TAC ad fault

2 identical cars, one going 60kmh, the other going 65kmh, one stops right at the truck, damages his bumper bar a little, the other would be a wipeout and driver killed probably.

Discrepancy lies in the fact that this MUARC bloke says we wipe off half our speed in the last 5 minutes, that means either a) it takes you ten minutes to stop regardless of your speed or b) you never stop, that seems a tad illogical to me as i'm sitting here typing and I know my bike is stopped outside.

Also if we are to "Wipe off 5 and stay alive" shouldn't they be going 55 and 60kph respectively?

More bullshit brought to you by Bracksy and co at your expense (if you're a Victorian taxpayer).

its the last 5 metres ...........and I still reckon that is bullshit anyway, is he trying to tell me that my Dunneydore can stop from 35kmh in 5 meters ?? Not on your nelly

It's all debatable..

do 10k's over and you might never have seen the potential accident...

do 5 k's under like wise...

I think it's a fact that the majority of people that speed are paying more attention to thing than those that are just pottering along bored shitless and don't see things until it's too late...


Either way the debate is flawed..

2 cars driving along.. 1 would stop in time.. the other would have driven past before anything had occured in most cases...

Owe and I love this one...

Lets use kids as bait for the debate... Lets not push teaching children road sense/knowledge.. When I was a kid in the 80's it was a big deal, as was push bike safetly.. but these days.. It's just blame the driver and make them drive slower..

Like everything in this world responsibility of the parents to control/teach their children is going out the window... young teens out of control and parents just not giving a shit.. I'm not old.. but I was brought up to have respsect for the most part and well.. Living in Mt Druitt/Cabramatta/Campbell Town you had no choice in the mid to late 80's but to watch your back... You soon learnt quick if you didn't...


/end rant.

Mt Druitt??!!! My ex BF grew up there..in the late 80's. Good old western Sydney.

I agree with you, that parents should be teaching their kids about road sense, but like a lot of things these days, responsability is going out the window. The buck is getting passed around a lot more lately.

I also find it interesting that in QLD, they say, "Every K over is a killer" Well, why aren't there massive pile ups in Europe, where they drive much faster?

It's all relative.

You get a dangerous driver, and make him drive 60KPH or 80KPH, and he's still a dangerous driver.

Know what I mean?

I just want to know what the truck driver was thinking for pulling out in front of 2 cars

Last edited by Lucas on Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

....I also find it interesting that in QLD, they say, "Every K over is a killer" Well, why aren't there massive pile ups in Europe, where they drive much faster?.......

spot on. If every K over was a killer, we would all be dead. If Speed Kills, how come there are NO deaths in NT over a holiday period......with NO speed limits in *certain* areas ??????? Its a joke.

What kills is *Inappropriate* speed, *Inadequate* training, *Incompetent* fuckwit drivers........that is what kills......

here endeth the rant

If Speed Kills, how come there are NO deaths in NT over a holiday period......with NO speed limits in *certain* areas ???????

Well i would think it's because they have 3 people living in the NT
unlike Melbourne with 4.5 million and sydney with 6 million
mate speed doesn't kill it's the sudden stop or sometimes the not so sudden stop

I dont know but i think if i hit a car at 190kph i might just be ......ummmmmm farked up a bit

$peed cameras don't do a God-damn thing either.

Instead of just revenue rasing, why don't they use the money made from speeding tickets to fix the bloody roads, and educate drivers to drive safely when they are doing the test, so before they get their licence, they are taught about safety on the road. Crappy roads contribute to accidents just as much as the speed of the vehicle.

All speed camers do, is make the dangerous driver slow down to the legal speed untill he is past the police car, then he speds up again. And I don't believe that the fines of $150 are doing a damn thing either. They piss the driver off, but they don't learn from it.



Nope, the govt just wants to line it's greedy pockets.

[.....Well i would think it's because they have 3 people living in the NT unlike Melbourne with 4.5 million and sydney with 6 million ...

thats right, there are only 3 people in NT .......

Well i have observed a few bingles in my time....spent too long sitting in a car and some could be avoided by a simple lane change manouver thats right sounds simple but i have seen cars run smack up the bum of other cars because they slammed oon the brakes when the should have changed lanes.

dont know anout the 5 kms a hour may be better to have them paying attention to what there doing.

Speeding can save lives. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3391064626

I think it's a fact that the majority of people that speed are paying more attention

Actually, I beg to differ. Why is it that I can stand on the side of a road, next to a big white bike with red and blue lights on it, in a fluro-yellow rain suit, holding a laser gun, and the only people that don't see me are those over the speed limit? Those that are sitting at or under the limit often wave. I don't hide under bushes wearing green camo, but I will sit under a tree to keep out of the sun.

I think you'll find that most people who speed are more interested in getting to their destination quickly than what is happening in their immediate surroundings. Others are speeding BECAUSE they are distracted.

They say, "Every K over is a killer" Well, why aren't there massive pile ups in Europe, where they drive much faster?

1) I think you miss the point. I honestly don't think they are trying to suggest for one minute that doing 61 instead of 60 is going to cost lives. I believe they are trying to suggest that if you aren't paying attention, then suddenly you are doing 80 instead of 60, and that can certainly hurt.

2) The Eruopean roads that have the higher speed limits are often triple carriage-way roads, seperated by armco and several metres of nothing. When accidents occur on these stretches of road, they are often rear-enders or sideswipes, not nearly as deadly as the goold old head-on!

Although there are some stretches of the autobahn in Germany that have unlimited speed limits, the majority of it is restricted to 130km/h. Whilst this is still higher than our highway limits, the average age of cars in Germany is much lower than those here, their cars have more safety features than those produced here and the driver's are far more couteous than the average Australian driver.

