How to fix Syd, Melb and Bris congestion

[flappist]

Originally Posted by loftie

The mobile breath testers are not that sensitive - certainly not the thousandth - which is why they need to take you into the station for a proper 'breath test'.

So a reading of 0.01 on a hand-held breath tester may show signs of alcohol in your breath, may require you to go to the station for further test. Then - you'll come up with basically nothing on the REAL test (as with ALL of these tests there is a built in buffer for error) and you would have nothing to worry about.

So the argument of food/medicine/ethanol leaks would not be necessary, and sure it would be inconvenient for the very rare amounts of times you had to go to the station to justify your 0.01 (or lower) breath test.

But for the majority of cases (which is how the law works) then it would work quite fine.

There was a time when speed detection devices were not accurate enough to detect if you were 3km/h over the speed limit.......

I am surprised at the "majority of cases" attitude. Stuff everyone who does not fit into your perfect world?

You think 0, the majority of the rest of the world do not agree so using your own logic your limit is wrong.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Australia already has one of the largest suburban sprawls in the world. As we move people out of the cities, we consume more arable land, and displace agriculture to less productive land. I don't know what would be achieved by spreading population out further does, apart from making people travel further, which would impact adversely on congestion by placing more people on roads already struggling with traffic volumes.

Turbodewd is talking about population shifts away from the major cities and growing large rural centers larger - towns like Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury/Wodonga in Victoria for example. The idea has plenty of merit, as I said earlier its already been tried but was put to an end with a change in government in the 70's

Your talking about suburban sprawl, which in Australia is a massive problem. The consumption of productive land to build these hideous future ghettos with zero infrastructure of any kind is absolute madness. These far-flug cultureless suburbs are exaggerating the class divide, and produce unhealthy and miserable residents, who are 100% dependant on their car - what will happen when fuel prices make driving prohibitive?

But back to the original idea, I really think steps should be taken to help it happen. The government could gradually move more departments out to rural towns, and offer all kinds of tax and stamp duty incentives to businesses and private residents. It wouldn't cost much, its easy to do, and would simultaneously help the issues of capital city congestion and urban sprawl. The NBN is a great start and will open up rural areas for a lot of businesses, but more could be done - if only we had a government with some vision...

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

Turbodewd is talking about population shifts away from the major cities and growing large rural centers larger - towns like Ballarat, Bendigo, Albury/Wodonga in Victoria for example. The idea has plenty of merit, as I said earlier its already been tried but was put to an end with a change in government in the 70's

Your talking about suburban sprawl, which in Australia is a massive problem. The consumption of productive land to build these hideous future ghettos with zero infrastructure of any kind is absolute madness. These far-flug cultureless suburbs are exaggerating the class divide, and produce unhealthy and miserable residents, who are 100% dependant on their car - what will happen when fuel prices make driving prohibitive?

But back to the original idea, I really think steps should be taken to help it happen. The government could gradually move more departments out to rural towns, and offer all kinds of tax and stamp duty incentives to businesses and private residents. It wouldn't cost much, its easy to do, and would simultaneously help the issues of capital city congestion and urban sprawl. The NBN is a great start and will open up rural areas for a lot of businesses, but more could be done - if only we had a government with some vision...

Very good idea. I think this has great merit, especially for those country towns struggling to survive and retain residents. It would potentially reduce congestion, and stimulate rural economies.

[My32Doors]

Thank god for the territory. Please don't come here------ it's terrible!

[cs123]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

But back to the original idea, I really think steps should be taken to help it happen. The government could gradually move more departments out to rural towns, and offer all kinds of tax and stamp duty incentives to businesses and private residents. It wouldn't cost much, its easy to do, and would simultaneously help the issues of capital city congestion and urban sprawl. The NBN is a great start and will open up rural areas for a lot of businesses, but more could be done - if only we had a government with some vision...

I think it is a great idea. Funny that in the 80s in QLD the state govt spent a lot of money centralising.

