Tim Blair

You can hear Peter Bachelor now;

"Even if it saves just one life .......blah blah"

Is it just me or do other people also see that this policy is pure Labor Party. They desperately need the money to help contain their irresponsible recurrent spending, but ideologically it is sound because it should make more people use public transport.

The fact that it may hurt car manufacturers is just icing on the cake because "car manufacturers" is just another term for "capitalist american running dog pigs and their sycophants" isn't it?

Public Policy through Punitive Punishment!

Yuck.

Time for counter-measures.

In the context of higher population and far more cars the figure may not be directly comparable.

Whatever.

Motorists still drive way too fast in many situations.

These drivers don't understand that speed is not the issue, having been misled by the Speed Kills slogan.

Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden stopping that does it. Since you can't control the unanticipated something out of left field, all the legislation is designed to do is to provide a blanket solution by reducing the 'mean' speed of every moving object on the road.

Sounds like a perfect Ramsay Tax to me!

This bushranger tactic of the Bracks government can be defeated if ALL people booked for doing less than 4 kms over the speed limit refuse to pay the fine and go to court and argue an "unjust law" argument particularly on the basis that the speedometer tolernace guaranteed by the manufacturers is broader than the "no tolerance" provided for under the law. If the court refuses this argument then still refuse the fine and opt for prison. I like to see how this "robber" government would cope with the courts clogged and the prisons packed with people who have done 4 kms or less than the speed limit. But I suppose we are all too busy and gutless to take on the government even over an unjust law..

Ilibcc may not be a Victorian and thus may not understand that being 3km/h over the speed limit (however briefly) now qualifies a driver for a photo and a hefty fine.
Never mind a 40 year period devoid of any traffic infringements or bingles, you are now going to become a speeder simply because it is technically and physically impossible to drive with such constant precision.
And it will get worse!
Should the fines start to fall off, Batchelor will simply cut the margin to 2km/h and thereby restore the revenue that the ALP's budget now relies upon.
Slow down - ah yes - and get abused, tailgated and cut off, by the multitude of bad drivers that can afford speeding fines and don't care about their points tally or driving reputations.

We need to remove all speed limits and let drivers decide the appropriate speed in any particular situation.

For example, some people are such good drivers that they know they can easily do 70 or 80 kmph through a school crossing without grazing more than couple of kiddies. Others will slow down because they are namby pamby safety nazis who are scared of taking out an entire fifth-grade class at any speed above 30 kmph.

They're our cars! Let us decide how fast is safe!

robd

'get abused, tailgated and cut off, by the multitude of bad drivers ...'

The multitude of bad drivers is precisely why the Government has to take a blanket approach to try to cut this plague of death - and injury particularly - on a scale unmatched by disease or war.

Advanced driver training with actual experience of the effects of speed should also be compulsory. That's a no-brainer.

Currently you can get a licence for learning to steer, being able to recognise a stop sign and handing over.

... a nominal fee.
Sorry.

Ilibic, dangerous driving and speed are two completely different matters. Travelling at 40kmp or 35 won't alter the consequence of dangerous driving.
But then there is also genuine driver error - again, reduced speeding it.

One is fed up up to the gills checking the speedo whilst driving. It breaks the concentration.
Then there are pedestrians who seem bent on tackling the front end of any auto that happens along.The old nerves jangled somewhat when one of them popped up in front of the bonnet, a whole three feet in front - managed to glide past by , propbably rustled the coat.

Drivers who, missing a turn decide to cut across a lane or two. Drivers slamming on the breaks on highways for the same reason. Drivers blocking overtaking and fast lanes. Tailgaiting - I could see the pupils of a driver in the rear-view mirror, on a highway at 110kph.

Good road design. Right turn arrows at a number of intersection are a must.But what does good old real tax-payer- add on the bloody fuel excise scam, and the other scam, licences fees, get for the dollar, bloody speed cameras and booked for a piffling 3kph over and Spring St . communards who have read too many Dick and Dora books.

I drive a volvo, it cruises on the highway gently at 110,and it is bloody irritating having to check the speedo, and break to bring it down to the purtincal speed. In the city, it runs at 65 to 70 without having to depress the accelerator.Breaking power, I can stop it from 60-70 back to 0 in its own car length if I need to.But you can thankgood old guvment for pricing new models of well engineered, superior cars out of the hippocket of many - that bit of rot the luxury sales tax.

Illibic, do you also notice the great variance in driving speed, markedly in cities and ponder why ( the thickos in Spring St. just sniff hot air). According to conditions, there are times, many times when the traffic is well under speed limit.Other times, due to conditions,over.

Slow drivers. Byciclists on roads which are built for motors not `health fanatics' and communisto tree huggers. Get byciclists orff the bloody road, they are dangerous and the break road rules like running red lights, weaving between cars and so forth. Rip up the tram tracks -besides having nearly enjoyed the thrill of some trammies slamming those waste of tax pyaers dollars into the side of ones car a couple of times - they ran red lights . A firend did enjoy the thrill of being dragged along the tracks in their `luxury' car - and just as as well it was `luxury car- for the veichle was flattened but she wlaked away injured because of that machine.

Gee, not much about speed and accidents in what one has related.

As the saying goes, no individual raindrop considers itself responsible for the flood. We could end flooding if we could just gather every single raindrop as it was falling and dispose of it somewhere safe. But we can't, so instead of focusing on individual raindrops, we have to focus on protecting ourselves from the flood.

The point of this is that I have to go to the bathroom. BRB.

d is a Volvo driver.

Figures. I imagine his driving is as exceptional as his punctuation and spelling.

One this, one that ... what sort of identity problems do you need to talk about yourself in the third person?

Back in your hole, cretin.

Re: Radar Militia

Boo hoo. Cry me a river.

"I can't stay under the speed limit because I'm a freaking moron"

That is about right.

It's all because you have your steering wheels on the wrong side, and you drive on the wrong side of the road.
Amazing none of you touched on that fact....

I should add, if your volvo (or any car for that matter) is cruising at 65 k with your foot off the accelerator, take it in to the garage for repair. it should barely creep when put in drive with your foot off the accelerator

Perhaps Dan will feel differently when he is old enough to get a driver's license.

There's nothing wrong with having speed limits. It's speed limits that are unrealistically low that are frustrating. And a 3 km/h tolerance - how asinine is that?

Jeff Kennett for PM.

I can see where tossing it in drive and it goes 65k per hour is good if you can't reach the pedals, but how does Dan stop?

I agree, 3k tolerance is unrealistic, in fact, it's against the law here if you get a ticket for that,
manufacturer's can't make a speedometer that has those tolerances.

oops Pythagoras made that arguement above

I would like to know how many of those fines issued are actually being paid? I mean this would surely have increased the load on the debt collecting agencies and the like in Victoria. Do these costs counterbalance the increased revenue in any way? Are there any statistics on the type of drivers that are getting pinged the most? It would make an interesting study.

Wrong Wyatt - it is the difference between a well engineered machine and the bubble cars many drive becuase of `protection' policies and that other scam the `luxury tax'.
Though, despite those two scams, the figures are revealing. In Australia, the sales mix is 70% business and 30% retail on new car turnover.In the use it is the reverse.Makes sense, drive off in the new car, and lose half the capital instantly.

So, Australians are damned two ways, over-pricing and wate of capital on new cars; constrained to kiddies bubble toy perambulators advertised as a motor.Ha.
Wyatt, I won't be going to a mechanic so they can bugger the works.What you need to do, Wyatt, is trade in your bubble car for a machine worth driving.

How do I stop? I'm glad you asked that question. I use a wand. A magical wand.

Feel better now?

'd' rants:
"dangerous driving and speed are two completely different matters. Travelling at 40kmp or 35 won't alter the consequence of dangerous driving."

Rubbish! A car's kinetic energy is proportional to the square of its speed. The damage done in an accident is proportional to an even higher power of speed than 2. Accidents at higher speed are worse than slow speed accidents. Furthermore at higher speeds drivers have less time to react to unforeseen problems and dangers, increasing the chances of accidents. The worst thing that can be said about enforced very slow driving speeds is that drivers can get bored and distracted.

"Drivers who, missing a turn decide to cut across a lane or two. Drivers slamming on the breaks on highways for the same reason. Drivers blocking overtaking and fast lanes. Tailgaiting - I could see the pupils of a driver in the rear-view mirror, on a highway at 110kph."

So you admit speed is a factor! Yes there are many other bad driving habits besides speeding - but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

"Breaking power, I can stop it from 60-70 back to 0 in its own car length if I need to"

Bullshit!

"Get byciclists orff the bloody road, they are dangerous and the break road rules like running red lights, weaving between cars and so forth."

Well I'm a cyclist (and a driver), and you won't be getting me off the road. Cyclists had the right to ride on the road before cars were even invented - if you don't like it then YOU get off the road! I also find it hypocritical that you should argue that cyclists should be banned from the roads because they are (according to you) breaking road rules, yet you are demanding that the road rules that irritate you should be changed!

If some cyclists are breaking road rules (which I don't) then fine them!

Tom, I don't say speed is a factor, the factors I listed are delberate actions of driving.Nor does one care for tailgating at even 30kph or someone slamming on the breaks because they missed a turn.

Note Tom, when driing one maintains proper separation from the car ahead, which at 110 , I maintain 10-12 car lenghts - which is why one did not slam into the cars ahead who slammed their brakes on at 110kph.In other words , they went from 110 to zero - both cars ahead in the dual lanes .But because of separation, I did not slam into them. Apparently, if speed is the cause of crashes I should have slammed into them anyway.

Here is an interesting incident: Of a family of 5, 2 children killed , one adult seriously injured, one child injured.The accident occurred at low speed, it was below 60khp - the veihicle that hit them it was at a speed of 20-40 Kph: the family were travelling at no more than 5 , for they were reversing out of a parking spot on the street.

Why did the accident occur - I don't have the account. One factor, however was separation barriers placed in the middle of the street. The veihcle that hit them had no room to move over into the centre, in order to avoid them: the family car was a bubble car.

Bycicling is dangerous on roads because of course they don't move at the rate of the traffic and can be hard to identify until close to them.
Roads were originally built for horse and carriage, the motor has replaced the buggy.Roads are payed out by motorists not bloody bycicalists (nor) bloody trams.That's it , that is the hard fact of life Tom, roads are built by and for motorists, roads are a logistics network not a convience for twats using leg power.

As for the pedestrian who toyed of wearing the front end of the car - I was crawling at 5 kph , one would say 5kph would see a pedestrian visit the emegency theatre of say, the Alfred, on a trolley.

Aint Bullshit Tom - I was surprised the first time I had to slam on the brakes in the veichle.

Where is the statistical analysis showing the success of radars in reducing the road toll?

Surely a 330% increase in speeding fines would have some sort of effect? The yearly road toll number posted above suggests that radars are not working effectively to reduce the road toll.

So it appears the government is pushing ahead with this radar program that has a negligable effect on the road toll. You have to ask if they are really serious about reducing the road toll.

If radars could be clearly demonstrated to significantly reduce the road toll the I would be happy to have one on every corner.

Also add, Tom, have witnessed a number of accidents which each of them were at low speeds.The results were ghastly.In one case , the crash occurred at a lighted intersection.I was walking the footpath; by gum was it ugly.Yet, it was due to a driver.

A 330% increase does have some sort of effect. A 330% increase in revenues to the spivs in Springs ST. But that 330% might have to go up another 330% since moves are a foot to increase the payroll by another large amount once again.

What a laugh, payrolls go up across the board of the Spring St communrds consumption and things deteriorate. Melbourne, viz crimes, the streets were far safer under Kennett and Stockdale than the current pack of spendthrifts.Melbourne seems to be descending into the good old Cain-Kirner years, all round.

This govevermnet of thumbsucking dribblers is fit only for dribbling thumbsucking dick and dora hectoring wombat voters.Please , oh please Spring St Commies, stop forestry, lock up the land, make lots and lots of rules to make things oh so damned moral.And spend lots and lots of money on `social workers', lots and lots of games, big choo train sets, and speed cameras, and tax fat capitalist pigs because they are just greedy selfish immoral thugs for every cent they have. And stop anyone doing three kph or more over the speed limit because because, I wanna feel safe;boo hoo, your local shop stocks tissues go buy a pack and have a good cry.

