Road Spy

cfsmtb said:

Just heard of these clowns:

http://www.roadspy.com.au/
"Sign up to Road Spy today to start receiving instant SMS alerts of police mobile radar, laser, speed cameras, as well as traffic information in your local area (Gold Coast only at this stage), straight to your mobile phone."

Oh for fcuks sakes .... 😠

There are rumblings about drafting laws to make this illegal. I do wonder about the motives behind some of those rumblings, but if it goes through I won't quibble about the outcome.

On 12/05/06 at 18:44:38 cfsmtb somehow managed to type:

Quoted message said:

Just heard of these clowns:

http://www.roadspy.com.au/
"-Sign up to Road Spy today to start receiving instant SMS alerts of
police mobile radar, laser, speed cameras, as well as traffic
information in your local area (Gold Coast only at this stage),
straight to your mobile phone.-"

Who cares ? In NSW near a couple of black spots they installed speed
cameras and put bloody great signs up at 1k, 500m and 100m from the
heavily signed (with flashing amber lights) cameras. The ONLY change
recorded was that there was no need for a cop with a handheld radar to
be there to catch speeding motorists - the signs and stuff made no
difference at all. There was no difference to the collision rate either.

In Vic recently the list of speed camera (possible/probable) locations
were published in all the daily papers. I'd be willing to bet that the
number of motorists caught speeding by the cameras has NOT changed.

The sort of person signing up for Roadspy will only have their
behaviour modified to the point that they'll have a NEED to check their
mobile messages while they're driving. Of course they're probably the
sort of people who do the text thing while driving anyway.

Quoted message said:

Oh for fcuks sakes .... 😠

--

Humbug

Humbug said:

In Vic recently the list of speed camera (possible/probable) locations
were published in all the daily papers. I'd be willing to bet that the
number of motorists caught speeding by the cameras has NOT changed.

In WA a list of speed camera locations is announced the night before on
the 6pm news on Channel 7 and 9, plus its at the WA Police Service web
site.

The problem is they don't say where it will be exactly, or when. The
hope is that people will at least slow down in those areas that day,
just in case.

For instance it might say "Kwinana Freeway, Como" and "South Terrace,
Fremantle". It won't say what time, it won't say which side of the
road it will be on, it won't give a more precise location.

People still get caught by cameras though.

The major problem for most people is accidentially driving through a
camera without realising they were speeding. I get done like that from
time to time, its infuriating. There are plenty of places where the
natural speed is higher than the speed limit, so you do 85km/h when you
think you're doing 70km/h in a 70 zone. It can require quite a lot of
concentration to avoid this, and momentary lapses can result in a $150
fine.

There has been quite a bit of research internationally (in Europe,
especially) about appropriate speeds, and one method which is used in
some places is to set the speed limit at the 80th percentile speed
where people go along that road at a pace which feels comfortable and
safe. The result is not necessarily big increases in speeding, in fact
when speed limits are set in such a way cars do tend to move at much
more uniform speeds and speed freaks are more likely to obey a limit
they consider reasonable than one that is completely unreasonable and
therefore to be completely ignored. Sometimes of course a speed that
feels safe is not actually safe, because of things that drivers might
not know about just around the bend, like upcoming intersections and
schools. In those cases lower limits are appropriate and should be
signposted prominently and enforced rigorously.

As anyone who has seen the chaos that ensues when following some twit
doing 30km/h under the limit can attest, safer doesn't necessarily
always mean slower. If speed limits are too low many people will
ignore them and drive at a speed they consider more appropriate,
resulting in huge speed differentials between the law abiding and the
law breaking. Differentials are a bigger risk factor than speeds.

If a road "should" be 100km/h, then that's where the limit should be,
not 80km/h. Having limits which are too low just leads to
non-compliance and therefore speed differentials. Driving at 80 on a
road that should be 100 is frustrating and can take a fair bit of
concentration, both of which can create dangerous conditions when there
are people driving around in powerful cars that aren't equipped with
cruise controls.

Quoted message said:

The sort of person signing up for Roadspy will only have their
behaviour modified to the point that they'll have a NEED to check their
mobile messages while they're driving. Of course they're probably the
sort of people who do the text thing while driving anyway.

