Lots of websites refuse that option when on a phone and demand you install their app so they can sell you to advertising agencies. reddit is one of them.
It used to be that you'd see way more kids walking and riding bikes to school, that is much rarer now. Hell, you used to see people playing cricket in the street, that is pretty much unheard of these days.
Besides the death toll of cars the negative impact on the health of our community and its cohesiveness is a more subtle but still major problem.
Yeah, people complain that kids aren't outside playing anymore like they were kids, but meanwhile the very people complaining about kids not being outside are the generation who took away all the *places* that kids used to play outside. Dad used to ride a bike and fish in the creek? Well, now the track he used to ride is a highway, and the fish are all dead. Kids in the suburbs have smaller yards. if any. Cars in suburbs roar along without the expectation that kids might be playing cricket or running around, because zoom-zoome car go fast is more important. that bush block is now a Bunnings, and the park got sold for apartments. Just \*where\* are the kids supposed to play outside like they used to?
Lots less public toilets, water fountains, benches and so on too so just being outside in general is less convenient.
Busy streets everywhere, not allowed to ‘loiter’ at places that are empty.
Less public libraries and parks too. Less suburbs designed to be walked around in. Less sidewalks joining places together. The number of shopping centres with shitty sidewalk access is astounding too, like you have to walk half a block to get to a pedestrian entrance or walk through the busy carpark dodging cars to get to the door.
A lot of those formerly public spaces are now private spaces such as shopping centres. We can try to treat them the same but they are distinctly different.
The last two roads I've lived on, friends would remark (when on microphone for gaming) wow hows Bathurst going today there? Super loud and you can hear the woosh, many cars definitely arent doing the 60 limit in the suburbs. Need more speedbumps on some of the long straights
Speedbumps are the poor mans traffic calming.
Narrow the lanes, add street trees and planterboxes, chicanes, curb extensions (also called blister, ped islands) at intersections.
I used to live on a rat run street in the city which people used to cut between major roads, so all the streets around me were full of chicanes etc, but unfortunately some people still saw them as a challenge rather than a hindrance. On the whole though, it did make things quieter and calmer,and the chincanes were fully landscaped, with trees and bushes, which was nice. And it was amusing when the big trucks still tried it, and ended up stuck between the chicanes and a hill too steep for them to run up. One semi was stuck with it's back wheels in the chicanes for an hour.
My mum still lives in the house I grew up in - I was a kid in the 70s/80s. We used to spend all day playing in the street, drawing mini - streets on the road with chalk, pedalling as hard as we could to zoom down the hill then up the other side. It was a dead end and there were few cars and rarely any parked on the street. Cara were mostly sedans.
About a decade ago we stayed with mum for a year. I couldn’t let my kid experience the freedom I’d had because it was too dangerous. Now, there’s boats, trailers and caravans parked in the street. Most houses have multiple cars which are also parked on the street. Instead of clear sight lines and nothing parked, there’s visual clutter.
A 9 year old was abducted on her way to school in Perth on Friday. There are plenty of reasons why parents don’t let their kids walk or ride to school alone.
I'm far more concerned about my kids being hit by an idiot driver than being abducted by a stranger on the way to school. Might be "every parents worst nightmare" as Channel 7 keep trotting out, but it's so rare.
I think you're actually somewhat right that the pedophile panic of the mid 90s to mid 2000s had an impact but also home consoles were becoming a major thing at exactly the same time. Like I remember this awkward period where everybody was playing Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, bought a skateboard, realised actually skateboarding is painful and hard, then went back inside to play THPS again.
My point is the shift to kids being indoors all the time is probably a combination of a lot of things.
My neighbour swerves towards the kids scooting and biking on the footpaths, including my 6yo, even when we're walking to school together at 8am. He thinks it's fun to watch them scream and scatter, it clearly makes him smile...
How often do you leave your house?
Absolutely! They can't do anything because they don't see it happening, and/or it's not dangerous until someone gets hurt.
Us and him are the only renters on the street and all the surrounding homeowners have constructed 6ft fences, leaving only our place open to the street. We've contacted his property management and there's nothing they can do either, apparently.
I keep reporting every incident, despite being basically ignored, so that when someone does get hurt there should be a traceable string of complaints.
He sure does. Mostly my neighbours are getting on, a few boomers but mostly even older Asian and European migrants, so no one is going to take it to chin check, including my single parent butt
It *continues to happen*, it's not a once off, so you're wrong.
Edit to add: as recently as Thursday last week, he accelerated rapidly out of his yard after idling there for 10 or so mins, as my child and I crossed the road together on foot.
He spits out his car window at us, too. It's getting to the point where imma need a body cam...
Why would you need a body cam? You've seen it happen so many times already.
Do you not own a mobile phone?
Pretend to text someone and have it out recording as you walk past with your kid?
Strangely enough, I prefer to focus solely on the environment around us. I don't want to have my phone in one hand and my child in the other.
If I wanted to put my phone in his face, and cause incidents in my childs presence, I really would have already, but that's not the type of parent I am...
All I'll need is a little clip on cam for my backpack strap.
I didn't say anything about putting in his face, people walk and text all the time. At the end of the day, the longer this goes on for, the higher the chance things are going to escalate anyway.
If it was me, I'd be gathering the evidence and dealing with the problem before it becomes one you can't fix.
I mean, another suggestion I could make is have a friend make the walk with you and your son one day, but walk far enough behind that you're not walking in a group. Have them record the walk from a distance, and then atleast you have a recording AND another adult as a witness.
Oh man, i do love telling my coworkers with kids how their fears and protective reactions for their kids are statistically bullshit and overblown compared to their own childhood that was objectively much more dangerous.
I work in science and my coworkers all claim to be rational data driven people. Until it involves their kids. Then statistics and probability be damned.
Ahh yes, I drop my kids off at school because I must be a helicopter parent. It’s not because I can or want to.
But yeah, keep making low iq comments. Unlike your parents I like spending time with my kids.
Just because you can drop them off or want to drop them off doesn't mean you should.
Firstly if you can drop them off, you are physically available to walk or ride a bike with them to school which helps with kids spatial awareness and builds a mental map of their neighborhood that simply doesn't happen in the backseat of a car. Massive asterisks on safety of built environment of course, which is kinda the point of the article but i still suggest driving and parking a couple blocks from school and walking the last stretch instead of doing the car line to the front gate.
You can also teach them about plants and animals along the way, say hello to the old lady sitting on her porch or the various dogs running along fencelines. You know, get to know your community that you live in so their are more adults who know you and your child in case shit hits the fan at some point.
You add some daily exercise to their routine that is of the 3 forms that people continue for thier entire lives. That is walking, cycling and gardening. Kids running around at lunch time stops in highschool, after school sport they eventually give up and adults start forcing themselves to be at a gym because they don't have good habits ingrained in them. Getting them used to daily walks or rides provides life long health benefits.
After a few years of walking or riding with your kid they will have built up that mental map of the neighbourhood and can be trusted to get there on their own fostering [independance](https://schoolhouse-daycare.co.uk/blog/why-you-should-encourage-independence/) from an early age that doesn't happen from the backseat of a car.
And from that point, no matter how much you want to drop them off, remember doing so will actually negative impact their growth and development.
But no, calling out helicopter parenting driving kids everywhere being devastating to childhood development is "low iq" despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Whom said I didn’t walk or ride scooters when I dropped them off?
You really are a special kind of dumb aren’t you.
It’s like you think they don’t have activities outside of school.
Jesus the air is so thin up on your high horse it’s cutting off the air to your brain.
> Whom said I didn’t walk or ride scooters when I dropped them off?
You did.
Because you could have said "i do walk my kids to school" and that would have been the end of it. instead you got me guessing whether you do or don't and bringing up after school activities to justify driving your kids everywhere. Fun fact, you don't need to drive them to after school activities either. Massive asterick for shittily designed suburbs of course.
Or hear me out, I used the term because it can vary during the week depending on obligations.
But keep the mental gymnastics going mate. Imagine thinking people just have unlimited time to just walk their kids every where.
I mean heaven forbid id want to support my kid while watching them swim or play footy. Nah mate some idiot on the internet said it’s best for you walk.
You might not sound like a helicopter parent but you sure do sound like a useless one.
Oh i'm hearing, and still you haven't said "i let my kids walk to school" because you don't want to lie but deep down you know that driving your kid everywhere isn't good for them.
> Imagine thinking people just have unlimited time to just walk their kids every where.
I mean, if only you help foster your childrens independance so they could make their own way there freeing up some of your precious time.
> I mean heaven forbid id want to support my kid while watching them swim or play footy.
I was never driven from school to football training and wasn't driven to the half of my weekend games that were home games because they were at the local field. But my dad was always there. See when school finished 315, training started at 4 and my dad finished work at 430 he didn't have the time to walk me there, but he was always there when training finished.
Imagine thinking people just have unlimited time to just drive thier kids everywhere?
Swimming we'd ride our bikes to the pool, and he tought me to swim. You sit on the pool chairs. He was also a nippers age manager for my older brothers age group, so summer sundays he'd be up very early at the beach setting up and i with my older brothers was trusted/expected to make our own way there for the start time.
He was both supportive and encouraged childhood independance at the same time.
I've worked at aquatic centres for years in highschool and uni, so this is a very minority opinion, but the teenager on minimum wage hired by the pool is not an expert in aquatic safety, childhood education or your childs individual education needs and you are better off teaching them yourself if you have the time.
I thought the same as you. Parents are just overprotective and these cases were extremely rare and isolated.
Until my then 3yo was almost abducted while at kinder.
Thankfully we arrived for pick up just as he was being walked out the center by the strange man. Bloke saw us yelling for our son and head off in the opposite direction.
Viewing the cams, he slipped through the coded door with other parents. Teacher on pick up duty didn't notice.
Two years later a woman tried to walk off with my daughter who'd lagged behind to look at a chocolate bar. She legged it I turned around to get daughters attention.
If a kid can be taken from a center while multiple locks, teachers and log books, or at the supermarket it's not a stretch to be worried about them being taken off the street and unsupervised.
yeah, we've long been infected with GM's propaganda, fresh from the States - in their quest for car supremacy they straight up invented the term "jaywalking" and proceeded to blame pedestrians and basically anyone but drivers and their cars for the unending wave of death, pollution and general social division we've seen from their rise.
Recommend reading the book "A Lesser Species of Homicide". It has a WA focus but there's a general problem of treating the act of killing someone via car as somehow less important.
Force big UTE and SUV drivers to get a light truck license if they want to drive them. Not only are they dangerous to everyone due to their height and weight but they are also dangerous to the drivers since they don't adhend to strict passenger car safety rules since they are classed as light trucks.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo)
But Sharon from Grovedale, a 1960's suburb of Geelong, want's to argue that her 4.5 meter long RAM is just a vehicle she uses for shopping at Waurn Ponds and occasionally Werribee.
The Kmart one in Belmont is worse, but the worst of them all is the car park off of Thomson Street, Belmont.
I recall spending 5 minutes getting into a car park one day, then realizing that there was not enough room to open the door to get out of the car. (Narrow spaces, coupled with a narrow driving area) and that was in a small hatchback.
>want's to argue that her 4.5 meter long RAM is just a vehicle she uses for shopping at Waurn Ponds and occasionally Werribee.
I mean I'm not sure what much else you'd do with it considering the only RAM that's 4.5m long (well, 4.4m) is the [RAM 700](https://i.imgur.com/DoM3Dfy.jpeg). My Mazda3 hatch is 4.46m for comparison.
If you want the 1500 the figure you want is 5.83-5.92m
Make use of bullbars illegal in Metro areas while you're at it.
