[Clivey]

Crisis: I agree with your post in its entirety and the following isn't directed specifically at you, but I just wanted to point-out the following things:

Originally Posted by crisis

Speed limits are necessary only as a guide line to those with no idea about driving dynamics. It’s like when you have to have procedures in the work place. So that people who can’t work out a sensible way of doing things can work too.

This is the problem: Despite the fact that these numpties have little or no other option regarding transport, they're simply too ignorant to be behind the wheel. If you can't trust someone to maintain a sensible speed, can you trust them to judge when to turn the steering wheel or judge distances? No.

The only proper solution is proper driver training BEFORE learners are allowed a driving license. If someone can't show good judgement they shouldn't be controlling a potentially dangerous machine. It's as simple as that.

Some think that they should automatically have the right to drive - this is wrong. Some people who drive wouldn't be granted a firearms license or allowed by their employer to operate other dangerous machinery because they can't be trusted to use them appropriately. Can everybody see the problem now?

Originally Posted by crisis

The people who die from exceeding the speed limit generally die travelling 20 or so kmh faster, not 5. I have proof that speed doest kill. I have driven a car a 200kmh on a 100kmh road and didn’t die. I have driven a car are 60kmh in a 50kmh zone and likewise survived. I am not trying to be smart but that’s the kind of response I feel towards comments like “speed kills”.
Funny that on the S.A. dept transport web page about road safety they tend to agree with me in the ambiguity they use.

Yes, yes, yes! And in appropriate conditions, there's nothing wrong with those who know what they're doing driving their cars in an appropriate way (whether that be in a "sporty" fashion or otherwise). Sorry to stereotype, but even if a genuine car enthusiast with a high level of driving ability and a reasonable head loses control of their machine, they'll do it in an environment where they're not going to harm anyone else - it's the chavs

And just as important to remember: Accidents will still happen regardless - you can't prevent every unexpected event*, but authorities are too quick to jump on the "speed bandwagon" rather than look for the real problem in most cases.

* For example, I was hit by a wheeltrim that flew off another car last night (only little scratches thankfully) - no-one was driving stupidly and I was driving below the speed limit. Accidents still happen.

Originally Posted by crisis

Research has identified excessive speed as a major factor in approximately 20% of fatal crashes in Australia.
Excessive speed is not the same as exceeding the speed limit as the go on to say –

There are two kinds of speed problem:
• excessive speed (travelling faster than the speed limit)
• inappropriate speed (travelling too fast for the conditions).
Speed limits are set so as to indicate a reasonable speed for most vehicles under normal circumstances. But, under less than ideal conditions, travelling below the speed limit may be required for safety.[/quote]

Yes, and this is the other problem: Even speed limits and enforcement that are draconian in ideal conditions can still be inadequate in less than ideal conditions. That's why despite the disadvantages of cost and practicality, we ultimately need to switch to a more "common sense" approach to driving, especially seeing as the volume of traffic on our roads is on the increase.

Originally Posted by crisis

Therefore under ideal conditions it is perfectly safe to exceed the speed limit?

Short answer: Yes. Many drivers do that regularly with no ill-effects whatsoever. Sorry to repeat myself, but as long as you're driving appropriately, only freak accidents will still happen - and they're indiscriminate anyway!

Originally Posted by crisis

On 60 km/h urban roads the risk of a casualty crash doubles for each 5 km/h above the speed limit; on rural roads the risk doubles for each 10 km/h above the average traffic speed. International research in a number of countries broadly(loosely?) supports these findings.

The text highlighted in bold means almost nothing in reality. How this data was gathered and who's agreeing and why are more important issues. Can we trust it? Doubtful, because it's being sprouted from the same governments we already know not to be truthful in many matters including those involving transport and driving.

Originally Posted by crisis

Well these are two different things. “Each 5 km/h above the speed limit” and “each 10 km/h above the average traffic speed”. So in the country if everyone is going between 100kmh and 140kmh (exceeding the speed limit) then those travelling at 120kmh (exceeding the speed limit) are driving quite safely?

A very good point and in reality there's a likelihood they are driving safely. If someone with an equal skill/equipment etc.etc. can demonstrate how to do something at 140kmh, you can do it at 120kmh. It's like walking across a bridge: If you see a horse run across it just before you get to it, unless something's changed before your turn, you'll be able to walk across it with no problems.

[quote=crisis;789729]Their strategies then.

How can we stop speeding?
These are just some of the ideas being considered for future action plans to reduce road trauma in our State:
• Legislation – more regulations to control speeding (the faster than the speed limit type, the inappropriate speed type or the above the average speed type????)

I'd vote for the inappropriate type every time. If there were no posted limits and someone did have an accident, it could be judged whether they were driving inappropriately* or not and if they were, they could be reprimanded just the same. - Only without affecting those who are capable of acting reasonably. It's a "win/win" situation for road users.

* By "inappropriately", I don't just mean "speeding", as speeding is never the sole cause of RTAs.

Originally Posted by crisis

• Education – more information about the consequences

As our government likes to say: "Education, education, education!"

- it's time for them to put their money where their mouths are. This, together with a sensible approach, is the only way to solve most of the problems facing society. Nelson Mandela once said that man will act wisely once every other option has failed - my question is "why"?

Initial costs and impracticalities (to the government) will be very high, but once the foundations are laid, we're left to reap the benefits of our hard work. There is no excuse.

Originally Posted by crisis

• Enforcement – greater use of speed guns and cameras

Originally Posted by crisis

( naturally)

For what? Yet more inappropriate manipulation and deceit?

"I'm sorry, you were doing 80mph on a 70mph road in the middle of the night with no other traffic around, we're going to punish you more severely than thugs who assault and terrorise the public."


No thanks.

Originally Posted by crisis

• Penalties – increased demerit points and greater chance of losing your licence (whatever)

£££

Originally Posted by crisis

• Traffic management – wider application of lower speed limits (great)

The only places I'd still advocate low speed limits are in heavily populated, built-up areas as there is more opportunity for the unexpected to happen - otherwise all we're doing is inconveniencing everybody that's driving sensibly.

Originally Posted by crisis

• Smart technology – vehicle and traffic management systems to automatically lower speed. (Fear their definition of smart!)

Why? So that yet more complete idiots can be deemed to be "safe" behind the wheel? If there were a God, we'd need their help with this...!

Originally Posted by crisis

Some recent initiatives in South Australia are:
• A general 50 km/h limit now applies throughout urban areas, except on arterial roads and where local councils have established 40 km/h zones (nice that. 40, 50 , 60 so you have no idea of what you are supposed to be doing therefore a soft target for this guy
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/rss/c...s/speed_02.jpg
• Speed limits on sections of the Adelaide Hills have been lowered to 80 km/h (fair call as long as they are placed sensibly)
• Speed limits on lower standard rural open roads have been reduced from 110 to 100 km/h (but if the average speed… ah f#@* it.)
• Demerit points as well as fines now apply to speed camera offences. (whateva!)

Similar BS in the UK - except the limits are even lower and more difficult to stick to. (Ever tried to drive a modern car at a steady 20mph for a while, whilst watching the road?)

What happens when more people have accidents due to them watching the speedo rather than the road?