Road crash fatatilty/injury statistics

[Fireblade]

Top post delete94 and totally agree with your sentiments which seem to be mine, fair enough crack down speeding and drink driving easy to do monitoring wise with cameras and breatho's but what about the lack of monitoring of every other road rule. Unfortunately for the government this costs money as to do this they need to put more cops on the streets with no real hope of either making the money back or actually raising some revenue from it. Cameras are just revenue raisers for this sole reason because most motorists break most other rules than just speeding and probably more often too, Regardless of whether it leads to accidents breaking rules is breaking rules but we have no real policing of these.

[delete94]

Apologies in my last post, got mixed up between Sezzy and Sudszy. Couldn't go back and edit it.

[benoxr]

drivers ignoring the most basic road rule, ie. keeping left, some of those same drivers crossing two or three lanes of traffic because they suddenly realise they’re at their exit on the freeway, drivers edging out of their driveways onto main roads as they think if they get out far enough, someone will have to stop to let them out, drivers not indicating in roundabouts, drivers pulling out from side streets when the way is not really clear, drivers on single lane roads passing on the approach to the crest of a hill and again, drivers on single lane roads passing on double lines.

Good post delete94
Agree wholeheartedly. And what sudzy would say is that if an accident occurred using any of your examples, with a posted limit of say 60km, if you were doing no more than 60km/h you would receive much less injuries than if you were doing 63 or 68km/h. But this is not completely accurate because so many variables need to be taken into account for each accident. E.g. driver reaction time, condition / age of the vehicles prior to the accident.
I think it cant be just a coincidence that since the authority’s have increased emphasis and time into speed detection and RBT, that compliance with the general road rules has decreased.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

no one is saying that at all in this thread. we are suggesting that a small amount over the limit (maybe 5-10kph) is not necessarily more dangerous, than doing the speed limit. you are suggesting that the same amount is more dangerous - you are in the very exclusive, very vocal group; not the rest of us

Unfortunately, physics and statistics are on my side.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

as i suggested earlier and gecko agreed,

Gecko also believed that hitting a fixed barrier head on at 150km/h is survivable in a formula one car and that the ke of large vehicles was transferred to the occupants if the vehicle didnt have a crumple zone etc.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

as i suggested earlier and gecko agreed, braking distances do not come into it if a driver is so unaware, they do not see the danger and therefore do not brake at all or brake later than the vehicle doing >10kph over the speed limit. speed is the secondary problem - the impact is the primary problem. i would much rather the world be full of alert drivers doing 10kph over the posted speed limit than a world that is full of brain dead, incompetant morons that are doing the speed limit or less. it seems you side with the morons, which is a very sad thought

High proportion of collisions involve people not braking at all, verification?


Once you find a way of identifying and getting people off the road that have lapses in concentration(the brain dead morons) and dont brake at all let the authorities know, until then Id prefer they are doing 10kph less when they slam into my vehicle.

For the ones that do find the brake pedal before hitting me the final impact speed is going to be a whole lot greater than 10kph slower if they were actually going 10kph slower in the first place: yes the tac wipe off 5(half the harmless margin you are talking about) ads show it nicely, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuY_VHzKdjc tell me they are wrong?

[Trevor 57]

Most of the reduction in fatalities has been caused by better vehicle design, introduction of compulsory seat belt wearing, air bags, drink driving laws and touhger approach to speeding.

Some of the roads have improved, but the amount of cars on the road has sky-rocketed. Freeways have been one of the biggest improvements in road safety, it has stopped the fatigue related head-ons, people are now hitting trees and barriers, but are surviving due to car design

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by benoxr

Good post delete94
Agree wholeheartedly. And what sudzy would say is that if an accident occurred using any of your examples, with a posted limit of say 60km, if you were doing no more than 60km/h you would receive much less injuries than if you were doing 63 or 68km/h. But this is not completely accurate because so many variables need to be taken into account for each accident. E.g. driver reaction time, condition / age of the vehicles prior to the accident.
.

Sure there is going to be variability with each incident,however, if we increase one variable that affects the severity of accidents (speed), then overall across all accidents/collisions the severity has to increase.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Really, you have documented evidence on this?, your claim is imbecilic.
You have forgotten about the fatigue campaign run by the TAC, not too recently, just in case you were under a rock or have forgotten: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1670yiKz2E

how does that ad disprove or go against anything i wrote. are you telling me that speed wasn't a factor? are you telling me that when accidents happen like that, they don't get recorded with speed being one of the factors? i think we all know they do. govt nufties then look at the statistics and turn 'speed' was a factor into 'speeding' was a factor so they can justify all the attention they give to speed cameras.

Originally Posted by sudszy

(Most cars come with speed alert buzzers now, dont people use them, really whats the excuse?)

i go through no less than 5 different speed zones on my way to work. do you really think people can adjust their speed alert every time they enter a new speed zone?

also, many cars go up in 5km/h increments so it wouldn't help them anyway if the govt is using a 3km/h tolerance.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yes, very true, but the chances of just occasionally exceeding the limit and driving past a speed camera at the same time are incredibly small

when the tolerance is 3kmh, the chances go up quite substantially. add to that dubious infringements, and its little wonder such a huge proportion of Victorian drivers have less than their full allocation of points.

I think we have been here before, the belief that just a little bit over has no effect?

Where's the evidence that it does? Kloeden's study which gave rise to the 'every 5kmh over the speed limit doubles your crash risk' was shoddy in its statistical analysis to say the least. Lambert's re-analysis showed a relationship unsurprisingly similar to Solomon's... your speed relative to the median traffic speed (irrespective of speed limit) was the major determinant. Subsequent analysis of crash data by various others has shown that excessive enforcement of 0-10kmh infringements is of little benefit. Financially however, its easy pickings...

Taken as a whole, vehicle collisions and the extent of them will increase when limits are raised

Source? I disagree. Context is everything. There are certainly roads where an increase in speed limits will reduce crash frequency by reducing fatigue, exposure time, etc.

or more specifically when limits are lowered in this country the effect will diminish.

When WA introduced speed cameras, the road toll went up. When NT brought in speed limits on previously limit-free roads, the road toll went up.

The assertion that lower speeds reduces crash risk across the board is simple-minded nonsense.

Tolerances being reduced in vic, did have an effect on the average speed people travel at

Yet for all the fines handed out over 2004-2008, the rate of reduction paled in comparison to NSW's (around 30% larger reduction), which didnt reduce tolerances.

The fact that we have 1000s of people per day still exceeding the limits and too many killed and injured on our roads, points to that we are no where near achieving that compromise.

The actual probability of a fatal crash is so exceedingly small (ie. once in several lifetimes), that when weighed against the amount of time one spends in a car and the amount and extent one speeds, its obvious it has far less significant role than the revenue collectors would have us believe.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Really, you have documented evidence on this

Do you know how they determine whether speed was a factor? If they can demonstrate that driving at a lower speed could have prevented the accident, its noted as a factor. Irrespective of whether that speed was above or below the limit.

Its why of all speed-related crashes, the majority (something like 80%) happen BELOW the limit.

There was a time the ATSB published stats on crash rate versus speed above the limit (ie. the layman's definition of speeding). It showed that the minority of crashes were either (a) caused by speed (b) involved drivers speeding. Unsurprisingly, these stats were pulled not long after the regulators changed their definition of speeding.... redefiniing normal lawful behaviour as speeding and massively skewing the data to fit their agenda.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Unfortunately, physics and statistics are on my side.

John Lambert, the manager of road safety for VicRoads until the mid-1990s said "It's very safe to do 70 km/h in a 60 zone, assuming it's not pouring with rain and all those things. The stats show there are few crashes there, it's just not an issue, but that's where they do all their enforcement. What they are doing is booking people who are driving very safely."

tell me they are wrong?

Well, the same John Lambert, you know, the manager of road safety for VicRoads until the mid-1990s, read the study, saw the accompanying TAC television campaign and thought it was "just bullsh**".

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Once you find a way of identifying and getting people off the road that have lapses in concentration(the brain dead morons) and dont brake at all let the authorities know ............................. ,

until then Id prefer they are doing 10kph less when they slam into my vehicle.

THe first part of the equation will not happen as in the system at present everyone has the right to drive no matter how good or bad they are as long as they pass a simple test which doesn't matter if it took them once or eleven times to pass ....... so you can forget about that.

