Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Carpoint Editorial

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by jd, Feb 7, 2005.

  1. reply

    OK. First, what laws, besides stupidity did she break? Report the driver to the police with a view to having her charged with dangerous driving or whatever. She would of course blame everyone else. What could a cop on duty have done? Whatever he may have been able to do can still be done. (At the time of course) A call to the police will at least have them talk to her and give her a caution and maybe prevent a re-occurence.

    The editor of the article is just making noises over cameras because it is popular. Why mention the camers? It had nothing to do with the incident. It may have been a speed zone. Did he know the reason for the camera? Doubt it. Has there been accidents in the area due to speed?

    Why did the editor not make more of the fact it was a female driver? Too scared? Why not make a noise of the fact that car drivers are arrogant when it come to dealing with motorcycles? Too scared? Oh yes, it was 'carpoint' wasn't it?

    While the article was well worth reading for the lesson to the rest of us to watch out for, it was spoiled by the last few words.

    I have often seen similar examples, and the only thing to do is take action by reporting it to the police, or igore it after it happened. If you worry over it, you may have your mind on the matter, and not on the road ahead and have a bingle. Then it is the rider's fault.

  2. Yep that sounds like a couple of incidents I've had, really infuritating every time. I get the feeling that because they are thinking "I didn't see you" the driver doesn't think its their fault.

    Just realised I'm gritting my teeth as I type this........GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Going off to count to ten.
  3. Re: reply

    Did you even read the article?
    Did you read between the lines?
    The editor was telling us that the police are more intent on speed cameras and revenue raising rather than POLICING the roads and preventing stupid behaviour exhibited like that lady in the bluebird.
    What do you honestly think the police will do after the fact?
    The fact it was written in a car publication means that car drivers will read it and see what it is like from a motorcyclists perspective.
    *note none of this was written but that is what I got from the article*
  4. good article if your smart enough to get the point......
  5. I had a similar 'read' of the article as Smee.

    The one thing I thought was great was that it was an editor of a car magazine saying that he and his partner ride motorcycles!! So even (relatively) high-profile car enthusiasts also ride bikes - and I think this may actually entice some readers to think again about their possible stereotype of riders.
  6. Yup, same here. Don't need to be smart to realise that the author was saying that speed camera's are not making drivers/riders safer, and that more and more stupid/dangerous behaviour is occurring on our roads because the highlight is on speeding only and not learning to actually drive properly.

    The author might just be a regular rider too, and it's just that his job is a car magazine editor and he does car test drives as a result. He may be like many of us, and not even own a car :) He's a netrider member, so perhaps he's on these forums too :?: :)
  7. True (never considered that - assumed a car mag editor would also drive cars) - still having someone admit to riding a bike in a car mag (and being the editor - even if it is only a job) is still good.
  8. Re: reply

    Okay first law
    Entering an intersection that she could not complete her way through is actually illegal and you can be booked for it.

    Driving in a manner dangerous. enough said.

    Careless driving. enough said (these 2 usually go together)

    I got the same take when I read it as the other guys ..

    I wonder about the camera's
    There is a law that states you are not allowed to flash your headlights at oncoming vehicles to warn them of a speed camera.
    Since they are now called "Safety Camera's" can you now legally flash your headlights to warn road users that there is a "safety issue" in the area, after all if you would only trying to make that part of the road safer would you.. :twisted:
  9. reply

    Yes I did read the article, that's why I replied. You may get a different view, so be it.

    Yep you are right, she broke several laws.

    However, I still say that if the article had left the last part out, it would have been what the others have said, a good article in a car mag for drivers to watch what they are doing. Speed had nothing to do with the event.
    I dont know what the driver could have done after she made the first error. Back up? Hmmm.

    Having a go at speed cameras is not going to disway drivers from the actions in the article.
    I don't care if the editor wants to have a go at cameras. Do it in a different article is what I am saying.

    I mainly drive cars. I am not anti drivers like some writers appear to be. I think I am fair minded. An idiot in a car, is not much different to an idiot on a bike.

