BrendAn Posted July 8 Posted July 8 20 hours ago, spacesailor said: " School Zones " . A School in Darcy road pendle hill. Nsw . Has been demolished. But you will still cop that " school-zone fine " , As it's only " revenue raising " . The offal School enrolment is 712 . Without a building ! . spacesailor We have one too. Scion college in sale relocated a couple of years ago. The 40 zone is still active at the old location which is abandoned. I wonder if people get booked there. It's highway 1 as well.
skippydiesel Posted July 8 Posted July 8 44 minutes ago, danny_galaga said: Accidents happen. Indisputable. If your accidents happen at lower speeds, there are less injuries. That's also indisputable. Accepting an accident rate, is at best false logic, at worst bordering on criminal negligence. Elimination (Prevention) is first on the Hierarchy of Control - prevent the accident in the first instance and there will be no injury/death. Accident prevention, is the only way to minimise/reduce the accident rate, below the current persistent (many years) plateaued accident rate. Improving, maintaining, driver skill, is the only logical way forward. Clearly this will never be a 100% solution but at least it would go some in the right direction. Face it, the historic & current philosophy had initial success way back when, now and for many years stalled - time well overdue for a fresh approach - look at the root causes and stop addressing just the symptoms. While we have human drivers( & pilots), accident will continue to occur but the rate can be better managed by implementing effective systems/procedures (check out the aviation model). The logical extension of your statement, when applied to aircraft, would render them unable to leave the ground - just saying!. NOTE: I am not advocating the removal of posted speed limits ( I would like them to reflect the driving environment). I am advocating what appears to be a a novel concept -a scientific/logical approach to reducing the carnage on our roads and coincidently reducing commuter times in city environments.
Red Posted July 8 Posted July 8 7 hours ago, skippydiesel said: There is some evidence that suggests, that the installation of systems that make it safer to crash, actually work against safe driving. Risk compensation is very real, the person in his/her huge modern suv with full insurance feels so safe they are almost guaranteed to drive like an idiot Consideration for others could help balance out this effect but there is very little of evidence that quality exists in the majority of people 1
turboplanner Posted July 8 Posted July 8 3 hours ago, skippydiesel said: It always amazes me how willing people are to be brainwashed. Back in the days, when we were transitioning from horse drawn transport to car/rail, there were those who were convinced that traveling at a speed greater than that of a galloping horse was instant death. The clergy were particularly adamant on this point - presumably the dead person went straight to hell. One would think that with widespread education and some minimal grounding in science, to say nothing of being aware of the advance of technology, it would have become apparent to all THAT SPEED DOES NOT KILL!!!!!!! This is fact - beyond doubt. CRASHING of the vehicle can causes injury, death and ongoing economic loss. The focus on vehicle speed and safety devices does very little to address the basic problem - BAD DRIVING. I would go so far as to suggest this one eyed focus, to the exclusion of more effective/targeted solutions, has likly lead to maintaining the rate of accident in Australia, than any other factor. Look back - Authorities of all levels and persuasion, have for the most part been focused on legislated to reduce the potential for harm in the event of an incident. there has been at best, token attention to preventing the crash in the first instance. Sure there has been a bit about maintenance - thats what the joke of Roadworthy Inspections are about. Some thought has gone into such matters as lights (vehicle build standards) but actual driving skill/prevention of accidents ?????????. When it comes to driver skill - what skil?? Our illustrious leaders have been pretty well absent on this matter. Driver testing (once in a lifetime for most) is another joke. Driving standards are appalling. I see so called professional drivers (police/taxi/emergency/bus/truck) behaving badly every time I go on a tip, what hope for the private driver????? Our traffic accident rate remains stubbornly high - plateaued! Our leaders answer - Lower & more varied speed limits, More draconian fines for evil doers ( thats people who break the posted speed limit, not necessarily speeding in the sense of driving dangerously, don't wear a safety belt/helmet) Safety barriers to keep the crashing vehicle on the road??? Safety barriers on both sides of a road (sometimes in the middle) are an extravagant waste (for the most part) of tax dollars. In our area (NSW) there has been a sudden explosion in very large reflective chevrons on every corner - sometimes as many as 25 individual signs, presumably to guide the almost blinded (reflected light at night) every 10 m of curvature. Expensive & ineffective/illogical/pathetic advertising campaigns (our tax dollars) that promote the ineffectual messaging of the past Australia's motor vehicle fatality numbers per year are small, down below medical negligence. Driving standards are not ignored, the conversation on this thread has just rumbled along relating to safety after the accident. Driving behaviour has several subjects which can vary the fatality rate, and there are many other factors as well. I know the TYPES of motor vehicles take up the whole of the full width of the Vicroads Auditorium because I was there the day the engineer from Adelaide started at the left wall and walked across the room writing all trhe way. We realised we didn't know as much as we thought we did. We currently have what might become a permanent J Curve caused by drugs and inattention, but at the other end less fatals thanks to wire barriers which take a lot of point loadings out of the equation. The wire barriers are deflecting B Doubless back on the road and at the same time acting like arrestor cables on aircraft carriers for motor cyclists. There were some wire barrier fatalities earlier due to incorrect installation. 1 1
Marty_d Posted July 8 Posted July 8 6 minutes ago, turboplanner said: The wire barriers are deflecting B Doubless back on the road and at the same time acting like arrestor cables on aircraft carriers for motor cyclists. There were some wire barrier fatalities earlier due to incorrect installation. If you're talking about the multi-strand steel cable barriers threaded through steel posts, they're more like cheese graters for motorcyclists. 1 1
danny_galaga Posted July 8 Posted July 8 1 hour ago, skippydiesel said: Accepting an accident rate, is at best false logic, at worst bordering on criminal negligence. Elimination (Prevention) is first on the Hierarchy of Control - prevent the accident in the first instance and there will be no injury/death. Accident prevention, is the only way to minimise/reduce the accident rate, below the current persistent (many years) plateaued accident rate. Improving, maintaining, driver skill, is the only logical way forward. Clearly this will never be a 100% solution but at least it would go some in the right direction. Face it, the historic & current philosophy had initial success way back when, now and for many years stalled - time well overdue for a fresh approach - look at the root causes and stop addressing just the symptoms. While we have human drivers( & pilots), accident will continue to occur but the rate can be better managed by implementing effective systems/procedures (check out the aviation model). The logical extension of your statement, when applied to aircraft, would render them unable to leave the ground - just saying!. NOTE: I am not advocating the removal of posted speed limits ( I would like them to reflect the driving environment). I am advocating what appears to be a a novel concept -a scientific/logical approach to reducing the carnage on our roads and coincidently reducing commuter times in city environments. What is also false logic is imagining that the fear of speed in the olden days is at all related to preventing/reducing accidents through speed reduction now. Back then, a lot of people were adamant the human body just couldn't handle 'high' speeds. Nothing to do with accidents.
skippydiesel Posted July 8 Posted July 8 9 minutes ago, danny_galaga said: What is also false logic is imagining that the fear of speed in the olden days is at all related to preventing/reducing accidents through speed reduction now. Back then, a lot of people were adamant the human body just couldn't handle 'high' speeds. Nothing to do with accidents. You miss the point, my apologies - it's the focus on speed, as the cause & panacea, for all driving incidents, that goes right back to the erly days of vehicles when clearly good driving is the only meaningful mitigation.
turboplanner Posted July 8 Posted July 8 15 minutes ago, Marty_d said: If you're talking about the multi-strand steel cable barriers threaded through steel posts, they're more like cheese graters for motorcyclists. That was what some people predicted at the beginning but they probably didn't know it was a slack-wire system.
danny_galaga Posted July 8 Posted July 8 1 hour ago, skippydiesel said: You miss the point, my apologies - it's the focus on speed, as the cause & panacea, for all driving incidents, that goes right back to the erly days of vehicles when clearly good driving is the only meaningful mitigation. A large part of good driving is not speeding 🙂 1
facthunter Posted July 8 Posted July 8 (edited) Nah.Turbs, they are outrageously dangerous for Motorcycles and there's an additional covering we chose not to use because it cost more and no one cares about motorcycles really. They can slide under ARMCO too and there's a fix for that. Hitting trees is the alternative to these measures in many places or spearing into the end of a bridge. People drive too fast in fogs floods and rain too. If you go too fast in a plane it may fail structurally. Nev Edited July 8 by facthunter more content. 1
BrendAn Posted July 8 Posted July 8 when they first started fitting cable barriers in gippsland one of the people installing them told me some states in america were removing them due to motorcycle accidents. up here they make it hard for the cfa fighting roadside fires in summer. you used to be able to pass dual wheeled tractors now your stuck behind them. if a wide load breaks down between sale and bairnsdale the highway is blocked in that direction. same with accidents. there was a transport spokesman on the radio a few years back telling listeners about the protection that was going on the barriers but as nev said it never happened.
spacesailor Posted July 8 Posted July 8 Those ' multiple ' speed limits are not for " safety ". merely a source of " unlimited revenue " . even in 'Parramatta park ' has posted speed limits . That Only ' motorists have to obey, the cyclists can And , do go much faster than a 30 kph limit . ( they never get fined. Even when racing flat out down hill ). Revene raising spacesailor 1
Red Posted July 8 Posted July 8 Wow, I just had a read up on those cable barriers, whoever designed them was either an idiot who didnt understand the physics behind a motorcycle and or rider impacting such a device or simply didnt GAF 1
turboplanner Posted July 8 Posted July 8 5 hours ago, Red said: Wow, I just had a read up on those cable barriers, whoever designed them was either an idiot who didnt understand the physics behind a motorcycle and or rider impacting such a device or simply didnt GAF In that case I'd recommend you research our accident statistical data on Motor Vehicle accidents. Vehicle advances have been discussed here, and a little on driver behaviour but an important part of the fatality equation is environment. In racing compressed solid objects such as protruding posts in safety fences which crushed a few heads, infield solid objects - like spectator cars, compressed solid objects, like light poles, etc have mostly been removed and replaced by things like runoff areas and sand traps where a bike rider can slide until his energy is dissipated. On our roads, light poles and sign posts now usually have frangible mounting so a car can hit at full speed without a fatality, but it's not so easy to get rid of the compressed solid objects - trees. Australians love trees along their roads even though just about every country town has a couple of crosses along the way. Wire barriers are not like armco, but a more gentle way of slowing a vehicle down before it impacts a solid tree. The result of thousands of kilometres of barriers has been lower fatalities on these problem roads. 1
Red Posted July 8 Posted July 8 53 minutes ago, turboplanner said: In that case I'd recommend you research our accident statistical data on Motor Vehicle accidents. Vehicle advances have been discussed here, and a little on driver behaviour but an important part of the fatality equation is environment. In racing compressed solid objects such as protruding posts in safety fences which crushed a few heads, infield solid objects - like spectator cars, compressed solid objects, like light poles, etc have mostly been removed and replaced by things like runoff areas and sand traps where a bike rider can slide until his energy is dissipated. On our roads, light poles and sign posts now usually have frangible mounting so a car can hit at full speed without a fatality, but it's not so easy to get rid of the compressed solid objects - trees. Australians love trees along their roads even though just about every country town has a couple of crosses along the way. Wire barriers are not like armco, but a more gentle way of slowing a vehicle down before it impacts a solid tree. The result of thousands of kilometres of barriers has been lower fatalities on these problem roads. You've wandered off into aspects and vehicles I made no comment on so Ive no idea why you quoted my comment on cable barriers versus motorcycles and there obviously poor design in respect of motorcycle impact, just look at the things, low dow so if hit upright youd just highside into the oppossing traffic, or if you had already slid onto the ground it probably do major damage to a limb at best..and if you ended up on top of one of the posts..well thats something I've experienced at quite low speed and still broke 3 ribs and a collar bone. 1
turboplanner Posted July 8 Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Red said: You've wandered off into aspects and vehicles I made no comment on so Ive no idea why you quoted my comment on cable barriers versus motorcycles and there obviously poor design in respect of motorcycle impact, just look at the things, low dow so if hit upright youd just highside into the oppossing traffic, or if you had already slid onto the ground it probably do major damage to a limb at best..and if you ended up on top of one of the posts..well thats something I've experienced at quite low speed and still broke 3 ribs and a collar bone. What I recommended is that you google our extensive statistics which provide the answers to the speculated fatals from wire barriers. 2
skippydiesel Posted July 8 Posted July 8 14 hours ago, danny_galaga said: A large part of good driving is not speeding 🙂 How do you define "speeding"?????? We have come to think (brainwashing) that speeding is breaking the posted (legal) speed limit. I believe speeding is when the vehicle is driven at/beyond the safe speed for that driver/vehicle/ road environment ie unsafe. Examples : A drunk driver is unsafe at any speed. Driving in thick fog above 20 kph may also be speeding. A mechanically warn/damaged vehicle may be just okay at 60 kph and speeding at 70 kph. An experienced driver, in a well maintained vehicle, on a far west sealed country road, at mid morning, may be quite safe at 160 kph, Most of the Hume & Pacific Highways should be posted at 130 kph. Is it speeding when you accelerate , above the posted speed limit, to pass a B Double in 30 seconds, rather than take 15 minutes sloooooooowly overtaking (in cruise control), just a few meters away from a juggernaut that may, at any moment swerve onto you, blow one of those tyres and your vehicle be hit by a huge lump of spinning carcass???? Speeding, as in dangerous driving, is a contributing factor, not the cause of accidents - bad driving (which in my mind includes defective vehicle) is the cause of accidents. Speed never injured/killed anyone. We are so brainwashed about not exceeding the posted speed limit, many believe driving at or just below is SAFE eg I attended a non injury accident, where the young driver had left the road in dense fog. The rural road was posted at 100 kph. There are several bends on this 20 km length of road - one is almost a 90 degree - this was where the accident happened. It was clear that the corner had been taken at excessive speed (for the conditions). The driver was incensed at this suggestion, insisting he stayed below the speed limit!!!!!!!!. His vehicle had literally almost cleared a rural fence, only taking out the top wire. My drive to the scene never got over 20 kph and even then I struggled to stay on the road. 1
danny_galaga Posted July 8 Posted July 8 10 hours ago, spacesailor said: Those ' multiple ' speed limits are not for " safety ". merely a source of " unlimited revenue " . even in 'Parramatta park ' has posted speed limits . That Only ' motorists have to obey, the cyclists can And , do go much faster than a 30 kph limit . ( they never get fined. Even when racing flat out down hill ). Revene raising spacesailor So don't go over those limits if you wish to not contribute to those revenues 😃
danny_galaga Posted July 8 Posted July 8 7 minutes ago, skippydiesel said: How do you define "speeding"?????? We have come to think (brainwashing) that speeding is breaking the posted (legal) speed limit. I believe speeding is when the vehicle is driven at/beyond the safe speed for that driver/vehicle/ road environment ie unsafe. Examples : A drunk driver is unsafe at any speed. Driving in thick fog above 20 kph may also be speeding. A mechanically warn/damaged vehicle may be just okay at 60 kph and speeding at 70 kph. An experienced driver, in a well maintained vehicle, on a far west sealed country road, at mid morning, may be quite safe at 160 kph, Most of the Hume & Pacific Highways should be posted at 130 kph. Is it speeding when you accelerate , above the posted speed limit, to pass a B Double in 30 seconds, rather than take 15 minutes sloooooooowly overtaking (in cruise control), just a few meters away from a juggernaut that may, at any moment swerve onto you, blow one of those tyres and your vehicle be hit by a huge lump of spinning carcass???? Speeding, as in dangerous driving, is a contributing factor, not the cause of accidents - bad driving (which in my mind includes defective vehicle) is the cause of accidents. Speed never injured/killed anyone. We are so brainwashed about not exceeding the posted speed limit, many believe driving at or just below is SAFE eg I attended a non injury accident, where the young driver had left the road in dense fog. The rural road was posted at 100 kph. There are several bends on this 20 km length of road - one is almost a 90 degree - this was where the accident happened. It was clear that the corner had been taken at excessive speed (for the conditions). The driver was incensed at this suggestion, insisting he stayed below the speed limit!!!!!!!!. His vehicle had literally almost cleared a rural fence, only taking out the top wire. My drive to the scene never got over 20 kph and even then I struggled to stay on the road. "Speeding" on a public road means going over the posted speed limit. The posted speed limit isn't just saying "1 km/h over and you're a reckless maniac". It's making sure everyone is on the same page. If the limit is 60 but you decide you are safe at 80, then everyone else is more likely to make incorrect assumptions about you. Especially at T intersections etc. There are other people on the road. It's not all just about you. I'm saying all this as a whiskey priest of course. I can't remember the last time I got a speeding ticket, but that doesn't mean I don't speed from time to time. But I at least feel bad about it 😄
skippydiesel Posted July 9 Posted July 9 I have repeatedly said I am not against posted speed limits. I agree with " It's making sure everyone is on the same page. " and I would add, should inform the driver of actual or impending road conditions, that require speed be kept below the limit for all road users safety. "There are other people on the road." True and the vast majority are bad drivers. By beef is not with appropriate (a rare concept) posted speed limits but with the one eyde legal focus on breaking these limits, as a safety policy, that clearly is no longer reducing the road toll. While I agree that most accidents will have excessive speed, as a contributing factor, the only common factor to all is BAD DRIVING something that is not addressed under the (NSW) driver adherence system.
facthunter Posted July 9 Posted July 9 Judgement would be required to asses BAD driving on the roads. Who are you going to leave that up to? Nev 1
Red Posted July 9 Posted July 9 (edited) 9 hours ago, turboplanner said: What I recommended is that you google our extensive statistics which provide the answers to the speculated fatals from wire barriers. Edit...I'll just use the ignore function Edited July 9 by Red 1
kgwilson Posted July 9 Posted July 9 The EU has just introduced new laws that require all new cars to have speed limiters. How these are implemented will be interesting. Many new cars already have built in GPS and traffic sign recognition (mine has) and a backlash is expected. My car is already speed limited by software. It will not exceed 160 kmh, but that is hardly a disincentive to speed. I always set the ACC to the speed limit & have never taken it to 160kmh anyway. The rule will eventually filter down to Australia but given that we still do not even have any fuel standards (20 years behind the EU) I wouldn't hold my breath. https://www.autoweek.com/news/a61532276/mandatory-speed-limiters-europe-cars/
turboplanner Posted July 9 Posted July 9 46 minutes ago, Red said: Edit...I'll just use the ignore function Your loss, it's close to zero, so just colourful imagination.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now