The War on the Roads - TV - Sunday night

[lobstermash]

If anything, letting the public know that triggering speed cameras is happening in the UK gives us ideas... I'm not saying I condone the behaviour, but I can see how some would be drawn to that kind of thing now that it's been 'suggested'.

[Summernight]

If anything, letting the public know that triggering speed cameras is happening in the UK gives us ideas... I'm not saying I condone the behaviour, but I can see how some would be drawn to that kind of thing now that it's been 'suggested'.

That's what I thought. I'm now intrigued about the possibility (but would probably wear less identifying clothes if I ever did so, which I won't) .

[lobstermash]

You can be sure they'd be able to identify them if they went around committing serious crimes (like murdering people, as opposed to endagering their own lives by breaking road rules)

[Mulger bill]

I got waaaay too close to needing to be nailed to the perch this morning when (and I predict there will howls of outraged disbelief after this next statement) A CAR ran a red light. Hang on, BLAZED a red light. I'm talking an easy 3 seconds after I got the green doing ~60/40 in the middle of Sunburys main shopping area.

I'm a little confused now, should I assume that:-
A, All cars are driven by mongrel scofflaws.
B, All small hatches are driven by mongrel scofflaws.
C, All early 20s blonde females are mongrel scofflaws.
Please advise, the adrenalin is still flowing and I need an outlet.

[Summernight]

You forgot an equally discriminatory and wide-reaching option, Mulger Bill:

D) All Sunbury residents are mongrel scofflaws.

(Couldn't help myself. FYI, I like Sunbury - it has a big horse supplies store that I buy way too much stuff from. )

Glad you're still with us. I'm guessing she didn't get pinged by a red-light camera because... like... There was no red light camera? So surely you reporting her red light running to the nearest police station will result in her getting a fine... What? It doesn't?

*dies of sarcastic shock*

[Nobody]

...A CAR ran a red light. Hang on, BLAZED a red light. I'm talking an easy 3 seconds after I got the green doing...

Are you sure it wasn't a bicycle?
viewtopic.php?f=53&t=67464#p1012935" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm a little confused now, should I assume that:-
A, All cars are driven by mongrel scofflaws.
B, All small hatches are driven by mongrel scofflaws.
C, All early 20s blonde females are mongrel scofflaws.
Please advise, the adrenalin is still flowing and I need an outlet.

Yes, of course you can assume all these things and more. Isn't that how it works?

[Slvr32gtr]

Haha that clip of the guys smashing through the speed camera was intense! That dude had some serious speed!

I think its all just a load of crap when it comes to trying to ping riders for "speeding". Most of those pics look like they were taken on the front side coottha decent. Who cares if someone on a bike goes over the arbitrary posted speed limit down there? In reality, if you are on a bike, you are the one that is going to get hurt. You arent going to put yourself into a situation where you a going to crash and injure yourself due to speed.

Im so sick of all the "every K over is a killer" garbage. Its just a blatant money grab in most circumstances as far as im concerned. The real danger on the roads comes from inattention and people being allowed to drive when they possess a skill level that doesnt even register on a chart of basic competency. If there was any kind of sense in the powers that be, driving safety and exposure would be incorporated in a mandatory class through high school like you see in places like Germany. Obtaining a driving licence shouldnt be a right and a cheap exercise as:

Incompetence + 2 tonnes of metal + velocity (low or high) = carnage.

Letting incompetent parents and peers teach kids how to drive is definitely not helping the situation either! Perfect way to continue to spread the bad driving habits, attitudes and general lack of skills.

End rant.

[InTheWoods]

Most of those pics look like they were taken on the front side coottha decent. Who cares if someone on a bike goes over the arbitrary posted speed limit down there? In reality, if you are on a bike, you are the one that is going to get hurt.

There's a lot of riders up there. Yes while chances are you carry most of the risk yourself, It is not inconceivable that a speeding cyclist could injure or kill other cyclists. I've seen some crazy speeds up there.

You arent going to put yourself into a situation where you a going to crash and injure yourself due to speed.

I believe Coot-tha and Nebo/Glorious are hot spots for (mostly self-inflicted) cyclist injuries. So clearly some people do put themselves in that situation, but also, even when obeying limits there is a much reduced safety margin (eg. mechanicals, road surface/debris issues) and incidents do occur as a result.

[Slvr32gtr]

Most of those pics look like they were taken on the front side coottha decent. Who cares if someone on a bike goes over the arbitrary posted speed limit down there? In reality, if you are on a bike, you are the one that is going to get hurt.

