"PC" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >those of us that do comply have the right to complain about *anyone* that doesn't... car drivers
> >and cyclists alike.
>
> So you've never exceeded the speed limit or used your horn without a valid safety concern?
I suspect I exceed the speed limit on many occasions... but, I look at the road/traffic, not my
speedo. Speed limits are largely irrelevant as they dont take into account the many factors that
govern a safe speed given a set of conditions.
> Really, car drivers in general are just as bad as cyclists in general, but car drivers have way
> more potential to do serious harm than cyclists do, are less manouverable, more isolated from
> localised conditions, and two tonnes of steel hurts a LOT more than 50-180kg of cyclist and
> bicycle..
That makes no difference... if anything, a driver should be given more leeway WRT running red lights
as they are in a far better position to clear the intersection safely. A cyclists lack of size is
the only reason they can ride thru a crossing while pedestrians are on it. But, I suggest you read
some medical textbooks, a cyclist at speed could potentially kill someone also if they knocked a
person down - head injuries are remarkably easy to sustain, and their severity can be out of
proportion with the size of impact.
Having nearly been knocked down by a cyclist on a crossing (who thought I should give way to him,
based upon the abuse yelled at me as he rode right in front of me), I will forcibly knock a cyclist
down that does this in front of me again.
Adelaide is a relatively bike-friendly city, lots of bike-lanes etc. That still doesnt stop many of
them ignoring road rules, and riding in a downright dangerous manner. I'd probably have killed a
handful of cyclists this year alone if not for the fact that I was expecting them to do some pretty
stupid things. One has to wonder, given the complete lack of protection afforded by a bike, why
don't they practise self-preservation a bit more often?
> Speeding is a problem, though I do feel that 3-10km/h should be a points only offence, so if you
> get flashed, you lose say two points but don't get fined, or get a $20 processing charge or
> similar.. That said, the speed limits should be lower than they are in urban areas, 50 on
> arterials in pedestrianised parts of town (read the inner suburbs), 40 on local streets in
> similar areas, though I wouldn't support those lower limits if the fines kicked in as early as
> they do today..
Speeding is a far smaller problem than you think.... grossly over-emphasised, for little more than
justifying the dependence on the revenue it generates.
> Meanwhile, car drivers do need to learn that the speed limit does not mean that you have to drive
> at that speed.. 5-10km/h below should be acceptable and should not cause people behind you to
> honk, drive agressively, tailgate or overtake across unbroken lines.. Most of the time, you catch
> up to people like that at the next red light anyway, but it still happens..
Should be acceptable by whom? Most people are doing 5-10kmh over the limit. They are driving at a
speed they feel comfortable with, a speed they feel is suitable for the conditions. Why is 5-10
below any more acceptable, given there is no proof going slower has any effect on road safety?
KK
