'Stop Pushing the Limits' new campaign to slow us down

m_ratt said :

KB1971 said :

Grimm said :

I’d say that more often, it’s people doing 20km/h below the limit in the right hand lane, frustrating the hell out of people and causing them to become impatient that causes more accidents than anything. I see it every day. The police should probably spend a bit of time targeting obstructing traffic, especially during peak hours.

From the ACT version of the ARRS, what you describe is not obstructung traffic, & if its an 80 zone they are allower to be there. The cranky people need to take a chill pill:

Division 1 General
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road
to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is
no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

Read that again and think about it.

20km/h below the limit is the example of abnormally slowly. Abnormally slowly is obstructing.

Road rule aside, it’s inconsiderate and dangerous, and should not be encouraged or tolerated.

60km/h below the limit is the example of abnormally slowly

KB1971 said :

Grimm said :

I’d say that more often, it’s people doing 20km/h below the limit in the right hand lane, frustrating the hell out of people and causing them to become impatient that causes more accidents than anything. I see it every day. The police should probably spend a bit of time targeting obstructing traffic, especially during peak hours.

From the ACT version of the ARRS, what you describe is not obstructung traffic, & if its an 80 zone they are allower to be there. The cranky people need to take a chill pill:

Division 1 General
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road
to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is
no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

Yeah, apart from the fact they are ignoring the “Keep left unless overtaking” signs all down the road.

It’s also incredibly inconsiderate. Doing things just because you can often makes you a fair kn&b.

KB1971 said :

Grimm said :

I’d say that more often, it’s people doing 20km/h below the limit in the right hand lane, frustrating the hell out of people and causing them to become impatient that causes more accidents than anything. I see it every day. The police should probably spend a bit of time targeting obstructing traffic, especially during peak hours.

From the ACT version of the ARRS, what you describe is not obstructung traffic, & if its an 80 zone they are allower to be there. The cranky people need to take a chill pill:

Division 1 General
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road
to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is
no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

Read that again and think about it.

20km/h below the limit is the example of abnormally slowly. Abnormally slowly is obstructing.

Road rule aside, it’s inconsiderate and dangerous, and should not be encouraged or tolerated.

Grimm said :

I’d say that more often, it’s people doing 20km/h below the limit in the right hand lane, frustrating the hell out of people and causing them to become impatient that causes more accidents than anything. I see it every day. The police should probably spend a bit of time targeting obstructing traffic, especially during peak hours.

From the ACT version of the ARRS, what you describe is not obstructung traffic, & if its an 80 zone they are allower to be there. The cranky people need to take a chill pill:

Division 1 General
125 Unreasonably obstructing drivers or pedestrians
(1) A driver must not unreasonably obstruct the path of another
driver or a pedestrian.
Offence provision.
Note Driver includes a person in control of a vehicle — see the
definition of drive in the dictionary.
(2) For this rule, a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the
path of another driver or a pedestrian only because:
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles
(unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the
circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 kilometres per hour on a length of road
to which a speed-limit of 80 kilometres per hour applies when there is
no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of road.

tim_c said :

“Doubling the speed also quadruples the energy of a collision.”

So according to Mr Corbell, my high school physics teacher was wrong when he taught us E=mv²?
(where E= energy, m = mass, and v = velocity).

Of course, according to the formula, we should be introducing reduced speed limits for obese drivers.

So, if the initial velocity was 3 and the mass was 1, then E=9

if the velocity then doubles to 6, E now equals 36, correct?

Did the energy just quadruple?

“Doubling the speed also quadruples the energy of a collision.”

So according to Mr Corbell, my high school physics teacher was wrong when he taught us E=mv²?
(where E= energy, m = mass, and v = velocity).

Of course, according to the formula, we should be introducing reduced speed limits for obese drivers.

My immediate reaction was launching my own counter-campaign “What’s it going to take to raise the speed limits on some of our safest and widest main roads?”

Limits are frequently lowered for “safety” but never raised when sensible to do so.

Of course speed is a factor in all collisions – cars that are stopped rarely run into each other.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

milkman said :

Yawn.

Lazy policy, again.

+1. Is it really people driving at 90km/h on wide, multi-lane roads with good visibility that is causing the ACT’s injuries and deaths?

I’d say that more often, it’s people doing 20km/h below the limit in the right hand lane, frustrating the hell out of people and causing them to become impatient that causes more accidents than anything. I see it every day. The police should probably spend a bit of time targeting obstructing traffic, especially during peak hours.

milkman said :

Yawn.

Lazy policy, again.

+1. Is it really people driving at 90km/h on wide, multi-lane roads with good visibility that is causing the ACT’s injuries and deaths?

