The totally off-topic thread

[Hvr]

I believe that people aren't taught to drive, they're taught to pass the test.

When I learnt to drive a bus we had to be very proactive in planning our driving and maintaining an awareness of what was happening around us and reacting appropriately. Safety was always pushed and I believe it was the best driving instruction I've ever received.

 

[medhead]

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.

Speed limits should be set at appropriate levels given road conditions and all related factors, not just "make the limit lower". People trusted to obey the limit instead of, for example, these stupid speed bumps everywhere that force you to be much slower than the speed limit, and increase traffic noise and fuel consumption.

Rationalise speed limits in the process. No more roads on which the speed limit will change from 60,70,80,70,90,70 on the same road, within a handful of km and with no apparent change to the physical road.

Enforce the speed limits instead of punishing honest drivers.

Properly analyse risk. Properly categorise accident causes, eg the suggestion that police almost always include speed as a cause of accidents.

Not sure about autobahn situations. There are very few cases in Australia of roads that have the physical separation of roads with the surrounding environment to allow removal of a limit. I can think of a number of roads that could have a limit of 130 to 150, in good conditions. But the dolt drivers in this country would also think that's good for night time driving in rain.

Which gets me to the real answer that we should adopt from Germany, and Europe for that matter, Education. Why stuff around with speed limits and enforcement when we simply are not educating drivers properly?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

agreed - avoidance is better.

but this is not about any one person as an individual.

governments make laws which protect everyone including the vulnerable and even the stupid.

every time we leave the house there is an inherent risk. Setting lower speed limits does two things... it lowers the risk of actually having a collision (or hitting someone) and it mitigates the damage in the event of an accident (could even be the difference between life and death).

who decided the risk to pedestrians was unacceptable? the government did. who elected the government? the people.

we know young children can run out in front of a car.... that's a risk. what speed limits do is try and turn that from a catastrophic impact (death) to a lower one. (same applies for car-car accidents.)

I don't think there's much of argument against that.

 

[medhead]

I believe that people aren't taught to drive, they're taught to pass the test.

When I learnt to drive a bus we had to be very proactive in planning our driving and maintaining an awareness of what was happening around us and reacting appropriately. Safety was always pushed and I believe it was the best driving instruction I've ever received.

My driving instructor for a car licence also stressed road awareness. It is part of the reason that I've had 1 accident that was my fault in 25 years (while still on my Ps and the only one to write off the car), 6 others (2 of which I could have avoided) and no accident between 1993 and 2012 (when someone ran into me).

 

[Rox]

I believe that people aren't taught to drive, they're taught to pass the test.

When I learnt to drive a bus we had to be very proactive in planning our driving and maintaining an awareness of what was happening around us and reacting appropriately. Safety was always pushed and I believe it was the best driving instruction I've ever received.

Motorcycle instruction also emphasises this.
In my final year of high school we could choose defensive driving as an elective. It was theory only, and even though I had no driving experience at the time, to this day that philosophy has stayed with me.

I wish it could be made compulsory.

Without wishing to buy into what the speed limits should be, in heavily monitored areas where the speed limits are low and variable, I have a dilemma between watching the road and watching the speedo. My cruise control is not helpful in suburbia.

 

[mono88]

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".

Pedestrians can be separated from driverless cars.

 

[medhead]

agreed - avoidance is better.

but this is not about any one person as an individual.

governments make laws which protect everyone including the vulnerable and even the stupid.

every time we leave the house there is an inherent risk. Setting lower speed limits does two things... it lowers the risk of actually having a collision (or hitting someone) and it mitigates the damage in the event of an accident (could even be the difference between life and death).

who decided the risk to pedestrians was unacceptable? the government did. who elected the government? the people.

we know young children can run out in front of a car.... that's a risk. what speed limits do is try and turn that from a catastrophic impact (death) to a lower one. (same applies for car-car accidents.)

I don't think there's much of argument against that.

Children running out in front of cars is a limited risk in specific situations. It is not all pervasive. Sorry but you can't claim reducing the consequence of an accident, the damage, reduces the risk. Reducing the speed limit does nothing to reduce the incidence of children running out in front of cars.

It is also true there is an inherent risk in being alive. Trying to make the risk of being hit by a car zero ignores that reality. You cannot take away the inherent risk.

As I said reducing the speed limit for the reasons you've outlined is based on a logical fallacy. It completely ignores the benefit side of the equation. Following the reasoning you've presented speed limits should be set to zero.

I'll say outright that governments have set speed limits solely excuse of lobbying of select interest groups without consideration of risk versus benefit and probably with minimal consideration of the actual risks.

You're basically presenting the same argument as I regularly see from people who want zero radiation exposure because of the risk. I want zero dose so I'll make someone drive 80km and come back tomorrow. Great their risk is zero, but 2 other people now have 80km of driving risk.

 

[medhead]

Pedestrians can be separated from driverless cars.

Exactly the same way as pedestrians can be separated from cars with a driver. But they aren't. Instead speed limits are reduced. You talking about prevention, lower speed limits are about damage reduction.

 

[JessicaTam]

I believe that people aren't taught to drive, they're taught to pass the test.

When I learnt to drive a bus we had to be very proactive in planning our driving and maintaining an awareness of what was happening around us and reacting appropriately. Safety was always pushed and I believe it was the best driving instruction I've ever received.

Education is a large factor in driver safety. But it is not politically wise to go down the German model which is all drivers must have driving lessons. There is no 'mum and dad take me for a drive' stuff. That is why it is very expensive, and German drivers treat there licence as a privilege, not a right.

I teach driving of emergency vehicles, and the first half of my time is spent undoing the damage that 'mum and dad' have done. The main part of that instruction is observation skills.

 

[anat0l]

Education is a large factor in driver safety. But it is not politically wise to go down the German model which is all drivers must have driving lessons. There is no 'mum and dad take me for a drive' stuff. That is why it is very expensive, and German drivers treat there licence as a privilege, not a right.

I teach driving of emergency vehicles, and the first half of my time is spent undoing the damage that 'mum and dad' have done. The main part of that instruction is observation skills.

Out of interest, what kind of 'mum and dad' stuff do you often find needs re-education? Do you think part of these flaws are also perpetrated through the state driving manual / driving instructors?

 

[amaroo]

In my final year of high school we could choose defensive driving as an elective. It was theory only, and even though I had no driving experience at the time, to this day that philosophy has stayed with me.

My parents demanded that I attend defensive driving lessons - 30 odd years ago now. Being the last of four sons - I suppose they had seen it all before and decided to be proactive.

Excellent course and well worth the time and $$

 

[Pushka]

I had the ultimate on driving lessons. With the police academy as a probationary constable. The advanced course was in the V8 Chargers. (Remember those?) Quite a lot of fun for a 22 year old (at the time) female driver. Especially at Virginia race track in Adelaide and having to use the flashing blue light and siren. Being urged just to go fast.

Our kids were taught initially by me and were taught the way I was taught. No problems there.

One ad that annoys me no end are those where pedestrians are seen to just step off the kerb without looking (otherwise they would have seen the car approaching) and somehow the message is that it's the driver who is somehow being at fault/distracted.

 

[drron]

50 years ago my father did not believe his children should be taught to drive by their parents.so I was taught by a driving school and my instructor was a rally driver.Certainly taught me how a car could handle.
Until 1979 NSW had a system similar to the Germans where unrestricted roads had a Prima facie limit of 50mph(then 80kmh).You would not be charged with speeding going over that limit but certainly dangerous or negligent driving charges could apply.
I must admit when younger that I did have a yearning for speed and do admit to getting to 100mph in my trusty Datsun 1600 between Cobar and Wilcannia in 1974.That was only because my car was serviced by a mechanic who drove them in the Bathurst race.It was not modified in any way but was tuned to perfection.
As always you mellow.My only speeding fines in the last 30 years came when I had a car with a faulty speedo-it read several ks under the true speed-which is why I always get any cars speedo checked.
My last accident was in 1974 when I left the car parked in the street and a milkman decided to back it up a hill using his truck.