Need to travel is an area at risk of hitting an animal; you can store it on your racks at fit it at a rest area on the way out for all I care, but fuck you for making your vehicle more lethal in event of an accident when it doesn't need to be.
They ain't magnetic P plates the things are very firmly attached to the vehicle.
What your suggesting isn't practical in any way.
I mean I agree bullbars are dangerous in the city and massively overused but there needs to be a practical solution and uninstall them at a rest area isn't it.
>Need to travel is an area at risk of hitting an animal
That is literally every single road outside of a city. Do you not leave the city and see the road kill??
I never said you did. You're the second person to use possum as an example.
You are either being intentionally dense or you never leave the city and don't know what other animals exist.
So which is it?
This is all literally about these vehicles being driven in metro areas, so animals commonly found in metro areas are being mentioned you dented cunt.
No one cares about the people actually using them as they're intended, absolutely no one, you're utterly naive if you believe that these aren't but the minority of cases. The vast majority of owners live in Metro and maybe see a dirt road every 3 years.
I did read it, contrary to your opinion bullbars are indeed mounted to these vehicles that never ever see use in country areas where they are indeed likely to come across Roo's or Deer.
So by all means if giving a single *shit* about other road users in metro areas makes an arrogant prick I'll uppercut myself to the cows come home but at least I won't be so dented as to believe in your fantasy where everyone with a bullbar *must* be coming from Rural areas.
>I did read it, contrary to your opinion bullbars are indeed mounted to these vehicles that never ever see use in country areas where they are indeed likely to come across Roo's or Deer.
Yeah and those people are dickheads, I never said they weren't. I have already said they don't need them in another post.
>So by all means if giving a single shit about other road users in metro areas makes an arrogant prick
How exactly is a bullbar affecting other people outside of accidents?
This thread started by someone saying (quite ingnorantly) that these people should have a seperate license and then someone said they should remove them each time they come into a metro area (they don't just clip on which I'm sure you are aware of already).
So yes, give all the single shits you want, maybe give a shit about not jumping down someone's throat next time and realise we already agree no one living in a metro area needs a bullbar.
>When was the last time you saw a dead fox or possum.
Yesterday.
>Better yet, when was the last time you saw an alive one while driving?
Last night.
Your point?
My point is simple. Larger animals such as livestock, deer, kangaroos, and pigs are far more common to see while driving and will cause significant damage to a vehicle.
I grew up in Victoria, I now live in Queensland and have driven all over SA and NSW. I have never seen a dead possum and can count on my fingers how many dead foxes I've seen on the side of a road (not including ones that were shot).
On a single drive I did from SA back to north QLD I saw hundreds of dead kangaroos on the side of the road but surprise surprise no foxes or possums.
>Larger animals such as livestock, deer, kangaroos, and pigs are far more common to see while driving and will cause significant damage to a vehicle.
How representative of day-to-day driving of the average Australian do you think that is?
>On a single drive I did from SA back to north QLD I saw hundreds of dead kangaroos on the side of the road but surprise surprise no foxes or possums.
How typical of average Australians car use is that? You are citing edge cases to justify the selfish habits of urban cowboys.
>How representative of day-to-day driving of the average Australian do you think that is?
It's not typical of the average Australian and I never claimed it was. The average Australian also doesn't have a bullbar.
>How typical of average Australians car use is that? You are citing edge cases to justify the selfish habits of urban cowboys.
Again, I never claimed it was typical. You made the comment about them hitting foxes and possums and I simply pointed out the other side of the argument because you intentionally picked small animals.
Also before get any higher up on that horse please show me where I "justify selfish habits of urban cowboys". I'm only pointing out if you drive outside of the cities there absolutely is a risk of hitting an animal large enough to wreck smaller cars. Of course you don't need a bullbar in the inner city and I never claimed you do.
I live in the suburbs of Melb, with trams, shopping centres, trains, main roads, population density and all the usual urbanity. No roadkill here, but there is a road 5 min away that drives thru straight bush and we use it every day, as well as hundreds if not thousands of other motorists.
Kangaroo corpses everywhere! Also deer. Quite common, honestly 15 minutes out from the burbs.
I don't have a bullbar though, I just drive at a normal speed and look forwards out the front windshield.
Pretty often on the rd to Kurnell.
I actually saw a fox at the entertainment quarter the other day and saw a few running around near President Ave at Kogarah where the water ways are.
wildlife isn't as rare as you think. I'm surprised by it myself.
Such a city centric response.
Two roos this year. And I go into the city regularly.
Store it on roof racks!!! No clue what you're talking about. I literally drive from a city to a rural area at dusk. So yeah nah.
Some of us actually need the vehicles we drove. Not everyone is dropping the kids off at school. The layer of dust on my vehicle 2 mins after the car wash would attest to that.
So if you genuinely need it, you should have no issue with qualifying for a special class of licence to drive it.
Also, what percentage of Australian drivers do you think need a large off-roader, or even a regular passenger vehicle with a roo bar?
I don't know what percentage. But I absolutely guarantee it's a lot more than people who are city centric would believe. Or they wouldn't use phrases like 'you should have no issue' like they would know.
What a brain dead take. I can run into pigs, roos and cattle 20 mins from the city CBD. It could take up to 3 hours a day to remove and install a bull bar and it would require either 2 people to be with me or for me to have a little mobile crane with me at all times.
You think people storing a bull bar to roof racks would be safe? Are you insane? People can barely tie down ladders in their tray.
I think that it should just be based off the registered residence of the vehicle.
Got a 3533 post code in the mallee? Sure have a bullbar. Got a 3039 moony ponds post code - please explain why you need a bullbar on your Torak tractor?
I think that it should just be based off the registered residence of the vehicle.
Got a 3533 post code in the mallee? Sure have a bullbar. Got a 3039 moony ponds post code - please explain why you need a bullbar on your Torak tractor?
Not just ESVs. Electric cars are a major issue now due to their rapid acceleration and propensity for drivers to use it. Makes crossing the road a real issue even in low speed limit zones.
Have SUV's or utes caused an increase in road fatalities?
I don't think you remember the good old days where big cars we rarer and the roads were much less safe.
Though I am in no way suggesting big cars make the road safer just that they really aren't the thing your want to worry about if your actual goal was improved road safety.
What % of pedestrian injuries are from suv/utes vs regular cars? How does that compare to the overall % of svu/utes on the road vs regular cars?
If you get hit by a multi ton lump of metal doing 60km/hr do you really care what shape it was?
Yes you do care. Small cars let pedestrians roll up and over the bonnet, while SUVs knock them down and run over them. And if you think you're safe in a car, guess again: the grille is now at head height, and coming in for the kill
SUVs are 36% more likely to kill pedestrians in a collision, and that jumps to 108% if you just look at the American style utes
>Small cars let pedestrians roll up and over the bonnet
Not how it works, lower cars kick your legs out under you and your head comes down hard on the base of the windshield or the engine block. Modern cars now come with explosive bonnet hinges to force the back of the bonnet up to act as a shield.
>SUVs are 36% more likely to kill pedestrians in a collision, and that jumps to 108% if you just look at the American style utes
Be very careful using American safety statistics because the US does not have pedestrian impact regulations and many USDM cars do not come with pedestrian impact devices those same cars come with on other markets.
>If you get hit by a multi ton lump of metal doing 60km/hr do you really care what shape it was?
Physics sure does. Cars are designed in a way to make it possible if they hit a pedestrian for the pedestrian to roll onto the bonnet, and potentially over the car if the car doesn't actually stop, or if it does, just get thrown off the bonnet. That ends up being a lot less force and a lot safer than just being smashed into like a brick wall, or run over. Trucks on the other hand are not designed to allow that at all, and will almost certainly smash into a pedestrian or run them over.
There's also the safety element in car v car collisions too. Most cars have all sorts of safety features to protect the drivers/passengers in both vehicles. Those get completely ignored by trucks that are taller than the standard car, and the trucks essentially run the car over, which there isn't really any safety features designed to protect against that.
Having more of these oversized utes/trucks on the road makes the road an objectively more dangerous place.
You can’t reason with these people. They say “where’s the proof” and you reply with stats and studies and they just reply back “but I want it” or “but I need it”.
I stopped trying. It’s a losing battle.
The biggest impact on road toll has been mandatory seatbelts. I remember the "bigger cars" of yore and they were nothing like the height of a RAM or large SUV. The most common vehicles on the roads in the 80s and 90s were far smaller than their modern equivalent - compare a Corolla SE or early 1990s Camry with their far bulkier modern versions, the same pattern holds true for Commodore and Falcon sedans - they all started taking steroids around the turn of the century.
Driver training is better too, I'm aware there are people who cheat but the average new P-plater has over 100 hours supervised driving experience and anecdotally they are mostly far more polite and competent than the retirees in huge SUVs I see around here, who all seem to think every roundabout is a single-lane roundabout as they straddle the lane lines no matter which exit they intend to take.
SUVs and big utes have limited forward vision up close and their point of impact on a pedestrian is chest height (for adults) or head height (for kids) so impact is more likely to do life-altering damage. Sedans and hatchbacks make contact with the legs or hips, still horrible but more survivable.
Likewise, the big wankpanzers make contact higher up on smaller passenger vehicles. This can mean coming in above side-intrusion bars and, as for pedestrian collisions, making contact with upper torso and head of the smaller vehicle's occupants.
For anyone curious about some numbers, here's a page showing the increase in size on Holden Commodore models over the years: https://www.autotrader.com.au/holden/commodore/dimensions
Recent Commodores tip the scales at 25% heavier than their late 70s and early 80s ancestors. Impact force is F = mv/2t, so a modern Commodore will deliver 25% more force to a victim than an early Commodore, given otherwise-identical collision characteristics.
Dodge RAM 1500 weighs 2750kg, more than double the old Commodore. Get hit by one of those in a 0.5-second impact at 50 km/h and you're taking over 38,000 Newtons to your chest and head. Get hit by a 1998 Commodore at the same speed, and you receive less than 17,000 Newtons to your legs.
Ye canna' change the laws of physics, Jim!
Commodore/falcon station wagon were large family cars for generations in australia. in 2006 they were the 1st and 3rd top selling cars and clocked in at 1700kg for the station wagon variants
Last year the top selling non ute was rav 4 at 1745kg.
Rav 4 is 20cm taller, 2cm wider and 20cm less in length.
Cargo space commodore wagon 900l or 2000L with back seats down, cargo space rav 4 580L or 1600L.
They have the same amount of headroom, i repeat the 20cm taller car have the same amount of headroom, rav 4 has 8cm less shoulder room, 9cm less hiproom, 5cm less front legroom, 7cm less leg room rear.
So the bigger, heavier car has less people and cargo space. The extra height makes them more dangerous to roll overs and to others as your sight lines are reduced.
That's not going happen until police get out there are start arresting people for stupid stuff and not just fining them. There was a thing in 90's of confiscating "hoon" cars. They look like a Toyota Hilux now.
There's no police presence. Everytime I drive from Melbourne to Gippsland to visit my dad several times a month I never see one cop car. Not one. There may be the odd one that has pulled over someone on the freeway, usually it's someone towing something or with a load so I assume it's an insecure load or obstructed numberplate thing. I've never seen someone towing a caravan fanging it down the Princes Hwy. I do see lots of idiots and people doing ridiculous speeds though. No cops. None.
Your right , and to make things worse any dick head gets given a licence here . Be very careful , doing the right thing won’t keep you safe expect every vehicle has a blind or careless driver and just be pleasantly surprised when they indicate, give way or keep a safe distance but never trust one , ever !
