Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 It is a fact that some colours are safer than others as they stand out from the background and it was the case when my eyes were perfect. The main reason you don't see other vehicles is you don't actually look for them that  hard, in many cases. I've tended to buy Red, Yellow and White cars for their greater visibility. and use my lights when appropriate. Poor vis  About 4 of my friends in the last month have had their vehicle pranged from behind when they were stationary for quite a while. not pulling up quickly. People are just distracted or not watching. Texting etc.. Be fatal if it was a motorcycle, hit.

    Re the autonomous car I'm extremely skeptical  An Autopilot in an aircraft has a simpler programme and they still do crazy things at times. To do an Autoland (Not that difficult a thing technically), you have multiple autopilots involved and they have to constantly prove them selves "in limits" to be  legal to use. Nev

Edited by facthunter
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M61A1 said:

They might actually find that makes the biggest difference in the road toll...

Never miss a chance do you. We actually know whether that’s a possible factor from the detail analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FH, one current researcher I know in the UK is focussing on people hitting things which they didn’t see as against speeding. It’s similar to an issue some people have brought up here.

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, facthunter said:

People are just distracted or not watching. Texting etc.. Be fatal if it was a motorcycle, hit.

Now we're on to something.....We had one here a while ago that just pulled out from an intersection an into the side of a B double, not even in front of..... drove into the side of it!

On bright side it was a truck not a motorcyclist that he hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Never miss a chance do you. We actually know whether that’s a possible factor from the detail analysis.

I see plenty of drivers that clearly have problems with their eyesight, they aren't hard to pick. They're the ones overcompensating for object's that aren't as close as they think, as opposed to inattentive or distracted. They're one's who get a fright when they realise you're there.

Both are dangerous, but changing the colour won't fix anything, and it would appear that authorities just aren't willing to look at the problem. In another crash here a few years back, an aquainatnce lost both grandparents in one crash at an intersection. The driver's glasses (one of the grandparent's) were found in the glovebox in the investigation. The result? the changed the intersection at tremendous cost.

Once again, lucky it wasn't a motorcyclist they hit.

We need to stop treating the symptoms and start treating the problem, but that costs money and doesn't earn any. I'm not convinced our government actually has the competence to do it in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on track .....

 

Here's a very nice historic plane which was offered for peanuts.

 

 

At a gross weight of 748.5 kg and stall speed of 47 kts, these two-seaters from Piper would be nice on the RAA register. However, this one does prove the point that you can buy a clapped out plane for a song, but you'll be paying the piper heaps before you are done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on track .....

 

Here's a very nice historic plane which was offered for peanuts.

 

 

At a gross weight of 748.5 kg and stall speed of 47 kts, these two-seaters from Piper would be nice on the RAA register. However, this one does prove the point that you can buy a clapped out plane for a song, but you'll be paying the piper heaps before you are done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on track .....

 

Here's a very nice historic plane which was offered for peanuts.

 

 

At a gross weight of 748.5 kg and stall speed of 47 kts, these two-seaters from Piper would be nice on the RAA register. However, this one does prove the point that you can buy a clapped out plane for a song, but you'll be paying the piper heaps before you are done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back on track .....

 

Here's a very nice historic plane which was offered for peanuts.

 

 

At a gross weight of 748.5 kg and stall speed of 47 kts, these two-seaters from Piper would be nice on the RAA register. However, this one does prove the point that you can buy a clapped out plane for a song, but you'll be paying the piper heaps before you are done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you do your homework and are prepared to put a lot of the work in yourself (under supervision if necessary) you can get yourself into the air on a reasonable budget, but if you're going to buy something without properly assessing it and then expect someone else to do the work, then more than likely, it's going to cost a mint.

Key points:

1. Do your homework

2. Learn how to do the work yourself.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, M61A1 said:

I see plenty of drivers that clearly have problems with their eyesight, they aren't hard to pick. They're the ones overcompensating for object's that aren't as close as they think, as opposed to inattentive or distracted. They're one's who get a fright when they realise you're there.

