Actually.... ignore everything i've said previously... People are smart/people are stupid... People are going to live/people are going to die...
Banning motorbikes/cars/trucks/egg whisks is not going to change the fact...
Maybe if everyone just took their own life and responsibilities towards others, into their own hands, then we wouldn't need little sh*ts in brown suits to 'protect' us.
You just need to see the episode of Happy Tree Friends where the baby bear is playing with the lawnmower... the daddy bear is worried about the baby bear so he puts him in the hammock where he is safe... the daddy bear then mows the lawn and hits some rubbish in the grass, which is flicked out the side of the lawnmower and kills the baby bear.
Cotton wool isn't going to save anything... least of all lives!
(gee i sound schizophrenic today...hmm)
:alien
"Mr Writer, why don't you tell it like it is? Why don't you tell it like it REALLY is?" - stereophonics
Just ban all male, P-platers from getting behind the wheel of a commodore and we'll all be right as rain 😉
-----------------------------
Brian White Media
PO Box 237
North Beach 6920
Western Australia
www.bwmedia.com.au
-----------------------------
^^but then we'll have a shitload of fords, skylines and civics on the road!
(i mean a shitload more :P)
MOB: 0423890217
I agree with the idea of checking cars properly, and more often. I mean, cars like mine shouldn't even be allowed for farm use, let alone be allowed to drive on the public road system.
For starters, if a car doesn't have good brakes, good steering, good seat belts, good tyres, good suspension and everything bolted together tightly, it shouldn't be driven on the road. Driving a car that has a fault with any of it's main components is simply just waiting for the sistuation to arrise that requires that failing component to perform properly.
If your brakes aren't too good, and you make allowances for this, everything's fine, until some twit pulls out in front of you. At this time you wish you had a margin for error (ie, the margin for error effective brakes give).
Even a dud shockie can have fatal effects in a situation that calls for evasive action. If you have a bung shockie on the left front corner, someone brakes suddenly in front of you, and the road's a little wet, it's most likely that your car will slip and take a dive to the right (the physics dictate it'll be towards the opposite corner of the dud shockie, because that's the wheel with control and grip), straight into the path of oncoming traffic. Instant fatality just because a shock absorber wasn't replaced when it should have been.
Add to poor maintenance with bad driving practices and it's inevitable that people will die, and we already have plenty of proof of that.
With the complexities of life these days, we all need private transport often enough to need a car on the road. And the reality is, not everyone has the money to fix their car when they should.
Maybe the money got from speeding and drink driving fines should be used to fund a scheme of welfare that grants people that have no money, the funds for the repairs to their car. If you're out of work or ill, you still have to have a home and food, so they give you the funds for that. If you have children, they give you extra to cover feeding them. If you need medication, they give you subsidies for that. SO WHY THE HELL DON'T WE HAVE A VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SCHEME for people on welfare. This would save not only the lives of the poor, but also the lives of anyone else their car takes out.
As for radar traps, maybe radar "guns" should be reconfigured to shoot out the tyres of tailgaiters and speeders. That would certainly slow them down. LOL
ruckus wrote:Bottom line is that if you want to get somewhere on time, then leave... on time! It will take a lot of speeding to make up for the five minutes you lost because you had to set the vcr before leaving the house, even on the M1.
If people relaxed and chilled there wouldn't be as many accidents.
Agreed - more chilled drivers the better. Road rage and angst leads to unsafe driving. As does overconfidence and the immortality complex most P platers seem to possess.
However, to me it's not about speed enforcement that I have an issue with, it's the ludicrously low speed limits on safe roads. If the speed limit was 130 km/h, I'd be very unlikely to want to exceed that on the Westgate. There's just too much traffic at the times I drive to make it safer to go faster, and honestly, the average Australian driver is not well trained enough to handle much faster than that anyway.
On the road to Albury, it's basically straight for the most part, and banked properly. I'd reckon 150 km/h would be safe for some of the more straight sections with good long range visibility and minimal road side fixtures, like the last 100 or so km to the border, 130 km/h for most of it, and 100 km/h where it passes through the black forest and there's trees close by to the road. Compared to the major metropolitan freeways and toll ways, there's not a lot of traffic, so it's safer for those slightly higher speeds.
I have the full complement of points on my license, despite passing four sets of speed cameras and one red light camera every day (for a grand total of 10 times a day I can lose my license). I don't speed, but I also don't have to like it.
Andrew
What about...
for every fine that you get..(regardless if speeding, littering, talking on your mobile etc), you insurance premium increases, as does the fine depending on how often you get them...
MOB: 0423890217
That already happens in the US, and to a lesser extent, it happens here.
Andrew
this is what vic roads should strive for....
http://gettingaroundgermany.home.att.net/autobahn.htm#design
The German autobahn systems are the best in the world, not like Vic Roads or there contractors putting down a thin layer of shitty bitumen that falls apart at the sign of a decent rain fall.