And the second part and this is where the whole 'Speed kills' brain washed attitude comes into it ...... Of course if someone hits me I would prefer them doing less than 10k's .... or whatever ...... but by your argument and those from who have worked out that there is HUGE money in the "Speed kills' mentality ..... If I hit you doing 90k's in a 100 zone you will walk away unscathed because I was under the magical speed limit but if I hit you doing 70 in a 60 zone you would be history?

Even you Harold would have to admit that the way this whole thing has been orchestrated it has a massive monetary benefit to the states, now built into budgets and continues to grow momentum because of the way statistics can be reported .....

"Speed Kills .... Don't Speed ... Dont get caught" Fact is everyone does and even yourself. Its just some get caught doing 3k's safely over while many others who are just plain dangerous (not talking just speed) keep doing what they are doing until they wrap themselves or someone around a pole.

The real sad bit about all this is it will appear on the statistics as "Speed related " only when that may have been only a very small factor ....... and the fact is there is NO money to be made to catch the other morons and the money made from Speed taxes from those doing 73 in a 70 zone is dropped into general revenue instead of visible policing which is what this place needs.

This is a big industry now ...... along with gambling, smoking, petrol, carbon etc and statistics can be done in so many ways to ensure the outcome benefits their agenda ..... and for that they thank sudsxy and all his ilk. I feel no safer on the road than I did 30 years ago except for the car which is umpteen times safer and the quality of roads.

[Trevor 57]

Well, lets send the Government's budget into the shyte, no-one speed from this point on!

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Well, lets send the Government's budget into the shyte, no-one speed from this point on!

So when you are going to do this?

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Well, lets send the Government's budget into the shyte, no-one speed from this point on!

you are missing the point a little trev. you can have the best intentions and still step over for that fraction of a second. its all well and good to say 'don't speed', but every one thats ever been caught didn't step out that day intending to go fast, or faster than allowed.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

So when you are going to do this?

I do it now

Originally Posted by prydey

you are missing the point a little trev. you can have the best intentions and still step over for that fraction of a second. its all well and good to say 'don't speed', but every one thats ever been caught didn't step out that day intending to go fast, or faster than allowed.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "everyone", I know of some, in fact there is one over on xfalcons who says he goes out to deliberatly speed and not by a little bit, but he picks where.

I have not had a speeding fine for so long I can't remember when it was, and I do a lot of driving both socially and with work, and my theory is, "if I can do it, others must be able to"

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I have not had a speeding fine for so long I can't remember when it was, and I do a lot of driving both socially and with work, and my theory is, "if I can do it, others must be able to"

there's a difference between not being caught, and not overstepping. i haven't been done for over 10 years, and i don't intentionally speed, but i know that my speedo does occasionally go beyond where its meant to.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by b0son

When NT brought in speed limits on previously limit-free roads, the road toll went up.

The assertion that lower speeds reduces crash risk across the board is simple-minded nonsense.
.

Boson, you are not the first person in this forum to put forward the northern territory as a supposed case in point for speed limits/cameras don’t work. Whether you are being devious or just outright dumb I don’t know, however, I have highlighted on more than one occasion why there the stats from NT from year to year aren’t a particularly good measure of anything except people killed.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=25

I havent got the time or energy to go through all your claims, but anticipate there is more of the same misrepresentation as displayed as with your NT claim.

John Lambert: perhaps have a read here for both sides of the story:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...360633943.html

[Trevor 57]

People shouldn't believe all that propoganda bull-**** about NT speed limits, read this link. The road toll was only 'down' for one year, and that was the year before they dropped the speed limit.

http://www.roadsafety.nt.gov.au/stats/index.shtml

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I do it now

No you dont ...... its just that you haven't been caught. As been said above by Prydey ..... there is a difference between venturing slightly & safely over the limit (which everytime everyone does when they get in the car) and speeding on purpose but that is another matter. That is not generalizing either.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Unfortunately, physics and statistics are on my side.

no they are not. physics only come into it once the driver has noticed a potential hazard and reacted accordingly. i will say it again for you. braking distances are only relavent once the brake pedal has been depressed. do you not understand this. if somone is later on the brakes than another driver, they will take longer to come to a complete stop - difficult to understand i know, but it is true

Originally Posted by sudszy

Gecko also believed that hitting a fixed barrier head on at 150km/h is survivable in a formula one car

no he did not. he never said that. you assumed he did, because of the context of the thread - no one else did because the context of the thread did not lead that way at all. we all understood what gecko said

Originally Posted by sudszy

High proportion of collisions involve people not braking at all, verification?

i did not say that - gecko suggested it and because he is not a pen pusher or bean counter he might have an idea. after all he sees tragic accidents on a regular basis, so his opinion is highly regarded by me and no doubt others on the forum. however, from the amount of brain dead morons i see on the road, i would believe it to be true in some cases

Originally Posted by sudszy

Once you find a way of identifying and getting people off the road that have lapses in concentration(the brain dead morons) and dont brake at all let the authorities know, until then Id prefer they are doing 10kph less when they slam into my vehicle.

For the ones that do find the brake pedal before hitting me the final impact speed is going to be a whole lot greater than 10kph slower if they were actually going 10kph slower in the first place: yes the tac wipe off 5(half the harmless margin you are talking about) ads show it nicely, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuY_VHzKdjc tell me they are wrong?

i do not have to find a way - there are government agencies out there to do that, but instead they just use the easy option

regarding the add. if you and i are travelling at those speeds - you of course the slower one, but i see her and back off slightly and make plans for moving around her if she happens to cross the road at that exact moment, then there is a very good chance that i have more hope of missing her than you. if i brake earlier than you and actually use the big round thing, that i am holding onto, then maybe i would miss her. i realise that being a normal everyday driver, you cannot make these allowances - that is why we have a road toll that is as high as what it is. you see sudszy i drive to survive - i have a theory; no impact, no injury or death. you on the other hand seem to be expecting to be involved in an accident one day. personally i would rather do what i can to avoid the impact, not worry about the speed so much for when it happens

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

no they are not. physics only come into it once the driver has noticed a potential hazard and reacted accordingly. i will say it again for you. braking distances are only relavent once the brake pedal has been depressed. do you not understand this. if somone is later on the brakes than another driver, they will take longer to come to a complete stop - difficult to understand i know, but it is true

you seem to be confused with braking and stopping dist, the latter(the one that matters) includes the distance travelled while reacting, the reaction distance is the product of reaction time and speed.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

if i brake earlier than you and actually use the big round thing, that i am holding onto, then maybe i would miss her.

yes, if you brake earlier, but what has led you to believe that you are able to brake 0.4 secs faster than everyone else. You've had your super human capcities confirmed?

You seem keen to make a point that I take a stance due to my supposed inferior driving capabilities? a little childish dont you think.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yes, if you brake earlier, but what has led you to believe that you are able to brake 0.4 secs faster than everyone else. You've had your super human capcities confirmed?

if i see someone on the side of the road, i start to plan what i am going to do if they run out. i have probably already backed off and already have my foot over the brake pedal all ready to hit it. i left foot the brake so to brake quicker than most people is very easy - and that is not even allowing for the fact that i was ready to brake earlier than the other car

Originally Posted by sudszy

you seem to be confused with braking and stopping dist, the latter(the one that matters) includes the distance travelled while reacting, the reaction distance is the product of reaction time and speed.

so if my reaction time (not distance) or care factor is better than the driver next to me that does not allow me to stop quicker - obviously stopping distance alters with every single driver on every single day. your theory is obviously correct if two drivers react at the exact same time - that does not happen, i will go back to the brain dead morons again. they are not concentrating on driving safely - they are too busy thinking about or doing other things. if you have not seen an example of this on the roads then you must not have ventured out onto the roads at all

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

You seem keen to make a point that I take a stance due to my supposed inferior driving capabilities? a little childish dont you think.

i am not the one that calls people a troll or acuses people of having a nasty tone or calling them imbecilic or . . . . . .

and i wasn't the one who all but accused a moderator of not allowing you to dispute their point of view

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

if i see someone on the side of the road, i start to plan what i am going to do if they run out. i have probably already backed off and already have my foot over the brake pedal all ready to hit it. i left foot the brake so to brake quicker than most people is very easy - and that is not even allowing for the fact that i was ready to brake earlier than the other car

yep back off(from 60km/h) when I see a potentially dodgy situation up ahead too.
glad to hear you do the left foot brake thing, that will save valuable reaction time.

I do the same but also realise that there may be things through either my own failings or reasons beyond my control that I cant anticipate(they are the things that ultimately get everyone when you think about it), though there hasnt been yet, and dont push my luck doing the extra 5-10km/h(no Ive never had a fine, not even a library one.)

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I do the same but also realise that there may be things through either my own failings or reasons beyond my control that I cant anticipate(they are the things that ultimately get everyone when you think about it), though there hasnt been yet, and dont push my luck doing the extra 5-10km/h(no Ive never had a fine, not even a library one.)

no one will dispute the fact that driving faster can add to the danger on our roads. the only thing most of us are saying is that people have different awareness and skill levels - even interest levels when driving. some people are much more dangerous at 5kph below the speed limit than others at 5kph above the limit. these are the people that should be targeted, plus those who are 10% over the limit, but to suggest that someone of jamie whincup's ability is as much a risk on the roads as a little old lady is absolutely ridiculous


the weird thing is the 3 people you are arguing with most in this thread are the three that always stick up for the police, do not put down speed cameras and have a very healthy respect for authority even when others consider it unfair. however, while i do not have a problem with speed cameras i have no doubt that they are for revenue. the intention to start with was no doubt pure, but now they are just a cash cow and in my opinion do not do anything to help the road toll. more police presence - no problems, let's have it; and by the way, i don't get caught by speed cameras and a speed camera will never pick me up to check for roadworthiness or the like. speed cameras work better for me, but for the safety of the general popultion i will take a police presence anyday

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by delete94

No disrespect taken Sudszy. To answer your question though, yes, speeding does put most people into the category of breaking the road rules. However, I’m not quite sure what your point is, as I don’t believe I said that speeding is not breaking the road rules.

My point is simple, and I’m not condoning speeding, if that’s what you were thinking, however, speed is only one of the many attitudinal problems you see displayed on the roads every day. However, there is a disproportional response by authorities to this one aspect.

I assume you actually get out on the roads, I know I do, it’s part of my job. Just a quick list of some of the things I’ve seen in the last week: drivers ignoring the most basic road rule, ie. keeping left, some of those same drivers crossing two or three lanes of traffic because they suddenly realise they’re at their exit on the freeway, drivers edging out of their driveways onto main roads as they think if they get out far enough, someone will have to stop to let them out, drivers not indicating in roundabouts, drivers pulling out from side streets when the way is not really clear, drivers on single lane roads passing on the approach to the crest of a hill and again, drivers on single lane roads passing on double lines.

These are not “non-deliberate mistakes” as you mention, but are quite the opposite. And some of these actions are extremely dangerous, even if you are travelling at the posted speed limit. These are the sorts of things I’m talking about when I say many drivers seem to have a lack of respect for the rules of the road, or even worse, a lack of knowledge of those rules or no idea of the consequences of their actions. And I certainly don’t believe that speed enforcement changes the attitudes of drivers who display this type of behaviour.

If you’re serious about road safety, you can’t look at speed in isolation, it’s ludicrous. One of the outcomes with such a top heavy emphasis on speed is that so-so drivers have the mistaken belief that they are actually good drivers simply because they don’t speed. The fact that they may display some of the attitudes above is lost on them.

A system needs to be in place that teaches drivers, especially new ones, the dangers of being on the road and the possible consequences of their actions, as well as respect for other road users and the road rules. And yes, that includes speeding, but not in isolation.

Lets be honest though Sudszy, you do sound like you’re pro speed enforcement as the overarching fix it, and that’s fine. Me on the other hand, I’m not a believer in speed cameras as a God send that saves lives and, from my own observations, they appear to have done little or nothing to change driver attitudes. So I guess neither of us will ever be convinced otherwise.

It would appear I've missed a little in my absence. For the record, I'm not pro speed cameras - living in Ipswich and regularly driving north past Caboolture and watching the boneheads who are speeding prior to the fixed speed camera at Burpengary...they jam on the brakes, causing mass confusion. Then there are the others that are too busy texting to notice that they have just stumbled upon a speed camera parked on the side of the road, or the guy today that decided despite a 3m scaffold plank stinking out of the rear end of the ute...would try and take it with him as he sped past at 120+ on the Bruce Highway, closely followed by some tool in a falcon that thought the middle of the road was where he belonged.

