It's not an obsession - it's a fact. I'm not sure why you continue trying to dispute it. If you are traveling slower at the time you are involved in a crash, the chance of death or serious injury is reduced.
What's your answer? Remove speed limits and let people travel at whatever speed they feel like? Or maybe increase the speed limits by another 20km/h? At home many km/h over the new speed limit do you decide to stop people? I'm interested to hear how YOU would handle things.
And for my own morbid curiosity, what exactly is your level of education and current line of employment? Publish here if you like or PM me. Or hell, choose not to answer. I'm just trying to establish the relevancy of your posts and opinion based on limited "life experience" criteria.
It's not an obsession - it's a fact. I'm not sure why you continue trying to dispute it. If you are traveling slower at the time you are involved in a crash, the chance of death or serious injury is reduced.
No, the obsession that slowing everybody is the solution, when its obvious to any intelligent person that it isn't the cause.
What's your answer? Remove speed limits and let people travel at whatever speed they feel like? Or maybe increase the speed limits by another 20km/h? At home many km/h over the new speed limit do you decide to stop people? I'm interested to hear how YOU would handle things.
I gather from your tone that because I disagree with your way, I must be advocating anarchy. On the contrary, I would have more and harsher rules. People crash because they can't drive. Make them learn properly. No more 50 hours with mum or dad, do it professionally or go without. Test them more often. Test everybody. Now. No more getting a licence at 17 and never seeing another test for 50 years. Encourage them to take advanced courses - rather than viewing such things as 'hoon training'.
THEN when they do stupid shit like fail to keep left, give way or stop when they should - or drive with their arms out the window, talk to their passengers in 'Italian' or otherwise don't pay attention - throw the bloody book at them.
And for my own morbid curiosity, what exactly is your level of education and current line of employment? Publish here if you like or PM me. Or hell, choose not to answer. I'm just trying to establish the relevancy of your posts and opinion based on limited "life experience" criteria.
My last job was a delivery driver. Currently I'm a housewife. Last year I did 30,000 kilometres on my bike alone. I don't keep a log of the other vehicles, but suffice it to say I spend a lot of time out there among the dickheads. I see all the stupid inattentive shit they go on with, but all I hear is, "slow down." What will you do when we go back to the old days when a man with a red flag had to walk in front of the vehicle, and someone runs over him? Tell us to slow down?
You want morbid? Seeing dead people doesn't bother me - I don't like them that much anyway.
Making the analogy between a slogan by coke to sell a product and the governments dogmatic speed kills ideology doesn't seem right to me. But that's just me.
Take a 110km/hr road, if you lapse in concentration or do something stupid at that speed, the likeliness of fatality or serious damage is already pretty damn high, so if you're going 120, 130 even, I don't know how much more dead you're going to be.
It's like saying guns kill people, where they don't, people kill people. Speed doesn't kill, idiots and poor drivers kill.
If anything the endless change in speed along stretches of road, from 80 to 70 to 60 back to 80, school zone 40, then 50 and so on, is more likely a contributing factor to accidents. As well as watching the car in front of us, as far ahead as we can see, the traffic lights, pedestrians on the sidewalk, side streets, where abouts we are to be ready to turn etc, we have to keep a constant eye out for speed signs & school zones, all taking away from our concentration to drive.
A school zone for example, at 40km, detracts from my concentration. It's so damn slow, I'm just looking at my speedo trying to stay under 40km and I get that bored my mind starts wondering. Where when I am conscientiously speeding, I am strictly paying attention to my driving. My positioning, cars behind and alongside me as well as in front of me. The sidewalk, side streets where potential hazards may arise and so on. I am fully focused on driving safely, even though I am going faster than the speed limit, I am still driving safely.
You can drive at the speed limit or below it, and not be driving safely. You can drive above the speed limit, and be driving safely.
Speed doesn't kill. Coming to a sharp and sudden stop kills. Just like we tell the new blood at work, don't worry about the fall if you slip, that won't kill you. But the stop at the bottom will.
Seriously but, speed kills is bullshit and ineffective. Idiots and poor driving kills.
I'd like to see the ratio of road users on that motorway in Europe with no speed limit and accidents/fatalities to say the m4 or m5 or something.
