Unsafe at any speed?-Path beside Beach Rd

TimC wrote:

He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.

A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.

Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
anyone think of the kids" lobbists.

The best thing the Oz Gov't ever did was lower the voting age to 18. It's
the only time in your life that you know absobloodylutely everything.

I was personally stunned at how much knowledge, experience, and wisdom my
father gained between the time I turned 18 and the time I turned 21. I think
I was nearly 24 before I figured out what had happened. :-)

Theo
PS- if you don't understand the previous paragraph you're probably 18.

Plodder wrote:
"Theo Bekkers" wrote

Certainly. The problem I have is with _mandatory_ cycling experience.

I haven't advocated "_mandatory_ cycling experience", only mandatory
training. If riding a bike is involved it could well be in a
controlled environment (e.g. a schoolyard) or training centre. I
think experience on the road would be ideal but I have trouble with
the idea of forcing people to actually ride a bike (or drive a car,
ride a horse, whatever). The idea is to promote and ensure (by
training and testing) a higher degree of awareness of the rights,
responsibilities, vulnerabilities and strengths of different road
users.

Then we're nearly in agreement. :-)
And I think the best way to do that is from parents and teachers as you grow
up, formal training by a qualified instructor before you get a driver's
licence, and continuing education by means of short TV public service ads as
I've seen in England and Europe.

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
already
illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous practice,
encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
crosswalks), and
can injure people other than the participants.

What particular law makes bunch riding illegal Theo?

Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
think
that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?
From VicRoads, rule 255

RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/b]

*THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF A
MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
*PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
SAFETY ACT 1986.

[b]So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*


--
EuanB

TimC wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote

My personal opinion is that riding in a bunch on a public road is
already illegal here and should be enforced as it is a dangerous
practice, encourages people to do illegal things (lie red lights and
crosswalks)

eh? Other than the hell ride, bunches I see are *far* more likely to
stop for red lights than individuals.

In fact, I've never seen a bunch other than the hell ride run a red.
Seen thousands of individuals though -- probably about a third the
cyclists I've noticed.

And making riding a compulsory requisite for driving will thus make for
better drivers?

Theo

EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

From VicRoads, rule 255

RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/b]

*THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF A
MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
*PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
SAFETY ACT 1986.

[b]So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*

How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you run
up the back of someone.

Theo

Plodder wrote:
"Theo Bekkers wrote

I think even a casual observation of cyclist behaviour show that
they are not the best role-model for safe use of roads, and I do not
think that teaching people that those behaviours are a mandatory
model for drivers is a good idea.

It seems pretty obvious, then, by using your observations, that there
IS a case for formal cycling training. The unsafe behaviours you
observe in cyclists indicate that at least there is insufficient
training and insufficient policing. Imagine if motor vehicle drivers
were not formally trained and tested - their behaviours would
probably be similar to the cyclists you observe.

I'm agreed with that. All road-users should know the rules and have some
road-craft before becoming part of the traffic. What I've been objecting to
in this thread is the statement that bicycle training and experience should
be _mandatory for car drivers_. People who have no intention of riding a
bicycle have no need of bicycle training. And I have also pointed out that
bicycle riders are not necessarily the best role models for good social road
behaviour, as even many people here have observed, many riders are what the
Yanks term "scoff-laws", a good description for too large a number of
cyclists' behaviour. This decreases their road cred in the eyes of drivers

The other side of formal training is that the "I didn't know the
rules" excuse is removed. That means that illegal behaviours can be
better policed. The cops wouldn't have to contend with the "I was
untrained - it's society's fault" defense and could get on with the
job of enforcing the law.

Thhat sounds like an argument for rider licensing. I think rider licensing
would be counterproductive.

I doubt that formal training would eliminate the behaviours you
describe, but it would certainly go a long way toward getting people
to think of a bicycle as more than a toy or a hobby. If all road
users considered bicycles as a legitimate vehicle, not just a hobby,
then the expectation of proper behaviour is raised. Poor behaviour is
more frowned upon and overall behaviours improve.

Agreed. How do we formally train cyclists then without licensing? Note that
I think a requirement of being able to produce a piece of paper stating that
you have done a training course is, in my eyes, a licence.

snip, drink driving analogy with which I am in agreeance
Similarly, now there's a degree to which the police think they have
better things to do than prosecute cyclists and drivers don't
consider bikes to be legitimate largely because of the lack of rule
enforcement; that lack promotes the idea that cyclists are not worth
the effort to punish. Rather patronising, I think.

