Driver stupefaction...

[alocky (Andrew lockwood)]

One thing I don't understand is why a reverse park is part of the driving test, but a brake and evade isn't? Even when I went for my bike license years ago, you had to demonstrate that you could pull the bike up in 10m from a dropped arm signal at 60km - not hard.
As for the earlier comments about race drivers - I used to rally at club level and raced superbikes after that, so I consider myself to have an awareness, but not necessarily mastery of the subject. Fast reflexes on the track can be your worst enemy. You've got to think quick, but if you do anything sudden to the controls at racing speeds, there's a good chance you'll experience wieghtlessness... briefly. I've had fellow competitors come spearing back onto the track after experimenting with alternative traction methods, others have engine failure and pull off line at 200+ while I was overtaking them on the outside. If my reflexes were truly ~3 seconds I'd have been dead several times. However, several of my friends are now dead, and a few more are permanently disabled - they were every bit as good as I was, but not as lucky I suppose. Throw in the radio, kids, phone, GPS and all the distractions we fill our cars with on public roads and I suspect the 3 seconds is a realistic number.
Peter - given what you drive, and your profession, I'm sorry to say you are very unlikely to represent anything remotely like a normal driver. If only you were.
cheers,
Andrew.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by rat156

Is, perhaps, the main problem that driving a modern car is too easy?.........(snip).......... do you really want to be on the road with someone who hasn't got the co-ordination or skill to change gears manually without losing control of their vehicle?

<Nomex on>

Cheers
Stuart

Well...yes, I get the gist...Wheaties boxes are not a good way to dispense a driver's license.

But you have made some interesting points.

If I dent the company's (aeroplane) hardware..even a little bit...a ton of woe and serious ramifications will result.

Yet, people that crash into stuff with motor vehicles in Oz don't seem to suffer much more than insurance premium increase.

Get caught exceeding the speed limit, (even in the middle of no-where) but have a history of not crashing into anything, period, and you still pay some serious fines and face loss of license etc.

I find that bizzare.

[rat156]

Originally Posted by naskies

I evidently misunderstood what you wrote!

Yep, I agree that being able to screen drivers in an immersive simulator would be a great idea.

More stringent training and testing procedures (ala German driving tests) would be excellent especially considering that car crashes are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) causes of non-disease related deaths in Australia.

Which brings me onto another point, something that's been concerning me for a while now. Where does MVAs come in the list of top causes of death in Australia? You'd think top 20, right? Nope, according to the ABS (that's Aus Bureau of Stats) in 2010 you were more likely to die from an accidental fall (18) or Flu & Pneumonia (14) than MVA (not listed in the top 20). And how much public money is spent on road "safety" versus say Cancer research? My best figures from the internet (great source of statistics!) is about $300 Million annually on Cancer research Australia wide (from Government sources), versus (15,000,000 motor vehicles x approx $350 TAC charge) $5.25 Billion on road accidents, yet 43,000 Australians die from cancer each year compared to about 1,500 from car crashes. This doesn't take into account the enormous amounts spent by car companies on research an engineering to make the cars safer in the first place.

Do we have our priorities right?

Cheers
Stuart

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by rat156

Which brings me onto another point, something that's been concerning me for a while now. Where does MVAs come in the list of top causes of death in Australia? You'd think top 20, right? Nope, according to the ABS (that's Aus Bureau of Stats) in 2010 you were more likely to die from an accidental fall (18) or Flu & Pneumonia (14) than MVA (not listed in the top 20). And how much public money is spent on road "safety" versus say Cancer research? My best figures from the internet (great source of statistics!) is about $300 Million annually on Cancer research Australia wide (from Government sources), versus (15,000,000 motor vehicles x approx $350 TAC charge) $5.25 Billion on road accidents, yet 43,000 Australians die from cancer each year compared to about 1,500 from car crashes. This doesn't take into account the enormous amounts spent by car companies on research an engineering to make the cars safer in the first place.

Do we have our priorities right?

Cheers
Stuart

Very sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you here.

In 1999, I spent six weeks in RoyaI Perth Hospital in quite a critical condition and then over six months in Shenton Park Rehabilitation Hospital and a further 13 years recovering from an MVA. I can tell you, I saw some nasty things and the amount of effort put in by medical staff was truly amazing and I imagine quite expensive too. During this time, I had over a 1000 X Rays, CT Scans and MRI's (it is a wonder I don't glow in the dark), let alone all the op's and other rehabilitation. So I am quite thankful that this was covered by Compulsory Third Party Insurance. The cost of my recovery, and I am still recovering, was truly enormous.