  10. I am not going to give an opinion for fear of entering into another argument :LOL:
  11. Re: reply

    Some kind of acknowledgement of the rider and pillion and a gestured appology would have been all she needed or could do in what I'm getting from the situation.
  12. Camera's don't catch you for being stupid, cops (at least in theory) can.
  13. i dunno, i didn't take that last comment as a dig at speed camera's as such, but more of a dig at the way the road is policed. its a very valid point as far as i'm concerned, general bad driving isn't picked up on much due to a lack of cops actually on the road and their apparent apathy towards it. if you speed, you'll get done but you can do any number of stupid things right in front of them and they'll turn a blind eye and stick it in the 'too hard basket'

    good read, maybe a couple of cagers will read it and try and pay attention a bit more. might save a couple of ppls some major headaches :D
  14. I took the final comment as relating to priorities, budgeting etc.

    It's easier to spend money on (revenue-raising) cameras than it is to spend money on highway patrol officers whose job is to stop, warn and (at their discretion) book drivers who are incompetent or dangerous.

    The author was pointing out that giving priority to expenditure on cameras may be a no-brainer that fills the state's coffers, but it won't actually prevent or punish dangerous and stupid driving of the type he recounts.

    I thought the comment was quite appropriate given the rest of the story.
  15. The article is saying something similar to;
    if a speeding driver gets flashed by a camera and then goes down the road and causes an accident then the camera has not done its job. Had a police patrol been on "the prowl" they may have prevented the speeding driver from causing an accident.

    I see cars & trucks run red lights with the police right behind them. The last cop only went after the red light runner after I yelled at him to do his job. (easy in a convertible)

    Most police are lax at policing the roads, they leave it up to the greed cameras to "do it".
  16. And the word here is "can". The police are less concerned with targetting irresponsible drivers and are snowed under with other problems.

    Early last year I reported someone in a 4WD who drove for about 50 meters through a public park to get to another road and then proceed for at least another 50 or so meters on the wrong side of the road to turn into a side street. The copper on the phone said that there wasnt anything that they could do about it....so WTF are we supposed to do when we witness an unbelievably stupid act??

    Reading the article it is clear (well, to me anyway) that the writer places the lack of police involvement in being pro-active in policing the roads with the State Gov's policy of the increased use of speed cameras. Speed cameras wont stop drivers who disregard the laws and put other road users in danger but in turn gives the authorities an excuse to turn a blind eye to the problem.
  17. reply

    No angst or anything like that.

    I agree with most of the comments since my last post. Painful :roll: though it is, I agree with most of Vic's last sentence.

    The other day I watched a pair of trucks flying down the highway tailgaiting themselves and anyone who got in the road. AHA a police patrol car. Oh, The parked car on the side of the road had their interest. Pity.

    I don't know how much individual police are at fault or their heirarchy.

    Cameras do work, for speeding. For honest types, one fine, they slow. The rest, well their wallet needs more surgery before they wake up. What do you think when people whinge about copping 3-4 fines. I think they are my enemies on the road.

    Unfortunately speeding is not the only cause of accidents. As this thread shows what might have been. Speed had not much to do with it. Impatience - yes.

    The argument that a cop car would stop the speedster then and there is ok IF there is a car around. Most idiots do have a look around first. No cop -go for it. We simply will never have enough cops. That is why they hide cameras.

    As for the apology. I have even tried ripping the bastards door open and waving fist accompanied by colourful language, but to no avail. If they are stupid enough to do it, they are stupid enough to not apologise. Arrrr enough. Blood pressure rising too high when thinking of these a^%&holes.

    The law is too lenient.
    If they don't see you, careless driving.
    If they do see you and continue, dangerous to culpable driving.

    Anyway -
    Keep the round black thing down and eyes all around.
  18. Just my two cents I could be wrong. But arnt speed cameras governed by a private sector these days i know this is the case in SA and im pretty sure its like that in victoria well according to my uncle. The article states a hilux with a camera on board. We have no way of telling if there was an actual policeman in the car. So if it was a private safety camera then they wouldnt have any rights to book or stop this kind of action.

    I could be wrong, i definately havent been on the roads for as long as some of you guys.
  19. Police dictate where and when they are deployed.
    Civilians operate the cameras.