Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, M61A1 said:

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

About 70 - 80% do, and you could say that is about the correct speed for the road with the exception oh highway cruise where people would select "their" speed. Sometimes the father would influence the whole family. I can remember one telling his daughter she had to learn to drive at 130 km/hr. That created the situation Facthunter was talking about where you couldn't really predict what other traffic was going to do, and when we had laws where if you exceeded 100 km/hr you had to prove you were driving safely, some would stick on 100 and speed up to stop you passing, then slow down when you finally got past. What the road authorities do now is work to a set of benchmarks such as road width, corner radii, grade standards, crests etc. to set an optimum limit for safety. The speed cameras have achieved maybe a 95% conformity of traffic flow, and that makes traffic more predictable and that reduces misjudgement crashes. Above the open highway limits (100, 110 etc) there's still an urge by some to sit on higher speeds, but point to point cameras will make them conform over time. I used to drive in the region of 150 to 200 when I was doing about 70,000 km a year, but was always tired for days afterwards until I realised I was burning a hep of adrenaline due to the concentration required, so I slowed down somewhat,  and speed tickets and point slowed me down some more to the point where I realised the closer I was coming to the mean 100 km/hr, the less cars and trucks I had to pass on the trip, and that has extended to punching the destination into the computer, and watching the time to destination virtually stay the same, even though I may have had to slow down for extended periods, so while being a slow learner, I'm a lot more strategic on highway driving now. However, the Highway speed limit is usually a political one, and most are too low. At the other end of the scale, when the proposals started for 50 km/hr speed limits instead of 60, it was political also, usually due to residents phoning police and asking for traffic to be slowed down in their street; the calibrated eyeball syndrome. At that time the US town limits were 48 km/hr, so I checked their fatality rate and it was 13 times ours!  Sure enough, our 50 and 40 zones haven't worked and we are much closer to US figures in that bracket these days; and we have started to go to 30.     The problem with this has been that we previously made our own judgements in the 60 zone, and the mean traffic speed on wet days may have been 40, and in busy shopping precincts may have been as low as 20, but nearly a generation have been trained to drive on speed limits, so the mean average has increased in those zones.

Quote

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.

In motor racing you drive at 10/10, and in 12 years I had about six crashed which would be fatals out on the road without the concrete safety fence/roll cage etc Peter Brock's final accident is a good example of what happens with 10/10 driving on public roads; one unexpected bump, the tyres unload and you can be facing a tree. I drive at about 6/10, but with a high level of concentration. To think 100 km/hr is either safe or boring is a big mistake. On one business trip, around 3 pm I was out on the Calder Highway north of Bendigo heading into the Mallee with wide open paddocks, plenty of visibility and only one car in sight in front of me. He was also cruising at 100, so I settled back a couple of hundred metres behind him and basked in the afternoon sun. Off to the right I saw a car approaching on a side road. We were about the reach an intersection at the same time, and he slowed down and stopped at the stop sign, allowing the car in front of me to continue. I was approaching and he had to give way to me also. I thought he was, but after sitting there for some time, he pulled out on to the highway a few metres in front of me. There was no chance for me to stop, so I made the decision to slam into the back of him square on. At that moment around him I saw a fuel taking coming towards us. If I bounced him into the tanker things were going to get serious. I used cadence braking and edged two wheels off the road. He hadn't bothered to accelerate so just before I was about to hit him I put the other two wheel on to the grass and finished up with fence up to the windscreen. Unless I had been alert, I never could have pulled that off and it could have involved the tanker.

Quote

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.

If it was a 12 ft sealed road with no embankments, ditches obstacles or trees each side maybe, but refer to the Peter Brock comment above.

The Road Authorities work on a set of standards at two levels, worldwide and Australia wide.

Victoria's wire barriers have had 3,000 strikes so far, and are saving lives to the extent that there is a huge expansion programme. I would expect we will see speed limits on wired road to go up from 100 to 110

Edited by turboplanner
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, onetrack said:

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. 

Several States have no warnings for fixed or mobile, and Victoria is extending point to point cameras, and that's the best way to go. Once you know there's no point trying to locate cameras, you settle in to the new Millenial world, and you'll save money on fines.

