Velvet Glove

Please dont be silly enough to imply I'm stupid. "Speed is a factor in ALL crashes,the faster you go the more serious the crash I have at no time stated otherwise " Just shot yourself in the foot there buddy. I have read your stats and published replies accordingly. And again, straight from 'your' website "Excessive speed has been found to be an important factor in approximately 20% of fatal crashes in Australia. However it has been argued that such figures are likely to under-estimate the role of speed in crashes." Thanks for coming. Dont try and make your next reply sound smart, it doesnt work

And, straight from the NMA's website: "However we do not believe in harsh punishment for 'speeding' drivers who are driving at a reasonable and prudent speed which exceeds a speed limit as a result of the limit being unreasonably low. This only results in a profit for the government and a waste of police resources which could be used to improve safety. " Very responsible, they advocate 'reasonable' speeding if you dont like the limit. Yes, they have a website, but I have never heard of them so their lobbying power must be nigh on non-existant. Dont bother replying, I am retreating to my cave for a while now

I tried not to make this personal, but you seem to have started it, so I will finish it. You found the NMA on the net, well congratulations, you can use the net. Like I said, they can't be too prolific as I have never heard of them. Plenty of places that lack credibility have websites....god, even I have one. Facts my left nut ! They are statistics, which can be manipulated to suit any agenda you like. I couldnt give a rats ar*e about the 'stats' from SA, I am talking about the facts from NSW and the ACT, which I see every single day. Lets put this whole thing in perspective. You are a volunteer ambo with no training whatsoever in accident reconstruction or investigation. I am a Police Sergeant with extensive training in all of that. Use your stats all you like, what I am telling you are facts. Speed is a primary cause of accidents. A small piece of inattention may not kill at 40km/h, but can at 160km/h. Therefore it is the speed which is the primary cause, not the inattention. Try this little test for yourself, or have a look at an accident scene where it has happened. Drive into a wall at 10km/h, then drive into it at 110km/h. What is the 'killing' factor? The 'crap' is your ill informed knowledge and use of stats that have already been manipulated by special interest groups. For every expert you have I can find 3 that will say the contrary, but I dont need the experts. I had a chat to some ambos tonight at a prang, and these were full time professional ambos. I asked them what they thought was the major cause of car accidents. Their answer....they said they wouldnt know as it wasnt their job to find out, they just cleaned up the aftermath. As I have said before, I have the ultimate respect for people who volunteer their time to help others, and I wish more did it. The problem I have is simple. I dont tell you that you are wrong in your area of expertise, so dont tell me I'm wrong in mine. If you honestly rely on stats that say that less than 1% of prangs then you do need your head read. And finally, straight from the SA Govt website: "Excessive speed has been found to be an important factor in approximately 20% of fatal crashes in Australia. However it has been argued that such figures are likely to under-estimate the role of speed in crashes. Practically all significant safety effects of road traffic depend on driving speeds" Actually go into the SA Govt and read the whole thing, not just what the NMA (??) selectively decides. I am not directing any of this at you personally, but have had enough of you relying on rubbish and innuendo

'National Motorists Association' ??? Never heard of them. If they are anything they are a group with interests that extend nothing beyond motorists so called 'rights'. They have manipulated stats from one state over a period and try to publish that as some sort of authority. I have never heard such abject nonsense. Lies, damn lies and statistics. You have proven nothing with your statement. I will base my assessment on something more than reading a motoring rag. I'd suggest you ask the investigating Police at your accidents as to what caused them rather than what the punter says when extricated from the vehicle. Trust me, people do lie at prangs. Its never their fault, they were never speeding, they only ever just had 'one' drink, they have 'no idea' what caused them to leave the road I will base my assessments on something a little more substantial than what someone said in a glossy magazine. Without trying to sound 'holier than thou' I will base my assessments on 15 years of Policing of which 2 years were spent in Traffic, 2 years in plain clothes, and every second of the rest in uniform policing. I will base it on attending at and investigating 000s of prangs and working with full time professional traffic accident reconstructors on a number of fatals. You have made your points, but have backed them up with an article that's about as authoritative as something written in the Daily Telegraph. It is their version of official Govt stats and I'm sure, if I actually cared that much, that I could find you a dozen reports that state the contrary I dont need to read a magazine to tell me what I see on a daily basis. The test of how factual modern day journalism is to watch a show like 60 Minutes when they are talking about something that you experienced, or know a lot about. that's when you can sort out the wheat from the chaff. But then again what would I know. Its only my job

Read what you wrote and it would be obvious. She went around a 90 bend at 140 in the rain. What caused her to leave the road? Simple physics I'd suggest. Unfortunately for you stupidity does not actually appear in any of Newtons Laws. Yes it was stupid, of course it was. But stupidity didnt make the vehicle leave the the road, its speed did. The combination of the vehicles speed and shifting momentum caused by cornering, plus the slippery conditions caused the vehicle to lose traction and leave the road. The girl could have been as silly as a wheel but if she went around the successfully at 40 then her sustained stupidity would not have made her leave the road. A person not so silly, who thought they could handle the speed, would have had the same result. Plenty of silly people on the road, not all have accidents. Watch a car race on TV and see the occasional driver try to negotiate a corner too quickly. No one would suggest they are silly drivers, yet they often have their vehicles performance fall short of their expectations. Physical things cause accidents, no one dies from stupidity. People may die as a result of the physical consequences of it, but no one dies of it. This discussion is now getting very silly

"because there was an article in wheels or motor a couple of months ago done by some experts in to the causes of mva's" I'm not having a go either but experts in MVAs in Wheels or Motor? Most of them would never have been to the site of a major accident in their lives. The experts I'm talking about are ones that investigate accidents every single day of their lives, and its their job. The 'experts' those magazines would have selected would no doubt be ones that suited their agendas. Those magazines are controlled by motoring groups who agendas are as perverted as several governments. 'Speed' is when you are going too fast for the conditions, IMHO. 100km/h in hailing rain is downright stupid. 120 through a 90 degree bend the same if you know what I mean. You dont have to exceed the speed limit to be going too fast but I can think of 4 accidents I have been to off the top of my head where a total of 8 lives were lost because of nothing short of incredible speeds. One was losing it going 140 around and 80 bend, the rest similiar excessive speeds in ideal driving conditions. If the drivers werent going so fast the results would have been far less tragic. Anyone who disagrees with that would have had a different opinion looking at the drivers smashed legs in front of them, and the rest of the body 20m up the road. I'm outta this topic

What load of rubbish ! Riddle me this then. Somebody approaches a bend where they should be doing no more than 60. They hit the bend at 90 and, because of the speed, leave the road hit a tree and kill all the vehicles occupants. The driver was sober, well rested and had 10 years behind the wheel. Do you reckon speed caused that one? 15 years in the coppers, time in a traffic branch and attendance at hundreds (probably thousands) of prangs has caused me not just to think this, but to know it At no stage have I said that speed is the biggest single cause of accidents. Read what I posted. If people paid attention to their capabilities with respect to speed then yes, we unequivocally would have less accidents. Ask someone who, as a profession, investigates them. They will all tell you the same thing. Yes many, many accidents are caused by circumstances other than speed. But I can tell you that an absolute ton of them are caused by speed, or losing control because of the speed. If you think speed does not cause or is a major contributing factor in many accidents then, in all honesty, you really need to do some research

With all due respect (as I have for all volunteers) how would you know what the primary causes of these accidents were if you weren't actually investigating the causes? Of course many accidents are caused by inexperience, fatigue, etc etc, but I have been to hundreds of prangs that have involved speed. Watch the TV and see how many single vehicle accidents occur on otherwise decent roads (many with P platers) when cars virtually disintegrate. These accidents are caused primarily by speed which, when coupled with other things as inexperience, leads to the tragic outcome. Ambos are the experts in the care of trauma victims of all kinds and I have the utmost respect for them, however coppers, if people bothered to actually listen, can tell you what % of prangs are caused by speed.

Mods this is BS. Once again a thread that started a certain way has now turned into a bag-fest of coppers by a couple of ill informed ass clowns who have been members of the forum for what......oh at least 30 secs. You wonder why Plonky, Curious and myself post less and less nowadays. The same people obviously have neither the intelligence nor the balls to do what I do for a living based on the fact they have no idea of what they speak, and the grammatical and spelling errors that riddle their posts. The agenda for Police is firmly set by whatever Government you have, as we implement their policies. If you dont like a policy maybe think that the copper implementing it might not be a big fan either but has no choice, its that way or find another job. If you really think YOU know all about road safety then spend a month with a country Crash Investigation unit to see the impact of speed and driver stupidity. Many people on this forum talk like they have the driving skills and reactions of a V8 Supercar driver. Let me tell you that 99% of the motoring public, in which the vast majority of these people would fall, don't. Arrogant little sh*ts on Highway Patrol ? You'd want to see the arrogant twerps that they have to deal with on a daily basis. Honestly, you can stick this forum up your . I really couldnt be bothered giving advice or trying to help people out any more (and I get many PMs asking me to). For every 3 decent people on this forum there is 1 who makes me wonder what they will do when they are eventually old enough to actually have a T (not Mummy's), or how long they will hang onto their licence. The same style of person will ALWAYS shut their mouth when I'm at work and I ask them to repeat what they said, but to my face this time. Hearts the size of a carroway seed

