# Lets discuss "Wipe Off 5" campaigns :)



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Someone told me recently that I perhaps have no comprehension regarding physics when I said the "Wipe off 5 " campaign was merely there to justify fining people..in other words "revenue raising". Physics don't do sqwat-diddly if your reaction time is too slow...or you're too unobservant whilst fiddling with your MP3 or radio station instead of watching the road. I hate it when science is manipulated to suit an agenda. And that's exactly what the "Wipe off 5" campaign is all about 8)

Additionally the speed limit on major freeways should be ramped up to 130kph....providing the road isn't laden with potholes.


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 12, 2014)

I was under the impression that the "Wipe off 5" campaign was an education campaign and has done nothing to change the speed limit and was aimed at reducing people who speed in the low level range, and in doing so reducing "revenue raising". 

Science, in this case physics, has it exactly right, if you leave all the variables the same and if the only factor changing is the speed of the vehicle, then the potential kinetic energy will have reduced as well as the potential to cause injury. In this case, science has explained the statistics that are responsible for said agenda 

Having said that, governments are all about "revenue raising", and many enforcement agencies certainly consider raising revenue as policy to continue to justify their existence. 

I personally drive a lot of highways and freeways in WA, and modern cars and current road conditions certainly suggest to me that raising the speed limits on these roads would be a good thing.


----------



## jack (May 12, 2014)

I am not aware of the campaign but here's some simple high school physics I present to students: 
A pedestrian or bicyclist impacted by a car at 40km/h feels about the same force as a 6 metre fall, 50km/h feels about the same force as falling for 10 metres, hit at 60km/h equivalent to about a 15 metre fall (i.e. dropping off a five story building). 
Take an experimental fall right now on to the floor from your 0.5 metre high chair and think about these numbers...

...and if you were travelling at 130km/h in your car on the free way, even with the reaction times of a jet pilot, decent brakes and new tyres on a dry road you would be lucky to come to a stop in under 140 metres, good luck missing what ever is ahead of you that prompted the braking.

I have no problem if the government decides to raise money form people who put themselves and others at risk by driving at speeds above posted limits.


----------



## Snowman (May 12, 2014)

I guess with the increase in fuel tax we will have pot hole free roads


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 12, 2014)

Snowman said:


> I guess with the increase in fuel tax we will have pot hole free roads



Or more roads they don't maintain!


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Good points.

However my issue, and always has been, is that they use scenarios where their physics examples work in certain situations. As an example:

The girl steps out from a curb "at a set distance", the driver has a “variable reaction time” which could be faster or slower depending on a lot of different factors (tired driver, wet road, distractions, tyre condition/type, braking system/vehicle type etc) – but the example is a measured set distance that might never actually occur in a real life situation.

So what if the girl walks out 20mtrs from the left sooner or from behind a parked van & you hit her at 55kph because you didn’t get time to apply the brakes. What if she steps out further than the example; but you were concerned with a car to your right that looked as if they may have failed to see the red light they’re supposed to be stopping for? What if your reaction time was diminished because you glanced at your speedometer because of another fluctuating speed sign & all of a sudden you’re 5mtrs further from the point you should have braked at whilst you were doing 55kph? You’re going to either hit her harder, or have had the same impact depending on that conveniently hypothetical location of where the girl steps out. It’s too much of a sliding scale. It cannot be accurate enough to use in a real life situation with so many changing variables – but it used like that to justify booking “criminals” at 2-3-5kms hour over the limit. 105kph in a 100 zone…you absolute maniac!!

Low level speeding rarely results in a severe accident. Being unobservant does! Vehicle speedometers are less accurate than police laser guns/ speed cameras etc, but now we’re seeing the slightest of tolerances now swapped for fines. At the end of the day, from my perspective it’s revenue raising. Additionally I call that a systematic attempt at brainwashing the general public into accepting what they are trying to justify is solely for safety reasons.

Whatever happened to police discretion? It doesn’t make the government money.

Far too many variables!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrjozeqc21M


----------



## wokka (May 12, 2014)

I am guessing that:
revenue from fines a is not necessarily targetted at driver education nor roads but rather goes in to the bottomless consolidated revenue bucket.
the variable abilities of drivers and mechanical performance of different cars has more effect on the number of accidents,than speed.


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 12, 2014)

wokka said:


> I am guessing that:
> revenue from fines a is not necessarily targetted at driver education nor roads but rather goes in to the bottomless consolidated revenue bucket.
> the variable abilities of drivers and mechanical performance of different cars has more effect on the number of accidents,than speed.



The bureau of statistics would disagree with you on this one


----------



## wokka (May 12, 2014)

Wing_Nut said:


> The bureau of statistics would disagree with you on this one


 Are you saying the ABS figures show speed is the major factor as opposed to driver age or experiece or ability? Does age or condition of the car effect likelihood of accidents?


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 12, 2014)

wokka said:


> Are you saying the ABS figures show speed is the major factor as opposed to driver age or experiece or ability? Does age or condition of the car effect likelihood of accidents?



Yes I am saying the ABS suggest that speed is the largest factor in the cause of a motor vehicle accident.

This is not to say that the other factors you suggest are not part of the equation, but speeding represents the largest common factor in motor vehicle accidents. (Approximately 40%)


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

I wonder what the stats on top of those stats would be if they did show additional information like age of driver, tyre condition, day/night etc. You can be travelling at 200kph & stop with less or no impact given a set distance compared to someone doing 60kph with no time to react before a collision. To save all lives lost to road trauma each year just drop the limit to 20kph everywhere...pretty simple really. The government is missing a golden cash cow here


----------



## Stuart (May 12, 2014)

moosenoose said:


> The government is missing a golden cash cow here



Shhhhhhhh, don't give them ideas.


----------



## champagne (May 12, 2014)

Wing_Nut said:


> Yes I am saying the ABS suggest that speed is the largest factor in the cause of a motor vehicle accident.
> 
> This is not to say that the other factors you suggest are not part of the equation, but speeding represents the largest common factor in motor vehicle accidents. (Approximately 40%)



yes speed is the largest factor because they don't test IQ, or lack there of...

