I was hoping to be at the World Superbikes, Philip Island this weekend. Lack of the readies stopped me.
That was lucky it seems, as Victoria's "Finest" (allegedly) were out in force, pulling over motorcyclists, and motorcyclists only, for rego, license and compliance checks. So while a lot of bikes were given "Defect notices" for modified exhausts etc, which, you know is really really dangerous, there are rapes, murders, break ins and other, not so important things for the police to be doing.
Fucking fun police, numb nut puppets for the beige government and bureaucrats to enforce their own version of social compliance.
This place is going down the tubes.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
More common sense.. what's happening?
Kansas House Approves Bill Allowing Motorcycles to Run Red Lights
Published February 23, 2011
| FoxNews.com
AP
A red light camera setup is shown Wednesday Sept. 29, 2010 in Los Angeles. An audit by the Los Angeles city controller finds that red-light cameras haven't shown to improve public safety. The audit released Wednesday blames police for not adequately compiling statistics at the 32 intersections where red light cameras are installed, making it difficult to conclude whether they are effective. (AP Photo/Nick Ut)
Ever been itching to run a red light that just won't change? Kansas lawmakers think motorcycle riders should be able to do just that.
The Kansas House on Tuesday approved a bill that would allow bikers to run a red light if the signal "fails" to turn green after a "reasonable period of time." The proposal leaves the discretion in the hands of the motorcyclist, but is aimed at ensuring riders don't get trapped in perpetuity at intersections because of signals that either malfunction or don't detect the motorcycles.
Motorcycle riders testified this month that their bikes were often not big or heavy enough to trigger the sensors that cause red lights to switch. For fear that riders would have to choose between being stuck on the Kansas tundra or running a light and risking a ticket, they urged the legislature to approve the so-called "Dead Red" bill giving them a free pass. The riders testifying in support of the bill belonged to a group known as ABATE, or A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments.
"Cars and trucks have no problem with it, but motorcycles have always been an issue," Crawford County Sheriff's Deputy Bob Peters said, according to Fox 14. "You may be on a section or roadway where you may wait for five minutes and there may not be other traffic along to trigger the sensor."
Though Peters supported the bill, it was opposed by Kansas police organizations that want their officers, not motorcycle riders, to have the discretion. One Republican lawmaker unsuccessfully tried to strip the red-light provision, saying, "I see no skeletal remains of motorcyclists sitting at red lights that never change," according to The Wichita Eagle.
The bill passed the House Tuesday as part of a broader road safety package. The other component in the package would prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing extra fines on drivers for seat-belt violations. The bill kept the statewide fine at $5 -- that would eventually rise to $10 or $60 depending on the severity of the violation.
The language in the motorcycle bill also covered bicycle riders.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Some UnCommon Sense?
In the current road safety climate, with everyone stuck on the speed kills paradigm, (or is that "Speed Pays"?)
here's an unusual article.
Unusual in that it actually adds a bit of common sense to the discussion.
Actually, in this discussion, it's "uncommon sense"
Article was found here, and reproduced below.
Let The People Decide How Much Safety Is Enough
David Leyonhjelm discusses how our 'speeding' laws ignore the evidence, and are out of step with community values:"When speeding laws say one thing and a large majority of people demonstrate they have a different view, it’s time to recalibrate".
Early each year we often see media stories about how many people were killed in road accidents over the holiday season and whether this is higher or lower than previous years.
The source of these stories is usually one of the government agencies responsible for road traffic issues, such as the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, and invariably includes claims about excess speed, idiotic drivers and the obvious need for further measures to compel drivers to slow down.
The tone is typically patronising.
If only drivers would be more responsible or, like naughty children who refuse to behave, they must be caught and punished.
There are often lectures by police officers who tell us it’s all for our own good, while governments run advertisements trying to frighten us into slowing down with gory pictures of accidents or warnings of lifelong injuries.
There are two problems with all this.
One is that speed is nowhere near the cause of road casualties it is made out to be.
Second, the overwhelming majority of drivers know this and, through their actions, indicate they do not believe exceeding the speed limit is inherently dangerous, that they are at fault when they do so, or that enforcement measures are merited.
Speed limits are much the same as they were 40 years ago, yet road traffic deaths have declined dramatically.
Just in the last 20 years they have approximately halved, notwithstanding increases in car numbers and distances travelled.
The reasons for this decline have little to do with speeds, which mostly go up whenever enforcement is not apparent, but to improvements in vehicle safety (eg brakes, tyres, airbags, seat belts and electronic stability control) plus better roads.
This is confirmed by the fact that much larger declines occurred in many other countries over the same period, including some where speed limits are higher than in Australia.
That includes Germany and the UK, which also have fewer fatalities per 100,000 people.
The RTA claims speed is a key factor in over 40% of road deaths, but the data behind this is very flimsy.
Speed is often blamed by accident investigators whenever an alternative explanation is not apparent, even when lone drivers commit suicide by crashing into a tree at high speed.
Other countries tell a different story.
Official British road casualty statistics for 2006 show "exceeding speed limit" was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and that "travelling too fast for conditions" was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes).
Similar results were found in a study published in 2008 by the US National Highway Safety Traffic Administration.
Based on early and detailed post-accident investigations of 5,471 accidents, it concluded that driving too fast for conditions or too fast for a curve accounted for just 13.3% of them. (More than a third of accidents were found to be related to an intersection.)
In the absence of a speed camera or other enforcement, probably three-quarters of all Australian drivers would exceed the speed limit when they felt it was safe to do so.
Anecdotally, that includes most off-duty police officers as well as the journalists who write the stories discussing lack of compliance with speed limits.
At certain times, a car crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge would hold up traffic if it travelled below the speed limit.
This has led to enormous cynicism about the enforcement of speed limits and their contribution to state government budgets.
There is something inherently absurd about being told that travelling at 5 km/hr above the limit is dangerous while it is safe at 5 km/hr below it.
That raises an interesting question. When the law says one thing and a large majority of people demonstrate they have a different view, which prevails?
If the law is supposed to reflect the values of society, as is supposedly the basis of the common law and a key expectation of democracy, the law is clearly wrong.
