Sick of hearing about it!!!

[XAGSV8]

Originally Posted by AUIII XR8 MAN

Back in the 70's people didn't have all these "safe cars" so they drove a little more carefully. Now days people have all these "safe car" & think "i be right this car can protect me from anything i hit" attitude.

But back then the cars would have been safe for their times. If you have heard some stories I have about the driving back then I think you would disagree about people driving safer. Remember back then you could get away with things more so people "played up " a little more.

Originally Posted by naughtyfalcon

the only real way to lower the death tole on the roads is to stop makeing cars faster and limit them to a maximum 110 kph and if the driver tries to over speed then the engine is knocked down to idle speed till the speed of the vehicle is lowered.

i am in the emergancy services and have seen devistating accidents on perfectly good roads and on sunny clear days,why?,because one or both drivers were exceeding the posted speed limit.

just on news years eve up here we responded to an mva and the driver of one of the vehicles was still trapped in his ute.it was all related to speed.

i laugh at some people around these forums and some times wonder why they are looking for more and more power and speed from these vehicles which were not designed for drag racing and what ever else they do.

if you ignore the speed limit or alter a car in a way it was not intended for then you get what you deserve.i just hope that no one here ever kills another person because of alterations they have made to a car that weren't needed.

naughty

Absolute rubbish! out:

I have seen accidents occur in front of me where lack of driver attention was at fault not speed. The worst was when I was one of the first at the scene of a fatal accident, a head on between a van and 4wd. Fatigue was the issue there as the van driver went on the wrong side of the road on a perfectly straight section of the Princess Hwy.

Speed is also an issue for some as stupidity is a common feature there, but it is only a small part of a big problem.

[Steve D]

I think perhaps my biggest worry at the moment is that the strong emphasis on speed just makes people think that nothing else matters - so they continue to sit under the speed limit in the overtaking lane, send SMSs, sneak into the path of braking trucks and pull out without looking. But it's okay, they're not speeding!

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Steve D

I think perhaps my biggest worry at the moment is that the strong emphasis on speed just makes people think that nothing else matters - so they continue to sit under the speed limit in the overtaking lane, send SMSs, sneak into the path of braking trucks and pull out without looking. But it's okay, they're not speeding!

Yep, agree 100% - I do a lot of driving/riding in Sydney and this seems to be the probelm - people are so indoctrinated with speeding kills that the Camry driver can cross double white lines, not indicate, chat on their mobile and fail to give way, but hey "im doing 10 kays under the speed limit so im a safe driver"

[EgoFG]

Hmmm ...

I drive by the following rules is order.
1) Safety for those not in cars/trucks (Bike Motorbikes, pedest, prams etc)
2) Safety for those in cars/trucks
3) The law

My flaw is that sometimes "My convenience" slots in between 2 and 3.


The trouble with driver training is that it will not force drivers to follow rules akin to mine.

I believe that the solution is in traffic fines.
Speeding is only the CAUSE of an accident where one driver makes assumptions about the speed of the other based on speed limits.
Speeding makes accidents worse, and therefore could be said to cause road deaths.
But there must always have been something else wrong for the accident to happen.

So the traffic fines should address this.

The worst accidents are often the ones involving more than one car.

So I suggest that offences that relate to awareness of, and courtesy for, other drivers are the ones that should have the biggest penalty.

eg
Existing Rules that should be enforced
Indicator use (lane change, intersection, EXIT OF ROUNDABOUT)
Merging in a zipper
Give Way at intersection
Keep Left unless overtaking (should be also extended to all roads with speed limits above 70)
Headlight offences


I personally find that many road rules encourage people not to think:
40K zones mean I do not have to watch out for kids, just drive at 40 !
70K zones along "bells line of road" means I dont have to watch out for cars entering, blind corners and fog
Not to mention the F3 at mt White.

ENFORCE THE RULES THAT MAKE PEOPLE THINK NOT THE ONES THAT MEAN THEY DO NOT HAVE TO.

[mickey t]

Speed perse does not cause crashes. Never has. If it did, there wouldn’t be a live race driver or fighter pilot on the planet.



If a car is doing 40, 60, 100 or 200km/h on a straight road with no camber, there is no physical or mechanical reason why that car will alter its course and run into something. Of course increased speed can increase the forces in any resultant impact, and cut down reaction times, but the mistake has to be made before any of this becomes pertinent.



You see, there is no such thing as an accident. If a car hits something, it’s because its operator has done something incorrectly or made a mistake (or, most frequently, a series of mistakes).



Cars are inanimate objects. A car does not: “leave a road and hit a tree”. It gets driven off the road by its operator.



The time has long since past when the trained mind accepts the simplistic government implication that you cannot possibly die or be injured in a car if you drive beneath all speed limits, stay sober and have a kip now and again. It is not only wrong, it is dangerously wrong and encourages people to ignore their own inadequacies.



I cannot tell you how many people on both the Pacific and New England highways over the Christmas period drove on two-lane roads at 70-80km/h in 100 zones. Tell me this isn’t a recipe for disaster? And these people are driving under the (government-advertised) assumption that if 100 is safe, then 70 must be 30 percent safer.



It is a nonsense to suggest that survival-oriented advanced driver training causes more problems than it cures. Were that true, the training of pilots would be over in minutes, rather than days.



And why are fatal crashes examined in such cursory fashion? So few people die in plane crashes here (sorry to harp on about planes, but they are the only comparable type of fatal incident, with potentially fast machinery often mismanaged by human intervention), yet each and every crash is investigated by a team of experts who claw over every scrap of evidence until they know exactly what happened and why. This does not occur in car crashes and you won’t ever get to the root causes until it is.



My suggestion to you is that the reason for all car crashes is very simple. People make mistakes. That’s why they crash.



And the mistakes they make more often relate to operators not actually knowing the skill sets that could save them in the first place, rather than mis-applying them.



It truly scares me that so few people know how best to stop a car in a straight line. Please tell me you concur that this would be a skill advantageous for all licenced drivers to acquire. Vital, even.



Even less know how to sit in one so that they can operate the controls in the most effective manner. Why don’t we talk about this?



Throttle and steering inputs are never, ever raised as causes of crashes. It’s just far easier to justify government inaction by blaming people – and how often do politicians come out and say irresponsible people have caused this or that crash before the investigation has even started?



Please can we put away the psychological assassination of motorists and focus on some realities. Can people be given a proper understanding of how to control the tools at their disposal? Can we teach them to look at where they want their cars to go instead of looking at the thing they’re trying to avoid? Can we get them to regularly check their tyre pressures – because they have no other contact with the road.



Can we give people a braking technique?



Can we move back to speed limits set to the 85th percentile, rather than seemingly nonsensical engineering requirements that so few Australians regard as credible. Can we stop dumbing down what is, after all, a difficult craft. It will never be less difficult, so tackle it properly, in schools, for starters. A pass mark should be far, far higher and if you can’t pass it, you don’t drive. Simple.



And if that’s too expensive to test for, make the licences more expensive. I cannot tell you how many taxi drivers in this country make me fear for my life, but I’d estimate it at four out of five. And none of them scare me because they drive above the speed limit. It’s because they’re simply appalling drivers with no skill or craft.



Not that I have an opinion…

[Keepleft]

Blue Opal - I'd suggest the contestants on that TV show behaved worse than they actually are, since 'driving bad' against each other was necessary to win the car! Even accepting that the ultimate 'loser' would have their car crushed.

Another TV 'driver' show of absolute ignorance, this time on the part of producers was "Test Australia".


Mightyfalcon: - You can forget ANY speed limiter idea, particularly the lunatic 110km/h suggestion you make. Australia *must* accept speed as a 'given' and work with it on that basis.

The cause of the pro-speed limiter argument was made in 2004 by Gibson, Chairman of NSW Parliamentary Staysafe Committee AND INCLUDED a 140km/h speedometer proposal. Both suggestions were knocked stone-dead on the head by then Deputy PM Anderson, Canberra December 15, with roads and transport industry backing his position. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries will continue, rightly, to resist any such move.

Remember that 80% of crashes occure below the speed limit, but most in some way are 'speed-related', that said, crashes are multi-factoral in nature, speed may or may not be the initiating factor of the crash. Yes, accepting that higher speed crashes mean a greater impact and are spectacular for TV.

Australia has since harmonised out speedometer design rule (18) fully - with latest UNECE regulation. Basically our speedometers are to be 100% compliant in reading at 100km/h, but above that measure - could read up to PLUS 10% and 4km/h. They will NOT under-read @ 100km/h.

The old had a 10% plus or minus allowance AND 4 km/h. All issues to do with National Metrology.

[Blue Oval Mopar Man]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Blue Opal - I'd suggest the contestants on that TV show behaved worse than they actually are, since 'driving bad' against each other was necessary to win the car! Even accepting that the ultimate 'loser' would have their car crushed.

Although that might be the case for some of them , it was blatently obvious that others were in no way "playing up" their inability to control the vehicle in the easiest situation !

[The Monty]

Like the asian lady who couldnt reverse or park.. Hehehe

[Psycho Chicken]

Originally Posted by GreenFutura

Keep Left unless overtaking (should be also extended to all roads with speed limits above 70)

GOD YES. Nothing ИИИИes me off more than a stupid old fart in a Camry doing 60 in an 80 zone, sitting in the right hand bloody lane.

I swear one of these days I'm going to make a "keep left dipИИИИ" sign and flash it whenever I pass these morons.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by Psycho Chicken

I swear one of these days I'm going to make a "keep left dipИИИИ" sign and flash it whenever I pass these morons.

I have seen a COP do this to a Camry! Mona Vale Rd on a Sunday, Camry was holding everyone (including one ИИИИed off highway patrol car).

The cop overtakes the Camry on the left, cuts in front of him, then the L.E.D message scrolls across the message board (between the sirens) KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING. The Camry, promptly pulled left and the cop took off along with everyone else.

Would have liked to have seen the Camry booked though... :

[ThoR_]

speed cameras punsih you for doing over the speed limit...they don`t save your life.......I figure if you crash it`s either bad luck or you cant drive.....usually caused by females that turn on a red arrow when it`s green to go straight and get cleaned up...sum lady did it to me the other day and sta in the middle of the road stunned in her little daewoo...i was like..GET THE FUK OUT THE WAY YOU DUMB ИИИИИ.....beepin n stuff...she didnt move untill i started to go and got about 2inches from her door...that made her move...dam females......

[phillyc]

Excellent thread peoples! Many valid points too. Some decidely less so...

The ratio often given for deaths to serious injurys (SI's) is 1:10
The dollar figure given is $1m per death, and therefore at 1600 deaths $1.6B
The dollar figure given is $200k per SI, and therefore at 16000 SI's $3.2B

A total cost of $4.8B per year, if the AAA figures are right and a reduction of 30% in deaths and injuries could occur with increased infrastructure this represents a saving of $1.4B annually.

The federal gov't has a surplus of $14B of our money, with $13B coming from petrol excise. In one year, they could complete the pacific highway (Newcastle to Tweed) and cut the death toll by 30+ per year (gov't estimates) at a cost of $8B now or $25B over the next 20years....

There are many other worthwhile projects too.

I'm sure that even if road testing and skills testing even at $500/driver every five years ($100pa) x 15 million licences, ie $1.5B pa would also be a great investment.

Driver education, better roads and safer cars are the 'magic bullets'

As the head of Toyota recently put it "The govt has forced us to build superior and safer cars on a continual basis for decades, they have not done the same with the roads..."

[The Monty]

Wonderful thread, everyone had an opinion, all were listened to although some were cut down (sorry). Now, how do we send this thread to the minister for whatever,so he can see the publics view on the topic, and can try to do something constructive? Is there an E-mail or anything? Just asking as it would be great for this to be seen by someone like that.

[Deadman]

Originally Posted by The Monty

Wonderful thread, everyone had an opinion, all were listened to although some were cut down (sorry). Now, how do we send this thread to the minister for whatever,so he can see the publics view on the topic, and can try to do something constructive? Is there an E-mail or anything? Just asking as it would be great for this to be seen by someone like that.

I send an email about every 12 months or so to the QLD premier on this topic- if enough people do it they might get the point :p

I guess hitting the Aus Government website would give contact details for the transport minister etc...

the more people that keep bugging politicians on this topic the better!

[oneredED]

I am 100% for driver training to be forced upon all drivers on the roads today.

Day in, day out, i see people who sit less than 5 metres behind other cars at 110km/h, in very congested traffic. It amazes me that people can drive like this, and assume "I'll be fine, as long as no-one in this massive line of bumper-to-bumper traffic hits the brakes..." I find this to be particularly exhibited by CITY drivers. I have yet to meet a driver from the what i consider to be the country ("out in the sticks" LOL) who drives this way, as the unexpected is far more "obvious" in the country, and frequent in the form of kangaroos, birds, farm machinery etc, that break up the monotony which can lead to complacency from drivers in the cities who see everyone else driving so close on a regular basis.

My point about tail-gating is shockingly contrasted by taking passengers for a ride in my car (most of which are guilty of this) and showing them the braking ability of my car, or theirs, in a safe and controlled environment. "Holy sxxx, that stopped so quick!" It annoys to me to no-end, and scares me immensely knowing that the majority of people don't know the capabilites of their own car, let alone the other cars around them with regards to avoiding, or leading to an accident.

The issue of speeding is another one I get frustrated by. It is touted as a "killer" by so many people it's getting rediculous. I have read somewhere, and I would really love to be corrected given the massive anti-speeding campaign, that speed is a SOLE contributor to an accident in VERY FEW accidents. It's usually combined with drink driving, drowsiness, or vast inexperience. I know for a fact, that I'd much rather be in a car driven by a driver who knows what their doing at 160km/h on a wide open public road with no traffic, than someone who tailgates, and has no idea how to control their vehicle at 103km/h because they drive at 40-60km/h 99% of the time, and use the same distances between cars at the higher speed as they do for around town driving...

I have written enough for now, but I'll resume possibly after i have a break and clear my thoughts.

Jared

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Deadman

I send an email about every 12 months or so to the QLD premier on this topic- if enough people do it they might get the point :p

I guess hitting the Aus Government website would give contact details for the transport minister etc...

the more people that keep bugging politicians on this topic the better!

YES, but more so in writing rather than email. Trust me.

oneredED - Good post!

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by naughtyfalcon

well look at the edited post matey,,the driver of the ute lost control exceeding the speed limit of 70 kph,,it was estimated he was doing 100kph at point of impact,,the pantec was still upright and was very badly damaged underneith,,but as you weren't there so you'll never know...

Of course it was speed... unless he was doing something he DID'NT want in the police report like.
Changing a CD or radio station.
Dropped a cigarette on the floor or his lap.
Reaching for another stubby
Sending a text message. Or a dozen other things
Saying that speed was to blame is just plain bloody stupid!

You may have been the SES or whatever for 17 years but I've been an Interstate driver for the last 32 -including 20yrs on the Hume before it was a freeway- and I bet i've seen more stupid reasons for a crash than you

[Keepleft]

mmm, Speed Cameras DO save lives, see:-)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFr...4085-2,00.html

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by oneredED

I am 100% for driver training to be forced upon all drivers on the roads today.

