Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: On Burglary, or: Dropping…, in reply to Will de Cleene,
Trespassing and stealing a swim, and indecent exposure! Death's too good for him!
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Manslaughter, maybe, but murder just wouldn't pass the test of what's fair consequence for the action.
Yup. Especially since actually deliberately murdering people with a car is quite possible.
We do have a distinction already between "careless or inconsiderate" and "careless or reckless", and the potential sentence for the latter is quite hefty if you kill someone. You can face up to 10 years in prison. For the former, the most you could get is 3 months.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Christopher Dempsey,
Cars have what, 130 horses? 180 horses? At any rate a lot of horses
Anywhere from 50 to 500. Average is probably around 130 here, but a souped up boy racer can easily push 300 in a car costing less than 7 grand. Older people get the same in new performance cars, but prefer to pay a lot more. I had a muscle car that cost $3000 that I managed to do 0-100km/h in less than 6 seconds in. That probably had about 250 horses.
So yes, a lot of horses.
And how wonderfully we all have done in airbrushing that power away
Yes, in fact, we are often outraged at people rubbing power in our faces, the kid in the muscle car is something that must be STOPPED, damnit! We have tuned out minds to think that is excessive power, because it's twice as much as what we have, it's noisy, and it's obvious. Indeed, it's showing off its power, often making much more out of it than there is. Instead, the car is supposed to be this calm, measured cruising device. Lost in that calculation is just how much it outclasses a bike. An average rider can probably burst out at 200-300 watts, and an average car at around 100 kilowatts. So it's 300-500 times as powerful. Even the weakest car you've ever seen kills a bike on power.
Which is hardly lost on kids, for whom cycling is the upper end of their independent transport options right up until they turn 15. They're well accustomed to what miles cost in real effort, which is why the car is such a compelling device. I remember the feeling of power from it quite vividly. It was like someone had handed me twice as much life to cram into the same time.
-
Wow, this is pretty serious stuff, to have slipped under the radar.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Also highly visible would be a high wattage flashing moving light on the helmet. Even more visible, would be to wrap the entire bike in reflective tape, and put lights on every spoke. Front torches could be mandated to a certain minimum wattage (I suggest around 50 watts, visually similar to a motorbike). Brake lights could also make more visible that a bike is stopping, and indicators would make it clearer that it is turning without the unbalancing hand extended. Horns could be mandated to be audible at 100m.
Further safety could include mandatory vehicle safety checks, brakes, tyres, rust, and the above lighting permanently fitted, and tested. Helmets could be tested to a much higher standard.
Where does safety end, really? Licenses? Kevlar elbow, ankle and kneepads? Reinforced jackets? The safest bike would be those ones in people's living rooms. Then you get the exercise without all the risk.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Danielle,
What percentage of car drivers is actually enraged by cyclists, though?
I bet it's roughly the same percentage as the number who are enraged by practically everything they don't like on the road. Just from observation over my life of the comments of angry drivers, it's a mindset, something that comes over them when they get in the box. This has been posted before but hey, why not:
Which is not all people, naturally. But they're highly noticeable. Having been driving with some of these people since I was a teenager, I'd also say that it's an attitude that in most cases seems to slowly decline. People mostly seem to mellow. Mostly. Not all. Some hold-outs are still enraged by everything they see around them, but some combination of:
1. Having a few crashes
2. Having a real road rage incident
3. Peer pressure of other mellowing people saying "Don't be a dick, man. What are you, 18?"
4. Getting bustedseems to slowly knock sense into people. Also, having kids in the car massively multiplies the sense of having something vulnerable at stake.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Which is exactly how it's been since at least the early 1980s.
OK, so GDL came in in 1987. There's a mismatch with my memory here, as I turned 15 in 1986 and was highly motivated to get a license, because I had to commute on 2 buses to school each way. Technically I was allowed to apply, but practically, they managed to hold me through until GDL came in. I don't know how deliberate this was, or whether it was a result of massive last minute booking of everyone wanting to get a license the easier way. The main thing people wanted to avoid was the delay of the 2 year restricted license.
