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

By definition, regardless of who is in the blind spot, they are in danger.

Regular check ups. Draw a line in the sand and stick to it. Much like
they have currently. I look forward to the some of the current ideas that
are being kicked about, put into practice. How about you?

Yes. It is a privilege, not a right. You beg to differ?

What? Light rail?

Hammo

 

I agree, you should take it into account.

My point is that a motor bike can travel in the blind spot (not just move
through it), and you might not be aware they are there (if they approach
from that angle) and that is bad riding.


G-S

 

Of course, but we were discussing motorbikes.

There is a system in place for pilots but some pilots (particuarly private
ones), argue it is too strictly interpreted. Pilots are required to be
tested by specific doctors because the aviation industry found GP's relucant
to enforce the regulations.

There are testing guidlines for bus drivers but the local GP can do the
tests. They are much less strict (in the interpretation of the testing).

Perhaps what is needed is a testing regime for medical fitness to hold a
licence but I strongly suspect it would need to be restricted to a limited
number of doctors or it wouldn't work effectivly, and if it was there
wouldn't be enough doctors to do the tests.

I expect rather that the current situation will continue...

Driving is a priviledge but reasonable quality of life and access to medical
and support services is a right. Without adequate (or any in many areas)
public transport access to medical and support services without a car is
often not possible.

Rail, Light Rail, Buses, subsidised maxi taxis all can play a part. It
depends upon the population dessity in the area.

At the moment rail and light rail don't suit many mobility impaired as they
can't get to the stops or stations, this requires an increase in feeder bus
services or dial a bus or maxi taxi acces. In addition many trains, trams
and buses still are not low floor which further reduces access.



G-S

 

Sorry, Geoff, but I'm with GB and Zebee on this one. If you chose to
drive a vehicle with blindspots (or have medical conditions or
whatever), you have an iron bound obligation to not drive into those
spots without first acertaining that you aren't about to run me over. If
that means you need to get out of your vehicle and check, then thats
your bad luck - don't like it? Fix your vision problems.

big

 

Yeah, which brings us back to the argument some of us had with Shane in
this very thread last week. If _I_ was that motorcycle rider riding
along in your blind spot, I'd be kicking myself for being stupid enough
to LET YOU **** UP AND DRIVE INTO ME! It'd still be _your_ fault.

big

 

That isn't the current legal situation, it is not even close to that clear
cut.
You can wish it was differenat all you like but it won't change the current
interpretation of the law.

Now you're just being silly bigi (and you're debating skills are way better
than that).

It isn't always vision problems causing blind spots, it isn't always
mobility problems, it isn't always vehicle design.

The cause varies and there are a whole range of causes and resulting blind
spots.


G-S

[1] I had Lasic already ta muchly

 

In certain shapes of vehicle not all of that area is covered by the mirrors
though.


G-S

 

Urrgh, how can you drink that ? It smells like a cat peed in it.

JL

 

Ahh yes but how about they adapt their behaviour as well. One of the
issues of lack of public transport is the huge waves of retirees heading
for the coastal villages and towns nearby and then complaining there's
no transport. There's a bit of catch 22 there.

I have more sympathy for those who have lived in their little country
town all their lives and now have this problem, but realistically they
number in at absolute most the single digit thousands. Realistically
these people aren't the problem, the vast majority of the SMDISY's are
happening in the city, not in little country towns. Even in the worst
serviced of the newer suburbs (which rarely have old people, they're
almost always poorer young couples and single parents) there is usually
some sort of public transport in city suburbs

JL

 

I would question that, polls in NSW newspapers show that at state and
federal level the majority of the population sample polled (60+%) claim
to want more expenditure on public services and were willing to not get
a tax cut to do so. Shouldn't be too hard to find on the SMH website if
you want to dig (I certainly can't be arsed, I'm supposed to be working
at the moment).

...snip

No, you're suggesting they should keep their licence to the detriment of
the innocents they mow down, because the govt. is unlikely to improve
public transport.

JL

 

Fair enough, those statistics don't align with what the BAV found in
Victoria in thier surveys though.

I concede that a state based difference may exist. Melbourne has
somewhat better roads than Sydney so the angst about travelling via them
and wanting to use public transport as an alternative is probably lower.

I have _never_ stated that, and if you belive I have 'suggested' it then you
have mistunderstood my posts (nice flaming red herring though

What I said (to summarise) was that they would be reluctant to
voluntarily give up thier licences when they have no adequate
alternatives, and that providing such alternatives is the best way to
encourage them to do so.

I also said that forcing them to do so without providing such
alternatives is reducing thier quality of life. That in and of itself
stands alone as a comment and doesn't state or imply a viewpoint about
other problems (such as bikers being involved in accidents).

The issues need to be broken down into seperate problems and fixed as
seperate problems because they _are_ seperate problems.

Nor is the blind spot issue the same as the older driver issue (although
they do overlap in some cases). Blind spots exist on many vehicles for
a variety of reasons other than the drivers age or and disability as I
have pointed out in other posts.

You still haven't addressed why you think that a win win solution like
improving public transport, giving older drivers an alternative and
getting them off the roads is a bad thing!


G-S

 

So provide public transport in those coastal villages... simple.

There are many smaller towns in victoria where inovative public
transport solutions for low density rural living are being implemented.

It doesn't have to imply 20 minute frequency 365 days a year or hyge
costs either.

I have figures that show that in this shire and the surrounding shires
and rural city the problem is in the area of 40,000 (out of a total
population of 200,000) who are seriously transport disadvantaged.

I wasn't just talking about little country towns.

And there are _many_ suburbs in and around the outskirts of Melbourne
with non existent public transport (normally with a we'll put a bus in
when we have funding in the works.). That can take up to 15 years!


G-S

 

I hope it wasn't lasix! Might explain a few things though!

Hammo

 

That's why I didn't waste time attacking his argument and just went for the
personal attack instead.

 

What the hell did you do the cat?

Hammo

 

No there are few compared to the total number of accidents when expressed as
a %.

Those constitute a smallish % of total accidents and significantly less than
shared liability accidents.

But in some of those accidents excissive speed or lack of visibility means
that 100% liability doesn't exist.

If your approach to logic means that you have to have a black and white
answer for everything then you are going to always struggle when you deal
with these sorts of issues.


G-S

 

I never claimed it did


G-S

 

<whistles innocently while staring skywards and rotating a fur cap in
his hands>

Why nothing, nothing at all, why do you ask ?

JL

 

....and a carton on the tank!

 

I've actually heard that very thing called "contributory
negligence".... doesn't sound very fair though

betty