NSW Police call for mobile speed cameras

csv8 · 02-01-2010, 12:40 PM

Police call for mobile speed cameras
Posted 18 minutes ago

Senior police are asking the New South Wales Government to re-introduce mobile speed cameras in a bid to curb the rising road toll.

Assistant Commissioner John Hartley wrote to the then-police minister Tony Kelly three months ago, arguing his case on the cameras.

Under his plan, the devices could be operated by Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) workers, freeing up police for what the Assistant Commissioner described as more "proactive" road safety duties.

Assistant Commissioner Hartley has told the ABC he is waiting on a response from the Government.

"I would like to see the statistcs that people killed were booked by a speed camera in past year. Police won't release this statistic as it would prove the cameras don't reduce the road toll"
How does booking someone for speeding a few k's over limit, and getting a ticket in the mail , a few weeks later, stop someone being killed elsewhere in the state ??????
Please stop the revenue spin, bring in education, etc.

FPV+fteT3 · 02-01-2010, 12:44 PM

Heard this story on the news today aparently the road toll is up by 90 odd from last year and these cameras will prevent you dying in an accident

:

aparently all the new cameras last year aren't doing the job.

mik · 02-01-2010, 12:56 PM

"I would like to see the statistcs that people killed were booked by a speed camera in past year. Police won't release this statistic as it would prove the cameras don't reduce the road toll"
How does booking someone for speeding a few k's over limit, and getting a ticket in the mail , a few weeks later, stop someone being killed elsewhere in the state ??????
Please stop the revenue spin, bring in education, etc.
that`s a very good question, i doubt they will release the numbers, could this be found out by freedom of information act ?

4Vman · 02-01-2010, 01:13 PM

In victoria the police have directly blamed excessive speed and irresponsible driving for the 16 deaths here over the xmas break....
They've actually called for the coroner to investigate every death and make recommendations.
I guess the camera/fine theory is a bit like a rock falling from the sky every time you break the law and smacking you in the head... sooner or later you'll get sick of the pain it causes and stop speeding...
The problem is some people appear to be immune to the pain or oblivious to it....

VERY few road deaths are actually "accidents"... the vast majority are from acts of stupidity or irresponsible driving.....

flappist · 02-01-2010, 01:26 PM

In Victoria, police would blame a tree falling on a car in a car park on excessive speed. If your only tool is a hammer then all problems must be nails.

The media are just as bad, if it is not a P plater, performance "looking" car or suspicion of speed then it is not reported.

I do note, however, that almost everyone who supports hidden speed cameras comes from Victoria.

This really appears to give new and extended meaning to the term "Battered Wives Syndrome".

ivorya · 02-01-2010, 01:26 PM

I love the way statistics are thrown around to suit what what the coffers want ie/ more $$ in the govenments hands.
I heard today that 460 deaths on NSW roads (i'm sure for the yr) 60 up from last yr.
They haven't released how many cars were on the roads in 2008. They haven't released how many more cars are on the road in 2009. They also don't tell you how the accidents occured for the deaths ie/ was it head on, was it the crappy state of the roads.
I'm sure the police are now told that every accident is to be reported as speed/fatigue or irresponsible driving so it gives the policy makers more ammo to get their silly laws thru.
We'll all be driving at 30km/hr soon!!!!!!!! and some will argue that's to fast.

4Vman · 02-01-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

In Victoria, police would blame a tree falling on a car in a car park on excessive speed. If your only tool is a hammer all problems must be nails.

The media are just as bad, if it is not a P plater, performance "looking" car or suspicion of speed then it is not reported.

I do note, however, that almost everyone who supports hidden speed cameras comes from Victoria.

