Yellow light "shortening"

Yellow Lights
Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8468
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Hardy » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:28 pm

Stroppy ,you've never explained what the problem is with speed cameras raising revenue. Why on earth shouldn't they raise revenue? I would be appalled if they didn't raise revenue. In fact, if you have read all the threads on this site you will find some were I complain that they are not solely about revenue - i.e. they should not be concerned with demerit points or licence loss. If you extinguish the ability to issue a fine for a speed camera offence there is no point having them at all. So what you are really saying is we should not have speed cameras. If that is such a popular idea you should get elected next time you run for parliament.

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby stroppy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:13 am

Hardy wrote:Stroppy ,you've never explained what the problem is with speed cameras raising revenue. Why on earth shouldn't they raise revenue? I would be appalled if they didn't raise revenue. In fact, if you have read all the threads on this site you will find some were I complain that they are not solely about revenue - i.e. they should not be concerned with demerit points or licence loss. If you extinguish the ability to issue a fine for a speed camera offence there is no point having them at all. So what you are really saying is we should not have speed cameras. If that is such a popular idea you should get elected next time you run for parliament.


Yes I have...you have just failed to understand what my beef is with the system. I have NO PROBLEM with the cameras raising revenue if they are used fairly, are not hidden in wheelie bins or placed at the bottom of hills (this used to be a no-no in the camera operator's guide...now it is just hunky dory). If a more generous tolerance was offered (it need not be advertised so as to create a de-facto speed limit in people's minds), if camera cars were clearly marked and signposted as they are in NSW and if the application for clemency did not require an admission of guilt then I'd be perfectly happy. Let the cameras stamp out the dangerous hoons, those who think that 60 actually means 90...etc...that's fine...there are a lot of twits out there who see roads as their personal speedways. I also have no problem with red light cameras BUT I would like to see the yellow cycle lengthened somewhat. Again, it need not be advertised so as to create a false sense of security in those prone to trying their luck and running the yellow, just quietly put in place to make things that much fairer.

Are these things too much to ask for? Are my views so shocking to the resident "experts" here that it gives them cause to troll me and to suggest that I am some sort of untermenschen with a low intellect? I have made some errors of fact basically because I am more used to NSW traffic law than Victorian, due to my having lived in NSW for quite a long time.

Similarly, is it such a horrible thing to posit that cyclists be asked to either carry identification (as is the law in NSW now) or wear a lightweight vest showing an identifying number? This would make them equal to motorists and motor cyclists. This is not a terrible thing to ask. Why do you oppose it so?

Now I ruled myself out of your little empire here by saying I did not match your terms and conditions which seems to be the case. This not a forum to air views and opinions, obviously. It is a forum where you resident experts dish out advice to motorists who think they may have run foul of our enforcement system. I get that so I am leaving. You do not need to "beg" to get me to stay. I am not on some sort of self-affirming power trip here. It was the only forum I could find discussing traffic matters. Sadly I misjudged what this forum is all about.

Might I add a word of advice. Sometimes experts and lawyers can be quite cutting in their advice to people. Try to remember that a number of people come here as probable "first offenders" and they are in a flat panic about what they might, or might not, have done. A little humanity goes a long way in salving their conscience even if they are in the wrong. I have read posts where you do tell people that they will be fined but then you nicely state it is not the end of the world and they will probably be okay licence-wise and to chalk the infringement up to experience. Little things like this matter to frightened people. Please remember that.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8468
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Hardy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:40 am

This not a forum to air views and opinions, obviously.

This forum has plenty of views and opinions, and you were going OK until you dumped your speed camera and cycling registration manifesto into someone else's old thread about turning left on a yellow lights. That seemed to have a diarrheal effect on your posting with similar rants appearing across a variety of threads old and new.
We have a forum set aside specifically for people to air their political philosophies so that they don't have to bomb other people's threads with their grumpy-old-men tirades. We also have a forum specifically for people to have socio-political debates about speeding issuesso that they don't have to take off-topic threads started by people who actually have legal questions or problems. It is interesting that someone who has never received a traffic infringement notice in their life could be so obsessed with these issues, but I guess every retiree needs a hobby.

Gravy
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Gravy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:34 pm

stroppy wrote:Don't you mean..."just don't be that idiotic?"
No.

stroppy wrote:Are these things too much to ask for? Are my views so shocking to the resident "experts" here that it gives them cause to troll me and to suggest that I am some sort of untermenschen with a low intellect? I have made some errors of fact basically because I am more used to NSW traffic law than Victorian, due to my having lived in NSW for quite a long time.

