The full article gives a fair balance but as always the crackpot idea gets the first, most prominent, run. Oh, yes, it’s the SMH, again. And it’s the “Drive” section, so we can pretty much expect this sort of self-serving pro-motoring fluff. In summary the idea is that newer cars are inherently safer, more competent at speed and in braking performance and more protective if it all goes pear-shaped. Can’t argue too much against the idea that newer cars are “better” – but it’s an old argument: I can remember owners of better-handling, higher-performance European cars saying much the same 30 years ago. And it’s a variant on the “better drivers should be allowed to go faster” idea, too. And – ironically – “better” drivers would immediately see the problem: safety is about a combination of driver skill and attention, machine and road design and consistency (or regulation) in road behaviour. It’s not just about the car.
Speed limits are set according to road conditions, including local, surrounding features that are likely to introduce driver “challenges”, and common or “mean” levels of expectation about balancing the wants and needs of all road users. After all it’s not about pleasing just one segment of road user.
What you especially don’t want (but get anyway) is an inconsistent mix of speeds on our public roads. We already have trucks at a capped speed that sometimes is less than the posted absolute limit, but generally we recognise that and they fit in OK. We have slower vehicles, too, like caravans and cars towing trailers, or simply lower-powered or over-weight vehicles, but again we cope. And we have pedestrians and cyclists, pedal or motor-powered, doing whatever they are capable off. That seems like a lot of inconsistency already, so why add another layer? Why would we want some cars, hopefully identified in some obvious way, allowed to go faster? So that they can get to where they are going in less time, of course. But at what cost?
Consistency is an aid to safety and smooths traffic flow. It allows us to more easily predict approach speeds and plan our driving manoeuvers in advance with some reliability. As in lane changing and overtaking, or in entering or crossing the path of traffic. As drivers we learn to read both the real speed and position of approaching vehicles as well as rely on speed limits to set our general expectations. We don’t expect to see motor vehicles travelling well under or in excess of the posted limit and we find it a surprise when they do. That’s just the sort of nasty surprise we don’t want when pulling out of a side street or changing lanes. Of course people “speed” anyway and create those nasty surprises – but why should we want to legitimise speeding of any sort? What safety benefit is there in allowing some cars to go faster and thus introduce yet more complexity and difficulty into our driving environment?
Think about it. The speed inconsistencies or variations we have now are clearly linked with size, shape and ability. Trucks are physically obvious enough, surely. Caravans, trailers and bike riders are clearly different and obvious to the diligent driver as well. But to distinguish levels of car and thus speed by “newness” is a level of difficulty we really wouldn’t want. It wouldn’t be enough to slap a sticker on the car, we’d have to give it a flashing light as well. And in the most part all it would do is allow these “legally speeding” cars to get ahead of others and catch up to – or cause – the traffic jam up ahead. It’s a whacky, crazy idea. And inherently unsafe, if you actually care to think about it.
Should newer cars have higher speed limits? | Two-way street
So, why does a 1970s Kombi get to do the same speed on our highways as a BMW 7-Series that is engineered to safely cruise along at 200km/h without breaking a sweat?
It’s about consistency, stoopid.
Should newer cars have higher speed limits? | Two-way street
Turning the focus on drivers allows bureaucrats to justify picking the pockets of road users every time they creep a couple of kilometres an hour over the limit.
Lots of people believe that but it’s also an easy way to ignore real safety concerns and just run with your own self-interest.
Thankfully the SMH ends this pice of fluff with some thoughtfulness:
Should newer cars have higher speed limits? | Two-way street
A modern car fitted with every hazard-reducing bell and whistle can be driven by an absolute twit. You say the owners of older cars should have their speed limits restricted? I say bad driving should be monitored, and penalised, more efficiently.
Bravo!
Having ridden close to 300,000km in my lifetime I’ve just about seen everything imaginable, from fiesty kangaroos bent on destroying a peleton to looney drivers determined to rid the road of riders at all costs. As well as, in the majority, careful citizens just getting along. But this Shane Warne whinge is a rare one indeed – complete with tweeting and counter claims, all in the public eye. And the truth? Who knows. If it wasn’t Warnie it’d be just another day in the bike rider’s office, dodging cars, trucks and buses and keeping as alert as possible.
Warniegate! The cyclist’s side | Cycling Tips
At this point a pedestrian witnesses were yelling, “Get his rego” and some even yelled out his registration. One woman approached me offering assistance and asked, “Are you OK? Are you going to follow it up? I have the rego ” as she held her phone. I thanked her told her it wouldn’t be necessary – partially because I was in shock but also because I hadn’t yet realised the extent of the damage to my bike and I knew who the driver was anyway.
My girlfriend who had witnessed the whole thing from the adjacent corner now came over to ask if I was OK and what happened. “Shane Warne just ran into me with his car” I replied.
Shane Warne vs. cyclists: registration and number plates — David Johnstone
Shane Warne has managed to get himself embroiled in controversy again. This time it’s with cyclists. Firstly he wrote a series of tweets last week where he called for cyclists to ride in single file, show number plates, and pay registration. Unsurprisingly there were a lot of responses, some of which he retweeted. The classiest of them wasn’t from the wife of a certain famous Australian cricketer suggesting that he “just throw a cricket ball at them if they really annoy u”.
Cyclist hits back at Warne Today’s News – The Mercury – The Voice of Tasmania
The man alleged Warne “lurched his car forward forcing my bike wheel and almost my leg under the front of his car”.
He said following the incident he immediately went to the nearest police station to make a report.
Police have confirmed the man did take his bike to a station and said officers spoke to both parties.
It is believed police advised both parties to take civil action.
A police spokeswoman said due to the minor nature of the event a traffic incident report would not be submitted.
Cyclist hits back at Warne Today’s News – The Mercury – The Voice of Tasmania
Six-time ironman champion Luke McKenzie accused the cricketer of inciting hatred towards cyclists.
Amy Gillett Foundation spokesman David Lee said it was disappointing Warne was using his profile to inflame cyclist-driver tensions.
“Each road-user group has a requirement to respect the rights of the other, and inflaming the situation, whether you are a cyclist or a driver, doesn’t help,” he said.
Bicycle Network Victoria spokesman Jason den Hollander said Warne should be aware of the road rules and obey them, just like other road users.
Why bother with a report when you are going to pander only to those who have expressed their (apparently baseless) opinion anyway? Well to this state government it’s presumably about votes, not safety. They have already turned off speed cameras, even though a report said they were working as a deterrent. (And yes, some were working better than others, but why cull so many?)
And in this latest case NSW has the best and fairest system yet they want to make changes anyway; presumably to win over those who “complained”.
What I really like – or loathe, really – is a minister excusing their poor judgement by saying that “we want to ensure motorists can focus on the road“. Right! So road signs – designed to advise an appropriate speed for those who lack such judgement and powers of observation for themselves – are not part of the road. As drivers we shouldn’t be looking at signs, we should be focused on the road ahead, instead. So presumably whatever signs are left after this should be ignored on safety grounds. Yeah, right. But that’s the logical conclusion to this!