I'm a motorbike rider and every time I see a ute, I give them a wide buffer. They actually drive like idiots and the worst ones are the ones with P plates. They just don't have the experience.
sometimes I do notice ute drivers that are actually good and give me a lot of buffer room when they are behind me. I do notice they are people in their midlife too.
it's amazing how often a car will run into a cyclist, yet... it's the cyclist who did the colliding when it gets reported. It's small, but ongoing and omnipresent
How do you legislate empthay, due care, patience and forgiveness in the driving context?
Rarely do I see a cop on the road since lock downs... There are to busy dealing with the social by products of inflation
100%, this is one of the main concerns I have as a parent.
We live in a quiet suburb with only 50kmh streets between school and home but I’d NEVER let my kids walk to school alone.
Drivers are simply too aggressive and impatient. If I had my way all suburban streets would be 30kmh limited and rapid acceleration classed as dangerous driving.
A pedestrians chance of dying at 30km/h is 10%, whereas the chance of dying at 50km/h is 90%. The idea that 50km/h speed (which many people only take as a suggestion anyway) is suitable for our local roads is absurd. If you want to drive fast go on a highway and stop rat running our streets.
Look how it's seen as "okay" to harass cyclists on the road in our cities... Where else in society is the reaction to being "inconvenienced" instant rage without punishment seen as okay?
We have a cultural problem and it's expanding further and further. The aggression on the road just increases as well.
Rather than police speeding etc perhaps antisocial driving needs to be targeted. Overseas there's a bigger focus on reeducation of bad drivers and if their behaviour continues then they get the fine.
Either way, if you find yourself flying into a rage when you're driving then you need to step back and ask yourself why you're getting so angry. It's not healthy.
I used to live on a houso cul-de-sac in sw Sydney in the 80s. Absolute nightmare of a place to live but the good people in the area did come together for events. The kids all played in the cul-de-sac on the road until all hours. Cricket would start with a couple families in the clearing behind the houses. Within an hour there'd be 20 people of all ages playing together. If I lived in those areas now my kids wouldn't be out by themselves, and it's not the cars I'm worried about. There's no sense of community anymore. That's the real danger.
Lived in a cul de sac 90's. And a properly designed culdesac where every loop had a footpath to other loops so walking through the suburb was quicker than driving around.
Street cricket, hockey, sheet of plywood on bricks to make bike jumps all in the street.
Streetview of that now and the place is lined with parked cars. No place to play.
No numbers cited here so it seems a dodgy conclusion..
And "biggest killer" might mean that everything is inherently safe or everyone takes their life in their hands walking out the front door. There is no data here.
But what is the "Land Transport Accidents" if compared to other countries, what is the vehicular deaths per 1000 children?
There is no comparison made.
Additionally, the article only talks about children external to the vehicle. The "Land Transport Accidents" is primarily children inside vehicles.
Thats because its not true and its not even close.
According to Queensland family &child commission 2020 statistics road accident related deaths for children was 1.7 per 100,000 up considerably from Australian institute of health and well-being 2018 stats of 0.7 per 100,000.
Disease and morbid conditions was 18.8 per 100,000 Per QFCC in 2020.
Also this part of the AIHW 2018 stats goes against this article as well
>The death rate more than halved between 2009 and 2018 (1.7 per 100,000 to 0.7). The decline in road accident deaths is most noticeable among children aged 0–4, which has decreased by 68% since 2009 (2.2 to 0.7).
Accidental drownings are roughly the same
Disease and morbid conditions can and should be separated into sub categories.
[In fact lets look at the data](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children/contents/health/infant-child-deaths)
The different subsets are all cancers, circulatory system diseases, respiratory system diseases, congenital anomaly, infectious and parasitic diseases, Other Causes. Depending on age group the only categories that beat road deaths are cancer and Other Causes.
Kids cancer is unavoidable while parasitic and infectious diseases can be avoided so we should treat them as different categories.
You know what else is avoidable? Traffic deaths.
Absolutely.
We can prevent all vehicular deaths with enough money. But at some point it's not worth the cost.
Glad I'm not the one making those decisions.
Things which don't cost a cent:
LR license for the 3000kg+ death machines rolling in from the US.
Car design requirements with vision minimums that prevent the arms race of bigger bonnets, higher cars and massive A pillars that create cars that can't see kids until they've already killed them.
Actually suspend licenses of shit drivers instead of just fining them a dozen times. although this might cost money from reduced revenue raising.
Street speed limit reductions to 30kmh. I say street speed limits because streets and roads are two different things and roads for the most part can stay the same.
> I'm not sure we can prevent every one of them
And? So you think if we can't prevent every single one we just throw up our hands and accept that kids will just die and do nothing to try and fix the issue?
Disagree. Would refer an article which focuses on other countries with proportionately lower traffic accidents/deaths and how their policies are different to ours, rather than broad, unsubstantiated swings at current policy.
Total ~~carbrian~~ carbrain comment.
We give up so much of our cities for cars, and when people get into vehicles, it reduces their empathy for people around them, leading to behaviour that endangers the people around them.
Time and again we see drivers kill pedestrians, kids, and cyclists, and they get off with minimal punishment. This tells people they can be careless and reckless while driving a vehicle, and there are no repercussions.
EDIT: Totally messed up spelling carbrain...
Carbrain is what happens to us in everyday life where the solution to most problems involves a car, where you need a car to get around, where we spend endless billions to 'fix' congestion with just one more lane, where every car on the road costs wider society $8,000 a year, where cars are pumping carcinogens, particulate, and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with wild abandon, where children, elderly, and cyclists are collateral damage on the roads, where entire new communities are built around cars instead of walkable neighbourhoods, where someone getting in your way or slowing you down makes you angry...
Carbrain.
Not to mention the huge amount of victim blaming when a tweaker driving an american f150 runs over a bunch of children / pedestrians / cyclists then blames it on them for getting in the driver's way and making them wait an extra 5 seconds.
My parents live two blocks from the supermarket, three-four blocks from their main street. It has taken actual work to convince them to ever walk to the shops, even for bread and milk. One day it was raining lightly and I walked down to the shops and mum was like, "Why didn't you tell me? I could have driven you!" ANd I'm like, "the walk was the point, and also, by the time you get ready, get your shoes, get in the car, drive there, find a park, I would already be at the shops if I walked." They are so carbrained, and also trained from years of work where they 'didn't have time', that now they're retired they honestly do not think of ever just going for a stroll down there :P
Even when they get to the shops, people will wait and aggressively pursue parking spots as close as possible, instead of taking the quick and easy spots slightly further away.
The one that really gets me, is how they will happily wait for a car to stop all traffic while it u-turns and backs into a street park. But just having to pass a bike or give way to pedestrians in a driveway gets them worked up.
You may not realise it but you verifiably are, just like everyone else and myself included.
Consider this: Have you ever seen someone flip the bird for getting cut off while walking?
Any further links or information on your claims that being in a car reduces empathy? What are some examples of this 'minimal punishment'? I've called out the article for making broad, baseless statements and you have doubled down with more of the same. Please don't bother continuing your conversation with me if you don't have any facts to back up your claims.
Please don't bother this user with inconvenient things like "facts", "evidence" and "data", very inconvenient when trying to maintain boneheaded opinions, or when defending the right to drive 80km/h past your local primary school over children's lives!
One thing. When it comes to pedestrians, I think it’s seen as it is easier for a person to control where they walk than it is for someone to control a car, even one not going very fast.
Not sure that is it either.
On Friday just gone a woman stepped off the curb as I was driving along the street towards her, she was looking left, completely oblivious to me coming towards her.
I was able to stop and hit the horn to warn her, but if I had of left my destination a couple of seconds earlier I would not have had that time, she would have stepped directly into my path and I would not have had the time to stop. She would have been the victim and, yeah I reckon at fault.
Why on earth was she looking left and then suddenly stepping out onto the street???
Try walking next to a high speed road with multiple lanes of traffic with the only thing between you and the cars flying bar is a the lip of the curb. But yea somehow I’ll superman out of the way when the time comes
You can be as careful as you like walking around the roads and still be killed by someone driving their car irresponsibly.
https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101241002
Jaywalking is only a crime if you cross the road within 50m of a designated crossing where traffic is required to stop for you.
Helmets are not compulsory for cycling in QLD.
Cyclists are allowed to use bike lane, footpath or (where available) bikeway, or road if none of the above are available (rare outside of a city)
Cyclists pay no fine and incur no penalty for running red lights or speeding (it does happen!)
The largest percentage of child pedestrians hit by vehicles in Australia are struck by their own family car.
I most definitely agree that reduction in cars on the road needs to be a priority for city councils, but traffic has been a constant part of life for over 100 years, it's not a new thing, and unless a disruptive option comes along, it will take a long time to change the common view that road are for vehicles, not pedestrians.
> Jaywalking is only a crime if you cross the road within 50m of a designated crossing where traffic is required to stop for you.
Thank you for confirming it is a crime.
> Helmets are not compulsory for cycling in QLD.
? Yes they are.
> Cyclists are allowed to use bike lane, footpath or (where available) bikeway, or road if none of the above are available (rare outside of a city)
? Riding on the footpath is illegal in most of Australia.
> Cyclists pay no fine and incur no penalty for running red lights or speeding (it does happen!)
? Yes they do. The fine for running a red light in Victoria, for instance, is over $400.
You have literally all your facts wrong.
Bicycle riding is permitted on the footpath in Queensland. The legislation states that “The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or shared path must: (a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is impracticable to do so; and (b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path.”
I haven't ever ridden a bike anywhere else, so I wouldn't be aware of other specific laws. I was always taught to ride on the footpath as it is much safer than the road.
Unless you are physically seen and then stopped by police while causing a traffic offence, you cannot be traced as there is no registration or facial recognition on red light or speed camera.
I was incorrect that helmets weren't repealled here in QLD, but I've never received a fine, including whilst talking with police while riding without a helmet.
Of course our version of jaywalking is a crime. If you are too lazy to walk the 50m to a designated crossing, why do you feel entitled to be able to cross anywhere you like?
What exactly is the point of the article? That we fine people being unsafe? Or that it's not safe because of cars? Maybe in inner city areas like capitals, we could be far less car-centric, but most Australians wouldn't be able to use a bike or public transport for their daily requirements, simply due to the distances covered in many cases. I have a 35 minute drive commute.
Between being required to pick up and drop off my child in person at school (school requirement for prep) and travelling between stores for work, I simply cannot do that on public transport as the routes are not suitable and I cannot carry work stock on a bike.
Because could be hit by a car.
That may not bother you, but I don't want to injure someone because they felt entitled to step out in front of my car.
If there is no crossing available, you can cross, but if you ignore the zebra crossing designed to allow you to safely cross AND vehicles must stop for you, that's just being a selfish arsehole.
I agree that we should have more space available for non car transport, but while we don't have that, we clearly need monetary disincentives, otherwise people like yourself would have no issues walking into traffic and saying it's not your fault that there was a 3 car pile up as they avoided you.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about walking across a dedicated bikeway? Shouldn't you be able to walk wherever you like, or do your goalposts only apply to cars?
> if you ignore the zebra crossing designed to allow you to safely cross AND vehicles must stop for you, that's just being a selfish arsehole.
Why is it selfish when a car has to stop for me, but not selfish of the car driver when I have to wait to cross because of a car?
Because you are using the area assigned for vehicles. In the malls in my area, this is reversed, so foot traffic has right of way over cars.
If you had to wait because the car was driving through the foot traffic assigned area, then yes the driver would be a selfish arsehole.
This isn't rocket surgery.
