Lets discuss "Wipe Off 5" campaigns :)

[moosenoose]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Wing_Nut]

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

Or more roads they don't maintain!

 

[moosenoose]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The government is missing a golden cash cow here

Shhhhhhhh, don't give them ideas.

 

[champagne]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.



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...

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]

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]

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.