ABC news: 'Creeping' motorists targeted

[balthazarr]

FYI, this article refers to the SA Government.

'Motorists who drive several kilometres an hour over the speed limit are being targeted in a State Government road safety campaign.

The campaign has been produced to counter a public perception that low level speeding, or creeping, is not dangerous.

The Motor Accident Commission says drivers double the risk of a fatal crash when they drive five kilometres faster in a 60 zone, and quadruple the risk when travelling 75 kilometres in a 70 zone.

The Commission's Andrew Daniels says the campaign is confronting.

"The Motor Accident Commission makes no apology for the confronting nature of this new campaign, it is designed the show the real impact that creeping can have," he said.

The Commission says not one pedestrian has been killed in the Adelaide city centre since a 50 kilometre per hour speed limit was introduced five years ago.

Road Safety Minister Carmel Zollo says the greatest potential to reduce road trauma lies with each driver easing their foot off the pedal.

"This campaign is about saving lives, it's about sending a message to people that creeping over the speed limit has enormous human and social costs," she said.

The campaign features road signs, bus shelter posters and radio, internet and television advertisements.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...13/2388894.htm

This is my favourite part:
'Road Safety Minister Carmel Zollo says the greatest potential to reduce road trauma lies with each driver easing their foot off the pedal.'

How about actually teaching people to drive, rather than just how to move the vehicle from A-B?

Or more enforcement of dangerous road behaviour like tail gating, changing lanes without looking, etc.?

I guess it's easier to drum it into people's heads that it is "speed" that kills... and therefore we need to lower speed limits even more, install more cameras, lower tolerances, higher fines, etc.

[XR06T]

hahahaha.. so you are supposed to drive with your eyes fixated on the speedo not the road? nice work sa govt.

[Dezza]

Sounds like SA is catching up to Victoria with the "No tolerance" speeding. It seems to have turned many Victorian drivers into mindless drones who continuously drive 10-20kph below the speed limit to ensure they don't get fined for doing 103 in a 100kph zone. This increases frustration, which causes impatience which subsequently causes crashes.

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by Dezza!

Sounds like SA is catching up to Victoria with the "No tolerance" speeding. It seems to have turned many Victorian drivers into mindless drones who continuously drive 10-20kph below the speed limit to ensure they don't get fined for doing 103 in a 100kph zone. This increases frustration, which causes impatience which subsequently causes crashes.

All too true. The state logo for our plates should now read "Victoria, State of Paranoia".

[Spanrz]

Originally Posted by Dezza!

It seems to have turned many Victorian drivers into mindless drones who continuously drive 10-20kph below the speed limit to ensure they don't get fined for doing 103 in a 100kph zone. This increases frustration, which causes impatience which subsequently causes crashes.

Hit the nail on the head here.
You and I see the same level, but the Gov doesn't.

You see, this mentality works perfectly, when in a certain scenario.

Car "A" is on the freeway doing 100kph in the left lane.
And an entry/on ramp lane is coming into a merge point to the left lane.
Car "B" is on the onramp slightly in front of Car "A" doing 80kph, but is now running out of lane to merge.
Car "B" is too scared to go over 80kph, so to make a compromise, Car "A" has to slow down, to allow Car "B" to merge.

In all this to and fro, Car "B" has now got scared that Car "A" has slowed down, panicked and now Car "B" slows down even further.
Car "A" has now slowed from 100kph down to 60kph (on a FWY).

Car "A" has now decided to "boot it" as he thinks that this is a very dangerous situation to be in as a fully loaded semi truck is behind him.

All because of Car "B" being to scared to go over 80kph.

This so far means, Car "B" has now put 3 vehicles in a very dangerous situation, all because of "less speed is good and I won't get caught" mentality.

The reason why I wrote this, is because it happened to me 1 week ago.

A lot of people might think the USA is stupid in a lot of ways, but if any of you have driven over there, you would understand what I am going to say.

