So many idiots on the road

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by 04Stefan07

I think that explains why I got cut off by a truck and not a car because truck drivers are bigger and think they can do what they want.

Bigger, yes, but mainly that means they take a lot longer to slow down and accelerate again afterwards .... and if he/she was in the left (continuing) lane, then he/she was actually doing the right thing by all the other drivers on the road. I spent some time driving on the British motorways and was impressed with their lane discipline and the degree of cooperation amongst truck drivers - too complex to describe here, but in essence everyone is focussed on keeping traffic flowing.

I never get that reaction from another car. In my case however he made me drive into the emergency lane though??

Well, I didn't see it, so I can only guess as to the length of the lane merge section and visibility etc, but technically he/she didn't make you do anything. If it were me, I wouldn't bank on a truck doing anything except continuing at a steady speed; I'd either floor it to get well in front, or slow down to pull in behind.

[lazjen (Chris)]

Originally Posted by Barrykgerdes

I have had two recent rude and I believe illegal occurances on local roundabouts (Samantha Riley Drive). Samantha Riley drive has the two lane version where the side road is single. I was turning from the side road (turn signal idicated) and had cars on Samantha Riley drive enter the roundabout right in front of me and overtake while I was still tuning.

As far as I can make out the lane markings on the side road section do not prevent me making the turn into the left hand lane if I require to do so as I already have right of way on the round about and long wheel base buses which also make the same turn would not be able to make the turn into the right lane (also requiring to make the bus stop just past the round about).

I think that 2 lane roundabouts are just completely stupid and asking for trouble. It's no surprise to me that one of the nearby 2 lane roundabouts is a recognized blackspot (I go out of my way to avoid it). Roundabouts have a fundamental system to them when they're single lane and they're relatively easy to understand and negotiate. Adding in the second lane increases the complexity and variability too far. These 2 lane roundabouts should be converted to traffic light systems. Although this can disrupt traffic more (if not "tuned" properly), it's far safer and less frustrating for all involved.

[Astro_Bot]

Originally Posted by lazjen

I think that 2 lane roundabouts are just completely stupid and asking for trouble.

When they're conventionally oriented - i.e. a four-way intersection at roughly 90 degrees to each other, then they work pretty well, or at least they did when the instructions were simple: left lane to turn left, right lane to turn right and either lane to go straight ahead, with the usual "give way to the right" rule, and since traffic goes clockwise, then traffic already in the roundabout is always coming from the right. Edit: I forgot the most important rule for making roundabouts work: never change lanes in a roundabout. It's a shame some people forget that one, because if the rules are strictly followed, roundabouts can be very efficient.

However, the road rules changed and the new description is more difficult to follow - they've tried to make it more generic - plus they have a habit of adding slip lanes and restrictive road markings to some roundabouts that keep you on your toes. One problem is that if you're entering from one side, you can't see restrictive markings from another. I can see how some people find the new descriptions and unconventional markings confusing.

[astroron (Ron)]

The problem with Roundabouts is that drivers have to think before entering it.
If the Roundabout is two lanes,the left hand lane on most occasion's a driver can stay in that lane till he/she wishes to exit,or must exit next left if lane markings say so.
Sometimes the right hand lane can exit left as well depending on the markings on the road.
The driver in the right hand lane wishing to exit left must observe where any vehicle in the left hand lane is, and act to avoid an accident by slowing down and letting that vehicle go on round or speeding up to execute the left turn safely.
If one cannot do it safely then they should go round the roundabout once again and exit safely next time.
Also the driver in the left hand lane should observe whats going on around him/her and act accordingly to avoid an accident.
The common sense rule that a vehicle already on the roundabout has right of way,so any vehicle entering the roundabout from the left must give right of way.
Simple
Cheers

[AstralTraveller (David)]

In Ireland I came across a two lane roundabout where the lanes spiraled inwards and disappeared half way around. You had to change lanes in the roundabout (or wind up on the centre island). I never worked out what the rule was. Luckily the traffic was pretty light and I just made sure I didn't hit anyone.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Astro_Bot

However, the road rules changed and the new description is more difficult to follow - they've tried to make it more generic - plus they have a habit of adding slip lanes and restrictive road markings to some roundabouts that keep you on your toes. One problem is that if you're entering from one side, you can't see restrictive markings from another. I can see how some people find the new descriptions and unconventional markings confusing.

The rule changes were obviously to make it easier to fine people for getting it wrong.

