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: PHATRS on 22 Jun 2010 22:34 On 22/06/10 18:12, Toby wrote: > Can I Play? > > The worst of the worst? > LATE BRAKERS. > There's the problem with most every road system in .au. > > My mail is that set fuckwits contains intersecting sets of Late Brakers and > Tailgaters, with a clear majority of Late Brakers members of set > Tailgaters:-) > > > > Strangely, the late brakers that I've had to give extra room for - to avoid a remodel of my tailgate when traffic up front has decided to stop suddenly - were not tailgaters. Ben
From: D Walford on 23 Jun 2010 06:32 On 23/06/2010 10:20 AM, Mr.T wrote: > "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message > news:4c206cf4$0$14135$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! >> >> >> Name those worse problems then. > > Says it all really, about your driving and intelligence! Says a lot about you that you can't or won't answer a simple question. Daryl
From: the fonz on 23 Jun 2010 08:06 On Jun 22, 1:32 pm, st3ph3nm <s...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > people ignore speed limits because they mistakenly believe it's safe. > > humans are notoriously poor at risk assessment. > > Not if they're trained correctly. training isn't a solution for everything. some people don't benefit from training as much as others, but worst of all, some people deliberately ignore their training and choose to take risks. there is no better example of that than hoons who drive at 100 km/h down urban street and roads. they don't need training - they already know what they're doing is wrong - they can only benefit from punishment. > > 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). i'm unsure why you believe german autobahns are safer than our freeways. one reason may be that their drivers stay to the right (left) when not overtaking. i would hazard a guess that self preservation plays a part in that - no one wants a porsche to become permanently embedded in their back seat, but i also agree that is a behavioural area that could clearly be improved in australia. > > 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. in my view, arguing for more lax enforcement and higher tolerances on speed cameras is really just the same as arguing for higher speed limits. it's aimed at facilitating speeding. i can see that there are two sides to the debate that have become confused - urban roads and freeways. i think it is theoretically possible to increase limits on some freeways, but i'm dead against speeding on urban roads and believe that many current road speed limits should be reduced further (with clearer signage). > > 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. well that's the current situation. by 'driving to the conditions', some people mean exceeding current limits in favourable conditions. that isn't practical as inevitably drivers will disagree with police on their interpretation of whether the conditions really were favourable. you need transparency and that is only practically achievable with a hard limit. > > 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? i disagree the major cause is our testing and licensing. drivers behave like angels when they get their license - i know i did, you'll fail if you don't. then when you're on your Ps the training kicks in and you prove to yourself that you can keep up the good work. then after a while you notice that everyone is overtaking you and it dawns on you - i can break a few rules here and there, like everybloodyone else and who's going to check up on me? and on it goes, with some people taking it to the extreme and convincing themselves that the law doesn't apply to them at all. that's not a testing and licensing problem, that's an attitude problem. it's solved with enforcement. unpopular but necessary.
From: Toby on 23 Jun 2010 08:55 On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:06:40 -0700 (PDT), the fonz wrote: > that's not a testing and licensing problem, that's an attitude > problem. it's solved with enforcement. unpopular but necessary. Right... People are all BAD. One has to cruel to be kind. I haven't bothered with the rest of your blathering, since you summed it all up so succinctly in that last par. -- Toby. Caveat Lector
From: Mr.T on 23 Jun 2010 18:29
"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c21e2d1$0$28656$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! > >> > >> > >> Name those worse problems then. > > > > Says it all really, about your driving and intelligence! > > Says a lot about you that you can't or won't answer a simple question. Says even more about you that you can't read the posts where I already stated many worse driving practices. Fact is you claim no one has ever run into the back of you, and yet you think tail gating is worse than drivers changing lane when unsafe, without indicating, failing to give way, driving through red lights, or a hundred other stupid practices we see on the roads ever day. But hey, I guess I'm not surprised that tailgating is YOUR biggest problem, do you drive one of them motorized wheel chairs on the road perhaps? May I suggest keeping it in the left lane at least! MrT. |