There's a lot of riders up there. Yes while chances are you carry most of the risk yourself, It is not inconceivable that a speeding cyclist could injure or kill other cyclists. I've seen some crazy speeds up there.

I agree flogging down the back section is irresponsible and has high risk of injuring other cyclist due to the conditions, but the front side is a lot more open, wider, and divided in spots. Racing down that side there is a chance you could crash, but less chance to wipe someone else out.

You arent going to put yourself into a situation where you a going to crash and injure yourself due to speed.

I believe Coot-tha and Nebo/Glorious are hot spots for (mostly self-inflicted) cyclist injuries. So clearly some people do put themselves in that situation, but also, even when obeying limits there is a much reduced safety margin (eg. mechanicals, road surface/debris issues) and incidents do occur as a result.

Is the probability of getting a fine going to stop people from pushing the limits? There is always going to be a probability that something could go wrong, and i agree that with increased speeds in those areas, probability does increase, but the chance of a fine isnt going to stop this. When you are on a bike, its more evident than ever that you are responsible for your wellbeing, as making a mistake has higher consequences than the same mistake made in a vehicle. Not to mention, the collateral damage of someone crashing a bike rather than a car are magnitudes apart.

There are still speed limits on those roads so people still know what advisory speeds have been set. If someone driving or riding down these roads has minimal skills; the probability of a crash is not going to be too far apart if travelling at either the speed limit or higher.

[simonn]

Im so sick of all the "every K over is a killer" garbage.

Not garbage.

[Lukeyboy]

Even some of those road advisory speeds are too low for bikes but are suitable for cars because of the performance difference between the two. The speed advisory sign going down Glorious towards Samford is 20kph but I can easily enter the corner doing 45, 35 in the middle (at the very least) and 45 on the exit.

Even going full tilt down mt Nebo/Mt Glorious is pretty safe to stay in the 1 lane so long as the rider has the ability and knowledge of the layout to back up what they are doing. Heaven forbid should I actually give it the beans going down them taking the racing line through each corner Personally I say the Nebo descent is more dangerous due to the broken and mixed road surfaces - I should know as I literally ripped up pavement yesterday.... You could even take the fernvale descent of mt glorious. I've seen a few cyclists/drivers/motorbike riders get caught out by the 20kph tight left hander sign which is followed by a 60kph sign 20m after but 30m before the road drops off and your faced with a tight almost harpin like left turn because they were unfamiliar with the road.

[Slvr32gtr]

Im so sick of all the "every K over is a killer" garbage.

Not garbage.

Haha gold!

[InTheWoods]

Even going full tilt down mt Nebo/Mt Glorious is pretty safe to stay in the 1 lane so long as the rider has the ability and knowledge of the layout to back up what they are doing. Heaven forbid should I actually give it the beans going down them taking the racing line through each corner Personally I say the Nebo descent is more dangerous due to the broken and mixed road surfaces

I do agree mostly But what will your ability do if you get a sudden flat, a tyre blows off a rim, or a spoke break and pretzel your wheel Or an oncoming car crossing double lines on a blind corner to overtake a climbing cyclist

The nebo descent is made a lot worse by the road surface - and its a lot longer than the much shorter constant descent down to Samford. I've only done the samford way once, and it was scary - but it sure was over fast!

[Duck!]

Im so sick of all the "every K over is a killer" garbage.

Not garbage.

Anyone who drives like that deserves their licence immediately and permanently revoked.

[Slvr32gtr]

Anyone who drives like that deserves their licence immediately and permanently revoked.

Anyone who drives a Prius? agreed

[simonn]

In reality, if you are on a bike, you are the one that is going to get hurt.

That is non-exactly true. I ended up with concussion and my first emergency hospital visit due to a head-on with another cyclist (his fault - in my lane, blind corner on a cycle track).

You arent going to put yourself into a situation where you a going to crash and injure yourself due to speed.

I'll use the example of my cycling buddy who died earlier this year (was not a hit and run) as an example of why you are wrong on this.

[Lukeyboy]

Even going full tilt down mt Nebo/Mt Glorious is pretty safe to stay in the 1 lane so long as the rider has the ability and knowledge of the layout to back up what they are doing. Heaven forbid should I actually give it the beans going down them taking the racing line through each corner Personally I say the Nebo descent is more dangerous due to the broken and mixed road surfaces

I do agree mostly But what will your ability do if you get a sudden flat, a tyre blows off a rim, or a spoke break and pretzel your wheel Or an oncoming car crossing double lines on a blind corner to overtake a climbing cyclist

The nebo descent is made a lot worse by the road surface - and its a lot longer than the much shorter constant descent down to Samford. I've only done the samford way once, and it was scary - but it sure was over fast!

