1 June 2010

Newsflash - JTK booked for speeding (Almost)

| James-T-Kirk
Join the conversation
74

You read it here first on the RiotACT!

Notorious speeder, James-T-Kirk has reported that he was flying driving down Canberra Avenue in the early hours of Tuesday morning, and he spotted a ACT Government Speed Detector van parked in plain sight approximately 400 meters away. JTK was reported as saying “Bugga!”, just prior to deploying the foot brake to reduce the vehicles speed to under the legal limit. Upon passing the van, JTK waved to the very bored occupant, where he promptly returned to cruising speed.

When interviewed, JTK said “Wow – that was an exhilarating feeling, actually traveling at the posted speed limit. I just got my new EOS convertable the other day, and man, does it fly!!! But, seriously, the whole speed thing reminds me of the time when I was traveling to work along Drakeford Drive and there was a Speed Van, a Police bike about 800m away, and another then another bike a further 800m. That would have been a really effective strategy, only thwarted by the time of day – They decided to setup during peak minute – the tiny period when the road has so many cars that it is not possible to get a decent speed up.”

Ms Burlesque Griffin, the Director of speed enforcement has declined to return our calls on the ineffectiveness of the speed enforcement program in detecting, and preventing Mr JTK’s compulsive speed habits.

…..

Sigh – there has to be a better way to stop speeding on the roads – cause the current plan surely isn’t working…….

Join the conversation

74
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest
georgesgenitals2:03 pm 08 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Germany, for example, requires 12 hours of theory instruction, at least 25 hours of professional practical instruction and costs around 1000 Euros.

Is that the same Germany that has 7.2 deaths per billion vehicle kilometers travelled versus Australia’s 6.5? And that’s with all their wonderful training in their very expensive safety-feature-laden automobiles on their very safe autobahns.

The very same. Given that Germany has some roads with unlimted speed limits, and other roads with higher limits than Australia, I don’t think we’re comparing apples with apples here. The point I was making is that another country has managed to implement higher licensing requirements, and life as they knew it didn’t grind to a halt. I still think we need better skills training and testing here in Australia.

How much faster? For what benefit?

It is not about a maximum speed for me. It is about the experience of driving along the road. Lets say for example we take the same Canberra-Sydney trip. Speed limit is, say, 150km/h. If I am driving along in my Hyundai accent, I am likely to spend upwards of 80% of the time below about 120km/h, because it is a small car, with a small engine, etc. And frankly, I usually do those speeds anyway. The difference is, if I decide to pass another vehicle, I can do it quickly and efficiently without being concerned about being booked. I can let the car do a comfortable speed up and down hills, rather then being on the brakes, then back on the accelerator, and my only concern for the absolute value of my velocity would be my ability to take the corners, rather then how it compares to a number in a circle on a sign.

I don’t really see this culture changing, and it would take a cultural change for it to work, but it is a nice fantasy in my head.

Woody,

here is the link to the GDE design for stage 2.

http://203.9.249.2/e-registers/pubnote/pdf/SUPP-200915029-GDE_STAGE_2_REPORT-01.pdf

I was wrong that the current design speed was 100km/hr, the original plan was for it to be 100km/hr but they only achieved 90km/hr with the current two lane road. The final design (2 lane) will be for 100km/hr with posted 90km/hr speed limit.

Good engineering practice would be to set the speed limit at the 85th percentile speed (which is the design speed). But most speed limits are usually set to 5-10km/hr below their design speed as an extra safety factor.

My original point, which you have tried to twist, was that travelling on roads at the design speed is not excessively dangerous. The risk increase in setting speed limits at the design speed would not be excessive.
I was trying to make a comment about the relative nature of risk on the road. Sure travelling at 10km/hr below the design speed may be safer but so would travelling at 20km/hr below.

Can you give me a good reason why setting the speed limit at the design speed would make things excessively dangerous? Most drivers are comfortable travelling at that speed, why should they be fined for doing something that is not dangerous?

Not once did I say speeding made roads safer, you’ve been trying to force that argument on me, but it isn’t what ive been saying. In fact your entire argument has been trying to force a position on me that i don’t have.

My whole argument as been about risk versus utility which you seem to agree with in your last point. Thanks.

Woody Mann-Caruso11:44 am 08 Jun 10

I can only respond to what you actually wrote, not what you meant to write or were thinking at the time. Which I did.

Nice try, chewy14, but the record clearly (and inconveniently, for you) shows you’re the one who raised the GDE as an example of a road that should be 100km/h. You suggested that there were many examples of such roads. You’ve yet to point out one – just one. If you pointed out a road that didn’t have the same level of traffic as the GDE, then that wouldn’t be a fair or accurate comparison? I didn’t stress that the road should be asphalt, either – I just figured it was a given for somebody with wasn’t pulling stuff out of their proverbial as they went along. You also haven’t indicated why your expertise in traffic engineering is so widely disregarded by your peers when they set speed limits. Why are they all wrong and you’re so right? What do you know that the good folk at, say, Austroads don’t?

The same argument can be used to reduce all speed limits to zero.

No, it can’t, because risk is balanced wtih utility. But if you were an engineer you’d know that, wouldn’t you? Do you have any actual rebuttals to the arugment presented? I even gave you a bunch of pointers. They’re really simple questions, so somebody really simple should be able to answer them. Just show me how speeding makes things safer.

