Hoons rule   1 comment

The hoon practices include speeding, heavy acceleration, no regard to cyclists or safety on the road, no common sense, no regard to an environment, no responsibility but imposing danger and chaos.  The newly proposed road rules as attached at the bottom of this site and marked, show all those qualities.

Weather the government become effectively a big hoon or allowed hoons to rule is not as important as is the fact that government introduce chaos, and rules which are a hallmark of dangerous hoons.

Corruption and irresponsibility are more open than ever.  It is very clear that the rules are not meant to improve safety and driving efficiency nor intended to be known by all drivers.

Australian road rules traditionally are a bad set of rules but getting worse and more complex.

The proposed draft marked and commented by me is listed in pdf ducument at the end of this blog so you can click and view it and may add your comments and input.

The draft does not specify nor imply the purpose. I raise this because the rules suppose to regulate road traffic in such a way that ensures first – safety for all users, second – free traffic flow free of conflicts and confusion, thirdly – be fair and just as well as logical and use common sense. This set of rules fail in all those aspects.

The proposed set of rules is purpouseless. The rules do not intend to be known to all drivers, therefore it is pointless exercise. As we live in Australia, some older drivers never had to learn rules decades ago, and if they had, the rules did and continue to change but there was never requirement for all drivers to update their knowledge to learn new rules. As drivers age, their memory of the rules even if they do not change, fades rapidly. So without mandatory road rules update every two years, the new edition of road rules is entirely pointless. It is pointless from good citizen point of view. It is an excellent revenue raising tool. Nobody knows rules except those who punish drivers knowing that they do not know rules. So the system is designed to be unfair and definitely not put safety as priority. The rules are designed to disadvantage the society.

My experience is that most problems introduce/maintain road “specialists” that is police officers and researchers who claim to work on the field for 15 or 2o years. They believe they know everything, while they do not know the rules , do not understand them nor can think clearly because their own practice disallow them. They insist in dangerous practices and are unwilling/unable to introduce sensible changes. They talk and act against logic and common sense.

The rules are illogical and lately allow if not promote dangerous practices. Many rules are far from specific leaving room for powerful to hit hard powerless drivers. It is an exercise of government attacking innocent citizens. Most of those proposed rules are marked on the draft.

Rules are drawn by people having no idea about cycling. Rules are created from point of view and for car drivers, at expense of cyclists. The most irresponsible and illogical and dangerous rule is proposition that driving too slowly is not permitted. Unrealistic example was given, the situation which hardly ever can be seen in practice. It states that driving at 20km/h at 80 zone is wrong. No, it is the most safe one can perform. The slower driving the safer. It may not be practical from traffic flow point of view but without properly defined minimum speed, this is nonsense rule allowing police to punish innocent drivers. Not even more realistic example be sensible without proper definition and rule of minimum speed, would make sense. On the other hand, the only minimum speed on freeway rule that is 40km/h is very impractical therefore unwise. Judging by modern traffic situations, this minimum should be raised to 70 or 80km/h. Well while talking on slow driving, this is an imaginary idea because other than freeway, it is not defined and only a speculation. Anyway, what it may be that police would consider as too slow on 60 zone? Would 40km/h be considered as too slow? In practice unwise officers say if you drive less than 10km/h below speed limit it is too slow. Logically, it is wrong because 40 is defined legally on freeway as minimum as ok, than how 50 can be too slow on 60 zone? Forget about drivers reaction when someone drive 10km/h slower than limit, police also issues fines for what they say a slow driving. All is  not only illegal but also illogical.

I do propose that we do change our thinking on speed. The idea of limit should mean limit and not cruising speed. It is pointless to argue with me that on road streach X or Y the speed should be N. If specialists assess that safe speed on the specific road is N let the speed limit be say 10km higher and be enforceable as limit and not treated as cruising speed.

Next point is that there must not be imposed as is the case at present (but there is an effort to introduce vague idea of too slow driving) in metro areas as it is in general wrong to dictate what speed driver should drive. There are also countless good reasons to drive slowly. Government here in Adelaide refuse to install proper (at all) street names so driver knowing an address would be able to read which road or street to turn to and building numbers. It is about impossible in Adelaide city for example to find the building number even when you expect is somewhere here. Other causes include your feeling. You may be stressed by other hostile drivers, so you have to slow in order to drive safer. Traffic flow is another issue altogether and is beyond the scope of this blog on the rules.

The draft of the rules is far too complex even to consider it will be understood and observed by all drivers. Such a set of rules must be tailored to an average driver of IQ 90 and not 120. From my experience, many if not most police officers and other officials have poor knowledge and understanding of rules. It is not known to me that any minister for transport or road safety knows rules well. How than an average driver of IQ 90 or elderly driver can understand them? No chance. So the rules are useless. They are created to judges how to use them against innocent (if rules are not mandatory to learn than all drivers are innocent) drivers. Australian road rules are not meant to be used by drivers. Drivers training itself in South Australia is far from acceptable. The rules would also be so simple and logical that any driver of IQ90 should be able to figure out the correct procedure in split second. Current set of rules does not offer that. The current set actually introduces confusion and conflict on the road. It actually introduce more conflicting situations than in earlier editions. This is very irrational to call such proposition a legal rules.

The rules as they are proposed not only visibly give priority to car drivers over the cyclists but also allow drivers to behave dangerously against vulnerable cyclists.

I propose to introduce simple rule of using common sense and another general rule that no rule nor anyone should put anything in front of safety. Safety should get absolute priority.

I propose to introduce the new rule banning tailgating. The rule makers “forgot” it. Or they have no ability to think in terms of safety.

I propose introduction of rules ensuring safety to cyclists, like to give cyclist 1m space when car overtake. I am both cyclist and driver with perfect record. Encouraging cycling and giving some privileges is good for cyclists and drivers. The more cyclists the less cars, less traffic and healthier we become.

I propose to introduce new rule to give priority to cyclists on round abouts and crossing roads. Imagine cyclist waiting on red light. At present when cyclist start, you in a car behind drive very slowly because cyclist have small acceleration and speed. You swear and get upset, unless you have high IQ and good attitude. All is pointless thanks to Australian authorities. My proposition gives cyclist priority, similar logic which allow bus to start on from traffic lights ahead of cars when B lights lit. The letter B should also mean Bicycle, so bus and bicycle start, cross the road and on the other side cyclists is cruising in his full speed but cars can at least cross the intersection at their speed and not be hindered by slow cyclist. It makes sense, is good for cyclists and also for car drivers.

There are number of issues to be solved, but this is just a sample of them. Number of them are marked on the document below.

Feel free to download your own copy and make your own comments if you do not agree with mine very much. Or if you agree, do not leave it as is, please give feedback to your MP and to road transport authority. Good rules are good for all. They are bad because people do not challenge authorities.

I do propose also as is the case in other countries not to call crashes an accidents. Accident is an act of God, crash is both, driver fault or unavoidable event.

Finally, I propose to introduce a new here but well known in Europe rule of safe speed.

See the document below where I explained it.

(number of free pdf readers like foxit enable to read the document below along with my remarks in color).

Road rules 1999.219.UN

Road safety campaigner

Posted October 30, 2009 by mmistrz

One response to “Hoons rule

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Pingback: RAA repeatedly refuses to cooperate on improving road safety « Road problems

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: