Thursday, August 30, 2012

That is nuts from the idjits we pay to make us safe..


A person I care about, recently went to his optometrist for a routine checkup.

The opto, in summary told him his eyes were fine for driving a car/light vehicle but he was borderline as to complying with the minimum for his HT.

Now either a driver can see, or cant see, enough to be safe.

Is it somehow "safer" to be killed by a driver of a Hummer than a Mack truck?

This is just bureaucratic gobbledegook, but not that surprising I guess.
They work there because no-one in the private sector could afford such stupidity.

9 comments:

Wes said...

What makes you say that? It's all about sensible management of risk. That's why we have HT licences in the first place. Do a bit of research before you regale us all with your silly opinions in future eh old fella?

gravedodger said...

@ Wes and I thought the HT licence was all about controlling a larger heavier vehicle with greatly different handling requirements and judgment criteria, hence class 4,5, and so on.

So Wes it is okay to have a lower vision standard for drivers of small trucks that much is clear.
A light vehicle driver can drive up to a 2.5 tonne truck.
Now explain to an "old fella" with a class 5 licence and emergency response training, how it is justified.
A cyclist or a pedestrian under a truck is in a very little altered state of squashed whatever the size of truck or the licence category of the freekin driver.

If a variable standard of assessed vision was applicable then a larger truck with better brakes and a vastly superior viewing platform would be safer at a lower standard of visual ability, not the other-way round.

Well that seems logical to me, make a
case to prove me wrong.
It will be of little interest to me if I am the pile of mince, why the bastard didn't see me.

Wes said...

"If a variable standard of assessed vision was applicable then a larger truck with better brakes and a vastly superior viewing platform would be safer at a lower standard of visual ability, not the other-way round."

Who says the larger truck is better at stopping? That's almost certainly false. Plus the consequences of a crash are that much greater. Simple risk management.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Wes, the modern day high powered prime mover and semi-trailer is a hell of a lot better at stopping than your average fifteen year old shit heap bomb with dubious tyres and poor brakes ,driven by your typical down at heel leftie troll.

Have you ever driven a semi? Or anything bigger than a Morris Minor?

Wes said...

The laws of physics say otherwise Adolf, but keep making shit up, it's amusing.

gravedodger said...


@ Wes 7 39, Care to give some Idea of your driving experience of heavy vehicles and/or a knowledge of the vision tests that Optometrists include in their routine assessments then relate how a lower standard of exhibited vision for lighter vehicles fits that knowledge base.
You seem to be relying on facts that don't fit my experience.
Adolf's understanding of heavy vehicle control performance as regards stopping and maintaining the best position on a road fits my knowledge and training. Simply put it is about braking efficiency , area of rubber on the road, positioning of a vehicle and weight to enhance that contact for maximum efficiency.
EG my emergency response driver training included entering all corners at 15kph over any speed advisories between ChCH and Jacksons on the West coast highway through Arthurs pass, driving a less than new fully equipped PRT. Manual transmission on the Westward leg and Auto on the return trip.

Also I know my source has extensive experience across a wide range of licence classes, he drives a loaded rig as many hours as the rules allow, I know and respect his ability, he is very puzzled.
Now if you can add anything that substantiates our collective disbelief as regards a different level of vision assessment for a HT licence then please do.

Wes said...

"Adolf's understanding of heavy vehicle control performance as regards stopping and maintaining the best position on a road fits my knowledge and training."

Just not the laws of physics. Here's a hint: weight really matters.

I've already said it's basic risk management. Driving a lighter vehicle enables an allowance for slower reaction and less likelihood of a serious consequences from a mistake (laws of physics again). Also average hours driven likely to be lower, so risk is lower. None of this is rocket science, but for some reason you're really battling.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Wes replies to the effect 'weight matters.' Well no it's not just weight that matters. It's a whole lot of other factors as well.

Did you notice he has no experience in the matters on which he pontificates? He lamely asserts some nonsense about reaction time, now that his cherry picked theoretical laws of physics have failed him.

The truth of the matter is more crashes are caused by people like Wes driving their light weight vehicles foolishly than are caused by truck drivers. If you examine the history of accidents involving trucks you will find the majority were caused by the dicks driving cars which collided with them

I think GD is onto something with this post. The theorists who administer 'the rules' seem not to understand the practicalities of the real world.

Show me one who has even sat in the cab of a semi, let alone driven one.

Wes said...

"The truth of the matter is more crashes are caused by people like Wes driving their light weight vehicles foolishly than are caused by truck drivers..."

That statement is so incredibly inane, and I note no evidence is provided to support it. On what measurement? Per vehicle or per kilometres driven, or absolute?

Even if it's true it's because HT drivers are, rightly, held to a higher standard, so in fact you just asserted that the system works.