Speed Kills - Rubbish - from Motor....

[gtfpv]

its ashame there is no dead people who have died while speeding to tell us that speed does kill.

[F6 UTE]

Originally Posted by nang3

if every driver had the skill and experience of brocky/ambrose whoever yet all other thigns remained constant, what do you think would happen to the road toll?

there would be fist fights everywhere coz murph would be cutting everyone off at every damn corner......

[zetec]

For anyone familiar with that Monash TV ad on speed difference between 60km/h and I think it's 65 or 70km/h in 2 stock AU forte's, here's my advice.

How about a Camry pov pack V6/Au Forte/Corolla/Commodore Exec at 60km/h

vs

Subaru Liberty GT or a GT-P or a WRX or a Clubbie at 70km/h.


See who hits the truck then. :

I'd wager that the driver who has half an interest and probably more than a mozzie's left nut worth of skill will stop the performance car quicker than the bog stock pov pack with average Joe/Josephine Muppet, cost insurers less, cause less drama, risk fewer lives and allow that truck to get to Woolies quicker so I can have my fresh bread and bananas on time. And that's with the performance car going 5km/h faster let alone at the same speed.

This is purely a one dimensional comparo not accounting for many variables, I also understand the TV ad is designed to simply have one variable, speed. The problem is however that not all cars and drivers are the same on our roads and variability is infitie. Let's wager that the average performance car stops quicker than the average bog pack and the average performance driver has somewhat more ability than your average disinterested A-to-B-vomit driver.

Does that not advocate better vehicles and show that performance car drivers are actually doing us all a favour in promoting the sale of these safety improvers? I'm not trying to prove that we can all drive faster if we have a GTP, but perhaps if we're all doing the same speed those of us in better cars are safer (that's blatantly obvious) then also shouldn't the government actually be targetting everyone who's ever walked into a Toyota Dealership, anyone who owns a front wheel drive large car or anyone who wears cardigans and bowler hats and who doesn't get wood at the sight of a performance car? Those members of society so disinterested in their own safety and those around them that they don't go out of their way to maximise their handling, braking, passive and active safety by purchasing a higher spec car? If cost is an issue, if you can't afford a really safe car, then you can't afford to drive. I can afford to not hit you by purchasing a car with better performance, handling and safety, you can afford me the courtesy of either turning on your brain and doing the same, or catching the train.

[zetec]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

its ashame there is no dead people who have died while speeding to tell us that speed does kill.

It's a shame that no dead people who have died while shaking a vending machine in the USA for stuck candy are here to tell us that shaking vending machines for candy does kill.

It only kills those who shake it the wrong way and don't consider the weight, the limits of their strength, the grip of the floor against their shoes and their escape routes in the event that the machine topples. If shaking a vending machine killed, I'd have die the lives of about 20 cats by now.

That statement is so open ended gtfpv. It proves nothing. Stop persisting with a one dimensional statement that can't be disproven and consider for once that others are right. Speed alone cannot kill. Speed exacerbates the risk of death, it decreases reaction distance. Another factor is still needed to kill, such as mechanical failure, human error or so called "acts of God" like a meteorite landing in front of you which itself is ultimately the reason for the death. The speed is a factor, albeit major, it is still a factor. It affects your chance of surviving the event that has occurred to start the chain reaction.

INAPPROPRIATE Speed within the conditions is a big factor in deaths, however speed alone does not kill. I feel insulted every time I hear the speed kills mantra. It is inappropriate speed that kills, not speed alone. Problem is, so few people know what speed is appropriate for the conditions of their car, the road, their ability and the environment that at the end of the day, the only way to avoid this whole ИИИИing debate is to stay at home and play playstation. :

[DOC]

[QUOTE=zetec]

How about a Camry pov pack V6

???

then also shouldn't the government actually be targetting everyone who's ever walked into a Toyota Dealership, anyone who owns a front wheel drive large car or anyone who wears cardigans and bowler hats and who doesn't get wood at the sight of a performance car? Those members of society so disinterested in their own safety and those around them that they don't go out of their way to maximise their handling, braking, passive and active safety by purchasing a higher spec car?

