Speeding is bad, mmkay?

[ajay]

show me where in the road rules, i WILL change my behaviour

Quick cut n paste from the Vic Roads website.

"Regulatory signs

Regulatory signs tell you what you can and can't do. It is illegal to disobey these signs.

They are usually black and white and sometimes use red to show danger or a limit. Other regulatory signs can be black and yellow.

Examples of regulatory signs are:

speed limit signs
stop and give way signs
pedestrian crossing signs
safety zone signs
keep left signs
no left or right turn signs
left and right turn only signs
no entry signs
keep left unless overtaking signs
emergency stopping lanes signs
one way signs
hand held signs (e.g. held by road workers or crossing supervisors)."


Whether you think its safe or not, isn't the point.

But yeah this is a bit of a dead horse now.

 

[Plankosaurus]

Just BTW, that was an iPhone changing "them" to "me" so no, I don't drive 20 under and fully agree that people should seriously consider their driving license driving so slowly - particularly on a freeway .

While it may be relatively safer if you are hitting a tree to be going slower, it's not necessarily safer overall going slower than faster. The reason isn't physics, it's traffic interactions. The guy going much faster is looking ahead and is expecting more interactions and interactions with traffic going at 20kmh slower than him. This is the opposite of the slow driver - for the average driver at average speed, they are not expecting interactions 20kmh slower than them ( or indeed 30kmh+ ) by sedans on flat stretches of road - hence they are more likely to be surprised, act wrongly etc.

Anyone who drives a lot in NSWwill be well aware of the sort of disruption to traffic flow that learners at 70kmh have caused on freeways ( a law now finally changed)- brake lights , swerving etc . About the most dangerous law I think I've ever seen in action.

So it's not undeniably safer because it's a complicated environment that's effected by behaviour and expectations. Once an accident happens it may be the case, but the number of accidents is also crucial to the overall effect

fair enough, i'm probably over simplifying things. either way though is introducing risk, and i'm less inclined to get pissed at someone driving slow because as a rule, they're twice my age and its really hard to get angry at someone that looks like a stiff brreze would snap them in half (just because i dont get pissed at them doesnt mean i think they should be driving - the way my posts are being picked apart at the moment i thought i'd better make that distinction)

and i didn't really think you were driving around at 20 under, i guessed it was a typo or generalism since you seem to be more on the side of speeding advocacy

 

[Plankosaurus]

Quick cut n paste from the Vic Roads website.

"Regulatory signs

Regulatory signs tell you what you can and can't do. It is illegal to disobey these signs.

They are usually black and white and sometimes use red to show danger or a limit. Other regulatory signs can be black and yellow.

Examples of regulatory signs are:

speed limit signs
stop and give way signs
pedestrian crossing signs
safety zone signs
keep left signs
no left or right turn signs
left and right turn only signs
no entry signs
keep left unless overtaking signs
emergency stopping lanes signs
one way signs
hand held signs (e.g. held by road workers or crossing supervisors)."


Whether you think its safe or not, isn't the point.

But yeah this is a bit of a dead horse now.

read my posts, i'm overtaking when i'm being an asshole :deadhorse:

 

[johnny]

You seem to have the idea that following laws make us safer based on the fact that the law is the line between safe and unsafe.

You also think that someone driving 100 in a 110 zone is measurably safer than some one doing 120 and thus the speed differential is only relevant for 10k over limit than under. The issues of impact at that speed and relative risk on straight wide roads is, I believe, negligible.

Your position on these matters and foundation of logic being based on laws reminds me of religious fundamentalism. When people point out considerable flaws in your position you say you're tired of explaining yourself and resign (not to mention silly loopholes such as "if I'm overtaking them at a rate of 1km an hour I'm not breaking the law" whilst ignoring that you are clearly not acting within the spirit of the law).

 

[johnny]

You seem to have the idea that following laws make us safer based on the fact that the law is the line between safe and unsafe.

You also think that someone driving 100 in a 110 zone is measurably safer than some one doing 120 and thus the speed differential is only relevant for 10k over limit than under. The issues of impact at that speed and relative risk on straight wide roads is, I believe, negligible.

Your position on these matters and foundation of logic being based on laws reminds me of religious fundamentalism. When people point out considerable flaws in your position you say you're tired of explaining yourself and resign (not to mention silly loopholes such as "if I'm overtaking them at a rate of 1km an hour I'm not breaking the law" whilst ignoring that you are clearly not acting within the spirit of the law).

And not to mention how you seem determined to save all us non-believers from ourselves.

 

[Plankosaurus]

You seem to have the idea that following laws make us safer based on the fact that the law is the line between safe and unsafe.

You also think that someone driving 100 in a 110 zone is measurably safer than some one doing 120 and thus the speed differential is only relevant for 10k over limit than under. The issues of impact at that speed and relative risk on straight wide roads is, I believe, negligible.

Your position on these matters and foundation of logic being based on laws reminds me of religious fundamentalism. When people point out considerable flaws in your position you say you're tired of explaining yourself and resign (not to mention silly loopholes such as "if I'm overtaking them at a rate of 1km an hour I'm not breaking the law" whilst ignoring that you are clearly not acting within the spirit of the law).

i used to make all the same arguments about the 'safety' of speeding, but eventually realized that they were all flimsy rationalizations to make me feel better about what i was doing. i also used to carry on about how people driving slow are more of a danger, again a flimsy rationalization to make me feel better about my own behavior.

cant say i'm a fan of being likened to a religious fundamentalist though, but call me what you will, sticks and stones etc. :noidea:

you're welcome to think that speeding is an ok rule to bend, the law will do what it does about it. just like i'm welcome to think that overtaking slowly is ok, soon as the law says i cant, i wont...

 

[Plankosaurus]

And not to mention how you seem determined to save all us non-believers from ourselves.

bwahahhahaaa - you will be SAVED, can i get a HALLELUJAH!?!?!?

 

[pharmaboy]

The studies used by TAC and RTA etc for speed control are based on the Adelaide studies back in the 80s - these are the claims that crash risk is doubled every 5kmh, that speed causes 1/3rd of serious accidents etc. yet in particular the Adelaide study had serious methodological flaws and has never been replicated again.

The middle view that corresponds with most worldwide data is that significant speeding is a significant contributor in 7% through to the high teens of fatalities. The far bigger causes, are drunkeness, drugs, and fatigue.

The last one is the most likely by a fair margin to take out fellow posters, not least of all because when you are asleep, you tend to hit things very hard and fast ( ie without braking)

Frankly, it's a miracle the road toll is so low - people get away with texting, sending emails, driving over centre islands, failing to see other cars pretty much every single day I'm out on the road, and maybe once every few years I actually see a prang happen in front of my eyes, and even those are all walk away from.

Given 20 million trips are made every day, it's amazing only 1 or 2 meet their chosen deity/oblivion per day

 

[Flow-Rider]

I would just give up plank, you do keep on repeating yourself every time someone new challenges you. I was sick of it after the fifth page. You're going to keep on doing what you do and other people are going to do what they do. No love lost here, each to their own :flock: :flock:

 

[Plankosaurus]

I would just give up plank, you do keep on repeating yourself every time someone new challenges you. I was sick of it after the fifth page. Your going to keep on doing what you do and other people are going to do what they do. No love lost here, each to their own :flock: :flock:

said the same thing a while back, but people seem to keep wanting conversation about it? :noidea:

 

[johnny]

cant say i'm a fan of being likened to a religious fundamentalist though, but call me what you will, sticks and stones etc. :noidea:
.

Well no, it's not intended to be trivial name calling, it's a legitimate observation and comparison. The faith you have in a law you doggedly cling to and your rationalization of your actions in the face of solid argument is religious in its character, in my opinion.

 

[Plankosaurus]

The studies used by TAC and RTA etc for speed control are based on the Adelaide studies back in the 80s - these are the claims that crash risk is doubled every 5kmh, that speed causes 1/3rd of serious accidents etc. yet in particular the Adelaide study had serious methodological flaws and has never been replicated again.

The middle view that corresponds with most worldwide data is that significant speeding is a significant contributor in 7% through to the high teens of fatalities. The far bigger causes, are drunkeness, drugs, and fatigue.

The last one is the most likely by a fair margin to take out fellow posters, not least of all because when you are asleep, you tend to hit things very hard and fast ( ie without braking)

Frankly, it's a miracle the road toll is so low - people get away with texting, sending emails, driving over centre islands, failing to see other cars pretty much every single day I'm out on the road, and maybe once every few years I actually see a prang happen in front of my eyes, and even those are all walk away from.

Given 20 million trips are made every day, it's amazing only 1 or 2 meet their chosen deity/oblivion per day

i absolutely agree that the larger part of the problem on the roads is peoples inability to take driving seriously. as you said, drink driving, texting, doing make up, holding a phone in their left hand on handsfree mode while talking to make it look less like they're doing something wrong, writing down peoples rego for throwing ciggie butts out the window, just simply not concentrating, etc. etc. - with all this going on, and it does far too often, why would a person want to introduce more speed into the situation?

thing i keep coming back to is that more speed = more energy to smash you to bits in an accident. a few speeds less might mean the different between a break and a crush, or a bruise and an impalement. at the risk of being called a current tonight watcher again (that was uncalled for BTW, not a nice thing to call someone) the simple truth is that speed is a factor in the damage done in all accidents. not saying all accidents are caused by speed, or that all accidents involve exceeding the speed limit, but simply that less speed would mean less damage. (yes, i know, slow drivers bad, cause accidents etc. i'm talking about the result)


Also - before johnny calls me a fundamentalist again, i'm trying to have a rational conversation here, not pick a fight.

 

[Plankosaurus]

Well no, it's not intended to be trivial name calling, it's a legitimate observation and comparison. The faith you have in a law you doggedly cling to and your rationalization of your actions in the face of solid argument is religious in its character, in my opinion.

i disagree. i do believe the law can be wrong, i just dont believe i'm the one that can decide that in this case. its been set out for a reason and its a tough thing to change without consequences. if the gov lift the limits and the toll increases, there will be a massive backlash on them and probably a kneejerk reaction that'll see things go further back in the other direction. its too difficult a situation for me to realistically think of a proper solution given our society and the stupidity that prevails, so i'll just do as i'm told because i havn't got a better solution (and because i'm lazy)

 

[floody]

Well that's a shit. The last three time's I've been done have 6 point hits. Unregistered car and no p plates, someone elses car no rego stickers made that one a bitch and honestly did put plates on that morning. No belt 6 points and now this 6 points.

How the hell does the system give someone on their Ps this many chances to F--k Up and still keep a licence? The mind boggles.

 

[floody]

People who speed and get caught are fully deserving of everything they get.
There are two basic reasons for the vast majority of infringements.

Inattention; e.g. "Wasn't really thinking, limit jumps down to 60 from 80 for a few hundred metres and I just cruised on through at 80"
I do not want to be on the road with that person, and of all people, they need slowing down because clearly their brains do not work at the same speed their vehicle is attaining.

Willing disobedience of the law: the wider public bleats non stop about limits being too low and other malarky to rationalise their not following the road rules, all the while treating speeding fines as a kind of 'excess' charge for their personal need to transgress the limit. This is precisely the reason why governments can bank on speeding fines as a source of revenue.
I do not want to be on our socially-provided roads, with their regulator-set limits, with people who clearly disregard the rules and safety of those around them to such a degree as to be regularly booked.

I was last booked for speeding in 2000, and I copped it sweet because it was fully due to my inattention.When I was a delivery driver in Melbourne I did 200km+ per day around the camera ridden toll-roads and freeways, never had a ticket. It's not hard not to get booked, just obey the limits and keep your eyes open.

If you want to break the 'speed kills, cameras save!' model, everyone stop speeding. Just drive a few km/h under. Don't bullshit me that it would require 'staring at the speedo' because if it does, you shouldn't be driving either.
Put a hole in your state budget comprising tens, hundreds of millions, the only cost to you is a journey that is seconds longer. I would bet on their being little change to the road toll because most accidents happen at intersections or due to inattention.

 

[pharmaboy]

i absolutely agree that the larger part of the problem on the roads is peoples inability to take driving seriously. as you said, drink driving, texting, doing make up, holding a phone in their left hand on handsfree mode while talking to make it look less like they're doing something wrong, writing down peoples rego for throwing ciggie butts out the window, just simply not concentrating, etc. etc. - with all this going on, and it does far too often, why would a person want to introduce more speed into the situation?

thing i keep coming back to is that more speed = more energy to smash you to bits in an accident. a few speeds less might mean the different between a break and a crush, or a bruise and an impalement. at the risk of being called a current tonight watcher again (that was uncalled for BTW, not a nice thing to call someone) the simple truth is that speed is a factor in the damage done in all accidents. not saying all accidents are caused by speed, or that all accidents involve exceeding the speed limit, but simply that less speed would mean less damage. (yes, i know, slow drivers bad, cause accidents etc. i'm talking about the result)


Also - before johnny calls me a fundamentalist again, i'm trying to have a rational conversation here, not pick a fight.