In the USA, they book you for going too slow. Meaning, that you are as bad as a speeding motorist (that has a greater potential to kill), but due to the lack of speed, you "create" a traffic hazard to other motorists and that creates accidents.

[flappist]

This is just a feeble attemp at validating an increase in revinue from speed cameras etc.

I will believe that they THEY actually believe this crap when there are no fines, just points.

[sgt_doofey]

Time to turn the speed limiter down a km/h or two when driving the Peugeot then. A wonderful feature that. It allows you to concentrate on the road without having to worry about your speed. Comes in real handy in the 50km/h zones, especially considering how easy it is to gather speed in the Turbo Diesel.
As for the Falcon, I've been driving it for near on 10 years so I can pretty much pick the speed from sound alone.
It will be a bugger if they bring in lower tolerances of speed cameras/radars.

I like the saying that speed kills. It doesn't. The sudden stop at the end does, so educating people on how to avoid that sudden stop would be more beneficial.

[Tuddy200]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Time to turn the speed limiter down a km/h when driving the Peugeot then. A wonderful feature that. It allows you to concentrate on the road without having to worry about your speed. Comes in real handy in the 50km/h zones, especially considering how easy it is to gather speed in the Turbo Diesel.
As for the Falcon, I've been driving it for near on 10 years so I can pretty much pick the speed from sound alone.
It will be a bugger if they bring in lower tolerances of speed cameras/radars.

Speed 'Alert or Limiter' is hardly going to work. You have to keep changing it when your speed zone changes then you just get tired of doing it, and forgot about it. Good for highway, but in town, could be wrose, people looking around to change the settings on thier speed alerts.

[sgt_doofey]

Originally Posted by Tuddy200

Speed 'Alert or Limiter' is hardly going to work. You have to keep changing it when your speed zone changes then you just get tired of doing it, and forgot about it. Good for highway, but in town, could be wrose, people looking around to change the settings on thier speed alerts.

The Pug's is shown in the speedo, so it is nothing more than a glance at the speedo anyway. The controls are on a stalk behind the steering wheel so they are within reach without having to change your grip on the wheel. Override button is under the accelerator so if you mash the pedal to get out of trouble, it will override the limiter.

[balthazarr]

For those of you wanting to read more... there's an interesting report here: http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/publicat...ts/CASR039.pdf

It's quite a lengthy report... but if you check some of the trend graphs, almost all of them show a general downward trend for pedestrian casualties from 1981 onwards.

The trend couldn't be that car designs have become safer, could it?

Also, check some of the crashes by speed limit maps pp 27-29... plenty of purple dots (50km/h limits) there.

[want-a-XY]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

I like the saying that speed kills. It doesn't. The sudden stop at the end does, so educating people on how to avoid that sudden stop would be more beneficial.

AMEN. educate people on how to avoid a crash seems to be the most logical method to me. "watch the road, take notice of things, and learn how to avoid having a crash"

[Scott]

Originally Posted by flappist

This is just a feeble attemp at validating an increase in revinue from speed cameras etc.

Yep.

So, what is the chance of having a crash at 50/60km/h anyway? My guess is something like 0.001% chance and therefore the "quadrup...quadrup... 4timesing" effect would get you to a 0.004% chance of having a prang.

Seriously, this is a load of poop.

Think about haw many times you have travelled in a 50 or 60 zone... in my last 10 minute drive alone I went through about 15 different ones (or ones that went 50-70-50... how many times have I crashed?

If you did the maths it would be something like 2 crashes divided by 10,000,000 speed zones and you would get an answer of: 0.00002% of the time I crash for every speed zone I travel. Truth is that you'd need to halve that % because only one of the crashes happened in a 50/60 zone.

Take a more sensible approach and do these maths:

I guess I have made around 25,000 unique driving trips, as the driver, in my life so far. Of those 25,000 trips, I have crashed twice. 2/25000 = 0.008% chance of me having a crash anytime I get behind the wheel based on my track record.

If I "creep" and quadruple my chances of having a prang, then I HUGELY increase the chance of dying a horrible, bloody burning death to 0.032%.

FFS, I'm gonna make a land claim in Antarctica and set up my own country with no speed limits at all. If only I could get some tax payers to come with me to build some roads and pay my wage as a public servant in that fine Utopia.

edit - oops, I forgot to factor in how many times I died in those two accidents... oh well, I'm not aware of dying in either of those accidents so the maths gets a bit trickier.... lets say I died in the first one and go from there......

[Keepleft]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...04-421,00.html

Updated Ads location, previous link deceased....

[Tuddy200]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

The Motor Accident Commission says drivers double the risk of a fatal crash when they drive five kilometres faster in a 60 zone, and quadruple the risk when travelling 75 kilometres in a 70 zone.

I doubt highly, we'd be allowed to travel @ 70km/h on any road, if it is 4 times as dangerous to be travelled on @ 75km/h.

SA is taking after Victoria, trying to brainwash the public that just a little bit over, could see you somehow msytically disappear from the road. All, so they can justify giving out fines of large amounts to get more dollars in to their bank accounts.

[tex]

Where's 4V and FMC, we need to have a(nother) debate on the folly of motorists exceeding a prescribed limit....... revinue, never, it's a voluntary tax!

How hard is it, anyone with half a brain can keep their vehicle from increasing it's velocity beyond a signage imposed limit - can't they?????

* sits back listening for the discontent - to errupt into a flurry of kestrokes*

[Wally]

You can't blame the governments for enforcing the rules. Policing is right up there at every election, even if it is for crime. The casualty rates have been dropping consistently since 1983, to less than half today. The rate is around the 8s currently while in the 60's and 70's it was mid 20s.

The nominal makeup of fatalities in Qld is:

48% drivers
18% passengers
20% motorcyclists
11% pedestrians
3% bicyclists

which makes me wonder why motorcycles are allowed.

73% are males
27% female

45% occur in 100 -110kph zones
60% occur on state roads
40% occur on local roads
33% are impact object related
18% are head on
77% wear seatbelts, 23% don't
26% involve speeding
18% get too tired
8% are children
27% are 17-24
49% are 25 -59
16% are 60-

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Wally

The nominal makeup of fatalities in Qld is:

20% motorcyclists

which makes me wonder why motorcycles are allowed.

73% are males

49% are 25 -59

You also wonder why they let males or in fact anyone between the age of 25- 59 drive either!

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

You also wonder why they let males or in fact anyone between the age of 25- 59 drive either!

LOL

yeah but when you adjust for participation rate (4%) the motor bikes are a death waiting to happen. That's a 5 to one ratio (20/4), while cars are 0.69 to one ratio (66/96). You have a 700% more likelyhood of death on a bike than in a car.

Age wise the 17-24 yearold is 270% more likely to die than the 35-59 individual.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by tex

Where's 4V and FMC, we need to have a(nother) debate on the folly of motorists exceeding a prescribed limit....... revinue, never, it's a voluntary tax!

How hard is it, anyone with half a brain can keep their vehicle from increasing it's velocity beyond a signage imposed limit - can't they?????

* sits back listening for the discontent - to errupt into a flurry of kestrokes*

Im right here. What you keep saying is you cant control a motor vehicle and should be using a bus. "wah wah wah, I cant keep to a speed limit, my foot is sporadic and uncontrolled, the speedo is too hard to read at a glance, its not my fault I creep over".

Think about it, youre claiming to be the victim of something in your control to avoid, yet fail to. Youre a victim of yourself, thats voluntary.

Originally Posted by RSgerry

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements. 65 in a 60 zone is within the tolerance level of what is permitted. You also have the issue with older cars probably being even less accurate, or more likely to be inaccurate.

No they dont, its -10%, not +10% at all.

Speedos can not read under the actual speed.

[tex]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im right here. What you keep saying is you cant control a motor vehicle and should be using a bus. "wah wah wah, I cant keep to a speed limit, my foot is sporadic and uncontrolled, the speedo is too hard to read at a glance, its not my fault I creep over".

Think about it, youre claiming to be the victim of something in your control to avoid, yet fail to. Youre a victim of yourself, thats voluntary.

.

I make a light hearted post, an attempt at some humour, and you come back with your typical arrogant - self righteous and condiscending scribe, that sadly comes as no surprise to me, but it is disappointing non the less. The more I read from you, the more I wonder about your self fulfilling assaults - on anyone with a view that fining people for any speed over a prescribed limit, is a blatant, legally endorsed grab for cash.

I have NEVER condoned EXCESSIVE, INAPPROPRIATE vehicular velocity, rather I have actually written to the contrary, and I will continue to do so. However, I won't change my view about the audacity of fining motorists for a couple of percent in excess of signposted limit. It is not reasonable. Nor is it a pathway to safer roads. And zip you've typed has made me think otherwise.

Regardless, you are not mistaken about my vehicular inadequacy - I do sometimes find it most difficult, and certainly tiresome to maintain my long legged, near 300rwkw car exactly at, or preferrably (according to you), below the signage directed 'limits'. Trouble is I tend to look outside of the motorvehicle while driving it down some street / road / highway. Ive yet to run over someone inside of the car you see. Hence my attention is predominantly directed through the windscreen. Heads up display - maybe that's what I need. Or an in built GPS. Or a speed cam up my clacker.

And cruise control on a typical hwy? Not worth jack in my car - allows the car to reach about 15 kms over the set point before simply giving up and switching off.....

Your retort no doubt will be much of the same you've soap boxed about previously, so lets have it.

[fmc351]

Swordsman, now theres an argument. I dont know if its right or not as I havent read it, but it focuses on facts and figures at least.

You people should learn from this. If you dont like the limit, look at real reasons for its change. Make logical arguments that are supported by data. None of this "Im inept and therefore need special treatment, goobermint revenue blah blah wah wah". But you will never successfully defend the claim that creeping over the limit should be acceptable.

Do you want change to get reasonable limits, or do you just want to whinge?

Originally Posted by tex

I make a light hearted post, an attempt at some humour, and you come back with your typical arrogant - self righteous and condiscending scribe, that sadly comes as no surprise to me, but it is disappointing non the less. The more I read from you, the more I wonder about your self fulfilling assaults - on anyone with a view that fining people for any speed over a prescribed limit, is a blatant, legally endorsed grab for cash.

I have NEVER condoned EXCESSIVE, INAPPROPRIATE vehicular velocity, rather I have actually written to the contrary, and I will continue to do so. However, I won't change my view about the audacity of fining motorists for a couple of percent in excess of signposted limit. It is not reasonable. Nor is it a pathway to safer roads. And zip you've typed has made me think otherwise.

Regardless, you are not mistaken about my vehicular inadequacy - I do sometimes find it most difficult, and certainly tiresome to maintain my long legged, near 300rwkw car exactly at, or preferrably (according to you), below the signage directed 'limits'. Trouble is I tend to look outside of the motorvehicle while driving it down some street / road / highway. Ive yet to run over someone inside of the car you see. Hence my attention is predominantly directed through the windscreen. Heads up display - maybe that's what I need. Or an in built GPS. Or a speed cam up my clacker.

And cruise control on a typical hwy? Not worth jack in my car - allows the car to reach about 15 kms over the set point before simply giving up and switching off.....

Your retort no doubt will be much of the same you've soap boxed about previously, so lets have it.

All youve provided an argument for if the driver is not at fault, is your car should not be on the road, and of course the driver is not at fault. Good on ya. Thats one way to make Harold Scrubby and co happy, provide an argument that even the enthusiasts know that HiPo or large capacity engines cant maintain a desired speed. Oh yeah, thats clever. Ive riden bikes that would straight line wipe whatever you drive off the map, I can keep to 100 no problem, not 95, 100 according to its speedo. If it creeps, and it does, its still my fault, not the bikes or cars. Thing is, I notice it and correct it and it doesnt happen up and down endlessly for every k I ride/drive, if it did, Id get it fixed, or realise I have an issue with my hand/foot if the machine is not at fault.