- - - Updated - - -

Its all revenue raising, if they were serious about reducing speeding. They would phase in that all cars from this date forward must be fitted with a device that doesn't allow the car to go over the set speed limit no matter how far you push down on the pedal. If you are caught bypassing the devices on a public road, then your car is crashed first time... Why do cars need to have the ability to go 200+ kilometres an hour in Australia? no car should be able to do over 110, if being used on public roads. Both these technologies are available and relatively cheap.


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

champagne said:


> yes speed is the largest factor because they don't test IQ, or lack there of...
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> Its all revenue raising, if they were serious about reducing speeding. They would phase in that all cars from this date forward must be fitted with a device that doesn't allow the car to go over the set speed limit no matter how far you push down on the pedal. If you are caught bypassing the devices on a public road, then your car is crashed first time... Why do cars need to have the ability to go 200+ kilometres an hour in Australia? no car should be able to do over 110, if being used on public roads. Both these technologies are available and relatively cheap.



How exactly do you propose to do that? There aren't even any cars made in Australia anymore and I don't think the manufacturers are going to install this system just for our small market. 
Figures that give speed as the main cause of accidents don't include the other factors that also contributed. Very rarely is speed the only factor and anyone that can't safely drive 120 on a three lane highway shouldn't have a license.


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Is your tin foil cap on properly?

To argue that 'wipe off 5' doesn't reduce the severity(not! the amount) of accidents ignores all rational thinking, logic and just simple truth.
Underlying motivations for such a campaign are all merely conspiracy theories. You know why? because there is ZERO evidence to support such an argument as droll as revenue raising. Surely if they wanted to raise revenue through speeding fines they wouldn't advocate slowing down - that defeats their intent - they'd just reduce the actual speed limit and set up more cameras.



Senator358 said:


> How exactly do you propose to do that? There aren't even any cars made in Australia anymore and I don't think the manufacturers are going to install this system just for our small market.
> Figures that give speed as the main cause of accidents don't include the other factors that also contributed. Very rarely is speed the only factor and anyone that can't safely drive 120 on a three lane highway shouldn't have a license.



There's no such thing as driving safely at 120km/h. Humans weren't designed to travel faster than about 40km/h - and under our own power. The machines we've created that allow us to reach speeds of up to 28,000km/h(space shuttle) can hardly in any sense be described as safe. Cars included. Worldwide cars are responsible for more deaths than anything else non-biological(sickness, disease, cancer ect.) 
Speed is very rarely the sole factor, but it is just about ALWAYS a CONTRIBUTING factor in major accidents.


Advocating for the speed on freeways to be upped to 130? You wanna drive like that go find a race track, coz there's no way in hell myself or any other rational person would be willing to share the road in a car with my family in it with you...


----------



## jack (May 12, 2014)

If national legislation stated speed limiters were required then the major car companies would comply, just like they did when we were one of the first nations to insist on fitted seat belts. 
Nobody I know can drive safely on a three lane highway at 120km/h for the simple fact that the road is shared, you might be able to control a vehicle but you cannot control other drivers (think about it, if you are a perfectly average driver, that means half the other people on the road have a lesser driving ability to you, and are thus more likely to make a mistake than you).


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

> Is your tin foil cap on properly?
> 
> To argue that 'wipe off 5' doesn't reduce the severity(not! the amount) of accidents ignores all rational thinking, logic and just simple truth.
> Underlying motivations for such a campaign are all merely conspiracy theories. You know why? because there is ZERO evidence to support such an argument as droll as revenue raising. Surely if they wanted to raise revenue through speeding fines they wouldn't advocate slowing down - that defeats their intent - they'd just reduce the actual speed limit and set up more cameras.



So you'll be able to tell me the exacting science they use to determine what speed is safe within 5kph for each road they set a speed limit on? I'm all ears! It's not called physics, it's called common sense. Severity, unless it's two trains being collided on a track is multifaceted and cannot be simply measured in the black & white rationale you're trying to pump out. Anyway, love to hear about their 1960's speed zoning techniques they're still applying in the 21st century


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

Badsville said:


> Is your tin foil cap on properly?
> 
> To argue that 'wipe off 5' doesn't reduce the severity(not! the amount) of accidents ignores all rational thinking, logic and just simple truth.
> Underlying motivations for such a campaign are all merely conspiracy theories. You know why? because there is ZERO evidence to support such an argument as droll as revenue raising. Surely if they wanted to raise revenue through speeding fines they wouldn't advocate slowing down - that defeats their intent - they'd just reduce the actual speed limit and set up more cameras.
> ...



Could you please explain to me then why the autobahn in Germany is one of the worlds safest freeways? I'll give you a hint...correct driver training, courtesy, and cars that have the technology and safety features to do the speeds. 
I drive on the same roads as you and everyone else here as well as driving on racetracks. Feel free to get off the road if you chose but I would rather drive at 120km/hr and reduce fatigue related deaths, as research has also proven, than sit next to someone doing 110.


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

jack said:


> If national legislation stated speed limiters were required then the major car companies would comply, just like they did when we were one of the first nations to insist on fitted seat belts.
> Nobody I know can drive safely on a three lane highway at 120km/h for the simple fact that the road is shared, you might be able to control a vehicle but you cannot control other drivers (think about it, if you are a perfectly average driver, that means half the other people on the road have a lesser driving ability to you, and are thus more likely to make a mistake than you).



You can safely drive at 160km/hr if not more on a well maintained open road. The reasoning that others aren't trained to stay out of the way of quicker moving traffic is like saying that no one should be allowed to keep vens because other people can't handle them but might come into your snake room.

Can I ask how many people advocating slower speed limits have ever driven for an extended period overseas?


----------



## andynic07 (May 12, 2014)

Usually a crash is a combination of factors all lining up in the one scenario and I believe that whatever the flavour of the month is for the government is listed as the cause for statistics so it can be targeted. I also think that drivers that drive faster generally have faster reaction times than those that poke along slowly.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Sheep generally swallow what's dished up to them. I look very carefully what's being fed to me. It's not rocket science.


