Pick a speed, any speed...

Have the same accident at 50kph or 100kph, both just as safe I suppose.

Pat
Brisbane, Australia
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~mangey/

 

Never or just not very often, tell that to the Commodore driver on the side
of the freeway last week, probably something that stopped happening after VP
model by your logic.

Except you have a bit more braking margin at 40kph than 80kph or do golfs
pull up shorter at faster speeds too.

Pat
Brisbane, Australia
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~mangey/

 

It's just the amount of shit that can vary.

 

AlexT wrote:
....

....

Your local federal member will palm it back saying it's a
state issue, and your local state member will send you an
expensive brochure full of lies and propaganda. Mine is
next to the toilet, so visitors have something to read while
crapping.


--
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)

"...
this crazy Forg surrounds me
..."
[Live - "When Dolphins Cry"]

 

Boxer wrote:
....

....

Try having a head-on with a tree in a still-legal KE20
Corolla at 60km/h. The limit should be 20.


--
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)

"...
this crazy Forg surrounds me
..."
[Live - "When Dolphins Cry"]

 

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
....

....

I have no idea, apart from being pointlessly argumentative,
of what 80km/h in residential streets has to do with
anything. But the whole _POINT_ of the 140km/h is to REDUCE
crashes!!!


--
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)

"...
this crazy Forg surrounds me
..."
[Live - "When Dolphins Cry"]

 

When the shit hits the fan would you rather be doing 100kph or 140kph or
200kph?
Is the average 40yo delivery driver/soccer mum more likely to regain control
at 100kph or 140kph?
Should heavy trucks/caravans also be able to do 140kph to reduce crashes?

 

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 22:44:32 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"

[snip]

Must be sarcasm, given your previous posts... Me? I'd rather they paid
attention to the actual driving/riding and missed me completely,
rather than making sure they hit me at exactly 50km/h. *Of course* if
they must hit me, 50 would be better than 80, but then 20 would be
better than 50, and 5 better than 20. But that doesn't mean we should
drop all suburban speed limits to 5km/h, does it? (rhetorical). Just
as it's not true that 80 in a 50 zone is *always* nasty / dangerous /
antisocial, 50 in a 50 zone is not *always* good / safe / acceptable.

Slower is not, ipso facto, always safer, as has been pointed out a
nauseating large number of times to you and your ilk. But perhaps more
importantly, hammering away at just one aspect of road craft with zero
tollerance (in this case, "speeding"), while simultaneously almost
totally ignoring another (driver/rider training) is patently absurd
from a safety standpoint, as any driver of 2+ years experience should
know.

Don't get me wrong here - speed limits are a necessary evil, and I'm
quite glad we have them around places like schools etc, but do you
really think, after all your years of experience on the road, that the
speed you travel at is *the* most important thing you should be
concerned about; that obeying the number painted on the sign somehow
makes you safer than going that 1 "killer" over would? Don't make me
laugh - you *should* know better than that; you *do* know better than
that, as your previous posts about enforcement tollerances clearly
show. The only logical conclusions that I can reach are either: 1) you
feel the need to argue, and this is as good as anything else or 2)
you're a total hypocrit who whinges about people breaking the limit,
calls them "unsafe" blah blah, but does it himself - just not enough
to get a bluey. If you fit into 1, then fair enough, just let me know!
If you fit into 2, then perhaps you should be a politician, as you
certainly have at least one of the required skills. But either way,
I'm more than a little sick and tired of arguing with someone who
espouses the benefits of lower travelling speeds, while at the same
time proudly telling me how he continually breaks the speed limit,
just not by enough to get caught. Yep, I do it too, but I'm not
egomaniacal / stupid / argumentative enough to say it's anything less
than what it is - doing just enough to avoid being caught, pure and
simple. Would I travel faster with less enforcement? Sometimes yes,
sometimes no, but the point is, there would be no artificial cap on
how fast I go, as there is now, and I would be less concerned about
exactly how fast I was going and considerably more concerned with
making sure it was appropriate for the circumstances. If you can't see
that every road user driving/riding in such a manner would result in
safer roads, then you are a clueless knob-end and I won't bother
reading anything further you bother to type.

So, what's it to be?

Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au

 

"Rainbow Warrior"

Horses for courses - a driver @ 100km/h is more likely to be on the open
road or freeway, this imparts greater sight distance and the reduced
possibility of unseen events but cannot eliminate them.

The driver @ 50km/h on the open road becomes a hazard unless in heavy fog,
even then, but less so in a built up area. The potential for disaster
remains nonetheless, particularly at intersections and houshold driveways
where 50km/h is for the majority - too fast.

If your point is impact speed, it is guaranteed safer, to hit an object at a
slower rate of travel.

The balance in speed managment is more than reliance on numerical numbers on
a sign, it is one reason NSW are again installaing speed derestriction signs
where the onus for safe speed for the prevailing conditions is left to the
driver to decide, get it wrong and the police will action the driver.

The State of NSW does not mummy it's citizens as heavily as other
jurisdictions. We still rip you off but....

JP.

 

"Rainbow Warrior" <

Pat - I'll check and make sure, certainly with the NSW Road Users Handbook,
that advice stating the correct precedure for a tyre blowout is included.
I'll pass this suggestion on to other jurisdictions, I note most have nil
text on this exact matter.

Bunching up traffic is not conducive to safer, improved traffic flow, the
greater good here is fewer crashes through less conflict, existing speed
enforcement measures plus speed management on freeways, and to a lesser
extent intercity roads of dual carriageway and single lane category, is
often extreme and unnecessary.

NSW country road crashes happen on bends, this to me signals fatigue, sure -
if the driver falls asleep on the straight and continues straight ahead as
the road curves to the right he might survive if he impacts the tree @40km/h
than if she collides at 120km/h.