This really appears to give new and extended meaning to the term "Battered Wives Syndrome".

true, im not sure many people support speed camera's here, but unfortunately they're a way of life, especially under a socialist regime.... we get a chance to change that soon.
You get used to them and just avoid the fines by remaining alert... only the ignorant keep "donating".....

gtfpv · 02-01-2010, 01:46 PM

do they take into acxcount the immigration intake australia takes every year , and just throws them on the road with drivers licences from wherever they came from , and then blame speeding as the cause of death . the % of drivers born over seas and recently migrated to australia are on the rise sharply, why dont theyu mention this as a cause of road accidents increasing .
i have seen asian people obviously not licenced in australia stop on freeways because they missed an exit , and reverse back .( sometimes in the middle lane)
i'm not knocking race here , but driver ed. and i believe immigrants cause road accidents more so than long timers here .

accidents happen sometimes unfairly and out of the blue , but often when we hear of a whole family killed in a car . it is reported that the family was newly migrated to australia .
the police never go down this path , just we'll have to increase speed cameras.

GT290 · 02-01-2010, 02:25 PM

Come on, I just drove from Melbourne to Parkes and noticed the speed limit has been reduced from 110 to 100. The road toll up by 90?????? Ask your selves about fatigue. I want to know has and by who, there ever been a bonified study done on the effects of fatigue driving at slow speed Vs a faster speed. There has to be a study done. I tender that there has and its been hushed up. I am really getting sick of this crap by state governments trying to raise revenue from speeding saying it will save deaths on the road. We all know this to be rubbish. Its time we all banded to gether and do somting about this.

I would like to add that traveling at a reasonable speed that maintains you in an alert state of mind is far safer that the 100 speed limit done on our major highway. I still make my regular stops and have a break. I can not see any true study having failed this test, so what is going on???

GT290 · 02-01-2010, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

In victoria the police have directly blamed excessive speed and irresponsible driving for the 16 deaths here over the xmas break....
They've actually called for the coroner to investigate every death and make recommendations.
I guess the camera/fine theory is a bit like a rock falling from the sky every time you break the law and smacking you in the head... sooner or later you'll get sick of the pain it causes and stop speeding...
The problem is some people appear to be immune to the pain or oblivious to it....

VERY few road deaths are actually "accidents"... the vast majority are from acts of stupidity or irresponsible driving.....

I agree with most of what you say but I do not believe speed camera will save any ones life. weather you speed or reduce your speed if you are fatigued its going to happen sooner or later if you push it. Many on here and my self included have spoken out against speed cameras, camersa are not going to make a person stop and have a sleep or coffee break are they. Speed or not people will still die if the stupid ones continue to push the boundries of Fatigue.
I guess my comment about NSW reducing speed limits only goes to show how that is not a fatigue related solution.

**Dave R** · 02-01-2010, 03:04 PM

Well with a rising road toll, it's only fair to cite that there would be more drivers on the roads than last year and the year before, so as the number of drivers increases, the probability of accidents would have to increase as well. Perhaps not to the scale that we've seen, but it may be a contributor. I'm also generally strongly against speed cameras (except the ones in the Sydney tunnels - they do a good job), I think speed cameras have people focussing on their speedo, not what's in front of them.

We also need stricter driver education, the amount of people (particularly younger drivers) that I see on the roads without a clue is scary - little wonder that the younger group are the most represented in preventable accidents.

Keepleft · 02-01-2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT290

Come on, I just drove from Melbourne to Parkes and noticed the speed limit has been reduced from 110 to 100. The road toll up by 90?????? Ask your selves about fatigue. I want to know has and by who, there ever been a bonified study done on the effects of fatigue driving at slow speed Vs a faster speed. There has to be a study done. I tender that there has and its been hushed up. I am really getting sick of this crap by state governments trying to raise revenue from speeding saying it will save deaths on the road. We all know this to be rubbish. Its time we all banded to gether and do somting about this.

I would like to add that traveling at a reasonable speed that maintains you in an alert state of mind is far safer that the 100 speed limit done on our major highway. I still make my regular stops and have a break. I can not see any true study having failed this test, so what is going on???

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ety_review.pdf

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregul...peedlimit.html

GT290 · 02-01-2010, 03:45 PM

http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limits_85th.htm

This paper in the UK.

GT290 · 02-01-2010, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ety_review.pdf

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregul...peedlimit.html

Thamks, will read these now

**ebxr8240** · 02-01-2010, 05:34 PM

So these camera's will fix this ???

OR more money in the states coffers ???

Sheesh what is the population between the two states ??

