Moron Motorists #3

[MichaelB]

Tesla driver taking two parking spaces at Bunnings:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real- ... b0c25612bb

Seems it was part of a Bunning promo for the EV charging stations.

Hope like hell they do t get approved for sale in Aus due to ADR non-compliance.

We have too many Toorak Tractors already

[elantra]

Older drivers recognise their declining level of competence generally and drive less distance and at less busy times.
There are less studies for crash rate vs distance travelled but if you look the crash rate vs distance travelled rises as we age.







How ageing affects driving
The number of drivers over the age of 70 has doubled in the last 20 years in Victoria alone, with 533,000 older drivers on the road as of 2019.

According to experts such as University of New South Wales research scientist Kaarin Anstey, this comes with an increase in risk.

"Ageing does affect our skills quite a lot. To be a safe driver, we need to have adequate reaction time, visual function and cognitive function. And these are all things that show decline in normal ageing," Kaarin told Insight.

"South Australian data showed that at age 60 to 69, when a driver is involved in a crash, they are responsible 57 per cent of the time. This rises to 64 per cent in the 70 to 79 year old age group, and up to 85 per cent in the 80 plus age group."

"So, it is really the over 80s where there is a marked increase in risk," Kaarin said.

Each state in Australia has different rules and checks for ageing drivers.

NSW has the strictest laws, requiring drivers to have annual medical assessments after the age of 75, and practical assessments after 85.

Queensland requires a yearly medical check up over the age of 75, with no practical assessments required.

Other states like Victoria and South Australia rely on self-assessment.

Despite the variation in the way the states approach testing, research from the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development shows that the crash rate for older drivers is consistent across Australia.

But testing does help detect some drivers that should no longer be on the roads.

Kaarin Anstey says that while testing is helpful, some of the tests conducted such as the visual acuity test aren’t shown to be very effective. And that self-assessment is often unreliable.

"We've all been driving for decades. We don't actually know much about our habits until something really bad happens," she said.[/i]


https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/art ... /v1jp0ivju

https://www.drive.com.au/caradvice/elde ... e-testing/

Yeah, if the News media is correct- (Semi driver is 75 years of age) - that is completely Nuts and symptomatic of a deeply flawed system.
But lots of things in this incident are flawed - how can it be acceptable to have a major exit lane dissecting a designated urban bicycle lane like that ?
It’s farcical road engineering, probably like a lot of road engineering in Australian cities generally.

But the evidence is there - at 75 yrs of age even the fittest of us are NOT as sharp as we were at 55 yrs of age !
And more significantly, the risk that any one of us will have a sudden loss of consciousness- eg. Stroke, Cerebral Ischaemic Event, Arrhythmia or Myocardial infarction etc - is much greater if we are 75 than if we are 55.
As I said, perhaps there is an error been made in his reported age, or perhaps he is a part-time/ex truck driver dragged into work because of exceptional circumstances.

[AdelaidePeter]

Older drivers recognise their declining level of competence generally and drive less distance and at less busy times.
There are less studies for crash rate vs distance travelled but if you look the crash rate vs distance travelled rises as we age.

Chart 3a is interesting though: ages 70-75 have actually the *lowest* rate of crashes per km driven. But I wonder (a) how much of that is self-adjusting (because many 70-75 year olds regulate how and when they drive), and (b) whether the stats would be different for the drivers of very large vehicles.

[Anrai]

"South Australian data showed that at age 60 to 69, when a driver is involved in a crash, they are responsible 57 per cent of the time. [..] "

I'm actually really curious, I know it's two different sets of data, but I'm wondering how this relates to the US charts at the top. It almost reads like the 60-69 bracket are the sweet spot for avoiding other people's crashes, assuming the US trend is present in the rest of the SA data. Lowest crash rates per distance, but if they're in a crash it's a little over coinflip odds it was their fault. It would be nice to compare further down the age ranges on the SA data. And for all we know just from the charts, the 57% figure is possibly influenced by the number of single-vehicle crashes where I'd imagine it's often the driver's fault.
Though, it's interesting that the 70-79 range is comparable to 30 through 59 for accident rate.

For what it's worth, my grandfather spent a career driving heavy vehicles and from memory somewhere in his early-middle 70s was when he retired from that.

[g-boaf]

Tesla driver taking two parking spaces at Bunnings:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real- ... b0c25612bb

Seems it was part of a Bunning promo for the EV charging stations.

Hope like hell they do t get approved for sale in Aus due to ADR non-compliance.

We have too many Toorak Tractors already

If people drive those then we'll need to get those six wheel drive G63 6x6s at 4100kg... Safety in weight and size seems to be the trend right?

That 6x6 is awesome off road but it's a terrible heap on road. Doesn't like corners, slow, heavy, very noisy (wind noise). I suppose they made a tidy profit deriving it from the Australian Army G-wagen 6x6.

