i30 Owners Club
OFF TOPIC => WORLD NEWS => General => Topic started by: rustynutz on October 16, 2012, 12:06:53
-
Road safety conference presentation in Australia urged officials to end the obsession with speed enforcement.
Road safety officials had their priorities challenged as they gathered at the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management annual conference Thursday. Lex Stewart, the man responsible for road safety in the western region of New South Wales in the 1990s, presented data that suggests the industry's current obsession with speed enforcement is making roads less safe than they would otherwise be. In the past nine years, the fatality rate in NSW has stopped its long-term trend of decline and has leveled off. Over the same period, however, revenue generated from speeding tickets has increased 225 percent from $116 million to $263 million per year.
"In the 1960s we were far too lax and many drivers regarded it as a fundamental right to drive while very drunk," Stewart said. "However, in recent years has the pendulum swung too far the other way with ever-increasing 'big stick' punishments? Criminology tells us that the certainty of getting caught is a bigger deterrent than the hugeness of the punishment. Politicians choose to ignore that before elections and promise voters ever bigger punishments for all sorts of things, not only regarding road behavior. Of course, there is a role for penalties."
Stewart points out the data used to justify crackdowns on speeding are unreliable. Nearly 40 percent of incidents are labeled as "speed-related," even when the vehicle was traveling under the posted limit but in excess of what is reasonable for the given conditions. Stewart argued the typical accident report form encourages investigating police officers to designate the incident as "speed related."
"The police officer after valiantly directing traffic, working with ambulance officers to extricate bodies etc, then finally gets around to filling in the P4 Form," Stewart said. "Maybe a witness said the vehicles were in excess of the speed limit, but can they reliably tell the difference between a vehicle at 115km/h and one at 95km/h (under the 100 limit)? ...He or she looks at the mangled vehicles, the broken glass on the road, the skid marks etc, and wearily ticks the box 'Yes' to speeding. Thus, fundamental data on speeding is not accurate at its source, and I mean no criticism of police in saying that."
Stewart argued the effect of the enforcement mentality has been to force drivers to spend more time looking at their speedometer than looking at the road. Thanks to speed cameras, good drivers with long, accident-free histories often find themselves in danger of losing their drivers' licenses. Stewart argued the point system should be entirely replaced with a system where drivers start with 100 "merit points" and points are taken away based on scientific evidence of how dangerous the activity is, as measured by road trauma figures.
"Police be encouraged to have more frequent interactions with motorists to give cautions which have no dollar penalty but cost the motorist only one point," Stewart wrote. "Police can have more of an educational/warning role, and less (not zero) of a purely punitive role."
Stewart would also replace nearly all speed cameras with police officers.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3923.asp
-
These high profile statements are interesting but usually don't result in a back flip :disapp: Too much money has been invested in the cameras :fum:
-
... based on scientific evidence of how dangerous the activity is, as measured by road trauma figures.
Amen. That's a good article - too easy to just say "his driving was rubbish"
-
Finally. I stay inside the posted limits myself (I hate being in a hurry), but it takes a lot more than one number being smaller than another number to be safe on the road, Eg. thinking ahead, paying attention, sharing the road...
-
Stewart points out the data used to justify crackdowns on speeding are unreliable................
.................."Maybe a witness said the vehicles were in excess of the speed limit, but can they reliably tell the difference between a vehicle at 115km/h and one at 95km/h (under the 100 limit)? ...He or she looks at the mangled vehicles, the broken glass on the road, the skid marks etc, and wearily ticks the box 'Yes' to speeding. Thus, fundamental data on speeding is not accurate at its source, and I mean no criticism of police in saying that."
Ok so should ALL private cars be fitted with a "Black Box" so it records data such as speed so in an incident, whatever that may be, the data is readily available to the authority.
Similar to the tacho in HGV's
-
Finally. I stay inside the posted limits myself (I hate being in a hurry), but it takes a lot more than one number being smaller than another number to be safe on the road, Eg. thinking ahead, paying attention, sharing the road...
:goodjob: You make a very good point :hatoff:
-
Ok so should ALL private cars be fitted with a "Black Box" so it records data such as speed so in an incident, whatever that may be, the data is readily available to the authority.
Similar to the tacho in HGV's
They already are, G forces, speed, braking and braking distance, are all presently recorded and (used for prosecution in the US of A.):exclaim:
-
You can't get away from the fact that the harder you hit something the more it hurts.
-
Just one thing about the "speed kills" bullshit: if it was true, Germany would be one VERY empty place...
The problem here is lack of driver education. Having obtained my licence in Europe, it was, and still is astonishing for me that anyone with a full licence can go and "teach" someone to drive, err steer the car. THAT is the biggest problem in Oz. Top that with driving "instructors" admitting openly that they only teach the student to pass the test on the known circuit and we have the disaster currently on the roads.
Everything else derives from these two facts of aussie motoring life.
While Dave is quite right about the the harder an object is hit, the bigger the hurt, an educated driver would have the foundation to realise that even the low speed limits we have may be too much for the given condition, or on the other hand a perfectly maintained dual line each way road with no junctions could be travelled 20 to 30 km over the posted limit in ideal weather is safe to do, except for the strategically placed speed cameras... The list goes on.
Another claim for the bullshit list is the stopping distances. The ads with "extra 5 kmh causes this and that". So many factors influence breaking distances with modern cars that generalising like they do is simply idiocy. A Lambo will stop much quicker compared to a Corolla from the same speed. If you have your car full with people, will take longer to stop again...
Oh well, feel better now to get this off my chest :happydance:
Anyway, good to see that someone other than Skaife is starting to push another barrow, in the right direction. If only they would do something about driver education...
