Pick a speed, any speed...

Discussion in 'Australian Motorcycles' started by Uncle Bully, Jul 7, 2003.

  1. Default to light up the Yellow and flash the Red. If it's lights you're
    talking about.
    Toby Ponsenby, Jul 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Oops missed the bit about it only being 110kph freewayay zones somewhere.
    Which roads were proposed and by whom again?
    No seen plenty doing above and below the limit too.

    Gee, I wonder who beat them into submission on
    The speeding ones on the Gold Coast?
    We should have had a drive as fast as you bloody well like default limit,
    that would have saved plenty of 20yo's.
    Well take your choice of impact speeds, or when you slam into another
    vehicle pretzling up a "performance safe" car by only a metre or so, just
    remember that it would have been worse if you'd been doing 10kph less.
    Most people just slowed down without being parnoid bout the speedo, the only
    paranoid ones are those with only a couple of points left, who if incapable
    of keeping within 10kph of the limit without staring at the speedo, are
    probably also incapable of driving consistently to conditions on a
    derrestricted road anyway.
    Because I've seen too much stupid sh*t go on, there are average idiotic
    people loose on the road and if you believe driving 40kph faster than them
    makes you immune, you've got a big surprise coming one day. and
    Actually I just started reading an article n Time about how Germany has the
    second worst death count in europe, 7500 dead in only 4 years, marvelous
    thing those unrestricted roads, we should aim for those sort of European
    figures too.
    All very nice theories to consider when some clown lane changes into you at
    150kph instead of 110kph and you find yourself heading for a tree.
    Rainbow Warrior, Jul 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Uncle Bully

    Neil Fisher Guest

    On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:11:22 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"

    Huh. Increased limits on freeways, I thought.
    Exactly. So speed limits help how, in this situation?
    Maybe. ;-)
    We did. They took it away.
    WTF are you on about here, Pat?
    Are you seriously suggesting that most drivers these days are not
    significantly concerned with what the speed limit is and how fast they
    are going in relation to it?
    Pfft! Thank you for re-inforcing my view that it's not the speed in
    absolute terms that matters - it's whether it's appropriate for the
    conditions at the time.
    Not very nice, is it? Did you check to see where these deaths occured?
    IIRC, mostly in places with speed limits!
    Small changes to the scenario would make 110, hell even 80, just as
    fatal. So why fixate on just one aspect?

    Neil Fisher / Bob Young
    personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
    Looking for spark plug leads?
    Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
    Neil Fisher, Jul 21, 2003
  4. Typical of the Rainbow Worrier's drivel.... 7500 dead in 4 years;
    well it's BOGUS.

    Germany had 7503 dead in 2000, 6977 in 2001, 6842 in 2002;
    continuing down-ward trend. Injury crashes also declined from
    382,949 in 2000, to 375,345 in 2001 to 362,054 in 2002.

    Germany has 5 times as many cars and 4 times as many people
    registered/resident in the country, as well as millions of transit
    vehicles every year.

    German crash statistics are very clear about where and how all
    reported crashes occur; unlike Australia where such data is not
    freely available. If you can gain access, you'll find such diverse
    measurements and methods, the data are almost useless in trying to
    make sensible decisions about road safety planning.

    vis http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_transport.htm

    And yes; out of over 2.2 million crashes reported in 2002, about 24
    thousand were on the Autobahn. i.e. 1% of the total.

    BTW: I don't even bother to download the Worrier's articles any
    more. They only content they have is lies and stupid comments.
    Listening to Parliament on the radio is a better use of my time.
    Bernd Felsche, Jul 22, 2003
  5. Uncle Bully

    st3ph3nm Guest

    If a road has been engineered to a design speed of, say, 130kph, what
    makes you think that it's unsafe to be travelled at 130kph?

    Similarly, if most people are travelling at ~100kph in moderate
    traffic on a particular freeway, why would you think it safe to be
    travelling at a speed that's different to the rest of the traffic by
    more than 20kph *either way*?

    IOW, it's just as dangerous to be doing 50kph in a 100 zone as it is
    to be doing 150kph in a 100zone, if everyone else is doing 100. Also
    true (and far more common) for 80kph/120kph.

    st3ph3nm, Jul 22, 2003
  6. Well unfortunately that is the figures I got from Time magazine, which would
    have thought was pretty reliable, the article was mostly about France being
    the worst and Germany second for death counts, so didn't sprout any other
    information. Sorry if they under rated the true deathcount.
    Rainbow Warrior, Jul 22, 2003
  7. Roo's and other drivers.
    It's not but raising the limit by another 20kph won't make those 20kph
    slower drive 20kph faster and will therefore make it more dangerous.
    Exactly why we should be doing 90-110kph in 100kph zones not 90-150kph,
    raising limits will just increase the speed differentials making it more
    4 lane 110kph freeways would be the only exceptions but even then you still
    get clowns doing only 100kph in the rightmost lane.

    Brisbane, Australia
    Rainbow Warrior, Jul 22, 2003
  8. Uncle Bully

    Gary Woodman Guest

    Rivetting stuff... I hope Pisshead catches this...
    Gary Woodman, Jul 22, 2003
  9. Uncle Bully

    st3ph3nm Guest

    You think a roo impact at 130kph is going to be *that* much different
    to one at 100kph?
    Actually, it would. Speed differentials are reduced when drivers can
    set their own speed - that's why 85th percentile speed limits produce
    lower road tolls. It means you don't have idiots in the wrong lane
    driving at whatever slow speed because they think they're safe and
    "right" to do so, and so you have less accidents. Also, the people
    who now (like me) only adhere to 100kph on my usual freeway run
    because I don't want the fine, will now travel at the speed we're
    comfortable at - the design speed of the road we're on - along with
    the people who are currently doing the same but have enough money not
    to worry about the fines. IOW, less speed differentials. BTW, I
    don't see you calling out for minimum speeds to be set on freeways so
    as to reduce speed differentials.
    Lane discipline will reduce accidents and therefore fatalities, more
    than speed limits. See Germany, USA, etc. for figures.
    Note my above sentence. THEY SHOULDNT BE THERE. The current "speed
    kills" campaigns actually ENCOURAGE this dangerous behaviour, and
    costs us lives.

    st3ph3nm, Jul 23, 2003
  10. Why would changing the speed limit make right lane hogs change their ways?
    Rainbow Warrior, Jul 23, 2003
  11. Yep why not? More velocity, more damage.
    The 80 drivers in 100 zones are setting their own speed now, and they'll
    still set it at 80 regardless of whether you're passing them at 100kph or

    It means you don't have idiots in the wrong lane
    I don't see you calling for maximum speeds either.
    Well why are we bothering to argue speed limits when lane discipline is the
    problem? Fix it first then decide if the average driver is fit enough to
    decide his own speed.
    No people hogging the right lane do so because they are either off in
    fairland whilst driving or jammed on bloody cruise control and have no
    consideration for cars behind them, not because they are worried about cops,
    only people with low points worry about them to that extent.
    Rainbow Warrior, Jul 23, 2003
  12. Allow me.
    *Removing* the limit would remove their amateur police behaviour.
    Which is what they are really at.
    Besides, any responsible method employed to remove these imbeciles from the
    roads would be a tad more responsible than applying the summary execution
    they so richly deserve for their stupid behaviour.
    Toby Ponsenby, Jul 23, 2003
  13. Uncle Bully

    Neil Fisher Guest

    Were we? Well, that's a little different, innit? Certainly I wouldn't
    be asking for no speed limits there. But you already knew that, so I
    don't know just why you are being such a dick about it - perhaps you
    are feeling a little persecuted by all the anti-4WD threads?
    Let me get this straight - someone who is already doing under the
    speed limit will increase their speed in the same situation because
    the number on the sign changed? Oh, I get it - it's the people who are
    *already* breaking the speed limit. They'll still do 20km/h over the
    limit, making them 20km/h faster, is that it?
    Must I? ;-)
    Look at the vehicles. Tell me a VT is less able to handle 130 than a
    Because the number on the sign changed, you feel safer? I dunno about
    you, but I find I *see* a lot of near misses, but rarely are involved
    in them.
    True - but that wasn't the question. I guess you'll just ignore what
    doesn't suit you instead of conceding on anything at all.
    It may be. Then again it might not.
    Typical - I wonder why I still bother... You've already seen Bernd's
    posting of the German figures. You really think 1% of fatals is worth
    the targetting of 110km/h limits?
    Fine, you hit the bastard, I'd prefer to not get into the situation in
    the first place. Anyway, wouldn't we be just as dead? Or would I be
    more dead than you?

    Neil Fisher / Bob Young
    personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
    Looking for spark plug leads?
    Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
    Neil Fisher, Jul 23, 2003
  14. Uncle Bully

    Neil Fisher Guest

    On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:12:11 +1000, "Rainbow Warrior"

    A paragon of journalistic virtue, no doubt.
    Ho Kay. Do they still rabbit on about greenhouse gasses too? Another
    totally discredited, yet politically correct attack on the common man.
    Typical. Focus on a "shocking" number that tells you virtually nothing
    about how safe or unsafe it may be. And you fell for it. Well, well,
    what a surprise. But even better, you appeared to blame it on
    derestriction, when the truth is that only 1% came from such roads.
    The other 99% came from your beloved speed limited areas - without
    checking Bernd's reference, I'd hazard a guess and say most were in
    areas posted at less than 80km/h. And another guess - >50% involved
    non German residents.

    Neil Fisher / Bob Young
    personal opinion unless otherwise noted.
    Looking for spark plug leads?
    Check out http://www.magnecor.com.au
    Neil Fisher, Jul 23, 2003
  15. Uncle Bully

    st3ph3nm Guest

    So with good lane discipline, you get less speed differential even
    with higher speeds than currently. How? Picture 3 lanes. Currently,
    you have idiot 80kph in middle lane, people slowing, ducking etc. to
    get around whilst doing 100kph. In a proper situation, person doing
    80kph in left lane, gets overtaken without problem by person in middle
    lane doing 100 who in turn gets overtaken by person in far right doing
    120+. The main difference is that person doing 120+ is two whole
    lanes away from person doing 80kph, and people getting around the slow
    traffic aren't forced into the way of the fastest traffic. Almost
    like three seperate roads.
    Set at 85th percentile, I have, and do. And some freeways should be
    Because it's impossible to get someone with a camera who's not
    exercising "Keef left unless overtaking". Therefore, less money can
    be made. Which is exactly why I say that the Vic Government is
    morally corrupt - they effectively say it's okay to leave the road
    toll at it's current rate (the same as the last 10 years) as long as
    they rake in an extra couple hundred million each year.
    This is what I'd love to see happening. It would have greater effect
    on highway safety than any other measure, I believe. The laws are
    there, now, too, but never enforced.
    They do it also because they've swallowed the propaganda, and don't
    believe that they're doing anything dangerous, as long as they're not
    speeding. Besides, as I've said, I have plenty of points, but not
    plenty of money. Am I safer on the road as a result. Nope.

    st3ph3nm, Jul 24, 2003
  16. Uncle Bully

    Minx Guest

    Can't speak for other states but Vic distributes Crashstats, the
    database of every road incident that police have taken a report on
    since 1986. Incidents can be charted over time or overlayed on a road
    map. Anytime I'm feeling overconfident is a good time to pick a
    favourite stretch of road and see how many people have been taken out
    on the corners.