[Mr Purple]

Interesting discussion on a motoring forum I'm also on.

A driver on there was entering from the road on the left and hit/was hit by a delivery cyclist travelling straight in the contraflow side of the bike lane.



Now who's at fault? He's arguing that the bike lane had a give way sign and the cyclist should give way to him, but he had a stop sign. My personal interpretation is that the give way sign in that bike lane changes nothing. I'd assume it's there to make cyclists give way to traffic turning into the side street only, but causes so much confusion that it just makes the whole situation more dangerous.

Personally I think if I was cycling through there I'd do it once. Give way to absolutely everyone because I don't want to die, and then never cycle through there again.

[find_bruce]

Give way is not an either or situation - there are situations where more than one driver must give way. Give way means:

(a) if the driver or pedestrian is stopped—remain stationary until it is safe to proceed; or
(b) in any other case—slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision.

Similarly at a stop sign, the driver is required to stop. After they have stopped

(3)The driver must give way to a vehicle in, entering or approaching the intersection except—
(a)an oncoming vehicle turning right at the intersection, if a stop sign, stop line, give way sign or give way line applies to the driver of the oncoming vehicle; or
(b)a vehicle turning left at the intersection using a slip lane; or
(c)a vehicle making a U-turn.
(4)If the driver is turning left or right or making a U-turn, the driver must also give way to any pedestrian, or any rider of a bicycle or a personal mobility device, at or near the intersection crossing the road, or part of the road, the driver is entering.

If there is a collision, by definition one or more of them has failed to give way.

In your example, the car driver is clearly at fault because they have failed to remain stationary until it is safe to proceed. The delivery cyclist may also be at fault - I can't recall whether Queensland permits the words on a road to mean give way in the absence of the sign.

From a practical perspective, I'm with you - I pick my commute route to avoid locations where drivers have no care that they're required to give way, eg slip roads, entering or leaving a servo. Regardless of the law, the collision still hurts

[duncanm]

Interesting discussion on a motoring forum I'm also on.

A driver on there was entering from the road on the left and hit/was hit by a delivery cyclist travelling straight in the contraflow side of the bike lane.



Now who's at fault? He's arguing that the bike lane had a give way sign and the cyclist should give way to him, but he had a stop sign. My personal interpretation is that the give way sign in that bike lane changes nothing. I'd assume it's there to make cyclists give way to traffic turning into the side street only, but causes so much confusion that it just makes the whole situation more dangerous.

Personally I think if I was cycling through there I'd do it once. Give way to absolutely everyone because I don't want to die, and then never cycle through there again.

Look where the stop line is. Prior to the cycle lanes. So the car proceeded into a line of traffic (the bicycle) from a stop signal.

Car at fault.

[jasonc]

Interesting discussion on a motoring forum I'm also on.

A driver on there was entering from the road on the left and hit/was hit by a delivery cyclist travelling straight in the contraflow side of the bike lane.



Now who's at fault? He's arguing that the bike lane had a give way sign and the cyclist should give way to him, but he had a stop sign. My personal interpretation is that the give way sign in that bike lane changes nothing. I'd assume it's there to make cyclists give way to traffic turning into the side street only, but causes so much confusion that it just makes the whole situation more dangerous.

I think the give way sign puts them in the wrong. I agree

Personally I think if I was cycling through there I'd do it once. Give way to absolutely everyone because I don't want to die, and then never cycle through there again.

I agree

[Mr Purple]

It's a NSW intersection, and yes, I quoted that exact 'stop' sign law at him.

The short answer is the designer of the intersection is at the most fault. Because putting a 'give way' sign there for the cyclist is highly debatable - technically speaking even with the 'give way' sign there's not really anyone the cyclist should necessarily need to 'give way' to depending how they interpret the law.

[find_bruce]

Of course it's NSW - Duncan Gay may be politically dead but his perverse legacy lives on

[AdelaidePeter]

Interesting discussion on a motoring forum I'm also on.A driver on there was entering from the road on the left and hit/was hit by a delivery cyclist travelling straight in the contraflow side of the bike lane.

Given that cyclists can go either direction, I'd say this is a bicycle path - not a bicycle lane - even though it goes onto bitumen. So I think the rider has to give way to everyone on the side street, i.e. the cyclist was in the wrong.

EDIT: It has since been pointed out that there is a "bicycle lane" sign, so the above is incorrect.

[Cyclophiliac]

Whatever idiot designed that intersection should lose his/her job, because (s)he clearly didn't have cyclists' safety in mind.

[Mr Purple]

Given that cyclists can go either direction, I'd say this is a bicycle path - not a bicycle lane - even though it goes onto bitumen. So I think the rider has to give way to everyone on the side street, i.e. the cyclist was in the wrong.

This is a fairly valid interpretation to be honest. The problem is that it's a 'bike path' on the road though, does that still make it a bike path?

