The road toll is our fault

Nothing obviously; he's past!
That's why bike try and travel quicker; so they spend less time around
slow-witted car-drivers who aren't paying attention.[/QUOTE]

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 29 Jan 2006 09:42:27 GMT

If they've passed you, nothing.

If you change direction not having head checked immediately before -
not 15 secs before and not mirror only - then you might find you have
hurt someone by your carelessness.

Zebee

 

No bad driving will always occur, I've done it at times, and even you I
suspect have been guilty of it, tell us you never have had a near miss and
never will where an extra 20kph would not make things worse, and I'll
concurr that you are indeed a good driver and deserve the right to drive
everywhere 20kph faster than the average population.

You oviously have missed drink driving, look out there's children about, red
light's, seat belts etc. The billboard over the deagon deviation had "Are
you indicating before changing lanes?" on it yesterday.

No, you obviously haven't seen what some idiots are capable of being idiots
and speeding.
Making cars drive faster overnight will just make them all crash faster.

There could indeed be more emphasis, but I hardly see any proof with current
driving standards that the limits should could be raised or that raising
them is going to smarten them up and stop them falling asleep at the wheel
either.

 

Speaking as a bike rider I would suspect that they had more than just
the slight positive speed differential to traffic that most bike riders
like to maintain for safety reasons... and they are putting themselves
at extra risk.

What happens? That depends... probably nothing... just maybe something bad.


G-S

 

Obviously it doesn't

That's why the fatigue studies need to look into it and have a go at
determining what the spread is...

That is also possible. But without studies it's hard to be definitive
one way or the other.

 

You indicate you intention, check mirrors and it's clear, start changing
lanes and look again as you change to see a bike go WHAM into you whilst
lanesplitting.

They can't even see your indicators untill they are comitted to passing you
anyway.

Fact is if you go around not behaving like normal traffic, you can expect
people not expecting you to doing so. Might as well use the same excuse for
riding at night with your lights off. Blame them all you like but it's you
that get hurt in the end, car doors are repairable, $50,000 isn't going to
make that limp for the next 5 years ok after you can walk again.

We're not worried about our health it's yours, we don't drive around wishing
for bike riders to plaster themselves against cars because it's not going to
hurt us.

 

Exactly, 99.9% of the time nothing happens, but if it does, who exactly is
taking the risks for an extra 5 minute sleep in?

 

Obviously it is preferable not to crash at all... but that isn't always
possible... even with the best driver sometimes outside factors can
cause crashes.

My father (as one example) crashed hi 280E Benz when lightning hit a gum
tree on the edge of the corner he was just about to go around.

It is believed (by what he told the ambos) that the flash temporarily
blinded hime.

A good friend of mine was recently killed when a car came the wrong way
down an exit ramp.

Sometimes factors outside ones control intrude :-/

I'd rather be in a car with good crash performance at 120, but in an
accident at the lower speed! But it's a matter of juggling the odds...
which is better? An increased chance of a lesser impact or a lesser
chance of a greater impact?

 

And if they have been done and come up with the current limits? Maybe Govco
have factored some safety margin, but you probably would too if you were
running the show.

 

I don't drive it 'once a year' and yes I'd do it.

Sure... I'm a great fan of variable speed limits... although many are
not. I'm not suggesting a blanket increase by any means, it seems
sensible to me that roads that aren't safe at 100k should have a lower
limit and roads that are safer at higher speeds should have a higher
limit in a similar manner to that which we treat city and suburban roads.

Agreed. So how about they drop the alcohol limit to 0.00% and leave the
speed limit at 100? I could live with that *grin*

Does 'we' include those who do not as well as those who do?


G-S

 

And could have just as eaily had the tree land infront of or on the car too,
we wouldn't like that to occur at a "psuedo-safer" 20kph faster.

Very true, sometimes we ourselves stuff up, despite what I thought when I
was 25, I know I still have a lot to learn.
We are human, and make mistakes and when robots drive for us to avoid
mistakes happening we will feel so comfortable as they rocket us down the
road avoiding each other at 200kph.

 

I couldn't I'm afraid, occassionally I like to relax have 3 beers in an
hour, empty stomach works great, get half tanked & relaxed, chow on some
good food with the last beer, change to soft drink or water then be right to
drive home after 3 hours. Other wise I might have to wait 24hours to drive,
fine if you rarely or don't drink.

Yes unfortunately, unless all the bad kids will self discipline.

 

Because the limit is rarely the problem. If your kneejerk reaction is to
always blame the speed limit then you are blind to 100% (in my experience)
of the real causes of crashes.

 

Firstly, where did I suggest to raise the speed limits? Secondly, how
are hospital emergency staff qualified to judge what their workload
would be if the limits were increased? Are they experts in crash scene
investigation? All they see is the result of a crash, not the cause.

It seems you missed my point entirely. The govt focuses on reducing
fatalities. They should be trying to stop people from crashing at all.
Period. Fatalities will automatically reduce if they can do that. I
would hazard a guess that fatalities cost the community less than non
fatal crashes (though obviously the cost is not measurable to those
close to the people who die).

There is an ad that Qld Transport run that really, really pisses me
off. Father takes his son for a drive to refill a gas bottle. He is
doing 10kmh over the limit, changes lanes as a car in front hits the
brakes. He hits the car, then swerves onto the footpath and takes out
a woman pushing a pram. This ad hits all the right nerves, but what
pisses me off is that speed didn't cause the crash. The guy was
tailgating before he changed lanes, squeezed through a gap that he
shouldn't have, and put himself in a position where there was no way
he could avoid hitting the car in front when it hit the brakes. The ad
says that if he was doing the limit, he wouldn't have hit the car, but
any half decent driver wouldn't have put him/herself in that position,
regardless of the speed. They clearly endorse all the things he did
wrong, like tailgating and changing lanes dangerously, but focus on
the speed aspect.

 

So the only way you can argue is to make up stupid absurdist rubbish and
then mount a fake argumant against that is it?

 

No offense, but I think I'd rather take advice from someone who has a
clue about riding bikes in traffic. You, by your own admission, do
not.

You also ignore the fact that no one in aus.moto has suggested that
weaving at 60kmh through traffic that is doing 30kmh is a good idea.
That idea was brought to this thread by you (in a different post to
what I quoted above, obviously...). That behaviour is not
representative of all riders.

 

Valid, but probably not very common, example. If a bike hits a car in
those circumstances, the rider was obviously going way to quick. Since
you don't ride on the road, and don't lanesplit, you won't have ever
noticed that the vast majority of lanesplitting riders LOOK for
indications of a lane change. I'm not just talking about the flashing
indicator. I can usually tell someone is going to change lanes long
before I see the indicator flashing, as can most of the riders I see
lanesplitting.

Dunno why you think lanesplitting is so dangerous, the stats don't
support it. Note that I'm talking about lanesplitting stationary, or
slow moving, traffic....

 

Are they qualified to comment on the effect of higher velocities on victims,
I'd say so.
Ok then if you don't want to raise/remove speed limits fine, others here do.

 

You too obviously then.

 

It's attitudes like yours that give many people not even on the road the
sh*ts.
LEARN TO FUCKEN BE SEEABLE & PREDICTABLE!

Seeing this is your prefered level of conversation.