Day in, day out, i see people who sit less than 5 metres behind other cars at 110km/h, in very congested traffic. It amazes me that people can drive like this, and assume "I'll be fine, as long as no-one in this massive line of bumper-to-bumper traffic hits the brakes..." I find this to be particularly exhibited by CITY drivers. I have yet to meet a driver from the what i consider to be the country ("out in the sticks" LOL) who drives this way, as the unexpected is far more "obvious" in the country, and frequent in the form of kangaroos, birds, farm machinery etc, that break up the monotony which can lead to complacency from drivers in the cities who see everyone else driving so close on a regular basis.

My point about tail-gating is shockingly contrasted by taking passengers for a ride in my car (most of which are guilty of this) and showing them the braking ability of my car, or theirs, in a safe and controlled environment. "Holy sxxx, that stopped so quick!" It annoys to me to no-end, and scares me immensely knowing that the majority of people don't know the capabilites of their own car, let alone the other cars around them with regards to avoiding, or leading to an accident.

The issue of speeding is another one I get frustrated by. It is touted as a "killer" by so many people it's getting rediculous. I have read somewhere, and I would really love to be corrected given the massive anti-speeding campaign, that speed is a SOLE contributor to an accident in VERY FEW accidents. It's usually combined with drink driving, drowsiness, or vast inexperience. I know for a fact, that I'd much rather be in a car driven by a driver who knows what their doing at 160km/h on a wide open public road with no traffic, than someone who tailgates, and has no idea how to control their vehicle at 103km/h because they drive at 40-60km/h 99% of the time, and use the same distances between cars at the higher speed as they do for around town driving...

I have written enough for now, but I'll resume possibly after i have a break and clear my thoughts.

Jared

Absolutely. This is the post of the topic.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by naughtyfalcon

there will never be any justification for over powering a vehicle no matter what it is..

Lets see then. I have 3 cars.

1#1968 VW Beetle, 32hp, 0 to 100kmh in about, oh say 3 mins.

2#1978 V12 Jaguar with a 5 speed manual box. Dont know the HP but it used to costs me heaps in rear tyres.

3# The AUII Fairlane in the avatar.

From what I cam understand of your theory is that the only one that's safe on the road (ie:not overpowered) is the Beetle! Try driving it at 60kmh on a wet road with a gusty crosswind!!

---if speed kills, how come all motor racing drivers aren't dead?---

[troppo]

At the risk of rambling, I'm going to finally post here..

Originally Posted by oneredED

The issue of speeding is another one I get frustrated by. It is touted as a "killer" by so many people it's getting rediculous. I have read somewhere, and I would really love to be corrected given the massive anti-speeding campaign, that speed is a SOLE contributor to an accident in VERY FEW accidents. It's usually combined with drink driving, drowsiness, or vast inexperience.

Couldn't agree more. In fact I'd even go one further and say speed is NEVER the sole contributor to an accident. It clearly IS a factor in the severity of an accident, should somehow a loss of control and crash occur, but it is never the cause of loss of control. An error in driver judgement is almost always the cause, the exception being unforseen mechanical failure. Everything else, and I mean everything, comes down to a failure of the driver to weigh up 3 things at every given moment whilst behind the wheel. Safe driving is about your ability to drive within the limits of
1 Your driving skill
2 The condition, capability and handling characteristics of whatever vehicle you happen to be driving
3 The prevailing driving conditions

Poor ability to weigh up and judge the limits of these three factors is the cause of pretty much all accidents. Speed is simply a factor in the result.

