Post by: prodigyrf on November 25, 2014, 02:06:06 PM
http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/towardszerotogether/safer_speeds/average_speed_safety_camera (http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/towardszerotogether/safer_speeds/average_speed_safety_camera)
And there's no doubt average speed removes any argument or confusion over snapshot speed-
http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/the-truth-about-speed-cameras-20140903-10awi1.html (http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/the-truth-about-speed-cameras-20140903-10awi1.html)
Post by: KingBilly on November 25, 2014, 03:01:27 PM
KB
Post by: DaveR on November 25, 2014, 03:06:50 PM
They have had the travel time thingy in NSW for a long time, Heavy Vehicles only, just a matter of time for it to include everyone.
Post by: Steffo1 on November 25, 2014, 03:12:55 PM
Post by: edz on November 25, 2014, 03:31:10 PM
Checked against the speedo when fixed [ the Navman was 1kph less ] at 100 kph than the speedo indicated..
Post by: KingBilly on November 25, 2014, 03:54:13 PM
Having just drove the other day with a GPS for the 1st time, how much faith can I put in the HEMA HN7 for speed accuracy?
They have had the travel time thingy in NSW for a long time, Heavy Vehicles only, just a matter of time for it to include everyone.
Dave, by Australian Standards a vehicle's speedo can be up to 10% inaccurate but it must always be in your favour. For instance on my Dmax the speedo is about 7% optimistic, so when the speedo shows 100, the GPS shows 93. By Aust Standards it can never be the other way around.
As for GPS accuracy, I have driven several vehicles whose speedos have been tested and certified to NATA standards. Over many thousands of kilometers, the speed difference between the known, certified speedo and the el-cheapo GPS sitting on the dash has never been more than one (1) kilomtere per hour. Use your GPS with confidence, but not your speedo.
KB
Post by: Terry W4 on November 25, 2014, 04:09:12 PM
Post by: Rumpig on November 25, 2014, 04:11:13 PM
Having just drove the other day with a GPS for the 1st time, how much faith can I put in the HEMA HN7 for speed accuracy?My HEMA reads exactly the same as my speedo in my Crusier does and i've been through plenty of cameras and yet to get a ticket. The same HEMA used in the wifes sedan reads slightly slower then the speedo does in her car, i reckon it's because her speedo is set just slightly under the correct speed (HEMA reads about 107 -108 when doing 110kph in wifes sedan).
They have had the travel time thingy in NSW for a long time, Heavy Vehicles only, just a matter of time for it to include everyone.
Post by: Bird on November 25, 2014, 04:12:26 PM
Dave, by Australian Standards a vehicle's speedo can be up to 10% inaccurate but it must always be in your favour.Not in Victoria it doesn't...
Post by: KingBilly on November 25, 2014, 04:18:08 PM
Not in Victoria it doesn't...
I said Australian Standards. I didn't get into the murky area of speed camera tolerances set by the different states.
KB
Post by: Bird on November 25, 2014, 04:24:04 PM
Quote from: KingBilly
I said Australian Standards. I didn't get into the murky area of speed camera tolerances set by the different states.yea, agree. its bullshi+
KB
Post by: dazzler on November 25, 2014, 04:44:05 PM
yea, agree. its bullshi+
Is it?
The floor is yours sir. Make your argument......
Post by: DaveR on November 25, 2014, 06:20:26 PM
In the 110 zone, my 94 model LC, I have always done the 110 on the spedo and sailed by most folk. Now on the the GPS I see that what is shown on my spedo as 110 is 108 on the gps.
I had figured it to be the other way, especially now I have the 33's.
An old mate said to me when they built the new 4 lane road from Beenleigh to smith street (he worked on the job) they pre wired it for cameras on the over passes. So I recon it will be here soon.
Post by: KingBilly on November 25, 2014, 06:36:44 PM
But what you have to watch out for is the portable ones on the south bound lanes. Not in cars but on tripods behind the barriers. You won't know about it until the ticket arrives in the mail. Cameras apparantly cannot keep up with the number of speedsters.
