Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Procedural failure?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • guamainiac
    replied
    This bus law can't result in any good. Giving bus drivers total immunity from putting on a signal or as you would do, use the hand gesture as the last resort is a bollocks. Worse this was driven by the insurance companies who were having to pay for those incidents where the drivers did not yield, now they no longer have the responsibility or requirement to do so.

    In many of our cities when there was a bus accident, if there were three riders on the bus, by the time the police and medics got there there would be twenty "injured" on the floor moaning. What a zoo.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Originally posted by guamainiac View Post
    Our law here recently changed (US state law in NJ), to reflect how the concept of this law of right of way has, in the language, become so distorted and yes in my youth, I worked for the Commissioners Office of Transportation.

    "Right of way" is from the old nautical law and meant literally traffic on the right has the "right" of legal passage. If you see someone on the right, yield to them and if you are on the right proceed on and they must yield to you.

    As of late, the word "right" in a geographic sense has given way to the term "right" as in allowable or duty. With that our state became a mass of old timers sticking to written law and younger drivers creating a "right of allowable entry" based on the car who is approaching from the major road or traffic in the circle/round about. For awhile we had a scatter shot approach with our circles having some yield signs and that is what is is now. All of the circles are controlled by stop and yield signs.

    This can be terrifying as when driving with my father in his late 80's and if I point out a yield sign because he isn't slowing down, he just says "boll shizz" or poppycock and with a wave of the hand goes on through.

    Now, if you were driving a school bus and yes I did hold this license at one time, you had a "hard deck" on any rail crossings with the exception of elevated bridges. A school bus driver had to stop at any and ALL track crossings. There is no exception even if you know that the line has been abandoned.

    Of real interest is a new law here regarding buses. Any bus has the right to pull into traffic without any exception. They do not have to stop or pause to assure safe entry, the motorist is to yield to all bus traffic they are approaching.

    Now that is one wacky law that resulted from the number of collisions of cars with buses in our urban areas. The drivers had taken a cowboy stance and were just forcing their way in and this is the sad way we respond. The drivers are not even required to signals and the police are not to cite them. F'ing nuts IMHO.
    I used to drive double deck buses in London. Pulling out into the traffic stream from a bus layby was a nightmare with car drivers pushing to prevent you pulling out in front of them. My driving instructor gave me an unofficial tip to overcome this.
    When ready to pull out, give a trafficator signal for the passage of 5 cars. If nothing lets you out give a firm hand signal, look for the newest, most expensive car and start pulling out. Worked every time !

    Leave a comment:


  • guamainiac
    replied
    Our law here recently changed (US state law in NJ), to reflect how the concept of this law of right of way has, in the language, become so distorted and yes in my youth, I worked for the Commissioners Office of Transportation.

    "Right of way" is from the old nautical law and meant literally traffic on the right has the "right" of legal passage. If you see someone on the right, yield to them and if you are on the right proceed on and they must yield to you.

    As of late, the word "right" in a geographic sense has given way to the term "right" as in allowable or duty. With that our state became a mass of old timers sticking to written law and younger drivers creating a "right of allowable entry" based on the car who is approaching from the major road or traffic in the circle/round about. For awhile we had a scatter shot approach with our circles having some yield signs and that is what is is now. All of the circles are controlled by stop and yield signs.

    This can be terrifying as when driving with my father in his late 80's and if I point out a yield sign because he isn't slowing down, he just says "boll shizz" or poppycock and with a wave of the hand goes on through.

    Now, if you were driving a school bus and yes I did hold this license at one time, you had a "hard deck" on any rail crossings with the exception of elevated bridges. A school bus driver had to stop at any and ALL track crossings. There is no exception even if you know that the line has been abandoned.

    Of real interest is a new law here regarding buses. Any bus has the right to pull into traffic without any exception. They do not have to stop or pause to assure safe entry, the motorist is to yield to all bus traffic they are approaching.