What about roads which have design speeds which are significantly higher than the posted speed limit?

Such as? Look, you should really give me that GDE-like road link first. I’m not sure you could keep up with looking for two roads.

Mate, I’ve seen some rank amateurs orators come and go on this site. At the moment you’re ranked somewhere below Maelinar and above Damien Haas (but only just). It’s not a good look. Answer the questions – as I’ve answered yours – or give up.

Woody Mann-Caruso11:29 am 08 Jun 10

Germany, for example, requires 12 hours of theory instruction, at least 25 hours of professional practical instruction and costs around 1000 Euros.

Is that the same Germany that has 7.2 deaths per billion vehicle kilometers travelled versus Australia’s 6.5? And that’s with all their wonderful training in their very expensive safety-feature-laden automobiles on their very safe autobahns.

I would personally, however, be willing to accept slightly more risk on main roads (div
ided, two lane etc way, highway type roads) in exchange for the ability to go faster on them.

How much faster? For what benefit?

Let’s imagine a wonderful fantasy land where you have the entire 300km stretch from here to Sydney to yourself – no cars, no lights, and it’s 110km/h all the way, door to door, instant acceleration. It’ll take you 2 hours, 43 minutes and 12 seconds. Let’s say you can do 120 – 2 hours 30 minutes. 130 – 2 hrs 18 minutes. So letting you drive on the highway to Sydney at the same speed you’re allowed to drive on a perfectly straight, perfectly flat road in the middle of the Northern Territory saves you 25 minutes over a two and a half hour trip – in a perfect world.

But you’re not in a perfect world. You stop for a break which is as long as you feel like. Even on the highway you get caught behind traffic or roadworks. It’s not 130 all the way, because you’ll hit urban traffic conditions at the start and end of your journey. A light here, a light there, waiting at a roundabout, a few extra minutes at Maccas and any time advantage is wiped out.

On the odd days I take the car to and from work I play a game. I pick a random d.ckhead speeding past me on Adelaide Avenue, Yamba Drive, Melrose Drive or Athlon Drive, make sure he’s got a really good head start, then see how long it takes me to drive past him. Nine times out of ten it’s at the next lights; the rest of the time it’s at the next. Very, very rarely I’ll lose sight of them, which means I won’t see them until three or four lights later, or stuck behind traffic on Adelaide Avenue. But I pretty much always catch them eventually, just cruising along at the speed limit. Fairly often I even drive past them because they’ve failed to scan the traffic ahead and got caught behind a turning lane. You can play this on the way to Sydney too, when you catch up with the tool doing 140 so he can spend an extra three minutes at McDonalds.

Speed has pretty much nothing to do with how quickly you get anywhere when it comes to driving. We haven’t even got to the steady erosion of any perceived benefits over time, as 130 becomes the norm and you wish you could go 140, 150, 160…or you could just leave home a few minutes earlier.

georgesgenitals4:30 pm 07 Jun 10

p1 said :

I would personally, however, be willing to accept slightly more risk on main roads (divided, two lane etc way, highway type roads) in exchange for the ability to go faster on them.

..especially if the additional risk was mitigated by more more stringent training and testing requirements.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

The speed limit is simply a value designed to result in a road which is “safe enough” while being “useful”.

That was made clear by my use of the phrases ‘consumate with the risks posed by road and traffic conditions’ and ‘relative to the risks already posed by the conditions’. Nobody has claimed that speed limits are an absolute guarantor of safety. What the other side needs to do, however, is demonstrate how exceeding the speed limit reduces the risks or keeps them the same. This would require violating minor details like the laws of physics and the limits of human biology, so good luck.

As you have pointed out, that would be impossible. And I don’t advocate people exceeding the legal posted speed limit. I would personally, however, be willing to accept slightly more risk on main roads (divided, two lane etc way, highway type roads) in exchange for the ability to go faster on them.

georgesgenitals4:05 pm 07 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Road testing shows again and again that most people are just bad drivers, full stop – they can’t break properly in an emergency, avoid obstacles etc. They’ll skid out of control and hit the cones or the cardboard cutout every time, no matter what their supposed or claimed level of skill. Everybody’s an awesome driver until they’re not, and what happens to others will never happen to them until it does. Speed makes this worse.

That’s certainly the case in Australia, but what about other places? Germany, for example, requires 12 hours of theory instruction, at least 25 hours of professional practical instruction and costs around 1000 Euros. I would expect a person going through that level of training to be better skilled than the averahe Australian drivers license holder.

I’m a big supporter of having better training, and higher standards (verified through testing). And, like Germany, the user should bear the costs.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

and if you think driving at 100km/h on a single-lane road with merging entrances and exits is safe you’re nuts.

Where is the mention of urban traffic?
I can only respond to what you actually wrote, not what you meant to write or were thinking at the time. Which I did.

You’ve never driven on a single lane road that has merging entrances or exits that has a 100km/hr speed limit.

It wasn’t til after this that you mention urban traffic. Do try to remember what you wrote.

And I never said I would provide criteria for safe speeding so you can stop waiting and put away that straw man.