KB
Post by: DaveR on November 25, 2014, 06:40:51 PM
Or who stay in the right lane
Post by: KingBilly on November 25, 2014, 06:45:44 PM
KB
Post by: paull on November 25, 2014, 07:12:18 PM
Part of the reason is that it is also impossible for any speedo that is not measured via GPS to be accurate for long periods of time. If the speed is measured by the revolutions of the car wheel then the speed shown on the dash will be be dependent upon tyre wear. A new set of decent AT tyres will will have 14-15mm of tread depth. Just say for sake of argument you run them until they have 3mm of tread left. That's 12mm of tread less, or roughly 0.5" difference in the radius of they tyre. That is equivalent of a changing from a 33" tyre to a 32" tyre, or around 3% difference. As the tyre wears the wheel effectively gets smaller but the axle speed (governed by the engine speed and gearing) will remain the same. Your actual road speed will therefore get less and less as the tyre wears but your speedo will still be reading the same amount if it is driven by wheel/axle rotations. The 10% variance in speedo accuracy has to cover this tolerance as well.
Post by: Garfish on November 25, 2014, 07:29:47 PM
Sent from my fingers via my brain
Post by: KingBilly on November 25, 2014, 07:49:28 PM
Pre 2006 Aust standard was + - 10% above 40 k/ hr. Anything 2007 and on must be safe but within 10% + 4 km so in a new car travelling at 100 k an hour real speed the speedometer must read between 100 & 114
Sent from my fingers via my brain
For more detail, refer to the RACQ article at http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/safety-on-the-road/driving-safely/speedo-accuracy (http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/safety-on-the-road/driving-safely/speedo-accuracy)
Speedo regulations in Australia
Before 1 July 2006
For vehicles manufactured before July 2006:
An accuracy of +/- 10 percent of the vehicle’s true speed is needed when a vehicle is travelling above 40km/h. This means if a vehicle is travelling at a true speed of 100km/h, the speedo is allowed to indicate a reading between 90km/h and 110km/h.
An odometer accuracy of +/- 4 percent is also a requirement.
After 1 July 2006
From 1 July 2006 all newly introduced models of a vehicle available on the market must comply with the following requirements:
The speedo must not indicate a speed less than the vehicle’s true speed or a speed greater than the vehicle’s true speed by an amount more than 10 percent plus 4 km/h.
The speedo must always read 'safe', meaning the vehicle's true speed must not be higher than the speed indicated by the speedo. So if a vehicle travelling at a true speed of 100km/h, the speedo must read between 100km/h and 114km/h.
Another way of looking at this is if the speedo indicates a speed of 100km/h, the vehicle's true speed must be between 87.3 km/h and 100km/h.
There is now no requirement to have an odometer.
From 1 July 2007
All newly manufactured vehicles (excluding mopeds) must comply with these rules.
Hope this resolves the arguement
KB
Post by: chester ver2.0 on November 26, 2014, 10:57:46 AM
Post by: bobnrob on November 27, 2014, 11:54:42 AM
I love in NSW they actually warn you with signs there is a camera then they still moan when they get done
Yep, if the camera's were about revenue raising...they'd remove the signs ;)
Post by: gronk on November 27, 2014, 12:10:15 PM
Yep, if the camera's were about revenue raising...they'd remove the signs ;)
Some rule says they have to display a sign....although sometimes by the time you see the sign, it's too late !!
If it WASN'T about revenue raising, they'd have them at black spots or danger areas...not on a straight section of road ( or at the bottom of a hill ) that hasn't seen an accident for 10 yrs !!
Everyone knows it's revenue raising for fixed or mobile cameras and if you speed it's your own fault ( been done a couple of times myself ), but don't try and tell me speeding is unsafe.......might be illegal, but 90% of the time it's not unsafe.
Post by: dazzler on November 27, 2014, 03:11:18 PM
It truly is that simple and their introduction has saved lives. Same as RBT.
Cheers.
Post by: Robbo on November 27, 2014, 03:46:21 PM
Post by: gronk on November 27, 2014, 04:38:30 PM
Gronk. The idea behind speed cameras is they deter speeding by taking the decision as to whether or not it is 'safe' to speed out of the hands of the motorist. Whether or not what you are doing is safe is irrelevant. You are not being fined for driving in an unsafe or dangerous manner simply that you have chosen to exceed the mandated speed limit.
It truly is that simple and their introduction has saved lives. Same as RBT.
Cheers.
I agree, but not the last comment.
No data at all to substantiate the comment about saving lives....RBT is a good thing, but it only deters some people, not the die hard drinker.
Been exposed as untrue the statement about speed being a factor in most fatal car crashes ( that's excessive speed ), but it makes the stats look good.
But I agree that there are some on the road that shouldn't be driving anywhere near the speed limit..
Post by: dazzler on November 28, 2014, 07:06:11 AM
1976 - RBT introduced. Deaths fell from 938 to 654 pa over 3 yrs.
1983 - Red light cameras. No change.
1986 - mobile speed camera trial. Deaths actually went up over trial period from 670 to 775.
