Speed kills?

[[Tonko]]

But the problem with 'driving to the conditions' is that, some people are too stupid/arrogant to have the decision left to them....
An Example:
Hume highway at 3am. There are still a few cars out, but not many...
A bloke in an old corolla decides 130km/h is safe.
Another in a VN Commo creeps up until he feels the 'safety limit' which, if he is a stupid person may be 170km/h. In a VN, 170 is almost definately suicide.
Or Someone else, might decide to try to break the land speed record in his brand new skyline. Hey, it would be legal under the 'conditions' law...
You could do 140 in the wet, most wouldnt, but some would because they think they are speedracer...

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by [Tonko]

But the problem with 'driving to the conditions' is that, some people are too stupid/arrogant to have the decision left to them....
An Example:
Hume highway at 3am. There are still a few cars out, but not many...
A bloke in an old corolla decides 130km/h is safe.
Another in a VN Commo creeps up until he feels the 'safety limit' which, if he is a stupid person may be 170km/h. In a VN, 170 is almost definately suicide.
Or Someone else, might decide to try to break the land speed record in his brand new skyline. Hey, it would be legal under the 'conditions' law...
You could do 140 in the wet, most wouldnt, but some would because they think they are speedracer...

And there it is, society is not equipped to make such decisions in circumstances with so many variables.

And no amount of education will make a difference. This situation below would be played out everyday by more people than do so now because they think its legal to do so.

Originally Posted by paulvdb

110 in a 110 zone in the rain in a 1970's Sigma is dangerous (and yes I owned one of these)
110 in a 110 zone in the rain in a BF XR6T with good tyres is safe
80 in a 110 zone in the rain in a BF with dodgy tyres and distracted driver is dangerous.
130 in a 110 zone in the dry in a BF on a good road with good tyres and focused driver is safe.

And I give you this nugget, now tell me suggesting speed doesnt kill doesnt send the wrong message. Of course it has a part in it, yet here we have it in black and white...

Originally Posted by paulvdb

Fact - speed plays no part at all. The fixation on speed limits to save lives is purely simplistic rubbish.

Kill yourself, thats your business but its not you Im concerned about.

[Trevor 57]

Ahhhh, so much to say, so many times I have said it, but there is some very good points in amongst the posts so far.

Thank you.

[Rev28K]

A few years ago Holden’s engineers (VY-VZ? Commodore with side bags?) were saying that around 80kmh was about the maximum speed for a side on crash without getting killed. I don’t know if that survivable speed has gone up since then. Either way going 80/90 kmh sideways into things (worst case) looks like the highest survivable crash speed. Anyone want to risk doing that more than once in their lives?

When you have untrained drivers who do not see the need to improve their skills, some driving poorly maintained cars on some very average roads then why not go for a lowest common denominator speed to match lowest common denominator ability?

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by [Tonko]

But the problem with 'driving to the conditions' is that, some people are too stupid/arrogant to have the decision left to them....
An Example:
Hume highway at 3am. There are still a few cars out, but not many...
A bloke in an old corolla decides 130km/h is safe.
Another in a VN Commo creeps up until he feels the 'safety limit' which, if he is a stupid person may be 170km/h. In a VN, 170 is almost definately suicide.
Or Someone else, might decide to try to break the land speed record in his brand new skyline. Hey, it would be legal under the 'conditions' law...
You could do 140 in the wet, most wouldnt, but some would because they think they are speedracer...

Despite hysteria otherwise, most people do not go out and cap themselves in the absence of a posted or 'default' speed-limit. It is *always* a tiny ****y minority in the order <1%-4% that will. To suggest otherwise is arrogant and simply wrong.

It is one of the reasons why in speed-limit setting we have methodologies such as the 85th percentile. That said, many of Australia's posted speed limits on better roads are certaily below the 85th, and is a reason why people drive like pigs.

People here feel 'put-upon', and respond in the only way they can to show displeasure at being so evidently 'dumbed-down'. I can fully appreciate that and the behaviour is evident most everywhere.

Now, in NSW 0.001% of licensed P Platers will die in a crash. Yet, 'young drivers' are over represented in crashes per capita, not just here - but worldwide, and there is NOTHING of any 'real" consequence that Australian 'experts' can do about that reality, all we can do however is reduce 'risky behaviour/s'.

On the Isle Of Mann, the residents have *refused* by a vote, in the order of some 80+% that they wish to keep their speed derestriction allowance, which applies in the same manner as NT's old application, a la outside built-up areas. Good on them, I had suggested adopting EU's rural default 90km/h but to then keep the derestriction for roads so posted. In the future they could fall back to that.

The move to a rural speed-limit on the island, owing migration of UK mainland Isle Of Mann Transport employees and other new migrants 'conditioned' to low driving expectation experienced in the UK mainland, as failed. People choose and are not stupid. Isle of Mann police simply target 'bad driving', and in derestriction zones will pull over those who might be going too fast for a 'chat'. A severe case is actioned as dangerous driving et al.

In Germany, the people continue to vote similarly, not because they like (in our terms) SS Commodores or XR8's driving at lunatic speeds or otherwise too fast, a behaviour which you get *sometimes* in severely speed repressed states in particular, OR from 'visting' drivers who reside in such, but because they know that safe speed is NEVER a constant over any meaningful length of time and road.

The lower the applicable speed limit on 'good roads', the worse the behaviour and driving manner, SINCE their is ABSOLUTELY NO point driving particularly well or with good manner, as to do so is seemingly 'pointless'. The evidence is before you on every major road in Australia, every single second.

You *will* drive well, or cop 'flashes' from locals if you dont; in Germany, Italy, Hungary, France, Isle Of Mann, Abu Dhabi, Iran, Argenina etc where limits exceed 130km/h and some places remain derestricted.

In AUS sadly, we cannot raise the freeway limits because of the dopey median U-Turn bays. RTA is studying gatelocks for these in this state.

The issue as always is 'what is a safe speed'? Often the speed limit is not and can sometimes be too fast. 'Speed-Limit conditing' is deadly.

[fmc351]

Germany has the Autobahns, thats it and its not all of them. Everywhere else its between wait for it, 50 in suburbia, and 100 on non Autobahns. Add a trailer to your car, and its no more than 80 km/h anywhere.

