Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Time has worked against it. Fifty years ago the road was shared by
all users, local roads were shared by cars, bikes and kids playing
cricket. Everybody coped and allowed. Now the cars don't want to
share with anyone. How do we reverse this trend?

Fewer cars for a start. IN the 50s cars were quite expensive.

Say cut the car fleet to a quarter of the current size, and no new car
to cost less than say a year's average wage.

Then cut the speeds down heaps. Top speed of the usual car say 60mph,
most of them really only happy at 50mph.

Also, make the roads worse. Rural roads gravel, city roads have
bitumen but probably 1/4 still gravel.

Keep the number of buses the same, so that most people have to walk or
cycle. No b doubles, no semi trailers.

That should help a fair bit.

LOL, sounds good, but who are you going to sell that to?

Theo

On 2007-05-01, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
On May 1, 9:54 am, "Plodder" wrote:
for instance. Better to teach people how to integrate into the traffic flow.
I suspect too many riders think of themselves as second-class road users who
should creep along the gutter in case they intefere with traffic (especially
new riders) instead of thinking of themselves as part of the traffic. A
suitable training course would clarify that position.

And there's the rub ... according to Forrester et al, such things when
run by organisations of a sufficiently large size to actually run them
(ie: govt departments) teach 'get out of the way' not 'be a part of
the traffic'. If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
what we would call defensive road riding.

Not necessarily, I would think. Helmet laws (sorry, got to mention
them for the sake of my argument) were introduced based on medical
research, as flawed as it was (the medical fraternity only saw half
the story). And they probably used finacial arguments in there
somewhere (you'll have to pay less to us to treat cyclists less
because they'll be so safe with 2cm of helmet between them and a
car!). Not based on motoring lobbying groups with some conspiracy to
stamp out the evil practice of cycling.

If we could come up with citations to convincing research (scientific
research, not John Forrester or Alan Parker quotes) showing decreased
mortality/casualty rates of cyclists, and no adverse effects to
drivers[1], resulting from vehicular cycling, perhaps we'd stand half
a chance (although, watching the documentary on how Brian Burke
lobbied WA parliament lastnight... I have some lingering doubts).


[1] eg, set up an experiment (getting it past the ethics commitee)
where automobile trip times on a busy cycling routes are compared,
with large numbers of cyclists riding predominantly both fully legally
and in a vehicular fashion on days x, riding in the gutter on days y,
and no cyclists at all on days z (the latter as a control). With no
differences in motorised traffic between days x, y, and z, ie, an
extremely difficult set of experimental conditions to set up. If the
automobile trip times and numbers are the same between the cases, then
obviously cyclists should ride the way that is best for them. If the
government care about safety, they ought to then encourage the safest
way to ride via public (re)education campaigns. Which will naturally
be vehicular cycling. This is only an example. Maybe someone could
come up with a workable experiment if one hasn't already been
performed

--
TimC
You must realize that the computer has it in for you. The irrefutable
proof of this is that the computer always does what you tell it to do.

"Bleve" wrote in message
ups.com...
BIG CHOMP

Yep - VicRoads (or whatever it is in the other states - there are other
states, you know!) would administer it as part of the application for a
leaner's permit. Where's the problem?

It's done and dusted then?

Well done. No-one even noticed!

I was merely raising the point that CA was not the right organisation
to run such a thing *IF* such a thing was appropriate (compulsory
licence/training for cyclists that is, and I don't think it is at this
time, but that's another argument, and one that I'm not fixed on).
That you'd need a large state or federal government department to run
such a thing seems obvious to all but rooman, who appears to think
that CA (a racing peak body which runs coaching courses fas a
sideline) has or could easily have, the appropriate infrastructure to
handle large scale road safety training for ordinary cyclists. There's
millions of people with bicycles in Australia.

Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?

Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I am in
favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of driver
training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is their choice,
but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they must learn about riding
a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help make the upcoming crop of
drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I think it would be relatively simple
for the state road licencing people to administer.

The questin of CA doing the training is another matter - perhaps it would be
a good sideline for them to be accredited trainers (but not THE accredited
trainers)...

Frank

"Bleve" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 1, 9:54 am, "Plodder" wrote:
"Shane Stanley" wrote in message

...

In article ,
"Theo Bekkers" wrote:

I'm pretty sure more people would ride motorcycles/drive semi-trailers
if
they only didn't have to pass the licence test. Though I'm certain you
think
that's a whole different ballgame.

Lots of people, all over the world, are successfully and safely riding
bikes without passing a test. But would I want those all same people
piloting high-speed, high-power mechanised machines without a licence?
No, that is a whole different ballgame.

--
Shane Stanley

And lots of people are riding bikes without passing a test but in the
presence of drivers who have a clue and have SOME cycling awareness as
part
of their driver training (Germany, for example). Lots of people are also
riding in places where the law defaults to faulting (not blaming -
there's a
difference) the driver in the event of a collision. Lots of people also
ride
where the culture is one where legal rights are balanced by social
responsibilities: "I have a legal right to ride on a major highway, but I
have a social responsibility not to exercise that right - I can choose
courtesy and take a route that doesn't slow other traffic" (it's called
courtesy - it's not mandatory!).

There are a lot more factors than can be addressed by a training course,
but
a suitable course can help - not necessarily solve - some problems.
"Suitable" should, I think, have a component of social change. It's not
sufficient to teach people how to ride defensively and keep out of the
way,

Riding defensively is *not* keeping out of the way, it's being visible
(which often means being *in* the way) and predictable and observing
and predicting the behaviour of other road users. I think that's what
you meant, but I wanted to pull you up on what looks misleading (I
know it's not your intent).