1989 - covert speed cameras introduced. Deaths dropped from 775 to 400 pa over 3yrs.
Deaths PA stayed around the same (400ish) until a rise in 2000 up to 444.
2000 - 50kph urban limit, 50% increase in mobile camera hours of operation and speed tolerances reduced. Drop in deaths PA from 444 to 315 over 3yrs.
2006 - drug testing and vehicle impounding. Deaths dropped to 287 over 4 yrs.
Monash Uni have all the stats and research and are world leaders.
Regarding excessive speed causing fatals it is my experience that it is rarely huge speeds that are involved in the crash. Which is why I don't like those style of ads where the lunatic is driving at warp speed. Most fatal accidents have one of three things;
1. Alcohol
2. Inattention/hurry or deliberate action (red light, hooning etc)
3. Speed in excess of the posted limit
In many fatals two of these are present. So a bit of alcohol and a bit of speed, bit of speed and inattention.
The other thing that really drives me nuts is the stupid argument that you hear from motoring mags that cops tick the "speeding" box for fatals. It's BS. A fatal goes to the coroner and it's the equivalent of a manslaughter criminal brief. Every claim must be proven and a fatal investigation takes days to find the cause by plotting the collision marks, getting statements, toxicology reports and vehicle mechanical inspections.
Cheers.
Post by: MDS69 on November 28, 2014, 07:59:35 AM
Some rule says they have to display a sign....although sometimes by the time you see the sign, it's too late !!
If it WASN'T about revenue raising, they'd have them at black spots or danger areas...not on a straight section of road ( or at the bottom of a hill ) that hasn't seen an accident for 10 yrs !!
Everyone knows it's revenue raising for fixed or mobile cameras and if you speed it's your own fault ( been done a couple of times myself ), but don't try and tell me speeding is unsafe.......might be illegal, but 90% of the time it's not unsafe.
There is a safety camera (combined speed and red light for non NSW people) at the bottom of a hill on Old Windsor Road at the intersection of the Cumberland Highway. The problem is the camera gets people coming down the hill which isn't a huge gradient by any means but the real issue of the intersection and has been for years during morning peak is red light runners coming from Cumberland Hwy turning right onto Old Windsor Rd/Briens Rd. The camera isn't set up on the right corner for that. I have seen many many more near misses on the Cumberland Hwy red light runners than down hill Old Windsor Rd speeders/red light runners.
Post by: krisandkev on November 28, 2014, 08:36:05 AM
The other thing that really drives me nuts is the stupid argument that you hear from motoring mags that cops tick the "speeding" box for fatals. It's BS. A fatal goes to the coroner and it's the equivalent of a manslaughter criminal brief. Every claim must be proven and a fatal investigation takes days to find the cause by plotting the collision marks, getting statements, toxicology reports and vehicle mechanical inspections.
Dazzler not arguing with your statements, except for your last paragraph. The stats used are generally extracted from the police reporting system. The police reporting/recording systems have changed over the years but not who collects and generally enters that data, the police. (In some instances a non police person may enter the data but from data provided by the investigating police officer.) In theory then the data could be incorrectly entered, for example the speed indicator marked as a contributing factor but from my experience this would be a rare occurrence and more of a mistake then a deliberate act. But as we know statistics can be manipulated either accidently or for a wanted result. I recall a report that showed a high percent of alcohol related collisions. After examining the stats the alcohol indicator was for any person in the vehicle or vehicles had been alcohol affected. The driver may not have been affected. Also wondering what affect the compulsory wearing of seatbelts had on the statistics. Legislation was introduced in Australia during the 1970s and 1980s. And the better, safer build of vehicles. Not saying speeding is not a serious matter, but I hate speed cameras! And as has been said, in Qld we have had the average speed cameras for a while, but I have seen some really bad drivers in those areas. They may not have been speeding but doing other dangerous acts. But I think we all agree the way to beat speed cameras is not to speed. Kevin
Post by: gronk on November 28, 2014, 09:19:18 AM
But I think we all agree the way to beat speed cameras is not to speed. Kevin
Of course, sounds easy, and most of the time it is..
Cruise control has to be one of the best inventions yet for obeying these laws. Ever tried to cruise along the freeway without it and all you do is constantly look down to check /adjust your speed..
Some of those stats are general and don't show how a reduction in deaths was solely the cause of speed cameras being used.
Post by: dazzler on November 28, 2014, 11:05:33 AM
Some of those stats are general and don't show how a reduction in deaths was solely the cause of speed cameras being used.
Really?
