Road raging pillocks in Perth

[Theo Bekkers]

[email protected] wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> So you don't want better bicycling infrastructure then?

> Actually I'm pretty happy with the bicycling infrastructure we have in
> my (small) town. I'd like more off road paths, but what we have I'm
> very grateful for and I don't want extra paths enough to ask for
> them. I think I'd prefer to see some driver education on sharing the
> road with cyclists with an emphasis on safe/courteous passing. One
> thing I do think would be great is extra wide shoulders on highways so
> I could ride between towns easier (I can go the back way for an extra
> 10km and less traffic, or the highway has a decent shoulder *most* of
> the way). Just sell it as a breakdown lane to keep the motorists
> happy ;-)

We certainly should have more road user education. One 30 second TV adv per
night would probably do a lot.

No need to make the motorists happy, your highway is substandard, and needs
upgrading, most do. Aus standard for highways is 3.5 metres per lane and a 1
metre _sealed_ shoulder. If all country roads had that, it would be great.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:

> [1] Happens all the time. I'm used to completely unknown people
> saying "Hi Tim!".

Same here. Complete strangers say "Hi Theo, remember when......"

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> PeteSig wrote:

>> 'Behaviour' is Joe Bloggs in his sick SS Commode doesn't give a rats
>> about any **** cyclists and cuts them by close.

> Yes, and how does behaviour change?
>
> Education and Enforcement. Education alone won't, Enforcement alone
> won't.
>
> I don't think Education as in "don't do it, there's a good chap" will
> make a difference. "Don't do it cos only pillocks do, plus you'll cop
> several points and a whacking great fine" will.

Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick? If
not, why should we educate adults that way?

Theo

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:00:21 +1100
Resound <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>
> Playing devil's advocate to a certain extent but thinking of things like
> teenage kid pounding out of sidestreet without looking or gumby trundling
> through red light (emerging from behind a truck on the other side of the
> intersection, say, so the driver couldn't have seen them).

Deliberate action might be too much, yeah.

How about onus is on the driver to avoid, presumption is that they
could have, they have to show they had no way to avoid.

The main point would be to make it clear that the driver has the
responsibility to look out and to be aware of the kind of things
cyclists do, such as come up the inside, swerve to avoid glass or
potholes.

Someone violating duty to give way, car or bike, should be treated the
same. If a car strikes a bike they should reasonably have known was
there then the onus is on them to show they had no way to avoid the
strike. The "reasonably have known" would include something coming up
the left because bicycles can legally do that, showing that it was
physically impossible for the driver to see the bike even if they
turned their head and had properly adjusted mirrors would clear them.

(although in the latter case, one does have to worry about them being
allowed to drive that vehicle if they can't see an upright. A low
racer bent or trike OK...)

I am unsure if presumed guilt is a good thing, although it is
currently part of the speeding legislation so it isn't as if it is a
new idea. I think it might be necessary to change the car-oriented
mindset though.

Perhaps not even bother with "car" as such. Strictly a weight based
law Truck weighs more than car. Car weighs more than motorcycle.
Motorcycle weighs more than person on pushbike. person on pushbike
weighs more than pedestrian.

"So, Giant Haystacks, you are charged with wilfully striking the Vespa
you walked out in front of...."

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:28:05 +0900
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> I don't think Education as in "don't do it, there's a good chap" will
>> make a difference. "Don't do it cos only pillocks do, plus you'll cop
>> several points and a whacking great fine" will.
>
> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick? If
> not, why should we educate adults that way?

Why do you conflate "education and enforcement" with "enforcement"?

Don't tell me that if you got caught doing the wrong thing when you were
a kid nothing happened?



Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>>> I don't think Education as in "don't do it, there's a good chap"
>>> will make a difference. "Don't do it cos only pillocks do, plus
>>> you'll cop several points and a whacking great fine" will.

>> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a
>> stick? If not, why should we educate adults that way?

