Mark Skaife Understands Road Saftey

[Rots]

Yep, the national speed limit should be 40km/h. Then, instead of 'Victoria on the Move', it will be 'Australia the slow arse country going backwards'.

[ysu]

haha I really couldn't be bothered reading this thread, I wanted to post this straight after I saw it but couldn't find a link.


Made me smile very much so. Whether he was over the top or not, it is atleast a bloody start. It astonishes me that noone has really come out and publicly said anything of this kind before. For many years I've been ranting about the way the solution is to always lower the speed limit, as if it fixes anything.

Oh, but with the "speed kills" slogan you can sell the idea of pretty speed cameras as "safety" features, instead of what they are.

[J.D.]

If he hadn't mentioned increasing the speed limit to 140kmh we wouldn't be having this conversation...

[ysu]

If he hadn't mentioned increasing the speed limit to 140kmh we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Then maybe it's a good thing he did. I'm all for it, as soon as the OTHER things he mentioned are in place as well.

Oh, I know, I know: we should have an 'old car lane' where any car older than 10yrs would have to go at 110, the rest of us could go at a more decent 140-150 on the rest of the lanes!

[GT VIRUS]

So whats wrong with my car at 140? It's still in good condition, and is comfortable at 140, but your not going to let me in?

I have issues at the moment with south australia's creeping ads. Every crash they show is not caused by speed, they are caused by servere innattention.

[wobblysauce]

if your that worried about going at 140 and dying, there have been accidents where people have been going slower 40 and lower and have died or have been seriously hurt and immobilised. but that dont get the media's attention like a Car 0 V Tree 1.

what about people getting there cars serviced/RWC'd at a time of doing a rego or every 2 years on say 5+year cars, that would also lower the rate, there are a of if cars out there that wouldn't get a pass, so you don't get this just pay the rego and she'll be right.

[nutty]

It will be interesting if anything comes out of this.. I think it has to come from a Federal government to get any sorta traction.
I mean surely state governments arent too displeased with the current revenue raising system?

[norbs]

if your that worried about going at 140 and dying, there have been accidents where people have been going slower 40 and lower and have died or have been seriously hurt and immobilised. but that dont get the media's attention like a Car 0 V Tree 1.

what about people getting there cars serviced/RWC'd at a time of doing a rego or every 2 years on say 5+year cars, that would also lower the rate, there are a of if cars out there that wouldn't get a pass, so you don't get this just pay the rego and she'll be right.

Ok, I think I have decoded most of it.

What accidents have people going slower than 40 died in Wobbly? Apart from stalling on a rail crossing in front of a train. I have to do 40 most days through a school zone, and I reckon it would take something extraordinary to kill you in a car at 40. Granted, a pedestrian getting hit and falling badly could kill them. Car v Tree gets coverage because it is usually easy to get some spectacular footage from the crash scene to show on the news.

Cars over 3 years old do need a RWC in NSW, it is called a pink slip. Problem is, it only has to go and stop to get one. Some of the pieces of shit I have seen passed for a pink slip is pretty surprising.

[Montey]

if your that worried about going at 140 and dying, there have been accidents where people have been going slower 40 and lower and have died or have been seriously hurt and immobilised. but that dont get the media's attention like a Car 0 V Tree 1.

what about people getting there cars serviced/RWC'd at a time of doing a rego or every 2 years on say 5+year cars, that would also lower the rate, there are a of if cars out there that wouldn't get a pass, so you don't get this just pay the rego and she'll be right.

Ok, I think I have decoded most of it.

What accidents have people going slower than 40 died in Wobbly? Apart from stalling on a rail crossing in front of a train. I have to do 40 most days through a school zone, and I reckon it would take something extraordinary to kill you in a car at 40. Granted, a pedestrian getting hit and falling badly could kill them. Car v Tree gets coverage because it is usually easy to get some spectacular footage from the crash scene to show on the news.

