Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

this rule blows dog. i am glad canberras pollies havent got hold of it.

Gosling1 wrote:what kills in this situation is driver error/mobile phone/eating your Maccas/getting a blowie/whatever......

Yes Gos, but at 140, 150, 160 etc, your chances of being killed in an accident because you were doing one of the above are greatly increased.

I guess 110 is a happy medium.

It's all gay. We're an intelligent minority and that's just how it is.

Does anyone know the specifics of this law? ie. what constitutes a second offence (eg. 12 months? 3 years? ever?)

Shifty wrote:It's all gay. We're an intelligent minority and that's just how it is.

Does anyone know the specifics of this law? ie. what constitutes a second offence (eg. 12 months? 3 years? ever?)

12 months.

I hear the zx14 is nearly here so why worry

2 in 12 months i believe it is and the second one is doubled points.

Can you buy a kawasaki scooter that looks just like shinyas in 2000cc

Since the introduction of speed detection in the 70's, crash fatalities are about half.

And speed enforcement is to thank for this? No.

The average car on the road is chock full of passive and active safety equipement unheard of in standard cars in the 70's.

Did you know that wearing a normal bicycle helmet in a car reduces your risk of death in an accident by 50%? Research has been done, and a head band developed, and it would cost $15-20 per person, but where is the legislation to make it happen? No, can't annoy the voters and make them wear a "silly cap", eh?

How radical were seatbelts when they were introduced? VERY. But where is the leadership to introduce something that will pretty much guarantee a dramatic fall in the road toll? I hear crickets...

Other countries seem to live happily with much higher speed limits. Our problem is just about everyone is guaranteed a licence.

I have done plenty of study in performance management. Essentially, a LOT of poor performance can be addressed through training. If a company had a performance problem like we have road toll, then it would be imperitive that training programs be developed to address the situation. It is already proven that training can increase skills. No more research needs to be done.

Unfortunately pollies don't really want to have to implement the recommendations that so many have put forward.

As a side note, I have spent enough time working in the university system to know that there are a core of people that make a nice, comfortable livings out of providing "research" that pretty much supports the view of who-ever commissions it and pays the grants...

Bah! The whole thing makes me sick! The whole system is poorly designed by those that have the responsiblity to design it, and then when it proves to be a dismal failure it is OUR FAULT!!

heres an interesting opinion..from the guy who rarely has a point on his licence...

while i dont think its taught me to slow down , ive been pinged many times....
fines dont do shit...seriously they piss me off, but i pay em and go on my merry way...
however losing my licence (barra will attest ) is a bloody nightmare, and enuf to make u think "shit should i slow down"??

i respect the Qld gvmt, if it was Vic or NSW im sure as hell they'd double the fine AND the points, at least Qld is letting us kno its not a revenue raising thing...
i notice its for those who get done 20kph over...now if thats 80 in a 60 zone near homes, or 60 in a 40 zone with kids, thats fine in my book (2 places i watch my speed)..however 130 on the freeway??...

maybe they revise the system?? 20k over in under 100zones, and 30k over in 100 zones??
however, i still think it sucks....but i see there point

Felix wrote:

Since the introduction of speed detection in the 70's, crash fatalities are about half.

And speed enforcement is to thank for this? No.

No, I never said it was the be all and end all. But it has played "some" part.

Felix wrote:Did you know that wearing a normal bicycle helmet in a car reduces your risk of death in an accident by 50%? Research has been done, and a head band developed, and it would cost $15-20 per person, but where is the legislation to make it happen? No, can't annoy the voters and make them wear a "silly cap", eh?

Yep, and I've seen the ridiculous headband. As you mention, it would take a very brave government to introduce this, and would literally be political suicide. Shit, I'll support it. Given that the majority of fatalities occur on our country roads, maybe we could get all people in 100+ km/h zones to wear them. Any one else with me on this?

Felix wrote:Other countries seem to live happily with much higher speed limits.

Who can figure that one out??? I guess they appreciate that sensless death on the roads is capable of producing such classics as "Americas Greatest Road Deaths." ??

As a comparison: (Deaths per 100,000 people)
Australia (circa 1970) = 32
Australia now = 8
USA = 16
Japan = 8
Portugal = 21
UK = 6
Sweden = 6

Felix wrote:Essentially, a LOT of poor performance can be addressed through training. If a company had a performance problem like we have road toll, then it would be imperitive that training programs be developed to address the situation. It is already proven that training can increase skills. No more research needs to be done.

Agreed.
"That will be $1,000 for you licence thanks sir. What, you don't agree? Well, stiff shit sir. You need to pay for admin fees, tax oh and don't forget the 3 advaced driver training courses."

You'll get no argument out of me that training with regards to obtaing a drivers licence should be far stricter. A large percentage of the numpties out there in cars should not have licences. I'm doing my best to fix that.

However, there are some people out there who would fly through just about any driving test you throw at them. That doesn't change their attitude when they get behind the wheel on their own, or with a car full of mates. Fuck knows what we do about this...

Felix wrote:Unfortunately pollies don't really want to have to implement the recommendations that so many have put forward.

And who can blame them? Introduce full face helmets, fully rubberised interiors on cars, kitty litter on the sides of our roads, instant loss of licence for poor driving ability, stricter conditions for obtaining licences. Hell, I reckon I could reduce the road toll overnight!! But I'd never see the inside of Government House again.

