ABC news: 'Creeping' motorists targeted

balthazarr · 13-10-2008, 01:41 PM

FYI, this article refers to the SA Government.

'Motorists who drive several kilometres an hour over the speed limit are being targeted in a State Government road safety campaign.

The campaign has been produced to counter a public perception that low level speeding, or creeping, is not dangerous.

The Motor Accident Commission says drivers double the risk of a fatal crash when they drive five kilometres faster in a 60 zone, and quadruple the risk when travelling 75 kilometres in a 70 zone.

The Commission's Andrew Daniels says the campaign is confronting.

"The Motor Accident Commission makes no apology for the confronting nature of this new campaign, it is designed the show the real impact that creeping can have," he said.

The Commission says not one pedestrian has been killed in the Adelaide city centre since a 50 kilometre per hour speed limit was introduced five years ago.

Road Safety Minister Carmel Zollo says the greatest potential to reduce road trauma lies with each driver easing their foot off the pedal.

"This campaign is about saving lives, it's about sending a message to people that creeping over the speed limit has enormous human and social costs," she said.

The campaign features road signs, bus shelter posters and radio, internet and television advertisements.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...13/2388894.htm

This is my favourite part:
'Road Safety Minister Carmel Zollo says the greatest potential to reduce road trauma lies with each driver easing their foot off the pedal.'

How about actually teaching people to drive, rather than just how to move the vehicle from A-B?

Or more enforcement of dangerous road behaviour like tail gating, changing lanes without looking, etc.?

I guess it's easier to drum it into people's heads that it is "speed" that kills... and therefore we need to lower speed limits even more, install more cameras, lower tolerances, higher fines, etc.

XR06T · 13-10-2008, 02:26 PM

hahahaha.. so you are supposed to drive with your eyes fixated on the speedo not the road? nice work sa govt.

Dezza · 13-10-2008, 02:40 PM

Sounds like SA is catching up to Victoria with the "No tolerance" speeding. It seems to have turned many Victorian drivers into mindless drones who continuously drive 10-20kph below the speed limit to ensure they don't get fined for doing 103 in a 100kph zone. This increases frustration, which causes impatience which subsequently causes crashes.

flappist · 13-10-2008, 02:41 PM

This is just a feeble attemp at validating an increase in revinue from speed cameras etc.

I will believe that they THEY actually believe this crap when there are no fines, just points.

Tuddy200 · 13-10-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by balthazarr

The Motor Accident Commission says drivers double the risk of a fatal crash when they drive five kilometres faster in a 60 zone, and quadruple the risk when travelling 75 kilometres in a 70 zone.

I doubt highly, we'd be allowed to travel @ 70km/h on any road, if it is 4 times as dangerous to be travelled on @ 75km/h.

SA is taking after Victoria, trying to brainwash the public that just a little bit over, could see you somehow msytically disappear from the road.

All, so they can justify giving out fines of large amounts to get more dollars in to their bank accounts.

sgt_doofey · 13-10-2008, 02:56 PM

Time to turn the speed limiter down a km/h or two when driving the Peugeot then. A wonderful feature that. It allows you to concentrate on the road without having to worry about your speed. Comes in real handy in the 50km/h zones, especially considering how easy it is to gather speed in the Turbo Diesel.
As for the Falcon, I've been driving it for near on 10 years so I can pretty much pick the speed from sound alone.
It will be a bugger if they bring in lower tolerances of speed cameras/radars.

I like the saying that speed kills. It doesn't. The sudden stop at the end does, so educating people on how to avoid that sudden stop would be more beneficial.

Tuddy200 · 13-10-2008, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Time to turn the speed limiter down a km/h when driving the Peugeot then. A wonderful feature that. It allows you to concentrate on the road without having to worry about your speed. Comes in real handy in the 50km/h zones, especially considering how easy it is to gather speed in the Turbo Diesel.
As for the Falcon, I've been driving it for near on 10 years so I can pretty much pick the speed from sound alone.
It will be a bugger if they bring in lower tolerances of speed cameras/radars.

Speed 'Alert or Limiter' is hardly going to work. You have to keep changing it when your speed zone changes then you just get tired of doing it, and forgot about it. Good for highway, but in town, could be wrose, people looking around to change the settings on thier speed alerts.

sgt_doofey · 13-10-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuddy200

Speed 'Alert or Limiter' is hardly going to work. You have to keep changing it when your speed zone changes then you just get tired of doing it, and forgot about it. Good for highway, but in town, could be wrose, people looking around to change the settings on thier speed alerts.

