Police slam 130km/h Hume Hwy stunt By WHEELS Magazine

[SPArKy_Dave]

Originally Posted by prydey

no - it makes you a hypocrite, thats all.

and thats my point. most people that whinge about the licencing system, went through an even easier system to get their own.

any training you do after that has nothing to do with the licencing system.

True story -
my old man told me once, that back in the early 70's, he went to get his full motorbike licence.

He rocked up to the local cop shop, and the sargent says to him... 'well you obviously rode here ok - here's your licence - ride safe son'.....
and that was that.

[SPArKy_Dave]

An old, but interesting Speed related article -

http://www.news.com.au/national-news...-1225955244254

[mechanic]

I've never driven the Hume Hwy but have driven the Bruce Hwy more times than I can remember. From Rockhampton to Mackay is a bit over 300k's, mostly straight and mostly flat.
If you really really really want to go to sleep while driving just do that stretch droning along at 100klm/hr. 150klm/hr would be a good limit
Same with the Townsville to Mt. Isa, road straight and flat, mind numbingly boring and very tiring crawling along at 100 k/hr.
Conversley, Townsville to Cairns, level crossings for the Sunlander and freight trains, cane train crossings in the crushing season, a lot of bends and hills with heavy rain in the wet season. 100klm/hr is heaps for this stretch.

Traffic regulators have the imagination of a gnat.
If cars are so much better and safer why travel at the same speed as in the 70's?

[steve.zissou]

Originally Posted by mechanic

I've never driven the Hume Hwy but have driven the Bruce Hwy more times than I can remember. From Rockhampton to Mackay is a bit over 300k's, mostly straight and mostly flat.
If you really really really want to go to sleep while driving just do that stretch droning along at 100klm/hr. 150klm/hr would be a good limit
Same with the Townsville to Mt. Isa, road straight and flat, mind numbingly boring and very tiring crawling along at 100 k/hr.
Conversley, Townsville to Cairns, level crossings for the Sunlander and freight trains, cane train crossings in the crushing season, a lot of bends and hills with heavy rain in the wet season. 100klm/hr is heaps for this stretch.

Traffic regulators have the imagination of a gnat.
If cars are so much better and safer why travel at the same speed as in the 70's?

actually many roads were derestricted in the 70's - so we are going slower than the 70's (but i get your point)

[nstg8a]

That's it, there's 11ty million more cars on the road now than in the 70s, pretty much all new cars would outperform 95% of 70s cars, road toll is trending downward historically, yet we still have speed limit anchored in the past.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

If you think that the road safety measures in Australia don't work, have a read:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/road...ings_2009.html

Death rates per capita are not really relevant.

Deaths and hospitalisations per person kilometre is what should be compared.

[Corzza]

Originally Posted by arronm

With ridiculous high speed limits in those countries listed above, its amazing anyone from those places are still alive.

Probably find out there road toll is less than ours.

What we really need to stop is people texting while driving, now thats irresponsible.

The thing is they mostly drive all new Euro cars over there, their MOT is very strict and older cars are off the road fairly quick.

Imagine here you have a 20 year old falcon/commy/camry doing 140km/h in the hands of 'good drivers'...?

[Trevor 57]

There are a number of things contributing to the downward spiral of the road toll over the last 40 years, these are:
* vehicle design including seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, ESC, ABS, etc
* licensing
* better roads
* enforcement

They all work in conjunction with other and compliment each other

But the thing that has gone backwards has been 'attitude' and as parents of the current generation of young drivers that responsibility sits squarely with us, my youngest are now 29, so hopefully over the worst of it

[MAD]

Not only are the cars getting better, but the average age of cars on the road is also younger. So there are safer cars, and more people driving them.

The road toll is only a tiny part of the picture. Accident and injury stats are a major part of reviewing the 'system'.

[Trevor 57]

Survival rates for road accident victims is right up as well, Ambo's close by to scene, highly trained Ambo's, air ambulances also help

[MAD]

They're the figures that tell the real story.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

But the thing that has gone backwards has been 'attitude' and as parents of the current generation of young drivers that responsibility sits squarely with us, my youngest are now 29, so hopefully over the worst of it

monkey see, monkey do.

