Latest istalment in EA S's journey into evils of speed - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars
Ford Forum Ford Forum

» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
» Wheel & Tire Center

Go Back   Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > The Pub
Register Home Forum Active Topics Photo Gallery Auto Loans Garage Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow

The Pub For General Discussion

FordForums.com is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-21-2001, 23:24   #1 (permalink)
Australian Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 1,120
Latest istalment in EA S's journey into evils of speed

More items showing how the the road safety "experts" misunderstand and/or misuse their own stats to convince everyone that the demon speed is a killer on the road. A docile media meekly trots out the propaganda put out by the alleged road safety experts, yet the stuff they put out wouldn't pass a clear thinking test in secondary school when you know a few more facts, like the ones I've been outlining lately. I don't know whether we're run by knaves or fools, but I do know that they shouldn't be trusted because they're too bloody busy justifying pointless laws and their enforcement by putting out stuff to the public that they have to know is bullshit.

A study of 750 drivers by a research company for the Transport Accident Commission quoted in The Age yesterday in an article headed "Police, TAC switch tactics to curb speed" says that half the drivers admitted to speeding, while a hard core of 25% admitted to speeding most or all of the time. A third thought driving up to 10kmh over the limit was perfectly safe.

Contrast this bit of propaganda for the latest assault on our wallets with the statement on Vicroads website that "the percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed camera enforcement threshold has reduced from 20% in 1990 to 2% in 1999". (That's the latest figure they quote - could be even lower now, or might be artificially inflated by people caught out by the new 50k limit.)

So the cops and TAC now want us to believe that 50% of us are a liability because we're speeding and that's why The Age article says they have to increase speed camera hours by 50% (don't those figures dovetail so nicely?). This is curious as, according to Vicroads website
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/road_...cfacts/trt.htm
in 1999 no more than 2% of drivers were speeding by exceeding the speed camera threshold, and no more than 20% a dozen years ago. As they're not going to drop the speed camera threshold the definition of speeding for those purposes hasn't changed since 1999, yet the cops and TAC want us to believe that speeding in Victoria is 25 times more common now than in 1999, which it would have to be if we've gone from 2% to 50% of drivers speediing.

Well here's some official evidence they are talking through their considerable official ars*holes, because Vicroads says there were 421,435 speed camera offences in 1998 and The Age article mentioned above says there were 600,000 last year. If we've increased speeding by exceeding the speed camera threshold by 25 times, as officialdom says, the cameras should have caught 10,535,875 offences last year. I think a shortfall of close to 10,000,000 on those figures is statistically significant, don't you? This assumes that the same number of camera hours occured, which I think isn't the case as I believe they've increased substantially since 1999 (can't find any figures) and the increase in number of offences might be attributable entirely to that.

Guess what was the most common cause of serious casualty crash in Victoria in 1998? Right turning vehicles being hit by oncoming vehicles (Vicroads website). Speed is certainly a big factor in all of those, because they wouldn't happen if the dumb fu*k turning right across oncoming traffic stayed at 0kmh until they were sure they had a clear path. How hard is that? So where's the big cop and TAC panic and publicity about this, given they're so bloody committed to cutting fatal and serious accidents? Probably the same place as the campaign to eradicate the 19% or so of people killed by not wearing seatbelts (Raod Safety Committe website). And where is the research to show how much of the road toll reduction is attributable to airbags rather than speed cameras?

In 1998 there were 390 fatalities in Victoria and only 120 were in 60k zones, which undoubtedly carry the vast bulk of traffic, although figures aren't available. Take out Melbourne, Geelong, and places like Ballarat, Warrnambool, Bendigo, and Latrobe Valley and all the country towns and you wouldn't be left with a lot of traffic on the rest, and the rest is mostly zoned 100k. So 60k zones might carry 70% or more of traffic, but they only account for about 30% of fatalaties.

The obvious solution to that, at least in our government's all-seeing and all-knowing eyes, was to ignore the 70% of fatalaties in 100k zones which is disprortionately large and drop the 60k limit to 50k in the areas where fatalaties are disproportionately low, to protect the 79 pedestrians of whom the Road Safety Committee recognised about 58 were at fault for their own deaths. And only about 8 of the 79 were 16 years old or under (Vicroads website), so it's not like most of them weren't old enough to know better. Those 58 represented about half of the road toll in 60k areas, and the rest of us are lumbered with 50k because 60 people in a state of about 4 million haven't mastered walking.

Here's a news flash for the Victorian government. You can halve the road toll in 60k zones if you can persuade just 60 or so people a year to cross the road without getting into the path of motor vehicles. In case you don't know what motor vehicles are, they are large, self-propelled metal objects with a wheel at each corner which are being forced to travel at increasingly slow speeds because of the ever-increasing weight of fines they must carry, supposedly to protect pedestrians from themselves. Or you can drop the limit to 60k and ensure that those 60 or so people just get hit slower.


