What's the hurry?

there’s always plenty of factors – if i have a family history of heart disease i don’t stop smoking but keep eating burgers.

You can justify speeding how you please but surely it’s a factor that is discretionary to the driver – the intelligent variety of which manage to curb their need for idiocy.

that driver in this mornings incident was an idiot. if the person in the left hand lane wasn’t overtaking (which they may have been – just not at 150 clicks) then they’re an idiot too.

both idiots – just different breeds. Road toll says it all.

speeding being teh ONLY factor ?

what about – inappropriate speed in area, carelessness, talking on phone, picking nose, braking on a wet road, crappy brakes etc etc.

congrats youve been conditioned by social engineering

mushroom

True story. There is a town in Europe, a mid sized town by our standards. That has done away with EVERY road sign and rule throughout the whole town. No speeding signs, no traffic lights, nothing.
The road toll in this town was quite bad at one point, I believe now they record little to none fatal accidents.
I dont have details on me right now, google it if you want to know more.

As said before:

If you made them or their families responsible for recompensation for any damage they caused while destroying themselves,

Oh, cool. So if a guy speeding kills my daughter, it’s ok, because he’d get a high fine?

as was said before, higher fees for reckless drivers and lower fees for the not so reckless, once they realise that hooning around will cost them they’ll behave

The problem is, the reckless are likely to take the non-reckless with ’em.

How would you correct for this?

it is quite easy to control a well maintained car. The problem is the inexperienced drivers not anticipating, thinking ahead and cooperating with other road users. If you know that you turn off the main road and your on the inside lane such as northbourne avenue, utilise the space and time you have to merge and not hurry and endanger others by wanting to turn off just then. If the speed limits were like that of northern Australia i’d be a happier man. But we have to make do with what we got.

Yes, but allow the upper limit of speed to be breached and those who wish to drive at reckless speeds will decline through natural process.

If you made them or their families responsible for recompensation for any damage they caused while destroying themselves, you’d also find a natural selection process at work.

I say give it a go. The reckless will kill themselves and we can get on with it.

Tough one bonfire – you’re probably right, it’s too difficult to ‘prove’ beyond a doubt in court that a driver was driving in a dangerous manner or speeding without tangible evidence (speed camera).

I’d take a punt and say if you removed speed limits in Australia, it would be hard to believe that drivers would cope with the lack of some form of boundary. Speed may only be one factor in road accidents, but it is certainly the easiest one to curb via setting ‘suggested’ speed limits…naturally just about everything hinges on driver attitude and subseqent behaviour – hard to control this.

indi the problem is collecting evidence.

it comes down to he said she said.

as a person who was subjected to a criminal act and contacted the police, the response i received was (my summary) ‘cos no copper saw it, it never happened’ despite the fact i retained physical evidence.

i resolved to take my own action if it happened again.

in regards to speeding, imagine getting into the dock:

so indi – how fast was bonfires stanley steamer going on the day in question ?

faster than 80kmh

was it faster than 120 kmh ?

i dont know ?

was it faster than 100 kmh ?

probably ?

the courts and police would not even bother.

i’d be steaming off while you complained to a current affair about the injustice.

in any case, dobbing in someone for speeding is an offence in itself worthy of a thrashing.

accidents are cause by a variety of factors, incomptent drivers being the leading cause.

if people who had spun out in the wet had attended an advanced drivers course, they may have an idea about how to correct the car. most people dont. of course there was also the fellow who had taken 3 ecstacy tablets and drove head on into another car. his girlfriend gave them to him cos she didnt want him to drink and drive.

speeding is a very small factor in accidents.

do away with limits entirely for a six month period, monitor the speeds the roads are naturally used at and then apply a limit at the upper end of the median.

if we need limits at all.

ive seen little credible evidence to support them

A question for the relevant department (or all of ACT govt depts) – is there a call-in reporting system of driver behaviour, good or bad?

If some private firms have adopted the idea, what would stop the ACT government?

back on topic, it may have been an undercover copper a bit late for an anti-terror raid perhaps ?

“It’s the speed LIMIT…. the absolute maximum ’safe’ limit for any road”

Speed limits are set as a safe limit for the most unskilled driver to travel at a ‘safe’ speed in a vehicle with less than ideal handling and safety characteristics.

Get out anywhere west of Wagga, and every two lane goat track has a 110kmh limit…

The Parkway is safe at 110 at any time other than peak hour and in the wet, and safer if drivers obeyed the law and kept left unless overtaking!

Just curious about the setting of lights here – I get the impression bloodnut1 that, as an example, there is no point speeding down Northbourne Ave as the lights are set to control traffic flow and you still end up arriving say from the City to Dickson in about 10 mins if maintain your speed at 60.

Highway driving – well drive to the conditions, but anything in excess of 110 on the Parkway indicates a driver has a problem with authority and their own (and others) safety…

Uhhm hello!? It’s the speed LIMIT…. the absolute maximum ‘safe’ limit for any road. Not a guideline for you to then make a judgement on. Whether you think you can safely go faster or not you’re breaking the law.

uh nice one bonfire… i hope your speech was muffled due to the tongue in your cheek.

speeding is never ‘safe’.

I enjoy nothing better than seeing offensive idiots tailgating a law abiding driver only to speed off, yet be caught at the next set of lights. i laugh and i laugh and i laugh because they’re dickheads.

sadly it never sinks in that they look like/are wankers.

uh oh, one of those ‘i will do exactly 80kmh and no more ‘ types.

in a civilised society you’d be allowed to ram these people.

if i did that today – i’d be the bad guy.

whats the big crime in a little speed on the parkway ? 120-130 is a safe speed on that road.

Fair enough to keep left unless overtaking but if some arsehole whooshes up and is tailgating me before I get a chance to move back to the left lane I’m not movin’. Tailgating is very very poor form.

Why is the speeding govt vehicle the bad guy and not the driver who is failing to keep left unless overtaking? Just because you are doing the speed limit it doesn’t give you the right to sit in the right lane.