Autobahns are not derestricted rural roads.


In Germany insurance companies can simply refuse to cover the policy if the driver exceeds 130 including on derestricted Autobahns. Any accident regardless of who is at fault, is apportioned at least partly to any driver over 130.

And 85th percentile puts to rest the notion of revenue raising.


On the note of 85th percentile type arrangements, if drivers under the current rules demonstrated a propensity to obey traffic laws, then the rules could change to allow for that. Currently every driver you see breaking a law is holding back the speed limit.

Is there a mirror in your house?

[Marlin_Girl]

imo "Speed Kills" campaigns and speed restrictions are the easiest, most cost effective way to catch or teach "morons" a lesson before they kill themselves, whether speed itself plays a part or not.

I think restrictions have their place, and wouldn't bother taking offense to them

[troppo]

Well, it still hasn't been locked so let me just say what a pleasure it is having this debate with someone equally as passionate and ana! about the subject as myself.

Originally Posted by fmc351

And there it is, society is not equipped to make such decisions in circumstances with so many variables.

That statement right there says a lot about the different outlooks you and I have, I suspect that difference has a strong influence on how we see this issue.

I think people are generally good, the great majority will do the right thing and just want to about their lives and enjoy their families while they can. I am content to go about my business my way and let others do the same, we'll sort the problems out if/when they arise.

You, on the other hand, seem to think the world is populated predominantly by idiots and the few people with brains like yourself are the exception. As a result, you want to impose your will on others in the form of legislation to protect yourself from the great unwashed so that there aren't any problems...for you.

Originally Posted by fmc351

And no amount of education will make a difference. This situation below would be played out everyday by more people than do so now because they think its legal to do so.

See...first you say the idiots can't be helped and back it up with pure speculation. But you can't believe someone with actual experience on roads without speed limits for 15 years, when I say people don't turn into morons as soon as the limit signs come down. If anything it happened less becuase there was nothing special about doing it, anyone could at any time.

Originally Posted by fmc351

And I give you this nugget, now tell me suggesting speed doesnt kill doesnt send the wrong message. Of course it has a part in it, yet here we have it in black and white....

You may have missed it in the other thread, the part speed plays doesn't come into effect until AFTER someone driving has already lost control, for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Kill yourself, thats your business but its not you Im concerned about.

You're dead right there, it's you you're concerned about.

Answering your last post in the other thread...

Originally Posted by fmc351

We do encourage responsible driving, with speed limits and road rules. Using your logic, why bother with give way signs and traffic lights either? Surely we can be responsible.

Um, aren't traffic lights and give way signs there because they are exceptions to the "give way to the your right" rule? I mean, you give way to traffic in both directions at a give way sign...and how is removing traffic management rules and signs in populated areas any way related to advocating open limits on rural (read unpopulated) roads?

Using your logic, you should be off campaigning to ban alcohol. 20000 deaths a years only rates a "drink responsibly" campaign while the national road toll of 1500 is far too costly to society to leave in the hands of the public?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Competing rights, thats what you are referring too. When the rights of one person infringe on the next person. Basic example, my right to have the stereo cranked in my home in suburbia from 5pm to 3am every night of the week cranking out the most god awful music you can imagine, and the neighbours right to sleep in peace. Your (and everyone elses including those without the capacity to make a decent decision) right to drive at their own limit on open roads v the right of the family returning from holiday to get home safely. Competing rights go both ways, the law has to go with the choice of least harm. Gee, is it really that hard to decipher which is which?

Correct, a concept the youg doof doof boys are unaware of...
That said, I'm not really sure what the problem is regarding open limits on the highway. How does me going past you at high speed infringe on your rights in any way? Unless of course you assume that an accident is inevitable purely because of speed, in which case I'd remind you of the need for a loss of control first.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Society on mass does not have the mental capacity to operate as you suggest, it never will. And that is not due to dumbing down of society. Were selfish by nature, not very community minded, short sighted and for the most part dont plan very well and we only get wiser with age. There is a massive potential for damage in the mean time. Yeah not everyone is like that, but society is not isolated cases its a whole, a whole drawn to a limit by its weakest points not living in hope based on its best case scenarios.

Yes, you've made it clear you think we're all idiots, I disagree. The most selfish are the control freaks who would use legislation which restricts everyone to protect themselves from even the possibility of one of the idiots getting in your...I mean their way.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Think about a car, it may have 600kw but if its got no brakes and no steering, its not wise to race it over Mt Panorama.

Whoa Nelly... are you saying the condition of the car being driven is more of a factor than the speed for any given driver on any given track in any given conditions? And that somehow the driver is responsible for taking that into account?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Try yelling that from the roof top and see if it comes true. I never failed, you failed to get the point preferring to stick with your straw man.

I did...it did.
Admit it, you like him ;)

Originally Posted by fmc351

Maybe we should do away with underage sex laws too and let the adults decide for themselves what they want to do, surely they will make the right decisions. I mean surely we can be trusted to make appropriate decisions. That is your argument, we can be trusted to make appropriate decisions. You looked around you lately?

Hmm....advocating allowing me to be able to cut a few hours from my drive to Alice with no adverse effects to anyone and less fatigue for me V's advocating allowing pedophile's access to prey on children and I shudder to think of the consequences.

Well, yeah I can see why you though that would make a worthwhile comparison...the similarities are striking. :
Was there a point?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Neither is possible except in your own mind. The public cant be trusted to make decisions like that for themselves, there are exceptions but you cant apply that as the norm. Obviously if the only person at risk was the party concerned then so be it, but they arent the only one. And thats the point everyone keeps forgetting.

Risk minimisation isn't possible? I know I'm an idiot but help me out here because you also said...

Originally Posted by fmc351

Just because life itself is a risk does not mean no steps should be taken to minimise them.

So,which is it, possible or not?

Originally Posted by fmc351

And not having laws like speed limits results in no way to effectively prosecute them either. In other words, anarchy on the roads. The alternative is if there is any incident clearly you were breaking the law as the speed wasnt safe, but that wont always be true there may be other causes. I suggest you learn about the history of laws and why they are the way they are. Enforceability and effective operation are just a couple of important aspects of laws.