In the more than six months I was there I saw a lot of people who were involved in MVA's come and go, an awful lot, in fact!

MVA's may not be in the top twenty of death rates, but I would hate to think where MVA's came on the human devastation rates.

So, having felt and seen the human destruction caused by MVA's, I think the priorities are about right in wanting to make cars safer.

If you saw this destruction first hand, I think you comments would have been a bit different.

And no, the accident wasn't my fault, but I paid a huge penalty; psychologically, physically and financially.

Regards Peter

[rat156]

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

Very sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with you here.

In 1999, I spent six weeks in RoyaI Perth Hospital in quite a critical condition and then over six months in Shenton Park Rehabilitation Hospital and a further 13 years recovering from an MVA. I can tell you, I saw some nasty things and the amount of effort put in by medical staff was truly amazing and I imagine quite expensive too. During this time, I had over a 1000 X Rays, CT Scans and MRI's (it is a wonder I don't glow in the dark), let alone all the op's and other rehabilitation. So I am quite thankful that this was covered by Compulsory Third Party Insurance. The cost of my recovery, and I am still recovering, was truly enormous.

In the more than six months I was there I saw a lot of people who were involved in MVA's come and go, an awful lot, in fact!

MVA's may not be in the top twenty of death rates, but I would hate to think where MVA's came on the human devastation rates.

So, having felt and seen the human destruction caused by MVA's, I think the priorities are about right in wanting to make cars safer.

If you saw this destruction first hand, I think you comments would have been a bit different.

And no, the accident wasn't my fault, but I paid a huge penalty; psychologically, physically and financially.

Regards Peter

Sorry Peter, but from this you claim that there's no human devastation in the physical/mental/financial burden of dealing with cancer? Whilst you were in hospital, did you visit the oncology ward? You would have seen an order of magnitude more people going through, some recovering from the various treatments, many just trying to lengthen their life by a few years, maybe months. Do you know of the physical pain felt by many in the final stages of cancer?

On average (according to the RACV) there are 30,000 Australians seriously injured in MVAs in Australia each year. This doesn't even approach those KILLED by cancer each year, if you add in those who have faced the disease and survived, this would double those figures. Unfortunately, this means the survival rate is still only running at 50% for most cancers, significantly lower than that for serious MVAs.

Personal experience is, in this case, a source of bias. I, as well as many of the people here have experienced both sides of this fence, believe me when I tell you that if you were faced with a choice of the two, pick the MVA.

As for the financial cost of an MVA versus cancer, yes, you were lucky that everything was covered by CTP insurance. Flip the coin over and ask who pays for the cancer treatment? Many patients can not afford new treatments, some of the cost is borne by Medicare, but many cancer patients are financially ruined by the treatment costs.

I suppose, what I'm really saying is that, even without the financial figures, just the sheer publicity and amount of advertising that road trauma receives is disproportionate with the impact on society versus a disease such as cancer. It's just that people respond to money better than they respond to logic

Cheers
Stuart

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by rat156

Sorry Peter, but from this you claim that there's no human devastation in the physical/mental/financial burden of dealing with cancer? Whilst you were in hospital, did you visit the oncology ward? You would have seen an order of magnitude more people going through, some recovering from the various treatments, many just trying to lengthen their life by a few years, maybe months. Do you know of the physical pain felt by many in the final stages of cancer?

On average (according to the RACV) there are 30,000 Australians seriously injured in MVAs in Australia each year. This doesn't even approach those KILLED by cancer each year, if you add in those who have faced the disease and survived, this would double those figures. Unfortunately, this means the survival rate is still only running at 50% for most cancers, significantly lower than that for serious MVAs.

Personal experience is, in this case, a source of bias. I, as well as many of the people here have experienced both sides of this fence, believe me when I tell you that if you were faced with a choice of the two, pick the MVA.

As for the financial cost of an MVA versus cancer, yes, you were lucky that everything was covered by CTP insurance. Flip the coin over and ask who pays for the cancer treatment? Many patients can not afford new treatments, some of the cost is borne by Medicare, but many cancer patients are financially ruined by the treatment costs.

I suppose, what I'm really saying is that, even without the financial figures, just the sheer publicity and amount of advertising that road trauma receives is disproportionate with the impact on society versus a disease such as cancer. It's just that people respond to money better than they respond to logic

Cheers
Stuart

Fair point Stuart.

