Pick a speed, any speed...

Default to light up the Yellow and flash the Red. If it's lights you're
talking about.

 

Oops missed the bit about it only being 110kph freewayay zones somewhere.
Which roads were proposed and by whom again?

No seen plenty doing above and below the limit too.

Gee, I wonder who beat them into submission on

The speeding ones on the Gold Coast?

We should have had a drive as fast as you bloody well like default limit,
that would have saved plenty of 20yo's.

Well take your choice of impact speeds, or when you slam into another
vehicle pretzling up a "performance safe" car by only a metre or so, just
remember that it would have been worse if you'd been doing 10kph less.

Most people just slowed down without being parnoid bout the speedo, the only
paranoid ones are those with only a couple of points left, who if incapable
of keeping within 10kph of the limit without staring at the speedo, are
probably also incapable of driving consistently to conditions on a
derrestricted road anyway.

Because I've seen too much stupid sh*t go on, there are average idiotic
people loose on the road and if you believe driving 40kph faster than them
makes you immune, you've got a big surprise coming one day. and

Actually I just started reading an article n Time about how Germany has the
second worst death count in europe, 7500 dead in only 4 years, marvelous
thing those unrestricted roads, we should aim for those sort of European
figures too.

All very nice theories to consider when some clown lane changes into you at
150kph instead of 110kph and you find yourself heading for a tree.

 

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:11:22 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"

[snip]

Huh. Increased limits on freeways, I thought.

Exactly. So speed limits help how, in this situation?

Maybe. ;-)

We did. They took it away.

WTF are you on about here, Pat?

Are you seriously suggesting that most drivers these days are not
significantly concerned with what the speed limit is and how fast they
are going in relation to it?

Pfft! Thank you for re-inforcing my view that it's not the speed in
absolute terms that matters - it's whether it's appropriate for the
conditions at the time.

Not very nice, is it? Did you check to see where these deaths occured?
IIRC, mostly in places with speed limits!

Small changes to the scenario would make 110, hell even 80, just as
fatal. So why fixate on just one aspect?

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

 

Typical of the Rainbow Worrier's drivel.... 7500 dead in 4 years;
well it's BOGUS.
http://www.destatis.de/basis/e/verk/trafttab6.htm

Germany had 7503 dead in 2000, 6977 in 2001, 6842 in 2002;
continuing down-ward trend. Injury crashes also declined from
382,949 in 2000, to 375,345 in 2001 to 362,054 in 2002.

Germany has 5 times as many cars and 4 times as many people
registered/resident in the country, as well as millions of transit
vehicles every year.

German crash statistics are very clear about where and how all
reported crashes occur; unlike Australia where such data is not
freely available. If you can gain access, you'll find such diverse
measurements and methods, the data are almost useless in trying to
make sensible decisions about road safety planning.

vis http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_transport.htm

And yes; out of over 2.2 million crashes reported in 2002, about 24
thousand were on the Autobahn. i.e. 1% of the total.

BTW: I don't even bother to download the Worrier's articles any
more. They only content they have is lies and stupid comments.
Listening to Parliament on the radio is a better use of my time.

 

If a road has been engineered to a design speed of, say, 130kph, what
makes you think that it's unsafe to be travelled at 130kph?

Similarly, if most people are travelling at ~100kph in moderate
traffic on a particular freeway, why would you think it safe to be
travelling at a speed that's different to the rest of the traffic by
more than 20kph *either way*?

IOW, it's just as dangerous to be doing 50kph in a 100 zone as it is
to be doing 150kph in a 100zone, if everyone else is doing 100. Also
true (and far more common) for 80kph/120kph.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Well unfortunately that is the figures I got from Time magazine, which would
have thought was pretty reliable, the article was mostly about France being
the worst and Germany second for death counts, so didn't sprout any other
information. Sorry if they under rated the true deathcount.

 

Roo's and other drivers.

It's not but raising the limit by another 20kph won't make those 20kph
slower drive 20kph faster and will therefore make it more dangerous.

Exactly why we should be doing 90-110kph in 100kph zones not 90-150kph,
raising limits will just increase the speed differentials making it more
dangerous.
4 lane 110kph freeways would be the only exceptions but even then you still
get clowns doing only 100kph in the rightmost lane.

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

 

Rivetting stuff... I hope Pisshead catches this...

 

You think a roo impact at 130kph is going to be *that* much different
to one at 100kph?