 

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

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

Fatigue and inattention are right up at the top. A student spends around 120 hours; way above rec flying.

 

 

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

The majority of crashes are as you say, but we can reduce deaths by road design and separating trees from cars, and two way roads date back thousands of years to when people walked on tracks; they are not suitable for cars.

 

 

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

You can be very skilled but fatigued, or picking up something from the floor, or punching a GPS, or be unlucky like Peter Brock was and be hit by a road defect. It's amazing how many drivers finish their driving careers in their 80's with very average driving skills.

 

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

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.

Attention is one of the big factors, and needs to be taught. I put a snap question to a lot of people, asking what they are seeing, and their focus point is often several hundred metres before mine, sometimes just a few metres ahead of the vehicle. When I give them an aiming point and explain that by looking there they can see incidents, and traffic bunching up, a whole new world opens up for them.

 

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

 

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:

Distraction with phones, texting, GPS, itunes etc. probably would have turned the fatal statistics into a J curve upwards if it hadn't been for cable barriers in Victoria. I also find I'm distracted just being involved in a hands free conversation if I have to concentrate. This is at the top of Victorian compliance and enforcement and they have just made a big purchase of high definition cameras specifically programmed for mobile phone use detection.

Share this post


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

If it was a 12 ft sealed road with no embankments, ditches obstacles or trees each side maybe

This is exactly the type of road I'm talking about, they are commonplace here.

I agree that driving 10/10 is not very bright on a public road. I like a balance between falling asleep ,  being burned out, and fuel economy, but that number is still way higher than allowed and will see your licence disappear. All of my bikes will comfortably cruise around 180 but it's not economical, you can run out of fuel between towns around here, and it reduces rear tyre life significantly. It's a similar story for cars.

There different times and places where different approaches are required. A rigid limit can never cover anything but one option.

 

All of the responses to the last post #51 indicate to me that we are still just treating symptoms. People in this country are not encouraged or taught to drive as if your life depends on it, instead we treat them like toddlers and "baby proof" the house.

 

6 minutes ago, old man emu said:

😲 Wow! just how far off-track can this thread get? It started to drift at Post #12. Turbo's post above was #52. Looks like an unforcast wind shift has occurred.

And I'll contribute some more...maybe it's a topic some feel strongly about.

Edited by M61A1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 50 years of driving I have spun a car at highway speed three times. I was able to recover and point the car straight each time because of a lot of aggressive bush driving off road in my teenage years that taught me how to do it. 

 

Recovery also needed luck in one case, no fence or spoon drain beside the road and no trees. One incident was due to inattention, the other two to bad road surface, one of which was a drum of diesel spilled by a truck on heavy rain.

 

anyway, my point is that experience of aggressive driving in safe paddock conditions, to the point of loss of control, is really useful later on.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to insist my wife and daughter do a few stick turns and panic stops on gravel, just to get a feel for handling the car.

The other rule: never swerve to avoid an animal.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an idea for sorting out road safety for you Turbo....

Starts with an ad spoken by responsible sounding government hack. 

I'm Joe Mc Doddle  minister for road safety. we've made some recent changes to how road safety will be applied in this country.

We've decided that it all up to you....On XXXXXX date, we no longer care how you drive, you're mature adults now. None of the speed limits will be enforced along with pretty much anything else.

Sounds good right?

You will have some responsibilities though.....If you injure someone, you will have to pay the medical and care costs, if you kill someone you will go to jail, and we may seize you or your families property to pay for damages. If you damage any property you will have to pay for it and any loss incurred. Basically, if you screw up you will pay.

We will still provide basic roads and advisory signage, but the rest is up to you.

This is also in line with current plans to save the planet, we actually need less people on it, so if you kill yourself, that's fine with us, just remember your family will be paying any cost.

We've also done the sums and the welfare we won't have to pay easily covers any revenue we would have made from you.

I probably should mention that any insurance will only cover those you caused loss to, and you will we liable for the costs and have to repay the insurer.

So... It's up to YOU!

 

:amazon:

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is exactly the type of road I'm talking about, they are commonplace here.