Try Section 213 of the Australian Road Rules: "If there is nobody in the motor vehicle the driver must: (a) Remove the ignition key; and (b) If the doors of the vehicle can be locked - lock the doors" The boot is classed as a 'door'. The offence was brought about to stop people leaving their cars unlocked and making them much easier targets to pinch, or to go someway to stopping the epidemic of thefts from vehicles

:lol: I've only seen a couple of good looking coppers around one of my mates were drunk one nite and seen the good looking one and said 'hey your pretty hot you know' then he spewed, luckily nothing happened to him A classic example of the ridiculous comments we put up with from drunken morons on any given weekend

exacary

Groundhog day in as much as a thread that starts out with meaningful discussion ends up being a sledge on Police. We dont make the laws, we just enforce them, and we dont have the options of only enforcing the one's we like. If you don't like the laws it's not Mr. Plod's fault, blame the govt

Good morning everybody it's Groundhog Day

Is that Punxatawny Phil I see, or maybe Ned Ryerson ?

No need to apologise mate. I heard that I get a little that way sometimes when people mention coppers

"If your reading this in english and not afraid of reprisals for doing so.....thank a soldier. " Oh, puuuhhhhllllleeeeezzz !! What drivel ! This isnt an ad for the 'Re-elect George W campaign either'. That is the sort of bull rhetoric that gets nations like the US in trouble in the 1st place BTW I have had military service and UN service o/s in Timor and Cyprus (where guns were pointed at me and a mate was shot at just after he dropped me off). "Just as we did in WW2 when the Japanese tried to invade Darwin." Yes, no doubt about it, our troops held and held in PNG when the enemy was trying to drive through but, trust me, without the US helping out in the Pacific area sheer numbers would have meant a result completely different. Nothing against any of our soldiers anywhere, as I am very proud of them and honoured by what others did in the past, but be a little factual here, rather than sounding a bit like a gung-ho marine

I think the obvious is being missed. The reason we have 0 fatalities is because 0 of our guys have been killed, not because we're not 'important' . The second reason is that our guys are very highly trained (much more so than some of the larger armies involved in the coalition), particularly those with specialist involvement. Its a bit of a 'no brainer' really, and some that I would have thought was dead set obvious in the first place. We don't send the SAS places to guard embassies or have picnics. Commonly their missions are either (but not confined to) smaller patrols well in advance of larger units, or reconnaiscance missions close to, or behind, opposing combatants lines. They are very, very good at what they do and aren't in the business of looking at getting themselves hurt. Is it just me, or wasn't that glaringly obvious ?

You always could be.......and yes, people have forgotten how to use them. Not only is it annoying, its just poor courtesy. My big peeve is when people dont use them whem merging, just a bit of common decency really, but should you expect it in this day and age of rice and stupidity...no Next post in English please harvest

He may have some problems at his next real estate inspection or when Mum and Dad get home Twit!

Same. Click, then do all the rest myself. Same in all the Ford police cars as well

Agreed but at the same time we see a Labor govt in the ACT allocate $110M for a prison, whilst the health care system remains in ruins. The states/Territories get more money now than in any time in their history. It is up to them to allocate that money appropriately and, as Labor has demonstrated many times over the years, fiscal restraint is not amongst their strengths. When it comes down to it in this election, the people have spoken. Their voice resoundingly said 'no' to Labor and 'yes' to the Coalition. Its a done deal now and people (particularly the Labor party) should stop making excuses and get on with what we have. Its a whole lot better than someone from the military coming into your house and killing you and your family because of your political opinion, as happens in many other places around the world. Right or wrong the decision has been made. People should get on with their lives. If they disagreed with the Coalition, well unfortunately they are in the minority now and will have your chance again in 3 years. At least someone has a clear enough majority now to actually govern and implement their policies. If the shoe had've been on the other foot I would have hoped for the same for Labor Cheers

"Ask youself this, when was the last time you saw a policeman walking the beat ? Compare that to perhaps 20 years ago. We all rant and rave about health and lack of police resources to investigate claims when someone scratches a key down the side of your new T......perhaps with coppers on the beat this wouldn't happen" Both issues that are state rather than federally based. If you live in NSW you can blame your state Labor govt for that one, not the federal coalition. The states have been given billions through the GST, if they cant provide basic services the fault lies with them, not the libs, no matter what your political alliance

Might as well ask 'what team do you support' on an NRL team website

The federal Government doesnt have the 'direct' power, under the Constitution, to legislate against high powered vehicles, and they wont bother, its a state issue