If I may, a person is a "murderer" if they have an intention to kill another person and they carry that act out. Speeding drivers who kill people are NEVER charged or convicted of murder without that intention either being first present or subsequently proved by a court. It is a critical element of the act of murder. Drivers who kill are more likely being criminally negligent or careless.
I am not defending this bloke, in fact as a Highway Patrol officer, I spend my time battling his ilk. He seems to defend speeding, (like many drivers), without realising that his actions have the very real potential to result in the deaths of others. Having routinely witnessed the deaths of my fellow Australians Adrian, I invite you to accompany me to comfort the parents of the victim, the next time I present a death message. Speeding Kills. BTW, you are lucky you were not caught in my state, it would have cosy you a lot more. |
In the future, it may be less confusing for readers of the group if you were to reply
to the original message. That way people know you are referring to a discussion about "Speeding in Queensland." Also, I think your vocation puts you in a rather biased place in terms of commenting on speeding. Drinking also kills, but as with anything else, it's a matter of degree and situation. Without knowing the specifics of Adrian's situation, none of us really knows whether he was driving carelessly or not. By the way, I did decide to pay off my ticket so that the next time I'm in Oz I don't have to worry about that pesky arrest warrant! Jeff spud > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
>
> > > IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people, even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive. Daniel -- Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Guide to Australia: http://www.toxiccustard.com/australia/ |
Daniel Bowen wrote in message ...
> > That depends on making the assumption that, because some bureaucrat put a 60 sign up on that particular stretch of road, that 60 is indeed driving at a "reasonable" level of risk on that road. In GENERAL, I would agree though that for MOST 60 km/hr zones, 95 would likely be dangerous. I'd like to hear from spud if it's any easier telling the relatives of a fatality about the incident if the crash occurred doing 80 in a 100 zone?? I'd guess not. My objection to the current speeding campaign in Queensland ("Every k over is a killer"), is the suggestion that if you drive at or below the signposted limit, you are NOT a killer, and CAN NOT be. This is obviously NOT the case. In fact, one of the scariest driving situations I've ever been in, I was doing 30 in a 100 zone. (And I'm one of those self-confessed, habitual speeders!!). The reason for going so slowly on a country road was DENSE fog. I could not see far enough to do any more than 30. Nevertheless, numerous morons decided they could zip past me, probably doing about 80 -100, within the speed limit!! In my mind, the behaviour of these idiots was **far, far** more dangerous than doing 132 on the Gateway motorway in clear driving conditions and light traffic (the circumstances of my photograph a few weeks ago!). Regards, Michael |
Michael, 132kph is excessive anywhere!! But on the Gateway -cop it sweet - I'd say!!
-- Paul O'Brien [email protected] > > > [usenetquote2]> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
> > > > That is, of course, in your opinion. There are plenty of countries around the world that have legislated speed limits of 120 km/hr, 130 km/hr or higher on motorways. This includes some countries in Europe, that have similar safety standards (in general) to Australia. Yet, (perhaps surprisingly to you), the transport departments in these countries have assessed the risks, and deemed 130 km/hr to be an acceptable risk on properly maintained motorways (such as the Gateway). Why is it that Australia (NT excepted) is so anal retentive about speeding, when Australian drivers are amongst the *slowest* drivers I've encountered anywhere? There are many dangerous errors I observe on Australian roads, that have the potential to kill - speeding in school zones (see, I'm not blind to the risk of speeding!!) and changing lanes without checking for traffic to name just two. Why is that I never hear an ad about dangerous lane changes, or the police ticketing someone for dangerous lane changes? I see the offending behaviour happening at least weekly, just driving around town, and have been almost side swiped, and almost run off the road by such nitwits more than once. All I hear about is speeding, (even drink driving campaigns seem to have ended), and in Queensland the latest lame tag line is "Every k over is a killer". As I described before, I think this is a very poor statement, and is even misleading. Too bad the Trade Practices act probably doesn't apply here, or we could do the Transport department for misleading advertising. Just to clarify, I'm not complaining about the fine I received for speeding. I knew I was driving faster than the signposted limit, so if the Police decide to photograph my car, then so be it. What annoys me is the whole attitude to speeding as the (sole??) killer, which is an untenable position, logically. Drive safely! And check those mirrors! Michael |
>
[usenetquote2]> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2] > > > > > > > 60 is generally a limit set in built-up areas. Keeping this in mind, in a 60 zone, other road users (eg those turning out, pedestrians crossing, etc) would expect drivers to be doing around 60. If they don't happen to notice someone coming barrelling down the road at 95... well, the reaction/stopping distances involved would indeed make it a dangerous situation. Daniel -- Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] http://www.danielbowen.com/ |
>
No it's not. It's illegal almost anywhere, but there are combinations of road, car, driver and conditions under which it's quite a safe speed. -- Craig |
Daniel Bowen wrote in message ...