I agree that driving 10/10 is not very bright on a public road. I like a balance between falling asleep ,  being burned out, and fuel economy, but that number is still way higher than allowed and will see your licence disappear. All of my bikes will comfortably cruise around 180 but it's not economical, you can run out of fuel between towns around here, and it reduces rear tyre life

I had a gudgeon jam the bore and seize the engine at 170 on a Vincent; I usually cruised at 160. The disparate speed issue applies even more with bikes because on the road you don't have protection. Bikes have been left behind in the road safety programme and the horrific fatality rate, has started some discussions on what to do in Victoria. Where riders are not doing crazy things like twice the speed limits or weaving in and out of traffic, they are a class where most accidents are caused by others.

Quote

There different times and places where different approaches are required. A rigid limit can never cover anything but one option.

You are wanting to ride in a system used by millions of other people; someone has to set the basic rules. If they're not set correctly, they can be changed, but my guess is they're not going to let you ride a bike at 130 just because that's your preferred speed.

 

Quote

 

All of the responses to the last post #51 indicate to me that we are still just treating symptoms.

I'm talking about symptoms as you say; moving on from there to actions is one of the most interesting parts about road safety, but if OME is concerned about thread drift, he'd blow a fuse at a 10,000 word proposed policy that can be put into law. We are just touching tiny edges here.

 

Quote

People in this country are not encouraged or taught to drive as if your life depends on it, instead we treat them like toddlers and "baby proof" the house.

The current driver training vs the current road toll indicates the training policy is about right. Road fatalities are not a shambles; they are still aiming for zero, and the annual toll is below the average of most activities. I was an advocate of driver training courses and defensive driving until I looked at how little that subject featured in fatal accidents, how many highly skilled drivers die. 

 

 

Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main reason for road crashes is stupidity. The figure is something like the lowest 10% cause 90% of the accidents.

This observation is so politically incorrect that it will never be taken notice of , so we will continue to have idiots crashing.

A possible way out would be to do driving tests in a simulator, where emergency situations could be put in and a meaningful score given.

My guess is that the bleeding hearts would insist that you had to allow idiots to drive even when they were identified.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

they are a class where most accidents are caused by others.

Do you have evidence of that? I read an article a while ago that quoted statistics that showed most motorcycle accidents and fatalities were the fault of the rider, despite the popular claim that it's almost always "sorry, I didn't see you mate".

 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You are wanting to ride in a system used by millions of other people; someone has to set the basic rules. If they're not set correctly, they can be changed, but my guess is they're not going to let you ride a bike at 130 just because that's your preferred speed.

For most of our highways if the must have a limit, 130 would be good start, 140 even better. Remember it supposed to be an upper  limit not a lowest common denominator, you don't have to do it. Many do it anyway, I believe there are statistics that show those with a high number of speeding offences and those with a high number crashes are not same group.

 

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

The current driver training vs the current road toll indicates the training policy is about right. Road fatalities are not a shambles; they are still aiming for zero, and the annual toll is below the average of most activities. I was an advocate of driver training courses and defensive driving until I looked at how little that subject featured in fatal accidents, how many highly skilled drivers die. 

I think that raising the bar just a little here might actually produce greater results than anticipated. I cant speak for Victoria, but QLD driver training is atrocious. I put my daughter through most of 100 hours she was required to do, but I made her take some professional driving lessons. Generally speaking, I was amazed at the rhetoric and old wives tales these people teach the next generation of drivers, with no real concern about actual competence.

I also wanted her to do some defensive driver training, but when I looked into the content of the training, I was appalled. Essentially most of them are expensive repetitions of road safety commercials.

I ended up taking her with a car club for a day on a skid pan with some professional instruction.

According local police, it's not skilled drivers dying here, nor is it the young P plater hoons as commonly whinged about in the local papers, the problem is apparently middle age, distracted or incompetent drivers. Looking at the local news and papers would seem to support this. These drivers just don't seem to give a damn, nor does anyone seem to be concerned about educating them.

Share this post


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

Do you have evidence of that? I read an article a while ago that quoted statistics that showed most motorcycle accidents and fatalities were the fault of the rider, despite the popular claim that it's almost always "sorry, I didn't see you mate".

With a bit of luck you might be able to drill down into what's online and see.