[uranium_death]

Speed is not a cause of an accident - I only see it as a factor.

The cause is too often lack of judgement...
Taking a corner at 100km/h when signed at 45km/h is not speed's fault. It's a stupid decision and a lack of respect for the road and the limitations of a vehicle.

I drove at 140km/h between BENDIGO and WANGARATTA a couple of years ago and hardly felt a thing. I felt safer there than I do driving around my suburb of GLEN WAVERLEY, where I see a complete disregard for holding ones line when turning, indicating, giving way, or turning on ones lights at night...

I am not condoning the fact that I drove at 140km/h, but the road was excellent, my car was four years old at the time and well maintained, and there were no turns.

Speeding is political as much as it is about safety.

[new2ford]

This month's (November issue) Wheels has two major pieces by retired policemen comprehensively tipping the bucket on the "speed kills industry". Some of the things they write are so damning it should bring the whole edifice toppling down - well I guess not so easily, but it's a good can-opener for starters.

On the other hand, in the same issue, there are the motoring associations (supposedly representing their members) expressing shock and horror at the outrage and a school librarian cancelling her library's subscription to Wheels because of the "irresponsibility" of it all. I presume she's in the "I'm too scared to drive that fast so I'll make sure nobody else can" club. Unfortunately she's in charge of our kids.

I passed a "safety camera" the other day with a sign saying "targetting speed and fatigue". Well what about fatigue and boredom introduced by being forced to drive too slowly, and therefore for too long, on long journeys? Contradictory objectives much? Anybody ever studied the cause of those mysterious single-vehicle accidents deaths on country roads? Not speed but something brought on by speed limits perhaps?

Worth a read.

[noflac52]

Well I think I might go out and buy wheels to help make up for the librarian. That is a perfect example of a small minded or more likely someone with very limited knowledge on the subject enforcing their own brand of censorship because they don't understand something. Something our country can well do without!

As for the safety camera targeting fatigue. "Ludicrous" the problem is so many people believe this stuff.

The only way that can happen is if the camera actually takes a picture of a driver sleeping as they drove past it lol! And the vehicle would most likely crash well before the three weeks is up when they receive the photo and the charge of neg driving or what ever it is that the authorities deem necessary for being asleep behind the wheel. Stupidity at its finest! lol! lol! lol!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Well what about fatigue and boredom introduced by being forced to drive too slowly, and therefore for too long, on long journeys? Contradictory objectives much? Anybody ever studied the cause of those mysterious single-vehicle accidents deaths on country roads? Not speed but something brought on by speed limits perhaps?

Worth a read.

i'm not against raising the limit on some roads but i find it drawing a long bow when people start using fatigue as an argument as to why the limits should be higher. apart from the NT, we are talking raising the limit by 20km/h! hardly going to make a massive difference once you are up to speed and cruising along. once you get in to a drive, the feeling will be the same. there would also be just as much argument pointing out that on very long drives, people are more likely to just travel further rather than stop earlier. i find it hard to see how increasing the limit by 20km/h would have too much of an impact on fatigue based accidents. thats more to do with poor preparation, driving tired, driving for too long, not drinking, etc etc.

if people want to tackle the govt on these issues, you have to be a bit smarter about what arguments you use to promote it. i don't think fatigue would hold much water.

i think there is a case for higher limits on certain roads though. i would argue more on the lines of modern vehicles being much safer, improved roads etc.

[MAD]

The difference from 110 to 130 in concentration level is quite big.
I love to drive at 130, feel great during and after.

[Road Games]

I'm just gonna leave this here...

I have just completed a 5300km holiday and the worst part of this trip was in vic when i spent more time staring at my speedo than where i was going as even the cruise control adds a few k's downhill...

My navman alerted me as to where they were but still the GPS was 4km's higher than my actual speedo indicated.. I did pass a lot of vehicles stuck on 95 in a 110 zone for most of the way through VIC and 100 in a 110 zone in SA as well....

Apart from now waiting to see what gets delivered in the mail over the next few weeks we travelled 1700km's from Adelaide to Warwick before i saw our first cop car,an unmanned hwy patrol car actually sitting in a servo....

