Speeding Gets the Boot

[Redhawk]

  Slymeat said:

If you look at these results and are mindful of this fact, speed is difficult if not impossible to determine after the act, you can use various formula to calculte the coeficient of drag of the road surface distance and breaking efficiency and come up with a minimum speed a vehicle had been travelling at before impact, but this is not usually used to determine speed as you would require an expert to verify the results.

hmmmm......and I always though the serverity of the twisted metal/vehicle damage, was indicative of speed traveling at time of impact!

[Slymeat]

  Redhawk said:

  Slymeat said:

If you look at these results and are mindful of this fact, speed is difficult if not impossible to determine after the act, you can use various formula to calculte the coeficient of drag of the road surface distance and breaking efficiency and come up with a minimum speed a vehicle had been travelling at before impact, but this is not usually used to determine speed as you would require an expert to verify the results.

hmmmm......and I always though the serverity of the twisted metal/vehicle damage, was indicative of speed traveling at time of impact!

Even low speed colisons can reek carnage that looks severe ( Crumple zones ) Play havock with speed interpretation.

[JB]

Revenue raising, what a hole lot of rubbish!

That's what Mr Bracks wants us to believe, obviously shows the contempt that goverments have for the people. That or they think we are stupid, are you stupid enough to believe this?

This form of revenue raising will continue until someone gives the government the ability to raise money as easily as the cameras current do for them, which inturn gives them the ability to keep mismanaging public funds.

Ahh feel better now I have that off my chest!

[cdm]

  Macktheknife said:

  Redhawk said:

Got Howard's, Lathams's, Brack's. Gallop's, Robert's, and all the other pollies e-mail addresses?

They're in here somewhere.

I think Ken (or somebody) posted them a while back when this subject was on the boil.

Maybe someone who knows their way around the site better than me can post them again.........Please......

This thread has all the details.

Have your say on the road safety debate

Chris

[Macktheknife]

  Slymeat said:

Have a look at the statistics more carefully, Yes speed is not no.1 but these results are over simplified. Speed 16%, Rain wet/road 5%, Other 11%, Alcohol and Drugs 36% - Total 68%. If you look at these results and are mindful of this fact, speed is difficult if not impossible to determine after the act, you can use various formula to calculte the coeficient of drag of the road surface distance and breaking efficiency and come up with a minimum speed a vehicle had been travelling at before impact, but this is not usually used to determine speed as you would require an expert to verify the results. Secondly if the person is over the limit then speed is disregarded as the result of the accident, unless you can prove they are doing more than 45 over. Most alcohol related fatals involve speed or inatention. If the driver at fault is the deceased expert opinions are not called for so no speed calculations are done only checks for alcohol or drugs during the autopsy would be included towards the statistics. Taking all this into account speed is a factor in up to 68% of fatals or more, which would make it no.1.

I can't necesarily agree that they are oversimplified. They are arrived at by dint of input from police at accident scenes and standard sets of criteria by four or more other government departments.

According to the article, these are the "bigest contributors to road fatalities in Qld"

I dont believe you can mix factors when examining statistics, only deal with the prime factors because otherfactors are almost always going to be consequential.

eg: If a driver was very drunk, stoned, and exceeding the speed limit on a wet curve in foggy weather, while lighting a smoke and went to sleep, what would be the cause?...I'ts always got to refer back to the originating cause of any consequential action.

I guess the main point I'm trying to get across and reiterate is the lie by vested political interests who, because its easy, continue to to try to pull the wool over the motoring publics eyes rather than do the hard yards and they will continue to do so if we let them.......

So, I'll just go and put the kettle on and look for the Bex.

No, on second thought, the Macka Medicine cabinet sounds a better bet.....

[tab]

Go Macka, couldn't have put anything that you have said any better.

Slymeat: As for the "over simplifying" of the statistics although you raise an often-overlooked and valid point, it is still a smoke screen for the real problem. Although I am by no means an expert on the topic you can’t expect to put someone behind the wheel of a car with minimal experience and not expect to have problems.

As Plonky mentioned, drive to the conditions. If we were in a perfect world then there would be no need for speed limits as everyone could use their own judgement and determine their own speed with respect to their own ability and the conditions that they are driving in. We all know that this is far from the case and the average motorist these days needs a sign to help them every step of the way, the most obvious of this is the suggested speed signs on corners.

And as for the number one cause, well those idiots that are under the influence and get behind a wheel deserve to die. If you are going to be so stupid then suffer the consequences. The only concern with this group is the innocent parties that are often involved.

And just to put things into context, although totally unrelated, more people die in Australia from bee stings then from shark attacks each year.

So what the authorities want us to believe and what is actually the case are quite often two very different things, and these statistics prove this point once again.

Trent.

[Slymeat]

  tab said:

If we were in a perfect world then there would be no need for speed limits as everyone could use their own judgement and determine their own speed with respect to their own ability and the conditions that they are driving in. We all know that this is far from the case and the average motorist these days needs a sign to help them every step of the way, the most obvious of this is the suggested speed signs on corners.

Even profesional racers crash, when they are driving at the limit of there abilities. Unfortunatly most people out there arn't as good as they think they are and we need some form of resptraints placed on us. I personally would rather pay the fine then be responsible for the death of another human being.

[curious]

  Slymeat said:

  tab said:

If we were in a perfect world then there would be no need for speed limits as everyone could use their own judgement and determine their own speed with respect to their own ability and the conditions that they are driving in.  We all know that this is far from the case and the average motorist these days needs a sign to help them every step of the way, the most obvious of this is the suggested speed signs on corners.

Even profesional racers crash, when they are driving at the limit of there abilities. Unfortunatly most people out there arn't as good as they think they are and we need some form of resptraints placed on us. I personally would rather pay the fine then be responsible for the death of another human being.

you dont know how correct you are and I admire you for saying that. Being involved in a TA with two deaths is somethng I have to live with for the rest of my life.

[Zeke]

Any law that's broken by almost everyone is a bad law. We need speed limits to protect everyone from a range of idiots, including boy-racers who think it's cool to drive at ten tenths on a public road, the incompetent, the distracted, the drunk etc etc.

But those speed limits need to be realistic. They need to be set at a speed that is safe for a sober driver in a roadworthy, modern car. Then they will be taken seriously instead of being punitive in themselves. There also needs to be scope for slower vehicles and drivers to travel well under the speed limit without that causing problems. But that would require a level of road design that is far in excess of our current 3rd world standards. Revenue from petrol etc recycled into roads?....silly idea according to the pollies.

I don't think there is an easy answer. When I'm on an excellent country road without another car in sight, I want a very high speed limit. On a stormy night in the city, I'm glad of the current speed limit to protect me from the idiots whose driving ability is no match for their egos. (And to protect them and their passengers also)

Many years ago, the open road speed limit in SA was "prima facie" 60mph. You could be stopped for exceeding the speed limit, but, if you convinced the constabulary or, if necessary the court, that you were driving safely according to all prevailling conditions, no offence was committed. I liked that system!

It would be great if it could have continued, which would mean that it was not an automatic assumption that higher speeds meant dangerous driving. I would support a system where, if the court finds a speeding driver is, in fact driving dangerously, they get the book thrown at them. But, if they show that the speed was safe and reasonable given the conditions, the car, their level of sobriety etc, they have a valid defence.

Guess it's just too hard and we will continue to suffer the frustration of speed limits that are, for the most part, set to cater for the "lowest common denominator".