Quote

 

For most of our highways if the must have a limit, 130 would be good start, 140 even better. Remember it supposed to be an upper  limit not a lowest common denominator, you don't have to do it. Many do it anyway, I believe there are statistics that show those with a high number of speeding offences and those with a high number crashes are not same group.

Your personal belief isn't used to set the limits. There are roads which have been increased from 100 to 110 and then reveresed again as statistics climbed; it's not a rigid set in stone, but is the most watched by the voters so is the most political, and most people believe the speed kills BS.

 

Quote

 

I think that raising the bar just a little here might actually produce greater results than anticipated. I cant speak for Victoria, but QLD driver training is atrocious. I put my daughter through most of 100 hours she was required to do, but I made her take some professional driving lessons. Generally speaking, I was amazed at the rhetoric and old wives tales these people teach the next generation of drivers, with no real concern about actual competence.

I also wanted her to do some defensive driver training, but when I looked into the content of the training, I was appalled. Essentially most of them are expensive repetitions of road safety commercials.

I ended up taking her with a car club for a day on a skid pan with some professional instruction.

I also think the bar could be raised with basic training, advanced training and periodic tests.

 

 

Quote

According local police, it's not skilled drivers dying here, nor is it the young P plater hoons as commonly whinged about in the local papers, the problem is apparently middle age, distracted or incompetent drivers. Looking at the local news and papers would seem to support this. These drivers just don't seem to give a damn, nor does anyone seem to be concerned about educating them.

Your wasting your time talking to local police, a mate who races, a truck driver etc, not because you won't get professional information, but because you'll only get a minute cross-section, I was doing some work on Light Commercials and towing a few days ago, and there are over 2 MILLION out there registered; you have to try to collect the information from that cross section.

Edited by turboplanner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I go. Sinning against myself.

 

There are three overall components of a traffic collision: 

  1. The Driver
  2. The Vehicle
  3. The Road.

Over the past 50+ years we have seen major improvements in the passive safety of vehicles. Also breakages such as snapped steering rods or dropped tailshafts have almost been things confined to history due to better manufacturing practices and improvements in metalurgy.  In the same time our roads have been upgraded from windy, one lane each way, irregularly radiused curves, and blind crests. Improvements in these two components have had major influences in reducing collisions and their effects on vehicle occupants.

 

That leaves the third component - the Driver. 

This component of the traffic collision matrix has barely been addressed. Sure, offence detection practices (RBT, speed detection etc) have been flogged to death because they are the easy fix. What haven't been addressed are the Human Factors of motoring. I'm sick and tired of driving around with people sitting on the RS of my car. I feel like putting a sticker on the back of my car reading, "GET OFF MY ARSE - I'M NOT A KINGS CROSS RENT BOY". These are the same drivers who go around you and blatt off into the distance, only to have me stop right behind them at the next set of lights.

 

We should, nay MUST, introduce the study of Human Factors as they relate to driving into our High School curricula from about Year 9. The matters we should be teaching our youngsters are not difficult to grasp:

  1. The road system is an integral component of the economic system. The flow of traffic must not be interrupted as a result of the excessive egocentric behaviour of drivers. Don't drive like hare, or a tortoise.
  2. The average speed of the flow of traffic within metropolitan area is 10 to 20 kph below the signposted limits over a 20 to 50 kilometre journey. Learn to live with it.
  3. You'll make up for a couple of seconds lost through being courteous at the next set of traffic lights.
  4. Plan your trip. Know the estimated time to complete it. Use GPS-based planners or Google Maps to find out how long the journey will take.
  5. Explore alternate routes. Explore Rat Runs along your normal journeys so you can avoid delays caused by people who don't do as advised in  No. 1 above.
  6. Practise vehicle handling (stopping, starting and cornering) so that you don't inflict abnormal G-loads on your passenger.
  7. Practise maintaining a constant engine RPM and letting the gearbox bring the vehicle up to cruise speed.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo said: "The current driver training vs the current road toll indicates the training policy is about right.

M61A1 said: "I was amazed at [what] these people teach the next generation of drivers, with no real concern about actual competence. 

 

I'm against you on that one, Turbo. I see some atrocious acts carried out by Learner drivers under the supervision of "Professional" instructors. Simple things, like not keeping left on multi-laned roads where the speed limit is 100 or above and Learners are restricted to 80.  The very worst thing is allowing Learners, on whose Permits the ink is still wet (ie no more than 10 hours' experience) to set off into everyday traffic. 

 

One of my goals is to produce a driver training syllabus for kids being taught by their parents. There would be some stuff in it about the physics of vehicle motion (not too heavy), about the way power from the engine gets to the wheels, and how the grip of tyres affects vehicle movement. A big point I would make is that a driver should always preserve a Zone of Safety in front and to the sides of the vehicle.

 

Does this sound familiar? It should to any pilot. It's basically the same approach we take to ab initio pilot training. 

  1. Identify the skills to be introduced to the student.
  2. Develop a step-by-step program to introduce the skills to the student.
  3. Demonstrate the skill to the student.
  4. Provide the opportunity for the student to experience the skill.
  5. Have the student critique his/her application of the skill.
  6. Remedy sub-standard performance of the skill.
  7. Allow the student to practice the skill with less and less involvement by the instructor.
  8. Have the student complete a critique of performance after each learning session.
  9. Relate the time limit for each learning session to the degree of complexity of the skill.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, to hell with thread drift... I’ve resisted as long as I can bear😬

 

I’m grateful I grew up in Alberta, Canada. Learner’s permit at 14, Driver’s licence at 16, no alcohol before 18.  Driving at night through blizzards on black ice gave one an appreciation for driving “on the limits” (10/10) at 45 km/hr.  “Skid school” was an everyday occurrence when I drove myself to High School before first light. Following school, I then got a job driving GMC Public Transit busses in Calgary, again a 3 month defensive driving course + more “Skid School” - this time in a big bus on ice!  Somehow, I survived it all.

 

I’ve driven the German Autobahns and appreciate the high speed skills and how Europeans actually DO stay out of the fast lanes unless overtaking at speed.  Why are Aussies so inclined not to do this!!

 

As for unlimited speed limits in NT, my biggest concern is Kangaroo strike, as unlike Europe, the roads in NT don’t stop incursions from wildlife.

 

I’m not sure where I’m going with all of this except to support those who advocate for better driver training, and flexible speed limits that make sense in each specific circumstance (not “politically” too slow, and not recklessly too fast).

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to post here, as it's well off topic.

BUT

If the authorities can have six deaths as acceptable on a road that previously had zero, I don't think the Northern Territories should employ them. (the police )

There was No speed limit on the Stuart hwy NT, & no deaths for many years, but after the limit was imposed there was lots, six on the second year.

I'll stop as on the wrong thread !.

spacesailor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, old man emu said:

only to have me stop right behind them at the next set of lights.

I'll bet the reason you're right behind them at the next lights is because you held them up sufficiently to cause it. :stirrer:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:drive: I don't use my speedometer to check my speed. I have cross-referenced its indication with GPS information. Now I drive 7 to 10% above the speed indicated by my speedometer, and know that I'm sitting on the speed limit.

 

Talking about governments requiring strict compliance with speed limits ... I believe that in Victoria authorities allow virtually no leeway. Is it true that you can get photographed for 103/100? It seems that when Victorians are driving in NSW they consistently drive below the speed limit, slower than the passing NSW drivers.  Not that it stops them killing themselves between Parkes and Coonabarabran on the Newell Hwy as they try to make it from Melbourne to the Gold Coast in one hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, old man emu said:

:drive: I don't use my speedometer to check my speed. I have cross-referenced its indication with GPS information. Now I drive 7 to 10% above the speed indicated by my speedometer, and know that I'm sitting on the speed limit.

I do the same; the speedo module is driven from the gearbox, and the manufacturers build a tolerance in so there's no chance of them being dragged in to a Court case.  

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

 

Talking about governments requiring strict compliance with speed limits ... I believe that in Victoria authorities allow virtually no leeway. Is it true that you can get photographed for 103/100? It seems that when Victorians are driving in NSW they consistently drive below the speed limit, slower than the passing NSW drivers.  Not that it stops them killing themselves between Parkes and Coonabarabran on the Newell Hwy as they try to make it from Melbourne to the Gold Coast in one hit.