1989 - covert speed cameras introduced. Deaths dropped from 775 to 400 pa over 3yrs.
Go to the Monash site and have a read it's all there.
Post by: prodigyrf on November 28, 2014, 11:10:45 AM
http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/testing-the-car-that-drives-itself-30257?utm_source=cg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theguide&utm_source=cg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign= (http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-reviews/testing-the-car-that-drives-itself-30257?utm_source=cg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=theguide&utm_source=cg&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=)
Dunno what all those Gummint folks will do for revenoo but I guess the rollies will definitely have to go then :'(
Post by: Mace on November 28, 2014, 11:17:55 AM
Vehicle deaths in Victoria reduced by approx 35% following introduction of compulsory seat belts in 1970.
Post by: dazzler on November 28, 2014, 12:50:12 PM
Post by: DarWen on November 28, 2014, 01:38:19 PM
Of course, sounds easy, and most of the time it is..
Cruise control has to be one of the best inventions yet for obeying these laws. Ever tried to cruise along the freeway without it and all you do is constantly look down to check /adjust your speed..
Some of those stats are general and don't show how a reduction in deaths was solely the cause of speed cameras being used.
[
Sorry Gronk, I disagree on cruise control, for the exact reason you like it. In my opinion setting the cruise control allows you to forget about having to be aware of the the speed your traveling, that leads to forgetting to be aware of what else is happening around you. I see it all the time, drivers sitting in lane 3 of 4 3k's under the speed limit totally oblivious to what is happening around them
Post by: edz on November 28, 2014, 01:54:31 PM
The bigger problem is unskilled untrained drivers and their attitude when driving that causes the majority of crashes ..
Still reckon the costs of these new systems would be better invested in driver education / training from an earlier age .
Post by: Bird on November 28, 2014, 02:09:16 PM
Really?yes speed cameras are solely responsible for the drop in deaths.. honest.. Put an extra 100 cops on the roads every day in MARKED cop cars and you'd have the same result.
1989 - covert speed cameras introduced. Deaths dropped from 775 to 400 pa over 3yrs.
Go to the Monash site and have a read it's all there.
Post by: dazzler on November 28, 2014, 02:28:42 PM
Post by: dazzler on November 28, 2014, 02:30:28 PM
Is it?
The floor is yours sir. Make your argument......
Don't forget you are still standing on this bit of floor, shuffling your feet, looking to the left, the right, to heaven, thinking of something to say.
Post by: Pog on November 28, 2014, 03:19:52 PM
The Sturt Highway from Adelaide to Renmark has had an aweful record for fatalities in the last 20 years. We have lost many locals, and I have lost 2 x close friends on this highway.
However, What has caused these fatalities is generally inattention and fatigue. The stupid Shit you see on the road from other drivers is unsafe, yet, they might be doing it 20km below the limit.. drifing across lanes beacuse they are on the phone, adjusting the radio, falling asleep... FATIGUE and INATTENTION have to be more of a threat than someone that is alert and attentive doing 10kms over the limit...
Poor roads with a lack of over-taking opportunites do not help the situation.
Focus needs to be levelled at those travelling slowly that hold up long ques of traffic (especially on long weekends & holidays). This often causes people to take risks, they shouldn't otherwise have to take.
I don't like or condone dangerous driving in any circumstances.
Post by: DarWen on November 29, 2014, 07:38:03 AM
Agreed, hear in Queensland we had a ad campaign every K over is a killer, in these cases every K under can also be killers.
Post by: GanG on November 29, 2014, 08:27:57 AM
There have also been substantial changes in the organisation of medical emergency services, establishment of specialist trauma centers in the city, specified patient transport and referral models for trauma patients for ambulance.
The biggest issues with road safety stats are the multifactorial nature of collisions and injury survival. Like any hypothesis we have to be careful that the relationship we hope to see is not predetermined by the method of analysis, I am not entirely sold on speed camera and as a massive contributor to road safety because the waters are too murky with multiple systemic changes occurring that skew the data. The raw fatality number does not take into account variables such as number of vehicles on the road, average age of vehicles, age of vehicle involved in fatality etc. To be better illustrative it should be reported as road deaths per 1000 registered vehicles as it would show rate by volume of users.
I personally think that driver attitude and concentration are major factors and are always going to be the tricky part to engineer out of the equation, I spend alot of time on the road and continue to see idiots do their best to have a collision such as overtaking in unsafe manner, impatience and carelessness, using mobile phones etc.
