photos of Camera Cops hiding behind truck @ 1 in morning

There's no 'fact' about it. It's a myth created by government
statisticians to support an unpopular taxation scheme. Period.

G

 

In aus.motorcycles on 4 Jan 2004 09:34:50 +1100

Inappropriate speed kills.

If speed per se killed, F1 would be finding new drivers for every race.

Zebee

 

You must be an Irish catholic Doherty you keep dropping your aitches

PaulH AkHbar

JL
As in our own beloved (cough) PaulH plus half of "Allah Akhbar " ("god is
great" in arabic)

 

....snip

No they haven't. In the last 10 years there has been a thousandfold increase in
fixed speed cameras and a tenfold increase in the use of mobile cameras in NSW,
and the road toll hasn't changed*

So how about you come up with some facts that support your counter intuitive
argument other than the ads you see on TV ?

JL
*Statistically insignificant wobbles of plus and minus 1%

 

And double-demerits.

 

So, by your logic, the road toll will increase if even more focus is
given to speed-testing? Interesting theory.

The ability to stop from 80kmh is greater than the ability to stop from
60kmh, simple physics. Is that 'adequate' enough for you?

Nearly all the research shows the same thing...

I see no statistics that confirm that general traffic speed
differentiation, is the cause of any significant amount of accidents.

If you knew anything, you'd know that it is a fact, that the great
majority of vehicle accidents happen at intersections.

Given that the main agenda of the anti speeding campaigns is to prevent
death and injury and not no much 'crash risk', even a simpleton can see
that running a red light/stop sign at 100kmh is going to to cause a far
greater degree of human trauma than running a red light/stop sign at
50kmh.

You seem unable to make the simple distinction between speeding as the
cause of the accident I.e. loss of control etc., and speed as the
determining factor in the human trauma caused.

The term 'Speed Kills', in relation to the majority of accidents is
undeniable.

The often dredged up waffle that speed is not a major factor in the
creation of accidents, by the anti speed restriction brigade, may or may
not be true, but it is irrelavent in relation to the real aim of
reducing human suffering.

The fact that you cannot seem to make the distinction between between
speed as primary cause of accidents, and speed as a determining factor
of relative damage, doesn't say much about your 'mental agility' either.

Kimbo

 

I thought that was Nev..? I thought Unka-Wee-Wee-Head only
threw up coffee?

-----sharks

 

Similarly, the phrase "You're a fuckin' retard" is undeniable.

G

 

I can tell by other traffic.
I can tell by relative speed of surroundings.
I can tell by engine tone. (Avalon)
And guess what El Presidente, I glance at my speedo/tacho quite
regularly, as well as glancing in all three mirrors and sideways.
If you can't do these simple things, hand in your license.

T.C. Feral

 

Does sexual frustration ring a bell Marty?

Undoubtedly, and they were doing it in the right conditions. Full marks
to Willowbank.

T.C. Feral

 

I guess you probably are, goat sex and all........

 

Umm, dont you think saying vent their frustrations is a little condescending
? They were/are having FUN.

 

I doubt that the cost of speed deterrents is impacting on anything at all.

How can increasing your stopping distance NOT be seen as an adequate
demonstration of the
relationship between driving over the limit and crash risk???

Please describe this acccident scenario to me.

You're distorting the statistics to suit your own argument here.

There are many cases where road construction has significantly reduced the
accident
rate of a given area.

This is clearly a road safety measure, so if you add the cost of road
construction into your equation when
determining the ratio of resourses given , you might find the cost of speed
targeting
may even be less than 0.9% of the total budget.

You're ignoring the facts here, apart from the billions spent on road
construction, as mentioned above, there is also the mandatory safety
regulations that are constantly evolving through ADR initiatives in the
manufacture of vehicles, campaigns to reduce driver fatigue, cameras to log
truck travel etc.

Are you really concerned about safety, or are you just a frustrated Hoon?

Kimbo

 

With startling insights like this, I expect that soon you will be able to
work out how to spell the rest of your name.

Now we know it starts with 'G', maybe the next post you can try for the
second letter, we don't want to rush things now, do we?

Kimbo

 

And no, I don't care what you believe. Hand in your license.

T.C. Feral

 

Time to get a Guzzi then.



Theo

 

Which statistics?

The ones that ignored other factors such as building new and better
roads? Factors such as increased speed limits?

Hey I have statistics provided by the Police that show increasing
compliance with speed limits; accompanied by increasing rates of
fatal crashes.

I've backed up a copy of the Police report at
http://bernd.felsche.org/SENSE/Reports/wapol2000.pdf

It's no longer available on the WA Police's Web site.

Current crash statistics are no longer being maintained by the
Office of Road Safety either. The "latest" figures are from 2000.

It's getting to look more and more like somebody's got dirty little
'secrets" to hide.

 

No need to call it theory.

See muy other posting citing the WA Police report that show the very
same happening.

It's not. The main agenda of the campaigns is to impose the
_government's_ view.

Bollocks. The probablility of being hit by cross-traffic when you're
doing 100kmh across an intersection is half that of being hit when
crossing at 50kmh. The exposure window is halved.

Another one of these "Zero Vision" arguments; eh? Some proponents of
that would have traffic speeds down to less than 20kmh because that
is the only speed at which a collision with an elderly pedestrian is
unlikely to result in serious trauma. By that metric; jogging should
be illegal.

How much human suffering are you willing to impose on everybody?

Humans have long accepted that there are varying risks associated
with different activities. Fear is something that we all experience
to some extent at times. That's an indication that there's a risk
involved. As humans, we should also be able to think ahead and
consider the consequences of our actions; the risks of those
actions.

What's acceptable in a country where people kill themselves more
often than in any other nation because their government insists on
treating all people like children, doesn't mean it's acceptable for
a nation where adults are still held responsible for their own
actions.

We don't let children drive cars except under strict supervision.

 

Interesting.
We do just that - until they 'learn' to drive.
We then abdicate that supervision, turning it over to GovCo.
Probatively the very last people on the planet who should have that
responsibility.
And don't they go to town on the poor buggers!!

 

Bernie, where is there a mention of the possibility of getting hit
mentioned in Kimbo's comment. The comment clearly states (to me anyway)
that there would be a far greater degree of human trauma should a hit
occur. That would be right wouldn't it. Why not comment on what's
written instead of blabbering away with your mantra. Anyway what's the
chance of avoiding contact at the two speeds mentioned eh.

T.C. Feral