Dont speed in NSW!!!
May 29th 2009, 7:40 am
#92
Oiiii.. You slaggg!
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbaneshire
Posts: 5,209
May 29th 2009, 8:00 am
#94
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2001
Location: Under the glow of my new visa
Posts: 629
Re: Dont speed in NSW!!!
Given I have been vilified on here, and each entitled to their opinion, which is fair enough - but the key thing you fundamentally missing is that according to you, the speed limit is ALWAYS right.
So what you are saying is that at 99kph on a road you would be legal and thus blameless if you hit a child. If you were doing 101kph you would be evil.
Your argument sucks and I'm glad it makes you sick since you are ignorant of the true discussion and are happy to believe the hype that speed kills. As deancm says and as I have, it's about common sense and being smart.
To say it's in the same league as drunk driving is pathetic. Guess what - I'm in control of my car at 101kph in a 100kph limit. I'm in control of my car at 200kph and more so. It's a high speed but just because it is does not make it uncontrollable. Yet according to you I am scum. A drunk driver is not in control of their car at low speeds let alone anything else - that is such a massive difference.
Yet someone else is driving in a clapped out old heap, worn tyres, shocks and brakes yet he's driving at 97 kph and he;s fine and dandy, in your book, because you would never stop him and look at the car, because he's not speeding so you have no need.
Who's the safest in this scenario - me or the person in a decent car who knows how to drive?
You seem to have this overriding idea that going faster than the limit will KILL. Nonsense. Going half the limit in torrential rain in a worn and old and battered car is far more likely to kill, but it's easy to ignore those because there is no measurement.
If the whole speed kills scenario was justified, this country would have a FAR BETTER safety record than the UK. It has thousands of miles of road all of which are counted that are hardly ever used, which the UK and Germany does not. Yet the UK and Germany are generally safer. How can your argument possibly stack up now?
Perhaps because speed is easy to blame...
So what you are saying is that at 99kph on a road you would be legal and thus blameless if you hit a child. If you were doing 101kph you would be evil.
Your argument sucks and I'm glad it makes you sick since you are ignorant of the true discussion and are happy to believe the hype that speed kills. As deancm says and as I have, it's about common sense and being smart.
To say it's in the same league as drunk driving is pathetic. Guess what - I'm in control of my car at 101kph in a 100kph limit. I'm in control of my car at 200kph and more so. It's a high speed but just because it is does not make it uncontrollable. Yet according to you I am scum. A drunk driver is not in control of their car at low speeds let alone anything else - that is such a massive difference.
Yet someone else is driving in a clapped out old heap, worn tyres, shocks and brakes yet he's driving at 97 kph and he;s fine and dandy, in your book, because you would never stop him and look at the car, because he's not speeding so you have no need.
Who's the safest in this scenario - me or the person in a decent car who knows how to drive?
You seem to have this overriding idea that going faster than the limit will KILL. Nonsense. Going half the limit in torrential rain in a worn and old and battered car is far more likely to kill, but it's easy to ignore those because there is no measurement.
If the whole speed kills scenario was justified, this country would have a FAR BETTER safety record than the UK. It has thousands of miles of road all of which are counted that are hardly ever used, which the UK and Germany does not. Yet the UK and Germany are generally safer. How can your argument possibly stack up now?
Perhaps because speed is easy to blame...
You also leap to huge assumptions and rationalise your arguments by distraction. Clever. I'm sure you'd make a good debater but I still wouldn't trust you to be driving anywhere near me or anyone else I know based on your assertions.
Your earlier arguments referred to speed that was clearly excessive compared to the posted limits. When you're picked up on that, suddenly your defence becomes a semantic debate about minor speed infractions.
Sorry, but your bluster is completely transparent to anyone that has the tolerance to re-read your dribble.
And, by the way? I don't blindly believe the hype that speed kills. I have personal experience with it.
As has already been pointed out here, despite your having completely ignored it, speed DOES kill. There is a direct and quantifyable correlation between speed and driving-related fatalities. Does that mean that there are no other factors that can cause road deaths? Of course not, and nobody has suggested otherwise ... although to read your retorts, you'd think that was the mainstay of the argument here.
I also don't attribute speed to the majority of road deaths. If this were a discussion about drink-driving, I'd be all over that too (I know people that were killed by drunk drivers too). But you seem to be saying that because people are vehemently opposed to speeding, that this somehow implies that they think its the worst aspect of driving. Yet more distractions.
