Hamilton the Hoon

[J.D.]

There were statistical evidences posted here on arse a while ago about this. I can't be arsed to dig it up for you, though

I'd like to see them. Just make sure they're not cherry picked.

The MUARC and TAC sites have an enormous amount of information on them but I have yet to see a lot about driver distraction. Unless you consider every factor in a crash as a form of distraction...not likely. I think it would be naive the think that every crash can be blamed on a single factor. Many have only one factor. Many have multiple factors. What remains is that excessive speed is a major factor in 30% of road fatalities.

There seems to be a prevailing attitude around here that speed is only rarely a factor and that everything else matters more.

[nutty]

Isnt it when they go "speed is a contributing factor" they dont nessassarly mean going over the speed limit, its just going too fast for the conditions.

In the end, you can speed in any car, a Hyunadi getz can do 150km/h, as can my nissan 200sx.. yet im targeted like nothing else... thats my problem with it all

[J.D.]

You would have to go through individual reports on that to establish base line figures. Personally, I'm not interested in quite that level of resolution as it would probably require a university level of application. Besides, it's probably already been done.

It's your choice what car you drive. The cops target you because your car is more likely to be driven by people who have made illegal modifications or have a history of driving offences. I'm not saying for a minute that you fit the profile but your car might. They have to make that judgment at the time and picking between your car and someone else's; well, it's going to involve an element of probability.

[DexterPunk]

Government's 'Don't Be A Dickhead' campaign takes aim at gingers, emos

HAHAHAHA!!!!! Wrangas and emos lmao!

Not sure why I find that so funny

[Hz-Lab]

Government's 'Don't Be A Dickhead' campaign takes aim at gingers, emos

HAHAHAHA!!!!! Wrangas and emos lmao!

Not sure why I find that so funny

cos anything aimed at an emo is funny.

[Doso]

What about them? I don't recall posing that question.

So we just ignore a huge segment of the population?

Is that your best guess?

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc159.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brilliant Journal article, except it's 11 years old and was based on data from 1995/1996 ,

they also define speed accidents as "loss of control accidents were a vehicle fails to remain on the correct path without an initial collision" for there data set, an extremely week correlation

they don't even remove the possibility of BAC in these loss of control, so all those drink driving and losing control are classified as speed related accidents!!!! i mean come on!

Have a look at this from your own Monash Journal Article

Vehicle Safety of younger Drivers

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc292.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Compared to crash-involved drivers aged 25+, crash-involved young drivers are driving generally older vehicles with 46.9% of young drivers aged 16 to 17 years, 41.7% of young drivers aged 18 to 20 years and 29.5% of young drivers aged 21 to 24 years driving vehicles 11 years old and over in comparison to 25.9% of older drivers aged 25 years and over driving vehicles 11 years and over.

These kids are driving around in cars that are 10+ years old they lack fundamental safety features like ABS/VSC/EBA/BFD, airbags, crumple zones and probably average 2 stars or less compared to the rest of the population, do you think this might be a factor?

if you have ever seen car crash test data you should know how poorly a 1-3 rated star car is compared to a 4-5 star rated car, and VSC can drop single vehicle accident rates by upto 32%!

Are kids educated at all about safety of cars they purcahsed? When i went though the system all that was given to me was that don't speed and learn to do a 3 point turn thats it's kids need to be shown first hand how different cars react in a accident show them a 2 star rated car and a 5 star rated car, take them onto a skid pan and show them VSC/ABS and what it does. Make them do a defensive driving course, make the god damm driving test a LOT harder.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... sr_04.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

25% of all fatal accidents the driver is over 0.05 BAC

predominantly male (84%) The age demographic of drink driving offenders follows a linear pattern downwards from 21-29 onwards. In other words the older the person the less likely they are to be caught offending.

hmm could 84% of drink drivers being male and a strong correlation to younger drivers drink driving have a significant

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc211.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

in that analysis in some of the lower age groups there was 50% or above drink driving fatal accidents, as in 1 in 2 fatal accidents the drivers were over 0.05! and these were including probationary drivers who should of had 0.00 BAC

I'd like to see them. Just make sure they're not cherry picked.

The MUARC and TAC sites have an enormous amount of information on them but I have yet to see a lot about driver distraction. Unless you consider every factor in a crash as a form of distraction...not likely. I think it would be naive the think that every crash can be blamed on a single factor. Many have only one factor. Many have multiple factors. What remains is that excessive speed is a major factor in 30% of road fatalities.

There seems to be a prevailing attitude around here that speed is only rarely a factor and that everything else matters more.

read the article you posted before on how they concluded "excessive speed" It's absolute bullshit, one of my close family friends was involved in a fatal accident basically sitting at a T intersection got rear ended by an old man adjusting his stereo, pushing his car into the intersection and getting T-boned @ 80kph, the passenger was ejected from the car and died instantly, speed was listed as a major cause of the accident because the car that t-boned the my family friends car was in a 80kph zone, they were not speeding it was concluded the speed limit was too high for the area.

Accident reports rarely investigate other factors in accident reports like the lack of VSC/ABS/Curtain airbags safer cars or if there had been a suitable crash barrier would it have prevented the accident.

For example the Mill park kids who got wiped out had there been a wire & pole barrier separating the road from the trees would they have been killed? had there car had VSC would it have lost controlled in the first place? Had the drivier not had a BAC of 0.19 would he been able to control the car, would he had driven at that speed? etc etc

Like Mark Webber originally pointed out look at Europe higher speeds less fatal accidents per capita/per km travelled if speed was such a major factor shouldn't Germany have the highest death to km travelled, how on earth do they have a lower rate than Australia? maybe it has something to do with 1.better roads, 2. Better driving environment, 3.better driver training, 4. far better cars/safety, 5.better policing, 6.better driver attitude.

maybe Australia needs to focus on the above 6 issues rather than trying to shove the "speed kills" mantra down all our throats? And i'm glad to see on The Age/SMH that 75% of people agree with Mark Webber and see through the governments BS

You would have to go through individual reports on that to establish base line figures. Personally, I'm not interested in quite that level of resolution as it would probably require a university level of application. Besides, it's probably already been done.

it has been done and plenty of academics have pointed out that Hooning is actually statistically irrelevant to the road toll, unsurprisingly they are coming out of Uni's other than Monash Uni which happens to be funded by the Government & TAC, I'd highly recommend you go and read the paper that Monash uni published about 5kph over and the TAC used for its every 5kph is a killer campaign

[durbster]

Thanks doso, for doing the hard work.

I was going to read the report JD posted but I remember skimming through it last time it was on here and it wasn't all it seemed. I've never seen a report that actually links speed limits to accidents - it's always referred to as excessive speed which could be anything from 5mph to 200mph depending on conditions. While it's pretty obvious that a high speed means a deadlier crash, the statistics quite clearly show that almost all accidents happen below the limit.

Anyway, I can see no reason how making an example of Lewis - one of the most capable drivers in the world - for leaving a couple of 11s on the road is going to make your roads any safer.

[Doso]

Thanks doso, for doing the hard work.

I was going to read the report JD posted but I remember skimming through it last time it was on here and it wasn't all it seemed. I've never seen a report that actually links speed limits to accidents - excessive speed. While it's pretty obvious that a high speed means a deadlier crash, the statistics quite clearly show that almost all accidents happen below the limit.