The NBN would be a good piece of infrastructure to support business moving out of the cities too.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by cs123

I think it is a great idea. Funny that in the 80s in QLD the state govt spent a lot of money centralising.

The NBN would be a good piece of infrastructure to support business moving out of the cities too.

As much as I was against the NBN to start with this is clearly an advantage.

Heck I am 40mins out of Melb and cant get anything better than ADSL2.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DASH GT

Getting all the unroadworthy bombs of the road would be a good start.... As for the public servants let them work from home, won't make a spot of difference to their producitivity because they have none.

Non joke here but Complex Assessment Officers at Centrelink could literally work from home, all they need is an internet connection, a computer and access to the database, all they do is look at claims and assess them.

Here in Victoria, I reckon you could move a lot of business out of the CBD and into places with good rail transport to them like Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo, I have a lot of travel on the Bendigo line and its great, 1h30min from Southern Cross to Bendigo on the high speed trains, Geelong and Ballarat have the same trains too.

Even the small towns along the lines.

I hate Melbourne, its a pain in the *** to drive around, you spend more time stopped at lights idling, or clutching in/out in first gear. Also the Metro train service is a joke compared to Vline.

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

There was a time when speed detection devices were not accurate enough to detect if you were 3km/h over the speed limit.......

I am surprised at the "majority of cases" attitude. Stuff everyone who does not fit into your perfect world?

You think 0, the majority of the rest of the world do not agree so using your own logic your limit is wrong.

I disagree entirely - the majority of cases attitude is based on the fact that most of the country's employees are not working in a brewery, on medication, or use listerine. Sure there are some - but certainly not the majority.

I would like to know why we accept the risk? Why is it okay to roll the dice on our roads (where the majority of people drive) and we don't accept it for truck drivers, pilots, machine operators etc?

We do not accept the increase in danger in the workplace, or when other people's lives are in our care and responsibility - so why do we accept it on our roads?

[SB076]

Originally Posted by loftie

I disagree entirely - the majority of cases attitude is based on the fact that most of the country's employees are not working in a brewery, on medication, or use listerine. Sure there are some - but certainly not the majority.

I would like to know why we accept the risk? Why is it okay to roll the dice on our roads (where the majority of people drive) and we don't accept it for truck drivers, pilots, machine operators etc?

We do not accept the increase in danger in the workplace, or when other people's lives are in our care and responsibility - so why do we accept it on our roads?

I think there needs to be some tolerances, otherwise where do you stop? If I have on beer can I then drive two hours later? MY BAC might show up as 0.01 or something.

Studies have shown drowsy drivers and distracted drivers are a risk as well

[flappist]

Originally Posted by loftie

I disagree entirely - the majority of cases attitude is based on the fact that most of the country's employees are not working in a brewery, on medication, or use listerine. Sure there are some - but certainly not the majority.

I would like to know why we accept the risk? Why is it okay to roll the dice on our roads (where the majority of people drive) and we don't accept it for truck drivers, pilots, machine operators etc?

We do not accept the increase in danger in the workplace, or when other people's lives are in our care and responsibility - so why do we accept it on our roads?

Yes you do have a fixation on this but the BAC for pilots is 0.02 not 0.00.

Some private companies have a 0.00 rule BUT THAT IS NOT LAW. If a machine operator or whatever is rolled at 0.01 instead of 0.00 and can show that they have not been drinking then they have a good argument.

As for the "stuff the minority" attitude, you do yourself and your cause no favours.

Another way to make roads safer is to ban and crush for recycling all cars older than 10 years as they are not as safe as new ones. They also use too much fuel, have a bad carbon footprint and even make baby Jesus cry.

Of course the XY GT enthusiasts such as yourself would probably not see this as a good idea but, hey, as you are a tiny minority how did you put it....."why should we accept the risk"......

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes you do have a fixation on this but the BAC for pilots is 0.02 not 0.00.