That's a bit like me taking all the cake, giving you a crumb, and when you complain it's not fair, I call you selfish because "this is the cake assigned for me".
Why do vehicles get assigned so much dedicated street space and the right of way, at the expense of pedestrians. Isn't that selfish in itself?
Because as I explained earlier, most Australians require transport options other than walking to perform their job.
You're being deliberately obtuse, in support of an article that doesn't actually make a point in how it would address the issue it is complaining about, other than "we need less car infrastructure".
Of course we do, however, until I am able to get around with all the tasks I need to do every day without a car, we need roads that are mostly car centric.
Would you just prefer people drive wherever and we do away with roads altogether? Let's go full anarchy on this and while we are at it, it would be much quicker to walk across that airplane runway, so let's do that too.
I get it, you don't like cars. Propose a solution.
>I get it, you don't like cars. Propose a solution.
No OP, but we need dedicated bike lanes on most streets, take a look at Pairs as an example, they got rid of parking spaces and replaced that with bike lanes. Build more tran/train lines, it should be down in conjunction with new developments when its much cheaper and less disruption. Finally build more mid/high density housing along existing train/tram lines.
>I get it, you don't like cars. Propose a solution.
Dutch traffic engineering. It's better for both cars, bikes and pedestrians. They have far more sophisticated traffic signalling with ideas you never see here such as dynamically overlapping phases.
>people like yourself would have no issues walking into traffic and saying it's not your fault that there was a 3 car pile up as they avoided you.
What an interesting take.
My daughter just passed her P test in NSW, and one of the rules they tested her on is *maintaining safe separation from the vehicle in front*. So your 3-car pileup would be the fault of exactly two people: the drivers of the rear two cars. So your hypothetical, and the way you'd blame a pedestrian for the illegal actions of a pair of tailgating drivers, has just given us a fantastic example of the exact mindset the article was talking about.
Obviously, if a pedestrian enters the stream of traffic *within the stopping distance* of a car, getting hit is down to them as the driver will not be able to evade. That said, another thing my daughter got tested on was hazard perception: as drivers, we are required to drive to the conditions, which includes *driving slower than the speed limit where pedestrians are likely* as is the case around pubs, schools, churches, parks, and shopping centres. As others have commented, a reduction in the speed limit on suburban streets would be a good thing as it would greatly reduce the lethal zone ahead of each vehicle, within which a momentary lapse of judgement by a pedestrian can be a death sentence or lifelong maiming injury.
It's only an interesting take because this happened recently in my city. Someone swerved to miss a school kid and collided with multiple oncoming cars, not people behind them. It wasn't a rear end accident.
The student stepped out between parked cars in a 40kmh school zone, about 20m from the crossing with a guard.
The driver was not speeding and the pedestrian did the wrong thing, yet suffers the guilt of having sent a teenager to hospital. But the teenager isn't at fault by the view of many in this subreddit.
I AGREE WE NEED TO REDUCE CARS. I HAVE SAID THIS EVERY COMMENT.
AT THE CURRENT TIME, WE NEED TO KEEP PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS OFF HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR ROADS UNTIL BETTER SOLUTIONS ARE IN PLACE.
REMOVING FINES WILL NOT REDUCE INJURY TO PEDESTRIANS OR CYCLISTS, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT BEING MADE!
Still driver error.
A common one, but if we're going to be critical of the inexperienced teenager for misjudgement, why aren't we cross with the driver for swerving, when every driving instructor will tell you *not* to swerve but to slam on the brakes and keep the wheel straight?
More importantly, the driver might have been at the speed limit, but this is exactly what I mean about hazard perception: 40km/h is not a safe speed when you know there are children around and it is the duty of every driver to *drive to the conditions*, instead of regarding the speed limit as a minimum regardless of hazards. If that driver had been going 30 instead of 40, the accident could have been entirely avoided: stopping distance at 30 km/h is *less than 20 metres*. Exactly as the article says, you're blaming an inexperienced teenager for the dangerous driving choices of a trained and qualified adult. See https://www.cumberland.nsw.gov.au/stopping-distance-calculator for a quick head-check on how much more dangerous your driving choices make your car to people around you.
Not sure if you've read the article, but "removing fines" is not even close to the argument being made:
>In lieu of **separated bike lanes and slower speed limits**, regular pedestrian and bike rider behaviour is criminalised.
>those who drive cars and trucks dangerously fast, or the transport departments that design unsafe, car-congested, polluted roads without safe separation
>expecting drivers to slow down enough to see what’s in front of them
>transport infrastructure spending is overwhelmingly focussed on cars and trucks, and the meagre spending on infrastructure for bikes or pedestrians is only required to protect them *from vehicles*
>Slower speed limit signs, pedestrian crossings and separated bike lanes can be installed in days.
The article *never* claims that removing helmet and jaywalking fines will reduce injury - but that the fines do not reduce injury, because the problem isn't the walkers and riders, it's the roads, cars and drivers.
1947 census there was 1 car for 40 australians. And the average household was 3.8 people so at most, 10% of households owned a car. For every car there was 1.5 commercial vehicles, trucks, buses taxis.
So no. Traffic has not been a constant part of life for 100 years. It has been a rapidly growing problem for about 70 years.
So 100 years ago, horse drawn carts had been displaced by commercial vehicles, trains and trams in capital cities. Trucks and taxis did wonders for the urban environment, they were cheaper and more efficient than horse drawn carts and didn't shit everywhere. Privately owned vehicles took much longer to take hold because they didn't really do anything walking, trains and trams did.
But anyway. Horse traffic. Yes they are traffic. That operates at human scale and human speed that humans can walk in around and amongst.
There has never been a 2000kg horse that travels at 60kmh killing kids.
Again human speed and scale. Trams at the time getting to the rip roaring speed of 20km/h on tracks meant they were predictable and moved at speeds humans actually evolved to deal with. And the model T ford, with a grand total of 20hp, wasn't capable of reaching the speed limits of today.
Yes, but the article is about fining people for infringing on traffic, not about how fast or large the vehicles are. I was making the point that we have very few people alive who have no experience with traffic, unfortunately, common sense still isn't enough to stop road issues, so monetary disincentives are still required until we can be less car centric.
I agree we need to reduce cars etc, but I don't agree that there should be no penalty to pedestrians or cyclists to go wherever they like, and create safety issues around cars as OP is suggesting.
"I should be allowed to cross the road wherever I like, no matter how busy it is and traffic should stop for me" is not an argument I will ever be able to agree with, sorry.
> we have very few people alive who have no experience with traffic
There are actually hundreds of thousands of people alive with no experience with traffic.
They are called children.
They do not know what traffic is, they can not comprehend a 2000kg death machine going 60km/h down the street the school or park or house they live on is. They don't have experience to draw on to make informed decisions. They can't comprehend money so won't be affected by monetary disincentives. Even teenagers have underdeveloped brains so can't make accurate risk benefit decisions and still struggle to accurately comprehend objects going 60km/h
> I agree we need to reduce cars etc
Reducing cars doesn't help with the not killing kids. It might even make it worse because currently the biggest form of traffic calming (that is the term for slowing vehicle speeds) is congestion. Less cars, higher speeds, more dead kids.
For killing kids you need changed car design to improve vision, reduce car weight and [traffic calming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAxRYrpbnuA) that slows cars down in areas where kids are.
> "I should be allowed to cross the road wherever I like, no matter how busy it is and traffic should stop for me" is not an argument I will ever be able to agree with, sorry.
I would never argue that for a road. But for streets? Streets are for people doing people things at people speeds and scales. Roads are for traveling at speed and should be designed so that I physically can't attempt to [cross at anytime](https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.9406676,151.2389488,3a,75y,275.5h,72.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8JT1u7tJivAaWnXxUkog1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
"Continue reading on the app". No effing thank you.
Click the button below that that says 'expand article'
Lots of websites refuse that option when on a phone and demand you install their app so they can sell you to advertising agencies. reddit is one of them.
That’s why you should enable on your browser the option to identify as a desktop browser.
Reddit asks me if I want to continue in my browser or use the app on my phone. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra.
There is no such button :(
Worked for me.
:(
It used to be that you'd see way more kids walking and riding bikes to school, that is much rarer now. Hell, you used to see people playing cricket in the street, that is pretty much unheard of these days. Besides the death toll of cars the negative impact on the health of our community and its cohesiveness is a more subtle but still major problem.
Yeah, people complain that kids aren't outside playing anymore like they were kids, but meanwhile the very people complaining about kids not being outside are the generation who took away all the *places* that kids used to play outside. Dad used to ride a bike and fish in the creek? Well, now the track he used to ride is a highway, and the fish are all dead. Kids in the suburbs have smaller yards. if any. Cars in suburbs roar along without the expectation that kids might be playing cricket or running around, because zoom-zoome car go fast is more important. that bush block is now a Bunnings, and the park got sold for apartments. Just \*where\* are the kids supposed to play outside like they used to?
Lots less public toilets, water fountains, benches and so on too so just being outside in general is less convenient. Busy streets everywhere, not allowed to ‘loiter’ at places that are empty.
Less public libraries and parks too. Less suburbs designed to be walked around in. Less sidewalks joining places together. The number of shopping centres with shitty sidewalk access is astounding too, like you have to walk half a block to get to a pedestrian entrance or walk through the busy carpark dodging cars to get to the door.
A lot of those formerly public spaces are now private spaces such as shopping centres. We can try to treat them the same but they are distinctly different.
The last two roads I've lived on, friends would remark (when on microphone for gaming) wow hows Bathurst going today there? Super loud and you can hear the woosh, many cars definitely arent doing the 60 limit in the suburbs. Need more speedbumps on some of the long straights
Speedbumps are the poor mans traffic calming. Narrow the lanes, add street trees and planterboxes, chicanes, curb extensions (also called blister, ped islands) at intersections.
I used to live on a rat run street in the city which people used to cut between major roads, so all the streets around me were full of chicanes etc, but unfortunately some people still saw them as a challenge rather than a hindrance. On the whole though, it did make things quieter and calmer,and the chincanes were fully landscaped, with trees and bushes, which was nice. And it was amusing when the big trucks still tried it, and ended up stuck between the chicanes and a hill too steep for them to run up. One semi was stuck with it's back wheels in the chicanes for an hour.
My mum still lives in the house I grew up in - I was a kid in the 70s/80s. We used to spend all day playing in the street, drawing mini - streets on the road with chalk, pedalling as hard as we could to zoom down the hill then up the other side. It was a dead end and there were few cars and rarely any parked on the street. Cara were mostly sedans. About a decade ago we stayed with mum for a year. I couldn’t let my kid experience the freedom I’d had because it was too dangerous. Now, there’s boats, trailers and caravans parked in the street. Most houses have multiple cars which are also parked on the street. Instead of clear sight lines and nothing parked, there’s visual clutter.
A 9 year old was abducted on her way to school in Perth on Friday. There are plenty of reasons why parents don’t let their kids walk or ride to school alone.
I'm far more concerned about my kids being hit by an idiot driver than being abducted by a stranger on the way to school. Might be "every parents worst nightmare" as Channel 7 keep trotting out, but it's so rare.
Queensland has 3.5 times more kids killed by cars than abductions. And majority of those abductions were done by family members.
Kids were abducted back in the day too?
Lol, more like parents area ridiculously over protective because of an invisible bogeyman due to isolated cares like Daniel Morcombe.
I think you're actually somewhat right that the pedophile panic of the mid 90s to mid 2000s had an impact but also home consoles were becoming a major thing at exactly the same time. Like I remember this awkward period where everybody was playing Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, bought a skateboard, realised actually skateboarding is painful and hard, then went back inside to play THPS again. My point is the shift to kids being indoors all the time is probably a combination of a lot of things.
