Politics & Government mark webber "nanny state" comments

Remove this Banner Ad

Poor sods complaining about speed limits. darings if you cannot manage to drive under the speed limit then you really should not be driving a car.

I agree on some roads, the speed limit is on the lower side but if you has a motorist cannot obay a simple rule then get off the road.
 
thebiff said:
Check out this from the sydney morning herald:

"Wakehurst MP Brad Hazzard said he promised to take up the case of constituent Phil Thorsen, who was fined $253 for beeping his horn at his neighbour to "say hello".

No doubt our friend hawk dork would be in full support of this too. Haha what a complete joke.

EDIT: hold up it gets even worse

"Local Area Command denies police are too zealous in applying the law, despite fining 160 motorists in 12 months for unnecessary use of their car horns."
Click to expand...

that's pathetic - honking a horn as a hello or farewell is a normal thing.

Well done to the MP for taking the issue up.
 
Hawk Dork said:
Nice deflection:thumbsu:
Still not willing to answer the question and let your pathetic thread die:p

Speed cameras don't need policemen, actually makes their job easier,but thanks for your concern.
Good to see you are concerned about speed when you aren't yelling intelligent and I would imagine humorous comments out of your car window:D
Tip: if you get your arse served up to you don't keep presenting it for a second,third, fourth serve:p
Click to expand...

You cant put up a solid argument nor answer one of the questions I have asked so you resort to making an argument on if a radar should technically be reffered to as a speed camera to make your point? Well done.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

thebiff said:
I wouldn't say that, driven plenty in europe and never had a complaint about road rules or police in general. would have thought some common sense in minor infringements would go a long way in making motorists respect road rules rather than a zero tolerance approach.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that it would be common sense to either stick to the speed limit or drive under the speed limit.

I think only those with limited intelligence would voluntarily pay someone for something they don't have to do.

Why would anyone give the Government $180?
Common sense may not be all that common
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
I would have thought that it would be common sense to either stick to the speed limit or drive under the speed limit.

I think only those with limited intelligence would voluntarily pay someone for something they don't have to do.

Why would anyone give the Government $180?
Common sense may not be all that common
Click to expand...

That's the other thing, most of the current speed limits were implemented in the 70s when most cars still had drum brakes and weighed a couple of tonnes. Even the cheapest hatchback these days has far better handling and braking ability than the cars from the past and the speed limits should be adjusted accordingly. As it stands, the speed limits are purely arbitrary and not based on any kind of reaction-time and stopping distance based studies.

There is also the fact that not all drivers are equal. For example, a driver in their late 20s will have much quicker reflexes and thus, a greater ability to avoid hazards than say, an 80 year old grandmother. Driving at 80 on a 2 lane road might seem frightening and difficult to the grandma (as it seemingly would for many of the people posting on this thread) but would be perfectly safe and reasonable to the younger individual.

Laws will only be respected if there is sound logic and reason behind why they are in place. The only 'research' the government does relating speed limits to road safety is statistical analysis of the road toll and as anyone with half a brain knows, statistics can be spun to support whatever viewpoint you wish to promote. Arbitrary limits placed with no viable research to back them up will never be widely respected by the public.
 
More people on the road now compared to the 70s
20 year old would be a greater risk taker, than an 80 year old grand mother.
More likely to be texting too.

I think you will find the limits are based on reaction times and brake stopping distances and statistical evidence.

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS010014.pdf?check=1

5 km/h reduction in 100km/h=18% less fatalities+14% less serious injury
 
shurg123 said:
That's the other thing, most of the current speed limits were implemented in the 70s when most cars still had drum brakes and weighed a couple of tonnes. Even the cheapest hatchback these days has far better handling and braking ability than the cars from the past and the speed limits should be adjusted accordingly. As it stands, the speed limits are purely arbitrary and not based on any kind of reaction-time and stopping distance based studies.

There is also the fact that not all drivers are equal. For example, a driver in their late 20s will have much quicker reflexes and thus, a greater ability to avoid hazards than say, an 80 year old grandmother. Driving at 80 on a 2 lane road might seem frightening and difficult to the grandma (as it seemingly would for many of the people posting on this thread) but would be perfectly safe and reasonable to the younger individual.

Laws will only be respected if there is sound logic and reason behind why they are in place. The only 'research' the government does relating speed limits to road safety is statistical analysis of the road toll and as anyone with half a brain knows, statistics can be spun to support whatever viewpoint you wish to promote. Arbitrary limits placed with no viable research to back them up will never be widely respected by the public.
Click to expand...

The fact that the road toll continues to fall is probably all the reasoning you need.

The other thing is there are still a lot of older cars on the road, so even if your theory about 1970's speed limits is correct, the current limit must remain.

I'm not so sure about the younger v older driver stuff, statistics will tell you, you are wrong because the injuries and deaths on our roads is weighted to the young
 
Hawk Dork said:
More people on the road now compared to the 70s
20 year old would be a greater risk taker, than an 80 year old grand mother.
More likely to be texting too.

I think you will find the limits are based on reaction times and brake stopping distances and statistical evidence.

http://www.rsconference.com/pdf/RS010014.pdf?check=1

5 km/h reduction in 100km/h=18% less fatalities+14% less serious injury
Click to expand...

Please read what I posted more thoroughly before you reply. An individual in their late 20s does not include a '20 year old' a 29 year old is far less likely to take risks than a 20 year old and is also likely to be a more skilled driver than an 80 year old.