Both are dangerous, but changing the colour won't fix anything, and it would appear that authorities just aren't willing to look at the problem. In another crash here a few years back, an aquainatnce lost both grandparents in one crash at an intersection. The driver's glasses (one of the grandparent's) were found in the glovebox in the investigation. The result? the changed the intersection at tremendous cost.

Once again, lucky it wasn't a motorcyclist they hit.

We need to stop treating the symptoms and start treating the problem, but that costs money and doesn't earn any. I'm not convinced our government actually has the competence to do it in any case.

Plenty of people disregard the law when driving a car. A driver is required to drive with the legal vision qualification, or wear corrective lenses.

Plenty of people are handicapped, but meet licence standard, plenty hide medical issues etc.

Quite often those things are discovered during investigation of accidents involving death or injuries, and they all go into the database, so it's possible to analyse any increasing trends.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the work involved in getting a plane to be a head-turner is grunt work that anyone can do.  Striping old fabric; paint stripping, removing panels are some of the jobs an owner can do to cut the costs of restoration. A couple of lessons from a fabric expert (say $150 per hour) will get you on the way to stitching new fabric to the airframe and wings, after the expert has applied the fabric. Doing some practice pieces in your garage will get you up to speed to give your plane a paint job. (Stitching and painting need to be overseen by an expert, but not necessarily done by them. Leave engine and instrument work to an expert. You can always help to lift wings and things as they are re-attached after refurbishment.  

 

If you budgeted for the cost for aircraft to have an Annual Inspection - About $2000 to be generous, plus about $5000 to remove and refit the engine, get the prop inspected, new tyres, instrument calibration, plus about $10000 for fabric work, then, if the engine was within hours, you would have a pretty good estimate of how much it costs to turn an ugly duckling into a swan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Plenty of people disregard the law when driving a car. A driver is required to drive with the legal vision qualification, or wear corrective lenses.

Plenty of people are handicapped, but meet licence standard, plenty hide medical issues etc.

Quite often those things are discovered during investigation of accidents involving death or injuries, and they all go into the database, so it's possible to analyse any increasing trends.

 

How often do you think an over sympathetic doctor might be involved?

Sometimes I wonder if some of the folk around here might have the ear of a doctor, who, to avoid taking away their independence, will pass their medical.

Every time I have seen an article in one of the papers about someone killed in a car park pinned against the wall ( and there have been a few over the years), I wonder if the doctor that signed them off will ever see any of the consequences.

Analysing trends also depends heavily on those collecting the data. If I understand correctly some of our states and many other places have different definitions of what a "speed related" death is.

Some record any death that wouldn't have happened if they were going slower, and some record it as being the actual cause of the crash, and others only if they were exceeding the posted limit.

If they really want to be pedantic, all crashes with deaths are speed related, because in order to crash you have to be moving, but it won't solve any problems. I suspect some researchers use the definition that is going to give them the outcome they want.

 

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

A lot of the work involved in getting a plane to be a head-turner is grunt work that anyone can do.  Striping old fabric; paint stripping, removing panels are some of the jobs an owner can do to cut the costs of restoration. A couple of lessons from a fabric expert (say $150 per hour) will get you on the way to stitching new fabric to the airframe and wings, after the expert has applied the fabric. Doing some practice pieces in your garage will get you up to speed to give your plane a paint job. (Stitching and painting need to be overseen by an expert, but not necessarily done by them. Leave engine and instrument work to an expert. You can always help to lift wings and things as they are re-attached after refurbishment.  

 

If you budgeted for the cost for aircraft to have an Annual Inspection - About $2000 to be generous, plus about $5000 to remove and refit the engine, get the prop inspected, new tyres, instrument calibration, plus about $10000 for fabric work, then, if the engine was within hours, you would have a pretty good estimate of how much it costs to turn an ugly duckling into a swan.