That's correct, Not one car the whole last leg or bike for that matter on the inland hwy's, but there were numerous point to point cameras that hopefully my ave speed worked out correct thanks to my navman

Keep ya posted LOL

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by prydey

on very long drives, people are more likely to just travel further rather than stop earlier.

I'm going by my personal experience of tons of long distance driving over the years under different speed limit regimes. Generally you're driving to a finite destination so you wouldn't be driving further just for the sake of it. The time saving can be quite substantial and makes a significant difference to fatigue.

If you are travelling a longer distance, getting to each point along the way earlier encourages you more to take a rest break and a longer one at that. A typical objective for a very long journey, I would think, would be to reach somewhere by sunset. If you're driving more slowly you're less likely to take rest breaks as you're trying to cover that distance within the time and you need to allocate more of the time to driving and less to breaks.

My awareness of it is probably sharpened at the moment by having been away from the local regime for 6 months and still feeling the impact of coming back to it. It's quite real. Sure it needs some study and that study is probably avoided here because they don't want to find that higher speed might improve the situation because that would conflict with the prevailing dogma.

[prydey]

continuing to play devils advocate, higher concentration would actually fuel fatigue, not keep it at bay. there are just too many holes in the fatigue argument.

i travel adelaide to bris every year. its not difficult to be law abiding. gone are the days when you could do it in 20hrs or less. 23hrs driving is about the norm now.

last year i drove straight through. most other years we stop over night. the overnight stop is never booked ahead until we know how we are travelling time wise. if we are making good time during the trip, we rarely stop early, but go the next town. i must admit, if i was allowed to drive faster i might in some areas, but fuel economy is also a consideration, and once you get above 100/110 it starts to go downhill.

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by 9sec Menace

I have just completed a 5300km holiday and the worst part of this trip was in vic when i spent more time staring at my speedo than where i was going as even the cruise control adds a few k's downhill...

I can relate to this, except my example is coming back to Australia after driving in Europe.

I've never felt so stressed as coming back here to drive - and that's in NSW where they are fractionally more tolerant. But there are many petty little things here that the police jump on that wouldn't raise a single police eyebrow in Europe. The reason is - as those gentlemen outlined in Wheels - not road safety, but revenue quotas.

The worst thing is that perfectly law-abiding citizens are criminalised by this regime. I don't know how many points I'm up to now (for minor matters like a few ks over on a clear road), but I wonder how close I'm coming to eventually losing my licence, even though I've been driving safely for 40 years, over a million ks (I've lost count), on 3 continents around the world and without a single accident - except once being hit when stationary by somebody out of control, not my fault. And that one happened in Australia of course, to a survivor of driving in Italy and Spain without incident!

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by prydey

continuing to play devils advocate, higher concentration would actually fuel fatigue, not keep it at bay.

Past a point it would, but certainly not on a 200-300 km stretch (personal experience). On a longer trip of course you need longer breaks to counteract the fatigue. So either you have to set a shorter distance objective or you're allowed to go faster to cover the distance in a shorter time (and have more and bigger breaks).

Originally Posted by prydey

fuel economy is also a consideration, and once you get above 100/110 it starts to go downhill.

I gotta say in the Octavia TDI I was driving in Europe the economy barely changed whether I was averaging 90 or 140. Plenty of people were surging along in ordinary cars at up to 160 without seeming to worry too much about the cost in a continent where fuel is supposed to be more expensive vis a vis income. For a smaller car I think the economy difference is negligible.

[prydey]

and yet people still manage to drive for years without accumulating any points! i haven't had any sort of infringement in probably 15+years.

you don't have to agree with all the sign posted limits, but if you just accept that that is what they are, and drive according to conditions but not beyond the limit, then the donations to the constabulary tend to dry up.

[Road Games]

Hmmm i prefer to pass that roadtrain at maybe 140 and settle back into rythym with no cars in front or behind me for at least 1km so i can concentrate on wildlife or ufo's or i dunno actually enjoying the drive ?

Instead of sitting like a sheep in a congo line stretching for 100's of metres because of the fear drummed into people that speed kills ... yet its OK to travel 5m apart with no forward vision or planning till the slower vehicle pulls over??

muppets....

