ABC news: 'Creeping' motorists targeted

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

No the problem is far more complicated than this. If it was that simple would all not be doing 40 k/ph because the stopping distance would be less than say @ 50k/ph?

If this is the case then simple logic tells you that it would be much safer top travel @ 30 k/ph because the braking distance has been reduced over all right?

Well then 10 k/ph must be safer then 30 kph.

I would also go out on a limb and suggest the 1 k/ph would in fact still be safer than 10 k/ph would this be correct? Then why drive at all?

At what point do you include any practicality in this argument?

We already have to put up with travelling @ much lower speed limits not only here in SA but all over the country but especially in SA during peak hr because we forgot to implement a decent road infrastructure plan nearly 40 years ago, we already make stupid allowances like using a corridor in one direction for half a day and then reversing it for the other! I don't live in the South and I always seem to be on the wrong side when ever I need to use it.

People would accept lower speed limits in built up areas if there was open corridors like the city link in Melbourne, but slowing down the only regular routes that available even more when there has been little or no infrastructure over the past 30-40 years will only compound the problems here in SA. even more

Build a decent ring road and a decent uninterrupted North South corridor and you can make the built up areas speed limit what you like. But for FS the Government must stop constantly taking without giving something back.

It is much safer to travel at 5km/h, but not at all practical. The argument about the level at which a speed limit should be set, or even if one should exist is a different issue. There is a speed limit, you know what that limit is, and allegedly know how to control a motor vehicle, and thats the point here. The argument being brandied about is "I cant be expected to keep under the limit that exists, its not my fault I cant drive properly and concentrate well, my speedo is too hard to read and the dirty government wants my money, they be stealing mah bucket wah wah wah, how can I stop these thieves??? wah". That and the blatant lies that speedo inaccuracies are allowed by goobermint to increase revenue. Speedos can not read low.

Theres a trade off between safety and practicality already. If you dont agree with the posted limit (the balance they struck), fine, I may agree with you in places. If you think there should be better infrastructure, I wont argue with that, who would?

But I will never agree that driving under or at a posted limit is difficult, and that falling 'victim' to the fines is unavoidable. Governments want money? What, are you shocked by that? Im not, but I dont have to pay it and if I did, Id kick myself for being so stupid, not the goobermint, or the police.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by fmc351

the argument about the level at which a speed limit should be set, or even if one should exist is a different issue.

Quite right.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by fmc351

The argument being brandied about is "I cant be expected to keep under the limit that exists, its not my fault I cant drive properly and concentrate well, my speedo is too hard to read and the dirty government wants my money, they be stealing mah bucket wah wah wah, how can I stop these thieves???

No it's not. The report is on people who choose to "creep", not who can't maintain speed at teh stupid pace they force us to travel at.

Roads have natural rythms, rarely do speedlimits match them.

[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.

[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.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by fmc351

... Speedos can not read low. ...

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.

How about a scenario:
You have the choice of being a passenger in one of two cars, being driven by two different drivers.

The driver of the first car, is completely paranoid about speeding, and religiously checks the speedo to make sure he's not 0.5 km/h over the limit.

The driver of the second car, well... he might slip occasionally and end up doing 65 in a 60 zone, but he pays far more attention to the road and traffic conditions.

Which car would you rather be a passenger in?
Which car would you rather have behind you?

I know which I'd choose.

And yes, I know that it's possible to be attentive to the road and to your speed... but, let's face it, they let anybody drive... and a lot of people will be like driver #1 above, and be really clueless as to their surroundings. I've seen it, you've seen it - everyone has seen it.

[Swordsman88]

What is so frustrating with these attacks on speeding is that the stats used from the 'motor accident comission' are totally bogus. I mean from a logical standpoint just think about it....do you really think changing your speed by 5km/h (up or down...no-one mentions the disruption to traffic by going slower either...) would double your chance of a fatal crash.

For this to be true, accounting for the slighly higher chance of death by having an accident at the 5km/h higher speed you would have to have a close to 60% greater chance of crashing purely on account of the higher speed....does this sound likley???

For a much more extensive view of what causes death on the roads i would suggest you look at this caradvice story and the report it references: http://www.caradvice.com.au/6756/spe...-its-official/

It found that if you look at fatal accidents only exceeding the speed limit was a factor in only 10% of cases (exceeding a safe speed was 13%). It is quite a detailed report which looks at where accidents happen, the causes (primary and contributory) and who is involved (age groups etc.) Totally debunks most of the stuff you here in the media and from the government. I was surprised myself on some areas but it is totally logical when you think about it and look at where accidents happen. For example, just how high the accident rate per kilometre is for urban driving versus highway/motorway. Which makes a mockery of the highway speed cameras at the expense of employing more officers to be on the beat in urban areas observing unsafe driving and taking action there.

[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

[smally289]

Speeding is a major cause of road accidents for sure, but driver education, or lack of it, is a much bigger one IMO.
It is too late to learn how to control a skid when its already happening on a wet road with lots of things around to hit (trees, other cars etc). As long as you can do a hill start, parallel park and pay the money, the bean counters will give you a piece of paper that allows you to drive. What a joke!
Living in a country area, I get to see a lot of city drivers make potentially fatal errors on weekends on the roads. The same could be said for country drivers in cities too.
Educate drivers properly!!!

[Wally]

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...ed_Risk_3.aspx

more:

http://search.infrastructure.gov.au/...y=risk%20crash

[XR06T]

Originally Posted by smally351

~Speeding is a major cause of road accidents for sure~

see thats where you are wrong. just because accidents happen when people speed does not make them the cause. nobody loses control of a car because they do 55 in a 50 zone, you are still only doing 55kph! people crash because they brake too late, have too many drinks, fall asleep, swerve etc, not because they speed. imo.

[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

[4Vman]

We can all argue, debate and gnash teeth about the relative merits of the system of fining motorists who exceed the posted limit, but at the end of the day we all have the ability to avoid detection or "voluntary contributions"... choose to ignore them as an act of defiance and the consequences are pretty obvious....

Its also worth noting that a member here who is an ambo said they'd never attended a fatal accident where speeding above the posted limit wasn't involved.

[AWD Chaser]

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.

WHERES THE PROOF?

Going by that, why don't they lower 60 kph zones to 55kph and 70 to 65, and half the accident risk....

My theory is that if your travelling faster, you would have avoided the incident because you would have already passed the area where it would have happened...

[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 ;)

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Kia Chaser

WHERES THE PROOF?

Going by that, why don't they lower 60 kph zones to 55kph and 70 to 65, and half the accident risk....

My theory is that if your travelling faster, you would have avoided the incident because you would have already passed the area where it would have happened...

I think the point they're making is the differential in speed between those above the limit and those travelling within the limit creates the increased risk... not so much the speed itself, otherwise the relative assesment and application of speed limits themselves could also be questioned..

As for your theory.. well its pretty stupid.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Dezza!

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 ;)

if you change the wheel/tyre combo on your car from what it was when it left the factory, it is your responsibility as owner of the vehicle to make sure it complies and that speedo is correct.

[Trek]

Originally Posted by smally351

As long as you can do a hill start, parallel park and pay the money, the bean counters will give you a piece of paper that allows you to drive. What a joke!
Educate drivers properly!!!

The current test in Vic is not as easy as that, I can assure you. What the instructors of driving schools around where I live categorise as "experienced" drivers, having attained over 120 hours of driving have still failed the current test first time around. The failure rate on the new test here has increased to (aprroximately) 60%, as a result of introducing a new criteria and increasing the test time to 50 minutes, double the length of what the old (joke of a) test was.

I'm in full agreeance on the last statement you made though, I witness drivers making stupid decisions almost everytime I go out for a drive, mostly decisions that would otherwise result in a fatality, if there were a greater volume of traffic present. Too many people think they're invincible on the road, and sadly haven't been taught a harsh enough lesson in life as of yet.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Kia Chaser

WHERES THE PROOF? ...

The truly bogus thing about these reports is they encourage the false notion that "speeding" causes accidents... that is, they gather the statistics about accidents, one of which is the speed the car (or cars) was travelling at. Their logic goes something like this: car has accident; car was travelling 5km/h over the limit; therefore travelling 5km/h over the limit caused the accident.

Forget the fact that the driver was centimetres from the rear end of the car in front and had no hope of stopping in time, whether travelling within the limit or not.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

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.

As you say, keeping to a speed limit and the limit set are two different arguments.

There you go, accept fault, cop it on the chin.

No argument on doing the limit in poor conditions. I dont recall ever being told that is what you should do. I was told to drive to conditions upto the posted limit if that is safe to do so, not always do the limit. I certainly never read it in any testing book, or test.

I tend to agree at least at certain times, the new sections of the M1 GC could be 130, I'd feel safe doing it under a proviso. As has been pointed out here before, there are U-turn facilities along it for emergency vehicles (these or something similar are necessary). If used by someone else, who knows how safe that would be.

I dont make an argument supporting speed limits as they stand, I do support them in suburban areas.

I certainly dont think the current licence standards and driver training are anywhere near good enough. But I could argue, that driver training in controlling skids for example while having the obvious benefits can instill a bullet proof mentality in others. You would need to find what would be more likely. Not guess at it.

That bullet proof mentality appears here far too often.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I certainly dont think the current licence standards and driver training are anywhere near good enough. But I could argue, that driver training in controlling skids for example while having the obvious benefits can instill a bullet proof mentality in others. You would need to find what would be more likely. Not guess at it.

That bullet proof mentality appears here far too often.

The current driving training is not sufficient because it fails to address how to drive a car properly (you can pass that in an auto for example after 15 minutes discussion and a few days practice) or proper skills for dealing with traffic flow and decision making/judgement. Why for example aren't learner drivers instructed on just how much stopping distance is affected by wet conditions, how being tired is just as dangerous as drunk etc. I'm not looking for a 3hr long university exam here, just a general awareness of the issues.

As for the whole 'advanced driver training' debate, it is an interesting one. Once again, stats can be used to support both points of view, some reports i've read have said it is advisable, others say it promotes unsafe driving. At the end of the day i struggle to see how knowing how to control a car better in a range of conditions (remembering that most of these courses include theoretical discussion aswell) can be a bad thing. If set up properly with equal emphasis on avoiding bad situations and advice on safe driving habits it seems ok to me. I think alot of drivers when they realise just how hard it is to swerve and recover a car or the effect of water on stopping distances would drive very differently in a positive, not negative way.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

The current driving training is not sufficient because it fails to address how to drive a car properly (you can pass that in an auto for example after 15 minutes discussion and a few days practice) or proper skills for dealing with traffic flow and decision making/judgement. Why for example aren't learner drivers instructed on just how much stopping distance is affected by wet conditions, how being tired is just as dangerous as drunk etc. I'm not looking for a 3hr long university exam here, just a general awareness of the issues.

Most of that was covered by my olds when I was on L's. I know the car in front of me will brake before he brakes, I see the car a few further up brake and its obvious, my foot is already easing the brake when the car in front starts to brake. I was taught to read the road as far as possible and keep a reasonable distance.

Ive heard others argue in regards to the torrential rain anyone not doing 110 are a hazard as they cant be seen in time and traveling slower than the traffic is a hazard as no-one can react. Ill bet a thousand $$ if they were told the proper answer for the test in the guide book, they would give the proper answer, but still drive how they like. I recall on my test (long time ago) there was a question on braking in the wet, and asked for a distance based on a calculation given in the book.

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

As for the whole 'advanced driver training' debate, it is an interesting one. Once again, stats can be used to support both points of view, some reports i've read have said it is advisable, others say it promotes unsafe driving. At the end of the day i struggle to see how knowing how to control a car better in a range of conditions (remembering that most of these courses include theoretical discussion aswell) can be a bad thing. If set up properly with equal emphasis on avoiding bad situations and advice on safe driving habits it seems ok to me. I think alot of drivers when they realise just how hard it is to swerve and recover a car or the effect of water on stopping distances would drive very differently in a positive, not negative way.

Is there a difference between defensive driver training and advanced?

[4Vman]

Millions of people drive every day without incident or needing defensive or advanced driver training beyond what they learn as learners......
Lack of correct Driver attitude is the issue, not lack of driver training.
Smart drivers asses the conditions presented to them and don't take unnecessary risks, and that includes speeding beyond what's safe for the conditions they're faced with.

[smally289]

Originally Posted by XR06T

see thats where you are wrong. just because accidents happen when people speed does not make them the cause. nobody loses control of a car because they do 55 in a 50 zone, you are still only doing 55kph! people crash because they brake too late, have too many drinks, fall asleep, swerve etc, not because they speed. imo.

I get your point, but add 5 km/h extra to late braking, DUI, etc and it sure doesnt help, it may be the difference between a minor injury and a major one.
Excessive speed is definitely a major cause of accidents. How many times do you see on the news a car cut in half after hitting a pole on a suburban street. It takes more than 55kph to do that.
I have helped cut several people (alive and otherwise) out of mangled cars and it aint pretty. Some things stay with you for life. Like the time we cut an elderly lady out of a ZK Fairlane, with her dead husband sitting beside her. If the idiot going the other way around the sweeping bend wasn't speeding and had managed to keep his car on the right side of road then I guess they would have made i home safely that night. The length of the skid marks leading up to the point of impact were incredible and indicated a speed well over the posted limit. He walked away unscathed.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by smally351

Excessive speed is definitely a major cause of accidents.

How major? More than 5%?

[opto]

Its just another scare campaign, nobody listens to them, they dont work.

They made this creeping crap up and where's the proof that "creeping" has a major effect on road accidents/death ?

[Scott]

^^ I'm a creep and I'm not dead.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Trek

The current test in Vic is not as easy as that, I can assure you. What the instructors of driving schools around where I live categorise as "experienced" drivers, having attained over 120 hours of driving have still failed the current test first time around. The failure rate on the new test here has increased to (aprroximately) 60%, as a result of introducing a new criteria and increasing the test time to 50 minutes, double the length of what the old (joke of a) test was.

The road test actually still is. The hardest part in passing those test is that crappy 2D simulation test that Vicroads has put a lot of emphasis on. Its not that hard to drive around the back streets of Melbourne suburbs do what the assessor is telling you and pass.
Unfortunately the driving instructors also tech you to pass a test, not how to drive the car.

One thought I would like to put out is have new cars out there been designed now that it can be quite easy to be distracted or not learn any skills. Things like auto's, T/C, esp, cruise control. While fantastic devices (auto is debatable) do people concentrate less as they would feel they just have to steer and things will be ok??