Road Spy

Stuart Lamble said:

John Stevenson said:

Part of the deal you do with the rest of us when you are issued a
licence is that you will be aware of road conditions and rules such as
speed limits. That you got pinged in that situation indicates you failed
to hold up your end of the deal. So it goes.

Quoted message said:

That stretch of road feels more
like an 80 kph speed limit road;

Again, extend your boundary conditions.
Traffic comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. Lots of sections in NSW
are engineered to higher standards that other pieces, but restricting
traffic to the speed of the lesser engineering actually ensures a
smoother flow and greater movement of motor vehicles.

Random Data said:

Kathy said:

Yeah ok. I can live with that. When the motorcycle can be shown to
have been transported down from the Enterprise and have materialised in
front of them at the last possible second thus they they couldnt have
seen it. Fair enough

There was a case (reported here?) where a police car in pursuit of a
vehicle hit a person. Said person was lying in the middle of the road
just after a crest, after being hit by the pursued vehicle. The officer
was deemed to not be at fault.

Yeah, for values of 'just over a crest' that sounds like it might be
reasonable.

Quoted message said:

I can't remember full details, but the pursued vehicle was being driven by
someone rather drunk. I can't remember if the driver was even aware they
were being chased, but ISTR they weren't aware of much at all at the time.

If the rule is 'if you say you didnt see someone then you are in strife
if you cannot prove you have a reason' then fair enough. I have
actually defended a version in this in court when I was booked for
turning over faded double white lines in the middle of the night in
pouring rain on a dark and deserted unlit country intersection in a
tiny low british sports car with inadequate wipers and went to court
with large blown up pics taken in the middle of a fine day from the
drivers seat of the same car of the by then freshly repainted lines and
wasy able to show that they just flat were not visible cos of the camber
of the road. Won that one. So yeah seems reasonable, sometimes

Dave

In article <44655461$0$17544$61c65585@un-2park-reader-
01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Travis said:

Terry Collins said:

Resound wrote:

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...

No, what I'm saving is that you are the selfish jerk who can not see
past the end of their wheeny doodle and lookat the big pctures. If you
actually read your posts and put them into the overall road traffic
situation, you would realise how silly they sound.

Quoted message said:

Yes you did, it was embarassing to see exactly the same argument used
from the cyclist point of view "I ride a bicycle. There is no other
consideration. "
In car it is "I drive a car. There is no other consideration."

Pull your head out of your [censored] and smell the roses.

Oh yeah, I don't read aus.cars so don't make an ASS out of U and ME and
assume that's where I am coming from.

Humbug said:

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!!!

Wow! I thought I was the only one in the world with this view:eek:😉 Ahhh cheers🙂

John Stevenson said:

Just in case you're taking me seriously, and not playing along, google
for "modest proposal".

Pretty much playing along. I agree that fewer cars on the roads would be
a win for society (even if the individuals without the cars wouldn't see
it that way), but the only way I can see of that happening is a massive
surge in petrol prices.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@ to usenet".

Stuart Lamble said:

John Stevenson said:

Just in case you're taking me seriously, and not playing along, google
for "modest proposal".

Pretty much playing along. I agree that fewer cars on the roads would be
a win for society (even if the individuals without the cars wouldn't see
it that way), but the only way I can see of that happening is a massive
surge in petrol prices.

The European experience suggests that all that happens is that people
drive smaller, lower-fuel-consumption cars. They still clog up the roads
until someone charges them a specific fee to deter them from, say,
clogging up Central London with journeys they could almost as easily
conduct by bike or public transport.

Ray said:

Yes you did,

lol, score is now four.

Quoted message said:

it was embarassing to see exactly the same argument used
from the cyclist point of view "I ride a bicycle. There is no other
consideration. "
In car it is "I drive a car. There is no other consideration."

Try again. People who live bicycles tend to develop a different
perspective on being on the road. The same as some people in life have
experiences that open their eyes to a wider view.

You either ride a bicycle and have done the trip, or you haven't a clue.

All you have to do is think about what Travis and co have posted and
look at it from a bicycling viewpoint. It really is very simple.

Of course, the thickos just can not get out of car weenie mode. Their
true focus is as a cager.

dave said:

when I was booked for turning over faded double white lines in

U turn?

Terry Collins said:

All you have to do is think about what Travis and co have posted and
look at it from a bicycling viewpoint. It really is very simple.

Hey Terry, you really need to come out from under the bridge.

Speed differentials are dangerous *when unexpected*. Drivers get used to
cars doing roughly the speed limit - behaviour other than that is
unexpected, and therefore dangerous. Cyclists normally travel at between
10 and 30km/h. Who here hasn't had a car pull out at 30 or more because
they didn't think you were moving that fast?

Danger on the road is a multi-faceted thing. I can do something stupid
every day for a year and not have a problem. Then someone else does
something vaguely stupid as well and we're both dead.