Good thing I didn't mention any of the laws like speed limits then, only the limits themselves, and only the open road ones at that. But as you say, anarchy would prevail thanks to the idiots...

Originally Posted by fmc351

With hindsight youre correct with reference to this case, as I said at least he had the sense to do it off road. Its a tragic senseless waste of life and I prefer it never happened, but the choice was made by those in the car and I feel little sympathy for them, but a lot for their families. But on that note, how could he be sure there was no employee of the airport working before hours to keep the place ship shape so to speak? The assumption the place is closed so therefore no third party will be injured is exactly the situation Im talking about, there is no sense in that assumption. It is nothing more than an assumption and could just as easily go wrong, for some innocent third party.

Had the sense? I don't wish to speak ill of the dead so I'll say this. Consider it's not beyond the realm of possibility that if that kid had lived in the country somewhere and used a rural road instead of a runway (as rural town kids do) that didn't suddenly run out, he might still be posting on the M5 forum. Yes, I survived doing similar stupid things when I was his age, but even then, one of the unwritten rules for doing stupid things was no passengers.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Wrong, i can be stopped at the lights and be hit by someone else who failed to take account of the things you mention above. I could be changing a tyre in the emergency lane and collected by the clown who lost control because the law says he can do 200 if he thinks its safe. You keep revealing your focus is on the car choosing to drive quick and fail to account for the car that doesnt.

I dont need to be moving at all, thats the point.

Ah, the return of the prodigal straw man...and batting for the other team, no less. It's not wrong...I didn't specify whether the motion is associated with object A or B (it's irrelevant) but you don't get hit without one or both having it. Isn't this the same I thing I was saying when you were rabbiting on about how irresponsible is was of me to advocate driving fast. Did I not go further by then pointing out not only do you not need to be moving, you don't even need to be in a car, or leave the house in order to die from factors beyond your control. You keep focusing on what happens AFTER the loss of control, instead of WHY control was lost.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Again, focus on one issue at a time over several campaigns and get the full message across. Oh wait, you want a 40 minute documentary to replace the ads so every facet of driving is covered under the one banner. Jesus, the public cant manage one at a time, how the hell will they manage a complex message like that?

The public are idiots argument again...actually, it's not even an argument, it's an opinion. Mine is different, I don't think the message is all that complex and the public could absorb it quite easliy if it was preached along with the dangers and risks associated with increased speed, as opposed to the simple "speed kills"

Originally Posted by fmc351

So you want them to interview the dead couple? Maybe just interview the surviving drink driver? They are trying to get a message across to tools who keep thinking speed doesnt kill and then speed and kill someone (insert drink drive, seatbelt or whatever).

Well duh...why do they need to interview anyone if the story isn't about them? You mean they are trying to get ratings and brownie points by pushing the message using an emotional tearjerking timefiller which has almost nothing to do with speed (insert drink drive, seatbelt, or whatever). When someone dies it's obviously an emotional time for the families involved and an experience noone forgets, but I don't think it helps when the media attempts to sanitise the facts with phrases like "the car they wer travelling in left the road". Or one from yesterday's paper

died when his car crossed on to the wrong side of the road and into the path of a truck.

Source: http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...98_ntnews.html

What they mean is the car was allowed to drift across the road after the driver lost control for whatever reason (unknown at this stage). Now both vehicles not speeding, in a zone limited to 80km/h, good conditions....one driver survived the same combined impact speed, proving that even after the loss of control, impact and sudden stop, there are still other factors in causing a fatal accident. Mass is obviously a big one and is just as important as speed when talking about the real damaging forces in a crash...kinetic energy. Yet we consider sharing the roads with 3 trailer roads trains at 100 km/h an hour an acceptable risk when the truth is if you hit one head on while also doing 100 in your civic, it's going to be a lot worse than hitting a solid stationary wall at 200+....

Originally Posted by fmc351

Ah crap, why do we need any laws at all if society can be trusted to make the right choices? Society being made up of many minds will never be able to work a trust or honour system in a situation with so many variables.

If only we were all a bit more like you eh?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Oh and the ambos and police reference were to posters here who repeat the warnings, not a tug at heart strings. You should probably do something about your comprehension.

Roger that...

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by troppo

Roger that...

Well Troppo! What you been doing for the past 5 hours! Must say, not getting involved in this very exhausting debate but...... congrats on a very well done reply. Reply of the year! (Only been 6 weeks into it though).



| [/url] |

[Trevor 57]

Far too much to read - bye

[Geez Louise]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

Far too much to read - bye

Ditto...Speed kills...more like reading this thread will. Be an old maid before I finish it!!

Good luck with ya debate!!

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Big_Trev

Far too much to read - bye

Short attention span? Too many big words? Its hard to argue with facts eh!!

[Professor Farnsworth]

this can be answered very simply.

Speed DIFFERENTIAL is the killer.

[xtremerus]

Well said Troppo

[Outbackjack]

I am curious about the experinces of the people that have posted in this thread. Which ever side of the fence you are on. eg, How many have actually driven on the NT highways pre jan 07. How many have cruised along a highway at 160kph from morning to evening, that used to be the way to travel Alice to Darwin (and reverse). Now an overnight stop or huge risks of wildlife hits are the only choice.

Please let us know. That way everyone will know if you are talking from experince or just pushing a barrow.

[Professor Farnsworth]

let me clarify my position..

in 12 years of driving, i have found that speed differential is the killer, not the speed itself, that's irrelevant.

If someone is travelling too slow, say 40 in a 70 zone, and someone comes up behind them around a corner doing the posted 70, there is a sudden 30km/h differential which comes into play, and that is the killer.

If most of the traffic is moving at 80 in a 70 zone, and you're doing 65-70, YOU become the hazard, as unfare as that is.

People please read what i wrote carefully before getting on your soapboxes with me, too.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by troppo

Well, it still hasn't been locked so let me just say what a pleasure it is having this debate with someone equally as passionate and ana! about the subject as myself.

That statement right there says a lot about the different outlooks you and I have, I suspect that difference has a strong influence on how we see this issue.

I think people are generally good,

Not the point I was making. Its not the majority are criminal or willfully negligent in their actions. We as a species dont plan well. Want proof??, we could all be rich if we knew how to go about it, its not like we dont have opportunity. Some make it, others despite immense effort never make it, others never try. Its not just luck, its something else. We are not all created equal.

Originally Posted by troppo

You, on the other hand, seem to think the world is populated predominantly by idiots and the few people with brains like yourself are the exception. As a result, you want to impose your will on others in the form of legislation to protect yourself from the great unwashed so that there aren't any problems...for you.

I make errors... many. Its not me Im worried about, its my family, its the old couple in that other thread, its you, its your kids, its your neighbours, it my neighbours... its society in general.

Originally Posted by troppo

See...first you say the idiots can't be helped and back it up with pure speculation. But you can't believe someone with actual experience on roads without speed limits for 15 years, when I say people don't turn into morons as soon as the limit signs come down. If anything it happened less becuase there was nothing special about doing it, anyone could at any time.

There is a post in here that claimed speed had NO, not simply a part of, NO effect at all. Do you need more? Ummm, every New Years there is senseless violence for people going out for a good time. Cmon, society isnt some soapie on TV. How much do you want, there is daily evidence of societies inability to function in the best interests.

If you think people wont simply drive fast because they can, why was the argument tourists in the NT caused a large part of the problem, the novelty of it you think? Kind of changes both arguments youve made thus far, that if anyone can, people wont for the hell of it, and that people dont just take risks for the hell of it and generally do good.

Originally Posted by troppo

You may have missed it in the other thread, the part speed plays doesn't come into effect until AFTER someone driving has already lost control, for whatever reason.

No you missed it. I mentioned V8 supercars, I mentioned planes, clearly I get that speed alone doesnt kill. But theres no impact without movement from something. Faster movement results in higher impacts. ...

What you dont get is the message is part of a wider campaign, and effective advertising simplifies the message.

Originally Posted by troppo

You're dead right there, it's you you're concerned about.

Full of assumptions, yet you accuse me of not supporting arguments. I didnt think I needed to link to the senseless activities of vast numbers of society.



As for the other thread as per your quotes.

Originally Posted by troppo

Um, aren't traffic lights and give way signs there because they are exceptions to the "give way to the your right" rule? I mean, you give way to traffic in both directions at a give way sign...and how is removing traffic management rules and signs in populated areas any way related to advocating open limits on rural (read unpopulated) roads?

I like traffic lights and give way signs. Now read that post again, this time for meaning. That would be the comprehension I suggested to you earlier.

You suggest society can make decisions without limits, Im merely pointing out by comparison that rules and limits are needed.

Originally Posted by troppo

Using your logic, you should be off campaigning to ban alcohol. 20000 deaths a years only rates a "drink responsibly" campaign while the national road toll of 1500 is far too costly to society to leave in the hands of the public?

Why? Im not saying ban cars. I am calling for tougher penalties, the law already addresses drink driving. Id be happy enough with 0.00 for everyone though, but Im not suggesting it nor would I vote for it, I think 0.05 is fine, just like a speed limit.

Id support 130 for many roads in states outside NT, and open limits on certain stretches of NT if the issues we face were addressed. As I said, every person breaking the current laws (outside NT) is KEEPING the speed limits lower than needed. See the above '85th percentile'.

Originally Posted by troppo

Correct, a concept the youg doof doof boys are unaware of...
That said, I'm not really sure what the problem is regarding open limits on the highway. How does me going past you at high speed infringe on your rights in any way? Unless of course you assume that an accident is inevitable purely because of speed, in which case I'd remind you of the need for a loss of control first.

Do you know why its called an accident?

Loss of control? What about the bad decision of others, not you? Its called an accident, or a f%&k up. Kill yourself thats your business, but there are millions of others on the road who are brought down with them. So turn down that doof doof and actually work out how competing rights defeat your argument in favour of the millions of others, and Ill help, no its not majority rules.

Originally Posted by troppo

Yes, you've made it clear you think we're all idiots, I disagree. The most selfish are the control freaks who would use legislation which restricts everyone to protect themselves from even the possibility of one of the idiots getting in your...I mean their way.

Im beginning to think you are. Ive never said that, nor have I said Im better. Stop assuming. What I do, which is clearly alien to you, is take a community attitude toward things, there are people other than me. Please dont bother with 'well duh', your tone and assumptions give you away.

Originally Posted by troppo

Whoa Nelly... are you saying the condition of the car being driven is more of a factor than the speed for any given driver on any given track in any given conditions? And that somehow the driver is responsible for taking that into account?

Whoa?? If you read the posts for meaning youd know I never denied that. In fact have clearly stated many variables exist, the many variables is one reason the choice is too complex for the majority of the population, possibly myself included. The major problem here is, we wont know who makes bad decisions till the unexpected happens, oh yeah, thats too late.

Add to that, there is a large chunk of the population, especially here (and any car/bike forum) that are over confident in their own abilities. As stated Brocky f$%ked up, it was his choice which hurt no-one who didnt assume the same risk. The public road does not afford that luxury. You claiming his skill? He hit a tree, could have been another car in an on road situation.

Originally Posted by troppo

Well, yeah I can see why you though that would make a worthwhile comparison...the similarities are striking. :
Was there a point?

Yep, not surprised you missed it. >>>>People cant be trusted to make proper decisions, they need laws to point things out like bunting little miss 8yr old next door is wrong. Funny, I just knew that, I didnt need a law to tell me not to stick it in little miss next door, did you? Plenty do need the law to point it out, yet still dont listen. There are many laws like that. Yeah yeah, laws dont help. Yes they do, they identify the riskier people and do something about it, in theory anyway, dont get me started on leniency.<<<<<

Originally Posted by troppo

Risk minimisation isn't possible? I know I'm an idiot but help me out here because you also said...

So,which is it, possible or not?

Without looking for a locked thread, Ill assume I was NOT saying risk minimisation. Given your propensity to miss obvious points, and comprehension, Ill assume "neither" does not refer to risk minimisation. If it was, Ill correct that for you.

You cant guarantee and you cant assume society will make good decisions, not when the lives of people outside that choice are effected.

Originally Posted by troppo

Good thing I didn't mention any of the laws like speed limits then, only the limits themselves, and only the open road ones at that. But as you say, anarchy would prevail thanks to the idiots...

Try and understand law, its not simply the rules you see. There are a host of guidelines behind their wording, and for good reason. Specific enough not make it encompass everything even remotely linkable, yet wide enough to encompass everything its in place for without loopholes. Yes loopholes get through, its complex. Let me just put it down to the rule of law as opposed to arbitrary decisions of individual judges based on whim. It gives you rights and avenues of appeal, and the freedom to have a view different from a judge, and be protected from his 'tyranny'. You need to think about 'ye old' royalty and the whims of the king enforced on the people. The rule of law eliminates, as much as possible the likelihood of that. Its where your freedom comes from.

Simple example. In Germany anyone over 130 even on an Autobahn is automatically apportioned blame even if in reality they had no fault at all, perfect day, perfect car, major f$%k up of someone else. Why is that? There is no real way to establish fault in that situation, its a legal nightmare.

Originally Posted by troppo

Had the sense? I don't wish to speak ill of the dead so I'll say this. Consider it's not beyond the realm of possibility that if that kid had lived in the country somewhere and used a rural road instead of a runway (as rural town kids do) that didn't suddenly run out, he might still be posting on the M5 forum. Yes, I survived doing similar stupid things when I was his age, but even then, one of the unwritten rules for doing stupid things was no passengers.

And another family could be dead. If, if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle. You reckon that unwritten rule is waived for airstrips, or do you think the guys in the car would be there anyway.

Originally Posted by troppo

Ah, the return of the prodigal straw man...and batting for the other team, no less. It's not wrong...I didn't specify whether the motion is associated with object A or B (it's irrelevant) but you don't get hit without one or both having it. Isn't this the same I thing I was saying when you were rabbiting on about how irresponsible is was of me to advocate driving fast. Did I not go further by then pointing out not only do you not need to be moving, you don't even need to be in a car, or leave the house in order to die from factors beyond your control. You keep focusing on what happens AFTER the loss of control, instead of WHY control was lost.

1.) Look up a definition of straw man.
2.) Read it slowly.

3.) Blown tyre, Debris on road, etc etc, there doesnt need to be a bad choice other than speed that kills, an unlucky choice will do.

My point was, the other road user who doesnt speed being mangled by the speedsters choice. Try mate, its not hard. Yet you think Im focused on me, I like fast, Id kill for an Autobahn.

Originally Posted by troppo

The public are idiots argument again...actually, it's not even an argument, it's an opinion. Mine is different, I don't think the message is all that complex and the public could absorb it quite easliy if it was preached along with the dangers and risks associated with increased speed, as opposed to the simple "speed kills"

If that were true, they would absorb the message of drink driving, yet they dont. What, is that message wrong too? What about 'stop revive survive'? Jesus, open your bloody eyes, think an argument through.

The simple message doesnt get through.

Originally Posted by troppo

Well duh...why do they need to interview anyone if the story isn't about them? You mean they are trying to get ratings and brownie points by pushing the message using an emotional tearjerking timefiller which has almost nothing to do with speed (insert drink drive, seatbelt, or whatever).

Im not going to defend Today Tonight et al, I think they are woeful programs with nothing but agendas of their own. But I do not see how its misinformation of simply tear jerking when a family having lived through a SIMILAR tragedy is able to tell its story so we can SEE what we leave behind, before we leave it behind. Yes we already KNOW, but seeing it seems to be necessary as we dont seem to actually consider it. Today Tonights agenda is their own.

Originally Posted by troppo

Now both vehicles not speeding, in a zone limited to 80km/h, good conditions....one driver survived the same combined impact speed, proving that even after the loss of control, impact and sudden stop, there are still other factors in causing a fatal accident. Mass is obviously a big one and is just as important as speed when talking about the real damaging forces in a crash...kinetic energy.

Tragic. Still doesnt say we dont need speed limits, it says there are risks. One survivor suggests the speed limit on that road is appropriate? Maybe it should be lowered to allow two survivors. Would anyone survive if the road had no limit? Dont bother with the road being suburban etc, its not the point.

Take your time mate, it probably doesnt say what you think it does.

Originally Posted by troppo

Yet we consider sharing the roads with 3 trailer roads trains at 100 km/h an hour an acceptable risk when the truth is if you hit one head on while also doing 100 in your civic, it's going to be a lot worse than hitting a solid stationary wall at 200+....

I doubt it will be any worse, but I get the point. This does not argue against speed limits for anyone who can think an argument through. Sorry bud, just telling it like it is.

Are you suggesting the banning of road trains? I wouldnt be against it if its unnecessary, but I dont know the reasons or limits of transportation in NT. I know there is a decent rail link now, so maybe they are a thing of the past.

Originally Posted by troppo

If only we were all a bit more like you eh?

Probably better if were not.

[Professor Farnsworth]

Biggest post ever!

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by mrcrackers

Biggest post ever!

Whats the character limit?

Or is it open?

[Auslandau]

What happened to quality ...... as opposed to quality?



| [/url] |

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by auslandau

What happened to quality ...... as opposed to quality?

Oh the irony...

[loony888]

while the continual debate about speed is amusing, it highlights an important factor, we're all different. different ages, experience, enthusiasm, values, skills etc, and this, people, is why there are speed limits. sure, cops having discretion to issue penalties depending on all relevant factors would be nice, and indeed fairer, but, and it's a big but, the fuzz don't want the ability to do it. It opens the door for debate, which they definitely don't want, so absolute rules apply, that carry absolute penalties, no if's no buts, no maybes.
In my 23 odd years on the road i've learned to play the game, i never admit to anything, ever. this alone has saved my wallet and my license repeatedly, sometimes justly, sometimes not.
And as i ride bikes on the road as well i am very aware of the varied level of skill/competence on our roads, my realisation of this fact alone slowed me down considerably as well as taught me to give everyone a wide berth, there's everyone from 17yo learners texting their mates to 80yo pensioners who need prescription windscreens out there so take care everyone!!

paul.

[paulvdb]

Originally Posted by loony888

while the continual debate about speed is amusing, it highlights an important factor, we're all different. different ages, experience, enthusiasm, values, skills etc, and this, people, is why there are speed limits. sure, cops having discretion to issue penalties depending on all relevant factors would be nice, and indeed fairer, but, and it's a big but, the fuzz don't want the ability to do it. It opens the door for debate, which they definitely don't want, so absolute rules apply, that carry absolute penalties, no if's no buts, no maybes.
In my 23 odd years on the road i've learned to play the game, i never admit to anything, ever. this alone has saved my wallet and my license repeatedly, sometimes justly, sometimes not.
And as i ride bikes on the road as well i am very aware of the varied level of skill/competence on our roads, my realisation of this fact alone slowed me down considerably as well as taught me to give everyone a wide berth, there's everyone from 17yo learners texting their mates to 80yo pensioners who need prescription windscreens out there so take care everyone!!

paul.

I'm 100% with you on sticking to limits (when noticed) but note that the issue is not entirely about speed limits but more that the current fixation on speed and speeding (2 completely different things) seem to be at the detriment of absolutely every other accident-causing factor. How often do police check for tyre pressures? How often do they check that a car is roadworthy in states that don't have mandatory annual tests? How often do they really book someone for using their phone? How many drug checks do they carry out (now seen as a major contributor in crashes)?

My other concern, mentioned earlier, is that people now automatically consider themselves a safe driver by driving slower than the limit - without any other consideration. If you are a Sydney driver you would have seen in the last few years that the speed has dropped substantially, everywhere, and that the quality of driving is getting worse. For those of you riding bikes this would probably be even more obvious - the bike training system seems great yet the car training system is hilarious.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by auslandau

What happened to quality ...... as opposed to quantity?

..........damn spelling. Thats what I meant to say!!!!!



| [/url] |

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Short attention span?

Yeah, you are right.

Intelligent argument is good to read, bombardment is not. :

[troppo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Not the point I was making. Its not the majority are criminal or willfully negligent in their actions. We as a species dont plan well. Want proof??, we could all be rich if we knew how to go about it, its not like we dont have opportunity. Some make it, others despite immense effort never make it, others never try. Its not just luck, its something else. We are not all created equal.

I realise it's not the point you were making... because it was an observation I was making. W eare created different, which is not the same as unequal. Just because my tastes differ from yours does not make me any more or less equal.

Originally Posted by fmc351

I make errors... many. Its not me Im worried about, its my family, its the old couple in that other thread, its you, its your kids, its your neighbours, it my neighbours... its society in general.

Therein lies the reason why accidents can only be minimised and not prevented. Humans aren't infallible. And you don't care about me if I'm speeding...you said so.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Kill yourself, thats your business but its not you Im concerned about.

Originally Posted by fmc351

There is a post in here that claimed speed had NO, not simply a part of, NO effect at all. Do you need more? Ummm, every New Years there is senseless violence for people going out for a good time. Cmon, society isnt some soapie on TV. How much do you want, there is daily evidence of societies inability to function in the best interests.

Read it again, he's referring to the CAUSE of an accident. Clearly, he understands the complex issues involved here....
Yes I do need more, and one night of drunken revelry on a special occasion every year as an example won't do it for me.

Originally Posted by fmc351

If you think people wont simply drive fast because they can, why was the argument tourists in the NT caused a large part of the problem, the novelty of it you think? Kind of changes both arguments youve made thus far, that if anyone can, people wont for the hell of it, and that people dont just take risks for the hell of it and generally do good.

I don't just think...let's be crystal clear here, I experienced for 15 years.
Why was what? Tourists don't cause anything, they just crash a lot more often than the locals because they aren't used to driving in outback conditions where it's not uncommon to drive for 5 hours between buildings. It's called fatigue.

Originally Posted by fmc351

No you missed it. I mentioned V8 supercars, I mentioned planes, clearly I get that speed alone doesnt kill. But theres no impact without movement from something. Faster movement results in higher impacts. ...

Gee...I wish I'd thought of that...

Originally Posted by fmc351

What you dont get is the message is part of a wider campaign, and effective advertising simplifies the message.

What you don't get is simple messages don't solve a complex problem.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Full of assumptions, yet you accuse me of not supporting arguments. I didnt think I needed to link to the senseless activities of vast numbers of society.

As I said, an observation..

Originally Posted by fmc351

As for the other thread as per your quotes.

I like traffic lights and give way signs. Now read that post again, this time for meaning. That would be the comprehension I suggested to you earlier.

I was looking for relevance first...

Originally Posted by fmc351

You suggest society can make decisions without limits, Im merely pointing out by comparison that rules and limits are needed.

I suggested society doesn't need to bogged down with limits on absolutely everything, nor would it help the problem any more than what has already been done.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Why? Im not saying ban cars. I am calling for tougher penalties, the law already addresses drink driving. Id be happy enough with 0.00 for everyone though, but Im not suggesting it nor would I vote for it, I think 0.05 is fine, just like a speed limit.

The law already adresses speed in populated areas...

Originally Posted by fmc351

Id support 130 for many roads in states outside NT, and open limits on certain stretches of NT if the issues we face were addressed. As I said, every person breaking the current laws (outside NT) is KEEPING the speed limits lower than needed. See the above '85th percentile'.

LOL well thats the most circular argument I've ever seen. The fact is the lack of a motion from the pollies to change the laws is what's keeping them.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Do you know why its called an accident?

Im no dictionary but if you really need to find out, I can give a loose definition. I define it as an unforseen and unavoidale mishap. Hence why I think prevention isn't possible and that many of the 'accidents' on our roads are actually misnamed crashes.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Loss of control? What about the bad decision of others, not you? Its called an accident, or a f%&k up. Kill yourself thats your business, but there are millions of others on the road who are brought down with them. So turn down that doof doof and actually work out how competing rights defeat your argument in favour of the millions of others, and Ill help, no its not majority rules.

Yes loss of control...the direct result of that bad decision. No, an accident is not a f%&k up...f%&k ups are avoidable, accidents aren't.
Turn down the doof doof? Did you read my post?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im beginning to think you are. Ive never said that, nor have I said Im better. Stop assuming. What I do, which is clearly alien to you, is take a community attitude toward things, there are people other than me. Please dont bother with 'well duh', your tone and assumptions give you away.

A community stand you say? An awful lot of focus on the self for somoeone who claims a community stand, not to mention a certain zealousness toward restricting the rights and abilities of the community, arguably unnessecarily.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Whoa?? If you read the posts for meaning youd know I never denied that. In fact have clearly stated many variables exist, the many variables is one reason the choice is too complex for the majority of the population, possibly myself included. The major problem here is, we wont know who makes bad decisions till the unexpected happens, oh yeah, thats too late.

A fact of life mate. I'd prefer people to be vigilant at all times and be on the lookout for some moron speeding through a school zone as opposed to only being vigilant while on the open highway with no speed limits.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Add to that, there is a large chunk of the population, especially here (and any car/bike forum) that are over confident in their own abilities. As stated Brocky f$%ked up, it was his choice which hurt no-one who didnt assume the same risk. The public road does not afford that luxury. You claiming his skill? He hit a tree, could have been another car in an on road situation.

Of course there is. There is another equally sized buch who are just as dangerous through their lack of confidence and cause mayhem by driving too slowly and being too cautious. Do you pan to adreess them too?
Yes, Brocky f%&ked up, just like any other driver who crashes (excepting mechanical failure) and without the f&%kup, he wouldn't have crashed. I can see no reason not to think that, if he had survived the crash, he would've said exactly that. Just like 100% of other racing drivers involved in a single vehicle crash on a racetrack. Notice how they never blame speed, it's always the drivers fault, or another driver, or on very very rare occasions, mechanical
failure. What are you trying to say, that if we drive slower, those other objects and cars we could potentially hit magically disappear?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Yep, not surprised you missed it. >>>>People cant be trusted to make proper decisions, they need laws to point things out like bunting little miss 8yr old next door is wrong. Funny, I just knew that, I didnt need a law to tell me not to stick it in little miss next door, did you? Plenty do need the law to point it out, yet still dont listen. There are many laws like that. Yeah yeah, laws dont help. Yes they do, they identify the riskier people and do something about it, in theory anyway, dont get me started on leniency.<<<<<

Missed what...your opinion on other people's abilities? I think you've made that clear.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Without looking for a locked thread, Ill assume I was NOT saying risk minimisation. Given your propensity to miss obvious points, and comprehension, Ill assume "neither" does not refer to risk minimisation. If it was, Ill correct that for you.

Look for the locked thread...

Originally Posted by fmc351

You cant guarantee and you cant assume society will make good decisions, not when the lives of people outside that choice are effected.

Right...but it's OK to do exactly that when it comes to a more dangerous substance like alcohol...

Originally Posted by fmc351

Try and understand law, its not simply the rules you see. There are a host of guidelines behind their wording, and for good reason. Specific enough not make it encompass everything even remotely linkable, yet wide enough to encompass everything its in place for without loopholes. Yes loopholes get through, its complex. Let me just put it down to the rule of law as opposed to arbitrary decisions of individual judges based on whim. It gives you rights and avenues of appeal, and the freedom to have a view different from a judge, and be protected from his 'tyranny'. You need to think about 'ye old' royalty and the whims of the king enforced on the people. The rule of law eliminates, as much as possible the likelihood of that. Its where your freedom comes from.

Freedom comes from law?
Competing rights, as you mentioned earlier, is the sole reason for the existence of laws.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Simple example. In Germany anyone over 130 even on an Autobahn is automatically apportioned blame even if in reality they had no fault at all, perfect day, perfect car, major f$%k up of someone else. Why is that? There is no real way to establish fault in that situation, its a legal nightmare.

Well if it's a legal nightmare then more legislation makes perfect sense...

Originally Posted by fmc351

And another family could be dead. If, if your aunty had balls she'd be your uncle. You reckon that unwritten rule is waived for airstrips, or do you think the guys in the car would be there anyway.

I don't know, I wasn't there. I do know I survived the times I was there.
I think if the lad really wanted to do what he did, he wouldn't have let his friends in the car. If he had done it on a road and lived, that's 5 families who wouldn't be grieving now. And if it he'd done it alone and not lived, that still 4 families better off than they are now.

Originally Posted by fmc351

1.) Look up a definition of straw man.
2.) Read it slowly.
3.) Blown tyre, Debris on road, etc etc, there doesnt need to be a bad choice other than speed that kills, an unlucky choice will do.

I've lost my dictionary, but option 3 seems pretty close to my argument you called a straw man, so lock in 3 thanks Eddie.

Originally Posted by fmc351

My point was, the other road user who doesnt speed being mangled by the speedsters choice. Try mate, its not hard. Yet you think Im focused on me, I like fast, Id kill for an Autobahn.

And my point was, the other road user is perfectly safe UNLESS something goes wrong, not really any different to how it works now is it?

Originally Posted by fmc351

`If that were true, they would absorb the message of drink driving, yet they dont. What, is that message wrong too? What about 'stop revive survive'? Jesus, open your bloody eyes, think an argument through.

The simple message doesnt get through.

Could it be the message is too simple?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im not going to defend Today Tonight et al, I think they are woeful programs with nothing but agendas of their own. But I do not see how its misinformation of simply tear jerking when a family having lived through a SIMILAR tragedy is able to tell its story so we can SEE what we leave behind, before we leave it behind. Yes we already KNOW, but seeing it seems to be necessary as we dont seem to actually consider it. Today Tonights agenda is their own.

Like a side, a tearjerker piece for ratings purposes...

Originally Posted by fmc351

Tragic. Still doesnt say we dont need speed limits, it says there are risks. One survivor suggests the speed limit on that road is appropriate? Maybe it should be lowered to allow two survivors. Would anyone survive if the road had no limit? Dont bother with the road being suburban etc, its not the point.

Take your time mate, it probably doesnt say what you think it does.

No but it does say the existing speed limit doesn't make a rats of difference One survivor could suggest that...or it could simply suggest that the mass of the truck he was in saved him from the car that hit him. If the road had no limit, how would the physics of the crash change? Oh... now I get it, you mean if the road had no limit AND the vehicles were travelling faster than they actually were? Well, that's just speculation and brings us back to Aunty Jack. But I'll humour you anyway...I'd say the truck driver would've survived.

Originally Posted by fmc351

I doubt it will be any worse, but I get the point. This does not argue against speed limits for anyone who can think an argument through. Sorry bud, just telling it like it is.

Thats fine, it's only your opinion...mine is different and I'm comfortable with that.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Are you suggesting the banning of road trains? I wouldnt be against it if its unnecessary, but I dont know the reasons or limits of transportation in NT. I know there is a decent rail link now, so maybe they are a thing of the past.

No, the point was,a little knowledge is a good thing when highlighting danger...

Originally Posted by fmc351

Probably better if were not.

Agreed.

[Whitey-AMG]

I guess the whole gist of this argument is does speed "kill"

I have to say YES.

Sure we will always be in a situation where accidents will always happen, people get distracted, some people shouldn't be on the roads period, and some people just don't maintain their vehicles appropriately. Driver education can only go so far and Govt legislation on speed limits means squat when any moron gets behind the wheel and decides they're gonna drag race their mate to the next set of lights...........or beyond.

Considering this, I guess its a matter of minimising the effects. The "slower" the impact, the less chance of serious injury, maiming or death. The less the speed differential......again, the lesser chance of serious injury, maiming or death.

On todays congested roads on peak hour traffic, there is rarely a chance to break the speed limit or increase the differential between yourself and other cars. I guess its more the off peak times and quieter roads where the potential is far greater. I haven't known too many single vehicle accident deaths at 30 - 40 - or 60klmh...................

I don't think this issue will ever be resolved and this debate may very well rage on forever. The contributing factors are numerous, the govts try to appease the masses, and the pro driving education camp are dreaming unfortunately. You can educate as much as you like but you can't restrict impulsive moronic behaviour by the minority.

Look at cigarette advertising and education campaigns...........millions of dollars thrown at education at school level kids and TV advertising as well as graphic packet pictures regarding the health dangers of smoking only to see one of the fastest take ups by young females on this habit ever................

Reducing speed limits is just one quick way of making "everyone" aware of a very bad situation. It's a penalty we all have to pay for the consequences of our actions as a society in general.

Maybe we should all take PUBLIC transport................LOL

[loony888]

Originally Posted by paulvdb

I'm 100% with you on sticking to limits (when noticed) but note that the issue is not entirely about speed limits but more that the current fixation on speed and speeding (2 completely different things) seem to be at the detriment of absolutely every other accident-causing factor. How often do police check for tyre pressures? How often do they check that a car is roadworthy in states that don't have mandatory annual tests? How often do they really book someone for using their phone? How many drug checks do they carry out (now seen as a major contributor in crashes)?

My other concern, mentioned earlier, is that people now automatically consider themselves a safe driver by driving slower than the limit - without any other consideration. If you are a Sydney driver you would have seen in the last few years that the speed has dropped substantially, everywhere, and that the quality of driving is getting worse. For those of you riding bikes this would probably be even more obvious - the bike training system seems great yet the car training system is hilarious.

all excellent, and valid points. the general public has definitely been brainwashed by govt. advertising and in my little town it now takes twice as long to get from one side to the other because of rediculously low limits and rediculously slow drivers. i'm not disagreeing at all but my point was more to do with some peoples perception that everyone drives to a standard they consider that they drive at (high?)so policing speed is inappropriate. Yes, the coppers should take the time to do more thorough checks on vehicles and the state of those driving them, but everyone knows that speed is the easiest way to raise revenue, rightly or wrongly, and the bottom line still applies, THE SLOWER YOU TRAVEL, THE LESS DAMAGE/INJURY YOU WILL CAUSE.
In NSW the bike system of training is quite good as i understand it but here in QLD, the Qride system is a joke, bike shops train and assess their students/customers (conflict of interest??) and with only 3 years road experience, in a car, you can do a weekend course and ride anything!! The state govt. here is aware of the stupidity of their legislation, yet all they can do is police known bike roads and harass riders with all the checks and tests you want for everybody (just as i do) rather than admit defeat and amend their position.


paul.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

No you missed it. I mentioned V8 supercars, I mentioned planes, clearly I get that speed alone doesnt kill. But theres no impact without movement from something. Faster movement results in higher impacts. ...

Just to clarify what you missed in that one little paragraph (which is really the crux of it all), what you really mean is: but there's no impact without movement from something + a loss of control over the movement of that something + (in the case of an impact) the presence of an object B (moving or not) to collide with....

[Rev28K]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Add to that, there is a large chunk of the population, especially here (and any car/bike forum) that are over confident in their own abilities. As stated Brocky f$%ked up, it was his choice which hurt no-one who didnt assume the same risk. The public road does not afford that luxury. You claiming his skill? He hit a tree, could have been another car in an on road situation.

Ooohh. Touchy subject matter.

Brock could drive the pants off me and had driven in a fair few rallies and there is no way I would argue otherwise. He had spins and accidents when he was pushing at 10/10ths the same as any other racer.
Having said that Jim Richards has said that the trick with the Targa style rallies is to drive at 9/9.5 tenths (always having a bit in reserve) as the consequences of going off are pretty severe. Look at how many people have spun/gone off when pushing at 10/10ths trying to catch JR. Circuits you can pretty much go 10/10ths but rallies are different. Personally the idea of rallies scares the bejeesus out of little old me – the idea of going at high speed with little run off and all of those tree trunks and branches. Rally drivers probably have bigger balls (and less imagination) than circuit drivers.

Back on to the subject of the post. The average Vic driver has no idea how to drive. Hold the steering wheel at 12 o’clock, go in to a turn, brake way early, ride the brakes all through the turn, crank the head for even mild turns, phew managed to avoid a crash, thank god the road is straight now I can put my foot down. One of the reason skills are so pitiful is that no one knows any better and there is no incentive to improve. The average Victorian driver has had it drilled in to their heads that all they need to do to be a safe driver is stay below a posted limit, they do not read the roads and conditions and they wouldn’t know what to do to try and control things when things start looking iffy. If there is no other advertising other than keep below the limit and don’t drive ****ed/stoned why would they think otherwise? IMHO Anyone who promotes speed alone as a killer (Victorian TAC, Vicroads, Peter Bachelor, etc) is a hypocrite with the blood of innocents on their hands.

Speed may kill but incompetence (attention and skills) definitely kill a lot more people and that definitely needs addressing. Isn’t it better to have better (and safer) drivers rather than just lowering speed limits?