Speed kills?

[faalcon]

The true fact is drivers kill and is only enhanced by speed,alcohol,drugs,attitude,etc

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by troppo

Therein lies the reason why accidents can only be minimised and not prevented. Humans aren't infallible. And you don't care about me if I'm speeding...you said so.

One track mind mate. You might not be the one speeding, you might not be the one at fault. The effect was community at large.

So your argument boils down to; why bother with extra minimisation, lets just allow risk without trying to minimise it as its inevitable and speed limits dont help. Basically, lets do nothing and just roll the dice. And you want to roll everyone elses die too.

Originally Posted by troppo

Yes I do need more, and one night of drunken revelry on a special occasion every year as an example won't do it for me.

One night? Fine, schoolies week, theres another of the exact same lines for you and it goes for a week. What about the incidence of domestic violence, adults who dont know not to hit a woman? Theres a different basis for an example played out Aus wide everyday. Do I really need to demonstrate all the incidences of society unable to make decent decisions?

Face it, society as a whole isnt capable, many individuals are, but society isnt. Oh thats right, you ignore this, pretend to acknowledge it, then say you think of people differently in the face of evidence to the contrary. Good for you, youre ignorant.

Originally Posted by troppo

Why was what? Tourists don't cause anything, they just crash a lot more often than the locals because they aren't used to driving in outback conditions where it's not uncommon to drive for 5 hours between buildings. It's called fatigue.

The argument was put forward enough in those threads, specifically rented cars and campers etc being driven at speeds beyond the vehicles capabilities by inexperienced drivers. It was one example, not the whole.

Originally Posted by troppo

What you don't get is simple messages don't solve a complex problem.

And complex explanations dont get through in advertisng campaigns. Its not hard to follow surely.

Originally Posted by troppo

I suggested society doesn't need to bogged down with limits on absolutely everything, nor would it help the problem any more than what has already been done.

Speed limits are not absolutely everything. They are one thing and even with them, many things arent legislated.

Originally Posted by troppo

The law already adresses speed in populated areas...

Yet drink driving is illegal everywhere, not simply populated areas.

Originally Posted by troppo

LOL well thats the most circular argument I've ever seen. The fact is the lack of a motion from the pollies to change the laws is what's keeping them.

Drivers breaking the law do keep it down. We had 110 introduced, increased from 100 so politicians have moved in an upward direction. Drivers pushing the limits actually brought it back from 110 down to 100 again, until an attitude change was demonstrated. The politicians at the time actually said it straight like that on TV.

Originally Posted by troppo

A community stand you say? An awful lot of focus on the self for somoeone who claims a community stand, not to mention a certain zealousness toward restricting the rights and abilities of the community, arguably unnessecarily.

That community includes me. Im not Nanna, I ride, I drive, Id love to be able to do 200+ at times.

Doing night runs to Brissie, 2am down the Bruce Hwy from Sunshine Coast would have been easy to sit on 200+ on the bike. But you just never know whats going to be down the road, and I have no right to endanger someone else. I am part of that community, its doesnt necessarily serve me to restrict speeds. Even on a bike I can do a lot of damage.

Originally Posted by troppo

A fact of life mate. I'd prefer people to be vigilant at all times and be on the lookout for some moron speeding through a school zone as opposed to only being vigilant while on the open highway with no speed limits.

Without banning cars from school zones, all we can do is what?
Have a speed limit and enforce it. Just as with open roads to minimise the risk of accident by trying to strike a balance between convenience of time, and safety in reduced speeds.

Originally Posted by troppo

What are you trying to say, that if we drive slower, those other objects and cars we could potentially hit magically disappear?

There is more chance of things going wrong at higher speeds. Was it that hard?

Originally Posted by troppo

Right...but it's OK to do exactly that when it comes to a more dangerous substance like alcohol...

Alcohol is allowed, theres a limit. Speed is allowed, theres a limit. Seems consistent to me.

Originally Posted by troppo

Freedom comes from law?

While its American, the Bill of Rights is law. All rights come from law.

Originally Posted by troppo

Well if it's a legal nightmare then more legislation makes perfect sense...

And theres the proof. Understanding is not required for you. You obviously know nothing of law, yet spout about it anyway. Its where your rights come from, its where they end. The decisions of courts must have some legal basis, not whim. A loose law, like no speed limit yet any speed can be deemed unsafe, prevents that from happening, as I demonstrated through Germany. Thats far more arbitrary than any arbitrary speed limit.

Originally Posted by troppo

I've lost my dictionary, but option 3 seems pretty close to my argument you called a straw man, so lock in 3 thanks Eddie.

You lose. Have you lost your internet?

Originally Posted by troppo

And my point was, the other road user is perfectly safe UNLESS something goes wrong, not really any different to how it works now is it?

Additional risk from for example those tourists, the guy in a hurry and making poor decisions because his interpretation of the law is go as fast as you like.

Oh thats right, that wont happen.

Originally Posted by troppo

Could it be the message is too simple?

Write the ad. Oh wait, let me guess, no ads.

Drink driving is plain enough. The ads are fine, they arent the problem.

Hows life in Egypt? Ill wait for you to post 1000 variations of "I know you are but what am I".

[Professor Farnsworth]

you guys need to get a room

just agree to disagree... this thread was always going to end up this way

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Rev28K

Ooohh. Touchy subject matter.

Brock could drive the pants off me and had driven in a fair few rallies and there is no way I would argue otherwise. He had spins and accidents when he was pushing at 10/10ths the same as any other racer.
Having said that Jim Richards has said that the trick with the Targa style rallies is to drive at 9/9.5 tenths (always having a bit in reserve) as the consequences of going off are pretty severe. Look at how many people have spun/gone off when pushing at 10/10ths trying to catch JR. Circuits you can pretty much go 10/10ths but rallies are different. Personally the idea of rallies scares the bejeesus out of little old me – the idea of going at high speed with little run off and all of those tree trunks and branches. Rally drivers probably have bigger balls (and less imagination) than circuit drivers.

My point wasnt anything really to do with Brocky, he was one hell of a driver, a legend no doubt. The point I was making was his skill is far beyond that of drivers on the road. Even the best here dont come close, unless theres a V8 supercar/WRC driver posting here.

Anyone can come unstuck. The problem starts when that decision effects someone else not in the decision loop.

Funnily enough, even V8 Supercars/F1 have speed limits in pitlane? Why? Everyone there knows the risk, everyone has made the decision to be involved in high risk, everyone knows what to expect, yet the speed limit was still deemed necessary and in a situation where every last drivers has the highest level of skill.

Far from the situation we face, impossible skill expectation to attain for the road.

Originally Posted by Rev28K

If there is no other advertising other than keep below the limit and don’t drive ****ed/stoned why would they think otherwise? IMHO Anyone who promotes speed alone as a killer (Victorian TAC, Vicroads, Peter Bachelor, etc) is a hypocrite with the blood of innocents on their hands.

Qld runs drink driving ads, speeding ads, stop revive survive ads, schoolzone ads, fatigue ads, the list is pretty endless. There are various different ads with the same message too.

If Victoria is only running speeding ads, then thats a government issue, not a speed kills or doesnt issue. Id suggest the constant nonsense about revenue raising might have something to do with that focus. Maybe if people just stopped making that accusation the government wouldnt be focused on defending it by running the ads to show they dont want the money, they actually want you to keep within the limit.

Im sure they want the money too.

[Rev28K]

Originally Posted by fmc351

My point wasnt anything really to do with Brocky, he was one hell of a driver, a legend no doubt. The point I was making was his skill is far beyond that of drivers on the road. Even the best here dont come close, unless theres a V8 supercar/WRC driver posting here.

My point was that he might have been over driving for the conditions. As JR has said he leaves a bit in reserve doing rallies.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Funnily enough, even V8 Supercars/F1 have speed limits in pitlane? Why? Everyone there knows the risk, everyone has made the decision to be involved in high risk, everyone knows what to expect, yet the speed limit was still deemed necessary and in a situation where every last drivers has the highest level of skill.

Yes. Pitlane, cars and people are a potentially dangerous mix. Part of the safety issue for the speed limiters in pitlane would be that it stops competitors losing/gaining ground by doing scary speeds around soft objects. Also camera crews and officials moving around the place rather than just teams mainly sticking to their own team areas.

If I was a car controller standing on concrete (?) with cement dust, dust and crap I’d rather the car heading towards me was doing 60kmh than 100kmh. Hell they even manage to avoid running over kilt-wearing protestors in the middle of the track at the English Grand Prix……


Out of curiosity FMC351 (not stirring and I won’t use your words against you, I just want to know where you are coming from) what is your history and what do you base your opinions on?

Any form of competitive driving? Have you done anything to improve your skills over the years? You are posting on this forum so I presume you are a bit of an enthusiast and your car would be above average condition?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Rev28K

My point was that he might have been over driving for the conditions. As JR has said he leaves a bit in reserve doing rallies.

And thats the whole point. He had immense skill (so education isnt the key everyone thinks it is, it helps, but isnt the key), he raced well at Bathurst over the years so no-one can challenge his ability to make a decision until he killed himself which was too late. In his case it doesnt matter, he assumed the risk and did so in an organised race situation, its one of those things and I wouldnt be trying to remove his right to do so. But we are talking about roads here, roads used by people who dont necessarily assume the risk those who want to do more than say 110 have assumed, yet can easily fall victim to what they deem excess speed just the same, with government approval. The same f%^k up is inevitable on the road and would be much more likely given the public will never match his skill no matter how much education and training they go through, the odd exception exists, but can in no way be the norm.

Despite skill, despite immense experience, he f%^ked up. On the road, that costs people other than him, or the occupants of his car. And thats where the argument gets messy. Who has the right? Drivers who want to be ale to assume the risk for themselves, or the governments responsibility to the wider community not to unnecessarily expose them to that risk, a risk the wider community get no say in outside the laws government make? I mean think about it, do you ask me if I mind you doing whatever before you do it, do you then ask the rest of the population each time you do it? Of course not, so the risk you assume is not the risk anyone else assumes, yet anyone can be victim of your choice.

Originally Posted by Rev28K

Yes. Pitlane, cars and people are a potentially dangerous mix. Part of the safety issue for the speed limiters in pitlane would be that it stops competitors losing/gaining ground by doing scary speeds around soft objects. Also camera crews and officials moving around the place rather than just teams mainly sticking to their own team areas.

The regs came in after near misses, and a few deaths in pitlane. Every person in pitlane has assumed the risk, its a race with the sole purpose of going fast, not a shopping center.

Originally Posted by Rev28K

Out of curiosity FMC351 (not stirring and I won’t use your words against you, I just want to know where you are coming from) what is your history and what do you base your opinions on?

Why would it matter?

If I say I used to speed, theres no point listening to me because Im a hypocrite. Never mind the concept of learning from mistakes, its seems here your expected to let everyone make the mistakes themselves at the expense of others. By that logic an ex-addict parent cant talk to their kids about the wrongs of smack either.
If I say Ive never sped then I must be against speed and have no idea how to drive fast, or Im a liar because everyone does it. Or similar.

If Im a copper (or similar, ambo, politician), Im biased.

Originally Posted by Rev28K

Any form of competitive driving? Have you done anything to improve your skills over the years? You are posting on this forum so I presume you are a bit of an enthusiast and your car would be above average condition?

