Pick a speed, any speed...

Yes I did see that. He was travelling far too close behind a cyclist at a
speed at which he could not stop. That is not a good driving practice and
therefore a poor example to use.

So now you're making up stories about what someone on the other side of the
world would have done if the circumstances had been completely different. I
would expect that most people, given a split second decision, would attempt to
avoid the inevitable collision without thinking about the likely effects of
that action and the results of any collisions which their actions may cause.
I have seen a car avoid a certain nose-tail bumper bender by veering off the
road and knocking down a tree.

I must be doing something terribly wrong when I'm on the roads because despite
the number of cars who have pulled out of side roads in front of me, I am yet
to drive off the road and into a tree or pole, which you seem to be telling me
is the correct response for that situation.

Nev..

 

They are *meant* to drive close to protect the cyclists from other
vehicles. IIRC, a cyclist actually veered in front and caused the
fall.

Not making up stories. I'm doing my best to try to get the point
through the front of your skull.

I also didn't make up stories about the situation in Germany.
They had VERY significants reductions in the incidence of crashes
where trees were eliminated at points of conflict.

They will try to preserve their own life.

"nose-tail bumper bender" is a trivialisation. When was the last
time you looked under the plastic at the front and back of a car?
There's a minimum of $1000 damage done on each vehicle at 20kmh. At
30kmh, you could easily be looking at $5000 per vehicle. At 40kmh in
dense traffic, several cars could be write-offs with nose and tail
damage.

Already at 20kmh, there's the significant risk of neck and back injury.

I'm not telling you that that's the right response.

You obviously haven't had to make that split-second decision when
some idiot does pull out in front of you as you pass the point of no
return and there is no practical escape. The softest choice is to
hit the bugger.

The fact that trees are there eliminates escape routes which we
should have all learnt about in our initial driver training.

People don't have to hit the tree for that tree to cause a crash.
The tree can block potential escape routes.

Do you suddenly come to a screeching near-halt every time you
approach a T-junction on a major road, when you're on the continuing
road? Don't you see the potential idiots on the road who look right
through you when you're less than 50 metres away?

 

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
....

....

*sigh*

Do you really not understand?

I would rather _not_ have the shit hitting the fan, which
coresponds to the 140km/h example, than have it hitting the
fan at 100km/h.


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

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

 

My point is inviting those who do to give you less reaction time & hit
you faster is silly.

 

And are you one of these super adrenalin types who reacts faster in
emergencies at 140kph than 100kph? Reflexes so good they can make up for the
difference in braking distance, unless like some believe there is no
increase in braking distance.

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

 

I think that some people get all mixed up about driver training
nomenclature.
What some people call "advanced driver training" is what some others
would call "race training and skid control". What other people call
"advanced driver training" is what some would refer to as "defensive
driver training".

In any case, our current compulsory training methods are woefully
inadequate. We need to use both better "on road" training, as you
suggest, as well as proper crash avoidance technique training in a
controlled environment.

Things like: Have two cars travelling in seperate lanes, with the
student "following" at what they feel to be a safe distance. Have the
first car stop suddently, and see if the student can bring their car
to a halt (in their lane) before the front of their car is next to the
back (or more likely, side or front) of the car "in front". Big wake
up call for most students, I'd guess. I spoke to a young guy at work
after he got his licence and suggested he find a quiet street
somewhere and stand hard on the brakes to see how pressure it took to
lock it up. "Why?" He asked. Never occurred to him (or his "teacher"
it seems) to practice an emergency stop. Hard to threshold brake if
you don't know where the threshold is to begin with...

The list is endless. Check out young motorcycle rider deaths in
Victoria since 1997, when they introduced defencive rider courses.

Cheers,
Steve

 

So, what will set as the safe speed limit/s?

 

Actually they can. The problem here is that the 30km/h could be a problem
on certain roads and taking into account prevailing traffic densities. A
slow driver is not immune from prosecution if he or she blocks traffic
substantially, causes through human intervention a crash.

Given derestriction on suitable roads the vast majority of drivers will
drive at a speed they feel comfortable with, they'll not go out and neck
themselves because a posted speed limit sign is not in the vicinity.

God, if I thought my life expectancy DEPENDED on speed restriction signs,
I'd carry my own personal one with me at all times. Another issue is IF I
had to depend of a speed limit sign to stay alive - WHAT SPEED LIMIT SHOULD
MY PERSONAL SIGN show?

You see, you might think it's okay to do the speed limit, often it is not
and concious effort via the speedometer must be made in heavy fog to slow
right down, the speed limit here is utterly irrelevant-meaningless.
Derestriction puts the legal onus on *you* to drive safely taking all human
life into account.

Why be afraid of that? Are we so incompetent we *need* speed limit signs or
defaults-the 'absolutes'?

I know a chap who got booked for 74km/h in an 80-zone, Taree NSW - ask me
'how'? The answer is entwined above.
JP

 

Comparison would be 50km/h vs 200. OK?

