Bentley Drivers a Menace to Society

But Ralph’s appearance on the Oprah show had nothing to do with cars ….he was there to demonstrate “safe cooking procedures”, such as washing knives after cutting uncooked beef, etc.

Ralph Nader appeared on the Oprah show a couple of years ago.

Maybe the Bentley belongs to one of those “gits” –

I was strolling through Green Square one day,

In the merry merry month of May,

I saw all these Gits eating their grits,

So I decided to come back another day !

It was probably some R&B or rapper. Have you noticed how many references there are to Bentleys in R&B songs?

Like em or hate em, they do make a big statement. I’m just not sure that the traditional English background W.O. Bentley – WW2 planes etc. and R&B dudes are completely compatible.

Probably the Goulburn cops picking up pizzas, driving their nice new impounded vehicle

I saw a late model Bentley parked opposite Green Square in Kingston …..maybe it’s the same one ….

Interestingly, the collision at 200km/h logic is flawed. The closing speed is indeed 200km/h, but the force is ‘only’ very roughly equal to hitting a solid object at 100km/h. It gets much more complicated when angles, car deformation and disparate weights are taken into account.

so thumper if im doing 100kmh in my stanley steamer and mong-on is doing 100kmh in his 120y coing in the other direction, decides to toke on his joint, drifts into my lane and we have a head on at 200kmh – should we start a softhead logic campaign to reduce all road speed limits to 50kmh just in case ‘someone’ collides at 200kmh ?

canards

furphies

Yes, people have been saying we are running out of resources for decades. M.K. Hubbert did so in 1956. He studied the bell curve for an individual oil well, then a field and then the whole country. The US was number one oil producer at the time and he was laughed at when he predicted the lower 48 US peaking production between 1968 and 1972. It peaked in 1970. Since then American oil production has continued to decline, consumption has increased and imports cover a greater and greater gap. Of greater concern is that world production will peak this decade and may have already done so.

Ralph, I’ll check out the Economist article. I have been reading a lot of books on the topic written by people in the oil industry. One of the things you realise is that exploration peaked long ago. There are some big known remaining oil reserves such as the Arctic ANWR – 10 billion barrels. It’s big, but to put it in perspective it’s only a little over 100 days of world oil supply. Iraq is pretty decent at 100billion, but I don’t reckon you could get that lot with a whole army behind you 🙂 Lots of the rest of the oil is sitting in unstable areas. Saudi Arabia being particularly vulnerable to insurgency. Saudi Arabia is really the only country carrying spare capacity and they may well have been exaggerating their reserves. Last time they promised to increase production they couldn’t deliver. The Gharwar field (their biggest) is showing signs of peaking.

Time will tell.

Hows the shark look from up there bonfire?

I heard on the news recently that a group of violent bank robbers escaped in a Holden station wagon …..

I couldnt give three fifths of SFA about fuel consumptiom. tank empty – i fill it up. Im not concerned about the cost of fuel in anyway.

When a good bottle of riesling edges overy 30 bucks i wring my hands though.

vehicle safety has never been greater. an accident in a car designed in teh last 5 years at 200kmh would be less likely to result in a fatality than an accident in a 30 year old car at 100kmh.

as i continue to bang on to the brainwashed – speed is not the main factor in road fatalities.

And as for the innocent family in a station wagon – why are there never any guilty familys in station wagons ? The use of pointless emotive adjectives does not sway an argument.

Supply/Demand works a bit differently when demand is inelastic.

Um, no it doesn’t.

People have been screeching that we’re running out of resources for decades. Everything that Johnboy said is correct.

The price of oil is high. This encourages more exploration, and high cost reserves become more economic. It also provides an incentive to invest in alternative energy sources. Read last week’s Economist articles about oil.

JohnBoy, I’d like to think that you are right about supply/demand and alternatives to oil. Supply/Demand works a bit differently when demand is inelastic. We are all oil junkies and will keep paying whatever the price.

Oh, and country & western both suck!!

Your argument about getting more oil out of wells is not valid. Total extractable oil is already counted in known reserves. Known reserves have been exaggerated by many countries and big companies. Shell recently downgraded their known reserve estimates by 20%. It is true that more oil can be extracted from some oil fields, although it’s a bit like wringing a sponge. The first squeeze and water pours out. To get the last few drops is bloody hard work.

The alternatives aren’t so good either. Solar (forget it for our big energy needs), Nuclear (delivers the bang for buck, but big environmental dangers etc., plus if you can’t build a GDE what hope of you got of building a nuke plant), coal (good reserves, but very high CO output), hydrogen (it’s only an energy storage system – you still need energy to make the hydrogen), wind (great, but you need loads of them) … you get the picture.