Do you ever take responsibility for yourself? Given the account for your original post, the "it was light hearted" while specifically mentioning me, and then to blame the car yet expect to be able to drive it, tells me probably not.

Where in my post to you, did I mention excessive speed? Where did I defend the level at which a limit is set, or even the necessity for a 100km/h limit on freeways for example? Where did I say goobermints dont grab for cash? I didnt, I know goobermints grab for cash. Doesnt change it, you dont have to pay it.

I defended the notion that the fine is a voluntary tax which was what you raised, and now acknowledge you cant avoid. Again it doesnt change it, its an idiot tax, and purely voluntary for anyone who is not an idiot.

Originally Posted by balthazarr

I assure you that they can, and do. What you are referring to is the fact that, under the law, speedos cannot read low.

Well, under the law, I can't do 61 in a 60 zone, and here in Victoria, I get the oh-so-generous "tolerance" of 3 km/h before I'm considered spawn of satan, and stung with a fine and/or points loss.

I know, its so hard to know where those indicators on the speedo are, ensuring Im on or below the major marker on the dial, the 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 and 140 if in NT, theres just so much. And then to do so regularly enough that I wont cover kilometres before I notice while maintaining my concentration on the road, god, I dont even have time to check my mirrors, especially when Im bumper to bumper with the car in front looking for the next lane to jump into. I never get to check the important stuff like temp or swap CD's.

Dont know about you, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Im not special, my wife does it too.

[Wally]

Interesting tool. I haven't checked if the braking distance varies by the square of the velocity.

http://www.stoppingdistances.org.uk/...Distances.html

[tex]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Swordsman, now theres an argument. I dont know if its right or not as I havent read it, but it focuses on facts and figures at least.

You people should learn from this. If you dont like the limit, look at real reasons for its change. Make logical arguments that are supported by data. None of this "Im inept and therefore need special treatment, goobermint revenue blah blah wah wah". But you will never successfully defend the claim that creeping over the limit should be acceptable.

Do you want change to get reasonable limits, or do you just want to whinge?


All youve provided an argument for if the driver is not at fault, is your car should not be on the road, and of course the driver is not at fault. Good on ya. Thats one way to make Harold Scrubby and co happy, provide an argument that even the enthusiasts know that HiPo or large capacity engines cant maintain a desired speed. Oh yeah, thats clever. Ive riden bikes that would straight line wipe whatever you drive off the map, I can keep to 100 no problem, not 95, 100 according to its speedo. If it creeps, and it does, its still my fault, not the bikes or cars. Thing is, I notice it and correct it and it doesnt happen up and down endlessly for every k I ride/drive, if it did, Id get it fixed, or realise I have an issue with my hand/foot if the machine is not at fault.

Do you ever take responsibility for yourself? Given the account for your original post, the "it was light hearted" while specifically mentioning me, and then to blame the car yet expect to be able to drive it, tells me probably not.

Where in my post to you, did I mention excessive speed? Where did I defend the level at which a limit is set, or even the necessity for a 100km/h limit on freeways for example? Where did I say goobermints dont grab for cash? I didnt, I know goobermints grab for cash. Doesnt change it, you dont have to pay it.

I defended the notion that the fine is a voluntary tax which was what you raised, and now acknowledge you cant avoid. Again it doesnt change it, its an idiot tax, and purely voluntary for anyone who is not an idiot.


I know, its so hard to know where those indicators on the speedo are, ensuring Im on or below the major marker on the dial, the 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110 and 140 if in NT, theres just so much. And then to do so regularly enough that I wont cover kilometres before I notice while maintaining my concentration on the road, god, I dont even have time to check my mirrors, especially when Im bumper to bumper with the car in front looking for the next lane to jump into. I never get to check the important stuff like temp or swap CD's.