That's true. I can imagine certain boy racers might want to do a quick
check to see if there are any cameras in the vicinity of the proposed
"drag strip".

Travis

On 2006-05-12, Travis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

As anyone who has seen the chaos that ensues when following some twit
doing 30km/h under the limit can attest, safer doesn't necessarily

Who's fault would that be?

The impatient idiots behind who take stupid risks not to be delayed by
a few minutes?

Quoted message said:

If a road "should" be 100km/h, then that's where the limit should be,
not 80km/h. Having limits which are too low just leads to
non-compliance and therefore speed differentials. Driving at 80 on a
road that should be 100 is frustrating and can take a fair bit of
concentration, both of which can create dangerous conditions when there
are people driving around in powerful cars that aren't equipped with
cruise controls.

I can't possibly see that being the fault of the idiot with the
overpowered car, oh no.

--
TimC
Ah, so many of life's little problems can be solved by head
vaporisation. -- Zixia in ARK

Travis said:

Differentials are a bigger risk factor than speeds.

yawn, you're on a bicyle list idiot. Fsck off.

i can not actually believe I skimmed even that much of his [censored].

"Terry Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Travis said:

Differentials are a bigger risk factor than speeds.

yawn, you're on a bicyle list idiot. Fsck off.

i can not actually believe I skimmed even that much of his [censored].

You didn't pause to think that he might have a point? I've seen some quite
ridiculous inconsistancies in the application of speed limits even within a
couple of km of home. Limits which are clearly arbitrary rather than
reasoned are not going to be respected and if they're not respected then
they'll more than likely be disregarded. Sure, more often than not the
posted limit is appropriate, but inappropriate limits provide justification,
however spurious, to those who want to break the limit as a matter of course
and that in turn means that it's that much harder to make it a socially
unacceptable practice. Jerking knees are not useful on either side of the
fence.

On 12/05/06 at 21:15:07 Travis somehow managed to type:

<snip stuff>

<snip other stuff>

Why is that when people get behind the steering wheel of a car they
immediately start confusing the meanings of the words "limit" and
"target" ? It's a speed LIMIT and not a speed TARGET!!!

--

Humbug

Resound said:

"Terry Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Travis said:

Differentials are a bigger risk factor than speeds.

yawn, you're on a bicyle list idiot. Fsck off.

i can not actually believe I skimmed even that much of his [censored].

You didn't pause to think that he might have a point?

I ride a bicycle. There is no other consideration. I'm not some ponsie
car driver who makes out they're a bicycle rider for this list. Of
course I am going to see things differently than the ponses.

Humbug said:

Who cares ?

I do. I don't give a flying proverbial about the where is or why not of informing drivers about speed cameras or police operations. This stupid website is literally promoting the use of mobiles & texting whilst driving. Haven't we discussed this issue enough already?

On 12/05/06 at 23:04:05 cfsmtb somehow managed to type:

Quoted message said:

Humbug said:

Who cares ?

I do. I don't give a flying proverbial about the where is or why not
of informing drivers about speed cameras or police operations. This
stupid website is literally promoting the use of mobiles & texting
whilst driving. Haven't we discussed this issue enough already?

Yeah.

The existance of that web site isn't going to alter the behaviour of
the general motoring public. They'll continue to treat laws as
guidlines that only apply to someone else until the penalties for
breaking the law are draconian in the extreme. Penalties will never get
to that level - it's a sure fire vote loser come the next election.

--

Humbug

On 2006-05-12, cfsmtb (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Humbug said:

Who cares ?

I do. I don't give a flying proverbial about the where is or why not of
informing drivers about speed cameras or police operations. This stupid
website is literally promoting the use of mobiles & texting whilst
driving. Haven't we discussed this issue enough already?

And it's aimed at idiots who otherwise clock up at least $280 worth of
fines in one year, such that the $280 yearly fee becomes worthwhile.

"Road Spy supports Australian road safety and encourages safe
driving at all times and the use of legal mobile phone hands free
sets."

Yes, because you can read SMSs off hands free sets without looking at
the set and taking your eyes off the road!!1one!!eleven!!!