Only in a dictatorship do we expect the ruler to insist the people are wrong.
The way some public servants and politicians talk, you could be forgiven for thinking that the policy objective of traffic laws is to reduce accidents and deaths to zero.
Yet that is clearly nonsense – accidents causing death and injury are inevitable at any speed above walking pace.
The road toll could be immediately stopped by reducing speed limits to 10 km/hr or by banning cars.
Clearly, there is a trade-off.
Explicitly or not, we accept a certain level of accidents as the price of convenient travel, as we do in numerous other activities.
What is apparent from the fact that so many drivers disobey the speed limits when they have the opportunity is that the trade-off needs recalibrating.
And rather than public servants deciding what it ought to be, the community as a whole should do it.
There is an internationally recognised method by which this can be achieved, known as the 85th percentile formula.
In essence, it involves the temporary removal of the speed limit while speeds are monitored.
At the conclusion of the period, a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the speed at which 85 percent of drivers travel.
The concept is based on the assumption that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to have a crash, and wish to reach their destination in the shortest possible time.
It is supported by statistical evidence, which shows that those who exceed speed limits based on the 85thth percentile).
Enforcement directed at these drivers thus has a positive impact on road safety while enjoying community support and avoiding perceptions of revenue-raising. percentile are substantially more likely to cause accidents (as are those who travel below the 15
If the formula was applied to Australian roads, speed limits would certainly be increased on our major highways, probably to European levels.
There may also be increases on some dual carriageways in metropolitan areas, although it is unlikely most suburban streets would change.
Given that most drivers are indeed reasonable and prudent, there might even be a few reductions.
Notwithstanding the flawed assumptions about speed and road accidents, an increase in casualties cannot be ruled out.
But if there was to be an increase, it would reflect the community’s choice of trade-off. Moreover, unlike the current situation where public servants and politicians set speed limits and are blamed for any increase in casualties, there would be nobody to criticise.
With choice comes responsibility.
It is high time governments stopped treating motorists like naughty children and a source of additional revenue.
Australia’s speed limits are not only lower than the rest of the world, but are out of step with community values. In a society in which the government serves the people, they should be updated.
David Leyonhjelm is the Outdoor Recreation Party’s candidate for the Legislative Council in the NSW state election in March.
Just in the last 20 years they have approximately halved, notwithstanding increases in car numbers and distances travelled.
The reasons for this decline have little to do with speeds, which mostly go up whenever enforcement is not apparent, but to improvements in vehicle safety (eg brakes, tyres, airbags, seat belts and electronic stability control) plus better roads.
This is confirmed by the fact that much larger declines occurred in many other countries over the same period, including some where speed limits are higher than in Australia.
That includes Germany and the UK, which also have fewer fatalities per 100,000 people.
The RTA claims speed is a key factor in over 40% of road deaths, but the data behind this is very flimsy.
Speed is often blamed by accident investigators whenever an alternative explanation is not apparent, even when lone drivers commit suicide by crashing into a tree at high speed.
Other countries tell a different story.
Official British road casualty statistics for 2006 show "exceeding speed limit" was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and that "travelling too fast for conditions" was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes).
Similar results were found in a study published in 2008 by the US National Highway Safety Traffic Administration.
Based on early and detailed post-accident investigations of 5,471 accidents, it concluded that driving too fast for conditions or too fast for a curve accounted for just 13.3% of them. (More than a third of accidents were found to be related to an intersection.)
In the absence of a speed camera or other enforcement, probably three-quarters of all Australian drivers would exceed the speed limit when they felt it was safe to do so.
Anecdotally, that includes most off-duty police officers as well as the journalists who write the stories discussing lack of compliance with speed limits.
At certain times, a car crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge would hold up traffic if it travelled below the speed limit.
This has led to enormous cynicism about the enforcement of speed limits and their contribution to state government budgets.
There is something inherently absurd about being told that travelling at 5 km/hr above the limit is dangerous while it is safe at 5 km/hr below it.
That raises an interesting question. When the law says one thing and a large majority of people demonstrate they have a different view, which prevails?
If the law is supposed to reflect the values of society, as is supposedly the basis of the common law and a key expectation of democracy, the law is clearly wrong.
Only in a dictatorship do we expect the ruler to insist the people are wrong.
The way some public servants and politicians talk, you could be forgiven for thinking that the policy objective of traffic laws is to reduce accidents and deaths to zero.
Yet that is clearly nonsense – accidents causing death and injury are inevitable at any speed above walking pace.
The road toll could be immediately stopped by reducing speed limits to 10 km/hr or by banning cars.
Clearly, there is a trade-off.
Explicitly or not, we accept a certain level of accidents as the price of convenient travel, as we do in numerous other activities.
What is apparent from the fact that so many drivers disobey the speed limits when they have the opportunity is that the trade-off needs recalibrating.
And rather than public servants deciding what it ought to be, the community as a whole should do it.
There is an internationally recognised method by which this can be achieved, known as the 85th percentile formula.
In essence, it involves the temporary removal of the speed limit while speeds are monitored.
At the conclusion of the period, a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the speed at which 85 percent of drivers travel.
The concept is based on the assumption that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to have a crash, and wish to reach their destination in the shortest possible time.
It is supported by statistical evidence, which shows that those who exceed speed limits based on the 85thth percentile).
Enforcement directed at these drivers thus has a positive impact on road safety while enjoying community support and avoiding perceptions of revenue-raising. percentile are substantially more likely to cause accidents (as are those who travel below the 15
If the formula was applied to Australian roads, speed limits would certainly be increased on our major highways, probably to European levels.
There may also be increases on some dual carriageways in metropolitan areas, although it is unlikely most suburban streets would change.
Given that most drivers are indeed reasonable and prudent, there might even be a few reductions.
Notwithstanding the flawed assumptions about speed and road accidents, an increase in casualties cannot be ruled out.
But if there was to be an increase, it would reflect the community’s choice of trade-off. Moreover, unlike the current situation where public servants and politicians set speed limits and are blamed for any increase in casualties, there would be nobody to criticise.