Dont know about you, but I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Im not special, my wife does it too.

Yep, as anticipated, and confirms my opinion of you.



Back to topic, fines / sanctions for IDIOTS for any velocity exceeding that signed.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Swordsman, now theres an argument. I dont know if its right or not as I havent read it, but it focuses on facts and figures at least.

You people should learn from this. If you dont like the limit, look at real reasons for its change. Make logical arguments that are supported by data. None of this "Im inept and therefore need special treatment, goobermint revenue blah blah wah wah". But you will never successfully defend the claim that creeping over the limit should be acceptable.

Do you want change to get reasonable limits, or do you just want to whinge?

The original post was about 'creeping', as in deliberately driving above the limit by a bit. The government said 'The campaign has been produced to counter a public perception that low level speeding, or creeping, is not dangerous.'

This is my point...it isn't. That is to say, if only 10% of accidents involved driving over the speed limit (and some of these must have been by a hell of a lot above the limit) then creeping or driving above the limit (if safe for the conditions) is most likley pefectly fine. In some cases (highway driving etc.) German reports have found it is safer because it reduces fatigue (a major source of crashes on motorways etc.) The argument that we shoud all 'slow down' so if an accident happens you won't hit something at a higher speed, or be able to stop etc. is just silly because if you use that we would all walk everywhere. Since the NT government introduced speed limits on the open highways deaths on the road have gone from 44 in 2006 (pre limits) to 57 in 2007 and on current numbers will be 65 at least this year. Either it made the open roads more dangerous or a lack of focus on the real causes (drink driving, no seatbelts, urban accidents in Darwin) has led to more deaths (or both). It is my belief that people should be informed on this issue rather than just have a rant.....

I would admit to regularly 'speeding' (that is exceeding the speed limit) but never speed (that is going faster than conditions). However, unless i believe the police have broken the law in booking me (as in using a measuring device against their own guidelines) i won't complain. Just pay the fee.....it was my fault i got busted.

However, i exceed the limits because they are rubbish, they are never consistent and are a 'one size fits all' solution (which is silly). I have driven on roads in north queensland with limts of 80 or 100 (yes even the highways) that i would struggle to do the limit on in the dry.....what does that say about people who do this everyday in the wet??? In brisbane i must do 110 max on the M1 otherwise i'm the devil....that road in the dry should be 130km/h, which coincidentally was the number it was engineered to do (like most motorways in australia). I'd happily do 40km/h in surburban streets in return for raised limits on motorways, but apparently this won't happen anytime soon.

As you say, keeping to a speed limit and the limit set are two different arguments. In saying that, more representative limits might reduce the chances of people exceeding the limit and a greater focus on policing/training drivers might have more effect on reducing the road toll than installing tonnes of speed cameras which apart from taxing road users and encouraging a misguided focus on speed (rather than looking where you are going) are also shifting our attention away from the real problems.
-lack of training/skills
- lack of attention on our roads
- lack of policing or road rules/behaviour
- poor infrastructure

[RSgerry]

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements. 65 in a 60 zone is within the tolerance level of what is permitted. You also have the issue with older cars probably being even less accurate, or more likely to be inaccurate. Most people will drive at the same speed as the rest of the traffic which is usually around the limit. As Flappist said, take the monetary punishment out of it if they are really serious about it. What do you think the chances of that are? Make no mistake, this is a stealth tax grab and only the thin edge of the wedge. Next they will be fining people who were driven to school as children as their education was gained at the expense of today's environment...

[tex]

Originally Posted by RSgerry

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements. 65 in a 60 zone is within the tolerance level of what is permitted. You also have the issue with older cars probably being even less accurate, or more likely to be inaccurate. Most people will drive at the same speed as the rest of the traffic which is usually around the limit. As Flappist said, take the monetary punishment out of it if they are really serious about it. What do you think the chances of that are? Make no mistake, this is a stealth tax grab and only the thin edge of the wedge. Next they will be fining people who were driven to school as children as their education was gained at the expense of today's environment...