Driving safely entails driving in a manner than minimises the risk and severity of a crash. Speed limits contribute to safe driving by ensuring traffic moves at a speed consumate with the risks posed by road and traffic conditions. Driving above this speed reduces your control of the vehicle, increases your reaction time and braking distance and so increases the risk of a crash and the severity of that crash, relative to the risks already posed by the conditions. Increasing the likelihood and severity of a crash is counter to notions of ’safe driving’, so no, you can’t exceed the speed limit in a ’safe manner’.

The same argument can be used to reduce all speed limits to zero.

What about roads which have design speeds which are significantly higher than the posted speed limit? Are similar roads (design, volumes etc) in different areas requiring of differing risk levels?

Our positions aren’t all that different, you just have much higher confidence in how speed limits are set and applied than I do.

Woody Mann-Caruso2:59 pm 07 Jun 10

The speed limit is simply a value designed to result in a road which is “safe enough” while being “useful”.

That was made clear by my use of the phrases ‘consumate with the risks posed by road and traffic conditions’ and ‘relative to the risks already posed by the conditions’. Nobody has claimed that speed limits are an absolute guarantor of safety. What the other side needs to do, however, is demonstrate how exceeding the speed limit reduces the risks or keeps them the same. This would require violating minor details like the laws of physics and the limits of human biology, so good luck.

Over longer distances, traveling at higher speed reduces time spent in the vehicle, thus fatigue is lower.

And that’s why it’s 110 on the highway. Of course, this is also offset to some extent by the boredom of driving on wide, mostly straight, largely empty roads.

different drivers have different skills and abilities

Road testing shows again and again that most people are just bad drivers, full stop – they can’t break properly in an emergency, avoid obstacles etc. They’ll skid out of control and hit the cones or the cardboard cutout every time, no matter what their supposed or claimed level of skill. Everybody’s an awesome driver until they’re not, and what happens to others will never happen to them until it does. Speed makes this worse.

And seriously, what’s the alternative? Special testing for everybody to work out how fast they can travel, with a list of speed limits for different areas for different people? “Well, Bill can do 89 on this road, but 94 on that road, but he can only do 55 on the road that Fred can do 65 on because he’s bad with roundabouts…”. But we can ignore the practicalities of enforcement, because we’re dealing with special snowflakes who are above the law.

I’m still not convinced that zealous enforcement of speed limits is the best way of minimising harm on our roads.

It’s ‘a’ way, not ‘the’ way, and nobody has said anything to the contrary.

georgesgenitals2:12 pm 07 Jun 10

Hi WMC – a couple of points to throw into the discussion:

1) Over longer distances, traveling at higher speed reduces time spent in the vehicle, thus fatigue is lower. I will admit that the difference in speed would need to be quite large to make a meaningful difference, and the danger in traveling much more quickly in most cases would outweigh the benefits.

2) That section of the Monaro Hwy that is 80km/h used to be 100km/h, and nothing seemed to change when the speed limit changed.

I think the problem, really, is that different drivers have different skills and abilities, and while some can drive X km/h faster than others with a similar level of risk (or not), we ultimately have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. That said, I have to admit that I’m still not convinced that zealous enforcement of speed limits is the best way of minimising harm on our roads.

Driving safely entails driving in a manner than minimises the risk and severity of a crash. Speed limits contribute to safe driving by ensuring traffic moves at a speed consumate with the risks posed by road and traffic conditions. Driving above this speed reduces your control of the vehicle, increases your reaction time and braking distance and so increases the risk of a crash and the severity of that crash, relative to the risks already posed by the conditions. Increasing the likelihood and severity of a crash is counter to notions of ’safe driving’, so no, you can’t exceed the speed limit in a ’safe manner’.

While the above paragraph it correct, what it doesn’t mention the fact that there is not magical force field which makes you “safe” so long as the needle on the speedo is at or below the correct number. The only binary safety issue which is absolute is the fact that other people on the road will expect you to be doing at or below the limit and act accordingly. All other issues, those you mention, mean it is incrementally less safe for every increase in speed.

The speed limit is simply a value designed to result in a road which is “safe enough” while being “useful”.

But what would I know, I’m just a guy in the interwebz.

chewy14 said :

Have you ever driven on a coast road? Plently of merging entrances, exits and 100km/hr speed limits.

Yep, and the pacific highway has a marvelous safety history too …….. FAIL

Woody Mann-Caruso1:33 pm 07 Jun 10

So a situation where a merge lane joins two lanes a 100km/h is fine (such as occurs in many many places), but into a single lane is more dangerous? Is this because there are less things for the “urban traffic” to be aware of?

Imagine if they reduced the Parkway to a single lane. Are you really happy to leave it at 100km/h? Do you really think this would maintain or enhance road safety? Because the experts (the real ones, not chewy14 the lollipop wookie) say it doesn’t, and they reduce the speed limits in such cases accordingly. On some double-land roads (like the Monaro near Hume) they even drop it to 80 – lights, lane splits and merges and so on. The more complex the traffic environment, the less time to react, the higher the congestion, the lower the speed limit needs to be.

If you’d like to claim they’re wrong, by all means, cough up your credentials and explain why your genius has yet to catch on in the rest of the industry. Until then, you’re an amateur claiming expertise that you not only don’t have, but which you believe exceeds that of qualified professionals. As I said above, I’ll stick with the experts, thanks.