Anyway, I can see no reason how making an example of Lewis - one of the most capable drivers in the world - for leaving a couple of 11s on the road is going to make your roads any safer.

exactly right, while I'm not saying excessive speed doesn't kill at all, what I am saying there are far far more better ways to reduce the road toll than the current campaign except the poli's don't want to spend the money

another example in Australia is if I run a red light @ 80kph in a 80kph zone all that happens is that I lose 3 points and get a $270 fine (I would need to do this 4 times for me to lose my license for 1 month)

however had I stopped at the red light and done a burnout while taking of on the green I would have my car impounded on the spot, lose my license and cop a whole raft of fines + pay for my car to be towed

I mean the whole anti-hoon laws are a complete joke to keep middle/older aged Australian's happy at reducing the anti-social stigma of "hoon's" rather than any real reduction in the road toll, its a way for police to get you under trivial and wide scoped laws when they can't get you for anything else. I mean hell they don;t even need to see you honing all they have to do is suspect you of doing it, it allows the police to become the judge, jury and executioner which in a democratic society is pretty piss poor

[richo]

No matter what you think of Loois he is one of the best drivers on the planet and thats just a little difference to the usual "Japanese turbo fully sick mobile" pilot that the laws were made for.

Its just a beat up ..

[J.D.]

No matter what you think of Loois he is one of the best drivers on the planet and thats just a little difference to the usual "Japanese turbo fully sick mobile" pilot that the laws were made for.

Its just a beat up ..

By whom?

The initial story was of significant public interest, whether you agree with it or not. Lewis is still obliged to abide by the law.

It became much more significant when the Police and politicians weighed in, especially when Roads Minister Tim Pallas called him a dickhead.

[nutty]

The thing that disapoints me the most is, going back 7-10 years (and im sure even before then) I could rockup to a place like Baywater Car Park in Surfers Paradise, Botney Bay in Sydney + South Beach in Wollongong and there would be 40-50 cars on any given night. Sure ive seen people do dumb shit like skids but generally people where well behaved. The car scene was great.. you could hangout with a heap of people talk about cars and everyone would get involved.

Now days, baywater is gone. The spit turns into a defect bay on weekends/thursday nights and the scene is all but dead in sydney from what ive heard.

[KNAPPO]

Coulthard on Autosport
The McLaren driver was involved in a road car incident after doing a burnout in a Mercedes that was later impounded by Australian police.
Coulthard reckons the incident was blown out of proportion.

"I know I'll get accused of being irresponsible here, but I really don't see the big deal about Lewis indulging in a little burnout for the fans," Coulthard wrote in his column for the Daily Telegraph.
"In my view, the reaction to what was essentially a minor incident was completely over the top.
"I understand the road-safety issue, but Lewis is one of the best drivers on this planet. There is no one I would trust more to burn a bit of rubber and keep the car under perfect control.
"A minor slap on the wrist would have sufficed, although it would have been even more constructive to commit him to some sort of road safety project in Melbourne schools for next year. Impounding his car and releasing statements as to his poor character helped no one."

From Autosport.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/82543" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[J.D.]

The thing that disapoints me the most is, going back 7-10 years (and im sure even before then) I could rockup to a place like Baywater Car Park in Surfers Paradise, Botney Bay in Sydney + South Beach in Wollongong and there would be 40-50 cars on any given night. Sure ive seen people do dumb shit like skids but generally people where well behaved. The car scene was great.. you could hangout with a heap of people talk about cars and everyone would get involved.

Now days, baywater is gone. The spit turns into a defect bay on weekends/thursday nights and the scene is all but dead in sydney from what ive heard.

Didn't you do some (legal) drift racing at one point nutty?

[J.D.]

What about them? I don't recall posing that question.

So we just ignore a huge segment of the population?

It's a red herring and you know it. It doesn't answer the question. They don't comprise a large proportion of road crash statistics.

Is that your best guess?

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc159.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brilliant Journal article, except it's 11 years old and was based on data from 1995/1996 ,

they also define speed accidents as "loss of control accidents were a vehicle fails to remain on the correct path without an initial collision" for there data set, an extremely week correlation

they don't even remove the possibility of BAC in these loss of control, so all those drink driving and losing control are classified as speed related accidents!!!! i mean come on!