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> Could you please explain to me then why the autobahn in Germany is one of the worlds safest freeways? I'll give you a hint...correct driver training, courtesy, and cars that have the technology and safety features to do the speeds.
> I drive on the same roads as you and everyone else here as well as driving on racetracks. Feel free to get off the road if you chose but I would rather drive at 120km/hr and reduce fatigue related deaths, as research has also proven, than sit next to someone doing 110.



Thank you for proving my point - German drivers have much more intensive and skilled training than we do here. If we were allowed to drive on open roads with no speed limits in this country there's no way in hell I'd ever set foot in a car. No sane person would.
Germany's population density is over 100x more than Australia's yet they have a lower road toll than us, 5.7 per 10,000 vs 6.8 per 10,000.
These facts alone should wake you up to the sense that road safety in this country isn't anywhere near acceptable and to advocate for higher speeds on our roads downright idiotic.
You simply cannot trust other people to do the right thing all the time, when the consequences of getting it wrong is death.

Your logic of going 120 being safer than 110 is too painful to try and argue, but by your logic it's also safer than 100 right? and must be far safer than 40?
Everyone go as fast as you can, it'll make the roads safer! 
Moron.


----------



## jack (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> is like saying that no one should be allowed to keep vens because other people can't handle them but might come into your snake room.
> 
> Can I ask how many people advocating slower speed limits have ever driven for an extended period overseas?



A nonsense argument, my snake room is a private (and locked) premises. More akin to a private race track if you want to push that analogy, not a public space. 
And in answer to your question, I have driven in many foreign countries, including on German autobahns. What do you define as 'extended period'?


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> Can I ask how many people advocating slower speed limits have ever driven for an extended period overseas?



What relevance does this have? Different drivers, different cars and different laws to this country make the experience entirely uncomparable.
I'd feel entirley comfortable driving a scooter on Australian raods for example, but sure as hell wouldn't in a major Asian city, such as K.L. - where I have and all I can say is I was mostly terrified the whole time because of other riders, not my own abilities.


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

You have to resort to name calling to make your point lol or were you just signing your name??
As I said, if you care to reread, is that 120 has been proven to be safer due to reducing fatigue related crashes on freeways/motorways etc. This is shown worldwide by the fact that 80% of western countries have set their speed limits to this or more. Studies have been done and it is a proven fact. Not my logic.
If you are doing 100 or 80 or 40 on a freeway then you would be the one in the wrong and the police would issue you a fine just as quick as a person breaking the speed limit.



Badsville said:


> What relevance does this have? Different drivers, different cars and different laws to this country make the experience entirely uncomparable.



How is it incomparable? We have the same cars and the same standard of highway. The relevance is that if you have driven anywhere overseas you would know that most motorways are speed limited at a minimum of 120km/hr


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> You have to resort to name calling to make your point lol or were you just signing your name??
> As I said, if you care to reread, is that 120 has been proven to be safer due to reducing fatigue related crashes on freeways/motorways etc. This is shown worldwide by the fact that 80% of western countries have set their speed limits to this or more. Studies have been done and it is a proven fact. Not my logic.
> If you are doing 100 or 80 or 40 on a freeway then you would be the one in the wrong and the police would issue you a fine just as quick as a person breaking the speed limit.



This isn't a discussion about fatigue related issues is it? It's about speed.
And of course going faster will reduce fatigue related incidents as you get to your destination faster, before fatigue sets in - it also increases your chance of a speed related incident and not getting to your destination at all. Fact.


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

jack said:


> A nonsense argument, my snake room is a private (and locked) premises. More akin to a private race track if you want to push that analogy, not a public space.
> And in answer to your question, I have driven in many foreign countries, including on German autobahns. What do you define as 'extended period'?



I got a bit carried away with the snake room analogy lol Just trying to understand the reasoning behind someone saying we shouldn't go any faster than 40 because that's all the human body was made for lol.

By extended period I just meant a period of time long enough to observe how traffic works and flows in the situation. Not like 2 days on a holiday.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

It's about 5kph


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

The Wipe Off 5 campaign isn't aimed at our freeway drivers, its aimed at residential driving where speed limits rarely top 60km/h - where over 70% of our road fatalities occur.

- - - Updated - - -



Senator358 said:


> I got a bit carried away with the snake room analogy lol Just trying to understand the reasoning behind someone saying we shouldn't go any faster than 40 because that's all the human body was made for lol.



I never said we shouldn't, I said to argue it's perfectly safe and natural to is farcical.
Of the 282 deaths on our roads in 2012 guess how many of them were at speeds of 40kmh or under... 6.
Over 80kmh... 129.

Argue those facts into your driving faster is safer argument.


----------



## Burnerism (May 12, 2014)

You need to work on your people skills badsville, you often come off as an arrogant jerk. 
Yeah just what we need on the roads, more people sitting below the speed limit and often in the right hand lane. If you don't feel compfortable at a higher rate of speed get off the roads because YOUR putting people at risk and use public transport.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Wrong! It's aimed at all speeds on all roads. Please explain to me how current limits are set to suit modern vehicles?


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

If you're doing 60 in a residential area then you need to slow down by 15 lol Residential areas are actually limited to 50 now bud.
A few years back they dropped all residential to 50 from 60 because the government said that was enough to allow for emergency braking. Now they want us to drive another 5km under that. Why? They set a safe speed and then say to go 10% under it? Where's the logic to that?


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Burnerism said:


> You need to work on your people skills badsville, you often come off as an arrogant jerk.
> Yeah just what we need on the roads, more people sitting below the speed limit and often in the right hand lane. If you don't feel compfortable at a higher rate of speed get off the roads because YOUR putting people at risk and use public transport.



People skills aren't my strong point and I know that, doesn't make me wrong. A jerk yes, but no idiot.
I'm personally perfectly happy to drive at posted speed limits and have no issue with them. But I believe that after all the years cars have been on roads most posted speed limits are there for a reason and not just arbitrarily thrown around. And I beleive there's generally no need whatsoever to change them - especially raising them.