If two cars, obeying the speed limit at 40kph, have a head-on collision because one of the cars was faulty, a driver screwed up or the road had issuesit would be the equivalent of one of the cars running in to a concrete wall at 80kph. Hitting another object at 80kph is enough to kill someone if they are in an older car, especially if that car does not have modern airbags, crumple zones and/or a collapsible steering column. That sort of accident is very viable outside of a school zone if the older car doesn't have a stability control system as they swerve to avoid a kid running in to the street, or if they don't have ABS meaning they start skidding and don't decelerate at the same rate a modern car would.

Having someone die as a result of an accident at 40kph is a very likely event when an older car is involved and if another car (at the same speed) is involved.

[ysu]

um...actually it's not the same hitting a concrete wall or another car. The car does crumple, even if just a little, it has a mass which can move sideways fairly easily (only 4 tyres on the road) and the collision is almost never full head-on, so some of the forces _will_ go sideways.
I think you'll find that someone needs a good (bad?) dose of bad luck to die at a 40k head-on car collision. In theory it exists, but I'd like to see the stats how many times it has happened.

However, running into a truck can probably do it easier...

[nutty]

Driver Training Duabi style
http://www.tunersgroup.com/TunerWire_Li ... inued.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[J.D.]

It's generally accepted that survivability limits are about 80kmh for head on and 50kmh for side on with current technology.

Yes: you can die in a 40kmh impact and you can walk away from a 140kmh impact but which do you think has the greater likelihood of resulting in a fatality?

[Jamo]

Sorry to be controversial but I don't agree at all. Not with the 140kmh bit anyway...

Totally agree..... It should be 100MPH

[DexterPunk]

If he hadn't mentioned increasing the speed limit to 140kmh we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Then maybe it's a good thing he did. I'm all for it, as soon as the OTHER things he mentioned are in place as well.

Oh, I know, I know: we should have an 'old car lane' where any car older than 10yrs would have to go at 110, the rest of us could go at a more decent 140-150 on the rest of the lanes!

....so if i owned a mint Ferrari F40 id have to sit in the 110 lane while a beat up 8 year old Astra zips passed at 140?

[ysu]

ffs nobody can see a smiley if it's put into yer face? That was A JOKE! Yes a bad one. Sorry about that.

It's generally accepted that survivability limits are about 80kmh for head on and 50kmh for side on with current technology.

Yes: you can die in a 40kmh impact and you can walk away from a 140kmh impact but which do you think has the greater likelihood of resulting in a fatality?

Hence you want to avoid the impact. What you're saying shows that we should be travelling at 80, right? Where would you get at that speed? You'd have more accidents eventually, due to boredom.

Or you could accept it's part of life, bad things happen; then try to avoid the high-speed, and especially high-speed head-on collision as much as you can. This is what it's all about. How do people end up in the oncoming traffic? That's the issue, not the speed. The speed is a factor, that I agree to, but we've just shown that even at very low speed you can die, so eventually you need
- people who bloody watch the road, and know how to drive
- good cars which can tolerate bad road conditions, or small errors in input
- roads which can be driven without watching for pools forming on the road, without the need to avoid potholes, etc...

Do you get it now? It's just a repetition of the report, but really, it seems it simply does not sink in. All you can see is a blinking 140km/h sign in front of you, apparently.

Oh, do you want to ban planes too, because they go too fast? And you can die in planes very easily! Be very scared!

[nutty]

If he hadn't mentioned increasing the speed limit to 140kmh we wouldn't be having this conversation...

Then maybe it's a good thing he did. I'm all for it, as soon as the OTHER things he mentioned are in place as well.

Oh, I know, I know: we should have an 'old car lane' where any car older than 10yrs would have to go at 110, the rest of us could go at a more decent 140-150 on the rest of the lanes!

....so if i owned a mint Ferrari F40 id have to sit in the 110 lane while a beat up 8 year old Astra zips passed at 140?

Well a F40 is missing Airbags/Stability control/abs?? and what not, while sure it might stop/handle better then a Astra the safety features arnt there in a f40.

That being said, not 100% sure how I feel about a "old car lane"

[J.D.]

Hence you want to avoid the impact. What you're saying shows that we should be travelling at 80, right? Where would you get at that speed? You'd have more accidents eventually, due to boredom.

Not what I said. Not at all what I said. We both know that the anomaly already exists because there are several places where the speed limit is substantially above that. We both know that a vehicle traveling at 100kmh and running off the road will probably decelerate fairly significantly before it hits anything unless the driver falls asleep or tries to power out of it (as happened at Mill Park). Road speeds are decided by a number of factors including but not limited to surface quality and deviation, available run off area, proximity of houses or pedestrians, average vehicle safety level and probably assumed worst safety level (weather conditions, light, etc).

The speed is a factor, that I agree to, but we've just shown that even at very low speed you can die,

No, we showed that an anomaly exists but hardly a significant one.

so eventually you need
- people who bloody watch the road, and know how to drive
- good cars which can tolerate bad road conditions, or small errors in input
- roads which can be driven without watching for pools forming on the road, without the need to avoid potholes, etc...

Ideally, yes. So how do you tell that to a 19 year-old kid in a 15 year-old Commodore with three mates in the car? Should there be some sort of qualification period? Who qualifies and how? Yes, we should strive to achieve these ideals but human factors will be ever present. The issue of road construction is much harder to implement in some ways because it would require more substantial foundations and take a lot longer to build. The cost would not be justifiable in Australia.

Do you get it now? It's just a repetition of the report, but really, it seems it simply does not sink in. All you can see is a blinking 140km/h sign in front of you, apparently.

Read what I said in my second post (page 1).

Oh, do you want to ban planes too, because they go too fast? And you can die in planes very easily! Be very scared!

When you get to that level of reductive logic, you have lost the plot.

[DexterPunk]

It was just an example, I'm sure there's plenty of cars older than 10 yrs that would be more comfortable and safe at those speeds than newer ones.

An f40 does have racing harnesses though... That would count for quite a bit in a crash I'd think.

[ysu]

well, here's what you said; and your bottom line is, we don't want young people to drive fast. Actually; you don't want that, I've no problem with it if the circumstances are right.
The first post was even shorter, you stuck on the 140k right away.

A whole country has proven for years that it can be done safely. I think the germans have better road stats than Australia, am I right?
I rest my case. You can either understand it, or go bonkers over the speed - just as the government is trying to infuse you. Apparently their scare campaign is working well :/

And if you think they'll stop here, look at what are they trying to do with the internet (how about the latest; to log all browsing stats for a while?). Once people who can't think straight and haven't got the faintest idea get into leading positions, we're royally screwed. That's all it takes, really. Simpletons with good intentions and power...one very dangerous mix.

So? I hate quoting myself but here's what I said a few months ago:

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.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13999&hilit=Hoon&start=50" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a motherhood statement to say that we need more driver training: of course we do. Of course we should look at other country's road safety initiatives. "Better roads" are a different issue.

But do you really want 19 year-olds driving at that speed? No thanks.

[ysu]

...The issue of road construction is much harder to implement in some ways because it would require more substantial foundations and take a lot longer to build. The cost would not be justifiable in Australia.

This is laughable at best, mate... human lives saved plus the added benefits of faster transportation don't justify the higher road costs?
We obviously live in different worlds.
Or did I mis-understand something?

[petey]

When I drove up to brisbane from tassie. The highways that we took, I would not do again. I was travelling at quite excessive speeds for nothing else but because by the time I was halfway through NSW the amount of close calls i'd had with road trains had me wanting to get the fuck away from NSW as fast as possible. They wander all over the place on a road that is barely 2 lanes, couple their inattention and microsleeps with my own and I was doing my best to stay focused and move forwards.