The revenge factor in relation to 'speed' by the authority is greater when
the car was full of dozy teenage males, here the action is to target all not
involved.

Why this magical support by many of 100km/h as a default or posted norm?
Why not a national 90km/h default with higher *per qualified length of road*
speed limit or derestrictions?

JP

 

First, put your coffee down.

I knew there was a reason for those numbers to have a red ring, I just
didn't realise the explaination was so simple. ;-)

<appropriate pause while those who ignored my advise look for a
sponge>

Truely - yet one also needs some of those "advanced" skills *before*
venturing out into the chaos that is our roads in order to make sure
you can miss Mr SorrymateIdidn'tseeyou. Good old Mr SMIDSY - I'm sure
our motorcycling friends know him all too well.

Crap. How many people can't ride a push-bike? Can't read? etc etc. The
skills are not so terribly difficult to learn, it's simply that no-one
(present company excepted, natch) could be bothered actually learning
them because, quite simply, they don't absolutely need to to get what
they desire (viz. a license). No, not everyone needs to have the
reflexes and skills of even the worst F1 pilot, yet I can't help
thinking that less than 10% of Sydney drivers have even 10% of such
skills, but that something approaching 95% could, if it were a
condition of getting licensed. The other 5%? Well, despite its
attrocious condition, we do *do* have public transport....

Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au

 

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 23:27:35 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"

[snip]

When nothing goes wrong, would you rather it took you 1 & 1/2 hours to
get to Canberra from Sydney, or 6 hours? Which would make you more
inclined to stop on the way to "stop, revive, survive"?

The average 40yo delivery driver/soccer mum is unlikely to regain
control at any speed above about 50km/h. Why would they bother to
learn how, when they can get a license without knowing how? What's
your point with this question - that people can't handle 140km/h? If
regaining control is how you define safe, then surely 100km/h is
unsafe for most Volvo driving soccer mums, so why do you defend it as
appropriate?

Since we have no system in place to measure the affects of new
"safety" initiatives, it's a rather moot point, don't you think? May
as well fine people for driving a white car, 'cause white cars are in
more crashes, being as there's more of 'em than any other colour. Hey,
it makes as much sense of photographing & fining a convoy of 10 cars
all doing 10%+1 over the limit for speeding, when the reality is it's
the lemming-like convoy that's the dangerous part.

Neil
---
Neil Fisher / Bob Young
Thundercords
personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
Looking for spark plug leads?
Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au

 

More likely to be doing something else than watching the speedo, do you look
at yours that often, I could have mine fail and probably only notice halfway
through the day. I've had non functioning speedo's before driven through
radar, never been booked, and don't have cars lining up behind me so I'm not
driving at or below the limit.

No reason to raise residential speed limits either.

Raising them and letting the general public decide whether 80 is appropriate
or not depending on how late they are for work isn't practical either.

No, that's why I just don't let it worry me that I'm not doing the fastest
speed I THINK I could get away with and stick close to the limits and worry
about driving instead.

Don't make me

I'm sick of people who break the speed limits often enough to get caught
then whinge they have no points left and are therefore paranoid about a 1
point infringment, I got 12 points, no worries here, if you're stupid
enought to speed excessively then you deserve what you get, you'd be the
first one screaming for a driver to be locked up if your parent got bowled
over by some idiot in a 50 zone, who couldn't stop in time because in his 3
years experience streetracing he though 80 was safe.

Yep, I do it too, but I'm not

Judging speed by your own control 70kph is fine normally but being 15
minutes late for work, a fight with the GF, or 2 beers suddenly makes the
same road safe at 80kph.

would result in safer roads, then you are a clueless knob-end and I won't
bother

Safer drivers is great but to raise speed limits tommorrow is madness, will
driver training really enable 60yo's to safely do 70 in residential streets
or 140 towing a caravan down the freeway?

 

Yep that's my point. Enticing the population to drive faster at their skill
level will just cause accidents to occur at faster speeds, and I also think
the numbe avoided by reducing time driving on the road will be compensated
by the number who will hit another car or pole because they were driving
just a few kph too fast to regain control in time preceeding an accident.

 

Can you certify someone as being uncomfortable to book them?

You're also inviting those to select their own speed depending on their
emotional/egotistical status at the time, fine if it's small numbers untill
you're the car coming the other way.

And letting the same drivers drive faster will help how?

Maybe just let them do 70kph in residential streets though.

Pat
Brisbane, Australia
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~mangey/

 

If you can do a run in 1/4 the time I could at 100kph, I suspect at 400kph
you would be taking quite a few risks, and whether I have to stop to get
fuel/coke at 3 hours in comparison so what?

So you can regain control just as well at 140kph as 100kph in an emergency?

Then let's let them drive at what ever speed they like and find out perhaps?

 

Can just imagine a 40yo fruit truck driver reaching for the handbook in the
glovebox to check as he swerves across the freeway.

Because derestrictions let's the general public use their own qualified
judgement to pick their speed. Might as well allow people the option to
drink drive if they drive slowly too.

Pat
Brisbane, Australia
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~mangey/

 

An yet without the law, society would be so well off, we can trust everyone
out there to make sound judgments as to what they do with hands, sharp
sticks, grenades and cars, with no threat of legal reprisal.

Pat
Brisbane, Australia
http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~mangey/

 

"Rainbow Warrior"

My point is people do this regardless or the speed limit or derestriction.

These are 50km/h.

 

"Rainbow Warrior" <

And the public do this to a degree with speed limits too. The problem
identified with absolute speed limits is that they can cause drivers to
drive at the speed limit when they should be going much slower at point of
operation for the prevailing road and weather conditions.



Might as well allow people the option to

Drink driving is another issue, no relevancy in comparison to speed
restriction or derestriction.

JP