Similarly, is it such a horrible thing to posit that cyclists be asked to either carry identification (as is the law in NSW now) or wear a lightweight vest showing an identifying number? This would make them equal to motorists and motor cyclists. This is not a terrible thing to ask. Why do you oppose it so?
It's not at all that your views are shocking, they are just under-developed. I think the biggest problem you are having on this forum is that you don't understand how to engage in dispassionate debate. LEO's link to rationalwiki's page on the Dunning-Kruger effect was actually quite apt, however, by definition, you won't agree with that.

It's not that I'm dismissing without consideration your unique and new ideas, it's that your ideas are neither unique nor new and I've had plenty of time to rationally evaluate them as wanting for logic and a basis in fact. You're just the latest person to trot out the same tired, old, self-serving views that are contrary to the latest independent, confirmed and rigorous data. Your outright dismissal of MUARC is a classic case of confirmation bias and if you had any respect for the scientific method, you would understand how much that damages your credibility.

Asking as late as the above post why we/I are/am so opposed to your ideas demonstrates my point further. You've had explanations, some of them pretty detailed and very sound (Hardy's), yet you still ask why. Because you dismiss any rational argument that does not agree with your position - confirmation bias.

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby stroppy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:07 pm

Gravy wrote:
stroppy wrote:Don't you mean..."just don't be that idiotic?"
No.

stroppy wrote:Are these things too much to ask for? Are my views so shocking to the resident "experts" here that it gives them cause to troll me and to suggest that I am some sort of untermenschen with a low intellect? I have made some errors of fact basically because I am more used to NSW traffic law than Victorian, due to my having lived in NSW for quite a long time.

Similarly, is it such a horrible thing to posit that cyclists be asked to either carry identification (as is the law in NSW now) or wear a lightweight vest showing an identifying number? This would make them equal to motorists and motor cyclists. This is not a terrible thing to ask. Why do you oppose it so?
It's not at all that your views are shocking, they are just under-developed. I think the biggest problem you are having on this forum is that you don't understand how to engage in dispassionate debate. LEO's link to rationalwiki's page on the Dunning-Kruger effect was actually quite apt, however, by definition, you won't agree with that.

It's not that I'm dismissing without consideration your unique and new ideas, it's that your ideas are neither unique nor new and I've had plenty of time to rationally evaluate them as wanting for logic and a basis in fact. You're just the latest person to trot out the same tired, old, self-serving views that are contrary to the latest independent, confirmed and rigorous data. Your outright dismissal of MUARC is a classic case of confirmation bias and if you had any respect for the scientific method, you would understand how much that damages your credibility.

Asking as late as the above post why we/I are/am so opposed to your ideas demonstrates my point further. You've had explanations, some of them pretty detailed and very sound (Hardy's), yet you still ask why. Because you dismiss any rational argument that does not agree with your position - confirmation bias.


You are very wrong. I will accept proof if offered to me on every occasion. I am sure that MUARC has done some very good work in the field of road safety but they support a credo regarding speed to which I am diametrically opposed. It is not confirmation bias...it is a distrust of an organisation whose opinion is tainted in my eyes by that credo.

You say I cannot engage in "dispassionate debate". It's a bit hard when you are accused of being a "knucklehead," a follower of the flat earth hypothesis and a lunatic. How would you define such adjectives as being dispassionate because I find them downright offensive.

As to "tired old views" please show me the research which specifically states that placing identifying numbers of cyclists would be counter-productive. You say that you have addressed my questions about the situation with cyclists. I say that you haven't to a sufficient level that I would change my opinion. All you've done is obfuscated the argument by making points about how drivers are more dangerous on the road and arguments to similar effect. You still have not answered the very basic question I asked you...Why do you oppose cyclists having an identifying number? The other view you seem to rubbish is the idea that a lengthened yellow cycle would reduce tail-end collisions and infringements at intersections. I gave you the proof and yet dismissed it out of hand. So just who is failing to be rational here?

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby stroppy » Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:15 pm

Hardy wrote:
This not a forum to air views and opinions, obviously.

This forum has plenty of views and opinions, and you were going OK until you dumped your speed camera and cycling registration manifesto into someone else's old thread about turning left on a yellow lights. That seemed to have a diarrheal effect on your posting with similar rants appearing across a variety of threads old and new.
We have a forum set aside specifically for people to air their political philosophies so that they don't have to bomb other people's threads with their grumpy-old-men tirades. We also have a forum specifically for people to have socio-political debates about speeding issuesso that they don't have to take off-topic threads started by people who actually have legal questions or problems. It is interesting that someone who has never received a traffic infringement notice in their life could be so obsessed with these issues, but I guess every retiree needs a hobby.


