50kmh INTERSECTION speed limit??????

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Do you have blinders on???

Road rules already exist that will completely prevent any accidents from happening on all our roads.

Accidents are caused by failures to adhere to these rules. How does adding more rules address this??
!

By having people go slower when the make mistakes, poor judgement, disobey rules-whatever, the consequences wont be as bad. I think you will find this is why lowering the suburban street limit to 50km/h has been such a success.
Many just would never have considered slowing for an intersection as something to do, just as many never thought of slowing down in suburban streets or outside schools, but make it a legal requirement and most people do come to the party.

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Oh, and also please explain the benefit of having people approach intersections (which you've agreed are dangerous) watching their speedos to see if they've slowed enough instead of watching for hazards in the intersection!!

What difference will it make, arent they already watching their speedos instead of the road to make sure they dont exceed the present limit? wasnt that what you were saying in your last rant.

[AussieAV]

I see you just chose to answer the two questions you thought you had a comeback for and completey missed this one which I asked in the same post;

"I don't know what the figues are, but a certain number of accidents I'm sure will be caused by people failing to stop at "stop" signs. If they won't stop for a stop sign, please explain the logic that tells you they will adhere to a 50 km/h limit approaching the intersection??"

Care to have a stab at it?

[Ben73]

What intersections would be reduced. Traffic lights? Stop signs? Giveway signs? Any time there is a side street no matter how major or minor? Only in 60 zones? 70? 80?

I can see people braking to slow down to 50, as they begin to slow down the light changed to yellow, they then panic because they wont make it through the intersection before red at 50, even though they probably would of at 60 70 or 80, so they hit the brake harder. Which then they create a higher risk of rear endings.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I see you just chose to answer the two questions you thought you had a comeback for and completey missed this one which I asked in the same post;

"I don't know what the figues are, but a certain number of accidents I'm sure will be caused by people failing to stop at "stop" signs. If they won't stop for a stop sign, please explain the logic that tells you they will adhere to a 50 km/h limit approaching the intersection??"

Care to have a stab at it?

Wow, Ive got to answer all you questions, I partially addressed that one earlier: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...8&postcount=17, where it says red light, insert stop sign.

I dont think any level of driving training is going to help such a case either, we cant protect against everything

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

What intersections would be reduced. Traffic lights? Stop signs? Giveway signs? Any time there is a side street no matter how major or minor? Only in 60 zones? 70? 80?
.

There was no info on that ben, Id anticipate all for a 10km/h reduction, just a guess.

All intersections, again, not specified, Id be thinking any major rd intersection in suburbia, where 60km/h road meets 60km/h road, yet possibly it could be just cross roads, dont know.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Wow, Ive got to answer all you questions, I addressed that one earlier: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...8&postcount=17, where it says red light, insert stop sign.

No you haven't! Lets make it simple.

1: For an accident to occur, a rule must be broken.
2: Why will a new 50 km/h rule be obeyed when others are not?
3: How will it stop the other laws being broken?

Edit: #3 added at 7:51pm (WST)

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Oh, and don't take words out of a paragraph and deliberately use them out of context to try and make someone look foolish.

Out of context? hardly, you made a ridiculous point and I simply extended your logic so even you would see how stupid it was.

Make you look foolish?, doing a good enough job of that by yourself.

i dont wish to be involved in discussing any more posts with yourself, your tone is too hostile.

nb, I edited post 34 as you were posting, so post 36# is affected

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Out of context? hardly, you made a ridiculous point and I simply extended your logic so even you would see how stupid it was.

Make you look foolish?, doing a good enough job of that by yourself.

i dont wish to be involved in discussing any more posts with yourself, your tone is too hostile.

You did not extend my logic. I questioned why the govt. won't take positive steps toward road safety like helping people choose safer tyres, and then, somewhat tongue-in-cheak, suggested that the reason they did'nt was because they could'nt fine those people who did'nt.

You twisted that to imply that I thought people should be punished for poor tyre choices - which is blatantly not what I said.

I would be more than happy to no longer discuss points with you, but as long as you keep making false statements, I will continue to stick up for myself and other forum members.

I apologise if you find my tone hostile, but if you think what I've written to date is hostile, I suggest you may find many others on the internet very much not to your liking.

[FgNewbie]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

^^ +1

Not to mention the improvement in stopping distances some of us gain in buying high performance tyres.

Why does'nt the government publish a set of performance figures for the various tyres on the market so that the public can make an informed decision on the quality of the rubber they put on their cars? Oh, thats right does'nt make money. Can't fine someone for buying cheap tyres, can only fine them for exceeding 50 km/h.

Would'nt be at all surprised if difference in stopping distances between best and worst performing tyres, at any size, would be greater than a drop of 5 km/h in speed.

sudszy, it is unfortunate you chose to misrepresent AussieAv's post which actually raised a relatively good question. What you chose to quote out of context, a reasonable person might accept as another shot at revenue raising.

[388cube_edxr8]

Got to side with AussieAV on this one. Sometimes you just can't argue with logic.

[gtxb67]

to (maybe) answer f6 concorde's question from another (closed) thread - durty harry