FFS: I said later that it would be naive to look at single factors alone so don't roll your eyes at me. Many crashes have other factors present and some are caused by a single factor. Do you really think the trend has changed? Subsequent articles only show a general downward trend. They don't show a lot of the "how or why", which you alluded to later. We are all driving safer vehicles yet people continue to die. Perhaps vehicle safety has been a major factor in reducing the number of fatalities - seems extremely likely - but you'd have to take into account any number of other factors.

Have a look at this from your own Monash Journal Article

Vehicle Safety of younger Drivers

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc292.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Compared to crash-involved drivers aged 25+, crash-involved young drivers are driving generally older vehicles with 46.9% of young drivers aged 16 to 17 years, 41.7% of young drivers aged 18 to 20 years and 29.5% of young drivers aged 21 to 24 years driving vehicles 11 years old and over in comparison to 25.9% of older drivers aged 25 years and over driving vehicles 11 years and over.

Yes, that's a good article. By coincidence I spoke to Dr Stuart Newstead only yesterday.

These kids are driving around in cars that are 10+ years old they lack fundamental safety features like ABS/VSC/EBA/BFD, airbags, crumple zones and probably average 2 stars or less compared to the rest of the population, do you think this might be a factor?

Yes I do. Does it prove that excessive speed is not?

if you have ever seen car crash test data you should know how poorly a 1-3 rated star car is compared to a 4-5 star rated car, and VSC can drop single vehicle accident rates by upto 32%!

I see it all the time. I have seen so much of this stuff it's hard to remember where to find it. VSC is a recent innovation. Most cars do not have it so it is anachronistic to judge past statistics by that measure. I look forward to the day when it is a mainstream technology (I have it in my car).

Make them do a defensive driving course, make the god damm (sic) driving test a LOT harder.

At last, some common sense.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/ ... sr_04.aspx

25% of all fatal accidents the driver is over 0.05 BAC

predominantly male (84%) The age demographic of drink driving offenders follows a linear pattern downwards from 21-29 onwards. In other words the older the person the less likely they are to be caught offending.
hmm could 84% of drink drivers being male and a strong correlation to younger drivers drink driving have a significant

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc211.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

in that analysis in some of the lower age groups there was 50% or above drink driving fatal accidents, as in 1 in 2 fatal accidents the drivers were over 0.05! and these were including probationary drivers who should of had 0.00 BAC

The salient point of that article is on page 78 (marked as page 60 in the document). I'd have thought you would have pointed this out because it says that drink driving is a factor in 81.03% of crashes involving 18-20 year-olds while speed is a factor in 51.47%. How many of these were fatalities? Hard to say. Maybe a high percentage were low speed crashes.

But in Victoria the TAC campaign against drink driving has been going for an awfully long time so I fail to see how speed has been over-emphasised. You'd have to be blind (and deaf) to have missed it.

read the article you posted before on how they concluded "excessive speed" It's absolute bullshit, one of my close family friends was involved in a fatal accident basically sitting at a T intersection got rear ended by an old man adjusting his stereo, pushing his car into the intersection and getting T-boned @ 80kph, the passenger was ejected from the car and died instantly, speed was listed as a major cause of the accident because the car that t-boned the my family friends car was in a 80kph zone, they were not speeding it was concluded the speed limit was too high for the area.

How does this make it "absolute bullshit"? That is an unusual example. It's not a "freak accident" or anything like that but I think you are taking it a bit too literally. Of course vehicle speed is a factor in a crash like that. 80kmh is the survivability limit for frontal impact and 50kmh is the limit for side impact with current technology. It doesn't mean the other vehicle was traveling too fast. It means speed was a factor. I cannot see how this would be a reason to change the speed limit on a road like that because of one unusual crash.

