Should road cars be speed limited?

[XlR8TED]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I tried to give you some rep points for it but I gave some not long ago so I can't, this post was worth some more though.

Thanks buddy

2) we could learn from the germans and teach and educate our drivers some skills and responsibility, and we could travel even faster than we are now and still reduce the death rates to the same level.

This one for mine, too.

I'm sure most people here would have seen Mark Skaife's short doco he did not too long ago? He basically went over to Germany to observe their attitudes to young driver training to see what we could learn, with a view to increasing speed limits here if people had the requisite training. He got back and (I think) the Victorian premier entirely dismissed it, saying that speed limits would not be raised. Nothing to say on the training component. That's the attitude of those in power - money over safety.

[GTP owner]

In answer to the OP, there is no good justifiable reason for a car to do 160km/h.
BUT....
New car sales at the high end of the market would almost cease immediately (I know I would not buy a new gt if it only did 110km/h). Fleet buyers would not be that fussed, but remember that fleet sales don't make for profits - the private ones do. Private buyers would just hang on to their older cars, at least for 5 years plus until they really wear out.

Used cars before the limiters would go up in price, reflecting the general dislike of them. That makes it hard for the working people to afford a newer, but still second hand car that may be safer for them.

Governments would stand to lose significant amounts of revenue. Both from the cameras and the loss in new car sales.

Government noddies would be very very cautious to put their faith in the "speed kills" mantra because the limiters would have to be associated with a reduction in deaths....which it would not, so they look bad.


I actually think it is inevitable that they will come in. History repeats itself, and I can see a day when the new GTH falcon produces 350+kw and Holden retaliates with a new GTS with 400kw. The media grab a hold of these missiles capable of 300km/h and screams for the supercar madness to stop.....and the government will bring them in. (supercar scare 2)

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

In answer to the OP, there is no good justifiable reason for a car to do 160km/h.
BUT....
New car sales at the high end of the market would almost cease immediately (I know I would not buy a new gt if it only did 110km/h). Fleet buyers would not be that fussed, but remember that fleet sales don't make for profits - the private ones do. Private buyers would just hang on to their older cars, at least for 5 years plus until they really wear out.

Used cars before the limiters would go up in price, reflecting the general dislike of them. That makes it hard for the working people to afford a newer, but still second hand car that may be safer for them.

Governments would stand to lose significant amounts of revenue. Both from the cameras and the loss in new car sales.

Government noddies would be very very cautious to put their faith in the "speed kills" mantra because the limiters would have to be associated with a reduction in deaths....which it would not, so they look bad.


I actually think it is inevitable that they will come in. History repeats itself, and I can see a day when the new GTH falcon produces 350+kw and Holden retaliates with a new GTS with 400kw. The media grab a hold of these missiles capable of 300km/h and screams for the supercar madness to stop.....and the government will bring them in. (supercar scare 2)

So if\when the CLP get back in and open up the (//) again ........

[Cooper69S]

i don't agree with the suggestion. what would you set it to? 100? 110? 130? what if the 130 limit in NT gets removed? what about emergencies where people might need to temporarily exceed the speed limit? also there are many countries where cars that are also sold here can legally do any speed they like. plus there are plenty of 'off road' places where people might legally want to go faster.
one system that I see merit in is a GPS controlled limiter with an override option that I saw discussed on TV a while ago. In order to exceed the limit you'd need to override the system which would report the override request with some central monitoring mob and you'd have to justify your reason for speeding (eg emergency of some sort). I reckon something like that could possibly be made to work... (conspiracy theories aside)

Originally Posted by GYRKIN GT

(2) Car is forfeited, no matter who owns it, and it's crushed;


I suppose where I'm coming from is that I become slightly irritated when I hear about some moron doing 222km/h is his WRX and, because of that moron, some Prius lover will very likely suggest putting a speed limiter on MY GT!! Stuff the moron.

2 things...
1) I'm sick of reading people call for car crushing... raises my pulse every time I read it somewhere. There is one reason and one reason only (IMO) to crush a car and that is if it is worthless like the crusty old galant they crushed over here recently. otherwise crushing is a complete waste, sell it instead and do something useful with the money. even unroadworthy cars can be worth decent money as a track car. Hypothetically, if I commited some stupid act a coupla times and my car was crushed instead of sold, If I'd been planning on buying my old one back then I'd have to change my plans and buy another one just like it instead - what has crushing then achieved? nothing. All the crushing idea does is pander to the pitchfork weilding lynch mob out baying for blood. it's ridiculous. I haven't heard of any valuable cars being crushed either so it seems that the law enforces have more sense in that regard than many keyboard warriors.

2) we have laws and penalties for exceeding the speed limit pretty much ever since we've had cars. there's no real need for this bloke to be national news. I don't know that bit of road, but being on a freeway at 1am there's a fair chance that he was at less risk of doing any damage than I was when I did 200kmh in a wrx at Barbagallo raceway with other cars in front and behind me. I'm not trying to justify his actions, just that the media sensationalises this stuff way too much. people have always sped in cars, police have usually caught them eventually, and in these circumstances he'd always have lost his licence for longer than any car impound period (who cares if the car is impounded if you have no licence anyway ).

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by flappist

So if\when the CLP get back in and open up the (//) again ........

Not going to happen. Too much pressure from the states raping us with the cameras, and they themselves will be enjoying the windfall from the voluntary taxation on the road.
There will also be ramifications if the road toll goes down after reintroducing open speed limits. Politicians are lie, but they hate getting caught.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Not going to happen. Too much pressure from the states raping us with the cameras, and they themselves will be enjoying the windfall from the voluntary taxation on the road.
There will also be ramifications if the road toll goes down after reintroducing open speed limits. Politicians are lie, but they hate getting caught.

What you mean like the mining tax and carbon tax were a fait acompli?

NT is not Tasmania nor Victoria.......

[mrbaxr6t]

you ask why should we make cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit? heres why in a nutshell if cars are limited in some way to the maximum allowable on any given stretch of road the revenue stream from speed cameras would run dry how are they going to fill up the multi billion dollar hole in their budgets?

as for having better driver training and open limit roads again no more speed camera happy snaps and a great big multi billion dollar hole in state budgets

do you guys really think the ones in charge of these things give a flying crap about how many die on the roads or about how many are injured most of the ones that are "in power" have the sole priority of remaining in power and collecting their tax payer funded retirement packages they don't care and they never will

[castellan]

Originally Posted by XRSex

Saying something is a fact, doesn't make it so you twit. If you're ok with jumping in a car with a drunk driver, that's your issue. He could be Mark Webber & I wouldn't get in. Booze effects your reaction times and motor skills. THAT is a fact.

There's good arguments for and against a speed limiter. Personally I'd go with not having one. No one NEEDS to exceed more than 130ish, but I disagree with government control creeping in to every part of our lives. The truth is people exceeding limits by those sorts of speeds aren't very common & isn't going to do much to help with road toll.

We have much better cars today than we had 40 years ago, but do we have any sort of better driver training to justify increasing the limits? I'd like to see a licence class system, where further driver training grants you access to higher powered vehicles. Want to own a 300rwkw vehicle? You should probably be learning how to control it if you stamp the loud pedal too hard. Only want to drive to and from the shops? That's fine too, but you're limited to a shopping cart. Perhaps a punishment could then be that if you're caught being an idiot in a high performance vehicle, you lose the right to drive a vehicle in that class for x months, and are required to re-do the training? It would mean only real enthusiasts would bother getting trained up.

Just thinking out loud.

Where is it that you call some one drunk ya clown.
Like Some would think it's at 0.05 like the hysterical morons who run around crying he is drunk he is drunk he is 0.05. there living in a fantasy world. we are not all robots and we are not all the same. and some people have slow reactions and bugger all motor skills to start with don't they and that is a fact.
I think i said that i had more faith in his ability than some i know when they are sober and that is a fact. in fact he would have to be extremely ****ed to be as bad as some i know sober.

[Revolver]

One thing that was covered briefly here was driver education. Drivers need to be educated more on what cars (& types of cars) can do. High performance, Standard bog stocks, hatch backs, utes, vans, etc. Not just this one way nonsense of just strapping a teenager in a car & "teaching" them how to drive. Now bare with me, this could be long-winded.

Now this is taken straight off Top Gear, however in Finland it takes 3 years to get a licence, you have to spend 6 hrs on a skid pan, driving lessons in the dark, different whether conditions, etc.

How many people have experience in all whether conditions (minus snow, how often does it snow in most parts of QLD, NT, WA). Its all very serious stuff over there. This would eliminate straight away some of the mistakes made by all drivers. Now I may be stereo-typing here, but this is just an example. The same arguement can be made for any age group/sex/race etc, but to me this is usually the worst.

