Page 4 of 10
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:20 pm
by Lone Wolf
Gosling1 wrote:ross79 wrote:....there are plenty around Australia can safely have a speed limit of at least 130!.....
Interesting that you should choose 130kmh...........a friend of mine who used to work for the NSW Roads & Traffic authority, told me many years ago that in NSW at least, the 4-lane Hume between Canberra and Sydney was actually designed and built for a safe travelling speed of .........130kmh.
My own experience of travelling on this road is that almost *nobody* travels at the posted limit of 110kmh, except for the speed 'limited' trucks
, and pensioners in Volvos
. To drive at 100 is taking your life into your own hands.
Most punters drive between 115-130kmh, and get to their destination safely. The sad reality with speeding is that when you do it day in and day out for years and years, the message that 'Speed Kills' is just a nonsense. If speed killed, Australia's adult male population would be a mere fraction of what it actually is.
There can be no doubt that an 'accident' while travelling over the posted limit may kill you. It also may not. An accident while travelling at under the posted limit may kill you. It also may not. One of my close mates in Qld died on his motorcycle while executing a U-turn, he overbalanced, fell awkwardly, and broke his neck. Speed is not the only factor in accidents, in fact its mainly lack of proper driver training, unsafe vehicles, and poorly maintained roads that contribute the most to the road toll.
My thoughts exactly
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:23 pm
by ross79
I say 130 as that's the limit throughout Europe (at least the parts I've been to) and it poses no threat, still most people there travel at 150 or more.
Have to to fully agree with everything you wrote Gos.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:26 pm
by jewjew
i don't really mind the hidden camera's, as said....don't speed, don't pay. I think they should develop a new camera though, one that checks all cars for morons using mobile phones, they should just set a hi-res digital a camera facing the windscreen of all cars and send the fines out after. The money made in a day in sydney could pay for an autobarn for the east coast.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:02 pm
by javaman
Without speed limit our traffic would be like asia. You'll see people doing 50kph while others 180kph (of course it's always fun being the later
). I can see nepean highway is perfect with speed limit of 80 but let's say that road between cranbourne and bayles one can travel safely at 220kph. because no one's there
.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:32 pm
by RobertR
I though they had to warn people if there are speed cameras ahead?
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:44 pm
by mick_dundee
Daisy wrote: At least Victoria has the speed readout on the overhead bridge.
Last I heard Daisy there was 2 of these in the whole state, one on the road from Geelong to Melbourne and one on the Hume Hwy heading to Broadford, dunno that exactly helps things much.
I hate speed cameras as much as the next person but Aardy is right, they're a voluntary thing, don't speed, don't get fined.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:47 pm
by Daisy
Gosling1 wrote: To drive at 100 is taking your life into your own hands.
This is my argument about riding my L plated bike at 80 in 100 and 110 zones.
Speed is not the only factor in accidents, in fact its mainly lack of proper driver training, unsafe vehicles, and poorly maintained roads that contribute the most to the road toll.
But speed is the one that generates revenue.
To those who keep spouting the party line, "don't speed, don't pay the fine", will you still go along like sheep when the limits are half what they are now? It'll happen, because what we have now isn't "reducing the carnage on our roads." And people like me, who have the temerity to disagree, will continue to be demonised as dangerous, anti social speed freaks - but I can remember being allowed to drive well in excess of the current limits, in a car that was barely capable, on roads that were goat tracks by today's standards.
And it didn't kill me.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:50 pm
by mick_dundee
RobertR wrote:I though they had to warn people if there are speed cameras ahead?
Some states/territories do, believe the ACT is the best at it, duno how many others do, here i Vic we have warnings that "Safety" cameras operate in this area and that "Safety" cameras cut crashes (My emphasis) but that just tells you they're around, certinaly doesn't tell you if/when one is coming up.
Ross79, what happens if out the arse end of NSW riding at night at 130km and a roo jumps out to cross the road? "Maybe" at 100k you could have stopped/swerved??
Incidentally I hear there are now timed speed cameras on the Hume so get to one early and pinged regardless what speed you are at the time you pass the camera, can't confirm or deny the rumours but I wouldn't be terribly suprised.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:56 pm
by Daisy
mick_dundee wrote:Daisy wrote: At least Victoria has the speed readout on the overhead bridge.
Last I heard Daisy there was 2 of these in the whole state, one on the road from Geelong to Melbourne and one on the Hume Hwy heading to Broadford, dunno that exactly helps things much.
That's two more than we've got. It was the one on the way to Geelong that I was thinking of. We drove through it at different speeds to find out how accurate the speedo was across the range.
I hate speed cameras as much as the next person but Aardy is right, they're a voluntary thing, don't speed, don't get fined.
It still comes down to your definition of speed. I disagree with some of the posted limits, but I totally agree that speeds beyond the ability of the operator/vehicle/road are entirely inappropriate.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:59 pm
by mick_dundee
Daisy, regardless whether you disagree with them or not, they're there and if you exceed that speed you're a chance of copping a fine.
You can well argue that it's inappropriate for the time/place and a judge may well agree with you, still not going to stop the fine though.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:09 pm
by hoffy
This country is democratic the last time I checked, therefore I will not just "get the fuck over it" and have my say:
This blatent revenue raising stems from the governments incompetency of managing the taxpayers dollars. When the government needs more money so they can piss it up the wall on crap while justifying their positions within public office, they obviously turn to many departments, including the police force, to up their revenue. So the police force put these sort of measures in place to raise revenue. Simple.
I think we should keep whingin, as this great country has been moulded by public opinion ! but for those that wish to live in a "shut the fuck up and get over" dictatorship, they can get farked..
IMO of course...
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:12 pm
by diesel
you made a good point there andi,
there are more reasons for speed limits than just safety.
it helps with traffic flow.
in deutschland (that's germany for you uneducated folk:D), on the autobarns, there is no speed limit, however, there is also a shiteload of congestion at particular points.
so you speed like crazy only to have to jam on the anchors to slow to almost a standstill.
think of it as driving up to a set of lights. you could do 60 and get there and wait for the lights to go green, or you can do 50 and arrive at that point when the lights turn green and barely have to slow at all.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:20 pm
by greeny
Farken Hell talk about opening up pandoras box.
For i record i skimmed the last page and a half cause most if it seamed to be whinging and people sprouting shit about living in a free counrty this, governments ripping us of that Blah blah blah
Dry your eyes princeses.
Its sooooooooooooooooo farken simple. If you are not breaking the law then the government/police using hidden cameras is not an issue.
NO SPEEDING NO TICKET
SPEED GET TICKET
Whinging about shit on a forum is not going to have a thing changed. If you are that passionate get off your arse and contribute to a cause that might be able to get something changed.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:24 pm
by Grasshopper
bah!
speed doesn't kill.
decelleration trauma does.
seriously though, speeds are set for the lowest driver ability - the blind 70 year old volvo driving bowler on crossply tyres.
policing seems to be aimed at - where there is a 'blackspot' where due to poor road engineering people crash.
or, more realistically, where the greatest potential for the raising of revenue is.
if they wanted you to slow down NOW because the operation of your vehicle was so dangerous you should be fined they would not hide a camera in a garbo.
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:29 pm
by Daisy
greeny wrote:Its sooooooooooooooooo farken simple. If you are not breaking the law then the government/police using hidden cameras is not an issue.
You aren't getting it are you? Just because it's THE LAW doesn't make it a good thing and certainly doesn't make it right.
If we all stopped exceeding the legal limit overnight governments would bleed to death through the hole in their income stream.