70 & 90 zones may be a thing of the past says RTA

[Burnout]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Your opinion is shared by a well known motoring journalist:
Without repeating myself, here is why I disagree: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...29&postcount=5,

Most well known motoring journalists have their own barrows to push around.
You may have observed in many threads around here, accuracy fails as a result.

[geckoGT]

Read your post.

Couple of things.

I do not for a minute believe the propaganda that an extra 5 km/h doubles your risk of crash. By that reasoning a couple of months ago when I was doing 180 on a wet Lakeside track I should have crashed, I came back without a mark on my car. When I did considerably more than that in the NT when it was perfectly legal to do so (considering I was passed by a NT Govt car at those speeds) I again should have crashed. In all the emergency response drives I have done (1000's) where I can according to our code of conduct exceed the limit by up to 30 km/h, surely I should have crashed. Either the 5 km/h extra is a load of BS or I am the luckiest person on this earth. Come to think of it Germany must be full of really lucky people, by that reasoning you would not be able to get anywhere on the autobahn's because of all the crashes. If the 5 km/h more doubles the risk of crashes, then how do you explain that the majority of crashes occur at less than the suburban speed limit? By that reasoning, as the speed bracket of the stats goes up, the number of crashes should increase at a rate of x2 for every 5 km/h.

Nowhere have you addressed the reasoning behind the fatigue implication of lowering the limit with anything that approaches common sense and experience.

When are you ever going to acknowledge the idea that raising the speed limits with appropriately designed roads may in fact be safe? I personally do not think you will because it will never fit in with your agenda and lets be honest, it is too late for you to back down now.

The sad thing for you is there appears to be some key players involved in actual vehicle safety agencies that agree in the right circumstances a raise in speed limit may be appropriate. Some of them are even in government departments that do have the power to make changes.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Read your post.

Couple of things.

I do not for a minute believe the propaganda that an extra 5 km/h doubles your risk of crash. ..........

........ if the limit is 40k's during school hours doing 45k's doubles the risk of a crash but at 4.00pm the limit is 60k's so that means I have 4 X Doubled the risk if I was travelling at 59k's at 3.59pm but at 4.00pm it reverts back to 'normal' chance of a crash?

If I am doing 65 in a 60 zone I have doubled my chance of crashing and burning ..... if I am doing 75 in an 80 zone I have no chance of crashing .... in fact doubled the chance of NOT having a prang .... and I am going faster? 95 in a 100 zone ... still really really safe but faster again? If I do 60 in a 80 zone I am 4 x doubly safe!

Those numbers are a magical thing ....... just magical!

[FPT]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

........ if the limit is 40k's during school hours doing 45k's doubles the risk of a crash but at 4.00pm the limit is 60k's so that means I have 4 X Doubled the risk if I was travelling at 59k's at 3.59pm but at 4.00pm it reverts back to 'normal' chance of a crash?

If I am doing 65 in a 60 zone I have doubled my chance of crashing and burning ..... if I am doing 75 in an 80 zone I have no chance of crashing .... in fact doubled the chance of NOT having a prang .... and I am going faster? 95 in a 100 zone ... still really really safe but faster again? If I do 60 in a 80 zone I am 4 x doubly safe!

Those numbers are a magical thing ....... just magical!

but what's logic got to do with it? Roflmao!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

........ if the limit is 40k's during school hours doing 45k's doubles the risk of a crash but at 4.00pm the limit is 60k's so that means I have 4 X Doubled the risk if I was travelling at 59k's at 3.59pm but at 4.00pm it reverts back to 'normal' chance of a crash?

Yep, that works out to be either safe or 64 times the chance of a crash depending on the time of day.

Or think of it this way, your risk of crash at 40 km/h if we assume is safe, by the 5 km/h more calculation at 100 km/h you are 2,147,483,648 times more likely to crash.

To think, some believe that tripe!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Read your post.

Couple of things.

I do not for a minute believe the propaganda that an extra 5 km/h doubles your risk of crash. By that reasoning a couple of months ago when I was doing 180 on a wet...... .

I believe it applies to when doing that above the posted limit on a stretch of road with a determined limit, but given that isnt where you were when then what is there to discuss?

So yes if you were doing 130km/h in a 60km/h zone your risk of crashing is ~16000 times higher, not that I believe the researchers actually got much data with idiots displaying that type of behaviour, from memory after 30km/h higher the risks increase at an even higher relationship..

But really, people who say the 5km/h over doubles the risk is BS? why, because they dont crash? . Its about the same thing as someone consuming a cigarette and saying " look I didnt shrivel up and get lung cancer and die", thats all rubbish about smoking causing cancer.

All it says is that you double the chances. So if abiding by the limit at 60km/h is a 0.00001% chance of crashing on a particular day, its 0.00002% if you are doing 5km/h over. There is a difference between double and make an absolute certainty.

So yes you are still likely to be there at the end of the day telling everyone how you went 5km/h over and didnt crash and burn so its all BS but the stats will show that on average for the population twice as many people crash when going 5km/h over.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

........ but the stats will show that on average for the population twice as many people crash when going 5km/h over.

Over what???? A posted number? A variable number that in some areas change depending on the time of day? Speed kills ..... so doing 95 in a 100 zone is bad mmmm'k compared to doing 75 in a 70 zone?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I believe it applies to when doing that above the posted limit on a stretch of road with a determined limit, but given that isnt where you were when then what is there to discuss?

So yes if you were doing 130km/h in a 60km/h zone your risk of crashing is ~16000 times higher, not that I believe the researchers actually got much data with idiots displaying that type of behaviour, from memory after 30km/h higher the risks increase at an even higher relationship..

But really, people who say the 5km/h over doubles the risk is BS? why, because they dont crash? . Its about the same thing as someone consuming a cigarette and saying " look I didnt shrivel up and get lung cancer and die", thats all rubbish about smoking causing cancer.

All it says is that you double the chances. So if abiding by the limit at 60km/h is a 0.00001% chance of crashing on a particular day, its 0.00002% if you are doing 5km/h over. There is a difference between double and make an absolute certainty.

So yes you are still likely to be there at the end of the day telling everyone how you went 5km/h over and didnt crash and burn so its all BS but the stats will show that on average for the population twice as many people crash when going 5km/h over.

Two things.

Of all the crash scenes I have been to there is no way the cops would know the vehicle speed before the crash to an accuracy of 5 km/h, so where do these magical stats come from.

Second, if I my break down your above post it seems to me that you actually agree that in the right conditions, speeds of greater than 100 km/h may be deemed safe?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So yes if you were doing 130km/h in a 60km/h zone your risk of crashing is ~16000 times higher, not that I believe the researchers actually got much data with idiots displaying that type of behaviour, from memory after 30km/h higher the risks increase at an even higher relationship..

Oops I forgot, so the QLD State Government, under advice from all their road safety experts and with all the stats at their disposal see fit to allow all its ambulance operators to travel at up to 30 km/h over the posted limit, 128 times more likely to crash?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Oops I forgot, so the QLD State Government, under advice from all their road safety experts and with all the stats at their disposal see fit to allow all its ambulance operators to travel at up to 30 km/h over the posted limit, 128 times more likely to crash?

On the theory, its 2^6 = 64 times. That's with joe average at the wheel(which Im sure its not) and a few flashing lights etc, no idea what the risks are for ambos in emergency service, hopefully its not as high as police cars in pursuits etc.


rather than point the finger at me, have a look at these:

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...eed_Risk_3.pdf
http://www.trg.dk/elvik/740-2004.pdf

Perhaps all we get from the tribe here is its all govco researchers telling the government what they want to hear (apparently the Swedes are in on it too)

Oh, but find anything by independent/private researchers? but who would pay them to research on things that concern public safety, yes its up to governments to look after their people.

No, stuff from websites with authoritive sounding titles such as:

http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html (the I'm p****d off about my speeding ticket and am an expert driver and should be able to drive at whatever speed Im comfortable about and I'll cherry pick any stat to prove it, NT toll comes to mind) , dont count!