They're blaze, and I agree wholeheartedly that it's not just speeding that's the issue. I don't believe the legal system has any grasp on what this kind of driving around you actually does and the potential for injury. It's easy for the government to focus on speeding just as it's easy for the person behind the wheel of a car to think that their driving is just that...their's...that nodoby else has to tolerate it. I guess that is my main issue. We are so hell bent on what is 'our' right to do, that we forget about those around us and their rights as well. We're selfish and lack the ability to accept responsibility (as Gecko said), the judicial system further exacerbates this problem by letting these scumbags back on the road, because two years off is going to 'help them learn'. It doesn't...these people aren't sorry, they're sorry they got caught and it's a big difference.

I wrote a letter a little while back to the transport minister regarding the proposed changes to the licencing scheme whereby they were allowed to have a certain number of 'mistakes' in a test. The things listed, failure to indicate, able to go over the speed limit 5 or 6 times in a 30 minute test...and still pass? I questioned why this was the case, as indicating is something that should always be done, and before braking.

I have no problems with people who choose to speed, the other half regularly sits 3 above the speed limit everywhere he goes. He puts the boot into the ute and the turbo kicks in, before he knows it, he's doing 68 in a 60 zone. I, on the other hand choose to lift the foot off the accelerator at about 50, because I know it keeps going up for a little bit. I don't want a speeding fine, I've never had one. It's costly and quite frankly, I like my record clean...and the money in my pocket.

I'm still working on (as time permits) the discussion that was had in July last year regarding a proposal to be made to the government with regard to the current laws, etc. so I guess if anyone has thought of anything else in the big gap that it has become...feel free to PM me and let me know, I'll add it to the already REALLY long list, and start researching for you...better still...if you've got the research already, send that through too...

[prydey]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

while i do not have a problem with speed cameras i have no doubt that they are for revenue. the intention to start with was no doubt pure, but now they are just a cash cow and in my opinion do not do anything to help the road toll.

http://www.news.com.au/three-thousan...rom=public_rss

revenue is addictive. up to 3000 more in nsw.

also, being owned, or about to be owned by the maquarie bank, at a cost of $300m, one of their main priorities will be to make that money back and then turn it into profit. it is now a business/investment, rather than a govt 'safety' device.

what you will notice is a dramatic rise in the amount of revenue, and a very minor (if any) difference in actual accident rate.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

(Most cars come with speed alert buzzers now, dont people use them, really whats the excuse?)

You serious? I had one on my old car and it was permanently set on 130. It rarely went off but it was irritating when it did.

Last thing you want in peak hour is a stupid thing going BEEP BEEP every time you drift up to 61. It startled me if I was just cruising with the windows up, no music on.

Lets list the speeds on the way to my work. About 20 minutes away.
50, (40) 60, 90, 70, 60, 70, 60, 80, 50.
Do you really expect me to take my eyes off the road and press the button every few hundred metres?

Now lets list the speed limits on the way I drive in the work car.

80, 90, 80, 70, 80, 60, 80, 60, 80, 90, 60, (40), 90, 60, 80, 60, 100, 60, 80, 100. That is about an hour trip.

Suggesting people to take eyes of the road that many times to set a speed buzzer is dangerous. I'd prefer the car behind me doing 10 over the limit instead of constantly taking there eyes off the road.

I Hate it when stopping in heavy traffic and you look in the mirror and see the driver behind you looking away from the road.


I have never got a speeding fine in my life either, so you don't have to brag sudzy. I still think all the speed cameras are for revenue raising and do nothing for safety.

Also please sudszy tell us where you drive. What type of roads, what time of the day?
You always avoid personal questions. Maybe if we new a bit more about you we might see your point of view better

Personally I drive all times of the day. You name a time of the day and I would of been on the road at that time multiple times this year alone.

When I am on the New England highway between Musswellbrooke and Singleton, in the Hunter valley NSW, at 2:30am you will never, ever convince me I am 50% (or whatever it is) more likely to crash doing 105-110 in the 100 zone. Especially on that nice bit of good quality road with 2 lanes in each direction and a very large grass medium strip. A few extra clicks is not only going to reduce my fatigue, but it is also less boring and easier to concentrate.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

No you dont

how do you know?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

yep back off(from 60km/h) when I see a potentially dodgy situation up ahead too.

But you were in a 50 zone ........ bloody hoon!

Originally Posted by Big Trev

how do you know?

Because it is a fact ...... If you (or anyone) can stay under or on the speed limit every second of driving time but still drive safely and keep up with the traffic safely then you are just amazing and hope you aren't sharing the road with me.