The road toll is our fault

No it doesn't stand to reason. They will never release a study that
showed that, even if it was true. You will do some stupid arbritary
speed limit and you will enjoy it. Yes some roads were designed to be
travelled at 130 km/h( and yes, the F3 is a wonderful trip at that speed
at 11pm, with only courteous, professional truck drivers on it at that
time), but we will not have any of that, as some people get on these
roads with vehicles and driving skills that can't handle it, so we will
cater to the lowest common denominator, which gets dumber every year.
Please conform immediately.

Regards, Andrew.


G-S wrote:

 

What, and hurling insults when you don't have a factual reply does
consititue an argument?

Regards, Andrew.


Bernd Felsche wrote:

 

I hope you're not proposing that our freedom to drive while being sleepy be
restricted?
Selfish prick...

 

if you are falling asleep after just one hours driving no matter what
speed then you shouldn't be driving, you clearly have not had a proper rest

and if you were driving correctly you wouldn't be feeling drowsy after
one hour either, sitting and staring straight ahead is what causes this
you have to keep your eyes moving, look at things beside the road, even
if it is only a bit of rubbish(there is plenty of that thanks to the
ignorant fucks who were dragged up by ignorant fucks)

Usually takes me about 3 hours of driving before I even start to feel
the effects of fatigue but seeing as most of my trips were no longer
than 3 hours I was getting out anyway, longer trips I was stopping after
3 hours for a legal rest break anyway



Kev

 

Actually they are
lots have stated that they feel it is safer to do 130 than 100 because
they get tired at 100

I drive all day long at 100 and don't crash or fall asleep

and I doubt that doing 130 in my vehicle is going to be any safer, in
fact you can bet that if I was doing that speed most people(most on here
as well) would want me locked up



Kev

 

Just look at the width of the road up through Karanda(spell?) sharp
switchbacks and very narrow bitumen, yet semis are allower to travell
that road, I went down there in an 8 tonne truck with a 4 car trailer
and I had to cross the centre double line to get around most corners and
there here semi tippers coming up with their trailers dragging across
the centre line, and of course becuase I was only doing 40kph there were
the dumbfuck car drivers climbing all over the back of the trailer to
get past, seemed like some of them were trying to hitch a free ride they
were that close

Sounds cool, I'm heading up there later this year in my 4WD

weird isn't it
as most pollies fly to Canberra


Kev

 

Are you German too Andrew??

Kev

 

If you are that drowsey you shouldn't be driving, all an extra 20kph means
is you'll drive an extra 20km before falling asleep

I'v done many 5 to 14 hour drives, and have to stop & grab a bite & stretch
after around 4 hours, if you can't manage 2 hours, you shouldn't be driving.

 

And the alternative pushed here is to force drivers who are lower grade or
can't stay awake for 2 hours to drive/crash at 130kph

 

Yeah bump yer limits up 30kph and all this will still happen, just faster,
so that is safer?

Injuries will be less, try hitting a hammer on your head at different
velocities if you can't understand.

Think of all the accidents & near misses you've seen, and tell us a majority
would have been safer incidents at 20kph faster.

 

Maybe it's because of idiots in Falcodores doing burnouts at 2am too.

 

It remains inconsistent for authorities to claim credit for good
statistics while berating the public for bad ones. We have obviously
reached a point of diminishing returns from more stringent enforcement.
What is needed is for NSW roads, and in particular the pacific and
hume highways, to be improved to the standard that is found north and
south of the NSW border.

If you think that Melbourne and Noosa are only 2 hours up/down the
coast, you've got _no_ business berating _anyone_ about speeding.

 

Who'se forcing anyone to travel _above_ 100? On the multiple lane
divided highways suitable for such speeds, there need be no problem
with people travelling at whatever speed not exceeding 130 which suits
them provided them remain in the leftmost lane while doing so.

 

So we realise the roads aren't flash but yet still want to increase the
limit for all & sundry on them.

Hey, I wouldn't say on average QLD's roads are better than NSW.

Noosa is 2 hours up the coast and the Gold Coast is 2 hours down the coast.
Melbourne is a lot further but if you think driving faster will stop you
falling a sleep between here and there instead of taking breaks, you have no
business berating anyone about driving tired.

 

Now listen pud-puller:

Why would you snip out the salient points and then complain about
the lack of content? Only one answer: Self gratification...

Do it in private. We don't want to watch.

 

Indeed... so what is the solution that deals with both issues?

That's the hard answer


G-S

 

It isn't fatigue induced sleepiness... it's lack of stimulation induced
sleepiness.

The point is that at 100kph there isn't enough input at high enough eye
speed to avoid the problem even with ones eyes moving around, in at
least some people.

I suspect if examined one would end up with a range of responses... but
at least some people exhibit similar responses to those I've indicated.


G-S

 

No... you're missing the point... at 120 or thereabouts I can easily
drive 5 hour stretches before feeling tired, at 110 that drops to about
3 hours and at 100 to about and hour.

This is in a normal not fatigued state and assuming wide 4 lane highway
type roads... a twisty road won't have the same effect at 100 because
sufficient mental activity exists in controlling the car to avoid
'drowsiness shut down' (if I can call it that).

See above... I've driven 8000 kms in the last 6 weeks with 2 interstate
trips.

G-S

 

I didn't say it was safer for everyone... I said I was more likely to
fall asleep at 100 than at 130 (significantly more so).

I suspect that the increased risk of crashing at 130 is less than the
increased risk of crashing by falling asleep at 100... for _me_ at least.

People have different physiological responses to the same inputs... I
would expect that there would be a range of responses from one extreme
to the other (as there are in most things).

Many people no doubt are safer at 100 than 130... you by your own
comments are one of them.

The problem remains... how to avoid _both_ problems!


G-S

 

Isn't it hilarous that someone named "Felsche" would go making fun of
someone ELSE's surname!!