Editorial: Lowering the road toll?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

It can be discussed, refuted, whatever but when an opinion is totally dismissed because ....

......... well it just shows what you think of everyone elses opinion. You are right .... just because.

care to comment on how the paid junkets by exotic car manufacturers may influence "opinion", ask Nicola Roxon how that one goes!

[SEZ213]

LALALALALALA....

I'm right and you're wrong...

LALALALA



You're not allowed to think, you're not smart enough...the government will tell you what's good for you...denialist, denialist, denialist...

LALALALA

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

LALALALALALA....

I'm right and you're wrong...

LALALALA



You're not allowed to think, you're not smart enough...the government will tell you what's good for you...denialist, denialist, denialist...

LALALALA

....how dare you!! You BS artist....waaaaaaaahhhhh he called me a name.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)

This is not what the topic or Mr Hagon are about in the slightest!
All Mr Hagon is suggesting is that perhaps we should concentrate on some of the leading causes of fatalities rather than focusing on one of the lesser contributing factors.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by WMD351

This is not what the topic or Mr Hagon are about in the slightest!
All Mr Hagon is suggesting is that perhaps we should concentrate on some of the leading causes of fatalities rather than focusing on one of the lesser contributing factors.

Or the one is which currently generates a substantial amount of revenue...money for jam!

[krzysiek]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)

You are a little irritating. Pointing back to your 5-10km/h collision rate drops.

Let me ask you. DID YOU DO THESE TESTS FOR YOURSELF?

Answer: No.

Who did then?

Answer: Someone OTHER THAN YOU.

So how the hell can you definitively prove that there is no bias going on in these tests, what so ever. Do you know how much the speed cameras are generating in revenue? Do you not consider that the whole link with speed/crashes/deaths could potentially be backed by money?

Anyway, let's not worry about the above part too much. I am not suggesting the statistics are all BS or whatnot, but in todays world when there is money involved, people should be skeptical... anyway, what I really want to ask is below.

Now let me ask you, did YOU read the facts presented on page 1 about the crash statistics in W.A. for 2006 calendar year? Don't go and give me any crap about it, no beating around the bush mate... just answer me, YES or NO?

If you are NOT prepared to look at both sides, then in my humble "opinion" (please tell me if within your opinion I am entitled to an opinion?) you are being naive.

If the Government was worried about saving lives, why are they concentrating on something that is at most a 25% contributor to these crashes (without exacting checking the percentages provided on page 1) when they could/should be targeting the other 75% that would OBVIOUSLY help save more lives on the road? .... I guess there is no definitive way of 'catching' people not concentrating well enough on the road, so they probably couldn't make much money from that, so why bother educating them to save lives

[rayner22]

Originally Posted by sudszy

care to comment on how the paid junkets by exotic car manufacturers may influence "opinion", ask Nicola Roxon how that one goes!

The fact that manufacturers PAY for journos to go overseas to test cars etc has nothing to do with a speed limit debate. It is merely a marketing ploy each manufacturer uses to try and have the edge in a market where sales are often strongly defined by reviews performed by journo's.

Ferrari, Lamborghini etc ALL are actively involved with the FIA etc in reducing speeding and other causes of fatal accidents.
Remember Bacardi's massive campaign with Michael Scumacher about the effects and results of drink driving??
Why do Ferrari run special track days for Ferrari owners?? Because whilst they build cars capable of 300km\h+ like you have brought up, they do not condone this speed on public roads, with only the exception of a German Autobahn.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

care to comment on how the paid junkets by exotic car manufacturers may influence "opinion", ask Nicola Roxon how that one goes!

Not really. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand and the subject has been covered at length on here. As far as Nicola Roxon goes ..... have no idea why she was bought up but don't care and don't want to know.

The subject of conversaion is what has been stated by a motoring writer ..... argue the points all you want but remember ..... no one is listening to you because .......

But a Forum participant’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Sudzy have or indeed what research has he done into topic?

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

One could say the same for some others too Ben. No I didnt start this thread, but to not say something when public safety is threatened with attitudes like Mr Hagon's, in the words of Edmund Burke........

You are right. There are others like you who only post in threads like this. But you seam to be the loudest of them all.


Ah and if you think 'public safety' is 'threatened' by Hagon's point.
They guy was suggesting other areas of road safety which we should focus on as well. So I don't know how you think public safety is threatened by someone who promoting road safety saying there is more to it then obeying a magic number.

I honestly think your view is more of a threat to public safety. You need to open your eyes wider. See then whole picture and not just the speed part of it.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No Ben, they are not my opinions, just the facts as presented to us by organisations such as the TAC, the research collated from not just data here but from around the world as well, they have basis unlike the rantings of people just "done over" for doing a couple of kays over etc..

so its impossible for organisations such as TAC to also have an agenda? who is funding them? you are very quick to dismiss the opinion of a motoring journo because apparently it would be counter productive for him to be negative about speeding, due to him testing exotic cars, but organisations that crank out statistics that agree with your point of view are unbiased facts.

it is impossible to know the speed of a car that has had an accident. sure, you can measure skid marks on older cars etc, or ask witnesses (bet they didn't have their pocket radar handy though) but its all just guess work. the only statistics they can measure is braking distances and then based on that make a lot of assumptions.

accidents where 'speeding' has been the cause are accidents where its clearly obvious the car has been going well beyond the posted limit. your everyday innercity bingle, it is impossible to tell how fast the cars were going at the time, so i fail to see how they can bandy about these statistics as though they would've had a 100% impact on the situation.

statistics can be made up to suit just about any argument you want.

mr hagan isn't saying forget about speeding drivers. he's saying perhaps the govt credibility would be a little better if they concentrated on many of the other factors as well, 2 of which are drugs and alcohol.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by prydey

statistics can be made up to suit just about any argument you want.

42% of all people know that.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by WMD351

42% of all people know that.

Yes but 86% of all people think they know .... 42% do know .... and only 27% want to admit it. There are also 13% think they will go blind and 1.2% actually have ........ are we talking about the same thing?

[Geez Louise]

russellw posted some very good information about Accident statistics in Victoria in the Technical Documents section.

Accident Stats

There is some great information in there and it shows a comparision by year.

Cheers
Col

[MAD]

I had a little chuckle when the first post asking when sudszy would arrive was posted. But then it just got sad when he actually did.

Sudszy, in the study that found the likelihood of being in a collision was increased when traveling at 5-10km/h over, what were the measurements and what were the criteria? Did the 'modelled' drivers stay at the same physical distance behind the car in front, or did they adjust it to maintain a 2 second or more gap?
Was the main aim of the study to find out what happens when you go 5-10km above the 'safe' limit for the conditions or was it just 5-10 over the posted limit?
When you're being paid money there are many reasons, and in this instance many ways, to adjust presentation of the collected data.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)

The phrase "Numbers don't lie, people do" comes to mind.... I think a lot of the data gathered has been presented by people who know how to lie with statistics.

It's like magic, you show people the BIG ZOMG SHINEY and don't see him pull the prop from under the table

[malazn mafia]

To cut the road toll...

1) Reduce number of cars on the road. Just tax the hell out of cars, and put the funds towards decent public transport for very low rates. Fewer cars = fewer crashes?

2) Scrap speeding fines altogether, run a purely demerit point system. Make licenses very expensive to cover the lost revenue. With the price of a license, throw in a mandatory defensive driver course. Make a controlled skid on a wet surface one of the driving tests to pass.

3) Elderly drivers shouldn't be on the road, or if they really need to, must be subject to regular and stringent co-ordinatation/health/mental testing. Keep the current restrictions on beginner drivers, with 1 passenger rule, no high powered cars, etc. Maybe have elderly and beginner drivers in 5 star safety rated vehicles only.

4) For highways, curfew hours for heavy vehicles/trucks. Maybe have them running from dusk to dawn only. No light vehicles allowed on major highways at night, so risk of death from collision with wildlife is minimized. Also not having cars and trucks sharing the road means no more hazardous overtaking maneuvers.