Now out on the 100kph roads the cruise control is set ~98kph.rarely do I get to execute an overtaking manoeuvre.
And the main thing I was taught all those years ago-always know what is happening around you.

 

[Buzzard]

Education is a large factor in driver safety. But it is not politically wise to go down the German model which is all drivers must have driving lessons. There is no 'mum and dad take me for a drive' stuff. That is why it is very expensive, and German drivers treat there licence as a privilege, not a right.

I teach driving of emergency vehicles, and the first half of my time is spent undoing the damage that 'mum and dad' have done. The main part of that instruction is observation skills.

Agree with you 100% Jessica, I have always thought that "mum & dad" driving instructors should be banned and that all instruction should be by a qualified professional so as not to pass on any bad habbits.

Some of the best tuition I ever received was from Fred Gibson and Sue Ransom when I was learning race craft. Professional drivers. Gee I must be showing my age.

 

[JohnM]

50 years ago my father did not believe his children should be taught to drive by their parents.so I was taught by a driving school and my instructor was a rally driver.Certainly taught me how a car could handle.
Until 1979 NSW had a system similar to the Germans where unrestricted roads had a Prima facie limit of 50mph(then 80kmh).You would not be charged with speeding going over that limit but certainly dangerous or negligent driving charges could apply.
I must admit when younger that I did have a yearning for speed and do admit to getting to 100mph in my trusty Datsun 1600 between Cobar and Wilcannia in 1974.That was only because my car was serviced by a mechanic who drove them in the Bathurst race.It was not modified in any way but was tuned to perfection.
As always you mellow.My only speeding fines in the last 30 years came when I had a car with a faulty speedo-it read several ks under the true speed-which is why I always get any cars speedo checked.
My last accident was in 1974 when I left the car parked in the street and a milkman decided to back it up a hill using his truck.

Now out on the 100kph roads the cruise control is set ~98kph.rarely do I get to execute an overtaking manoeuvre.
And the main thing I was taught all those years ago-always know what is happening around you.

My understanding is that is illegal for vehicle manufacturers to sell a vehicle where the speedo UNDERregisters. (I can check that with my brother who is a police officer who spent many years in traffic/highway patrol). How recently did you get pinged?

That is why almost every car I've ever driven OVERregisters the speed - usually around 3kph but often more (around 7kph at 100kph). It is, of course, easy to check true speed with a GPS these days. I've never had one that underregisters.

The other thing to remember is fitting tyres of a different size than original fitment can mess with speedo accuracy.

My car overregisters by about 7kph at 110kph (which I find annoyingly inaccurate - I think manufacturers should strive for no more than 3kph discrepancy at around the 100kph mark.

I always set the cruise control for just under 120kph on the open road in WA (110kph limit here) so I know I'm on the limit.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Children running out in front of cars is a limited risk in specific situations. It is not all pervasive. Sorry but you can't claim reducing the consequence of an accident, the damage, reduces the risk. Reducing the speed limit does nothing to reduce the incidence of children running out in front of cars.

It is also true there is an inherent risk in being alive. Trying to make the risk of being hit by a car zero ignores that reality. You cannot take away the inherent risk.

As I said reducing the speed limit for the reasons you've outlined is based on a logical fallacy. It completely ignores the benefit side of the equation. Following the reasoning you've presented speed limits should be set to zero.

I'll say outright that governments have set speed limits solely excuse of lobbying of select interest groups without consideration of risk versus benefit and probably with minimal consideration of the actual risks.

You're basically presenting the same argument as I regularly see from people who want zero radiation exposure because of the risk. I want zero dose so I'll make someone drive 80km and come back tomorrow. Great their risk is zero, but 2 other people now have 80km of driving risk.

re the bolded text - that is not what I said.

as to your response as a whole regarding risk - I agree.

and if you read my comment it clearly makes that distinction.

lower speed can reduce the risk of an accident BUT if an accident occurs it can mitigate the severity of the impact.

nothing was said about reducing the risk of a child running in front of a car.

the risk is never going to be reduced to zero - because driving is such an integral part of our lives. And we accept there will always be a risk involved. The aim of lower speed is to try and reduce the risk or mitigate severity.

 

[medhead]

re the bolded text - that is not what I said.

as to your response as a whole regarding risk - I agree.

and if you read my comment it clearly makes that distinction.

lower speed can reduce the risk of an accident BUT if an accident occurs it can mitigate the severity of the impact.

nothing was said about reducing the risk of a child running in front of a car.

the risk is never going to be reduced to zero - because driving is such an integral part of our lives. And we accept there will always be a risk involved. The aim of lower speed is to try and reduce the risk or mitigate severity.

I can't see the bolding on the iPhone app.

I think linking a child running in front of a car with the 'risk' reduction method of reducing speed limits implies that lower speed limits reduces the risk of a child running in front of a car.

I maintain the question but the size of the risk we are trying to address by reducing the speed limit. And I also ask how effective it has been at reducing deaths. Some years ago there was an investigative journalist type story that stated the last big reduction in road deaths followed the introduction of seat belts.

In any case, speed limits are mere window dressing compared to something like proper driver education. Road safety experts are deluded as long as they continue to play the financially rewarding speeding game, instead of pushing or better driver education. IMO

 

[medhead]

My understanding is that is illegal for vehicle manufacturers to sell a vehicle where the speedo UNDERregisters. (I can check that with my brother who is a police officer who spent many years in traffic/highway patrol). How recently did you get pinged?

That is why almost every car I've ever driven OVERregisters the speed - usually around 3kph but often more (around 7kph at 100kph). It is, of course, easy to check true speed with a GPS these days. I've never had one that underregisters.

The other thing to remember is fitting tyres of a different size than original fitment can mess with speedo accuracy.

My car overregisters by about 7kph at 110kph (which I find annoyingly inaccurate - I think manufacturers should strive for no more than 3kph discrepancy at around the 100kph mark.

I always set the cruise control for just under 120kph on the open road in WA (110kph limit here) so I know I'm on the limit.

The weights and measures legislation probably makes it illegal to deliberately set anything to not read the correct amount.

As for doing the ton. My first time at that speed was at the age of about 10 in grandads falcon between Juliet st and Marshall road on the SE freeway in Brisbane. The late 1980s model Charade would do the ton as well - 3 cylinder 1 litre engine.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I can't see the bolding on the iPhone app.

I think linking a child running in front of a car with the 'risk' reduction method of reducing speed limits implies that lower speed limits reduces the risk of a child running in front of a car.

I maintain the question but the size of the risk we are trying to address by reducing the speed limit. And I also ask how effective it has been at reducing deaths. Some years ago there was an investigative journalist type story that stated the last big reduction in road deaths followed the introduction of seat belts.

In any case, speed limits are mere window dressing compared to something like proper driver education. Road safety experts are deluded as long as they continue to play the financially rewarding speeding game, instead of pushing or better driver education. IMO

you might need to wait until you reach a PC but there is a graph from Victoria showing the road toll linked to various road safety initiatives (including seat belts, speed cameras, speed limits):

Road Toll - Cameras Save Lives

but agin take into account these are raw figures - population has vastly increased in Victoria during the span of the graph.

 

[medhead]

you might need to wait until you reach a PC but there is a graph from Victoria showing the road toll linked to various road safety initiatives (including seat belts, speed cameras, speed limits):

Road Toll - Cameras Save Lives

but agin take into account these are raw figures - population has vastly increased in Victoria during the span of the graph.

Thanks appreciate the link.

Doubt I'll log in here from a pc, but will google.

Edit: the effect of rbt, booze buses, spelt belts and lower BAC limits has been greater than the effect of speed limit changes. (In absolute terms)