The Original i30 Owners Club
GENERAL STUFF => GENERAL DISCUSSIONS => Random Chit Chat => Topic started by: Ugly Mongrel on December 12, 2010, 11:47:00
-
I'll let the video say it......
TAC Campaign - 20 year Anniversary retrospective montage "Everybody Hurts" music by REM TV ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2mf8DtWWd8#)
-
Hmmm, Government Propaganda.... :P
-
Hmmm, Government Propaganda.... :P
rustynutz, could you please explain what makes you believe that this ad is government propaganda?
Am I wrong in thinking that trying to make drivers see the tragic results of bad decisions and actions taken while behind the wheel of a car is probably a good thing?
-
Am I wrong in thinking that trying to make drivers see the tragic results of bad decisions and actions taken while behind the wheel of a car is probably a good thing?
No, it's probably a good thing to a certain extent.....it's just that I know some of the stuff the TAC has come out with has been less than helpful, especially towards motorcyclists....that, combined with the fact that motorcyclists in Victoria are forced to pay a TAC "safety" tax when no other road user is required to pay such a thing...I just find it all very frustrating. :mad:
On another note, our bureaucrats would also have us believe that holidays are traditionally a more dangerous time to be out on the roads when, in fact it isn't.... :rolleyes: Their own statistics prove this....
Anyhow, feel free to ignore me..I'm just being a grump... :-[
-
The vid speaks for itself and it says it all
-
IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.
-
[
On another note, our bureaucrats would also have us believe that holidays are traditionally a more dangerous time to be out on the roads when, in fact it isn't.... :rolleyes: Their own statistics prove this....
Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.
-
:scared: If everyone watched that vid a couple of times the toll would drop further I'm sure.. :goodjob:
A real eye opener :sweating: (it will certainly make me extra careful this Christmas) :cool:
-
IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.
So you're happy to punish the victim? :eek:
By the way, the TAC safety tax isn't just used to educate other road users, it's also used to fix "black spot" roads....Now roads are supposedly built for all road users so why are motorcyclists forced to pay a safety levy or tax to bring these roads up to scratch? Motorcycles should have been taken into consideration when the roads were built, afterall, motorcycles have been around just as long as cars.... :rolleyes:
Re registration costs...I don't know what you pay up in Queensland, but in Victoria, costs for a large motorcycle are basically on par with cars.....
-
Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.
Like I said, Trev....Government statistics prove it....Click HERE (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2006/pdf/Holiday_fatalities.pdf) :wink:
-
Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.
Like I said, Trev....Government statistics prove it....Click HERE (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2006/pdf/Holiday_fatalities.pdf) :wink:
This is consistent with the findings of the 2003 ATSB study, which noted the important unknown ‘counterfactual’: the holiday fatality rate might have been much worse if additional enforcement and other road safety measures had not been in place.
vi
I think this is a telling point.
It's a bit like advertising where it is generally agreed that at least 50% of all advertising is wasted, but no one knows which half.
So, who would be game to take away the increased police presence on our roads at Christmas and Easter to see if deaths increase. I think you'd have to admit they DO have a major influence, along with all the media scrutiny.
-
This is consistent with the findings of the 2003 ATSB study, which noted the important unknown ‘counterfactual’: the holiday fatality rate might have been much worse if additional enforcement and other road safety measures had not been in place.
vi
It could also have been less.... :-\
The point is though, the safetycrats are happy to bs people even when their very own stats can prove otherwise.
I certainly take whatever they say with a grain of salt..... :)
-
IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.
What do you think about Bicycle Riders Trev? i think they get a free ride, I ride both, i don't think eather are 100% safe but i'm still alive.
-
Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.
Like I said, Trev....Government statistics prove it....Click HERE (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2006/pdf/Holiday_fatalities.pdf) :wink:
This is consistent with the findings of the 2003 ATSB study, which noted the important unknown counterfactual: the holiday fatality rate might have been much worse if additional enforcement and other road safety measures had not been in place.
vi
I think this is a telling point.
It's a bit like advertising where it is generally agreed that at least 50% of all advertising is wasted, but no one knows which half.
So, who would be game to take away the increased police presence on our roads at Christmas and Easter to see if deaths increase. I think you'd have to admit they DO have a major influence, along with all the media scrutiny.
Good point Trev, also when i was young, i was the victim of a drunk out of control driver, he totaled a new car i had. so i support our tuff drink driving laws
-
If you'd like to know more of why I take what our SafetyCrats say with a grain of salt, then you may like to have a read of this (http://hotfile.com/dl/89111537/979ba55/How_Road_Authorities_Classify_The_Causes_Of_Road_Trauma.pdf.html)...... :)
-
If you'd like to know more of why I take what our SafetyCrats say with a grain of salt, then you may like to have a read of this (http://hotfile.com/dl/89111537/979ba55/How_Road_Authorities_Classify_The_Causes_Of_Road_Trauma.pdf.html)...... :)
I have to admit that I had formed the opinion that I would agree with you only infrequently. Your apparent brashness was... well... brash.
I suspect you knew this. :wink:
However, your last post and its link have given you another chance... strange as it might (or not) seem I'm with you on this. It's not speed, it's not bad roads, it's not alcohol, it's not any number of superficially measurable (and therefore useable as a win/lose result for political reasons), it's as simple as recognising that it takes a while to learn and avoid errors in driving. I know that it's not only young drivers that are the problem but I think most agree they are over represented in accidents.
Unfortunately, driving (and other skills) are learned when still at an age when mistakes will be made. This is precisely how (social) driving skills are built.
The trick is to get through this phase intact where (social) driving skills are learned without (duffing) killing anyone. Once mastered they, the former kids, are with us... the old farts, survivers and masters of their (destiny) cars!
What I would like to see is much stricter licensing tests with limits on new license holders and follow-up testing where greater skill needs to be attained with each test and for which a pass confers greater liberty for drivers. These should continue for life, and as skill deminishes so should the privileges.
It will not take too much (extra) technology to identify the driver at any time to ensure that the "privileges" are not exceeded. Telemetry, similar to toll-road charges or even something as simple as an external display identifier (perhaps LED for current technology?).
If the driver wishes to increase his/her standard (renewed annually), just take the test.
Some of the privileges (and tests for ability) might be related to speed allowed (in the outside lane only), a sensible amount of BAL or even (not) driving in peak hour perhaps.
The point I'm making is: test individuals and judge each on proven ability to attain set skill levels.
This removes the draconian laws that force us to drive at crawling speeds based on the stupid assumption that if we all drive slower we will kill less people when the inevitable accident occurs.
Unfortunately it's true... but there are better ways to get the same result. Make us better drivers and/or make us drive within our ability.
That way we won't get the suggestions we get (here) that old farts are dangerous. (hang on, I think I said that... :lol:)
FWIW
-
debates aside, this is a very well done clip. good editing and great song = powerful message. i'm a bit of a cynic myself with many things but couldn't help but be drawn into this one. :goodjob:
rusty - instead of me jumping through hoops to try and read a document that i can't access in the end can you post it directly or something? or pm it to me maybe. ???
-
That's so true and so tragic that film clip ..... When we see the daily 18.00 news and the newsreader says "There were 6 people killed in a tragic accident today" and then they show us a smashed up car that you have no idea of the make because of the damage ..... that's all we see and then we'll say 'awful shame that' What's for tea ?... We don't see the broken bodies or some unfortunate loved ones head and arm 10 metres away from the rest of their body left in the car or the people's last curdled cry to try and scream their loved ones name ...... If we did we may be a little more careful or we may not ?
While we all can still drive or even travel in a car there will always be fatal road crashes and some of us will die .... We all just hope that it's not us or anyone we love or care about and I don't mean to sound cynical but that's human nature.
:'(
-
rusty - instead of me jumping through hoops to try and read a document that i can't access in the end can you post it directly or something? or pm it to me maybe. ???
Snow, I thought about posting it directly but to do that it would've involved a fair bit of mucking around, such as posting parts of it on a hosting site which is why I opted to just offer it as a downloadable pdf instead. Honestly, it's not hard to download (it's also small) and you only require adobe reader which I'd say would be on just about every computer in the land.
Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers :)
-
If you'd like to know more of why I take what our SafetyCrats say with a grain of salt, then you may like to have a read of this (http://hotfile.com/dl/89111537/979ba55/How_Road_Authorities_Classify_The_Causes_Of_Road_Trauma.pdf.html)...... :)
Rusty, that's an interesting "take" on the issue. I've only read 4 pages so far but saved a copy for further reading. However, in those four pages, I detected a fairly typical approach to placing one's own interpretation on the facts.
I'll explain further later but IMO the writer is simply using his written skills to justify a position against the way things are done now. I'm not saying I disagree with him but there are several galring errors in his statements and the way he interprets the facts.
from a high of over 1,300 fatalities in 1978 down to under 600 fatalities for 2003.
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
In actual fact, the figures from and including 2003 are as follows.......
2003 539
2004 510
2005 508
2006 496
2007 435
2008 374
2009 460
2010 400 (ytd Nov.)
So in fact, using up to date figures, up to 2008 inclusive, the toll has continued to drop.
More on the deaths "caused by" speeding and alcohol to follow.
-
I have to admit that I had formed the opinion that I would agree with you only infrequently. Your apparent brashness was... well... brash.
I suspect you knew this. :wink:
No, pip, I didn't know this and I must admit I'm quite surprised. Don't think i've ever been accused of being brash before.... :eek: opinionated, even passionate, maybe... :lol:
I'm also curious to understand why you'd think you'd only agree with me infrequently too...:)
-
IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.
What do you think about Bicycle Riders Trev? i think they get a free ride, I ride both, i don't think eather are 100% safe but i'm still alive.
Yeah I ride both. Well it's sometime since I used my motorcycle license but it's still valid.
Don't start me on cyclists.
They are among the most aggressive and inconsiderate of all road users.
I ride a fair bit around the southern end of the Sunshine Coast and go out of my way to clear the way for cars. Apart from the woman in a MX5 who took me out, coming out of the Coles carpark. :twisted: :scared:
-
Rusty, that's an interesting "take" on the issue. I've only read 4 pages so far but saved a copy for further reading. However, in those four pages, I detected a fairly typical approach to placing one's own interpretation on the facts.
I'll explain further later but IMO the writer is simply using his written skills to justify a position against the way things are done now. I'm not saying I disagree with him but there are several galring errors in his statements and the way he interprets the facts.
Placing one's own interpretation on the facts is surely the case with any paper or publication of this type.
from a high of over 1,300 fatalities in 1978 down to under 600 fatalities for 2003.
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
In actual fact, the figures from and including 2003 are as follows.......
2003 539
2004 510
2005 508
2006 496
2007 435
2008 374
2009 460
2010 400 (ytd Nov.)
So in fact, using up to date figures, up to 2008 inclusive, the toll has continued to drop.
More on the deaths "caused by" speeding and alcohol to follow.
Not sure of the point you're trying to make with those figures, Trev.... :-\
:exclaim: One thing you need to be aware of, this paper is a few years old...
-
Rusty, that's an interesting "take" on the issue. I've only read 4 pages so far but saved a copy for further reading. However, in those four pages, I detected a fairly typical approach to placing one's own interpretation on the facts.
I'll explain further later but IMO the writer is simply using his written skills to justify a position against the way things are done now. I'm not saying I disagree with him but there are several galring errors in his statements and the way he interprets the facts.
Placing one's own interpretation on the facts is surely the case with any paper or publication of this type. Exactly> Regardless of which side of the fence you are on. That was my point. I was trying to place this guy's presentation in balance
from a high of over 1,300 fatalities in 1978 down to under 600 fatalities for 2003.
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
In actual fact, the figures from and including 2003 are as follows.......
2003 539
2004 510
2005 508
2006 496
2007 435
2008 374
2009 460
2010 400 (ytd Nov.)
So in fact, using up to date figures, up to 2008 inclusive, the toll has continued to drop.
More on the deaths "caused by" speeding and alcohol to follow.
Not sure of the point you're trying to make with those figures, Trev.... :-\ I'm aware it's a few years old. The point is, as per his quote above, if you extrapolate it out to include the most recent figures, his argument about plateauing (and therefore arguing against the authorities' position) doesn't hold water
:exclaim: One thing you need to be aware of, this paper is a few years old...
The writer uses a subtle technique here in a number of his arguments. For instance, saying that fatalities in 2003 were "under 600". Which sounds a lot worse that "just over 500" or even "537".
Sort of like price ticketing items at $19,990 Drive Away which sounds so much better tha $20,000 Drive Away. The brain only hears the first couple of figures and thinks, "Oh! $19,000 is pretty good"
Sorry. Old marketing man here. Plus I spent some time on post graduate studies where they encourage you to argue a position even if you disagree with it, so you can see the other side of something.
-
I'm also curious to understand why you'd think you'd only agree with me infrequently too...:)
I based that opinion on the approach you had regarding the damaged door seal. I disagreed with you on that and we seemed to come from opposite sides which I assumed would be our respective takes on many other topics. Seems not. :D :lol: I meant no offense.
I'll leave you and Trev to sort out the current topic... I'm not passionate enough about this one to really participate. :cool:
-
I'm aware it's a few years old. The point is, as per his quote above, if you extrapolate it out to include the most recent figures, his argument about plateauing (and therefore arguing against the authorities' position) doesn't hold water
If you look at the figures he's referring to, you'll find he's pretty much correct....
1997 - 576
1998 - 556
1999 - 577
2000 - 603
2001 - 524
2002 - 561
2003 - 539
As far as I'm aware nothing much has changed as far as enforcement is concerned since then, so maybe much of it can be put down to safer cars?
There are getting more and more cars out there with ABS, ESP, Airbags etc...these could certainly explain the drop....
-
BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW... :confused:
The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...
-
I'm also curious to understand why you'd think you'd only agree with me infrequently too...:)
I based that opinion on the approach you had regarding the damaged door seal. I disagreed with you on that and we seemed to come from opposite sides which I assumed would be our respective takes on many other topics. Seems not. :D :lol: I meant no offense.
I'll leave you and Trev to sort out the current topic... I'm not passionate enough about this one to really participate. :cool:
No worries, pip...we're all entitled to our opinions.....cheers :)
-
BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW... :confused:
The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...
i think it all started at reply #1 russ. :wink:
-
Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers :)
i've tried twice now, it won't give it to me.
-
Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers :)
i've tried twice now, it won't give it to me.
Try this link (http://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Download&File=c221938c10fe38110720acaecd124751), Snowy........ :)
-
BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW... :confused:
The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...
i think it all started at reply #1 russ. :wink:
Yeah. Russ posted the links to documentation to reinforce his arguments. I responded with an argument (suggestion :wink:) that they were a little one-sided.
No problem with Russ. I like his style and his posts generate thought processes and responses which is what forums are all about, aren't they.
I love a good passionate debate.
Don't lets stop now. :goodjob:
-
I'm glad someone appreciates the stuff I come out with at times... :D
Trev, just getting back to that file for a moment, did you finish reading it?
-
I'm glad someone appreciates the stuff I come out with at times... :D
Trev, just getting back to that file for a moment, did you finish reading it?
Not yet. Got a water tank coming. Grocery shopping today. A wall to paint where the tank is going under the eaves.
Oh! And the surf was up this morning. :cool:
But I will.
-
lol, no worries. Got some other stuff I'd be interested in getting your thoughts on too, sometime.... :)
Water tank, hey....I used to build those things many moons ago, concrete ones though, I assume yours is plastic?
-
lol, no worries. Got some other stuff I'd be interested in getting your thoughts on too, sometime.... :)
Water tank, hey....I used to build those things many moons ago, concrete ones though, I assume yours is plastic?
Yep. EGR 3000 Slimline.
Due tomorrow morning.
-
OK. Here's my take on the report. There's a lot to read here. The bold stuff is a quote. My comment follows in normal type. Unless you've read at least some of the original report (fro contextual purposes) this probably will be of no interest to you.
How Road Authorities Classify The Causes Of Road Trauma
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
Updating to 2008 shows the trend has continued to improve.
It would seem that the potential of such strategies for the reduction of road trauma has reached its maximum. More of the same is not producing results.
As above, they are.
Drivers don’t crash as soon as they exceed a speed limit or ought to have been going a bit slower
This statement, whilst true, is a classic case of taking something out of context. The other thing that should be considered with it is whether or not, whatever caused them to crash when they did, could have been negated if they were travelling at a slower speed.
Crashes that do not meet these criteria are considered to be minor in nature and are not routinely investigated. Immediately, a valuable opportunity to discover the reasons for these crashes is lost under the above criteria because in “minor” crashes, both drivers and passengers could be easily interviewed. By interviewing drivers and witnesses involved in minor crashes, it would be relatively easy to discover what drivers were doing prior to their crash.
But these aren’t going to help us prevent the death causing accidents. Maybe if we had 5 times the police we could investigate them.
There is no magic fixed speed or inherent margin of increased speed above a prevailing speed limit that will cause a crash
True. BUT. And it’s a big BUT. Travelling slower gives you more time to see what’s going on around you and more time to react in a dangerous situation.
In these instructions, there is no mention of the need to discover why a crash happens. The instructions listed do not represent an investigation of cause but rather a simple process of recording observable information, the explanations given by drivers and ensuring that certain functions are carried out, such as breath testing and taking action against the driver deemed responsible. The key point to note about the routine police notebook documentation of crash.
I believe this is as it should be. The roads are closed long enough anyway after a fatal. The Traffic Accident Appreciation Squad is there for that reason and can take away all the collated information and assess it at length.
There is a section about the % of alcohol related crashes and whether or not the reported figures are accurate. I think they talk about 24% versus 19% (rounded). Who cares? That’s still pretty much one in five. Certainly an amount worth targeting for reduction.
Next he reports the figures of alcohol in injury (not fatal) crashes and it is considerably less but he focuses on the inaccuracy between two reported figures rather than the fact that alcohol is a factor in about one fifth as many injury crashes versus fatals. Surely that’s a significant fact worth pursuing?
It is very rare that you can say people were killed exactly because they were going fast. They were not killed because they were going fast; they were killed because they stopped suddenly and people cannot stop suddenly and live… …That is why it is not just about speed and fatigue. …While it is fair to say that one in three people were unbelted, two in three were belted but still died.
As referenced above, if you are driving more slowly when you crash, there will be less g-forces to contend with. And of those who were belted but still died, how much faster were they going than the ones who didn’t? I really think this is about reducing the risk of death or serious injury when human beings make human mistakes or bad judgements. II drove home from Toowoomba early one morning (about 3 am) to Brisbane after a rally and as I pulled into my driveway, realised I could only remember two sections of the drive. Going through Gatton and going over the Minden range. I realised I had been driving on auto pilot, seriously fatigued and there is no doubt in my mind I was unbelievably lucky not to have become a statistic that night. Ever since, if I get drowsy, I pull up.
It should be stressed at this point that the RTA clearly state that their criteria simply indicate whether “Speeding is considered to have been a contributing factor to a road crash”. The speed of a vehicle prior to impact is a factor to be considered in every crash. What crash investigators must do is to establish the speed at which a vehicle was travelling when reaching the possible point of perception of the hazard or circumstance that led to the crash. The investigator should then determine the range of possible alternatives that were available to the driver and what would have been possible at the stated speed, both from the earliest possible point of perception of the hazard and then from evidence of where the driver involved has reacted. There is of course in reality much more to consider in this process but the salient point here is that these types of investigation are quite complex and often prove inconclusive from a causal perspective, particularly in the case of fatalities. What often becomes apparent to an investigator is the lack of a clear reason for why an impact occurred, despite having information that indicates how the crash happened. The fact that a crash involved a significant impact does not automatically mean that the impact was caused by the speed of the vehicle
IMO everything in this paragraph supports the need to drive within the speed limit. It may not save you but it surely increases the odds in your favour.
Speeding is defined as travelling at a speed greater than that specified by the speed limit. However, speeding can also involve travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions, despite travelling under the posted speed limit. Such a definition makes it exceptionally easy to implicate “speed” as a factor in any crash, particularly when manipulating data in TADS
Again, the sort of thing which the TAAS would evaluate later. They have access to prevailing weather conditions from the BOM which will indicate rain, high wind, ice, snow etc to consider in relation to the on site reports and photos/video. Not something the on-site cops should be trying to second guess.
‘if the driver had been going slower, then the crash could have been avoided’. Such a statement could of course have relevance in almost every crash
Exactly what I’ve been saying but he uses this statement to argue something entirely different.
If we were to pursue the “slow down” argument to save lives to its logical end, we should abandon cars and all get around in a horse and buggy. This would most definitely result in a dramatic drop in road deaths.
Puuleease!
An “overuse” or harshness of braking and/or steering (typical in a panicked response where a driver’s concentration was lacking) can result in skidding, sliding and loss of control and more often results from driver inattention, inability and failure to respond in time to a hazard, rather than simply from speeding.
He’s overusing his argument and the more he uses it, the more he (IMO) makes a case for enforcing the speed limit. However, I do agree with better driver education. If it were up to me I’d have much more strict driver testing and periodical re-evaluations. As a result there’d be a significant number less drivers on the road which would reduce the costs associated with the road toll, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and seriously damage the automotive industry (sales and repair) in this country. Not exactly results which can live in harmony.
OK. That’s enough.
I’m up to page 9 of 14. Not going any futher.
Trev
-
BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW... :confused:
The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...
i think it all started at reply #1 Russ. :wink:
Yeah. Russ posted the links to documentation to reinforce his arguments. I responded with an argument (suggestion :wink:) that they were a little one-sided.
No problem with Russ. I like his style and his posts generate thought processes and responses which is what forums are all about, aren't they.
I love a good passionate debate.
Don't lets stop now. :goodjob:
i was just making an observation guys,not taking sides. everyone has a rite to speak their mind and have an opinion. :goodjob:
-
All this begs the question of our future drivers and our future road toll ..... It was said many years ago now that after the introduction of standard 'ABS breaking' and a 'drivers airbag' on the most popular of Aussie cars that when a driver was aware he/she was driving a car with such technical features their driving attitude changed to suit the vehicles they were driving ... they drove more carelessly or with a feeling of extreme and perhaps misguided safety.
From sometime next year in Aus: all new passenger vehicles sold here will have to have the full box & dice of safety gear on new cars sold, this may be the standard now in other country's but I don't know.
My point being and I'm all in favour of the full safety package in every car (why should just the rich people survive?) BUT and it is a big but ... We'll create a new set a new breed if you like of drivers that will drive accordingly and feel they are invincible and only consider their survival chances and bugger everyone else .... Motorbikes and older cars ...... here we come :rolleyes:
:faint:
-
It's late I know, Trev, but from having a quick read of your post, it comes across to me that you've basically just attempted to discredit everything he said... :eek:
Maybe I might see it differently in the cold light of day..... :-\
Just a couple of things I'll make mention of though....
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
Updating to 2008 shows the trend has continued to improve.
It only continued to improve after 2003, so surely you need to look at what changed at that point? Like I made mention elsewhere, perhaps it's because there have been huge increases in car safety with many new cars achieving a 5 star rating and coming with such features as airbags, abs & esp?
It would seem that the potential of such strategies for the reduction of road trauma has reached its maximum. More of the same is not producing results.
As above, they are.
Seems you're assuming that the very same stategies that had plateaued for seven years had, for some unknown reason started to make a difference again. Logic would surely suggest that it may have been something else?
Anyhow, that's enough for now....I'll take a fresh look tomorrow...
Cheers :)
-
It's late I know, Trev, but from having a quick read of your post, it comes across to me that you've basically just attempted to discredit everything he said... :eek:Sorry if it seemed like that. The point I was making (and belabouring, perhaps) was that all the facts and figures he was quoting to back up his argument (that speed and alcohol in particular ren't as big an issue as we have been led to believe) can be interpreted in the opposite way ie. to prove they are. I also took exception to his suggestion that the police at the accident scene don't do enough/ aren't trained well enough to allocate why the accident occured when in fact they aren't asked to do that. In serious accident, follow up investigation is required - and delivered.
Maybe I might see it differently in the cold light of day..... :-\
Just a couple of things I'll make mention of though....
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
Updating to 2008 shows the trend has continued to improve.
It only continued to improve after 2003, so surely you need to look at what changed at that point? Like I made mention elsewhere, perhaps it's because there have been huge increases in car safety with many new cars achieving a 5 star rating and coming with such features as airbags, abs & esp? I agree that's a whole other topic and well worth some exploration on here for the benefit of all members and their families
It would seem that the potential of such strategies for the reduction of road trauma has reached its maximum. More of the same is not producing results.
As above, they are.
Seems you're assuming that the very same stategies that had plateaued for seven years had, for some unknown reason started to make a difference again. Logic would surely suggest that it may have been something else? Actually I have long held a theory on the variations in the road toll figures. Briefly it hinges around randomness and sheer bad luck. I quoted an example of my own personal luck above and can recall many more where I have simply been only a few centimetres away from becoming a statistic. I believe in the measures we are taking to manage road toll figures but just because we have a "bad" result in one holiday period doesn't mean they aren't working.
Anyhow, that's enough for now....I'll take a fresh look tomorrow...
Cheers :)
-
Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers :)
i've tried twice now, it won't give it to me.
Try this link (http://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Download&File=c221938c10fe38110720acaecd124751), Snowy........ :)
"sorry, this type of document is not supported for viewing"
-
Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow... :P
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS (http://cdn01.foxitsoftware.com/pub/foxit/reader/desktop/win/4.x/4.3/enu/FoxitReader43_enu_Setup.exe), it works just as well and is much smaller to download...
Cheers :)
-
Ok, bear with me while I finish responding to Trev's comments.....
Crashes that do not meet these criteria are considered to be minor in nature and are not routinely investigated. Immediately, a valuable opportunity to discover the reasons for these crashes is lost under the above criteria because in “minor” crashes, both drivers and passengers could be easily interviewed. By interviewing drivers and witnesses involved in minor crashes, it would be relatively easy to discover what drivers were doing prior to their crash.
But these aren’t going to help us prevent the death causing accidents. Maybe if we had 5 times the police we could investigate them.
How could you possibly know that? A spate of minor accidents on a particular section of road could point to an issue that may very well result in a death down the track.
There is a section about the % of alcohol related crashes and whether or not the reported figures are accurate. I think they talk about 24% versus 19% (rounded). Who cares? That’s still pretty much one in five. Certainly an amount worth targeting for reduction.
Next he reports the figures of alcohol in injury (not fatal) crashes and it is considerably less but he focuses on the inaccuracy between two reported figures rather than the fact that alcohol is a factor in about one fifth as many injury crashes versus fatals. Surely that’s a significant fact worth pursuing?
Your response surprised me here, Trev as you had a go at the author re
The writer uses a subtle technique here in a number of his arguments. For instance, saying that fatalities in 2003 were "under 600". Which sounds a lot worse that "just over 500" or even "537".
Sort of like price ticketing items at $19,990 Drive Away which sounds so much better tha $20,000 Drive Away. The brain only hears the first couple of figures and thinks, "Oh! $19,000 is pretty good"
Now, aren't you sort of taking the same liberty? 24% vs 19% (actually 18.6%) is a fair bit different in anyone's language.
It should be stressed at this point that the RTA clearly state that their criteria simply indicate whether “Speeding is considered to have been a contributing factor to a road crash”. The speed of a vehicle prior to impact is a factor to be considered in every crash. What crash investigators must do is to establish the speed at which a vehicle was travelling when reaching the possible point of perception of the hazard or circumstance that led to the crash. The investigator should then determine the range of possible alternatives that were available to the driver and what would have been possible at the stated speed, both from the earliest possible point of perception of the hazard and then from evidence of where the driver involved has reacted. There is of course in reality much more to consider in this process but the salient point here is that these types of investigation are quite complex and often prove inconclusive from a causal perspective, particularly in the case of fatalities. What often becomes apparent to an investigator is the lack of a clear reason for why an impact occurred, despite having information that indicates how the crash happened. The fact that a crash involved a significant impact does not automatically mean that the impact was caused by the speed of the vehicle
IMO everything in this paragraph supports the need to drive within the speed limit. It may not save you but it surely increases the odds in your favour.
Looks like you've fallen for the safetycrat dribble like so many others..Our "speed limit" is not some "magical figure that, if never exceeded somehow increases the odds in our favour.
BTW, the 85th Percentile is the generally accepted method for setting "safe" speed limits world wide yet our safetycrats ignore this proven method and set ours at what is usually well below what they should be.
If we were to pursue the “slow down” argument to save lives to its logical end, we should abandon cars and all get around in a horse and buggy. This would most definitely result in a dramatic drop in road deaths.
Puuleease!
Sounds like a reasonable assumption under the circumstances.
An “overuse” or harshness of braking and/or steering (typical in a panicked response where a driver’s concentration was lacking) can result in skidding, sliding and loss of control and more often results from driver inattention, inability and failure to respond in time to a hazard, rather than simply from speeding.
He’s overusing his argument and the more he uses it, the more he (IMO) makes a case for enforcing the speed limit.
Do you think much of this lack of concentration could be a result of the speed limits...speed limits that are set artificially?
Trev, while I appreciate you giving me your 2 bobs worth on this, I've really been quite surprised with some of your comments and with what would appear to be attempts to discredit the author.
This bloke was a police officer and experienced much of what he's discussed first hand. Personally, I think it's commendable that he would want to improve the gathering of information that could increase our knowledge. And surely it's in everyone's interests to have detailed and especially accurate statistics instead of some of the blatantly skewed stuff that's out there at the moment...
Cheers :)
-
Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow... :P
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS (http://cdn01.foxitsoftware.com/pub/foxit/reader/desktop/win/4.x/4.3/enu/FoxitReader43_enu_Setup.exe), it works just as well and is much smaller to download...
Cheers :)
but i already use FoxIt. :confused:
-
This thread has become Veery complicated to follow :confused:
-
Ok, bear with me while I finish responding to Trev's comments.....
Crashes that do not meet these criteria are considered to be minor in nature and are not routinely investigated. Immediately, a valuable opportunity to discover the reasons for these crashes is lost under the above criteria because in “minor” crashes, both drivers and passengers could be easily interviewed. By interviewing drivers and witnesses involved in minor crashes, it would be relatively easy to discover what drivers were doing prior to their crash.
But these aren’t going to help us prevent the death causing accidents. Maybe if we had 5 times the police we could investigate them.
How could you possibly know that? A spate of minor accidents on a particular section of road could point to an issue that may very well result in a death down the track. Exactly. Hence my qualifier that we need many more police if we are to do so. Otherwise we have to concentrate our resources in the area of greatest need.
There is a section about the % of alcohol related crashes and whether or not the reported figures are accurate. I think they talk about 24% versus 19% (rounded). Who cares? That’s still pretty much one in five. Certainly an amount worth targeting for reduction.
Next he reports the figures of alcohol in injury (not fatal) crashes and it is considerably less but he focuses on the inaccuracy between two reported figures rather than the fact that alcohol is a factor in about one fifth as many injury crashes versus fatals. Surely that’s a significant fact worth pursuing?
Your response surprised me here, Trev as you had a go at the author re
The writer uses a subtle technique here in a number of his arguments. For instance, saying that fatalities in 2003 were "under 600". Which sounds a lot worse that "just over 500" or even "537".
Sort of like price ticketing items at $19,990 Drive Away which sounds so much better tha $20,000 Drive Away. The brain only hears the first couple of figures and thinks, "Oh! $19,000 is pretty good"
Now, aren't you sort of taking the same liberty? 24% vs 19% (actually 18.6%) is a fair bit different in anyone's language.I DID say 19% (rounded) And the real reason for mentioning his figures was to point out the massive difference between deaths and injury in alcohol related accidents which the author seems to have ignored
It should be stressed at this point that the RTA clearly state that their criteria simply indicate whether “Speeding is considered to have been a contributing factor to a road crash”. The speed of a vehicle prior to impact is a factor to be considered in every crash. What crash investigators must do is to establish the speed at which a vehicle was travelling when reaching the possible point of perception of the hazard or circumstance that led to the crash. The investigator should then determine the range of possible alternatives that were available to the driver and what would have been possible at the stated speed, both from the earliest possible point of perception of the hazard and then from evidence of where the driver involved has reacted. There is of course in reality much more to consider in this process but the salient point here is that these types of investigation are quite complex and often prove inconclusive from a causal perspective, particularly in the case of fatalities. What often becomes apparent to an investigator is the lack of a clear reason for why an impact occurred, despite having information that indicates how the crash happened. The fact that a crash involved a significant impact does not automatically mean that the impact was caused by the speed of the vehicle
IMO everything in this paragraph supports the need to drive within the speed limit. It may not save you but it surely increases the odds in your favour.
Looks like you've fallen for the safetycrat dribble like so many others..Our "speed limit" is not some "magical figure that, if never exceeded somehow increases the odds in our favour. Haven't really fallen for anything. I'm basing my observations and beliefs on 45 years of driving which included 20 years of driving rallies and, more importantly, about 25 years of driving commercially
BTW, the 85th Percentile is the generally accepted method for setting "safe" speed limits world wide yet our safetycrats ignore this proven method and set ours at what is usually well below what they should be.I've had a quick look at the link you provided to this. I don't think much of it's bona fides
If we were to pursue the “slow down” argument to save lives to its logical end, we should abandon cars and all get around in a horse and buggy. This would most definitely result in a dramatic drop in road deaths.
Puuleease!
Sounds like a reasonable assumption under the circumstances. Or a ridiculous overexageration for effect.
An “overuse” or harshness of braking and/or steering (typical in a panicked response where a driver’s concentration was lacking) can result in skidding, sliding and loss of control and more often results from driver inattention, inability and failure to respond in time to a hazard, rather than simply from speeding.
He’s overusing his argument and the more he uses it, the more he (IMO) makes a case for enforcing the speed limit.
Do you think much of this lack of concentration could be a result of the speed limits...speed limits that are set artificially? Actually I'm pretty happy with our speed limits nationally.
Trev, while I appreciate you giving me your 2 bobs worth on this, I've really been quite surprised with some of your comments and with what would appear to be attempts to discredit the author. As I said in an earlier post, the author is entitled to use whatever facts and figures (and rhetoric) he wants to support his case. I respect that. What I don't like is people taking such a report as gospel without a balanced view.I'm not trying to discredit the author. I'm trying to offer a perspective.
This bloke was a police officer and experienced much of what he's discussed first hand. Personally, I think it's commendable that he would want to improve the gathering of information that could increase our knowledge. And surely it's in everyone's interests to have detailed and especially accurate statistics instead of some of the blatantly skewed stuff that's out there at the moment... See. That's the crux of it. I don't believe the "blatantly skewed" bit. I DO agree we need more statistics but I don't believe what we have is "blatantly skewed"
Cheers :)
-
Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow... :P
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS (http://cdn01.foxitsoftware.com/pub/foxit/reader/desktop/win/4.x/4.3/enu/FoxitReader43_enu_Setup.exe), it works just as well and is much smaller to download...
Cheers :)
but i already use FoxIt. :confused:
Have you tried right clicking on the file and selecting "open with" foxit?
-
This thread has become Veery complicated to follow :confused:
Sorry about that, Ozbrum.... :-[
-
This thread has become Veery complicated to follow :confused:
Sorry about that, Ozbrum.... :-[
No worries at all .... Cheers :)
-
Ozbrum, were you able to download the particular file we've been discussing?
-
Trev, thanks for going to the trouble of responding....I think.... :-\
-
Trev, thanks for going to the trouble of responding....I think.... :-\
Anytime. ???
And Merry Christmas to you. :wink:
-
And a merry xmas to you too, Trev.... :)
That's the crux of it. I don't believe the "blatantly skewed" bit. I DO agree we need more statistics but I don't believe what we have is "blatantly skewed"
You might wanna check out this site, Trev.... :wink:
http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm (http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm)
-
Ozbrum, were you able to download the particular file we've been discussing?
No I didn't even try Rusty ..... Not that it didn't interest me but I only have so much brain capacity to absorb analytical details like that and my computer skills well :rolleyes: my post was more an attempt at humour rather than a whinge ... I didn't mean to be a smarty :cool:
:goodjob:
-
All's good, Ozbrum....
You were right though, it is complicated. Shame I didn't start a new thread for all this....
Cheers :)
PS, the actual report is quite an easy read really, it's just been made to sound complicated because of all the "gobbledegook" posted here... :lol:
-
Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow... :P
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS (http://cdn01.foxitsoftware.com/pub/foxit/reader/desktop/win/4.x/4.3/enu/FoxitReader43_enu_Setup.exe), it works just as well and is much smaller to download...
Cheers :)
but i already use FoxIt. :confused:
Have you tried right clicking on the file and selecting "open with" foxit?
Any luck, Snowy? If not I'll make an effort and copy and paste the report if you're still keen to read it...Might not be for a day or 2 though... :)
-
All's good, Ozbrum....
You were right though, it is complicated. Shame I didn't start a new thread for all this....
Cheers :)
PS, the actual report is quite an easy read really, it's just been made to sound complicated because of all the "gobbledegook" posted here... :lol:
I think YGYHOYD. :rofl:
-
Feel free to spell it out, Trev....:rolleyes:
-
You might wanna check out this site...
http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm (http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm)
The variation in braking distances presented is perplexing.
-
Feel free to spell it out, Trev....:rolleyes:
Your avatar does that. :wink: :cool:
-
You might wanna check out this site...
http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm (http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm)
The variation in braking distances presented is perplexing.
It certainly is, pip....And, if they stretch the truth for this, you have to wonder what else they stretch the truth on.... :mad:
Btw, did you try out the reaction time tester?
-
Feel free to spell it out, Trev....:rolleyes:
Your avatar does that. :wink: :cool:
I'm not stupid, Trev...I knew what those letters stood for.... :rolleyes:
I personally found it quite offensive.... :mad:
-
Feel free to spell it out, Trev....:rolleyes:
Your avatar does that. :wink: :cool:
I'm not stupid, Trev...I knew what those letters stood for.... :rolleyes:
I personally found it quite offensive.... :mad:
Now,now feelers fellas...settle down :winker:
-
And a merry xmas to you too, Trev.... :)
That's the crux of it. I don't believe the "blatantly skewed" bit. I DO agree we need more statistics but I don't believe what we have is "blatantly skewed"
You might wanna check out this site, Trev.... :wink:
http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm (http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm)
That's far too technical for me.
Leaving aside my own experience for a while, I have done some work with Ian Luff( driver trainer), Jim Zerefos (former race driver) and Rod Browning (driver trainer and former Holden Precision Drive Team member).
The thing I took out of the time I've spent with them over the years is that individuals' reaction times are wildly varied (from person to person and from car to car and from situation to situation).
I have no idea why various bodies would want to "fudge" the figures (although I can make a pretty good guess), but if it helps people be extra careful, I'm not sure I'm against it.
And on the other matter, offensive or not, it's YOUR avatar.
So, out of respect for everyone concerned, I'll be making no more comments on this thread.
-
I don't think I will be doing much driving over the Christmas period - shovelling snow is not my idea of fun. That's one more old fart off the road for a while.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v308/AlanHo1937/i30i10andsnow.jpg)
-
Cleaned the snow off my car this pm as freezing temps due and I did want it to freeze to the car.
I might need to use the car in a hurry and I was worried that I wouldn't be able to clear it off.
-
Gee that looks so pretty Alan..Seems like most of our UK members park outside.. :question: :cool:
-
Gee that looks so pretty Alan..Seems like most of our UK members park outside.. :question: :cool:
It's the same in Canada. Everyone seems to use their garage (if they have one) for storage and relegate the cars to the driveway/ street.
Please explain???
-
^--- have to agree. Ours stay on the driveway, but that's because I have just about every Black & Decker accessory ever made in my garage, plus heaps of other man-tools ;)
-
^--- have to agree. Ours stay on the driveway, but that's because I have just about every Black & Decker accessory ever made in my garage, plus heaps of other man-tools ;)
Sounds like my son.
I've taught him well. :goodjob:
-
^--- have to agree. Ours stay on the driveway, but that's because I have just about every Black & Decker accessory ever made in my garage, plus heaps of other man-tools ;)
a blokes retreat. :goodjob:
-
We moved house 10 weeks ago (downsized) and the garage is still stuffed with unpacked boxes, furniture we are not sure we want to keep, carpet offcuts, cupboards awaiting installation, several boxes of memorabilia/photos to be sorted and stored in the loft, numerous bottles of booze now that we no longer have a spare kitchen cupboard for it, all my tools, boxes of computer components (for self builds) awaiting sorting now I no longer have a hobbies room, and much more.
Nver again.
-
And on the other matter, offensive or not, it's YOUR avatar.
Thing is though, Trev....it wasn't aimed at my avatar, it was aimed at my comments to Ozbrum...
All's good, Ozbrum....
You were right though, it is complicated. Shame I didn't start a new thread for all this....
Cheers :)
PS, the actual report is quite an easy read really, it's just been made to sound complicated because of all the "gobbledegook" posted here... :lol:
I think YGYHOYD. :rofl:
This is why I took it personally...
Anyhow..moving right along...
I have no idea why various bodies would want to "fudge" the figures (although I can make a pretty good guess), but if it helps people be extra careful, I'm not sure I'm against it.
These "bodies" have their own agendas...
As you probably read in that "braking report", it said the change in braking distances seemed to coincide with the change to a 50kph urban limit....
Trev, must say I'm surprised how easy going you are towards these blatant "porkies" by our Safetycrats, is this a result of your time in marketing? :wink: :D
-
We moved house 10 weeks ago (downsized) and the garage is still stuffed with unpacked boxes, furniture we are not sure we want to keep, carpet offcuts, cupboards awaiting installation, several boxes of memorabilia/photos to be sorted and stored in the loft, numerous bottles of booze now that we no longer have a spare kitchen cupboard for it, all my tools, boxes of computer components (for self builds) awaiting sorting now I no longer have a hobbies room, and much more.
Nver again.
That's nothing, Alan... :D
I shifted into my previous house, lived there for 14 years and still had boxes I hadn't unpacked.... :lol:
Did make it slightly easier when I shifted again around 15 months ago... :D
-
I had 12 years without a garage so I'm making the most of one for both our cars now and how I love the remote access when it is pi$$ing down... :mrgreen:
Edit: Mind you it took me a while to make room for the cars :rolleyes:
-
:goodjob: :razz:
-
^--- have to agree. Ours stay on the driveway, but that's because I have just about every Black & Decker accessory ever made in my garage, plus heaps of other man-tools ;)
the garage is most definitely for the car in this house! it even has a bitch sign to say so
the 20 foot donga and front studio on the other hand :-\
i sorta lost ground there
-
Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers :)
i've tried twice now, it won't give it to me.
finally got this document! remembered to try it on other pc. got it first time.
now need to work out why Foxit can't seem to open it on the other one.
sorry for the hassle. :-[
Try this link (http://www.pdfhost.net/index.php?Action=Download&File=c221938c10fe38110720acaecd124751), Snowy........ :)
-
plus heaps of other man-tools
Do I use my imagination or will you expand please :exclaim: :lol: :lol:
-
:rofl: :scared:
-
finally got this document! remembered to try it on other pc. got it first time.
now need to work out why Foxit can't seem to open it on the other one.
sorry for the hassle. :-[
No probs, Snow, after all that it was probably a bit of a let down...lol
Cheers :)