Moron Motorists #3

[bychosis]

Unfortunately so many older aussies think they can drive properly, and they can drive. They just don't seem to cope when something goes wrong and cannot react quickly enough. It might be as simple as a test like if you can't break into a bit of a run/jog you dshouldnt be dirivng. (flame suit on) I'm sure there are other similar 'tests' of ability to drive that using everyday examples that could be part of an education process as to when to give up driving. THe current test seems to be based purely on eyesight.

[il padrone]

More stats here: http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... s_dl4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ..

70+ seem to be involved in ~2x the rate of deaths than the 30-39 age group is (per head of pop.). Similar for 20-25's.

Not sure where you are getting the comparative rates data from The rates data I see there does not discriminate by age nor road user type. The age data is just total deaths.

Be very wary about the figures for deaths by age groups. It does not indicate whether the older person was a driver, passenger, cyclist or pedestrian. It would also not pick up the older person who collides with a pedestrian and kills them but is uninjured themselves. Trying to pull out comparative rates by age group from that is like trying to pull a gold marble out of a jar full of marbles.

[London Boy]

Take the lane. Force the motorist into the next lane and then he has to give way to you since he wishes to enter the lane you are in. Obviously he cannot leave the roundabout from the right hand lane, so there can be no obligation to give way to him.

That's what cowled did... the motorist drove around him, straddling both lanes, and then exited the roundabout from the right hand lane, nearly taking him out in the process.

Ok. I was not clear from his post that Craig had actually taken the lane (i.e. rode squarely in the middle, leaving no room for doubt).
If that was the case, then the motorist committed at least one offence, probably several. And if Craig has video or witnesses then he can prove it.

But I think the question was really how to deal with rule 119, and the way to do that is to remove any need to give way. Keep cars in your lane behind you; cars in the next lane automatically have to give way to you before joining your lane. It seems to me that taking that approach renders rule 119 irrelevant.

[duncanm]

More stats here: http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... s_dl4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ..

70+ seem to be involved in ~2x the rate of deaths than the 30-39 age group is (per head of pop.). Similar for 20-25's.

Not sure where you are getting the comparative rates data from The rates data I see there does not discriminate by age nor road user type. The age data is just total deaths.

Be very wary about the figures for deaths by age groups. It does not indicate whether the older person was a driver, passenger, cyclist or pedestrian. It would also not pick up the older person who collides with a pedestrian and kills them but is uninjured themselves. Trying to pull out comparative rates by age group from that is like trying to pull a gold marble out of a jar full of marbles.

You didn't look hard enough.

2012: Table 16a of http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... ts2012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; linked from that page (please note page 8 explaining table 16a)

Deaths by motor vehicle controller age: 21-25: 45, 30-39: 82, 70+: 47

Table 32, NSW population: 21-25: 508k, 30-39: 1.01M, 70+: 750k

NSW License holders: 21-25: 377k, 30-39: 832k, 70+: 437k

But I got my quick figures wrong anyway.
The most relevant stat available from these numbers would be deaths per licence holder. A better one would be deaths per km, but that's not available

Deaths caused/year/license holder, by age (x 1e-6)

21-25: 120
30-39: 98
> 79: 108

so they're not nearly as bad as 2x. But 50% of the way to reckless youths.

[il padrone]

2012: Table 16a of http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/ ... ts2012.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; linked from that page (please note page 8 explaining table 16a)

Deaths by motor vehicle controller age: 21-25: 45, 30-39: 82, 70+: 47

Table 32, NSW population: 21-25: 508k, 30-39: 1.01M, 70+: 750k

NSW License holders: 21-25: 377k, 30-39: 832k, 70+: 437k

But I got my quick figures wrong anyway.
The most relevant stat available from these numbers would be deaths per licence holder. A better one would be deaths per km, but that's not available

Deaths caused/year/license holder, by age (x 1e-6)

21-25: 120
30-39: 98
> 79: 108

so they're not nearly as bad as 2x. But 50% of the way to reckless youths.

