The totally off-topic thread

[Hvr]

One good thing that SA does has is the 40kph limit around stationery emergency vehicles who are working at an incident.

I noticed this when driving in the USA, you had to slow right down when there was an emergency vehicle stationary on either side of the road including divided highways.

 

[JohnM]

I noticed this when driving in the USA, you had to slow right down when there was an emergency vehicle stationary on either side of the road including divided highways.

The other common thing in the US is the signs that say: "Fines doubled in work zones."

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Political correctness gone totally wrong.

I should not have to justify to anyone why I did not hire them. You were simply were not good enough is not a good enough excuse.

saying someone is not good enough is perfectly fine... but you may be asked to provide evidence to ensure you haven't excluded them on grounds of discrimination.

 

[JohnM]

saying someone is not good enough is perfectly fine... but you may be asked to provide evidence to ensure you haven't excluded them on grounds of discrimination.

I think you WILL be required to provide evidence as to why a person was not suitable ('not good enough' is, I venture to say, not acceptable wording :shock.

But bear in mind that, despite all this flim-flam, selection processes probably more often than not get it wrong .

 

[Flashback]

I think you WILL be required to provide evidence as to why a person was not suitable ('not good enough' is, I venture to say, not acceptable wording :shock.

But bear in mind that, despite all this flim-flam, selection processes probably more often than not get it wrong .

Agree. I've been in a situation before where I submitted a CV to a company and was rejected. The same CV was then sent via an internal referral and lo and behold they loved it, I had an interview and then was made a job offer....... make of that what you will

 

[tuapekastar]

What sort of a justice system do we have when you can kill somebody and be virtually let off but comit fraud/steal from your employer say $100,000 and end up sans job and behind bars :evil:

A ridiculous one. Problem is all the laws are conceived, drafted and written by people who move in circles where they are much more likely to fall foul of financial crime rather than physical crime against the person. So their thinking is biased that way.

 

[Shelf]

Sounds like Nutbush City:
"25 was the speed limit, motorcycle not allowed in it."

It sure does

 

[drron]

Thinking about the Sunshine coast case I wonder why if you in some states over the alcohol limit,speeding by more than a certain number over the limit or are caught by hooning laws you can lose your licence immediately but don't do so if you kill somebody.
Especially if you are caught repeating the mistake that caused the death there should be a considerable period of time that you are banned from driving.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thinking about the Sunshine coast case I wonder why if you in some states over the alcohol limit,speeding by more than a certain number over the limit or are caught by hooning laws you can lose your licence immediately but don't do so if you kill somebody.
Especially if you are caught repeating the mistake that caused the death there should be a considerable period of time that you are banned from driving.

It's a difficult issue to reconcile.

Interestingly the news in Victoria didn't pick it up.

 

[amaroo]

Especially if you are caught repeating the mistake that caused the death there should be a considerable period of time that you are banned from driving.

Once is an accident/mistake - twice is an absolute disgrace!

Despicable behaviour....

 

[medhead]

Oh those Swiss, I didn't realise the country with the world's biggest reputation for supporting the wealthy were actually communists.

ANZ board out of step with reality

In passing, it's worth noting that the ANZ would be in breach of the 1:12 law that the Swiss will vote on in a referendum this Saturday. The Swiss know a bit about banking, are a long way from being rabid Occupy types and Switzerland is an even more expensive country to live in than Australia. But there's a fair chance the good burghers will vote for 1:12 and thus enshrine in their constitution that the top executives can't be paid more in one month than the cheapest of their employees earns in a year. To put it another way, the top annual salaries can't exceed 12 times the wage of the lowliest employee.

One good thing that SA does has is the 40kph limit around stationery emergency vehicles who are working at an incident.

It's actually emergency vehicles with lights flashing, iirc​

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Oh those Swiss, I didn't realise the country with the world's biggest reputation for supporting the wealthy were actually communists.

ANZ board out of step with reality

It's actually emergency vehicles with lights flashing, iirc​

swiss is a prime example of how socialism can work and benefit all if handled properly.

along with all their totally annoying habits (apologies to my many close and dear Swiss friends) they have some great institutions such as heavily subsidized public housing and a high minimum wage.

and as for decisions and the way they lead their life? almost everything goes to the vote in Switzerland... speed humps in your street? not unless the whole street votes and the majority rules. bail out Swiss international airlines with a $1 billion loan? not unless the whole country agrees. your neighbour is applying for permanent residency (after 15 years or whatever it is they have been living there)? not unless the neighbours agree.

lost your parking ticket? no worries... 'what time did you arrive?' (none of this 'max charge' rubbish like we have here). lost your iPhone? 'no worries... here's a free replacement' (this happened to my friend who was shocked there was no insurance charge or fee for the new phone... 'if you lost it you lost it... why would you lie to us?' was the shop's response)

a rich, wealthy socialist country. the 'control freak' thing can get a little frustrating at times, but it seems pretty idea

 

[Buzzard]

A friend of mine just asked for travel advice. Too bad she picked 2 places I've never been to before & aren't on my radar - Bali or Fiji.

Added complication - it would be a family holiday with a 2 yr old boy.

Tell them to go to Fiji - a very family friendly place to goe esp with young children. My 1yo granddaughter just went there. She even took her parents for a treat

 

[Buzzard]

Unfortunately, that is the attitude of the other 99%. (Who I have to scrape off the road with them/others saying "But s/he was such a good driver").

As I have no idea of your driving skills JohnK, this is not directed at you, just an attitude that is far too prevalent in the GP.

And in the other GP (Grand Prix)

 

[medhead]

the numbers are raw numbers - not adjusted.

the population increases and there are more cars on the road. But the toll stays the same or drops.

i think that shows how effective lower speeds are.

what is not often reported is the significant reduction in the number and severity of (serious) injuries. lower speeds = less serious injuries.

speed does kill. you hit a pedestrian at 60 or you hit them at 30 and it means the difference between life and death. The difference? speed.

And the logical fallacy with this line of reasoning is the natural conclusion is the speed limit should be set to zero.

Not to mention that the road death toll, published on TV is not just limited to pedestrian deaths but includes all deaths in all situations. As such lowering on a per capita basis provides no direct indication of the effect of lower speed limits.

Speed bumps/traffic calming on suburban streets that mean you can't drive at the speed limit, even at 40kph, instead having to waste petrol on constant changes of speed are another piece of traffic stupidity. The road safety cabal in this country is ludicrously misguided.

 

[mono88]

And the logical fallacy with this line of reasoning is the natural conclusion is the speed limit should be set to zero.


.

Yes for a human being. There should be driverless cars!!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

And the logical fallacy with this line of reasoning is the natural conclusion is the speed limit should be set to zero.

there is a certain risk people are willing to take... we need cars for transport. and there will always be accidents.

but it has been shown that lower speeds can save lives. that's a fact.

new technology will also play a part... automatic breaking for example. much in the same way that ABS has assisted.

 

[medhead]

Yes for a human being. There should be driverless cars!!

No, not even for driverless cars because the current paradigm is that people can step in front of any car and be injured. So speed limits are reduced to reduce injury, but nothing is done to separate pedestrians and vehicles. Same with the campaign to make drivers responsible for "drink walkers".

 

[medhead]

there is a certain risk people are willing to take... we need cars for transport. and there will always be accidents.

but it has been shown that lower speeds can save lives. that's a fact.

new technology will also play a part... automatic breaking for example. much in the same way that ABS has assisted.

Sorry but avoiding an accident is much more effective than minimising injuries.

Your comment about risks that people are willing to take is also interesting given your apparent support of lower speed limits regardless of risk. Where is the information that tells us people did not want to take the risk of a 60 kph speed limit. It certainly isn't the position of the road safety cabal to decide what level of risk I'm willing to take as a pedestrian.

What was the level of risk for pedestrains? Who decided it was unacceptable?

It would also be interesting to find out the statistics on speeding penalties and how those have changed with decreasing speed limits. A lower speed limit is doing nothing if people just ignore it.

 

[anat0l]

Sorry but avoiding an accident is much more effective than minimising injuries.

Your comment about risks that people are willing to take is also interesting given your apparent support of lower speed limits regardless of risk. Where is the information that tells use people did not want to take the risk of a 60 kph speed limit. It certainly isn't the position of the road safety cabal to decide what level of risk I'm willing to take as a pedestrian.

What was the level of risk for pedestrains? Who decided it was unacceptable?

It would also be interesting to find out the statistics on speeding penalties and how those have changed with decreasing speed limits. A lower speed limit is doing nothing if people just ignore it.

So to play devil's advocate - what should, if any, the role of speed limits and/or speed enforcement measures play in overall traffic and traffic safety?

One model could be like the German autobahns. The autobahns are widely believed to have "no speed limit". This is not completely true - autobahns have "advisory speed limits". Exceeding these limits is not enforceable (you can't get a speeding ticket for it), however if you are involved in an accident and were found to be speeding, your chances of being found proportionally culpable to causing the accident dramatically increases.