Lets discuss "Wipe Off 5" campaigns :)

[Jacknife]

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 - - -

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Jacknife]

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]

Pretty sure they don't make the speed limits Jackfruit

 

[Jacknife]

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]

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]

Pretty sure they don't make the speed limits Jackfruit

They advise local councils and state governments on speed recommendations.

 

[BrownHash]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!