If I budgeted for those sort of figures I'd still be grounded. There's nothing you can't learn to do , and do well, if you really want to.  It's hard though to get around replacement parts and inspections requiring certain qualifications (particularly in GA). When it's your life at stake, you like to see it done right.

I have seen people who claimed to have built a plane or a car, but when you get further into the conversation, all they have done is pay several other people to build it and usually at great cost.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures for the refurbishment were chosen deliberately in order to remove the rose-coloured glasses from anyone who thought that they could get into their own plane cheaply. If the plane is going to be your pride and joy, then I don't see any difference between you and the guy who spends a motza restoring an old car, or making a new car ready for the race track. It's the bloke who buys a plane on impluse, or for bragging rights that I'm trying to warn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, turboplanner said:

This is a loser on three counts OK.

 

1. It's electric and electric's running out of rose coloured glass, since we are yet to solve the battery, weight, total cost of life, and CO2 gap needed.

 

2. It has to be autonomous so it can reposition itself etc. My experience with a Level 1 autonomous car is rapidly curing me of the thought that somehow the nerds had found the magic algorithm...

I bow to your experience Turbs, but your scepticism sounds quite a bit like that which greeted horseless carriages over a century ago. 

 

I have no doubt that here in rural Australia the diesel 4WD will not be replaced by self-drive electrics any time soon, but in denser-settled areas the days of two or more fossil-fuel cars per household are numbered. I know inner city people who already live quite happily without a car. The trend towards more affordable housing will be helped enormously when people no longer have to spend up large on cars and garages. I look forward to streets no longer clogged with parked cars.

 

How soon? Remember how fast TV and video swept away our movie theatres? Massive shopping centres turned town centres into ghost towns? Mobile phones displaced whole industries, as well as phone boxes?

 

Self-drive technology is still imperfect, but so was lots of other technology which we now trust our lives to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M61A1 - I support the general thrust of your argument  regarding road accidents.

After a driving life, spanning 50 years, in 4 countries, motorbikes to semi's, I long ago realised that the focus on speed as THE cause and the main regulatory focus, is at best a Government convenience  and a bit of propaganda that will have little impact on vehicle accidents, as long as we are allowed to drive at speeds that will result in fatalities when a vehicle is caused to stop very suddenly. 

Excessive speed (almost totally unrelated to posted/legal speed limits)  for prevailing road conditions is but one  symptom, out of many, of poor driver training/skill and misdirected policing. 

The authorities would seem to have little interest in addressing the rout cause of road accident focusing instead on the simple easily identifiable symptoms.

I have a strong suspicion that the medical lobby (Dr's) have had a lot to do with this oversimplification  - science and impartial investigation  has been "thrown out the window".

What gets me is 95 +%  of the public go along with this BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Old Koreelah said:

I bow to your experience Turbs, but your scepticism sounds quite a bit like that which greeted horseless carriages over a century ago. 

 

I have no doubt that here in rural Australia the diesel 4WD will not be replaced by self-drive electrics any time soon, but in denser-settled areas the days of two or more fossil-fuel cars per household are numbered. I know inner city people who already live quite happily without a car. The trend towards more affordable housing will be helped enormously when people no longer have to spend up large on cars and garages. I look forward to streets no longer clogged with parked cars.

 

How soon? Remember how fast TV and video swept away our movie theatres? Massive shopping centres turned town centres into ghost towns? Mobile phones displaced whole industries, as well as phone boxes?

 

Self-drive technology is still imperfect, but so was lots of other technology which we now trust our lives to. 

The reason for my comments was the blatant grab for three works in progress, electric, autonomous, non-ownership. This one fits in with the electric cars that have radiator grilles, and autonomous trucks that have driver cabs, and prime movers.

 

Melbourne has a population of around 4.5 million. Maybe 10,000 ride bikes to work, but of they want to go to the snow they need  a car. Maybe 2 million use public transport, and that requires you to get to where it will pick you up, and get off where it will stop. Maybe two thirds of those people need a car to get to the train station, and they all need a car to get to the snow.

