| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Baulkham Hills, Sydney
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Wed, 15 October 2003 23:41
 
|
 |
| Quote: |
In Canada, the Government of British Columbia scrapped speed cameras when they found they had had "no discernible impact on speed or the fatal accident rate".
|
yeah, and since 1991 the government hasn't learned that is more or less the same here in Australia
| Quote: |
But Buckingham says governments in Britain and NSW lump together accidents and label them "speed-related". The RTA says 30 per cent of fatal accidents involve speed
|
/* rant
And I am SO SICK, just absolutely sick and over the "speed-related" cop out excuse. Slapping speed cameras around won't solve anything and a band aid, symptom treating solution doesn't provide a real solution.
If there is an accident, no matter what the case the "speed" word will emerge, and no one ventures forth to counter it, as you can't dispute that if they had been going slower it would have better. Say for instance, if the truck and the car has both been going at 15kph, they wouldn't have died... so dumb....
Irrefutably dumb logic
*/ rant
but that is the way I feel.... 
Edit: typos..
[Updated on: Wed, 15 October 2003 23:42]
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 00:23
|
|
the worst i hate is that fucking ad where the ford hits the truck.... as if they didnt do like 3 days worth of research to bring out the WORST CASE SCENARIO to try and "scare" the public into submission.
Im sorry but i agree with Rob. NSW gov (esp Carl Scully) you are cunts. If i ever meet Carl Scully in person, he is going to get a piece of my mind.
Did you know that Carl Scully doesn't even drive?
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
May 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 00:50
|
|
|
prevention is better than cure!!!!!
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 00:52
|
|
|
Bob Carr doesn't even have a licence...
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 00:56
|
|
|
yeah i forgot about that one too
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 01:02
|
|
I dont often watch, ACA, but last night got bored and did. Aparently there is a speed camera down near the spit that books a photo every 8 secs, which means the gov gets $20,000 worth of fines a day which equals out to $7.3 Million a year, and thats just one camera...I agree with what the article says though, speed camera DO save lives IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE CAMERA, but once your round the corner, what do you do, speed up again? 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 01:03
|
|
Tell me about it!
It really is the most ridiculous thing.
Ack! I had this long rant ready, but now I cannot remember a thing of it. 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 01:08
|
|
|
Yeah, that add was rubbish. Nice looking ad, but I never got why they were focusing on the people going 5km/hr over the speed limit. What about those going 30km/hr over. In my opinion it is more dangerous to go 5km/hr below the speed limit than above. By a long way.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 01:40
|
|
| Alchemist wrote on Thu, 16 October 2003 11:02 |
I dont often watch, ACA, but last night got bored and did. Aparently there is a speed camera down near the spit that books a photo every 8 secs, which means the gov gets $20,000 worth of fines a day which equals out to $7.3 Million a year, and thats just one camera...I agree with what the article says though, speed camera DO save lives IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE CAMERA, but once your round the corner, what do you do, speed up again?
|
I'm sorry, but have to disagree...
Empirical, (statistical), and anecdotal evidence suggests that the area immediately around a speed camera is actually a BIGGER accident area than non camera-policed areas because:
A) People are watching their speedos, rather than paying attention to what they're doing/what's going on around them and,
B) Many people, (who may be only fractionally above the limit), tend to brake heavily when they spot a speed camera, hoping to avoid infringing, but at the same time creating a hazard for following drivers...
On another note, it's good to see that more and more people are taking notice of this rort...Hands up who'd vote for a party which advocated:
A) Allocating ALL speed camera related revenue to driver education,
B) Ensuring that speed cameras only actually targeted "black spots" (including removing/relocating cameras which don't target such areas - eg. cameras in highly-trafficked, but "safe" roadways such as high/freeways etc)
C) Reducing the overall number of cameras (and using the funds which would otherwise be allocated to camera installation/maintenance to fund more/better policing of actual criminal activity)?
Anyone?
[edit: Poor spelling/grammar = reduced credibility!]
[Updated on: Thu, 16 October 2003 04:30]
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 01:56
|
|
I agree biased - its while going past the speed camera, constantly taking eyes off the road to check speed, that an accident is most likely.
same as a radar trap incidentally - as soon as you see a radar trap, first thing you do is look down at your speedo (and brake) - which can be very bad when the person in front of you has already done the same thing and jammed on the brakes
I dont mind the harbour tunnel one - as its stopping the 200km/hr club from heading thru there
what pisses me off it the pennant hills road ones, both of which are situated at the bottom of hills, in areas with very few accidents
can anyone say revenue raising?!
everytime this topic comes up, makes me want to go out and hire an industrial metal cutter and go to town
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 02:10
|
|
bloody hell
that is a LOT of damaged cameras
|
|
|
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 02:30
|
|
| Quote: |
A) People are watching their speedos, rather than paying attention to what they're doing/what's going on around them and,
B) Many people (who may be only fractionally above the limit) tend to brake heavily when they spot a speed camera, hoping to avoid infinging, but at the same time creating a hazard for following drivers...