- - - Updated - - -



Senator358 said:


> If you're doing 60 in a residential area then you need to slow down by 15 lol Residential areas are actually limited to 50 now bud.
> A few years back they dropped all residential to 50 from 60 because the government said that was enough to allow for emergency braking. Now they want us to drive another 5km under that. Why? They set a safe speed and then say to go 10% under it? Where's the logic to that?





Badsville said:


> The Wipe Off 5 campaign isn't aimed at our freeway drivers, its aimed at residential driving where *speed limits rarely top 60km/h* - where over 70% of our road fatalities occur.



Please read what I post correctly before attacking it.


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

It was a joke mate hence the lol. I know it sometimes doesn't work like that in cyberspace. 
I still don't understand the governments logic in the last point I made?


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Yawn...you're still toting out what the "road safety" campaigns are selling you Badsville. You could baaaa a little bit to give me a sense of where you're finding the logic in it? "Wipe off 5" is a social media stunt to shame "speedsters". It's there purely for people like yourself to "spread the message" because you've gobbled up their staged & measured "scientific" examples. Dig deeper, look at it properly. You are wrong


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> It was a joke mate hence the lol. I know it sometimes doesn't work like that in cyberspace.
> I still don't understand the governments logic in the last point I made?



Inference is a hard thing to convey in written words, believe me I know.
I guess perhaps they're advocation being cautionary rather than reactionary. I.e. "This is how fast we think its safe to go here; but just to keep it nice and safe check yourself a few k's lower to be sure."

- - - Updated - - -



moosenoose said:


> Yawn...you're still toting out what the "road safety" campaigns are selling you Badsville. You could baaaa a little bit to give me a sense of where you're finding the logic in it? "Wipe off 5" is a social media stunt to shame "speedsters". It's there purely for people like yourself to "spread the message" because you've gobbled up their staged & measured "scientific" examples. Dig deeper, look at it properly. You are wrong



No, I'm toting out my own free thinking through personal experience on the roads.
And the knowledge that the people who make the decisions of what goes on on our roads are from backgrounds and departments where it's their JOB to know what happens on our roads over the course of years, and with things like statistics and data.
Not from the mouth of someone who gets upset that there are large fines for driving a few k's over what you're told to.
Is it REALLY THAT HARD to accept the rules that people in a position of RESPECTED authority have given you?

If I'm a sheep for making the choice to obey this countries road rules and make a conscious effort to keep myself alive on our roads and away from the hazzards of other reckless drivers; then I'll happily baaaa away while I drive around with my wife and 4 month old daughter beside me.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

:lol: "Respected authority" .....*looking for the shepherd now*...sorry mate, I question plenty of things people in positions of power try to shove down my throat. Sure, there needs to be rules, but as human beings who can make genuine mistakes there also needs to be a grey area, and discretion.

But by all means baaaa away


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

moosenoose said:


> :lol: "Respected authority" .....*looking for the shepherd now*...sorry mate, I question plenty of things people in positions of power try to shove down my throat. Sure, there needs to be rules, but as human beings who can make genuine mistakes there also needs to be a grey area, and discretion.
> 
> But by all means baaaa away



Human beings making genuine mistakes on our road cost lives. We're all grey when we're laying on an autopsy table.


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

I think a better thing for them to focus on would be 'driving to the conditions'. This is actually written into the law and no matter what the speed limit all drivers should take into account all factors such as weather, road condition, the car they are driving and definitely their ability. 
My biggest problem is that even though our kids are now required to do a large amount of hours to get their license there is no requirement to be taught by a professional. You can basically get your license being taught by a 20 year old just off their P's and god knows who taught them to drive.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Australian road laws do plenty to frustrate, even bore road users. Long journeys at 100kph not only extends driving times, but it dulls a drivers alertness. Road hypnosis is a genuine issue. But don't dare exceed that limit by 5kph, that'll cost you a pretty penny 

We can all go grey in our paddocks, nibbling the propaganda & occasionally footing the bill for our little indiscretions....sorry I mean potentially fatal indiscretions :lol:


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> I think a better thing for them to focus on would be 'driving to the conditions'. This is actually written into the law and no matter what the speed limit all drivers should take into account all factors such as weather, road condition, the car they are driving and definitely their ability.
> My biggest problem is that even though our kids are now required to do a large amount of hours to get their license there is no requirement to be taught by a professional. You can basically get your license being taught by a 20 year old just off their P's and god knows who taught them to drive.



Precisely! So why would you suggest raising freeway speed limits? I'm not trying to attck you or be rude, but you see why I find your idea ridiculous.
And driving to the conditions is indeed in law - but more respective to trying conditions(rain, storm. high wind, debris ect.) Not "Hey it's a perfectly clear sunny day, time to go fast!"

- - - Updated - - -



moosenoose said:


> Australian road laws do plenty to frustrate, even bore road users. Long journeys at 100kph not only extends driving times, but it dulls a drivers alertness. Road hypnosis is a genuine issue. But don't dare exceed that limit by 5kph, that'll cost you a pretty penny
> 
> We can all go grey in our paddocks, nibbling the propaganda & occasionally footing the bill for our little indiscretions....sorry I mean potentially fatal indiscretions :lol:



That really is the point you're either missing or are blatantly ignoring here, a little indiscretion at 100+km/h *IS* a potentially fatal indiscretion.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Also, what is the lunacy behind making learner drivers in NSW limited to 80kph on freeways?? Another insane, lunatic bit of legislation. Love to see the reasoning behind this. I'm pretty sure if they drove another 10kph below that they'd be breaking another law for dangerous "low level" speeds in a 100kph zone.