I actually have sympathy for both parties in this discussion because the infrastructure is just awful. Is the 'give way' sign for cyclists to give way to traffic turning into the side street, or to traffic exiting the side street, or both? I'd suggest the 'stop' sign suggest the first, but you could interpret it either way as above whether you think its' a bike path or a bicycle lane.

It means precisely no standards for a contraflow bike lane to be safe, and shouldn't be there. I think the only way you can make this sort of setup vaguely safe is to have the bike lane raised on a speedbump and clearly give priority to cyclists. Plus have it in a relatively quiet and low speed area to start off with.

[jasonc]

I saw it the same as AdelaidePeter. It's segregated. It's a bike way, not a bike lane

[Anrai]

Whatever idiot designed that intersection should lose his/her job, because (s)he clearly didn't have cyclists' safety in mind.

I mean, whomever originally designed that intersection seems to have had three car lanes and zero bicycle lanes in mind.
Just draws attention to the fact painted-on-road bike lanes are usually on roads that weren't designed for them. I walked down Argyle Street yesterday and saw a spot where half the outbound bike lane was occupied by a parked box lorry.
There's another spot in Hobart where the start of a bike lane is blocked by a bus zone that semi-regularly has a coach bus filling it.

On the topic of poorly-designed urban infrastructure, on Monday I saw an articulated bus park itself across a pedestrian crossing because another bus ahead of it got to a bus stop at the same time. (Main Road bus arrivals doubling-up is a frequent occurrence here nowadays, and also implies one or both of the buses is ten or more minutes behind schedule.)

[g-boaf]

I know how they'd "fix" the bust problem in the post above, just remove the bicycle lane markings in that section.

Fixed - and wins kudos from people who don't like bicycles. It's the way bureaucracies work here.

[biker jk]

That is Moore Park Rd in Paddington/Centennial Park. When I first saw that give way sign while on a walk I was scratching my head. I still don't understand it. My guess is that they want cyclists to give way to traffic entering/exiting the side street. No doubt aimed at placating the anti-cycleway locals.

[bychosis]

Agree it's a bad design. Expecting cyclists to give way on a straight through section is very poor form.

Having said that, car is at fault because driver wasn't looking for cyclists.

[jules21]

Interesting discussion on a motoring forum I'm also on.

A driver on there was entering from the road on the left and hit/was hit by a delivery cyclist travelling straight in the contraflow side of the bike lane.



Now who's at fault? He's arguing that the bike lane had a give way sign and the cyclist should give way to him, but he had a stop sign.

the stop sign is on the right, not the left?

if you hit someone by going through a stop sign, you've definitely committed an offence. there should be no doubt about that.

whether the cyclist has also committed an offence is less clear to me.

[Mr Purple]

the stop sign is on the right, not the left?

It took me a while to work out what you were talking about, and this is no fault of yours!

I'm a doctor so we routinely describe these things backwards because we're facing the patient - to me that is the left because it's the patient's left. It's also the left of the road in the direction of travel, but you are absolutely correct it's in the right of that picture.

I've clearly been in this business for too long!

[mikesbytes]

Interesting discussion on a motoring forum I'm also on.

A driver on there was entering from the road on the left and hit/was hit by a delivery cyclist travelling straight in the contraflow side of the bike lane.



Now who's at fault? He's arguing that the bike lane had a give way sign and the cyclist should give way to him, but he had a stop sign. My personal interpretation is that the give way sign in that bike lane changes nothing. I'd assume it's there to make cyclists give way to traffic turning into the side street only, but causes so much confusion that it just makes the whole situation more dangerous.

Personally I think if I was cycling through there I'd do it once. Give way to absolutely everyone because I don't want to die, and then never cycle through there again.

Where's the give way sign?

[jasonc]

Interesting discussion on a motoring forum I'm also on.

A driver on there was entering from the road on the left and hit/was hit by a delivery cyclist travelling straight in the contraflow side of the bike lane.



Now who's at fault? He's arguing that the bike lane had a give way sign and the cyclist should give way to him, but he had a stop sign. My personal interpretation is that the give way sign in that bike lane changes nothing. I'd assume it's there to make cyclists give way to traffic turning into the side street only, but causes so much confusion that it just makes the whole situation more dangerous.

Personally I think if I was cycling through there I'd do it once. Give way to absolutely everyone because I don't want to die, and then never cycle through there again.

Where's the give way sign?

Give way is painted on the ground from what I can see

[DavidS]

Bike lanes where both directions are on one side of the road are just insanely stupid and should be banned.

I can't see a stop sign or a give way sign, in any case I can't see any way that can be safe through any intersection. If I was riding a bike on that road I would claim the general vehicle lanes, not that death trap.

DS

[warthog1]

It says "give way" on the end of the green paint on the bike lane by the looks.

Edit: yep, as per Jason's comment.