Ride Melbourne's CityLink Tunnel with Critical Mass!

[Kasper Kowalski]

"Deep Floyd Mars" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <snip>
> > 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.
>
> How many people die each year from this sort of accident? Potentially a tree could kill someone if
> it landed on them. In practice, the risk is
very,
> very small, as is the chance of being killed by a cyclist.

it's the cyclists in trees that are the real problem..

 

[Pc]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:47:28 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I actually wonder if it's safer to be a little silly in an effort to be visible, on the
>> assumption that other road users are more likely to see you if you're in front of them and are
>> being visible..
>
>Do you consider bike couriers riding *against* traffic flow, weaving around cars, an effort to be
>visible, or an effort to be dead?

No, that's called earning a living.. They are contractors paid by the delivery, and if they don't
make enough deliveries in a day, they can't meet their expenses.. It's an inherent problem with how
the industry works, but that doesn't stop their customers from using them, because it's still the
cheapest and fastest way to get their glorified packages around town..

>> And then what if you need to stop suddenly - your reaction time is the same but the extra speed
>> means you travel further and a slight prang can become much worse..
>
>I've never hit anyone. I drive in a manner that allows me stop in time, regardless of limit. Part
>of that involves looking around you and reading the traffic for potential bingles.

It doesn't matter so much that you never have, what matters is the risk that you some day will, and
the statistics for how many do.. They're rather depressing actually..

>> >Why is 5-10 below any more acceptable, given there is no proof going slower has any effect on
>> >road safety?

>> Yeah, same deal, but isn't that a rather selfish attitude?

>It's not slefish when that is the way the majority behave...

I think we've just unlocked the key problem here.. The majority behaving a certain way doesn't make
it right, it just makes it collectively stupid..

>efforst to try and get people to slow to below a speed they feel comfortable with does more harm
>than good.

What harm? Is it harmful that it seriously affects your wealth?

Sure, I know watching the speedo ain't smart, but that shouldn't matter.. People should just learn
to comfortably drive a little slower than they do today, and ignore those behind who insist on
driving up near or above the limit..

Anyway, making 3-10km/h over a points only or points and small fine penalty would help make it
safer to keep speed limits low or lower them further without causing road users to stare at
their speedos..

PC

 

[Deep Floyd Mars]

Kasper Kowalski <[email protected]> wrote in message news:1056868336.185538@teuthos...
>
> "Deep Floyd Mars" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > <snip>
> > > 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.
> >
> > How many people die each year from this sort of accident? Potentially a tree could kill someone
> > if it landed on them. In practice, the risk is
> very,
> > very small, as is the chance of being killed by a cyclist.
>
> it's the cyclists in trees that are the real problem..
>

Nah, its the trees fault for leading them on.
---
DFM

 

[Kasper Kowalski]

"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> >Do you consider bike couriers riding *against* traffic flow, weaving
around
> >cars, an effort to be visible, or an effort to be dead?
>
> No, that's called earning a living.. They are contractors paid by the delivery, and if they don't
> make enough deliveries in a day, they can't meet their expenses.. It's an inherent problem with
> how the industry works, but that doesn't stop their customers from using them, because it's still
> the cheapest and fastest way to get their glorified packages around town..

So it makes their behaviour ok? Fine, don't complain about the many drivers behind their wheel in a
work capacity behaving in the same manner.

> >I've never hit anyone. I drive in a manner that allows me stop in time, regardless of limit. Part
> >of that involves looking around you and reading the traffic for potential bingles.
>
> It doesn't matter so much that you never have, what matters is the risk that you some day will,
> and the statistics for how many do.. They're rather depressing actually..

Risk is low, I do a pretty good job looking out for myself.

More depressing are stats for heart disease and cancer. Put road fatalities into that sort of
context, and the number of deaths is really not that significant.

> I think we've just unlocked the key problem here.. The majority behaving a certain way doesn't
> make it right, it just makes it collectively stupid..