And as for pedestrians or cyclists, well they only become of interest when they are on the road itself and what they may be doing on the verge – or what they may do next – is irrelevant. Apparently. What a thinker this minister is!
Don’t believe me? Read the SMH report:
Speed zone split fairest in country, says report
THE NSW government should retain 70km/h and 90km/h speed zones and there is no justification motorists have a more confusing speed system than other states, a report reveals.
A report for Transport NSW by consultancy group ARRB has concluded ”70km/h and 90km/h speed limits should be retained as viable speed limit options for use on the NSW road network”.
So what does the state government want to do?
Speed zone split fairest in country, says report
But, despite the findings of his own report, the Roads Minister, Duncan Gay, confirmed last week that a review of NSW speed zoning guidelines had determined that 70km/h and 90km/h zones would be ”restricted”.
”Motorists have complained there are too many confusing speed signs and we have listened to their concerns,” he said. ”We want to ensure motorists can focus on the road when driving instead of constantly looking at changing speed signs.”
Bizarre. So let’s spend money fixing a problem that doesn’t exist. No surprise really.
You’d think there was a contradiction here… the auditor finds that overall speed cameras work yet the bottom 38 – the least effective and possibly “most hated” – are to be switched off “immediately”. Hmmm. Sounds odd. So they do work but we’ll switch ‘em off anyway ’cause we made a populist promise before the election. So much for good government and fact-based analysis I guess. Let alone bothering with an “audit”.
At least the old line that they are a “cash cow” can be put to rest – but I imagine those who get pinged by a camera from here on in will still reject their part in their own downfall.
I note also that a whole bunch of cameras will be turned off up here on the Central Coast. The Bateau Bay camera has few friends and there is indeed a case to be made to turn it and many others off (basically because people – often schoolkids – don’t usually cross just there and it could be better sited instead). But what about Woy Woy Road? At Kariong? Do they mean the camera just before that downhill plunge along the ridge? Is there another one, further up the road? Go and check it out, anyway. If it’s the one I’m thinking of then dear oh dear… let’s see how long before a speeder misreads the tight right-hander after that long straight and… well you can imagine who will be cleaning up the minister’s mess. (Not the minister, obviously.)
Even when poorly sited these cameras make a difference. The one on Manns Road at West Gosford slows the traffic, allowing people turning right out of side streets an even break. If you have ever tried to go right just there you’ll know that it matters. Otherwise you’ll get the odd nutter going 80+ and the careless just hurtling along, oblivious to others.
Of course you could site them better. Of course it’s populist. Of course it’ll be a vote winner. That’s what matters, surely?
Speed cameras: minister orders 38 to be switched off
NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay has ordered that 38 speed cameras across the state be switched off immediately after an audit found that they were not improving road safety.
Mr Gay instructed the Roads and Traffic Authority to turn off the cameras after receiving a report from the state’s Auditor-General, Peter Achterstraat, this morning that identified the most hated cameras in NSW.
Mr Achterstraat’s report found that “overall, speed cameras change driver behaviour and improve road safety” and concluded there was no evidence that they were simply cash cows for the government.
Expect the unexpected, especially at 2AM.
It’s horrific, avoidable, awful. I’ve ridden after midnight and it can be the weirdest, most beautiful time to ride. With empty streets a bike rider can almost ‘own the road’ – and cars can easily be heard coming, too. It can be unnerving though and I was always hyper-aware and alert forhalf-awake drivers. This bunch – unfortunately stopped – must have realised too late that the driver wasn’t looking ahead. She was just coming, irrespective. I won’t prejudge what’s happened but do hope that the primary cause is pinned squarely on a failure to observe the road and its obstacles, irrespective of what the riders were doing (which seems to have been half on sidewalk, half on road – at 2AM I can imagine this happening). It’s a sad and probably contributing factor that the riders were not mobile (ie they should all have gotten off the road if they were just waiting) but I don’t get the impression that a moving bunch would have been somehow more visible or avoidable. That the driver was suspected as DUI and using her mobile as well as not looking at the road seems a catastrophic combination at any time of day or night. Hope there are some speedy recoveries from this accident. Take care.
Driver slams into group of bicyclists, injures 11 | abc7.com
BALDWIN VILLAGE, LOS ANGELES (KABC) — A suspected drunken driver was taken into custody after plowing into a large group of bicyclists in Baldwin Village early Thursday morning. Nearly a dozen people were hurt.
“It was as simple as a bowling ball knocking out a few pins,” said witness Fred Armstead. “There was no attempt to stop. So she just went one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and just kept going.”
Authorities said the female driver, 27-year-old Christine Dahab, told police she was looking down at her phone when she crashed into the bike riders on the 5900 block of West Jefferson Place just before 2 a.m.
The bicyclists, organized by Midnight Ridazz, ride together regularly and were on a routine ride. The group of bicyclists was waiting for friends below the Baldwin Hills scenic overlook at the time of the accident.
I’m not so sure about the business case for intercity high speed rail. My heart says “yes” but my head says “whoa”. For example I’d like to see a fast train service from Sydney to Newcastle via Gosford – that route just about looks do-able and makes sense on several fronts, even allowing for the inevitably massive on-going subsidy. Plus I’d probably use it. But adding on Canberra, later? Hmm, not so likely. Melbourne? Well I can smell a white elephant in the room somewhere I’m afraid.
The positives sound good indeed. Rail is fast yet greener than even faster, higher-flying airline operations that drop their particulates and condensates at high altitudes, doing bad things (and maybe some good things, it depends) to our atmosphere. One imagines that greener must be cheaper, too, but maybe not for a while given construction costs. And fast new trains are obviously better than slow old trains, so clinging to 19th century infrastructure and ideas just looks old fashioned and silly. We don’t want to look silly and old fashioned, do we?
OTOH fast new trains need a whole new track. A straighter, flatter track, too. Yes, they have more momentum and can climb really well but we are doing this to save energy, not prove ourselves masters of our planet, so the less climbing the better. Which means a sensibly straighter new rail line – or 2, really, as we’d surely double track it – plus new stations and maintenance yards and sidings and whatnot is on the menu. Lots of construction work to drive-up the cost of labour, too. And fast things are noisy, even if they are ‘only’ trains, so noise amelioration will mean sub-optimal deviations and noise containment, massive tunnels and a decent amount of reservation either side. For the whole distance.
That’s a lot of land resumption just to go “green”. We may even have to use national parks, or go under them. And wildlife will need plenty of concrete tunnels through which to pass under the fast rail. If you imagined a 150m wide strip of land from Sydney to Melbourne taken over for green infrastructure you wouldn’t be too far off the mark. It may be narrower in one place and wider in another. It may be a tunnel from (say) Liverpool to Sydney’s Central Station and something similar in Melbourne.
Remember, this is just so we can still go fast (for that’s the point, right?) yet feel a bit better about it ’cause it’s “greener” than flying.