When is a one lane roundabout small enough to make signalling on exit optional? All the ones near me are so small you don't have time to signal unless you slow almost to a stop. They had to make them all very low so the busses could negotiate them, and that means most vehicles can straight line them.

I want the "give way to traffic in the roundabout" rules enforced. The boys/girls in blue could make a fortune at the closest one to me if they booked all the people who force their way through. They are on the through road and the people on the side road don't matter. It was a T intersection before they put in the roundabout. I've been nearly hit several times at that one by people who were 10m or more from the roundabout when I entered it.

[kinetic (Steve)]

Originally Posted by astroron

The problem with Roundabouts is that drivers have to think before entering it.

Spot on Ron
I make it a point to adjust my speed so that at no time when on
the roundabout am I ever side by side with someone, in fact
that applies to most of my driving.
The problem with that is, I usually back off so much that I end up back in my driveway.

Steve

[taminga16 (Greg)]

Originally Posted by 04Stefan07

I know how to turn into my street, I've only lived here all my life.

And there my friend may well lie the problem! and please understand this is not a criticism, do a personal review and assess what it is that you are doing, or not doing for that matter. It just may give you a better insight as to why there are "So many idiots on the road". Greg.
The biggest contribution to workplace accidents is complacency you would be amazed at the number of files that I have dealt with that open with the statement, I have always done it like that!

[Nikolas (Nik)]

The problem we have here in Australia is that the authorities are so addicted to revenue it is against their bottom line to educate people on how to drive properly. In europe where we have greater speed limits and not an addiction to enforcement for revenue gains they also have a greater driver education system. Just look at how much training you have to do in Finland in order to get a license.
So long as the authorities pander to the lowest common denominator and not educate drivers properly then we will have all these idiots on the roads.
Even as I type they are adding more speedcameras on the monash between High street and warrigal road where there has never been a fatal car accident.

[MattT]

Stefan you should try riding a bike in these interesting times. Been commuting on the treadly for years and it's got much worse in the last 5 years... it's amazing I'm still alive. Needless to say I hate cars specially those SUV's. That stands for Stupid Urban Vechial. Can't spell the V word either

[telemarker (Keith)]

Ah, road rage. Always a pleasure to behold.

One of my experiences of this. A car and a minivan directly behind me were having a bunfight about who had the right of way to merge into a single lane. Minivan lost, but then proceeded to drive down the wrong side of the road beside the other car for 1 km with horn blaring, lights flashing, gesticulations and swearing. Finally pulls in behind other car when the traffic comes to a standstill, he gets out and approaches the other car swearing, screaming "My daughter is in the car" amongst a tirade of abusive and foul language and hitting the drivers window with an aluminium flashlight. As we were going nowhere and thought the other driver could use some support, I jumped out and told the knob that his driving was the biggest danger to his daughter and it was about time he grew up. Well, that didn't go down well with the bogan or his mrs and they both rounded on me as well. Luckily, the traffic started to move again so jumped in the car and was away. The knob pulled up beside me for a spray, gave him a return volley before we parted ways. The other driver gave me a smile and a big thumbs up afterwards.

Some people really need to learn some semblance of self-control. I always thought it was extremely ironic that his behaviour was of far greater danger to his family than any danger during merging (the incident that sparked his brain snap and where he, according to the rules of the road, should have given way in the first place).

[rat156]

Originally Posted by taminga16

And there my friend may well lie the problem! and please understand this is not a criticism, do a personal review and assess what it is that you are doing, or not doing for that matter. It just may give you a better insight as to why there are "So many idiots on the road". Greg.
The biggest contribution to workplace accidents is complacency you would be amazed at the number of files that I have dealt with that open with the statement, I have always done it like that!

I went and did a basic driver education course last year. It's the first time I've had professional instruction (not based on track driving) in about twenty years. I can only recommend that everyone do it about every ten years. Things have changed dramatically over the twenty years or so since I got my licence, consider the differences between the two cars, my first car, and the one I learnt to drive in was a Holden Gemini, the car I did the recent training in was an Alfa 156GTA.