With choice comes responsibility.
It is high time governments stopped treating motorists like naughty children and a source of additional revenue.
Australia’s speed limits are not only lower than the rest of the world, but are out of step with community values. In a society in which the government serves the people, they should be updated.
David Leyonhjelm is the Outdoor Recreation Party’s candidate for the Legislative Council in the NSW state election in March.
It is also worth noting, that (in Australia) up to 1850 die per annum due to skin cancer, (ABS 2010 figures) the road toll in 2008 was 1465.
Add the second most common cancer Colorectal (or Bowel cancer), 3809 people died in 2006.
In fact all deaths relating to cancer in 2010 is believed to be 43,000 people.
Compared with the road deaths , for ALL reasons, being 1,465 in 2008.
According to the Australian Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) road deaths are the lowest they've been since approx 1950, despite their being
14,000,000 more registered vehicles. That's one death per 10,000 vehicles as at 2008.
The figures also show that road deaths per 10,000 vehicles has been in steady decline (except for one "spike" at 1935-45) since the figures were collected in 1925.
Cancer, on the other hand, has seen an increase of 15,000 more deaths per annum than 30 years ago.
5,700 people die on the operating table every year, life saving operations are more dangerous than using an Australian road.
Doing nothing contributes to 6400 deaths per year in Australia according to Ausport.
So using an Australian road is safer than... sleeping!
So what the fuck is the real reason for this crap about speed kills?
Monday, February 21, 2011
Of learning about the road, and driving thereof
Learner drivers today, especially the younger learners, are they developing the correct skills, attitudes and knowledge by being placed in a comfortable cocoon?
Is placing young people in an environment that (appears to me, anyway) teaching the ethos of "I'm Ok, the crumple zone, seatbelt, airbag, <insert all claimed safety devices here> will save me" the right thing? Should we not be teaching them to be more alert, more aware?
We learn best from experiencing our environment, not from being protected from our environment.
I think it human nature, that when in our "comfort zone" we relax, become less aware, less involved in our surroundings.
I call it the "Volvo Syndrome", but it's not solely a Volvo issue now.
Potential Volvo drivers were fed a constant stream of information from the spin doctors that their cars were the safest on the road. You are safer in a Volvo, less likely to get hurt in an accident. Volvo drivers believed it, and they drove like people protected by divine intervention, hence the popular "bloody volvo drivers" phrase that became a testament to their poor skills, and disgusting attitude to others on the road.
Now every bloody car is a comfortable, safe haven, with nice lounge chairs, climate control, sound proofed, with brilliant entertainment systems. We're told we're "safe as houses" with ABS, side intrusion protection, airbags that deply from fucking everywhere, crumple zones, "stability control" and cameras and ultra sonic sensors so that the slug in the seat doesn't have to actually turn their head to see if their beloved spawn is behind the car.
Soon every lounge room on wheels will have "collision avoidance" systems, and alerts that tell you you're getting close to the road edge. Lexus already have computer controlled self parking on some models. FFS cars that park themselves.
What does this all do? It encourages the placid fool behind the wheel to go to fucking sleep with their eyes open. It encourages the attitude of "I'm safe, fuck the ones outside my cocoon".
I say get the young ones, with their minds still open and hungry for learning, to get on bikes and learn to survive. Not to get in a cocoon and learn to just... well... steer.
Get rid of the "fuck you I'm OK" attitude we now nurture.
For we are now at the point where the car driver lobbyists say "make them wear Hi-Vis, for I cannot be fucked looking for dull clothes, Make them put their lights on, it makes it easier for me.. You see it's all about "ME", not "how can I help you", but "you will make it easier for ME"
"Put barriers up 'tween me and the other steerers, so I don't have to worry about staying on my side of the road, as much."
"Gimme power steering, power brakes, power windows, climate control, automatic wipers and headlights cos it's just sooo tiresome having to think of all that stuff while I'm driving."
What was those song lyrics? "They amused themselves to death"?? Well, we're going in that direction.
Is placing young people in an environment that (appears to me, anyway) teaching the ethos of "I'm Ok, the crumple zone, seatbelt, airbag, <insert all claimed safety devices here> will save me" the right thing? Should we not be teaching them to be more alert, more aware?
We learn best from experiencing our environment, not from being protected from our environment.
I think it human nature, that when in our "comfort zone" we relax, become less aware, less involved in our surroundings.
I call it the "Volvo Syndrome", but it's not solely a Volvo issue now.
Potential Volvo drivers were fed a constant stream of information from the spin doctors that their cars were the safest on the road. You are safer in a Volvo, less likely to get hurt in an accident. Volvo drivers believed it, and they drove like people protected by divine intervention, hence the popular "bloody volvo drivers" phrase that became a testament to their poor skills, and disgusting attitude to others on the road.
Now every bloody car is a comfortable, safe haven, with nice lounge chairs, climate control, sound proofed, with brilliant entertainment systems. We're told we're "safe as houses" with ABS, side intrusion protection, airbags that deply from fucking everywhere, crumple zones, "stability control" and cameras and ultra sonic sensors so that the slug in the seat doesn't have to actually turn their head to see if their beloved spawn is behind the car.
Soon every lounge room on wheels will have "collision avoidance" systems, and alerts that tell you you're getting close to the road edge. Lexus already have computer controlled self parking on some models. FFS cars that park themselves.
What does this all do? It encourages the placid fool behind the wheel to go to fucking sleep with their eyes open. It encourages the attitude of "I'm safe, fuck the ones outside my cocoon".
I say get the young ones, with their minds still open and hungry for learning, to get on bikes and learn to survive. Not to get in a cocoon and learn to just... well... steer.
Get rid of the "fuck you I'm OK" attitude we now nurture.
For we are now at the point where the car driver lobbyists say "make them wear Hi-Vis, for I cannot be fucked looking for dull clothes, Make them put their lights on, it makes it easier for me.. You see it's all about "ME", not "how can I help you", but "you will make it easier for ME"
"Put barriers up 'tween me and the other steerers, so I don't have to worry about staying on my side of the road, as much."