Some private companies have a 0.00 rule BUT THAT IS NOT LAW. If a machine operator or whatever is rolled at 0.01 instead of 0.00 and can show that they have not been drinking then they have a good argument.

As for the "stuff the minority" attitude, you do yourself and your cause no favours.

Another way to make roads safer is to ban and crush for recycling all cars older than 10 years as they are not as safe as new ones. They also use too much fuel, have a bad carbon footprint and even make baby Jesus cry.

Of course the XY GT enthusiasts such as yourself would probably not see this as a good idea but, hey, as you are a tiny minority how did you put it....."why should we accept the risk"......

I'll admit that I wasn't aware that Pilots had a BAC tolerance - I did just assume it was .00 - so I stand corrected.

And - to a point I do agree with the cars older than 10-years are more dangerous than modern cars - there is no argument where you could logically say than an XY GT is safer than a 2007 Corolla.

My beef is with accepting risk. We shouldn't accept it. Nor should we accept poorly trained drivers, unqualified drivers, or speeding drivers.

When it's my family that's been wiped out by a speeding driver, a drunk driver, an incompetent, I would certainly wonder why we accepted the risk.

I am one of the strange minority that thinks that speeding fines should be increased. If the fines were higher, it would hurt more when you did do the wrong thing. Imagine how careful people would be if they knew that a fine for less than 10km/h over the limit would cost $1000.00? And i'm sure your instant reaction will be that too many people will be looking at their speedos and not at the road - which is dangerous.

So change society. Instead of having the mentality that 5km/h over the limit is acceptable, adopt the view that 5km/h UNDER the limit is acceptable. I know that i'd happily drive at 5km/h under the posted limit if I knew it was going to potentially save me $1000.

TAC has said wipe off 5, which was a good start. I say wipe off 10. Wiping off 5 brings the majority back to the speed limit anyway. And if the majority of people adopted the speed drop - you would see the road toll (both deaths and injuries) decline.

I have drifted from the OP - apologies - as the OP was about reducing congestion and not reducing the road toll - so i'm sorry for the hijack.

But it's been a while since i've had a good discussion with you Flappist, and I do always appreciate your view - perhaps not agree - but I do appreciate your view.

As for XY GT enthusiasts - we're certainly a weird mob. Logic is not our strongest suit, following the rules also can be difficult. But - you'll have to agree that passion (in some cases rightly or wrongly) is certainly very strong.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by loftie

I'll admit that I wasn't aware that Pilots had a BAC tolerance - I did just assume it was .00 - so I stand corrected.

Train drivers also have 0.02. It's just a margin that allows for error.

I don't see why cars should have 0

TAC has said wipe off 5, which was a good start. I say wipe off 10.

Might as well wipe of 15, Its ONLY another 5.
Then lets wipe off another 5 and another 5, it's not much really.
After that we will wipe off another 5 one last time.
5Km/h isn't much really.

Leave for work half an hour early.
Take an extra days leave to get to your favorite camping spot. Who cares, just wipe off another 5!

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Train drivers also have 0.02. It's just a margin that allows for error.

I don't see why cars should have 0

I have 0, I'm a P plater.

Why can a pilot have .02, a train driver .02, but not a truck driver?

Rather than wiping off 5, get rid of all the crappy cars getting around, how many old pieces of crap do you see getting around with no brake lights, bald tyres and generally no up-keep on them? Instead of picking on some P plater with a slightly too low car, and 20" rims, maybe they should look at those people.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I have 0, I'm a P plater.

Why can a pilot have .02, a train driver .02, but not a truck driver?

Rather than wiping off 5, get rid of all the crappy cars getting around, how many old pieces of crap do you see getting around with no brake lights, bald tyres and generally no up-keep on them? Instead of picking on some P plater with a slightly too low car, and 20" rims, maybe they should look at those people.

You are a P plater, you can't drive a V8 or turbo so why not make this restriction continue after you get your opens.........

Or is that also just silly logic too......