I think you'll find that the posted speed limit is not arbitrary. Someone who knows what they are talking about actually sat down and gave a lot of thought to it. If there is a likelihood of children to be in the vicinity, the speed limit reflects this. If the speed limit is posted at 120Kmph, then I can assume that there is not likely to be children running in front of me. That isn't automatically a license to drive insanely fast and it doesn't absolve me from my responsibility as the driver to drive with due care and attention. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't much lessen my guilt if I were to hit a child at speed anyway. But it's clearly ridiculous to suggest that you're guilty as hell if you're 1 Kmph over and not if you're 1Kmph under. But if you're 30Kmph over? Then yes, I'd have to say that you'd have a lot to answer for - even if you did think you were in control and felt that you were driving within your own personally determined capabilties.
So, does the odd 1Kmph either way make you evil, as you seem to have implied was my position? No, of course not. It's even been pointed out in this discussion that neither do the Police, who routinely give people the benefit of the doubt and reduce their fines accordingly.
It's clear that you, like the drunk that knows it's OK to drink whilst drunk because he's in control and nothing bad can happen because he's driving carefully, you're never really going to get it. You're just going to carry on speeding knowing that you're perfectly safe because you are in control of your car and your surroundings at all times. I truly hope that you don't have to find out that this isn't the case by being involved in an accident and hurting yourself - or worse still, some other poor innocent victim.
- CDM
Last edited by CDM; May 29th 2009 at 8:06 am.
May 29th 2009, 8:07 am
#95
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Camberwell, Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 781
Re: Dont speed in NSW!!!
You make some superficially interesting points but your arguments smack of overconfidence - just like the drunk thinking he can drive safely.
You also leap to huge assumptions and rationalise your arguments by distraction. Clever. I'm sure you'd make a good debater but I still wouldn't trust you to be driving anywhere near me or anyone else I know based on your assertions.
Your earlier arguments referred to speed that was clearly excessive compared to the posted limits. When you're picked up on that, suddenly your defence becomes a semantic debate about minor speed infractions.
Sorry, but your bluster is completely transparent to anyone that has the tolerance to re-read your dribble.
And, by the way? I don't blindly believe the hype that speed kills. I have personal experience with it.
As has already been pointed out here, despite your having completely ignored it, speed DOES kill. There is a direct and quantifyable correlation between speed and driving-related fatalities. Does that mean that there are no other factors that can cause road deaths? Of course not, and nobody has suggested otherwise ... although to read your retorts, you'd think that was the mainstay of the argument here.
I also don't attribute speed to the majority of road deaths. If this were a discussion about drink-driving, I'd be all over that too (I know people that were killed by drunk drivers too). But you seem to be saying that because people are vehemently opposed to speeding, that this somehow implies that they think its the worst aspect of driving. Yet more distractions.
I think you'll find that the posted speed limit is not arbitrary. Someone who knows what they are talking about actually sat down and gave a lot of thought to it. If there is a likelihood of children to be in the vicinity, the speed limit reflects this. If the speed limit is posted at 120Kmph, then I can assume that there is not likely to be children running in front of me. That isn't automatically a license to drive insanely fast and it doesn't absolve me from my responsibility as the driver to drive with due care and attention. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't much lessen my guilt if I were to hit a child at speed anyway. But it's clearly ridiculous to suggest that you're guilty as hell if you're 1 Kmph over and not if you're 1Kmph under. But if you're 30Kmph over? Then yes, I'd have to say that you'd have a lot to answer for - even if you did think you were in control and felt that you were driving within your own personally determined capabilties.
So, does the odd 1Kmph either way make you evil, as you seem to have implied was my position? No, of course not. It's even been pointed out in this discussion that neither do the Police, who routinely give people the benefit of the doubt and reduce their fines accordingly.
It's clear that you, like the drunk that knows it's OK to drink whilst drunk because he's in control and nothing bad can happen because he's driving carefully, you're never really going to get it. You're just going to carry on speeding knowing that you're perfectly safe because you are in control of your car and your surroundings at all times. I truly hope that you don't have to find out that this isn't the case by being involved in an accident and hurting yourself - or worse stll, some other poor innocent victim.
- CDM
You also leap to huge assumptions and rationalise your arguments by distraction. Clever. I'm sure you'd make a good debater but I still wouldn't trust you to be driving anywhere near me or anyone else I know based on your assertions.