Cancer is an insidious disease, as there are many other insidious diseases. I have had five members of my family die from cancer, four have died in the last three years, with my nephew also suffering prostrate cancer (terminal). My sister died three months ago from cancer. So, the inference that I don't understand this issue is incorrect. However, the care and treatment they got was truly wonderful and frankly, cannot be faulted.

I have also lost many friends to road trauma over the years. So yes, I will concede that there is bias in this regard. I suffer chronic pain 24/7 and mostly take no drugs for it (as I don't want to end up a drug addict, as so many do), so I do know suffering, only too damn well. I sure wish I didn't, but having said that, I am truly thankful to be alive (I very nearly wasn't) to feel the pain. As for picking an MVA over cancer, it isn't that simple. There are many times when I have wished I'd died, so great was the pain. This isn't meant to understate your pain Stuart, just to say that suffering isn't exclusive to insidious diseases.

We cannot cure all the ills of this world. However, my point is that if the amount of R&D hadn't been done to prevent MVA injury, then I suggest the number of 30,000 injuries per year would be considerably higher, by several magnitudes.

[Colin_Fraser]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

In the latest NRMA open road comic that arrived in my letter box, I was bemused to read driver reaction times "in an emergeny" are apparently around. 1.5 to 3 seconds (!!!)

I have no faith at all in these so-called scientific surveys or tests because scientific tests can be engineered to pre-determine the results.

Using a test circuit with flags falling to signal an emergency is not the same as driving in the suburbs.
The tests you see on television usually is on a test track in controlled conditions, with one vehicle driving in one direction.
In suburbia cars pull out from the kerb and cut in front from a side street or head towards you on the wrong side of the road.
Not to mention kids, dogs and cats and bicycle riders appearing from nowhere.

Who did they test?
The consequence of a 70 year old's reaction time of 3 seconds would be totally different from the same reaction time for a 20 year old.
A 70 year old would more than likely drive under the speed limit whereas a 20 year old will be more likely drive over the speed limit.

You can send drivers to professional instructors till the cows come home but it will never stop them from breaking the road rules.

You just cannot teach a young driver how to take their time and be patient. Only hope they listen and live to become old drivers.

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Stardrifter_WA

Fair point Stuart.

Cancer is an insidious disease, as there are many other insidious diseases. I have had five members of my family die from cancer, ...

I have also lost many friends to road trauma over the years.

Peter, I don't want to denigrate your experience. I've spent weeks in hospital too after MVAs.

Of all the people I have known who have died in my nearly 60 years where I know the cause, three were MVAs. Another was a heart attack in his 30s.

The other twenty were all cancer or cancer related, including my father, sister, sister-in-law, and SWMBO's father and mother. We have a niece whose prognosis is not good.

The cancers were far and away the worst, both for the sufferer and everyone who knew them.

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

Peter, I don't want to denigrate your experience. I've spent weeks in hospital too after MVAs.

Of all the people I have known who have died in my nearly 60 years where I know the cause, three were MVAs. Another was a heart attack in his 30s.

The other twenty were all cancer or cancer related, including my father, sister, sister-in-law, and SWMBO's father and mother. We have a niece whose prognosis is not good.

The cancers were far and away the worst, both for the sufferer and everyone who knew them.

Fair enough. I have seen a lot of pain and suffering too, in my six decades on this rock, I do understand that and it isn't my intention to understate that or suggest that cancer sufferers suffer less, as I know they do not. It isn't a contest as to who suffers the most. On this point, I think any suffering is awful. However, that wasn't really my point, which was related to the incidence of MVA injuries and their decline through safety innovation. If only they could do the same for insidious diseases, but it isn't as simple as adding air bags to vehicles, for example, which is very unfortunate. I wouldn't wish any amount of suffering on anyone.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

I have no faith at all in these so-called scientific surveys or tests because scientific tests can be engineered to pre-determine the results.

Colin,

A lot of what you said I agree with but I take exception to this sort of comment. Although you only suggest the hypothetical possibility of results being rigged the fact that you have no faith in any scientific result suggests you think rigging results is routine or common. As someone who works bl**dy hard to ensure the scientific results I report are an as accurate as possible representation of the real world I take exception to such assertions. I'm in an academic unit where there are 60-80 people trying their best to report on reality and there are hundreds in the faculty so engaged. In the past 20 years I've become aware of 1 case of fraud (not at this Uni) and I can assure you that person's name is mud and their career stopped the moment their behaviour became known. Scientists are prone to all the faults and failing of the general population and some are dishonest, but to imply that falsification of results is common is an outrage.

[Sorry must fly, I have a meeting about why our Zn analyses are not working.]