- - - Updated - - -

:lol: I'm not blatantly ignoring anything. I'm just not a sheep :lol:


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

Because as I said in a former post, a speed limit of 120 on a freeway or highway reduces fatigue related deaths. It is a proven fact world wide and the reason why all other countries have 120 as their limit. Its not because you get there quicker but the fact that you have to pay more attention. At 100 or 110 people don't pay attention and lose focus on driving. 
Driving to conditions means just that. Its got nothing to do with sunny day, go for it, as you say. It means drive to the conditions at the time whether 'trying' or not. The fact that you misunderstand this shows how poorly people are taught to drive in Australia compared with other, especially European countries.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

No, no Senator, we have to listen to bigger brains in more respected positions than us mere beings. Don't question it  If only they made such propaganda TAC ads like that, we'd then have Badsville on our side :lol:


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

moosenoose said:


> Also, what is the lunacy behind making learner drivers in NSW limited to 80kph on freeways?? Another insane, lunatic bit of legislation. Love to see the reasoning behind this. I'm pretty sure if they drove another 10kph below that they'd be breaking another law for dangerous "low level" speeds in a 100kph zone.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> :lol: I'm not blatantly ignoring anything. I'm just not a sheep :lol:



Its amazing isn't it? Teach them how to drive at 30km under the speed limit. lol Then when they get their license go for it. 
Isn't it funny that you can also drive a V8 while a learner and then not allowed to drive one on your P's.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

By doing that additional 20kph above their usual 80kph highway limit...are they 4 times more likely of having an accident? (Sheep stats please? Anyone? Badsville?) I can't remember that propaganda line they vomit out about that....but I'm guessing they're a hell of a lot more likely to be rear-ended...or cause some other accident with vehicles changing lanes because of a sudden change in speed by the learner driver in front of them.


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> Because as I said in a former post, a speed limit of 120 on a freeway or highway reduces fatigue related deaths. It is a proven fact world wide and the reason why all other countries have 120 as their limit. Its not because you get there quicker but the fact that you have to pay more attention. At 100 or 110 people don't pay attention and lose focus on driving.
> Driving to conditions means just that. Its got nothing to do with sunny day, go for it, as you say. It means drive to the conditions at the time whether 'trying' or not. The fact that you misunderstand this shows how poorly people are taught to drive in Australia compared with other, especially European countries.



I'm not misunderstanding what 'drive to the conditions' mean, I was pointing out how simplistic and unarticulated what you're writing is coming across as. Drive to the conditions takes in every single factor around you inside and out of the car. From what you've written down, it comes across as if the conditions are fine, why not go faster than recommended? 
I say don't because you can never predict the biggest factor on roads - other drivers.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Just another point: We used to have an insane law here in Victoria. Caused plenty of accidents with interstate drivers who visited. Most older drivers down here would remember it (was changed roughly 25yrs ago) where a person in the left hand lane turning left had to give way to the person coming from the opposite direction who was also turning right. The law was to prevent people in tram lanes holding up trams. Absolutely insane! But based on the "Wipe off 5" logic...we shouldn't have questioned it because it was written by idiots in authority?


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

I was keeping it simplistic just for you mate as you just don't seem to understand anything that you are not spoonfed by the propaganda machine


----------



## Senator358 (May 12, 2014)

Been a blast guys... Time for bed...See you on the roads tomorrow... Probably speeding past you lol


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

moosenoose said:


> No, no Senator, we have to listen to bigger brains in more respected positions than us mere beings. Don't question it  If only they made such propaganda TAC ads like that, we'd then have Badsville on our side :lol:



So according to you, the RTA and TAC - who employ people who go out to fatal incidents *for a living*, and take data and statistics and witness the tragedy and gruesomeness that high speed incidents create, with the intent of making *OUR *​roads, driving experiences and lives better; are actually just a tool for our governments to get into our back pockets and fleece us of our hard earned cash?

That tin foil hat is on nice and tight on you isn't it.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Pretty sure they don't make the speed limits Jackfruit


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> I was keeping it simplistic just for you mate as you just don't seem to understand anything that you are not spoonfed by the propaganda machine



You don't seem to understand that not everything in this world is a great conspiracy, and that sometimes people really are just out there to try and keep you alive. 
What good does it do a government to allow it's citizens to recklessly kill themselves? In the end there is nothing to govern.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. And with privileges come rules and regulations. Just because you don't agree with some of these rules doesn't give you the right to flaunt them, otherwise these priveliges get taken away.
It's the way the world works Barney.

These are the facts you need to know. No 'propaganda machine' manipulation. Fact. Don't dare try to argue against it.
http://statistics.infrastructure.go...bguest/Road Deaths by State and Territory.txd

I'm done, I'm out, you hurt my brain.


----------



## moosenoose (May 12, 2014)

Anyway, I'm going to hang up my crook for the evening. Try not to stray too far out of the yard....big brother is watching


----------



## Jacknife (May 12, 2014)

moosenoose said:


> Pretty sure they don't make the speed limits Jackfruit



They advise local councils and state governments on speed recommendations.


----------



## BrownHash (May 13, 2014)

Interesting thread, although I feel that some of the arguments are debased by the lack of reference for some of that statistical claims being made, name calling, and by implying that if a person doesn't agree with a point of view that they must be of lower intellect or not a free thinker.

Back to the OP. 

I agree the manipulation of data and science can be frustrating. I feel some of the data used in road safety needs to be put in context. For example, if speeding is a factor in X percentage of accidents, how does that relate to the percentage of the general population which is speeding at any given time? I realise that providing all the background stats can be hard when an ad campaign only has a certain amount of time, but I feel more effort needs to be made to put the information out there.

As for the government using the data to help justify "revenue collecting"; I don't see how there is a need for this as there is already a law in place which is justification enough. I also don't really have an issue with the current way the laws are enforced as it works on an "opt-in" system. If you don't want pay the fine then it is easy enough not to.


----------



## Jacknife (May 13, 2014)

BrownHash said:


> Interesting thread, although I feel that some of the arguments are debased by the lack of reference for some of that statistical claims being made, name calling, and by implying that if a person doesn't agree with a point of view that they must be of lower intellect or not a free thinker.
> 
> Back to the OP.
> 
> ...




