5km/h slower and he'd only have a bruised leg

[Ben73]

Sudszy, this morning I took a spin on Bylong Valley Way at 0445-0600. In a distance of 100kms I saw a grand total of 2 cars. Yes only saw another car every 50kms.

Remember this was at about 5am. Imagine if I drove that road at 2 this morning. Probably would of seen zero cars.

So am I a phsycopathathic maniac for doing 120 or so on the straights were I could see there was nothing for miles?
Was I really in much more danger? I don't think so.

[g220ba]

Anyone else victorias latest "road safety" advert telling us to watch our speedo at the end of it?

I'm sure that's a whole lot better than watching the road and we should all feel a lot safer that everyone's now straight out being told to watch their speedos.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by g220ba

Anyone else victorias latest "road safety" advert telling us to watch our speedo at the end of it?

I'm sure that's a whole lot better than watching the road and we should all feel a lot safer that everyone's now straight out being told to watch their speedos.

Well that's what they're obviously aiming for with a "zero tolerance" and stupidity like a 1 kph "tolerance" on speed cameras...

And pointing out that the current philosophy of road safety seems to be that if you stick to the speed limit you won't crash is not a strawman...it's jus pointing out the facts of the current situation. Far too many people think that 100kph is perfectly safe in all circumstances at all times of the day or night in any vehicle.

Asking for a proper driver education system doesn't paint all drivers with the same brush...there are undoubtedly good drivers who just take to it like a fish to water and actually take a bit of care and concentration in thier driving. However, a properly implemented system will catch up with the drivers who couldn't care less about driving and who see it as a purely automatic skill that doesn't require all that much attention from them while they do it.

We train drivers have to go through a system of complete re-testing every 18 months to 2 years. You could probably best describe it as having to "re-sit our drivers licence", as it were...and if we don't pass, we're off the track and on the platform until we get our skills back up to required standards again.
...a lot of us train drivers wonder what the roads would look like if everyone had to resit thier full licences and be thoroughly tested every two years and faced the prospect of losing thier licence if they didn't pass, and until they were back to the standard they couldn't drive.
I don't know, but I bet they'd be a lot emptier...and safer...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

And pointing out that the current philosophy of road safety seems to be that if you stick to the speed limit you won't crash is not a strawman...it's jus pointing out the facts of the current situation.

A fact would be them stating you wont have an accident if you keep to the speed limit(but no your fact doesnt exist so my claim of strawman in your post stands) , unfortunately your opinion and what you think the opinion of other drivers are isnt a fact.

The current philosophy is to at least keep people under a certain speed, I didnt see any adds telling people they must maintain 100km/h on twisty icy roads, or perhaps I missed them, let me know.

You bring up a good point, the adds could be more about slowing down in treacherous conditions, maintaining high following distance like on the freeway with rain pelting down and less than 200m visibility etc, though there has been strong emphasis on actually going slower than the limit and driving to prevalent conditions in the wipe off five campaign.

That being said the rta spend their advertising money where they see the "impacts" will be highest, most likely people going too fast when it is rainign on freeways isnt as big a cause of carnage as people that go too fast through shoppping centres etc.

[2011G6E]

Point taken.
I imagine it's far easier to just say to people "do this speed and you'll be safe", rather than expect them to use thier brains by saying "drive to the conditions and you'll be safer...there are situations where the speed limit may seem too slow, but there are situations where the speed limit is waaaay to fast such as an unfamiliar road at night or in the pouring rain". It's far easier and cheaper to just say "don't speed", and wear the consequences in circumstances where even doing the speed limit might get you into bother.
I do think they should stress more that driving is a skill requiring constant unending concentration, 100% of the time, which requires you to constantly monitor your surroundings minute to minute, rather than something that is "easy" to do and which doesn't require any special mental input on the part of the driver.

