Hoon drivers to be used in test of government's new GPS speed device

[b0son]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I think what gets confused here is the statistics that are given. ie the claim in QLD that only 3% ? of fatals were due to speed and the message of the TAC that exceeding the limit by 10km/h(not sure if they are talking 60km/h or 100km/h) doubles your risk of an accident.

the QLD stat probably says deaths due to exceeding the posted limit. the other stats say its 20-40%, but thats because they are saying deaths with speed as a factor, not necessarily the cause, and not necessarily over the speed limit. actually, those 20-40% of speed-related crashes, 80% of those are BELOW the limit. but that doesnt sell the lie, so the obfuscation continues...

Most of us have a very low probability of being involved in an accident, perhaps say 1/30 for any year, or one accident per 30 years. According to the TAC if you regularly exceed the speed limit by 10km/h you double your chances to one accident every 15 years.

Its far lower than that. The crash rate is around 0.75 deaths per 100 million kms. If you do 25000km/year, that's 1 death every 4000 years. Or, if you drive for around 60 years, a 1.5% chance of a fatal crash in your lifetime.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

As you can see once it all goes in it makes a bit more sense and doesn't come across as though I'm attacking you, but rather defending my own stand on the issue.

telling someone they're extreme, pursuing an agenda, and in need of developing common sense is an attack.

Now here is your version of events, and this time I will say you are pursuing an agenda as can be clearly now seen.

Clearing up misleading information is an agenda? Ok, I suppose it could be seen that way...

it is written that you shall overtake as quickly and safely as possible for the condition.

How can it be written that you can exceed the limit, yet also be written elsewhere that you cant? I simply asked, which one is to be believed.

that's why judges are given a further discretionary power

I'm not one for taking my chances on the whim of another. He may be a judge, but with the quality of judgements one sees, many dont appear to qualify for any sort of esteem.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

You truly are a piece of work, taking comments out of context is the favorite tool of any person looking for some fishing action, if I was to guess I'd say you even remind me of other "crusaders" on here, they know who they are/is.


Auslandau, before you look at me on this as was suggested by stormin Norman in another thread, check back to my first post in the thread and it's relevance to the OP, now if others have chosen to take it off on a tangent, well maybe they need to be looked at. It's the same people time and time again that take many of these threads off topic, time they were looked at more than the poeple that choose to hold their ground.

You on the other hand have banged on about vicpol and parliamentry libraries or other such eminent sources, yet are still waiting to find some hard and fasts to back up your outlandish statements.
As for your last post about being some sort of work,I dont believe I have taken anybodies opinions or statements out of context.Again, happy to be shown otherwise

[RedHotGT]

children....
please...

OP???
anyone actually read it lately??

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

You love throwing all these stats, how about you shut up and put up, some of these stats you rely on for many of your comments.

(Hopefully) my final post in this thread.

I'm pretty sure I only "threw" one stat around, and I'm also pretty sure I posted the link from where it came,...hang on ..I'm not pretty sure, I'm dead certain, so I guess now I'LL SHUT UP

[just_pazz]

This is happening in Vic yeah?

So who thinks they might be receiving an invitation to join the trial?

I'm in the "target" demographic, and if I receive an invitation I'll be promptly sending a thank you but get f!@#$% reply. Would anyone actually accept this device in their vehicle or what?

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by b0son

it is written that you shall overtake as quickly and safely as possible for the condition.

How can it be written that you can exceed the limit, yet also be written elsewhere that you cant? I simply asked, which one is to be believed.



.

There must be an "auto highlight" function that goes off in your head when certain words ro terms are used and they stick in there and are interpreted as a personal attack, get over yourself.

Now show me where I said in that statement that it was legal to speed/exceed the limit??

[Auslandau]

If anyone wants to continue, they can now do so behind closed doors through PM. Thread has run its course and now only threatens some peoples blood pressure and health ........... and smiley faces!



| [/url] |