Pick a speed, any speed...

Nope.
I'd be pleased that drivers doing that were actually doing so because they
were aware of their or their machinery limitations, or simply not in the
mood to go faster - whatever.
And I'd cope.
Just like I do now with drivers doing 50 in 80 zones, and 70 in 100 zones,
and so on.
No problem.
My argument for derestriction extends to all drivers using safe, and
appropriate speeds for conditions. Training, is where it's at.

BTW, RW, have a look at pedestrian traffic one of these days.
See anyone running along at high speed crashing into others?
See slow traffic run down and knocked over?
Check out the seemingly confusing pedestrian traffic through a busy
scramble crossing set. Bodies left lying on the road when the cars get
their turn?
Of course you don't. Drivers can and should be trained to the same level as
their performance as pedestrians.
See - it's easy.

 

Difference is there is an upper limit before pedestrian traffic goes from
walk to run, and people are too lazy to run everywhere, but if they did I
can't imagine it would decrease collisions. See plenty of people bump into
each other all the time now, big difference in results between being bumped
into & bowled over if your 50-90yo. Shouldn't skateboards & pushbikes be
legal to ride within shopping centres?

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

 

Firstly, you have no evidence for your first assertion. Do old
airline pilots get lazy? Are they retested at 5 year intervals? Are
you tested every five years in your field of expertise? Secondly,
stronger driver training has already had a measurable, and favourable
impact on our motorcycle population. There has been a steady decline
in young rider deaths since better training was instituted in Victoria
in 1997. So it has an immediate result. Once you learn to do
something properly, it's habit to do it properly.

That's exactly what I was referring to. People pass you just the
other side of that white line, and they're doing 100kph in the
opposite direction. Almost always, there's no accident! Miraculous,
considering the speed they're doing relative to you.

Do you honestly think that on your average country road anyone who
isn't already acting this dumb is going to be affected by
de-restriction one way or the other? Do you honestly think that
ANYONE you know would attempt this dumb stunt, just because the speed
limit was taken away? Gosh, the NT roads must be carnage! Proper
driver education would be more likely to show potential idiots just
how the laws of physics work, and they'd be more able to choose an
appropriate speed for the conditions.

What's this obsession with speed? How's this for a hypothetical.
Person A drives down a single lane country highway at 150kph, and
slows down for a bit on encountering slower traffic, waits for a safe
opportunity to pass, and then accelerates to 150kph again, leaving
slower traffic behind. Person B comes along same road at 130kph,
comes across slower traffic, tailgates for a moment, then overtakes on
a blind corner at double white lines, endangering themselves, the car
they're overtaking, and anyone coming the other way.

The speed travelled has nothing in itself to do with whether the
driver is being dangerous. How hard is this to understand?

Similarly you could have a three lane freeway, with cars travelling a
little slower than others in the left and middle lanes. A fast car
could drive past in the right lane @ 200kph with no danger, whilst
another could be weaving through the 2 left lanes at 100kph, and
endangering lives with each close shave. Under the current regime in
Victoria, the dangerous driver is going to be ignored, and the guy
driving safely at 200kph is booked, and licenced suspended
automatically. Speed is not the main factor in determining danger.

No, we wouldn't. Good habits are as hard to kick as bad ones.

Cheers,
Steve

 

Unforetuneatly a lap round the block and tick some multiple choice questions
will not remove all bad drivers, it will bring up the standard of a lot,
many though will just drive as normal on the way home from the test.

It was actually a dig at the 300kph speed differential quote by the previous
poster.

They book people now for DD who do 80kph in heavy fog even if it is a 100kph
zone? Maybe these people should also be immune as they are under the limit.

How do we set the "appropriate" speed for conditions on a section of road so
that drivers can know the speed to be booked at or the police can know what
level fine the speed on the radar gun puts the offender at.
Maybe one day we will have smart changing signs that reflect the limits at
different times of day & weather conditions.

Not in my job description.

Not a bad system so you only need to resit after you've clocked up enough
points. This would actually require policing to happen and some stupidity
isn't necessary fineable.

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

 

Firstly, you have no evidence for your first assertion. Do old
airline pilots get lazy? Are they retested at 5 year intervals? Are
you tested every five years in your field of expertise? Secondly,
stronger driver training has already had a measurable, and favourable
impact on our motorcycle population. There has been a steady decline
in young rider deaths since better training was instituted in Victoria
in 1997. So it has an immediate result. Once you learn to do
something properly, it's habit to do it properly.[/QUOTE]

Do you parents still display the same skills as when they got their licence,
will you be as sharp in skill when you hit 50, if not should you have your
licence taken away completely. What about the average A-B commuter who cares
about as much about driving as walking.

And people pass each other going the other way at 10kph in shopping centres
with no protective painted line and miraculously also almost always no
accident.

Well I had assumed you were refering to speed differential on freeways.