I agree with speed camera's even as i drive for a living, because the speed limit is there for ALL to obey, BUT the revenue should go into creating the freeway systems that europe strive for so we could increse the speed limits on certain roads if they were built for it, not the bumpy and uneven crap we have to deal with everyday. But unfortunately NO goverment from either side, in power or not will give up the huge money generated from speed camera's to put 100% back into the roads. It's a sad but true reality.
STEALTH
Step 1: "Wipe off five to save lives"
Outcome 1: Ok so I wipe off five. But I am still moving, and so is everyone else, so there is a chance someone could die.
Step 2: Lets "Wipe off [another] five to save lives"
Outcome 2:
- If speed is greater than 0km: see outcome 1, repeat step 2
- If other: Get out of car because you better start walking.
There is always going to be a chance of people getting injured, as long as cars are moving at "speed" (anything greater than 0km/h). At what point does the possibility of injury escalate exponentially? Do not set the speed limit higher than that.
Speed is a factor in a large percentage of fatalities. Not surprising really, given that if you are moving then speed is a factor!
It's not quite as simple as that. Before cars, there were deaths due to riding horses, trains and so on. For example, Marie Curie's (the discoverer of radiation and the first to extract polonium and uranium from ore) husband died from being run over by a carriage. Literature is littered with people carking it after falling from their mounts. Horses rarely if ever travel above 45 km/h, and yet the danger is still there.
So let's say we're never going to go back to horse and carts, and we'll stick with well designed cars with modern safety equipment. It is possible to walk away from most low speed incidents as long as you don't hit something like a light pole in the wrong way. Other times, you can kill someone at 5 km/h, particularly if they're a small child outside the car.
Above a certain speed, no car can safely ensure that you will survive. For early Beetles without collapsable steering columns, this speed is likely to be as low as 50-60 km/h. In 5 star NCAP modern cars, it is more than likely around 100 km/h. At that point, it's important to ensure the local driving environment is as safe as possible; ie minimize the chances you will hit something so fast you have no chance.
For example, if you hit the armco on the freeway, you're likely to bounce off it and come to a complete stop a little way away, be able to open the door, change your underwear and you'll be fine. If you're on a 60 km/h normal road, if you're doing 60 km/h and the other side is also doing 60 km/h, if you're involved in a partial offset frontal collision at a closing velocity of 120 km/h, it is borderline unsurviveable. New cars and heavier cars generally win those battles. This type of accident is the one that causes the most amount of death and permanent disability. The answer is not to make 60 km/h roads slower, but to separate traffic so that you don't hit something at 120 km/h.
There is a relationship:
p = mV^2
which states that the faster you go, it will take a lot more distance to stop and hurt a lot more if you crunch. That's why I support 50 km/h speed limits in back streets and 40 km/h around schools. But freeways are different. It's very rare that you stop in a meter or so, often freeway accidents are stupid things like hitting the armco after falling asleep or low speed accidents like running into the back of someone else when they've stopped in morning peak hour traffic. But for the most part, it takes something truly stupid to lose your life on a freeway as you have so much more area to run off, and side swiping people and hitting them even at speed is generally non fatal.
If you're a regular Sun Herald reader, they have a reporter whose job it is to ambulance chase the road toll figures. They report the location of every fatality. Try this exercise. For the next month, see how many deaths occur on any freeway. You may need to go for a while longer than a month. It's a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall road system, whilst they are the busiest roads in the state.
Some roads need to be strictly speed enforced, many need to be redesigned, some need reductions, but modern freeways are now set too slow and are just out and out revenue raising.
Andrew
Yeah cameras save crashes NOT!!!!!!
The area around the Hoppers Crossing camera was bad enough as it was now it is a nightmare with people hammering the brakes when they are approaching the cameras. I can clearly see there is going to be more accidents on that stretch of road now.
Next they will drop the speed limit of the roads to 90 then 80. Its not speed that causes accidents, it is poor driver education and people pushing themselves beyond their capabilities and the conditions of the road.
🤘
Love the comments from the authorities on the new cameras "2000 people caught in a few hours"
yes... lots of people... did they crash?... no?... hmm thats odd, they said they would if they did that... they must've been ok this time cos big brother was watching. 🙂
"Mr Writer, why don't you tell it like it is? Why don't you tell it like it REALLY is?" - stereophonics
Hey I'll put my hand up "I SPEED" usally I don't know I'm doing it but when I'm doing it my eyes are on the road not on my speedo every five seconds checking to see if I'm going to get a fine because I'm 2klm over. I know where my eyes are meant to be looking to be a safer driver. Anyways where I'm originally in from England there use to be 2 speed cameras on the way to work (about 30klm ) now in the last three years theres now seven plus at least one mobile camera every two weeks. Its all about saving lives :P:P:P :repuke not about making a buck hey. These roads are not dangerous there no different to any others. Every time I get a ticket I say good luck to them as they must need the money more than me !!!!:thumb
nIck
😵💫
recycle, restore, enjoy