I dont know how many 17-25 year old women know how to control their car. I mean REALLY control their car. This was highlighted this week by my (only) ex-girlfriend. Some how she lost control of her KIA RIO, spun around into the other lane, & rollled the nose of the car along the concrete barriers at Redbank. It put the cars nose out of joint, & bent the drivers guard but thats it. All the other cars, & truck managed to stop behind her safely.

She is fine, the airbags didnt deploy, but she has a little bruising from the seatbelt if you get my drift, however I cannot remember accuratley the amount of times I got a call from her in rain saying that she was scared to drive... She doesnt know what under or oversteer is, drives pretty much mindlessly along with her radio at full volume... Now Im not judging, because I wasn't there. I have given her the benifit of the doubt on this one... The accident was just one of those things that can happen.. There's a number of scenarios that could have played out. But It has got me thinking. How one earth did she loose control THERE?

Education would be a damned good start. So that people straight on their "p's" know what kind of car they are driving, be it theirs, or the families transport or treasure. Now due to this education, they understand as to what a car does at whatever speed. This in turn (in theory) should give a better quality of driver on our roads, better drivers, better conduct, higher speeds (if road quality improved first).

Now, another arguement can be said on the other side of the fence on this one. "Ive been through 100hrs of certified driver training, skid pan, car control technique... I can handle any car in any condition, i can do whatever speed I want." Giving drivers that over confident feeling, & *bang*, back to square one, beause they are driving too fast for road/traffic/wheather conditions.

Not to mention who is going to foot the bill for this training? The facilities, training cars, the actual training costs. Now it may be decent for Finland, but in each state, there are how many drivers? Thats alot of infrastructure & time & therefore money to educate drivers. The good ol speed camera revenue would be a good source of income for this programme, but I doubt each state will give it up for this... But hang on, using same philosophy behind the Flash for cash operations, if it only saves one life, its worth it isn't it? (Maybe that paragraph is borderline political).

I suppose in a nutshell what I'm trying to say is that IF a proper (uniform across all states) driver education progamme was to be implemented it should in theory give way to better driver quality. Better driver quality means more people can handle high speed limits & varying conditions. Higher spped limits, no real need for limiters.... So in some ways echoing XRsex's comments.

BBII

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Fev

I will never advocate this. All we need is a much stricter punishment system based on the stupidity of the driver. Blanket fines and the like don't really work. Of course they will prevent 99% of drivers from speeding etc, it's the minority who are the ones getting news attention like that moron doing 222kw in his Wrexie (bro) and they're not the ones to give a flying proverbial about what the police say or what the law says.
If it's a much more severe punishment like jailtime and hefty penalties as well as impounding/crushing THEN and only then will they think again.

Why? Why advocate such heavy fines penalties and fines on drivers? Vehicle impounding and crushing? Seriously? I'm yet to be convinced the justification for such heavy handed penalties are required.

There are far greater crimes committed on a daily basis that do not attract the same level of penalty as traffic infringements. Glassings, stabbings, serious assault and drug crimes often carry a less of a financial penalty than someone doing 20-30km/h over the speed limit. The folk that carry out these crimes also don't give a flying proverbial about what the police or laws say. Yet the motorists cops it in the neck. When is the last time someone charged and committed with GBH or sexual assault lost their house or all their worldly assets?

Why isn't there an anti-suicide squad in the police department or health department with the same budget as the state Traffic Enforcement Groups? After all, suicide claims far more victims that road fatalities where speed was a contributing factor!

It's my god-damn democratic right to drive my car at what ever speed I so choose. What's next, we'll all be driving hybrid Camry's?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by castellan

Where is it that you call some one drunk ya clown.
Like Some would think it's at 0.05 like the hysterical morons who run around crying he is drunk he is drunk he is 0.05. there living in a fantasy world. we are not all robots and we are not all the same. and some people have slow reactions and bugger all motor skills to start with don't they and that is a fact.
I think i said that i had more faith in his ability than some i know when they are sober and that is a fact. in fact he would have to be extremely ****ed to be as bad as some i know sober.

I think you need to give it a rest.

0.05 is the limit because there is medical proof that at levels of BAC above that, perception of hazards, reaction and decision making is hindered enough to jeopardise the average person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle (regardless of alcohol consumption conditioning). Some occupations that require an even higher level of skill driving require even less, my occupation stipulates a legal requirement for 0 BAC and I assure you the average person in my occupation is a much better driver than the average Joe. By your reasoning I should be able to go to work with a BAC of 0.08 or higher, because my skill will still make me better than some people, perhaps I could be 0.15 because guaranteed there will be someone worse.

The level of acceptable BAC is not open to opinion, that is law and it is proven medical fact, regardless of what you think. Under the influence of alcohol a persons actual ability to operate a vehicle can be severely affected long before they physically appear drunk.

Its not about him being such a good driver that he could be ****ed and appear to drive better than some others (a ridiculous claim), it is about people being safe to operate the vehicle, perhaps the others that you know should not have a license.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The level of acceptable BAC is not open to opinion, that is law and it is proven medical fact, regardless of what you think.

Well actually in Vic its lower, so obviously unless your opinion is to lower it I guess your not allowed to have an opinion.

[jpd80]

I'm no expert but speeding in a 60 kph residential zone seems to be far worse
than speeding on an open highway, anything that prevents our families form
being exposed to lunatics racing where we live is a positive.

Why not "hard lock" limit 40/50/60 kph zones to 60 kph and then unlock for all
other areas and allow drivers to use their judgment. It could be easily done
with drive by sensors or sensors embedded in the road that talk to the cars ECU.

Probably far too practical for RTAs to consider, there is the cash income to consider....

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by XRSex

I'm sure most people here would have seen Mark Skaife's short doco he did not too long ago?

No, how can I get ahold/watch it. im not a fan of Skaife, but would like to view it to see what he found & his point view.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Why? Why advocate such heavy fines penalties and fines on drivers? Vehicle impounding and crushing? Seriously? I'm yet to be convinced the justification for such heavy handed penalties are required.

There are far greater crimes committed on a daily basis that do not attract the same level of penalty as traffic infringements. Glassings, stabbings, serious assault and drug crimes often carry a less of a financial penalty than someone doing 20-30km/h over the speed limit. The folk that carry out these crimes also don't give a flying proverbial about what the police or laws say. Yet the motorists cops it in the neck. When is the last time someone charged and committed with GBH or sexual assault lost their house or all their worldly assets?

Why isn't there an anti-suicide squad in the police department or health department with the same budget as the state Traffic Enforcement Groups? After all, suicide claims far more victims that road fatalities where speed was a contributing factor!

It's my god-damn democratic right to drive my car at what ever speed I so choose. What's next, we'll all be driving hybrid Camry's?

I see what you are saying and I will agree to the inequality of punishments between traffic offences and lower penalties for criminal offences. The way I see it though is this point is not against harsher penalties for those that commit serious traffic offences (remember we are not talking 20-30 over, the case that inspired this thread was 112 over). It is more of a point the need for an increase in penalties for the criminal offences.

The question is what is a suitable punishment, do we just jail them longer? Remember in 1788 we jailed people for years for stealing a loaf of bread, we even sent them to other lands as punishment. Did that drop the crime rate at the time, no it didn't.

That is why I am a supporter of confiscating the vehicle of serious offenders and selling it off to fund positive changes in driver education or perhaps to assist victims of road trauma. That way we are hitting the offender where it hurts, vastly reducing their ability to drive without a license and we do not have to put a roof over their heads, cover their medical and food in their mouths while we are at it. Yes that might seriously damage their life, boo hoo, they know the risk when they put the pedal to the metal.

By the way, I fixed it for you.

It's my god-damn democratic right to drive my car at what ever speed I so choose, as long as it is at or below the speed limit on public roads (unless on a track, then it is open slather)

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Blue Beast II

No, how can I get ahold/watch it. im not a fan of Skaife, but would like to view it to see what he found & his point view.

I think this is the one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TELMuD0-FDA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ECr...eature=related

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Well actually in Vic its lower, so obviously unless your opinion is to lower it I guess your not allowed to have an opinion.

No it isn't, 0.05 is the limit for the average driver, P plates, truck drivers etc are different.

Here is the relevant section out of Vicroads

Professional drivers such as truck, bus or taxi drivers; P-platers and learner drivers must have a zero blood alcohol concentration (BAC), while all other drivers must stay under .05 BAC. You must be under .05 BAC while supervising a learner driver. This rule applies to public roads and also private property.

Just like I said.

0.05 is the limit because there is medical proof that at levels of BAC above that, perception of hazards, reaction and decision making is hindered enough to jeopardise the average person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle (regardless of alcohol consumption conditioning).

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

No it isn't, 0.05 is the limit for the average driver, P plates, truck drivers etc are different.

Here is the relevant section out of Vicroads



Just like I said.

Like I said lower the .05. If you blow .05 in Vic you lose your licence for 6 months. As opposed to a couple of years ago were .05 was fine.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Like I said lower the .05. If you blow .05 in Vic you lose your licence for 6 months. As opposed to a couple of years ago were .05 was fine.

Now you are nit picking, the limit is 0.05 (unless the vic government legislation is wrong), so the most you can read at is 0.0499999999 (not sure how many decimal places it goes but I reckon that has it covered)

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Now you are nit picking, the limit is 0.05 (unless the vic government legislation is wrong), so the most you can read at is 0.0499999999 (not sure how many decimal places it goes but I reckon that has it covered)

Ahh, so what your saying is if I'm 0.05 that everything is fantastic, but if I hit 0.051 the world will come to an end and I'll make the baby Jesus cry?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Ahh, so what your saying is if I'm 0.05 that everything is fantastic, but if I hit 0.051 the world will come to an end and I'll make the baby Jesus cry?

For gods sake, its not my law.

The thing is with law such as this, there has to be clear line, not a grey area, get over it.

By the way, this is very

[AussieAV]

I know this is a complex problem with no simple solutions, but from the responses, a few simple truths do seem to be standing out.

Firstly, governments are addicted to the revenue stream that infringements provide, probably because it's something they don't have to class as a "tax" in their budgets. Getting them to kick the habit is going to be hard, very hard, although the actions of a few local councils in the UK maybe gives us hope.

Secondly, they are always going to be people who do not care how their actions affect others, sometimes not even how they affect themselves. No laws are going to change this. They will always be present in society somewhere. Also, sometimes good people have momentary lapses and make horrible, ill-considered decisions. In these moments, it can be hard to distinguish them from the complete idiots.

Maybe the fact that in a nation of nearly 22.5 million people, 1 guy in a WRX doing 222 km/h at 12:30am is newsworthy, means that we are not too far off having it pretty close to right after all.

I get the feeling that many years ago, he probably would have been applauded as a rebel hero by a reasonable percentage, and not so widely condemned for his actions as he been now. I take this as a positive sign, a glimmer of hope that the attitudes of the driving public might be improving (I know that we on AFF are the elite pointy end of the spear , but I think its flowing through to Joe Public a bit too).

Hopefully as our driving attitudes mature, it will eventually become impossible for the government to any longer justify the ridiculous zero tolerance approach of fining us for just a few kays over the limit (no matter how badly they want to keep it). - call me an eternal optomist.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

I know this is a complex problem with no simple solutions, but from the responses, a few simple truths do seem to be standing out.

Firstly, governments are addicted to the revenue stream that infringements provide, probably because it's something they don't have to class as a "tax" in their budgets. Getting them to kick the habit is going to be hard, very hard, although the actions of a few local councils in the UK maybe gives us hope.

Secondly, they are always going to be people who do not care how their actions affect others, sometimes not even how they affect themselves. No laws are going to change this. They will always be present in society somewhere. Also, sometimes good people have momentary lapses and make horrible, ill-considered decisions. In these moments, it can be hard to distinguish them from the complete idiots.

Maybe the fact that in a nation of nearly 22.5 million people, 1 guy in a WRX doing 222 km/h at 12:30am is newsworthy, means that we are not too far off having it pretty close to right after all.

I get the feeling that many years ago, he probably would have been applauded as a rebel hero by a reasonable percentage, and not so widely condemned for his actions as he been now. I take this as a positive sign, a glimmer of hope that the attitudes of the driving public might be improving (I know that we on AFF are the elite pointy end of the spear , but I think its flowing through to Joe Public a bit too).

Hopefully as our driving attitudes mature, it will eventually become impossible for the government to any longer justify the ridiculous zero tolerance approach of fining us for just a few kays over the limit (no matter how badly they want to keep it). - call me an eternal optomist.

Without a doubt the best post so far.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

There's no point in putting in speed limiters. Electronic gadgetry can always be played with.

I reckon just put in speedos that don't read over 140kph. Once over that the needle just stops even though you might only be changing in to second gear. If you are truly interested in speed, you'd be more interested in lap times than kph.

Joan Claybrook tried that in Mericah - epic fail. Drivers of such equipped delights simply drove their speedometers flat on the interstates. Didn't achieve anything useful, so that idea stopped.

On the open road, if you are chasing anything over 140 (even overtaking shouldn't get you up to here), then you're a tool anyway.

Meh, quite a few times when 140-180km/h was uber safe and quite legal, triple digit speeds can be quite safe, still, but Labor, once again - killed off (//) in NT as they did in all other states. Prevailing circumstances matter.

[Auturbo6]

As u Aussie AV, i don't agree with it, but can come up with no relevant arguement against such legislation. I really must be getting old. 33 going onto 50. LOL.

[zdcol71]

double post

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

do you guys really think the ones in charge of these things give a flying crap about how many die on the roads or about how many are injured most of the ones that are "in power" have the sole priority of remaining in power and collecting their tax payer funded retirement packages they don't care and they never will

I was so close to weighing out of this one, ....but ....just for one moment, think about who this all encompassing statement actually refers to.

AGAIN (this thread is no different to a thousand others), take the revenue out of it,and tell me that you are the moral compass who determines the thousands of people involved in attempting to reduce the road toll that they couldnt' give a flying crap about how many die on the roads.
By your logic, if staying in political power rested solely with solving the problem of the road toll, then those involved should be actively encouraging us to kill each other on the roads to justify constantly introducing legislation to reap financial reward off this carnage.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think there are a lot of people out there,("the people in charge of these things", and I don't mean just the pollies), who might be sitting at home tonight working on the next possible alternative to saving someones life. Just like the uncaring, insensitive bastards did when they introduced seat belt legislation, or stricter design legislation, or lower blood alcohol legislation, or ......

[302 XC]

So speed limit cars
Is this seriously just to funny for words ???
Mates mum has a VZ commondore,it is designed to NOT accelorate when the pedal goes down hard
When you need to pull out to overtake or get out of a situation,it WONT do it
Unless you have a big stretch of road
There have been a few situations (when i have been in the car)where people have pulled in front of her ,shes gassed up to reduce a collision and nothin happened
So having a limiter of sorts,is that better or worse ???
We ALL have been young once,we ALL have done some bad
We pay the price and HOPEFULLY learn from this
But it seems the generation now,(not ALL but quite ALOT)
Are unstopable,unbreakable over and beyond any rules/laws that the rest of us have to live by

Crushing the cars, well thats another desk jockey unintelligent thought process
What if its your car, the hoon is caught in,wanna crush it then ???
What if theres money owing on it,who pays that ???
Up go our insurance premiums

Its not the car that does the damage ,its the idiot behind the wheel
Its not the gun that does the damage its the bloke firing the bullets
They had a big gun ban didnt they

Whats next ban anything that does more than 110Kmh
Resort to riding pushies like japan/china

Then what ban 12 speed malvern stars ?????

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Ahh, so what your saying is if I'm 0.05 that everything is fantastic, but if I hit 0.051 the world will come to an end and I'll make the baby Jesus cry?

With studies, impairment to driving starts to occur at 0.05 but not so much below that, that's why the limit was dropped from 0.08 to 0.05 years ago. I don't believe that zero or 0.02 BAC levels achieve anything.

And as Gecko will back up, most people involved in car crashes where alcohol
is involved are way over the 0.05 limit anyway, think 0.12 to 0.25 rolling ****ed.

And FWIW, I only support speed limiting vehicles in built up areas (60 kph and under)
where the speed differential and population density can only end in tragedy. On open roads,
drivers should be given responsibility to decide whether to speed or not and suffer the consequences.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I think you need to give it a rest.

0.05 is the limit because there is medical proof that at levels of BAC above that, perception of hazards, reaction and decision making is hindered enough to jeopardise the average person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle (regardless of alcohol consumption conditioning). Some occupations that require an even higher level of skill driving require even less, my occupation stipulates a legal requirement for 0 BAC and I assure you the average person in my occupation is a much better driver than the average Joe. By your reasoning I should be able to go to work with a BAC of 0.08 or higher, because my skill will still make me better than some people, perhaps I could be 0.15 because guaranteed there will be someone worse.

The level of acceptable BAC is not open to opinion, that is law and it is proven medical fact, regardless of what you think. Under the influence of alcohol a persons actual ability to operate a vehicle can be severely affected long before they physically appear drunk.

Its not about him being such a good driver that he could be ****ed and appear to drive better than some others (a ridiculous claim), it is about people being safe to operate the vehicle, perhaps the others that you know should not have a license.

Gecko gt that is just stupid and you have missed the point.

What i am really on about is a lot of people are not or could not even be conceded competent as far as i am concerned 'sober' driving to be even in the ranks of 'some' over the 0.05 limit and it is a proven fact.
And some people are not safe to operate a vehicle even thou they do have a licence and sober.
And i am not supporting drunk drivers.
And i am not talking about the law.