Come on folks,
It was a serious suggestion, and I was hoping for some serious discussion like we usually get on this forum.
I believe I am correct - does anyone want to argue against that using logic rather than crude emotional terms?
Printable View
Come on folks,
It was a serious suggestion, and I was hoping for some serious discussion like we usually get on this forum.
I believe I am correct - does anyone want to argue against that using logic rather than crude emotional terms?
Of course, we all think we are correct.lol.
But seriously. I think I see what your saying. However, our roads aren't designed for higher speeds and lots of people can't cope with them.
In saying that I think many of our roads need to have their speeds revised.
Persona;;y I think your argument perspective is to simple. There is more to it then less accidents because we travel faster and are on the road for less time.
Xav
The way i see it is: The faster you go, the faster you crash. Doesn't matter how many cars are on the road.
I can understand what your saying though.
Andy. :)
I must admit to being a bit bemused by this - by far the majority of major highways in Australia do not have lanes to change! Most major highways in this country are two lane with occasional passing lanes if you are lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by EchiDna
Having said that, I have to agree with the sentiment - the most frightened I have been in the County was when another driver passed me (I was doing the speed limit) - and then jammed his brakes on to turn into his gate - with a car coming the other way I hit the anchors - and locked the back wheels (no load); and nearly lost it, and nearly hit the car coming the other way.
D-fender - the problem with speed limits is mainly that they are inconsistent, and often set far lower than is safe for the road in good conditions. Partly as a result of that, there are many areas where if you travel at the speed limit, everyone passes you, which since most roads are only two lane, does not add to safety. An additional factor is that with long distances the norm in Australia, there is a good case for arguing that a 10% increase in speed represents a lesser risk of accident than a 10% increase in travel time.
On your other factor - as I have pointed out in other threads, there is good statistical evidence that alcohol is the major factor in fatal accidents, and probably non-fatal ones as well. In comparison, there is relatively little evidence supporting speed (in the absence of drugs or alcohol) as a causative factor in accidents, although there is no questioning the simple physical fact that if you have an accident the severity of it will go up as the square of the speed.
And the other point, as I have also mentioned before, is that the current rate of road deaths in Australia is the lowest it has ever been on a vehicle/kilometre basis, and despite strenuous efforts in the last ten years or more, the rate of improvement continues to flatten out. And the death rate has for years been higher than the suicide rate, even without accounting for the probability that an unknown proportion of road deaths are really suicide.
Finally, I would point out that no accident has a single cause, although often there is a major cause. This is very well documented in aviation accident investigations.
John
Quote:
Originally Posted by crump
:eek: I'd love to see that happen in a Defender. :D:D:D
may be in the next edition of Top gear oz...:p
Lower speed limits can mean more boredom. More boredom = more accidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilbur
Read (a long time ago - can't tell you where...) that a section of dull straight highway in the US improved its accident stats by raising the speed limit. People were nodding off doing 55 for so long.
Sadly to say , it was speed that killed Brocky , not the road , tree , conditions .
If you existed in a vacume you may be right, however lifes not like that. Further to this. the higher above 60 you go then you will exponentially increase your risk of fatal consequences. While also taking away your reaction time. I simply dont care about being on the road for 10% less time. It only takes one high speed prang and your paste. Is your life worth being on the road 10% less of the time? I would suggest you google 'fatal accident' and go to images and browse around for a while. I drive like every other person is out to kill me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilbur
Hitler’s autobahn engineers knew of this problem before the second world war.Quote:
Originally Posted by spudboy
Only the very first were built with long straight sections, they were then ( and now ) built with long sweeping curves for the very reason WE now build our motorways the same way.
If you apply Wilbur's logic to going through red lights (assuming you want to). The faster you do it then the less time you are in the intersection and therefore less chance of a collision. Conversely if you stop in the middle of the intersection you are guaranteed a collision. Of course this only makes sense if you assume that the other vehicles are not capable of observing you and taking corrective action.
In reality, if you go slowly, or stop, then oncoming traffic can observe you and take corrective action. Thus the chance of a collision is low although the chance of abuse is very high :mad:. If you speed through quickly you may get lucky because you find a gap but if you do not then the other driver cannot avoid you as it happens too fast.
The same principle applies to general driving, the speed limit should be set to a speed that takes into account the number of potential hazards, your reaction time and the ability for other drivers to observe, react and avoid you.
And if you drive slower than the speed limit then you have actually increased the number of obstacles that have to be observed and avoided by everyone else and thus decreased safety, albeit by a smaller amount than some people will lead you to believe.
I think that meets Wilbur's criteria for a rational disagreement to his theory.
More stupider ideas have been put forward on this theory although this one does immediately feel intuitively incorrect.