'd' continues his rant, but his spelling, grammar and punctuation are so bad I scarcely know what he is arguing. He SEEMS to be saying the following:

* you can have a bad accident at low speed therefore speed limits are irrelevant - there is a mountain of evidence (available on the web!) that proves beyond all doubt that high speeds result in more and worse accidents (for example, on the German autobahns where 160km is considered a moderate speed, most accidents result in fatalities).

* "I don't say speed is a factor" - then you are deluded

* Bicyclists (note the spelling, 'd'), despite legally using roads since long before 'd' was even conceived, should just disappear to allow more room for 'd' to drive in his own self-determined manner. Sorry 'd' it's not going to happen. Roads are paid for by all levels of government to which I contribute both as a driver and as a taxpayer. A considerable proportion of expenditure on roads is fixing up the damage caused by large trucks, buses and to a lesser extent cars - bicycles cause NO road damage whatsoever. If we were all slugged according to road damage caused, cyclists would be liable for 3 fifths of bugger-all.

* "roads are built ... for motorists" - no roads are built for all users of the road: trucks, cars, public transport and cyclists.

All levels of government don't pay for roads it is capital profit earning investors who, at bottom, do the work.

Roads are distribution networks ,motorised distribution.They are not built for bicycalists.No logistics needs, no roads - not even for twat peddlers to crawl along on.

I think you will find, Tom, heavy duty carriageways were built centuries before bycicles were invented.

On the statistics, Tom, the German autobahns are safe to drive on.

There is no positive relationship between speed and the number of accidents. Crashes occur at any speed.

At 30-60, injuries can be incurred, 80 to 100 Kph,serious injuries and death can occur.At over 80 to 100 , there is no increase in the possibility of death and very grave injury.All this says is, given the probability of crashes, the consequences of a crash is a function of mass and velocity.That is not an argument of causation which is why, factors which in combination issue into a crash, are distinct from velocity.

On speeling, etc. ,Tom, just typos. So you can ram that down your toilet bowl.

One will add the obvious observation, the estimation of the relationship between velocity and the consequences of a crash are generalisation which do not explain serious injuries and death at speeds far lower than the generalisation would otherwise lead one to expect.

Indeed, the frequency of very grave injury and death at low speeds should be a mystery, well, it is a mystery, since, if speed is the cause of crashes and high speeds fatalities and serious injuries.Why do they occur at low speeds and at what one considers at a significant frequency?

"At 30-60, injuries can be incurred, 80 to 100 Kph,serious injuries and death can occur.At over 80 to 100 , there is no increase in the possibility of death and very grave injury.All this says is, given the probability of crashes, the consequences of a crash is a function of mass and velocity.That is not an argument of causation which is why, factors which in combination issue into a crash, are distinct from velocity."

What a fucking mess. One senses that you are trying to sound more intelligent than you really are.

You contradict yourself. One would think that if the consequences of a crash is a function of mass and velocity, then the higher velocity one travels at, the more severe the connsequences of any resulting crash. Therefore at speeds over 100 there should be an increase in the possibility of death and serious injury.

Speed is not a factor which issues into a crash? It is a fact that as you increase speed your required reaction time is increased. As a matter of pure deduction then, the probability of crashing increases. If you have statistics to the contrary, please reveal them. Otherwise one would suggest you read up on Physics.

That's it! I'm moving!

Not a mess, Dan.
Speeds higher than 100 entails no added risk of death or grave injury.

Speed is not a causal explanation of crashes only the consequences of a crash and that explanation tails off after 100kph.

In other words , concentrating on speed will not stop crashes and their frequency, nor serious injury and death.

There is no contradiction involved.They are two distinct arguments.

Speed does not alter your reaction time; it affects the braking distance required to stop which is why , at 100, a separation distance of 10 car lengths is recommended - a distance which provides adequate breaking distance. Or a car who shoots immediately across the bows eliminates spacing , or a tailgaitor who also has elimanted distance.Thus, the one tailgated, to illustrates brakes because something ahead.Tailgaitor detects and racts - but there is no distance for braking so bang right up the rear,no matter what the speed is, except a crawl at 1 or 2 kph.

If reaction time is, for example, one second, it will remain second between detection and the habituated counter response, irrespective of what speed you drive at.Reaction time remains the same, speed doesn't alter reactions.

And be sensible about this, unless insane, the reasonabledriver doesn't run at 100 in the city, except on the highways.Nor do they drive at 70 on a freeway. The reasonable driver drives according to the prevailing conditions at the time. The reasonable driver observes the rules of the road , including spacing - which also include ensuring those entering a highway have the room to do so, spacing before re-entering lane before overtaking, not cutting across 1/2/3 lanes trafficor stopping altogether because, dang, there is the turn off,not trying to force a driver out of lane because dang, you want to get ahead,giving plenty of warning before a stop or a right /left -hand turn and not car length as plenty of drivers do.The list is endless and they have nothiong to do with speed and they are the causal factors of crashes, and many offenders one has observed are wimmin - including young profssnal thingos in `powersuits'

Others not as in this case. Entering Princess H. from apron the one just before Westgate bridge. Car behind. Car to right with 10 lenghts until next car behind that one. The seond car is nealry clear when car behind , instead of following into lane overtakes in order to enter. That's all right, just - since when that car about to clear still 8 lengths spaartion from the 3rd car.

The stupid bitch in the 3rd car acclerated and closed thge 8 lengths just as the second car was about to clear. I was nearly out of apron. A 4th car following up fast. I breaked hard to let 3rd clear, foot down and netered.
The stupid bitch in car 3 had one of those cretinous things stuck in the rear window `baby on board' .

No, Dan , speed is not a worry it is fuckers like those drivers who cause the crashes, and so death and injury. But hey, slow every one down so stupid twats with baby signs can feel secure while they just shove others into hard obstacles.

Dan, I didn’t know the web-blog was a spelling test. Reminds me of a school teacher!

Driving today is be a fairly complex task, I believe 3 k is a bit severe, if you have to maintain the speed limit to that degree of acuity, I would argue some of the many other important facets of driving maybe neglected.

There is little doubt the higher the speed the more damage, if accidents and the road toll are to be lowered, we have to look root causes of these accidents. In most, one vehicle is on the wrong side of the road. Very few are caused by anyone speeding by 2, 3, Kmph. If a vehicle is doing 20k under the limit, very soon other road users will be required to overtake, therefore greatly increasing the risk of having an accident. If you make a two hour trip take four hours, has it become safer? Fatigue! Speed! Alcohol.

Every long weekend / holiday we hear advice / threats to “slow down” rather than the more correct “drive to the speed limit and or road conditions” Some people need to drive faster, some slower, get the message. Some assholes just shouldn’t be on the road.

Speeding fines have increased in Victoria by 330% since the Bracks government was elected but the road toll now stands at 241 -- just one less than in 1998.

Earlier this year road toll stats were lower than last year and the Bracks government were claiming that the 3k over policy was responsible.

I took the view that blind faith must be involved to believe that drivers are taking a year to react to an initiative that improves safety. More particularly, the iniative in which they claimed to repose so much faith in was introduced in early April, 2002. April, 2002 saw the second highest number of road deaths for an April since 1992. The road toll in 2002 for the record was higher than 1992 in spite of a decade of road development and vast improvements in car safety features that should have caused a natural decline in the absence of any other actions.

Now it is catching to previous years. It is certainly a revenue raising scam.

Dan,

You typed:
"Speed is not a factor which issues into a crash? It is a fact that as you increase speed your required reaction time is increased. As a matter of pure deduction then, the probability of crashing increases. If you have statistics to the contrary, please reveal them. Otherwise one would suggest you read up on Physics."

I have come across a website from someone who works in theoretical physics who applied his knowledge of physics to the issue of speed and crash risk. This is what he came up with.

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/speedsci.html

He concludes:
"In conclusion, this analysis corroborates what most of us already know from experience: the safest thing to do is to go with the flow and screw the speed limit."

Perhaps you should read up more on physics.

Further in the same statement you seem to be suggesting that speeding causes crashes and you invite statistics that suggest otherwise.

Queensland Transport has an annual publication "Road Traffic crashes in Queensland" that has speed causing 5% of crashes. I'd submit that as a statistic countering your assumption that speed is a big cause of crashes.

Finally on your pure deduction about reaction time required increasing if people reacted the same at different event rates then FA-18s would crash and burn every day of the week. The faster you drive the more alert you become and within reason the better you are able to cope with unexpected events.