrence material, not your own opinions.
> >
> > I am not giving my opinions I am giving fact.
> >
> > It is idea that law should be biased infavour of cyclists that is purely
> > opinion, not supported by fact and based on a mythology that has been
> > cultivated by cycling zealots.
> >
> > I shall write something up when I have time.
>
> Fact is backed by referencing primary source reference material. You
> haven't provided any. Until you do all you have given is opinion, not fact.

Or plagiarism

Tam

 

[dewatf]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:09:02 GMT, Euan wrote:

> cfsmtb wrote:
>> Rightwing death beasts are such amusing creatures.
>> http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.2cbe6045
>> http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/727339/posts
>
> See dewatf? It's not that hard. Now we've got something concrete to
> talk about instead of each other's opinions.

I was using that source and the you will not I used the 50 pound figure.

dewatf.

 

[EuanB]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:09:02 GMT, Euan wrote:

> cfsmtb wrote:
>> Rightwing death beasts are such amusing creatures.
>> http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.2cbe6045
>> http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/727339/posts
>
> See dewatf? It's not that hard. Now we've got something concrete to
> talk about instead of each other's opinions.

I was using that source and the you will not I used the 50 pound figure.

I could barely parse that sentance. I'm assumming you meant ``that's the source I used for the fifty pounds figure.'' If so, why didn't you cite your source? That's common courtesy.

Not that it applies anyway, this is the expected increas in insurance figures in the UK. That does not answer my questions:


1) Is insurance significantly more expensive in the Netherlands?

2) Is road safety not that different?

Now quit being a politician and answer the very simple questions.

 

[dewatf]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:45:14 +1000, EuanB wrote:

> 1) Is insurance significantly more expensive in the Netherlands?

It costs motorists billions of dollars a year. No one has argued it isn't
expensive, the entire point of the exercise was to burden car insurance
companies, and hence Dutch motorists' wallets, with half the costs of
accidents caused by cyclists.

> 2) Is road safety not that different?

Road safety, in km travelled, is not that different in Holland.
Cyclists die at around 4.5 times motorists.

But all that matters is is safety different due to the change in insurance.
No it is not. Nor is they any reason why rewarding cyclists by having half
their hostipal bills paid when the cyclist is negligent and causes the
accident would make cycling safer.

> Now quit being a politician and answer the very simple questions.

I have, several times.

dewatf.

 

[Terryc]

dewatf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:45:14 +1000, EuanB wrote:
>
>
>>1) Is insurance significantly more expensive in the Netherlands?
>
>
> It costs motorists billions of dollars a year. No one has argued it isn't
> expensive, the entire point of the exercise was to burden car insurance
> companies, and hence Dutch motorists' wallets, with half the costs of
> accidents caused by cyclists.

That sounds like a good method of positive re-inforcement for
undertaking the healthy pastime of cycling. After all, the law of the
sea has a power giving way to unpowered rule, which works very well in
preventing accidents.

 

[Dorre]

Euan wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:
> > Rightwing death beasts are such amusing creatures.
> > http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.2cbe6045
> > http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/727339/posts

> See dewatf? It's not that hard. Now we've got something concrete to
> talk about instead of each other's opinions.

What surprises me is that, at least in NSW, there is no real attempt to
relate CTP insurance costs to the risk posed by the driver.

A Government report a few years ago reported that reckless drivers cost
many times more to insure than they pay in premiums.

So why don't we offer discounts (e.g. no claim bonus, or increased
premiums for a few years after causing an injury) to encourage risky
drivers to take more care?

Making at-fault drivers pay more for CTP insurance seems like a
sensible way of encouraging better driving and so reducing the risk of
injury to cyclists.

Dorre

 

[Resound]

"Terryc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:44efdb86$0$7789$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
> dewatf wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:45:14 +1000, EuanB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>1) Is insurance significantly more expensive in the Netherlands?
>>
>>
>> It costs motorists billions of dollars a year. No one has argued it isn't
>> expensive, the entire point of the exercise was to burden car insurance
>> companies, and hence Dutch motorists' wallets, with half the costs of
>> accidents caused by cyclists.
>
> That sounds like a good method of positive re-inforcement for
> undertaking the healthy pastime of cycling. After all, the law of the
> sea has a power giving way to unpowered rule, which works very well in
> preventing accidents.

To a degree. If you're in an 18' sailboat and come across 40,000 tonnes of
pulsating rust making headway @ 15kt don't expect them to turn aside for
you;they can't. They can *start* to turn but you'll still be spat out the
back as so much flotsam.

 

[dave]

Resound wrote:
> "Terryc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:44efdb86$0$7789$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>>dewatf wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:45:14 +1000, EuanB wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>1) Is insurance significantly more expensive in the Netherlands?
>>>
>>>
>>>It costs motorists billions of dollars a year. No one has argued it isn't
>>>expensive, the entire point of the exercise was to burden car insurance
>>>companies, and hence Dutch motorists' wallets, with half the costs of
>>>accidents caused by cyclists.
>>
>>That sounds like a good method of positive re-inforcement for
>>undertaking the healthy pastime of cycling. After all, the law of the
>>sea has a power giving way to unpowered rule, which works very well in
>>preventing accidents.
>
>
> To a degree. If you're in an 18' sailboat and come across 40,000 tonnes of
> pulsating rust making headway @ 15kt don't expect them to turn aside for
> you;they can't. They can *start* to turn but you'll still be spat out the
> back as so much flotsam.
>
>
yeah. I dont so much mind em having a crew of two men and a dog. But
why is the dog always the one on watch? And why are dogs wth 60 years
of evolution to adapt to it so utterly **** at keeping a radar watch?