Secondly, that link you posted has nothing to do with reaction times and stopping distances. I really hope you at least bothered to read the document in some sort of detail before you linked it. The 3rd paragraph of the introduction states:

"...80% of fatal or injury-producing crashes occur when
“speeding” is not regarded as the cause of the crash"

All it finds is a correlation between 'speed' and 'injury severity' when a crash occurs. Specifically, referring to the 2nd last paragraph of the introduction:

"Clearly, the relationship between speed and injury severity is a powerful one...."

There is no mention anywhere in this document that excess speed actually increases the chance of having an accident, its only contention is that given an accident occurs, there will be less severe injuries at lower speeds. Well no sh*t Sherlock.

Hawk Dork, consider the following scenarios:
Scenario A: A skilled driver cruising at 120 km/h on a large empty freeway in a late model car with good handling and brakes.
Scenario B: A senior with poor eyesight driving an old Corolla on a packed main road, going at 60 km/h in a 70 km/h zone

Do you seriously think the driver in scenario A has a higher likelihood of having an accident than the driver in scenario B. The fact that all the traffic in scenario B is traveling 10 km/h faster than the poor senior alone makes it more dangerous.

Furthermore, there is no indication of the sample size used in the study you linked to, and even if it was large enough, it doesn't support any claim that going 10km/h above the speed limit is any more dangerous than going 10 km/h below the speed limit.

I await your response (or a childish tl;dr remark which I will take as an admission of defeat).
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
The fact that the road toll continues to fall is probably all the reasoning you need.

The other thing is there are still a lot of older cars on the road, so even if your theory about 1970's speed limits is correct, the current limit must remain.

I'm not so sure about the younger v older driver stuff, statistics will tell you, you are wrong because the injuries and deaths on our roads is weighted to the young
Click to expand...

Have a look at this: http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/statistics/roadtollannual.do?areaID=12&tierID=1&navID=17

The road toll fell by 13 people last year. Statistically, you can't really gather anything from that. Hypothetically, 30 people may die from a freak bus crash this year and that'll push up the road toll massively even though it is a single incident.

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/con...erID=1&navID=4B348A89&navLink=null&pageID=173

^^Shows that the 70+ age group is the most highly represented in fatal accidents. If you read what I said more carefully, I stated that those in their 'late 20s' were the most skilled drivers, due to having enough driving experience to handle most situations, as well as generally having better reflexes than older drivers. As you can see from the table, the 26-29 year old group has the lowest representation in fatal accidents, less than half of both the 21-25 and 70+ age groups.

I very rarely see a car from the 70s or early 80s on the road. I don't see how you can make such an assertion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

great thread Biff

I am convinced by your well thought out arguments:thumbsu:


What should I set my cruise control at again?
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
I would have thought that it would be common sense to either stick to the speed limit or drive under the speed limit.

I think only those with limited intelligence would voluntarily pay someone for something they don't have to do.

Why would anyone give the Government $180?
Common sense may not be all that common
Click to expand...

Would have thought targeting those dangering others lives rather than those who inadvertently exceed a limit by a tiny amount would be a better approach. There is always going to be ********s, busting someone for 3 or 4k over won't stop your local broadmeadows hoon doing 150km on a friday night after 10 beers.

Each to their own though, you break the law I guess you broke it but unfortunatley the only thing achieved is damaging police and public relations, pissing innocent people and obviously creating revenue for the government. Does not do one bit at all to save any lives whatsoever which once upon a time was the reason for speeding fines. It's a no brainer really.
 
.........or scaring bogans into not speeding by making them think a few Ks over and I am fined and there is no excuses ;)

I will keep my cruise control on 103
 
Hawk Dork said:
.........or scaring bogans into not speeding by making them think a few Ks over and I am fined and there is no excuses ;)

I will keep my cruise control on 103
Click to expand...

Hahaha, the whole point is it doesnt stop them!! Have you not watched the news in the last year? If making the bogans think a few k's over and im fined no excuses as you put it would stop tools endangering lives then I would agree with you and be all for it. The whole point is it doesn't stop them so has no purpose but penalising those doing little wrong.
 
Hawk Dork said:
add
fear of losing ther cars/licences
actually losing their cars/licences
cant drive without those
Click to expand...

refer to my post above, covers all of those points.
None of those listed relate to any minor infringements we are discussing.

Plus as if bogans are going to stop driving just because they lost their license.
 
Don't minor infringements carry points ?

anyhow
it is a Nanny State the cashed up bogan and his family now have a T-shirt as evidence

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ma...nanny-state-call/story-e6frf7jo-1225849665897

``It's a great country, but we've got to be responsible for our actions and it's certainly a bloody nanny state when it comes to what we can do.''
Just wish there was a Journo with half a brain, to ask him what he really wants to do, that he cant.
 
thebiff said:
Each to their own though, you break the law I guess you broke it but unfortunatley the only thing achieved is damaging police and public relations, pissing innocent people and obviously creating revenue for the government. Does not do one bit at all to save any lives whatsoever which once upon a time was the reason for speeding fines. It's a no brainer really.
Click to expand...

But that's what your argument comes down to, which can be resolved by;
1. Don't break the Law
2. Don't create revenue for the Government
3. It does save lives, the road toll is falling year after year
Its a no brainer really
 
shurg123 said:
The road toll fell by 13 people last year. Statistically, you can't really gather anything from that. Hypothetically, 30 people may die from a freak bus crash this year and that'll push up the road toll massively even though it is a single incident.
Click to expand...

Only 13 people's lives saved last year, which means 13 people are still with their families but by over 700 lives since the 70's when this campaign first began.

Its working and working very well, that's why governments all over the world look at what we are doing.


You don't have an argument
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Politics & Government mark webber "nanny state" comments

Similar threads

Wosh
Win Prizes Join the Sweet F.A State Of Origin Comp and Play for your State!
Replies
19
Views
1K
Wosh
Wosh

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top