Also there would be some people traveling interstate ...
There has been a drought in Vic while we have had the odd storm here over the year..
They make statistics to suit there argument...

The price of housing in Sydney means workers such as police, Nurses,hostpitality workers, tradespeople, etc have to travel longer distances due to the cost of purchasing in Sydney..
So most buy up the central coast or out west.. Traveling much further to work than previous generation... Which is atleast a one hour drive either way...

gtfpv · 02-01-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

So these camera's will fix this ???

OR more money in the states coffers ???

Sheesh what is the population between the two states ??

Also there would be some people traveling interstate ...
There has been a drought in Vic while we have had the odd storm here over the year..
They make statistics to suit there argument...

The price of housing in Sydney means workers such as police, Nurses,hostpitality workers, tradespeople, etc have to travel longer distances due to the cost of purchasing in Sydney..
So most buy up the central coast or out west.. Traveling much further to work than previous generation... Which is atleast a one hour drive either way...

i'd be one of those people . i can name the black spots in sydney on my way to work . there is a suburb i drive through with a 40km hour school zone on king georges road . this is a suburb of recent australians . and this is where people get killed weekly . pedestrians and drivers . are we too scared to say it , or has political correctness killed this country.

Franco Cozzo · 02-01-2010, 06:54 PM

Just for informations sake, if you have an international license and you're over 18 and had that license for longer than three years, you pay VicRoads some money and you get your full Victorian License with no need for a test. I think in NSW you don't have to have the international license for 3 years so you can get your license in a "recognised" country, come back, pay the money and be 18 and have a full license with no restrictions. I'm not 100% sure on the exact rule but it is something similar for those two states, I was looking into it a while ago.

Thats also probably why you see new migrants on the roads with full licenses who seem like they don't do a very good job of driving. I'm not a perfect driver myself, infact I'm a pretty crappy driver and I admit that.

[quote]Victorian full driver licence
To obtain a Victorian full driver licence you must have held and provide evidence that you have held an overseas driver licence for at least three years from your 18th birthday. Your overseas driver licence must be current or not expired by more than five years. Any period where you have been suspended or disqualified from driving is excluded when calculating the period of time you have held a licence.

Quote:

Exemptions from licence tests
If you hold a driver licence from one of the countries in the table below you are not required to undertake any tests provided your overseas driver licence is current or not expired by more than five years. However, you still need to make an appointment to changeover to a Victorian driver licence.

Austria

Finland

Isle of Man 1

Netherlands (Holland)

Sweden

Belgium

France

Italy

Norway

Switzerland

Canada

Germany

Japan

Portugal

UK

Croatia

Greece

Luxembourg

Singapore

USA

Denmark

Ireland

Malta 2

Spain

Guernsey

Jersey

GT290 · 03-01-2010, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ety_review.pdf

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregul...peedlimit.html

Hello Keepleft.
I agree with most of what is said and really as it states there is not a great deal of time added to the trip by being slowed down. I have read other studies too that also state that increasing the spead only prolongs fatigue eventually getting a hold on you. Also the fact that if you do have a crash you will be worse off. No body, least of all me can argue this.
However it brings me to my point and many other people tend to take this view, that our governments only want you to hear certain stuff. They effectively brain wash people into believing exactly what they want us too and they seem to be very successfull at this. My question was, had there been any studies done on the effects of people fatigued and driving at a faster speed vs slower speed? I should have added unbiased or indipendant of the government. Please read the following link and tell me what you think, what jumps out at you. love to hear peoples comments with this vs anything tabled in Austtralia.
http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limits_85th.htm

burnz · 03-01-2010, 10:12 AM

quashed: voter backlash as listen on radio news.

rancidpunx · 03-01-2010, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GT290

Hello Keepleft.
I agree with most of what is said and really as it states there is not a great deal of time added to the trip by being slowed down. I have read other studies too that also state that increasing the spead only prolongs fatigue eventually getting a hold on you. Also the fact that if you do have a crash you will be worse off. No body, least of all me can argue this.
However it brings me to my point and many other people tend to take this view, that our governments only want you to hear certain stuff. They effectively brain wash people into believing exactly what they want us too and they seem to be very successfull at this. My question was, had there been any studies done on the effects of people fatigued and driving at a faster speed vs slower speed? I should have added unbiased or indipendant of the government. Please read the following link and tell me what you think, what jumps out at you. love to hear peoples comments with this vs anything tabled in Austtralia.
http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_limits_85th.htm