Some corrections to your data are required:

1. The reckless youths are 17-21
2. Look at all licence-holders.


Deaths by motor vehicle controller age: 17-21: 46, 21-25: 45, 30-39: 82, 70+: 47

Table 32, NSW population: 21-25: 508k, 30-39: 1.01M, 70+: 750k

NSW License holders (all): 17-21: 309k, 21-25: 401k, 30-39: 928k, 70+: 467k


Deaths caused/year/license holder, by age (x 1e-6)

17-21: 149
21-25: 112
30-39: 88
> 70: 101

So rather than banning alleged dangerous oldies, I'd be more in favour of making the licence age 21 They can all ride bicycles until they're 21. Better outcomes for road safety IMHO.

[geebee]

You missed a critical point this shows age to time driving and over 75 drive almost half the time that other age groups do which make their death rate much worse than all others, and most likely by 79 it would be even less time driving.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... enDocument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cowled]

Take the lane. Force the motorist into the next lane and then he has to give way to you since he wishes to enter the lane you are in. Obviously he cannot leave the roundabout from the right hand lane, so there can be no obligation to give way to him.

That's what cowled did... the motorist drove around him, straddling both lanes, and then exited the roundabout from the right hand lane, nearly taking him out in the process.

Ok. I was not clear from his post that Craig had actually taken the lane (i.e. rode squarely in the middle, leaving no room for doubt).
If that was the case, then the motorist committed at least one offence, probably several. And if Craig has video or witnesses then he can prove it.

Yep. I did take the lane as I approached the roundabout and kept to the middle of the lane through the roundabout. It occurred to me that the driver may have been under the influence. Of course, that can't be proven as they did not stop at the time.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[trailgumby]

You missed a critical point this shows age to time driving and over 75 drive almost half the time that other age groups do which make their death rate much worse than all others, and most likely by 79 it would be even less time driving.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf ... enDocument" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What needs to be remembered here is that the death rate is heavily skewed by the fact that older drivers themselves die much more often in older driver-involved crashes. Older drivers are have more fragile bones, and survive and recover from trauma much less easily.

Taking the view that because older drivers are overrepresented in the KSI statistsics they are therefore a greater hazard is simplistic. The analysis needs to be far more nuanced than that, and controlled for the increased likelihood of senior citizens suffering greater consequence in road crashes.

It may well be they are still a greater hazard, but good policy and strategy must be based on accurate data not flimsy analysis.

Sent from my android thingy using Crapatalk

[il padrone]

Table 27A in that NSW document of Crash Statistics is quite telling. Of 64 road user deaths in the >70 age group, 22 were car drivers, 21 were car passengers and 19 were pedestrians. This contrasts markedly with all other age groups ie. many more passengers and pedestrians in >70 age group.

A higher older persons road toll does not always reflect on any real driving impairment

[myforwik]

That law is the only law that requires a vehicle continuing in its lane to give way to vehicles that are BEHIND it. It is discriminatory and absurd.

Though as I said. That is all irrelevant. The other vehicle hit and run. Furthermore the fact that the bicycle may not have adhered to RULE119 does not automatically make the collision the cyclist's fault.

Rule 119 is there because cyclists are allowed to to take any exit from the left hand lane. because of the way the rules work, its impossible for a cyclist to have to give way to car exiting - without that car having already broken other road rules. No car can cross a cyclists path (other than when the cyclist wants to go right from the left lane) without breaking other road rules. For example, the cyclist entered the round a-bout first - so the car has to give way to him. The car has to pass the cyclist safety and not impede his progress. The car has to proceed straight and not exit to the left, as the lane the car occupied did not have a right turn arrow.

The only case would be were a cyclist was passing a car up the inside in the same lane, the cyclist would have to give way just like he would if the car was turning left at a regulator intersection.

[il padrone]

Rule 119 is there because cyclists are allowed to to take any exit from the left hand lane. because of the way the rules work, its impossible for a cyclist to have to give way to car exiting - without that car having already broken other road rules. No car can cross a cyclists path (other than when the cyclist wants to go right from the left lane) without breaking other road rules. For example, the cyclist entered the round a-bout first - so the car has to give way to him. The car has to pass the cyclist safety and not impede his progress. The car has to proceed straight and not exit to the left, as the lane the car occupied did not have a right turn arrow.