Honestly I couldn't give a hoot if they collected revenue off it, if it saves lives it works.
*ALL* the stats you need to know are at the link I posted above in a handy spreadsheet.
My whole point is saying speed isn't a factor in fatalities is just plain silly, and a campaign to encourage people to reduce speed should be supported, who cares if it fills the government coffers at the same time if it prevents just one of the 1300+ deaths on our roads each year it's worth it.

Have a read of this and see if its all a revenue conspiracy...
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/RDA_Summary_2012_June.pdf

Over 60% of all fatal accidents occur at speeds of +60km/h. Tell me speed isn't a factor in fatalities based on that fact alone.


----------



## wokka (May 13, 2014)

Jacknife said:


> Over 60% of all fatal accidents occur at speeds of +60km/h. Tell me speed isn't a factor in fatalities based on that fact alone.


I suspect the majority of accidents involve at least one white car. Does that mean that white cars are likely to cause more accidents? But then again stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents which supports the claim that speed is a major factor.


----------



## champagne (May 13, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> How exactly do you propose to do that? There aren't even any cars made in Australia anymore and I don't think the manufacturers are going to install this system just for our small market.
> Figures that give speed as the main cause of accidents don't include the other factors that also contributed. Very rarely is speed the only factor and anyone that can't safely drive 120 on a three lane highway shouldn't have a license.



Its called Australian standards... a lot of things have to be of higher standards then the same thing released overseas or make it mandatory to have it installed before you can register a vehicle?


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 13, 2014)

wokka said:


> I suspect the majority of accidents involve at least one white car. Does that mean that white cars are likely to cause more accidents? But then again stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents which supports the claim that speed is a major factor.



This is GOLD!


----------



## moosenoose (May 13, 2014)

BrownHash said:


> Interesting thread, although I feel that some of the arguments are debased by the lack of reference for some of that statistical claims being made, name calling, and by implying that if a person doesn't agree with a point of view that they must be of lower intellect or not a free thinker.



It’s just the truth though 



BrownHash said:


> Back to the OP.
> 
> I agree the manipulation of data and science can be frustrating. I feel some of the data used in road safety needs to be put in context. For example, if speeding is a factor in X percentage of accidents, how does that relate to the percentage of the general population which is speeding at any given time? I realise that providing all the background stats can be hard when an ad campaign only has a certain amount of time, but I feel more effort needs to be made to put the information out there.
> 
> As for the government using the data to help justify "revenue collecting"; I don't see how there is a need for this as there is already a law in place which is justification enough. I also don't really have an issue with the current way the laws are enforced as it works on an "opt-in" system. If you don't want pay the fine then it is easy enough not to.



It’s the way they are selling it BH. They figure (and correctly) that the vast majority of the public have a sheep-like mentality & will tote the line if they can dress up actors in scientific suits, read manipulated data from clipboards & show graphically staged videos of what might happen if you travel 5kph over the limit – and it sucks people in! They used to do it with toothpaste commercials etc for heaven sakes.

Why can’t they just come out & say “we’re going to start booking you for anything over the limit! We know that the speedometers in your car aren’t accurate to those tolerances, but don’t get too upset because you know that additional 5kph can seriously injure people, because that’s what our little commercials portray”. They can’t say that because it wouldn’t be popular with the general masses. The sheep don’t want to know why they’re being led into the barn, they just follow the rest of the crowd 

So now are they trying to really say Wipe off 10? It should be that you wipe off 5 from say 60kph, to drop your speed to 55kph. The examples they give show a vehicle that has no ABS on …new or old tyres?...hitting a woman at a predicted speed of 5kph because she stepped out at measured distance X….and was obviously deaf, blind or drug & alcohol affected but it shows a 5kph impact. Had she stepped out 5m closer & the driver been doing 55kph she still would have been hit…probably harder!

What about wet roads whilst we’re talking about it? Wipe off 5 still? I often Wipe off 20 in wet conditions & heavy traffic. Drive to the conditions! That should be the message of these commericals …but that’s not justifying the issuing of fines for drivers only marginally above the limit.

So yeah I agree it’s an Opt-in system, but the tolerances of that system have been whittled down so much in recent times to unrealistic levels. The systems they use to determine many road speeds are still back in an era (70’s) where drink driving was commonplace (and was the biggest killer on our roads) and safety systems like ABS, ESC were a rarity.

Distractions are the biggest problem on our roads, and often its drivers in shopping/school zones who have taken their mind off the road, but more so to “was that a parking bay over there?” 

Speed statistics - TAC - Transport Accident Commission

Again, what determines the 45m mark in the example above? Do all accidents happen in 45m? And the zoning of speeds on any given street? The science is there to back up the impact (that’s a given), but where’s the science in relation to a street speed being declared safe at 60kph? Maybe it’s safe at 55kph? Maybe its fine at 85kph? The speed zones are not an accurate science!


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 13, 2014)

Regardless of how you manipulate the evidence, it doesn't change the fact (scientifically proven by a comprehensive study by Monash University for example) that a reduction in speed will result in a reduced number of motor vehicle crashes. 

While it is understandable that you, and rightly so, want to question the motivation of these campaigns, I think the application "that's it's all just a conspiracy" is incorrect. 

The biggest supporters of these type of speed reduction campaigns are insurance companies. It's very important to them because they know if they can reduce the speed at which the average car travels, it will improve their bottom line. They know that speed is a variable they can control and that it is also the single biggest variable they can attempt to mitigate to improve their profits. 

Speed limits are set by a very complex system, overseen by engineers. Most roads are designed and built to certain speed specifications, and based on these designs speed limits are set. Contrary to above, speed limits are a very exacting science, and take into consideration a massive amount of data to determine them. 

The drop 5 campaigns are based on simple statistics, and if everyone adopted that policy, the funding for these campaigns would disappear. The message is quite simple, the designated speed limit is the maximum you can travel, but just because you can go that fast, doesn't mean you should.

Regardless of every other possible contributing factor that may cause a crash, the ultimate outcome with regard to damage, injury, etc is determined by the speed the vehicle is travelling. No matter how you look at it, speed reduction will reduce crash severity and frequency.