My bad - you picked up my intent and clarified the articulation. Ta muchly



for instance. Better to teach people how to integrate into the traffic
flow.
I suspect too many riders think of themselves as second-class road users
who
should creep along the gutter in case they intefere with traffic
(especially
new riders) instead of thinking of themselves as part of the traffic. A
suitable training course would clarify that position.

And there's the rub ... according to Forrester et al, such things when
run by organisations of a sufficiently large size to actually run them
(ie: govt departments) teach 'get out of the way' not 'be a part of
the traffic'. If it's big and compulsory, it *will* be heavily
influenced by motoring lobbies and is, IMO, very unlikely to teach
what we would call defensive road riding.

That's why I think "suitable" needs to be very carefully defined...

me

Plodder wrote:
"Bleve" wrote

Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?

Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I
am in favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of
driver training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is
their choice, but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they
must learn about riding a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help
make the upcoming crop of drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I
think it would be relatively simple for the state road licencing
people to administer.

Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good pedestrians as
well. And, whilst we have them confined to the classroom, we can teach them
to say please and thank you, not use the word orientated because oriented is
the correct usage, cover their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus have
the remote control sometimes, and a lot of other social things that would be
nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.

Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their children some
roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Plodder wrote:
"Bleve" wrote

Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?

Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I
am in favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of
driver training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is
their choice, but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they
must learn about riding a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help
make the upcoming crop of drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I
think it would be relatively simple for the state road licencing
people to administer.

Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good pedestrians
as
well. And, whilst we have them confined to the classroom, we can teach
them
to say please and thank you, not use the word orientated because
oriented is
the correct usage, cover their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus
have
the remote control sometimes, and a lot of other social things that
would be
nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.

I don't agree.

Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill or
maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a motor
car on the road.


--
EuanB

On May 2, 10:16 am, "Theo Bekkers" wrote:
Plodder wrote:
"Bleve" wrote
Or maybe we're at cross porpoises? Maybe rooman *isn't* suggesting
that CA can, without a significant change in its charter, administer
and train road riding safety trainers and examiners?
Ah, we're back to the ambiguity of "compulsory/mandatory". I'm not
necessarily in favour of "compulsory licence/training for cyclists" I
am in favour of compulsory/mandatory bicycle training as a part of
driver training. Whether someone does or doesn't become a cyclist is
their choice, but if they want to learn to drive a car, first they
must learn about riding a bicycle. My thinking is that it will help
make the upcoming crop of drivers more bicycle aware. That's why I
think it would be relatively simple for the state road licencing
people to administer.

Perhaps while they're at it, they can teach them to be good pedestrians as
well. And, whilst we have them confined to the classroom, we can teach them
to say please and thank you, not use the word orientated because oriented is
the correct usage, cover their mouth when they sneeze, let the missus have
the remote control sometimes, and a lot of other social things that would be
nice but have little or no relation to driving a motor car on the road.

Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their children some
roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.

Theo

Theo, I know its a bloody long time ago but you were probably taught
about being a pedestrian at school, remember look right then left the
right again stuff?

It's not that far a stretch, lots of schools do road safety training
on bikes on courses like this, the problem is usually the limited
amount of time spent on it.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~lionsbc/KewTraffic.jpg

EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
stuff

I don't agree.

Of course you don't . :-)

Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill
or maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a
motor car on the road.

So when you go for your driving test in Euanland, you will first be issued
with a pram. When you show competency at manouvring the pram, you will
progress to a tricycle, skateboard, roller blades, wheelchair, bicycle,
scooter, motorcycle, and then a 2CV, before progressing to a 4 cyl Getz.

Theo

PiledHigher wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Maybe, just maybe, we could encourage parents to teach their
children some roadcraft and leave bicycle training to them.

Theo, I know its a bloody long time ago but you were probably taught
about being a pedestrian at school, remember look right then left the
right again stuff?

Sure is a while ago. I was riding my bicycle to kindy 60 years ago. :-)

It's not that far a stretch, lots of schools do road safety training
on bikes on courses like this, the problem is usually the limited
amount of time spent on it.

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~lionsbc/KewTraffic.jpg

Looks like a very good layout. How exactly does that mean that a bicycle is
a mandatory prerequisite for a driver's licence. Note that I'm not
suggesting that riding a bicycle does not teach you roadcraft. It is the
mandatory thing I have a problem with. Why not a mandatory electric
wheelchair? One of those Gopher things. I have owned one for ten years but
my mother-in-law rides it.

Theo

On 2007-05-02, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:
stuff

I don't agree.

Of course you don't . :-)

Learn your road craft on a vehicle which is much less likely to kill
or maim others. Good road craft has everything to do with driving a
motor car on the road.

So when you go for your driving test in Euanland, you will first be issued
with a pram. When you show competency at manouvring the pram, you will
progress to a tricycle, skateboard, roller blades, wheelchair, bicycle,
scooter, motorcycle, and then a 2CV, before progressing to a 4 cyl Getz.

The way I learnt to drive was by tractor first, when I was 10 or so.
Mum was amazed when she couldn't work out how to back the trailer full
of oranges back around the corner from the edge of rows of oranges,
into one row, and I did it with ease. She reckons I did it with ease
because of all the technical lego I played with.

In a study released recently, according to JJJ news this morning, they
indeed found that on average, women drive better, but men can park
better On the gravel road we were living on at the time, she spun
the car out (180 degree turn) going slowly around a corner one non
frosty morning. I have yet to do that, too -- so she can't park, nor
can she drive

--
TimC
"The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already." -- Rik Steenwinkel, singing
the praises of 8mm Exabytes