The only case would be were a cyclist was passing a car up the inside in the same lane, the cyclist would have to give way just like he would if the car was turning left at a regulator intersection.

While I agree the rule is absurd, and a different priority needs to be applied to giving way to vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians) on roundabouts, your interpretation of road rules and reasons is not correct. On a typical multi-lane roundabout in Victoria and I would suspect Australia-wide, the road lane markings clearly show that should anyone drive/cycle through in the left lane (left exit or straight-through) and continue around for a 'right turn' they will actually be changing lanes - crossing lane markings. Only by riding in the right lane on approach to the roundabout are you in the correct lane and do not make a lane change as you pass around the roundabout.

The road design and road rules are what they are, and Rule 119, farcical as it is, is there for a reason, which has a lot to do with many cyclists' inexperience and lack of road confidence, and the devil-may-care attitude of many Australian drivers. Bite the bullet and ride in the right lane.

In Europe they often deal with this sort of roundabout very differently. Cyclists and pedestrians are given priority at each crossing point.





Multi-lane Dutch turbo roundabout (bicycle paths pass throungh underneath).




One of the best, in Houten. Grade separated




A different take on the problem - take the roundabout out.... except for the cyclists

[pacra]

Grand Prix in Melbourne, and all the morons are out soaking up their two days of relevance each year.

And the winner is:

I'm at a T intersection near Carnegie station, on the T waiting to turn right. On my right are a father and young son on their bikes going down to the shops. Son is in front, father a metre or so behind and out in the lane shielding him.

Everything OK, but, along comes blue Subie WRX in centre lane and swings in to turn left cutting father into the kerb, sees child and stops a bare 25 cm from child. Had the Subie kept going he would have clipped the father and run over the child.

Subie completes turn, as he turns I say 'Try some patience mate'. He looks at me with a loopy grin and the vacant dumb cow look they give cyclists when they nearly kill them. All he needed was his tongue lolling out to prove what a thick effer he was.

This is the problem with the whole shebang of road rules and regs. Yes, the Subie stopped, gave way and no one was hurt, but until he saw the child he intentionally had no hesitation turning left cutting off the cyclist he could see. If you hit someone but do no harm there us still intent and you can be charged, but if you endanger life on the road with intent until you hit them you commit no offence. Even if cops were there to see it they would say no offence had been committed and 'move on citizen, nothing to see here'.

The other point is if an adult takes a child out on a bike on a balmy Saturday afternoon to the local shops and nearly sees the child killed, when can an adult safely teach a child road sense? Never it seems.

I have nothing against cars and people who like cars. I learnt to drive in a Chevy BelAir and a Dodge Straight Eight in the country fifty years ago and admire classics, but the whole concept of drivers being responsible for others' safety has gone right out the window.

[Lukeyboy]

I have nothing against cars and people who like cars. I learnt to drive in a Chevy BelAir and a Dodge Straight Eight in the country fifty years ago and admire classics, but the whole concept of drivers being responsible for others' safety has gone right out the window.

I find it interesting that a lot of the bogans and die hard rev heads that love motorsport here don't really know that nearly all of those that drive them are actually very very keen cyclists. Take Fernando Alonso. Races at 300+kph for Ferrari but in his time off does road racing and time trials in Spain. James Courtney races for one of the biggest Holden bogan fan teams in V8 Supercars but cycles around 3000km a month and has a bike worth more than the majority of most small new cars. Mark Webber. Gets hit by a car while racing his mtb, breaks his leg and is racing again a few weeks later. Ayrton Senna was huge into riding bikes. Even motorbike riders are really into cycling. Just take a look at some of the cycling events on the gold coast and the number of local v8 drivers and motorbike riders that enter events there and set some really good times.

[lard]

I have nothing against cars and people who like cars. I learnt to drive in a Chevy BelAir and a Dodge Straight Eight in the country fifty years ago and admire classics, but the whole concept of drivers being responsible for others' safety has gone right out the window.