----------



## moosenoose (May 13, 2014)

I like what you’ve said, and I agree with a fair whack of it. My whole point which I’ve rehashed half a dozen times now is not so much that it’s a conspiracy, its just they’ve used examples where there are too many holes in their advertising campaigns. My biggest question is WHERE & HOW ARE THE SPEED ZONES SET. They CANNOT possibly be within these preached 5kph tolerances to ensure that the current set limits are safe. It’s very simple to understand they cannot possibly have this right – but their advertisement campaigns preach it like its gospel.

Yes 5kph of additional speed will cause more damage (no question), but a road where they have a current 60kph sign is probably genuinely safer at 40kph. Who determined that road was safe at 60kph? Using the Wipe off 5 mentality why don’t we all reduce every road by 20kph and save more lives?


----------



## jedi_339 (May 13, 2014)

I wasn't going to get involved, but I'm bored and I've got a few minutes to draft a reply. (Make that double the time now since I just got logged out and lost EVERYTHING I'd written FML)

Statistics are far too easily manipulated to accurately portray any relevant information, especially by government bodies who are compulsive liars to begin with.

Let's use the link that (formerly) Badsville gave us where we can filter out stats depending on certain parameters.

Australia wide in the 12 months to December 2013 there were 104 pedestrian fatalities where the posted speed limit was 60km/h and under. Comparatively over the same time period, once again Australia wide, there were only 27 pedestrian fatalities where the posted speed limit was 100-130. Therefore you have a 79.39% chance of getting hit walking across at a lower speed compared to a speed limit of 100-130km/h Correct? They can be manipulated almost any way you wish.
Even If you include pedestrian fatalities from 80-130 you still end up being half as likely to be killed as at lower speeds.
Surely there must be something fishy there as it defies common sense.... But the stats support it so it must be true 

I've always said that those adverts where they show the child running out and the car stops at 50 but doesn't at 60, if you were really doing 60km/h you would've passed the child before they even ran out onto the road :lol:

I used to live with a woman that had this mentality, and I kid you not this was really her belief.
She never used to wear a seat belt while driving. Her reasoning was that if 20% of people died in accidents while not wearing a seat belt and 80% died in accidents whilst they were wearing one, She was much safer to drive around without one on :facepalm:


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 13, 2014)

I agree that a bigger reduction in speed limits would reduce accidents, the bigger the reduction the more it will reduce. The 5kph was determined by interpreting the statistics, statistics they say that while the roads are relatively safe, and fit this standard, we can do better. It was a figure that was determined by the think tanks who analyse the data and adopted because it represented the best approach to get the message across to the average road user and reduce the instances of crashes by a certain figure to meet a certain criteria. It is genuinely a education program to reduce crashes, implemented by the road safety branches, independently of law enforcement. The advertising campaign is propaganda, no doubt about it, designed like any advertisement to get a message across within a specified time frame, it's bound to have holes in it, but it is representative only, but it's message is quite clear. It was never intended to be a comprehensive advertisement, but it is backed up with freely available science that shows the benefits of speed reduction. How would you approach the issue if it was up to you to design a campaign to reduce speed related road crashes?

Speed zones are calculated to meet an international standard. They are based on the best science at the time and also have a built in safety factor. Traffic engineers determine the speed limit in a road, taking into consideration many different variables. They also need to find a balance between safe, and practical. 

I drive a lot (1000km + per week) and have a interest in road safety. I personally think the authorities have got it spot on with this.


----------



## jedi_339 (May 13, 2014)

I also drive a lot especially at work (300+km per day) however I think more important even than speed limits are the road conditions. And I don't just mean rain hail or shine, I mean the actual condition of the constructed roads. Who here has driven on outback QLD roads and then on Northern Territory Roads? The difference is unreal. If the government wants to fine people for going over the speed limit than that is fine, but how about they actually spend the money on constructing the roads properly in the first place. Anyone who has ever seen the construction process on Aussie roads, even highways would be astonished at the shortcuts they take especially in QLD. It's no wonder half the road surfaces are destroyed before they've even finished opening the final lanes.

The reason the German Autobahn has such a high speed and low fatalities? Yes there is driver training and rules that people follow i.e. no overtaking on the right etc. but it is also because they have a machine that travels the length of the highway network and as soon as they detect a crack in the road surface they replace the whole section in a big slab. No council truck with a little bit of tar patting it down with a shovel like in this country.


----------



## moosenoose (May 13, 2014)

Really interesting points Wing_Nut. I see plenty of sense in your answer. 

To be honest I don’t know how I’d tackle it. If you give people more leeway they push it further – that’s human nature. Perhaps that’s why they’ve pushed for tighter lower tolerances.

In real terms I guess the police still have a 5kph tolerance on the speed they book you at. Is it 5kph or more? …I just don’t get the Ads, I’d drop those for a start as it makes people question why they are doing what they’re doing. They’d be better off showing some road stats & being more honest about why they need people to stay under the limits that are set. Even at under 60kph, the accidents will still be there. This campaign has been running for well over 10yrs and I’d be highly surprised if there’d been a dramatic reduction in fatalities below that speed. If anything it’ll be because the safety warning & braking systems in cars has increased in popularity & affordability.

A better deterrent; maybe make the fines higher?

I’m curious though. You obviously cover quite a few kilometres yourself. I’ve found driving habits have changed for the better in recent years, but I’ve also found frustrations of drivers in heavy traffic has also escalated, with driver courtesy & patience seemingly going out the window, particularly in morning traffic.


----------



## Jacknife (May 13, 2014)

wokka said:


> I suspect the majority of accidents involve at least one white car. Does that mean that white cars are likely to cause more accidents? But then again stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents which supports the claim that speed is a major factor.



Statistically probably yes, as there are more white cars on the road than any other. Saying stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents is also pretty silly. How many people have returned to their parked car to find a scratch or ding in it? almost everyone.

Attempts at sarcastic humor are all well and good, but get it right.