No, you're still living under the assumption that what they're doing is dangerous. The statistics
don't support that view.

> >efforst to try and get people to slow to below a speed they feel
comfortable
> >with does more harm than good.
>
> What harm? Is it harmful that it seriously affects your wealth?

Setting speed limits inappropriately reduces compliance rates, and increases speed differentials.
Speed differentials lead to higher accident rates. Proven. Search usenet (been discussed ad nauseum)
or google... plenty of evidence to show speed enforcement has little tangible effect on road safety.

> Sure, I know watching the speedo ain't smart, but that shouldn't matter.. People should just learn
> to comfortably drive a little slower than they do today, and ignore those behind who insist on
> driving up near or above the limit..

Whys should they when there is no good reason to? There is no proof that speed enforcement has done
anything for the road toll.

> Anyway, making 3-10km/h over a points only or points and small fine penalty would help make it
> safer to keep speed limits low or lower them further without causing road users to stare at their
> speedos..

Rubbish. For those that spend a lot of time on the road for work, 12 points can go very quickly....
especially when the tolerances are set as low as they are now (and unlawfully so).

KK

 

[Pc]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:26:34 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> No, that's called earning a living.. They are contractors paid by the delivery, and if they don't
>> make enough deliveries in a day, they can't meet their expenses.. It's an inherent problem with
>> how the industry works, but that doesn't stop their customers from using them, because it's still
>> the cheapest and fastest way to get their glorified packages around town..
>
>So it makes their behaviour ok?

No, it's actually more of a hint that there is a better solution, in regulating the courier industry
and forcing them to hire couriers as employees and not contractors..

>More depressing are stats for heart disease and cancer. Put road fatalities into that sort of
>context, and the number of deaths is really not that significant.

Are they immediately avoidable?

>Setting speed limits inappropriately reduces compliance rates,

I'll have to file that one away for future reference

>Whys should they when there is no good reason to? There is no proof that speed enforcement has done
>anything for the road toll.

I'm less concerned about the road toll than about making cities more liveable.. There's more to
urban life than driving..

>Rubbish. For those that spend a lot of time on the road for work, 12 points can go very quickly....

Those that spend a lot of time on the road should know better, and if their working conditions
require them to speed, those conditions should be the focus..

PC

 

[Jeremy Lunn]

In article <1056863086.341013@teuthos>, Kasper Kowalski wrote:
> 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?

You know nothing about physics, do you?

--
Jeremy Lunn Melbourne, Australia Homepage: http://www.austux.net/ http://www.jabber.org.au/ - the
next generation of Instant Messaging.

 

[David Sutton]

Kasper Kowlaski krapped on:

> <snip>
>> 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.

You probably don't want to know the figures, because they make your argument look like the piece of
**** that it actually is. Here are some actual statistics from Victoria. If you want to verify them,
go to: http://crashstat1.roads.vic.gov.au:10243/crashstats/crash.htm

Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. That's right -- three! In the same time, the
number of peds killed by cars was *887*. And since there are 25 times more car trips than bike trips
(source: VicRoads) this means that cars are on average 11.8 times more deadly than bikes.

Or, to use another example, let's look at Chapel St, which is one of Melbourne's busiest strip
shopping centres. Since 1991, there have been 127 pedestrian accidents involving cars -- 54 of these
were serious injuries to the ped, and 3 were fatal. In the same time period, there have been -- wait
for it! -- only 4 bike/ped crashes, with only 2 serious injuries, none fatal.

But hey? What are real data & statistics when you want to go on a mindless rant like Kasper?

 

[Kasper Kowalski]

"Jeremy Lunn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <1056863086.341013@teuthos>, Kasper Kowalski wrote:
> > 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?
>
> You know nothing about physics, do you?

Physics is not really relevant when weighed up against all the other factors. It's why our fastest
roads are also our safest.

There's more to road safety than stopping distance. Only complete morons limit their
thinking to that.