Sorry champ and i don't want a flame war here from you but that's just not playin ball as i see it, for starters i bought a brand new pov pack v6 toyota ( to put along side my brand new BA xr8 ) and your trying to tell us that in some way the toyota is not safe ? it is a great handling car that i feel just as safe in as the xr and by saying that iether myself or my wife ( as a pov camry owner ) are disinterested in our/ our childrens saftey or those around us leaves me a bit lost for words, you seem to have everyone in one bucket making statements like that, and in some way confusing, if idrive the camry im as you have stated, jump home and change the car and now im responsible as im driving a better performance car ?

If cost is an issue, if you can't afford a really safe car, then you can't afford to drive. I can afford to not hit you by purchasing a car with better performance, handling and safety, you can afford me the courtesy of either turning on your brain and doing the same, or catching the train

This is also a bit left field, there a lot of cars out there that are well maintained that really have nothing to do with big bucks and im sure the drivers have thier brains turned on.

As many have said drive to your ability / to the cars ability and driving within the road / weather conditions so that you do not place yourself and or others around you at risk.

Zetec nothing personal here just another view regarding the open comments made.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by zetec

...shouldn't the government actually be targetting everyone who's ever walked into a Toyota Dealership, anyone who owns a front wheel drive large car or anyone who wears cardigans and bowler hats...

Dunno about that Zetec. I've got no problems with the toyota drivers or even those amongst us who are getting on in years, as long as they drive to the conditions. As I said in an earlier post - Adjust your speed so suit the prevailing weather / road / traffic conditions. Perhaps I should have also included vehicle and driver skill limitations, because they have a major influence on how fast you can safely drive.

Originally Posted by DOC

...if i drive the camry i'm as you have stated, jump home and change the car and now im responsible as im driving a better performance car...

I can see where Zetec is coming from, though don't quite agree with his wording. In this circumstance you wouldn't have become a more responsible person, you would have removed one of the limitations on your maximum safe speed - the vehicle.

Panda

[zetec]

I do see your points and I was being a little exaggerated but I guess I was bound to cause that in picking the names of cars specifically. Apologies for insinuating that anyone specifically is useless, I guess I was more outlining the stereotype. I also have an unashamed hatred of the "average" Camry driver, don't know what it is about them. I think it's my overly passionate enthusiastic approach to driving that just conflicts that of the average A-B driver and a lot of them are sensible and buy sensible cars like Camrys etc. But my point was stated, that in the end I feel that instead of the performance car brigade being targeted for having dangerous weapons, that for once perhaps the government look beyond it's pocket and see the added features that complement the high power, namely FPV driver training, Traction Control, Stability control, good tyres, good brakes (or super brakes like 6 pot brembos), responsive suspension etc. Things that all cars have but that I feel the performance cars have because of their added abilities. Things like these should not only be compared to base model cars that aren't being mandated to push things like stability control but should also be then taught in driver training and experienced by those who actually have it.

I just hate these nonsensical government ads that are so general, designed to shock and really do nothing more than make a negative impression upon those who know what they're doing and just insult them. Of course that AU ad is designed to give them the desired result and I learnt you lose your last 50% speed in the last 5 or 10 metres or whatever, but for goodness sake why just keep teaching us to wipe off 5 and stay alive when we could all be driving cars that have been better specced with safety devices rather than bigger spoilers, extra CD slots and more bling?!?!!!

So I got a little heated in the last post, my bad, you can tell I'm more than just a little passionate about the bullИИИИ that we get forced to take and the constant lack of even the slightest desire for anyone to teach us how to drive properly. We have to actively individually investigate, learn and pay ourselves to learn to drive, only after we self-recognise the need to do so, then have to learn so called "defensive" driving to avoid death from other road users. I'm not a perfect driver who can't make a mistake, but I like being aware I can and driving to suit my limitations... I just wish the average person knew not only that same fact, but also knew how to stop a bloody car on a wet road or how not to take out 15 other drivers because they can't see over the damn wheel since they can't even setup a driver's seat properly... :SaiyanSmi

This debate will rage on no matter what.

My view is this: Speed itself does not kill, inappropriate speed kills.