People in general aren't fast enough to accurately gauge the speed of
other vehicles. They assume speeds of of traffic +-5, which normally
works. Then someone is faster and appears from behind as they change
lanes, or slower and they run up the back. Good drivers constantly recheck
what other cars are doing against their model, and leave room to recover
from bad estimates. But most people develop sloppy habits because 99.9999%
of the time the first estimate is OK. A mistake normally means a minor
bingle - property damage, maybe some bruising, but everyone walks away.
But if these same drivers then make bad judgements when they do get into
trouble, big prangs happen and people get really hurt.

People driving too slowly are part of the problem here. They won't always
cause problems, but often enough that they're likely to be near one of the
drivers who is slow to recognise they're slow, or that they've caused a
blockage resulting in other traffic being slow. It's the combination
that's dangerous. Particularly when the escape plan for some people is to
swerve left, straight over the cyclist. I've seen that about to happen too
many times and been with it to get out of the way.

Slow bikes can cause problems like this, but we're generally easy to get
around safely, and drivers are used to seeing bikes doing certain speeds.
The flow on effects are fairly minimal. Someone pootling along a 1 lane
road can hold up cars for a very long time, resulting in big flow on
effects.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
This calls for a very special blend of psychology....
and extreme violence. - Vyvyan

Terry Collins said:

dave said:

when I was booked for turning over faded double white lines in

U turn?

YEah. It was so dark I missed the right I wanted in spite of slowing to
about walking pace and in spite of two of us in the car looking for it.
So I pulled left as far as I dared and did a uey when I was sure
noone was around. In fact we hadnt seen a car in the last half hour.
JUst the very bored local copper wanting one more ticket for 2001. It
was new years eve and nearly midnight.

Random Data said:

Hey Terry, you really need to come out from under the bridge.

I've been out from under the bridge and onthe roads for over forty years.

Quoted message said:

Speed differentials are dangerous *when unexpected*.

To paraphrase MP, "Nobody expects the unexpected"

Quoted message said:

People driving too slowly are part of the problem here.

Slow bikes can cause problems like this, but we're generally easy to get
around safely,

Really. So it is one real for car drivers and one rule for bicyclists.
Why?

Quoted message said:

The flow on effects are fairly minimal. Someone pootling along a 1 lane
road can hold up cars for a very long time, resulting in big flow on
effects.

Actually, stop start traffic does that far worse. A slow driver is a
moving blockage, but moving and the traffic is flowing.

You want to know what holds up traffice worse, for up to half an hour
after it happens; coming to a stop, causing drivers below you to slow
down and then taking off.

You are generally far better to follow a slow driver, than to race
ahead, stop, start, race ahead, stop, start. New scinetist has an
article on a study that was done on London ring roads. Very interesting.

Quoted message said:

dave said:

Terry Collins said:

dave said:

when I was booked for turning over faded double white lines in

U turn?

YEah. It was so dark I missed the right I wanted in spite of slowing to
about walking pace and in spite of two of us in the car looking for it.
So I pulled left as far as I dared and did a uey when I was sure
noone was around. In fact we hadnt seen a car in the last half hour.
JUst the very bored local copper wanting one more ticket for 2001. It
was new years eve and nearly midnight.

Oh bugger. I'd hate that.

Only reasons I asked is when I finally wnet for my licence, on of the
questions I got wrong was that I said you could not turn right over
double yellow lines; guy behind the counter just looked at me and said
"Umm just how did you drive into the car park". you had to do a right
over double yellow.

When I have to do a Uey, I usually turn left somewhere and do it, then
come back, or at least pull off, stop lights and then do it. Don't know
if its legal either, but not been booked. klonk, klonk.

Terry Collins said:

dave said:

Terry Collins said:

dave wrote:

>when I was booked for turning over faded double white lines in

U turn?

YEah. It was so dark I missed the right I wanted in spite of slowing to
about walking pace and in spite of two of us in the car looking for it.
So I pulled left as far as I dared and did a uey when I was sure
noone was around. In fact we hadnt seen a car in the last half hour.
JUst the very bored local copper wanting one more ticket for 2001. It
was new years eve and nearly midnight.

Oh bugger. I'd hate that.

Only reasons I asked is when I finally wnet for my licence, on of the
questions I got wrong was that I said you could not turn right over
double yellow lines; guy behind the counter just looked at me and said
"Umm just how did you drive into the car park". you had to do a right
over double yellow.

When I have to do a Uey, I usually turn left somewhere and do it, then
come back, or at least pull off, stop lights and then do it. Don't know
if its legal either, but not been booked. klonk, klonk.

Well at least I beat the #$%% in court

Terry Collins said:

Try again. People who live bicycles tend to develop a different
perspective on being on the road. The same as some people in life have
experiences that open their eyes to a wider view.

You either ride a bicycle and have done the trip, or you haven't a clue.

All you have to do is think about what Travis and co have posted and
look at it from a bicycling viewpoint. It really is very simple.

Of course, the thickos just can not get out of car weenie mode. Their
true focus is as a cager.

I'm amused that you talk about opening your eyes to a "wider view" by
experiences, and at the same time argue that once one has experienced
cycling one should take a very narrow view, indeed an extremely narrow
view, a view so narrow that the people who hold such a view describe
themselves as being completely inconsiderate toward those who hold
other views, based on the belief that your new narrow cyclo-centric
view is so inherently morally superior to other views that this
inconsiderate attitude is entirely justified.