To illustrate my point I nearly got taken out on my motorbike yesterday by a tray truck coming over double lines on a narrow road, he was clearly going too fast for the road and couldn't keep it in his own lane, I would not estimate his speed at over 100kph, but it was too fast for the corner........that's driver error and attitude and stuff like that is why the road toll will never be zero. We have hit the point of diminishing returns the numbers are not changing significantly over the last few years..and I think this is why.
Post by: discoteddy on November 29, 2014, 09:07:04 AM
Focus needs to be levelled at those travelling slowly that hold up long ques of traffic (especially on long weekends & holidays). This often causes people to take risks, they shouldn't otherwise have to take.
Agreed, hear in Queensland we had a ad campaign every K over is a killer, in these cases every K under can also be killers.
Sorry mate disagree, taking a risk is the drivers choice, no one forces any driver to take a risk by travelling slowly. We all need to look at our kids in the back seat before we do anything silly on the road, let's choose wisely people :cup:
Travel safe during the holiday period swaggers!
Cheers,
Disco teddy
Post by: McTavish on November 29, 2014, 11:58:18 PM
In the 80's we also used to lie the seats down in the old Mitsubishi L300 so my brother, sister and I could go to sleep in the back when coming home late.
Fast forward to 2014 - driving car with Child seats for kids with 3 point harness - a gazillion airbags, ESC, Traction Control, Crumple Zones (L300 crumple zone was the bumper bar only), speeding paranoia... making it all safer to drive.
Car manufacturers get very little credit for the drop in fatalities in Australia. That's wrong. I'd rather be in a crash in my 2014 car than my first car being a 1974 Honda....
Maybe a side note - But - They say inattentive drivers. Out of curiosity I counted all the road signs including ads, speed signs painted on the road, side of the road, over the road, instructional signs - you get the gist - from Toowoomba to Brisbane. I got bored counting after I was over 500 and this was not including checking my speed every xxx seconds to make sure I wasn't speeding. How Ironic !! Too busy being "safe" by being a good lad checking my speed and all the signs rather than concentrating on the road and other drivers.
Funny how you get a different point of view when you speak to someone from the UK. 70 Mile/hr limit on the Freeway limit. My mate tells me that you can pass a police car at 80-90 MPH and they don't care - in his words "because he is driving safely". I was able to test this theory from Sheffield to London and he was right. However, do this whilst tailgating someone or change lanes and cut someone off and they will pull you over and crush you like a bug as this is dangerous driving... I believe it is Mandatory for trucks to stay in the left hand lane and are only aloud to overtake then must get back in the left lane asap or they will be booked as they don't want to slow the traffic down when trucks go uphill even just a little bit.
Seems like we've taken the whole speeding thing in isolation and not as it should be - as only part of the problem.
Ps - according to my fuel consumption figures I do pretty good so obviously just drive like a Granny.... :cheers:
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on November 30, 2014, 04:49:01 AM
We have better roads than we have ever had, we have better cars than we have ever had before.
The bigger problem is unskilled untrained drivers and their attitude when driving that causes the majority of crashes ..
Still reckon the costs of these new systems would be better invested in driver education / training from an earlier age .
Yep, Magilla Gorilla has hit the nail on the head.
Post by: GeoffA on November 30, 2014, 05:45:39 AM
..........
I personally think that driver attitude and concentration are major factors and are always going to be the tricky part to engineer out of the equation, I spend alot of time on the road and continue to see idiots do their best to have a collision such as overtaking in unsafe manner, impatience and carelessness, using mobile phones etc.
..........
Yep.
I reckon if they could somehow take those 2 ^ out of the equation, just about everything else would fall into line.
"
Post by: D4D on November 30, 2014, 06:23:22 AM
I believe it is Mandatory for trucks to stay in the left hand lane and are only aloud to overtake then must get back in the left lane asap or they will be booked as they don't want to slow the traffic down when trucks go uphill even just a little bit.
Don't get me started on this!
Post by: KingBilly on November 30, 2014, 09:05:45 AM
KB
Post by: Rumpig on November 30, 2014, 09:15:58 AM
Yes, I agree. The speed limits are set for a reason and that is to try and make our roads safer for us all to travel on and if we are caught exceeding these limits then we only have ourselves to blame.gotta sort of disagree here...i reckon you see some lowered speed limits introduced on some roads lately due to the fact the government doesn't want a lawsuit from people after several crashes have occurred in that area. A prime example i'm thinking of is the 90kph speed limit on the highway North of The Sunshine Coast, where several people have died on that stretch of road there due to IMHO not driving to the conditions at the time, the road surface got the blame for people crashing around there in the wet instead of the drivers being blamed for not driving to the conditions. I've driven that road section numerous times in all conditions (including torrential rain where you can hardly see where you are going stuff) and my slowing down and driving to the conditions at the time made the road perfectly safe to drive IMHO. I've driven plenty of highways over the years that are in nowhere near as good condition as that is in and they still have a 100kph posted speed limit on them, so i can only assume that road section had the speed limit reduced due to possible future litigation from all the media attention it got before the limit was reduced.