Lets look at a few scenarios.

1. On a country hwy signposted 100km/h, it is raining and a driver is abiding by the law and is doing 100km/h. On a relatively gentle bend the driver maintains the speed and then backs off the throttle to slow down halfway into the bend, as he/ she does they hit a puddle of water and as a result the car oversteers. The driver looses control, hits a tree and dies.

Did the driver break the law? NO. The driver should have been doing no more than 90km/h and probably should have taken the bend at 70 or 80km/h.

2. Same bend, but on a dry day once again the driver is maintaining 100km/h and then just before they hit the bend they decide to change a CD. Eyes come off the road and instead of turning into the bend he/ she gets into the path of a semi-trailer who could not pull up in time despite honking his horn. Driver dies.

Did the driver break the law? NO again.

3. Once again, same bend, nice sunny day and the driver is doing 110km/h before the bend then slows to 90km/h and safely steers through the bend. No accident.

Did the driver break the law? YES. Are they still alive? YES!

My point is, the driver must be at full attention while driving and drive to the conditions at the time. However, problem is a large percentage of drivers are over-confident, incompetent or just plain too stupid to tell the difference.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me.

Had a change of mind have we?

Originally Posted by gtfpv

anyone who wants to apoligise for thier remarks about speed not bieng related to higher risk of death or accidents on roads due to enexpected incidents. feel free. flamers.

Big difference in "Speed Kills" and 'Speed is related to...etc"

Originally Posted by gtfpv

in most of these cases with wild life and roos and country areas with bad road surfaces etc it seems the most logical and easiest thing to do is drive a bit slower to lessent the risk of unexpected surprises.

So we can expect to see you driving on country roads at around 80kmh or less?

The other thing I'm really curious about is if you're so convinced that "Speed Kills" why are you not driving a bog standard Falcon instead of the fire breather in your avatar

As a lot of others have said... driving too fast (not speeding!) for the road conditions increases your chance of an accident.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Had a change of mind have we?


Big difference in "Speed Kills" and 'Speed is related to...etc"

So we can expect to see you driving on country roads at around 80kmh or less?

The other thing I'm really curious about is if you're so convinced that "Speed Kills" why are you not driving a bog standard Falcon instead of the fire breather in your avatar

As a lot of others have said... driving too fast (not speeding!) for the road conditions increases your chance of an accident.

no ghange of mind here . the 1 st post argues that speed doesnt kill and blames other things like stopping against the windscreen suddenly etc etc and driver skill . it makes no mention of unexpected circumstances where if you are driving too fast bang bang your dead .
i simply stated that speed can and does kill just as a flat tyre kills . no one would argue with me here would they , but then again.lots of hogwash would come up like ive had 350 blowouts man and drove home before i changed the tyre because im such a skilled driver. driving too fast is what i term speeding and if it causes someone to lose control it is not that they are a dumb driver it is because they wer SPEEDING .
HERES ONE FOR YA . NOT STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT KILLS . .

[F6 UTE]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

no ghange of mind here . the 1 st post argues that speed doesnt kill and blames other things like stopping against the windscreen suddenly etc etc and driver skill . it makes no mention of unexpected circumstances where if you are driving too fast bang bang your dead .
i simply stated that speed can and does kill just as a flat tyre kills . no one would argue with me here would they , but then again.lots of hogwash would come up like ive had 350 blowouts man and drove home before i changed the tyre because im such a skilled driver. driving too fast is what i term speeding and if it causes someone to lose control it is not that they are a dumb driver it is because they wer SPEEDING .
HERES ONE FOR YA . NOT STOPPING AT A RED LIGHT KILLS . .

I'd just leave it mate...

not worth the hassle and headbanging..

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by F6 UTE

I'd just leave it mate...

not worth the hassle and headbanging..

yeah i know . but some of the replies are as funny as a good joke and some are good reading . but i'll take your advice. its all good .

[b0son]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

Yes, but do 20kmh in a 100 zone compared to someone doing 100kmh, and let's see who causes or is involved in more crashes.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

if it was raining and a kid run out in front of my car i would naturaly swerve . if i didnt and there was witnesses i would be charged with murder.