Engine: 1600 inline 4 cylinder vs 3200 V6.
Power: Not much (probably about 70 BHP), vs 250 BHP.
Brakes: Front discs/rear drums vs Four pot Brembo fronts/disc rear with ABS.
Steering: rack and pinion, unassisted vs rack and pinion power assisted
Gears: 4 vs 6
Airbags: none vs 6
Traction control: none, with live rear axle vs TC and stability control

All this technology which helps you in emergency situations is pretty much useless if you don't know how to use it. For example we did a simulated emergency braking test from 60 kmh first, I failed to pull up in the allotted space on my first attempt, even though I could feel the ABS working. The instructor could tell by the way the car stopped that I was still "threshold braking" even though the ABS was working, which reduces the efficiency of the ABS. Next time he told me to press as hard as I could on the brakes, I did and the car stopped well short of the mark, probably 5 metres earlier than in the first test.

After every break we did another swerve and stop exercise and everytime I needed two goes at it to get the braking right. Since then I have had to exercise the reactions for real and I'm pleased to say that it worked, I now stamp very hard on the brake pedal in an emergency stop.

This is but one example of what us "old dogs" can learn.

As many of you know I have always advocated that more training is necessary before we let people have a licence, perhaps mandatory driver training before a licence renewal would do more to save lives than any speed camera? At least the revenue from the speed cameras, as they aren't going away, would be spent wisely if this was the case.

Cheers
Stuart

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by rat156

All this technology which helps you in emergency situations is pretty much useless if you don't know how to use it. For example we did a simulated emergency braking test from 60 kmh first, I failed to pull up in the allotted space on my first attempt, even though I could feel the ABS working. The instructor could tell by the way the car stopped that I was still "threshold braking" even though the ABS was working, which reduces the efficiency of the ABS. Next time he told me to press as hard as I could on the brakes, I did and the car stopped well short of the mark, probably 5 metres earlier than in the first test.

After every break we did another swerve and stop exercise and everytime I needed two goes at it to get the braking right. Since then I have had to exercise the reactions for real and I'm pleased to say that it worked, I now stamp very hard on the brake pedal in an emergency stop.

Stuart

SOOOOO dangerous this training.
Not all cars have all this technology and to do so in cars not fitted with this sort of technology is a disaster in the making.
Brake stomping is the worst thing one can do
Seriously I'd be asking for a refund and do a proper training course in all sorts of different cars abs and TC and non abs and nonTC

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by rat156

............ I have always advocated that more training is necessary before we let people have a licence, perhaps mandatory driver training before a licence renewal would do more to save lives than any speed camera? ............
Cheers
Stuart

Amen to that.

I go though hell several times a year, with study and assessment to keep my ATPL (pilots) licence and my job (i.e. wizz around at 800-1000km/hr) ....yet, I can drive a car like a drongo if I wish,
and provided I don't speed, am unlikely to be reprimanded.

In Germany, autobahns carry 49% of all road traffic, yet account for only 3-4% of crash fatalities. Clearly Speed=death doesn't work there.

Here: speed = $$$ for governmental coffers, seems to be the maxim.

I digress.

It takes 6-12 months in Germany and some serious $ (OK Euro) to gain a license there. Don't even think of drinking and driving: if you crash you will go to jail and cop $A70,000 in legal expenses.

Our lot haven't got a clue IMHO

[rat156]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

SOOOOO dangerous this training.
Not all cars have all this technology and to do so in cars not fitted with this sort of technology is a disaster in the making.
Brake stomping is the worst thing one can do
Seriously I'd be asking for a refund and do a proper training course in all sorts of different cars abs and TC and non abs and nonTC

Really Nik?

When was the last time you drove a car that doesn't have ABS at the very least? Today's younger driver's will never drive a car without ABS, stability and traction control, EBD, power steering and brakes. Unless they get into classic and historic cars, in which case they'll probably know how to drive them.

What is dangerous is having all this technology and not knowing what to do with it.

On ANY car with ABS, stomping on the brake pedal is the best, most efficient way of stopping, it also allows you to steer the car whilst braking.

The course was run by the John Bowe school, one of the best and most respected driving schools in the country. It was designed to give you experience in emergency situations in the car you drive everyday, rather than confusing you with instruction on cars you will never drive. There was one vehicle there without ABS, it was one of the aforementioned SUVs, owned by a Govt department, the students in that vehicle were taught threshold braking. It was a modern vehicle BTW, another oversight by the motoring authorities to allow that vehicle on the road without the mandatory ABS that most passenger vehicles have to have.

From the MUARC study in 2004:

In real world conditions, even an alert and experienced driver without ABS would find it difficult to match or improve on the performance of a typical driver with a modern ABS-equipped vehicle. ABS reduces chances of crashing, and/or the severity of impact. The recommended technique for non-expert drivers in an ABS-equipped car, in a typical full-braking emergency, is to press the brake pedal as firmly as possible and, where appropriate, to steer around obstructions. In such situations, ABS will significantly reduce the chances of a skid and subsequent loss of control.