It’ll still need electricity, of course (from coal-burning power stations or maybe – just maybe – huge solar arrays) and maintenance crews and all the rest. Plus lots and lots of really green and lovely (not) concrete and steel. Yet it remains somehow a no-brainer “green” project, at least in certain media eyes. Personally I mildly (not wildly) support it as a national project that potentially offers a long-term alternative to air travel in a changing world, but I think the downsides should be thoroughly explored and understood. For instance I’m uncertain that people would actually use it unless it was highly subsidised – and I don’t think that it’s as green as it could be (that may not surprise you if you’ve read this far). Simply going slower would be greener.
What if we revamped existing rail lines, starting with those high-usage commuter routes? Would that make more bang-for-buck sense? Why obsess about the big picture and looking good when what is under our noses hardly smells of roses.
Yet other people leap at the idea, as I suppose I did once as well, 20 or so years ago. Indeed I’d still love to see it in a way; but I doubt I’d use it. I may have used it 20 years ago, and maybe if I had a pressing need to go to Melbourne (which I currently don’t) I’d consider it in the future. Especially so if petrol prices soar – as they will. So there’s some demand in the future, sure, if it is priced – read subsidised – right. Otherwise airlines will just win, again and again. Faster, cheaper, less infrastructure needed. Or why not just use the even-faster NBN-provided internet and stay at home? Surely virtual travel is even greener.
With all of that in mind, this piece on the US right-wing knocking back “green funding” on ideological grounds only is probably more truth than fiction. But there may be big, bad business cases out there that we just don’t see… until we look!
Letter from America: The choo-choo blues – Ethical Corporation
Other than unions, possibly the biggest black mark against rail travel here – if you have a Republican world view – is its greenness. Politicians influenced by the Tea Party like to bundle rail subsidy with action on climate change, renewable energy support and the introduction of electric cars. Their ideological reasoning is that rail will increase the deficit or lead to higher taxes.
That this is also true for roads, bridges, ports and huge government subsidies to the oil and agriculture industries, is something they conveniently ignore.
What is so sad about the dominant anti-green political mood is how it is aiding and abetting this great country’s technological decline. If I were a conspiracy theorist I’d say that China is funding the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives who now sing the dominant political tune in Washington.
To read the comments after Elizabeth Farrelly’s piece in today’s SMH (or the National Times if you prefer) is to only confirm what she is saying: that the process of modern democracy lends itself to short-sighted popularity contests rather good long-term decision making. This is not news of course but you’d imagine it was from the rabid commentary. Indeed I would suggest that most people don’t think analytically about the bigger issues that confront us as a society, rather they engage emotionally in a knee-jerk reaction to “protect their patch”. Often the more “enraged” commentators miss the point completely and simply regurgitate the last thing they heard from Tony Abbott or Joe Hockey. Or Barnaby Joyce, perhaps. (Actually just the other day on ABC radio Senator Joyce repeated his assertion that a politician’s job is to reflect the opinions of the electors. Which doesn’t leave much room for being analytical or even logical in your decision making, does it? As long as you are popular you are doing a good job. So much for leadership.
Democracy Is Blocking Intelligence
Everything is dose related. Whether it’s arsenic in your diet or radioactivity in the sea, small amounts now and then are OK, even beneficial, but large amounts, repeatedly, are bad and even terminal. It’s the same with almost everything else – cars, houses, chocolate, holidays, even happiness.
For one person to live in an acre of grass and trees is perfectly harmless, even lovable. But for the numberless hordes to do it means an end to wilderness, clean air and polar bears.
Democracy Is Blocking Intelligence
Democracy is very close to our hearts. So close that we go to war in order to impose it on those too weak or benighted to grab it for themselves. But democracy, the tyranny of the majority, may yet prove an own goal for humanity, mainly because of the weird trick it does with scale; allowing us all to pursue our own happiness as if we were the only ones on the planet. Allowing us to act like a vast family of solipsistic only children, steadfastly voting for lower taxes and higher services.
I support the Pedestrian Council, I really do. I admire Mr Scruby. I even – kinda – like Mike Tomalaris. But I don’t think it’s as simple as saying that since fewer NSW cyclists are infringing that the police have “backed off” because they are “scared” of the all-powerful “bike lobby”. Far from it. We could investigate further if we wanted, but just throwing anecdotes around doesn’t help us identify the problem – if there is one. So is there a problem?
Long ago I can remember Gary Sutton getting pinged for speeding on his bike – in an 80-zone from memory – but that doesn’t tell us that bike riders are speeding all over NSW right now, or that they did it more frequently in the late ’70s. Few bike riders can break the speed limits – even the lowest - but all of us can take the bell off or forget our helmet (well I wouldn’t but some obviously do) and get included in the stats.
Anecdotes can help us understand that bikes and riders are different from cars and drivers in so many ways – and that they have to be understood in their own contexts. Granted, where it gets messy – and dangerously so – is when each mode of transport mixes with the others. But fining to ‘enforce’ compliance may not actually work, if it doesn’t address root cause.
It’s not as simple as a pedestrian advocate decrying the falling rate of cyclist infringements – and drawing conclusions way beyond the scope of the stats presented. We can’t flick an “infringement switch” and expect to see the problem – if there is one – go away.
Agreed, we don’t want infringing cyclists to be ignored by the police but we should also recognise that groups like the NRMA or the Pedestrian Council have an axe to grind. They don’t need – or deserve – more media attention than the so-called “powerful cycling lobby”, especially when that publicity is at the expense of cyclists of all ages and abilities and taps into a festering resentment of two-wheeled human-propelled traffic.
We should be careful when we “somewhat agree” with groups that offer instant “analysis” tied to their attempt to leverage media attention for their “cause”. We don’t really know from what has been released why cyclists in NSW are seemingly less infringing, only that the absolute number has fallen. It could simply be that police are prioritising some laws over others – perhaps chasing fewer non-helmeted riders and looking out instead for more red-runners. If 74% of infringements are helmet-related it doesn’t take much de-emphasis on a personal-safety law like helmet-wearing to see a swift overall decline in absolute numbers. It may be that the higher numbers were an outlier, an aberration and we are settling back into more realistic yearly statistics. We just don’t know.
And anecdotal evidence of red-running by cyclists is no more or less compelling than anecdotal evidence of jaywalking by pedestrians or speeding by motorists. We know it happens – sure – but what is the actual non-compliance rate by each discrete sub-group, by trip and by mileage covered? What is the actual safety impact by accident rate? And what is the root cause? Sheer bloody-mindedness? Frustration at the delay when agile bikes are stopped by over-sized cars? Despair when once again forced to sprint like crazy from a standstill to maintain momentum – and a safer gap – in a car-dominated world?
We shouldn’t neglect the need for the police to target what really matters first and prioritise the remainder in a sensible, sustainable and managed way. Declining absolute infringement numbers tell us nothing more and simply raises scope for further, deeper analysis. We shouldn’t draw any more conclusion than that.
It may also be worth noting that perhaps non-ferrous bikes are still not being detected at traffic lights, raising the “apparent” incidence of red-running by bikers over “normal” non-compliance. Pedestrians and motor-vehicle drivers have no such excuse – yet they still do it, anecdotally and in raw infringement numbers. Why, and what is Mr Scruby doing about that?
