RTA Article on Speed - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars

Aussie Pete · 02-03-2003, 21:19

Have a read of this article. It is interesting in some of the facts it provides and the reasoning behind what our pollies are doing now (more speed cameras etc).

Having been a tutor at university I would give the report a 6/10 because whilst well presented and laid out, it smells very much like the author/s had a conclusion for which they wrote the report - hence the report is written to justify a pre-existing outlook.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...obdefcount.pdf

As an example of the biased writing, read the bit about public attitude surveys:

"Driver Attitude Surveys, Page 16-on"
Four subgroups of the population.....

Contented carers (basically women hippies who admit they never ride in a vehicle yet were used for 35% of the survey 'findings')

Status Quoers

Discontented Drivers (what's the speed limit for this 100 meter stretch of road again?

)

and the daddy of terms....
Self Centered Speeders (read the dribble on this one below!)

So, self centered speeders (we wouldn't want to attach labels now would we) are described as:

"They just wanted to drive faster. They were most unlikely to exhibit cautious driving...."

AP shakes his head - how can we respect such biased reporting? How many pollies have this report on their desk and accept it as gospel?

lucas · 02-03-2003, 22:57

I had a sinking feeling loading that document up. Before reading it I went looking for the authorship. Did not find that, but number one on the list of references:

Quote:

Kloeden CN, McLean AJ, Moore VM, and Ponte G. Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement, NHMRC Road Accident Research Unit, The University of Adelaide. 1997.

... and there's your problem. That flawed report is the basis of the laws and regulations we motorists now find ourselves suffering under. Makes me wonder how many years until we stagger out the other end of this tunnel.

FalKeen · 02-04-2003, 00:27

after reading quite a "few" threads on speeding posted by Aussie Pete i am starting to come to a conclusion that he might dislike speeding cameras and the "intent behind them" more so....
can sort of understand where he is coming from knowing of his XR8 and soon to be BA GT - hes seeing his hard earned money going into the governments coffers (and funding rubbish research like this) instead of adding more KW's to his pride and joy!

p.s. i dont like speeding cameras either

Luke Plaizier · 02-04-2003, 01:51

The point behind many of Aussie Pete's posts on this topic is that the Government is hiding unadulterated profiteering behind the veil of increased safety.

I'm all in favour of speed cameras at Black Spots and School Zones. Don't get me wrong. None of us condone dangerous driving or being unsafe in any way. But the question remains, is the world now a safer place after the implementation of all these camera's and after all the money the average driver has paid?

Traffic statistics would say no.

If safety actually was their primary concern, then we would see more investment in driver training, flashing lights and fences at low-speed school zones, and fewer speed cameras or radar traps on straight sections of roads with posted speed limits way below the safe limit. We'd see more driver reviver stops on our highways, with signs to tell you where the heck they are.

Lukeyson

FalKeen · 02-04-2003, 02:24

dont get me wrong mate im all against them aswell, and i applaude pete as i have read about him on here actually trying to take some sort of action against these bastards rather than just being full of hot air!

(p.s. im still up for the action pete was talking about previously - everyone on ff meeting up and parking on the road, completely blocking it, where a stupid speed camera is, think that would be a classic

)

John McMaster · 02-04-2003, 03:34

Somebody should blow those speed camera's up, or better still when you see one, park around the corner get your can of black spray and fix' em once and for all

Aussie Pete · 02-04-2003, 14:16

Look, there's a place for road safety and there's a place for taxation. My whole campaign (it's gearing up slowly) is that drivers are the problem. They need training similar to that provided by the Smith System (road awareness - 5 keys) which will prevent the accidents in the first place.

I had a major accident a few years ago in which I spent a time in an ambulance with the 'lights out'. The driver got a fine for $163 and one point. Yet drivers get heavier penalties for 63 in a 60 zone these days.

My father died for a while after a car pulled out in front of him on the highway on the south coast. A helicopter ride and months of rehab later he has seen nothing in the way of compensation except that the 'answer' to his accident is that the RTA are now installing dozens of speed cameras on that highway.

So, I have a personal interest in this issue. What I object to is these liars rolling out an 'answer' in the form of speed cameras which do not work. We need a total solution that in some cases involves RAISING speed limits in conjunction with better driver education.

Questions:
Why do pilots of airplanes get so much training?
Why do airplanes have no speed limits other than in their design?
Why is air travel so safe?

Save lives. Don't raise revenue.

RAPTOR · 02-04-2003, 15:06

I agree with you and all Pete but I wouldn't go using the Airline industry to make your point.

Quote:

Originally posted by Aussie Pete

Questions:
Why do pilots of airplanes get so much training?
Why do airplanes have no speed limits other than in their design?
Why is air travel so safe?

Pilots are responsible for millions of dollars of equipment and hundreds (if not thousands) of peoples lives should they not perform. Car drivers aren't.

The sky seems a lot less densely occupied by aircraft compared to cars on roads and there is also much less in the way of trees, light poles, houses etc to hit while up there. Also, don't they have to go fast to generate lift?

Air travel safe, by what measure? Lives lost per distance travelled? I think the distance travelled bit is distorting the figures. Still the real risks with air travel is when the plane is under stress at takeoff and landing. Also happens to be when it's closest to terra-firma and associated abstacles - just like cars.