Actually, it would. Speed differentials are reduced when drivers can
set their own speed - that's why 85th percentile speed limits produce
lower road tolls. It means you don't have idiots in the wrong lane
driving at whatever slow speed because they think they're safe and
"right" to do so, and so you have less accidents. Also, the people
who now (like me) only adhere to 100kph on my usual freeway run
because I don't want the fine, will now travel at the speed we're
comfortable at - the design speed of the road we're on - along with
the people who are currently doing the same but have enough money not
to worry about the fines. IOW, less speed differentials. BTW, I
don't see you calling out for minimum speeds to be set on freeways so
as to reduce speed differentials.

Lane discipline will reduce accidents and therefore fatalities, more
than speed limits. See Germany, USA, etc. for figures.

Note my above sentence. THEY SHOULDNT BE THERE. The current "speed
kills" campaigns actually ENCOURAGE this dangerous behaviour, and
costs us lives.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Why would changing the speed limit make right lane hogs change their ways?

 

Yep why not? More velocity, more damage.

The 80 drivers in 100 zones are setting their own speed now, and they'll
still set it at 80 regardless of whether you're passing them at 100kph or
200kph.

It means you don't have idiots in the wrong lane

I don't see you calling for maximum speeds either.

Well why are we bothering to argue speed limits when lane discipline is the
problem? Fix it first then decide if the average driver is fit enough to
decide his own speed.

No people hogging the right lane do so because they are either off in
fairland whilst driving or jammed on bloody cruise control and have no
consideration for cars behind them, not because they are worried about cops,
only people with low points worry about them to that extent.

 

Allow me.
*Removing* the limit would remove their amateur police behaviour.
Which is what they are really at.
Besides, any responsible method employed to remove these imbeciles from the
roads would be a tad more responsible than applying the summary execution
they so richly deserve for their stupid behaviour.

 

Were we? Well, that's a little different, innit? Certainly I wouldn't
be asking for no speed limits there. But you already knew that, so I
don't know just why you are being such a dick about it - perhaps you
are feeling a little persecuted by all the anti-4WD threads?

Let me get this straight - someone who is already doing under the
speed limit will increase their speed in the same situation because
the number on the sign changed? Oh, I get it - it's the people who are
*already* breaking the speed limit. They'll still do 20km/h over the
limit, making them 20km/h faster, is that it?

Must I? ;-)
Look at the vehicles. Tell me a VT is less able to handle 130 than a
HQ!

Because the number on the sign changed, you feel safer? I dunno about
you, but I find I *see* a lot of near misses, but rarely are involved
in them.

True - but that wasn't the question. I guess you'll just ignore what
doesn't suit you instead of conceding on anything at all.

It may be. Then again it might not.

Typical - I wonder why I still bother... You've already seen Bernd's
posting of the German figures. You really think 1% of fatals is worth
the targetting of 110km/h limits?

Fine, you hit the bastard, I'd prefer to not get into the situation in
the first place. Anyway, wouldn't we be just as dead? Or would I be
more dead than you?

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, 22 Jul 2003 20:12:11 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"

[snip]

A paragon of journalistic virtue, no doubt.

Ho Kay. Do they still rabbit on about greenhouse gasses too? Another
totally discredited, yet politically correct attack on the common man.

Typical. Focus on a "shocking" number that tells you virtually nothing
about how safe or unsafe it may be. And you fell for it. Well, well,
what a surprise. But even better, you appeared to blame it on
derestriction, when the truth is that only 1% came from such roads.
The other 99% came from your beloved speed limited areas - without
checking Bernd's reference, I'd hazard a guess and say most were in
areas posted at less than 80km/h. And another guess - >50% involved
non German residents.

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

 

So with good lane discipline, you get less speed differential even
with higher speeds than currently. How? Picture 3 lanes. Currently,
you have idiot 80kph in middle lane, people slowing, ducking etc. to
get around whilst doing 100kph. In a proper situation, person doing
80kph in left lane, gets overtaken without problem by person in middle
lane doing 100 who in turn gets overtaken by person in far right doing
120+. The main difference is that person doing 120+ is two whole
lanes away from person doing 80kph, and people getting around the slow
traffic aren't forced into the way of the fastest traffic. Almost
like three seperate roads.

Set at 85th percentile, I have, and do. And some freeways should be
de-restricted.

VERY GOOD QUESTION!!!
Because it's impossible to get someone with a camera who's not
exercising "Keef left unless overtaking". Therefore, less money can
be made. Which is exactly why I say that the Vic Government is
morally corrupt - they effectively say it's okay to leave the road
toll at it's current rate (the same as the last 10 years) as long as
they rake in an extra couple hundred million each year.