Post by: edz on November 30, 2014, 09:25:22 AM
Yep, Magilla Gorilla .
[/quote ].
Hey fella I resemble that remark .. ;D
Interesting comparisons on different countries tolls http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/papers/fatals.html (http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/papers/fatals.html)
Post by: KingBilly on November 30, 2014, 09:27:12 AM
and my slowing down and driving to the conditions at the time made the road perfectly safe to drive IMHO
Exactly, you drove to the conditions BUT the "stupids" don't get that basic little concept of how to drive safely and sensibly, so the authorities have to think for them, reduce the speed for everybody (or make a law for everybody) and then enforce it to ensure another "stupid" does not die or kill somebody else. And the "killing somebody else" is the truly concerning aspect of this whole arguement I think.
KB
Post by: edz on November 30, 2014, 09:46:40 AM
http://www.cnet.com/videos/top-5-differences-between-us-and-german-licenses/ (http://www.cnet.com/videos/top-5-differences-between-us-and-german-licenses/)
Now this is going to be helpfull in geting rid of mucking around with phones etc while driving, http://www.cnet.com/videos/car-tech-101-the-future-of-head-up-displays/ (http://www.cnet.com/videos/car-tech-101-the-future-of-head-up-displays/)
Post by: krisandkev on November 30, 2014, 01:22:15 PM
highway North of The Sunshine Coast, where several people have died on that stretch of road there due to IMHO not driving to the conditions at the time, the road surface got the blame for people crashing around there in the wet instead of the drivers being blamed for not driving to the conditions. I've driven that road section numerous times in all conditions (including torrential rain where you can hardly see where you are going stuff) and my slowing down and driving to the conditions at the time made the road perfectly safe to drive IMHO. I've driven plenty of highways over the years that are in nowhere near as good condition as that is in and they still have a 100kph posted speed limit on them, so i can only assume that road section had the speed limit reduced due to possible future litigation from all the media attention it got before the limit was reduced.Yes, one of my pet hates is that section of road. Nothing wrong with it. But the same with speed restrictions at certain road works, it is crazy. >:(
But then again sometimes I need to relax and just sit back and drive carefully more than worry about the speed limit. End of the drive it does not make much different with the travel times. 8) Kevin
Post by: heath74 on November 30, 2014, 01:40:32 PM
Then I realised I was driving everywhere at 90kph...
Post by: steppenwolf on December 01, 2014, 09:12:28 PM
The contributors to this forum are experienced, clue-ey road users who want to go camping somewhere and still be in one piece. NEVER have I seen so much constructive common sense about safe road-sharing gathered together in one spot. Talk about restoring a bloke's faith in humanity. Looking forward to seeing you all out there!
Post by: brooke.fossey on December 01, 2014, 09:40:59 PM
In relation to your speedo, manufacturers are also required to set it in line with the largest tyre that can be fitted to ensure that you don't inadvertently speed if you change tyres.
Post by: gronk on December 02, 2014, 10:13:09 AM
, if the government was really serious about speeding, they could mandate all cars be fitted with gps technology(been around for ages) that does not allow people to speed. It won't happen because it is too controversial.
Sounds good, and it would stop people speeding, but it would make overtaking dangerous.
Imagine trying to overtake someone doing 95 k/ph and you were governed at 100 k/ph.....and some will say don't, because it leaves you out on the wrong side of the road for too long, but others will try it, with maybe bad consequences..
The government is not serious about speeding, because at the end of the day, speeding in itself isn't dangerous, and revenue from the cameras would hurt their coffers if it was taken away.
What really needs to happen ( and it won't because it would cost too much ) is driver education...teaching people how to drive..
How many people would know what to do if they were going around a roundabout and the car suddenly went sideways from hitting a patch of oil ??
Or, what would they do if a car coming the other way suddenly veered onto their side of the road and they had 1/2 a second to react ??
Knowing what to do....or at least have an idea of what your options might be in a situation will save more lives than thinking you are not going to be a statistic just by sticking to the speed limit ..