Academic research on the immediate and on-going effect that the introduction of the graduated driver licensing scheme had on crash rates amongst young drivers compared to prior is here.
You read the report, right? It says:
Given that unlicensed driving did not appear
to have increased it was thought that there must have been
less driving by young drivers, which was possibly the most
important reason for the reduction in crashes among this
group.and
From the results of these evaluations, it seemed that a
major impact of GDL was a sharp reduction in the
amount of driving by young people, thus reducing their
exposure to crash risk.It doesn't conclude that the decline should be attributed to drivers being better trained.
Indeed, if you cared to read it even more carefully, and look at the graph of crash statistics plotted over time, you'll notice that the 41+ bracket of drivers has had no significant change from 1980 to 2000. These are your "cornflake packet" drivers. Their accident rate has stayed rock solid, and well below that of all the younger groups.
I will give you that GDL had a very significant impact on making younger drivers less likely to have accidents. No one disputes this here, do they? I went through the early part of it myself and it all just seemed like good sense to me at the time. Don't let kids drive each other around at night, drunk! That's going to reduce accidents, definitely.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Matthew Poole,
You want evidence, Ben? I find myself being tailgated more by late-model cars, and a lot of the worst failure to use indicators is also by late-model cars. Young drivers mostly can’t afford to own such things, and before you go off down the “it’s the parents’ car” track, I don’t think that could reasonably account for all the bad behaviour. Are young drivers perfect? Of course they’re not, but before they can start driving unsupervised they at least have to spend a longer period of time having their driving behaviour judged critically than most of those of us who’re aged over 30 ever did.
That's evidence? That late model cars tailgate you more, in your subjective opinion?
Over the last decade, pretty much. Before that, it was a joke. For my generation it was pass a 30-question multiple-guess scratch quiz (only 20 possible layouts, which could all be bought from BP and then handed around your friends with twink to hide the scratched panels) to get your learner, wait six months, do a drive of somewhere less than 15 minutes to get your restricted (proving that you could follow the speed limit, indicate, and hopefully carry out at least one of a hill start, a parallel park, and a three-point-turn), wait 9-18 months and get your full.
So far as I can tell, the only thing that's changed since I was a lad is that you have to sit another practical test to get the full license. This test involves 20 mins of driving and tests all the same things I got tested for in 1986 when I sat my restricted license. Also the restricted test is longer, 45 mins of drive time. I recall doing about 20.
As for the written test, it was actually a written and oral test, when I did it, with free form questions on the oral, and you couldn't fail any of them. I know quite a few people who failed, because they didn't know things like the legal speed limit for a trailer on the motorway.
So it will filter out a more people who can't drive well, although they will continue re-sitting the test until they pass, at which point, they're on the road with the grand total of 2 years of driving experience, and cognizant of the road code. Which is exactly how it's been since at least the early 1980s.
Not really a joke. I did have to prove I could drive a car, perform vital maneuvers, adhere to laws, know the road code, and to be attentive. The assessor watched me the entire time in a mirror that the car provided - it was a driving school car. But he had his own one as well, in case the car didn't have one.
I know many people who failed either or both of the tests. They weren't a fucking cornflake packet, they were tests that you knew the road code, something that you were encouraged to read. Nearly everyone I knew who went for their license had read it cover to cover, and most people I ask questions of about the road code, despite many elapsed years since they got their licenses, will get almost every detail right.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Keir Leslie,
But that doesn't matter, it's a right that exists and the policeman's bound to respect, and Parliament's bound to acknowledge.
If I don't have a license, then my freedom of movement by driving a vehicle will be immediately curtailed. Parliament will back them up.
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to Keir Leslie,
s 18 (1) of the Bill of Rights Act does provide for one though
I don't have to show a policeman that at a checkpoint. Just my license.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 372 373 374 375 376 … 1066 Older→ First