The Pug's is shown in the speedo, so it is nothing more than a glance at the speedo anyway. The controls are on a stalk behind the steering wheel so they are within reach without having to change your grip on the wheel. Override button is under the accelerator so if you mash the pedal to get out of trouble, it will override the limiter.

balthazarr · 13-10-2008, 03:21 PM

For those of you wanting to read more... there's an interesting report here: http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/publicat...ts/CASR039.pdf

It's quite a lengthy report... but if you check some of the trend graphs, almost all of them show a general downward trend for pedestrian casualties from 1981 onwards.

The trend couldn't be that car designs have become safer, could it?

Also, check some of the crashes by speed limit maps pp 27-29... plenty of purple dots (50km/h limits) there.

want-a-XY · 13-10-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

I like the saying that speed kills. It doesn't. The sudden stop at the end does, so educating people on how to avoid that sudden stop would be more beneficial.

AMEN. educate people on how to avoid a crash seems to be the most logical method to me. "watch the road, take notice of things, and learn how to avoid having a crash"

tex · 13-10-2008, 03:55 PM

Where's 4V and FMC, we need to have a(nother) debate on the folly of motorists exceeding a prescribed limit....... revinue, never, it's a voluntary tax!

How hard is it, anyone with half a brain can keep their vehicle from increasing it's velocity beyond a signage imposed limit - can't they?????

* sits back listening for the discontent - to errupt into a flurry of kestrokes*

RSgerry · 13-10-2008, 04:12 PM

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements. 65 in a 60 zone is within the tolerance level of what is permitted. You also have the issue with older cars probably being even less accurate, or more likely to be inaccurate. Most people will drive at the same speed as the rest of the traffic which is usually around the limit. As Flappist said, take the monetary punishment out of it if they are really serious about it. What do you think the chances of that are? Make no mistake, this is a stealth tax grab and only the thin edge of the wedge. Next they will be fining people who were driven to school as children as their education was gained at the expense of today's environment...

duncanwhite · 13-10-2008, 04:13 PM

I work for a computer firm and am contracted out to school for IT support. I have noticed some interesting human behaviours.
In the firm there are other computer technician work mates of mine that are contracted out to other schools. I have visited these schools many times. I find it interesting that some of the techs enjoy their time locking down the computers so students are limited. I never do this because I'm not contacted to be an administrator and create policies but just provide technology and tech support so the things run smoothly. It is the job of teachers to supervise the students.

It's interesting at these other school that the tech start getting very involved with locking the software because the student start to hack and try and push the software. The tech end up spending a lot of their time (which waists money) telling off students.

At my school student do stuff the computers up now and then and I just reimage them. I spend a lot more time on the servers making things run smother. At one time a student even approached me and showed me vulnerability in the network (once I looked it to it, it wasn’t vulnerability).

In this case, it would seem humans like to take authority which shouldn't be theirs and then other humans, in response, like to push the boundaries. I wonder if this extrapolates further.

Jeeepers · 13-10-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dezza!

Sounds like SA is catching up to Victoria with the "No tolerance" speeding. It seems to have turned many Victorian drivers into mindless drones who continuously drive 10-20kph below the speed limit to ensure they don't get fined for doing 103 in a 100kph zone. This increases frustration, which causes impatience which subsequently causes crashes.

All too true. The state logo for our plates should now read "Victoria, State of Paranoia".

tex · 13-10-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSgerry

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements. 65 in a 60 zone is within the tolerance level of what is permitted. You also have the issue with older cars probably being even less accurate, or more likely to be inaccurate. Most people will drive at the same speed as the rest of the traffic which is usually around the limit. As Flappist said, take the monetary punishment out of it if they are really serious about it. What do you think the chances of that are? Make no mistake, this is a stealth tax grab and only the thin edge of the wedge. Next they will be fining people who were driven to school as children as their education was gained at the expense of today's environment...

Hey mate, you're preaching to the converted.....

I was taking the puss, I believe it is revinue fuelled greed, thinly disguised by the cloak of road safety. (As I've posted many, many times previously in other contentious threads)

I'm sure others will enter the discussion soon enough, and no doubt I will have cause to reiterate my previous musings on this topic.....

Keepleft · 13-10-2008, 04:28 PM

ADS, and feedback are here:-

http://www.caradvice.com.au/17551/cr...#comment-97301

Keepleft · 13-10-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSgerry

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements.

ADR18 was updated a year or so ago, the effect is for 100% accuracy at 100km/h etc.

takes time to trickle down (years) and have effect.

This story is more of the same 'speed-limit' conditioning rubbish.