You wouldnt be convicted though, unless you admitted that you wanted them to die. You dont have to swerve, brake yes, but swerve no. The law doesnt define what constitutes taking action to avoid a crash. I would never swerve. My life is of greater value than that of someone that crosses roads with little regard for their own life.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

is this a speed forum or what . sounds like most people here want to drive faster on our roads.

I'd prefer to know that there is sufficient leeway given in speed enforcement to allow people to drift 5-10kmh over the limit without fear of penalty. Speed cameras do nothing to make roads safer - how does fining someone for a momentary indiscretion of 3kmh help road safety? Do we want people to have to constantly watch their speedos? I'd prefer that they have their eyes on the road.

most p platers have accidents not from poorer reaction times. or drinking alcahol , mostly it is due to driving faster then older drivers.

No, they simply have not adequately developed the skills to handle problems that arise (including those caused by inappropriate speed). Simply repeating the 'speed kills' mantra does nothing to address the true cause of young driver deaths - complete lack of worthwhile training.

experiance doesnt mean you are a better driver because you will make less mistakes it means you will drive safer and usually slower reducing the risk of an INCIDENT.

Experience means greater ability and greater anticipation - speed is largely irrelevant. An experienced driver simply learns when/where different speeds are appropriate.

Some of the most dangerous drivers I've witnessed were also some of the slowest.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

good points but humans make mistakes and always will regardless how inteligent they are . and controling speeding will lessen the cosiquences of those mistakes. but they are all just as important as slowing down which everyone seems to disagree on.

Speed enforcement is simply an exercise in risk management. The govt has assumed that X accidents will occur, therefore they should try and reduce the trauma associated with those accidnets by reducing impact severity. That's but one way to address the issue. Problem is, a huge chunk of accidents occur below the speed limit.

A better approach would be to adequately prepare new drivers with suitable training. Drivers would have a better feel for their car and be better placed to respond to situations where a crash may occur. Additionally, drivers would be able to better anticipate situations where a crash may occur. This would certainly result in far greater reductions in road trauma, not just by people slowing down as conditions require, but also by avoiding crashes altogether.

Only two problems with the second approach. 1) Larger expenditure by the govt to train drivers. 2) Large drop in revenue from speed enforcement.

[F6 UTE]

Originally Posted by b0son

I would never swerve. My life is of greater value than that of someone that crosses roads with little regard for their own life.

A kid jumps out in front of you. I bet my testes you swerve. Human nature, for those born with a heart and compassion in their bones.


I as a rule don't swerve for animals... Kids => different ball game.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by F6 UTE

A kid jumps out in front of you. I bet my testes you swerve. Human nature, for those born with a heart and compassion in their bones.

If there's room on the other side of the road. I never swerve onto the shoulder, and certainly not into the path of oncoming traffic.

Compassion doesnt factor into it when you have milliseconds to respond. That's why so many pedestrians get struck down - in almost half of pedestrian impacts drivers dont swerve or brake.

[jabba]

Originally Posted by b0son

I would never swerve. My life is of greater value than that of someone that crosses roads with little regard for their own life.

If it were my Kids or wife you did not swerve for, I can assure you, you would end up in intensive care. No I would not KILL you, I would just brutally maim(spell?) you, so you would be disabled for the rest of your life.

[Quadcams]

Originally Posted by jabba

If it were my Kids or wife you did not swerve for, I can assure you, you would end up in intensive care. No I would not KILL you, I would just brutally maim(spell?) you, so you would be disabled for the rest of your life.

Me to Jabba, thats one of the most callous selfish comments Ive heared.

[jabba]

Originally Posted by Lowride260

Me to Jabba, thats one of the most callous selfish comments Ive heared.

Sorry if I offended you Lowride...

I can't help the way I feel when it comes to my family. How would you feel if a careless driver took the life of your wife or children or worse caused them to be permanently disabled or brain damaged for the rest of there natural life. All because the attitude was that of bOson... And in my opinion, time in jail or death would be to easy for the selfish, careless, irresponsible driver.

[Quadcams]

Originally Posted by jabba

Sorry if I offended you Lowride...

I can't help the way I feel when it comes to my family. How would you feel if a careless driver took the life of your wife or children or worse caused them to be permanently disabled or brain damaged for the rest of there natural life. All because the attitude was that of bOson... And in my opinion, time in jail or death would be to easy for the selfish, careless, irresponsible driver.

Mate wasnt talking about your comment i agree with you, I was talking about Boson's comment about not swerving to miss a kid or any person for that fact.
Sorry dude I should have pointed my comment at the thread we were talking about.

[F6 UTE]

Originally Posted by b0son

If there's room on the other side of the road. I never swerve onto the shoulder, and certainly not into the path of oncoming traffic.

Compassion doesnt factor into it when you have milliseconds to respond.

It's instinctive to swerve out of the way for ANYONE.

I'd rather hit an oncoming car with my car, tree, post or speedsign than hit a kid/person and destroy several lives.

Period.

[jabba]

Originally Posted by F6 UTE

It's instinctive to swerve out of the way for ANYONE.

I'd rather hit an oncoming car with my car, tree, post or speedsign than hit a kid/person and destroy several lives.

Period.

Period

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by b0son

Compassion doesnt factor into it when you have milliseconds to respond.

Well your right on that point at least, but believe me your not thinking about whats coming on the other side of the road either.

I had a young girl run out from between parked cars into the road in front of me, she stopped dead still at about the moment I started to swerve & trust me your not thinking about your own safety or anyone coming the other way.... I just wrenched on the wheel so hard & hoped for the best.

[jabba]

Originally Posted by Lowride260

Mate wasnt talking about your comment i agree with you, I was talking about Boson's comment about not swerving to miss a kid or any person for that fact.
Sorry dude I should have pointed my comment at the thread we were talking about.

No worries Wade. I thought your comment was a bit strange. But I also thought that you may of disliked the fact that maiming someone was below the belt

[ED Classic]

The "Speed" word is very very general which is what coffers love to justify revenue.

Speeding is a more sensible word.

If you ran off the road and hit a tree doing 65kmh in a 60 zone would there be more chance of you being killed than if you ran off the road doing 65kmh in a 100kmh zone and you had the same conditions,car and same size tree? Of course not,but perhaps we can get Prof Ian Johnston to do an add on this one...Perhaps speed can kill but speed doesnt kill always so dont say it does

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jabba

If it were my Kids or wife you did not swerve for, I can assure you, you would end up in intensive care. No I would not KILL you, I would just brutally maim(spell?) you, so you would be disabled for the rest of your life.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. If there was oncoming traffic, or the only other alternative was to drive onto the shoulder (ie. dirt), then I would brake. Why should I risk my life and that of my occupants because someone has a disregard for theirs?

If I crash my car, permanently injuring (or killing) myself or someone else avoiding your child, will you agree to support my family or theirs? I suspect not.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Lowride260

Me to Jabba, thats one of the most callous selfish comments Ive heared.

Maybe so, but I bet if I hurt myself or someone else as a result of trying to avoid Jabba's child, all I would get from him is a 'sorry mate, tough break' and I would be the one who would have to foot the bill for my medical problems or those of someone else. I guarantee, Jabba would make no offer of reparation to any third party harmed as a result of his child running on the street unsupervised.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jabba

How would you feel if a careless driver took the life of your wife or children or worse caused them to be permanently disabled or brain damaged for the rest of there natural life. All because the attitude was that of bOson... And in my opinion, time in jail or death would be to easy for the selfish, careless, irresponsible driver.

Fact: 80% of pedestrian impacts are the fault of the pedestrian. So instead of blaming the irresponsible driver, it would be more prudent of you to teach your children to stay off the road when cars are about.

Noones saying drivers have the right to speed where there's pedestrians about, but even in 40/50 zones in residential areas, there's only so much a driver can do. The rest of the responsibility lies with the parent to teach their children the dangers of playing on/near roads.

I'll say it again, in nearly half of pedestrian impacts drivers neither swerve of brake. Will you be happy knowing that a driver pulled some kamikaze move to avoid hitting your child that didnt work anyway, or would you prefer that your child wouldnt run onto the road in the first place?