I find it interesting that a lot of the bogans and die hard rev heads that love motorsport here don't really know that nearly all of those that drive them are actually very very keen cyclists. Take Fernando Alonso. Races at 300+kph for Ferrari but in his time off does road racing and time trials in Spain. James Courtney races for one of the biggest Holden bogan fan teams in V8 Supercars but cycles around 3000km a month and has a bike worth more than the majority of most small new cars. Mark Webber. Gets hit by a car while racing his mtb, breaks his leg and is racing again a few weeks later. Ayrton Senna was huge into riding bikes. Even motorbike riders are really into cycling. Just take a look at some of the cycling events on the gold coast and the number of local v8 drivers and motorbike riders that enter events there and set some really good times.

Alonso is also likely to be sponsoring a pro team to race in 2015.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/02/ ... eam_316253" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It'd be great to get all these F1 drivers together to do a safe driving campaign directed at saving cyclists lives.

[jasonc]

It'd be great to get all these F1 drivers together to do a safe driving campaign directed at saving cyclists lives.

bugger F1 - get V8 super car drivers to do it. they are the ones aussies relate to.

[jules21]

bugger F1 - get V8 super car drivers to do it. they are the ones aussies relate to.

i once went to a v8 supercar race. some of those fans are certainly not deep thinkers.

[The Fixer]

Report just on the news that a car has ploughed through a group of cyclists in Sydney this morning...

[Boognoss]

On the surface similar to other incidents in that area.

Cheers, Simon
Sent from my mApple myPad 4 using Tapatalk HD

[SheikYerbouti]

Report just on the news that a car has ploughed through a group of cyclists in Sydney this morning...

https://twitter.com/GrillTeam/status/444962874088103936" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks horrendous esp this photo https://twitter.com/Thomo05/status/4449 ... 72/photo/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dalai47]

Report just on the news that a car has ploughed through a group of cyclists in Sydney this morning...

5 cyclists have been taken to hospital. Looks nasty!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=59 ... =2&theater

[Duck!]

I have nothing against cars and people who like cars. I learnt to drive in a Chevy BelAir and a Dodge Straight Eight in the country fifty years ago and admire classics, but the whole concept of drivers being responsible for others' safety has gone right out the window.

I find it interesting that a lot of the bogans and die hard rev heads that love motorsport here don't really know that nearly all of those that drive them are actually very very keen cyclists. Take Fernando Alonso. Races at 300+kph for Ferrari but in his time off does road racing and time trials in Spain. James Courtney races for one of the biggest Holden bogan fan teams in V8 Supercars but cycles around 3000km a month and has a bike worth more than the majority of most small new cars. Mark Webber. Gets hit by a car while racing his mtb, breaks his leg and is racing again a few weeks later. Ayrton Senna was huge into riding bikes. Even motorbike riders are really into cycling. Just take a look at some of the cycling events on the gold coast and the number of local v8 drivers and motorbike riders that enter events there and set some really good times.

Ayrton Senna used to take a bike to every Grand Prix event, and rode several laps of the circuit before any practice sessions.

Several of the local V8 drivers (led I think by Cameron McConville) rode from Melbourne to Bathurst a couple of years ago.

[il padrone]

That Twitter feed is full of so much absolute crap it's unbelievable "I'm a cyclist and I would never ride on an 80kmh three lane road. Cycling there should be banned". Well hello... that's about 50% of the main roads in my city that you are just declaring off limits, fool!

Twitter feed is for the chooks.

[Lukeyboy]

Noted a couple cameras on some bikes in the photos....

[jasonc]

channel ten are stating "cyclists mowed down"

[arkle]

Unfortunately so many older aussies think they can drive properly, and they can drive. They just don't seem to cope when something goes wrong and cannot react quickly enough. It might be as simple as a test like if you can't break into a bit of a run/jog you dshouldnt be dirivng. (flame suit on) I'm sure there are other similar 'tests' of ability to drive that using everyday examples that could be part of an education process as to when to give up driving. THe current test seems to be based purely on eyesight.

You'll be pleased to know that driving/medical tests for the elderly are being axed in South Australia. In the future old people will be able to drive for as long as they want to drive.

Taken from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6789178325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"ANNUAL medical tests for drivers aged 70 and over will be scrapped to encourage older people to remain active in the community and because evidence shows they do not lower crash rates."

arkle