--
TimC
Brain fried (core dumped)

TimC said:

On 2006-05-12, Travis (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

As anyone who has seen the chaos that ensues when following some twit
doing 30km/h under the limit can attest, safer doesn't necessarily

Who's fault would that be?

This isn't about assigning fault, its about a simple engineering
principle: cars moving along at more or less the same speed are less
likely to collide with one another than cars moving at huge speed
differentials.

When someone is doing way under the speed limit, for no good reason,
when everyone else is trying to do the speed limit, the result can be
chaotic. Its actually very dangerous, in part because it provokes
impatient idiots, who exist even if we don't approve of them, to do
stupid things to get around the obstacle.

Quoted message said:

The impatient idiots behind who take stupid risks not to be delayed by
a few minutes?

I'm not excusing the behaviour of the people who take stupid risks,
simply pointing out that overly slow drivers are as much a hazard as
overly fast drivers, because speed differentials are dangerous.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If a road "should" be 100km/h, then that's where the limit should be,
not 80km/h. Having limits which are too low just leads to
non-compliance and therefore speed differentials. Driving at 80 on a
road that should be 100 is frustrating and can take a fair bit of
concentration, both of which can create dangerous conditions when there
are people driving around in powerful cars that aren't equipped with
cruise controls.

I can't possibly see that being the fault of the idiot with the
overpowered car, oh no.

I'm not talking about supercharged V8s here. Traffic flows best when
everyone is travelling at the same sort of speed. Maniacs weaving
through traffic are a hazard, but so are slow vehicles which force the
people behind to overtake, an inherently more risky activity than
staying in your lane, plus they tend to bring out the worst in the
maniacs.

Travis

Terry Collins said:

Travis said:

Differentials are a bigger risk factor than speeds.

yawn, you're on a bicyle list idiot. Fsck off.

That's beside the point. Being one-eyed works for footy fans, but
doesn't make the roads any safer.

The fact is that cars are more likely to collide with each other (and
potentially then spin off the road and do some real damage, to a
cyclist) if they are travelling at big speed differentials. Measure
which reduce speed differentials are generally likely to improve road
safety, which most cyclists agree is an important issue.

Having rational speed limits, which are neither too fast nor too slow,
is one method proven to help reduce differentials. The other method is
to have speed cameras on every street and fine the [censored] out of
everybody until everyone drives way below the limit just in case.
That's not really a good outcome for the community at large though.

Quoted message said:

i can not actually believe I skimmed even that much of his [censored].

Then don't.

Travis

Terry Collins said:

Resound wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You didn't pause to think that he might have a point?

I ride a bicycle. There is no other consideration. I'm not some ponsie
car driver who makes out they're a bicycle rider for this list. Of
course I am going to see things differently than the ponses.

You're doing the same thing some car drivers do, being an inconsiderate
jerk with no regard for other road users. You've pretty much said this
in almost those exact words...

Ideally what we want are safe roads where people in various kinds of
vehicles drive/ride considerately and safely and share the road so that
EVERYONE gets home safely.

I sometimes drive a car. I prefer not to, in fact the other day I was
forced to drive my car to work for the first time in several months and
to be quite honest it really [censored] me off and I went for an extra-long
ride that weekend to compensate. I drive my car when I'm going
shopping or going out with my wife though. You can't pick up your
mother in law and all her luggage from the airport on a road bike...
maybe a tandem recumbent with a big bike trailer!

When I'm driving my car I am acutely aware of the safety issues facing
cyclists and I give way to them, give them plenty of room and all of
the other stuff I wish people would do with me. When driving my car
I'm keen not to have an accident, and since speed differentials are
very dangerous I'd like the road rules to be changed where possible to
eliminate them.

Travis

Humbug said:

The existance of that web site isn't going to alter the behaviour of
the general motoring public. They'll continue to treat laws as
guidlines that only apply to someone else until the penalties for
breaking the law are draconian in the extreme. Penalties will never get
to that level - it's a sure fire vote loser come the next election.

The penalty for drug trafficking in many parts of Asia is a stay in a
really brutal and nasty prison followed by death. People still do it
though.