"Gimme power steering, power brakes, power windows, climate control, automatic wipers and headlights cos it's just sooo tiresome having to think of all that stuff while I'm driving."
What was those song lyrics? "They amused themselves to death"?? Well, we're going in that direction.
Copied with absolutely no remorse
Found on a website I frequent.
It mirrors my feeling son the alleged road safety program in this country. The only omission I can see is the current, and increasing, use of police as revenue raisers. A profitable (for government) side effect of the current mismanagement of our roads.
The '80's '90's '00s and beyond have seen every area of expertise hijacked by either bean counters or behaviourists.
Shame people, shame.
This “evidence-based research”3 positively identified an array of key variables which influenced a driver’s speed choice. These included:
But a funny thing then happened.
In the three decades which followed, European traffic engineering progress focused on modifying the road environment to “artificially” create different speed environments. The new rationale was really to tame traffic, rather than provide for it. For example LATM developments.
This process is now further evolving with experiments with SIGN-FREE environments – where the constructed environment is so well defined that regulatory and warning signposting becomes redundant (Spiegel, 2006). Only one problem – it ain’t cheap.
By the new millennium, the design of European traffic systems and the road environment was just as much in the hands of architects; planners, environmentalists and behaviourists, and less in the control of the real people - traffic and highway engineers.
The process in Australia went something like this.
The behaviourists reached over and “grabbed the wheel” of designing for a specific speed and radically simplified it. It was decided (by who – who knows?) that a design speed for a specific road length be defined by a regulatory sign. That sign might say 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 or 90 or 100 or 110 km/h. No other treatment would be involved.
The apparent primary determinant of the location of these signs was adjacent land uses - particularly those relating to schools. In other words, where it was perceived there was a certain potential pedestrian exposure and/or some unusual traffic requirement, then a sign would appear with a (usually lower) speed limit.
This could mean for example that a six lane principal arterial route with high geometric standard - which previously had an 85th percentile speed of say 75 - 80 km/h may be signposted with a 40 km/h sign.
Like Skinner’s little rats - we were to be conditioned through punishment. This conditioning was via constant and continuous police enforcement. That enforcement was executed through:
From an engineering systems viewpoint, the present “hybrid” arrangement seems amazingly wasteful.
Transport consumers provide themselves with their own expensive machines – even the most modest of which provides acceleration and top speed rivalling racing cars of just a few decades ago (NRMA various dates).
Thus as consumers, we spend tens of thousands of dollars too much on machines that never get used to their capability - and if they were, we would lose our driver’s licence anyway.
These same consumers are driving on a road network with geometric and cross sectional elements consistent with a “safe” higher speed - but nevertheless are constrained to travel at almost bicycle speeds by the enforced signing.
The result is that as taxpayers, over the past decades we have wasted many billions of dollars constructing high standard roads - when we now don’t really need them.
As a driver of 40 years (with an almost unblemished record) I do miss being a free range driver. In the last several years I have driven for work extensively in Italy, Qatar UAE, Thailand Indonesia and many other “free range” states – but I’m liking it less - they all drive too fast.
I am at an age where I don’t mind driving around at 40 - 50 km/h - although I do wonder about my level of driver alertness. After all, I occupy an air-conditioned cocoon, listening to a high quality CD system and am totally relaxed. You know – a bit like Mr Magoo.
The victory of the behaviourists over the traffic engineers is now complete. We now commonly see access-controlled, grade separated facilities with 60 km/h speed zones – with the punishers at the ready, managing the energy.
The dream of the traffic and road engineers of the 1950s is now over. But the outcome of the behaviourists’ victory has exposed the surface road transport system maybe for what it always was - an extremely expensive car park
It mirrors my feeling son the alleged road safety program in this country. The only omission I can see is the current, and increasing, use of police as revenue raisers. A profitable (for government) side effect of the current mismanagement of our roads.
The '80's '90's '00s and beyond have seen every area of expertise hijacked by either bean counters or behaviourists.
Shame people, shame.
Speed – Who Manages the Energy?
by John Jamieson FIE (Aust), FAITPM
Kinetic Energy Kills
| John Jamieson is a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers Australia, and a Fellow of the AITPM. He holds a Bachelors degree in Engineering Surveying from UNSW, and a Masters Degree in Traffic and Transportation. He commenced his career in 1976 with the NSW Government’s Traffic Accident Research Unit as Crash Investigation Engineer. He later held roles as the Senior Traffic Engineer with the NRMA, and as a Design Engineer with GHD. In 1989 he started Jamieson Foley & Associates, a Forensic/Traffic Engineering |
The British Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act1) set speed limits of 4 mph (6 km/h) in the country and 2 mph (3 km/h) in towns.
It stipulated that self-propelled vehicles should be accompanied by a crew of three: the driver, a stoker and a man with a red flag walking 60 yards (55 m) ahead of each vehicle.
The man with a red flag or lantern enforced a walking pace, and warned horse riders and horse drawn traffic of the approach of a self propelled machine.
But in 1896 the British Government introduced The Emancipation Act, which defined a new category of vehicle - light locomotives, which were vehicles under three tons. These vehicles were exempt from the three crew member rule, and were subject to the higher 14 mph (22 km/h) speed limit.
At the outset, I think it was a BIG MISTAKE to exempt motor cars from the Locomotive Act. I suspect that had the Locomotive Act been applied globally (and was still in force), then most of the 1.2 million people currently killed annually on the world’s roads would be spared.2
Those folks back in 1865 really knew about energy management. They really knew about v2 (as in KE=1/2 mv2). Keep “v” down, and KE drops like a stone. Low KE, low injury.
Move forward 100 years. Engineers of the 1950s and 60s still had the dream to manage the energy – but without the man with that damn red flag.
They hypothesized that a “design speed” for a specific road environment could be created by engineering means. Drivers using a particular road length would automatically adjust their speed to its design level. 24/7 speed enforcement without police.
The dream was that each environment would be “self enforcing” and that intensive Police speed enforcement would simply not be necessary.