Not only that, but the quality of the roads in general is much higher. Their population rate is high, and the total size of their country is small in comparison to Australia. This means that there is more money to spend on roads.

If Speed Kills, how come there are NO deaths in NT over a holiday period......with NO speed limits in *certain* areas ???????

As someone else has said, minimal traffic flow. But on top of that, most of the people driving on rural roads in the NT are locals, not tourists with NFI! I have also heard that although there are some roads with unlimited speed limits, a large number of drivers still tootle along at 110.[/quote]

What kills is *Inappropriate* speed, *Inadequate* training, *Incompetent* fuckwit drivers........that is what kills......

No argument there. Make a road, let it detirioate over a few years, stick a 110 km/h sign on it, and everyone hustles along it at 110-120km/h. Just because the sign says you can travel at a certain speed, doesn't mean you have to. Instead of bitching about the condition of the roads, how about we try slowing down?

$peed cameras don't do a God-damn thing either.

And I don't believe that the fines of $150 are doing a damn thing either. They piss the driver off, but they don't learn from it.

Well, actually.... without them, there would be a much higher number of vehicles travelling above the speed limit. If people think they can get away with something, they'll give it a shot.

Who actually knows if fines are working or not. Do you have a better idea?

Now, it's obvious that speed in itself doesn't kill. But at the same time, if you are travelling faster when you crash then you are probably going to get a little more hurt. If you are driving along a country road and two wheels enter the dirt verge, then there is a higher chance that your car will become out of control.

A high number of accidents in towns and cities are caused because of failure to give way and following too close. If we increase speed limits to 80 km/h, people will still follow too close and accidents will still happen, only at a much higher speed. And when Pa Kettle fails to give way, instead of hitting him at 60, you'll hit him at 80. Sure, you may miss him, but sooner or later someone is going to get hit.

Let's say the government made highway speeds 150 km/h. How long do you think it would be until people started to complain they are too low??

I agree that there is such a thing as "safe speeding", but how do you police who is speeding safely, within their abilities and the ability of the vehicle, and those who are just an accident waiting to happen?

........I agree that there is such a thing as "safe speeding", but how do you police who is speeding safely, within their abilities and the ability of the vehicle, and those who are just an accident waiting to happen?

That was well thought-out and delivered. Here is a possible answer to your question.....

1. You test all drivers annually, for competence, eyesight, knowledge and reaction times.

2. You then issue *graded* licences, which take into account the tested ability of the driver, and the vehicle being driven, and an appropriate licence is then issued.

Fines are determined giving due respect to the drivers grade of licence, and motor vehicle being driven.

Its not hard, sure its more complex, but how *basic* is the current system anyway ?? When 17 year olds can jump into unrestricted V8's or turbo's, you have a problem ( and clearly there is a problem, as they have just been banned in NSW, and are no longer allowed to do this).

Competence, eyesight and reaction times can be tested on a simulator.
Knowledge of road rules can be tested in an exam. This is not difficult. We all whinge about the *fuckwits* who cause prangs, because they couldn't drive a greasy stick up a dead dog's clacker.

This process will weed them out. Catch the bus motherf*cker !!!!

One driving test, at age 16 ? or 17 ? to give you a licence for life, is clearly NOT the answer.........

just my 2 bobs worth......

That was well thought-out and delivered. Here is a possible answer to your question.....

1. You test all drivers annually, for competence, eyesight, knowledge and reaction times.

2. You then issue *graded* licences, which take into account the tested ability of the driver, and the vehicle being driven, and an appropriate licence is then issued.

But what would the speed limit be? How would you identify those drivers breaking the speed limit? Would you stop all drivers over the limit and only issue fines to those who don't have the appropriate class of licence? Would this piss off those drivers who do have the right licence? Would we all have to have plates identifying our driving ability?

Its not hard, sure its more complex, but how *basic* is the current system anyway ??

It's harder, and not a bad idea, but sounds like a pain in the arse!

One driving test, at age 16 ? or 17 ? to give you a licence for life, is clearly NOT the answer.........

Funnily enough Gos, I agree. We should all have a licence test every couple of years.

Its only a pain in the arse, because compared to how the system is *policed* now, its somewhat more difficult and complex..........therefore its a pain in the arse - no arguments there

I guess its all about driving to the conditions.......and if the conditions are good for 130kmh, yet the speed limit is 100kmh, then where is the sense in that ? The *autobahns* are used by both sides in this argument, to justify particular points of view, but what really irritates me is that when highways, like the Hume between Canb / Sydney, are designed for travel at 130kmh, and limited to 100 or 110, then clearly the only point of the lower limits is to raise revenue. Thats it. If the road is designed for 80kmh, then travel 80 (you did refer to this). But this has to cut both ways.

But don't book me for travelling at the intended design speed of a stretch of blacktop, just because some *safety* committee deems it safe to travel 20-30kmh slower

and the first question you posed can only be answered thus:

The speed limits remain the same - You continue to pull people over, just as you did previously - " Oh excuse me Sir, that is a Gold AAA+ licence you have, no worries, you are allowed to travel X amount of KMH over the posted limit, in Y vehicle - on your way sunshine......" - after all , legislation is a wonderful tool for doing your daily business, just legislate some additional clauses into the current Motor Traffic Act.

90% of the driving population would remain on either the same licence as they currently have, or even possibly more restricted due to eyesight issues, tested inability to control a motor vehicle at the speed limit, etc. Most morons out there driving cars would fail a test if they had one tomorrow, yet we allow them to drive ( and continue to kill one another, and us bikers) at a frightening rate.......

Its Orwellian I know, but it remains my dream ( and after being booked for speeding as many times as I have, do you really think I would be arguing any different ?? )