Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Russell Brown,
deleted discussion of moderation
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Stewart,
I readily admit that many drivers are poor at adhering to the road rules, but perhaps a bit of enforcement of the rules rather than just revenue-gathering by the police might help to improve standards?
I disagree with the normal meaning attributed to that phrase. It's a purely voluntary payment made in exchange for rule-breaking. You could campaign for the law to be changed, you could obey the law, or you could pay the fine. All are acceptable, and to suggest that enforcement is purely about raising revenue is IMO misleading.
To me, it's one of those tricky situations where it's very hard to make a law that covers all roads and all road users well. There are times when the posted speed is inappropriate which the law tries to cover with "dangerous driving" and similar catch-all clauses, but when the limit is lower than most drivers could safely travel there's no equivalent, so we just have to suck up "drive slowly".
FWIW, there are an awful lot of similarly silly situations for bicycle riders. The discussion above about passing on the left is one example. The challenge is to first think up a better rule, then try to get it made law. And it's not about us all being safer if you personally were bound by it, but if every other muppet on the road was also affected by it.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Bart Janssen,
plod
See my guess is that if you refer to them that way they are going to be significantly less interested in helping you. If you think about them in those terms it will show up in your body language, even if you are verbally polite.It's an earned (lack of) respect. After the 10th complaint about a police officer is "lost" or "upheld with no action" I started to lose confidence in the farce. We won't talk about how many complaints about egregiously illegal and dangerous behaviour by motorists were treated similarly, and in turn prompted the complaint about the police.
-
Interesting incident this morning on the way to work. I stopped at a red light, and was promptly honked at by the motorist behind me. They wanted to jump the red to make a left turn, and did as soon as I shifted my bike out of their way. That's rare, because motorists don't often jump reds that blatantly (unless they're orange-ish).
And I go through a few no-win choke-points, where if I take the lane I'm grinding uphill with angry motorists behind me, and if I don't I'm squeezed viciously against the curb or parked cars because the road is not quite wide enough for a bike and a car. I cop a lot less abuse if I jump the red lights on that stretch, because doing so gets me up the short hill before the motorists catch up. But the legal way is taking the lane.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Felix Marwick,
"camera footage will generally be regarded as irrelevant"
I haven't found that to be the case at all. In fact I've used it twice successfullyProsecution or getting a complaint accepted?
My experience, and that of friends in Melbun and Sydney, is that plod will often refuse to look at footage, let alone accept it as evidence. Your experience may be very different, depending on your location and the exact plod you're dealing with. I've had complaints acted on, and even in one case had a motorist pay for repairs to my bike, but never managed to get anyone ticketed or convicted. Both are rare in Sydney/Melb, and generally require a motorist who is abusive towards the police. Someone who stays calm and denies the incident will always IME get away with it.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Stewart,
@Moz, I am afraid you are in danger of outing yourself as a self-righteous cyclist with this tirade:
Do you disagree with me, or you don't like my tone? It sounds as though you don't like my tone. Which is unhelpful. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
I note you didn't quote the start of the message, which is what gets me angry. Cyclists breaking the law sometimes kill themselves, and almost never harm anyone else. Motorists breaking the law in ways that motorists commonly do are responsible for a great number (possibly a majority) of deaths and injuries on the roads. So, shall we look at the actual problem, or talk about how cyclists are not polite enough?
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Deborah,
As a cyclist, I stick to the road code, unless immediate safety needs dictate otherwise, because then other road users have a much better chance of predicting what I will do.
When someone tells me cyclists should obey the road rules, I reply that motorists should first stop killing cyclists. The two things are not equivalent, and lack of the former does not justify the latter.
So I'm more interested in whether you obey the rules as a motorist, and how often you are the victim of road rage as a result. Even ignoring the multitudinous piffling little regulations that few people know and no-one cares about[1], the overwhelming majority of motorists struggle with the basic skills of staying within lanes and speed limits. Add indicating turns and stopping for orange lights and you can call 99% of motorists habitual scofflaws without fear of being wrong.
I have a friend who used to not just obey the rules, she would also report people who threatened her for doing so. Commonly just from impatience, but all too often because they knew road rules that were wrong - many motorists think that cyclists must stay strictly within bike lanes if they're present, and may not ever stray from the extreme left hand side of the road in any case. Some are willing to kill to make the point that people who don't obey the rules don't deserve to be protected by them. And since the penalties for that behaviour are small and infrequently applied, why shouldn't they?
Anyway, her reports were 90% unsuccessful but she became very good at making complaints about the plod. And Ben take note, your own camera footage will generally be regarded as irrelevant, even after your death. Definitely not evidence that could be used to prosecute, but commonly not even as a means to substantiate your complaint.
[1] I kid you not. Next time you're round a bunch of whining car-owners ask them how they feel about emissions restrictions. Or tyre tread depth requirements. Or who can use pedestrian crossings and when exactly road users are required to stop for them.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Thomas Lumley,
Secondly, people who wear hi-vis clothing may be more cautious/paranoid/realistic and so have a low crash rate for that reason, which would lead the study to overestimate the benefit).
But we have some of that data already, from the introduction of helmets. The crash and injury rates for cyclists-with-helmets went up somewhat after compulsion, but IIRC that cause wasn't statistically distinguishable from the other ones, most notably the lower numbers on bikes.
-
Also, people freqently drive into fire engines and ambulances, despite the reflective surfaces and flashing lights. In a visibility contest with a fire engine the cyclist is always going to lose. Which makes me doubt that the solution to "didnt see you is adding crap to the cyclist.
-
Helmet lights! I have a high-intensity led blinky on the back of my helmet, and use it day and night. That's common in Melbourne, rare in Sydney but very effective. IMO. Plus self adhesive reflective tape all over my bike and dynamo lights on the bike. Red tape one a white bike looks a bit sick but the whole frame lights up in headlights from any angle.
But you know, the big change in how often I got hit was deciding to ride on the line between assertive and aggressive. Take the lane, move to the front, signal, make eye contact, don't yield to threats. I ride more like a cycle courier than most commuters do, and it works. Maybe people who spend 40 hours plus a week riding know a bit about staying safe?
Also, helmets on 3 and 4 wheel recumbents are a joke. The sort of crash that will make me hit my head from there is going to be ugly regardless of helmet. Likewise in an infant carrier or kiddy trailer. And hi-vis? I wear a fluoro shirt, more than that no way. I'd rather wear a sidearm.