:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling::clap2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
Printable View
:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling::clap2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
started january 2008 IIRCQuote:
Originally Posted by discomuzz
gotta love itQuote:
Originally Posted by Leo
NT introduces speed limits and the fatality rate soars
South African police cant enforce sped limits, everyone who can afford a car travels at high speed and there has been little, if any increase in accidents
remember what i was saying about moronic kneejerk reactions by the guddamint?
Great example of a test case wouldn't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sprint
Lots of data pre and post speed limits!
From my experience, NT @ 130 kph? Ya' what?
Speed does not kill! The sudden deceleration of the car kills its occupants! Conversely it is the sudden acceleration of the pedestrian which happens when the pedestrian is hit by a car.Quote:
Originally Posted by 81stubee
I am guessing that you have not driven on German autobahns. The Germans like the majourity of Europe drive on the right so they overtake on the left Conversely Australia and the UK drive on the left and overtake on the right Slow vehicles in Germany hence keep to the right.
An awlful lot of German Autobahns have speed limits of less then 130 kph.
Many autobahns are dual carriageway and are in a terrible state of repair! The lorry ruts are diabolical and the roads were not designed and built to cope with the current traffic conditions. Yes you can go on Wikipedian and get various figures but the reality is that traffic and road conditions on the autobahns have changed dramatically since the expansion of the EU into the former Soviet bloc countries.
The number of Eastern European lorries pouring into Germany has to be seen to be believed. Along with the number of cars/vans/small car transporters with car trailers laden with damaged/stolen/old cars going back and into eastern Europe. These drivers do not take note of normal driving hours etc.
The conditions of the German autobahn system in the last 30 odd years have gone from being the best in western Europe to among some of the worst in western Europe!
Regards
Brendan
While most 'collisions' for drink driving may be at low speed, around 30% of drivers involved in fatal accidents are above the legal limit - this is where the figure comes from, not those low speed crashes. When you consider that many of these fatal crashes involve two drivers, the proportion of fatal accidents where alcohol is a major factor is probably much higher than the 25% quoted. (all fatal accidents require blood tests for all drivers involved, so the statistics will be pretty complete) Of course, in many cases high speed is involved as well as alcohol.Quote:
Originally Posted by mudmouse
You are correct that a tiny proportion of drivers drink drive (way below 1% based on results of random tests), but all the evidence is that they are the major cause of fatal accidents.
From the enforcement point of view, speeding has the advantage that it is easy to measure, can be done without stopping the vehicle, and produces revenue at minimal cost, while revenue can be maximised by setting unreasonable limits. And while action against speeding is unpopular, any really effective action against drink driving would be far more unpopular, as alcohol is the drug of choice for a large majority of voters.
Age does not necessarily mean incompetence - worth noting that the surviving instructor in the recent midair collision was 89 - this in a job that requires annual medicals (actually I think at that age it is more frequent) and three monthly practical checks. (There is no suggestion that his age played any part in the accident - in any case the pilot in the left seat, who was undergoing a licence test, would have had primary responsibility for lookout.)
In another area, I have seen statistics quoted that show that unlicenced drivers have almost exactly the same crash and offence rate as licenced drivers.
John
from wiki: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is part of a phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli......... etc......
unfortunately statistics & surveys can be used to prove whatever the statistician wants them to.....
after all, I've heard that one definition of a statistician is that he is just an accountant who couldn't handle the pace :)
whatever is said, I don't think I could be convinced that excessive speed is a not a killer ... less reaction time + more terminal energy = more severe terminal result
:Rolling::Rolling::Rolling::Rolling: yes. Going fast in DT's is down drive dangerous ! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Slunnie
Quote:
Originally Posted by 87County
Discounting statistics is a favourite way of sticking to your own beliefs in the face of evidence (think history of smoking and health). Having said that, there is no doubt that excessive speed can be a killer - the only catch is defining "excessive".
Obviously reaction time represents more ground covered at higher speeds, but this simply means that you need to be able to see further (and it is clear that in the case being discussed this was the main problem, and certainly the conviction was sound!). It also means that in the event of a crash the damage will be more severe, and more likely fatal. But this simply makes the point that any event, including a crash, has a whole string of "causes", where if any were not present the event would not happen. So in a high speed fatal accident, was the death because of the speed or because of the other factors that caused the event?
To take the only local fatality so far this year in this area as an example, involving a high speed head on between an (unidentifiable - it is about 20cm from the front bumper to the rear wheels) ute and a B-double on the Newell near Tomingley. The ute crossed to the wrong side of the road on a straight stretch with both vehicles travelling at least at 100 -110kph (fine weather, daylight). Did speed cause the death? Certainly, although to be non-fatal, you would have to have both vehicles travelling below 20kph. But it is obvious that the major "cause" in this case is not speed, but why did he cross to the wrong side? More likely to be alcohol than speed, could be a mechanical failure, could be fatigue (perhaps helped by the relatively low speed limit and long distances) or other driver incapacitation, certainly would not have happened if the road (one of the busiest highways in Australia, especially for trucks) was a divided road. It is also the type of 'accident' that is very likely to be suicide.
John
In the times pre-1970 when NSW still had a lot of "unrestricted" roads you could drive at any speed you thought was safe in the prevailing circumstances. If the nice policeman got in a snot and thought otherwise you would be charged with dangerous driving. A successful defence used on a number of occasions was a motor sport history indicating you were accustomed to fast driving and were competent to do so. A letter from your car club confirming this was usually tendered to the court in support. A CAMS open licence was also useful.
In the case under discussion this defence could have been used had there not been a posted speed limit.
The excuse of "Its not the speed that kills, but the sudden stop or deceleration" is the oldest b/s excuse in the world. Yes I love speed and there are times and places for it. But speed limits are in place for a reason. We are not Gernany and our roads are not built for high speed, let alone the wildlife interference.
If a car is doing say 160 kmph in a 60kmph zone or even a 110kmph zone and hits a car or truck sitting on the vehicles or posted speed limit, it is without doubt the speed that has caused it not tjust the deceleration.
:(