Moron Motorists #3

[g-boaf]

Yep, very common. Headlights too are a problem.

One is failed or not working very well so they have high beam going on the other one. Blinding everyone in the process.

We need off-roader style spotlights that can be aimed at them so they understand how annoying high beam is.

[CmdrBiggles]

Yep, very common. Headlights too are a problem.

One is failed or not working very well so they have high beam going on the other one. Blinding everyone in the process.

We need off-roader style spotlights that can be aimed at them so they understand how annoying high beam is.

Over the top.
Not that offroad spotlights are particularly lawful in many cases!
As for bikers, well there are a great many CREE/COB front bike lights that are more than capable of blinding people and motorists either by accident or ill-intent. I know my own KNOG BLINDER 1300 is sufficient to make you see fleeting stars — if not temporary loss of visual acuity — if you so much make a pass at it! Alas, it's there for me to see and be seen by, and it has proven its worth in both heavy traffic and the open road in darkness. Just don't stand in front and stare at it.

[Cyclophiliac]

Yep, very common. Headlights too are a problem.

One is failed or not working very well so they have high beam going on the other one. Blinding everyone in the process.

We need off-roader style spotlights that can be aimed at them so they understand how annoying high beam is.

I know what the result of that would be, in this messed up country:
- enraged motorist
- police attributing part of the blame for any incident on the cyclist, due to their "provocation" of bright head lights
- no justice for the cyclist

[g-boaf]

Yep, very common. Headlights too are a problem.

One is failed or not working very well so they have high beam going on the other one. Blinding everyone in the process.

We need off-roader style spotlights that can be aimed at them so they understand how annoying high beam is.

I know what the result of that would be, in this messed up country:
- enraged motorist
- police attributing part of the blame for any incident on the cyclist, due to their "provocation" of bright head lights
- no justice for the cyclist

I was thinking of some of the vigilante car drivers you see on Youtube taking revenge on the high beam brigade.

Worst of all are these damn Rangers that come up behind you with high beam on. Some of the Range Rover products are pretty bad as well, they have auto high-beam but it works badly.

[redsonic]

The driver who mowed down and killed 5 people at the Daylesford Pub a year ago has had all charges against him dropped.
The Magistrate at his committal hearing judged that there was not enough evidence to support an indictable offence.
The basic premise was that he may already have been hypoglycaemic when he got in his car to drive, so his actions weren't voluntary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-19/ ... /104369830

Makes you wonder how we can justify giving a licence to anyone suffering from a serious medical condition like diabetes.

[redsonic]

I encountered a moron truck driver while filtering to the front at the lights on my motor scooter tonight.
When pulling in front of a truck, I always position myself well ahead and check back to make eye contact with the driver to make sure he can see me. This moron had a string of helmets on his dashboard blocking his forward & downward vision even more than is normal for a large truck. What chance do we have of being seen?

[warthog1]

The driver who mowed down and killed 5 people at the Daylesford Pub a year ago has had all charges against him dropped.
The Magistrate at his committal hearing judged that there was not enough evidence to support an indictable offence.
The basic premise was that he may already have been hypoglycaemic when he got in his car to drive, so his actions weren't voluntary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-19/ ... /104369830

Makes you wonder how we can justify giving a licence to anyone suffering from a serious medical condition like diabetes.

I saw that too and it made me angry I must admit.

[WyvernRH]

The driver who mowed down and killed 5 people at the Daylesford Pub a year ago has had all charges against him dropped.
The Magistrate at his committal hearing judged that there was not enough evidence to support an indictable offence.
The basic premise was that he may already have been hypoglycaemic when he got in his car to drive, so his actions weren't voluntary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-19/ ... /104369830

Makes you wonder how we can justify giving a licence to anyone suffering from a serious medical condition like diabetes.

I saw that too and it made me angry I must admit.

Made me spit nails... that's a cop out. Even if he's got away with this incident <sic> he should have his license revoked instantly on medical grounds. If not, he should basically be unable to gain any sort of car insurance except at astronomical costs, if then.

Richard

[redsonic]

Made me spit nails... that's a cop out. Even if he's got away with this incident <sic> he should have his license revoked instantly on medical grounds. If not, he should basically be unable to gain any sort of car insurance except at astronomical costs, if then.

Richard

I wonder if it would be possible to sue the GP who gave him his licence then testified that his diabetes made him unable to make an informed decision that he was unsafe to drive.

It would only take 1 or 2 successful civil cases like that, and I bet doctors would be a lot more careful who they deem fit to drive.

[Anrai]

The basic premise was that he may already have been hypoglycaemic when he got in his car to drive, so his actions weren't voluntary.

When does random blood sugar level testing start?
If this was being under the influence of alcohol it'd swing the opposite way, no?

[Mr Purple]

Made me spit nails... that's a cop out. Even if he's got away with this incident <sic> he should have his license revoked instantly on medical grounds. If not, he should basically be unable to gain any sort of car insurance except at astronomical costs, if then.

Richard

I wonder if it would be possible to sue the GP who gave him his licence then testified that his diabetes made him unable to make an informed decision that he was unsafe to drive.

It would only take 1 or 2 successful civil cases like that, and I bet doctors would be a lot more careful who they deem fit to drive.

The f-wit had a continuous glucose monitor on which would have been alarming the whole time. He ignored it.

This was not the GPs fault. He would have met every criteria to legally drive.

[hunch]

The news report a few days ago, seemed to have his defence arguing the blood sugar monitor was malfunctioning, and not reporting to his phone, not that it was merely in his pocket. Hmmm, could be "fake news" though.

A good one yesterday, where you wonder what is going through their mind. Yet another VAG driver in an Audi, 90 degree blind left hander on a 1 1/2 lane road, not infrequently used by buses and trucks, overtakes just before the bend and beside me on the apex within a foot or two, gave him a few choice words through the open passenger window, funnily enough drives into a driveway only a few houses up.

[Mr Purple]

Prosecution seemed to have evidence the CGM sent 9 hypoglycaemic alerts in the 40 minutes before the crash. That doesn’t sound like ‘malfunctioning’ to me.

His brain sure was by that stage. And although a medical condition caused it, ignoring every warning a medical condition was going to happen surely contributed.

[jasonc]

on the ride home yesterday was approaching a set of traffic lights in spring hill (qld). large truck was in both lanes, but more the right lane with left indicator on. two cars go up the left. i go up the right side of the truck and complimented their driving to the driver. he agreed. poor guy. did everything right.

[CmdrBiggles]

Prosecution seemed to have evidence the CGM sent 9 hypoglycaemic alerts in the 40 minutes before the crash. That doesn’t sound like ‘malfunctioning’ to me.

His brain sure was by that stage. And although a medical condition caused it, ignoring every warning a medical condition was going to happen surely contributed.

I am appalled, greatly, by the charges against him being dropped. Five die, and nobody can be held accountable? Seriously!?
Friends own a café in Daylesford, and said this morning the entire town is "pretty much enraged by the decision". Don't expect the well-off man of very few words (not even an 'I'm sorry for your grief') from Mt Macedon to be served in the town any time soon. Those families are going through hell on earth for the laziness and ineptitude of one man who quite simply should not have been driving.

[elantra]

The driver who mowed down and killed 5 people at the Daylesford Pub a year ago has had all charges against him dropped.
The Magistrate at his committal hearing judged that there was not enough evidence to support an indictable offence.
The basic premise was that he may already have been hypoglycaemic when he got in his car to drive, so his actions weren't voluntary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-19/ ... /104369830

Makes you wonder how we can justify giving a licence to anyone suffering from a serious medical condition like diabetes.

The current outcome of this legal process can only be described as heartbreaking.

Imagine how the families of the victims must feel.
It’s impossible to fully comprehend how they must feel.
And also the Paramedics who were there. How must they feel about this situation ?
And the doctors and nurses who too did their professional best for the child who made it to their care in the Emergency Department but then succumbed.

This must not be the end of it.
A full and proper investigation of the contributory factors that led to the tragedy should be done.