Yes, the site I referred you to was alarmist. But have a look around and you will see that this is the new reality. Why do you think George W. Bush held the Saudi Prince’s hand and begged for more oil to be produced.

A friend just sold a car wreck for $50. The buyer commented that he simply can’t get enough wrecks because of China’s demands for steel. China has now overtaken the US in consumption of almost every raw material except oil. US uses roughly 20million barrels per day, China 5-6. China’s oil consumption is increasing at an alarming rate – think about it.

You’re welcome LG …. ha,ha.

I love the turn this thread has taken…….

A good laugh on a Friday morning…

Thanks Thumper for starting it, and Canberra Unsung for joining in …

I’m inclined to agree Thumper – I like the ORCHESTRAL music from Twilight of the Gods …. I could only take 5 minutes (max) of listening to Seigfried and Brunhilde !

My favourite Opera is Richard Wagner’s “Twilight of the Gods” .

If only there were a flexible mechanism for matching supply and demand.. oh wait, we have free markets.

Supply tightens, prices rise, other sources of energy become economical, people decide for themselves how much energy they can afford to burn as they drive.

There are more untapped known reserves now than at any time before.

Ever cheaper computing power is allowing rapid 3d seisomography, and allowing them to “see” below salt layers which was not possible a few years ago.

furthermore at the moment the most they economically extract out of any reservoir is about 35%. If prices were to rise there’s plenty of oil still in “exhausted” fields, let alone the untapped ones.

prices rise further then it’s economical to dig deeper, and head further out to sea.

But even where prices are now alternative energy is becoming economical.

There are many good reasons to limit speed (the infinite supply of idiots being top of my list) but fuel conservation is not one of them.

moving on;

Seriously bonfire, cool it and stop calling everyone soft-heads. You’re understandably mad that Mong-On tried to steal your identity and trust me I’m as angry as anyone about that.

If there were no other cars on the road then your argument would make a lot of sense, but with all the other morons out there the limit has more to do with your ability to see and react to the people around you than the possibility you’ll crash on the open road.

At 60kmph you have to be a bit unlucky to die in any crash.

At 200 you’re almost certain.

Now the use of speed cameras in favour of proper traffic policing is a whole other argument, speed cameras are an abomination for all the reasons mentioned and some others beside.

As to the reason companies get charged like wounded bulls it’s to stop people using the corporate body to avoid the demerit points system.

on a related note most nannies are expected to have a clean licence these days to wear the demerit liabilities of their employers.

if you’ve got spare points and don’t mind lying on a stat dec offer to take the rap for the boss and split the fine difference between you.

Dear Reader,

Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon..

Really ? Oh boy, I can hardly wait ….as an “unsung hero” I’ll end up in Valhalla !

An angle that you are all missing in your pro-speeding missives is that a higher speed limit will result in greater fuel usage. It’s a simple fact of physics. Our society can no longer afford to waste fuel.

Australia’s oil production has already peaked. The world is showing strong signs of peaking. Our oil peaking is not conjecture, it is fact. Our food, medicine, transport etc. all depends on oil. Before you jump in with a reply about fuel cells, magical energy replacements or whatever, do some reasearch on peak-oil, M.K. Hubbert, Matt Simmons (energy advisor to the US) etc. You may be quite alarmed.
Here’s a more extreme web site to get you going:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s reality and it’s coming our way soon.

Now, you may begin to understand why we need to reduce speed limits and jack up the price of petrol in a big hurry.

It’s not about accepting or not accepting or doing your own research or anything! The law sets a speed. We are expected to stick to it. Research at your own peril. And the peril of the family you plough in to because your “good road” happens to have one tiny little pothole in it…

Right again Bonfire; speed isn’t the same as a sudden impact, but the more speed the more sudden the impact.

It not about ignoring other factors B, like you are trying to ignore speed. It’s about an immediate, practical solution. That’s speed limits. Your article only affirms other factors, it doesn’t deny speeding.

Call my logic softhead all you like, at least it’s actual logic.

do not ascribe things to me which i havent said. one is not the same as another.

instead of blindly accepting softhead mantras, people should form their own opinions by research.

of course if you are too intellectually lazy and would just prefer to collect someone elses opinion and parrot it as yours go right ahead – that puts you in the same category as 99% of the population who read new idea and watch today tonight.

Chuckle.

Bonfire, you are absolutely right – speed doesn’t kill, it’s the sudden impact.

Next you’ll be saying don’t wear seatbelts, they won’t save your life.

I just had alook at the CT website – an interesting article today on the record road toll.

without selectively quoting – look at this:

“While speed and alcohol had been factor in some accidents, all the crashes were affected in some way by carelessness.