AND HERE IS: WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE? FOR DUMMIES

Here's the question for the combined team of the Road Safety Committee and politicians who want to be a millionaire (and what politician doesn't - just look at their super scheme), and we're making it extra easy by giving only two options, 'cos we know none of you are half as smart as the average person. The choices are:

A. The best way to stop injuries to pedestrians by motor vehicles is to stop them being hit by motor vehicles.

B. The best way to stop injuries to pedestrians is to do nothing to stop them being hit by motor vehicles, but ensure that they get hit 10 slower than 60k.

Look, it's not a hard question and you've had 10 minutes to discuss it. I've got to have an answer.

Still not sure? You want to ask the audience?

The audience says A.

You're not happy with that? You want 50/50.

O.K. and .... it's A.

You're still not happy? But there's only one choice. You want to phone a friend. Are you sure you need to? A is the only choice.

OK. It's your money.

And what did the friend say? He says it's A. And what are you going for?

B?

Are you sure?

You're sure it's B. Lock in B.

Oh, dear. That was bad luck, wasn't it? The correct answer is A. Well you didn't get the first question, but you sure showed the viewers just how smart you are.

Ladies and gentlemen, a big hand for the road safety team, led by the Minister for Transport - he's the one with his pants on backwards and his hand down his trousers. Actually, they've all got their hands down their trousers. Have you ever seen such a bunch of unashamed wankers?
EA S is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-22-2001, 02:28   #2 (permalink)
Aus ls1 *********
 
HRT 8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Far far away.
Posts: 89
I'm not disagreeing with what you have found above and in your other posts but here is a fact.
Try sitting on the side of ANY road for 15 minutes with a radar to actually see the high percentage of drivers who speed.
I would have to say it may be in the vacinity of 30%. This is from personal observations not statistics.
To clarify what I mean by speeding, I'm talking 10km/h over the posted limit.
HRT 8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 03:46   #3 (permalink)
100% Speeding (when safe)
 
ED Manual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Geelong
Age: 37
Posts: 471
HRT 8

So what!! And all these speeding drivers are not crashing. (if one does, its cos of another reason)

I'll never stop speeding when safe, i just try not to get caught, its a game, a tax I try to not pay. On highways where no ones around, and i can see a few k's ahead, i sit on 30 over. Thats just how I drive, only when safe though of course.

Its worth it to speed, you dont get bored, so concentrate more, you get there faster, its more enjoyable etc, and speed has never caused an accident, that is NEVER. You cant say it ever has. Its always something else.
Speed is good, not bad. (when safe I mean)
__________________
lets get sideways!!!
www.geocities.com/v8_ute/
ED Manual is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 03:54   #4 (permalink)
Nacho Nacho Man!
 
Venom XR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Vic
Age: 41
Posts: 3,514
Quote:
Originally posted by HRT 8
I'm not disagreeing with what you have found above and in your other posts but here is a fact.
Try sitting on the side of ANY road for 15 minutes with a radar to actually see the high percentage of drivers who speed.
I would have to say it may be in the vacinity of 30%. This is from personal observations not statistics.
To clarify what I mean by speeding, I'm talking 10km/h over the posted limit.
So why aren't 30% of us dead as we're told should happen?
__________________
The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for a life. - Andrew Brown
Venom XR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 04:39   #5 (permalink)
Australian EB Fairmont Ghia Member
 
eb_5litre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 1,151
this reminds me of another statistic that i disagree with....
all of these studies say that young drivers are the worst and the elderly are safer... sure they're not in as many accidents, but they are the ones causing them. have you driven behind an elderly person lately?? 20-30ks under the limit.. changing lanes irratically and blind as a bat.
__________________
Signatures are for poofs !!

1993 EBII Fairmont Ghia 5.0L Wagon,
Lowered, Tinted, 17" Speedy Ravens & 2.5" Sports Exhaust.
( 1 of 26 built )

AND

1985 Telstar TX5 Turbo, stock as a rock.
eb_5litre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 15:17   #6 (permalink)
Australian Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally posted by HRT 8
I'm not disagreeing with what you have found above and in your other posts but here is a fact.
Try sitting on the side of ANY road for 15 minutes with a radar to actually see the high percentage of drivers who speed.
I would have to say it may be in the vacinity of 30%. This is from personal observations not statistics.
To clarify what I mean by speeding, I'm talking 10km/h over the posted limit.
I'm not disputing your personal experience, but the fact remains that our speed cameras are generally set to fire 10k above the limit, and Vicroads says only 2% of cars were being pinged. Of course, there is the possibility that a lot more cars are pinged but the photos can't be used because of other cars or whatever in them, or maybe even because they're not all that reliable in other respects.