For example the Mill park kids who got wiped out had there been a wire & pole barrier separating the road from the trees would they have been killed? had there car had VSC would it have lost controlled in the first place? Had the drivier not had a BAC of 0.19 would he been able to control the car, would he had driven at that speed? etc etc

Don't quote Mill Park at me. I was there. I walked the scene with a crash investigator who pointed out the how and why to me. That bloke was on the power all the way to the crash scene. Yes; I know he was pissed. He also had a (brief) history of driving offences, some for speed and some for alcohol. He should not have been driving at all and his car should have been impounded. And yes; it occurred to me that a barrier would have helped.

maybe it has something to do with 1.better roads, 2. Better driving environment, 3.better driver training, 4. far better cars/safety, 5.better policing, 6.better driver attitude.

I have no problem with that.

maybe Australia needs to focus on the above 6 issues rather than trying to shove the "speed kills" mantra down all our throats? And i'm glad to see on The Age/SMH that 75% of people agree with Mark Webber and see through the governments BS

Ah, so it's all a plot then? A conspiracy? What makes anyone think that the 75% you quote are any better educated in these matters than anyone else, including those who analyse crash data for a living? We don't even know what demographic they represent so I'd be reluctant to place much faith in that.

I'd highly recommend you go and read the paper that Monash uni published about 5kph over and the TAC used for its every 5kph is a killer campaign

I think I already have.

[J.D.]

While it's pretty obvious that a high speed means a deadlier crash, the statistics quite clearly show that almost all accidents happen below the limit.

The percentage of fatalities below the speed limit would be statistically insignificant. The percentage of fatalities above the limit would be enormous. But I don't think we're in disagreement about that.

Anyway, I can see no reason how making an example of Lewis - one of the most capable drivers in the world - for leaving a couple of 11s on the road is going to make your roads any safer.

Because it's disappointing to a government which has spent so much time, effort and money on road safety campaigns (however misguided people think they are) when a person who is a role model for young male drivers does something like that. It makes a mockery of the whole effort.

[J.D.]

exactly right, while I'm not saying excessive speed doesn't kill at all, what I am saying there are far far more better ways to reduce the road toll than the current campaign except the poli's don't want to spend the money

Pollies wouldn't have to spend the money. They already spend shitloads on advertising anyway. All they have to do is increase the requirements for young drivers before they get their licence. Get the driving schools to introduce skidpan training. I wish I'd done that. My ex-girlfriend (who was a Pom) told me she had done skidpan sessions as part of her driver training.

I mean the whole anti-hoon laws are a complete joke to keep middle/older aged Australian's happy at reducing the anti-social stigma of "hoon's" rather than any real reduction in the road toll, its a way for police to get you under trivial and wide scoped laws when they can't get you for anything else. I mean hell they don;t even need to see you honing all they have to do is suspect you of doing it, it allows the police to become the judge, jury and executioner which in a democratic society is pretty piss poor

Why don't you ask the cops how they feel about it. They are at the coal face. They are the ones who have to break the bad news to parents. They are the ones who see the blood and dismembered bodies.

Maybe you need to see what I've seen. Maybe you need to walk a crash scene with an investigator to get a real feel for what's going on out there.

[DexterPunk]

A quick comment on making driving tests 'harder'... they are already hard in some aspects... They can fail you on all sorts of technicalities and faults. The problem I see it though, is the areas they test for (at least here in vic) are fairly far removed from how you drive in 'real life'. You can be failed for not waiting 3 seconds at a stop sign.. Try that in the real world and you will get beeped constantly. You also don't need 3 whole seconds to check that a T intersection is clear. It doesn't sound like a lot, but try it out on the road.. come to a complete stop at a stop sign, then count to 3 before setting off.. and you may realise how silly it is. I don't know if Ive ever had to make a 3 point turn in a street without using someones drive way... If someone had to, and they couldn't use a driveway, they would have no doubt been driving for a number of years before that situation occurs. These tests are just silly in my opinion. I think the driving test is complex enough to test drivers on, but the focus is set on all these technicalities that often don't apply in the hustle and bustle of every day driving life.