SBS: Cycling Central : Sydney’s easy riders
A report in the Sydney Morning Herald on December 9 with the attached headline “Cyclists getting an easy ride” had me thinking.
At first glance, I assumed it was another token opinionated attack on bike riders who choose to use two wheels as a form of transport or recreation, rather than get behind the wheel of their car.
It suggested cyclists are a law onto themselves when it comes to obeying general rules of the road.
The report claims an overwhelming majority of of riders have been issued for offences such as not wearing a helmet, riding on footpaths and running red lights.
Fine For Riding Without Helmet, Light / Running Red Light In NSW
The documents obtained by the Pedestrian Council under freedom of information laws also show that in the past five years there have been no fines issued for most bicycle-related offences.
These include not stopping at a school crossing, approaching crossings too quickly to stop, not using the cycleway on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and riding more than two abreast on the road.
The chairman of the council, Harold Scruby, said it appeared the government was going soft on cyclists.
”The government is turning a blind eye because they are scared of the powerful bike lobby,” Mr Scruby said.
Surveys rarely tell us anything other than what the survey was designed to show. Often the questions asked are loaded, they offer only those choices that lead you one way or the other according to the surveyor’s bias. So it’s no surprise that they “find” what they want to find. With such poorly designed or outright biased data it’s often nigh on impossible to make any sense of the data, let alone draw any valid conclusions. I suspect we have another one here. Oh, and here as well.
You’ll notice that there are always vested interests at work in these media-savvy releases. The old media behind carguide.com.au want you to read on and click some links, if not outright buy their tacky work – so they write what they think will “sell”. And what they write is fed to them in the form of press releases announcing the results of “surveys” by car makers and insurance companies keen to drum up mindspace and, yes, sales. And the findings are always “shocking” or “surprising”, even when they are quite obvious. Finally it’s rarely the driver’s fault – they are after all impeccable, independent judges of what’s wrong on the roads. Instead it’s always the pedestrian’s – or bike rider’s – fault, isn’t it? Too bad they just want to cross or ride along the road but are impeded by speeding, tailgating, swerving, unaware drivers who leave no safe gaps for them to do so. So much for sharing the road. It’d be less stressful just to get rid of everyone else, at least in the classic “stressed driver” world-view.
What about speeding itself – notably absent as a “stressor” in the road stress survey – but probably underpinning much of the tension, tailgating and driving stress. That’s an odd exclusion. The faster you go, especially around pedestrians and bike riders, the more awake and aware you have to be. Everything comes at you faster and you need quicker, more precise reactions. Too many objects to track in a limited time and your stress level goes up. If it doesn’t affect you like that then you may have become complacent and unaware of the raised risks. Indeed, some of those identified as tailgaters in the survey will simply be drivers who are unaware of their gap, or lack thereof. Whilst others may be those wanting to speed and have closed up on purpose, to intimidate.
These intimidators – bullies, if you like – may have said in this survey that they are annoyed with drivers who are “too slow” or “too slow in the fast lane”. Perhaps they are actually expecting to go “too fast”? By speeding (either in excess of the speed limit or prevailing local conditions) you close up on the traffic ahead and guess what – you compress the traffic ahead of you and create a traffic jam.
There’s a flip side to every view, including those of the pedestrians who are dangerously “flirting with death” as they just try to cross a road. And maybe just understanding why your fellow motorist has slowed down – perhaps to allow others to share the road – will ease the stress overall. There may indeed be a good reason to just slow down – too much stress!
Who are the worst drivers | carsguide.com.au
The Buzz CEO Jacki Johnson says road rage, offensive gestures and general impatience are making motorists’ lives miserable. “The study shows there’s a lot of bad behaviour on our roads. Whether it’s dangerous or impatient behaviour, it’s putting the safety of Australians in jeopardy,” she said.
The most commonly experienced bad driving behaviours are: drivers changing lanes without indicating (97 per cent); tailgating (96 per cent); talking on mobiles or listening to an iPod (96 per cent); cutting in on lanes (95 per cent); and motorists holding up traffic by driving too slow (95 per cent).
Impatience is also rife on our roads. Of those surveyed, 88 per cent had seen drivers queue jumping, 87 per cent had spotted motorists running a red light, and the majority (91 per cent) had witnessed pedestrians crossing the road in a dangerous manner.
“There’s a lot of inexperienced drivers, families and elderly people on our roads and we need to modify our driving behaviour to ensure we are not placing any undue stress on drivers,” Ms Johnson says.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
Media spokesperson for vehicle insurer AAMI Mike Sopinski said their research shows two in three pedestrians admit to jaywalking. This comes as 200 pedestrians were killed on the roads around the nation last year.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
“I see it all the time… pedestrians stepping out into traffic in their own little world with their MP3 players and mobile phones in their ears,” he said. “What I’m concerned about here is that we have a great number of noiseless electric vehicles about to hit our roads. It’s a recipe for a growing number of pedestrian deaths.”
Surveys rarely tell us anything other than what the survey was designed to show. Often the questions asked are loaded, they offer only those choices that lead you one way or the other according to the surveyor’s bias. So it’s no surprise that they “find” what they want to find. With such poorly designed or outright biased data it’s often nigh on impossible to make any sense of the data, let alone draw any valid conclusions. I suspect we have another one here. Oh, and here as well.
You’ll notice that there are always vested interests at work in these media-savvy releases. The old media behind carguide.com.au want you to read on and click some links, if not outright buy their tacky work – so they write what they think will “sell”. And what they write is fed to them in the form of press releases announcing the results of “surveys” by car makers and insurance companies keen to drum up mindspace and, yes, sales. And the findings are always “shocking” or “surprising”, even when they are quite obvious. Finally it’s rarely the driver’s fault – they are after all impeccable, independent judges of what’s wrong on the roads. Instead it’s always the pedestrian’s – or bike rider’s – fault, isn’t it? Too bad they just want to cross or ride along the road but are impeded by speeding, tailgating, swerving, unaware drivers who leave no safe gaps for them to do so. So much for sharing the road. It’d be less stressful just to get rid of everyone else, at least in the classic “stressed driver” world-view.
What about speeding itself – notably absent as a “stressor” in the road stress survey – but probably underpinning much of the tension, tailgating and driving stress. That’s an odd exclusion. The faster you go, especially around pedestrians and bike riders, the more awake and aware you have to be. Everything comes at you faster and you need quicker, more precise reactions. Too many objects to track in a limited time and your stress level goes up. If it doesn’t affect you like that then you may have become complacent and unaware of the raised risks. Indeed, some of those identified as tailgaters in the survey will simply be drivers who are unaware of their gap, or lack thereof. Whilst others may be those wanting to speed and have closed up on purpose, to intimidate.
These intimidators – bullies, if you like – may have said in this survey that they are annoyed with drivers who are “too slow” or “too slow in the fast lane”. Perhaps they are actually expecting to go “too fast”? By speeding (either in excess of the speed limit or prevailing local conditions) you close up on the traffic ahead and guess what – you compress the traffic ahead of you and create a traffic jam.