5) When entering an expressway, have a cycling traffic light at all entries, like those red/green 'one vehicle per lane' traffic lights on on-ramps. The timing of this light will help to regulate how dense the traffic is and hopefully increase the following distance. Scrap the speed limit on the expressway when its empty, but have a variable one that reduces according to traffic levels/average vehicle speed/weather conditions. With those electronic boards that measure traffic and tell you the estimated time of travel, this shouldn't be too difficult.

6) Scrap 'Highway Patrol'... we need 'Metropolitan Patrol'. Cops should be out in the suburbs with the radar and laser guns, marked and unmarked. Instead of being in the middle of nowhere pinging someone for overtaking or being over the limit downhill on a straight road. Too many cops being paid our tax dollars to aimlessly troll our highways with very little road safety benefit IMHO. Revised suburban speed limits (many in Melbourne need to be lowered).

This is how I'd run the country's road and transport systems if I were Transport Minister. Surely, Australia being one of the highest tax-paying countries on this planet, it can't be impossible to put some if not all of these measures in place?

Don't see why it wouldn't work, but open to opinion or suggestion.

[kpcart]

to cut the road toll requires

1. every dumb aussie driver to become a good driver. they seem to be able to monitor their speed during their driving test, the next day....
(and im not just talking speed.. once they have their licence they lose respect for the road and other road users, and think they are kings of the road, ie its a race at every red light = dumb aussie mentality, it isnt like this in every country). THIS IS NOT A GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY - it is down to every individual.

2. only let P plate drivers drive 1.5 litre 4 cylinder cars for their first 2 years of driving. that way they can learn some respect for the road, these days you have P platers driving 200+kw cars, and they think they are better drivers then people who have driven for 20years on public roads. I also notice that nearly every P plate drive tries to out drag you at the traffic lights (another stupic part of aussie driving culture)

An initial start point for P platers in minimum spec cars I believe will create a better respect over time as most P platers these days are evolving into carefree bad drivers. (even thought they think they are great "fast" drivers - which they arent either)

3. Make speeding fines HIGHER, but especially on country roads where the most deaths are. speeding fines, even thought most people hate them are a great detterent, i know for a fact that people "look" on the sides of the roads for police and speed cameras. If the fines were higher, they would look at their speedO instead of the side of the road in the distance, and wouldnt waste time with investments like radar detectors. Everyone looked at their speedo when passing a driving test, but then the aussie mentality set in - i.e. to hate the police once you have your drivers licence and to never look at your speedo again.

3. Snap the "arrogant jerk" out of aussie driver mentality - how we do this? I do not know, as there is a growing hatred for police in the population (I just read about a 25 year old cop in "The West Australian" who was beaten by fags "for being a cop"
Maybe if we had $1000 fines for speeding in school zones, or better yeat $1000 fines for speeding in ANY AREA - I bet the masses of idiots would take notice and ACTUALLY CONCENTRATE on their driving.
At the moment, people earn so much per week in Australian that they can afford speeding everywhere and being caught now and again and getting a lousy $150 fine (and then they can even have some fun blaiming revenue raising for their fag-**** driving ability)

4. we need a campaign wiht a famous "aussie ocker bogan type" Actor to show that driving safely is "COOL" and that driving like a ******** makes you a fag. maybe Chris Liley can do a national campaign? if it was cool to drive within the speed limit, and take breaks on country roads, and to follow ALL road rules, then we can lower the road trauma statistics.

We also need to remember that the population, and the amount of cars on the road is increaing. so WE WILL NOT SEE LOWER ROAD TOLL figures.
But their are police and road rule haters out there that will disregard this fact and slag the police and governments for the road toll rising each year. those people should practice before they preach.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by rayner22

And you also called Ben73 a bs artist based on ONE past post about his speed alert activating which you never asked the circumstances behind.

Cmon, based on one post? how many do you want me to drag up:

Originally Posted by Ben73

Not everyone is as rich as sudszy with his fancy speed alert devices.
Doing 10 over and not realizing was because everyone else around me was going same speed. I was just following the flow.

I aim to do a minimum speed of 10 over the limit. Then increase up to 30 over the limit when possible.