[usenetquote2]>> Daniel Bowen wrote in message ...[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>> That depends on making the assumption that, because some bureaucrat put a 60 sign[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>> up on that particular stretch of road, that 60 is indeed driving at a "reasonable"[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>> level of risk on that road.[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>> In GENERAL, I would agree though that for MOST 60 km/hr zones, 95 would likely be[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]>> dangerous.[/usenetquote2] > > 60 > > > reaction/stopping > Looks like we agree on this - in general. My point is, that just because it was a 60 zone, doesn't *necessarily* mean it's a heavily built up area, with lots of kids running around. For example, near where I live, there's a motorway exit ramp, that has the 60 sign quite near the top of the ramp, but the ramp continues for half a kilometer, with NO intersections, NO pedestrians (EVER!), straight road, etc. You'll find that most drivers will roll down this ramp, at speeds significantly in excess of 60, which is perfectly safe, and being a motorway exit ramp, it is expected by those in the area. This is only ONE example, I'm sure there are others where the signpost says 60, but where the risk is minimal, even if driving at 80, or (possibly) 95. I'm reluctant to judge people without knowing all the facts of the specific case. Regards, Michael |
Well in Perth the speed is now 50km an hour in built up areas all in the interests of
keeping Death off the roads, and I think it is all bullshit. Over the past few years there have been 2or 3 police killed in the course of duty when their patrol cars have skidded off the road and slammed into trees or electric poles. These guys are supposed to be well trained officers capable of handling a high speed pursuit car. What a laugh. Cowboys in Blue uniforms. The crashes I refer to are all single car crashes involving no other vehicle, so it was all driver error, no good blaming the road, the car or the tyres as an excuse it is the guy behind the wheel. Their deaths have also helped to convince the government that 50km an hour is the most reasonable speed to drive around town, why dont we get back to the days of a bloke carrying a Red Flag in front of every vehicle. Regards Gordon. |
>
> > > > In fact, this was the reason the judge gave in Penrith District Court a few weeks back for sentencing someone to around 3 years prison for doing 100 in an 80 zone, when the ensuing accident resulted in death. Dave |
"Daniel Bowen" <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > By the way in Western Australia the speedlimit in builtup areas has just (from 1/12/01) been reduced to 50 kph, as it is in most European countries. Gerrit |
We've had the 50km zones in Brisbane for a couple of years now, and actually, I agree
with it - the sticky point is in defining "local area" roads, versus "through traffic" roads. In local area neighbourhoods, you get kids playing on the street, etc. Not a good idea to speed. However, this should only apply to streets in local neighbourhoods, so that if you're travelling across town, you won't be driving on these roads. In Brisbane, southside anyway, they've done a reasonably good job of this, and there are 60, 70 or 80 km/hr major roads almost everywhere you need to go. Credit where it's due.. Now in Sydney, it's a different matter.... Regards, Michael Gordon > > > > of > trees or > capable of > > > vehicle, > as > > > is > > > > > > |
>
> > get > Same goes for Victoria. 50 unless signed otherwise. Just about all main roads are signed as 60 or above. I too agree with this. It's not just the lower limit that's important, it's getting people into a different frame of mind, driving on local sidestreets versus main roads. The hazards on each are different. Daniel -- Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Melbourne public transport FAQ http://www.custard.net.au/melbtrans/ |
>
No, it's not. There are plenty of freeways in Australia built to standards such that a speed limit of 130-140 km/h would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, our governments like making money out of fines so much that they will probably never put such speed limits on those freeways. Unfortunately, most of the issues that they dish up in the "speed kills" campaigns are actually examples of stupidity, not speed, but our bureaucrats decided long ago that simplicity and collecting lots of fines were the way to go. Face it: If the message they are trying to imply about speed were actually true, Germany would lose half its population every year on the autobahn. -- Craig Macbride <[email protected]> http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." - Ross Allen, Nintendo, 1989 |
>
> [usenetquote2]> >132kph is excessive anywhere!![/usenetquote2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid > > > "Speed kills" is, in my opinion, an oversimplification. While I don't have the statistics to back my assertion up, I believe the vast majority of road fatalities are the result of human error - drivers who misread conditions or overestimate their abilities, people who are inattentive, inconsiderate or reckless. (There are undoubtably a few incidents every year that result from totally random mechanical failures, although often when the vehicle is at fault it is indicative of a failure to properly maintain the vehicle.) What speed does do is magnify the effect of these errors. The reason there are relatively few fatalities on European motorways is that all of the vehicles in any given traffic stream are doing about the same speed. When switching between streams, drivers are generally aware of the risk and make allowances. When they don't make allowances, the results are horrendous. Coincidentally, the same situation applies here - we would be killing many more people on our freeways if most vehicles weren't doing about the same speed. If you introduce a vehicle into the stream at a speed of 20 or 30 (or more) km/h different speed, that ruins the entire equation. And yes, doing 30km under the speed of the surrounding traffic is just about as dangerous. If you get busted for speeding, it's because you were breaking the law. Compliance with the law is one of the conditions applied to the granting of a driver's licence. If you want to argue about whether you were justified, take it up with the magistrate. The cops are there to uphold the law. Maybe if there weren't so many drivers who need to be bullied into complying with the law on the road then we could have a few more cops redeployed in the protection of property. Dave Campbell |
>
> > > Exactly. I read an article by an ambulance driver quite some years back which mentioned not only this, but the tendency for the police to simply attribute any collision which had no other simple cause to speed. > > I disagree somewhat. Trucks are generally limited to 100 km/h or less. Cars are doing 130 km/h in most places. In Germany, on some autobahns, trucks will be doing 90 km/h, cars one lane over will be doing 150 km/h and cars in the fast lane will be doing 180 km/h. ... Vastly more variation than is common in Australia. > > This is true. Drivers in Germany stay in the slow lane unless they wish to overtake, they indicate and look before pulling out, and they get back into the slow lane immediately they aren't overtaking anyone. > > Only when people are careless and are fed this mindless BS about speed being all that matters. Just as people with ABS drive closer and more dangerously because they think the car will save them, it's easy to see many examples every day of drivers who think that so long as they are sitting on the speed limit, they are driving safely. It's been illegal for some time to sit in the right lane on freeways when not overtaking anyone, yet the cops never do anything about it, same as they seldom do anything about anything else, except speeding and drink driving. > > > If the speed limits were set sensibly, there wouldn't be so many drivers who need to be bullied into complying with the law. -- Craig Macbride <[email protected]> http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." - Ross Allen, Nintendo, 1989 |
hi guys you are talking about the speed in Germany. i think you never been in Germany
on the moterways. it is not always thru taht the drivers go back to the right soon as possible. &nd there is a speed difference from sometimes more than 50 km/h and no not everyone is taking a look over his shoulder before taking over. trucks are allowed to do 80km/h and on about max 50% off the Autobahn there is no speed limit for cars. and there are many accidents every year because the drive to fast in bad weather conditions. one thing is sure i drove a care in the most europeen countrys and in Australia ( 8 weeks ) and for me the safest place to drive is ....... yes down under. Walter from Belgium > > [usenetquote2]> >"Speed kills" is, in my opinion, an oversimplification. While I don't[/usenetquote2] have [usenetquote2]> >the statistics to back my assertion up, I believe the vast majority of[/usenetquote2] road [usenetquote2]> >fatalities are the result of human error - drivers who misread conditions[/usenetquote2] or [usenetquote2]> >overestimate their abilities, people who are inattentive, inconsiderate[/usenetquote2] or [usenetquote2]> >reckless.[/usenetquote2] > > > > > [usenetquote2]> >The reason there are relatively few fatalities on European motorways is[/usenetquote2] that [usenetquote2]> >all of the vehicles in any given traffic stream are doing about the same speed.[/usenetquote2] > > Cars > > > > [usenetquote2]> >When switching between streams, drivers are generally aware of the risk and make[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]> >allowances.[/usenetquote2] > > > into > > [usenetquote2]> >Coincidentally, the same situation applies here - we would be killing many more[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]> >people on our freeways if most vehicles weren't doing about the same speed.[/usenetquote2] > > being > dangerously > > speed > > > > they > > [usenetquote2]> >Maybe if there weren't so many drivers who need to be bullied into complying[/usenetquote2] with [usenetquote2]> >the law on the road then we could have a few more cops redeployed in the[/usenetquote2] [usenetquote2]> >protection of property.[/usenetquote2] > > > > > > http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid > > > |
I suspect that there are differences between the Australian freeways and the German
autobahns or the UK motorways. The o/s ones seem much straighter/smoother to me for a start. Comments ?? Cheers Jim Craig Macbride wrote: > > [usenetquote2]> >132kph is excessive anywhere!![/usenetquote2] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:16 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.