I object most strenuously to the term "diarrheal effect". I was simply responding to some very offensive (to me) posts. I apologise unreservedly for taking threads off topic. Perhaps I am a "grumpy old man" but that does not mean that I cannot have opinions. If I decide to stay and you do not bar me I will stick to the forum sections you suggest. You have the ability to transfer this thread to one of the sub-forums you nominated. Please do so and please take some time to think about the last paragraph I typed in the reply before my response to Gravy here.

Gravy
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Gravy » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:51 am

stroppy wrote:...they support a credo regarding speed to which I am diametrically opposed. It is not confirmation bias...it is a distrust of an organisation whose opinion is tainted in my eyes by that credo.
The reason you are biased is because you have apparently dismissed the notion that the evidence has directly informed MUARC's view. You make the mistake of declaring MUARC's research to be invalid due the mistaken belief that the causal relationship is the other way around. It's a very convenient way for you to dismiss any research or evidence that does not agree with your philosophy.

As to bicycle registration;
Primarily this, and whilst not necessarily studies, but otherwise as good analysis;
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/policy-and-campaigns/2690/
http://www.executivestyle.com.au/18-reasons-why-registering-bicycles-is-a-bad-idea-1m23gh
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bicycle-registration-radical-expensive-and-sure-to-get-people-off-their-bikes-20140506-zr5zq

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby stroppy » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:55 pm

Gravy wrote:
stroppy wrote:...they support a credo regarding speed to which I am diametrically opposed. It is not confirmation bias...it is a distrust of an organisation whose opinion is tainted in my eyes by that credo.
The reason you are biased is because you have apparently dismissed the notion that the evidence has directly informed MUARC's view. You make the mistake of declaring MUARC's research to be invalid due the mistaken belief that the causal relationship is the other way around. It's a very convenient way for you to dismiss any research or evidence that does not agree with your philosophy.

As to bicycle registration;
Primarily this, and whilst not necessarily studies, but otherwise as good analysis;
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/policy-and-campaigns/2690/
http://www.executivestyle.com.au/18-reasons-why-registering-bicycles-is-a-bad-idea-1m23gh
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/bicycle-registration-radical-expensive-and-sure-to-get-people-off-their-bikes-20140506-zr5zq


Again with the "Rational wiki"! Look...I have written that much of MUARC's work is just fine. I cannot accept their findings regarding speed simply because the experience overseas (and I'm talking the EU here) shows that good freeways can support speeds at a minimum of 130 km/h and probably higher. Before higher speeds were introduced part of pre-licence training would have to involve high speed situations. Look at what happened in the NT when they went back to de restricted speeds on some of their highways. No accidents and people carried on just fine. Then the government changes...they realise they are missing out on nice revenue and slap speed limits on the roads again. I wish I could find a link to the article which reported about the reaction to the "speed kills" mantra when it was presented in Europe.

As to your other links...they are not studies...just opinions and one set of those opinions are from a bicycle advocacy group. They are based on the idea that registration for bicycles would be akin to that for motor cycles and cars. I have written, REPEATEDLY, that I do not support this approach. My idea is very simple. If you are aged 14+ you buy a voile mesh vest marked with an ID number from the state government for something like 20 or 30 dollars. It's a ONE OFF expense. You are then registered. If the vest wears out then you can buy another. These lightweight vests made of poly nylon don't wear out that easily and do not require washing as they are worn over other clothing and are unaffected by sweat. It's a neat, simple and cheap idea which would work and not drive adults away from cycling unless they were the type of idiots who run lights or ride illegally. Look at that idiot on the monkey bike who killed that poor woman in Cranbourne. It took ages to work out who he was because the monkey bike had no plates. Do you catch my drift?

Now I think I have exhausted my arguments and I hope you've exhausted yours. If you are going to reply stop with the Rationalwiki stuff and the linking to pro-cycling websites. I think we should just agree to disagree and move on. Enough already! Actually...just don't reply. That would be splendid. Any opinion pieces I type from now on will be in the relevant sub-forum and not in forums where people are asking for help, just as Hardy has suggested.
P.S. If we're linking to opinion pieces get a load of this opinion piece and tell me if you support it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... roads.html

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8468
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Hardy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 7:58 am

they are not studies...just opinions and one set of those opinions are from a bicycle advocacy group.