-
I totally agree about driver eduaction. It should start in the schools, as I have said before, and never stop.
One issue I have with raising speed limits though is that we still have lots of old cars on the road and we still have the same, uneducated drivers on the roads.
Some people are capable of driving faster than others. I was taught to drive rapidly and safely, as others have been. Most haven't.
And as it is, as a nation we can't even merge properly. We can't even negotiate roundabouts properly. It is amazing to watch. I reckon that 95% of drivers do not know how to use a roundabout properly and do not know how to merge.
Watch how cars "trickle" on to the freeway at 80 km/h (speed limit 100 km/h), no indication, no checking mirrors. It is not the exception, it is the norm and never ceases to amaze me. They don't even look!
Same with roundabouts. 95% of drivers don't even indicate exits!
So well before any contemplation of raising speed limits, we must educate our drivers to cope and at present we are light years away from doing that.
To raise our speed limits without this would be an absolute disaster.
Australian drivers are some of the worst, most aggressive drivers in the world and I don't think it is about to change and it certainly won't change by merely raising a few speed limits.
Doing that would place more people in danger at the present point in time.
-
Absolutely agree with db08.
And German Autobahn standards of construction are not to be found anywhere in Australia.
I also doubt they have anything like the sub standard mechanical condition of our cars, nor the age of them.
-
While I agree to a certain extent with you, Dave, what does the age of the car have to do with it?
Cars have been capable of doing speeds way in excess of our current speed limits for a very long time and have been able to do them safely. What's really changed is that they are now supposedly safer in an accident.
Upping the speed limit doesn't mean that you HAVE to do that speed....
Research done in the US, I think has shown that the majority of drivers will only drive at a speed that they feel safe doing regardless of the actual posted limit.....
I've made mention elsewhere on this forum, our safetycrats don't even want drivers to learn advanced driving skills as they believe drivers will then be overconfident and so drive faster.... :rolleyes:
-
While I agree to a certain extent with you, Dave, what does the age of the car have to do with it?
Cars have been capable of doing speeds way in excess of our current speed limits for a very long time and have been able to do them safely. What's really changed is that they are now supposedly safer in an accident.
Upping the speed limit doesn't mean that you HAVE to do that speed....
Research done in the US, I think has shown that the majority of drivers will only drive at a speed that they feel safe doing regardless of the actual posted limit.....
I've made mention elsewhere on this forum, our safetycrats don't even want drivers to learn advanced driving skills as they believe drivers will then be overconfident and so drive faster.... :rolleyes:
Newer cars are inherently safer. I'd rather do 120 km/h in a new Commodore than in a 1981 Toyota Corona, regardless of whether it is capable or not. Dynamically, newer cars are safer.
As for not having to do a posted speed limit, I take your point Rusty, but in Australia we know that most people travel at up to 10 km/h faster than the posted speed limit as a norm. If the speed limit is 90 km/h, the majority of cars will do 91-100, a few will do less and a few will do more.
I agree with your last comment. More basic and advanced driver education is the key and the attitude that it will make our roads less safe is ludicrous IMO.
The caveat to that, is probably males in the 17 to 21 age bracket where it may have that effect, but that is where penalties and policing come into it.
-
Just one thing about the "speed kills" bullshit: if it was true, Germany would be one VERY empty place...
The problem here is lack of driver education. Having obtained my licence in Europe, it was, and still is astonishing for me that anyone with a full licence can go and "teach" someone to drive, err steer the car. THAT is the biggest problem in Oz. Top that with driving "instructors" admitting openly that they only teach the student to pass the test on the known circuit and we have the disaster currently on the roads.
Everything else derives from these two facts of aussie motoring life.
While Dave is quite right about the the harder an object is hit, the bigger the hurt, an educated driver would have the foundation to realise that even the low speed limits we have may be too much for the given condition, or on the other hand a perfectly maintained dual line each way road with no junctions could be travelled 20 to 30 km over the posted limit in ideal weather is safe to do, except for the strategically placed speed cameras... The list goes on.
Another claim for the bullshit list is the stopping distances. The ads with "extra 5 kmh causes this and that". So many factors influence breaking distances with modern cars that generalising like they do is simply idiocy. A Lambo will stop much quicker compared to a Corolla from the same speed. If you have your car full with people, will take longer to stop again...
Oh well, feel better now to get this off my chest :happydance:
Anyway, good to see that someone other than Skaife is starting to push another barrow, in the right direction. If only they would do something about driver education...
Totally agree - Some of the Learners here and P platers have no idea how to drive.....ALso I have been surprised how a lot of people coming from overseas (generally from less developed countries) can get license in australia so quick just by having License in the country they came from!
I Remember when I arrived in Australia back in 2002 (I was only 12) and my mum did not have to give ANY KIND of driving test. She just walked into the Transport department showed her license and immediately received the Australian License. For the first year or so she drove on the wrong side of the road (coming from Europe) in more than one occasion.
And as you said - You get instructors getting paid a BIG some of money to let their students 'pass' on the first go!
European countries such as Germany are actually increasing speed limits and have found the there are LESS accidents on the roads.
Not to mention the drivers that drive on the RIGHT lane of the road doing 70km on an 80km zone when there is clearly signs saying KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING. A lot of truck drivers are beginning to do that now, driving next to each other below the limit blocking 2 or sometimes 3 lanes.
In Australia traffic does not 'flow' for those many reasons. Frustration kicks in and the system has found out a way to exploit them (Speed cameras etc). They are not designed for our safety at all.
Australia is again years behind in any real innovation on our transportation system.
It is all about money making.....
-
Not to mention the drivers that drive on the RIGHT lane of the road doing 70km on an 80km zone when there is clearly signs saying KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING. A lot of truck drivers are beginning to do that now, driving next to each other below the limit blocking 2 or sometimes 3 lanes.
:whsaid:
Remember though, if the speed limit is 80km/h or less, and there ISN'T a sign saying KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING, then you can drive in any lane.
In Tassie, I think that for most cars, indicators are an optional extra, and Tasmanians didn't take the option. Nor do they understand the concept of "merging".
-
In Tassie, I think that for most cars, indicators are an optional extra, and Tasmanians didn't take the option. Nor do they understand the concept of "merging".
:Pout: Gee that is a bit harsh Jamie... Even if it is true :whistler: :snigger:
-
In Tassie, I think that for most cars, indicators are an optional extra, and Tasmanians didn't take the option. Nor do they understand the concept of "merging".
:Pout: Gee that is a bit harsh Jamie... Even if it is true :whistler: :snigger:
I said "most", that excludes i30, i30cw, Terracan and Camry Hybrid drivers who frequent the best car forum on the net. :cool:
-
:sweating: I thought you had seen me driving :-[
-
I'm no civil engineer, but I am vaguely aware that there are many different methods of picking speed limits for roads. One that I've read about that seems to have a lot of good science behind it, is something called "rational speed limits" or 85th-percentile speed.
It's an evidence-based approach which uses observed behaviour and speeds on a piece of road which is actually in use. Analytical/modeling approaches are prone to giving answers that engineers wanted in the first place (garbage in, garbage out)...
So the traffic is monitored along a segment of road, and the 85th percentile (that is, the speed which 85% of cars did not exceed) becomes the new speed limit (there might be more to it perhaps, I can't recall). The assumption is that by picking a speed that most drivers are comfortable with, traffic will flow better and be more safe because the variance in speeds is reduced (less overtaking, lane changing, erratic behaviour, etc).
-
Newer cars are inherently safer. I'd rather do 120 km/h in a new Commodore than in a 1981 Toyota Corona, regardless of whether it is capable or not. Dynamically, newer cars are safer.
Geez, Dave...a 1981 Corona? That's not old, that's ancient, I was thinking maybe a 10 year old car, not a 30 year old sh*t heap.... :eek:
As for not having to do a posted speed limit, I take your point Rusty, but in Australia we know that most people travel at up to 10 km/h faster than the posted speed limit as a norm. If the speed limit is 90 km/h, the majority of cars will do 91-100, a few will do less and a few will do more.
Actually, once upon a time I would've agreed with you but on my recent road trip I noticed the vast majority of drivers drove at or slightly below the posted limits....except of course through roadworks, where I was the only one that seemed to slow anywhere near the speed limit... :lol:
-
I'm no civil engineer, but I am vaguely aware that there are many different methods of picking speed limits for roads. One that I've read about that seems to have a lot of good science behind it, is something called "rational speed limits" or 85th-percentile speed.
It's an evidence-based approach which uses observed behaviour and speeds on a piece of road which is actually in use. Analytical/modeling approaches are prone to giving answers that engineers wanted in the first place (garbage in, garbage out)...
So the traffic is monitored along a segment of road, and the 85th percentile (that is, the speed which 85% of cars did not exceed) becomes the new speed limit (there might be more to it perhaps, I can't recall). The assumption is that by picking a speed that most drivers are comfortable with, traffic will flow better and be more safe because the variance in speeds is reduced (less overtaking, lane changing, erratic behaviour, etc).
Our Safetycrats know all about this 85th Percentile but choose to ignore it when setting our speed limits.....
I guess there's less money to be made by setting speeds using that method.... :whistler:
-
Actually, once upon a time I would've agreed with you but on my recent road trip I noticed the vast majority of drivers drove at or slightly below the posted limits....except of course through roadworks, where I was the only one that seemed to slow anywhere near the speed limit... :lol:
Gee, speed cameras must be working then. :P ;)
-
They must be, but funnily enough drivers are still being killed...... :whistler:
-
You're over-estimating the state governments. I'm pretty sure they could figure out a way to make a loss operating speed cameras... :)
-
That was in response to what? :undecided:
-
People automatically assume speed cameras turn a massive profit for the government. I've yet to see any numbers on this.
-
People automatically assume speed cameras turn a massive profit for the government. I've yet to see any numbers on this.
In the Perth media (Tv and radio) they often quote figures generated by speed cameras. Usually in the millions. Keep your ears peeled and you may catch that bit of info too ;)
The ONLY time a speed camera is not a currency printer is when its presence is clearly posted before the device. Bit like police presence on the roads. Nobody speeds around a marked police car.
-
Not sure about the budget in Canberra but here in Victoria the Government has budgeted for $662.5 million in total fines, including $306 million from road-safety cameras, in 2012-13.
I'd say that was a massive profit.... :whistler:
-
As previously stated, all revenue from speed cameras in W.A. goes straight into road safety, not consolidated revenue.
We will soon have point-to-point cameras to contend with too which average your speed over set distances. That'll be fun. :rolleyes:
-
Regardless of where the revenue ends up, it's still a massive profit!
-
Revenue numbers are huge, yes, but revenue is not profit. I guess the number is so huge that I should be disgusted regardless of whether or not it turns an actual profit after all elements are considered (consulting fees, engineering, installation, maintenance, operations, incompetent negotiation of contracts, incompetent administration of contractors, administration of fines, administration of the administration of fines) etc.
But that still doesn't excuse the utter depths of lazy, disposable reporting in which more time is spent thinking of a headline than on actual research. If they can't be bothered telling me how much actual profit it makes for the government, then I'm not going to be bothered getting angry about it.
-
speeder = cash cow
-
People automatically assume speed cameras turn a massive profit for the government. I've yet to see any numbers on this.
In the Perth media (Tv and radio) they often quote figures generated by speed cameras. Usually in the millions. Keep your ears peeled and you may catch that bit of info too ;)
The ONLY time a speed camera is not a currency printer is when its presence is clearly posted before the device. Bit like police presence on the roads. Nobody speeds around a marked police car.
I'd disagree with that. The fixed speed cameras in NSW (and now Qld) all boast three separate signs advising of their existence (2 in Qld).
Yet the revenue when quoted by camera, as is done periodically, is massive.
Where fixed speed cameras are concerned, if a driver, especially one who uses a road regularly, isn't paying attention enough to see three warning signs AND the camera mechanism, then he/she deserves to be fined.
If they aren't aware of where they are on the road and what's on the footpath, they have no hope of seeing a potential accident situation.
Go here
http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/about/corporate/statistics/ (http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/about/corporate/statistics/)
and open this line
Top 20 locations for fixed digital speed camera notices in financial year 2010–11 by offence date
-
They can put them every 100 metres for all I care, never been caught yet, leave early & allow enough time, observe speed limits, simple. :neutral:
-
They can put them every 100 metres for all I care, never been caught yet, leave early & allow enough time, observe speed limits, simple. :neutral:
I do try really hard to not go over the limit but always worry when overtaking as if you pass someone who is driving erratically at say 90 to 100 kph in a 110 kph section it is hard to stay under 110kph and still get around safely :sweating:
-
I'm not sure on the road rules, need an expert here but I thought overtaking was a different situation allowing for excess speed for a limited distance. Here in SA in an attempt to make driving safe,r we have overtaking lanes on many inclines which stops all but morons from needing to make unnecessary overtaking manoeuvres. :neutral:
-
I'm not sure on the road rules, need an expert here but I thought overtaking was a different situation allowing for excess speed for a limited distance. Here in SA in an attempt to make driving safe,r we have overtaking lanes on many inclines which stops all but morons from needing to make unnecessary overtaking manoeuvres. :neutral:
:evil: are you calling me a Moron Phil :snigger: We have quite a few passing lanes down here too Phil but there are also quite a few long straight bits of road where it is safe to pass but only one lane in each direction.
After doing over 7000kms on Mainland roads just this year I reckon our roads compare quite favourably :razz:
-
This is topical.
Today's SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fixed-speed-cameras-save-lives-report-reveals-20120717-228j3.html (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fixed-speed-cameras-save-lives-report-reveals-20120717-228j3.html)
-
:evil: are you calling me a Moron Phil :snigger: We have quite a few passing lanes down here too Phil but there are also quite a few long straight bits of road where it is safe to pass but only one lane in each direction.
After doing over 7000kms on Mainland roads just this year I reckon our roads compare quite favourably :razz:
That would depend entirely on whether you overtook me, dangerously. :mrgreen:
Of course, we have single lane highways without passing lanes where the ground is flat, naturally safe overtaking is permitted.
I recall on our last trip the Gps recorded in excess of the speed limit :mrgreen: and that was overtaking a semi trailer with an additional trailer as well (road train), He was 100k speed limited & we passed with ease, the little diesel felt like it had rockets on it. Love that motor, still got 5.5 l/100 on that trip. :goodjob2:
-
@surferdude: I'm pretty sure you agree with me , let me rephrase it: a speed camera is a cashcow if it is hidden. If it is signposted, it is a safety device. Those blind drivers who don't notice the signs and the cameras, get exactly what they deserve! Hidden cameras will not slow you down, especially if you are unaware of their existence for some 6 weeks when your fine finally hits your letterbox.
I'm not sure on the road rules, need an expert here but I thought overtaking was a different situation allowing for excess speed for a limited distance. Here in SA in an attempt to make driving safe,r we have overtaking lanes on many inclines which stops all but morons from needing to make unnecessary overtaking manoeuvres.
In WA at least, you break the rules just the same if you exceed the speed limit while overtaking. It is a different matter that the boys in blue may be more easy going and let you off with a warning.
Don't know about other states but over here it's almost a certainty that if you catch up with a slow going (10-20 km slower than the limit) convoy on a highway, at the next overtaking line the entire convoy speeds up to posted limit and above, INCLUDING the driver holding up the que. Just to slow down again as soon as the passing line ends. Forcing people to either keep following, increasing their frustration and potential for fatigue, or overtake illegally and get on with their trip at the posted limit.
No surprise really that roadrage incidents are on the increase.
-
I'm not sure on the road rules, need an expert here but I thought overtaking was a different situation allowing for excess speed for a limited distance. Here in SA in an attempt to make driving safe,r we have overtaking lanes on many inclines which stops all but morons from needing to make unnecessary overtaking manoeuvres.
In WA at least, you break the rules just the same if you exceed the speed limit while overtaking. It is a different matter that the boys in blue may be more easy going and let you off with a warning.
Don't know about other states but over here it's almost a certainty that if you catch up with a slow going (10-20 km slower than the limit) convoy on a highway, at the next overtaking line the entire convoy speeds up to posted limit and above, INCLUDING the driver holding up the que. Just to slow down again as soon as the passing line ends. Forcing people to either keep following, increasing their frustration and potential for fatigue, or overtake illegally and get on with their trip at the posted limit.
No surprise really that roadrage incidents are on the increase.
[/quote]
Thanks for the clarification db08
and your example is a demonstration of the moron mentality that exists here, these are the morons I was referring to, no you Dazz :snigger:
-
Hi Hati.. that last Paragraph rings true down here too.. We have the added issue of P platers limited to 80Kph which often causes long ques on the single lane highways (accident waiting to happen) :fum:
Phil, wasn't it Hati that said that? :confused:
-
LOL, it can get interesting when people post while you write your own...
-
I'm not sure on the road rules, need an expert here but I thought overtaking was a different situation allowing for excess speed for a limited distance. Here in SA in an attempt to make driving safe,r we have overtaking lanes on many inclines which stops all but morons from needing to make unnecessary overtaking manoeuvres. :neutral:
:evil: are you calling me a Moron Phil :snigger: We have quite a few passing lanes down here too Phil but there are also quite a few long straight bits of road where it is safe to pass but only one lane in each direction.
After doing over 7000kms on Mainland roads just this year I reckon our roads compare quite favourably :razz:
No, you did according to me :exclaim:
-
I'm not sure on the road rules, need an expert here but I thought overtaking was a different situation allowing for excess speed for a limited distance. Here in SA in an attempt to make driving safe,r we have overtaking lanes on many inclines which stops all but morons from needing to make unnecessary overtaking manoeuvres. :neutral:
You're not allowed to exceed the speed limit under any circumstances, Phil......
-
:rofl: I've been thanked and I didn't even say anything. :confused:
But what Hati said is correct - same speed limit applies when overtaking. And re overtaking lanes, I see that frequently - the front car speeds up and holds everyone up again.
Just another example of poor driving behaviour.
Speed camera locations are advertised prior to camera placement for those drivers interested enough to check and of course, the fixed cameras are well-advertised and well-known.
Combined speed/red light cameras have certainly changed driver behaviour in the short time they have been there. You don't see as many cars speeding through intersections as you used to.
My main beef with speed cameras is the low tolerance set (as opposed to being pinged by a police officer) and also the placement of some of them is suspect to me.
However, they are a fact of life and I still remember the public uproar when the first mobile radars were introduced here but no one talks about them anymore. :)
-
Don't know about other states but over here it's almost a certainty that if you catch up with a slow going (10-20 km slower than the limit) convoy on a highway, at the next overtaking line the entire convoy speeds up to posted limit and above, INCLUDING the driver holding up the que. Just to slow down again as soon as the passing line ends. Forcing people to either keep following, increasing their frustration and potential for fatigue, or overtake illegally and get on with their trip at the posted limit.
No surprise really that roadrage incidents are on the increase.
THAT happens in every State I've driven in.
One of the most inconsiderate and dangerous practices on the road IMO.
-
:whsaid:
-
OK Apologies to Hati. Thanks to Hati for the clarification.
Remaining thanks to db08 because he would have cleared that up anyway. Not sure who I called a moron, they know who they are.
I'm thoroughly confused now.
-
:lol: You & me both. :goodjob2:
-
Just one thing about the "speed kills" bullshit: if it was true, Germany would be one VERY empty place...
Germany has as many accidents involving speed as other countries. Two lane autobahns without a hard shoulder are not conducive to the safest driving at high speeds as the introduction of limits indicates. The recommended limit on "unrestricted" autobahns is 130 kph and those stretches are becoming less and less.
A Lambo will stop much quicker compared to a Corolla from the same speed. If you have your car full with people, will take longer to stop again...
Does a Lambo defy the laws of physics? But the second bit is true
European countries such as Germany are actually increasing speed limits and have found the there are LESS accidents on the roads.
It would be interesting to know where this is happening. . As a regular driver in parts of Europe it is apparent that most authorities are reducing speeds by various means such as roundabouts, chicanes as well as lower limits.
The German police use long distance lenses on speed cameras to detect speeders at very long distances. France reduces the 130 kph limit to 110 when it is raining and is introducing more speed cameras both hidden and fixed. Cameras in rubbish bins, peeking through the boot lid of unmarked cars and built into motorway barriers are just some methods used.
-
I dunno about Europe but America is upping speed limits.....
http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/why-speed-limits-are-rising.aspx (http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/why-speed-limits-are-rising.aspx)
-
About speed, all I know is that on freeways etc where all traffic is at the same relative speed to each other, it's a very efficient way to get from A to B.
The problem is that when something goes wrong, the laws of physics take over and every bit of kinetic energy in the vehicle, including the occupants, has to be dissipated somewhere, somehow. Cars are designed to sacrifice themselves by crumpling and have many built in safety devices, but there are limits to this. Hitting a solid object doesn't allow enough time and usually strawberry jam is the result, so I'm afraid I'm a firm believer that speed does kill. :(
-
About speed, all I know is that on freeways etc where all traffic is at the same relative speed to each other, it's a very efficient way to get from A to B.
The problem is that when something goes wrong, the laws of physics take over and every bit of kinetic energy in the vehicle, including the occupants, has to be dissipated somewhere, somehow. Cars are designed to sacrifice themselves by crumpling and have many built in safety devices, but there are limits to this. Hitting a solid object doesn't allow enough time and usually strawberry jam is the result, so I'm afraid I'm a firm believer that speed does kill. :(
You make some good points as usual Phil.. :goodjob:... But you have probably put me off Strawberry Jam for a while :P
-
Brekky time too :mrgreen:
-
Brekky time too :mrgreen:
I was about to have toast but diverted to the cereals :whistler:
-
Sorry :fum:
-
Sorry :fum:
No probs I don't have Strawberry Jam very often .. More a Peanut Butter, Honey and Homemade Marmalade man :goodjob:
-
I'm off to make pancakes for the kids, I'll have one, with strawberry jam, I think. :mrgreen:
-
I'm off to make pancakes for the kids, I'll have one, with strawberry jam, I think. :mrgreen:
:P
-
It's not the speed that kills, it's the inability to handle speed that does (or drive to the conditions). Nobody has ever died from speeding, deceleration sickness kills them all!!
-
Germany has as many accidents involving speed as other countries. Two lane autobahns without a hard shoulder are not conducive to the safest driving at high speeds as the introduction of limits indicates. The recommended limit on "unrestricted" autobahns is 130 kph and those stretches are becoming less and less.
Missing the point... Germany is one of the few countries left with ANY unrestricted roads. If the "speed kills" rubbish would be true, they would have much higher rates of accidents involving speed, proportionate to the number of cars on the roads. While they had small numbers of "blow ins" their rates were lower despite the speeds. Statistics were ruined by migrants who did not receive the same training as well as not being able to afford newer and therefore safer (to travel at high speeds) cars.
The other point that you are missing is reducing speeds proves one thing: the lowest common denominator they set the rules to is getting lower. That's why they decrease speed limits. The roads didn't get any less safe, people using it are dumber/not trained as well/using older cars etc etc, take your pick.
Does a Lambo defy the laws of physics? But the second bit is true
No, it does not but it has VASTLY SUPERIOR brakes compared to a Corolla. Because of that it stops quicker from the same speed. Which is exactly my point. Not all cars are equal as far as brakes are concerned, hence generalising the way they do in our "deterrent" ads is idiotic.
-
I agree (with Phil) which brings me back to my point - the harder you hit more it hurts.
-
C'mon Phil, you know speed doesn't kill, it's only the sudden stop that does the damage! :whistler:
Which brings me to the question of, why do our idiot road authorities go out of their way to place obstacles alongside our roads for drivers to crash in to?
Obviously there's not much that can be done with some but why plant trees in the median section of divided roads and alongside our highways and then erect "dangerous" wire rope barriers to supposedly stop us from crashing in to them?
-
I agree - I think there are a lot of environmental changes that could be made to reduce the risk of injury and death.
-
C'mon Phil, you know speed doesn't kill, it's only the sudden stop that does the damage! :whistler:
Which brings me to the question of, why do our idiot road authorities go out of their way to place obstacles alongside our roads for drivers to crash in to?
Obviously there's not much that can be done with some but why plant trees in the median section of divided roads and alongside our highways and then erect "dangerous" wire rope barriers to supposedly stop us from crashing in to them?
I lost a schoolmate to a median strip tree he will always be in his 20's now.
There has been some comment above about higher speeds not being dangerous, slightly opposing my view.
If I can have a foot in both camps I would like to acknowledge that the vehicle development that companies like Mercedes Benz it their E class is very encouraging. A lot of devices we have today, although still optional on some other brands, stem from initial development at MB. Anti lock brakes and ESP just to name a couple. There is no doubt in my mind that European car makers have contributed enormously to the ability of cars to travel safely at high speed. Coupled with better roads and skilled drivers it is possible to move a lot of people efficiently on the roads and I don't necessarily disagree with the statements above.
The point I was making was that WHEN you're in any accident, you wish you weren't going so fast. The laws of physics are rigid and unemotional, they don't care who they hurt. :neutral:
-
Phil,
I couldn't agree with you more. I think we are saying the same thing, except in a slightly different way. You can never change the laws of physics. When you crash at speed, the energy has to go somewhere, the faster you go, the more energy there is to disperse. That is one of the reasons that modern race cars (from F1, NASCAR, V8 Supercars, etc) are designed to break apart during an accident, it takes the energy away from the meat (person) in the car. The race cars have things on the sides of the track to catch these parts (fences, crash barriers, etc) which are not practical for the normal road. In normal cars (although modern cars are much better at absorbing SOME of the energy) a fair proportion of the energy is take up by the human inside.
Everybody should drive at a speed that takes into considerations things such as braking distance, obstacles, etc. In reality we are all assessing and analysing the risk of driving, every time we get in a car. We subconsciously consider our actions, the possible outcomes, the likelihood of those outcomes, and therefore the level of risk we are willing to take. We also consider the exposure time to those risks as well. We then place mitigators on those risks (eg. it is raining, so I will drive slower) to ensure that the benefits outweigh the costs. If we didn't take any risks, then in reality, we wouldn't even get in a car.
Travelling at a higher speed than we previously did is becoming safer (not totally safe) due to improvements in car and road technology. Driver training still has a long way to go IMO. Therefore, I will still travel at a speed that reduces the risk to myself and other road users.
As for fixed speed cameras, I thought that only idiots got pinged at them, until I got caught by them, twice, at the same bloody one!! Was I speeding? Yes (57 in a 50 zone, both times). Both times I realised as I went through it. People told me that it was in a bad place (the speed limit is 60 just after the speed camera), but still the speed limit at that place was 50, and I broke the posted speed limit.
I also remember years ago in an Open Road magazine that people were taking their speeding fines to court. For example, they were booked at 72 in a 60 zone. They told the magistrate that they weren't going that fast, they were only going 66. I think the words from the prosecuting officer and the magistrate were, "Well then, that is an admission of guilt. Please pay the fine and the court costs."
FatBoy
-
Great post fatboy.
I should clarify my stance in favour of speed cameras. As long as there are speed limits they should be enforced as much as necessary.
Whether the existing speed limits are correct or should be raised is a moot point IMO UNTIL the majority of drivers are capable of driving at higher speeds.
And therein lies the crux of my problem.
I have a deeply ingrained belief that there is a significant proportion of drivers on our roads who will NEVER be able to handle higher speeds, just simply because of their irresponsible attitude to life in general and driving in particular.
For instance there is an estimated 3% to 5% of cars/drivers on our roads who are unlicensed/ unregistered. Then there are those who continue to drive after drinking (you can bet THEY don't care too much about speed limits either).
And a very visible group who love to weave in and out of lanes, talk on mobiles, tailgate etc etc.
Unfortunately, whilst I am a strong advocate of more indepth driver training, the listed examples above will never benefit from, or put into practice what they might learn.
So, to combine higher speed limits with compulsory defensive driver training would be desirable but I fear would have no effect on the majority of those in the danger groups.
-
I agree pretty much with all of the above posts.
With education and driver training, it needs to start in upper primary school because that is the only way that core attitudinal beliefs will be changed over the coming years and it will take a long time to do it.
Most kids these days think that smoking is a bad thing because it has been drummed into them over a long period of time.
Kids will always rebel, you won't stop that, but we're talking here of the macro view in relation to changing societal beliefs.
And re your comment Jamie about people taking fines to court, you are absolutely correct. What happens is that all the prosecution has to do is prove prima facie that speeding occurred. The actual speed only determines penalty.
So offenders may or not have received a lower monetary penalty as a result but would then have to pay court costs on top.
Two things that it affects - one is demerits points (if the prosecution & defence agree on a lower speed it will reduce the number of demerit points allocated if it then falls within a lower bracket) and secondly, the offender now has a court record whereas if they had paid the infringement notice they do not have a court record.
Records are kept for the purpose of allocating points and the possible later service of a demerit points suspension, but an infringement notice does not give them a traffic record. A court appearance does.
-
Love this thread, although I disagree with some comments and also agree with some, I like some of the older memebers here, grew up in a great time of driver training was given free in schools form about the age of eight to ten years of age till we left high school,I still remember the driver eductaion course at Elizabeth in SA,with the little pedal cars and bush bikes.
I also had the added advantage of having a Ol man who was a proffessional driver and took having a license was a privaledge and not a right attitude, when he taught all us older kids to drive, it ws with the drive to arrive alive message,not dead on time attitude a lot of people have today.
I also joined the army and was lucky enough to go into my chosen feild of transport and heavy vehicle driving and later in my career staff car driving, so I got paid to do continual driver training courses,defensive driver training course and the best ones were the anti terrorist course,they were a lot of fun but dangerous at the same time.
I am the first one to admit,I am still far from the perfect driver,years ago most cars were fitted with speed warning devices,haven't seen one of those for ages,as I can tend to get a little heavy footed sometimes on the open road,I have a Alert GPS, which is set at the three most common speed limit's for WA, wish I could somehow hook this to my computer so it automatically slows the car if I was or am to go over the posted limit,but the warning alarm it gives off is sufficiant at the moment to get me to slow down.
Some thing I do agree with, is licenses here in WA at least are far to easy to obtain, I work with three overseas people who have all said the same thing,they were allowed to drive here on their own coutries licence for the period of three years and then had to doa written and driven test of which none of them have done, we have a fourth overseas person working with us now,he is from the states,he has a heavy vehicle ticket and is at the moment driving a semi here,IMHO he shouldn't even be driving a car let alone a heavy vehicle, but because of the way our laws are he is within his right to do so.
some here don't beleive in the big stick method of policing is working or should be pursuded, but as far as I'm concerned many things should be ZERO tolerance,such as driving with any sort of alcohol or drugs in your system, it also amazes me howthese days, ask any new driver or even some of the older drivers,how to change a flat tyre,most can't even find where the spare or jack is,yet ask them how the stereo works and they can tell you everything about how the stereo,bluetooth and where the CD changer is,I have driven around Australia and I used to say a lot of the other states used to have the worse drivers, but after our trip late last year,this all changed WA would have to have the worse drivers in Australia and a recent survey also showed that WA had the worse drivers in the world,now thats a sad case of affairs but I can believe it.
Oher than driving to and from work the past five weeks I have enjoyed not being in the semi and on the road with most other road users,but sadly this will change in the next few weeks,as I have been cleared from my shoulder injury and will soon be put back in the truck,sad day when someone who loves driving, is not afraid but doesn't want to go back on the road.
-
Enjoying your posts Rick :goodjob:
-
Great post, Rick (I wouldn't even think of adding a P). :goodjob2: :goodjob:
-
Missing the point... Germany is one of the few countries left with ANY unrestricted roads. If the "speed kills" rubbish would be true, they would have much higher rates of accidents involving speed, proportionate to the number of cars on the roads. While they had small numbers of "blow ins" their rates were lower despite the speeds. Statistics were ruined by migrants who did not receive the same training as well as not being able to afford newer and therefore safer (to travel at high speeds) cars.
Have a read of this report
http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Speed%20Fact%20Sheet%201.pdf (http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Speed%20Fact%20Sheet%201.pdf)
The other point that you are missing is reducing speeds proves one thing: the lowest common denominator they set the rules to is getting lower. That's why they decrease speed limits. The roads didn't get any less safe, people using it are dumber/not trained as well/using older cars etc etc, take your pick.
I would agree with your view in general but I would add aggressive driving to the top of list. The wide spread anti social and/or aggressive behaviour in general extends to driving where its effects are, arguably more serious
No, it does not but it has VASTLY SUPERIOR brakes compared to a Corolla. Because of that it stops quicker from the same speed. Which is exactly my point. Not all cars are equal as far as brakes are concerned, hence generalising the way they do in our "deterrent" ads is idiotic.