I like the recommendations put forward. However biggest difference is that that you site link is from and independent group. Does Oz have a group like this. The other site is a government "study" and as such would not be released unless it was worked to say exactly what they wanted it to say, before it was even written. Look at the graph on page 7. All thought processes and actions ultimately pass through a lowering speed limits stage. So what they are saying is that, lowering speeds is above all, the way to go. The other study actually calls for a raised speed limit in certain instances. I still have some reading ahead of me, all very interesting. Good finds guys.

**russellw** · 03-01-2010, 12:50 PM

There have been a whole range of studies in Australia about the impact of fatigue on driving (particularly within the road transport industry) but none that have drawn a correlation between fatigue and speed as far as I know.

What we can reasonably gather is that fatigue is a factor in somewhere between 5 and 15% of fatal accidents (Haworth and Rechnitzer, 1993) and up to 30% of all accidents (Armour, Carter, Cinquegrana and Griffith, 1988) with some studies suggesting that the percentage might be as high as 40%+ (Ryan, Wright, Hinrichs and McLean, 1988).

Let us hypothesise for a moment.

We know (Hamelin, 1987)

... that the risk of a fatigue related incident roughly doubles after 11 hours of driving

... the risk of a fatigue related incident roughly doubles between the hours of 2000 and 0700

... the risk of a fatigue related incident roughly triples with less than 6 hours of sleep

If we include the suburban sprawl at each end, a Melbourne CBD to Sydney CBD trip is around 880 km. Allowing 90 minutes at either end for the urban leg we are left with 8 hours to complete the remaining 800 km if we are to stay within the statistically safer criteria.
In the current state of the Hume, the best you could legally manage would see an average speed return of perhaps 100 km/h so it is actually just achievable but without the recommended breaks along the way. Somewhat ironic that the take a break campaign is probably increasing risk for that kind of trip.

An increase in the open road limit to 130 km/h for the Hume would increase the average speed to around 120 km/h and reduce the trip by 1 hour and 20 minutes. That translates to 3 x 33 minute breaks (and still less than 11 hours total) or 100 minutes less risk.

Of course, there are a lot of assumptions in the above and it is unlikely that our (allegedly) premier National Highway is going to get a raised (and likely more sensible) speed limit any time before I become worm food. The Henderson study on the newly opened Victorian end of the Hume (done before we discovered speed camera revenues) found that the 85th percentile speed was 128 km/h but we are so beaten these days I'd be prepared to bet that it's not much over (if it even reached) 110 km/h. The times I've driven it would suggest that it certainly wouldn't exceed it in the Victorian end.

Cheers
Russ

ltd_on20s · 03-01-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by russellw

There have been a whole range of studies in Australia about the impact of fatigue on driving (particularly within the road transport industry) but none that have drawn a correlation between fatigue and speed as far as I know.

What we can reasonably gather is that fatigue is a factor in somewhere between 5 and 15% of fatal accidents (Haworth and Rechnitzer, 1993) and up to 30% of all accidents (Armour, Carter, Cinquegrana and Griffith, 1988) with some studies suggesting that the percentage might be as high as 40%+ (Ryan, Wright, Hinrichs and McLean, 1988).

Let us hypothesise for a moment.

We know (Hamelin, 1987)

... that the risk of a fatigue related incident roughly doubles after 11 hours of driving

... the risk of a fatigue related incident roughly doubles between the hours of 2000 and 0700

... the risk of a fatigue related incident roughly triples with less than 6 hours of sleep

If we include the suburban sprawl at each end, a Melbourne CBD to Sydney CBD trip is around 880 km. Allowing 90 minutes at either end for the urban leg we are left with 8 hours to complete the remaining 800 km if we are to stay within the statistically safer criteria.
In the current state of the Hume, the best you could legally manage would see an average speed return of perhaps 100 km/h so it is actually just achievable but without the recommended breaks along the way. Somewhat ironic that the take a break campaign is probably increasing risk for that kind of trip.