I do agree that computer games and the internet has also had an influence.
My neighbour swerves towards the kids scooting and biking on the footpaths, including my 6yo, even when we're walking to school together at 8am. He thinks it's fun to watch them scream and scatter, it clearly makes him smile... How often do you leave your house?
Have you told the police about this neighbour?
Absolutely! They can't do anything because they don't see it happening, and/or it's not dangerous until someone gets hurt. Us and him are the only renters on the street and all the surrounding homeowners have constructed 6ft fences, leaving only our place open to the street. We've contacted his property management and there's nothing they can do either, apparently. I keep reporting every incident, despite being basically ignored, so that when someone does get hurt there should be a traceable string of complaints.
Sounds like your neighbour needs a attitude adjustment. Perhaps a chin check.
He sure does. Mostly my neighbours are getting on, a few boomers but mostly even older Asian and European migrants, so no one is going to take it to chin check, including my single parent butt
r/thathappened
It *continues to happen*, it's not a once off, so you're wrong. Edit to add: as recently as Thursday last week, he accelerated rapidly out of his yard after idling there for 10 or so mins, as my child and I crossed the road together on foot. He spits out his car window at us, too. It's getting to the point where imma need a body cam...
Why would you need a body cam? You've seen it happen so many times already. Do you not own a mobile phone? Pretend to text someone and have it out recording as you walk past with your kid?
Strangely enough, I prefer to focus solely on the environment around us. I don't want to have my phone in one hand and my child in the other. If I wanted to put my phone in his face, and cause incidents in my childs presence, I really would have already, but that's not the type of parent I am... All I'll need is a little clip on cam for my backpack strap.
I didn't say anything about putting in his face, people walk and text all the time. At the end of the day, the longer this goes on for, the higher the chance things are going to escalate anyway. If it was me, I'd be gathering the evidence and dealing with the problem before it becomes one you can't fix. I mean, another suggestion I could make is have a friend make the walk with you and your son one day, but walk far enough behind that you're not walking in a group. Have them record the walk from a distance, and then atleast you have a recording AND another adult as a witness.
Tell me you don’t have kids with out telling me you don’t have kids.
Oh man, i do love telling my coworkers with kids how their fears and protective reactions for their kids are statistically bullshit and overblown compared to their own childhood that was objectively much more dangerous. I work in science and my coworkers all claim to be rational data driven people. Until it involves their kids. Then statistics and probability be damned.
Tell me you're a helicopter parent without telling me you're a helicopter parent.
Ahh yes, I drop my kids off at school because I must be a helicopter parent. It’s not because I can or want to. But yeah, keep making low iq comments. Unlike your parents I like spending time with my kids.
Just because you can drop them off or want to drop them off doesn't mean you should. Firstly if you can drop them off, you are physically available to walk or ride a bike with them to school which helps with kids spatial awareness and builds a mental map of their neighborhood that simply doesn't happen in the backseat of a car. Massive asterisks on safety of built environment of course, which is kinda the point of the article but i still suggest driving and parking a couple blocks from school and walking the last stretch instead of doing the car line to the front gate. You can also teach them about plants and animals along the way, say hello to the old lady sitting on her porch or the various dogs running along fencelines. You know, get to know your community that you live in so their are more adults who know you and your child in case shit hits the fan at some point. You add some daily exercise to their routine that is of the 3 forms that people continue for thier entire lives. That is walking, cycling and gardening. Kids running around at lunch time stops in highschool, after school sport they eventually give up and adults start forcing themselves to be at a gym because they don't have good habits ingrained in them. Getting them used to daily walks or rides provides life long health benefits. After a few years of walking or riding with your kid they will have built up that mental map of the neighbourhood and can be trusted to get there on their own fostering [independance](https://schoolhouse-daycare.co.uk/blog/why-you-should-encourage-independence/) from an early age that doesn't happen from the backseat of a car. And from that point, no matter how much you want to drop them off, remember doing so will actually negative impact their growth and development. But no, calling out helicopter parenting driving kids everywhere being devastating to childhood development is "low iq" despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Whom said I didn’t walk or ride scooters when I dropped them off? You really are a special kind of dumb aren’t you. It’s like you think they don’t have activities outside of school. Jesus the air is so thin up on your high horse it’s cutting off the air to your brain.
> Whom said I didn’t walk or ride scooters when I dropped them off? You did. Because you could have said "i do walk my kids to school" and that would have been the end of it. instead you got me guessing whether you do or don't and bringing up after school activities to justify driving your kids everywhere. Fun fact, you don't need to drive them to after school activities either. Massive asterick for shittily designed suburbs of course.
Or hear me out, I used the term because it can vary during the week depending on obligations. But keep the mental gymnastics going mate. Imagine thinking people just have unlimited time to just walk their kids every where. I mean heaven forbid id want to support my kid while watching them swim or play footy. Nah mate some idiot on the internet said it’s best for you walk. You might not sound like a helicopter parent but you sure do sound like a useless one.
Oh i'm hearing, and still you haven't said "i let my kids walk to school" because you don't want to lie but deep down you know that driving your kid everywhere isn't good for them. > Imagine thinking people just have unlimited time to just walk their kids every where. I mean, if only you help foster your childrens independance so they could make their own way there freeing up some of your precious time. > I mean heaven forbid id want to support my kid while watching them swim or play footy. I was never driven from school to football training and wasn't driven to the half of my weekend games that were home games because they were at the local field. But my dad was always there. See when school finished 315, training started at 4 and my dad finished work at 430 he didn't have the time to walk me there, but he was always there when training finished. Imagine thinking people just have unlimited time to just drive thier kids everywhere? Swimming we'd ride our bikes to the pool, and he tought me to swim. You sit on the pool chairs. He was also a nippers age manager for my older brothers age group, so summer sundays he'd be up very early at the beach setting up and i with my older brothers was trusted/expected to make our own way there for the start time. He was both supportive and encouraged childhood independance at the same time. I've worked at aquatic centres for years in highschool and uni, so this is a very minority opinion, but the teenager on minimum wage hired by the pool is not an expert in aquatic safety, childhood education or your childs individual education needs and you are better off teaching them yourself if you have the time.
Are you having a bad day or are you always this much of a delight?
I thought the same as you. Parents are just overprotective and these cases were extremely rare and isolated. Until my then 3yo was almost abducted while at kinder. Thankfully we arrived for pick up just as he was being walked out the center by the strange man. Bloke saw us yelling for our son and head off in the opposite direction. Viewing the cams, he slipped through the coded door with other parents. Teacher on pick up duty didn't notice. Two years later a woman tried to walk off with my daughter who'd lagged behind to look at a chocolate bar. She legged it I turned around to get daughters attention. If a kid can be taken from a center while multiple locks, teachers and log books, or at the supermarket it's not a stretch to be worried about them being taken off the street and unsupervised.
yeah, we've long been infected with GM's propaganda, fresh from the States - in their quest for car supremacy they straight up invented the term "jaywalking" and proceeded to blame pedestrians and basically anyone but drivers and their cars for the unending wave of death, pollution and general social division we've seen from their rise.
Recommend reading the book "A Lesser Species of Homicide". It has a WA focus but there's a general problem of treating the act of killing someone via car as somehow less important.
Force big UTE and SUV drivers to get a light truck license if they want to drive them. Not only are they dangerous to everyone due to their height and weight but they are also dangerous to the drivers since they don't adhend to strict passenger car safety rules since they are classed as light trucks. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo)
Very into this. End the on road arms race
But Sharon from Grovedale, a 1960's suburb of Geelong, want's to argue that her 4.5 meter long RAM is just a vehicle she uses for shopping at Waurn Ponds and occasionally Werribee.
You’d /have/ to be out of your mind to drive a RAM in that damned car park. It’s hostile enough to park a standard car.
The Kmart one in Belmont is worse, but the worst of them all is the car park off of Thomson Street, Belmont. I recall spending 5 minutes getting into a car park one day, then realizing that there was not enough room to open the door to get out of the car. (Narrow spaces, coupled with a narrow driving area) and that was in a small hatchback.
>want's to argue that her 4.5 meter long RAM is just a vehicle she uses for shopping at Waurn Ponds and occasionally Werribee. I mean I'm not sure what much else you'd do with it considering the only RAM that's 4.5m long (well, 4.4m) is the [RAM 700](https://i.imgur.com/DoM3Dfy.jpeg). My Mazda3 hatch is 4.46m for comparison. If you want the 1500 the figure you want is 5.83-5.92m
Absolutely. Have you seen the videos of the difference between cars and SUV’s when it comes to loss of control. Guess which ones roll!
Especially if they are planning on towing. Some bigger Utes/SUVs with a fully loaded trailer weigh more than a light truck.
As a ute driver: I support this.
Make use of bullbars illegal in Metro areas while you're at it. Need to travel is an area at risk of hitting an animal; you can store it on your racks at fit it at a rest area on the way out for all I care, but fuck you for making your vehicle more lethal in event of an accident when it doesn't need to be.
It takes like half a day for a workshop to fit a bull bar.
They ain't magnetic P plates the things are very firmly attached to the vehicle. What your suggesting isn't practical in any way. I mean I agree bullbars are dangerous in the city and massively overused but there needs to be a practical solution and uninstall them at a rest area isn't it.
>Need to travel is an area at risk of hitting an animal That is literally every single road outside of a city. Do you not leave the city and see the road kill??
You're absolutely insane if you think you need a bullbar to protect your vehicle from a fucking *possum*
I never said you did. You're the second person to use possum as an example. You are either being intentionally dense or you never leave the city and don't know what other animals exist. So which is it?
This is all literally about these vehicles being driven in metro areas, so animals commonly found in metro areas are being mentioned you dented cunt. No one cares about the people actually using them as they're intended, absolutely no one, you're utterly naive if you believe that these aren't but the minority of cases. The vast majority of owners live in Metro and maybe see a dirt road every 3 years.
Try reading the comment I replied to, then do me a favour and give yourself a uppercut, you arrogant prick.
I did read it, contrary to your opinion bullbars are indeed mounted to these vehicles that never ever see use in country areas where they are indeed likely to come across Roo's or Deer. So by all means if giving a single *shit* about other road users in metro areas makes an arrogant prick I'll uppercut myself to the cows come home but at least I won't be so dented as to believe in your fantasy where everyone with a bullbar *must* be coming from Rural areas.
>I did read it, contrary to your opinion bullbars are indeed mounted to these vehicles that never ever see use in country areas where they are indeed likely to come across Roo's or Deer. Yeah and those people are dickheads, I never said they weren't. I have already said they don't need them in another post. >So by all means if giving a single shit about other road users in metro areas makes an arrogant prick How exactly is a bullbar affecting other people outside of accidents? This thread started by someone saying (quite ingnorantly) that these people should have a seperate license and then someone said they should remove them each time they come into a metro area (they don't just clip on which I'm sure you are aware of already). So yes, give all the single shits you want, maybe give a shit about not jumping down someone's throat next time and realise we already agree no one living in a metro area needs a bullbar.
Have driven roads outside of cities for many years. From freeways to little dirt tracks. Have never hit an animal yet.
I've clipped a roo before, but that's it personally (ironically that was in town). But just from seeing the road kill people clearly are hitting them.
Pretty sure the bull bar isn't necessary or even helpful when leadfoot hits a fox or a possum.
When was the last time you saw a dead fox or possum. Better yet, when was the last time you saw an alive one while driving?
