Speed doesn't kill - Page 5

Peter Ward · #81 09-03-2010, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desler

You'd be very popular introducing a 4 year licensing scheme that would cost the average motorist $50K to obtain!

......

Darren

So many point you've raised, but I zeroed in on this one. $50K and four years to learn how to drive????

Pure BS!

You can get a commercial pilot's license for less in both time and money...

What you have failed to address, despite our (almost draconian) legislative measures, kids are still dying on our roads in the same numbers.

I am not suggesting for a second that driving at high speed in the wrong environment is safe. Speed needs to be appropriate, and a limit sign does bugger all IMHO to make this determination.

I am suggesting that we look at professional instuction, a rudimentary physical examination, theory and a rigorous driving test. Might cost $1k-$2k.

I'd pay that to keep my kids alive, alert & well trained on our roads.

Peter Ward · #82 09-03-2010, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagar

As for the aviation industry, I don't know what you call bubble wrapping. Flying xKM appart and X ft vertical separation. Hard to crash into nothing.

That's just glib & shows ignorance.

CASA's "crash comic" lists dozens of incidents, across a very broad spectrum of operations, sadly many are fatal.

They never say "speed was a factor".....but there are *lots* of errors/omissions/failures that can and will kill you...and if you simply choose to ignore them, it's simply a matter of "when" rather than "if".

Hagar (Doug) · #83 09-03-2010, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

That just glib & shows ignorance.

CASA's "crash comic" lists dozens of incidents, across a very broad spectrum of operations, sadly many are fatal.

They never say "speed was a factor".....but there are *lots* of errors/omissions/failures that can and will kill you...and if you simply choose to ignore them, it's simply a matter of "when" rather than "if".

Ignorance my backside.... At the speeds modern aircraft are flying at they must maintain these separations to allow reaction times in the event of a failure of something or someone. This sort of separation is BUBBLE WRAPPING. It can be called nothing more and nothing less.
Military aircraft fly at much tighter separations but are only usually short flights and extreme training in this type of flight.

Just sounds like sour grapes. Fast car, no where to use it. Try a race track and have some fun. If you crash there you only kill yourself. A blowout at 200KM/hr usually doesn't leave many survivors in the drivers car or the one coming towards it.

A sneeze or a bug blown through the vent system landing in your eye can distract the driver enough to cause a crash at high speeds or even low speeds.
Sitting here reading these posts gives me the feeling that you and Stuart seem to think your driving skills should allow you to drive at whatever speed you feel like. At least Stuart practices on the track. The fact is our laws, as they stand say you can't. Get over it, go to a race track or go to Germany and drive your heart out and pray you don't end up as a German statistic.

Miaplacidus (Brian) · #84 10-03-2010, 12:00 AM

There is another slant on all this. Economists (e.g. see Sam Peltzman's famous study from the University of Chicago) have demonstrated that adding safety features to cars serves mainly to increase the number of accidents while keeping the fatality rate much the same (i.e. the same number of deaths but representing a lower proportion of total accidents). It is as though seat belts and air bags give an added sense of security which leads drivers to take greater risks. Similarly, spears attached to steering wheels pointing directly at the heart ought to lead to fewer accidents but with a higher proportion of fatalities.

So there you go. Stick a spear on your dash board and drive as fast as you like.

901.

barx1963 (Malcolm) · #85 10-03-2010, 12:10 AM

Personally I can think of nothing nicer than haveing an Autobahn from say Melbourne to Sydney, up to the point of having to pay for it!
Germany, as pointed out previously has a much higher population density, we are a huge country with 20 million people, a road like that is going to cost billions, let alone building a network.
So I propose, if you want to, those that like to rip along at 150-200k be allowed to get a special license which has no speed limit, and the fee for that license pays for the unlimited roads, should end up only a few million per rev head, and only those with these licenses are allowed to use the unlimited road. That way everyone's happy.
The analogy with aviation is simply spurious. Any accident in a plane is usually taking place at a high speed in any place, so of course it rarely if ever looked at as a factor in crashes.
Simply put, if every driver drove at or below the speed limit, even relatively unskilled, stupid, uncoordinated drivers significantly reduce their risk of injury and death. We could put in place vastly more rigorous testing, education and training for drivers and then happily increase speed limits, but that is all going to COST more.

that_guy (Tony) · #86 10-03-2010, 12:20 AM

is this like how the governments of different countries didn't ban cigerettes cos it gave en hips of money?

rat156 · #87 10-03-2010, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagar

snip...
Sitting here reading these posts gives me the feeling that you and Stuart seem to think your driving skills should allow you to drive at whatever speed you feel like. At least Stuart practices on the track. The fact is our laws, as they stand say you can't. Get over it, go to a race track or go to Germany and drive your heart out and pray you don't end up as a German statistic.