----------



## BrownHash (May 13, 2014)

moosenoose said:


> I’m curious though. You obviously cover quite a few kilometres yourself. I’ve found driving habits have changed for the better in recent years, but I’ve also found frustrations of drivers in heavy traffic has also escalated, with driver courtesy & patience seemingly going out the window, particularly in morning traffic.



What the hell is driver courtesy. :lol:

I realise the question isn't aimed at me, but I'll throw in my 2cents anyway. Personally I have found that I just have less tolerance for people as I get older which may be a reason for the perception that there is more frustration on the road. I have also noted that the roads I drive are a lot more congested than what they use to be ten years ago, so its hard to tell if frustration has increased or if its just related to the larger numbers of people making it seem that way.



moosenoose said:


> The systems they use to determine many road speeds are still back in an era (70’s) where drink driving was commonplace (and was the biggest killer on our roads) and safety systems like ABS, ESC were a rarity.


 My questions is; were they getting it right back in the 70's? Or is the system only just starting to match the cars and their technology now? Looking at the statistic for the last few decades a think we are at least heading in the right direction. I also think once we have been able to level of the fatality rate, we are nearly there, then it may be time to look at increasing speed limits. However, I feel that there are still too many older cars and different types of vehicles on the road with varying levels of technologies for this to happen.


----------



## Jacknife (May 13, 2014)

It's not about telling the public that we now have lower tolerances and at 5k over we're gonna punish you. It's about educating the public to be more aware that higher speeds = worse outcomes.
Of course advertising is propaganda - the two go hand in hand. But who cares about it being propaganda when the message is one of truth, fact and safety.


----------



## moosenoose (May 13, 2014)

Fair call Jackknife


----------



## Wing_Nut (May 13, 2014)

You raise some good points to moosenoose, its certainly hard not to be sceptical when you think about all the money, tax payers money, that is invested in these campaigns and you really want to see concrete results. The common thread with almost all government initiatives is they want to push the onus onto someone else. In this case they want to be able to say, we've made sure road users are not breaking the law, we've done our bit.

I think the success of the campaign is evident, for example, its something you think and talk about and are very much aware of and one would like to think the majority of road users are better for it in that they are aware of at least some of the evidence, and drive differently. 

The number of road fatalities has very much reach a level where its likely to not change dramatically from year to year, at least not with the current situations. There will always be people with a blatant disregard for the law and for whatever reason, kill themselves or other people on the road. There will always be accidents, and there will always be unforeseen circumstances. This will never change while humans drive cars. The direction that road safety is headed is seemingly more directed at reduction in serious trauma, after all, this is the most costly part of motor vehicle injuries, and I think this is why campaigns like this are still run. 

Certainly improvements in car safety, policing and education all combine to put downward pressure on the road toll.

If minor speeding infringements where taken serious by the governments, then perhaps a system where by road users who do not attract minor traffic offenses could have the incentive of reduced licensing premiums each year. Encourage safer driving rather than punish bad driving. 

To answer your question directly, I agree for the most part driving habits have improved, many people on country roads turn lights on during the day for example, the majority of people are reasonably courteous, and by and large, most people try to abide by traffic regulations. Certainly traffic congestion has increased a lot, and during peak hour traffic the "general" behaviour of drivers seems the exact opposite exactly like you have described. By and large, there is nothing courteous going out the windows


----------



## moosenoose (May 13, 2014)

Wing_Nut said:


> If minor speeding infringements where taken serious by the governments, then perhaps a system where by road users who do not attract minor traffic offenses could have the incentive of reduced licensing premiums each year. Encourage safer driving rather than punish bad driving.



Oh I like that approach! That'd be a pretty worthwhile incentive  They used to have a good driver reward scheme ages ago if I remember correctly. But like most people who drive regularly, not too many of them have squeaky clean licenses. I had a sparkling unblemished driving record after 13yrs (was a good stint) & got done for 70 in a fluctuating 60 zone (I thought it was 60 & always knew the cops regularly used their lasers there. But it was my fault pure & simple. I should have taken more notice of the signs instead of looking for the cops )



Wing_Nut said:


> To answer your question directly, I agree for the most part driving habits have improved, many people on country roads turn lights on during the day for example, the majority of people are reasonably courteous, and by and large, most people try to abide by traffic regulations. Certainly traffic congestion has increased a lot, and during peak hour traffic the "general" behaviour of drivers seems the exact opposite exactly like you have described. By and large, there is nothing courteous going out the windows



I was abused for letting someone in front of me once. He must have been high on something :lol: My courtesy was rewarded with vulgar gestures, hand & fist waving  I must just have that effect on some people hehe


----------



## champagne (May 13, 2014)

Jacknife said:


> Statistically probably yes, as there are more white cars on the road than any other. Saying stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents is also pretty silly. How many people have returned to their parked car to find a scratch or ding in it? almost everyone.
> 
> Attempts at sarcastic humor are all well and good, but get it right.



wow, are you only like this behind your keyboard or a complete d bag in person as well?


----------



## Retic (May 13, 2014)

Senator358 said:


> Could you please explain to me then why the autobahn in Germany is one of the worlds safest freeways? I'll give you a hint...correct driver training, courtesy, and cars that have the technology and safety features to do the speeds.
> I drive on the same roads as you and everyone else here as well as driving on racetracks. Feel free to get off the road if you chose but I would rather drive at 120km/hr and reduce fatigue related deaths, as research has also proven, than sit next to someone doing 110.



I totally agree, it is the same here, the safest roads by a big margin are the motorways where drivers regularly drive at 90mph and more. I have driven past unmarked Police cars at close to that speed and never had as much as a sideways glance. I go to Germany 3 or 4 times a year and the average speed on the autobahns would amaze most people. It all comes down to education. It has nothing to do with the speed it has everything to do with driver education. Personally I wouldnt like to drive at those speeds on an Australian freeway as most of the drivers just arent good enough.


----------



## Jacknife (May 13, 2014)

champagne said:


> wow, are you only like this behind your keyboard or a complete d bag in person as well?



You just can't know these days can you?
If it's any consolation I feel the exact same right back.

There's this amazing function in your account settings called the ignore list. Guess who I just used it on....


----------

