Road Rule Theory

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Yes you have. You admitted it on this forum.
You stated that when you hear your speed alarm beep off you back off. The speed alarm only goes off once you exceed the limit it's set on

Good try Ben.

It is not by accident that sometimes I end up doing 61km/h, while it is not my aim to exceed 60km/h, it is an expected outcome of travelling as near to 60km/h as possible without checking the speedo.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by flappist

The real world is not like playstation......

It's not?

Well, that's just ruined life for a lot of people on here.

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Another strawman, but I can say one thing: Ive never had an accident, speeding fine, parking fine, library fine.....anyfine, nor have I accidently sped!

so what your saying is you have never accidently put mine and everyone else's life at risk, you did it deliberately. Hmmm kind of makes all of your holier then thou posts useless. You're a weird one that's for sure or just a troll.
Perhaps i am creating the magical strawman you always talk about?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ray38l

so what your saying is you have never accidently put mine and everyone else's life at risk, you did it deliberately. Hmmm kind of makes all of your holier then thou posts useless. You're a weird one that's for sure or just a troll.
Perhaps i am creating the magical strawman you always talk about?

Yep, Ive done stupid things like see how fast my car would go on a public road(135km/h was it), sped when Im in a hurry, no its not something Im proud of and dont do anymore.

You think you have a point to make if my vehicle occasionally goes 61km/h, absolutely pathetic
,and Im not even sure its even that, the speed alert may go off at 60.1km/h, 59.9km/h who knows, if the rest of the cretons out there could do the same the our roads would be a better place.

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yep, Ive done stupid things like see how fast my car would go on a public road(135km/h was it), sped when Im in a hurry, no its not something Im proud of and dont do anymore.

You think you have a point to make if my vehicle occasionally goes 61km/h, absolutely pathetic
,and Im not even sure its even that, the speed alert may go off at 60.1km/h, 59.9km/h who knows, if the rest of the cretons out there could do the same the our roads would be a better place.

hahaha coming from a hypocrite, doesn't that make you one of those cretons?, its about time you admitted it Sudzy, makes all your rants on speed limits null and void, who's going to listen to you now.

Time to hop back off your soapbox

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yep, Ive done stupid things like see how fast my car would go on a public road(135km/h was it), sped when Im in a hurry, no its not something Im proud of and dont do anymore.

You think you have a point to make if my vehicle occasionally goes 61km/h, absolutely pathetic
,and Im not even sure its even that, the speed alert may go off at 60.1km/h, 59.9km/h who knows, if the rest of the cretons out there could do the same the our roads would be a better place.

Only 135?
Man up. What were you in a 3 cylinder Charade or something.

Anyone noticed those electronic signs at road works that tell you your speed.
I pass one all the time lately and it is very inconsistent.
Some days it will be out by 10KM/h from what my speedo reads, next day it may only be out by 5km/h.
Makes you wonder how accurate speed cameras are.

Sudszy, you seam to preach its the end of the world when you do 5km/h over.
5km/h doubles your chance of crashing or something like that, correct?
Then 1km/h over must increase your chance of crashing by at least 25%. Can you really live with knowing you are such a deadly driver on the road?

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yep, Ive done stupid things like see how fast my car would go on a public road(135km/h was it)

Not bad. 5kmh less than our old Syd/Melb cruising speed 5 nights a week

[kpcart]

I agree with the posters road rule theory - at least no one would complain about revenue raising, as no one would get caught speeding. The idiots who go 105 in a 90 zone, overtake on double white lines, get angry and frustrated drivers that do the speed limit and brake every other rule that they signed for when getting their drivers licence that if they broke them they would be fined.

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Big brother speed control and active cruise control is coming, park assist is here.....

I think all the joy of driving is slowly being sucked out of me by nanny tech and regulations...

if you want that joy, go to a race track! no one wants to see you joyriding on our public roads, your a danger to yourself and to others. people like you need those big brother devices, as they will save your life for you, since you cant save your own. people like you often say "im invincible". people braking road rules cause stress for other drivers, and it often leads to road rage, like the other day when a guy drove past me at about 100kmh in a 60 zone, i beeped at him in frustration and he gave me the bird out the window! sound familier! its probably someone in this forum! (it was a ford), i was then tempted to catch up to him and start a fight, i didnt but im sure others would have. Everyone forgets after they have just got their licence that they have got a licence to drive on public roads within set rules, to get you easily from a to b. soon after, they make up their own rules and decide to become hero drivers and decide to **** off the 95% of other drivers who are doing the right thing. the people that do this are often people from a category we call "driving enthusiasts" who buy fast cars for the specific reason to go fast, but you can be a driving enthusiast and be clinically sane and at the same time by doing your joyrides in the correct time and place. and guess... you wont have to pay your voluntary tax to the revenue raisers you hate so much! when i was young i drove fast now and then, and copped a few fines. in 2004 after an accident, i have been consious to drive at the speed limit, and guess what i havent had any speeding fines in the 7 years since. i think i am a driving enthusiast, i go gokarting when i want to go fast. im a pretty good driver, because i can do what revenue raising questioners cant do, i can keep a steady speed and control the throttle! something i learnt when i was 17, which i needed to do to pass my drivers licence test just like everyone else on the road, though many have forgot they could do that when they decided they wanted to speed instead.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by kpcart

if you want that joy, go to a race track! no one wants to see you joyriding on our public roads, your a danger to yourself and to others..

Sums up the mentality of many here, the roads are provided for the purpose of getting from A to B, not somewhere to go play with with your latest toy.

Originally Posted by Ben73

Only 135?

Some days it will be out by 10KM/h from what my speedo reads, next day it may only be out by 5km/h.
Makes you wonder how accurate speed cameras are.

Sorry doesnt make ME wonder about how accurate speed cameras are at all, all I know is that I havent received a happy snap although I probably pass a dozen of them per day.

Maybe those that lie a wake wondering if they faked the moon landing.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Only 135?
5km/h doubles your chance of crashing or something like that, correct?
Then 1km/h over must increase your chance of crashing by at least 25%. Can you really live with knowing you are such a deadly driver on the road?

Ben, here you are the expert on why YOU should be able to travel faster than the average person, yet you display absolutely zero knowledge between the speed and risk/stopping distance etc.....as well as a problem with basic arithmetic.

For a start 1/5 is 20% not 25%, but lets move on, the speed/risk phenomenon is not a linear one, I think there is a question in the learner's guide on that one. If we use the speed squared relationship, then if 5km/h represents a increase of 100%, then 1km/h only represents 8%.

As I spelt out for you and others before, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe speed, just a speed by which the government/society has decided is an acceptable level of carnage and risk.

Im happy to abide by that, and at the present time me perhaps reaching 61km/h for less than 0.001% of my journey times is deemed acceptable.
So yes 0.001% x 8% = .00008% chance of increasing my collisions if I maintained 60.0km/h

please bring some knowledge to the table rather than trying to shoot the messenger.

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sums up the mentality of many here, the roads are provided for the purpose of getting from A to B, not somewhere to go play with with your latest toy.

Funny coming from a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry doesnt make ME wonder about how accurate speed cameras are at all, all I know is that I havent received a happy snap although I probably pass a dozen of them per day.

Maybe those that lie a wake wondering if they faked the moon landing.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ben, here you are the expert on why YOU should be able to travel faster than the average person, yet you display absolutely zero knowledge between the speed and risk/stopping distance etc.....as well as a problem with basic arithmetic.

For a start 1/5 is 20% not 25%, but lets move on, the speed/risk phenomenon is not a linear one, I think there is a question in the learner's guide on that one. If we use the speed squared relationship, then if 5km/h represents a increase of 100%, then 1km/h only represents 8%.

As I spelt out for you and others before, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe speed, just a speed by which the government/society has decided is an acceptable level of carnage and risk.

Im happy to abide by that, and at the present time me perhaps reaching 61km/h for less than 0.001% of my journey times is deemed acceptable.
So yes 0.001% x 8% = .00008% chance of increasing my collisions if I maintained 60.0km/h

please bring some knowledge to the table rather than trying to shoot the messenger.

Messenger??? Your a self confessed perpetrator.

I haven't murdered some one since my last victim, still makes me a murderer.

[geckoGT]

Reaching into my experience in road crashes (limited yes, but worthwhile nonetheless), I am going to say that I can see where the OP is coming from. There is no doubt that every road user sticking to the rules 100% of the time would have a profound effect on both the road toll and the number of severe injury crashes. I know for a fact that of all the crashes I have attended the vast majority have involved someone breaking a road law be it speed, giving way, following distance or a multitude of other laws. The simple fact is in the majority of crashes a law has been broken by either someone involved in the crash or events leading to it.

Out of all the crashes I have attended I can only think of a few that no law was broken and they were a true "accident" according to the definition of the word. One was the guy driving in a storm and had his vehicle struck by lightning (confirmed by a number of witnesses), this set off his airbag which scared him, he lost control and he hit a power pole. The other are the few times I have been to crashes involving wild animals, I stipulate wild animals as there is no responsible party that is supposed to keep control of them.

The simple fact is those crashes that involve legitimate accidents number very low in the frequency of causes of all crashes, 99.9% of the time some road law has been broken.

The weakness in the OP's theory comes from the point he said we could achieve "zero road toll", of course we could not. The simple physiological fact is that any time the human being travels at anything faster than walking speed or more elevated than ground level, events may happen that will lead to his/her serious injury or death. The human body is only designed with enough strength to withstand impacts at walking speed or less.

As for this idea that Skippy, Daisy and Fido cause so many severe crashes. Have a look at this page of well thought out information.
http://www.fordforums.com.au/vbporta...article&id=996
It seems from the way I read through this information that out of the 13,700 odd reported crashes in Vic in 2009, only about 100 involved any form of animal. Now of course there were more impacts with animals than that but the vast majority would be unreported as they are so insignificant to the vehicle and cause so little damage. So based on those figures 0.72% of crashes that were reported in the data involved animals. Divide that by a factor of 50 (the number of incidents per fatality) and you get that animals in theory cause 0.0144% of road fatalities. Yes it may actually work out that one or maybe two occurs each year and that human deaths as a result of animal collisions are over represented in the statistics, but I can not see it being more than that (I actually don't think it has a hope of achieving that figure). Even if we were to knock out the stats from urban areas and only look at the stats of rural (therefore focus on the bigger animals) about 4000 crashes, this gives a true animal/vehicle crash rate of about 2.5% but this figure is actually exaggerated as I have reduced the total crashes but I have not reduced the animal figure (still includes urban figures as well), but lets be optimistic and try and blame it on Skippy. Therefore the calculated fatality rate as a result of Daisy and Skippy is now 0.05%.

It seems that the actual numbers of fatalities that crashes with animals contribute to is insignificantly low, why do so many here focus on it?

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Not bad. 5kmh less than our old Syd/Melb cruising speed 5 nights a week

Hey old fella, did you forgot to release the park brake?

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Reaching into my experience in road crashes (limited yes, but worthwhile nonetheless), I am going to say that I can see where the OP is coming from. There is no doubt that every road user sticking to the rules 100% of the time would have a profound effect on both the road toll and the number of severe injury crashes. I know for a fact that of all the crashes I have attended the vast majority have involved someone breaking a road law be it speed, giving way, following distance or a multitude of other laws. The simple fact is in the majority of crashes a law has been broken by either someone involved in the crash or events leading to it.

Out of all the crashes I have attended I can only think of a few that no law was broken and they were a true "accident" according to the definition of the word. One was the guy driving in a storm and had his vehicle struck by lightning (confirmed by a number of witnesses), this set off his airbag which scared him, he lost control and he hit a power pole. The other are the few times I have been to crashes involving wild animals, I stipulate wild animals as there is no responsible party that is supposed to keep control of them.

The simple fact is those crashes that involve legitimate accidents number very low in the frequency of causes of all crashes, 99.9% of the time some road law has been broken.

The weakness in the OP's theory comes from the point he said we could achieve "zero road toll", of course we could not. The simple physiological fact is that any time the human being travels at anything faster than walking speed or more elevated than ground level, events may happen that will lead to his/her serious injury or death. The human body is only designed with enough strength to withstand impacts at walking speed or less.

As for this idea that Skippy, Daisy and Fido cause so many severe crashes. Have a look at this page of well thought out information.
http://www.fordforums.com.au/vbporta...article&id=996
It seems from the way I read through this information that out of the 13,700 odd reported crashes in Vic in 2009, only about 100 involved any form of animal. Now of course there were more impacts with animals than that but the vast majority would be unreported as they are so insignificant to the vehicle and cause so little damage. So based on those figures 0.72% of crashes that were reported in the data involved animals. Divide that by a factor of 50 (the number of incidents per fatality) and you get that animals in theory cause 0.0144% of road fatalities. Yes it may actually work out that one or maybe two occurs each year and that human deaths as a result of animal collisions are over represented in the statistics, but I can not see it being more than that (I actually don't think it has a hope of achieving that figure). Even if we were to knock out the stats from urban areas and only look at the stats of rural (therefore focus on the bigger animals) about 4000 crashes, this gives a true animal/vehicle crash rate of about 2.5% but this figure is actually exaggerated as I have reduced the total crashes but I have not reduced the animal figure (still includes urban figures as well), but lets be optimistic and try and blame it on Skippy. Therefore the calculated fatality rate as a result of Daisy and Skippy is now 0.05%.

It seems that the actual numbers of fatalities that crashes with animals contribute to is insignificantly low, why do so many here focus on it?

Nice post Gecko. I am inclined to support this knowledge you have presented as it is relevant and comes from an educated source, that of your self.

I peronally would have believed that wild animal strikes would account for slightly more of the road toll, but there you have it. I would reckon they are involved in lot's more incidents, but they would cause such minimal damage as you stated and are usually visible before intersecting with that there is time to avoid and slow down, and they don't have the approach speed of an oncoming vehicle.