Your earlier arguments referred to speed that was clearly excessive compared to the posted limits. When you're picked up on that, suddenly your defence becomes a semantic debate about minor speed infractions.
Sorry, but your bluster is completely transparent to anyone that has the tolerance to re-read your dribble.
And, by the way? I don't blindly believe the hype that speed kills. I have personal experience with it.
As has already been pointed out here, despite your having completely ignored it, speed DOES kill. There is a direct and quantifyable correlation between speed and driving-related fatalities. Does that mean that there are no other factors that can cause road deaths? Of course not, and nobody has suggested otherwise ... although to read your retorts, you'd think that was the mainstay of the argument here.
I also don't attribute speed to the majority of road deaths. If this were a discussion about drink-driving, I'd be all over that too (I know people that were killed by drunk drivers too). But you seem to be saying that because people are vehemently opposed to speeding, that this somehow implies that they think its the worst aspect of driving. Yet more distractions.
I think you'll find that the posted speed limit is not arbitrary. Someone who knows what they are talking about actually sat down and gave a lot of thought to it. If there is a likelihood of children to be in the vicinity, the speed limit reflects this. If the speed limit is posted at 120Kmph, then I can assume that there is not likely to be children running in front of me. That isn't automatically a license to drive insanely fast and it doesn't absolve me from my responsibility as the driver to drive with due care and attention. And I'm pretty sure it wouldn't much lessen my guilt if I were to hit a child at speed anyway. But it's clearly ridiculous to suggest that you're guilty as hell if you're 1 Kmph over and not if you're 1Kmph under. But if you're 30Kmph over? Then yes, I'd have to say that you'd have a lot to answer for - even if you did think you were in control and felt that you were driving within your own personally determined capabilties.
So, does the odd 1Kmph either way make you evil, as you seem to have implied was my position? No, of course not. It's even been pointed out in this discussion that neither do the Police, who routinely give people the benefit of the doubt and reduce their fines accordingly.
It's clear that you, like the drunk that knows it's OK to drink whilst drunk because he's in control and nothing bad can happen because he's driving carefully, you're never really going to get it. You're just going to carry on speeding knowing that you're perfectly safe because you are in control of your car and your surroundings at all times. I truly hope that you don't have to find out that this isn't the case by being involved in an accident and hurting yourself - or worse stll, some other poor innocent victim.
- CDM
I'm not going to spend valuable time as we obviously have different opinions and that is fair. We no doubt both have better things to do and not enough time to do them in. We see things differently.
If everyone sat down to look at the speed limits in as much detail as you say, why are speed limits different all over the world, and even over Australia. Because different people have different views and different opinions - just like I do when I am driving. So I drive within my capabilities and that of the road and the surroundings. You may not like it. That's fine. That's why when you are driving at 80kph in an 80 limit and braking to 60kph at every bend, I'll overtake you as I'd much rather be in front of you than behind you. From what you have said, that would suit you as well, so we both win.
We'd best leave it here as I think we could go on forever...
May 29th 2009, 8:09 am
#96
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2001
Location: Under the glow of my new visa
Posts: 629
Re: Dont speed in NSW!!!
Minor or major speeding - same result. There is no leniency. Fines reduced - big deal, the cops still get money since that is what it is about.
I'm not going to spend valuable time as we obviously have different opinions and that is fair. We no doubt both have better things to do and not enough time to do them in. We see things differently.
If everyone sat down to look at the speed limits in as much detail as you say, why are speed limits different all over the world, and even over Australia. Because different people have different views and different opinions - just like I do when I am driving. So I drive within my capabilities and that of the road and the surroundings. You may not like it. That's fine. That's why when you are driving at 80kph in an 80 limit and braking to 60kph at every bend, I'll overtake you as I'd much rather be in front of you than behind you. From what you have said, that would suit you as well, so we both win.
We'd best leave it here as I think we could go on forever...
I'm not going to spend valuable time as we obviously have different opinions and that is fair. We no doubt both have better things to do and not enough time to do them in. We see things differently.
If everyone sat down to look at the speed limits in as much detail as you say, why are speed limits different all over the world, and even over Australia. Because different people have different views and different opinions - just like I do when I am driving. So I drive within my capabilities and that of the road and the surroundings. You may not like it. That's fine. That's why when you are driving at 80kph in an 80 limit and braking to 60kph at every bend, I'll overtake you as I'd much rather be in front of you than behind you. From what you have said, that would suit you as well, so we both win.