Originally Posted by WMD351

This is not what the topic or Mr Hagon are about in the slightest!
All Mr Hagon is suggesting is that perhaps we should concentrate on some of the leading causes of fatalities rather than focusing on one of the lesser contributing factors.

No, I disagree, as I have outlined previously, this statement:

As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.,

is planted there to give the idea that there is no difference in travelling at 100compared to 105 and sends the wrong message that doing 5-10km/h over is not a problem.

Originally Posted by krzysiek

Secondly, I believe you have conveniently forgotten to look at the "data" provided on crash statistics from WA. Let's hope the data is not "too old" as it does date back to 2006/2007 (oh, how times have changed).

No, I dont have a problem with attending to other causes such as inattention and fatigue, just dont agree that relaxing speed limits is a logical outcome to addressing those issues.


I have to prove that the increase in speed increases chances of collisions? Im quite happy with the sources that the TAC(both local stats and overseas research) to support their claim, Im also quite happy with the physics in the ads showing you the difference 5km/h over makes in stopping distances and collison speeds.

No, Im not going digging into what is happening there based on a conspiracy theory, anymore than Im going to start looking for aliens that are the mystery cause of the earth getting warmer.


If anyone here can provided some evidence that they TAC numbers on this are rigged, or that the physics is wrong.....other than its all BS because of the ( can prove anything you like with stats claim) then please step up to the plate and provide.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Oh, and of course manufacturers of exotic performance machines would love to see Australia have open speed limits all over the place, it makes having a car that will do 300km/h+ so much more meaningful and necessary.

what a magnificent specimen of a strawman you have built
australia will never go back to open speed limits: there are too many professional students with nothing better to do but complain on forums and go to protest rallies; while the rest of the world is busy working
also, open speed limts means less chance of speeding fines too, so that ain't ever happening again

while your knowledge and unbiased opinion here is greatly appreciated i cannot help but think your work is completed. we have all not only learnt from you, but changed our opinions too and you should be commended for that. how about going on the harley davison forum or even go to a club house and preach to them about the safety of full face helmets, automatic headlights, front number plates, wire barriers on freeways and the like. i am sure all of those items make the road and it's users much safer than the alternative. so with our blessing, go on and do it. i am sure you do not have selective caring for the people of the world, so please go on - they need your help; i am sure they will not only be very appreciative, but welcome you with open arms

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

what a magnificent specimen of a strawman you have built
australia will never go back to open speed limits:

No, a Strawman is when you mount an argument against something you have implied someone has said.

I haven't mounted an argument claiming Hagon wants Australia turned into autobahns, just alerting people to the fact that his opinion on issues relating to speed and indeed his car reports has been compromised by his acceptance of junkets paid for by those looking to make inroads into the Australian market with exotic high speed cars, where the importers of such vehicles(those providing junkets to Mr Hagon) would be delighted to see speed limits increased.

Nicola Roxon as Health minister found herself in exactly the same leaky boat when it was revealed that she accepted invitations to special events (tennis etc) from tobacco companies, and she was rightfully pillered from post to post on the issue.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No, a Strawman is when you mount an argument against something you have implied someone has said.

I haven't mounted an argument claiming Hagon wants Australia turned into Autobahn's, just alerting people to the fact that his opinion on issues relating to speed and indeed his car reports has been compromised by his acceptance of junkets paid for by those looking to make inroads into the Australian market with exotic high speed cars.

so you were not building a strawman - you were just posting absolute rubbish about something that will never happen

either way, your argument wasn't made out of bricks, so it was either sticks or straw

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No, I disagree

Well, I disagree with your interpretation of the article. And you don't need to retort...pretty sure it's not necessary, we know how you feel.

[wrongwaynorris]

What a total load of crap some people carry on with about speed . I am sick and bloody tired of speed being blamed for the road toll when the irefutable evidence just does not back it up . If speed killed and not poor driver behaviour /education , inattention or just plain stupidity ( and Iv'e said it numerous times ) a million people a year would die on Germanys roads . Last time there I drove from Shwerringen to Hamburg in a diesel Mondeo wagon at 210 KPH and we were routinely being passed by Benzes , Porsches , Audis et al et al doing atleast 50 KPH more . According to some on here I was courting death every second . If you catch a diesel Benz 230 taxi for the short trip from Frankfurt Main Airport into Frankfurt you do 180 KPH in among another 1000 taxis and numerous private vehicles doing the same . The spirit of that monumental ignoramous Harold Sruby lives large in these forums doesn't it .