KK

 

[Kasper Kowalski]

"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

> No, it's actually more of a hint that there is a better solution, in regulating the courier
> industry and forcing them to hire couriers as employees and not contractors..

Good luck. About as achievable as tits on a bull.

> >More depressing are stats for heart disease and cancer. Put road
fatalities
> >into that sort of context, and the number of deaths is really not that significant.
>
> Are they immediately avoidable?

Are car accidents immediately avoidable by lowering speed limits? No.

> >Whys should they when there is no good reason to? There is no proof that speed enforcement has
> >done anything for the road toll.
>
> I'm less concerned about the road toll than about making cities more liveable.. There's more to
> urban life than driving..

Slower cars, stop/starting more often make a city less liveable. Dropping default limits to 50 won't
do the environment much good.

> >Rubbish. For those that spend a lot of time on the road for work, 12
points
> >can go very quickly....
>
> Those that spend a lot of time on the road should know better, and if their working conditions
> require them to speed, those conditions should be the focus..

3-10kmh over the speed limit is not speeding... it is within the standard error of the
instrumentation as legislated in the ADRs.

KK

 

[Kasper Kowalski]

"David Sutton" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BB24D3F6.59B8%[email protected]...

> >> 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.
>
> Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. That's right -- three! In the same time,
> the number of peds killed by cars was *887*. And since there are 25 times more car trips than bike
> trips (source: VicRoads) this means that cars are on average 11.8 times more deadly than bikes.

A bit simplistic... you assume the same distance is covered in a trip be it in a car or on bike.

In any case, you made my point - the assumption that pedestrians can't be injured by careless
cyclists is a fallacious one.

KK

 

[Pc]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:13:36 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I'm less concerned about the road toll than about making cities more liveable.. There's more to
>> urban life than driving..
>
>Slower cars, stop/starting more often make a city less liveable. Dropping default limits to 50
>won't do the environment much good.

It does wonders for making people realise it's faster to ride a bike than drive..

PC

 

[Kasper Kowalski]

"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:13:36 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I'm less concerned about the road toll than about making cities more liveable.. There's more to
> >> urban life than driving..
> >
> >Slower cars, stop/starting more often make a city less liveable. Dropping default limits to 50
> >won't do the environment much good.
>
> It does wonders for making people realise it's faster to ride a bike than drive..

Depends when/where you drive. Also assumes one would even like getting on a bike - I hate it.

KK

 

[Pc]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:20:42 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. That's right -- three! In the same
>> time, the number of peds killed by cars was *887*. And since there are 25 times more car trips
>> than bike trips (source: VicRoads) this means that cars are on average 11.8 times more deadly
>> than bikes.

>In any case, you made my point - the assumption that pedestrians can't be injured by careless
>cyclists is a fallacious one.

Of course it's not fallacious, just it's statistically insignificant.. Three fatalaties in 12
years.. How many of those three deaths would have been prevented by number plates?

Anyway, can anyone think of any other item in society that causes more than one death every four
years that should be regulated before bikes?

PC

 

[Pc]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:33:16 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Slower cars, stop/starting more often make a city less liveable. Dropping default limits to 50
>> >won't do the environment much good.
>>
>> It does wonders for making people realise it's faster to ride a bike than drive..
>
>Depends when/where you drive. Also assumes one would even like getting on a bike - I hate it.

Yeah, so did I originally.. I'm still not quite ready to rely on it for 100% of my transportation
requirements long term, though I did actually do it for a few months last year.. It is however much
less irritating when the bike is set up properly..

A 12 inch wide touring saddle (far more comfy than most saddles), proper road tyres that let you go
faster with less effort, use of chain lubricant that prevents gears from siezing up, while
increasing the life of the chain, proper hard soled shoes with cleats that lock them into your
pedals to let you power both on the downswing and upswing, while forcing you to maintain a correct
foot-pedal position, both of which make you go faster using less effort etc.. Also, proper cycling
attire helps to reduce the effort you need to make to attain a similar speed (cycling in jeans for
example makes my legs ache)..

