new TAC ad in victoria...

[TonyJZX]

Originally posted by Steyr
I wish more people would think about their complaints rather than whinging about stupid things.

There's no way anyone can glean that sort of information from the ad itself.

You're also kidding yourself if you think that all those thought processes went into the conception and production of that ad.

T.

[walkie]

Originally posted by Steyr
1. Are the speed limits reasonable? If we all drove at 5km/h in suburban streets and 20km/h on freeways then we would probably have a near zero road toll. It could be said that "reasonable" speed limits must also include an "acceptable" number of casualties, but defining that number is difficult.

I think that a lot more people would fall asleep at the wheel if this were the case.

I don't think I've seen this ad but it does sound like a load of shit to me. I believe that the onus is on the pedestrian. Roads are for vehicles, footpaths and designated crossings are for pedestrians. If you are backing your car out your driveway across a footpath, you look to see if there is anyone walking on it. Similarly, a pedestrian venturing onto the road should be on the lookout. Rather than make the kids think it's the drivers' fault, how about an ad or two directed at them?

[CussCuss]

the major problem with these things, they are usually not solving the root cause of accidents. In the majority of cases, speed does not cause accidents but it will worsen the severity, so of course, if you lower the speed it lessens the severity of an accident or gives the person more time to react to their fuckup.

Scenario A : Person is not paying attention and travelling at 80 kph, the car in front has to do an emergency stop. By the time the person is paying attention they are almost up their ass and there is a crash.

Scenario B : Person is not paying attention and travelling 50kph, same thing happens but this time 'almost up their ass' is almost enough to slow down or even stop.

The accident in the 2nd scenario is less severe, the lowering of the speed made it that way, looking at the stats, it would look like that the lowering of the speed made it safer. But the CAUSE of the accident was still there.

[walkie]

that's pretty much it CussCuss. You've hit the final nail in the coffin for speed kills ads right on the head

[rowdytoot]

Steyr, I assume your comment is directed at what I said...

Basically you're agreeing with what I say-- it is aburd to suggest such a thing.. it's also an absurdity to suggest that if they driver was going 5 km/hr slower the kid would have been fine...

. The emphasis on speed is excessive in consideration of the complete ignorance of other causes of accidents (tailgating, inattention, poor merging habits, failing to check mirrors, etc

This is exaclty what I was attempting to point out, but since you missed my implication, then surely 95% of the population which are watching the ad are too.

In answer to this :-

1. Are the speed limits reasonable? If we all drove at 5km/h in suburban streets and 20km/h on freeways then we would probably have a near zero road toll. It could be said that "reasonable" speed limits must also include an "acceptable" number of casualties, but defining that number is difficult

Some speed limits are fine, some aren't- both on the high and low side, but I think as you point out above most ppl have a beef with is that speed is the scape goat for 95% of crashes, and as a result heavy handed speed enforcement is a result, which in the end is not coming close to solving the problem- look at injury and death rates.. not improving are they??

4. The good old argument that "driver training" is inadequate.

why?? have you compared highly skilled drivers accident rates with low skilled drivers?? If so I'd like to know how

Surely you can't say, "no, driver training isn't an issue in this country Rowds, it's all about something else"

Aside from P/F guys, and rally guys, I can't say I know anyone who knows about threshold braking, has experienced it, has practiced it, and knows how much difference it can make to stopping distance, or how ABS feels, and how you can steer and brake at the same time.. They are basic concepts so far as I'm concerned , but 95% of people have no idea what to do in an emergency- this should not be allowed to continue.. Look at what happend to Astina SP on the Federal hwy a whie back.. HUGE lockup from 110 km/hr when a car pulled out from a rest area across him- he had no way of steering around it, and looking at the photo's, and having driven past it a few times since he had bags of room, if he could have washed off some speed, and swerved around it- crash avoided by wait for it== driver training!!!!!

What about when you drive in canberra when it hasn't rained in 6 months, and you go sideways at roundabouts with no throttle on-this suprised me, but i didn't loop the car. If my g/f had have been driving (and she's better than most people) we would have gone round and up a kerb for sure.. maybe into traffic if they had been some.

I know, being more highly skilled than someone with who passed their test and then didn't think about driving again ( having done driver training and a little bit of club motorsport) , that I've avoided a lot more acco's than I've had on the road... and I'd be much happier, and we'd make some progress if everyone had an appreciation of what to do, when shit happens, or someone fuck's up on the road.

Rowds

PS - my post this morning was brief cos I was at work, and I wanted to make a point quickly, so I could go back to stuff I get paio for.

