Loss Of Licence (2 Viewers)

[Kirsty Xx]

Country Bumkin!

lol

love it

how many acres you on?

95,000 acres

 

[Bacilli]

boring

 

[Riet]

well i live on a country road, and i am telling you it is not safe to do 150km/h.

It's people like yourself that die on 'Country Roads' because you think that nothing can go wrong. But a number of factors can kill and more severly on a 'Country Road'.

Animals mostly?

I said heaps of, not all. It's about 40 km from Bathurst to Blayney, it took my friend and I about 15 minutes to travel it. We didn't die.

 

[Zrap]

Watch out for women drivers!

 

[Riet]

300ZX ftw.

 

[michael1990]

I said heaps of, not all. It's about 40 km from Bathurst to Blayney, it took my friend and I about 15 minutes to travel it. We didn't die.

So because you did not die this time it is okay?

you need to understand the severity of the situation if you did have an accident, but you wont.

 

[Riet]

No, because I can safely judge when it's safe to go over 100 and when it's not. Explain why I would have a servere accident on a straight road with virtually no traffic? Are you aware that in the northen territory speed limits are 130, and in most European countries it's 120 or more?

Edit: 100 km/h speed limits are from a time when cars weren't built nearly as well and had significantly worse brakes, suspension, crumple zones, no airbags, useless seatbelts (if any) and worse tires. "Speeding" isn't a factor in any accidents. Driving too fast for the conditions is. There's a big difference.

 

[Azamakumar]

I said heaps of, not all. It's about 40 km from Bathurst to Blayney, it took my friend and I about 15 minutes to travel it. We didn't die.

Fuck dying, I'd be more worried about the dangerous driving conviction if I got caught.

 

[michael1990]

Explain why I would have a servere accident on a straight road with virtually no traffic?.

you are quite the idiot.
Pot Holes, Animals, Other cars, People, Sticks/rocks etc. Flying up hitting the window and such.

Are you aware that in the northen territory speed limits are 130, and in most European countries it's 120 or more??

this is quite true, but totally different situation. Speed limits are in force for a reason! Otherwise why would we have speed limits?

"Speeding" isn't a factor in any accidents. Driving too fast for the conditions is. There's a big difference.

you cannot be so wrong!
Speed is always a factor in accidents.
please do explain how it is not?

 

[cal-]

Speed is always a factor in accidents.
please do explain how it is not?

Your entire post is fucking retarded, but I am doing maths so I will just respond to this.

Are you saying that when a drunk driver is doing 40 in a 50 zone, swerving everywhere while they have little control over the car. speed is a factor if (when) they crash?

You're an idiot. Shut up. Do some research before you speak your misinformed opinion, because you just made an ass of yourself.

 

[Azamakumar]

Speed limits govern the median skill level, ie it's for shit drivers. People who've done an advanced/defensive course will have better control of their car and it's limits, in a similar manner that motorcyclists seem to be better drivers.

 

[Sarah160]

" but I am doing maths so I will just respond to this."


LOL! i'm afraid that the fact that you do maths doesn't make you an expert on traffic matters, so don't act like you have extreme qualifications in this area, because really you don't.


"You're an idiot. Shut up. Do some research before you speak your misinformed opinion, because you just made an ass of yourself."


Personally, i don't think that advocating safe driving makes somebody look foolish. Speed limits are there for a reason, and as much as you might think that you're above them, you aren't. It's overconfidence on roads that results in such a large number of accidents, which is why P-platers with minimal driving experience and huge egos tend to have more accidents than any other demographic. Don't insult somebody who is clearly remorseful and who seems to have a greater respect for the law than a great number of their peers, and if you disagree, then surely there better ways of expressing this than "you're an idiot."
Peace out!

 

[michael1990]

Your entire post is fucking retarded, but I am doing maths so I will just respond to this.

Are you saying that when a drunk driver is doing 40 in a 50 zone, swerving everywhere while they have little control over the car. speed is a factor if (when) they crash?