We are becoming so legalistic that it has become too much trouble to
prosecute/punish people for subjective misdeeds. It's easy to take someone
to court if you have concrete evidence such as a black eye, several dead
bodies, or a computer print-out that says that vehicle ABC123 was recorded
at 61.5 in a 60 zone. Much more difficult for the prosecution to say "You
honor, this moron was behaving like a dick-head". Hence most morons can act
like dick-heads with impunity.

Cheers
Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
EuanB wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Following too close behind another vehicle, tail-gating. Or do you
think that doesn't apply to cyclists for some reason?

From VicRoads, rule 255

RIDING TOO CLOSE TO THE REAR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE[/b]

*THE RIDER OF A BICYCLE MUST NOT RIDE WITHIN 2 METRES OF THE REAR OF
A
MOVING **MOTOR VEHICLE CONTINUOUSLY FOR MORE THAN 200 METRES.*
*PENALTY: 1 PENALTY UNIT.NOTE MOTOR VEHICLE IS DEFINED IN THE ROAD
SAFETY ACT 1986.

[b]So yes, bicycles are treated differently. If they weren't
there wouldn't be a specific rule for them, would there?*

How far are they required to ride from each other? I suspect that in a
courtroom the judge will find something wrong-doing on your part if you
run
up the back of someone.

Theo
you mean bikes behind bikes?...

they are not required to ride a prescribed distance from each
other...its just MOTOR vehicles....

seems a certain maturer lady TT'er breaks that one each time (often)
she motorpaces on Beach Rd ..

don't know of a case where a bicycle rider has been found guilty of
negligent riding for running up the back of another bicycle...

experienced bunch riders can "hold a wheel" of another bicycle by a few
cms...that is normal for many, scary for others, and avoided by some...
it comes with learning...and training...(seems that word that has
appeared here a bit lately).
Holding a wheel is necessary on the track, expected in road races and
practiced in training, and then applied in most social rides with a lot
more room between bikes than cms ( half a meter plus is comfortable)
for most riders who ride in a group.

In any event, on the road, all riders have to keep a proper lookout.
And amongst experienced responsible riders this is how they expect you
to ride. The most difficult aspect for many riders when training or
riding socially is the unpredictability of the unkown rider.
If you are known to a group and practiced with the them, in the normal
course a cohesive ride will follow.
If you are unknown, they will not be able to predict what you will do
in the event of an incident, nor you them. You may be the best rider
and very skilled, but to them you are another (major) unpredictable
element and to you so are they, thus a greater need to show more care,
back off, slow down, chose another route, whatever is reasonable to
ensure a margin to deal with it.


--
rooman

Theo Bekkers wrote:

snip

We are becoming so legalistic that it has become too much trouble to
prosecute/punish people for subjective misdeeds. It's easy to take
someone to court if you have concrete evidence such as a black eye,
several dead bodies, or a computer print-out that says that vehicle
ABC123 was recorded at 61.5 in a 60 zone. Much more difficult for the
prosecution to say "You honor, this moron was behaving like a
dick-head". Hence most morons can act like dick-heads with impunity.

Amen**(8*i)

--
beerwolf

On 2007-05-07, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
TimC wrote:

He. I remember being a kid. I was pretty smart.

A heck of a lot smarter than I am today.

Not everyone underestimates kids -- only politicians and their "won't
anyone think of the kids" lobbists.

The best thing the Oz Gov't ever did was lower the voting age to 18. It's
the only time in your life that you know absobloodylutely everything.

I was personally stunned at how much knowledge, experience, and wisdom my
father gained between the time I turned 18 and the time I turned 21. I think
I was nearly 24 before I figured out what had happened. :-)

I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
out.

I wouldn't have the foggiest about it anymore.

QED, I really was smarter back then.

--
TimC
We would be called technicians, not researchers, if we knew
what we were doing

TimC Wrote:

I knew how to solve Shroedinger's equations for physically useful
systems when I was 16. The thought of being able to do that freaks me
out.



Shroedinger? Sp?

BTW, cat ok?


--
cfsmtb