I think the most important change has been the introduction of the log book. The money raised through speeding and what not, should be partially put into a mandatory driver training program with minimum hours to be logged, and with experience in day, night, and wet weather driving before a learner can go for their license. Preferable with a defensive driving course as well. In the US I have seen that they do driver training at school... That wouldn't be a bad idea considering you can obtain your L's at 16.

[J.D.]

Let me say one thing, just in case you lot think I'm a "middle/older aged Australian's (sic) happy at reducing the anti-social stigma of "hoon's"":

I would have no problem with the limit on some parts of the Hume being raised to 150+ kmh except that it would be unworkable. Factors like heavy vehicle traffic, driver experience, primary and secondary vehicle safety, speed differential, vehicle maintenance and light or weather conditions would vary too much for safety.

[Doso]

It's a red herring and you know it. It doesn't answer the question. They don't comprise a large proportion of road crash statistics.

Including Males/Females 18-25 had 62 Fatalties

the rest of the age groups had 234 Fatalities,

this doesn't represent a large proportion of road statistics?

FFS: I said later that it would be naive to look at single factors alone so don't roll your eyes at me. Many crashes have other factors present and some are caused by a single factor. Do you really think the trend has changed? Subsequent articles only show a general downward trend. They don't show a lot of the "how or why", which you alluded to later. We are all driving safer vehicles yet people continue to die. Perhaps vehicle safety has been a major factor in reducing the number of fatalities - seems extremely likely - but you'd have to take into account any number of other factors.

My point is that how these journal articles classify speeding, have a look at what they define as excessive speed in there report which is used as a data set for their conclussion. The actual speed in nearly all there statistics isn't know at all. If this article would have been published today it would never get though the peer review for having such a woeful way for collecting data.

Yes I do. Does it prove that excessive speed is not?

My point is that when was the last time there was a campaign to educate young drivers about car safety, what all these technologies do? never it's all about speed kills

I see it all the time. I have seen so much of this stuff it's hard to remember where to find it. VSC is a recent innovation. Most cars do not have it so it is anachronistic to judge past statistics by that measure. I look forward to the day when it is a mainstream technology (I have it in my car).

Look at Eurpoe England for example offers $3000-5000 off new cars when trading in 8-10+year old cars to be scrapped, this encorages newer cars to be bought, what does the Australian Goverment do?

At last, some common sense,

but where is the goverment innitative? there is none, the driving tests are a complete joke

The salient point of that article is on page 78 (marked as page 60 in the document). I'd have thought you would have pointed this out because it says that drink driving is a factor in 81.03% of crashes involving 18-20 year-olds while speed is a factor in 51.47%. How many of these were fatalities? Hard to say. Maybe a high percentage were low speed crashes.

But in Victoria the TAC campaign against drink driving has been going for an awfully long time so I fail to see how speed has been over-emphasised. You'd have to be blind (and deaf) to have missed it.

One of my points is that had they not been drinking would they of been speeding? And do you think that such a high drink driving prevelance in younger drivers might skew the fatal accidents statistics at all?

How does this make it "absolute bullshit"? That is an unusual example. It's not a "freak accident" or anything like that but I think you are taking it a bit too literally. Of course vehicle speed is a factor in a crash like that. 80kmh is the survivability limit for frontal impact and 50kmh is the limit for side impact with current technology. It doesn't mean the other vehicle was traveling too fast. It means speed was a factor. I cannot see how this would be a reason to change the speed limit on a road like that because of one unusual crash.

But this is how speed statistics are skewed and don't really represent "hooning" & "speeding" statistics, the way that speed is a factor in fatal accidents is in my opinion overly reported rather than focusing on other aspects of the accident.