Stricter licensing, better driver training, ongoing testing and further training will do more to keep our roads safe then a cop getting on tv or the radio every couple of days saying SLOW DOWN!
clay wrote:If anything the endless change in speed along stretches of road, from 80 to 70 to 60 back to 80, school zone 40, then 50 and so on, is more likely a contributing factor to accidents.
Ssssshhhh! You know how they fix those? We had one not far from here that had changes every few hundred metres - for intersections, bridges and roundabouts - and people were forever complaining that there were too many. So they made it 60 all the way.
aardvark wrote:How about "Coke adds life"? Do you really think they are trying to get you to believe that Coke really adds life? No, they are trying to sell a product - in this case, Coca Cola. In the Government's case it's the "slow down" message.
Make more sense now Clay?
or were you pickin on Ardy?
Coca Cola is a business, their only purpose is to make money. If the use of such dumb slogans works at selling their product to make profit-which it obviously does, good on them. I don't drink the shit.
The government is a service, to work for the people, not make money, though they do love lining their pockets.
They shouldn't be trying to sell any false or ineffective messages, just implementing policies and improving infrastructure and better educating people to better help themselves. Such as tougher licensing, mandatory advanced driving/riding courses, appropriate restrictions on L/P drivers as well as riders. Better roads providing better conditions for riders and motorists. Ongoing license testing and driving proficiency.
Simply trying to sell the 'Slow Down' message has proven futile and ineffective. Its bullshit.
But I love picking on Aardy anyway, it's a love hate thing. I love to hate cops.
I don't think any lucid minded person would say cops don't give a fcuk about the road toll, I think everyone cares about lives lost in such circumstances.
I don't think you need to use such an example as ammunition in your fight against peoples opinions of cops, or more specifically Highway Patrol.
The fact that you got to deal with such incidents has nothing to do with that fact that you're tools in the governments revenue raising attempts.
Fining people doesn't stop people from dying in collisions.
clay wrote:
.... appropriate restrictions on L/P drivers as well as riders. Better roads providing better conditions for riders and motorists. Ongoing license testing and driving proficiency....
Just to pull apart your comment and quote something from it...
The XR6 that crashed in Melbourne on the weekend a tragically killed 5 teenagers was driven by a probationary driver restricted to carrying one passenger, the road they were driving on is a very good wide road in great condition, he was driving to fast, and now he will never get the chance to participate in any ongoing license testing and driving proficiency training.
So does this mean your thinking is flawed? or is this an isolated case?
This thread could go on forever, as everybody has differing opinions on what could reduce the road toll. The one common thing we have here is that we all would like to see the road toll reduced, so if we all have this goal, then perhaps there is still hope for us all
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
So the large number of fatalities in that accident was from a combination of rules he broke....not just the speeding.
To many passengers, Alcohol, driving erratically and yes.....speeding!
If there were more Cops on the road, where they should bloody be it may have been prevented.
A Camera CAN'T stop that shit. I think I only survived the Eighties because there were shiteloads of police cars around at night.
Now I can drive aroung Geelong and Bellarine for hour's and not see a single one
clay wrote:
.... appropriate restrictions on L/P drivers as well as riders. Better roads providing better conditions for riders and motorists. Ongoing license testing and driving proficiency....
Just to pull apart your comment and quote something from it...
The XR6 that crashed in Melbourne on the weekend a tragically killed 5 teenagers was driven by a probationary driver restricted to carrying one passenger, the road they were driving on is a very good wide road in great condition, he was driving to fast, and now he will never get the chance to participate in any ongoing license testing and driving proficiency training.
So does this mean your thinking is flawed? or is this an isolated case?
This thread could go on forever, as everybody has differing opinions on what could reduce the road toll. The one common thing we have here is that we all would like to see the road toll reduced, so if we all have this goal, then perhaps there is still hope for us all
I didn't say what I think the government should be doing in order to reduce collisions and fatalities on the road would've stopped this incident from occurring. I do believe that it would see a reduction in collisions and fatalities though.
Tougher restrictions, like I am referring to, would've meant this kid wouldn't have been behind the wheel of this vehicle. Tougher licensing testing probably would've meant this kid wouldn't have held a license in the first instance. Heavier police presence on the roads also may have helped in this situation too as only the driver would've been killed if the restrictions I think should be in place were enforced.
Such things as I've listed would go further in reducing collisions on the road than 'Speed Kills, Slow Down!' on the tv and radio. And more and more fines being issued.
