Finally, the truth about speed bumps and low speed limits

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Clivey

Yes, although it is possible although statistically not probable that they will be mature and sensible with it. The danger we face is tarring everyone with the same brush that the numpties are having to be brushed by. I could say with total certainty that despite being "just" 19, you could give me a TVR and NOT find me backwards up a tree by next week. - If I were in a position to own something like that, I'd want to be shown how to use and take care of it properly, I wouldn't even drive it until I knew that I knew what I was doing.

- In fact, anyone who knows me would agree that I'd probably spend a month polishing every nut and bolt before it even saw a road!

Can you imagine a license system where one would have to follow advanced driver training before being let loose on the road?

[Clivey]

Originally Posted by henk4

Can you imagine a license system where one would have to follow advanced driver training before being let loose on the road?

Yes. Vividly. - It'd probably save a lot of lives. Just a few weeks ago, a young driver pushing his Seat Ibiza too hard oversteered out of a bend on a local road and into the path of another car. The oncoming car went straight THROUGH the Ibiza, killing all 4 inside. A lower speed limit would not have prevented this - the Seat driver chose to act like an idiot anyway, but better driver training would, without impinging on the liberty of others.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Clivey

Yes. Vividly. - It'd probably save a lot of lives. Just a few weeks ago, a young driver pushing his Seat Ibiza too hard oversteered out of a bend on a local road and into the path of another car. The oncoming car went straight THROUGH the Ibiza, killing all 4 inside. A lower speed limit would not have prevented this - the Seat driver chose to act like an idiot anyway, but better driver training would, without impinging on the liberty of others.

I see your point, and agree, but I was more thinking along the lines of the practical implications of making advanced driver mandatory. Imagine the crashed training cars, the additional costs of obtaining a license....(and btw what the Seat did was understeer, based on your description)

[Clivey]

Originally Posted by henk4

I see your point, and agree, but I was more thinking along the lines of the practical implications of making advanced driver mandatory. Imagine the crashed training cars, the additional costs of obtaining a license....(and btw what the Seat did was understeer, based on your description)

Crashed cars? We must be thinking of different training. - I meant the kind crisis mentioned in his above post(s), the kind where only traffic cones etc. are involved (rather than something solid to hit). They could just use a car with a big, cheap black plastic bumper on the front to avoid any possible damage to that, too.

Yes, the initial costs would rise - but can you put a price on life? Also, if drivers become safer, less will have to be spent on keeping check on them.

Regarding the Seat - it was definitely oversteer. The back-end slid out as the car exited the corner going way too fast downhill, it then went sideways across the bows of a Subaru Impreza that was travelling just below the speed limit (for once an accident where the Subaru driver wasn't to blame!). The momentum of both cars caused the Subaru to split the Seat in half (seats and floorpan when one way, the rest went the other way) - I know this because a friend's father recovered the cars (he works for a local recovery company). He also commented that if the Subaru had have been a less safe car, the driver of that would also have been killed.



- The picture is just to prove I know the difference between under and oversteer!

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Clivey

Crashed cars? We must be thinking of different training. - I meant the kind crisis mentioned in his above post(s), the kind where only traffic cones etc. are involved (rather than something solid to hit). They could just use a car with a big, cheap black plastic bumper on the front to avoid any possible damage to that, too.

Yes, the initial costs would rise - but can you put a price on life? Also, if drivers become safer, less will have to be spent on keeping check on them.

Regarding the Seat - it was definitely oversteer. The back-end slid out as the car exited the corner going way too fast downhill, it then went sideways across the bows of a Subaru Impreza that was travelling just below the speed limit (for once an accident where the Subaru driver wasn't to blame!). The momentum of both cars caused the Subaru to split the Seat in half (seats and floorpan when one way, the rest went the other way) - I know this because a friend's father recovered the cars (he works for a local recovery company). He also commented that if the Subaru had have been a less safe car, the driver of that would also have been killed.



- The picture is just to prove I know the difference between under and oversteer!

The dilemma is that advanced driver training will probably be more successful if you are already have a certain driving experience. (Catch 22). With crashed cars I meant the training vehicles (owned by the driving school??) that may get out of control.
I see your point about the Seat, it is a case of lift off oversteer, so he actually tried to slow down....

Edit: Interestingly I just read that drivers getting caught for tailgating or overtaking in the wrong lane will have to follow a specific refresher course (own expenses) to point out the risks of dangerous driving. This is now only mandatory when caught with too much alcohol behind the wheel.

[Clivey]

Originally Posted by henk4

The dilemma is that advanced driver training will probably be more successful if you are already have a certain driving experience. (Catch 22).

You have a good point (as always ), and someone with more expertise in advanced driving should have the say, of course...but if you ask my opinion: I guess continuous improvement seems to be the best option for new drivers - I should have some idea as I am still one myself. I would like to undertake further training whenever I can, in fact.

Originally Posted by henk4

With crashed cars I meant the training vehicles (owned by the driving school??) that may get out of control.

Ah, OK...yes, I guess the same measures as I previously described could theoretically be applied here too - bolt/clip-on rubber/plastic bumpers could fit over the OEM items to prevent them from cones etc. if required.

Originally Posted by henk4

I see your point about the Seat, it is a case of lift off oversteer, so he actually tried to slow down....

Indeed. - Judging by that corner (it's on a road I use on almost half of my journeys) , he probably got half way around it before realising he was carrying far too much speed after the apex and was understeering wide (maybe due to the increased weight of the three passengers)- he lifted-off and the car snapped sideways. Ironically, even if he had have made it around the corner, it wouldn't have been the fastest way around it (the apex is late) if that was what he was trying to do.

Originally Posted by henk4

Edit: Interestingly I just read that drivers getting caught for tailgating or overtaking in the wrong lane will have to follow a specific refresher course (own expenses) to point out the risks of dangerous driving. This is now only mandatory when caught with too much alcohol behind the wheel.

Fantastic news - both of those things really get on my nerves as a driver. Which country is this in BTW?

I'd just like to say: "Thanks for the discussion, Pieter - it's nice to talk seriously about something without idiots ruining the thread!"

[henk4]

Originally Posted by Clivey

Fantastic news - both of those things really get on my nerves as a driver. Which country is this in BTW?

ours...

[CapnBoost]

Originally Posted by CapnBoost

It's not caused by speed itself, but by differences in speed.

Originally Posted by henk4

There the level of speed really will determine the mortality level of contacts made.
The other important issue, also mentioned here is the difference in speed.

Originally Posted by henk4

Edit: Interestingly I just read that drivers getting caught for tailgating or overtaking in the wrong lane will have to follow a specific refresher course (own expenses) to point out the risks of dangerous driving. This is now only mandatory when caught with too much alcohol behind the wheel.

In some states they're actually ticketing for going to slow as well. One of my major pet peeves is *having* to pass on the right.

[crisis]

AdelaideNow... Driver beats speed fine

A MOTORIST has avoided a $165 fine by challenging the accuracy of police speeding equipment. And the implications could affect all speeding fines.

Police withdrew from the case after one of their former speed equipment experts challenged the way SAPOL measures speeding vehicles.
'The failure of the case has thrown into question the ability of police to fine drivers under new lower speed tolerance limits which were introduced in December.

Police on Thursday withdrew their case in the Berri Magistrates Court against Lou Gagliardi, 66, of Waikerie, who was using retired speed calibration expert Les Felix as a witness.

Mr Felix had prepared evidence that Mr Gagliardi could not accurately have been recorded travelling at 122km/h in a 110km/h zone and the new tolerance limits were flawed.

Against Mr Felix's advice, Police Commissioner Mal Hyde announced last year police were considering lowering the secret margin for error given to speeding drivers.

Mr Felix said authorities could no longer put their "heads in the sand" on the speed tolerance issue and he would help other motorists who were fined by police under the new tolerance limits, if they contact him by email at speedmeasure@ adam.com.au

He said police withdrew from the Gagliardi case because he could prove Mr Gagliardi innocent and prove the new tolerance limits were not enforceable.

"Tolerance limits must not be allowed to be less than 7km/h when driving at 60km/h and 13km/h when driving at 110km/h," he said.

"Otherwise the driver falls within the region of uncertainty of the equipment they are using."

Acting chair of the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee George Mancini said the fact the police had withdrawn meant there had been no legal precedent set.

"Police usually don't follow the calibration rules and it is not uncommon for police to withdraw the charges," he said.

During two independent tests, RAA equipment and Mr Felix's equipment showed Mr Gagliardi's true speed was 102km/h but police fined him for driving at 122km/h in a 110km/h zone.

Mr Gagliardi said the case showed without calibrated accuracy of police speed measuring equipment, tolerances could not be reduced.


Mr Felix said the police case fell apart when they could not produce a report, even under a Freedom of Information request, which showed the booking officer's car had been tested and calibrated accurately.

[Clivey]

Originally Posted by crisis

Against Mr Felix's advice, Police Commissioner Mal Hyde announced last year police were considering lowering the secret margin for error given to speeding drivers.

This happens in the UK, too and is nothing more than a moneymaking scheme by the authorities under the cover of do-gooders who have a misdirected and unhealthy obsession about the particular figure (eg. 32mph) that represents a person’s speed, rather than whether or not the person was doing a reasonable speed or driving reasonably in the first place.

As I’ve said before, there could be two people driving down a road:

1. Person A: Doing 32mph in a 30mph limit, is able to stop within the distance they can see to be clear, is in full control of their vehicle and concentrating on the road around them – they could be showing the utmost courtesy to other drivers, aware of and ready to deal with any potential dangers and they could be an enthusiast with the ability to control their vehicle in unforgiving circumstances.
2. Person B: Doing 28mph in the same 30mph limit, which is unfamiliar to them, tailgating the car in front, talking on a handheld mobile phone, drinking out of a bottle and steering with their knees, cutting-up other drivers, not using an indicator, driving a car that’s in poor mechanical condition and beyond their driving abilities (an old SUV, for example).

Now, if the Police, through fitting a roadside speed camera, were working to rule and prosecuting anyone that strayed over the 30mph limit, person A would be prosecuted whilst the likelihood is that person B would get away scot free – who would you rather have on the road?

Yet they do this in the name of “Road Safety”!

Road Safety? More like Ridiculous Scam!

Originally Posted by crisis

Mr. Felix had prepared evidence that Mr. Gagliardi could not accurately have been recorded travelling at 122km/h in a 110km/h zone and the new tolerance limits were flawed.

During two independent tests, RAA equipment and Mr Felix's equipment showed Mr Gagliardi's true speed was 102km/h but police fined him for driving at 122km/h in a 110km/h zone.

"Tolerance limits must not be allowed to be less than 7km/h when driving at 60km/h and 13km/h when driving at 110km/h," he said.

"Otherwise the driver falls within the region of uncertainty of the equipment they are using."

And he’s right – far too many people just “accept” speeding fines even though they have no idea whether or not they were doing anything wrong. The facts are that authorities simply can’t be trusted.

If you were wrongly accused of assaulting someone and prosecuted for it, provided you had any sense you’d stand-up for yourself…so why not here? It’s the same thing

Originally Posted by crisis

Mr Felix said authorities could no longer put their "heads in the sand" on the speed tolerance issue and he would help other motorists who were fined by police under the new tolerance limits, if they contact him by email at speedmeasure@ adam.com.au

I seriously suggest that the Australian members of this forum copy the guy’s e-mail address to their friends and save it themselves, just in case.

Originally Posted by crisis

Mr Felix said the police case fell apart when they could not produce a report, even under a Freedom of Information request, which showed the booking officer's car had been tested and calibrated accurately.

…And that’s because…

Originally Posted by crisis

"Police usually don't follow the calibration rules and it is not uncommon for police to withdraw the charges," he said.

The reason Police usually don’t bother is because the public are generally a pushover and accept this unfair targeting and treatment without question. We all need to ask more questions and force change.

Originally Posted by crisis

Mr Gagliardi said the case showed without calibrated accuracy of police speed measuring equipment, tolerances could not be reduced.

And not only that, but this pointless obsession with speed cameras and minute discrepancies between posted limits and actual vehicle speed is wasting taxpayers’ money. Money that could easily be better spent on more effectively improving road safety (more traffic Police in cars to deter stupidity perhaps?), and that’s a fact.

Originally Posted by crisis

Acting chair of the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee George Mancini said the fact the police had withdrawn meant there had been no legal precedent set.

I’m betting the reason that the Police withdrew was BECAUSE they didn’t want precedent to be set. Bastards*.

*Not referring to the officers that are actually out there trying to do a worthwhile job, just their “superiors” (by name rather than nature) that set-out these conspiracies.

That’s right, I said “conspiracy”, because if you look at the dictionary definition of the word, it fits. The whole “Speed Kills” mentality has only been cultivated because it saves the Government money – they are seen to be doing something when in fact they’re sitting on their arses, and it’s the motorist that pays ONCE AGAIN.

[Jona102190]

Maybe they'll finally put some time limits on those pesky school zones. :-)

Probably not.

[CapnBoost]

Originally Posted by Jona102190

Maybe they'll finally put some time limits on those pesky school zones. :-)

Probably not.

They have one here where i live. School Zone 15MPH between #am&#pm when school children are present.

Fun fact: I got a ticket there for going 10 over at 2am. Maybe he thought he was being nice because i was doing 30 since that's what the limit was. There was no way in hades i was going to pay that fine.

[wwgkd]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

oh dear, Crisis.
Sorry, it sounds like the idiots having f'ed up the UK have emigrated to Australia to wreak their havoc there
Watch out their next phase is to then deploy cameras to monitor these new speeds -- and to fine everyone caught.
THe companies running the cameras make lots and lots of profits and nothing happens to the injury/death rate !

I realize I'm quoting something kind of far back in this conversation, but GOOD POINT!!! It's pissing me off with private companies running bothe the cameras and the statistics on how effective they are. The same freaking company is the one determining how effective their profit making measures are.

Several have been caught reducing the time of the yellow light (reducing by .5 seconds increased their profits by millions) and yet no one thinks this is a problem. Hundreds of false tickets have been thrown out because they are patantly impossible (such as two instances of running a red light by the same car too far apart for it to have been the same car) and yet no one cares about the other tickets that can't be proven wrong. If some have been proven wrong, shouldn't that suggest that others may be wrong, too? But no, if it's not possible prove it wrong, you have to pay regardless.

Private companies should not profit from law enforcement when they are the enforcers. Seems like a logical concept, yet so many people over here don't get it.

[henk4]

Originally Posted by wwgkd

Private companies should not profit from law enforcement when they are the enforcers. Seems like a logical concept, yet so many people over here don't get it.

Is this really the case? It is unthinkable in most European countries to have the law enforced by private companies. Even the companies that check on parking meters are part of the lower government.

[drakkie]

Originally Posted by henk4

Is this really the case? It is unthinkable in most European countries to have the law enforced by private companies. Even the companies that check on parking meters are part of the lower government.

Our rich neighbourhoods here pay the local police for extra security, which the police again rents from security companies, with these people walking around in police uniforms. They were the ones that arrested me last time when stealing a road sign.

The less fortunate neighbourhoods simply have no police coverage. A real case of how f**ked up this nation can be.