> Why do you conflate "education and enforcement" with "enforcement"?
>
> Don't tell me that if you got caught doing the wrong thing when you
> were a kid nothing happened?

I grew up in an era with consequences, which at school, but not at home,
included sticks.

Certainly there should be consequences, unfortunately the system we have for
road safety now is consequences without education, and I don't think that
that is working.

Theo

 

[[email protected]]

On Feb 27, 9:51 pm, TimC <[email protected]
astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2008-02-27, [email protected] (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Actually I'm pretty happy with the bicycling infrastructure we have in
> > my (small) town. I'd like more off road paths, but what we have I'm
> > very grateful for and I don't want extra paths enough to ask for
> > them. I think I'd prefer to see some driver education on sharing the
> > road with cyclists with an emphasis on safe/courteous passing. One
> > thing I do think would be great is extra wide shoulders on highways so
> > I could ride between towns easier (I can go the back way for an extra
> > 10km and less traffic, or the highway has a decent shoulder *most* of
> > the way). Just sell it as a breakdown lane to keep the motorists
> > happy ;-)
>
> My commute home has no shoulder, and lots of blind bends, but the
> drivers all seem to be courteous and have waited minutes for a
> clearing long enough to overtake safely -- apart from the occasional
> Sydney tourist in 4WD. The only improvement I want is a road surface
> that is less bumpy than boulders. I've been waiting a while for that,
> and see no hope of it in the near future.

I've noticed on my infrequent trundles to the next town over and back
that (going the back way) along the initial straight piece of road
with a marked centre line the majority of drivers seem less willing to
give me any room (I'm already riding as far to the left as I can).
But once I turn off the main drag and onto a secondary road with no
marked centre line, I note that folks will often cross completely to
the wrong side of the road and give me nearly a full car width of
clearance. Well except for the ***** in the antique car who gave me
about 6" of clearance last time.

Sometimes I detour around the long (23km) way home just for fun. It
takes me out one side of town and back in another on roads with no
shoulder and a marked centre line. It's lightly trafficked and most
of the drivers are nice and give me plenty of room and even slow down,
but there are the inevitable arseholes who blast past my elbow. I
have to satisfy myself with a few expletives and fantasies about doing
mischief to their car. The nice drivers I normally give a courtesy
wave after they're past (and the few who use their mirrors sometimes
return it).

> I think the drivers are mostly courteous because they all know me.

Quite likely.

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:17:14 +0900
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> Don't tell me that if you got caught doing the wrong thing when you
>> were a kid nothing happened?
>
> I grew up in an era with consequences, which at school, but not at home,
> included sticks.
>
> Certainly there should be consequences, unfortunately the system we have for
> road safety now is consequences without education, and I don't think that
> that is working.

True. But neither will education without enforcement.

The enforcement has to be in two parts I think, that is there has to
be a clear law and intention to signal that Things Have Changed as
well as constant reinforcement of that signal.

Consider the drink driving laws. It was always illegal to drive while
drunk but it wasn't until they changed the law to specify an amount
*and* did the massive campaigns *and* used random breath tests that
the public attitude changed.

Zebee

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Certainly there should be consequences, unfortunately the system we
>> have for road safety now is consequences without education, and I
>> don't think that that is working.
>
> True. But neither will education without enforcement.
>
> The enforcement has to be in two parts I think, that is there has to
> be a clear law and intention to signal that Things Have Changed as
> well as constant reinforcement of that signal.
>
> Consider the drink driving laws. It was always illegal to drive while
> drunk but it wasn't until they changed the law to specify an amount
> *and* did the massive campaigns *and* used random breath tests that
> the public attitude changed.

Agreed. Draconian penalties do not work any better than reasonable penalties
though.
WA doubled speeding fines in Jan 07 to combat the road toll with no
eductional campaign other than "we've doubled the fines". The road toll went
up 15% last year. Guess what the response was? Yup, we've just doubled the
fines again.