“I suppose it’s a part of our busy lifestyle. A lot of impatient drivers, a lot of people who are doing too many things and not concentrating. Sending text messages, answering phones. People crossing the road when it’s a red ‘don’t walk’ signal, [motorcyclists] not wearing helmets, not wearing protective clothing.”

Detective Sergeant Neit said drivers should realise their car was “not a Jason Recliner”.

“How much do you cherish your own life? People have got to concentrate every second. Whether it’s to the shops, to the kids, to Sydney, to Melbourne.”

“I’ve seen people put goggles on to use an electric drill and concentrate with their tongue out and yet when they get in a car which is 900 to 1000kg of weight, they hurtle down the road at 60km/h, thinking of a hundred other different things.”

maybe the softhead logic is being defeated in the face of its failure.

yes by conveniently ignoring all other factors.

a fine example of softhead logic.

why not make everyone walk everywhere ? no danger of ‘speed killing’ then.

Low speed mitigates all those other problems easily and reliably. Can you now see, for the third time, why it is given number 1 priority?

Im just saying speed does not kill. plenty of other factors ahead of that one.

if im travelling at 210kmh on a bad road in an unroadworthy datsun 120y and lose control and crash while drunk, which factor would have been the main one leading to the crash ?

speed is just an easy factor to detect and therefore enforce.

how am i out of touch with reality ?

If everyone drove a commodore I would never leave my house again…..

B, that might be ok, if everyone drove a Commodore. Or if all the roads were autobahns.

Do you actually form your opinions in connection with reality or your solutions with concern to practicality?

For the punters playing along at home: You can tell it’s really the person if their name is blue. That means they are logged in, rather than just typing a name.

your average brand new commodore could comfortably sit on 200kmh from syd to melb except in the nsw portions where the road is complete shite.

as long as the road conditions were favourable that is.

tyres have speed ratings.

Bonfire, the higher the speed the lower the traction. Less reaction from the vehicle, less control of the car. Consider all factors you have mentioned and do the math.

Johnboy, indeed it seems nigh on time to force login in order to make comments.

yet another reason why i preferred the old webblog software.

less chance of being misrepresented by morons.

“The faster you travel the more likely it is that you will be involved in a car crash”

backed up by what ?

ignore that webpage. softheads in charge.

Yeah right bonfire .

That’s really bad form!

If you have something obnoxious to say, log on with your own name, not someone elses you coward! If I can, you can too!

Forgot my name.

that website is childish nonsense masquerading as fact. if a researcher presented that to me for publication id be sending them back for more research and less propaganda.

note how these departments and state licensing agencies hammer speed and make no mention of improving driving skills through driving courses.

Yer dam right bonfire.

i did not post that last comment. some feeble minded idiot posing as me did.

I did not watch the Happy Days thing last night, but I presume you are referring to the “Jump the shark” comment.

Sorry. I was wrong. I take it all back:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/newdrivers/speed.cfm#speed

Bonfire – there comes a point when you realise that you are arguing with a 16 year old and it’s just not worth the keystrokes anymore.

I am that 16 year old, so stop typing.

I’ll assume you were exaggerating a wee tad in that one, then go on to say that you didn’t end up demonstrating why speed is not a factor and why your ideas are easier to implement than speed limits.

i see people watched the happy days special last night.

prufrock damaged private property. mr bentley drove a car. he broke a regulation imposed to suit enforcement techniques and to gain revenue.

where does this myth that everyone on the german autobahns does 200kmh come from ? a lot of it is regulated to one speed or another. people also move out of the far lane and let other pass them – which is rare here. id say that most folk would do 180kmh to get from a to b with the kids in the back. hardly excessive on an autobahn.

it strikes you as odd when softheads have stifled a sense of purpose through their social engineering. i looked at a map for a journey of 430kmh and thought it was 4 or 5 hours away, my driver said confidently 2 and a bit hours and was on the money.

of course autobahns also have automatic emergency warnings for road conditions which cut into your radio and cd and say ‘achtung achtung – then something about what ever the problem is’ a very sensible idea which could be introduced here.

the main problem with australian roads (apart australian roads themselves) is from nonsensically low speed limits and the poor driving. id like to see police pull poor drivers over and publically thrash them. instead we have pole mounted cameras that snap away because you did 64 in a 60 zone and send you a bill. that idiot next to you who is on the phone or doing his nails while reading Ralph and stirring his mugachino grande and paying no attention to the road at all is a ‘good driver’ because they havent been speeding.

rid us of this speed kills softhead mantra.

I can’t see why a “company” car should incur a larger fine …. it’s obviously a revenue thing !

He’s just found out it’s because the car’s registered to a company.

That simply proves it’s a revenue raising scam, cos the same car, same driver booked as a private citizen pays $129.