Published research from researchers on the gravy train(check out the mansions these people live in ), or conspiracy theories from people with a hole in their pocket from speeding fines.....who to be believe, its so hard...

The stats gathered by the RTA where road speeds are monitored and have dropped in comparison to none camera areas have shown a decline in accidents that agrees with the model. What isnt clear is that the people that do actually crash are the ones that were going 5km/h or more are proportionally represented, just that on the roads where the number of people exceeding the limit was reduced, the overall accident rate went down.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Second, if I my break down your above post it seems to me that you actually agree that in the right conditions, speeds of greater than 100 km/h may be deemed safe?

Said something along those lines:

Originally Posted by sudszy

Perhaps there is a good argument for 130km/h limits on divided 6 lane roads with well designed exit and entrance facilities, but that is not the roads were are talking about.

as opposed to just setting the limit based on its a comfortable day's drive between major centres.

[KiwiKilda]

I think when discussing speed and speed limits
just look at the laws of physics

Force = Mass x Accelleration

Bigger Mess expotentially as your speed increases
Harder to stop
Harder to control - outcomes

I think you would be surprised how much extra force
a 5km per hour increase gives you

Those are the facts that apply regardless of the sign beside
the road or the people administrating it.

So really you just have to apply some common sense
and maybe the brakes instead of the accelerator
and drive to the road conditions sometimes

and if that means doing the limit fine
and if that means doing a little less than the limit
for sound reasons that is fine also

The real thing that is un controllable is the other person in charge
of the wheel.

And that is why it is important to drive defensively and keep
a cool head on the road.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The stats gathered by the RTA where road speeds are monitored and have dropped in comparison to none camera areas have shown a decline in accidents that agrees with the model. What isnt clear is that the people that do actually crash are the ones that were going 5km/h or more are proportionally represented, just that on the roads where the number of people exceeding the limit was reduced, the overall accident rate went down.



.

there is no way of knowing the speed of a vehicle involved in an accident. not to any degree of accuracy anyway. certainly not 5km/h.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by prydey

there is no way of knowing the speed of a vehicle involved in an accident. not to any degree of accuracy anyway. certainly not 5km/h.

Do you mean to say that NO speed safety camera has ever pictured a speeding driver in an accident? Why doesn't that surprise me

[Ben73]

60 zone. 5:20pm. ****ing down with rain, cars everywhere. You are doing 59Km/h, you are pretty safe.

Same 60 zone, 2:20AM. Not a sign of life in sight, Clear weather with good visibility. You are doing 65Km/h Your GONE!!!!
Grim reaper is hiding in the next shadow, wipe off 5 so you don't hit him!

That's how it works, I thought we all knew that now.


The other night I was driving to work, pulled up at a intersection with a new safety camera. It was about 2:40am. There was a Subaru approaching from my right, it was teh only car in sight. As it enters the intersection FLASH. The night lights up, which would of caused a major distraction if someone was driving towards the camera.
I looked at this Subaru and It didn't even look like he was speeding, he would of been lucky to be doing 5kmh over the limit. He did not hit the brakes he just continued at the same speed. That camera saved his life that night.

[punty]

physics:
V^2 = U^2 + 2AS <= assume: u=initial speed=60, v=final speed=0, s=distance traveled, a=acceleration

.: 0=3600+2AS <= since a=deceleration we take the value to be negative
.: 2AS=3600
.: AS=1800 <= now we can assume a constant deceleration since we are using the same car. say 10m/s^2 deceleration
.: S=180m

now do the same thing with the initial speed at 65
.: 0=4225+2AS <= since a=deceleration we take the value to be negative
.: 2AS=4225
.: AS=2112.5 <= now we can assume a constant deceleration since we are using the same car. say 10m/s^2 deceleration
.: S=211.25m