Theo

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Feb 26, 11:58 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Graeme Dods wrote:
> > From my few trips to the Netherlands, I would say Perth is positively
> > mountainous in comparison. On my one brief cycle ride there I was
> > happy to be given (by the hotel where I was staying) a typical Dutch
> > "sit up and beg" bike as it was perfect for the terrain. However I did
> > find a couple of flaws; one in the design of the bike and one in the
> > design of the Netherlands. First, you may need a lower gear than the
> > standard 3 speed offers if riding into the wind, and second, the place
> > is so flat that when the wind picks up there's nowhere to hide!
>
> How do you think they powered all those windmills?

I didn't see any windmills, I think they'd all been blown over!

Graeme

 

[G-S]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 06:28:05 +0900
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> I don't think Education as in "don't do it, there's a good chap" will
>>> make a difference. "Don't do it cos only pillocks do, plus you'll cop
>>> several points and a whacking great fine" will.
>> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick? If
>> not, why should we educate adults that way?
>
> Why do you conflate "education and enforcement" with "enforcement"?
>
> Don't tell me that if you got caught doing the wrong thing when you were
> a kid nothing happened?
>

I grew up in an era when the stick had been largely supplanted by the
heavy leather belt.

*All* that it accomplished was to convince me to regard that particular
principal as being no better than a school yard bully.

30 minutes of lashing in an attempt to convince me (to the point where
my butt even through pants was bruised and bleeding and I had to be
helped to walk) failed to change my mind.


G-S

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:30:34 +0900
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Agreed. Draconian penalties do not work any better than reasonable penalties
> though.

True, but then no one has so far advocated them.

What I did advocate was to change the onus, so that a driver who
strikes a cyclist will be more likely to cop the penalty, whatever it
is.

Zebee

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:15:16 +1100
G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 30 minutes of lashing in an attempt to convince me (to the point where
> my butt even through pants was bruised and bleeding and I had to be
> helped to walk) failed to change my mind.

But I expect it did make you more careful not to be caught.

Zebee

 

[Patrick Keogh]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:30:34 +0900
> Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Agreed. Draconian penalties do not work any better than reasonable penalties
>> though.
>
> True, but then no one has so far advocated them.
>
> What I did advocate was to change the onus, so that a driver who
> strikes a cyclist will be more likely to cop the penalty, whatever it
> is.
>
> Zebee
Leave Draco out of this! He wasn't as bad as people make him out to be!

 

[G-S]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:15:16 +1100
> G-S <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 30 minutes of lashing in an attempt to convince me (to the point where
>> my butt even through pants was bruised and bleeding and I had to be
>> helped to walk) failed to change my mind.
>
> But I expect it did make you more careful not to be caught.
>
> Zebee

True.

It also made me resentful, sullen and impaired my classroom performance
, and caused me (with fairly typical early teenage years 'logic') to
decide that if I was going to be punished as if I was a disruptive
student anyway then I might as well be one.

Hardly the desired intent of the principals actions I would have thought
(but a fairly typical response never the less).

That persisted until I was in senior years when my grades went back up
(more despite those teachers than because of, with one or 2 notable
exceptions).


G-S

 

[Resound]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> PeteSig wrote:
>
>>> 'Behaviour' is Joe Bloggs in his sick SS Commode doesn't give a rats
>>> about any **** cyclists and cuts them by close.
>
>> Yes, and how does behaviour change?
>>
>> Education and Enforcement. Education alone won't, Enforcement alone
>> won't.
>>
>> I don't think Education as in "don't do it, there's a good chap" will
>> make a difference. "Don't do it cos only pillocks do, plus you'll cop
>> several points and a whacking great fine" will.
>
> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick? If
> not, why should we educate adults that way?
>

Because when you educate children, you're educating a broad cross section of
the community. In this instance you're much more likely to be attempting to
educate the section of the community who are either to stupid or sociopathic
to have worked out how to share the road themselves. I find that most
drivers are courteous so the few who aren't are (I'm guessing) unlikely to
be amenable to polite requests. Hence the big stick. It's exactly the same
as for thinks like drink driving, excessive speeding and so on, in other
words, please don't do it and if you don't listen then we'll ask again. With
the big stick.