You're an idiot. Shut up. Do some research before you speak your misinformed opinion, because you just made an ass of yourself.

you are quite irritable.

well if a driver under the influence of alcohol, he should not be driving.
If he was doing 40kms/h in a 50km/h zone he is speeding you are correct. But you are taking the thread out of context we were not talking about drunk drivers, we were in fact talking about speeding not under the speed limit.

and Plus answer my questions before you jump up and down at my the arguments i have put forward in my post. Otherwise the discussion becomes boring.

 

[Azamakumar]

If he was doing 40kms/h in a 50km/h zone he is speeding you are correct

What the fuck.

 

[Riet]

Because speed doesn't mean anything. 50 km/h is a speed. 60 km/h is a speed. Excessive speed for the conditions is a factor in some accidents. If you're on a good road 100 km/h isn't very fast. Especially when there aren't other cars around. That counts under the "conditions" part. 100 km/h are a throwback to an earlier time. It's just the RTA and other states organizations have such a fixation of speed, mainly because of the massive amount of revenue that it produces, that speed limits haven't ever been raised even though cars have improved massively.

This is from a 2005-2006 report on accidents in the UK:

The percentages in this table are different from those in Table 4b which gives the percentage of
accidents with each contributory factor. For example when looking at Failed to look properly –
52,378 vehicles had this contributory factor out of a total of 269,312 vehicles (19 per cent of
vehicles). The vehicles which had this contributory factor were in 50,354 accidents out of a total of
145,798 accidents (35 per cent of accidents). Part of the reason for the lower number when looking
at the percentage of vehicles is that 116,133 vehicles (43 per cent) involved in accidents had no
contributory factor reported.
• Failed to look properly was the most frequently reported contributory factor for every vehicle
type. More information on this factor can be found in the second part of this article.
• Motorcycles had a notably higher percentage of the contributory factors learner/inexperienced
driver (9 per cent) and loss of control (14 per cent) when compared to other vehicle types.
• Sudden braking was the second most frequently reported contributory factor for buses or
coaches (13 per cent). 3 per cent of buses or coaches had passing too close to cyclist as a
contributory factor. This was higher than any other vehicle type.
• Cyclist entering road from pavement was attributed to 11 per cent of pedal cycles in accidents
and cyclist wearing dark clothes at night was attributed to 3 per cent.
• 6 per cent of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) involved in accidents had vehicle blind spot as a
contributory factor.
• Exceeding speed limit was attributed to 3 per cent of cars involved in accidents, while travelling
too fast for conditions was attributed to 6 per cent. For fatal accidents these figures are 10 per
cent and 13 per cent respectively.

from here:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/uk-2006roadsafety.pdf

And another article about speeding comparing Australia and Germany. Note that in Germany it costs about $2000 equivalent to get your license and it involves extensive training with a professional instructor and you are tested on highways, normal roads and in varying weather conditions.

The emphasis authorities put on speeding is out of proportion to the accident risk.

The experience in Germany also shows those who drive fast often pay better attention to their driving, says Ulrich Mellinghoff, head of safety design and development at Mercedes-Benz.

Mellinghoff says while speed is not limited on the German autobahns, data over the past 30 years has shown the country has a low accident rate compared to other European countries.

“We have seen ... that people who drive rather fast are much more concentrated on driving,” he says. “So their risk of having an accident is not higher than those who drive only 100km/h or so.”

While Australian authorities have suggested that advanced levels of driver training encourage people to take higher risks(Lol,wut?) — resulting in more accidents — Mellinghoff says research shows advanced training reduces both the number and severity of accidents.

“We have been doing driver schools for 30 years and what we have found is that almost 80percent of drivers — as an example — are not able to make an emergency brake, together with trying to steer around a critical situation,” he says.

“So I'm absolutely convinced that a driver school helps to reduce the accident rate.”

Mellinghoff says another critical factor in the accident rate is mixed traffic on the road system.