If a cop sitting on the roadside with radar can ping 30% of drivers and the camera only gets 2%, and if the government is really committed to stopping speeding, then why don't they get more traffic cops? The revenue would still easliy exceed the costs of the cops, although it would be a lot more labour intensive and less profitable per operator than cameras. So, again, unknown political decisions or considerations override officialdom's stated commitment to reducing speed which they maintain is the greatest cause of road injuries.

And another problem is, how can the government and TAC and police justify setting cameras and radar at 10k over when they are running a campaign to drop by 5kmh to save 85 lives? Again, they're not serious or they don't believe in the accuracy of their own machines. They are utterly inconsistent on every aspect of the speed issue.
EA S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 15:44   #7 (permalink)
Pursuit Reincarnation Dog
 
Aussie Pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne VIC
Posts: 7,777
Why do we see 70% of deaths in 100 zones? Because they fall asleep from the boredom!

WHy don't they reduce the spped limit to say, oh, 60 and that way when people fall asleep they'll hit things slower and hopefully not kill themselves.

Or we could raise the speed limits to reduce trip times, keep the driver stimulated at the wheel, and reduce the number of crashes (and see a reduction in the overall toll like that experienced overseas).
__________________
BA'1.5' Pursuit 290
Lightning Strike / Reflective Orange Stripes

'General' Dog - AP's German Shepherd and Best Mate - 02Dec1998-15Dec2003.
'Pepper' Dog - General's and My Little German Shepherd Sweetie - 1996?-02Apr2006.

'Sako' Dog - My Beautiful and Pretty German Shepherd - 2001?-23Aug2006.
Aussie Pete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 15:44   #8 (permalink)
FM
The SparkleHunter™
 
FM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Gettin' ready for MiniChucky!
Age: 38
Posts: 10,144
All this comes down to driver attitude. Speeding, drink driving, etc.
As far as I'm concerned if anyone thinks it's ok to drink and drive (& I don't mean 1 & only 1 beer after work), then they should not have a licence. Period. I've seen what the results of what fatal drink driving can do to a family and it's not a pleasant. It is not tolerable, anywhere, ever.
If someone is in front of you going slow then back off and give them some room. If you can get around them then do it. If you can't you can't. No point worrying about it.
Many people driving on the roads today need a real wake up call in regards to their driving attitude. Road rage is becoming a plague in this country and it's only going to get worse..
If you know the coppers are having a blitz, slow down. Drive safely and you won't have a problem. That's all it takes..
__________________
Chucky's saying of the month- Finish your beer! There are sober kiddies in Ethiopia.."
Another BSR BigCall™
--------------------------------------
FordForums Polo Shirts & Caps are now on sale.. Get both for $50.00 + postage. Click here for details!
FM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 15:46   #9 (permalink)
FM
The SparkleHunter™
 
FM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Gettin' ready for MiniChucky!
Age: 38
Posts: 10,144
Quote:
Originally posted by Aussie Pete
Why do we see 70% of deaths in 100 zones? Because they fall asleep from the boredom!
That's a very good point too pete. Appropriate speed limits would be a good start to reducing the road toll.
__________________
Chucky's saying of the month- Finish your beer! There are sober kiddies in Ethiopia.."
Another BSR BigCall™
--------------------------------------
FordForums Polo Shirts & Caps are now on sale.. Get both for $50.00 + postage. Click here for details!
FM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2001, 16:17   #10 (permalink)
Australian Ford Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 64
Posts: 1,120
Quote:
Originally posted by Ford Man
All this comes down to driver attitude. Speeding, drink driving, etc.
As far as I'm concerned if anyone thinks it's ok to drink and drive (& I don't mean 1 & only 1 beer after work), then they should not have a licence. Period. I've seen what the results of what fatal drink driving can do to a family and it's not a pleasant. It is not tolerable, anywhere, ever.
If someone is in front of you going slow then back off and give them some room. If you can get around them then do it. If you can't you can't. No point worrying about it.
Many people driving on the roads today need a real wake up call in regards to their driving attitude. Road rage is becoming a plague in this country and it's only going to get worse..
If you know the coppers are having a blitz, slow down. Drive safely and you won't have a problem. That's all it takes..
Ignore this. Don't know I managed to post it before writing anything.
EA S is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars > Fordforums Community > The Pub



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Year was 1976 .... russellw The Pub 21 03-15-2003 09:13
EA S blows a fuse over latest speed camera crap EA S The Pub 82 12-23-2002 15:44
Speed camera message getting through? Falchoon The Pub 1 04-29-2002 21:21
More speed crap from officialdom (& EA S) EA S The Pub 17 11-21-2001 18:00

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 20:43.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.