Hey mate, you're preaching to the converted.....

I was taking the puss, I believe it is revinue fuelled greed, thinly disguised by the cloak of road safety. (As I've posted many, many times previously in other contentious threads)

I'm sure others will enter the discussion soon enough, and no doubt I will have cause to reiterate my previous musings on this topic.....

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by RSgerry

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements.

ADR18 was updated a year or so ago, the effect is for 100% accuracy at 100km/h etc.

takes time to trickle down (years) and have effect.

This story is more of the same 'speed-limit' conditioning rubbish.

[Dezza]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

ADR18 was updated a year or so ago, the effect is for 100% accuracy at 100km/h etc.

takes time to trickle down (years) and have effect.

This story is more of the same 'speed-limit' conditioning rubbish.

Might be okay for a new car to have 100% speedo accuracy but wear and tear on the tyres and subsequent replacements, fitting aftermarket wheels etc. ensures that it doesn't stay that accurate.

Originally Posted by fmc351

People have done well over 100 in 60 zones, and in most instances no-one was killed. That doesnt make it safe.

Anyone who does kill someone as a result of speed, it is unlikely that instance was the first time they sped.

What is true, if youre not speeding, youll stop quicker than if you were, and that 1 meter or whatever of distance traveled will help reduce severity of injury.

Too complicated?

It's a case of driving to the conditions. Sure if you drive 100 in a 60 zone, yes, that is stupid. But doing 110 on a 100kph stretch of dead straight freeway is not harming anyone. In fact a lot of freeways should have far higher speed limits than what they have as people fall asleep behind the wheel, it is that boring. I still don't know why all the recent freeways built in Victoria seem to be maximum of 100. What happened to 110 for freeways? The fact is speed is an easy excuse for the government to make money, money that should be getting spent on making roads safer. Instead it gets spent on stupid artwork like the fake hotel on the side of Eastlink, the massive Cheese stick on the Western loop, and what appears to be a massive sliced up coil spring on the side of the Pakenham bypass.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Dezza!

Might be okay for a new car to have 100% speedo accuracy but wear and tear on the tyres and subsequent replacements, fitting aftermarket wheels etc. ensures that it doesn't stay that accurate.

Do you understand ratios?

Tyre wear makes the speedo read higher, that is speedo says 100, radar reads 97 for example. It wont make the speedo read under what youre actually doing. The tyre would need to get bigger to go the other way.

Originally Posted by Dezza!

It's a case of driving to the conditions. Sure if you drive 100 in a 60 zone, yes, that is stupid. But doing 110 on a 100kph stretch of dead straight freeway is not harming anyone. In fact a lot of freeways should have far higher speed limits than what they have as people fall asleep behind the wheel, it is that boring. I still don't know why all the recent freeways built in Victoria seem to be maximum of 100. What happened to 110 for freeways? The fact is speed is an easy excuse for the government to make money, money that should be getting spent on making roads safer. Instead it gets spent on stupid artwork like the fake hotel on the side of Eastlink, the massive Cheese stick on the Western loop, and what appears to be a massive sliced up coil spring on the side of the Pakenham bypass.

Read my last post for a response.

Im only responding to the argument that a fine is unfair, that drivers cant avoid it, and the government are thieves. You dont need to steal from clowns trying to hand you money.

[Dezza]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Do you understand ratios?

Tyre wear makes the speedo read higher, that is speedo says 100, radar reads 97 for example. It wont make the speedo read under what youre actually doing. The tyre would need to get bigger to go the other way.


Read my last post for a response.

Im only responding to the argument that a fine is unfair, that drivers cant avoid it, and the government are thieves. You dont need to steal from clowns trying to hand you money.

That's why I mentioned aftermarket wheels. I should have mentioned tyre pressure. A higher tyre pressure can cause an increase in rolling diameter. It doesn't take much. btw I have plenty of knowledge of ratios. I've learnt all about them in first year of my uni engineering degree ;)