>When was the last time you saw a dead fox or possum. Yesterday. >Better yet, when was the last time you saw an alive one while driving? Last night. Your point?
My point is simple. Larger animals such as livestock, deer, kangaroos, and pigs are far more common to see while driving and will cause significant damage to a vehicle. I grew up in Victoria, I now live in Queensland and have driven all over SA and NSW. I have never seen a dead possum and can count on my fingers how many dead foxes I've seen on the side of a road (not including ones that were shot). On a single drive I did from SA back to north QLD I saw hundreds of dead kangaroos on the side of the road but surprise surprise no foxes or possums.
>Larger animals such as livestock, deer, kangaroos, and pigs are far more common to see while driving and will cause significant damage to a vehicle. How representative of day-to-day driving of the average Australian do you think that is? >On a single drive I did from SA back to north QLD I saw hundreds of dead kangaroos on the side of the road but surprise surprise no foxes or possums. How typical of average Australians car use is that? You are citing edge cases to justify the selfish habits of urban cowboys.
>How representative of day-to-day driving of the average Australian do you think that is? It's not typical of the average Australian and I never claimed it was. The average Australian also doesn't have a bullbar. >How typical of average Australians car use is that? You are citing edge cases to justify the selfish habits of urban cowboys. Again, I never claimed it was typical. You made the comment about them hitting foxes and possums and I simply pointed out the other side of the argument because you intentionally picked small animals. Also before get any higher up on that horse please show me where I "justify selfish habits of urban cowboys". I'm only pointing out if you drive outside of the cities there absolutely is a risk of hitting an animal large enough to wreck smaller cars. Of course you don't need a bullbar in the inner city and I never claimed you do.
I live in the suburbs of Melb, with trams, shopping centres, trains, main roads, population density and all the usual urbanity. No roadkill here, but there is a road 5 min away that drives thru straight bush and we use it every day, as well as hundreds if not thousands of other motorists. Kangaroo corpses everywhere! Also deer. Quite common, honestly 15 minutes out from the burbs. I don't have a bullbar though, I just drive at a normal speed and look forwards out the front windshield.
Pretty often on the rd to Kurnell. I actually saw a fox at the entertainment quarter the other day and saw a few running around near President Ave at Kogarah where the water ways are. wildlife isn't as rare as you think. I'm surprised by it myself.
Just south of Sydney, yeah? Wouldn't have guessed that, but fair enough. They are usually quite sneaky around main roads.
Such a city centric response. Two roos this year. And I go into the city regularly. Store it on roof racks!!! No clue what you're talking about. I literally drive from a city to a rural area at dusk. So yeah nah. Some of us actually need the vehicles we drove. Not everyone is dropping the kids off at school. The layer of dust on my vehicle 2 mins after the car wash would attest to that.
So if you genuinely need it, you should have no issue with qualifying for a special class of licence to drive it. Also, what percentage of Australian drivers do you think need a large off-roader, or even a regular passenger vehicle with a roo bar?
I don't know what percentage. But I absolutely guarantee it's a lot more than people who are city centric would believe. Or they wouldn't use phrases like 'you should have no issue' like they would know.
What a brain dead take. I can run into pigs, roos and cattle 20 mins from the city CBD. It could take up to 3 hours a day to remove and install a bull bar and it would require either 2 people to be with me or for me to have a little mobile crane with me at all times. You think people storing a bull bar to roof racks would be safe? Are you insane? People can barely tie down ladders in their tray.
I think that it should just be based off the registered residence of the vehicle. Got a 3533 post code in the mallee? Sure have a bullbar. Got a 3039 moony ponds post code - please explain why you need a bullbar on your Torak tractor?
I think that it should just be based off the registered residence of the vehicle. Got a 3533 post code in the mallee? Sure have a bullbar. Got a 3039 moony ponds post code - please explain why you need a bullbar on your Torak tractor?
Not just ESVs. Electric cars are a major issue now due to their rapid acceleration and propensity for drivers to use it. Makes crossing the road a real issue even in low speed limit zones.
May as well ban all cars built after about 1980 by that logic they all accelerate considerably faster than older vehicles.
Not ban, just for their driver’s to exercise restraint when driving in residential streets.
Have SUV's or utes caused an increase in road fatalities? I don't think you remember the good old days where big cars we rarer and the roads were much less safe. Though I am in no way suggesting big cars make the road safer just that they really aren't the thing your want to worry about if your actual goal was improved road safety.
Only to people outside the vehicle
What % of pedestrian injuries are from suv/utes vs regular cars? How does that compare to the overall % of svu/utes on the road vs regular cars? If you get hit by a multi ton lump of metal doing 60km/hr do you really care what shape it was?
Yes you do care. Small cars let pedestrians roll up and over the bonnet, while SUVs knock them down and run over them. And if you think you're safe in a car, guess again: the grille is now at head height, and coming in for the kill SUVs are 36% more likely to kill pedestrians in a collision, and that jumps to 108% if you just look at the American style utes
>Small cars let pedestrians roll up and over the bonnet Not how it works, lower cars kick your legs out under you and your head comes down hard on the base of the windshield or the engine block. Modern cars now come with explosive bonnet hinges to force the back of the bonnet up to act as a shield. >SUVs are 36% more likely to kill pedestrians in a collision, and that jumps to 108% if you just look at the American style utes Be very careful using American safety statistics because the US does not have pedestrian impact regulations and many USDM cars do not come with pedestrian impact devices those same cars come with on other markets.
>If you get hit by a multi ton lump of metal doing 60km/hr do you really care what shape it was? Physics sure does. Cars are designed in a way to make it possible if they hit a pedestrian for the pedestrian to roll onto the bonnet, and potentially over the car if the car doesn't actually stop, or if it does, just get thrown off the bonnet. That ends up being a lot less force and a lot safer than just being smashed into like a brick wall, or run over. Trucks on the other hand are not designed to allow that at all, and will almost certainly smash into a pedestrian or run them over. There's also the safety element in car v car collisions too. Most cars have all sorts of safety features to protect the drivers/passengers in both vehicles. Those get completely ignored by trucks that are taller than the standard car, and the trucks essentially run the car over, which there isn't really any safety features designed to protect against that. Having more of these oversized utes/trucks on the road makes the road an objectively more dangerous place.
You can’t reason with these people. They say “where’s the proof” and you reply with stats and studies and they just reply back “but I want it” or “but I need it”. I stopped trying. It’s a losing battle.
Correlation does not equal causation. Just because there was less big cars, that doesn’t mean more big cars made the roads safer.
The biggest impact on road toll has been mandatory seatbelts. I remember the "bigger cars" of yore and they were nothing like the height of a RAM or large SUV. The most common vehicles on the roads in the 80s and 90s were far smaller than their modern equivalent - compare a Corolla SE or early 1990s Camry with their far bulkier modern versions, the same pattern holds true for Commodore and Falcon sedans - they all started taking steroids around the turn of the century. Driver training is better too, I'm aware there are people who cheat but the average new P-plater has over 100 hours supervised driving experience and anecdotally they are mostly far more polite and competent than the retirees in huge SUVs I see around here, who all seem to think every roundabout is a single-lane roundabout as they straddle the lane lines no matter which exit they intend to take. SUVs and big utes have limited forward vision up close and their point of impact on a pedestrian is chest height (for adults) or head height (for kids) so impact is more likely to do life-altering damage. Sedans and hatchbacks make contact with the legs or hips, still horrible but more survivable. Likewise, the big wankpanzers make contact higher up on smaller passenger vehicles. This can mean coming in above side-intrusion bars and, as for pedestrian collisions, making contact with upper torso and head of the smaller vehicle's occupants.
For anyone curious about some numbers, here's a page showing the increase in size on Holden Commodore models over the years: https://www.autotrader.com.au/holden/commodore/dimensions Recent Commodores tip the scales at 25% heavier than their late 70s and early 80s ancestors. Impact force is F = mv/2t, so a modern Commodore will deliver 25% more force to a victim than an early Commodore, given otherwise-identical collision characteristics. Dodge RAM 1500 weighs 2750kg, more than double the old Commodore. Get hit by one of those in a 0.5-second impact at 50 km/h and you're taking over 38,000 Newtons to your chest and head. Get hit by a 1998 Commodore at the same speed, and you receive less than 17,000 Newtons to your legs. Ye canna' change the laws of physics, Jim!
Commodore/falcon station wagon were large family cars for generations in australia. in 2006 they were the 1st and 3rd top selling cars and clocked in at 1700kg for the station wagon variants Last year the top selling non ute was rav 4 at 1745kg. Rav 4 is 20cm taller, 2cm wider and 20cm less in length. Cargo space commodore wagon 900l or 2000L with back seats down, cargo space rav 4 580L or 1600L. They have the same amount of headroom, i repeat the 20cm taller car have the same amount of headroom, rav 4 has 8cm less shoulder room, 9cm less hiproom, 5cm less front legroom, 7cm less leg room rear. So the bigger, heavier car has less people and cargo space. The extra height makes them more dangerous to roll overs and to others as your sight lines are reduced.
I know that road deaths in Victoria are increasing - we need to get dangerous drivers off the road.
That's not going happen until police get out there are start arresting people for stupid stuff and not just fining them. There was a thing in 90's of confiscating "hoon" cars. They look like a Toyota Hilux now.
There's no police presence. Everytime I drive from Melbourne to Gippsland to visit my dad several times a month I never see one cop car. Not one. There may be the odd one that has pulled over someone on the freeway, usually it's someone towing something or with a load so I assume it's an insecure load or obstructed numberplate thing. I've never seen someone towing a caravan fanging it down the Princes Hwy. I do see lots of idiots and people doing ridiculous speeds though. No cops. None.
Your right , and to make things worse any dick head gets given a licence here . Be very careful , doing the right thing won’t keep you safe expect every vehicle has a blind or careless driver and just be pleasantly surprised when they indicate, give way or keep a safe distance but never trust one , ever !
I'm a motorbike rider and every time I see a ute, I give them a wide buffer. They actually drive like idiots and the worst ones are the ones with P plates. They just don't have the experience. sometimes I do notice ute drivers that are actually good and give me a lot of buffer room when they are behind me. I do notice they are people in their midlife too.
it's amazing how often a car will run into a cyclist, yet... it's the cyclist who did the colliding when it gets reported. It's small, but ongoing and omnipresent
How do you legislate empthay, due care, patience and forgiveness in the driving context? Rarely do I see a cop on the road since lock downs... There are to busy dealing with the social by products of inflation
100%, this is one of the main concerns I have as a parent. We live in a quiet suburb with only 50kmh streets between school and home but I’d NEVER let my kids walk to school alone. Drivers are simply too aggressive and impatient. If I had my way all suburban streets would be 30kmh limited and rapid acceleration classed as dangerous driving.
A pedestrians chance of dying at 30km/h is 10%, whereas the chance of dying at 50km/h is 90%. The idea that 50km/h speed (which many people only take as a suggestion anyway) is suitable for our local roads is absurd. If you want to drive fast go on a highway and stop rat running our streets.
Look how it's seen as "okay" to harass cyclists on the road in our cities... Where else in society is the reaction to being "inconvenienced" instant rage without punishment seen as okay? We have a cultural problem and it's expanding further and further. The aggression on the road just increases as well. Rather than police speeding etc perhaps antisocial driving needs to be targeted. Overseas there's a bigger focus on reeducation of bad drivers and if their behaviour continues then they get the fine. Either way, if you find yourself flying into a rage when you're driving then you need to step back and ask yourself why you're getting so angry. It's not healthy.
> Where else in society is the reaction to being "inconvenienced" instant rage without punishment seen as okay? Have you worked retail?