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by 9sec Menace

Hmmm i prefer to pass that roadtrain at maybe 140 and settle back into rythym with no cars in front or behind me for at least 1km so i can concentrate on wildlife or ufo's or i dunno actually enjoying the drive ?

Instead of sitting like a sheep in a congo line stretching for 100's of metres because of the fear drummed into people that speed kills ... yet its OK to travel 5m apart with no forward vision or planning till the slower vehicle pulls over??

muppets....

That "harmless burst of speed" to clear an obstacle would not attract the attention of the constabulary in Europe.

Originally Posted by prydey

and yet people still manage to drive for years without accumulating any points! i haven't had any sort of infringement in probably 15+years.

you don't have to agree with all the sign posted limits, but if you just accept that that is what they are, and drive according to conditions but not beyond the limit, then the donations to the constabulary tend to dry up.

I guess I'm what you call a free spirit! I got my licence in the country when it was "prime face" speed and there were no cameras, nanny states etc etc. Bit hard to get an old dog to change ...etc. But no accidents in spite of being a wild one - go figure.

And yes I do drive to the limits nevertheless!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by new2ford

That "harmless burst of speed" to clear an obstacle would not attract the attention of the constabulary in Europe.
!

rarely does it here either. same as people getting booked for 1 km/h over. you hear it on the interweb, but rarely do these situations actually occur.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by prydey

Same as people getting booked for 1 km/h over. you hear it on the interweb, but rarely do these situations actually occur.

It did to me, he even wrote it on the ticket.

Highway car sitting up the top of Pete’s Ridge shooting north bounders. I knew that this pr**k was there 15 minutes before I got there as every Tom, Dick and Harry was telling me over the UHF.

As soon as he saw the truck I was driving, and identified it as being from a “well known” fleet in Castlemaine that had blue and silver trucks, he lit the tyres up on the ’ol EF XR8 like it was the Summernats burnout comp and took off after me like I was Ivan Milat.

Knowing full well how far away I lived from the area and basically baiting me to fire up, which I was smart enough to not do, he wrote me up for 101 in a 90 - 110 zone. The truck was speed limited to 100 and this was back when they still had the stupid 90 km limit in single lanes in NSW and I was allowed to travel at 100 on that stretch.

He knew how much it would cost me to fight a BS ticket like this, that’s why he wrote it out. It would not have happened if I were a local.

I’d just like to give an extra big FU to the Gosford HWP all these years later.

[ILLaViTaR]

The police operate under a right wing order so it's only to be expected their arguments and beliefs don't derive beyond 1853. Unlike the rest of the world.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by new2ford

I'm going by my personal experience of tons of long distance driving over the years under different speed limit regimes. Generally you're driving to a finite destination so you wouldn't be driving further just for the sake of it. The time saving can be quite substantial and makes a significant difference to fatigue.

If you are travelling a longer distance, getting to each point along the way earlier encourages you more to take a rest break and a longer one at that. A typical objective for a very long journey, I would think, would be to reach somewhere by sunset. If you're driving more slowly you're less likely to take rest breaks as you're trying to cover that distance within the time and you need to allocate more of the time to driving and less to breaks.

My awareness of it is probably sharpened at the moment by having been away from the local regime for 6 months and still feeling the impact of coming back to it. It's quite real. Sure it needs some study and that study is probably avoided here because they don't want to find that higher speed might improve the situation because that would conflict with the prevailing dogma.

that's a pretty poor attempt at justifying your theory
fatigue avoidance is a personal responsibility. Drivers should do their sums, take breaks if needed, share driving etc etc. Nobody is forcing a private motorist to become fatigued. There have been education campaigns for years explaining the signs and how to avoid them. Sadly there will always be the few who don't listen and suffer the consequences.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by new2ford

I can relate to this, except my example is coming back to Australia after driving in Europe.

I've never felt so stressed as coming back here to drive - and that's in NSW where they are fractionally more tolerant. But there are many petty little things here that the police jump on that wouldn't raise a single police eyebrow in Europe. The reason is - as those gentlemen outlined in Wheels - not road safety, but revenue quotas.

There are no quotas in NSW and I doubt there are in any other state
what you are claiming is an urban myth used by drivers to explain away why they got booked