 

[Euan]

dewatf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:45:14 +1000, EuanB wrote:
>
>> 1) Is insurance significantly more expensive in the Netherlands?
>
> It costs motorists billions of dollars a year. No one has argued it isn't
> expensive, the entire point of the exercise was to burden car insurance
> companies, and hence Dutch motorists' wallets, with half the costs of
> accidents caused by cyclists.

You *still* haven't answered the question: is insurance significantly
more expensive in the Netherlands than in Australia.

>> 2) Is road safety not that different?
>
> Road safety, in km travelled, is not that different in Holland.
> Cyclists die at around 4.5 times motorists.

Cite please. I thought we'd gone over this.
>> Now quit being a politician and answer the very simple questions.
>
> I have, several times.

No you haven't.
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Euan]

Dorre wrote:
> Euan wrote:
>> cfsmtb wrote:
>>> Rightwing death beasts are such amusing creatures.
>>> http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.2cbe6045
>>> http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/727339/posts
>
>> See dewatf? It's not that hard. Now we've got something concrete to
>> talk about instead of each other's opinions.
>
> What surprises me is that, at least in NSW, there is no real attempt to
> relate CTP insurance costs to the risk posed by the driver.
>
> A Government report a few years ago reported that reckless drivers cost
> many times more to insure than they pay in premiums.
>
> So why don't we offer discounts (e.g. no claim bonus, or increased
> premiums for a few years after causing an injury) to encourage risky
> drivers to take more care?

Because it'd be a vote loser?
--
Cheers
Euan

 

[Aeek]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:48:02 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Dorre wrote:
>> So why don't we offer discounts (e.g. no claim bonus, or increased
>> premiums for a few years after causing an injury) to encourage risky
>> drivers to take more care?
>
>Because it'd be a vote loser?

and increase the chance they won't bother with registration.
Bad drivers with insurance are better than with no insurance.
At least there's some money if you survive the encounter.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 25 Aug 2006 22:36:18 -0700
Dorre <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So why don't we offer discounts (e.g. no claim bonus, or increased
> premiums for a few years after causing an injury) to encourage risky
> drivers to take more care?

Because you'd end up with more uninsured drivers.

I note also that cars pay less than they should and motorcycles pay
more. That's because making cars pay their actual costs is a vote
loser big time.

Zebee

 

[Terryc]

Resound wrote:

> To a degree. If you're in an 18' sailboat and come across 40,000 tonnes of
> pulsating rust making headway @ 15kt don't expect them to turn aside for
> you;they can't. They can *start* to turn but you'll still be spat out the
> back as so much flotsam.

Technically, if they can see you, then they have to turn, but if you are
that close that you can be spat out the back, then they can not see you.
{

 

[Dorre]

Aeek wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:48:02 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> So why don't we offer discounts (e.g. no claim bonus, or increased
> >> premiums for a few years after causing an injury) to encourage risky
> >> drivers to take more care?
> >Because it'd be a vote loser?

> and increase the chance they won't bother with registration.
> Bad drivers with insurance are better than with no insurance.
> At least there's some money if you survive the encounter.

Unregistered vehicles are pretty obvious because of their lack of a
rego sticker. The police could also do random checks, just at they do
RBT.

There could also be affordable alternatives such as "pay at the pump"
insurance (as they have in the US) so that even risky drivers can get
to work, if driving's their only option. It's just that they'll
probably drive less and so present less of a threat to the rest of us.

Overall, there'd be less dangerous enounters to survive. I don't know
that it makes much difference for the victims (at least in NSW) whether
the driver was insured or not - there's a special fund to pay for
treatment of people injured by uninsured drivers.

As for being a vote winner - perhaps lower insurance premiums for
drivers who take a reasoable amount of care, and fewer deaths and
serious injuries on our roads might also be a vote winner?

Dorre

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on 26 Aug 2006 18:25:18 -0700
Dorre <[email protected]> wrote:
> Unregistered vehicles are pretty obvious because of their lack of a
> rego sticker. The police could also do random checks, just at they do
> RBT.

Problem is, as in all things, money.

I have not seen a police car nevermind been stopped, for about oh, 3
months. And I live close to the city.

The odds are good that as long as you have something about the right
size and shape on the windscreen, keep the car clean, and don't park
in on the street in a shopping area, that you could drive unregistered
for some time.

Try it some time, keep a watch for cop cars and when you see one, see
if they seem to be checking plates at all.

Zebee

 

[Aeek]

On 26 Aug 2006 18:25:18 -0700, "Dorre" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Unregistered vehicles are pretty obvious because of their lack of a
>rego sticker. The police could also do random checks, just at they do
>RBT.

I was noticing today how easy it was to tell if a motorbike was
registered - sticker at the back, vs how hard it was to spot cars -
low down on a sloping surface and very little time due to closing
speed.

 

[Theo Bekkers]

dave wrote:
> Aeek wrote:

>> I was noticing today how easy it was to tell if a motorbike was
>> registered - sticker at the back, vs how hard it was to spot cars -
>> low down on a sloping surface and very little time due to closing
>> speed.

> Hmmmm my sticker as on a lot of motorcycles is on the side.

Mine is on the back, but facing the front. As an exercise I deliberately
looked for the rego stickers on oncoming vehicles. No way I could tell if a
vehicle was registered or not. It would have to be parked to check it.

Theo