 

The sociology of it indicates that cars will be around for a long time, and with your own car you can leave, arrive, pick another destination, change your mind and finally drive home without restriction. 

 

With regard to electric and autonomy, both require break-throughs to happen to be economically feasible. There's nothing to say that those break-throughs won't be announced next week; we've been waiting for the battery break-through now year by year for about 40 years, so that's the time scale so far. I'm just saying let's keep our feet on the ground.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

M61A1 - I support the general thrust of your argument  regarding road accidents.

After a driving life, spanning 50 years, in 4 countries, motorbikes to semi's, I long ago realised that the focus on speed as THE cause and the main regulatory focus, is at best a Government convenience  and a bit of propaganda that will have little impact on vehicle accidents, as long as we are allowed to drive at speeds that will result in fatalities when a vehicle is caused to stop very suddenly. 

Excessive speed (almost totally unrelated to posted/legal speed limits)  for prevailing road conditions is but one  symptom, out of many, of poor driver training/skill and misdirected policing. 

The authorities would seem to have little interest in addressing the rout cause of road accident focusing instead on the simple easily identifiable symptoms.

I have a strong suspicion that the medical lobby (Dr's) have had a lot to do with this oversimplification  - science and impartial investigation  has been "thrown out the window".

What gets me is 95 +%  of the public go along with this BS.

Mostly the people who work in road safety ignore the public because of the thousands of people who keep saying they can fix the road toll by fitting governors to cars etc.

However, the statistics are very detailed, and the discussions around the world go on every day.

 

Speed is an easy political solution to show "effort". If you take a photo the result is back and white, the police don't have to argue with the driver or take him to court, and there's a trail of numbers to give to the press.

 

Just like a few people on this site, many of the public don't think it can happen to them anyway so there's no political pressure to go any further

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Authorities claim speed cameras aren’t about revenue raising, but genuine safety.  I will only truly believe that when their infringement notices allow recipients of the fine to nominate a registered charity to pay it to (ie. Red Cross, Salvos, etc).

 

Fair enough, we can still accumulate demerit points that eventually stop recidivist speeders, but I’m convinced revenue is the prime motivator for speed cameras. (Sorry about contributing to thread drift)

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dsam said:

Authorities claim speed cameras aren’t about revenue raising, but genuine safety.  I will only truly believe that when their infringement notices allow recipients of the fine to nominate a registered charity to pay it to (ie. Red Cross, Salvos, etc).

 

Fair enough, we can still accumulate demerit points that eventually stop recidivist speeders, but I’m convinced revenue is the prime motivator for speed cameras. (Sorry about contributing to thread drift)

They actually believe what they say, but the very substantial revenue goes into General Revenue and not into a roads fund which could speed up passive safety items like anti-collision barriers, intersection and road design improvements. so human nature being what it is, they like the money and satisfy themselves with the thought that it's a VOLUNTARY tax. They've pretty much managed to grind us all down to common speeds, but it hasn't produced a matching volume in fatality reductions.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone doing research considered the possibility that by rigidly enforcing limits that they could be actually killing people? (a genuine question).

There have been studies that found about 83% of the population will with no speed limit, will drive at about the same speed. A point where they feel safe and will slow if feel it necessary. I would guess its the same people who would fit governors that believe that if the speed limit were lifted, that people would just go berserk. 

I find on many of our open roads that regardless of how well rested you are, inattention, boredom and sleepiness set in quickly at posted speeds, almost as if they chose that speed to put you to sleep.

It's not just myself, as I see many other drivers half asleep, head resting on their hand, texting , daydreaming and wandering all over the place while drifting along at 100 or 110 where posted.

In my opinion, for the most part speed enforcement is about as voluntary as being mugged....hand over the cash or give your life. They could just call it a speed tax, as tax is voluntary also, don't earn any money, don't pay tax. In a news article just the other day, police were whining about almost record numbers of speeders being caught on QLD roads, but recorded the lowest fatality rate for a while.