I drive well, I havent had any accidents since the early years, I ride, I drove trucks (including semi, no B doubles though) for a few years, I have machinery tickets and have done so for many years, although Im not ancient yet. I was nearly killed as an 8 yr old in a T-bone accident on my side with my old man driving, someone elses risks. Both dad and the other driver at fault, my dad with a semi-valid excuse, other dude was just speeding, my old man didnt see him, he wasnt there one minute (slight bend, bushes lined road) then he was there when we had moved off, the sun was low etc etc. As I said, semi-valid, semi-valid in the sense its an easy mistake and I understand it, but he knows he f&^ked up, the other dude was speeding, he knows he f%^ked up. Both felt like 5hit.

2 weeks intensive care, major surgery, 3 months recovery. Im one of the lucky ones.

Enough?

Im not arguing its never possible to drive fast and survive, Ive done it I know it is. I used to ride the Great Ocean Rd, theres a rd from Whittlesea to Yea among many others I rode often. I know why we like to do these things.

Im arguing its never safe to do so because we never know what is around the corner and our choices shouldnt be imposed on others with such cost. Speed limits also impose on people, but at what cost? Anyone who claims skill or good decisions are why they have done so without cost is fooling themselves. They played a numbers game (myself included), for the most part it pays off but when it doesnt, and given the numbers on the road thats a lot more than most want to allow for, the cost is horrific and unfair to impose on the innocent.

Competing rights, and the right of least harm prevailing.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

One track mind mate. You might not be the one speeding, you might not be the one at fault. The effect was community at large.

Do you not see the irony of using my 'straw man' argument repeatedly? Regardless of who is at fault or how fast they wer going, the community at large is affected, you're only bickering about to what degree they are affected.

Originally Posted by fmc351

So your argument boils down to; why bother with extra minimisation, lets just allow risk without trying to minimise it as its inevitable and speed limits dont help. Basically, lets do nothing and just roll the dice. And you want to roll everyone elses die too.

No, that's your misinterpretation of my argument.

Originally Posted by fmc351

One night? Fine, schoolies week, theres another of the exact same lines for you and it goes for a week. What about the incidence of domestic violence, adults who dont know not to hit a woman? Theres a different basis for an example played out Aus wide everyday. Do I really need to demonstrate all the incidences of society unable to make decent decisions?

Well waddya know, another example using examples commonly associated with alcohol abuse..didn't I make tha point too? I think the adults who hit a woman know it's wrong but they do it anyway, just like people who go over 110, the difference being hitting a woman is also morally wrong.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Face it, society as a whole isnt capable, many individuals are, but society isnt. Oh thats right, you ignore this, pretend to acknowledge it, then say you think of people differently in the face of evidence to the contrary. Good for you, youre ignorant.

Yes, yes idiots and all that. It's still not an argument.

Originally Posted by fmc351

The argument was put forward enough in those threads, specifically rented cars and campers etc being driven at speeds beyond the vehicles capabilities by inexperienced drivers. It was one example, not the whole.

Oh...one example.
It may interest you to learn the majority of accidents involving tourists in the NT are single vehicle crashes at speeds below 110km/h.
It seems you also missed the point of those arguments as well, that that tourists tend not to take into account the handling characteristics of the their hired troopy, and when they drive them on unsealed roads and expect it to handle like a family sedan on a highway, they crash.
Let me give you another example from 2007 which might hint at another reason why the NT figures are skewed. Another single vehicle crash accounted for 7 of the 57 deaths. The crash happened below 80km/h (well below the 110 limit for that road) in good conditions. One crash like that can have a significant impact on figures from a small population when figures are measured using the fatalaties/head of population numbers our Government is so fond of. Indeed, I could pick 10 other crashes that happened at higher speeds and come up with 0 fatalaties if I was selective.

Originally Posted by fmc351

And complex explanations dont get through in advertisng campaigns. Its not hard to follow surely

.
No you're right. Complex explanations should best be considered 'education' and goes beyond the scope of an advertising campaign...that would just be a supplement to the driver education.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Speed limits are not absolutely everything. They are one thing and even with them, many things arent legislated.