Perhaps VASTLY SUPERIOR is more than exaggerating the difference? Do you have any figures with which I can compare the two? But even so how many Lambos or other exotica exist compared with mainstream cars? Tyres play a much bigger part in stopping a car and budget brands, the choice of most motorists for replacement purposes, are known to have poorer stopping performance.
-
No speed doesn't kill as someone said, it is the sudden stop at the end when you hit something that actually kills you.
Love db08's theory, the harder you hit the more it hurts, beleive me I can varify this, 23rd December, 2250, 1976, I unfortunately had a head on with a drunken driver on my Motorbike,it was reported to me some months later when I could comprehend the english langauge again, the impact was similar to me hitting a four foot concrete wall at 240kph, to say it caused many painful memories is to say the least,eight months in hospital and two years to learn to walk properly again,even though I used to do the same years ago,I just cringe at what I see on the roads these days,especially from bike riders and P platers,mind you not all are bad drivers or riders,plus a lot of the oldies,we see them especially up here where we are, police don't have the heart to take their licences of them,their simply restricted to drive within our town limits,hello this still causes accidents.
-
No wonder you're Rick not with a P after an accident like that :whistler:
Lucky to be still alive.
I had both hips replaced recently and that was bad enough, but your effort takes the cake. I understand how you must feel remembering the pain and seeing stupid drivers / riders. :fum:
-
:whsaid:
That's a hell of a prang, Rick.
-
Wow Rick.. I will make allowances for you now :snigger: (not that we have to) :winker:
-
no need to make allowances for me, sadly I have been on both sides of the fence,I have been the drunken hoon on the streets(many many moons ago)I've been through all the "I'm Invincible stages" that particular accident still didn't bash any brains into me,yes I was and am lucky to survive that one, as even this still didn't stop me getting back on a bike, or having a tipple and thinking I was OK to drive,wasn't till 82, when something happened which changed me to become who I am today,why I get so passionate about a lot of what happens our the roads today.
-
Now you've got us inrtrigued, Rick.......
Was it when the Ford Laser was introduced? :undecided: :lol:
-
Round 2
Have a read of this report
http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Speed%20Fact%20Sheet%201.pdf (http://www.etsc.eu/documents/copy_of_Speed%20Fact%20Sheet%201.pdf)
Yep, supports what I was saying that the "blow ins" aka tourists with lesser training (including no experience in high speed driving) ruin it for all. So, with the borders now pretty much gone, they need to start thinking of the lowest common denominator. Look at Hungary's abysmal performance for one. No unrestricted roads there last time I checked...
The other point that you are missing is reducing speeds proves one thing: the lowest common denominator they set the rules to is getting lower. That's why they decrease speed limits. The roads didn't get any less safe, people using it are dumber/not trained as well/using older cars etc etc, take your pick.
I would agree with your view in general but I would add aggressive driving to the top of list. The wide spread anti social and/or aggressive behaviour in general extends to driving where its effects are, arguably more serious
No arguments from me here. The cultural behaviour changes you pointed out are certainly a large factor.
Perhaps VASTLY SUPERIOR is more than exaggerating the difference? Do you have any figures with which I can compare the two? But even so how many Lambos or other exotica exist compared with mainstream cars? Tyres play a much bigger part in stopping a car and budget brands, the choice of most motorists for replacement purposes, are known to have poorer stopping performance.
Can look up the exact specs, but roughly speaking the Lambo's brake disc is the size of the Corolla's entire wheel. Ceramic too in some cases, enormous stopping power.
Yes, a Lambo is not a common example, but the point it served was to show that different makes and models do have different stopping power, depending on brakes, tyres, vehicle weight, load on board etc, so again, generalising by suggesting that ALL cars will take equally long to stop from a given speed is rubbish. I never argued which factor is more important, not without looking it up.
I recall in one of the Top Gear episodes they conducted some brake performance comparison that demonstrated well that not all cars are equal when it comes to braking.
This exact rubbish was a "deterrent" advertisement here in West Oz, which was the main reason for me bringing this part of the debate up in the first place.
-
Yes, a Lambo is not a common example, but the point it served was to show that different makes and models do have different stopping power, depending on brakes, tyres, vehicle weight, load on board etc, so again, generalising by suggesting that ALL cars will take equally long to stop from a given speed is rubbish. I never argued which factor is more important, not without looking it up.
If I may quote from a specialist
..........While almost every current passenger car is capable of a single stop from maximum speed at or near the limit of tire adhesion,.............
........."In order to brake effectively, the tyres must comply with and grip on the road. The braking system is no better than the tires and suspension. The best money that can be spent is on really good tires and really good shocks"...........
And a single stop from maximum speed will be achieved only very occasionally by the average motorist.
-
Yes, a Lambo is not a common example, but the point it served was to show that different makes and models do have different stopping power, depending on brakes, tyres, vehicle weight, load on board etc, so again, generalising by suggesting that ALL cars will take equally long to stop from a given speed is rubbish. I never argued which factor is more important, not without looking it up.
If I may quote from a specialist
..........While almost every current passenger car is capable of a single stop from maximum speed at or near the limit of tire adhesion,.............
........."In order to brake effectively, the tyres must comply with and grip on the road. The braking system is no better than the tires and suspension. The best money that can be spent is on really good tires and really good shocks"...........
And a single stop from maximum speed will be achieved only very occasionally by the average motorist.
Quite right. And if it's a pre-ABS car it will almost certainly lock up at some stage during that braking.