Ahhhhgg ... Bicycle advocacy groups - what would they know about these issues? Surely the opinion of a retiree with no bike and no research is just as valuable as any from the specialists (who aren't living in the real world of the motoring enthusiast).

Look at that idiot on the monkey bike who killed that poor woman in Cranbourne. It took ages to work out who he was because the monkey bike had no plates.

It took police less than 48 hours to charge Jakobsson with culpable driving. I don't know how long it took to identify and arrest him, but it probably wasn't ages.

I'm betting that people who ride like dicks won't bother wearing a numbered vest! Just like gun registration - it is not the people who register their firearms you need to worry about. It is all the unlicensed people who carry an unregistered firearm.

A monkey bike is not eligible for registration plates, so he could never have had number plate, andit was not a bicycle so no vest required either. The thought that we need to register a million riders to try to catch a few people who run red lights etc supposes there are people who respect the law enough to wear the proper vest but not enough to comply with a red light.

And what about interstate and international cycling teams that come to Vic for a race - they can't go out for training or a warm up until they have attended at vicroads and completed a 100 point check. The UCI won't select Victoria for the World Championships again, and people will just stop coming because we will be the laughing stock of the world. And when the cyclists leave the state some people will be happy to give them cash for their unwanted vest.... Without photo id on the vest it is impossible to know if the number matches the person wearing it, so borrowing other people's vest will be de rigeur. The chance of the police knocking on someone's door to follow up a cycling offence is almost too ridiculous to imagine, especially when the person they want to speak to simply says " I don't know who took my vest. I haven't seen it for a week. Ithought it was still hanging on my bike in the bike-rack at work".

But assuming the vest thing works as well as you imagine, with a dozen people every day getting fined or jailed for their offending. Why.wouldn't the politicians extend this scheme to pedestrians - i.e. Everyone in a public place. Anyone who leaves their house should wear an ID vest so we can identify those who are committing offences. Why not just have us all microchipped and gps tracked? Oh, that's ridiculous, is it?

Gravy
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:25 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Gravy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:01 am

stroppy wrote: Look at that idiot on the monkey bike who killed that poor woman in Cranbourne. It took ages to work out who he was because the monkey bike had no plates.
Yet they did catch him and he's in prison, so I've no idea how that example advances your argument. Not to mention that he was on a motorbike which already require registration, so again your argument is not even wrong.

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby stroppy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:07 pm

Hardy wrote:
they are not studies...just opinions and one set of those opinions are from a bicycle advocacy group.

Ahhhhgg ... Bicycle advocacy groups - what would they know about these issues? Surely the opinion of a retiree with no bike and no research is just as valuable as any from the specialists (who aren't living in the real world of the motoring enthusiast).

Look at that idiot on the monkey bike who killed that poor woman in Cranbourne. It took ages to work out who he was because the monkey bike had no plates.

As if people who are willing to ride around commiting offences are going to don a numbered vest! A monkey bike is not eligible for registration plates, so he could never have had number plate, andit was not a bicycle so no vest required either. The thought that we need to register a million riders to try to catch a few people who run red lights etc supposes there are people who respect the law enough to wear the proper vest but not enough to comply with a red light.

And what about interstate and international cycling teams that come to Vic for a race - they can't go out for training or a warm up until they have attended at vicroads and completed a 100 point check. The UCI won't select Victoria for the World Championships again, and people will just stop coming because we will be the laughing stock of the world. And when the cyclists leave the state some people will be happy to give them cash for their unwanted vest.... Without photo id on the vest it is impossible to know if the number matches the person wearing it, so borrowing other people's vest will be de rigeur. The chance of the police knocking on someone's door to follow up a cycling offence is almost too ridiculous to imagine, especially when the person they want to speak to simply says " I don't know who took my vest. I haven't seen it for a week. Ithought it was still hanging on my bike in the bike-rack at work".

But assuming the vest thing works as well as you imagine, with a dozen people every day getting fined or jailed for their offending. Why.wouldn't the politicians extend this scheme to pedestrians - i.e. Everyone in a public place. Anyone who leaves their house should wear an ID vest so we can identify those who are committing offences. Why not just have us all microchipped and gps tracked? Oh, that's ridiculous, is it?


International events (like the GP) are held with special conditions attached such that the race cars need no registration, etc... You are being more than a bit dramatic in illustrating your points about international cyclists.

I had a bit of a laugh at the tone of your post. You are stretching logic to breaking point and revealing your true allegiance as a cycling advocate. "I don't know who took my vest!" Isn't that the same as, "I don't know who was driving when the camera snapped my car" ? Doesn't legislation cover that already...you know...the old "guilty until proven innocent" procedure I so detest!