James-T-Kirk1:33 pm 07 Jun 10

Ahhh – traffic management –

When I get older – I wana be the man who holds that cool sign – that looks important

Woody Mann-Caruso1:24 pm 07 Jun 10

Where did you mention traffic volumes? You simply said a single lane road with a 100km/hr speed limit.

You raised the GDE as an example. You said the limit on this single-lane, high-traffic road with merging entrances and exits should be 100km/h. I’ve been responding specifically to that example. Do try to keep up.

Have you ever driven on a coast road? Plently of merging entrances, exits and 100km/hr speed limits.

Please, point one out for me. Remember, we’re still talking about your proposterous 100km/h GDE suggestion here, so urban traffic flows, single lane, merging entrances and exits. A Google Maps link will do. Don’t try to change the terms – they’re yours, after all, and I’d hate to think you were intellectually effete.

Seeing as you like absolutes, do you believe it is possible to travel above a posted speed limit in a safe manner? ie “safe speeding’.

We’re still waiting on criteria for safe speeding from the peanut gallery, but in the meantime:

Driving safely entails driving in a manner than minimises the risk and severity of a crash. Speed limits contribute to safe driving by ensuring traffic moves at a speed consumate with the risks posed by road and traffic conditions. Driving above this speed reduces your control of the vehicle, increases your reaction time and braking distance and so increases the risk of a crash and the severity of that crash, relative to the risks already posed by the conditions. Increasing the likelihood and severity of a crash is counter to notions of ‘safe driving’, so no, you can’t exceed the speed limit in a ‘safe manner’.

If you’d like to counter, please explain how driving faster increases your control of the vehicle, reduces your reaction time and braking distance, enhances other drivers’ ability to accurately estimate your position and speed, and reduces the severity of any crashes that occur. In short, explain how exceeding the speed limit enhances, or at least maintains, road safety.

Just so you can keep up, here’s your to-do list again:

– location of a single-lane road that carries an urban traffic load, has a 100km/h speed limit and merging entrances and exits
– criteria for safe speeding

I’m still waiting. You can try to dodge, weave, duck and distract all you like. How about you just answer the questions?

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

1. Yes I have worked in traffic engineering.

Were you one of those dudes holding up the ‘SLOW’ sign?

Haha,
That would be traffic management Jim.

chewy14 said :

1. Yes I have worked in traffic engineering.

Were you one of those dudes holding up the ‘SLOW’ sign?

Sorry Woody,
i’ve been busy you know weekend and all that.
1. Yes I have worked in traffic engineering.
2. Now who’s using straw men. Where did you mention traffic volumes? You simply said a single lane road with a 100km/hr speed limit.
Have you ever driven on a coast road? Plently of merging entrances, exits and 100km/hr speed limits.
3. I’ll ask a question in return to clarify your position. Seeing as you like absolutes, do you believe it is possible to travel above a posted speed limit in a safe manner? ie “safe speeding’.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I’m suggesting that having a driveway on a 100km/h rural road (where the flow of traffic is next to zero and one party has to give way and wait for a substantial opening before entering the main thoroughfare) is nothing like having two streams of urban traffic become one at 100km/h.

So a situation where a merge lane joins two lanes a 100km/h is fine (such as occurs in many many places), but into a single lane is more dangerous? Is this because there are less things for the “urban traffic” to be aware of?

I suggest to you that the situation of a single lane of traffic, merging with another single lane of traffic, at whatever speed, is going to be safer (all other things being equal) then two lanes of traffic merging with a single lane of traffic.

Woody Mann-Caruso11:38 am 07 Jun 10

You seem to be suggesting that it would be more dangerous to have single lane roads with merge lanes doing 100km/h then it would be to have single lane roads with driveways and T-intersections at the same speed.

I’m suggesting that having a driveway on a 100km/h rural road (where the flow of traffic is next to zero and one party has to give way and wait for a substantial opening before entering the main thoroughfare) is nothing like having two streams of urban traffic become one at 100km/h.

the road in question is divided

Which is completely irrelevant to people merging from an entrance ramp on the left. “Well, we’ll put some concrete on the other side, and then jack up the speed limit another 20km/h.” Right.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Because t-intersection driveways are just like merging lanes….

Well, in Canberra, roads with driveways are the slow ones, roads with merging lanes are able to have faster speed limits. You seem to be suggesting that it would be more dangerous to have single lane roads with merge lanes doing 100km/h then it would be to have single lane roads with driveways and T-intersections at the same speed.

I would also like to not the the road in question is divided, making it safer again then the vast majority of rural roads in the country.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:37 am 07 Jun 10

Oh, and those criteria for ‘safe speeding’, too. Let’s try to get some closure this time so you won’t have to drag up these same pathetic excuses for arguments next time we have a speeding thread.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:31 am 07 Jun 10

Every country road I have driven on that was “unrestricted” had a 100km/h speed limit, and they even had driveways – gosh….

Because t-intersection driveways are just like merging lanes.

I know you’re still (poorly) trolling, but thanks for reminding me that I’m still waiting for chewy14 to get back to me on his expert traffic engineering status and the location of this mysterious merging / single-lane 100 zone.

James-T-Kirk10:08 am 07 Jun 10

Every country road I have driven on that was “unrestricted” had a 100km/h speed limit, and they even had driveways – gosh….

But – Just to add some fuel to the fire – I *do* love driving through speed zones at 40km/h – maintaining that speed around the corners is actually quite challenging!

Woody Mann-Caruso12:39 pm 04 Jun 10

Oh and you obviously have never considered that i am one of those experts.

Well are you? Yes or no will do.

Still waiting for you to:

– name a road that’s single lane, has merging entrances and exits, carries similar traffic to the GDE and has a 100 km/h speed limit
– find a quote that indicates somebody here believes that speeding is the be all and end all of road safety

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Make up your mind – are you OK with speed limits or not? And I’ll take the experts’ ‘subjectivity’ over yours any day.

I know the reasons that we have speed limits, i just think that the application of certain speed limits in certain areas could be more sensible.
Oh and you obviously have never considered that i am one of those experts.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:51 am 04 Jun 10

You’ve never driven on a single lane road with merging entrances and exits that has a 100km/hr speed limit?

I’ve driven all over Australia and I can’t say I recall ever seeing one. Perhaps there’s the occasional rural road, but nothing in any built-up area, and certainly nothing that carries as much traffic as the GDE. Tell me where one is around here and I’ll happily reconsider.

I just don’t like it when people think that some number on a sign is the be all and end all of road safety.

More straw men. Nobody here has ever said anything like that. Provide a quote to support your claim. Otherwise, you’re just being hysterical.

Particularly when a lot of those numbers are arbitrarily chosen based on a number of subjective factors.

Make up your mind – are you OK with speed limits or not? And I’ll take the experts’ ‘subjectivity’ over yours any day.

georgesgenitals10:25 am 04 Jun 10

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/50397/queenslands-covert-speed-cameras-not-about-saving-lives-police-union

I don’t necessarily agree with all the content, but it adds an interesting perspective.

But no-one thinks that speed is the be all and end all of road safety.

The OP and the very first post in this thread were goading these (presumably imaginary) people who ‘believe speed is the be all and end all of road safety’, and then it continues throughout the post … Who are you actually disagreeing with?

georgesgenitals4:57 pm 03 Jun 10

chewy14 said :

Jim,
i actually don’t have any problem with speed limits. I realise there is currently no better way of measuring and determining an acceptable risk level that can apply at all times for travel on our roads.

I just don’t like it when people think that some number on a sign is the be all and end all of road safety. Particularly when a lot of those numbers are arbitrarily chosen based on a number of subjective factors.

Agree, and I’d add that application of speed limits is not always as sensible as it could be. As I stated above, using a sensible rule to establish such limits would be a good way to go.

Jim,
i actually don’t have any problem with speed limits. I realise there is currently no better way of measuring and determining an acceptable risk level that can apply at all times for travel on our roads.

I just don’t like it when people think that some number on a sign is the be all and end all of road safety. Particularly when a lot of those numbers are arbitrarily chosen based on a number of subjective factors.

Nah, WMC is still extremely convincing.

Honestly, there have to be absolute speed limits that motorists abide by. You can whinge and whine to your heart’s content, but what’s the alernative? Speed limit signs that say ‘Go as fast as you think is an acceptable risk’?

I can just imagine how well *that* would work.

Um Woody,
Yes, The actual roadway of the GDE is designed to have a 100km/hr speed limit.
There are of course reasons why the posted speed limit is 80km/hr. And guess what? most of these reasons are subjective.

You’ve never driven on a single lane road with merging entrances and exits that has a 100km/hr speed limit? You musn’t get out much.

Speed limits are obviously not absolute because they get changed all the time.

…which they inflict on unreasonably and unlawfully inflict on others who reasonably and lawfully accept a different level of risk.”

If you honestly can’t see the relative nature of risk on the road then you are beyond help.
Reasonably accept a different level of risk??
By your logic anyone travelling faster than me is unreasonably inflicting their level of risk on me regardless of road conditions.

Surely the speed kills mmmkaaayy!! crowd can do better than this.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Driving on roads such as the GDE which was designed for 100km/hr traffic but for some strange reason only has an 80km/hr speed limit. Is that a good enough example?

It’s not even ‘an’ example, because it wasn’t designed to carry traffic at 100km/h, and if you think driving at 100km/h on a single-lane road with merging entrances and exits is safe you’re nuts.

There are no absolutes on the road because it’s all relative

It doesn’t get more absolute than a legislated speed limit.

some people just have a willingness to accept a higher level of risk than others.

…which they inflict on unreasonably and unlawfully inflict on others who reasonably and lawfully accept a different level of risk.

Come on, surely the ‘I’m a special snowflake who dserves to be exempt from the law’ crowd can do better than this.

+ 1

georgesgenitals1:35 pm 03 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

There are no absolutes on the road because it’s all relative

It doesn’t get more absolute than a legislated speed limit.

Legislation is about setting rules, not arguing with the laws of physics. While a legislated speed limit is indeed absolute, the risks relating to it are not.

Woody Mann-Caruso1:30 pm 03 Jun 10

Driving on roads such as the GDE which was designed for 100km/hr traffic but for some strange reason only has an 80km/hr speed limit. Is that a good enough example?

It’s not even ‘an’ example, because it wasn’t designed to carry traffic at 100km/h, and if you think driving at 100km/h on a single-lane road with merging entrances and exits is safe you’re nuts.