Wally · 13-10-2008, 04:49 PM

You can't blame the governments for enforcing the rules. Policing is right up there at every election, even if it is for crime. The casualty rates have been dropping consistently since 1983, to less than half today. The rate is around the 8s currently while in the 60's and 70's it was mid 20s.

The nominal makeup of fatalities in Qld is:

48% drivers
18% passengers
20% motorcyclists
11% pedestrians
3% bicyclists

which makes me wonder why motorcycles are allowed.

73% are males
27% female

45% occur in 100 -110kph zones
60% occur on state roads
40% occur on local roads
33% are impact object related
18% are head on
77% wear seatbelts, 23% don't
26% involve speeding
18% get too tired
8% are children
27% are 17-24
49% are 25 -59
16% are 60-

Bud Bud · 13-10-2008, 04:54 PM

I thought this would come one day! Just get the majority of brain dead motorist to believe this craziness through mindless advertising and they will think that the Government will be doing them a favour by fining people for 1 or 2 km's over the posted speed limit once they have finally introduced zero tolerance.

Please explain this, if it was twice as dangerous to travel @ 65 k/ph in a 60 then why are we aloud to travel anywhere in a built up area @ 70 even if it is sign posted and deemed safe @ 70? Surely it just would be safer to travel everywhere @ 50 regardless of what the sign post suggest, after all isn't the sign posted speed limit a "man made up" speed limit that is constantly subject to change anyway?

Oh and before we get too warm and cosy, some well paid professor will conclude that it would be 5 times safer to travel @ 40 instead of 50, and so it goes on.

fmc351 · 13-10-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tex

Where's 4V and FMC, we need to have a(nother) debate on the folly of motorists exceeding a prescribed limit....... revinue, never, it's a voluntary tax!

How hard is it, anyone with half a brain can keep their vehicle from increasing it's velocity beyond a signage imposed limit - can't they?????

* sits back listening for the discontent - to errupt into a flurry of kestrokes*

Im right here. What you keep saying is you cant control a motor vehicle and should be using a bus. "wah wah wah, I cant keep to a speed limit, my foot is sporadic and uncontrolled, the speedo is too hard to read at a glance, its not my fault I creep over".

Think about it, youre claiming to be the victim of something in your control to avoid, yet fail to. Youre a victim of yourself, thats voluntary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSgerry

tex, the problem with your arguement is that cars are manufactured with a +/- 10% accuracy in their speedos, within federal government requirements. 65 in a 60 zone is within the tolerance level of what is permitted. You also have the issue with older cars probably being even less accurate, or more likely to be inaccurate.

No they dont, its -10%, not +10% at all.

Speedos can not read under the actual speed.

joolz · 13-10-2008, 05:01 PM

On Melbourne's Eastlink there were around 65,000 vehicles detected speeding over i think a 3 month period. There has not been a single fatality. So does speed really kill or is it the people who just dont watch the road. Its all about revenue but the Government will always and forever use speed as an excuse to flood their coffers.

Bud Bud · 13-10-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

The nominal makeup of fatalities in Qld is:

20% motorcyclists

which makes me wonder why motorcycles are allowed.

73% are males

49% are 25 -59

You also wonder why they let males or in fact anyone between the age of 25- 59 drive either!

balthazarr · 13-10-2008, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

...
Oh and before we get too warm and cosy, some well paid professor will conclude that it would be 5 times safer to travel @ 40 instead of 50, and so it goes on.

That day is already here... http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11231383

fmc351 · 13-10-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joolz

On Melbourne's Eastlink there were around 65,000 vehicles detected speeding over i think a 3 month period. There has not been a single fatality. So does speed really kill or is it the people who just dont watch the road.

People have done well over 100 in 60 zones, and in most instances no-one was killed. That doesnt make it safe.

Anyone who does kill someone as a result of speed, it is unlikely that instance was the first time they sped.

What is true, if youre not speeding, youll stop quicker than if you were, and that 1 meter or whatever of distance traveled will help reduce severity of injury.

Too complicated?

xe351 · 13-10-2008, 05:13 PM

its also true that if you walk, you probably won't be in a crash or get a speeding ticket, but it will take a hell of a lot longer

:

Scott · 13-10-2008, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

This is just a feeble attemp at validating an increase in revinue from speed cameras etc.

Yep.

So, what is the chance of having a crash at 50/60km/h anyway? My guess is something like 0.001% chance and therefore the "quadrup...quadrup... 4timesing" effect would get you to a 0.004% chance of having a prang.

Seriously, this is a load of poop.

Think about haw many times you have travelled in a 50 or 60 zone... in my last 10 minute drive alone I went through about 15 different ones (or ones that went 50-70-50... how many times have I crashed?

If you did the maths it would be something like 2 crashes divided by 10,000,000 speed zones and you would get an answer of: 0.00002% of the time I crash for every speed zone I travel. Truth is that you'd need to halve that % because only one of the crashes happened in a 50/60 zone.

Take a more sensible approach and do these maths:

I guess I have made around 25,000 unique driving trips, as the driver, in my life so far. Of those 25,000 trips, I have crashed twice. 2/25000 = 0.008% chance of me having a crash anytime I get behind the wheel based on my track record.

If I "creep" and quadruple my chances of having a prang, then I HUGELY increase the chance of dying a horrible, bloody burning death to 0.032%.

FFS, I'm gonna make a land claim in Antarctica and set up my own country with no speed limits at all. If only I could get some tax payers to come with me to build some roads and pay my wage as a public servant in that fine Utopia.

edit - oops, I forgot to factor in how many times I died in those two accidents... oh well, I'm not aware of dying in either of those accidents so the maths gets a bit trickier.... lets say I died in the first one and go from there......

Keepleft · 13-10-2008, 05:34 PM

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...04-421,00.html

Updated Ads location, previous link deceased....

Bud Bud · 13-10-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

People have done well over 100 in 60 zones, and in most instances no-one was killed. That doesnt make it safe.

Anyone who does kill someone as a result of speed, it is unlikely that instance was the first time they sped.

What is true, if youre not speeding, youll stop quicker than if you were, and that 1 meter or whatever of distance traveled will help reduce severity of injury.

Too complicated?

No the problem is far more complicated than this. If it was that simple would all not be doing 40 k/ph because the stopping distance would be less than say @ 50k/ph?

If this is the case then simple logic tells you that it would be much safer top travel @ 30 k/ph because the braking distance has been reduced over all right?

Well then 10 k/ph must be safer then 30 kph.

I would also go out on a limb and suggest the 1 k/ph would in fact still be safer than 10 k/ph would this be correct? Then why drive at all?

At what point do you include any practicality in this argument?

We already have to put up with travelling @ much lower speed limits not only here in SA but all over the country but especially in SA during peak hr because we forgot to implement a decent road infrastructure plan nearly 40 years ago, we already make stupid allowances like using a corridor in one direction for half a day and then reversing it for the other! I don't live in the South and I always seem to be on the wrong side when ever I need to use it.

People would accept lower speed limits in built up areas if there was open corridors like the city link in Melbourne, but slowing down the only regular routes that available even more when there has been little or no infrastructure over the past 30-40 years will only compound the problems here in SA. even more

Build a decent ring road and a decent uninterrupted North South corridor and you can make the built up areas speed limit what you like. But for FS the Government must stop constantly taking without giving something back.

Dezza · 13-10-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keepleft

ADR18 was updated a year or so ago, the effect is for 100% accuracy at 100km/h etc.

takes time to trickle down (years) and have effect.

This story is more of the same 'speed-limit' conditioning rubbish.

Might be okay for a new car to have 100% speedo accuracy but wear and tear on the tyres and subsequent replacements, fitting aftermarket wheels etc. ensures that it doesn't stay that accurate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

People have done well over 100 in 60 zones, and in most instances no-one was killed. That doesnt make it safe.

Anyone who does kill someone as a result of speed, it is unlikely that instance was the first time they sped.

What is true, if youre not speeding, youll stop quicker than if you were, and that 1 meter or whatever of distance traveled will help reduce severity of injury.

Too complicated?

It's a case of driving to the conditions. Sure if you drive 100 in a 60 zone, yes, that is stupid. But doing 110 on a 100kph stretch of dead straight freeway is not harming anyone. In fact a lot of freeways should have far higher speed limits than what they have as people fall asleep behind the wheel, it is that boring. I still don't know why all the recent freeways built in Victoria seem to be maximum of 100. What happened to 110 for freeways? The fact is speed is an easy excuse for the government to make money, money that should be getting spent on making roads safer. Instead it gets spent on stupid artwork like the fake hotel on the side of Eastlink, the massive Cheese stick on the Western loop, and what appears to be a massive sliced up coil spring on the side of the Pakenham bypass.

Wally · 13-10-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

You also wonder why they let males or in fact anyone between the age of 25- 59 drive either!

LOL

yeah but when you adjust for participation rate (4%) the motor bikes are a death waiting to happen. That's a 5 to one ratio (20/4), while cars are 0.69 to one ratio (66/96). You have a 700% more likelyhood of death on a bike than in a car.

Age wise the 17-24 yearold is 270% more likely to die than the 35-59 individual.