I believe the road I took was the newell highway for most of the way. Speed limit was 100 for the majority (if not all) of it. There were many straights so long you could max out just about any vehicles top speed, however what worried me on that road was that wildlife could have walked in from anywhere as there were no fences or sidebarriers so I think that would need to be fixed before you upped the speed. Not only that but the road trains should have been doing 60kmh, better yet get real trains and get the ridiculous farking chunks of metal accidents waiting to happen off the road. I'm getting off topic here anyway.

Point is many new highways going into brisbane that I have driven could atleast be 110, however some sections are 90 for an unknown reason other sections at 100 are bottlenecked by either roadworks or people not merging at the speed limit. Haha again I'm getting off topic Ill zipit.


Basically I agree with most of the things skaife said and thats all.

[Quincy]

Top speed of all cars should be 90km/hr.
You have 3 boost charges for the overtaking when needed, rechargeable at petrol stations.
Every 2 hours, your vehicle slows, and will only get back to full speed once stopped for 15 minutes.




I just completed an 800km round trip in the kombi, public holiday, heaps of vehicles on the roads, didn't see one accident? Saw 5 speed traps, double demerit signs, flashing led signs to check speed. . . Traveled from mid-west NSW over the Blue Mountains, M2, M7, F3, Central Coast, Terrigal.

What was the road toll this long weekend?

[J.D.]

...The issue of road construction is much harder to implement in some ways because it would require more substantial foundations and take a lot longer to build. The cost would not be justifiable in Australia.

This is laughable at best, mate... human lives saved plus the added benefits of faster transportation don't justify the higher road costs?
We obviously live in different worlds.
Or did I mis-understand something?

Yes, you misunderstood something.

Why should the government spend a heap of taxpayers money on a scheme to make roads suitable for 140kmh or higher when for a significantly lower cost they can build them to be suitable for 110kmh?

The cost/benefit analysis doesn't support it.

Look what you'd have to do. as far as i know, Autobahnen are built with an asphalt surface over a steel reinforced concrete base and a fairly deep one at that because over time, as the road surface deteriorates, it becomes less and less safe. Rutting from heavy vehicles is a major concern. The longer you can keep a surface in the sort of condition you need to support those proposed speeds, the better. Agreed? That would require a very significant investment which could probably be better spent elsewhere. In the public eye - and judging from the readers' comments I've read in the daily blatts - it would not be a popular move. Most people apparently do not believe that the average driver has the skills necessary to drive a car over long distances at 140kmh and neither do I. That would mean that the government would have to spend an inordinate amount of money to fund the interests of a relatively small and vocal sector of the community. When it is significantly easier to build a standard bitumen road which can support a speed of 110kmh, the implications for a long term commitment to a high speed road system are pretty obvious.

It's not going to happen.

[J.D.]

A whole country has proven for years that it can be done safely. I think the germans have better road stats than Australia, am I right?
I rest my case. You can either understand it, or go bonkers over the speed - just as the government is trying to infuse you. Apparently their scare campaign is working well :/

No, you are not right, according to the RACV. They have done many things which are very worthwhile but that does not mean we should copy everything they do.

The Germans started the Autobahn system in the 1930s, well before anyone bothered about safety, so they were already well experienced with high speed driving.

What was the cost before anyone bothered with seat belts, airbags and ABS? That's to say nothing of the primary safety factors of better handling and brakes.

[richo]

Top speed of all cars should be 90km/hr.
You have 3 boost charges for the overtaking when needed, rechargeable at petrol stations.
Every 2 hours, your vehicle slows, and will only get back to full speed once stopped for 15 minutes.




I just completed an 800km round trip in the kombi, public holiday, heaps of vehicles on the roads, didn't see one accident? Saw 5 speed traps, double demerit signs, flashing led signs to check speed. . . Traveled from mid-west NSW over the Blue Mountains, M2, M7, F3, Central Coast, Terrigal.

What was the road toll this long weekend?

Bleeding Hippy!