Mark Scaife calls for 140km/h limit on VIC freeways
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: I aint old by choice
Next: Skaife makes a valid point applicable to all of Oz ( now tell mewhy the govco wont block it)
From: Toby on 20 Jun 2010 07:02 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 02:25:42 -0700 (PDT), the fonz wrote: > the point is, you need something to enforce. 'driving to the > conditions' is an ideal outcome, but you can't practically prosecute > someone for failing to do that. in an ideal world, we would allow > people to make that decision for themselves, without prescriptive > speed limits. due the proliferation of bad drivers however, we are a > long way from that ideal world and we need speed limits. Heh - I think you've got the matter pretty well sorted here. However, IMHO, you've tarnished it with the argument from 'original sin'. that is, there are BAD drivers out there. Any treatment of the matter from here sees the hoary old argument whish goes something like thins: Better driver training - synonymous with Baptism - the issue of 1st licence through to communion - the driver training and removal of P Plates etc etc all the way on to application of the funeral rite to old farts deemed too stuffed to survive or really too stuffed to allow others to survive around them - having their licence taken back by the Lord - the State. How fucked is that? Well, if we go there in this argument we'll speedily find out. 'cause I'm waiting... -- Toby.
From: D Walford on 20 Jun 2010 07:10 On 20/06/2010 7:25 PM, the fonz wrote: > > the point is, you need something to enforce. 'driving to the > conditions' is an ideal outcome, but you can't practically prosecute > someone for failing to do that. They used to in Vic when I got my license in 1970. There was no open road limit but the onus was on the driver to prove it was safe to drive at the speed they were doing, if a cop thought you were driving too fast for the conditions you were fined even if you below current limits. The difference is these days Govt's don't want to pay for Police to patrol the roads, its a lot more cash flow positive to get camera's to that job but the problem with camera's is they have no discretion. in an ideal world, we would allow > people to make that decision for themselves, without prescriptive > speed limits. due the proliferation of bad drivers however, we are a > long way from that ideal world and we need speed limits. Point is why do we now have so many bad drivers? Could it be that thinking by drivers is no longer allowed so many don't even try? Daryl
From: Noddy on 20 Jun 2010 07:29 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c1df52e$0$14129$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Most get it, seems MrT doesn't. Yeah, but the 8's, 9's and 10's seem to be missing out of Mr.T's deck. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Mr.T on 21 Jun 2010 22:52 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c1f2dde$0$28652$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Get a grip. > Once again you seem to be saying that tailgating is acceptable in some > circumstances Learn to read then, since I never said that. What I said is there are far worse problems on the road than tailgaters. Maybe you should stop your "grip" on part of your anatomy if you really think that's the worst problem you face on the roads! If not then bloody well time to get over it and move on! MrT.
From: st3ph3nm on 21 Jun 2010 23:32
On Jun 20, 7:25 pm, the fonz <arthur.fonzzare...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 20, 5:30 pm, st3ph3nm <s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > So again I ask, why enforce a law that most people were ignoring, > > simply because there was no *safety* benefit to do so? > > people ignore speed limits because they mistakenly believe it's safe. > humans are notoriously poor at risk assessment. Not if they're trained correctly. > this is why > longitudinal studies based on statistics are used to guide policy on > matters such as speed, rather than the opinions of individuals. > > > To get you thinking on this, what do you think happened in the USA > > when they scrapped the national 55mph speed limit, and states > > variously increased highway speed limits by up to 30mph? The road > > toll in those states decreased. > > it's just untrue. there is overwhelming evidence of the opposite. it > defies logic that driving faster is safer and belief that it is the > case can only be reasonably be put down to cognitive dissonance. Then why are German autobahns safer to drive on than our freeways? They're built to the same specifications (a design speed of 130kph). > > a more reasonable question is: to what degree does speeding reduce > safety? i think there is a case that making highways safer can justify > higher speed limits. but not in urban areas - the idea that speeding > is safe where there are pedestrians, cyclists and turning vehicles is > nonsensical. Where has anyone suggested increasing speed limits in those sorts of places? What is needed is an engineered approach to speed limits. > > http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/speed_limits.html > > > Inappropriate speed for conditions is always a bad thing. 5kph over > > an arbitrarily decided speed limit is not by definition unsafe. > > the point is, you need something to enforce. 'driving to the > conditions' is an ideal outcome, but you can't practically prosecute > someone for failing to do that. in an ideal world, we would allow > people to make that decision for themselves, without prescriptive > speed limits. You can actually do both. If the speed limit is set to the design speed of the road, then you will find that 85% of the population will happily drive that road at that speed. They'll slow down in poor conditions. > due the proliferation of bad drivers however, we are a > long way from that ideal world and we need speed limits. If we have a "proliferation" of bad drivers, then there's clearly something wrong with our testing and licencing. Why not target the cause? Cheers, Steve |