On another note, it's good to see that more and more people are taking notice of this rort...Hands up who'd vote for a party which advocated:
A) Allocating ALL speed-camera related revenue to driver education,
B) Ensuring that speed cameras only actually targeted "black spots" (including removing/relocating cameras which don't target such areas - eg. cameras in higly-trafficked, but "safe" roadways such as high/freeways etc)
C) Reducing the overall number of cameras (and using the funds which would otherwise be allocated to camera installation/maintenance to fund more/better policing of actual criminal activity)?
|
So true! I could KISS you.. metaphorically of course... I am voting for you next election, damm straight. I totally end up watching my speedo rather than the road, well at least glancing at it at least as much as I do when I am writing an SMS text message.. Therefore, speed cameras are as dangerous as writing an SMS at the wheel..
|
|
|
Location:
Lost in the K hole
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 03:13
|
|
| THE WITZL wrote on Thu, 16 October 2003 10:23 |
as if they didnt do like 3 days worth of research to bring out the WORST CASE SCENARIO?
|
would you believe i did the maths on this one and developed 2 deceleration curves for the two vehicles in the ad? (yes i know you would believe it  )
all they then did was a simultaneous equation on the two curves solving for the point where there was the largest difference in their instantaneous speed (even if only for a microsecond).
the solution to this equation is obviously where they decided to make the two cars hit the truck, and thus make a really 'scary' statement about speed...
such bulshit.!!
cheers
ed
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane, QLD
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 04:08
|
|
I dont have enough time to say what i want(damn lunch horu is over already )
but what i will say is that ed...primus rule!
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 05:15
|
|
| RobST162 wrote on Thu, 16 October 2003 10:30 |
I totally end up watching my speedo rather than the road, well at least glancing at it at least as much as I do when I am writing an SMS text message.. Therefore, speed cameras are as dangerous as writing an SMS at the wheel..
|
Something to think about, a guy over here was killed this year I think it was when writing an sms message on his phone. I wonder what the person he was having a conversation would be feeling like.... ouch
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 06:00
|
|
I read an article about this advertisement not long ago which claims the ad seriously underestimates the abillity of drivers anyway.
Apparently even an average Australian driver would have missed the truck by miles (well... metres anyway). The reaction time quoted is nearly twice that of the average driver (paying attention), at 60 or 65 kph that difference had the largest effect on the final stopping distance.
Good drivers could have pulled up easy from that distance from a much higher speed than demonstated ( upwards of 70kph).
This is based on reaction time alone , NOT BRAKING TECHNIQUE !
However, mobile phone users or drivers who were distracted ,faired at least as badly as those depicted in the advertisement.
mobile phones in cars kill more people than speed!!
A good driver who is concentrating can drive just as safely at much higher speeds as an average driver, none of these drivers however, are actually as bad as the propaganda will have you beleive.
However any driver distracted by mobile phones (or watching his speedo) etc will take more than twice as long to react. And hence many meters longer to stop in an emergency.
Gotta find that article !
Matt
|
|
|
Location:
Central Coast
Registered:
July 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 07:14
|
|
|
prevailing conditions also takes into account weather. ie. travelling at 50kmh in a 50 zone in absolutely pouring rain isn't speeding, but it can sometimes be definately unsafe.
|
|
|
Location:
Ballarat, Victoria
Registered:
March 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 09:14
|
|
yes, weather conditions play a huge part in speed, as i think age does as well.
just to add a little to the fire, and i have nothing against the elderly, but i think they should take a test or something again based upon age, just on the fact that the human body does wear down and you can't see or react as well anymore when you get old...
anyway, im not feeling so grammatically coherent today so ill stop now before i look like a fewl. wigger. 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 09:20
|
|
|
Evil_Foetus in NSW anyway people over 70(I think I got the age right), need to have a driving test every year. I also agree that I find I drive around Sydney looking at my speedo the whole damn way, I mean I've had my car long enough to know what 60 "sounds" like, but when you are getting pinged for 62 in 60 zones you cant be too careful
|
|
|
Toymods Social Secretary
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 12:17
|
|
Here's a couple of points i remember from reading some old "Open Road" magazines late last year.....
This is all from Carl Scully's big changes to road/infrigement rules and road development plans....
# Pacific HWY: A coupla million poured into making special "wider" road shoulders along the blackspot areas (large acco zones) with single lanes for police to better target speeding drivers.
As the NRMA stated - in the areas of the Pacific HWY that have been upgrade to double lane dual carriageways, accidents have decreased by a SIGNFICANTLY HUGE magnitude. So the government puts funds into making more spots for police to set up speed traps, and NOT improving rd quality???? WTF!?!?!?
# Massive amounts of RTA funds being poured into permanent speed cameras, speed traps, double demerit weekend ads etc etc which is being taken away from improving road quality on roads like pacific HWY and great western HWY.
# Windsor Rd. Jesus lets just not start there!
Basically the idea goes that atm the govnmt sees speeding fines will solve the road toll - not improving the rds. Despite what RTA and NRMA statics prove otherwise.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Thu, 16 October 2003 12:33
|
|
As for those spots where you see a radar and slow down that was mentioned above, A known spot where they park the van is even worse.
I know that if I'm coming up to a known spot, I'm slowing down, (look at speedo), while also looking at where van is parked.
Anyway, what is also up with them putting the little disclaimer sign that you require a microscope to read AFTER the camera? Are they that covered by the law to take your picture that they only require that little sign for display purposes only, and not for any right you choose to waive?
|
|
|
Registered:
August 2003
|
|
Re: Article on Speeding (SMH)
|
Fri, 17 October 2003 16:34
|
|
Just for the sake of argument:
If people are allowed to exceed the speed limit by a bit, how fast will they go next time 'round? Faster and faster probably?
Even though i find myself going over the speed limit quite often(depends on mood), I don't really understand why going 5km over the limit is safer that 5km less...sounds abit retarded...
Here's an interesting story a friend told me: A guy and his friends are driving. The car in front is driving ~5km below limit. So the young dude, gets impatient and tries to overtake, carelessly. But ends up crashing front on into a car going the opposite direction. He lives the other friends die. Moral: chill bro.
When I'm driving I can sense when i'm near/past 60km/h (sound/vision) and I just have to take a really quick glance at the speedometer to verify. Anyone taking more than a second should practice...
|
|
|