There are no absolutes on the road because it’s all relative

It doesn’t get more absolute than a legislated speed limit.

some people just have a willingness to accept a higher level of risk than others.

…which they inflict on unreasonably and unlawfully inflict on others who reasonably and lawfully accept a different level of risk.

Come on, surely the ‘I’m a special snowflake who dserves to be exempt from the law’ crowd can do better than this.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Not having or causing an accident?

Yeah, ‘it is til it isn’t’ isn’t really a useful criteria, is it?

Come on, BarbarianNearBinjura, let’s have specifics.

Driving on roads such as the GDE which was designed for 100km/hr traffic but for some strange reason only has an 80km/hr speed limit.

Is that a good enough example?

There are no absolutes on the road because it’s all relative, saying “safe speeding” is just as stupid as saying “speed kills”.

Whenever we go on the road we accept an element of risk, some people just have a willingness to accept a higher level of risk than others.

georgesgenitals11:47 am 03 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Not having or causing an accident?

Yeah, ‘it is til it isn’t’ isn’t really a useful criteria, is it?

Come on, BarbarianNearBinjura, let’s have specifics.

It was just a flippant suggestion. Ultimately, selecting a speed at which to drive is a risk assessment exercise, taking in a range of factors. Theoretically, risk assessment principles are applied to the setting of speed limits anyway, but drivers will (often inadvertantly) perform ‘on the fly’ risk assessment while driving.

Of course, some demographics (such as, for example, young blokes) have different risk assessment parameters when compared with others, which is why they don’t feel like they are in any real danger when driving very quickly.

Jokes aside, I support the principle of setting speed limits at a given percentile (eg 85%) of the speed chosen by drivers when using that section of road. The reasons have been discussed before. There are, of course, areas (eg school zones) that are high risk, and require a very low speed limit. Freeways, however, could probably stand a bit of bump.

…didn’t keep left while not overtaking $150 2 points…

I thought that was only required when sign posted in the ACT?

Woody Mann-Caruso11:21 am 03 Jun 10

Not having or causing an accident?

Yeah, ‘it is til it isn’t’ isn’t really a useful criteria, is it?

Come on, BarbarianNearBinjura, let’s have specifics.

georgesgenitals11:04 am 03 Jun 10

Jim Jones said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Speeding is fine when done in a safe manner

Please, enlighten us – what are the criteria for ‘speeding in a safe manner’?

Not getting caught, of course.

Not having or causing an accident?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Speeding is fine when done in a safe manner

Please, enlighten us – what are the criteria for ‘speeding in a safe manner’?

Not getting caught, of course.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:55 am 03 Jun 10

Speeding is fine when done in a safe manner

Please, enlighten us – what are the criteria for ‘speeding in a safe manner’?

ConanOfCooma said :

Speeding is fine when done in a safe manner, and police will say “Oh, there is no safe speeding”, but we all know how far the police will get in life with an attitude like that.

We have presented practical examples of why speeding is bad and you resort to name calling, without even any facts to back up your claims of why speeding is safe ??? Who would be the moron !!!

ConanOfCooma7:45 am 03 Jun 10

Special G said :

Mr ofCooma – plenty of cases where people pull out in front of someone are simply because the person speeding couldn’t be seen when the person pulled into the intersection, or the person is unable to correctly judge the speed the person is travelling as it is more than twice the posted limit. I can think of two examples of this of the top of my head where deaths occured.

This is why speeding especially in urban areas can lead you to be the cause of the collision.

At what point did I defend people doing TWICE the speed limit, or condone such a practice? Speeding is fine when done in a safe manner, and police will say “Oh, there is no safe speeding”, but we all know how far the police will get in life with an attitude like that.

Perhaps you are one of those morons that holds up massive amounts of traffic with your “Stay alive, drop the five” attitude.

Thank goodness some people “get it” and can think outside the box, instead of “everyone else drives like S%#T, but I am an awesome driver and should be able to do what ever speed I want to”

Put it this way, sometimes laws are in place to protect people from themselves. In regard to speeding and ConanOfCooma, that certainly appears to be the case 😉 I contend that the scenario I presented is quite valid.

I don’t wear a seatbelt, because it’s “another factor or idiot driver” that hits my car and ejects me from the vehicle. In the end, who cares what what the “factors” are, the end result is the same 🙂

ConanOfCooma said :

Your scenario is invalid, as it simply turns the speed issue into a contributing factor, and not the main cause of the accident. The accident wouldn’t have occurred if some dumb shit hadn’t pulled out in front. So thanks for validating my point, the police need to target bad drivers.

I’m not defending the dick heads that do 120+, I think they deserve to be booked, but until the cops pull their finger out and actually target BAD DRIVERS, as opposed to super-funding speed traps and other revenue raising ventures, people are going to keep dying on our roads, and probably in increasing numbers.

Another Idiot that just doesn’t get it. The person pulling out would be justified in thinking a) every time I come out of this corner and a car is about there I have plenty of time to get through b) that car should be going the speed limit c) I have done 3 million times before when a car is that far away d) ohh shit why is there a car parked on my lap.

You really don’t get that speeding is bad driving? Other people don’t know you are a wanker on the road travelling over the speed limit.