Yawn.

Lazy policy, again.

Canberroid said :

Maybe that was because the speed limit on Adelaide Ave should be 90 or so. The govt is always keen to lower the limit, but never seems to increase it despite improvements in automotive technology that would allow it.

The speed limit on Adelaide Av should be 100. It’s a perfect stretch of road which for the most part is 3 comfortable lanes wide.

We’re going to have crashes at any speed. If you continually slow people down using scare tactics you’re only going to frustrate people further, which will lead to more dangerous behaviour.

Police should focus on the real causes of crash statistics, instead of using the easy blame of speed. Poorly maintained cars, distracted drivers, deliberate selfish road behaviour (eg, constantly tapping the brake to ‘annoy’ the person behind).

The only real problem here is that drivers no longer give driving their full attention – which it rightly deserves EVERY time you’re behind the wheel.

bigred said :

The message didn’t get through. I drove the length of Adelaide Ave on cruise control today. It was set to 80 km/h and is pretty well spot on at that speed. Got passed a lot, including by an ACTION bus. Reinvest some/most/all the revenue into the AFP traffic patrols and I reckon we would see some actual visible patrols as opposes to media releases.

Maybe that was because the speed limit on Adelaide Ave should be 90 or so. The govt is always keen to lower the limit, but never seems to increase it despite improvements in automotive technology that would allow it.

It’s heartening that they finally think speeding is a problem in the ACT. Everybody can think of somewhere on their journey where drivers tend to speed. For me the one I notice most these days is the Monaro highway from the Quangers turn-off up to the gaol going north. Never ever seen a police car or speed van there and I expect most people go 100 there because they recall that it used to be 100 before the gaol arrive. Interestingly people who do 100 in the 80 zone don’t then seem to yo 120 in the 100 zone – not that much anyway.

Today I saw someone run a red light with a child in the back of the car. This is not an occurrence which causes me much surprise. Bus drivers running reds is also common place. They must think the length of their vehicle precludes them from having to stop like others.

bigred said :

The message didn’t get through. I drove the length of Adelaide Ave on cruise control today. It was set to 80 km/h and is pretty well spot on at that speed. Got passed a lot, including by an ACTION bus. Reinvest some/most/all the revenue into the AFP traffic patrols and I reckon we would see some actual visible patrols as opposes to media releases.

The speed limit of the interchange in Belconnen is 20km/h.

I’ve never seen a bus stay under that.

pezza said :

I’m sick of the obsession with the speeding message from a traffic safety perspective. While I can accept it’s a problem in the ACT, it’s far from the only one. The fact that they ignore all other safety issues in favour of just this one (well, this and drink-driving) makes it less meaningful to me.

It’s foggy in the mornings and dark by the evening commute – where’s a campaign to get people to turn their f’n lights on? Just because you can see where you’re going doesn’t mean others can easily see your grey car against a grey sky and grey road.

Where’s the don’t run red lights message? Where’s the don’t tailgate message? Give us a cheeky slogan to shame people who do those things and get some behavioural change through peer pressure.

I agree…partially. Except just because they focus on speeding during the month doesn’t mean they ignore other offences. That’s just nonsense.

The fact is, excessive speed is still a major factor in serious prangs. It is easy to police, but yes, when nearly every month is focused on speed rather than other bad driving habits, it is a bit ho-hum for most people.

The message didn’t get through. I drove the length of Adelaide Ave on cruise control today. It was set to 80 km/h and is pretty well spot on at that speed. Got passed a lot, including by an ACTION bus. Reinvest some/most/all the revenue into the AFP traffic patrols and I reckon we would see some actual visible patrols as opposes to media releases.

If people breaking the speed limits is causing accidents then raise the speed limits.

Its interesting that if a road is 90km/h when dry its also 90km/h when wet.

Given most accidents happen when it rains should we just ban people driving when wet?

Does anyone else wonder if canfan is simon corbell?

Speed doesn’t kill, its the acceleration that kills you

I’m sick of the obsession with the speeding message from a traffic safety perspective. While I can accept it’s a problem in the ACT, it’s far from the only one. The fact that they ignore all other safety issues in favour of just this one (well, this and drink-driving) makes it less meaningful to me.

It’s foggy in the mornings and dark by the evening commute – where’s a campaign to get people to turn their f’n lights on? Just because you can see where you’re going doesn’t mean others can easily see your grey car against a grey sky and grey road.

Where’s the don’t run red lights message? Where’s the don’t tailgate message? Give us a cheeky slogan to shame people who do those things and get some behavioural change through peer pressure.