Don't be rediculous - I never said that. What I suggested was that you
are saying 100km/h is fine, but most people can't regain control at
this speed anyway, so why say 140 is more dangerous because it's
harder to regain control?

How about focusing on what matters instead of what's an easy earn?

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

 

I managed to just miss the tree once...

A few years ago now...

I was in an XF Falcon and I was cruising on at a fair rate, a group of cars
ahead had a green
arrow and started moving from the intersection, as I approached the lights
were still green so I followed them
across the intersection.

The intersection broke into two lanes that go up a hill and around a park,
the left lane can peel
off to a small side street. I rapidly approached the group of cars and the
car in the right lane
was a large Ute (Hilux or other) both of us were turning right up this
hill, I was
overtaking the ute from the left lane. Mid corner, all of the sudden, as
soon as he straightened up
he inexplicably decided to veer into the left lane?!? Braking heavy,
without locking I had nowhere
to steer but over the gutter unfortunately the suspension broke on this
impact so I was heading straight
in the direction I left the road - fortunately it wasn't a large angle so I
managed to stay off the footpath
and missing three large trees by centimetres...

Lesson learnt - hit the car not the tree... If I'd hit the tree the body
damage would have been
infinitely worse, plus I pay 'cause there was no time to get his licence and
he'd just deny being
there anyway. If he hit me while inappropriately lane changing then hey I
have to argue with
insurance companies (if he is insured) but at least I got a chance...

But once that tyre hit that gutter and the suspension collapsed I had not a
chance of steering
away from any tree that "jumped" into my path...

There is some truth to the matter that yes I was going faster than the
average driver, but I would
not have slipped off on my own, the road is one very close to my home, I had
used that road hundreds
of times before without any hint of protest from the tyres at much higher
speeds than that (I was slowing as
there were cars ahead of us anyway and the two lanes become one a the top of
the hill).

I could have easily hit one of three trees on that occasion...

 

Rainbow Warrior wrote:
....

....

I +know_ you understand ... I _know_ you're just winding me
up ... but I can't help it, I have to answer!

The chances of me having to react suddenly are obviously
that much lower, that the fact that I can't react as quickly
are more than only made up for. You _know_ this, because
you've been told how in countries with higher limits the
number of crashes is reduced.


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

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

 

Sort of like oxygen?

 

Your talking big-people talk, he can't compute.

 

Making them believe that their own choice of speed is always the right one
ain't good either.

Consider the percentage of residential 50kph zones and the expence of
signing them all individually 60,50,40,30,20 and even 10kph.

We don't have zero tolerance, 10kph is fair, if somebody's driving more than
10kph over the limit regularly and doesn't realise it, then they don't have
much skill in motor vehicle control.

I don't worry, because on the slim chance I did get booked it's only $100
and I got another 11 points left.

Trouble is stick a 160kph sign there and drivers will do it rain, hail or
snow.

I don't consider 80kph safe in residential streets or 70 even, and 60 in
many of them.

No the driver will fight it in court saying he felt safe.

Only 3-4 lane freeway's I suppose, seen too many stupid things on country
roads to consider that sort of speed safe especially considering the number
of drivers who would do 130kph even though they didn't know the road.

 

The ones we have now are fine, why change them just for a minority who want
to sleep in 5 more minutes.

 

I'm not wanting 50kph limits on those sort of roads 100 is fine, 200 for
the majority of unskilled nutcases is stupid.

Because you hit things harder if you don't.

 

I've been involved in enough near misses with idiots over the years to
learn that on many of them an extra 10-20kph would have been the difference
in stopping or impacting something, would I really have prefered to have all
these accidents for the sake of saving a few hours sleep a year? Sadly some
things are only learnt by experience, I learnt a lot very quickly when I was
22 from looking at a 50y.o. lying in the middle of the road after rolling
across my bonnet, because we both did something stupid at the same time.

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

 

Not a 2am traffics not a problem.

And others will tailgate them, flash headlights etc till they do speed up or
pull over.

Well it could very well depend on them, imagine if you're fated somehow on a
country road to swerve & hit a tree in the future, consider grumbling and
sticking to the 100kph limit, hitting the anchors and impacting at a reduced
speed of 30kph, imagine the same occuring at your derestricted safer speed
of maybe 150kph or even some people would say 200kph. Unless of course you
subscribe to the if I move fast enough the roo can't hit me theory.

Unfortunately 90% of non aus.car drivers don't think that way and most never
will.

Yes.

 

"Rainbow Warrior"

OR their speedometer is reads 10km/h over, this is till withing ADR18
tolerance.

Your catching on - speed limit signs ENCOURAGE drivers to do the SPEED
LIMIT, it's called speed limit conditioning and is a deadly as fatgue and
other driver errors. This encouragement to do the speed limit,
always-almost, is partly due to not coming under notice by police or
cameras.

This is why, properly managed to the appropriate class of road, speed
derestriction works. The onus for safe speed is on the driver, this driver
can come under notice at any deemed unsafe speed, it does NOT rely on a
given speed.