Victoria has a 3 km/hr tolerance at all speeds. A lot of people set the cruise control for that limit, say 103, but if there's any surge or minor change due to grade the camera will trigger, so it pays to set the CC at the posted speed limit and you can forget about camera fines. I got one last week through my own fault, but prior to that, hadn't contributed any money to the State for about 10 years, when I used to spend about $1,000 per year. Motorists with out a GPS consistently drive at around 96 on Victorian highways.

 

Heavy truck drivers with 100 speed limited trucks right up the east coast of Australia seem to set their chips for an actual 103 km/hr.

 

The Newell is a very dangerous highway (or actually drivers drive very dangerously on the Newell). For a couple of hours you can have no traffic, then have to sit behind a convoy of B Doubles. On one trip, we passed a Falcon towing a mobile home (An Atco building on a tri axle) north of Tocumwal, and about an hour later a Nissan Patrol with camper trailer passed us. We were towing a caravan, all three of us were probably travelling at about 90, and we crossed paths a couple of times that day and the next morning as each one stopped for breaks. On the second afternoon we came across an "accident" sign and shortly after saw the mobile home facing down a steep hill, and a Mack Prime Mover with the front pushed in. As we drove past we saw the Falcon compressed into half its length, the occupants dead. Overhanging trees at the bottom of the steep valley had masked the approach of the Mack, the road was damp, the foot went for the brake, the car slid, and that was that. Shaken from that, we heard on the CB a bit later that a Nissan Patrol and trailer had rolled over north of Coonabarabran, and it was the one we had been passing/being passed. Aside from that there were not indications at all that the Newell was anything other than a big wide open road, but that gave me a lifetime lesson in adding a bit more concentration when I was highway driving, and especially with a caravan.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Your wasting your time talking to local police

I would like to think that one could reasonably assume that when you a re having a brief from the region's accident investigation people as part of a "safety day", that the figures they quote might be accurate.

On the other hand, the local police can't even drive a vehicle in accordance with the law they are supposed to be enforcing.

We seem to have crashes at intersections where someone is turning. The last one killed an oncoming driver when the vehicle turning was catapulted into them by a truck travelling the same direction as the turning vehicle.

Drivers around here have a horrible habit of swinging wildly in the opposite direction just before they turn, then cut across the oncoming  lane of the intersecting road.

One nearly got me on a bike a few years ago. he was pointed 45° to the right with his front wheels over the centreline and pointed towards the intersection to the right. I passed on the left as you are allowed to when a vehicle is turning right. This is when I realised he was actually lining up to angle park on the left, and I was between him and his car park. The shocked look on his face face his intentions away, no indication was used.

A larger slower accelerating vehicle may have killed his wife.

On another issue....How can driver be educated on the meaning of the "do not overtake turning vehicle" signs? It's not just myself. I have a friend who drives combinations interstate on weekends who has mentioned it is commonplace to have a heavy vehicle turning right from the right of the lane, when a vehicle will go to the left using the slip lane available then suddenly stop in front of him when the noticed the sign, 

The sign is there to stop drivers turning on the inside, but they seem to think it means don't overtake at all and only seem to notice it when they are beside it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something weird about the Newell. People  seem to get "mental" about passing or being passed. and the semi's are" different" the way they behave.. I don't go that way often anymore.

  People are inclined to get MAD easily these days. I drive on the GPS speed but get "close" tailgated even when I'm already passing traffic to the left of me and right on the limit. Use of cruise control makes people "bunch up" dangerously at times and someone's only got to lane change a bit close and there's 5 vehicles involved. I've adopted a different driving technique on highways (dual lane).  More space and move into the passing lane earlier. Clowns just love to sit so you can't move out of the left lane.

    On vehicle handling, the sideways driving and Rally driving I did as a younger person is invaluable. You don't panic when the adhesion suddenly isn't there  like a round about where diesel has spilled or a black Ice event. I did a lot of winter driving in the snow and ice too. You get a lot of road surfaces on a motorbike where there's virtually NO grip at times. and you would just drop it if your reflexes were slow.