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think that depends on how others respond, I cant control that.


As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

Well yes, but what conclusion is to be drawn from such expert testament?

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts


What we have do have here is a serious omission by Mr Hagon is that a 5km/h increase of speed increases the probability(doubles) of the vehicle leaving the road and hitting a tree, the one piece of data that can be verified.

So 4km/h over the limit is safe because that’s the speed that people can walk at? but the collisions aren't happening at walking speed!

.

You start by blaming others for how they respond, yet you do not apply the same logic to yourself. As I said in the beginning...how long until you have this thread closed too.

I would add this comment though. Given your hatred for any excess over a nominal figure for a maximum speed, and you continually support this with supposed data (your "truth") that any amount over this is akin to running over little babies that might happen to be sleeping on the road, what if we reduced all speed limits to 40km/h? You like the notion that we should make it so we could all survive hitting the tree, which presumably means a 40km/h limit maximum. We would see a massive reduction in road deaths right? And the ordinary citizen would be left riding their bicycle because we would all lose our licences in the first week. And the economy would crumble, there would rioting in the streets, and traffic police would be bashed. So is this really the world you would like to see? If you squeeze people with rules, regulations with factoids to support your case (because this is what is good for the people), you lose the respect of those who you are there to serve.

Your move..

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I have to prove that the increase in speed increases chances of collisions? Im quite happy with the sources that the TAC(both local stats and overseas research) to support their claim, Im also quite happy with the physics in the ads showing you the difference 5km/h over makes in stopping distances and collison speeds.

what relevance do braking distance tests have in relation to the majority of accidents on our roads?

can the speeds of cars that have been involved in accidents be accurately measured at the time of the incident? we all know its impossible to tell to any degree of accuracy.

[rayner22]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Cmon, based on one post? how many do you want me to drag up:

Well, if that is correct and unedited (I did a brief search of his posts but honestly I couldnt be bothered going through all 900 of em ).... I'll give you that one but he's not alone in that department:


Quote:

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.

And I think you should also be aware that speed alerts are either set in 1 or 5 km increments, so you yourself are guilty of breaking your own golden rules.

[V8XTasy]

(i) 2006 calendar year.
Cause No Proportion
Careless 100 17.50%
Inattention 75 13.10%
Speed 68 11.90%
Alcohol/Speed 56 9.80%
Fail to give way 55 9.60%
Alcohol 45 7.90%
Fatigue 28 4.90%
Overtaking 23 4.00%
Reckless 21 3.70%
Other medical 19 3.30%
Inexperience 13 2.30%
Animals 10 1.70%
Tyre blow out 9 1.60%
Alcohol/Drugs 6 1.00%
Road Condition 6 1.00%
Drugs 4 0.70%
NULL 4 0.70%
Visibility 4 0.70%
Person fell from Vehicle 4 0.70%
Turn in front 4 0.70%
Weather Conditions 4 0.70%
Stop sign 3 0.50%
Contravene 2 0.30%
Mechanical 2 0.30%
Heart attack 2 0.30%
Load shift 2 0.30%
Travel too close 2 0.30%
Object through window

from the list, the top 2 are impossible to police, so moving down the list comes to speed and alcohol so that is what's tackled by the police.

It still amazes me that with some of the lowest and most enforced speed limits and alchohol limits in the civilised world, that there are still so many accidents compared to other countries. There must be some other reasons than speed per-say. I've been thinking just exactly what it could be.
I'm going to compare the situation with the UK, only because that's what I know. I'm not saying the UK is better, I came to Oz for a reason!
The UK has 60 million people in a landmass the size of Victoria, that's a lot of people squashed into a small space, with an awefull lot of cars. Most roads are ancient and poorly designed due to their age. Australia has the advantage of a more modern road system which is still expanding significantly and can learn from the mistakes in other countries with building road systems. It's also a lot more spread out and doesn't have to deal with centuries old roads designed for horses and carts. Yet the road toll here is significantly greater (I think something like 3 time more). Sure there are a lot of speed cameras in the UK, but they are bright yellow, so you can see them and the speed limits are much higher (112kph on freeways although most people do 130+). I'd never heard of a booze bust over there either and had never been pulled by the police in 20 years of driving. You tend to only get pulled if you are doing something stupid. Pubs are absolutely everywhere and there is a huge culture of drinking. Everyone drinks and most people will have 2 PINTS (4 pots) and still drive. (Around 1.5 pints is the limit). It is a big issue in the UK.
So, what it is the reason for the high road toll here? I don't know, so can only say what I see the differences to be....
Traffic lights - there are so many filters on the traffic lights for turning left, right, straight on, that you wait ages at them. Couple this with very long and straight roads leading up to the lights, so you can see when they are on green, encourages people to go faster when approaching to get through them and to jump the red lights.
High powered cars - new drivers in 3.8 or 4.0l cars in the UK is unheard of due to the extremely high cost of insurance and fuel. In fact almost no-one drives big engined cars, I knew of no-one. These cars pick up speed very quickly compared to a 1.2l Fiesta and are rear wheel drive. It's very easy to do inappropriate speed or lose the rear end.
Bloody mindedness - there were lots of very aggressive drivers in the UK, but the amount of blocking junctions, not letting people out or merge on to freeways, driving up close when the car in front is stuck behind heavy traffic, continuously swapping lanes and causing people to brake makes it very difficult to drive here and any errors have big consequences.
Road design - the roads seem to be thrown together with little thought. Starting with a dirt track, they may then get some black top, then screwed around a bit with some road works here and there, then a bit added on etc etc. So they are built up bit by bit and not really thought out and no consideration to future capacity. eg. The western ring road Melbourne, 2 lanes WTF! It was only built 15 years ago when most countries were realizing they'd really screwed up with 3 lanes!
Road works - blocking off huge sections of the road then one bloke with a shovel working on it bit by bit over a period of years (similar to the UK though!).
Old cars - the love of old cars here (nothing wrong with that, saving the environment by not building a new car), unfortunately it causes a lot of break downs blocking the roads (because noone would let you pull to the size if you were breaking down).

I don't know if these things are the cause, just my observations on the differences as I say.

[MAD]

No comments on my questions sudszy? Dont know the real answers? Cant mount a "oh, nice Andrew Bolt comment" argument?

The statistics shown where "speed was a factor" is ONLY a judgement on the speed for the conditions, it doesnt always correlate to driving above the posted limit.

I saw recently a guy died in a car chase after he failed to pull over, high speed into a tree while running from the cops, and that was added to the road toll.
Do you really think anything put in place for the general public is going to affect what he ultimately did? So why include that sort of action in the general road toll? That skews the figures a little dont you think.

[sarrge2001]

I'm going to go and buy a red lantern for someone to wave in front of my car when i go for a drive if the sudszys and scrubys of the world get their way.

Why is it that (most) people who share his opinion on speed, (and climate change, it would appear) think they have the right to treat those with opposing views like complete morons, trumpet the claims that only data, research and science that backs up their position is credible and generally make it their life mission to "convert" the disbelievers.

Talk about fanaticism - any views on religion suds?? (It's a rhetorical question, we don't discuss that here)

As to the SUBJECT of this thread, I think it's refreshing to see a motoring writer pushing the point home that there ARE other causes of crashes on our roads other than speed........

(and I still find it hard to understand why I suddenly become a driver capable of an extra 20kmh when i cross that dotted line on the road between SA & NT...........but i'm not complaining!!)

[Fireblade]

Originally Posted by rayner22

Well, if that is correct and unedited (I did a brief search of his posts but honestly I couldnt be bothered going through all 900 of em ).... I'll give you that one but he's not alone in that department:


Quote:


And I think you should also be aware that speed alerts are either set in 1 or 5 km increments, so you yourself are guilty of breaking your own golden rules.

Boom tish, the debate is over.