Yep, so we need no scale in your view either OK or DD, no inbetween or
levels. Guy doing driving at 80kph speeds in suburbia get's the same
treatment as the guy doing 100kph or 200kph. And getting booked is still in
the hands of the cop, the judge, and how good your lawyer is.

Imagine everyone driving at 100kph in your residential street regulary, the
speed travelled has nothing in itself to do with whether the driver is being
dangerous?

Derestricted the 100kph driver is still free to do the same unchallenged.

What about age affecting your skills.

 

Firstly, you have no evidence for your first assertion. Do old
airline pilots get lazy? Are they retested at 5 year intervals? Are
you tested every five years in your field of expertise? Secondly,
stronger driver training has already had a measurable, and favourable
impact on our motorcycle population. There has been a steady decline
in young rider deaths since better training was instituted in Victoria
in 1997. So it has an immediate result. Once you learn to do
something properly, it's habit to do it properly.[/QUOTE]

Pilots have to undertake periodical flight reviews for their licences, and
demonstrate that they have flown a certain minimum number of hours with
certain minimum numbers of take offs and landings in order for insurance to
be granted in most cases.

The view is that unused skills _do_ become rusty... and that seems to be a
more reasonable approach.


Geoff and Jodie

 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 22:02:39 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"

[snip parts from previous post I already replied to]

If the penalty system remains the same.

Which may be more dangerous than 21 over on the freeway, when in NSW
ATM you will lose your license! Good system we have now, isn't it?

[snip]

Yes, even then. If I believe I was being safe, I can take it to court,
can't I? Just as now. Only difference is that now I can't avoid a fine
*even if* what I was doing was reasonable, safe etc and I can prove it
to the satisfaction of a court of law, because I was still exceeding
the limit, full stop, end of story. Somehow I can't see how, even if I
can show what I was doing was safe, that pinching me in that situation
is productive, from a safety standpoint. In such a situation, ISTM
that I would be more inclined to do as it appears many do and simply
drive as fast as I am allowed to, regardless of whether I should be
going slower or not.

Or perhaps even "Only a warning this time - keep the speed down a bit,
this a black spot you know".

Ciril obviously has plenty of time to spend to go to court - he's
retired after all.

Surely if you are driving at the lowest risk speed for the conditions
(that's that horney old 85th %ile), you less deserving of a fine than
someone driving at a higher risk part of the curve?

[snip]

I agree that either situation is bad, but I fail to see how the speed
is particularly relevent in this situation - surely the parents of the
40 dead kids will not feel better knowing the person who killed them
wasn't speeding, but was simply a moron. As opposed to a moron who was
also speeding.

How could it, except perhaps for lower traffic density. No Pat, you
seemed to argue that was only to allow me to sleep in that I wanted
higher limits where it's appropriate, when the fact is I want them to
be appropriate.

There isn't one. So what's your rush to slow everyone down? Wouldn't
you rather take the time to smell the roses and implement a system
that has been shown to offer more improvement over a longer period? Or
are you such a control freak that you'd be uncomfortable without
strict (and strictly enforced) rules?

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

 

(st3ph3nm) wrote in

Yes, racing ones at that!

Ron

 

And the average commuter who drives city 360 days a year should be free to
drive at the same speeds as other aus.cars/aus.moto skill level drivers.

No, many top out near or just above the speed limit because they don't want
to be booked or minimise the fine if they are.

And as things

And they average mum who drives local most of the year isn't likely to speed
up just because a sign say's no speed limit, whilst others will take it as
an invitation to do as the feel safe regardless of your view.

That's staying out of it?

Well it wouldn't be dangerous driving, it would be DD1, DD2, DD3,DD4 etc
And up to the cop completely on which one he thinks you deserve and up to
you and the lawyer you can afford to prove otherwise.

What's wrong with being sold milk or petrol in "some", "a bit more", "quite
a bit", "heaps"?
Or basing all criminal charges on just "naughty", "bad" or "evil"?

Well where you have speed camera's now you will just have empty space no
magical extra cops & cars to fill them.

Of course they would have to actually encounter a cop at some stage for this
to work.

So you really want people on freeways to drive slower, sorry I thought this
whole arguement was based on wanting to the general population to drive
faster because they were less likely to crash at higher speeds.

No, I don't actually see the current limits as wrong. Maybe the cops could
spen more time policing stupidity, sure. But people speeding 15-50kph over
current limits know the risk & deserve what they get.

 

Well the government must think I am a robot and keep my speed within 3 klm.
My cruise control is good for 1 or 2 klm . To geta speeding fine for 2 3klm
over is draconian.

Slugger

 

FOR GODS SAKE IGNORE THIS THREAD AND STOP READING IT IF YOUR NOT INTERESTED,
NG NAZI.

MID POSTING RULZ

 

now you know why he is a biatch

 

You forgot to trim out aus.moto,
Now you got me doing it again.

--
Pat
Brisbane, Australia

 

hehehe :_)

 

And you CROSSPOSTED this?
[shakes head in despair]