that means that 5km/h extra will require in excess of 30m more to stop. thats a huge distance if you think about it and that value increases exponentially if youre in the wet... not saying that youre more likely to crash because i think the likelyhood of crashing is dependant on the drivers ability (solely), but if you do crash it will be worse... that said, reducing 70&90 zones to 60&80 respectively will probably cause more crashes at the start due to the confusion of constant modifications to the speed limits... people will get aggravated and end up trying to overtake into a passing car. lowering speeds is a stupid idea. theres only so low you can go and with technology advancing its more appropriate to increase speeds considering all the new safety systems out there. if you look at 20 years ago, speeds were good (not that i was alive then but saying it gets slower over time). now that we have curtain airbags and extra safety features you would assume the number of fatalities would decrease when coupling in the decreasing speed limits. its about driver ability, not statistics... all we need is a more stringent licensing process that doesnt target ONLY younger drivers, but overseas drivers and ensure reexamination of drivers every so often. i personally have a cousin who came from overseas only 5 months ago with a permanent visa and has already been involved in 14 accidents... all of which were his fault... after the last one i got him off the roads because he's just too dangerous (persuasion is the key), but i seriously dont understand how he got his license at his skill level -.-

[Falc'man]

Eureka!

How about they increase the speed limit by 15km/h all round, and then if motorists are caught doing 1km/h over then they really have no excuse. These days cars handle better, stop better, Go better.. hold on, wait that very last bit doesn't make sense but anyway you get the idea - cars are capable.

This will make the grannies like fmc and sudsy (j/k) feel safe for doing 10km/h under the limit because they won't be fined and they will be fine, everyone else can "hoon" around at the limit.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by punty

S=180m,S=211.25m that means that 5km/h extra will require in excess of 30m more to stop. -.-

Why not tomorrow stand besides a road and pace out 200m or so, do you really think a car needs that far to stop from 60km/h? 60m/s........maybe

Originally Posted by punty

physics:
say 10m/s^2 deceleration

at the higher end of the scale

Originally Posted by punty

that value increases exponentially if youre in the wet... .-

no, the relationship between speed and stopping distance is not exponential, wet or dry, but its fair to say that on a very slippery wet road that deacceleration would be half of what you claimed previously, doubling the stopping distance.

Originally Posted by punty

. if you look at 20 years ago, speeds were good (not that i was alive then but saying it gets slower over time).

Speeds were good??

Originally Posted by punty

. now that we have curtain airbags and extra safety features you would assume the number of fatalities would decrease when coupling in the decreasing speed limits. -

Its not assumption its fact, we have the lowest fatalities per capita since records have been kept and lower tolls overall than the start of the 1960s.

Originally Posted by punty

i personally have a cousin who came from overseas only 5 months ago with a permanent visa and has already been involved in 14 accidents... all of which were his fault... after the last one i got him off the roads because he's just too dangerous (persuasion is the key), but i seriously dont understand how he got his license at his skill level -.-

well done for getting him off the road, and certainly its bad drivers that cause the problems, yeh those that cant chew gum and walk at the same time(ie the ones that cant watch where they are going and keep control of speed ) one basic identifier of bad drivers.....are being slowly weeded from the system.

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So yes you are still likely to be there at the end of the day telling everyone how you went 5km/h over and didnt crash and burn so its all BS but the stats will show that on average for the population twice as many people crash when going 5km/h over.

So if on my return trip home if i do 85 in a 100kph zone ill be safe as im well under the 100kph, BUT im 25 over the 60kph limit and 15 over the 70kph limit.
Theres plenty of flaws in your arguments, get with the times and go out and get on the roads and experience some time on the road rather then sit behind a computer screen quoting facts and figures from someone else.
Your posts remind of me a Homer Simpson quote

Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by DJM83

So if on my return trip home if i do 85 in a 100kph zone ill be safe as im well under the 100kph, BUT im 25 over the 60kph limit and 15 over the 70kph limit.
Theres plenty of flaws in your arguments, get with the times and go out and get on the roads and experience some time on the road rather then sit behind a computer screen quoting facts and figures from someone else.
Your posts remind of me a Homer Simpson quote

why not read the reports I linked to, and make some informed comment on the findings there.