    Now that is one wacky law that resulted from the number of collisions of cars with buses in our urban areas. The drivers had taken a cowboy stance and were just forcing their way in and this is the sad way we respond. The drivers are not even required to signals and the police are not to cite them. F'ing nuts IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    ......all of which reminds me of this sadly untrue urban legend.....

    This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

    Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
    Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
    Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
    Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
    Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
    Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

    Leave a comment:


  • UncleFire
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Basic defensive driving concept: Until the other has not effectively yielded to you, the other has right of way (especially if the other a train, or a meteorite for the matter!!!)
    I had the same concept drilled into us at a defensive driving class I had to take long ago. Oddly enough, in a jetski related forum I had a "debate" with another poster on "right of way" (on water).

    His argument was, if the rule says X, you HAVE the right of way. My argument was, that is all well and good, but until the OTHER guy yields it, you don't actually HAVE the right of way. I'd rather be wrong (give way) and avoid an accident, then to be RIGHT and get creamed by a car, boat, jetski, train or FREIGHTER b/c I legally had the ROW, but the other guy didn't yield.

    Extreme example: If a sail boat is under sail, you're supposed to give way. If that guy happens to sail into a channel on the great lakes in front of a freighter, who do you think is going to give way?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    You guys are taking this the wrong direction...

    School buses are supposed to stop...

    The drivers are supposed to look both ways to assure that no train is coming...

    Trains are supposed to sound their horns liberally as they approach crossings...

    All are excellent procedures and very simple and straight forward too, and they all "work together"...they should be fool proof.

    Yet,

    1) The existence of the procedures does not make things 100% reliable.
    2) Human factors (and imperfections) are likely involved.

    I'm kind of sorry you moved this- because those two things above are directly relevant to aviation safety (1 month "place holder" acknowledged)

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Many years ago a friend of mine was riding his motorcycle onto a roundabout. He had previously seen a car travelling very fast entering the roundabout from his left which gave my friend the legal right of way (traffic must give way to other traffic from the right on a roundabout). He was unsurprizingly bowled off of his bike when the car hit him. The driver of the car that hit him claimed that he didn't see him. (that line will be familiar to all motorcyclists !)
    So... The salient facts are....
    1. The car driver failed to give lawful right of way to the motorcyclist.
    2. The car driver failed to see the motorcyclist and hit him.
    3. The motorcyclist saw the car driver entering the roundabout at speed and could have slowed or stopped to avoid a collision but was not required by law to do so.

    The motorcyclist took out a civil suit against the car driver for damages and compensation.

    The judge awarded 25% of the damages claim (1,500 total claim) to the motorcyclist on the gounds that while the car driver broke the law the motorcyclist admitted that he identified the hazard and that he could have taken action to avoid a collision. He made great emphasis on the right of way issue.

    The car driver then counter sued for similar damages in another court hearing and was awarded 75% of those damages on the grounds that even though he failed to give legal right of way he did not see the motorcyclist and could not therefore take avoiding action which he certainly would have done to avoid damaging his car. The motorcyclist however admitted being able to take avoiding action but failed to do so.
    So, here we are with the injured party 75% out of pocket and the miscreant 75% in profit.

    Moral of this story ?
    You can shout about legal rights all you like......but you can still get legally screwed !

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    "The train has the right of way," he said.
    And say that right of way was not legally established...

    I know that people in America are hard defenders of their rights, and I applaud them.

    But is anyone willing to die to defend its right of way?

    Basic defensive driving concept: Until the other has not effectively yielded to you, the other has right of way (especially if the other a train, or a meteorite for the matter!!!)

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    It is really not an aviation safety topic so I've moved it to here but with a 1 month expiration notice of the move in the original forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    started a topic Procedural failure?

    Procedural failure?

    Off topic, but then again not_off topic...

    http://news.yahoo.com/authorities-2-...234126909.html

    Bad deal.

    I even read where the driver is supposed to consider an escape route in case of brake failure.

Working...
X