Thread: Who the heck would vote "Yes"?

Speed kills has been proven to be a sham in countries/ states who do not have a vested interest ($$$$) in maintaining the scam.
I was reading an article about a place that introduced speed limits on it's previously open roads, set up speed cameras and gave the cops radar guns. GUESS what happened? The road toll went up BY 50%+ but as the brainwash had not gotten through to the investigators yet the deaths that had speed as the main cause went down.
Investigations have shown time and time again speed is either 3rd or 4th as the main killer , the most common one in this case was alchohol followed by either fatigue, unlicensed/enregistered, overloaded cars/no seatbelts( does not matter if your doing 80 with no belt in an old banger).
And yes as most off you will have guessed this is in our own backyard the NT! They introduced a speed limit on the previously open roads on jan1 2007 and since then the toll has risen from 46 in 2006 to 75 in 2008 . Would it be unfair to say more cops taking photos and sending letters instead off pulling over suspicious drivers who are drunk, or driving unregistered/unroadworhty/ overloaded cars?
Also a pilot study that was "swept under the rug" showed that on top off the 48% involved in accidents being alchohol affected there was also 29% under the influence of another drug(cannabis etc)
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/200...01_ntnews.html

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...f/RDA_1208.pdf

Originally Posted by BMKal

They've had a few teething problems with implementing the new policy, such as siezing one or two work vehicles that belong to the employer rather than the driver, but these are now being sorted out. They're talking about legislation to allow them to confiscate your own car, even if you were caught driving someone else's vehicle at the time.

Nope, if the person is driving another person's car, then that car should be seized. That way, people will be a little more circumspect abut who drives their cars.

This should apply especially to drunk drivers.

Re the last bit of your para above, what if the person doesn't own a car?

Originally Posted by frantic

Speed kills has been proven to be a sham in countries/ states who do not have a vested interest ($$$$) in maintaining the scam.
I was reading an article about a place that introduced speed limits on it's previously open roads, set up speed cameras and gave the cops radar guns. GUESS what happened? The road toll went up BY 50%+ but as the brainwash had not gotten through to the investigators yet the deaths that had speed as the main cause went down.
Investigations have shown time and time again speed is either 3rd or 4th as the main killer , the most common one in this case was alchohol followed by either fatigue, unlicensed/enregistered, overloaded cars/no seatbelts( does not matter if your doing 80 with no belt in an old banger).
And yes as most off you will have guessed this is in our own backyard the NT! They introduced a speed limit on the previously open roads on jan1 2007 and since then the toll has risen from 46 in 2006 to 75 in 2008 . Would it be unfair to say more cops taking photos and sending letters instead off pulling over suspicious drivers who are drunk, or driving unregistered/unroadworhty/ overloaded cars?


http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...f/RDA_1208.pdf

Interesting, but that report also shows that between 45 and 46% of those fatal crashes - around Australia - occurred in 100kmh speed zones, which makes me think speed might have a little to do with it.

I'd be interested to see statistics about other circumstances in NT road deaths including if any of those road deaths were affected by the enforcement of speed limits.

Bugger, table won't copy, it's on page 11.

Originally Posted by p38arover

Nope, if the person is driving another person's car, then that car should be seized. That way, people will be a little more circumspect abut who drives their cars.

This should apply especially to drunk drivers.

Re the last bit of your para above, what if the person doesn't own a car?

The powers of "siezure" do not apply to people caught drunk driving Ron. The person first has to be proven guilty of a crime before they can sieze a vehicle, and at the time of catching someone drunk behind the wheel, they are charged with a crime, but yet to be found or proven guilty in a court of law. I know it sounds strange to some that they cannot sieze the vehicle of someone found drunk behind the wheel, but this goes back to the basis of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty. Once found guilty and licence cancelled, then if they are caught driving again, drunk or sober, the vehicle can be siezed.

As for siezing a vehicle owned by someone other than the driver caught without a licence - the problem with this is company or work vehicles. It is not reasonable for every employer to keep a daily check on the status of each employee's drivers' licence. You can lose your licence tomorrow, not tell your boss, then get caught driving a company vehicle the following day - and the employer loses a vehicle for 28 days and has to pay the costs of towing, storage and recovery. Not really a workable situation. This actually happened in the first "blitz" they had here - a jiffy van or similar was confiscated. Would have caused immense hardship for the franchisee who owned the vehicle had the authorities not immediately (well, within a day or two) realised the implications of the new laws, and allowed an exemption. The laws will be amended to allow for these cases.

Yes the point is you are just as DEAD at 110 hitting a tree in a 12 yr old falcodore as you are at 160 you just leave a better looking corpse. The reason they hit the tree/ pole/ cliff is usually fatigue( a drive that used to be x is increased by the reduced speed limit), driver skill/ lack of, alchohol, or other drugs, poor vehicle condition/ driver training , not driving to the conditions(fog, rain, roo's at night as longer on the road etc)etc
As for a caravan doing 80 k's all well and good for his safety but what about the frustration and increased fatigue to the rest of the road users stuck behind?

Originally Posted by p38arover

The problem is that so many drivers are so scared of the double demerits that they annoy those of us who want to travel at the speed limit. The donkeys travel at up to 20 km/h below.

Well Ron a donkey travelling at 20 k's below the speed limit is better than the goose travelling 20 k's above the limit.

Travelling on the Hume Freeway I saw a Ferrari being done for speeding - mate, a fine to that bloke is nothing - losing double points will have (hopefully) a greater impact on that particular goose.

You turning hippie or something Ron Gee mate, you've been getting into the "establishment" of late. Not a bad thing mind - just wondering what's growing in the back-yard.

I would reiterate a couple of points mentioned in this thread.

1. In NSW (I think alone among states and territories) learners are not permitted to drive above 80, and red Ps above 90 (they dropped the restriction of trailers above 750kg to 80 about ten years ago). Given a state where the majority of state highways are two lane roads with limited passing opportunities, can you think of a better recipe for accidents or for teaching young drivers to ignore speed limits? (after a few tens of kilometres at his reduced speed limit with the bumper of a B-double a metre from his rear bumper, how many L or P drivers have the mental ability to stay at their limit?)

2. Although there are occasional blips, such as currently in a couple of states, road deaths in Australia are at record lows, so talk of a road safety crisis is simply media hype. There is no doubt that on average, driving is safer than it has ever been, mainly due to better roads, better attitudes towards driving and seat belts.

3. There is not the slightest doubt as to the main causes of road fatalities - according to very good statistical records, close to half of drivers involved in fatal accidents are above the legal alcohol limit. Compare this to the results of random breath tests, where it is rare for the percentage of drivers over the limit of those tested to come anywhere near 1%. This means that alcohol affected drivers are over represented in the fatality statistics by around a factor of fifty. That is, they are fifty times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. No other contributory factor comes anywhere near this figure!

4. Data does not support mobile phone use as a danger - in the USA only some states ban mobile phone use while driving, but the trend in accident statistics over the period that mobile phones went from rare to almost universal is no different in the states with and without a ban. Even if we assume that everyone uses them just as much in those states where the ban exists, this does not explain that the trend is still down since mobile phones became common.

5. Looking at the disastrous day Tasmania had yesterday, I am reminded that one of my memories from driving around Tasmania is that local drivers very obviously regards double lines as purely advisory - and two of the accidents were head-on collisions!

John

...this does not explain that the trend is still down since mobile phones became common.

It does if other factors improving safety have outweighed any negative effects mobiles may have had. There are many studies that prove that mobile use has a negative effect on safety, specifically concentration and especially not hands-free simply being able to operate the controls, let alone texting.