There’s a flip side to every view, including those of the pedestrians who are dangerously “flirting with death” as they just try to cross a road. And maybe just understanding why your fellow motorist has slowed down – perhaps to allow others to share the road – will ease the stress overall. There may indeed be a good reason to just slow down – too much stress!
Who are the worst drivers | carsguide.com.au
The Buzz CEO Jacki Johnson says road rage, offensive gestures and general impatience are making motorists’ lives miserable. “The study shows there’s a lot of bad behaviour on our roads. Whether it’s dangerous or impatient behaviour, it’s putting the safety of Australians in jeopardy,” she said.
The most commonly experienced bad driving behaviours are: drivers changing lanes without indicating (97 per cent); tailgating (96 per cent); talking on mobiles or listening to an iPod (96 per cent); cutting in on lanes (95 per cent); and motorists holding up traffic by driving too slow (95 per cent).
Impatience is also rife on our roads. Of those surveyed, 88 per cent had seen drivers queue jumping, 87 per cent had spotted motorists running a red light, and the majority (91 per cent) had witnessed pedestrians crossing the road in a dangerous manner.
“There’s a lot of inexperienced drivers, families and elderly people on our roads and we need to modify our driving behaviour to ensure we are not placing any undue stress on drivers,” Ms Johnson says.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
Media spokesperson for vehicle insurer AAMI Mike Sopinski said their research shows two in three pedestrians admit to jaywalking. This comes as 200 pedestrians were killed on the roads around the nation last year.
Pedestrians risking death | carsguide.com.au
“I see it all the time… pedestrians stepping out into traffic in their own little world with their MP3 players and mobile phones in their ears,” he said. “What I’m concerned about here is that we have a great number of noiseless electric vehicles about to hit our roads. It’s a recipe for a growing number of pedestrian deaths.”
I have no problem with mandatory professional driving lessons – I think I only had 1 or 2 ‘lessons’ with my father in any case, the rest were with a driving school. (And interestingly my driving instructor was a private pilot – and he coincidentally knew my flying instructor… which was a bit spooky.) But it wasn’t just the lessons that set me up for a fairly safe start on the roads.
Luckily my dad was generally a safe, law-abiding and careful driver, so I picked up fairly good habits just by watching. I’ve already hinted that there’s more to it than just that. My first “love” was flying – and learning to fly before learning to drive taught me – if nothing else – how important safety concerns are. Sure, it also teaches you how to have fun, but within a safe context. You don’t take un-calculated risks in an aircraft. (Having said that my driving instructor managed to roll a VW Beetle on Bankstown Airport’s then-gravel perimeter road, so he was “human” as well.)
But that’s not all, because another thing I got from my dad was a bike. So before I had done anything in a car I had learnt the basic road rules, fixed something mechanical (bikes force you to understand something about machines, even if it’s just how to fix a flat) and picked up the nuances of navigation.
So even if professional driver training was mandated I wonder how effective it would be, especially if some of these other factors were left out? You could ditch the flying training, sure, but what about bike riding? And what if professional training was set against 16 or more years of poor behaviour modelling? If your parents have a bad driving attitude then you may well not “unlearn” that easily. Whilst you may well get good training it means nothing if it’s forgotten the day after you pass the test. I wonder what the retention rate is for professional driver training?
But wait, there’s more. Although I rushed out and started flying training (never finished, by the way!) at 16, I didn’t get a driving licence for another 3 years. So I was not only more road-experienced than most people – being an active cyclist – I was also more mature and a bit more cashed up. Which meant I could afford a small but reliable and “safer” car – a VW Golf. But wait, there’s more. After getting my licence I sat on it and didn’t drive for almost a year. Then I got the car and finally started practicing my driving – it was almost a ‘cooling off period’. But that was both good and bad. I should have kept practicing some of the car-only skills required, so that was a negative – but I was also a fair bit older again before finally getting behind the wheel. That maturity made a big difference, I think.
So to summarise, maturity + safer car + professional training + good positive behaviour modelling + prior on-road experience (ie cycling) = someone with a better than average chance of remaining “safer” on the roads. I followed that up with a defensive driving course as well and joined a car club to boot (so I worked out my driving “angst” on a closed racetrack, not just the road). Whilst I’m not average – no-one is – I feel that somewhere in that mix are some key learning elements that may be missing from the background of many current drivers.
So bravo Mark Skaife but hey let’s have mandatory bike riding as well!
Skaife urges ban on parents teaching | Review | carsguide.com.au
“With the best intention in the world, too many parents pass on their own bad habits. We have to avoid that, which is why I believe we need to move to professional driver trainers in Australia,” Skaife said yesterday. “We don’t like hearing the truth on some things, and this is one of them. Proper education on driving is a big part of the road safety puzzle.
I have no problem with mandatory professional driving lessons – I think I only had 1 or 2 ‘lessons’ with my father in any case, the rest were with a driving school. (And interestingly my driving instructor was a private pilot – and he coincidentally knew my flying instructor… which was a bit spooky.) But it wasn’t just the lessons that set me up for a fairly safe start on the roads.
Luckily my dad was generally a safe, law-abiding and careful driver, so I picked up fairly good habits just by watching. I’ve already hinted that there’s more to it than just that. My first “love” was flying – and learning to fly before learning to drive taught me – if nothing else – how important safety concerns are. Sure, it also teaches you how to have fun, but within a safe context. You don’t take un-calculated risks in an aircraft. (Having said that my driving instructor managed to roll a VW Beetle on Bankstown Airport’s then-gravel perimeter road, so he was “human” as well.)
But that’s not all, because another thing I got from my dad was a bike. So before I had done anything in a car I had learnt the basic road rules, fixed something mechanical (bikes force you to understand something about machines, even if it’s just how to fix a flat) and picked up the nuances of navigation.
So even if professional driver training was mandated I wonder how effective it would be, especially if some of these other factors were left out? You could ditch the flying training, sure, but what about bike riding? And what if professional training was set against 16 or more years of poor behaviour modelling? If your parents have a bad driving attitude then you may well not “unlearn” that easily. Whilst you may well get good training it means nothing if it’s forgotten the day after you pass the test. I wonder what the retention rate is for professional driver training?
But wait, there’s more. Although I rushed out and started flying training (never finished, by the way!) at 16, I didn’t get a driving licence for another 3 years. So I was not only more road-experienced than most people – being an active cyclist – I was also more mature and a bit more cashed up. Which meant I could afford a small but reliable and “safer” car – a VW Golf. But wait, there’s more. After getting my licence I sat on it and didn’t drive for almost a year. Then I got the car and finally started practicing my driving – it was almost a ‘cooling off period’. But that was both good and bad. I should have kept practicing some of the car-only skills required, so that was a negative – but I was also a fair bit older again before finally getting behind the wheel. That maturity made a big difference, I think.