As the theme of this thread is "most drivers (other than myself, of course) are muppets", this is solid advice.

Cheers
Stuart
(Bored in the Dustbowl, again)

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by rat156

Really Nik?

When was the last time you drove a car that doesn't have ABS at the very least? Today's younger driver's will never drive a car without ABS, stability and traction control, EBD, power steering and brakes. Unless they get into classic and historic cars, in which case they'll probably know how to drive them.

What is dangerous is having all this technology and not knowing what to do with it.

On ANY car with ABS, stomping on the brake pedal is the best, most efficient way of stopping, it also allows you to steer the car whilst braking.

The course was run by the John Bowe school, one of the best and most respected driving schools in the country. It was designed to give you experience in emergency situations in the car you drive everyday, rather than confusing you with instruction on cars you will never drive. There was one vehicle there without ABS, it was one of the aforementioned SUVs, owned by a Govt department, the students in that vehicle were taught threshold braking. It was a modern vehicle BTW, another oversight by the motoring authorities to allow that vehicle on the road without the mandatory ABS that most passenger vehicles have to have.

From the MUARC study in 2004:


As the theme of this thread is "most drivers (other than myself, of course) are muppets", this is solid advice.

Cheers
Stuart
(Bored in the Dustbowl, again)

One car has abs the other does not.
Don't quote to me anything by the MUARC as their research is flawed and geared up to the lowest common denominator. Many years in motorcycle advocacy has paid proof to that, just do a search of MUARC and motorcycling cross referenced to the vic and net rider as a start if your MUARC re education.
Many cars still donor have abs and stomping on the brakes is not safe in all circumstances.
I won't bother entering a debate about this period.

[rat156]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

One car has abs the other does not.
SNIP
Many cars still donor have abs and stomping on the brakes is not safe in all circumstances.

I wouldn't say that many cars don't have ABS, I would think that a vast majority of cars on the road today have ABS.

Originally Posted by Nikolas

I won't bother entering a debate about this period.

So, you're right and you won't listen to any argument?
Might I ask if you've actually attended a driver training course?
Probably useless as you are always right, so the instructor couldn't teach you anything anyway. I can only say, open your mind, listen and learn, maybe, just maybe, there is a better way to teach people to drive.

I might also point out that the technique you are advocating, commonly known as threshold braking, is a difficult thing to get right, in an emergency situation even more so. It is probably beyond the capability of most drivers on the road, however experienced they are. I drive competitively, in a car built in the 1970's (but designed in the 60's), it doesn't have ABS, I lock brakes often, in this situation it is required, but on the road in an emergency, I now know to rely on the electronics, it is much better at it than I am.

In the pinnacle of motorsport, Formula One, the only reason that they don't have ABS was to increase the reliance on the skill of the drivers, equip any modern racecar with ABS and the drivers will go faster. These are the very best drivers.

Cheers
Stuart

[sophie (Jim)]

Ha!

I took my daughter for her first driving lesson a month or so ago. It felt like a dodgem car ride that lasted for dog years. Had to grab the steering wheel twice and pull the hand brake once. I think I saw the face of Jesus at one point.

I am now paying for professional driving lessons.

And I apologize in advance to anyone who sees a tiny 18 year old in a 10 year old CRV next to or behind them in about six months when she is supposedly going to get her license.

[ourkind (Carlos)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

In Ireland I came across a two lane roundabout where the lanes spiraled inwards and disappeared half way around. You had to change lanes in the roundabout (or wind up on the centre island). I never worked out what the rule was. Luckily the traffic was pretty light and I just made sure I didn't hit anyone.

I'd love to see an aerial shot of this intersection! There could be a wormhole in the centre eating up the road. Classic!

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by sophie

Ha!



I am now paying for professional driving lessons.

A good move.

I instructed both of our kids for much of their driver training, an insisted they learn in a manual car. We looked at skid recovery, emergency braking basic car-mechanics, etc.

I then handed them over to a professional instructor who gave them a heads up on what the RTA test would be like. I was quite chuffed that they both passed first time.

That said, our current system is a joke. Potter around at 40-50km hr. Do a hill-start and reverse park, and you have a license.

Learners are not permitted to go over 80km/hr on freeways... I wonder what clown though this sheer lack of flow control was a "safe" idea.