 

Don't care about thread drift, its a good to go where it takes you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dsam said:

Authorities claim speed cameras aren’t about revenue raising, but genuine safety...

A family member spent a few years administering speed cameras and he claims they were pretty much revenue neutral, given the huge amount of time spent calibrating them, in maintenance and defending fines in court. 

Remember, there are ample signs warning drivers that a radar camera is ahead.

 

He also said most of the radar installations around the state were empty, as the few cameras were moved from one spot to another. Despite knowing this, I felt they provided a powerful incentive to keep to the speed limit.

 

The current LNP government came to power promising to get rid of them. Within days of a local one being removed, we had two fatal accidents, taking four lives. These crashes happened within sight of where the speed camera had been recently removed. It would have saved the taxpayer mobs if the signs and empty cabinets had been left in place. It might also have saved lives.

 

4 hours ago, M61A1 said:

Has anyone doing research considered the possibility that by rigidly enforcing limits that they could be actually killing people?...

Interesting question, M. I guess it would require a lot of public education. I suspect the posted speed limit acts as a good regulator, keeping everyone at roughly the same speed.

 

Riding on unregulated roads in the NT, I've come across cars doing anything from 80 to 180 on the same road.

That can't be good for safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With various different speeds possible in the NT you have a greater difficulty overtaking with  conflicting traffic coming in the other direction. The "unknown" possible/ likely speed requires much more assessment and the more frequent getting back onto your side if you can't be sure.. I generally drive on the limit. conditions permitting. that keeps you 'working" and more alert than if you are Just sitting there "mind in neutral" in cruise control on a perfect road. the ideal situation to drop off.. the NT roads are not divided and I consider a divided road essential for high speeds. You need a much better vehicle  (quality and condition) for sustained high speeds and good tyres. at the correct pressure.. in high temperature conditions. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

I suspect the posted speed limit acts as a good regulator, keeping everyone at roughly the same speed.

There is plenty of evidence that drivers do that  themselves in the absence of a limit.

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

I generally drive on the limit. conditions permitting. that keeps you 'working" and more alert than if you are Just sitting there "mind in neutral" in cruise control on a perfect road. the ideal situation to drop off

I'm not sure which limit you mean there....the posted limit, which I find absolutely mindnumbing, or personal limit, which definately does keep you working, but possibly a bit overworked to keep up for any length of time.

There has been lots of science about optimum stress zones for optimum alertness, but they appear largely ignored.

Many pollies quote the condition of the roads, but even many of the old 12ft wide spray seal roads I consider good for speeds well above the posted limit in daylight conditions  (100) if one was allowed ,generally speaking of course, as some aren't up to that standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Remember, there are ample signs warning drivers that a radar camera is ahead.

Don't rely on this when you come to W.A. I've noticed that all warning signs for mobile radar have been removed in W.A. - they really are out to get your money, here.

The only warning signs for cameras in W.A., are for fixed highway cameras, and red light cameras. The mobile operators are becoming more and more devious every day.

W.A. has a Road Trauma Trust Account which is funded by speeding fines alone. The authorities do spend a substantial amount of the RTTA monies on road upgrades and improving safety levels with road and signage design improvements - but they also spend a lot of the RTTA monies on buying and installing more speed cameras, too. 

 

RTTA money is well spent, says Head of Trust

 

IMO, the major causes of road crashes are inattention (distraction), and a simple lack of basic driving skills.

By far, the largest percentage of road deaths in W.A., are single vehicle rollovers on straight stretches of good road, and single vehicle collisions with roadside trees.

If you can't keep a vehicle upright on a straight stretch of good road, or avoid roadside trees, you are seriously lacking in basic driving skills.

The problem stems back to the fact that a very large percentage of drivers have a very lax attitude towards keeping their attention on keeping full control of their vehicle.

I'd like a dollar for every driver I've seen balancing a mobile phone on top of the steering wheel, while they wobble all over the road - I'd have enough to put a deposit on an aeroplane. :cheezy grin:

Edited by onetrack
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Register for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×