You want Police to target bad driving, your opening yourself up for every single accidental lapse in traffic rules occurring a fine; didn’t indicate for 5 seconds $80 fine, didn’t keep left while not overtaking $150 2 points, no front number plate $80, speeding up when someone is overtaking you $150, didn’t stop at a stop sign (can’t remember how much), did not give way about $200, turned left from a no left turn lane $150, tires slightly bald defected, one head light not working defected, one indicator not working defected, crack in the windscreen defected, drivers side window not working defected… it goes on they are the common ones you see on the road EVERYDAY how many do you do Mr IONLYSPEEDIMNOTABADDRIVERofCooma?

Mr ofCooma – plenty of cases where people pull out in front of someone are simply because the person speeding couldn’t be seen when the person pulled into the intersection, or the person is unable to correctly judge the speed the person is travelling as it is more than twice the posted limit. I can think of two examples of this of the top of my head where deaths occured.

This is why speeding especially in urban areas can lead you to be the cause of the collision.

ConanOfCooma1:29 pm 02 Jun 10

Spideydog said :

You have only addressed half of the issue of speeding. What about the scenario of you going 20ks over the speed limit, vehicle pulls out in front of you un-expectantly. If you were doing the speed limit, 1. You avoid collision all together 2. You lesson the injury damage caused/received and 3. Someone is not killed.

Your scenario is invalid, as it simply turns the speed issue into a contributing factor, and not the main cause of the accident. The accident wouldn’t have occurred if some dumb shit hadn’t pulled out in front. So thanks for validating my point, the police need to target bad drivers.

I’m not defending the dick heads that do 120+, I think they deserve to be booked, but until the cops pull their finger out and actually target BAD DRIVERS, as opposed to super-funding speed traps and other revenue raising ventures, people are going to keep dying on our roads, and probably in increasing numbers.

They just need to make it part of registration to add a gps/chip reader/immobilizer to every car then add the chip to licences – plug in when you drive. If you speed it just tags the chip with a demerit point and fines you.

So many bonuses:
– lots of revenue raising.
– reduced speeds on the roads
– reduced cars on the roads as half the road users will lose their licences inside 2 weeks.
– less cars = safer roads = less maintenance = savings

georgesgenitals11:21 am 02 Jun 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

“I totally hooned the other day!”
“Yeah? What’d you do?”
“I put the accelerator pedal closer to the floor than was necessary to drive the speed limit!”
“Awesome! That must’ve been so much fun! You’re a f*ckin’ legend!”
“Reckon! Driving a bit faster on that highway totally pushed my mad skills to the limit! I need phsyio on my right ankle!”

Saved me looking it up on YouTube – thanks!

Woody Mann-Caruso9:39 am 02 Jun 10

“I totally hooned the other day!”
“Yeah? What’d you do?”
“I put the accelerator pedal closer to the floor than was necessary to drive the speed limit!”
“Awesome! That must’ve been so much fun! You’re a f*ckin’ legend!”
“Reckon! Driving a bit faster on that highway totally pushed my mad skills to the limit! I need phsyio on my right ankle!”

James-T-Kirk9:23 am 02 Jun 10

caf said :

The point to point ones will only encourage the mathematically minded drivers to speed at say 150kmh and then stop for the required time period before proceeding past the second camera.

Again – they will not stop speeding.

That’s easily the most stupid f*cking thing I have heard this week.

If they’re so “mathematically minded”, why are they supposedly taking an action which results in getting from A to B in identical time, but using more fuel and increasing their risk of being involved in a collision?

O.M.G! You don’t actually believe that, do you?

In the ACT, the timed, fixed speed cameras will only exist between points on one road. Because this Territory is so expansive, massive, and generally huge (In the minds of those who think that driving across the lake needs a cut lunch), the cameras will at best be places about 10Km apart. Doing conservatively, 150Km/h you can do the trip in 1/15th of an hour, experiencing the FUN of hooning! just before the last camera, you get your cut lunch out, the wine, the picnic blanket, and have a little picnic.

Driving with enthusiasm has NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING TO A DESTINATION FASTER, it has everything to do with having fun getting there.

The only effective way of preventing speeding on our roads lies with the attitudes of drivers. Police and Government can only go so far with programs currently in place but ultimately, responsibility for road safety rests with the motorists themselves, which unfortunately is a difficult thing to Police. It is dissapointing to see so many arguements which clearly handball this responsibility onto anyone and everyone but themselves. It is a weak arguement when you crash your car resulting in serious damage and try to pass the buck away from yourself as a driver of the car at fault. Speed prevention programmes are designed to hold the hands of babies who can’t and won’t walk for themseles.

If they’re so “mathematically minded”, why are they supposedly taking an action which results in getting from A to B in identical time, but using more fuel and increasing their risk of being involved in a collision?

Maybe the reason for them going fast has nothing to do with travel time between two fixed points. People drink, take drugs, have random sex with strangers, all to get a bit of a buzz. Other people like to operate a vehicle at high speed. I’m not defending any of these actions here, simply saying it happens.

Yes, caf, it’s called “diversity” and we’re currently being programmed to “embrace” it.

Different people take different approaches to the same problem.

Personally I would like to see the tail-gaters removed from the road at least as much as I’d like to see speeders caught.