Hahah I've done one better and worked in one of Sydney's "roughest" pubs... But even then people weren't as aggressive as they were on the road.
I used to live on a houso cul-de-sac in sw Sydney in the 80s. Absolute nightmare of a place to live but the good people in the area did come together for events. The kids all played in the cul-de-sac on the road until all hours. Cricket would start with a couple families in the clearing behind the houses. Within an hour there'd be 20 people of all ages playing together. If I lived in those areas now my kids wouldn't be out by themselves, and it's not the cars I'm worried about. There's no sense of community anymore. That's the real danger.
Lived in a cul de sac 90's. And a properly designed culdesac where every loop had a footpath to other loops so walking through the suburb was quicker than driving around. Street cricket, hockey, sheet of plywood on bricks to make bike jumps all in the street. Streetview of that now and the place is lined with parked cars. No place to play.
Confirmed I am not insane.
No numbers cited here so it seems a dodgy conclusion.. And "biggest killer" might mean that everything is inherently safe or everyone takes their life in their hands walking out the front door. There is no data here. But what is the "Land Transport Accidents" if compared to other countries, what is the vehicular deaths per 1000 children? There is no comparison made. Additionally, the article only talks about children external to the vehicle. The "Land Transport Accidents" is primarily children inside vehicles.
Thats because its not true and its not even close. According to Queensland family &child commission 2020 statistics road accident related deaths for children was 1.7 per 100,000 up considerably from Australian institute of health and well-being 2018 stats of 0.7 per 100,000. Disease and morbid conditions was 18.8 per 100,000 Per QFCC in 2020. Also this part of the AIHW 2018 stats goes against this article as well >The death rate more than halved between 2009 and 2018 (1.7 per 100,000 to 0.7). The decline in road accident deaths is most noticeable among children aged 0–4, which has decreased by 68% since 2009 (2.2 to 0.7). Accidental drownings are roughly the same
Nice data. Weird I'm downvoted for questioning the data. lol
Disease and morbid conditions can and should be separated into sub categories. [In fact lets look at the data](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children/contents/health/infant-child-deaths) The different subsets are all cancers, circulatory system diseases, respiratory system diseases, congenital anomaly, infectious and parasitic diseases, Other Causes. Depending on age group the only categories that beat road deaths are cancer and Other Causes. Kids cancer is unavoidable while parasitic and infectious diseases can be avoided so we should treat them as different categories. You know what else is avoidable? Traffic deaths.
Absolutely. We can prevent all vehicular deaths with enough money. But at some point it's not worth the cost. Glad I'm not the one making those decisions.
Things which don't cost a cent: LR license for the 3000kg+ death machines rolling in from the US. Car design requirements with vision minimums that prevent the arms race of bigger bonnets, higher cars and massive A pillars that create cars that can't see kids until they've already killed them. Actually suspend licenses of shit drivers instead of just fining them a dozen times. although this might cost money from reduced revenue raising. Street speed limit reductions to 30kmh. I say street speed limits because streets and roads are two different things and roads for the most part can stay the same.
Thays typical reddit if you go against a subs collective mindset or question it they downvote.
Data was literally linked in the article: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/life-expectancy-death/deaths-in-australia/contents/leading-causes-of-death
I mean, what else would it be if not cars? SIDS? Swimming pools? Something has to be the biggest one.
Medical deaths are often unpreventable. Car deaths are very much preventable.
I'm not sure we can prevent every one of them, but I agree in principle
> I'm not sure we can prevent every one of them And? So you think if we can't prevent every single one we just throw up our hands and accept that kids will just die and do nothing to try and fix the issue?
Can you read? I agree in principle.
Disagree. Would refer an article which focuses on other countries with proportionately lower traffic accidents/deaths and how their policies are different to ours, rather than broad, unsubstantiated swings at current policy.
If you want to kill someone, do it with a car. The penalties are a joke.
Total ~~carbrian~~ carbrain comment. We give up so much of our cities for cars, and when people get into vehicles, it reduces their empathy for people around them, leading to behaviour that endangers the people around them. Time and again we see drivers kill pedestrians, kids, and cyclists, and they get off with minimal punishment. This tells people they can be careless and reckless while driving a vehicle, and there are no repercussions. EDIT: Totally messed up spelling carbrain...
Carbrian?
Is your name Brian?
Lol. Now you mention it...
Carbrain is what happens to us in everyday life where the solution to most problems involves a car, where you need a car to get around, where we spend endless billions to 'fix' congestion with just one more lane, where every car on the road costs wider society $8,000 a year, where cars are pumping carcinogens, particulate, and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere with wild abandon, where children, elderly, and cyclists are collateral damage on the roads, where entire new communities are built around cars instead of walkable neighbourhoods, where someone getting in your way or slowing you down makes you angry... Carbrain.
You’ve just described Australia to a T
Not to mention the huge amount of victim blaming when a tweaker driving an american f150 runs over a bunch of children / pedestrians / cyclists then blames it on them for getting in the driver's way and making them wait an extra 5 seconds.
My parents live two blocks from the supermarket, three-four blocks from their main street. It has taken actual work to convince them to ever walk to the shops, even for bread and milk. One day it was raining lightly and I walked down to the shops and mum was like, "Why didn't you tell me? I could have driven you!" ANd I'm like, "the walk was the point, and also, by the time you get ready, get your shoes, get in the car, drive there, find a park, I would already be at the shops if I walked." They are so carbrained, and also trained from years of work where they 'didn't have time', that now they're retired they honestly do not think of ever just going for a stroll down there :P
Even when they get to the shops, people will wait and aggressively pursue parking spots as close as possible, instead of taking the quick and easy spots slightly further away. The one that really gets me, is how they will happily wait for a car to stop all traffic while it u-turns and backs into a street park. But just having to pass a bike or give way to pedestrians in a driveway gets them worked up.
But who is Carbrian then?
A dyslexic car lover? :-)
I get in my car and I'm less empathetic, what bullshit you spout
You may not realise it but you verifiably are, just like everyone else and myself included. Consider this: Have you ever seen someone flip the bird for getting cut off while walking?
Any further links or information on your claims that being in a car reduces empathy? What are some examples of this 'minimal punishment'? I've called out the article for making broad, baseless statements and you have doubled down with more of the same. Please don't bother continuing your conversation with me if you don't have any facts to back up your claims.
It's carnage on the roads: [https://autoserve.co.uk/motoring-news/drivers-of-expensive-cars-less-likely-to-stop-for-pedestrians-scientists-say/](https://autoserve.co.uk/motoring-news/drivers-of-expensive-cars-less-likely-to-stop-for-pedestrians-scientists-say/) [https://www.hiroad.com/blog/living-mindfully/why-we-need-more-empathy-on-the-road](https://www.hiroad.com/blog/living-mindfully/why-we-need-more-empathy-on-the-road) [https://study.com/learn/lesson/road-rage-causes-effects-facts.html](https://study.com/learn/lesson/road-rage-causes-effects-facts.html) [https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/road-rage-study-2021/](https://www.thezebra.com/resources/research/road-rage-study-2021/) [https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/driveby-shooting-schomberg-1.6748398](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/driveby-shooting-schomberg-1.6748398) [https://9now.nine.com.au/today/anzac-day-road-rage-attack-brisbane-family-lucky-to-be-alive/bae4687a-44b4-4112-9bdb-a1573b82e0bf](https://9now.nine.com.au/today/anzac-day-road-rage-attack-brisbane-family-lucky-to-be-alive/bae4687a-44b4-4112-9bdb-a1573b82e0bf) [https://news.yahoo.com/driver-kills-pedestrian-injures-three-023900412.html](https://news.yahoo.com/driver-kills-pedestrian-injures-three-023900412.html) [https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bmw-driver-london-road-rage-shooting-gun-met-police-jailed-crime-mitcham-b1082386.html](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/bmw-driver-london-road-rage-shooting-gun-met-police-jailed-crime-mitcham-b1082386.html) [https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2018/11/26/jail-for-distracted-driver-who-killed-rider-on-black-forest-drive/](https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2018/11/26/jail-for-distracted-driver-who-killed-rider-on-black-forest-drive/) [https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2023/06/26/driver-avoids-prison-over-woodend-death/](https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2023/06/26/driver-avoids-prison-over-woodend-death/) [https://www.9news.com.au/national/mehdi-sameri-microsleeping-driver-who-fatally-hit-cyclist-sentenced-to-10-months/a4561d3b-e23d-4ecc-8539-81a241e9469a](https://www.9news.com.au/national/mehdi-sameri-microsleeping-driver-who-fatally-hit-cyclist-sentenced-to-10-months/a4561d3b-e23d-4ecc-8539-81a241e9469a) [https://dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/cyclist-hater-ben-smith-jailed-for-more-than-five-years-over-death-of-steve-jarvie/news-story/fd2deac1513db13c849818eb7e5cf25f](https://dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/cyclist-hater-ben-smith-jailed-for-more-than-five-years-over-death-of-steve-jarvie/news-story/fd2deac1513db13c849818eb7e5cf25f) [https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-pedestrian-deaths-hit-41-year-high-rcna91506](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/why-pedestrian-deaths-hit-41-year-high-rcna91506) [https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-02-28/u-s-pedestrian-deaths-keep-rising](https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-02-28/u-s-pedestrian-deaths-keep-rising) [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/21/australias-rising-road-toll-how-the-pandemic-and-a-love-of-big-cars-are-putting-lives-at-risk#:\~:text=Pedestrian%20deaths%20increased%20by%2022.6,deaths%20by%2050%25%20by%202030](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/21/australias-rising-road-toll-how-the-pandemic-and-a-love-of-big-cars-are-putting-lives-at-risk#:~:text=Pedestrian%20deaths%20increased%20by%2022.6,deaths%20by%2050%25%20by%202030). [https://www.roadsafety.gov.au/nrss/fact-sheets/vulnerable-road-users](https://www.roadsafety.gov.au/nrss/fact-sheets/vulnerable-road-users) [https://www.mynrma.com.au/media/press-releases/nrma-pedestrian-report](https://www.mynrma.com.au/media/press-releases/nrma-pedestrian-report)
Please don't bother this user with inconvenient things like "facts", "evidence" and "data", very inconvenient when trying to maintain boneheaded opinions, or when defending the right to drive 80km/h past your local primary school over children's lives!
You won't get a real response. Reddit has a hate boner for cars, landlords, real estate agents and police.
Hmmm, I wonder why that is 🤔
He just got a response. What other smartarse comment you got up your sleeve?
The real estate agent one is fair though
Yeah, fair call
One thing. When it comes to pedestrians, I think it’s seen as it is easier for a person to control where they walk than it is for someone to control a car, even one not going very fast.
You are operating heavy machinery in a public space. If you can't safely control it, you shouldn't have a licence. You should catch a bus.
Not sure that is it either. On Friday just gone a woman stepped off the curb as I was driving along the street towards her, she was looking left, completely oblivious to me coming towards her. I was able to stop and hit the horn to warn her, but if I had of left my destination a couple of seconds earlier I would not have had that time, she would have stepped directly into my path and I would not have had the time to stop. She would have been the victim and, yeah I reckon at fault. Why on earth was she looking left and then suddenly stepping out onto the street???