 

[Resound]

"Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Terryc wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>>> That will bring a few howls from the gallery. What bicycle
>>> infrastructure would sir like to buy?
>>
>> Get a grip on reality Theo. Only because I already contribute heavily
>> to construction and maintenance of the existing road infrastrcture.
>> So, I fail to see why a proportion, say 5% for starters, ofthat
>> existing roads budget should not immediately be applied to building
>> new, high standard bicycle infrastructure.
>
> Hark, do I hear the gallery? Certainly money should be spent on both. What
> percentage do you think is realistic, and of what? You say 5% of the roads
> budget, but the road budget is not just for infrastucture, is it? Also the
> infrastructure we seem to get is some very nice, and some appalingly
> designed, paths which may make some people feel good about catering for
> cyclists, but in a lot of cases don't actually go anywhere. Certainly not
> from where you live to where you work. Where these paths interact with
> roads is so dangerous that many cyclists don't use the paths at all. I
> believe most of the money being spent on cycling infrastructure in Perth
> is not being utilised, allowing motorists to say, 'Look at those empty
> paths I paid for', and at the same time causing cyclists to say, 'Where's
> the safe route to work for me?'
>
> Are you asking for 5% of the money currently being spent on roads to be
> diverted to cycle infrastructure, or are you asking for 5% more money. If
> so, where will this 5% come from? Motorists maybe?
>
> Theo

Considering that more than 5% of money spent of roads comes from somewhere
other than that derived specifically from motorists, in other words, from
the public purse, why is that such a strange thing to ask for? I personally
use a car a great deal less than other people. Should I therefore pay less
in tax because I congest the road and cause wear and tear to it less? Should
I pay less tax because, as someone getting regular exercise I'm less likely
to burden the health system? Oh, How about me getting to pay less tax
because I'm not contributing to urban air pollution and the attendant
respiritory disorders? (oh and not a word about coal fired power stations, I
said URBAN air pollution...the stuff that's concentrated in urban areas,
specifically around arterial roads) In other words, if you're advocating a
user pays system, I want a substantial tax refund. Or possibly just a bit
more spent on cycling infrastructure. Call it 5% of what's currently spent
on roads. They can give the rest back to me later.

 

[Graeme Dods]

On Feb 28, 4:37 pm, "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Graeme Dods wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
> >> How do you think they powered all those windmills?
> > I didn't see any windmills, I think they'd all been blown over!
>
> There's only a few left for the tourists .

Now this method of windmill (ok, turbine) removal would certainly be a
tourist attraction. Rather expensive though - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3FZtmlHwcA

Graeme

 

[Terryc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Do you believe we should educate children by beating them with a stick?

Beating, no, strikng yes.

Lesser of two evils. I've always believed that it taught them a few
concepts that their brain didn't yet understand. But once they
understood the concepts, you didn't need it anymore as there are other
methods of learning.

> If not, why should we educate adults that way?

Because some adults still haven't learnt those basic lessons.


Even though I was only caned a couple of times, I developped the same
attitude as G-S mentioned towards "authority". Grades were a different
matter/motivation.

 

[Terryc]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
< lotsof fat arsed car driver troll **** deleted.

> Are you asking for 5% of the money currently being spent on roads to be
> diverted to cycle infrastructure,

Yes. 5% of journeys to work are made by bicycle. There is a huge backlog
to catch up.

> If so, where will this 5% come from? Motorists maybe?

What an excellent idea. I have been subsidising them for decades. It is
time they started to pay the full cost of the road infrastructure they
demand. Triple to fuel levy would be a great idea, then we wil have
enough to fund the hospitals and services we need for all the damage the
that motor vehicles do. We can also remove all those tax lurks for
people who drive company cars. The ones that are not availabe to the
average PAYE tax payer.

If it is going to be user pays, then lets make sure it really is.