No amount of money is sufficient compensation for being executed
because if you aren't around to spend the money there is no point.

Why do people do it?

Because they doubt they'll get caught.

No matter how draconian the laws, if people figure they will get away
with something they'll often do it.

As any psychologist can tell you, humans are not rational calculators
working on expected returns and probabilities. They have little
concept of risk. (As a guy who manages financial risk for a living, I
see it all the time!)

Travis

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 12 May 2006 23:00:56 +1000

Terry Collins said:

I ride a bicycle. There is no other consideration. I'm not some ponsie
car driver who makes out they're a bicycle rider for this list. Of
course I am going to see things differently than the ponses.

HOw can someone pretend to ride a bicycle? Do they just sit on it and
make gear changing noises?

Speed differentials are very important to cyclists. Not just the car
vs bike ones, but the car vs car ones. Unless you are someone who
never rides on a road that has cars on it, the problem of car speed
differentials and the changes in the traffic patterns are important to
you.

On a suburban street where most cars are going 50kmh, one going 30kmh
will cause others to move around it. A cyclist can get caught in that
eddy, especially if the driver deciding when and where to overtake
isn't used to bicycles and misjudges the car/bike speed difference.
In that scenario, there's usually enough time and room for the job to
be done more or less well, and room for the cyclist to get out of the
way if needed.

On a faster road, then the interruption in the flow spreads wider, the
ripples are bigger and faster. A car too slow or too fast can mean
others a fair distance from it move suddenly and again the cyclist can
get caught in that eddy. Usually cyclists can see far enough ahead to
predict the change in flow, but not always.

Zebee
- rider of a pretend bicycle.

In aus.bicycle on 12 May 2006 12:22:40 GMT

Humbug said:

On 12/05/06 at 21:15:07 Travis somehow managed to type:

<snip stuff>

<snip other stuff>

Why is that when people get behind the steering wheel of a car they
immediately start confusing the meanings of the words "limit" and
"target" ? It's a speed LIMIT and not a speed TARGET!!!

I think that's missing the point.... It's been shown time and again
that most people - between 80 and 85% - drive at a speed appropriate
for the conditions no matter what the signs say.

You can see this whenever there's a hazard on the road such as rain or
snow or debris.

When the speed limit is an unreasonable distance from the 85th
percentile people will "speed" if the limit is too low. They aren't
looking at a target, they are doing a reasonable speed.

I note that there are currently 5kmh signs on the Harbour Bridge
cycle path. Do bicycles do 5kmh all the time? hah! Do they slow down
and sometimes slow down to 5kmh when there are workers there? Yes.
Even when there aren't signs.

So are the signs useful or sensible, and do they promote safety?

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

I think that's missing the point.... It's been shown time and again
that most people - between 80 and 85% - drive at a speed appropriate
for the conditions no matter what the signs say.

You can see this whenever there's a hazard on the road such as rain or
snow or debris.

When the speed limit is an unreasonable distance from the 85th
percentile people will "speed" if the limit is too low. They aren't
looking at a target, they are doing a reasonable speed.

I note that there are currently 5kmh signs on the Harbour Bridge
cycle path. Do bicycles do 5kmh all the time? hah! Do they slow down
and sometimes slow down to 5kmh when there are workers there? Yes.
Even when there aren't signs.

In another example, there are 10kmh limits for cyclists on Pyrmont Bridge.
How many cyclists do you see sticking to that? Answer: NONE. Except
on a carnival long weekend when the places is chockers with peds out
for a good time.
I do observe though, that some boy racers exceed 10kmh by a LOT.
Keep that up, and they'll get us banned from riding there at all again.

--
beerwolf (remove numbers from email address)

Terry Collins said:

Quoted message said:

You didn't pause to think that he might have a point?

I ride a bicycle. There is no other consideration. I'm not some ponsie
car driver who makes out they're a bicycle rider for this list. Of
course I am going to see things differently than the ponses.

I'd suggest that at least 90% of the people who regularly contribute to
this group (including myself) make some use of a car or motorbike at
least semi regularly.

Maybe you need to find a group with fewer 'ponces'?

--
..dt