An increase in the open road limit to 130 km/h for the Hume would increase the average speed to around 120 km/h and reduce the trip by 1 hour and 20 minutes. That translates to 3 x 33 minute breaks (and still less than 11 hours total) or 100 minutes less risk.

Of course, there are a lot of assumptions in the above and it is unlikely that our (allegedly) premier National Highway is going to get a raised (and likely more sensible) speed limit any time before I become worm food. The Henderson study on the newly opened Victorian end of the Hume (done before we discovered speed camera revenues) found that the 85th percentile speed was 128 km/h but we are so beaten these days I'd be prepared to bet that it's not much over (if it even reached) 110 km/h. The times I've driven it would suggest that it certainly wouldn't exceed it in the Victorian end.

Cheers
Russ

logic doesnt work

lowest common denominator- "FEAR"

keep the fear- keep control.

like i said. fund our own independant.

b0son · 03-01-2010, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by russellw

the risk of a fatigue related incident roughly doubles after 11 hours of driving

anyone who drives those sorts of lengths of time would know that the risk more than doubles.

how do they define a fatigue-related crash? do they include the increased likelihood of poor decision-making? incorrect judgement? inattention?

fatigue is massively understated IMO.

the authorities are quite happy to class every crash possible as speed-related no matter how tenuous the link, yet wont do same with fatigue.

if people drove 100% alert 100% of the time, there would be a massive reduction in crashes. we need to find ways to keep drivers alert longer... one way is for their driving to be more engaging, and the mindless monotony of low limits and speedo-gazing certainly doesnt help.

gtfpv · 03-01-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0son

anyone who drives those sorts of lengths of time would know that the risk more than doubles.

how do they define a fatigue-related crash? do they include the increased likelihood of poor decision-making? incorrect judgement? inattention?

fatigue is massively understated IMO.

the authorities are quite happy to class every crash possible as speed-related no matter how tenuous the link, yet wont do same with fatigue.

if people drove 100% alert 100% of the time, there would be a massive reduction in crashes. we need to find ways to keep drivers alert longer... one way is for their driving to be more engaging, and the mindless monotony of low limits and speedo-gazing certainly doesnt help.

saying that driving faster helps you concentrate more is just bollocks.
i can bet that driving for 10 hours at 130kms/hr , versus 100kms/ an hour just means your margin of error will be statiscally worse for your health when you hit a tree or lose control.
the only benifit to the higher speed is the travel time might be shorter . but speed related risk would take away that benifit and replace it with longer braking distance should something unexpected happen.

b0son · 03-01-2010, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

saying that driving faster helps you concentrate more is just bollocks.

driving sower makes you bored. when you're bored, you concentrate less.

doing 110 on a road with a design speed in excess of 130 is bound to bore most drivers after a couple hours if not less.

Quote:

the only benifit to the higher speed is the travel time might be shorter . but speed related risk would take away that benifit and replace it with longer braking distance should something unexpected happen.

adelaide to sydney, a 20kmh higher average speed saves me 3hrs. thats a pretty massive reduction.

define something unexpected, because i've never had any issue avoiding obstacles on the road, i always slow down anyway when i approach any other car, etc.

put it this way, i trust myself at 130kmh. i dont trust myself at 110kmh bored and concentration wandering.

GT290 · 03-01-2010, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

saying that driving faster helps you concentrate more is just bollocks.
i can bet that driving for 10 hours at 130kms/hr , versus 100kms/ an hour just means your margin of error will be statiscally worse for your health when you hit a tree or lose control.
the only benifit to the higher speed is the travel time might be shorter . but speed related risk would take away that benifit and replace it with longer braking distance should something unexpected happen.

There was a German Guy, some sort of doctor in his feild if you will, that completed a study on Australian roads. Pretty much his conclusion was that some of our roads had a speed limit too high and others too low. I will try and find this article. Now my experiance on some of these roads he speaks of I reckon he is right. I will not go and name roads and end up debating weather it is or isn't but if you have driven a lot around australia we all know most of these roads.
So gtfpv yes from me, if you can not keep rubber on the road at 100 or 110 why would you raise it. If the road is smooth and relitivley straight raise it I say. Its not somthing you would do for all roads and I for one know that. You will also tend to include better driving habbits such as your regular breaks as per usual. I have drivin 18 hours stopping every two and I don't recomend it but some people can do it and others cannot. Roads need to be better engineered to suit driving ability as well as speed. I know it all needs to be kept in perspective but just placing a mobile speed camera or fixed will not help fatigue. better defensive driving skills need to be taught to young drivers.

flappist · 03-01-2010, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

saying that driving faster helps you concentrate more is just bollocks.
i can bet that driving for 10 hours at 130kms/hr , versus 100kms/ an hour just means your margin of error will be statiscally worse for your health when you hit a tree or lose control.
the only benifit to the higher speed is the travel time might be shorter . but speed related risk would take away that benifit and replace it with longer braking distance should something unexpected happen.

Spoken like a true city boy.....

Get out away from the Harbour Bridge one day and you may just find differently.

Traveling at the speed where your feel most comfortable is always the least fatiguing whether that speed is 80km/h or 180km/h.

The colloquial term is "in the groove" and having traveled many thousands of kilometres at speeds of around twice the NSW limit and well over a million kilometres at 100/110, EVERY time I arrive at a destination after traveling at the speed I WANTED to go I felt far less tired or stressed than when forced into a rythm that did not suit.

Now have YOU ACTUALLY driven long distances at 130, 150, 180, 200 or above and ACTUALLY know the difference or are you just another armchair expert with a theory......

Please note that "long" equals more than 200km not a 30 second burst while filling your pants with poo looking in all directions for the highway patrol or 10 seconds down the back straight on a FPV drive day.

P.S. High speeds were done where is was legal before the southern nannies took over the last bastion of freedom.....

Auslandau · 03-01-2010, 11:21 PM

Hadn't given this theory much thought until a few years ago. Drove from Cooper Pedy to Alice Springs, had to have a couple of driver changes until we got to the border, then I drove the rest of the way between 140 - 170. Certainly kept you awake and alert!

More noticeable on the way back ..... once into SA, damn that was boring and a very very hard drive and agaiin had to start with the driver swaps.

| [/url] |

GT290 · 03-01-2010, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Spoken like a true city boy.....

Get out away from the Harbour Bridge one day and you may just find differently.

Traveling at the speed where your feel most comfortable is always the least fatiguing whether that speed is 80km/h or 180km/h.

The colloquial term is "in the groove" and having traveled many thousands of kilometres at speeds of around twice the NSW limit and well over a million kilometres at 100/110, EVERY time I arrive at a destination after traveling at the speed I WANTED to go I felt far less tired or stressed than when forced into a rythm that did not suit.

Now have YOU ACTUALLY driven long distances at 130, 150, 180, 200 or above and ACTUALLY know the difference or are you just another armchair expert with a theory......

Please note that "long" equals more than 200km not a 30 second burst while filling your pants with poo looking in all directions for the highway patrol or 10 seconds down the back straight on a FPV drive day.

P.S. High speeds were done where is was legal before the southern nannies took over the last bastion of freedom.....

Exactly and thats pretty much how they let you drive in the UK where the limit is 70 MPH I was cruising on 90MPH with out the fear of reprisal. Driving in Australia long distance normally comleting 1000 Klms per day traveling at a speed I felt good with of 130 140. but as you have pointed out you are always on the look out a pooing your pants hehe. Don't worry had my share of finds and they are not my last but a lot fewer.
20 years driving on nearly every major Australian road in each state. common sence must be allowed to pervail but it must be said that sadly there are those with out it.

Smoke Pursuit · 03-01-2010, 11:36 PM

130 is all good on roads that are straight and long, but as soon as you get a few corners is when the s**# goes wrong. Plus we would have to get rid of all the bombs off the road as we would have 18 year old girls driving their 1990 model corrollas at 130.. While its legal would it be safe? I suggest not.

While doing 130 is easy in the right car it can get alot harder in the wrong one!