In the NT police will now generally target speeds above 160km/h on clear
days and lengths of road, this speed notice might be as low as 40 or even
less, it all depends on the circumstances at point of operation and
detection.

If any driver in this environement CANNOT drive at a safe speed then he or
she WILL come under notice at some point.

What do they then do? Learn and correct their error, less it happens to
them again.

The driver IS ALWAYS responsible for the speed they so travel, the speed
limit sign tells you ONLY the maximum LEGAL speed permitted, not the safety
margin above that or below it.

Sure, I was on a 110km/h sign posted freeway, the safe however speed was
around 20km/h, which was on this occasion my chosen speed in the left lane.
Condition, a pea-souper fog, the VMS was showing 70km/h (F6) and many people
were doing just that.

A crash was set off when one vehicle rear ended another, then a chain of
assorted crashes happened. One lady rang 2GB and complained the speed limit
on the VMS was too high at 70km/h and she thought of the 'wipe by 10km/h off
in the wet add' and was doing 60km/h but still complained of running into
the lead crashed vehicles!. This is the form of speed limit conditioning I
refer.

Often enough, if you do the speed limit your an idiot! (Note for Vics).

The largest F6 fog crash involved 86 cars, (No. 3 car was a NSW Police
Inspector) in later years one involving 53 cars and NEARLY one Ampol petrol
tanker, the Wollongong resident driver had slowed down even further owing a
warning over the CB.

The Bargo Hume fog crash cost Australia over 12 million dollars, we were
very lucky here.

The speed limit signs are trouble and on these high speed roads I resent
them completely in normal, read - dry clear conditions.

A fight with the girlfriend or having two beers does not make me feel safe.
Neither warrants a defence in court to excessive speed, indeed these
mitigating factors can make the situation worse for a defendent.

Derestriction should only apply Rainbow to SOME lengths of intercity freeway
and dual carriageway's, and some high standard two-lane country 'highways',
not your typical rural U-Beaut two laners, those with narrow shoulders with
scub near or soft edges. Sight distances must be clear for derestriction
application, with Intersections clearly signed in advance.

My RTA personell have made a mild error in our Council based appliation of
same, NSW is the ONLY state to use derestriction on some pretty crappy
roads, we should be using the 'end speed limit' sign mentioned below, and
I'll ensure it eventuates for national harmonisation.

Derestriction can/or should only apply where the proposed length of road has
a run of approximately 14 kilometres minimum.

Roads not suited to speed derestriction in quality can use the new
'END-SPEED LIMIT' sign, WA, VIC, TAS, QLD, have this sign and are beginning
to use them. SA is added to this list. All states not accepting
derestriction in it's international form as reflected in the Australian
Standard, MUST remove the derestriction signs and repalce them with either a
speed limit sign or end speed limit sign.

If you see the sign "END" with a number in a circle below the word, the
speed limit applied is the rural default speed limit, (throughout Australia
this rural default will be 100km/h), BUT that the sign signals the road
ahead has, or may have, a combination of quality issues comprising soft
edges, poor camber, hidden intersections or DRIVEWAYS, alignment or
delineation.

This is a form of DERESTRICTION up to 100km/h and is ABSOLUTE recognition
that speed limit signs are NOT always appropriate speed management and
reflects my claim of 'speed limit conditioning'. Something Germany has
recognised for many years

Jeremy H. Pritchard
Motorist's Advocate NSW

 

"Rainbow Warrior"

No they are not, not always. The arrogant assumption that a proposed rasing
of limit is to enable one to get home to bed is lame duck. The reason is to
seperate and create less operating stress for those that can, and do wish to
go faster - sometimes.

Anyone individual employed by an Australian Transport Authority who wishes
to bunch up traffic through a perceived low speed limit for the application,
typically this is freeway category, and that perception is noticed by bad
driving behaviour and ill's, AND if a traffic crash resulting in trauma to a
road user - because of said behaviour, deserves to be charged in court or at
least dismissed to engineer roads in Afghanistan.

If we derestrict a road or raise the limit, be assured by experience, the
MAJORITY will adopt and do same, your quoted majority has just shifted. Why
and by what reason do I claim this? Very simple, we have raised and lowered
limits and note the change in median speeds, the majority shift, drivers
adjust their driving habits and behaviours, with greater allowances the
greater 'change', people will buy better quality items for their transport
as they can afford simply because they can see reason to do so.

Some adjust speed because that's what the sign 'tells them', these are the
sheep and are potentially deadly but are a minority and always will be so.

Clearly Pat, your point is some people need speed limits signs to tell them
how fast to drive. Politically, I'll remove their licenses for the greater
good, they'll get no mercy from me whatsoever UNLESS they can be improved,
somehow.

To create that improvement, I'll slowly improve on-road behaviour through
derestriction and higher speed limits for freeways and some intercity dual
carriageway roads, mandatory triangle, first aid kit and rear fogs. Only a
knuckle dragging ignorant dumbarse would say neigh and in transport and
certain trade and emergency groups we have such people, they will all fail
in their 'unrecognised' objective to keep us backward.

Micro reform.