It gets better the more effort you put into it, and is almost tolerable.. You just need a backup
for the times you really don't want to cycle, or when you give up half way, and the train kinda
helps there..

PC

 

[Kasper Kowalski]

"PC" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 17:20:42 +0930, "Kasper Kowalski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists. That's right -- three! In the same
> >> time, the number of peds killed by cars was *887*.
And
> >> since there are 25 times more car trips than bike trips (source:
VicRoads)
> >> this means that cars are on average 11.8 times more deadly than bikes.
>
> >In any case, you made my point - the assumption that pedestrians can't be injured by careless
> >cyclists is a fallacious one.
>
> Of course it's not fallacious, just it's statistically insignificant.. Three fatalaties in 12
> years.. How many of those three deaths would have been prevented by number plates?

Number plates isn't the issue... getting more road users to comply is.

KK

 

[Deep Floyd Mars]

> Since 1991, 3 pedestrians have been killed by cyclists.

3 whole pedestrians in over 12 years??? These bicycles things are killers. Ban the lot of
'em, I say...

BTW, nice searching. I looked for those stats for ages and couldn't find them!
---
DFM

 

[Mick D]

> So like, did anyone go?
> PS I have no TV, radio or read the newspaper.

Umm yeah, about 400 or so pushbikers, bladers, one dog in a trailer and one unicyclist at least.

 

[Forg]

PC wrote: ...
>> 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.
...
> He'll still be gone before you can make the conscious decision to actually do it next time it
> happens..
...

Well, I won't mow another person down if I can avoid it; I'd feel like **** if I killed some cyclist
that ran a red light, even though it's their fault. I suspect this is exactly the attitude they're
banking on when they run reds without looking, which is pretty despicable when you think about it.

--
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)

"... this crazy Forg surrounds me ..." [Live - "When Dolphins Cry"]

 

[Forg]

PC wrote: ...
>> Slower cars, stop/starting more often make a city less liveable. Dropping default limits to 50
>> won't do the environment much good.
...
> It does wonders for making people realise it's faster to ride a bike than drive..
...

In very select conditions. My average travel speed in commuting to work, as well as driving to
things outside of work, far exceeds what I could achieve on a bike.

--
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)

"... this crazy Forg surrounds me ..." [Live - "When Dolphins Cry"]

 

[Pc]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 20:19:36 +1000, Forg <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Slower cars, stop/starting more often make a city less liveable. Dropping default limits to 50
> >> won't do the environment much good.

> > It does wonders for making people realise it's faster to ride a bike than drive..

>In very select conditions. My average travel speed in commuting to work, as well as driving to
>things outside of work, far exceeds what I could achieve on a bike.

True enough, and yeah, it's not for everybody, but it does come down to individual circumstances..
If you look into it a little further, you may find you still come out ahead on a treadly..

In my case, it's 11.3km by the most direct semi-flat back street route, cycling is 29-33 mins, a
motorcycle 25 mins (via CityLink), the trams 60 mins.. Riding means I shower when I get to work
instead of before I leave, so I don't lose any extra time there..

If I rode every day, I lose 80 minutes a week.. In return for those 80 minutes, I get 330 minutes of
aerobic exercise, meaning I don't need to join a gym, and if I did join one, I'd sure hope I spend
more than 80 minutes a week there.. Three 90 minute workouts plus car travel there and back and
showers would be about 7 1/2 hours a week, so I'm actually way ahead..

I also don't have to pay for fuel (though the cost of cycling apparel and accessories kinda
negates that)..

Sure it's only 29-33 minutes after a year and a half, and started out around 2 hours, went down to
45 minutes fairly soon, and gradually came down over that time, it still holds.. If you factor in
the exercise you should be doing, you can have a much greater differential (read commute much
further than 11km) and still be way ahead cycling, even if it's only a few days a week..

PC