The point to point ones will only encourage the mathematically minded drivers to speed at say 150kmh and then stop for the required time period before proceeding past the second camera.

Again – they will not stop speeding.

That’s easily the most stupid f*cking thing I have heard this week.

If they’re so “mathematically minded”, why are they supposedly taking an action which results in getting from A to B in identical time, but using more fuel and increasing their risk of being involved in a collision?

James-T-Kirk said :

eyeLikeCarrots said :

But seriously. Post on RA that you almost got caught and then question the effectivness of the speed cameras ? Thats pretty weak.

I’ll give you a hint champ – the easiest thing to reduce speeding is not try to push your go pedal through the firewall.

Sigh…

If you look at my posting history, you may be able to determine that it was a slow day on RA, and RA needed a bit of a stirring up…

Consider yourself stirred!

🙂

1 lump or 2 ??

(this time with the correct quotation)

Sigh…

If you look at my posting history, you may be able to determine that it was a slow day on RA, and RA needed a bit of a stirring up…

Consider yourself stirred!

🙂

1 lump or 2 ??

James-T-Kirk3:13 pm 01 Jun 10

eyeLikeCarrots said :

But seriously. Post on RA that you almost got caught and then question the effectivness of the speed cameras ? Thats pretty weak.

I’ll give you a hint champ – the easiest thing to reduce speeding is not try to push your go pedal through the firewall.

Sigh…

If you look at my posting history, you may be able to determine that it was a slow day on RA, and RA needed a bit of a stirring up… Consider yourself stirred!

🙂

georgesgenitals2:50 pm 01 Jun 10

eyeLikeCarrots said :

But seriously. Post on RA that you almost got caught and then question the effectivness of the speed cameras ? Thats pretty weak.

Dude – are you serious??

“The fact is that speeding doesn’t kill.”

No its the windscreen that will kill you. What a anal prat you are CoC. I think that may be a fact.

eyeLikeCarrots2:39 pm 01 Jun 10

Whats 800 meters long and has a dick on each end ?

A police radar speed trap!

Boom Boom

But seriously. Post on RA that you almost got caught and then question the effectivness of the speed cameras ? Thats pretty weak.

I’ll give you a hint champ – the easiest thing to reduce speeding is not try to push your go pedal through the firewall.

Make up your tiny minds??

It was those with the tiny minds that put the “safety” cameras out there in the first place, get it straight.

ConanOfCooma said :

The fact is that speeding doesn’t kill. Going fast from point to point is no different to going slow point to point (with the exception of efficiency), it takes another factor in between to cause any issue.

Wet roads, bad car, moron behind the wheel, these factors will cause accidents almost every time. But do you see anyone actually cracking down on the bad drivers, or the shitty cars, or the terrible roads?

You have only addressed half of the issue of speeding. What about the scenario of you going 20ks over the speed limit, vehicle pulls out in front of you un-expectantly. If you were doing the speed limit, 1. You avoid collision all together 2. You lesson the injury damage caused/received and 3. Someone is not killed.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

You know, I know, the researchers know and the gov knows

What research? I mean, just think about it for five seconds. You claim to be able to spot a police bike 800m away and speed round them accordingly, but police cars are invisible, are they? The most a cop can do if they see a bunch of people speeding is pull over one of them. A camera gets everybody too thick to see it, and going by the revenue pulled in by speeding fines, thickness and speeding go together quite well. We’re talking about people who get caught by fixed cameras after three warning signs, ffs.

Someone caught by a speed camera van is not only speeding, but is also a complacent distracted driver, something that is equally dangerous while speeding.

Woody Mann-Caruso1:50 pm 01 Jun 10

You know, I know, the researchers know and the gov knows

What research? I mean, just think about it for five seconds. You claim to be able to spot a police bike 800m away and speed round them accordingly, but police cars are invisible, are they? The most a cop can do if they see a bunch of people speeding is pull over one of them. A camera gets everybody too thick to see it, and going by the revenue pulled in by speeding fines, thickness and speeding go together quite well. We’re talking about people who get caught by fixed cameras after three warning signs, ffs.

Woody Mann-Caruso1:45 pm 01 Jun 10

Make up your tiny minds. If they don’t catch anybody then they can’t be revenue raisers, can they?

An EOS convertible is hardly mind blowing performance unless you normally drive a golf cart.

ConanOfCooma1:43 pm 01 Jun 10

The fact is that speeding doesn’t kill. Going fast from point to point is no different to going slow point to point (with the exception of efficiency), it takes another factor in between to cause any issue.

Wet roads, bad car, moron behind the wheel, these factors will cause accidents almost every time. But do you see anyone actually cracking down on the bad drivers, or the shitty cars, or the terrible roads?

The point to point ones will only encourage the mathematically minded drivers to speed at say 150kmh and then stop for the required time period before proceeding past the second camera.

Again – they will not stop speeding.

You know, I know, the researchers know and the gov knows – the only way to bring down overall speeds in the ACT (and anywhere else) is to increase the chance of getting caught by a real live police officer.

And you know and I know that the chance of that here in the ACT is very slim.

Ah, but the new point to point cameras will get ya! Oh wait, no they won’t…..

georgesgenitals11:40 am 01 Jun 10

The real question, though, is was anyone killed or maimed because you sped?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.