Quote:
Originally Posted by Roobi
ok. Rat156
- to say that you haven't had a fine recently suggests that you have had them in the past, therefore you speed.
- your statement "It's the most risky thing many of us do (particularly without think about it)." those of you who do speed are breaking the law and putting yourselves and worse others that are doing the right thing in danger.
- When you say that this thread is not about being able to speed, but about raising the speed limits on appropriate roads to try to 'help mitigate driver fatigue.' Well sorry mate but they go hand in hand. If speeding does kill, and you can't deny that fact, then raising the speed limits will ultimately mean more deaths. You did condemn your own statement by saying that driver fatigue is more of an issue on rural roads. Thats why they also drill into us take 5 stay alive. Ther have been so many slogans that the tac drills into us, it's not just the speed kills one.
- while your pretty much right in saying "but hitting a tree at 100 or 130 kmh is likely to be fatal either way" its more of the control of the vehicle. I'm much more likely to regain control after a swerve or a skid if i'm doing 100 rather than 130, and thats a huge point to consider.
-You also say. "More alarmingly, the overrepresentation of young drivers in these statistics remains and the Governments are doing little about it. All the speed cameras in the world will not save someone who doesn't have the right training." Sorry but your not right here either. The points demerit system and fines are a start to scare hoons and others into doing the right thing in future, If i ever got a speeding fine (and i haven't ever because i do not speed) then i would be making damned sure i never did it again and now that they have the anti hoon laws, they are impounding third offenders that pose a risk of being a public danger. I think this is a great step in the right direction. Theres a lot of p platers that are driving their parents cars, Imagine if you got your parents car impounded or crushed. You'd be pretty much screwed.
But after all this is said I do agree that more needs to be done with the roads to fix them and better driver education.
anyway, i'm done for now.
|
To imply that I speed because I have had a speeding fine in the past is misleading. I didn't want this to get personal, as that's the easiest way to get the thread locked and the discussion to finish. But I have to defend myself. Yes I have had speeding fines in the past, but I do not make a habit of traveling in excess of the speed limit. I might travel at the speed limit, which if you don't have a calibrated speedo, may look like I'm doing 5-10 kmh over the speed limit. I travel through four speed cameras everyday, unlike many other road users I don't have to slow down to negotiate them. I may exceed the speed limit briefly in order to overtake someone.
This is where you come in. You say that you never speed, which means that you either have a sixth sense as to the actual speed you're traveling, or you travel below the speed limit deliberately in order to make sure that in a momentary lapse, you don't exceed the limit. Or you spend most of the time driving with your eyes on the speedo, rather than the road. If you don't fit into these categories, then you must speed occasionally. Now what happens when I come up behind you on an open road, you're doing 95 kmh indicated, which is probably 90 kmh and I want to do 100 kmh, I want to do 100 kmh, so I have to overtake. In order to do this safely on a dual lane road, I pretty much have to go over the speed limit.
Yes, the TAC does produce some good stuff, but the overemphasis on speed is false, as can be seen from the article in the first post, degrades the good message. Propaganda doesn't work on everyone, and when they produce absolute rubbish like the "wipe off 5" campaign many people simply turn off the good message. That particular campaign had an ad with a guys hitting a pedestrian because he was doing 5 kmh over the speed limit, there are so many variables in that particular situation that to say his speed caused the accident is false, but the thrust of the campaign was for everyone to drive at 5 kmh below the speed limit. I didn't get it then and I still don't.
You obviously have never lost control of a car at 100kmh. If you had you'd know that there is very little chance of recovering the car, at 130 it's about the same, Buckleys. I have lost cars at 100 up to 140, at 100 I spun off the circuit, where there was nothing to hit, at 140 unfortunately there was a wall in the way, the car and my ego were crushed. The best way to avoid an accident, or a loss of control is to AVOID it, look at the reasons the driver lost control and address these.
I am right regarding the overrepresentation of the kids in the road toll stats. Fines etc have their place, remember I'm not advocating people break the law, merely that on certain roads the speed limit gets raised and that the money saved from useless "speed Kills" campaigns gets targeted at young driver education. The rest of the laws stay in place.
I think we actually agree on the last point.
I also know that you've lost someone to the road toll, pretty obviously to a speeding driver. Remember that you aren't alone, but some of us lost the loved one to fatigue or alcohol related accidents. There is not one solution to the road toll, we should look at all causes of all accidents, when about 20% of fatalities are put down to fatigue, then we must consider all solutions. You can't enforce a 2 hour mandatory rest break, but you can reduce a three hour trip to two but upping the speed limit.
Cheers
Stuart