Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Speed Focus

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Speed Focus



    Yet again, missing the point. It's damn obvious that, within the accidents that occur over the speed limit, the highest proportion of serious ones will be at higher speeds. Simple physics tells us that.

    The point they miss, yet again, is that 60% of the serious and fatal accidents occur below the speed limit.
    What do we have targeting this area, hmmmmm?
    Last edited by Hamster; 23-10-2013, 01:53 PM.
    "Speed Kills". The stupid person's answer to a complex problem.

  • #2
    we should simply reduce the speed limit; then more accidents will be caused above the speed limit. in fact, if we lower the speed limit enough, 100% of accidents will be 'caused' by speeding. give that monash uni researcher a nobel prize for collecting data and using excel.

    Comment


    • #3
      Or remove the speed limits. Then no accidents will be caused by people exceeding the speed limit. Look what happened when speed limits were introduced in the NT. Fatalities went up. I rest my case.
      "Speed Kills". The stupid person's answer to a complex problem.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm seriously considering the possibility that Monash and now C-Marc researchers have an active interest in faffing about the edges of road safety issues without actually solving anything major - otherwise they put themselves out of further avenues of continued funding.

        I have bashed heads in this area in the recent past. If you use a solution that's already proven in other parts of the world.... we don't get the chance to spend years researching and develop our own "solutions" and research projects from scratch.

        Comment


        • #5
          So if no-one sped then 100% of the crashes would be under the speed limit, and therefore the speed limits would be too high... right?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by out_in_front View Post
            So if no-one sped then 100% of the crashes would be under the speed limit, and therefore the speed limits would be too high... right?
            It would not surprise me if the Monash Muppets came to that conclusion.
            "Speed Kills". The stupid person's answer to a complex problem.

            Comment


            • #7
              I think it would be more like 95% of accidents are under the speed limit. And 95% of them are at the traffic lights/intersections, not on the open road.

              But this does not create news and get someone funding and a job. (an unproductive one btw)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hamster View Post
                The point they miss, yet again, is that 60% of the serious and fatal accidents occur below the speed limit.
                What do we have targeting this area, hmmmmm?
                Is that at or below the speed limit? If so that would mean 40% of all accidents occur above the speed limit, and if that percentage of fatal accidents could simply be resolved by making people go slower, that in and of its own right would be a worthwhile endeavor. Obviously that's relying on the logical fallacy that the excessive speed is the only factor, however it's futile trying to deny that the increased speed doesn't increase the chance of a fatal accident. Mind this is irrespective of the posted limit, the tree you crash into at 100km/hr doesn't give a shit if it happened in a 50 zone or a 110 zone.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ryven View Post
                  Is that at or below the speed limit? If so that would mean 40% of all accidents occur above the speed limit, and if that percentage of fatal accidents could simply be resolved by making people go slower, that in and of its own right would be a worthwhile endeavor. Obviously that's relying on the logical fallacy that the excessive speed is the only factor, however it's futile trying to deny that the increased speed doesn't increase the chance of a fatal accident. Mind this is irrespective of the posted limit, the tree you crash into at 100km/hr doesn't give a shit if it happened in a 50 zone or a 110 zone.
                  Agreed. I'm not saying that stopping people driving fast wouldn't improve the outcome of crashes. But at what point do you stop treating the symptoms because they are an easy target and generate revenue. And start putting some proportional effort into treating the causes?
                  Bottom line is, if you don't crash in the first place the speed you don't crash at becomes kind of irrelevant.
                  "Speed Kills". The stupid person's answer to a complex problem.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Put the bloody right speed limits and people will not speed anyway, improve the roads so traffic will flow better, and less accident will happen, if we carry on like this no one will be driving anymore, you will have to walk, because the speed limits will be like the ones on a conveyor belt :-( speed limits are a completely joke here

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Hamster View Post
                      Agreed. I'm not saying that stopping people driving fast wouldn't improve the outcome of crashes. But at what point do you stop treating the symptoms because they are an easy target and generate revenue. And start putting some proportional effort into treating the causes?
                      Bottom line is, if you don't crash in the first place the speed you don't crash at becomes kind of irrelevant.
                      At what point? Probably when they find an equally financially lucrative alternative.

                      Today as I was heading home from work and took off from the lights, I had a red light runner shoot through the intersection from my left immediately behind me. Fortunately I'm somewhat distrusting to strangers, particularly when they're behind the wheel of a vehicle - before I took off I'd made sure the front row of traffic to my right was stopped, and to left the one car at the lights already had stopped, as I moved off about the only thing of note was that there was a car approaching the lights at speed and not really slowing down (on what was a very red light by this time) so they were either going to come to a screeching stop or run the lights. Some silver or grey small soft roader, probably the older model Holden Cruze: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...G_Cruze_04.jpg In retrospect I had time to get their plates, however I was more interested in monitoring their trajectory to make sure what currently represented no threat to me didn't change, for all the good it'd do like the last time I reported a (very likely) drunk driver who was driving on the wrong side of the road and shouting slurred abuse at people getting in "his way"... I gave a very detailed description of his vehicle, plate, description of the driver, where he was coming from and the direction he was heading in... And to no surprise from the disinterested sounding voice of the woman on the other end, I never got a call back which in theory could mean he was caught still drunk and on the road and no further testimony was required, or in reality that nothing of note was ever done about it. I mean, it was Armadale, a week or so before I had someone overtake me on a left hand turn while I was stopped at a stop sign by mounting a kerb and then, in their shitty old ute trying to brake check me because I beeped my horn at him - I emphasize trying because it doesn't work too well when the person behind you is already keeping a safe distance because you're a fucking idiot, and your brakes are laughably bad. This winner was then motioning into his rear view mirror with fists up, trying to pick a fight - at which point I glimpsed at the sledge hammer on the floor of the front passenger's seat that I'd been picking up after lending to a friend (the very reason I was on the road) and promptly decided to leave it there.

                      I guess what I'm trying to get across here is that I don't hold much hope for much to change. Even if you factor out the intentionally reckless drivers, that still leaves the inept and ignorant ones. I don't really agree with speed limits in this area being increased even though I wish it were a viable option, because I honestly believe the average standard of drivers means it would only worsen the situation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I don't have much hope either. I mean I don't see those signs on the freeway being used for education any more (keep left, look out for bikes etc), and I rarely see a patrol car. The RAC think they're giving it a crack but generally woefully miss the mark. And nearly all advertising campaigns on TV seem to target speed.
                        Anyone know who to contact re the signs on the freeway? Main roads presumably but didn't someone recently get hold of someone useful and get them to put some motorbike awareness messages up?
                        "Speed Kills". The stupid person's answer to a complex problem.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This clown was on the news last night suggesting that the 110km limit be reduced to 90km, WTF. I would suggest that he hasn't driven outside of the CBD in WA or one of the other larger states with long stretches of road that just keep on getting on.

                          I recently drove to Shark Bay, once on that new coast road I sat on 130 to Dongara and past Northampton the same, both roads are well maintained, little traffic and the vision down the road and to the sides was fantastic.

                          I didn't die, my family didn't die and no innocent bystanders died........... it was a great day for no crashes!

                          What my transgression from the arbitrary limit achieved was heightened concentration, better fuel economy (8.3Lt to 100km) plus the obvious gain in distance with less time behind the wheel over a 800km trip. I bet Professor Cameron would only fly those distances, as we know here that was really just a short trip north and he wants that reduced to 90km!

                          What was that word I was searching for...... found it..... Tosser!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Only 130 kapyong? Quite a while back we may / may not have done it at 170km/hr... which could have theoretically made the trip back from Geraldton take about 3 hours...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by out_in_front View Post
                              Only 130 kapyong? Quite a while back we may / may not have done it at 170km/hr... which could have theoretically made the trip back from Geraldton take about 3 hours...
                              I did have my wife in the car which kept me in line............... but eh! you didn't die at 170!............ Prof Cameron may be interested in that 'cause according to him everyone will die driving over the limit. Be that 66 in a 60 zone. 77 in a 70 zone.... I am sure we get the drift.

                              My bad don't Drift.......... that would be suicidal.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X