Travis

Travis said:

Terry Collins said:

Try again. People who live bicycles tend to develop a different
perspective on being on the road. The same as some people in life have
experiences that open their eyes to a wider view.

You either ride a bicycle and have done the trip, or you haven't a clue.

All you have to do is think about what Travis and co have posted and
look at it from a bicycling viewpoint. It really is very simple.

Of course, the thickos just can not get out of car weenie mode. Their
true focus is as a cager.

I'm amused that you talk about opening your eyes to a "wider view" by
experiences, and at the same time argue that once one has experienced
cycling one should take a very narrow view, indeed an extremely narrow
view, a view so narrow that the people who hold such a view describe
themselves as being completely inconsiderate toward those who hold
other views, based on the belief that your new narrow cyclo-centric
view is so inherently morally superior to other views that this
inconsiderate attitude is entirely justified.

Travis

Reminds me of something my dad used to say "It is reasonable
doubtful to suggest that you have a sufficiently developed
vocabulary to enable you to participate in conversations where
word of more than one syllable are frequently used'

Random Data said:

Kathy said:

Yeah ok. I can live with that. When the motorcycle can be shown to
have been transported down from the Enterprise and have materialised in
front of them at the last possible second thus they they couldnt have
seen it. Fair enough

There was a case (reported here?) where a police car in pursuit of a
vehicle hit a person. Said person was lying in the middle of the road
just after a crest, after being hit by the pursued vehicle. The officer
was deemed to not be at fault.

I can't remember full details, but the pursued vehicle was being driven by
someone rather drunk. I can't remember if the driver was even aware they
were being chased, but ISTR they weren't aware of much at all at the time.

There is a question of "cops don't get booked", but I'm fairly sure there
was nothing to say the cop had done anything wrong. There was no
reasonable way to have foreseen that there would be a person lying down on
the road.

I do recall an incident in WA where a tow truck driver (at 4am),
swerved to miss a drunk man laying in the road and struck his
drunk mate standing on the side of the road. Fault was laid at
the foot of the tow truck driver, and drunk mate received a sum
of money to encourage his stupid behaviour.

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Terry Collins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
....

SNIPPP...

Quoted message said:

It isn't? I fail to see what is wrong with hitting people in the pocket
for exceeding the recommended safe driving speeds. Fines should be
quadrupled and people should loose their license for a year.

Agree entirely - but "safe driving speeds" is not necessarily equivalent to
the speed limit. Sometimes the safe driving speed exceeds the posted limit
simply because the traffic is moving at a certain speed. Sometimes the safe
driving speed is well below the posted limt because of adverse conditions,
slower traffic flow, etc.

An example: If a street with a posted limit of 60kph was entirely and
heavily used by cyclists travelling at, say, 25kph, then a lone cyclist
doing 40kph, weaving in and out of the traffic and acting unpredictably will
be a hazard.

Where I think these arguments go astry is that traffic should be regarded as
'mob behaviour', not necessarily as the sum of individual intentions.
Individual intentions are often overridden by the mob behaviour. Hence
traffic often flows more smoothly (smooth equals safer - not an absolute
'safe'😉 at speeds above the posted limits. Freeways are a good example of
that.

A point was made some weeks ago about driving/riding/whatever according to
the conditions as they are rather than as they should be. That's a far safer
behaviour than constantly occupying the moral high ground. To paraphrase
Slartibartfast, "I'd rather be safe than right anyday..."

Cheers,

Frank

On 2006-05-13, Brendo (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

Reminds me of something my dad used to say "It is reasonable
doubtful to suggest that you have a sufficiently developed
vocabulary to enable you to participate in conversations where
word of more than one syllable are frequently used'

The prolonged application of polysyllabic vocabulary infallibly
exercises a deleterious influence on the fecundity of expression,
rendering the ultimate tendancy apocryphal.

--
TimC
"This strongly suggests to me that perl is way out of hand,
or that I need another drink, or both." -- Alan J Rosenthal

Terry Collins said:

Really. So it is one real for car drivers and one rule for bicyclists.
Why?

If you'd bothered to read my post, because drivers expect certain
behaviours of cyclists. Like 10-30km/h speeds under normal conditions. The
overriding rule for both is "try to be predictable".

Quoted message said:

You are generally far better to follow a slow driver, than to race
ahead, stop, start, race ahead, stop, start. New scinetist has an
article on a study that was done on London ring roads. Very interesting.

You are best following the traffic speed. Fast/slow doesn't work, but a
smooth acceleration and deceleration does. Someone who is behaving
differently to everyone else causes a ripple where you may no longer be
able to change speed smoothly.

--
Dave Hughes | [email hidden]
"Hey, watch the 'fro" - Danny Glaze

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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.

The site's *entirely* for drunk-drivers to avoid the cops-- the
'speedcamera alerts' is just a smokescreen to avoid a repeat of the
media and political controversy from when the company started the
'service' about a year ago.

--
Chris