Yet there’s absolutely no difference in the alleged danger to the public.

$635 !!! Good grief … that’s a bit over the top !

*sigh*

If everyone on the road does 230kph in poor conditions driving bad cars with poor skills, what is the one common factor we can effect instantly, practially and reasonably to mitigate risk in ALL these circumstances?

Speed. It is the single common factor that triggers and exacerbates accidents where these other things exist.

Until they are all reliably dealt with($$$$$$$$), speed limits are the immediate practical solution.

I reckon Vader’s right about the Bentley.

However, my boss just got a ticket today for doing 72km/h on Northbourne. The fine is so dispropotionate to the offence – $635 – it’s hard to argue that it is anything other than revenue raising.

“graffiti is an eyesore. its a crime. if you dont liek someones politics then find away to counter them – but dont use that as an exuse for a crime.” – Bonfire

Speeding is a crime and I don’t liek it.

There is speeding, and there is speeding.

I agree that too much attention is paid to speed being one of the major contributing factors in accidents.

It is the appropriateness of the speed which is the issue. If the majority of the traffic are doing 10-15kph over the limit, then someone doing 10kph below the limit would be driving just as dangerously as someone driving 30kph over it as they would both be disrupting the traffic flow.

Similarly, 100kph on Belconnen Way would not be dangerous in normal circumstances. However, on nights when there is a thick fog it would be extremely dangerous. Drive to the conditions.

In this case, the driver of the Bentley was clearly endangering others. Driving at 230kph is fine if you are the only person on the road, or all the other road users are doing the same speed (eg the German Autobahns). When you are doing it on a busy highway, where the majority of users are doing 110, making for a 120kph speed differential, then you are an accident waiting to happen.

RandomG: My thoughts exactly. There is also little data that smoking is bad for you, that unprotected sex with strangers can be dangerous, that a keg of beer before a drive is a bad idea and that country music is shit.

Shark ahoy, fonz.

there is little data that ’speeding’ is dangerous

bonfire has just jumped the shark.

Gee, the “tough on law and order” and “equal before the law” types sure take a different view on speeding than they do to stencilling. Nice bit of consistency boys! I’d guess you’d only regret it and apologise if you got caught? Or not?

speeding is an ‘offence’ for revenue purposes only. there is little data that ‘speeding’ is dangerous.

if the road conditions are acceptable 230 kmh is not dangerous. have you looked at the hume or some of the larger freeways ? excellent roads for speed.

unfortunately years of softhead social engineering and propaganda have seeped into people and the core value of speeding kills exists.

it does not. there are many factors in a vehicle accident. poor driving skills, poor vehicle condition, poor roads.

there is too much focus on a single factor like speeding.

id remove all speed limits tomorrow. laissez faire motoring!

I was the only car on the Parkway at the time Spiny ….otherwise I wouldn’t have tried it.

200+k’s in that Bentley. No big deal. These cars are built to be driven at those speeds. 200k’s in a nissan exa. well where were the do gooders then.

The driver was Alan Shortall, 52, chief executive officer of Unilife Medical Solutions Ltd.

He has confirmed, through his media adviser, that he was the man arrested after the alleged speeding offence at Collector.

He claimed there were “mitigating circumstances”.

Since his company makes retractable syringes, which the Government stopped funding in the Budget, what’s the bet that he was racing down to Canberra to argue with the Health Department.

I hit 200Km/hr once, on a downhill run in a Nissan EXA turbo on the tuggeranong parkway early one Sunday morning back in 1984….it was great…until the Turbo flew to pieces another kilometre down the straight !

A bit rich to slag the informers off when you don’t know if they had a hands free kit, or a friend in the car.

I have driven over 200kph (just to see what it felt like) and I’ve taken a motorbike over 170 for much the same reason.

For the record it feels like the most alive you’ll ever be. Your reaction space opens, and opens, and you adjust to making dozens of decisions a second. Your field of view narrows and narrows to the tarmac in front of you.

In a way it’s like being in big surf. When the world narrows to the point you’re in with the crests either side and everything in monochrome as your brain decides, and decides, and decides, on which way lies safety and which way disaster.

But (and it’s a big, big, but) there’s nothing dangerous to others about being in big surf.

So i took vehicles up to those silly speeds once, and having been there. I don’t feel a need to go again.

A bit like I feel about parachuting or bungee jumping.

In any event anyone who can afford a Bentley can afford a ticket and a chaffeur. So throw the bloody book at him (or her).

using a mobile phone whilst driving is safe if you’re a police officer. maybe they get days of intensive “mobile phone use whilst driving” training

– chuckle –

hmm and how did the “other drivers” tip off police? by using their mobile phones whilst driving I suppose? Not very safe either …