Yep, would the girl of suffered less serious injury if she was travelling at 73 in a 70 zone?
The article clearly states "After a downpour" Common sense, and even the mickey mouse licence test, tells you to drive to the conditions.
But heres the question I really want answered. WHAT GOOD IS A FIXED OR HIDDEN SPEED CAMERA IN THIS SITUATION???? It would have simply forwarded the fine to her in hospital. It would have done NOTHING to slow her down at the time.
And for those that are surprised at her injuries, the maximum speed you can hit any object that is stationary, and survive, even in the worlds safest cars, is 80kph. Anything over that, your dead, end of story. So if she hit a tree, at 75, yep, I'm not surprised shes hurt.
As for the road toll being 28 down on last year, I would like to see that broken up a little further. I would like to see the break up of inner city deaths as opposed to rural deaths, and the number of deaths per month extended out to the rest of the year.
As I have stated, time and time again, I have no great objection to speed cameras. What I DO have an objection to, is the completely unworkable 3 kph tolerance. If manufacturuers cant produce a speedo that can measure speed that accurately, then why the hell should a driver be made responsible to?
Chevs may go, but theres nothing like a HO!
Proud LSUG Member, and 9" Nodular Iron driveline test pilot.