Another bike down - "I didn't see him"

bet he hasn't got a crook knee

ck

 

I was wrong to say that GS was cute in that sense Moike - i was really
thinking of what GS was referred to in the past - the "ewoks" [1] out
of the last star war flick.

Johno

[1] although 'papa smurf' springs to mind.


Cup of tea mate?

 

My bikes air cooled. it needs the air to pass through at better than
2kph.

Smiley

 

I resemble that remark[1]

Cheers
Goaty
1. Apart from the blue hue!

 

Arrgh I hope not!
I don't care what they do in Asia I want him to wear proper pants near me!

 

Sometimes a bike can be in a blind spot though...

An admission of guilt (and what people really mean sometimes) is "I
didn't look".


G-S

 

Agreed!
"You did well to get me then!" was my response last time I heard it.

 

"blind spot": A dual-use euphamism for either

"I haven't adjusted my mirrors properly"

-or-

"I'm too lazy to turn my head and look out of side windows".

Blind spot counts as an admission of guilt in my book.


GB

 

There _are_ vehicles that no matter how the mirrors are adjusted there are
unviewable areas which are large enough for a bike to travel within.

You may not have driven them but they do exist.

Some people have arthritis, or muscle problems or are just old enough that
turning ones head more than about 45 degrees isn't possible. Not everyone
is young and fit.

You are of course entitled to be uninformed


G-S

 

Surely, though, drivers of those vehicles should be aware of the fact
that such areas exist, and thus adjust their driving accordingly. I
don't believe it is sufficient to say that the existence of a blind spot
is an excuse for what would normally be culpable driving.

Which begs the question "Should such people still be allowed to drive?"

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
Before an accident, most city drivers say "****!", whereas most country drivers
say "Hang on to this stubby, mate, while I show you some awesome driving"
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:01:18 +1000

Ummm.. so someone who is driving a vehicle they *know* they have trouble
seeing out of, or who *knows* they can't see things when they drive,
is quite exonerated when they perform a manouvere without knowing if
they are going to hit someone or not?

Seems to me that if someone can't turn their head then they need a
vehicle where they can cover the whole rear and sides in their mirror
view, and if they are in a car where that can't be done they have to
be able ot turn their head.

Someone who is in a car they can't see out of properly is clearly too
dangerous to allow on the road.

Zebee

 

Then fit proper mirrors, turn your head, or don't drive
those vehicles.

Then they get to fit proper mirrors, drive vehicles that they
*can* see out of, or hand in their license.

Knowingly driving a vehicle that you can't see out of is,
notwithstanding that society has reached a point where
there's a medical excuse for every concievable situation so
that no-one need ever take responsibility for their choices
and actions again, is even worse. Just like not bothering
to adjust mirrors or not bothering to turn your head when
you can, driving a vehicle that you *know* you can't see
out of constitutes reckless indifference to human life.

(Of course, culpable driving ("consciously and unjustifiably
disregards a substantial risk that the death of another
person or the infliction of grievous bodily harm upon
another person may result from his driving" and a bunch of
other choice options) is a special little crime in it's own
right. It doesn't attract the same penalties as everything
else that fits the legal definition for murder or manslaughter,
a nice little exemption for bad drivers if you like). The
punters don't need to turn their heads or adjust their
mirrors, 'cos they know they won't get 25 years like they
will for other forms of criminal homicide[1].

As are you my friend


GB, in my world, there's a whole list of people who'll get
put up against a tree...

[1] I took the phrase from Waller & Williams' Crim' Text and
Cases 9th ed, an Australian text, not from American
Television, TYVM.

 

Surely they do, but it is every bit as true to say that riders _need_ to be
aware that vehicles with such blind spots do exist. This is why I try and
jump on the sort of comment that was made earlier in the thread.

It isn't a case of either/or rather it is a need for both driver and rider
to be aware that these blind spots exist.

The current standards are such that the answer to that question is normally
yes.

Discriminating against people on the basis of physical disability or
infirmaty when they can perform the task is against the law.

Now you might argue that the 'task' needs to be more closely defined and
monitored (and I wouldn't argue with you), but that isn't quite the same
thing.


G-S

 

In an ideal world yes. In the real world most people in this situation are
older and retired and with little disposable income. And in many places
public transport simply doesn't exist. So they won't give up the car.

Fair enough, but at what point does that occur?

Is it when a driver can't turn thier head quickly enough to see a bike
travelling 50kph faster than them? 25 kph faster than them? The same
speed?

And what do we do about the inadequate or non existent public transport they
are 'supposed' to use when they give up thier license.

One of the main reasons that older people state that they keep thier licence
past the point at which they realise they should hand it in is that
alternatives don't exist.

Fix the problem (lack of adequate public transport) and the symptons
(drivers too old to safely drive) will go away.


G-S

 

Some vehicles (even with 'proper' mirrors) have blind spots. Most of the
buses in our fleet do. It's a characteristic of the length of the
vehicles... and different mirrors won't fix that.

Turning one's head doesn't help because the body of the vehicle is in the
way.