It is incredibly sad that this happened.
There is also a dark disappointment that a brand new technology - continuous blood glucose monitoring - has completely flopped with horrendous consequences.
And disappointment that a modern motor car with lots of bells and whistles - but all those bells and whistles did nothing to protect all these people.

[Mr Purple]

Don’t blame the technology. This charge was successfully defended because the driver had his phone in his pocket, so therefore argued that he didn’t receive the 9 alarms.

Looking at the manual for the device it sends the hypoglycaemia alarms without needing to scan your phone over the device.

So what he’s saying is that his actions weren’t voluntary because he was stupid. Why is this a defence?

[foo on patrol]

Don’t blame the technology. This charge was successfully defended because the driver had his phone in his pocket, so therefore argued that he didn’t receive the 9 alarms.

Looking at the manual for the device it sends the hypoglycaemia alarms without needing to scan your phone over the device.

So what he’s saying is that his actions weren’t voluntary because he was stupid. Why is this a defence?

I thought this was illegal, it is in QLD because you can't have it on your person whilst driving?

Foo

[Mr Purple]

Weirdly that may be legal in Victoria.

Either way it’s a lesser charge than manslaughter so him not his lawyer would likely care anyway.

[jasonc]

Don’t blame the technology. This charge was successfully defended because the driver had his phone in his pocket, so therefore argued that he didn’t receive the 9 alarms.

Looking at the manual for the device it sends the hypoglycaemia alarms without needing to scan your phone over the device.

So what he’s saying is that his actions weren’t voluntary because he was stupid. Why is this a defence?

I thought this was illegal, it is in QLD because you can't have it on your person whilst driving?

Foo

You can have your phone in your pocket here. 99% sure

[foo on patrol]

Don’t blame the technology. This charge was successfully defended because the driver had his phone in his pocket, so therefore argued that he didn’t receive the 9 alarms.

Looking at the manual for the device it sends the hypoglycaemia alarms without needing to scan your phone over the device.

So what he’s saying is that his actions weren’t voluntary because he was stupid. Why is this a defence?

I thought this was illegal, it is in QLD because you can't have it on your person whilst driving?

Foo

You can have your phone in your pocket here. 99% sure

You have too wonder why, we can't have uniform laws all over the country, it's a complete farce that you can do things in one State and not in another.

Foo

[MichaelB]

The driver who mowed down and killed 5 people at the Daylesford Pub a year ago has had all charges against him dropped.
The Magistrate at his committal hearing judged that there was not enough evidence to support an indictable offence.
The basic premise was that he may already have been hypoglycaemic when he got in his car to drive, so his actions weren't voluntary.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-19/ ... /104369830

Makes you wonder how we can justify giving a licence to anyone suffering from a serious medical condition like diabetes.

WTH ????

[Andy01]

I have a mate who has diabetes and has been using those continuous monitoring devices for 3 years now (they are not that new).

They have a high infant mortality rate - around 20-25% of all devices (he replaces it every 2 weeks) either fail to work properly from turn-on, or fail to give proper readings within the first 24 hours. If they are OK for the first 2 days, they seem to last & work properly for the full 14 days. My mate just contacts the supplier when one doesn't work and they Express mail a replacement to him - minimal questions asked, so they seem to know that the failure rate is high.

The alarm is LOUD and hard to miss - at least on Android anyway (he has a Samsung), and the app doesn't allow you turn the volume down. I have witnessed the alarms many times and it is loud enough to turn people's heads at neighbouring tables in a restaurant. Having his phone in his pocket shouldn't silence the alarm.

I may have misread above, but I don't think it is illegal in any state to have your phone in your pocket while driving - as long as it stays in your pocket and doesn't get touched or fiddled with while driving.

It is still up to the person to monitor & manage their own sugar levels - irrespective of what type of monitoring they use. If they choose to ignore alarms or turn off / silence a phone, that is one them - not the doctor, nor the govt.

While I think that this outcome is VERY poor, there will never be legislation preventing people with diabetes from driving. Part of the reason is that because the Australian population has a very large and ever increasing percentage of obese adults, no politician is ever going to upset such a large % of the voting public by taking away their basic "right" to drive.