Oh, but you aren't interested:http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...7&postcount=51 in looking at any of the facts.

It appears your only interest is to make a lot of noise, firing shots into the air and attacking the messenger,

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by sudszy

why not read the reports I linked to, and make some informed comment on the findings there.

Oh, but you aren't interested:http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...7&postcount=51 in looking at any of the facts.

It appears your only interest is to make a lot of noise, firing shots into the air and attacking the messenger,

Im not interested in your links to various rubbish, ITS NOT YOUR FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE they could feed you anything and you would lap it up.
Get out and see a bit of what happens on the road and get back to us is what im talking about.
Oh and thanks for the reported post, im not ignorant i live in the real world unlike yourself.
And im not the only one with these opinions of your narrow minded posts.

[punty]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Why not tomorrow stand besides a road and pace out 200m or so, do you really think a car needs that far to stop from 60km/h? 60m/s........maybe

the values i used might have been a bit off and im sorry if it gave everyone the wrong idea. just trying to prove a point...

Originally Posted by sudszy

at the higher end of the scale

no, the relationship between speed and stopping distance is not exponential, wet or dry, but its fair to say that on a very slippery wet road that deacceleration would be half of what you claimed previously, doubling the stopping distance.

yep that was my bad... exponential might not of been the right word it was more a statement of emphasis so my bad...

Originally Posted by sudszy

Speeds were good??

Its not assumption its fact, we have the lowest fatalities per capita since records have been kept and lower tolls overall than the start of the 1960s.

ok. like i said i wasnt around then so i dont have much experience.

Originally Posted by sudszy

well done for getting him off the road, and certainly its bad drivers that cause the problems, yeh those that cant chew gum and walk at the same time(ie the ones that cant watch where they are going and keep control of speed ) one basic identifier of bad drivers.....are being slowly weeded from the system.

maybe my argument is slightly flawed (no argument can be perfect, can it?), but atleast my point got across for the most part. its bad drivers...

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by sudszy

why not read the reports I linked to, and make some informed comment on the findings there.

Oh, but you aren't interested:http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...7&postcount=51 in looking at any of the facts.

It appears your only interest is to make a lot of noise, firing shots into the air and attacking the messenger,

C'mon that's being a bit hypocritical.

[prydey]

none of the arguements seem to take into consideration the high number of accidents that happen below the speed limit, plenty of them fatal.

also, the fatality statistics are falsely represented. all deaths that occur on the road or with a car involved are recorded as part of the road toll. the number that are as a direct result of excessive speed (and only speed) is small. the number that is as a direct result of a minor speed infringement is even lower.

statistics can and are manipulated to suit agenda's. we are guilty of doing it on here to argue 'for', and the govco departments do it to argue 'against'.

as for the 5km over argument, if i drive at 59 but come across sudszy (who would be driving close to 50), i'm doing the best part of 10km/h faster but neither of us is being illegal. this is a real situation everyday now. instead of people just letting traffic flow, you have random rolling chicanes who are paranoid about speeding in amongst everyone, and these are on the rise.

whatever the limit is set to (that magical number in the red circle) you will always get the self righteous who sit 5-10km under and those who drive pushing the limits at 5-10km over, and everything in between.

[Ben73]

Some people can quote reports and link us to reports all over the internet, but seam to have no personal real life experience. If they do, they keep it tight liped and never touch upon it.

Funny story last Friday afternoon this guy abused me at the traffic lights for doing about 55 in a 60 zone. He said I was driving like a mole causing a road block (his words). There were cars in front of me and I couldn't go any faster if I tried, but this halfwit still thought he would take it out on me. People with ****** attitudes are the real danger on the road.
I remained calm and told him I did nothing wrong while he was going off his head f this f that. Deep down I wanted to get out and punch his face in, but I would never do that.

[wulos]

We are done here. If people can't put forward calm, & reasoned debate, then ANY thread is going to crash into a solid immovable object.
THIS thread is ample proof why threads of this type repeatedly get closed. Same people, same regurgitated facts, same figures, and nothing new added to an argument that has been raging for years.