This whole speed kill’s thing is getting funnier by the minute.
Speed does increase the risk of death in a crash, decreases the handling capabilities of a vehicle, lowers the reaction time required to perform simple actions such a braking, steering or accelerating. If you don’t understand these basic principles, you’re in trouble. Speeding increases the forces on the car and your body should you hit something and decrease the time taken to hit something. There is no such thing as "safe speeding". It’s just not that simple. Speed just increases the risk. So in slowing down, you reduce the risks should you be involved in an accident. Reduce speed = Decreased risk of having an accident = Reduced severity of injury; reduces the risk of death from injuries sustained in an accident.
As for Clay's mentality towards the Government, I strongly suggest that he gets into a policy area of government and see what it takes to change the simplest of things, let alone laws. You may then understand the reasons why things are the way they are. The population’s mentality is what needs to change. Compliance with the law would be a good start.
The police are not raising revenue, they are enforcing the law. A single speeding offence does not warrant time behind bars. For that reason, a monetary fine is placed on the offence, along with a points system on your licence as the deterrent. So, the faster you go, the higher the fine/more points you loose. Reach the points limit, you loose your licence. Police simply issue an infringement when you break the law.
So, the whole “slow down” message is actually a fair statement. It’s basically telling you to obey the law. What’s so hard to fathom about that?
Whickle wrote:This whole speed kill’s thing is getting funnier by the minute.
Speed does increase the risk of death in a crash, decreases the handling capabilities of a vehicle, lowers the reaction time required to perform simple actions such a braking, steering or accelerating. If you don’t understand these basic principles, you’re in trouble. Speeding increases the forces on the car and your body should you hit something and decrease the time taken to hit something. There is no such thing as "safe speeding". It’s just not that simple. Speed just increases the risk. So in slowing down, you reduce the risks should you be involved in an accident. Reduce speed = Decreased risk of having an accident = Reduced severity of injury; reduces the risk of death from injuries sustained in an accident.
As for Clay's mentality towards the Government, I strongly suggest that he gets into a policy area of government and see what it takes to change the simplest of things, let alone laws. You may then understand the reasons why things are the way they are. The population’s mentality is what needs to change. Compliance with the law would be a good start.
The police are not raising revenue, they are enforcing the law. A single speeding offence does not warrant time behind bars. For that reason, a monetary fine is placed on the offence, along with a points system on your licence as the deterrent. So, the faster you go, the higher the fine/more points you loose. Reach the points limit, you loose your licence. Police simply issue an infringement when you break the law.
So, the whole “slow down” message is actually a fair statement. It’s basically telling you to obey the law. What’s so hard to fathom about that?
Oh, it’s obviously working, you’re noticing it.
I like your comment mate, i think you are spot on!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.
Whickle wrote:This whole speed kill’s thing is getting funnier by the minute.
Speed does increase the risk of death in a crash, decreases the handling capabilities of a vehicle, lowers the reaction time required to perform simple actions such a braking, steering or accelerating. If you don’t understand these basic principles, you’re in trouble. Speeding increases the forces on the car and your body should you hit something and decrease the time taken to hit something. There is no such thing as "safe speeding". It’s just not that simple. Speed just increases the risk. So in slowing down, you reduce the risks should you be involved in an accident. Reduce speed = Decreased risk of having an accident = Reduced severity of injury; reduces the risk of death from injuries sustained in an accident.
As for Clay's mentality towards the Government, I strongly suggest that he gets into a policy area of government and see what it takes to change the simplest of things, let alone laws. You may then understand the reasons why things are the way they are. The population’s mentality is what needs to change. Compliance with the law would be a good start.
The police are not raising revenue, they are enforcing the law. A single speeding offence does not warrant time behind bars. For that reason, a monetary fine is placed on the offence, along with a points system on your licence as the deterrent. So, the faster you go, the higher the fine/more points you loose. Reach the points limit, you loose your licence. Police simply issue an infringement when you break the law.
So, the whole “slow down” message is actually a fair statement. It’s basically telling you to obey the law. What’s so hard to fathom about that?
Oh, it’s obviously working, you’re noticing it.
I couldn't have put it better myself, although I have tried. I'm not sure what Clay has had to say on the matter this time around as he is on my ignore list, but hopefully he takes something away from your post.