Mr P can correct me, but I do think that people with Diabetes 1 have a licence condition to get an annual letter from their doctor, and presumably the doctor simply looks at how "stable" and under control their condition is before issuing the letter, so while it is a minor inconvenience for the person, the doctor really has no control over it unless the person is a complete moron who goes for the check-up with an out-of-whack result.

I struggle to see how this person could argue that they didn't know about their condition if they had continuous monitoring

[elantra]

I thought this was illegal, it is in QLD because you can't have it on your person whilst driving?

Foo

You can have your phone in your pocket here. 99% sure

You have too wonder why, we can't have uniform laws all over the country, it's a complete farce that you can do things in one State and not in another.

Foo

Yes absolutely, I guess that there would also be examples of this from the Transport industry which defy explanation.

It’s a very bad joke that laws about how you can “interact” with a phone device in a motor car or truck are different from State to State.
And also a bad joke that in one state the fine is almost $ 1200 and in other states it is less than $ 400.

In regards to diabetes and insulin, MOST people who develop diabetes IN LATER LIFE will (fortunately) NEVER need insulin (thankfully).

In the last 10 or 15 years the oral medications for management of Type 2 (also sometimes referred to as Mature-age Onset) have got a lot better.

It’s mainly insulin medication that causes issues with driving (apart from ignorance or incompetence of any person who drives)

But of course it’s not all good news - some of the best “new” diabetes medications such as Ozempic and other similar ones are sometimes impossible to obtain - because they are also in demand for other uses by large numbers of people who do not have diabetes.

If no one is held accountable for the Daylesford tragedy then surely it means that Legislation restricting the driving rules for INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETICS needs to be TIGHTENED UP.
A lot. And soon.
And yes, that’s tough, I know, I have relatives with insulin dependent diabetes.
But the situation as it stands is not good enough.

[foo on patrol]

I have a mate who has diabetes and has been using those continuous monitoring devices for 3 years now (they are not that new).

They have a high infant mortality rate - around 20-25% of all devices (he replaces it every 2 weeks) either fail to work properly from turn-on, or fail to give proper readings within the first 24 hours. If they are OK for the first 2 days, they seem to last & work properly for the full 14 days. My mate just contacts the supplier when one doesn't work and they Express mail a replacement to him - minimal questions asked, so they seem to know that the failure rate is high.

The alarm is LOUD and hard to miss - at least on Android anyway (he has a Samsung), and the app doesn't allow you turn the volume down. I have witnessed the alarms many times and it is loud enough to turn people's heads at neighbouring tables in a restaurant. Having his phone in his pocket shouldn't silence the alarm.

I may have misread above, but I don't think it is illegal in any state to have your phone in your pocket while driving - as long as it stays in your pocket and doesn't get touched or fiddled with while driving.

It is still up to the person to monitor & manage their own sugar levels - irrespective of what type of monitoring they use. If they choose to ignore alarms or turn off / silence a phone, that is one them - not the doctor, nor the govt.

While I think that this outcome is VERY poor, there will never be legislation preventing people with diabetes from driving. Part of the reason is that because the Australian population has a very large and ever increasing percentage of obese adults, no politician is ever going to upset such a large % of the voting public by taking away their basic "right" to drive.

Mr P can correct me, but I do think that people with Diabetes 1 have a licence condition to get an annual letter from their doctor, and presumably the doctor simply looks at how "stable" and under control their condition is before issuing the letter, so while it is a minor inconvenience for the person, the doctor really has no control over it unless the person is a complete moron who goes for the check-up with an out-of-whack result.

I struggle to see how this person could argue that they didn't know about their condition if they had continuous monitoring

QLD.

New mobile phone rules start today
Centenary Crime Prevention Unit on Jul 26, 2021 (AT) 3:31pm
Did you know that from today ( July 26, 2021) new rules will be come into place to make it illegal for a driver to hold a mobile phone in their hand or have it resting on any part of their body, including their lap? The phone doesn’t need to be turned on or in use.

Foo