“In Germany, on the highways, there are only about 600 fatalities peryear, while on our normal roads where you have crossing traffic, you have about 3500 killed per year,” he says.

“Also, on highways we have three or four times as much traffic as the other roads.

“This shows how important it is to separate the traffic — people with cars from people on bicycles or pedestrians — how important it is to have perfect road conditions.”

Mellinghoff says with the right infrastructure you not only reduce the risk of accident, you avoid it completely.

I'm definitely not saying it's always okay to drive at 150 km/h, but very often brand new, multi-lane, divided highways like the one my friend and I were on near Bathurst have a 100 km/h speed limit only because it's a throwback to the 1960s (65 mph zones just became 100 km/h zones). This completely ignores the fact that the engineering of roads and cars has improved significantly in the last 40-50 years. Why? Because the NSW government makes a killing off of booking people for driving 15 km/h over the limit.

On the opposite side of the spectrum I know some roads where it'd be bloody hard to do the 100 km/h speed limit safely.


By the way Az: I'm a biker and I've done an advanced learners course (got a certificate and everything!) I'd say they both definitely help.


Cliffnotes: Speeding isn't inherently dangerous. Suck my cock

 

[Azamakumar]

I love that pic, saved it twice before.

 

[Riet]

Yeh, I love it too. Just the fact it's at the limit of the speedo is cool. Can't believe I didn't have my phone or camera when me and Attila cracked the double ton though.

 

[michael1990]

Because speed doesn't mean anything. 50 km/h is a speed. 60 km/h is a speed. Excessive speed for the conditions is a factor in some accidents.

I'm definitely not saying it's always okay to drive at 150 km/h, but very often brand new, multi-lane, divided highways like the one my friend and I were on near Bathurst have a 100 km/h speed limit only because it's a throwback to the 1960s (65 mph zones just became 100 km/h zones). This completely ignores the fact that the engineering of roads and cars has improved significantly in the last 40-50 years. Why? Because the NSW government makes a killing off of booking people for driving 15 km/h over the limit.

On the opposite side of the spectrum I know some roads where it'd be bloody hard to do the 100 km/h speed limit safely.

i have found some more statistics and a case study

TRAVELLING SPEED AND THE
RISK OF CRASH INVOLVEMENT

"In a 60 km/h speed limit area, the risk of involvement
in a casualty crash doubles with each 5 km/h increase
in travelling speed above 60 km/h" Volume 1 - Findings

by

Kloeden CN, McLean AJ, Moore VM, Ponte G

NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit
The University of Adelaide

November 1997

"Cars involved in casualty crashes were generally travelling faster than cars that were not involved in a crash: 68 per cent of casualty crash involved cars were exceeding 60 km/h compared to 42 per cent of those not involved in a crash. The difference was even greater at higher speeds: 14 per cent of casualty crash involved cars were travelling faster than 80 km/h in a 60 km/h speed zone compared to less than 1 per cent of those not involved in a crash."

"By working back from the risk estimates we have concluded that nearly half (46 per cent) of these free travelling speed casualty crashes probably would have been avoided, or reduced to non-casualty crashes, if none of the case vehicles had been travelling above the speed limit. A more conservative estimate, based on calculation of stopping distances and impact speeds, indicates that 29 per cent of crashes would have been avoided altogether, with a reduction of 22 per cent in the impact energy of the remaining cases."

"The study of the relationship between free travelling speed and the driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) showed that higher BAC levels are associated with slightly higher travelling speeds although the average difference in speed is less than three kilometres per hour. "

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/vol-1.html

that was a study that was done in 1997 in Adelaide.

this proves my argument.

 

[Azamakumar]

But it doesn't disprove his. Also kudos on using a source 10 years older than his, and failing to address the problem of road conditions.

 

[michael1990]

But it doesn't disprove his. Also kudos on using a source 10 years older than his, and failing to address the problem of road conditions.

he was talking about the 1960s.

and plus if you read the case study you would understand.

but you must not have read it