So to summarise, maturity + safer car + professional training + good positive behaviour modelling + prior on-road experience (ie cycling) = someone with a better than average chance of remaining “safer” on the roads. I followed that up with a defensive driving course as well and joined a car club to boot (so I worked out my driving “angst” on a closed racetrack, not just the road). Whilst I’m not average – no-one is – I feel that somewhere in that mix are some key learning elements that may be missing from the background of many current drivers.
So bravo Mark Skaife but hey let’s have mandatory bike riding as well!
Skaife urges ban on parents teaching | Review | carsguide.com.au
“With the best intention in the world, too many parents pass on their own bad habits. We have to avoid that, which is why I believe we need to move to professional driver trainers in Australia,” Skaife said yesterday. “We don’t like hearing the truth on some things, and this is one of them. Proper education on driving is a big part of the road safety puzzle.
The “robo-car” concept – where the car takes control and interacts with and responds to the road environment automatically – has much to offer. Better traffic flow, safer driving and improved fuel consumption for starters. The downside is loss of human control, but we already effectively given that up when we get on a plane, a bus or a train. We may believe to a greater or lesser extent that a human has ultimate “control” but the point is that with public transport we opt out of direct “hands-on” involvement – we just take a seat and get off when we want.
So a robo-car is simply a smaller, nimbler and more personalised form of the larger concept of public transport. And the core technologies are already there: cruise control, collision avoidance and GPS for starters. If we added RFIDs and a car-based WiFi network into the equation we’d effectively have an Internet of cars where the cars become “packets” and we simply get inside and add an address. The routing would happen automagically and if problems appeared we’d be rerouted via the best path.
OK, the car-mad who like that feeling of control – those for whom the mechanics of acceleration, braking and cornering are a practised skill, be they good at it or not – will have to find other outlets, but for the bulk of us it’s a compromise that’s probably going to happen. And in consequence it opens up a whole world of possibilities – greater efficiency, reduced road trauma, savings in hospital costs – you name it. We may end up with “trains” of cars on the freeway instead of a log jam.
Robocars – not that far away at all
I’m not sure we have perfect trust – or faith – in all of these devices and the software that will integrate them but I see a day when these and other perhaps more robust technologies (like embedded RFIDs in road furniture and signage) fall into place to regulate and control traffic flow. It may start with control in low-speed and low-risk environments and work from there and priority could be given to drivers who hand over to robo-control. So there would be a carrot – you get a smoother run as well as less angst behind the wheel.
The “robo-car” concept – where the car takes control and interacts with and responds to the road environment automatically – has much to offer. Better traffic flow, safer driving and improved fuel consumption for starters. The downside is loss of human control, but we already effectively given that up when we get on a plane, a bus or a train. We may believe to a greater or lesser extent that a human has ultimate “control” but the point is that with public transport we opt out of direct “hands-on” involvement – we just take a seat and get off when we want.
So a robo-car is simply a smaller, nimbler and more personalised form of the larger concept of public transport. And the core technologies are already there: cruise control, collision avoidance and GPS for starters. If we added RFIDs and a car-based WiFi network into the equation we’d effectively have an Internet of cars where the cars become “packets” and we simply get inside and add an address. The routing would happen automagically and if problems appeared we’d be rerouted via the best path.
OK, the car-mad who like that feeling of control – those for whom the mechanics of acceleration, braking and cornering are a practised skill, be they good at it or not – will have to find other outlets, but for the bulk of us it’s a compromise that’s probably going to happen. And in consequence it opens up a whole world of possibilities – greater efficiency, reduced road trauma, savings in hospital costs – you name it. We may end up with “trains” of cars on the freeway instead of a log jam.
Robocars – not that far away at all
I’m not sure we have perfect trust – or faith – in all of these devices and the software that will integrate them but I see a day when these and other perhaps more robust technologies (like embedded RFIDs in road furniture and signage) fall into place to regulate and control traffic flow. It may start with control in low-speed and low-risk environments and work from there and priority could be given to drivers who hand over to robo-control. So there would be a carrot – you get a smoother run as well as less angst behind the wheel.
Let’s define terms – by speeding we mean to say excessive, deliberate or inadvertent velocity beyond a posted speed limit. Legally it’s anything above the speed limit, be it 1kmh or 5 kmh. But let’s be generous and define excessive speed at anything beyond 5kmh above; although a case could be put for 10kmh, or perhaps more logically a 5-10% buffer above the posted limit. I’d recommend no more than 5% myself and would back 100% compliance if pushed, but it’s open for debate. I’m simply allowing for some variation in attention, practical effects imposed by local hills (both going up and down) and inaccuracy in speedometers.
OK, so why is excessive speeding bad? Plenty of people do it. I stick pretty rigidly to the limit, as probably do “most” people, by what I see. But maybe 30% of drivers either miss a sign – or choose to ignore it. By that I mean 60-70 in a 50kmh zone (past my house!) is pretty common. And 120-130 in a 100kmh zone, for another example. Hey, it happens, sure. Sometimes you just have to get someplace and are running late. But do you understand the risks and the impact on others, or do you just think the law’s an ass and are out to get you for no good reason?
Here are my top reasons to slow down and stick to the posted limit:
1. Traffic is more predictable when it flows at the same rate; by speeding at whatever rate you choose you are by nature unpredictable and are the cause of disturbance and risk to all traffic. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s ‘safer’ to speed, no matter what the stats supposedly say! (There are lies, damned lies and statistics… you can correlate something with anything if you try hard enough!)
2. Other drivers cannot as easily judge a speeding vehicle’s closing distance and will seemingly jump out in front of you at intersections and make ‘sudden’ and inopportune lane changes or other manoeuvers. Slow down, let people come out of their driveways and intersections without having to guess what speed you may have chosen today. Let me guess, currently you are blaming them for your poor judgement!
3. Speeding screws up the traffic; by gaining on the cars ahead you eventually meet them and cluster in a group, forming an unnecessary bottleneck, especially when a hazard or delay is reached. Why not stay back, don’t gain on those ahead, stay at the same pace and let the traffic flow?
4. By speeding you reduce your reaction time to the unexpected. Unless you are on a road with no other traffic, no potholes, no animals, no driveways, no intersections and no other unexpected obstacles, what makes you think it’s safe to choose any speed you like?
5. Faster means more energy expended; so not only are you burning more gas and making more air and noise pollution you have raised the energy level in any collision that occurs. Instead, slow down, reduce the cost of your travel and reduce any impacts that may occur. Don’t imagine it’s more ‘efficient’ to go faster – any open road gains are lost above about 80kmh and in city driving any speed gained in quickly lost as heat when you apply the brakes for the next red light. Slow down, anticipate traffic flows and see the $ benefit yourself!
6. Other people live here too. Just because you can get away with it, why is it right to speed past other people’s homes, workplaces, parks or whatever? It may seem ‘safe’ but only because other people fear death or injury and have learned to lock their kids and pets away from the roads and to shut doors and windows to keep the noise and fumes out
7. In summary, speeding is plain selfish and simply bad manners – why do you think that you can cause disruption to traffic, get ahead of everyone else, cause undue noise and fear and raise the risk of injury for everyone?