The problem is, you can't Police a lot of the reasons that cause accidents in the first place. You can't measure fatigue, you can't stop someone changing their CD and veering to the wrong side of the road on the highway, you can't stop the baby in the back seat from crying because it's lost it's dummy causing Mum to try and reach back to pick it up. So what do we do? That's right. Target speed. If people are going to crash, then lets slow them down so they don't crash as fast.

Road deaths are sensless loss and it's better that something be done than nothing. But, maybe the government should cut their losses, say this is as good as it gets and pour money into heart disease, youth suicide, cancer research..... I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the choices.

aardvark wrote:...If people are going to crash, then lets slow them down so they don't crash as fast....

that logic is irrefutable....but the only logical extension of that argument is slowing people down to walking pace to achieve a Zero road toll.....

You can drown in 3" of water.......but people will always want to swim in the ocean......

the whole argument will be purely academic in <30 years anyway, because we wont have any petrol to power our cars anyway...... , and the fuel cell/hydrogen hybrid vehicles which will replace internal-combustion vehicles will be speed-limited to 80kmh in any case......

Gosling1 wrote:the whole argument will be purely academic in <30 years anyway, because we wont have any petrol to power our cars anyway......

And isn't that just ridiculous? Wanna get rich? Find an alternative pwoer source for our vehicles, and let the oil companies buy it so they can keep jacking up petrol prices.

You'll either end up rich, or dead, with any evidence of your discovery lost forever.

Shit, I'll support it. Given that the majority of fatalities occur on our country roads, maybe we could get all people in 100+ km/h zones to wear them. Any one else with me on this?

Funnily enough one of my mates from uni took to wearing a helmet once he started commuting around 60-70km to work every day out in the sticks...and I don't blame him, nor think him weird. The more I think about it, the more I think it weird we don't all do it...

That facts are pretty much irrefutable. Headstrike kills.

Nope if they want to reduce the amount of crashes some people have retrain them, I have done 3 defensive driving courses courtesy of the cab company over the years....they held them i paid for them and 3 braking and cornering courses on the bike and a advanced car course at lakeside many years ago think it was that hansford fellow doing the training.

Did i forget to mention 120000 plus kms a year...couldnt really be bothered working it out.

Now after all that training i can tell you they are collisions and they dont happen by accident and hey i enjoyed the traing even though the defencive driving couse gets a bit tired by the third time.

Anyway my point is some people have 3 bingles a year and i have none so retrain the buggers that cant drive or take there licences off them.

I saw a bird at 3am in the morning on a reasonably deserted intersection run up the back of a car stopped at lights..the lane either side of said car was empty but she hadnt been trained to change lanes just slam on the brakes.

Her words where i just got it back from the panel beater.

Anyways i have seen a few others too just driving along minding my own buisness but i am a defensive driver/rider or i believe so.

And i know the towing companies phone number


Take there licence off them and retrain them...skidpan/cones brakeing course/autokana at the end optional = a better driver that just might have a chance of missing something the next time.

Dont know what you can do about lost tourists though.

That doesn't change their attitude when they get behind the wheel on their own, or with a car full of mates.

Which is, of course, the crux of the problem.

Also, how many people would acknowledge that they're not great road users? My point? Very few people have a realistic view of their abilities/inabilities or safety or lack thereof on the street. Many don't seem to even care.

I don't believe that speed is the demon it's made out to be. However, while speed limits are set for the lowest common denominator it's understandable that some of 'em are so low. Does this mean that those of us who know (think?) we're somehow better or safer on the street should disregard them?

I believe the only thing that will come from this new scheme is a raised number of unlicensed drivers/riders on the road.

Well we didn't even get the free Sausage sizzling before they brought back the "Big Stick".

Hows this for an idea everyone that makes An Insurance claim has to attend & pay for an advanced Drivers/riders course.

I agree with just about all thats been written above. And too be honest at least this rule is Widespread & not discriminating against ""weekend Mountain Sports Motorcyle Riders".

We just had over @350 drink drivers charged in Brisvegas over a weekend FFS are they claiming their vehicles for a second offence as well ?.

Wait for the kneejerk reaction when the Dole figures increase cause unlicenced drivers pull the pin & quit their jobs.

Yep, tough one to sort out.
I believe that there are a couple of *con* factors involved with the govt speed emphasis and that the revenue from it has become far too attractive for govts and attached organisations to ignore.
There is often no consistency to posted limits and so many times I wonder why one highway has 110kmh limit and another has 100kmh, other road limits around the place are the same, streets with very few cross streets and 4 lanes (good for cameras?) a 60kmh limit...2 streets down in suburbia central...cross streets, kids, driveways and a 70kmh limit?
It makes you cynical.
Aardvark makes some great points on the subject and it's hard to dismiss the overall logic of reduced speed limits vs the chances of dying. What makes it harder to understand is that there is consistent news of various devices that offer reduced tolls (like helmets) but are never given support. This is why it's easy to say that the speed issue is a govt. cop out. But who knows??
Just on the helmet thing, an ex girlfriend used to operate a brain scanner machine (cant remember the acronym - ccg, bri something) and her work day was an endless stream of car crash potatoes. You think about the dead but the number who are severely damaged yet alive is vast by comparison. Word is that even bicycle helmets would drastically alter this but no govt support. Again why seatbelts but not this? Why millions on crash ads (in graphic detail) but not on the facts behind stopping brain trauma by wearing a hat?
I cant fathom it all? One thing for sure..as a deterrant, losing your license is only effective when it is a distinct possibility...most people don't actually think it is until they are in discussion with a rozzer on a highway. So I don't think upping the points is going to do much for safety (but will do a lot for looking like action by pollies - did I mention that I am cynical??).