Not driving 80% of the public bus fleet isn't really an option

There _are_ smaller vehicles with similar issues, you really should be aware
of this and adjust your riding to suit. If not your chances of having an
accident _are_ increased.

And if they won't (and they won't!)... you will ignore them and get hit.
Being in the right is no reason to risk being hit. Riding with awareness of
blind spots is sensible risk reduction.

Yes but they _can_ see out of it in almost all directions. Blind spot areas
are clearly shown in the rider training handbooks from Vic Roads and
instruction is given not to ride in those areas because it isn't safe.

If you ride there then it isn't all thier fault, it is a shared
responsibility issue.


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 18 Jun 2006 17:00:15 +1000

Ummm.. if they are driving properly - you know, indicating and so on -
then a bike who is moving past them at those sorts of speeds isn't
going to be in that spot for long enough to matter. especially the
higher speeds.

It's when the vehicles are doing close to the same speed that the
problem arises.

We fix it. Is them being too dangerous to drive a problem?
Definitely. Why should an innocent die so they can drive?

Whose wuality of life is more important? The answer is, of course,
both of them are equally important. You claim one of them is.

The problem is the system. The difficulty I see is that the person
who endangers another is the one you wish to advantage.

I don't see any easy answers, but exonerating them from blame isn't
one.

Zebee

 

Agreed wholeheartedly. Motorcyclists DO need to be very proactive about
their own safety. As Zebee (I think) pointed out in a thread many years
ago, very rarely does one party hold 100% responsibility for an
incident.

What! You want people to work TOGETHER in HARMONY with RESPECT for each
other? Bah! Humbug! It'll never happen.

I would question whether they CAN perform the task. After all, the task
is to (safely) operate a vehicle, not simply to be able to put their
foot on an accelerator and turn a steering wheel.

You're right. I'd argue.

---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
Before an accident, most city drivers say "****!", whereas most country drivers
say "Hang on to this stubby, mate, while I show you some awesome driving"
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

Well assuming they are driving properly and checking thier mirrors and
indicating then the problem comes down to "the only motorcycles in danger
are those that are riding in the blind spots".

So how do you propose telling when a driver is no longer safe to drive due
to medical conditions?

Fair enough, I wouldn't object to that. Lots of people would however they
don't want more money alocated to public transport... not sure how one
changes that.

No I'm saying that the other earlier poster who flat out stated "they give
up thier licence" is saying the bike riders quality of life is more
important.

If improved public transport removes people from the road and creates a
safer road environment how isn't that advantaging both parties? One is
safer and the other still has transport.

I'm _not_ exonerating them from blame.

I'm saying there can be (not always, but sometimes) 'extenuating
circumstances', that can equate to diminsished responsibility _not_ zero
responsibility.

Not the same thing at all.


G-S

 

Hey! If a person is not capable of SAFELY piloting their vehicle, then
they revoke their 'right' to a licence. I don't believe that THAT even
IMPLIES that one's quality of life is more important than another's.

Funnily enough, after I'd finished my previous post, I sat down to read
the RACQ magazine "The Road Ahead". The last two paragraphs on the
editorial seemed quite appropriate to the discussion:

"Unfortunately, our roads are over-flowing with bad drivers, careless
drivers and 'couldn't care less' drivers who have the capacity to turn
their vehicles into 1.5 tonnes of metal weaponry at the blink of an
eye."

"The only way we'll all stay alive is if every individual road user does
the right thing."

Sometimes, that 'right' thing can be as simple as recognising when you
are not capable of safely being in charge of a motor vehicle.


---
Cheers

PeterC [aka MildThing]
Before an accident, most city drivers say "****!", whereas most country drivers
say "Hang on to this stubby, mate, while I show you some awesome driving"
'81 Yamaha Virago (XV) 750H (work in progress)
'01 Yamaha FJR1300

www.dmcsc.org.au
http://eladesom.com.au/ulysses/
# 37181

 

Yes but if they are driving or riding thier vehicle correctly, using
indicators etc etc but can't see in a blind spot (whether that is due to the
design of the vehicle or not) then they _are_ operating the vehicle safely.

And to take away someones licence when they are operating the vehicle safely
is not only an implied attack, but an actual attack on the mobility
impaired's quality of life.

I repeat (since it seem you didn't read that part the first time).

If a rider is travelling in the area that the VicRoads riders handbook shows
as 'blind spot' then that rider isn't riding safely.

This is true, but is totally irrelevant to the point we are discussing... we
are talking about responsible, safe drivers who for one reason or another
are driving vehicles which have a blind spot (or spots) and what riders
should do (or not do) to improve thier safety.

That is of course true, but sometimes that 'right' thing is realising that
riding in the areas _clearly shown_ in the rider training handbook (the de
facto authority on these sorts of matters) is _BAD_ riding.

And if a driver diverges after checking thier mirrors and looking to the
side (not behind them because often that isn't possible) and indicates
correctly then hits a bike travelling in the blind spot then the majority of
the responsibility for that accident lies with the rider.


G-S