I first read this thread on Sunday after watching speedweek. It occurred to me, that one of the professional race drivers crashed in a manner very similar to what nastyfalcon described earlier. Both drivers at high speed down a straight, braked too late, locked up and shot through the corner with a crash speed @ 100km/h. There were however, two very stark differences. Firstly, not once did anyone at the racetrack attempt to blame excessive speed as the cause of the crash. From the commentators to the crew to the driver himself, all agreed it was the drivers error, specifically he overshot his braking mark by a long way on a last lap charge. The driver blew it all by himself, no ifs, buts or maybes. He braked too late which caused him to "carry too much speed into the corner". That in turn caused him to react by braking harder, resulting in the lock -up blah blah.... The second difference was the race driver walked away. Simple common sense dictates that people who are actively pushing the limits of all 3 factors mentioned above are significantly more likely to crash, so racing officials adopted a "well lets make it safe to crash' policy. Hence, roll cages, harnesses and helmets, gravel traps, tyre walls and so on. Yet in the fatal crash naughtyfalcon mentioned (and others like it) people seem very eager to blame speed as the culprit rather than the cause of the speed. I'm guessing it's because emotion surrounding fatal crashes plays a significant part, no-one wants say, well it was his own fault that he crashed, especially friends and loved ones. Mostly, they really want someone or something else to blame, and speed doesn't defend itself. The complete lack of any emotion allowed the racecaller to make a more 'clinical' analysis of the cause of the crash rather than being clouded by emotion.
Which is why driver education and training is the answer, not ever decreasing speed limits, or speed governors or revenue cameras.

Got lots more to say on this subject but I'll leave it at that for now

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by Deadman

not to mention, there are many areas where the speed limits are to high (the bribie island turn off in QLD is 80 km/h when it's a 360 degree turn - and the freeway is 100km/h) - but if there was an accident on that segment of road when the driver was doing 75km/h - it wouldn't be attributed to speed would it? because he was under the 'speed limit'. the truth is - taking that corner any faster than 65km/h is dangerous.

Bollox!
If you can get a v8 XY falcon on 6cyl supension around there at 85km/h without the thing spearing off into the donga, then you should be able to drive a golf cart towing a caravan in a hailstorm at 75 round it... :P
Besides, the yellow signs aren't a speed limit, they're merely a suggested speed for that corner, taking into account bad weather and Sh!~boxes that won't go round corners...

Its not about speed limits, its about inadequate driver training and skills base....

[JC]

Originally Posted by naughtyfalcon

as i said before,,while ever there are more and more idiots driving over powered cars then the death toll will only go up not down.

OK, point 1. Are you calling anyone you pull out of a car wreck an idiot? Or only the ones you pull out of high powered cars? What about unmodified high powered cars? Are they all still idiots. If any of them are idiots, what the hell are you doing volunteering in the SES? It doesn't sound like you really care for people at all, so why try to save them? Do you have a morbid fascination with car accidents?

Point 2. How many of the 77 deaths on our roads over Christmas involved modified cars? Was the ute that went up the back of the truck modified? If so, did that modification prevent the driver from seeing, or did it prevent the driver from stopping? Not likely. Of the accidents I saw on the news, 1 car had aftermarket mags on it. That still leaves about 50 fatals that involved stock standard cars.

Point 3. I think you will find that those (especially most of the people on a forum such as this) that choose to modify their cars, also take maintenance, good tyres, working brakes etc more seriously than the average punter who drives a standard car. I'll bet a lot of people in Sydney and Melbourne who bus or train it to work still have the same tyres on their cars as the day they bought the car - and I'm also betting that some of these cars are 10+ years old. Don't you think they are an accident waiting to happen (tyre blowout due to rubber perishing).

Summary: I think your statements are way to general and are not supported by any facts at all.

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by AUIII XR8 MAN

Back in the 70's people didn't have all these "safe cars" so they drove a little more carefully. Now days people have all these "safe car" & think "i be right this car can protect me from anything i hit" attitude.

Bah, I sdhould read a whole thread before replying... :P

I have to say, sitting in a car with no seat belts and knowing there's a "Zulu spear" (non collapseable steering column) pointing straight at your heart is scary as hell, and makes you drive insanely carefully after years of driving "modern" (post 1970) cars....