Mr Aardvark Sir wrote:Yet, I have seen reports (not available online, I've looked in the hope of providing a link) that show that accidents involving fatigure occur within a 2 to 3 hour time frame of starting the trip. Most of these trips were intended to be 6+ hour trips.
These people haven't been put to sleep because they were doing 100km/h. They went to sleep because of numerous other reasons, including, funnily enough, being tired. Based on this, I suspect that they were going to fall asleep at some stage of the trip anyway, so why not look at harm minimisation and keep the reduced speed limits?
As someone else has mentioned, you tend to concentrate harder when you are travelling quicker. But, increased level of concentration takes its toll and starts to fade after a period of time, probably increasing the rate of fatigue.
There is definitely something to this, but the counter argument also has it's proponents. If the trip takes substantially less time, on a road that can handle the higher speed, then fatigue is reduced. Hence Autobahns. But I agree this point is not clear in either direction, so will leave that one alone.
Neckstabber wrote:
as for the whole theory "u concerntrate more at speed" this may be true, but it is tiring, those who have done track days at 200kph plus will attest that after only a few laps ya stuffed...
Well, speaking for myself, I do not get real tired going 200 on a wide open highway. My own experience, which no doubt differs significantly from other's, is that on a longish (heck even shorter) trip I will suffer much less fatigue if I keep a decent pace up and spend less time on the road. But that is just me, and as I said before as far as the general population goes I don't have any conclusive evidence either way, so will leave it at that.
The beautiful Daisy wrote:I don't wanna do 200 plus on a bike. I've done it in a car, on the road, but I don't actually feel that more than 150 -160 is necessary.
You are probably in the minority there. Most of us like to do well over 200 if the venue is right. In fact as fast as the sucker will go really.
woodmeister wrote:
I don't know about all this talk of "majority rules", and "if the general population agrees", and all the similar comments ???
How many of us chose to have GST ???
How many of us chose to send troops to Iraq ???
How many of us chose to have the new workplace laws ???
We don't get any say or choice, apart from putting a tick in the box next to some "dickheads" name, and then hoping they do the right thing !
That's right. Regardless of which way you swing on the above issues, it is true that we did not get a choice in them, and independant polls show we in fact wanted to say no. Welcome to Representational Parliament, and how the system can be used to AVOID "majority rules".
Diesel wrote:we didn't choose these things cos we don't have the nations best interests at heart. mostly we only have our own personal best interests at heart.
With this I totally
disagree. I believe that most decent people DO have the Nation's best interests at heart when these issues come up. We may not necessarily get it right, but we are thinking of what is right for all of us, not just ourselves. Some politicians on the other hand......
Diesel wrote:running a state or nation really isn't as simple as we like to think.
And here I do agree wholeheartedly. But being complex doesn't give excuse to doing it poorly.
Diesel wrote:hemi, congratulations.
i was wondering how far i could take my bullshit arguments b4 someone called me on it. just goes to show that if it sounds reaonable and plausible, people will believe it. ur right, a lot of what i've used to back my argument is irrelevant.
Lol, you did a good job! Quite impressive, but good onya for owning up man, I respect that. Top stuff.
Diesel wrote:the fact remains that the laws are there and we have to play the cards we're dealt. we can either do it to our advantage or disadvantage.
Yep, agree with that one.
Diesel wrote:
yes i have lost a loved one, but not to speeding. drink driving. amd he was the drunk one. luckily he took no-one else with him. unless you count a traffic pole as a person. and it definatley hasn't clouded my judgement.
Sorry to hear about that. But good to see that you don't let it cloud your judgement, and that you don't use it to win arguments or cheap shots. I was obviously wrong about your emotional involvment in the argument, and for that I appologise.
Guess who wrote:i've simply had a lot of time on my hands and haven't had a good debate for a while.
that's not to say i don't stand by my "do the crime, do the time" argument.
Good stuff! I love a good debate, especially one where facts and opinions are thrown about without emotional force behind them. It makes for a much more reasonable and enjoyable debate, that's for sure. Oh and in most circumstances I agree with the whole "do the crime" bit.
Gozzmiester wrote:The actual quote is "The People Get The Government That They Deserve".
I cannot remember who the quote originated from. It is a few years old I think, but is as valid today as it was back then...
Joseph de Maistre from what I, and google, working as a team, can find out lol. But I disagree with it entirely.
Striking One wrote:On the open roads, especially our large, long, straight well maintained ones, I can see no reason apart from revenue raising to suggest booking someone for 4% over the limit. (By the way, one of my work cars got done in the Tunnel for 84 in an 80 )
I agree with if you speed and get caught you wear it. But I think the camera's should be set at reasonable tolerances in line with ADR requirements.
Yeah I agree with that too.
More in a sec....
It just doesn't add up to me. Speed camera's are not going to go away, and frankly, with the Government's of the world becoming focussed on protecting us all, I can see a time when our vehicles will all be limited electronically. 
)