But that's the risk of cycling. A number of things can go wrong. The carbon fork can fracture, the carbon bars could fracture, a scrub turkey can run onto the road, oil on the road, potholes, rocks, vibrations, speedwobbles, brake fade, riders weight, riders reactions, branches falling etc. All what ifs really. The Nebo descent is longer but its also split up. Its not just a constant downhill run like Glorious. Its more like a rollercoaster. Nebo is just crazy now. BCC has been ripping up the road for resurfacing for the past couple weeks and its just awful as the bike gets upset going from old but constant road to smooth but bumpy new road. There's even more potholes and rocks on the road which is a shame (yesterday I was riding down and the rear had a little bump. Looked behind to see bits of road bouncing along the road - Front wheel moved the pavement/rear wheel flicked it out). Slow flats at speed you can feel a hell of a lot more in the bikes suspension/dampening efforts. Sudden flats can be manageable. Stand the bike up, shift your weight, brace the frame with your knees, use your body as an airbrake and only use the opposite brake. Traffic isn't usually a concern. When I descend I'm looking 70-100+m down the road and even if someone had crossed over in the middle of a blind corner your bike usually shouldn't be in a position to be hit by the car. By turning in earlier it will screw up your mid corner/corner exit but that's more manageable as you shouldn't be going that fast. If someone crosses over just throw your weight around and adjust your line rather than grabbing a handful of brake. If riding a motorbike around when I was 5 taught me anything its a hell of a lot about reactions and bike control

[Dragster1]

Im so sick of all the "every K over is a killer" garbage. Its just a blatant money grab in most circumstances as far as im concerned.

Too right sick of this crap also, With all the technology they have these days they could limit the speed of cars by satellite and gps, if they wanted to save lives . Its just a money grab from this stinking government and they keep on comparing crash figures from the stone age, Hello! our population is growing and more cars are being owned per capita every year.

[VRE]

^^^ Perhaps you two should go complain about it on a motoring forum, then. For cyclists, that picture that simonn posted matters a great deal.

[simonn]

Too right sick of this crap also, With all the technology they have these days they could limit the speed of cars by satellite and gps, if they wanted to save lives . Its just a money grab from this stinking government and they keep on comparing crash figures from the stone age, Hello! our population is growing and more cars are being owned per capita every year.

GPS is not accurate or reliable enough to be relied upon for this and ultimately it still would not absolve the driver from responsibility. The KISS principle means the driver should be responsible for controlling the speed.

Crash statistics. The death rate for MV occupants has been going down because of safety measures (seat belts, air bags etc), but the proportion of crashes has not decreased at the same rate. Nor has the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed or severely injured by drivers.

How should drivers be punished if they break road rules? I do not think a speeding infringement alone is worth jail time, but a days pay would seem fair enough (I wish we used day fines here because it is fair). As for a money grab, you just need to pay attention when you drive, it is really that simple.

Finally, speed laws are about protecting other people from you, not from protecting you from yourself, so, although only implied so far in this discussion so far, are not nanny state laws.

[Slvr32gtr]

^^^ Perhaps you two should go complain about it on a motoring forum, then. For cyclists, that picture that simonn posted matters a great deal.

I fail to see how limiting everyone to 20km/hr or some ridiculously slow speed would solve problems. Technology is getting more advanced day by day with regard to development and crash safety (for both occupants and pedestrians) and road infrastructure is being designed for safe travel at higher speeds. Speed limits however havent increased, and in most cases, reduced as time goes on. There is obviously two parts to this issue, as highway and urban/suburban conditions do require different approaches.

For highway scenarios, the relatively slow speeds, considering the vehicles and infrastructure improvements, cause inattention as there isnt enough happening to keep you focused on the task of driving. There is always the same arguments to oppose increasing limits such as older/incapable vehicles, driver skill levels and the scare tactic of higher fatalities. If you look outside Australia to countries like Germany where driving safety and lessons engrained through classes through high school, then the driving skill issue disappears.... Its a long and painful argument.

For urban/suburban environments, then yes speed plays a bigger factor in the safety debate, however, the 60/50/40km/hr limits already in place are adequate. Driver skill, attitude, inattention, and infrastructure are areas that need to be looked at as far as im concerned. Driver skill also relates to rider skill as I see way too many people out there on their bikes in the mornings that are attributing to the issue.

I love getting out there on my bike in the morning and 99% of the time the rides are problem free. The 1% of the time that i do have some issues, driver attitude, lack of awareness/inattention and driver skill level are the main cause. Whether they are travelling at 60km/hr or 30km/hr, those issues are still going to be there, and if anything, inattention will increase as the stimulus of driving reduces.