There's an interesting article about increased speed limits which gleefully reports on a fake study on a bogus website. However, the claims made are pretty much accurate...as speed increases, your concentration levels must also increase to take into account the information coming into your brain. The big problem is drivers who, through lack of skill or situational awareness at the best of times, seem to get overloaded as the speed increases and even have a problem at 90kph, much less the speed limit...not to mention drivers who just cruise along on automatic (thier brains, not the car).
http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...ml?comments=99

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I do think they should stress more that driving is a skill requiring constant unending concentration, 100% of the time, which requires you to constantly monitor your surroundings minute to minute, rather than something that is "easy" to do and which doesn't require any special mental input on the part of the driver.

Fine with me.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

However, the claims made are pretty much accurate...as speed increases, your concentration levels must also increase to take into account the information coming into your brain.

Well yes, the faster you go, the more info the brain needs to process, but its hardly an argument for going faster!

Commonly we have people here say how they will be more awake, alert when the go from say 100km/h to 120-130km/h on the highway as they feel the adrenaline of higher speed makes them concentrate better. Temporarily the effect occurs, but even tests there have shown the extra speed and risk of incident far outweighs any increase in reaction times needed in any crisis.

After a period of 10-15mins the body retains to the same state of awareness and all you have is someone doing another 20-30km/h faster.

Evidence of this: havent got time now, but if you trawl through my previous posts Im sure this has been thrashed out.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

The big problem is drivers who, through lack of skill or situational awareness at the best of times, seem to get overloaded as the speed increases and even have a problem at 90kph, much less the speed limit...not to mention drivers who just cruise along on automatic (thier brains, not the car).

Again, hardly a great argument for having higher tolerances or higher limits.

How do you test for these things, Im sure it could all be done on a simulator where people would have to be able to concentrate for an hour and avoid reasonable situations etc, fine with me if they have that too.

[Grunter]

Sudszy, can you please explain to me your reasons (backed up with facts) why you think the onus should be on drivers watching out for pedestrians stepping out on a road vs the advertising being spent on educating pedestrians not to step out on a road?

I don't get why if, for example, I'm driving at the posted speed limit, that i should wipe off 5 because someone else (pedestrian) is breaking the law or not concentrating in a situation where it is their responsibility to do so.

School zones aside as there are already reduced speed limits in place.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Grunter

Sudszy, can you please explain to me your reasons (backed up with facts) why you think the onus should be on drivers watching out for pedestrians stepping out on a road vs the advertising being spent on educating pedestrians not to step out on a road?

I don't get why if, for example, I'm driving at the posted speed limit, that i should wipe off 5 because someone else (pedestrian) is breaking the law or not concentrating in a situation where it is their responsibility to do so.

School zones aside as there are already reduced speed limits in place.

You've obviously missed the point completely.

It's not about pedestrians

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Grunter

I don't get why if, for example, I'm driving at the posted speed limit, that i should wipe off 5 because someone else (pedestrian) is breaking the law or not concentrating in a situation where it is their responsibility to do so

if for no other reason, think about how you would feel if the car you were controlling killed or maimed someone. even if you were totally innocent and they ran out without warning, i am tipping it would be a devasting, life destroying moment for you too


i do agree there is too much onus on driver's speeding, but if wiping off five helps you to sleep better at night, then it could be a very worthwhile investment into your future

[FalconXR6]

too many variables.

which is why the one speed fits all speed limit and zero tolerance rules will ALWAYS create anger, confusions and questioning.

it's like being at school where half the class is equipped with the appropriate stationary and are intelligent while the other half have snapped pencils, a tatty pencil case, no ruler, haven't read too many books and are dumb - the smart kids have more ability and are more capable, however they are held back because the entire class has to slow down for the dumb kids...

[gtxb67]

doesn't the five kph slower relate to not going 5 kph above the speed limit. maybe i am missing something, but the add i saw years ago, was relating to a 60 zone, with one car doing 65 and the other 60

for sure i agree with the idea that if you were doing 70 you would be long passed her, but the reality is if you hit her it was better that your speed was 60 (and the actual speed limit), than 65 which was speeding

it has nothing to do with slowing people unnecessarily, just keeping people legal




and maybe i have my head up my posterior, but if i was to hit a pedestrian i would rather them escape with a bruised leg than turn them into a corpse . . . or worse

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

doesn't the five kph slower relate to not going 5 kph above the speed limit. maybe i am missing something, but the add i saw years ago, was relating to a 60 zone, with one car doing 65 and the other 60
for sure i agree with the idea that if you were doing 70 you would be long passed her, but the reality is if you hit her it was better that your speed was 60 (and the actual speed limit), than 65 which was speeding
it has nothing to do with slowing people unnecessarily, just keeping people legal

My understanding is the campaign was inviting people to drive 5kph below the speed limit.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Rodp

My understanding is the campaign was inviting people to drive 5kph below the speed limit.

is there a new campaign, because i thought the original was saying a car doing 65 would do this. now wipe of 5 to 60 and it would now only be a bruised leg

i don't think i have ever seen a 65 kph zone. my assumptions may be totally wrong, but i had always thought it was saying do not speed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuY_VHzKdjc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-rCf...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z23CzSONiU

nothing about going below the limit, just not going over it

[Matthew]

Yes there aiming the add at the people who like to drive a bit over the posted limit

In regards to the 2nd add there i thought au series 1 had abs? i think those ads are slightly exaggerated to get there point across...

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

is there a new campaign, because i thought the original was saying a car doing 65 would do this. now wipe of 5 to 60 and it would now only be a bruised leg

i don't think i have ever seen a 65 kph zone. my assumptions may be totally wrong, but i had always thought it was saying do not speed


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuY_VHzKdjc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-rCf...feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z23CzSONiU

nothing about going below the limit, just not going over it

These are old advertisements, they have since abbreviated the 'Wipe of 5' into one liners in full page ads in newspapers etc, which has made the message somewhat ambiguous.

These days in perfect conditions, just about all the time I get drivers doing well below the speed limit, which shows that the recent abbreviated advertisments are actually becoming counterproductive. Many drivers are now driving too slow for the conditions, putting others at additional risk to get past. I see it every day. Perhaps you say these drivers should be more patient, but unfortunately its natural for patience to wear thin when it becomes ridiculous, for example doing 80-85kph, or even less, in a 100 zone on straight two way road on a fine sunny day.

In the old advertisements above, the onus seems to be on the drivers doing slightly above the speed limit. These ads show that even travelling at the speed limit, an accident may well occur, only because the other party is blatantly breaking the road rules by not giving way, or not looking when crossing the road. It seems the blatant road rule breakers are being totally ignored and actually being encouraged.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

These are old advertisements . . . . actually being encouraged.

i agree with you - i have never really liked those adds, because they do not take into account reaction times and skill level of the driver. and if you are doing 70, you would be passed the point where the girl walked out onto the road. however by being in a different place you may find yourself in another potential incident as well

my original point in this thread is to suggest that even if you were doing everything right (and lets face it, not many here or in the real world have ever done anything wrong), and someone walks out and is killed or maimed, then the incident will be hanging over your head for the rest of your life

not only do we need to be aware, and have a basic skill level, but we also need to drive to conditions. if there is a realistic possibility that someone may walk out onto the road then driving at 5kph over the limit is not driving to the conditions. whether they should have waited or not is irrellevant because every single one of us has performed a manouvre that had the potential to cause an accident. i have on numerous occasions and luckily for me, the other drivers have had enough presence of mind to avoid an accident

every single day on the roads we are faced with potential incidents and luckily most of us get away with them. just because someone walks out onto the road without looking does not mean they deserve to get hit

[Streets]

What's the go with programmable speed limiters? Why aren't more manufacturers including them in their cars? These days you wouldn't even need any kind of device for it; it could just be written into the programming and accessed through your in-car computer thingy.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Grunter

Sudszy, can you please explain to me your reasons (backed up with facts) why you think the onus should be on drivers watching out for pedestrians stepping out on a road vs the advertising being spent on educating pedestrians not to step out on a road?

The pedestrian might be a child. Yep, parents should be watching, the kid shouldnt be close enough to a road, but it does happen. And its a rough price to pay for a moments lapse of either the parent, or the poor judgement of kids. In either case, the kid pays the price far more than anyone else, and I dont think its reasonable to say ah well, thats life, we all take risks, and we all have to die some time. Not saying you did either.

Stuff happens, sometimes its a drunk adult stepping on to the road, or an adult engrossed in a phone app and I can see why some might say well thats his tough luck, but sometimes its something that isnt so simple. Problem even then is, its also your tough luck, as most human beings would have a hard time living with killing someone even if they couldnt avoid it.


I dont know if wiping off 5 will help, or if going 5 more would avoid the particular incident, what I do know is, wiping off 5 will help me stop quicker, and could make more than 5km/h of difference to an impact. Much like having decent tyres and operationally good brakes. Do I think speed limits on freeways etc are right, nope. I think in this day and age they could be higher, and roads should be designed to accommodate that.

[2011G6E]

In my job as a train driver, there are times when some moron drives around the boom gates, ignores the red flashing lights, and it's a near hit. I've had it happen several times, and let me tell you your heart jumps into your mouth when it happens, even though you know you'll be perfectly OK if you hit said moron.

The thing is, we are taught to approach a level crossing and make sure of a few things...that we are doing the speed limit for that area, that our headlight is on, and that we've sounded the horn. After that, if someone chooses to try and beat you across the crossing, it's in the lap of the gods, and isn't your fault.
There have been all sorts of suggestions to reduce the incidents...from the ludicrous (make trains slow right down to 10kph or so at crossings), to the expensive and high-tech recently suggested, fitting every single vehicle in Australia with a gadget that picks up the signal from a trains in-built GPS transponder and which warns, audibly, that a train is coming.
The problem is, every single damn one of these suggestions appears merely to be trying to make it more safe for a car driver if they choose to break the law and pull across in front of a train, ignoring the boom gates and lights.

This brings us back to the original "5kph slower and he'd only have a bruised leg" comment.

Why should we make it easier and safer for people who choose to break the law and do stupid things? Why do we have to formulate things to allow for the lowest common denominator (or lowest IQ...) of pedestrians and drivers? Why are entire sections of the road rules formulated to control drivers to allow for people who have no common sense skills at either walking or driving? (such as a case where a driver was prosecuted when a drunk walked out in front of them in an area near nightclubs where the judge said the driver "should have expected drunks to be"...)
Drivers should be retested every two years, thoroughly, and if they don't pass, they lose thier licence until they undergo more training and can prove thier skills have improved. A licence isn't a right, and it will be expensive, but we are repeatedly told "if it only saves one life, it's worth it", aren't we?
Pedestrians should be told "this is a road...its for cars. If you choose to ignore simple pedestrian crossing rules and walk out in front of them, don't be surprised if something nasty happens...obey the crossings and the law you'll be OK".

Of course in our society, we must molly-coddle and wrap in cotton wool every single member of the public who have absolutely no interest in using one shred of common sense in either driving or walking the streets.

As with my job of driving a train and watching out a level crossings, if I am driving my car legally and doing the appropriate speed limit for an area, and some numptie walks out in front of me and I unfortunately hit him, I am afraid that isn't in any way my fault and I won't be beating myself up over it. Thankfully the results of inquiries (apart from the aformentioned rare "drunk walking in front of a car" case which would be overturned on appeal) we see when just such a thing happen mean the authorities agree wit this stance...if a driver hasn't been doing anything wrong when it happened, he quite rightly has no case to answer.

[Ben73]

5km/h slower and they will of only had a brusied leg.
10km/h slower and they only have a fright.
15km/h slower and you would of only had to brake slightly
20km/h slower and you would of seen them get hit by the car in front of you.

[Grunter]

My post was based on the assumption that the wipe off 5 campaign means if your doing 60 in a signposted 60 zone that I should be driving at 55.

My point, in a roundabout way, is that if driving at 5kph has such a big impact on reducing incidents involving pedestrians, why not change the speed limit? Seems to me that there is conflicting messages. I'm either doing as I should by the laws set by the government (60 in a 60 zones) or am I now not doing as I should because the government is saying I should be doing 55 in a 60 zone.

If I was doing 60 in a 60 zone and hit a pedestrian (child or adult) I would be absolutely devastated, who wouldn't, but if I'm doing as the law states I wouldnt be second guessing myself with regards to my driving within the law.

My other point is that the responsibility is being aimed at the drivers, when it's the pedestrians who are at fault (assuming the vehicle and driver is within the required law). If some drunk staggered out in front of a car, it's not the driver who caused this. If a parents (which I am one) child ran out in front of the car, it's not the drivers fault.

I'm coming across as a bit hard on this and I don't mean to, but drivers are being asked to manage more and more new things each year in circumstance where the actual cause of a lot of these problems are not being targeted.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Grunter

My post was based on the assumption that the wipe off 5 campaign means if your doing 60 in a signposted 60 zone that I should be driving at 55.

My point, in a roundabout way, is that if driving at 5kph has such a big impact on reducing incidents involving pedestrians, why not change the speed limit? Seems to me that there is conflicting messages. I'm either doing as I should by the laws set by the government (60 in a 60 zones) or am I now not doing as I should because the government is saying I should be doing 55 in a 60 zone.

If I was doing 60 in a 60 zone and hit a pedestrian (child or adult) I would be absolutely devastated, who wouldn't, but if I'm doing as the law states I wouldnt be second guessing myself with regards to my driving within the law.

My other point is that the responsibility is being aimed at the drivers, when it's the pedestrians who are at fault (assuming the vehicle and driver is within the required law). If some drunk staggered out in front of a car, it's not the driver who caused this. If a parents (which I am one) child ran out in front of the car, it's not the drivers fault.

I'm coming across as a bit hard on this and I don't mean to, but drivers are being asked to manage more and more new things each year in circumstance where the actual cause of a lot of these problems are not being targeted.

What is this based on?

No-one is asking anyone to go slower than the limit just not 5 or 10 kays over which everyone seems to do.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Grunter

My post was based on the assumption that the wipe off 5 campaign means if your doing 60 in a signposted 60 zone that I should be driving at 55.

My point, in a roundabout way, is that if driving at 5kph has such a big impact on reducing incidents involving pedestrians, why not change the speed limit? Seems to me that there is conflicting messages. I'm either doing as I should by the laws set by the government (60 in a 60 zones) or am I now not doing as I should because the government is saying I should be doing 55 in a 60 zone.

If I was doing 60 in a 60 zone and hit a pedestrian (child or adult) I would be absolutely devastated, who wouldn't, but if I'm doing as the law states I wouldnt be second guessing myself with regards to my driving within the law.

My other point is that the responsibility is being aimed at the drivers, when it's the pedestrians who are at fault (assuming the vehicle and driver is within the required law). If some drunk staggered out in front of a car, it's not the driver who caused this. If a parents (which I am one) child ran out in front of the car, it's not the drivers fault.

I'm coming across as a bit hard on this and I don't mean to, but drivers are being asked to manage more and more new things each year in circumstance where the actual cause of a lot of these problems are not being targeted.

Both the pedestrian, and driver are to take responsibility. Its not a legal issue if youre obeying the law, including driving to the conditions. The driver isnt held responsible when he is within the law, and the pedestrian has just wandered into traffic, although he may be questioned until the police can establish who did what. However, its often both who are doing something wrong which is why you sometimes see both being held responsible in court.

I do wish they would bring back Hector the cat, and I do recall ads that included teenagers focused on gameboys or whatever it was, and walking in front of a car. The ad may have been directed at drivers, but as a parent, I pointed out the kids error too to my kid. Even still, Id prefer to drive at a sensible speed and not hit the poor bugger engrossed in his Pokemon, no matter who is at fault.

If that ad, or the one with the guy stepping out in front of the bus he just got off, into traffic doesnt wake the pedestrian up, what apart from a bumper bar followed by the bonnet and windscreen and then back to the pavement will? Its a rather harsh warning.

The ads target both IMO.

[2011G6E]

They've already suggested lowering city speed limits to 30kph...don't give them silly ideas...

As I said...why do we have to continuously lower and lower speed limits to suit idiotic pedestrians in towns and bad drivers on the highway in some areas?
"Driving at a sensible speed"...well if it's a clear fine day, and you are sitting on the speed limit in town (be it 50 or 60), you are driving at a "sensible speed". Some towns have signs at crossings saying "Pedestrians must give way to traffic", which puts the responsability exactly where it belongs...on the human being who can stand and take the time to assess the situation before crossing the road, rather than putting it all on the shoulders of the car driver who is travelling at 13 to 14 meters per second and has to deal with not only human reaction speed of a couple of seconds, but also braking distances and other traffic. "Look both ways before crossing the road"...and don't blame anyone else if you don't...

In towns, they've lowered residential speed limits to 50. As I mentioned above, there have been proposals that it be lowered to 30. In my area, there have even been serious suggestions by people writing in to the local paper (Rockhampton Bulletin) that highway speed limits should be lowered to 80kph...everywhere.
There are long stretches of the Bruce Highway, national highway number one, which are 80 to 90kph, with no overtaking allowed...and the reason that they were a "high accident zone" was that morons were pulling out onto the highway in front of traffic. Near Bundaberg, the roads down to the coast are now all 80kph, Bargara Road because of three young drunk girls in a car that missed a corner and hit a light pole, killing one, and Elliot Heads Road, because a woman pulled out in front of traffic, killing her. In that case there was a Transport Department enquiry, saying the road was good, visibility was fine, it was purely driver error and the speed limit of 100kph was appropriate for the area, yet the council bowed to an emotive campaign in the local paper saying "Don't let our mummy die in vain", and lowered it to 80kph.

Nowadays, instead of demanding higher and higher standards from drivers, we are instead just shrugging and simply accepting a small percentage of drivers on the road have very low driver skills and just shouldn't really be out there at all. We also seem to accept that people will walk out in front of cars and somehow cars (instead of the pedestrian) should be blamed for the results, and lowering speed limits to try and keep the idiots safe.

[geckoGT]

The simple fact is every time you lower the speed limit, some idiot will still step out in front of a car and get hurt. Such lowering of speed limits may even increase pedestrian complacency, the attitude "cars are now traveling slower, they can stop" may occur. Have a look in busy city areas with a high volume of pedestrian traffic and low vehicle average speeds, pedestrians frequently walk out in front of cars expecting cars to slow down for them. I see this happen frequently in the city of Brisbane during daytime hours or in the nightlife districts.

Having said that, you see this situation happen less frequently in areas with lesser pedestrian traffic and higher average vehicle speeds at the speed limit, such as urban areas with 60 zones.

Also all this talk of if you hit the person you would feel terrible, yes you would but where does this all stop? I know of a fatality caused by one person running into another with a mobility scooter. Another was a fatality caused by a cyclist running into a pedestrian, pedestrian received a fatal head injury, impact speed was 20-30 km/h. If that thought process is the driving force behind your opinion on this, the only way you can be sure no one will ever be hurt on the road is for everyone to park the cars and walk (don't run).

Simple physiological fact, the human body is only designed to take an impact at walking speed, nothing more. That is the only way you will achieve absolute road safety.

I am not against sensible setting of speed limits for the environment, such as 40 km/h zones around high pedestrian volume areas, schools etc. I am also not against enforcing those speed limits in those areas. I am against the constant lowering of speed limits in all areas because some drunk, drugged or inattentive person may step out into traffic, educate them as well and start dishing out big fines on them, they are breaking the law too. I am against the driver always being the one held responsible, there are times the pedestrian is at fault, I have seen many of them. Every person needs to be held responsible for their own actions, those that can not take that responsibility should stay at home and not mix with society.

I went to a job once where a intoxicated person stepped out in front of a vehicle traveling at about 80 km/h in a 80 zone. The result was serious head injuries and unlikely to survive for the pedestrian. This occurred on a motorway where pedestrian traffic is prohibited, should we lower the speed limit there too? I mean how do you think that motorist feels, he may have killed someone?

[wodahs]

im a road train driver if i hit the pedestrian at 5 to 15 ks lower than posted he'd have more than a bruised leg and all you drivers be winging more at that speed at being stuck behind me

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

They've already suggested lowering city speed limits to 30kph...don't give them silly ideas...

As I said...why do we have to continuously lower and lower speed limits to suit idiotic pedestrians in towns and bad drivers on the highway in some areas?

Im fairly certain, its already been established the consensus is its not aimed at driving at 55 in a 60, but is aimed at doing 60 not 65 in said 60. Or 50, not 55 in a 50.

ie: not ;lowering the speed limit, but aimed at drivers who like to use the 'tolerance' or just push the limit by 5km/h. Its targeted at the average Joe in his Barina or Corolla, not the so called 'hoons' so at least its not always the 'boy racer' being targeted.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im fairly certain, its already been established the consensus is its not aimed at driving at 55 in a 60, but is aimed at doing 60 not 65 in said 60. Or 50, not 55 in a 50.

ie: not ;lowering the speed limit, but aimed at drivers who like to use the 'tolerance' or just push the limit by 5km/h. Its targeted at the average Joe in his Barina or Corolla, not the so called 'hoons' so at least its not always the 'boy racer' being targeted.

Yep, just looked at a few of the adds again and that seems to be the case.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The simple fact is every time you lower the speed limit, some idiot will still step out in front of a car and get hurt. Such lowering of speed limits may even increase pedestrian complacency, the attitude "cars are now traveling slower, they can stop" may occur. Have a look in busy city areas with a high volume of pedestrian traffic and low vehicle average speeds, pedestrians frequently walk out in front of cars expecting cars to slow down for them. I see this happen frequently in the city of Brisbane during daytime hours or in the nightlife districts.

Having said that, you see this situation happen less frequently in areas with lesser pedestrian traffic and higher average vehicle speeds at the speed limit, such as urban areas with 60 zones.

Also all this talk of if you hit the person you would feel terrible, yes you would but where does this all stop? I know of a fatality caused by one person running into another with a mobility scooter. Another was a fatality caused by a cyclist running into a pedestrian, pedestrian received a fatal head injury, impact speed was 20-30 km/h. If that thought process is the driving force behind your opinion on this, the only way you can be sure no one will ever be hurt on the road is for everyone to park the cars and walk (don't run).

Simple physiological fact, the human body is only designed to take an impact at walking speed, nothing more. That is the only way you will achieve absolute road safety.

I am not against sensible setting of speed limits for the environment, such as 40 km/h zones around high pedestrian volume areas, schools etc. I am also not against enforcing those speed limits in those areas. I am against the constant lowering of speed limits in all areas because some drunk, drugged or inattentive person may step out into traffic, educate them as well and start dishing out big fines on them, they are breaking the law too. I am against the driver always being the one held responsible, there are times the pedestrian is at fault, I have seen many of them. Every person needs to be held responsible for their own actions, those that can not take that responsibility should stay at home and not mix with society.

?

It would appear from your comments that you have misinterpreted the wipe off 5 campaign, its clearly asking people to not exceed the limits and give pedestrians and other road users/ even ourselves a fighting chance if and when we/they muck up.

Its not about lowering speed limits from what is already out there, just having people observe them, do you have objections to that?

I suppose in reply you are going to argue that some of the ads encourage pedestrians to fling themselves into the paths of cars because the ad campaign will get car drivers so they only get hit at 5km/h?


I dont think so!, the adds also bring to people's attention what can happen if you are an inattentive pedestrian, kid on a bike that doesnt look properly , the car driver if another vehicle pulls out in front of you, etc

the ads of benefit to everyone it would seem......apart from the this doesnt apply to me because Im an advanced driver, spent half an hour on a skid pan... yada, yada

[Ben73]

These ads are not about lowering limits. But it seams more often then not the governments solution to fatalities is to lower the limit in that area. Some idiot downs a bottle of vodka then wraps their car around a tree at 170kmh. Then the speed limit for that road suddenly drops.