Now - that’s a dream
Engineers Know About Speed
For most of the second half of the twentieth century, engineers across the civilised world researched the determinants of the choice of speed. Mountains of research papers were produced by everyone – TRL, ASSHTO, NAASRA, ARRB, DoT, ATSB, WHO, MRD, DMR, RTA, BTE Austroads, CIA (maybe not the CIA – but then again) plus many others.This “evidence-based research”3 positively identified an array of key variables which influenced a driver’s speed choice. These included:
- horizontal geometry
- vertical geometry
- carriageway width
- lane width
- topography
- quality of pavement
- adjacent land use, and
- the nature of traffic facilities.
The objective of speed management is to contribute to road safety, mobility and amenity on public roads by providing a system of speed limits that are compatible with the speed environment.
Speed limits should be set to maintain a balance between a driver's reasonable understanding of the reasons for setting them at a particular level and an acceptable level of environmental amenity for all road users and abutting land use.
Speed limits should be set so as to encourage, as far as practicable, a uniform speed of travel and hence reduce the potential for conflicts due to speed differentials between vehicles. Excessive variation among vehicle speeds can indicate either an inappropriately set speed limit or that drivers' perception of the speed environment is open to confusion. The second of these causes may require corrective action other than reassessment of the speed limit.
Applying the Knowledge
During this same period (mid-late 20th century) the road network sort of “evolved” into three basic strands:- the freeway (motorway/tollway) at the top, being an access controlled grade separated facility with “design speeds” (those speeds where lateral acceleration does not exceed about 0.2g) for speeds up to and exceeding 75 mph (120 km/h),
- surface arterial roads which had similar geometric characteristics, but atgrade intersections and property access. These multi-laned facilities had a “design speed” of about 45-50 mph (about 80 km/h)
- tighter collector/distributor roads and local roads with “design speeds” of 30 - 35 mph (about 50-60 km/h), and sometimes lower, using special treatments.
- straightened,
- flattened,
- widened, and
- grade separated where possible, with pedestrian overbridges and so on.
But a funny thing then happened.
What were Those Europeans Up To?
It started off with the Dutch inventing the “Woonerf”. This revolutionary concept produced in the 1970s created the idea of the “shared zone” - where the private car no longer had implicit and explicit dominance (Jamieson, 1980).In the three decades which followed, European traffic engineering progress focused on modifying the road environment to “artificially” create different speed environments. The new rationale was really to tame traffic, rather than provide for it. For example LATM developments.
This process is now further evolving with experiments with SIGN-FREE environments – where the constructed environment is so well defined that regulatory and warning signposting becomes redundant (Spiegel, 2006). Only one problem – it ain’t cheap.
By the new millennium, the design of European traffic systems and the road environment was just as much in the hands of architects; planners, environmentalists and behaviourists, and less in the control of the real people - traffic and highway engineers.
What to Do With No Dough
Now back to the Kinetic Energy.The process in Australia went something like this.
- Kinetic Energy kills
- The network speed is too high
- Let’s lower the network speed
- The EBR4 proves that modifying the environment lowers speed
- Modifying the environment costs real dough
- We got no dough
- Let’s put up some signs instead
- But that doesn’t work without a heap of Police
- Let’s get a heap of Police
The behaviourists reached over and “grabbed the wheel” of designing for a specific speed and radically simplified it. It was decided (by who – who knows?) that a design speed for a specific road length be defined by a regulatory sign. That sign might say 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 or 80 or 90 or 100 or 110 km/h. No other treatment would be involved.
The apparent primary determinant of the location of these signs was adjacent land uses - particularly those relating to schools. In other words, where it was perceived there was a certain potential pedestrian exposure and/or some unusual traffic requirement, then a sign would appear with a (usually lower) speed limit.
This could mean for example that a six lane principal arterial route with high geometric standard - which previously had an 85th percentile speed of say 75 - 80 km/h may be signposted with a 40 km/h sign.
The Forced Fit
Although coming as no surprise to traffic and road engineers, the compliance for such artificial speed zoning within such environments was often low. When drivers viewed a wide, straight, flat road they perceived a certain speed environment and drove at that speed.Like Skinner’s little rats - we were to be conditioned through punishment. This conditioning was via constant and continuous police enforcement. That enforcement was executed through:
- fixed cameras
- portable cameras
- mobile radar
- stationary radar
- portable Lidar
- unmarked police patrol vehicles
- marked police vehicles and so on.
From an engineering systems viewpoint, the present “hybrid” arrangement seems amazingly wasteful.
Transport consumers provide themselves with their own expensive machines – even the most modest of which provides acceleration and top speed rivalling racing cars of just a few decades ago (NRMA various dates).
Thus as consumers, we spend tens of thousands of dollars too much on machines that never get used to their capability - and if they were, we would lose our driver’s licence anyway.
These same consumers are driving on a road network with geometric and cross sectional elements consistent with a “safe” higher speed - but nevertheless are constrained to travel at almost bicycle speeds by the enforced signing.
The result is that as taxpayers, over the past decades we have wasted many billions of dollars constructing high standard roads - when we now don’t really need them.
Us Chickens
On a personal level, I preferred to be a “free range” driver rather than a “battery hen” (or is it a lab rat?). However my professional work has taken me to the scene of enough crashes to know that the basic laws of physics apply - the higher the velocity, the higher the injury producing energy.As a driver of 40 years (with an almost unblemished record) I do miss being a free range driver. In the last several years I have driven for work extensively in Italy, Qatar UAE, Thailand Indonesia and many other “free range” states – but I’m liking it less - they all drive too fast.
I am at an age where I don’t mind driving around at 40 - 50 km/h - although I do wonder about my level of driver alertness. After all, I occupy an air-conditioned cocoon, listening to a high quality CD system and am totally relaxed. You know – a bit like Mr Magoo.
The victory of the behaviourists over the traffic engineers is now complete. We now commonly see access-controlled, grade separated facilities with 60 km/h speed zones – with the punishers at the ready, managing the energy.
The dream of the traffic and road engineers of the 1950s is now over. But the outcome of the behaviourists’ victory has exposed the surface road transport system maybe for what it always was - an extremely expensive car park
randomness
The two posts "Of things depressing" and "Of things that are good" were from last year, back in Oct, 2010.
I have since not been visited by that bastard beast of a "black dog".
A friend found a "motivational poster" and he modified it to suit.
Burned it on NYE, it seemed fitting.
Burned it on NYE, it seemed fitting.
Monday, February 14, 2011
such as it is.
A person cannot live on $600 a fortnight.
He could survive on $600 a fortnight, but that's not living.
You need more to look forward to that just survival, I reckon.
Especially in an allegedly affluent country like Australia.
Oh well, such is life.
He could survive on $600 a fortnight, but that's not living.
You need more to look forward to that just survival, I reckon.
Especially in an allegedly affluent country like Australia.
Oh well, such is life.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Of things that are good
I survived that black dog, (duh! could I write this if I didn't) and later wrote of things better.
Vita contin git. Vive com eo
I'm still here, whether that is a good or bad thing is not for me to decide.
I'm OK in my skin at the moment, if it stays that way.... who knows, certainly not I.
I've found solace in a strange place. A bunch of politically incorrect people who's only (tenuous) connection to my mindset is a common love of motorcycles. They do not judge, do not deride, feel no need to place people on a pedestal nor ridicule for dissenting beliefs.
By the fuck they are supportive.
They are a very strange, eclectic mix. Some look like lawyers or legal types, some close to absolute outlaws. Look at a few and you'd cross to the other side of the street, covering your child's eyes lest they be corrupted. Some you would swear were the "elite" of society, or of a similarity to those wonderful souls who donate their time, efforts and souls to the selfless service of others. None would ever be a politician, unless they perceived a need to sacrifice their values for the greater good. All are of the same mold as our most revered, the ANZAC's
Every one of them, I believe this without the slightest doubt, would give everything they have to help another of the group. You wouldn't even have to ask. They are wonderful people.
Not one would ask, or expect, anything in return.
They all have the cojones to say their mind, and do not feel intimidated or threatened in allowing an individual to speak theirs in riposte. Mind you, say something stupid, speak just for the sake of reading your words, or hearing your own voice, step over the very accommodating line, and you get what you deserve, best you have the strength to cop it sweet and the humility to recognise and admit the error.
This is just what I need. Of all the people I have known, with some very special (to me) exceptions (you know who you are), these people do not judged me. They have helped me, accepted me, supported me. They suffer the rants, ignore the inane comment, accept the pathetic attempt at humour. They are good people. They are my people (whether they like it or not)
Funny, as I typed that I had a Swedish You tube clip of supermotard riders running in the background, the overlaid music is "all my friends are criminals", I laughed.
They are not criminals that I know (well, some might indulge in "civil disobedience" at times), but they are certainly frowned on by the mainstream of society today. I look up to and respect these people, for they are real, they are of their own making, they are individuals. They just happen to have a common interest that has brought them together.
The government of every state, and the commonwealth of this country are trying very hard to alienate these people, my friends, from "mainstream" society. That is sad. No doubt, after us will be the next "easy target" minority group. Anything not as beige as a compliant population will be the focus of bureaucratic red tape, "safety" campaigns and erroneous, en-needed legislation.
Lex malla, lex nulla.
I think the gum'nt is worried, anxious that there are still thinking individuals lurking in society.
I have no idea when, or if, that bastard black dog of depression will try to bite me. But I do know that I have a fucking awesome group of people who will be there when I need help. That's probably always been true, but this mob are the first to get through to me. For that I'm grateful.
I do know I still hopelessly miss the big boof headed black Labrador Max. But he's doing a much more important job at the moment, I know he's doing me proud, onya boy!
Dogs are good people, so much a nobler beast than us pathetic humans.
It's strange, but tapping away at the keyboard, filling a part of "teh interwebs" with bytes of inane ramblings, is the only way I seem to be able to rationalise things.
Fuck me, I just heard the "last post", it's brought tears to my eyes.
I'm possibly getting a tad emotional, but I like to think of this group of friends I've found in the same way as I felt when I was a soldier. Disparate ideals, dreams and ambitions worlds apart. In any other context they would most likely resent me. But one small, tenuous link has joined us.
It has, for now at least, kept my head above water.
I'm OK in my skin at the moment, if it stays that way.... who knows, certainly not I.
I've found solace in a strange place. A bunch of politically incorrect people who's only (tenuous) connection to my mindset is a common love of motorcycles. They do not judge, do not deride, feel no need to place people on a pedestal nor ridicule for dissenting beliefs.
By the fuck they are supportive.
They are a very strange, eclectic mix. Some look like lawyers or legal types, some close to absolute outlaws. Look at a few and you'd cross to the other side of the street, covering your child's eyes lest they be corrupted. Some you would swear were the "elite" of society, or of a similarity to those wonderful souls who donate their time, efforts and souls to the selfless service of others. None would ever be a politician, unless they perceived a need to sacrifice their values for the greater good. All are of the same mold as our most revered, the ANZAC's
Every one of them, I believe this without the slightest doubt, would give everything they have to help another of the group. You wouldn't even have to ask. They are wonderful people.
Not one would ask, or expect, anything in return.
They all have the cojones to say their mind, and do not feel intimidated or threatened in allowing an individual to speak theirs in riposte. Mind you, say something stupid, speak just for the sake of reading your words, or hearing your own voice, step over the very accommodating line, and you get what you deserve, best you have the strength to cop it sweet and the humility to recognise and admit the error.
This is just what I need. Of all the people I have known, with some very special (to me) exceptions (you know who you are), these people do not judged me. They have helped me, accepted me, supported me. They suffer the rants, ignore the inane comment, accept the pathetic attempt at humour. They are good people. They are my people (whether they like it or not)
Funny, as I typed that I had a Swedish You tube clip of supermotard riders running in the background, the overlaid music is "all my friends are criminals", I laughed.
They are not criminals that I know (well, some might indulge in "civil disobedience" at times), but they are certainly frowned on by the mainstream of society today. I look up to and respect these people, for they are real, they are of their own making, they are individuals. They just happen to have a common interest that has brought them together.
The government of every state, and the commonwealth of this country are trying very hard to alienate these people, my friends, from "mainstream" society. That is sad. No doubt, after us will be the next "easy target" minority group. Anything not as beige as a compliant population will be the focus of bureaucratic red tape, "safety" campaigns and erroneous, en-needed legislation.
Lex malla, lex nulla.
I think the gum'nt is worried, anxious that there are still thinking individuals lurking in society.
I have no idea when, or if, that bastard black dog of depression will try to bite me. But I do know that I have a fucking awesome group of people who will be there when I need help. That's probably always been true, but this mob are the first to get through to me. For that I'm grateful.
I do know I still hopelessly miss the big boof headed black Labrador Max. But he's doing a much more important job at the moment, I know he's doing me proud, onya boy!
Dogs are good people, so much a nobler beast than us pathetic humans.
It's strange, but tapping away at the keyboard, filling a part of "teh interwebs" with bytes of inane ramblings, is the only way I seem to be able to rationalise things.
Fuck me, I just heard the "last post", it's brought tears to my eyes.
I'm possibly getting a tad emotional, but I like to think of this group of friends I've found in the same way as I felt when I was a soldier. Disparate ideals, dreams and ambitions worlds apart. In any other context they would most likely resent me. But one small, tenuous link has joined us.
It has, for now at least, kept my head above water.
Of things depressing
In another age, well last year, I was in the grip of the deepest episode of depression I have ever experienced.
It was a real bastard of a black dog, damn near won the war, right then.
This is what I wrote at the time, it is raw, it is full of profanity, and it is real.
The reference to Mice and 42 is, of course, from "Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy" all kudos to him who wrote it.
42 is NOT the answer........
"life the universe and everything" is a statement, not a fucking question anyway.
It doesn't matter how it started, (life, the universe etc), or how it ends, it just IS so fucken get on with it.
If you can't get a handle on it, then fuck off and make room for some one who can.
"life the universe and everything" is a statement, not a fucking question anyway.
It doesn't matter how it started, (life, the universe etc), or how it ends, it just IS so fucken get on with it.
If you can't get a handle on it, then fuck off and make room for some one who can.
One day, sooner rather than later I intend take my own advice.
Some pricks made up a story to explain the inexplicable, it's now called the bible, some call it the Koran. But then some arseholes used it to manipulate others. Using that one common fear that all humans have, the fear of the unknown and death. "Live life the way I want you to, and you'll go to heaven and be real happy for eva... if you don't you'll go to hell and be hot and unhappy" Yeah, right... cunts.
There is no heaven, nor hell, you become worm food, or ash as is your choice. There is no god, or gods, there is conception, cell division, life, age, death.... that is all.
If believing such things floats your boat, go for it. BUT FUCK OFF WITH THE WHOLE "I"M RIGHT YOU"RE WRONG" BULLSHIT
Others made up multiple gods and stories to do the same, more power to them, cos they seemed to at least look after their backyard while they live in it (american indians, aborigines, new guineans etc) I especially like the ancestor worship idea, being an old fart and all
As for the academics and the big band theory... fuck off!!!! If there was nothing there, what caused the big bang? You wankers, and really, WTF does it matter.. the universe is expanding? could be fucking shrinking for all we know, or care. Whatever happens none of us will be here to see it. We don't need to spend billions on a fucking particle accelerator to see if the theory is right... that money could go to a lot of better uses, COS IT DOESN'T MATTER.... WE'RE HERE NOW.. JUST ACCEPT IT!
Besides, any results are meaningless, cos it ain't happening in the infinite nothingness of the alleged pre universe, our very existence will skew the results.
And please don't think of the children, paedophiles do too much of that already.
Where is this leading? fucked if I know, but I do know one thing.
I am afflicted by a curse, that curse is described by those called "psychiatrists" as Major, Chronic Depression. Simply put, I become a sad, irrational, grumpy cunt. So sad and grumpy that I have thought about, planned, and on more than one occasion tried to kill myself. It's not a nice affliction... it's a cunt that sucks in a very not a nice way.
It ruins the life of the afflicted, and the people who care about them. I think it's worse for those that care. I hate that.
I cannot control it, I cannot pre-empt it, but I might be able to rationalise it after the "episode". Please bear with me as I ramble, It might save my or even better another persons life if I continue this self absorbed monologue.
I sometimes, no often, far too often, descend into a deep frustration about life and perceived injustices therein. This frustration can turn to anger where I lash out at those who just don't deserve it. Or worse, I go very quiet, very introspective and try to shut everyone out. This caused me to lose the one person on earth who tried to understand and help me. She is a goddess of the highest order who just could not cope with the demons I have lived with for fifty years.
Some pricks made up a story to explain the inexplicable, it's now called the bible, some call it the Koran. But then some arseholes used it to manipulate others. Using that one common fear that all humans have, the fear of the unknown and death. "Live life the way I want you to, and you'll go to heaven and be real happy for eva... if you don't you'll go to hell and be hot and unhappy" Yeah, right... cunts.
There is no heaven, nor hell, you become worm food, or ash as is your choice. There is no god, or gods, there is conception, cell division, life, age, death.... that is all.
If believing such things floats your boat, go for it. BUT FUCK OFF WITH THE WHOLE "I"M RIGHT YOU"RE WRONG" BULLSHIT
Others made up multiple gods and stories to do the same, more power to them, cos they seemed to at least look after their backyard while they live in it (american indians, aborigines, new guineans etc) I especially like the ancestor worship idea, being an old fart and all
As for the academics and the big band theory... fuck off!!!! If there was nothing there, what caused the big bang? You wankers, and really, WTF does it matter.. the universe is expanding? could be fucking shrinking for all we know, or care. Whatever happens none of us will be here to see it. We don't need to spend billions on a fucking particle accelerator to see if the theory is right... that money could go to a lot of better uses, COS IT DOESN'T MATTER.... WE'RE HERE NOW.. JUST ACCEPT IT!
Besides, any results are meaningless, cos it ain't happening in the infinite nothingness of the alleged pre universe, our very existence will skew the results.
And please don't think of the children, paedophiles do too much of that already.
Where is this leading? fucked if I know, but I do know one thing.
I am afflicted by a curse, that curse is described by those called "psychiatrists" as Major, Chronic Depression. Simply put, I become a sad, irrational, grumpy cunt. So sad and grumpy that I have thought about, planned, and on more than one occasion tried to kill myself. It's not a nice affliction... it's a cunt that sucks in a very not a nice way.
It ruins the life of the afflicted, and the people who care about them. I think it's worse for those that care. I hate that.
I cannot control it, I cannot pre-empt it, but I might be able to rationalise it after the "episode". Please bear with me as I ramble, It might save my or even better another persons life if I continue this self absorbed monologue.
I sometimes, no often, far too often, descend into a deep frustration about life and perceived injustices therein. This frustration can turn to anger where I lash out at those who just don't deserve it. Or worse, I go very quiet, very introspective and try to shut everyone out. This caused me to lose the one person on earth who tried to understand and help me. She is a goddess of the highest order who just could not cope with the demons I have lived with for fifty years.
That makes me sad, and makes the depression worse.
If I can live with it, why can't the people I care for put up with it? Maybe they're smarter than me, but not as strong? Or maybe it's just that they have the option of walking away, where I cant... anyone got an idea?
Stupidly, major traumatic events such as the death of my son won't trigger an episode, but a couple of nights watching the news and listening to some self absorbed politician lie and whine about how some other politician is lying and whining, or how some paedophile priest is getting supported by the catholic organisation while the poor victims are suffering will send me to the very brink of suicide. I become inwardly obsessed with these things that really have no effect on my daily life. I just can't let it go and just get on with life. Tell me it doesn't matter and that'll make me worse... cos it DOES MATTER DAMMIT
Tell me to get over it and I could fly into a rage.. I WISH I FUCKEN COULD GET OVER IT YA CUNTS!
But then it goes away, everything's fine, except for all the bridges that need to be rebuilt, the friendships that need mending, the loss of the ones you really care for and respect that you have alienated for life.
Stupidly, major traumatic events such as the death of my son won't trigger an episode, but a couple of nights watching the news and listening to some self absorbed politician lie and whine about how some other politician is lying and whining, or how some paedophile priest is getting supported by the catholic organisation while the poor victims are suffering will send me to the very brink of suicide. I become inwardly obsessed with these things that really have no effect on my daily life. I just can't let it go and just get on with life. Tell me it doesn't matter and that'll make me worse... cos it DOES MATTER DAMMIT
Tell me to get over it and I could fly into a rage.. I WISH I FUCKEN COULD GET OVER IT YA CUNTS!
But then it goes away, everything's fine, except for all the bridges that need to be rebuilt, the friendships that need mending, the loss of the ones you really care for and respect that you have alienated for life.
Fuck that hurts.
10 years ago I went through three years of weekly meetings with a Professor of head shrinkery (Psychiatry) and after interminable different types and combinations I ended up taking 7 tablets of two different types of drug each day to keep the noose away from my neck, the carbon monoxide out of my lungs.
10 years ago I went through three years of weekly meetings with a Professor of head shrinkery (Psychiatry) and after interminable different types and combinations I ended up taking 7 tablets of two different types of drug each day to keep the noose away from my neck, the carbon monoxide out of my lungs.
I then re-discovered bikes and that, according to the shrink, was worth a drop to 5 of one type only. My wife left me, and that was worth a drop to 4... go figure.
I then found "she who would be my soul mate" (actually, she found me) I played it safe and stuck to 4, then I went back to 5 but it was too late, we split up.
Now I'm fucked, every time something good happens, it seems fated that at least two "fuckin hell" events soon follow.
I found a job I love to do, and I'm told I'm good at, looked like I was set to get the gig permanently next year. But no, I've been kicked in the head in a way that the mud will stick (cannot say more, as it's still all under investigation and all that crap) So I'm fighting just to keep the temp gig, let alone next years potential.
Ever been on the dole when you're 50? Fuck that's depressing. Only been out of work for 6 months since I started working as a 16 yo in '76. I don't wanna go back there.
I honestly would rather be dead than go back there.
I'm sick of psychologists telling me I can think more positively, or take "emotional holidays", I honestly feel more like killing myself after seeing one of those cunts.
I'm tired of trying different pills to get the serotonin flitting between the synapses properly, sick of using chemicals to get that noradrenalin to behave itself. Who the fuck invented the name "Serotonin specific re-uptake inhibitor" anyway... cunt must've had one too many acid drops.
I'm sick of everything being a struggle, never being able to shake the perception that everyone is out to get the best for themselves and fuck anyone else.
I'm over it.
I really hope the next time the big bastard black dog of depression gets me I dig up the guts to finally get it over with, cos by the fuck it's a cunt of a way to live.
That is all........
So long and thanks for all the fish
I then found "she who would be my soul mate" (actually, she found me) I played it safe and stuck to 4, then I went back to 5 but it was too late, we split up.
Now I'm fucked, every time something good happens, it seems fated that at least two "fuckin hell" events soon follow.
I found a job I love to do, and I'm told I'm good at, looked like I was set to get the gig permanently next year. But no, I've been kicked in the head in a way that the mud will stick (cannot say more, as it's still all under investigation and all that crap) So I'm fighting just to keep the temp gig, let alone next years potential.
Ever been on the dole when you're 50? Fuck that's depressing. Only been out of work for 6 months since I started working as a 16 yo in '76. I don't wanna go back there.
I honestly would rather be dead than go back there.
I'm sick of psychologists telling me I can think more positively, or take "emotional holidays", I honestly feel more like killing myself after seeing one of those cunts.
I'm tired of trying different pills to get the serotonin flitting between the synapses properly, sick of using chemicals to get that noradrenalin to behave itself. Who the fuck invented the name "Serotonin specific re-uptake inhibitor" anyway... cunt must've had one too many acid drops.
I'm sick of everything being a struggle, never being able to shake the perception that everyone is out to get the best for themselves and fuck anyone else.
I'm over it.
I really hope the next time the big bastard black dog of depression gets me I dig up the guts to finally get it over with, cos by the fuck it's a cunt of a way to live.
That is all........
So long and thanks for all the fish
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)