Don't quote Mill Park at me. I was there. I walked the scene with a crash investigator who pointed out the how and why to me. That bloke was on the power all the way to the crash scene. Yes; I know he was pissed. He also had a (brief) history of driving offences, some for speed and some for alcohol. He should not have been driving at all and his car should have been impounded. And yes; it occurred to me that a barrier would have helped.

Have a look at the media reaction, before his BAC was revealed the Media & Police were all calling for tougher anti-hoon laws, after they found out he had a BAC of 0.19 was there calls for tougher Drink Driving laws? was there calls for impounding drink drivers cars? No of course not

I have no problem with that.

But were is the GOverment initatives? in other coutries theve been doing it for years but not in Australia & they have lower death per km stats with higher speed limits!

Ah, so it's all a plot then? A conspiracy? What makes anyone think that the 75% you quote are any better educated in these matters than anyone else, including those who analyse crash data for a living? We don't even know what demographic they represent so I'd be reluctant to place much faith in that.

Not my point, it shows that the public attitude is slowly changing, look at plenty rd & parts of the hume which were once 80kph now 70kph nowbody goes 70kph down there because it's a joke.

I think I already have.

then you should know how rubbish the article is, yet the TAC contiues to base the advertising over it

[Doso]

Because it's disappointing to a government which has spent so much time, effort and money on road safety campaigns (however misguided people think they are) when a person who is a role model for young male drivers does something like that. It makes a mockery of the whole effort.

The BBC in free practice 3 absolutly had a go of Australia, saying that in any other country around the world were the F1 goes people would be applauding him!

having a F1 driver fish tail up the road is completly harmless especially in cars equipped with modern TC/VSC that allows the driver to only go so far before cutting in.

What he did was not dangerouse at all and i'm willing to stand by that statement

[J.D.]

Because it's disappointing to a government which has spent so much time, effort and money on road safety campaigns (however misguided people think they are) when a person who is a role model for young male drivers does something like that. It makes a mockery of the whole effort.

The BBC in free practice 3 absolutly had a go of Australia, saying that in any other country around the world were the F1 goes people would be applauding him!

having a F1 driver fish tail up the road is completly harmless especially in cars equipped with modern TC/VSC that allows the driver to only go so far before cutting in.

What he did was not dangerouse at all and i'm willing to stand by that statement

Bollocks. He's obliged to abide by the law. If you don't like it then get the law changed.

[w00dsy]

according to Auto Action he did a couple of donuts within sight of a booze bus.

[AstrO]

according to Auto Action he did a couple of donuts within sight of a booze bus.

Maybe he thought it was a bus that gives out booze?

[Doso]

Pollies wouldn't have to spend the money. They already spend shitloads on advertising anyway. All they have to do is increase the requirements for young drivers before they get their licence. Get the driving schools to introduce skidpan training. I wish I'd done that. My ex-girlfriend (who was a Pom) told me she had done skidpan sessions as part of her driver training.

Bingo! it's all about the $$$, part of the reason why it's so easy for goverments to push the speed kills BS because its far easier to fine people doing 3kph over the speed limit than it is to get them for drink driving, mobile phone use, sleep deprevation, lack of attention, poor car safety, unroadworthy cars etc etc etc

There is just so much more that the goverment can do it's not funny but it all costs $$$

Why don't you ask the cops how they feel about it. They are at the coal face. They are the ones who have to break the bad news to parents. They are the ones who see the blood and dismembered bodies.

Maybe you need to see what I've seen. Maybe you need to walk a crash scene with an investigator to get a real feel for what's going on out there.

I would love to walk crash scenes, I would also love to read full crash/accident reports but these arn't made avaliable to the public

[Doso]

Bollocks. He's obliged to abide by the law. If you don't like it then get the law changed.

Ahh the old classic retort "It's The LAW!!!!11!1!!!!!"

Maybe we should also follow disclossing our full name when making any comments on politics, hay it's the LAW!

The law needs to be changed, but how can I compete agaist the TAC massive advertising budget? I can't