   The OTHER drivers are what scares ME on a bike. They just don't  (bother to) SEE you and stare straight at you as they turn right in front of you and they will cut in when passing and put you into the gravel..  In the "High Country" the Toorak tractors coming the other way go really wide on some corners and are definitely in no hurry to get back on the correct side of the road for a motorbike, and let's not talk about timber trucks that are training for Daytona on mountain dirt roads.. Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

I would like to think that one could reasonably assume that when you a re having a brief from the region's accident investigation people as part of a "safety day", that the figures they quote might be accurate.

On the other hand, the local police can't even drive a vehicle in accordance with the law they are supposed to be enforcing.

We seem to have crashes at intersections where someone is turning. The last one killed an oncoming driver when the vehicle turning was catapulted into them by a truck travelling the same direction as the turning vehicle.

Drivers around here have a horrible habit of swinging wildly in the opposite direction just before they turn, then cut across the oncoming  lane of the intersecting road.

One nearly got me on a bike a few years ago. he was pointed 45° to the right with his front wheels over the centreline and pointed towards the intersection to the right. I passed on the left as you are allowed to when a vehicle is turning right. This is when I realised he was actually lining up to angle park on the left, and I was between him and his car park. The shocked look on his face face his intentions away, no indication was used.

A larger slower accelerating vehicle may have killed his wife.

On another issue....How can driver be educated on the meaning of the "do not overtake turning vehicle" signs? It's not just myself. I have a friend who drives combinations interstate on weekends who has mentioned it is commonplace to have a heavy vehicle turning right from the right of the lane, when a vehicle will go to the left using the slip lane available then suddenly stop in front of him when the noticed the sign, 

The sign is there to stop drivers turning on the inside, but they seem to think it means don't overtake at all and only seem to notice it when they are beside it.

 

 

Here you're covering Behaviour, one of the cornerstones in Racing safety which transfers to road safety.

The sudden pull to the right before a left hand turn comes from the horse and cart days  with narrower roads and big turning circles; it was necessary, particularly with 4+ horse teams to use more on the roads to get around. My grandfather took out the rear of the truck shed several times by pulling back on the steering wheel and yelling "WHOA!!!" when he had a perfectly good brake pedal. Their driving habits were imprinted on their sons, even tough they had much tighter turning circles in cars and the roads were wider, and they've just about all died out but there's still a lingering DNA group that dart to the right.

 

The optimum car park is 45 degrees nose in; I've never understood the logic of stopping the traffic to reverse in.

 

There are millions of non-injury accidents per year so it hasn't been feasible for police to investigate them, but in the digital age there will be a camera with distance measuring, the cop will just walk the paths of the two vehicles and the software will identify the pattern of any skid mar, it's length, where the vehicles finished up, back calculate the speeds, put it into the database, and dodgy drivers will get a retraining course on how to turn a corner, and the database will identify that only a nut case would design rear entry street parking and the problems will disappear.

 

The "Do Not Overtake Turning Vehicle signs" were designed for semi trailers only. I used to own a low loader and carted dozers. The entry on to the property was narrow so I had to start my turn out wide. Even with the left hand turn indicators flashing, people would take the opportunity to pass on the left. One day a guy left his run too late, and may prime over closed the gate to the footpath and he realised the low tray of the trailer was about to cut him in half; you've never seen anyone get into reverse!

 

A few people painted the words on the rear of their trailers, the phrase struck a chord, someone started manufacturing the yellow signs, then people started plastering them on rigids and Land Cruiser trays, so the meaning was lost. In Victoria, in a multi-lane road you are not allowed to enter an adjoining lane unless it is free, so there's a potential conflict there. Certainly motorists need to be given some theory on how an articulated truck needs to turn, and the stopping distances.

Share this post


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

The optimum car park is 45 degrees nose in; I've never understood the logic of stopping the traffic to reverse in.

In the incident I'm referring to, the driver was nosing into 90° parking on the left. I mentioned it because it illustrates how wide some of these drivers swing.

I was of the understanding that driver training was supposed to educate drivers into correct habits, not encourage them to continue with medieval ones.