In answer to that last question, you are probably not even thinking about it, just doing what you see done to you. Whilst we respect each other when we meet face to face and usually don’t push into queues, when sealed in our steel capsules the normal rules and niceties go out the window and it’s open season on civilised behaviour. Why not set an example and buck the trend?
Let’s define terms – by speeding we mean to say excessive, deliberate or inadvertent velocity beyond a posted speed limit. Legally it’s anything above the speed limit, be it 1kmh or 5 kmh. But let’s be generous and define excessive speed at anything beyond 5kmh above; although a case could be put for 10kmh, or perhaps more logically a 5-10% buffer above the posted limit. I’d recommend no more than 5% myself and would back 100% compliance if pushed, but it’s open for debate. I’m simply allowing for some variation in attention, practical effects imposed by local hills (both going up and down) and inaccuracy in speedometers.
OK, so why is excessive speeding bad? Plenty of people do it. I stick pretty rigidly to the limit, as probably do “most” people, by what I see. But maybe 30% of drivers either miss a sign – or choose to ignore it. By that I mean 60-70 in a 50kmh zone (past my house!) is pretty common. And 120-130 in a 100kmh zone, for another example. Hey, it happens, sure. Sometimes you just have to get someplace and are running late. But do you understand the risks and the impact on others, or do you just think the law’s an ass and are out to get you for no good reason?
Here are my top reasons to slow down and stick to the posted limit:
1. Traffic is more predictable when it flows at the same rate; by speeding at whatever rate you choose you are by nature unpredictable and are the cause of disturbance and risk to all traffic. Don’t let anyone tell you it’s ‘safer’ to speed, no matter what the stats supposedly say! (There are lies, damned lies and statistics… you can correlate something with anything if you try hard enough!)
2. Other drivers cannot as easily judge a speeding vehicle’s closing distance and will seemingly jump out in front of you at intersections and make ‘sudden’ and inopportune lane changes or other manoeuvers. Slow down, let people come out of their driveways and intersections without having to guess what speed you may have chosen today. Let me guess, currently you are blaming them for your poor judgement!
3. Speeding screws up the traffic; by gaining on the cars ahead you eventually meet them and cluster in a group, forming an unnecessary bottleneck, especially when a hazard or delay is reached. Why not stay back, don’t gain on those ahead, stay at the same pace and let the traffic flow?
4. By speeding you reduce your reaction time to the unexpected. Unless you are on a road with no other traffic, no potholes, no animals, no driveways, no intersections and no other unexpected obstacles, what makes you think it’s safe to choose any speed you like?
5. Faster means more energy expended; so not only are you burning more gas and making more air and noise pollution you have raised the energy level in any collision that occurs. Instead, slow down, reduce the cost of your travel and reduce any impacts that may occur. Don’t imagine it’s more ‘efficient’ to go faster – any open road gains are lost above about 80kmh and in city driving any speed gained in quickly lost as heat when you apply the brakes for the next red light. Slow down, anticipate traffic flows and see the $ benefit yourself!
6. Other people live here too. Just because you can get away with it, why is it right to speed past other people’s homes, workplaces, parks or whatever? It may seem ‘safe’ but only because other people fear death or injury and have learned to lock their kids and pets away from the roads and to shut doors and windows to keep the noise and fumes out
7. In summary, speeding is plain selfish and simply bad manners – why do you think that you can cause disruption to traffic, get ahead of everyone else, cause undue noise and fear and raise the risk of injury for everyone?
In answer to that last question, you are probably not even thinking about it, just doing what you see done to you. Whilst we respect each other when we meet face to face and usually don’t push into queues, when sealed in our steel capsules the normal rules and niceties go out the window and it’s open season on civilised behaviour. Why not set an example and buck the trend?
Noticed that one bumpy local residential street was being revamped. It’s a pretty street partly on the waterfront involving a blind complex curve after a long gentle sloping straight from the north and a similarly long straight that’s slowed by a couple of near-rightangled turns to the east. There aren’t many intersections but there are plenty of houses and driveways, a public wharf with parking and some bus stops. It also narrows around the wharf and as I said it is – or was – as bumpy as hell.
Before the revamp the only things slowing drivers were the bumps – pot holes, really – and the narrowing. So I was interested to see what the revamp would look like in terms of traffic calming. Taking the bumps out was going to speed up the traffic – a v. bad thing.
Well it’s pretty good actually. The footpaths have been widened (and a cycle path included!) and landscaped and the road is smoother but narrow. The wharf area is neatened and the blind corner eased slightly. The curbing is rounded. Best of all – 2 circles. Both on the straight to the north, one just past a gentle curve. No intersections, these are pure traffic calmers. The road is widened in a circular fashion and then narrowed with a roundabout to slow traffic. Buses squeeze through.
I wonder how long before people go right over the top? Hopefully there will be some further landscaping to dissuade off-road adventurers. Gosford Council, I salute you!
Here’s an interesting read on what traffic calming works, btw.
Filed under roads, traffic by Rob.
Noticed that one bumpy local residential street was being revamped. It’s a pretty street partly on the waterfront involving a blind complex curve after a long gentle sloping straight from the north and a similarly long straight that’s slowed by a couple of near-rightangled turns to the east. There aren’t many intersections but there are plenty of houses and driveways, a public wharf with parking and some bus stops. It also narrows around the wharf and as I said it is – or was – as bumpy as hell.
Before the revamp the only things slowing drivers were the bumps – pot holes, really – and the narrowing. So I was interested to see what the revamp would look like in terms of traffic calming. Taking the bumps out was going to speed up the traffic – a v. bad thing.
Well it’s pretty good actually. The footpaths have been widened (and a cycle path included!) and landscaped and the road is smoother but narrow. The wharf area is neatened and the blind corner eased slightly. The curbing is rounded. Best of all – 2 circles. Both on the straight to the north, one just past a gentle curve. No intersections, these are pure traffic calmers. The road is widened in a circular fashion and then narrowed with a roundabout to slow traffic. Buses squeeze through.
I wonder how long before people go right over the top? Hopefully there will be some further landscaping to dissuade off-road adventurers. Gosford Council, I salute you!
Here’s an interesting read on what traffic calming works, btw.
Filed under roads, traffic by Rob.
More musings… why is it (in Australia at least, although I’ve seen research on some of this from other places) that drivers do any or all of the following:
- Tailgating, I have to ask ‘why’? What is the gain in driving too close to the vehicle in front? Is it fun? Is it the thrill of the risk? Even more so when the road is wet? I do think it’s a ‘protective’ thing, as in protecting your space in the queue. Rather than thinking it through logically it’s a reaction to those drivers who bully and ‘steal’ their way ahead. But tailgating is also bullying. Instead, double your usual gap, let people come and go without threat… and don’t worry about the other road hogs. It’s not worth it.
- Lane changing – constantly. What is actually gained by continually adjusting your lane? Anecdotally I would suggest nothing, or very, very little over most journeys. It may be fun, perhaps, as you get to do more “driving” (especially accelerating and braking to get into tiny spots) but it really gets you nowhere. Just stay put until you have to change lanes, it’s probably safer and may be quicker anyway.
- Accelerating to shut the door on others. You don’t have to, you could just let them in. This is allied to tailgating. You know, you are 10secs behind the cars in front and you suddenly feel the urge to get closer, as in 2 secs maximum. Why? What’s wrong with holding station at around 6 secs? Do you feel there’s safety in numbers? Are you hoping to draft the car in front to save fuel?
- Speeding to close the gap. You could stay at the speed limit and hold station with everyone else but instead that car ahead – it may just be a speck – is soooo tempting. You must close the gap and catch up. Why? Why not keep that healthy gap? By closing on the car in front you compact the traffic, so as soon as you reach the end of the road or some hazard instead of having some padding between cars you have a sudden, inevitable jam. Speeding and “clumping” is not necessary and creates traffic jams. So why do it?
I’m going to suggest that risk is one aspect in common, in that some people like a bit more than others. But I suspect ignorance plays a role too, in that many people do not self-analyse their actions and thus don’t realise that what they are doing is actually contributing to the slowing traffic flow. That urge to catch the guy in front, even when all you are doing is catching up to traffic and adding to it, is one twisted competitive urge that really doesn’t need to be expressed on public roads. Does it??
Filed under cars, traffic by Rob.
More musings… why is it (in Australia at least, although I’ve seen research on some of this from other places) that drivers do any or all of the following:
- Tailgating, I have to ask ‘why’? What is the gain in driving too close to the vehicle in front? Is it fun? Is it the thrill of the risk? Even more so when the road is wet? I do think it’s a ‘protective’ thing, as in protecting your space in the queue. Rather than thinking it through logically it’s a reaction to those drivers who bully and ‘steal’ their way ahead. But tailgating is also bullying. Instead, double your usual gap, let people come and go without threat… and don’t worry about the other road hogs. It’s not worth it.
- Lane changing – constantly. What is actually gained by continually adjusting your lane? Anecdotally I would suggest nothing, or very, very little over most journeys. It may be fun, perhaps, as you get to do more “driving” (especially accelerating and braking to get into tiny spots) but it really gets you nowhere. Just stay put until you have to change lanes, it’s probably safer and may be quicker anyway.
- Accelerating to shut the door on others. You don’t have to, you could just let them in. This is allied to tailgating. You know, you are 10secs behind the cars in front and you suddenly feel the urge to get closer, as in 2 secs maximum. Why? What’s wrong with holding station at around 6 secs? Do you feel there’s safety in numbers? Are you hoping to draft the car in front to save fuel?
- Speeding to close the gap. You could stay at the speed limit and hold station with everyone else but instead that car ahead – it may just be a speck – is soooo tempting. You must close the gap and catch up. Why? Why not keep that healthy gap? By closing on the car in front you compact the traffic, so as soon as you reach the end of the road or some hazard instead of having some padding between cars you have a sudden, inevitable jam. Speeding and “clumping” is not necessary and creates traffic jams. So why do it?
I’m going to suggest that risk is one aspect in common, in that some people like a bit more than others. But I suspect ignorance plays a role too, in that many people do not self-analyse their actions and thus don’t realise that what they are doing is actually contributing to the slowing traffic flow. That urge to catch the guy in front, even when all you are doing is catching up to traffic and adding to it, is one twisted competitive urge that really doesn’t need to be expressed on public roads. Does it??
Filed under cars, traffic by Rob.
Here’s a quick quiz! Why is it (in Australia at least, although I’ve seen research on some of this from other places) that drivers do any or all of the following:
(1) On the freeway they will stay in the ‘slow’ lane (here it’s left but right in the US) only if there is no-one about. Any sign of other traffic and they head for the middle. Why is that? Fear of having to change lanes at some point, so let’s get it over with now? I guess so. You see this happen when lanes zipper together, loads of drivers bail early, well before they have to merge, presumably because they think it’s more polite (doubtful, when it results in more congestion) or somehow easier. There may be a truck ahead, although I can’t see any – but let’s change lanes now anyway. The middle one will do.
(2) Again, on the freeway, when faced with increasing traffic volume the centre or ‘middle’ lane (assuming 3 lanes each way) is increasingly vacated and the far right (or left, depending on the country, y’know) becomes over-crowded. This continues until saturation is really obvious, ie so many more cars are in the fast lane, fewer are now in the centre lane and often very few are in the so-called ‘slow’ lane. Why is it so? Read on…
Filed under cars, traffic by Rob.
Here’s a quick quiz! Why is it (in Australia at least, although I’ve seen research on some of this from other places) that drivers do any or all of the following:
(1) On the freeway they will stay in the ‘slow’ lane (here it’s left but right in the US) only if there is no-one about. Any sign of other traffic and they head for the middle. Why is that? Fear of having to change lanes at some point, so let’s get it over with now? I guess so. You see this happen when lanes zipper together, loads of drivers bail early, well before they have to merge, presumably because they think it’s more polite (doubtful, when it results in more congestion) or somehow easier. There may be a truck ahead, although I can’t see any – but let’s change lanes now anyway. The middle one will do.
(2) Again, on the freeway, when faced with increasing traffic volume the centre or ‘middle’ lane (assuming 3 lanes each way) is increasingly vacated and the far right (or left, depending on the country, y’know) becomes over-crowded. This continues until saturation is really obvious, ie so many more cars are in the fast lane, fewer are now in the centre lane and often very few are in the so-called ‘slow’ lane. Why is it so? Read on…
Filed under cars, traffic by Rob.
Ahh, the simple souls at the Daily Terrorgraph know what will stir up their readers: traffic jams and a government ‘without a single plan’: http://sn.im/sl625
Mind you, having no ‘single plan’ may simply mean that the state government and the state and local bureaucracies have individual plans. That question wasn’t asked, or reported. We aren’t informed by the judgmental journo, Rhys Haynes, exactly why he sought out a single “silver bullet” solution for a range of varied hot spots, unless he was hoping for a mega ring road of sorts. Now that would ease congestion – and encourage a lot more cars onto the road. Where that takes us is – back to square 1? And the money comes from? Oh well, so much for transport planning a la the Tele.
All in all, just another cheap shot at the NSW State government. Keep this sort of transparent nonsense up and they’ll get back in.
Ahh, the simple souls at the Daily Terrorgraph know what will stir up their readers: traffic jams and a government ‘without a single plan’: http://sn.im/sl625
Mind you, having no ‘single plan’ may simply mean that the state government and the state and local bureaucracies have individual plans. That question wasn’t asked, or reported. We aren’t informed by the judgmental journo, Rhys Haynes, exactly why he sought out a single “silver bullet” solution for a range of varied hot spots, unless he was hoping for a mega ring road of sorts. Now that would ease congestion – and encourage a lot more cars onto the road. Where that takes us is – back to square 1? And the money comes from? Oh well, so much for transport planning a la the Tele.
All in all, just another cheap shot at the NSW State government. Keep this sort of transparent nonsense up and they’ll get back in.
|
|