If they are one thing, why different limits for different areas? And still no reason against no limits in some areas.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Yet drink driving is illegal everywhere, not simply populated areas.

That's because alcohol has the same effect in unpopulated areas, unlike speed.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Drivers breaking the law do keep it down. We had 110 introduced, increased from 100 so politicians have moved in an upward direction. Drivers pushing the limits actually brought it back from 110 down to 100 again, until an attitude change was demonstrated. The politicians at the time actually said it straight like that on TV.

Well, if the pollies said it...I believe them.

Originally Posted by fmc351

That community includes me. Im not Nanna, I ride, I drive, Id love to be able to do 200+ at times.

And yet, you support legislation which prevents you from doing so.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Doing night runs to Brissie, 2am down the Bruce Hwy from Sunshine Coast would have been easy to sit on 200+ on the bike. But you just never know whats going to be down the road, and I have no right to endanger someone else. I am part of that community, its doesnt necessarily serve me to restrict speeds. Even on a bike I can do a lot of damage.

See, you weighed the consequences and made the decision. The law didn't really come into play did it?

Originally Posted by fmc351

Without banning cars from school zones, all we can do is what?
Have a speed limit and enforce it. Just as with open roads to minimise the risk of accident by trying to strike a balance between convenience of time, and safety in reduced speeds.

It's in the bit you quoted...be vigilant at all times while driving...expect the unexpected. We already have a speed a limit around school zones and towns and you obviously haven't got it yet, removing open road limits doesn't change that.

Originally Posted by fmc351

There is more chance of things going wrong at higher speeds. Was it that hard?

Yes it was...how, exactly is there more chance? Remember, things like increased stopping distance IF there is an an emergency is an increased risk, not a cause and as iffy as Aunty Jack.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Alcohol is allowed, theres a limit. Speed is allowed, theres a limit. Seems consistent to me.

Theres only a limit as it pertains to driving after consumption. Never been abused by a drunk in the pub?

Originally Posted by fmc351

While its American, the Bill of Rights is law. All rights come from law.

Lol, the American bill of Rights has nothing whatever to do with Australian law except that both are derived from English law. All laws come from the Magna Carta.

Originally Posted by fmc351

And theres the proof. Understanding is not required for you. You obviously know nothing of law, yet spout about it anyway. Its where your rights come from, its where they end. The decisions of courts must have some legal basis, not whim. A loose law, like no speed limit yet any speed can be deemed unsafe, prevents that from happening, as I demonstrated through Germany. Thats far more arbitrary than any arbitrary speed limit.

Actually I chose not to elaborate due to irrelevance.

Originally Posted by fmc351

You lose. Have you lost your internet?

Before you jump the gun again, explain the loss to me. Explain how you using the same argument as me makes it a different argument.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Additional risk from for example those tourists, the guy in a hurry and making poor decisions because his interpretation of the law is go as fast as you like.

Oh thats right, that wont happen.

Ah, the tourist misunderstanding has led you to a false conclusion. The only difference between the guy in a hurry with speed laws and without is you can add speeding to the list of 'poor' decisions.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Write the ad. Oh wait, let me guess, no ads.

Better still, educate the new drivers...

Originally Posted by fmc351

Drink driving is plain enough. The ads are fine, they arent the problem.

Drink driving is a different issue...alcohol affects the brains ability to make decisions...speed doesn't.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Hows life in Egypt? Ill wait for you to post 1000 variations of "I know you are but what am I".

Where's Egypt?
Are you actually going to make a point at some stage or just persist with nothing but opinion?

[troppo]

Originally Posted by fmc351

And thats the whole point. He had immense skill (so education isnt the key everyone thinks it is, it helps, but isnt the key)

Well, there's your first mistake in that post...you've confused skill with education. Knowing how to do something is not the same as having a talent for doing it.

Originally Posted by fmc351

...he raced well at Bathurst over the years so no-one can challenge his ability to make a decision until he killed himself which was too late. In his case it doesnt matter, he assumed the risk and did so in an organised race situation, its one of those things and I wouldnt be trying to remove his right to do so.

Let's take a closer look at what makes an organised racing situation safer then shall we? Bearing in mind the three ingredients needed for an impact...
1 object A in motion
2 loss of control over said motion
3 object B (state of motion irrelevant)
Now you can't have any sort of racing without point 1 so nothing can be done about that. Onto point 2, the crown jewel of racing safety. This is the cause of all crashes and the reasons for it are many and varied, to the extent that race organisers have decided it's impossible to eliminate the possibility of it happening. So they do the next best thing, allow for it and try to minimise the consquences when it does happen. And how do they do this? The most obvious thing is to remove all unnecessary 3's from the immediate area where possible. Where it's not possible, they alter the design to deflect or absorb any impact energy, to reduce the rate of stopping in the event of an impact. In fact, aside from procedures in place to protect emergency personell after an incident, the only time speed is considered from a safety perspective is when designing barriers to stand up to the impact. An odd way of looking at safety if speed really does kill.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by troppo

... you're only bickering about to what degree they are affected.

Told you couldnt understand the notion of risk minimisation. Thats all about degrees, what else could it be? And governments job is about those same degrees.

Society isnt capable, never will be, its not a flaw, its natural. Everything Ive said revolves around that, and Ive proved it. The best f%^ked up, the majority couldnt hope to even come close to the best. Governments job is to minimise risks the public are exposed to while trying to balance convenience and rights, thus we can drive at speeds fast enough to kill and mangle, but with the degree the 85th percentile can generally manage to avoid the situation in the first place, ie: 100 or whatever is deemed appropriate for road surfaces and other road side variables. Are there errors in what is deemed correct? Well they are also human.

Claim victory all you like, and keep fooling yourself while driving on those speed limited roads. All of society is wrong, the medical profession, police, government and opposition, civil engineers, its a global phenomenon, its only the enthusiasts who have a clue about these things. Can anyone spell delusion?

Try thinking an argument through. Theres the water, now drink without pi55ing in it first.

[Sourbastard]

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by troppo

Well, there's your first mistake in that post...you've confused skill with education. Knowing how to do something is not the same as having a talent for doing it.

Skill comes from experience, which is akin to education. School is not the only source of education.

And education is no replacement for experience. Id prefer an experienced version, over a freshly educated one in nearly every aspect of life. I say nearly as theres likely an exception, but I cant think of one. Experience not being satisfied by doing something wrong for years, but from doing it well for years.

Originally Posted by troppo

Let's take a closer look at what makes an organised racing situation safer then shall we? Bearing in mind the three ingredients needed for an impact...
1 object A in motion
2 loss of control over said motion
3 object B (state of motion irrelevant)
Now you can't have any sort of racing without point 1 so nothing can be done about that. Onto point 2, the crown jewel of racing safety. This is the cause of all crashes and the reasons for it are many and varied, to the extent that race organisers have decided it's impossible to eliminate the possibility of it happening. So they do the next best thing, allow for it and try to minimise the consquences when it does happen. And how do they do this? The most obvious thing is to remove all unnecessary 3's from the immediate area where possible. Where it's not possible, they alter the design to deflect or absorb any impact energy, to reduce the rate of stopping in the event of an impact. In fact, aside from procedures in place to protect emergency personell after an incident, the only time speed is considered from a safety perspective is when designing barriers to stand up to the impact. An odd way of looking at safety if speed really does kill.

And what does that mean in the situation of a road, where the (3) cant be removed.

Oh wait, you think every road can be a racetrack? No, no you dont, of course not.

And the aside from emergency personnel, well you cant aside that in a road situation and the emergency personnel are every other road user. Thats the purpose, the aside you want to leave out.