[rowdytoot]

Cusscuss.. GOLD.. :D

sure speed makes the impact worse, but doesn't mean speed caused it in the 1st place..

Rowds

[VQ304]

If so many accidents happen at intersections, why is it that just about all speed cameras are located far away from intersections? The government's words and actions contradict each other.

Even if that car was going 5km/h slower, it would still have either hit the kid or come VERY close to her which means that she was the one doing something stupid.

Why doesn't someone make some anti-anti-speeding ads and put them on TV :p Have someone driving along in some old shitbox who turns around to yell at the kids in the backseat, looks back ahead and sees an old lady walking across the roads. They lock up the brakes, get sideways and plough into the old lady still doing 50km/h. Then have someone in a decent car who sees the lady as soon as she steps onto the road, swerves to the side and misses her by 2 meters. The screen goes black and the voice over says "shit drivers kill".

[tandy ass]

Originally posted by EXWRX
I (snippet cut out)

5. how about the ridiculous penalties given out to negligent drivers who maim and kill pedestrians due to talking on mobiles etc or sheer incompetence eg careless driving charge attracting a small fine. The message to the other morons out there? dont worry, it was an "accident", and you wont be made accountable if you didnt deliberately set out to kill someone. AND you will be allowed back on the roads without even being tested again.


Rant off.

If a driver is NOT on the roads, revenue cannot be collected from said driver. It is in the governments best interests to get all bad drivers back onto the road.

[smellytofu]

Originally posted by Bozz
It is in the governments best interests to get all bad drivers back onto the road.

So true... the reason why obtaining a license will always be so easy and govt will always refute the need for a defensive driving course to be made mandatory for this very reason.

[Steyr]

Originally posted by rowdytoot
why?? have you compared highly skilled drivers accident rates with low skilled drivers?? If so I'd like to know how

Surely you can't say, "no, driver training isn't an issue in this country Rowds, it's all about something else"

Rowdy, my comment was maybe a bit ambiguous. What I was suggesting is that current levels of driver training required for a licence are inadequate and are a possible contributing factor to accidents. I think you and I are both very much agreed on most points.

My post was primarily intented to point at that speeding is one of several factors that can contribute to accidents. This thread started off with a lot of bitching suggesting that 5km/h won't make any difference. It certainly can make a difference. I tried to point out what a more reasonable whinge might be. i.e. complaining about the emphasis on speeding to the exclusion of many other road safety issues.

We should not fob speeding off as something that is irrelevant to the road toll. To do so only ostracises us from the general community and brands us as idiotic hoons. Instead we should accept that speeding is an issue that we need to be reasonable about, but at the same time raise issue with the TAC and the state government for not acting responsibly to counter other causes of road casualties.

[MickyD]

I agree with what you're saying totally Steyr, but the thing that is irritating me is the total concentration on speed to the exclusion of everything else (tailgating etc etc etc etc)
Where I live now is in an estate with a lot of kids, and 50 km/h (the speed limit) is way too fast in this area, most of the time I'll only do 30 or 35, yet according to the government, so long as I'm not speeding I'm immortal and will never crash into anyone..... maybe that's an exaggeration, but you get my point.

p.s. we'll have to catch up soon so you can have a look at the Mini

[tamiyaDrifter]

On the estate note, I think that they are making streets in estates thinner so that people have to go slower... And the traffic calming devices get rediculous when a Commodore can't go through them without mounting at least one part of the curb (if it is taken at like 20kmh). There's a new estate being made near my house and I can see the roads and stuff through some trees and the roads have got to be only 1.5 car widths, it's rediculous.

[oldenholden64]

havent seen it as yet.. but as per usual it sounds like a load of crap. and next year but luck the figures may go down and the gumbyment will go "see 5k's less is saving lives"

[Revhead]

Traffic calming can be counter-productive. They may well slow people down at that point, but they tend to piss people off (which is kind of ironic for something with "calming" as part of the name :p).

Re the speeding campaigns - there are holes in their "logic" you could drift a bus through, but the (already stated) sad fact is that most of the population will watch the ad and, without paying any real attention to it, send it into their subconcious. "Speed kills" may well be a horrendously oversimplified, money-grabbing line, but so many people have fallen for it that trying to argue it can be frustrating.

Since the introduction of speed cameras, I feel so much safer on the road. Noone has cut me off, crossed the centre line, failed to indicate, driven the wrong way up an off-ramp or around a roundabout, nearly caused a crash without even realising it, or even run into the back of me (twice... grr). And it's all thanks to those smart people in Parliament. Thanks guys.