[Slvr32gtr]

In reality, if you are on a bike, you are the one that is going to get hurt.

That is non-exactly true. I ended up with concussion and my first emergency hospital visit due to a head-on with another cyclist (his fault - in my lane, blind corner on a cycle track).

In your above example, wouldnt the reasons behind this crash come down more to inattention/rider skill/awareness? My argument that you quoted was in regard to being responsible for your actions when riding and in that case, travelling at a speed in which you feel confident with and safe. In your accident, the other rider was not doing this.

You arent going to put yourself into a situation where you a going to crash and injure yourself due to speed.

I'll use the example of my cycling buddy who died earlier this year (was not a hit and run) as an example of why you are wrong on this.[/quote]

Its horrible to hear about your buddy who passed away, but i fail to see how this is an argument for my quote. Riding has its inherent dangers, as does everything in life. I will elaborate my above by saying, we dont knowingly put ourselves into situations...

[Lukeyboy]

An example of that would be the highway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Has been in the process of being upgraded for the past 15 years. Million upon millions spent. L large portion of the trip has 4 lanes in each direction. Brake down lanes. 110kph. The old Steve Irwin Highway (before the Bruce Highway was built). No shoulder. A single road with 1 lane in each direction. Cyclists are forced to use this road or take a massive detour. Lots of traffic. Drivers refuse to slow down. No or minimal footpaths (in QLD you are legally allowed to ride on them). The Bruce Highway is near by with its 100/110kph speed limit and its progressively being upgraded. The Bruce Highway has clearance beside it while the Steve Irwin Highway is lined with trees. Yet the Steve Irwin Highway still has a 100kph speed limit. I for one would like to see the Bruce have a higher speed limit while the Steve Irwin Highway can go back to a 70 zone or somethng. THe Highway to the Gold Coast could easily be 130kph.

If old cars aren't safe enough or they can't do the speed for highways its simple. If your in some POS car that can't do the speed stay in the left hand lane. Perhaps buy a new car instead of some rust bucket from the 70's.

[simonn]

In reality, if you are on a bike, you are the one that is going to get hurt.

That is non-exactly true. I ended up with concussion and my first emergency hospital visit due to a head-on with another cyclist (his fault - in my lane, blind corner on a cycle track).

In your above example, wouldnt the reasons behind this crash come down more to inattention/rider skill/awareness? My argument that you quoted was in regard to being responsible for your actions when riding and in that case, travelling at a speed in which you feel confident with and safe. In your accident, the other rider was not doing this.

Correct, but the other cyclist hurt me. He was not the only one to get hurt.

In reality, if you are on a bike you are not necessarily the only one who is going to get hurt. I was hurt too (worse even).

You arent going to put yourself into a situation where you a going to crash and injure yourself due to speed.

I'll use the example of my cycling buddy who died earlier this year (was not a hit and run) as an example of why you are wrong on this.

Its horrible to hear about your buddy who passed away, but i fail to see how this is an argument for my quote. Riding has its inherent dangers, as does everything in life. I will elaborate my above by saying, we dont knowingly put ourselves into situations...

You might put yourself into a situation where you a going to crash and injure yourself due to speed. My buddy did.

[Slvr32gtr]

An example of that would be the highway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast. Has been in the process of being upgraded for the past 15 years. Million upon millions spent. L large portion of the trip has 4 lanes in each direction. Brake down lanes. 110kph. The old Steve Irwin Highway (before the Bruce Highway was built). No shoulder. A single road with 1 lane in each direction. Cyclists are forced to use this road or take a massive detour. Lots of traffic. Drivers refuse to slow down. No or minimal footpaths (in QLD you are legally allowed to ride on them). The Bruce Highway is near by with its 100/110kph speed limit and its progressively being upgraded. The Bruce Highway has clearance beside it while the Steve Irwin Highway is lined with trees. Yet the Steve Irwin Highway still has a 100kph speed limit. I for one would like to see the Bruce have a higher speed limit while the Steve Irwin Highway can go back to a 70 zone or somethng. THe Highway to the Gold Coast could easily be 130kph.

If old cars aren't safe enough or they can't do the speed for highways its simple. If your in some POS car that can't do the speed stay in the left hand lane. Perhaps buy a new car instead of some rust bucket from the 70's.

Yeah i refuse to ride on Steve Irwin Way and instead detour along Old Gympie just for the fact its not safe enough.

And you covered a point i missed about the older/POS vehicles, exactly, stay in the left lane at your own speed, as its about increasing the speed LIMIT for the conditions.