Well, it's only rational if it's logical - so let's just call it polite discussion heh

Your first paragraph seems to assume that those not paying attention behaviours are also speeding, and doing so deliberately - I'd contend that speeders ( gradual, not 20kmh over versions ) are extremely unlikely to be doing makeup, on phone, texting etc. in fact in my observance , the opposite applies - the person who has slowed is now texting etc - they've stopped paying attention to driving. HOWEVER, they often also miss a speed change sign and drive off thinking they're not speeding because they looked at their phone as they went past the 60 sign.

The "in the event of an accident" is classic govt advertising stuff - the question should always be, how do we reduce the number of accidents , but the police and TAC rta have given up on this and have gone the harm minimisation approach of slow all the traffic down so the inevitable hurts less.

What this does ignore is the cost of slowing transport down . If in order to save 10 lives a year in Melbourne , is it worth for instance having 2 million people lose 20 extra hours a year n the road? This is the typical math they don't do when examine these policies. They do it when building a new road, but not when visiting speed limits.

Human life isn't sancrosanct - there is a cost to family time, to work costs, to stress levels ,and the unemployment from lossed licenses etc of slowing all the traffic down to maybe save a few lives - we should be asking if the massive cost is worth it.

The other argument is that whilever the police force and govt is obsessed with a single thing like speeding, they therefore ignore other things like road design, managing fatigue, traffic flow etc

 

[slippy]

thing i keep coming back to is that more speed = more energy to smash you to bits

Which is a point noone is arguing. You keep coming back to it because it's a complete distraction from what we are talking about - YOUR RESPONSE to people speeding.

Let's make this clear. Noone is saying that speeding is right. OK? Can we take that as a given here?

What most of us are saying is that your response is not appropriate. You use other people's behaviour to justify your own. Your own behaviour is blatantly against the spirtit of the law. The law exists to keep an overtaking lane clear. There is no provision in the law for citizens to obstruct traffic, speeding or otherwise. By your own admission, your overtaking is merely a technicality, a secondary justification for your primary goal, to block the lane. Your focus is on blocking the lane and the car behind, it is not on performing a safe overtaking manoeuvre or on the road ahead, it is on the car behind.

So one more time for your benenfit, we are not talking about the speeder. We all agree they are wrong. But it's not a black and white, good guys and bad guys world. Sometimes two people can actually be doing the wrong thing. And the point we're making is that your misguided actions are also wrong. They do not add any level of safety, quite the opposite. You're deluded if you think you're teaching anyone a lesson, you are creating more frustration and encouraging greater risk taking. The safety thing isn't even your primary goal, it's to piss off the speeder. That constitutes playing games on the road which is the very essence of dangerous driving.

Go back to talking about how speeding is wrong. Go back to discussing other people's behaviour. It's the only tactic you have because you can't justify your own behaviour. Or just drop it and consider your own behaviour again like you did when you were a speeder.

P.S. You're about 1.6 billion dollars short of being a superhero.

 

[Pastavore]

thing i keep coming back to is that more speed = more energy to smash you to bits in an accident. a few speeds less might mean the different between a break and a crush, or a bruise and an impalement. at the risk of being called a current tonight watcher again (that was uncalled for BTW, not a nice thing to call someone) the simple truth is that speed is a factor in the damage done in all accidents. not saying all accidents are caused by speed, or that all accidents involve exceeding the speed limit, but simply that less speed would mean less damage. (yes, i know, slow drivers bad, cause accidents etc. i'm talking about the result)

Just so you don't feel completely alone Plankman, on this, I agree with you entirely.

 

[hifiandmtb]

I wish everyone would just shut the fcuk up.

:deadhorse:

 

[johnny]

i disagree. i do believe the law can be wrong, i just dont believe i'm the one that can decide that in this case. its been set out for a reason and its a tough thing to change without consequences. if the gov lift the limits and the toll increases, there will be a massive backlash on them and probably a kneejerk reaction that'll see things go further back in the other direction. its too difficult a situation for me to realistically think of a proper solution given our society and the stupidity that prevails, so i'll just do as i'm told because i havn't got a better solution (and because i'm lazy)

You've just added blind faith to your list of fundamentalist behaviors, lol!!