[Colin_Fraser]

David

Thats exactly why I have my opinion. You have analysed my statement

scientific tests CAN BE engineered to pre-determine the results

and came to the incorrect conclusion that I think "rigging results is routine or common".
You further deduce that I "imply that falsification of results is common"

Your very own statement

Scientists are prone to all the faults and failing of the general population and some are dishonest

completely backs up what I said "CAN BE"
You have read a simple statement, read into something that was not there and came to conclusions about me that are dead wrong.
So if you take exception "to this sort of comment" and think my comments are "an outrage", thats your problem, not mine.

As someone who works bl**dy hard to ensure the scientific results I report are an as accurate as possible representation of the real world

Pity you never applied the same effort here

[Stardrifter_WA]

Originally Posted by Colin_Fraser

David

Thats exactly why I have my opinion. You have analysed my statement and came to the incorrect conclusion that I think "rigging results is routine or common".
You further deduce that I "imply that falsification of results is common"

Your very own statementcompletely backs up what I said "CAN BE"
You have read a simple statement, read into something that was not there and came to conclusions about me that are dead wrong.
So if you take exception "to this sort of comment" and think my comments are "an outrage", thats your problem, not mine.

Pity you never applied the same effort here

That's the problem with these types of forums. Sometimes things come across in ways not intended. You don't have the luxury of personal nuances to gauge what people are trying to communicate. Just words do not necessarily convey the correct meaning or intent, as there is no feedback to gauge understanding. I am not an innocent in this regard either. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if someone is offended easily or can't take criticism for their opinions, then they shouldn't be on here, or, at least, not make any comments. Having said that, I do love IIS and some of the exchanges, at least, until the moderator kills them. Cheers Peter

[rat156]

Hmm...

People all around the world seem to have been communicating by the written word for a long time, when was written language invented?

Perhaps you will detect a nuance of sarcasm in the above words, strangely enough you would be right.

Maybe people should THINK about what they write, rather than just capture a stream of conciousness?

Maybe they should read their post back before hitting the "submit reply" button?

It is a cop out to claim, "Oh, I didn't mean THAT!" after you have written something that someone else finds offensive.

This, in a round about sort of way, brings us back to Peter's posts. Let me explain...

Peter (rightly in my opinion) pointed out that a three second delay between a dangerous situation and a reaction is simply way too long and that if that is your reaction time you shouldn't be driving a motor vehicle. Some claims and counter claims were made by various people about the difference between an expected event reaction time and an unexpected event. To which Peter, and others, replied that whilst driving a car many people (I may have called them Muppets at once stage, I think that this leaves little doubt as to my opinion of their driving "skills") simply don't seem to concentrate enough on the task at hand. Maybe they don't care about driving, in the same way they don't care about what they write in the forum?

This is pretty much symptomatic of society these days (I really sound like an old fart now), no one takes responsibility for their actions. You only have to have a look at some of the quite ridiculous OH&S regulations to see that this attitude is not only tolerated, it is enshrined in Law.

OK, I may be drawing a long bow with this one, but at least I made an attempt to bring the thread back on topic.

<triple layer nomex on>

Cheers
Stuart

[sheeny (Al)]

I'm with you Stuart.

(Read twice... Yup... That's what I meant to say...)

Al.

[AndrewJ]

Did anyone see the news last night where a woman on a scooter ran a red light into the path of a truck ( that wasnt going that fast ), then just watched it hit her.
Perfect example of complete inattention, followed by how situation affects reaction time. eg Rabbit in spotlight.
How many drivers out there have never been put into a "real" stress situation to judge their abilities or even to show them the true effects of inattention.
Perhaps we should add a new final part to the driving test called
"crash into stationary object at 40kph"
again just so they understand what really happens.

Andrew

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

causes of non-disease related deaths in Australia.

Ah - how many things are people involved in that involve traveling at 100k in a steel box on wheels or maybe just wheels?

I think my driving reactions must be above average (touch wood) as I've been driving mostly at or just above the speed limit for 43 years and not hit anything yet. Mostly in manual cars or utes.

I certainly hope it takes less than 1.5 seconds to react.
@ 3 seconds, I think I'd be way past the initial problem area with it stuck on my bonnet.
I own a Nissan Navarra 4x4 that is now 26 years old I've had it for 22 of those years. It hasn't got a dink on it, and whilst it's a slowish underpowered lump, the brakes are woeful compared to modern vehicles - yet I still don't run into anything - strange that.

I DO concentrate on my driving ALL the time - you have to if you're driving a bit quicker than average - maybe that is what has kept me safe.
I hasten to add that I do have a modern car that I use normally.