There will always be accidents, but if your ratbag young son had a car full of friends, wouldn't it be better if at least he knew how to control the car in a situation that he got into......and MAYBE because he knows the limits of the car, he MAY not get into that situation in the 1st place !!
Post by: krisandkev on December 02, 2014, 11:02:46 AM
Sounds good, and it would stop people speeding, but it would make overtaking dangerous.
Imagine trying to overtake someone doing 95 k/ph and you were governed at 100 k/ph.....and some will say don't, because it leaves you out on the wrong side of the road for too long, but others will try it, with maybe bad consequences..
The government is not serious about speeding, because at the end of the day, speeding in itself isn't dangerous, and revenue from the cameras would hurt their coffers if it was taken away.
What really needs to happen ( and it won't because it would cost too much ) is driver education...teaching people how to drive..
All very good points but some will argue.
Re the speed governing, yes how many times have you commenced overtaking and the person suddenly speeds up. You cannot just slow down and get back in because of traffic behind you and you need to make that split second decision. You have to speed up to safely pass and if you pass a speed camera you would have a very good argument.
Correct, case law says speeding in itself may not be dangerous operation of a vehicle. Need a subjective view of what has occurred.
Some will say all the money raised from fines are used for driver safety programs etc. But it still saves the government (that means us) money because they do not have to use as much money out of the budget for those programs.
Driver education, bingo :cup:..... Defensive Driver education should be a must.
And then you get type of incident that has just occurred in South Aust. 4 killed in a 4wd that was not involved in the initial collision. Just driving along probably being very careful and nothing the driver could do would have avoided the trailer slamming into them. Kevin
Post by: chester ver2.0 on December 02, 2014, 12:36:58 PM
Instead of an overkill of signs i wish the would paint the cente line a different colour for different speeds then there would be no excuses
Post by: NewieCamper on December 02, 2014, 12:58:05 PM
RBT and red light cameras are similar to speeding, it gets a measured reading, back able by evidence and these two can't very often be argued they are safe either. Speeding is a sore point with lots of drivers because it can be said that speed directly is not the killer, it's inappropriate speed combined with innattention, lack of skill and other factors. Still remains though that speed as a factor in crashes is easy to measure, you can't measure if someone just looked down to change a radio station in a crash.
Post by: dazzler on December 02, 2014, 01:16:42 PM
So have you used said "liar" to detect speed and if so how did you operate it to get false readings?
Are you suggesting that red light cameras and RBT do not make our roads safer?
Or am I misreading your post.?
Post by: gronk on December 02, 2014, 01:19:45 PM
Whereas speeding is a word that gets used a lot, it may or may not have been a factor, but a word that's easily thrown around to "solve" a crash that may have been just inattention/sleeplessness/stupidity....
Post by: gronk on December 02, 2014, 01:42:48 PM
Are you suggesting that red light cameras and RBT do not make our roads safer?
I don't think anyone has mentioned RBT's....as to being effective, yes I'd say so, but I know and see many people who still risk it, believing because they only live around the corner, and they are going slow, it will be OK.......how do you prevent that ??
Red light cameras ??.....I'd say they make some difference as well, but you see it every day, the smart ones are good at orange light running and just avoiding the red.....and they know the red has to be lit for at least 1 second before they are in danger ....although some must get pinged occasionally !
Speed cameras though......in NSW they are signposted, so you deserve to get booked, but in say Vic, where they are hidden, no I don't believe that's the way to go....say Fred Nerk, who is usually a good law abiding motorist, lets his guard down for 3 secs, drifts over the speed limit going downhill by 3 k/ph, gets a bluey in the mail 3 weeks later ??
Doesn't remember when he made the mistake, thinks it was just a bit of bad luck, pays the fine and moves on..
Who has it helped...only the state coffers, as Fred was already a good law abiding citizen who got unlucky and won't change his ways..
Now if it was a serial speeder who is down to his last few points....then it MIGHT slow him down, either that or he'll think he was just unlucky as well and hope to get away with it for a while longer..
As in Vic, pinging someone for 3 k/ph over is revenue raising....no argument there......in NSW with an unofficial 10% rule, it gives you some leeway and if you are done , then there is no argument either, but you have definately been speeding well over the speed limit and there's no complaint!!
Post by: briann532 on December 02, 2014, 02:51:16 PM
Well the gove could help me a little i drive on a road where the speed limit changes between 40 k and 80kph 6 times.
Instead of an overkill of signs i wish the would paint the cente line a different colour for different speeds then there would be no excuses
Sorry mate, but can you not ruin this wonderful forum with such outrageous comments.
Fair go - common sense??? ??? ??? ??? What the hell are you thinking???