Despite the traffic act clearly explaining that right right turn is made from as far right and parallel and as close to the centreline a practical, and the opposite for a left turn, even the local plod nearly takes out oncoming traffic as he turns. The same person just shakes his head when you indicate left, move to the left of the road, then turn without any incursion on oncoming traffic, while he turns left from the right side of the carriageway.

I would love to point out the error of his ways (nicely of course), but I reckon I'd just be making myself a target.

 

Basically what I'm trying to get at is why are these things not enforced and drivers educated? Around here it's killing people at a greater rate than excessive speed, but all we get is a pollie on camera whining about dangerous intersections, without a mention of our dangerous drivers. 

 

https://www.qt.com.au/news/mcveigh-warrego-highway-upgrade-urgent/3573378/

https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/02/15/34/warrego-highway-oakey-fatal-crash

 You can see that there is plenty of room on the left, but somehow the truck is at fault, not the git that swung wide.

 

And again:

https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/popular-dad-killed-in-crash-scott-bennett/1251882/

 

There is a coroners report on that one which pretty much ignores every factor except the truck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, M61A1 said:

In the incident I'm referring to, the driver was nosing into 90° parking on the left. I mentioned it because it illustrates how wide some of these drivers swing.

I was of the understanding that driver training was supposed to educate drivers into correct habits, not encourage them to continue with medieval ones.

Despite the traffic act clearly explaining that right right turn is made from as far right and parallel and as close to the centreline a practical, and the opposite for a left turn, even the local plod nearly takes out oncoming traffic as he turns. The same person just shakes his head when you indicate left, move to the left of the road, then turn without any incursion on oncoming traffic, while he turns left from the right side of the carriageway.

I would love to point out the error of his ways (nicely of course), but I reckon I'd just be making myself a target.

 

Basically what I'm trying to get at is why are these things not enforced and drivers educated? Around here it's killing people at a greater rate than excessive speed, but all we get is a pollie on camera whining about dangerous intersections, without a mention of our dangerous drivers. 

 

https://www.qt.com.au/news/mcveigh-warrego-highway-upgrade-urgent/3573378/

https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/02/15/34/warrego-highway-oakey-fatal-crash

 You can see that there is plenty of room on the left, but somehow the truck is at fault, not the git that swung wide.

 

And again:

https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/popular-dad-killed-in-crash-scott-bennett/1251882/

 

There is a coroners report on that one which pretty much ignores every factor except the truck.

 

Probably every one of those drivers, if you had tested them the day before the accident would have passed your how to turn right and how to act when a vehicle turns right and my subconscious training of what to do when a car or truck is about to fill your screen. The causes for the three fatalities have probably all been determined, but I can think of (a) your thoughts (b) fatigue, (c) inattention including a quick phone call or text, (d) alcohol, (e) an impossible task for the semi to stop without hitting someone. We used to have a brake lever for the trailer only, so if you were starting to jackknife you pulled the trailer brake lever hard and the trailer wheels acted like a parachute and pulled the truck straight, but then someone in the queue could still have been killed. For OME's four basic areas, the people I work with from time to time have split each one into many sub groups, and often go the next step in saying, "OK, looking at the crashed vehicle in which the person was killed, how could we turn that into an injury only."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see a crash involving a truck that failed to stop in time, I see a truck driver who drives his truck like a car, leaving no margin for error, inadequate braking distance, and a lack of "defensive driver", driving tactics - which allows for other drivers making serious errors of judgement, being inattentive, being distracted, or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

I might add, I have driven trucks for over 50 years, have owned a Drake  4 rows of 8, 100 tonne spread low-loader, with 2 rows of 8 dolly, and hauled earthmovers weighing 100 tonnes and loads up to 7 metres wide.

The biggest danger when you're hauling oversize, is motorists who can't even pass a wide load without rolling over (and yes, had one who rolled their car and caravan straight into the RH front wheel of the Mack, while trying to overtake at 80kmh!).

 

The problem with a large percentage of truck drivers is the inability to back off the loud pedal until it's too late. They are focussed on "pedal-to-the-metal" because they have to be at "Point B" at a certain (tight schedule) time, after leaving "Point A".

Not a lot different to the "get-home-itis" problem, that is behind the poor decision-making, involved in numerous light aircraft crashes.

  • Like 2

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

×