Not at all, the first post of this thread, and indeed every one that I've posted (and I think all of Peter's) have not advocated exceeding the speed limit. They may say that the speed limit is too low, but they don't advocate exceeding them. The problem is that the government is lowering speed limits on perfectly good roads for no apparent reason. Take the Monash for example or the bit between the Westgate and the tunnels, or the tunnels themselves. The new outbound part of the freeway has just been finished(?), yet the speed limit on this perfectly safe portion of road has dropped by 20kmh. OK whilst there was roadworks on that section of road I was one of the few that actually took any notice of the reduced speed. But now it looks as though these limits seem to be permanent, to be followed no doubt by fixed speed cameras...

This sort of thing is indefensible on safety grounds, apparently the roadworks have made the road MORE dangerous. The bit between the Westgate and the tunnels is so confusing now I don't think anyone can do more than 80 without missing their exit, but it'll stay at 80. The Westgate bridge itself, dropped from 100 to 80, then they installed (flawed) speed cameras.

To make my point again, lowering speed limits has usually nothing to do with road safety. Do you think the people doing 140-160kmh really care what the posted speed limit is? It's all about revenue with the smokescreen of road safety. While the government is pushing this down our throat they ignore the real problems, unsafe roads and unsafe drivers. So we need to reject "Speed Kills" as a fallacy and get them to train drivers better and fix the roads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by barx1963

snip...
Simply put, if every driver drove at or below the speed limit, even relatively unskilled, stupid, uncoordinated drivers significantly reduce their risk of injury and death. We could put in place vastly more rigorous testing, education and training for drivers and then happily increase speed limits, but that is all going to COST more.

Why should I, my family, my friends etc. share the road with stupid or uncoordinated drivers? How many of us would pass a skills test in a licence test, even the joke that they call a test in Victoria? I'm pretty certain that most would fail the theory test in the first place so never get into a car. Put simply, a licence should be a privilege, not a right, if you are incompetent, you are incompetent, get off the road.

BTW I have previously replied to Glenluceskies on this thread, this may have come across as a personal attack, but this is not what I meant to do, it's just that his posts were the most recent ones that mentioned the platitudes that I do not like. So sorry if you thought that to be the case, but it wasn't personal, just arguing the point.

Cheers
Stuart

P.S. The attitudes displayed here have helped me to understand why some people do (to me) ridiculously low speeds on the freeway. I still don't understand but at least I know why.

Jeffkop (Jeff) · #88 10-03-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat156

P.S. The attitudes displayed here have helped me to understand why some people do (to me) ridiculously low speeds on the freeway. I still don't understand but at least I know why.

These are the very same people Stuart who think they are LUCKY if they make it to the other end of their journey, and its all because the car controls them not the other way around. Their car the other cars the situation, its all happening too fast for them, they have little confidence and so the faster they go the less uncertain they become.

As has been mooted, these people unfortunately probably shouldnt be on the road (shouldnt have been issued with a license in the first place) and are MORE of a safety risk than someone doing 5ks over the limit IMO.

rat156 · #89 10-03-2010, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagar

A sneeze or a bug blown through the vent system landing in your eye can distract the driver enough to cause a crash at high speeds or even low speeds.

Forgot about this gem...

Firstly Ferrari's and even lowly Alfa's have filters over the air intake for the HVAC system this prevents bugs from getting in, except in the race car, where I removed them to save weight.

Next, if a sneeze is enough to distract you so that you crash your car at any speed you shouldn't have a driver's licence. Driving is all about being aware of what is around you, you should be able to take your eyes off the road for a second or two and not crash, how else do you change lanes on the freeway? I assume that you do a head check? If not, then again no licence for you! (Sorry Seinfeld!).

Driving is a risky business, it is most likely the most risky undertaking that any of you will do every day, yet we treat it like a game. "You're going faster than I think is right", a point or three off your licence and a bit of a hit to the bank balance, if you run out of either points or money, you're out of the game for a while. However if you die in this "game", no restarting the level. Road safety is serious, too serious and complicated to be encapsulated in a simple catch phrase like "Speed Kills" or "Wipe off 5", particularly when there is good evidence that they are wrong (see the European studies, and several US studies where they've ditched the "double nickel" in many places). The government needs to treat the problem rather than raising revenue and telling everyone to slow down.

Cheers
Stuart

Peter Ward · #90 10-03-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagar

Ignorance my backside.... At the speeds modern aircraft are flying at they must maintain these separations to allow reaction times in the event of a failure of something or someone. This sort of separation is BUBBLE WRAPPING. It can be called nothing more and nothing less..

The vast majority of operations are in Class E airspace. i.e see and avoid
self separation....in fact in OZ ATC coverage is non existant below a few thousand feet in much of the country.

OneOfOne (Trevor) · #91 10-03-2010, 09:22 AM

Logically, you can see the reasoning behind things like "wipe off 5". If you have an accident at 105kph, you will hit an object more than 5kph faster than if you were doing just 100 when you reacted...simple Newtonian physics. However, if you were only doing 95, you would have hit at an even slower speed. And take another 5 off you may even avoid the accident. Applying the logic of "but if you were driving slower, you may not have an accident" has a natural conclusion of travelling at zero velocity means you won't hit anything...you may still GET hit though.

The statement may be logical, and even self evident, but the ultimate conclusion is ludicrous...every one should drive at a velocity of zero.

Peter Ward · #92 10-03-2010, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagar

Ignorance my backside....

Just sounds like sour grapes. Fast car, no where to use it. Try a race track and have some fun. If you crash there you only kill yourself.

This one too.

My daily ride is a station wagon. Yes, I have done some a track days.

I have nil demerits & am not advocating breaking the law.

I am saying by fixating only on speed our system doesn't seem to be working very well, and there are better systems elsewhere that take a difference focus, which our dim pollies and bureaucrats continue to ignore.

desler · #93 10-03-2010, 09:53 AM

Speed,

No-ones saying outright that speed Kills.

But increased speed does remove time and distance from obstructions.
When you take away time and distance you loose options!

I know there are lots of people with incredibly fast reaction times, but these natural reactions are useless unless you train and refine your skill sets.

Muscle memory is something that gets developed over time with repetition and practice!

Judging who does this sort of driver development is unmeasurable in our society, therefore speed limits are set to the standard assessment model.

I certainly would love to halve my travel time! Who wouldn't? But the simple fact remains, we are not all equal, so sometimes those with higher skills need to plod along safely with the masses!

I'm going to charge 4c +GST for that little rant.

Just remember to don't drink drive, It's laundry detergent!
Be Alert,,,,what's a lert?
Speed Kills,,, if you inject too much!
Life, Be In it,,,,, Be in what?

And my personal favorite

Darren

Miaplacidus (Brian) · #94 10-03-2010, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rat156

Why should I, my family, my friends etc. share the road with stupid or uncoordinated drivers?

Fair enough. I don't want to share the road with these people either. But what about all those skilled and coordinated drivers who simply do not want to drive at the speed limit? Such people exist, who enjoy driving just as much as the next person, but at a slower speed. Who is going to be so arrogant as to say they shouldn't be allowed on the very roads they pay taxes to maintain? As far as I am aware, there is no law saying everyone must travel as close to the speed limit as practical. (I might be tempted to point out that people driving fast are more likely to be stupid and uncoordinated.)

What about the foot path? Do you just push past the dawdlers and tell them they shouldn't be out unless they walk at a "reasonable" pace? Who is to say who is "out of step"?

multiweb (Marc) · #95 10-03-2010, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karls48

Speed kills, alcohol kills, smoking kills, guns kills, pollution kills, salt kills, fat kills, drugs kills, sleeping too little kills, eating too much kills, eating too little kills – and just about anything you do in your life has been scientifically proven will kill you. Hell, I should be dead for at least forty year. Lets face it – Living is a health hazard. You are born to die.
Memento mori..

... and don't forget that one: everyone eating their greens and veggies eventually die.

... so it's not good for you either.

desler · #96 10-03-2010, 10:16 AM

Who says they only fixate on speed?

The television commercials?

Lets look at some of the other marketing:

Buckle up and live.
Drink drive, you're a bloody idiot!
Look Bike!
Secure your load!
Drug driving!

I'm not sure whether you get access to our TAC commercials. But I would be more than happy to arrange a 20 year anniversary DVD to be delivered to you!

And now some stats.

In 1970 there were about 5 Million registered cars in Australia.
There were 3,798 road fatalities or 30.4 deaths per 100,000.

In 2003 there were about 13.5 million registered cars.
There were 1,633 road fatalities or about 8.2 deaths per 100,000.

A dramatic decrease! Some argue, like unemployment statistics in Economics that there is a natural rate of deaths / serious injury per 100,000 users. The real question is what is that natural rate. And given the data over the last 33 years, Most people would say we should continue to do what we've been doing.

Believe it or not, people travel from all around the world to study our road safety strategies.

So we can all rant and rave all we like, but the simple fact remains that the Governments over this 33 year period have funded and promoted strategies that save lives.

Darren

Peter Ward · #97 10-03-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desler

Who says they only fixate on speed?

!! You live in Victoria don't you?? Been pinged for 3km/hr over yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by desler

Buckle up and live.

I understand this sole measure made the biggest change, and do applaud Oz's early adoption of seatbelts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by desler

Drink drive, you're a bloody idiot!

No argument there, but the reality is, the penalties, particularly with a death involved, are often a joke. "good behaviour bond, $1500 fine and can't drive for 6 months"....pathetic.

As for the rest...window dressing at best.

Automotive manufacturers over the same period have implemented some excellent primary and secondary systems which the Bureauracy have shown little or no development in. Airbags, ABS, traction control, side impact bars, crumple zones and safety cages have played no small part in the Oz road toll reduction.

Having everyone fixate on their speedos to avoid a fine, rather than avoid a crash, is bad policy....which clearly the Germans have moved beyond, but we simply seem incapable of taking onboard.

desler · #98 10-03-2010, 01:41 PM

3 k's over

Simply not possible!!!!!!!!

Get your facts right. Set speed minus tolerance. A quick internet search will show you the correct tolerances, show how the speeds are calculated and the positions of all camera's. But hey, it's more fun to sprout absolute BS isn't it!

They simply don't show the alleged speed on the infringements anymore!
Gee the amount of Gumbo's who actually listen to talk back radio astounds me!!!!!!

Although If you can't tell the difference between 110 and 120 on a Freeway, perhaps you need a few more track days!

Have a great day!

Darren

desler · #99 10-03-2010, 01:52 PM

And just further to your comments about penalties handed out to drink drivers who cause death and serious injury!

That is not a road safety issue, nor a traffic issue. Please direct all of your correspondence to the relevant department of Justice!

My understanding is Judges / Magistrates are supposed to apply the community expectations in relevant sentencing, Oh how quickly we judge!

Would you like that job? Give it a rest, the total number of moral / ethical decision a Pilot is left to make without a flowchart and probability matrix is minimal.

You have set procedures in almost any situation and very rarely, if at all make any decisions outside of set policies and procedures. (Well, we hope you don't)

In all my trolling around in libraries that I've done, I have yet to find an instruction manual on how to administer the law or hand out punishments.

Maybe the moral decisions aren't as easy to dish out in the real world! ie, without an instruction manual!

Take it easy!

Darren

Peter Ward · #**100** 10-03-2010, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desler

3 k's over

Simply not possible!!!!!!!!

Get your facts right. Set speed minus tolerance.

OK, having paid for my daughters transgressions (in my car) in Mexico, they give you 3km/hr for the speed, plus another 3km/hr tolerance.

Amusingly, I heard in Victoria, many drivers successfully argued that their (Government approved) speedometers were only good to +/- 10%.

Hence asked how could they be booked for doing 106km/hr in a 100km/hr zone when they had no way of knowing they were offending....as for being dangerous?? Laughable at best.

The fix? The ADR's for speedometers was changed in July 2006....stating new vehicle speedometers were not allowed to under-read. Gee that's made things safer hasn't it?

Pity if you have a car more than 4 years old....