It would be cheap, easy effective, practical and very user friendly.
Nah that would never work. :-[ :-[ :-[
On a serious note, what a simple great idea to fix a long standing problem.
When Speewa is our PM are you running for Treasury?
Brian
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on December 03, 2014, 06:10:10 AM
This wouldn't apply to the left lane, just the right lane and giving the driver time to return to the 100 posted limit.
Would solve a lot of drama trying to overtake.....
Post by: krisandkev on December 03, 2014, 06:33:14 AM
Overtaking lanes should have a posted limit of 120kph up to and including 200 metres beyond the end of the overtaking lane.
This wouldn't apply to the left lane, just the right lane and giving the driver time to return to the 100 posted limit.
Would solve a lot of drama trying to overtake.....
Well I have not heard of that one before but I love it. Unfortunately it will not happen, imagine if it did and the first head on fatal occurred. Maybe take it a bit further. All sections of road on a main highway with a overtaking lane should have a barrier between the opposing lane and then the increased speed limit would apply. And take the licence off drivers who travel under the speed limit and then speed up in an overtaking lane and then drop back after the lane!!!!! >:( >:( >:( >:( What about signage on overtaking lanes asking slow driver, like maybe some caravaners, please let piled up traffic behind you pass safely... Kevin
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on December 03, 2014, 06:38:20 AM
Post by: gronk on December 03, 2014, 10:57:57 AM
I been telling Mrs Jeepers for years it would be a good idea, but yes Kev, i'll never see it happen in my lifetime.
Got more chance of a hwy patrol officer being a normal human being !!!! :police: :police: ;D ;D
Oh, alright, before you bag me, I was only joking.......BUT, I haven't met a normal one yet !!!! ;D ;D
Post by: NewieCamper on December 03, 2014, 12:20:43 PM
Hi newie
So have you used said "liar" to detect speed and if so how did you operate it to get false readings?
Are you suggesting that red light cameras and RBT do not make our roads safer?
Or am I misreading your post.?
Maybe throwing liars at speeding cars would be a bit of fun, can we start with anyone who was called up to ICAC? Autocorrect probably didn't know what LIDAR was.
Nt suggesting that red light cameras or RBT don't make roads safer, you probably read it right and I typed it wrong. I was trying to make two points:
Policing a measurable thing is relatively easy to focus on while things that can't be measured are more difficult.
Speeding is not in itself dangerous, inappropriate speed is dangerous. You can travel at or below the posted limit and be travelling too fast. Pea soup fog on the freeway at 110km/h is one example.
RLC and RBT are very difficult to argue against as not making roads safer whereas exceeding a posted limit can be argued against.
Post by: dazzler on December 03, 2014, 01:45:33 PM
Post by: Kangaron on December 03, 2014, 03:08:33 PM
Or to their ability to be safe.
Post by: briann532 on December 03, 2014, 03:17:47 PM
Maybe, just maybe, some who drive under the speed limit are driving to the conditions, as they see them.
Or to their ability to be safe.
I certainly don't have any problem with that. It's no different to L platers or the elderly or those who just simply aren't confident. They have every right to use the road as well.
What I have a problem with is when they refuse to let you pass.
Plenty drivers pull over or just simply let you overtake.
Others however think its allmighty powerful to refuse to let you get past them or speed up when they think you can overtake.
Its these fools that I think people have issues with.
I drove back last weekend towing and it was raining and the Hume was busy so I slowed down a bit. In the left lane and let those who wanted to go faster do so.
It was quite a pleasant safe drive. No real story to tell, and that's just the point.
Plenty of miles done safely, calmly and without event, but we love to rant about that few minutes of agro with some tool who chooses to do the wrong thing.
I'll admit I'm guilty.
Drive safely
Brian
Post by: dazzler on December 04, 2014, 09:08:56 AM
You make a good point. Recently I drove from Melb to qld in our old rodeo. 90ks mostly in the left lane and you know what? It wasn't too bad.
Relaxed actually.
Post by: edz on December 04, 2014, 10:11:15 AM
Lose enough points and an automatic arrest warrant gets issued and sent and your vehicle is disabled.. till robocop out on patrol, comes to pick you up . .. ;D
Post by: KingBilly on December 04, 2014, 12:57:50 PM
Post by: edz on December 04, 2014, 02:46:48 PM
Post by: NewieCamper on December 04, 2014, 08:14:13 PM
Theyd work out a way to get you still... The day will come when something like this will happen, sometime in the future .
I reckon self drive cars are coming quicker and are much more likely.