This is what I'd love to see happening. It would have greater effect
on highway safety than any other measure, I believe. The laws are
there, now, too, but never enforced.

They do it also because they've swallowed the propaganda, and don't
believe that they're doing anything dangerous, as long as they're not
speeding. Besides, as I've said, I have plenty of points, but not
plenty of money. Am I safer on the road as a result. Nope.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Can't speak for other states but Vic distributes Crashstats, the
database of every road incident that police have taken a report on
since 1986. Incidents can be charted over time or overlayed on a road
map. Anytime I'm feeling overconfident is a good time to pick a
favourite stretch of road and see how many people have been taken out
on the corners.

Go here;
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne...esearch?OpenDocument&Area=[About+Road+Safety]
.... page to the bottom and accept the terms of use and it will
download. When you've chosen a town or area or stretch of road or the
whole state, choose the Ready-made Query re Motorcycle Casualty
accidents.

Of nearly 30000 incidents, trends include;
- annual reduction in incidents, injuries and fatalities until 1995,
since then an annual increase.
- favourite time of the year to get hurt is summer, favourite days are
saturday and sunday, favourite time is 3 pm - 6 pm.
- 85% of incidents occur on a dry road on a clear day.
- 71% where there was no road control (no lights, stop or give-way
signs, ie not at an intersection)
- Two-thirds of casualties aged 18 - 29
- 64% occured in a 60 km/hr zone, 21% in a 100 km / hr zone.

Note though, these are motorcycle statistics. If you want car
statistics you'll have to ask somebody who cares.

Minx
¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`
I got to run a query again!

 

Did they have any figures on cannibalism? I'd just like to know how
many people were nibbled to death in the 19th century.

Al

2003 insult page awaits your contribution
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

 

Probably not, especially if it's a loaded up diesel or Camry with a caravan.

Oh, I get it - it's the people who are

Yep, probably drive 40kph over the limit all the time if they were't worried
about having their licience chopped on the spot, derestrict them and theye
wil drive at whatever speed their hormones tell them is OK.

Tell me a VT has a 30% better chance of avoiding a roo or idiot running you
off the road?

But the number didn't change.

You have a heap of good luck, just be careful it doesn't flip on you all in
one go. Probably why you feel safer at higher speeds. You really believe no
harm can happen to you.

They probably are but seriously concerned does not make driving any more
impossible than good looking women or rain, unless you are seriously lacking
in driving skill.

True - but that wasn't the question. I guess you'll just ignore what doesn't
suit you instead of conceding on anything at all.

Is it 1% of fatals here?

Dead is dead, but at 110kph I might have a better chance of surviving than
you at 150kph presuming we both got to brake before impact unless you drive
a golf that pulls up quicker at higher speeds.

 

What about 2 lanes, a bit more common.

What if he's still in the middle lane because the derestriction sign said
nothing about keeping left.

In a proper situation, person doing

Or you just have what happens on them now slower vehicles middle lane cars
doing 100 in right lane and those going faster in the left lane.

Till it's fixed I don't see the point in just letting the current stupidity
happen at higher speeds.

Driving at 100kph isn't inherently dangerous at all until someone decides
that driving faster than you is safer, you may think 140 isn't dangerous too
but what about when some clown decides you're too slow and unsafe and
attempts to pass you at another 20-40kph.
So are people doing the 100kph limit really unsafe, and if the limit was
120kph and someone thought conditions warranted higher speeds but you
didn't, you would then be the unsafe one who should be booked.

 

URL of original article:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901020819-335961,00.html

Took Google less than a second to find the article that's almost a
year old: August 19th.

In 2000, France's 8,079 road fatalities topped the E.U. rankings
well ahead of the 7,503 in Germany, which has 33% more cars and 36%
less road space.

I wouldn't trust the Worrier to report any facts accurately. That
one is sorely lacking in reading comprehension... par for the course
in Australia.... :-(

The article continues:

President Jacques Chirac described himself as "absolutely horrified
that France's roads are the most dangerous in Europe"

Maybe he should de-restrict their motorways and reduce fatalities by
25%?

And, according to IRTAD, Greece has *far* worse crash _rates_ than
France. Even Belgium came up slightly worse than France in 2001.
Portugal is in the same league as Greece. And I'm not even
considering the Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic,
Slovak Republic, Slovenia; let alone Turkey.

So there's no reason to be _absolutely_horrified_.

The French will be French. Rationalism and conformity aren't usually
associated with France.

Regional and local roads in France can be "interesting".