    Go here;
    .... page to the bottom and accept the terms of use and it will
    download. When you've chosen a town or area or stretch of road or the
    whole state, choose the Ready-made Query re Motorcycle Casualty

    Of nearly 30000 incidents, trends include;
    - annual reduction in incidents, injuries and fatalities until 1995,
    since then an annual increase.
    - favourite time of the year to get hurt is summer, favourite days are
    saturday and sunday, favourite time is 3 pm - 6 pm.
    - 85% of incidents occur on a dry road on a clear day.
    - 71% where there was no road control (no lights, stop or give-way
    signs, ie not at an intersection)
    - Two-thirds of casualties aged 18 - 29
    - 64% occured in a 60 km/hr zone, 21% in a 100 km / hr zone.

    Note though, these are motorcycle statistics. If you want car
    statistics you'll have to ask somebody who cares.

    I got to run a query again!
    Minx, Jul 24, 2003
  17. Uncle Bully

    Albm&ctd Guest

    Did they have any figures on cannibalism? I'd just like to know how
    many people were nibbled to death in the 19th century.


    2003 insult page awaits your contribution
    Albm&ctd, Jul 24, 2003
  18. Probably not, especially if it's a loaded up diesel or Camry with a caravan.

    Oh, I get it - it's the people who are
    Yep, probably drive 40kph over the limit all the time if they were't worried
    about having their licience chopped on the spot, derestrict them and theye
    wil drive at whatever speed their hormones tell them is OK.
    Tell me a VT has a 30% better chance of avoiding a roo or idiot running you
    off the road?
    But the number didn't change.
    You have a heap of good luck, just be careful it doesn't flip on you all in
    one go. Probably why you feel safer at higher speeds. You really believe no
    harm can happen to you.
    They probably are but seriously concerned does not make driving any more
    impossible than good looking women or rain, unless you are seriously lacking
    in driving skill.
    True - but that wasn't the question. I guess you'll just ignore what doesn't
    suit you instead of conceding on anything at all.
    Is it 1% of fatals here?
    Dead is dead, but at 110kph I might have a better chance of surviving than
    you at 150kph presuming we both got to brake before impact unless you drive
    a golf that pulls up quicker at higher speeds.
    Rainbow Warrior, Jul 24, 2003
  19. What about 2 lanes, a bit more common.
    What if he's still in the middle lane because the derestriction sign said
    nothing about keeping left.

    In a proper situation, person doing
    Or you just have what happens on them now slower vehicles middle lane cars
    doing 100 in right lane and those going faster in the left lane.
    Till it's fixed I don't see the point in just letting the current stupidity
    happen at higher speeds.
    Driving at 100kph isn't inherently dangerous at all until someone decides
    that driving faster than you is safer, you may think 140 isn't dangerous too
    but what about when some clown decides you're too slow and unsafe and
    attempts to pass you at another 20-40kph.
    So are people doing the 100kph limit really unsafe, and if the limit was
    120kph and someone thought conditions warranted higher speeds but you
    didn't, you would then be the unsafe one who should be booked.
    Rainbow Warrior, Jul 24, 2003
  20. URL of original article:

    Took Google less than a second to find the article that's almost a
    year old: August 19th.

    In 2000, France's 8,079 road fatalities topped the E.U. rankings
    well ahead of the 7,503 in Germany, which has 33% more cars and 36%
    less road space.

    I wouldn't trust the Worrier to report any facts accurately. That
    one is sorely lacking in reading comprehension... par for the course
    in Australia.... :-(

    The article continues:

    President Jacques Chirac described himself as "absolutely horrified
    that France's roads are the most dangerous in Europe"

    Maybe he should de-restrict their motorways and reduce fatalities by

    And, according to IRTAD, Greece has *far* worse crash _rates_ than
    France. Even Belgium came up slightly worse than France in 2001.
    Portugal is in the same league as Greece. And I'm not even
    considering the Eastern European countries like the Czech Republic,
    Slovak Republic, Slovenia; let alone Turkey.

    So there's no reason to be _absolutely_horrified_.

    The French will be French. Rationalism and conformity aren't usually
    associated with France.

    Regional and local roads in France can be "interesting".
    Bernd Felsche, Jul 24, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.