The amount of NEEEEEEAR misses i've had with animals, i'm surprised i am here still. Latest was a bloody COW at 10pm on the Dawson Highway a few weeks ago, the bugger was off the road but decided to wander on and STOP as we approached. Thank kerrist for spotties

[ray38l]

One question i have is if someone is drunk, speeding and hits an animal and dies does the fatality get blamed on one or all of these factors?
On the subject of animals if someone swerved to miss skippy and died in a head on collision would it be listed due to wild animal or neg driving? I ask that one mainly due to the fact that roo's are everywhere where i live and most people swerve around them almost causing crashes. I just plow straight through them.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by ray38l

One question i have is if someone is drunk, speeding and hits an animal and dies does the fatality get blamed on one or all of these factors?
On the subject of animals if someone swerved to miss skippy and died in a head on collision would it be listed due to wild animal or neg driving? I ask that one mainly due to the fact that roo's are everywhere where i live and most people swerve around them almost causing crashes. I just plow straight through them.

I think that would depend on how it is reported, if the animal is reported and the forensic crash investigator agrees it was a factor, it would be counted in the stats. That is my assumption, perhaps someone with more contact in the processes can confirm.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ben, here you are the expert on why YOU should be able to travel faster than the average person, yet you display absolutely zero knowledge between the speed and risk/stopping distance etc.....as well as a problem with basic arithmetic.

For a start 1/5 is 20% not 25%, but lets move on, the speed/risk phenomenon is not a linear one, I think there is a question in the learner's guide on that one. If we use the speed squared relationship, then if 5km/h represents a increase of 100%, then 1km/h only represents 8%.

As I spelt out for you and others before, there is no such thing as a perfectly safe speed, just a speed by which the government/society has decided is an acceptable level of carnage and risk.

Im happy to abide by that, and at the present time me perhaps reaching 61km/h for less than 0.001% of my journey times is deemed acceptable.
So yes 0.001% x 8% = .00008% chance of increasing my collisions if I maintained 60.0km/h

please bring some knowledge to the table rather than trying to shoot the messenger.

Thanks for the maths. I attempted to read your post.

Since you seam to think you are a very intelligent person, you should of realized in my last post I was not trying to prove any facts. I was not attempting to prove my point math maths equations. I was simply taking the **** out of you since you are probably the biggest hypocrite on this forum.

No matter how much you post, you will never change anyones opinion on this topic. But good for you sticking to your beliefs.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by FgNewbie

Hey old fella, did you forgot to release the park brake?

15spd direct box, not overdrive

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I think that would depend on how it is reported,

Sounds about right.

A while ago I read in a Syd paper where a P plater overtook another car on double lines and bumped into someone coming the other way.

Luckily no one was seriously hurt, but I had to chuckle at the reporting officer who was quoted as saying that "Speed could have been a factor in causing the crash"

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I was simply taking the **** out of you since you are probably the biggest hypocrite on this forum.
.

yeh, good on you Ben. When knowledge and reasoning fail, just stoop to what 99% of others do around here, play the man and not the ball, shoot the messenger, whatever.

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yeh, good on you Ben. When knowledge and reasoning fail, just stoop to what 99% of others do around here, play the man and not the ball, shoot the messenger, whatever.

When they are a hypocrite, why not?

[SEZ213]

Come on kids, ease up.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Im happy to abide by that, and at the present time me perhaps reaching 61km/h for less than 0.001% of my journey times is deemed acceptable.
So yes 0.001% x 8% = .00008% chance of increasing my collisions if I maintained 60.0km/h

This is correct - with an assumption.

That assumption is that the ONLY causal factor in ALL accidents is speed.

[2011G6E]

I still have a huge problem with saying that if you never speed, you'll never have an accident.

When it comes to mechanical problems, someone dropping off to sleep (which isn't, technically, illegal), a car slipping on a wet road because someone is doing 100 in a downpour (again, not technically illegal...stupid...but not illegal in any way), there is nothing that 95% of drivers could do whether they are doing 100kph or 105kph.

There is far too much of this new-age Workplace Health And Safety philosophy that blames the human completely for an accident, and disregards any contribution from outside forces or tha machine being used at the time. "There's no such thing as an accident" is the mantra they spout, and it's bullshite of the highest order.

While fallible humans are allowed to operate equally fallible machines, there will always be accidents, even if "everyone sticks to the rules".

The absolute best we can do is to face reality and minimise the effects of the accidents when they inevitably occur.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I still have a huge problem with saying that if you never speed, you'll never have an accident.

Dont say it then! no-one else is, apart from those around here that make strawmen.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Dont say it then! no-one else is, apart from those around here that make strawmen.

No one is saying it...... except for the first post!

This thread is about IF all rules are obeyed all the time there would be no accidents.

Nice theory. Shame about the reality.