We'd best leave it here as I think we could go on forever...
- CDM
May 29th 2009, 8:12 am
#97
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Camberwell, Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 781
May 29th 2009, 12:55 pm
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Dont speed in NSW!!!
You could look at it that way but the figures are unrelated. To make any sense they must be relative to each other.
Germany population: 82 mil/5091 fatalities-> 16107:1 of getting in a fatal accident
UK Pop: 61 mil/3172 fatalities -> 19230:1 chance of getting into a fatal accident
QLD pop: 4 mil/335 fatalities -> 11940:1 chance of getting into a fatal accident
Do you feel as safe now?
Germany population: 82 mil/5091 fatalities-> 16107:1 of getting in a fatal accident
UK Pop: 61 mil/3172 fatalities -> 19230:1 chance of getting into a fatal accident
QLD pop: 4 mil/335 fatalities -> 11940:1 chance of getting into a fatal accident
Do you feel as safe now?
They give equal weight to a person who uses the train, compared to a person who drives 200,000 kms per year
The British only have 5,549 vehicles per 10,000 population, compared to 7,250 for Queenslanders.
Hence the number will obviously be much higher, on the population ratio, as QLD has many more cars. However, the ratio is lower based on actual car use as road deaths rarely happen to people who take the train.
It is logical that a person who drives 200,000 kms per year is at higher risk of a car accident than a train user, or someone who drives 5,000 km per year.
Using your figures
at a rate of 0.7379 deaths per 100m kms driven in QLD
or 1 death per 135m kms
compared to
a rate of 0.6207 deaths per 100m kms in the UK, or
1 death per 161m kms
The UK average is 15,225 km per year, therefore 1 death in 10,574 years of average driving compared to
The QLD/Aus average is 14,848 km per year, therefore 1 death in 9,092 years of average driving
The chances overall are not much difference in the overall scheme. But to reduce the risk, could always take the train...
The "Road deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles" gives a better indication..
Australian Capital Territory 0.6 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
Victoria 0.9 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
Great Britain 1.0 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
Northern Territory 3.7 deaths per 10,000 vehicles
May 29th 2009, 1:14 pm
#99
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2001
Location: Under the glow of my new visa
Posts: 629
May 29th 2009, 9:00 pm
#100
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 532
Re: Dont speed in NSW!!!
I now live in Germany having previously lived in Australia and the UK and I can tell you quite simply why the Australian death toll is comparatively higher........Australian driving is terrible and dangerous.......German driving is fast but safe. End of story.
PS. I just bought a Mercedes C63 AMG and will be enjoying it immensely
PS. I just bought a Mercedes C63 AMG and will be enjoying it immensely
May 30th 2009, 2:01 am
#101
Account Closed
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 2,708
Re: Dont speed in NSW!!!
I now live in Germany having previously lived in Australia and the UK and I can tell you quite simply why the Australian death toll is comparatively higher........Australian driving is terrible and dangerous.......German driving is fast but safe. End of story.
PS. I just bought a Mercedes C63 AMG and will be enjoying it immensely
PS. I just bought a Mercedes C63 AMG and will be enjoying it immensely
May 30th 2009, 11:55 pm
#103
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: Dont speed in NSW!!!
Speed was a contibuting factor. Part failure happens on all cars and you cannot control a puncture. The slower you drive the less likely that sort of incident is going to kill you. Why do you think F1 brought in rules that limit the speed of the cars after the crash? Speed is the factor you can control that will reduce the likelyhood of another factor killing you.
Basically when you speed you are putting the lives of yourself and others in danger. You think you are in control but you are not. Frankly vilification is what speeders deserve as they directly contribute to deaths on the roads.
Varying limits is also silly. A blanket limit is easy to understand and set.
Basically when you speed you are putting the lives of yourself and others in danger. You think you are in control but you are not. Frankly vilification is what speeders deserve as they directly contribute to deaths on the roads.
Varying limits is also silly. A blanket limit is easy to understand and set.
Did speed kill Senna - no, a part of the suspension arm that broke killed him, following an accident with the wall. Exact cause still unknown but generally points to an error/problem with the car rather than the driving.
And F1 has hazards - remember the mentalists priest who was in the news again recently who walked on Silverstone's circuit, or the German Mercedes protester?
And F1 has hazards - remember the mentalists priest who was in the news again recently who walked on Silverstone's circuit, or the German Mercedes protester?