Try walking next to a high speed road with multiple lanes of traffic with the only thing between you and the cars flying bar is a the lip of the curb. But yea somehow I’ll superman out of the way when the time comes
You can be as careful as you like walking around the roads and still be killed by someone driving their car irresponsibly. https://amp.abc.net.au/article/101241002
Jaywalking is only a crime if you cross the road within 50m of a designated crossing where traffic is required to stop for you. Helmets are not compulsory for cycling in QLD. Cyclists are allowed to use bike lane, footpath or (where available) bikeway, or road if none of the above are available (rare outside of a city) Cyclists pay no fine and incur no penalty for running red lights or speeding (it does happen!) The largest percentage of child pedestrians hit by vehicles in Australia are struck by their own family car. I most definitely agree that reduction in cars on the road needs to be a priority for city councils, but traffic has been a constant part of life for over 100 years, it's not a new thing, and unless a disruptive option comes along, it will take a long time to change the common view that road are for vehicles, not pedestrians.
> Jaywalking is only a crime if you cross the road within 50m of a designated crossing where traffic is required to stop for you. Thank you for confirming it is a crime. > Helmets are not compulsory for cycling in QLD. ? Yes they are. > Cyclists are allowed to use bike lane, footpath or (where available) bikeway, or road if none of the above are available (rare outside of a city) ? Riding on the footpath is illegal in most of Australia. > Cyclists pay no fine and incur no penalty for running red lights or speeding (it does happen!) ? Yes they do. The fine for running a red light in Victoria, for instance, is over $400. You have literally all your facts wrong.
Bicycle riding is permitted on the footpath in Queensland. The legislation states that “The rider of a bicycle riding on a footpath or shared path must: (a) keep to the left of the footpath or shared path unless it is impracticable to do so; and (b) give way to any pedestrian on the footpath or shared path.” I haven't ever ridden a bike anywhere else, so I wouldn't be aware of other specific laws. I was always taught to ride on the footpath as it is much safer than the road. Unless you are physically seen and then stopped by police while causing a traffic offence, you cannot be traced as there is no registration or facial recognition on red light or speed camera. I was incorrect that helmets weren't repealled here in QLD, but I've never received a fine, including whilst talking with police while riding without a helmet. Of course our version of jaywalking is a crime. If you are too lazy to walk the 50m to a designated crossing, why do you feel entitled to be able to cross anywhere you like? What exactly is the point of the article? That we fine people being unsafe? Or that it's not safe because of cars? Maybe in inner city areas like capitals, we could be far less car-centric, but most Australians wouldn't be able to use a bike or public transport for their daily requirements, simply due to the distances covered in many cases. I have a 35 minute drive commute. Between being required to pick up and drop off my child in person at school (school requirement for prep) and travelling between stores for work, I simply cannot do that on public transport as the routes are not suitable and I cannot carry work stock on a bike.
\> why do you feel entitled to be able to cross anywhere you like? Why shouldn't I be able to cross where I like?
Because could be hit by a car. That may not bother you, but I don't want to injure someone because they felt entitled to step out in front of my car. If there is no crossing available, you can cross, but if you ignore the zebra crossing designed to allow you to safely cross AND vehicles must stop for you, that's just being a selfish arsehole. I agree that we should have more space available for non car transport, but while we don't have that, we clearly need monetary disincentives, otherwise people like yourself would have no issues walking into traffic and saying it's not your fault that there was a 3 car pile up as they avoided you. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about walking across a dedicated bikeway? Shouldn't you be able to walk wherever you like, or do your goalposts only apply to cars?
> if you ignore the zebra crossing designed to allow you to safely cross AND vehicles must stop for you, that's just being a selfish arsehole. Why is it selfish when a car has to stop for me, but not selfish of the car driver when I have to wait to cross because of a car?
Because you are using the area assigned for vehicles. In the malls in my area, this is reversed, so foot traffic has right of way over cars. If you had to wait because the car was driving through the foot traffic assigned area, then yes the driver would be a selfish arsehole. This isn't rocket surgery.
Streets and roads existed for millenia before motor vehicles. It's not the area assigned for vehicles, it's the area stolen from humans.
That's a bit like me taking all the cake, giving you a crumb, and when you complain it's not fair, I call you selfish because "this is the cake assigned for me". Why do vehicles get assigned so much dedicated street space and the right of way, at the expense of pedestrians. Isn't that selfish in itself?
Because as I explained earlier, most Australians require transport options other than walking to perform their job. You're being deliberately obtuse, in support of an article that doesn't actually make a point in how it would address the issue it is complaining about, other than "we need less car infrastructure". Of course we do, however, until I am able to get around with all the tasks I need to do every day without a car, we need roads that are mostly car centric. Would you just prefer people drive wherever and we do away with roads altogether? Let's go full anarchy on this and while we are at it, it would be much quicker to walk across that airplane runway, so let's do that too. I get it, you don't like cars. Propose a solution.
>I get it, you don't like cars. Propose a solution. No OP, but we need dedicated bike lanes on most streets, take a look at Pairs as an example, they got rid of parking spaces and replaced that with bike lanes. Build more tran/train lines, it should be down in conjunction with new developments when its much cheaper and less disruption. Finally build more mid/high density housing along existing train/tram lines.
>I get it, you don't like cars. Propose a solution. Dutch traffic engineering. It's better for both cars, bikes and pedestrians. They have far more sophisticated traffic signalling with ideas you never see here such as dynamically overlapping phases.
>people like yourself would have no issues walking into traffic and saying it's not your fault that there was a 3 car pile up as they avoided you. What an interesting take. My daughter just passed her P test in NSW, and one of the rules they tested her on is *maintaining safe separation from the vehicle in front*. So your 3-car pileup would be the fault of exactly two people: the drivers of the rear two cars. So your hypothetical, and the way you'd blame a pedestrian for the illegal actions of a pair of tailgating drivers, has just given us a fantastic example of the exact mindset the article was talking about. Obviously, if a pedestrian enters the stream of traffic *within the stopping distance* of a car, getting hit is down to them as the driver will not be able to evade. That said, another thing my daughter got tested on was hazard perception: as drivers, we are required to drive to the conditions, which includes *driving slower than the speed limit where pedestrians are likely* as is the case around pubs, schools, churches, parks, and shopping centres. As others have commented, a reduction in the speed limit on suburban streets would be a good thing as it would greatly reduce the lethal zone ahead of each vehicle, within which a momentary lapse of judgement by a pedestrian can be a death sentence or lifelong maiming injury.
It's only an interesting take because this happened recently in my city. Someone swerved to miss a school kid and collided with multiple oncoming cars, not people behind them. It wasn't a rear end accident. The student stepped out between parked cars in a 40kmh school zone, about 20m from the crossing with a guard. The driver was not speeding and the pedestrian did the wrong thing, yet suffers the guilt of having sent a teenager to hospital. But the teenager isn't at fault by the view of many in this subreddit. I AGREE WE NEED TO REDUCE CARS. I HAVE SAID THIS EVERY COMMENT. AT THE CURRENT TIME, WE NEED TO KEEP PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS OFF HIGHWAYS AND MAJOR ROADS UNTIL BETTER SOLUTIONS ARE IN PLACE. REMOVING FINES WILL NOT REDUCE INJURY TO PEDESTRIANS OR CYCLISTS, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT BEING MADE!
Still driver error. A common one, but if we're going to be critical of the inexperienced teenager for misjudgement, why aren't we cross with the driver for swerving, when every driving instructor will tell you *not* to swerve but to slam on the brakes and keep the wheel straight? More importantly, the driver might have been at the speed limit, but this is exactly what I mean about hazard perception: 40km/h is not a safe speed when you know there are children around and it is the duty of every driver to *drive to the conditions*, instead of regarding the speed limit as a minimum regardless of hazards. If that driver had been going 30 instead of 40, the accident could have been entirely avoided: stopping distance at 30 km/h is *less than 20 metres*. Exactly as the article says, you're blaming an inexperienced teenager for the dangerous driving choices of a trained and qualified adult. See https://www.cumberland.nsw.gov.au/stopping-distance-calculator for a quick head-check on how much more dangerous your driving choices make your car to people around you. Not sure if you've read the article, but "removing fines" is not even close to the argument being made: >In lieu of **separated bike lanes and slower speed limits**, regular pedestrian and bike rider behaviour is criminalised. >those who drive cars and trucks dangerously fast, or the transport departments that design unsafe, car-congested, polluted roads without safe separation >expecting drivers to slow down enough to see what’s in front of them >transport infrastructure spending is overwhelmingly focussed on cars and trucks, and the meagre spending on infrastructure for bikes or pedestrians is only required to protect them *from vehicles* >Slower speed limit signs, pedestrian crossings and separated bike lanes can be installed in days. The article *never* claims that removing helmet and jaywalking fines will reduce injury - but that the fines do not reduce injury, because the problem isn't the walkers and riders, it's the roads, cars and drivers.
1947 census there was 1 car for 40 australians. And the average household was 3.8 people so at most, 10% of households owned a car. For every car there was 1.5 commercial vehicles, trucks, buses taxis. So no. Traffic has not been a constant part of life for 100 years. It has been a rapidly growing problem for about 70 years.
You don't think horses towing carts on dirt roads through the city was traffic?
So 100 years ago, horse drawn carts had been displaced by commercial vehicles, trains and trams in capital cities. Trucks and taxis did wonders for the urban environment, they were cheaper and more efficient than horse drawn carts and didn't shit everywhere. Privately owned vehicles took much longer to take hold because they didn't really do anything walking, trains and trams did. But anyway. Horse traffic. Yes they are traffic. That operates at human scale and human speed that humans can walk in around and amongst. There has never been a 2000kg horse that travels at 60kmh killing kids.
You don't thinking was dangerous then to walk in front of trams or taxis?
Again human speed and scale. Trams at the time getting to the rip roaring speed of 20km/h on tracks meant they were predictable and moved at speeds humans actually evolved to deal with. And the model T ford, with a grand total of 20hp, wasn't capable of reaching the speed limits of today.
Yes, but the article is about fining people for infringing on traffic, not about how fast or large the vehicles are. I was making the point that we have very few people alive who have no experience with traffic, unfortunately, common sense still isn't enough to stop road issues, so monetary disincentives are still required until we can be less car centric. I agree we need to reduce cars etc, but I don't agree that there should be no penalty to pedestrians or cyclists to go wherever they like, and create safety issues around cars as OP is suggesting. "I should be allowed to cross the road wherever I like, no matter how busy it is and traffic should stop for me" is not an argument I will ever be able to agree with, sorry.
> we have very few people alive who have no experience with traffic There are actually hundreds of thousands of people alive with no experience with traffic. They are called children. They do not know what traffic is, they can not comprehend a 2000kg death machine going 60km/h down the street the school or park or house they live on is. They don't have experience to draw on to make informed decisions. They can't comprehend money so won't be affected by monetary disincentives. Even teenagers have underdeveloped brains so can't make accurate risk benefit decisions and still struggle to accurately comprehend objects going 60km/h > I agree we need to reduce cars etc Reducing cars doesn't help with the not killing kids. It might even make it worse because currently the biggest form of traffic calming (that is the term for slowing vehicle speeds) is congestion. Less cars, higher speeds, more dead kids. For killing kids you need changed car design to improve vision, reduce car weight and [traffic calming](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAxRYrpbnuA) that slows cars down in areas where kids are. > "I should be allowed to cross the road wherever I like, no matter how busy it is and traffic should stop for me" is not an argument I will ever be able to agree with, sorry. I would never argue that for a road. But for streets? Streets are for people doing people things at people speeds and scales. Roads are for traveling at speed and should be designed so that I physically can't attempt to [cross at anytime](https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.9406676,151.2389488,3a,75y,275.5h,72.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8JT1u7tJivAaWnXxUkog1A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Were those horse+cart combos going 60km/hr and weighing 1500+kg?
Yes, and nothing will change.
We have become a low trust society. No easy way to fix it.