Monkey bikes cannot be registered, that's true. But if they fell under vest legislations for cyclists then the delay in catching that killer would have been shortened. There will always be an element in society who use false or stolen registration plates. This is a hard area to deal with. But using this an argument to excuse cyclists from registration could be extended to motorists. Gravy wrote that 93% of motorists pass cameras without being issued a TIN...ergo, this suggests most motorists are doing the right thing on the roads. Why not excuse them from having registration plates? Your logic and argument could easily be used to suggest just that. Do you see where I'm heading?

As to trying to mock my idea by extending it further to pedestrians and then RF tags for all citizens I won't even stoop to answering, being that it is ridiculous... but just remember...a few years ago a Federal Labour government tried to do just that with an "Australia Card".

P.S. Until arthritis stopped me, I regularly cycled to my local shopping centre for my daily espresso. :)
Last edited by stroppy on Fri Jul 07, 2017 2:16 am, edited 2 times in total.

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby stroppy » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:12 pm

Gravy wrote:
stroppy wrote: Look at that idiot on the monkey bike who killed that poor woman in Cranbourne. It took ages to work out who he was because the monkey bike had no plates.
Yet they did catch him and he's in prison, so I've no idea how that example advances your argument. Not to mention that he was on a motorbike which already require registration, so again your argument is not even wrong.


They caught him because CCTV captured his image and others who knew of his group were going to dob him in. Monkey bikes are illegal to use on public roads in Victoria, I'm pretty sure of that, however if they were treated like bicyclists as per my suggestion then he would have been identified earlier, for sure. You will always have people who would refuse to wear a rego vest...just as you have idiots who drive with false plates and/or no rego. That's a form of criminality that's hard to police but fortunately just a small proportion of road offending.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8468
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Hardy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:47 am

Doesn't legislation cover that already...you know...the old "guilty until proven innocent" procedure I so detest!

No it doesn't at all. If you report a number plate to the police they then need to find out who the driver was. That is not a simple task so it almost never happens unless there is overwhelming evidence (video) or there has been a hit-run.

Hardy
Site Admin
Posts: 8468
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 10:00 am
Location: Melbourne Victoria
Contact:

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Hardy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:58 am

You are being more than a bit dramatic in illustrating your points about international cyclists.


I've been in Japan the last week for an international bike race and it is quite hilarious to imagine us all having to apply for and wear a vest to do our training rides (I didn't say racing, I said training and warm-ups, which always happens on public roads). And I thought it is stupid enough in France where we have to produce a medical certificate before we can race the world championships - to state we are fit enough to participate in a bike race!

stroppy
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2017 7:57 am

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby stroppy » Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:21 pm

Hardy wrote:
You are being more than a bit dramatic in illustrating your points about international cyclists.


I've been in Japan the last week for an international bike race and it is quite hilarious to imagine us all having to apply for and wear a vest to do our training rides (I didn't say racing, I said training and warm-ups, which always happens on public roads). And I thought it is stupid enough in France where we have to produce a medical certificate before we can race the world championships - to state we are fit enough to participate in a bike race!

But as I wrote, if we had this system in Victoria there would be exemptions for special events. I don't think the French are being that unreasonable. There are determined people with heart conditions and other problems who will take to a cycle against medical advice. I think the French are just trying to exclude that group of people.

Japan is one country I have never been to and I envy you. I have always wanted to shop in the Ginza and to travel through the beautiful countryside to visit the various Buddhist shrines. Also, being a child fan of "The Samurai" and a current fan of "Zatoichi-The Blind Samurai" I'd love to see some of the filming locations.

Day
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby Day » Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:36 pm

Japan is one country I have never been to and I envy you. I have always wanted to shop in the Ginza and to travel through the beautiful countryside to visit the various Buddhist shrines. Also, being a child fan of "The Samurai" and a current fan of "Zatoichi-The Blind Samurai" I'd love to see some of the filming locations.


Work towards it. You will not regret it.

allde
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Yellow light "shortening"

Postby allde » Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:34 pm

Day wrote:
Japan is one country I have never been to and I envy you. I have always wanted to shop in the Ginza and to travel through the beautiful countryside to visit the various Buddhist shrines. Also, being a child fan of "The Samurai" and a current fan of "Zatoichi-The Blind Samurai" I'd love to see some of the filming locations.


Work towards it. You will not regret it.


Plus one, Oh don't forget the Kodokan in Tokyo.


Return to “Red Lights”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest