From: John_H on 3 Jun 2010 21:10
D Walford wrote:
>On 4/06/2010 9:07 AM, Diesel Damo wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 8:16 am, PHATRS<stoptryingt...(a)m.me> wrote:
>>> I guess you guys heard the premier got a bunch of "important" people
>>> together to try to find a solution to the increasing road toll, just the
>>> other day?
>>> Well, the outcome is that they want speed limiters in all vehicles.
>> What exactly do they mean by that though? Like trucks have? I can see
>> them trying to do something like that, but if they're talking about
>> something that knows what speed zone you're in and prevents you
>> breaking any speed limits, then I can't see that ever happening
>> because then they'll instantly lose MILLIONS in revenue. Not to
>> mention probably increasing the road toll at the same time.
Govco could easily do both. Use GPS to speed limit cars to say 10%
above the posted limits, and set speed camera tolerances to 0%.
Chances are they'd catch even more offenders than now.
>Biggest problem that I could see with that is the huge drop in new car
>sales, if they mandated speed limiting on all new cars people would keep
>their old cars which would defeat the purpose of also mandating many new
>safety devices like stability control.
>Speed limiting systems would only work on cars with computer controlled
>engine management so it may result in old carby cars increasing in value.
>The cost would also be staggering.
There's absolutely nothing to prevent them from making it mandatory on
all cars (as they've done for heavy vehicles) which would also have
the advantage (from their perspective) of making it uneconomic to
retrofit the old ones.
Welcome to the nanny state, phase II. ;-)
From: Bernd Felsche on 3 Jun 2010 22:12
Diesel Damo <Diesel_4WD(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>On Jun 4, 8:16=A0am, PHATRS <stoptryingt...(a)m.me> wrote:
>> I guess you guys heard the premier got a bunch of "important"
>> people together to try to find a solution to the increasing road
>> toll, just the other day?
>> Well, the outcome is that they want speed limiters in all
>What exactly do they mean by that though? Like trucks have? I can
>see them trying to do something like that, but if they're talking
>about something that knows what speed zone you're in and prevents
>you breaking any speed limits, then I can't see that ever happening
>because then they'll instantly lose MILLIONS in revenue. Not to
>mention probably increasing the road toll at the same time.
You're right about the increase in road trauma.
Behavioural studies in the UK found that the externally-controlled
vehicle speed was used as a proxy for "cruise control" in vehicles
with mandatory speed control (speed-limited). Such cars tended to be
driven with the "pedal to the metal". Drivers tended to drive more
quickly through tricky situations under mandatory speed control --
compensatory behaviour for being unable to drive more quickly in
Of course, that was only mentioned in an early draft of the
There's a widespread anddangerous attitude that the speed limit is a
safe limit. And the lie has been told so often that the liars
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | If builders built buildings the way programmers
X against HTML mail | wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that
/ \ and postings | came along would destroy civilization.
From: PHATRS on 3 Jun 2010 22:59
On 04/06/10 12:12, Bernd Felsche wrote:
> ...And the lie has been told so often that the liars
> believe it.
And that is not uncommon among liars.
From: John_H on 4 Jun 2010 04:03
Diesel Damo wrote:
>On Jun 4, 11:10�am, John_H <john4...(a)inbox.com> wrote:
>> D Walford wrote:
>> >On 4/06/2010 9:07 AM, Diesel Damo wrote:
>> >> What exactly do they mean by that though? Like trucks have? I can see
>> >> them trying to do something like that, but if they're talking about
>> >> something that knows what speed zone you're in and prevents you
>> >> breaking any speed limits, then I can't see that ever happening
>> >> because then they'll instantly lose MILLIONS in revenue. Not to
>> >> mention probably increasing the road toll at the same time.
>> Govco could easily do both. �Use GPS to speed limit cars to say 10%
>> above the posted limits, and set speed camera tolerances to 0%.
>> Chances are they'd catch even more offenders than now.
>While that's true, the more I think about it the more I'm sure the
>road toll would increase, so they'd have to completely hide the data.
>Not like now where they just delay it a year or so so they can have
>time to spin it.
The delay is more like three years, and there's considerably less data
available at state level than there used to be. Whether the road toll
would actually increase as a result of speed limiting might be a moot
point, but far more likely the overall change would be zero (it'll
kill a few and save a few) and big brother will be vindicated.
If you're really serious about a protest, I'd repeat the suggestion I
made about dealing with zero tolerance speed cameras.... All everyone
has to do is play the fuckers at their own game and drive 10kph
_below_ the posted speed limit.
It'll soon become evident that the existing infrastructure can't cope,
especially in heavy traffic situations. It's also the reason I'd
seriously doubt if you'll see speed limiting in 60kph zones introduced
anytime in the foreseeable future.
From: PhilD on 4 Jun 2010 05:27
"John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message
> PHATRS wrote:
>>I am adamant that the increase in the road toll is due to ever
>>increasing levels of nannying in this state. People think they don't
>>have to do anything other than drive under the limit to drive safely,
>>and also there seems to be increasing level of "it won't happen to me".
>>Or is it just that I'm getting old and more aware of the world around me
>>and it's always been like this?
> It was some other Ben who once said.... "They who can give up
> essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
> liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
> Pretty well sums it up I would've though.... And we're now way too
> far down the road to change any of it! :(
> Which of the following did you NOT agree with.... :)
> 1) The ban on fireworks (the earliest example I can remember).
We still have it in the NT, but probably for not much longer. It's now down
to supposedly just on the one day (Territory Day) but it's so abused that it
goes on for months sporadically. The idiots who abuse it are probably the
same ones who most complain in the press about so called "Southerners" that
have brought about the change.
> 2) Compulsory wearing of seatbelts (to protect idiots from themselves
> thereby ensuring they outnumber the rest of us).
Don't have, and never have had, a problem with that one. The one workmate I
had in the 70's who was against it changed his mind overnight when he was
thrown in to the passengers seat going around a tight slow corner. It would
save more lives. There's a lot of deaths up this way that were thrown from
their vehicle and some crushed by it when it rolled.
> 3) Gun control (to ensure that cops and crims were the only ones who
> have 'em).
Wasted effort as shown by what I would have thought was a much more
restricted country, the UK, the other day. Anyway, had to sell mine to Gov
and got twice as much as I paid for it.
> 4) 0.05% BAC (to prevent us socialising in pubs and planning an
Hasn't stopped the planning going on here, and should be more of it. As
State motoring organisations no longer represent interests of motorists all
will only change with motorists taking action, one day.
> 5) The crackdown on speeding (to ensure the state coffers are
> maintained so we can be kept in check while the noose is tightened
I just hate the way statistics have been misused in the NT to justify
removing the unrestricted limit. At least we get to have some 130kph limit
for a while. Most deaths are alcohol, lack of seat belts and inappropriate
speed in built up areas, not Stuart Hwy high speed ones. The ones from
sleeping on roads or under parked trucks should be reclasified as suicide.
> 6) The Rudd Government (that empts the coffers quicker than ever
You'll get no argument from me here.