NSW state-wide speed limit 90km/h? - Page 6

Peter Ward · #**101** 07-01-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louwai

So we all need to be driving Bugatti Veyron's then Peter??

I'll have one !!! My bike only does 310klm/hr. I wouldn't mind trying a Veyron at close to 400klm/hr

My prancing horse will only do a slovenly 285km/hr

Louwai (Bryan) · #**102** 07-01-2010, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

My prancing horse will only do a slovenly 285km/hr

Really!!! I thought you'd do a bit better..... It's std then??? No chipping???

On the track at Phillip Is. I can just squeeze 300klm down the straight before I have to brake hard for the cnr. But only on really soft rubber so that I've got the grip when scrapping pegs around the curve.

My road rubber is a little hard & slippery for that.......

Not too much mods. Flashed ECU, fuel mapping & Air-box.

ummmm sorry....... What was this thread about????? Oh. That's right. Slowing everyone down.....
Yeah RIGHT!!!!!

It'll never happen.

It's just like the gun laws. It only stops the honest people from acquiring guns. THe laws have made absolutly no difference to the criminals acquiring guns.

Speed limits have the same effect on drivers.

glenc (Glen) · #**103** 08-01-2010, 06:13 AM

A 40 tonne truck traveling at 100 kph produces the same force in a crash as a 2 tonne car traveling at 1,000 kph.
I am assuming the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the truck is 0.1m and the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the car is 0.5m.
The vehicles are not crashing into each other.

telecasterguru (Frank) · #**104** 08-01-2010, 07:26 AM

This might be worth a try?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking66.htm

Louwai (Bryan) · #**105** 08-01-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by telecasterguru

This might be worth a try?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...breaking66.htm

Wouldn't happen here Frank. The person could scream discrimination. Larger fine just because he has more money.

Plus, I think that most 'speeders' here are the young ones with no money.

mithrandir (Andrew) · #**106** 08-01-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louwai

Wouldn't happen here Frank. The person could scream discrimination. Larger fine just because he has more money.

Plus, I think that most 'speeders' here are the young ones with no money.

Finland a few years back news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3477285.stm They base fines on the driver's income.

In WA some doctor's Lambo was confiscated because the service mechanic took it for a spin & got busted at some rather high speed. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/police-cant-release-lamborghini-impounded-under-wa-hoon-law/story-e6frg13u-1225817075988

Louwai (Bryan) · #**107** 08-01-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mithrandir

In WA some doctor's Lambo was confiscated because the service mechanic took it for a spin & got busted at some rather high speed. http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/police-cant-release-lamborghini-impounded-under-wa-hoon-law/story-e6frg13u-1225817075988

The "Hoon Laws" in Australia allow the police to confiscate a vehicle. I don't know the actual law in detail, but I think the person has to re-offend 3 times before the vehicle can be taken, or once if over a certain speed..

I think!!! Not sure exacty what the details are.

richardda1st (Richard) · #**108** 08-01-2010, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I'd rather you watched the road, traffic, pedestrians, animals & potential threats.

Putting these ahead of being "slightly over the limit" says to me you are challenged as a driver.

Well thanks for that Pete, at least you're being politically correct in using the term "challenged as a driver".

By the way, it want be long till Australia also starts fining drivers according to their wealth/income. It's also one of those obvious things to do , it makes sense. A fine is meant to be a deterrent, I'm sure you regard it as revenue, but remember it's a voluntary form of revenue. I can see this form of revenue really helping the nations economy, maybe other forms of revenue can be reduced. Good idea.

As I said in another thread "AS IT SHOULD BE".

Peter Ward · #**109** 08-01-2010, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glenc

A 40 tonne truck traveling at 100 kph produces the same force in a crash as a 2 tonne car traveling at 1,000 kph.
I am assuming the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the truck is 0.1m and the stopping distance (amount of crumpling) for the car is 0.5m.
The vehicles are not crashing into each other.

Maaate...in that case you have used the wrong equation.

F=ma
a= Dv/Dt (change in velocity)

Soooo......we need to know the *time* it takes to go from go to whoa.

This is not a simple calculation, as the full momentum of an articulated truck may take some seconds to be absorbed, and cars vary enormously in how much "crumple" they have before they stop.

The *energies* are equivalent at 100km/hr and 447km/hr respectively.

Louwai (Bryan) · #**110** 08-01-2010, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richardda1st

I can see this form of revenue really helping the nations economy, maybe other forms of revenue can be reduced. Good idea.

As I said in another thread "AS IT SHOULD BE".

I don't see how penalising wealthier people more, is going to reduce the road toll or make the roads safer.

A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people. If based on income, these people will pay the minimum, if anything. Therefore the "penalty by income" will not be a deterant to these people.
Which means that the current number of offences from this demographic will not change, & quite possibly increase. This demographic is often "mis-informed" & so they may think,
"income based fines - I have no income, so I won't have to pay a fine".
Stupid comment you say.... Believe me, some people would DEFINATELY think this way.

So penalising according to income seems to be purely a revenue raising excersize.

So I ask, How would this form of penalty reduce the number of offences, or the road toll????

Regarding the "stupid comment" above. I personally know a woman who divorced 20 years ago & received a settlement for the house. The husband stayed in the house. The house was legally changed from both names to his name at the time.
21yrs down the track, the husband sold the house & the woman truely believed that she still owned 50% of the house & he could not sell it without her permission + she would get 50% of the profit.

Needless to say that she got a rude shock!!!!!

Peter Ward · #**111** 08-01-2010, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richardda1st

By the way, it want be long till Australia also starts fining drivers according to their wealth/income. It's also one of those obvious things to do , it makes sense. .....

What?? And increase the number of floggings with IQ....as after all, you should have known better!

pgc hunter · #**112** 08-01-2010, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

My prancing horse will only do a slovenly 285km/hr

Pointless owning one of those in this country mate, unless you live in the northern territory or on the Nullabour. We'll be reduced to hitching a ride ontop of snails if these governments keep ruling this formerly "lucky country".

pgc hunter · #**113** 08-01-2010, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mithrandir

The CCTV is about 5m up a power pole. Must check to see if it has been moved upwards to protect it too.

lol then all one needs to do is get a rifle with a good scope and blow that piece of crap to smithereens from long range

richardda1st (Richard) · #**114** 08-01-2010, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Louwai

I don't see how penalising wealthier people more, is going to reduce the road toll or make the roads safer.

A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people. If based on income, these people will pay the minimum, if anything. Therefore the "penalty by income" will not be a deterant to these people.
Which means that the current number of offences from this demographic will not change, & quite possibly increase. This demographic is often "mis-informed" & so they may think,
"income based fines - I have no income, so I won't have to pay a fine".
Stupid comment you say.... Believe me, some people would DEFINATELY think this way.

So penalising according to income seems to be purely a revenue raising excersize.

So I ask, How would this form of penalty reduce the number of offences, or the road toll????

Regarding the "stupid comment" above. I personally know a woman who divorced 20 years ago & received a settlement for the house. The husband stayed in the house. The house was legally changed from both names to his name at the time.
21yrs down the track, the husband sold the house & the woman truely believed that she still owned 50% of the house & he could not sell it without her permission + she would get 50% of the profit.

Needless to say that she got a rude shock!!!!!

Geez Louwai, simple, still maintain a minimum fine to at least equal the current fine.

I'm sure that clown in Finland who was fined $290,000 will at least give it a second thought.

Don't forget this is a voluntary form of revenue.

Not to sure about, "A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people.

Peter Ward · #**115** 08-01-2010, 11:48 PM

Just as a foot note....a quick look at the VIC roads "wipe off 5" campaign gives an indication on how contrived "official" data can be.

Working backwards from their stopping distance table, they claim it takes around 1.5 seconds for a driver to "react" to a road event.

What a load of old cobblers! If humans normally reacted to events with this sort of brain dead delay, many activities would be physically impossible...eg tennis, cricket, football, ping pong..... forget it....the ball has always passed you by.

Yet the mantra is still chanted....even 5km/hr over is "dangerous"

Well, I suppose it is, if you are vision impaired, in a model-T with suspect brakes.

The key is anticipation, reading the traffic & being predictable. Time spent staring at the speedo is time lost looking for an unexpected event.

mithrandir (Andrew) · #**116** 08-01-2010, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richardda1st

Not to sure about, "A large % of the speeding & dangerous driving offenders are young, low or no income people.

Not sure about the low or no income part.

It's the "we know everything" and "we're immortal" and "live fast, die young" teens and twenties who are over represented in the road statistics.

Once you survive that, I'd say you are more likely to be the cause of an accident if you are drunk and/or tired and/or distracted by events inside the car (passengers, phones, ...) and/or inattentive to other vehicles.

mithrandir (Andrew) · #**117** 09-01-2010, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Working backwards from their stopping distance table, they claim it takes around 1.5 seconds for a driver to "react" to a road event.
...
The key is anticipation, reading the traffic & being predictable. Time spent staring at the speedo is time lost looking for an unexpected event.

There's the answer Peter. Victorians have to spend all that extra time making sure they are traveling slower than 2Km over the limit that they need that 1.5 secs to refocus and take action.

Is it time for all vehicle to have head-up displays?

Or GPS controlled speed limiters - which can't cope with cross-roads or parallel roads with different limits.

Or better driver education and regular testing.

Peter Ward · #**118** 09-01-2010, 10:27 AM

So, what's a 1000 km/hr impact really like?

For your entertainment....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSVfYwdGSsQ

Yes, even I'll admit, at ground level, that's a bit quick to be "safe"

pgc hunter · #**119** 09-01-2010, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Just as a foot note....a quick look at the VIC roads "wipe off 5" campaign gives an indication on how contrived "official" data can be.

Just got back from interstate and everywhere in Vic there are huge new banners saying "SLOWING DOWN WONT KILL YOU". God, I am so sick of this constant nazi propaganda that these pigs keep putting out. These is no different than having Kim Jong's face pasted on every corner

If it were up to me, all rural dual carriageways would be converted to full freeway standard, speed limit increased to 140km/h, 110km/h on urban freeways and rural two lane highways.

Peter Ward · #**120** 09-01-2010, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgc hunter

.... there are huge new banners saying "SLOWING DOWN WONT KILL YOU". God, I am so sick of this constant nazi propaganda that these pigs keep putting out......

Agreed, indeed slowing down may have a fatigue/boredom affect at the back end of a long trip... and may well kill you.

Sure, "stop, revive, sruvive" is a good way to go, but making a trip mind numbingly boring cannot help.

It would be interesting to see the stats on vehicle collisions *caused by* extreme speed...eg 160km/hr or faster. I suspect there are not that many compared to say 80-90km/hr.